The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-04 00:00:00

PACKET Sinpa.— ticripti on of the A New Y or k paper gives a short i. black b all line of packet-ship Montezuma, built for the old t hen, and l e f t N ew ets pack. She i s one t h ousand tons br Her i York for Li verpoo l on the 19th instal nterior arrangements are described as most complet nce Captain Lowber commands her. Th e same paper also as ; evideof the extraordinary strength of the packet-shi say, that " the flottinL,— _.. b er, after having peen s--- )c open roadstead for several days, thumping constantly on ti sands, is about to return to Liverpool without being taken up. She has not leaked in the least or sustained any in- Jury; and the insurance offices have authorised her inai;ill;,- her next voyage without being taken out for examination. T HE Ful'szps, SATtrrimAy EvENING.—The English stocks have n o t fl uctuated at all to-day. There was sonic firmness in toth market, Consols for money and the account closing at 1 4 -I, and Exchequer -bills at 635. to 655. premium. New Three -and-a- half per Cents. left off at 1024 to 1; Long Annuit 12 •, India Bonds, 755. premium • and Bank 4tock, 186 for the opening this mont h . The d ividends on the Reduced Securitie s and Bank Stock will be payable to the public this day (Sat ur d ay ) week, the bankers and brokers having Th ursday and F r id ay allotted them for the receipt of the warrants of their customers. Spanish Bonds were quoted in the early part of the day at 231- to i foe the Actives, but closed as nearly as possible at the prices of yes terday-22/ to 23. The New Three per Cents. were not so much subjected to change, having maintained 32/ toe with steadiness throughout business. In one or two bargains they were quoted a shade above this, their closing value. Brazilian was finally quoted at 74 to 76, ex. div. ; Danish, 85 to 86, ex. div. ; Dutch Five per Cents., 99i to lin, ex. dv. ; Ditto Two -and-a-half per Cents., 55/ to 56-k ; Mexi can,can 3 4 to i; Ditto Deferred, n to 91 Portuguese Con ted, 40-1 to 411; and Colombian, 251 to I. SHAWLS Tl'llE Qtit EX.—Some time since Messrs. Roxburgh, of Paisley, having preparee two shawls of a novel style of pattern for Messrs. Proudfoot, Brand, Thomon and Co., of Glasgow, forwarded a description of them o t her Grace. the Duchess of Buccleugh, soliciting her influence with her Majesty to accept a shawl of each pattern. Her Gee promptly responded to the request, and stated that, a though her Majesty did not receive presents, she was desi rons to see the shawls referred to they were accordingly de sPatehed to London,with the prices affixed, and on Thursday a note was received, stating that her Majesty had kept both 84aw is• One of the shawl s is named " The Eastern Tri liTeh," and is composed fsplendid procession in the . 11,Irodists oj. Oriental Scenery.° a The other, " The Pri nce ot ";,ie , has for the lending figure the crest of three feathers and crotnyled with wreathes, formed of the rose, shamrock, shileipistle, among which are introduced the emblazoned Triums of Englend, Scotland, Ireland, Sce• " The Eastei o n stapeeruf eturing anur Shawl" is altogether a most beautiful specimen 3 f ingenuity and skill.—[We noticed yesterday 1 tis of these beautif 1 ufactures in Mr. Pringle's utu s ,se 3 'ln 801d -street ; they " really quite bear out the enco ,.. s.. our contetnporary.ELS] • LLEETIO os. ^ tI E N 'LiVERSEERS AND ASSESSORS FOR Bih- Mary' officers 41°'-'O4 Thursday a large meeting was held at St. or I , mcalrl.edtst.o the" / Chur ch, for the purpose of electing the proper cehayierar ensuing Mr. Jackson was unanimously , and, having briefly opened the business, the ItiaPPer proposed, and Mr. H. Williams seconded,. el avnomination of M. John Orange and Mr. William s . e rs. e e , ss fit and proper persons to 4erve the office of over d - Met Stanr. NP Nicoll proposed Watson, Esq., an _. .B.field ; Mr. S. Walker seconded the motion. Upon etliolulda dconversation arose as to whether the parishioners ion that theernand a poll. Mr. Mallaby was clearly of o n pi a n mea of ~,,, the y could " .". ...Ir. Anapper then proposed that the of ?P . : ,Yleave and Mr. Orange should be placed at the head a agair list for the approval of the magistrates. This Upon Posed by Mr. Nicoll, who proposed his men a,tu . Pro • an angry " war of words" arose between the thepose A' aaessrs. Hughes and Walker, as to the merits of ._.eti_ndidates, Mr. Hughes declaring that he did not oppose icaus6r Nansfield and Zr.atson on personal grounds, but e they were co mmissioners, and he thought that if rfitiecYhyzold attend to their duty at the Town-hall, it was as bands the township could expect from them. A show of f oni , r was called for, when the majority was declared in we - j., ( , ) f Mr. Gleave and Mr. Orange. Several other napes Wikehairmwien added for the approval of the magistrates. Tic ia au remarked that, as the late assessors, Messrs.. H. he 8 1 o nl atil Maddocks, had given such general satisfaction, „,,,..t. ind like to see them again in office ; but they very euntely declined th 1 VI Haddocks then proposed, arid m r. ii e honour. r. M r ur. • Williams seconded, that Mr. C. A. Watson and .1 Walter Year hick rs be appointed assessors for the ensuing ' W W aB carried The meeting then separated. unanimously. .............-__ THE GUAR_ DIAN SOCIETY, AND THE NEW GAS COMPANY'S BILL. faste r • ________ Thernbersiiig at eight o'clock, a general . meeting of thethe tellita.rnenu.,ol;i.trntohe Liverpool Guardian Society was held in_ imSouth John -street, for the purpose of vtil4tthrito consideration a bill now before parliament, ti in Thai ns • e New Gas Company seek for power to . extend d ie! tionai into the various o ut - townships, and to raise an di aino ea P i tal of £127,000 in shares, to be appropriated diatie themselves —measures in the estimation of the Gnar if nOl °,ejeti. calculated to postpone for to a distant period, 0 u‘nogether ~. prevent a reduction in the price of gas to t 0 the AU. Hickey, president of the society, was called seethe CtoßtAhrießmAN meetingsai;daann outline of the bill would be pre d he w . ould only mention that the t ''',A . e wd Cnre PanY was limited to a dividend of 10 per cent : ; it ;" uty of the society, therefore, to watch their proceedings, It:sionvuech, as if they were allowed to spend their surplus . pro could never 10 per cent. in going to the out-townships, which u. ferers. even pay' the consumers in town would be the s f Alr. Reny, the secretary, at the request of the chairman, re a d th i. OlO e minutes of the committee with reference to this bill, Thou ' whic h it appeared that a resolution had been un.ani of , i s i Y arrived at to oppose the preamble in the committee wn _L e Bouse of Commons, for which purpose the solicitor t ernipowered to proceed to London. (1071, EtTnNis, the solicitor said that when he was in Lon -1,i,,. he had the honour of seeing Lord Sandon, who requested i l ' i l l i n Poi out, in the margin, those clauses in the bill thee bent society considered objectionable. The first was viiia:eamble, which recited that it seas expedient that the Allen 6 and places of Walton, Bootle, Crosby, Childwall, wit".,..oll2:G.,arston., an.d.Wavertree, should be better supplied N7lnee„_7 _ the main objection to this was, th . at there th w e as no n for any of them to be better supplied, as Old ti ° n had aiready power to go there. The next obje.c .Qn - a ..ch.,' w s to the second clause, enablin g the company t9 , .raise ;4leoutributions among themselve s a further and additional 441,1af x 2.54,000 : half of that sum, however, or £7,000, N. ; ( Ay Only sought for. The objection was to th companY h i 'l'ic this money among themselves; the mode prescribed ratsit!ke 4th section of the Q.W. Comninalf c i b il l ' l " . .'" t . `", which clause this society procure serted f s hould '7oYea " a go , and which required that the a d ditionalshares 0 , be sold by public auction in lots of one share each. h e ta.le present bill it was proposed that the new . sharess should 14,..0,5t offered to the present proprietors,. the main difference elled tognltliat the Old Company, by their act, were comp du e se i in the first instance. A clause, too, should . be intro e m eg into this bill to enable the public to ascertain what the ° -PanY d id With their money. .They were obliged an ntlallY to file re eei ,,, e with the Quarter Sessions an account of their , ms and e xpenditure ; and in the last of those state as..,ents ~ waa to be found an item of £5,645 Gs. Ild. put down , wegeneral expenses." What those ". general expen t ses ' leertropuld not be found out; and lie wished a clause o be iarti_ ' lc ed in the present bill, compelling the company to 1,4 Beularise every item of expenditure of £lOO or more. t er : t were the main objections to the bill, and the main al int 1 ?n , which the committee of the society wished to see ro queed Mr, k • tee, re AY, in continuation of the minutes of the ccniimit -1,04„ ad the solicitor's official report of his proceedings in of eyn, &era which it appeared, that, as far as the House see_ennons was concerned, opposition was too late. The oppop then detailed his proceedings with reference . to sit e d:tittle, ( ..'!no in the House of Lords, for which there is amps!. 4ytrh.ge js2etshritrehebyiil:llsw. ill not be again brought forward till Tue rrin eie m r. Glegg, Mr. Ferguson. Mr. and kr..'. Ge•\'vrh.omas Walker, Mr. Blackburn, th e -41- m Mor u ri . s h , reaeluti iker, afterwards addressed the mee r. ting; and i M tby r , w Pasgea ons, which are advertised in another column - , ere 1,11:. iltianinionsi.,. D 414 tcorZeting then separated, the usual compliment being e claairraan for presiding. " TOOTHLESS VIPERS ! " ars,. -11,:_loatoothless vi 44 ,',',ltalt exclaitns—no doubt he 's right-- Far cannot bite ! " re the Whigs ; so let them rail, i'or h now they've lost both " teeth" and " TAIL Leave to your ne i ghbour his own cares W 4i No zeal att. Nor hows nd much he 's d e bt or ! , it your own You'd fi nd " tim affai— es " would be rs better. SLANDERERS ! MERCATOR TE IE tAGIJE.--" JEROBOAM BAILEY.' ir a . r , p oi!: ior which sect is " BAILEY " . ap , te_st ? ipr ,lidependent," or for " Baptist ? 1,0, Perhaps, it might more fit opine us, Wh g in 4 , 4B him follower of " Socugus. ' _ °f " Dissent " will now embrace him? . ° Public anxious are to—trace him r! VAUX ENIGMA. and second are the same— .l. name ; brutes, You 'll quickly guess the' Y third of uis the reverse ; 'w-IY whole throughout the world 'a a curse. nitiriil4.C..4 " SCOTLAND.--The number of ministers now e 'rat t er - ' 0 the resolutions of the convocation arc—to th 1,, ties, 5 20 ; to the second, 474. I' t4ALrry ago, Sir ward 8,,._ , cir, ART UNIONS.—A short time lo 1 rof Ireland, ‘ 4 1 4 : at theltoleani ithe pres Tit . gh C a 0 4 1 : to be g o Y h i auction.ntut27,ybyrishamining some Mr. Stewartx Blacker, the hon pictures itt th4acretaFY to the Irish Art Union, being in the rooms e tality ille ti the spoke to him relative to the assumed :I . i of the art ' n when Sir Edward stated me Nret„2°,,Q,P aPp/ayw; tysiu"cch societies. Mr. Blacker having sa 4 C 1 of the 1 11' UM. S i le v been referred to did not t a l i i 3,0—,71i1is gratific:tion at hearing this, Sir Edward id and, i: 44 a h e : will give you the o in to i rcittion.ap' ay the I,ut %lion ,tyvreoete an order toannuallyßol B until a f n urther notice ; 444tg t 411=sn not satisfactory la 1T.,,,,,N. Rociety. manner, states (10, ork;ll9Nrk.--The annual report . of _t r h e e sid V e a n c t c , ination fir,4 a farthelc•neSpieri Henryf H th al t tord rea is P t resource ha . s cc e ir e i i; I,NetiCdtir eNifidence inflict! olVilearev hh e'sxperi , n ee bas .eoarefully, and with those precautions n w o f llowed, al ger vaccination h. b i'll_st tirlivDerlaate‘d oi!t as necessary, it has bee ent it, as one of lt4e proof s 0 , itY with success. But we !ain d too fre tit; effie4,,, the general reliance of medical pr . aczitioners in tiee4stlyl;4taliepreservative, that it has been deterre . into i l ; e 4 tl i t :e B s te ,: n . , r ' 4 1 sn dhsntial7l.:o:u about has manifested 'a p ' r il o i dti n c x e their natural c e e v i copse- i v l ed the propriety and •ndnever , 4 (1 t o ° jaits establishment and maintenance bY h n av ca l lied fort ne ther is utiivt)(l.llce efficacious vaccine lymph most .._isally acknowledged to have be w e h n e a resource in .igent circumstances." eu, sa y I"Tirtt T „ on Tues tlii 'est, -10.--An amusing incident occurred * O4 tri tv i t e the assize court at Taunton which even affected dre4' char g / ' d ° f the bench. Mr. Stone' who defended I k4 B t e th e- wtth murder, in ' the course of a powerful aner the p rta fit of anye jury, im t implored them to give the . prisoner d The e4 4 °l ler, 1, dOubt they might have on their min ad of sus hil. ch ar " thud, stood before them i n an d counsel t er e Urg e d vvith the ighest offence know a n go t n o y the law. s tio eed h a r i g thi s see tha appeal to t their mercy, the learnteo Vii which re utl to the prisoner, 1 he saw 44 Ni ge " ee was so vividl pourtrayingi when . Mr. expecting lo Oeely,_stieee_ busily engaged in munching a sandwich!moment, could freeewell, who c aught his eye at the d the de -1 eee etbear • L'etNinletle fo r b i ' d b the con smile. Happily for the accuse itu w 1 , at , and th • ~ t r ying to live," , . as too strong to be affecte Y . e ~ qtlitti :-Jary seconded hi s e ff or t s at 4 lig hull. 188121 i: rINTPLIAVINCI SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSikS CROWN COURT—FRIDAY, MAncu 31 (Before Mr. Boron PAID E.) John Kean, 34, was indicted for stabbing his wife, Ellen Kean, at Manchester, with intent to do her sone grievous bo dily harm. He was sentenced to fifteen years' transporta tion. John Dainteth, 22, was charged with having committed a similar offence on Thomas Bute, at Curton Wood, on the , lth of October last. The jury did not think the evidence suffi cient to establish a case of felony against the prisoner, but found him guilty of an aggravated assault, and he was sen tenced to one year's imprisonment. Patrick M` Lachlan and William Butterworth were brought up for sentence, having been convicted the day pre vious of burglary, and his lordship ordered Butterworth, who had been in gaol several times before, to be transported for the term of fifteen years, and the other to one year's im prisonment. Patrick Fermi, who was indicted for the manslaughter of his own child, by improperly administering some rum to him, and against whom the grand jury had ignored the bill, was arraigned, acquitted, and discharged.--Prisoner : Thank you, my lord. The JUDGE : I dont suppose you had the slightest intention or idea that you were doing wrong. James Durken, charged with robbery at Manchester, and John Lloyd, with a burglary at the same place, were both discharged by proclamation. THE ARSON CASES. These cases, which, as our readers are aware, excited con siderable interest in this town, were fixed by his lordship to be tried on Monday the 10th instant. THE ST. HELEN'S MURDER. The case of Wilmot 13m:kley, for the murder of his wife, was, on the application of Dr. Brown, fixed for next Friday. In the case of Mr. Alexander Mason, charged with forgery, Mr. Archibald applied to his lordship to postpone the trial until next assizes, on account of the absence of a material wit ness, and also that the recognizances of Hannah Mason might be entreated. On this his lordship read over the de positions, and decided that the trial must be postponed until the next assizes, and in the mean time, the prisoner must re main in custody. On the grand jury coming into court, is lordship dis charged them. NISI PRIUS COURT—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.) RIGG V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY COMPANY.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Sarah Rigg, against the corporation of the Manchester and Leeds Railway, for the recovery of wages due, and the value of work and labour done. The defendants pleaded that they never were indebted in the manner and form alleged. Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Thompson for the defendants. Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said this was the case of a poor widow woman, who contended that,certain wages were due to her by the defendants, in consideration of her having watched and taken care of a gate at Littleborough, near Rochdale, in this county. The jury were aware that the Manchester and Leeds Railway was opened originally only so far as Little borough, where there was a gate which led upon a road in the direction of some coal-pits. The gate belonged to a Mr. Smith, and was let to a Mr. Wilkinson ; and during the time Mr. Wilkinson occupied the coal mines in the neigh bourhood, he had the privilege of going through the gate, for the opening and shutting of which he employed Mr. Rigg, the husband of the plaintiff, and, after his death, the plain tiff herself. She was then paid some money by Mr. Wilkin son for her support ; she was also given some coals from the pits ; and she was allowed to take money from persons who passed through the gate, in order to maintain a subsistence. When the Manchester and Leeds Railway bad been opened, the gate became the property of the company, and they erected a cottage at the end of it, and continued to employ Mrs. Rigg to open and shut it for the persons who brought articles to the railway and canal; for the company were the owners, he believed, of the canal as the railway. Mr. Wat son proceeded to say that whether the canal belonged to them the gate the plaintiff was employed in opening and shutting the gate for 120 weeks, by night as well as by day, and sh , u only claimed a shilling a day for her services. Mr. BAINts, for the defence, said that no contract had been made with the plaintiff except that she was to have the toll-house rent free; that the company did not require her services, and that it was only in compliance with her pressing importunities that she was at length allowed to continue in the house. The learned counsel dwelt at some length upon the fact that for the period of two years the plaintiff had never made any de mand for her services, and concluded by asking the jury whether they thought a respectable company, like the Man chester and Leeds, would refuse the claim and come into court if they did not think they had a good defence ? The jury, after an absence from court of half an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £7 is. SHAW AND ANOTHER V. LEES AND ANOTHER.--This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Robert Kershaw, James Shaw, and George Lawton, against the defendants, Samuel Lees and Co., for the recovery of the value of large quantities of coal belonging to the plaintiffs, which the de fendants had converted to their use and benefit. Mr. Brandt was proceeding to enter into a variety of details explanatory of the alleged incursions, when his LORDSHIP interposed, and suggested that it might be advisable to have the case re ferred and investigated upon the spot in question, where the levels could be taken, and all the other necessary informa tion easily obtained. Mr. KNOWLES immediately assented to the suggestion of the court, and. after a short conversation between counsel on both sides, a verdict was formally taken for the plaintiff subject to a reference. SAME V. SAME.—This was an action brought by the same parties against the defendants for the recovery of the value of certain coals which had been worked by the latter at col lieries of Mount Nebo. Verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to a reference. ORMROD V. HUTH AND OTHERS.--In this case the declaration stated that the defendants had falsely exhibited certain samples of cotton, whereby the plaintiff was induced to purchase a quantity of cotton which afterwards turned out to be greatly inferior to the samples. To this the de fendants pleaded not guilty, and denied that the plaintiff was induced to purchase the cotton as alleged. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff; Mr. ndas and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. In this case he had the honour to appear for Mr. Peter Ormrod, who carried on business as a cotton spinner, under the firm of Ormrod and Hardcastle, at Bolton, and he sought to recover from the de fendants, Messrs. Huth and Company, merchants, of Liver pool, the difference between the price of good Orleans cot ton, as it was represented to him to be when ne purchased it, and the price he was able to sell it at when it was found not to be Orleans cottons. The action was one of very great im portance to persons engaged in the cotton trade in this Nun try ; because this case would probably give rise to a question which would materially effect the transactions in that trade between the merchants in that town. That trade, he need not say, was of the utmost importance, not merely to Liver pool, but to the country ; and it was with the greatest plea sure we were now hearing, and was assuming a state of ac tivity whick must be gratifying to every body in this country. Connected with that case, then, this case assumed an impor tance much beyond the actual sum of money in dispute. The amount of money in dispute was not above £136 ; but the principle involved, as regarded the mode of dealing between the cotton merchants and manufacturers in this country, was of the utmost importance. It appeared that on the 9th April, 1840, Mr. William Bower, who was the buying broker of the plaintiff to purchase a quantity of cotton, in consequence of which he went to Messrs. Salisbury, Turner and Earle, selling broker s f or th e d e f en d ants, in Liverpool, that being the ordinary course of business on the Exchange. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Earle if they had a quantity of good Or leans cotton. Mr. Earle said they had, and took him to the place of business to see the samples. The samples were shown by Mr. Earle to Mr. Bower, who was the broker for the plaintiff, Mr. Ormrod. He examined the cotton ; they appeared to be good samples, and accordingly a b arga i n was made, and he inti ma t e d to dr. Earle that he would take 144 bales of cotton, giving in the name of the plaintiff. The bales were invoiced at £1646 15s. ; and Mr. Bower afterwards re ceived an invoice from Messrs. Salisbury and Co., and trans mitted it to Bolton. That was done in the ordinary way of business in Liverpool; and he understood the usual course was this; there was no written contract between the parties, but the buying broker communicated with the selling broker in Liverpool, in the way he had described Mr. Bower did with Mr. Earle. When the bargain was concluded, and the buying broker had intimated to the selling broker that he would take the cotton, all that was done afterwards was, that a clerk in the service of the buying broker was sent to the warehouse where the cotton was stored, for the purpose of ascertaining wh e th er the samples which had been delivered to the buyi ng b ro k er, were samples from those bales which were stored in the warehouse. Afterwards an invoice was sent in, which contained no warranty, no statement as to the quantity and price. Now, that being the ordinary mode of business, there was no written contract to which a purchaser could resort in a case like the present. In this case, after a considerable lapse of time, the cotton remained in the ware house where it had been at the time it was purchased of the defendants ; but it was transferred to the name of Mr. Orm rod, and there remained for his benefit. The jury were aware that there had been a depression in the cotton trade during the last year or two; and it was not till June, 1842, that eventually the cotton was unpacked and the fraud discovered, which formed the ground of this action. Upon Mr. Ormrod having occasion to take this cotton for the purpose of using it in his own manufacture, he found that. out of the 142 bales which had been purchased, 45 bales were, according to what was technically called in the trade " falsely packed." There were originally 144 bales, but two were rejected when they were first examined in the warehouse in Liverpool. Now, in this case, it turned out, with respect to those 45 bales, they had been cased all round for about three inches, more or less, with good Orleans cotton; but in the inside was an inferior description of cotton, such as did not suit Mr. Ormrod, and such as be never knowingly bought. Now, it was for the difference in the value of that inferior cotton and good Orl eans cotton that th i s act i on was brought, and there was no doubt that the defendants were liable. In this The trial of two persons named Lucas, charged with stealing silk at Leigh, was, on the application of Mr. Archibald, fixed for Weinesday next. On the application of Mr. Wilkins, the trial of Mary Hun ter, for the merder of John Hunter, at Manchester, was fixed for Thursday next. Patrick illumford, alias Clark, 19, Thomas Clark, 23, and Patrick Clark, who were charged, with a number of other persons, with killing and slaying Bernard Clark, at Prescot, pleaded guilty to the indictment. Robert Dean, aged 30, Joseph Auckley, 23, and Benjamin Whitehead (out on bail) were indicted, the two former for having feloniously broken and entered the warehouse of the Manchester and Ashton Canal Company, at Ashton-under- Lyne, and with having stolen therefrom 3001bs, of malt, and the latter -named prisoner was charged with receiving the malt, knowing it to be stolen. The jury found them guilty. His Lordship deferred passing sentence. James illycock, 20, was indicted for killing and slaying _Emanuel Kenyon, at Eccles, in this county. A dispute arose in a beer-house near Manchester, where the prisoner knocked the deceased on the head, and kicked him in the belly. He was found guilty, and sentenced to five months' imprison.- went. Joseph Brimelow, 42, was indicted for killing and slaying his wile, Elizabeth Brimelow, at Bolton-le -Moors. Mr. Brandt was for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the de fence. The prisoner, it appeared, struck his wife with a poker in a beer-house, because she refused to give him three pence. The blow produced a rupture, of which she died.— Sentence, six months' imprisonment. Edmund Hardman, 42, and Catherine his wife, were charged with killing a child of tender years, named Peter Sharpies, by beating and kicking him, but the surgeon attri buting the cause of death to an insufficiency of food, they were acquitted. Mary Hall, who made a false statement touching the death of a child to the Registrar of Deaths at Liverpool, was found guilty, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. • William Challinor, 19, Peter JVelsby, 30, Michael Ril e y, 23, and Timothy Du:fey, 23, were indicted, together with three other persons, for the killing and slaying of Bernard Clark, in a prize fight. When the case had proceeded some length, the learned Judge stopped it, observing that although the prisoners were engaged in an illegal fight (being the keepers of the ring), yet, as they had already been in custody nearly seven months, he thought the public justice would be satisfied by their being then discharged. A verdict of ac quittal was therefore taken, and they were discharged. The two Clarks and Mumford were then placed at the bar, and the two former sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, and the latter to one week. Evidence having been given in support of the facts of the case, Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the defendants, submitted that there was no case proved. There was no proof at all of the knowledge of the defendants that the bales were not the same as the samples; and he submitted to his lordship that his friend's law was wrong. The JUDGE.—There is no proof of knowledge. I am afraid it is a necessary ingredient in this case, and I see no evidence at all of it. Mr. WORTLEY submitted, that it was their duty to have known, and that they ought to have known. Here were merchants at Liverpool importing cotton falsely packed, and then, when they came to sell that cotton in the market here, they gave no opportunity for examining the bales, and what he submitted to the court was this, that they were bound to know, and, if they put it in that way, they should show that they did not know. The JUDGE.--I should tell the jury, that you must make out on your part, that the defendants knew that there was a fraud committed, or otherwise they are not liable. Mr. WORTLEY.—Perhaps you will give me leave to move - to enter a verdict. Mr. DuNDAs. I -You were to make out a case against those gentlemen of fraud. You have made out no case. The JUDGE.—You must either submit to be non-suited, , or I must tell the jury that your case is not made out. Mr. WORTLEY.—Your lordship will not give me leave to move to enter a verdict, and I shall tender a bill of excep tions. The Junnx.—No ; because it is not made out. The jury, under the direction of his lordship, then returned a verdict for the defendants. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Bathels, aged 40, was charged with having, at West Houghton, killed a boy, named William Woodward. On the 2nd of January last the prisoner had charge of a cart, in which he, the deceased, and a boy were riding. The horse ran off at a gallop, the cart was upset on the top of the three, and the deceased was killed on the spot. There was no dis tinct evidence of carelessness on the part of the prisoner, and the jury, without requiring the evidence to be summed up, found a verdict of acquittal. STABBING. Richard Smith, aged 45, was charged with feloniously cutting and stabbing Richard Hendley, at Bradshawgate, near Bedford, in this county. The jury acquitted the pri soner. ASSAULT. Henry Winram, aged 24, was indicted for having, at Orr/ff.:- kirk, in September last, maliciously cut and wounded Henry Worthington, the younger, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm ; also with having cut and wounded Henry Wor thington, the elder. It appeared, that some words had taken place between the prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, and, afterwards, with the prisoner himself, who fenihed a small poker and struck the parties named on the head. The judge, on seeing the weapon, said this could be nothing more than an assault, at the most ; and, as the prisoner had already suf fered six months' imprisonment. the jury might find a verdict of acquittal, which they did, and the prisoner was discharged. CARELESS DRIVING. A decent-looking and remarkably stout man, named Shaw, and a boy, named loner, were charged with having, at Man chester, killed and slain a little boy, eight years old, by running over him with a spring cart. It appeared that the child had been attempting to reach an omnibus which was going in the opposite direction, and that he was run over by mere accident. His Lordship stopped the case, after hearing some of the eviden ce , an d di rected an acquittal.' His Lord ship remarked, that coroners ought to be more cautious in taking evidence in such cases, as it was grievous that par ties should suffer imprisonment on a charge so untenable. MANSLAUGHTER. Joseph Andrews (who had been out on bail) was charged with killing and slaying one Brian Larney. It appeared that there had been a general brawl amongst the deceased and his companions, at the pUblic-house kept by the prisoner, near Eccles, and that the whole party were fighting with sticks and other weapons. The case was stopped, and his Lord ship discharged the prisoner. SHOOTING. George Caley, aged 24, was charged with being, on the 19th January, with others, in certain enclosed land in Crouton, for the purpose of taking or destroying game, he being armed with a gun ; and Joseph Sim, 25, was charged, along with him, with having there and then feloniously shot at and wounded Robert Wareing, with intent to resist and prevent the apprehension of the said prisoner, and to do him bodily harm. The prosecutors failed to make out the case against either party, and both prisoners were acquitted. BIGAMY. William Radcliffe, a young man, pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy. It appeared that the second wife was aware that he was previously married. The injury do ne t o h er was, therefore, in his Lordship's opinion, not so great, and he should, therefore, deal with him more leniently. The pri s oner was sentenced to four months' imprisoument and bard labour in Kirkdaie Gaol. MANSLAUGHTER. Joseph Hall was indicted for killing and slaiting, at Bolton, a child, two years old, named Charles Fords, EY carelessness in driving a cart of which he had charge. It appeared, on the showing of Mr. Wilkins, who was for the defence, that the deceased was, in the indictment, called Charles Forts. This was a flaw fatal to the case, and a verdict of not guilty was recorded. His Lordship, on discharging the prisoner, stated, that it was reprehensible in him, under the circum stances, to leave the horses' heads. POACHING. Two men, John Kulshaw and Richard Johnson, were in dicted for having been in a preserve in Bickersteth, on the 29th December, and with having cut and wounded James Pinnington and Edward Wainwright, with intent to do them some grievous bodily harm. It appeared that the affray had been commenced by the prosecutors, who behaved with great brutality to the prisoners. His Lordship said, that the affray had commenced illegally on the part of the prosecutors, and the case resolved itself, as regarded the prisoners, into a matter of self-defence.. He; accordingly, directed an acquit tal. The prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Wilkins, were detained to be tried on a future day, on another indict ment, for being armed with.intent to destroy game. Samuel Cowburn, aged 30, was charged with having, at West Houghton, t ntered a close of William Hulton, Esq., armed with a bludgeon, for the purpose of taking and de stroying game. The prisoner was, it was stated, one of seven poachers, and had a dog with him, at which one of the keepers fired. The poachers then set upon the keepers with large sticks, and beat them, cutting one of them on the head. The last witness said he was severely cut on the forehead, which he showed, but there did not appear to be any marks. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault only, and sentence was deferred. ARRAIGNMENTS. A number, of prisoners were then brought up to the bar to plead to the charges against them, chiefly burglaries. They nearly all pleaded not guilty. Amongst them were the two Lucases, charged with having received a large quantity of silks, knowing them to have been stolen. SENTENCES. Thomas Monaghan and Mary, his wife, (who had previ ously been tried on a Mint case, when the male prisoner was found guilty,) were now charged with stealing, at Salford, a quantity a woollen cloth. No evidence was brought against them. Thomas Monaghan, for the offence against the Mint, was sentenced to be imprisoned at Kirkdale and kept to hard labour for five months. James Daniels, convicted of burglary, was sentenced to be imptisoned for eight months and hard labour. Margaret Bibby and Thomas Howard had pleaded guilty to a burglary at North Meols. Bibby had before been con victed, and was sentenced to. be transported for ten years. She filled the court with her screams. Howard, whose offence Was not very aggravated, was sentenced to be im prisoned for five months. - Edward Knight, a respectably-dressed man, pleaded guilty to three charges of robbing his master. Seven years' trans portation. George Wood, a well-dressed young man, pleaded guilty to two charges of forging bills of exchange. He had also before obtained money under false pretences. He was sen tenced to be transported for fifteen years. Edward Burns, aged sixteen, pleaded guilty to having forged an order for money. To be imprisoned and kept to hard labour two years. James Boardman, for stealing a young calf in the neigh bourhood of this town, pleaded guilty. He had already suffered six months' imprisonment, and was sentenced to be further imprisoned six months. William Johnson pleaded guilty to committing a burglary. He had before been convicted of burglary. The sentence was, that he be transported for ten years. The court rose at a quarter past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.--SATURDAY. MATHER v. ALLEN.—In this action the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant, for criminal conver sation with the plaintiff's wife, at Clieetharn-bill, Manches ter, about midsummer last. Mr. Dundas, with two other learned gentlemen, appeared f or t h e plaintiff; Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson for the defendant. A jury having been sworn, Mr. DUNDAS said, in this case it had been agreed that a verdict the sum s of £250.e hould b entered, by consent, for the plaintiff, for A verdict was then formally returned for the plaintiff for £250; costs, 40s. TsmvLizTori v. HAYWARD.—This was an action brought to recover the sum of £l9O, money had and received by the defendant for the use of they la The defendant put in two pleas, on both of which issue was joined, first, that be was not indebted, and second, that the money had been paid before the action was brought. The case for the plaintiff, as it appeared in evidence, was as follows :—The plaintiff is Peter Buchanan Templeton, a shorthand-writer, in which capacity, it was stated, he had action, they charged the defentimits, Messre, huth and Co. with having represented that this was good Orleans cotton• The samples were of good Orleans cotton ; the bulk of the cotton turned out decidedly not to be of that character. There was no warranty given to the purchaser of cotton : and he could only resort to such an action as this to recover the loss he had sustained by It fraudulent representation of this kind. And when he said " fraudulent representation," do not let it be understood that he meant a real moral fraud. 'Whether Messrs. Huth and Co. were aware of this at the time it was committed, or not, he did not know; but it was not necessary that there should be a real moral fraud ; all that they had to establish was, that there was such a legal fraud as made them liable to compensate the plaintiff for the toss he had sustained. It was perfectly clear that Mr. Orin rod could recover it from nobody else.' Whether M ess r s . Huth and Co. i m p orte d t h e cotton from America or anywhere else was immaterial ; they were the parties to whom the plaintiff had to look for compensation. The only person against whom Mr. Ormrod could proceed, was against the merchant of Liverpool, who had imported the cotton ; and who, standing in the market in Liverpool, was in the same position as the grower. If Messrs. Huth and Company had been deceived by the American cotton planter, they could bring an action against him ; and thus each party could be compensated, and justice would be done. The learned coun sel then quoted the case of Polhill v. Walter, in which it was laid down that even where there was no moral fraud on the part of the defendant, yet he was liable to compensate in such a case. He should show distinctly that the sample was good Orleans cotton, that there was no opportunity of examining the bales, that there was no warranty given, and therefore the plaintiff had no remedy except by bringing this action. Be understood one part of the defence would be, that there was a custom in Liverpool to this effect : that let a man make a representation, however false, respecting the quality of cotton, if the bales were not unpacked, and the truth discovered within 12 months, the remedy was gone. if such a custom were in existence, it must be proved. He be lieved there was no such custom, and he should submit t o hi s lordship that suc h a custom would be invalid and unreason able. He could understand a custom such as this, to give a warranty which should last only for twelve months, and that, within twelve months, a purchaser might re t urn th e cotton, Such a custom might be reasonable in law. Even if it were proved that a custom existed, that, after twelve months, the right of action was gone, h e s h ould submit to his lordship that it was a custom which' was unreasonable in the eye of the law. He had endeavoured to explain to the jury the right of action in this case. He believed it to be a more im portant question than the £136 which arose in this case ; and all that he could say was, that, unless they could succeed in this action, it was quite clear there must be a fundamental change in the mode of transacting business on the Liverpool Exchange; and it would be necessary to clog the business with written contracts and written warranties, which never yet existed, for the purpose of rendering merchants liable to make good the losses which might hereafter be dis covered. LORD AND ANOTHER v. MALINSON.—This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract on the part of defendant, whereby he engaged to form a partnership with the plaintiffs. The declaration stated that the plaintiffs are John Lord and Michael Coghlan, and the defendant John Malinsou ; and that, previously to the contract afterwards specified, the plaintiffs carried on business as wholesale dealers, in Man chester, from which they derived large profits; and that the defendant was well skilled in the woollen trade, and in the habit of attending the Huddersfield market, and represented to the plaintiffs, if they would sell their stock at Manchester and join him in partnership at Huddersfield, they would to gether make large profits. It was then averred that the defendant promised to become their partner, and use all his skill and knowledge for their joint benefit; that the plaintiffs gave up their business, sold off their stock at Manchester, and removed to Huddersfield, but that the defendant did not become their partner, nor use his skill and knowledge for their common benefit. For this the plaintiffs claimed £2OOO as compensation for special damage, £2OOO for loss on the sale of the stock, £lOOO for loss in consequence of the stock being sold at an improper time, and £lOOO for loss of profits : total, £6OOO. The defendant pleaded that he he had made no such contract, and that, if he had, it had been obtained from him by fraud and covin. Mr. BAINES contended that if the jury were of opinion that any damages should be' awarded at all, they should be merely nominal, as the contract, if any existed, could have been put an end to in five minutes after it was ma d e . Thi s . . was an attempt to extort money from the father of a rash young man, who had quitted his parent in a moment of anger, and entered into a foolish arrangement. The JUDGE summed up, and the jury retired. After an absence of more than two hours, they returned into court, whenthe the foreman(Mr. Joseph Arms trong,of Manchester.) in reply to the usual question, whether they were agreed upon their verdict, said he had been directed by the jury to re commend that a juror should be withdrawn, if the court had the power to do so. Mr. MARTIN (Mr. Baines having retired) said, if the jury wished it, he had no objection whatever. Mr. ARCHBOLD (Mr. Wortley having, like Mr. Baines, retired.)—We cannot consent. The JUDGE.—Well, gentlemen of the jury, I have no power to disharge you; you must retire again to consider your verdict. The FOREMAN.—We have made up our minds, my lord; we find for the defendant. The JUDGE.—Very good. Let the verdict be, entered. " WANTED," A JURY. The foregoing jury retired to consider their verdict at twenty-five minutes past three o'clock, when the Judge di rected another jury to be sworn, to proceed with the case of Houldstvrorth v. Kearsley. Much delay occurred, only three jurymen appearing, not withstanding repeated calls in every avenue of the court. Mr. Forrest stated that Baron Parke had discharged pne list of jurymen in the other court. His Lordship called for the summoning officers, Taskar and Sellars, but they could not be found, and were, in consequence, fined £5 each. After much calling and considerable loss of time, ten jurymen were at length got together in the box, and, as there appeared no prospect of making up the full number, Mr. Brandt and Mr. Knowles, the counsel in the case, agreed to try it with ten jurymen only! WORK AND LABOUR HOULDSWORTH V: WEARSLEY. — Mr:Brandt for the plain tiff, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Atherton for the defendant. The action was brought to recover £6O for work and labour done by the plaintiff for the defendant, in Manchester, in mason's work, in the erection of some houses in Chorlton-road and Moss-side, Manchester. The defendant said that, except as to £33, which had been paid into court, he was not indebted. The question was merely as to the prices at which the work was done, consequently the case had no interest in it, except to the parties concerned. After the trial had proceeded for some time, the cause was referred. SHERBURNE to QuAuivii.-jihere were two special jury cases thus entered in the second list, both of which were made remanels at the last assizes. Just before the rising of the court,- Mr. DUNDAS said, there were two cases on his Lordship's list on which a verdict would be taken by consent for the plaintiff. The JUDGE.--:-Which cases a r e those ? Mr. BAINE S .—N os . 6 4 snd 6 5 , my lord. versus Quartile. Sherburne The JUDGE.—Very well. Mr. BAINES again rose, and s*id it had been agreed by his learned friend and himself, he (Mr. Baines) representing the defendant, that there should in these cases be a verdict en tered for the plaintiff, for a nominal sum; the defendant withdrawing the plea of justification which he had put upon the record. Mr. Quartne, his client, was a gentleman who 'conducted a newspaper at Lancaster, and he had always been anxious to conduct it honourably, and in a manner without injustice to any one. The articles of which the plaintiff com plained were published originally without Mr. Quarme's knowledge; he knew nothing of them whatever, and, there fore, he had instructed him (Mr. Baines) to consent to this verdict, and to withdraw the justification. Mr. DUNDAS, upon the part of the plaintiff, his client, of course, after the justification upon the record had been with drawn, could not but accede to this arrangement. His ob ject was only to stop libels upon his character ; and the justification having been withdrawn, he was content. A verdict in both cases for one shilling damages and one shilling costs in each, was taken by consent. The court then adjourned at half-past five o'clock. CROWN COURT.--MONDAY. April 3. CALLING OF JURORS. - -- ---- Mr. Baron PA RKE entered the — Court, as usual, at nine o'clock, and immediately afterwards ordered the Clerk of Arraigns to call over the list of jurors, in order to ascertai n if there were any a b sen t ees. The jurors . i n the Civil Court having been called i n t o t h e Crown Court, the list was read over. The following gentlemen did not answer, and were each fined £5 :—Thomas Barnes, of Farnworth ; Richard Cummings, of Litherland ; Charles Galt, of Hulme ; William Reynolds, of Warrington ; George Robinson, of Everton ; Robert Syke, of Hardwick ; Michael Trueman, of Cheetham ; Israel Taylor, of Wigan ; and Ellis Yates, of Liverpool. It was mentioned that by the imposition of this fine the absent jurors were not released from attendance : they are subject to further fines during the Assizes, if they did not attend. William Chadwick, 27, late of the parish of Ashton-under Lyne, labourer, was indicted for having, on the 4th of Octo. bar, criminally assaulted Catherine Hurst. Mr. WHIGHAM was for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS defended the pri. soner. Mr. Wntomut, in opening the case, said ha believed that Catherine Hurst had been subject to fits, and that her intel lect was not of the brightest order. Catherine Hurst was!called. She was a tall, rather deli cate-looking girl. and stated that she was 16 years of age on the 3d of November last. Sh e li ve d w i t h h er parents atMonday, the 24th October, she wen t to purpose of seeing her sister. Ab ou t six o clock in the evening she se t out on .h er return to Duck- D op u e c o k s e h n o fi w el , d ior O then enfield. A young man named Joshua Clarke, who was courting her sister, accompanied her as far as Hammond's public-house, where she expected to find a coach. When she got there, however, the coach had gone, and she set off towards .Duckenfield, alone, and on foot. She had not got many paces before two carts came up. They were proceed ing in the direction that she wished to go. The prisoner at the bar had the care of the first cart. There was a man with the other cart. She asked the prisoner, who was on the pathway to let her ride. He consented, and she got into the cart. which was loaded with cotton bags. There was a tarpauling thrown over the bags ; he lifted it up, and she sat under it. She rode from Hammond's to the other side o .the stone bridge leading to Ashton by herself. When they came to the two roads leading to Ashton, the other cart went by the old way, and the one in which she was riding went by the new way. Before arriving at these roads, the prisoner had got into the cart, but he went out again. After they had passed the new bridge he got on again: That was about a quarter of a mile from the two roads. There were no persons on the road when he got on again. After having fastened the tarpauling to the side he got into the cart, and asked her to take her bonnet off, that it might not be scrumpled. The tarpauling was not over her when he got into the cart, but he put it over. He then began to take liberties with her ; sho screamed out " Mu r d er, " b ut there was no one near to help her. When he had accomplished his brutal purpose, be got off the cart. He wanted to give her a shilling and a glass of gin, but she refused it. She then went on to describe the steps she took in consequence of the prisoner's brutality. Several other persons corroborated the prosecutor's evidence as far as they were concerned. She said in cross-examination that a man of the name of Beau mont was driver of the cart. anof a person of weak • His LORDSHIP, su mming up, pref ace d the evidence with some general observations, one of whi c h was that in cases like this it was necessar y for the jury t o l ook upon the testi hniaodn,yhoef saidth e , p e r x o s t e e r c n u a t r l l i y x intellect ; but she h a d given her evidenc e i n a mater which manifested little or nothing of with of intellect. He put it to the jury to consider. . especial care, whether, if her statement were correct , the adv ances of the prisoner t w h i e th ap g p re ea a r t care ce o and caution. She had not been of a sufficiently suspicious character to give her a clear intimation of his design, and whether she might not have as easily got off the cart before as she did after the assault. If Beamont was present when the a ll eged outrage took place, lie must have hea r d_ theb screams, if th ere were might any, and have been called Y the prosecution. n absence urn jury retired. After ..of a few m i nutes, they retued with a verdict ol guilt:7, but recommended the prisoner to mercy. snow The JUDGE said that he mu .st on Wh a t account the recommendation to mercy had b given. If the prisoner was guilty, he could not see any ground fo r th e recommenda tion. if the j ur y had any doubt, they must make up their minds. The FOREMAN.—We have no doubt of the prisoner's guilt, my lord. - _ Mi.Wii:XlTNs.—Perhaps your lordship would ask them what they mean. . acquired a small property. He detennined to diatigO his profession, and, an opportnnity presenting itaelf, advan tageous, as he thought, of entering upon the occupation of a brewery, he considered it would be a business of a somewhat. more permanent character than that which he had heretofore followed. The defendant was a publican and brewer, occu pying the Moulders' Arms, in Major-street, Manchester. A negociation took place, in Manchester, between the de fendant and a Mr. Ashworth, whereby it was agreed that Ashworth should take the defendant's brewery and public house. Ashworth was a friend of the plaintiff's, and it was understood between them, that if the bargain between Ash worth and the defendant was completed, the plaintiff should become the brewer upon the premises at the public-house. at a regular salary, and, in the meantime, he was to attend at the place for two or three months in order to initiate him self in the business. On the 24th of June following the plaintiff was to enter the public-house under Ashworth. Subsequently, however, some disputes took place between ; the plaintiff and Ashworth, which terminated the arrange ment between them. The deposit of money by the plaintiff with the defendant took place on the 18th of May, one of the Manchester race-days, and it was stated that he had, on several previous occasions, made similar deposits. On the day first named, the plaintiff had in his possession the sum of £2OO ; he was then about to go to the races, but, not wishing to take such a large amount with him, he said he would leave £l9O of it with the defendant, because, if the bargain went on between Ashworth and the defendant, he (Templeton) should have to pay at least that sum, by and by. The defendant said, " D o you want any acknowledgment for it ? " The plaintiff replied, " No, but you may give me an I 0 U." The defendant retired into another room to write the I 0 U, but he immediately returned, saying, he could not find the pen and ink, but, he added, " You have Con liffe present as a witness, and he will be as good as an 1 0 U." The plaintiff acquiesced in this arrangement. and, under these circumstances, the money was deposited with the defendant. In consequence of some misunderstanding, the bargain which had been completed between Ashworth and the defendant went off : the plaintiff, therefore, who had nothing to do with Ashworth, finding that the bargain was not completed, said he was not going to enter upon the public-house under any one but Ashworth, and demanded his money back from the defendant. The defendant, however, refused to give it up. Witnesses having been called to prove the above facts, Mr. WORTLEY addressed the jury for the defence, and called several witnesses. The jury said they would not trouble Mr. Baines to reply, or his lordship to sum up : they had made up their minds that the defendant had received the money, and that he had no right to tifep it. The JUDGE expressed his agreement with the jury, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £l9O, the amount detained. The Junta,.—Yes. What do yeti mean, gentlemen, by recommending the prisoner to mercy? The FOREMAN.—We think, my Lord, that if Beamount, the carter, had been produced, he might have given testimony in favour of the prisoner. Mr. W/LKINS.—I hope you hear the answer, my Lord. The.JunGe.—Yes. If you have any doubt, gentlemen, you !oust consider your verdict. The FOREMAN.—We brought the prisoner in guilty. The .JUDGE.—Very well. The prisoner was then asked, in the usual way, whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him. He replied that he wifhed to have witnesses called as to his character. The Jun GE.—That would be of no use, because the penalty is fixed by the law. The jury, after a patient examination, have found you guilty. There were some circumstances which made it necessary that 1 should lay them before the jury with observations in your favour, but the jury are the proper con stitutional judges of the facts. Of one fact there is not the least doubt, that the woman to whom you have done this in jury was before that time a virgin, and your misconduct has been great indeed, in any view of the case. But the jury, who are the proper judges of all questions of this kind, have found you guilty of that serious offence for which your life would have been forfeited a year or two ago, and for which you will now be punished by the loss of your country for the rest of your life, and the loss, probably, of your libesty too; for you must recollect that in being transported Ito a foreign country, you are a slave, unless, by your good conduct, you merit a remis s i on of that sentence. The sentenre of the Court is that you be transported fot this offence across the seas, for the term of yodr natural life. Mr. WHIGHAM mentioned that nothing whatever was known of Beamont until th e ti me o f th e trial. William France, 21, a respectable-looking youth, was in dicted for having, at Ashton-under-Lyne, feloniously ravished Sarah Ann Cordingley. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecu tion, Mr. Wilkins the defence. ...,,,,,. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. SENTENCES. Robert Dean. Joseph Buckley, and Benjamin Whitehead, who had been previously convicted, were each sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. STABBING Thomas Jackson, 132, a decent-looking man, was charged with having, on the night of the 30th of August, stabbed William Henry Rooke, an inspector of the Manchester police, when on duty, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The learned Judge thought that the indictment could not be supported, and directed that a verdict of guilty of an assault should be returned. The prisoner was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. SHEEP STEALING John Holden, late 440chi;le;;;;;indicted for maliciously killing a ram, the property of Richard Whithworth, on the 20th of October. Another count of the indictment charged him with killing the ram, with intent to steal the carcass. After evidence had been heard, his Lordship said he thought the case a doubtful one, but permitted it to go to the jury, who at once acquitted the prisoner. ATTEMPT TO MURDER AN INFANT, Mary Hopkinson, 26, a single woman, was indicted for having, on the 28th of July last, at Tottington Higher, fe loniously attempted to suffocate her illegitimate female child, with intent to kill it. The child was found in the privy of the factory at which the prisoner worked. She said that she dropped the child into the privy, and could not get it out she was so frightened. His Lordship said that if there was no thing to rebut the presumption that the prisoner might have mistaken the labour pains, and have dropped the child in, without any intention on her part, there was no case against her. The prisoner was discharged. BURGLARY. David Whislon, 18, and Daniel Whiston, 18, were con victed of burglariously entering the dwelling-house of Sa muel Hawley, at Ashton-uuder-Lyne, with intent to steal his goods and chattels, and were sentenced to be transported for ten years. Mr. 'Taylor, Mr. Wainwright, and three other gentlemen of the jury who were fined in the morning for non-attendance, appeared in the course of the day, and the fines on them were remitted. The Court rose at twenty minutes past seven. NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY (Before Mr. Justice Coltman.) The Learned Judge took his seat at twenty minutes past nine. PARTRIDGE V. QUA YLE.—This case stands No. 5 in the list for the hundred of West Derby. The plaintiff is Cap tain Partridge, who was recently tried in the Central Crimi nal Court for the murder of two Spaniards, and the defend ant is a shipowner in Liverpool. The action is for the reco very of an alleged debt. Mr. Watson, for the defendant, now applied to his lordship to postpone the trial until a com mission was issued and returned for the examination of Wm. Tear, now at Teneriffe, in Spain, on the ground that the tes timony of the witness was material for the defence. Mr. Justice COLTMAN inquired whether a similar applica tion had not been made to and refused by Lord Abinger ? Mr. WATSON said that was certainly so, but on that occa sion the grounds of the application were not ,stated. The learned counsel then read some correspondence between the parties, which, he contended, had led th e d e f en d ant to sup pose that the plaintiff would not proceed with the action ; and the defendant would be prejudiced unless he had the bene fit of Tear's evidence. Mr. Justice COLTMAN, under the circumstances, said he must refuse the application. Mr. WATSON then requested his lordship to order that the trial should not come on before to-morrow (Tuesday). Mr. Justice COLTMAN said he had no objection to that. WHITE V. APINTYRE.—This case was next called, when neither the plaintiff nor his attorney appearing, the Judge ordered it to be struck out. WHITEHEAD AND EXECUTOR,:ADMINISTATRIX v BUCK LEY.—This was an action to recover £27 12s. 4. by James Whitehead and Sarah Whitehead his wife, the administratrix of Ashton Winterbottom, from James Buckley. executor to the estate of Ann Lees, deceased. The parties are from the neighbourhood of Rochdale. Mr. WATSON appeared for the plaintiffs : Mr. KNOWLES for the defendant. It appeared that Ashton Winterbottom died in the year 1827: and on the 2d February, 1842, Mrs. Whitehead who was his personal representative obtained letters of adminis tration of his effects. At the time of Winterbottoms' death, Mrs. Lees was indebted to him in the amount now sought to be obtained. In January last, as the money could not be obtained from the defendant, a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs waited upon the defendant and said to him " do you deny the amount ?" He replied " No, it is correct, and I will pay it." Mr. Watson cited thecase of Smith v. Fortune in which the late Mr. Baron Vaughan held that a parole ad mission, under such circtirristrifices as were here proved, by the defendant was evidence of his liability. Mr. KNOWLES, on the other side, addressed the Court contending that the, case cited by his learned friend was not analagous to the present. An attempt was here made to get rid of the operation of the statute of limitations upon mere parole evidence, which he trusted the court would prevent. Mr. Justice COLEMAN said the equity was clearly on the side of the plaintiff, and he should direct the jury so to find ; but he would give the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit.—Verdict accordingly. MOTHER V. SON. GREY, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. GRAY.--The plaintiff in this case, Mary Gray, as administratrix of the effects of Thomas Gray, deceased, alleged she was possessed of certain house hold.furniture which came into the possession of the defen dant, James Gray, and which he had converted to his own use. The defendant pleaded he was not guilty in the man ner alleged, and further denied the plaintiff's possession, and that he had converted the goods to his own use by the leave and licence of the plaintiff. The damages were laid at £2OO. Mr. Hugh Hill appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. Mr. HILL said, the plaintiff and defendant stood in the near relationship of mother and son, the plaintiff being the mother of the defendant; and it was much to be lamented that the case could not be settled out of court. He had only to say, it was not the plaintiff's fault that it was brought before the jury ; and before he opened the circumstances he would again propose that it should be settled out of court. The JUDGE.—Yes ; why should these family differences go before the public ? Mr. HOGGINS assented to the proposition on the condition that the reference was immediately proceeded with. Mr. HILL said his client had no motive whatever for delay A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for £2OO, sub ject to a reference. REPLEVIN. Ltwis v. MORLEY AND OTHERS. -Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Knowles for the defendants. The plaintiff rented a farm at Little Lever, near Bolton, from the defendants, who were obliged to distrait) for the rent. The plaintiff replevined and questioned the letting by the de fendants; who, by the form of the action, had the right of commencing. After an uninteresting trial of about an hour and a half, the jury found a verdict for the defendants, and that the plaintiff was indebted to them for rent £67. 10s. BADDELEY V. FOWLER.—An undefended action brought by an attorney at Stockport, against his client, a druggist in that town, to recover £67 17s. 2d. for work and labour done.—Verdict for the amount claimed. ATHERTON V. DALTON AND ANOTHER.--An action un defended, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange.— Verdict for the plaintiff £2B 6s. 7d. CLOSE V. GERMAN.—An action in ejectment. The de fendant did not appear, and consequently a verdict was en tered for the plaintiff. FROSTE V. HoßsoN.--Undefended. Verdict for the plain tiff 4:50 17s. 100. NORTH AND SOUTH WALES BANK BROWN, PUBLIC OFFICEB, v. Conarr. l ll , lr. Knowles and Mr. Drinkwater appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Watson for the defendant. The declaration stated that the action was brought for money had and received, for money lent by the co-partnership, and for interest upon the same. Seve ral aleas were entered by the defendant, on which issue was joined. Mr. KisrowLxs said he had the honour to appear on the part of Mr. James Brown, the public registered officer of the North and South Wales Bank ; which, although of that name, was in point of fact, carried on in Liverpool. The defendant, Mr. Thomas A. Corlett, had been the managing officer of the bank, which was entirely under his controul during the time he was manager. The object of the action was to recover from him the sum of £2,400 which had been lent to him by the bank, and in which he stood indebted to the bank upon a banking account. Mr. Corlett, he should state, was not only manager of the bank, but he had also an account with it in the same way as any other customer; he drew checks the same as any other customer ; and it would appear that at the termination of the account he stood in debted to the bank in the sum named, £2,400. He (the learned counsel) should have no difficulty whatever in proving this, because he would produce the defendant's own cheques, and they would satisfactorily show that the defendant owed the bank the sum stated. It would not be necessary for him to address to the jury one word more, were it not that his learned friend, Mr. Watson, held a brief for the defendant, and therefore he was obliged to treat this as a case in which some defence or other was to be tried. He (Mr. Knowles) was, in consequence, induced to turn to the pleas upon the record ; and be there found, among other things, that the defendant pleaded a set-off, that was, he said that the bank was indebted to him a larger sum than he was to the bank. The defendant would attempt to make out this plea in this way—he would attempt to shew credit had not been given to him for all the moneys which he had paid into the bank. How that could be shewn he (Mr. Knowles) knew not; but he did know that Mr. Corlett, as manager, had had the books in his po wer — t h at h e h a d opportunities of directing money to be paid as he pleased ; and it might, possibly, turn out that sums of money had been directed to pass through Mr. Corlett's account which had no business there, and which belonged either to the bank or to some of its customers. He (Mr. Knowles) only made this observation in anticipation of what his learned friend might be instructed what to say ; if nothing of the kind was said there was an end of it ; but if Mr. Corlett did attempt to make out a set-off, by that mode of defence, he (Mr. Knowles) should have some disclosures to make respecting Mr. Corlett, which Mr. Corlett would not be very glad to hear. He should say no more now ; but proceed to prove that Mr. Corlett was indebted to the bank in the sum he had•named, by producing the cheques drawn by him, now in the hands of the bank ; and when he had done so he should see whether his learned friend met the case in the manner which he (Mr. Knowles) had been instructed to anticipate. The learned gentleman then called Samuel Tomkinson, who said that previous to May, 1841, he was cashier to the North and South Wales Bank ; and he produced 336 cheques signed by the defendant, amounting to £3,900 18s. ld. They were all paid by knowviitn there have witness. Cross-exami ne d b y M r . W ATsoN .—I been above £lO,OOO paid into the bank to the account of the defendant during that period. The pass-book produced is Verdict for the plaintiff—£2,oo3 14s. sd. Mr. KNOWLES applied for speedy execution. The JUDGE.—You shall have it in the ordinary way. BILL OF EXCHANGE. - .... LANE AND ANOTHER V. ASHTON.—An undefended action on a bill of exchange.—Verdict for the plaintiff, £3B Is. 6d. TRESPASS 1 FARRINGTON V. KAY AND OTHERS.—This was an action (brought by the plaintiff, who lives at Turton, in the neigh bourhood of Bolton, to recover compensation in damages for a trespass committed by the defendants by entering his pre mises, and executing a distress upon the goods therein. Mr. Whigham conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Segar and Mr. Martin appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff occupied a house as tenant to the defendant Kay ; and in the month of September, last year, when no rent was due, the defendants forcibly entered upon the pre mises, which were then locked up, and took away goods to the value of £l5. The defence was that rent was due, but it was not made out. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £l5 ; but the JUDGE granted leave to move to the defendant, on a technical objection to the proceedings. BREACH OF CONTRACT. DAVIDSON v. CARR AND OTIIERS.—This was an action to recover compensation for a breach of agreement. The declaration averred that the plaintiff agreed to hire himself to the defendants as traveller and salesman for a period of three years from the 2d January, 1841, unless the agreement should be put an end to by a notice in writing before the 2d of April following; and the plaintiff continued in their service till the Bth of July, last year, without any such notice having been given, when the defendants discharged him. The de fendants put in several pleas, the most important of which was that the plaintiff had violated his duties by falsely repre renting to them that be had received certain orders, in con sequence of which goods were sent to the parties, who there upon returned the goods to the defendants, and, in conse quence, they suffered great detriment and loss. Mr. KNOWLES, Mr. WORTLEY, and Mr. COWLING, ap peared for the plaintiff: Mr. BAINES and Mr. WATSON for the defendants. On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Job Davidson, it was proved that the defendants, Thomas Carr, sen., Henry Carr, and Thomas Carr, jun., carry on business under the name of Thomas Carr and Sons, as silk manufacturers and mer chants, at Leek, in Staffordshire, and also at Manchester, where they have a warehouse, with which the plaintiff was principally connected. They employ a number of travellers, who solicit orders and transmit them to their principals in Manchester. Before the plaintiff entered the defendants' service he was a traveller for Mr. Smith, a merchant in Manchester, and when he went to the defendants he took with him the best of characters. An agreement was made between them on the 2d Jan., 1841, for an engagement for 3 years, at a graduated salary—the first year at £lOO, the second £llO, and the third £l2O. This agreement chime into operation immediately, and the plaintiff was assigned to take the" West ern journey" and the " Welsh journey ;" and he was inces santly occupied in thus serving the firm for a year and a half. The early part of the agreement was exceedingly lucrative to the defendants ; the plaintiff opening many new houses, with whom business was not done before, to the extent it was stated of 105. The early part of 1842, like the period before, passed over without dissatisfaction ; but trade, in all branches, had considerably declined, and consequently the plaintiff's journeys became not equally profitable with those in the former part of his engagement. Complaints then be gan to be made to the plaintiff upon the results of his jour neys, on the ground th at th ey were not so profitable as they ought to be. On the 14th of April, when the plaintiff was at Bangor. he received a letter from the defendants expressing their displeasure at the fruit of his exertions, seeing the re turns were diminished, and that an early separation was re commended as they were daily more grieved at the result, and remaining would be only against his! character. The plaintiff returned to Manchester, and it was alleged that some inferior office was then offered to him by the defen dants but be refused to accept it, and demanded the fulfil ment of the agreement. On the 22d June, being then on a journey, he received a letter from the defendants, which might be considered as terminating the engagement. it was to this effect—" In course of post state to us when you pro pose being in Manchester, and be prepared with a statement of your accounts as advised, being so dissatisfied with the employment of your time that we shall discontinue your ser vices.—Thomas Carr and Sons." Ili hen the plaintiff returned he found the defendants resolved to act upon the dismissal in the above letter, but he continued, for a considerable time, to present himself daily at the warehouse, ready to ac cept any employment within the scope of his engagement. Some objection was raised to the reception of the agree ment in evidence, on the ground that the attesting witness to it, Christopher Hebden, was not present to prove the execu tion of it. It was proved that he sailed for New York in the packet-ship Sheffield, in May last, and a letter having been received from him shortly before Christmas, it was contended that he might be in this country at the present moment. The JUDGE overruled the objection, but gave leave to move. The case for the defendants, as stated by counsel, and proved by several witnesses, was,that their house is upwards of 90 years standing, and of the first respectability.. They had paid the plaintiff up to the Bth of July, the period when he was discharged. For some time they had no reason whatever to complain of his conduct, and they had spoken of his exer tions as they deserved. After that time, however, a marked change took place in him ; the returns from the other " cir cuits" had increased, whilst those ..from the plaintiff's bad fallen off; and it was then discovered that a state of things had sprung up which they could not submit to. Under these circumstances the plaintiff set out, in M a y, 1842 , upon h i s last journey ; and his dismissal took place in consequence of what took place on that journey. In order to obviate his small returns, the plaintiff had recourse to stratagem of an ingenious kind, likely to prove destructive to the charac ter of his employers if they allowed it, and one which they were bound to punish the moment it was ascertained. He had made fraudulent returns of the amount of the orders he had taken, thereby inducing the defendants to send to their customers in some instances, double the quantity of goods which had been actually ordered. Mr. E. Smallwood, a draper in Birmingham, Messrs. Langridge and Sons, drapers of Bristol, and Mr. Gardner, of Hereford and Bristol, proved cases of this kind ; and it was contended that any one of them was a sufficient justification for the dismissal. Mr. KNOWLES, in his reply for the plaintiff, contended that the- circumstances shewed that what had been called falsification of orders, were at the most only two in number, and they were obvious mistakes ; that no harm had resulted from them ; that the plaintiff had no interest whatever in misrepresenting the orders he received ; and, at all events, sufficient had not been shewn to justify a house which had received so much benefit from the plaintiff's services dis missing him in so summary a manner. The real motive, however, for discharging the plaintiff was, that trade had fallen off, and because the defendants could obtain, and had obtained, another traveller at a less salary than that paid to the plaintiff. The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that if they were of opinion the plaintiff had knowingly made false re turns of the orders he had received, that would be a justifiable cause for dismissal; but if they were not, they must find for the plaintiff. The jury, after ten minutes' consideration, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £l5O. This, with the £6O 9s. 4d., half-year's salary, paid when the discharge took place, makes £2lO 9s. 7d. The court adjourned at seven o'clock. TILE CAUSE LIST. The following was the state of the cause list at the rising of the court last night : FIRST LIST. - SALFORD HUNDRED. Plaintiff.-Nos. 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 47. Defendant.-Nos. 8, 12, 16, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 51. Referred.-Nos. 28, 29, 43, 50. Withdrawn.-Nos. 19, 32, 41. Struck Out.-Nos. 45, 46, 48. SECOND LIST.-WEST DERBY HUNDRED. Plainti f f.—Nos. 1,3, 4,7, 8, 20, 34, 55, 64, 65, 68. Withdrawn.—Nos. 2,6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 32, 56, 61, 62, 74, 75, 86. MURDER OF A WIFE.—An inquest was held recently at Colchester, on view of the body of a female who had been most cruelly used by her husband. It appeared by the evi dence that he had knocked her about the head with his fists, kicking her in the most cruel manner. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against him. THEFT FROM A POST -OFFICE.--On Wednesday, at the Bury St. Edmund's Assizes, Charlotte Blunden, a domestic in the employ of the postmistress of Lavenham, in the county of Norfolk, was indicted for stealing from out of a post letter a £5 bank note, the property of the Postmaster- General. She was found guilty, and was again indicted for obtaining the sum of £2 under false pretences, and was de clared guilty of this also. She was sentenced to ten years' transportation. TRIAL OF COOPEER, THE CHARTIST.—The case for the prosecution against Cooper, the chartist, at Stafford, termi nated on Saturday week ; and the defence was then com menced. At the rising of the court, Mr. Justice Erskine stated that he should sit until that trial was finished, what ever time it might occupy, but that he should not take O'Neil's or any other case : he made that declaration with a view to prevent the unnecessary attendance of special jurors and witnesses. The trial " dragged its slow length along" from Monday till Thursday, Cooper having occupied three days in examining witnesses. Sergeant Talfourd replied at the conclusion of the examination. On Thursday . morning, Judge Erskine commenced summing up : it occupied eleven hours, and did not con c l u d e till e i g ht o'clock. The jury re tired for about ten minutes, and then returned, and delivered a verdict of guilty against all the three defendant, but recom mending Cappur to mercy. Cooper expressed himself much indebted to the kindness and patience of the judge, which he had so abundantly man if este d during t h e tr i a l , an d begged to know how or when they were to receive sentence. Cappur expressed his gratitude to the jury and thejudge. Richards was absent at the delivery of the verdict. His lordship in formed the defendants that they would receive notice on their recognizances to appear and receive judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench. in the writing of Mr. Fisher, who was A clerk in the bank in 1841. It was Fisher's duty to make out the pass-book. Re-examined.----The £lO,OOO was paid into the bank, not entirely on Mr. Corlett's own account, but on account of the bank and other parties. That £lO,OOO was money re ceived by Mr. Corlett in his capacity as manager of the bunk ; he caused those moneys to be placed to the credit of his account ; and he drew them out for the uses for which they were intended. By the bank books, witness could dis tinguish on what accounts those moneys were paid in ; and, by his knowledge of the transactions, could distinguish be tween the money paid out on his own account and other moneys. Mr. Corlett was in the habit of giving witness verbal instructions about his account; and he gave witness instructions in relation to all the sums which were not paid in on his own account. Recollected on the 24th January, 1837, £9OO being paid in by Mr. Corlett, under the name of Harrison and Co. The directors were in the habit of hold ing half-yearly meetings, to balance the accounts. In Janu ary, 1842, one of those meetings took place. The defendant was present; his account was looked through by the direc tors, and the balance stated to amount to £2,003 Is. 9d. It was read from the bank ledger, by the chairman, Mr. Chris. Bentham. The defendant got up, and stated be was sorry the balance appeared so high against him ; but, be was happy to tell the directors, he had been in London, where he had seen his friends, and made arrangements to pay off the amount shortly, or to put it on a more satisfactory footing by giving security. The balance was struck up to the 31st December previous, in the ledger. Since then the account had been altered by a few small payments in of about £3O, against £27 10s. drawn out. Witness had since ascertained that the £2,003 was not a correct balance; for he had disco vered that on the 3d February, 1841, the sum of £353 18s. had been erroneously placed to his credit. This was made up by interest up to the 31st January, 1841, transferred from W. A. Smith's account; that was to say, Mr. Smith was charged that sum in interest and commissions, which had been paid in and carried to the credit of Mr. Corlett's ac count, instead of being carried to the credit of the bank's profit and loss account. Mr. Corlett had left the bank when witness discovered the mistake. Mr. WATSON contended that the evidence for this amount of £353 was insufficient. Mr. KNOWLES admitted be could not establish the item any further,_and he would abandon it. By Mr. ' WATSON.-Mr. Corlett's private account was opened in 1836, and continued down to the time he left. He had bought shares for himself, not on account of the bank, but with the bank's money. Mr. WATSON said he could not contend against the proof which had been given for the sum of £2,003 14s. sd. The JUDGE then told the jury the plaintiff had made out the claim of the bank to that amount, and they must find accordingly. The commission ter, was Justice more than usually he soners, many of th there being no few der, sixteen with stabbir two for poaching, six for an offence for which this torions, besides a vane enormity. Esq., One or two unimportant There are only thirteen Cal RAIL of NEWCASTLE AND meeting of this compan] last. There is a balance and a dividend of £4 per X EASTERN COUNTIES I ne, from the terminus [ace on Wednesday. 111 huts and forty minutes. able on account of the fine out, no accident or interru moderate on the whole line is no tunnelling whatever, cuttings, and there are three supported by wooden platfo American manner; these pa built, and though in their appe gers of weak nerves tremble, baps the best bits of the whol many places by bridges; one Coggeshall, is a remarkably fi ing of the sort ever exec MANCHESTER AND S The Liverpool and Manches the heaviest portion of this j state, and the Manchester ar still more forward situation. miles and a third, the Li and the Liverpool extensi, It would be difficult to give an mate of the cost ; but we shoal under £340,000 or £350,000. a statement made by the chair Leeds Company, at a meeting h Mr. Houldaworth then stated ti tension, down to Hunt's Ban very complete, would be £2O • -1' strutted on a more economical they had received no estimate fi chester Company; but, at the that the distance to the Boit railway, was about 580 yards Bolton station to Hunt's Bai that, estimating the cost at would be £135,780. We imag colonnade along the side of the street (230 yards in length), wa sum for this work, say £16,000 of the two extension lines wot traffic likely to pass over the lit to create a sensible diminution and lurries uassing through the two companies from this sou likely to appear so much in i along the junction line as in tl Lion to the two main lines from A project was on foot some ti another line to connect the 11 and Manchester and Slidlick Hunt's Bank, but we believe abandoned. It is expected th line will be completed by Septe 1.01.....11.1 THE COM We have mentioned in. our St brought by the great Western th observed in America. An ex. the schools at Philadelphia results from a paper publish( OBSERVATIONS AT HAW' comet, the tail of which has at Haverford School on the ( " It was visible for a short its brightness was inferior to nitude. "As seen through the to right of a line joining the si stellation Cetus. and forn equilateral, the angle at the es The tail was about forty degre ... b atly curved with the consri conspicuous than on the evening was probably owing in part to the moon OBSERVATIONS 'IN TITY , which by some has been taken fi last night distinctly seen in its pas moved te so far eastward that the distinctly seen through the lesl r the High School observatory, b Y Walker, assisted by Professor B the right ascension of the nucleus 12 seconds was one hour 45 minut declinrtion south 11 degrees 35 ini was 25 minutes of space south of third magnitude, and was of abc star. Through the Comet-searcht nucleus appeared like a planetar nine feet equatorial like a nebule the cen t re ." creased towards THE COMET. —There can no .c we have been visited by a comet totally different is aspect fro - 3 v; years. We, as well as several several successive nights the star From " The Defensor," Madeirt Last week a boar, on a fare tion of Mr. Docwra, attacku that the bowels of one of thei truded through the skin, ar injured.—Essex Standard. Lord Dungannon is the or the representation of the cit Captain Fitzroy L who has be; Zealand. His Lordship w, durin several sessions, wh electiog n w ould take place on 1 MRS. N AITIIEY NND t e ll e r, a new periodical circumstances of a corre and Mrs. Sigourney, an lished a passage respectin given great pain to his stranger, wrote to Mrs. S ence. Mrs. Southey, h, thoughts, declined the he swered her inquiries as t of course, was under tli( pondence, which ought te sacred from the Way i n brought it about. M rs. afterwards saw her letter nals, but interpolated ejaculations of path THE LATE D R . R man, the pOet laureate may perhaps he consid fortunate of the kern from the Government property emountinv t the 26th of August, 1 the personal prod marriage, together with t during her life. The resi above £2,003, he has beq❑ Cuthbert S outhey, VAITi Katharine Southm of them before t 1 amongst their childre Henry Herbert Soot! Henry Taylor, of the works are too well k require either comet. FRIGHTFUL EXPLOSL hood of Digheth was thr yesterday morning, by an Capella, an Italian, who, in , maker, carries on the busint percussion -powder maker. Walker, the percussion-enp cussion-powder, there is no large quantity in a state of pr scaacely sat down to breakfai place. The first person on t keeps the White Lion mate! - an d dust and fallen Thomas Villiers, who was c General Hospital. The otli , ow years of age , w as literally bl the lower ribs, with all the lov jured, was found blown throug posite wall. The head was ft:, ne ck, chest, an d all the upper 1 ov er the pr emise s ; all app e aranc Mr. Capella g ives it as his opir ,een "larking ;" and thus occa -.Birmingham Advertiser. On SOnday last the learned J in the Cathedral ; and, yesterci their Lordships commenced the CROWN Before Mr. BABA) On the learned Judge taking hi: delay occurred previous to the bus in consequence of the non-arrival was nearly eleven o'clock before tl appeared in court, when the f sworn of John Tollemache _ William Theo. Buchannan Thomas Booth, Esq., of T Henry Brooke, Esq., of G John Cleminson, Esq., Ch Colonel Richard Egerton, Charles Ingram Ford, Esq Francis Ford, Esq., Sandb James France France, Esq John Baskervylle Glegg, E John Upton Gaskell, Esq., John Hosken Harper, Esq. James W. Hammond, Esq George C. Legh, Esq., Hi= Ralph G. Leycester, Esq., Edward J. Lloyd, Esq., 01 Thomas J. W. Swettenharc Clement Swettenham, Esq. Colonel W. Tomkinson, W Randle Wilbraham, jun.. E Fitzjames Watts, Esq., Wet Afier the proclamation been read, the learned Jud was more than usually brie number and nature of offence said, though it was probable and direction in some of th take up their time by anticipi arise ; but when they did are apply to him, and he should affon There was, however, one case to i their attention; and that was wl coal-mine, which he understood b currence lately in that county. himself that, by doing anything I to do what was hii duty, death was guilty of manslaughter. TI aboveground. and the same wo lordship then referred to the pets' crimes, and advised the grand ji probability of the parties against (erred being convicted, no t to fi investigation of such c ases h a d a conviction followed.—The grand duties.