The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

MA am 27 138. LANCASTER SPRING ASSIZES • The business of these assizes commenced at Lancaster, on Monday last, before Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice Coleridge—glre former presidiyg in the Crown Court, and the latter at Nisi Prins. The' calender contained the names o f sixteen prisoners fur trial, of whom six were charged with man_ slaughter. The criminal business terminated on Wednesday morning, and Mr. Justice Patteson afterwards took two or three civil causes. The cause liSt contained only nineteen cases for trial, including the two indictments from I.:verpool. None o f the cases tried on Monday possessed any particular interest ex_ cepting to the parties. TUESDAY, Maacti . 2o. Before Mr. Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. THE CHEMICAL NUISANCE.—THE QUEEN V. AIREY. This was an indictment against the defendant, Mr. Oswald Airey, for - having kept and maintained a nuisance in the town of Liverpool. The counsel for the prosecution Were Messrs. Cresswell, Wightman, and Watson ; fur the defendant, Messrs. Alexan der, Starkie, and Tomlinson. The Prosecution was conducted by Mr. Crooke, the Deputy Town-clerk of Liverpool; the defence by Mr. J. Norris. Mr. CriEsswatx, in opening the case, said he had the honour to appear as counsel for the prosecutors, the Mayor and Town Council of the borough of Liverpool, -who had felt it to be their duty, as the municipal body governing that town, and watching over the interests and welfare of its inhabitants, to institute these proceedings. The defendant, Mr. Airey, was charged in the indictment with carrying on a manufactory which sent forth volumes of smoke and vapour charged• with a matter . highly offensive, very injurious twproperty of almost every description, more or less affecting the health, and decidedly affecting the comfort of all who were exposed to its influence. The menu; factory in question . was a manufactory of alkali, which of tate Years had been carried on to a very great extent in the town of Liverpool, as well as at other places, it having been discovered. that alkali manufactured by this process was a good and cheap Substitute for 'berate or kelp in the manufacture of soap. In the processes gases of different 'kinds were evolved, which never chemically ccinibined with the atmospheric air. There Was a mechanical union fora time;.the.gases were carried sometimes a ihOrt distance, sometimes further off; but wherever they fell they produced the consequences which the jury would hear de scribed by the witnesses. He would call a vast number of per sons living in-the - neighbourhood of Canning-street, where the defendant's manufactory was, and would show that when the wind was from, the westward, or north-west, these vapours affect ed Scutland-road, Rose-place, Rose•hill, Richmond-row, St. Aiine.street; and, as if to show that these fumes were no re specters of -persons,.be should. call a witness from the house occupied , by the Queen's Judges at the assizes, to shod that their lordships were by no means exemptfrom the consequences to which all who came within the sphere of their action were exposed. After commenting on the number of witnesses sum moned,: (we believe 140 for the prosecution,) he said he should. • only call enough to prove that this was a v'ry extensive nui sance, arid one which must be very severely felt by the inhahi tanti. The' vapour occasioned coughing, a difficulty of breath ing, a sensation of pricking about the eyes, almost immediately on coming into contract with it.- It penetrated dwelling-houses and injured furniture ; the doors and windows could hardly fit so closely as to exclude ; whilst, if the doors or windows were opened, the house was almost immediately filled with it. All metals were tarnished by it; all furniture was discoloured by it; and the vegetation was 'destroyed. Dyers, drapers, haber dasheri,lood especially ironmongers, suflered in their business , from its tendency to rust and discolour every thing exposed to ; its action, Many persons had quitted ,their houses in conse quence,. and rents had' been much reduced in the neighbour hood. 'He would call the market inspectors, butchers, fish , mongers, and others, to show the effect which the vapour pro dticed on all sorts of provisions and vegetables exposed in the market. for sale. He should call the masters of one or two schools•in the neighbourhood, who would describe the effect pro duced on the scholarS;' - and tell them that any person. might trace a soft of .while daze on the atmosphere, and note the place where it fell; that they had seen it entering the school-room, and alriest every pupil in it • beginning to cough at the same - 'time. How could they doubt that this was a nuisance? What waiver could his learned friend give to these statements? It would be said that Mr. Airey was not the only manufacturer of . alkali, and it would be said that Mr. Airey only committed a part of the nuisance; but he should cad witnesses.to say that they had seen this white cloud in the air—that they had expe rienced all - the sensations described—that all the effects men- - tioned had been produced; and if it were asked front whose chimney this vapour came, he .was in a condition to prove that it issued directly from Mr. Airey's premises, If Mt. Airey did not prochice all the mischief—if there were seven other spirits as wicked as himself—still one person was not to be allowed to poison his neighbours because others were doing something of the same kind—because' life was half extinguished by one nui sance, it ' was not to be 'wholly extingished by another. They could not all be included iu one indictment —they must be in dieted one by one—and that the prosecutors !ma done. He would not detain them longer in the outset. He would call witnesses to' prove the 'case stated; he would call scientific chemistrto prove that such effluvia must escape wherever such manufacture was carried on, and then he trusted the jury would be of opinion that it was high time for Mr. Airey to re move his works elsewhere. Mi. John 'Logan examined by Mr..Wrormitars.—Occupied sonae veneer saw-mills in Naylor-street, and lived iu the 'yard. Knew Mr. Airey's works,. They. were about 130 yards distant from his mill. Ile had seen a white vapour rising from the works. •It came into the house and saw-mills. The effect it hail upon him and his family was to make them cough, to make their eyes sore, and occasion a nausea in the stomach. It rusted the saws in the mill directly, discoloured furniture, took ' the gloss off paint, turned fenders, fire - irons , and po lished steel almost black: cut into brass, and took the prints out of .F lin ted cotton goods, 'curtains, &c. Had noticed all these af eets scores ^ and hundreds, of times. • A Lt h .e.witeess was cross-examined at very great length by Mr. LtNrite, principally for the purpose of showing that there , . 4 " great number of other works emitting smoke, and occa s.toning Other annoyances, both in the immediate vicinity of the, d efendant's work s , and iu that part of the town ge.uerally. Ite7examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—The vapour from the alkali works was a great deal worse than all the other smokes put together. GeOrge Pym, distiller, Scotland-road, gave similar testi . mohy as to the effects of . the vapour on himself apt others, and • on varinus articles Of furniture. Mr. J. Greethatu examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Was a Miller, and had mills for manufacturing flour in 'Naylor-street, not far from the alkali works. Had a house in :Scotland-road, but did not sleep there. Went to a house in the country four or - five miles off to sleep/solely on account of the annoyance he re ceived from the alkali works, which spread itself into his house and the whole neighbourhood. When the vapour penetrated the mills, it destroyed the wires used in the machinery. Had brought specimens of the wire. [The witness produced three specimena of wire. The first, which had been wrapt up in pa per, was bright and free from rust; the second, which he had hung up for a week at his house in the country outside of the window, was not discoloured; and the third, a part of which had . been covered, and the rest exposed to the action of vapour for a week in Scotland-toad, was discoloured and coroded in the exposed part of it. He also produced a piece of wire gauze, which had been exposed in a similar way, from Tuesday till Saturday, in Scotland-road, and which was so rotten that it would not bear handling. He drove into town in the mornings in au open vehicle. His harness was brass Mounted, and he started with it pretty well burnished, as a matter of course. On , the road he frequently came in contact with a cloud of the white'. vapour, which changed the colour almost immediately. He bad • seen'it quite bright at Everton, and in five minutes afterwards, before he reached his shop, it was tarnished and discoloured. . When the wind was in that direction, they were frequently obliged to shut the shop doors and keep customers out. Some times the customers could hardly speak to tell what they want ed in consequence of the vapour. He had a house and shop in Meadow -street, close behind the one he occupied, which had let fur £2l a-year. He had since repeatedly offered it for £l5, and - could not let it. The objection to it was on account of the alkali works. Mr. James Hartley, timber dealer, Rosehill, gave similar tes timony, and stated, that his mother had been obliged to reduce ' the rent of a house in Beau-street, about half a mile from Mr. Airey's works, in consequence of the tenant's complaints of the • ill effects of the vapour. Mr. James -Davies, silk dyer, Seolland-road, produced a Canton crape shawl which he had hung up to dry in the open air, wrapping a part of it round the pole. The part exposed to ' the vapour was of a dullish' red colour, whilst the rest was an - .excellent black. The witness requested the jury to examine it, • and said, that if they put the red part to their lips they would perceive that it was impregnated with salt. He produced ano ther specimen of black, part of which, alter a few hours' expo . sure to time vapour, had bee n t urne d bl ue . This had not been exposed to so much acid. His family for me rly li ve d at the shop ir Scutland-road, b u t a b ove twe l ve mont h s ago h e was o b liged to remove; in consequence of the annoyance from the alkali works. Edward Lunt examined.—Lived in Burlington-street, about a quarter of a mile from these works, and was very much an noyed,i.et.,ehy, the vapour and when the wind set' that' direction. It .ieut:;,;ilyPiiis wfamily :very inoelt in their breathing, par recommendation of Dr. Yate s , M r. Hicks, an d D r. O'lloi is ~tiife. By e ern 11, wh o at t en d e d h er , h e h a d sent her away mor e t h an once forctia ri g ., of air. It occasionally affect ed him very seriously, and had mop, hi nt ill twi ce; Th e etress deschbeet the effects of the vapour On furniture, gra t es, &c. iii the same ma nner as the former witnesses, and stated that an • botv and a h a lf was siaCient.to .co the mischief, and that his 'erupt door often looked as if it had been daubed over with greasy Water, or streaked with black lead, in cons equence of the vapour. If it, caught White p a i nt it took the, gloss off and turned it yel, low. The receptacles for g as were about 150 yar d s from his house. .Did not think.that the effect the,door c ou ld b e - pro klueed by gas. T he smell frOM the gas was not a fiftieth part as bad as that from the chemical works: • • Mr. master of the. North Corporation School, and Mr; ..Nelson Morris, teacher ' of the North Infant School, testified to tlte.annoyance .produced by the vapour to themselves and their " 1 " 1411 , and also to its destructive effects on th e pl an t s a nd in vegetahlesthe sch OD I .yard which adjOins Mr. Airey's che mical' works. " • Mrs. 'Wharton, keeper of the judges' lodgings in St. Anne :street, 'spoke to the effects of the vapour on grates, fire irons,. ,knives and forks; plate, furniture„&c. there. Mr. Edward ChurchLud, haberdasher and hosier, Scotland-. ,road,-near St. Martin's market, de.seribed the injury which the vapour did to his goods, and exhibited specimens of thimbles, book's and eyes' Sec., which became discoloured and rusted after 5 1 short exposure in his shop. He had bad the management of similar concern in another part 4.3 f the town, and never saw .Uny thing of the kind before. Captain Frederick Win. Burgoyne, R.N., residing iu St. Anne.:street, next door but one to the judges' lodgings, de , sciibed the effects of the vapour on grates, brass ornaments, &c., in the same way - as the preceding witness, and stated that he was obliged to keep knives, plate, &c. wrapped•up in leather. He had a garden, bat it was of no use. His attention had been called to the effect of the vapour on vegetation in a very extra (lrdinary manner. When he came to the house he found the t;arderi full of deadtrees. It appeared to have been one of the best in Liverpool, The stump-of an old vine was there, which " few years ago had produced an immense quantity of grapes. There were five or six other stumps of vines, currant bushes, 'ttid wall trees, all dead, or producing nothing. 'He was de termined to see whether he could do anything .with it, fur, thou g h a sailor, he was fond of gardening. He went to an ex - l' e use of £3 or £1 for seeds and other things. Whilst the wind ta,s to the south or west, he friend the peas coming up beauti rtl,..Y u;. S9 - much so, that h e , went to a neighbour, and said, "Yo 1 1 a,"c th `abirut - these chimneys; but it's all nonsense." Ju ana', t e • i.) Next evening lie was going out; he opened the - d '"tt',and certainly he did feel the vapour in- a most dreadful , I was obliged to shut the door. Oh,' save I, here it th r ; lliich . laughter.) Now. I; will see what effect this has garden and upon my beautiful.(Laughter.) II„ went tiext morning, and they looked exactly as if a flant -1,):':u.`,..bt0l bcen passed (town, though they were coining on most t . dully the day before. Ile ha'l made two or ihreeatteMpts . ;thee then, until he had lost £5 or £3, and then he gave it up. • n At , h . 41 -past o'C tick •the furth er h ea rin g of the ca s e W as AU . ,I tuned till the morning. WEDN gSDAY, :11AttcH` 21 THE QUEEN V. AIRE/. At the opening of the Court th►s morning, Mr. WIGHTMAN Robert Grose, the superintendent of St. Martin's Market, who stated that-the chemical works of the defendant were about 200 yards distant from the west end of the market. Had seen the market completely filled with the white vapour from Mr. Airev's works, when the wind was in that direction. Had seen its effects on meat, fish, and vegetables, and heard many com plaints about it from butchers and.others. It discoloured meat, and made it unsaleable until the outside had been pared off. The vapour rusted the butcher's saws, -knives, &c., and also the books in the market, iu a very short time. It also dis coloured fish, rendered it unsaleable, and withered up vegeta bles, particularly tender cabbages. Recollected the vapour coming into the market on the 18th December, and again on the 3d January last. Could trace it distinctly to Airey's chim ney. .It produced the effects which he had described on the meat, fish, and vegetables exposed for sale. Peter Campbell, - the market constable at St. Martin's, gave testimony to the same effect as that of the last witness. Mr. William Hind, a butcher, occupying a shop in St. Mar tin's Market, described the effect which the vapour produced on his meat, saws, knives, &c. It discoloured the meat, turn ing it of a darkish colour. He was obliged to pare it. It rusted 'his cleavers, and knives, sometimes in half an hour, sometimes in two hours, just according to the• thickness and strength of the vapour. Sold the outside parings at a great loss. If he were selling the meat at sixpence a pound, should sell the par ings at fourpence or fourpence halfpenny. John Kirby stated, that he was almost the only fishinon ger left in St. Martin's Market. All the rest had ran off, ex cepting one woman. Had sold fish there ever since the market was opened, six or seven years ago. All his neighbours were stunk out. Had observed this vapour coining into the market tod often. It came in often, and was quite dreadful. It very nigh roasted fresh fish. (Laughter.) After it had been pretty well seasoned with the vapour, it was not saleable at all. "When the quality conies," continued the witness, " they say, • how do.you sell our fish ?' I tells them. Then they say, It's not. fresh.'. • Well ma'am,' says I, • its because of the vitriol.' (Laughter.) • Well, never mind,' says they, I'll wait till to morrow,' and so they leave the fish to perish." (Much laugh ter.) Had put wet cloths over the fish to protect it from the. vapour. Theregwas a Welshwoman at the door: when she saw the vapour coming, she shouted out, "John !—vitriol."—(much laughter)—and he immediately put cloths over it. That was when Mr. Airey was giving sauce to the fish, and gave it too strong. (Laughter.) The vapour was so strong that it would. go through the cloth. It also covered his scale beams with rust. There used to be about thirty fish-dealers in the market. - He now had the monopoly almost entirely to himself. It had taken them all off but one, Mr. Ailey had too strong a breath for _them. Latighter.) Dealt in oysters. The vapour jaw-locked them. The JoumE.- , --What do von mean by jaw-locking an oyster ? Does it give them a locked-jaw? Witness: They open, and can't close again for the vapour. (Much laughter.) The JUDGE.—Then 1 seppose the vapour makes the oyster open of _itself, without a knife ?—Witness : Can't tell, my lord. By Mr. Wifinzraaai.—Have you ever traced the vapour to Mr. Airey's chimney?—Yes: Has it any effect on you?—Yes. What effect ?—lt sets me coughing, aua makes me set up m y back like a poisoned rat. (Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDEII.—A. poisoned rat sets up its back as high as it could get it. There was only one other fish-dealer in the market, and the bottom of her pocket was nearly bare. She was not a witness, and he was sorry for it. Could not tell whether she was ill or not; she might be tipsy. Thought that very likely. The oysters were jaw-locked with the vapour, and lay still enough. It killed them. It killed lobsters too. It set them ft °thing, at the mouth and killed them. The crabs could not steal away either; it killed them too. Did not sell perriwinkles and limpets. but supposed it would kill theta too. There had been about 30 fish-dealers in, the market. He had stood them all out except that one woman, and she was as tough as leather. Mr. G. Holden, inspector of markets, formerly a butcher, and Mr. R. Horner, butcher, Scotland-road, gave similar tes timony as to the effect of the. vapour on. Meat and other articles. Mr. William Taylor; Mr. James Gill, Mr. 'l'. S. Barker, Mr. Daniel Brook, and Mr. James Wood, surveyor of buildings for the northern district of Liverpool, proved the depreciation of property in that quarter, and attributed it principally to the vapour from Mr. Airey's works. -Mr. W. Gregory, pawnbroker, Ellenborough-street, produced a silver tea-pot, a set of fire-irons, and various other articles pledged with him, which had been rusted or otherwise injured by the vapour. Mr. Thomas Atkinson, inspector of weights and measures, stated that at the beginning of this month he went to the pre- Inisei of Mr. Airey for the purpose of inspecting his weights. -He asked. Mr. Airey bow he accounted for the corroded state in which they were, and whether he thought it was from the va pour or gas from the works. - Mr. Airy said he could not ac count for itany other way. James Colborne, principal turnkey at the Borough gaol, spoke to the effects produced by the vapour on himself and the prisoners in the gaol, and also on the vegetables in the yard and garden. Mr. George Rogerson examined by , Mr. CRESSWELL.—Was a surgeon, and lived in Duke-street, Liverpool. . Knew the na ture of the business carried on at the alkali works. The ma jority of them manufactured sulphuric acid. In the process' of manufacturing, sulphuric acid gas, called muriatic acid gas, was generated, and sent up the long chimney along with the smoke from the furnaces. He had performed several experiments in Order to ascertain what proportion of muriatic acid gas mixed with the air could be salubrious. Had first tried it in a concen trated state. On the immersion of a growing 'plant into it, the leaves were withered and curled up. and the plant killed in a few minutes. It destroyed the branches and trunk of a young myrtle tree in ten minutes, and succulent plants somewhat earlier. He then tried the effects ofcurrents of this gas coming iu the same way as from the chimney through the atmospheric air, and found ihat it was destructive as well as by immersion, but not so quickly. He then tried it in a concentrated state on animals, by immersing mice and birds-in the gas. He found that the auinial, immediately on its immersion, panted, and respiration became extremely'difficult ; the covering of the eve was completely destroyed in its texture,. the animal becoming blind, and ultimately expiring in convulsions in from ten to fifteen minutes. He then tried the effects of muriatic gas mixed with various proportions of air, and found that one pelt of mu riatic acid gas mixed with five parts of atmospheric air curled the foliage of growing plants, quickly destroyed the leaves, af terwards affecting the branches and trunk; and, on removing the plants into the• pure air, they never recovered. Found it equally destructive to animal life. He had made the experi ments with various proportions—always with the same results excepting as to time, and found it prejudicial, though not de structive, both to plants and animals, up to the proportion of one part of muriatic acid gas to 1000 parts of common atmos pheric air. 'Fried one part to 1500, and found that it then rap parently bad no bad effects. Had inhaled the gas himself, and suffered severely from it, owing to its having escaped from de fects in the-instruments he used in these experiments. In con sequence of inhaling the gas, he suffered inflammation of the inner membrane of the lungs, and from a smarting of the eyes. , The gas was of a nature to affect the mucous membrane along" the whole tract. Had seen the specimens of rusted and Cor roded articles exhibited in court. The gas in question would produce that effect. In dyeing articles it would convert vege table blues into reds. The impregnation of the air with muriatic acid gas was decidedly injurious to the comfort of the inhabit ants, and decidedly prejudicial to the health of persons subject to affections. of the mucous membrane, covering the eyes, or entering into the lungs, stomach, and bowels. • Mr. G. Webster, chemist, Mr. J. Cooper, surgeOn, and Dr. Reynolds, gave corroborative testimony as to the effects of the :_gas on vegetable and animal life. Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury at great length for the defendant, contending on the one hand that there was no evi deuceby the alkali works only, i no one et o andro f e even tooe t n o p int r hu i e n c principally,—and, i trade pal l y a , to.shcrw. that the injuries complained of were occasioned nmda,nounh manufactures t h ent e ut o rn t e h st e ho r that individualst he businessengaimportance,n—da engaged in f the county generally, to be put down merely because a few indi viduals in the neighbourhood suffered, or • d becauseacie that theysuf fered, some slight inconvenience from vapour issuing from the chimneysi , they saw the of . the alkali works, whilst other gases, more injurious, and which might be the cause of all the mischief complained of , were quite invisible.—The learned gentleman called no witnesses. Mr. Justice Cot . ERIDGE said that the doctrine of the law with ,respect to nuisances was this •—A nuisance was not that which was injurioutsto one, two, or • three persons only, but something that was injurious, generally to the neighbourhood. In the next e an imaginary one,—but a substan tial injury either toperson o It must be either injurious to lifeboth in nature_and amount. or obnoxious to the senses. It was not necessary tl • t health should be seriously injured, in; order to constitute a • nuisance —but it roust be a substantial in jury If it were an injury to property, it must be a substantial injury' to that also. Now; order to convict Mr. Airey on this indict nient, they must be convinced that he had occasioned a substan- tial injury to the propert. of is nei y ghbours,—a substantial in jury to their health , or a substantial injury to their senses. It was not necessary that it should amount to all three; it was sufficient if it amounted to one. In the next place they must he satisfied that the nuisance was one which had grown up within a few years,.and not one in which the neighbourhood had ac .quiesced. And in the thirdthey must be satisfied that .Mr..Airey yvit • place, . , s responsible either in the whole, or in part, for the nuisance. •the nuisance nee, he Must' b If Mr. flirty ouly occasioned a part of be responsible for his share—others for theirs..f They must st be i • di-qGled one by one, for that the only way o I r getting at tnem; - they could not all be included in one .indict inent, since they were not engaged in committing a joint offence. If A was not to be convicted to-day, because others were C . 011 17 Milting a similar' 'offence. then B could not be convicted tiatnor-' ,tow, becau se A was not con victed to -day , — a nd the next day C. could not be co u victed,be ca use A and - B had escaped. if A Conimitted a part of the nuisance, he must he responsible for it,. and so with the others. After' the evidence they bad heard, the y , could hardly doubt, that the injury occas ioned in the neighbour hood - was a nuisance iu point of law. As to the date, it was admitted on all hand that this was a trade which had grown up' within the last few years, and therefore there was nothing like What could be called an acquiescence on the part of the public. There would, therefore, be no difficulty as to the second point.. As to the third point, the jury would have to'say whether Mr. Airey contributed his stare to the nuisance, if the alkali works weie a nuisance: The scientific witnesses had all agreed that muriatic gas would produce all the effects described by the wit nesses in this case. It appeared that other gases produced the same effects, and if the matter stood there, they could hardly , proceed to a verdict; but the muriatic acid gas w as t race d in - a white stream of vapour to the places wher e th e injury was p dneed, and they had the concurrent evide n c e o f the medical 1- wit nesses that muriatic acid gas would produce, and did troad uce, all the effects ascribed to the vap our by the non d }. me teal wit- , wit nesses. The question was notnow whether th e f annoyances in' the neighbourhood proceeded in some degree factories, but whether the alkali works occasioned min other manu factories, whether they were injurious to the Ted a part of them, health, comfort, or pro perty of the inhabitants. The jury retited at half-past five o'clock- They returned in less than ten minutes with a verdict of guilty: THE QUEEN V. STOCKDALE. This was a similar indictment preferred btv the Mayor and Town-conucil 'against Messrs. Thomas Stocldale and Son. alkali manufacturers and soap boilers; in Canning-street. A special jury was summoned to try it, and the counsel were the same as those engaged in the last case. • . Mr. Justice CorAfinGk alsO asked whether, with the same Judge and' jury the defendants could expect a result different from that of the last indictment. Mr. A LE'xAN DER - a dinitted that he could'not.hope for a dif ferent result, and by direction of. his lordship the jury returned a verdict.of guilty. Another case, an action for assault and false imprisonMent, was tried afterwards, which terminated the business at Lan caster.-• POPERY IN NEWPOVN . M.A N D. — The - Chief JUstiCe . of New foundland has felt it his duty io — leetUre . ,.th«;RoMin catholic bishop; Yleming, upon the impropriety of drawing tin a will for a dVing man, by which will he..was himself to succeed to a valuable freehold property. The consequence has been a series a mos t. unjustifiable attacki upon the Chief Justice by the Roman catholic Press. LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. Mr. Justice Pattison took his seat this morning, a few mi nutes before ten o'clock. He was attended by the sheriff. The court having been opened with the usual formalities, the names of the justices of the peace were called over; subsequently the mayors and coroners within the southern division of this county. The following gentlemen were then duly sworn on the grand jury.— Hon. CHAS. WM. MOLYN.EUX, Lord MOLYNEUX, of TOXTETH, Foreman. Sir Henry Bold Houghton, bart., Bold Hall. James Aspinall, Esq., Liverpool. Peter Bourne, Esq., Liverpool. Thomas Bright Crosse, Esq., Shaw Hill. Win. Wallace Currie, Esq., Ellerslie. Wm. Earle, jun., Esq., Liverpool. Pattison Ellames, Esq., Allerton Hall. _ . Jas. Hilton Ford, Esq. Rainford. Benjamin Heywood, isq., Claremont. Michael Hughes, Esq., Sherdley Hall. Win. Ford Hulton, Esq., Hutton Park. • Charles Lawrence, Esq., Wavertree Hall. Robert Josias Jackson Norreys., Esq., of Davyhulme Hall. Charles Orrell Esq., Blackbrooke. Shakespear Phillips, Esq., of Barlow Hall. Stanley Percival, Esq., Liverpool. Wm. Rathhone, Esq., Greenbank. Nicholas Blundell, Esq., of Crosby. Charles Tayleure, Esq., Parkfield. • Charles Tempest, Esq., Rixton. Humphrey Traffard, Esq., of Trafford Park. Win. Gerard Wahnersley, Esq., of Westwood. The usual preliminary proceedings having been gone through, His LORDSHIP addressed the grand jury to the following effect:—He assured them that it was with considerable pain he had to address them on the duties which devolved upon them. The calendar was a .frightful one. Besides nineteen cases of death which were to be brought before them, there were several others of cutting, stabbing, and wounding to do grievous bodily harm. Of the nineteen cases in the calendar, six were set down as murder; but of the • cases denominated manslaughter there were two, he thought. which would turn out, on examination, to be murder, and there was another case, not mentioned in the calendar, which wuuld probably come under the same head. He then said, that however painful it might be to their feelings to prefer an indictment for a charge which, if proved, occasioned the forfeiture of life, instead of one which was not penal, vet it must be recollected that the protec tion of the lives of her Majesty's subjects was an important duty. Some of the cases to which be had alluded were for what were termed kicking and. punching, although there were not many on the present occasion. It was a fearful thing that such a barbarous system should prevail in any part of thocouutry. He had hoped that it had been nearly done away with; but such was not the fact; there had been several cases of the kind at Lancaster. in one of the cases which would come before them, it appeared that the deceased himself had been fighting in the same fashion, so that there was no reason to suppose that the prisoner had taken any undue advantage—he had acted to wards the deceased as the deceased had acted towards him. But death was frequently the result of that savage practise of kicking an antagonist when on the ground, and he declared it to be his determination, when a case was brought home against any indi vidual, to punish him with great severity, in hopes that such an example would do something towards the extirpation of so cruel and disereditable a system. The grand jury were most probably aware that the laws with respect to murder and manslaughter were not affected by the act - which was passed iu the last session of parliament, but which did not come into operation until Oc tober last. Manslaughter was a crime which varied most in the circumstances with which it was attended. Sometimes it ap proximated very nearly to murder, and sometimes it was of a character very trifling indeed. One person might strike another in the heat of passion, and falling, his head might come in con tact with a stone; but there was in that case no intention what ever to - do murder. According to the laws of the land, murder is defined to be an act of homicide committed with malice pre pense; and it was also most distinctly laid down that all homi cides should be deemed to be malicious until the contrary ap peared, and it was, therefore, incumbent on the prisoner, When placed upon his trial, to show the real nature of, he case. Ge nerally speaking, circnnistances of . extenuation did arise in the course of the proceedings. The circumstances which would reduce a case from manslaughter to murder were distinctly stated; of those provocation might be mentioned, when resented at the time; but no provocation given at an antecedent period could be admitted as an extenuation. In fact, for a case of ho micide to be so reduCed to manslaughter, all the facts of the case must lead to the conclusion that it was nut the result of a cool and deliberate parpose,butwas the immediate effect of the angry feelings which had been generated on the spot and at the moment. Now, there were one or two cases where the whole cause of provocation consisted of words; but words only , were not deemed a sufficient provocation ; they would not reduce murder to manslaughter. But when the provocation consisted of a blow, that was sufficient to du so, provided the weapon with which the provocation was resented was in the hand of the per son at the time. There were also cases where the nature of the instrument or weapon with which death was inflicted would have the effect of limiting the crime to manslaughter; if, for in stance, a person "was to strike another With -his fist and knock him down, so that the fall and blow should befatai, that would be considered as manslaughter, for they could not from the facts draw the inference that serious injury had been intended. There was one case which would come before them, in which the pi i soner stood committed for manslaughter, where the whole pro vocation consisted only of words. The deceased had merely remarked to the prisoner, who was quarrelling with his wife. "Are you not ashamed to behave in such a manner?" on which. with some sharp instrument, he inflicted a wound on the deceased, which severed the carotid artery. They had also the case of a man named Davies, who was quarrelling , with his wife when in a state of drunkenness, (a great many offences were committed by men when in that state, but t drunkenness was no extenuation—it was rattier an aggrava tion,) and then seized hold of her by her clothes and knocked her on the ground. Though she was six months advanced in pregnancy he also kicked her most shamefully when upon the ground, and that was called a case of manslaughter.; but, if the factslstated in the depositions could be established it was a clear case of murder. The next case which he should notice was marked Nos. 8 and 9in the calendar, where a person named James Walters was said to have been killed by a cart running le - n e s ehe r dt: punishment N beat manslaughter,s. over him; that seemed to be a case of manslaughter. It ap peared, however, that there had been three carts running races, and if the accident could be proved to have occurred through :et where ae stick. da tc o where bhes t raa h s b c e el a2B resisting n d w 29 s negligence then it w aw a wp s tpht r h l k e i e da beadl 2sol, merited. apse:is iodntabout ha ot N um : a: was also a case of manslaughter; but he did not know whether there was sufficient evidence to implicate both. If the act was committed by only one of the prisoners, the other had probably ,assented pro ably assented to it; the case was somewhat ambiguous, but they would no doubt be able to pick o u t th e truth. No. 34 was a case of manslaughter, where John Whitehead 'was alledged to have been killed by Joseph Charnock. They had disagreed, and had begun to fight in the, savage way peculiar to a portion of the county.; one man knelt down, and, whil e h e was k nee li ng, the other seized hold of him and broke one of hi s r ib s. H e t hen' came to No. 45, another case 'of manslaughter., in which they would find some contradictory evidence. Nos. 46 an d 47 was -A case of manslaughter, which should undoubtedly be preferred against the engineer or the person whose duty it was to keep a look Out, though who that was did nut appear to be certain. No. 57 was another case of manslaughter, and a very trivial one; the death had resulted from a blow in fighting, but it ap peared that no blows were struck except with their fists; all fighting, however, was undoubtedly illegal. There was another case not included in the calendar, of a medical man who had been charged with having, either through ignorance or negli-, gence, caused the death of a woman in child-birth, and it was left to them whether it should go before a jury or not. It ap peared that the medical man had been in the habit of attending upon the deceased, and it was said that, when first called in, he bad adminiStered medicine for the purpose of delaying partu rition, when, as other medical men declared, it ought to have been forced. lie, however, had distinctly stated to his patient that he was elsewhere indispensably engaged, and advised them, if necessary, to call in another person and not to depend upon him. To this the deceased had an objection, and her death was the result. If the person accused had not attended his patient properly he was undoutpdly amenable to law; but, if the con trary was the fact, he thought that the individual ought not to be put upon his trial, because it would be a fearful thing if, for every failure of medical 'skill, a medical practitioner were to be brought before a legal tribunal. It appeared to him that neglect could not be attributed in the present case, he had distinctly told the woman he could not attend upon her, and under the circumstances it was very questionable whether he ought to be put upon his trial. He then came to those called murder cases, of which there were six. Under that head should have been placed the case of Johu Ryan, who was indicted for man slaughter, but he thought it quite clear that a bill for murder should be found; there bad been inflicted on the deceased a wonnd with a sharp instrument, which had severed the carotid artery. Whether any thing could be found in the evidence to mi tigate it, be could not tell, but the case seemed to fll .1 •ea) with in the rule he had laid down in the distinction which he had drawn between the two offences of- manslaughter and murder. No. 60 related to a new-born child; but it could not be consi dered as a case of concealment, because by that the act of par liament meant the secret burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of a child, for the purpose of concealing it; , but in the cake before them it was a living body, and the act made no provision respecting the hiding of a living body. The child, in fact, had lived for some time, and the medical men declared that it had died by suffocation, and that there were marks of pressure on the throat. If that had been done in the act of delivery, the, woman was guilty of no offence—it would not even be man-, slaughter ; but it was said the marks were' such as could not have beem made unintentioually. There was also an unfortu nate expression she had made use of, which would tend to show that she was aware that the child was living: but, then, it was also known that theme was nothing so difficult as to give the very. words which a person had used; it was almost impossible. Ex cept a short-hand writer were to take them down, they would be quite unable to repeat the precise words he had used ; they might give the substance, perhaps, and that would he all. The The case of Charles Worthington, (No. 61,) who was charged with murder, was as clear a case of manslaughter as he had ever read, and of manslaughter only. James Callagan, it.appeared, would not suffer the boy to grind his chisel at the grind-stone ; altercation ensued; he struck the boy ; and the boy having a chisel in his hand, struck Callagan with it ; the blow caused his death. The two next (Nos. 62 and 63) the learned judge de scribed as very serious cases : be gave a brief view of their na ture. He went through several other cases, of forgery, poison ing, shooting, kc., commenting upon them as he proceeded. His address occupied an hour and twenty initiates in the de livery. 11-1 E VERPOOL STANDARD MANSLAUGHTER. John Skerratt, 38, a labourer, of Manchester, was charged with the manslaughter of James Grange, a lawyer, at Manches ter, on the 11th of February last, by the furious driving of a coach. . Mr. Pell appeared for the prosecution, and Dr. Browne for the defendant. Joseph Hawksworth depcised that he got upon the coach driven by Skerrett, which plied between: Bury and Manches: ter, abotit a mile on this side of Bury. There was eleven per sons on the outside, and five inside, one of whom was the wife of the driver. He described the coach as having proceeded at a rapid rate, and the body of it swung so much from side to side that he was somewhat alarnied—the wife of the driver was vet y much so. Shortly after the coach had descended Cheet 7 ham-hill. (a very, slight descent,) it upset, and was dragged, w it lay sideways on the ground, a considerable space. He ob• served the deceased, James Grange. among the passengers; hot after the accident he did not take particular notice of him. An omnibus came up at the time, and those who lay on tha grouni were put into' it. Several other witnesses were called, one 0 whom deposed that the coach, though going at a pretty rapic pace, did not exceed more than nine miles an hour, and that 0. driver was perfectly sober; though all declared that it "swagged' or swayed about from side to side. Others deposed that th. speed was from 12 to 15 miles; the witness who computed th speed at 15 miles, admitted that he was not accustomed to suet calculations. . Henry Sugden saw the coach upset, and ran to the spot when he saw Mr. Grange lying on his back on the road; th, blood was streaming from his mouth and nose, and he appeared totally insensible. Mr. LoMax, house-surgeon of the Infirmary, at Manchester, deposed to receiving Mr. Grange on the Sunday evening be tween eight and nine o'clock ; he died at four on the following morning. The cause of death was fracture of the brain. Dr. BROWN addressed the jury in defence of the prisoner.. The accident he attributed to some defect in the coach, of which, as the prisoner was not the regular driver, he must have been ignorant.. Besides, the evidence had not destinctly shown that there was any thing like furious driving; on the contrary, Entwistle, who had suffered severely himself, and still more deeply in the person of his silt], had deposed. that he had fre quently gone at a much quicker speed, and that he himself was not in the least alarmed. The fact, too, of the prisoner's wife having been in the coach was a sufficient guarantee that care had been taken by him in driving. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. BIGAMY. _ Joseph Bucksley was charged with bigamy. It appeared from the statement of the prisoner that he had had various disagree ments and temporary separations from his first wife, Susannah Lord, who was continually desiring him to go and reside with her mother. To this he would not for some time consent; but though he did so at length, it did nut lead to the peace which he anticipated. He accordingly left, telling his wife that, if she was willing to live with hint, he would take a house, but that he could no more reside at her mother's. He went one day to the house of his wife's mother, on purpose to see his wife; but they told him that he had no occasion to come there any more, as Sarah" had got married to another person. On hearing this, the prisoner determined, as he said, to bring the affair to a conclusion, and, to "get shut altogether of his first wife," married a young woman named Susannah Taylor, to whom he distinctly related his situ a tion, and she notwithstanding his previous marriage, consented to unite herself with him. He was found guilty, and the learned Judge, preViously to passing sentence, remarked that though the prisoner had acted under a delusion in fancying that he could by any..procteding dissolve the marriage with his first wile, yet, as he had not led the second wife into forming a connection with him by denying or conceal ing, from her his previous marriage, his case might be looked upon as less criminal. He, however, stated, that from certifi cates which had been handed into the court, he found that the prisoner's charges against his wife were unfounded; she was described as a modest and irreproachable character in those certificates. The prisoner was sentenced to two months' im prisonment and hard labour. Daniel Hat, 26. of Ashton-under-Lyne, was charged with having, while his first wife was alive, married Elizabeth Robin son, at Oldham. Mr. Peel appeared for the prosecution, and briefly stated the case. Ellen Marsden proved the fact of the first marriage with Frances Ellis, at Ashton. She was about 26. They lived together about three or four months, and then he went off to Liverpool. He returned and lived with her two or three weeks, before he finally abandoned her. Elizabeth Robinson herself was examined. Sbe deposed that she had known the prisoner about four years. She had heard that he had another wife, but he denied the fact, saying that she had died of fever of the brain. Told her so several times. She had been married three years on the ' , lilt Sept. next. On the morning of the marriage, she had been told that he bad a wife living; asked him, and he again denied it. She believed him. About a year and seven months after the marriage, the first wife came over; she lived with him a little while after that cir cumstance, and than left him. The child she had in her arms was the prisoner's. Joseph Wiede, the deputy constable of Oldham, deposed to having arrested the prisoner on the 4th of January. He told him the charge, and prisoner said it was all nonsense. He afterwards told him where his first wife was living—she was a servant in a public-house at Ashton-under- Lyne. The prisoner, who was a countryman, made rather a curious defence: he said, "Th' first woife o' mine left me abaut threw months after I had wed her; and I Beet agate with this other. I told her I was wed, and oo said oo had been made a foo on once before, and oo would not have we. Well, I said, I caunt help that; I wuz wed ; but for a' that oo kept following me, and telling me what oo would do'if I would not wed her. One morning oo met me when I was gooing to work with William Cross and two others, and oo said if I would not have her, 00. would make away with herself before neet. So we went to a public-house to Beet a glass of ale, and then Wm. Cross came back to see why I wur stopping. Why, says I, we're gooing to have a wedding. Well, we went, and had a wedding; but Wm. CroSs toad her I wur married before-baud." The JUDGE said that the case was sufficiently clear. The prisoner Moiself admitted the fact, but seemed to think he was to escape all liability in consequence, as he declared, of having made known to his second wife the fact of his previous mar riage. But whether he had done so or not, he was equally liable • to punishment for the offence. _ _ The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, with hard labour. Sarah Brown, 31, was indicted for having feloniously married one James liardcastle, at Rochdale, on the first October last, her first husband, Edward Brown, being then alive. 'The pri soner pleaded guilty. She handed in a memorial to the court, which having been read by the learned Judge, he stated, that if she brought her mother to testify to what was therein con tained, it would certainly affect the extent of her punishment. William Seddon was indicted for bigamy. He had married, on the 28th August last, Ellen Loft house, spinster, his first Wife, by whom he had three children, being alive. The prisoner pleaded guilty; but stated, in extenuation, that his first wife had not behaved herself welltowards him. He was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar months. BURGLARY. John Walker and MichaeliFi;lit;; were charged with having, on the morning of the 27th February last, burglariously entered the dwelling-house of Catherine Weight, at Pendleton, and stolen therefrom a variety of articles. Mr. BRANDT appeared for the prosecution. Wm. Wilcock was the first witness called. He deposed that he slept in a room on the ground floor of Mrs. Weight's house, and was disturbed, about three o'clock on the morning of the 27th February, by a noise at the door. He immediately got up and, looking through the key hole, saw a light in the adjoining room. He made an alarm, and went out of his room; in doing which he heard a great noise in the music room, and presently after the breaking of a window. The entrance had been effected by taking a panel out of the door, and drawing two bolts. He found a pair of clogs inside the door, a hat in the music-room, in which was a handkerchief, and five skeleton keys. On the steps leading into the garden, he saw several drops of blood, which he could trace for about 100 yards. He was in company with Mr. Allen when a piece of blue cloth (apparently front the lap of a coat) was found in a strawberry bed in the garden. There were some palings which were broken down ; the intrud ers seemed to have run against them, and by that means the coat might have been torn. Miss Weight deposed, that she resided with her mother, and stated, that she had ascertained that all the small silver articles from a work-box, which lay in the parlour, bad been stolen. She had not seen the articles in question for some time before the robbery ; but she knew that the work -box itself had been re moved, on the night of the robbery, front the place in which the had left it. Thomas Allen, constable of Pendleton, deposed, that he was sent for to the house of Mrs. Weight, at five o'clock on the morning of the 27th February. He examined into the state of things there; and be saw some skeleton keys, which were de livered to him, as well as a hat and handkerchief. He observ ed traces of blood, extending from a broken window and across the garden, in the direction of Salford. He had compared the piece of blue cloth found on the strawberry bed with a rent in a coat shown hint by niggles, deputy : constable of Salford, and they corresponded. He saw the 'prisoners in custody on the following morning (the 28th.) He took Walker's shoes from him, and compared them with some impressions on a walk. The shoes exactly tallied with those impressions. . _ . Miss Gould saw four men pass the house on the evening of the preceding day, and she was positive that the two men at the bar were among them. Her reason for remarking them was, that they looked particularly at the house as they passed.. John Diggles, deputy constable of Salford, in consequence of information which he had received, went in search of Whaling, and found the t wo prisoners together at a public house. He re marked, that Whaling had on a fresh hat, and he noticed the fact to him. Lindsay, a police officer, hearing the remark, took the hat from his head, which witness then observed was severely cut at the back. The blood was still trickling from the wound upon his shirt collar. The prisoner accounted for the hurt by saying, that a man had hit him with a big stone on the head that morning. He took both prisoners into custody. Whaling had on a blue coat, from the skirt of which a strip, he found, had been torn. He had received a piece of blue cloth froin Allen, which had evidently come from the coat. Allen showed him the hat found on Mrs. Weight's premises • he knew it was Whaling's, because he had had it in his baud several times.— [The coat, the strip of cloth, the hat, and shoes were handed in and inspected by the jury.] Lindsay, a police-officer, had been in the habit of having Whaling's hat in his hand three or four times a week. He bad seen it on the Monday night, (the night preceding the robbery,) and there was then in it a half handkerchief; the one previous ly produced was the one which he had then seen. 'the prisoner Walker cross-examined nearly the whole of the witnesses at some length. He now addressed the jury in his defence, maintaining that he had not been absent from his own house from half-past eight on Monday evening till half-past four on Tuesday afternoon. He called several witnesses, (his mother, and other persons resident in the same house,) to esta blish the alibi. Their evidence, as far as the principal facts connected with the prisoner were concerned, varied but slightly, and tended to establish the truth of his statement; but, in the searching cross-examination to „which they were subjected by Mr. Brandt, there were' found. on all the incidental and extra neous circumstances, many discrepancies. The jury, after a short consultation, brought in a vedict of guilty against both prisoners, and they were sentenced to be transported for life. NISI PRIUS COURT. - -- -- This Court opened on Friday - morning, shortly after 12 o'clock, before Sir J. F. Coleridge. PAPER AND PENS FOR THE BARRISTERS. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—My Lord, we are in a great difficulty here; there is a dispute who is to find pens and paper for the bar; there are neither pens nor paper, it is su small a county. Uts LotrostriP—l am afraid I cannot assist you. Mr. Fr.wrctimi INCOCK.—The Attorney-General comes from the county of Chester, and therefore tie•takes liberties with Lancashire. (A laugh.) The Under Sheriff was sent for to explain the reason why paper was not afforded as usual. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Your lordship is aware, that.be fore the removal of the assizes from Lancaster, the county found the paper. Ills LoRDSHIP.-131t, before the removal, the Under Sheriff says the Corporation undertook to find the paper. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That is between themselves. A LEARNED GF.NTLEMAN.—They had better split the dif ference. (Loud laughter.) ills LORDSHIP.—The county have refused to pay for the paper supplied for last session, saying the corporation under took to do it. Mr. CRESSWELL—Whv , my lord, the funds of the corpora- tine are now under act of parliament. Mr. RAtticoca.—l think the barristers of Liverpool might subscribe a quire of paper each and surmount the difficulty. (a laugh.) A message was sent to the Town Clerk, we believe, to in- Forn► him of the want of paper, hilt none was supplied. This is candle-end and cheese-paring economy with a yen zeance. The whole cost of the paper would not amount to £5. )h! worthy of Liverpool Corporation None has since been ;upplied - and we understand their Lordships are furnished .with pens at the private elpense elate Mayor! cot PLAN') V. cuANKsttAw. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £46 on a znarantee, from the defendant, who resides in Manchester. Verdict for the plaintiff lot the amount. LORD V. namsnorrom.. The plaintiff, in this case, is atoll-bar-keeper, near Alan dtester, and the defendant, a Coach-proprietor at Manchester. :'he action was brought for the recovery of a sum of 1;58 4s. ,r tolls which the defendant had run in the debt of the plain iff Since the action had been commenced, two sums had been ,rid in liquidation, leaving a balance of £23 is. The defend tut objected, also, to pay the costs of the action. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount. HACKING V. I.AING. _ . This was an action — C.lU a bill of exchange for EA and the costs on it El Ios. which the defendant had endorsed. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount. BUTTERFIELD v. BLACKBERD. This was an action for a debt, for goods sold and delivered, to the amount of £3B 13s 81. It was undefended. The debt was proved. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount. BA liTuN V. EDGE. This was an undefended action for the recovery of £52 4s, money lent and interest. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount. SMITH V. WALSH Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightman appeared for the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General for the defence. The declaration stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff fur money had and received for the use of the defendant, which the defendant said he had nut received, on which issue was joined. Mr. CRESS WELL, in opening the case, said this was an action arising out of a contract for the sale of shares—a description of action very common in Liverpool within the last two or three years, in consequence of the large speculations in shares. The defendant was the manager of the Northern and Central Bank Branch at Liverpool, and also the agent of Monk's Ferry Com pany. Mr. Walsh took upon him to sell some of those shares, when the price was £6 lOs per share. The proceedings of the Monks Ferry had been arrested in consequence of an action pending to be settled at the present Chester Assizes, to ascer tain whether the company had a right to establish a ferry or not. In consequence of this. shares greatly fell in price in the market. In 1836 Mr. Walsh took upon him to sell ten shares of the company allotted to Mr. John Fernley, of Manchester Mr. Smith became the purchaser for £65 lOs, which sum found its way into Mr. Walsh's pocket. Mr. Smith desired to have tht, scrip. He was told that. Mr. Fernley had not executed the deed, , and until he had done so, he could have no, property in the scrip. This Mr. Smith thought very strange, and after applying several times in vain, a notice was sent to him that another call of £2 per share was made in March, 18.37, with in formation that unless the call was paid within a certain period the shares would be forfeited. Mr. Smith, in order that they might not b e forfeited, paid that amount into the bank to Mr. Walsh. Ultimately, it turned out that Mr. Walsh had no shares to dispose of, and that Mr. Walsh had altogether repudiated these shares. Mr. Smith then wrote to Mr. Walsh, saying he could get nothing for his money, and therefore begged that he would pay him back his money. He received fur answer, thir teen months after, when the shares had fallen in price to £2 lOs per share, that Mr. Walsh was ready to transfer other shares to Mr. Smith, the scrip of which he could get, and which he had never refused to do. But this would not do. It would appear that Mr. Walsh had no right even to transfer these shares. Mr. John Middleton, assistant to Mr. Barber , of Liverpool, sharebroker, on his examination stated that Mr:Barber, bv the instructions of Mr. Walsh, sold ten shares in the Monks Ferry Company to Mr. Smith. He produced the sale note—" Mr. Thomas Smith bought of Thomas Barber, from John Fernley originally, 10 Monks Ferry, £5 per share paid, at £6 lOs per share, making altogether £65." .Mr. Smith applied to ham for the scrip, but he toid hint he could only give hint the banker's receipt for the call, in the name of Fernley, and that the scrip 'would not be issued by the company until the deed of settlement had been executed by Fernley. Cross-examined.—Smith told Mr. Bat ber to sell the shares for him, but Mr. Barber told him his limits were too high; he could not sell theist at that price. Mr. Smith did not himself wish to take original shares, which he might have had instead, as he did not wish to sign the deed of settlement, and be made responsible for the expenses of the chancery suit. lie-examined.—Mr. Walsh might have obtained other shares on which be could have got the scrip if he had thought fit. By His Lou DSHIP.-Mr. Walsh had offered to transfer Mr. Smith other shares iu the place of these 10, but Mr. Smith, the next time he came, demanded his money. A tender of 10 other shares by the plaintiff's solicitor to the plaintiff was put in and read, and the scrip purported to be exe cuted by Mr. Walsh and Ms. Curet. Mr. CKESSWELL handed in a letter, stating that Mr. Curet had not executed the above deed conjointly with Mr. Walsh. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL then rose for the defence. He designated the action as a most shabby attempt on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had bought the shales, and after en deavouring to sell them in the market for twelve months, on the action against the company ripening, turned round, and said, 'Now I won't have the shares, I will have my money." He wondered if the shares bad risen in the market, whose shares the plaintiff would have said they were. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said the plaintiff himself had shown the consideration ou which he was to have the shares, to go to market with them the same as Walsh; and he must say he thought the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The plaintiff had adopted the shares as his own so long as there was a chance of sale in the market. It was then too much for him to turn round and say he would not have the shares. .The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Mr. CaEsswELL gave notice of a new trial. IH`CLURR / 7 . FRASER. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightmau appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. CreSiwell for the defence. `Fhis was an action brought for the recovery of £45, on a gua rantee furnished by the defendant, who is a respectable draper in 111MIchester for goods furnished by the plaintiff on.the gua rantee of the defendant, to a Mr. J ardine, who, in 1836, made a composition with his creditors, leaving the plaintiff a creditor in the amount sought to be recovered, for which' the plaintiff came on the guarantee. It appeared that the plaintiff had accepted the dividend of 10s. in the pound, from Jardine, on £9O, and had given a dis charge in full. His LORDSHIP said the obvious meaning of that was, that there was an end'of the debt. Plaintiff nonsuited. SCUTT V. FOSTER. This was an action for an assault. The parties reside in Man chester. It appeared that the plaintiff, Scott's father, who was a schoolmaster, not being able to obtain a debt of £lOO, em ployed the defendant, who is an attorney in Manchester, to recover the debt. The defendant obtained about £7O of this money, but as Mr. Cresswell, the counsel for the plaintiff ob served, it sometimes happened when money got into the hands of an attorney, unless of first-rate respectability, there was much difficulty in getting it out again. The plaintiff agreed to receive payment from the defendant for the money which he had received, by instalments; and as one instalment the defendant gave a bill for £l5, which was not paid away; and when this became due, the defendant sent his clerk with a £lO note to the plaintiff, in order to recover possession of the bill. The plaintiff refused to give up possession On receipt of this, saying he must have £5 more. The clerk then endeavoured to obtain re possession of the £lO note, but the plaintiff said "No, Mr. Foster owes my fattier inure than this, and I will not give it up ;" whereupon the clerk went away and laid a charge of felony against him at the Police-office, for stealing tne £lO note, on which charge he was next day taken into cu s t o dy, an d b roug h t b e f ore t h e magis trates, who dismissed the case as one of disputed property, and not of felony. It was for the assault of taking the plaintiff i nto cus t o dy, and the imprisonment thereupon, that the action was brought. Witnesses were called to prove the case, when his Lordship interfered, and said he was clearly of opinion that there was no pretence to a felony in the taking of the note, which was endeavoured to be proved on the cross examination of the witnesses. His Lottosule said the defendant's plea of felony was not made out, and the verdict must therefore go for the plaintiff. was the qu es ti on o f d amages. I t rea lly was a pity that o th n a ly t thing a ctions of this kind were brought, and respectable attorneys, when applied to about such actions, ought to say. " von, if you get a verdict will get very trifling damages, and will be put to great expense, while I only shall gain by it." He thought the damages ought to be very moderate. Verdict for the plaintiff a farthing damages. His Lordship refused to certify. The court then adjourned at a quarter to five, to nine o'clock next morning. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY. Mr. Justice Patteson took his seat nine o'clock. HIGHWAY ROI3BEHY, James Turner, aged 21, was charged with having, in company with others, at Great Bolton. feloniously assaulted and robbed Thomas Taylor, on the 12th July last. Mr. Cross conducted the case for the prosecution, and Dr. Brown defended the prisoner. Mr. Burrow, deputy constable of Bolton, on the Monday after the robbery received a watch from Mr. Blundell. That was in July last. He kept it about three months, and then delivered it to Mr. Thomas Taylor, the owner, having previ ously marked it. He got it back in December last. In July last, witness received information of a robbery frtim Mr. Taylor. Since then had endeavoured to apprehend him. Apprehended him in December last. John Blundell stated, that he was a pawnbroker at Wigan. In July last, he received a watch from his sister in law, Jane Watson, who is his assistant. Witness gave it to Burrow, the deputy constable of Bolton, having first marked it. [Witness here examined the watch produced by Burrow, and declared that to be the same.] Jane Watson stated, that she was sister in law and assistant with the last witness. On Thursday, 13th July, at half-past eight o'clock in the morning, a person twilight a watch to her. That person was William Hulme. • . Dr. BROWN objected to the accounts of other person's for which it might be assumed those persons had been made amena ble_,_being brought in as evidence against the present prisone r. Mr. Citoss con.ended, that he had a tight to call such evi dence, if be proved .that the parties were together, and acting iu concert. His LORDSHIP decided that the evidence would be admissa ble when this had been shown. . _ Miss Watson went on to prove, that the watch was pledged with her, and that the glass was broken. William Redfarn stated, that on the 13th of July last, the pri soner, and those others, Hulme, Leach, and Sharpies, came to his beer shop, in Wigan. They got seven quarts of beer, and paid at first sixpence in copper. Afterwards two of the parties got change of two sovereigns. As they were going out, the prisoner at the bar offered him au old tashioned watch without a glass, for twenty shillings. The watch produced was similar to it. Witness followed them down to the Wellington Inn, a bottle having been broken near the fire, which he wished them to pay for. Ann Green stated, that she lived in Bolton. She was in Wigan in July last. On Thursday morning the 13th, about eight o'clock, she saw the prisoner in company with three other persons, Sharpies, Leach, and Hulme. She knew Turner. Sharpies spoke to her. She asked him what. he was doing there? and he said he had been coming from Bolton all night. They went together to a public house, (the Shovel and Bloom) Sharpies having said he would trust them. The prisoner ac companied them. Hulme said, he had a watch that wait without a face, and he would go and get it repaired. He went and re turned. When he returned, he said he had been to three watchmaker's shops, and he could not get it repaired. He went out again, saying he would go again, and get it repaired. Turner and Leach said he should not go unless he left security that he would bring the watch back again. He left 7s. 6d. as security with Turner. On his return, he said be had pawned the watch for 10s. Turner then returned him the 7s. 6d. The 10s. was divided—each taking 2s. 6d. They tossed up for the pawn ticket, and Hulme won it. They all then went away to another public house. They then began to quarrel about their money. Sharpies said he had not got his tights. Witness then left them. She saw them agale in about ten minutes. They were in a field quarrelling about their money. Witness was merely passing. A man said the constables were coming, and they all ran away. Witness was herself taken into custody, but discharged. Mary Smith was with her. Mary Smith corroborated the evidence of the last witness. Thomas Taylor stated that he resided in Bolton. On the 12th of July last he was going to his house, which is about half a mile out of the town, it was between eleven and twelve at night, when he came to Bradford-square he was knocked down by three or four persons; he felt a person's hand in his right hand pocket, a purse containing two or more sovereigns, his snuff box, and some silver were taken. Ilis hat and a silver watch were also taken. On pulling off his boots when he got home, the glass of the watch fell out of his boot. He had re ceived several injuries, a blow across his eye deprived hint of the use of it fur several days. He was confined to the house for five or six days in consequence of the injuries he had re ceived. The men ran away after they had robbed hint. Wit ness identified the watch produced by Burrow as his property. He was certain there were two persons attacking him, but he could not speak positively to more, he thought that there acre more. Cross-examined by Dr. BaowN.—lle was returning from a Conservative dinner at Bolton, stud the wine hiffi freely. Dr. BROWN in defence of the prisoner, iniprAiif-it,pA.„ jury the unce r t a i n ty as w h et h er the robbery wa !psit tc l 4 y inure than two persons, the prosecutor not being able to any person. nor to state exactly how many had robbed him: • --- His Lordship said it was necessary for the jury to be eatisfier that the prisoner was present when the robbery was committed The Jury found the prisoner guilty. Dr. BROWN called two witnesses, who stated that they had known the prisoner for several years, and be had borne a g6od character during the time. 'l'he learned J uoua said he should direct sentence of death tc be recorded against the prisoner, hut he should recommend bier to her Majesty's mercy, that his life might be spared. On wh-s terms would depend upon the result of the inquiries that won't be made as to what dependence couid be placed ou the evidencs as to character. HIGHWAY ROBBERY. Richard Doran, aged 2U, and William Maguire, aged 21, were charged with having, at Stratford, assaulted and robbed Jelin Atkinson Simpson. and Ann Ransonie, of certain money : further with having, at Manchester, stolen three brace of pis tols, and one cheese, the property of Daniel Rowden. Sir GREGORY LEWIN conducted the prosecution ; Dr. BROWN defended Maguire. Mr. John Atkinson Simpson, (who did not wear the garb of a quaker) was about to affirm, when Dr. Brown ablced him ii he were one of the people called quakers ?. Mr. Similsou said he was one of the society of Friends till about fifteen montru ago, when, with others, iu consequence of some difference on points of doctrine, he seceded; but he was still of the same opinion with theist on the subject of oaths, and oil nu °the; point. The secession arose out of some disputes iu which Crowdon of Manchester was concerned. In point of fact' la,; , was nut a Quaker. Sir GREGORY LEWIN contended that under an Act 3d and 4th William IV., individuals of the persuasion called Quakers, might make the af f irmation. The 'words " Quakers and 1110- ravians" occur►ed in a former Act of Geo. IV. and the wor is "of the persuasion• called Quakers" constituted the difference between the two Acts. It was clear therefore that all persons who were of that persuasion, though nut, iu fact, belongin , to the society. were entitled to affirm. •The information would lie receivable if it were equally binding on his conscience as'au oath. Much loose discussion took place on the subject. His LORDSHIP said he had great difficulty in construin4 those Arts; but be thought the 3d and 4th of William IV. was intended to extend the liberty of affirmation to persons eluded in the former acts. The thh of Geo. iyirk,owever. precise in its terms, that every Quaker should *nuke the afli! . ..- atiou. The form of the affirmation was also made part!clt far form. And be should put these questions to the witness: " Will you make the affirmation in these words,—"l, jam/. Atkinson Simpson, being one of the people called Quaker."-- Answer.--'• Nu." - - JunQE.--Will, you make the affirmation in those terms:— " I, John Atkinson Simpson, being one of the persuasion of the people called Quakers." Answer. —" No." The oath was then tendered to the witness in the usual form, but he refused to take it. His LORDSHIP then asked the witness if be bad any objec tion to to take the affirmation in general terms, as " I, John. Atkinson Simpson, do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm," &c., and if lie should consider such an affirmation binding on his conscience ? The witness answered that he had no objection to such an affirmation, and be should consider it binding on his conscience. His LorinsitiP said that the only question would be, wherber au individual would be indictable for perjury it he were fourd to have spoken falsely after such an affirmation. He was at present under an impression that be could not admii4er the affirmation generally. He said he would, however, consulz. Mr. Justice Colridge on the subject. His LORDSHIP, on his return, said the other witnesses had better be called, and Sir Gregory could see how far his case would stand upon that evidence. Then, if he thought proper to press the matter, he thought the best way would be to take the affirmation generally, and afterwards refer it to the opinion of the judges. Cyrus Ancoek was then called. He stated that he was a constable in the township of Hulme. In the beginning of February, he received intorniation of a robbery, and in conse quence thereof he went with Mr. Boothby to the road between Stretford and Hultue. They met those persons, ,Who, when they saw theca, attempted to run away. They took the pri soner Doran, and found in his possession two pisto.s. He told the prisoner, when he got t o th e l oc k- u p, that h e was accuse d o f having robbed a lady and gentleman. Ile said " I believe we did." Witness then said " How much did you take froig, them ?" He replied, " Ab ou t 10 s . i n s il ver. " He examine the pistols and found them loaded with ball. The appearance of one of the men who escaped corresponded with the desciip tion he had received. William Boothbv stated that he was with the last witness when he was out on the 2d of February. He saw that one of the men was the prisoner Maguire. John Smith, a constable of Manchester, stated that on Monday, the sth of February, he went in search of Maguire. He found trim in bed at his father's house. He told hint that he wanted him for being on the Stretford new road on the 2,c10f February. He was searched, and some keys and a fiat were, found in his pocket. His box was examiued, cud a pistol, a dagger, and a bag of powder were found. He said, "Those things belong to Doran." This witness stated a conversation that had taken place between Maguire and Mr. Thomas, the deputy constable of Manchester, in which he (Maguire) said, in reply to certain questions, that he and Doran had committed the rubbery, and that they took two shillings from the gentleman and that the lady gave them eight shillings. Mr. Milne and 11Ir. Berwick, of Manchester, proved the de position of the witness and the statements of the prisoners ou. examination before the magistrates The statements of the prisoners were read us follows : " Richard Duran says he has nothing to say further, tbau that they took only ten shillings." The other prisoner had nothing to say. As the evidence was not sufficient to prove the case, his LORDSHIP signified his intentiou of receiving the general affirmation of Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson was recalled, and affirmed.—He stated that l was on the Stratford road on the 31st of January. Was will,. Miss Ransoine. Two men came up to them. One of the men. said " Stand and deliver !" and presented pistols. To the bcs' of his belief Doran was the man who presented the pistols. The other then took hold of him and felt in his pockets. Ila had about 235. Some money was certainly taken as he had on Is. left. They took keys and some other matters which thy" returned. The lady gave them her money, requesting to be b 6• lowed to keep the purse. They said they could nut starve, I departed towards the turnpike. Ann Ransome was called.—She expressed herself of the same opinion as Mr. Simpson. She stated that she was in ca7.:.- pany with Mr. Simpson on the 31st of January. She was much alarmed. She saw the face of the man who presented tls' pistol very distinctly. She believed Doran was the man, and she believed Maguire was the man who took her purse. Richard Vaughan stated, that he was a was a waiter at thi sign of Pagauini, In Manchester, in January last. On the 31st of January last the prisoners were drinking there together. The jury found the prisoners guilty. His LORDSHIP said he should respite the judgment tit he Lac! taken the opinion of the Judges on the evidence of Ant..Simp• son and Miss Ransoine. His own opinion was that the evidence Would not stand good. The bid for the larceny had not come is from the grand jury. MANSLAUGHTER. Patrick Crugan was charged with having killed James Ger raan, in this town, on the 24th December last. Mr. HARDING conducted the prosecution. All the details of this case have been recently published in the journals of this town. Gorraan and his wife, who had taken some drink, were proceeding home together on Christmas eve, when they met. the prisoner. Some words passed, and the pri soner struck Gorraan, according to the opinion of the surgeon. with some weapon, though none of the witnesses had seen any• thing in his hand. Gorraan fell and the prisoner kicked him. The unfortunate man died almost immediately. The officers of police came up and took Cregau into custody, hut, in the ei,n fusion that succeeded, the officers were struck by several pr sous in the crowd, and the prisoner get away. Lie was aiia wards taken into custody in the month of February.. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended hiu. to mercy. A list was handed up to his lordship of persons who 131 . speak to the character of the prisoner. I'wo of these aur and stated, that the prisoner was a quiet, inoffensive man. 'the learned Judge said, he should defer passing sentence be bad made inquiries as to' the truth of the statements ing the character of the prisoner. WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. Timothy Sullivan, aged 26, was indicted for having, on the 30th of September last, at Wigan, feloniously cut and mounded William Lancaster. Mr. SEG A it conducted the prosecution. It appeared from the evidence, that Lancaster, a constable ,of Wigan, was, on the 30th September last, called into a public. house, where a man named Skelly and another person wee fighting together. He took Skelly into custody, and was pas ceeding with him towards the Lock-up, when he was struck on the bead with a spade. 'the blow was so violent that it cu , through his hat, and inflicted a severe wound. According t• . the evidence of the surgeon, this wound was 2i inches long, .4sic the prosecutor was for some time in a state of considerable Jan ger. A man, named Hart, a stone-mason, and souse other wit tresses, proved that the prisoner was the person who struck J blow. The prisoner pleaded as an excuse, that he was extremely i• toxicated when he struck the blow, and . he did not know o he was doing. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His Lordship said, as the offence was committed on the d • preceding that on which the new law came into operation, se. teuce of death would be recorded against the prisoner. 1 could not now say what punishment might ultimately awarded. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAT. WAKEFIELD V. .GIBBONS.— SLANDER. Mr. CreSsWeil, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Wigbtman appez..r for the plaintiff, and the Attorney •General for the defence. The plaintiff, in this case, is the assistant overseer of • 1 borough of Salford, whose duty it was to collect the rate . they became due; and he was in the habit of collecting aL MOO a•year; and his reputation, the learned counsel for. plaintiff, believed to be unblemished, not the slightest iinv , tion ever having been cast on his character. He therefore it due to himself, to call upon the defendant, either to soak , ample apology for the slanderous expressions he had inadi of, affecting his character, or to prove the truth of them. the course of last year, an assistant of Mr. Wakefield, name of Ashton, received a rate from a rate-payer whiet: t: not communicate to Mr. Wakefield at the tinie; and, in quence, Mr. Wakefield demanded the same rate again, • • rate-payer, which was paid him. When the revising Lai visited the borongb, Wakefield stated that the rate-page. . not paid his rate in sufficient time to entitle him to a 'e The rate-payer said that he had not only paid the rate in ti bet he had paid it twice over. It appeared that Mr. Wakef was perfectly, correct, and that the error lay with Ashton, expressed his regret at the mistake and refunded the mw'. the rate-payer, and his vote was allowed, and the matter, it thought, would here have ended. Some time after this rence, in October, it appeared that, actuated by sonic el.. feelings of excitement, the defendant went into the shc. , respectable hat-manufacturer, named Tinker, and said, you are a d—d nice set of fellows. Mr. Tinker asked—" do you mean ?" Ile replied—" I mean some of you servants: Ashton and Wakefield are two d—d ihieves; have received money, and put it into their own pockets, ar accounted for it to the town." This was the direct imp] on Mr. Wakefield's character, which he felt it due to I and the public of Salford, to call on the defendant prove or apologize for. Mr. John Tinker, hat•manufacturer, was called to - pA.:' conversation which formed the substance of the iireb'etit when The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the case had enough. The fact was, the defendant went into a barber': to get shaved. where he beard the report and repeatea wards. Ad he timid say was, it was the dearest ebas. had. (a laugh.) Lordship thought this would teach the defeudru++,