The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-13 00:00:00

APRIL 13. U•)',B LIVERPOOL SPRING -ASSIZES, - NISI PRIUS COURT-TuE4DAr C V. SMITH. Ttiis wa s a horse case ARSON , with the usual description of evidence in suit ( -- ases.:.The• plaintiff, - Mr. Carson, in this town is a _draper, and th e d e f endant an I rish horse dealer. The plaintiff icink'tt fancy to 'a hoist belonging to the defendant, and agreed e,xeliange his own horse, which he valued at £2.3 with him for. il, giving hint £8 to hoot, the defendant giving a warranty that his horse was perfectly sound. The exchange was made, and the,horse which the plaintiff had got in exchange front the de fendant then tarried out quite latne, being. injured in the to/vie/dor joint. Th e action was brought on this warranty of the defendant, to recover the difference in value between the two horses, the horse the plaintiff got in exchange having been nfierWards sold at Lucas' stables for £S, and the horse of the Plaintiff, which the defendant got having been valued by the defendant. himselCat ,£23.. The plaintiff broke down in his case,' which appealed to be lamely made out and was non-. suited, on the ground of variance with his- declaration respect 41g. the warranty he gave his own horse. Ii[GHES lIEGISTER OFFIC&R V. THOIIVE. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexandey and Mr. Wightman •for the defence. In this case the plaintiff was Wm. Hughes, one of the public registered officers: of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland, and the defendant was Mr. John Thorpe, of Man: Chester. •' The declaration was for money had 'and received, and on an .account stated, and the defendant pleaded, first that be was not liable, and second, that there was a co-partnership between him and the Agricultural and Commercial Banking Company, and further pleaded that the. co-partnership consisted of .more than six persons;and that there were establishments of the bank in places in Ireland, within 50'iniles of Dublin, contrary to the provisions of a statute, for protecting the Bank of Ireland. Mr. CuEsswEi.i., in opening the case said, the plaintiff was .the public officer appointed for the p . m-pose of bringing and de fending actions brought' against, or by a joint stock company in Ireland, the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland; which-was established in 183. The defendant was formerly the manager of the Northern and Central Bank of England at Manchester. Before 18.36 the defendant purchased 200 shares in the Agricultural and Commercial Banc, for which the plain tiff sued, and in the spring of 1836 a call became due on the 'other 100 shares. Mr. Thorpe was applied to for payment,-and he addressed a letter to the Agricultural Banking Company, stating, how he considered the matter to be settled, and pro mising to pay the money by giving them a credit with the Northern and Central Bank of Manchester Co that amount, 'Which credit he never gave. The letter he alluded t, was in the followin. terms, and was addressed to Mr. Wm. Mitchell, then' manager of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank , of Ireland. It was signed-by Mr. Thorne, and dated Manchester, April 5; 1836: " DEA rt SIR-I find there is some mistake about the payment of my calls upon your shares, for our Mr. Lyall informs me that be has not credited my account and paid you. When I receiv ed my last scrip, you never stated 1 was debited £lo(X)'for the additional shares I took. But, bY some oversight, thif has not teen carried into your books. Please debit me on that date with the amount of the'C:alls due on my 200 shares; I think it will be £51.X.) the second call on the first 100 shares, and £lOOO the two calls on the- second •100 shares. Address me that by letter. Your bank shall be credited here for the amount on that date:" It wOuld appear, that Mr.. Thorpe very soon after quitted.his situation as manager of that bank, which probably might account for his never having given thateredit to the Agricultural Bank of Ireland to that amount. They , had,: therefore, clearly esta blished, by the account given by himself, that £l5OO was due froni the defendant to 'the Irish Bank, which would leave the i)laintiffs entitled to 'recover that sum; from him. The - defendant ,had put on the record two pleasz the first by stating, that he had'paid the trolley; which•the Irish Bank Would - he very glad to find themselves in possession of. .lie supposed by tbat, that the defendant did give some credit to the Irish bank with the bank of Manchester. They would find that he did no such thing. I '.he_deferidartt then endeavoured to get out of the liability of the Purchase by . charging .the Irish hank with carrying on their business in contravention of an act of Parliament relating to Ireland. He!was told that •that was a mistake, It might be that the joint stock concern like many other large banks, ex tended its liranche - s too wide, and that these did not all answer; lint if Mr. Thorpe. had now the means to pay the money, be would came into possession .of shares in a very thriving coneetn; and he was happy to state, that to all appearance, the difficulties "were removed -under which the bank had ' formerly laboured, and the bank of Ireland .was likely to turn out a prosperous 'concern, and'he trusted that it would prosper. He called John Harrap, clerk to the Northern and Central Bank, who deposed to the above letter being iii the handwriting of Mr. Thorpe. There was '.no such credit as that for Ll5OO Auentionedln the letter, in the Northerwand Central Bank, in favour of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland. ' Mr. Myers, formerly clerk in the service of the Agricultural and Commercial 13ank, deposed, that, in the spring of 183t3, Mr. Mitchell,was manager of the. concern whenthe above letter Was addreSsed to him. The sum of £l5OO had never been paid by Mr. Thompson -fir the bank. On being cross-examined by Mr. ALExaNnra, he proved the handwriti ng of Mr. Dwyer, the chairman - of the board of the Agricultural and Commercial Bank, and also Mr. Mitchell's handwriting. Mr. Hughes was.,Secretary to the bank. He (witness) was stationed .at Roscommon. He was not at any Period ins the establishnient at Drogheda. Mr. ALEIIANDER contended that the action brought by the 'Plaintiff's against the defendant, was of - the nature of an action of one partner against another. The point was, argued at length, and leave was given by his .lordship to the defendant.. to enter a nonsuit upon it. v Mr. A LEKA N OEII then rose for the defence. He h a d no doubt "at his friend's obseivations that day with regard. to the Agri thLal„taral and Commercial•p,ok!),f Ireland would be hailed with very - diff,4ent feelings throughout these mpire, accordin,,,o• to_ e ''„l t egnaintance with the subject, matter, or the ignorance of erson receiving that intelligence• It would produce an ' u l f r t). `"oate dei , ree of delight on the part of those who had been si l—e revs—it would nrodute'an- in degree of surprise on .7? e Part o f th ose who had watched during the last two years the ;I"egreSs of that iistahlishinent, through its difficulties, both in courts of law, .affil out of them. And. he was sure he cordially concurred with.his learwd.trietid in the hope. that the Agricill• and Co•OuteeciAl 13:ink 'might arise' - again from - the very prostrate condition to which he was ,afraid it was, and. which crime of the :Jury might prubiihly know' quite as well as him self, and he ,again the flattering position which at the onset of the case -it, professed to be. It. was a duty his client. owed to himself to resist a daim apparently by the Agricultural and Umemere44l ,- Bank* of Ireland as at first established, but in reality by pPrsorfs.who hail ceased to represent that body. .By the 6th of Geo. 4th, c. 42, an act for the better regulation of Partnershjp'S of certain bankers in Ireland, it was enacted, that tine nuinberail persons in .airy such partnership should not ex ceed six, and should- have no establishMent within 50 miles of • Dahlia. •In inder, therefore, to-sustain the present proceeding, tt..eo-partnwship like the present; consisting, as he need scarcely observe. of infinitely inure that six persons, it was necessary OW they should not have any place of business within 50 miles of• Dublin; and in the event of: that act—being violated, the .clairn becam e illegal, and on that ground the plaintiffs would 16 se their- ri g ht to sue in that action. Arinong other establish ments of the hank there happened to be one at Drogheda, which was within 39 miles of Dublin, either English or Irish, 'rod, therefme, clearly within the limits described by the act. He should call befor - e them a witness, in order to make that tact clear,•and as soon-as-that was proved. another point would he ripe for his lordship's notice, that this was an illegal carrying on business beyond the litisits of the bank. A certificate was then put, the hand writing of wh* . ch had been Proved, s i gne d b y J ames Dwyer, the c h a i rman o f the board of t he Agricultural Bank, and William Mitchell, the manager. as follows : '" John - Thorpe, Esq., banker, of Manchester, S tands recorded in the Commercial Bank of Ireland, as a part 'ter, holding 100 shares -in the said bank, designated British stock." . . . . Mr. Daniel Dowde examined, he was agent of the Agricul litral Bank- branch at Drogheda, which commenced in January 1 83`, and continued till September 1837. He received his 0r .31.8 front the committee holding their meetings at Dublin. Ile ( iiscounted bills of exchange for the toink to the amount of about 3 0.000. Hwatopped their letters of . credit directed to other %% ranches, and paid. them in their notes at Drogheda. A letter of instructions was here put in from Mr. Mitchell, to - 4 1 *. Lonie, Manager the Agricultural and Commercial Bank 9 f Ireland at Droutteda.• The letter stated the embarrastnents 91 the hank, and ordering him to obtain what assets he could, to pay in cash,the orders of holders of large sums. but for small sultis to give an order on Dublin— To keep . the branch -open f ile usual hour. and to use every care. Ile (witness) followed B "eh of these insti actions as were necessary, using his own dis ':'tetion;, he kept the branch:open and took payment of bills not due, to meet the notes of those who chose to give them. and did t he ordinary hasiness-of the hank, in order to keep up credit, and as far as .he could, kept up the views of the letter. Drog heda is 21 Irish miles irons Dublin, which would be about 28 flglish miles. When people brought notes in, which they did, exchanged them for sovereigns, cs bank of Ireland notes., l le paid the salaries although they were deputed by the bank. Cross-examined. The - bank' claimed a debt of £l5OO. from Many inert made demands which they had no right to ' o '. There was n an order not to issue any more of their notes in 1 -be letter; but it.was of no. use for no one would take them. (A He had a letter of credit on a bank at Strabane• for t 5 OOO. by means of which be discounted the bills of the Agri ''.%ll.tural.Bank.. for the purpose,of avoiding the Charter of the - 4 5 .alik of Ireland. He knew this at the time, and did not think it wrong at all to evade the Bank of Ireland Charter. The Bank 'lf•lrelitud'hart an establishment within three doors of the place. ?here,he carried on business for the Agricultural Bank.. He had no plate .0 p signifying that his place of business was a branch theAgricaltural Bank, though it was ilerfectly well known. Vtie had a wire blind sent from Dublin with that painted nn it, t he. did not think it prudent to put it up. lie •was more shy `than the managers. lie -examined.—He was to get nn galaxy, but to have. 1 per '1 11. 4.: on all his transactions, which wow little enough for his %Merits. A 19.1 , 0,1 . MT-AT,RXANDER said that he laird raised the point that this was a branch of the, Agricultural Bank, illegally carrying on trusihetts within the prescribed distance_ . -.Mr, , CaxsswELL contended that the business carried on was Mot all the business of a bank, but only limited, in fact, to an Itten- v.. : klis:Lonnstur was of opinion that the plea was substantially proved—that there was abundant evidence to show that the husi ss. ca rr i e d on at the branch at Drogheda was within the mean -162‘ of. hr , Actor Parliament, and it was also established within !b(% prescribed distance. • A verdict. by his Lordship's direction. was then taken for the Plitintiff.:otr the first and second counts —Damages £l5OO. and a for the defendant on the third. issue, which renders the Plaintiffs unable to recover. •• At EIT V. LAOS.. ~l'ttis War, an action brought by the plaint iff who is a butcher ; :2 thi, town,. and at the sometime carries ti n the African trade '' - Palm nil, &c. to a consider:l l de extent, and was brought, 4 4 , tinst the defendant, f o rmerly Captain of the ship Auteus , for , recovery of El 5. pain durin , his absence in Africa, to his w ,i..r at the rate of £5. per mouth. it was contended that the . 14 aintiff Was not liable for the defendant's wages, but that he to receive them fri.%in ii,Mr. Gregson. For the defence, it \\*" contended that the defendant engaged with a Mr. Ileming- Zlh's' who was on the coast, and th e defendant, as ca p tain, at 0 - * Per . roonth, and that they were jointly his employers, and 1"lotiv liable to him. This was denied, and it was asserted that , L;fendant only went to Hemingway to learn tho- African ar ll'; The contract between the parties was put by the de frrn which it appeared that the defendant was to carry Antens:anil load her for the plaintiff, and afterwards borne and' other vessel for Hemingway. This was signed -` t he plaintiff ; speaking of Hemingway as a partner, as " for s elf anihriartner." Mr. CultsswEt %., on the part of the defend ant, t,fr,„„ d ,„ refer th e t. , hole matter in dispute between He inzwav„N,,,,ll, and the defendant ; the defendant had a '^ ,n n t icter' a llo si,t, rechiV°. This was refused, and the case w tht-J t gry round for the defendant, on the ground %-utit th.3ie was a partnershiri. TIIE QEF,FN V. 1-I•OI.IOF.S. — TNPTCTMENT. of cz t iiltv wag agreed to by consent in this case. t 'xit'itt , itN" A ssiGNEa. v. GLAZEBROOK. 3 3. 11 ," bro . ll!.±ht to recover the amount of £S 2 Us. Ve‘pl a i n iiff A were th e assignees of apersnn named Gard :p uho carried on the wine trade, and in June 1836 the defeat dant became holder of a bill of his, which he vas not able to meet, and by arrangement the.defendant was to have a lien on 5 pipes of wine in his possession, belonging to the bankrupt, as seenrity Gardner failed, and then the defendant also claimed a lio4 on the wine for £B2 17s. 3 , 1. more than the bill, the amount of his accou❑t in business against the bankrupt, and the action was brought to try his right to retain that amount. This cit , ie was not gone into, the plaintiffs being nonsnited by his lordship's direction, on the face of,the bill itself. TOE QUEEN V. NEWTON AND. OTHERS.-INDICTM ENT A verdict of guilty was taken by consent in this case. Mr. Q4ESSWELL said it was perhaps better that he should state publicly the reason why he had exercised his discretion, and did not proceed to the trial of the case against Mr. Lot wyehe at the present assizes. Mr. Lutwyche was a patentee. and carried on the manufacture of alkali, but the process carried on by the other manufacturers was certainly very different to his. The indictment was preferred, coupling him with ,the others, on the supposition that he had been guilty of a nuisance In order that there might he no m i s t a k e, he thought it better that the full effect of the patent should be ascertained to see how the works of the manufactory went on when the other manufac tories had ceased, and he therefore withdrew that record. Mr. ELIA'S, on behalf of Mr. Lutwyche, said Mr. Lutwyche was perfectly convinced that the prosecutors would be satisfied, and he took no step in it whatever. Mr. CRESSWELL said the corporation had no feeling in the matter than the discharge of a public duty, in allowing him to exercise his discretion. DOE DELI SINCLAIR AND OTHERS V. FAIRCIOUGH. This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Sinclair, as owner in fee of certain land at Wavertree, to eject Mr. Fairclough, of Wavertree, fro:n the possession, he being tenant to the devisees in trust before the property was devised to Mr. Sinclair, and holding it under a lease for six years. It appeared that the defendant had expended a large sum on the land in draining and improving it, and that this• lease was not out, and thgrefore he refused to give it up. The, case was gone into, when it appeared that one of the devises in trust named Forsehaw, when he executed the lease with Mr. Fairclough, had ceased to have any title at all to the property. A verdict was taken for . Mr. 'Sinclair's demise, and for the defendant on the two first demises. WILD V. ATHERTON.—BREACII OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. Mr. MuKPI-ir and Mr. JAMES appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ALEX ANDER for the defence. The plaintiff in this case was . a Miss Mary Ann Wild, and the defendant a person named Atherton. The declaration stated, that in consideration of the defendant promising to marry the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to marry him when required, but that be afterwards refused to fulfil that pro►rfise, to which the defendant pleaded first that he did not promise; second that the plaintiff refused to fulfil the promise on her part, and third that the plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed to...rescind the.agree►nent. To the second plea the plaintiff denied that she refused to fulfil her promise, and to the third that She did not agree to rescind. On these pleas issue was joined. ,-.. MURPfiY, in opening the case, said from the pleadings which had ju s t b een rea d, th e jury would gather that this was an action in which the plaintiff, Miss Mary Ann Wild, sought coin pensation in damages from tbe'defenthint, 'Mr. James Athprton„ for a breach of promiseof marriage; and it became his duty to state to them the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff was the daughter of Mr. Wild, residing at Great Homer-street, in this town, and was twenty-six years 'of age. 'She- was not, neither was the defendant;'n person in a very elevated rank of life, but both parties moved in their own station with perfect respectability of conduct and character. It so happened from the reduced circumstances of the plaintiff's' father, she herself had been obliged to resort to the business of a milliner for sub sistence. The defendant, who, was 31 years of age, formerly carried on busin ess as a tobacco n i s t; an a h e (Mr. Murphy) un derstood be had now retired on his income, and was indepen dent. About five Years before the transaction of which they camp there to complain, an intimacy sprung up between the parties, and it would appear before the jury that before that period the defendant was constant in his visits, and that a great deal of intimacy existed between theni. Soinetime in the mid dle of October last the defendant came to tip house of thelplain tiff's father, and there calling for her by , her name enquired if she was at home. It would be in evidence before them that the plaintiff and defendant had an interview in the presence of the mother of the plaintiff— His LDRI)HIP.—I see by your pleadings that• the lady re fused to perform her promise, and that the defendant_ retused to perform his. Is it too late now? (a laugh.) Mr. A LEX AIN DER.-1 have not the least objection to with draw a juror. Mr. MuR 1.1-IY.—Oh ! no my Lord, I am not willing to with draw a juror at all. I will take my friend's undertaking if he will perform the contract, of icourse, as we came here for the breach of it. (To Mr. Alexander, after a pause,) You don't agree. (a laugh.) Mr. A LEX AN DER.-NO. Mr. MURPHY then proceeded. This,negoeiation for a mar riage commenced, and it was finally arranged between the par ties, that that marriage should take place on the second of November. He should show that the proposal was made, and that such was the intention of the defendant, - for he would prove before them, by the deputy register of marriages; that the defendant appeared before him, to obtain a certificate under the new act. And that the names of the plaintiff and himself were entered upon that certificate. The plaintiff accordingly prepared her dresses, and -held herself in feadiness for the per-: formance of the ceremony. He should show that not only did the defendant. not content himself with this, but that, to make assurance doubly sure, he bought a ring and placed it upon the finger of the plaintiff, and in terms as solemn as he could with out the intervention of the marriage laws, stated his intention of !akin , ' her as his wife. The second of November came, but no Mr. Atherton came with it. As was very properly the ease, on the day appointed for the wedding, the lady sent her father in order to get some satisfaction from the defendant for his conduct. The defendant made answer that he was not well, and that .was the only reason he gave for the non-performance of his promise. The father made several applications, and the same answer was given. As might be supposed, this was not a 'very satisfactory answer to the plaintiff, and in order to give him an opportunity-of rectifying his condnct, she wrote a, let ter to him, of which notice had been given to produce the original, as folloWs "Sir,—After allowing things to go so far, I think your con. duct very strange and unaccountable —never having seen or heurti-anything of-you for the lastfortnifzht t understand ray father has seen you several times, but I can get no satisfaction from him, which I think very strange- You must be aware that my feelings are not the most enviable," — lie thought that the jury would agree that they could not be so after such conduct. --"threfore I should think you can have no objection to meet me to explain yourself. If you will take the trouble to walk as far as our house to-morrow, I will be at home all the afternoon; but - if unwell, if you will name any time and place, I will meet you to have things .explained." 'They saw no hurry on her part; she took into consideration that perhaps he was unwell, and she was willing to give him an opportunity pf explaining the matter. " You need nut stay away at all on account of your disap pointment the customs, if that is the only reason.'" It would appear he had been seeking some situation in the t us tOrns and had lost it. " As my father does not choose to give me any satisfaction, I should wish you not to name my having written." On the 10th of November the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant, to which he begged to call their attention. 'the letter bore no signature, and he afterwards stated, that on that account it would be of no importance. But they should show , him that there were, other means of identifying it. It was as follows : " I received your letter last evening, and notified its contents, and no sorry to find that you took . me to be in earnest, as it was only a joke all the time—" He thetighi: the jury would agree with him that it was rather too much to treat as a joke. The letter went on to say " I think it extreme madness in a man out of health, and who has been so for some years, to hare any incumbrance—" The learned counsel contended that, if there was any incum brance, it would be on the plaintiff, and that a man in ill health could be no pleasurable object to her if her feelings were not strongly attached to him. He thought they would agree with him, any of them who had known sickness orsorrow, that so far from a wife being an ineumbrance, she was the greatest soother and consolation. The letter went on "I would have come and spoken to you mySelf, but I am too unwell, au~l I do not know that it is :requisite as these are my sentiments." He thought they would agree with him, that that letter was as heartless an one as could be read in .a court of justice. Some little time after the transacti o n, it would app ear th a t the defend ant, from some little feeling of remorse, requested that the plaintiff would see him at his own 'nouse, which she did, accom panied by a near relation. It would be in evidence before thein that they had• there a private interview. Shortly after, the landlady of the house, a Miss Dutton, went up stairs where the defendant was, instructed by the defendant to treat the matter as a :joke, and one flimsy pretext was afforded by Miss Dutton, that there was an engagement between her and the defendant of some six weeks' standing, and that she had the first claim, thus treating - the plaintiff with contumely; when she, in a mo ment of irritation did break out with the expression, "Well, then, this is too bad; I will make him pay for this ;" and he would give his learned friend the benefit of that. The plaintiff had been deeply affected tiv'the slight put on her. and was unable in consequence to follow her usual occupation. No eloquence of his friend could get over the plain unvarnished fact, that here was a young and innocent female nearly de stroyed by the slight and contumely which had been put upon her. They did not come there to demand vindictive damages. They had placed them at the low amount of £2OO, which was all they required. He should show that the defendant had himself said he Would al/oW the plaintiff 30s. 'a week for hnusekeeping, and that ho h..• 1 g.•>t ,Csi4l) kosi , lon hip), awl had £5OO more. ho could get, and if that was -not enough he could get plenty more. lie called on the jury to teach the defendant notagain _to treat lightly the feelings of any female. He could ask no dompeiisa lion for the injured feelings of the plaintiff, because the jury could not give it. He called Mrs. Lydia Wild, examined by Mr. JAMES.—Was the mo ther of the plaintiff, who was aged 26, and resided with' her, and had been on terms of intimacy for four or five years with the defendant.• . She recollected the defendant coming to their house one Saturday, in October last, at the latter end. He asked for Mary Ann, and saw her, she being present. Mr. JAstEs.—Will you state what the defendant said to the plaintiff? Witness.—He asked her if she would have him—if she would marry, him ? Mr. JAMES.—Did she make any reply.? • Witness.— He asked her several times before she made any reply. Itlr..T A NI ES —What was that reply ? Witness.—She did not make any objection. Ills Lontisinp.—What did she - say ? . Witness.—He asked her to say yes or no. and she said yes ! After this he went away. He came again on the following day, and she was present at the interview, but did not hear any of their conversation. He came again on the Monday folltivving, accompanied •by his brother. He did not say anything in the presence of his brother; his brother then went away, and he took a ring out of his pocket and gave it to her daughter to put on. She put it on, and he asked her if it fitted her, and she said yes, aod.gay.e it him back again. She (witness) asked him if he had told his brother what his errand ,vas, and he said he had, and that his brother thought it was a very good thing for him. She asked him if he had told Mrs. Heath, his sister ? He said he had, and she thought very well of it too. He then wished'a day fixed,.and it was fixed that the, marriage should take place on thefollowing Thursday, the 2d of November, and the ring was given by the plaintiff to the defendant that night. Her daughter, made the necessary preparations for the occasion, and she assisted her as much as she could. The defendant never came as arranged; and the marriage did not take place as ar ranged, and her daughter had not been like the same girl ever since. She was a. bonnet maker, and since that time had not been able to attend to her business as usual. She attributed her illness to depression of spirits. She had formerly good health. Cross-examined.—She never saw or visited any of the defend ants family but him. , He was a good deal at their house.. Samuel Wild. examined by Mr. MURPHY. He was the father of the plaintiff, and had been acquainted with the defen dant 5 or 6 years, and his daughter had known him for abont the same lerigth of time. The intimacy between the plaintiff a,nd the ..defendant first took place at his house, the defendant being in the habit of visiting, at his house almost daily. In the month of October last, one (lay on his going home to dinner, Mrs. Wild told him that' Mr. Atherton was in the hnuse and wanted to speak with him. He went to him, and then Mr. Ath erton toll him he had an intention cif marryin. his daughter,. nil wanted to Snow whelk,;(" he' hail any objection. ile (wit ness) told ; hint that his (laughter was old enough she must please herself. 11,, said that he had beenspeaking to Mr. Mar tineau, the minister of the chapel, and that he had referred hint to the registrar, and that he had been there, and enterered the marriage in the books for the 2d of November. He (witness) 'said' to him, " You must be aware she .has no fortune of her self, what means have you to snpport a wife?" He said he had . sufficient to allow her 30s. a week to keep house on, and had 'E535 by him then. He (witness) told him he thought that would be very little towards supporting a family? The defen dant answered that he had £5OO more, and when that was done he could'get plenty more. He then asked him (witness) what it would cost to furnish a house? and he replied that a moderate small house might probably cost him £6O or £lOO. No mar riage took place with his daughter as arranged. He was the defendant on the Sunday following the day appointed for the wedding. He asked him no questions; he merely went to hear what he had to say for himself. He was in his bed room. The defendant told him he was unwell, and he did not intend to be married, and had not been out since Thursday. He saw him again on the Sunday following, and he then said, he had written to his daughter, but did not put his name to it, and it was of no consequence. The letter produced,,was in the defen dant's hand writing. (The letter of the defendant, read by Mr. Murphy in his opening, dated the 10th of Nov., 1837, was then put iu and read.) The defendant was in no business at pre sent ; he had formerly, about 4 years ago, been in business as a tobacconist in an extensive way, and had, since then, been liv ing,upon his property in a respectable way. Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.,-There had been much intercourse between him and the defendant for the last few years. .He (witness) was clerk to Mr. Grace, the plaintiff's attorney, and had been so for nearly two years. Mr. ALEX A NDER.—What are your wages. Witness.—But moderate; £25 a year. I got all I asked for. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you get about 10s. a week r Witness.—Yes sir. ' ' Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you mean to say that Mr. Grace's al lowance to you is les. a week. Witness.—lt is no more. ' Mr. ALEXANDER.--Is it less? Witness.—lt is Bs. ; Sometimes more. Mr. ALEXAN DER.—Does he not gis'e you something settled ? Witness.—There are sometimes perquisites. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Perquisites be fiddled. Is it not Gs. a week ? Witnessi—No, Bs. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Haye you not been in the habit fora nuniber,of years of drinking with this Atherton, the defendant? Witness.--No, sir. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Have you not been in the constant habit of drinking with this man at different public-houses at his ex pense ? Witness.—Yes, I have. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Frequently ? Witness.—Yes, frequently. The defendant was a man of temperate habits, but had not been so for the last three months. He had been clerk with Mr. Grace, the attorney, two years; before then he was in no em ployment, and his family supported him. The perquisites he got at Mr. Grace's office were when peolde Caine and gave him a shilling, or something of that sort. His eldest daughter was a dress-maker, and was the principal support ()false family, and all the household goods belonged to her. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Upon your oath when your landlord, Mr. 1 Walker, came to distrain for rent, did not your daughter say you were nothing? Witness.—No, sir. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did not Mr. Walker distrain on these goods? Witness.—No.- The landlord distrained for rent he said I owed him, upon her property, and we brought an action, and received a verdict. Mr. ALEXANDER.—HOW much . did you get? Witness.—A farthing! Mr. ALEXANDER.—Caa Vou tell me on what point of law you got that? Witness.—l don't know what that has to do with it. • He got a' farthing, and did not get any-censure from the court. The defendant had gone over to America about three years ago, and was there about twelve months, and his family knew nothing of it. Mrs. Murrow was the wife of a fellow clerk in Grace the attorney's office, in which he was. His daughter was a straw-bonnet maker, and occupied the upper part of the house, and formerly a small shop was kept below by his wife, the property in it, which was not worth £5, belonging to his daughter. Mr. ALEXANDER.—What was dealt with in the shop ? Sugar lollvpops, or something of that kind? Witness.—Yes. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did parched peas forma part of what was sold ? (Loud laughter.) Witness.—l dare say they did. Mr. ALEXANDER.- - 15 the defenria.nt a bright man ? • Witness.—l don't"think he is; they are none of 'em bright,— none of the family. Mr. ALEXANDER.—I dare say not. I should not say that of the family of Mr. Wild. Was he not almost childish ? . Witness.—No, sir. Mr. A LEXANDEst.—Upon your oath was he not a perfect im becile ? . Witness.—No, sir; he was able to take care of himself ever since 1 knew him. ' Re-examined.—His daughter was in a good way of, business, but since this transaction she had not earned 205., she was so very unwell. By his Lott OSHIP.—His (laughter was not saving, money. Ills LoRDSHIP.—Have you perceived any attachment going on between your daughter and the defendant. Witness.—Why, he has very frequently walked with us to chapel with her in my presence, when we have gone altogether. His LORDSHIP.—Nothing more than that? . - Witness.—No, sir. Mrs. Agnes Siddle Morrow examined.—She was acquainted with both the plaintiff 'and defendant in this action, and was a cousin to the plaintiff. She had been in the habit of frequently visiting the plaintiff's house. She remembered going there (luring the month of November last, about the 13th of November. She sent with the plaintiff to Mr. Atherton's lodgings ; where she saw .Mr.,Atherton. _The plaintiff and defendant, were not in her presence together the whole of the time, they iveVe auesa half an hour away, when they came into her presence. She t hen heard him say that he would not have her cousin—that he did not intend to marry , that if ever be did, that lady (pointing to Miss Dutton, the landlady) . should be his wife. Miss Dutton was an elderly person. M r..At EXANDER. —ln your brief site is put:down at sixty-six. (A laugh.) Miss Dutton said it was all a joke, and her cousin said it should be a dear joke to him. He said he supposed she in tended to law. him, but if she did he should employ some of the first men in Liverpool against it. The letter handed in was a copy of a letter sent by her cousin to Mr. Atherton s she put the original in the postoffice herself. (The letter of the plaintiff read by Mr. Murphy in his opening address was then put in and read.) Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—The writing of a letter (which he gave to her) was in her (witnesses) hand. She - wrote both the letters. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Then which was it you put into the post office—this or the other . ? Mr. MURPHY.—I object to that. I gave notice to produce the original. Mr. ALEXANDER. —Oh, no; that is a totally different letter. which you sent to us. Mr. 111 URPH Y.—l must insist that that is the letter which is proved. , Mr. ALEXANDER.—She has proved both. HIS LORDSHIP,—Are they different? Mr. ALEXANDER.—Yes, my lord. His LORDSHIP (to witness.) —How came you to swear that that was a copy of the letter? ' Witness.—My lord, I wrote two letters; two letters went to Mr. Atherton. Mr..ALExaNDER.—YeII wrote two letters, did you? What, both sm the same day? Witness . * --Why, I wont -Mr.' ALEXANDER.—What time was there between the two you wrote ? . Witness.—Three weeks or a fortnight, I should think; per haps a month. I can't sae. Mr. Atherton lodged at Miss Dutton's on the 19th November, %Alen she went to see him. After the defendant had been up stairs with the plaintiff, he came down and asked her (witness) to go up stairs, and also Miss Dutton ; she went up stairs hut Miss Dutton remained down, but soon afterwards came up when sent for, and asked, " what did you want with me ?" She (wit ness) said to her, we are at a loss, for Mr. Atherton has some thing to say to you which will satisfy us. Miss Dutton then went down, for she said she did not know what it was, and she believed Mr. Atherton had sent her up to make a fool of her. In about five or ten minutes she came up again and said, she believed one of us young ladies was one of the young ladies that Mr. Atherton had been having a joke about. Mr. AsEx A N DER.—Did she say that Mr. Atherton was placed in a very awkward situation, for it is not more than six weeks that he promised me; I ain first on the last ? Witness.—Yes. Mr. A LEXA NDEtt. —I suppose you and Miss Wild looked very gloomy upon that ? Witness.—i don't deny we did. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did you not say you are both better without him, as he is only halfwitted and crazy at times? Witness.—No, I did-not, I believed he was more knave than fool. . Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did not Miss Dutton say your courtship must have bean a very short one, it has only lasted a few days. Witness.—Yes. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Then you took up the conversation and Said,'but we have known him for six or seven years ? Witness.—l said my cousin had known faint, and the ac , quaintance had been for six or seven years. not have supposed he would have made your . Mr. ALEXANDER.—And did you notgoon onto say, a yo fo n o w h o b u u ld t fool if ? were your cousin you would make him pay for his Witness.—Yes, I certainly did say so. Mr ALEXANDER.—Did not your cousin say, but I have not done with him vet? Witness.—l don't recollect it. ALEXANDER.—Did his r..E p X r, A )p N e D r E t fall Ann i n I would be h f a o v r e e . we go away? ha A lf ir Of Witness.— I don't recollect. y R ; -" l p sh id ou n i o d t lL ° e ll l s o aY se l e i h a i r l y n His IA RUSH I P.—Mrs. Morrow, how can you recollect part of the conversation and you don't recollect that ? Witness made no answer, and the question was repeated. . Witness.—Perhaps I might say so. (Laughter.) Mr. ALEXANDER.—Now, then, did you not follow it atp by saying. " I suppose he has run away, and won't come near any more?" Witness—No, I did not; I won't swear it. Mr. ALEXANDER.—DRs not Mrs. Dutton say, " I don't think so ?" Witness.—She had been to look for him, as we should like to see him before we went assay—she could not find him. •Mr. ALEXANDER.--Was not this your conversation, " Mary Ann, if he conies again, do say you will have half of his proper ty, and yoy will soon see him tall at your feet?"—(Laughter.) Witness —No, I did no! say that. Mr. A sExANDER.—Then what was it you said? Witness.—l said nothing like it. Mr. ALEXANDER—Supposing that to have been said, did not Miss Wild say, " I have not done with him so soon as he may think ?" . Witness.—Yes, perhaps she might say that. His Lounsuic.—You very often say, "perhaps she might." Mr. ALEXANDER—Did not Miss Dutton say, " I don't think Atherton is a rich man ?" • Witness.—She said he was not a rich man. . . Mr. ALEXANDER—Then tell me whether you did not say, " Oh, he has a deal of property; we are certain of that, for we know, all his affairs; he has 1.:500,in property in Manchester, and he has got to receive some money from the bank ?" Witness.—No, I did not say that. That I knew he bad pro perty for he was living on it. Mr. A LEXANDER-Did you not say he had £5OO to receive ' front a house in Manchester? I Witness.—Yes, I said I knew that. THE fiVERPOOT, STANDARD. Witness.—/sto. Mr. Mußpuy.-Oh. Mr, ALEX A N DEl2.—But nothing. about the bank? • . Witness—No, sir. Mr. A LUX A NDRR.—While you were going on in this discus sion, did not the 111111 - himself appear? Witness.— Yes, sir. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you recollect his saying then, " I think Mrs. Murrow and Miss Wild, you are very fiiolish in coming here—" Witness.—No, sir., Mr. ALEXANDER Witness—No sir. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Nothing like that ?—No. You are quite clear of that ?—Yes -" As I never intended to have you ?" Mr. ALEXANDER.—D►id he not go on, "For h am going to marry that lady, (pointing to Miss Dutton, for I would never have any body else ?" Witness.—Yes, sir. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Did you not march up and down the room with your umbrella in your hand, and say, ," If he had served me in that manner, I would take this umbrella and give him two black eyes ?"—( Loud laughter.) Witness.—No, sir, I did not. Mr. AL6XANDEII.—Why, did not Miss Dutton say "why surely you would not act the young lady yourself?" Witness.—l never heard it. I might perhaps have the um brella in my hand. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Supposing you to have said if he had served you so yo❑ would give him, with this umbrella, two black eyes, did not. Miss Dutton say, "do you serve your husband so." (A laugh.) Witness.—No, this is news to me. Mr. ALEXANDE.II.—And did you not answer "no, for I asked him if he would have me, and he consented?" (Loud laughter.) Witness.—No, sir. Mr. ALEXANDEIt.—Did you not say to Miss Wild, ".Mary Ann, you and I are better without Mn," and 'then leave the roam. Mr. ALEXANDER.—What was the parting observation? Witness.--"My parting observation was, if I had any influ ence-over my husband he should give him a good thrashing, for I thought it a great pity that she had no brother that could do it ? (Laughter.) No one else was in the room. A man came in and brought a glass of brandy to Mr. Atherton, that was all. By His LORDSHIP.—Now attend to me, and answer me the truth. Is Mr. Atherton a handsome man ?—Not to my fancy. Is he'remarkably the other wayy—No, sir, he is not. You have been asked a question if he was a silly fellow ?—Miss Dutton said she was sure Miss Wild would not like an illiterate mart,_ and she was sure Mr. Atherton was so. Now, I ask you is not Mr. Atherton a silly fellow ?—I can't say. You give us no an swer; is he not a silly fellow?—He is not a man to my taste, neither mind, nor body. You told us so before; do you think he is a sensible man ?—Yes, in his conversation in many re spects; he is not what you would call a clever man. No, I sup pose not; my question was if he was nut the other way P—No, sir, I don't think he is. Mr. ,Pennell was called, the superintendent registrar of mar riages. On the 2-4th of October the defendant gave a notice of marriage at his office, siuning the certificate "John Atherton," and filling it up with the name of Miss Mary Ann Wild. He produced the certificate. Cross-exatnined.—The defendant appeared to him to be tipsy when he signed the certificate. There was something peculiar about his manner, and he wanted him in consequence to come again at another time, but he refused. He never made his ap pearance afterwards. His LORDSHIP.—Mr. Alexander you cannot contend for a verdict. Mr. ALES:ANDER.—Does your Lordship thiok not? His LorinsiiiP.—Certainly. Impossible. You cannot say that the promise has not been made. After this you cannot say he was not competent to snake his promise. Mr. ALEXANDER.--My lord, he is as mad as a March hare. I have his medical attendants and nurses to prove it. His LoansHiP.—Whether or no, you cannot find fault with this. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Then the question will be, whether da mages or nominal damages. His Lounsuir.—l think so. Mr. ALEXANDER thenTo.s7for the defence. He commenced by complimenting his friend Mr. Murphy on his effective ad• dress on behalf of the plaintiff; supposing her to be as stated, an injured woman, and it was no fault of his learned friend's if his observations did not become applicable. He could not help regretting that his learned friend had not been ptit in possession of the state of the defendant for the last five or six years, because he would have felt convinced that his observations, however just on other occasions, would not bear the test of inqiiiry on this. There was not a man who had heard his friend describe the cold-blooded heartlessness which attended the conduct and character of him who could deceive a woman and did not feel what his learned friend had said. There was not a person who had heard him talk of (he sufferings of his client, in consequence of her firm and deeply rooted a tt ac h men t t o th e person and mind of the man who had wronged her, but felt that these would have been powerful topics, and would have told well in a case to which they were applicable • but this not being the case, he could only compliment his friend, which he did most cordially, and trusting that his eloquence would enable him to paint a case not like this, but a case when another lady sued for another injury. ' But now let them look at the case as it really was, and they would find it, by the plaintiff, ' a gross attempt on the part of the father to induce a weak-minded silly m an—now attempt ing to Commit suicide— Mr. MURPHY' here rose. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Do you mean to object? I mean to call evidence. Mr. ALEXANDER i.!Ontinued.—This was a case which called forth a great deal more of pity and sorrow, than of laughter and of joy. He should be very much inclined indeed to feel for the plaintiff if he could believe that the non•acquisition of this per son in marriage had had any thing like the effect that the father and mother made no scruple in telling them it bad, and that from the period when he broke off the match she had been un able to obtain her livelihood. They had heard very severe cases of breach of promise of marriage, in which some rational per son, possessed of a loveable person, had been the offending party; but that was irrational to this case, where the defendant was not a rational being, and whose person was not loveable, and yet who was said to have had the effect of making the plain tiff totally incapable of following her business since. The fa ther and mother described her as completely borne down by the effects of her attachment, so that she had.not eat fled 20s in her trade since. Why, Hann v was.ths_wam"rur That was not long a-donig," ' - with a vengeance, if this were true. What did the father tell them? The first time he had any notion of his daughter being under any engagement to the defendant was at the close of Oc tober, when the defendant asked his consent to marry her. This was the first intimation of any attachment between the defendant and the daughter; and so instantly ripened into full bloom this little bud which showed itself in October, that there was notice given immediately to the registrar of marriages, the ring was purchased, and they seemed in a mighty hurry to get hold of this man, be it right or wrong. The ground was broken on the 17th October, and the wedding was fixed for the 2 , 1 of November; and then, never such ruin ! She is broken ! down to t ha grave because the defendant did not keep his pro mise. lie (Mr. Alexander) could understand an affection that for year after year had gratified itself with one sole object—a beloved individual ; that year after year had been waiting the occurrence of the moment when the same feelings and wishes should be kindred to both; he could understand that very well, and the height to which a woman's affection could be raised, and the-depth to which she would fall if that affection met with the treacherous conduct imputed to the defendant on this occa sion. High feelings, and warm passions and a cultivated mind, he could then fancy unfitted, by such imputed treachery, for the ordinary business of life. But for Miss Wild's sufferings, well wayed in the world, selling straw bonnets above, and com fits and lolly pops on the ground floor, without any previous at tachment to the 17th of October—that by the mere force of her own feelings—her deeply wounded afections, from that time forwards the straw bonnets, the comfits, and the lolly-pops had all been neglected, and. not 20s. worth of work done—it was ri diculous and disgusting; and with that observation he dismissed that part of the case. But let them see how the case stow'. on the father's own evidence. lie presented himself before them as the clerk for the plaintiff's attorney, Grace; as the relation of Marrow, another clerk with Grace-the attorney for the plain tiff—as the person who, for 5 years, had been fattening at the expense of the defendant, and who told them that the defendant was with him every day during that time, and that he was al ways drinking at the defendant's expense— he cool I easily con ceive such a character as that considering within himself, how far the easy circumstanced man, who, according to the evidence of Mrs. Murrow, had £5OO to receive at Manchester. and who, according to the evidence of the father, had another £5OO else where—hecould easily conceive him saying to himself—" would not this be a nice spec for one of my daughters ? Here is one that 1 have lived upon for 5 years. There is my daughter Mary Ann would make a very nice wife,for him. To be sure, he is no conjuror • but then he has got this £5OO at Manchester, and another £5O O elsewhere." He (Mr. Alexander) could con ceive this, though, when he put the question to hint, he denied it. He could conceive that person slily suggesting to the object of his design—how comes it that you remain a single man ? —why should you not come and live comfortably at our house? Mary Ann would make a capital wife fur you." He could imassama the silly soft defendant saying, — "do you think she woulcrLave me ?'' and the father replying—" Oh ! yes, a respec table man like you—by the bye, what have you got to keep a wife ? Ilad you not better come and call at the house and see Mary Ann? Yon don't come so often as you used to do." He would ask the jury if that was not a probable way in which this had been done, and this he charged as the design of the pa rents and daughter. The defendant then came to the house; and then let them only observe the way in which this delicate minded woman—she who was going fast to the grave in conse quence of. her not being able to obtain the hand of the defen dant. It was so curious a description of courtship, that he would not trust to memory, but give it in the graphic words of the mother. Now here was the description of courtship be tween the lady of the delicate feelings, who had not been able to attend to her business since, and who was asking, what his friend called the very moderate damages of £2OO for the injury she had sustained. " In October last, the defendant came to our house on a Saturday; he asked for Mary Ann; he saw her in my presence." Extremely proper; you know she was a witness • that was necessary. " He asked her if she would marry witness; That was coming, he thought, to the point at once. The father told them that till the application to him in October, he had never the least notion of any thing between them. Here was a man, who, without any previous co urtshi p , went into a room—and they would not be mistaken—Mrs. Marrow had told them that she was perfectly unaware that there was anything! between the parties—that she was not in her cousin's confidence, though she was to write her letters and take them herself to the Post-office, to prove a breach of promise of marriage—yet what had passed previously between the plaintiff and the defendant nei ther father, nor mother, nor cousin have the least notion till the question was popped. It was a lesson for the young, and a caution to the men! The mother stated—" He asked her if she would marry hint?" Only think of this silly fellow standing up ?" No answer. urinthemile rien ofa i ro a o g m ain, , and saying, " Will you marry me you marry me, Mary Ann ?" No answer. Then a third time, " Will you marry the?" (Loud laughter.) At last she says—" Yes." (Continued laughter.) Now that attained he went away. But more; he came again next day, and she did not hear the con versation then. Now here was a conversation to charge a rational man with—a person who was in the possession of his faculties, and not subject to delusion—a man sufficient to make a lady heart-broken, becauSe he had broken his promise ! Mary Ann, will you marry me ?" No answer. " Mary Ann, will you'marry me?" .i)io answer. Then, perhaps repeated a third time—" Mary Ann, will you marry me ?" " Yea, I will," and then he goes away. (Great - laughter.) He came next day with his brother; but nothing was said about the wedding be fore the brother; and he should prove to them that neither the brother nor sister knew anything about it. The 2d of Nossem ber came and they weie anxiously listening for every cab to bring the bridegroom. " Why tarry his wheels ? " __, would be said more than once on such an occasion as that. He does not come; they wait a day or two, and then the father goes and finds him in bed ; and he says, " I am very sorry I could not come, I am exceedingly in.'''. Would that be the conduct of a man:stich as his friend had described him, a man calculated to break the heart of a woman ? or the conduct of a man who was the miserable being that . the witneaaers , he should ,Call would prove he was? They allow some time to go over; and then it became necessary to have another. witness of the breach of n promise of urriag,e, because 'it would not look well that the father and in:dher should be the only, witnesses. The heart broken lady sits down; and Mrs. Morrow writes to the defend ant, and ne was glad to find the pOst-mark on the letter of the Srh of November. It was as follows: ' " understand that you were at our house last Satur day we ek, though I never heard till Agn e s t o ld me , m y mo th er having' kept it quite Secret. She - is now at Manchester, and I shall he quite alone all the week, any day but Wednesday, if you wish to see me, or have anything to say."— This heart-broken person; "if you wish to see me, or have anything to say !" "',cannot get out, as I am left sole housekeeper,"-- Poor distracted thing ! according to his friend's notion, the disappointment had unfitted her for anything afterwards. "You will oblige me by not showing this to Miss Dutton. "M. A. W." Now that letter was sent on the Bth of November by her to the defendant, but it was not in terms so satisfactory as a jury should have laid before them. That letter was the letter of a woman who was quite ready, if he would call any day in the week, when quite alone, to enter into the matter. That would not do for a jury, so they must have the letter cooked up. Now let them see what was sworn she put into the post-office. They would observe that his friend had asked him to produce the fol lowing letter which he said he could not as he never had it. " Copy, Nov. 9th, 1837." Now if they examined this copy they would find that the date was Nov. 8, and would see that the 8 had been altered into 9. They appeared to have forgot the day the real letter was sent. The letter which had been sent bore the post mark of the Bth of Nov. which could not de ceive them. - This asserted copy was dated Nov. 9th, and they would find was much more carefully penned to come before a jury. (Mr. Alexander then read the letter read by Mr. Murphy in his opening, and stated by him to have been sent). Now this letter was much more touching than the other; no doubt of it. If the jury would look at both of these letters he would ask them whether or not the' real letter sent was that which bore the post mark of Nov. 8. The other letter had been put in and read in evidence as more touching in its character when they thought the real letter was not forthcoming. Was that perjury ?—a letter got up for the occasion and sworn to—got up to lay before them a detail of the anxiety and feeling on the part of this young lady. He would tell them now in a few words the substance of the evidence he should call before them on behalf of the defendant. The defendant from his youth tip wards was a person of imbecile mind; extremely weak. Whilst j his parents were alive, under some degree of control. He was not exactly an idiot—not a lunatic, hut a person of extremely weak capacity. and one who would be called a silly fellow. When about 24 years of age, his mother having died he deter mined to enter into business and his friends could not prevent him, but engaged a shrewd person, Mr. Butler, to act as his traveller and manage it for him, and be his factotum. After a very short time he gave up business, having Last money, and then went away to America for 12 months. never telling his friends who knew not where he was, till he presented himself on his return at his brother's house, and said he had been to Ame rica and back again. They asked him how long he staid there? "Oh, only two or three days*" " Why did you Come back ?" " Why the buys bit me so that I came back again." He lived with his family again, and then his disease assumed a melan choly turn, and he endeavoured to commit suicide. He gut a pair of pistols, and the family were in constant jeopardy from his threatening to shoot tnem. He then became chiLdlsh, and his old nurse was engaged, who din ing his Moments of weak ness put him to bed. H. was furious when any one else ap proached him but his nurse. He should prove what his con viction was by his medical man, and what his intellect was by his schoolmaster, ana he should then ask the jury whether they could doubt for a moment that this had been an attempt on the part of the plaintiff's father, mother, and herself, to en trap a person who seemed able to allow thirty shilings a week for house keeping, which would be an immense fund to the father with his Bs. a week wages, and not a farthing else in the world. The jury would judge whether this was one of those bona fide cases in which a promise had been given by a rational being to a confiding trusting creature; or whether it was not a wretched, disgraceful, and discreditable job on the part of these people, by means of the daughter, the cousin, and mother, to get, without the incumbrance of marriage, a portion of the pro perty of the defendant. He called-- Dorothy Wilson who had lived servant in Mr. Atherton's family for eight or nine years, and since she had left the family had been in the habit of visiting them constantly. She knew the defendant when he was only ten years of age. He was a boy his mother always took more care of than his brothers, as ,he was not exactly sharp. When his brothers and sisters were grown up, they got married, and then about five years ago, the defendant went to live in lodgings, and she had been requested to attend him as his nurse. He was sometimes iu a low way, and sometimes in an excited way. She used to aooth him, and quieten him, and reason with him. She remembered his sav ing he had pistols, and when she was sat at his bed side his pointing his finger at her, like a pistol, and saying he would shoot her. She told him not to talk so, and got him soothqd down. As a boy he was always temperate, but after he knew Wild, the plaintiff's father, whenever he went out with him he returned tipsy. She never considered him in a sound state of mind since she knew him. He was easily imposed on. This witness was cross-examined at some length, but nothing contrary to her evidence was elicited. Eliza Steward,Thi; — godmotheTWf the defendant; George Edgar, assistant to the late Mr. Winstanley, schoolmaster, where the defendant was at school; Mrs. Catherine Heath, his sister, and Mrs. Ann Atherton his sister in-law, all spoke t o the defendant' s b e i ng a wea k imbecile man; what the school master called a " soft fellow." As a boy at school, he 'never could learn, and used to have a perpetual smile on his face, which made boys half the size of himself teaze him, and he was continually complaining to the master of little boys greatly less than himself, beating him, and teazing him. His LORDSHIP here endeavoured to stop the case, by asking Mr. Murphy if be could go against such evidence. Mr. Murphy replied, that he was in the hands of his clients, and they in sisted on his going on. The case then proceeded, and 1)r. Patrick Joseph Murphy was called. He had been practis ing as a physician in Liverpool, for a number of years, and in November last, was called on to attend the defendant. He fuind him deranged in mind, an d labo.iring under delirium tremens produced by drink. He attended 'him till the symptoms of delirium tremens had left him, and then ceased his attendance, considering that he required more of moral restraint than me dical attendance. He told the family to keep all weapons out of his ampinit suicide. tie was completely mum e, and his opinion as, ue v. as out au._ his own affairs. His opinion was that, if he had children he would transmit his state of mind to them. He considered it to be an hereditary disease, and that he ought by no means to marry. Cross-examined.—His mental disease was not such as would arrise from a disappoitment in matrimony. That was melan cholia, of which he had seen some very bad cases. Mr. A LuxAstoßrt here said, he would not trouble his lordship with more witnesses. • Mr. Wilma Y then rose in reply, and spoke with much vehe mence on behalf of his client, contending that it was a conspiracy on the part of the defendant's friends to prove the defence they had done • and that the feelings of th e p l a i nt iff ought to be respecte d , though she was poor—that there ought not to be one law for the rich and another for the poor. This statement, with which he concluded, produced a burst of applause from the crowd in the court, which was immediately checked by His LORDSHIP, who proceeded to charge the jury. He put it to the jury to place themselves in the position of fathers, and say what damages they should think their daughters had sus tamed in losing such a man for a husband. When a woman had for a long time given her affections to another person, and her affections became wrapped up in him, and she looked for ward to the time when she might become his wife, and then he wantonly left her, he committed such an injury to her as would call for very serious damages. But what was the case here ? There was no long attachment; the marriage was talked of without any previous feeling of the sort in the presence of the mother, the ring was bought and a day was fixed. As far as they could judge, where was the evidence of wounded affection in that case? Did any one believe that under such circum stances any great attachment could subsist between the plain tiff and defendant? He owned far himself he could not per ceive that there was the least regard between the one and the other. What had she lost? Had she lost a man likely to raise her in life, to support her, to cheer her, to be her guide, and to be her companion for life ? He advised them to give ample damages for all the injury she had sustained; if none, then undoubtedly theyought to give the lowest coin in the land. 'l'he jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one farthing, coupled with an opinion that it ought:to carry costs. A strong feeling of disgust appeared to pervade the court as the case was proceeded with, and it soon became evident that it was a Barden v. Pickwick case in more points of resemblance than one. We have perhaps givbn it more space than its im portance merits; but it is, as Mr. Alexano... described it, " a caution to men" how such things are got up. NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY. COHAN AND ANOTHER V. HUGHES.—THE ART OF JEWiNG• The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Cohan and Camp. formerly' carried on business as bill brokers, and the defendant is a builder, who was accustomed to get bills discounted at their establishment. The action was brought for the recovery of a sum of £l9 Ids on a bill of exchange, which it was alleged they hrd taken up for the defendant, and be had never reimbursed them, they holding the bill as a debt. against hint. It appeared that originally the defendant brought to the plaintiffs a bill for £l6 and a fraction to discount, drawn be Messrs. Miller and Blackey, builders, and accepted by lite ilefendant. This bill it was alleged was retired dishououre.il by the plaintiffs, and that another bill was given to the plaintiffs to cover the amount of the former one and expenses, and also to cover an item of £2 4s 11(1 for cloth, making the second bill £l9los, which it was alleged was also dishonoured, and for which the plaintiffs brought the present action. These transactions took place. in 1832, since which time Messrs. Cohan and Camp had become insolvent, but having got out of their difficulties, brought the present action. A witness, named Thomas Herbert, was called for the plaintiffs, who swore point blank that the money was bona fide advanced to retire the first bill, and that the cloth was sold to the defendant, which made the amount £l9 Ills. The amount of the price for the cloth being £24s lid, for 1 yard 3 quarters and 1 nail. On cross-examination, however, it ap peared that Cohan and Camp held the bill said to be retired, and merely laid down the money on the counter to retire it, and took it up again. The amount was not for interest which was charged for• cloth. He had since left the service of Cohan and Camp. Mr. CRESWELL, for the defence, commented on the evidence of this witness severely. Messri. Cohan and Camp, who might have the letter S prefixed to the latter name, shtuild not have parted with a servant who bad so convenient a conscience, and who might become a formidable rival to them in their trade. He contended, that leaiing out of the question the cloth, which might be another name for illegal and exorbitant iuterest, the bill had actually been paid, and Mr. Hughes for six years had never heard any thing whateVer about it. He called both Mr. Miller and Mr. Mackey, who both swore that six years ago they owed Mr. Hughes upwards of £lOO, and, by his request, went to Messrs. Cohan and Camp, and paid to them £2O to re tire the very bill for which the present action was brought, three weeks before it became due; that Mr. Cohan said the bill was in circulation, but he would take care and retire it when it be came due. They remained indebted to Mr. Hughes £9l lls after the bill had been paid. The jury, without troubling his lordship to sum up, or waiting an instant, found a verdict for the defendant. PLUMBS V. BUCHANNAN• This was an action brought for the recovery of a debt of £4l 10s. Od. for 5 years rent of some premises near Orniskirk. For the defence it was contended that the title of the landlord was in dispute, and even now pending .on a chancery suit, and the defendant might have to pay the rent twice over if he paid it at all. Verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount. WILMOT V. WILSON-ASSIGNEE The plaintiff in this case is a timber merchant, at St. John's, New Brunswick, and the defendants are the assignees of Mr. Robert Wilmot, his son, who, for some time; carried on busi ness in Liverpool, as a general commission agent •and mer chant; but became involved. At this time the father sent over another son,. Mr. John Lemuel 'Wilmot, with two cargoes of timber consigned to his order, and , which 'Mr. John Lemuel Wilmot, on arrivinc in England, sent to Messrs. Beyson and Oyer, timber merchants of London, for sale. Hearing of his brother's difficulties, he came r. ‘ lown to Liverpool with a view to endeavour to snake a settlement of his arldits on a deed of inspectorship; and agreed, provided his brother's affairs were wound up under this deed, to transfer the cargoes of um ber, consigned to his order by hid father. tot,ite inspectors, for the benefit of his brother's creditors. Bet if the inspectorship did not go on, then that this transfer of the timber should be void. The inspectorshin went off, and his brother was' made a bankrupt; •and then the defendants, his assignees, claimed the two cargoes of timber on the ground of their being given up fort the benefit of the creditors. - Messrs. Boyson and Oyer re ceived notices from the parties that they. would be respo ns ibl e for the amo un t of the timber, which Still remained , iu their' hands. For the defence it was stated that the father in Ame rica and the son' in Liverool were joint traders, making mutual consignments "to each other, one. in timber and the•other in Manchester goods; and that the father - was largely indebted to the son, and the two cargoes in question, were, in fact, con signments to him, and belonged to his cre - ditots. ' His LORDSHIP said the defendants could not go against the bill of lading of the cargoes in question, which specifically con signed them to the order of John Lemuel Wilniot, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff. • . , BARRER AND ANOTHER V. TAYLOR. This was an action brought to recover damages on a quantity' of cotton shipped by the Romulus, to the defendant. Ou its ar rival in Live, pool, the defendant made a tender to the consignees to accept the bill of liidint. , „ but the cotton not being landed it was refused, and the defendant repudiated the cotton. It wrs con-. tended by the defendant that the bill of lading was not tendered in reasonable time-4hat it ought to have been tendered within 24 hours after the arrival of the cotton, according to the usage of the place. Witnesses werl .called as to this point, who proved generally that the case Was one of such unusual occur rence, that there was no such .usage. The case was then agreed to be argued on a point of law, as to what should consti tute a reasonable time of tender of the bill of lading, un atx article of fluctuating value like cotton, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, damages £3OOO, subject to a special case. HOENBY V. STUI3BS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a clergy man, to recover compensation from the defendant, for setting his premises on fire, by means of a locomotive engine. It ap peared, that the plaintiff's premises, called Alderhrooke.Farm, are situated on the Warrington Railway line, and the defend ant's locomotive engines ply on that line. By using improper fuel, and baving an imperfect bonnet on the top of the chim ney, some red hot cinders flew out of the top, and set fire to a hay stack on the plaintiff's premises, and burnt down some of the buildings. This case decided another, brought by the tenant of the farm, against the same defendant. Verdict for the plain tiff, in the first case, damages £2lO, in the second £248. • THE QUEEN V. CALCRAFT.—INDICTMENT. This was an indictment ordered to be instituted against the . defendant, Thomas Calcraft, by oneof the judges. Our readers will remember the circumstance of a female named Grace Avery, living as cook, in the service of a family in Rodney street, being shot dead by a man named William Duffey, be cause she refused his addresses. The only witness against Duffey being his own daughter, Sarah Duffey, who lived ser vant at the Caine place. Duffey was apprehended on the coro ner's warrant, for wilful murder, and immediately before the assizes Caine on, Sarah Duffey was inveigled from Manchester, where she resided with relatives of the family in Rodney-street, who were hound over to produce her at the trial, under the pre• tence that her mother at Nottingham was dying, by Calcraft, the present defendant, who was brother in-law to the prisoner Duffey. Sarah Duffey had never sinne been heard of, though the most diligent search had been made for her, and, in conse quence, Duffey, after standing over th ree a ss i zes , was a t l engt h obliged to be discharged on his own recognizance of £2OO. The judge by whom he was discharged, ordered the present in dictment to be laid against Calcraft, for inveigling the witness away. Evidence was gone into to prove that he had taken her from Manchester to Nottingham, and that he was seen the fol lowing day setting her out of the town. The defendant did not appear to answer the charge on his recognizances. The jury found him guilty. This concluded the business (ilk the assizes, and the court rose at five o'clock, having sat for three weeks. WESLEYAN -MISSIONS. • , On Tuesday evening -the twenty-flrs'i annual meeting of the Wesleyan Methodist Auxiliary Missionary Society for the Li verpool district, was held in - Brunswick Chapel, Moss-street. James Heald, Esq., of Parr's-wood, near Stockport, having been called to the chair, the proceeding was opened with sing ing and prayer; after which the Rev. Wm. Hart, one of the secretaries, read the report. • There had been a slight falling off in the amount of receipts, but not more than was accountable for by the operation of temporary causes. The CHAIRMAN, in an animated and effective speech, dwel ; ling particularly upon the increased energy •which had been put forth of late by the Christian church, and. was producing its effects upon the world, pressed upon the meeting the neces sity for continued exertions in the missionary cause. The Rev. PETER DUNCA N, of -Halifax; in Moiling the adop tion of the report, spoke of the progress of religion in Jamaica, where he had been between eleven and twelve years a mission ary. .1 11 no Dart of the missionary field had greater success crowned the lab Ours of God's servants. (Hear.) ..In .1828, ten ministers, of various denominations, sat at the district table; before he left he had the satisfaction of seeing from twenty' , to thirty sent out by their society alone. (Hear.) ,In 1789 the number of persons in connexion with the missionary establisltt ment was eight; at the present time it was 1300. (Hear and cheers.) Formerly the slaves were not able to visit a place of worship more than once in five or six weeks; now the Christian Sabbath was a Sabbath to them ; and the report demonstrated, that those opportunities had not gone unimproved. The Rev. Roob:ET ALDER, one of the general secretaries; seconded the motion. The question had been agitated, at one of the meetings of the secietaries, which were held periodically in London, whether a plan could not be devised for avoiding the collision of agents abroad. He did not despair of seeing such a plan hi ought into operation. As an illustration of the circumstances to which it would apply he would mention, that. a mission having been sent to the Navigators' Islands, it was found that the London Missionary Society had been there be fore them. The Navigators' islands were consequently given up, and it was agreed that their society should have the Feejee islands. A similar arrangement had been made with the Church Missionary Society, with respect to two districts on the coast of New Zealand. In a short time a plan for this purpose would be prepared. Another subject of uneasiness had been, the proposal of certain parties to colonise New Zealand. The object appeared plausible: it. wa?,intelded to banish worthless t q e - plan appeared piaustble. in order to succ ess , i t was sai d , t l co-operation of the Christian missionaries must be obtained. But, however plausible the object, the system was founded on that principle ot colonisation which we had carried into so many different parts of the world, and which had been produc tive of so many evils to the aboriginal inhabitants. The colony was to support itself, by the profits arising from the sale of lands. But how were such ample profits to be realised? By taking advantage of the ignorance ot the natives. He trusted this project would not be carried into effect : and as it must first be sanctioned by the imperial parliament, he thought, with due efforts on the part of Christian philanthropists in this country, there was no danger that it would ever be tried. With. refer ence to the encouragement given on the part of Englishmen to the worship of idols in India, a memorial had been addressed to Sir Frederick Adam. at Madras, signed by the teachers of re ligion, including a clergyman of the Established Church. The answer was an insult to Christianity, not only in India but in. England. It stated that the memorial had been forwarded to the supreme governor, whose sentiments were not in favournf its prayer; and the excellent bishop of the diocese, Dr. Wilson, was reprimanded for having made himielf the channel for a communication fraught with danger to the peace of the coun try. (Hear, hear.) Much anxiety had been felt about the converts in Canada; but he was happy to say they bad sustain ed no injury in their religious - experience from the movements which had lately taken place in that colony. Steps were likely to be taken by the British Colonial-oflice, to prevent the American Indians being forcibly dispossessed of their land after they had brought it under cultivation. Mr. Alder then noticed the French missions. There were, it was believed, at least two-hundred pious persons connected with various congre gations in Paris, who had received their first religious im pressions from the missionaries of that Society. In Southern Africa, at Graham's Town, at least 400 persons had been added to the fold of Christ. Translations had been made of the Scriptures and other books, and an old chapel there had been taken as ant-loot-house, in which were comprised Caffres, Feeanies, Hottentots, Fingies, Mozambiques, Malays, and Mantatees; so that in this scholastic establishment were spring ing up a number of distinct agencies, which would be brought to bear with most important effect upon the religious and moral. state of Southern Africa.—( Hear, hear.) The society had 575 salaried agents under its direction and, looking at th e resu l ts, nal, or pecuniary, they h a d w hether civilising, literary, sp reason to say, the Lord had done great by, as well as for them, whereof they were glad. 'Their efforts however, must be r-vortioned to the magnitude of the case.- The, expenditure had exc.waa,l their income by about £9,000; but en-. could wonder at this, auo nnsider, not only the number of their bid_ lions, but also how greatly they had extended their work? Tbey had sent out (counting, as the Moravians did, the female por-• tion) between 40 and 50 missionaries, at an expense of £5,633 for outfit and passage alone. The Foreign Auxiliary Societies had raised £8.230 10s. 6d. in addition to £18,455 7s. 9d. for the support of missionaries labouring amongst them. They were therefore, helping a people who were disposed to help them selves.—(Hear.) In the year 1828 the society had connected with it 133 stations. 191 missionaries, and 36,000 members, with. an income (4150,000. At the end of 1837 it could boast of 203 stations, 366 missionaries, exclusive of catechists and school' masters, and 50.000 members of society, with an income of from £70,000 to £Bo,ooo.—(Cheers.) . Dr. Woon, of Manchester, supported the resolution, which was then put froni the chair and passed. The Rev. Dr. BENNETT, of Dublin, in a speech of much do, quence and feeling, moved the next resolution, expressive of the deep sense entertained by the meeting of the urgent neces sity for more extended and energetic exertions for the heathen world. The reverend gentleman strongly urged the importance of teaching the Irish through the medium of their owntongue. , The Rev. Dr., STEWART, of the Scotch secession chapel, briefly seconded the motion. The Rev. ROBERT NEWTON alluded with much. felicity to the circumstance of that being the twenty-first anniversary of the society, when it had consequently reached its majority. After touching upon the speeches of some of the gentlemen' who had preceded him, he said, with the chair Man's permiesion, he would relate an anecdote, which he had had from the Rev. Mr. Fordred, and, for the accuracy of which he could therefore vouch. A poor, but truly pious widow, placed in charge Of ,a lighthouse on the southern coas t , h a d reso l ve d to, devote the re ceipts of one day in the year, during the visiting season, to the missionary cause. On one of these days a lady in widow's weeds, and a little girl in deep mourning, came to see the light house. Sympathy in misfortune, he supposgd; led to conversa tion, and before the unknown visitor took her departure, they, had most probably mingled their tears together. The lady left. behind her a sovereign. The unusually large gratuity igimedi-. ately caused a conflict in the breast d the poor woman, -as to whethershe was absolutely bound to appropriate the whole to the missionary box or not. At length she compromised by putting-in halt-a-crown. But conscience would riot let her rest. She went to bed, but could not sleep. She ruse, took back-the half-crowo, put in the sovereign, returned to 'bed, and slept comfortably. A few days afterwards, to her great surprise, she received a double letter, (ranked; and on opening it, she was not more astonished than delighted to find f.:%..).froni the widow. lady and £5 from the little girl in deep mourning. And who were that - lady and that .little girl? No other-thatt berßova4 Highness the Duchess of Kent, and our present rightful and ' youthful Sovereign, Queen Victoria.—(RapturouS and prolong ed applause.) • The collectione.amoonted, on- Sunday, to £5B 17s.- sd. ; on Monday, to £25 19s. 4d.; and on Tuesday evening, including, the contents of the missionary-boxes, to £l7l Ils. 3d.; total, £256 as. . • . • . The Lord Bishop of Chester intends holding his triennial visitation throughout this diocese in the course of the ensuing sutonter., 2 _ • . !, • • DINNER TO SIR F. BURDETT...4f will be•Seell by the n d., vertisement that the tickets for the dinner,. which is to take. place on Monday, the 23d instant, ate, now ; to be bail at the, ()Mee,. churctoane.._ EarlyotpplicatioNovill,be,necessao tr insure attendance; as the number of ticl , 'Ati is 'lir t e 4, :