The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—Tunsnity. His L4RD6I,IIP took his seat at nine o'clock. SENTENCES. James Price, who pleaded guilty of the manslaughter of Elizabeth Fairhurst, whose death was occasioned by the furious driving of a vehicle, was .-sentenced to one month's imprisonment. His Lordship considered the prisoner's companion the more blameable party. Thomas Evans, convicted of uttering, a forged order for the payment of £4 10s. was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and hard labour. The prisoner had•been previously convicted. Wm. 111' Cartney, convicted of uttering a forged order, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and hard la bour. _ _ Charles Diamond, convicted of stabbing Hiram Ste phens with intent to maim him, but recommended to mercy, was sentenced to transportation for fifteen years. His LORDSHIP promised to send the recommendation of the jury to the proper quarter. Joseph Farrell, convicted of the manslaughter of his wife, was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and hard labour. Joseph Walton, found guilty of an assault : three months' imprisonment. Thomas Butterworth, convicted of larceny : six months' imprisonment and hard labour. Martha Halton, convicted of burglary, six months' imprisonment and hard labour. Samuel Smith, who pleaded guilty of burglary, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour. George Rushton, convicted of bigamy, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. and hard labour. Patrick AP Crea, found guilty of an .assault, was sen tenced to six months' imprisonment. Elizabeth Stevenson, convicted of the concealment of the birth of her child, one month's imprisonment. James Drake for bigamy—six months' imprisonment and hard labour. Thomas Charnock for bigamy—six months' imprison • ment and hard labour. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas AV:i la1;a; indicted manslaughter of a boy nan.ed William Wilkinson, at Bolton, on the 15th of May last. Mr. Hu LTON stated the case. The deceased was what is termed a piecer to the prisoner, a spinner, and both were in the employ of Messrs. Crook, spinners at Bolton. On the day in question the deceased, in consequence of neglecting his work, received a slight chastisement from the prisoner, such as is usual, but in consequence of a push from the prisoner, came in contact with the machinery, and was struck by a part of it, which caused his death in a few hours. It was proved, though there was a slight discrepancy in the evidence, that the prisoner used every means to prevent the accident occurring. His LORDSHIP went over the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. CHARGE OF DEFRAUDING A LOAN SOCIETY. Jane Harvey, 3`l, George Banks, 48, and Stephen Par kinson, 2-1, were charged with an attempt to defraud the Trustees of a Loan Society, at Liverpool. The case far the prosecution was stated by Mr. Paget. On the Bth of July last, the female prisoner Jane Harvey, went to the office of the North British Loan Society, and applied for one of the usual forms preparatory to obtain ing a loan. She was afterwards called on and told to bring her sureties on the Friday following, and she came accordingly, bringing with her the prisoner Banks and a person named Woods. On being asked for the other surety (the rules of the society requiring three) she said lie was engaged on the river and could not come till the next day. Banks on being asked his name said it was George Harvey, and made his mark accordingly. Woods also signed it. The parties were then told the money would be paid on the signing of the note by the other surety. On the next day Harvey called in company with the prisoner Parkinson, and being asked his name, said it was Murphy, and signed his name accordingly. The money was not paid over. Some suspicion then arose, in consequence of information that had been received, that Parkinson and Banks were not the parties they repre sented themselves to be, and the three prisoners were eventually given into custody. The jury after a few minutes' consultation found all the prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment. - . MALICIOUSLY CUTTING AND WOUNDING. Timothy O'Brien, 440, (could read and write imper fectly,) was charged with cutting and stabbing John Richards and William Jones, at Liverpool, in July last. Mr, Cardwell conducted the prosecution, and the pri soner was defended by Mr. Wilkins. Mr. CARDWELL briefly stated the facts of the case. On the 11th of July last, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, the officer of the borough court of this town, John Shanahan, went, with three assistants, Richards, Jones, and Smith, to execute a writ of posses sion, and to give the parties, who had established their right, possession of the premises occupied by the priso ner, who kept a provision shop in Charter-street. On entering the shop, and being about to produce the war rant, they were attacked with an iron bar by . a person who acted as assistant to the prisoner, but who was not then taken. At the commencement of the attack, the prisoner called out for a knife, upon obtaining which, he made a rush and tried to stab Richards, and, on Jones going to his assistance, he also was struck and received several wounds from the knife which he had in his hand. The police then interfered, and the prisoner was taken into custody. After the case bad proceeded, and one or two witnesses had been called, Mr. Wilkins declined making any de fence on the part of the prisoner, provided the first count in the indictment, namely, the charge of murder, were abandoned. The prisoner would plead guilty to the other counts. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty on the counts charging him with cutting and maiming, but acquitted him of the intent to murder. The prisoner was, after a most solemn and impressive admonition from his Lordship, or; the nature of his crime and its dreadful consequences, sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. Henry Hamilton, Peter Toole, and James Kean, were discharged by proclamation. This was the whole of the crown business. THE QUEEN V. LOWE. This was an action on the part of Mr. K. Tyrer, of this town, against Mr. John Lowe, for an alleged libel, said to have been contained in certain placards published by the defendant, Lowe. Mr. Watson and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for the defendant. Mr. WATSON went briefly over the facts of the case, from which it appeared that the defendant had some inte rest in property in this town, in the year 1843, on which the plaintiff bad advanced money—that various letters bad passed between them relative to it—and that after wards the defendant had a number of placards printed, and posted on the walls of the town. The placard was beaded " to capitalists," and contained several of the let ters that had passed between the parties, relative to the abovenamed property ; reference was also made to some party who was charged with " fraud, forgery, falsehood, Sre.," which was printed in large characters to attract the attention of parties reading., which it was alleged was in tended to apply to the plaintiff. The only object sought by the plaintiff was (observed the learned Counsel) to remove any impression that might have been made preju dicial to his character, and to prevent further annoyance from the same party. The defendant pleaded that the placard did not refer to the plaintiff. Some conversation then took place between the coun sel with the view of effecting an arrangement, Mr. Watson requiring, on the part of the plaintiff, an admission that the language referred to was not intended to libel Mr. Tyrer, and an assurance that he would not publish any placard, or annoy him in such a way for the future, either by writing letters or in any other manner. Mr. Wit.Krys said, the defendant could not plead guilty to the charge, but he would make the assurance that had been asked by his learned friend. Under these circumstances the assurance was entered into, and aNerilict of acquittal taken. This was the last case for trial in the Crown Court, and the learned Chief Baron left for London on Wednesday morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY. CRIM. ,CON.—WOOD V. MONK. At the sitting of the Court this morning the hearing of this case was resumed. Four additional witnesses were called on the part of the defendant; and they proved generally that the plaintiff had frequently assaulted his wife, broken her teeth, and blackened her eyes, and that he had upon one occasion said he should put a halter round her neck, and sell her at the " Obelisk," in Preston. Evidence was also given to show that the plaintiff had made an attempt upon his sister-in-law's chastity on two occasions, and that she was obliged to get married to escape from under his roof. When the examination of the fourth witness had been concluded, Mr. KNowngs, on the part of the plaintiff, intimated his desire to withdraw a juror, as he said* good could arise from any further discussion of suchse. The JUDGE, who was of the same opinion, consented; a juror was accordingly withdrawn, and the case was thus brought to an abrupt termination, at ten o'clock. WILLIAMSON v. PAGE. In this case the plaintiff was William Williamson. and the defendant William Page. The declaration set forth that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £46 for work and labour done, and money lent. The defendant pleaded that, except as to £l5, he had never promised to pay. Mr. Martin, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, and Mr. Robinson appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Webster for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff was a ship-owner at Bel fast, and the defendant a gentleman who lives at Scarbo rough, and the owner of a vessel called the Adventure ; and the action was brought to recover a sum of £46, money advanced by the plaintiff to Captain Allin, the master of that vessel, in the month of November last. The ship had been on a voyage to Gibraltar, and brought home a cargo from that place for a Mr. Sims, of Belfast. She arrived at Belf as t towards the latter end of October, and then the captain endeavoured for the ship. The plaintiff succeeded in procuring c h ar ter for her, to conv e y a cargo of timber to Cardiff, to be used in the mines there. When the timber was on board, and the vessel ready for sea, the captain obtained £46 from the plaintiff to pay the necessary expenses at the Belfast Ballast-office, and the cost of provisions for the voyage. The captain then drew a bill for the amoun t, which was transmitted to the defendant for acceptance, and, after Berne delay, the defendant wrote back to the plaintiff to Fay that the captain had no authority to d raw bills, 4nd tba,t, li, hq..d no occasion to raise money, as he had the amount of his freight in his hands; and from that time to the present no settlement was made. The defence was similar to that stated in the letter written to the plaintiff—namely, that the. captain had no authority to draw bills, and had no occasion to borrow money at Belfast. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £25. DICKSON V. 'WYNNE. In this case the plaintiff, a coach-proprietor and inn keeper in Yorkshire, sought to recover a sum of £46 from the defendant, who was another coach-proprietor and inn keeper, at Ashton-under-Lyne, being the amount of cer tain disputed accounts between the parties for running a coa h called the Tantivy, between Manchester and Shef field. After the case had been opened by Mr. Baines, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference. WILLOGK V. GREEN. In this case the plaintiff was Riclrird Willock, and the defendant William Green the younger. The declaration was for an assault, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Roebuck and Mr. 'Cardwell appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Martin for tie defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff was an old man in humble circumstances, a drover of cattle, residing at Skipton, in Yorkshire, and in the employment of Mr. Slingsby, of Moston-hall, in this county. Mr. Slingsby and the de fendant were cattle-breeders, and in the habit of exhibit ing cattle at agricultural exhibitions. In the month of October last there was a cattle show at Tuttington, at which the defendant happened to be the victor, and after the show was over he repaired to an inn at Fishpool, where the plaintiff was stopping at the time. The plain tiff had been the whole day in the company of a man named Windle, and was perfectly sober, and in a most unlikely state to cause offence. Some conversation then took place between the plaintiff and the defendant's fa ther, which ended in a blow being inflicted by the former; but after an apology had been given, and matters satis factorily arranged, the defendant, who was a young man, rushed into the room, seized a candlestick which was standing on the table, and threw it at the plaintiff, thereby inflicting a severe wound upon his mouth, knocking out two or three of his teeth, and preventing him, by reason of the haemorrhage, from going to sleep. The next morning the defendant appeared to feel that he had in flicted an unmerited injury, and accordingly he said he was exceedingly sorry for what he had done, and that he was willing to pay for the damage. This offer, however, bad never been fulfilled ; and the jury had to consider what was a fair and reasonable amount of damages for such an assault, inflicted as that had been by a young and wealthy man upon an old person in indigent circum stances. Mr. MARTIN, for the defence, contended that mild and temperate conduct was not to be expected from cattle drivers, they being generally rough, coarse fellows, who were willing to give and receive injuries in a blunt man- ner. The JUDGE said that the learned counsel's argument reminded him of the well-known line—" He that drives fat oxen should himself he fat; " and he thought in the present case the line might be rendered—" He that drives tame oxen should himself be tame." (Laughter.) A verdict was returned for the plaintiff—damages £lO. BRETHERTON V. COLQUHOUN. In this case the plaintiff was Joseph Bretherton, and the defendant James Colquhoun. The declaration was for work and labour done, money lent, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was never in debted, and a set-off. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Hogging appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff is a veterinary surgeon in Liverpool, and keeps a very extensive repository for the sale of horses on commission : and the defendant is an Irish horse-dealer, who was in the habit of coming to Liverpool and placing his horses with the plaintiff for sale. The mode of doing business at the establishment appeared to be this: the person bringing a number of horses, left them with the plaintiff for sale when conve nience might arise, arid the plaintiff paid the party money on account of the lot; and when the horses were sold, the money lent and the expense of the stabling were de ducted from the receipts, and the balance settled. In October, 1843, the defendant was in Liverpool ; the books were then produced, every item was gone over, and it turned cut that there was a sum of £5O then owing by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff paid him that balance, and advanced him a further sum ; since then a few transactions had taken place between them, and at present there was a sum of £l:'.o due. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference. HOWARD V. WAREING. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Thomas Howard, against the defendant, Edward Wareing. The declaration was for money had and received. The de fendant paid £2O into court, denied his liability beyond that amount, and pleaded that he was a stake-holder in a race. Mr. MARTIN, (with whom was Mr. Atherton,) stated that the plaintiff and defendant were formerly friends, and that the action was brought to recover the amount of certain bets made on a race. The real object of defend ing the action was to establish that the race had been unfairly won, but the defendant having now been satisfied on this point, the jury would not be troubled with an in vestigation of the facts. Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendant, said his learned friend had truly stated that the plaintiff and his client were formerly friends, and that in the running of the race bis client was the loser of a bet to the plaintiff. Prom certain circumstances which occurred at the time the defendant thought that unfairness had been practised, and imputed that unfairness to the plaintiff. He was now, however, convinced that if there was any unfairness the plaintiff had nothing whatever to do with it. The Junoß : One has beard of such imputations ha - ing been cagt in other emcee. A juror having been withdrawn, the case was not gone into, much to the disappointment of many persons who had purposely assembled to hear a detailed account of the " tricks of the turf." SAME V. SIXSMITII. This was an action precisely similar to the last, and it was settled in the same manner. DOE DEM. WRIGHT V. CUMMING AND ANOTHER. This was an action of ejectment brought by George Wright to recover from William Cumming and Henry Robinson possession of the Beehive Tavern, in Fazaker ley-street. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Atherton and Mr. Monk appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. It appeared that the plaintiff was Mr. George Wright, formerly Councillor for St. Paul's Ward, and a brewer in Union-street. A gentleman of the name of Carver let the Beehive to Robinson, and, by his permission, Cum ming, the other defendant, came into possession of the premises. Carver made a will, and devised the property to three or four gentlemen, all of whom renounced it, with the exception of a Mr:Whitley, who sold it to Mr. Wright. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. TAYLOR V. BODGES. In this case, James Taylor was the plaintiff, and George Washington Hodges the defendant. Mr. Baines and Mr. Hall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin and Mr. 'noggins for the defendant. The plaintiff was a blanket manufacturer at Batley, in Yorkshire : the de fendant was a commission agent in Manchester ; and the action was brought against the defendant in order to obtain from him compensation in damages for a breach of duty imputed to him in the declaration. The plaintiff had consigned to the defendant a certain number of blankets to be sold by commission in America. He gave instructions that they were not be sold below the invoice price, but alleged that the plaintiff had sold them at a great sacrifice. The case opened with several intricate points, and after some conversation among the counsel on both sides, it was agreed to rtfer matters in dispute to a gentleman of the bar. DAVIES V. rammEn AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mary Davies, against the defendants, John Rimmer, Peter Radcliffe, and Henry Seddon. The declaration con tained three counts for breaking and entering her premi ses, putting her out of possession, converting her goods, and assaulting and beating her. The defendants pleaded eight counts,—first, that they were not guilty, and secondly that the Louse was not the plaintiff's premises, &c. Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cardwell for the defend ants. Mr. BAINES stated the eve. He said the plaintiff was the widow of a man named William Davies, who lived at Lytham, in this county ; and the action was brought to recover compensation in damages for several trespasses, committed under circumstances calculated to excite very strong feelings. Her husband and family had resided for nearly a century on part of Lord Skelmersdale's estate. The husband died there at the close of last year, and the plaintiff continued to reside on the premises from that time until the month of May last. when the first trespass took place. The defendants, acting upon some claim which it would be necessary for them to establish if they could, went to the house on the first of May, and con ducted themselves in a manner which would be described by the witnesses. They were heard to use such violent and threatening language, as they approached, that the plaintiff ordered the door to be fastened : and their con duct towards the poor widow, with a dauhter, a son 13 years of age, and a grandchild about 4, was as follows : —The defendant, Rimmer, got a spade, and swore he would break open the door, and, accordingly, the door was actually broken open, and a forcible entry effected. As he was entering, his expression was, " d—n her, when I get in, I'll k noc k h er brains out." When he entered, he ordered the plaintiff to go out. She refused to comply with the request. Ile was then in the act of striking at her, but his blow did trttake effect, and then struck the daughter of the plaintiff in such a manner as to swell her face immediately. In short, he conducted himself in the most violent manner, and used outrageous language. The plaintiff was in the greatest possible state of agitation ; she was suffering from illness at the time: she became exceedingly unwell during their stay; they turned out herself, her daughter, her son, and her grand child ; took out all the things in the ic:ouse, and left her on the road in this melancholy condition, Rimmer saying that she might have the goods, if she had any place to put them in. But she had no place,—no house to go to; it was only through the charity of a neighbour, that she was provided with accommodation for five nights in a barn; and upon the 6th of May her things were taken from her, by the orders of Rimmer, and sold. He (Mr. Baines) believed that his learned friend on the other side would set up some will, which, it would be said, was made by the husband of the plaintiff , a nd which entitled Rimmer to act in this outrageous manne r : but it would be shown by the evidence, that, about a year before the death of the plaintiff's husband, he had had a paralytic stroke—that he had two others in the course of the same year—that he was speechless for a month before his death, and that be was, therefore, not in a fit state to make a will. Witnesses were then examined to prove the case, and, after it had been partly heard, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, with £5 damages, as against Rimmer, and for the two other defendants on all the counts. DOE DEM. STOREY a. STTMMERS. This was an action of ejectment brought by Joseph Storey to recover possession of a piece of land at Edge hill. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. NON-PAYMENT OF ELECTIONEERING EXPENSES. DUCKWORTH V. JOHNSON.—III this case Wm. Duck worth was the plaintiff and George Johnson the defend ant. The action was for goods sold and materials and attendance, and on an account stated. The amount sought was £5O. The defendant admitted his liability to the extent of £6. The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Wortley, as sisted by Mr. Cardwell; Messrs. Baines and Segar were for the defendant. Mr. WORTLEY stated that the plaintiff was a publican, carrying on business at Blackburn, and the defendant a respectable tradesman, also belonging to that place. In the year 1841, during the occurrence of the general election, considerable excitement prevailed, and the town of Blackburn was no exception, the struggle there being carried on with great spirit on both sides. Mr. Turner, the former member, having expressed a wish not to come forward again, the parties in the field were Mr. Fie:den and a gentleman named Hornby. Subsequently, however, in consequence of the urgent solicitations of some of his friends and supporters, Mr. Turner was induced to come forward as a candidate, on the understanding that he was not to be subjected to any expense, whatever might be the result of the contest. The election began, and, as was often the case, purity , of election was the cry on both sides, and there was to be no corruption. The contest, how ever, grew hot and close, which the result evidently showed, as Mr. Turner only lost by one vote; it became evident, therefore, that ordinary canvassing was inefficient, and means were resorted to on both sides for influencing the electors, and houses of entertainment opened in vari ous parts of the town. Among these was the house- of the plaintiff, where arrangements were made for the recep tion of a considerable company, and on the 23d of June, the first day of the election, Johnson was there, in com pany with a number of other persons in the interest of Mr. Turner. The defendant appeared to be the leading person, and gave orders that an entertainment should be sent up stairs, consisting of brandy and water, &c., and a the n i e accommodationd the mto tl the room. oao lowerm. class also f gave personsdi arelscotiaocncsofmorp in the kitchen,—not with the same exalted fare as the party up stairs were enjoying, but with rum and ale. There was considerable excitement, as is usual on such occasions, which was continued for an hour or two during the evening. Johnson gave orders for a person to be placed on the stairs, so as not to allow the lower class of individuals, who were regaling themselves in the kitchen, to obtain admission to the room occupied by the aristo cracy above, and at the close of the jollification gave di rections for stopping the tap, which was accordingly done, and not a drop was given as soon as the shadow of John son ceased to darken the door of the plaintiff Duckworth ; a friend of the plaintiff had undertaken to score up the evening's accounts, which amounted to about £3O, on one of the doors of the house. On the day of nomination drink had also been supplied to a small amoun , by direc tion of the defendant. It appeared that shortly after this things c 'me to such a pass that every voter was. of the ut most confidence, and a system called bottling took place. A person named Halliwell, who had been pestered by both parties, was, by the direction of the defendant taken to the plaintiff's house, and amply provided for, the defend ant observing that he (Halliwell) must sleep there and some one with him, and be taken care of until he was wanted. The next morning he was taken away by John son to the head quarters of the party, and after having been supplied with breakfast went and recorded his vote for Mr. Turner. The amount sought originated in the manner he had stated, and comprised in the whole a sum of about £5O. Several witnesses were then called for the plaintiff's case, to prove that Johnson was at this house on the even ing in question, and gave the directions alluded to by the learned counsel; one of them stated in cross-examination, that the proportion of brandy supplied to the party up stairs was 450 glasses, averaging 15 glasses for each per son, which was disposed of in about two hours, and that the guests in the kitchen had a large quantity of ale, each gallon of which was seasoned with a pint of rum, The house was very full, some of those present being obliged to occupy the yard, and there was much excitement and confusion. Mr. BAINES addressed the jury for the defendant. He observed that a more unfounded claim had never been brought into a court of justice. The defendant never de nied his liability with respect to Halliwell, for which he had made a tender of £6, which was all he had a right to pay. He would undertake to show that his client was not responsible for all those expenses brought against him. There was another fact, too, which told against the plain tiff, namely, that though three years had elapsed no ap plication had been made to the defendant, but that re peated demands had been made on the family of Mr. Turner, whO was the party liable, if there was any liability at all. Witnesses were called who stated they did not see the defendant at Duckworth's house on the evening in ques tion; that they were there, and some drink was ordered by Mr. Wm. Turner. One of them, Mr. Thomas Tur ner, the nephew of the candidate, said he had orders to open several houses, and had paid several of the accounts, having received money from his uncle for that purpose, but had not paid Duckworth and some others. John Brown, who was at the house of the plaintiff on the night before the election, heard him say, when the score amounted to £lO, that all had then come in that was ordered. Witness was a waiter on the occasion, and the full value of the drink brought in during the evening, which, he believed, was ordered by Mr. Turner, would amount to £lO. He did not see the defendant there, but would not swear that he might not be present. Mr. WORTLEY replied. He said there was nothing in consistent in what had been stated with the evidence of the plaintiff; for, if that were admitted, it amounts to a chrrge of direct perjury on all those witnesses. It was quite clear that that the occasion of which the defendant's witnesses had been speaking was different to that referred to by the plaintiff, and, consequently, did not invalidate his claim. The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said it was melancholy to see such a trumeri cause occupying so much of the time of the Court. The jury found a ver dict for the plaintiff for £36 I4s. Bd. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LEASE. HEWITT V. LOCKETT.—The plaintiff, Mr. John Hewitt, was trustee to a lady of the name of Birley, and the de fendant, a gentleman belonging to the town. The action was for an alleged violation of a lease existing between the parties. The defendant had five pleas on the record, which were to the effect, that he had made no promise— did not under-let, es alleged, and had not allowed the house to be occupied. Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff Mr. Watson for the defendant, assisted by Mr. Cromp ton. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff acted as trustee, under a marriage settlement, for Mrs. Birley, with respect to a house situate in Hope-street, Liverpool, which house had been leased to the defendant, in 1834, and he resided there at that time. The terms of the lease were, that the house should not be occupied otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and not as a lodging house, school, &c. At the expiration of the lease, in 1841, which was for seven yea's, it was from circum stances that took place, supposed to be renewed by the defendant on the same terms, he being considered the tenant, so far as paying the rent. The defendant had subsequently left the house, and in September of last year it was ascertained to have been let as a lodging house, to a person not such as was contemplated un der the terms of the agreement, by which the value of the house bad become deteriorated. Some corres pondence took place with the defendant on the sub ject, but he refused to come to .any arrangement in consequence of which the proceedings in question had been instituted. Witnesses were called to prove that a house occupied by lodgers would neither let nor sell for so much, in con sequence of such occupation. Mr. WATsoN was about to address the jury, when an agreement was come to, and a verdict taken for the plain tiff by consent, damages one shilling. His Lordship re. fused to certify for the costs. ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. PITTS V. BECKETT AND ANOTHER.—The plaintiff is a wool merchant in this town, and the defendants carry on business as wool staplers, at Manchester. The action was brought to recover the sum of £149, being the value of certain 'wool sold to the defendants. Mr. Knowles, assisted by Mr. Crompton, were for the plaintiff; and Messrs. Martin and Atherton for the de fendants. The case was stated by Mr. Knowles. In the month of March, of the present year, the plaintiffs had a quan tity of skin wool, which they employed Messrs. Hughes and Ronald, brokers, of this town, to sell for them, to whose office a sample was sent, the bulk of the wool re maining with the plaintiff. Shortly after this the plaintiff met one of the defendants in the street, and spoke to him on the subject of the wool, and he (defendant) went with him to the brokers' office, and after examining it, bought it at a certain price, the sale notes being made out in the usual way. The wool was received by the defendant on the 9th of April, but in a day or two after this he sent a letter to the plaintiff, stating that part of the wool was not in good condition, and had shrunk in dressing. When the wool was bought by the defendants, they ought to have been prepared for such a result, as wool of that kind not unfrequently shrunk a great deal; only three sheets were complained of, for which the plaintiffs offered to make a deduction of 281bs. ; but this the defendants refused, alle ging that the wool was not such as had been stipulated for, and the bargain ought, consequently, to be rescinded. To this the plaintiffs could not accede, as the parties had an opportunity of inspecting it in the bulk, and it was in good condition when sold : the sale was not made by sam ple. and nothing of that kind was stated in the contract. Witnesses were then called, who deposed to the sale be ing made, and that the wool was in good condition when sold. Mr. MARTIN, on the part of the defendants, said the only question was whether or not the wool was in good condition, according to the terms of the contract. He should be able to show that it was not in gocd condition, and was also deficient in weight, and consequently the defendants had a right to reject it. He then called Samuel Spence, a person in the employ of the defendants when the wool arrived at their premises. He stated that on examination it was found to be out of condition, and not dry, and, he conceived, in a state unfit for sale • the weight was also deficient. It was ultimately sent back to the plaintiff. Other witnesses were called, who corroborated the pre vious statement, but admitted on cross-examination that the wool was not inspected until it had been subjected, for a period of about twelve hours, to the operation of a drying stove. Mr. Robinson, wool-broker, examined the wool, and considered it to be in bad condition. Mr. KNOWLES replied. There were two points which he would submit to the jury : the first was, whether there had been an acceptance of the wool by the defendants' agent. The JUDGE.—I shall say there has not. Mr. KNOWLES.—Then the only question would be as to the evidence affecting the state of the wool, and from - the statements of the parties called for the plaintiff, he thought it must be evident, that when the wool was sold and delivered to the defendants' agent, it was in good con dition. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff was granted liberty to move. ALLEGED IMPROPER RETURN OF THE SHERIFF. HOWARTH V. GARNETT. The plaintiff in this case was George Howarth, and the defendant the late sheriff of the county, WTm. Garnett, Esq. The action arose out of the issuing forth and direc tion to the defendant of a writ. Mr. Atherton conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles appeared for the defendant. The case was stated by Mr. ATHERTON. He believed it was the first of the kind on record against the sheriff. In July, 1843, the plaintiff was a shopkeeper, carrying on business in Preston, and had dealings with a person named Walker, who brought an action against him in the Court of Common Pleas, for the recovery of a small debt, and obtained a verdict, the costs amounting to about £l5, for which a writ of fieri factas was issued to take his goods. A warrant was then obtained. The plaintiff sub sequently came to Liverpool, and shortly afterwards found another writ directed against him, at the suit of Walker, which was followed up by a writ against his per son. These cirumstances led to an inquiry. the plaintiff being anxious to know how it was the two proceedings — one against his goods, and the other against his person— had arisen, and upon inquiry it was ascertained that the sheriff hail returned to the first writ that the defendant in that action had no goods within his bailidom, which was alleged to be a false return. Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defendant, observing that the case was one of the shabbiest ever brought into court. He contended that no greater amount had been distrained on in the first instance than what was legally due. The Foreman of the Jury.—We don't believe the evi dence for the plaintiff. A verdict was accordingly returned for the defendant. The JUDGE.—It is a very abominable and disgraceful action. FIELD V. SWIFT. A Verdict was taken in this case by consent, subject to a reference. The Court rose at twenty minutes past six. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY. HOUSLEY V. BATTERSBY. This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. The plaintiff was a tradesman carry ing on business as a dealer in building materials, and the defendant a person not in any business, but having to do with speculating in land and houses. In September, last year, a person named Alexander Battersby applied to the plaintiff for a supply of bricks, which were furnished on the understanding that the defendant, who knew Alex. Battersby, would become responsible. Bricks to the amount of £127 had been supplied in the first instance, £4O of which had been paid ; but the defendant denied his liability as to the remainder, leaving £B7 ls. unpaid, which was the amount sought to be recovered. There was a second order, amounting to £174 155., but that had been liquidated. After some discussion on the part of the learned coun sel, a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff for £5O. DE WOLF AND ANOTHER V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER. The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of persons carrying on business in this town under the firm of M'Leod, Wood, and Co. who had become bankrupts , and the defendants wine and spirit merchants of this town. The object of the plaintiffs was to recover the sum of £BO, being the value of some brandies which they alleged were the property of the bankrupts at the time of their bank ruptcy, and consequently became the property of the as signees. The case (which had been tried at the last as sizes) occupied the Court for a considerable time, and was not of any public interest. The facts were exceed ingly short. It appeared that, in 1842, five puncheons of brandy were purchased by M`Leod, Wood, and Co., from Messrs. Falk Brothers, who were said to be in fact the, real defendants in the action. Subsequently, how ever, M'Leod, Wood, and Co. got into difficulties, and Falk Brothers stopped the brandy in transitu, in conse quence of the non-payment of a bill which had been ac cepted by the bankrupts. An application was then made by the plaintiffs to Messrs. Bevan and Co., in whose vaults the brandy was lying, requesting them to give up possession of the goods, they (the plaintiffs) alleging that as the assignees of the bankrupts they were entitled to them. The defendants persisted in their refusal, on the ground that the brandy had been retained by Falk Bro thers, as a lien on the bill above named, and was Co quently their property. The question was whether WNW the defendants were justified in the course they had adopted. A document, entitled a letter of license, formed a very prominent feature in the case, as it contained the signa tures of various creditors of Messrs. M'Leod, Wood, and (Jo., amongst which was the firm of Falk Brothers, said to have been written by Mr. Robert Falk in the presence of the bankrupts. Mr. Falk, however, denied the genu ineness of the signature, and said it was merely a clumsy imitation. The jury found a verdict for the defendants. CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A PILOT. GAWNE AND ANOTHER V. LEWIS. The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Edward Gawne and to., owners of the Queen of the Isle steamer, and the defendant a licensed pilot of this port. The action was for damage done to that vessel by the negligent ma nagement of a ship under the command of the defendant. The damages were laid at £39 12s. Gd. Messrs. Martin and Cardwell were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Aspinall for the de fendant. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. On the 25th of August last year, the Queen of the Isle steamer was lying at an chor in her usual position, opposite the baths at George's Pier, taking in coals. It was about nine in the evening, and rather dark ; a light was, however, placed in the us a u d a e l h w a a r g y e a a t f t h a e m v e a s s s t e - l h e c ad al i . e d The defethendant a L n e n w i a i w hw h a o s coming up the river with the view of getting into one of the upper docks, and there was at the time very little wind; the tide was also running rapidly, being about two hours before flood. The man on the look-out, on board the steamer, saw the vessel coming up, and, fearing a collision, hailed her, but no answer was returned, and the result was that she came in contact with the steamer, side on, carrying away her figure-head and bowsprit, and doing other damage. He (the learned counsel) consi dered the injury was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, as he was in a part of the river not usually resorted to by vessels of that size, there being, at the time, abundance of room, if he had chosen to avail him self of it. Mr. Sergeant Munruv addressed the jury for the de fendant. He contended that a proper look-out had not been kept by the patties on board the steamer; and with respect to the defendant's vessel being out of her course, he should be able to show that such was not the case ; he (the defendant) had intended to anchor for the night near where the collision took place, so as to take advantage of the morning's tide, and enter the King's Dock. The plaintiffs had been contributary to the damage, and con sequently could not recover. The learned gentleman concluded by calling witnesses. James Rowbottom, a boatman, who boarded the George Canning in the liver, stated, that the crew were on deck, and the steamer was hailed. He did not observe any light, and it was not perceptible whether she was a steamer or anything else. The pilot let go the anchor when about half a cable's length from the Queen, but the anchor dragged, and they called out immediately for them to port the helm, which not being attended to by the par ties on board the steamer, was the cluse of the collision. Several other witnesses were called who gave similar testimony ; and Mr. Cook, inspector of pilots, deposed that the place where the George Canning was about to cast anchor, would be considered a proper position under the circumstances. Mr. MARTIN replied, to the effect that the evidence produced for the defendant had utterly failed. It had been proved beyond a doubt that his clients had been injured by the defendant's negligence, and were conse quently entitled to a verdict for damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £39 12s. Gd. The Court adjourned shortly after seven o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. WHARTON V. WRIGHT. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Joseph Wharton, against the defendant, Joseph Wright, to re cover the amount of six bills of exchange, four of which were endorsed by the defendant, and for which it was alleged he was liable. The defendant denied his liability. Mr. James and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin for the defendant. It appeared from the statement of counsel, and the evi dence of the various witnesses, that the defendant, at the time of the transactions, when the bills were given, occu pied the Brunswick Hotel, in this town, but had since gone to reside in Northamptonshire. His brother, Wm. Wright, occupied the Brunswick previously, and in 1838 an arrangement was made between them whereby the defendant became the occupier. The plaintiff, a gentle man now out of business, was intimately acquainted with them, and for the purpose of assisting the defendant to carry on business, procured credit for him, and became guarantee for the supply of liquors to the house. Some of the bills had arisen out of those transactions, and the only defence consisted of a denial of the handwriting. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for £26 18s. FERIIAN V. BARNES. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, James Fe rigan, against the defendant, Robert Barnes, for the reco very of the amount of a bill of exchange for £5O. The defendant pleaded that he had not accepted ; that it was endorsed after it became due, and he denied the first and second endorsements. Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for the defendant. am A ou v n e t. rdict was returned for the plaintiff fo r the full TYRER AND ANOTHER V. ELLISON. This was an undefended action , brought by Messrs. Tyrer and Lever, carriers on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, and bran-dealers, to recover a sum of £ll3 for bran sold and delivered by them to the defendant, Mr. Ellison, a miller and flour-dealer, near Blackburn. full A verdict wa s returned for the plaintiff for the amount. BARNES V. SEDDON. The plaintiff in this case was John Barnes, and the de fendant James Seddon. The declaration contained counts for work and labour done, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that, except as to £l5, which he had paid into court, he was never indebted ; and he also pleaded a set-off, which set-off was denied. Without examining witnesses, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. HAWORT V. WHALLEY. In this case the plaintiff, who did not appear in court, was non-suited. DEWHURST V. SYKES AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by John Gore Dewhurst against James Sykes and Thomas Walley. The declaration was for work and labour done as an attorney, money paid, and on an account stated. Mr. Sykes denied his liability, and the other defendant had suffered judgment to go by default. Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles for the defendant. Mr. JAMES stated the case. The plaintiff was a re spectable attorney residing in Liverpool, and the de fendant, Sykes, together with four other gentlemen, some personally, and some in right of their wives, were legatees under the will of a person named Clay. In the year 1840, a Mr. Holden was the surviving trustee under the will ; and he made the necessary preparations for putting up a portion of the property for sale. The legatees, not liking this course to be pursued, gave instructions that a bill should be filed in Chancery to restrain Holden from sell ing, and employed the plaintiff for that purpose. The bill was not filed eventually, but a great many steps were taken to bring the matter before the Court of Chan cery. There was no proof that Sykes had given the plain tiff a distinct retainer, but there was no doubt of his having called at the plaintiff's office from time to time, and given instructions, and intimated that he had advanced £5 towards the current expenses. The amount of the bill, altogether, was £46 ; £2O had been paid on account, and the balance of £26 was now sought to be recovered. At the close of the case, the plaintiff was non-suited. All the common juries having been here disposed of, his Lordship proceeded to try the remaining special jury cause in the first list : BENTLEY V. FLEMING. This was an action brought by Henry Bentley against Thomas Fleming. Mr. Watson, Mr. Rotche, and Mr. Webster appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Cowling for the defendant. Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said the plaintiff was a reel and spindle manufacturer, carrying on business at Salford, and the defendant was a card-maker at Halifax, in the county of York ; and the action was brought by the plaintiff, who was the assignee and owner of a patent, against the defendant, for an infringement of that patent. The law relating to patents was well known: suffice it to say that, according to law, where the sovereign granted letters-patent to a person, that person had the exclusive use of that patent for a period of fourteen years ; and that the crown, when it granted a patent, granted it only for those who were the inventors, and in eases where the invention was new. These were the great questions in the case. In the present case, the letters-patent were obtained for a machine for making cards ; and it was one of the most beautiful machines the public ever saw. This machine was discovered and invented by William Parr Thornton, who resided at Clackheaton, in the county of York. Prior to the year 1837, the machines used in the manufacture of cards were imperfect and inconvenient ; but, about that time, Mr. Thornton turned his attention to the subject, with the view of making one perfect and cbinplete in every respect. He was for several years making the necessary experiments. He made several model machines, but failed in perfecting them ; and it was not until the month of December, 18-11, that he was able to make one thoroughly perfect. Whilst making the expe riments, he had a mill at Clackheaten, but being unable to occupy the whole of it, persons of the name of Carver and Brierly occupied the remainder of the concern. The learned counsel here pointed out the principle of Thorn ton's machine, which was placed in front of the bar, and took up considerable space, and observed that there was a great difference between this machine and that known as Dyer's which was the one generally in use before the pa- patented machine had been In Dyer's the lea ther was moved ; in the patent machine, the head-work ; in fact, the latter differed from the former in four mate rial respects—namely, the motion of the head-work upon a fixed notched bar ; secondly, the reverse motion of the head-work • thirdly, the drawing of the sheet ; and fourthly, the suspension of the jaw frame. It has been already observed that Thornton had tried a good many models—some with loose and others with fixed notched bars, but that he was unable to discover the perfect one until December, 1841. He then proceeded to get his patent, but being a person in humble circumstances, a . .. . gentleman of the name of Williamson advanced him the necessary amount of money for the purpose. During the time that he was making the models, Carver was constantly on the premises to know what he was about. Report had li gone about the country that he was making the discovery of a new machine; several were anxious to find out of what it consisted ; but, before the date of the patent, no one had ever invented such a machine. From December, 1811, to June, 1842, Mr. Thornton's attention was called to make the machine as perfect as possible, and having been assisted by a person named Robert Shaw, he speci fied his patent on the 21st of June, 1842. That specifi cation was drawn in the usual form ; but Mr. Thornton bad then the mortification of finding that many of the persons who had obtained surreptitious access to his workshop, were constructing machines precisely similar in principle as his own, and selling them about the neigh bourhood. In consequence, however, of his having fallen into difficulties about this time, he was unable to resist their infringements, and was compelled, in 1842, to assign the patent to Williamson, who sold it .to Bentley, the plaintiff, in 1843, who was at present the rightful owner. Nevertheless, the parties who originally went into Thornton's workshop,l continued to go on with their piracy, and formed themselves into a league, for the purpose of carrying out their objects, still more effectually. There was no doubt that the patent was a good and valuable one, and that the defendant, by infringing it, had subjected himself to an action at law. The learned counsel went on to show that he should be able to disprove the several pleas put on the record by the defendant, and that the patent was lesser in price than Dyer's, and that it saved a considerable amount of wages. He then called a number of witnesses to prove the va luable nature of the patent, and the mode in which it had been infringed in principle by the defendant ; but the court adjourned at seven o'clock, before all the witnesses for the plaintiff had been heard. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. Mr. BAINES applied to his lordship t o gran t spee dy ex ecution in this case, grounding his application on two affi davits, one to the effect, that steps had been taken for the purpose of sweeping away all the defendant's property to prevent the satisfaction of the plaintiff s d eman d ; an d that, after the verdict was given, the defendant was t eard to say, by James Cook, one of the witnesses of the trial, " It is all right : I am prepared for it." Mr. WATsoN said it was exceedingly inconvenient that an application of this kind should be made at the end of the week, when the Solicitor General and Mr. Dundas, who, with himself, (Mr. Watson,) were counsel for the defendant, had gone. If his lordship granted immediate execution it would be the utter destruction of the defen dant. The JUDGE asked whether Mr. Watson would give security ? Mr. WATSON replied, that he knew not ; uhat he should apply for was, an opportunity of answering the affidavit. His lordship granted Mr. Watson's application to answer the affidavits on Monday. BENTLEY V. FLEMING The hearing of this case was then resumed ; and, at the clase of the plaintiff's case, Mr. KNowL Es addressed the jury for the defendant, contending, that there had nct been any infringement, inasmuch as the invention was not new. The Jury, after an absence from court for six hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. CROSKILL V. GROUNSELL This was another special jury case. similar to the last, in which the plaintiff, William Croskill, a machine-maker, of Beverley, in Yorkshire, brought an action against Wil liam Grounsell, another machine-maker, of Louth, in Lincolnshire, for the infringement of the patent of a clod crushing-machine, used in agricultural purposes. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and that the invention was not new. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Unthank appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Webster for the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff's case, at six o'clock, the Court adjourned to nine this morning. Neither of the foregoing cases possessed the slightest interest, except to the parties concerned. FASHIONS FOR SEPTEMBER. (From the " London and Paris Ladies' Magazine of Fashion.") The make of dresses this month offers more variety as to ornament than form. The corsage with lacings having become rather common, is often replaced by those a revers, or a pates, many terminating at the waist with small jackets, more or less deep, which gives length to the waist ; this style will be a prevailing one for autumnal dresses. Many corsages are round with ceinture and buckle, which is now insensibly returning to favour; large buttons are very fashionable ; sleeves vary much, and may be worn long or short, wide or tight, but the Oriental is still the favourite. Cannezous with sleeves are worn with low bodies ; they are of embroiders d muslin, terminating at the waist with a small jacket embroidered in a wreath, which forms heading to a narrow lice, the half-long sleeve correspond ing. Guimpes are also made with sleeves. Pelisses or dolmans, lightly wadded and quite distinct from the winter costume, are made for the promenade; they are taffetas d' Italie of pale colours ; the hood and sleeves only are trimmed with lace ; some are of plain Indian foulard, buttoning from top to bottom. The manteau de voyage is of silk or thin merino, lightly wadded, and lined with coloured silk, made very full and with hood, often with a large pelerine and a running string at the waist, and wide sleeves with wristbands. The mantelets of transparent materials with sleeves, worn during the summer, are now made in fancy silks, either c hecked or striped glace - es, trimmed w ith a small chicoree ruche. Acacia, lilies of the valley, roses, tretnieres, double poppies mixed with corn-flowers, are selected at this mo ment to ornament bonnets ; a bouquet of field flowers on a paille de ri: is very pretty. Fancy straws are worn with flowers or feathers : veils anrl voiletles are much used, particularly at tke sea-side. Pretty little caps are made with simple crowns, small and round in front, with papillous of tulle bouillonn6 having a ribbon through them. Sept. 3, 1844. CORRESPONDENCE. MEDICAL REFORM BILL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARTh. SlR,—Will you allow me to occupy a small space I _ ll . your columns, in order to arouse the attention of the Lac : dical profession and the public to the proposed measure ere' medical reform, which is now before the country. V ie t , are nearly 300 medical men in Liverpool, and it is a el'l t ter of surprise that a bill, which will alter the whole asP. l7 "_ of the profession, seems to have excited no attentioeas amongst them. And yet it is a fact, that the conFeclue ° ,%, to society, which will follow from its adoption by paths' the country eaomungtlrl on to o th b e se s r u v h e je t e h t a , t a t n he d r i e t talent, will be evil, and only evil. also the sentiments of the body whose interests are ter_ s immediately concerned, will be freely expressed. It is to be supposed that the intentions of government.l otherwise than good ; but in legislating on Matters ivolf4 i i s s t a o m be ()% h e o ra p are only known to professional men, they must d ye entirely on information derived from without ; and in been present case there can be no doubt that they have n i most grossly misled. Indeed, if the British Colleg,Lj Health, which vends Morison's Pills, had been consul's l ' e it is impossible to conceive any piece of legislation 01!0, calculated to degrade medicine, and exalt quackery', P` ceeding from such advice. h yes Quackery is acknowledged, for the first time, to -8 d . ' legal existence by this bill; while its restrictions on T e e l , • cal education are such, that it holds out a direct Wi n o went to the increase of unlicensed pratitioners• but medical men are to be registered, not by compulsioo,B by certain inducements, which they are either in P s h i e p g sines of at present, or which 19-twentieths care 11 °, 0 . about; and all parties who choose to practise with, ° , l ° ;,,lo. gistering, may do so, whether they be possessed 0 1 ,`"r u s was or not. In short, any one may put a brass Im at lao his door, with the title doctor or surgeon thereon, an. t i o u man has a right to prevent him. The pecuniary 0 6 ., 1 0 4. of the quack is much better than that of the regulai lye titioner, and the only difference between them is, tu ll 'dis• quack cannot hod an appointment to an hospital ors is e e d n movement thatall hetol_ et pensary, which, indeed, he cares nothing about- °Ol obliged to serve on juries (which his fellow subjects Ow also submit to), and he cannot prosecute his Patie ° l 9 oo , debt, which be can easily evade by not trusting r t it The all but universal opinion of the measure is , t ido! degrades the noble science of medicine into a higber oe of quackery, and it lets loose all sorts of imPes it rer society. A temperate, and, at the same time, fic`,7',,re• pression of opinion, on the part of medical men, vrZed, vent the sanctuary of their profession from being p ro n tle• so as to become a place within whose precin c ts noge-tbp man or man of honour can enter ; and t o suc h st ate proposed bill would at once debase it. I am , yours, &c. fi g. ACADEMIC ST. GEORGE'S CLOCK. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAND-AB 0r Sin.,—What the reason is of St. George's clock n t told so many falsehoods latterly, I do not know; ' f oe , really wonder that he is not ashamed of showing h is hit Possibly he is in affliction, as he keeps his hands t 5 d, lll's (eyes). At all events, as he is so much look I he ought to be better looked after; and if he wont g would humbly suggest that he be taken off. Yours, &c., VS. ONE OF THE POW' Monday morning. DOCK COMMITTEE, THURSDAY.—Mr. Moore iv at chair. An additional lamp was ordered to be Pl ace , tbe each of the dock-police stations.—lt was ordered tbt house of the master of the Queen's Dock should Penis altered as to make it more convenient, and that a S o y . hut should be furnished for the dock gatemen.--The the rine surveyor presented a report with reference t4O breaking adrift of the bell beacon. He stated that „,'"d of been repeatedly run foul of, but being construel"baie iron, found to be uninjured. On examining tbe cdito; where it had snapped, it was found to be strong 01°11 :0 4 hold a vessel of 150 tons, whereas the buoy only raet s 22 tons. He stated also that the proportion of 10 %rolc s ,„ stroyed, stove, or struck by steamers to those whie, t their moorings by severity of the weather was at e '" the to 1, and these casualties were likely to increase e t ja trade increased in the narrow entrances to this 61)500 the harbour of Liverpool there were 65 buoys wi t t h e ar fathoms of chain mooring in continual motion by ,00 tion of the sea, and subject to the friction attendant' from sandy bottom. 61 of these buoys rode by m ooring s , a re twelve to twenty fathoms in length. The red b 730 16 changed every six or eight months, and the blac etion d at every twelve months, and their moorings ar e e, 1 4 !', h ips lot! the same time. Since 1839 not one of the lig" oas oet broken from her station or altered her position, t..,,t me to be a proper guide to the channels. During ts"'n_the the bell beacon was twice drifted, but in each instna inference is, that she has been dragged away i of quence of vessels running foul of her. Th e nunlos iB 4l eight, in 1842 six, and in 1813 two. buoys drifted or torn away in 1840 was servicessevente , n o , t a r Formby Life-boat, in going to the assistance of ref / schooner, ashore on the Mad Wharf, was report Thomas Herbert, master of the Toxteth Dock, was pointed to the Salthouse Dock, at the same salary', I lls Thomas Prenton was appointed to take charge. an d Toxteth Dock, at 30s. a week.—The receipts for hgl:_ i a dock dues for vessels entering the port of Runcorn an.oins, --The the the past month, was stated to be—vessels 209 ; ; or 1178; receipts, £5B 175., being a decrease of ' £ I9 A pared with the corresponding month of last year. -- ,_',,` 1 0 , was also submitted, showing the land necessary to P e , me' chased for forming the navigable cut to the canal. t he morial was read from.the shippers to Portugal 5 1 1 : h a. Mediterranean, praying for the allot m e n t of a o+r It shed' berth for the line of vessels t ra di ng to thes e „, ll ;ritee , the Chairman remarking that it would was referred to the harbour. masters' n of space ta accede to the wishes of the memorialist r • to be paid nY, deed for securing the instalment of .£50,00 übtpittea the Leeds and Liverpool Canal CompanY, sere t s nr ed to by the solicitor, and the seal of the trust was au l eto r6 be placed to the deed. The Chairman said the per as 03 0 were to pay the next instalment, £28,000, as so 1 1 land for the cut was purchased. Jane s our OFFICE ROBBERIES.-011 Thursday, o,„,as who gets her living by going round the different n'o3',de the town begging, was brought before Mr. Rushtonoriio the following circumstances. On Wednesday Plopito she called at the office of Mr. Darlington, wine 'ttiold bet be a Sal afts of the dealer, Great Charlotte-street; Mr. Darlington ,e 0 o_ not to come again, but in the afternoon she wa s A g 00 0° , the staircase near the door of the private office• n d as she found she was observed she made off , s f ora to shortly afterwards 18 sovereigns were missed sbeivof drawer, which had been left open in the office t ae oeo, taken into custody at eleven o'clock at night , b u ni sad e o f the money being found upon her, she wa s re faee.A. Money having lately been missed from the Ott:, Messrs. Leigh and Whitley, 18s. were marked i n pe;„ nesday, and being stolen, were afterwards found bo tb, A , session of the office boy, William Hickson' li,arttlyor cmfessed his guilt. Fir was brought up and r,e"iyienei doubtless with the view of being restored to bisect AI without the contamination received by impriso ntn 1 0 felons. SOO' oi l THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE ON BOARD iin t gt , our last week's publication we furnished an ace ° boa, disclosure made to Sir John Pirie, at the Mansion; trr t , London, by a seaman named Laidlow, relative ibis patio section on board the ship Jam Campbell, of laver p the property of Mr. William Sharp, of DrurY h pro this town—not (as erroneously stated) Sir JoseP., o From that statement an inference might have t e : a ll that the conduct of the supercargo—who, it Wai l ip JO had wrongfully assumed the command of the be u 'ot the death of the captain (Nelson) on the voYag e rollVe the f rst instance, been unjustifiable, and eve,.'l`,.J., v ilie Old Calabar, murderous towards the crew. 0 .1,',„ 0 1 , 3 f1 very reasonably doubted (as stated) the veraeoo, n i ter seaman's rather unaccountable story ; and, t te tsleo himself, wrote to the owner here. The magist ra iat er ir was received yesterday week by Mr. Sharp, witt.°'d his to states that Mr. H. Burnley, the supercargo , u s osloto thority in writing to take the command of IhN i ec e e pP case of the death of Captain Nelson, and d 33 : 1 ; terdt his was the only lawful authority on board after I 'LP - e t Before taking the command, he read to the t" ks rP r Oi, Mr. Sharp's latter, so authorising him. Mr. 7 0 0 0 ;9 1 furnished to a contemporary Air. Burnley's ' 3 ) 0 011, the proceedings, which is dated 27th Februar l o , was received in Liverpool six or seven weeks °g v ertlir this it appears that the crew broke out into cr a aacat on the 9th February, in Old Calabar RiveP o s,, a tli .. i Captain Burnley, after consulting Capt. se r pir a Smith, and other English captains in the rive r ' OP c e proper course to be adopted with the m utine e l a rs o 4 l to the native king for his protection and asso 0f quelling the mutiny. The letter to his net; f e,..,P d ate, v i was signed by every English captain in th,f,..„'"d $9 a d attack on the vessel is thus described :—" sent some canoes off, with strict orders not t° 0 0 0 '05 gentleman in each canoe for the purpose of Pr e i on 0 6 those who might be so disposed. At about 9 Pre ral armed canoes went off to the ship, but s c boleti: o to get on hoard in consequence of the sid e s ti l di high out of the water, the side ladder on c' n- itte P tbe; hauled up ; and the other cut away as soon pc oo le twio got on it; firing pistols an d th r o w ing hot w e ': elyeel' o f As they would not g i ve i n , Ki ng Evamba aot e r necessity, after having two men shot, to gn o ts, c stR A I orders to fire. Th e y fired two or three con s Thi s which shot Edward Callaghan on the cheek' 01",,e cooled them. The Kroomen then con3rn,":, c e e res t 'wolf e e s the carpenter over the side into a canoe. l' — a of '13 0. 1 ,0 sara ue it ra n w a b s el i o ts w e useless attempting a s t t t n T e p d t t in h g e oeeki themselves possess, o c n tie.oo tani l a cAno tf Bd,tio r r, ley proceeds to describe the condition son, Joseph King, Edward Johnson, of4 loo , o, a of were sent to prison, namely, William Hall, Walker, Williams, Benest, and C 3 ean' e n lie ti these only three required surgical assistanceo,, suPriey derson, Laidlow, and Callaghan, and it 6t rO i tides were found, and also gunpowder, sin_g oef eo r oi?,/ them. On searching the men's chests se c ' s, a d i t ' a O e t l df various descriptions. Captain BurnleYs.pn' s a nd l' o flit , e 'd that the men were furnished with provi Ib e o gg r , l attended to, but does not give the t-equ e i;„doa t o: Mr. Sher 's letter to the authorities in 4,15011,,e0e at the Mansion House on Tuesday last., _", dic ,v, dition to some of the above facts, that . 1 -l at, io plainant, was one of the m utineers, and, If der osy na ergo Captain Burnley, he has published t . r in ~.c 0e .,,y1 statement of the meeting, received fron _l r l . ';, e a He also states that the ship had not Yctt"captain L et or that he has no reason to suppose tha .. , wh ic . h would commit such an act as that r i r ie Te r o charges him.—The Lord Mayor and Slc.J, n roP e _ o , the matter should be inquired into when; trealoA of information arrived, and Laidlovv, mised to attend.