The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-02 00:00:00

MELANCHOLY ACCIDiNT ON THE RIVER On Tuesday evening last a collision took place between a small open boat and a steamer, on the river, by which two lives (so far as is yet known) were lost, and a considerable number of persons escaped. The following particulars are derived chiefly from the evidence taken at the coroner's in quest, held before Mr. Curry on Wednesday, on one of the bodies --that of a young woman. Abont half-past six o'clock Cuthbert Crawford, a boat man, and owner of a gig or boat of 22 feet long, took a pas senger on board of the ship Helen, lying at anolior off Pluck ington Bank. After the passenger got on board, Crawford was told that some of the passengers wished to go on shore, and he accordingly waited for them. In about three quarters of an hour several persons, including a female, got{ into the boat, and they left the ship and pulled towards the pier. The boatman's son was with him, a lad of 14 years of age, and another man pulled one of the oars, and they steered towards George's pier. The Vale of Clwyd steam-packet was lying at anchor between them and the shore. When passing her they saw the light of a steamer approabhing them, though they could not distinguish the hull. The boat was then from 200 to 300 y ar d s o ff G eorge ' s pier. It %vas darkish at the time, and observing the steamer still nearing, the helm was put a-port in order to avoid her. The steamer was then 100 to 150 yards distant, and still coming up. The boatmen im mediately stood up and hailed the steamer, and the passen gersdid the same. Th e s t eamer st ill , h owever, approached rapidly upon them, and the boatmen and passengers again shouted as loud as they could. They saw a man standing on the paddle-box. The parties in the boat meantime pulled as hard as they could to get out of the way ; but the steamer came up, struck the boat on the bow, and the stancheons of of the steamer struck her on the stern. The paddles of the steamer were not stopped until she struck the boat. Just as she struck some of the passengers in the boat stood up, and the larboard quarter went into the water. Crawford immediately jumped overboard to clear the paddles, and the boat, which was then nearly full of water, sunk. After swimming about for some time, lie was picked up by a boat that was dropping down the river. Immediately afterwards he heard his boy calling out " father," and got the men to back the boat, when he saw some persons in the water. He took hold of two of them, and held them up till they were drawn into the boat. One of them was his son. The steam boat that run them down wss the Nun, Woodside iron boat. The only way the small boat could avoid the steamer was, in his opinion, by putting the helm a-port and steering up the river. John Barry, a young farmer who had taken his passage in the Helen, for Australia, was at the time in the boat, in which there were, as nearly as he could calculate, about 16 or 17 persons, but he had not counted them. He saw the light of the steamer approaching them, but not the hull. In about two minutes more he saw her hull, and could plainly see two or three persons on board—otte of them. on the paddle-box. Those in the boat shouted out. The collision threw him backwards in the water. Ile caught hold of the gunwale as soon as he could. The boat was full of water, and every per son appeared to bz., out of her. lle got into her again, but she sunk from under him, and he then took to swimming. He saw the heads of several persons rise to the surface of the water. At this moment he caught hold of the two oars of the boat; but soon after seeing two men struggling in the water, and paddling with their hands as if they were drown ing, he pushed the oars towards them. Directly afterwards he saw the young female, Mary Ann Townsend, who had been in the boat with them. She was struggling on the top of the water a few yards from him, and he made for her and got hold of her shoulder, and supported her as well as he could, but as there was a swell at the time, and the water had nearly overcome him in his efforts to hold her up, he let go his hold, and she went down. He was carried away a short distance by the tide, and directly after the female again rose to the surface. He again got hold of her, but as there was a man struggling in the water close by him, whom he was afraid of getting hold of him, he missed his hold of the deceased and got away. He then made for a boat a little way off and got into it. When brought to the pierhead, he was informed that a young woman, who had been taken out of the water, had just been carried away by some policemen. He went after them to a public-house close by, where he recognised her. She appeared to recognise him. He assisted a female and a police•officer in stripping her, and putting her in blankets. She was placed sitting, on a sofa ; appeared to make great lament, and water was run ning from her mouth. A doctor was soon in attendance, and administered a little brandy and water. She appeared to recover greatly, and he went away to get his clothes changed. On his return to the house, about two or three hours after, he found that she was dead ! Matthew Johnson, fireman of the Albert steamer, stated that when the accident happened, their engineer called all hands to get the boat out, as he saw a boat was run down. Four of them went in the boat. Johnson first picked up a hat and a cap, and a little way further got hold of the de ceased by the hair of the head. When first placed in the boat, she did not move. One of the men placed her on his knee, in such a position as to let the water run out of her mouth. They landed her at George's pier. James Campbell, a police officer on duty at the pier -head that night, heard the cries of the parties in the boat as the steamer approached. He could see the boat about 100 yards from the steamer, which was then going on her course. He also heard cries when the collision took place, and afterwards heard a female or a boy call out " father." Three small boats in a short time rowed towards the pier, and the de ceased was in one of them. She was taken to the station house. A doctor attended her, and she appeared to recover greatly. In about twenty minutes after he left, he observed a great change in her appearance. The same doctor and another very soon arrived ; but in a few minutes after, she expired in their presence. When first he saw the small boat he thought there was sufficient light to enable persons on board the steamer to see it. Edward Greerson, a porter, saw the accident. He thought that if the small boat had been seen by the people on boardthe steamer at the time he first saw her, the collisi on might have been avoided by the engine being reversed. _ _ Richard Edwards, a seaman of the Albert, heard the people in the small boat cry out " Stop her !" and some one on board the steamer cried out " Stop her—turn back." See ing that the small boat would be run down, he assisted in lowering their boat, and was in her when the deceased was picked up. . Williani Edward Rowlands ' an agriculturist, who was going with the H e l en , sa id the deceased was his step-daugh ter, and was to have gone out in the same ship. Mr. G. Woods, surgeon, who had attended the deceased, was of opinion that her death was caused by congestion of the lungs, arising from immersion in the water. James M'Kee chief engineer of the Nun, said, that soon after they started f,om the pier -head the caain called out to him, in a loud voice, " Stopthe engine;" and her—reverse a second time he called out " Stop her." He (the engineer) stopped the engine as soon as he could throw it out of gear. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that, accidentally, the small boat was with great reat force and violence ran foul of by the s t eamer Nun, when deceased was thrown out, and afterwards died from immersion in the water. They also im posed a deodand of X 5 on the steamer. It is stated by the engineer of the Nun (WKee) that after stopping the engine, which was done before the boat got swamped, they dared not move the engine for some time, fearing that some of the persons inimeised might have got hold of the paddle-box. He adds that boats came off from the Abbott, the Druid, and several other vessels, and that (with that which dropped down the river), they succeeded in Picking up ele ven persons. The Druid's boat saved four or five. The Nun remained near the spot till all possible assist ance was given. The individual who spoke to the number of persons in the boat is Mr. Barry, and he was by no means certain in sup posing 15 or 16. The probability is that there were nct so many, even admitting that some of the parties were not emi grants, but visitors or friouds from the shore, The consign. rs of the ship Helen know of but one man (an emigrant) v ho was drowned, so that the loss of life (including the fellable) did not, it is hoped, exceed two. The great danger of con tact to small boats plying on the river after dusk, even if all preventions are used, is so obvious where steamers are almost constantly moving about, that this lamentable acci dent will, we trust, induce greater caution in future. The Helen sailed on the mornin of Thursday, and we need scarcely say that the fatality threw a damp upon the spirits of the emigrants on board of her. CHESTER ASSIZES. (From our own Correspondent.) The Assizes for this county commenced on Wednesday, on which day the Hon. Sir Thos. Coltman entered the city, and opened the commission in the afternoon. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, Mr. Justice COLTMAN, in addressing the Grand Jury, said it was lamentable to find, in looking over the calendar, that there were several cases where the sacrifice of human life had taken place. His lordship dilated on some of the most important cases, and dismissed the Grand Jury to their labours. The Grand Jury then retired. MANSLAUGHTER John Davenport was indicted on a charge of manslaughter. It appeared, from the evidence, that on the 7th of July last two men named Middleton and Cutts fought a pitched battle on Kindon Common, near Wilmslow, the,result of which was that Cutts died the following morning; . and that the prisoner and Joseph Burgess were exceedingly active in keeping the ring clear. The coroner's jury returned a ver dict against all the parties, who, with the exception of the prisoner, who had fled, were tried at the last assizes. The Prisoner denied the part attributed to him, and the jury retured a verdict of Not guilty. STABBING William Bilfield, 22, was indicted for stabbing William Cundiff, at Sutton, near Macclesfield, on the 22nd Nov. The prosecutor stated, that about 12 o'clock on the night of 22nd November, he and Ellen Hardy were returning to Sutton from Macclesfield, and were followed by the prisoner, who wished the female to go with him. She refused ; the prisoner persisted, when prosecutor interfered, and in a scuffle which ensued was kicked and stabbed by the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault. The JUDGE, in sentencing the prisoner, described the ()rime of using deadly weapons, in similar cases, was becoming such a dangerous practice, that it was necessary to make an example by a severe sentence, which was, that the prisoner be imprisoned for two years to hard labor. Willi am Owen was charged with stabbing Wm. Simcock, at Preston-on-the-Hill, on the 28th of August. This was a case originating in a beer-house brawl. The jury found Owen guilty of the common assault, for which he was sentenced to be imprisoned twelve months. MANSLAUGHTER, Joshua Renshaw was indicted for the mans l aughter of Benjamin Harrison , at Newton, in Febru ary l ast. This was a case where the prisoner was riding in his head the and in consequence of no pers o n bein g a t the horse's h the cart ran over and killed the deceased child. f The JUDGE, in summing up, enlarged upon the legal cul pability of carters, where death was caused by their negli gence. The jury, nevertheless, found the prisoner Not Guilty. UTTERING BASE COIN. James Wood, 21, and Win. Chantley, 12, were indicted for uttering counterfeit sixpences. There was a count charging Wood with making them. Chantley was admitted evidence for the prosecution. The Attorney-General and Mr. Cottingham appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, since the witness had en tered the prison, he had repeated both the Lord's P ra y er a nd the Ten Commandments. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentenced him to ten years' transportation. The Court then broke tip. ST. ANNE'S WARD.—In consequence of the death of Mr. Coglan, who expired on Tuesday last, at his house m Queen Anne-street, a vacancy has occurred in the representation of this ward in the town-council. James Parker, Esq., is the candidate iu the conservative interest. DUBLIN MAILS.—We are informed that on and after the 7th instant the hours for sailing of her Majesty's packets from Liverpool for Kingstown will be half-past six, a.m., and from Kingstown for Liverpool half-past ten, p.m. THEATRE-ROAY AL.—Mr. Wallack's benefit takes place to-night here. His bill is a strong one indeed, and a de lightful evening may be expected. The " Wonder" was repeated last night, and went off admirably. LIVER TIIEATRE.—Mr. Raymond's benefit, and the last night of the season, takes place to-night. We hope it will not be forgotten by those who have been so o ft en pl ease d with the manager's providing for their amusement. SOUTH .r.EtiCASHIRE 5.P,11V.' , ,,G A p4Z CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. Mr. Justice Maule took his seat shortly after nine o'clock CHARGE OF FORGERY. Henry Howard, 28, pleaded guilty to a charge of haring forged an order for the payment of money, with intent to de fraud Henry Mawdsley. His LORDSHIP, having examined the indictment, called the principal witness forward. A few questions elicited that the person by whom the document purported to be sent had no right to send an " order" for money, though money was due. It turned out that, in point of fact, the paper presented by the prisoner was a " request" to send two pounds, and not an " order" to send that sum. In the indictment the prisoner was charged with having forged an order, with intent, &c. Dr. BROWN, at the request of his Lordship, examined the indictment and depositions, and then directed the prisoner to withdraw the plea of guilty and plead not guilty; and no evidence being offered on the part of the crown, he was dis charged. Edward Riley, aged 35, was charged with having violated the person of Ann Manning, of this town, on the Sth instant. Mr. Cottingham and Mr. Denman conducted the prosecu tion; Mr. Murphy, the defence. The circumstances of the case are unfit for publication. The jury acquitted the prisoner. FORGEItY Edward Gilbert, aged 26, was charged with having, in March last, forged an acceptance on a bill of exchange for £23 165., with intent to defraud John Holmes Clementson, of this town. Mr. Ellis prosecuted, Mr. Wilkins appeared for the de fence. The particulars of this case were recently published in the STANDARD. The prisoner took the bill in question, which purported to have been accepted by Charles Edward Warn ford, a clerk in the custom-house, to Mr. Clementson, a so licitor who had done some business for him, and, depositing it as security, obtained on it the sum of .E 6 10s., with an un derstanding, however, that it was not to be negotiated. Air. Clementson subsequently discovered that the acceptance was forged. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him t 9 mercy. His Lordship considered it an aggravated case, and sentenced the prisoner to ten years' transportation. STABBING WITH A SPRIG-BIT. George Conroy, aged 27, was charged with having, in January last, at Warrington, feloniously stabbed William Acton. Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. Acton and the prisoner were drinking together at a public house in Warrington, when they had a dispute about the sawyers who had been committed to Kirkdale. This led to a quarrel, and ultimately they had a scuffle, but were separated. The prisoner ran out of the room. lie soon afterwards rushed in, seized the prosecutor round the neck, and jobbed at him with a sprig -bit, wounding him in the belly and other parts of the body. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. MANSLAUGHTER BY CARELESS DRIVING. Robert Sore, aged 40, was indicted for having, at Manches ter, in December last, feloniously killed Charlotte M'Cutchen. Mr. Chapman conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was undefended. The prisoner is a car-driver, and was, on the 3d December last, driving at a furious rate past Hulme Church, in Man chester ; as he approached, two children were crossing the street ; the foot passengers called to him to stop, but being drunk he did not heed them. He drove at the children, taking his horse and car over one and knocking the other down. The younger one of the two being very greatly injured was taken to the Infirmary, where she died in twenty-seven days. The other was very severely injured. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. The learned Judge strongly condemned the prisoner for his drunkenness, and sentenced him to four months imprisonment. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. John Gore, aged 26, was charged with having, in March last, killed John Mawdsley. _ _ Mr. Green prosecuted;Mr. Wilkins defended. It appeared that the prosecutor and Mawdsley, who was an old man, 76 years of age, were drinking together at a public house in Burscough. The old man was speaking on some subject, when the prisoner mocked him. The old man was vexed ; he got up, stripped, and challenged the prisoner to fight him. At length he pushed the prisoner, who gave him a blow on the back of his neck. He fell to the floor, and the people in the house believed him to be asleep. He had been drinking a considerable quantity of liquor, and was at length discovered to be insensible. He was carried home, where he soon after died. The surgeon who examined him, said, he believed the fall had caused his death, though, if he had not heard of his having been thrown down, he would not have been able to discover anything to account for his decease. The jury acquitted the prisoner. AFFRAY WITH GAMEKEEPERS Henry Orritt, aged 24, was charged with having, in Ja nuary last, wounded Henry Halsall, at Scarisbrick. The Hon. Mr. Wortley conducted the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins the defence. It appeared that, on the 27th of January last, about one o'clock in the morning, Henry Halsall and two other game keepers in the service of Mr. Scarisbrick, of this county, were out in the preserves of that gentleman, when they heard a report of some fire-arms in the vicinity of certain ponds on the borders of a preserve of pheasants. They went to the spot, and a man named Reynolds was captured with a gun in his possession, as he was searching for a couple of pheasants which he and his companions had shot, and which were af terwards found in the pond. The prisoner, it was alleged, was seen crouching, with his gun in his hand, and it was pre sumed lie was coming up to rescue the other. Halsall rushed upon him, when he attacked him with the butt end of his gun. Halsall parried his blows with his own gun as well as he could, but the prisoner succeeded in giving him several blows, one of which inflicted a severe wound on his head. The prisoner's gun was broken. The two went down together, when Halsall took the prisoner's little finger in his mouth, and bit it severely for the space of twenty minutes. The in jury inflicted was so great, that the prisoner was compelled to have the finger amputated. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty under the second count, that of wounding, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. The Judge took into consideration the sufferings of the prisoner in losing his finger and in his long imprisonment, and directed, that he should be further imprisoned for four calendar months. The court rose at six o'clock. NISI PRIUSCOURT.-TUESDAY Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat at a quarter past nine this morning. WILD AND OTHERS V. HOLT AND ANOTHER. Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiffs Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Alexander for the defendants. The case involved the right to certain coal in the township of Thornham, in this county : it was tried at the last assizes, but a new trial was granted on the ground of misdirection on the part of the learned Judge. Mr. COWLING opened the case. The declaration in the first count stated, that the defendants had broken and en tered into certain coal mines of the plaintiffs, and taken therefrom great quantities of coal which they converted to their own use; that they spoiled and destroyed other coal, by means of which the plaintiffs lost other coal, and were put to a great expense. To this declaration the defendants pleaded, first, that they were not guilty ; secondly, that the mines and coals were not the plaintiffs. On these pleas issue was joined. Mr. DUN nits was about to open the case, when , Mr. CRESSW ELL made a,proposition to the other side to try the question of right to the mines, and to refer the ques tion of amount. Mr. Dux DAS preferred, if the case were referred at all, that the whole of it should be referred. Mr. CRESSWELL was sure his clients would agree to refer the whole case, it Lord Suffield's agent would become a party ; and that his clients should have an indemnity against Lord Suffield. They only wanted to pay the right party, not to keep the money. Some consultation took place, which ended in an agree ment to refer the whole case to Mr. Frederick Robinson, who should be empowered to make such terms as he might deem right. Mr. CRESSWELL further suggested that, if Lord Suffield's agent pleased, he might have power to become a party before the arbitrator. The JUDGE expressed his satisfaction at this arrangement, and his conviction that it would promote the interests of all parties. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, for 405., subject to the reference. ASHWORTH V. BAMFORD. The parties in this case reside at Rochdale, and the action was brought to recover £5O alleged to be owing by the de fendant to the plaintiff upon a promissory note. The details were of no interest except to the prisoners themselves. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages £47, there being a set-off for the difference. BUTTERWORTH V. SMITH AND ANOTHER. The defendants in this case are cotton spinners in Man chester, and have their works at Bacup. The father of the plaintiff was the manager of the works, and he engaged the plaintiff at a salary of £l5O per annum, to act as book-keeper, cash-keeper, &c., but did not i n f orm th e d e f en d an t s. I n ad dition to this, the defendants occasionally had accommodation in the plaintiff's house, including dinners and beds, for which he charged 10s. 6d. per week. The action was brought to recover a balance of money due upon these accounts. The case was perfectly uninteresting. Verdict for the plaintiff, that he was entitled to a salary of £l5O per annum, and to Bs. per week. Damages £76 15s. GREGORY V. GRE ENWOOD. - RUNNING OVER BY AN OMNIBUS. . . . . The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Samuel Gregory, a pattern designer, at Manchester ; and the defendant is Mr. John Greenwood, the keeper of some omnibuses plying between Pendleton and Manchester. Mr. thindas and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff: Mr. C. Cresswell for the defendant. It appeared that, on the evening of the 4th January last, between six and seven o'clock, the plaintiff was going along Deansgate, and had turned seven or eight yards into King street, and when he was in the act of crossing the street, he was run over by one of the defendant's omnibuses, which was driven by a man named Prescott. It was alleged that the accident happened in consequence of the improper and negligent driving of the defendant's servant, as the night was not dark ; there were gas lamps in the street, and the place where it occurred was opposite the King's Arms Hotel, over the door of which there was a lamp. The omnibus was seen coming up Deansgate at a considerably fast pace, and the driver, when he arrived at the corner of the street, in stead of making a sweep, went near the right hand side, close to the curb-stone. The right wheel went over the plaintiff's back, grazing one side of his head and part of his face. breaking his collar-bone, and inflicting upon his arm in particular such injury that, for a fortnight afterwards, he was obliged to keep his bed. For six weeks he was unable to use his arm, and, up to the present day, it was not per fectly cured. The driver had bad some liquor. Evidence was then given of the amount of pecuniary loss sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of being unable to go to Glas gow, at the proper time to dispose of his patterns for the spring market. One of his designers stated, that between 300 and 400 patterns were prepared for him to take to Glas gow ; that their average price was from 12s to 15s, but they were worth nothing, as he was three weeks too late for the spring market, and the calico printers would not buy them. For the defendant, evidence was given that the driver was not drunk, but perfectly sober, and that the affair was en tirely an accident. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3O. DAVIDSON, REGISTERED OFFICER, V GIBSON. This w as an undefended action brought by the Commercial Bank of England at- Manchester, against the defendant, to recover the amount of two bills of exchange for £213 14s 3d, and £250 Is. 6d., which be had accepted.—Verdict for the plaintiff. ASSAULT AND TR Esrmss. -- --CItANNSIIAV/ V. DRINKWATER. This was an action brought by a power-loom weaver at Manchester, ag.ainst a cord-manufacturer in Salford, who let him power for turning twenty-six looms ; and who after some quarrels between the parties, forcibly ejected the plain tiff and his hands from the premises, locked them up, took possession of the looms and various tools and utensils, cut some cloth from the looms, and also detained some warps and watt belonging to the plaintiff ', whose tenancy had not ex pired.—The case endedin a jur or b e i ng w i t hd rawn . The court broke up shortly a f ter six. CROWN COURT. WEDNESDAY. MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING. J ames Steel, 2.5, Watt °barged With ha v i ng , at Manchester, maliciously wounded Michael Rooks. Mr. Green prn,secutea. The pri4oner w uraeffruied: James Longworth stated that he was a shoe Maker. On the 31st of August he was returning from Ancoats-lane, in Manchester, and on going through Angel -street he heard a disturbance. He went towards the place, and saw two per sons, Rooke and Steel. fie saw Steel draw from his breast a weapon, which appeared to be a piece of iron, and strike Hooke a violent back-handed blow. Rooke fell backwards, crying out, " 0 God, I'm killed ! " The p r i soner t h en struck another violent blow on the chest. Steel then ran off with another person, named Rafferty. Witness p ursue d the prisoner for fifty yards, never losing sight of him till he was given into the hands of Sheriff, a policeman. When taken into custody, Steel's hands were literally covered with blood. The officer, witness, and prisoner then went to Rooke's house. Rooke was lying in a senseless state ; and, after recovering, he pointed to the prisoner and said, " That 's him." Prisoner replied, " I wish I had killed him." When in the Town-hall, the prisoner was asked why he committed the act. He replied. " They should not have broken my jug." Sheriff, the police-officer, gave similar testimony. . . The sister of Rooke corroborated Longworth's statement as to the conversation which took place in the house of Rooke. John Barton, a police-officer, who came up to the assist ance of Sheriff, and who went also to the house, gave like testimony as to the particulars of the conversation. ..,..—... His LORDSHIP summed up very briefly,.. and the jury found the prisoner guilty. _ _ He was sentenced to be imprisoned one year STABBING John Wade, 21, was indicted for cutting and wounding Wm. Graham Lockerby, in this town, on the 12th Mardi. Mr. Venables and Mr. "Paget prosecuted. The prisoner was undefended. Wm. G. Lockerby stated, that on the evening in question he and a friend were going along Whitechapel, and, coming to Preston-street, they met with the prisoner and some others, who knocked off their hats. A scuffle took place, when the prisoner took a knife from his pocket and stabbed him several times. A policeman came up and took the pri soner into custody. Sally Doncaster• saw the transaction, and gave the alarm. John Bacon, police-officer, testified that he saw the pri soner striking the prosecutor, and then took him into cus tody. He took a sling with a round piece of lead at the end of it from the prisoner, with which he was striking the friend of the prosecutor. John Owen, another constable, gave similar evidence. John Julius Jones, surgeon, of Dale -street, examined Lockerby, and found a wound in his right side, about 2 inches in length and 1 in depth. Did not consider the wound dangerous. The effusion of blood had been great, and the wound appeared to have Ween given by a large knife. His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. MANSLAUGHTER. Henry Norris, 17, was charged with having, on the 27th of August last, killed Thomas Blundell, in West Derby. Dr. Brown prosecuted. Mr. Wilkins was retained for the defence, but being engaged in the civil court Mr. Murphy took his brief. The prisoner was a carter, and on the day in question was driving his cart without reins in West Derby, when the de ceased was run over and killed. A woman who saw the accident, the grandmother of the child, and the surgeon who examined it, gave their evidence, which was very brief, and simply stated the facts. Mr. MURPHY then addressed the jury. His LORDSHIP summed up, and the prisoner was found guilty, but recom mended to mercy. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for four months. David Williams, 29, was indicted for killing and slaying John Davies, at Liverpool, on the 31st of August last. Mr. Venables and Mr. Ramshay prosecuted. Mr. Mur phy again held Mr. Wilkin's brief. _ - On the 27th of August the deceased was drunk in his own house, in Prince Edwin's-lane, and having assailed the pri soner, a scuffle ensued, during which he fell, and died shortly afterwards. lt appeared from the cross-examination, that the deceased, who was quite drunk, gave all the provocation, and struck the prisoner first. Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury for the defence. There was no proof, lie contended, that the cause of death was the blow given by the prisoner, but that the fall which he got was the means of his death. Several witnesses were called to speak to the prisoner's character, and the jury acquitted him. James Hale, 20 (could neither read nor write), was charged with having, at Manchester, caused the death of Wm. Wall, a boy in his employ, he himself being a master sweep. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Hulton prosecuted. Michael Kirley, a sickly looking little boy, about nine years of age, who has been employed by the prisoner to sweep chimneys, said that he had lived about thirteen months with the prisoner. Remembers having to go to sweep Mr. Kir shaw's chimney. Deceased went with them about half past six. There was nobody there to let them in, and they got over the wall. Wm. Wall went up one flue and witness up the other side, which was the hottest side of the flue, and belonged to a boiler. He came out again in about ten min utes on hearing his mas t er ca ll . When he came up his master was outside, and told him the boy was dead. The boy was up in the flue. He went into the place over the bridge of the boiler, and the prisoner pulled the deceased out through the fire-place. Witness went into the far end of the boiler, but could not get the deceased out. When taken out the boy was quite dead, and the body was taken to the Crown and Anchor. His master lifted the boys up and put them into the flues, telling them to " sweep it clean." He tried to get up the same side the deceased went up, but after getting nu to the middle he could go no further, it was so hot. Wall had not swept any flues of the same kind before. Cross-examined by the prisoner. —Wall went up the flame bed himself. John Muscroft, the engineer, deposed that the prisoner raked the embers from the fire, and ought to make a hole to admit the cold air before the boys were put into the flues, in order that the flame bed might bt cooled by letting in the cold air. Prisoner had been employed sweeping similar flues for thirteen months, and had always made the holes. Spoke to him about the holes, telling him to break them open. It would not he a safe thing to sweep the flue by boys with out breaking open the holes. Had swept the flues himself without opening the holes ; but on those occasions the boiler was cleaned out and filled with cold water. Did not get to the works that Sunday morning till twenty minutes to seven. Prisoner ought not to have swept the flues till the boiler had been cleaned out, and filled with cold water. When he swept the flues there was another person with him, and they took it in turns, as they got too hot to go in. It would be danger ous for boys to go into chimneys for fear of the cramp. Cross-examined.--It was his duty to have put cold water into the boiler, and he would have done it had he been there in time. Prisoner was much distressed. John Denning was awakened on the morning in question by the prisoner, who said " a little boy is fast i❑ the flue." When he reached the place the boy was quite dead, but very wet. Prisoner said he had pulled the boy through the ash pit, which was full of water. Put his arm up the flue, and found it so hot that he could not hold it there. Believed it would have cooked a beefsteak in twenty minutes. Called the prisoner a scoundrel, and some men who were in the place would have abused the prisoner had he not interfered. Washed the deceased's face with a handkerchief, and the skin came off. James Starkie, who ought to have assisted the engineer to empty the boiler, corroborated the previous witnesses, add ing, that at four o'clock in the afternoon the boy who swept the flue said it was then very hot, although the hole had been opened. Mrs. Wall stated that the deceased was her son, and would have been ten years old next birth-day. Mr. Dyson, surgeon, made a post mortem examination of the body, and observed burns on the back, calves of the legs, and toes. Opened the body, and found the chest very much congested with blood. The windpipe bad the symptoms which usually attend cases of suffocation. The cause of death was from breathing air devoid of oxygen, and mixed with carbonic acid gas. Examined by the JUDGE.—The flues might be swept with out boys, if the parties were to put themselves to a little more expense. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the defence. The prisoner was found guilty, and s en t ence d to four months imprisonment. STABBING Thomas Watts (not Iti'TeC;lendar) was indicted for wounding Robert Heathcott. Dr. Brown prosecuted ; Mr. Green and Mr. Wilkins ap peared for the defence. The prisoner and the prosecutor quarrelled in Mr. Higgin bottom's office, Piccadilly, Manchester, when a fight ensued. Prisoner afterwards stabbed Heathcott in the right side. The prosecutor in this case did not come forward to give evidence, and his recognisances were estreated. Mr. GREEN addressed the jury at great length, and after his LORDSHIP had summed up, the prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The court rose at half-past five. NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY. PARR AND OTHERS V. RICHMOND. Verdict for plaintiffs, who were bankers, for .£llB Os. 2d., the amount of a bill. WILD V. PLATT. Verdict for plaintiff by consent for £250, subject to a re ference. SHEFFIELD RAILWAY V. THOMSON. Verdict for plaintiff by consent for £2,818. BREARLY V. RADCLIFFE. Verdict for plaintiff for £5O damages and 40s. costs, sub ject to a reference. PATCHETT U. SMITH. Withdrawn. WILLIAMS V. MILLINGTON JUN In this case, Samuel Williams was plaintiff, and John and Anne Millington, the administratrix to Edward Shaw, were the defendants. The action was brought for the recovery of £39 6s. Bd., and the defendants pleaded that the late Mr. Shaw had not been indebted. Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case. The plaintiff kept an inn and lodging-house at Salford, and he had received an in timate acquaintance of his (Mr. shaw's) into his house, and had furnished him with board and lodging down to his death, a period of two years. An arrangement was made between the parties that Mr. Shaw should pay 12s. a week for the services rendered him ; and having had, during the two years, several of his friends stopping at the house, who had been furnished with beds and food, he undertook to pay whatever charge should be fair and reasonable for them. The defendant was a farmer, in Flintshire, and be made his ap pearance in the action in consequence of his having married a person who was sister to the deceased gentleman's late wife. At the death of Mr. Shaw, the plaintiff thought to ob. thin the property of which he bad been possessed in order to satisfy his claim, but the wife of the defendant took out letters of administration, and proceeded to act upon them. Several applications had been made to her for what was due to the plaintiff, but, as she had refused to pay, the present action was brought. _ A number of witnesses were examined on behalf of both plaintiff and defendants, and after his lordship had summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff of one farthing. BANKS AND ANOTHER V. HIGGINS AND ANOTHER. Verdict for plaintiff for £47 17s. 6d. and 40s. costs, subject to a reference. PARKINSON V. DRINKWATER. Mr. DUNDAS stated the case. The gentleman who was plaintiff in the action was a surveyor, living at Stockport, in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and he complained before the court and jury of a very violent and unjustifiable assault which had been committed upon him by the defendant. The defendant was a mill-owner at Salford, and it appeared that, in the spring of the present year, himself and a person of the name of Crankshaw had a difference, which ended in Crank shaw bringing an action against the defendant on the subject. Those who advised Mr. Crankshaw to bring the action di• rected him to obtain a plan taken of the premises where the occurrence took place. Accordingly, the plaintiff was chosen by Mr. Crank s h aw ' s peop l e t o go an d t a ke a pl an o f th e pre mises, and upon the 24th of July he went to the mill. He had been allowed to enter the premises ; he took his surveys ; made his measures; but did not complete his business that day. Next day he returned. He went in again. No per• son stopped him. No one thought he was doing any harm. He did what he went there to do. He then came out from the premises, and when he had been about twenty yards from the mill, up came the defendant. The latter asked him something about the plan, such as "who it was for," and " who he h a d b een doing it for." Plaintiff replied that he had been doin g it f or M r. Crankshaw. " Wh at !" said the defendant, "f or t h at d-d scoundrel; I shall have it." " I'm d-d if you shall," said the plaintiff ; whereupon the defendant rushed upon him in a very violent manner, thrust his hand into his throat, and, by main force, took the plan out of his pocket and kept it to the preeeut day. Not con. tent with that, he seized hold of 'the survey, charged the ' plaintiff with some kind of an offence for trezprts . s, dragged him along the street by force, took him through the public thoroughfares of Salford, made him go with him to the po lice-office (a quarter of a mile off the town), and delivered him into the charge of the police there as a person guilty of an offence. He put him into the office, saying " I charge him with a wilful trespass ;" and there the plaintiff was kept in durance for an hour and a-half, when in came the super , intendendent of police, who took his word for his appear , ante, and allowed him to go at large until Monday morning. On Monday the matter came before the justices, who said there was no earthly reason for the conduct of the defendant, that the defendant had no pretence for saying that he should have him taken into custody. What sort of justification had the defendant made on the present occasion ? Why, none. He said, " True it is I took your plan, and I will give you a guinea for it ;" and really and truly this was all he had said, with the exception of adding that the plaintiff had given him leave to do as he had done ; but if he had given him leave. then all he (Mr. D.) could say was, that he had been strangely instructed. There were, therefore, three questions for the jury to dispose of :—First, had the assault been committed ; secondly, had the plaintiff given the defendant leave and license to commit the act ; and thirdly, what had been the value of the plan. Several witnesses were examined to prove the case, after which Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defendant. He contended that the plaintiff had intruded himself into the mill to take the admeasurernent of the premises ; that as a guinea had been paid into court for the plan, he had been amply remunerated for his trouble in drawing it ; that the charge of imprisonment was a mere farce, and that the de fendant had acted as any gentleman of the jury would have acted in similar cases, bad they found an intruder coming out of their mills, or their drawing, after having poked about the house, picking up information to make out his survey. No witnesses were called for the defence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 40s. damages, and 40s. costs. HULME AND ANOTHER V. DOOLEY. In this case Richard and Thomas Hulme were plaintiffs, and Charles Dooley, as the executor of James Booth, was the defendant. The action was brought for the recovery of the sum of £lO6 15s. for goods sold and delivered, and money due on an account stated, alleging the money to have become due. The defendant pleaded that he was not execu tor. The plaintiffs:'were meal and flour dealers at Bolton, and the deceased, Mr. Booth, carried on business at Rad cliffe, in this county, and had been in the habit of buying flour and meal from the plaintiffs. The question for the jury was, not whether the money was due, but whether the de fendant was or was not Mr. Booth's executor, and if they should be of opinion that he was, then he would be subject to the liabilities of an executor. Verdict for the plaintiffs. BURTON AND ANOTHER V. BOARDMAN. This was an action for the recovery of £3O, being the amount of a bill of exchange payable at three months' date. The defendant pleaded that he had not accepted the bill. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount. The Court adjourned at ten minutes to six o'clock. CROWN COURT .- - Y ESTERDA Y. CHARGE OF RAPE. Lewis Hart was indicted for having violently and feloni ously ravished Elizabeth Gordon, ou the 22d of last August. The following gentlemen were sworn to try the case : William Anderson, James Abbott, William Barker, Peter Copeland, John Cunningham, John C. Cheveley, George Crossley, Richard Dearden, Jas. Fairclough, James Knott, William Taverner, and Thomas Leicester. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Wilkins, counsel for the pri soner, the witnesses on both sides, were ordered out of court, before the proceedings were commenced. Mr. STARKIE stated the case. He said the jury having just heard the nature of the charge, it became his duty, and a very unpleasant one it was, to enter into a detail of the circumstances. It was one, however, which the justice of the case required, and he would endeavour to be as brief as possible in stating the leading features of it to them, not, of course, going into detail, and with as little of comment as it necessarily required. Mrs. Gordon, who was the prosecu trix on the occasion, and also had charged the prisoner with violating her person, was a married lady, whose husband, he believed, had been in the habit of gaining a livelihood as a tutor. He had opened an establishment at one time near Liverpool, for the purpose of taking pupils, but not succeed ing, he resided at present in London, and had, in fact, re sided but little with his wife, other circumstances having prevented them from cohabiting together—not in consequence of having had any quarrel or disagreement together. but wholly the result of a family arrangement. Mrs. Gordon had, during the last twelve years, resided with her brother-in law, Mr. Fadhenille, and her sister, Mr. Fadhenille's wife. Mr. Fadhenille had resided for some time at No. 114, London road, in this town, and had been in the habit of letting lodg ings. It would appear that about the end of July last, the prisoner at the bar, who was a jeweller and picture dealer, living in Liverpool, had come to lodge at his house. Shortly after, he began to pay particular attentions to Mrs. Gordon, who was a lady of some personal attractions, of the age of twenty-six, and had, in tact, offered her many presents of dresses, jewellery, a gold watch, a diamond ring, and several other matters which were geuerally aceeptable to the female sex. Some of these she had accepted, and others she de clined, and he (the learned counsel) believed that amongst others she had accepted the ring. She had either refused to accept the watch and jewellery, or she had returned them ; but some articles of dress she had also received. Having gone on in this way for some time, it appeared plain that he wished to obtain possession of her person. However, he had not succeeded until he resorted to means the nature of which would be detailed. The 21st of August had fallen upon a Friday, and, on that day, the prisoner was out and did not return until two o'clock on the morning of Saturday, when he was let iu by Mr. Fadenhille, who had not been in the habit of entrusting the key of the house to the servant. He (Mr. S.) would here state to the jury the manner in which the bed-rooms were situated. The prisoner occupied the parlour on the first floor, and he also occupied the bed-room on that floor. Mr. and Mrs. Fadhenille likewise occupied a sleeping-room nearly on the same floor, and Mrs. Gordon slept in the room over that of Mr. and Mrs. Fadenhille. The servant belonging to the house slept upon a floor which was nearly the same as that in which Mrs. Gordon slept, there being only a few steps to go from the one room to the other ; and upon the night of the occurrence in question, Mrs. Gor don had a little child of her own sleeping with her, who was about seven years of age. Mr. Fadhenille, having let the prisoner in, (who was the worse for liquor) went to bed and fell asleep. Mrs. Gordon would tell the jury that she had been suddenly awakened by finding some one on her who had in part gained possession of her person. She imme diately screamed, but he persisted, and having put his hand on her mouth to prevent her from giving an alarm, made use of the words " now 1 have you," and then proceeding with what he had been doing, and accom plished his purpose. The screams of the lady awoke the servant, and also her brother-in-law and sister. Mr. Fad henille immediately got out of bed and went up stairs to his sister-in-law's room, but as he was going up, after he had heard the first scream, he then heard other screams. When he reached the door of the room, he cried out " Eliza! what is this?" upon which she replied, "here's Mr. Hart here," and Mr. F. then entered the room. When he got in Mr. Hart was not on the bed ; his trowsers were up, which before had been down ; and Mr. Fadhenille asked him what right he had to be there. Mr. Hart replied, that " he had mistaken the room from having taken too much liquor," on which he left the apartment, and shortly after Mrs. Gordon went down stairs to her sister. These were the circumstances which the jury would have detailed to them by the lady herself. He (Mr. S.) understood that the defence which would be set up would be to the effect, that Mrs. Gordon had yielded to the solicitations of the prisoner at the bar; that they had had connection together at different places, among the rest at the " White Bear," and some tea gardens, and that the occur rence which had taken place on the night in question, was the result of an assignation actually made with the lady for the purpose. If such were the case, it would, doubtless, ap pear very extraordinary to the jury that she should be so alarmed at his coming, and that she should have tried to scream; and if connection had previously taken place, that she should have persisted, as she had done, in making the present charge against him, particularly as he had explained to a certain extent the reason of his being in the room on the night of the 21st of August, by saying that it was a mistake. Then, if she really had been the guilty person alleged, there was no occasion for her to make the outcry by screaming and awaking the family. But the matter had not stopped here. The next morning the prisoner met Mrs. Gor don on the stairs, and said it would be a very serious bu siness if brought forward, and made a proposal that she should go and live with him. This she rejected, but had she assented, and gone to live with him, the fact would be of con siderable service to the prisoner on the present trial. Mr. Fadhenille then went into his breakfast-room, when the pri soner wished to make some explanation, but Mr. Fadhenille cut him short by asking him, if he meant to say that he had ally right to go into Mrs. Gordon's room. The prisoner ad mitted that he had, whereupon Mr. Fadheuille said that he had behaved himself like a blackguard in the house, and that like a blackguard he should leave it ; and the conse quence was, that the prisoner left as soon as he could on the same morning. Those were the circumstances of the case, and from the short statement, he (Mr. S.) had now made, it w ould appear the question would resolve itself into one' of credit, between the allegations of Mr. Hart and the evidence of Mrs. Gordo n could there be a doubt, with respect' to the pri soner's conduct towards her, that from a very ear l y t i me after he entered the house, he had en t erta i ned the idea of getting possession of her person ? The case would then form the subject of examination and cross-examination, but that he even had gained possession of her person by fair means, he (the learned counsel) utterly denied. She admit ted being at different places, going to take a dinner or luncheon at the " White Bear,' and being in a room with him alone ; she also admitted being at tea-gar dens with him, but she denied that any criminal con: versation had taken place between them on those occa sions, and this denial would be borne oat by facts, and probabilities. It would be shewn that the prisoner's in tentions were manifest from the first ; and it was not im probable that he, not having previously effected his purpose, but being warmed with wine on the night of the occurrence, might have made an attack upon her when he went into her room under the circumstances mentioned, and it was also improbable, in case the lady had been in the practice of en joying the illicit amour before, that she should have insisted they H h e ad would detail now e d call the on following up the present prosecution. the witnesses before them, and when facts, his duty should have been performed. Mrs. Elizabeth Gordon was then called. She was very re spectably attired, and gave her evidence with considerable coolness and self-possession. She presented a somewhat handsome and intelligent cast of countenance. Her evi dence was as follows :—ls a married woman, and was living at No. 114, London-road, in August last, with her brother in-law, Mr. Fadhenille, who had married her sister. They were married together about fourteen years. Witness was residing with them in London-road from the month of February preceding the occurrence, and will be married ten years in September. She married a Mr. Gordon, the son of Major Gordon, of Bristol, and her mar r i age took place in Edinburgh. She had only one child, who was about six years of age at present. Shortly after her marriage her hus band went to London about some money affairs that he had with his brother, but, after having corresponded with her for about two years, he went abroad. and she had not met him again until after the lapse of seven •years. Her brother hav ing then found him in London she went to live with him again, and stopped with him about 5 months. When she married him he had just come from the college at Cambridge, and he had been a tutor for some years in London. After his return from abroad he bad income enough to support her and the child, but, before he had been discovered by her brother, she had forgottenand she re h s i e d r e . d w M i t r h . h lz i a m d 1 i t e h n e i r l e l e thought perhaps that he lived in Scotland in 183 6, Mr. Fadhenille was a wine merchant, an d h ad a divan in Edinburgh, which was a most_ respectable and f as hi ona bl e resort. When she left Scotland she went to Gartside-street, in Manchester, where she lived with Mr. Fadhenille, who carried on the business of a wine merchant there. He also took premises in King.street, which he fitted up as a re spectable French Coffee-house, but did not occupy them for ' any length of time. Witness first began to get acqua i n t e d o with the p r i sone r in the month f J . last. It w as th en s h e saw him f or the fist time, at her brother-in-law's house in London-road. He came about two o'clock in the day to take the apartments, and she bad never seen him before that. ' Her brother-in-law had a bill in the window, with the word " apartments" on it. She could not say whether " apart ments for single gentlemen" was on it or not, but she re collected that those words were at one time on it. He then closed an agreement for the apartments, and on the Bth he came to reside. He had no servants, but, havin g b roug h t his clothes with him, he occupied the drawing-room e at and a bed-room. This bed-room communicated with his sitting.. room. there being a door from the one apartment into th.. other. Witness slept in a room which as one flight of stairs above that of the prisoner; and also above that in which her brother-in-law slept. Her room was at the back of the house. They had only one servant at the time of the occurrence, and her room was above that of the prisoner's. The servant's name was Margaret Waterson. On the 21st of August, witness had been across the water in Cheshire. Her brother-in-law and sister accompanied her. She dined before she went ; and they went there to spend the afternoon, it being the summer season. They returned home about dark, but she could not be positive about the exact time. She was very much fatigued after her excursion across the water, and retired to bed about half-past eleven o'clock. Her child, who was then about seven years of age, slept with her. Th e c hild h a d a l ways been in the habit of sleeping with her. She tell asleep immediately after getting to Iced. She had not seen the prisoner on the evening of that day after she got home, but knew that he had come in to dine before they went to Cheshire. Ile had always wished to dine with the family, but on that day he dined by himself. After she went to bed and had fallen asleep, she heard no noise. The first thing by which she had been awakened was by the prisoner. He was in the bed. The prosecutrix having here described the situation of the prisoner and the nature of the offence, proceeded :—See could not say posi tively where he had his arms, but he either had them in her breast or on some part of her person. He was under the cloths, and had nothing but his trousers on. At the first alarm she screamed, but the prisoner put his hand over her mouth and pressed down with all his face. She still conti nued screaming until her brother-in-law came to the door. When be had his hand on her mouth she thinks he either said—" I have you now," or—" I have got you now." It was not perfectly dark when her brother-in-law came up ; daylight was coming. Her brother-in-law said outside the door—" Eliza, what is this ? " The prisoner then got out of bed, and in an instant her brother-in-law was in the room. She thinks he said to the prisoner " What are you doing here, Mr. Hart ? " She cannot recollect what answer Mr. Hart made, but her brother-in-law put him out of the room by, she thinks, the arm. The servant-girl did not come down stairs. When the prisoner left the room, prosecutrix instantly got out of bed and went down to her sister, and stated to her what had taken place. After remaining with her sister for half an hour, she returned to her bed, and saw no more of the prisoner for that night. That was the first occasion on which the prisoner had ever possession of her person, or cri minal connexion with her, and this she positively swears. On the next morning she saw him on the landing of his our drawing-room, and at the time she was going down to her sister's apartment, he said he wished to speak to her. She said " she had nothing to say to him." He then said, alluding to the night before, ." this will be a very serious crime if you bring it against me." She then informed hint again that she had nothing to say to him, and she did not recollect that he had said anything else to her. She did not - breakfast that morning at all, being too unwell from the bad usage she had received from the prisoner the night before. She did not know where the prisoner breakfasted that morn ing, but he left the house that day, perhaps about one o'clock, baggage and all. She saw him again when he returned for something he had left behind. She saw him on this occasion as she was coming out of her sister's room, and she thinks he repeated the same words as he passed her, namely, not to bring the case against him; but she thinks she did not see him again after that. She went as soon as she was able, which was about six o'clock that evening, to a lawyer ; the matter was heard before Mr. Rushton either on the Wednes day or the Thursday following, and upon that occasion she had been cross-examined by Mr. Wilkins. She had received some presents from the prisoner while he had been at her brother-in-law's house. He made her a present of a bonnet, a cap, and a ring, and he had offered her a watch, but she had not accepted it. She walked with the prisoner on two or three occasions in company with her brother-in-law and sister, and once she walked with him alone. Upon the occasion that she walked with him alone, they went together to a public-house in the country where they had tea. Nothing criminal took place there. She dined with him once at the " White Bear." This occurred about a fortnight perhaps after he had come to her brother in-law's house. At the " White Bear" they dined together in the public room. They did not go up stairs together after dinner, but they went into a private room at the back to take fruit and wine. The door of that room was not locked, and no connection took place there. After dining at the " White Bear" they went straight home together—but having passed a shop on the way where artificial flowers were sold, he bought some for her. She never made any:assignation that the prisoner should come to her room on the night of the assault ; and she never allowed or authorised him to come into her bed-room in the manner he had done. Cross-examined by Mr. WlLKlNS—Witness has been married nine years to her husband, and has been living with him for the last five months, but has not resided with him more than a year altogether since her marriage; never lived with him longer than five months at any one time. Was married in South David-street, Edinburgh, in her brother in-law's house, by Dr. Ritchie, according to the rights of the Church of Scotland, and by special license. Her brother in-law kept a cigar divan in Edinburgh, where young gentle men played cards, but prosecutrix was never seen by them ; her sister had put a gentleman of the name of Barge out of their honse in Manchester because be came there uninvited, and also because he was a bad character ; in about three weeks afterwards the prisoner came to lodge with them, her brother-in-law told herself of her sister that he had heard very bad reports of him. Had once told the prisoner she was a widow, but immediately after told him the contrary ; the prisoner had never paid atten tions, or affected to court her. It was at the Wavertree Coffee-house they had taken tea together. When she went to the " White Bear" she met the prisoner near the Rail way, about five o'clock in the day, and as she was going to the market for provisions for dinner ; was an hour and a half in the back room of the " White Bear," during which they were alone together ; does not recollect that there ;vas a sofa or couch in that room ; the prisoner left his pocket book there after him, and opened the door for the servant to come in while they had been sitting there. After leaving the " White Bear" the prisoner purchased the artificial floNiers and two collars for her ; she did not tell Mr. or Mrs, Fadhenille that she had been at the " White Bear ;" the pri soner paid £3 for a bonnet, and 30s. for a c a p f or her on the day they went together to Wavertree; he had also given her a ring, and offered to make her a present of a watch ; she slept on the night of this occurrence in a French bed ; there was a fastening to her bed-room door, but no lock; it was not fastened on the night in question ; wears a night gown in bed ; screamed out " Oh, murder !" as loud as she was able, when she found out what had occurred; the servant's room was only five or six steps from her own ; was upon oc casions in the prisoner's shop alone, and went into his picture gallery while he conversed with a gentleman ; went into a Mrs. Williamson's house in Manchester, dressed in man's clothes. In answer to the JUDGE, the witness stated her child was asleep the whole of the time Mr. Hart was in the r;;;;, un til he was put out of the room by Mr. Fadhenille. Her child was not with her at the tea-drinking at Wavertree Coffee- Valentine Bernard Fadhenille was the next witness called. He said he had left No. 114, London-road. and now resided at Martin's Cottage, Liscard. He was a wine merchant. The witness then described respectively the position of Mrs. Gordon's, Mr. Hart's, the servant's, and his own rooms, and stated that he first became acquainted with the prisoner at the British Hotel, in May last. He then narrated the cir cumstances of the prisoner coming home at two o'clock in the morning, of his being awoke by a scream from Mrs. Gor don, of his finding the prisoner in her room, and generally confirmed her account. He also, by request, imitated the screams which he heard issuing from Mrs. Gordon. The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS. He said he went out in the morning about ten o'clock, and left Mr. Hart in the house. Witness refused to lend him a razor as he requested, and sent him in his bill, which he paid. Witness in going into the town met Mr. Gaskill, agent to the Times, [London] who asked him to go to Chester, as he thought he could get him an order from some innkeeper there for some wine. Witness went to Chester, and returned about eleven at night and went home. Mrs. Jane Fadhenille, wife of the last witness, gave simi lar testimony to that of her husband. On being cross-examined, the witness said she knew of her sister having received some small presents from Mr. Hart ; but would swear her sister had never been dressed up in man's clothes in Manchester. Margaret Waterson said she was servant at Mr. Fad henille s at the time of this occurrence. She said she was awoke by Mr. Hart knocking at the front door, but fell asleep immediately afterwards. She was again awoke by a scream from Mrs. Gordon, and heard all that took place afterwards. Her account of the transaction was substantially the same as that given by the preceding witnesses. She added that she had now left Mr. Fadhenille's service, and was living with Mrs. Belshaw, in Everton. Mr. Johnson, a friend of Mr. Hart's, had called upon her there and offered her any money not to appear against him, but Mr. Hart had not asked her. Mr. STARKIE said this was the case for the prosecution. Mr. NITILKiss then rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He was quite sure they had paid the greatest possible attention to the case throughout ; and with that as surance upon his mind he had very little doubt as to what their verdict, upon due deliberation, would be. Whatever their verdict might be, the consequences which had already fallen upon his unhappy client, he was afraid a long life of industry would never retrieve. This circumstance occurred to him some six months ago. Being at that time engaged in a respectable way of trade, he (Mr. Wilkins) need hardly tell the jury that the consequences to him must have been most disastrous. He (the learned counsel) thought he was not asking too much when he asked the jury to believe that his client had suffered all these consequences on account of the duplicity, the dishonesty, and the tricks of an unchaste and libidinous woman. He (the learned counsel) was not one who would wantonly assail the character of another, much less the character of a woman, and of a married woman ; but when be had a duty to perform, such as that which now de volved upon him, he was obliged to set aside all the minor obstacles presented in private life, and look straightforward to the truth as it presented itself to his view. Whatever might be his own feeling, whatever his natural repugnance to such a mode of proceeding might be, it was a matter of necessity to lay before them, as far as he could, every fact, stripped of decep tion, sophism, and misrepresentation, in order that they might see it in its proper point of view. Let him ask them, as men of the world, to take a fair straightforward view of the case. In the first place, he called their attention to the evidence of the servant who last was in the box. It mieJit be true, as she said, that Mr. Johnson had done what hundreds of foolish men before him had done; it might he true that he, in his anxiety to serve the cause of Mr. Hart, iu his dread lest the consequences of such an accusation might fall upon the head of Mr. Hart—it was by no means improbable that Mr. Johnson had played the part of a great fool, and made offers which he ought not to have made. But there was no proof that:Mr. Ilart ever sanctioned or authorised those offers. The inference was the other way, because when Mr. Hart was present there was no proof he ever hinted or suggested at such a thing ; and, although it was competent for his learned friend to have got the whole conversation between Mr. Hart and the servant girl, there was not one tittle of evidence to prove that he either hinted at, suggested, pro posed, or held out inducements to or made offers to prevent her giving her testimony. He (the learned counsel) need not hardly tell the jury that what was done by a third party in Mr. Hart's absence Mr. Hart was by no means respon sible for. It was no evidence against him; and he was con vinced the jury would see the good sense of the rule of law made in such a case, because, if what another man did in the absence of the accused party was to bind him without' the proof of authority for so doing, then no man was safe ; all must be open to attacks, and the worst attacks which could befal us—the attacks of folly and the designs of knavery. But there was another circumstance, to which his mind being first called,he would point the attentionof the jury. When was it that the affair took place of which the witnesses had spoken ? At two o'clock on Saturday morning. Was Mr. Hart afraid of the parties? was he anxious to bring them off? was he afraid of the consequences of his conduct? Why, it was not till the Thursday afterwards that he was taken before the magistrates. Mrs. Gordon said she went to an attorney. lie (Mr. Wilkins) wished that attorney had been produced, as he should then have been enabled to see what her object was—whether it was not to extort money from Mr. Hart ; and he would appeal to the jury whether the lapse of time which had occurred between Saturday and Thursday would not justify that inference and presumption. What did Mr. Fadhenille say ? was he a monster ? had he the common feelings of humanity ? Suppose the woman had been his servant-maid instead of his sister-in daw—suppo se it had been the last witness put into the box instead of Mrs. Gordon—was an order for a dozen or a case of champagne a matter of such importance to Mr. Fadhenille, that he could leave at home the ravisher and destroyer of his sister because Mr. Gaskell met him in Lord-street, and asked him to go to Chester, upon the speculation that if he went he could get an order? Was that the conduct of a man who believed his sister ravished ? Was there a man in the court, so degraded by ignorance, nay. blackened by crime. so devoid of human feelinge, so divebtod of the best isepulsee of hutuauity, thdi if they had had their sister ravished, would have gone away— for remember Mr. Fadh en ill e l e f t hi s sister in the house with her ravisher by her side—with the excuse that he was gone to Chester to have the chance of getting an order for a case of Champagne. Could they under such circumstances be lieve that Mr. Fadhenille thought his sister had been ra vished ? If they did, he thought no man henceforward would be seen in company with Mr. Fadhenille. If, upon the morning, he thought his sister had been ruined, stripped of character, shut out from the presence and society of all whom she felt dear—if he had gone away under the circumstances described, by heaven lie (Mr. Wilkins) would not be seen with that man in the worst society or in the lowest establish ment in the kingdom. Let him now take the jury onwards. Having disposed of this part of the c: se he would comment a little further upon the testimony of the servant girl. She said she heard a scream. Mr. Fadhenille heard no scream. Mr. Fadhenille was awake, upon the stairs at Mrs. Gordon's door before the servant girl heard anything, and he heard no scream. He (Mr. Wilkins) would fain have left the case at the close of Mr. Fadhenille's evidence, for he had unlocked the whole mystery when he described the noise which he heard first. [The learned gentleman here commented upon the nature of the noises or screams, and attributed them to the nature of the circumstances in which Mrs. Gordon was placed.] Let him now look at the conduct of Mrs. Gordon. She said she was a married woman ; her husband, she said, was an undergraduate of Cambridge University, and that lie was the son of a Major Gordon. There could be no doubt, if what she stated was true, he was a young man of respect able family, in a respectable state of society, with the means of obtaining a genteel livelihood. Why then had he left her? They had been married nine years, during which they had never lived together for more than five months at a time ; but that whilst the husband had been engaged in the honour able and proper pursuit of instruction and education, she was peeping through the hole of a cigar divan, and waiting upon the roues and profligates of Edinburgh and Manchester. 'Fire jury knew, perhaps, what cigar divans were. A large room, fitted up in a tempting way, where you got a cup of good coffee at one end, and saw smart ladies sitting in a state of demi-nudity at the other end. That was what was meant by a cigar divan ;—it was, in fact, a place to make tobacco smoking as palatable as it could, in order to induce young men, who had pleasurable pursuits, to frequent such haunts. But why had she not lived with her husband? had that been satisfactorily explained? Certainly not. And it was most extraordinary—indeed it added to the mystery—that since this rape (if rape it was) had been committed, her husband, ' who before had been living away from her, should have se lected this very period to come back to live with her. This circumstance added to the mystery of the transaction, and it was one which would have its weight with the jury. But he would go onward. The learned counsel then proceeded to comment upon the fact of Mrs. Fadhenille having in her window the advertisement, " Lodgings fur single gentlemen," and on Mr. Fadhenille having cautioned his wife and sister against Mr. Hart, as a dissipated character, immediately after the lodging had been let to 'sins. Yet, notwithstanding his caution, Mrs. Gordon, unknown to her sister and brother, went out alone with Mr. Hart, at half-past five in the even ing to a public house in the country. She drank tea with this man of bad character, against whom she had been cau tioned, without any protector, in a private room, in a public house, in the country. The same day, he having been only a fortnight in the house, she accepted from him a bonnet, which cost three guineas, and a cap which cost thirty shil lings ! Why, who was Mrs. Gordon ? If she had been the servant maid of the inn, or a single woman, and accepted these things, he should not have thought the better of her then : he should not have thought her a prudent woman, but a woman who had no great regard for her reputation ; but who was she ? She was the wife of an undergraduate of the University of Cambridge—the wife of a respectable man—a woman married into a respectable family, and also with a child looking up to her for example. Yet, this wo man, with all these facts connected with her character, a fortnight only after she knew him, accepted presents from him, which indicated to every man that an intimacy had began, which continued to the end of this transaction. On another occasion, she went to the market at twelve o'clock. She met Mr. Hart—against whom she had been cautioned — and went with him to the White Bear, in Dale-street. The learned counsel then commented upon all the circumstances which took place at the tav ern , an d argue d , t h at they prove d criminal connection had taken place there. He next dwelt upon the improbability of the offence having been coin witted against Mrs. Gordon's consent, without awakening the child, which was in bed with her. The learned counsel, in conclusion, contended, that in the first instance, the con- I duct of all the parties proved them to be thoroughly con vinced that no such crime had been committed as that of which the prisoner was accused ; and that it was only brought to rescue Mrs. Gordon's character from the charge of un cleanness and immodesty, which must of necessity, attach to it. The learned JUDGE that summed up, but in so low a tone as scarcely to be heard. The jury after a consultations of four minutes, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Mr, Wiettras applied for the immediate discharge of Mr. Hart. The JUDGE having assented he was forthwith set at liberty. CHARGE OF RAPE NEAR DOLTON. Georos Jackson, 39, was indi c t e d f or h av i ng f e l on i ous l y ravished and carnally known one Margaret Lever. Mr. Brandt prosecuted : the prisoner was defended by Mr. Wilkins. From the evidence it appeared that prosecutrix was a mar ried woman living with her husband in Manchester, where they keep a shop. The husband was addicted to liquor, and in the habit of staying away from his home for days together when he was under its influence. On the 15th August last, he left his house : she followed Ishii by the Bolton railway till she came to a place half way between Manchester and Bolton, where she got sight of him, on which he took to his heels and escaped. She applied to the prisoner to know which way he had gone. He told her if sire would go with him he would skew her. She went with him to Worsley, but not finding her husband there, they de termined to return to the public-house from which they had started. Their road lay across some fields. When they had passed through about three fields the prisoner told her he must be paid for his trouble. They went a little further, when the prisoner threw her upon the ground, and she fell against a stone or rock which disabled her for the time ; he then proceeded to effect his purpose. She returned to the public-house, and, as on the former occasion, she was as sailed with taunts from some colliers who were celebrating the anniversary of a club. Next day she went home, though very unwell ; and when her husband returned sire informed him of what had happened. The prisoner was then appre hended. He is a married man with a family, and the prose cutrix had had ten children. Medical evidence was given of the prosecutrix some days after the offence to the effect that she was labouring under delirium. The jury retired to consider on their verdict. After an absence of about three quarters of an hour, they returned into court with a verdict of Not Guilty. err ARGE OF RAPE AGAINST A SURGEON. Robert Hector, a surgeon, residing in Slater-street, and recently in Great Newton -street, was placed at the bar to answer an indictment charging him with having committed a rape upon the persons of a married female, named Ann Tlristleton, residing ins Horatio-street, inn her owns house, on Sunday last. Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prisoner, and the trial was appointed to come on this morning. The prisoner, addressing the learned Judge, said, that as this was a case of the greatest importance to himself and to his family, he should feel obliged if the court would allow him at least two days, in order to prepare for the trial. Mr. 'WILKINS said he was counsel for the prisoner, and in point of fact his instructions were not complete. The JUDGE said, it was very inconvenient first to appoint trials and then have to postpone them. He understood, be sides, that the prosecutrix was very ill. Mr. WILKINS was aware that such applications as this were attended with inconvenience. He had heard that the witness was unwell, and had been so for some time ; but from what he had heard she was not so unwell but she might attend upon another occasion without any inconvenience. The JUDGE.—If that can be ascertained, well and good. Mr. WtexlNs informed the court that he was prepared in two other cases, so that no inconvenience could arise from the postponement. The JUDGE said he must have some medical testimony of the actual state of the woman. Mr. MURPHY, who appeared for the prosecution, said he understood it was impossible sire could attend at any other time. Mr. Ackerley, the medical gentleman in attendance upon Mrs. Thistleton, was then sworn. In answer to questions from the learned Judge and Mr. Wilkins, he stated, that she would be in a state to appear in two days hence ; she might probably be better. The JUDGE said he would, on this testimony, grant the application, but subject to there being business before the Court. Mr. NI URPIIY understood that, although the woman was much better, she was still in a weakly condition, and it would be advisable for her to returns home. The ,JUDGE. —Let her go. Some discussion followed, and eventually the trial was ap pointed to take place the first on Tuesday morning. The court adjourned at five minutes before six o'clo The first case to be taken this morning will be that of Robert Anderton, 45, who is charged with the wilful murder of John Colton, at Standish-with-Langtree, in the month of September last. It is expected to occupy the whole day. The prisoner is alSo charged with the commission of several felonies at Pemberton. NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY. Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat this morning at nine o'clock, 'but the business did not commence until half-past nine, in consequence of the absence of a witness in the case. HUSSY AND OTHERS V. NEGROPONTE. The action was brought by Messrs. Munn, Pearson and Co., cotton-print manufacturers at Manchester, to recover from James Constantine Negroponte, a Greek merchant, re siding at London, the sum of £267 ls. Sd., the price of goods bought from the plaintiffs for the defendant by Mr. Charles Dunderdale, a broker, of Manchester. Mr. Tom LiNsos opened the pleadings, and Mr. ALEX ANDER stated the case for the plaintiffs. He detailed the amount and nature of the several orders given by Mr. Ne groponte to his agent, the prices at which they were pur chased by the latter from Messrs. Munn and Co., and the mode in which the agent made his principal aware of all the particulars attending the purchase. The three orders given ' by the Greek merchant to the broker were respectively on the 28th September, the 30th September, and the Ist of October in the last year, at which time Mr. Dunderdale was involved in difficulties. Shortly after he became a bankrupt, and application was then made to Mr. Negroponte, as prin cipal, for payment. This was refused by the defendant, who denied his liability, and expressed his determination to resist any action brought against him. The defence seemed to be that Mr. Dunderdale was not the agent of Mr. Negroponte ; that the plaintiffs ought therefore to look to the broker for payment ; that the defendant's name was never mentioned to the plaintiffs ; that he was ignorant of all the transactions between Mr. Dunderdale and Messrs. Munn and Co.; that he had had no notice from the plaintiffs of their having had anything to do with Mr. Dunderdale on his account; and that therefore he was not liable. It evidently was the defen dant's object to cast on to the shoulders of a bankrupt the liability for the payment of between £2OO and £300; but • though the attempt was a clever one, he (Mr. Alexander) was sure that it was one which the jury would not sanction. Mr. Charles Dunderdale was called; proved the receipt of the three orders from Mr. Negroponte for certain quantities of power-loom cloth, amounting altogether to the sum men tioned : his purchase of the goods from the plaintiffs, with- out, however, any mention of the name of his principal ; the transmission of the invoices and packing notes to the defen dant ; and the forwarding of the goods to the places of ship ment pointed out by him. All the invoices mentioned the names of the sellers, and included every particular necessary to make th e defendant perfectly acquainted with th e t rans . actions of his agent on his behalf. In making his purchases as agent, he (witness) frequently mentioned to the person from whom he purchased the name of his principal ; but he could not recollect that be had ever done so in making the purchases for the defendant from the plaintiffs. He merely said " I have received an order for so and so." Duplicate invoices were always furnished : one invoice was retained by the agent, and the other, with charges for commission, pack ing, interest, 6:c., added, transmitted t o t h e pr i ncipal. Du plicate invoices would not have been necessary unless in an agency transaction. The invoices and duplicates were pro duced by the witness. Cross-examined by 111 r. C RESSWELL.—He should cer tainly say that the plaintiffs were always well aware that he was purchasing from them as an agent. He seldom men tioned the name of the principal, unless it was asked for. Some houses were in the habit of asking. He believed that Messrs. Moan did so sometimes, and in those cases the in voices were mit in his ( witness's) pitrne. Mr. Nerropnnte ; stood indebted to him in tis, sieee et „£l'4 i le, assiiuming that the defendant had received all the goods ordered by him". Witness had drawn a bill on the defendant on the Ist Oct., 1840, for £BOO, which would cover all that was owing to him then, with the exception of about £4O. A second bill was drawn by witness, on the 9th October, for £5OO, and ac cepted by Mr. Negroponte, and that of course would more than cover all that was owing up to the Ist October. Other goods, however, not purchased from the plaintiffs, had been forwarded to the defendant in the interim, between the let and 9th October. He (witness) invariably paid for the pur. chases made by him as agent. There might have been, in the course of the eleven years he had been in business, a few instances where the principals had paid, by accpting bills drawn on them by the seller. Re-examined.—Had long been known in the Manchester market as the agent for the London Greek houses, for all of which he had done business. Mr. Francis Page Newmarsh.—Acted as agent to Mr. Dunderdale, in London. He called upo❑ the defendant's Greuk houses in London, solicited orders, transmitted them, when received, to Mr. Dunderdale, generally on the same day. He preserved the original order received from the Greek merchants, and sent to Mr. D. a copy. When pur chases were made, an invoice was forwarded to him, within two or three days. He took a copy in his invoice book, and transmitted it to the principal. The same course was pursued with respect to the package note. It was thcn ad mitted, at the suggestion of his lordship, that the usual course of business had been followed as respected the three parcels of goods purchased from the plaintiffs by Mr. Dunderdale, and that the invoices and shipping notes had reached the de fendant through the agency of Mr. Dunderdale and Mr. Newmarsh. Proof of application to the defendant for payment of the goods furnished by the plaintiffs was then given, and of a re fusal to pity, on the ground that the defendant was ignorant of Mr.Dunderdale, and had never had transactions with him. This terminated the case for the plaintiffs. Mr. CRESSWELL, who, with Mr. WATSON, appeared for the defence, then put it to his Lordship whether there wits any case for the jury ? The learned JUDGE thought that the case for the jury was whether the defendant had purchased the goods in question through Mr. Dunderdale, as his agent. If so, there would be a claim against the defendant, subject to the point whe ther there had been a settlement on his part with the agent. Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that Mr. Dunderdale, accord ing to his own evidence, had received no authority from the defendant to purchase for him on credit, and that Mr. D. could only pledge his principal to the extent of his instruc tions ; and again, that the two bills drawn on the defendant by Mr. D. covered all the purchases made by the agent for the defendant, up to the date of the last order, the Ist of October. Mr. ALEXANDER replied that the evidence showed that there had been no instructions either to purchase one way or the other, and to rebut the assertion that all the transactions were for cash payments, referred to a letter of Mr. New marsh to Mr. Dunderdale, dated the 10th of October, in which the writer stated that the defendant was annoyed and vexed at Mr. Dunderdale having drawn on him at 21 days sight, and not at three months. No conditions had been imposed, whether as to purchasing on credit or for cash, and Mr. Dunderdale seemed therefore to have had a discretional power. As some difference of opinion with respect to the precise character of the broker's evidence on this point existed amongst the opposing counsel, Mr. Dunderdale was recalled, and stated that he had received from Mr. Negroponte no in structions as to what he should purchase on credit or for cash. The three orders in September and October were the first he had received from the defendant. He (witness) made all his purchases in the Manchester market for cash. He drew the money from his bankers, and paid in to them the bills drawn on his principals. His Loßnsn IP still thought that there was a question for the jury, whether or not Dunderdale had acted for the de fendant, and had authority to act in the mode he did. It was then agreed that Mr. Cresawell should have liberty to move for a nonsuit, on the two points previously raised by him. Mr. CRESSWELL proceeded to address the jury. He said that most unquestionably this case involved one of the most important questions to merchantile men that could be de cided ; for as all the jury knew by experience, that a vast proportion of the enormous business transacted in Manches ter and this town was conducted—by agents, it must be ex•• tremelv important to know to what bxtent a principal coul d be made liable by the contract of au agent, although he might have settled his account with that agent, thinking he was dealing with him alone. Anylaody -was liable to be brought to bankruptcy, by finding that his agent, with whom he had been dealing as principal, had never paid the persons from whom he had obtained the goods. The action was under these circumstances :—Messrs. Munn, who had for eleven years past dealt with Mr. Dunderdale, knowing him to be an agent—knowing that his business was exclusively an agency business—that he never bought in order to sell again as a matter of profit—knowing that he merely purchased to execute orders which others had given to him—they went on thus for eleven years, receiving their payments from him on such terms, at such periods, and in such a manner as suited their mutual convenience. The plaintiffs knew that there were principals, for some of them they had seen; but they never thought of communicating with them, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were men of straw or men of wealth. They trusted to the agent, and now, when some untoward event had brought that gentleman into the Gazette, they sought to charge on the principal in London the price of those goods for which lie had previously paid to the agent. The plaintiffs contracted with Dunderdale, although he was actually an agent, as a principal. They made their election of him ; they looked to him as their principal ; and they had no right afterwards to sue the other party. They could not look to both, if they knew at the time that there were two parties; and by debiting Mr. Dunderdale. who was present at Manchester, they made their selection between the agent and the principal, and could not, when the agent failed, sue the principal. Mr. Cresswell went through the facts of the case, in order to show that Mr. Dunderdale had treated with the defendant as a principal, and for cash payments. At the close of his address he put in the two bills drawn on the de fendant by Mr. Dunderdale, in order to shew that they over paid, by a large sum, the whole amount due by the defendant to Mr. Dunderdale, up to the date of the last order, on the Ist of October. Mr. ALEXANDER then replied. One of the jurymen wished that Mr. Newmarsh should be recalled, to ascertain from him whether, at the time of re ceiving the orders, the defendant had said anything to him about the mode of payment. The witness had left the court, and the learned Judge remarked that the jury must proceed on the supposition that nothing had been said, as the coun sel on neither side had put the question. His LORDSHIP then proceeded to sum up. He said that this was a case in which legal questions very important to the mercantile world were involved. Those questions were al most entirely questions of law ; but it would be necessary for him to state to the jury what he considered to be the law on the subject; and he should state it in such a way that it might be brought into review in any court to which the par ties thought tit to have recourse. This was a case in which the plaintiffs sought to get payment for goods which had un questionably been furnished by them to the defendant. There was not the slightest impropriety in the plaintiffs' try ing to get payment from the defendant, if the law would allow them. On the other hand, if the defendant made out to the satisfaction of the jury that he had in fact paid the full amount to the party employed by him, neither was there the smallest imputation on him for resisting the further payment. There was no dishonesty on either side. The loss had arisen through the bankruptcy of Mr. Dunderdale, and the question was, on what party would the loss be cast by the law. This was a case in which the plaintiffs sought to recover payment from a person to whom they had not, in fact, delivered any goods at all. They had delivered them to Mr. Dunderdale. The question was whether, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs had a right, Dunderdale becoming insolvent, to apply for payment to the defendant. He would state what lie considered to be the law on this subject—what he con ceived to have been decided to be the law, although this had been called in question by the learned counsel for the defence. He concurred with Mr. Cresswell in thinking that the question was one involved in very con siderable difficulty, and that a reference to different cases gave rise to great difficulty and embarrassment. He would, however, state what he looked upon to be the law—namely, that where an agent purchased goods, the party selling knowing that he was dealing with a man who was a niece agent, if that agent did not disclose the name of his princi pal, that notwithstanding the seller might have made the in voices out in the name 0' the agent, and debited him, it was at his option afterwards to say, " I have now discovered the principal, and will charge him." He repea.ed that his was a view of the law which might give rise to considerable diffi culty ; but he should act as though it had been assumed to be the law, although doubts had been raised upon it. Of course, to make the principal liable, the. agent must have acted in the mode which the principal authorised, either directly or by implication. He did not think, if this should turn out to be the law, that it was very unreasonable. When a person purchased goods avowedly as an agent, and they were delivered to him as an agent, the invoice was of neces sity made out to him ; for the seller knew of no other party to make it out to. This was, in fact, hardly giving credit to him ; for the agent was the agent for receiving the goods and invoice. We should say that if an agent dealt with a party on the footing of an agent, and without dis closing his principal, the seller, although he might have made out the invoice to the agent, was notwithstanding at liberty when he found out the principal, to resort to him. This, he should say, was the general state of the law; but that might obviously give rise to the grossest injustice. Sup pose an agent in a course of dealing for a number of years, and the principal paid from time to time the amount of the goods purchased for him, what was to be the period at which the seller was to be precluded from resorting to the princi pal? He thought that that period ought to be satisfactorily defined. If the principal, in the ordinary course of dealing, paid his agents for the goods purchased for him by the agent, as an agent, and before receiving any notice from the seller of the goods that they remained unpaid for, then he thought that the principal was discharged, otherwise the grossest injustice might be exercised ; for a man might go on payingregularly year by year, and at some distant period might have a claim set up against him. " Oh," the sueing, party might say, " we chose to lie by, and never to apply to the agent for the money due, and " now we corns to you for hundreds and thousands of pounds, involving you in ruin." The principles which should guide the jury in coming to their verdict were, first, whether Mr. Dunderdale acted as agent for the defendant, and within the scope of his authority, in making purchases for Messrs. Munn, on the terms in which he in fact purchased. If they were of opinion that Mr. Dunderdale was not an agent, but purchased from the plain tiffs on his own account, and sold to the defendant, there would be an end to the claim. But supposing they were of opinion that Mr. Dunderdale was acting as the agent of the defendant, and within the scope of his authority, then arose the next question, had the defendant, before the receipt of any notice from the plaintiffs, paid his agent Mr. Dunderdale the amount of the two bills, in the ordinary course of their dealings together. If he had, then he (the learned Judge) thought that the plaintiff' was not entitled to recover. His Lordship then went through the evidence, commenting upon it as he proceeded. The Jury, after a consultation of two or three minutes, returned a verdict for the defendant. This case occupied the court for six hours. POSSESSION OF A DERD.—HOBSON AND OTHERS V. MEM.. AND. In this action the plaintiffs, assignees of Messrs. Sale and Astley, cotton -waste dealers, of Stockport, bankrupts, sought to recover from the defendant a deed of property belonging to Astley, which had been lodged in the hands of the Imperial Bank of Manchester, and transferred by the directors to the defendant, Mr. Charles John Melland, as security for a ba lance of upwards of £l6OO, dne to him from the bank. The deed was said by Mr. Astley to have been sent by him to tha bank, through his partner, Mr. Sale, who was connected with the bank, for the purpose only of sate custody. This state ment was borne out by Sale himself; but it was contended, for the defence, that the deed had been lodged with the Im perial Bank as collateral security for certain advances made to the partnership of Sale and Astley, and that therefore they had the po wer of transferring it. The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages £5OO, s ubject to be reduced to I s ., on the delivering up of the deed, in which case his lordship will certify.—The court rose shortly after six o'clock. THE LETTER CARRIERS.—The statement of Joseph Hol loway' (whose trial at the present ass i zes appeared in the STANDARD of Tuesday,) that his di str i ct is too large for hi m , appears not to be correct. His duties were not more heavy than those of the other letter carriers ; and the man who succeeded Holloway, in the same district, has duly per formed the same duties in bye 'lows eigl4 dad--vi., morrylia delivery, 2i iteourts ; Peen delivery, 1 heir : 414 iivo.din da , lilery, I hour.