The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

THE.ITRE.ROYAL, LIVERPOOL Under the Management of . 11r. CLARKE, Sole Lessee EASTER HOLIDAYS. The Public are respectfully informed, that the celebrated Vocalists, Miss DELCY, whose success was so decided, last season, at the Theatre-Royal, Drury-lane; and Mr. TEMPLETON, of the same Theatre, are engaged for TEN NIGHTS, and will make their second appearance here THIS EVENING, Tuesday, April 13. To give additional effect to the Operas, an arrangement has been made with Mr. F. GARDNER, of the Theatre- Royal, Bath. (pupil of Mr. T. WELSH,) for the period for which Miss Delcy and Mr. Templeton are engaged. Miss DELCY having been received, on her first appearance at this Theatre, last evening, in the charactdr of CIN DERELLA, with the most enthusiastic applause, and Mr. TEMPLETON having been also greeted with the most approving plaudits, and the whole of the performances having been received by a crowded auditory with the most 'narked tokens of approbation, the entertainments will, in consequence, be repeated this Evening. THIS present TUESDAY EVENING, the 13th in s t an t, will be repeated the popular Opera of CINDERELLA ; Or, The FAIRY and the GLASS SLIPPER. With the whole of the Music composed by Rossini. The Opera written and adapted to the English Stage by Mr. ROPHINO LACY, under whose direction the Musical Ar rangements will be conducted Leader of ti urchestra (which will be considerably aug mented) Mr. Aldridge. Cinderella.. The character in which she made her first appearance in London. and as performed by her fir many successive nights there with tla Most rapturous applause. Felix.. (Prince of Salerno).. Mr. Templeton. Alidoro.. (Tutor to the Prince) Mr. F. Gardner. Baron Pompolino Pedro. Clorinda.. Mi ss E. llonner. Thisbe.. Mrs. P. Crowe. Fairy Queen Mrs. Barton. To conclude with the revived Farce, written by G. Colman, Esq., called the BUDGET OF BLUNDERS, ks received last night with shouts of laughter and applause. Doctor Smugface Mr. Baker. Doctor Dablan cour • . Mrs. Clarke. Deborah.. Madame Simon. Bridget. TO-MORROW (Wednesday), the Opera of LA SON NAMBULA. Ainina, Miss Deley ; Elvinc, Mr. Temple ton; Count Rodolpho, Mr. G. Horneastle ; Alessio, Mr. Eaton, from the Theatre-Royal, Dublin, his first appearance here ; Liza. Miss E. Honner.—After which, the Farce of LODGINGS FOR SINGLE GENTLEMEN. Postle thwaite, Mr. H. Holt; Trusty, Mr. Baker; Mrs. Greville, Mrs. W. H. Bland ; Mrs. Stanmore, Miss Cleaver ; Mrs. Prattle, Mrs. Clarke.—To conclude with the SPECTRE BRIDEGROOM. T IVER THEATRE, CHURCH-STREET, WILL OPEN on EASTER MONDAY, and every evening during the Week, with the extraordinary and astonishing Performances of MR. JACOBS, The justly celebrated Royal Ventriloquist, Modern Magician, and English Improvisatore, from the Strand Theatre, Lon don, where, during the late season, he attracied thousands of admiring spectators to witness his unrivalled feats in. ANCIENT NECROMANCY, MODERN MAGIC, VEN TRILOQUISM, and IMPROMPTU SINGING, and nightly did immense numbers turn from the door, being un able to gain admittance. The Metropolitan — fress have pronounced him to be the best Ventriloquist that has appeared since the days of Mons. Alexander, and the whole forms the most complete Enter tainment in one person yet produced. A visit to the Liver, during Mr. JACOB'S stay, will certainly not be unproductive of either amusement or instruction. Doors open at Seven o'Clock ; performance to commence precisely at Half-past. Boxes 2s. ; Pit Is. ; Gallery 6d. Half-price to the Boxes only at Nine o'Clock. Children under Twelve, Boxes and Pit, Half-price. TO CORRESPONDENTS In consequence of the many disappointments experienced by parties wishing to obtain copies of the STANDARD of Friday last, and in compliance with the suggestion of se veral friends, we have reprinted in the SUPPLEMENT the opening remarks of Mr. Cresswell on the will cause; and the purchasers of the STANDARD of to-day will thus have the whole of this important case laid before them. A brief abstract of the important news from China appeared in the STANDARD of Friday last. Further extracts will be found to• day. ti Stamp Supplement is presented with the STANDARD of this day Ebt Eibirpoot &tanbarb. TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 13, 1841 The treaty agreed to by Captain Elliot, hastily an nounced as a complete and satisfactory settlement of our differences with China, by no means affords, on examination, all that contentment which the trumpeting of the ministerial press would induce us to look for. Not to dwell on the fact that a treaty with this people —unratified—and a treaty especially which has been extorted from them at the cannon's mouth—and the " fulfilment" of it, are, as we have reason to know, quite different things—there is not an article in the protocol, however apparently favourable to our interests, to which a drawback, which completely nullifies it, may not without straining be suggested. The first article cedes " the island and harbour of Hong-kong to the British crown ;" but this cession is coupled with a condition that "all just charges and duties to the empire, upon the commerce carried on there, are to be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa"—which throws a doubt over the extent of sovereignty which it was intended we should exercise there, and the, commercial advantages we shall derive from it. On the 26th of January the British flag was to be hoisted at Hong-kong, and a force was to be dis embarked to take formal possession of the island in the name of her Majesty, and as a military station as well as commercial entre-pot, it was supposed it would afford us superior advantages; but, as a set-off against these, there are the disadvantages of British traders leaving a large city where a profitable traffic has been carried on for centuries, to take up their residence in an insulated and unfrequented locality—disadvantages so great that it is questionable if Canton will not still he preferred as the seat of business. The second article is an agreement, on the part of the Chinese, to pay to the British Government "an indemnity of six millions of dollars (or about £1,250,000 sterling), one million to be payable at once, and the remainder in equal annual payments, ending in 1846." But how far will this sum go towards indemnifying all who have incurred cost and loss by the capricious orders and outrageous tyranny of the Chinese govern- This monetary part of the transaction has caused the utmost dissatisfaction—and the East India merchants speak with great, and we think not unrea sonable, indignation of our plenipo for making so bad a bargain. " Not only," say they, "has he neglected the just claims of private individuals, but he has sacri ficed the honour of his country. The terms which he has accepted are by no means an equivalent for the ex pense which has accrued to the British nation on account of the expedition, much less do they afford satisfaction for the indignity inflicted in his own person on the representation of the British crown ; and still farther are they from securing an indemnification to the British merchants for the property which he (Cap Elliot) caused, by the exertion of his influence an authority, to be placed at the disposal of the Chinese In fact,.the opium dealers seem to be thrown overboari altogether—and this is certainly unhandsome treatmen of them on the' part of her Majesty's plenipo. WI were assured, on the return of Admiral Elliot from Peckelee, that £3,000,000 were to be paid as a satis faction for all the damage we had sustained at the hands of Lin; but these three millions sterling have dwindled down to less than half, and even this half i 3 only to be paid by annual instalments not to be com pleted till the end of 1846. It is certain that out of this sum little or nothing will ever reach the hands of the injured merchants. Now the whole affair of our difference with China is so made up that it is impossible to separate one part from another, and we take it as a clear point that, if aptain Elliot had a right to insist upon an indemnity at all, he had a right to demand one that would pay for the confiscated property of the India merchants, and this he certainly has not done. The third article is an important one, but wants ex planation : it is, that there shall be " direct official intercourse between the countries on an equal footing." Does this mean that a British ambassador shall reside at the court of Pekin ? If so, it is a great point gained —a result which we agree with a metropolitan contem porary in regarding as pregnant with very considerable consequences to China, England, and the civilised world, and worthy of every pecuniary sacrifice that may have been made to gain it; but " details remain matter of negotiation," and we are left in suspense as to the proper interpretation of this article, which, after all, may mean no more than that a British consul at Canton shall have new facilities of communication with provincial viceroys The trade of the port of Canton was to be opened within ten days after the Chinese new year ; to be car ried on at Whantpoa till farther arrangements are practicable at the new settlement. Such, for the present, seems to be the grand result of our expedition to China. That it is not a failure altogether we have, perhaps, reason to be thankful. One thing, however, is certain, th a t if it be short of what we had a right to expect, neither our gallant red coats nor blue jackets have any portion in the blame, The honour, without alloy, belongs to them; the dis credit, if any there be, to others. As to the celestials, although it is evident that they are quite unequal to cope with us in war—(less, perhaps, from want of courage than from want of acquaintance with modern European arts of destruction)•—and although they have been taught an humbling lesson in naval and military matters which, it is to be hoped, may induce them to treat us with a little more deference hereafter—yet we must say that, on the whole, we have learned nothing through this expedition which tends to lower them in our eves. That they possess considerable talents for diplomacy is admitted. Nothing can depress the mag niloquent style of their official papers, " The English barbarians are now obedient to orders," says the great Ke-shen, the imperial commissioner, with inimitable gravity. "At present all affairs are perfectly well settled." And thus did he announce his own submis sion and the good behaviour into which our lighting men had just been at the trouble of thrashing him. This may be laughable, as certainly it is ; but words are sometimes " things," and who can tell how much the very existence of the celestial dynasty may depend upou this pre-eminently celestial and top-lofty mode of speech in all the official servants of the government ? The Chinese character and nature becomes every day a more interesting subject of speculation. All who admire purity of election must feel deeply indebted to Mr. Blackstone for obtaining an order to print the evidence taken before the St. Alban's Com mittee. It is no libel to say that there never was grosser or rn.sre manifest bribery than the circumstan ces of that case disclose. This, indeed, was admitted; but the committee were of opinion that it was not le_ gaily brought home to the principal, and that they were, therefore, bound to dismiss the petition. Strange as their decision must appear, it was contended in the House of Commons that it was according to rule, and all perfectly right. Sir R. Peel said that he did not consider the committee at all in fault, and Mr. Black stone himself declared that he did not mean to cast any censure upon them by his motion. What, then, is our conclusion to be ? There is a palpable case of bribery to carry the election of a Whig lord of the bed chamber, and plenty of evidence to satisfy any twelve men out of parliament that the individual who actually paid down the wages of corruption was the agent of the noble lord—and yet a parliamentary committee may, it seems, dismiss the case as unproven, without the slightest imputation on their impartiality or discern ment. If this be so, then, our inference must he•that the law is in a most imperfect state, and calls loudly for amendment. By way of set off against this flagrant transaction, as it affects the purity of parliamentary election, the morals of reformers, and an individual holding an office so near the crown, it is said that a case of retali ation would have been made out against Mr. Smyth, the conservative member for Canterbury —but that a compromise took place which withdrew both from the committee ordeal. We know not how this may have been; but there is at all events a wide difference be tween a case actually proved, and one which we have only somebody's word that it might have been so. The counsel for the Canterbury petition threw up his brief in an early stage of the business, finding that, with the rule as to agency in his way, which the committee of the St. Alban's case had set up, he could not progress. After this, petitioning parliament on grounds of bribery must he regarded as a joke. If Dr. Webster, of St. Alban's, was not deemed a sufficiently-proved agent of the bed-chamber lord, it would be impossible to prove any man an agent, except one that could shew a written authority from his principal, and that would be fool or knave enough to shew it if he had. We are not half sensible of all the prodigious ad vantages and benefits we enjoy under a reformed House of Commons We read with very great pleasure the leading article of the Mercury of Friday, which, amongst other re commendations, had that of being particularly " short and sweet." " Would to Heaven," said our contem porary,—it was thus he began,—" that men would keep their hands from picking and stealing." Ay, in deed, we wish they would, and we wish also that there were no " best pOsiible instructors" abroad to en courage them in so evil a practice. One might sup pose, in their simplicity, that the Mercury, who was so good and so pious on Friday morning, (we certainly approve of his choice of the day for being so, although it comes round but once a year,) would be the last in the world to recommend to others, or to practise him self, that " picking and stealing" which he appears to deprecate so strongly. Yet, if we mistake not, it is but a short time since we had to reprove our ancient brother of the quill rather sharply for hallooing on the Dissenters to a wholesale plunder of the Church ; and everybody knows that on the subject of the corn du ties he rarely keeps his pen from lying and slandering, and is, perhaps, only prevailed upon by the terrors of a gaol from keeping his hands from picking and steal ing. When levelling doctrines were, once upon a time, in great vogue, it was a fact obvious to remark, that the most prominent leveller was invariably one who would indeed bring all things down to his own level, but was as strict and severe as any other against bringing any thing or anybody up to an equality with himself. And really when we hear a full-figure advocate of the abo lition of church rates and corn duties—a whole-hog promoter of church and gentry spoliation—praying that "men would keep their hands from picking and stealing," we are reluctantly compelled to put this con struction on his devotions—namely, that he very sin cerely desires they may keep their hands out of his own pockets, but that he may be at perfect liberty to dip his fingers into theirs, so far and so often as he feels in clined. But our contemporary's doctrines, it appears, come back upon him—(yes, Whig doctrines are apt to play this trick)—and the cousequence is, that " appalling record of human crime and depravity of the deepest dye" with which he complains that he is obliged to fill his pages. Such records it is certainly most grievous and deplorable to have to compile ; but under what re gime, let us ask, is it that we have this terrible harvest of iniquity to reap ? Whigs rule in the land. Whig gery presides over the councils of the Sovereign —is taught by journalists, anti-corn law lecturers, political dissenters, and various others ; the church and the aristocracy are arraigned before the people, and plenty of false witnesses are brought forward to support the charges against them ;—and is it wonderful, is it sur prising that crime abounds, and iniquity is rife in the l and ? Here is a Whig jou rna li s t con f ess i ng and la menting the fact. He is grieved beyond measure that twice in the year he is forced to overload his pages for Successive weeks with an "appalling record of human crime, and depravity of the deepest dye." And do we go too far when we say that there is here something more than a mere concomitancy, and that between the ill-omened ascendancy of Whiggery, and this lamenta ble prevalence of crime, nay " depravity of the deepest dye," there is the positive relation of cause and effect ? We think not ; nay, we are persuaded that the relation is real, and might be traced with little difficulty. Im morality is the natural fruit of Popery; but when Po pery forms a matrimonial alliance with Whiggery, we may expect the brood to be more numerous, though we can look for no improvement by the cross. The Whigs make light of church instruction, and do their utmost to confine and restrict its agency; but what do they offer, or what have they given in its place ? Whatever influence they possess is bestowed in favour either of superstition or scepticism ; and is it astonish ing, we say, nay is it not a result naturally to be looked for, that crime should abound ? The population has increased beyond the reach of the church's ministra tions. There is nothing more obvious nor certain that, unless the people are to be abandoned to ignorance and criminality, which will be every year growing worse, mean's must be taken to extend the church's services in proportion to the increase and wants of the people. But do the Whigs shew favour to proposi tions for this purpose ? Quite the contrary ; they oppose them : for whatever their own sentiments, or of some of them, may be, they are bound down by their Popish and dissenting 'connexions, and private opinion must give way to positive compact. What wonder, then, we repeat, that crime should flourish, and that heavy groans are drawn forth even from a Whig journalist, under the intolerable weight of the record ? But we have done. We might perhaps ask why the Mercury . , who expresses so much distaste to, and disapproval of, long assize reports, and thinks hig columns might be so much better occupied, does not act manfully on his conviction, and shorten these Meliora video, he seems to say, probo (pee ; pejora sequor. We might ask this question, but as it touches on a matter of " trade" in which vro, journal ists are all alike concerned, we shall say nothing about it : on such points it becomes us to be delicate. The anti-corn-law gentry had an out -door exercise yesterday, in Clayton-square, but the attendance was remarkably thin. On the platform all the old familiar faces presented themselves to view, and Sir Joshua Walmsley was, of course, president. We cannot call him chairman, for we understand his knightship had no chair to sit upon. The orators were sadly at a loss for something to say. Every body now knows that the free-trade in corn talk is all a mere hum-bug, and any money would have been given yesterday for a topic. On the last gathering of the "giants" the Conserva tives had kindly supplied them with a little ammunition for their pop-guns, by the meeting which they had held shortly before at the Amphitheatre; but yester day, poor fellows, they were obliged to depend entirely on their own resources—and, really, coming forward upon such a dependence, we must say, that they were very far from being giants, Titans, or even Patago nians, but agitators of very small calibre indeed, and less force. One reason for the thinness of the attendance, we conjecture to be, that the Irishmen not being quite so absurd as the knight and his clique suppose, did not think proper to support a scheme so utterly ruinous to their country as this free-trade in .corn monstrosity would necessarily prove. The stage orators talk of giving a cheap loaf to Manchester and the manufac turing people, but have they any idea how dearly Ireland would have to pay for this accommodation ? Open markets for corn to all the world, and how will rents be paid in Ireland, we should be glad to know ? No matter, say the orators, the tenantry will be as they were : if the rents are not to be got at their full amount, the landlords must take what they can get—and thus all the loss occasioned by the revolution will fall upon them. But how many thousands would,be reduced to absolute beggary by the process ? This is only one instance of their narrow-minded, selfish, and heartless schemery which these mountebanks contend for. But their cry is only a pretence. Free-trade in corn is not what they want—but a subversion of society by the degradation and impoverishment of the aristocracy, and to become aristocrats themselves by the ruin of others. By the by, old Colonel Williams gate a good hint yesterday to the free-trade Radicals, especially the opera tive classes. "Do you forget," said he, " that upwards of thirty millions are spent annually in ardent spirits? Now ardent spirits are made from corn, and see what waste is there. Do give up burning your insides, and join Father Matthew's society." Good, colonel, very good, indeed. Let the Reformers only reform them selves, and they will find bread cheap and plentiful enough as it is, without any repeal or even modification of the corn duties. A clever man is the colonel, and a pleasant. We may possibly notice some more of the oratory, in more leisurely fashion, in our next. LOCAL NEWS, YOUNG MEN'S ESTABLISHED CHURCH SOCIETY.-It will be seen from an advertisement, that on Thursday even ing next the Rev. Hugh M`Neile will address a lecture to the members and friends of the Young Men's Established Church Society. The character of the lecturer, and the important and interesting subject of the lecture, are more than suffici ent to secure a numerous auditory. THE LATE MURDER NEAR BRISTOL.—On Thursday last, at the Bristol assizes, Charles Rudge, aged 18, was charged with the murder of Mrs. Shedden, at Horfield, near Bristol, the particulars of which appeared in the Standard at the time. After the evidence had been fully detailed, the jury considered it of so contradictory a nature as to stop the prisoner's coun sel before the conclusion of his address, and immediately re turned a verdict of not guilty. INLAND WAREHOUSING.—Just as the House of Com mons was abOut to adjourn on Wednesday morning, Mr. Labouchere brought in a bill " for the Warehousing of Fo reign Goods at Inland Towns." It was read the first time, and ordered to be read the second time on Monday, April 26. THE LATE MURDER AT MANCHESTER.—An inquest was held at the Infirmary, on Thursday last, before Mr. Chap man, the borough coroner, on the body of Frances Bostock, whose throat was cut in Liverpool Road, on the Bth ult. William Hampson, who has been in custody ever since, charged with committing the deed, was present during the holding of the inquest. After the hearing of the evidence, the jury brou g ht i n a ver di c t o f " Wilful Murder', against the prisoner. TRIBUTE or RESPECT.—On Wednesday, the ladies of St. George's congregation, Bolton, presented their pastor, the Rev. J. Lyons, with a set of rich robes, together with a valuable and beautiful copy of Strype's works, consisting of 25 volumes. The robes were procured from Oxford, and are " beautiful exceedingly." An eloquent letter accompanied the gift, to which Mr. Lyons has replied in a most finished epistle, abounding in every sentiment capable of proceeding from a pious minister of our ancient and venerated church. Mr. Lyons, it will be remembered, was formerly the minister of all Saints' Church in this town. • EXPLOSION OF GAS.—Some operations have recently been carried on at the house of the Rev. Hugh M`Neile, in Ros common-street, with the view of draining off the stagnant water which has lodged beneath it. For some days, previous to Saturday last, a very offensive odour of gas was perceived by the inmates of the reverend gentleman's mansion. On Saturday morning an individual, who superintended the for mation of the new sewer or drain, was, with his son, exami ning the direction of the old sewer. They had a candle with them, and had just opened a passage from one of the vaults into the sewer, when the pent up gas which had accumulated in the place exploded. Both individuals were slightly injured. The explosion blew up several large flags in a small front yard where a pump had recently stood over a well of stag nant water, and broke three or four panes of glass in the scullery window. BURGLARY AND EXTENSIVE ROBBERY OF WATCHES, JEWELLERY, &C., AT LIVERPOOL.—On the night of the 4th instant, some thief or thieves effected an entrance into the shop of Mr. Allwood, pawnbroker, Vauxhall-road, Li verpool, and succeeded in carrying away with them the fol lowing valuable property, namely, sixty silver lever and verge watches, which, having been cleaned, will have whiting be tween the cases; a silver-chased snuff-box, fifty gold wed ding rings, from fifteen to twenty gold seals, a large quantity of American dollars, as also a large quantity of half and quarter ditto, a twenty franc gold piece, a large quantity of old coins of various sorts, two silver gilt pieces. (on the size of a doubloon, the other of a half ditto,) a few ahil:ings of the reign of Elizabeth, several silver table spoons, and a quantity of silver tea spoons. A reward is oftereu for the apprehension and conviction of the offender or offenders. BREAKING INTO AND ROBBING A SHOP. — Robert Weaver was charged before the magistrates, on Saturday last, with having broken into the shop of Mr. Steven Meredith, auctioneer, Marybone, and stolen a quantity of dresses, merinos, and other articles. When Mr. Meredith found that his shop had been robbed, he gave information to the police. The prisoner had, some weeks since, t a k en l o d g i ngs f rom a Mr. Ford, who discovered, in a recess in the floor of the prisoner's room, a number of skeleton keys and housebreak ing implements. He info rme d M r. D ow li ng, who sent constable Thos. Ainsworth to the house, where most of the property missed by Mr. Meredith was found. Same few of the articles had been pledged. The prisoner was committed for trial. STREET-ROBBERY.--Mary Dunn, a little woman, of dis solute character, was placed before Mr. Rushton, on Satur day, charged with having robbed Thomas Patton. The complainant stated, that on Friday night, or Saturday morn ing, a little after twelve o'clock, he knocked at the door of a public-house, in the Old Haymarket. He was accosted by the prisoner, with whom he walked a little way up th e sma ll avenue, known by the name of St. John's Village. He had in his pocket a purse, at one end of which were three five pound notes, and at the other four sovereigns and five half crowns. Suddenly he missed his purse, and, seizing the prisoner, accused her of having taken it, and demanded its restoration. She stooped to the ground and picked it up and gave it to him. He found, however. that, though the notes were safe, the gold and silver had disappeared. Two other girls came up and clamoured for him to set the prisoner at liberty, but he refused, and desired a man who was passing to send him a police-officer. Constable 134 came to his assistance, and all the girls were taken to 'Bridewell and searched, but nothing was found in their possession. The prisoner denied the charge and was committed for trial. The PADGATE BURGLARY.—Through the vigilance of Mr. James Jones, the very able and active deputy-constable of Warrington, there is every reason to believe that the parties who committed this burglary are now in custody. They form one of the most complete and organised gangs ever met with in this part of the country, and will in all probability turn out to be the parties who have, within the last twelve months, committed so many depredations upon church property in Cheshire and Lancashire. They were apprehended in Man chester ; and at the house of one of the gang was found a bunch of picklock keys, of about two hundred in number, capable of opening any lock from the size of a trinket box to the largest church door. Two black jackets, made with full bodies, admirably adapted for the concea l ment o f the parties wearing them, with crapes and black caps to match, a pair of rifle-barrel duelling pistols, of foreign manufacture, with flint locks, a very handsome fowling-piece (percussion lock), a various and well-selected stock o f b u ll ets, shot, and pow! der, together with bullet moulds to match the fire-arms ; three dark lanterns, one without a slide —a slide to fit the latter lantern was picked up on the day after the robbery, in ' Mr. Shaw's house, at Padgate ; two crow bars and a blud geon, the key of the front door of Mr. Shaw's house, a good stock of new clothing, and sundry account- b ooks (maker's name Smith"), and six silver spoons. Th e pr i soners were brought ' ' up for examination, before the magistrates, yester day, at Warrington. - - MORE TRICKS UPON TRAVELLURS.—Newcomb Procter, a respectable looking young man, was placed befo re Mr. , Rushton, on Saturday, charged with havi ng i n hi s possession a quantity of tobacco. The prisoner was walking near the King's Dock with a large parcel in his hand, when he was stopped by a police-officer, who, on openin g one en d of the parcel, found that it contained tobacco. The E xc i se off i cer who appeared as a witness in court stated, that the paper taken from the prisoner was, at first, believed t o b e fill ed with tobacco. On opening it, however, it was found to be filled with sawdust, with a small quantity of tobacco a t eac h end. It appeared that Procter is a very respectable y oung man, who has recently arrived at Liverpool . for the purp ose of proceeding to Jamaica in the ship Sydney. As he was going to the vessel, on Thursday last, he met a man attired as a sailor, who offered him a parcel of tobacco at so low a price that he was induced to become a purchaser. He bought what purported to he 14Ibs of tobacco at the rate of 2s. per lb. and was proceeding with his prize to the ship when he was stopped by the officer. It was stated that several fellows, dressed as sailors, prowl about the docks for the purpose of practising frauds similar to this on the ignorant and unwary. The prisoner was disch a rged, and his parcel of sawdust de- j livered to him. SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES CROWN COURT. —FRIDAY. - Friday last, being Good Friday, the judges attended divine ervice at St. George's Church, in consequence of which Mr. Justice Maule did not take his seat on the bench of the Crown Court until ten minutes to one o'clock. EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF BIGAMY. Elizabeth Daniels stood indicted for, that she being the wife of John Daniels, feloniously did marry one Joseph Smith, on the Bth of October, 1840, the said Daniels being then alive; and John Daniels stood indicted for having coun selled, promoted, and incited his wife Elizabeth to commit the felony. Both the prisoners having pleaded not guilty, the following jury were sworn to try the case : John Bolton, Thomas Collins, John H. Collins, Charles Cusack, Peter Hope, George Kenworthy,- -Alfred H. Hen shaw, William Folds, Edward Woods, John Taylor, Thomas Starkie, and John Arnold. The prisoner Elizabeth was defended by Mr. MURPHY, and the prisoner John by Mr. Wit.x/Ns. -- Mr. ARMSTRONG stated the case. He said the prisoner Elizabeth had been indicted for bigamy, and that the indict ment further charged that the other prisoner, who was her real husband, had been an accessory before the fact to its commission. if the latter allegation were proved, there could be little doubt that he was the worse prisoner of the two._ The evidence against the female prisoner would be very short. It would be proved that skie had been married to Daniels at St. David's Church in September, 1839, and that she was subsequently married t o a person of the name of Joseph Smith, on the Bth of. October, 1840. Though the case would be a short one against the female prisoner, it was necessary that be should enter into the facts in order to show that the male prisoner had been an accessory. It would ap pear that Mr. Smith, the second husband, met with the female prisoner at a tea-garden ; that he formed an acquain tance with her there; and that he met her in the streets after wards, when she represented herself to be a widow. It would further appear that after some time he proposed mar riage to her. At first she declined the proposal, saying that she was living with her brother-in-law, Mr. Edmund son, at Mount-pleasant, and that he wished her to marry a man of the name of Lee. ' She had a bro ther-in-law of that name, but he was not residing in Mount. pleasant. Subsequently, Mr. Smith went to Bolton street, the residence of the female prisoner, where he had interviews with her, and where he also saw the male pri soner, whom she represented to be her brother-in-law, Mr. Edmundson. This having gone on f or some time, she at length consented to he married to Mr. Smith. They went to church accordingly for that purpose, but her heart failed her, as he (the learned counsel) supposed. She wished her mar riage to be postponed. "A short postponement then took Place, but, having gone to church again on the Bth of Octo ber, they were married. On the evening of the day on which the marriage had taken place, the male prisoner, who repre sented himself to Mr. Smith as the Mr. Edmundson, came to the lodgings to which Mr. Smith and the female prisoner had retired after the ceremony had taken- place. On enter ing, Mr. Smith addressed him as Mr. Edmondson, where upon lie said his name was not Edniuddson ; but it would' appear in evidence that he frequently called at the lodgings afterwards and represented himself to be Mr. Edmundson. With reference to his conduct previous to the marriage, evi dence would be given tending to show that he had been a party to what was going on between Mr. Smith and his wife ; because after she had made appointments to meet Mr. Smith, she wrote notes to put him off; and he (the learned counsel) believed that he should be able to prove that those notes had been written by the male prisoner. What motive, then, could the male prisoner -have for aiding in the promotion of the second marriage, particularly as it seemed he had been on good terms with her, and that he was constantly with her after the ceremony had taken place ? Why, it must have been that he might live on the wages of her prostitution, and by the plunder of the man who had mistakenly supposed himself to be her husband. He had been living with her in Bolton-street ; but when she went to live with Mr. Smith, after her marriage with that gentleman, and that he had been visiting her there, she took lodgings for him elsewhere. She paid the weekly sum for his lodgings, and when she went to market on Saturdays she bought more than was wanted for herself and Mr. Smith, and took part to the lodgings of the male prisoner. Under these circumstances, it would be for the jury to say whether the male prisoner had not been aid ing, assisting, and counselling her to commit the felony. William Edmundson was the first witness called. He was examined by Dr. BROWN as follows :—I am a tailor and dra per, living at 28, Oldhall-street. I have lived there seven years, and married a sister of the female prisoner. Her name was Eliza Whittaker. She had another sister besides the female prisoner. Her father was an innkeeper in Dale street. The marriage between the male and female prisoner took place in September, 1839, in St. David's Church, Liver pool, by license. I was present at the marriage. They were married by the Rev. Mr. Davies. I never visited them after the marriage, but they continued to visit me for tree or four months after. I have not seen them together since that time. I did not know where they were living. I never lived at 73, Mount-pleasant. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—I had no particular reason for discontinuing my intimacy with them. The rea son I did not visit them was because I have been too much engaged in the week-days, and on Sundays I had something else to attend to. I never warned my wife against receiving their visits. -I never heard that they were in the habit of quarrelling, nor can I say that I heard anything against them. I never heard anything about her mode of living since her first Marriage, but I heard before she was married that she was leading rather an indifferent life. I do not know that she was leading that indifferent life after the marriage. The male prisoner was a clerk to Mr. Ripley. He left that employment, and I heard the wife supported herself and him after that by taking in sowing. I never heard he was in the habit of drinking at public-houses. I never saw Mr. Smitl until she was taken into custody. He never had any convey sation with me about £BO a-year that she was entitled to, bu he asked me if she was entitled to it after she was taken into custody. Joseph Smith, examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG.—I am ar engineer, living at Great Orford-street, Liverpool. I firs became acquainted with the female prisoner in July or Au. gust, 1840. I first became acquainted with her in St James's Gardens. At the next interview I had with her she described herself as Mrs. Elizabeth Daniels, a widow, living with Mr. Wm: Edmundson, a draper, and her brother. in-law, residing in Mount-pleasant. I asked her respecting her friends. She said she had several ,residing in and new Preston, and that she had £B5 a-year left her by her grand• father, and that some other property hinged on her younger brother coining of age. I proposed marriage to her after wards. She declined my proposal, and gave no reason. Shi afterwards consented to marry me. When she describe( herself as a widow, she said her husband Daniels was : captain of a merchant-ship, and that he was drowned on hi: passage to America. I was married to her on- the Bth of December, by the Rev. Mr. Blundell, at St. Anne's Church, Liverpool. Before the marriage I visited her at Bolton street, where I saw the male prisoner sometimes. lam not aware that he saw me, for I did not speak to him. She re presented him to me as her brother-in-law, Mr. Wm. Ed mundson. While the courtship was going on, I received notes from her. The one now handed was the first I re ceived. I got it on the 4th. The second one produced was received on the sth. The third one was received on the 6th, the fourth on the 7th, the fifth the same day, and the sixth on the Bth of December (the morning of the marriage). I saw the male prisoner on the evening of the day I was mar ried. He came to my lodgings in Great Orford -street, where I had taken my wife. I addressed him as Mr. Edmundson, and said I was glad to see him. He said his name was not Edmundson. He asked me in a very confused tone, if I were married, to which I replied that I had the happiness then to be a married man, and he left. I then continued to live with my wife until I discovered about the first marriage. The male prisoner continued to visit me, and he always ad dressed the female prisoner as " Elizabeth," and he was always represented to me as her brother-in-law, Mr. Ed mundson. When the female prisoner came in on the even. ing of the marriage , I told her that he h a d d en i e d b e i ng M r . Edmundson, and laughed and said, "Oh!it is Mr. Ed mundson." I always addressed him as Mr. Edmundson. After that she told me that Mr. Edmundson had detained her clothes, and I urged him to give them up. He said he would give up the clothes provided she gave up a deed she had, which deed related to some property that he bad con trol over as an executor. She told me that the deed was hid behind a picture-frame in his house in Mount-pleasant. It was agreed that he and I should go to Mount-pleasant about the clothes, and an hour was fixed for the purpose. When the time came she would not allow me to go, but she said she would go herself, and she then went away herself. She told me she went, and that she had quarrelled with her un married sister that lived in Mount-pleasant with Edmund son. . I first ascertained that she was a married woman on the Ist of March, and I continued to live with her as her husband up to that time. She told me she was about to be married to a Mr. Lee, in Preston, and the male prisoner told me that he was out of pocket £3OO in preparing for tha marriage Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—i was employed as an engineer by the Irish government about three quarters of a year since. I never told the female prisoner that I had dis covered certain gold mines. When I met the female prisoner in St. James' Gardens an elderly female was with her. They were sitting in a chair, and I sat down beside them. I got no smile that encouraged me to go on. I felt myself very weak that day, and in consequence sat down. I then ad dressed some children that were playing there. The elderly lady commenced the conversation. I don't know what has become of that elderly lady. I don't recollect that I ever said before that an elderly lady was present. Afterwards, I met the female prisoner in Great Charlotte-street. She ap peared to be in gre,af agitation, and I went up to know what was the matter. I spoke first. She said she had quarrelled with her brother-in-law. She then told me her name was Mrs. Elizabeth Daniels. There was no coaxing on my part before she told me that. It is no part of the business of an engineer to go up to agitated ladies in the street. (A laugh.) I was about two or three months acquainted with her before I proposed marriage. I was not at that time in receipt of a large income from my engineering. I never asked her whe ther she was in the receipt of any money, but she told me her self and her sisters were in the receipt of £B5 a-year. It was after she told me that I proposed marriage. I don't know how it was that inever went to Mr.-Edriluddson's to enquire whether her statements were true. As she was on the point 6 of fainting on one occasion, I took her into a public-house for sympathy. We did not remain in that house until one o'clock in the morning. I took her into a public-house on a second occasion, where we remained until about twelve o'clock at night, she being in a state of agitation at the time. I took down the items of £B5 a-year in a memorandum-book. I never told her I was in the receipt of ten guineas a-day as an engineer, nor did' I say that I had made a great discovery which I could not tell the present government because they were whigs, but that I would tell the next government be cause they would be tories. (Great laughter.) I never said that my discoveries would tend to make " Sir Joseph Smith." We had wine and brandy together at the public-houses. I never asked her on those occasions to go home with me to my lodgings. • Shetold me on one occasion that I had pressed her to marry, that she was going to Preston. I recommended her to go as her brother-in-law was so unkind to her, and as it was not prudent for her to remain in Bolton-street. After I thought she had gone to Preston I met her near St. John'. market. • Her presence on that occasion surprised me. Whei she told me that she was about to be married to Lee, I tole her to make her election, but I went on my knees, conjurer her to throw Lee by and to take me, and we bad some brand) and water after to make it more pleasant. (Laughter.) Jr consequence of her agitation the night but one before the marriage she and I stopped all night together at a public bouse. I remained with her to console her. (Great laughter.) On more than four occasions she disappointed me in coining to the church to be married, she represented herself to be so agitated and unwell. On one occasion we went into church to be married, but I refused as she was not dressed as she should be as a bride, because I thought I would not get the clothes that were bought for the marriage with Lee. Shortly before the marriage I went to Mr. Owens, a drug. gist, to borrow £5 to get a license. Mr. Owens refused to lend it. I told him my intended wife was a rich widow, and that I would lose about £3,000 if I was not married. Cross-examined by Mr. Wriacisrs.—On the day of the marriage she received a note in the church. I had a glimpse of that note ; but she prevented me from reading it. I know a Mrs. Cornett, of George's-street; but that lady never told me before the marriage that the female prisoner was a mar ried woman. The female prisoner told me that the house in which she lodged, in Bolton-street, was kept by an old female seryant o f her mother's. I drank brandy and water in that house, and stopped there all one night consoling the female prigone r . The woman who kept the Bolton-street house was not the old lady that was with the female prisoner in St. James's Gardens. I think I met that old lady afterwards walking up Mount-pleasant in company with the female pri soner. I. believe I saw them together on two occasions. I sal , the male prisoner on two occasions in the house of the female before the marriage ' • but when I was told she was engaged with him, I l e ft th e house. On one occasion I asked if it was with Mr. Edmundson she was engaged, and they replied in the affirmative. It was a person of the name of Mrs. Jones who made that reply. , Mrs. Jones is about 45 years of age ; but she was not the old lady I met in St. James's Gardens. Sometimes I sent the major part of the brandy and water out to Mrs. Jones for her kindness to my intended. To-ilie Court—Whilst we were living together as man and wife, the money that supported us came out of my pocket. I got male from her, THaaas Holden examined—l cm clerk of St. Ann's Church. 1 remember Smith and the female prisoner coming to that church to be married about a week before they Were actually married. Smith came about seven o'clock in the morning, and told me to be at the church at eight o'clock, but they never came. The next time he came to be married, but she did not. The fourth time they both came; but Smith said they would defer it to another day. On the morning they were married I saw the male prisoner at my house. He asked if Smith and Daniels were going to be married. I said, " Yes." ',He shook his head and said he was her brother-in-la w; that he had been to Mr. Daniels to stop it, but, as he could not do so, he begged of me to try to stop it. He said her husband, his brother, had gone to sea about three years before, and that she did not know whether be was alive or not. I said the marriage could not be pre vented unless it was shown that her husband was alive. He asked me if I would deliver a note to her. I said I would with pleasure, and that if I had an opportunity I would speak to her. He then got a slip of paper and wrote, "Elizabeth, consider what you're about : the man is mad." He then went away, and I went to church, and soon after they came to church arm in arm. I gave her the note, saving that some friend or relative told me to give her that. She looked at it, read it, looked at Smith, smiled, and folded it in her hand. They were then married. • This witness was not cross.examined, Mr. MunPnY here rose and stated to the court that he apprehended there was a fatal error in the indictment, inas much as it described the female prisoner as Elizabeth, the wife of John Daniel Daniels, whereas it appeared his name was John Daniel. His LORDSHIP did not believe the fact referred to by the learned counsel was in evidence. Mr. Mun.PHY admitted that it was not, but believed it was in his power to show by the evidence of the clergyman who performed the ceremony, that it was as " Daniel" she had been married. His LORDSHIP said there existed a propensity to place an "s" at the end of various names, such as "Wood," &c., and that he did not consider the point a valid one. Mr. MURPHY referred to the. misnomer in the case of Tucker on the Earl of Cardigan's trial, and urged again that the error in the present instance was fatal. His LORDSHIP intimated his desire of not stopping the case for the reason alleged. Mr. MURPHY hoped court would give him the bene fit of the point. His LORDSHIP again said it was not as yet in evidence. Mr. MURPHY had Holden, the clerk of the church, re called, for the purpose of giving it in evidence. Holden, however, merely stated that he had nothing to do with the female prisoner, and that it was the clergyman who had taken down her name in the certificate. The Rev. William Blundell examined by Mr. MURPHY.— The name of the female prisoner was " Daniels." lam sure of that. I have a copy of the entry which I compared. In the license and register it was Daniels but she signed her name " Daniel." , Examined by Mr. WILKINS.—About half an hour before the marriage, a person called on me and said he came from the female prisoner's mother, who was ill, and requested I would not marry them. Being convinced that there was nothing in the request, I married them. Thomas William Brown examined.—l know the prisoner Daniel, who was clerk in the employment of Bateson and Horsfall, merchants, Liverpool. I was clerk in their em ployment also. I know the male prisoner's hand-writing. Witness here identified several of the notes received by Smith as being in his hand-writing. The Clerk of the CroWn here read notes as follows . (I) " Dearest of Friends,—Sorry I have been not to comply with your wishes, and communicate with you by post, but not being able to do so, being unwell. Would be happy to meet you at the door of Mrs. Holland's or Jenny's, if conve nient, at nine o'clock, as I can then tell you more than I cau per bearer.—l remain, yours, most respectfully, "E. DANIELS " Mr. Smith, 38, Great Orford-street." [Five other letters, something similar to the above, were read appointing meetings with Mr. Smith.] Cross-exaMined by Mr. MURPHY—I have known the male prisoner ten years, and have always known him as John Daniel, and not Daniels. Sarah Jones examined—l lived in Bolton-streetin a house kept by Mrs. Holland. I lived there thirty years. The prisoner lived there three months and a half. She occupied the front room when she first came, but during the last three weeks she lived in the parlour. The prisoners lived together as man and wife. Their names were John Daniels and :Elizabeth Daniels. I saw Mr. Smith three or four times with the female prisoner. 'The morning she left she gave me a note to give to Mr. Smith. That was about a quarter to seven: Mr. Smith came to the door after I got it, and I gave it to him. I never saw her until after she was brought before Mr. Rushton. The wale prisoner remained two or three days after she left. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY —The female prisoner said she was going out of town the morning she left. Cross-examined by Mr. Wu:rusts—The person who lived in the parlour :before the female prisoner occupied it was a Mrs. English. I don't know what Mrs. English was, but two or three gentlemen visited Ur. I never saw any gentle men visiting the female prisoner. I fetched spirits for Mr. Smith. I never fetched any spirits for any one else. Mrs. Holland's husband is alive. They are both too old to do anything. They have only 4s. a-week from their lodgers. I got a drop of the spirits from Mr. Smith. Frederick Smith examined—l am Joseph Smith's brother. I live in Liverpool occasionally. I. visited my brother seve ral times after his marriage. It was on the first of March I suspected the female prisoner was married before, when I went with a man named O'Brien to the male prisoner. O'Brien went up to the latter, in Harvey's public-house, and said " How do you do, Mr. Daniels?" The male prisoner answered " very well." Then my brother who accompanied us, went up and addressed him us Mr.. Edmondson. He said, " How do you do, Mr. Edinundson ?" Then, as I knew the real Mr. Edmundson, and that the male prisoner was not the man, I went out for a policeman. About a year and a half ago my brother had a paralytic stroke. My brother was employed on the Shannon navigation and at some extensive works which were carried on at Limerick. the paralytic stroke did not affect his mind. I called the male prisoner a " rascal" on the occasion in question, and he made an effort to run off. We then took the male pri soner to the upper-room at my brother's lodgings, in Great Orford-street, when a M r . Elli ot sa id to Mrs. Barker, the landlady of the house, " This is Mr. Edmondson." Mrs. Barker said, " This is the roan that has always passed here as Mr. Edmondson." We then took him into Mrs. Daniels' bed-room, and she caught !hold of Mr. Elliot in a violent manner, and ultimately we took both the prisoners to the real Mr. Edmondson's, in Oldhall-street. The female pri soner told me twenty times that her first husband war drowned in the packet-ship Oxford. I said it could not be the packet-ship, whereupon she said it was a merchant-ship. On coming down Brownlow-hill, O'Brien told me that the male prisoner had confessed he was married to the female prisoner on the 26th September, 1839. I then joined the male prisoner, and he made the same confession to me. He said, " I am married to the same woman that your brother is married to." He then came down to the real Mr. Edmund son. The family were in bed at the time. We rapped. Edmondson put his head out the window, and said he would not have anything to do with the female prisoner ' • but after some time he came d own, an d we h ad a lengthened conversa tion on the subject of the two marriages. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—I am an engineer. My brother never found any gold mines. I have brought forty-five swindlers to justice. lam under bail at present for breaking an old woman's leg. (A laugh.) I paid my addresses once to Mrs. Beale, but having found out that she was a bad 'un discontinued the courtship. (Great laughter.) Patrick O'Brien examined—l am a private teacher in Li verpool. I lodged with Mrs. Barton, in Great Orford -street, for three years. I saw Smith and his wife there. I saw the male prisoner at the door of the place about a month before he was taken into custody. I went with the last witness to the real Mr. Edmondson, in company with the two prisoners. I met the male prisoner that night in a publio-house in Brownlow-hill. I accosted him as Daniels, shook hands with him, and said I hoped he was well. I told him to come forward and speak to his brother-in-law, meaning Mr. Thos. Smith. I asked him to come up to his wife. He came, and we went into the bed-room there. A good deal passed on that occasion. I asked Mrs. Barton what should be done with them. She said they must be put out. We then came down Brownlow-hill, and on the way I impeached the male prisoner for having lived on his wife's prostitution, and he admitted having been married to the female prisoner. I said he should have explained the matter to Mr. Smith, and he said he was afraid to do it lest his wife should cut her throat. He also said, when I told him be should have prevented the second marriage, that he did not care, so that his wife was comfortable. Cross-examined by Mr. WniiiNs.—l heard that two ladies called at our house to see the female prisoner, but did not see them. Ellen Barker examined.—l am a widow, and keep a lodg ing -house in Great Orford-street. Mr. Joseph Smith took lodgings on the 7th of September, and came there to live with his wife the day he was married. The male prisoner came to the house on the evening of the marriage, and asked for Mrs. Smith. He entered very abruptly but gave no name. He called frequently after, and told me to annonnce him as Mr. Edmundson. Sometimes he called himself Mrs, Edmundson's brother-in-law. On different times I heard ' Mr. Smith press the male prisoner to come to some terms of reconciliation about Mrs. Smith's clothes and property. I recollect the prisoner being brought to the house on the even ing he was arrested, when I said he was Mr. Edmundson, He asked me if he had not said his name was not Mr. Ed . enundson. I said he never said so to me. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I can't mention any time when he told me his name was Edmundson. A young lady, who represented herself as Mrs. Smith's cousin, called to see the female prisoner after the marriage. A Mr. Bate son, another cousin of her's, also called to see her. Jane Eaton examined.—l live in Bittern-street. The two prisoners called to take lodgings there about a fortnight be. tore Christmas. The female prisoner spoke. She gave her name as Mrs. Smith. She said she wanted the lodgings for her brother, and that the male prisoner was her brother. I let her the lodgings. She agreed with me for five shillings a-week, and she said she would see me paid. Sometimes she paid me and sometimes he paid me himself. I was to provide the dinner for him on Sundays. He remained with me until he was arrested. The female prisoner came every day, and sometimes on Sundays ; sometimes she asked for " John" when she came. When he was in she used to go up stairs, and when he was not in she left notes for him. On Saturdays she used to bring the market-woman with her, and brought marketing for him as well as herself. Ann Rice examined.—l keep a stall in St. John's market. I know the female prisoner. She was in the habit of corning to the stall opposite mine, every Saturday, to make pur chases. The male prisoner was sometimes with her. I car ried home her purchases. First, we called at Mr. Eaton's, in Bittern-street, and left part of the purchases there, and then went on to Great Orford-street, and left the remainder there. I heard her tell the woman from whom she made the purchases in the markets, that she had a pensioner to keep. The case for the prosecution having here closed, Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury on the part of the female prisoner. He did not deny that she had married a second time, because the fact was plainly proved in evidence ; but before he closed he hoped they would be of opinion that there were circumstances of extenuation accompanying the ease which merely called fur a mild and gentle admonition to the unfortunate woman. There could be no doubt that she had been placed in a situation by her husband which ex posed her to risks and difficulties which coerced her into marriage : and even it it were proved that the husband had been present when the second marriage took place, it would be his duty to tell the jury that there had been something of coercion used on his part. He would commence by tracing the.history of the woman. That history had been unhappily exhibited her as a person who at an early age had been led away from the paths of virtue into the opposite paths of vice. This was not a theoietical point, but a fact which came out in evidence, because it unfortunately appeared, from the state ment of her own brother-in-law, that previous to her marri age with Daniels she was a woman of indifferent character. It was plai n , th ere f ore , t h a t D an i e l s happening to be inveigled with her person , had married, and that he h a d su b sequently discovered the character of his wife. Daniels, however, bad lived with her for some time ; and for three or four months after, she had visited her brother-in-law, and he had permit ted her to be-on terms of intimacy with his wife ; but after the lapse of three or four mouths, a different state of things arose—the intimacy ceased—the husband got out of employ ment, and she herself was the person who had maintained Win. She appeared before the court as one who had unfortu nately been then coerced into the second marriage by the man who, before all others, was bound to interpose between her and infamy ; for she, having tied herself to him, and having cherished for him an affection, with the strength of a woman's nature, preferred supporting him by p ros tit u ti on t o suffering him to be in want. And now, he would ask, what constituted bigamy au offence in the eye of the law ? The law regarded two classes of individuals in a case of the kind. It regarded the original husband on whom the injury was committed, and it also regarded the entrapped husband ; but if he should satisfy them, in reasoning, on the evidence, that no injury had been inflicted on either party, and that Smith had acted in a manner which showed him to be the willing dupe of the woman, then 'would they agree in opi nion that it did not affect him to any material extent. He would shortly dismiss the case of the husband; for the way in which he had intermingled himself with the transaction showed plainly that he had been animated throughout by the base motive of providing himself with the means of subsist ence by her prostitution. The jury found that she had gone to the house where he lodged. after her marriage with Smith, with provisions to maintain him during the week, so that, in point of fact, disgraceful as it might.appear, she was a woman, who, by her prostitution, was maintaining her husband. If that were so, could it be said that he sustained any injury, If, instead of being on that side of the court, the jury were on the other, was th re any on would give one halfpenny domages to a husband for injury done to his wife, with such facts before them as appeared throughout the present cause? And how stood those facts ? It appeared that Mr. Smith met a nerson walking in a pub lic garden in Liverpool, and that lie sat on a public chair along side of her. He might be called a fortune-hunter, for he was going about seeking whom he might devour. Having found her in the first instance in a meretricious dress, he sub sequently drank with her in a public-house, and asked her what was the amount of her property. He learned that it was £5B a year, and that she bad repudiated Mr- Lee. He then rushed forth to borrow £5 to buy a licence. He walked five times to the church to get married to her, and on the fourth or fifth occasion he smelled a rat, because she happened not to be habited in a suitable bridal dress ! (Con tinued laughter). At length he married her ; and if ever there was a man who had swallowed the hook with the bait on it, Mr. Joseph Smith was that individual. (Laughter). In fact everything in his conduct had been ineffably disgust ing. Finally, he never went before the marriage to see whether the pretended inh er it ance h a d b een secure to her ; but, after it, when he found that it was all moonshine he had been marrying instead of £B5 a-year, off he went and had the woman arrested. . , Mr. WILKINS next addressed the jury on the part of the male prisoner. He commenced by saying that the case, so far as Mr. Smith appeared in it, exhibited a pretty specimen of Cwlebs in search of a wife. it appeared that he went out; met an elderly and a young lady ; entered into conversation with them ; and without any more ado, made up his mind, as it would seem, that the younger was to be the future Mrs. Smith. Then he went on to talk about her subsequent agi tation, sufficient, as Mr. Murphy observed. to remind one of Mr. O'Connell's constant agitations ; his own anxiety about her inheritance which resembled, to carry out Mr. Murphy's idea still further, to Mr. O'Connell's anxiety about the rint, and he concluded by stating that when he found her robbed of her virgin purity, his languishinents and sufferings withered, and blotted out his affections. (Great laughter). The jury had perceived from the case that the wants of Mr. and Mrs. Daniels had driven the male pri soner to resort to the basest. modes of procuring subsist ence • that, from some cause or o th er, h e h a d f a ll en f rom t h e standing in life he once held ; that he had lost all respect for himself ; that he had not philosophy nor christianity enough to bear up against the tide of misfortune which had set in against him; and that he gave himself up as a lost man. He (Mr. Wilkins) was not there to urge anything in the shape of a palliative for that of which he believed Daniels to have been guilty ; but, at the same time, lie thought him not guilty of the charge alleged against him in the indictment. He did not believe that he had adopted any expedient to ac complish this second marriage ; and the jury would bear in mind that the indictment charged him with having coun selled, incited, and promoted it. He did believe that he had been living on the wages of her shame ; but he could not find any evidence which would justify any man in coming to the conclusion, that he knew the marriage was about to take place, or that it had had his sanction. Mr. Wilkins then proceeded to say that the male prisoner had denied to Smith that his name was Edmundson—that he went to the church to prevent the marriage from being solemnised—that he had written a note to his wife, telling her to consider, what she was about, that Smith was mad—and that he had used va rious expedients to prevent her from having anything to do with him. His LORDSHIP then charged the jury. He thought they could only come to one conclusion with regard to the female prisoner, namely, that she had been regularly married to both Daniels and Smith. With respect to the male prisoner, it was very material, as had been remarked by his counsel, to consider whether or not he had counselled, incited, and pro moted the second marriage. His lordship theh proceeded to read the letters and some portions of the evidence, and concluded a lengthened charge at five o'clock. The jury, without leaving the box, convicted the female prisoner, and acquitted the male, remarking that they wished to express the strongest feeling of disgust at his conduct. His LORDSHIP then passed sentence on the female pri soner in the following terms He said---Elizabeth Daniels, you have been convicted, on the very cbrarest evidence, of bigamy, an offence which interferes with the security of the institution of marriage, which lies at the foundation of all civil society, and in this country subjects the party guilty of it to transportation or imprisonment, according to the cir cumstances of- the , case. Yours is a peculiar case. It is stripped of some circumstances which are an aggravation of the crime. You seem not to have done any serious injury to your first husband, because, although I think he may not have consented to your second marriage, yet he consented to what must be quite as painful to any husband who possessed proper feelin g s ;—I mean, to y our i n t ercourse w i t h ot h er persons ; and', in all probability, he might have written the letters. Therefore I do not think you inflicted any serious injury on his feelings ; and with respect to Joseph Smith— a strange sort of person, easily deceived by the arts you so successfully applied---I do not know that any great suffering has been inflicted on him either. Still a violation of the sa cred ordinances of the church, and a trifling with the rite of matrimony itself, is not to be permitted ; but, at the same time, taking all th e e i re nmstnn,... ;ntr, r into consideration, 1 am not disposed to sentence you to anything more than the lightest punishMent, and that is to six calendar months' im prisonment. Upon the application of Mr. WILKINs, the male prisoner was then discharged. The trial excited very considerable interest. A number of respectable ladies were in court during its continuance. The male prisoner was quiet and reserved, but the female exhibited a levity of deportment not at all in keeping,with the seriou s nature of the crime c h arge d aga i ns t her. "When first forward she held her handkerchief to her face and shed some tears, but she shortly after became cheerful ; laughed heartily ; exchanged nods of recognition with her acquain tances in court ' • amused herself by writing with a pencil on the boards of the bar; and laughed heartily ou receiving her sentence. She was very respectably attired in a handsome cloak, bonnet, lace cap and satin ribbons—appeared about twenty-four years of age, and had a remarkably handsome and intelligent cast of countenance, CHARGE OF RAPE Thomas Twist andi;;;;;P;;;;w7i, two lads about 18 years old, stood indicted for having feloniously ravished and carnally known Margaret Prescott, a girl of 16 years of age. The facts of the case appeared to be as follows :—The pro secutrix was a looker-on at Ackerley's colliery, in this county. The prisoners were drawers at the same place. On Saturday, the Nth of last October, the prosecutrix was about to ascend the shaft, but having forgot a spade after her, she returned for the purpose of fetching it, and took a candle in her hand. The prisoner Twist then came up to her, took hold of her by the arm, and used some term of endearment, such as "my love." She repulsed him, and attempted to go back, but the prisoners put out their candles and nearly involved the place in darkness. Penman then came up, knocked the candle out of her hand, laid hold of her by the breast, and knocked her down. The prosecutrix having had a pair of trousers on (trousers being usually worn by colliery girls), they then proceeded to unbutton them, when one, she could not say which, effected his purpose. She screamed violently. When she got to the top of the shaft she imme diately informed the banksmau that she had been ill-treated, and then went to her father and informed him also of all the circumstances. Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner Twist, and Dr. Brown the prisoner Penman. The prosecutrix and several witnesses were examined to prove the case; after which the jury, having considered their verdict for about twenty minutes, found hoth the prisoners not guilty of rape, but. Guilty of an assault.. His LORDSHIP haying been informed that Penman had been in gaol for the last six months, and Twist for the last seventeen weeks, senteticed the former to, one and the latte r to two calendar months'. imprisonment; and directed them to enter into recognisances of 410 each for their good be haviour for the next two years. The court adjourned at eight o'clock. NISI PRIUS.—SATURDAY. (Continued from the Supplement.) PURCHASE OF RAILWAY SHARES.—STEWART V. CAUTY. The declaration in this ease stated, that the plaintiff, was Mr. John Duncan Stewart, and the defendant Mr. Henry John Canty ; and the action was brought to recover the sum of £361 is., being the amount of loss which had resulted to the plaintiff from the sale of twenty half-shares in the'Great Western Railway, which the defendant had purchased from him, but afterwards refused to receive. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Henderson appeared for the plain tiff; and Mr. Alexander for the defendant. Mr. CRESSWELL, in stating the case, said, the plaintiff was a merchant in Liverpool, and the defendant either an apothecary or a medical man. On the 26th August last, the defendant employed Messrs. Radford and Co., sharebrokers, to purchase for him twenty half-shares in the Great Western Railway, at the clear mice of £52 per share. Messrs. Rad ford and Co. purchased the shares from Messrs. H. Davies and Co., share-brokers, at £52 per share, being £4O paid and £l2 premium, to which the commission had to be added. It was agreed, that the commission should be 2s. 6d. per share. Sharebrokers in Liverpool had established for them selves certain well-known rules, the first of which was, that the buyer should give the name of the transferer within three days after sale ; and, if the buyer's broker did not give the name to the selling broker in that time, the name of the buyer was to be put in. The vendor was also allowed seven days after the receipt of the name of the transferer to com plete the transfer. Mr. Canty, after the sale, was asked for the name of the tranferer, and he replied, that he was not prepared to give it. Messrs. Radford pressed him for the name, and, at the same time, he was informed, that, unless it was given, his own, as the selling broker, would be put in. At length Messrs. Radford put in his name, not wishing to make themselves liable. The defendant afterwards gave to his brokers the name of Mr. John Whittle, of Gloucester, gentleman, as the transferer, and, on agree ment, his n ame was substituted for the defendant's. Mr. Stewart was the holder of these twenty shares, but had not received the transfer from the person who had sold to him, and he had to communicate with that person to enable him to make the transfer to Mr. Little. In two days afterwards Mr. Canty went to Messrs. Radfords', a n d asked for the transfer. He was told that the time for trans fer had not yet come on, when he said, " Oh, you have press ed the for a name, and now I will press you." Mr. Radford told him it was of no use to do so, as the rules gave the sell ing party seven days : he advised Mr. Canty not to press for the transfer, as the seller might he offended, and take the whole seven days. The transfer was got ready on the fifth day, instead of the seventh. In the meantime shares had been falling, and Mr. Cauty then said he wou ld not have the shares. A tender of transfer was formally made, although it was unnecessary, and the defendant refused to accept it. On this the shares were resold, after the usual notice, and the loss was £l6O. The present action was brought to recover that amount. The learned counsel then called evidence in proof of this statement. In cross-examination Mr. Thomas Radford ad nitted that the defendant stipulated, in making the purchase, hat the contract should be completed immediately, and that _le had asked for the transfer several times. Mr. CRESSWELL then put in the rules of the Liverpool Sharebrokers' Association. Mr. ALEXANDER submitted that the rules of the associa tion could not be evidence, as neither Mr. Davies, the plain tiff,:nor the defendant, were members ofit, • • • The Learned JUDGE was -of opinion the rules were evi ienCe, as the defendant's attention bad been called to them, and all the sharebrokers acted in accordance with them. Mr. ALEXANDER requested the learned judge to take a note of the objections. He then addressed the jury for the defendant, contending that the sa l e , a ft er t h e d e f en d ant h a d refused to fake the shares, should have been earlier. Had that been so, the loss would not have been more than £54 on one day, or £7O on a day still later. The JUDGE then summed up, and the jury found for the plaintiff, damages £l6l Is. PURCHASE OF A WRECK.—BROWN AND ANOTHER V. WESTHEAD AND ANOTHER. Messrs. Brown and Haskayne, ship-chandlers, of this town, brought this action against Mr. Peter Westhead, pub lican, of Waterloo, and another person, for having converted to their own use some timber, the part of a wrecked vessel, called the St. Andrew, which they had purchased. The case was perfectly uninteresting. It ended in a verdict fur the plaintiffs, damages £4O, with leave to Mr. Crompton, for the defendants, to move for a nonsuit. FREIGHT AN D .DEMURRAGE.—HARRISON AND OTHERS V. BROWNING This was an action brought to recover £52 6s. from the de fendant for freight and demurrage. . Mr. Cressweif and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Murphy for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiffs are the owners of a sloop, called the Raven, and the defendant is an Irish merchant. The defendant chartered the Raven to convey a cargo ofeoals from Liverpool to Dundalk, in December, 1839, at is. per ton, the 'vessel to be discharged in five days, and demurrage at the rate of 355. a day if she was detained. When the ves arrived at Dundalk, Martin, the consignee, refused to -barge the coals, tint] kept by _le vessel wa. , nim thirteen days on demurrage. The freight and demurrage amounted to £55 6s. £3 had been paid on account, and the action was brought to recover £52 Gs. the Bala► ce. Mr. MURPHY, for the defendant, co mended, that the de- Murrage had been caused by the plaintiffs own neglect. He called no witness. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £52 6s. The Conn adjourned at six o'clock. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY. The whole of the criminal business having been disposed of, Mr. Justice Maule sat for the trial of civil cases. The first called was that of WALMSLEY V. WILLIAMS. This was an undefended action for debt. Verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. £39 9s. 9d. RIGBY V. JONES This also was an undefended action brought to recover the sum of £25 17s. 3d. for goods sold and delivered,—Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. BOLD V. MARSHALL. Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Murphy) stated the case. This was a breach of contract for forty tons hoop iron and a smaller quantity of another description, to be deli vered by defendant to plaintiff. The article rose in price and he did not deliver the iron, and the loss to the plaintiff was, consequently, considerable. The price of the iron to be supplied was £9:los.'per ton. The defendant afterwards of fered to pay'the plaintiff - the sum of £6O in consequence of its non-delivery. The amount was not, however, paid, though the offer was aereed to ; and the action was brought to recover that sum. The iron, as specified by letter, was to be delivered in three weeks. The rise in the interim, in the price of the iron hoops, was from fifteen to twenty shillings a ton. The case laaving been proved, the jury returned a ver dict for the plaintiff, damages £6O, costs 40s. ATTWOOD AND OTHERS V. MAW. This was an action to recover the amount of a promist•ory note, or bill, endorsed by the defendants, which they refused to meet, on the plea that it was no t d u l y en d orse d . P roof was given of the liability of the defendants, and the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount of the bill, £1,700, and £7O of interest thereon : in all, £1,770. No. 9, Dearden v. Burgess and another, was sruck off the list as being settled. DERBYSHIRE V. LEVER. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of Mr. John Derby shire, cowkeeper, of Toxteth-park, deceased, and the defen dant, Mr. John Lever, a tavern-keeper. residing in Lodge lane. The plaintiff claimed a sum of about £lOO, which it was alleged, she had lent the defendant, at various times, from March to June, 1840. The defendant, it was stated, had paid his addresses to the widow, and had persuaded her to break up her business as a cowkeeper, and it was after the sale of the cows that she had lent him the money. Several witnesses were called, who proved, that the plain tiff and defendant had been on terms of close intimacy ; that he had admitted once, when tipsy, that he owed the plaintiff £BO ; that his conduct had suddenly changed towards her, which was attributed, by the witnesses, to her having no more money to lend ; and that he had subsequently married. Mr. CROMPTON, for the defence, denied that more than £lO had been owing, and stated, that even that had been paid. . The proceedings, he said, rose out of the angry feel ings of the plaintiff on finding that the defendant had mar ried another woman. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £7O, with interest from the period at which a notice had been served by the attorney. This was about : total £7l. CRIIII. CON.—ANDERTON V. CHAFFER. Mr. ATHERTON, in the absence of Mr. Cresswell, stated the case to the jury. He commenced by saying, that he deeply regretted the absence of hls truly eloquent friend, Mr. Cresswell, who had been engaged in this ease, but could not attend. He was therefore thrown upon facts, and he should state them briefly. The plaintiff kept a public house, at Comm, called the Hole in the Wall. In Fe bruary, 1836, he married a Miss Dyson. the daughter of a respecta ble innkeeper. Some time afterwards he left the inn at Collie, and entered business as a spinner. He lived most happily with his wife; hut the new concern not fully answering his expectations, he wished to resume his former calling. He eventually found an inn to his mind, the Thorn, in Burnley, and entered upon it in 1838. They had, at this time, only one child, since dead and there was no complaint against the defendant up to their going to that inn. The plaintiff's pi ospects were then unclouded, and he little dreamed that his happiness was so soon to be blighted. The defendant was a Mr. Chaffer, who carried on a thriving business, as a cabinet. maker and upholsterer, in the same town, and who had, moreover, accumulated considerable property. He was then a widower, but had since married his present wife. From the time the plaintiff commenced business in Burnley, the defendant became a daily visitor at the house. He made acquaintanee with Mrs. Anderton, and paid her such marked attentions as caused very considerable annoyance to the plaintiff, who, from his anguish of mind, fell into habits of intemperance, which were unhappily continued while he remained iu Burnley. While he lived at Colne he was a temperate, industrious, and sober mail ; but a change took place : he became intemperate, quarrels ensued between him and his wife, and his happiness was destroyed. His friends apprehended that his habits. arising from the feelings th,t preyed upon his mind, would soon be the means of involving him in, pecuniary ruin, lie had borrowed a suns of money from a relation, a lieutenant, be believed, in the Life Guards. That individual at length became alarmed for his money, and the plaintiff consented to snake an "The house in Burnley- was then taken in the n ame of AslligsnsuiDyen:o. n, his wife's sister, and, after he had made the assignment, he was turned out of the inn by his wife's order, and was not again allowed to enter it. He went to Manchester, to a friend there, a Mr.Earnshaw, in whose employ he now was, and who would state that Isis con duct, subsequent to his ejection, had been that of a remarkably steady, attentive, and sober man. After the assignment was made, too, the visits of the defendant were more frequent, and there was less of disguise in his attentions to Mrs. Anderton. He, in fact, became more and more reckless in his conduct, and used to sit up with her when all other parties had retired. The evidence would, he trusted, satisfy them that intimacies took place between them of a highly disgraceful nature to both. The learned counsel then detailed APVOrOI nirr•llrnef.A uctettictl ZeVeraj circumstances snewing the improper conduct of the plaintiff's wife, and concluded by an eloquent appeal to the jury to consider the grave nature of the injury sustained, and to award an adequate compensation to the plaintiff. Many witnesses were then called, but the evidence is unfit for publication. Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defence. The learned JUDGE summed up perspicuously, explaining his view on the principal evidence adduced. The jury retired for about twenty minutes, and, on their return, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages .elOO. The court rose at a quarter before six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT—MONDAY. STEEL V. MONDEL. This was a s p ec i a l j ury case, and the following gentlemen were empanell e d to try it :—Messrs. James Machell, Sidney Sherlock, Thomas Bold, Richard Moon, William Dentith, Richard Shallcross, John Billing, Samuel Martin, William Snell, Ralph Brocklebaiik, James Stuart, and Samuel Clough. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Martin were counsel for the plaintiff, but in consequence of the latter gentleman be ing engaged in the other court, Mr. C. was for some time tine without a junior. Mr. Dundas and Mr. Gleaseby for the defendant. Mr. CRESSWELL said the declaration stated that the de fendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £4,000 for work done, for materials found, for goods sold and deli vered, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that except as to £2 4s. Nl. he was not indebted, and that as related• to that sum he had paid it into court. There were other pleadings :Aid replications thereto. The learned coun sel then proceeded to say that all these would come to a short question in point of fact ; and but for the preparations on the other side, and an intimation that the court would be occupied the whole day with this case, he should have looked on it as an undefended one. Nor could he find out on what ground the defendant came there to resist the claim made upon him. The action arose out of a contract for building a ship. In 1838, the defendant contracted with Mr. Steel to build a ship, which was to be finished in a certain mode, for £l3 a-ton. During the building the defendant was at the yard frequently, and he also appointed a Captain Arm strong to act as superintendent of the work. He even went further, and appointed Mr. Bailey, agent of Lloyd's, to sur vey the ship from time to time ; and in the event of any dis pute between the builder and contractor, Mr. Bailey was to determine between them. The vessel was finished in May, 1839, and handed over to defendant. At that time there had been paid by him £3,521 ss. 6d. On measuring the vessel she was found to be 277 tons, old measurement, ac cording to which she was to be built, and that, at £l3 u-ton, would produce about £3,608. There remained due, there fore, £B6. She had then to b e r i gge d, and in the course of it the defendant required certain extra work to be done. The direction was complied with, and Mr. Mondel paid the bill for wages, but refused to pay the bill for materials, amounting to £l.lO. Captain Sproule was appointed to the command of the vessel, and in taking her into the graving dock, managed to give her bowsprit a pretty severe blow against the pier. In July, 1839, she sailed from this port for Sydney, with a heavy cargo of flint glass, and on arriving there the captain gave her a bump against the ground. She then went round Cape Horn to Valparaiso, afterwards re-; turned to Sydney, took on board a heavy cargo of copper ore, and returned to London, having made a voyage of about seventeen months. At the end of that period, some persons in London were employed to examine the vessel, and they found out many faults. The defendant, therefore, when called on to pay the balance of £226, said, " Oh, no, I have paid you alr ea d y more than enough." Mr. Creswell stated that a counter action.bad been brought by Mr. Mon del against Mr. Steel for alleged badness of work. Witnesses were called to substantiate this statement, and the contract was put in. At the conclusion, the document set forth that the scantlings, fastenings, planks, &c, were to be such as in Lloyds' book, werelaid down for a twelve years' ship. All the witnesses engaged in the construction of the ship, (which was called the Maia) stated that she had in all respects been built according to the directions and under the superintendence of the defendant and Capt. Armstrong ; and that no fault whatever had been found with her when she was launched, Mr. Bailey, surveyor to Lloyds', in London, said that he had been selected by both defendant and plaintiff to decide all disputes that might arise between them, but he had never been called on to decide any dispute. When he in spected the Maia here, he thought she was entitled to be Placed in the A lat Lloyds' for twelve years. He had since, however, seen the vessel in London, and had found that the bilge bolts had not been put in according to his directions. She was not, therefore', entitled to be placed in the class A 1 for twelve years. He could not say what number of bilge bolts were deficient. She was riot bolted according to the model or his directions. He pointed out that a bolt must be placed in every alternate timber, and thought that Capt. Sproule, who was present, would have seen that the direc tion was carried into effect. The d e fi c i ency might have been supplied for £5, and he had . no doubt but t h at i t was an omission. The deficiency did not affect the unworthi ness of the vessel ; but has the rule had not been complied with, she was not entitled to be placed in the class A 1. On his cross-examination, Mr. Bailey said that it was his duty to inspect a vessel three times in the course of her build ing. When he saw her,in London, there were evident signs of movement about her beam ends, and her waterway seams. Sha wanted additional fastenings ; and then, for the first ti m e, one beam was pointed out that was deficient. It had had, at the time she was built, a piece neatly inserted. 11 c should have had that taken out, had he seen it. The appear ances lie then saw might have been occasioned by stress of weather, heavy cargoes, or getting on share. In London. he saw several things which he could not have seen here, and which, if he had seen, would have induced him to withdraw his certificate of Al. One of those things was that the • covering boards of the cabin had been split, and the vessel had, in consequence, made a good deal of water aft. The splitting, however, might have arisen from hot weather, and it might have been done at the time of building; sod have been unknown to every one. His certificate to Lloyds' had been