The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-14 00:00:00

rok a natol, tit t It, After f.o and- the . piiorn:, House,,' between the two towths, a.. 3 ' 4, 4, the prisoners each took one of the prosecutor's arms, but he released himself. The prisoners then whispered together, and the prosecutor becoming alarmed. went to the side of the road with a view to leave them and return to Manchester. They, however, again took hold of him, and struck him, and threw him on his back. Brough then held him down, and placed his hands on his eyes, while the other held down his legs. 13rough then tore and cut away the prosecutor's fob, containing the sovereigns, and the eight half-crowns were also taken. The prisoners, on the same night, went to a tavern in the country, where they spent a good deal of money, giving a nto be canged. The then call e d themselves brothers. soverei They treated h some personsy there with ale, and afterwards slept in the house. One of them,. previous to g o i ng to b ed, gave the landlord three sovereigns to k eep for him until the morning, when the mo ney was ret urned to him.—Both p r i soners were f oun d cued by y. His lordshi p sa i d, as no great violence had been then them, be sh ou ld not pass the severest sentence. He pronounced Sentence of transportation for ten years. 1 had gone aboet 20i) STREET ROBBERY. William Drains, 19, and John Topps, 19, were charged with having, at Manchester, on the night of the 10th of March, stopped a Mr. Greaves, and robbed him of eight or Mn shillings in silver. Mr. Wilkins conducted the prose cution ; Drains was defended by Mr. Monk, and Topps by Mr. Bass. Drain received an excellent character from his employer, with whom he had been constantly employed fur eight years. The other prisoner also received a good cha racter, and h a d also been tully employed up to the time of his appreh ension. Th e j ury returned a verdict of guilty against both .prisoners, recommending Drai ns t o mercy .— Mr. Woodwhen s was again c a ll e d , and said that on the night he met the prisoners, they demanded money, and took two sixpences from him. Topps was then the active man. Mr. Greaves said that the prisoner Drains appeared to be a notice in the transaction; he appeared to be confused and frightened and (witness) begged to join the jury in this recommendation His Lounstitp addressed the prisoners in a very feeling manner, stating, that being willing to believe that neither of hem had gone far in crime, and had not used any great violence, he should not send them out of the country, There was, however, a distinction to be made as regarded the of fencelof each. Taking into account the imprisonment they hadsoa ready undergone, he then sentenced Drains to be im ri fled and kept to hard labour for five months, and Topps for 11 months. BURGLARY. and Wm. Smith convicted (with two others) of burglary, ts regarding whom some inquiries had to be made at Knu - ford, which resulted in his behalf, was brought up, and sen tenced, in addition to six month's previous confinement, !co be imprisoned and kept to hard labour at Kirkdale for six months. FORGER), Edward Marsland, a young nitn . i, was indicted for having forged and uttered an order for the delivery of goods on Mr. Forhugill, of Shude Hill, Manchester, purporting to be ligned bY one Joseph Wild, of Farness, with intent to de fraud one or Othe r of these parties. Mr. Pontocic was for the prosecution ; Mr. WILKINS for the defence. Mr. Pot.Locir stated the case. He said that on the Bth of October last, the prisoner gave the order (produced) to Ben cheater 13ridges, a carter in the employ of Mr. II orrick, Man chester and Stockport carrier, requesting him to deliver it to M. Fothergill, &ging it was an order for a box of soap, Which he must bring with him and leave at the Manchester Arms, Wellington road, Southport. The order was in a note sealed up, and directed to Mr. Fothergill. He took it to that gentlernan, who, as he knew Mr. Wild, told him to Fall again in an hour -and-a-half. He called, received the box, and took it to the Manchester Arms, where they would not receive it. He then took it to his master's, where it re tained over the following day, Sunday, in the cart, and on Monday it was given to his employers. It appeared it was afterwards sent to a beer house where the prisoner and another Person were seen opening the box. It contained poxabout two cwt of pale yellow soap, worth about 51. The prisoner asked for a hammer at the public house where the of soap was, and opened it. A carter named Richard W r ight was with him. It was afterwards taken away. This Ulan Wright should have appeared as a witness. thatl3tl one or two of the witnesses being heard it appeared .. some of them had been tampered with ; that Wright had himself absconded, and, that neither the property nor the box Could be traced to the prisoner, and the jury hiving in case, the prisoner was discharged. ROB BERY Willi VIOLENCE. JZobert 314 Clelland, 39, John Ball; 21, James Ward, 22, ivilliam Croyaden, 21, John Thompson, 23, and John Jack- I t " , 2 0, were charged with having at Newton, near Manclies er, u pon the common highway, feloniously stolen one watch, il lle pair of spectacles, one handkerchief, three pennies, five ahillmgs, and a sixpence, the goods and monies of Thomas Jerrold. tailjkr. J. Pottocir stated the case to the jury, admitting that egardpd some of the prisoners the question for considera . was identity. I , lhornas Jerrold M D., f Manchester, was then called. .e said he lived it: LlOyd-sotreet Green-heyes, Manchester, 11 ( 1 wad in practice. On the evening of the 17th November, Ile Was walking towards Clayton Vale, and about half-past four c ad got into Huline-hall-lane, Newton, about irninrut miles from Manchester when he heard a noise as of men g after him. A minute after they approached him. band' e first saw M'Clelland. He took hold of his (witness's) and felt his finger ring. Witness then said :—He said he ‘Zanted to link with ? e and im me di ately confined my arm. , °01 1" aft er I was seized m by t h e collar, by, 1 believe, Ball. !l hat I had. I to l d him some silver. He imme m e_liethers easly Proceeded t o take it—live o r s i x s hilli ngs. The en came up; I bad every pocket rifled—of mY /41ob, spectacles, &c. Balf took the watch. M'Clelland I r ; ood by. Ward, he believed, rifled my pockets, assisted by "41f. These last two immediately ran away. I then saw ItMalthree other men at some distance up the lane. One had a l broken spade, and anothe r a stick, or piece of spar. ~,,roysden had the piece of wood, and Thompson the spade. "‘Ompson struck me with the spade, but not severely. .I,kson took no part in the robbeey, but was looking on. P Clelland appeared to act as the commander of the party. !Aid to him, " If you'll not hurt we I will not pursue you." tle then said to the two who had the spade and the piece of toot,' 4. Don't hurt him," and they did not. I was indebted btol‘l'Clelland for this. My watch was a gold one. The wit ),,!a", this. 73 years of age, was. strongly cross-examined e a"!_lhe prisoners, as to the identity of the prisoners. H eke more particularly as to four of them, and said he con s isntionsly believes tne others • were mere. 1 .0 °" 2 It appeared to the faces of some of them, but more to their persons. aPPeared that the witness had been shown five other men Hess stshe prison, and that he said they had a strong family , e to the men that attacked them. His evidence left their identity in considerable doubt. A Cro man named Broom, a hawker of fruit, said he knew ehat Y h ad e u e l a e w •and saw him and four others of the prisoners, iyid wit nes , ,them near Newton about twenty minutes. The and .. a s evidence had not been taken before the magistrates, u•Ct`ille` aPPeured that he had been very busy as a witness both m on ass iaes and at the sessions. he Morse was found on the prisoners when they were appre uded ; but it was more in amount than that taken from the Prosecutor Th e • • • de r " Jury he re said that they were not satisfied with evi his age ato ide ntity, as th ey cons i dered that Dr. Jerrold, from kiattad he c on f us i on of the moment, might have been One O n * th;ne.._ of the prisoners had previously said, that . there were convicts in Kirkdale who had been bragging in the could Ltitihey knee, the men who had robbed the doctor, and coul g e t ju re j s o .. . (the prisoners) released, but they did not like to in -11:! of the parties yet at large. . eree returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoners eischarged. oh n , FORGERY. ritrndadutjteaz-raeladit waa charged with having, at Manchester, forged a bill fur 2(), dated in July, with intent to de tiaven . Joseph S impson and Richard Pilkington. The bill was Perporitil PaYment for a machine for cleaning cotton. It 14 th is ed to be accepteda by Mr. Pilkington, timber merchant, the latttown, prisoner a father-in-law. It appeared that t Thebill, • et had frequent' authorised the prisoner to . accep In .his n ame but he denied giving him leave in this case. prisoti7ner received a good character for nine im y s e e ar?. w ' a r s h e a respec7, ,ho had commenced business for h lt, . 0 .. Lot '4ule-loolcing man. The jury returned a verdict I 14111114 i arid he was discharged. they 8 °I % the last of th Manchester cases. The court ruse at half-past sene. NlBl PRIUS—WEDNr.sna.Y. 1111,,,ext,n 04, this town, INSURANCE CASE V. NIARSHALL.—III this waerix.re ilt•ilire.ck)ii titotsilffi e l se Mr. .%•ifiri AND I.‘NOTHER d ' iM ' r. 'William O'Dwyer, I . i s an and Mr. Williatn * Marshall,ac ~l a ii 'Verwriter of Lonclo a n n was ' the defendant. T o i fei,o4.r.cTght for the recovery of £2OO, the amount a a i f , :t o ' a r e ati dentof „ ,i't a subscription on a policy of insurance o a _ ue w _ ich * As ° J...! ) ,d , cod blubber and old junk, the total , val •of h J0h473')"1), shipped on'board the schooner El,if,a h b e e d tl e r fen at d, S ta t t . Ple,d__; ewforindland, 111 December, 184 . 1.. (th e i ' ,. ' . that he did not make such policy , that 11pllaacikaetieff, r that the Nt.4,.nr/ince broker,) Was not the agent , vessel was not lost 4 y tiuc interested in the policy • that the by f d,illngers of the sea • and that the insurance swatsrieedffecfoterd 'llerlt:l•l4 and wisre resentation. The case WR ara, I.'" this town before P ' Mr. Justice Maule, in the ( .:oi li t . t iv e" for the plaintiff. A new trial was movedfor when a verdict , r ii of Kxcliequer and granted. N ir , ;I.se was now tried before a special jury.. the plain tifts ; •,,Alortley and Mr. Crompton appeared merchants here M r. w• Knowles arid Mr. 'Tomlinson for the tor defendants. 'lt 'd ' N. °rt ,..teY stated that the plaintiffs are Nes, Pere, w oundland • Mr. Mac.cintcs i of the 110, and Mr,' (I'D •er having the charge . , of 4t -.er 1 • • - 1 conducting the bu e,mae.,,r N ew foo di. _ _ N d In w- December, 18.11, a quantity the 4 z () . !1. and lillibb'er atn fuel:sso, was shipped on ir .e r r d poo l l. I'l,e4rtli, and 4Livie a sent to Mr. Mackintosh, in L tail I,4littter didenot ksiiow precisely when e tmheetvrre.l Mr. ;lter .,would ion 0, 'e(}P...tl-1 2fith of January,blaB(4 1 2 s ' imilar goods shipped Ittt'e P'lizar‘e. Mr. A"ters°" that Messrs. , Us t i . • ' eth, and he informed Mackintosh Eliza. be th e ~?.I Glas,,ow, had informed him that they had advises ,oetli lad--11•11 bec'ernber which did not rnent;on that the ''' l "el "ied u to ;hat date. Upon this information Mr. Eliza j° iii atoth acted and wrote t o London, giving instruc i‘ l k. hit!) broker, Mr ) 111 •k ,to effect insurance. Mr. . 4 ° Irr!i•I 'Pent I;is liafce ill th army and ad 1 ` 1 : 811 in his letters and mercantile phrases as those wh to 1:4,1 el , l (turn)was not probably . a ..o i g their whole active existence aceustomed `,,,11e1l set forili that the plaintiff' 4 ' i'-r• Wortley here read a letter, dated 26th January,advice 44,4eawvifoundland to the 27th December, of trainoi a newt Phel .ng been shipped on board the Elizabeth, had recerved .l a y d a vi ae al,e .wllleh was to sail about the end of the month.. George ' fr eet:•' 'tow hom the letter was addressed, was directed to 14 riedit:''sertilice at the lowest rate on the above amount, ac thel'. to the direction There was nothing extraordinary ac -14 t,)11e::.e1,...0.t having arrived at this period. as supposing i 4. wa,•,' sailed oil the 27th December, order ni, th e i„ q out of date when the letter was written ~;„. l‘l. '",Nrance nor - tbe called a mng S:nt'. 84, iv" e icee s t et' Tas s le . o which she really ko st !r. Nlarhall, ' able and acute of er. on lellethte‘r in Lond . on and the aefcn d that I,r.riter:e.tlte and ii,tellti.,rentt moste(lassof gentlemen, the d u ea n d to wlitirti 1 letter of . 414' th e INV4S aCe°'ted by Mr. Mackee's clerk, , , Mr. Mackintosh and asked what the r pre would in, 4.:1 vi;61114 oe. The defendant said the It •,-,.. who premium room, •• th ' i'', cent. They went forward into the nest defendant'' totehrere nisi • - • drew the lit ‘,..";104 theotile ..I,reance broker's.clerk the period (I,„"Nich all _A wfoundland list,showed whichteperiod of the. tilet'griti!re oi tiessvels. Sialle.d down to h that number of t( ' (1r15,,t,,' •Nillie ecleerZe ha \ d ‘ hitullile brou ght good Sense and caution t;rl th: list. -r : •Ilarshall's attention to what w`,,s,e Eliza owepli., v,hie!‘ll.lcil.was—" Duplicate: original by %Tye sailed r i ! .. 11 1 the (4;1_1 .11.drcated that the Elizabeth . must 1 brought if.'%lpaitge'."4l.lhiefore the vessel ,the . • ' Amelia) which. _nd 0 hit" , " d th,t ""11 turned 'is ryas specifically pointed "tldthave foun t„ . the 80,0 over the page of the list he wo h n i. ....71.h. Mr. 11_,Irkht111, t heref or e °"!l'l lzabeth had sailed on t .a 4 *formation . t in h qti°ll#n „ th, , it was plain, had more I the Elizabc r,, I l ot re au . Nlr. Mackintosh, because latter de was ~, tel„,. P_lrte.(l till after the letter of the becanse Zrertlizgahetll tiring that day the premium rose, not Amelia had I'l l " fir 1 w4 ' a Missing ship, but because the fore her. + t k h . st though tl FI• bII id sailed be pre ttliti izabeti, a re , IZA et t I . g that t he 1 411 l b rn, " ,`," s lost. Mr. Marshall finc in give l p Oat e rapidly, asked tl t the plaintiffs should gentle tae4ln hi' •PaPers, whi ,I la ie The learned . a . in Nite ~iilg abowo thatc♦l was accorded.. 1 eld and the ci lia r y, that l'ed, recountedtePlinent was with a _ _ id hew uld show t DWicy Wus ell'ectJ)deatl'antgiarnd Mackee s WWI the eg ppcit+4 ttlai kg tO th 6 that set pa 'f lost, ): hi; ) .arn,t3cl friend would prove tlii4t, his clients would he very !nippy, and there would be an end of the claim. The fifth plea eharged that tie policy was obtained by fraud, and the charge was made in a double shape ; tirst, that there had been a mis representation of facts, and, secondly, that there had been a concealment of material facts. Mr. 'Wortley made some animated observations on the respectability of his client, and the groundlessness of the charge. He would make it clear that there had been no misrepresentation of facts, and the only question was, had there been such a legal misrepresen tation of facts as would vitiate the policy. The learned gentleman alluded to the letters of advice from Newfoundland, and said as his learned friend relied on them for his defence, he should leave him to put them in, as it would leave him at liberty to add a few words of comment upon them afterwards, a privilege which the jury would see he was fairly entitled to. After some observations on the law of the case, and citations from the opinions of Justice Mansfield, Mr. Wortley con cluded by saying, that the simple question would be, whether there was a fair statement made to the underwriter, or a concealment of material circumstances. _ _ _ Evidence having been adduced in support of the learned gentleman's statement, Mr. KNOWLP.S replied, and said, the ground on which he would ask for the verdict was, that there was a want of fair dealing on the part of the plaintiff, which was the very es sence of transactions of this nature. It was necessary that every point should be fully and fairly laid before the Under• writers, in order to enable them to estimate the risk. He (the learned counsel) would have to show that Mr. Mackin tosh had stated that which he did not know, and concealed what be did know. This was the opinion expressed by Baron Parke, when the cause came before the Court of Exchequer. When Mr. Marshall took the policy at 30s. per cent. he be lieved that he was taking an ordinary risk, yet on the same day the premium was five guineas at Lloyd's. The jury would find, that as early as the 24th December, the partner of Mr. Mackintosh, in Newfoundland, wrote to the latter, stating that he had shipped by the Elizabeth, Spence, master. 3479 gallons of cod oil, 2428 gallons of cod blubber, and 2i cwt. of old junk, value £550, that she was a new vessel, he was to give three or four days, and run a reasonable risk to save in surance. Another letter was also received by Mr. Mackin tosh, of the same date, in which it was stated, that lie (Mr. Mackintosh) was to allow sixteen to twenty days, and that the vessel was to sail on the 25th. Both these letters were dated 24th December, both were in Mr. Mackintosh's hands, twenty-seven days or more had elapsed, and it was certain that the vessel was much beyond her time, yet he had written that letter of the 26th January, saying, " We have advice from St. John's, of the 27th ult., of train oil having been shipped on board the Elinbeth." Had he any such advice? could he mean the advice of Mr. Auterson. Certainly not. Could there be a doubt that he had the letters of the 24th be fore him? He adopted the very language of those letters, both as to the amount, the description of vessel, &c., and evidently had not a thought of Mr. Auterson in his head. In the matter of the date of sailing alone did he go against his advices, for she was to sail on the 25th, and he said she was to sail on the 27th. He was guilty of concealment, when he kept secret the letters of the 24th. and of misrepresentation, when he gave a different date from what those letters advised. If there were any concealment, the defendant was entitled to the verdict. There was a concealment in respect to the date, because Mr. Mackintosh had no direct information of the date of sailing save that which he had suppressed. There was not concealment alone, but misrepresentation, because he said he had advice to the 27th ult. and that the vessel was to sail at the end of the month. What advice had he of that ? None. Mr. Knowles also read a letter from Mr. Mackintosh to Mr. Mackee, stating that he thought it hard that their let ters should be overhauled by strangers, and that he must have made a mistake in stating that the vessel was to sail on the 27th, as she was to sail on the 25th according to the advices. The letters of advice from St. John's were put in and read. The post-mark on one showed that it had probably arrived in Liverpool on the 21st of January. It was, however, en dorsed as received on the 25th, and Mr. Wortley said there were private marks which he could not put in evidence, which rendered it probable that it had been detained at the post-office. The other letter was received on the 25th. Mr. VORTLEY replied. His LORDSHIP said the question seemed to resolve itself into the inquiry whether, if the defendant had had all the circumstances before him, it would have altered the risk. If they were of opinion that the alleged misrepresentation was no way material, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover; if, on the other hand, they thought that it altered the risk, the verdict must be for defendant. The jury, after an absence of one hour and five minutes, gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2OO. KINC AID V. DAVIDSON.—Mr. Martin and Mr. Paget for the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £BOO. HINXMAN V. CHADWICK.—The plaintiff in this case was John Hinsman, a surgeon, of Bury, and the defendant George Chadwick, also a surgeon of the same place. The action was brought for a libel published by the defendant against the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Hogging appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Henderson for the defence. It appeared that the plaintiff, who is a native of London, and the defendant served their time witfi a Mr. Dunlop, a surgeon, of Bury. On the death of the latter, the defendant purchased his business, and the plaintiff commenced practice on his own account. According to the statement of the plain tiff's own counsel, he was exceedingly successful, and the po sition which he attained aroused the jealousy of his fellow practitioners. He had soon a large connexion, and amongst the families with which he became acquainted, was that of a Mr. Hamer, a manufacturer. The intimacy with the daugh ter of this gentleman increased till a marriage was on the tapis between the pair. While things were in this state, the plaintiff was surprised by having a letter put into his bands which was addressed " To the Successor of the late Dr. Dun lop, surgeon, Bury," and of which the following is a copy : " 21st June, 1842, Whiteerbss-street, London. Sir,—Will you favour me with the name and address of the young lady with whom Henry Hinxman, the would-be apothecary of Bury is keeping company with, as J wish to write to the father and expose the poverty of the family to which his daughter is about to be allied. It is a dreadful thing that they should know the circumstances, as they are without a penny to bless themselves with. The father of Hinxman will be shortly in prison, and his name published as an insolvent. He is out of the way at this time, fearful of several executions out against him. If you will favour me with the required information, you will confer an everlasting obligation upon the innocent young lady who is so duped by the knavery and deception of such characters. (Signed) " THOS. FORTUNE." 1 LIM /c•i...a I , IIU. pui. into tue PiallIALLIn , father of the young lady, who forbade his daughter to con tinue the intercourse. The plaintiff went to London, and after incessant trouble succeeded in tracing out the writer of the letter, who avoided an action at law by confessing his baseness and begging for pardon. The defendant, it ap peared, not content with putting the letter into the hands of Miss Hamer's father, showed and stated its contents to nu merous other individuals. These, who were chiefly friends of Chadwick, were called as witnesses. The plaintiff and Miss Hamer had since married, but it was stated by the Counsel for the defence to have been without the consent of the father. . The defence set up, was, that the defendant consulted the parties brought forward merely for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the proper mode of procedure. Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, one farthing. _ The Court adjoUrned at a quarter before eight o'clock, CROWN COURT-THURSDAY HIGHWAY ROBBERY Eliza Wiggins, 22, Patrick Riley, 21, Patrick Nolan, 21. and John Hoy, 20, were charged with having, on the Queen's highway, feloniously assaulted James Cowsill, and robbed him of an umbrella, 21. 25., a silk handkerchief, and a pair of stockings. Mr. Wilkins was for the prosecution; Mr. Whigham de. fended Hoy, and Mr. Blair defended Riley, The prosecutor, who is a rather tall stout man, about 35 years of age, lives at the village of Worsley, and on Monday the 12th of September last, he was at Manchester on busi ness. About half-past seven o'clock in the evening, he went into the tap of the Hope public house, in Deansgate, and whilst there a female asked him for a glass of ale. He re fused to give her one, unless she would go to another house; for he had never been in the Hope tap before, and lie had an idea that it was a bad house. The female refused to comply with his request to go to another house. During the con versation, a second female came up, and joined in the con versation, and she said, " Perhaps he has no money." The countryman, nettled at the observation, said, " Oh, yes, I have.' and slapped his hand on his pocket. Wiggins, Nolan, and Hoy were then in the tap. Some time after, the prose cutor left the house, and Wiggins went out with him. Riley came up ; they entered into conversation, and Cowsill stated that he was going to Worsley, and that he intended to go by- Pendleton road. This was about twenty minutes past nine. Riley recommended him strongly to go by the Eccles road, stating that it was the best, and that if he would go that way, he (Riley) would accompany him, as he was himself going to Worsley, to order some coals from Lord Francis Egerton. The prosecutor said that be did not know the Eccles road ; he had never been that way ; but he ultimately said that he had no objection to go in that direction with his two com panions, if they would behave civilly. They set out, and after having gone about a mile, they came to the Queen's Arms, which is in the Regent's road. Riley and Wiggins asked Cow sill to go in and have something to drink, but lie refused. They went in and had a glass of ale, but he stood at the door. After having proceeded on their way a mile and a half fur ther, Eliza Wiggins collared him on the left side ; Riley collared him on the right side, and ordered him to deliver. He told them that he would not. They repeated their man date twice again, but he refused to comply. Three mess, two of whom he recognised as Nolan and Hoy, then sprang out of the hedge, and faced him ; and Cowsill thereupon said, " Well, I must now." Riley pulled from his pocket some thing which was about a quarter of a yard in length (proba bly a night protector), struck him with it on the face, and knocked hint down. Nolan got hold of his throat, pulled his handkerchief off, and throttled him for about three mi nutes, threatening, in the meantime, that he would stop his chimney. Hoy took out a penknife, held Cowsill down, and cut away his fob, which contained two sovereigns and trio shillings. He had with him an umbrella, which fell upon the ground, and the girl took it up and walked off with it. One of the men took from his pocket a pair of new stock ings, and they then went off in the direction of Manchester. Cowsill immediately began to call out " Murder !" where upon an old man lifted up his bedroom window. Nolan and Riley, hearing the cries, turned back, and told the country man that if he did not hold his noise, they would cut his throat from ear to ear. The old man at the window said that he dare not come down, lest the thieves should enter and rob his house. The prisoners stood for a few minutes at a distance of about 200 yards, and then walked off. The prosecutor was sober at the time. On the following morn ing he gave information to the Manchester police, and, in consequence of the description he gave of the persons who had robbed him, the prisoners were apprehended. Mr. WHIGRAM, in the course of his cross-examination of the prosecutor, asked him whether he had, on one point, given the same account before the magistrates ?—Mr.Wilkins objected to the question being put, saying that his learned friend might put the depositions in.—Mr. Whigham sub mitted that he might put the deposition of the prosecutor into his hand, in order that he might read it over in silence, to refresh his memory, and that then he (Mr. Whigham) might ask him whether that statement was correct. There had been decisions to the effect that that might be done. — His Lordship said he knew that there had been decisions by Justice Coleridge and Justice Littledale to that effect, and he (Mr. Baron Parke) was anxious to allow the course most in favour of the prisoner ; but he must say that he had great doubts of the propriety and regularity of the course. The point, however, ought to be settled. He would allow th© prosecutor to read the deposition. and he would take a note of the circumstance, in order to have the point settled by the judges. The jury found th e w h o l e o f th e prisoners guilty. Riley, Nolan, and Wi N i na sentenced years. Hoy were ears. to be transported for fifteen - - -( 1 Y, on account of his previous good cha. meter, Was only sentenced to eleven months' imprisonment. STABBING A POLICLMIAN• Thomas Roberts, 26, was indicted for having, on the 22d of December last, at Liverpool, feloniously stabbed Thomas Steele, a police-otficer, with intent to wound, maim, or die able him, or do him some grievous bodily harm, or to pre priner prosecution was; in company vent his lawful apprehension. Mr. Denman was for the At twelve o'clock on the night of the 22d December, the co l 3 m la p ir a l y efended the prisoner. great noise in the street, when Steele(P desired him to walk on. They still, however, continued to with severaollreeer-solgerhaNakoi.ll24ola) MO 01 *440 04441 ffvo6o;i;ii*A44 v, a a i T'ca 'I ;c priaqfiew and his compro l ipil rats off. About a quarter of an -hear afterwards 544?.1e met the prisoner ; he was then in Summer-beat. The officer, thinking him a suspicious chinacter, ordered him to go house, saying that unless he did so he would take him into custody. Roberts, after a few words had passed, swore Unit it the officer touched him he would : , tab him. Steele, disregarding this threat, was about to 5.e,11: him, when he stabbed in the side with a knife. Tic: blow did not incapacitate the officer from struggling with his assailant. He got him down, and the man then endeavoured to stab him in the throat, but he intercepted the blow with his hand, and in so doing his thumb was cut. He then knocked for assistance ; a peeser by came up, and the prisoner was taken into custody. The officer was confined for a short time, in consequence of the injuries he had received. -Lythgoe, the person who came up, said, on his cross-examination, that he took the knife from the hand of the prisoner, who gave it up without resistance. The prisoner was hurt in the struggle that took place, and when he got up he was bleeding. He was, however, hurt more afterwards, for he was obstinate and rough, and would not walk to bridewell. They therefore " hammered" him. Mr. Blair called a witness to show that the prisoner had been very grossly abused by the prosecutor, but she did not know whether that abuse was given before or after the latter had been stabbed. It was shown that the prisoner was one of the most des perate characters in Liverpool, and that he had been in custody fourteen times, and nine times committed. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to be transported for fifteen years. GOOD FRIDAY. In reply to a question from Mr. Wilkins, put at the request of several jurymen, his lordship stated that the court would sit tomorrow, at one o'clock, or a few minutes afterwards. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY William Balmer, 26, was charged with having, at Win stanley, feloniously assaulted William Noble, and stolen from him one sixpence, one penny, and one snuff-box, the property of William Noble. Mr. James appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner. It appeared that Noble, who is an elderly man, was in the employ of Messrs: John' and James Dobbs, manufacturing chemists, of Wigan, as a collector of orders and accounts. On the 15th of October last he had' been at St. Helens on business, and in the evening of that day he was returning to Wigan. Shortly after he bad passed through Billinge, a man in shirt sleeves (the prisoner) came up to him, and asked him how far he was going in that direction. Noble replied that he was going to Wigan, and then asked the man whither he was bound. He stated that he was going to meet a cart which was coming from Wigan to Billinge. The pri soner then put his arm through that of the prosecutor, in a familiar manner. The old gentleman was at first averse to this contact with a stranger; but the reflection crossed his mind, that it might be meant in kindness, and he permitted it. They thus walked on together until a cart approached, and the prisoner then withdrew his arm, and retired until the cart had passed. He then came up again to Noble, and told him that that was not his cart. lie took the old gentleman's arm again, and they walked on in that familiar way until they came to a plantation belonging to Winstanley-hall. The prisoner then grasped his com panion by the throat, threw him down on some stones, put his knee on his breast, and rifled his pockets. He, however, found nothing but the snuff-box and the few pence mentioned in the indictment. The prosecutor had not been collect ing money that day, and the prisoner was therefore disap pointed in his expectations. There was some corroboratory evidence as to the identity of the prisoner. Mr. Wrucirrs called a witness, who gave the prisoner a good character, and then left the case in hisiordship's hands. The jury, under the direction of his Lordship, found the prisoner guilty of the robbery. Mr. WILKINS expressed a hope that the Judge would look upon it as a sudden temptation caused by finding the old man alone and unprotected. His Lordship asked the police man the character of the prisoner, and ascertained that he was not altogether deserving of the good character which had been given to him. Sentence, transportation for ten years. STABBING, WITH INTENT TO MURDER John Whalley, 29, was indicted for having, at Liverpool, feloniously cut, stabbed, and wounded Joseph Watkins, with intent to murder him. Other counts of the indictment charged the prisoner with cutting and stabbing Watkins, with intent to maim or disfigure him, or to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Arnold conducted the prosecution; Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner. Mr. ARNOLD stated the facts of the case. The prosecutor was a labourer, residing in Greetham-street, in this town. The house occupied by him was a lodging-house, and which the prisoner had, up to a few days before the transaction in question, been the tenant. He transferred the house to Whalley, and went out of town in search of employment, leaving his wife and a granddaughter of hers behind him. This was a little girl, named Mary Lowe, of the age of twelve years. Besides them there were in the house Martha Rod gers and her two children, who were lodgers, and one room was occupied by a man named Shaw and his wife. The pro secutor slept in the top room, in which there were two beds. He and Mary Rowe slept in one bed; in the other there slept Mrs. Rodgers and her two children, and the prisoner's wife. On the night of the 26th of January, about ten o'clock, Watkins secured the house and went to bed, leav ing Mrs. Rodgers and Mrs. Whalley up. About one o'clock the prisoner unexpectedly returned to the house, opened the door by means of a knife, and crept up stairs. He first en tered the room of Shaw, and on being asked who he was, he replied, " Hush, hush, it is me." On being asked how he got in, he said, " Never mind, I am going to do you no harm." Mrs. Shaw gave him a light, and he went up stairs with it. According to the statement of the prosecutor, lie was wakened by the prisoner, who had grasped him by the hair of the bead, and began to hack at his throat with a knife. He said, at the same time, usi"; an oath, "This night you shall die." Some wounds, not of a very serious nature, were inflicted on the back of the prosecutor's neck. A struggle ensued, considerable tumult took place, and Mrs. and Mr. Shaw came up stairs. The prosecutor endeavoured to escape ; the prisoner followed him and stabbed at him with a knife. A second struggle took place between them, during the continuance of which Watkins received a cut in his cheek and lip, inflicted by one stroke of the knife. It appeared that the prisoner had been actuated by jealousy. Mrs. Whalley, however, was a woman not likely to give rise to the feelings of jealousy, she being about fifty years of age; and the jury would be told that when Mrs. Rogers was roused by the cries of the prosecutor, Mrs. Whalley was standing on her bed, in her night clothes. That, however, would be explained by the fact of her having on the previous night been taking medicine, and she had been down stairs. The prisoner's own statement was, that he found his wife in the bed of the prosecutor. Even if that Ferri; chi' ittai NI& iisnstrisEcAfewrAaaffelvadfigt stood charged, except so far as related to the first count of the indictment, charging the prisoner with stabbing with intent to murder. The law was, that if a man found his wife in the act of adultery, and, in the act of his passion, killed the adulterer, that was not murder, but manslaughter. If the jury, after hearing the facts of the case, should be of opinion that the parties were caught in adultery, and that the wounds were inflicted in the heat of passion arising from that discovery, then the prisoner would not be guilty of murder, even though the prosecutor had died ; but he would be guilty of some of the minor charges in the other counts of the in dictment. Joseph Watkins was called, and deposed to the facts as opened. On his cross-examination by Mr. WILKINS, he said that he was not a married man, nor never had been. He stated, that after the departure of the prisoner from the house, he bought the whole of the furniture, for £2. 10s., from Mrs. Whalley. There were four rooms in the house, and they were all furnished. Since the transaction in ques tion, he had removed to Frederick-street, and Mrs. Whalley had been lodging with him there. He denied that she had been living in adultery with him. Mr. Wilkins asked him, " Was Mrs. Whalley sitting with you on the bed that night?" His reply was, " I was asleep before John 'Whalley wakened me." The learned counsel repeated the question about eight or ten times, and received the same answer. He at last swore that he did not know that Mrs. Whalley was sitting on his bed that night, and he distinctly and promptly swore that she was not in it. He said that his wounds got better in the space of about three weeks, and without having re course to a surgeon. All he did was to rub the wound on his lip with some oil which he found in the house. Mrs. Rogers said that Mrs. Whalley had been taking pur gative medicines for a syphilitic complaint. Shaw stated that lie believed the prosecutor and prisoner's wife had be foretimes been living together. After the whole of the evidence had been heard, his Lord ship said that the case, on the first count of the indictment, could not be supported. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury, and contended that there was enough of doubt, and mystery, and falsehood about the case to justify them in coming to an acquittal altogether. He denounced the prosecutor as a brazen-fronted miscreant, who had robbed the poor man at the bar of the affections of his wife, and of the whole of his property, small though it might be, and who had turned him out of his own house. He ridiculed the idea of the prisoner having attempted to do any serious arm with the knife produced, (an ordinary pocket knife, the larger blade of which was not of greater size than that frequently put into penknives,) and contended that the scratch on the prosecutor's lip, which was all that was seen by the police, must have been caused in the struggle caused by the prisoner having found his wife in the bed of Watkins. Several witnesses, police-officers, and others were called by Mr. Wilkins, and they all gave the prisoner the character of a peaceable, respectable, and industrious man. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that there was little doubt of the position in which the prosecutor and Mrs. Whalley had been found. The prisoner, if fouud guilty at all, must be convicted on the fourth and fifth counts of the indictment ; but in order to find him guilty, the jury must be convinced that a cut or wound was inflicted at all. The prisoner was found guilty of an assault, and expressed an opinion that he had received great provocation. The sentence was, four weeks' imprisonment and hard labour. which will entitle the prisoner to be discharged at the end of another week. CONCEALMENT OF CHILD BIRTH Honour Mag rat h, 16, charged with concealing the birth of her infant, by burying its dead body, pleaded guilty. It ap peared that the prisoner's stepfather was the father of the child. Sentence—Six weeks' imprisonment. ASSAULT, WITH INTENT TO ROB Thomas Griffithe, 18, was charged with having, on the night of the 29th January, together with another person, un known, assaulted James Forester, with intent to rob him of his goods and chattels. Mr. Arnold appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil kins for the defence. . . . The prosecutor, who is a flour broker, living in Key-street, said that he had been taking tea at a friend's house in Tox teth•park, and at about half-past eight o'clock he set out to escort home a young woman named Catherine Burns. He came to what he conceived to be a short cut across the fields, and he was about to hand Catherine over a wall, when the prisoner and another came up and said, " You must stand treat." He asked how much the treat would be, and they said, " Sixpence." He expressed his willingness to give them sixpence; but some words afterwards took place, and he knocked one of the young men down. He could not say that that was the prisoner. He could not identify the pri soner. One or other of the young men then knocked him down. He could not say whether he had given the same account before the magistrates : the drink which he had had on the preceding evening so affected him that he could not tell what questions were put to him, or what answers he gave to them. He gave Catherine Burns 20s. to keep for him. The JUDGE.—WeII, did the prisoner and his companion make any attempt to obtain possession of that ? Witness.—Not in the least, my lord. Mr. ARNOLD.—! leave him in your hands, my lord. The JUDGE.—Did you tell the same story before the Grand Jury ? Mr. WILKINS.—i believe he did. Mr. ARNOLD.—And that Catherine Burns did not ; and that the Grand Jury. finding his statement so different to what it had been before the magistrates, sent the case here to be inquired into. The JUDGE.-1 thought, from reading the depositions, that it was not a case of attempting to rob. There is little doubt as to the nature of the occurrence. Mr. ARNC4,l3.—There has been great perjury, either here or at the other place. The JUDGE.—IIe shall not have his costs. The prisoner was acquitted. dnsgor-street of Sunday. t h e , Park. Robert Morgan, 20, was charged with h av i ng, at Liver pool, assaulted George Dunbar, and stolen f rom him a pair of trousers and other articles. Mr. James pro secuted ; Mr. Blair defended. The occurrence , according to the st a t ement o 7 7th h D n u r n b o a c r , t n t b o e o r k , p i l n a ce a e fi a e r l i d y near onth e t n m \ r ‘ rr . i n n i They severely boat the prosecutor, an d stole Tyohuengprimisaler was accompanied and assisted b y another !cil!r. Mar kg; ki Ft 47 slimatity.of 0d11416# beil . ptiroh4ir ,or tiro YiTeWe o"6;wPtlon, ilia trousers were foc.irid ori the prisoner by an officer (261) who came to the spot, attracted by the cries of Dunbar, and who pursued the fugitives until he captured Morgan. Thomas Lewis, cabinet maker, master of the prisoner, gave him a most excellent character, and said that he would un hesitatingly, take him back into his service to-morrow. His Lordship observed•that the story of the prosecutor was a somewhat strange and blind one, and left it to the jury to say whether the whole occurrence was a mere drunken quarrel. The jury acquitted the prisoner. The court adjourned at five minutes to seven,.to one o'clock this afternoon. • NISI PRlUS.—TutraspAY THE COMMERCIAL DANK OF ENGLAND TAYLOR V. ASHTON AND OTHERS.—This important case, which was an action brought by Mr. John Taylor, surgeon, of this town, against Thomas Ashton, Alexander Bower, Richard Turner, and Thomas Palin, Esqrs., of Manchester, directors of the Commercial Bank of England (Joint Steck Banking Company), came on this morning before Mr. Justice Coltman. The following gentlemen were sworn of the special jury . James Retson, Liverpool, merchant, foreman. Thomas S. Gladstone, do. do. Thomas Rodick, Much Woolton, Esq. John Moss, Crumpsall, merchant. Richard Dawson, Liverpool, do. John Clow, do. do- Richard Wheeler, Preston, Toxteth-park, do. William Oxley, Liverpool, merchant. Richard Rosson, Roby, do. James Bothwell, Barnes, Great Lever, Esq. Jesse Ainsworth, Oldham, Esq. " James Crossfield, Toxteth-park, merchant. Mr. Knowles, Q.C., with Messrs. Crompton, Martin, and Addison, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Sir WM. FOLLETT ' her Majesty's Solicitor-General, with Mr. Dundas, Q.C., Hon. J. S. Wortley, Q.C., and Mr. Cowling, appeared on behalf of Messrs. Thomas Ashton and Turner; and Mr. Baines, Q.C., with Mr. Tomlinson, appeared on behalf of Mr. Bower and Mr. Palin. Solicitor for the plaintiff, Mr. John Lowe, of Harrington.. street, Liverpool ; solicitors for the defendants, Bower and Patin, Messrs. Atkinson and Saunders; and for the defend ants, Ashton and Turner, Messrs. Slater and Heelis, of Manchester. Mr. MARTIN, in opening the pleadings, said that the declaration alleged, first, that the defendants were directors of a bank called the Commercial Bank of England, and in January, 1836, published a report stating that the bank was a prosperous concern, that there was a profit of eight per cent. arising from it, and all the capital was paid up capital. The declaration then went on to say, that in consequence of this report the plaintiff became purchaser of 200 shares in this company, at five pounds per share. In other reports, up to the year 1840, this state of things was held out to be true, and in consequence of those reports, the plaintiff continued a shareholder, and purchased other shares, until at last in 1840, when the bank broke, and the plaintiff lost all his shares. The defendants Ashton and Turner had pleaded no less than 22 pleas. The first was " Not guilty," and of the other pleas the Stb and 9th were the only others which were material to the cause . . Mr. Kslowtms, in stating the case to the jury, said, it would be his duty to state more at length, and in language less technical, than that adopted in the pleading the cause and nature of the present action. It was an action of great im portance to the plaintiff, whose interests had been seriously involed in the matter ; and, if he might judge from the array of learned counsel opposed to him, it was considered of great importance by the defendants also. The plaintiff was a pro fessional gentleman, residing in this town, and be had brought this action to recover from the defendants damages for an injury sustained by him in consequence of his having been induced to enter a certain banking co-partnership, and to continue a member of that co-partnership in consequence of the false and fraudulent representations made by the four defendants. He (Mr. Knowles) would show to the jury a series of false statements issued by these parties, from the year 1836 downwards. There was no new principle of the law attempted to be set up by this action, for it had long been a maxim of the law of this country, that if an indi vidual makes false and fraudulent representations, and in duces a party to act to his own detriment, the party making the fraudulent representations is answerable for the injury which he has been the means of inflicting, And it was right that it should be so; for if it were not so, it would be one of the greatest injuries that could possibly be inflicted upon a commercial country ; and the law therefore very properly said, that if a man makes representations which he knew to be false, he should be answerable for the consequences of the misrepresentation and suffer for the consequences. The four defendants were persons well known to many of the jury. They had been connected with that bank from its commencement. This bank had its origin in the year 1834. About that time there has been some failures of ex tensive joint stock banks, which had shaken the confidence of the people of this country in institutions of that sort ; for, combined with many advantages which naturally belong to such institutions, they had all the disadvantages usually arising from institutious having a great number of partners, who frequently enjoyed a power they much abused. It was when the subject of the failures to which he had alluded was much agitated, that the four defendants, with a person named Joseph Macready, instituted that bank which afterwards be came famous in the world by the name of the Commercial Bank of England. The first step was to form themselves into a provisional committee, which consisted of the four de fendants, a gentleman named Slater, and Joseph Macready. They employed themselves in arranging the scheme of the bank, allotting the shares, and making other arrangements for opening the bank. It was not until the year 1834 that the bank could be considered as legally established, that being the date of the deed of association and the date of the day on which the defendants executed it. By the terms of the said deed they were appointed, for the pe riod of three years, with unlimited powers and confidence reposed in them. They had the allotting of shares and they had the total management of the clerks and business of the bank. In the terms of the deed there were to he one hundred thousand shares at £5 each ; and it would be found that one of the grand distinguishing features of the establish ment was, that there should be nothing but paid up capital— that the shares should all be paid for, or that the applications for them should be rejected, and throwing to the wind the faults of other establishments; that they would have nothing to represent the shares but money itself. It would be found that in the allotment of shares the defendants began with themselves. One of the first acts of the defendants before the deed of association was formed, was to form a provisional committee ; and one of their first acts was to arrange how PaPtYeglA,Wisiffi l i fife t tWattkadiiilara GAISMIVA i Ind and fur these they paid their money ; but, in addition to this there was a somewhat remarkable document, the history of which he (learned counsel) could not further explain than by shewing that it was in the h a ndwriting of one of the defendants, a document d rawn u p in the year 1833 or 1834, by which it app eare d that the defendants b ad allotted to themselves 1,500 s h a res each on what wa s termed a cash credit. He (Mr. Knowles) need not tell the jury that this was hardly consistent with an insti tution boasting that its shares had been all paid up. The intention of this act, no doubt, was that the defendants should become nominally entitled, each to 1500 shares, and receive the profits or di v id en d s on that number of shares, but that they should not p a y one s ingle shilling on account of those shares. The learned counsel then adverted to the conduct of the defendants, who, in conjunction with The other members of the directory, voted a dividend of 8 per cent., not out of the pr o fit s , but out of the capital stock of the company, for the purpose of inducing other people to take shares in the bank as an eligible investment. The bank canse i into operation in August, 1834, and the di rectors made arrangements for establishing branches at at Liverpool, Birmingham, and Chester, and other import ant towns, and from these places the state of each banking account was regularly sent to Maneheater. Things went on apparently well up to February, 1836, when the first annual general meetings of the proprietors was held, and in conse quence of the representations of the defendants a dividend of 8 per cent. was declared. The learned counsel then drew the attention of the jury to the reports published by the board of directors of the Commercial Bank from 183 G, ani madverting upon the deceitful language in which they were cloaked, the falsehoods which they had propagated, and the exceedingly questionable character of the conduct of the di rectory down to the year 1840, when the bank stopped pay medt. In these reports they had stated that the branches had been a source of profit to the establishment, when, as was capable of the strictest p roo f , there ha d b een se rious losses, not only at some of those places, but at the bead office at Manchester. Besides giving certain amounts of profit al leged to have been realized, and after payment of the divi dend which they declared, these reports also contained state ments of surplus profits, which were returned as a surplus fund. The learned gentleman also read the other reports published by the directors, and then called the following witnesses in support of the facts which he intended to prove in evidence : Mr. Thomas Higson examined by Mr. CROMPTON.—I am solicitor of the present Commercial Bank at Manchester. I was also solicitor with my fath er t o t h e f ormer b an k . I was one of the attesting witnesses to the signatures of Messrs. Ashton, Bower, Turner, and Palin to the deed of settlement. I have a memorandum appropriating some shares on cash credit. It is signed by Mr. bower, and also some cheques for dividends. Ido not know, except by appealing to Mr. Davidson, whether we have any more documents of a similar nature. I have here some cheques signed by Mr. Palin, Mr. Slater, and Mr. Ashton. I have two documents signed by Mr. Bower. This is the rough minute-book of the board meetings. Before the half yearly general meetings, there is a meeting of the board. I attended a few of the tirst meet ings, the minutes of which are in my hand writing. This is the minute of the board meeting on the 2d February, 1836. Mr. Alexander Bower, one of the defendants, signed the minutes of the Manchester board. This is the minute-book of the general board of directors. The minutes of the annual meetings are in another book. In this book there is a copy of a report signed by Mr. Bower. It contains an alteration in his hand writing in the margin. It is the general board minute-book. These are the minutes of the annual meeting of shareholders on the 3d February, 1836, signed, " Alexr. Bower, chairman." I was present at that meeting. [The witness having been asked whether any of the defendants were present at the meeting, the Solicitor-General asked for the book, and desired the witness to speak from memory, and not to refer to the book.] I have no doubt the defendants were present. By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—I saw the names of the parties in this book. I recollected that they were present before I saw the book. By Mr. CROMPTON.— On the Bth February, 1837, there was a meeting of the board, the fair copy minute of which purports to be signed " Alexan dercer Bower." O n t h e 6 t h o f Bow er ." Th e an nual meeting was held th e next d ay . 'rhereis a 1837, miu signeduteof " Alexander annual meeting held o n th e 9th o f February,February, 1838, th ere wa s a meeting of the Manchester board, and the annual meeting was held on the 7th ; there was also a meeting of the board on the 31st Jan., 1838. This report of the annual meeting is signed " Alexander Bower, chair man." After the 7th February, 1838, the meetings of share holders began to be held half-yearly. On th e 31 st of July, 1838, there was a g eneral meeting of the b oard, and the minute is signed by Alexander Bower. On th e f o ll ow i ng day, the annual meeting was held, and the min ute o f t h e pro ceedings is signed " Alexander Bower. At the meeting in February, 1837, Mr. Bower was present, and I h ave no doubt the others, but Ido not recollect particularly. Id o not re member any of the Manchester directors being absent from any meeting. I attended the general meeting of e meeting annualo share holders, and I do not doubt that all the defendants were meeting the general of there. On the Ist August, 1.838, there was a meeting of shareholders, and I think this is the signature of Mr. Ash tonboard of directors in 1839 was held on the sth of February, to the resolutions. The annual e na n l and the annual meeting of shareholders was held on the 6th of February. The minutes ar both meetings are signed " Alexander Bower• Ihave no doubt the de fendants were all there. the general board was held on the 6th of August, 1839, and is signed " Alexander Bower :. and the ann ua l meet i ng o f the shareholders was held 00 the eth of August, and is signed by Mr. Bower. I believe. the defendants were present, b ut 1 do not recollect them heing absent ; but, a t so many meet ings, I cannot speak positively• At the board meeting on the 4th of February, '4O, and half-yearly meeting on t h e sth of February, 'lO, which are signed Alexander Bower," it • does not occur to me that the defendants were absent. That was not the last half -yearly meeting. The bank stopped in June 1840, and the winding up was carried on under another board of directors. I know nothing of the accounts of the company, except what I heard from other parties. Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—I have been employed in bringing actions against parties on account of the bank, amongst others Mr. Taylor, th e p l a i nt iff, who was a customer. This was nose months ago. I g ot tb satai;47 foail ktui. "Lo Aalp4 0.44 f4i 461. T4t I;l4#tig is a suttoon, I believe, but 1 do titst !mow the witsaN of 1 1 4 account. 1 do not know of any remonstrances made by the directors with respect to the nature of his bills. I know the defendant Mr. Ashton, who is a merchant, near Man chester, doing considerable business. He is also a manufac turer. I know Mr. Turner, who is a considerable menu factu:er at Manchester. They are amongst the most con side, able merchants and manufacturers in Manchester. Mr. Bower, whose signature appears to these books, has been a bankrupt some nine months ago. I do not remember the meeting of the general board of directors, 1838, previous to the annual meeting. I was never present at any of the meetings of the Manchester board. The general board was comprised of the five Manchester directors, and a director from the branches, of which there were seventeen, and of which local districts nine or ten only sent a representative to the meeting. Supposing the board were a full one, the local directors would have a majority. The Manchester board were reduced to four. The resolutions of the board were carried by a majority of the individuals present, and so also was any report that was presented. I was present as solicitor at the annual meetings. I be came a shareholder eighteen months after the establishment of the bank, and am one yet. The annual meetings were attended by from 40 to 70 shareholders. lam satisfied that the defendants were present on the occasion of the first meeting, hut I cannot speak positively to the meeting of August, 1839. The plaintiff in this action lives in Liverpool. I know Mr. Joseph Macardy, who was engaged in establish ing this and most of the Manchester Joint Stock Banks. I believe he is a Scotchman. These banks were kept on the Scotch system-the accounts were kept on the Scotch plan ; but I do not know whether he got his clerks from Scotland. The directors were principally merchants in the different towns ; and many of the shareholders were customers. Re-examined by Mr. KNOWLES. -I have no doubt that Macardy is a shareholder: he is registered proprietor in the share-book, but I have never seen his name in the share-list. The action I brought against the plaintiff was for the balance of a banking account. It was for the sum of two or three hundred pounds. He paid about £l5O. I have not been directed by the shareholders to bring an action against Mr. Ashton. There is a company called the Tipton company ; but I was not employed to bring an action against that com pany. The deed of settlement was here put in, and several of the clauses read, viz. :-No. 1,2, 10, 3,6, 7,9, 17, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,34, 35, 38, 49, 54, 57, 58, 61, 72, 83, 88, 89. Mr. NI ARTIN said he contended that the meaning of the 59th clause was, that the balance sheet and report exhibited at the annual general meeting should be binding upon the shareholders. Mr. Higson produced the deed. Examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL - I am attesting witness to the execution of the deed by the first seven parties. I do not know whether the plaintiff executed it. By Mr. CROMPTON. - At the annual meeting of sharehold ers on the 4th of February, 1836, the report of the directors was read. At all these annual and half-yearly meetings the reports of the directors were read to the shareholders, and adopted by the meeting. The managing director, Mr. Gru geon, generally read the report. Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL-He was a paid director. Ido not know who drew up the report. The shareholders either voted for or against it, as they liked. No one took any part in it, but the individual shareholders. By Mr. CROMPTON.-I believe Mr. Grugeon is under the other directors. Was not present when the repot t was pre pared. I never saw it till it was produced at the meeting. I do not know who voted for or against it. By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. - I am attesting witness to James Grugeon's signature for 200 shares, and also to James Sewell's signature. The minutes of the general board on the 2i th of January, 1836, were read, from which it appeared Mr. Bower was in the chair, arid Messrs. Turner, Ward, Slater, Ashton, Palin and Heywood were present. The minutes of the annual meeting of the proprietors, held on the 3d of February, 1836, were next read. It appeared that the defendants and other shareholders, to the number of 60, were present. From the minute it appeared that pieces of plate were directed to be presented to Messrs. Grugeon and Macardy, as testimonials of the high opinion the meeting entertained of their services. This last report was signed John Holford, and the Solicitor s General objected to this sort of evidence. The minute of the Board of Directors on the Bth February, 1837, was next handed in. It was signed by Mr. Bower, and the ether defendants appeared to have been present with others to the number of eleven. The minutes with the re port were read. From this report it appeared that a profit of ten and a half per cent had been realized. It was recom mended that a dividend of five per cent should be declared. The profits were said to be £27,096 10s. 11d., and the sum directed to be reserved was £6OOO. Mr. Higson examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.- Mr. Slater is a merchant at Manchester. Mr. John Holt is a magistrate of this county, and lives near Rochdale. Mr. Palin is a corn merchant. Mr. George Barton is another. He is a respectable gentle man, living at Whitchurch. Mr. Robert Turner is a brewer at Chester. Mr. Anthony Ward was a silk manufacturer, but is now dead. Mr. Heywood lives at Burstein, near the Potteries. Mr. John Whitehurst is a gentleman of large property, near Etruria. All these gentle. men appeared to be members of the general board of directors, and were present when this report was adopted. Ido not know the materials from which this report was made, ex cept from hearsay. [The second annual report adopted at the second annual meeting of proprietors, held on the 901 of February, 1837, at which Messrs. Bower, Ashton, were present, with others, was read.] A circular was sent to each of the shareholders, and from the circulars presented at the door of the meeting-room the list of persons present was read. Only one of the defendants, Mr. Bower, was present. [The minutes of the general board, 6th July, 1838, were next put in and read.] It appeared that all the defendants, except Mr. Ashton, were at the meeting. The report agreed upon at this meeting was also read, together with the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders on the 7th February, at which Messrs. Bower, Turner, and Patin were present, but not Mr. Ashton. The proceedings of the board of directors in July, 1838, in which a dividend of 7 per cent. was recom mended to be declared. At the general meeting, Messrs. Bower, Turner, Ashton, and many other persons, were present.-The Solicitor-General drew attention to the fact that Messrs. Hebblewhite and Vernon, two other directors, were present. The proceedings of the general board, on the sth February, 1839, were next read, from which it appeared that a dividend of 31 per cent. for the half-year was recom mended to the proprietors. The report of the annual meet ing, at which the four defendants, with 41 directors, were present, was next read. Also the report of the board on the 6th August, 1839, at which Mr. Bower was chairman, and Messrs. Ward, Palin, Edge, R. Turner, (Chester,) J. Stan- Vernon, were present. At this meeting a dividend of 3} per cent. for the half-year was recommended to the shareholders at the meeting on the 7th August. Messrs. Bower, R. Tur ner, and Palin were present at this meeting, and the report was adopted. The next document put in was the minutes of the general board held on the 4th February, 1840, at which Messrs. Bower, Turner, Griffiths, Palin, Ashton, Hebblewhite, Edge, Holt, Vernon, Ward, Hay wood, R. H. Turner, and John Stanley were present. As the officer was reading the report of the directors and the committee, Mr. KNOWLES objected to that being read, but the SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that the whole must be read, saying that he was not surprised at Mr. Knowles's objection. The report of the committee was signed " I'. Edge and P. J. Panton." Also the report of the auditors at the adjourned meeting of the bank, on the sth February, 1840; Mr. Bower in the chair.-Mr. Higson, in answer to the Solicitor-General, said that Mr. Edge was the director of the Birmingham branch, and Mr. Panton the director of the Chester branch. I attended the meeting when they were appointed. CROMPTOIST put in a memorandum, dated 2nd June, 1834. It was signed " Alex. Bower," and purported to be a memorandum appropriating a number of shares.-Mr. Hig son said he believed the paper was written by Mr. Turner. It was signed by Mr. Bower. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the paper being put in as evidence against the parties for whom he appeared. The officer then read the following paper :-" Shares ap propriated upon cash credit at the formation of the Commer cial Bank of England. Alex. Bower, 1500 ; Thos. Ashton, 1500; Thos. Slater, 1500; Thos. Palmer, 1500; Rt. Turner, 1500; Joseph Macardy, 2000; making 9000. The following to be charged 3 per cent. from the 2nd June, 1834 : Robert Turner, Chester, 100 ; Isaac Holmes, Liverpool, 100." Mr. CROMPTON then put in a document to spew that Mr. Bower was receiving dividends upon 1600 shares, which amounted to £425. This certificate was dated 22d March, 1837. Also a cheque dated Ist March, 1838, drawn by Mr. Bower, to the same amount. Mr. Joshua Allen, examined by Mr. CROMPTON. - I pro duce certified copies of the returns of the partners to Somerset House.-These were put in for the purpose of shewing that the plaintiff became a partner after the publication of the first report. These returns contained the names, description, and places of abode of the defendants, and were dated the 14th March 1835, the 11th March 1836, and 9th March 1837, the last containing the names of the defendants, together with the name of the plaintiff. Thomas Hebblewhite examined by Mr. Martin.-I was an original shareholder in the Commercial Bank of England, which commenced in 1834. I remember attending a meeting in February, 1836. I know the defendants Messrs. Ashton, Bowen, Turner and Palin, four of the Manchester directors, , who attended that meeting. I was not a director in February 1836. I recollect the report being read at that meeting by Mr. Grugeon that was read here to-day. At that time there was a branch at Liverpool, with an office, and an establish ment of clerks, under the control of Mr. Langton. I recol lect at the meeting in 1836, when the report was read, some thing was said in the room in Manchester where the meet ings were held, about the publication of the report. A copy was ordered to be sent to each branch for the inspection of the shareholders. I was in the habit of going almost every day to the bank in Liverpool. I saw a copy of the report on the counter. That establishment was afterwards broken up about the end of the year 18-10. I read that paper, and showed it to several others. I was director of the branch in Liverpool when the bank broke up. I have not seen that paper since it was first established. I had controul of the branch fund from November 1837 to August 1840 ; but not of the papers, which were in the custody of the Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Langton's successor. at Mr. Langton's death. I believe Mr. Hamilton is in Ireland. I attended the general meeting of shareholders in February, 1837. I think the defendants were present. If they were their names will be in the records of the meeting. SOLICITOR-GENERAL.-lt appears by the books, my lord, that none of them, with the exception of Mr. Bower, were present. JUDGE.-Yes ; but they were when the report was adopted at the board. Witness continued.-The same course was adopted with regard to reading the report. In April, 1838, I attended the meeting of the board as a director. All the defendants I be lieve were present. I attended the general meeting on the fith February, 1838. Mr. Bower was in the chair. Messrs. Turner and Patin were present. On that occasion the books of account were not produced to me. I made an application to the chairman, Mr. Bower, to be allowed to examine the books. I said, that before we declared a dividend, we ought to have the accounts audited. Mr. Robert Turner, of Ches ter, concurred with me. Mr. Bower said we were not sitting there as clerks, we must presume that the state of the ac counts was correct. I believe this is the document. (This was a statement of the liabilities arid assets of the bank on the 31st December, 1837.1 Mr. Cothey is the law agent, and Messrs. Barnett are the London bankers. Part due bills were dishonoured bills. Mr. Turner agreed with me. • The board of directors had nothing to do with the pre paration of this document. It did not afford me any means of judging of the accuracy of the statements. I did not wish to look at the book as an individual, but I wished them to be audited. The local directors had not access to the books. I attended the general meeting of shareholders on the following day. The reports were lithographed by the • bank, and sent to each of the shareholders. This is one of them, I believe this is Mr. Grugeon's writing on the fly leaf • of the circular accompanying the report. [Several of these circulars and reports were produced.] I attended the meet ing of shareholders on the following day. I also attended the meeting of directors on the 31st July, 1838. I believe Mr. Patin and Mr. Turner, with the other two defendants, • were present, but 1 cannot exactly remember. I believe this document was read there. I attended again in January, 1839. [The profit and loss account was then react.] In 1849. when the accounts had been audited, I had some co nversatiort with the defendants about the bad debts. At the meeting January, 1839, the same course was pursued b y Mr. Sewell, the managing director. The reports generanot lY ready . prepared. Sometimes they were discussed - sometimes They were generally produced by the manager, when we had not a managing director. I was at the meeting in August, 1839, when the current accounts of' the heed bank were de- rd pr,AlosA, 1 , 14 IPP 6 V3O wir6 *g4o 14i>3 f4ti Wl4 1)40 - aber, 18,3 4 , and protieeed thu followitir month. hen they were produced, I teado royeelf acquainted with the state of the directors' accounts. At the meeting in Janu ary, I spoke to Mr. Bower on the subject of bad debts. Mr. Ashton was not present, but I think Messrs. Turner and Palm were. I asked what had been written off for bad debts, and I was told " nothing." After the auditing of the accounts in the presence of Mr. Turner and Mr. Palin, I told Mr. Bower that he ought to have stated that the dividends of 8 per cent. in January, 1836, had been paid out of the capital. He said it had been ; he ex ceedingly regretted it; it had been Mr. Grugeon's fault that it had been done. After the bank had failed I told Mr. Ashton that the paying of the dividends out of the capital was the first and the worst step they had made. He treated the matter lightly, and said it was customary for public com panies to do so. There was a report published in February. Mr. Turner retired from the directory. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction. Mr. Turner left the room. It was at the annual meeting. The bank has been carried on since that time for the purpose of winding it up. No dividends have been paid since 1840. There was not any return for capital amounting to £260,000. The officers of the bank were all appointed by the directors. Documents called 6` states" were sent from the branches to the bead bank. Blank forms were furnished from the head office to the Liverpool branch like this, in order to be filled up, quarterly or half-yearly. I became bankrupt in 1840, after the failure of this bank. Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL.—I owed five thousand pounds to the bank for my shares, and £BOOO or £9OOO, before a twenty-oae days' notice under the bankrupt laws were served on me. Mine was an overdrawn account. The greater part of my account was contracted whilst I was a director, and arose from having given my en dorsement to bills. It was the manager's duty to make a return of dishonoured bills. I have not paid any portion of the £15,000. I have paid a dividend of 9d. in the pound, and am an innkeeper in London. I was applied to iu the early part of last week to become a witness. I had previously been applied to by letter—three weeks ago. Mr. Macardy has been staying at my house, but we did not come down to together. I was appointed director in 1837, and was, of course, one of the general board of directors, and knew my duty as a member of the board. It was not our duty to ex hibit a sum of money of the balance sheet for the half-year under the 56th clause. It was the duty of the board of directors to recommend to the proprietors the amount of the dividend. The first meeting I attended for declairing a dividend, was in February, 1838. It was in February, 1838, that this statement of the assets and liabilities was produced. I will not swear that statements of assets and liabilities were or were not produced at the gene ral meetings. Sometimes one paper was produced, and at other times two. I cannot say whether I concurred in as senting to the report without a statement being produced of the assets and liabilities. This paper shows the amount of dishonoured bills and current account. In February, 1838, I concurred in the report and the dividend. The signature to this report is Mr. Smith's, the accountant, but the body of it is not his. A statement was always produced by the manager, or managing directors. The board of directors had only this paper, and the profit and loss account lying before ' them, when they made a dividend. Also half-yearly state ments from the branches, but not from the head bank. The weekly accounts were also there. The report which was placed before the shareholders contained the sums to which 'reference is made in the report. At the meeting in July, 1838, (at a board meeting,) I did not propose, and Mr. Tur ner did not second, a reverse that eight per cent. should be divided. At that meeting I proposed another dividend, and Mr. Ashton opposed it. Mr. Turner also opposed my proposition. I concurred in every dividend proposed. I did not believe that I was making a false statement. The board of directors trusted implicitly to the accounts furnished by the officers of the company. We did not make any fur ther inquiry or examination. The Manchester directors would not allow us to inspect the bank books. We did not like to do anything contrary to the will of the Manches ter directors. It was uo use me making any proposition in 1838, with regard to the examination of the books, as the board was against me. Neither Mr. Turner nor Mr. Ash ton opposed my doing so. Mr. Bower did nearly all the talking department. Mr. Ashton was present at more than one dividend meeting. He was present on the 31st of July, 1838, when the dividend of 7 percent. was agreed upon. Mr. Ashton proposed that it should be reduced to 6 per cent., and Mr. Turner seconded it. I voted for the larger divi dend, and so did the majority of the local directors. They were outvoted on the small sum, and we carried the larger. I was anxious to raise the price of shares. In February, 1539, Mr. Turner, of Chester, proposed, and I seconded, a 7 per cent. Mr. Ashton supported a smaller sum. We beat him by seven to six. On the 6th August, 1839, Mr. Edge moved that the books of the head bank should be produced at the next meeting, and it was carried. Neither Mr. Ashton, nor Mr. Turner, nor any one else opposed it. At the next meeting they were produced. Mr. Edge and Mr. Preston audited the accounts which were produced, and after they had done that the last report was ma d e t o th e shareholders. Mr. Edge and Mr. Preston concurred in the dividend and report sanctioned at the meeting of the sth February, 1840. Mr. Turner did not take any particular part. A sum of money was proposed to be expended by the bank in the purchase of shares at the meeting in April, 1840. Ido not recollect thst it was £lO,OOO. That was for the purpose of raising the price of shares. Ido not recollect that Mr. Turner objected to it. After that resolution was passed I do not recollect that he said he would not have anything more to do with the company. I cannot recollect that he did not. A committee was appointed for the purpose of expending the money in the purchase of shares. Mr. Grugeon was manager in 1836. I do not know of my own knowledge who prepared the re. port of 1836. I have been told by the author ; but this author was neither Mr. Ashton nor Mr. Turner. No one was present at the conyersation between Mr. Ashton and myself. I took the first hundred shares that were bought in Liverpool in 1834. I did not buy them in consequence of the report of 1836. In April, 1838, the shares began to fall. I did not propose a scheme then for raising the price of shares. Those letters are my hand writing. Before the month of April, 1840, I had bought 1000 shares for the company. I was ordered by the directors to purchase them. I was ordered by Mr. Bower. I have letters to that effect from Mr. Bower, but they are in the possession of my assignee. Mr. Bower knew the state of my accounts every week. I have frequently been at meet ings of the board of directors, when Mr. Holt asked Mr. Bower about the over-due bills. I do not recollect Mr. Holt asking whether the surplus fund was sufficient to meet all the bad debts. I remember Mr. Bower referred him to the manager who knew all about it. Mr. Sewell said the surplus fund was sufficient to meet the bad debts. I cannot exactly remember whether it was in 1838. I was present in June or July. 1840, when Mr. Edge proposed a vote of thanks to Messrs. Ashton, Slater, and Turner. I concurred but 1 tifink they declined . . Re-examined by Mr. MARTIN.—There was a mort gage upon a freehold security for the amount of the bills, but I understand that the property has not fully realised the amount. I gave a cheque upon the bank for the amount of my last shares, and I re ceived the interest upon those shares. I me t the defendants at several more board meetings besides those I have men tioned. By a clause in the deed of settlement, the Manches ter directors were to go out in three years, and we had seve ral meetings about that. At the time I proposed the larger dividend, 1 was not aware that the dividend of 1836 had been paid out of the capital. I had no idea that there had been 13,000 shares appropriated upon cash credit to the directors in June, 1834. I had not at that time any reason to believe that the accounts laid before me were false and fraudulent. I supposed that the documents laid before the meetings ex hibited a fair statement of the affairs of the bank. There was a large amount due to the Birmingham branch from the Tipton company. I have heard from Messrs. Bower, Ashton, Palin, and Turner, that there would be some heavy bad debts at Birmingham. I have heard them say that the four defendants, Thomas Slater, James Grugeon, James Savill, manager, a Mr. Partridge, and Mr. Henderson. I have never heard Mr. Turner or Mr. Patin speak about the Tip ton company. I never heard them say what the Tipton company owed the bank. When I proposed that the account should be audited, the other defendants were sitting around Mr. Bower. It was evident from their manner that my proposition was not agreeable but they said nothing. I wished to know if it was a proper way of doing business to audit the account first before declaring the dividend. I heard a few days before I bought my shares that there would be a good dividend. The three letters which the Solicitor-General showed me were written to Mr. Bower—one to the board of directors. Mr. Palin was one of the parties appointed to buy shares. I believe that he gave Mr. Turner £3 10s. per share. The price of shares at that time was below par. I bought a thousand shares before this proposition of the board, by direction of the Manchester board. Mr. Bower gave me directions to buy them. That was before the committee was appointed. I bought the shares at £1 discount. That was in 1838 or 1839. The surplus fund in 1839 was £9,000, and £26,000 at last, but there was not a farthing of this surplus fund forth coming when the bank broke up. Sir W. FOLLETT objected to this sort of evidence—the accounts ought to be produced. The bad debts were never written off, and it was impossi ble to know anything about them. I heard this from the manager, and also from Mr. Bower. It was after the stop page that the vote of thanks was given to Messrs. Bower, Ashton, Turner, and Slater. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL asked his lordship whether be was not at liberty to call on the counsel on the other side to say upon which of the counts they were proceeding against each of the defendants. In a joint action imputing fraud against four parties, some of whom were not present at some of the transactions, he thought he had a right to ask it. r. JU STICE COLTMAN said this was not the proper time. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL requested his lordship to take a note that he had made the application. Robert Turner. an agent and a proprietor in the bank, said he became a director of the Chester branch in 1837, and remained so till the close. Attended the meeting on the 3rd February, when Mr. Bower was in the chair; and he con gratulated the proprietors on the prosperous state of the bank. The report was read, and a copy sent to the different branches. I was afterwards sent for to the head bank at Manchester, when the four defendants were present. They desired me to go to Ludlow to open a branch, if 20 share holders could be found to take 500 to 1000 shares at £2 pre mium (being £7 per share), then they would agree to open a branch at Ludlow. I went to Ludlow, and called a meet ing at an inn there, and read to them the copy of the report. An application was made to me that evening for six or eight hundred shares. I returned to Manchester, and received the thanks of the directors. I attended all the meetings of shareholders from the beginning, and the hoard from my appointment. I never was shewn the books of the office at 'Manchester. but I did not ask to see them. Mr. Hebble white requested to see the books, and I concurred with him. Mr. Bower said such things were left to paid clerks. Some time before the bank stopped, we wanted to know what was the amount of the bad debts and past-due bills. Mr. Bower said, as chairman, he could not tell. Either Mr. Turner or Mr. Ashton said the best way was to ask the manager. At a subsequent meeting they said there were no bad debts. That was in 1839. Messrs. Turner, Ashton, Bower, and Palin were there. Hebblewhite asked if they had made al lowance for past-due bills and bad debts. Mr. Bower said " No," loud enough for the other gentlemen to hear him. I am sure Mr. Turner and Mr. Bower were there. I cann swear that the others were present, but I believe they were. Mr. Hebblewhite, at one general board, when all the four defendants wero present (1 am not sure about all; I re member Messrs. Bower, Turner, and Palin were there) after the audit in 1839 (the early part of 1810), asked if the first dividend had not been paid out of the capital. Mr. Bower said that was the first false step the bank bad made—paying the dividend out of the capital. Messrs. Turner and Patin assented to this. They all said it was a bad business. I o w f as ß n i o ni t , a i t ng t a e rn m , ee w t a in s g of tour pres t e he ntb.oard The in when defe n d i‘ a l t . s were Edge, there. Mr. Edge objected to the surplus fund being men tioned vvlien there was none. Mr. Edge said, in the pre sence of the defendants, I am not sure if Mr. Ashton asked about the over due bills which it appeared amounted to £70,000 or £BO,OOO. He issued reports, and I joined in the appropriation of the cash credits. I had a share account and a trade account. The latter was generally in my favour. The other was against me to the extent of £l5OO or £2OOO. I had not been told before that the dividends had been paid out of the capital.—Cross-examined by the Solicitor- General.—l held 600 shares, which were allotted to me, for the greater part of which I paid. I heard that they were allotted to me in 1834. They were allotted to me at £5 Is. ; that would be £3OOO. I paid the manager £250, and £1250 when the bank opened at Chester. The remaining £l5OO was credited to me on my share account, and I owed £l5OO. I dont recollect drawing one cheque for the £1500'; but I will not say that I did not. I paid off the £l5OO by instal ments. I was charged interest for the £l5OO from the 2d June, 1834, ou the share account, for about two years. lam 30 ki4ksiNer f!.lf potion r.Eitued Taylor, now the year when debts. It was neither whether it was in 183(.. hlewhite said it was necc lend they should know th Bower said they knew no . was another cornmunicati 1810, and he replied that table, lie said there wert tors must have heard him the subject of the bad deb' the bad debts and past-du of the over-due hills till t meeting since 1837. 1 hp twining• the amount of over of the board of directors like this was produced. I every meeting. I did not eye over theta. I ger man said. I have read s others. I joined in the re some of the statements these statements. I tl accounts of the overd swore just now that the had not seen a stateme before Mr. Edge mentioned the repert and the dividend. over due bills should be om bills." I will not swear tin securities for money. I will s , of making the proposition and 01 jected. lam not sure that I sr. Mr. Hebblewhite took place in 18 before the audit in 18-10. I can't summer of 1839. I joined In th the statement of Mr. Bower. My versation took place between the r I joined in the recommendation to Edge objected to the mention of th sure whether I swore it was it the time. I don't know whi meeting or subsequent. I r not to dates. You can't get that the observation was mat for considerable amount at tr There were some forgeries of ti There were none of any amount I cannot say if there were any i bank stopped. I have no doubt there tell if there were any in 1838. W' them bad debts. I got a letter in Re-examined.—Some of the Ms join in the recommendations. In was declared, but I cannot say wl curred in the dividends after the f majority. Mr. Bower was chair' spokesman. A paper like this ws committee, but we had no power was a correct statement or not. 1 considerable capital on hand, ai believed that there was a balant bank ; and I believed that the di would be paid out of the profits, I did t me t il of ~ Mr. KNOWLES here intimated that the next wi he should call would give testimony of great let it was just seve❑ o'clock he would put it tc whether it would be advisable to proceed. It was then intimated that th this day at two o'clock (Friday. case should be adjourned till Eventually their being a differenc as to the day, it was decided to g Alexander Graham, was the n, manager of the branch bank at tailed a variety of losses which ha circumstances of some sp works by the defendants, b) tamed. Tbss witness ‘sas und, hours, tracing the defendants books ; but the late hour vvhici. us from reporting his testimony, v plicated and discursive chz._ journed at a few minutes pas, witness's examination m chief being enable him to search for an account o the defendants Bower and 1E1:ado - chit( bank. The trial is expected to last the who: We believe that there are still ab , cases to be decided, so that the learn, occupied here until the opening of tern Lcter. 11ic c CHESTER ASSJ.ZI TUESDAY Before Mr. Justice URDEI THE WITTN ALL WOOl Ii gin. TVarburton, aged 32, Sam Richard Evans, 32, were placed at being out in the night-time on the 22c armed with certain tire arms for the game. There was also a true bill against wilful murder of Richard Cheaters, night in question, but it was not proce ney-General entering a nolle prosequi The Attorney-General and Mr T prosecution ; and Mr. R. G. Te soners. The brief facts of the ( o'clock on the night mentioned, mache, M.P. and Mr. Corbett %N . ( in preserves at Wittnal Wood. A' guns fired, and proceeding to tl poachers, when a conflict immedi: firing off his opponents gun. A keepers was found dead from a g soners were clearly identified as alibi was attempted to be estahn jury found all the prisoners guilty imprisonment and hard labour, the I been in prison for five month= 'e out v ATTEMPT TO rn li A simple-looking farmer's servant, aged 19, was charged with having al other noxious drugs, on the 18th Nc Turner, with the intention of causing 1 - • -- unlit for The details of the case we... ladies were not excluded. It appea.— Elizabeth Turner were fellow servants U.. Holt. at Acton, and the latter bei and she took it, but i n stead of its p pre roc effect, it caused the death of the decease against the prisoner rested entirely on li He was found guilty, an d the ldg that, had he been indicted for murder, lie he could have escaped a conviction, s , t ra n s ported for the term of fifteen yCP SENTENCES. Edward M‘Dermot and Peter Farney, who had been found guilty of a rape, on a poor mat - they met in the road at Alderley, were sent ported for life ND RAPE VIE MOWER •, James Ford, who was convicted on oan wi lful murder of Sam uel Shaw, at M. u p and sentenced t o death, the learned Jt as n o doubt must not hope for mercy, having inflicted the fatal blow on the huh , ers o his bleeding wife from is side into an had violated her pn. Th e prisoner, who was a way from the bar, either fell or threw UM. into the room below, but did not r eceive th was h conveyed to the cndened cell in great Tis termin a t e d theo businmess of the • an of vi. r THE WILESTINGWOB.TH PoisONING ( ordinary nature of the Char -re agiiir. recently committed to B last, gp her husband in October last, has inu.._ inquire into the circumstances of her k death, as well as that of her child, and the e has been of such a nature that application v day last to the coroner forithe county, Mr. a warrant for the exhumation of th he b foe odie w s. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.—T lloi return of illegitimate children register S ed ir West Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk, um shire, in the respective three years 1831 which return has been laid upon the table Commons, on the motion of Mr. Stuart W -iOTtlel In 1831-33. r , 'ton the v Lancashire • • • . York, West Riding Norfolk • • .. Surrey Hereford L os s of a STEANt Ert.--On Fr. lowing remarkable occ urrence, in wh , and afterwards wre cked, attende d will. at Tynemouth, near North Shields. A. on the look out at the entrance of the riv se l amongst the rocks, called the Black M Tynemouth Lighthouse and th a e n r d ui a n f e t d err a v,b b .aesinug to be a teamer. The alarm was install, life-boat s eas manned and put off to render before arriving alongside the vessel, much su at finding only one man on board,barwi . lo via of the wreck and conveye re j h e b t n c a e: - landed be attempted to go away, without gig Customs officer detained hire, jumped e o v v e el i s o el a 9 r b c: m for some time, lie admitted having, • the steamer from her moorings i n thlll..- ore of him in making for sea she drove on the rn - A .v" ta bout t l u 2 r n o'clockf the o t n i d i e l , iu s r h s e d a c y o Illii i , rl , l , but het t, must otherto t h g e e r t m h e a r n o , ff hetshaei d ti , g i l u i t in e r p dmruos,tvnhieldv,e fpoerriirseliescalwyneroyths:ortml 20 horse po up, to swim to the locks ;, coal merchants, was to be drot W illiie t s a s i ar n sm e a d , i c t wh h ia a t ri t id the tswonol ae s r t ni e dg a ic m n oe e s r g , (, which carudleLdLsoDni.scTovhseTviNtSt;ll.lre meeting used for towing and that the man w e h s o se i l s At s t g i o le ne c c o o l o i : t pl o et f ell ofe teeting of James G out of the harbour. Saturday last, citin , ' deuce, opoeores,o asn of to tire deuce, as to tire transactions . Rutledge, gave tin bill discounter, and Inuciti f o a i i i l s ed with the br ike " I seek to prove for £B.67'', toontillat ow bankrupt. I describe myself ' as a ~nit t l e is ; am so by act of parliament, but becaus I occupation. 1 have been in business rate of interest 1 took in my bill transactiot. rupt amounts to 61) per cent. I always mad, by checks, and those checks I can produce. not the average rate of interest en I too morin k all (5 my with the bankrupt ; I have tak e. recollection will not serve me to state interest I have taken. 1 would not taken £2OO per cent. (Laughter.) proof the bill for £2OO for one month, on wh count £2O, thus making the advance at the i cent. per annum. I did not seek him, he sot what be offered me I in most cases accepted. ever I could get. (Laughter.) I mean, I t offered me : Mr. Jaines.—llid little? INlr. liutledge.—lslo; in ia. a silver coffee or teapot, I forget win , . to the ;£2O ire paid me for the discount, (Loud laughter.) I gave for his bills of a., amount of £8752. I hold no other securith. desire to do w o uld for I always bad such faith in 1 I told him I rather have his bills th one else. I held for a short time so sington, accepted by .Mr. Wherhittaker ; G away, because I desired rat to have I can hardly now believe that he is insolvent, L myself his book-keeper for four or five years, 1 portunity of ascertaining that be made, in t h e , transactions, 200 per cent. for his money. j not think I was taking too much in the tiu..: him. oss of 1 ,nd the nit There i I had v with a populatio n of hardly 3,000,000, supports S w eden, 70 pol itical journals exclusive of those of a not less then scieutific _chat: exclusive actor. In Sweden the strictly religious or press afree—the censorship unknown. • , . r. 4 on his to grant break d been ount ( o tea t ; o f 0.116 e tb e Cal,7 rev ir , tbeea lar ge e i 0 11 ,) A eq'll) , apt