The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-03 00:00:00

- CHESTER AN D - BIRKENHEAD RAILWAY. XTOTIOE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the. HALF-YEAR .III LY GENERAL MEETING of SHAREHOLDERS *ill beheld, in purstaioce of the provisions of the Act incorpo ratinz tare Compaa , , at the Claren:lon Roomq, iu Liverpol, on MoswaY. the 9th 91 April tie::', at. Eleven o'ci t k to the Fore noon precisely; at which Meetitt, nwing to important subjects under consideration, it is intended to propose that no business he etrered upon, but that such meeting be adjourned to the 9th slay of June, at the same tune, place, and hour, for the purpose of proceeding in the execution of the provisions of the said Act. By order of the Directors, . - JOSEPH MALLABY, Law• Clerk. Liverpool, 26th March, 1838. GUANO JUNCTION RAILWAY, TENDERS FOR LOANS. H Director% of the GRAND JUNCTION RAILWA.Y COMPANY are non , ready to receive TENDERS 'for LOANS, to the e , :ient of Fifty Thousand Pound., in sums of not less than Oue Thousand Pounds each, at Four per Cent. per Annum Interest, for a teen of Five or Seven Years certain. To be addressed to the Treasurer of the Companv, Lime-street, Liverpool. By order of the Directors, Lime-street, Liverpool, ifarclt 7, 18.38. J. R. CiIIORLEY. • PARIS'H OP LIVERPOOL -k - ToTreg N HEREBY GIVEN, that the ANNUAL 11 GENERAL VESTRY will be held in Saint Nicholas's Church, On TuEsnaY, the 17th day of April next, at Twelve. o'clock at Noon. to receive the Report of the Select Vestry of the last y,,,ar, and a Swam try of their Accounts; for the Eke- . !ion of Churchwardens,, Sidesinen, Overseers, and Select Vestry; for the laying of Church-rates for the year ensuing; awl for Coo despatch of tl , usual Parochial business. 'HENRY RIPLEY, Churchwarden. WILLIAM. RUSHTON, Overseer. 31st March, 1838. Ilmpertat )I)arlialtlEnt. HOUSE OF LORDS.—THuRsnAY. The Bishop of EXETER presented many petitions for the ab olition of the negro apprenticeship system, entirely acquiescing in the prayer, and contending that the negroes were entitled to entire freedom, and that they were qualified to enjoy it. Lord , BitotiGn m again presented an imSnente number of similar petitions, and strongly supported them. He stated that he had received a letter-from the Lord ChiefJnstice of England (Denman), in which that noble and learned lord denied the alleged "contract," and declared himself, in consequence of What had passed, favourable to -the abolition of the negro ap-, pren ticeshio system. _ _ . _ The Duke of WitLINGTON then presented petitions from planters, proprietors, and mortgagees of West India property, against the required abolition of the negro apprenticeship system. This led to extended discission, in which Lord St. Vincent Lori Brougham, and Lord Seaford took part. Lord Mxi.dOURNE contending that undoubtedly there was the ' contract" with the ownors of the slaves, that they should have, the negroes' apprenticed labours for a specified period prepara tory to their entire emancipation. The petitions were eventually ordered to lie on the table. Soine other business being disposed 'of, their liircilhips ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY Mr., Fox MAULE proposed the postponement of the third reading of the "Notting Footway" {Hippodrome) Bill till Monday, as he should propose clauses regarding the introduc tion of the police, and the prohibition of the sale of spirituous liquors, that would obviate much of toe objection to the After some discussion the postponement was carried by 226 to 83—majority fur the_postponement 113. Many petitions were presented fur the abolition of the negro aprentiveship system," and Lord Stanley presented one from puisous interested in West India property, against such aboli tion: Mr. Git.inisr obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws for gianting licences for toe sale of exciseable liquors in Scotland, &c. Sir G. STRICK L .t 1 ,4 D then moved a resolution declaratory of the expediency of making provision to exterminate the negro apprenticeship sYsteln on the lit August next, contendiog that the treatment of the negroes and the infraction of all proteCtive regulations showed that a transitory state between freedom and slavery was ithpracticahle. Mr. PEASM seconded the motion, observing that,'though he had heretofore told his constituents he had doubts how far he could support any demand for modiflc.itions of the compensa tion, he now considered it to be his duty, after the treatment the negroes had received, to support the abolition of the appren- . ticeship system. The hon. member was peculiarly affected at the conclusion of a long and impressive address: Sir G. GREY moved, as an amendment, that the slavery aho• lition act bill be read the second time, maintaining that the motion would violate the contract, but rejoicing that the discus- . sion of tha question was now brought fully and distinctly before the house. Mr. J.A'oirs moved that the debate be d(ijdt.trned, and it was adj 'tuned accordingly. The orders of the day were disposed of, and the house ad j 'caned. HOUSE OF LORDS.-FR/DAY. The royal assent was given by corrunission to several public and pritrate bills. Again, many petitions were presented by different noble lords, the Bishop of London, ace. • "' The Marquis of Sr.fGo, in presenting some, stated that he had received a letter from a firm owning extensive estates in the West Indies, declaring it to be their intention to put an end to the apprenticeship system on their estates in August next. Ilia lordship aided, in some reply to some insinuation that hp = had been in a hurry to decide on terminating the apprenticeships on his estates, the contrary was the fact. Ile had long and very anxiously reflected on the subject, previously to coining to a d,ecision. • The Earl of ABER/JP:R-7ST moved fair various • Alums regarding the church of Scotland, the expenses of the commission of in quiry, &c.; and this motion was made the occasion of again urging on the government the necessity of making some public grants for the extension of church accommodation in Scotland. Lord iNlv.r.aourrNE again said that he could be no party to providing means out of the public purse for the extension of such itceoininodation, especially so long as the church of Scotland Ind property of its own wherewith to supply such means, Were they repaired. Lord H A lIDINGTnIi also urged the necessity that eitisted for increased church accommodation in Scotland, and the impos sibility t.f effeeting it without public aid. Lord MINTO denied that there was such want of accomtno. dations as haft been alleged, maintaining that evidence proved one-third and upwards of the room in the Churches in many cities and large places was now unused. Other noble - iiirds took part in the distassion, which occupied till a late hour; but there was no opposition regarding the pa pers.—Adjourned HOUSE OF' COMMONS.-FrupAY. In the Commons a new writ was ordered for Haddington shire, in the room of Lord Rainsay, now Earl of Dalhousie, in consequence of the death of his - father. Many petitions were presented fur the abolition of the negro appretieeship system. Mr. Oamsay GORE gave notice that after the recess he would Move for an account of the expenses by bills fur renewing, altering, extending, &c., turnpike acts since 1820, Mr. SANDFORD presented a report from the committee on pensions. Sri G. GREY intimated, in answer. to • inquiry from AIN Chalmers, that he had no objections to produce accounts of the whole expenses of Lord Gosford's mission, &c. The adjourned debate on Sir. G. Strickland's resolution for abolition of the negro-apprenticeship system was then resumed by Mr. JAMES. The debate occupied the remainder of the sitting, Sir E. SUGDEN, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. PLUMPTRE, Dr. LustilsoToN, Mr. GLADSTONE, &c., took part in it. On the division the numbers were— For the original motion 205 For the amendment Majority for the amendment . -I The house then adjourned. THE POST OFFICE. (For the Liverpool Standard.) }leaven first taught letters for some wretch's aid.—Pots. As the subject of the Postoffiee is now engaging the atten tion of almost all classes of. the community., perhaps a slight notice of its drigin will prove acceptable. '[he original estab lishment of the Postoffice is buried in obscurity. During the early, part of the reign of Edward I. there is no doubt that there was a species of post, but of what nature, it is now impos sible to ascertain. In Camden's Annals, under the date of 1581, We finittheearliest mention of a.chiefpostmaster ; but it does not nopear clearly what his office was, or ho* it was conducted. From the limited correspondence that then took place it was doubtless of little consequence. The first Postoffice for the 'conveyance of letters to and from foreign parts, was erected by Jimes L, and was placed under the control of Matthew de Quester or De rEquester. Lord Stanhope claimed this office, bat in 1632 it was confirmed .and continued to Wm. Prize! and Thomas \Vitherings, by Charles Ist. Previous to this time it seen is private persons were accustomed to convey letters abroad, although sorb inter.ferenc•e with the Post master's office was strictly forbidden. In ]635 all private inland posts were prohi bited under the usurpation; there seems to have been but little 4 real attention paid to this branch of the government ; -the posts until that period - being confined to a few of the principal roads. The more regular and extended plan was conceived and adopted by Mr. Edmond Prideaux. the Attorney-General to the commonwealth, who was appointed Postmaster-General by an ordinance of both houses of parliament. Ile first established a . regular weekly conveyance of letters to all parts of the nation. In 1651 this revenue was farmed for £lO,OOO. which produced a profit of seven thousand pounds to the public annually. At this time the Common Council of London attempted to set up a Postoffice in opposition to Prideaux; but a stop was put to their proceedings by a resolution of the House of Commons, declaring the. office of Postmaster to be in the sole power and disposal of parliament. In 1656 a new and regular postoffice was erected by the autho rity of the Protector and his parliament; the plan is almost similar to that'pursued at present. By an act of parliament, passed soon after the restoration in 1660, the regulations -. of 1656 were re-established, with some improvements. - and so con tinued, with but little change, until 1784, when a mode of con veyn;.,, the mails was carried into execution, originally suggested -bv Mr. John Palmer of Bath, in 1782. Before this plan was paepted- letters were carried in carts, or by boys on horseback, .without protection from robbers, and liable to delays. Mr. Palmer's proposal was to contract with the owners of diligerices and stage coaches, which were then established in every town of note in the kingdom, to carry the mail, with guards for their protection. A very strong opposition was manifested to this Measure•. but experience has shown that this combination of interests has been beneficial alike to the correspondent, pas senger, and coachmaster. The twopenny post was projected by Mr. David Murray, an upholder, in Paternoster-row, in the sear 1683 He communi cated his sehetne to a Mr. Dnckwra, who carried it on with great success for some time. until government laid claim to it as connected and interfering with the General Poooffice, and Dockwra received a pension of two hundred pounds a year for life as cornpens LACGHABT.F. ANECDOTE.—At a rneeflnst in bankruplev, held the other day, the Commissioner. ad , !rPssing the bank rupt stated, that the proceee.inf.rs must be adjourned this die, ,`Sine die," said a creditor p res e n t t o M r . C arr: " w h at can 111 e ro a m rainioner mean? Of the bankrupt's dying I see no sigp. • • - LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES. CROWN COURT-FRIDAY. MURDER. Joseph Dnnerley, 27, was placed at the bar, under an indict ment in which he stood charged with the wilful murder of Jo nathan Fielding, governor of the workhouse at Prestwich. The prisoner seemed perfectly cool and collected when he entered the dock. He is an exceedingly thin and cadaverous looking individual, with long lanky hair.—Mr. Dodd, solicitor, of this town, gratuitously undertook to do what was in his power for the defence of the prisoner, and Mr. Boileau was assigned to him as counsel. Mr. BRAN DT conducted the prosecution. The learned counsel briefly opened the case. This, he said, was a serious case, in which there was very little room fur doubt, the prisoner having taken up a drying-iron and struck the deceased on the head therewith. It appeared that he was an individual of violent passions,.and that several times he had been confined in the New Bailey prison at the instance of the governor of the Prest wich workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He appeared to have cherished some antipathy against the governor for this, and had taken away his life. The defence would be, that the prisonet••wet of unsound mind. It would be for the jury to judge of that r fron, the evidence. Blitabeth Taylor - sworn.—Witness stated that she was 72 years of age. She lived in 'the workhouse at Prestwich. Jonathan Fielding was the governor thereof, and the prisoner was an inmate. He (the priSoner) had a wife and three children. Remembered the day when this happened. It was about two o'clock. The governor was sitting near her. The prisoner came in and put au iron into the fire. It. was an iron which they dry their weaving work with. It remained in the fire five or six minutes. (The instrument was here produced.) After it had remained in the fire five or six minutes, the prisoner, who had been out,. returned, went straight to the fire, and pulled it out. He raised it. and struck the governor on the left side of the head, near the ear. He repeated the blow, and the governor fell to the ground: The governor was sitting with his head leaning towards the-fire, making a little paste. The prisoner exclaimed, "1 have killed him." lie then went away into the workshop, where be was seized. Had not heard any quarrel between the governor and the prisoner: Had only been about a quarter of an hour in the dry-room. The prisoner had been sent to the New Bailey shortly before this, and had returned about four days, . He was confined about three weeks. Witness did not hear the prisoner say any thing when he was taken away to the NeW Bailey, Two surgeons were sent for, and the go vernor was confined to his room five weeks and a day, till he died. Cross-examined by' Mr. BOILEAU.—Was in the room all the time, and saw him take the iron out of the fire. The iron was hot at the time, and the governor was sitting with his head very. low. The prisoner stood and looked at him for a moment, and then exclaimed, " t have killed him." lie (the prisoner) had lxien working in the recovery cellar before it happened. The prisoner frequently complained of being very ill. Never saw him in a fit. There was no one present but Alice Schofield and witness. Re-examined by Mr. BRANDT.— He (the prisoner) was taking the iron away with him, hut a man met him and took , it from him. Alice Schofield, a very old woman, sworn.—Witness could not tell how old she was. Witness was in the dry room when the prisoner Caine in. The governor was there. She saw the prisoner come in and put the iron into the fire. He went out. When he s came up stairs he stood a considerable time, then he ran dotvn to dry his work. He came up again and stood a bit, when be held up his hands and said, " I've killed hi m ." [lt was evident that trout extreme old age the ideas of the witness wandered. Her evidence was at first given very incoherently.] She, howeVe• - , returned to the subject again, and said the 111 i boner took the iron out of the fire and struck the deceased on the heal with it, upon which be fell to the ground, and the prisoner exctaiuied," I've killed him," Subsequently she again wan dered from the subject, and said she had nut seen the prisoner str! ke the governor. Samuel Blakely sworn.—Lives within about a hundred Garda of the workhouse at Prestwich. On Monday the 4th Septem ber. heard an alarm of the governor being lolled. Went out and saw the prisoner making his escape towards his hunsi. An .farm was given that be (witness) should stop him. Witness did so. He stopped 'him, and said to him, "if you have killed the governor you must go back." He replied, "you may do what you please with me, for 1 - have done what I wanted." Took - him to the workhotme, and while he (Witness) was speak ing to the goveruess he seized a knife and attempted to cut his throat. He drew blood from his throat - a little. He was secured and put into the dungeon till the arrival of the constable. Cross-examined by Mr. Bo! LEA U—Am a cordwainer. [lad known the prisoner about the parish, - and had seen him fre quently for several years. Had never seen him going through the lanes with children following him. Knew not that he had any nickname. Never heard him called anything but Deu nerly. Samuel Hope. assistant overseer of Prestwich, heard of this matter and went down immediately to-see the governor. He appeared to be in a dying state. The surgeons were-sent for. Heard of the attem L it which the prisoner had made up on him self. Had the pr.souer brought to him. "the governor's dying—theu's killed' him." He re`pTied " 1 have faced him iu this world before the magistrates, and I am ready-, to face Lint in the next world," The prisoner had been confined several times in the New Bailey, and the governor always ail .. peared ag,aidst Lim. It was for miscolviti c t in the workhouse. Cross-examined by Mr. BOILEAU—The prisoner seemed ex asperated after he had been before the magistrates. Never saw boys following hen in the streets. BRAN cor —Never had reason to doubt the state of mind of the prisoner. By 111 E. BOILEAU—Never examined him as to his state ofniind, het he always received direct answers to his questions. George Du nkerley sworn.—The witness hada mark of a severe injury on the right side of his head. Mr. BOILEAU objected to the competency of this witness, as he had been confined in another place beside the workhouse, and was then totally devoid of reason. He therefore objected to his evidence being taken. His Loa DSH I P sae! an insane person would he good evidence in a lucid interval, if he had been in a state of reason when the circumstance required to be detailed had happened. Mr. Hope was examined as to the state of the witness' mind, and it was ultimately decided not to examine him. John Parson Holland sworn.—Witness said he was surgeon to the Prestwich workhouse. He was called in to see the governor after he was struck. fie died from injuries on the head. Had no hesitation in saying that the blows' which the governor had received on the head were the cause of death. Had attended the prisoner several times as a patient. Never considered him any thing but of perfectly sound mind. Had attended the workhouse twenty years. Cross-examined by Mr. Boi LEA u.—Had attended the prisoner within the last three or four months. He had a disorder of the stomach. Disorders of the stomach frequently affected the head Formed his opinion from seeing him generally. It frequently happened that persons of unsound mine exhibited it more at one tone than another. Had seen the implement with which the blow was given. The head was bruised very much both on the right and left, and the ear was touch torn—nearly severed from the head; Did not conceive that the heat of the Iron could have been much. as there were no marks of burning on the skin, By Mr. Bastsrr.-His Attention was never called to the prisoner with a view of ascertaining the actual state of his mind. Simeon Whitehead, constable of Prestwich, produced the institiment with which the blow was inflicted. Prisoner.: That's the iron' as I used. Mr. Oilier, surgeoi, stated that he examined the deceased by order of the coroner. Ile attributed the death of the deceased decidedly to external violence. Is surgeon also to the New, Bailey prison at Maochester. Is aware of the prisoner having been confined nine tunes in the New Bailey for misdemeanours in the workhouse, his attention was never called to him at. those times by the authorities of the prison. Never examined him with a view of ascertaining the state of his mind. On his cross-exatuination by Mr. BoILEAti, Mr. Oilier read over a paper containing the notes which had been taken at the time. The injuries 'must have been caused either by a blow or a fall. The skull was nut fractured. The injury was in such a position in the top of the head, that it could scarcely have been caused by the fall. There was extravasation besides injection throughout the brain. The deceased had had two black eyes, which must have been given by a blow or a fall. Has lectured on the subject of insanity. It is a syinptom of that disorder that a person is restless and cannot brook confinement. It is an evidence of the disorder to have great antipathies to persons, and to imagine enemies. The latter is one of the existing causes. A person in such a state of mind will wake in a hurried manner, and such persons are frequently led to gratify revengeful pas sions, unfortunately. By Mr. Bea Nnr.—l t ne stronger symptoms of insanity are thoset e h rsieh(h.iriochsheadraitsrhei the from w snei i t fr l o t e . r i v t e i t t hn eg a any with cause. e p fu ro l prosecution. Mr. Mr. BOILEAU addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. If the prisoner were in a sound state of mind at the time when he committed this act, then neither humanity nor the laws of this country would permit him to escape. The learned gentle man went on to comment minutely ou the evidence, contend ing that the actions of the prisoner throughout this transaction evinced unsoundneSs of mind, and an absence of malice. The learned council called several witnesses. John Denrierlv, father of the prisoner, stated that when the prisoner was Voting, he had a veri , bad fever. It was called a lever on the b . rain. If was when . he was eight or nine years old, and they never thought that he would live. The fever left hint quite eh - lidless: 'He resided with them (hii parents) till lie was married. During the time he lived with hint (witness) be was quite . i:hildfili - arid Perfectly harmless, except' when the work men exasperated him. The people used to call him " My lord's fool," and the " parson's tool." They used to follow him home, hooting at him, and he (the father) threatened frequently to bring them before the magistrates. The prisoner would be 30 next May. He bad hcen married nine years. By Mr. I.3itANDT.--He (the prisoner) was brought up to bleaching, but he was soft (silly) and he could not stand it, so they sent hint to weaving. Knew the pauper Dunkerley, but did not, see him or speak to him on Tuesday last. Had not seen him for many y,eirs. Theprisimer shed tears during the examination of his father. Henry Scholes stated that he was a weaver in Harpurhey. Hail known the prisoner 2 years. He considered that he was soft. Had seen the women and children following him and ceiling bun nick-names, such as " My lord's fool," " the par son's fool," &e. The Rev. William Horner was chaplain to the gaol at Kirk dale. The prisoner was confined there. Had frequent com munications with him. Considers that his reason is very im perfect, and his mind very confused. Had tested him in seve ral ways. On the subject of the principles of Christianity, he asked him respecting them. He asked him what he thought of the office and mission of our Saviour. He replied that "Joseph was jealous of his wife." Whenever he spoke to him on re ligious stihjects he always diverged from the subject, and re curred to that of the governor of the workhouse. Ile always justified the act he had committed. He said he was, sorry, but he had done the deed because of a long series of rtersecutions. Mr. Thomas Chalmers. surgeon to the gaol of Kirldale, said his attention was directed to the prisoner by Mr. Thornelec, one of the visiting magistrates. He trusted-more to esainina lions made when the prisoner was not aware that he was ex amining him, than - to any particular conversation with him. He considered him in intellect very little raised above the brute creation. He thought he was 1 man who, Übe were stimulated to any revero , eful act, ....could not be deterred by any consider ation, from gratifying it. Mr. BRANDT briefly replied. His Loensuip, in charging the jury, said there did not seem to be any doubt as to the fact of the prisoner having struck the governor a blow with the iron that had been produ ce d. Th ere was nothing in this case which could at all. supposing him to be responsible for his acts. reduce this offence from murder to manslaughter. The learned Judge said it was an entire ques- tion of inquiry into the state of the prisoner's mind. The jury were aware that if th-y pronounced him insane he would be imprisoned for life, to keep him from doing any injury. The jury, after consulting together for a short time in the box, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of in sanity. The JUDGE said be must be confined in the gaol till her Ma esty's pleasure was known. MURDER. James Sherrington, aged 22, was placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of John Finney, at Bolton, on the 31st January last. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. He said his friends were ion poor to employ counsel for him, and he hoped the court would employ some one to defend hint. His LORDSHIP requested Dr. Brown to undertakethe•de, feuce, and the learned Doctor immediately complied. Mr. Bit NDT couducted the prosecution. He s•tid this was another of those important cases iu which they - had to inquire into circumstances attending the death of a fellow-creature. That the death of the deceased would amount to murder was, he thought, pretty evident. They would have to iuquire whe ther the prisoner was the person who had committed the act. The learned counsel then entered into a detail of the circum stances which afterwards came out in evidence. The facts of the case, he thought, did not carry it far enough to warrant con viction. .There was, however, a sort, of evidence which he should not detail, as it consisted of certain admissions or pro mised professions of the prisoner. It was doubtful, however, whether this could be received as evidence, as certain promises were made to him, and it would he with his lordship to say whether thiti could be received as evidence. An overseer, who was present, said you had better not make any promises. • Robert Norris said he was the manager of Foeg's Colliery. The prisoner at the bar worked as a collier there. Remem bered a man of the name of Joh., Finney beiug there. Did not see him. alive. Saw him after he was dead. Took the prisoner into his custody, and took him to James Spencer. Put a great many questions to him before he took him to Spencer. Took the prisoner to where the body was. James Spencer uncovered it, and desired the prisoner to look at it. He covered it as soon as he could. After that, Spencer, the constable, anti Parkinson took the prisoner down stairs. Does not know certainly whether Spencer went into the room or not. There was a person named Knowly there. Charged him again with having been in the cabin. lie denied it. Witness said, " Your wife and sister say you told theM that you had been in the cabin." Said he thought it would be better for hint to tell. Said "James thou art sure to be fouud guilty, thou hadst better declare ; it will perhaps be better for thee.' After he had state 1 this, Parkinson came into - the room. Parkinson is a special constable. Parkinson said—" Robert, don't make bins any promises." He spoke that loud enough fur the pri soner to hear. , . His Lottusuir faid.this'woUld not do, for it was the duty of Parkinson to have removed this impreision. lie ought to have said it will not be better fur vou. ' Mr. BRANDT said he would proceed to the next point. James Spencer sworn—ls Constable of the township. Robt. Norris delivered the prisoner into his care on the 31st Jan., and asked him several queStionS. When Norris delivered him into his custody he said he had confessed, but it was not said in the hearing of the prisoner. They then took hint to the Farmers' Arms, having been j , ,ined by the prisoner's wife and brother. Witness said the prisoner had murdered a man in a very brutal manner.' The wife and brother both spoke to the iirisouer, and said " What Made thou to go near the cabin ?" Mr. BRANDr said the prisoner made an answer to that, and: the question was whether that answer would be admissible or not? The examination continued. Witness had not held out any threat or promise, .nor had he cautioned. Witness did not know that Norris had held out any promise. Dr. BROwx objected - to the production of any evidence after the promise made to Norris. l'his declaration was made after the strongest threat ou the one hand with the strongest promise. The prisoner was still under the influence of this promise. The learned doctor cited a case King v. Sexton,.from Russell, on crime. 649. An officer had given a prisoner two glasses of gin anti had thus obtained his confession.—Judge West held that this evidence was ivadmissable. The question would be whe ther the promise continued to influence the mind of the pri soner. Mr. BRANDT thought the nature of the answer was rather that of a justification than as a confession. The JUDGE said he should he very sorry to make any such distinction, because when it came before the court, it was, in point of fact, a confession, and he thought the points should be kept as broad as possible. The time that elapsed was only five minutes, and whe❑ a man had once disburdened his mind by con fession,• he was inure likely to go on confessing. He thought 1 he could not admit this as it. would be a very dangerous prece dent. A coufessio❑ should never be taken without a caution, and the after confession ought not to have been received with out a very strong caution, whereby his mind might be disabused of the impression. Ile thought the best way would he for con stableS never to take confeisions without first giving a strong I caution. It. was exceedingly. wrong in them to attempt to worm a confession out of a man by these means of threats and promises. • Mr, 134ANDT said, • under these circumstances he •did not thinkproper to proceed. The 'Learned .Jun6ts said it amounted to a case of very violent suspicion, but-he thought they could not proceed to the jury. A verdict of not guilty was taken. AVTEMIfING To POISON. ' Mary,Skerringtma, aged 24, was charged, 111 Vary with havin g g bY ontlie lst of January last, att e mpted to p send ing her a pudding in which arsenic was mingled. Mr, o.lit.Tori stated the case. Ellen Baldwin, a little girl, lives at Upholland, with Mary Baldwin, a'confeciioner. Recollects the let January. She was i theu,,witb Ellen Curless, who is going of ten years old. They were carrying pies. knows the-Owl at Upholland. Knows 1111'0r? Skerringron. Saw her near the Owl, at the bottom of • Righardsuu's entry.. She spoke to them, and asked if they were going up street; asked were they going past John 'Corbin's. They said yes. She said, "Will you take this to Mary Byers, and ," y it, was sent by a woman that she is thick with." She gave . thetn a die with a dumpling in it. She'also gave them a piece of currant' cake. They tasted the dumpling, and it tasted bitter and made their tongues smart. They took it to Turbot's and gave it to Sarah Torbut. The Prisoner.l - never saw this girl that night. Witness examined by the JunGL.—Knew the prisoner. Had lived near her a long time. In reply to the prisoner.—You were there that night, and you gave it to me.. Ellen Corless stated, in nearly similar terms to the last wit ness, that the prisoner met them, and that she gave them a pudding in a pie dish. They tasted it and it was bitter. Sarah Torbut, wife of J. Turbut, lived at Upholiand, and Mary Byers lodged with her. Remembered Ellen Corless bring ing a pudding in a black dish. Site stated that a young woman had given it to her, and that it ovas for Mary Byers. Her fin gers slipped into the dish, and she put her finger into her mouth. It was very bitter. She tasted it further, and found it more bitter. She put the piece from her mouth, and washed her mouth out. Witness knew a man named John Seller. He had been a follower of the prisoner, and she had had two chil dren by him. Witness gave the pudding to Sarah Byers. Sarah Byers, a female i,f rather unpi epossessing appearance, stated that Sellar had courted the prisoner formerly, and now courted her. Edward Swift, a constable, produced the dish. He bad tried an experiment with the dumpling on a dog. A piece the size of a hen's egg was given to the dog. In twenty minutes the use of its limbs was taken away. The dog died In two hours and forty minutes afterwards. Elizabeth Swift stated that she went into the prisoner's house at one o'clock on New-year's-day, when she saw the prisoner's little boy eating potatoes out of the dish 'produced. - - She knew the dish, and had borrowed it front the prisoner frequently. Thomas Fisher (stvoin.)—Ts a surgeon at Wigan. Received a dish from the surgeon of Upholland. , It contained a currant , pudding. ApPlied a test to it. Could not detect any poison in the pudding. Analysed it as, well as he was capable of analysing it. Could not discover what it contained. It bad more in it than puddings usually have. Directed the constable to procure a dog, and to give it a portion of the pudding. Opened the dog, and found the pudding undigested in it. Did Dot observe any Morbid appearance in the stomach. Should think the pudding contained softie narcotic poison, whieh had destroyed the dog. Could not ascertain what that . poison was. Should think it was a vegetable poison. Noe vomica would have that taste. The JUDGE said this indictmen. was laid under an act of par liament which was passed last year, and which had altered the law on the subject.. The clause under which this indictment was laid made the offence of attempting to admininister poison, though no injury should accrue, felony, and the person was liable to transportation for life, or for any period not less than fifteen years. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to transportation for life. MURDER. John Davis, aged 29, was cla;eci with the wilful murder of Ann Davis, his wife, in this town, on the Ist September. The prisoner was charged, under the coroner's inquisition, with mur der. The Grand Jury returned a true bill for manslaughter. Mr. Harding conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy defended the prisoner. Alice Bradford stated that she lived in School-lane, in this town. The prisoner at the bar was the husband of her late daughter. Remembered Friday the 'first of September last. She was in School-lane on that day at the cellar of the prisoner. Her daughter when she entered sat at the further end of the cellar. She (the datighter) shook her head at her. She did not weep—she was past weeping. She (the deceased) wanted to go out, but the prisoner, her husband, caught her by the gown, ann. threw her to the back part of the cellar. He then knelt down and beat her on the temples. He then got up on his feet, and he kicked her on the side, and before he left her he kicked her in the belly. Cross-examined by Mr. MUR Pil Y.—Witness went out on that day with some Mangling. Knew a public-house kept by a per son called Hebblethwaite. Had not been there that day. Had not bought any Spirits there, nor bad she taken any spirits to ber daughter that day. The husband of her daughter was .a pilot, and he earned money enough to keep them very comfort ably. They had lived at a house nt -Canning-street till they went to the cellar in School-lane. The house was a comfortable house. Never knew her to pawn anything for liquor. They had been separated once. The learned counsel cross-examined the witness vpry severely as to the mode in which the injuries were inflicted. The deceased was in the family way, and shortly after the injuries had been inflicted she was delivered of a child prematurely, Frances Ormsby was well acquainted with the deceased. Re members Friday the first at September. Was in the cellar on Friday, at one o'clock. The old woman was sitting by the fire, and the prisoner sat near the door. The deceased - sat on a chair at the table. Saute sharp words passed between them. She had got as far as tha first step of the cellar, when he pulled her back and flung her on the floor. She fell on ber side. lie then kicked her with his foot on her side and on ber belly. He struck her about the head with his hand shut. Ile stooped and repeated the blows. Witness begged of him to desist, and not to kill her. They lifted her into bed, but, she never spoke more. She died on Monday. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—The prisoner had had seine liquor, but he was not drunk. She had seen hith drunker. Had known Mrs. Bradford, the last witness, these thirteen years. She was not drunk at the time. Has seen her drunk. Has seen the deceased drunk. She did not appear as it she hail taken anything to drink on that day. There was a mangle in the cellar. The deceased did out fall against the mangle. The prisoner had shoes on when lie:kicked tier. Witness had not any drink herself that day. Did not know bow the • wives were paid. Did not know that she had got a pound a week from • the Pilots' Committee. Heard the deceased say, that he had let her get 10s. a week till that time, and that naoru ing be had added 51. per week to it. Jane Davis, a little girl aged about 10 years, having been questioned by the Judge, was sworn—She remembered her Either and mother quarrelling. Frances . Ormsby was there. My mother (said the witness) pledged my father's shirt to get his breakfast wi'h, and when my father came home be asked my mother for the shirt. He went to the kitchen to look for it, but he could not find it. My mother wanted to go out in the street to get air, and my father took hold of her and pulled her be the petticoat and threw her back. He struck her with his timid on the face three times before grandmother came in. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—Her grandmother had gone out to take some clothes. It was not to Mr. liebble thwaite's public-house she went to fetch her grandmother. She saw her bring home some liquor to the house that morning, which her mother drank. She had fetched three gasses. Her mother drank three glasses. Witness was sent for some liquor that morning.' Her mother drank it: It was in a glass. Her father came in wet. He took off his shoes. He put then► under the table and Incked for his shirt, but it was in pledge. Hail seen her father and mother quarreling before. Her mother used to take drink, and her father was angry at her. She bad pledged clothes before, but never to get liquor with the money. Frances Ormsby and her mother and grandmother were all drinking that morning. When her father fulled her mother it was by the petticoats, and she fell ctowil backwards with her THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD head against the iron ha.) of a Ghost. It cut the back' of her head. her lather did nut kick Tier loonier. Ile only struck her twice while she was down. John Marsuali, surgeon, of Duke-street, Liverpool, went to the deceased on Saturday, the 2.1 September. He found her i❑ a state of insensibility. She was in labour. She was delivered of a male child, having been pregnant about rive months. Saw her when she was expiring. 'There was no mark externally about the head except an extreme black eye. There was ❑o mark on the back of the head' Witness opened the skull. Found a large extravasation of blood on the upper and back part of the right side of the head. That extravasation, as he could not see any other cause, had arisen front the black eye. Did not find any of the vessels in the head ruptured. Found about three ounces of extravasated blood. Cross-examined by Mr. MUHPHY.—A fall against a hasp or a box might cause the extravasated blood. By the JUDGE.—Effusion of blood was the cause of death. Robert Mars;, an apprentice with Mr. Marshall, stated, that he attended the deceased, :and ordered leeches to her, but they failed to put them on. He would not undertake to say that leeches if applied early would have saved her life. The old woman, he thought, was intoxicated when he called. Mr. Marshall re-called.—Mr. HARDING.—Can you under take to say, from your experience, if leeches had been applied it would have saved the life of the deceased. Mr. Marshall. — Nothing could have saved her. Mr.Muimi Y addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Ile dwelt particularly on the discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the contradiction which the daughter of the deceased gave to the testimony of the two first wit nesses. His Lordship summed up to the Jury, who, after a few mi nutes' consultation, returned a verdict of guilty of mAnslaugh ter.—The prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' imprisoument with hard labour. MANSLAUGHTER. Mary Caton, otherwise Keating, 28, was charged with hav ing caused the death of John Kingsbury in this town, on the 34 of August last. The verdict of the coroner's jury was wil ful murder. The Grand Jury ignored the bill for murder, and returned one for manslaughter. The circumstances of this case were published immediately after the inquest. The Jury re turned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. The Court passed sentence of transportation for ten years. The Court adjourned at twenty initiates past six. NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY. LOW V. LOGAN. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Neville appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Cronipton for the defendant. The declaration contaiued two counts; one for money lent, and the other for money paid. The defendants Weaded, that except for £6O they had made no promise, and that suns they paid into court. Mr. CRESSWELL, h opening the case, said this was an action to recover the amount of money expended by the plaintiffs, for the defendants, at their request. Messrs. Low and Hutchinson, the plaintiffs, were merchants and agents, residing at Savannah. The defendants were owners of a ship called the Malabar, of which Win.- Frobisher was the captain; and in 1836 that vessel was at Savannah, making ready for sea. She was just starting on her homeward voyage, when the mate. John Bradley, met with a very serious accident, haying his leg broken in several places. The captain, with a very proper feeling of humanity, had hitn conveyed on shore, and applied to Messrs. Low and Hutchinson to take care of him. It was clear that the master of a vessel was to t tke care of his seamen under such circum stances. It was enacted on the 511) and 6th of %Vin. IV. c. 19, .that provision should he made under such circumstances for the st amen injured, by the owners of the vessel. " That if any seaman should receive any hurt or injury in the service of a ship, the expense.of providing the necessary surgical advice which the seaman should stand in need of, should be borne and paid by the owner or master of the ship, and without any deduc tion from the seamen's wages. It therefore appeared beyond all doubt that it was the duty of the master or owners to provide for the man's expenses. But, indepeudent of that, the captain gave a written autho ity to Messrs. Low and Hutchinson to see that he had proper a taudance. The authority was to the fol lowing effect ;- - Genilemen, a serious injury has befallen my mate, in the execution of his duty, on hoard the Malabar, which would render necessary the tonputation of one of his legs. This will, of course, make it necessary fur me to leave him behind. 1 hereby authorize you to draw on Messrs. Logan, of Liverpool, for his expenses." Under that authority loilgivies were procured for him, a nurse and a surgeon were provided, and an expendi ture took place to the antouat of £123 6s. IW. The account was presented to the parties at first. Mr. Logan directed his agents to correspond with his attorney on the subject. It ap peared that Mr. Logan's tally reason fur refusing to pay the amount was, because he thought it exorbitant; and offered to submit.it to any. merchant of Liverpool to say what should be paid. The plaintiffs thought this rather hard. as it was not a demand for themselves, all they charged for was for money which they had actually expended on the Captain's authority. It appeared that the lkiag at Savannah was very expensive, and that the usual charges at Savannah were those which had been charged.: The surgeon attended the mate for some thne, and on his voyage home to England, the surgeon who was coining over attended to him, but on his arriving in England he sunk under' his sufferings, which might satisfy the jury of the dangerous state in which he was, and the attention which he would require. A commission had been sent out to take evi dence, which would be read. Mr. Low felt that it was a hard case upon him, and that there was an imputation upon his cha racter, and that ther-frre no other course was left to bias to pursue but to have tire case fully investigated. Evaistnce was then called to show that the charges put down were such as were usual at. Savannah; that board and lodging was front a dolliir and a half to two dollars and a half per day, and that iudgings ut a lower rate were not lit to put a sick luau in. Mr. Wm IiTM AN, in reply, contended that the mate had been living in the most expensive style, which only captains lived iu. and that his extreme; ought to have been conducted on the most economical scale. He called witnesses to prove that the charges put down for the mate were of the highest kind, and that the reaisonahle charge far a orate ought to have been much less. The Jury expressed a wish to retire, and after an absence of tac o hours found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £35.05.3d. i 4 addition to the £6O. paid into court. COWLING V. HIGGINSON-kIGHT OF WAY. This was an action brou gh t by die - plaintiff;itinst the de fendant to try a right of way which the.deletlant claimed over the plaintiff's estate. The plaintiff is'an elderly lady resid ing at Meanie) s, in the township of Astley, near Manchester, and the defendant who was tenant of some land in which was a coal mine claimed the right to cart the coals over the plaintiff's estate. The case was gone into, and a point of law was urged by the defendant's counsel that they had an unlimited right of way which was on the pleadings, and his Lordship was of opin ion that the defendants had only proved a limited right of way. His Lordship, after consultin g Sir J. Patterson, was clearly of opinion that a right of way meant for all purposes. The Jury, therefore, by his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, is. with liberty to move to enter a nonsuit if the court above should hold a different opinion. THE CAUSE LIST It was announced that all cases front 90 to the end of the list inclusive, with the exception of two special jury causes would be taken before Mr. Justice Matteson. LICAS V. BLUNDELL, ESQ. Mr. CRESSWELL, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mr. J. HENDERSON, appealed for the plaintiff; and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. HENDERSON fur the defence. _ - This was an action brought by Mr. Lucas, the keeper of a horse aro: carriage repository, in Great Charlotte-street, against ...the High. Sheriff, to recover the value of a horse. On the 231 of August last Mr. Blundell went to Mr. Lucas's repository and purchased a mare for £47. Ids. Mr. Lucas had lung adopted a rule in. his repository that all horses sold with a warranty, if returned, must be returned with a veterinary surgeon's certifi cate on the following day, before twelve o'clock. Mr. Lucas found this necessary as he sold on commission, and paid the price over to the owner the day after the sale at twelve o'clock. Mr. Blundell returned the mare, but not in the time specified; and consequently could not bring his action for a breach of the warranty, but he said he would not pay fur her, and Mr. Lucas was obliged to become the plaintiff in this action. The defend ant pleaded that he was induced to buy the mare through the fraud of a person named Farrel, who was the owner. By this course, Mr. Blundell escaped the warranty, but he was obliged to prove that Farral knew her to be unsound. The Jury must also be satisfied that the defendant bought the mate on Farral's recommendation; and not on the warranty of the plaintiff. Mr. Blundell fully examined the mare, had her ridden by several persons, and finally bought her as sound. Next day he returned her lame, and she was put to livery, but by agreement between the parties she was sold, as it was determined on that an action should be brought, and she was sold for 30 guineas, and bought for 30 guineas, and bought by a Mr. Hood, living in Stafford shire, who rode the mare home, a distance of 50 miles, and she was quite sound. Mr. Hood afterwards sold the mare for £4O. to a dealer and gave a warranty of her being sound, her lame ness having been but temporary and gone off. Witnesses were called to prove these facts. Far the defence it was contended that from a notice stuck up in Mr. Lucas's yard with respect to warantees given was such as to make it impossible for him to be liable. It was in fact a nota bane never to be liable." Evidence was called to prove that the mare belonged to Mr. Latouche ofDublin, and in his service got an "overreach" and was sold to a person named Hewit, being lame then. Hewit brought her over to Liverpool, and sold her to Farral, and when in Farrul's possession Mr. Walton the'veterinary surgeon saw her, and pronounced her to be lame. She was injured in the pastern joint, and would be.liable to go lame on bard.work, she was unsound. Farrai was well acquainted with horses, and knew of this unsoundness of the mare. The mare went lame next morning after sbe was bought, and was sent back. Mr. CIIIISSW . ELL canoed., . . . His LOH 1/SH ip in summing up said if the plaintiff failed, in any of his pleas the case must go to the ground. The jury must be of opinion that tie made out all his pleas, and then they would find for the defendant. • Namely that the horse was unsound before bought, that Farral knew it, and that through Farrul's fraud the defendant was induced to purchase. The jury after consultinu for a short time found a verdict for the plaintiff, da mages IX 10s O. • The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY. His Lo►dship took his seat on the bench at five minutes past nine o'clock. HIGHWAY noßß; t etY. Edward Grogan, aged 21, was charged with having on the sth of August last, on the Stretford road, feloniously assaulted George Royston, and stolen from him some money and other articles. The prisoner is a remarkably tall and fine-looking Man. His lace is handsome, but the expression thereof is rather ferocious, and indicative of the utmost determination. He was well dressed, and he presented himself in the dock with an - appear ance of great firmness. George Royston stated that .he resided in the Stretford new road. On • the sth of August, at a few minutes before one o'clock in the morning, he was going home along the Stretford road. When he came witbin '2O or 30 yards of Moss lane, he saw a man standing on the opposite side of the road. It was a clear night. This •person crossed over the road to hint, and asked him for his money... Witness replied "I have none." He (the man) said he knew very well that he had; he might search bins if he liked (throwing open his coat.) After that another man crossed over the road, whom he had not previously seen. This man presented a pistol within an inch of his temple. The prisoner at the bar said "if you either utter a word or stir an inch you are a dead man " The first man aho came over to him was the prisoner at the bar. Ile was armed with a sort of sabre or bayonet. He drew it from an inside sort of pocket. The prisoner then put his hand into his (witness) breeches pocket, and took out a purse containing a sovereign and som e silver. he other man pulled out the other pocket,amil because it did not all come out so readily as he wished, he took a knife or dagger and cut it. nut. The prisoner felt a pocket book, and he said that he vould have that. Witness said he should not, he had got all his money, and there was nothing in it to do him or any b o dy else any g0 , 41---at was of no use to any one but himself. The prisoner Said he would have it, and witness put op his hands, VI hen the prisoner seized him and threw hint upon his hack, felting uron him, Winless then called out " murder," and a watchman who was at hand came up, and the prisoner and the other man ran away. Witness and the watchman examined the ground, and found a hat, which contained a pass port and an address card, The prisoner cruss•exaeuiued the witness at some length re specting Ins slate at the time when it ,vas alleged the rubbery was committed. It appeared the witness was somewhat intoxi cated. James Bradbury, a watchman, was in the Stretford road on the sth of August. Heard some noise. Some person said "I have nothing more to give you." Was going to the spot when he heart a cry of murder. Went forward and saw two men, one of whom was down upon Mr. Royston. Showed his light Saw that sine man was taller than the other. They ran away immediately. Saw that the tallest man, who had lost his hat, had very large whiskers. Searched the spot, and found the hat belonging to the taller one. Found a horse pistol, loaded, a box of lucifer matches, a lot of cards belonging to different theatres in France, a tine shirt, two silk handkerchiefs, and a cotton handkerchief with some gunpowder iu it. The tall man had large whiskers. Ile corresponded in other respects with the prisoner, but could not swear that it was him. . Thomas Norbury, one of the police of Manchester.—ln con sequence of sonic information which he received, he went on the Eccles New road to look for the prisoner. Met him coming towards Manchester, about three miles off. He passed them. Witness said, after tie had got past, " Here, young man, I want to speak to you." He replied, " What do you want to say to me?" Witness said, " I only Want to speak to you." He put his hand to his right breast coat pocket, and kept it there, saying " Stand!—keep your distance—if you have any thing to say to me, say it at a distance." He then drew a pistol from his breast, and said, " If you offer to move I will shoot you!•' Witness said. "Nay, you would not shoot a man. would you ?" He swore by his Maker he would. Witness stooped and rushed forward, and the pistol was fired as he rushed. He then levelled the pistol, which was a double-bar relled tine, at Pollett, and saw the cap drop to the ground. The prisoner then ran off. Witness overtook him and knocked his legs from under him. Jonas took the pistol from him. Saw witness put his hand to his side and take hold of a bayonet, which he was prevented from drawing. Witness searched his coat pockets. Found two such barrelled pistols there loaded with powder and ball. The double-barrelled pistol was found to have one barrel loaded and the other unloaded. Witness was without his coat at the time. Some of the other officers were in their uniforms. Cross-examined by the prisoner. —Witness did not tell him that they were officers. The reason why su many went out was that they heard that he was armed with fire-arms. Benjamin Pollett, a police-officer of Mafichester.—lt was ahout fire o'clock in the evening when they met the prisoner. Heard Norbury speak to the prisoner. The latter presented a pistol and fired it. Witness rushed forward, and the prisoner placed a pistol close to his breast. He snapped it, and it missed fire Cross-examined by the prisoner.—Had not Norbury stooped at the time when he fired, the ball must have struck him. Bennett was one of the party that apprehended the pri soner. Witness gave similar testimony to the other witnesses. Cyrus Alcock produced the articles received from Bradburn the watchman. Witness produced a pamphlet of directions for highwaymen, and the other articles found on his person. Sarah Drake stated that she resided in Devonshire-street, Manchester. Is the wife of William Drake. A young woman named Brennan lived with her in August last. The prisoner visited her at her house four times. The last time was the first Friday iu August. The prisoner then wore whiskers, rather larger than now. He asked Brennan when he should come to see her. She said she did not know. He said, " Shall,) write to you." She said he might. He said, " Where shall I write to ?" She said " Mrs. Peake will give you directions." She did give her direction, the Rev. M. Esdale, Hall-place,Strange ways. The young woman was going into serviceat that gentle man's house. 1-le took out of his hat a passport and wrote the address with pencil. Witness examined the papers produced by Alcock, and found the passport. She read the same words on it as that, but she could not read many of them. There were on that passport written the words of the address. Thomas Goodier knows the prisoner at. the bar. Last saw him at a public house in Manchester. Had seen him before in Paris. It was . the Monday after the election iu Manchester that he saw him in Manchester. At the time witness saw him in Paris he said he should pass through Manchester on his way to America, and he called at that house by appointment. The public-house was the Printer,' Arms, When witness saw hint in Paris he gave him a card of the hotel whe:e he was stopping at, and wrote his name on that card. Witness picked out this card front the articles produced. It was the -middle of July when witness saw him in Paris. Witness saw the passport at Boulogne, and also at the public-house in Manchester. The prisoner had very large whiskers when in Manchester. By the pi isoner.—lt was Sunday night when he saw the pri soner in Manchester. It was not likely that the prisoner could have left the papers behind him. A small, but very formidable weapon, which was taken from the prisoner, was produced. Mr. Royston was recalled, and he stated that that was like the weapon with which he was threat ened. The prisoner addressed the jury in his defence. He said it would appear strange to them that he should have those pis tols, the dagger, and dark lantern that had been produced. That dagger was taken in the field of action in Spain. The pistols he had taken at the storming of Iron, which was given up to plunder, and he having got possession of these pistols kept them as a curiosity. In June the legion was disbanded. He moulded a few bullets, and loaded the pistols, having se veral leagues togo over an enemy's country, where if an Eng lishman were met who belonged to the Queen's forces he would be immediately assassinated. He travelled over France, and to England, still keeping the pistols loaded, as he feared the discharging of them might create a disturbance, and he had tried in vain to draw them. He was, as they probably knew, a deserter from the 17th Lancers. The dark lantern he had found useful in travelling in France, and he thought it might be use ful for the same purpose on his voyage to America. He had in tended, on his arrival here, to take a companion, to be bound with him in the holy and solemn bonds of wedlock, with whom he should have proceeded to America. The JUDGE briefly summed up the evidence, and the jury found the prisoner Guilty. His Lou DS II IP addressed the prisoner. Ile said, some years ag-o the commission of this crime would have been followed by execution. The laws, however, had been altered, and though this offence had been committed previously to such alteration, he (the learned judge) had ordered judgment of death to be re corded against hire, and should tecommend'hira to her Majesty's mercy, on the condition, however, that he should be transported for life. The prisoner begged to be permitted to say a few words before he was removed. He entered into a l o ng statement of his ca reer in life. He stated, that he had enlisted in the 17th Lancers when he was only sixteen years of of age, and, having an ardent wish to distinguish himself in actual conflict, he went to Spain. He made further statements, which amounted to a confession that he was guilty of the crime for which he had just been tried. He said, when in Spain he had been accustomed " to see no thing before his eves but rapine, robbery, plunder, and blood shed." He Warned the habits there acquired, and said they had led to his subsequent crimes. LARCENY. Richard Doran and Winia;nlaYuire were charged with hav ing stolen three brace of pistols (ruin the shop of Daniel Row den, of Manchester. Mr. Armstrong conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were,on a former day of the assizes. convicted of highway robbery. In the commission of that offence it was proved that they had used the pistols that they were now charged with stealing. From a defect in the evidence, two individuals, who had been members of the Society of Friends, having re fused either to take au oath or make the affirmation in the legal form, it was doubtful how far the conviction would stand good. The larceny was fully proved, the weapons having been found in the possession of the prisoners, and identified by Mr. Rowden as his property. The jury found the prisoners Guilty, and they were sentenced to seven years' tiansportation. WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS 130D11.Y HARM, Peter Webster was charged with having. on the Ist October last, at Ince, wounded Ralph Hayes, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Hutton conducted the prosecution. It appeared, that at a quarter - past twelve o'clock, on the morning of the Ist October, the prosecutor was en his way home with his wif e , and when near his own houSe he happe ne d to jostle aga i nst th e prisoner, who was very angr y w ith hi m, and would not let him pass on his way. Another individual joined the prisoner, and the two crossed the path of prosecutor and his wife. Haves threatened to knock them down if they did not desist. They persisted, however, and Hayes and his wife crossed the road. 'f he two men followed, and shouldered the prose cutor against the wall. lie asked what they meant, and one of them replied, "Anything." He said if one of them wished to fight, if that were all, he was ready for them. They still con tinued to annoy him, and he struck one of them, and knocked him down, when he received two stabs in the stomach. He fell, and received another stab after he was down. A witness, named Thomas Armstrong, proved that the pri soner was one of the two men whom he had found struggling with the prosecutor. There was no evidence to show that the prisoner actually in flicted the wounds. —.. ...... .. —...__. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. POACHING. Charles Wright, William Shaw, and John Hankinson, were charged with having, on the night of the 22d of Septeniber, en tered an inclosure at ltixton-with-Gazebro o k armediand fur the purpose of destroying game. . . Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution; . Mr. ADOLPHUS ap peared for the defence. George Wright stated that be was an assistant gamekeeper to Mr. Wilson Patten. He was out on . the night of the 22d of November, watching game at Itixton-Glazel4ook. Began the watch about ten o'clock at night. His notiCemas first attracted by hearing a dog yelping. The sound came from some land that they called burrows. Went to the - Big Moss field, and found five men. Met one man by himsClf at first in the Big Moss field. That one was Thomas Shaw. William Shaw was also there. Thomas Shaw had a stick with him. He bad three other gamekeepers with him. The party in the inclosure menaced and a fight commenced. Witness told them► that be Was not going to be driven off the ground by them, as they (the poachers) were five, and they (the gamekeepers) four. The former whistled and three others came up. They were all armed with sticks, and the gamekeepers were driven off. John Ashton stated that he was out assisting the keepers on the 22d of November. He found a net hung on a gate in the Big Moss field. He saw a Marty of men in the field. Wright and Hankinson were of this party. The men attacked them with clubs and drove them away. Witness was knocked down by a blow on the head. Peter Knight, a gamekeeper, stated. that they found several nets in the field. He generally corroborated the testimony of the other - witnesses. The Jury retired at half-past one o'clock. They returned at half-past ten, and delivered in a verdict of guilty against Wright and Hankinson, strongly recommending them to mercy. Sh aw was acquitted. Wright and Hankinson were sentenced to be imprisoned for . 12 months With hard labour. PoACHING. Isaac Wilkinson was indicted for having been found with thre e others, out, armed with . guns and in search of game, ill th e township of. Bold, on the night of the llth N ov . 183 7. . • _ - On the night in question the gamekeepers of Sir Henry Bold Houghton heard guns fired in the preserves at Bold, aud went out•in search of poachers. They encountered four poachers, one of whom (not in custody) discharged the contents of a fowling piece into the side of one 'of the keepers. A keeper, named Clough, struck the prisoner with a cutlass, and cut through his hat and slightly wounded 11:s head. With the AS. sistance of the other keepers the prisoner was secured ; huti Appleton, the man who tired the gun escaped. 'I he Jury found the prisoner guilty. His Lordship passed sentence of imprisonment for one yoar with hard labour. ' NISI I'RIUS COURT.—SATuatrix. (Before Mr. Justice Cot.EniuGlO CONLIFFE v. pIiNKETH. The plaintiff in this case is a bui;der, residing at Ilaplock, and brought the action to recover a balance of £3O fur making bricks, and worked for the deferidant. The action was referred. MANIFOLD AND ANOTHER v. MORRIS. The plaintiffs in this case are Messrs. Peter and Samuel Manifold, and the defendant Mr. Wilson . Morris. A Mr. Henry Riguaaden mortgaged several buildings, one of which was a public•house, to Mr. Samuel Manifold, for £3,000 And also executed a second mortgage to Mr. Holden, inclutliog APRIL 1838. fixtures and the licence. After these two mortgages had been granted, Mr. ttigmaiden borrowed money of his brother, giving' him as security the surplus that would arise on any sale of the, above property, after paying off the two mortgage. A sale os the premises took place, Mr. Rignaiden becoming bankrupts and they were bought by another brother of Mr. Rigmatdett• The mortgagees were satisfied, and the surplus was paid over over to Mr. Henry Rigmaiden, which amounted only to £2O O , he having lent his brother a much larger sum. At the 021° of the sale the mortgagees doubted whether they had the, right to sell the fixtures, imagining they belonged to the assignees of the bankrupt. There was no doubt, it was contended, that the mortgagees had the right to sell the fixtures, and on their sell tug them would depend the surplus which Mr. Henry Rigmaiden was to receive, and Mr. Henry Rigmaiden, therefore, in the name of Messrs. Manifold, which he had a right to use, brought this action against the assignees of Mr. Rigmaiden, the bank rupt, fur the value of the fixtures, which the assignees had sold, and which Messrs. Manifold were entitled to. The case was gone into, when the plaintiffs broke down, and the plaintiffs were nonsuited. CHANTER V. LEESE AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by Mr. Chanter, of Blackfriarg , the patentee of various improvements in the manufacture of steam-engines, and was brought against the defendants, Jame , Lees, George Cousens, and James Lignum, engine-makers, of Manchester, for the non-performance of a contract whereby they were indebted to hin► £2OO. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants togrant them the right of manufac turing and vending his patented improvements at Manchester, and in Lancashire generally, with the exception of Liverpool, and in Cheshire, within ten miles of Manchester Exchange, 00 their paying him the consideration of £460 per annum, in two different instalments of £230 half-yearly. The contract wao entered into in February, 1836. The two first payments were made, but the third was unpaid, and the action was brought to recover that amount, 1:200. A point of law was argued at great length between the coun sel for the plaintiff and the defendants, a demurrer having to be heard iu the court above, when, by his Lordship's direction, verdict was taken fur the plaintiff, damages £2OO, less £7 103 and a fraction for goods furnished by the defendants to the MADDRELL V. MAXWELL AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a cobbler, against Messrs. Maxwell, merchants, of Liverpool, for damages from their having pulled down certain buildings adjoining the plaintiff's house, in Litherland-alley, Liverpool, whereby the plaintiff's house was greatly cracked, damaged, and injured, and in consequence he was put Co great expense, and lost his lodgers fur which the action was brought. After the case had been heard, the parties came to an agrees meat to withdraw a juror. TINDER V. HARRISON. This was an action brought to recover £4O demurrage. The parties reside in Hull, and the plaintiffs chartered a vessel of the defendants to go to Pictou, in Nova Scotia, to fetch timber, thirty running days to be allowed for loading and unloading the ship, and £5 a day demurrage to be paid beyond this. The vessel had gone out ; and on the part of the plaintiff it was contended that there were eight days' demurrage, owing to neglect in obtaining cargo in America. For the defendant it was contended that the particular cargo required to be loaded by the charter contract could not be obtained, and that that was the cause of the delay. The jury found a verdict for the plain tiff for £2O, which, with £2O paid into court, made up the amount sought to be recovered. PICKARD V. DEMPSEY. This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, to recover the sum of £l5O, on a promise give❑ by the defendant. The plain• tiff, Mr. Pickard, is a timber merchant, in Liverpool, and the defendant is a timber broker, of the firm of Dempsey and Benbow, also of Liverpool. The action arose from Mr. temp sey writing a note to the plaintiff, to the effect that he thought Mr. Gaebel was ill used by his partner Mr. Benbow, a nd wanted £3OO to complete sonic purchase with Dempsey and Benbow, and begging Mr. Pickard to give Gaebel an accept- ance, and that he would bear half the risk, and pay him £l5O to meet the bill ten days before it came due if he did not receive it from Gaebel. For the defence,a set•off was pleaded, in which it was stated that the defendant wanted £20,000 from the plain tiff, and that that amount was in dispute between them. A verdict was taken fur the plaintiff, with leave to move to enter a nousuit. GRIMSHAW v. ROTHERHAM. This was an action brought to recover the value of 173 bales of New Orleans cotton, from the defendant, at £l3 per bale. It appeared that the plaintiff resided at New Orleans, and by the instructions of the defendant, a dealer in cotton in Liver pool, purchased 500 bales fur him at the close of 1835. A part of these, namely, 173 hales, were shipped on the Tagus, which ship afterwards took fire, but not till after an insurance had been effected on the cotton. The plaintiff on this purchased another 173 bales, to make up the 500 bales, thinking that the best he could do, and wrote to Liverpool to get insurance effected on these bales. The cotton art ived in due course la Liverpool, but to a falling market, and the defendant sent the whole of it to a broker to sell, telling him to keep two accounts of the cotton, one of the 173 bales, and the other of the re mainder. In the proper course, the plaintiffs bill, for £1835 14s. 7d. was presented by Messrs. Ridgway, the agents of the plaintiff, for the defendant's acceptance, but this be refused to give, saying he had not authorised the purchase of the 173 hales. After wards he honoured part of the hill,super protest, for £l3OO, and though the defendant dealt with the cotton as his owu, and sold it, he had never further paid for it. If the 'cotton were -not his, urged the plaintiff's counsel, he ought to have refused it altogether, and it would then have remained over till the plain tiff arrived in Liverpool, at which time there was a good market and there would have been no loss. As it was; whatever loss !here wasß uin the cotton having been sold iu a falling market, the defendant having dealt with it as his own, and never having' advised the plaintiff to the contrary, must be liable for the full amount. The case w•as not gone into, but a nominal verdict was taken for the plaintiff fur £lO,OOO subject to a special case. CROWN COURT.-MONDAY. His Lordship took his seat at a few usinutes past niue o'clock• FORGiiit Y. John Kinnear, aged 57, UnciJ;Xi; Jones, aged 69, irereklaced at the bar, charged with having, at Manchester, coritprred to obtain credit and raise money by issuing false and fictitious bills of exchange. A highly respectable jury was impanelled. The prisoners having been arraigned, and the jury seforli L i Jones was ordered to stand hack, and the Court proceeded vita the first indictment against Kinnear. Kinnear addressed the Judge, and said he wished to makean application, on an affidavit, for the postponement of the trial for two or three days, under a particular indictment which .he named. • Mr. BRANDT said he did not intend to goon that indictment. • Kinnear then asked if this were the proper time to snake any objection to the indictment. His Loa DSHIP said that the prisoner had already pleaded "not guilty" t o th e i n di ctment. If he had any objection to the form of the indictment he ought to have taken it before. His Lord ship, however, allowed th e p r i soner t o p rocee d. The prisoner said he objected to the indictment, that the bill alleged to have been drawn by him was improperly described as a bill of exchange. it was not a bill of exchange. The pri soner went on to describe according to the law, as he averred laid down by Chitty and Bailey, what he conceived was neces sary to constitute a document or bill of exchange. The maitt point for which he contended was, that a document was not a bill of exchange till it was complete in all its departments. He insisted that it was essential that a bill should be accepted be fore it was a bill of exchange. The bill in question was not 'my not accepted, but it contained a positive direction that it was dot to be accepted, as there were on the face of the bill the words " without acceptance." His Loll PSHIP and such was not the law certainly. A bill was a bill of exchange the moment it was drawn, and it was not at all necessary that it should be accepted before it was a bill'ef exchange. Mr. Betoner and Mr. L. Page, who were retained for the prosecution, briefly replied to the point urged by the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said he did not remember ever to have seen an instrument in that shape before, but that was no reason why it should cot be a bill of exchange. A person bad a right - to use what terms he pleased iu the drawing of a bill. Bills were sometimes drawn at sight—then would they not be bills of ex change till they were paid. This bill would be a hill of exchange the moment it w.,s drawn ; and, in fact, the London and West minster Bank, or where it was drawn, might have accepted it if they pleased. Mr. BRANDT stated the case. The present bill of exchange purported to be drawn by the Flintsbire District Banking Com pany, and was signed by a person named James Watkins, who , it was described, was manager of the Company. He should be enabled to show, that no such company as the Flintshire Die" trict Banking Company existed, and that the name of Walking was also a fictitious name. Ile should prove that, on the 22a August last, Jones, who would be connected with the prisoner in his transactions, app,ied to a Mr. Swain, an engraver, at Manchester, to engrave a plate for the purpose of striking en impressions. Jones twice subseqUently applied to Mr. Swain to alter the address of the bill plate. This plate, with a good many blinks, and some bill forms filled up, wer e f o und in Kin near% possession. Inquiries were made at Flint respecting the Banking company, and it was found that no such company ex isted. The learned gentleman went on to detail the comae or evidence by which he intended to establish the case. Joseph Wood stated, that he had lately been unfortunate in business. He was a genet al Manchester Warehouseman. Knew the prisoner at the bar. Had known him many years. Had recently had occasion to write to him, and he requested him (witness) to address his letters J. K. Donaldson. Those were letters that were to pass through the post; but if he had had tort address a note to him at Manchester, he should have addressed him in his own name of Kinnear. In the utonth of October" last, witness asked Kinnear to lend him seine money, asill latter told had him he had a great command of money. He" seen him in possession of various bills 'of exchange. On the. tlhi4,iast t l O gst c itl t ee . r ! e e tt e ht e oe i ut v g( c ol d ,nh a tea l il e in t ae t d e d r sai l: n r il o re m enbc L tliol i y p E rr l e i i. o t . o 1 in reply to a let :et one for £7O and one lot L3O. 'the letteWirtcciot°lluuettasasilOclesl:)euald4kir::':bi4(l4):l'97: fo n r d h h i t i n s to Tw r i e t na n e i s t s t , i s ti ) e-h elf t tot proceeds in cash of the £3l) hi l l'. a note, of hand at 14 days for the other 10 1. 1. nFeosres) the.£7o bill hey ms to remit £35 in casis and 1:35 in his (eil' note at 14 days. It was to be remitted immiedititelY... Witness returned it in a letter, (Letter produced.) liitt.let n ,te r, was addressed'' .1. K . D onaldson, post-oice, E AT date of this lett er was 14 t h O cto b er. H e returned the 43 0 Di". to the prisoner. Another letter of the same date was, produceddi Witness said, that w as hi s l e tt er i ne l os i ng t he cas h (£35) his note for £35 at 14 dais. That £7O bill purported to be the..Flintshile Bunk fled received a smaller bill for £.6 Os. en . - the same batik before, A bill handed too witness,) That the same bill. At the time when be gave witness that he said, it was a good hank, a n d they were doing a P',,;',„: business. be said, also, Watkins, was' a Welshman— w 4 ea s manager of the batik and was a clev,er man. Believes tonne : , .; is is a Scinclisnan. £7O hilt was here proditeed,"and idel at tied by the witness..), At, the time wh.en witness received t hat bill he believed it to be agood bill. Would not have pan : l' th with so large a sutra a £35, if he had trot been impreised o ' the conviction that it was a good bill. The pi isomer, at. his own request, boat the' bills-handed to bi ll/ and.lie examined then'. The last witness was then cross-examined by the pr isone r' ;any Ilad known the prisoner nearly 20 years. Had not 1 0, a .,,i n g transactions with hint until near April or May. Had ol% iito , that time received several bills of exchange limn bun. % on. of them were piotested previous to the prisonex's appreq fl ou ,,ht The six guinea bill was duly paid, The prisoner h,ad ; b rj s i. from and sold goods to the prisoner in the regular waY t ok he tress. The prisoner never proposed auV tri}aaaCtio l ; l w un • considered dishonourable, • s *er e tie-examined by Mr. the other transaction in small bil:s, and they were dra wn u p on J ones a nd NePhe e wa s Broard-street. hey were d rawn b y d opes o f D u blin. h e t iCo. om• Edinburgh bill for I.!S route abillings,drawn by Vewle,f„t y , Was There was also a Sheern ess an d Q ueeos b oroug h bill, " b e nst( p a id to bim ouly tw o (lays bef o re the prisoner's app' e Edward Wright, h ea d wa i ter at the S tar I nn , Al"' ": and David Web s t er , a putter at t h e re i, way s tation in to tl chest er ehester. were called to trace a portmanteau front , ce d Liverpool- The porimanteau was seen at the Star I , l3 ; st P a l t l„n, in a coach with the prisouer, set down at the railway • u d office , taken from the euttoli by Webster, -carried into tlpe from tl*nce to the train in the )htd. The prisoner crass-examined the witness Webster a t . scil