The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

rhomps few da Martin Copeland, the individual who above case as Mr. Martin, was placed be- Police-court, charged with having fraud Miss. Crellin of a sum of money, having carriage to her, he being at the time a married on a difference respecting the terms of the nent, having threatened, unless she complied Is, to take legal proceedings against her for a li - se of marriage. Copeland is an extremely and consumptive-looking perzon with a hag rderly appearance, giving him, in connexion hue of his features, a disagreable, if not forbid n. Mr. Davenport appeared in his defence. n having read over the evidence of Miss Crellin, ated to the prisoner, ;rellin stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Da that the person at the bar was the Mr. Martin who ved from her £2.50, and whose signature was attached ,currents in possession of the court. She could not Ay how lov;g she had known him. She had left 1 for the Isle of Man on the Bth of September last, is about a month previous to that time that he had d upon her. He came to her house with MissShoane luence of a notice in the window that the house was He aft:•rwards came to see her, and continued his il she went to the Isle of Man. He did not come y : perhaps twice a week. She received him as a mes he came alone, and sometimes with a She was in the habit of receiving his she left Seymour -street. When of Man he accompanied her on board came across afterwards to see her. He had .s of marriage to her before she went. She did a any answer, but he still came to see her. She of Man on the 10th of November. On her re werpool he came to see her with a Mr. Bulkeley, ed her much to be married. She saw him every called upon her at her lodgings i❑ Norton-street. it have been lodging there a few days before he paid it. She could not tell exactly how long it was be consented to his proposals. it might be a few She did not hear he was a married man till after she pted him. She was told by a Mr. Duval whom she at Mr. Crellin's, in Finch-street. month bef ,he I e court.—That was after she had paid him the money. r, Davenport.—Mr. Duval was the first who told her married. She afterwards heard it from Dr. Dryden She had never known him under another name. ht be about a fortnight after she had been at Mr. on's office that she made the discovery. Her object to Mr. Thompson's office was to get her property , )n herself. Sh e wen t on ly once t o M r . Th om p s on s any with the prisoner. He wished half the property be settled on her ; to which she would not consent, y left. There was no deed prepared. She could not hat date this took place. She had been staying a sat Mrs. Clayton's, and left that day. From Mrs. 's she went to Mrs. Jo nes ' s . Sh e rema i ne d there a . Her next lodging was with Mrs. Chamley. She I there less than a fortnight. From Mrs. Chamley's decoyed away by Mr. Jones, with a view to meet in. She recollected having resided a short time in ne. She went there to see Martin respecting the —That was before she went to Mrs. Cham- .cen that time and the time she left Mrs. Jones. Is living in Lodge-lane more than a week. It was at -re Martin resided, who took her thither. to see Martin respecting the money. She id the lady, Mrs. Withicomb, wished her to tea. She inquired for Mr. Martin. They She had no conversation with Martin ,y that night. Of course they thought at Jeing married. She did not pay for her lodg only stayed on a visit. It was Mrs. Jones who 3er that Martin intended to refund part of the Ivo. passed pleasantlq enough at Lodge-lane. a never behaved ungenteel to her. She did not come to say anything against him. The subject of the m - was mentioned once or twice, but to no one but Martin self. He went with her to a friend's house, and left her at door. She was to go back and dine with him that day : a few minutes after she was in the house Mr. Duval se and told her he was a married man. While in Lodge e she had merely asked him once or twice if he would urn a little of the money, and he said he would. By the court.—The negotiation for the marriage had been ? ew ed , and they thought of it till Duval called to tell her artin was married. Nothing was said about it in Lodge .. keley's, whe and take together The titr. Y Mr. Davenport. —She had said nothing of the kind to of the Bulkeleys, though she slept with M rs. Withicomb, daughter, and saw all the family daily. She did not )11ect the elder Bulkeley ever telling her that Martin did wish to cultivate her acquaintance : very far from it. Lat she heard frona Duval prevented her dining with Mar and she had never seen him since. dr. Rushton remarked, that the cross-examination had is bee add n r commenitessed te tid.rely to wh at took place after t h e o ff ence I b e en any f r. Dave np raudort said, at a ny rate it did not appear that there lohn Nixon Gaskell T6holiialpson T• waewington. Is an attorney, at No. examined by the ' , ll since 1824 or 1825. first concerned for her - about twelve months ago,aHad known remembered had not acted for past. He retneher calling at his after she came from the I been keeping com a she called, but said she hitari,)f Ma u- She was , fieman for some time, and ge settlement him no up ve instructions respecting amar a4 b r°ught him him at the foot of the stairs. m ill) other said it was Martin. She said, i. N o " He k • • her pro_ h is ill go and bring him." She gave t time. He had had previous co hpn she had told him she wished le rself. She did not sa y so w ith reference ro She then brought up Martin and a per. Jones. The prisoner was the person Ir. Martin. She repeated that he had resses to her for some time past, and that ) give instructions as to the marriage set ed all the property settled on he rse lf. 't was very strange, considering they rly twelve months, that she bad never or ning ; and he thought if he set upo very fair. n her it would be h e would have it all, or she - . Martin, he be • , . i — u'oon h , r any ostler eave it to him to say what was right turnstances. He r eplied that Miss t to exercise her own jutnent, and . d g ; ~.._ tit ; he should advise her to hay( ,reseed a wish to speak to witness privately, uto the clerk's office, and spoke to him in the two clerks. He inquired what witness thought was worth : he understood about 1:50,000. id him, according to the best of his judgment, .) to £10,000: certainly less than £15,000. Mar os not worth his while being troubled about it, immediately returned to the other office. The conversa was then resumed. Martin refused to settle more than half. Miss Crellin then said, " Come along, Mrs. Jones, is go to the other place." And they all three left toge .. He had never seen Miss Crellin since. Mr. Davenport He had never seen Martin before in e Mr. Rushton then read Dr. Dryden's evidence. After he prisoner was remanded until Friday, then to be ith the rest. AD EDITION. Standard-office, Three o'clock )L CORN EXCHANGE,—Mts DAY lAKI.N SONS' Circular.) `lave scarcely any arrivals or from Ireland, to oastwis , and of foreign pro- Wheat from Barletta 3n of Oats and Rye, each raised to the duties remain precisely the same as 3e probability of the New Corn Bill being further delay or interruption, the millers seem determined to wait the effects to be result of that important measure, before iled upon to enter into any fresh engage asive character. The trade for all descrip tt has consequently relapsed into its former dulness ; and at our Corn Exchange this few very trilling sales to necessitous buyers 2d. per 70Ibs. from the rates of Tuesday ond, since our last report, comprise Wheat, at 6s. 9d., 600 qrs. of Egyp- id a ca O of White Tus-can h has not transpired her with States and Canadian ruled with a more difficult sale, rn lower, AR he sth to the 7 tIVALS OF CORN, 1842, inclusive COAST- .CANADAi PO-' TOTA L WISE. V.STS. ANION. lrn, Ireland and Coastwise :—Wheat, qrs. ; Oats ar, sacks - qrs. ; Barley, qrs.; Malt, 25 qrs. ; Indian Corn, qrs. ; Oat - sacks, 87 brls.--Ireland. Wheat, 322 , Indian Corn, qrs. ; Oatmeal, 257 Ids. ; —Coastwise. Wheat, 70 qrs. ; Barley, 2' qr. ; Oats, 6 qrs. ; Beans, 2 qrs. ; Rye, 46 qrs. ; Indian Corn, qrs. ; Oatmeal, ks 279 barrels. Foreign. Wheat , es of Grain, for the week ending April 1, 1842. , i Barley 265. 2d. Oats.. 17s. 11d. I Rye.. 325. 11 d , . _ Beans.. 30s. Od. 1 Pease.. - 30 s. Oct Aggregate average of the six weeks. d. Barley 276. 4d. I Oats,„.lBs.lod. Rye.. 335. gd Beans.. od. Pease.. 32a. 2d. on Foreign Grain, &c . this week. 4d. 1 Oats .. . Igs. gd. Rye.. 19s. 9d d. Ind. Corn Os. od. Flouritislid Ditto from British Colonies out of Europe. uley.. 2s. 6d. Oats ..2s. Od. I Rye.... 39. Od s. I Indian Corn.. Os. Od. I Flour.. 3s. Od. erpool Averages, week ending April 1, 1842. Wheat. I Barley. I Oats. Beans. I Pease. 301 4 . Bd. Os. od. Os. Od 819 Ds. ed. 2 COTTON MARKET.—Tits DAY. tendance of buyers to-day. Fully 4,000 bales sold of the week are 25,760 bales, 3,000 American ion, and 1,800 for export. HIPPING INTELLIGENCE —Wind S. FRIDAY, APRIL 8 ula, Martin, for Calcutta—Brunette, Thompson, [art, Douglas, for M ontreal—Dit on, Ballaine, for onfederacion, Oyangeiren. for Valparaiso—Sharon, iester, Woodhouse ; and England, Bartlett, for New Brown, and Samuel, Press, for Rotterdam—Leader, ,sins—Ann, Neile. and Sirocco, for Stettin— Rusco for Constantinople—Paragon, Wilkinson, for ig, Ritchie, for St. Petersburgh. from Gla 1 Dock at this port, to take passengers to icane at Algiers and other places along the coast of tnd it is reported that is vessels went on shore at Arzew, and 2 at Algiers THE ABDUCTION CASE ENSION OF 4NO THER PRISONER SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. CROWN . COU'RT.--TriEsnAY Baron Parke took his seat at nine o'clock. SENTENCE ON HOWARTH. Edmund Howarth, who pleaded guilty, on Wednesday last, of forgery, was placed at the bar. He was sentenced to ten years' transportation. He fell insensible into the arms of the turnkeys on hearing his sentence. BURGLARY, &C.-SHOOTING WITH ATTEMPT TO MURDER, &C Edmund Hardman, aged 29, was charged with having, at Lower Stack, in Spotland, feloniously and burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of James and John Rothwell, and stolen therefrom two silver watches, one comb, and seven shillings ; and with having feloniously fired a pistol at the said James Rothwell, with intent to murder him. Dr. Brown and Mr. Brandt prosecuted. Dr. BROWN laid the case very lucidly before the jury, stating in the outset the law of the case. The offence was one of those the punishment of which had been mitigated, the crime being still capital. James Roth well sworn. I live with my brother, John Rothwcll, at Lower Stack, in the parish of . Rochdale. We are farmers, and joint occupiers of the house and farm. No other person lives in the house. We are both bachelors. There is no house occupied near. On Monday night, the 20th December, we went to bed about ten o'clock. We slept on the ground floor. The doors and windows were fastened. They are lead windows, and do not open. In the course of the night I was alarmed by the dog ; it was about two o'clock. At a window I saw a man stepping back off a bench outside the window. I saw the man plainly, and two others standing a little back. I had a pitchfork in my hand, and I made a push at the man with it. I kept the fork at the cor ner of the fire-place for protection. I heard a pistol fired, and I felt the contents touch me. (Witness here placed his hand on his right breast where he said the contents touched him.) I felt it smart. More shots were fired immediately. There were four or five shots, I believe : they were as quick as could be one after another. After they had stopped a bit before the window they went round to the back of the house. I heard the window there broken, and then they come back again to the front. I saw three of them there. They broke another window, and then I heard them try to break open the door. Previously to this they had fired two more shots through the window. They did not force the door open. When I found they could not succeed in breaking the door, I asked them what they wanted. There is a porch to the house, and this was the outer door. They replied, "We want your money, and your money will have or else your life." More than one spoke. I said we had no money or nothing of any conse quence. They said they knew better, we had plenty of money. I said we had not ; we had only a few shillings ; I could not tell trow much : they should have it if they would spare our lives. One of them said, " Put it out of the win dow." I asked my brother to bring it. My brother brought either 6s. 6d. or is. 6d. in silver, and I gave it to one of the men, not the oile who fired. There were three together. One of them asked where the half-sovereign was. It was the man to whom I gave the silver. I said we had neither a half-sovereign nor a sovereign in the housa. One of them said, " Let's be off.;' Him that shot at me said. "No ; there's money ; I know there's money, and I'll go in." I said, there's none but what I have given you, but a few pen nyworths of copper, and you may have that. He said, "No; I'll come in." I said, " I'll open you the door, and unlock everything in the house, and you shall look for yourself." He said, " I'll come in here," and he climbed through the window and demanded a light. A light was given to him by my brother. He had pistols, I thought, then in his hands. I had then an opportunity of noticing him. I had never seen him before, but I can tell now who he was. It was the prisoner. I have no doubt of it. He was the man who shot at me. He ordered me and my brother up stairs. There is a door at the bottom of the stairs. The prisoner shut it. After we were up stairs we heard a noise of furniture and pots breaking. The noise continued nearly twenty minutes. I could not tell by the noise whether there were more than one man. The prisoner at length came up stairs. He bad a pistol and a light. He came in front of me, and presented his pistol near to my belly. He said we had money, and had been hiding it; and "if you don't find it," said he, "I'll blow into you." My brother was close to me. I was par tially dressed. He unbuttoned my coat, and felt outside my poekets. He next went to a chest and opened it, and took clothes out and shook them, and threw them on the floor. He looked round the room. He went to some sacks of pro vender, and put his hands in. He then went down stairs. He held the light in his hand all the time he was in the room. I saw him well, and am sure he is the man. He went and remained down stairs about ten minutes. We heard a din, and at the end of the ten minutes he opened the stairs door, and said, " you may come down now, we're going." We went down in a few minutes. The men were gone, and the house door was open. The house had been ransacked. The desk was open, the drawers out, and everything strewed about the floor. We missed two watches, one of mine, and one of my brother's, which bad been in the desk drawer. I had seen the watches the Sunday but one before. We missed a comb out of the drawer of a salt-box, and a few pence in copper. I cannot say when we had seen the comb, for we were not in the habit of combing our hair more than about once a week. (Laughter.) We had had the comb three or four years. I found tbree billets in the house ; two were flattened. There was a red spot on my side. Sylvester Farrady, a police-officer, produced the shirt which the last witness wore. There was a hole like a bullet hole in the shirt at the side indicated by the witness. The brother of James Bothwell then corroborated his evi dence; and a constable produced two watches, pawned at Bolton, and identified as those in the prisoner's possession when he offered them for sale to a beerhouse-keeper in Bol ton. When he was taken he had two pistols in his possession, a small comb, and a box of gunpowder. The balls found in the house of the prosecutor fitted these pistols. The prisoner was found guilty, but his lordship deferred the sentence. THE ST. HELEN ' S MURDER Robert Woods, 21, Isaac Jacques, 25, and Thomas Moly neux, 28, were indicted for the wilful murder of Henry Gray son, at Windle, near St. Helen's. They pleaded not guilty. We gave the facts of this extraordinary case so fully at the time, that it is unnecessary now again to detail them. We will merely give in brief what took place before the court. Dr. Brown and Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. Dr. Brown, in the course of his opening, stated, that without the evidence of a man, who was his principal witness, he had no case. This man had not presented himself to give evidence till fourteen days after the parties now on trial were in custody, and not until a reward of £250 had been offered for the discovery of the mur derer. It appeared that he had also asked a party, when the bill offering the reward was read, if the actual murderer would he pardoned, and had stated that he had something weighing heavy on his mind. He (Dr. Brown) then de tailed the circumstances of the case, and the nature of the evidence which he would have to present. After a few witnesses had been called to testify to the finding of the body, and its condition, the party above alluded to was placed in the witness box. His testimony, both on his examination in chief, and in cross-examination, was so much at variance with that given before the magistrates, and he was so flatly con tradicted by other witnesses, that the case was stopped, and, under the direction of his lordship, a verdict of acquittal was taken. The prisoners were discharged in the course of the day MANSLAUGHTER BY A MIDWIFE. Maria Henry, 73. stood indicted for having killed and slain one Margaret Carter. We also reported the circumstances of this case as detailed at the coroner's inquest. They will be found in the Standard of the 18th ultimo. The prisoner was acquitted. FORGERY Robert Wood Richardson, 45; formerly an attorney, was charged with having forged a receipt with the intent to defraud John Hope. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins de fended. Mrs. Hope, having been sued through the district court, gave the prisoner the amount of the debt and costs. He returned her a receipt for the amount, which it afterwards turned out had not been paid. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His lordship sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and bard labour. NISI PRIUS.-TUESDAY. DAVIDSON, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. BOWER Mr. KNOWLES (with whom were Mr. Crompton and Mr. Martin) stated the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff was the registered public officer of the Commercial Bank, at Man chster ; and the defendant, Mr. Alexander Bower, was formerly one of the directors of that bank. The action was brought to recover about £5,000, alleged to be due from the defendant on his banking account. The action was brought by the body of shareholders against Mr. Bower, who, for a long time, was one of their directors, to r ecover that of which he had: long ago had the use and advantage ; and the claim, he supposed was to be resisted by Mr. Bower, upon some purely technical ground. The bank was established in 1834, by Mr. Joseph Macardy Mr. Bower was an exceedingly active man in its projec tion; he was one of a provisional committee of five, formed before the bank was completed. In a little time, a number of shares were taken up ; a deed of settlement was prepared ; and then the provisional committee-men were, with a little exception, made directors. They were, Thomas Ashton, Alexander Bower, Thomas Palin, Thomas Slater, and Ralph Turner. The sixth rule in the deed of settlement provided, that the bank should be under the control of a general board of directors ; the seventh provided, that, till such general board was constituted, the various business and concerns of the company should be under the entire management of a board, to be called the Manchester directors, who should also have the management and control of the stock fund and revenue of the company. The five persons just named were the Manchester directors. It was one of the necessary quali fications of a director that he should take 200 shares, and ac cordingly every one subscribed to that amount. The business commenced ; it soon became a flourishing concern ; branches were established in different towns ; local directors were ap pointed, and everything seemed to promise a lucrative busi ness. There was one part of the business of a director in which they soon did some business. Having the power, they very soon began to borrow money ; although, with a modesty hardly consistent with their other conduct, they made no boast of it, but kept it as quiet as they could. The 200 shares were paid for by Mr. Bower on the 27th September. When the provisional committee were first appointed, they reserved for distribution among themselves and their friends, 13,000 shares, of which he (Mr. Knowles) should not have complained, had these been taken up and paid for. The pro visional committee reserved 13,000 shares for themselves and their friends. The first deed of settlement appropriated these shares, and the executive directors proceeded to appro priate the shares; and the document was signed by Mr. Bower himself, showing that he took a part in the transaction. The document was entitled— " Shares appropriated upon the cash credit, at the forma tion of the Commercial Bank of England.—Alexander Bower, 1,500 ; Thomas Ashton, 1,500 ; Thomas Slater, 1,500 ; Tho mas Palin, 1,500 ; Ralph Turner, 1,500 [so that , obser ved the plaintiff' s counsel, each member of the Manchester board got 1,500 shares] ; Joseph Macardy (who was the ori ginal projector of the bank), 2,000 shares. Interest upon above to be charted at the rate of 31 per cent. from the 12th February, 1835.—Ralph Turner, Chester, 600 shares ; Anthonyp:. n from the id June, 1835 ce. iN7 ar d (Signed) 800; Isaac Holmes Liverpool, 800 - ; Richard Heywood, Burslem, This account did no n t t a " pp A e L r E a X t in 100. To pay interest at 4 R. tthe BOWER, books of f a i r t mh the n . bank, not till a dividend wasryofit except this document. It was nor was there any e occurred to the parties to declared, in February, 1836, that it accounts. A dividend wa enter the cash credits in the gene rals then declared of 8 per cent. on the paid-up capital for the preceding year, and it w as there fore necessary for parties holding shares on cash cre di ts t o have credit them ofentered rB i n n w the e nf books. GB 3s 'The first was an entry to the d tlis shares were at he t a h c e a m s h a s creditpnid -up capital,rcent. d; therefore e a f s n to re receive 8 pe r cen t. on would be a c l ear cent. ui The gainer of the difference between 31 and 8 per in terest on 1500 shares to that time was 9 31 dividend on £ 7500 wa s £ 600 ; and the betweendifferen a c . e 6L "lis t h es e sums amounted to £ 368 B s. 6d. ; and accordingly, in his pass-book, if he produced it , would be found, under date of the 3 d M arch, an entry, " Credit by cash fro m pro fi t and 75 c o e o nt i , from the 31st Decem ber, 1835, .loss, £36 8 B s. fi d." In the stock ledger Mr. Bower was de bited a J s u i n la e r , e l , shares,B£367s,.wiltnhtlesreoOst,at3 per depo sitbiteodn, or h i ditto,t i £ll6 10s. Id. ; and on the other side he was credited with the full value of those shares, £7691 10s. ld. This stock ledger was a private book, to which the public s h a reholders had -no access; but, after the entry of these sharps in the books, they were always treated as paid up capital; they were sold like any other shares ; and the drawers always received a dividend upon them, and treated Ahem .as so much paid-up capital, in ahares. The learned counsel then piocAded to detail the proceedings of various yearly and half•ytiarly meetings of the banking company, when dividends were declared, at all of w hi c h th e defendant presided as chairman of the board of directors. The first general meeting was held on the 3d of February. 1836, the defendant in the chair, and a report was read, which treated of " the grand characteristic of this bank as being its total rejection of nominal capital." The defendant had to con tend in the face of perhaps a hundred such admissions (for the report was signed by himself), that be never was really the proprietor of those shares ; that they were unpaid capital, and that he had nothing at all to do with them. Yet this was the way he spoke of theinin - hi; report at that meet ing. He recommended that there should be a dividend of 8 per cent. on the paid-t p capital : that dividend was de clared ; and the difference between 31 and 8 per cent. was carried to the defendant's credit, and would appear in his pass-book. At this meeting a - piece of plate, value £lOO, was voted to each of the Manchester directors ; and a piece of plate, value £5O, to Mr. Grugeon, the manager. The learned gentleman then noticed various other meetinzs in the same manner; the defendant presiding, reports with his name at the foot recommending dividends, the declaration of dividends and the difference between 31 per cent, and the per centage of such dividends in each case being carried to Mr: Bower's credit, on the 1500 shares till he sold or transferred 500 of them to Mr. Ashton, and subsequently on the re mainder. At these meetings the paid-up capital on which prated perjury to several of the witnesses for the koseetttion. He called several witnesses who disproved several state ments given in evidence against the prisoners. The learned JUDGE said, the question for the jury to con sider was, whether the defendants or either of them was guilty of aiding and inciting the riot, or of being present at its com mission. The case against Mason had been abandoned, from the contradictory nature of the evidence as to his hav ing taken part in the riot, and the balance of evidence on that point was in favour also of Ousey, it believed the jury ; but in fact the counsel for the prosecution had so little reli ance upon it for the support of this part of the charge that they had laid but little stress upon it. He certainly had also used very great exertion to remove the men from the town on the day of polling, but if the jury should be of opinion that he was a party to induce them to enter the town on the day of nomination, with a view to the destruction of the po lice-office, the Town-hall, oa Taylor's house, and not merely to secure fair play at the election, or to make a show at the nomination, he might be convicted. His lordshp went care fully through the evidence, summing up strongly in favour of the defendants. The jury, after a few minutes consultation, acquitted the defendants. The JUDGE remarked that the conduct of some of the wit nesses had been most scandalous. In another case of the same description, the Queen v. Mel lor, the prosecution wss abandoned. there dividends were declared was about £200,000. On the 27th December, 1832, there was a transfer in the books of the bank, of the money supposed to represent these shares ; a fresh account was opened called the share account, and the general account was diminished by the amount of the share ac count. At the t;me when that occurred, the affairs of the bank had begun to decline, although up to that time the directors had gone on declaring large dividends, and always took care to pass the dividend to their own account ; while in reality the bank was in such a condition th at there ought to have been no dividend at all. There awn arose reports and whispers out of doors, that the directors were themselves largely indebted to the bank. At the meeting in 1838, Mr. Hebblethwite, one of the Liverpool directors, suggested that before a dividend was declared, they had better examine into the affairs of the bank, and see whether they were in a con dition to make a dividend ; b u t Mr. - .Bower magnificently said he was not there as a clerk to examine the accounts : they must presume that the accounts were correct, and the suggestion was overruled. But when the shareholders were not satisfied that the defendant and his brother directors owed nothing to the bank, Mr. Hebblethwite asked Mr. Bower if he owed the bank anything ; and the defendant re plied " I assure you, upon my word, I don't owe the bank Is.: on the contrary, I assure yon I have a large balance in my favour." At that very time he made that declaration, the defendant had daawn many thousand pounds out of the bank. At the next general meeting it was resolved, that an account should be submitted to the shareholders, in order to show the balance which each party was then owing to the bank ; and the transfer of Mr. Bower's share account from this general account was made by Mr. Bower himself, in order to prepare for the important day, when the real state of his account must be submitted to the board. When he made the disclaimer to Mr. Hebblethwite, he was indebted to the bank about £14,000 ; and it was therefore necessary for him, before the meeting on the Ist January, 1840, to re duce that balance as much as possible. By the 26th of De cember, 1839, he had contrived to reduce the account to £8793 ; and on that day, by the transfer from the general account of the sum which was supposed to represent the value of the shares, he succeeded in further reducing the ac count to £4163, that was supposing nobody found that he had a separate account. The following day a dishonored promissory note of his swelled his account to £8,172. Then Mr. Bower paid into the bank, not cash, but two promissory notes of his own, each drawn for £4,000, and at twelve months ; the bank discounted them ; the proceeds were put to his credit ; and then apparently in the account current his large account was reduced to £439 ; and then he thought himself in a fit condi tion to meet the proprietors. At this time he actually owed the bank £17,800. Though for a time the proprietors were blinded, yet the state of the accounts was such as to surprise the gentlemen to whom the account current was submitted. The system of suppression could not long prevail, and it be came apparent what the real state of the account was between the defendant and the bank. There was but one general half yearly meeting after this, at which Mr. Bower again presided ; a dividend was again declared as on th e p a id- u p ca pit a l, an d every one of the defendant's shares was still regarded as ca pital paid up • £125 being carried to his c r edit, an d £25 u p o n his own 200 shares which he had purchased. At length Mr. Bower found himself in a very unpleasant position as a di rector of the bank ; and he quitted the direction of the board in May, 1840. The bank, which, but for its directors, might have had a lucrative business, struggled on in difficulty till June, 1840, when it stopped for a short time, but afterwards resumed, and was now carrying on business for the purpose of winding up its concerns. Of course the shareholders called upon every one indebted to the bank to pay ; and amongst the first they called on the defendant, who at first never pretended that be did not owe the sum claimed. He need not tell the jury that in payments made to a bank, un less made with a specific appropriation, or directed to be car ried to a specific account, they would go to pay off the earlier items of the debt : therefore, the money of which the de fendant availed himself on his cash credit, had been paid long ago ; and the sum now sought was for the remainder due to the bank, after the payments of the defendant to the early debits. This sum now claimed amounted to £4,700 or £4,800, and, with interest, would amount altogether to about £5,000. It was not till the bank stopped that the defendant began to say that he was not liable for any shares, and that he had paid the bank every thing except a small sum. The question , then, was in fact, whether Mr. Bower should be taken out of the general rule, and not be compelled to pay the balance of his account, which had been acknowledged over and over again, because it appeared in his pass-book, kept under his own eye ; and he never made any objection to it. The money re presenting the shares had been paid over and over again, and what was sought comprised the later items in the account. When the transfer of the share account took place, Mr. Bower, at his own request, was furnished with two pass books, in one of which were entered the share transactiot s, and in the other his ordinary account; but that would not avail Mr. Bower, because that was done under his own di rection, and for his own purposes ; and it really made no difference in Mr. Bower's transactions with the bank. Mr. Knowles said, he must mention Mr. Slater as an honourable exception to the other directors for he had paid for his shares in cash, and held them to this day. It might be ex pected that he (Mr. Knowles) should make some strong ob servations on the conduct of the defendant and his brother directors ; but he should not do so ; for no observations he could make would reach the feelings of Mr. Bower, who ap peared determined to take advantage of some little point of law that might turn up in his favour, rather than forego the shameful disclosure of the proceedings which had taken , place in this bank; and he trusted the jury would give a verdict against the defendant for every shilling to which he was fairly liable. Documentary and parole evidence was then gone into, as to the various meetings, dividends declared, and the entries in the ledgers of the bank and the defendant's pass-book. It appeared that the pass-book from the commencement to May, 1839, called the old pass-book, was in New Zealand ; and a copy of it was put in. The new pass-book was filled, and carried into a third book ; and besides these there was a pass-book or transfer-book, relating to the shares. The two promissory notes of £4,000 each were also put in and read. The balance due on the Ist of January, 1842, on the share account, was £5,125 16s. 11d. ; the balance due to the bank, on the cash account, on the Ist of January, 1841, was £5 4s. Bd. ; and since then several payments had been made to the defendant's credit. Mr. Hebblethwite proved what had passed at some of the meetings of the board and the proprietors at large, and the conversations as to the profits of the bank, and its condition to pay a dividend. Mr. Bower had declared on one occa sion, that the profits of the bank were 10+ per cent per an num. The liabilities of the bank, when it stopped, were a million and a half. Mr. DUNDAS.-011, that's nothing at Manchester. Cross-examined.—The bank proved against witness's estate for £14,000 ; and when he said his mind was easy, he owed the bank about a third of that amount. He supposed the bank felt easy about him. Witness was the plaintiff in the cause of Hebblethwite v. M`Moreen, of which much had been heard in Westminster Hall, touching a sale of " Brigh tons" by the plaintiff to the defendant, in blank, in which action witness was unsuccessful. Mr. DUNDAS (with whom were Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Watson) then addressed the jury for the defendant. There were two accounts, a cash and a share account; this action would only lie for the former, and with the latter, he con tended, the jury had nothing now to do. The defendant had paid every farthing of the cash account ; and the share 'ac count must come before another court. Every payment since the bank stopped had always been placed to the cash account, on which there was only a balance of £5. 4s. Bd., and the defendant bad paid £lO into court to cover that. The divi sion of accounts had been mentioned and sustained by both parties, from December, 1339, to the stoppage of the bank ; and, since then, every payment by the defendant went in liquidation of the cash debits. Not the defendant, but the bank dealt thus, because it enabled them to divide the debits due to the bank on any day in the week. With respect to The shares, he submitted to his lordship, that no action could be brought, as it was not such a demand (under the Ist and 2d Victoria, cap. 96) as an action would lie for under that statute. Was this a demand within the act? He submitted that it was in the nature of a contribution to the general stock, and not in that of a demand. There was a count for shares bargained and sold ; but, he submitted, an action would not lie as for goods bargained and sold. There might be a remedy in equity : he might go into equity, and get his remedy there if he could. His LORDSHIP said, the else had been very fairly stated by the learned counsel for the defendant, and agreed that, if the banking account had been fairly discharged, the de fendant was entitled to their verdict. But it appeared to him the clearest case ever submitted to a jury. The defen dant had regularly been credited with the dividends, and the accounts were not separated; for the defendant bad actually borrowed money, and placed the dividends to his credit. As to the points taken by the defendant's counsel, that this did not constitute a demand under the statute, and that an action would not lie in this case for goods bargained and sold, his lordship overruled them ; and, having recapitulated the prin cipal evidence, left it to the jury to say whether the defendant was or was not liable to the bank for the amount claimed. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £5,160 16s. DAVIDSON, PUBLIC OFFICER, v. ASHTON AND OTHERS. In this case it was stated that the facts were wholly similar, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent. The court then rose, about a quarter before seven o'clock. CROWN COURT. —WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr. Baron PARKE.) SENTENCES. On the opening of the court the JUDGE sentenced Edmund Hardman, convicted on the previous day of burglary and shooting with intent to kill, to transportation for life. Allen and Kennier, convicted of poaching, were sentenced to ten months imprisonment and hard labour. THE ASHTON ELECTION RIOTS. John Ousey and Henry Mason were indicted for a riot at Ashton, on the 30th of June and Ist of July last. Dr. Brown and Dr. Brandt was for the prosecution. Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Green for the defence. Dr. BROWN stated that the prosecution arose out of some riots which occurred at the late election. An armed mob assembled in the market-place on the day of nomination, and made an attack upon the police, some of whom were so seri ously injured that their lives were for some time in danger. The military were afterwards called out, and one of the rioters, who appeared to be navigators, was taken into cus tody, but subsequently released through fear of the mob. The defendant Ousey was observed to be very active in the crowd, and apyarently acted as de leader. On the d ay o f poll ingot Was renewed, Ousey s party having b een de fea h te t d. e The police-office was then forced open. Ouse would be shown to have treated the parties engaged in the riot, and directed their operations, but the evidence was not so strong against Mason as against him, though he would be proved to have been there and to have taken an active part in the affray. t Abraham he na market e l l:: . river, l v a e c r e , S a n t pAersihnttoenn,daount the eC3o(u)tnhtyofP June, h n a t to force of fifty men. Found a grea t number of navigators there, armed with bludgeons. They were not voters, and did rbriorootikibeeeel.toohnffie w g e to ein t d h ,..o rewhes m town. H e re monstrated with them, but they att ac k e d his men, who resisted, were in j ured, and at last a e no driven off t h e ground and compelled to t ake refu g e in the d b r i threatened.odtoeor doors sw as Thet taken k t to n militarym i n u t r o de cruts havinght oedmy , , a a nil beenand called out, one of th subsequently rel eased through fear of the mo b . d A number of witnesses were then examined, who gave full particulars of the riots and identiged the prisoners as con cerned in them, though the evidence was very contradictory. ' Mr. GREEN addressed the fury for the defence, and im- ALLEGED FELONY Giles Bradley and Jehn Smith, late of Winwick, two re spectable-looking men, were indicted for stealing a number of railway chairs, and a quantity of other iron, -stone, blocks, and wood-sleepers, the property of the North Union Railway Company. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Cardwell were for the prosecution ; and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. James for the prisoners. The case was only interesting to the parties concerned. Smith had been a contractor to the company, and Bradley was his servant. The charge arose out of the appropriat;on by the former of some chairs and other materials to which he had no claim, but which the company contended was their property. The prisoners who had been out on bail, were ac quitted, and Bradley was tried on a second indictment. Mr. MURPHY,WhO was for the defence, considered it un necessary to address the jury, as he thought they must be convinced from the nature of the evidence which had been produced on the part of the prosecution, that there was no case against the prisoner. Ile was accordingly discharged. The court rose at half-past six. NISI PRIUS.—WgDNESDAY (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) FUCKLEY AND ANOTHER V. LACY This was an action brought by Thomas Buckley and Tho mas Jones against Henry Charles Lacy, for the recovery of the amount of goods sold and delivered, and for work and labour done, and an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted beyond the sum of £l6 17s. 6d., and he also pleaded a set-off. • The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin for the defendant. The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. He said the plaintiffs were the trustees of a gentleman, who carried on the business of an iron -founder, at Bccleston, near St. He len's, and the action was brought to recover the value of cer tain materials and work done by them for a plate-glass corn pany, of which the defendant was one of the directors. Originally the action had been brought to recover the whole of the amount of various articles furnished, but the dispute on the present occasion would be confined to one item — namely, whether a certain roller, which had been made by the plaintiffs for the company, was made according to order, delivered and accepted, and whether, if not made according to order, the parties were liable. It was well known that until lately the manufacture of plate-glass had been con fined to one company in this country—that it was made a se cret of—that it was only of late years other companies had risen up, and, accordingly, that few of those establishments would be acquainted with the mode in which plate-glass was manufactured. It appeared that in the year 1840, the present company were anxious to manufacture a particular kind of glass, a sort of ribbed glass, which might be seen in the doors and windows of offices, the effect of which was, that it was impervious to the sight, although pervious to the light. This was made in a peculiar way, sometimes by passing a grooved roller over the glass metal in its heated state. The plaintiffs, being ironfounders, were unacquainted with the best mode, of manufacturing such a sort of glass, and the mode by which it was done, but the order was given by the glass company through a gentleman named West, who had formerly been employed in a plate glass establishment, and who was at that time in the service of the company. Mr. West, without taking the precaution of sending specific orders in writing, addressed a verbal message to the plaintiffs, desiring them to make a fluted roller of certain dimensions ; and he furnished the messenger with a piece of glass; to represent the plan, and this was given at the time to the person by whom the order was received. The plaintiffs were, therefore, left to make a fluted roller, seven feet in length, without any further directions ; and they accordingly made a roller, which was delivered to the parties. Had the company wished to have it grooved instead of fluted, the natural course for them to pursue would be to have said so at once ; but, instead of this, they put it into their machinery, tried it, and finding that it did not answer their purpose, then it was, and not till then, that they communicated to the plaintiffs that the roller was not what they wished it to be. After the examination of several witnesses on the part of the plaintiffs, Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendant. He said they had two questions to decide—first, whether the ar ticle supplied was an article for which the plaintiffs ought to be paid at all, and secondly, whether, supposing it was, the company had ever accepted it. The objection to the roller was, that the plates were so uneven as to render it utterly worthless, and that it was found to be of uneven thickness. He contended that when an order had been given to a manu facturer it was the duty of the latter to supply an article fit for the purposes for which it was intended, and that, if he did not so, he had no right to expect pa yment ; and he stated th a t such had been the case in the present instance. He con cluded by calling witnesses to show that the roller was not made in such a way as to render it of any service to the com p anY• The jury found for the plaintiffs for £47 damages, and 6d. costs. WARD V. NORTH UNION itAIFW.AY COMPANY. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff, for £lOO damages and 40s. costs. DUMBELL V. Verdict for plaintiff, by consent, for £220. • BAILEY AND OTHERS V. oLurtELD. Verdict for plaintiffs, £23. The action was undefended. WAVELL V. APPLEYARD AND OTHERS. Verdict for plaintiff for £5O. This action also was unde fended. BLACKBURN V. TURNER• This was an action brought by Edwin Blackburn against Thomas Turner, for the recovery of the amount of goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. The plaintiff was a wine-merchant, living in London, and the defendant was an innkeeper at Woolton, near Liverpool ; and the ac tion was brought for the recovery of a sum of £4O for wine sold to him. The wine, the subject of the action, had been originally sold to a Mr. Davies, the brother-in-law of the defendant. 1 This took place in the early part of the year 1839, the wine consisting of two quarter-casks, one of port, the of sherry. Davis kept them for some time, but not being able to pay fot them, he made application to the brother of the plaintiff, and expressed his wish that the plaintiff should take them back. The brother of the plain tiff mentioned the matter to the plaintiff himself, who agreed to take them, and accordingly they were removed from the house of Davies to that of the defendant, who had become in possession of them. The wine was removed in the year 1840, and, in the following April, the plaintiff called on the defendant, when the latter agreed to the purchase, and when it was arranged that' the price should only amount to £4O. The defendant, notwithstanding the terms then made, pleaded now that Davies and not himself was the party liable for the amount. After the examination of witnesses, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. CREACH V. FOSTER Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a referenc RITSON V. TUNSTALL Verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference DAVIS AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, V. BAILEY This action was withdrawn. BRUNSKILL V. WOODS, ADMINISTRATRIX. This was an action brought by James Brunskill against Alice Woods, the widow and adminlstratr ix of Joseph Woods who was indebted to the plaintiff for work and labour done, arid an account stated. The defendant pleaded that her husband had never been indebted, and then that she had fully administered in the goods and chattels left by him. The Hon. Mr. ,Wortley and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Segar for the defendant. The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. He appeared for the plaintiff, who was a painter and plumber, living at St. Helen's, who had brought the action against Alice Woods, the widow and administratrix of Joseph Woods, for the re covery of the amount of an account tor !painting, plumbing, and glaizing done to some tottages which the late Mr. Woods hus been engaged in building. Mr. moods had been a collier -Pi and having made some money, entered on the speculation of building seven cottages, and contracted with several trades men to exeeute the work. He made a contract with Mr. Fawber, among others, for the stone masonry and brickwork, and Mr. Fawber employed a man of the name of Banks to do the joiner's work ; but the plaintiff had been employed by Mr. Woods to do the plumbing, painting and glazing. That work was executed, and the only difficulty that arose in the case was occaioned by the practice of the trade, work of the kind having varied at different seasons. The workmen of Mr. Fawber and Mr. Banks would be calleddwho would prove that they were present when Woods contracted with the plaintiff, and that they were also present when the plain tiff applied for payment of the .account. What the defence would be, he (the learned counsel was not) aware, but it had been suggested to him that the defendant meant to show that the plaintiff had a right to look to Fawber for payment. Such an attempt would however, fail, as the contract had been made, not by Fawber, but by Woods. Witnesses for the plaintiff having been examined. Mr. BAINES addressed the jury for the defendant, con tending that Woods had agreed with Fawber to erect the whole of the cottages and to complete them for £450, and that it was, therefore, against Fawber that the action ought to have been brought. After the examination of witnesses, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £29 12s. 9d. LEA V. FAIRCLOUGH. As the jury were about to retire for the purpose of con sidering their verdict in the last case, Mr. DUNDAS asked if his Lordship would allow a verdict to be taken by consent in a special jury case. The CLERK of the COURT was of opinion, that a verdict in the case could only be returned by the special jury summoned to try the case. His LORDSHIP, however, directed the jury to be sworn. Mr. DUNDAS then said, that in this case, which was an action for breach of promise of marriage brought by Miss Lea, of Northwich, against Mr. Fairclough, of this town, an arrangement had been made, to which he desired and was authorised to give as much effect as possible. He had a let ter under the hand of the defendant, in which he stated une quivocally and sincerely, that he bad not at any time said anything to affect the character of Miss Lea. The defend antl further stated in his letter that he had been to blame in his conduct, and he expressed his regret that his youth and impetuosity should have led him into such an error. This was so far satisfactory, he (Mr. Dundas) had to express his hope that the young lady would feel satisfied. The Hon. Mr. WORTLEY, counsel for the plaintiff, said her only object in bringing the action was to protect herself from having any reflections cast upon her, and to show that she had not been to blame in the matter. She was now willing to express her regret at all that had passed, the de fendant having made the apology which she required. Her . object bringing the action had not been damages, and she now retired trom the court, satified at what had taken place, and willing to take a ver di c t by consent and damages for 40s: The court adjourned at half-past six. CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY. Mr. Justice PARK took his seat on the bench at 9 o'clock, and the criminal cases having been previously disposed of, proceeded to the trial of civil causes. SMITH V. JONES. This was an act i on b rought b y t h e plaintiff, George Smith, a leather-dealer in this town to recover the sum of X 4 17s 3d, for leather so ld to the plaintiff, Wm. Jones, leather -cutter, of Carnarvon. It was proved that the goods were sent to Jcnes by the brig Mars, on the 7th February, 1840, and were delivered to him. The case 'was undefended, - and the jury, under the direction of his lordship', gave g verdici to the plaintiff to the full amount stated, with costs. MAWDSLEY V JOHNSON The plaintiff is a plumber, glazier, and at the time also an ironmonger, in Southport, and sought to recover from the defendant, a bookseller there, the sum of £7 10s. 6d., being the balance of an account originally of £36 10s. 6d., for a new shop window, in Southport, certain articles of hardware, tin, glazing, painting, &c. &c. Two witnesses, sons of the plaintiff, spoke to the items in the bill—many of them amounting to only a few coppers. Mr. Martin and another appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr. Oatson for the defendant, who is a bookseller in South port.' The principal question. that arose was the quantity of glass supplied, and the price, and on this point there were some discrepancies it the evidence. The defendant had paid £9 into court. The weight of the lead was also disputed. After a tedious and uninteresting trial, which occupied the court about five hours, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,—debt £l5 I Is. 7d., reduced by the £9 paid into court to £6 Ils. 7d..—items to the amount of £1 ss. 11d. being taken off. BATES V. O'CONNOR This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Bates, of the firm of Bates, Son, and Co., merchants, in this town, to recover from the plaintiff, Mr. J. W. O'Connor. a wine merchant, residing in Duke-street, the sum of £2O Os. 7d. It appeared that the defendant had, on several occasions within the last few years, consigned certain quantities of wine to the plaintiff, to sell in Calcutta and Bombay, and on which he had, from time to time, received considerable sums of money in advance. The plaintiff had also consider able dealings with Messrs. Parkin and Co., glass and bottle manufacturers, of St. Helen's, who also did business with the defendant, to whom they had become indebted by over dravting in the sum of £49 15s. 3d. In order to a settle ment of this last account, the defendant and Mr. Parkins, (who did not now carry on the business in which he had been engaged, he having been proceeded against for a considerable sum claimed by the excise,) went to the plaintiff's office, and there Parkin gave an order to the head clerk for the amount stated, to be placed to the debit of Parkin, and to the credit of the defendant. At this time the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of £25 Os. 7d., be ing the shipping charges in his last consignment of wines for a foreign market ; and he was subsequently, and repeatedly asked for this amount, but expressed his astonishment that he should be required to pay it after having given the order, which he seemed to consider as an off-set. The clerk, how ever, stated at the time that he was uncertain as to how Par kin's account would turn out ; and it appeared that Messrs. Bates had heard some rumours relative to his solvency. He stated that he would receive the order contingently, and that if there was a final surplus on Parkin's account, he would consider it (the order) as good and valid. In the result, how ever, Parkin was left considerably in Bates's debt. The de fendant had previously tendered, in payment of the shipping charges which were past due, a bill of exchange for £2O, and a £5 Bank of England note. Mr. Bates accepted of the £5 note, but refused the bill, as being worthless. This payment of £5 reduced Messrs. Bates's claim to the sum sought, £2O Os. 7d. A balance afterwards became due to the defendant of about £BO on his last consignment, when the account sales was received from India; and the question arose whether it was customary for Messrs. Bates to settle up or balance the amount on each separate consignment with the party consigning goods to their care ; and it was con tended for the defendant, that the £49 13s. 3d. (the amount of the order) should have gone to his credit as regarded the last consignment, and that the order was so worded. It ap peared, however, that the wording of the order referred to shipments generally—not to any particular or individual shipment—and that it had been placed to the credit of his general account, contingently, it was understood, on the pro ceeds of Parkin's account. The case lasted for some hours, but no points of interest, beyond those stated, were elicited. Mr. WATSON ably supported the case of the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant MURPHY that of the defendant. The JUDGE eventually brought the case to a close by stating his opinion that all further defence. after what had been sworn to, was fruitless on the part of Mr. Murphy, who, of course, gave in, and the jury, after expressing themselves to be unanimously of his lordship's opinion, gave a verdict for the plaintiff to the full amount--damages £2O Os. 7d. NISI PRIUS COUAT.—TBURSDAY. LAWTON V. BRADLEY. This was an action to recover a certain sum of money, for goods sold and delivered, money paid, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he had paid all the money, with the exception of XI 55., which was paid into court. Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Crompton) stated the plaintiff's case. He said the plaintiff, Mr. Walker, was an auctioneer in this town, and the defendant was a publican living at Waterloo. In the month of October last, an execu tion was issued against a person of the name of Rothwell, and levied by a person of the name of Dry, who employed the plaintiff to sell the goods. At the sale, defendant bought goods to the amount of £47s 35., and for this sum the action was brought. Mr. DUNDAS (with whom was Mr. Whigham) contended that at the time of the sale an agreement had been made be tween the plaintiff and defendant, the latter of whom was the landlord of Rothwell's house, that the rent due, £4O, should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, landlords, in all cases, having a prior claim for any sum not exceeding a year's rent. All but £4O had been paid to plaintiff. The jury found for the defendant. ACTION TO RECOVER DEFOSIT MONEY. SMITH AND ANOTHER V. BAYLEY. This was an action to recover the sum of £3B, the deposit money which ought to have been paid by defendant, in con sequence of being the highest bidder at the sale of some messuages in Warrington. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Hoggins were counsel for the plain tiffs. Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling appeared for the de fendant. The plaintiffs, Joseph Smith and Dutton, were trustees for the sale of some property which was put up for auction in the town of Warrington on the 14th April, 1841, and the defendant, James Bayley, was a solicitor. The plaintiffs employed Measrs. Nicholson and Son, solicitors, to conduct the sale. The premise s w e re to be sold for a lease of 999 years, and one of the conditions of sale was, that the highest bidder should be the purchaser, that a deposit of £lO per cent. should be paid on the purchase money, and a contract signed for the completion of the sale by the Ist of July. At the sale the defendant bid £385, and the lot was knocked down to him. He signed the contract, but had never paid the deposit money for which the action was now brought. Mr. Peter Nicholson, the solicitor for the plaintiffs, was examined, and spoke to the terms of the contract which de fendant signed for the payment of £lO per cent. He under went a long examination from Mr. Dundas, who endeavoured to elicit that the title held by the plaintiffs was not a valid one. Upon this a legal discussion arose. The plaintiffs' counsel maintained that, as the defendant only pleaded that he never entered into the contract, the defendant was not at liberty to cross-examine for the purpose of proving fraud. If he bad intended to do so, be should have put a plea on the record. His Lordship, however, permitted the exami nation to go on ; and it appeared that Mr. Peter Weedell was the mortgagee, a Mr. Leftwich the mortgagor, for whom the present plaintiffs were trustees. Before the sale Mr. Wee dell consented to it, but afterwards objected, and now some difficulty arose in getting the title, but the witness said he had no doubt they would be enabled to compel the mort gagee to give up the title. Had the defendant paid the de posit money, he believed there would hare been no difficulty in getting the title. Mr. DUNDAS submitted that the action was ill-brought, on the ground that there was no promise of payment to the plaintiffs, and that the action should have been brought by Mr. Nicholson. His LORDSHIP overruled the objection, and a verdict was immediately entered for the plaintiffs.—Damages £3B. ACTION AGAINST THE LIVERPOOL SERJEANT-AT-MACE.— CUFF V. ROSCOE The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Thomas Cuff, pork but cher, Byrom-street, and the defendant Mr. William Stanley Roscoe, who was sergeant-at-mace for the borough. Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Crompton) stated the plaintiff's case to the jury. He said the defendant in this case was but the nominal defendant. He was the serjeant-at-mace for the borough, who stood in the po sition of the sheriff of the county ; yet the real defendant would be the officer who acted in the execution of the writ. He believed that the plaintiff recovered a debt in the Borough Court of this town, against a person of the name of John Tompkins, and on the 28th day of April last year sued out a judgment and issued an execution against him. The execution was £305 Os. Bd., including expences, and the writ was indorsed to give authority to levy certain charges, which were usual on such occasions. The writ was delivered to the defendant, who had the execution of all writs issuing out of the Borough Court, and the defendant made out the writ to an officer of the name of Kirby. Tomkins was a printer in this town, and at the time when the officer Kirby seized his goods, he (the learned council) was told there were on the premises goods to the value of £5OO or £6OO, and the execution being only for £305, there was an opportunity to levy for the whole of the debt. It sometimes happened that parties where goods were seized, contrived to cheat the officer who had seized, and he was afraid that something of that sort had been done in this case. He believed that some of Tomkin's friends, and amongst them was Mr. Ashton, contrived to elude the vigilance of the officer, and took from the premises a considerable part of the property, and it was for the value of this that the pre sent action was brought. When the goods of a party against whom an execution was issued were once in possession of the officer, he was bound to keep them ; if he did not keep a sufficient watch over them he was answerable to the party who issued out the writ. In this case he believed that be tween SO and 100 reams of paper were on the premises at the time the officer took possession, but that when the sale took place not one ream of paper was left. The greater part of the type also was removed. The property seized only rea lised £176, exclusive:of charges, and it was for the difference between that sum and £305 that the action was brought. The issuing of the writ having been proved, although Kirby, the officer, did not answer, and was called on his subpoena. William Watson, a journeyman printer, lite in the employ of Tomkins, deposed to going round the office with the ap praiser, and seeing seven reams of paper. A few days before the sale, an officer of the name of Hall being in pos session, Mr. shton, with Mr. Bates and Mr. Donaldson, came into the office and sent for a great quantity of drink. Hall partook of it, and became stupidly drunk. Whilst he was in that state, Mr. Ashton and parties whom he employed removed the reams of paper, and several founts of type ; the type was so removed as to render what was left useless when the sale came on. Ashton purchased, for £6 4s, the part of a fount which was left, and which fount originally cost £4O. Bundles of stamps and pressing-boards were also removed. None of the paper was sold at the sale which he had seen counted at the sale. Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—Ashton was formerly a partner with Mr. H. Tomkins, and was also a painter in Newington. James M'Avoy, who was a turn-over apprentice in the office, stated that, by Mr. Ashton's directions, he had taken some of the mateiials to his office, Lawton-street. Mr. DUNDAS then addressed the jury on the part of the defendant, who, he said, was one of the most respectable men in Liverpool; and he should be able to convince them that the action was brought upon grounds which could not be supported, either by law or justice. The sheriff, so far from having done anything irregular, either by himself or his offi cers, had acted perfectly legally, and any loss which .had arisen was imputable to those persons who had conspired with Ashton to defraud the executors, by taking away the property. The plai n tiff, Mr. Cuff, was himself the cause of all the mischief; to him the conduct of Ashton and the others who had been concerned in conveying away the goods was attributable. He had intercepted the office of the sheriff in bringing the execution, and therefore he was himself answer able for any loss that had arisen. If he had left well alone, all would be right enough, but he went and gave instruction that Ashton should be obeyed, and it was in consequence of those orders that the property had been taken. He should prove that Cuff was cognizant of the goods being taken away; that he had said he knew of it; that he knew where they were taken, and what they were taken for. If that were so, what right had Cuff to claim damages from Roscoe ? The learned counsel then detailed at length the evidence he should produce, and proceeded to call his witnesses. The two bailiffs, Carter and Richard Hall, were then called, and they proved the entry into the premises to make the execution. The latter was the man who had been made drunk whilst the goods were being taken away. The morn ing after that Cuff came in and asked witness whether they could follow the property which had been taken, if they knew where it was. Witness told him they could.—ln cross-examination the witness persisted in saying that he was not drunk when the things were taken, and that he had no knowledge of the transaction. Joseph Kinsley, book-keeper to Tompkins, said that Cuff came in when the officers were in, and asked what the office was worth. Witness told him £3OO a year, and he then said Haherdine Hour, sailed from Figu . eira for this port 24th March Sir Peregrine, Lipset, sailed from Oporto for this port 27th March WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6.—Wind North A nnivEn.—lgnarzo, Rizzo, from Palermo. SA ILED .—Sterling, Saunders, for Savannah—Nautilus, Gibson, for Rlo Janeiro and Valparaiso—Princess Victoria, Gray, for Que. bec—Jessamine, Jarvis, for Newfoundland—Robert Finnie, Bever ley, for-Lima—Mischief, Campbell, and Nancy, Brown, for Lisbon —Ashburton, Bulkely, and Victoria, Stromberg. for Hamburg— Try, Howes, and Lucy, Wright, for Dordt— Undaunted, Hayman, for Buenos Ayres—Josephine; Mattison, and Ohio, Lyons, for New York—Thomas, Ashendorff, for Bremen—Morgiana, Duncan, for Pernau—Speedy Packet, Bailhach, for Cadiz—Colombo, Eldridge, for Boston—Mary Henney, Henney, for Narva—Vesta, Shearer, for Bahia—Toivo. Swanbeck. for Elainore—Johnstone, Harrison, for Calcutta—Claugl-ane, Doyle, for Rouen,• &c.—Jessie Greig, Greig, for Stettin—Charleston, Harlow, for Canton—Portland, Stalker, for Bombay—Superb, Houston, for Jamaica—and Cerere, Isouard, for Alexandria. Rocket, Bishop, from Cape Coast Castle, at British Accra, and sailed 6th Dec, for Gaboon Margaret Pollock, from the Clyde, at Bombay Token, Chalmers, from London, at ditto Tweed, Dixon, from Sincapore, at ditto Isabella, Gray, hence at Sincapore 3:st Dec. Mary Bulmer, Gaskin, hence at ditto 10th Jan! Isabella Robertson, Kelly, from China, at ditto, and sailed 26th Jan. for Calcutta City of Aberdeen, Munro, from Penang, at ditto Charles Parker, sailed from Sincapore for this port, 12th Jan. and Mary Imrie, Boyd, for Hong Kong, 16th Robert Henderson, Haywood, sailed from Sincopore 22nd Dec. and the Manilla, Bolton, 23rd, both for London Martnion, Jellard, sailed from Sincapore 28th Dec. for Siam Wallace, , off Calicut, for Bombay Coromandel, from China, at St. Helena Latne, , hence at Sydney, N.S.W. and was to sail for Lima s'h December Gulnare, -, hence and Hobart Town; at ditto Hero of Malown, from London, at ditto Tam o'Shanter, sailed from Sydney, N.S.W. for Guam 10th Nov. and Sarah Birkett, for Valparaiso 21st Anna Liffey. Lyle, hence at Bermuda, short of provisions and water, and sailed 13th March for New York Henrietta, , and Storm King, , hence at Vera Cruz Broad Oak, NI 'Coy. hence at Bahia Tiber, Ramsey, hence at Beirut Sophia, Giacobbe, hence at Palermo Earl of Errol, Wade, from Marsala, at ditto, and sailed 16th Feb. for this port Monarch, Hartnell, from Messina, at ditto, and sailed Ist March for this port Redbreast, Benn, from Naples, at ditto, and sailed Ist March for this port Shannon. Stephenson, hence at Trieste Pet, Smith, and Agitator, Henry, sailed from Alexandria 6th March, and Mary, Randall, lath, all for this port Youka, Medanich, sailed from Trieste for this port 25th March Tom Tough, Williams, hence at Charente Gerde, Aslaken, hence at Marseilles Clarita, Allona, sailed from Bilboa for this port 27th March Ann, Softly, and Guard, Theobald, hence at Brouwershaven Eleonore, Cathinzer, hence at Flushing Huntington, Wilson; Equity, Jardin, and David, Garry, hence at Helvoet Edouard, Brandhoff, hence at Swinemunde Kate & Jane, Brown, hence at the Texel . Scotland, for New York, is on shore near Egremout Watkins, from the Mauritius to this port, was spoken 17th March, in lat. 34, long. 32 Barbara. from the Mauritius to this port, was spoken 29th March, in lat. 47, long. 13—short manned, and captain not on board Majestic, from Bombay to this port, was spoken 11th Jan. in lat. 26 S, long. 56 .t; he vm uld buy it in, an make TomeitinS his' foieman". 1. The 'next morning Ashton and Cuff came together, and witness then heard Cuff tell the officer not to obstruct the work, and that Ashton was to have any thing that he wanted. The plaintiff told witness to keep an account of the work done for the good of the creditors, and he would pay him for it on the following Saturday night. On another occasion he sent out for drink for the bailiffs and the workmen. Ashton and plaintiff used frequently to meet in the office. The sale was to have been on the 14th of May [the removal took place on the 13th] ; but about three o'clock on the same afternoon, the plaintiff told witness he had countermanded the sale. About six o'clock the same evening Ashton directed witness to carry the paper to Jones', in St. John's Market, with the assistance of the errand lad. Some type was re moved the same evening to Ashton's house. The value of the papet taken that night was £3O. Four reams of stamps for the Liverpool Guardian were also taken, which was worth about three or four pounds ; the stamps • were worth nothing. The removed was worth about £l2, in cluding the cases. The total value of the printing materials would be about £2G. Cuff paid one week's wages during the execution, and Ashton another. Cuff and Tompkins were friends. Witness went to Cuff to get the balance of his wages, when Cuff said to him, he knew where the property was which had been taken, and the police were after it. Joseph Ronald, an apprentice to Tomkins, corroborated the last witness as to the interference of the plaintiff and Ashton whilst the execution was in the office. .-„.. Mr... Joseph Keane, manager for Mr. Trotter, auctioneer, proved the countermand of the sale, which was fixed for the 14th by the plaintiff. Cross-examined .—The Sale was postponed at the suggestion of witness, because the type was " set up," and it would not sell well in that state. This was the plaintiff's case ; and the jury said they would not trouble Mr. Knowles for a reply. They returned a ver dict for the plaintiff—damages, £129. The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. EXTRAORDINARY CONFESSION. — In our last we stated that Peter Pierce, who had been convicted at Mold for at tempts to poison his wife on Friday last, had committed suicide on the following morning by hanging himself. The day previous to that appointed for his execution, the convict made a long confession of a most extraordinary nature, ad mitting that he was guilty of two attempts to poison hi§ wife, but denying the third attempt—that on the 17th July—for which he was tried and convicted. He denied that it was in consequence of his having an attachment to another girl that had caused him to do it, but stated over and over again, that it was the fear of not being able to earn a sufficiency to main tain his wife—that was the sole and only reason. He bad been promised work by a farmer in the neighbourhood, and this promise not being kept, he determined to destroy his wife, and had purchased the arsenic for that purpose, as proved on the trial. The evidence given before the coroner was of considerable length, all the witnesses, including the surgeon and chaplain to the gaol, being clearly of opinion, that the deceased was of perfectly sound mind. On this the jury returned a verdict of felo de se, and the coroner issued his warrant for the burial of the body, according to the statute. 01)ippilig *nteltigitue. -.=,,...-_, TUESDAY, APRIL s.—Wind North ARRIVED.—Ocean Queen, Wilson, from Savannah SAlLED.—Higginson, Hogg, for Barbadoes—Portland, Robinson, for St. John, N.B,—Ariel, Clements, for Newfoundland—lsabella Dick, Walter, and Pursuit, Ruthmer, fot Stettin—Westbrook, Lin nington, for Port Philip and Sydney—Warre, Crompton, fur Africa —Liverpool, Agry. for New York—Mersey, Hamilton, and Alex. Wise, Coulthard, for Montreal—C.R.C., Huelin, for Bay Chaleur— Lord Glenelg, Baikie, for Amsterdam and Archangel—Brigand, M'Donald, for Honduras—Amalia, Albrecht, for Danzic—Superb, Keitch, for Riga—Mersey. Gregory, for Oporto—and Eben Preble, Hinkley, for New Orleans. Hindostan, Brown, hence at Bombay 12th Feb. Chieftain, Payne, hence at ditto 24th Lancaster, Jefferson, hence at ditto 27th Corea, Kerr, and Cambridge, -, hence at ditto Rachel, Scott, from London. at ditto Mertoun; Kenn, sailed from Bombay 13th Feb. ; Clansman, Spence, 19th; Alexander Graht, Thompson, 25th, and Clara and Maria, -, all for this port Eleanor Lancaster, Cowley, sailed from Bombay for Calcutta 16th Feb. and Caledonia, Lawson, and. Royal Saxon, Crawford, 23rd, and Christina, Birkett, 26th, for China Parsee, Chivas, hence at Calcutta 18th Jan. Coaxer, Ridley, hence at ditto 19th Zoe, Holmes, hence at ditto 23rd Gazelle, Ogg, hence at ditto 2nd Feb. Ingleborough, Rea, hence at ditto tth Francis Burn, Edington, hence at ditto 14th Strabane, Cook, from Bombay, at ditto Henry Hoyle. Griffiths, from Coveloug, ditto Wm. Turner, Roals. from Rangoon, at ditto Diamond, Taylor, from Port Philip. at ditto Frankland, Christie, and Inglewood, Kerr, sailed from Calcutta 22nd Jan. and Mary White, Wakeham, 2nd Feb. all for this port Mary Sharp, Robson, from Calcutta, at Ceylon Royal William, Smith, sailed from Ceylon for London 7th Jan. Flowers of Ugie, Annand, from Mauritius, at Madras Cleveland, Morley, from Sincapore, &c. at ditto, and sailed 6th Feb. for the Malabar Coast Wild Irish Girl, Graham, sailed from Madras for London 3rd Feb. and the Elizabeth, Mossop, 7th, for this port Richmond Lass, Leask, from Algiers, at Constantinople Sultana, Rogers, hence at Odessa S. J. Stanta Anna, Saldanha, hence at St. Übes City of Derry, Roberts, from China, at Deal Blakely, Batina, from China, at ditto, sailed 12th Nov. On fith Dec. in the Straits of Sunda, spoke the Josephine, from Sincapore to London George, Hale, from Cephalonia, at Milford _ . TRURSDAY, APRIL 7.—Wind Easterly and variable SAILEn.—John Cocks, Cross, for Buenos Ayres—F'enella, Self. for Sincapore. &c.—l-lenry, Smith, for Africa—Gannet, Nicol, for Barbadoes—Margaret Marshall, Boyce, for Newfoundland—Cali. fornia, Ould, for Halifax—Rockshire, Duggan : Prince of Wales, Wilson, and Mary Muir, Payne, for Montreal—Jessie Miller, Crow. der, for Halifax—Scotland, Robinson, for New York—Wave, Mearns, for Pernau—Helen, —, for Vera Cruz—Echo, Renfeis for Uleaborg—iEtna. Davies, for Genoa—Maria, Ilult, for Hambro —Adeona, Jamouneau, for Gibraltar—Catherine. Coffey, for Ma_ deira, &c.—Victoria, Demister, for Newfoundland—Britannia, Oliver, for Restigoucke—Ruby, Crocker, for Arichat—Brilliant. Brown, for Almcira—Mary Sommerville, Pearson, for Calcutta— Mary, Turner, for Rio Grande—Antelope, Griffiths, for Prince Edward island—and George, Thompson, for New Orleans. Bangalore, Smith, was chartered by a house in Cairo, to load a cargo of wheat at Suez for Mauritius, at £4 10s per ton, and would sail in all March Euphrates, Wilson. from Calcutta, at China Canopus, Titherington, ditto ditto Gondolier, Oliver, sailed from China for Clyde 15th Dec. Esther, Sharpe, sailed from Diamond Harbour for London 16th February Chares Eyes, Moss, and Darby, Lee, sailed from Ceylon for Liverpool sth February . Ann, Martin, sailed from St. Helena for Liverpool sth February Albatross, , hence and Dublin, at Sydney Teviot, (steamer) from Falmouth, at Barbadoes Mary Ellen, Joy, and Camerton, Cockbin, hence at Barbadoes Eliza, Lowry, hence at Mogadore Firefly, Holland, sailed from Messina 14th March, and Dean, Moffatt, Igth, both for Liverpool Lord Redesdale, Bailey, hence at Syra Active, Williams, sailed from Barcelona for Liverpool 20th March Caledonia, Ritchie, sailed from Port Mahon for Liverpool 26th February Celina, Benson, hence at Konen James Gibson, Smart, from Mauritius, at Waterford for Liver pool, with loss of sails Providence, Baker, from Lisbon, at St. Mauve's for Liverpool, with loss of foretopmast Scotland, Robinson, for New York, that was on shore near Egremont, came off this morning's tide, without apparent damage, and proceeded. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS FOR LIVERPOOL APRIL. HOUR i 7 , Robert M'Lachlan, (proof and div.( Clarendon Rooms, 1 13, Thomas Peake Pearson 14, John Senior Ditto, 2 15, Gardiner Boggs, (2nd) .. Court of Bankruptcy, London, 11 15, Peter Dtl'Ardle, (proof and div.) 15, Daniel Antrobus, (2nd) Ditto, 1 15, John Critchley, (2nd) 15, William Slater, (2nd) Ditto, 2 16, John Shand, (proof) 16, Elizabeth Linstead, (Ist) Ditto, 1 TIDE TABLE Evn. Height.! Sundays, Halydays, 4-0 R. M. IH. M. F. r. Friday .. 8 957 ;10 13 14 7 Saturday 9 10 30 10 46 115 9 Sunday.. 10 11 2 11 16 16 8 2nd Shadily after Easter. Monday. 11 •II 31 11 46 117 3 [New Moon 10h 18rn Tuesday .12 - I 0 1 ;17 8 _ Wednes .13 017 033 17 6 Saturn rises lh. 51M. !nor l'liursdayl4 051 1 S 1 17 1 Jupiter rises 2h. lm. :-Jtaritcm SALFORD CATTLE MARKET, APRIL 5. The show of Cattle was again small, and of Sheep by n o means large. The quality of both was only middling, but, as there were many buyers, the market was rather dearer, of Beef especially. All the Cattle were sold, and but few Sheep left at the close of the market. Hest Beef bid to 7d, middling td to 6id, prime Mutton 7d, and Ewes and clipped Sheep 6d to bid per lb. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD HIDE, SKIN, AND TALLOW MARKET, APRIL 5. The price of heavy Hides has declined, and all above Solbs. 3id per lb., under 601 b. 12s each. Large skins (Irish and Yorkshire, 5s to 6s 6d ; Chqviots and half-bred 4s to 5s ; Scotch 213 6tl to as 6d. Tallow 5s per stone of 141bs. LOClljOlci GAZETTR.--- C_ESI).,V, APRIL 5 PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED S. Allen and W. Stevens, jun., Liverpool, corn nission.agents 3. J. Crossfield, W. Crossfield, and J. Crossfield, Liver ool. wholesale grocers—T. Knowles and J. Knowles, jun., Horbury, Yorkshire, lamb's wool yarn manufacturers—R. NN ai o and J. Goodman, Strangeways, Lancashire, tea-dealers—J. Phillips and W. H. Phillips, Smethwick, Staffordshire, grocers. • April 4 INSOLVENTS. —Henry Gratton, Liverpool. hatter. Edward Smith, Lawrence-lane, City, London, woollen and fancy warehouseman. —James Fisher. Lynn. Norfolk, spirit-merchant. BANKRUPTCY SEPERSEDED. _ _ . . . William Ilyrt Morgan, St .. _ James's, Gloucestershire, dealer in woollen cloths BANK RUPTS. James Bedford, Westminster-road, London, ironmonger. Henry Heward, Waltham-cross, Hertfordshire. innkeeper. Thonias Plowman, Yeoval, Soniersetshire, saddle William Robert Rayne, Hangliton, Northumberland, paper.manu faeturer. William Bushell, Eversham, Worcestershire, innkeeper John II oughton Jones, Manchester, spirit-merchant John Flintßl', Rastrick, Yorkshire, innkeeper Thomas Frith, Elland, Yorkshire, maister. George Reach, Bardwell, Suffolk', miller. • John Bridle, Shepton Igallett, Somerset, grocer DIVIDENDS April 28, C. Daly, Red Lion-square, London, bookseller—April 28, S. Parker, Argyll-place, Regent-street, London. bronzist—April 28, W. Rep, Northumberland.: treet, Strand, London, tailor—April 28, J. Colnett, Pier Hotel, Gravesend, hotel-keeper—April 28, J. Greenlees, Friday-street, Cheapside, London, shawl-warehouseman —April 26, A. Phillips and .1. Phillips, Whitechapel-road. London, window-glass-cutters—April 27, M. Glascott, W. M. Glascott, and T. T. Glascott, Great Garden street, Whitechapel-road, London, copper-merchants--April 27, J. Rutter, Stockton-upon-Tees, Dur. ham, grocer—April 28, G. Forster, Newcastle.upone-Tyne, woollen draper—April J. Bailey, Burslem, Staffordshire, innkeeper— April 27, S. Cartwright, Great Bolton, Lancashire, ironmonger— April 27, R. Haslarn. Little Bolton, Lancashire, cotton-spinner— May 13, J. Lawlesss, Manchester. commission-agent—April 27, J. Fletcher, P. Fletcher, and 13. Fletcher, Patricroft, Lancashire, cotton-spinner—May 13; T. Barker and R. Ainsworth, Warrington, Lancashire, cotton. spinners—May I. J. Ashton. Liverpool, printer —May 2, H. W. Hobhouse, J. Phillott and C. Lowder, Bath, bankers —May 12, J. Unsworth, Liverpool, joiners. CE nil Fl CATES To be granted, unless cause be shown to the contrary on or before April 26. G. :► - catkin, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Lancashire, grocer —J. Drewitt. Arundel, banker—J. S. Lennard, White Conduit-fields, London, victualler—H. Greves, Leamington Priors, timber-mer chant—T. F. Beales and J. E. Beales, drysalters—J. Siddons, J. M. Wathew, and J. Siddons, jun., Nuneaton, Warwickshire, coal masters—J. Jevis, Wells. Somersetshiee, draper—J. Appleton, Hounslow, ironmonger —W. Jones, Carnarvon, currier—P. Leices, ter, Longsight, Lancashire, slate-merchant. PRICES OF SHARES, APRIL 7. Prices within the last seven days.: This days RAILWAYS, &c. Per Share. rriceb Bolton and Preston Birmingham and Gloucester Ditto quarter Birmingham and Derby lOO Bristol and Exeter Birkenhead and Chester Ditto, new Dublin and Drogheda 0 0 0 /0 .... 0 0 0 50 paid 28 0 0 20 .... 14 0 0 17 10.. 0 0 0 Eastern Counties Ditto new Shares 2 6 8 4 8 8 4 14 2 Ditto, Debentures Edinburgh and Glasgow Ditto Leigh and Newhaven 20 paid 0 0 0 .... Glasgow, Paisley, & Greenock 25 paid 21 15 0 .... Half Shares Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmar 150 paid 0 0 0 Greenock, and Ayr Grand Junction Ditto half shares Quarter New ditto.... Great Western Ditto new shares 0 0 0 185 0 0 90 10 0 44 0 0 24 15 0 0 0 0 so .... 64 10 0 Ditto Fifth Shares 4 . . 10 5 0 Great North of England lO9 0 u 0 ex, Hull and Selby Lancaster and Preston 47 10 0 0 0 0 . Ditto, new Leicester and Swannington 5O .... 0 0 0 ... Leeds and Selby lOO .... 0 0 0 ... Liverpool and Manchester lOO .... 0 0 0 ex Ditto quarter shares Ditto half shares London and Birmingham... Ditto quarter shares ... Ditto old shares Ditto new London & Brighton Ditto new London and South Weptern Ditto, loth shares Manchester, Bolton, & Bury Manchester and Birmingham 4O Ditto and Ditto Extension V go .... 175 0 0 . )75 0 0 35 12 6 .... 58 10 0 .... O 0 0 .... 36 12 6 .... o o 0 ... 6o 5 0 .... o 0 0 54 0 0 .... O 0 0 • 0 0 0 anchester and Leeds Ditto half shares .. Ditto quarter shat es Midland Counties .... 70 .... 31 10 0 3..... 0 (I 0 2 .... 4 15 0 100 .... 79 0 0 Ditto, quarter North Midland New No,rth Midland One-third Shares North Union Newcastle and Carlisle Ditto quarter shares Ulster Paris and Rouen South Eastern York and North Midland. Half Shares 15 .... 0 0 0 100 .... 0 0 0 40 .... 31 10 0 22 15 10 75 .... 72 15 0 100 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 14 .... 14 17 6 48 .... 0 (I 0 so paid 0 0 0 15 .... 0 0 0 22 15 10 BANKS. Bank of Liverpool £l2 lOs paid 18 10 0 Borough Bank lO 0 0 0 Commercial of Liverpool 10 .... 0 0 0 Commercial of England. 5 .... 0 0 0 East of England lO .... 0 0 0 of Manchester lO .... 0 0 0 M'chester & L'pool Dsct. 15 0 0 0 Northern and Central North and South Wales.. 10 .... 0 0 u Royal of Liverpool 500 .... 662 10 0 South Lancashire Albion -- Liverpool Union lO .... 11 2 6 Liverpool Banking Co lO 0 0 o Wilts and Dorset 7 10s. 0 0 0 GAS, WATER WORKS, &c. Exchange Buildings :6100 paid 173 0 0 L'pool and Harrington Water) Stock Works Bootle Ditto L'pool Gas Light Company, (Original Stock) 100 Ditto new Shares .... 100 L'pool New Gas & Coke Co. .eruo Ditto new shares arc now paid up ASSURANCE COMPANIES M'chester Assurance Company. 10 .... 0 0 (I Liverpool Fire and Life . 2 10s. 212 6 Ocean Assurance Liverpool Marine Assurance )10 paid 0 0 0 Company DOCKS, FERRIES, NEW COMPANIES, &c. Anderton Carrying Company .. 16 ss. 0 0 0 Rock Ferry Steam Tug Company lO . . 0 0 0 Harringt( n Docks 100 52 5 0 Apothecaries' Company Asphalte (Liverpool) (Polonceau) 2 .... 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 BIRTH. On the 3rd instant, at Falinge, the lady of WILLIAM EDWARD ROYDS, Esq., of a son. MARRIED On the 28th November last, at the British Consulate, Tuena, HUGH WILSON Esq., her Britannic Majesty's Consul, to Misa JANE ANN BROWNE, daughter of the late General John Browne, of East Wall, Derry, Ireland. On the 3rd of February, at Rochdale, JAMES LORD, Esq., solicitor, to MARTHA, eldest daughter of the late Mr. THOMAS KENYON, of the same place. On the 29th ultimo, at Antrim Church, by the Rev. W. Green, Mr. JOHN CHISIVI, of the firm of T. W. Mackford and Co. mer. chants, of this town, to MARGARET, youngest daughter of Mr. REA, 'lslandreagh. On the 29th ultimo, Mr. WILLIAM BRADE, chemist, of Barton. under.Needwood, to ELIZABETH, second daughter of Mr. D. MACKINDER, of this town. Same day, at St. John the Baptist's Church, JOHN HASWELL, Esq., of Vienna, to SOPHIA, youngest daughter of JOS. LANE, Esq., Stockport. On the :Joth ultimo, at Ashton-upon-Mersey. Cheshire, by the Rev. Wm. Hadow, Rector of Hasley, Warwickshire, JOSEPH St. JOHN, YATES, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, only surviving son of the late Joseph Yates, Esq., of Peel-hall, Lancashire, and grandson of the late Ur. Justice Yates, to EMILY AUGUSTA, fourth daughter of DAVID SCOTT, Esq., of Cross-street. Ashton-upon-Mersey. Same day, at Warrington, Mr. THOMAS BURROWS to AMY, youngest daughter of the late Mr. JOHN ATHERTON, both of that place. On the 31st ultimo, Mr. PHILIP HITCHINGS, Brownlow-hill, to Miss LUCY MUNN, Moon-street. Same day, Miss CATHERINE JONES, late of Corwen to Mr. HENRY JONES. steward of the " Princess Royal." On the .end instant, at Manchester, Mr. JOHN DORRINGTON, of that place, to JANE, youngest daughter of JOHN CHATTER TON, Esq., Alvaston-cottage, Derbyshire. Same day, at Feniscowles Church, Lancashire. ANDREW HAMILTON, Esq., of Streatham-common, Surrey, to FRANCES ELIZA, daughter of WILLIAM FIELDEN, of Fernacowlea, Esq . M.P., for Blackburn. On the sth instant, at Walton, Mr. JOSEPH RUSSELL, of this town, to ELIZABETH, youngest daughter of the late Mr. JAMES HOLME, of Everton. Same day, at Byrom-street, Chapel, by the Rev. R. B. Lancaster, I,lr. JOSEPH ROBERTS to Miss ELIZA THOMAS, both of this town. On the 6th instant, at St. Luke's Church, Cheetham-hill, by the Rev. W H. King, WILLIAM RUSHTON COULBORN, merchant, of this town, to JANE, eldest daughter of CHAS. OPENSHAW, Z.sq., Wilton Polygon, Manchester. DIED. On the 13th of February, at Demerara, of fever, FRANCIS AU GUSUTS, eldest son of Mr. F. MURRAY, of Belfast. A young gentleman of the most amiable disposition, cultivated mind, and unbending integrity. Oir the Ist nltirilo, o❑ board the Alexandria, on her passage to New Orleans, Mr. WILLIAM HORN. On the 19th ultimo, at Delamere Rectory, HARRIET, wife of the Rev. W. DARWEN FOX, and daughter of the late Sir R. Fletcher. On the 21st ultimo, of apoplexy, aged 40, Mr. J. WESTON, iron merchant, of Northwich. On the 23rd ultimo, at Westhoughton, in his 50th year, the Rev. C. BATESON, incumbent, On the 24th ultimo, TIMOTHY LIGHTOLLER, of Yarrow. house Chorley. Same day, CATHERINE, wife of ANDREW Dickenson-street, aged 04 FURLONG, Oa the 25th ultimO, aged 61, Lieut. JOHN STREET, half-pay 49th Foot, formerly lieutenant and adjutent of the Bth , or King's Own. On the 26th ultimo, at her residence, St. James -court, Mrs. ELIZABERH BURNS, relict of the late Captain Robert Burns, only surviving her husband eight weeks, sincerely regretted. On the pri n ter, of 28 Ni an it c th uhester.imo, aged 61, Mr. JOSEPH P LANT, letter-press On the 31st ultimo, aged 2 years, MAIW, youngest daughter of Mr. EDWARD TRO DEN, Princes -street. Same day, after a short but severe illness, at her brother's house, Kent-street, Miss ELIZA'. BETH GARNER. Same day, in Camden Town, London, F. S. BASS, Esq., late of the Theatre Royal, Liverpool, and son of Captain Bass, formerly of her Majesty's Ist Regiment of Foot Guards. On the Ist instant, at Blunderston Parsonage, Suffolk, aged 41 years, ISAAC PRESTON CORY, Esq„ fellow of Caius College Cambridge, eldest son of the late R. Cory, jun. Esq. of Great Yarmouth. On the 2nd instant, aged 75, at the Clifton Hotwells, near Bris tol, ROBERT WITHIN GTON, Esq., uncle of Mr. Charles With ington Harper, of arkfield-terrace, Wavertree. On the 3rd instant, aged 18 months, JAMES TAYLOR, infant son of Mr. 110 WELL, Greek-street. Same day, at his seat, Briton-park, Devon, in his 86th year, Lord ROLLE. On the 4th inst. FANNY, second daughter of the late RICHARD 13YRN, Esq. On the sth instant, in his 19th year, THOMAS, second son of Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Gill-street. Same day, in South-hill-place, Toxteth-park, MARY, the infant daughter of ROBERT WOODWARD, ESq., aged 14 months. LIVERPOOL: FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1842. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY MORNING JOSHUA FLETCHER LACE, of 53. Grove -street, and LEONARD ADDISON, of 14, Great Orford -street. At No. 4, ST. GEORGE'S CRESCENT, LIVERPOOL. Orders and Advertisements are received by Messrs. Newton an Co., Warwick-square; Barker, Fleet-street; Deacon Walbrook Reynell, Chancery-lane; Lawson and Barker, Birchin-lane ; Joseph Thomas, 1, Finch-lane, Cornhill; Munden Hammond, 27, Lombard-street ; Mitchell, 8, Red Li on -court, Fleet-street ; Clarke and Lewis, 4, Crown-eourt, Threadneedle-street; at GarraWay's; at the London Commercial Coffee-house, Mincing lane ; at the Jerusalem Coffee-house, Cornhill; Chapter Coffee. h ouse , P a ternoster-row; North and South American Coffee house, Threadneedlc-street; and Messrs. Witham Frend, Le Maitre, and Co., Sise-lane, London ; by Messrs. Johnston and Co., at their Newspaper and Advertisement Agency Office, Eden Quay, Dublin; Mr. M`Phun, Glasgow; Mr. Wheeler, Exchange_ street, and Mr. C. H. Lewis, Market-Street, Manchester; Mr. Haddock, and Messrs. J. and W. Booth, Booksellers, Warrington Mr. Clarke, Pilot-office, Preston; ana Mr. Coope, 33, Union:, street, Birmingham. Perms of Subscription for this paper :—On credit one year, £2 6s. ; half-year, £1 3s. ; quartet, I is. 6d,—lf paid in advance—one year Lt 2s ; Irdf-year, ls; quarter, los 6d