The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-24 00:00:00

411.-NY,PIiWg ANOWER MR, MAME, Li4m4p4TIKCSNifiTER, AT gALVOAND ONE OF THE MANCHESTER CONVENTION ISTS. Killarney, 18th August, 1841. SIR,--Your letter of the 10th was redirected to me to Ballycastle, and from thence to this place, where I received it last night. I thank you for the friendly terms in which you invite me to take part in the proposed conference, assuring me of " a courteous reception and a respectful audience even to hear me in opposition to your opinions." Independent, however, of now impracticable distance, and apart from the merits of the question to be brought under consideration, I am com pelled to decline by the terms of your printed address con vening the assembly. In it you say, For a while, let us lay aside our sectarian and partizan differences, and, on the hallowed ground of Christian charity, assemble for the pur pose of bettering the condition of famishing multitudes." In what you call our sectarian differences, are involved all the eternal truths of the Christian religion—truths from which alone can emanate anything deserving the name of Christian charity. To admit the possibility of meeting on the ground of Christian charity, without reference to Chris tian truth—nay, on the express condition of laying aside for a while all that many among us consider to be God's own word— would, in my opinion, be to countenance the infidel liberal ism which implies that Revelation is useless, without having the honest boldness to say so. Believing as 1 do, that all Scripture is giver by inspiration of God, I feel bound, what ever enterprise I undertake, whatever subject I discuss, to do all on Christian principles, or, in the language of the Apostle, to " do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" ; and, therefore, I cannot consent to place myself in any circum stances where I must lay aside for a while all reference to the great and glorious truths which Christ lived, died, and rose again, to establish and promulgate. The corn-law question is a national one. It may be dis cussed on Scriptural principles ; and our Saviour's prophecy that, until his coming again, " nation shall rise against na tion, and kingdom against kingdom," may preserve our Christian statesmen from the flattering delusion of abjuring patriotism as a prejudice, and embracing a cosmopolitan phantom, which they would in vain persuade the statesmen of other nations to embrace ; while the Apostolical injunc tion to " provide for our own, specially those of our own house," may suggest to a paternal government the wisdom of not exposing the multitudes of our fellow-countrymen to the risk of famishing, by leaving their provision dependent upon foreigners : but you must excuse me when.' say, that I can anti c i pate no benefit to the world, to the i r own coun try,_ or to th emselves, from a conference of men who stipu late for the exclusion, during their conference, of all the essentials of Scripture truth, under the name of sectarian differences. This is not too strong : for your printed address is " to the ministers of ALL religious denominations th-oughout the United Kingdom " ; and no arguments are required to prove that their sectarian differences involve all the essentials of Scriptural truth, including the inspiration of Scripture itself. I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant, HUGH WNEILE. Rev. J. W. Massie. GREAT ECLIPSE TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. Sir, The eclipse of St. George's Clock still continues—this evening the total obscuration appears to be coming on. 23rd August. PEDESTRIAN. CHALLENGE TO THE MAGNILOQUENT DR. COX AND DEPUTATION FROM THE MANCHESTER CONFERENCE. GENTLEMEN,—Run, gentlemen, run quickly, or the gods of your worship, who insulted our most gracious Queen, by introducing Dr. Owen, of infamous celebrity, to her, will not have it in their power to insult her afresh, by introducing a deputation of such an imbecile and heterogeneous class as your conference at Manchester has presented to the scorn and derision of an enlightened public. You have swallowed derision ; you have EVADED ARGUMENT ; you have devoured (if not widows' houses) at least as far as your brazen impu dence would carry you. But think not your brazen effron tery will carry. you through. I will stick to you like a burr ; and I now propose to meet you in London, at Exeter Hall, and prove the following :- Ist, That your proceedings were mendacious. 2dly, That they were incompatible with God or man's ho nour. 3dly, That the Conference acted as an agent of Satan. If there is in your whole body one iota of honour, I shall receive an answer to this. If not, " I shall not consign you to the tomb of all the Capulets, but, through the press, en deavour to show forth your apostacy, insignificance, and baseness. I am, gentlemen, your Christian master, B. W. TRACY, Lieut. R.N. MR. QUAYLE'S TESTIMONIAL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD " Thrice is he arm'd that bath his quarrel just." SlR,—Having noticed in the Mercury of Friday last, a fustian letter addressed to " John Holme, Esq.," respect ing a " testimonial" to Mr. George Quayle, late of Everton Ward, &c. &c., signed a "Disgusted Conservative ," Permit me a wo r d on the subject, and with all due deference to the apparently sensitive writer, add, that I cannot but think that Mr. Quayle having resigned (doubtless from PURE AD VICE) a seat he had usurped too long ; and subsequently " caught in his own trap," cannot do less than do the thing " that's handsome before leaving town," however unpalate able, " detestable, " or even " despicable" it may appear to " ears p o lite ;" and methinks the aforesaid amiable writer (instead of his peculiar mode of application, doubtless by the way of FEELER) would better have served his somewhat un fortunate yet ambitious friend Quayle's " cause," had he have remained silent, and subscribed himself what he most probably is—viz., a disappointed, if not a " disgusted" hig, and SOMETHING MORE. I am, sir, meriting your attention, AN ENEMY TO CANT AND HUMBUG. Monday Evening, Aug. 23. P.S.—I have no doubt that the £5 PROMISED by a " disgusted Conservative," " in A FEW DAYS," Will be most welcome as well as gratefully received by the QUAIL ING committee. One extreme is as bad as another—as the man said when they hung him up by the heels. The Crown has granted a pension of £lOO a year to the widow of Mr. James, the naval historian. Another considerable failure (that of Thomayer and Co.) has taken place in Vienna. The Duke of 'Wellington has expressed his willingness to form a part of the new Conservative government. His Grace is in excellent health. The Teasel crop in this country has almost completely failed. The Rev. R. J. INl`Ghee is entirely prevented attending to his ministerial duties through indisposition. By some extraordinary mistake, no return has yet been made of the members of parliament for Radnorshire and the borough of New Radnor, so that parliament is at present two members short of its full complement. STEAM-BOAT Cowstosr.—On Thursday, a frightful col lision took place between the steamers Albert and Dumbarton Castle, when the latter was sunk, and which was nearly proving fatal to a large number of passengers. The Albert was on her return from Alloa, and had 260 passengers aboard, with whom she was proceeding to Newhaven. When nearly opposite Bo'ness, she met the Dumbarton Castle coming out, loaded with goods from Alloa. The Albert struck the Dum barton Castle right amidships, which latter instantly filled and went down in fifteen feet of water, her funnel being a little above water.—Scottish Standard. REMEDY FOR A LIGHTNING SHOCK.—AS this is the season when all are more or less liable to experience a shock from nature's battery, the Bu f falo Commercial Advertiser suggests that any person struck down by lightning, no matter if apparently dead, ought to be laid immediately extended on the damp ground ; and, if it do not rain upon him, water should be thrown on freely, which in most cases will conduct off the electric fluid without serious injury. Many a one has lost his life, when a knowledge of these facts, on the i part of friends or by s t an d ers , wou ld h ave p reserve d t.— New Brunswick Courier. We rejoice to observe, that a matter so momentous to the Church of England, and in fact involving its Protestant character, as the doctrines inculcated by the authors of the " Oxford Tracts," continues to occupy the attention of the right rev. bishops, and to form a prominent feature in their charges to their clergy. It will be seen by the subjoined extract from a report of the charge of the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, delivered within the last week, that our respected diocesan has taken, as becomes a bishop of our apostolical church, a scriptural view of the subject. While he does the tractarians the justice to admit that " by raising the tone of devotional piety, they have rendered considerable service to the cause of religion," his lordship cautions his clergy against withholding from their flocks a full declaration of the great doctrine of the atonement, on which " must ever rest the keystone of revelation ;" and condemns the undue exaltation of tradition to a level with the scriptures. MURDER.—A great sensation has been excited in Cheshire by the administration of poison to a young woman 15 years of age, of the name of Elizabeth Edge, the daugher of a small farmer residing in the parish of Edge, near Malpas, in that county, on Saturday, the 7th of the present month. The party accused of the murder is Ann Edge. the sister of the deceased, 22 years of age, who was living as housekeeper with a butcher in the same village. It appears that this young woman went over to her sister to visit her, and that the morn ing after the day of her arrival the younger sister was taken exceedingly ill, with all the symptoms attendant on the taking of poison ; and that she died in the course of the same day. The circumstances were thought s() extraordinary, that a post mortem examination took place, and a quantity of arsenic was found in the stomach. On further inquiry, it was found that the sister of the deceased had bought a quan tity of this fatal drug at an apothecary's shop in the neigh.. bourhood a day before her sisters visit, and that the account of the use to which she applied it was contradictory and un satisfactory. After a laborious examination before the coro ner, in which Dr. Williamson, of Streeton-hall, took part, and in the neighbourhood of whose house the parties reside, a verdict was returned by the jury of " Wilful murder" against Ann Edge , who was onTuesday l ast committed to Chester Castle. to ta ke her trialfor the offence. The horror of this murder is much aggravated by the circumstance of a brother of the prisoner , a boy about eight year s o f age, hay ing died suddenly, under similar symptoms, about seven week s ago, and poison having been found in the stomach after hi s disinterment, which took place on the death of his sister. The inquest on the boy is now holding, an d till its termination we do not think proper to say more u p on the subject. No adequate motive is assigned for the perpetra tion of either of these murders.—Leeds Mercury. A STRIKING FACT. —" In March last, as I was repairi ng to the nati ve v illage of Bustom to su rve y a bridgewhich wa s thrown a cross th e road, on my rout e from the station of Jel lasore, on cross i ng th e Soubunreeka rive r, m y attention was attracted to a number of human skeletons which lay scattered in various directions upon the white sands adjacent to the course of the stream. Upon inquiry , I learned that these unfortunated relics were the remains of pilgrims, who were on their road to. the great pagoda at Juggernaut, and had been drowned two evenings before by means of a ferry-boat sinking with them during a violent north-wester. On my approaching several of these sad vestiges of mortality, I perceived that the flesh had been completely devoured from the bones by Pariah dogs, vultures, and other ebscenf, animals. The only portion of the several corpses I n oticed that remained entire and untouched, were the bottoms of the feet and the inside of the hands, and this extraordinary cir cumstance immediately brought to my mind that remarkable passage recorded in the second Book of Kings, relating to the death and ultimate fate of Jezabel, who was, as to her body, eaten of dogs, and nothing remained of her but the palms of her hands and the soles of her feet.' The former narrative may afford a corroborative proof of the rooted antipathy that the dog has to prey upon the human hands and feet. Why should be the case remains a mystery."— Times Correspondent. The following was written by a Philadelphian, who mus have felt particularly inspired by the majesty of his subject : Niagara! Niagara! I swear you are a staggerer ! I don't wish to be a bragmer, or A consequential swaggerer-- Yet still I vow, Niagara, • Your falls are quite a staggerer. MOUTfi TANCAMIRI 013IMER ASAIZEI; CROWN COURT. , —FRIDAY. (Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAW.) His Lordship took leis seat at nine o'clock. STEALING A POST LETTER. William Davies, a respectably-attired young man, was in dicted for stealing a post letter directed to Ralph Waller and Co., Manchester, containing two bills of exchange, the one for £35 7s, the other for £35 9s, and a bank note for £lO, the property of the Postmaster-General. There was another count in the indictment, stating the bills of exchange and note to be the property of Waller and others. The Attorney-General for the County, assisted by Messrs. Adolphus and Pollock, conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Wil kins defended the prisoner. The particulars of the case, as detailed by the Attorney- General, which were substantiated by the examination of witnesses,:are the following :—ln Manchester there is a firm called Waller and Co., cotton•spinners. This firm have in their employment a traveller of the name of Wadman, who, in the month of July last, being at the time on his Welsh round, transmitted from Gloucester to his principals in Man chester a £lO note and two bills of exchange for the respec tive amounts stated in the indictment. These bills and note he enclosed in a letter addressed to his employers, and posted it at Gloucester on Saturday, the 17th of July. According to the course of the post, the letter would have arrived in Manchester the following day, the 18th. It is the custom of the firm of Waller and Co. not to send for their letters on Sundays; but their book-keeper, on Sunday, when on his way to church, looked into the post-office, and observed that there were several letters in the box belonging to his employ ers. On Monday morning, a little before nine o'clock, the book-keeper in question, when on his way to the office of his employers, again looked into the box at the post-office, and observed that the number of letters was increased. About twenty minutes after nine o'clock, one of the firm of Waller and Co. went to the post-office, for the purpose of fetching away the letters ; but on arriving there, he found that there were none, and upon inquiry he learned that the letters had been taken away by some person not authorised, and that they had not been delivered at the factory. The prisoner had been in the employment of Messrs. Waller, and was, therefore, acquainted with the habits of the house and their mode of carrying on business. Shortly before the day in question, the prisoner had been in considerable distress, and the very week before the matter occurred (the Saturday on which the letter was posted at Gloucester), he applied to Messrs. Waller to receive him again into their employment, and was requested to call again on Monday, when, probably, his wish would be complied with. He did not call, nor was he again seen by Messrs. Waller and Co., until he was appre hended, some days afterwards. Three or four days after the letter was missing, a letter was sent by some one who signed himself H. S. Marshall, dated Abergavenny, to the Manches ter and London Joint Stock Banking Company, Prince's street, London, the bank upon which the Gloucester house had drawn, containing a bill of exchange for £35 7s, which the writer requested to have discounted, stating as his reason for making the request, that be bad no banking account at Abergavenny. The amount he requested should be for warded to him in bank notes, at the post-office, Abergavenny. Information having been given to the London house of the letter containing the bills of exchange having been stolen, the bill sent to be discounted was returned to the Abergavenny house. On the Monday morning on which the letter was stolen, the prisoner bought a new pair of boots, for which he paid 17s, And a new hat, for which he paid half a sovereign, and it was observed by the person receiving payment, that he had several sovereigns in his purse. He also called at the house of a person with whom he formerly lodged, and paid £1 Bs, a balance due for his board. Several persons ac quainted with the prisoner's handwriting were called, and de posed that it was their conviction that the letter received at the banking-house in London, requesting to have the bill of exchange discounted, and also two endorsements on the bill, were in the handwriting of the prisoner. Mr. WILKINS made an eloquent appeal to the jury in be half of the prisoner, in which he contended that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the prisoner was the party who had stolen the letter,—it is equally probable that the offence might have been committed t•y some other person. The jury, after being absent from court above half an hour, returned a verdict of Guilty. Sentence deferred. FORGING AN ACCEPTANCE TO A BILL OF EXCHANGE Abraham Schofield, 24, and Joseph Schofield, 29, were indicted for uttering a forged acceptance to a bill of exchange. for £22, with intent to defraud Messrs. Daniel Burton and Co. Mr. Brandt prosecuted, Sir Gregory Lewin conducted the defence. . Messrs. Burton are manufacturers at Manchester, and the prisoners are the sons of James Scholfield, residing at Saddle worth, a person who was in the habit of dealing with them, and in the month of January last there was a balance of £22 due on the account, and the prisoners, on the 12th of that month, brought the bill in question, drawn by James Schol field, the father, and professing to bear the acceptance of a firm in Coleman-street, London, of the name of George Campbell and Co., to Messrs. Burton's, who refused to take it up until they had made inquiry relative to the firm of Campbell and Co. The following day the prisoners again called upon Messrs. Burton, and stated that they were well acquainted with the firm of Campbell and Co,—that it was a shipping house of great respectability, and that they had fre quently had bill transactions with the firm. When the bill became due it turned out that no such parties as Campbell and Co. were in existence. Upon making inquiry in Cole man-street, it was found that two persons had taken a lower apartment, at 71, Coleman-street, and at the time of doing so represented themselves to be agents for a firm in Manches ter, but that they had left the premises a few days before in quiry was made after them. Sir GREGORY LEWIN addressed the jury for the prisoners, and contended that, as it had not been shown by the case for the prosecution that the firm of " Campbell" was not a bona fide concern, there was no evidence of the bill being a forgery; and even could this be shown, the prisoners were merely acting as the agents of the father. The jury found both the prisoners guilty. Sentence de ferred. MANSLAUGHTER Frederick Smith, a man of respectable appearance, was indicted for the manslaughter of Catherine Brennan, at Li verpool, in March last. Messrs. Henderson and Venables appeared to prosecute, Messrs. Murphy and James for the defence. Previously to the trial being proceeded with a lengthened argument took place between the learned counsel on either side, as to whether the indictment could be preferred, the prisoner having been tried at the borough sessions for an as sault upon deceased, by which her death was said to have been caused, and acquitted. His lordship, after consulting his brother judge, ordered the trial to be proceeded with. The circumstances of the case are of an exceedingly ordi nary nature, and were given at length at the time of the trial at the sessions. The short particulars of the case are these. The prisoner's place of business is in Union-street, and on the 15th March the deceased was standing at the door of the house of a person named Beale, who lives opposite. In con sequence of some difference existing between Mrs. Beale and prisoner, a colloquy took place between the prisoner and the deceased ; and the latter becoming much enraged, went over to the shop of the prisoner, who, to eject her, seized her by the wrists, and in consequence of giving her a push, she fell upon the steps, whereby her leg was broken. It appeared from the evidence of the medical gentleman who was called in to attend the deceased, that deceased's death had been oc casioned by want of due care, and sufficient nourishment not having been given to her. It was his opinion that had his directions been attended to, that the deceased should be sent to an hospital, she would have recovered from the fracture of the leg. In consequence of this his lordship ordered the case to be stopped, and a verdict of not guilty was taken, and the prisoner discharged from the bar. DEATH FROM FURIOUS DRIVING. John Gambles, an omnibus driver, was indicted for having caused the death of an old man named James Limna, by driv ing over him. Mr. Paget conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy the defence. On the 26th of July the prisoner, who was the driver of an omnibus, had occasion to pass up Sir Thomas's-buildings with his vehicle. At the bottom of Sir Thomas's -buildings the deceased was engaged in a quarrel with several other per sons, and the scraper of the omnibus caught deceased, and threw him under the wheels, and so severe l y injured him as to cause death in less than a quarter of an hour from the ac cident. Mr. MURPHY, in his address to the jury, observed, that there had been a great want of caution on the part of the de ceased, and that the prisoner was not to blame in the trans action. The jury, after a few minutes deliberation, returned a ver dict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. Mr. Gelling, hair-dresser ; Mr. Amos, the governor of the gaol ; and a police-officer, gave the prisoner the character of being an exceedingly careful driver. His LORDS HIP sa id, i n c onsequence of the recommenda tion of the jury, and good character given the prisoner, he should pass a very light sentence. He sentenced the prisoner to six weeks' imprisonment, the last three days to be solitary. MALICIOUSLY CUITING. Edward Kelly, 27, was indicted for having, at Blatchin worth and Calderworth, feloniously stabbed, cut, and wounded John Baron, on the 10.11 August. Mr. Brandt pro secute d ; the prisoner conducted his own defence. The prisoner is an itinerant fiddler, and on the night of the 9th of August, took a bed in a double-bedded room, at a public-house, kept by a person named Wild. The prosecu tor had engaged to take part of the bed with prisoner, and during the night he was awoke by feeling the prisoner endea vouring to take his trousers (in the pockets of which were three sovereigns and some silver) from beneath his pillow. He (prosecutor) seized him and called for assistance. Pri soner took up a pint pot and struck prosecutor several times about the head, and, during the time they were scuffling to gether, he received a stab from a knife above the knee. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was, in conse uence, as his lordship said, of the abominable defence which was an indecent one) set up, sentenced to be trans ported for life. MANSLAUGHTER William Swift, 41, was indicted for having, at Manchester, killed and slain one John M`Donald. Mr. Monk prosecuted ; Mr. Wilkins appeared for the pri soner. Deceased and prisoner, along with several other persons, were drinking together in a liquor vault, when, in conse quence of prisoner's refusing to treat deceased with liquor, a quarrel ensued, and deceased made use of some observations relative to prisoner's deceased wife, calculated to raise his anger ; in consequence of which prisoner struck him a blow that caused him to fall against the shop counter, and receive a wound in the head that resulted in death. The prisoner received the character of being an extremely humane man ; in consequence of which, and the great pro vocation given by deceased to the prisoner, his lordship said he was induced to pass an exceedingly light sentence. The prisoner was ordered to be imprisoned for ten days. MALICIOUSLY STABBING John Ball was indicted for having cut, stabbed and wounded Thomas Kelly. . The particulars of tliis case appeared in the police reports a few days ago. The prosecutor, at a little before twelve o'clock on the night of the 7th of August, was passing up Bannastre-street, in company with his wife. There was a disturbanc e in the street at the time, and several men were engaged in kicking a man who was lying on the ground. Prosecutor interposed, observing that it was not fair play to kick a man when down. He had no sooner made the obser vation, than the prisoner gave him several stabs in the face with a k n if e. Prosecutor seized ho ld o f th e prisoner, and they both f e ll together, and when down he received several other stabs in different parts of the body. The prisoner suc ceeded in disengaging himself from the grasp of the prose cutor, but was apprehended the following morning whilst in bed. A knife was found by a police-officer, the following morning, ne ar the place where the altercation took place, which was shown to b e l ong to t h e pr i soner . The jury found the prisoner gutlty.—Sentence deferred. John Case, 27, indicted for maliciously wounding Mary Ann Cox, was found guilty, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The court adjourned a little before six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. WALKER AND ANOTHER ASSIGNEES V. BLINKHORN. Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings, which .were rather complicated. Mr. CRESSNV ELL stated the case, and en treated the attentio n o f thejury while he unravelled its cir cumstances. The plaintiffs are a ss i gnees of the esta t e of Cartwright, a bankrupt, in Bolt on , and the defendant a ma nufacturing chemist. Shortly before the assignment, a ge neral transfer had been made of all the stock in bankrupt's wite 7 h oo ou ; t aannyd,esatc7oardtlnogr d to ese th ri e pt s io ta n te o m f e p n a t rt o i f cu t l h a e r possessions to cover this, he had ac cess t o b an k rup t' s l a e r a ti r c n l e e d s, cfoournsel, gti4 tus.is out 4 datjel433l! idet4tner . tt, rigig . thß asst that Ka indebtM to the binkrupt's estate £4OO. The difference was made out by deNtting the bank rupt with bills ; but no trace could be found of those at the time they were said to be paid, and as an account was ren dered every half year, in which they were not mentioned, the presumption was that they had never existed, and that the taking credit for them was fraudulent. The case, when thus far opened, appeared so extremely intricate and complicated, that his lordship expressed a very emphatic opinion, that it was impossible for the jury, sitting as a jury, to come to any satisfactory conclusion. A good deal of consultation with Mr. Dundas and Mr. Thomlinson, defendant's counsel, then took place, which ended in a reference to Mr. Armstrong, as arbitrator, with power to examine the bankrupt himself. HILL, SUING in forma pauperis, V. MACKENZIE. Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings, and Mr. WORTLEY stated the case, which, he said, was of a nature which not unfrequently occurred, but which was somewhat peculiar in its circumstances. It involved the question of the extent to which masters of vessels might go in the punishment of per sons under their command. They would find, he believed, that whatever fault the plaintiff had committed, there was on the part of the defendant a degree of violence, excess, and cruelty which the circumstances could not excuse. The plaintiff was a common seaman, and so humble in his cir cumstances that he was compelled to come before the court in forma pauperis. He engaged with the defendant, Wm. Mackenzie, master of the ship Acadia, and having signed the usual agreement, proceeded with her on her voyage. One of the conditions agreed to by the plaintiff and the whole crew was, that there should be no spirits introduced on board the ship—a rule which the learned counsel said he understood was becoming very common, and was certainly likely to be very advantageous. In January, 1840, the vessel arrived at Mobile, in the United States. Her cargo was salt, and great progress was made in discharging it before the cir cumstances occurred out of which the action arose. But before it was all discharged, a person came on board who was the owner of five horses which had come in the vessel, and be promised the men something to drink if they would use extra care and despatch in discharging them. The horses were delivered safe, and the men went on board the steamer which the owner had brought for them, and received the ful filment of his promise. Defendant came on board the steamer, asked what they were doing, was told, made no objection, but told them to take no more, and sent a quantity amounting to a gallon and a half, of spirits on board. The number of the crew was 29, so that this was no very extra vagant allowance : and it would be shown that the captain promised each of them to have a glass when at work, and di rected the mate to give them it. The spirits being thus in charge of the mate, the men dined, and on going to work asked for their glass. To this very reasonable request the mate replied that he would see them d—d first. And they then refused to work. This refusal he did not justify ; in deed, in the present state of the proceedings, he was not in a condition to do so. The question for the jary.was .not whether in this refusal they were strictly right, but whether the punishment which followed was not excessive and cruel on the part of the defendant. Shortly after a signal was, made from the Acadia to a United States man-of-war—the Jefferson—lying in the river. The second lieutenant came on board, and advised the mate that the men's request was only reasonable, and to give them the glass. He came on board a second time, and gave the same advice. This was on the Thursday, and the defendant being absent, matters remained in the same state until Sunday, the mate refusing the spirit, and the men refusing to work without it. The mate in the meantime put the meu on bread and water, and stopped their ether allowances. On Sunday the captain came back, and without communicating with any one but the mate, he made on Monday a fresh signal to the man-of war. The first lieutenant then came on board with a strong party, armed with cutlasses, took six of the crew of the Aca dia on board the American vessel, and then, without any further inquiry, the plaintfff, Hill, was ordered to the gang way, stripped, and twelve lashes were inflicted on him. The first lieutenant then asked Mackenzie if that was enough? He replied, "No, give him anotherdozen," and another dozen was given. He (Mr. W.) did not know by what authority a British sailor was thus taken on boatd a foreign ship, and disgraced by corporal punishment inflicted by foreign hands, though the captain might pucish an offender moderately on board his own ship. Hill protested against this treatment, as not being an American subject. He declared that his agreement with his captain was at an end, and refused to return to the ship, but with these bleeding stripes he was ordered, with five others, on board a small schooner, and the hatches fastened down for twenty-four hours. Hill's spirit was still not broken, nor could he (Mr. W.) tell by what authority it was that this British subject was taken on shore, and then, without inquiry, committed to prison for an indefi nite time, without any regular charge. In this state he lay in prison 69 days, and th n Mackenzie began to suspect he had gone a little too far, released him from prison, and brought him home in his own ship in irons. The learned gentleman concluded by commenting with much force on the hardships of plaintiff's case. Depositions taken in America would be read for the defence. It was true the plaintiff might have attended and examined the persons who made them, but, in point of fact, from his poverty, he could not, and he entreated the jury to consider them merely as exparte state ments, taken behind the plaintiff's back. Hugh Evans was one of the crew of the Acadia, and knew the plaintiff. He related the circumstances of the tranship ping the horses. He went on board the steamer for the spi rits with a gallon can, and the gentleman said it was too little, and sent him for a bucket. Captain Mackenzie asked him what he was doing. He replied he was getting his al lowance, and the captain said there was enough in the bucket. There might be a gallon and a half. The captain gave it to another sailor, who gave it to the mate, on board the Acadia. The captain told the mate to give them a glass when they were at work. The witness proceeded to relate what fol lowed, nearly as related by the plaintiffs counsel. The armed party from the cutter went into the cabin, and conferred with the captain, and then the mate called for six of them into the cabin. The captain asked them what they would do : they replied they would not work without their grog. They were immediately bound, and " bundled" into the boat, without being allowed to get their jackets, and taken on board the Jefferson. After the lapse of three quarters of an hour, Capt. ' Mackenzie came, and they were ordered below, and all hands piped to witness punishment. Hill was called out, and pu nished with a dozen. The lieutenant asked Mackenkie if that was enough, and by his desire another dozen was given, by the boatswain of the Jefferson. Another man was then flogged, and we were all put down below until three o'clock, and then taken on board a schooner taking in salt. They were put in irons in a small place in the vessel, and some sacks laid on the salt. This was a most miserable place, and on their entreaty a little hole was made for them to breathe. Water and light was refused them. They could not stand up, and they had no conveniences. They were kept there nearly twenty-four hours, and were then taken to Mobile, shut up in a prison without being asked any questions, and remained there ten weeks, without any linen, and sleeping on boards. Plaintiff's back was very sore, and he laid on his side. All the time they were not out of the room, and they washed it themselves. The captain came only once, at the end of three weeks, and asked them how they liked it. The day before he sailed he told them that, on paying their own gaol fees, they might go. Witness paid part, and came home in another vessel. _ Witness was cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL. He was asked whether the captain's direction was not to give them any spirits until they had finished their work, but denied this. The steamer had a tap. He would swear that he had only one glass, but could not swear that some of the crew were not excited with liquor, or that the mate did not tell the captain they had had enough. Did not see the bucket of spirit brought out from the cabin. The mate did not offer to give them the spirit when they had finished their work. The mate, captain, boatswain, apprentices, and one of the men kept to their work and loaded the schooner. There were 16 or 17 of them mutinous. Does not know that the canvass from the horse-box was stolen ; did not see it taken to mend clothes. When the mate put them on bread and water, some of the crew took some pork that was hanging np, but witness did not see it eaten. Was in the same room at Mobile with Hill, and will swear that the cap tain did not come several times to offer to release them if they would return to their work. No one else came. They wrote two letters to the English consul, but got no answer. Will swear there was not an examination of witnesses in their presence, before a magistrate, before committal. Re-examined.---Their commitment was ready made out when they got there. They were put in an office for about two minutes, when there was one old gentleman who asked no questions except he asked the captain the price of cotton. (Much laughter.) The canvass had been inside the horse boxes the whole voyage. The pieces of pork were four one pound pieces. John Stant, another of the crew of the Acadia, was then called for the plaintiff, and gave a very clear and succinct narrative of the dispute, corresponding with that of the preceding witness. When the second lieutenant of the Jefferson advised the mate to give the men their grog, he replied to the offer, that he " would see them d—d first." The officer then advised the men to go to starboard and larboard, to see which would work, and all that Hill said was, " what will be done to me if I stand amidships ?"—that is, if he would not work. The captain made no inquiry into their grievances. Witness was not one of the six taken on board. Did not hear the captain invite the crew to return to work on Monday. Cross-examined.--Did not tell the mate the men had spirits already, nor advise him to take care of the bucket. Mr. CRESSWELL replied. He agreed that the question was one of great importance and interest. He would main tain the rights of British subjects to protection with as much zeal and sincerity as any one. But it was equally important that a drunken and mutinous sailor should not be allowed to endanger life and property. The duty of the master of a merchant vessel was of a very onerous and difficult kind. He had not the same means of keeping order as the com mander of a ship of war. This difficulty was particularly felt in ports like Mobile, where there were high wages and many temptations. On that ground the American govern ment, for the sake of preserving order, stations in those ports ships of war, with order to render assistance when wanted to foreign vessels, British among others. Such aid was only given on request, and to give it was not a subject of jealousy, but a proof of amity. A British master had the same authority to punish there as on board his own ship, and by doing so the punishment was more regularly inflicted, and the danger of violent resistance removed. In this case the crew were mutinous against the officers, nineteen to three, and it was infinitely safer to go on board the American vessel, and more proper to go within the American municipal jurisdiction to inflict the punishment, than to send for the ship of war's sailors to inflict it on board the British ship. The learned gentleman then went into the particulars of his defence. lie would show that Stant had given his evidence very incorrectly, and that the first witness was perjured up to the chin. He argued that the probabilities were that the men having been on board the steam-boat would go to the tap and get excited by liquor. The real promise of the captain was, that the men should have the whiskey after they had loaded the schooner, not before, and that it would have been wrong and imprudent in the mate to give them it when they asked for it. The plaintiff had admitted, in his plea, that the crew were mutinous, and he would ask if, after four days' obstinate mutiny, two dozen strokes were in excess. There was no evidence of any great severity, and this was no more than was necessary, as an example to the crew with which the captain and mate had to cross the Atlantic. The learned gentleman read the deposition of the American cap tain, expressing his opinion that, without his interference, the ship and property were in great danger, and that the captain's conduct was humane and judicious. For the impri sonment, the defendant Ras no ways responsible. Suppose a mutiny broke out on board a ship in the Prince's Dock, and the mutineers were taken before the respectable gentleman who presides over the police-court, he would be dealt with according to the municipal law of the place, as it was to be presumed the plaintiff was there. The witness, Evans, was abominably perjured, and his evidence was false in almost every particular. They were regularly examined and committed on the oaths of the captain and mate and on their own statement that they refused to work. The learned counsel then read the deposition of Mr. Wilkins, the magi strate, to that effect, which stated also that he received the British consul's directions to examine into the case. They were committed, " subject to order of William Mackenzie, or until liberated by due course of law." He would show, also, that the witness had perjured himself in relation to the captain's visits, and to prove this, read the depositions of the gaolor and his deputy, to the frequent visits of the cap tain, and his kind and mild way of addressing the prisoners. The British consul had also visited them, and endeavoured to persuade them to return to their duty. What the plaintiff suffered in person he suffered from his own obstinacy in the mutiny, of which he was the ringleader. Isaac Sinclair was mate of the Acadia. His narrative differed in important particulars from that of the witnesses for the plaintiff. Stant warned him that there were some spirits coining on board, as there was some of the crew not fit to have it. The captain was on the paddle-boxes of the steamer alongside, and told witness to take it and give it to them after they but done thaw work In loading the vtisorter which might occupy two holm, He gave the ticket to the steward. Two of the sailors took it from him, and witness took it from them again. Several of the crew appeared to have had liquor. The captain left in the steamer for Mobile, and left witness in command of the ship. He then sent the crew to dinner, and they swore they would not work until they got the grog. I did not think it safe to give it them. They swore to the captain, before his face, that they would not go to work without it. The captain might have said they were to have a glass at their work, but cannot swear it. When the captain went away he said they were not to have it until they had done their work. They persisted in refus ing to work, and Simon Hill seemed particularly their leader. The captain told me before he went that if they refused to work the only redress we had was to hoist the private signals to the cutter. The lieutenant of the cutter did not recom mend me to give them their liquor. I slept with the pistols under my head every night. I wrote for the captain, and he returned. Does not think the crew were asked to work on the Monday. Three or four hours after the six were taken on board the cutter, the rest of the crew went back to work. It would have been imprudent to attempt to punish on board the Acadia. Hill refused to work all the way home. An other of the six came home in the Acadia, and did work. The boatswain is dead and the carpenter at sea. Cross-examined.---None other of the crew are here. Hill was not in irons on the way home from Mobile to Liverpool. We had twenty-nine hands out, and we brought twenty-five home, including a fresh hand at Mobile. Will swear that Stant told him that men were not fit to have more spirits, and that the captain said they might when the .work was done, which might occupy two hours. Does not recollect the American officer telling Hill he bad power to flog him, but recollects Hill saying to officer " I am not under the Yankee stripes but under the English coach whip." I can not recollect what I said to the captain when he came, it is so long ago. There is no entry in the log of any inquiry into a mutiny, but merely that the crew continued off duty, and that during the night the crew had stolen the canvass and pork, and made a mock of the American lieutenant. James Sagar, who described himself as a merchant, usually residing at Mobile, saw six of the crew of the Acadia brought up before Mr. Wilkins. Captain Mackenzie was examined before the prisoners, and the men were asked if they had any thing to say, but they urged nothing. Saw the justice write what witness supposed would he the commitment. Went with Captain Mackenzie when he received the mate's letter to consult the British consul, and he advised the men to be taken before a magistrate. I am here accidentally on my own business. The witnesses to the depositions I know, and they are all abroad. The Jefferson was stationed to protect revenue, and to render any assistance required by vessels in the bay. Cross-examined.—The Acadia was consigned to our house, and I attended as a friend of the Captain. What the prison ers said was taken down in writing. They urged nothing in their defence. By the Court.—The constables took the men to prison. The deposition of Mr. Schroeder, the British procouncil was then read. Among other matters, it stated that defen dant had frequently visited plaintiff in . prison, and entreated him to return to his duty. The depositions of Lieut. Fors ter, commander of the Jefferson, were read, who considered the punishment " mild, and richy merited," both by his con duct on board the ship, and his obstinate refusal to return to his duty when on board the cutter, and that until the Jefferson was stationed for the protection of commerce, ships'companies were in the habit of mutinying,and running away with the ships boats to New Orleans ; of J. Wilkins, justice of the peace in Mobile; of C. S. Wilkins, deputy marshal and actingconstable , of Mobile ; of Ezekiel S. Bass, gaoler of Mobile, who spoke to the frequent visits of the defendant to gaol, and his mild and conciliating deportment ; of J. S. Narvaez, deputy gaoler, who stated that the conduct of the men in gaol was good and orderly ; all of which, more or less, confirmed the state ments of defendant's counsel and witness. A copy of the warrant of committal was also read. A certificate or report to his superiors was also read from Lieutenant Forster, to the effect that every effort had been made to induce the crew to return to their work, and that finally, they addressed very insolent and opprobrious language to himself and crew, and that the conduct of the captain was forbearing and humane to the verge of prudence. Mr. Sagar was recalled, and questioned by Mr. WonTLEy. Does not recollect whether the prisoners said anything in their defence or not; could not recollect that they said a word. Mr. WORTLEY replied for the plaintiff with much energy. He contended that the story, as told by his witnesses, was the most probable and consistent in itself ; that the men had committed a fault, but that the punishment was excessive, and a wanton exercise of despotic power. Their conduct ap peared to have been excellent the whole voyage, and it was a great hardship after so long a privation of spirit, to refuse them a small quantity that was made a present of, and which was too small to do them any harm. When the mate is pressed on the point, he admits that the captain " might" have said what the witnesses said he did say, namely, that they might have a glass at work. No witnesses could have conducted themselves with more propriety in the witness box than Evans and Stant, and it was clear that the captain did not see any drunkenness, by his permission to drink the spirits in two hours after. It was clear, also, that the mate's recollection was incorrect and coloured by his feelings, for, according to his account, they flatly swore to the captain they would not work, and if that was true, he must have gone away and left his ship with the crew in a state of mutiny—a thing quite incredible. It was clear, also, that there was no intention of violence, as for four days they were nineteen to three, and might have committed any violence—helped them selves to the spirits or anything else they liked. It was a mutiny of the lightest and most venial kind, and the captain did very wrong in acting on the angry letter of the mate, and in not conferring and reasoning with the men on the Monday morning. But no attempt was made until the shackles were put on their limbs and they were turned on board the Ame rican ship, where pride, independence, and perhaps a fool ish obstinacy to which we were all liable, prevented them making any concession. The American magistrate had no right to interfere, as there had been no violence, no offence against American law, simply a refusal to fulfil a civil contract. It was obvious that the seamen resented the being taken on board the American ship, and that the feelings of the American captain came into play, for in his report, which pur ports to be official, he uses violent and abuive language, not fit even for oratorical display. They used, he says, " violent and abusive language towards ourselves, our nation, and the service in which we were engaged. Forbear ance ceased to be a duty," and certainly all forLearance was now at an end, and the men were subjected, quite unneces sarily, to twenty-four hours shutting up in the forecastle of the schooner, without food or water, under that climate. The learned counsel then commented on the hearing before the magistrate ; without any reflectiop on Mr. Sagar, it was obvious he was incorrect. He sayi the mate was not ex amined. The deposition of the justice says he was. The inference is, that the oaths and examinations of all parties were taken in the absence of the prisoners, before the British consul, and that the statement of Evans was perfectly cor rect; for that plaintiff was not asked for his defence is to be inferred from the circumstance of its not appearing in the de positions, and Mr. Sagar's evidence, that though the "orator" and " ringleader" of the party, he really said nothing. The committal was, in fact, a committal for life, subject to the disposal of another person, and he (Mr. W.) believed it would be as bad in America as here, and that the justice living in a slave state had laid his hand on a form for impri soning runaway negroes. That the defendant went up to the gaol he believed, and that he saw the plaintiff he did not believe ; for it was clearly in evidence that they remained in prison ten weeks without change of linen, and came out covered with vermin, an d i t was imposs ibl e for any man of common humanity to have seen the vilest felon in that con dition without a change of linen. The real object of the visits of the captain, and the real object of their detention, was to drive a bargain for the fees, and after stoutly refusing for ten weeks to pay one half of the costs of what these poor men considered an illegal detention, the defendant at last thought it prudent to liberate them at his own expense. Of their good conduct in prison, the deputy-gaoler spoke in his deposition. The learned gentleman again commented on the violent and excited language of the American officeis' report, and concluded a very powerful speech, which occupied nearly two hours in the delivery, by an earnest appeal to the feelings of the jury. The Learned JUDGE charged the jury. The question was, whether the punishment was excessive and disproportionate to the offence, which the plaintiff himself admitted on the record he had been guilty of, namely, mutiny and insubordi nation. The learned judge carefully went over the evidence, and remarked that it did not appear from the evidence on either side, that at any time the plaintiff offered to return to his work without previously receiving the grog, so that, in point of fact, from first to last he remained in a state of con tumacy to orders. It would never do for seamen to regulate for themselves, when they would have spirits and in what quantities. Nothing could be more pregnant with danger than such a rule. If they believed the evidence of the gaolers, the plaintiff might have got out at any time on ceasing to be obstinate and returning to his duty. The jury, after a few minutes conversation, found a verdict for the defendant. SHEFFIELD, AS HT ON - UNDER-LINE, AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY V. WHITWORTH. Verdict, by consent, for plaintiffs, for £865 and costs. BYRNE V. BUGGELN AND ANOTHER. Withdrawn BURKE v. COLLISTER. This was a special action on the case brought by the plain tiff, who is a railway engineer, against the defendant, who is also an engineer, for slanderous words spoken against him in his profession. He had been employed as engineer on the Manchester and Leeds Railway, and the imputation, which wa s uttered in the month of M ay l ast at an i nn near Wake field, originated in a conversation on a projected North Lan caster Junction Railway, and was to the effect that the plain tiff had received a bribe of £5O to carry the railway through Mr. Fielden's uncle's estate, instead of his own, and had given a receipt for the money, and that he, defendant, was to be employed to take another survey through Mr. Fielden's estate, which would be cheaper. The case was proved by Mr. Lockwood, the landlord of the Spotted Dog, Wakefield, and Hattersley, a contractor on the Leeds and Manchester line, and others, and Mr. Scott, an engineer. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plaintiff, and after a speech from Mr. Cresswell for the defendant to the effect that the proof was insufficient, and that the pre sumption was that the imputation was a different one, the Court said the imputation was a scandalous one, but it was for the jury to say whether the communication was a confi dential one, drawn out by questions from the plaintiff's wit nesses themselves, or whether it was made voluntarily for the purpose of reflecting on;Mr. Burke. Were there circum stances to rebut the presumption of malice, or was the inten tion to defame? Verdict for the plaintiff —damages £5. JOHNSON AND A NOTHER V. MACDONALD. This was an action on an agreement to deliver one hundred tons of nitrate of soda at 18s. a cwt. There was no dispute on the amount of damages, or on the liability of defendant through his agents, Messrs. ROSCOW. Arnold and Leete, but it was brought to take his lordship's opinion on a clause in the agreement, namely, the article to arrive, and to be deli vered, " ex ship Daniel Grant, provided she is not lost." The question was whether it was an absolute agreement to deliver that quantity of nitrate soda whenever the ship arrived, whether she brought the article or not, or whether it was merely an agreement to deliver it w h en t h e Daniel Grant arrived, if sh brought it. The seller took the latter view of the matter, and the buyer the former, and had sold the article over again, and was bound to deliver it. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. It was agreed that a verdict be entered for the plaintiffs, subject to an application to the court above, when the Judge suggested whether it was not possible that the court above might not think the mercantile meaning of the words a ques tion for the jury. But the defendant having agreed to waive that objection, and treat the courtte am d abov a e ge a s s b a ei j n u g ry th , e thever- ver dict was entered as proposed, h differ ence between 18s. and 21s. 6d. per cwt. on the whole quantity. CROWN COURT. — SAT URDAY. STABBING WITH INTENT TO MURDER. John Johnson, 43, was charged with having, at Salford, feloniously stabbed, cut, and wounded Henry Walker, with intent to murder him. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecu tion, and Mr. Wilkins the defence. Henry Walker stated, that as he was going home on Sa turday night, the 19th June, he was struck down and became insensible. Next morning be found himself at home, all over blood, and wounded. It was proved that the prisoner had called the prosecutor from his house, and stabbed him several times with a chisel. A surgeon of the Manchester Infirmary stated that the pro secutor had twelve wounds. The back of the chest was per forated, so that the left lobe of the lung became useless. He was in extreme danger for some days. Mr, WRIMIA, for the Mew, aafd he regretted that he could say nothing in mitigation of the case. The J ury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years' transportation. FELONIOUSLY STABBING John Parker, 22, was charged with having, at Droyleden, feloniously cut and stabbed Job Goodier. The prisoner pleaded guilty. It appeared that he had inflicted frightful wounds on the face of the prosecutor, who was servant to a publican. The only provocation was, that the servant had refused to draw some liquor on a Sunday. The prisoner was sentenced to twelve years' transportation. Charles Bolton was indicted on a charge of having, at Wigan, feloniously cut and wounded Thomas Pilkington. The prosecutor was one of a band of musicians, who were parading the streets of Wigan, during the late contested election. They went to a public-house and had some drink. A quarrel arose, in the course of which the prosecutor was wounded near the throat. The surgeon deposed, that the wound might have been inflicted, not with a knife, but by a trumpet, or similar instrument. Mr. WILKINs ably defended the prisoner, contending that there was no absolute proof that the prisoner struck the blow. The jury acquitted the prisoner. STABBING A FEMALE WITH INTENT TO MURDER HER James Frazer, stood charged with having, at Liverpool, stabbed and cut Catherine English, with intent to murder her. The case was fully reported when it was investigated before the stipendiary magistrate. It appeared that the pri soner had committed the offence under circumstances of great provocation. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a com mon assault. His LORDSHIP regretted the presence of the knife, but admitted the provocation. As he (prisoner) had already suffered imprisonment for a considerable time, he would now sentence him to be further imprisoned for seven days. SHOOTING AT A POLICEMAN John Murray, 41, was charged with having shot at John Nicholson, with intent to maim, disable, and disfigure him, or to do him some grievous bodily harm. The case has already been fully before the public. The prisoner carried on the business of a publican in Atherton street. On the night of the day after the election, the 31st July, there were several disturbances in the streets, arising out of the popular excitement. A body of police, in the ex ecution of their duty, were patrolling the street about ten o'clock, and, on going up Atherton-street, several of them heard a report of a pistol, from which one of them was slightly wounded in the leg. A pistol was afterwards found in the prisoner's hand. The jury acquitted the prisoner. MALICIOUSLY SHOOTING. John Lovett, 27, was charged with having, at Manchester, discharged a loaded pistol at William Newsham, with intent to murder him. There was another count, charging him with intent to disable; and another, charging him with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. _ _ It appeared from the evidence, that the prosecutor and his sons reside in Manchester, and are in the same employ. On the 23d June prosecutor and prisoner went together to the White Hart public-house, in Manchester, and they left it to gether at twelve o'clock at night. The prosecutor took with him a pint of ale. When they had proceeded about twenty yards, the prosecutor heard the report of a gun or pistol, and immediately found himself wounded behind the ear. He fell to the ground insensible, and was taken by some by standers to the Infirmary. Prosecutor had not had any quarrel with the prisoner. The case against the prisoner was fully proved. A number of witnesses spoke in the highest terms of the prisoner, as an exceedingly industrious and well-behaved young man. The jury found the prisoner guilty on the last count only. Mr. WILKINS, in extenuation of the prisoner's offence, said that he (the prisoner) had expressed himself utterly amazed at his conduct. He had never entertained the slightest animosity towards the prosecutor, and he must have been incited to tire in a moment of temporary insanity, caused by having some time before been attacked by robbers, from which time he had always carried a pistol with him. The JUDGE said, that the case was altogether of so unpre cedented a nature, that he should take time to consider be fore he passed sentence. CHARGE OF RAPE James Bowker, 31, was indicted on a charge of having, at Great Bolton, committed a rape on the person of Mary Hil ton, a child, who, at the time the alleged offence was corn mitted,was under ten years of age. Mr. Atherton was interrupted in his opening address for the prosecution by the Judge, who said, that, in looking at the indictment, he found that the word " feloniously," with reference to the designation of the offence, had been omitted. The indictment must, therefore, be quashed. The prisoner was, consequently, discharged. HIGHWAY ROBBERY William Stanley, William Taylor, and Samuel Kirk were inditted on a charge of having committed a highway robbery at Dukenfield, on the person of John Hadfield. Stanley and Taylor pleaded guilty. The evidence adduced, therefore, mainly affected Kirk. The attack was attended with great violence, and, consequently, included the capital charge. The prosecutor had his pocket cut off, and his watch and some money were taken. The prisoner was found guilty. The JUDGE said, that the law required that judgment of death should be recorded against them, though their lives would be spared. He should make such representation to the proper quarter as he deemed proper. He might say, however, that Stanley might expect transportation for a long series of years, that Taylor's term of transportation would be shorter, and that Kirk would be imprisoned. John Whitworth 24, and James Butterworth, 25, were charged with having, at Blatchinworth and Calderbrook, feloniously committed a rape on the person of Mary Harper. There was another count, charging Butterworth with having aided and assisted Whitworth in the commission of the offence. The female, on whose person the offence was alleged to have been committed, was, it was stated, an idiot, and, there fore, could not he produced tra a witness. Her father stated, that she was 42 years of age ; that she had a stroke when she was three years of age, and could hear but could not give an answer. The prisoners sent the father (an old man) to a distant public-house on two occasions, and, during his absence, the crime charged was supposed to have been com mitted. The woman generally sat in the " nook," being lame, and unable to move much about. On his return, on the last occasion, witness found his daughter and Whitworth on the bed in an indelicate position. He (Whitworth) got up and said, " Old fellow, you've catched me. I know I've done wrong ; but if you'll say nothing about it, I'll treat you to a pint or two of ale any time." He said, such a crime could not be made up in that way. Butterworth was stand ing by. He said, he had had nothing to do with her. She could not have got to the bed without assistance. She knew nothing. If meat were placed before her, she would starve before she would take it of her own accord. She had a child once before, but it never could be found out how it happened. The old man, who was much affected, concluded by saying, he hoped his Lordship would have mercy on his fellow creatures, (the prisoners,) who had not before been guilty of crime. His LORDSHIP said, that there were some doubts whether the offence amounted to the offence charged, inasmuch as the female was devoid of mind. She could not give her consent in words. There could be but little doubt he thought, but that crime had been committed. If they considered the rape made out against Whitworth, he should refer the case to the consideration of the twelve judges. If they did not so find, there could be no doubt whatever that an assault had been committed. With respect to Butterworth, though it was odious in him to stand by, it did not appear that he had in any way aided and assisted the other, and he must, there fore, be acquitted. The jury found the prisoner Whitworth guilty, and But terworth not guilty. His LORDSHIP sentenced Whitworth to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour, the last week solitary con finement. John Finnigan, 29, was charged with having, at Hindley, committed a rape on Eleanor Molyneux. The prisoner was manager of a mill at Hindley, belonging to Mr. Walker. The prosecutrix, who is twenty years old, was employed at the mill. She stated that the prisoner or dered her to an upper room to clean a window. He followed, and carried her forcibly to another room, when he forcibly committed the offence. She added, that she cried out, but there was a great noise in the mill at the time. She after wards told Mary Collier. Mary Collier said, the prosecutrix came to her that night full of trouble, and with tears in her eyes, and told her what the manager had done. Witness asked her if she would tell her father, and she said she would not, for he was ill, and it would distress him. She did not see Mr. Walker that night, as it was too late. Gross-examined.—She told me the manager had taken liberties with her three times before. I asked if she, had told her sister of the present assault, and she said she had not. Persons in the room below would hear any cries made in the room where it happened. The prisoner was appre hended in our house. We allowed him to remain there some days. _ _ The piosecutrix's sister said, that she (Eleanor) told her on the evening of the 23d July what had been done to her by the prisoner. A constable apprehended the prisoner on the 9th August, at Collier's house. His wife was there. He (witness) dis covered him in a closet under the stairs. On being told what he was taken for, he fell on his knees and begged to be let off for the sake of his wife and family. He afterwards said he would give all he possessed if he would not take him. On being told again what he was taken for, he said, " No, I did not ravish her, for I had connexion with her before." He said be had given her money, and she had gone against him because he had not paid her then. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP said that the law still considered the offence as capital, butthe prisoner should have death record ed against him, and he would consider what punishment he should suffer. THE MURDER CASES The JUDGE, in reply to a question from Mr. Wilkins, stated, that the first trial for murder, that of William Jenner, for the murder of his wife and child, will be brought up on Tuesday morning, and that the other murder cases will be proceeded with without interruption. The Court rose at half-past five o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT GARRETT V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS SATURDAY In this action the plaintiff, who is an attorney at Walling ton, in the county of Salop, claimed to recover from the de fendants, George Thompson, James Thompson, and Richard Massey, a considerable sum of money, which he claimed partly as due to him upon certain bills of exchange and for money lent to them. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. From the statement of the case on the part of the plaintiff, it appeared that the two first defendants had suffered judg ment to go by default, but Mr. Massey defended the action. The action was to recover certain sums from him, first, as the endorser of a bill ; secondly, as the acceptor of another ; and thirdly, on a promissory note, of which he was the maker, by one of his partners. Mr. Massey pleaded, that none of these instruments were his, they having been signed by George Thompson. The three defendants, since the beginning of 1838, carried on business in partnership as ironfounders, at Fenton Park, Staffordshire, the Thompsons residing on the works and Mr. Massey remaining in Liverpool. The under taking was not a very prosperous one, and in the course of 1839, the whole of the floating capital of the partners having been expended, they felt it necessary to adopt some means of raising money to carry on the concern. With this view ad vertisements for a part ner w ith cap it a l were i nse rted in the Liverpool and Manchester papers, but without producing the desired result. The plaintiff was at last prevailed upon to supply funds, and he advanced a considerable sum, both on his own account and on that of his clients. The quest ion was, whether Massey had given Thompson a general authority to raise money in this matter, and to prove that he had, the learned counsel read several letters which had passed between them, in which the necessity for raising money, by some means, was insisted upon. and some measures for that pur pose were suggested to Ma sse y. The plaintiff having found that the concern was in a more critical state than he previously had reason to apprehend, a second bill for £540 was given to him by the elder Thompson, who also gave him some col lateral security, in thi s manner he had the private security of Thompson as well as the general security of the firm. The plaintiff enforced some of those securities, and put an execu tion into the partnership works ; and when the sheriff entered for the purpose of selli ng the effects, Mr. Massey served him with a notice, stating, that he was a par tner in and requiring him not to seize anything , a s there the concern, w e debts to which the partnership was liable. To this notice was attached a schedule of the liabilities of the concern, among which was the words, " to sundry bills of exchange, accepted and endorsed, upwards of £1200." Subsequent proceedings took place in the Court of Chancery, which sus- pended the plaintiffs remedy by the execution. The counsel for the plaintiff having stated his cue _ Mr. CILESSWELL said that, es a suit in Chancery vas pending, where all would be re-tried that would be board here to-day, in a more perfect manner than it could be in vestigated now, it would save a great deal of expense, if the case was referred to some gentleman at the bar, who should decide both upon the law and equity of the case. Mr. KNOWLES assented. It was then arranged that the case should be referred to a gentleman at the equity bar, under the sanction of the learned judge. Therefore, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, subject to the award. Five other cases against the same defendants were also re ferred, subject to the same conditions. BRANCKER AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. SHIPTON The plaintiffs in this case are the assignees of Messrs. Warden and Wanostrocht, merchants, and the defendant is Mr. Shipton, the well known carrier between Birmingham and Liverpool. The action was brought to recover from the de fendant the value of 132 cases of musquets, which he held for Mr. Scott, a manufacturer in Birmingham. Mr. Scott, besides exporting musquets through the bankrupts, engaged in some unfortunate speculations in the tea trade, and the question was whether the bankrupts ,Ncre his general or special factors. The case, although it lasted several hours, was of no public importance, nor did it involve any legal point of consequence. Several witnesses were examined on the mode in which business was generally transacted between the bankrupts and Mr. Scott, and also as to these particular transactions. A somewhat tedious inquiry was gone into as to the losses which had been incurred by the various specu lations in tea, with the view of proving that the musquets in the defendant's hands were liable to the plaintiffs for those losses. Eventually, after several offers to refer had been de clined, it was agreed between the parties, that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiffs for the value of the mus quets, £1360, but execution not to issue till the Ist of De cember, the defendant, in the mean time, to make an application to the Court of Review to go into all the transactions. WEBER V. COURT. This was an action in which the plaintiff, a commission agent, in Liverpool, sought to recover from the defendant, a salt proprietor, at Winsford, near Northwich, the sum of £62 and a fraction, which he alleged to be due to him for commission. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff Mr. Dundas for the defendant. _ . From the evidence and the statement of counsel, it ap peared, that, in October, 1839, the defendant gave the plaintiff authority to sell for him 4000 tons of common salt, at 10s. 6d. per ton, and at 6d. per ton less, if cash were paid within ten days after the delivery, and 1000 tons of the best stoved salt at 15s. 6d. per ton, but at 155., if cash were paid within ten days after the delivery. For this he was to receive a commission of 21 per cent. The plaintiff, in consequence, sought out for a customer, and on the 30th October he acquainted the defendant that Messrs. Holford, Bald and Co.. merchants, would take the salt on these terms. From time to time there were shipments of salt, till the end of April following, when, Messrs. Holford, Bald and Co. becoming embarrassed, the defendant, during the plaintiff's ;bsence from Liverpool, and without his inter vention, induced them to abandon the contract. They had then received about 800 tons, and it was stated that salt had, in the meantime, advanced. The defendant had cleared £250 by abandoning the contract. When the plaintiff heard of this, he claimed from the defendant the sum of £62 as his commission. In reply, the defendant expressed his surprise at the demand, as only 750 tons had been shipped to Messrs. Holford, Bald and Co., and that he was entitled only to the commission upon that quantity, namely, £9, which had been paid into court. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed commission on the entire contract ; and this was the only question in the case. A number of witnesses were examined on bdth sides as to the custom of the trade, whose testimony inclined towards the view taken by the defendant. The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict for the defendant. HARRIS V. BIRCH, BART The declaration in this action was in trover for an alleged conversion of certain wines. The plaintiff is Mr. Rice Harris, glass-manufacturer, of Birmingham, and the nominal defen dant on the record is Sir Thomas Birch, Bart., high-sheriff of the county. Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. ...... Mr. BAINES, in stating the case to the jury, said the real question in it was whether a certain execution levied upon some property, alleged to belong to Messrs. Jones and Win dle, was a valid execution. The plaintiffs claim arose out of a security given to him by Messrs. Jones and Windle upon some wines, which formed the subject of the present action, for the valuable consideration of his discounting a bill for £5OO, in the month of January, 1843. Messrs. Jones and Windle were general merchants in Liverpool. In the character of general merchants they were in the habit of shipping goods for the plaintiff, and the plain tiff was accustomed to draw upon them in respect of the shipments. After some transactions of this kind in January, 1840, an application was made by Jones and Windle to the plaintiff for his acceptance of a bill of exchange, for which they proposed that certain wines, which they were about to land, should be his security. The learned counsel then read the correspondence which had taken place between the par ties, from which it appeared, that the plaintiff consented to accommodate the applicants with his acceptance. After wards, however, it was not agreeable to him to lend his name to an accommodation bill, but be proposed to accomplish the same object in a different way, namely, by discounting one of their bills for £5OO. To this mode Jones and Windle as sented, and they, by way of security, deposited with him the bills of lading of the wine, and the entry of it in the Custom house books in his name. Of that money so advanced the plaintiff had never received one farthing, and he complained, that, after having had passed to him the property which was to be his security, it had been made available to the debt of another person which had accrued long subsequent to his claim. When at maturity the bill was not taken up, but it was renewed till April following, it being understood that the same security should continue. In April the bill was re newed till September, and again in September till January in the present year, and it was shortly afterwards that the seizure, which formed the subject of this action, took place. The wines remained in the vaults of Jones and Windle, ex cept a small portion which they disposed of for their own purposes, by which they conducted themselves fraudently to wards one of two parties, either towards the plaintiff or to wards the execution creditor. By their conduct it was, then, that loss was sustained by one of two innocent persons. In February, Jones and Windle removed the remainder of the wine from their vaults to the vaults of Messrs. Bushell and Co., who had also advanced some money upon it. It was when the wine was in Messrs. Bushell's vaults that the exe cution was put in, at the suit of Richard Page Tucker, for the sum of about £l,OOO. Messrs. Bushell sold the wine by public auction, but realized only £250, or half of what the plaintiff had advanced. It was, therefore, to recover this £250, if not the full amount of his claim, that the plaintiff appealed to the Jury. Several witnesses were then examined, who proved the facts as stated by the learned counsel. All the correspon dence was read, and the witness was Mr. Bushell, who proved that the wine sold for £290 Os. Bd. Mr. CRESSWELL, in his address to the jury on the part of the defendant said, the transactions as to this bill between the plaintiff and Jones and Windle would not be recognised by the bankrupt laws. The very act of the seizure of the wine by the sheriff made them bankrupts, and, from that moment, the property in it passed into the hands of their assignees and not into the hands of any individual creditor. The only question, then, was, whether these goods were in the order and disposition of the bankrupts at the time of the seizure. True, the plaintiff had advanced £5OO upon them, but, on the other hand, he had never had them in his posses sion, which was necessary in order to give him a valid claim upon them. The learned counsel then called several witnesses, and produced the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court, with the view of proving the petitioning creditor's debt, in order to set up the title of the assignees to the property. In this, however, he failed, owing, as he said, to a document having been sent from London, instead of a person attending with it, and the petitioning creditor having left Leeds, where he resided, for a journey. The learned JUDGE asked Mr. Cresswell whether, under these circumstances, he could carry his defence any further. Mr. CRESSWELL confessed, candidly, that he could not. The jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff, da mages £290. -_____...tro.-- CROWN COURT .—YESTERDAY .—_EsTERDAY (Before Justice WIGHTMAN.) RIOT AT WIGAN. Robert Topping, Tl7os.Sedgwick, Thos.Unsworth, Thos. Topping, and Matthew Chadwick, were charged with having created a riot on the 25th June last, at Wigan. Mr. Wilkins defended the two Toppings, and Mr. Murphy appeared for Sedgwick, Unsworth, and Chadwick. On the 25th June last, just previously to the late election, a man named Leathom, a voter, was detained by the parti sans of one of the candidates ; and it being supposed that he was detained against his will—in short, that he was " bottled," as it is termed—the opposite party surrounded the house where he was (a tavern kept by a person named Kaye), violently attacked it, broke one of the windows, two panels of the door, and the lock, forced an entrance, and released the man. The prisoners were amongst those who were most actively employed in the transaction. It appeared that the man Leathom had been previously detained at St. H elens. The, examination of the witnesses was continued for an hour and a half, when the case was stopped and the prison ers pleaded guilty. His LORDSHIP cautioned the prisoners against any repe tition of such conduct, which was undoubtedly most unjus tifiable. He thought the ends of justice would be answered by binding the prisoners in their own recognisances to appear and receive judgment in case of any future misbehaviour. The prisoners, having been bound in recognisances of £5O each, were discharged. IqA:s.:SLAIJGIITER William Kelly was charged with having, at Wigan, felo nioniously slain John Winstanley ; Richard Maguire, James Royle, and John Whittle were charged with having aided and abetted him. Mr. Hulton and Mr. Trafford conducted the prosecution, Mr. Brandt appeared for Whittle, and Mr. Murphy defended the other three. It appeared that on the morning of the 26th June last, just before the election at Wigan, a man named Morgan Heaton went to the Market-place, in which several persons were as sembled, and endeavoured to incite them to go to the Com mercial Inn, for the purpose of securing a person who, he said, was there detained. Some demonstrations having been previously made against the Commercial Inn, Maguire, Kelly, and Royle were stationed, by Whittle, to protect it. The streets were filled with people armed with bludgeons, and the populace were in a state of great commotion. Hea ton declared that he would go and rescue the man himself. The witnesses saw the mob go up the yard of the Commer cial Inn, whence they presently retreated. Winstanley was in the crowd. He was pursued by Kelly, who, with a large billet of wood, struck him and knocked him down. He was afterwards struck by Maguire and Hoyle. It was shown, on cross-examination, that the crowd expressed a determination to force their way into the house ; or, if the men were not turned out, to pull it down. The blow which Winstanley received fractured his skull, and caused his death. Highly-respectable witnesses gave Whittle an excellent character, as a peaceable and well-conducted man. The jury found Kelly Guilty, recommending him to mercy ; they acquitted the other three prisoners. His LORDSHIP alluded to the violence of the mob as an extenuating circumstance, while he commented on the mis chief of the prisoner's conduct. He sentenced him to a week's imprisonment. PERJURY. John Ellis, °3, was charged with having, at the Kirkd tie Sessions, in July last, unlawfully, corruptly, and wilfully committed an act of perjury. Mr. TRAFFORD, on behalf of the crown, said he was ready to take a verdict of acquittal, as the two witnesses who could have proved the case were absent, and he had them called upon their recognizances. MANSLAUGHTER. John Casement was indicted for having feloniously killed and slain Ellen Boyle, at Liverpool, by shooting her with a pistol. Mr. Murphy conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Wilkins the defence. Eliza Hill, sworn—l knew the deceased Ellen Boyle by sight. On the night of the 30th June the day of the Liver pool election, I recollect going down Park-lane between nine and ten o'clock. 1 saw a n um b er of persons armed with sticks, behaving in a riotous manner and throwing stones. They moved towards the Salthouse Dock. I saw Ellen Boyle in the crowd running. The crowd stopped opposite to Casement's house. 1 saw them throw several stones at the • , benne which ha,,ie the windows. The door '4ifthO a pol shut. While the mob were throwing the stones, front room window of the house lifted. I saw a man stand ing at the window. I heard the report of two pistols and saw a flash, which came from-the window where the man was standing. I saw Ellen Boyle fall. She cried out for her mother, exclaiming that she was shot. I assisted to carry her to a cellar in Atherton-street. When she was undressed, I saw a wound in her side from which blood was flowing. Next day I saw her in another house. I think the people made no demonstration of an intention to break into the house, but only to break the windows. . By the JUDGE.—I did not see Ellen Boyle doing any thing. By Mr. Wiractris.—l saw them attack three houses. I did not see them fill any of the women's aprons with bricks or stones. I saw stones in men's hands. There was a great noise of hurrahing. I did not hear any threats used against Casement. William Magee.—l knew Ellen Boyle. About six o'clock on the day of election, I beard hurrahing in Park-lane. I saw a large number of men and women. They broke the windows of three public-houses in Park-lane, and then went to the Globe, where they broke the windows and then went away. They then went to Casement's, where they also be gan to break the windows. They broke the upper windows. I saw the frame of the window on the first floor lifted out, I think by the master of the house, who fired a pistol. I saw Ellen Boyle in the crowd shortly before the pistol was fired. I saw her shortly after, and she was crying. Mary Divett sworn. I saw a crowd in Park-lane on the night of the election. I followed it in company with Ellen Boyle. I saw thd crowd break the middle-room win dows of Mr. Casement's house. I got frightened, and was going home, when I called at Mrs. Moran's, where I found Ellen Boyle. She had been shot. I saw her several times after._ She died in a fortnight. Mara O'Donnell, with whom the deceased lodged, showed that she had a wound in the ancle as well as that in the right side, which was the principal wound, and which had injured her liver. Samuel Cooper proved that the mob was very violent, that a man opened the window of Mr. Casement's house and fired. and that he (witness) received a shot in each arm. Mr. Superintendent Riding proved that, when he and Mr. Whitty went to Casement's house they found all the windows of the upper rooms broken, and the rooms covered with half bricks, stones, and mortar. The prisoner having been cau tioned by Mr. Whitty, said, he had fired a pistol loaded with swan shot amongst the crowd, but he three times warned them to disperse before he did so. Mr. WILKINS submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, as this was a justifiable homicide in defence of the prisoner's property as well as his life, as had already been found by a coroner's jury. Mr. Wilkins cited several cases, and put it to his lordship that the prisoner had acted in de fence of his life and property. Mr. WILKINS called several witnesses to prove the violence of the mob, and that they went forward with the determina tion of pulling down Casement's house. Mrs. Casement and her_daughter were struck by the stones. His LORDSHIP said it ails lamentable that an important national franchise should be interfered with by such pro ceedings as those which they had heard of in this and the preceding case. If they believed in this instance that the prisoner had a well grounded hope that his life and property were in danger, they would find him not guilty, but if on the contrary they thought such danger did not exist, and that he had acted roughly, they would find him guilty. The foreman of the jury interrupted his lordship, saying the jury had made up their minds. The jury acquitted the prisoner. FALSE REGISTRATION OF A BIRTH Ann , 35, was charged with having, in this town, made a false statement, touching the particulars required to be known and registered respecting the birth of a female child, in registering the birth thereof. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. CROMPTON said the indictment was under 6 and 7 William IV., cap. 86, which said, if a person committed this offence, he should suffer the same punishment as if guilty of perjury. A doubt had been raised whether, under this clause, a female could be punished, but though he (Mr. Crompton) thought this doubt went for nothing, they had framed their indictment to meet the objection. The prisoner went to the registrar. and represented the child as the daughter of Robert and Ann Jones, signing her own name, " Ann Jones," as the mother. The child was in truth a bastard, and not the child of the persons represented. His Lordship would see that, as the regist r y was t a ken as an ev id ence o f bi r th, suc h fraud might lead to very serious consequences. The JUDGE ordered the prisoner to be put down, saying he would confer with the Lord Chief Justice on the subject. The court adjourned at twenty minutes past five to nine this morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY. (Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a special jury.) BRANCKER, SURVIVING ASSIGNEE, T. MOLTNEUX. This was an action in trover, for the recovery of 304 bales of cotton, by the assignees of Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, bankrupts, upon their possession as assignees. The defendant pleaded first, not guilty, second, that the plaintiffs w ere not t h e ass i gnees o f the. bankrupts, third, that the plaintiffs were not possessed of the goods in the manner stated in their declaration, fourth, that as to 304 bales of cotton, Humberston and Frodsham employed Tho mas Blades Molyneux, of Charleston, nephew of the de fendant, to buy the cotton, and see it put on hoard a ship to bring it to Liverpool, and that before it arrived there Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham had become bankrupt, and the cotton was taken possession of by the defendant on behalf of Thomas Blades Molyneux, of Charleston, in trangitu. In reply to this a new assignment was pleaded, and upon the whole counts issue was joined. Mr. Wortley, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. Mr. WORTLEY stated the circumstances. The case which it became his duty to lay before the jury, was one which, from the considerable amount of property in dispute, from the nice questions of mercantile law which arose from it, and the difficulties hitherto felt in adjusting its merits, seemed of some degree of interest and importance. Unfortunately, it was not new to the courts of law, nor was it new to the court in which he was at that moment speaking. There had been in this action already two trials, and two attempts to adjudi cate the rights of the parties ; but upon both occasions the trials had gone off on technical grounds, and those grounds had been found unsatisfactory when discussed in the courts above. It was underthese circumstances that the case again came before a jury. The only novelty in it was the change of counsel, caused by the elevation of Mr. Justice Wightman to the bench, and the temporary illness of Mr. Alexander. The facts were few and extremely simple ; and although the enquiry might be somewhat lengthened and tedious, the task of the jury would be an easy one. The plaintiffs, who were the assignees of Messrs. Humber ston and Frodsham, claimed property to the amount of 5.4000, as part of the bankrupts' estate for distribution among the creditors. He need not remind the jury how important it was on the one hand that bankrupts' estates should be equally divided among their creditors; and on the other hand, he would say undoubtedly, that if it so happened that a creditor, like the defendant standing alone, should have been so cir cumstanced as to have better rights than other persons, he was entitled to assert those rights; but, he said, judges and juries, and all connected with the administration of the law, would be anxious to assist the equal distribution of the property of the bankrupts, and if any creditor asserted his in dividual right, it was expected he would clearly and distinctly prove that right. Unless he did so, they would be unwilling to give him the advantage he sought. The action was an action of trover for 304 bales of cotton, by the assignees of the bankrupts, upon their possession as assignees. The de fendant had pleaded first not guilty. Upon that plea he ap prehended there would be little question, as he should pro duce evidence. Next, he pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the assignees of the plaintiff; third, he alleged that the plaintiffs were not possessed of the goods in the manner stated in the declaration. Upon this issue it was proba ble the principal question would arise. Fourth, the defen dant pleaded that the bales of cotton were purchased by Thomas Blades Molyneux, nephew of the defendant, upon his own credit, at Charleston, as the agent of the bankrupts, that he shipped them on board a vessel bound to Liverpool, that they were paid for by Humberston and Frodsham accepting his drafts, that while the vessel was in transitu Humberston and Frodsham became insolvent, and that then be had the right, and exercised that right of stopping the cotton. To this plea there was a new assignment. The IltiNV assignment was, that the bales were other and different than the said bales of cotton, and also that they were converted upon another and different occasion, at another and a different period, and in another and a different manner. Upon the first trial of this case it was held that the effect of that new assignment was to make it necessary for the plaintiffs to show other than one parcel of 304 bales of cotton, and that there ought to appear to be two parcels, to one of which the new assignment applied. That argument unfortunately prevailed, and the learned judge felt that was a technical difficulty, which the plaintiffs could not get over. Subsequently, however, an application was made to the Court of Common Pleas, the report of which, by Messrs. Manning and Grainger, he had in his hand. The case was there discussed, and the result of the discussion was, that the view taken by the learned judge was incorrect, inasmuch as besides the words " other and different bales" in the new assisgnment, there were also the words " and converted other and different hales, on another and different occasion, and in another and different manner." The court said the effect of that was, that the conversion of which the plaintiffs complained was not that a sserted in their plea, but that they were converted under different circum stances, for another purpose, and upon a different occasion. The effect of that decision was, that it was not necessary to show there were more than one lot of cotton, and that if the plaintiffs proved the conversion of more than one they were entitled to their verdict. The CHIEF JUSTICE observed that the form of the new assignment was rather unusual. Mr. WORTLEY believed it was, but added that it was framed upon the principle in the new case of Bolton v. Sher man. Mr. CRESSWELL intimated that there would be no diffi culty as to the new assignment. Mr. WORTLEY said, that being so, the plea of stoppage in transitu was out of discussion to-day ; and the only matter in dispute therefore would be upon 'the plea of not possessed, whether this cotton was in the possession of the assignees. In order to defeat that possession, his learned friends, he apprehended, would rely upon that which they relied upon at the second trial, namely, upon some claim of the defendant as mortgagee of the ship, that the property of the cargo followed the legal swnership of the ship, and that upon that ground the assignees were not entitled to pos session. That plea would fail them also, inasmuch as the decision of a court of justice had passed against them. The only other ground of defence that he (Mr. Wortley) could suppose was this, that under the plea of not possessed, his learned friends were entitled to show they had a right of stoppage in transilu, and that they exercised that right before the conversion of which the plaintiffs complained. When he had related the circumstances of the case, he apprehended the court and jury would be of opi nion that this defence could not apply. The bankrupts, of whom the plaintiff, Thomas Brancker, jun. was the surviving assignee (the other assignee being dead), were Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, who, for fifteen years previous to the year 1839, were commission merchants, re sidinc, and carrying o n b us i ness i n Liverpool. They were also shipbuilders in the Isle of Man, in partnership with Mr. Taggart, but that partnership was dissolved before the present matter arose. The defendant, Mr. Edmund Molyneux, was a member of the highly respectable firm of Molyneux, Tay lor, and Co., brokers, of this town. The bankrupts, Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, had in their possession a vessel called the Dia mon d , w hi c h h a d b een b uilt for t h em by Mr. Taggart, and they took altogether the management of the_ e ship. Several voyages had been made by the vessel, r d o commander appointed by Messrs. Humberston aenLisconnd ham was Captain 'Toole. In November, again sailed under the command of Captain Toole Toole, acting York. After discharging at New York, Captain hi s e mployers, according to instructions he had received froma '4: h oole to New residing there. applied to Mr. T. B. Molyneux, who That gentleman, having previously cations from Messrs. Ilumberstot; cbeedh on 1 1 1 of Upland cotton, which, that e effect, made a purchase of 304 b d i-v‘e ; d :L ° s m h e a Frodsham communi cations of Humberston and Co. That Humberston and Frod • to Messrs. among other goods, he put on board board the ship belongingamountth ofe D iamond, cotton the ordinary manner, and en ditno their risk. The bill of lading Together with the bill of sham, on i g o e n ed their b y a t c h c e o c u a nij ao tili nenx. dorsed by Mr. T. rli3 invo ice of all goods shipped at the same time, l was 8t , all on one paper , a letter from Mr. T. B. Mol news, tin what he had done in consequen ce of stain structions from Messrs. g Humberston and Frodsham. The l e arned coun s counsel then read the bill of lading, the i nvo i ce, an d din lading there ier w e it I the letter, and contended that they clearly proved Mr. T. B. Molvneux had acted solely as the agent of the hankrupto. •~. ~_ •,~ ~;~, ,