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

CHESTER AND -BIRKENHEAD RAILWAY. • 1-V - OTIGE IS HEREBY GlVEN,fhat-th« , HALE-YEAR LY GENERAL mEETuNG of SHAREHOj!DERS will be held, in puruartt•r• of tilt:. provisions of - the A • incorpo rating tliP Comoan , , at the- 01.k.rottlon Room , , to L erpuol, ou MONoaY, the 9th of April oext, at Eleven o'viock a th, Fote noon precisely; at which Meetong, owing to tm -taint subjects . - under consideration, it isintentled to propose t t no business be etitere 1 upon, but that such meeting be adj rued to the 9th fl, t y of June, at the same time, place, and hour, for the purpose of proceeding in the execution of the provisions of the said Act. liv order of the Directors, JOS EP MA LLA.BY, Law Clerk. Liverpool, 26th March, 18,38. vi ii GRAND JUNCTION RAILWA '. TUNDERS FOR • LOANS'. tfirlflE Directors of the GRAND JUNCTIO. RAILWAY COMPANY are now ready to receive 'ENDERS for LOANS, to the exteat of Fifty Thousand nds, in sums , of not less than Oae Thousand Pounds ea c h, a Foot- per Cent. per Annum Interest, for a term of Five or Seven Years certain. Tv be addressed to the Treasurer of the Company, Lime -street, Liverpool. By order of the Directors J. R. CiIORLEY. Lime-street, Liverpool, 3farell 7, 1833. PARISTI OF LIVERPOOL. / lvoTtem IS HEREBY GIVEN, that/ the ANNUAL Nil GENERAL, VESTRY will be hAI ill Saint Nicholas's Church, on Tussoav, the 17th day of A ril next, at Twelve o'clock at Noon, to receive the Report of e Select Vestry of L it the last year, and a Suminiry of their Ac tints; for the Elec tion of Ch urc h war d ens , Sid esinen , O v rseers, and Select Vestry; for ihe laying of Church-rates for the year ensuing, and for the despatch of the usual Parochial businev. HENRY RIP L EY, Churchwarden. 3t.st March, 1838. WILLIAM RustrroN, Overseer. Omperial 13arli.antent. HOUSE OF LORDS.-TiIURSDA 7 The Bishop of ExETF.,t; presented many petitions for the ab olition of the negro apprenticeship system, entirely acquiescing in the prayer, and contending that the negroes were entitled to entire freedom, and that they were qualified to enjoy it. Lord BROUGHAM again presented an iinmense number of similar petitions, and strongly supported them. He stated that he had received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice of England - (Denman), in which that noble and learned lord denied the alleged "contract," anti declared himself, in consequence of what had passed, favourable to the abolition of the negro ap prenticeship system. The Duke of WELLiNGTois - then presented petitions from planters, proprietors, -and mortgagees of West India property, against the required abolition of the negro apprenticeship system. This led to extended discussion, in which Lord St. Vincent "Lord Branham, and Lord Seaford took part, Lord. Miii.gounNE contending that undoubtedly there was the contract" with the owners of the slaves, that they should have, the negroes' apprenticed labours for a specified period prepara tory to their entire eMancipation. The petitions were eventually ordered to lie on the table. Some other business being disposed of, their lordships ad journed. " HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY Mr. Fox M UJLI proposed the postponement of the third reading of the " Notting Hill Footway" ( Hippodrome) Bill till Monday, as he shoald propose clauses regarding the introduc tion of the police, and the prohibition of the sale of spirituous liquors, that would obviate much of Inc objection to the bill. After some discussio❑ the postponement was carried by 226 to 83—majority for the postponement 113. Many petitions were presented for the abolition of the negro apprenticeship system, and Lord Stanley presented one from persons interested in West India property, against such aboli tion. Mr. GILL3N obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws for granting licences for toe sale of exciseable liquors in Scotland, Sze. Sir G. Sratcxt.AND then moved a resolution declaratory of the expediency of making pro Vision to exterminate the negro apprenticeship system on the tit 'August next, contendiog that the treatment of the negroes and the infraction of all protective regulations showed that a transitory state between freedom and slavery was impracticable. Mr. PEaIR. seconded the motion, observing that, though he had heretofore told his constituents he had doubts how far he could support any demand for morlifications of.the compensa tion, he now considered it to he his duty, after the treatment the negroes had received, to support the abolition of the appren ticeship system. The hon. member was peculiarly affected at the conclusion of a Tong and impressive address. Sir G. GRRY ►roved, as an amendment, that the slavery atm. lition act bill be read the second time, maintaining that the motion would violate the contract, but rejoicing that the diScus sion of the question was now brought fully and distinctly before the house. Mr. JA NIES moved that the debate he adilurned, and it was all 'wired accordingly. The orders of the - day were disposed or, and the house ad j ,urn.?.d. HOUSE OF LOUDS.-FRIDAY The royal ascent was given by commission to several public and private bilis. Again, many petitions were presented by different noble lords, the Bishop of London, &r. The Marquis of SLIGO, in presenting some, stated that he had received a letter from a firm owning extensive estates in the West Indies, declaring it to'be their intention to put an end to the apprenticeship system on their estates in August next. His lordship added, in some reply to some insinuation that he had been in a hurry to decide on terminating the apprenticeships on his estates, the• contrary was the fact. Ile had long and very anxiously reflected on the subject, previously to coining to a decision. The Earl of ABERDRENT moved for various returns regarding the church of Scotland, the expenses of the commission of in quiry, &c.; and this motion was made the occasion of again urging on the government the necessity of making some public grantsforthe extension of church accommodation in Scotland. Lord MELBOURNE again said that he. could be no party to providing mean Y out of the public purse for the extension of such accommodation, especially so lou ! : as the church of%cotland hid property of its own wherewith to supply such melts, were they required. Lord WA DDINGTON also urged the necessity that existed for increased church accommodation in Scotland, and the impos sibility of effecting it without public aid. Lord MiNTo denied. that there was such want of accommo dations as had teen alleged, maintaining that evidence proved one-third and upwards of the room in the churches in many cities and large places was now unused. Other noble lords took part in the discussion, which occupied till a late hour; but there Was au opposition regarding the pa yers.—Adjourned HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FrunAy. In the Commons a new writ was ordered for Fladdington shire, in the room of Lord Ramsay, now Earl of Dalhousie, in , consequence of the death of his father. Many petitions were presented for the abolition of the negro appreticeship system. Mr. ORMSBY GORE gave notice that after the recess he would move for an account of the expenses by bills for renewing, altering, extending, &c., turnpike acts since 1820. Mr. SANDFORD presented a report from the committee on pensions. Sir G. GREY intimated, in answer to inquiry froin Mr. Chalmers, that be had no objections to produce accounts of the *hole expenses of Lord Gosford's mission, &e. The adjourned debate on Sir G. Strickland's resolution for abolition of the negro-apprenticeship system was then resumed by Mr. JAMES. The debate occupied the remainder of the sitting, Sir E. SUGDEN, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. PLUMt'TRE, Dr.LUSHINGTON, Mr. GLADSTONE, &c., took part in it. On the division the numbers were— For the original motion 203 For the amendment..... 24 Majority for the amendment ..... --4;I The house then adjourned. THE POST OFFICE (For the Liverpool Standard.) Heaven first taught letters for some wretch's aid.—Purr. As the subject of the Postoffice is now engaging the atten tion of almost all classes of the community, perhaps a slit,, , ht notice of its origin will prove acceptable The original estab lishment of the Postoffice is buried in obscurity. During the early part of the reign of Edward 1. there is no doubt that there was a species of post, hut of what nature, it is now impos sible to ascertain. In Camden's Annals, under the date of 1581, we find theearlieat mention or chiefpostmaster ; but it does not appear clearly what his office was, or how it was conducted. From the limited correspondence that then took place it was doubtless of little consequence. The first Postoffice for the conveyance of letters to and from foreign parts, was erected by James 1., and was+ placed under the control of Matthew de Quester or De l'Equester. Lord Stanhope claimed this office, but in 1632 it was confirmed and continued to Wm. Prizel and Thom - ris Witherings, by - Charles bt:-- Previous to-this titan it seems private persons were accustomed to convey letters abroad, although such - interference with the Postmaster's Mae was strictly forbidden. In 1635 all private inland posts were prohi bited under the usurpation; there seems to have been but little • real attention paid to this branch of the government, the posts until that period being confined to a few of the principal roads. The more regular and extended plan was conceived and adopted by Mr. Edmund Prideaux, the Attorney-General to the commonwealth, who was appointed Postmaster-General by an ordinance of both houses of parliament. He first established a regular weekly conveyance of letters to all parts of the nation. In 1651 this revenue was farmed for £lO,OOO. which produced a profit of seven thousand pounds to the public annually. At this time the Common Council of London attempted to set up a Postoffice in opposition to Prideaux; but a stop was put to their proceedings by aresolution of the House of Commons, declaring the office of Postmaster to be in the sole power and disposal of parliament. In 1656 a new and regular postoffice was erected by the autho rity of the Protector and his parliament; the plan is almost similar to that pursued at present. By an art of parliament, passed soon after the restoration in 1660, the regulations of 1656 were re-established, with some improvements, and so con tinued, with but little change, until 1784, when a mode of con y•iing the mails was carried into execution, originally suggested l‘ y Mr. John Palmer of Bath, in 178'2. Before this plan was adopted letters were carried in carts, or by boys on horseback, without protection from robbers, and, liable to delays. Mr. l'almer's proposal was to contract with the owners of diligences and stage coaches, which were then established in every town of note in the kingdom, to carry the mail, with guards for their protection. A very strong opposition was manifested to this measure, but experience has shown that this combination of interests has been beneficial alike to the correspondent, pas senger, and coachmaster. The twopenny post was projected by Mr. David Murray, an upholder, in. Paternoster-row, in the year 1683 He cionmuni cated his scheme to a Mr. Dockwra, who carried it on with great success for some time, until government laid claim to it as connected and interfering with the General Postoffice, and Dockwra • received a pension of two hundred pounds a year for life as compensation. LAUGHABLE ANECI%UTF..—At a meeting in bankruptcy, held the other day, the Commissirner. 4l , !ressing• the bank rupt, stated, that the proceedinzs must be adjourned sine die, "Sine die," said s erPclitor present to Mr. Carr: "what can the 'eolili*eioner mean? Of the bankrupt's dying I see no • • • • LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES CROWN COURT-FRIpAr. MURDER. Joseph Dnnerley, 27, was placed at. the bar, under an indict ment ►n which he stood charged with the wilful murder of Jo nathan Fielding, governor of the workhouse at Prestwich. The prisoner seemed perfectly cool and collected when he entered the dock. He is an exceedingly thin and cadaverous looking individual, with long lanky hair.—Mr. Dodd, solicitor, of this town, gratuitously undertook to do what was in his power for the defence of the prisoner, and Mr. Boileau was assigned to him as counsel. Mr. BRANDT conducted the prosecution. The learned counsel briefly opened the case. This, he said, was a serious case, in which there was very little room fur doubt, the prisoner having taken up a drying-iron and 'struck the deceased on the head therewith. It appeared that he was an individual of violent passions, and that several times he had been confined in the New Bailey prison at the instance of the governor of the Prest wich workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He appeared to have chetished some antipathy against the governor for this, and had taken away his life. The defence would be, that the prisoner Was of unsound mind. It would be for the jury to judge of that frog the evidence. Elizabeth Taylor sworn.—Witness stated that she was 72 years of age. She lived in the workhouse at Prestwich. Jonathan Fielding was the governor thereof, and the prisoner was an inmate. He (the prisoner) had a wife and three children. Remembered the day when this happened. It was about two o'clock. The governor was sitting near her. The prisoner Caine in and put an iron into the fire. It was an iron which they dry their weaving work with. It remained in the fire five or six minutes. (The instrument was here produced.) After it had remained in the fire five or six minutes, the prisoner, who had been out, returned, went straight to the fire, and pulled it out. He raised it, and struck the governor on re left side of the head, near the ear. He repeated the blow, and the governor fell to the ground. The governor was sitting with his head leaning towards the fire, making a little paste. The prisoner exclaimed, "I have killed him." He then went away into the workshop, where he was seized. Had nut heard any quarrel between the governor and the prisoner. Had only been about a quarter of an hour iti the dry-room. The prisoner had been sent to the New Bailey shortly before this, and had returned about four days. He was confined about three weeks. Witness did not hear the prisoner say any thing when be was taken away to the New Bailey. Two surgeons were sent for, and the go vernor died. Cross-examined by Mr. BOILRA u.—Was in the room all the time, and saw him take the iron out of the fire. The iron was hot at the time, and the governor was sitting with his head very low. The prisoner stood and looked at him for a moment, and then exclaimed, " I have killed him." Ile (the prisoner) had been working in the recovery cellar before it happened. The prisoner frequently complained of being very ill. Never saw him in a fit. There was no one present. but Alice Schofield and witness. Re-examined by Mr. BRANDT.— He (the prisoner) was taking the iron away with him, but a man met him and took it from-him. Alice Schofield, a very old woman, sworn.—Witness could not tell how old she was. Witness was in the dry room when the prisonbr came in. The governor was there. She saw the prisoner come in and put the iron into the lire. He• went out. When he came up stairs he stood a considerable time, then he ran down to dry his work. He came up again and stood a bit, when he held up his hands and said, I've killed him." [lt was evident that from extreme old age the ideas of 'the witness wandered. Her evidence was at first given very incoherently.l She, however, yeturned to the subject again, and salt' the pri soner took the iron out of the fire and struck thedeceased on the head with it, upon which he fell to the i•round, and the prisoner exclaimed, " I've killed him." Subsequently she again wan dered from the subject, and said she had not seen the prisoner strike the governor. Samuel Blakely sworn.—Lives within about a hundred I ards of the workhouse at Prestwich. On Monday, the 4th Septem ber, heard an alarm of the governor being killed. Went out and saw the prisoner waking his escape towards his house. An ,darnt was given that he (witness) should stop him. Witness . did so. He stopped him, and said t o hi m , "if you h ave kill e d the governor you must go back." He replied, "you may do what you please with me, for I have done what wanted." Took him to the workhouse, awl while he (witness) was speak ing to the governess he seized a knife and attempts d to-cut his throat. He drew blood from his throat a little. He was secured and put into the dungeon till the arrival of the constable. Cross-examined by Mr. BoILEAI7—Am a cordwainer. Had known the prisoner about the patish, and had seen him, fre quently for several years. Had never seen him going through the lanes with children toilniiing him. Knew not that he had any nickname.. Never heard him called anything but Den. nerly. Samuel Hope. assistant overseer of Prestwich, heard of thi s matter and went down immediately to see the governer, He appeared to be in a dying state. The, ,surgeons were,se n t f or , Heard of the attempt which the prisoner had [wide upon self. Had the' prisoner brought: toi Irina: Said to inin "the governor's dying,--tbou's killed lion." He 'replied " I have faced him in this world before the magistrates, and am ready . to face him in the next wOrld;" The prisoner had been confined several times in the New Bailey, and'the governor always ap peared against him. It was for . misconduct in the workhouse. Cross-examined by Mr.. Boi LEA C—The prisoner seemed ex asperated after he had been before the magistrates. Never saw boys billowing him in the' streets. 14y Mr. BRANDT—Never had reason to doubt the state of mind of the prisoner. By M r. BOILEAU—Never examined him as to his state ofmiud, but he always r eceived direct answers to his questions. George Du nkerley sworn.—The Witness hada mark of a severe injury on the right side of his bead. Mr. BOILEA u objected to the competency of this witness, as he had been confined in another place beside the workhouse, and was then totally devoid of reason. He therefore objected to his evidence being taken. His Lolt osttle said an insane person would be good evidence in a lucid interval, if he had been in a state of reason when the circumstance required to be detailed had happened. Mr. Hope was examined as to the state of the witness' mind, and it was ultimately decided not to examine him. John Parson Holland sworn.—Witness said he was surgeon . to the Prestwich workhouse. He was called in to see the governor after he was struck: He died from injuries on the head. Had no hesitation in saying that the blows which the governor had received on the head were the cause of death. Had attended the prisoner several times as a patient. Never considered him any thing but of perfectly sound mind. Had attended the workhouse twenty years. Cross-examined by Mr. 13611. RA u.—clad attended the prisoner within the last three or four months. He had a disorder of the stomach. Disorders of the stomach frequently affected the head Formed his opinion from seeing him generally. It frequently happened that persons of unsound mina exhibited it more at one time than another. llad seen the implement with which the blow was given. The head was bruised very much both on the r4.7it and left, and the ear was much torn—nearly severed from the head. Did not conceive that the heat of the iron could hare been much. as there were no marks of burning on the skin, By Mr. BitANDT.—His attention was never called to the prisoner with a view of ascertaining the actual state of his mind. Simeon Whitehead, constable of Prestwich, produced the in stiument with which the blow was inflicted. Prisoner: That's-the iron as I used. Mr. Oilier, surgeon, stated that he examined the deceased by order of the coroner, lie attributed he death of the deceased decidedly to exte►nAl violence. Is surgeon also to the New Bailey prison at Manchester. Is aware of the prisoner having been confined nine tines in the New Bailey for misdemeanou►s in the workhouse. His attention was never called to himsat those tunes by the authorities of the prison. Never examined him with a view of ascertaining the state of his mind. On his cross-exa►nination by Mr. 13orLssii, Mr. Oilier read over a paper containing the notes which had been taken at the time. The injuries must have been caused either by a blow or a fall. The skull was not fractured. The injury was in such a position in the top of the head, that it could scarcely have been caused by the fall. There was extravasaion besides injectPon throughout the brain. The deceased ha had two black eyes, which must have been given by a blow or a fall. Has lectured on the subject of insanity. It is a symptom of that disorder that a person is restless and cannot brook confinement. It is an evidence of the 'disorder to have great antipathies to persons, and to imagine enemies. The latter is one of the existing causes. A person in such a state of mind will wake in a hurried manner, and such persons are frequently led to gratify revengeful pas sions, unfortunately. By Mr. BRAND - F.—Tile stronger symptoms of insanity are those which arise without any assignable cause, rather than !hose which arise from revengeful feelings, with cause. This closed the case for the prosecution. . Mr. Boit,sau addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. If the prisoner were in a sound state of mind at the time when he committed this at. t, then neither humanity nor the laws of this country would permit him to escape. The learned gentle man went 'n to comment minutely on the evidence, contend ing that the actions of the prisoner throughout this transaction evinced unsoundness of mind, and an absence of malice. The learned council called several .witnesses. John Deanerly, father of the prisoner, stated that when the prisoner was voung, he had a very bad fever. It was -called a fever on the brain. It was when he was eight or nine years old, and they never thought that he would live. • The fever left hint quite childless. He resided with them (his parents) till be was married. During the time he lived with him (witness) he was quite childish and pet fectly harmless, except when the work men exasperated him. The people used to call hint " My lord's fool," and the " parson's fool." They used to follow him home, booting at him, and he (the father)threatened frequently to bring them before the magistrates. The prisoner would be 30 next May. He hart heen married nine years. By Mr. BRANDT.—He (the prisoner) was brought up to bledthiffir„ bur bc• was soft (sitty)-nnti he ennui nr+l, ataxia it. an they sent hint to weaving. Knew the pauper Dunkerley, but did not see him or speak to him on Tuesday last. Had tr.tt seen him for many years. The prisoner shed tears during the examination of his father. Henry St.hoies stated that he was a weaver in Harpurhey. Had known the prisoner 29 years. He considered that he was soft. Had seen the women and children following him and calling him nick-names, such as " My lord's fool," " the par-1 son's fool," &c. The Rev. William Horner was chaplain to the gaol at Kirk dale. The prisoner was confined there. Had frequent corn ' munications with him. Considers that his reason is very im perfect, and his mind very confused. Had tested him in seve ral ways. On the subject of the principles of Christianity, he asked him respecting them. . t-le asked him what he thought of the office and mission of our Saviour. He replied that "Joseph was jealous of his wife." Whenever he spoke to him on re ligious subjects he always diverged from the subject, and re curred to that of the governor of the workhouse. He always justified the act he had committed. He said he was sorry, but he had done the deed because of a long series of persecutions. Mr. Thomas Chalmers, surgeon to the gaol of Kirkdale, said his attention was directed to the prisoner by Mr. Thorneley, one of the visiting magistrates. He trusted more to examina tions made when the prisoner was not aware that he was ex amining him, than to any particular conversation with him. He considered him in intellect very little raised above the brute creation. He thought he . was a man who, if he were stimulated to any revengeful act, would not be deterred by any consider ation, from gratifying it. Mr. BRANDT briefly replied. His LOR DSHIP, in charging the jury, said there did not seem to be any doubt as to the fact of the prisoner having struck the governor a hi/4 with the iron that had teen produced. There was nothing in this case which could at all. supposing him to be responsible fur his acts, reduce this offence from murder to manslaughter. 'flue learned Judge said it was an entire ques tion of inquiry into the state of the prisoner's mind. The jury were aware tho if th ,, y pronounced him insane he would be imprisoned for life, to keep him from doing any injury. The jury, after consulting, together for a short time in the box, returued a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of in sanity. The JUDGB sail he must be confided in the gaol till her Ma jesty's pleasure was known. MURDER James Sherrinaton, aged "22, was placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of John Finney, at Bolton, on the 31st January last. The prisoner Pleaded not guilty. He said his THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD friends were too poor to employ counsel for him, and he hoped the court would ny some one to defend him. His LORDSHIP requested Dr. Brown to undertake the de fence, and the learned Doctor immediately complied. Mr. BRAN DT conducted the prosecutiOn. He said this was another of those important cases iu which they had to inquire into circumstances attending the death of a fellow-creature. That the death of the deceased would amount to murder was, he thought, pretty evident. They would have to inquire whe ther the prisoner was the person who hatt committed the act. The learned counsel then entered into a detail of the circum stances which afterwards came out in evidence. The facts of the case, he thought, did not carry it far enough to warrant con viction. There was, however, a sort of evidence which he should not detail, as it consisted of certain admissions or pro mised professions of the prisoner. It was doubtful, however, whether this could be received as evidence, as certain promises were made to . him, and it would be w ith hi s l or d s hip t o say whether this could be received as evidence. An overseer, who was present, said you had better not Make any promises. Robert Norris said .he was the manager of Fogg's Colliery. The prisoner at the bar worked as a collier there. Remem bered a man of the name of John Finney being there. Did not see him alive. Saw him after he was dead. Took the prisoner into his custody, and took him to James Spencer. Pill a great many questions to him before he took him to Spenc.-r. Took the prisoner to where the body was. James Spencer uncovered it, and desired the prisoner to look at it. He covered it as soon as he could. After that, Spencer, the constable, and Parkinson took the prisoner down stairs. Does not know certainly whether Spencer went into the room or not. There was a person named Knowly there. Charged him again with having been in the cabin. He denied it. Witness said, "Your wife and sister say you .told them that you had . been in the cabin." Said he thought it would he better for him to tell. Said "James thou art sure to be found guilty, thou hadst better declare; it will perhaps be better for thee " After he hag staled this, Parkinson came into the room. Parkinson is a special constable. Parkinson said—" Robert, don't make him any promises." He spoke that loud enough for the pri soner to hear. His Lonosnie said this would not do, for it was the duty of Parkinson to have removed this impression. He ought to have said—" it will not he better for you." Mr. BRANDT said he would proveed to the next point. James Spencer sworn—[s Constable of the township. Robt. Norris delivered the prisoner into his care on the 31st Jan., and asked him several questions. When Norris delivered him into his custody he said he had confessed, but it was not said in the hearing of the prisoner. They then took him to the Farmers' Arms, having been joined by the prisoner's wife and brother. Witness said the prisoner had murdered a man in a very brutal manner. The wife and brother both spoke to the prisoner, and said "What made thou to go near the cabin?" Mr. BRANDI' salt( the prisoner made an answer to that, and the question was whether that answer would be admissible or not? The examination continued. Witness had not held out anv threat or promise, nor had he cautioned. Witness did not know that Norris had held out any promise. Dr. BitowN objected to the production of any evithince:.after the promise made to No; - ris. This declaration was made after the strongest threat on the one hand with the strongest promise. The prisoner was still under the influence of this promise. The learned .doctor cited a case King v. Sexton, from Russell, on crime. 649. An officer sad given a prisoner two glasses of gin and had thus obtained his confession.—Judge West held that this evidence was inadmissable. The question would be whe ther the promise continued to influence the Tina of the pri soner. Mr. BRANDT thought the nature of the answer was rather that of a justification than as a confession. The JunGE said he should be very sorry to make any such distinction, because when it came before the court, it was, in point of fact, a confession, and he thought the points should be kept as broad as possible. The time that elapsed was only five minutes, and when a man had once disburdened his mind by confession, he was more likely to go on confessing. He thought he could not admit this as it would be a very dangerous prece dent. A confession should never be taken without a caution, and the after confession ought not to have been received with out a very strong caution, whereby his mind might be disabused of the impression: He thought the best wav would be for con 'stables never to take Confessions without first giving a strong caution. It was exceedingly wrong in them to attempt to worm a confession out of a man by these means of threats and promises. Mr. BRANDT said, under these circumstances he did not think proper to proceed.• The Learned Juocg said it amounted to a case of very violent suspicion, but he thought they could not proceed to ihe jury. A verdict of not guilty was taken. A•TTEMPTINO, TO POISON.. = • Mary Sketrington, aged 24, was charged with having on the Ist ofianuhry fist, arteinpted to poison Wary Byers, by send ing her a pudding in which arsenic was mingled., Mr. 11 [TON stated the case. _ • Ellen Bakk in, a little girl, lives at Upholland, with Mary Baldwin,- :>, confectioner. Recollects theist January.: She was then with Ellen Corles,s who is going of ten years old. , '['hey were carrying pies. Knows the Owl at Upholland. Knows Mary Skerrington. Saw her near the Owl, at the bottom of Richardson's entry. She spoke to them, and a s ked if th e y Were going up street; asked weie they going past John Torbut's. They said yes. She said; `, Will you take this to Mary Byers, and say it was sent by ,a woman that she is thick with." She gave them a dish ‘,l jib a dumpling in it. She also gave them a piece of currant cake. They tasted the dumpling, and it tasted bitter and made their tongues smart. They took it to Torbut's and gave it to Sarah Totbut. The Prisoner.-1 never saw this girl that night. Witness examined by the JUDGE.—Knew the prisoner. Hail lived near her a long time. In reply to the Prisoner.—You were there that night, and you gave it to me. Efien Corless stated: in nearly similar terms to the last wit ness,' that the prisoner met them, and that she gave them a pudding in a pie dish. They tasted it and it was bitter. Sarah Torbut, wife of J. Torbut, !ived at Upholland, and Mary Byers lodged with her. Remembered Ellen Corless bring ing a pudding in a black dish. She stated that a young woman had given it to her, and that it was for Mary Byers. Her fin gers slipped into the dish, and she put her finger into her mouth. It was very bitter. She tasted it. further, and found it more bitter. She put the piece from her mouth, and washed her mouth out. Witness knew a man named John Sellar. He had been a follower of the prisoner, and she had had two chil dren by him. Witness gave the pudding to Sarah Byers. Sarah Byers, a female of rather unprepossessing appearance, stated that Sellar had courted the prisoner formerly, and now courted her. . Edward Swift, a constable, produ c ed the di s h. He had tried an experiment with the dumpling on a dog. A piece the size of a hen's egg was given to the dog. In twenty minutes the use of its limbs was taken away. The dog died in two hours and forty minutes afterwards. Elizabeth Swift stated that she went into the prisoner's house •tt one o'clock on New-year's-day. when she saw the prisoner's little boy eating potatoes out of the dish produced. She knew the dish, and had borrowed it from the prisoner frequently. Thomas Fisher (swot n.)—lso. surgeon at Wigan. Received a dish from the surgeon of Upholland. It contained a currant pudding.. Applied a. test 16 it. Could riot detect any poison in the pudding►. Analysed it as well as he was capable of analysing it. Could not discover what it contained. It had more in it than puddings usually have. Directed the constable to procure a dog, and to give it a portion of the padding. Opened the dog, and found the pudding undigested iu it. Did not observe any morbid appearance in the stomach. Should think the pudding contained some narcotic poison, which had destroyed the' dog. Could not ascertain what. that poison was. Should think it was a vegetable poison. Nut vomica would have that taste. The J Doe said this indictmen e was laid under an act of par liament which was passed last year, and which had altered the law on the subject. The' clause under which this indictment was laid made the offence of attempting to admininister poison, though no injury should accrue, felony, and the person was liable to transportation for lire, or for any period not less than fifteen years. .. - The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to transportation fur life. MURDER. John Davis, aged 29, was charged with the wilful murder of Aim Davis, his wife, in this town, on the Ist September. The prisoner was charged, under the coroner's inquisition, with mur der. The Grand Jury returned a true bill for manslaughter. Mr. Harding condUcted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy defended the prisoner. Alice Bradford stated that she lived in School-lane, in this town. The prisoner at the bar was the husband of her late daughter. Remembered Friday the first of September last. She was in School-lane on that day at the cellar of the prisoner. Her daughter when she entered sat at the further end of the cellar. She (the daughter) shook her head at her. She did not weep—she was past weeping. She (the d6ceased) wanted to go out, but the prisoner, her husband, caught her by the gown, and threw her to the back part of the cellar. He then knelt down and beat her on the temples. He then got up on his feet, and he kicked her on the side, and before lie left her he kicked her in the belly. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPllv.—Witness went out on that day with some mangling. Knew a public-house kept by a per son called Hehblethwaile. Had not been there that day . . lied not bought any spirits there, nor hail she taken any spirits to her daughter that day. The husband of her daughter was a pilot, and he earned money enough to keep them very comfort ably. They had lived at a house in Canning-street till they went to the Cellar in School-lane. The house was a comfortable house. Never knew her to pawn anything fur liquor. They had been separated once. The learned counsel cross-examined the witness very severely as to the mode in which the-injuries were inflicted. The deceased was in the family way, and shortly after the injuries had been inflicted she was delivered of a child preinatutel,,v Frances Ortritby was well' acquattitea wittr tho ac-e*E'sert -Re members Friday the first of September. Was in the cellar on Friday, at one o'clock. The old woman was sitting by the fire, and the prisoner sat near the door. The deceased sat on a chair at the table. Some sharp words passed between them. She had got as far as the first step of the cellar, when he pulled her back and flung her on the floor. She fell on her side. He then kicked her with his foot on her side and on her belly. He struck her about the head with his hand shut. He stooped and repeated the blows. Witness begged of him to desist, and not to kill her. They lifted her into bed, but she never spoke more. She died on Monday. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—The prisoner had had some liquor, but he was not drunk. She had seen him drunker. Had known Mrs. Bradford, the last witness, these thirteen years. She was not drunk at the time. Has seen her drunk. Has seen the deceased drunk. She did nut appear as if she had taken anythini , to drink on that day. There was a mangle in the cellar. The deceased did not. fall against the mangle. The prisoner had shoes on when he kicked her. Witness had not any drink herself that day. Did not know how the pilots' wives were paid. Did not know that she had got a pound a week from the Pilots' Committee. Heard the deceased say, that he had let her get lOs. a week till that time, and that morn ing he had added ss. per week to it. Jane Davis, a little girl aged about 10 years, having been questioned by the Judge, was sworn—She remembered her father and mother quarrelling. Frances Ormsby was there. fly mother (said the witness) pledged my lather's shirt to get his breakfast with, and when niv father came home he asked my mother-for the shirt. He went to the kitchen to look for it, but he could not find it. My mother wanted to go out in the street to get air, and my father took hold of her and pulled her by the petticoat and threw her back. He struck her with his han - d on the face three times before grandmother came in. Cross-examined by Mr. Muttony.—Her grandmother had gone out to take some clothes. It was not to Mr. Hebble-1 thwaite's public-house she went to retch her grandmother. She saw her bring home some liquor to the house that morning, which her mother drank. She had fetched three glasses. Her mother drank three glasses. Witness was sent for some liquor that morning. Her mother drank it. It was in a glass. Her father came in wet. He took off his shoes. He put them under the table and looked for his shirt, but it was in pledge. Had seen her father and mother quarreling before. Her mother used to take drink, and her father-was angry at her. She had pledged clothes before, but never to get liquor with the money. Frances Ormsby and her mother, and grandmother were all drinking that morning. When her father pulled her mother it was by the petticoats, and she fell dowu backwards with her head against the iron hasp of a chest. It cut the back of her head. Her father (lid not kick heir mother. He only struck her twice while she was down. _ - Jobe Marshall, surgeon, of Dukt•-street, Liverpool, went to the deceased on Satuida, the 2.1 :September. He found her in a state of insensibility. She was in labour. She was delivered of a male child, having been pregnant about five months. Saw her when she was expiring. There was no mark externally about the head except an extreme black eye. There was nu mark on the back of the head• Witness opened the skull. Found a large extravasation of blood on the upper and back part of the right side of the head. That extravasation, as he could net see any other cause, had arise❑ front the black eye. Did not find any of the vessels in the head ruptured. Found about three ounces of extravasated blood. Cross-examined by Mr. Munpuy.—A tall against a hasp or a box might cause the extravasated blood. By the JuDGE.—Effusion of blood was the cause of death. Robert Marsh, an aprrentice with Mr. Marshall, stated, that he attended the deceased, and ordered leeches to her, but they failed to put them on. He would not undertake to say that leeches if applied early would have saved her life. The old woman, be thought, was intoxicated when he called. Mr. Marshall re-called.—Mr. HA aniNG.—Can you under take to say, from your experience, if leeches bad been applied it would have saved the life of the deceased. Mr. Marshall.— Nothing could have saved her. Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He dwelt particularly on the discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the contradiction which the daughter of the deceased gave to the testimony of the two first wit nesses. His Lordship summed up to the Jury, who, after a few mi nutes' consultation, returned a verdict of guilty of manslaugh ter.—The prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with bard labour. MANSLAUGHTER. Mary Caton, otherwise Keating, 28, was charged with hav ing caused the death of John Kingsbury in this town, on the 3d of August last. The, verdict of the coroner's jury was wil ful murder. The Grand Jury ignored the bill for murder, and returned one for manslaughter. The circumstances of this case were published immediately after the inquest. The Jury re turned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. The Court passed sentence of transportation for ten years. The Court adjourned at twenty minutes past six. NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY. LOW V. LOGAN. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Neville appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The declaration contained two counts ; one for money lent, and the other for money paid. The defendants pleaded, that except for £6O they had made no promise, and that sum they paid into court. Mr. CausswELL, in opening the case, said this was an action to recover the amount of money expended by the plaintiffs, for the defendants, at their iequest. Messrs. Low and Hutchinson, the plaintiffs, were merchants and agents, residing at Savannah. The defendants were owners of a ship called the Malabar, of which Wm. Frobisher was the captain; and in 1536 that vessel -was at Savannah, making ready fur sea. She was just starting on her homeward voyage, when the mate. John Bradley, met with a - very serious accident, having his leg broken in several places. The captain, with a very proper feeling of humanity, had him conveyed on shore, anti applied to Messrs. Low and Hutchinson to take care of him. It was clear that the master of a vessel was to t ike care of his seamen under such circum stances. It was enacted on the sth and 6th of Win. IV. c. 19, that pretvision should he tnade under such circumstances for the ss amen injure 4 by the owners of the vessel. "That if- any seaman should receive any hurt or injury in the service of a ship, the expense of providing the necessary surgical advice which the seaman should stand in need of, should be borne and paid by the owner or master of the ship, and without any deduc tion from the seamen's wages. It - therefore appeared beyond all doubt that it was the duty of the master or owners to provide for the man's expenses. But, independent of that, the captain gave a written autho ity to Messrs. Low and Hutchinson to see that he had proper a tendance. The authority was to the fol lowing effect “ Gentlemen , a serious injury has befallen my mate, in the e xecution of his duty, on board the Malabar, which would render necessary the amputation of one of his legs. This will, of course, make it necessary for me to leave him behind. 1 hereby authorize - you to draw on Messrs. Logan, of Liverpool, for his expenses." Under that authority lodgings were procured for hint, a nurse and a surgeon were provided, and an expendi ture took place to the amouut of £123 6s. 10d. The account wan presented to the part et at first. Mr. Logan directed his _ageorts.to correspond with his attorney on the subject. It ap peared that Mr. Logan's oily reason for- refusing to pay the amount was, because he thought it exorbitant; and offered to submit it to any merchant of Liverpool to say what should be paid. The plaintiff's thought this rather hard. as it was not a demand fur themselves, all they charged for was for money which they had actually expended on the Captain's authority. It appeared•that the siting at Savannah was very expensive , and that the usual charges at Savannah were those which had been charged. The surgeon attended the mate for some time, and on his voyage home to England, the surgeon who was coming over attended to him, but on his arriving in England he sunk under his sufferings, which might satisfy the jury of the dangerotis state in which he was, and the attention which he would require. A commission had been sent out to take evi dence, which would he read. Mr. Low felt that it was a hard case upon hint, and that there was an imputation upon his cha racter, anti that therlore no other course was left to him to pursue hut to have the case fully investigated. k.:vidence was then called to show that the charges put down were such as were usual at Savannah ; that board and lodging was front a dollar and a half to two dollars and a half per day, and that lodgings at a lower rate were not fit to put a sick man - in. Mr. 'WIGHTMAN, in reply, contended that the mate had been living in the most expensive style, which only captains lived in. and that his expenses ought to have been conducted on the most economical scale. He called witnesses to prove that the charges put down for the mate were of the highest kind, and that the reasonable charge for a mate ought to have been much less. The Jury expressed a wish to retire, and after an absence of two hours found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £35. Os. 3d. in addition to the Ea paid into court. COWLING V. HIGGINSON-RIGHT OF WAY. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the de fendant to try a right of way which the defendant claimed over the plaintiff's estate. The plaintiff is.au elderly lady resid ing at Meanleys, in the townshipof Astley, near Manchester, and the defendant who was tenant of some land in which was a coal mine claimed the right to cart the coals over the plaintiff's estate. The case was gone into, and a point of law was urged by the defendant's counsel that they had an unlimited right of way which was on the pleadings, and his Lordship was of opin ion that the defendants had only proved a limited right of way. His Lordship, after consulting Sir J. Patterson, was clearly of opinion that a right of way meant for all purposes. '['he Jury, therefore, by his Lordship's direction, found a verdict, for the plaintiff—Damages, ls. with liberty to move to enter a nonsuit if the court above should hold a different opinion. THE CAUSE LIST It was announced that all cases from 90 to the end of the list inclusive, with the exception of two special jury causes would be taken before Mr. Justice Matteson. LUCAS V. BLUNDELL, ESQ, , Mr. CRESSWELL, Mr: ALEXANDER, and Mr. J. HENDERSON, appealed for the plaintiff; and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. HENnErtsorr forthe defence. This was an action brought by Mr. Lucas, the keeper of a horse aur: carriage repository, in Great Charlotte-street, against the High Sheriff, to recover the value of a horse. On the 23d of Augustlast Mr. Blundell went to Mr. Lucas's repository and purchased a mare for £47. 10s. Mr. Lucas had long adopted a rule in his repository that all horses sold with a warranty, if returned, must be returned with a veterinary surgeon's certifi cate on the following day, before twelve o'clock. Mr. Lucas found this necessary as he sold on commission, and paid the price over to the owner the day after the sale at twelve o'clock. Mr. Blundell returned the mare, but not in the time specified, and consequently could not bring his action for a breach of the warranty, but he said he would not pay for her, and Mr. Lucas was obliged to become the plaintiff in this action. The defend ant pleaded that he was induced to huy the mare through the fraud of a person named Farral, who was the owner. By this course, Mr. Blundell escaped the warranty, but he was obliged to prove that Farral knew her to be unsound. The Jury must also be satisfied that the defendant bought the mate on Farral's recommendation, and not on the warranty of the plaintiff. Mr. Blundell fully examined the mare, had her ridden by several perscons, and finally bought her as sound. Next day he returned her lame, and she was put to livery, but by agreement between the parties she was sold, as it was determined on that an action should be brought, and she was sold for 30 guineas, and bought for 30 guineas, and bought by a Mr. Hood, living in Stafford shire, who rode the mare home, a distance of 50 miles, and she was quite sound. Mr. Hood afterwards sold the rpare for £4O. to a dealer and gave a warranty of her being sound, her lame ness having been but temporary and gone off. Witnesses were called to prove these facts. For the defence it was contended that from a notice stuck up in Mr. Lucas's yard with respect to warantees given was such as to make it impossible for him to be liable. It was in fact a note hens " never to be liable." Evidence was called to prove that the mare belonged to Mr. Latouche of Dublin, and in his service got an "overreach" and was sold to a person named Hewit, being lame then. Hewit brought her over to Liverpool, and sold her to Farral, and when In Farral's possession Mr. Walton the veterinary surgeon saw her, and pronounced her to be lame. She was injured in the pastern joint, and would be liable to go lame on bard work, she was unsound. Farrel was well acquainted with horses, and knew of this unsoundness of the mare. The mare went lame next morning after she was bought, and was sent back. Mr. CausswEr.r. replied. His Lottostrir in summing up said if the plaintiff failed, in any of his pleas the case must go to the ground. The jury must be of opinion that he made out all his pleas, and then they would find for the dofondaut. Numalv that. thi' horse was unsound before bought, that Fat rat knew It, and that through Farral's fraud the defendant was induced to purchase. The jury after consulting for a short time found a verdict for the plaintiff, da mages £47 10s 0. The court adjourned shortly before . six o'clock. CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY. His Lordship took his seat on the bench at 'five minutes past nine o'clock. HIGHWAY ROBBERY. Edward Grogan, aged 24, was charged with having on the sth of August last, on the Stretford road, feloniously assaulted George Royston, and stolen from him some money and other articles. The prisoner is a remarkably tall and fine-looking man. His face is handsome, but the expression thereof is rather ferocious, and indicative of the utmost determinatiun. He was well dressed, and be presented himself in the duck with an appear ance of great firmness: - _ Georg"e Royston stated that he resided in the Stretford new road. On the sth of August, at a few minutes before one o'clock in the morning, he was going home along the Stretford road. When he cam e within '2O or 3t) yards of Moss lane, he saw a man standing on the opposite side of the road. It was a clear night. This person crossed over the road to him, and asked hint for his motley. Witness replied "I have none." He (the man) said he knew very well that he had; he might search him if he liked (throwing open his coat.) After that another man crossed over the road, whom he had not previously seen. This man presented a pistol within an inch of his temple. The prisoner at the bar said "if you either utter a word or stir, au inch you are a dead man." The first man who came over to him was the prisoner at the bar. Ele was armed with a sort of sabre or bayonet. He drew it from an inside sort of pocket. The prisoner then put his hand into his (witness) breeches pocket, a nd took out a purse containing a sovereign and some silver. '1 he other man pulled out the other pocket,and because it did not all come out so readily as he wished, he took a knife or dagger and cut it out. The prisoner felt a pocket book, and he said that he would have that. 'Witness said he should not, be had got all his money, and there was nothing in it to do hint o r any 'body else any gie was of no use to any one but himself. The prisoner said he would have it, and witness put up his hands, when the prisoner seized hum and threw him upon his back, faking uron him, Wi:ness then called out " murder," and a watchman who was at hand,came up, and the prisoner and the other man ran away. Witness and the watchman examined the ground, and found a hat, which contained a pass-. pout and an address curd. The prisoner cross examined the witness at some length re specting his state at the. time when it was alleged the robbery was committed. It appeared the witness was somewhat intoxi cated. James Bradbury, a watchman, was in the Stretford road on the sth of August. Heard some noise. Some person said •` 1 have nothing more to give you." Was going to the spot when he heard a cry of murder. Went forward and saw two men, one of whom was down upon Mr. Royston. Showed his light Saw that one man was taller than the other. They ran away immediately. Saw that the tallest man, who had lost his hat, had very large whiskers. Searched the spot, and found the hat belonging to the taller one. Found a horse pistol, loaded, a box of lucifer matches, a lot of cards belonging to different theatres in France, a fine shirt, two silk handkerchiefs, and a cotton handkerchietwith some gunpowder in it. The tall man had large whiskers. He corresponded in other respects with the prisoner_ but could not_swear that it was him. Thomas Norbury, one of the police of Manchester.—ln con sequence of some information which he received, he went on the Eccles New road to look for the prisoner. Met him coming towards Manchester, about three miles off. He passed them. Witness said, after he had got past, " Here, young man, I want to speak to you." He replied, " What do you want to say to me?" Witness .said, " I only want to speak to you." He put his hand to his right breast coat pocket, and kept it there, saying " Stand l—keep your distance—if you have any thing to say to me, say it at a distance." He then drew a pistol from his breast, and said, •' If you offer to move I will shoot you!" Witness said, "Nay. von would not shoot a man. would you ?" He swore by his Maker he would. Witness stooped and rushed forward, and the pistol was fired as he rushed. He then levelled the pistol, which was a double-bar relled one, at Follett, and saw the cap drop to the ground. The prisoner then ran off. Witness overtook him and knocked his legs from under him. Jonas took the pistol from him. Saw witness put 'his hand to his side and take hold of a bayonet, which he was prevented from drawing. Witness searched his coal pockets. Found two such barrelled pistols there loaded with powder and ball. The double-barrelled pistol was found to have one barrel loaded and the other unloaded. Witness was without his coat at the time. Some of the other officers were in their uniforms. Cross-examined by the prisoner. —Witness did not tell him that they were officers. The reason why so many went out was that they heard that he was armed with fire-arms. Benjamin Pollett, a police-officer of Manchester.—lt was about flee o'clock in the evening when they met the prisoner. Heard Nnrbury speak to the prisoner. The latter presented a pistol and fired it. Witness rushed forwaid, and the prisoner placed a pistol close to his breast. He snapped it, and it missed fire Cross-examined by the prisoner.—Had not Norbury stooped at the time when he fired, the ball must have struck him. -- Bennett was one of the party that apprehended the pri soner. Witness gave similar test imOny to the other witnesses. Cyrus Alcock produced the articles received from Bradburn the watchman. Witness produced a pamphlet of directions for highwaymen, and the other articles found on his person. . . Sarah Drake stated that she resided in Devonshire-street, Manchester. Is the wife of William Drake. A young woman named Brennan lived with her in August last. The prisoner visited her at her house four times. The last time was the first Friday in August. The prisoner then wore whiskers, rather larger tha❑ now. He asked Brennan when he should come to see her. She said she did not know. He said, " Shall I write to you." She said he might. He said, " Where shall I write to ?" She said " Mrs. Peake will give you directions." She did give her direction, the Rev. M. Esdale, Hall-place, Strange ways. The young woman was going into service at that gentle man's house. He took out of his hat a passport and wrote the address with pencil. Witness examined the papers produced by Alcock, and found the passport. She read the same words on it as that, but she could not read many of them. There were on that passport written the words oft& address. Thomas Goodies Ifnows the prisoner at the bar. Last saw him at a public house in Manchester. Had seen him before in Paris. It was the Monday after the election in Manchester that he saw him in Manchester. At the time witness saw him in Paris he said he should pass through Manchester on his way to America, and he called at that house by appointment. The public-house was the Printers' Arms, When witness saw him in Paris he gave him a card of the hotel whe:e he was stopping at, and wrote his name on that card. Witness picked out this card from the articles produced. It was the middle of July when witness saw him in Paris. Witness saw the passport at Boulogne, and also at the public-house in Manchester. The prisoner had very large whiskers when in Manchester. By the prisoner. —It was Sunday night when he saw the pri soner in Manchester. It was not - likely that the prisoner could have left the papers behind him. A small, but very formidable weapon, which was taken from the prisoner, was produced. Mr. Royston was recalled, and he stated that that was like the weapon with which he was threat ened. The prisoner addressed the jury in his defence. He said it would appear strange to them that be should have those pis tols, the dagger, and dark lantern that had been produced. That dagger was taken in the field of action in Spain. The pistols he had taken at the storming of !run, which was given up to plunder, and he having got possession of these pistols kept them as a curiosity. In June the legion was disbanded. He moulded a few bullets, and loaded the pistols, having se veral leagues torso over an enemy's country, where if an Eng lishman were met who belonged to the Queen's forces he would be immediately assassinated. He travelled over France. and to England, still keeping the pistols loaded, as he feared the discharging, of them might create a disturbance s and he had tried in vain to draw them. He was, as they probably knew, a deserter from the 17th Lancers. The dark lantern lie had found useful in travelling i❑ France, and he thought it might be use ful for the same purpose on his voyage to America. He had in tended, on his arrival here, to take a companion, to be bound with him in the holy and solemn bonds of wedlock, with whom he should have proceeded to America. The JUDGE briefly summed up the evidence, and the jury found the prisoner Guilty. His LORDSHIP addressed the prisoner. He said, some years ago the commission of this crime would have been followed by execution. The laws, however, had been altered, and though this offence had been committed previously to such alteration, he (the learned judge) had ordered judgment of death to be re corded against him, and should recommend him to her Majesty's mercy, on the condition, however, that he should be transported for life. The prisoner begged to be permitted to say a few words before he was removed. He entered into a long statement of his ca reer in life. He stated, that he had enlisted in the 17th Lancers when he was only sixteen years of of age, and, having an ardent wish to distinguish himself in actual conflict, he went. to Spain. He made further statements, which amounted to a confession that he was guilty of the crime for which he had just been tried. He said, when in Spain he had been accustomed "to see no thing before his eyes but rapine, robbery, plunder, and blood shed." He blamed the habits there acqu►red, and said they had led to his subsequent crimes. LARCENY. Richard Doran and William Maguire were charged with hav ing stolen three brace of pistols from the shop of Daniel Row (len, of Manchester. . Mr. Armstrong conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were,on a forinerday of the assizes, convicted of highway robbery. In the commission of that offence it was proved that they had, used the pistols that they were now charged with stealing. * From a defect in the evidence, two individuals, who had been members of the Society of Friends, having re fused either to take an oath or make the affirmation in the legal form, it was doubtful how far the conviction would stand good. The larceny was fully proved, the weapons having been found in the possession of the prisoners, and identified by Mr. Rnwden as his property. The jury found the prisoners Guilty, and they were sentenced to seven years' transportation. WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. • Peter Webster was charged with having, on the Ist October last, at Ince, wounded Ralph Hayes, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Hutton conducted the prosecution. It appeared, that 'at a quarter-past twelve o'clock, on the morning of the Ist October, the prOsecutor was on his way home with hi.• wife, and when near his own house he happened to jostle against the prisoner, who was very angry with him, and would not let him pass on his way. Another individual joined the prisoner, and the two crossed the path of prosecutor and his wife. Hayes threatened to knock them down if they did not desist. Thee persisted, however, and Hayes and his wife crossed, the road. The two men followed, and shouldered ,the prose cutor against the wall. He asked what they meant, and one of ihetn replied, "Anything." He said if one of them wished to fight, if that were all, he was ready for them. They still con tinued to annoy him, and he struck one of them, and knocked him down, when he received two stabs in the stomach. He fell, and received another stab after he was down. A witness, named Thomas Armstrong, proved that the pri soner was one of the two men whom he had found struggling with the prosecutor. There was no evidence to show that the prisoner actually in flicted the wounds. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. POACHING. Charles Wright, William Shaw, and John Hankinson, were charged with hav►ng, on the night of the 224 of September, en tered an inclosure at Rixton-with-Gazebrook armed, and for the purpose of destroying game. Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution; Mr. ADOLPHUS ap peared for the defence. George Wright stated that he was an assistant gamekeeper to Mr. Wilson Patten. He was out on the night of the 22d of November, watching game at Rixton-Glazebrook. Began the watch about ten o'clock at night. His notice was first attracted by hearing a dog yelping. The sound came from some land that they called burrows. Went to the l\ Big Moss field, and found five men. Met oue man by himself at first in the Big Moss field. That one was Thomas Shaw. William Shaw was also there. Thomas Shaw had a stick with him. He had three other gamekeepers with him. The party in the inclosure atenaced and a fight commenced. Witness told them that he was not going to De omen ott the ground by them, Go thcy (rh e poachers) were five, and they (the gamekeepers) four. The former whistled and three others came up. They were all armed with sticks, and the gamekeepers were driven off. John Ashton stated that he was out assisting the keepers on the 224 of November. He found a net hung on a gate in the Big Moss field. He saw a party of men in the field. Wright and Hankinson were of this party. The men attacked them with clubs and drove theta away. Witness was knocked down by a blow on the head. Peter Knight, a gamekeeper, stated that they found several nets in the field. He generally corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses. The Jury retired at half-past one o'clock. They returned at half-past ten, and delivered in a verdict of guilty against Wright and Hankinson, strongly recommending them to mercy. Shaw was acquitted. Wright and Hankinson were sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 mouths with hard labour. PoACHING Isaac Wilkinson was indicted for having been found with three others, out, armed with guns and in search of game, in the township of Bold, on the night of the 11th Nov. 1837. On the night in question the gamekeepers of Sir Henry Bold Houghton heard guns fired in the preserves at Bold, and went out. in search of poachers. They encountered four poachers,- one of whom (not in custody) discharged the contents of a fowling piece into the side of one of the keepers. A keeper, named Clough, struck the prisoner with a cutlass, and cut through his hat and slightly wounded his head. With the as sistance of the other keepers the prisoner was secured ; but Appleton, the man,who fired the gun escap e d. The Jury found the prisoner guilty. this Lordship passed sentence of imprisonment for one year with hard labour. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SszunDAy, (Before Mr. Justice CoLERIDGE.) CUNLIFFE V. PENKETH. The plaintiff in this case is a builder, residing at ilaydock, and brought the action to recover a balance of £3O for making bricks, and worked for the defetdant. The action was referred. MANIFOLD ANT) ANOTHER V. hionuis• The plaintiffs in this case are Messrs. Peter and Samuel Manifold, and the defendant Mr. Wilson Morris. A Mr. Henry Rigmaden mortgaged several buildings, one of which was a public•house, to Mr. SRIIIIIOI Manifold, for 0,000 And also executed a second mortgage to Mr. Holden, including APRIL 3, 1838. fixtures and the licence. After these two mortgages bad been granted, Mr. Rigmaiden borrowed money of his brother, giving him as security the surplus that would arise on uuy sale of the above property, after paying off the two mortgage:. A sale of the preinkes took place, Mr. lligniaden becoming bankrupt, and they were bought by another brother of Mr. Riginaiden. The mortgagees were satisfied, and the surplus was paid over over to M r.Henry Rigmaiden, which amounted only to £2OO, he having lent his brother a much larger sum. .At the time of the sale the mortgagees doubted whether they had the right to sell the fixtures, imagining they belonged to the assignees of the bankrupt. There was no doubt, it was contended, that the' mortgagees had the right to sell the fixtures, and on their sell tng them would depend the surplus which Mr. Henry Rigmaiden was to receive, and Mr. Henry Rigmaiden, therefore, is the name of Messrs. Manifold, which he had' right to use, brought this action against the , assigne es o f M r . Riganaiden, t he bank rupt, for the value of the fixtures, which the assignees had sold, and which Messrs. Manifold were entitled to. The case was gone into, when the plaintiffs broke down, and the plaiutiffe were nonsuited. CHANTER V. LEESE AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by Mr. Chanter, of Blackfriars , the patentee of ,various improvements in the manufacture of steam-engines, and was brought against the defendants, Jame', Lees, George Cousens, and James Lignum, engine-makers, et Manchester, for the non-performance of a contract wheteb% they were indebted to him £2OO. The plaintiff entered into contract with the defendants to grant them the right of manufac turing and vending his patented improvements at Manchester, and iu Lancashire generally, with the exception of Liverpool. and in Cheshire, within ten miles of Manchester Exchange, OP their paying him the consideration of £460 per annum, in two different instalments of £230 half-yearly. The contract Was entered into in February, 1836. The two first p a y m ents were made, but the thi r d was un p a id, an d th e ac ti on was b rou ght 1° recover that amount, £2OO. A point of law was argued at great length between the coun sel for the plaintiff and the defendants, a demurrer having to be heard in the court above, when, by his Lordship's direction, verdict was taken fur the plaintiff, da►nages £2OO, less £7 and a fraction for goods furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff. MADDRELL V. MAXWELL AND ANOTHER. This was an, action brought by the plaintiff, who is a cobbler , against Messrs. Maxwell, merchants, of Liverpool, for .damageS from their having pulled down certain buildings adjoining the plaintiff's house, in Litherland-alley, Liverpool, whereby the plaintiff's house was greatly cracked, damaged, and injured, and in consequence he was put to g►eat expense, and lost his lodgers for which the action was brought. After the case had been heard, the parties came to an agree ment to withdraw a juror. TINDER V. HARRISON. This was an action brought.to recover-£4O demurrage. The parties reside in Hull, and the plaintiff:; chartered a vessel of the defendants to go to Pictou, in Nova Scotia, to fetch timber, thirty running days to be allowed for loading and unloading the ship, and £5 a day demurrage to be paid beyond this. The vessel had gone out ; and on the part of the plaintiff it was contended that there were eight days' demurrage, owing to, neglect in obtaining cargo in America. For the defendant 1$ was contended that the particular cargo required to be loaded by the charter contract could not be obtained, and that that was the cause of the delay. The jury found a verdict for the plain tiff for £2O, which, with £2O paid into court, made up the amount sought to be recovered. PICKA RD V. DEMPSEY. This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, to recover the sum of £l5O, on a promise given by the defendant. The plain. tiff, Mr. Pickard, is a timber merchant, in Liverpool, and the defendant is a timber broker, of the -firm of Dempsey and Benbow, also of Liverpool. The action arose from Mr. Dera sey writing a note to the plaintiff, to th e e ff ec t th a t h e t h ou g ht Mr. Gaebel was ill used by his partner Mr. Benbow, a nd wanted £3OO to complete some purchase with Dempsey and Benbow, and begging Mr. Pickard to give. Gaebel an accept• ance, and that he would bear half the risk, and pay him £l5O to meet the bill ten days before it came due if he did not receive it from Gaebel. For the defence, a setoff was pleaded, in which it was stated that the defendant wanted 1:20,000 from the plain tiff, and that that amount was in dispute between them. A verdict *as taken for the plaintiff, with leave to move to enter a nonsuit. GRIMSHAW V. ROTHERHAM. This was an action brought to recover the value of 173 bales of New Orleans cotton, from the defendant, at £l3 per bale. It appeared that the plaintiff resided at New Orleans, and by the instructions of the defendant, a dealer in cotton in Liver pool, purchased 500 bales for him at the close of 1835. A part of these, namely, 173 hales, were stripped on the Tagus, which ship afterwards took fire, but not till after an insurance had been effected on the cotton. The plaintiff on this purchased another 173 bales, to make up the 500 bales, thinking that the best he could do, and wrote to Liverpool to get nrsurance effected on these bales. The cotton an ived in due course in Liverpool, but to a falling market, and the defendant sent the whole of it to a broker to sell, telling him to keep two accounts of the cotton, one of the 173 bales, and the other of the re mainder. In the proper course, the plaintiff's bill, for .£183 51 14s. 7d. was presented by Messrs. Ridgway, the agents of the plaintiff, for the defendant's acceptance, but this he refused to give, saying he had not authotised the purchase of the 173 bales. Afterwards he honoured part of the bill, super protest, for £l3OO , and though the defendant dealt with the cotton as his own, and sold it, he bad never further paid for it. If the ... cotton were not his, urged the plaintiff's counsel, h e oug ht to h ave re f use d tt altogether, and it would then have remained over till the plain tiff arrived in Liverpool, at which tune there was a good market and there would have been no less. As it was, whatever logs there was from the cotton having been sold in a falling market, the defendant having dealt with it as his own, and never havinK advised the plaintiff to the contrary, must be liable for the NU amount. The case was not gone into, but a nominal verdict was take° for the pla►ntiff for £lO,OOO subject to a special case. CROWN COURT.—MONDAY. His Lordship took his seat at a few minutes past nine o'clock. PORGRRY. John Kinnear, aged 57, and John Jones, aged 69, were placed at the bar, charged with having, at Manchester, conspired to obtain credit and raise money by issuing false and fictitious bills of exchange. A highly respectable jury was impanelled. The prisoners having been arraigned, and the jury swore Jones was ordered to stand back, and the Court proceeded with the first indictment against Kinnear. Kinnear addressed the Judge, and said . .he wished to make an application. on an affidavit, for the postponement of the trial for two or three days, under a particular indictment which be named. . ---- Mr. j3RANDT said he did not intend to go on that indictment. Kinnear then asked if this were the proper time to make any objection to the indictment. His LORDSHIP said that the prisoner had already pleaded not guilty" to the indictment. If he had any objection to the fonts of the indictment he ought to have taken it before. His Lord ship, however, allowed th e prison e r t o p ro ceed. The prisoner said he objected to the Indictment, that the bill alleged to have been drawn by him was improperly described aa a bill of exchange. It was nut a bill of exchange. The pri soner went on to describe according to the law, as he averred. laid down by Chitty and Bailey, what he conceived was necess, sary to constitute a document or bill of exchange. The main point for which he contended was, that a document was not a, bill of exchange till it was complete in all its departments. Be insisted that it was essential that a bill should be accepted be fon! it was a bill of exchange. The bill in question was not only not accepted, but it contained a positive direction that it was not to be accepted, as there were on the face of the bill the words "without acceptance." His Loeustite said such was not the law certainly. A bill was a bill of exchange the moment it was drawn, and it was not at all necessary that it should be accepted before it was a bill of exchange. Mr. BRANDT and Mr. L. PEEL, who were retained for the prosecution, briefly replied to the point urged by the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said he did not remember ever to have seen an instrument iu that shape before, but that was no reason whY it should not be a bill of exchange. A person had a right to use what terms he pleased in the drawing of a bill. Bills were sometimes drawn at sight—then would they not be billssof ex change till they were paid. This bill would be a bill of exchange the moment it was drawn ; and, in fact, the London and West minster Bank, or where it vas drawn, might have accepted ix if they pleased. Mr. BRANDT stated the case. The present bill of exchange purported to be drawn by the Flintshire District Banking Com pany, and was signed by a person named James Watkins, who, it was described, was manager of the Company. He should be enabled to show, that no such company as the Flintshire Dis trict Banking Company existed, and that the name of Watkins was also a fictitious name. He should prove that, on the 22d August last, Jones, who would be connected with the prisoner in his transactions, app icd to a Mr. Swain, an engraver, at Manchester, to engrave a plate for the purpose of striking off impressions. Jones twice subsequently applied to Mr. Swain to alter the address of the bill plate. This plate, with a good many blanks, and some bill forms filled up, were found in Kin" near's possession. Inquiries were made at Flint respecting the Banking company, and it was found that no such company ex isted. The learned gentleman went on to detail the course 0C evidence by which he intended to establish the case. Joseph Wood stated, that he had lately been unfortunate in , business. He was a genes al Manchester Warehouseman. Knew' the prisoner at the bar. Had known him many years, Had recently had occasion to write to him, and he requested lino (witness) to address his letters J. K. Donaldson. Those were letters that were to pass through the post; but if he had had to address a note to him at Manchester, he should have addressed him in his own name of Kinnear. In the month of OctobeK last, witness asked Kinnear to lend him some money, as the:, latter told had him he had a great command of money. Oa" 4 seen him in possession of various bills of exchange. Q 4 the; 14th Oct. received a letter from Liverpool in re ply t o a letter o f hie The letter contained an enclosure. -.Witness could not find that letter, though he had Searched for it. It contained two hi! ls " one for £7O and one for £3O. The letter contained direction? , for him to remit one-half the proceeds_ in' cash of the £3O and his (witness's) note of hand at 14'days for the other 111 , !'• For the £7O bill he was to remit £35 in cash and £35 in his (ekt i ness's) note at 14 days. It was to be remitted immediately. Witness - returned it itior letter. (Letter produced.) That letter was addressed "J. K. Donaldson,post.oflice, Liverpool." Tb o date of this l e tt er was 14 t h October. He returned the £3O to the prisoner. Another letter of .the same date was produced . ; Witness Said, that was his letter inclosing the ca s h (£35) an his note for £35 at 14 days. That •£7,0 , bill purported to be of the Flintshii e Bank. Had received a smaller bill for £6 6s; on the same bank before. ( A bill handed to witness.) That'wa s the same bill, At the time when be gave witness that hil i l he said, it was a good bank, and ihey were doing a capita l business, Ile said, also, Watkins was a 'Welshman—was the manager of the bank, and was a clever man. Believes Kinnea r is a Scotcheuan. (The £7O bill was here produced, and identi fied by the witness.) At the time when witness received th at bill he believed it to be a good bill. Would not have parte n , with so large a sum a £35, if he had mit been impressed wit h the conviction that it was a good bill. The prisoner, at his own request, had the bills handed to hint and he exa,mined them. The last witness was then cross-examined by the prisoner.—_: Had known the prisoner nearly 20 years. Had not had an y transactions with him until near April or May. Had during that time received several bills of exchano from 'him. S ( .l . of them were protested previous to the prisoner's apprehen,,, The six guinea bill was duly paid. The prisoner had ho u f 4 ". from and sold goods to the prisoner in the regular way. of lebusi ness. The prisoner never propo se d. any tiansaction whic h considered dishonourable, R e -examined by Mr. l'eet..—All the other transactions were . small bills, and they were drawn up on J o n e s a nd NepheW , n. Broad-street. They were drawn by Jones of Dublin. There v ", one Edinburgh bill for £8 sein e s hilli ngs ,d rawn by Fowler and: -;:g • There was also a Sheerness a n d Q ueens b oroug h bill. That paid to him only two days before the prisoner's anPre be " te r, Edward Wright, he a d wa it er at t h e St ar I nn , Man"l, lo ., and David Webster, a porter at the raiiwav station intier 0 cheater, were call e d to trace a portmanteau from ManchFslaced Liverpool. The p ortmanteau was seen at the Star In n, in a coach with the prisoner, set down at the railway station, taken from th e coac h by Webster, carried into the o ince aa from thtn The prisoner h cross-exa tuin ed the w ce to te train in the lurd. , itness Webster at soma