The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

i lg week► In Ghia reated a injured. 1 g man, the gal : brain. April 9, 1844 , LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—TuEsn AY. (Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.) L .,•an Br am hill was acquitted on a c h arge o f h av i ng 'oiled and slain Mary Branihill, at Liverpool. P4iliP And a Spaniard, was found guilty of the ip,analaughter of Andrew Davis, at Liverpool, and sen tollitroabnesrpt L enefll to 12 months' imprisonment. t Wil liam Taylor, found guilty of forgery, was sentenced o s rt i a m ti p o s n on for 15 years. pleaded guilty to a charge of misde %rout* in falsifying a marriage register. :arter: ernaa°rrmiaPv,T°ll' with whom was Mr. Monteith, for the Pron °n. stated that, in consequence of the many im stitu es, marriages which had been productive of a l,. ‘l oral and social evils. this prosecution had been *nd by the Rector of Bury, with the concurrence the su pport of the Bi s h o p o f Ch es t er . It a ppeared that orisoner, who lived in Bury, went to Rochdale parish nrch with his wile, and falsely represented that they ag o l ; e re c parish of Rochdale, and ta they were both l ull age, whereas they lived in Bur h y, t and were under .There was another indictment against Simpson and his w ife for a f elony. Upon this indictment, Mr. MONTEITH stated to the jury that, on the part of the prosecution, he 7.° 3 1 4d offer no evidence, and that, under the direction of 41Jordship, they would return a verdict of not guilty. T he prisone r was or d ered to pay a fi ne o f 20 5., an d th e uri!__ having been paid, he was discharged. a' mp The criminal Lousiness having here terminated, his lord procded CIVIL CAUSES. TWINAM E AND OTHERS V. SMART AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by Messrs. Twiname, Max well, and othe rs , corn-merchants, of Liverpool, against Messrs. Smart and Co for the recovery of losses sus- Md by a n alleged breach of contract. plaintiff spanW and M r . Drinkwater appeared for the fendants. Mr. Martin. and Mr. Cowling for the de- It appeared that the defendants agreed to send a cargo of good Burletta wheat, of a specified weight, to Liver pool, and that, when it arrived, it was deficient in weight and inferior in quality, a d not wrth within ss. to 6s. per quarter o f the wheat in question. The defendants paid into court £159 for the inferiority, and £6l for the deficiency in weight. The cargo was disposed of ; and t he action was b rought for the recovery of a sum of about 1,600, which was the difference between the price ob tained a n d th e pr i ce at w hi c h t h e cargo was purchase d na Mely, 50s. ...2P per qua rer M. MARTIN contended, for the defence, the e,thaptliffe aasnutiffi '.ent sum had been paid into court , and he . he enuld migh re t have entered into not cover for the loss withsustnthede parties t 0 0 0 w nt h r o a m `u ct t n Ye Wheat had been sold. ofi a. 3d. T 4 he u jurireturned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum DOBSON V. HOWSLEY. J o Th iS Was an undefended action, brought by the plaintiff , fohn Dobson, against the defendant, George Howsley, ,ahe re covery o f a covenan t on a mor t gage deed for fT• A. verdictintere was returned for the plaintiff for the 11 '4 amount with st. ISIAINWARING v. FOSTER AND ANOTHER. ...Thi s Alexandert..; was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard 'Talowaring. against the defendants, John Foster and Gregor, for the recovery of compensation 14 n r A r ies suffered while in their service. and libundas and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, actionaPPeared It r. Watson and Mr. Littledale for the defendants. that the plaintiff :cowas brought for the recovery of compensation for nVound fracture of the leg, which be received by the boseglent manner i n w hi c h t h e d e f en d an t s con d uc t e d th e i r ine igss The defendants carried business in Bruns on 'wick-street, Liverool, as merchants and brokers, in a eoensiderable way of business, and, in the spring of last 1 r, d they e ngaged the plaintiff as a porter, at the rate of bad 6. a a uay. Upon the 31st of March, the defendants ~, occasion to remove a quantity of cotton from their w lt l !ar, in Great Howard -street, when four of the bales, phi l .ell had been negligently piled, fell down and broke the lait tiff . ' s leg ; and, in consequence of this injury, be was Up in the Infirmary for four months after. A Verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages £35. NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY. Th e the cour was occupied the greater part of the day with cold gcial jury case, Fletcher and another v. Manning ,—a question as to whether a seizure of some r . PertT o er f Mr. J. B. P. Chapp& of Manchester, under that p r o of attorney by the defendants, and the sale of and Y after an act of bankruptcy by Mr. Charlie, afte r . zUre and °bee to the sheriff not to sell, was a legal sei sale. We have not space to insert the report of cl 7.cas at length. The jury found for the plaintiffs, Mr. aPPe'B assignees, damages £963. wo d poken by the SLANDER.-YATES V. cuFF r rA s Y s . , This was an action for slander, in defendant of the plaintiff; but the defendant having found there were no grounds for what he bad stated, was willing to pay the plaintiff £5O, as indemnifying him for all ex penses, at the same time stating, by his counsel, that he believed the plaintiff to be a re!zpectable man, was fully convinced there was no truth in what he had sta`ed, and regretted the injury the plaintiff had suffered in conse quence of the words complained of. The plaintiff's coun sel expressed his satisfaction with the defendant's apology, !lid a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, sub l'ttt to the terms stated. 01 14 the next case (before a special jury), Aitkin and _e r t h . v. Slater an others, t question ch was as to whe as'tro u a .mortgage was d executedunder su circumstances bant. De come invalid, by b e i ng a f rau d u l en t t rans f er b y a acti o ' l lPt. to the injury of his creditors. When the court r ued at seven o'clock, this case was not concluded. lislrLortevii°,,WN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. tendance w i l :_OocßLEY.—The plaintiff not being in at 'tl called, a nonsuit was taken. 8L0c,,„ an actj -‘," V. ISHERWOOD.—In this case, which was the 1 air a debt of £32. 10s., a verdict was which en for P alu ' SUbject to a reference. Aik, alP uttoKETts' CLAIM FOR COmmlssloN ß . s. The plai ntiff ' s AND OTHERS V. FAITH AND OTHE RS.—The Chantsl" i n this case, Messrs. James Aik i n and Son, mer-_ 1.51 and s hipbrokers, sought to recover the sum of parr y • 15s. from the defendants, who belonged to a com o called the British Shipping Company, for commis- f whi e ',_ au account of effecting a charter for a vessel o it n the defendant s were the owners. Tao.appeared that in August, 1840, a ship, called the part, belonging to the defendants, was lying at this M l .'" a't a charter effected thereon by plaintiffs atteaugh Messrs• Chapm an, wa s Willis, and Co., who acted as t I ns to the co ' m a a i p iy m - the ship was to go on a voyage .).so Calcutta , -uogg th ') a fr . eight belonging to Mr. Gardner t he d ' ° W hom the vessel was shortly afterwards sold t b h y , tisuaiefendat. The commission on the charter, at and al thou r' l te " X 8 per cent., amounted to £156. 155., the ei , r ..a Plaintiffs had made frequent application i to b a iy; ;ePpdants and timerotbes they had never been ab e dew " 'Rim that to ' the present. The defendants _ , led their liability, alleging, tha , as the vessel had been 4 9 1 d to Me t ee to gars. Boggs, Taylor and Co., they were the par sio„ W hom the plaintiffs should look for their commis effe-c't and that an agreement had been entered into . to that fr oto , bY which they (the defendants) were discharger . bse:uunenatli res ponsibility. An offer had, however., berntu t b e Ita l ., nt Y made, by the defendant, of £7B, leaving half h of commission, the other half, as stated by them, We re due to Messrs. Chapman, Willis, and Co., who Valnt,,i`r,e rititled to it, according to custom, for assisting the Jntediffs in effecting the charter, but which they had con to forego. This was refused by the plaintiffs, who e_n_.terlded th at they were entitled to the whole sum, in the 8t Chapman nstance, a o. nd they could th en sett l e w i th Messrs. and C The jury found for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. DISPUTFD CLAIM. iVEntcrt. V. PRELIER.—The plaintiff was Mr. G. G. Weber, and the defendants Messrs. Preller and Prom . - xnell, both parties extensively engaged in the salt trade, in Prom this tovrn. The action vvas brought to decide whether the defendants should tons of salt which h i T t , 68 . or 7s. 6d. per ton for 1, It appeared that a a „ - n ee n sop li d to them. trttet had e been entered into be tween the plaintiff and defendants, that the former should Supply to the latter, at various 1 842, to December, white salt, at the five,' 1,500 tons of 18 tlle 3, market price, but never to exceed ran e 9 e s • bestat fr threeo c p m o e m ri in o l to from te n Decembe r,days' no ~. have the benefit when theprice , that sum, and d o , b n e t i he w defendants to ', otherwise the plaintiffs to sustain the loss. Durinz the * hole of the ear and until about the 16th of December, 4 . 33 .° Orders Weregiven by the defendants ; hut about hat Vile. they gave an order for 1,500 tons to be delivered d. Pe following week, which had the effect of causing a su e de rise in the market, and the plaintiff, with considerable lalattlitY, succeeded in completing the order, though he 4 to Pay 7s. 6d. himselt for every ton supplied. Such eo 4lo Ply, in so short a space of time, was, it was contended, rel ltr :rY to the meaning of the contract. The d'fendant teaudseti to gi ve more than 6s. per ton, which, he cson of 423 7 4 ,,, 1 the market price, and had tendered the um Which ' '4le Pla:ntiff however, sought to recover £550 ss. w as at th • as the a ver e rate of 7s. 6d. per ton, that being alleged Th. j ut age Price at that period. , t 96 l ' i )" found a verdict for the plaintiff te nder 's. Bd-, which, in addition to the sum he had shin t „ ed. amounted to £520 25., being at the rate of seven ulgs per ton nett for ti.e salt supplied. Th e 11!tEACH OF TRUST: PRESCOT V. BALL. Drp s Plaintiffs were the Guardians of the P,or of the m y Cf°ot U nion, and the defendant Ball had become secu 4,"erseert. ti enrY Longden, who was . appointed ssibt i -iiit t 'one, i t - I . ) f the district of Woolton in 1840. Since tri a Pplyi nr ", a n d been discovered that Lonaden had be -n mis tqueatlcue money passing throuvh his hands, and, con the surety had become liabh su of a lbouu t : 4 elsimed, and a verdict was le. gi T ven e for m that . •erdi e t AMGER V. TIMMON. W WI taken in this case by consent for £3O. NISI Pli lUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Ato, (Bgfore Mr Baron Rolfe,) A 'n Pn AT AunuLENT CONVEYANCE OF PROPER T Y. 1 4 'll a ..1 " OTHERS V SLATER AND OTHERS. i 11, Ilesd a etion (tried before a ,pecial jury, partly hear d na d , It tiY), to recover possession of certain title deeds all i,p,t, a• which the plaintiffs as the a=signees of a bank • it'- d mor t, an 'ed William Hnld , worth, Atkin, Alexand t er ll e ,, re . •Np E , ',nd Charles Turner • and the rhoend trtide". Williat SI ' 'I h . Wi'lian"' tin p e sthen in fl . , -ter and om s re 4 ri e Nit '. i . L'vertmol. and a gf-ntlennin of the trfrre . tn t4 4 -at i .,' 4 . -nemtor. of the ....MP pbre. The two first de batiCkerp trustees under the ►rarti:t<Se s t lemt-tit of ru Pt's wife, arid the question turned upon the validity of the mortgage for £4,000 upon certain properry at Egremont, which Mortgage was executed by the hauk rupt to the trustees in question in Fea. 1841. The tiffs alleged that there was no consideration given to the mortgage, and that the whole was a fraudulent and eobu sive scheme,—fraudulent at common law, and feanduleiit within the statutes regulating bankruptcy,—to defeat the general body of creditors, The bankrupt formerly carried on business as a brewer, in Livetpool, besid-s being a large speculator in railway shares, and at the time of his failure owed upwards of £30,000; and it was prove] that there was not more than £5O of assets. The defence was that to the extent of £2,000 there was a perfectly legal and valid consideration, the trustees having given up a previous mortgage to that amount, and that the bankrupt, when he executed the mortgage, had reason to believe that he should get consideration for the whole £4,000. A great deal of documentary and parole evidence was given, and the bankrupt himself was examined as to the circum stances under which he executed the mortgage. His lordship left it to the jury to say whether they were satis fied, from the evidence, that the transaction was a fraud, The jury after a few minutes' consideration, found a ver dict for the defendants. The trial ocupied the court nine hours. DEBT, BANKS V. HALSALL.—Thisitction was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Meyrick Banks, of Winstanley Hall, near Wigan, coal proprietor, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Thomas Ha!sail, coal dealer, of Liverpool, £33 Gs. the amount of two boat loads of coals supplied to him in January and March, 1843 ; but, since the commencement of the action, £3O has been paid on account by a person named Everall. The defendant did not receive any of the goods, and the question to decide was whether he ordered them. The whole case turned upon two written orders, and those orders were not forthcoming; but they were sworn to have been in the defendant's handwriting, and upon those orders the goods were sent. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages £3 65., his lordship stating that he would certify that the case was proper to be tried, so as to secure the costs. ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY HELD AS SECURITY FOR A BANKRUPT'S DEBT. CAZENOVE AND OTHERS V. CLAYTON AND OTHERS.— This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs, James Cazenove, Philip Thompson, and Benja min Franklin, assignees of Richard Almond, formerly a coal dealer and flat owner, at Orrell Mount, near Wigan, a bankrupt, to recover possession of two flats and two certificates of registry held by the defendants, Messrs. Clayton and Wilson, bankers of Preston. The facts of the case appeared to be these :—the bankrupt, Almond, having an account with the defendants, deposited with them two or three years ago, his muniments of title to two flats, called the Longton and the Lord Stanley. In March, 1843, about a month before the fiat of bankruptcy was issued against him, the defendants had reason to doubt his solvency, and pressed him for a mortgage on the vessels. He had, been looking into his affairs a few days before ; and, finding himself in a state of insolvency, he resolved to stop payment, telling the defendants that it was too late to grant them what they asked. Mr. Wilson, one of the defendants, then said they had a lien upon the vessels, and would go and take possession of them. To this the bankrupt consented, and accordingly the vessels were taken possession of by the defendants. On the 28th of April following, the fiat of bankruptcy issued, and the assignees claimed the two vessels; but the defendants re fused to give up possession, alleging that they had an equitable lien upon the property by virtue of the docu ments, which the bankrupt had placed in their hands as security for the advances made to him. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover if the jury were of opinion that at the time the bankrupt consented to the defendants taking possession he did not mean thereby to confer a new right, or that he meant to give a new right, and did so vo luntarily and in contemplation of bankruptcy. lf, on the other hand, the jury believed that he intended to give the defendants a security which they did not bold before, and that, in consequence of pressure, then the defendants would be entitled to a verdict. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, for the da mages laid in the declaration, to be reduced to 40s. on the vessels and registers being given up. The court rose at a quarter. past six o'clock. CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY. JONES AND OTHERS V. LOWE. The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of Mr. T. Wardle, attorney, and the defendant a gentleman out of business belonging to this town. The action was for the sum of £95 Is. 10d.. being the balance of an account current for work done by Mr. Wardle for the defendant, in carrying on law proceedings previously to the bank ruptcy of the former. The defendant, who conducted bis own case, pleaded that the work had been improperly performed by Wardle, and that his interest had been sacrificed in consequence ; that on one occasion, when his services were required in behalf of the defendant, he was in bed at home in conse quence of intoxication, having drunk the best part of a quart of pure whiskey during the night, which he alleged he had taken by mistake, and was obliged to be carried to a warm bath to be sobered ; and that he (defendant), when advised by Wardle to supply him with cash, had been charged 6s. Bd. for such advice. He then called several witnesses, amongst whom were two gentlemen belonging to the bar, Mr. Ramshay and Mr. Martin, and told the latter with much gravity, in reference to a state ment he was making, that what he (Mr. Martin) did not know from his own personal knowledge could not be ad mitted as evidence. Mr. JAMES replied, observing that the spirit of litiga tion seemed to have taken a very strong hold of the de fendant for a long time back, and there was nothing new in his alleging negligence against parties whom he em ployed, if they did not succeed in obtaining all he expect ed. He had acted in a similar manner with reference to an attorney at Manchester; and he (Mr. James) con tended that there was no ground for a charge of negligence against Mr. Wardle. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount sought. BATTERSBY V. BATTERSBY. In this case a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, for £36. There was al.° another action between the same par ties, in which a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, for £l3 16s. DE WOOLF AND OTHERS V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER. The plaintiffs in this case, which was an action of tro ver, were the assignees of Messrs. M`Leod, Wood, and Co., and the defendants, Messrs. Bevan and Smith, warehouse-agents, of Liverpool. The action was to re cover the value of some brandies, sold by Fanck Brothers to the bankrupts. The amount sought was £77. The jury retired before five o'clock, and at seven they had not delivered their verdict. The court rose shortly before six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY. WRIT OF RIGHT.—RISHTOIs/ V. NESBIT. In this case four knights of the shire—Sir Thomas Brancker, Sir Joshua Walmsley, Sir Thomas Potter, and Sir George Driokwater—were summoned to appear, ac cording to ancient custom, " girt with sword," to try, along with twelve other recognitors, whether Anthony Nesbit, the tenant, or Charles Rishton, the demandant, had a right to c-rtain property which formerly constituted part of Chorlton Hall Estates, in Chorlton-upon-Med lock, n ••ar Manchester. Mr. Starkie, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Tomlinson con ducted the case on behalf of the tenant; Mr Dundas and Mr. Archbold were counsel for the demandant. An attempt was made on the rout of the demandant to postpone the trial, on the ground of the absence of a ma terial witness, but on his Lordship intimating that if a postponement took place the demandant would have to pay the costs, Mr. Dundas said he would rather proceed. Some conve sation then took place as to which side should proceed first, and his lordship ruled that the tenant should. Mr. STARKIE then stated the case. He said the de mandant claimed, as the heir-at-law of a lady named Bar bara Aytown, who was possessed of the estates early in the last century. The learned gentleman then proceeded, on behalf of the tenant, to show how the estate had been handed down until it reached the present owners, and, besides that, denied that the demandant was heir-at-law. To prove the right of tenant, a vast number of title and mortgage deeds were read ; and to prove the pedigree. many copies of registers of births, marriages, and deaths, were also read, and several witnesses examined. As soon as the case for the tenant had closed, Mr. DUNDAS said, on the part of the demandant, he had performed his duty by watching the case; but finding it was not in their power. to bring forward evidence to rebut that already adduced, they must submit to a verdict. His LORDSHIP then intimated to the jury that there was nothing left for them to do. The parties were satis fied, and of course they (the jury) were released. This case lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till about half-past four in the afternoon. RODGERS AND ANOTHER V. MAW. This was an action to recover £l7OO on a bond. The defendant pleaded a set off of £lBOO. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling apvared for the plaintiff. Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The plaintiffs were Henry Rodgers and William Marshall, and the defendant was Edwin Maw, and, formi-rly they were partners as iron founders and engineers in this town. In January, 1810, the partners :ip was d;ssolved, Mr. Maw agreeing to give up all in'erest in the concern, and his partners releasing him fr , m all the debts and liabilities of the firm. The de fendant further agreed to give the plaintiffs a bond for £2OOO, payable by veatly instalments of £5OO. The de fendant fulfilled the terms of the bond, until he was com pelled by Messrs. Spooner. Attwood and Co., of London, to pay the amount of an acceptance for £l7OO, which had been drawn by nee of the plaintiffs and accepted by the other in the name of the firm. It came out in the conr , e of the cause that the real plaintiff was the Royal Bank of Liverpool, and ultimately the question r solved itself into a point of law. His Lordship, therefore, direc'ed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with liberty to re duce the verdict to such sum as the Court might direct. AVERY AND OTHERS v. BROWN AND OTHERS. This via= at action to recover damages. 'or an alleeed breath contract, and after th e cas e h a d been heard. it was Rereed between the parties that a verdict of £5O should he taken on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock. CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY. INDICTMENT FOR THE NONPAYMENT OF A HIGHWAY. REGINA V. THE INHABITANTS OF DOWNHOLLAND.— This . as an indictment aeainst the inhabitants of Down holland, for not repairing 1.774 vards of a highway situated within that tewn-h 4 p. II appened that the parish of Halsall consi•ts of five townships, D twnhnlland heine one of them, and it a a, con , ,tided, on the pa, t .it the pro,eco ti•,n. I at. it WaS 4 2 rtieral f•tistorn for each township to repa i r its own rt a.l. and that consPcoenill , the defendants were liable to repair the portion in question. After the THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD witnesses on the part of the pi o , ecut ion had been examined. his Lordship expressed his op;ninn that no ancient cu-t ,, m of the kind referred to had been made out, and the jury under his direction, found the defendants not guilty of the matters contained in the indictment. ACTION TO RECOVER MONEY RECEIVED BY AN AGENT O N ACCOUN T OF A PUBLIC COMPANY. CAMP , ELL b. PowNALL —This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Duncan Camplo , .ll. against Wm. Pownall, the defendant, to recover £322, the balance of an account for goods sold and delivered, ak.d on an account stated. The plaintiff is a proprietor of water-side carts, in Liver pool, and a member of the Old Carters' Company, an as sociation consisting of persons in the same line of busi nose. The defendant had been secretary to the company. His duties were to keep an account of th , work done each day by the carters employed, and to collect the cartage accounts from the merchants when due ; and the amount now sought to be recovered w's the balance of a larger sum which the defendant had c ,, llected during his secre taryship. 'The defence was, that Pownall was dealing with the company and not with the plaintiff individually, and that therefore he had mistaken the person against whom he might proceed f o r th e recovery o f t h e mone y. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. The court was opened shortly after one o'clock. ASSAULT. ALDERSON v. WAISTELL AND ANOTHER.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, Thomas Waistell and Henry Waistell, his son, for an as sault. The plaintiff and the defendants are firmers, at Birkdale, in the North Riding of the county of York, and were in the habit of tending their sheep upon a piece of common land, at Birkdale, which they enclosed with " bield walls," so as to prevent the sheep from straying, and to protect them from the snow. On Sunday the 4th February, a nephew of the plaintiff was tending sheep in one of the " bields," when the elder defendant's son came up, and said his father would have one of the plain tiffs enclosures, and drove a number of sheep into the place. The plaintiff and his nephew attempted to drive the defendant's sheep out, and then the elder defendant struck the plaintiff on the temple with a large stick. He then got a large stick from Henry Waistell, and knocked the plaintiff down. The younger defendant next threw a stick at the plaintiff; and the elder defendant, seizing the plaintiff by the legs, threw him into a ditch. The principal witness for the plaintiff was a strapping young fellow, 19 years of age, who diverted the court and jury by the stupidity of his answers to the questions put to him. Mr. DUNDAS, for the defendants, said the younger de fendant had certainly been included in the case, for the purpose of preventing him being made a witness for the father • who the learned counsel contended, was perfectly justified in using violence in order to get possession of the sheep. _ _ _ The jii - ry found the younger defendant not guilty, and returned a verdict of guilty against the father ; damages, £lO. AN ATTORNEY'S BILL. BRAY D. EASTWOOD.—This was an action brought by Mr. Bray, attorney, of Preston, against the defendant, Mr. Thomas Eastwood, of Brindle Lodge, in this county to recover the sum of £547, for professional services. The costs were incurred in defending Mr. Eastwood against an indictment, at Lancaster, for a libel upon the Rev. Mr. Sherborne, Roman Catholic priest, and two actions for libel subsequently brought against the defend ant, by the same reverend gentleman, at the assizes at Liverpool. The libels appeared in the Lancaster Gazette, in the shape of letters from the defendant; and Mr. Quarme, the editor of that journal, was the nominal de fendant in the two last actions. The libels imput d to Mr. Sherborne, and to the Roman Catholic priesthood generally, that they induced persons on their death-beds to make wills in their favour, or for superstitious purposes. The defendant was found guilty upon the bill of indict ment preferred against him at 'Lancaster. The two ac tions brought against Mr. Quarme, after being made remanets at one assizes, at Liverpool, were ready for trial at the succeeding assizes, in March, 1843, when the plain tiff, Mr. Bray, wrote to Mr. Eastwood to furnish him with money to carry them on. The defendant refused to send any money ; and Mr. Bray thereupon agreed to a verdict for the plaintiff, for nominal damages, and those actions were settled. He delivered in his bill to the de fendant in July last, but the defendant refused to pay, and in consequence, this action was brought. Two or three witnesses were called, who proved that during the progress of the actions in question Mr. Eastwood was fre quently at the plaintiff's office, and letters were also put in evidence, showing that he was the person who gave directions during the entire suit. Mr. WATSON addressed the jury for the defence, con tending that for the costs, incurred in the two actions against Mr. Quarme, the defendant could not be held liable. In the bill which bad been handed in were some matters which related to the indictment brought against Mr. Eastwood, at Lancaster ; and for all that he had done for Mr. Eastwood, the plaintiff had been paid. It was the opinion of the great and learned Lord Tenterden, that every attorney ought to take a written retainer from his clients ; but in the present case there was no written re tainer, and that the defendant was not the real defendant in the two actions brought against Mr. Quarme might be inferred from the fact that he was to be examined as a witness. His LORDSHIP' observed, in summing up, that there could be no doubt that the bill of £547 hid been properly incurred, and he left the jury to say whether it was due from the defendant. The jury found for the plaintiff ; damages, £520. CROWN COURT-SATURDAY. STEAD V. ROBERTS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff. Thomas Stead, to recover the sum of £4O lent to the defendant, Abraham Roberts. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable, and that he had paid the mon ey before the action was brought. Both these pleas were denied ; and on this issue was joined. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Addison appeared for the plain tiff; and Mr. Watson for the defendant. It appeared, from the statement and evidence, that the plaintiff was a maltster, at a place called Clackbeaton, near Leeds, and that the defendant was a stonemason, r n e e e a n r v t e h r e a s s a u m m e place nf x 4 0 ; a w n b d ie t h h , e s nin object na n o g f n tahseaction October,w a l 8 s I I T , was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The latter had . taiffbr;onthnd whener,Samu n e n l, w in h t o im m ae a y rri b e a d d a be d e a n ug t h h t u er s offortmheedp,latTe loan passed through the hands of Samuel's wife, who had since died. The loan could not, therefore, be directly proved ; but admissions had, from time to time, been made by the defendant, which left no doubt that the money had been lent. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount so ght. His LORDSHIP intimated that he would not take any more cases, and the Court accordingly adjourned at ten o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE CUSTOMS AT LIVERPOOL : REGINA V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS. Thomas Williams, Henry Beeslon, and Jonas Brockle hurst, were indicted for a conspiracy to defraud the cus toms. There were two counts in the indictment. The first charged the defendant with a conspiracy to defraud the Queen of her Customs' duties. The second count charg ed that certain merchandise had been placed in a bonding warehouse in the port of Liverpool; and ten bags of coffee had been removed shk, t De h nraa e conv r wti e lne. from, in order to be re-warehoused ; and that the defendants conspired to obtain these ten bags from the Queen's officers without paying the duty, : and, also, that, in pursuance of such conspiracy, the defendants endeavoured to bribe the officers by the promise of £5, and the actual payment of £3 to procure the removal of the ten bags. The defendants pleaded not guilty to both charges. The following are the circumstances of the case, as de tailed in the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution: —The defendant, Beeston, was a landing-waiter in the Customs at the time of the occurrences which were the subject of the indictment. Williams was described as a general dealer, and Brocklehurst was said to be a store keeper and general dealer in Manchester. The most im portant witnesses were two lockers, William Booth and George Henry Richards; and it appeared, that on the 17th of July last, these persons had been appointed to receive goods and keep thew till the duty was paid in Green's, 340, Dundee-street, which is a bonding ware house. The same day Booth was standing under the dome in the Custom-house passage, when Beeston and Williams came to him, and the former asked him what duty he was upon. Booth replied, " Not upon any par ticular duty at this time," adding that he was going out askedn f i m o n what leave duty o f reledfaenonstbrteohat Beeston landing-waiterunoat rhyadaeafnytahesniirs. invited vraaewi ß mrtt edhueedseerasnni him Beeston i n ßefa o n voiuwion e en x ttashod t s, ouse, which adjoins the Custom-house, replieda Nntidßeeston, t sittingto,iill he yhtoi sgvvp dideugti public-house, il i together, i n n acrg o m: ht t gone Beeston proposed dinner, and the three, Beeston, Williams, and Booth, dined together in a room up stairs. Beeston insisted on paying for the dinner. After dinner they w ent down stairs into the room they h a d l e f t b efore, when Davies came in with a person named Jones. Booth went out, and was going in the direction of South John -street when Williams overtook him and said Beeston wanted him at the Globe public-house, in Copperas-hill, and that he (Williams) was not to part with him on any account. Booth went to the Globe about four o'clock, but Beeston was not there, and whilst he was waiting Williams in quired if he was a single man, adding, that he knew what Mr. Beeston wanted to speak with him about : it was to know what station he would be upon, and then he (wit_ barns) would pay duty upon five bags of coffee and get out forty or fifty, as he (Booth) pleased. Williams also said, that if he (Booth) . was on a station where there were he • sugar, they might make £l,OOO a month, which,. said, would goods paving heavy duties, such as coffee, tea, and ton, and another person whose name he did not mention. he and be divided between four of them—himself, Booth, B ees _ IBstee:tson, with Beeston, he said, had directed him to speak to Booth be the defer_ it. Booth, in answer, said he could not do " the thing" ; meet him the next day, at the Black Bull public-house, in Kirk whereupon he desired that he would d de. On the 18th and 19:h, however, Booth was absent on leave : he returned on the 20th, and was forthwith or dered Richards to wereG r e en o ' n s a warehouse. dftuetryw ainr d ts h ed i „,c O ov n er t e h d e t warehouse,2o another person, dart Brocklehurst, came to the warehouse door, and called " Booth , 1 want t o see y ou." Bo oth replien, that it was then past four o'clock, the usual hour o f l ocking up, bit he could be with him directly ; and th e two d.... ferulants wait.d in the middle of the street till the I clone; uo• BPe ,, ten and Booth then calk e d toge ther, Brocklehurst walking behind, when Beeston in quired if he had seen 'Williams since Monday. Booth replied, " I have not ; but the subject on which I had ~ o me conversation with him will not do." Beeson said, " ell. Booth. you know best yourself ; but Williams made £3,000 by getting goods out in that way, which he has melted : I know it can be done, and it will he a good thing." Beeston then invited him into a public-house in Oldhall-street ; and Brocklehurst went with them there. It was there agreed, that, when Booth went upon duty at Green's, be should meet Beeston at the Wagon and Horses. Booth went there as appoint• d, and found Bees ton and Brocklehurst together, and tlea,y had some drink, which Beeston paid for. A landing-water, named Wm. Nia. was alio there. Beeston went out to try to find Williams, but returned in five or ten minutes, saying, he could not find him. Booth then said he must go, and Beeston promised to meet him at his station the next day ; hut he did not see any of the defendants till the 25th. After si;ning off" at the Custom-house, in the after noon of that day, Booth and Richards went into Nuttall's public-house, adjoining, where they had something to drink, which Booth was in the act of paying for when Williams came in, and insisted upon paying for the liquor himself. As Booth was leaving, Williams called him back, and said he had bought forty-four bags of foreign coffee, and he wanted to know if they were sent to his station he would let them go without paying duty. It appeared, that, in the summer of 1843, Mr. Syers, merchant, of this town, imported several thousand bags of coffee from La Guayra, which were deposited in Drinkwater's bonding ware house, Tower-gardens. Of these, Mr. Syers sold sixty-four bags to Messrs. Wren and Co., who again sold forty• four to the defendant Williams, ten of which he wished to remove, as part of the scheme, to Green's ware house, in Dundee-street. Williams had not been known before to be in business by Messrs. Wren and Co. To this question from Williams Booth replied, that he could not then stay : whereupon Williams appointed to meet him, near Nut tall's, at five o'clock the next day. During this conversation Brocklehurst was standing at the op posite side of the street. On the 26th witness communi cated to Richards what had passed between him and Beestou and Williams; and, in consequence, information of all the circumstances was given, first, to Mr. Brown, the superintending locker, and, subsequently, to Mr. Bulteel, the acting surveyor, who gave certain directions to Booth and Richards for the purpose of securing the offenders. In pursuance of the directions they had re ceived, Booth and Richards stationed themselves in South John-street near Nuttall's, where Williams had proposed the meeting. Williams was there first, Brockle burst standing on the other side of the street. Booth then told Williams that he could not do what was wa tted without the knowledge of his partner, Richards, to which Williams made no objection, and they went into Nuttall's. Brocklehurst being still in the street, Wil liams went and brought him in. Brocklehurst then said to Booth, " Are you aware that I come from Manchester ?" Williams produced a pa per,which hesa id was a cl eliyery order. He was going, he said, to pass a " removal sufferance" for forty-tour bags of coffee, from Drinkwater's ware house, and he would get out ten bags the next day, and give Booth and Richards £5 if they were got out without payment of the duty, and would remove the remaining thirty-four the day following. They were all to have a share of the profits. Brocklehurst said he would pay the officers well for any similar transaction ; and hoth he and Williams stated, that it was Beeston who bad put them up to it ; and that the pay of the officers was small, but they might make a fortune in the course of a few months by getting goods out of bond without paying duty. Booth and Richards consented to do what was proposed. On the 27th they were on duty at Green's, Mr. Bulteel being stationed at the back of the office, so that he could hear, and, if he choose, see, all that passed within. At half past three in the afternoon Brocklehurst came alone, and said a " removal sufferance" could not be got out in time to get a cart-follower, but the coffee would be removed the next day. This took place in the office, in the presence of Richards, and in the bearing of Mr. Bulteel ; and, immediately after, Brocklehurst invited them to God frey's public-house. Richards went there first ; and when be returned Booth stepped there and found Williams as well at Brocklehurst. Williams said he could not get a re moval sufferance in time for a cast-follower, but he would remove the coffee next day. They left together, Williams going across he street whilst Brocklehurst and Booth stood in conversation together at the top of Dundee-street. During that time Mr. Bulsteel passed from the ware house, disguised by wearing spectacles, whereupon Brocklehurst inquired who that gentleman was? After that Williams and Brocklehurst joined, and they went away together. On Friday, the 28th, Mr. Bulteel was again concealed in the warehouse, as was another officer named Brown. About half-past two in the afternoon Brocklehurst came alone, and said, " the ten bags of coffee are coming, and they'll be here in a few minutes ; proposing, at the same time, to Booth and Richards to take something to drink. They went to Godfrey's for that purpose, Richards first and Booth afterwards ; and directly after their return a cart came up with a cart-fol lower named Higgins, (since dead.) bringing the ten bags of coffee. Williams came with the cart, and, in order to deceive Higgins, said he would remove the coffee next day. Higgins got his receipt from Richards for the coffee, and then went away. Brocklehurst, at this time, was standing at the top of the street, about twenty yards from the warehouse. Williams then said he could only find three sovereigns at that moment, but he would pay the remainder the same night at Nuttall's, where he would meet Booth and Richards along with Brockle burst, and the following day the remaining thirty four bags should be removed. Williams then placed Three sovereigns upon the desk, and followed the cart, which had gone away. The bags had never actually been in the warehouse, because, after the signatu re o f t h e cart-follower's book, they were supposed to be in the cus tody of Booth and Richards. The cart having gone away Booth went to the door and saw Brocklehurst at the end of the street ; he joined him, and whilst they were together, they saw Mr. Bulteel coining down Great Howard-street, following the cart. Mr. Bulteel had no spectacles on, and, on seeing him, Baocklehurst said, "That's the same gentleman I saw here yesterday; he's a superior officer to you; I should know him a quarter of a mile off; and if I thought he was following the cart 1 would go and bring it back." The cart was then going in the direction of Old hall-street, towards which Mr. Butted was going. The three sovereigns were wrapped up in paper, on which Booth and Richards placed their initials; and, in the meantime, the cart was followed by Mr. Butted along Oldhall-street, Chapel-street, Exchange -street East, Dale-street, and North John-street, into South John street, where the coffee was about being deposited in Rig maiden's warehouse, in Cable-street, when the officers stepped in and seized it. Mr. Serjeant MURPHY addressed the jury in favour of the defendant Brocklehurst, contending that he was alto gether innocent of any guilty concern in the transaction ; that he was merely in Liverpool attending to his own busi ness, part of which was with Williams; and that he was of unblemished character. Mr. RAMSHAY, on the part of Williams, urged, that the coffee had never been in the warehouse in Dundee street, and, consequently, the allegation in the indictment, that Williams had conspired to obtain it from that ware house, could not be sustained. He contended, further, that the evidence of Booth the chief witness, could not be relied on, as, in the first instance, he was a participa tor, and next, that he had already received, and probably expected, promotion, for the detection and conviction of the other parties. Mr. JAMES addressed the jury for Beeston in an ener getic speech, in which he strongly contended, that the evi dence against the defendant was too insufficient and trivial to warant a conviction, especially when it was considered h-rw carefully the case had been fostered and supported. He had not yet been dismissed from his situation in the customs; and the learned counsel besought the jury to consider the fact that upon their verdict would depend whether he was reinstated or not. His previous character as an officer of long standing was freely admitted to have been irreproachable on his cross-examination of the wit nesses for the crown. Three witnesses were called for Brocklehurst, who showed that he had dealings in Liverpool with Williams, and that his character was good in all respects. Mr. STARKIE having replied, The JUDGE summed up at considerable length, remark ing, that the evidence against Beeston in the second count of the indictment was very slight ; but he left it to the jury to say whether the evidence brought the charge home to him in the more general allegations of the first count. The jury retired to consider their virdict ; and after an absence of a quarter of an hour, they returned into court with a verdict of guilty against Williams and Brockle hurst: Beeston not guilty. ACTION OF DEBT. Goszrzy ff. BIDDER.—This was a special jury case, in which the plaintiff sought to recover trom the defendant a sum of money, for the use and occupation of rooms and furniture, for goods sold and delivered, and for money lent. The defendant pleaded to the declaration, first, that he was never indebted in the manner and form stated ; and, secondly, that he had paid the demand. The plain tiff denied these pleas, and issue was joined. Mr. Watson and Mr. H oggins conducted the plaintiff's case ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Seger that for the defendant. The plaintiff is a railway contractor, and the defendant is Samuel Parker Bidder, resident engineer of the Preston and Wyre Railway and Dock Company. Money had been advanced, it appeared, at various times in 1840 and 1841, by the plaintiff to the defendant. during his residence at Fleetwood, in sums of £lOO, £490. £l2O, £l5O, and sev eral smaller amounts ; in addition to which the defendant, after his marriage, occupied a house of the plaintiff's, in Queen's -terrace, Fleetwood, at the rent of £3O per an num. The court rose after the examination of the first witness on the part of the plaintiff, and the remainder of t u li n e Thir i it n ee v rc e eo s s t ut i ir g nt a g t a. i d o jnouprrnoemdisaetdetigohbteov:celryoclk.ong and excessively TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS. On Wednesday the usual monthly meeting of the council was held at the Town-hall. FINANCE COMMITTEE. The proceedings of the Finance Committee comprised th e rec ommendation to increase the salaries of Messrs. Woods and Richton , the district surveyors, from £2OO to £250. The committee stated that additional sales of land at Wallasey Pool had been made to Messrs. Laird, Potter, Bailey, Horsfall , M ac g re g or, Radcli ffe , &c. moved the confi rmat i on o f th e pro - Mr. G. EL LA WRENCE, second ed by Sir THOMASMr. TINNE ask ed whether the re port was correct that pro ceedings, having the opposition offered by the .committee to the Monks Ferry Bill had been characten.ed as useless, frivolous, and vexatious, and that the bill had been supported by Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE, after having anode,' to the in tehe b nrreCtrn7gh members. ss of ty-wsnaper reports, partif ul trly a heft such reports emanated from attott mutt. enrre-ponfie n ts, wen t on to say that it was very true the Finance Committee had acted up to the powers confided to them by the coun cil to watch all hills which were progres-ing through par liament, and which bote in anywise upon the interests of Liverp wl. They had, therefore, watched the Birkenhead loiprovement bill. and mere especially one of its clauses which seemed to interfere with their int rests ; but it was equally true that the remonstrances of the committee on the occasion had been set aside. He had never heard that the two borough members voted against them, or that the attempts of the committee to frustrate any part of the measure were considered frivolous and vexatious. Lord ‘i'andon could not have voted against them, inasmuch as he was not a member of the parliamentary committee, and as to Sir Howard Douglas, he fully concurred in the views of the council. Mr. PARKER said he had crossed the water the evening before, for the purpose of attending the m-eting of the Birkenhead C o mmissioners, and that he was quite sur prised to hear " the great man" on the other side (Mr. William Jackson) talking of having defeated the corpora. tion of Liverpool upon all points. These were the words of " the great man ;" and they had certainly startled him (Mr. Parker.) He had always had his doubts as to whe ther they should go to parliament to oppose bills, and the Birkenhead Improvement Bill amongst the rest, except upon very good grounds. At the same time he supposed the Finance Committee had the power to send deputations to London whenever they considered it advisable. H e understood that Sir Thomas Brancker, Mr. Nicol, and a large party had lately gone up—(" No, no ')—and he cer tainly thought if these sorts of deputations were to be con tinued, it would be well to subdivide the council and send up others also. (A laugh.) He wished to know why one of the terms of the sale of the Wallasey Pool property bad been altered? for it seemed to him that the gentlemen on the other side had only to express their wishes in order to induce the corporation to accede to them. He also wished to know whether the deposit of ten per cent. had been paid ? (A voice—" It is.") He understood, from the reading of the proceedings, that the purchasers of the Wallasey property were to be allowed to make bricks and sell them off the premises, on the payment of half-a-crown a thousand; but did it never strike the committee that by selling the clay they would make bare the land ? The TOWN-CLERK said they were limited not to go be yond a certain depth. Mr. PARKER said they were at liberty, if he understood right, to send bricks to any part of Birkenhead, on the payment of half-a-crown a thousand, and that the money so received was to go towards the payment of the land. Mr. BIRKETT.—Oh • no, no ! Mr. THORNHILL.—tes ;. it's so stated. The DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK having read that part of the proceedings which bad reference to the disputed point, Mr. BIRKETT defended the conduct of the committee in having opposed the bill. liOnGsor.r thought it perfectly out of order for any committee, on any general grounds, to take upon tbem to become opponents without having first come down to the council, and stated the nature of the case. Mr. H. HORNBY, as one in favour of the opposition, had merely to say that there was a clause in the Birken head Amendment Bill, which interfered with the rights of the corporation ; and he always conceived that it was the duty of the Finance Committee to protect those rights from any attack made upon them in any bill before parliament. There was no time to have brought the bill before the council, as the committee of the House of Commons were to meet in a few days. One of the clauses interfered with their rights to the corporation ferry ; for, by the original bill, it was pros ided that no tunnel should be made from the terminus at Grange-lane to the Monk's Ferry until a branch should also be made to the corporation ferry. But, by the present bill, this clause was attempted to be evaded; and it was under those circumstances the com mittee considered themselves justified in making the op position. (Hear.) With regard to the liberty given the purchasers of the Cheshire property to make bricks out of the clay, that was a permission which all lessees who pur chased land for 75 years were entitled to obtain, and all the committee had done was to provide that nothing should be taken off the land until the price was paid. But, when that was paid, the parties might do what they pleased, so as they did not injure the value of the land. Mr. ISAAC HOLMES expressed his belief that Lord Derby did not allow lessees to make bricks, except to build on the property they obtained from him. He believed that Mr. J. S. Leigh would never dispose of land on which there was a great mass of clay without having first ob tained the value of that clay; and he thought the council could very well have disposed of the clay on the Cheshire Property before they effected the sales. He believed the Finance Committee had been called upon by the tenant of the Birkenhead Ferry to oppose the bill in question, as it infringed on his rights ; and he further believed that the committee would be bound to oppose it still in the House of Lords. Sir T. BRANCKER thought great inconvenience would arise if the Finance Committee were to come before the council on all occasions and expose their case to the pub lic, and that if the council had not sufficient trust in that committee, in the matter of watching bills, they had better appoint another committee. (Hear.) Mr. G. H. LAWRENCE said that the ten per cent. must be paid on the purchases • that Messrs. Horsfall and M'Gregor, two of the purchasers, were going to establish a large foundry on the other side, and that Mr. Radcliffe and others of the purchasers were about to make other improvements : so that the property would be brought into real usefulness, and was not sold, as had been said on former occasions, to gamblers. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LL OYD intimated his intention, when the increase of salaries to Messrs. Woods and Rishton was brought before the next council, (as it must be according to the standing orders,) to call for the proceedings of the Paid Officers' Committee, with reference to those gentlemen, to be read. The proceedings were then confirmed. DOCK COMMITTEE. The proceedings of the Dock Committee having been read, Mr. ASPINALL asked whether Mr. Parker could inform the council why the Birkenhead Commissioners were op posing the Liverpool Dock Bill ? Mr. PARKER replied that the information he had ob tained on the other side of the water amounted to just nothing at all. (A laugh.) The mode of doing business was just this: the great man, Mr. Jackson, gave his nod ; whatever he said was law; if he said certain things must be done, or must be altered, it was done immediately ; and therefore there was no knowing what was done or what might be done. Mr. BIRKETT said a petition had been presented against the Liverpool Dock Bill, signed by certain merchants and other inhabitants of the port, in which pretty hard names were used against some of the members of the council, who, it was said, were promoting their own interests by the sale of the Harrington estate. Now it was well known that none of the members of the council who had an in terest in that estate were allowed to speak or vote upon the question when it was before the council. It had been reported that one or more members of the Dock Com mittee, who were also members of the council, had taken an active part in procuring signature , to the petition in question ; and he wished to ask the chairman of the Dock Committee if that report were correct ? Mr. Moouit said there was no doubt that petitions had been presented from Liverpool, also from other places, against the Liverpool Dock Bill, which imputed motives to the members of the Dock Committee and council as being interested in the Harrington estate. The question was pot to him in the committee of the House of Com mons as to whether there were not members of the Dock Committee interested in that estate, to wlsich he replied in the negative. But several of the petitions broadly alleged that they were proprietors of the Harrington Com pany. With regard to the question put by Mr. Birkett, he believed that it was a notorious fact that members of the Dock Committee had taken active measures to promote those petitions—so much so, that be heard notices had been sent to different parties in the town to ask them to sign. He did not feel authorised to mention names, but believed such was the fact. Mr. NORTH read and pointed out certain allegations in the petitions which, he said, were wholly unfounded. Mr. BIRKEIT said, that when they considered the cir cumstances under which the council went to parliament for the bill, the way in which it was carried, and the way in which the rate-payers of the town had expressed their opinion recently in favour of the dock extension, the course for any member of the council to pursue was, either to giva up his own opinion to that of the majority, or to take the other course left open to him—to resign his seat. This was his opinion, and the opinion of many out of doors. (Hear.) Mr. AIKEN said he yielded his opinion to that of the majority, and that be bad never signed or taken any part in the petitions to which allusion had been made. The remarks which had just dropped must have applied to one individual, [Mr. Evans, who had shortly before left the council,] and to one or two members of the Dock Com mittee ; but he was of opinion that members ought not to be subject to censure, or to be called upon to resign their seats, simply because they had done that out of doors which they considered best fur the interests of the town. Mr. rIODGSON coincided in this opinion. Mr. BIRKETT thought it unfair to impute motives, and to circulate untenable allegations. Mr. Nicol, said he bad proof in his possession that one member had taken an active part in the opposition. The reason he declined to mention his name was, because he was not then present. After a few words from Mr. AIKIN in explanation, the proceedings were confirm ed. EDUCATION COMMITTEE. From the proceedings of the Education Committee, it appeared that the average attendance at the schools from the 28th of February to the 27th of March was as follows : NORTH. SOUTH. Bins Girls 2(16 Infants l5l . 602 476 The numbers on the books were :—North, 754 ; South, 617. OBSERVATORY COMMITTER. After the proceedings of the Observatory Committee had been read. a memorial was presented from several of. the watchmakers and chronometer makers of the town, in which they stated that their attention had been called to a report of the lat meeting of the council, from which it appeared that chronometers were to be rate I at the Ob servatory for captains of ships at a small charge. This they considered would be unjust to the trade, as they had go ne to expense in obtaining a correct rating of time, and as they had heavy rents and taxes to pay. They contend ed that such cnmpe'ition would be ruinous and they prayed the council to prevent any such attempt being made. Mr. LLOYD said it was well known that the watch ma nutacturt r• of this country were much interfered with by those of France and Switz rl incl. and th,t the council ought to exercise particular cam on in dem!iorz w'th them. Mr. AIKIN said his great object was to make the obser vations as valuable as possible. for public purposes without being injurious to individual interests. After a brief discussion, upon the motion of Mr. LLOYD, the memorial was 1-eft-I-red to the Observatory Coin,ittee, with an understanding that the memorialists should confer with that committee upon the subject. HEALTH OF THE TOWN COMMITTEE. Mr. ASPINALL stated that since the appointment of this committee 5730 yards of flagging, and 3134 yards of channeling had been laiddown in the north district, and 6507 yards of flagging, and 3974 lineal yards of channeling in the south district. Mr. BLACKBURN said the Abbatoir Company was a great nuisance, arid that it demanded immediate atten tion. He asked whether a memorial had not been sent in against it The MAYOR replied in the affirmative, but said it had been mislaid. MR. EVANS'S EXPLANATION. Mr. EVANS here rose and said he had been told that during his absence fram the council a qutstion had been put as to whether any member or members of the Dock Comrnitte?, and the council had put their names to a peti tion against the dock bill, and used every influence in their power in favour of that petition. Now, for his own part, he was the man that did it, and that would always do it when he considered that the Dock Committee and the council were pursuing a wrong course. He was told what was rather more materia , that there were allegations in the petition which were untrue. He had not drawn it up, but he had looked it over, and he declared there was no thing in it which struck him as untrue. This was not the first time that an attempt had been made to interfere with his public duty. Upon a former occasion, there was a long editorial article in the Albion; and a gentleman of the Dock Committee got up and complained that it contained insinuations against himself. He could have told that gentleman, as he told him then, that if he went and asked any of the editors where he believed his (Mr. Evans's) hand was to be distinguished, they had full authority to give his name up ; and then, if he had any complaint to make, ;any redress or satisfaction to demand, he would know where to come ; but not to go and get off all perso nal responsibilities by drawing, as it were, public assem blies on to shield him and his purposes. He could not but admire the effrontery of Mr. Birkett. There—(point , ing at him)—there he is, at the head of the warehouse interest; and there he and others were, opposing the Warehouse Dock Bill year after year. Mr. Br RKETT.—It's not the fact as regards me. Mr. NORTH having here again pointed out in one of the petitions, the Manchester one, which he belived to be similar to that sent from Liverpool, what he conceived to be misrepresentations, Mr. BIRKETT denied Mr. Evans's right to impute motives. Mr. EVANS, (with emphasis.)—l assure you, sir, that I have not the most exalted opinion of your motives. Mr. SHEPPARD rose to order. The MAYOR.—I ask Mr. Evans to withdraw the impu tation of motives. _....-. Mr. EVANS.—What motives ? The MAYOR.-1 understand you imputed motives : I didn't hear it myself, bat Mr. Birkett says so. Mr. EVANS.—No : I told him I hadn't the most ex alted opinion of his motives: and I hold that opinion still. The conversation here dropped. ST. NICHOLAS ' S CLOCK. A memorial from Mr. Hugh Hughes praying for fur ther investigation with reference to the clock lately fitted up at St. Nicholas's Church, was referred to the Watch Committee. MR. BOUTFLOWER'S DEATH. The MAYOR read a note from Mr. Howard, announc ing the death of Mr. Boutflower, one of the members for Abercromby Ward ; and his worship was authorised to acknowledge its receipt, and to express the regret of the council and their sympathy with the afflicted widow and family. THE CORONER ' S ACCOUNTS. A letter from the coroner, praying for increased accom modation, and also the coroner's accounts, amounting to £lOl, were referred to the Finance Committee. THE PICTURE OF THE CRUCIFIXION. Mr. NORTH moved, pursuant to notice, " That the fine picture of the Crucifixion, on the Town-hall staircase, considering its sacred character, is very inappropriately placed there, and that it be presented to some church ; and that a committee of three be now appointed to in quire, and report their opinion, in what church it would be most appropriately and suitably placed." He thought this was a proposition of self-evident propriety ; his re spect was for the picture alone, and for its own sake; his object was to secure it from profanation ; and he had no sympathy with the late revellers at the mayor's parties. The MAYOR.—I beg to say I have none, sir. (A laugh.) Mr. NORTH-Or with the larger assemblies at the tom fooleries of the fancy ball. (Great laughter.) A long discussion followed, and at the close the council divided, when there appeared— For the motion 10 Against it .. 33 The motion was consequently lost. THE LANDING PLACES. Mr. NORTH next moved, pursuant to notice, " That a spcial committee be now appointed to take into considera tion, and to report upon, the more effective regulation and management of the ferries, ferry-boats, and landing places; and that it be also an especial instruction to such committee forthwith to inquire and report their opinion as to the necessity and propriety of promoting, by all means within the power of the council, the establishment, by act of parliament, of an efficient inspectorship of all steam-boats carrying passengers, with a view to their greater security and sea-worthiness." Mr. TINNE seconded it. This motion also gave rise to a lengthened discussion, at the close of which the council divided, when there ap peared— _ For .. Against it The motion was consequently declared to have been carried ; and the seven following gentlemen were appoint ed at the special committee :—Messrs. Aikin, Wood, Boyden, Glads , one, Blackburn, Stewart, and North. The following motion, of which Mr. Isaac Holmes had given notice, was referred to the Finance Committee: " That the committee on bye-laws for the regulation of the slips and stairs and landing-places, be instructed to take into consideration the passing of a byelaw for ex tending to forty minutes the period of twenty minutes, allowed to steam and other boats usually employed in carrying goods or passengers beyond the port to remain at the slips, stairs, or other landing places, for landing or re ceiving passengers, luggage, or goods, each voyage, pro vided that such extension shall be limited to one landing or receiving in the twenty-four hours." The only remaining motion on the paper, that of Mr. Blackburn's, respecting the schools, was postponed until the next meeting of the Council, which it was understood would be held in the course of a week, when the Dock Bill will also be submitted. The Council adjourned at twenty minutes to four. DOCK COMMITTEE. On T lursday the following members were present at the usual meeting of this body ;—Messrs. Moore, (chairman,) Nicol, Molvneux, Smith, Holmes, Holt. Barclay, Boyden, Bold, Kendall, Sandbach, Ripley, Bulley, Moore, Aikin s Evans, Tobin, and Chilton. A letter was read from Messrs. M'Tear and Hadfield respecting the dirty state of the dock quays, some part of which, it appeared on enquiry, was said to have been caus ed by the complainants themselves in landing a cargo of hides. Instructions were ordered to be given to the dock con.tables to see that they be properly swept. An a t plication from the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company respecting a railway line between the station yard and the king's Dock was referred to the Harbour Master's Committee. THE NEW DOCK BILLS. The CHAIRMAN observed that, having been lately is London, he could state that the proceedin es re l a ti ve to t h e new dock bills were going on as favourably as could be desired. A question had been put to him as to whether any of the members of the Dock Trust were proprietors of the Harrington Dock Company, and he put it to the gentlemen present to say whether such was or was not the case, so that he might be enabled to give an answer on his return to London at the next examination. No one answering, he said he must take it for granted from their silence that none of them were proprietors. The CHAIRMAN then referred to a certain allegation contained in petitions which had been presented from Liverpool against the Dock bills, to th • effect that several members of the Trust were proprietors of the Harrington Estste, that the object of the scheme was to destroy Corn petition and restore monopoly, as well as to give to the Corporation and Dock Committee an immense profit on their estate. He said that five or six petitions had been presented, and the allegation was in several of them ; the question which he had put showed, however, that it was false. Mr. EVANS said, allusion had been made on Wednes day to members of the Dock Committee who signed the petition. There was no such allegation so far as the pe tition he signed was concerned. The CHAIRMAN said Mr. Evans's name was not in the document before him. Mr. ATKIN said the impression on Wednesday was that members had signed the petition, and having opposed the measure it was deemed far better that they should have resigned. Whatever the impression was, it seemed to be the opinion that members having signed the petition were unworthy of confidence. If it turned out that those parties never signed the petition, there was an end of the allegation. The CHAIRMAN.—I merely said members had been promoting opposition. Mr. EVANS.—The impression was that they were false allegations. _ Mr. REPF_EY said an explanation ought to go forth. He, as well as other members of the Dock Committee, was mixed up with a petition in the remarks which had been made in the Council, a petition which they did not sign. Mr. EvANs.—l am an active opposer of the scheme, and use all my influence, and will continue to do so. It is stated as if there were something criminal. I have never yet been guilty of hole and corner opposition. CONVERSION OF THE THREE-AND-A-11ALFS.—The contemplated conversion of the Three-and-a-Halls hag alraady thrown the money market into sixes and sevens. The Bears and the Bulls are down on all fours; and the result is so doubtful that it is quite a toss-up with the Bulls whether they will come out losers by the transac tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also contem plates the conversion of the short sixes into long fours, fof he from experience that the fours give a much better light. and the sixes will consequently be gradually extinguished, It is generally believed that the conversion of the Three- 0,?„-------- N,r and-a-tialfs is prelimi n a r y t o th e a b o li t i on o f t h e i ncome . ,4` ; tax. It inigh Xt as well be said that the invasion of England C„, 4 / e—S-: , V, by the Romans was preliminary to the inttoduction or vi„ - P .7 7 ...._l`, railroads.—Punch. i'," f i if -• WI, -• ~.• •t i. . ....,, • z-, 44 i . , .., 1, It. Ke the orris° led to 9 ugh' lefea ng at oo Ist of and •, and fault, . - The j „ of Mr. g the ,jury Sheer intilf ;SiZ es CY 00 6 T he ; time