The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

; , j d i 'o4 o ! ri `lo l tte°ool4 Ir ~~. mi n. ---................. Nta."/ Proceeded to a house called the Magnet; and is lter -l ' aes to Thomas 01 .. i , w hi ,_ . ornas Smalley's, a relative of the pri lithich Le_ t here, deceased offered the prisoner some I7epende,„l.etused, upon which she said she was as tini k , e 4 4: l lae was, and struck him a blow, but he did t''''ll4lthe She then got up to strike him a second „ft her_ prisoner, in trying to stop her, inflicted a 4 tA h.. l l e _et,r, which at first seemed slight, but shortly l e altge 0 7:1 1 0 Ewell, and she died soon afterwards. iiimnmeatialoadwi_as called gave it as his opinion that de ••4114 the thr u t een caused by the bursting of a blood . 17. 4 __ oat, which might have been produced by in7 l _ , i,.? t t t er was apprehended the same evening. Dfil l to%Z_Pro he prisoner's counsel, thought there ai ry to address the jury, to which his Lord :lat w_ ,ltnid the prisoner was acquitted. 41 14 1 4 1 - 1 7 ,, n ee ll's o i l i Sl r oyigli was charged with the anslaughter len, at Huyton. It appeared that on ,ilifetteu:tra_be.r last the prisoner was driving a gig along iirth ne Z e, .wh9n he ran over the deceased, who was 4,, a . il n eye ._; gigs in the same direction. The deceased Ce,tolorti7tisiterere uries, from the effects of which tot rose atwards. The prisoner was acquitted. half-past six. , Nt , t ' "' S I PRlue COURT.—THURSDAY. it lb 04 , ..,.. ••• , t ak _igi n ~.._,-.., ADMINISTRATOR, V. SUCH. ." t rtifa t - 7. bf consent of the parties, a verdict was %i 4 1 , 4 7 Plaintiff, damages £169 3s. 1. . 0 , 1 ,,,, DEMIS E OF THE EARL OF DERBY AND 1 1112 4 ' 4 S V. BIRCH ALL ft , bY COI) ALL AND OTHERS. . • ar the piai sent of the parties, a verdict was , i _ b.._ ntiff, the lessor, damages Is. 00,tilis 4wl ltiasi , t , .11 * eas e j a • BANKS AND OTHERS. Atipplet an k I mes Dewhurst was the plaintiff, and , 1 1 : 41 tat a .., 8 the elder, Charlotte Banks the younger, tIZ . Ath et u t to, the defendants. 711 tell for th on the for the plaintiff, and Mr. tiltvialetie e defendants. N i s kisata t ,ao a butcher • residing at Southport, and In Jak eli4 ePt an establishment for the education of 7 her th e t he same t town, and the action was brought ih efott ar4 of .£2B 16s. id., the balance of an raqi t alo ntt otcher' s meat supplied to the defendants lir a '1 o f et. February, 1842, up to the month of tte2resent Year. N s 14 , p 7Plaintiff for the amount claimed. bett r ira l eti % i V. GREEN AND ANOTHER. . , t he ""Von to recover the value of a quantity of ,z4,,, ,, : .... ...:14 0 have been improperly sold by the de 'atiff,a4r'partin and Mr. Crompton appeared for ik 4 Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling for the -.4... .ibt oersted ,21 1 / 4 ' Nthe case. The plaintiff, Mr. A. l lll tn t h i n .13resent manager of the Commercial the Mali lately carried on in Manchester, and if two years had been continued for the L liel t Zdh, ..! 1 m its affairs, and paying off the share ?lit s of ,Ra the plaintiff in this action as assignee . I: 4 4 , l 4 pLd ea u° l elos Nock, who carried on the busa ,er flea • • rq of th ,_ r Birmingham, and who ! at the • t idelit e ., e uank was carried on in Birmingham, 4 tk,410 the bank in the sum of £3,200. The k ett 14 4 4,,,,, 1 11atij a „°"Ph Green and Silas Ensor, trustees ,LivrlB2 9 ..settlement of Mrs. Nock, entered into 1 7.‘ t 37i , and . the action was brought to recover S ai ed li t c h l eeti n , Which reached the hands of these gen- L c, et te • l_in the month of October 1841. It ap- R ,..,„4 , 7 Year 1829, the bankrupt, Nock, was ti Ittd vsB bien s a n amed Ta%lor. He then carried on On te poo ..ea when he became bankrupt, and his i n , 4 r ot pre'lt.the time of her marriage. According eetk i s t e Itif4 l e, this £lOOO was vested in two per ihirtid hi nt 'eh t l e they but, by a clause in the mar tilkettet" sh Were allowed to lend £5OO to . the '414.7%.,w0 th e b • upon the wife giving authority to Nitoit - ', i oti th e t ac it, of the marriage settlement. By tote' It el ;4; e tcosnand would get the wife's fortune ettr nat e event of his becoming insolvent, in 11, 1 44 te1t. d_ ees, and sweep all away from the cre litrl6, kt 5 ^ as dated in 1830, and was made payable le h e iVt e th.. Per cent., but from the year 1830, when if i 11 ,t14 4 0., 14. 7 4 e!! 1 841, not one farthing of interest NVElklwely ..s . c. 'o Or paid. He kept and used the 14 tltf - 'ue..it 1 3; 7 ; _if . it weHsis own. In the latter end hOth w eve 0 - Zn 11 P• debts were £lO,OOO, and '4th emed by the creditors. It appeared it i;el 4l the b`iepterober, a warrant of attorney was /41 14, 1 4 44; 1\11 te t . 11 "Pt to the defendants, at the office V imi 'hire. and Co., of Birmingham. By a law I l i lto rti - Na t 44 is essential that there should be an at liptt!lilto at te u .e Part of the person giving a warrant ttift , o n .strin eh a '' and the gentleman who attested this E7,° of i t "' who was also the attorney for Mr. ctlind:otepree de fendants. The warrant was dated tin, 2l tli b 3l.4 )ith;: sl3 er. and by the terms of it the money 1 / 1 44tepirutro net " the following day, the 28th. On kn itt ' l i ek s o p a , ; . t ras entered up ; on the 13th October k.,gleer• ' ss ued, and placed in the hands of the lihraer: v ! i ld,_, from a letter written on behalf of oz . t . O O 4;;Y_ Air. Price, it appeared that the bank- N'itiv e d i .. w e!F to be seized, was th . e person ge 4eattikeltZttla t e 7 e t v , e n c as to the manner_ n hi ,: e .. s ett t he k kel:4l 13th of October the (Mr. kla n rt t i h n e )need ° not tell the jury liniZol,2in,;q.ing, when an execution was an honest kIV I N: % el ; a_ matter of great distress, and to . an k et Nkth et `lUld scarcely be conceived anything ' • 1 1 3 but ' pis Property being seized by the she .lQqe r ece tvir• Nock had none of these distressed tf,,,0 th e Pied the officers with great pleasure, I N' , t n irt nen T e a cart load of articles which had been ht, ti L 7 th e ' ifi l r county for the purpose of being kr, iii, as cers he was glad his goods had been -s qle tre at " would now, perhaps, get out of hot 4 4) .4 411 k e d them t the a ,;„_ with a bottle of champagne, ilf b 4 tie "e them. The sum of £371 was rea %.-st IL: of E141.1 4 - 0 ;a1 h; '„the goods, and the balance of that,. V I L . 14,.(ne officer to Mr. Green, who paid . it 1 7401 1 ,7 s tO,Pretence under which this execution cillitZbeinii,ZranneeetrauNetse apprehensive,tiaeartpt.tilat they would tci:S . :: Z o r „ e i s , onsible by his wife for the money In 4 d e no a. h t ave been thought that . ttihoes instead Si t th i p l o rli t l i t l i ed posited el a in a i a s o a r fe eight sums' u to Edwin ktli t i,,kt e tl f t the e te r n the ban x krupt, who, after receiving knee thek ' it e ;L e eY, gave his promissory note for it. V I lEk,Rest c; 0 Peared, lived with his brother, bought ot N'ute of his of the furniture, which was still ,tko te, to h i ._ Ins brother and at the time the mo illitti,kbalsoti Mr. Hensliaw was not aware that he O l e_ I)eared from the examination of Mr. : t f il i ctiT y lts.lo Made under the fiat. On the 22nd 0 ( 4 4 4 1 ,4 h e It trison issued out a fiat against Nock, n i pe as the t ake an active part as attorney for the 1 4 ' 4 4 4 4, 4 % ny te r son who made an affidavit for an Ve te . Th. teh was a very unusual thing for an . 11, ~111 , Dt r ,J fi at came down, and, if Mr. Harri sittst44 e h e ltt e d to \ .t, 4 1 , 4 have the management . of it, of . vid ee , tught, but the other creditors ap tflinit4 %was l a' Mr. Martin then contended that q h ,lie t ‘ ;',,v3' to the execution ; and if so, he t,i, ttr'titl e e bankruptcy at the time, and the ltt,ng s o sei a, to a verdict—to recover the value of teli'lo k " for the benefit of the whole of the 0, .141„Ny , 1, 0 ,- N „t 4 ii; t o h r the defendants, contended that the t oit e N t t iket4 to eri e a ,fi, rat instance, for the convenience 1, 114400 0 , 11 ,11 0; ute him to set up in business, and 11 11, . L 'oli;` , th e .' l g heard reports as to the circum y4ll4l4eatitOie,t Proper, for the protection of the b iti t ' i ' l t: 4 ,e4: „Wan t e , ll , ll .dren, to take the warrant of at- Itik t e by %at °t iling irregular in the contract at to l ho l l4, ~.Rreat length that many of the state , p.• Marti - h i lit 44014 the e n had not been proved by the .4 t (110404 that there was not a scheme of the ItVen,.‘„vith was no proof of his being in / Ip `rtnt e 'r th e e defendants on the subject. Ta ktit ht . % ere htlea hmtPlestion, the learned counsel argued ti talt e t t i l nd t e a ti nlY acted in a proper manner, and 1 :It t heir °by virtue of their office, after k. 1 . 1% ttin'• atte rne Y, who advised them so to I tN e Itt , et o li t ieu t ve .lie sn w „._ kb aet„, a f'LL, in addressing the j . ury, said, 4 411.1% littee!iseiz.l'art from all considerations, was, ‘t•n i 'tot, 6 gre came within the meaning of the l it el a lit e ,' ) ee• IV., chap. 16, sec. 3, which 1414tr,,,,,,,treil "Y!rader shall procure his goods to Il li Ni tit t PSA , 1 , 1 1)C 4: ol l th ed intent to defeat or delay his ttli t.m t e te t e gee _ to have committed an act of 4 11 t 't 41 14. skea i :Llon, therefore, was, whether kzkto44 ll, _ heth': . execution by . the procurement t R iZ ,eali a a c e t c e i t fri giea r t tl e e d p w rci t zetng s o u n gg t e h a e ti p o a a r ; o of IZind: l 2ii te to trustees in demanding security ,47,rd i Vetit „give them a warrant of attorney, tq a in d i kth eo s o entered up and execution le its..l , , .._ oie. Proceeded to comment upon the , vet th'es° noticed such parts as he thought 14 4 t s ftos ais cas e as opened in behalf of the 4r, 4 1 ,,,d ,•ev r hs . - .... t Lend '" lr ates' consideration, returned 4 4440 bi et 1 , rAloe Deents. a tt 1441 t I OWII: x A A YttaOYD AND ANOTHER V. 11 e i t lit li tit e iell tk t ls ln e t z , at a tob a ;7 l.l ;r e n e a J e A t a N i m o O n e T s H w E as ß. Aykroyd broughta n f d o Geo. ti Ie alaiheelt hat right of the plaintiff to a patch t. ' hi t li o A L 4 fielit..tobpeenaep.boyssm, Mr. Sergeant county. s t e h r i g s eantm U R A P li ft; r , ihovh ee ,ciideti ",endant, said, the material 4 , il: r t t i , :e a t a in ti :il h C ge es " to s a o w n a e s of r f idelity , and after li k 4t , L . "lea 4. ll de e d,"2 l '. Jilon jur causes in the Sal k q v: it, tl,e,o.rstedao7oinththee followfollowing Derby un l d i e s f t e : n — d e d k he Ns eas e w v • PnocTER. ee l rlin .defe e d a ete James and William Proc •':' ':•,f4tO e t 11 441 wori:te was a master plasterer, and etle, ,sar n d for him as journeyman, )`SNII ."' Diai Le nt donso los ;Oh -11 t. ' • Bd. from defendant t i t! - 41 1 , 1 1 1 t , I ff• 40 ney paid on his account. tl .. ) I ,,kli c r line, , Nin ~ ' Ye r ,.til e uatee.-,..• SMITHIES. diet fotiCtion° S mithies were the suitors in s 4, e lit t ~..The p a . on a bill of exchange for • hielitbatattarro „wittnstiff. ‘ 4 411 l oa ' obtet,t ar t Ste e / A) t . o. O tzt ‘. '.. !it Bale), bill a n it led e ' r a,s. Public officer of a Bin -4,,,N4 enrcezehalr!licateefeopr vi _i th roll principal hwlNNALL. te7by 3s ti:eefen Of 1 4 . I ' l l 4 n gb• ge i h1 (1 2 1° O b R v. d. , .(. 4 , q1 1 e ate "by George Finch, to recover `Ots gad peet of ' • WIG,. n . a bill of exchange, with v tOth, Zuff. ! e cePted by John Winnall. M . .' A 7 4 .11 14. 1, k i ;..:,)ek e llha r ,, Nt'7l4, CROFT. Cro4 rent of ti g h t obtained a ver di c t for Ni a farm occupied by the de- NS t , LlOl, bOke ' c ooka. itel,een h„songht to recover £5OO, on a -‘kat4l: left b y broth er . J ohn Cooke, as her A6B uer . mother. Verdict for the POWER V. SCOTT. The plaintiff, John Power, was a corn-merchant, living at Manchester, and the defendant, Joseph Scott, resided in this town. The action was brought to recover the sum of £7O, for money lent. Verdict for the amount claimed. BREACH OF CONTRACT.-SMITH V. PEARSALL. In this case, William Adam Smith, George Hugh Smith, James M`Donnell, Sir Henry Webb, and Sir Henry Ma nesty were the plaintiffs, and Charles Pearsall the de fendant. Mr. Watson and Mr. Unthink were counsel for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. Mr. WATSON stated the case. The plaintiffs were directors of the National Patent Salt Company, whose works were at Wharton, in Cheshire. The defendant was an ironsmith, living at Anderton, in Cheshire. In the latter part of last year, the plaintiffs were desirous of ex tending the quantity of salt made by them. They wished to get five new pans made, and it being a matter of great importance that these pans should be furnished as soon as possible, they entered into an agreement with the defend ant to make and have them fitted up by a certain time. On the 20th of January another contract was made to have eight front ends of salt pans finished in fourteen days after the 25th of February, but they were not finished till the 21st of April. The learned counsel then proceeded to state, that in consequence of the pans not being finished according to contract, the plaintiffs lost the sale of as much salt as could have been made from the pans, and called upon the jury to give damages to the extent of 2s. per ton, the amount of profit which would have been made upon the salt if it could have been got ready and sold. Mr. Hogarth, the manager of the company, was called, and proved the contract. In his cross-examination, how ever, he could not tell of any orders which the company had been unable to fulfil, and allowed that some altera tions had been made in the construction of two of the pans. Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendant, contended that not one shilling worth of damage had been proved. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages ls. MARSH V. HARBRID GE. In this case Richard Marsh was the phintiff, and Wm. Harbridge the defendant. The action was on a promissory note for £lOO. Damages £lO2 25., including interest. HIGGINSON V. KEARSLEY. Jonathan Higginson, merchant, of this town, was the plaintiff, and Thomas Kearsley was the defendant. The action, which was undefended, was to recover the sum of £36 16s. 6d., the value of nine tons of ebony, sold to the defendant.—Verdict for the amount claimed. The court adjourned at twenty minutes after five. CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.) His Lordship took his seat this morning exactly at nine o'clock. TRIAL OF NEWTON FOR BIGAMY. Joseph Newton surrendered to take his trial on an in dictment charging him with having married one Mary Bolgar, at Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland, on the 2d of May, 1820, and that afterwards, to wit, on the 30th of July, 1832, he intermarried at Liverpool one Martha Robinson, his former wife being then alive. Mr. Hulton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil kins and Mr. Atkinson defended the prisoner. Mr. HULTON, in stating the case to the jury, observed that a question would arise in the present case whether under the circumstances the prisoner was liable to the penalties affixed by the law to the crime of bigamy, as the statute under which he was indicted contained a provision which stated that, if at the time of a second marriage a man and his wife should be continually absent from each other for the space of seven years last past, and that the party marrying did not know during that time that his former wife was living, he was not guilty of the crime im puted to him. The point was a new one, for as far as he could ascertain no case had been decided on the point. However, he should call a witness before the jury who would prove that she had received letters from the former wife of the prisoner in 1829 and 1841, and delivered them to the prisoner, one of which he read and then put it in his pocket, and then it would be for the jury to say whe ther the prisoner at the time he was married a second time knew his former wife was living—if so, he appre hended his Lordship would tell them he was guilty of the present charge. Elizabeth Waldron was then called, and she said she was the sister of Mary Bolger. The prisoner was mar ried when in the vestry of Townsend-street chapel, in Dublin, by Father Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May, 1820. That was a Roman catholic chapel, and the witness, her sister, and the whole family were Roman catholics. All the family of the prisoner were also Roman catholics. The prisoner was, at the time of his marriage, an ap prentice with his step-father, and for twelve months after his marriage lived with him. He afterwards lived with his wife for about six months, and then left her and went away to Liverpool. Witness saw the prisoner in Dublin about five years ago, and spoke to him. Her sister is still living. She saw her about a fortnight ago. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS. — The prisoner courted my sister four or five months previous to his mar riage, and I saw him generally once a week. I was then living with my father and sister at home. My father was a builder and tailor, and kept a second-hand clothes shop. I don't know that the prisoner was in the habit of attend ing a Baptist chapel previous to his marriage to my sister. I saw him on two occasions with my sister at a Roman catholic chapel. When I saw the prisoner in Dublin, four or five years ago, I said to him " Joe," and he turned round and said "Joe, your grandmother." (Laughter.) I am more than fifty years old but cannot say how much. My sister it younger than I am. She has been supported by my brother since her husband left her. Re-examined.—The brother of the prisoner was at Clongerswood College at the time of the marriage, educa ting for a priest. Christopher Fox stated that he was an apprentice with the prisoner, with his step-father. Was present at his marriage with Mary Bolgar, at Townsend-street chapel, Dublin, by the Rev. Mr. Pierce Walsh, on the 2d May, 1820. Saw the prisoner and his wife living together after that. He was a Roman Catholic. Cross-examined.—Have frequently gone to Roman Catholic Chapels with him. Never knew he went to dis senting chapels. Edward Lovat, clerk of St. Nicholas's parochial chapel, Liverpool, produced the marriage certificate between the prisoner and Martha Robinson, on the 30th July, 1832. Martha Robinson proved that she was married to the prisoner, in St. Nicholas's church, rather more than ten years ago, but cannot say the exact year. The prisoner was married in the name of Newton, and bad gone by that name ever since. Knew him about five months before the marriage. Cross-examined.—Since our marriage, the prisoner has always attended the Church of England, and a better or kinder husband could not be. By the Court.—l do not carry on the prosecution, nor do any of my friends. Mary Ann Jones said—ln December, 1829, was in Dublin, and saw Mary Nugent. She gave me a letter which I took to Liverpool, and gave it to a girl who handed it to Mr. Nugent. The latter opened it and read it. A dark woman was present, who asked the prisoner what that was. He said nothing, and put the letter into his pocket. The letter was delivered to me open, and I read it. I was again in Dublin at the beginning of the summer, 1831, and received another letter from Mary Nugent, which I took to Liverpool, and delivered it to Mr. Nugent. He went in behind the screen in his shop, opened it, and appeared to read it. Cross-examined.—l was not before the magistrate when the prisoner was committed. I went to Dublin about my business, but it is nothing to you, and I won't tell you. I went with my husband, who is a silver plater. He was present when I received the letters from Mary Nugent. I brought three letters altogether. Mrs. Waldron re-called, and examined by Mr. WiL- KiNs.—Mary Nugent has not lived in the same place in Dublin since the prisoner left her. She removed about six months to my mother and father's house until they died, eleven years ago, and my brother has supported her ever since in lodgings. For about six months after Nugent left her she lived in her own shop, and then removed to her father and mother. Martha Robinson was re-called,• and swore that the witness, Jones, never delivered a letter in her presence to the prisoner. George Greaves, one of the Liverpool police, appre hended the prisoner on tl'e 17th of July last. Told him that he was taking him on Mr. Bolgar's charge of bigamy. I cautioned him, and he said all they could do was to make him pay half a-crown a week. Cross-examined.—Heard the brother of the first wife wife say he had been over in Liverpool before then. By the COUILT.—The prosecutor is present. Mr. WILKINS then proceeded to address the jury in behalf of the prisoner. He was extremely obliged to his lordship for asking the last question, and also for asking another question from the witness Robinson, as to who the parties were that carried on the present prosecution, because it was evident his lordship saw the nature of the case. There were two questions of fact which the jury would have to decide. The first was, whether it was proved to their satisfaction that the prisoner was ever a Roman Catholic in his life, because, if he was not, the former marriage was an illegal one and a nullity. The next question was, whether the jury were satisfied that the prisoner, for seven years previous to the marriage in 1832, was aware of the existence of the person whom they chose to call his wife. Would any man believe that, be cause a person was seen at a Roman Catholic chapel once or twice, he was, therefore, a Roman Catholic? Unless the Roman Catholic church had relaxed in its discipline to what was known of it from history, it was absolutely necessary that persons should do more than mertly attend the chapel to be considered a member of the church. If he had been a Roman Catholic, it would have been easy to prove that he had confessed or attended mass, but where was the proof that he bad ever done so in his life ? How many persons were there who attended Roman Ca tholic chapels from mere curiosity ! How many were there who went to look at the vestments of the priests— to see the magnificence of the altar, and its candles light ed ! How many were there who attended to bear the splendid music performed there—who in fact went to the chapel because it was the only theatre open on the Sun day ! (Laughter.) And were they therefore Papists ? He did not mean to ridicule the Roman Catholic religion, but there were those who considered the splendid page antry exhibited as a necessary part of religion, whilst others thought it mere mummery. As to that part of the case which went to show that the prisoner had knowledge of the person whom they called his former wife being living, that rested solely on the evidence of the witness Mary Ann Jones, and that they could not rely on, espe cially after it had been contradicted in an essential point by Mrs. Nugent. He remarked on the improbability of the prisoner doing as he had, in opening a shop in the most public market in Liverpool, and carrying on busi ness in so public a manner, if he conceived himself liable to such a charge as the present, on the fact of his being a good and kind husband, and concluded with observing that no doubt the present charge would never have been heard of if the brother of Mrs. Waldren had succeeded in extorting money from the prisoner. The following witnesses were then called, who gave the prisoner an excellent character for good conduct—namely, Mr. W. Procter, Mr. J. L. Aires, publican, Mr. Ro binson, one of the jury, Mr. Kiernan, a fish factor, and Mr. Lovatt, the clerk of St. Nicholas' Church. The Learned JUDGE proceeded to sum up the case, and after observing that probably the jury would be satisfied that the prisoner was a Roman Catholic, said the question for them to determine would be whether they were satis fied that at the time the prisoner married a second time he knew his former wife was alive, or had known it during the seven years previous to that time ; because, if they were of opinion that he did, it would be their duty to find him guilty : if they had any reasonable doubt on the sub ject, they would give the prisoner the benefit of it and acquit hill). The jury consulted together in the box for a few mi nutes, and then acquitted the prisoner. On the application of Mr. Wilkins he was immediately discharged. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD CHARGE OF MURDER AT ASHTON. John Hulme, aged 34, was then placed at the bar on a charge of the wilful murder of Thomas Garland, at Ashton-under-Lyne, by striking him with a piece of iron, on the 31st October, 1840, thereby giving him a mortal wound on the first nger of the right hand, of which he died on the 16th of November following. Messrs. Brandt, Holton, and Townsend appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the prisoner. Mr. BRANDT stated the case to the jury. He said the prisoner at the bar was charged with the highest crime known to the law of Englan—that of wilful murder. The deceased came by his death in the month of Novem ber, 1840, having received a wound on the first finger of his right hand, and the surgeon would tell them this wound was the cause of his death. The reason why the prisoner had not been brought to trial sooner would ap pear in the course of the statement which he (the learned counsel) should make to the jury. The transactions which led to the death of the deceased arose out of a turn-gut of all the sawyers which took place in the month of October, 1840, when in consequence of that turn-out all the business was suspended until fresh hands could be got from other parts. This caused con siderable excitement in the town, and a bad feeling was raised against those men who chose to work at the wages given by the masters. The deceased received his death wound in consequence of that agitation. It would, be proved that on the 31st of October some men had been brought over from Manchester to work in Ashton, and in the afternoon of that day they were on the Ashton new Toad, between Manchester and Ashton, when they were assailed by a party of turn-outs, who rushed upon them armed with sticks, bludgeons, and other offensive wea pons, and beaten severely. The deceased was severely wounded in the affray, and was in consequence removed to the infirmary, where it was discovered that he had re ceived a wound on the first finger of the right hand which nearly severed it from his body. The surgeon who at tended him recommended that it should be amputated, but the deceased refused to allow it, being anxious, if possible, to preserve so valuable a member. The surgeon would tell them he was indiscreet in not allowing the ope ration to be performed, but he (Mr. Brandt) apprehended his Lordship would tell the jury that did not alter the case • and if they were of opinion the deceased came by his death in consequence of the injury inflicted by the prisoner, the prisoner must answer for it. However, the deceased continued until November, when all his wounds, except the one on his finger, were cured, and that one brought on lock-jaw, of which he died. The evi dence against the prisoner would mainly depend on the testimony of a person named Heaton, who would prove that he saw the prisoner strike the deceased with a piece of iron, and inflict the injury of which he died : but it would not be safe for the jury to rely on what he said, he (Mr. Brandt) would at once state, unless they found he was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence of an unimpeachable kind. I t was undoubtedly true that Heaton did not make any discovery of what he had seen until some time after. The prisoner was tried at the Spring Assizes of 1841 on a charge of fekany, when Heaton was a witness, and was acquitted. Some time after the pri soner was taken on another charge, that of taking a quan tity of tools with a view of destroying them, and he and Heaton, who seemed to be a man of very violent temper, were tried for the felony. Therefore, the jury would no doubt look on Heaton's testimony with a considerable degree of jealousy. He (Mr. Brandt) must also state that the prisoner was not a sawyer, and therefore probably was not likely to take an interest in the turn-out, but he should be able to prove that he was a member of their union, that he contributed to its fund, attended the meet ings of the sawyers, and took an active part in their affairs, and on the day in question it would be proved tbat the prisoner was at a meeting held at the King's Head, in Ashton, when threats of violence were used against those who were coming to Ashton to work at the wages offered by the masters. He should also show that shortly before the attack a party of persons went from that public-house towards Manchester, and that one of the party corres ponded to the description given of the prisoner. It would also be proved that the prisoner was seen running from the place where the attack was made shortly after the affray, and that he was absent from Ashton just long enough for him to engage in the affray and return to Ash ton. There was also another piece of evidence which, as well as the testimony of Heaton, he regretted had not been brought forward against the prisoner on his com mittal, for it had been discovered since that time. In corroboration of Heaton, there was the evidence of a man named Beswick, who was certainly also liable to suspi cion ; but still the jury would have to say whether they were not so corroborated as to leave no doubt of their speaking the truth. Beswick would relate to them a con versation he had with Heaton respecting the affair in question, which took place in March, 1841, when the pri soner said he was one of the persons who made the attack on the deceased, and that Heaton was the only person who could identify him ; and after the trial of Hulme he told Beswick that it would not be safe for hit.. to remain in this country, and, therefore, he would go to America. He did go to America, where he remained until the pre sent summer, when, on his return in July last, he was taken into custody. He (Mr. Brandt) did not mean to offer any observations on the evidence to be offered, but should leave it to the jury to say, after they had heard it, whether it satisfied them beyond all doubt that the pri soner was guilty of the charge imputed to him. The learned counsel then called a number of witnesses who deposed to the circumstances as stated by him in his address. _ _ _ _ _ Mr. Wir,inNs very eloquently addressed the jury for the prisoner. He claimed their sympathy for the unfor tunate wretch on his trial, and whose difficulties had been wantonly and cruelly multiplied. There was not much sincerity in the sorrow expressed by his learned friend in the opening, or the prisoner would have been apprized of what had been kept back until that day. One of the wit nesses had been in their possession a month, and his secrets known to a police-officer. He was not taken be fore a magistrate, but to a hole and corner in an attor ney's office. The learned counsel designated the case " an infamous history of falsehood and perjury," and pointed to the character of the witnesses, especially to that of Heaton. If the case had been left as it originally stood, before they got the evidence of paupers, convicted felons, and disappointed accomplices, it would have been nothing, and that was the reason why these additions were made. He complained of the reference to the former trial, and the repeated introduction of the turn-out, as intended to bias the jury. Was not that trial enough to drive him to America, when every man's hand was pointed against him. Would he have 4:,•e back again if he had been afraid of the charge, an gone to a public court, in the eyes of all the most vig. nt of the Man chester police ? These proceedings showed the hollow bond of union in these societies. All the witnesses had fixed the murder on Holland, at the trial of that person, and never hinted at this man. At the close of the learned counsel's eloquent appeal, the prisoner was acquitted of Murder, but found guilty of Manslaughter, and the learned jadge passed upon him the sentence of transportation for life. STABBING. Antonio Conti, 28, an Italian, was indicted for stabbing James Langshaw, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, on the 24th of April last, at Liverpool. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor, that on the night in question the prisoner atta cked a lady in Hanover-street, in Liverpool. He remonstrated with him, when the prisoner stabbed him. He also attacked a horse in the street, but was afterwards secured and taken to prison. Mr. WiLxiNs called three witnesses to prove that the prisoner was insane at times. The jury acquitted the prisoner on the ground of in sanity, and the learned Judge ordered him to be kept in safe custody during her Majesty's pleasure. The Court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. Mr. Justice Cresswell took his at nine o'clock. BENTLEY V. WITTON. An action for the recovery of £lOO, the value of certain tolls.—Verdict for the plaintiff. RUTHERFORD AND UX. V. CHAUNDY. An action for the recovery of £3OO on a bond. — Verdict for the plaintiff. RHODES AND OTHERS V. WILSON. In this action Joseph Armitage Rhodes was the plain tiff, and Thomas Wilson was the defendant; and it was brought for the recovery of the sum of £9O for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—£66 dam ages. TURNER V. MILNER. This was an undefended action for the recovery of £2O. —Verdict for the plaintiff. RENT.-BEARD AND OTHERS V. DAVIDSON. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Ellen Beard and George B. Lightfoot, the executor and exe cutrix of John Beard, against the defendant, Alexander Davidson, for the recovery of £57, being the amount of a year and a half's rent of a cellar. The defendant pleaded generally that the plaintiffs were not the executor and executrix, and that they were not seized of the cellar. Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plain tiff's ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. He said the plaintiffs were the executor and executrix of a gentleman named Beard, who, up to the time of his death, carried on a cooperage in Seel-street, Liverpool. There was a cellar underneath the premises, which he did not require for the purposes of his trade, and which, in the year 1826, he let to a Mr. Hebblewhite to carry on the business of a wine and spirit dealer there. The tenantcy was from year to year, at £3l per annum, payable half-yearly. Mr. Hebblewhite continued in the occupation until 1840. He had been one of the directors at Liverpool for the Com mercial Bank of Manchester, and, in consequenle of his connection with that unfortunate establishment, he be came a bankrupt, and having been largely indebted to the bank, Mr. Davidson, public officer, was appointed his assignee. Mr. Hebblewhite had a considerable stock of wine, ale, and beer on the premises at the time, and the gentleman who managed the affairs on behalf of the de fendant took possession of those premises, opened them and continued them open until the following July, when the stock was disposed of. The question was, whether Mr. Davidson, by thus dealing with the property, took possession of it as tenant and made himself liable for the rent. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full amount. DOE DEM. ROCKLIFFE V. AMBROSE. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff. FRAZER AND OTHERS V. MATLEY. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, John Fra zer and George Brooks, against the defendant William Matley, for the recovery of a sum of £460, the value of goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, except as to £390. Verdict for the plaintiff for £125. DIXON V. WING. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, John Dixon, against the defendant, John Wing, for the recovery of a sum of £3O, money had and received, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a set-off. The jury found for the plaintiff for £3O 155., with leave for the defendant to move for a nonsuit. ROBERTS AND OTHERS V. MORRIS. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Elizabeth Roberts, Elizabeth Unwin, and John Hughes, against the defendant, Edward Morris, for the recovery of the value of a certain quantity of limestone. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount sought. The court rose at five o'clock. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. MURDER AT BURY. James Howorth, 20, was indicted for the wilful murder of James Heywood, at Bury, by striking him divers blows on the face, neck and head. Mr. Brandt, Mr. Green, and Mr. Whigham conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner. Mr. BRANDT stated the case. He commenced by say ing that the facts were wholly of a circumstantial nature, which would require the particular attention of the court and jury. The deceased was a hale, stout man, about sixty years of age. who lived at a place called Little Heaton. On the 3d of May last, he left home for Bury, which was only about three or four miles distant. He was seen at a public-house soon after nine o'clock the same night, and the last time he was seen alive was about half an hour after that time, when be left another public house for the purpose, as he said, of going home. When he left home in the morning, his relations distinctly ob served that he had a watch in his pocket. On the morn ing of the following day he was found dead on the out skirts of the town of Bury, at a place called the gravel pits. He was lying by the side of a hedge ; and, from the appearance of the body and the place, he had evidently suffered great violence. His watch was gone, and the suspicion was that he bad been attacked, robbed, and murdered. On his way home from the public-house, at which he was last seen alive, he would have to pass the New Market in Bury, and then, turning to his left, to go on in the direction of Unsworth. One of the witnesses would state that he was near the New Market on the night in question, and that he saw the deceased going along in the company of two young men, who seemed to be taking him in an opposite direction, leading to the place where the body was afterwards found. He would further state that, in his belief, the prisoner was one of those young men, but he could not speak positively to him ; and he (Mr. Brandt) thought it but justice to state, with respect to this witness, that he was not such a per son as the jury could place implicit reliance upon. There was no doubt, however, that, soon after ten o'clock on the night of the occurrence, the prisoner entered a beer house kept by a person of the name of Jenkinson, in Bury ; that his beer-house was no great distance from the new market-place; that he was out of breath at the time, and appeared to have been rannin. • and that there were marks of blood on his face. He asked a young woman at the shop to wash off the marks; and she having dipped a rag in some beer and complied with his request, he was asked how they came there? He gave two replies; first, he said that he had been in a row in the street, and then he stated that the blood had oozed from a pimple on his cheek ; but no pimple was visible. The parties in whose company he then was were of a very degraded character, and, after they had all remained together for some time, they proceeded to a house kept by a man of the name of Benjamin Cooke, where they gambled for about an hour. They then went to the house of one of their party (Win terbottom's) ; and, while there, the prisoner produced a watch, and, from his behaviour and conduct at the time, there could be little doubt that it had very recently come into his possession. In reply to the questions of the party, he stated that a man named Meadowcroft had told him that the watch was lying in a vacant place near the New Market, and that he went there and found it. Meadowcroft denied that he had ever told him anything of the kind. It was rather unfortunate that the watch had been disposed of ; but it could not, therefore, be now pro duced ; and that it would rest on the description given of it by the witnesses as to whether it was the one which be longed to the deceased. Mr. Brandt concluded by saying that the watch would be described by the son of the de ceased, and that upon this evidence would rest the guilt or innocency of the accused. James Clough and Charles Shell deposed to the finding of the body. John Heywood, a son of the deceased, described his watch, as did also Ann Heywood, his daughter, the latter stating it had only one seal, when Mr. BRANDT said that he would not press the case any further, as the other witnesses would describe the watch as having two seals attached. His LORDSHIP thought it would be unsafe for the Jury to convict under the circumstances. A verdict of acquittal was accordingly returned, and the prisoner was discharged. ROBBERY AT WAVERTREE-LANE. William Smith, 26, and Thomas Hughes, 17, were in dicted for having broken and entered the dwelling-house of Jane Lowndes, and stolen thereout twenty bottles of whisky and ten bottles of brandy, the property of Thomas John Lowndes. Mr. Cardwell conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended the prisoner. It appeared that, about four o'clock on the morning of the 17th May last, the house of the prosecutor was en tered and the property extracted : and that, shortly after, three persons, one of whom was the prisoner Hughes, were seen coming in a direction from Wavertree-lane, with a heavy basket. Subsequently, Mr. Lowndes suc ceeded in arresting Hughes, whereupon Smith came to his assistance, and, in endeavouring to rescue him, took out of his pocket a bottle of whisky to defend him, which bottle turned out to be one of those stolen on the night in question. The prisoners alleged that they had found the bottle in an adjoining pond, while they were in-the act of bathing. They were acquitted. BURGLARY AT LIVERPOOL. Joseph Dutton, 20, was convicted of having broken and entered the dwelling-house of Thomas Todd, in Aber cromby-square, and stolen thereout two spoons, his pro perty, and a dress, a sovereign, and ten shillings, the pro perty of Mary Medcalfe. He was sentenced to transporta tion for ten years. FORGER ASES. Maurice Vincent lir Quin, was found guilty of having uttered a forged acceptance to a bill of exchange for the payment of £5l 95., with intent to defraud Francis Goold Dutton. He pleaded guilty to two other indictments charging him with baying uttered two other forged accept ances for £57 and £37 respectively. He was sentenced to transportation for life. Thomas Benson, 42, was convicted on a charge of having, at Manchester, forged the indorsement upon a certain bill of exchange for £lB, with intend to defraud John Singlehurst. He was sentenced to transportation for ten years. Thomas Franklin _Rigby, 24, pleaded guilty to three in dictments, charging him with having uttered forged ac ceptances for £47, £22, and £2O respectively, with intent to defraud John Prichard, Sarah Gibbons, and Henry Steele. He was sentenced to transportation for life. James Park, 32, was convicted of having, at Manches ter, forged the endorsement to a bank post bill for £lOO, with intend to defraud William Brookes and others. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and hard la bour. William Tyson and William Alexander were indicted for having forged a seaman's shipping note, and fraudu lently obtaining £5 thereon from William Topping, of Gibraltar-row, Liverpool. They were found guilty. The Court adjourned at twenty minutes to five o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. The first case taken this morning was MARSH AND ANOTHER V. POLLARD AND OTHERS. It was an action for trespass, the plaintiffs in which were Mr. John Marsh and Lawrence Prenty, and the de fendants Mr. Elias Pollard and some of his emplo.Ves. Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. The al leged trespass consisted of the knocking down of a part of a wall bounding the property of the pfaintiffs, in Gore street, Toxteth-park. The defendant alleged, that the wall encroached upon his land, about one foot of its thickness, and prevented the egress of the inhabitants of his cottages towards the north. His Lordship suggested a reference, and this was agreed to. ILLEGALLY BREAKING AND ENTERING. HOWARD V. BALL. John Howard, the plaintiff in this case, was repre sented by Mr. Whigham ; William Ball, jun., Robert Newton, and Thomas Marshall, the defendants, were re presented by Mr. Martin. The action was brought to re cover the value of certain goods and chattels alleged to have been illegally seized :by the defendants, as well as compensation in damages for the interruption of t he plain tiff's business. The plaintiff is a master painter, who re sides at Cannon Cottage, Southport. The defendant, William Ball, is his landlord. Mr. Newton is an auc tioneer, and Marshall is a bailiff. Verdict for the defend ants. DEFAMATION AND SLANDER. DOLLING V. SMITH. This was an action for libel. The plaintiff is Mr. Tho mas Augustus Granville Dolling, assistant overseer of the poor for the township of West Derby ; the defendant is Mr. Thomas Smith, a gentleman now residing in West Derby, but who formerly carried on business in Lord street, as a stationer and bookseller, and who, since his retirement from business, was a candidate for the repre sentation of Preston in Parliament. Mr. Watson and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Baines and Mr. Cobbett for the defendant. °*.s.9;oiAcP Mr. WATSON said the plaintiff was Mr. Thomae Au gustus Dolling, a gentleman who had, for many years, held the office of assistant overseer of the parish of West Derby. He had also been appointed collector of Queen's taxes, and had held this office for some time. He had recently been appointed treasurer of West Derby ; and he came before the jury to complain of a foul and mali cious libel which had been published of him, and also o slander extremely injurious to his character. The townf ship of West Derby was an extremely populous district it was composed of two parts, one within the borough,: called the municipal division, and one without the bo rough, called the rural division. He believed that the sum which Mr. Dolling had annually to collect amounted to something like £15,000. He had to collect it from a a large number of persons, probably 3,000. The de fendant was a gentleman, not in business He resided in West Derby-street, and was a ratepayer of the township of West Derby, and, for some years past, he had been in the habit of showint , some degree of enmity to Mr. Dolling. He had, at public b meetings and in newspapers, spoken and written offensively of Mr. Dolling in the cha racter of overseer. He (the learned counsel) was told that the defendant was a gentleman who indulged much at public meetings; that he was very fond of making speeches, and of being a leader in parochial matters. On the 30th March, in this year, a meeting of the ratepayers of the township was held for the purpose of nominating overseers for the ensuing year. Mr. Smith, as usual, was present at the meeting. His name was put in as one of the individuals to be sent in to be selected as overseers of the poor. He made a long speech attacking several persons, and, among the rest, Mr. Dolling. He made, on that occasion, a distinct charge of dishonesty against the plaintiff. He charged him distinctly with having robbed the township of £7OO. Mr. Dolling was in a re sponsible situation : he was a gentleman with a family, and a person who, of course, depended upon his good name for his daily bread. If that statement were true, if he had been guilty of dishonesty in the administration of the funds of the township, be was a person who ought not for one moment to be allowed to administer the funds of the township. Was he to sit down quietly under the imputation? His only course was to come there, and ask the defendantjto substantiate the charge or confess at once that it was untrue. Probably, if the thing had stopped there, Mr. Dolling might have stood upon his character, and not even have noticed that ; but it was found that, by a subsequent publication, Mr. Smith had carried this matter so far that Mr. Dolling was bound to come into court. On the 6th April, when the list of persons from whom the overseers for the year were to be selected, and at the head of which was the name of Mr. Smith, was placed before the justices of the peace, at Kirkdale, they, exercising their judgment in the matter, did not elect Mr. Smith to be one of the overseers. On the 10th of April Mr. Smith printed and circulated in West Derby a libel ous document, which he (Mr. Watson) would read ; and he would put it to the jury whether any man, in office or out of office, seeing the charges in that libel, could rest satisfied without appealing to the laws of Lis country for redress The document in question was sig,.led by Thomas Smith, and was headed " Recent West Derby Vestry." Mr. Watson proceeded to read the document, from which we extract the following passage ; " You know that the two persons whose names you, by an almost unanimous vote, ordered to be at the head of the list, were not the choice favourites of our master, the permanent overseer, and his zealous upholders. I was at Kirkdale, according to my promise, and that was suffici ent, as it proved, to prevent a change of the list, had the dissatisfied party been disposed to make such change. But, alone, as I found myself, I was not sufficient to pre vent another course which that party adopted, and adopted with success, as you will learn. There were four of them from this township and neighbourhood, including our overseer, and an attorney whom they picked up in court, RS a sort of Godsend, to be their leader and advocate. There were six persons appeared in court against your list, and one, only one, and he the least fitted, Ito support it, farther than just to say that such was your list. I was the person. And the attorney of the party commenced by discharging himself of a load of accusations against me, a load of spiteful falsehoods, with which they had just been cramming him. For instance, he commenced by declaring that I would never rest till I had ruined Mr. Doleing.' With such stuff had they crammed the man. Bless his stuffed head, I would neither injure him nor Mr. Doleing, as he called our precious overseer and master. I would only restrain ruffians and cheats from insulting and committing depredations on us, and especially from committing them on weak and unsuspicious persons, on lone women, on widows and their families. It is my knowledge of deeds of this description that makes me stick to this fellow of ours. And, if it will ruin him to put a stop to his practices in that way, why, then, base indeed should I be if I were to desist from any fair and manly course in seeking to control me. * * * Thus, my brother ratepayers, ended your late manly and sensible efforts to rescue your parochial affairs from the hands of a small knot of corrupt and infuriated intriguers, who, dead to every sense of truth and justice, invade and tram ple on your rights, and slander, belie, and plunder you. Let us hope, however, that the two gentlemen who have received the appointment will have the firmness and reso lution requisite to respond to your wishes and fulfil your intentions. Let us hope that they will not leave the township to the mercy of an individual who has been set over you by the little crew of shameless and corrupt crea tures who co-operate with him; who is confirmed and upheld in his office by the three merciless ruffians in Lon don, fellows who are altogether of congenial dispositions, and regardless of your rights and interests. * * * Let us hope, too, that, instead of permitting this overbearing and insolent overseer of ours to send his threatening notes amongst us, commanding us to wait upon him with the amount of our rates; and inflicting upon the humbler and more necessitous portion of the ratepayers his 2s. sum monses, which 25., I learn, is shared between him and one of his fellow-workers. * * * One other reasona ble hope let me express. It has been the practice of this doughty overseer of ours, when he wanted more of our money to revel in, or to answer some other purpose of his and his little nest of intriguers, to prepare a rate book, call on his creatures, the overseers, mere nominees of his and his crew, to put their names to the book, and thus to lay new rates upon us, whilst large amounts of former rates, very large amounts, remained uncollected and uncalled for. Let us hope that our new overseers will not lend their hands to such proceedingq. And, further, let us hope that any rate to be laid during their term of office will be laid equitably and according to law, conditions which have been most grossly and wilfully violated, and for his own manifest profit, too, by this obstreperous and super-serviceable overseer of ours ; grossly and wilfully violated in every rate he has laid during the last four years." Mr. WATSON observed, that the object of the defendant would be one of the matters for the jury to consider when they came to assess the damages in the case. If they thought that this proceeded from malicioussotives, he would ask them to give exemplary damages f, however, even at this moment, the defendant, taking the excellent advice which would assuredly be given to him by his (Mr. Watson's) learned friend, (Mr. Baines,) would come for ward and Axonerate Mr. Dolling from the charges which he had cant upon him, be (Mr. Watson) would only ask for nominal damages, and thus test the sincerity with which Mr. Dolling came there, not to take money out of the defendant's pocket, but simply to clear his character. Mr. Watson then went through the pleadings of the de fendant. With respect to one plea, that the plaintiff had wrongfully defrauded the municipal division of the county, by laying on a county rate, he observed, that the rate was not laid by the assistant overseer, but by the overseers. In 1837, when Mr. Smith was overseer, he did lay a borough rate on the municipal division, and a county rate on the rural division, but that course was found very in convenient, and it was thought better to lay an equal rate over the whole township, and to pay out of that the borough rate to the borough, and the county rate to the county. What robbery of the township was there in that? Joseph Bispham Leatberbarrow, Mr. Richard Sanders, and Mr. Robert Donnison were called to prove the utter ance of the alleged spoken, and the publication of the printed libel. Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury for the defendant. He observed, that his learned friend had called on him to say whether he would retract all that his client had said in respect to Mr. Dolling. If the defendant could with truth unsay what he had said, then he would be the first man to come forward and express his conviction that he had been in the wrong. But, believing that the charges which he had actually brought could be substantiated, his only course was to lay before the jury the evidence on which those accusations were founded. He (Mr. Baines) thought that he should be able to prove to the satisfaction of the jury, before be had done, that with some'allowance for the proverbial excitability of a parish meeting, where the speakers felt strongly and spoke strongly, he should be able to show that the allegations of the defendant were substantially correct. The first charge against the plaintiff by Mr. Smith was said to have been made at the vestry meet ing held on the 30th of March last. That was a general annual meeting; and if the jury should be of opinion, as he contended was the case, that the words were spoken bona fide, that the defendant believed them to be true, and acted in the honest discharge of what he conceived to be his duty to himself and the ratepayers, be (Mr. B.) should contend, without the least doubt, that that would be a privileged communication, for which it would be impossible to hold the defendant responsible. Having cited the case of " Spencer,. Hamrnerton" in corroboration, the learned gentleman went on to state what the circumstances were out of which the charge arose. Since the passing of the Municipal Reform Act the municipal division of the township of West Derby no longer formed a part of the county of Lancaster ; it formed part of the borough of Liverpool, and, by virtue of that was exempted from con tributing to the county rate, because it had its own bo rough rate to contribute to. When the plaintiff came into office, after the passing of the Municipal Reform Act, he made a very material change in the mode of collecting the rates from the whole township ; and the motive for the change would be made apparent when it was recollected that he received three per cent. on the money collected in the municipal division, whilst he received nothing from the rural division. He laid one rate over the whole of the township, without separating the amount in any way, and of the sum received one portion was paid to the county rate and another portion to the borough rate, thus causing the municipal div ision of the township to sustain a loss of nearly £6OO a-year. This was the statement made by Mr. Smith at the vestry meeting ; and he (Mr. Baines) should be able to show, that, although his client spoke strongly, he said on that occasion, not that the township had been " robbed" by Mr. Dolling, but that it had been "wronged" to that extent by Mr. Dolling. Mr. Smith was a respectable ratepayer, who had resided in the town ship for many years, and when he applied to Mr. Dolling to see the parochial accounts, be was refused, and in lan guage of such a contumelious character that he (the learned counsel) could not but marvel, considering it bad escaped the lips of the defendant, that that individual should have had the hardihood to bring this action. Mr. Smith went to Mr. Dolling, accompanied by a respectable ratepayer, and asked to see the books. Mr. Dolling did not pretend that be bad not the books ; but said to Mr. Smith, " You are a cheat, you are a robber, you are a vagabond." Knowing whit the defendant did, having ascertained from the books, was he not likely to be led to believe, by this conduct, that there was really something which the plaintiff was anxious to conceal? As to the published document which had been proposed, only 250 copies had been printed ; it was written with a bona fide intention of pointing out grievances ; it was circulated only amongst the ratepayers ; and, under these circum stances, he (Mr. B.) contended that it was a privileged communication, and could not, any more than the spoken words, he made the ground of an action for libel. Mr. Baines proceeded to say, :hat, as certain specific acts of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff had been set out on the record, which he should have to prove, he should call the attention of the jury to them. The first thing stated was with respect to a person named Thomas Allen. His learned friend had observed that mistakes would inevi tably occur in the collection of the rates of a large township. Yes ; but Mr. Dolling was paid for the discharge of his duties, and the ratepayers had a right to expect that the business should be conducted with ordinary care, so that they must not be unduly harassed by any negligence of his; and, if negligence had been found of so gross a character as to warrant the suspicion of fraud, was it to be wondered at that a ratepayer should conceive it to be his duty to inquire into it ; and, if inquiry was prevented. to denounce it ? Instances of this kind would be found. On the 13th of September, 1839, Mr. Allen paid to Mr. Dolling 18s. 4d., and, on the 20th of July, 1810, Mr. Dolling demanded the amount again, and under circum stances somewhat suspicious. The 20th of July was the last day for paying the rates, in order to qualify a person to vote at the next election. Mr. Allen, who was wishful to be put on the list of voters, went to Mr. Dolling, and asked what arrears of rates be had to pay, whereupon Mr. Dolling told him that he owed 18s. 4d. for 1839, and, not withstanding the remonstrances of Mr. Allen, said that that amount must be paid unless he was content to be struck off the list. Mr. Allen paid him ti - e sum the se cond time. By and by, however, he found a receipt for the first payment, and then Mr. Dolling was obliged to refund. The learned counsel detailed the particulars of other cases of a similar kind. In one of these, an elderly female, living alone, was the party who had been twice charged the same amount ; and, in another, a widow lady was obliged to pay a sum of £3 10s., which, she contended, her husband had paid shortly before his death, but which Mr. Dolling asserted was only a payment for a previous year. In other cases, summonses had been served on re spectable parties, one of whom was Mr. Robert Willan, who had resided twenty years in the township, and who had served the office of overseer, demanding payment of certain taxes by a specified day, and threatening legal proceedings for default, although no previous request had been made for payment. A considerable number of witnesses were called to prove the statements of the learned counsel. Mr. WATSON replied. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL summed up, telline , the jury that the published document could not be considered as a privileged communication. The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages £2O. The Court adjourned at a quarter-past six. THE LATE FATAL DUEL. At the Central Criminal Court, on Monday, Mr. Justice Williams, in his address to the grand jury, made the fol lowing observations with reference to the late duel in which Colonel Fawcett was killed. He said Mr. Gulliver was charged with aiding and abetting the person who actually killed the deceased on that occasion. The law with respect to a person killing another in a duel was perfectly clear : if persons met deliberately, in consequence of a previous quarrel, after a lapse of sufficient time to allow of the anger and excitement to cool, and the death of one of them ensued, that constituted the crime of murder against the person who killed him. There had been no doubt upon that subject for some years past; neither could there be any doubt thst the second of the person killing his antagonist was also guilty of the crime of murder ; but with respect to the second of the person killed, it had been doubted by a very grave and learned authority—he alluded to Lord Hale—whether such per son could be considered guilty of murder, for reasons which he fully assigned, and any doubt entertained by that learned authority were entitled to the greatest and most serious consideration, more particularly as Mr. Serjeant Hawkins, also a writer of great celebrity, did not appear to doubt, or attempt to controvert, that opinion; if, therefore, that was the case, Mr. Gulliver could not stand in a worse position than the second of the party killed. He was aware, however, that at no distant period, and in this very court, an opinion directly in op position to the dicta of Lord Hale and Mr. Serjeant Hawkins had been expressed by two of the learned judges, for whose opinions he entertained the greatest respect, who stated, that beyond all doubt, the second of the per son killed, as well as the second of the person by whose hand he fell, was guilty of murder equally with the prin cipal himself. The mere presence of a party at a duel would not be sufficient to constitute him an eider and abetter, but it was essential that he should be there countenancing, aiding, and assisting in the duel. Sup posing, therefore, the dictum of Lord Hale to be welt founded, a series of questions must arise before them as to the object of his presence, and the countenance, aid, and assistance, which they should find applicable to the case of Mr. Gulliver. On Friday Lieutenant Cuddy and Mr. Gulliver surren dered to take their trials, when the Attorney-General said, that the charge as alleged against Mr. Gulliver could not be sustained ; he should, therefore, decline to offer any evidence against him ; he might, therefore, be at once discharged, and could then become a competent witness on behalf of the prosecution. Mr. Gulliver then left the bar, and Lieutenant Cuddy was arraigned and charged with aiding and abetting in the commission of the offence. In ordinary cases of an acquittal the precise grounds for the verdict do not appear, but the interlocutory inquiries put by the jury as they were about to leave the box to deliberate to the judge in this case leave no doubt that the reason for the verdict of not guilty was the absence of decisive evidence to show that Mr. Cuddy aided and abetted Lieutenant Munro in the murder of Colonel Fawcett. Whatever may be thought of the weight of the moral evidence in support of the charge of aiding and abetting the murder, the legal testimony, it must be confessed, was meagre. Not one of the witnesses swore positively to the identity of the gentleman placed in the dock with the person who acted as Colonel Fawcett's second, and though Mr. Gulliver, the surgeon, believed him to be the same, that officer seems to have seen—from defective sight—very little of the conduct and management of the duel previously to the demand for his professional assis tance; he did not witness the ground measured, or the pistols prepared and handed to the principals ; all that he could prove was, that Lieutenant Munro, on the morning of the fatal occurrence, carried him tip to the field where it was fought ; that there he saw four gentlemen, one of whom he believes was Mr. Cuddy; that he heard the words " ready—fire," given, a discharge of pistols, and then a summons to attend Colonel Fawcett; that he ran to where that unfortunate officer was lying, and found Mr. Cuddy with two others at his side ; and that the wounded man uttered a few words rather exculpatory of Lieutenant Munro. The poverty of this testimony, joined to the obvious repugnance of a jury to convict a second of aiding and abetting a murder when the murder itself had not been established to a deliverance jury, secured Mr. Cuddy's acquittal; and Mr. Cuddy was immediately discharged. Mr. Gulliver said, in the course of his examination as a witness, that when he got to the 'ground he found Col. Fawcett lying down, and heard him say something about levelling a pistol. He said, " I was not level enough," or " I did not cover you ;" to which Lieut. Munro said, " Oh, Fawcett, I thought you were covering me." Col. Fawcett said he had been practising. From the reply of Sir James Graham to the memorial of the Cheshire Grand Jury, it would appear that there is a probability of having a winter assize. Sir W. Follett, says the Western Times, netted, in special retainers at these assizes, £4,000 in fees, and without diminishing his ordinary attention to the interests of his constituents. A true bill was found on Wednesday morning, at the Central Criminal Court, against certain merchants for slave trading. The witnesses for the prosecution were Colonel Edward Nicholls, R.M., the Honourable Capt. Denman, and Captain Hill. At the Cumberland Assizes, Lawrence Doogan, aged 16, was found guilty on a charge of breaking out of Car lisle Gaol on the sth of July, and was sentenced to seven years' transportation, to commence at the expiration of seven years to which the prisoner had previously been sentenced. On the Western Circuit an action bas been brought by Sir Samuel Spry, to recover the value of a race mare, called Grateful, from a Mr. Ames and others, who, it was alleged, had carried the mare away from the plaintiff's stables, and while having it in their possession it died. The plaintiff had purchased the mare of a trainer, named Treen, at Plymouth. From Treen's stables the horse was removed by a man named Sweatman, and this person being indebted to Messrs. Ames, Castle, and Co., dis tillers, at Bristol, the mare was seized by them for debt. On the part of the defendants, it was denied that the mare was the same. Several witnesses, well known in the sporting world, were examined. Verdict for the plaintiff—damages £l5O. THREE BROTHERS DROWNED AT HARROGATE.-•-• Three brothers of the name of Thackwray, aged 22, 19, an d 17, lost their li7es whilst bathing in the river Nidd, o tptTiol n Su i place bce alarm, ltaiwinl nda reemu.nc: y hiTol uhnsdteoe elder to gather eg n eruartt hthbi e lt, lraaroosntfhhelei herbs, l,reb s t e,l h xa un e pnaege vic uet den injudiciouslyidfnoi nir and vicinity of donjouaf rescue eea l - Ilspvyceiaunrdr resolved s o i gonh g ilt a i vvom t ee e nda: but the effort was in vain, and their dreadful state induced the younger one, in a moment of great agitation, to follow the example of his elder brother. They clung to each other, and all went down together. DREADFUL DEATH OF MR. AYMER, THE C ELERRATIID AMERICAN VAULTER.—This unfortunate man, whose recent performance at the English Opera laa m tttey e met his performer proprietorrdmeaetrhw oaonsf excited so much admanr t inrot Thursdayyi o al A i g n imi ht at p tt c ee ua Circustlri a e department, h p o a ef r r e t i‘ m it e rb. n e t B . fulfilling an engagement. The particular performance for which Mr. Aymer was announced concluded with a double summerset, a feat considered almost (if not quite) impos sible, and in throwing it the ill-fated artist, instead of alighting on his feet, fell on his neck, and death was the immediate result. Smith, a great trampoline and vaulter, met his death in a manner precisely similar during the management of Messrs. Ducrow and West, at Astley's, some seasons back.—The Times.