The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

s and cos itipu- tional rrould • ;we nt 'went is April 2, 1844 LIVERPOOL SPRING ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. . A .l° An Higgi ns , 25 , an d James Higg i ns, ot h erw i se 211i .810anelFinneY, 24, were indicted f or h a ving in their posses a numbe r of counterfeit sixpences, with intent to utter the same. The jury found both prisoners guilty, aud to they were s en t ence d to two years ' i mpr i sonmen t, each hard labour, in Kirkdale House of Correction. Tim othy Finningham. 32, was charged with having pos session of three counterfeit shillings, with intent to have Uttered the same. The prisoner was found guilty, and 'lp sentenced to t wo years' imprisonment and hard labour, Xirkdale House of Correction. ;h...Ann Green, otherwise Finninyharn 60, a woman with en the last named prisoner lived, pleaded guilty to , t_ ter ing ixtse coin, and was sentenced to six months lard labour. Burns, 34, pleaded guilty to have uttered a base b as ung, she having been previously convicted of uttering meet, and she was sentenced to two years' imprison tab ~, and hard labour. sili°7tes C as h mere , 20, was c h arge d w ith ma li c i ous ly o n g Robert Middleton, at Ashton-under-Lyne, guilty Ifith of September last. The prisoner was found c "`"Y of an assault only, and was ordered to be impri soned in Lancaster Castle for six months'. • J ohn S'kellon, 34, was indicted for entering the dwell thehouse o f J ames Rowe, of Manchester. The jury found Prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years' transPOrtation. William Thornley, who had pleaded guilty to a bur glary in the h ouse o f J ohn Gould, of Denton, was or d ere d to be imprisoned t we l ve mont h s ' , an d har d l a b our . William Pa Weaver, who h a d pl ea d e d guilty to forging a per for the delivery of goods, was sentenced to two years' imprisonm ent an d h ard labour. The court rose a few minutes before six o'clock. ISI PRIIJS COURT.-TUESDAY. His LordshiliNTCLlFF V. GARNETT, ESQ. P took his s ea t on th e bench this morning at half-past nine o'clock, when a number of witnesses were called in behalf of the defendant. They spoke to va rious conversations which took place with the plaintiff, after the day the organ was alleged to be sold, in which t , p: i l it had theg plaintiff admitted that he had not purchased the or bu that the merely been sent to his house in Man chester,ng the time of the o ening. They also proved tiiite furniture in the house of P Mrs. Wright, previous the auction being commenced hy the defendant, Mr. hee was worth at least £3OO, but within a day or two different parties belonging goods were sold c nsiderabl under their real value to exceptions ; and that for the work done at the house of to the family, with some trifling Mrs. Wright, by the plaintiff, he was paid by the day, and the materials were not found by him. Mr. B AINES, in reply, said the only question in the c?-se Was, whether the organ was really sold to the plai r n ; tiff previous to the issue of the execution against _ W right's goods : for with regard to the conduct o t P . t l . th e e • ' rights', though the jury might be of opinion that !' together to defraud the creditors of Mrs. -.., lla d.conspired . w right , at considerable length, that had nothing to do with the question they Were trying. He then contended, that th e evidence for t h e d e f ence was not to be relied on, lue of 1"Id tha te orga t th n verdict for the va e plaintiff was entitled to a The Learn e d J u d g e summed up, and the Jury , after a t ainutes' cons id erat i on f oun d a ve rdict for the defendant. SMITH V. WATEAD. This was a n un d e f en d e d actionLS brought by the plaintiff. a wine from h'll-hall, £2O odd, and spirit merchant, in Manchester, to recover the defendant, who resides at Stan . 1 the quantity tiey d a a l m u e sg o e f s a ss. of spirits. Verdict for plain tiff,_. Execution to issue in one week YouNGHUSBAND V. DEANE. theaMOUnt f •b d given to the late High She- This was also an'undefended action brought to recover riff o f 0 are levin on the o , P . This was Imag es, is. nty. Verdict for the plaintiff, debt £62, da b&ws AND UXOR V. INMAN. defendant to a 7 nt a e ctiO N n to recover romissory the sum of £241, the principal and the res l t ai o n n tiff a . note given by the P The cause was undefended, and a verdict was returned for the amount sought. LAVERY V. HALSTEAD. This was an undefended action on a bill of exchange ac cePted by the defendant for £5O. Verdict for the plain tiff. this ease 1 lain- In l 'zm, HOBSoN AND OTHERS V. NIA.UGHALL.. out the trial ,t ie plainti su mi al being entered on. .. ' 'ff b •tted to a nonsuit with- BREACH OF CONTRACT. This was an RICHARDSON V. CARTWRIGHT. action brought to recover damages from 41re.fe,ndant for a breach of contract. alonrpndt appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Th e Plaintiff is were for the defendant. arid is a cooper and wharfinger, in Manchester, it ap defendant resides at Northwich, in Cheshire ; and P.eared from the evidence adduce on behalf of the luff, that a person named Wallworth, a joiner, in the at 40:.1 1(4 of the defendant, entered into a contract on the October, 1842, to supply 150,000 Scotch fir staves Per thousand, and 50,000 of a larger size at the i ls r arne Price, wole to be delid w ten months 4r a s ta the date. the Part of the staves vere had been ithin supplied, but c 'alY a small part, and the defendant refused to deliver the remainder. A witness was called to prove that the price of such staves as were to be delivered by the contract, at the end of ten months, was 48s. and 565. per thousand. lie admitted, however, in cross-examination by Mr. Baines, that the prices be mentioned were the lowest prices during the last three years. Mr. BAINES, in addressing the jury, observed that this was a question of some importance, both to the defendant and the public, for if a person was to be bound by the contract of such an a g e n t as t h e one i n the present case, few tradesmen were safe. There ought to be some proof either of a general or p.rticular authority given to Wall worth ; and he con t en d e d t h ere was neither, and several W itnesses were called to p rove th at t h e d e f en d ant had stated ~oti in the pre sence o f t h e p l a i nt iff , that he had not au thorised him to en t er i nto any contract, an d to contra di ct Part the evid ence g i ven b y Wallworth. r tittANDT replied. 1 )plai o c ',RnsHIP, in summing up, said if the jury were of l aana tu at Wall th was engaged by the defendant to g e wor ‘ a ente r ;Lbusiness, they must infer that he had power contr act w "o a contract with the plaintiff, and such am ount of ° Pc! be binding on the defendant. As to the be bet w " a rnaes, that must be estimated by the differ r could ,Cen the contract price, and the price at which I° n of t Luave phased them at the time of the expira- Th e ue contr urc act. jur y returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, MARKET RIGATS AT MANCHESTSA. MOSLEY, BART, V. PICKUP. SAME V. BOOTH. -..... ~. —,,,,---• SAME V. GREATREX. b e in these Cases Messrs. Starkie, Wortley, Brandt, and f " l ended an were for th e p l a i n tiff. Th e cases were unde iVir. STARKIE, in stating the first case to the Jury, ob served that the the plaintiff, Sir Oswald Mosley, was lord of ket manor of Manchester and the proprietor of the mar defß •in that town, and the action was brought against the theen'dant, a butcher in that town, for an infringe . men t t he o r f plat had of the plaintiff, by selling flesh meat in Ilad ~.91 a n the public markets. The market in question couicrijited from a very ancient time ; if necessary, le . clester B :e sir that it had existed in the time of Edward 1 n the time of Queen Elizabeth it was granted to an an- Oswald Mosley, in whose family it 121ained ever since. This was not the first time the right ad been before the courts ; for, about half a century ago, the /natter was tried in the courts below, and argued in the =bents above mil before Lord Mansfield, when the rights of to the manor and privileges of Man chester were fully established. Since that time p a rti e s had frequently infringed on the rights of the plaintiff, and several actions had been brought against various parties, including four or five against the defendant Pickup, at considerable expense, as the defendants had been unable to Pay the costs. Proof having been shortly given of the ight of Sir Os wald Mosley, an d th at the defendant had sold butcher's bleat at his own house, under the direction of the learned judge, —a verdict was returned for the plaintiff ; damages, one shilling. Similar verdicts were also returned in the other two cases. This was asMITH A ND ANOTHER V. ROGERS. change. nundefend e d act i on on three Bills of Ex verdict for air plaintiff; damages, £lB6 lOs 3d. Verdict by consent rr d il V. SEATON. GAMBLING TRANsACTaIOrnNar, KTN . SON V. WEBSTER. This was an action brought by plaintiff, a tobacco mist in Manchester, against the defendant, William 'Web ster, who, resides in the n e i g hb our hood of Leeds, to se cure the sum of £5O, mon ey l ent . Mr Greene was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson for the defendant. It appeared that the defendant and several other parties were playing at billiards in a room in Market-street Man chester, during the whole of the afternoon of the 4th July -last, during which the defendant lost considerately , and, at the conclusion, be borrowed from the plaintiff £5O, for Which he first gave a bill of Exchange, and then, in con sequence of of its being informal, an I. 0. U The latter document, however, was not put in, and the whole case upon the evidence of one person named Jackson, w ".... 0 was in the habit of frequenting billiard rooms. f.,,,1r• WATSON addressed the Jury on behalf of the de eTtirt, and contended, in forcible terms, that if there belnietTclstlthaeDn loan at all it was obtained by fraud. Lip in summing up, said if the Jury evidence for the plaintiff they must find a verdict for the plaintiff. The Jury found for the defendant. CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETIES.—HARGREAVES AND Ants ANOTHER V. WOOD AND ANOTHER. Ants was an action to recover the sum of £BO 9s. on a -cond . Messrs. Wortley and Higgins were for the plaintiffs, and Messes. Knowles and Cowling for the defendants. tit Was an action brought by the plaintiffs Hardy Har ro7res and William Shore, as Trustees of a Co-operative j ok le tY, in Glossop Vale, to recover r£ the defendants, v in and Charles Wood, the sum of £BO 9s. on a bond I,i,:„ en by one of the defendants under the following eiroutn i "" c es• It appeared that in the year, 1840, a society was Soured in Glossop, called the Glossop Vale Co-operative t n ci etY, the object of which, like all similar societies, was atj ll 2 Pl the lower classes with groceries and provisions i ttiemore than the cost price. The defendant, Charles became agent to the society at the salary of 21s. Li; week, but in August, 1842, there was a deficiency in se acco unts amounting to £ll2, and there having been ? estl aPicion excited six months previous to this time, a I, ‘lri tY Was asked for, and the father, John Wood, cave '''° 44 :l with his son Charles for the due performance of his trust in which it was stipulated that he should render a true account to the trustees of all the moneys and stock he received. When the deficiency of Xll2 was discovered, he was remonstrated with, and time was given him to make up the deficiency on condition of his continuing to act as agent. However about a month afterwards the deficiency had increased to £l2B, and Charles - Wood gave up the agency, saying he could not account for the defici ency. The evidence for the plaintiffs, which occupied a consi derable time,and was chiefly dry matters of account showed, after making some allowances for waste and profit to the defendant Charles Wood, a defalcation of upwards of £BO. Mr. KNOWLES took several objections to the form of declaration, and the evidence by which it was sustained. At length, at the suggestion of the learned Judge a ver dict was entered for the plaintiffs for the amount sought. with liberty to move to enter a verdict for the defendant on one point and to reduce the damages to £l6 on ano ther. The Court adjourned :A six o'clock. CHOWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. The Learned Judge took his seat on the bench at a quarter-past nine. James Kay, who pleaded guilty to an indictment charg ing him with forging a request for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud William Lomas, of Great Bolton, was brought up and sentenced to two years' imprison ment. ROBBERY AND ASSAULT. Nathaniel Bentley and James Gosling stood charged with assaulting John Woodcock, at Manchester, and rob bing him of some money. The prosecutor, it appeared, was a huckster, and lived at Tarvin, and on the 23rd of February last had occasion to go to Manchester on busi ness. In the evening he was at the Blue Bell public house, where he met the prisoner Gosling, and the latter took him to sever , ' other houses, at one of which they met the other prisoner, Bentley. Soon after this the prosecutor was induced to go into the street, when the prisoners set upon him, and robbed him of four sove reigns and a half-sovereign ; he was violently assaulted, and Gosling had a knife, and said he would cut his throat if he made any resistance. His fob was then cut off and the money taken out of it, after which the prisoners made their escape, but were afterwards apprehended. Several witnesses were called, who deposed to seeing the prisoners in company with the prosecutor on the day in question. Mr Wilkins addressed the jury for Gosling, and called witnesses as to character. The prisoners were acquitted. At eleven o'clock the Grand Jury were discharged. ROBBERY. Samuel Marland, 35, (could neither read nor write,) was indicted for robbing John Horsfield, at Ashton under-Lyne ; he was further charged with striking him violently with a stick. The prosecutor stated that he was a mechanic, residing at Stayley-bridge, and on the 4th of February last, about two o'clock in the morning, was passing through Ashton, and, on coming near Ashley Arms, met the prisoner, who belonged to the police force, and asked if he could procure anything to drink. They then went into the house, and bad some liquor, when the.prosecutor got change for a sovereign, and on corning out of the house, set off on the new road intending to go to Manchester. After going a little way, he heard some one following him, and on looking round saw the prisoner, who immediately put his hand into his pocket, and suc ceeded in taking his money, consisting of a sovereign and fifteen shillings in silver. Prisoner then said be would give him five shillings back again, and the prosecutor said be would have all, and took hold of him, on which he received a blow which brought him to the ground. The prisoner then got away. Prosecutor afterwards went to the police station, where an investigation took place, when the prisoner was recognised, and taken into custody. The prisoner was acquitted, several witnesses being called, who spoke to the prosecutor's being somewhat in liquor, and that he had at first given a wrong statement with respect to the number of the police officer. FORGING A CHECK. James Joseph Mooney, 36, (could read and write in a superior manner,) was charged with forging an order for the payment of money at Wigan. The prisoner, it ap peared, from the statement of Mr. Holton, was an at torney's clerk at Wigan, and son-in-law to Betty Glass brook, who bad a sum of money in the bank of Messrs. Woodcock and Sons, of the same place. On the 15th of January last the prisoner went to the bank of Messrs. Woodcock, and obtained a blank check, soon after which he returned, having, in the mean time, got it filled up for the amount of £25, which sum was paid to him. The signature was, " Betty Glassbrook," but she had given no authority to the prisoner to make use of her name, and the check was supposed to be a forgery. Mr. Gaskell, solicitor, of Wigan, gave the prisoner an excellent cha racter, though he considered that within the last two years his mind had been somewhat impaired, and he had been guilty of some inaccuracies, but he never had occa sion to charge him with dishonesty. The prisoner was acquitted. BURGLARY. Thomas Unsworth, 35:(couidread and write imper fectly) was indicted for entering the dwelling-house of James Broadhurst, at Culcheth, on the 17th of Septem ber last, and stealing therefrom one pair of boots and a cheese. The prisoner had been seen in the neighbour hood of the prosecutor's house on the night in question, and a pair of boots, which had been left behind by the party who had committed the burglary were identified as belonging the prisoner, which caused him to be appre hended. The prisoner was found guilty of the felony, but acquitted on the charge of burglary, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. STABBING. Jonathan Thompson, 24, (could read,) stood charged with stabbing Josiah Stott, at Bedford, near Leigh. The prosecutor keeps a public house at Bedford ; and on the 29th of February last, the prisoner, with others, was drinking at his house, when some dispute arose between the landlord and some parties present, and the prisoner interfered, and, after using some threatening language, took out a clasp-knife, and struck at the prosecutor in the face, wounding him severely. Information was afterwards given to the police, which led to the prisoner's apprehension. The prisoner was found guilty. John Stack, convicted of stealing a colt, was brought up, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Court rose at half-past five. NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. ILLEGAL DISTRAINT : ALMARK V. DIXON AND ANOTHER. The declaration in this case charged the defendants, John Dixon and John Martin Newton, with illegally con verting certain property belonging to the plaintiff, Thos. Almark. The defendants pleaded that the property did not belong to the plaintiff. Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plain tiff; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cole for the defendant. Mr. BAINES stated the case for the plaintiff. This was an action against the gentleman who lately filled the office of sheriff of the county of Chester, and one of his officers, for seizing, under an execution against a person named Job Almack, property belonging to the plaintiff, who re sides at Lindow. The simple plea was, as to the ques tion of property, and therefore the inquiry was merely whether the goods seized under the execution were the property of Job Almark. The plaintiff was Thos. Almark, who, for a number of years, had been employed by a gen tleman of the name of Formby, as farm servant, at W. 1.- thington. He was able to save a considerable sum of money; and, some years ago, he became a coal Cea'er, in the town of Manchester, and collector of manure, for the purpose of selling it to the farmers; At the same time Job Almark, his brother, down to the year 1842, had been in the occupation of two several farms—one belonging to some ladies of the name of Norcliffe, and the other to a person named Frankland. In the early part of the year 1842 Job gave up possession of the farm belonging to the Norcliffes, but retained the other. Thomas then left Manchester, and came to live on the farm left by his bro ther. He was accepted as tenant, and he had paid the rent for the said farm from that day to this. The seizure complained of took place an these premises; and what was to be contended by the Sheriff, or rather by the per son who indemnified him, was, that the goods which had been seized in the house of Thomas Almark were really the property of Job, but he (the learned counsel) would show that Job left the premises on which the seizure took place in the year 1842, and lived at Manchester. He re sided in the house of a person named Gibbs, who was the executor, creditor, and the person putting the same in motion. After Job had lived on the premises at Man chester some time, Mr. Gibbs had a claim, or thought he had a claim for rent, and brought an action for it. Job allowed judgment to go by default, an execution was taken out in November, 1842, and the Sheriff and his officer, acting on some erroneous information given to them by Gibbs, seized the goods, which were the subject of the pre.ent action. Evidence was called to substantiate these statements. Mr. WATSON addressed the court for the defendants. He said the simple question for the consideration of the jury was, whether the goods seized were the property of 'fhomas or of Job Altnark ; and where, he would ask, had Thomas Almark any money to buy the property ? To surmount this difficulty, which, doubtless, had presented itself, it bad been stated that he was possessed of money in the Savings' Bank. If this were the case, how easily would it have been to have produced the bank book. If, as had been stated, the property bad been transferred, this could easily have been sl own. He should prove in evidence that up to November, 1843, Job was assessed for, and paid in his own name, poor rates, land tax, and other rates ; that after the goods had be en seized, both Job and ` Thomas went to the collector to get the rates altered to the name of Thomas, and that at the time of the seizure of the property Thomas had asked permission of the officers to take away that portion of the property which belonged to him (Thomas,) and Job said that if he could get the property turned over to Thomas, he would go to law and obtain damages. Witnesses were called to substantiate these statements. Mr. BAINES, in reply to the defendants case, conten ded that the property had been in possession of the plain tiff for years, and that he had brought it with him from Manchester at the time his brother Job left his house at Lindow. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £3O. TRESPASS. KERSHAW V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER. The declaration in this case charged the defendants, Charles and Peter Johnson, with a trespass in the house of the plaintiff, James Kershaw. The defendant pleaded that he had paid £2 into court, and that sum covered all damages. Mr. Watson and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Martin for the defendant. Mr. WATSON, in stating the case, said it was for an unjustifiable trespass, and that done under the colour of the law, and by a person who, being a servant of the law, ought to have observed it. The plaintiff is a retired tradesma n,clnitvtiHngges at a near Rochdale, arid became possessed of several place called Castle-hill Pinfold, near to Rochdale. The elder defendant, Charles John- THE LIVERPOOL son, was inspector and examiner of weights and measures. On the 3rd of January, the son of the plaintiff met the defendants, who said they would go down and examine his father's weights. Young Kershaw informed them that his father had retired from business, and, consequently, there were no weights to examine. Notwithstanding this, the defendants proceeded to the house of the plaintiff, went through various rooms, opened a clothes chest, and otherwise acted in an outrageous and unwarrantable man ner. They at lass discovered a 60Ib. weight, which had been used to keep back a door, and Charles Johnson, on taking possession of it, said, "There is £5 for you," meaning that the plaintiff would he fined that amount by the magistrates. The son of plaintiff interfered, upon which the elder defendant struck him over the face, and furnished a strong walking-stick to his son, with which he severely beat young Kershaw. This assault, however, would form the subject of the next action to be tried. The plaintiff was summoned before the magistrates at Roch dale, respecting the 601 b. weight, but the case was dis missed. The ground upon which the learned counsel sought damages was, that the house of plaintiff was not used as a place of business, but as a private dwelling, and, therefore, the defendants had no right whatever to have entered. The plaintiff's son was submitted to a long examination by Mr. Martin, with the view of showing that the plain tiff's house had been used as a place of sale, but the wit ness would not admit that any sales had been transacted within nine months preceding. Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendants. He admitted that one part of the transaction—the carry ing away of the weight without previously testing it on the premises —was illegal ; with this exception, he con tended the whole proceedings of the defendants were jus tifiable. It was sufficient for his client to show that he was under the belief that goods were kept for sale in the house, and if it should turn out that he had been acting under a false impression, on this point, it was not a case to call for damages, as it had not been shown that any in jury had been done to the property, nor bad it been at tempted to suggest that the defendants were actuated by any vindictive feeling towards the plaintiff. Mr. Martin was about to call evidence, when his Lord ship adjourned the court. His Lordship fixed Tuesday morning for the special jury cases on the first list. The court rose at seven o'clock. CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY. ARSON NEAR WIGAN. Peter Halewood, 43, was indicted for wilfully setting fire to a barn, stable, and a stack of hay, at Upholland, near Wigan, on the night of the 22d December last, with intent to injure Mr. James Dickinson. Other counts charged him with having committed the said offence with intent to injure the owner of the premises, the Rev. Richard Ramshaw Rothwell. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Hutton appeared for the prosecution ; and Messrs. Wil kins and Pollock for the prisoner. It appeared that the prosecutor went to bed about eight o'clock on the night in question. About half-past ten he was awoke by the cracking of the slates. He called up his servants, and succeeded in getting the horses and cows out of the stable and shippon. Two of his servants were up when he went to bed ; one of them smoked. The prosecutor smoked, but had not done so that day, as he was without tobacco. The prisoner, who lived at the adjoining farm, did not as sist his neighbour, the prosecutor, alleging as his reason for not doing so that his wife was in fits the same night, and that he could not leave her. It was proved that the prisoner had been served with notice to quit before the fire took place, and that he had been heard to say there should be a blaze at Dickinson's before Christmas, and that after the fire, he said there should be another blaze before long. Mr. Wilkins then addressed the jury at considerable length, and in most eloquent terms. He contended that the probability of the case was, that the fire was the result of accident only, and not design. The Jury acquitted the prisoner. BIGAMY. John Bacon, 33, was indicted for having married one Sarah Edwards, at Liverpool, during the lifetime of his former wife. It appeared that, in the year 1826, the pri soner was married at Bridgewater, to Hannah Rawles, with whom he lived some time, and had a daughter ; sub sequently he left Bridgewater, came to Liverpool, and joined the police force. About two years ago he paid his addresses to Sarah Edwards, whom he persuaded his wife was dead, and induced her to marry him. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and his lordship sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment in Kirkdale gaol. NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY. TRESPASS AT ROCHDALE-KERSHAW V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER. Mr. Martin proceeded to call witnesses on the part of the defendants in this case. Four were called, whose tes timony went to prove that the plaintiff had sold soap, potatoes, bacon, and other articles in the house entered by the defendants; and that it was, in point of fact, re gularly used as a shop. The Judge, in summing up, told the jury that the only question for their consideration was, whether the sum of 40s. paid into court was a sufficient compensation for the injury done to the plaintiff by the entering of his house by the defendants. The jury, after retiring, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, beyond the 40s. paid into court, £2 10s. ASSAULT-J. KERSHAW V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER. This was an action to recover damages from the defend ant in the last case, for an assault upon Joseph Andrew Kershaw, son of the former plaintiff. After the exami nation of the witnesses, the parties came to an arrange ment, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £2 10s., beyond the sum paid into court. CLAIM AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATOR-POTT AND OTHERS V. BEVAN. This was an action on promises, brought by the plain tiffs, as assignees of the estate and effects of Weatherby and Co., bank t opts, who had been bankers at Holywell, in Flintshire, against the defendant, Edward Bevan. The declaration was for money lent, money paid and re ceived, and upon an account stated as between the bank rupts and John Douglas, and Jos. Sedgwick, deceased. The defendant denied his liability, and issue was joined. The jury returned a verdict for £392, and the Judge gave leave to move to reduce the amount by taking off the in terest. knowing it to be stolen, was found pilty, and it appear ing that he had been in prison on ten previous occasions, the learned judge sentenced him to be ttemiported fur 15 years. Critchlow, who was also niscovete6 to be an old offender, was sentenced to ten years' transpottt+on• FALSE REGISTRATION OF A DEATH. Ann Jones, who pleaded guilty to a charge of causing a false entry of death to be made, was brought up and sentenced to seven years' tranportation. EMBEZZLEMENT AT MANCHESTER. Thomas Stanley Sudloul, 18, a youth of very respect able appearance, was placed at the bar on a charke of having forged a check or order, for the payment of £55 at Manchester, on the Sth of February last, with intent to defraud Messrs. Jones, Lloyd and Co., bankers, and also a person named William Crowther. On the Bth of Feb ruary, the prisoner presented a check at the hank of Messrs, Jones, Lloyd and Co. for £55. Some suspicion was excited that it was not a genuine one, and Mr. Crow ther, the pretended drawer, was sent to, when it was dis covered to be a forgery, on which the prisoner was taken into custony, when he admitted that he had drawn the check himself. Mr. Wilkins said he had no real defence to the prosecution. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth. Mr. Wilkins then called : fir. Patchett, of Chat Moss, who gave him a good character, and stated that he had been to sea for some time. His Lordship then sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and hard labour in the Kirk dale House of Correction. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. BREACH OF COVENANT. HOLGATE AND OTHERS V. KAY. This was an action upon a covenant in lease, brought to recover the sum of £l4O, the amount of two half-years rent of certain p remises in the vicinity of Rochdale. The case resolved itself into a question of title, encumbered by legal technicalities ; and it w a s ultimately agreed that a nominal verdict should be taken for the plaintiff for the damages laid in the declaration, subject to a special case to be drawn up for argument in the court above. - - ACTION ON A WAGER.-AINTREE RACES. FLINT V. SHARP. Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff in this action, which was undefended. It was brought to recover the sum of £6, which the defendant, who is an attorney, had lost in a wager made with the plaintiff upon the Trades mens' Cup, run for at the last Aintree Races. The de fendant pleaded that he had never made the wager alle ged, and in addition he put in a special plea of considera ble length, which was not stated, even in substance, as he did not appear to support it. The wager was proved by a witness who was present and saw it booked by the par ties. The defendant backed " Knight of the Whistle" against " Aristotle,"—taken by the plaintiff at 6 to 4. The " Knight" was defeated by the namesake of the Stagyrite ; but the defendant did not pay the " honoura ble" debt : hence the present action. The Judge refused to grant immediate execution, which was applied for, and in answer to another application to certify it was a proper case to carry costs, his Lordship directed an affidavit of the facts upon which it was grounded to be made in the first instance. ILLEGAL CONVERSION. LILLEY AND OTHERS ASSIGNEES V. BARNSLEY AND OTHER. The declaration in this ca•e was in trover, for illegally converting fifteen copper rollers. The first plea put in by the defendant was one of not guilty, and secondly that the plaintiffs were never possessed. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants. ACTION FOR DEBT. STANWAY AND ANOTHER V. BLAKE. An action to recover £45 14s. 2d., for work and labour done by Edward Cresswell, a bankrupt, in Manchester, of whose estate the plaintiffs are the az-signee ,, , against Thomas Bake, a brewer, in Chorlton-upon-Medlock. The sum of £l5 had been paid into court : and the only question in the case was as to the validity of an I 0 U, given by the bankrupt, in 1841, to the defendant, for £45. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. The court adjourned at half-past four o'clock. ---.1111.--- CROWN COU RT.—S ATU RDAY. ACTION FOR RENT-PAULDON V. SNAWDON. The action was for the recovery of £65, one half-year's rent of a brewery, in Salford, belonging to the plaintiff, which was due in September, 1843. The defendant Pleaded first that he was not indebted ; and next a set off, for instructing the plaintiff's son in the art of brewing and certain repairs, amounting to a sum equal to the present claim. A verdict was returned for the plain tiff. ALLEGED FRAUDULENT PREFEREN CE-ROBSON AND OTHERS V. THOMPSON. and John Norbury, are effects of Thomas Manley, the. younger, a bankrupt, who The plaintiffs, Richard t P hoe wd .s r s e i l g t n fi ee o s bs o o f n, th J e oh e n sta ß t u e t a le n r d , s a a n d t patent he d e n f a e i n l d m a n a manufacturer, u w fa a c s t Johnur er, of James Thompson, iron merc hants, of Wigan. In March, 1840, a fiat in sg busines spartner county a ; Thompson, Commheorplwsyobcne:nrtsr,ui carried d v i o t v h n in i bank ruptcy was issued against Thomas Manley, and the pre sent action was brought to recover the proceeds of four bills of exchange, amounting to £127 18s. 10d., which, it was alleged, were sent by him to Messrs. Thompson under circumstances which constituted the transaction a fraudu lent preference. fhe defence was, that the transaction was a mere exchange of bills, made in the regular course of trade. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The court rose at ten minutes before six o'clock. CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY. RAPE AT BREIGHTMEL. Robert Flaslam, aged 25, was indicted for having com mitted a rape on the body of Margaret Walker, at Breight mel. The jury without hearing the reply of counsel for the prisoner, found a verdict of " not guilty." Mr. Wil kins said that all the persons who had been of the party were in attendance, and would have contradicted all the evidence given for the prosecution. The prisoner was discharged. FORGERY, William Bethell, aged 30, was indicted for uttering a forged acceptance to a bill of exchange for £l7l 75., with intent to defraud William Maddock, and Messrs. John and Thomas Johnson. Mr. Brandt stated that the pri soner, in the course of the year 1812, had a place of busi ness at No. 57, King-street, Manchester, thence he ad dressed several letters to Messrs. J. and T. Johnson, of Runcorn, and obtained from them a quantity of Soda Ashes and other goods, for which on the sth of March, 1813, a bill for £l7l 7s. was enclosed in a letter signed William Bethel. This letter was not in the hand writing of the prisoner, but several other letters written by the prisoner relating to the transaction and referring to the mode of payment, which was to be by bill, would be put in and read. One of these letters contained the particu lars of the bill. The body of the bill was in the hand writing of the prisoner. It was accepted, payable at Messrs. Masterman and Co's, London, by William Maddock and Co., of Beswick, near Manchester. Mr. William Maddock, of Bes.ick, would prove that the ac ceptance was not his, and that he did not know whose it was. The prisoner had married a daughter of Mr. Mad dock two or three years ago, without the knowledge - or consent of the father. On the sth of July, about the time that the bill became due the prisoner wrote to the Messrs. Johnson, stating that there was a misunderstanding be tween himself and his father-in-law, but that would not interfere with the payment of the acceptance, The facts having been proved Mr. Wilkins addressed the jury in be half of the prisoner, contending that there was no proof that the prisoner had uttered the acceptance, knowing it There e t to a t s h e anotherjury, t i h n e d y i e p t o e n n o t u o n t F n ed he similar p ri n s a o t e r e r to have been forged. Hi s L ordship having recapitulated prisoner, b u t i t was not proceeded with, and the aggnai litn e ys v .t id t e i t h e the learned Judge sentenced him to be transported for the term of 15 years. STABBING AT ASHTON. Thomas 3fullineux, 18, was c h arge d with maliciously stabbing Abraham Riley , at Ashton -under-L une on the 17th of January last , with intent to disable or do him so me grievous bodily harm. The jury fou n d hi m guilty guilty to an indict ofme an assault only, but recommended him to m ercy. His Lordship sentenced Castle.AT MANCHESTER. BURGLARY him to one month 's imp r i sonment in hadpleadedburglaryin the h ouse of Mr. John Todd, at Manches ter, and st ealing therefro m a coat containing £lO, and other articles, was sent enced to two years hard labour in Kirkdale. John charging C n k eY' him 22 , with who a Henry Cordell, was indicted for feloniously receiving the above-mentioned coat, knowing it to be stolen. He was found guilty and sentenced to one month's imprison • went in Lancaster Castle RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. John Critchlow, 13, and Thomas Cooley, 17 , the for mer indicted for stealing Wearing apparel from the house of James Howarth, at Manchester, pl ea d ed guilty, and the latter charged with receiving part of the property MURDER OF A CHILD BY ITS MOTHER AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE OF THE PARENT. Ann Rothwell, a decently-attired female, of the age of 24, was given in charge for the wilful murder of her son, Edwin Turner, otherwise called Edwin Turner Rothwell, at Prestwich-cum-Oldham, on the 29th of December last. Mr. Brandt, with whom was Mr. Pickering, conducted the case for the prosecution; and, at the instance of Mr. Gibbs, the Governor of Kirkdale prison, who represented that the impoverished circumstances of the prisoner ren dered her unable to employ counsel, Mr. Wilkins kindly and promptly undertook the defence. Mr. BRANDT briefly stated the case. He said, the grievous offence with which the prisoner was charged was that of having administered a poison, called laudanum, to her own child, a boy upwards of two yeaas of age, who was called Edwin Rothwell, that being the name of the prisoner's husband, who was still living, though, for the last two or three years, she had been living at Oldham with a man named Turner. Towards the latter end of the last year Turner left Oldham, taking with him the furni ture of the house ; and, after he had gone, she fell into a state of extreme depression of spirits, thinking that she had been abandoned by the world, and it was while she was in this state of desperation that she administered to herself and her child the dose of laudanum, whish she had previously purchased at two or three druggists' shops in the town. The circumstance that she administered the poison depended, in a great degree, on her own acts of ad mission, accompanied with the fact of her having pur chased the poison, and of her having written the following letter to her sister, at Manchester, shortly before the oc currence : " Oldham. " DEAR SISTER,—I write to let you know that Charles has dons his utmost. He has belied me, and now left me destitute. I can't beg, nor yet see my child starve. If you will come to-day you will find me and Edwin a corpse. You must get a wire to lift the latch. See you have tickets. Farewell! "To Mrs. M`Lean, Manchester." The only difficulty in the case would turn upon the point as to whether the jury should be satisfied that the child bad died of the effects of laudanum •, and this difficulty would be occasioned by no traces of the poison having been discovered in the frame. Congestion of the brain had been discovered ; but, as that might have been pro duced by apoplexy as well as laudanum, the case would require careful sifting, in order to enable the jury to ar rive at a correct conclusion. Mary Leech was examined by Mr. PICKERING, as fol lows :—I am the wife of Josiah Leech, a hatter, at Old ham. The prisoner was lately living at Oldham, in the company of a person named Turner. On Thursday, the 28th of December, about two o'clock in the afternoon, the prisoner came to our house with her child. Her child was about two years and a fortnight old. His name was Edwin. She went by the name of Ann. The child at that time appeared in good health. After having remained about an hour, she sold me the child's chair for sixpence, twopence of which I handed her. She then went away. On the following day, about half-past two, she called again, but did not bring the child with her. I asked her where the child was, and she said he was asleep. She appeared very cheerful at the time •, so cheerful that I thought she must have heard something of Turner, the man with whom she had been living. I asked her if she had heard of him, and she said not. I then paid her the remaining fourpence for the chair, and said, " Ann, I heard you sent your sister a letter : is that true ? " She replied, " Yes • and when she gets it, if she has any love for me, she will come through fire and water after me.'! Turner removed his goods from the house where the pri soner lived on St. Stephen's day. Mary Crompton, examined by Mr. BRANDT.—I am wife of William Crompton, and, in the latter end of Dec. last, lived nearly opposite the prisoner. Between eleven and twelve o'clock on the night of the 28th of December last, I was passing her dour and heard the cry of a child from the room above. It seemed to be an ordinary cry. On the evening of the next day, I saw the prisoner near her door, and spoke to her. I asked her where was her child. She said it was asleep. I asked what it was laid upon, and she said, on her petticoat. I asked whether it had had any thing to eat lately, and she said, " Oh ! yes." I saw a man on the prisoner's stairs at the time. His name is Nivett. Between eight and nine o'clock the same night I heard an alarm of the child being dead, and, on going to the house, I saw that they were walking the prisoner up and down the room. Cross-examined.—She appeared very much dejected when I spoke to her. Joseph Nivett examined.--I am a hatter, at Oldham, and, about four o'clock in the afternoon of the 29th of December last, I went to the prisoner's house with two men, of the name of Cheetham and Crompton. The pri soner was there at the time. I did not see the child. There was not any furniture in the house. I then left, but returned about seven o'clock the same evening. The prisoner let me in, and I went up stairs. I went into the chamber. There was no bed in it, and the only light in the place proceeded from a miserable fire in the grate. I saw something lying on one side of the fire-place, but said nothing about it. The prisoner said nothing about her child. She appeared down-spirited and sick. A man named Chapman and a woman came to the door while I was there. The woman asked where was the child, and the prisoner replied that it was asleep. The prisoner then wanted me to stop while Chapman went away, for she said she thought he was going to bring some disgrace upon her. I stopped until after he was gone, and then I left. I was only about twenty minutes in the house altogether. The woman who accompanied Chapman was the witness Crompton. John Smedhurst examined.—l am a hat-finisher at Oldham, and knew the prisoner. She lived with Turner as man and wife. She brought a letter to my house on the 28th of December, and asked me for a pen and ink with which to direct it. She said she had written the body of the letter with a pencil. She directed it, and then said that she had directed it badly, as her hand trembled. She gave me a black-lead pencil, saying, that she should not want it again. She had the child then with her. She said, •` Charles (meaning Turner) will be much surprised when he comes to know the contents of this letter." She left the house, saying, that she would take it to the Post-office. (Witness here identified the letter.) She came to my house upon the following day, about half-past two, and desired, that if her sister or any female came I should show them where she lived. A female, named Ann Winterbottom, was present, who asked ler where the child was. She said she left it asleep. The same night, about nine o'clock, Charles Turner came to my house and asked me to go with him to the prisoner's place. I went, and Turner, having procured a light, went up stairs, I followed in about six minutes after, and saw the child lying in a corner of the room. Turner, in the mean time, came down, and went for a doctor. I heard the prisoner say that she was a ruined woman, and that she had done for herself and the child. Sbe seemed very poorly indeed, and was leaning against the wall. I She was evidently in pain and great distress both of body and mind. Cross-examined.—She was a paftiettiarly fond mother. There was nothing in her house, except the shawl or petticoat on which th e c hild lay, and nothirig to eat, ex cept a bit of sapped bread in a pan. David 11I'Lean examined.—l am the grm of John Nl,Lean ; and, an the 29th of December last, I received a letter by the post, about five in the morning. 1 live in Manchester. (The witness then identified the letter.) know it by a blotch. I took it to my mother ; aed my brother William read it and gave to my father, who told me to take it to my brother Wellington. I did so. Matthew Wellington M`Lean examined.—l live in Man chester, and know the prisoner very well. I married her sister. She was married to a man named Robert Roth well. He is living still. She has been living with a man, named Turner, for about three years. The child, Edwin, was the offspring of that illicit intercourse. When I re ceived the letter from the last witness, I read it for Tur ner's father and brother. I met Charles Turner about seven o'clock the same night ; and he read it by the light of the gas. He said he believed the contents were true ; and he and I accordingly went by the first train to Oldham. On arriving at Oldham, we called at Smethurst's, where we procured a light ; and, while we were getting a light, the prisoner opened her chamber window and asked, in a low tone of voice, who was there. No answer was returned, but Turner went in. I remained at the door. In a short time Turner, as if in pain, called out to me, " 'Wellington, come and help me." I r ushed up , and sawthe child in his arms and the prisoner falling on the floor. Turner said, " My child is dead." I felt it, and it was, quite cold and dead. It was wet about the mouth, as if it had been vomiting. I raised the paisoner up, and asked her how long it bad been dead. She mentioned some hour : I be lieve it was half-past three. She seemed very wretched and wild, and labouring under great mental and bodily suffering. 1 asked a woman who came in to procure some warm water and salt, with the view of administering it to the prisoner, to cause her to vomit. Turner then went out for a doctor; but, before he did so, he asked the pri soner to forgive him, and she did. There was some bread and water in the can, and a little dry bread and sugar on the ground. The prisoner was on her knees sometimes, her eyes were downcast, and she was weak and heavy. In a few minutes Turner returned with a doctor. I then left, and shortly after the prisoner was taken away in a coach. Cross-examined. — l only visited her once in Oldham. That was about two months before the murder. I never thought that the child would live long, as its head was large.. I often said its head was too heavy for its body. I cannot recollect that it was in the habit of turning up its eyes in such a manner as that the whites only ap peared. Ever since her father's death the prisoner has been affected in the head. Her father hanged himself. To the Court.—She used to sit for hours in our house and never speak a word ; and sometimes she was for weeks without speaking a word, except to say that she would wish to follow her father. She also wished several times that she was at the bottom of the river which runs close to our door. Charles Turner examined.—l am a hat. finisher, at Old ham, and know the prisoner. I have been living with her for three years. I knew that she was a married woman at the time, and that her husband, Rothwell, was living. I had a child, Edwin, by her. On the day after Christ mas-day I sold off the furniture of the house in Oldham and went to meet the prisoner in Manchester. I• never saw her there. I remained in Manchester four days, but never saw her until the 29th of December. When the witness. Wellington M`Lean, showed me the letter before referred to, I was very much alarmed, and proceeded to Oldham with Wellington. When I went to the prisoner's house, I called out " Ann," and received no answer. It was quite dark at the time, and. after I had procured a light, I went up stairs, placed the candle on the cornice, and clasped her in my arms. She was in a terrible low, dejected state, labouring under mental and bodily suffer ing. She said, "Charles, I forgive you, lam a ruined woman." 1 caught up the child, who was lying by the side of the fire, and found it cold and dead. The prisoner said she had vomited before. _ _ The witness, in cross-examination, stated that he fre quently thought the prisoner was not right in her mind, she talked so incoherently. John Brumley, a police officer, deposed to finding a bottle in the prisoner's room on the 29th of December, with the words " laudanum" and " poison" on it, and that when be found the bottle he said, "Why, Ann, you have poisoned your child, she said "I have, I have given it laudanum," Three druggists then deposed to the prisoner buying laudanum at their respective shops on the 28th and 29th of December. _ John Rountree examined.—l am a surgeon, at Old ham, and, on the 29th of December last, I went to the prisoner's house aboui nine in the evening. I found her walking aboat, supported by two men, apparently drowsy and sleepy. with a singularly wild expression of the coun tenance. I gave her an emetic, and applied the stomach pump. From what came off the stomach I could not per ceive any smell of laudanum. I had to inject warm water before I could produce vomiting. From her general ap pearance, I imagined that she was suffering from the effects of laudanum. Her feeble and drowsy state would be produced by a dose of that kind. When laudunum produces death it is said to cause congestion of the vessels of the brain, or in other words, a fulness of the vessels. When laudanum is taken in a liquid state it is speedily absorbed in the system. I could not depend upon the smell as a test in cases of the kind. The absence of smell is no proof that laudanum has not been taken. I saw the body of the dead child on the same evening. It appeared to have been dead some hours. I made a post mortem examination on the body the day after, with Dr. Murray and Mr. Dulkelly, a surgeon. There were no marks of external violence. The body, externally, was plump and healthy. It appeared to be a fine child. There was nothing remarkable about the size of the head. I opened the ab domen, and found the viscera apparently healthy. There was no appearance of inflammation. I opened the cavity of the chest, and the heart and lungs appeard healthy. The vessels of the brain and its membranes were gorged with blood. Congestion of the brain was the immediate cause of death. Cross-examined.—l never attended a case of death produced by laudanum or want of food. Spasm of the stomach might produce vomiting. The worst form of fe ver is sometimes produced for want of sustenance. Such form of fever is sometimes accompanied by delirium and wild expressions of the countenance. I cannot tell the remote cause of death in the present case; and, if I had not been told of the circumstance about the laudanum, I could not account for death except from natural causes. Re.examined.—There were no traces of delirium about the prisoner when I saw her, neither were there any symptoms of fever. She looked thin, pale, and haggard. 1 gave the stomach to Mr. Davis, the chemist, of Man chester, Dr, James Murray examined.—l am a physician in Oldham, and assisted the last witness in a post mortem examination. The immediate cause of death was pressure on the brain, arising from congestion. John Davis examined.-1 am a lecturer on chemistry at Manchester, and have paid attention to the chemical analysis of laudanum on the human body. According to the best authorities, the effects of laudanum may disappear in four or five hours. I examined the stomach of the child in this case, and could not find any trace of laudanum, Wellington M‘Lean was here recalled, and, in reply to Mr. Wilkins, stated, that when the prisoners father hang ed himself, ten years ago, the verdict of the jury was "insanity." The case for the prosecution having been closed. Mr. WILKINS eloquently addressed the Jury for the defence, contending all through that there was abundant evidence to show that the prisoner was not the mistress of her own actions, and that there was no proof of her having caused the death of her child. His LORDSHIP commenced his charge by compliment ing Mr. Wilkins for the ability he had displayed in the management of the defence; and he then went on to say, that the two questions in the case had been very correctly put: namely, whether poison had been administered, and whether the child died of its effects ; and next, whether the party accused laboured under such a disease of the mind at the time of the administration, if they should be satisfied on that head, as did not render her amenable to the law. The jury, after an absence for about half on hour, to the surprise of many present, returned a verdict of not guilty. BURGLARY IN WHITECRAPEL. Richard Johnson, 20, pleaded guilty to a charge of having burglariously broken and entered the dwelling. house of Lewis Heyman, at Wilitechapel, Liverpool, with intent to steal his goods and chattels. RAFE AT BURY. William Tingley, 38, was indicted for violently assault ing one Catherine Smith, at Bury. After the prosecutrix had been cross-examined, the Jury thought it unnecessary to proceed, and the prisoner was accordingly discharged. HIGHWAY ROBBERY. Robert Drries, 23, James Hurst, 29, and Thomas Ma ther, 29. were indicted for having feloniously stolen from the person of Henry Worsley. at Ince, in Macclesfield, one Bank of England note for twenty pounds, six Bank of England notes for ten pounds, one Bank of England note for five pounds, three sovereigns, and ten shillings. The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of guilty. Davis and Hurst were sentenced to two years imprisonment and hard labour, and Mather to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour. The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. TAE BURY WATERWORKS COMPANY V. BENSON. In this case, which was extremely complicated and un interesting, the proprietors in the Bury Waterworks Company sought to recover damages from Mr. William Benson, an engineer and lind-surveyor in that town, for carelessness and negligence. The declaration stated, that the defendant, being employed by the plaintiffs as an en gineer, to measure the work of the contractors who had made a certain reservoir, had measured carelessly and negligently, by reason of which the company were called upon to pay a greater sum than they ought . to have paid. The defendant pleaded first the general issue, and, se condly, that £37 had been paid upon account of the al leged damages and neglect. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain tiffs ; and Mr. Martin and Mr. Seager conducted the case for the defendant. it appeared that in 1837—5, an act was passed to sup ply the town of Bury, i n this county, with water; and the company were empowered to collect the water in a re servoir, to be made at a place c called Spout-house. The d e fendant was employ ed as engineer in the formation of this reservoir, at the remuneration of five per cent. upon the nett outlay ; and the allegatton against him was, that n ot only had he allowed one of the contractors, named Chadwick, to charge the company a considerable amount beyond what was . due to him, but bad permit ed it to be paid, and also received his own per centage upon the amount. Chadwick contracted to make the embank ments for the reservoir at 6d. a yard. The work done to be measured every fortnight, and two thirds of the value of the litr6rk done to be paid for. Chadwick, also, was to make wittrt is called "the pitching," at is. 3d. per yard ; and, by a verbal agreement, subsequently made, Chad wick agreed to carry the embarkment two feet higher than was originally specified, at the rate of Bd. a yard. The work was completed in 1840 ; and, in making it amount to £1,277 4s. NJ. certifying as usual to its correctness. The account was paid in 1812. The company contended, upon investigation, that they had aid £252 too much, supposing that they were liable for the embankment and pitching only ; and, even supposinc , they were liable to be charged for extra work, they had been over-charged to the amount of £l3O. The principal question, with regard to the measurement of the embankment, related to the lav of the land before the work was commenced, the defendant contending, that, for the purpose of satisfying the owners of the adjoining fields, the soil had been removed, the em bankment then made, and the soil brought back, so as to form a level surface of good land. As to the extra work, it was a question of measurement into which many details entered. There was a variation in the results arrived at by the surveyor, and some remarks were made upon the hardship of the work being re-measured after the expirati on of four years from its completion. The cage was not finished at the rising of the court at ten minutes to seven o'elock. DEDICATION OF THE NEW JEWISH gyNA- GOGUE, PILGRIM-STREET. We need not dwell long now upon the origin of this building : any one may easily conjecture the true cause that gave rise to it, after hearing Dr. Raphall's exhorta tion, which was, that they (the Jews) should practice forbearance and love to each other, and forget whatever might have passed. The ceremony of dedication of the above synagogue commenced about five o'clock yesterday evening week (March. 25th), in the following manner :—The wardens brought the Pentateuch scrolls to the door of the syna gogue, where they stood under a canopy, and announced themselves by exclaiming, " Open unto us the gates of righteousness : we will go into them, and we will praise the Lord." The doorkeepers immediately opened the gates, and the bearers of the scrolls entered, saying, " How goodly are thy tents, 0 Jacob, and thy taberna cles, 0 Israel. Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thy honour dwelleth. We will go into thy tabernacles ; we will worship at thy footstool." The reader then turned his face to the bearers of the scrolls, and said, " Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him and bless his name. 0 come, let us worship and fall down : let us kneel before the Lord our maker. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing." Then all the congregation ex claimed, " 0 come, let us sing unto the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation." The procession with the scrolls then proceeded to the aron, or ark, whilst the charm:, or reader, with the choristers (who were invited from London), sang, " Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord : we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord." The procession then cireumambulated seven times the bimah, or reading-desk, with the scrolls, and the choir chanted a psalm during each circuit : during the first circuit, Pa. 91 ; timing the second, Ps. 30; during the third, Ps. 24; dating the fourth, Ps. 81; during the fah, Ps. 122 ; during the sixth, Ps. 132 ;. during the seventh, Ps. 100. Then the persons forming the procession divided themselves into two lines, one on each side of the ark ; and the choir stood in the middle, with their faces towards the ark, and sang the 29th Psalm. The last in the procession then placed the scroll which he held in the ark, and was fol lowed by the rest, who then took their seats. Dr. Ra phall (who was invited from Birmingham) then delivered a lecture ; after which a beautifUl ode was chanted, which was composed by the RPv. Dr. Herschell, father to the late Dr. lierschell, Chief Rabbi of England. The fol lowing is the paraphrase of one verse :-- " I have not lost my cherished hope, That glorious day to see, When, owning my Redeemer's power, The world, with bended knee. Shall view our strength revived, our land restored, The grand fulfilment of thy mighty word." A list of the contributors was then read, and a blessing pronounced upon each donor. Then was sung a lyrical hymn, composed by Professor H. Hurwitz. Over the ark are inscribed the ten commandments, on tablets of black marble; and underneath is inscribed the following rabbinical maxim—" Be aware in whose presence thou standest." On the parocheth, or veil before the ark, which is of rich velvet, is an elegant magain David, or a representation of the shield of David, and contains in the centre the word Shadai," Almighty," and over the ma gain David is inscribed Kodesh Layehovahr " Holiness unto the Lord." There is an incident connected with the parocheth which ought not to be omitted, as it will serve for an illustration of the kind feelings which exist between the converted and the unconverted Jews, even on the part of the latter. The yiarocheth was ornamented and decorated by a converted Jew in this town (Mr. J. Herbert, jeweller), and the inscriptions on it - are his own design. Whilst it is true that the rise of a new synagogue amongst God's ancient people suggests most gratifying reflections to every believer in Israel's God and in his Holy Word, as it shows the increase of Abraham's race, in the contemplation of which we are led back to the gra cious promise made to that patriarch, that his seed should be " as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore," and as it also demonstrates that they are animated by more zeal in the service of God, &c., still it is equally true that there are painful reflections connected with that synagogue, which cloud all the interest with which a believer in God's divine revelation watches Israel's movements. A very painful reflection arises from the circumstance, that the Jews have not only built here a new synagogue, but that they still retain their old Prayer Book, which contains so many soul-destroying supersti tions, as has been shown in a work lately published by Mr. Margoliouth, entitled " The Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism Investigated." Another melancholy reflection is because of the tardiness of the Christian church, and one is ready to exclaim with the prophet , Jeremiah, " Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by ? It is to be regretted that the spiritual welfare of the Jews is so sadly neglected at present in this town. There is no missionary to them here—nay, not even a tract distri butor. At the annual vestry of the inhabitants of Tranmere, held at Tranmere Church, on Monday last, Mr. William Stuart and Mr. John Quigley were appointed overseers of the poor ; Mr. Samuel Routledge and Mr. Samuel Jones, surveyors of the roads; Mr. William Courter and Mr. Charles Woodcock, assessors - Mr. John Henshaw, Mr. Richard Gibson, and Mr. William Sharpe, consta bles; Mr. William May and Mr. Courter, auditors of accounts. Mr. Courter called the attention of the.ameet ing to the propriety of publishing the accounts of the township, which was agreed to. JUSTICE TO IRELAND.—The liberals of Liverpool bad a meeting at the Amphitheatre, on Thursday evening, for the purpose of assailing the government in reference to the late conviction of the O'Connell conspirators in Dublin, and the suppression of the monster meetings in Ireland. As some opposition was expected, there was a numerous attendance, and hundreds were unable to get admittance. The speakers were the gentlemen who usually take the lead at radical gatherings, Mr. William Rathbone being in the chair. An address to the Great Agitator was adopted, and he replied t considerable length. All passed off quietly. A large sum of money must have been col lected, as there was a charge for admission at the doors. FRAUD.—A new species of artifice has just come to our knowledge; against which we feel it our duty to put the public on their guard. It is well known that Messrs. ROWLAND and SONS have, by a series of labours and highly successful experiments, succeeded in discovering and preparing for the toilet, articles which have obtained a universal reputation all over the world. Some vile and unprincipled imitators, destitute alike of honour and of talent, have conceived the nefarious idea of fabricating articles, resembling those of Messrs. ROWLAND'S, and by adopting the very same names and closely copying the advertisements and bills, endeavour to pass off their trash to the public under the name of Real MACASSAR OIL for the HAIR, or KALYDOR for the COMPLEXlON—articles which, as prepared by Messrs. ROWLAND, are universally preferred and esteemed. The only mode for the purchaser to avoid the imposition, and escape the baneful effects which their vile counterfeits will infallibly produce, is to inspect, with great care, the bottles and labels, agreeably to the directions in Messrs. Rowland's advertisement which appears in another column. DEATH OF HOWQUA.—This great Hong merchant died at Canton, on the 4th September, aged 75. Howqua was once a poor lad, of humble origin, and obtained his living by vending oranges in the streets of Canton. By his in dustry, skill, and attainments he amassed immense wealth, became Senior Hong merchant, was made a Mandarin, and died the richest man in China. Whilst these and other circumstances secure Howqua a page in the future history of China, his name, in connection with Captain Pidding's—the one as the compounder, the other as the importer of a famous mixture of Teas, well known as " Captain Pidding's Howqua Mixture"—will be remem bered in Europe whilst an individual remains capable of appreciating this delicious beverage. Howqua was by na ture gifted with a noble mind, and early showed himself imbued with a strong sense of justice and commercial li berality. Davis, the Hon. Company's supercargo, after speaking of his liberality and wealth, in his evidence be fore a committee of the House of Commons, states that, " If ally Tea bought of Howqua turned out in England inferior to sample, he compensated the buyer by giving him two chests for every one inferior.' Practising such uprightness himself, he despised a commercial fraud in another. It was therefore with feelings of just indigna tion, that he in his latter days saw his name abused and that in England, a country where men boasted of their commercial honour and integrity, all kinds of spurious teas, no matter how, where, or of whom procured, were fraudulently sold under his name—by parties too, as he would say, who, though as profoundly ignorant of China as of him—having never crossed the great ocean, nor breathed the pure air of the celestial empire, or felt its transforming influence, knowing only in the practice of deceit, and big to bursting with ready lies—yet audaci ously professed to have had dealings with him. Howqua could never understand how, in a country where, if a man forged another's name on a scrap of paper for only 50 dollars, he was condemned to be hung, it was yet permit ted him to affix another's eminent name on goods to any extent and of any quality, however fictitious, to get a sale for them, and yet go unpunished. Peace be to your manes, Howqua; you were a good and a great man. It is well for the fair consumers at home—and fairest of the fair, Victoria—that the secret of compounding tue mixture did not die with him. Howqua, himself highly talented and enterprising, admired these qualities in others, and form. ing an early friendship for Captain Pidding, then a young but aspiring officer of a Company's ship, who had succeed ettin rendering him some essential personal service, im parted to him the secret of compounding his mixture, the celebrity of which, under the title of " Captain Pidding's Howqua's Mixture, " has since made both names so fa , mows."—Canton refis, !sted, from pos ition, Ems' ndOnt !d to aish a cle 7ould their rould xran r the rould iem and r ee ueeu Her fter iouS Y. --- t tea era s, tO S iS ,gage' be )133 , n ite t to 4 tO si lefi ti it no l ° 6 tO