The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-09 00:00:00

t was necessary to uphold his . chsraoter and honour in con sequence of the insult the defendant had put upon him; therefore he sent his counsel into court to boast of his valour and ardour in the field, and then he commences a civil action. But he had instructed his learned friend to say that he felt desirous of going into the transaction during the lust twelve months. His lordship, as he was in duty bound, refused to admit that, as it would be a waste of the public time. He (Mr. C.) then offered to refer the matter to any gentleman of honour who would go into all the circumstances; but the prop osa l was me t w ith an emphatic " Nonsense,'' alleging that he wanted a public inquiry. Why could not the result of the inquiry have been published ? But the de fendant wanted a salve to the wound which the horsewhip had inflicted, and that, forsooth, was to be a passport into respectable company. But his learned friend had said he would have been pointed at as the man who had been horse whipped had he not brought the present action. Why, conk: he not be pointed at after the trial was over as the man who hadbeen horsewhipped and who had got oneshilling damages ? It was also said, unless he brought the action he would not be considered a man of nerve, and might thereby lose patients, afraid, he (Mr. Cresswell) supposed, lest his hand should tremble and he should prick a wrong vein. (Laughter.) It was said, oh ! but he was desirous that the whole particulars of the transaction should have been inquired into. There was a mode besides the one he (Mr. Cresswell) had pointed out, and which his learned friend had refused. He might have indicted Mr. Forshaw, and then he could have come into the witness-box, where he could have told the whole story himself, and where he would have been cross-examined, so that a full account of the whole transaction would have been brought before the public. He said he had brought the action to save his honour, not his pocket. He (Mr. Cress well) thought he showed no such desire. He told them, however, that he brought the action to vindicate his honour, because he had been struck with a horsewhip. It was clearly proved that the whip was not used for the purpose of inflict ing any bodily injury ; for the witness had told them it was the smallest he ever saw. He boasted of being a man of great personal courage, and this was done merely for the purpose of exciting his Personal courage ; but instead of doing so, he had brought the action. The defendant was com pelled to put two pleas on the record, and he (Mr, Cresswell) was glad he ,had done so for it succeeded in causing them to call two witnesses, one of whom had given an account of the whole transaction, with which he was satisfied. A blow was inflicted—the porters interfered—a policeman was sent for, and the defendant was taken before a magistrate. What occurred there? What was to prevent the whole of the circumstances from being then heard, and the magistrate from deciding? He had a twofold jurisdiction on such cases, and had power to give damages for trespasses of that kind to the amount of £5. But this man of valour—this man of spirit—of nice honour — he who fought and bled for his country, whether for himself or others did not appear, in order to maintain that courage got the defendant tied hand and foot in order that he might not break the peace. What was the conduct of the plaintiff before the magistrate ? When the case was about to be set tled by him he said " No ; he would not have the defendant whitewashed in any such way." Now, suppose a person had sent a challenge to another, and in consequence was bound over to keep the peace, what would be thought of the indi vidual receiving the challenge if he were to insinuate that after he had sent the challenge, he procured the party to whom it was sent to be bound over, in order to shirk the conse quences of it? Would he not wait until the period of his recognisances expired, and then go to him and tell him he was then free. that he came to inflict a personal chastisement on him, not with a view of injuring him, but in order to com pel him to take that course which the laws of honour in this country require. The learned gentleman concluded by ob serving that, under all the circumstances, the case was not one in which the defendant had conducted himself in an unbecoming manner, and therefore it was not a case in which damages ought to be given against him. The learned JUDGE summed up the case briefly, telling the jury that their verdict must be for the plaintiff, but they had to fix the amount of damages. It was one which he could not think they would treat properly were they to treat it as one which ought not to have come under their consideration. The jury retired, and after being out of court some time, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £2O ; costs, 40s. Two other short causes were tried, one of which was unde fended, and the court rose at a quarter-past six. CROWN COURT—THURSDAY Mr. Justice Maule took his seat at 9 o'clock BURGLARY Robert Anderton, 45, [the man who was acquitted on Friday last on the indictment which charged him with the wilful murder of John Colton, as reported in the STANDARD] Margaret White, 27, and Mary Brown, 22, were placed at the bar on an indictment charging Anderton with a burglary in the house of Richard Stopforth, residing near Wigan, and the two females with feloniously receiving a portion of the stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoners were undefended. The burglary, it appeared, was committed during the night of th 20th July last, but no clue was obtained to lead to the detection of the robbers until the police were occu pied in searching after the murderers of Colton. They then found the whole of the stolen property in Anderton's house in Manchester. The two female prisoners received some small portions of it from Jane Roberts, who lived with him as his wife, after Anderton was apprehended. The evidence, es pecially as against Mary Brown, depended upon Jane Roberts —the woman who refused to give evidence against Anderton, on the indictment for murder, and for which the learned judge sentenced her to six months imprisonment. Her evi dence, however, was found to be very different to what she had previously sworn before the magistrates. His LOBD SHIP ordered her to be sent back to prison, and an indict ment for perjury to be preferred against her. One part of the evidence against Anderton was obtained from a statement which he had made when he was apprehended on the charge of murder ; but the clerk to the magistrates having sworn that before the prisoner made the statement, he had told him it might be used for or against him at his trial, the learned JUDGE, on the authority of a decision of Mr. Justice Cole ridge, excluded the statement. The burglary, however, was completely prcved. Anderton was found guilty, the other two prisoners were acquitted. Mr. BRANDT said that there were several other indict ments against the prisoner Anderton, in which other parties were implicated as receivers, havin g had some of the stolen articles given to them, but as they were not like the ordinary cases of receiving, be would not proceed with them. The JUDGE, however, directed the learned counsel to pro ceed with some of the o th er i n di c t men t s . ivr.r • BRANDT immediately assented. The prisoner was then indicted for entering, in the daytime, the house of Mr. John Johnson, at Pemberton. One of the articles stolen from this much lls the which so coat with rounded skirts, concerning Jane Roberts wa was said on the prisoner's trial for murder. received the coat was again called, and she stated that she had Bakeley. j o h n a) Anderton, and gave it to a man named were also charged Blakeley, Mary 'Brown, and Jane M'Gowan property. The in the indictment with receiving the stolen ately found Anglenry acquitted all the receivers, but immedi rton guilty. The CLERK of the COURT then called upon him to say why sentence should not be passed upon him ? hav Te mercy upon him. The Learned JUDG E then addressed him. He had been co nvicted of two o f the many crimes of which he undoubtedly had been guilty according to his own statement, which had been given in evidence upon his trial for murder the other day , when he h a d one of the most narrow escapes that ever man had upon, such a trial. Although he (the learned judge) found no fault w i t h t h e ver di c t o f the jury, who must judge for themselves in matters of fact, yet nobody could entertain much doubt that he was deeply involved in the murder of the deceased. According to his own statement, that very even ing he w as out w i t h Elijah Rowe, in order to murder Mr. Part, who, fortunately for him, slipped past while he (Rowe) was speaking with a woman. Their intention was to blow Mr. Part's brains out with a gun ; and he (the prisoner) had further stated that he had leagued with Rowe to murder a Mr. Fletcher, and to commit several other crimes. It did appear, therefore, that he had been guilty of the most atro cious crimes ever brought before the court. The probability was that he was present at the murder of Colton, and most likely his was the hand that destroyed the unfortunate man. He would also have murdered Mr. Part if Mr. Part had not, by extraordinary good fortune, got out of the way. The Prisoner here interrupted the learned judge, and gave a long account of what, he said, had taken place between him and Rowe relative to the intention to shoot Mr. Part. Rowe said, when he saw Mr. Part, " There is the man that com mitted me to Kirkdale ; I'll be d—d if I don't shoot him ;" and he (the prisoner) said " No." The JUDGE said that was a very different story to that which he had told before the magistrates. It was very clear that he had been in constant communication with Rowe just about the time of Colton's murder : he was, upon his own confession, a murderer—a man carrying on the trade and oc cupation of murder; housebreaking was a familiar operation to him, and, in short, he had been guilty of as many crimes as would furnish a calendar of themselves for a moderate sized county. He was fortunate in having escaped by the verdict of the jury—a result which he (the learned judge) thought was not very likely—the consequences of murder ; and he supposed in the whole kingdom there was hardly one person existing who would not have thought—whatever he might think of the punishment of death generally—that he (the prisoner) merited it. If there ever was an atrocious criminal who deserved to be put away from society, it was him. For tunately for him his life had been spared ; and though he was not subject to the punishment of death for the offences of which he had just been convicted, he entreated him to spend the remainder of his days in repentence for the sins he had committed. The sentence the court would pass upon him was the severest the law permitted for the crime of which he had been convicted ; it was next to the punishment of death. He must leave this country which he had polluted with his crimes, and spend the remainder of his days in a foreign land, under the severest restraint, and where, if he committed any future crime, he would suffer the penalty of death without the smallest eh.... of mitigation. He must be transported for the term of his natural life. MANSLAUGHTER Daniel Simmons, 50, (who had been out on bail,) was charged on the coroner's inquisition with having killed and slain John Livingstone, at Liverpool. No evidence was offered on the part of the crown, and the jury, of course, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. CHARGE OF RAPE John Tobin, . 19, was indicteil fo7l;iving, at Walton-on the-Hill, feloniously ravished and carnally known Mary Ann Campbell, on the 26th December last. Several witnesses were examined, one of wh om was a sur geon; after whose testi mon y the jury said they were satis tied, and the prisoner was acquitted. SHEEP STEALING. John Fitzpatrick, 20, James Smith, 28, and Ann Keenan, 28, were indicted for having feloniously stolen one she e p, t h e property of James Hockenhall, of Prescot. Dr. BROWN prosecuted. The evidence was to the effect that the male prisoners had killed the sheep, which was in a field, during the night, and carried the carcase into the,fe male's house, where a portion of it was afterwards found concealed in the chimney. The prisoners were found Guilty, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment each. RETURNING FROM TRANSPORTATION. Edward Oakes, who had on a previous day pleaded to an indictment which charged him with having returned from transportation, and being unlawfully at large, was brought up for judgment. The CLERK OF THE COURT asked the prisoner, in the usual form, whether he had anything to say why judgment should not be passed upon him ? The Prisoner replied; that he had every opportunity to escape, and if any person had been placed in the same cir cumstances, they would have done the same. It was not his fault that he had escaped, for he was not looked after as he ought to have been, neither was he aware that in g oin g away he w as committing a crime, or he certainly would not have done so. He hoped the court would have mercy upon him, and allow him to return to his own country once more. The JUDGE.—You have pleaded guilty to this indictment, which charges you with the offence of having been unlawfully at large before the expiration of the period for which you were sentenced to transportation. You say you did not know that it subjected you to very severe punishment : but it does, and to one in which the court has little or no choice as to its limits. The reason the legislature had for making such a law as that, when people are sentenced to transporta tion for seven years, or any other limited period, they may know that, by escaping, they not only may be, but must be sentenced to transportation for life. You say if you had known of it you would not, have escaped. Everybody is supposed to be acquainted with the law ' • and if any man, who has been sentenced t o t ransportat i on for seven years, or a shorter period, and is found at liberty, without lawful ex cuse, in this country, whether from ignorance, or whether he has been negligently kept or not, the court before whom he is tried must pronounce the judgment ordered by the act of parliament. The aot of parliament adjudges for this of fence transportation for life, and imprisonment in gaol for some term, not exceeding four years : therefore whe n any person has done wh a t y ou have done, however natural it may be, he must be transported for life, and he may be imprisoned for four years. All the discretion which the court has is, not to transport for life, or for a shorter term—for they must transport for life—but to imprison for some time. There may be some imprisonment, but not for more than four years. Therefore I can only sentence you to transportation for life. The learned judge -added a few other remarks, at the close of which he sentenced the prisoner to transportation for life, and that previously to leaving the country he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six months. PERSONATION OF A VOTER AT THE ELECTION FOR ABERCROMBIE WARD, William Thompson was indicted for a misdemeanour, in having, on the 2d of November last, personated a burgess named William Thompson, entitled to vote in elections for Abercrombie Ward, in the borough of Liverpool, in respect of his occupation of a house in St. Andrew-street. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Starkie and Mr. Crompton appeared on the part of the corporation of Liverpool, by whom the prosecution was instituted. Mr. SNOWBALL, the defendant's attbrney, applied for the trial to be postponed for a short period on the ground that the briefs were in the hands of Mr. James, and that the learned counsel had gone away. The JUDGE said he could not help that ; the case must proceed. - After the delay of a few minutes, Dr. BROWN said he had just been instructed to appear on the part of the defendant, and that, owing to the very short time he had had for prepa tion, he was under the necessity of requesting the witnesses to retire from the court. Mr. CROMPTON then opened the case. This was an in dictment against William Thompson, and it charged that, on, the 2d November last, there was an election for a coun cillor to represent the municipal ward of Abercrombie in the Town Council, which came on duly before the alderman and assessors ; that there was a burgess named William Thompson entitled to vote in that election ; and, that the defendant went before the alderman and assessors and voted in that name.—The indictment was three yards long. Mr. STARKIE then stated the case to the court and jury. They had heard that this was a charge of having personated a voter of the name of William Thompson, who was a bur gess of Abercrombie ward, and had the right to vote, but that the defendant had not such right. Mr. Thompson was ill in bed at the time the defendant pretended he had a vote, and he actually gave a vote in a false name, and by a false paper. This was'a proseinition instituted by the Corpora tion of Liverpool, and their object in bringing it was merely to prevent the repetition of offences of this nature, and be ...se if laws for the registration or - Voters in elections were not observed, they would become useless. On the 2d of November last—the first being the Sunday—the elec tion came on for a councillor for this ward : there were two candidates, Mr. Todd and Mr. Proctor. and there was a person named William Thompson, a dairyman, in St. Andrew-street, who had a right to vote. The defendant came with a paper purporting to be a regular vo ting-paper for a councillor for Abercromby-ward, and by virtue of that paper his vote was received. It was afterwards found that he was:not William Thompson the voter, but that he had personated that William Thompson. He (the learned counsel) apprehended, therefore, that the defendant had committed.a misdemeanour in exhibiting that false and forged paper, and also personating the voter under false pretences. It might perhaps be said that he was acting under a mistake. He (the learned counsel) however should be able to shew that he could not be under a mistake, for the year before he had done the same thing, and upon that occasion, when he was remonstrated with, he appeared very sorry, and promised not to commit the like offence again. Under these circum stances he was at a loss to conceive how that plea could be set up. The defendant must have known that, under the corporation law, every man who voted must first pay his rates, and that he paid none. Mr. Thos. B. Barclay was the first witness. He said — I am the alderman of Abercombie ward, in this town, which returns three councillors. On Monday the 2d of November I presided at the election of one councillor, with two asses sors, Mr. Hindle and Mr. Atkinson. I remember in the course of the morning a person named Wm. Thompson ten der a vuting paper; there was no objection to him, and he voted. The paper produced is the voting paper, and when be produced it witness put his initials upon it. Mr. Hindle said lie was an attorney, and acted at the last election for Abercrombie ward as one of the assessors, along with Mr. Barclay and Mr. Atkinson. He recollected a voting paper brought by some man ; Mr. Atkinson took it. I don't know that I saw the man who brought it; I received it from Mr. Atkinson. The papers were just placed on a file, and when they had accumulated they were put in a wooden box. The man voted between nine and half-past nine in the morning. Mr. Barclay recalled—The paper was tendered about half past nine o'clock. Cross-examined—There were a great many voters at the time ; but I can tell at what time this paper was produced, because it was the 35th in No. Re-examined—l believe that no other Wm. Thompson voted. Mr. Atkinson said that he was the other assessor. He remembered seeing the voting paper presented, but did not see the man. No other Wm. Thompson presented himself to vote. Thomas Lockwood.—l am a surgeon and a burgess of this borough. I attended the election on behalf of Mr. James Proctor. Mr. Thos. Todd was the other candidate. I had a burgess-roll in my hand. I have known the defendant twelve months ; he used to reside in St. Andrew-street, Abercromby ward. He is a shoemaker. I saw him on the day of the election, at the polling booth, about half-past nine, put in a voting paper. 1 looked into the burgess-roll, and while I was doing so the vote was recorded, and the man disappeared. Mr. Robertson Gladstone and Mr. Bushell, the other two representatives of the ward, were there, and I said something in their presence, in consequence of which they went away. I have known William Thompson nine y ears ; he is a cow-keeper living in St. Andrew-street, and a burgess. I have examined the rate-book. _ _ Cross-examined.—Mr. Proctor was the tory candidate, and Mr. Todd the whig. It was not a close run. The putting in of the voting paper by the defendant was done in a moment. The JUDGE asked under what section of the act these pro ceedinzs were taken ? Mr. CROMPTON said under the common law necessarily, as the three questions imposed by the 37th section of the municipal act had not been asked. Jane Thompson said she was the wife of Wm. Thompson, cowkeeper, in St. Andrew-street, in Abercromby-waid. They had lived there for seven years. Witness had paid rates for the house. On the 23d Oct. her husband was taken ill, and remained so for three weeks. On the 2d Nov. he was not out of bed. The defendant is a shoemaker ; ten or eleven months ago he lived opposite to witness's house. She had known him for some years. Thos. Atkinson, plasterer, said he was a burgess in Aber cromby-ward, In 1837 he was upon one of the committees for conducting the elections in that year. A few days Paler that election he saw the defendant at his own door in St. Andrew's-street, and asked him if he had voted for Mr. Henry Ripley ? He said he had. Witness asked him how he came to vote when he had no vote, and he replied, they told me to vote. Witness told him he had subjected himself to an action : he expressed his sorrow for having done so and promised not to do so again. He said he was told he had a vote; and when witness reminded him that he could not have a vote without his rates were paid ; he said he knew nothing about that. Witness has known William Thompson, cowkeeper, for ten years. Cross-examined.—The conversation witness had described took place at the door, and he had never said it occurred in the lobby. There appeared to be a rail there which was so made as to form a lobby.—After the cross-examination had continued for some time, The JUDGE said, if this lobby did not lead to something more important than it seemed likely to do at present, there was no use in continuing the cross-examination. William Thompson, cow-keeper, living at N 0.34, St. An drew-street, said he was confined at home by illness on the 2d November last. The voting-paper produced was not signed by him. The signature to it is like his writing, but it is not. Cross-examined.—The defendant's house witness thinks, in St. Andrew-street, opened into a house-place. It had no lobby. Mr. Christopher Bushell said he was one of the represen tatives of Abercromby-ward in the town-council. In con sequence of what he heard, he and Mr. Robertson Gladstone went to the house of the last witness, and found him in bed dreadfully ill. Mr. Thomas Ellerton, tax-collector, for Abercromby and Rodney-street districts, proved that Mr, Thompson, cow keeper, of St. Andrew -street, had been a rate-payer for seven years. He did not know William Thompson the defendant. He was not a rate-payer. Witness produced the rate-book signed by the magistrates to prove these facts. By the JUDGE. —If there had been another William Thompson in St. Andrew -street, witness would have col lected the rates from him for the last seven years. Mr. Wm. Tyson produced the burgess roll of the borough for 1839, from the Town-clerk's office. William Thomp son, cow-keeper, St. Andrew-street, was upon the roll, and there was no other Wm. Thompson in the same street. Mr. STARKIE said this was the case for the prosecution. Dr. BROWN submitted that his learned friends had not proved that Abercromby ward was a ward according to the provisions of the municipal corporation act. They ought to have proved this, as the indictment alleged the borough was divided into wards. Mr. CROMPTON said this objection referred only to the three first counts. _ Dr. BROWN said he would refer then to the 4th count, which charged a fraud against the corporation, but it had not been proved a corporation under the municipal act. The JUDGE aftera short argument overruled the objection. . Dr. Du, w N awn prcrceeaen to acutress the jury for the defendant. The learned counsel contended, in the first in stance, that by the act of parliament the payment of rates up to the very time of voting was required, and that there was not the slightest evidence of that having been fulfilled by Mr. Thompson, cowkeeper. The JUDGE corrected the learned counsel. There was ample proof of that fact in the testimony of the collector. Dr. BROWN then proceeded with his address, and con tended that, from the evidence before them the jury could not be justified in finding that the defendant had purposly committed any fraud. Before they could come to that con clusion they must be satisfied that the defendant was the man who gave in the voting paper, of which fact he considered there was the merest tittle of evidence. There was no evi dence that the man, whoever he was, who presented the paper, affected to say that he was Mr. Thompson, cowkeeper ; and, indeed, the only testimony against him on this point was that of a zealous partisan. The learned counsel concluded by telling the jury that the questions they had to decide, by the evidence which they had heard, was first, whether the defendant was the person who delivered the voting paper, and next, whether he did so with an intention to personate any other man. The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, recapitulated all the principal points In the evidence. The Jury immediately found the defendant Guilty. The JUDGE asked the counsel for the prosecution whether they moved for judgment ? Mr. STAaKIE said he did not wish to press for any severe punishment. 14Ir. BUSHELL requested permission to observe to his lord ship, that one strong feature in favour of the defendant was, that he had made the personation so early in the morning : it was at an hour when, in point of , fact, there was no con test. Dr. BROWNE replied, if that was so, it was a hard measure to prosecute at all. Mr. BUSRELL.—I had no hand in it. Mr. STARKIE called the attention of his lordship to the fact, that the hand-writing on the voting paper was nearly the same as that of Mr. Thompson. The JUDGE. —What are the circumstances of this man? Dr. BROWNS.—H e is a working shoemaker. Mr. CROMPTON.—The recommendation, my lord, comes from a political opponent. The JUDGE.—WeII, we can hardly carry the spirit of a municipal election throughout the year. His lordship then addressed the defendant. He had been found guilty of the oflence of personating an elector, and no doubt that was an offence which must be Prevented by law. There was one fact, however, in his favour, which had been very kindly stated by Mr. Bushell, which was, that at the time be went to vote there was no contest expected. Mr. BUSHELL.—There was a contest, my lord, but at that hour in the morning it could not have gone so far; the con test would have been stronger late in the day. The JUDGE.—That he understood; and one vote at that time might not make much difference. But the defendant appeared to have had a warning before, from the gentleman who had given an account of what passed with him at' the door, and he ought to have attended to what he said, instead of voting in 1840. The people of Liverpool were, from what he (the learned judge) had seen of them, a great deal too in telligent to allow any one to believe that a person working in a respectable station as a shoemaker, was deficient in ge neral information. He could hardly think that the defen dant could be so very ignorant as not to know that no man could get put upon the burgess roll without he had paid the rates. That, indeed, was a sort of thing to which the people had paid great attention, and grumbled about, as the defen dant must have known. He certainly, however, had not personated anybody whose description he did not answer; and he might have had a notion that he had a kind of right, as being William Thompson, of St. Andrew-street, to do anything which the other William Thompson had a right to do. It was not, therefore quite so aggravated a case as if he bad called himself John . Brown, of Hunter-street, or any other name upon the list not his own. Persons who did that kind of thing must be severely punished. lie, however, had been very leniently dealt with. The party opposed to, and which prosecuted him, desired to recommend him to mercy. Still he (the judge) said there must be a punishment, that might tend to deter him from repeating this, or anybody else. The sentence of the court was that he must pay a fine of ten shillings, or be imprisoned a fortnight. The money was immediately paid, and the defendant re leased. At a quarter-past five his lordship commenced trying civil causes. There now remain only two criminal causes to be disposed of, one of which is a rape, and the other the case of bigamy which excited so much attention in the beginning of March. They will be proceeded with this day, immediately upon the return of the judges from divine service. (Before Mr. Justice NIAULE.) LEE V. QUIRK AND ANOTHER The defendant in this case was in trover, and the action was brought to recover the value of sixty sacks of wheat which had been entrusted to the defendant. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiff; Mr. Tomlinson for the defendant. The plaintiff is a corn merchant, in the Isle of Man, and the defendants reside in Liverpool. They are the owners, among other vessels, of a smack called the William, which regularly traded between Ramsay and Whitehaven. The wheat in question was sent by the plain tiff by the vessel to his agent in Whitehaven, and when it arrived there the vessel upset whilst in dock. The wheat was damaged so much by the action of the water—that the plaintiffs and his agents refused to receive it, and the action was brought to recover £ll7, the value of it. A commission had been issued to examine witnesses in the Isle of Man. An objection was raised to the reception of the evidence under that commission by Mr. Tomlinson, on the ground that it directed the commissioners to make a return of the questions to, and answers of, the witnesses, whereas the return merely included the answers. The Learned Judge said he would reserve the point, and would give the learned counsel leave to move for a nonsuit.—After a long hearing, the jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £ll2 10s. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY. Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock this morning. BRINDLE WILL CAUSE. - MIDDLETON AND OTHERS V. SHERBURNE Mr. CRESSWELL, shortly after his lordship had taken his seat on the bench, handed up to him a copy of that morn ing's Liverpord Mail, and said, " I beg to call your lord ship's attention to an article in that paper." The article in question was a leader containing some observations on the special jury case fixed for trial that morning, and seemed to have caused no ordinary degree of excitement amongst the gentlemen of the bar, especially those retained on the side of the defendant. Mr. Baron Rolfe read the article, or a por tion thereof, and then returned the paper to Mr. Cresswell. The learned gentleman remarked, on receiving it, " I think this is a case for the Attorney-General, my lord." This special jury case was appointed to come on this morn ing. The following gentlemen composed the jury :—John Swire, Liverpool, merchant ; Robert Wynne, Livirpool, merchant; John Wilson, Toxteth-park, merchant; James Jackson, Liverpool, merchant; William Nicholl, Liverpool, merchant; Samuel Dutton, Liverpool, merchant; John Caton, Toxteth-park, merchant ; Atkinson Wilkin, Liver pool, merchant; John Hamilton, Toxteth-park, merchant; Walter Marten, Liverpool, merchant; Francis Ja2gues, Li verpool, merchant; and Charles R. Simpson, Liverpool, merchant. The counsel for the plaintiffs were Sir William Follett, Mr. Dandas, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Cowling ; for the de fendant, Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Murphy. A long consultation took place, after the jury were sworn, between the counsel on both sides, for the purpose, most probably, of trying whether some accommodation could not be effected. This having failed, Mr. COWLING opened the pleadings. In this case, John Francis Middleton, and his wife Alicia Maria, and Thomas Eastwood, and his wife Catherine, were the plaintiffs, and the defendant was Mr. Thomas Sherburne. The case came down here by writ of inquiry from the equity side of the Court of Chancery, to ascertain whether William Heatley, the testator, who was seized of certain freehold lands in this county, did, in February, 1829, by a written paper purport ing to be his will, devise those lands to certain persons, and whether by a second written paper, purporting to be a codi cil, and dated the 12th of Auiust, 1835, he devised his lands ; and whether by a third written paper, dated the 2d of January, 1836, purporting to be a codicil to his will, he de vised his lands; and the first question to be determined was, whether the testator did really devise those lands ; secondly, Whether by the paper written purporting to be his will, he did devise them ; thirdly, and fourthly, whether by either of the papers purporting to be codicils to his will he devised them. Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT requested that his lordship would direct all the witnesses in the case to leave the court. This was accordingly done, and a great number of persons rose and went out. Mr. CRESSWELL then proceeded to open the case for the defendant. He said that he had the honour to appear in this case as counsel for the Rev. Thomas Sherburne, who, though the defendant in this issue, yet had the burthen of proof cast on him. He had to establish that the late Wm. Heatley, being of competent understanding, and exercising a free will, made a last will and testament, by which he de vised certain lands. The jury would perceive at once that this was a question of very great importance to all members of the community, because it was an inquiry as to how far the right of every man in this country to deal with his pro perty after death should be interfered with or not. The plaintiff Mr. Middleton, and the plaintiff Mr. Eastwood, married two nieces of the late Mr. Heatley, and he by his will and codicils left to his two nieces property worth about £40,000, and to Mr. Sherburne his real property, worth about £10,000; and because Mr. Heatley thought fit so to deal with his property, the husbands of his nieces had now called in question his competency and free agency in making the will. It would therefore be necessary, in order entirely to clear Mr. Sherburne's character from any supposed mal practice, to vindicate his reputation, and not to leave on it the slightest stain, to refute all those calumnious reports which had been so industriously circulated, some of which had been circulated by Mr. Eastwood himself, as would be proved in evidence. He (the learned counsel) should call on the jury to pay particular attention whilst he traced the personal history of the late Mr. Heatley from the earliest pe riod to which the memory of his friends went back, down to the period of his death. By so doing he felt the utmost con fidence that he should prove the testator to haye been a man not only of competent, but of more than competent under standing. He should also plove him to have been a gentleman of excellent feeling, of good disposition, and of generous heart, but at the same time firm of purpose, choosing to judge for himself, and to act according to the dictates of his own judg ment ; and he should show ample reason why the testator should think fit to judge for himself, and if any other were wanted than that desire to deal with his own according to his individual judgment, it would be found in the conduct of those very parties who now sought to call in question his judgment and the exercise of it. Mr. Heatley died in the summer of 1840, at the age of 75 years, having during that long life bought and sold and managed his property as he thought fit—having mortgaged, having transacted business of every kind; and he descended to the grave in 1840, no one of his acts having ever been called in question, up to that period, on account of his want of judgment; and now, after such a life thus spent, so occupied with business of every description —aye, and during the last three or four years of it in company with Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood—the plaintiffs brought against him a charge of being a drivelling, half-witted, priest-ridden man, labouring under insane delu sions, and making a will, not from his own judgment, but under the duresse and control of others. The testator, Mr. Wm. Heatley, was the son of Mr. James Heatley, who was for many years the land steward of Lady Stourton. By care, prudence, and some fortunate speculations in land, for which his situation as steward gave him good opportunities of effect ing, the father amassed, for him, a considerable property. His son was sent to school in this eountry for a time, and after wards to a college at Douay, to finish his education there ; and on looking through tne different imputations cast on the testator, or rather the different stories by which it was sup posed his competency was affected, they found that he was not correct in his orthography ; so because a gentleman born in the last century, and educated in a foreign country, did not spell English words correctly, he was to be pronounced incompetent to make a will. Having returned from Douay, Mr. Wm. Heatley entered the Lancashire Fencibles in 1835, and served inthe regiment, holding the situation of captain, being sometimes in England and sometimes in Ireland, down pretty near to the time of its being disbanded, in 1803 or 1804. In the meantime his father had died; this was in the year 1798. Before his death Mr. James Heatley had pur chased the property called Brindle. That was the property of which he remained in possession up to the period of his death. He left a widow, who had a jointure on the property, a on and two doors. One of the daughters died unmarried, and the other married a Mr. Taylor, an attorney, and some time time a deputy clerk of the peace. Mr. Taylor died in tgog, leaving a widow and three daughters, when the pro perty was divided equally between the three children, and Mr. Hartley was appointed one of the executors under the will. A Mr. Stoner, a nephew of Mr. Taylor, was another executor. At this time the testator and his mother lived at a place called Barton Lodge, not far from Brindle, and three daughters of Mr. Taylor were taken home with him. They were afterwards sent to school; but from time to time passed their vacations at the house of Mr. Heatley. Things went on in this way until about 1817, when the young ladies were brought home from school. But in the meantime, Mr. Heatley, having become possessed of his father's property, resided at Barton Lodge, because the house at. Brindle was a bad one. The testator, however, thought proper to build a new one at Brindle; and he (Mr. Cresswell) should show that he took great pleasure in this, and superintended the works in their-progress. The house erected, together with its conservatories, &c., was erected at an expense of from £lB,OOO to £20,000. It might be well that at this stage he (the learned counsel) should show the extent of the property devised by Mr. James Headey to his son William, because he could not help thinking that a great deal of the imputa tion cast on Mr. Sherburne had arisen from some false sup position as to the extent of the property which Mr. Heatley had acquired from his father. In consequence of the haste with which this case had been brought to trial, they had been discovering from day to day fresh papers, almost down to the hour at which he (the learned caunsel) was speak ing; and they had lately discovered an account of the pro perty of the father, which was given by his then steward, Mr. Teeby. This account showed what the property of Mr. James Heatley was, and what would be the proper return for him to make to the income tax. The total rental' was set down ; the payments that every tenant had to make to him ; there was also put the interest of money paid to Mr. Heatley, and there were traces elsewhere that there were certain promissory notes in his hands which would make £27. The profits arising from your commission in the militia," amounting to £l6B was entered • and the whole income was made out t o b e £2476. "The yearly value of your own estate in your own hands, £3O, and one-fourth added," because, probably, it was thought that the estate might have let for so much more, making £37 10s. Then, on the other hand, were put down all the out-goings, amongst others, his mother's jointure, amounting to £867, leaving a clear income of .£1647 3s. 6d., which was given in £1650, on which the steward observed—" You will have to pay £165, or 10 per cent." This return showed that the out-goings consisted of a number of rents; for a good deal of the pro perty which the testator's father left to his son consisted of leasehold estates, which would necessarily decrease in value as the lives fell out, and ultimately there would be an end of the leasehold estate which he had obtained. And there was here a little trace of the spirit which Mr. Heatley showed throughoughout life—a spirit of kindness, generosity, and charity—for there was set down in the return, " yearly gra tuities to the poor, £100." He (Mr. Cress well) happened to know an eminent merchant in London, certainly not under any priestly dominion, who laid by for the same purpose £lOO a week. So that at this period Mr. James Heatley was in the possession of £1650 a year. Such was the amount of property received by the testator from his father—not a property descending from remote ancestors—not a property as connected with which there might be supposed to be any feelings of family pride. but a property made in his vocation of land steward, for some successful anticipators of the rise or fall of land in the market at the time. The testator then hav ing received this property in this state, thought fit, as some men not very young, but young enough to have anticipations of pleasure, frequently did, to build the house at Brindle, before mentioned. Whether that cramped his means, and he thought he would try his father's art of speculation, he (the learned counsel) did not know ; but in 1820 he sold a con siderable portion of landed property to Mr. Brockholes, and a most excellent bargain he made. The property consisted of 1400 acres, held on lease under the Duchy of Lancaster. • The lease had been renewed from time to time without in creasa, and it seemed that Mr. Brockholes had purchased under the impression that he would be allowed to renew on light terms. For that sale the testator received £58,000. The bargain turned o u t a h a d one for M r. B roc kh o l es, f or when the lease ran out he had to renew on bad terms. This was no great proof of want of judgment, foresight, or intelli gence, on the part of Mr. Heatley. in the management of his property. He (the learned counsel) would now mention the circumstances under which the testator became acquainted and intimate with Mr. Sherburne. While Mr. Heatley was living at Barton Lodge, in 1808, the Rev. Mr. Sherburne went to reside at Bla c kburn, as an officiating priest. The name of Mr. Sherburne's mother was Irving, and the chil dren of Mr. and Mrs. Irving were then living in that neigh bourhood. The father died, and the widow afterwards mar ried a person named Swarbrick, the butler of Mr. Heatley. He became the patron of the children, and sent them abroad to receive their education. One of the brothers, resigning the name of Irving, became a priest, and was sent to officiate at St. Andrews, at Valladolid. The defendant also gave up his mother's name, and went to Blackburn. In the course of the year 1808 the testator went to reside at Brindle Lodge, six miles from Blackburn, and there commenced a most intimate friendship with the defendant, which continued down to the period of Mr. Ileatley's death. In 1813 Mr. Sherburne removed from Blackburn to a place called the Willows, 13 miles from Brindle Lodge, and though the esteem and friendship continued unabated, the intercourse was less frequent than it had been before. Things remained in this state when the Misses Taylor, who were now Mrs. Eastwood and Mrs. Mid dleton, with their sister Henrietta, came from school. Mr. Heatley was a gentleman of retired disposition, and accord ingly he never accompanied his nieces to any places of amuse ment. But " every one to pursue his own _liking" was his I maxim, and he had no objection to their going into company with a proper person as their guide. They were accordingly, under the conduct of Mrs. Stoner, introduced into many fa milies in the neighbourhood. In the house of Mr. Willacey, who lived at Barton Lodge—(whether this was the Barton Lodge formerly occupied by the testator he could not say)— Miss Catherine Taylor first met Mr. Eastwood, and there this gentleman first conceived an attachment for her. There were circumstances connected with the Eastwood family which made Mr. Heatley averse to the addresses of Mr. Eastwood being paid to his niece, and he showed coldness, but did not attempt to controul the affections of the young lady. Miss Taylor thought fit to judge for herself, and she accordingly married Mr. Eastwood. Alicia Taylor, or Mrs. Middleton, countenanced her sister in forming this alliance —it being no uncommon thing for one niece to support the other in opposing what they considered the tyranny of an old uncle. The consequence was something like a quarrel, and Mr. Heatley declared that if his niece did marry Mr. East wood, they should not be married from his house. Mr. Sher burne, as a friend of the family, was appealed to, and his good offices requested to bring about a change of mind in the tes tator, and induce him to consent to the marriage. Mr. Heatley kept his ground, and Mr. Sherburne offered the young ladles an asylum in his house. The three went to the Willows, and afterwards to Lytham, and there Catharine Taylor was married to Mr. Eastwood. There had been from first to last an endeavour on the part of Mr. Eastwood to obtain and to hold every farthing of money that he could get into his grasp. This was made apparent in a letter dated May 1, 1818, addressed by Mr. Eastwood to Mr. Sherburne, in which the writer intimated that he must have the whole of Miss Taylor's property, real and personal, and that he would settle on her £lO,OOO. After his death, the property was to be divided amongst his children as he thought fit. The mar riage was solemnized soon after. and though Mr. Heatley would not allow it to take place from his house, he, as soon as it was over, was perfectly desirous to be on friendly terms with his niece and her husband, and even invited them both to come to luncheon at his house, as they returned from church. And although through life he exhibited great firmness of purpose, tells them that as to the dis posal of his property he would exercise his judgment, yet he ever manifested to them every kindly feeling. In the fol lowing year Mr. Heatley went to Rome, and, as pretty good evidence of his capacity for managing his property, he (the learned counsel) should lay before the jury a series of letters which the testator had addressed from that city to his land agent, Mr. Teeby. These letters were then read by Mr. Cresswell, who afterwards remarked, that he was sure the jury would be of opinion that in 1819, when the testator was in Rome, he was as competent to dispose of his property as any gentlemen in England. Alicia Taylor was subsequently married to Mr. Middelton. The third daughter, Henrietta, was married to Mr. Dease. an Irish gentleman. Each of the young ladies had a fortune of about ten thou sand pounds. Mr. Sherburne, in 1822, left England, by order of his superior, to take charge of St. Andrews, in Valladolid, in lieu of his deceased brother. He remained in Spain till the autumn of 1825, when he returned to England. In that interval Mr. Heatley had made his first will, of which they had obtained possession ; and it would be found that at that period, when the testator could be no otherwise than in the full vigour of his intellect, when there was no trace of suspicion that he was not a free agent, when the nieces were in England, and Mr. Sherburne was at Val ladolid, he made a will much more favourable to the defen dant than that which the plaintiffs that day sought to im peach. The whole of this first will was in the handwriting of Mr. Heatley, though it was very likely, from the language of it, that some lawyer was prepared to give him a sketch of it. It would be found, however, that Mr. Heatley was rather proud of his legal knowledge. Mr. Cress well read the will. It was dated the 21st day of April, 1821, and gave to the testator's niece, Alicia Middleton, £6OOO ; to his niece Catherine Ann Eastwood, £6000; ar,d bequeathed all the remainder of his real and personal estate to his faith ful friend the Rev. Thomas Sherburne, alie,r Irving, late of the Willows, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, as his own proper estate for ever. Mr. Sherburne was con stituted sole executor of the will, which was witnessed by three persons, one of whom was Mr. Teeby, the land-agent of Mr. Heatley. An incident at this time occurred which might account for the testator then making his will, and for his thinking that £6,000 was a sum large enough for his nieces. Mrs. Dease had shortly before died in France. It would appear, from the correspondence that he should read respecting her affairs, that Mrs. Dease had had left under her control the larger share of her property. By the mar riage settlement her husband was entitled, in the event of there being no issue, to £l5OO only ; and it would be found that one of the gentlemen, Mr. Middleton, who now talked of practice in the making of a will, suggested to this dying lady the propriety of leaving the property under her control, not to her husband, but to her two sisters —that she acted on his recommendation—that he him self made the will, and that under this will, just before the period at which Mr. Heatley had made his will, Mrs. East wood and Mrs. Middleton were entitled to divide all the re versionary interest of Mrs. Dease, after her death, with the exception of £l5OO. Thi s might work in two ways on the mind of the testator. It might put him in recollection of the common fate of mortality, and suggest the propriety of his then making a will, and the fact of his nieces having ob tained between them the greater portion of their deceased sister's fortune, might make him think that he should be dealing handsomely by them if he left them £6,000, which, added to their fortune of £lO,OOO, and a moiety of the pro perty of their sister, would make altogether a fortune of £20,000. In the will of Mrs. Dease, Mr. Heatley was con stituted the executor ; but he declined the trust, thinking that the will was one which was likely to involve him. He perhaps thought that the circumstance of his nephew having made the will would lead to litigation, and he -desired to be excused from undertaking the office. Mr. Dease, the widower, wrote to Heatley, requesting him to act, and stating that it was by the desire of his late niece that he had been named executor. Mr. Heatley then consented to act. Mr. Cresswell then proceeded to trace the personal history of the testator during this period by his correspondence. He observed that it had been discovered, in ransacking for papers for this cause, that the testator carried on a trade in Manchester goods, which appeared to have been known only to himself and the person acting as his agent. The letters read were extremely numerous, and some of them, as Mr. C. remarked, exhibited a strain of deep piety, though nothing like an approximation to bigotry, snperstition, or slavish dependence upon priests. They also showed that Mr. H. was munificent, though courteous in his charities— that he was fond of active exercise and field sports, that he was mixed up in county business, and that he was a s h rew d and far-seeing man, of whose perfect competency to manage his affairs there had never been the slightest doubt. Mr. Baron ROLFE here interrupted Mr. Cresswell, to say that if the learned gentleman, from physical incapacity, should not be able to go on with his statement for the whole day, all other cases must be in readiness to be proceeded with. Mr. CRESSWELL thanked his lordship, but said that with ten for m inutes' reayt sat one o' c l oc k , he thought he could go on e whole d. Mr. DUNDAS took this opportunity of asking his lordshi whether the special jury ca se fi xed for Monda would come on at the appointed time. y The Learned JUDGE could not tell. He hoped that on Saturday his brother Maule would be able to take civil causes, and a great deal must depend upon circumstances. His lordship added, that there were 56 cases in one civil list re maining for trial. Mr. CRESSWELL then proceeded with the documentary part of the case, tracing the history of the testator from the year 1826 to 1833. 01 the immense mass of letters read, it would require several columns to give even an outline. They showed that in November, 1826, Mr. Heatley, (who was an old batchelor, and to restore from the annoyances and discomforts of keeping up an establishment,) made an offer to his niece, Mrs. Eastwood, of Brindle Lodge, and the lands belonging thereto, a property which had cost him £30,000 or £40,000, on condition that she should reside on the mansion, and pay to her sister £l5O annually. The same offer had previously been made to Mrs. Middelton, and refused; and it was now also refused by M rs . E astwood, who pleaded that her husband's finances were not in a con dition to enable her to live in a style that ought to belong to such a residence, and to continue the mu nificent charities of the testator. Mr. Heatley kindly com bated their arguments, and pointed out that she could limit her benevolences to the extent of her means, but the generous offer was refused with many thanks. Mrs. Eastwood, how ever, proffered to go with her husband and family to Brindle Lodge, and do all in her power to make her uncle comfort able ; " but," said Mr. Cresswell, " if one thing could have been more uncomfortable than another, to a man like Mr. Heatley, anxious to rid himself of the cares and annoyances of a domestic establishment, it must have beers to have su peradded to his establishment the wife and children of ano ther person. He would not take a wife of his own ; how, then, should he like to take that of another man, to hector over him in his own house ?" wou bI I speak ld for myself," said the learned gentleman warmly,; eg in the s t reets f or a living rather than do it. ' A courteous reply was sent by Mr. H., who was surprised that the offer of a house which had cost some £20,000, with 120 acres of freehold land, and lease hold land besides of the value of £ lOO a - year, should riot b e thought worthy of acceptance. He 'begged that the matter might be altogether forgotten, and that they should continue on their former friendly terms. In March, 1827, Mr. Heatley wrote to Mrs. Eastwood, intimating his intention that he should continue to reside at the lodge ; but that, as some re pairs were needful, and he wished them to be done in his absence, and, moreover, as he wished to have an excuse for ridding himself of some of his domestics without injuring their characters, he should take an out for some time. Mr. Heatley mentioned that if the season had been more ad vanced, he should have gone to Lytham or Blackburn ; but the weather would not suit for a visit to a watering place, and he had th ere f or e fixed upon going to Mr. Sherb-urne's, at the Willows. Thither he accordingly—staid some time — then paid a visit to Lytham, at the direction of his physi cian, and returned to Brindle Lodge, after being absent about four months; for his next letter to his niece was dated "Bi indle Lodge, August 25. Several letters followed on the subject of a visit of Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood to the tes tator at his house, which, after having been fixed to take place shortly, was declined on account of some offence taken by the niece, who thought that the tone of the invitation was not sufficiently cordial. The next and most prominent sub ject of this voluminous correspondence had reference to the testator's disposal of his properry. It had been ascertained b) Mrs. Eastwood, or suspected by her, that her uncle had no intention of leaving the whole of his property to his whether a perso n wou ld b e nieces ; and after the question, justified in disposing of his property otherwise than to his direct heirs, had formed the subject of conversation at the table of Mr. Heatley, it formed the subject of a long and somewhat angry correspondence between the niece and her uncle. The letter stoutly maintained that he had a right to dispose of his own property in any way he thought fit, and declared his determination of doing so ; and the former in sisted that the estate was the property of her grandfather, and ought in justice to descend to the next heirs. To com bat this doctrtne, the niece had recourse to argument ; this was ineffectual ; and she then had recourse to scripture, pointing to the 27th chap. of the book of Numbers, which, she said, shewed what the will of God with regard to inherit ance was. Tha testator replied to this by urging that the Mosaic law and ceremonial had been superseded ; but the niece still urged her point with great ability and resolution, and put it to her uncle whether he could conscientiously dis pose of his property to strangers, when he had near and dear relatives, direct heir to the estate. In this emergency, he had recourse to several divines of the Catholic church, who coin cided with him in opinion that a man might justly divert a portion of his personal property from his lineal descendants. Mrs. Eastwood contended that she bad received an opposite opinion from eminent divines, and boldly avowed that her uncle would be committing an act of great injustice by de privinF her and her children of their " just and natural right' to inherit what she termed the paternal estate. Ul timately, when Mr. Heatley, with firmness but great mild ness, adhered to his opinion, she resorted to threats, and said that if he car tied out his intentin lie would be placing his soul in jeopardy. The Rev. Mr. Sherburne- was written to by the testator, when the correspondence began to as sume a theological shape, and a letter of M rs . E as t woo d' s was enclosed to him, with instructions to answer it firmly but mildly, and suggesting :he topics to the rev. gentleman. Mr. Cresswell remarked that if it should be contended that all the letters to the niece were not the productions of the testator, this to the defendant must be conceded to be his, and it showed that Mr. H. was a man capable of coming to a free and independent judgment, and one who was resolved not be guided by others in his own affairs. In the course of this correspondence Mr. H. plainly told his niece that neither she nor her children should in herit his property, meaning thereby, as was afterwards ex plained, the whole of his property, w hi c h was w h a t was claimed by Mrs. Eastwood. This determination was re peated, in cooler moments, on two subsequent occasio ns . A partial reconciliation took place between the uncle and niece towards the close of 1832, the former having requested that the subject of their long dispute should be altogether and for ever dropped. On New-year's day, Mr. H. sent Mrs. H. a new-year's gift, which was gratefully and kindly acknowledged. In the following June, the testator sent to a son of Mrs. Eastwood a present of £50., to pay for his board at college during the next year. This generosity, instead of being received in the same spirit as that of the preceding New Year's Day, called forth from Mrs. Eastwood what ap peared to be a very ungracious reply. She said that it was impossible to regard this as a kindness done to her or hers, since her uncle had declared that he looked upon her as an indifferent person, and as one who was eager to obtain pos session of his property. The oldargurnent was then renewed, and Mr. Heatley replied by stating that he thought the mat ter had entirely dropped on both sides, and that the Book of Numbers was no more to be referred to. He begged that he might no more be troubled with so unpleasant a topic. Mrs. Eastwood, however, was not disposed to be compliant. She wrote to Mr. Heatley that the subject was distressing to her ; but she hoped that he would pause before he did that which would risk the salvation of his precious soul. "My temporal interest may suffer," she added, " but it may be a stepping-stone to that happiness which we hope to enjoy hereafter." The niece afterwards com plained that the estrangement between her and her uncle had been caused by the interference of a third party (Mr. Sherburne), hinted that the determination of Mr. Heatley as to the disposal of his property, was the result of the advice of that third party, and concluded by saying that a priest never interfered in family concerns without betraying both parties for whom he was interested. This accusation was indig nantly denied by the testator; he cautioned his nieece against giving utterance rashly to caluminous stories ; de clared that he had acted under no dictation from any one, but that his intention as to the disposal of his property, was the result of his own unaided and free judgment. Mr. Cresswell then said that at this sta g e of the proceedings it was desirable to show the j ur y w h a t had been done. By the first will, as had been seen, the testator left to each of his nieces £6OOO, and nothing more, and that will had been made in the absence of Mr. Sherburne, the gentleman who was charged with having, by secret influence and malprac tices, induced Mr. Heatley to make a will in his favour, and to the disadvantage of the nieces. The will of 1829, made long after Mr. Sherburne had returned to England, and when the Eastwoods were in France, gave and devised Brindle Lodge, the furniture, gardens, farm-house, and lands ad joining, together with various other farms, houses, and cottages, to his two nieces, to have between them during their joint lives, and the survivor to have the entirety during her life, and after them to descend to their lawful children, their heirs and assigns for ever. To each of his god-children, and each of the chidren of his nieces £lOO was left—to Mr. Teeby £lOO, to another servant £lOO, and smaller sums to other domestics. The remainder of his landed property, freehold and leasehold, together with his debts and securities for money, were left to his dear friend Mr. Sherburne, his heirs, administrators, and assigns. Mr. Sherburne was constituted sole executor. This was increasing the share of the nieces to at least double what was devised to them by the first will. By a codicil to this will an increased amount of landed property, worth from £BOOO to £lO,OOO, was left the nieces, and by so much was the bequest to Mr. Sherburne de creased. This codicil was framed during the period of estrangement, when the testator was supposed to be under the influence of him who was called the grasping priest. Mr. Cresswell said that he would show on the next day, how, under the same influence, in the second codicil still further benefactions were made to the two nieces, and a further provision drawn from that originally left to the defendant. He should produce a correspondence between Mr. Sherburne and Mr. Wheatley, showing that the latter was not a drivelling idiot, a bigot, and a slave to the priest, but that their intercourse was that of one manly mind with another ; and that the teststor, seeing that his nieces were well provided for, had thought that he might very well pro vide for an intimate and esteemed friend. It was now half-past five o'clock, and Sir W. FOLLETT, seeing that the court was about to adjourn, proposed that his learned friend should permit Mr. Watson, his junior, to proceed then with the reading of the other documents, as the case would, to go on in the present way, last a fortnight. Mr. CRESSWELL replied, that the course suggested was unusual, and that he could himself do his own business. Sir W. FOLLETT said that it might be unusual ; but he had never before heard a case opened at this length. Mr. CRESSWELL observed that the Attorney-General opened one in the same way last year. Ths Learned JUDGE said that the case was so important, and the learned counsel had been speaking for so many hours, that he could not press him to proceed. The court, therefore, adjourned until one o'clock to-day. THE PRESIDENT We copy the following very sensible remarks respecting the delay in the arrival of the President from the Morning Herald of yesterday. It will be noticed that our metropoli tan contemporary almost reiterates the suppositions which were given in the Slandarda few days since. We have never expressed any alarm as to the safety of this noble vessel, and we sympathise too deeply with the relatives and friends of those on board to indulge in any speculations which would aggravate their naturally painful anxieties : A deep andpainful interest attaches universally to the non arrival of the President steam-ship from New I ork, now 27 days from her date of departure from that city, therefore 11 or twelve days over due, but still out and no tidings of her yet received, further than what the Orpheus packet-ship brought, which bore her company for two or three days after leaving New York, and lost sight of her in a gale of wind by which both were overtaken. The premium for insurance upon her rose at Lloyd's to-day to 30 guineas per cent. But this should not be accepted as a proof of positive danger in which the vessel should be placed, or proof of anything beyond insurance gambling, which is common enough when a chance of any sort occurs for working up exorbitant pre miums for apparent risks. The probability is after all that the President, left by the Orpheus in a gale which might be more boisterous in the particular course she was steering, or locality where placed, than the packet ship was exposed to, would, after making head for some days and running short of fuel, or perhaps sustaining some damage in her machinery, put back to New York to refit or re pair. If she had under the circumstances to use her sails alone, it is clear she would make way heavily and slowly on her return thither, and even if her machinery was unda maged and she was able to steam it back, it was not at all probable that, as vaguely supposed by some parties, she could have reached there before the sailing of the packet-ship North America, which left New York on the 19th ultimo, and in such case would have brought the intelligence of her return thither. After the Orpheus parted company, on or about the 13th, the President would probably bear up on her course for a few days longer, and then only in the event of fuel falling short, or any accident to the machinery, reverse her course and return to New York, which it is clear she could not reach till a few days subsequently to the departure of the North America. BELFAST THEATRE.—Friday evening being the last night of the first season under Mr. Thorburne's management, it was announced that he should address the audience in the course of the evening. At the termination of the play (" The Lady of Lyons," in which he personated Claude Melnotte,) Mr. Thorburne was loudly called for by the entire house ; the cheering was loud and prolonged. After presenting him self, and bowing to the audience, he pro cee d e d t o say, t h at although he could not pretend to those feelings of embarrass ment under which, on public occasions, many shelter them selves when addressing an assemblage so brilliant as that he then saw before him, yet he should consider hi mse lf an in sensible being indeed, if he did not feel considerable anxiety to evince, in however humble a manner, his sense of the personal kindness twice manifested by a Belfast audience, of town and country, towards one who, like himself, had come among them in a great measure untried, and as a stranger. (Cheers.) Their reception had ever been flattering, and under any circumstances could and should not be forgotten. (Cheers.) He had no set speech to deliver ; yet, as he had determined not to say farewell without a word at parting, he had not so far overlooked the respect due to an assemblage of patrons and appreciators as not to consider and arrange the points, which he had merely to reduce to the expression of words. (Hear.) The circumstances under which he had taken upon himself the management of the Belfast theatre were pecculiar, and any thing but inviting. Every one who knew Belfast knew that. He could only allude to them thus generally, and not in detail. Hoping against hope itself, he acted on the belief that true taste could not remain dormant for the support of the proudest literature of any nation or country—the dramatic literature of England—(Cheers.) — identified as it is with the language which is destined by pro phecy, and rapidly being fulfilled, to become the universal language of the children of men throughout the globe. (Cheers.) In making these remarks, he did so as appealing to those who, under the common name of English, are the representatives—(let the invidious, and the sowers of dissen sion pretend what they please)—the representatives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Vociferous cheering.) Mr. Thorburne next noticed the difficulties of organising and collecting an efficient company of performers. Selection was the thing desirable, but it was of all things the most difficult, and often impossible to accomplish. There never was, nor never could be, " a popular manager." He should consider himself happy who could, in such a capacity, escape censure. " Hard is his fate on whom the public gaze." Let him do everything that man can do his own way, it would be wron in some judge's estimation—if he did a thing " this way," even friends would say—" Oh, you should have done it " that way. " A man at the head of any esta blishment must make up his mind, adhere, and go through— leaving the issue to a general estimate of general services. (Cheers.) He intended to return towards the end of Sep tember or the first week of October, and with a difierent company. He intended that the entertainments sho ul d b e operatic and vaudeville, in addition to the staple of tragedy and legitimate comedy. Till he met them again he bad t o repeat his thanks for their kindness, and wishing to every lady and gentleman present " fair hours and happy thoughts," , most respectfully did he utter the word "farewell !' Mr. Thorburne retired amidst loud applause. Other topics were alluded to, but we have given the substance of what was addressed to the house—the fullest and most enthusiastic of the season.—Belfast News Letter. MR. STOWELL AND DR. HOOK. [Several of our contemporaries have inserted a foolish para graph about an attack by Mr. Stowell upon Dr. Hook in his own church after the latter had read the church service on the occasion. IVe paid but little attention to the statement at the time, as it was manifestly false ; but we are glad to find that Mr. Stowell has denied the trumpery charge, and hope that the journalists who so readily circulated the calumny, will also publish Mr. Stowell's refutation.] To THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST. is a general rule with me not to notice anonymous communications of any kind, yet in the case of a letter in your journal, to which my attention has been drawn, I feel it due to truth and peace that I should transgress my rule. In the letter to which I allude, I am charged with having attacked Dr. Hook in his own church, after we had read the service on the occasion. Now the truth is, I never preached in any church of Dr. Hook's--so accurate is your corre spondent. It is true that at the opening of Mr. Sinclair's church, in Leeds, I preached, and Dr. Hook officiated in the desk ; but of his intention to do so I had not the slightest notion till I met him in the vestry ; nor was there any re ference whatever in my sermon either to the Doctor or to his opinions. I simply preached " Jesus Christ and him cruci fied." What construction a malignant and gossipping curi osity may have put upon my statements, I cannot help, but I fearlessly appeal to the corrected report of my sermon on the occasion, which I published in compliance with the request of most of the clergy who had heard it.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, HUGH STOWELL. Manchester, April 3. ELECTION FOR ST. ANNE'S WARD Yesterday the election took place of a member of the Common Council, in the room of the late Mr. Coglan. The polling place was at the private house of Mr. Eyes, fruit seller, in Christian-street, near the corner of Springfield street. From the period of the demise of Mr. Coglan, up to the day of the contest, the antagonist parties were silently but earnestly active in canvassing the ward in behalf of their re spective candidates—who were, on the conservative side, Mr. James Parker, brewer, of Rose-hill, and o n th e w hi g - r adical side, Mr. Thomas Chalmers, surgeon, of Mansfield-street. From a pretty early hour Christian-street became ani mated and bustling. Mr. Parker's committee-room was at " Pontack's," and Mr. Chalmers's at Mr. Bickerstaff's, the Queen's Theatre Tavern—in friendly proximity. Flags were displayed from both houses, cabs and coaches became in im mediate requsition, the morning being drizzly and cold, and the scene gave indication of a struggle of no ordinary severity. The vehicles engaged by the conservative party bore neat blue flags, fringed with white, and inscribed, in gilt letters, " Parker for ever." There were upwards of thirty police officers in attendance, but their services were happily not re quired, the proceedings being marked by the greatest order and good humour. Before nine o'clock a consi d era bl e num ber of persons had collected at the polling place, anxious to embrace the earliest opportunity of giving their votes, and repairing to their respective places of avo ca ti on . Th e hour at length struck, and all was expectancy that the window would be opened and the voting papers forthwith received. But alas ! the alderman of the ward, Mr. Benn, (erewhile celebrated for his punctuality!) was no where to be found. He was exquired for at the polling house by hundreds, whose time was valuable, but (to use a Scotch phrase) Mr. Benn was not to be found either " but or ben." The alderman opened the book at sixteen minutes past the legal hour of opening. The polling then commenced with considerable spirit. In the first half hour Mr. Parker got 8 a-head of his antagonist. At 10 o'clock the numbers were— Chalmers Parker At 11 o'clock the numbers were— Chalmers Parker Amongst the voters for Mr. Parker, in the early part of the day, were a Mr. Parker and his son, the former a venera ble but infirm patriot of 93 years of age, the latter about 60, and as grey as his sire, whom he supported by the arm, though himself apparently in need of a staff. Towards noon the voting became brisker ; but it was difficult to ascertain the real condition of the " State of Denmark ;"—in other words, both parties put out statements at the entrances to their committee-rooms which were not quite in accordance with the truth. This was merely a good-humoured dodge, which was pretty well understood by the knowing ones. At 12 o'clock the respective numbers were— Chalmers Parker The former having still the majority. The general feeling , was still in favour of Parker, wh o i s cons id ere d " a goo d one ' though both were spoken of as likely men , w ith ou t t h e slight est animosity on either side. The circumstance of one of the party having to sit upon this "commission " until No vember only, had, doubtless, a tendency to diminish the en thusiasm that would otherwise have been demonstrated, though it appeared to be conjectured that the successful in dividual would have the best chance in the next general contest. Shortly after 12 o'clock the conservatives put forth their strength,—bringing up eighteen men to the poll at a time. At half-past one o'clock the numbers stood— Parker... Chalmers, The weakness of the radicals was now manifested by their withholding their statements of the poll, to which, while they were winning, they had previously given frequent and vaunt ing publication. The afternoon turned out fine and sunny, and the ardour of the parties proportionately rose. The voters, however, wanted coaxing to be brought to " the scratch," and the electioneering machinery of both parties was put upon full steam. As an instance of the great re-action in the public mind, in may be remarked that, but a few years ago, not a tory flag could be shown without danger of a row ;—yesterday, however, there was scarcely a colour to be seen but of the trne blue. The radicals, indeed, were completely at a dis count in the market. Towards two o'clock the whole street became exceedingly thronged, and for a considerable distance at and near the polling-house, filled from side to side with an anxious and enquiring multitude. At two the poll stood— Parker __ Chalmers 126 Here was a gain of twelve for Mr. Parker. The doctor at this time managed to drug a few noodles, and the consequence was that at the end of the next hour he had redeemed his loss by five, the numbers being— Parker . v . 142 Chalmers the majority for the former being only 7. Were are about 480 voters, we believe, in the ward, and of these it was generally supposed throughout the day that not above 350 to 360 would vote. At 3 o'clock the numbers were— Parker l5B Chalmers 153 leaving a majority for the former of only five. The contest from the first was a close one, and it now became evident that the tug would be lik e Greekl meeting Greek. Mr. Parker was active during the day in looking after his friends, as was the other candidate ; and, if personal exertion in the heat of an election be a principal ingredient in a can didate, both deserved to succeed. The radicals had a bill out to the effect, that at past 2, the candidates were abreast-127 each. This, however, it soon afterwards became apparent, was but " a weak inven tion of the enemy." Between 3 and 4 o'clock the contest became warm, and we may add, portentous. Returns were anxiously sought for, and expected every five minutes ; but the clerks and others were too busy in despatching messengers for the last available voters to supply them. At half-past three—the expected voters being then nearly exhausted—the numbers were— For Mr. Parker Mr. Chalmers A sort of " cessation of hostilities" appeared to take place from this date, each party having nearly exhausted his mate riel of warfare. The few stragglers who were yet to be brought up were, however, sent for in all directions by cab and car, and the `• ssuttering" amongst canvassers, drivers, and others, was animated and amusing. Each party, appa rently uncertain of the official result, awaited the announce ment in almost breathless anxiety ; and watches were ever and anon referred to, with much learned argument as to the precise tune by St. Peter's clock. Mr. Parker, however, being upheld by the very backbone of the ward—the true, honest, and sensible portion of the constituency—was almost as soon as the clock struck four announced to be the con queror. The opposite party, who were nearer to the polling place, had previously set up a cheer or two so loud and long as to convey to the mass of the byestanders almost an as surance of their success ; but this was only the forced and expiring effort of the discomfitted faction. At about two minutes past four the news reached Mr. Parker's committee-room that he was the victor by 11 votes, and many were the hands held out to Mr. P. in congratu lation. This was, however, a mistake, so far as regarded the numbers, the real majority being only 7—a small number it is true, but considering that the radicals have strained every nerve, and have employed foul as well as fair means to gain their point, must be considered as a decided triumph of the good old cause of conservatism. Immediately after the close of the poll, Mr. ISAAC HOLMES spoke to the electors from one of the windows of the inn. He congratulated them on the result of the contest, and made strong and effective allusion to the political tergi versation of Mr. Chalmers, who in his ambition to shine as a councilman had not scrupled to " jump Jim Crow." (Great laughter.) Ml'. PARKER 'then shewed his wholesome manly face to his constituents, and was received with deafening shouts of applause. He thanked them for having, by their unbiassed votes, placed him in the proud position of being their repre sentative in the council. He attributed his success not to any personal feeling towards him, but to the legitimate opera tion of sound principle. He felt assured that the principles which he espoused, and which they approved, would ere long be triumphant, and that in acting upon them, the radicals would speedily be expelled from the council. (Cheers.) He considered the result of the present election as the forerun ner of further success in the next November contest. He trusted that that day's proceedings would have a happy effect, not only in St. Anne's Ward, but in every ward in the town. He had always been ofopinion that the hostile feeling that natu rally arose at a contested election should cease when the strug gle was over ; and he hoped thatany little irritation that might have existed would now he entirely dissipated. For himself he could assure even those who had opposed him, that he had that day held out the hand of friendship to many of his political antagonists, and that he should as carefully watch and protect their interests as those of the party who had placed him in his present pre-eminence. (Loud cheers.) He concluded a very appropriate and truly " liberal" ad dress—of which our reporter could not take notes, owing to the density of the crowd—by announcing the final state of the poll, as follows : For Mr. Parker Mr. Chalmers Majority for Mr. Parker.... 7 I No speech was made from the radical side. The party were, indeed, quite " chop fallen." A strong poss 6 of constables came on the ground just before the close, to " look out for squalls," but not the slightest disturbance took place, and the dense assemblage dispersed in the best possible humour. CROWN JEWEI.S.-It is said that the dispute between the King of Hanover and her 'Majesty, respecting the crown jewels, has produced a good deal of discussion and difference of opinion in the Royal Family, and that some portion of the correspondence between the illustrious parties on this subject has been anything but pleasant. Whatever the difference s may be, and whatever disputes may arise, the public will not be much the wiser; for though there is nominally a suit in Chancery, and Sir Henry Wheatley is the defendant, yet both parties are agreed in keeping the matter as private as possible, and treating it strictly as a family unatter.—Chelvi ham Looker-on. CURIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE.—A hive of bees, the property of Mr. Robert Marshall, of Brapxton. near Coldstream, left the hive a few days ago, and whilst Mr. Andrew Rankin was observing their proceedings, they lighted upon his back, when an attempt was made to sweep them off, which did not suc ceed. Mr. Rankin was then obl ige d to strip off his coat, i and being well skilled n the inanagernent of bees, he imme diately dived amongst them with his fingers, and caught the queen bee, which he returned back to the hive, and in an instant the whole swarm were quiet, and he did not receive a single sting. TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS. The usual monthly meeting of the town-council was held in the council chamber, Town-hull. WIDENING OF MYRTLE-STREET.-APPOINTMENT OI DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK In the report of the Finance Committee, allusion was made to a recommendation of the Improvement Committee, touching the widening of Myrtle-street ; which was ulti- mately referred to the Finance Committee In the course of the report the Town-Clerk introduced a schedule of what he conceived to be the duties of the Town- Clerk and deputy Town-Clerk, iu which the last mentioned appeared to have, in some respects, a separate responsibi lity, while in others, his responsibility was laid down as con joint with, and subject to that of the Town-Clerk. Some discussion arose on this subject, Mr. SHE IL, who appre hended that the schedule was about to be immediately pas sed, expressed his opinion that time was required for consi deration. It was ultimately decided that the question of the duties of these two officers should be considered with a report of the Town-Clerk on the appointment of .a person to fill the vacancy. The Town-Clerk's report detailed the chief duties of the deputy Town-Clerk, and pointed to an individual (not named) whom he conceived would be very eligible, and by whose appointment a considerable saving would accrue to the borough fund. On being called upon by Sir J. Walin sley, to name the individual to whom he had alluded, the Town-Clerk named Mr. William Shuttleworth, one of the clerks to the magistrates, of whose talents and acquirements he spoke very handsomely, and by whose appointment, amongst other things which would be effected, a considerable one would be, from his not succombing so readily and deffe rentially as had been done to the suggestions of council on the subject of sending for witnesses from a distance, as from his skill and legal knowledge, he was qualified to ex ercise a bold discretion. It was at length agreed that the subject should be referred to a special committee, who are to report to a special coun cil to be held on Wednesday next. The office was formally declared vacant, and the appointment to fill it, is to be made at the next monthly meeting of the council in May. The following gentlemen were appointed to be the commit tee :—Messrs. Morecroft, Toulmia, H. Hornby, Mellor, Sheil, Evans, Leigh, Sir J. Walmsley, G. Holt, and Case. The salary of Mr. M'Fazsen, superintendent of the sca vengers. was raised from £125 to £156 per annum. PUBLIC PROCESSIONS. A memorial was read by the mayor from the merchants, &c., frequenting the Exchange, complaining of the annoy ance to which they are subjected from time to time, by processions passing round the monument in the area of the Exchange-buildings, whereby they were seriously interrupted in the performance of their business. Mr. SHELL and Mr. EVANS expressed a hope that, if the council had the power, they would not interfere with the pro ceedings of the people in this respect. Mr. MELLOR, as representative of Exchange Ward. said, he thought it his duty to say that he had heard many gentle men complain of the serious annoyance which they expe. rionced by these processions. Several other members eX pressed similar opinions. The TOWN -CLERK, having examined the act, said the area of the Exchange was private property, except for thepurpo ses of trade, &c., set forth by the act, and they might take peaceable measures to maintain their rights. They could appeal to the magistrates for that purpose, and call in the aid of the constabulary. It was not necessary that they should look for any aid from the council. ..• ya•yall• It was agreed that the Town-clerk should write his opinion and send it over to the proprietors. BOROUGH COURT, COURT OF REQUESTS, &C. The council proceeded to the consideration of the proceed ings, resolutions, and reports of the Borough Court and Court of Requests' Committee, comprising —the appointment of Daniel Wells as summons server ; the increase of the salary of Mr. George Park, treasurer of the Court of Re quests, from £2OO to £220; the increase of the salary of Mr. Thomas Cattrall, assistant clerk in the Court of Requests, from £7B to £110; the increase of the salary of Mr. John G. Hughes, assistant clerk in the Court of Requests, from £7B to £100; the increase of the salary of Mn W. S. Harris, summons clerk, from £BO to £lOO ; and the County Courts Bill. A. letter from Mr. Lowndes, the Commissioner of the Court of Requests, was read, stating that there were two clauses in the act of Parliament relating to the Court of Re quests, which required lists of unclaimed money to be re turned to the Council every twelve months. The clerks had neglected to do this duty till recently, and as they had now only made up the accounts to Jan. 1839, instead of 1840, he could not recommend that they should have any increase of salary. The Mayor said he had but just received the letter. Mr. EVANS described the negotiations which he, with Mr. Rushton and Mr. Benn, had carried on in London, on the subject of the county courts bill. Mr. COOPER expressed his at the letter which had been sent by Mr. Lowndes, as it was his fault that the re returns had not been made up previously, as the clerks had been working night and day to make them up, but they had not found it possible. The clerks were not to blame. Mr. BRIGHT concurred in this view. The TOWN -CLERK said he had met the Commissioner, (who, as well as himself, was to blame in this business) on the preceding day, and the clerks had then promised to have the returns ready by May. He had no notion that such a letter as this would be sent, and had not heard of such letter till this moment. Several members inquired when the letter was sent, and what was the date thereof. __ _....,..... The MAYOR said ... it had no date, and he had received it about two o'clock that day, since he took his seat in Council. The subject dropped. Mr. H. HORNBY moved, and Mr. EARLE seconded the appointment of Mr. Blackburn to fill the vacancy in the Education Committee. Mr. ISAAC HOLMES opposed the motion, and moved that Mr. Blackburn be not appointed. The motion was not seconded, and it fell to the ground. The original motion was carried. The Nuncil adjourned at three o'clock, till Wednesday next. MEETING OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE The weekly meeting of this committee was held yesterday. The business on the tapis was not of peculiar public interest. There were present—Mr. T. Booth (chairman). Messrs. Quayle, Miller, Evans, Martin, T. Tobin, Middleton, T. Holt, Holmes, and Barclay. The SECRETARY read the proceedings of the last meeting, and the usual accounts presented for payment :were called over and passed —amount £1454 5s 9d. The CHAIRMAN said that the first business on the paper related to the schooner Milo. As that vessel was no longer required as a light-ship, it was proposed that she should be sold by auction.—This was agreed to. A letter was read addrssed by Messrs. Chapman and Willis to the committee, complaining of the dock duty levied on the ships built at this port—which, as regarded one new vessel, they had paid under protest, while ships built at the outports of Great Britain could evade such duty by having on board a barrel of herrings or flour for cargo, or any other trifling article. Mr. EVANS complained that, as the subject had previously been before the committee, the document then presented was quite unexpected, particularly as it emanated from a mem ber of that committee. The subject was yet to be discussed, and involved the question whether the charge was made too high or too low. Mr. CHAPMAN explained that he by no means wished to precipitate the discussion of the question, but he considered it proper to lay the case referred to before a committee, u one of recent instance. Vessels built at other places could evade the duty, and his object was that the spirit of the act, the encouragement of home-built ships, should not be in vaded. He was desirous, of course, that all further discus sion on the subject should be postponed until Thursday next. This was agreed to. Mr. TOBIN made sonic few remarks with reference to a topic also to be hereafter discussed, and the meeting sepa rated. WALSALL ELECTION The following is a copy of a letter addressed " to the publisher of the Spectator newspaper, London" : London, 6th April, 18-11. SlR,—Your last Saturday's Spectator assumes, in " The News of the Week," that bribery and corruption were prac tised by Mr. Gladstone or his friends at the late Walsall election, from which I conclude that you did not attend the proceedings of the committee. The facts are as follows, which you will be better able to ascertain when you come to read the evidence then taken, and since ordered to be printed by the house of Commons. I presume this charge was made in the petition proforma as usual in all election petitions, for it was abandoned on the first day's proceedings. It is remarkable that during the canvass and election not a single flag was displayed, not a ribbon given, or a public-house opened, by the supporters of Mr. Gladstone, nor even any band of music employed, though all are commonly practised and made use of in bo rough elections,—whilst all these practices were resorted to by his opponents ! An emissary named Patch was sent by them from London to Walsall some days previous to the election, where he was a perfect stranger, who attempted, by various tricks and manmuvres, to insinuate himself into the confidence of Mr. G.'s supporters; but failing to do so, it appears he went so far as in their name to authorise the entertainment of electors and others to a considerable extent, and, without their knowledge or the shadow of authority, directed the expense thus incurred to be charged to the election committee of Mr. Gladstone's friends. These facts were fully established by the evidence of Mr. Kilner, the master of the house, who was thus imposed upon. This Patch was the principal evidence brought forward by the counsel for the petition, and in his cross-examinatio n you will find that he falsified his own statements, contradicting the evidence he had previously given, in many respects, to such an extent, that I have understood he narrowly escaped being in consequence sent to Newgate. Many houses were opened for the entertainment of elec tors, processions formed, colours exhibited, and ribbons displayed, and much money must have been spent in this manner, by Mr. Gladstone's opponents, at and for weeks previous to the election, besides other means with which they have been charged. Their violent disorderly and riot ous conduct compelled the mayor, during the polling, to call in the aid of the military, and by their presence order was restored. Mr. Gladstone was supported by at least three -fourths or more of the respectable inhabitants of the town and neigh bourhood, by whose example and direct influence with their people and connections that gentleman was returned. No illegal means of any description were resorted to by them, and the expense they incurred was comparatively small and unimportant. Although opposed to your political opinions, I do not the less admire the independent, candid, and straightforward course of conduct towards all parties which di s ti ngu i shes the columns of your paper, to which, on that account, I am a. subscriber, as well as a constant reader. I therefore doubt not but these principles will induce you to give a place to. this letter in your next number, although requested by A FRIEND OF MR. GLADSTONE'S, The advocate of common justice to aIL To the publisher of the Spectator} Newspaper, London. -- A MAD ItAiLwAY PAssENGER. On Friday fast, a young labouring countryman, dressed in a round frock, got into one of the carriages at Reading to proceed to London by one of the morning trains, and on its stopping at Slough, contrary to the regulations he got out and jumped about the platform in a very unusual and extraordinary manner; so much so, indeed, as to convince every person who saw his strange gesticulations that his mind was affected. However, he was agai n p ersua d e d to enter the carriage. and proceeded_ to London w ith th e ot h er passengers. Mr. By l es , the Hope Inn, 'Windsor, and hi s son , w ith one of theguards,the were in the same box and their attention was excited by oI violent manner of their fellow passenger i , n whom Hanwell, watched most attentively. When the tram desperate attempt Mr. Byles the yo ~ ,mg countryman suddenly made ain then going at great promptness of Mr. to jump out of the carriage (the andtr speed), but by the andfirmness l necessary, from This was to remain there until their back into his seat, and compelled was deemed f Byles, who assisted by his son n him confined until taken before arrival at Paddington, his extreme violence, to have f a magistrate and examinedwhenbeitoreamedica medical man gave his decided ••' opinion that done, and the , I n securing him, it appeared he was in a he was insane. of rage, and hit Mr. Byles, the guard, and every paroxysm who laid hold of him, and he broke the windows a person .. way the cab to the invi trate' - in his b h. The magistrate deemed it • necessary to order that he should be taken care of until his friends were discovered. His name was discovered. to he Sanders, and he said he had killed his child, and he intended to kill hinatelf.—Bucks Gazette-.