The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-04 00:00:00

PACKE T SHIPS.. --A New Y or k paper g de scription o f t h e packet-ship Montezuma, built for a short for the old or black ball line of packets. She is one thousand tons bur then, an d l eft New York for Liverpool on the 19thinstant.lete. Her i nter i or arrangements are described as mo s t complete. Captai n L owber commands her. The same paper ss up as an evide nce of the extraordinary strength of the packet-shipsl say, that " the Hottinguer, after having been ashore in an o pen roadste a d f or several days, thumping constantly. on sands, i s a b out to return to Liverpool without betog the taken op. She h as not leaked in the least or sustained anyin jury ; and th e insurance offices have au th or i se d her making her n ext voyage without being taken out for examination.' THE F UNDS, SATURDAY EVENING.—The English stocks have not fluctuated at all to-day. There was some firmness in th e market, Consols for money and the account closing. at 961 to , and E xc h equer -bills at 635. to 655. premium. New Three -and-a-half per T h Cents. l e ft o ff at 102 + to i ; Long A nnuities, 121 ; India B on d s, 755. premium ; and Bank Stock, 186 for the opening this month. The dividends on the Reduced Securities arid Bank Stock will be payable to the public this day (Saturday, the ankan brok ers having Thursday and Fr ) iday week allotted them e rs for the receipt of the warrants of their customers. Spanish Bonds were quoted in the early part of the day at 2 •31 . to + for the Actives, but closed as nearly as possible at the prices of yes terday-22i to 23. The New Three per Cents. were not so much subjected to chap havi ng ma i nta i ned 321 to i with throughout nge steadines s business. In one or two bargains they were quoted a shade above this, their closing value. Brazilian was finally quoted at 74 to 76, ex. div. ; Danish, 85 to 86, ex. div. ; Dutch Five per Cents., 99+ to 100/, ex. div. ; Ditto Two -and-a-half per Cents., 551 to 561 ; Mexi can, 30/ to + Ditto Deferred, 8+ to 91 Portuguese Con verted, 401 to' 11 ; and Colombian, 251 to t• SHAWLS TO TRZ QUEEN. —Some time since Messrs. Roxburgh, of P aisley, having preparee two shawls of a novel Role of pattern for Messrs. Proudfoot, Brand, Thompson, and Co. of Glasgow, f orwarded a description of them to her Grace the Duchess of Buccleugh, soliciting her influence with her Majesty to accept a shawl of each pattern. Her Grace promptly responded to the request, and stated that, although her Majesty did not receive presents, she was desi rous to see the shawls referred to ; they were accordingly de spatched to London the prices affixed, and on Thursday a note was received, stating that her Majesty had kept both shawls. One of the shawls is named " The Eastern Tri umph," and is composed of a a lendid procession in the males' of Oriental Scenery. The p other, "The Prince of Wales" has for the leoding figure the crest of three feathers and u "tuhnided with wreathes, formed of the rose, shamrock, shields thi stle, among which are introduced the emblazoned _. of Englend, Scotland, Ireland, &c. " The Eastern Triumph sh awl ', is alto h manufacturing i ngenuity get er a most beautiful specimen of and skill.----[W e noticed yesterday specimens of these beautiful manufactures in Mr. Pringle's shop, in Bold. beautiful ; they really quite bear out the mm -111111118 of our contemporary.—EL.B•3 ELECTION OF OVERSEERS AND ASSESSORS FOR M ar y's Chu Thursday a large meeting was held at St. Church, for the purpose of electing the proper officers for the year ensuing. Mr. Jackson was unanimously a . l r led to the chair, and, having briefly opened the business, 1 E. Knapper , proposed, and Mr. H. Williams seconded, the nomination of Mr. John Orange and Mr. William Gl eave, as fit and proper persons to serve the o ffi ce of over !%seers. Mr. M`Nicoll proposed C. A. Watson, Esq., and .1!. Stanfield ; Mr. S. Walker seconded the motion. Upon this . a. conversation arose as to whether the parishioners that demand a poll. Mr. IVlallaby was clearly of opinion 2r,_they could. Mr. Knapper then proposed that the names , ilr• leave and Mr. Orange should be placed at the head ttpinof lire list for the approval of the magistrates. This was opposed by Mr. Nicoll, who proposed his men again. Pu Pon this an angry " war of words" arose between the ,riooosers Messrs. Hughes and Walker, as to the merits of t.i.er candidates, Mr. Hughes declaring that he did not oppose ;` l, • Stansfield and Mr. Watson on personal grounds, but thecause theY were commissioners, and he thought that if muchY would attend to their duty at the Town-hall, it was as au as the township could expect from them. A. show of h v _ c 's Was calld for, when the majority was declared in wei u e ur of M leav and Mr. Orange. Several other names , then added for the approval of the magistrates. The onair ma w,,.. 1 n remarked that, as the late assessors, Messrs.. H. I,_'"! Ma and Maddocks, had given such general satisfaction, '.:7,.ttoeould like to see them again in office; but they very r`_t_lY declined the honour. Mr. Haddocks then proposed, k'nu Mr. H. Will' r. H. Th . a. la ms seconded, that Mr. C. A. Watson and iv lters be anpointed assessors for the . ensuing Year, whir h • • ic was earned unanimously. The meeting then separated. .._ UA.RDIAN SOCIETY, AND THE NEW GAS COMPANY'S BILL. --- Last ev membersofening, at e i ght o'clock, a general meeting of the the Liverpool Guardian Society was held in tire :iiayendon-roorns, South John-street, for the purpose of taking into consideration a bill now before parliament, in "..,_itilich the New Gas Company seek for power to extend thelr ',? 'na into the various out-townships, and to raise an addi gonal ca 't 1 4tn o P I aof £127,000 in shares, to be appropriated dia ng themselves —measures in the estimation of the Guar if o n B°cietY, calculated to postpone for to a distant period, c not altogether prevent a reduction in the price of gas to to air. ether Hickey, p res id ent of the society, was called the ehai.r. . NnThe CHAIRMAN said an outline of the bill would be pre ed to the meeti n gwould only mention that the th_ w s one.s a -- l'afi . I' ~y was limited to a dividend of 10 per cent : ; it .. -1 .47 of ashe society, therefore, to watch their proceedings, sscnuch, f they , d were allowed to sen their surplus p!o -41 over 1 er 0 per cent. in going t o the out townships, which feearaeirs.nev pay, the consumers in town would be the suf fromPeaMar• REAy, the secretary, at the request of the chairman, nl°l.the minutes of the committee with reference to this bill, m which it appeared that a resolution had been unani -I,QY arrived at to oppose the preamble in the committee Was--tae House of Commons, for which purpose the solicitor u empowered to proceed to London. d0"'". EvANs, the solicitor, said that when he was in Lon h. 4 cc had the honour of seeing Lord Sandon, who requested Whi c h point out, in the margin, those clauses in the bill cite the society considered objectionable. The first was ..tie, Preamble, which recited that it was expedient that the wAllages and places of Walton, Bootle, Crosby, Childwall, ltlehrton, Garston, and Wavertree, should be better supplied e ce . s : the main objection to this was, that there was no co Ision for any of them to be better supplied, as the Old ti ln i a acY had aiready power to go there. The next objec b,." w as to the second clause, enabling the company to raise sum contibutions among themselves a further and additional of £2,54 000 • half of that sum, however, or £127,000, " Ill s no ' • raj a . I v cult' sought for. The objection was to the company i n " 1 g this money among themselves ; the mode prescribed rablhe 4th section of the Old Company's bill was . prefe to, e ' Which clause this society procured to be inserted nip ? Years ao, and which required that the additional shares x nti _4 be sold by public auction in lots of one share each. 1 ) , ere Present bill it was proposed that the new shares should b e i,. 8 t offered to the as proprietors, the main difference to litliat the Old Company, by their act, were compelled duc e e d l' is the first instance. A clause, too, should be intro tool into this bill to enable the public to ascertain what the huair)aneY with their money. They were obliged an eeeint.) Tile viith the Quarter Sessions an account of their /4 11 0 and expenditure in the last of those as to „It Was to be found an item of £5,645 6s. lid, put down werigeneral expenses."ex What those " general expenses " t ar e co uld n be found out; and he wished a clause to be Ptirti eu t re4 in the present bill, compelling the company to The s ,, a rise every item of expenditure of £lOO or more. fer a l Were the main objections to the bill, and the main al inrut which the committee of the society wished to see it . "`-'oced ,ilr. RE • . tee, readtir.' in C o n t inua tion of the minutes of the commit °( f rom e soliciors official report of his proceedings in Of Con, which it appeared, that, as far as the House he se,terlolons was concerned, opposition was too late. T oppoZY then detailed his proceedings with reference to an tirne:"lon in the House of Lords, for which there is amp e day thaeslhsekb.ill will not be again brought forward till Tues it. catu inst. Iti,tiriiiiiej,emfirreyiiil?. Glegg, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Morris, Mr. mas Waker, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Whitby, DthlieureesorhiGtioWilsalker afterwards addressed the meeting ; and , whic'h are advertised in another column, were TO Imatlitnously. Paid teota,ting then separated, the usual compliment being i•O chairman for presiding. "TOOTHLESS VIPERS :" IlanunuAxr exclairns—no doubt he 'g right -okl toothless vipers cannot bite ! 7 are t hey 'vegs ; so let them rail, If Or now lost both " teeth" and TAIL . SLANDERERS! Leave to N or hi your neighb our hi s own cares, how tnuch he 's debtor! With zeal attend 9our own affairs— You'd find " times" would be better LEAGUE,_" JEROBOAM BAILEY MERCATOR p r a t b. : 4 . c ior ,nde which P er sect is " B AILEY " aptest Peodent," or for " B a pti st " ? n , , haps, it might more fit opine us, i‘}lguess him follower of " Socirms." . l'h e ic h of. " Dissent " will now embrace him ? Public anxious are to—trace him r ! VA UX qty f ENIGMA. and second are the same— ti!Tates, you 'll quickly gu ess th e i r name ; My wh ole 4 ' l " out "is the revere ; h ole thr oughout the world's a curse. kart 8 le sto OtLSrcoTLANn.—The number of ministers now •esolutions of th e convocation are—to the to the second, 474. LT, ki„,744ktury ago, Sir 'a." l tril s„ ,I" ART UNIONS.—A short time t . h m at th laguen, the present High Chancellor of Ir . I d o 'Z . llt to lle,t800y1:.111.Irish Institution, examining some p ictures Y auction. Mr. Stewart Blacker, the ho ilket ti l l , lisecararetaD, ton the Irish Art Union, being in the ro o ms .. , It'llity 6 tmne, spoke to him relative to the assumed il ':ex pf the art unions, when Sir Edward stated his :'Prewi ly ' 4 Q the laws which have been referred to did not sse4d'ai allidg to such societies. Mr. blacker having t.p„041,,,s gratification at hearing this, Sir lilwar said Art:Maß 2'ce / will give you my opinion in writing, " and, uni"oelln, wrote an order to the Royal Bank to pay . the io !'e Divi three gunineas annually until further notice ; IN% nfi his opi • • satisfactory manner, 9 tiie iocieiy. talon in ;he most sa VAClin oiNT ' 1.4 ", ' 4.11°. --The annual report of the . Vaccination t hat " which S' _.l, a ot. ir Henry Milford is President, states lir,, lll e i:' our e,:-!: experi.ence of that great resource has con- N e li!ed earuerp,(.lence in it. 'Wherever vaccinatior . i has been . 114, 4 „ t gas miote'LlY, nrid with those precautions which expert tile falls out as necessary, it has been followed, al it, toot, of tLY with success. But we lament it, as one of . ( lue ti ffi 'eacy a , 'Le general reliance of medical practhioners . in the tl y unto Preservative, that it has been deferred too ire th,e:Ystem: atil Seeds of small-pox had been received into 41,,iteel. Thinsi,, about to produce their natural evil conse fink ,Y or i ts e uot.lrd has manifested the propriety and ne sk.4u.tu ..,_ o . stablishment and maintenance by havind never th .. ' i s iirs (Nee efficacious vaccine lymph when called fo . r a . ' t4 oat Iti'r„.,rally acknowledged to have been a resource i ...nt circumstances:, i '°Nzl , t{ i l Y la "TEsts 1,4;t Bt ' i n th ' *---.An amusing incident occurred on Toes- . so t 04, 4, e assize court at 'l' ut t I which even affected qiiirgi of the bench. Mr. Stone, who defended Par -1,e4.,,, to the .with .murder, in the course ' of a powerful a t c h l ; litl t s e qt of an .I , tir ImPlored them to give the P.r"ner. b,:ler, he) and they might have on their minds. t. s r u h s e_ ,I,e,Vhit* e11a r ...7 1 ~ stood before them in an agony ? e law. l ir t i,. , .%vith the highest offence known to tii hse. 7./o, l q li m e this appale to their mercy, the learned c s o e u e .11 ; ni Y piL. to 4 %2 JPO,"Ieh h e %,,,..„ the prisoner, expecting to ' 1 i h e saw :kti Uge , 4 * 80 vividly pourtraying, when p : 4„,4leress,:ir engaged in munching a sandwich . I" ' , e ' forb ear 'Alp eamtht his eye at the moment, cou , l_d_ the Le . CieZ 4 de f t , 0 84111e* Happily for the accused, 4 li 4 . an d t r i . 1 . 1 .0 was too stron g to be affected by the . c ~ Aittin. hi j ur y seconded his efforts at " trying t o live, . nun. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. soum LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES CROWN COURT—FRIDAY, MAncn 31 (Before Mr. Baron PARKE.) The trial of two persons named Lucas•, charged with stealing silk at Leigh, was, on the application of Mr. Archibald, fixed for Wednesday next. On the application of Mr. Wilkins, the trial of Mary Hun ter, for the murder of John limiter, at Manchester, was fixed for Thursday next. Patrick Mumford, alias Clark, 19, Thomas Clark, 23, and Patrick Clark, who were charged, kith a number of other persons, with killing and slaying Bernard Clark, at Prescot, pleaded guilty to the indictment. Robert Dean, aged 30, .Joseph Auckley, 23, and Benjamin 'Whitehead (out on hail) were indicted, the two former for having feloniously broken and entered the warehouse of the Manchester and Ashton Canal Company, at Ashton-under- Lyne, and with having stolen therefrom 300 lbs. of malt, and the latter-named prisoner was charged, with receiving the malt. knowing it to be stolen. The jury found them guilty. His Lordship deferred passing sentence. James Mycock, 20, was indicted for killing and slaying Emanuel Kenyon, at Eccles, in this county. A dispute arose in a beer-house near Manchester, where the prisoner knocked the deceased on the head, and kicked him in the belly. He was found guilty, and sentenced to five months' imprison•• went. Joseph Brimelow, 42, was indicted for killing and slaying his wife, Elizabeth Brimelow, at Bolton-le-Moors. Mr. Brandt was for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the de fence. The prisoner, it appeared, struck his wife with a poker in a beer-house, because she refused to give him three pence. The blow produced a rupture, of which she died.— Sentence, six months' imprisonment. Edmund Hardman, 42, and Catherine his wife, were charged with killing a child of tender years, named Peter Sharples, by beating and kicking him, but the surgeon attri buting the cause of death to an insufficiency of food, they were acquitted. Mary Hall, who made a false statement touching the death of a child to the Registrar of Deaths at Liverpool, was found guilty, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. William Challinor, 19, Peter Welsby, 30, Michael Riley, 23, and Timothy Du:trey, 23, were indicted, together with three other persons, for the killing and slaying of Bernard Clark, in a prize tight. When the case had proceeded some length, the learned Judge stopped it, observing that although the prisoners were engaged in an illegal fight (being the keepers of the ring), yet, as they had already been in custody nearly seven months, he thought the public justice would be satisfied by their being then discharged. A verdict of ac quittal was therefore taken, and they were discharged. The two Clarks and Mumford were then placed at the bar, and the two former sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, and the latter to one week. John Kean, 34, was indicted for stabbing his wife, Ellen Kean, at Manchester, with intentto do her sone grievous bo dily harm. He was sentenced to fifteen years' transporta tion. . _ John Dainteth, 22, was charged with having committed a similar offence on Thomas Bute, at Curton Wood, on the 4th of October last. The jury did not think the evidence suffi cient to establish a case of felony against the prisoner, hut found him guilty of an aggravated assault, and he was sen tenced to one year's imprisonment. Patrick .111 1 Lachlan and William Butterworth were brought up for sentence, having been convicted the day pre vious of burglary, and his lordship ordered Butterworth, who had been in gaol several times before, to be transported for the term of fifteen years, and the other to one year's im prisonment. Patrick Fermi, who was indicted for the manslaughter of his own child, by improperly administering some rum to him, and against whom the grand jury had ignored the bill, was arraigned, acquitted, and discharged.—Prisoner: Thank you, my lord. The JUDGE : I dont suppose you had the slightest intention or idea that you were doing wrong. James Durken. charged with robbery at Manchester, and John Lloyd, with a burglary at the same place, were both discharged by proclamation. THE ARSON CASES These cases, which, as our readers are aware, excited con siderable interest in this town, were fixed by his lordship to be tried on Monday the 10th instant. THE ST. HELEN'S MURDER The case of Wilmot Buckley, for the murder of his wife, was, on the application of Dr. Brown, fixed for next Friday. In the case of Mr. Alexander Mason, charged with forgery, Mr. Archibald applied to his lordship to postpone the trial until next assizes, on account of the absence of a material wit ness, and also that the recoguizances of Hannah Mason might be estreated. On this his lordship read over the de positions, and decided that the trial must be postponed until the next assizes, and in the mean time, the prisoner must re main in custody. On the grand jury coming into court, is lordship dis charged them. NISI PRIUS COURT—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.) Rion V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY COMPANY.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Sarah Rigg, against the corporation of the Manchester and Leeds Railway, for the recovery of wages due, and the value of work and labour done. The defendants pleaded that they never were indebted in the manner and form alleged. Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Thompson for the defendants. Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said this was the case of a poor widow woman, who contended that certain wages were due to her by the defendants, in consideration of her having watched and taken care of a gate at Littleborough, near Rochdale, in this county. The jury were aware that the Manchester and Leeds Railway was opened originally only so far as Little borough, where there was a gate which led upon a road in the direction of some coal-pits. The gate belonged to a Mr. Smith, and was let to a Mr. Wilkinson ; and during the time Mr. Wilkinson occupied the coal mines in the neigh bourhood, he had the privilege of going through the gate, for the opening and shutting of which he employed Mr. Rigg, the husband of the plaintiff, and, after his death, the plain tiff herself. She was then paid some money by Mr. Wilkin son for her support ; she was also given some coals from the pits; and she was allowed to take money from persons who passed through the gate, in order to maintain a subsistence. When the Manchester and Leeds Railway had been opened, the gate became the property of the company, and they erected a cottage at the end of it, and continued to employ Mrs. Rigg to open and shut it for the persons who brought articles to the railway and canal; for the company were the owners, he believed, of the canal as the railway. Mr. Wat son proceeded to say that whether the canal belonged to them or not, the plaintiff was employed in opening and shutting the gate for 120 weeks, by night as well as by day, and she only claimed a shilling a day for her services. Mr. BAINEs, for the defence, said that no contract had been made with the plaintiff except that she was to have the toll-house rent free; that the company did not require her services, and that it was only in compliance with her pressing imuortunities that she was at length allowed to continue in the house. The learned counsel dwelt at some length upon the fact that for the period of two years the plaintiff had never made any de mand for her services, and concluded by asking the jury whether they thought a respectable company, like the Man chester and Leeds, would refuse the claim and come into court if they did not think they had a good defence ? The jury, after an absence from court of half an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £7 7s. SHAW AND ANOTHER V. LEES AND ANOTHER.—This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Robert Kershaw, James Shaw, and George Lawton, against the defendants, Samuel Lees and Co., for the recovery of the value of large quantities of coal belonging to the plaintiffs, which the de fendants had converted to their use and benefit. Mr. Brandt was proceeding to enter into a variety of details explanatory of the alleged incursions, when his LORDSHIP interposed, and suggested that it might be advisable to have the case re ferred and investigated upon the spot in question, where the levels could be taken, and all the other necessary informa tion easily obtained. Mr. KNOWLES immediately assented to the suggestion of the court, and, after a short conversation between counsel on both sides, a verdict was formally taken for the plaintiff subject to a reference. SAME V. SAME.—This was an action brought by the same parties against the defendants for the recovery of the value of certain coals which had been worked by the latter at col lieries of Mount Nebo. Verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to a reference. ORMROD Y. HUTH AND OTHERS.—In this case the declaration stated that the defendants had . falsely exhibited certain samples of cotton, whereby the plaintiff was induced to purchase a quantity of cotton which afterwards turned out to be greatly inferior to the samples. To this the de fendants pleaded not guilty, and denied that the plaintiff was Induced to purchase the cotton as alleged. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff; Mr. Dundas and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. In this case be had the honour to appear for Mr. Peter Ormrod, who carried on business as a cotton spinner, under the firm of Ormrod and Hardcastle, at Bolton, and he sought to recover from the de fendants, Messrs. Huth and Company, merchants, of Liver pool, the difference between the price of good Orleans cot ton, as it was represented to him to be when he purchased it, and the price he was able to sell it at when it was found not to be Orleans cottons. The action was one of very great im portance to persons engaged in the cotton trade in this coun try ; because this case would probably give rise to a question which would materially effect the transactions in that trade between the merchants in that town. That trade, he need not say, was of the utmost importance, not merely to Liver pool, but to the country ; and it was with the greatest plea sure we were now hea r i ng , an d was assum i ng a s t a t e o f ac tivity which must be gratifying to every body in this country. ' Connected with that case, then, this case assumed an impor tance much beyond the actual sum of money in dispute. The amount of money in dispute was no t a b ove £136 ; b u t th e principle involved, as regarded the mode of dealing between the cotton merchants and manufacturers in this country, was of the utmost importance. It appeared that on the 9th April, 1810, Mr. William Bower, who was the buying broker of the plaintiff to purchase a quantity of cotton, in consequence of which he went to Messrs. Salisbury, Turner, and Earle, selling brokers for the defendants, in Liverpool, that being the ordinary course of business on the Exchange. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Earle if they had a quantity of good Or leans cotton. Mr. Earle said they had, and took him to the place of business to see the samples. The samples were shown by Mr. Earle to Mr. Bower, who wa s th e b ro k er f or the plaintiff, Mr. Ormrod. He examined the cotton ; they appeared to be good samples, and accordingly a bargain was made, and he intimated to Mr. Earle that he would take 144 bales of cotton, giving in the name of the plaintiff. The bales were invoiced at £1616 15s. ; and Mr. Bower afterwards re ceived an invoice from Messrs. Salisbury and Co., and trans mitted it to Bolton. Th a t was d one i n t h e or di nary way of husiness in Liverpool; and he understood the usual course was this: there was no written contract between the parties, but the buying brok er commun i ca t e d w i t h t h e se lli ng b ro k er in Liverpool, in the way h e h a d d escr ib e d M r . B ower did with Mr. Earle. When the bargain was concluded, and the buying broker had intimated to the selling broker that he would take the cotton, all that was done afterwards was, that a clerk in the service of the buying broker was sent to the warehouse where the cotton was stored, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the samples which had been delivered to the buying broker, were samples from those bales which were stored in the warehouse. Afterwards an invoice was sent in, which contained no warranty, no statement as to the quantity and price. Now, that being the ordinary mode of business, there was no written contract to which a purchaser could resort in a case like the present. In this case, after a considerable l a p se o f t i me, th e co tton remained in the ware house where it had been at the time it was purchased of the defendants ; but it was transferred to the name of Mr. Orm rod, and there remained for his benefit. The jury were aware that there had been a depression in the cotton trade during the last year or two ; and it was not till June, 1842, that eventually the cotton was unpacked and the fraud discovered, which formed the ground of this action. Upon Mr. Ormrod_ .n having occasio n t o ta k e th i s cotton for the purpose of the u 5 1 ,12 g it in his own manu f acture , b e f ou nd that, out bales which had b een purchased, 45 bales we re, according to what was technically called in the trade " falsely packed." There were origin a ll y 144 b a l es , b u t two were rejected when they were first ex am i ne d i n t h e warehouse in Liverpool. Now, in this case, it turned out, with respect to those 45 bales, they had been cased all round for about three inches, more or less, with good Orleans cotton ; but in the inside iwas an inferior description o f cotton, such as did not suit Mr. Ormrod, and such as he never knowingly bought. Now, it was for the difference in the value of that inferior cotton and good Orleans cotton that this action was brouglit, thisand there was no doubt that the defendants were l i abl e. action, they charged the defendants, Messrs. Huth and with having represented that this was good Orleans cot The samples were of good Orleans cotton ; the bulk of cotton turned out decidedly not to be of that chartu not let it WI:el her time it v that they had to establish was h" did no fraud :Is made them lial)!c to compensate the phi It was perfe , Aly cle 1(1 recover it from nobody d Co. i wpm. else was immaterial ; they were the parti plaintiff had to look for compensation. against whom Mr. Orm rod could proceed \\lieflic only merchant of Liverpool, who had imported the cotton ; at who, standing in the market in Li✓erl position as the grower been deceived by the is in the same ny 11 . 4 d euuld If Messrs. Huth and American cotton plant. bring an action against him ; and thus e compensated, and justice would be done sel then quoted the case of Polhill v. r laid down that even where there was no moral fraud on the part of the defendant, yet he was liable to compensate in such a case. He should show distinctly that the sample was good Orleans cotton, that there was no opportunity of examining the bales, that there was no warranty given, and therefore the plaintiff had no remedy except by bringing this action.. He understood one part of the defence would be, that there was a custom in Liverpool to this effect : that let a man make a representation, however false, respecting the quality of cotton, if the hales were not unpacked, and the truth discovered within 12 months, the remedy was gone. If such a custom were in existence, it must be proved. He be lieved there was no such custom, and he should submit to his lordship that such a custom would be invalid and unreason able. He could understand a custom such as this, to give a warranty which should last only for twelve months, and that, within twelve months, a purchaser might return the cotton. Such a custom might be reasonable i❑ law. Even if it were proved that a custom existed, that, after twelve months, the right of action was gone, he should submit to his lordship that it was a custom which was unreasonable in the eye of the law. He had endeavoured to explain to the jury the right of action in this case. He believed it to be a more im portant question than the £136 which arose in this case ; and all that he could say was, that, unless they could succeed in this action, it was quite clear there must be a fundamental change in the mode of transacting business on the Liverpool Exchange; and it would be necessary to- clog the business with written contracts and written warranties, which never yet existed, for the purpose of rendering merchants liable to make good the losses which might hereafter be dis covered. 1 party could be rhe learned coun- Waller, in which it was Evidence having been given in support of the facts of the case, _ . . Mr. DUNDAS, on the part of the defendants, submitted that there was no case proved. There was no proof at all of the knowledge of the defendants that the bales were not the same as the samples ; and he submitted to his lordship that his friend's law was wrong The JUDGf —There is no proof of knowledge. I am afraid it is a necessary ingredient in this case, and I see no evidence at all of it. Mr. WORTLEY submitted, that it was their duty to have known, and that they ought to have known. Here were merchants at Liverpool importing cotton falsely packed, and then, when they came to sell that cotton in the market here, they gave no opportunity for examining the bales, and what he submitted to the court was this, that they were bound to know, and, if they put it in that way, they should show that they did not know. The JUDGE.—I should tell the jury, that you must make out on your part, that the defendants knew that there was a fraud committed, or otherwise they are not liable. Mr. WORTLEY.—Perhaps you will give me leave to move to enter a verdict. Mr. DUNDAS.—You were to make out a case against those gentlemen of fraud. You have made out no case. The JUDGE.—You must either submit to be non-suited, or I must tell the jury that your case is not made out. Mr. WORTLEY.—Your lordship will not give me leave to move to enter a verdict, and I shall tender a bill of excep tions. The JUDGE.—NO ; because it is not made out. The jury, under the direction of his lordship, then returned a verdict for the defendants. CROWN COURT, SATURDAY MANSLAUGHTEF Thomas Bathels, aged 40, was charged with having, at West Houghton, killed a boy, named William Woodward. On the 2nd of January last the prisoner had charze of a cart, in which he, the deceased, and a boy were riding. The horse ran off at a gallop, the cart was upset on the top of the three, and the deceased was killed on the spot. There was no dis tinct evidence of carelessness on the part of the prisoner, and the jury, without requiring the evidence to be summed up, found a verdict of acquittal. STABBING Richard Smith, aged 45, was charged with feloniously cutting and stabbing Richard Hendley, at Bradshawgate, near Bedford, in this county. The jury acquitted the pri soner. ASSAULT Henry Winratn, aged 24, was indicted for having, at Orms kirk, in September last, maliciously cut an,: wounded Henry Worthington, the younger, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm ; also with having cut and wounded Henry Wor thington, the elder. It appeared, that some words had taken place between the prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, and, afterwards, with the prisoner himself, who fetched a small poker and struck the parties named on the head. The judge, on seeing the weapon, said this could be nothing more than an assault, at the most; and, as the prisoner had already suf fered six months' imprisonment. the jury might find verdict Larged. of acquittal, which they did, and the prisoner was disci' CARELESS DRIVIN A decent-looking and remarkably stout man, named Sham, and a boy, named Joner, were charged with having, at Man chester, killed and slain a little boy, eight years old, by running over him with a spring cart. It appeared that the child had been attempting to reach an omnibus which was going in the opposite direction, and that he was run over by mere accident. His Lordship stopped the case, after hearing some of the evidence, and directed an acquittal. His Lord ship remarked, that coroners ought to be more cautious in taking evidence in such cases, as it was grievous that par ties should suffer imprisonment on a charge so untenable. MANSLAUGHTER Joseph Andrews (who had been out on bail) was charged with killing and slaying one Brian Larney. It appeared that there had been a general brawl amongst the deceased and his companions, at the public-house kept by the prisoner, near Eccles, and that the whole party were fighting with sticks and other weapons. The case was stopped, and his Lord ship discharged the prisoner. SHOOTING George Caley, aged 24, was charged with being, on the 19th January, with others, in certain enclosed land in Crouton, for the purpose of taking or destroying game, he being armed with a gun ; and Joseph Sim, 25, was charged, along with him, with having there and then feloniously shot at and wounded Robert Wareing, with intent to resist and prevent the apprehension of the said prisoner, and to do him bodily harm. The prosecutors fail3d to make out the case against either party, and both prisoners were acquitted. BIGAMY William Radcliffe, a young man, pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy. It appeared that the second wife was aware that he was previously married. The injury done to her was, therefore, in his Lordship's opinion, not so great, and he should, therefore, deal with him more leniently. The pri soner was sentenced to four months' imprisonment and hard labour in Kirkdaie Gaol. MANSLAUGHTER Joseph Hall was indicted for killing and slaying, at Bolton, a child, two years old, named Charles Fords, by carelessness in driving a cart of which he had charge. It appeared, on the showing of Mr. Wilkins, who was for the defence, that the deceased was, in the indictment, called Charles Forts. This was a flaw fatal to the case, and a verdict of not guilty was recorded. His Lordship, on discharging the prisoner, stated, that it was reprehensible in him, under the circum stances, to leave the horses' heads. POACHING Two men, John Kulshaw and Richard Johnson, were in dicted for having been in a preserve in Bickersteth, on the 29th December, and with having cut and wounded J a m es Pinnington and Edward Wainwright, with intent to do them some grievous bodily harm. It appeared that the affray had been commenced by the prosecutors, who behaved with great brutality to the prisoners. His Lordship said, that the affray had commenced illegally on the part of the prosecutors, and the case resolved itself, as regarded the prisoners, into a matter of self-defence. He, accordingly, directed an acquit tal. The prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Wilkins, were detained to be tried on a future day, on another indict ment, for being armed with intent to destroy game. Samuel Cowburn, aged 30, was charged with having, at West Houghton, entered a close of 'William Hulton, Esq., armed with a bludgeon, for the purpose of taking and de stroying game. The prisoner was, it was stated, one of seven poachers, and had a dog with him, at which one of the keepers fired. The poachers then set upon the keepers with large sticks, and beat them, cutting one of th em or ith e h ea d. Th last witness said he was severely cut on the forehead, which he showed, but there did not appear to be any marks. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault only, and sentence was deferred. A number of prisoners were then brought up to the bar to plead to the charges against them, chiefly burglaries. They nearly all pleaded not guilty. Amongst them were the two Lucases, charged with having received a large quantity of silks, knowing them to have been stolen. SENTENCES Thomas Monaghan, and Mary, his wife, (who had previ ously been tried on a Mint case, when the male prisoner was found guilty,) were now charged with stealing, at Salford, a quantity of woollen cloth. Nu evidence was brought against them. Thomas Monaghan, for the offence against the Mint, was sentenced to be imprisoned at Kirkdale and kept to hard labour for five months. James Daniels, convicted of burglary, was sentenced to be imprisoned for eight months and hard labour. Margaret Bib& and Thomas Howard had pleaded guilty to a burglary at North Meols. Bibby had before been con victed, and was sentenced to be transported for ten years. She filled the court with her screams. Howard, whose offence was not very aggravated, was sentenced to be im prisoned for five months. Edward Knight, a respectably-dressed man, pleaded guilty to three charges of robbing his master. Seven years' trans portation. George Wood, a well-dressed young rnan, pleaded guilty to two charges of forging bills of exchange. lie had also before obtained money under false pretences. He was sen tenced to he transported for fifteen years. Edward Burns, aged sixteen, pleaded guilty to having forged an order for money. To be imprisoned and kept to hard labour two years. James Boardrnan, for stealing a young calf in the neigh bourhood of this town, pleaded guilty. lie had already suffered six months' imprisonment, and was sentenced to be William Johnson pleaded guilty to committing a burglary. He had before been convicted of burglary. The sentence was, that he be transported for ten years. The court rose at a quarter past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY MATHER v. ALLEN.—In this action the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant, for criminal conver sation with the plaintiff's wife, at Cheetham-hill, Manches ter, about midsummer last. Mr. Dundas, with two other learned and Mr. g Watson for the entlemen, appe defendant.ared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wortley A jury having been sworn, Mr. DQNDAS said, in this case it had been agreed that a verdict should be entered, by conse n t, f or t h e plaintiff, the sum of £250. A verdict was then formally returned for the plaintiff for £250 ; costs, 40s. TEMPLETON V. HAYWARD.—This was an action brought to recover the sum of £l9O, money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. The defendant p u t i n two pleas, on both of which issue was joined, first, that he was not indebted, and second, that the money had been paid before the action was brought. The case for the plaintiff, as it appeared in evidence, was as follows :—The plaintiff is Peter Buchanan Templeton, a shorthand-writer, in which capacity, it was stated, he had acquired a small property. He determined to change his profession, and, an opportunity presenting itself, advan tageous, as he thought, of entering upon the occupation of a brewery, he considered it would he a business of a somewhat more permanent character than that which he had heretofore followed. The defendant was a publican and brewer, occu pying the Moulders' Arms, in Major-street, Manchester. A negociation took place, in Manchester, between the de fendant and a Mr. Ashworth, whereby it was agreed that Ashworth should take the defendant's brewery and public house. Ashworth was a friend of the plaintiff's, and it was understood between them, that if the bargain between Ash worth and the defendant was completed, the plaintiff should become the brewer upon the premises at the public-house, at a regular salary, and, in the meantime, he was to attend at the place for two or three months in order to initiate him- self in . the business. On the of June following the plaintiff was to enter the public-house under Ashworth. Sub•equentiy, however, some disputes took place between the plaintiff and Ashworth, which terminated the arrange ment between them. The deposit of money by the plaintiff with the deleldant took place on the 18th of May, one of the Manchester race-days, and it was stated that he had, on several previous occasions, made similar deposits. On the day tirst named, the plaintiff had in his possession the sum of £2OO ; he was then about to go to the races, but, not wishing to take such a large amount with him, he said he would leave £l9O of it with the defendant, because, if the bargain went on between Ashworth and the defendant, he (Templeton) should have to pay at least that sum, by and by. The defendant said, " Do you want any acknowledgment for it ? " The plaintiff replied, " No, but you may give me an I 0 U." The defendant retired into another room to write the I 0 U, but he immediately returned, saying, he c ou ld not find the pen and ink, but, he added, " You have Cun life present as a witness, and be will be as good as an I 0 U." The plaintiff acquiesced in this arrangement. and, under these circumstances, the money was deposited with the defendant. In consequence of some misunderstanding, the bargain which had been completed between Ashworth and the defendant went off: the plaintiff, therefore, who had nothing to do with Ashworth, finding that the bargain was not completed, said he was not going to enter upon the public-house under any one but Ashworth, and demanded his money back from the defendant. The defendant, however, refused to give it up. Witnesses having been called to prove the above facts, Mr. WORTLEY addressed the jury for the defence, and called several witnesses. The jury said they would not trouble Mr. Baines to reply, or his lordship to sum up : they had made up their minds that the defendant had received the money, and that he had no right to keep it. The JUDGE expressed his agreement with the jury, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £l9O, the amount detained. LORD AND ANOTHER V. MALINSON.—This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract on the part of defendant, whereby he engaged to form a partnership with the plaintiffs. The declaration stated that the plaintiffs are John Lord and Michael Coghlan, and the defendant John Malinson ; and that, previously to the contract afterwards specified, the plaintiffs carried on business as wholesale dealers, in Man chester, from which they derived large profits ; and that the defendant was well skilled in the woollen trade, and in the habit of attending the Huddersfield market, and represented to the plointiffs, if they would sell their stock at Manchester and join him in partnership at Huddersfield, they would to gether make large profits. It was then averred that the defendant promised to become their partner, and use all his skill and knowledge for their joint benefit; that the plaintiffs gave up their business, sold off their stock at Manchester, and removed to Huddersfield, but that the defendant did not become their partner, nor use his skill and knowledge for their common benefit. For this the plaintiffs claimed £2OOO as compensation for special damage, £2OOO for loss on the sale of the stock, £lOOO for loss in consequence of the stock being sold at an improper time, and £lOOO for loss of profits : total, £6OOO. The defendant pleaded that he he had made no such contract, and that, if he had, it had been obtained from him by fraud and covin. _ . . Mr. BAINES contended that if the jury were of opinion that any damages should be awarded at all, they should be merely nominal, as the contract, if any existed, could have been put an end to in rive minutes after it was made. This was an attempt to extort money from the father of a rash young man, who had quitted his parent in a moment of anger, and entered into a foolish arrangement. _ _ The JUDGE summed up, and the jury retired. After an nhsence of more than two hours, they returned into court. when the the foreman(Mr. Joseph Arm strong,of Manchester.) in reply to the usual question, whether they were agreed upon their verdict, said he had been directed by the jury to re commend that a juror should be withdrawn, if the court had the power to do so. Mr. MARTIN (Mr. Baines having retired) said, if the jury wished it, he had no objection whatever. Mr. ARCHBOLD (Mr. Wortley having, like Mr. Baines, retired.)—We cannot consent. The :JUDGE.—WeII, gentlemen of the jury, I have no power to disharge you; you must retire again to consider your verdict. The FOREMAN.—We have made up our minds, my lord; we find for the defendant. The JUDGE.—Very good. Let the verdict be entered " WANTED," A JURY. The foregoing jury retired to consider their verdict at twenty-five minutes past three o'clock, when the Judge di rected another jury to be sworn, to proceed with the case of Houldsu,vrth v. Kearsley. _ Much delay occurred, only three jurymen appearing, not withstanding repeated calls in every avenue of the court. Mr. Forrest stated that Baron Parke had discharged one list of jurymen in the other court. His Lordship called for the summoning officers, Taskar and Sellars, but they could not be found, and were, in consequence, fined £5 each. After much calling and considerable loss of time, ten jurymen were at length got together in the box, and, as there appeared no prospect of making up the full number, Mr. Brandt and Mr. Knowles, the counsel in the case, agreed to try it with ten jurymen only ! WORK AND LABOUR IlourmswoßTH M r . Brandt for the plain tiff, Mr. Knowles and Mr. Atherton for the defendant. The action was brought to recover £6O for work and labour done by the plaintiff for the defendant, in Manchester, in mason's work, in the erection of some houses in Chorlton-road and Moss-side, Manchester. The defendant said that, except as to £3B, which had been paid into court, he was not indebted. The question was merely as to the prices at which the work was done, consequently the case had no interest in it, except to the parties concerned. After the trial had proceeded for some time, the cause was referred. LIBEL. SHERBURNE v. QUARME.—There were two special jury cases thus entered in the second list, both of which were made remanets at the last assizes. Just before the rising of the court, Mr. DUNDAS said, there were two cases on his Lordship's list on which a verdict would be taken by consent for the plaintiff. "The JUDGE.—Which cases are those ? Mr. BAINES.—Nos. 64 an d 65, my lord. Sherburne versus Quarme. The JUDGE.—Very well. Mr. BAINES again rose, and said it had been agreed by his learned friend and himself, he (Mr. Baines) representing the defendant, that there should in these cases be a verdict en tered for the plaintiff, for a nominal sum, the defendant withdrawing the plea of justification which he had put upon the record. Mr. Quarme, his client, was a gentleman who conducted a newspaper at Lancaster, and be had always been anxious to conduct it honourably, and in a manner without injustice to any one. The article s of which the plaintiff com plained were published originally without Mr. Quarme's knowledge; he knew nothing of them whatever, and, there fore, he had instructed him (Mr. Baines) to consent to this verdict, and to withdraw the justification. Mr. DIINDAS, upon the part of the plaintiff, his client, of course, after the justification upon the record had been with drawn, could not but accede to this arrangement. His ob ject. was only to stop libel s upon his character ; and the justification having been withdrawn, be was content. A verdict in both cases for one shilling damages and one shilling costs in each, was taken by consent. The court then adjourned at half-past five o'clock. CROWN COURT.-MONDAY, April 3. CALLING OF JURORS Mr. Baron PARKE entered the Court, as usual, at nine o'clock, and immediately afterwards ordered the Clerk of Arraigns to call over the list of jurors, in order to ascertain if there were any absentees. The jurors in the Civil Court having been called into the Crown Court, the list was read over. The following gentlemen did not answer, and were each fined £5 :—Thomas Barnes, of Farnworth ; Richard Cummings, of Litherland ; Charles Galt. of Hulme ; William Reynolds, of Warrington ; George Robinson, of Everton ; Robert Syke, of Hardwick ; Michael Trueman, of Cheetham ; Israel Taylor, of Wigan ; and Ellis Yates, of Liverpool. It was mentioned that by the imposition of this fine the absent jurors were not released from attendance : they are subject to further fines during the Assizes, if they did not attend, William Chadwick, 27, late of the parish of Ashton-under- Lyne, labourer, was indicted for having, on the 4th of Octo ber, criminally assaulted Catherine Hurst. Mr. \VHIGHAM was for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS defended the pri soner. Mr. WHIGHAM, in opening the case, said he believed that Catherine Hurst had been subject to fits, and that her intel lect was not of the brightest order. Catherine Hurst was'called. She was a tall, rather deli cate-looking girl. and stated that she was 16 years of age on the 3d of November last. She lived with her parents at Duckenfield. On Monday, the 24th October, she went to Openshaw, for the purpose of seeing her sister. About six o'clock in the evening she set out on her return to Duck enfield. A young man named Joshua Clarke, who was courting her sister, accompanied her as far as Hammond's public-house, where she expected to find a coach. When she got there, however, the coach had gone, and she set off towards Duckenfield, alone, and on foot. She had not got many paces before two carts came up. They were proceed ing in the direction that she wished to go. The prisoner at the bar had the care of the first cart. There was a man with the other cart. She asked the prisoner, who was on the pathway to let her ride. He consented, and she got into the cart. which was loaded with cotton bags. There was a tarpauling thrown over the bags ; he lifted it up, and she sat under it. She rode from Hammond's to the other side of the stone bridge leading to Ashton by herself. When they came to the two roads leading to Ashton ' the other cart went by the o ld wa y, and the one in which she was riding went by the new way. Before arriving at these roads, the prisoner had got into the cart, but he went out again. After they had passed the new bridge he got on again. That was about a quarter of a mile from the two roads. There were no persons on the road when he got on again. After having fastened the tarpauling to the side he got into the cart, and asked her to take her bonnet off, that it might not be scrumpled. The tarpauling was not over her when he got into the cart, but he put it over. He then began to take liberties with her ; s h o sc reamed out 'M ur d er, " but there was no one near to help her. When he had accomplished his brutal purpose, he got off the cart. He wanted to give her a shilling and a glass of gin, but she refused it. She then went on to describe the steps she took in consequence of the prisoner's brutality. Several other persons corroborated the prosecutor's evidence as far as they were concerned. She LLI Limn of th e name of Beau mont __ ..... was driver of the eart. in cross-exatnina it was driver of the cart. His LORDSHIP, in summing up , p refac ed the evidence with ,otne general observations, o ne of which was that in cases like this it was necessary for the jury to look upon the testi mony of the prosecutrix with great care and caution. She had, lie said, externally the appearance of a person of weak intellect; but she had given her evidence in a manner which manifested little or nothing of weakness of intellect. He put it to the jury to consider, with especial care, whether, if her statement were correct, the advances of the prisoner had not been of a sufficiently suspicious character to give her a clear intimation of his de si g n, and whether she might not have as easily got off the cart before as she did after the assault. If Beamont was present when the alleged outrage took place, he must have heard the screams , if there were any, and might have been called by the prosecution. The jury retired. After an absence of a few minutes, they returned with a verdict of guilty, but re commended the prisoner to mercy. The JUDGE said that he must know on what account the recommendation to mercy had been given. If the prisoner was guilty, he could not see any ground for the recommenda tion. if the jury had any doubt, they must make up their minds. The FOREMAN.—We have no doubt of the prisoner's guilt, my lord. Mr. Wit.KlNs.—Perhaps your lordship would ask them what they mean. The JUDGE.—Yea. What do you mean, gentlemen, by recommending the prisoner to mercy The FOREMAN.—We think, my Lord, that if Beamount, the carter, had been produced, he might have given testimony in favour of the prisoner. Mr. WILKINS.—I hope you hear the answer, my Lord. The JUDGE.—Yes. If You have any doubt, gentlemen, you must consider your verdict. - The FOREMAN.—We brought the prisoner in guilty ___. The June.—Very well The prisoner was then asked, in the usual way, whether he had anything to say why sentence should not he passed upon him. lie replied that he wifhed to have witnesses called as to his character. The Ju D GE.—That would be of no use, because the penalty is fixed by the law. The jury, after a patient examination, have found you guilty. There were some circumstances which made it necessary that 1 should lay them before the jury with observations in your favour, but the jury are the proper con stitutional judges of the facts. Of one fact there is not the least doubt, that the woman to whom you have done this in jury was before that time a virgin, and your misconduct has been great indeed, in any view of the case. But the jury, who are the proper judges of all questions of this kind, have found you guilty of that serious offence for which your life would have been forfeited a year or two ago, and for which you will now be punished by the loss of your country for the rest of your life, and the loss, probably, of your libesty too ; for you must recollect that in being transported Ito a foreign country, you are a slave, unless, by your good conduct, you merit a remission of that sentence. The sentenre of the Court is that you be transported fot this offence across the seas, for the term of yodr natural life. Mr. WHIGnAm mentioned that nothing whatever was known of Beamont until the time of the trial. William France, 21, a respectable-looking youth, was in dicted for having, at Ashton-under-Lyne, feloniously ravished Sarah Ann Cordingley. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecu tion, Mr. Wilkins the defence. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. SENTENCES. Robert Dean. Joseph Buckley, and Benjamin Whitehead, who had been previously convicted, were each sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. STABBING Thomas Jackson, 132, a decent-looking man, was charged with having, on the night of the 30th of August, stabbed William Henry Rooke, an inspector of the Manchester police, when on duty, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The learned Judge thought that the indictment could not be supported, and directed that a verdict of guilty of an assault should be returned. The prisoner was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. SHEEP STEALING John Holden, late of Rochdale. was indicted for maliciously killing a ram, the property of Richard Whithworth, on the 20th of October. Another count of the indictment charged him with killing the ram, with intent to iteal the carcass. After evidence had been beard, his Lordship said he thought the case a doubtful one, but permitted it to go to the jury, who at once acquitted the prisoner. ATTEMPT TO MURDER AN INFANT Mary Hopkinson, 26, a single woman, was indicted for having, on the 28th of July last, at Tottington Higher, fe loniously attempted to suffocate her illegitimate female child, with intent to kill it. The child was found in the privy of the factory at which the prisoner worked. She said that she dropped the child into the privy, and could not get it out she was so frightened. His Lordship said that if there was no thing to rebut the presumption that the prisoner might have mistaken the labour pains, and have dropped the child in, without any intention on her part, there was no case against her. The prisoner was discharged. BURGLARY David Whiston, 18, and Daniel Whiston,lB, were con victed of burglariously entering the dwelling-house of Sa muel Hawley, at Ashton-uuder-Lyne, with intent to steal his goods and chattels, and were sentenced to be transported for ten years. Mr. Taylor, Mr. Wainwright, and three other gentlemen of the jury who were fined in the morning for non-attendance, appeared in the course of the day, and the fines on them were remitted. The Court rose at twenty minutes past seven. NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY (Before Mr. Justice Coltman.) The Learned Judge took his seat at twenty minutes past nine. PARTRIDGE v. QUA YLE.—This case stands No. 5 in the list for the hundred of West Derby. The plaintiff is Cap tain Partridge, who was recently tried in the Central Critni nal Court for the murder of two Spaniards, and the defend ant is a shipowner in Liverpool. The action is for the reco very of an alleged debt. Mr. Watson, for the defendant, now applied to his lordship to postpone the trial untila com mission was issued and returned for the examination of Wm. Tear, now at Teneriffe, in Spain, on the ground that the tes timony of the witness was material for the defence. Mr. Justice COLTI4I AN inquired whether a similar applica tion had not been made to and refused by Lord Abinger ? Mr. WATSON said that was certainly so, but on tat occa sion the grounds of the application were not stated. The learned counsel then read some correspondence between the parties, which, he contended, had led the defendant to sup pose that the plaintiff would not proceed with the action ; and the defendant would be prejudiced unless he had the bene fit of Tear's evidence. Mr. Justice COLTMAN, under the circumstances, said he must refuse the application. Mr. WATSON then requested his lordship to order that the trial should not come on before to-morrow (Tuesday). Mr. Justice COLTMAN said he had no objection to that. _____._ WHITE v. WINTYRE.—This case was next called, when neither the plaintiff nor his attorney appearing, the Judge ordered it to be struck out. WHITEHEAD AND EXECUTOR,'ADMINISTATRIX v BUCK LEY.—This was an action to recover £27 12s. 4. by James Whitehead and Sarah Whitehead his wife, the administratrix of Ashton Winterbottom, from James Buckley. executor to the estate of Ann Lees, deceased. The parties are from the neighbourhood of Rochdale. Mr. WATSON appeared for the plaintiffs : Mr. KNOWLES for the defendant. It appeared that Ashton Winterbottom died in the year 1827: and on the 2d February, 1842, Mrs. Whitehead who was his personal representative obtained letters of adminis tration of his effects. At the time of Winterbottoms' death, Mrs. Lees was indebted to him in the amount now sought to be obtained. In January last, as the money could not be obtained from the defendant, a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs waited upon the defendant and said to him " do you deny the amount ?" He replied " No, it is correct, and I will pay it." Mr. Watson cited the case of Smith v. Fortune in which the late Mr. Baron Vaughan held that a parole ad mission, under such circumstances as were here proved, by the defendant was evidence of his liability. Mr. KNOWLES, on the other side, addressed the Court contending that the case cited by his learned friend was not analagous to the present. An attempt was here made to get rid of the operation of the statute of limitations upon mere parole evidence, which he trusted the court would prevent. Mr. Justice COLEMAN said the equity was clearly on the side of the plaintiff, and he should direct the jury so to find ; but he would give the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit.—Verdict accordingly. MOTHER V. SON, GREY, ADMINISTRZTRIX,;.day.—The plaintiff in this case, Mary Gray, as administratrix of the effects of Thomas Gray, deceased, alleged she was possessed of certain house hold furniture which came into the possession of the defen dant, James Gray, and which be had converted to his own use. The defendant pleaded he Orßia not guilty in the man ner alleged, and further denied the plaintiff's possession, and that he had converted the goods to his own use by the leave and licence of the plaintiff. The damages were laid at £2OO. Mr. Hugh Hill appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. _ . Mr. HILL said, the plaintiff and defendant stood in the near relationship of mother and son, the plaintiff being the mother of the defendant; and it was much tp be lamented that the case could not be settled out of court. He bad only to say, it was not the plaintiff's fault that it was brought before the jury ; and before he opened the circumstances he would again propose that it should be settled out of court. The JunGE.—Yes ; why should these family differences go before the public ? Mr. HOGGINS assented to the proposition on the condition that the reference was immediately proceeded with. Mr. HILL said his client had no motive whatever for delay. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for 4230, sub ject to a reference. REPLEVIN. !Awn V. MORLEY AND °TREAS.—Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Knowles for the defendants. The plaintiff rented a farm at Little Lever, near Bolton, from the defendants, who were obliged to distrain for the rent. The plaintiff replevined and questioned the letting by the de fendants ; who, by the form of the action, had the right of commencing. After an uninteresting trial of about an hour and a half, the jury found a verdict for the defendants, and that the plaintiff was indebted to them for rent £67. 10s. BADDELEY V. FOWLER.—An undefended action brought by an attorney at Stockport, against his client, a druggist in that town, to recover £67 17s. 2d. for work and labour done.—Verdict for the amount claimed. ATHERTON V. DALTON AND ANOTHER.—An action un defended, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange.— Verdict for the plaintiff £2B 6s. 7d. CLOSE V. GERMAN.—An action in ejectment. The de fendant did not appear, and consequently a verdict was en tered for the plaintiff. FROSTE V. HonsoN.—Undefended. Verdict for the plain tiff £5O 17s. 104 d. NORTH AND SOUTH WALES BANK BROWN, PUBLIC OFFICER v. CORLETT.—Mr. Knowles and Mr. Drinkwater appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Watson for the defendant. The declaration stated that the action was brought for money had and received, for money lent by the co-partnership, and for interest upon the same. Seve ral pleas were entered by the defendant, on which issue was joined. Mr. KNOWLES said he had the honour to appear on the part of Mr. James Brown, the public registered officer of the North and South Wales Bank • which, although of that name, was in point of fact, carri ed on in Liverpool. The defendant, Mr. Thomas A. Corlett, had been the managing officer of the bank, which was entirely under his controul during the time be was manager. The object of the action was to recover from him the sum of .£2,400 which had been lent to him by the bank, and in which he stood indebted to the bank upon a banking account. Mr. Corlett, he should state, was not only manager of the bank, but he had also an account with it in the same way as any other customer; lie drew checks the same as any other customer ; and it would appear that at the termination of the account he stood in debted to the bank in the sum named, £2,400. He (the learned counsel) should have no difficulty whatever in proving this, because he would produce the defendant's own cheques, and they would satisfactorily show that the defendant owed the bank the sum stated. It would not be necessary for him to address to the jury one word more, were it not that his learned friend, Mr. Watson, held a brief for the defendant, and therefore he was obliged to treat this as a case in which some defence or other was to be tried. He (Mr. Knowles) was, in consequence, induced to turn to the pleas upon the record ; and he there found, among other things, that the defendant pleaded a set-off, that was, he said that the bank was indebted to him a larger sum than he was to the bank. The defendant would attempt to make out this plea in this way—he would attempt to shew credit had not been given to him for all the moneys which he had paid into the bank. How that could be shewn he (Mr. Knowles) knew not; but he did know that Mr. Corlett, as manager, had had the books in his power—that he had opportunities of directing money to be paid as he pleased ; and it might, possibly, turn out that sums of money had been directed to pass through Mr. Corlett's account which had no business there, and which belonged either to the bank or to some of its customers. He (Mr. Knowles) only made this observation in anticipation of what his learned friend might be instructed what to say; if nothing of the kind was said there was an end of it ; but if Mr. Corlett did attempt to make out a set-off, by that mode of defence, he (Mr. Knowles) should have some disclosures to make respecting Mr. Corlett, which Mr. Corlett would not be very glad to hear. He should say no more now ; but proceed to prove that Mr. Corlett was indebtedegtuoetshedrbaawnnk in the sum he had named, by producing the ch so he should see whether his learned friend met the case in by him, now in the hands of the bank ; and when be bad done a tte t c m i p a a n t n e e . r w T h h i e c h learnedh e (M r. gentlemanK nowl instructed to Samuel Tomkinson, who said that previous to May, 1841, he was cashier to the North and South Wales Bank ; and he es h b e a n d c b a calle d produced 336 cheques signed by the defendant, amounting to X 3,900 18s. Id. They were all paid by witness. Cross-examined by Mr. WATEON.—I know there have been above £lO,OOO paid into the bank to the account of the defendant during that period. The pass-book produced is in the writing of Mr. Fisher, who was a clerk in the bank in 1841. It was Fisher's duty to make out the pass-book. Re-examined.—The £lO,OOO was paid into the bank, not entirely on Mr. Corlett's own account, but on account of the bank and other parties. That £lO,OOO was money re ceived by Mr. Corlett in his capacity as manager of the bank; he caused those moneys to be placed to the credit of his account ; and he drew them out for the uses for which they were intended. By the bank books, witness could dis tinguish on what accounts those moneys were paid in ; and, by his knowledge of the transactions, could distinguish be tween the money paid out on his own account and other moneys. Mr. Corlett was in the habit of giving witness verbal instructions about his account; and he gave witness instructions in relation to all the sums which were not paid in on his own account. Recollected on the 24th January, 1837, £9OO being paid in by Mr. Corlett, under the name of Harrison and Co. The directors were in the habit of hold ing half-yearly meetings, to balance the accounts. In Janu ary, 1842, one of those meetings took place. The defendant was present; his account was looked through by the direc tors, and the balance stated to amount to £2,003 Is. 9d. It was read from the bank ledger, by the chairman, Mr. Chris. Bentham. The defendant got up, and stated he was sorry the balance appeared so high against him ; but, lie was happy to tell the directors, he had been in London, where he had seen his friends, and made arrangements to pay oft the amount shortly, or to put it on a more satisfactory footing by giving security. The balance was struck up to the 31st December previous, in the ledger. Since then the account had been altered by a few small payments in of about £3O, against £27 10s. drawn out. Witness had since ascertained that the £2,003 was not a correct balance; for be had disco vered that on the 3d February, 1841, the sum of £353 18s. had been erroneously placed to his credit. This was made up by interest up to the 31st January, 1841, transferred from W. A. Smith's account ; that was to say, Mr. Smith was charged that sum in interest and commissions, which had been paid in and carried to the credit of Mr. Corlett's ac count, instead of being carried to the credit of the bank's profit and loss account. Mr. Corlett had left the bank when witness discovered the mistake. Mr. WATSON contended that the evidence for this amount of £353 was insufficient. Mr. KNOWLES admitted he could not establish the item any further, and he would abandon it. By Mr. WATSON.-Mr. Corlett's private account was opened in 1836, and continued down to the time he left. He had bought shares for himself, not on account of the bank, but with the bank's money. Mr. WATSON said he could not contend against the proof which had been given for the sum of £2,003 14s. sd. The JUDGE then told the jury the plaintiff bad made out the claim of the bank to that amount, and they must find accordingly. Verdict for the plaintiff—£2,oo3 14s. sd. Mr. KNowz.zs applied for speedy execution. The JUDGE.—YOU shall have it in the ordinary way, BILL OF EXCHANGE. LANE AND ANOTHER V. ASHTON.—An undefended action on a bill of exchange.—Verdict for the plaintiff, £3B Is. 6d. TRESPASS FARRINGTON V. KAY AND OTHERS.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who lives at Turton, in the neigh bourhood of Bolton, to recover compensation in damages for a trespass committed by the defendants by entering his pre mises, and executing a distress upon the goods therein. Mr. Whigham conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Segar and Mr. Martin appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff occupied a house as tenant to the defendant Kay; and in the month of September, last year, when no rent was due, the defendants forcibly entered upon the pre mises, which were then locked up, and took away goods to the ♦alue of £l5. The defence was that rent was due, but it was not made out. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £l5 ; but the JUDGE granted leave to move to the defendant, on a technical objection to the proceedings. BREACH OF CONTRACT DAVIDSON V. CARR AND OTHERS.—This was an action to recover compensation for a breach of agreement. The declaration averred that the plaintiff agreed to hire himself to the defendants as traveller and salesman for a period of three years from the 2d January, 1841, unless the agreement should be put an end to by a notice in writing before the 2d of April following ; and the plaintiff continued in their service till the Bth of July, last year, without any such notice having been given, when the defendants discharged him. The de fendants put in several pleas, the most important of which was that the plaintiff had violated his duties by falsely repre renting to them that he had received certain orders, in con sequence of which goods were sent to the parties, who these upon returned the goods to the defendants, and, in conse quence, they suffered great detriment and loss. Mr. KNOWLES, Mr. WORTLEY, and Mr. COWLING, ap peared for the plaintiff: Mr. BAINES and Mr. WATSON for the defendants. On the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Job Davidson, it was proved that the defendants, Thomas Carr, sen., Henry Carr, and Thomas Carr, jun., carry on business under the name of Thomas Carr and Sons, as silk manufacturers and mer chants, at Leek, in Staffordshire, and also at Manchester, where they have a warehouse, with which the plaintiff was principally connected. They employ a number of travellers, who solicit orders and transmit them to their principals in Manchester. Before the plaintiff entered the defendants' service he was a traveller for Mr. Smith, a merchant in Manchester, and when he went to the defendants he took with him the best of characters. An agreement was made between them on the 2d Jan., 1841, for an engagement for 3 years, at a graduated salary—the first year at 1:100, the second £llO, and the third £l2O. This agreement came into operation immediately, and the plaintiff was assigned to take the " West ern journey" and the " Welsh journey ;" and he was inces santly occupied in thus serving the firm for a year and a half. The early part of the agreement was exceedingly lucrative to the defendants ; the plaintiff opening many new houses, with whom business was not done before, to the extent it was stated of 105. The early part of 1842, like the period before, passed over without dissatisfaction ; but trade, in all branches, had considerably declined, and consequently the plaintiff's journeys became not equally profitable with those in the former part of his engagement. Complaints then be gan to be made to the plaintiff upon the results of his jour neys, on the ground that they were not so profitable as they ought to be. On the 14th of April, when the plaintiff was at Bangor. he received a letter from the defendants expressing their displeasure at the fruit of his exertions, seeing the re turns were diminished, and that an early separation was re commended as they were daily more grieved at the result, and remaining would be only against his: character. The plaintiff returned to Manchester, and it was alleged that some inferior office was then offered to him 'oy the defen dants but he refused to accept it, and demanded the fulfil ment of the agreement. On the 22d June, being then on a journey, he received a letter from the defendants, which might be considered as terminating the engagement. It was to this effect—" In course of post state to us when you pro pose being in Manchester, and be prepared with a statement of your accounts as advised, being so dissatisfied with the employment of your time that we shall discontinue your ser vices.—Thomas Carr and Sons." NN hen the plaintiff returned he found the defendants resolved to act upon the dismissal in the above letter, but he continued, for a considerable time, to present himself daily at the warehouse, ready to ac cept any employment within the scope of his engagement. Some objection was raised to the reception of the agree ment in evidence, on the ground that the attesting witness to it, Christopher Hebden, was not present to prove the execu tion of it. It was proved that he sailed for New York in the packet-ship Sheffield, in May last, and a letter having been received from him shortly before Christmas, it was contended that he might be in this country at the present moment. The JUDGE overruled the objection, but gave leave to move. The case for the defendants, as stated by counsel, and proved by several witnesses, was,that their house is upwards of 90 years standing, and of the first respectability. They had paid the plaintiff up to the Bth of July, the period when be was discharged. For some time they had no reason whatever to complain of his conduct, and they had spoken of his exer tions as they deserved. After that time, however, a marked change took place in him ; the returns from the other " cir cuits" had increased, whilst those ;from the plaintiff's had fallen off; and it was then discovered that a state of things had sprung up which they could not submit to. Under these circumstances the plaintiff set out, in May, 1842, upon his last journey; and his dismissal took place in consequence of what took place on that journey. In order to obviate his small returns, the plaintiff had recourse to stratagem of an ingenious kind, likely to prove destructive to the charac ter of his employers if they allowed it, and one which they were bound to punish the moment it was ascertained. He had made fraudulent returns of the amount of the orders he bad taken, thereby inducing the defendants to send to their customers in some instances, double the quantity of goods which had been actually ordered. Mr. E. Smallwood, a draper in Birmingham, Messrs. Langridge and Sons, drapers of Bristol, and Mr. Gardner, of Hereford and Bristol, proved cases of this kind; and it was contended that any one of them was a sufficient justification for the dismissal. Mr. KNOWLES, in his reply for the plaintiff, contended that the circumstances shewed that what had been called falsification of orders, were at the most only two in number, and they were obvious mistakes ; that no harm had resulted from them ; that the plaintiff had no interest whatever in misrepresenting the orders he received ; and, at all events, sufficient had not been shewn to justify a house which had received so much benefit from the plaintiff's services dis missing him in so summary a manner. The real motive, however, for discharging the plaintiff was, that trade had fallen off, and because the defendants could obtain, and had obtained, another traveller at a less salary than that paid to the plaintiff. The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that if they were of opinion the plaintiff had knowingly made false re turns of the orders he had received, that would be a justifiable cause for dismissal ; but if they were not, they must find for the plaintiff. The jury, after ten minutes' consideration, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £l5O. This, with the £6O 9s. 4d., half-year's salary, paid when the discharge took place, makes £2lO 9s. 7d. The court adjourned at seven o'clock. THE CAUSE LIST. The following was the state of the cause list at the rising of the court last night : FIRST LIST.-SALFORD HUNDRED. Plainttf.-Nos. 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 47. Defendant.-Nos. 8, 12, 16, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 51. Referred.-Nos. 28, 29, 43, 50. Withdrawn.-Nos. 19, 32, 41. Struck Out.-Nos. 45, 46, 48. SECOND LIST.-WEST DERRY HUNDRED. Plaintiff—Nos. 1,3, 4,7, 8, 20, 34, 55, 64, 65, 68. Withdrawn.—Nos. 2,6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 32, 56, 61 52, 74, 75, 86. • MURDER OF A WIFE.—An inquest was held recently at Colchester, on view of the body of a female who had been most cruelly used by her husband. It appeared by the evi dence that he had knocked her about the head with his fists, kicking her in the most cruel manner. The jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against him. THEFT FROM A POST-OFFICE.—On Wednesday, at the Bury St. Edmund's Assizes, Charlotte Blunden, a domestic in the employ of the postmistress of Lavenham, in the county of Norfolk, was indicted for stealing from out of a post letter a £5 bank note, the property of the Postmaster- General. She was found guilty, and was again indicted for obtaining the sum of £2 under false pretences, and was de clared guilty of this also. She was sentenced to ten years' transportation. TRIAL OF COOPEER, THE CHARTIST.—The case for the prosecution against Cooper, the chartist, at Stafford, termi nated on Saturday week ; and the defence was then com menced. At the rising of the court, Mr. Justice Erskine stated that he should sit until that trial was finished, what ever time it might occuPY, but that he should not take cj'Neil's or any other case : he made that declaration with a view to prevent the unnecessary attendance of special jurors and witnesses. The trial " dragged its slow length along from Monday till Thursday, Cooper having occupied three days in examining witnesses. Sergeant Talfourd replied at the conclusion of the examination. On Thursday morning, Judge Erskine commenced summing up : it occupied eleven hours, and did not conclude till eight o'clock. The jury re tired for about ten minutes, and then returned, and delivered a verdict of guilty against all the three defendant, but recom mending Cappur to mercy. Cooper expressed himself much indebted to the kindness and patience of the judge, which he had so abundantly manifested during the trial, and begged to know how or when they were to receive sentence. Capper expressed his gratitude to the jury and the judge. Richards was absent at the delivery of the verdict. His lordship in formed the defendants that they would receive notice on their recognizances to appear and receive judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench. CHESTER SSIZES (Fr•om our own Correspont The commission of assizes for the( ter, was opened at the Castle on Justice Williams and Mr. Baron more than usually heavy, containit soners, many of them charged v. there being no fewer than six el, der, sixteen with stabbing, twer two for poaching, six for rape, and six for un an offence for which this county appears to to rious, besides a variety of other offences enormity - tended divine On Sunday last the learned Jud in the Cathedral ; and, yesterday morning their Lordships commenced the business of CROWN COURT. Before Mr. BAR.ON MAUI.I On the learned Judge taking his seat in this delay occurred previous to the business being proc in consequence of the non-arrival of the Grand was nearly eleven o'clock before the whole of the appeared in court, when the following gentlemen were sworn of THE GRAND JURY. John Tollemache, Esq., M.P., of Tilston Lodge, Foreman. William Theo. Buchannan, Esq., Ravenscroft. Thomas Booth, Esq., of Twemlow. Henry Brooke, Esq., of Grange. John Cleminson, Esq., Chester. Colonel Richard Egerton, of Eaton Bank. Charles Ingram Ford, Esq., Abbey Field. Francis Ford, Esq., Sandbach. James France France, Esq., Bostock. John Baskervylle Glegg, Esq., Withington Hall. John Upton Gaskell, Esq., Ingestrie Hall. John Hosken Harper, Esq., Davenham. James W. Hammond, Esq., Wistaston. George C. Legh, Esq., High Legh. Ralph G. Leycester, Esq., Toft Hall. Edward J. Lloyd, Esq., Oldfield Hall. Thomas J. W. Swettenham, Esq., Swettenham. Clement Swettenham, Esq., Somerford. Colonel W. Tomkinson, Willington. Randle Wilbraham, jun., Esq., Rode Heath. Fitzjames Watts, Esq., Wether Legh. Afler the proclamation against vice and immorality had been read, the learned Judge delivered his charge, which was more than usually brief. His lordship regretted the number and nature of offences contained in the calendar, but said, though it was probable they might need his assistance and direction in some of the cases, yet he would not then take up their time by anticipating the difficulties which might arise; but when they did arise, he should request them to apply to him, and he should afford all the advice in his power. There was, however, one case to which he would then direct their attention ; and that was where death had ar; -- • coal-mine, which be understood had become - - currence lately in that county. If a person s, _ himself that, by doing anything he ought not, or to do what was his duty, death ensued in consequence. was guilty of manslaughter. That was the case ge aboveground. and the same would apply to to lordship then referred to the persons charged w; crimes, and advised the grand jury, unless th, probability of the parties against whom bills wow, ferred being convicted, not to find true bills, as the , investigation of such cases had a mischievous effect uni, conviction followed.—The grand jury then retired to their duties. th unnatr One or two unimportant cases were tried duri There are only thirteen causes entered on ivil side RAILWAY INTELLIGENCI NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE RAILWAY. — meeting of this company was held in Newcastle 'oi 1 list. There is a balance of p rofit on the y ear of 4:ls' and a dividend of £ 4 per £ lOO share was declared. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.—The opening of line, from the terminus at Shoreditch to Colchester, place on Wednesday. The dis tance was accomplished i; hours and forty minutes. The trip was rendered very z able on account of the fineness of the weather, and, thr out, no accident or interruption took place. The grad moderate on the whole line, and the country being lere is no tunnelling whatever, but there are some very lal cuttings, and there are three places on which the r supported by wooden platforms or scaffoldings, • American manner; these portions of the road ar, built, and though in their appearance enough to make gers of weak nerves tremble, are perfectly secure, a haps the best bits of the whole road. The road is croi many places by bridges; one in particular, an iron brid, Coggeshall, is a remarkably fine structure, and equal to thing of the sort ever executed. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY.— The Liverpool and Manchester extension line which forms the heaviest portion of this junction railway is in a forward state, and the Manchester and Leeds ex tension line t nearly s-- miles and a third, the Leeds extension being 2,320 s and the Liverpool extension line being 1,790 yards It would be difficult to p ive anything like an . ar mate of the cost ; but we should say, thatit W. under £340,000 or £350,000. This opinion is con a statement made by the chairman of the Manche. Leeds Company, at a meeting held about this time las Mr. Houldsworth then stated that the cost of their oa tension, down to Hunt's Bank, with a station and oi. very complete, would be £200,000; but it might be cc strutted on a more economical scale for £lBO,OOO. He sai they had received no estimate from the Liverpool and chester Company ; but, at the same meeting, the it was that the distance to the Bolton line, from railway, was about 580 yards; and the Bolton station station to Hunt's Bank was al that. estimating the cost at an average of would be £135,780. We imagine that in this colonnade along the side of the Bolton station, UL street (230 yards in length), was not included, ai sum for this work, say £16,000, the total cost of of the two extension lines would will nearly £302 11, traffic likcly W pass us,' the liuc, doubtles to create a sensible diminution in th e n umber and lurries passing through the streets. The prof two companies from this source, we understanc likely to appear so much in direct returns from t along the junction line as in the traffic attracted by 1. tion to the two main lines from other means of conve, A project was on foot some time since for the creak), another line to connect the Manchester and Birmingham, and Manchester and Sheffield station with the others at Hunt's Bank, but we believe it has been, for the present, abandoned. It is exp ected that the entire of the junction line will be completed b y September. fter THE COMET, our mentioned in summ ary of the intt , _ We have be great Western that this appe arance ha s observed in America. An exam ination was made at two of the schools at Philadelphia, and we copy the following üblished i n that city. results from a paper p OBSERVATIONS AT HAVERFOREL—The nucleus of the comet, the tail of which has been so conspicuous, was at Haverford School on the evening of the 11th instant. " It was visible for a short time to the naked eye, although its brightness was inf erior to that of a star of the first naa-gh.; nitude. " As seen through the telescopes, it was situate right of a ne jo i n i ng the stars Zeta and Chi, of the ( line stellation Cetus. and formed with them a triangle r equilateral, the angle at the comet being somewhat tb est. to the great- and ap t sli ` g ` h T tl h y e ctauirlywedas:bitohutthfoertcyondr; length,iinipwards, i, was probably conspicuous than on the evening of the 7th. owing in part to the increase of light moon " O BSERV ATIONS IN THI: HIGII SCHOOL. - - The Con which by some has been taken for the zodiacal light, v last night distinctly seen in its passage from The sun, hay' moved so far eastward that the nucleus or body cou ld ' distinctly seen through the telescope. By h observations the High School observatory, by Professor Kendall and ", Walker, assisted by Professor Bache, and Dr. Patters School, the right ascension of the nucleus at Moors 21 minutes a n n i d gh throueh t tl 12 seconds was one hour 45 minutes and second, an d declinrtion south 11 degrees 35 minutes and 23 second was 25 minutes of space south of Zeta Ceti, a s' third magnitude, and was of about the brightness o , nstuacrieuTl:trpopuegahretdhelikCeomaetpleaanreethaeryr otflistchi,s nine feet equatorial like a ebule, the density of r . creased towards the centre. which in The ch i n t c a d s p b e y e ta from(:o comet e r‘ to l f at ex w t e ra h o a r y d e in s a e r e y n in iti a 7 T HE COMET. —There can no longer be any doubt b nt former years. We , t w o e t a h l l a y v e d i b ff e e e r n e a s well as several other persons have see- - several successive nights the star which serves as From " The Defensor," Madeira newspaper the o.Tui.. ith sue' fur Last wee7a boar, on a farm at Kelvedon, in tion of Mr. DOCVifil, attacked several cows w that the bowels of one of them which only candid m ppointed traded through the skin, and two was heavy in calf injured. --Essen' Standard. others pre were very i . r . Lord Dungannon is the the representation of the city tit of Durham,ate' in Captain Fito who has been a in tin Zealand. His Lordship was govern() during several sessions, when l eber . for the borougi election would take place on Monda • Arthur Trevor. The i AIRS. SOUTHEY AND MRS. SIG' (Yesterday \ teller, a new periodical by Mr.otTßEy. Robert circumstances of a correspondence Bell, expn. and Mrs. Sigeurney, an between American Mrs. Sou,. lished a passage respecting the healthauthoress, who has pub , given great pain to his wife :.___ of Southey, which has " Mrs. stranger, wrote to Mrs. Southey Signourey, mice. Mrs. Southey, having to request her corr thoughts, declined the honour, other objects to engro. swered her inquiries Mr. but simply and politel as to of course, was under the recognisedSouthcy's health. Al' pondence, which ought to seal of private c sacred from the way in have been considered all th , brought it about. Mrs. Southey, afterwards saw her letter to her utter astonit nals, but interpolated wintloit only i printed in the pub. I Melt/a/ions of pathos, not oPn'era;;;:ii•riPchillis.life everil'lim)aeci6ea THED ,r,, 1 ~`" ',./ LATE _ R. ROBERT SOUTHEY.-- ...Dis cc.e,,rate man, the poet laureate, who died on the 21st of March last, may perhaps be considered as baying been one of the more fortunate of the literati, inasmuch as he enjoyed a pension from the Government for many years and has left personal property amounting to about £12,000. BY his will, doted the 26th of August, 1839, he has bequeathed to his wife all the personal property possessed by her previously to 1,1 , marriage, together with the interest of the sum of during her life. The residue of his property, above £2,00 3 , he has bequeathed to his lour children, C C u thbert Southey , Edith Mary W a ter, Bertha Hill , a. Katharine Southey, equally, and in case of the death of an, of theta' before the testator, their share is to be divided amongst their children (if any.) The executors named arc Henry Herbert Southey., M.D., of Harley-street, and Mr. Henry Taylor, of the Colonial -office. Dr. Robert Southey's works are too well known and too generally appreciated to require either comment or commendation from us. FRIGHTFUL EXPLOSION IN DIGBETII.—TiIe neighbour hood of Digbeth was thrown into a state of co , ternation yesterday morning, by an explosion on the prep - of Mr Capella, an Italian, who, in addition to being 'rano maker, carries on the business of a vitriol, aquatot,, a, Walker, maker. Having engaged to supply '5 Walker, the pereussion-cap maker, with a quantity o f . p, cussion-powder, there is no doubt but Mr. Capella had large quantity in a state of preparation on the spot. Il e I seancely sat down to breakfast when the awful explosio , place. The first person on the spot was Mr. 5, 0 ,, , keeps the Nl' bit e ' Lion a few doors off, and from ant,. and dust and fallen materials he dragged out the e body of Thomas Villiers, yvlio was conveyed, touch injured, General Ilospital. The other boy, William ]links, years of age, was literally blown to pieces. The trunk the lower ribs, with all the lower parts com ' jived, was found blown through the duo-w paratively unin p olite wall. The head was found in f aY against an op neck, chest, and all the upper parts w ragments, the artm over the premises ; all appearance ofclothingere literally blow Capella gives it as his • . was obliterate. n a , Mr. ~ . s opinion the been " lark ing ; and thus occasionedthat it• boy` : tunct 1 • ' —Birriiirighans Advertises. the horrible . " le disaste field for room of e sponc a picture t