The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-09-05 00:00:00

t tri 7 ".. """"mi.................................. iu Ital"'r••Cbappe's wife, and the nartids who were t2 ,lo ll 7 di et °ll ring to defeal Mr. Buxton's claim. of ',Np. Was eventually taken for the plaintiff for t 7 4 1, ~, u Ilberty to the defendant to move for anon tendlle the damages. adloarned at minutes to seven o'clock. 1 1 ,, , ,, ca ow .„, ----.—______ ~ 1 4 ,1 t ., ''' COURT. —WED • ce WIG i ) t il - a • .erts, 29 4 , ltraGt, uTpktAis, took . NES D AY. his seat at nine o'clock. 1 1 11, 106111.' MALICIOUSLY _ SHOOTING, &C. kij 9 . b:ll.) m a t ; ,eloseoh Harrison. 42, (who had 8 43 41 tiO ge ' l e , 44 a „ew Keogh, 58, George Walker, tritii_ _ gh, 3,,,, uharles Lee, 39, Nicholas Rick/ itallth ha v i ng ' 0 and Michael Bagulley, quit 30, were 172,•111(1rioto'lls? the 16th May . last eY a ' t Salford ;trill and tt..Ar entered the premises of George ' it iZtl e l l e a rs wit 7 t uc,rier, and there shot at Ralph Flet ttlit e 1141 itiit! Je t: t o: 18 1 y eunateenretdtoa murder eert them ; and with 1 lt; 4stsgatiti an d w ounded E mma Fletcher. dwel li ng-house, t .. tit . s a n t m 0 appeared for the prosecu -I•Mr. Do a t darri son ,.Y and Mr. Overend appeared A t. „,aad f i tt rit a n d' N '•„ B °gh, Walker, Burgess, and 4,, e ,agtiliey. .r. Segar appeared for Rigby, N 'A4 4 ‘ 48 11. 8 . 4 )- ( - 1 h e !night as well at bn,eitite•te.hi/tzlicen on sbellaert: i t it.o 4tiet„i,r l St B an , up _ once state that of A th v e erdict of acquittal I . l7litk o e f tlete r was ekrnaker of l a tt er. INt ekti, old, fo r h is pant; Salford, stated that V14,1 110444,tt0 , 270 ttit:ated ho er, that he had a brick "a 1 si t w b'ell th e ; also a stable e and of Ralph Fletcher, N i 4 hllltaio tit: e _lii . s brick mould n s w o ere ee s s o . calc ra u: Aik i t ti te w e u r a e c o e tly b e c e r o e lseable dimensions when dry. k. 44 th 41,04 have he d e is o t e u o rb oa a p n: l e ie s d o t n my property, ; le i 1 6th Nl t a -- I was a nip \ c,ht o set watchers. watcher for Mr. kivk:eo; ,rota a ,_ -- Y. I was wa lking after 11 o clock lt u s it latas `""u near th lit t 3t4 o a 1 1 as . if some one croft. I heard a great t ae l t. %v k irtsg e tul l rin g over ti l a l e e were dping cattle to Vat4 1 4: 7 1 7 4 ; Win seemed to be co ming a outof g P r i e m s - t ,eli4lol i ?oked n an d my fellow -watchers had fire -I,trbilt..,,Oe b__ . _: . 'el* the hedge, and said, " There 2 0 47topi e ltill not I. — fire into them !—blow their "S" 1 10• -e rai 'cav one tlti th e •T h 'way side! of them alive !" We 401.ebrott, b e y rushed they immediately fired two sm I l e t z t , , , 0 % , .., after us, firing continually ma t th house. 0 ' • pulling the kilns down, I st e clittt e her.--/ ° ,Ueuse. i ge o il lo g „ iti nve in the house of Mr. p r . . Pau ling, e , 1 L '117,, ;?; 1 the taru Butterworth o ti - 14. Ile ar , i npik e. _ . on the night in ques kiNk, I iis ; shot s „Tad when the mob entered )1 41 mu ), hea _ . th e muji, fir ing, and went towards my kiitt i i ty 4 :4l l l ; itt hea ang se ; a n d guas tlay re s . ppe4 . r h e e d y to w were I, .11... de lt ient o r f ,the balls whistle. I went be ,iltity.iz ion to clay to be under cover from the I I N 4 1 ) gn us ann w ards Eccles. I believe there ddb ' li ved . th a t ' l l hoVisTigst them• I returned home. 11: , lisei Plank s t • - i ,Ya, broken to pieces. The 44;1 's ft aar ' With En "Joininz were on fire. Emma , liatii,,, i- attin e, and goes by nay name, was o s „bir:, , aliv e. ten a broken piece of chair • she 0 I ) „oil' e quie r t he She had been greatly ill-treated. ted. " t 1 '` e a It ted e be Ipi tk i i ki i jtvi„, 1 e and d, some shattered glass in the L y eptl mi e a, / e _er the wall, and another embed • te ar p3ol eil l. .e(l wi th 'e at n l a o ined the brick-kilns, which 1 tqltitetile Wer e lo ne t. There were a number of Viiv si t 1 1 1 14, t , l ead __,we re . 104,000 bricks destroyed. ,', e re eta 04 'a with swan shot. The shot k it iib tk !.., Pro of square pieces of lead. (The 1 , . - s t ,_, ca the shot wh . hFI hic etc er gave i r k piiit . " B ed 1., 4•,,,i tk vy A l II e il k4 eolS a . " e aoth er . B RANDT.—MV wife is living I ,,Eifulk - ZaV' Wif e . Et s ' a i _n• Ido not live with Emma 1 1,N ras„ Was m „ 9e is my housekeeper. She Ivash e 1 • 1. 7 L th e I si _Y wife. I have represented her k t ,eall e Pts , L 'lter ne tw Bailey • t y ork: oi t 7 membered the night in question. , ' ;I'k e ePea Now c oming she fastened the gate. Nt th e l gao, door t o the house—to the house ! " i tt. ,.l ti aith e l a. 1 . They brought a pick in with t liti l l,, 91 4 7 at beguns or did not see any but what was 4 4 t o Nit y Ran t 0 pistols. A great many entered. k,At i , ) !l go; round " break the furniture. There was tpi7 L isiil Hi p t It lg t o sli m e with fire - arms, ' cl rms,.an one that I 111 .4 4 h4 IP "t, for b - I:tit: l,4 ,w d, ot p t „ e held his arm out with Ilki tati a ea, the tly g a r r apd .. out to prevent him. A. 7,,,,Ntitiekeil 11 ?_al a nl, and another beat me kt lt ml 4 .,..r0k,„, whi l es, ‘ . l e a : l : . I was knocked down. b Itetttn u e t h r ;: ft o ne t.at;vie was on the floor. The put on the fire that gl( v 4 1,, de wri . a „,TheY rushed h tltjat i .l3 lt4 t he 1) - ;`, 4 ,,,,eaid they e n n P ul s d tairs t , and i some il. Ntliyl l eh v :, l3. r•- 21 1;'„" e cn I saw, Hougl n t n and Walker. im. t h 1 k etch 4. / e might be a dozen or more kit h g.ro t iav e ,; l ' as h• "a , not much terrified. l te ati uns er IS w i fe. do not /,''44 !,i d i eo„Zhoabited I wi t an d ili ra m! brother o m lodge li l y 1 0 1 :v . h t e g u i t l ifi ed . ated the testimony of the last i ll t, iid t i l l ee. e en Ho ugh, p r Walker, Harrison, and 11 4 . tj A ethe ers r esent. kii t. ak ett A leit ed Boit _rd others were then called, who ,ItZS heii k r e .at t o e e ef the prisoners. t i l it tlji t i lf t e ls rt t e e a lroask e P r ll s bV o -house on the 18th May ciety hold their meetings, iloS t ithe er ,eiva rl l r e thers. 14014 4 18 1 , Nib Iv ed where the B• k k ' rtc ma ers So )11 . 00, Had Had see le t 4 4 tiy el e l, ,„_ n the men go up. Knew ' l ,( b uatt er y_high t - s 7b them all go up stairs to the kft! t444l ; o o . • i n w erth, enost t e .lh tt cenaeque ne :ble, apprehended Hough of descriptions given by i lilljbt4l.ll3l% k lett, by I.She s a id tr itl ll lt ile h mr. w , "Ithink that is tbe man." Nia °Use itutls.—She said he was one 100. k a 1 ......; e . (l l 4 e t ta ' eall 6h e said t s 4i t,,,, ed b _ .... that Bagulley was one too. i t.. 'e S, 4, 4 B Leot ern Y u v ,-tr• .WlLKlNs.—Bagulley has 1 1 - ‘• Is AS Or or cation to me. NAI4, ed out Police, produced some slugs l th ist ti e S 4nt e be en from the soft bricks. The slugs 11 4 4, 1t at v j o e hot we e d in a direction towards the )14 I t ' t. i, :b,.w. 8 Produced which had passed 1 ,' kij e a r . `,l at th e b . , k „ ~, ~,o,„, brick -croft on the night of the 6 g . 3li ve ~s the la which he believes to be Har- V?•k, 4 tl a, 0 „*„ I N 7 ,8 S !—fire into 'ern !—we 'll r h ulti e i e tny h e _ y i ery nearly killed. I heard 1f..4 .t 1 i 1 1 t 4 13 e(1 4 . 'a. I was knocked down by pit\S ti 4 i ii`z t to . Y. e t lefea e P . ll. ? and Mr. BRANDT addressed 6 reti red. -, and his LORDSHIP summed up il l A ill ,a,re % art ot After an 4t ,ni zk a o ad aequit absence of an hour, they NS . , tI4 I 4ZIPti lieelidencee o a l e l h t o h w e f i t i -i e s y o n w e e r n s i o withn tle %I r Oary eller. 1 . They were therefore ac -111 4. od e n ried on a future day for riot and i er n . • e h )114 1 -• 1'4 4 alf-past five o'clock. ~,,A, ,PIIL; -- 1 „. 9 1 04 9- il et - "oN ‘ ,., *--,, EDNESDAY. 0 1 4 of ,sta „too h 'LL '. l R ilt:t tlit ti , ,zt,, t ou ., OSCoE. tzttetp4,!eY Rohl by Lewis Howell, a joiner, i t h_ t . , to 1, f or „ s cone, sergeant-at-mace for the 1 lt,,s;;;_atk,,leged t o ne recovery of £BO, the value $, 'let 'a," fro a , Le have been improp erly • seized, Ole 145 r rB ° l l - the Court f p ktp., ,eturnetlaiped mau e nsen !ssage. The real Q111174:4 Z et trN ol,3 " t er the plaintiff. / IS\ i iiar e tt o t th e l°ll la r ti o ' il O i a '• nottsox. \\ lt t l l vi pi:s t e i tt! e ll t l• t e t ; l i t hlie g of t fiee hy the plainti ff , George A ik 4 4 1 :4 tl':t Of eaeaVer from S the the York Union )I.l4!•Vithieihanitprornissory noete defendant, for£l John 1 011, 1 . 11 di e t e w as h ed never advanced any j. The money N t +a ve ; of /). given into the h ads a of their e tlis t , L hra e , lBl (eri ao . - r , , l it h ; r , • rt ted a ' t tB r tla 1 , def oryhire. en ar!t. 1 41 41- a quart Q l .„ er past six o'clock. .• 41 be t tli 1 111 o• ii . 11 , 1 ‘ •i t t bet n -lIT . - -TatrßsDA i r ltb,„ "tltered the Y. • court a few minutes . lilt • "oe kr S u s A l Lfa t •, ao A.,. y ihe'444, l ), 44.01. d read 7 Nn l .• 11-IYI , !E. ti k e4 A le k .t i p m w e a rs i l l ' i n i e ll"lrde r, and o write i mperfectly, ) ‘ t i tl l kt t ' it t ka t he l l i o e e t iP t hicted h ' %ts ttc : e , is on • k r „,v: Mr. Townsend, as ,,lti vi; .' It 3 er •VI Ilk . „ ins and Mr. °ye lki4oll ilob eA 'r ~ 1 g '444 0 th - e ld these were detailed by Mr. s4 lo l % t e it e tit. ehi ld uee eese _,Prisoner was married in he 7 4,7,,tir ee i re feai u n , ...„%v . ho, after being deli \ , li lh t t asi tt g e atiint,,,;_.Th e ,`' ip a very weakly state INNIS ~(1 ;i t h ay " t u n te resi d ed oe s euvve at Ashton, and, \ V OsSt ,Pit tZ t to il L t het! di sehar n ge e s: 7 a to fe o m k la l l e ace, were , 4i t t 11:1141ethe nt h h y ' ° a r i ti lY a week previous. The ,I: L ttp t qta v tat:: oo I July, n e n i gllb,our about 7 o'clock I ,:k•lre, e: t i i i ev elli er p„ soo u a there were no marks p p oh it ittquded t rig th e . t that time. About prisoner called on the ‘iV e 21114tiejo and ' and as k • t ‘t t 4 ' i t " t b ' ta g. t hat w - he ther his ed if . she knew any hip s 4 0 „ .. 11 v_isehi„af shie r ~ wife had brought . ‘ b li it it , ti lii i l l :le eii ' h er ' . (the deceased) indid not , i ciiikt . t ,: pe _v en d i ti„,_,. door was night que s'l, \ ill! t ' lti , i) d o ll gi p 4 son t y nex t was awakened by 1 ,t4T4I/tealltie °v e er lived r an s, proceeding from 0 , 1 / 4. 4 .c_ 1 , 4 _ . At r, and ...• w illd do heard some one I i ‘,; , k,, l l, 4 ltist t ? h a te, , e ., oe so no more." ii i . il• k bllle e. hlo a t ti ll ade p a tit her to bed the same morn ' (14A 11 c, l i l t% Th e ' arid eebernPlaint to her;vent linetro face e ti llSsillo-4the The' e r Showed marks of having , % itl ' , 4 , e., : „-,z,,Be : t f or, as an 7t w a: home at that l e kS itt ll s l ' B l.l l . o i Th l e t 8 11: a nl l Y in g , he r e e r f l us t e e d to nf ita th v e e i ,i;4tit %It t t ,n wh _Sa rne __lght . die, and if not he Fr I tti it itt - , bad rill h e _",a o rning he also made a s e ,, sw. ~,,,,, ft a wa u , t !,t near Staleybridge, to ri itNvi4 l e t. eni i e no l l ,_( l 9der his pillow and 'Pi° , I l'k t letS tt .arl •it e l o sed her t wice able to give any 1 )1 0:1 'lttletlbosti:: had la s t e e ( I • belonged e t to in t o ak d e eC l e e a r s dec eased's A 'N‘ 4 !h i St d 'kit: e . 4 %e4 and b e r i ) ,! r !t to him. The priso- A \ k k r to p;' tra et h !till " k re? made acquainted with r 4 - It,h'sgh e t Riv al :Hie 7d to have a surgeon r i i• V 1 Iti doetot° chi h ~_ bad been sent for t,‘,ikt2,,i.kv,, c er ,_ re or .'_`',,, prisoner observing ~,,, . i,am e lt sit-rquen_weuicine there he would 1 , 'et h 1 th e . geo t ` 3B of the interference `1,10•1,11i,,,t44,P1iti0 us w as ~ of .‘,O t Sl;4 ~4 t 4 t ler : 181 r elle ,P.. ) wever, eventually . 0, Oqt n a Itat e _as th en : 4 Ts, but they were le " tl4 b tlic e47 4t °f "T:i . in!o custody. 1( poi I I a , e ad rn . ow n ;_ e . 'Nunes she had it t i raa r t luek Issible in writing, but which ' th. f e , n th e ext: evidence. She lin '• opi ti • o exa ti ,i na .. morning, wh en s h e 1 4 of ~ n ation was made of the th e medical men that her death had been caused by violence; on the right side of the abdomen there was a wound apparently caused by a blow or kick; flakes of coagulated lymph were also found in the vicinity of the wound. The question for the jury would be, whether the prisoner had committed the offence in question with malice aforethought, or whether he had received such provocation as might reduce the crime to manslaughter. The prisoner, when apprehended, said he did not kick the deceased, he only hit her five or six times with his hand, and twice with his elbow. He also made another statement, to the effect that he was sorry any thing had taken place between him and his wife, and that he had done nothing at her but touched her with his elbow on the side. One of the surgeons who examined the body of the de ceased was questioned at great length, and gave it as his opinion that the immediate cause of death was inflamma tion of the peritoneum, probably produced by violence; and a blow or kick might have caused such inflammation. On a cross-examination by Mr. WILKINS, he stated that mental emotion could not have produced the symp toms under which the deceased died. Another surgeon, who, it appeared, had been in the habit of attending the deceased at various periods previ ous to her death, was put into the witness-box and exa mined by Mr. WILKINS. He differed in opinion entirely from the previous witness. He attended her on the 16th April, when she had an attack precisely similar to that which caused her death, and did not expect at that time she would recover. He considered the cause of death was the result of the extensive and long continued disease under which the deceased had laboured, all the organs ex cept the uterus being disordered. It was his decided opi nion that the death of the deceased had not been caused or even accelerated by external violence, and that if a quarrel had taken place, mental emotion might have brought on the paroxysms of which she died. In reply to a question from his LORDSHIP, the witness stated that he was decidedly of opinion that the deceased had died from natural causes, and not from violence. The declaration of the deceased was then put in. It was to the effect that the prisoner had struck deceased se veral blows while they were in bed ; one on the abdomen, and others on different parts of the body, from which she felt considerable pain, and that the blows were inflicted with the hand, and also the elbow; he had also used very ill language, and said he had had nothing but trouble since her confinement. Mr. WILKINs, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, alluded to the evidence of the medical men, the latter of whom had clearly shown that death was not produced by violence, but had been the result of natural disease, and under all the circumstances, the jury would be justified in acquitting him of the charge which had been brought against him. He then called several witnesses, who gave the prisoner an excellent character. His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. ALLEGED MURDER AT LIVERPOOL. John Borman, 24, (could read and write well,) stood charged with the murder of Margaret Dillon, at Liver pool, on the Bth Aug. It appeared the deceased was an unfortunate woman of the town, and on the night of the sth of August she went with the prisoner to a brothel in North-street, kept by a person named Deare, and went up stairs to a bed-room, underneath which the parties slept who kept the house. Towards morning a noise was heard as of some persons quarrelling, and the sound of blows, apparently given with the open hand, and Deare and his wife went up stairs, and saw deceased sitting on a pair of bedstocks, and pri soner standing near her. Just as Deare entered the room, the deceased fell backwards, and her head came in violent contact with the floor, where she lay for some minutes ap parently dead. A police-officer was then sent for, and on his arrival the prisoner had the head of the deceased on his knees, chafing it with his hands. She was quite dead. He had not been seen by any one to strike the deceased, though it appeared he attempted to kick or push her when Deare entered the room. The prisoner said the deceased had fallen down over the bedstead, and that he had not done any thing to her. Nlr. Percival, surgeon, attributed the death of deceased to the effusion of blood on the brain, caused by injuries inflicted on the head, which injuries might have been pro duced by a blow. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner. His LORDSHIP then went over the evidence to the jury, who immediately returned a verdict of acquittal. ALLEGED MURDER AT MANCHESTER. Jane Oliver, alias Jane Morris, 45, (could read and write imperfectly,) was charged wtih the wilful murder of Robert Travis, at Manchester. Mr. MONK stated the case. It appeared that the pri soner and the deceased Robert Travis lived together at Salford, and were not married. They were both in the habit of indulging in liquor, and on the day in queion were in that state. About two or three o'clock in the morning of the 14th April, the watchman who was on duty in Rusainan-street heard a person calling out, appa rently in great distress, and soon after saw the prisoner standing on the steps of the Manor Inn, in Salford; and on inquiring what was the matter, she said " I cannot tell you; but if you will go with me I will tell you." He then went with her to a house in Brunswick-street, and there, in a back room, found a man lying on the floor, with a deep cut in his belly, from which a portion of the intes tines protruded. The prisoner said they had had a row, and Travis was going to cut her throat, but she took a knife and stabbed him. The watchman said he would go for a surgeon, on hearing which Travis opened his eyes, and said there was no occasion, as nothing was the matter with him. He was then placed in a chair, and afterwards put to bed, but died the next day. The prisoner was ap prehended, and a knife marked with blood was found on a table up stairs in the bed-room. When the officci was taking her away, the prisoner said, " Robert, must they take me ?" and he said, " No ; no one shall take you, there is nothing wrong with me." The surgeon who exa mined the body was of opinion that the deceased's death was caused by the wound which he received. Mr. WILKINS made an eloquent appeal to the jury in behalf of the prisoner ; and, after a short consultation, a verdict of manslaughter was returned, with a recommen dation to mercy. Sentence, two months' imprisonment. STABBING. Thomas Franklin, 31, (could neither read nor write,) was charger', with stabbing Henry Schultz, at Liverpool. It appeared that on the 24th July last a disturbance took place on board a vessel, called the John Bibby, which was lying at this port on the day in question, on account of the sailors having applied to the prisoner, who was the cook, for a supply of fresh meat. The prisoner had a knife in his band, and was quarrelling with a person of the name of Bowden, when, from some supposed interference on the part of Schultz, who was standing close by, but did not interfere, he stabbed him in the hip. The prisoner was then given into custody. Mr. WILKINS contended that the prisoner, according to his own account, had pulled the knife out of Bowden's hand, by which he cut his fingers severely, and in throw ing it away it stuck in Schultz's hip, and that he never intended to commit the offence charged against him. The jury acquitted the prisoner. The court adjourned at twenty minutes to seven. NISI PRIUS.—THURSDAY. His LORDSHIP took his seat at nine o,clock. HOLLAND V. JOSEPH. In this case Joseph Holland, a plasterer, sought to re cover from the Rev. Henry Samuel Joseph, the sum of .f 175 money lent. The defendant pleaded not liable, a discharge under the Insolvent Debtor's Court, and the statute of limitations. Mr. Sergeant MURPHY opened the case. He said an intimacy arose between the parties as early as 1832, and advances continued to be made up to 1833-4. With regard to the discharge under the Insol vent Debtor's Court, the schedule did not contai❑ any correct account of the debt to the plaintiff. With regard to the statute of limitations, he could prove that the de fendant in 1836 acknowledged that the debt was correct, and promised to pay it. He apprehended, therefore, that that plea would fail. In support of this view the learned counsel cited a case. His LORDSHIP looked at it, and said there must be some mistake in it, and under the cir cumstances, thought the plaintiff had better be nonsuited. PARTNERSHIP OR NO PARTNERSHIP. MOLYNEUX V. WELSBY. In this case Joseph Molyneux, for whom Mr. Martin and Mr. Unthank appeared as counsel, was the plaintiff. Sarah Welsby, for whom Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton appeared, was the defendant. Mr. Ward, of Prescot, was the plaintiff's attorney, and Mr. Galloway, of the same place,attorney for the defendant. The declaration stated the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for work done and wages due. The defendant pleaded never indebted. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was en gineer to a colliery, and he was a very skilful workman. The defendant lived in the neighbourhood of Prescot, and this action was brought against him to recover the sum of five guineas. Although the sum in question was small, and might have been settled in a court where the expen ses would have been less, still the parties wished it to be tried here, as the real question at assue was whether Mrs. Welsby was partner in a coal mine carried on in the neighbourhood of Prescot, and the case was of impor tance, as it would depend upon the result of this action whether other claims would be set up. Mrs. Welsby was the sister of a person named George Burrows, who in the year 1840 was in partnership with a person named James Birch, in the Huyton Hey Colliery. In Sept., 1840, they got into disputes, and determined to dissove partnership. The accounts were accordingly put into the hands of Messrs. Spencer and Higginson. Higginson was the brother-in-law of Mrs. Welsby. and in September the accounts were made out. It appeared that the sum of £360 had been spent beyond what the colliery had pro duced. It was at first agreed that either party should be at liberty to take the colliery on paying the sum due to the other, but Burrows being anxious to take the colliery, Birch agreed that he should have it. After this arrange. ment Burrows said he was unable to pay the money, but his sister-in-law, Mrs. Welsby, and his brother-in-law were prepared to come in Birch's place. Accordingly, all the parties met at the office of Mr. A. Kaye, an attorney, in this town, and there Mrs. Welsby came and bargained for her share of the colliery, and ultimately Birch agreed to take £155 for his share. The money was paid, and Birch got a receipt for it. This being done, the colliery was commenced, under the management of Mr. Burrows and Mrs. Welsby, a person named Higginson, another brother-in-law, being appointed to look after the interests of Mrs. Welsby. The colliery was continued up to 1812, when it was stopped, and the workmen left unpaid, and it was for this balance of wages due that the plaintiff brought this action. The learned counsel proceeded then to state that before the sale, the colliery was carried on under the firm of " Burrows and Birch," and after that the name was changed to " Burrows and Co. After witnesses had been called to prove this statement, Mr. WORTLEY, for the defendant, said the action was, to all intents and purposes, George Burrows's, who had carried on the colliery on his own account, but having a kind sister and mother-in-law, who advanced him money to enable him to carry on, he now turned round and tried to fix his creditors upon them. It was a mere advance of THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD money by the sister and mother, and there was no reason to expect that anything like a partnership would have been attempted to be proved. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that a person might render himself liable as a partner in two days— first by being actually a partner, or else by allowing her self to be held out as a partner, provided credit be given to a concern on th e f a ith o f her being a partner, but then it devolved on the plaintiff to make out his case, and for himself (the Judge) he could not help saying, in this case, that he was travelling rather in the dark. However, he and the jury could not help that ; they were compelled to do the best they could, and to decide according to the best of their judgment. With respect to the defendant being held out to the world as a partner, he thought there was no evidence, and she would not be liable unless she actually was a partner. The jury immediately found for the defendant. NEGLIGENT WORKING OF A COAL MINE. ECKERSLEY AND OTHERS V. GREENHOUGH. In this case, William Eckersley and his sisters, Ann and Esther, sought to recover compensation from their uncle, Joseph Greenhough, for damage done to their premises, in consequence of the negligent working of the defendant's mine, near their premises, whereby their mine was injured, and also to recover damages for certain coals taken under their premises. After Mr. STARKIE had begun to detail the facts for the plaintiff, the case was referred. MANSLAUGHTER.-COLLISION. Samuel Lloyd, 43, was indicted for killing and slaying William Johnson. Mr. Blair was for the prosecution, and Mr. Harden for the defence. Mr. BLAIR stated that the prisoner was the captain of the Cheshire Witch steamboat, which plies between St. George's pier and the Rock Ferry. On Friday evening, the 4th of August last, she left the pierhead on one of her usual trips, and after she had been away from her moor ings about a quarter of an hour, was off Coburg Dock entrance. The tide was about half ebb, and running down rapidly. It was the practice for the steamers to keep in shore to get the slack tide, but along that shore were a number of small slips, by which small boats were in the habit of lying, and whence they issued forth to proceed on their voyage. The steamer passed near to the sea wall, by Clarke's Hole and the entrance to the Coburg Dock, steering inwards and then outwards; she followed the bend of the wall, when a boat called the Rc:olator, which is a four-oared gig, carrying sails and plying on the river, came out from the Cockle Hole, with ten men in her, belonging to a vessel called the Sussex, lying off the Magazines, and two other persons. Her head was to the wind, which was W. by N.W.; they were getting up her sails, and an oar was at her stern as a rudder and for sculling, and she was drifting down the river. The steamer was seen by the parties on board approaching at a distance of 140 yards—though there was some difference in their statements on this point as to the precise distance—and excited great alarm as she did not alter her course. They hailed the vessel, and she was also hailed by some persons on the pierhead. The prisoner, it would be proved, who was steering the steamer, must have seen the boat, as other persons on board the steamer did. He called to them to get out their oars, and waved his hand to them to get out of the way, but the bow of the steamer struck the boat, and the latter sunk. The vessel was immedi ately stopped, and boats put off from the shore. It was supposed that all the people were saved, but on calling over their names it was found that the deceased was missing. His body was found drowned on the shore a few days afterwards. The learned counsel then stated the law applicable to the case, which was that if a party, in the pursuit of his business, did not use due caution that homicide should not ensue, he was liable to be con victed of manslaughter. Here he had a knowledge that these small boats were constantly coming out, and as he was at the wheel himself, he could not, therefore, get rid of the responsibility which might have been thrown by the captain on the steersman. He was very active in saving life after the collision, but if he had been guilty of recklessness or negligence he was not the less amenable. If the collision was accidental, the jury would give him the benefit of it ; but if he had been guilty of recklessness or carelessness, then their verdict must be against him. Witnesses were then examined, who, on cross-exami nation, stated that the people in the boat might have got out of the way if they had not all been in confusion ; that the prisoner was obliged to steer towards the shore to avoid the boat, and then to steer outwards to avoid run ning against the pier; that there was an error in his judg ment in doing this; that he did all he could to avoid the collision, and called out to stop the engines three times, and that in fact he was not at all to blame. The Learned JUDGE inquired if the case could be carried any further after this had been admitted by two witnesses. His Lordship said it was an accident. If he was at the helm himself and could not leave, and called out to stop the engine and it was not stopped, as had been proved, he was clearly not to blame. The jury said it was an accident, and acquitted the pri soner, under his Lordship's direction. BURGLARY. James Heyes, 34, John Jones, sen., and John Jones, jun., were indicted for burglary and stealing hams, &c., in the house of William M'Kee, grocer, Vauxhall-road, Liverpool, on the night of the 24th June. Mr. Wilkins was for the prosecution, and Mr. Overend for the prisoners. Mr. NVILKINs proved that the shop was broken open, the hams stolen, and the prisoners found in possession of them. Mr. OVEREND ably addressed the jury, submitting that at all events the case was one of mere larceny, and that the proof even of this was insufficient. He called wit nesses to the character of John Jones, jun. The JUDGE charged the jury, who found all the prison ers guilty. A previous conviction was proved against Heyes. His Lordship sentenced Heyes to be transported for ten years, and the other prisoners each to twelve months hard labour. MANSLAUGHTER AT LIVERPOOL. Thomas Reece, 19, Thomas Foster, 29, and Robert Frost, 18, were indicted for manslaughter. Mr. Arnold was for the prosecution, Mr. Townsend for Foster, Mr. Wilkins for Reece, and Frost was unde fended. Mr. ARNOLD stated, that the death of the deceased Nicholas Harrison, aged 32, arose out of a fair stand-up fight, on Monday, the 26th of June, in consequence of a previous quarrel in which the deceased was to blame. Foster was second to Reece, the principal, and Frost pre sent as a spectator, aiding and abetting. It was elicited that the deceased was a tall athletic man, and had the best of the fight to the close, when a blow from Reece stretched him on the ground, and he soon afterwards died. There was a fracture of the temple and extravasation of blood on the brain, which caused death, and the former was most likely caused by a fall on a hard substance. The prisoners admitted the facts, after caution before the coroner, and their statement, which was taken down in writing, was now put in in evidence. Mr. TOWNSEND addressed the jury for Fnrster, and Mr. WILKINS on behalf of Reece. Several witnesses gave the prisoners a good character. The jury found Foster and Reece guilty, and acquitted Frost. The JUDGE sentenced Foster and Reece to three days' solitary confinement each. STABBING. . _____..,... William Will i ams was charged with stabbing another person of the same name, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Pugh appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wil kins for the defence. It appeared that on Sunday evening, the 13th August, as the prosecutor was passing along St. James's•street, in this town, the prisoner came up to him, and after saying " You're one of the gang"' stabbed him in no less than six places. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred. Several prisoners were discharged at the close of the court by proclamation, including Taylor Jennings. The court adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.--FRIDAY. Mr. Justice Cresswell took his seat at nine o'clock. SUMNER V. BAKER. This was an action of Crim. Con., brought by the plaintiff, Thos. Sumner, against the defendant, Thomas Baker, for the recovery of damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's wife, the defendant pleaded a denial. From the statement of Mr. Wilkins, the counsel for the plain tiff, it appeared that the plaintiff was a farming servant, living at Churchtown, two miles from Southport, and that the defendant was a wealthy farmer of the same neighbourhood, and a man of some possessions and in fluence. It was alleged that the offence had been com mitted on many occasions, during the absence of the plaintiff, that it was witnessed by a person of the name of Rimmer, on the 29th of last March, and that a sepa ration followed. There being neither attorney nor witnesses in court at the close of the statement, a juror was withdrawn, Mr. Wilkins having first declared, upon the part of the de fendant, that he was innocent of the charge. WALKER AND ANOTHER V. WRIGHT. In this action the plaintiffs, John and William Walker, sought to recover a sum of £703 from the defendant, being the balance alleged to have been due for the erec tion of premises in South Castle-street. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. ARMITAGE AND OTHERS V. WATERHOUSE. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, George Armitage and eighteen other persons, against the defend ants, for the recovery of £266 under an award made be tween the parties. A verdict was taken for the defend ants, with liberty to move on the issues. SEYMOUR AND OTHERS V. CARR. This was a special jury case, in which the plaintiffs, William and Henry Seymour, sought to recover from the defendant, John Thomas Carr, the value of work done, money lent and pa'd, on an account stated and a bill ac cepted. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable, and that he had not accepted the bill. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Atherton for the defendant. Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. The plaintiffs were ship and commission agents at the Cove of Cork ; the defendant was a merchant and shipowner at Newcastle ; and the sum in dispute between the parties was £lB2. It appeared that in the month of November, 1841, a ship called the Corrib, on her return from Africa to the port of Liverpool, was found near Cork, in a state of the most lamentable distress, with her sails split, and her crew ex hausted and sick. The plaintiffs succeeded in getting her into Cove, and took the trouble of entirely supplying her, fitting her anew, providing her with a crew, and equipping her in such a manner as enabled her to prosecute her voyage to Liverpool. It was for the recovery of this outlay that the action had been brought. Witnesses having been examined to prove the case, Mr. WATSON addressed the jury on the part of the de fendant. He commenced by stating that his client was merely the mortgagee of the vessel, and that it was clearly laid down in law that mortgagees out of possession were not liable for the repairs of vessels. The party, to be liable, must have appointed the captain, and the captain must have been authorised to make the repairs. The cap tain, in the present case, died at Sierra Leone. He had been the owner and charterer. After his decease, ano ther was appointed by Messrs. Watson and Co., of Sierra Leone, and between them and the defendant there was no connexion, while the newly appointed captain had not been authorised to make the repairs. No witnesses having been called for the defendant, His LORDSHIP charged the jury. A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. CRIM. CON. REES v. FLITCROFT.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Richard Rees, against the defendant, Seth Flitcroft. The declaration was in trespass for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Murphy for the defendant. Mr. JAMES stated the case. He said that in this case he had the honour to appear as advocate of a man in an bumble sphere of life in this town, who was, he believed, a machine- ma k er an d mec h an i c i n th e employ of Messrs. Humble and Mil c h r i s t, an d b a d b e en with them for a number of years. It would appear that the plaintiff had resided for some time as a lodger in the honer of !II•i who was the widow of a Captain Harley, and that in the mmar ried January,Tind h s a t d ati b o e n en in lair went, a highly respectable manufacturer of grates, anal defendant n t dh the was, esent as }ear,fa I a l e s his place of business was in Castle-street, Liverpool. Some short time after the marriage of the plaintiff with his wife, the defendant was seen on various occasions, during the absence of the plaintiff at his work, to go to his house, no doubt for the purpose of seeing the plaintiff's wife. Upon one of these occasions, the sister of the plaintiff, a respectable married lady of the name of Davis, went to the plaintiff's house to take tea, when an elderly gentleman, and the defendant was elderly, came there, the plaintiff being then absent, whereupon the plaintiff's wife represented him as her landlord by way of throwing dust into the eyes of the parties then assembled. There whs no pretence, however, for saying that he was the landlord. They left the room in which they were, went up stairs to e..ether to a room, and, after being locked up for half an hour, they came down again, arid the defendant left by a different way from that by which he had entered. It was not for him (Mr. James) to say what had taken place on that occasion: but in some short time after, the wife took it into bar head to leave the house, and to go and live with the defendant. At the time of her leaving, she said and seemed to hold out some prospect, that, if her husband would only submit for a certain time to the indignity of fered, he would get the means of living a more comforta ble life thereafter; and she accordingly went away, and continued to live at the house of the defendant, at Wa vertree, cohabiting with him up to the time of the action having been brought. It was for the jury to say, under those circumstances, what damages the plaintiff had sus tained for the grievous wrong inflicted upon him by the defendant. Evidence having been given to prove the case, Mr. Sergeant MoaPHY addressed the jury on the pait of the defendant, contending that the case had been sup ported by gross perjury and contradiction. Ile thought the age of the defendant (about 70 years) would predicate anything but intrigue, and said that the gentleman had simply visited at the house of the plaintiff, in the middle of the day, for the purpose of engaging Mrs. Rees as his housekeeper. A verdict was unhesitatingly returned for the defendant. DINGHAM V. HAMILTON AND OTHERS.—This was an action brought for the recovery of £l6OO, being the amount of commission alleged to be owing on cargoes of oil, &c., brought home from Africa in vessels called the Didulus and Garrow. The plaintiff was Henry Lingham, and the defendants were John Hamilton and William Jackson. The defendants pleaded that they had not pro mised. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Babes and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. The defence was, that the plaintiff had violated his in structions in respect to the Garrow ;. that he had trusted persons when there was no necessity for trusting ; and that he had taken a worthless bill from King Pepel, at Bonny, the value of which the defendants had never ob tained. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. PLATT AND OTHERS v. YOUNG AND OTHERS.—This was an action brought by Messrs. Platt, Son, and Casson, tar and turpentine distillers and resin manufacturers, of Liverpool, for the recovery of the amount of a policy of insurance for £2OOO from the directors of the London and York Insurance Company. The defendants pleaded to the whole declaration payment of £1265 into court. Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain tiffs ; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Pashley for the defend ants. It appeared that the policy had been effected on the distillery and yard of the plaintiff, situated between Greenland-street and Parliament -street, in the south end of the town, and that that policy had been made on the 10th of November, 1842, for six months. On the 22d of December there was a fire on the premises, which destroyed all the property in the yard, and also in a ware house called " Guyton's." The defendants alleged that they were only liable for £1265, the Value of the property in the warehouse in question ; and it was not disputed that that was about the value of the said property. The action was, therefore, brought for the recovery of the value of the property in the yard, which amounted to about £735. After the examination of witnesses, the court adjourned at twenty minutes after seven o'clock. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. ASSAULT, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A RAPE. William Gibbon, 30, stood charged with assaulting Ann Lythgoe, at Pennington, in July last. Mr. Trafford conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wilkins the defence. It appeared, by the evidence of the prosecutrix, that on the 25th July the prisoner went into the weaving shop where the former was at work, and made inquiry respect ing a hen which he said had been lost; and, finding her alone, threw her down and attempted to commit the act with which he stood charged. Mr. WiLiciNs addressed the jury for the prisoner. The jury retired, and, after an absence of two hours, returned, finding the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. EJECTMENT.-DOE DEM. HUGHES V. BRADSHAW. Mr. COWLING said this was an action of ejectment, brought by Ellen Hughes, a lady of considerable property in Sutton and elsewhere, against Thos. Bradshaw, tenant of one of her farms, called the Willow Tree Farm. There was no doubt that the farm belonged to the plaintiff; there was no doubt also that the defendant was her tenant, and that he had been so for two years ; and the only ques tion, he apprehended, would be, whether or not a proper notice to quit had been given. There was no doubt that notice was given on the Ist day of August, but it unfor tunately happened that it was drawn up, not by a profes sional man, but by the coachman of Mrs. Hughes, who, no doubt, flattered himself that he was as clever in draw ing out legal notices as he was on the coach-box. The usual time of giving up possession of the land was on the 2d of February, and the house was given up on the Ist of May. In this form, he believed, the notice had been given. Howard, the plaintiff's coachman, was called, and proved the delivery of the notice to quit to the defendant's wife. Mr. RAMSHAY, for the defendant, said Mrs. Hughes was in the habit of giving notice to all her tenants every year much as a matter of course, although she did not avail herself of such notice. She gave notice in the usual way to his client, and he, thinking it was the usual affair, took no notice of it, but it appeared she had intended to turn him out. However, he (the learned counsel) should be able to prove that the plaintiff had, on the Ist August, distressed upon the goods of the defendant for rent due up to that date. It was a rule of law, that if a party who had given another notice to quit afterwards treated him as a tenant, he could not recover. Meredith, the officer, who levied the distress, was then called, and said the levy was made for rent due up to the 2d February. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—Is that your case Mr. RAMSHAY.—Yes. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.—GentIemen of the jury, you must find a verdict for the plaintiff. DISPUTED AGENCY.-RAMSAY V. KELSO AND ANOTHER. In this case the declaration was in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The defendants pleaded non assum psit. Mr. Wortley and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling for the defendants. In this case, Robert Ramsay, block maker, of this town, sought is recover the sum of £149 from the defendants Joseph Kelso and Robert Lyons, of Londonderry, for, blocks alleged to have been supplied to them. For the plaintiff it was set up that the defendants were the owners of a large vessel, called the Great Northern, which was built by them in Londonderry, and that the blocks were ordered for them by Capt. Coffin, as their agent. The defendants' case waa, that Captain Coffin, as a shipbuilder, contracted to build the vessel for £16,300, and that the blocks were ordered by him on his own account.—Verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, £149 19s sd. CLAIM BY ASSIGNEES. MILLER AND OTHERS V. FISHER AND OTHERS. - • This was an issue out of .. the Court of Chancery, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs. John Miller and others. Mr. Watson and Mr. Cowling appeared as counsel for the defendants, James Fisher and others. The plaintiffs were assignees of Messrs. Copeland and Duncan, who carried on business in this town as com mission agents in the year 1836, and the defendants were assignees of the firm of Baisley and Handsbrough, lately carrying on business at Manchester, and the action was brought to decide whether the assignees of Copeland& Dun can were entitled to receive the proceeds of certain goods sent out to India in the year 1836, to pay advances made by them to Baisley and Handsbrough. It appeared that Copeland and Duncan received, in their course of busi ness, goods from merchants in Manchester, transmitted these goods to the house in India, and then two-thirds of the invoice price was advanced upon the goods, and a further sum was advanced by Copeland and Duncan, making the total sum advanced 85 per cent. The course of business was this, when Bailey and Handsbrough had goods to send to Calcutta, they communicated with Craw ford and Duncan, who again communicated with the firm of Crawford, Colvin, and Co., the correspondents of the Indian house. As soon as the shipping note of the goods was read by Crawford, Colvin, and Co., they remitted two-thirds of the invoice price on behalf of the India house, and they also received the remittances from the India-house when it was sent to this cok..,try, kept their advances, and sent down the remainder to Copeland and Duncan, who took their advances, and then remitted the balance to the house in Manchester. The evidence in this case consisted of letters, showing the course of business, and after these had been read, Mr. WATSON said he considered it more as a question for his Lordship than the jury, and he would take his opinion upon it, either as a matter of fact, or a matter of law. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said he had not the least doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, which was entered accordingly. EJECTMENT.—DOE DEM, HARDMAN, V. GORE. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover possession of a farm-house and farm in Allerton, in the parish of Chi!desalt, but after the case had been stated by Mr. Martin, his Lordship said there was no ground for the action—with respect to one term it had long since expired, and another term had not arrived. He could not, how ever, hold out any hope to the party, as a hundred things might have happened to prevent his claim from being a correct one, and he, therefore, advised him not to waste any more money. The plaintiff was non-suited, and the court rose at twenty-five minutes to six o'clock. CROWN COURT-FRIDAY. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN took his seat at nine o'clock. THE MANCHESTER BRICKMAKERS' RIOTS. Peter Burgess, Charles Lee, George Walker, Joseph Harrison, William Roberts, Thomas Hough, Nicholas Rigby, Michael Baguley, and Matthew Kehoe, were in dicted for riot and assault at the brickfield of Mr. Pauling, at Salford. Kehoe pleaded guilty, and all the others not guilty. The evidence adduced was similar to that brought forward against them at the trial on Wednesday. The Learned JUDGE, in charging the jury, said that two persons spoke directly to Hari ison, but both of them, on the next night, said they did not know him. After words, however, they said that they did; but the impres sion of Beswick, the constable, was that they did not. Two other witnesses heard a voice which they believed was his. Five witnesses also gave him a character, which should have weight with the jury if they entertained any doubt. Only one person spoke to Roberts; a witness also gave him a good character. The case against Bur gess and Lee rested entirely on the correspondence of the boots, his having been found with Kehoe, who had a gun shot wound, and having a blue mark on his breast which one of the witnesses believed he had inflicted. Walker was found to have some gun-shot wounds, and was spoken to by Frost and Connell. They also spoke to Hough, but Connell had previously identified his bro ther, who had been apprehended. The only witness who recognised Rigby was Connell, but this was some time after the occurrence. If the jury entertained any doubts as to the identity of the prisoners, they would give them the benefit of such doubts, but especially those who had received a good character. The jury retired, and were absent about twenty minutes, when they returned a verdict of guilty against all the pri soners. Kehoe was also placed at the bar, and his Lordship addressed the prisoners, stating that they had been found guilty, after a most careful consideration of their case, of riot and assault, and there were circumstances which gave to the charge an importance far beyond that attend ing many others that could be brought into a court of justice. He should inflict, therefore, the highest punish ment legally appropriated to the offence, and sentenced each of the prisoners to twelve months' imprisonment. APPLICATION TO THE COURT. Mr. ARNOLD applied on behalf of Mr. Wood, a witness in the case of Jennings and Anderson, that the £2O which Jennings got from him for the £lOOO note might be re turned to him, and that, under the act of parliament, some reward or compensation should be made to him for apprehending Jennings. The JUDGE thought the evidence would not warrant his granting the application. STABBING. Mary Anderson, 28, was indicted for stabbing, cutting, and wounding Hannah Power, with intent to maim, dis figure, or do her some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Blair appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. The prosecutrix was a widow, and on the morning of the ith June was in a house in Albion-street, which was a brothel. In consequence of something that was said, a quarrel arose between the prosecutrix and prisoner, and the result was that the prisoner knocked the prosecutrix down, pulled her by the hair, and scratched her face. The prosecutrix went down stairs, and the prisoner followed her down stairs, and stabbed her at the back of the neck with some sharp instrument. It appeared that four wounds had been inflicted upon the prosecutrix. One of the wounds was very dangerous, and might have been fatal, being just over the carotid artery and the jugular vein. The prisoner, who was undefended, said the prosecu trix was very drunk, and assailed her first below stairs, and that the injuries were inflicted by the pieces of a broken jug. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault. His LORDSHIP said there were some circumstances of amelioration, but nothing to justify so savage on attack, and sentenced her to twelve months' imprisonment. STABBING. Antonio Louise, 22, was indicted for stabbing Joseph Carter, at Liverpool, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. The prisoner, who is an Italian, was allowed to have six of his own countrymen placed on the jury ; and, at the suggestion of his Lordship, Mr. Wilkins undertook his defence. Mr. H ARDEN stated the case. It appeared that, on the night of the Bth of July last, the prosecutor, Joseph Car ter, was at a house in Lower Sparling-street, kept by a person named Wright. A great many foreigners were there, and one of them having struck a female who was present, a quarrel took place, and the prisoner got upon a table and pulled a knife from his pocket, with which he struck the prosecutor, and inflicted a wound on his thigh about two inches long. The wound was not of a very dangerous character. The prisoner was cautioned, when on the table, not to use the knife. Mr. WlLturts addressed the jury, suggesting that the prisoner had used the knife in self-defence. The jury retired, and returned in about three quarters of an hour, finding the prisoner guilty of a common as sadlt, with a recommendation to mercy. Sentence, six months' imprisonment. PERJURY. Tames Orriti (ordered into custody by the Court at the last assizes) was charged with committing perjury, in the case of Richard Johnson and others, who were tried for poaching. It appeared the prisoner had given evidence before the magistrates, which led to the committal of one of the parties named Culshaw, but, when put into the box on the trial, he denied his former statement, and Culshaw was acquitted. Several witnesses were called, and Mr. Arnold addressed the jury for the prisoner. Guilty. Sentence, twelve months' imprisonment. REGINA V. LAWSON. Mr. BAINES, with whom was Mr. Townsend, stated, that the present prosecution was on behalf of Mr. Baker, high constable of Cheshire, for a libel on his character, published in the Bolton Free Press and the Bolton Chro nicle. He then went over the facts of the case. The pro secutor, Mr. Baker, was high constable of Cheshire. In 1842 a vacancy appeared likely to take place with regard to the superintendency of police in the town of Bolton, and Mr. Baker and a person named Boyd were candidates. The defendant, who is a tradesman in Bolton, was a mem ber of the town council, and connected with the watch committee; and it appeared that, in advocating the claims of Boyd, he made some remarks, at one of the meetings, reflecting on the character of Baker, to the effect that, if there were no robberies, he (Baker) would manufacture them and put the public to the expense of prosecutions ; that money had, also, been paid to commit robberies, of which the prosecutor was cognizant. The speech was published in the two papers above alluded to : it had been dictated by the defendant to a person named Charles Al dred, who wrote down the speech, and afterwards brought the proof, and the defendant read it over. The object of the prosecutor was merely to set his character right with the public, which character, if the present charge were allowed to pass, would, probably, be most seriously injured. Mr. WILKiNs said he did not stand up to find fault with the prosecutor. On behalf of the defendant he had to say , that he (the defendant) said himself that the report bad been exaggerated by the party who came for it. All that he intended was to attribute to the prosecutor indiscretion and over zeal. In supporting th claims of Boyd he might have disparaged those of the prosecutor; but he never supposed that he (the prosecutor) would be wicked enough t,) concoct a felony to put money in his own pocket. The learned gentleman hoped the declaration he had made on the part of the defendant would be deemed sufficient. Mr. BAINES said, if the defendant would plead guilty, they would be satisfied. The learned JUDGE observed, that a man might be in. volved in the legal consequences of a libel without intend ing it, _ _ _ The defendant then, under the advice of his counsel, agreed to withdraw his plea and plead guilty, observing that, although he pleaded guilty by the advice of his coun sel, he was not guilty. Mr. BAINES observed, that the defendant would be liable to be called up for judgement at any time. His LORDSHIP observed, that the defendant had with drawn his plea of not guilty with the understanding that he was not to be called up for judgement at all. He was only guilty in a legal point of view. SENTENCES. The following persons were brought up to receive sen tence : John Leeming, for stealing post letters, transported for life. Charles Knight, for forgery and bigamy, 10 years each for the charges of forgery, and 7 years for the bigamy ; altogether, 27 years' transportation. Joseph Smith and John Briarley, for burglary, and James Howard, for burglary, 10 years' transportation. James Lunt, for stabbing, 16 months' imprisonment. Lawrence Williams, for horse stealing 16 months. William Tyson and William Alexander, for forgery, 2 years. Joseph Hyde and Lawrence Williams, for horse-steal ing, 18 months. The following prisoners, convicted of bigamy, were brought up and sentenced to six months' imprisonment : —George Walker, Samuel Lamb, Edward Gill, James Saycell, John Hardman, William Jack, James Honey ford, James Sumner, and Eliza Barry. The whole of the Crown business being disposed of, his Lordship discharged the Jury, at the same time thank ing them for their services. The Court was adjourned at two o'clock. PRIUS COURT.- SA UTURDAY This morning the case of Platt and others ;; Young and oilers was reAtyned. It terminated in a verdict for the plaintiff for £2Ol, that being shown to be the balance doe on the averages. WOOD PAVEMENT.—STEAD V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS. This was an action for an infringement of a patent for t'le paving of roa!s, streets, &c., with timber or wooden blocks. Mr. Martin and Mr. Webster were for the plain tiffs ; Mr. '.,Varren and Mr. Hozgins f the defendants. The plaintiff is Mr. David Stem!, tot tnerly a merchant of the city of London. The defend tuts are, nominally, Mr. Lewis Williams and several others, who are the surveyors of streets and paving at Manclicst:; but the action was really against the Metropolitan Wood Pave ment Company. About the year 1836 or 1837 Mr. Maestrom, a Russian merchant, with whom Mr. Stead had had transactions in business, came to England, hav ing, whilst in Russia, devoted his attention to the mode of pavement in that country, which was done in a great measure by wood. lie communicated with Mr. Stead, who paid a great deal of attention to the matter, and ma terially improved the scheme ; and it was the intention of Mr. Maestrom and Mr. Stead, in 1835 or 1837, to take out a Intent; but Mr. Maestrom found it necessary to return to Russia, and thus frustrated that intention. On the 19th of May, 1838, the plaintiff, however, took out a patent ; and this was the one to which attention was di rected. Four months were allowed for enrolment ; but, as six months was the usual period, the plaintiff imagined that that would be the period allowed to him, and inad vertently allowed the 'Tour months to elapse before he discovered his mistake. On the 21st of June, 1841, how ever, an act of parliament was passed, confirming the ' patent to Mr. Stead, as though it had been regularly filed within the prescribed period. A second patent was after wards obtained, but that related more particularly to the form of blocks. The first patent, which, it was alleged, had been infringed, was for an invention consisting of a mode of paving with blocks of similar sizes and dimen sions, of either a sexagonal, triangular, or square form, so as to make a level road or surface. The defendants pleaded, amongst other things, that the patent was not an original invention ; that it was not useful; and that it was in use prior to the granting of the patent. Witnesses were called to show that Deansgate, St. Ann's-square, and other places in Manchester had been paved with wood on the plan for which the plaintiff had obtained a patent. Mr. NOGGINS addressed the Jury for the defendants, contending, that the so-called invention of Mr. Stead was, in principle, precisely the same as that of Mr. Herd, pub lished in the year 1836 ; but that the appropriator had not sufficient ingenuity to remove the objections which had been brought against the plan, and which, in fact, rendered it useful. Mr. Stead, having thus appropriated the ideas of other persons, and having, from the strong feeling against ordinary paving which was arising, seen the ex tensive demand which was likely to arise or wood pave ment, got out a patent, and then claimed to have the sole right to pave with wood the whole of England, Wales, and Berwick-on-Tweed. The Metropolitan Wood Company, however, having formed an improved plan, and obtained a patent, (lid not seek any such monopoly. The learned counsel pointed out, that Sir William Worsley, in 1832, laid down an hexagonal wood pavement, at Ovingham hall, and said that the pavement was similar to the one of which Mr. Stead claimed to be the true originator. Se veral engineers and scientific men were called to prove that the plan of the plaintiff was not original. The last of the witnesses, the Secretary of the London Wood Pave. ment Company, admitted, on his cross-examination, that Mr. Stead was the first person who laid down wood-pave ment, on an extensive scale, in the streets of London. Mr. MARTIN, in his reply, sco u t e d th e id ea o f a mer chant like Mr. Stead having read in scientific journals about the scheme of Mr. Herd. Mr. Herd had himself seen the wood-pavement in Russia, and why might not Mr. Stead have got his information independently from a native of Russia? Mr. Herd merely communicated what he had seen ;. but he expressed a doubt whether such a road would ever answer for heavy burdens ; whilst Mr. Stead saw the practicability of the plan, with some slight modification, and actually carried it out. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the jury would have several matters to decide in this case. There was no doubt that the defendants had done that which amounted to an infringement, if the patent were good, and, therefore the first plea, of not guilty, wou ld b e f or the plaintiff. In the second plea the defendants said, that the plaintiff was not the inventor, and that plea was founded on the statute of James, the only authority for the government granting a monopoly, which required that a patent must be granted to the true and first inventor. If, therefore, the jury should be of opinion that the plain. tiff was not the inventor of this mode of paving in this country he was not intitled to a verdict on that issue. If he obtained his information from a foreign country, that would still leave him the true inventor in this country ; but, if he derived his information either from books or from oral communication in this country which had given to the public that knowledge, then he was not the true in ventor, and was not entitled to the patent. In the state ment which induced the crown to grant the patent the plaintiff set forth, that he had derived his information from a foreigner ; but he had produced no proof of that before the jury. The defendant, on the contrary, said that he would show, that books, extensively circulated in the scientific world, had substantially communicated to the public all the information which the 'plaintiff himself had given them ; and if he, from those communications, derived that knowledge which enabled him to take out the patent, he could not convert to his private use that know ledge which had before been given to the public. But, then, the defendant did not bring home to the plaintiff the fact of his having seen those communications; and the jury would have to say, whether the plaintiff derived. his information from abroad or from those books. It would not deprive a man of an invention. if another. thought of the same thing in his head at the same time, but had not carried it out into practice. The learned judge then compared the plan of the plaintiff with those described by Mr. Finlayson in March 1825 and Mr. Herd in 1834, and observed that the germ of the idea of a wood pavement was seen in the former, whilst, in his opinion, the latter was precisely similar to that of the plaintiff. As to seve ral other pleas, which resolved themselves into points of p la la w in f t o iff r hi sd Withet e r r e m fe i r n e a n t c i o e n, he d to the p e l c e i a d ein that d t he favour pla of h plans of the plaintiff had been in public use before the granting of the patent, he thought that that had not been made out by the evidence of small patches of rude wood pavement having been laid down in private houses in several parts of the kingdom, long anterior to . the date of the patent; but he was of opinion that, in the instance of the carriage road laid down in hexagonal blocks by Sir Wm. Wonder, the public use of the plan had been made out. The Jury retired to consult at a quarter past four, and, this being the last case on the list, his Lordship asked whether it was necessary for him to stay for the verdict. The counsel replied in the negative, and his lordship left the court. The jury returned at twenty minutes to six o'clock, with a verdict for the plaintiff, 40s. damages.— (See advertisement.) This terminated the business of the assizes. TEIE CAUSE LIST : WEST DERBY HUNDRED. The causes in the West Derby list have thus been dis posed of : Plaintiff -1, 4,5, 6,8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23,24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 66, 68, 70, 76. Defendant-7, 31, 37, 44, 75, 78. Referred-26, 52, 72. Postponed-58. _ Nonsuit-40, 63, 69. Withdrawn-2,3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 29, 30, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 60, 62, 64,, 65, 67, 71, 73, 74, 77. EXECUTION OF THE CULPRIT HIGGINsoY. - This wretched man, who was convicted at the late assizes for the brutal murder of his child, was executed on Saturday morning, at eight o'Clock, in front of the county gaol, Stafford, in the presence of an immense concourse of per sons. At half-past seven, all the authorities having arriv ed, they proceeded to the condemned cell, where the painful ceremony of pinioning the arms was gone through. The unhappy man appeared perfectly calm and resigned to his fate. He approached and ascended the drop with .a firm step, and bade adieu to the governor, Mr. Brutton, in a very affectionate manner, at the same time sheding,tears. The awful minute had now arrived ; he stood, whilst the rope was adjusted and the cap drawn over his face. with remarkable fortitude, evidently in deep and fervent prayer • After the lapse of a few seconds, the platform fell, and the unhappy being ceased to exist. The body, after hanging for an hour, was cut down, and buried within the walls of the gaol. There was no disturbance, and the crowd conducted themselves with the greatest propriety. MURDEROUS ATTACK AND DARING ROBBERY.—OR Friday morning last, near Bristol, a villain, named John Clarke, robbed and attempted to murder a family by whom he had been charitably entertained and preserved from starvation. Clarke is a labourer, who, about two months since, was suddenly thrown out of work, when, being entirely destitute, a young man, named Maddicks, a cowkeeper, who resided in a cottage about half a mile from the high road, near the northern suburb of Bristol, took him in and supported him. On Wednesday he beard Mrs. Maddicks say, that, on the following day, she would receive a sum of money, due to her for milk, and be after wards questioned her on the subject. On Thursday night, as usual, the family retired to rest. Maddicks and his wife and two children occupied one bed; a little girl, who was employed to assist in nursing their infant, slept on the chairs by their bedside ; and the sister of Mrs. Mad. dicks, who had nursed her in her confinement, in a bed adjoining. Clarke was in an adjoining room. At day-_ light, on Friday morning, the wife was awakened by something striking her violently on the head. She looked up, and saw Clarke with a poker in his hand. He struck her twice more on the head and once on the arm. The sister then woke up and called out ; upon which the vil lain rushed upon her and struck her violently on the head, inflicting a terrible gash. So murderously intended volts the blow that the poker broke in two, and one part of it flew with violence against a wall of the apartment. a4d then fell upon the bed. Mrs. Maddicks, on looking 'at her husband, found him covered with blood and cow pseleizteedlyhionldsenosfible. Clarke,S hwehothmensh and e broke from her and made his escape over a wall at the back of the premises, and got clear off. In his haste he dropped one of his shoes, and left his hat behind him. jumpede c al led outbyof name. bed Upon an examination of the room afterward s , it was found that he had carri ed off some silver money w hi c h bad been placed on a shelf near the head of the bedstead. He had also rummaged a box in which money was some times kept ; but, as Mrs. Maddicks had not received the, mon ey which she spoke of, he failed to find the booty which be no doubt expected. The police officer found Maddicks insensible. He had four external wounds on the bead, one of which has injured the bone. The wife ' has seven wounds on the head, the most dangerous of which is over the temple. Clarke had not been taken when the last acounts left Bristol. a so ; 00'; 1„,04 ? o f f / :0 !