The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-08-29 00:00:00

), 1848. bent, an d the ince of Walefir i Alice, attend' d her Molest,' within the last favourable far t would hold * vich on Satin, annual War ceed direct to l carriages to iage of Lady r of the Mar' nd the Hon. .41 Leigh, Was •ge's Church,' ormed by hi lie bride vial rosvenor, and in. A soul , ' ir House, I/ er, to a large n for Hatch r Cobham, 0 y had an in' street. Ecclesiastic'' , Lancashire, irposes. .uted £5O for renefit of the ger bas also istrict of St -13 on Thurs )f four year s It is taken arish of St: of at leas, :UST 24. at Jury.) )pening the y the Court ier a certain ad been O n the tamp ith his regi' ne of those ome matter was termed in organised y by these and credw them dis," e the bibs nost imnle- tailway wili tailway for 7d. Post from the included. he North.' )rought to turned to The cere uct, at the e presenc. o th of due 'feet: the h 60 feet. wo o'clock ied at the Le sleepers , all clanger No cause be 90 per' Tened ior tiring the -6 passen their ow' g to their )erby at resolved having " letter 346, that lders 01 uestion• merstee for the ad been sire for I Fran- ve to You f Prince ion that achy h et )rted 1)1 anationa I well ,sed, th e sible for ]out •actions Duke hnglish altered' pect °` con mtpee" do lo t r necf P nto w.i h t t S Lin to the °sod. to pentoer, the "1- irraoge coact's- r COw': , vt ir iv e a ; lictated rse n ()r certioti ed that ;I Yo ur ; for the Id 105 ! inw re n -7 )which to be of copse ince at times , ready of that , t, an len the ly per' Is. ittlSell August 29,18-18 Varliamentarp prortebings. A HOE OF LOaDS.—MONDAY. Ater sOme routine business, the Earl of RADNOR, in refer ct of e to a statement made the other night, relative to the case Mrs. Williams, who had been committed for giving away broken victuals, said, he had been informed that the victuals given away consisted of a considerable quantity of meat, n which charge she had been committed by Mr. Hawkins. I4 rd BROUGHAM said the statement of the noble earl was Merely ex parte, and he 'Lord Brougham) intended to-morrow l!o move for a copy of sUch documents as would enable their ordships to judge which statement was correct. The report ls the newspapers said that the learned judge who heard the case animadverted on the conduct of the prosecutor and the lotnmitting magistrates in severe terms. He (Lord Brougham) : 1 not at all censured the conduct of Mr. Hawkins. That °sure was passed on him by Mr. Justice Coleridge. and c r i d ers ß:o h ti a Am inquired if there was any truth in the s a tement that a number of the Irish Roman Catholic prelates signed a memorial to the Crown in favour of ,;!°se uusguided and deluded persons who had been led from "-le discharge of their duty and committed high treason. ...The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had seen the statement alluded ` u I, Y the noble and learned lord, but uad received no oflicial com munication on the subject. aliswer to a question by Earl FORTESCUE, fhe Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the attention of the go „yernment had been directed to the propriety of taking some precautionary measures with respect to the progress of the cholera, and that a measura on the suiiject would shortly be brought under the notice of their lordships. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY. o,Yhe house went into committee of supply on the miscellane e,stimates, and proceeded with various grants up to the si ' o n at Period of adjournment, the two votes occasioning discus . a being the grants for New Zealand and Labuan, upon the ;ter of which the committee divided, when the grant was ,f i ned by a majority . of 44—the numbers 36 to 12. ~_un the house resuming, and the question of a,7;ain going into rbnittee of, supply having been put, Mr. G. A. HAMILTON al e e d as an amendment upon the order of the day, that an such be presented to her Majesty, praying her to direct that 1:,19 , a modification of the system of national education in Ire may be made as may remove the conscientious objections EVIF I I a very large portion of the clergy and laity of the Esta thits,siled Church entertain to that system as at present carried ti o " oPeration, or otherwise that means may be taken to enable s e of the clergy and laity of the Established Church who o t f ltertai n such conscientious objections to extend the blessings r e :crptural education in Ireland. While the Roman Catho- Co ns Ti Ea3land are allowed to receive a grant to carry out their sto ( j - i il n tinus views of education, the Protestants of Ireland ori tfi„`" the anomalous position, that their conscientious views assi s s ame point were disregarded, and they were refused that TI tance which was given to every other sect in that country. G iin 'e amendment was supported by Captain JONES, Mr. ; G AN, Sir W. VERNER, Mr. NAPIER, and Mr. NEWDE- Z . ' a, and opposed by Sir W. SoMERVI LLE; MT. S. CRAWFORD,' Ipp OsaoRNE, Mr. Hum E, Mr. REYNOLDS, and Lord J. - " ,, ask Lt., the noble lord stating that the object of the present Proposition was to overthrow the existing system, which had Oen in operation for sixteen four th ears, under which the schools had increased in number to fouo and the scholars to 4Our hundred thousand—a system which had received the sanc it of successive governments during that period, tending as did to unite Protestants and Roman Catirvlics, and which, but for the prejudices of some of the clergy, would unite them !II a still greater degree. Under these circumstances he hoped I t continue to receive the support of the legislature. ~9, n a division there appeared for the amendment 15 ; against , 5 ",.; majority 103; and the house went into committee of sup - PLY accordingly ; the principal subjects discussed being the Votes for captured negroes and for consular establishments. HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY. RUM DENMAN moved an address to the Crown, praying her wi a t 3 h ".,tY to give directions for the enforcement of all treaties foreign powers for the extinction of the slave trade on the coast of Africa anti for the prosecution of all British subjects, directly or indirectly,' concerned in violating the laws against • crim e , and that her Majesty would be pleased tO take into nrserious consideration the expediency of concerting measures ▪ h her allies for declaring slave trade piracy, with a punish :pit less severe than that now incurred according to the laws , t he nation for that crime. . After a fervent speech against the doing away with the African i clu alton, Lord LANSDOWNE replied, and the motion was ne atived without a division. Een the question of the third readino• of te Parliamentary lectors Bill, Lord REDESDA LE moveXthat it be read a second I Ze that day six months, when the original motion was carried Majority of 3—the numbers 31 to 28. tt.,'n th of Januaryfor the 11th October, when the bill was to come "' 0 operation was agreed to, and it passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY. ° The Sugar Duties Bill having been read a third time, Lord • hl e aanE BENTI NC K moved a clause the object of which was to Perm the refiners of sugar in England on the same footing as b u°Be of Holland, Belgiam, and Hanover, and that they should 4 Permitted, whether the sugar was British colonial or foreign, enter it on paying the highest rate of duty. After some discussion on this proposition, and on the Feneral pestion and present state of the trade in the West Indies, the house divided, when the motion was negatived by a majority of the numbers 70 to 40. f er t° th rd GEORGE BENTINCK then proposed two amendments e alteration of the scale of duties, the first of which was tegatived bv a majority of 63 ; the numbers 17 to 80 ; and the p e gn ed dby imajority of 65 ; the numbers 16 to 81, and the bill t r ,Mr• HERRI ES, in a speech of historical details, in reference 1 3 ",, Inc different committees which had sat on this subject, t 0 the forward his motion calling the attention of the house li e ` ue last reports from the committees of that house and the hi ;lse of Lords on c_mmercial distress, and moving that the a er r„e_ Should, early in the next session, take the same into its T he motion, consideration. th e D ' ri nlo . tion, which involved the question of a departure from KaPer e n ciPle of the Bank Act of 1844, by an extension of a, Ewo urrency as a circulating medium, was supported by Mr. and on „ E akTE, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. HUME, Exc i Li m sed by Mr. H. DRUMMOND, the CHANCELLOR of the PE E — 'anER, who moved the previous question, and Sir R. 111 tet g Mr. BERRIES, in reply, stated that his object in drawing the ,nion of the house and the country to the subject havin be en attained he should not divide, and the question was put and negatived. The second reading of the Toxin.. Masters' Court of Chancery 4 %trelandi Bill ha v i ng b een moved, Mr. NAPIER was proceeding address the house when it was counted out at two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY. after the presentation of several petitions the house went Into Committee of Supply, and several votes were agreed to. On the question of the £8,700 to defray the expenses of al lowance to Polish refugees, Mr. OSBORNE opposed the grant on the ground of inutility !ad extravagance, and intimated that the charity of this corn. ogre ought to be extended towards numbers of its own people who Fere enduring privations instead of being lavished upon e_reigners who abused its generosity. The grant had origina . lly tith e conceded for one year only, and he now thought it high "ole to put a stop to it. Lord D. STUART defended the grant. Mr. BRIGHT thought it surprising that the Poles in fourteen Years had not been ;.ble to provide for themselves, and depre cates John Bull being made a milch cow of by the inhabitants 0 other countries. „ l'be CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the vote Was Which could not be considered a permanent charge upon ta e, country. did not think the house would be disposed to away thiaid from old persons who had been long in the i,,`„ e eiPt of it—that would be an act of cruelty ; but young ;;; r sons able to earn their own living could not be allowed to falls reviewed. it. He assured the house that the list should be care ""Y reviewed. 'n discussion ensued on the proposition of the Regium Do e, which Mr. C. LustliNoTON opposed as derogatory to the ssenters of this country, and moved its omission. The vote carried by a majority of 60 to 28. be grant of .e 2,500 to Sir Charles Trevelyan, for extra ser ice was approved of by a majority of 73 to 14. th„, ll. C. Woon then proposed a vote of .e 132,000 to wind up p r '' e xpenditure for the relief of distress in Ireland up to the ' 4l ', sent half-year. In reply to a que , tion, he sta•ed that the 14 ' cit e sum expended for relief in Ireland up to the end of July s A t was about £9,135,000. Z fter a short conversation. to ? ? r d J. RUSSELL observed, that hon. members, in objecting wa the vote, did not seem to consider that an immense change I ts going on in Ireland, nor to make due allowance for the Deji es sitY under which both landlord and tenant were corn har?ed to act. The burden upon landed property in Ireland been changed from .e 400,000 to £1,800,000, in itself a great been change. Another change which had taken place o r I reland was this—that whereas, in 1836, there were no corn a pr ovision dealers in Ireland, there were now dealers in those ut el " in every part of that country. He thought it was their in aY to aid in the transition, and that it could not be said they tai ti t 'Y way wasted the money of the country by assisting cer ',lrlions to bear the very great burdens which bad been ti d e e d upon them, borne as these had been, on the whole, with ap e of readiness which was highly creditable.. With r . e• eu 4 , i to the future, that no doubt would be the subject of dis- All, I °o , and he did not wish to enter upon it at that late hour. _le had to say was, that in our present circumstances he a not think it would be wise to lay down a system or propose fari u '.". We did not know what was the extent of the present e of the potato cultivation—what was the exact amount pine : very great increase of potato cultivation which took Ye ar ', ol the present year, as compared with the amount of last Wh 4 e we did not know what amount would be saved, or to at a , Period the stock would last; and under these circum- Plajes he thought it would be very imprudent to lay down a HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY. 4 ONTEAGLE moved for certain papers respecting the • i o 111 4e 1 ( i l . grant of Vaacouver's slandto asthe H uclson'sllay to 4 g. 3 , —a grant which he stigmatizedthe most lavish, s iderate, and reprehensible ever made. The noble lord Wagrthe" Rave a sketch of tne rise and progress of the Hudson's e n ,, co lon and quoted various authorities to prove that it association totally unfit to be trusted with the duties of t4,, 1 it mn. , while he admitted the importance of Vancouver's at• eur (l , of the grant' as one of the very best means of Iliz ati i ng it as a British possession. Unless the duty of colo ,lY 4 4 were promptly undertaken, that island would inevita rhOth a Prey to the irregular appropriation of squatters, of ,' , lte a large body, composed chiefly of Mormons, already PreD:Plated remoring thither. The Government was not hhe broil to send a colony itself, but it had lent a willing ear to ~13 0s al of the Hudson's Bay Company, and from all that I ) . °l. r `:'d learn he believed that company would exercise the 4 he ' c rOPOSed to be confided in them with great advantage t vjhe t . ,,use of civilization and humanity. No r CHANCELLOR then moved the second reading of le I I upt Practices at Elections Bill, but as the feeling of , It o t the u se seemed to be that there was not sufficient time left thNicl era nt advanced period of the session for the proper k r ! bill Should only be read a second time, on the understand. St it s further progress should be deferred till next session. ...Oa it. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THFRSDAY. 11,,'e Motion that the Diplomatic Relations with the Court .),.e Bill be committed, 111 iita,,ANFTEy proposed as an amendment . that it be corn tuat day three months, and gave notipe that if that everlent were negatived, he would oppose its progress at 4c.uture stage J.erAaquirA I: seconded the amendment. t f i ;•. BussELL expressed his determination to persevere Atte measure. latlrik..ria,Peeches from Sir J. Tyrell, Mr. Forbes , Lord Drum- S'ipiptr. Spooner, Sir C. Burrell, and Mr. J. 0 Connell, till 'Nous moved the adjournment of the debate T n tis alay. r,sse.rilts, Proposition Lord J. RUSSELL denkurred, but x -,lAtini-vtissixwillingness to adjourn the debate till the evening t,e.lected by al) took lace when the amendment of Sr R. Inglis maforit of 73 over 28 voices. The debate ThTen.adjourned till the y evening sitting. LollowpaPourned debate was then resumed by Mr. Moore, and by Mr. Urquhart, Mr. P. Howard, Mr. M. Power, ate, gi—ru,..turnond, Sir R. Inglis, Lord H. Vane,. Mr. Newded -4141er.r Hu Barron, Mr. G. Robinson, Mr. Napier, and r M,. r ton. le r Xotir No then moved the adjournment of the debate, in Pro n ,, 'mit the house • ht proceed, as Lord John Russell had ~t11 : 4 „ e( 1, vrith the Co m pp ig er and Lead Duties Bill. "ottr u . c`'.!',oirr accused thegentlemen opposite of factiously Aft er 'Mg the bill. few words from Captain HARRIS recommending the tou r , Tri al of the bill, the house divided on the question of . na y am a ". l4 ,. When the amendment of Mr. Goring was negatived he of 103 over 32 voices 'et vi th l o a „ Es.,,then attempt ed . to ' address the house, but was aPtaittV "' a mours, on vs which g moved the adjournment of the house. Lord JoHN RUSSELL commented on the factious opposition given to this measure by certain gentlemen opposite. The most respectable members of their party, among whom he spe cially referred to Mr. Napier, had del►berately quitted the house rather than join in it. Captain VYSE observed that he had merely moved the ad journment to give Mr. Forbes an opportunity of addressing the house. Mr. FORBES then repeated the speech which he had made in the morning. Mr. SPOONER was rising, as Sir G. GREY ima gined, for the same purpose—an idea which led him to stand up for the propriety of observing the long-established rules of the house, which only permitted a member to make one speech on the same subject, and to point out the inconvenience which would arise from evading those rules by moving the question of adjournment. Mr. SPOONER persisted in his intention of again addressityr the house, complained of the slur cast upon him by Lord J. Russell, and declared that he should not flinch from his oppo sition to this bill, no matter what the house might think of it. An animated discussion, partaking rather of a personal cha racter, then took place, in which Lord J. Russell, Mr. Spooner, Mr. M. J. O'Connell, Mr. Newdegate, and some other members joined. At the close of it Captain Vyse withdrew his amend• ment, and the house divided on the amendment of Mr. Anstey on the original motion, when the numbers were—Ayes, 34 ; noes, 113 ; majority against the amendment, 77. The house then resolved into committee on the bill, and was occupied during the remainder of the evening in deciding on the manifold amendments proposed on it by Mr. C. Anstey end two or three other members. HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAY, On themotion for going into committee en the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill, some discussion took place, in which Mr. SPOONER, Sir J. TYRRELL, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Lord J. RUSSELL, and Sir R. 'Nous, took part; but eventually the committee was resumed without a division, and the remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to. In reply to questions put by Mr. ROBINSON, respecting the treatment of the convict Mitchel on his passage to Bermuda, and since his arrival there, Sir G. GREY said that instructions had been given to the officers of the vessel he was sent out in that every precaution should be taken to prevent the prisoner from escaping. He was to be placed in a cabin by himself, a sentinel was to be placed at his door, and his meals were to be sent in to him. He was also to have proper exercise while at sea. On the arrival of Mitchel at Spike Island he was examined by a medical officer, who reported that he was labouring under a chronic affection of the lungs. In consequence of this report he had been removed to a convict ship, where he had been treated in every respect like other convicts in a delicate state of health, but that since his arrival he had not been put to the hard labour that convicts are usually put to. . . - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved that the house resolve itself into a committee of ways and means. Mr. P. SC ROPE moved, as an amendment, that no future ap propriation of monies taken from general taxation be made in the poor-ra to of Irish unions, except on conditions—first, that it be expended in the productive employment of the able-bodied poor; and secondly, that repayment be secured by a lien on the property improved by the works, as well as upon the pro perty rateable to the poor. In support of this motion, the hon. gentleman addressed the house at considerable length, during which he impugned the conduct of the poor law commissioneis of Ireland. After some observations from Lord G. BENTINCK, Mr. H UME, Lord J. RUSSELL, and other hon. members, the amend ment was negatived without a division, and the house went into a committee of ways and means. The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER then proceeded to make the financial statement of which notice had been given by Lord Jolin Russell on a former evening. He recapitulated the main points of the budget of the noble lord at the commence ment of the session relative to the revenue and expenditure of the country, and then proceeded to show how the government had reduced the deficiency that appeared when the house re fused to sanction the increase of the income tax from three to five per cent. He had felt it to be his duty to call the attention of all the departments of the public service to the necessity of diminishing their expenses as much as possible, and the conse quence had been a series of estimates much reduced in amount below that which had been originally contemplated. In ac cordance with the reports of the two committees which had been appointed to investigate the estimates, they had adopted the course to which he had adverted, and the result was that the navy estimates were reduc d by the sum of .e 208,000, the army estimates by .e 150,000, the ordnance by £123,000, the miscellaneous by £23s,ooo—making, together with the saving of £150,000 by not calling out the militia, a total reduction of .61328,000. The total expenditure would be £52,422,335. white the income would, in the first instance, be .e 51,210,000 ; but by carrying the appropriations in aid to the service of the year, a sum of .e 500,000 became available. From the barley crop of last year, which was very good, he anticipated an increase to the excise of £340,000, and £BO,OOO, being the last instalment of China money. The entire deficiency of the year, therefore, would be only £292,355. The reductions which had taken place he hoped to be able to carry to a still further extent next year. The deficiency for the present year would be still £2,031,000 if the expenses of the Kaffir war were to be added together with the sum advanced for the relief of the distress in Ireland and for the Canaoian emigrants. This deficiency he proposed to meet by a loan rather than resort to a permanent tax to meet what he hoped would be only a temporary emer gency. The house would remember that he had no ordinary difficulties to deal with. They had a famine in Ireland, great commercial distress, revolutions abroad severely affecting trade, and insurrections at home. It was, therefore, not to be won dered at that there should be a considerable falling off in the in come and revenue of the country. He believed it was the pa ramount interest of that country to promote the peace and tranquillity of the rest of Europe, and the best exertions of the. government would be devoted to that object. With respect to the harvest, he believed the crop was only partially damaged, and he believed that the extent of the potato disease was not so great as had been anticipated. It might be necessary, how ever, to render assistance to some localities, but he could hold out no hope of any general system of relief, such as had been formerly resorted to. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the usual vote in ways and means. Mr. HUME considered the statement of the right hon. gentle man as most unsatisfactory. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said the Chancellor of the Exche quer had taken erroneously into his estimates the continuance of certain duties which would expire this year. After a few words from Mr. J. O'CONNELL, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he had arrived at the conclusion that increased taxation was postponed only for one year. After some observations from Mr. MUNTZ and Mr.H. DRUM MOND, Lord J. RUSSELL said that the reductions which would be made in the various departments would bring their expenditure within the limit of their income. SOUTH LANCASHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. (Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.) Henry Woodward, 28, was found guilty of having, at Brough ton, broken into the dwelling-house of John Ward, and stolen one cream jug and other articles. _ __ Thomas Cale, 22, charged with having, on the night of the 7th of August, at the village of West Derby, cut and wounded a po liceman, named Christopher Coupland, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. The jury acquitted the prisoner of the felonious intention, but found him guilty of an assault. Joseph 7'honmon, 20, was found guilty of wounding a police officer named Oliver Petty, on the 7th of August, an officer in the county constabulary. Patrick Bealey, 35, was sentenced to twelve months' impri sonment, with hard labour, for having, at Walton-on-the-Hill, on the 16th of April last, feloniously killed, with intent to steal, one ewe, the property of John Cruickshank, a brewer, at Walton. John Whittam was indicted for having, on the 3d of April last, committed a violent assault on Richard Blee, a collector of accounts, residing in Acton-street, in Manchester, with in tent to do him some grievous bodily injury. The jury found the prisoner guilty of an assault. Samuel Worthington, 27, was sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment, for having, at Pendleton, feloniously stolen one coat, and other articles, the property of William Hesketh. John Sumner, 39, was charged with having, at Litherland, stolen three pigs, the property of Henry Harrison. Guilty. Sentence deferred. John Richardson, 39, was charged with having, at Warring ton, feloniously forged a bill, or receipt, with intent to defraud Ann Clare. Not guilty. Philip M`Cadden, 26, was sentenced to one month's impri sonment, with hard labour, tor stabbing Mary Taylor, at Salford. George William Knowles, 25, was charged with having, at Liverpool, on the 15th of April last, stabbed and wounded Jas. Fisher. Guilty. Sentence deferred. The grand jury came into court with a true bill against Geo. Archdeacon and forty-five others connected with the Manches ter confederate clubs. NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY. (Before Mr. Jurtice Erie.) After some undefended canses'in the second list had been disposed of, the court proceeded to try a cause in wnich Messrs. Gould and Davis were the plaintiffs, and Mr. William Stock was the defendant. The action was brought to recover the sum of .153 8. 2d., for stores supplied by the plaintiffs to the ship Frederica. It appeared that the captain of the Frederica, Mr. Waddington, went to the plaintiffs' place of business and ordered the goods, which were accordingly supplied to the ship. In the month of July the owner of the Frederica executed a bill of sale from him to Mr. Stock, the defendant, on the Frederica; and, by law, a party who became the owner of a ship, was bound to go to the Custom-house and there make a declaration of ownership. Accordingly, on the 21st of August. Mr. Stock, the defendant, went to the Custom-house and made a declaration, that the ship Frederica, of which Mr. Waddington was master, was his property. Messrs. M'Tear, Hadfield, and Thompson chartered the Frederica for a voyage to the River Plate, through Messrs. Holmes and Severin, ship-agents. The freight for the voy9ge_was paid to the defendant, Mr. Stock. KNOWLES addressed the ju . .ry, contending that the goods were furnished upon the credit of Mr. Holmes, but the proof of this failing, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. THE AFFAIRS OF BARTON, IRLAM, AND HIGGINSON. TURNER AND OTHERS V. DEANE AND OTHERS.—Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff's who were Chas. Turner, Francis Shand, and other shareholders connected with the Royal Bank, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Henderson were counsel for the defendants, Mr. Edward Guy Deane and his Son,-solicitors. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiffs were the assignees of the firm of Barton, Irlain, and Iligginson, who became bank rupts last year, and who had at the time a most enormous ac count with the Royal Bank. The defendants. Messrs. Deane and Son, were most respectable attorneys in Liverpool ; and the question in the case was this—whether the defendants had what is called a lien upon some title deeds, belonging to Mr. Jonathan Higginson, in respect of a debt due to them from Barton and Co. His LORDSHIP, in briefly summing up the case to the jury, said that this was a question which must be decided at a higher tribunal, but it appeared to him that the plaintiffs were entitled to the deeds, they having paid to the defendants . the .el6O un der protest, and the lien being co-extensive with the contract. But, in fact, his opinion was of no consequence ; it was subject to review, and the case would now be taken to the court above. A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs, with liberty to the defendants to move a nonsuit if the court should be of opinion that the defendants had a lien upon the deeds. CASTLE AND ANOTHER V. HARBORD. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Castle and Jones, are extensive recti fiers and distillers at Bristol, and the defendant was for a con siderable time their agent at Liverpool. The action was brought for the recovery of a sum due from the defendant to the plain tiffs, and which accrued from business transactions. Verdict for the plaintiff for £lOO,OOO, damages £lOOO, sub ject to a reference. . . Counsel not being ready to proceed with any other causes, the Court tried two criminal cases. Ellen Griffith, a married woman, was found guilty of misde meanour, in having attempted to drown her child in the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. It appeared quite clear that the prisoner was intoxicated at the time. The child, a fine little boy, was in Court, and the prisoner, on seeing him, burst into a flood of tears, and declared that she had no intention of drowning her beautiful boy, and that she was really so much intoxicated as to be quite unconscious of what she had done. In corrobora tion of her statement, a female neighbour was examined, and she described the prisoner to be a woman remarkable for her kindness to her offspring. Sentence was deferred. Jane Parsons, 22, was indicted for the wilful murder of her new-born infant child, at Liverpool, on the 11th of May last. The jury acquitted the prisoner of murder and found her guilty of concealing the birth only. His lordship sentenced her to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months. Parker Unsworth was found guilty of having feloniously killed and slain John Clarke, at Liverpool, on the 26th May last. CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. MURDER AT MANCHESTER. trilliam Adams, a young, well-looking man, was indicted for having, at Manchester, murdered his reputed wife, Diana Adams, by shooting her thrmigh the head with a pistol. It appeared in the case that, the woman alleged to have been murdered had married, about nine years since, a man of the TIE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. name of Thomas, who was some time ago transported. Two years after his transportation she married the prisoner, but this marriage was null and void, because Thomas was- still living, and also because the prisoner was himself a married , man at the time he contracted marriage with the deceased. She (the deceased) lived with the prisoner as his wife for some time, and. then certain disputes Laving occurred between them, she left him and proceeced to London. There, she visited her married sister, but she shortly aftdr returned to Manchester, in order to pursue her own occupation, that of working at the Hanover mills. She was frequently importuned by the prisoner to go and live with him again, but she declined the offer. About had past five o'c ock on the morning of the 25th of June, she was on her way to the mills, and when she had got to Stevenson square, a witness named Murray saw her in company with the prisoner. Some quarrelling was then taking place between them. She was angry, but he was comparatively calm. They went on until they gbt to the corner of Friday•street, and there she was heard to say to the prisoner " If you don't leave me I will alarm the neighbourhood." The prisoner said to her " You mean to die, do you ?" He then took a pistol from his pocket. She ran, and he followed her. She screamed, and several persons were attracted by the screams. He pulled the trigger of the pistol, and snapped it at her, but it did nct go off the first time. He then caught her by the clothes, and turned her head round towards him ; he then fired the pistol; the bullet passed tnrough her brain, and in a very few minutes afterwards she was a corpse. He was taken into custody on the instant. He appeared at the time perfectly cool, sob3r, and collected, but the smell of drink was upon him. tie put the pistol quietly in his pocket, and said, " I loved the woman and I will die forher." To another person he said, " I am quite satisfied with what I have done." He then took out another loaded pistol, with which he said he int , mded to "exterminate" himself, had be not been so suddenly apprehended. About seventeen days before the murder, he went to the Hanover mills, and asked to see the deceased, but she having declined to leave her work, he said, " If ever man had woman's life, I will have hers." He then pulled out a pistol, and said, "This is the weapon that will do it. Two loaded pistols having hen found upon his person at that time, lie was taken before the magis trates, but he was shortly after discharged, and the pistols were restored to him, and in about a fortnight afterwards he put his many threats into execution, by shooting the unfortunate female through the head. The prisoner was found guilty. The Judge passed sentence of death upon him in solemn terms, and said that he could not hold out to the prisoner the slightest hopes of mercy being extended to him. William Travers, 26, was indicted for having, at Liverpool, feloniously uttered two certain forged undertakings for the payment of each, with intent to defraud John Pearson. The prisoner, who was the steward of a ship called the Chusan, in May last, lodged with the prosecutor; and on the vessel's being ready for sea, he produced two shipping notes, which prosecutor cashed for him. The notes were found to be forge ries, and on the discovery the prisoner was given into custody. Guilty of uttering.—Sentence deferred. ledge of the affair, the Learned Sergeant allowed bins to state what he had heard, which was to the effect that, on the thy in question, a boy, a perfect stranger to him, met the prisoner, and askedi him to go with him to the tan-yard to sell the horse which he was leading, promising, at the same time, to remu nerate him forhis trouble. The prisoner went, and thus be came implicated in the t ansaction. At the close or thie state ment, the counsel for the prisoner apolooized,. and said, that in consequence of the short notice he hdreceived, he was not able to read the whole of his brief; but on referring to it he perceived that there was an important witness in the prisoner's favour, whom, by permission of the Learned Sergeant, he would call. Accordingly a Mr. Thompson, joiner, came for ward, and deposed to seeing the transaction as stated by the foreman of the jury. Mr. Sergeant Murphy complimented the juryman, and said, if it had not been for this statement, he would have sentenced the prisoner to seven years ; as it was, he should consult with Mr. Justice Cresswell. Before the court rose the Learned Sergeant ordered the boy forward, and asked him if he had ever been to school. He replied—" To Mr. Cropper's." The Learned Sergeant then asked if the boy could be put to school in the gaol, without the chance of con tamination with the other prisoners. After being answered in the affirmative, he ordered the prisoner to be imprisoned for four months, during which time he was to be kept. in school. Thomas Fox, 37, was sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour, for stabbing police-officer Joseph Thompson, in June last, in this town. _ _ _ Daniel Davis was convicted of uttering, or forging, two notes for the payment of .t . 3 15s:upon Mr. Richard Williams. The only remarkable feature in the case was the obtuseness of the jury, which drew down a severe rebuke from the Learned Ser geant. Sentence deferred. - James Barr was charged with having forged a shipping note for ,t'3 155., on Saturday, the 30th of May. The prisoner was found guilty, and recommended to mercy. Sentence deferred. NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY. RIGHT OF AGENTS TO DETAIN GOODS, CASEY AND ANOTHER V. BLAIR AND ANOTHER.—(Special .Tura.)—The plaintiffs i❑ this case were Messrs. Francis and George Casey, and the defendants Messrs. Blair and Sumner, all the parties carrying on business at Manchester. The action was in trover to recover the value of 250 pieces of cloth, de taMed by the defendants from the plaintiffs.—Messrs. Martin and Aspland were for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Baines and Cross for the defendants.—The plaintiffs were merchants at Manchester, who bought goods to a considerable extent, as was customary, through commission agents. The defendants were bleachers, carrying on business in the neighbourhood of Manchester. In connexion with the case was the firm of Messrs. Birts, Watson, and Co., commission agents, who transacted business to a large extent in their line of business. The practice at Manchester was to buy goods in the gray. They were sent to the person acing as the agent or principal ; a bleacher was employed, and his cart was sent round to the. warehouses to take them to the place where they were to be •bleached. In a few days afterwards the bleacher called at the .place where the goods were taken from, received directions as to what should be done with them, and acted accordingly. In this case the oods were part of a quantity bought from Messrs. W. and W. Sterling, manufacturers, in September, 187; the goods were sent to Birts, Watson, and Co., and thence to the bleach-works of the defendants, who received directions from the plaintiffs as to the bleaching. Subsequently Birts, Watson, and Co. failed, and were at that time indebted to the defend ants in a sum of .€l9OO. The plaintiffs demanded their goods from the defendants, offering to pay the price of bleaching, but the defendants refused to give them up, alleging that they would hold them for the .€l9OO due to them from Birts, Wat son, and Co. The question would be whether or not the de fendants had a right to hold the goods for the .€l9OO owing to them by Birts and Co., or whether they were bound to give them up, merely charging the price of bleaching. The question was one of great importance, as it affected a number of bleach ers at Manchester, who were the real defendants.—Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages -t - 'll4 lls. Bd. CLARK AND OTHERS V. LomAs.—This case was decided by the previous one, and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs. MORRIS AND ANOTHER V. LOMAX.—This case also went off under similar circumstances. HEATON (CLERK) V. MOORE AND OTHERS.—An action to recover a debt of £ll7 17s. 5d., alleged to be due from defend ants to plaintiff. Verdict, by consent, for the plaintiff. ALLEGED ILLEGAL DISTRAINT. CLARKE V. HOLFORD.—(Special Jury.)—Mr. George Clarke was the plaintiff, and Mr. John Holford the defendant. The action was brought to recover compensation in damages for an alleged illegal distraiet. Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Crompton ap peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baines and Mr. Henderson for the defendant. The facts-of the case, as appeared from the statement of the plaintiff's counsel, were as follow:—The plaintiff was a sculptor, at Manchester, and the defendant a gentleman of property, residing at the same place. In October last, the plaintiff took a shop and cellar from the defendant, in King-street, Manchester, at an annual rent of .t"110, payment to be made in advance if the landlord required it, In January the defendant's collector called for a quarter's rent, but, as the pl, intiff was absent, no decisive answer could be given. In a week or two afterwards, the plaintiff, while at Sheffield, was much astonished to see in a Manchester paper that his effects were advertised for sale by Mr. Fullalove, the auctioneer. He immediately notified to the defendant, through his solicitor, his objectiop to the sale, but defendant proceeded, and sold off all the effects of the shop at a great sacrifice. There was only a quarter's rent due, amounting to ..e27 10s., but the defendant sold off property valued at £4OO for £6O, thereby oc casioning a loss to the plaintiff of .340. It was contended by the plaintiff's counsel that Mr. Fullalove had shown great ig norance in the sale of the goods, which consisted of the va rious pieces of sculpture. plaster, casts, models, &c. In proof of the ignorance displayed on the occasion, it was stated, amidst the laughter of the court. that a figure of Vesta was sold for Madame Vestris, Lord Bacon for Bacchus, John Wes ley for Voltaire, and Jenny Lind for Her Most Gracious Ma jesty. The action was brought to recover compensation in da mages for the injury the plaintiff had sustained by the reckless sale of his goods, and the tyranny exercised by the defendant. The case was tried at the last assizes before a common jury, but the defendant being dissatisfied, made an application to the court above, and it was thus brought on for trial a second time. Witnesses were called, who proved that the plaintiff's property was sold off at a ruinous sacrifice, the auctioneer, in selling the busts, being unacquainted even with the figures of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. He put up John Wesley for Voltaire, and a bust of Sir Charles Bell, author of the " Bridge water Treatises," he described as Deaf Burke, the celebrated pugilist.—ALaughter.) There was also a plaster cast of Chantry, which the said auctioneer designated " the bald-headed chap;" and one of Raphael, the painter, who was called, "the long headed show-boy." The evidence extended to a great length, awl at the close of the plaintiff's case the court adjourned, CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. Benjamin Anderton, managing clerk to an attorney in Man chester, appeared to surrender on a charge of having forged tut several orders for the delivery of goods. He appeared to hive histrial postponed to the next assizes. which was granted, aid he was hound over to appear, himself in -e2oo and two sureties in ‘WIOO each. THE INDICTMENTS FOR CONSPIRACY. William Macklin, Joseph Radcliffe, and William Bolton, were arraigned upon an indictment for a treasonable conspi racy at Ashton under-Lyne. They all pleaded not guilty, and expressed their intention to traverse to the next assizes. James Flinn, Daniel Donovan, Michael Carrigan, Joseph Spooner, Peter Feeny, Thomas Webb, Mark Hulme, William Cladwick, Michael M'l)onnough, Henry Ellis, Thomas Whit ta'ier, Thomas Edward Clarke Cropper, Thomas Rankin, Ro bert Ramsden, Thomas James Dolan, Joseph Leman, John Joseph Finnigan, Henry Williams, George Rodgers, James Hoyle, and James Downey, were next arraigned on an indict ment for conspiracy at Manchester. They all pleaded not guilty, and several of them expressed a wish to traverse. The following asked to be tried during the present commission : E. C. Cropper, P. Feeny, Chadwick, Joseph Powney, J. J. Fin nigan, H. Williams, George Rodgers, M. Carrigan, Joseph Spooner, and James Dolan. THE LIVERPOOL PRISONERS. The prisoners Cuddy, O'Donnell, Somers, Murphy, and O'Brien, were then placed at the bar, and arraigned on an in dictment for conspiracy. They severally pleaded not guilty, and expressed a wish to traverse. About three o'clock in the afternoon, however, they were again placed at the bar, and de sired to be allowed to withdraw their traverse, and to be tried at the present assizes. Thomas Lees, William Penny, William Morris, and James West, were charged with conspiracy at Ashton. The prisoners pleaded guilty, but wished to be tried at the present assizes. Joseph Sandiford was sentenced to transportation for life for a rape on a little girl only nine years of age, at Manchester, in May last. John Goddard was acquitted of having used a certain instru ment to procure the miscarriage of Mary Bailey, at Heaton Norris, in June last. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FniDAY. The case of Clarke v. Holford, for illegal distraint, was re sumed, and after a very humourous examination of the auc tioneer by Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, thejury founds verdict for the plaintiff on the first count, for 'l7O for the value of the goods, and .el 6 for the fixtures. For the defendant on the se cond and third counts; the fourth count was withdrawn; and on the fifth count the verdict was also for the plaintiff. [The verdict, according to the statute, which doubles the amount of goods illegally distrained upon, is 530.] CROWN COURT—SATuxnAy. , SENTENCES, The following prisoners were brought up and sentenced : Jane M'Lane, convicted of the manslaughter of her child, was sentenced to transportation for seven years.—Parker Unsworth, the butcher convicted of the manslaughter of a man name d Clarke. Three calendar months.—Cornelius Jones, a boy con victed of manslaughter through careless and furious driving. Fourteen days imprison ment. —John Finneron, Michael Hogan, and George Wm. Knowles, convicted of cutting and wounding, &c., were severally sentenced to transportation for seven years. Elizabeth Wilson, convicted of stabbing . Six months'impri sonment, wita hard labour.—Anthony Carroll, Nicholas Car ter, John Smith, John Whitham, Joseph Thompson, Thomas Case, John Davies, severally convicted of assault, were next put up. Thompson, Case, and Carroll were each sentenced to twelve months, Whittle to nine months, Carter and S m ith t o six months, and Davis to one month's imprisonment.—Ellen Moss, convicted of concealing the birth of an illegitimate child, was sentenced to be imprisoned for si x mon th s , w ith h ar d labour,—Edwd. Parsons, convicted of forging a post-office order. Eighteen months.— Wm. Whillan, convicted of forgery, by endorsing a bill of exchange. Eighteen months.—Elizabeth Marriot, who had pleaded guilty to forging a signature to a postoffice order. Six months.—John White, who had pleaded guilty to uttering a forged warrant. Three months.—Benjamin Anderson, convicted of uttering a for Jed order for the deiivery of goods. Nine months.—Ed. Murphy and Wm. Travers, respectively found guilty of uttering a forged seaman's note. Twelve months.—His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence on the two latter prisoners, said the crime was, unhappily, of frequent occurrence in this borough. If he found the crime undimi nished, he would punish it with transportation. The case of Dr. M‘Douall, the Chartist leader, charged with sedition and conspiracy, was mentioned several times in the, course of the day. On Its name being called he failed to appear, and the case was postponed for a short time, when the Attor ney-General again moved that the recognizances be estreated, which was done accordingly. About half-past twelve, however, the prisoner appeared, and on the application of his counsel, the recognizances were restored. A iong argument then took place as to whether the prisoner should be allowed to traverse, but ultimately his lordship ruled that the trial should proceed on Monday morning. The case of the Liverpool conspirators was fixed next in order, after M`Douall's case. Serjeant Wilkins advised Cuddy to traverse, but this the prisoner positively refused to do. In the case of the trial of Rogers, Spooner, Williams, and Carragan, for seditious conspiracy, the case for the p rosecu ti on not being ready, Williams and Curragan were discharged on their own recognizances. A similar arrangement was come to in the rase of Healey and others, and also in that of Flinn and others. William Dawson, 39, of Oldham, was sentenced to trans portation for twenty years, for a rape on Charlotte Bradley, a girl of 16, the daughter of a woman with whom he cohabited. This finished the criminal cases, except those charged with political offences. TREASONABLE CONSPIRACY, During, the day the Grand Jury found a true bill for a trea sonable conspiracy against 'l'. B. M` Manus, Lawrence Reynolds, Patrick Murphy, Francis O'Donnell, Joseph Cuddy, Matthew Somers, Robert Hopper, Edward Murphy. James Laffan, Mar tin Boshill, Thomas O'Brien, George Smith, Patrick O'Hanlon, James O'Brien, James Cames Campbell, and several others. There were several true bills returned in the course of the day for misdemeanor against a great number of other Chartists, from the neigh bon rhood of Manchester, Ashton-under-Lyne, &c. PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY, The Grand Jury, before being discharged, handed to Mr. Justice Cresswell the following presentment against seditious and treasonable clubs : " The Grand Jury cannot separate without expressing their conviction that the law, as it at present exists, is inadequate to cope with sufficient promptitude and effect with these clubs and associations, which, in connexion with Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, have for some time endangered the tranquillity of these realms. • " That from the difficulty of repressing in their earlier stages the mischievous attempts of these clubs to establish an exten sive system of organization and arming, sedition and treason have been encouraged, the ignorant and unwary have been seduced by apparent immunity into the designs of the disaffect ed; and formidable preparations have been matured for out break and rebellion, which, with some modification of the law, might have been checked in the outset, by the energy and deci sion of those who are charged with the preservation of the peace. "The Grand Jury, therefore, express the hope that such mea sures may be adopted by the Legislature for the vindication of the law with respect to these clubs, as to its wisdom shall ap pear most conducive to the security of the Throne, the liberty in stitutions which the subject, and the stability of those national which the country at large is determined to maintain." NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. JENKINS V. BROWN AND OTHERS. In this case Francis Jenkins, corn-merchant, of London, was the plaintiff, and Messrs. Brown, Shipley, an , ' Co., merchants, of Liverpool were the defendants. The action was one of trover, to recover the value of a quantity of Indian corn, which, it was alleged, belonged to the plaintiff, and had been illegally sold by the defendants. It appeared that the plaintiff was largely engaged in corn speculations, and that he imported a cargo of Indian corn from New Orleans. Bills of Exchange were drawn upon the plain tiff by Le Gendre and Co., the house that made the shipment. Two of. these bills, for a sum of .2,513, were drawn against the cargo, and became due on the 17th of June, 1847, and these bills were held by Denison and Co., bankers, of London, on behalf of defendants. The plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of a cargo, and tendered the money in payment for the bills at Messrs. Denison and: Co.'s, but the bills were not produced. 'I he plaintiff consequently was unable to deliver the cargo of corn, and no sale could be effected. The plaintiff subsequently became embarrassed in his affairs, and was obliged to effect an arrangement with his creditors, and under that arrangement a composition of 2s. in the pound was paid on the bills in question. The plaintiff, it was alleged, had therefore a right to recover the value of the cargo from the de fendants, because it had been sold by them in October without any intimation being given. The value of the corn was .793 18s. 6d. Mr. MARTIN, in the course of his speech for the defence, stated that the glintiff had been offered the bills on the 18th, and that he wouid not take them up ; that, subsequently, he offered to throw up the whole affair; that the defendants were losers by the transaction to the amount of - '15,000 and that they had a right to sell the corn, the plaintiff having no claim or title to it. He contended that a more unfounded claim had never been brought before a court of justice. By direction of the Judge, the jury found a verdict for the defendants. upon the ground that ; under the circumstances, the plaintiff was not possessed of the corn, and that they had the right to sell it under the authority obtained from Le Gendre and Co. The.other.cases to-day.were unimportant... . - CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY. SENTENCES. Ann Williams, for stealing a child at Salford, twelve months' imprisonment. • • Mar, Haigh, for having, at Chadderton, attempted to con ceal the birth of her child, six months' imprisonment. Ellen Griffith, for having, at Liverpool, attempted to drown her child, one months' imprisonment and hard labour. Robert Walton, for bigamy, at Saddleworth, nine months' imprisonment. John .Smith and Thomas Smith. for burglary, at Liverpool, each twelve months' imprisonment. Bear?, 'Woodward, for burglary, at Broughton, twelve months' imprisonment. John Ersiant, for laceny on the high seas, seven years' trans portation. _ _ Walker Ellwood, for stealing in a dwelling-house, at Rad cliffe, after previous conviction for felony, fifteen years' trans portation. John Sumner, for larceny, at Litherland, seven years' trans portation.: MURDER OF AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD. Jane APLane, 33, was brought up, and pleaded not guilty to a charge of having at Ashton-under-Lyne, wilfully murdered William M`Lane, her illegitimate child. Mr. Monk appeared - for the prosecution, and Mr. Atkinson defended the prisoner. On the 24th July last the prisoner, in company with a man named William Johnson, with whom she cohabited, went to the Old Cross Inn, kept by Mr. Hall, and had four quarts of ale. About five o'clock prisoner was seen to leave the vaults and go into the yard, with the child, about nine months old, in her arms. She returned about half an hour afterwards, without the child. She was in a state of intoxication, very noisy, and was turned out of the vaults. Prisoner subsequently returned, and, appearing in great trouble, requested to be allowed to go to !he necessary. On her being interrogated as to where she had left the child, she replied, "At home." Shortly afterwards the daughter of the landlord went to the privy and discovered the infant in the soil, quite &ad. The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, and recommended her to mercy. ALLEGED REVOLT ON TILE HIGH SEAS, James Farrell, Thomas Coates, John Rigby, James Baine, and Robert Goodchild, were charged with having made, or attempted to make, a revolt on the high seas. In November last, whilst the ship Cora, belonging to Messrs. Harrison and Rogerson, of Liverpool, was off the coast of Africa, the captain, named Gillespie, died. The prisoner Farrell, being next in command, then took charge of the vessel. Subsequently an order was sent on board that Farrell should keep command till the following day, when a person named Dawson would supersede him. Farrell and the other prisoners said that Dawson should not take charge; and, in addition, stated that he (Dawson) had poisoned Captain Gillespie. They set sail in the course of the following night, and were afterwards pur sued; but the Cora got off after a chase of three or four days. The vessel was afterwards worked to Liverpool, and the pri soners were given into custody. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL re quested Mr. Bliss, the counsel for the prosecution, to state whom the revolt was against; and the learned counsel having acknowledged that there was some difficulty in the case, his lordship retired to consult his brother judge, and shortly af terwards returned and directed the jury to acquit the pri soners, which they immediately did. Edward Murphy, 20, was indicted for having, on the 22nd of May last, at Liverpool, uttered a sailor's forged shipping note. On the clay above mentioned, the note was offered to a person named Mary Bird, requesting that she would cash the same; she at first refused, but subsequently did so, giving ••°2 ss. in exchange. The note purported to be from the ship Middleton, with the captain's signature. The jury found the prisoner guilty of having uttered the note, knowing it to have been forged. Sentence deferred. . _ Thomas Davies, 29, was charged with having, at Liverpool, feloniously killed and slain Sarah Ann Buchant.n. It appeared that the i risoner, on -the 12th July last, was driving a coach and two horses up Stanhope-street, at the rate of about eight miles an hour ; when about half way up, as the deceased was in the act of crossing the street, she was knocked down, and received a fracture of the skull, which caused death. The pri soner was acquitted. John Davies, 29, was indicted for having, on the 15th of July last, at Ashton-in-Mackerfield, feloniously attempted to dis charge a loaded pistol at Elias Woodcock, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. The prisoner had previously formed an acquaintance with a female named Jane Hilton; they had lived together; and, subsequently, the parents of the female interfered, and sent her to the house of Woodcock. Some time afterwards the prisoner went to see her, and on Woodcock meeting and refusing him an interview, he pulled out a pistol, and presented it at Woodcock ; he pulled the trig ger, but it did not go off; he then said he would not hurt him, and left. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common as sault. Sentence deferred. _ . . . _ Ellen Loss pleaded guilty to the charge of having, at Liver pool, concealed the birth of her child. Sentence deferred. Jane Jackson was indicted for having, at Liverpool, on the 22d June last, uttered a forged shipping note. The prisoner, together with a man named M'Connell, went on the above date to the house of Mr. Little, licensed victualler, Norfolk-street, and requested him to cash the note for £2. He did so, and on applying to the firm of Messrs. Brocklebank for the purpose of getting it re-cashed, was told that they knew nothing of it, and it was believed to be a forgery. The prisoner, on being taken into custody, stated that her husband had given it to her. The note bore the signature of Wm. Whiteside, master of the Valparaiso ; the Christian name, however, of the captain was incorrect. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. GRAND JURY ROOM.—THURSDAY. (Before Mr. Sergeant Mu um Y.) In consequence of the great number of criminal cases, a third court was opened, and Mr. Sergeant Murphy took his seat in the above-named room, shortly after nine o'clock on Thursday morning. HORSE STEALING. William Brotcnbill,ii,;itslrialltiea for having stolen a horse in Toxteth-park, the property of Mr. Thos. Derbyshire, and John Stretch was charged wita having received the same, knowing it to have been stolen. From the evidence it appeared that, at the close of April last, Mr. Derbyshire had ahorse stolen from a field in Toxteth-park. After due search, it was found in the possession of Mr. Stretch, tanner. The horse, which was lame, had been sold to him by two boys—the pd. soner Brownbill and another unknown, who has escaped de tection. During the hearing of the trial Mr. Stretch was dis charged, it being the opinion of the jury that he was entirely ignorant of the felony. The Judge said there was no ground for the charge against Mr. Stretch. After a long consultation, the prisoner Brownbill was found guilty, but in consequence of the foreman of the jury (Mr. Longbottom) having heard a statement of the transaction from one who had some knovY- NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. HOBSON AND OTHERS V. MANBY.—The declaration was in trover to recover the value of certain goods alleged to be ille gally held by the defendant from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the assignees of a person named Manby, an ironmonger, at Burnley, in this county; and the defendant is his father, also an ironmonger, residing at Skipton, in Yorks Lire. In October last, Manby, whose father had advanced him money to the amount of £750 to commence business, by warrant of attorney made over the property in consideration of the sum due, he, Manby the younger, having at the time com nitted an act of bankruptcy ; and the plaintiffs, the assignees under the fiat, now brought their action for the recovery of the goods.—An arrangement was come to between the parties, by a verdict for £7OO being taken for the plaintiffs. FARRELL v. HARRISON.—The plaintiff, James Farrell, is one of the parties who, the other day, were tried before Mr. Justice Cressvvell, and acquitted, on a charge of piracy ; and the pre sent action was brought to recover the sum 01 £43 10s. for labour performed for the defendant, Mr. Thomas Harrison. The plaintiff was the mate of a vessel called the Cora, of which essel the defendant is the owner, and be (the plaintiff) now brought his action to recover £43 10s. wages/Dr a - voyage per formed hence to-the coast of Africa and back,upon that vessel. The case set up for the defendant was, that the plaintiff had for feited his-claim in consequence of gross misconduct and flagrant breach of duty. The particulars relative to the dispute which gave rise to the present action were published at. the time the investigation on the charge of piracy was heard before Mr. Rushton, at the Police-court. The Learned Judge-said the ques tion was this, whether, in their judgment, the plaintiff - had a well-founded fear of great, and unlawful, and personal violence, and whether he slipped the cable and anchor, which- act was the alleged gross dereliction of duty, trom that well-founded fear ; if so, they must find for the plaintiff, but if they should be of opinion that the defendant had established the case which he had instructed his counsel to set up, their verdict must be for him. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for .e 43 10s., damages one shilling. CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY. TREASONABLE CONSPIRACY AT LIVERPOOL. On the opening of the Court, Joseph Czt.,:dy, Matthew Somers, James O'Brien, Francis O'Donnell, and Edward Murphy, all confederates, were charged with treasonable conspiracy in this town. O'Donnell and Somers applied for copies of the deposi tions taken before the magistrates, on the ground that they did not know the precise charge against them, so that they could not prepare their defence. His LORDSEI IP said they might hear the indictment read at full length, and if they wished to postpone their trial until next assizes they might; but as they had changed their minds be fore, their election must now be final. . After some parley with counsel, all the prisoners traversed to next assizes, and were put clown. TRIAL: OF DR. MMOUALL. ATTENDING AN ILLEGAL MEETING, AND USING SEDLTIOUS LANGUAGE. Peter Murray3PDottall,itiedii,and known as Dr.2lrDouall, was placed at the bar, charged with having, at Ashton.under- Lyne, maliciously and seditiously, with divers other persons, to the number of 300, or more, unlawfully and riotously assem bled to disturb the public peace. One of the counts also charged him with, on the same night, uttering certain seditious language to the people assembled around him. There appeared for the prosecution the Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Crompton and Mr. Mathews; for the de fence, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Pollock. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case to the jury, re peating much that had been said in introducing similar cases that have recently been before the public. Parties had a right to unjoy their own opinions, but not to utter language tending to subvert the constitution or law of the country. He did not believe that the prisoner spoke from his sincere conviction, for he should endeavour to show that he was a hired, paid lecturer. He was, moreover, a person of good education and ability, and therefore on both accounts he wasnot entitled to that sympathy usually awarded to persons who are unpaid, disinterested, and also uneducated. Letters and papers were found upon the pri soner which he should produce. He then ran over the whole of the heads of the charges against the prisoner, (as they appear at full in the evidence below.) He concluded by saying that lie should prove that the meetings referred to were illegal, and that the prisbner there uttered language which was seditious. The letters found would also prove that the prisoner had ap pointments in vavious towns, there also to sow his poison amongst the ignorant and disaffected. Robert Newton, chief constable of Ashton, being sworn, pro duced a placard for a meeting on the 10th of July at Ashton. Witness, in consequence, went to the Charlestown Meeting house. It was eight o'clock. A . person named Millington stopped me at the door. The prisoner was not then there. When I was stopped a second time he was present. Millington then said it was not me they refused to admit, but the deputy constable; 1 was then deputy-constable, and had been chief constable since. When the prisonercame up I was still refused admittance. I could see no farther than the passage. I re mained some time, and left several of my men to watch the proceedings. The town was next day quite alive, and I appre hended the prisoner on the 16th, telling him that I had a war rant against him, charging him with attending an unlawful meeting and using seditious language. I read the warrant to him I now produce. I found upon him this memorandum book amongst other papers; a paper, entitled "The Song of the Soil," from the Irish Felon; a letter from Bradford ; also two other letters, one of them containing depositions apparently taken before the magistrates ; all dated the 14th of July. Cross-examined by Mr. WlLKlNS.—Millington said, on my applying to be admitted to the meeting, Dr. M'Douall has said that officers had before so misrepresented what had been said, that he was determined that he would not admit them, or something like this. I did not know if the Stockport news paper employs a short-hand writer. I employed no short-band writer. I directed my officers to attend about the meeting, to notice what took place, and give me a report of it. Dr. M`Douall had spoken at several meetings at Ashton of late years. I know not how many. I was present at only two. There was a disturbance at one of these, four or five years since. There was also a tea-party lately . at the Town-hall, the proceeds to go for the defence of the prisoner on this trial. A Councillor of the borough had the letting of the Town-hall. (Mr. Wilki ns wished to infer from this that there could be no apprehension of a disturbance in the town, when the Town-council let the hall for his use.) His Loansuip entirely over-ruled this view of this part of the evidence. Abel Swan, tailor and draper of Ashton, said lie had the letting of the Charlestown meeting house, which is let for a chapel on Sundays, and for meetings on other days. He (witness) was present at the meeting there on the 10th of July. Most of the people who went were admitted. The public and reporters were excluded. The prisoner said something about excluding the police. A person cawed James Taylor, presided. Thos. Storer, lt. Fillan, and others were also with the chairman. The prisoner also spoke from the pulpit. He spoke about the land which he said the people must look to for subsistence. He alluded to the parks of the aristocracy, which he said ought to be cultivated. What witness heard was isolated and uncon nected. Prisoner announced a meeting for Friday night, and advised the young men to go to the Chrrtist meeting, and join the National Guard. At the close, prisoner spoke of an escort, and said they should form in procession. He left the place to a person named West. Cross-examined by Mr. Wiruitxs.—Mr. M‘Donall speaks rapidly. It was not he who spoke about the young men drill ing, &c. The chapel will hold upwards of I,COO. The prisoner said that in consequence of the great increase of machinery, the people would be obliged to fall back upon the laud. I did not hear him speak of the National Land Company. Henry Taylor called.—l am a police-officer. 1 went to the meeting-house on the 10th July, but did not go in The meeting came out abreast, and in procession. The prisoner headed Viwin, and was between two others. A man threw up his cap and cheered, and all of them cheered. (Witness here described the route of the procession through various streets.) They re turned to the Oddfellows' Arms, where they halted. There were 300 or 400 in the procession at first, and they afterwards increased to about 800. . The prisoner spoke to them fro m th e window,—saying, " I advise you to organise yourselves, and practice the same manoeuvres as your enemies. Some regi ments Lave revolted. There is no fear from them. The troops at Woolwich have all revolted in one night. There is a com mittee sitting at the Horse Guards to consider their gri,wances, and in a few days there would be a pamphlet issued stating to you their decision. I wish they would call up the militia, but they dare not, as we should then have their guns, bayonets, and cartridges and balls, and they would see what they could do. I tell you there are not 10,000 disposable troops, and what would these be amongst five millions of people. I tell you that by the time of the harvest, or soon after, we shall have the six points of the charter and something more." He concluded by saying, "Organise! Organise! " Cross-exam ined.—l have been a police-officer since February, 1846. I was a marine twenty-one years and six months. (He was here asked to write his name, which he did in a very shaky manner.) He wrote his account next morning; handed it to his inspector, and had not seen it since. (Here Mr. Wilkins wished the witness to write—" form yourselves into sections and divisions," &c., but his lordship overruled this mode of exami nation. Inspector Dalglish said he had mislaid the notes of the wit ness, but he had read them and they were perfectly legible. Witness re-called (Taylor.)—The prisoner did at one time warn the people against any acts of violence. Dalglish re-called.—He was refused admission at the meet ing, which broke up about half-past ten o'clock. They formed four deep. There was cheering as they started. They went along Wellington-road, Oldham-road, and Old-roA, passed the Oddfellows. Henry-street, then Cavendish-street, to Old street, back to the Oddfellows' house. .111`Dowall addressed the people from the window. I took a note of it immediately after. Ile note is here. (Witness react it, to the same effect as stated by the last witness, with some little verbal alteration.) There was cheering after he had spoken, and the meeting separated. _ Cross-examined by Mr. PoLLocK.—What I have written down was part only of a longer speech. There are two copies in the book, one of them written by my father on another leaf. I was busy and he wrote it at home on the same night, at my request, as he was a better penman. (Here Mr. Pollock wished to read to the witness several sentences, which he, with his lordship's leave, would ask the witness to report the heads of; but his lordship thought this would not be a fair test. A sentence was, however, permitted to be read, and a long, poli tical, and not easily comprehensible sentence it was, which witness said he was unable to supply the heads of.) Witness was questioned as to other meetings, attended by the prisoner over some years, and which it did not appear were interfered with by the police. Matthew Marden, an Inspector of Police, at Ashton.—He saw two sharp instruments project from the trousers of two men present. They appeared to be pikes. One in the room said if he went in he'd be killed. Another said the reporters and police had so sworn in London, that they could not be admitted. They said that had he been Matthew Marden they would let me in; but hewas Inspector Marden. (Witness then spoke as to the procession, corroborating the previous wit nesses. He also repeated nearly the same language spoken by the prisoner at the Oddfellows Arms.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to put in a small memo randum-hook, found upon the prisoner, in which there is a list of towns, and dates appended,—apparently appointments to attend meetings at those places, also items as if of payments, wages, &c.,—the object being to prove that the prisoner was a hired and appointed agent of sedition,—and lecturer. His lordship had some doubts of this being evidence, bearing on the present case. Some letters also found on the prisoner were brought forward. Mr. Wilkins objected to these being pat in in evidence, as they did not bear immediately upon the tran sacVOns charged in the indictment—as also did Mr. Pollock. His lordship considered the letters legitimate evidence, and they were read : One from John Cree, to the prisoner, dated London, 6th July, enclosing ..t'2 Bs.; stating the progress of the trials at London, for sedition. Another letter from the same, contained items for wages, and other payments made to the prisoner. Also a variety of details of family matters, and advice to go and lec ture in towns that invited him and would pay him, and not to be seeking to get up meetings up and down. The " Song of the Soil" was then put in, and the Attorney-General was called upon by his lordship to argue the question, which he did. "The Song of the Soil" was put in against the prisoner, but both counsel objected to either document, as they contained nothing but abstract opinions, which it was not shown the defendant entertained. His lordship decided that the song might be received in evidence, as it would explain some of the language used by the prisoner. A copy of a small printed paper, a number of "The Truth Telier, ' was next put in, and was also objected to. His Lordship deemed it admissable, and it was read. It promised the charter to the people, and stated that the paper would follow up the principles involved. ltalsooffered its exertions to tiring about a repeal of the Union. The paper was published in Staley bridge. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury in an eloquent and vehement manner, going over the whole of the evidence, taking strong advantage of every point which logically or otherwise make on behalf of his client. He dwelt very forcibly and ener getically on the political rights, liberties, and immunities of Englishmen, and closed a speech of upwards of an hour's du ration by a powerful appeal to the jury to acquit the p r i soner; first, because the language imputed to him was reported by ignorant policemen, in snatches.—only portions of the speech, —which might have borne a different meaning ; and, secondly, that there was no proof of alarm or of riot. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then replied at great length in fur therance of the prosecution. His LORDSHIP summed up with great perspicuity, pointing out and defining the meaning of unlawful assemJing, and other points, as he proceeded. He admitted that it was remarkable that three of the witnesses, who put in their notes of the words imputed to the prisoner, should all have hit upon nearly the pre cise same words. It was for the jury to say whetherthey thought they had conversed together so as to arrive at this similarity, or whether the passages were so remarkable that they impressed themselves upon the minds of all of them with equal force. After reading over the passages seriatim, he thought the latter case probable. He then referred to the letters as showing that the prisoner had been hired to itinerate the country, and he also referred to the Truth Teller, of which one hundred copies were found upon the prisoner. The jury, after retiring a few minutes, returned a verdict of guilty on all the three counts of the indictment. His LORDSHIP said the prisoner had been convicted, on the clearest evidence, of an act of sedition of great magnitude—cal culated to strike at the comfort and safety of society. It was the second time he had been convicted of sedition ; and,, after advising him, on his release, to hire himself out in some useful vocation, as he had abilities, and not to seek to stir up the peo ple to disaffection, discontent, and riot, his Lordship sentenced him to be imprisoned in the gaol of the county two years. RIOTOUS ASSEMBLING. John Flynn, 28, James Downey, 33, James 3fooney, 20, OWN Gunn, 23, and Edward Birch, 44, were charged with having at Newton, together with 500 and more, unlawfully and tumul tuously assembled together, armed with pikes, swords, and other dangerous weapons, thereby creating a great riot, to the terror and alarm of her Majesty's subjects. It appeared that on the 31st of May, two processions, headed by several of the prisoners, one from Manchester and another from Oldham, marched up, armed, as before stated, and carrying flags, to Newton toll-bar. The prisone r Fl ynn h ea d ed the l a ham procession, and Downey was second in command near him. Flynn demanded to pass the gate on the high road be tween Manchester and Oldham. Mr. Beswick, head constable, was stationed with a number of police. He said peaceable per sons might pass, but no one who was armed. Some of the foot procession showed weapons. He took one from the prisoner' Mooney —a walking-stick with a pike or dagger at the end. Others showed pikes in the ranks; also a musket with a fixed bayonet. The prisoners were all sworn to as being present. Flynn was apprehended same day; Downey was taken some days afterwards, and in his possession the pJlice found twenty swords, a number of pike heads, a pistol, and other weapons.. which they seized. These were produced. Pikes were exposed for sale in the window. Those that were unarmed were allowed to pass in single files. To put down the processions reinforce ments of police and soldiers were procured. A gentleman named Henry, who was acting as a sp e ci a l constable, on hi s way to Manchester on horseback, was hurt. Mooney was given into custody when the Manchester procession came up at the toll-bar. A witness, Leary, a superintendent of police, was at the toil-bar on 31st of May : was joined by Beswick. He saw the Manchester procession. They had many of them pikes, and waved them about their heads. Their conduct was calcu lated to produce alarm. The constables drew their swords and the shops in the neighbourhood were closed. Inspector Taylor was also present, and saw Downey and Flynn. Amongst the flags was the Brian Bodin flag. Another inspector saw several persons in the procession throw stones at Mr. Henry. The coach in which witness was going out to assist was stopped. by the rioters. (He produced the broken pikes, handles, flags, &c.) Mr. John S. Henry said he and Mr. Simpson (another special constable), were together, and were sent to the Town-hall, Manchester, for assistance. Some of the men left the procession and threw stones at him. He was also struck on the lip. People on the walks threw stones at him, and others assailed him with sticks. He received 9 wounds in all. His horse slipped, having been severely w oun d e d by some sharp instrument. A Mr. Clarke saw Mr. Henry riding down the road from the toll-bar, and saw Gunn throw a stone at him. There were three others with him, two of them carrying pikes. He saw Gunn afterwards with a flag, and had him taken into custody by Inspector Carpenter. A female witness heard Birch say e as Mr. Henry passed,— 'Stop him, he's going for the soldiers !" Another female corroborated the last. Mr. JAMES, who had defended three of the prisoners, then addressed the jury in their behalf, at considerable length and with great ingenuity, taking advantage of every available portion of the evidence. He argued that it did not, he thought, follow, that on e or two parties having, in a procession, thrown stones at Mr. Henry, would implicate other parties who happened to be . present. He thought that the only two witnesses aga ins t Bi rc h might be mistaken in the man; and, moreover, he contended that the first assault alleged against Gunn was a separate as sault, at a different spot, and tinder different circumstances, and that as but one assault was charged in the indictment, he did not see that the same count could involve another charge. He contended that there was nothing illegal in a quiet proces sion, even if they carried pikes or other weapons. He knew of no law to prevent this, and argued that there was nothing riotous or tumultuous in the procession. He should call one witness. Mr. Fry appeared for Flinn and Mooney, and spoke ably in their behalf, with regard to the assault. Flinn was not present when the assault took place. (This his learned friend on the other side just intimated to him.) The police were armed, (a new custom,) and the defendants thought they had as good a. right to carry arms. Joshua Dunwoodie was called by Mr. JAMES, but said nothing that could make in behalf of Gunn, as he had lost sight of him for a few minutes, at about the time Mr. Henry was attacked. About 12 o'clock Flyn passed bins and witness spoke to him. He immediately saw a gentleman mounted, whose face was cut. He saw no stones thrown, aid Flynn was not then with the procession. Thomas Flynn, brother of the prisoner, said he saw his brother in Oldham-road, but the latter was speaking to a person on the roan. He afterwards saw a gentleman riding with his face bloody. Mr. POLLOCK addressed the jury for th e prosecut i on. It was enough to show an intimidating spirit on the part of an assem bly, without any act of violence. Twenty or thirty pikes were helu up and waved over their heads, and they proceeded to other acts which alarmed the neighbourhood, sa that the shops were closed, and all was terror and alarm. Some of the in habitants had locked up their houses and gone away, The Learned JUDGE summed up, explaining the law on the two charges in the indictment—first, the riotous assembling; and, second, an assault on a special constable. His Lordship very succinctly summed up the evidence. The jury found Flinn, Downy, and Mooney guilty of riot; Gunn and Birch guilty of both tli*.t riot and the assault. Sentence was deferred until to-day. [A vast number of swords, pikes, sticks, guns, bl u d geons, &c., were brought into court in this case, taken from the riot ers, some of them very formidable weapons.) This terminated the criminal trials of these assizes, and the court rose at half-past seven o'clock. His Lordship, after dis posing of some applications for bail, will this morning take some civil cases. NISI COURT—YEST ERDAY. His Lordsbip took his PRIUS seat on the bench at nine o'clock, and proceeded with the special jurycases. BANNERS' ACCOUNT. HALIFAX AND OTHERS V. BROWNRIOO AND OTHERS.—This was an action to recover the balance due upon a promissory note endorsed by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton were counsel for the plain tiffs, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Hill f or th e defendants. dr. MARTIN stated the case to the jury. The plaintiffs were Messrs. Glyn, Halifax, Mills, and CO., and the defendants Messrs. Cockerell and Co., formerly East India merchants, the firm consisting of Mr. C oc k erel', Sir George Larpent, and Mr. John S. Brownrigg. The defendants, Mr. Cockerell and Sir G. Larpent, had suffered judgment by default, an d th e simple question for the consideration of the jury was whether Mr Brownrigg was discharged from his liability upon a certain pm, missory note for 455,00 J, a balance upon which was still due. believed that 111 r. Brownrigg was acting under some misappre hension respecting the case, which he (the learned counsel) hoped would be removed when he explained the whole of the circumstances, which he would shortly do. The house of Cockerell and Co. was one of the largest East India houses in the country. In 1848 the borroed from the plaintff, 100,000, WhiCll WRS reduced, y in July, w 1846, to .4'50,000, when r he arrangement was made for its liquidation by three instalments. About that time Mr. Wilson, who was a partner in Price's Pa tent Candle Cowpony, owed to the firm of Cockerell and Co. the sum of 419,500, and lie gave to Cockerell and Co. two pro missory notes for 410,000 each. The Patent Candle Company had then been transfe, red to a joint-stock company, and Mr. Wilson had 1300 shares allotted to him as his share of the con cern. The defendant had also a number of shares allotted to him. On the 10th July, Mr. Wilson being indebted to Cock erell and Co. in the amount of £19,500, he gave to them two promissory notes for 410,000 each, and, as collateral security, the 1300 shares in the company were deposited. In order to negotiate these notes, the shares were transferred to Mr. Wel lington, one of the clerks to Messrs. Glyn and Co., in trust for the benefit of the plaintiffs. On the 20th July the promissory note for £50,600 being two or three months over due, a settle ment was required, when it was arranged to place certain secu rities in the hands of the bankers, and amongst others 1828 shares in the Candle Company belonging to Mr. Brownrigg. Sir George Larpent, however, by some mistake, agreed to trans fer to Mr. Wellington, on behalf of the plaintiffs, 3123 shares, which included the shares belonging to Mr. Wilson. The question therefore now was, whether the shares belonging to Mr. Wilson should be applied in payment of the debt due by Mr. Brownrigg, or to the payment of Wilson's own. [The agreement between the plaintiffs and Cockerell and Cc. was then put in and read.] Sir George Larpent was then called, and he stated that he was a partner in the firm of Cockerell and Co., of which Mr. John Studham Brownrigg was a partner. He retired at the end of 1846. At that time Mr. Win. Wilson owed the firm 410,500, which he and his partners wished to realize, and in accordance with which an agreement was entered into. The agreement was put in, which secured 1,300 shares in Price's Patent Candle Co., and along with which, two promis sory notes of 410,000 each were given by Mr. Wilson to Cock erell and Co.] The witness continued.—On this arrangement being made and the 1,300 shares transferred to Mr. Weliinton, clerk to Messrs. Glynn, the two notes were discounted. The firma Cockerell and Co. were also indebted to their bankers, Messrs. Glynn and Co., to the extent of 450,000, and an arrangement was made in July, 1846, to pay this by instalments of .4'15,000 in October, 415,000 in November, and 420,000 in December ; in addition to which, a box containing valuable securities was deposited, amongst which was a debt of William Wilson, a partner of Price and Co. Price and Co. afterwards sold the concern to a joint-stock company, each of the members to have shares to the amount of interest in the concern. His (witness's) impression was that the shares of Mr. Brownrigg; the patent candle company, amounting to 1823, were to be de posited as security for the debt of £50,000 due by Cockerell and Co. to Glynn, Hallifax, Mills, and Co. Cross-examined.—Mr. Brownrigg did not take any active part in the concern after the end of 1845, but he did not go out of the concern until the end of 1846, and he was to have 43000 as his shre of the profits for that year. The Patent Candle Com pany was a very profitable concern. When the box of securi ties was last deposited with Messrs. Glynn and Co. they were estimated at considerably more than 4250,000. The bill for 450,000 became due in May, 1 847, and was held over by Glynn and Co. On the 10th July that year security was given for 4100,000, on condition that about .430,000 above the 450,600 then due should be advanced, and, in addition to which, the box contained securities to the extent of about .e 340,000. Mr. WATSON, on behalf of the defendant, stated that the case that he had to make out in behalf of Mr. Brownrigg, for whom alone he appeared, was that there had been a payment of .'46,543 2s. 7d., leaving a balance due upon the promissory note of £6 9 70 11s. 9(1., which was due to the plaintiffs on the 14th August, 1848. That there was no doubt about it, forit was admitted by the plaintiffs. Then he contended that the pro ceeds of the 1300 shares belonging to 'Mr. Wilson more than covered the balance due by Mr. Brownrigg, and he contended that was a question for the Court to decide upon, from the evi dence adduced, and was not a question for the jury. He was in a condition to prove that the plaintiffs had already realized £6400 on the shares beionging to Wilson. • His LORDSHIP ruled that as the 13(0 shares belonging to Wilson had not been appropriated by him to the payment of the particular debt of ..e50,000, it was in the option of the plait - tiffs to appropriate the proceeds of these shares as they thougl t proper. . . - Mr. WATSON wished it to appear upon his Lordship's notes that he contended that the question was one for the considera tion of his Lordship, and not for the jury, and that, therefore, he declined to address the jury on the subject. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for £6270. Mr. MARTIN applied to his Lordship for speedy execution. Mr. WATSON said the application was a most oppressive pro ceeding, more especially as it was in evidence that the:Plaintifls held a considerable amount of security already. This led to some discussion, and eventually it was agreed that speedy judgment should be signed, b u t th at execu ti on should not issue without an order from the judges. BELL (P. 0.) V. LORD INGESTRE.—This was a special jury cause, and being called on, Mr. WATSON asked for its post ponement, on the ground that a witness, who had come from London to prove some material facts, had gone into Cheshire to see his friends. His LORDSIIIP said it was his duty to be present, and the case ought to go on, and if the witness did not appear, he should be called upon his subpmna. Mr. WATSON said he could not do that. If his learned friend persisted, there was no other course for him to pursue except to withdraw the record. M. MARTIN said his clients were fully prepared to try the case, and all their witnesses were in attendance. He, how ever, would not object to the case being postponed for the day, if the Counsel would undertake that the witness in question should be called. Mr. WATSON said he would not undertake that, as the at torney who instructed him, was not present. His LORDSHIP said the attorney acted very improperly in not being present. The case was then withdrawn. BROKERS COMMISSION. FORSYTH AND OTHERS V. GROVES.—This was an action brought to recover £1,403, being the amount due to the plait tiffs, as their commission on business transacted by the plain tiffs for the defendant. The plaintiffs were share-brokers in Liverpool, and the defendant a merchant in this town also. He was formerly one of the provisional committee of the Liver pool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway, now amalgamated wi.h the East Lancashire Company, the latter being in reality the defendants. • The defendant paid £273 into court, and as to the residue, pleaded not indebted. The claim of the plaintiffs was for a per centage of Is. 6d. per share on those shares which had been applied for through the plaintiffs, who were brokers in the company, and Is. 3d. per share upon other shares which the (Concluded in the Eighth Page.) 3 .. ,