The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

0 , , ci0 , , ""OFFI GE ASSAULT ON TWO OF THE ' E IIS IN THE W ORKHOUSE BY A PAUPER. o n , r , i 1 0 4 „ iiursd ay 1 Ita sh t i l er fro m v _ a s, t r_a young man named William Smith, Va al t 'a, at the n !! v!'orkhouse, was brought before Mr. ti i k' p r a ° l ll t v ii i ii n t y eenstt r . tob n n h s e , e-eourt, on a charge of having, with assaulted the governor and another 'O t t/ yrnt of sto o l lishment, with a hammer used for the 1111 titris "t interests' fur macadamising. The case excited t• 4 h _ a p revt.. • In the court the prisoner having seve- VetOado rt un giY been Punis h ed for violent and refrac ••4„ , s _ h ltted f ( .; r a P_l !he impression being that he would be Atli.... G aik rial at the assizes. ihy th sf wh at u .wY being called, said he was superinten e ! ° tatis ' lB C alled " the probationary ward," but , i hijitl ear 'ln reality , manager „ r • ~ . ortte a •r, after rof the reiractories. 4.414, 11 a ft .._ r having been in the Borough Gaol for ~, T t. _IL came b. I 1 4,,, fi e _ back to the Workhouse on the 21st 1.. 'lta iii, toh e . was sent to the probationary ward, and or .:141 Zatt, o ' i [t to work ; whe he said towitness that he 2ltt e '.,w , and that two doctors out of doors had ,- 1! ll 'Of Itn ess took • ' ,tr ir . th e him to the day room, until the ,'• a 74. establishment should be consulted. On !!.4 4 41: 1 1.:4 cmallredNun Mr.. Nightingall (the surgeon). c " .yet ge could. Ightingall whether the prisoner w. , s ~, :qti o ictill e to not work, and he said he was not, but ''''-tlitt 114 hr. ~. W ork ; and told prisoner that if he would 1 , . ~z , 64. 04411,4 Itt-aillisjo_nra., h e . should be punished. Witness - mlis tL aY th e „' with prisoner for a hammer, and on athi nd .1 . went towards the office, the prisoner • L. vt mek r witness, and as they got near to it the k ~,„z:o;,..witi,e... said the back of the neck with the am.. -• he then became insensible, and ier More till he found himself lying in the office. ol4beilicai Previo - 'it i ll t 'vr i tPario . tctisnlY threatened to do him some grie 141Jakitl:t88 crass- e xaminationadmittetliat f i Ie ' 'th -` got 1— to the o ffi ce to e l t a e o r ok w a s l e lim, and did not 4 414 ,:,,Qtrtor the the leading into it. He did n . ot :CNN, at the su e • In reply to Mr. Rushton, wit ,:94teo.ya ht. _ Neon questioned the prisoner when ele o p big preen' but d id not examine his person in thos e t j e i ttee• Witnessed produced a hammer 14tr:Irli with e a long handle, used in breaking • the 144:ith , gc w 1 14 \a ertih on i that then . called. He said, in reply to 4 4 11° Phy ° • 113 e for th e prisoner had been an inmate of • Il t i t tal ee 2leal i tie soMe years off and on, and that he lik t 4 id a lAvin e d a PacttY. When in the house before, 4 tt l in that the rectum had fallen down • but . menittlek44o‘..kathertfaerre.,_iwith his ' working, and he directed aaicruce the disorder. in en ), T h. nh e ~. that the doctor did not examine him bt, ( 1_ ~,,,g.t.urned to the house and told him he was i:144 - 7, a h::_nt, he added, came on him in the 80, , Ca ti t , iil. i:lti tap e lie was in the hospital. He had also then 4 ,o l: l :ad ir t u'rn while in the houte before. He ,trifegeNi D ale, time ago got a certificate from Mr. ! It alga 6401oriers 5, (the parish surgeon appointed by 04 4 1 1 0 40 ror that district of th . e town,) and ~ tti 'Ni r h tend e d to . Mr. Gray, of the Parish-office, but altajtteyi ti aZall „ . 4 tl eitth n g from id he was not aware that the prisoner ta k ii !leite a t he h t he intestinal complaint stated, but No ~qt r ith, iii suffered from tapeworm. 11 01 4 .4 y thre e ° Ps. the governor of the house, said t‘it ii earn, t 0 0 Flock on the day in question, Mr. p l i t zo,,,tibi th him and reported that Smith—" the It i'• to worjsaid. the witness)—was back again, 104, 4 44 ( I )ll ,tvid e h_ , , saYing to him (Galloway) that two t0r i: 1 1 ,4,0 1 4, 4, ha' said that he was not able to work. lio,iti f li the ii, a s him to break stories." Soon after lir;vrfittaordri as standing in the court-yard, he saw %Ohl ) 111, oil t° wards him (witness) from the proba 16.0,4aaharoitioeWed by the prisoner, who was menacing ttTN, t'i t utd r i ; Witness did nut know at the time taera re,rtiflon__ fie struck, and advanced to his as- Otid ia ah yhelthen ran at witness, and aimed a blow ii t d itta g hialselfammer, as a butcher would at an ox; Aliefetatiatlee, its (witness I n danger, he ran. After running a 1 1tele_Il tigt t i . for it''s) knees failed him—he could tiliZsiy ae . lll , a nd .T l rl he staggered and fell. He got up t l igsir a : sue t , ." ‘ e Prisoner fell over him, and pitched .4 tek litity . ' th e ttutstance before him. He did not feel lle;t, h i , He pr n ie, but afterwards felt that his back ttli i i!iit u t had ,?eured surgical aid, and was bled wit h h 4 :3 4 ,i i Li lo fan:"ee suffered much from the effects of I t % 4 0% a t r c lg, he at first thought he had received Il ia '• Et t ,' 41 fe, as he knew the prisoner was e a tateN ilt°ll vt -ry, we r ,titio l !l i ted to Mr. Lowndes (the solicitor for L tpols ee z ,L a nat he thought it due to the prisoner, yZ10 .1 41/4, en u e l et had been, that the certificate from hi‘illi ti l . o r er ,::_ as it was, should be produced. He ik,t'• thematouatiofi'he evidence of Mr. Cripps, as no It p l lth e th th;,, an had been made by Mr. Nigbtin !•WN4,44o4l'2B no extenuation of the savage con tt‘tyhtatioaai,ll in regard to the assault. , :ttti dai e i nid the prisoner had come from the ,al's i ll. the as sau l t, and he did not therefore ,i . : ,o u fki n f i l Ver ed t i li e n,_ reply to Mr. Rushton, he said lie ~ i ly,,,uoth th blows g i ven d ec id e dl y d angerous to N.titeter t h;° Partie s at the time. li found Mr. .Nfhi i he raart!ssault half laid down in the governor's t rak i t th neck . ",°r print of the hammer head on the 1 i t t14,, , 44 eoa ta ' (. ..t°se upon the vertebrae at the top. ' gtli e the tli s t ° ll but no wound, and no cutting or 4 i P ti lio t .latat. ;_n• (The offence was, therefore, not i , et y veg r e -e .7 malicious injuries to therefore, person in , Na,te,'e, with i , Fitness found the governor in a ''' 0 ,4 4 ,(1 0 ,Y , h a t .' tne sarne mark as in the other case, ! i 44,4 'tal ler "ound, 4kr". 44,i0.,tninded Mr. Rushton that the pri //ttobt "stY been before him for threatening with 'lNl.ho k 4rd R °° sad be was aware of the fact. u.: t r i tyk i trel t erl, er s, the workhouse baker, and another 1 4' PI i 'll'it' at ed that ~it ~ a ,award at i li4 hatt ite and Drisonerfell in the office passage. They ;la Sh t ' o 4 _, h ot he fei s i trike the governor, and again tit, broil is" addressing th e prisoner , said that in con taa'N . 4 ,t ill istatea, ea rn ' V44tir th e h kis° relative to the certificate, and VII i f ,ga o l i ..,0, he had sent for Mr. Archer, the • I ljlit i ,Sle e eo 7_ llo was now present, and would ex 447t,rie7Istig put need ' The prisoner expressed his IiZIS t `ell e r') r et i " A wn, Mr. Archer (accompanied by 14 0 11 .W th. on hi re ' to examine him. I , ;ia ...e rests return , said that the prisoner had 1 a4t (4 '1h;,7?,y y, ~0 1, , but that it was reducible. He 04, 1 .hioikitig - st mr• Rushton, that he considered tile k.'4,ltin _ t t i t ie ef) , (4 ,'es . would aggravate the disease. He ,k ,vay . aa lL , o u ~,.._!illisions were dangerous to life, as Ntti k :t. ri are Protected by muscles .. rtt itf lt iti l 'klh g e d the witness ' •• • , t it h e tdi t th at to be explicit on this 40, 1 : cal a le . when a conflict of opinion arose 1 47,4;: r eh er ", it was quite clear what the result i t ty, t bs j a !aid yh a I,, , f ta i t l ei Ari es _t he would only speak with ree k Or.,_ " they appeared, and adhered to his h l iS i t Q l4 e k te.' he tile' '''' hat a 1 , 44 t - Aria e down the character of the ql t . i ,liii for tiff Prier could not, as was before in- Vi t e iL ks i A l before the higher tribunal—the Vd 4e for 'her, it,, ,, i,,, % F . 8 0 ,, ,1.1 evidence was being taken down in lit lt il t 4i a ?oi t i'vt a y e ,‘,' ittne demurred to say positively, as sttittittlitrat4hge:pia"ra'tviehtehther.the occupation . of breakiog 11;:1 4 ed te h at , e prisoner's complaint. He said /IN 1 41 „h e h st ate e that effect than otherwise ; but tlileiy.,aa h. Positively that it would, or to re kl't,4l:at,u'ata.l be g • hi '4 h a ve said he, after a long pause, said, N. Oak, a tendency to aggravate such a ' , O at % dititihe tat Si a . ‘ 4 ,ll * ,!rd 4 : l , B e , a o l in e of both surgeons relative to the yjrti, 'N D , sake o ; the blows he inflicted, and as it N I A °tee ) ) , ..It w riting , in order to show how I V (ti NI "'Uinta here ' offering any opinion of k i :: 111 : t il l N AV . t AlitZtells„,, a, lii ,:,, n gal l —ln the case of Galloway, I o't and ' - i,the' s l e r s tion) a contusion on the lower O t i t i l; t ll 4 t : ali o - 4 ~. e of the head of the hammer. I 4, 1 d h tw te llt d a st m ava n s'f,.., and found him much ex kt‘littY 10 11 , th e contu s i ai ntlog state. I examined his , Ni t to t tll tt Se apaL " on the upper dorsal ver!e 1., 4 1 41• the h v 'ea k '"`• I consider the injuries in- N 11 11.. 1 e. ,°,,,tly ep n o as the hammer produced, upon Or sai l Ito ` l h t t which N'• 10) ne, wools w i t they were inflicted, dan erLkaei "ttld n „?. had previously stat . ed that 1 6. at, Ile Arch v.. Injure a person having pt o- Iv s o f ,14,,, , e i r,..... / 1 .401 14 _4 pe 'toith , an , n o . this day eFimined the It, tt01„40lotoatioetell:It wlicnli t h r im ed lai V rl b g u h n i d s e o r wn ri i l ti l t y'l -' c on -.arninea Evans uei reducible b y Mr. s' Gallo- Mr.... and •itsi4ttlt!ito,tit4tEttOrtitivsid:lrtitehratthe Injuries inflicted on them k it N M I' . Ste su,., a stone-breaking would have a 1 :,42 4 44 ° ,reaf, i t t litis e d` n compl a i n t as the prisoner's. k y it ,l l4y tit aton e the workhouse o ffi cers whe t, ‘O, c,,,, sat . ~,,s eat or stood? Most of them lz,• 0111 _' i l "ie ott ' t tlitl:ters. that they so sometimes stoo . d ki dad G I . there was as much standing 1 La te t t , e ay , or .. , \ ll l t n ..,01.„: pris_tne Parish -office, who was sent l ,k. 4,Tvei t s'lpe yi to uyer had been an inmate of the I ,K i ii i. le tl t rtifi...to hi t :. and that for a certain period ss. ' 14 .4 0„ , t 0 6; 1 _4 t o hi as out-door relief, as he had 1 , A t l t et , te ak st:y e Zeff iet t.lilafrona Mr. Crips, about four 1 . ttiltte tolles t ....:anatahfteewrwaasrudnaabthlenntoghwtorthkaftronme 1 ' f. 6' et ' a " that • t his allowance should be I Ahl il lti l l : 4 itil l l t :d th at It s tt r it t ; attipaa,:pelirtooesrl.° Particular task was assigned to P It v Ihs` Pa w l hav e row does this accord with lo t o r - 41 Ish o ~0 een frequently brought before Ygt. t tlef`tt ... 'i r not breaking a certain quan ,,,it, wi l . met wit 4 0 h i ttiVtit h 'lr e th, e , s es havi n t , l' , \7y 1.04,, 4 4 1E 1" eza tc i g! "I some mistake, been i i 1, h ki ., . tk _ ode,. nations were taken, the pia- Nlai t tti e r I `,e ri so ; I, l 4l l trj l • tilt asked was again broug ht u p. II ' '•l Ivl'tl e rod' '-'" what he had to say, with the I I 'i 'tt a ' lO O ti le " The forced the hammer upon II tit/11110 afgai Strik e t?; I N, p I ch. t i' i sai d . bu t t _. ero, as they did not want y ,4 h,t4 ,, :ii e ago he ,h ou l' a g e et me . back to gaol." 1 0 % L y t i tet) 14 a t g eat z a y eet a p_MiTt the prisoner to the 14„, 4 . h t 'll i e h i:41 ' 8 1 :11y b ee r a tt m o oa n t b n o u t t h ra th e e n l l r a ar n i h e a s. - 1 , m tt: t p t t ` t °ha v e b iro out of it • but thou ht he \ i w n e o d: k, be f ore ile cohuel could not t p d u o t 4 ' sltil i k 44l . I lit ti tithis v t e ea r; odro _ nuesabe::: 1 , , t 11,..44 h;t l t h e was not to blame ; indeed, on the f L N tiltill a i'„Dut to . : But it was a matter of re -1,;11,111,41:rtoew ..:.roer. huiBll:eltiw,rooprker,layndtrenaottedtofsoormiet: ti‘lel,tit: er atiZght to , n a man complained of . a I Its -u,t 'ter „,,,, character. His being or ) I N .be l' t 0 f or trt.'B no justification of his vie / yksa t ree 14 er ated :al at the sessions. He added e lt; 411 4 0 15 ea e l i l , fi nding bail, hi mse lf i n £3O N, \i '4 lik? th t 11 1-----__________ 4A t alite r l'lt / so _ ,44erepr,e.narneu, H att ocit.—Already an agi ot, ' e ntatic u ° Ran, has commenced his of Nenagh in the College- YESTERDAY'S ASSIZES. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.) His LORDSHIP entered the court at a few minutes past nine TRIAL OF WILLIAM ANDERSON, FOR HAVING STOLEN NOTES IN HIS POSSESSION. This case having been fixed for to-day, the court was, in consequence, crowded at an early hour. Messrs. Baines, Crompton, Henderson, and Adolphus, conducted the prosecution ; and Mr. Wilkins, assisted by Mr. Overend, defended the prisoner. There were four indictments against the prisoner. The charge against him having the notes in his possession, the produce of the Preston Guild robbery was first proceeded with. The prisoner, who is 34 years of age, and can read and write in a superior manner, was then placed at the bar. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. BAINES stated the case for the prosecution, and entered into a luminous detail of the principal facts. Most of those, however, our readers are already acquainted with, from the ample reports which have appeared of the examinations in the Police -court; and anything that is new will be found in the evidence itself, which we proceed to give at length. The following witnesses were then called : Thos. Resides at Blackburn, and is manager of Cunliffe, Brooks, and Co.'s bank. Knew Mr. Buck, and paid him £5,934 6s. 2d. on the 6th August, in 13 notes of £lOO, 9 of £5OO, and 10 of £lO each, and £34 6s. 2d. in silver and copoer. The £lOO notes were of the Manchester branch of the Bank of England, except one. Keeps a book, and enters all the notes at the branch bank that pass through their hands, and puts on the corner the private mark of their own bank. There is an endorse ment on the back of the check. The private numbers of the bank were taken ; they were written at the corners of the notes. Produced the Bank of England note-book, in which the notes were entered. The notes were as follow : £lOO, 01564; 01563 for £5O; 00092, £100; 00313,£100; 97474, £lOO ; 95151, £lOO ; 01472, £100; 93166, £lOO ; 99729, £100; 97631, £100; 97504, £100; 01107, £100; 01040, £lOO. Received some notes from Marquis on the 24th August—£looo and two notes of £5OO, which were two of the notes paid on that occasion. The payment was made to Buck on the 17th August. Richard B. Dodgson.—ls a clerk in Cunliffe's bank. When notes are received, a mark is put on the corner, and an entry is made in the note-book. The note-book produced contains the corresponding entries with those on the back of the check. Anthony Buck deposed to receiving, on the 17th Aug., the sum of £5,934 fi om the bank of Cunliffe and Co. Richard Eastwood received from Buck £715, which he paid to Miss Forshaw, and £7OO was afterwards paid to the Craven Bank at Burnley. They were the same notes I had received from Buck. George Stansfield called.—ln August last received £7OO from Mr. Eastwood, in one £5OO and two of £lOO each. The hundreds were 01564,QY. and 01563,QY. There was a £5OO note. Edmund Robinson.—l know Mr. Marquis. He asked me to take a £lOO note to the Craven Bank, to get it changed. I gave it afterwards to Mr. Marquis. John Walker, clerk in the Craven Bank, recollected Robinson coming on the 29th August, and exchanged it. Made an entry at the time. The number of the note was G Y,01040. Joseph Pilkington, cotton merchant at Blackburn, re ceived three notes from Marquiss, in August last, of £lOO each. James Stott, bookkeeper to Messrs. Pilkington, saw Marquiss i►n August last paying some money to last. wit ness. It was in three £lOO notes ; they were L W,92086, L W. 92895, G Y,00092. Cross-examined by Mr. WiLxiNs.—They were not paid in his presence. Mr. Pilkington gave them into his hands. John Marquis.—l live at Acrington, near Blackburn. On the 17th August received some money from Buck. After that made a payment to Cunliffe and Co. of £lOOO at Manchester, and £lOOO to Cunliffe of Blackburn; also £lOOO to Jones, Lloyd and Co.—all in £5OO notes. Made a payment to Pilkington. On Sunday morning the 4th counted the notes I had left, and had nine of £100; had £1990 left. Preston Guild commenced on that day, and 1 went. there. Had my pocket book in my breast coat pocket. Was in different places during the day, and went into the White Horse about seven o'clock, and sta'd about an hour ; came out and had my book at that time. Went up Church-street, and a man and woman came up to me ; the man put his arm in mine and said, " Are you taking a walk," and I said, " I am not going any further." They then ran away, and I lost sight of then'. Found my pocket-book was gone. Cross-examined by Mr. WILICINS.—Went to Preston to put the money in the bank, and also to walk in the procession. Dined with 'wo gentlemen at the White Horse. They were strangers to me. Did not take any wine or spirit. Had a small glass of brandy, and that was all I had that day. Was quite sober when the man and woman came up. Gave information of the robbery about five minutes after it took place. My coat was buttoned when I came out of the inn. By Mr. BAINES.-It was an ordinary at which I dined. Was at the Knutsford Sessions at a trial concerning the robbery. A note was produced, No. 01472. By Mr. WILKINS.—Had said the note was 01,473. It was in consequence of a mistake of the printer of the bills. Pointed it out on the Bth of September. It was not pointed out to me. Mentioned the mistake, before seeing the note, to Graves, the officer, .who had not then seen it. By Mr. BAINES.—Got the number of the notes from the clerk at the bank. By the COURT.—The notes were those I got from Buck, I am quite certain. Taylor Jennings.—Was in the Branch Bank before being taken into custody. Entered their service in July 1812, and was in the inspector's office till September, and then went into the discount office, where I remained two months, and returned to the inspector's office, where 1 remained till taken into custody. Knows Harriet Bent ley. She lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh-street, when I first knew her, and afterwards in Elliott -street, and then in Oak-street. Knows a court in Seel-street, and was with her there on one occasion, the beginning of Oc tober I think ; and the prisoner came about a watch that had been stolen, and asked me if 1 had got it, and 1 told him I had, and gave it to him. There was a person with him, and prisoner charged me with taking the watch out of his house, and said the man he had with him was to take me into custody. We then went out, I, and pri soner, and Hat riet Bentley, together with the man who came with the prisoner. Got the watch from Bentley at the prisoner's house, about three days previously, where he had been with her. We were in a parlour, near the door, about half an hour. There was a bed in the room. The watch was lying on a table ; it was a large gold one. After I gave it to the prisoner, he said the man who was with him was charged to take me, and I must go with him. I said I was sorry for what had happened, and would re compense him if he would allow me to go; arid I said I would give all I had, which was two sovereigns, which he took, and said he would go to the parties, and make it all right if he could, and I was to meet him at the York Hotel, Williamson-square, in an hour, where I told him what I was. 1 went with Harriet, and he told me he had made it all right,—that be told the parties he had knocked me down, and was ashamed to take me. He (prisoner) called for some wine, and we got into conversation, and then left, and went by his request to his house, as he thought he could do some business with me, where he gave us something to drink. He knew at that time what I was, and inquired whether I had any thing to do with notes in the bank. I said I had; and the same night he told me he had a £lOO note, which he wished me to change, and that I must not let any body see it, and if I would do it he would give me £7 10s. Nothing further passed that night. I staid all night. When I went again, which was the next night, he gave me the £lOO note. It was of the Manchester branch. He said if I could change it, and bring him another for it, he would give me the £7 10s. 1 took it, and changed it by putting it into a parcel,:and taking out another for it from the notes in the inspector's office. Put the prisoner's note into the same parcel from which I took the other. Took the note to the prisoner; it was a £lOO, and he gave me £7 10. He said he had seven more ; and, feeling some surprise, I asked him what they were, and he said they were part of the Preston Guild robbery. He gave me two more soon after. They were for £ l lOO, of the Manchester Branch, and changed them in the same way, and gave them to the prisoner, and he gave me £l5. He then said he would wait awhile before he gave me any more ; and in a week after or more I had another of the same branch for £lOO, which I disposed of in the same way, and gave it to him, getting the £7 10s. Ilad another soon after, and gave the changed note to prisoner, and then another of the same kind. The last two I received a little before Christ mas, giving the notes to the prisoner, as I had done be fore. Had a shirt pin from the prisoner, :which he gave me in January. It was a gold one, with a small stone in it ; I gave it to Bentley. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I came from Lon don, but not a native of that place. Belong to Hertford shire. Was in a merchant's office when 1 first went to London, in 1811, Barclay Brothers, of Austin.friars, and was with them five or six months, when I got a situation in the Bank of England, and stayed there five months, and in three days after that came to Liverpool. I am a married man, and have been married five or six months. Became acquainted with Miss Bentley in September last, was married in April, and knew Bentley at that time ; was mar ried to Miss Bartlett of London, but did not continue in timate with Bentley. I saw her occasionally sometimes where she was living. I generally met her. She was living at a brothel in Oakes-street, where I saw her on several occasions. Made her presents at different times ; on one occasion £2. Never gave her new dresses or caps. Gave her a cap before marriage. Don't know what money I gave her to buy them—it might be a sove reign. Have given her a sovereign since I was married. Have not been with her on a great many occasions. Saw her the day before I was taken up—l had passed the night with her. Was three nights with her just before that time. Never offered my wife any of Bentley's cast off clothes. Never kept Miss Bentley. Never slept with her a fortnight together. Am in debt ; perhaps £2O would clear me. Have not been in the habit of at tending races. Would swear he had never bet on races or prize-fights. Do not practice pugilism. My wife had no knowledge of my acquaintance with Miss Bentley until after we had been married about a fortnight. Might have paid Bentley £5O altogether. The first time 1 went to the prisoner's house was the latter end of September, when 1 took the watch. The value of it might be £l5 or £2O. She took it out of the house, and I took it from her and put it in my pocket at the bottom of Elliott-street. Had it two or three days before being asked for it, and in the in terval was one night at home, and the other with Miss Bentley. Was taken up on Monday, the ]Bth of July, in consequence of being in po.a..Qion of a £l,OOO note which I had given to Mr. Wood, who had lent me £2O, £lO of which I gave to Miss 8., which was after I was mar ried. Told Mr. W. the note was a family affair, and re quested him to get it changed at Barned's bank. He re fused at first, hut afterwards consented, and, on theday af ter told Mr. W. I could not go to the bank as I wtrs going to the races, and he said such work as that would not do for him. Pretended, when Mr. Wood came to the hank, that he had gone into the bank, and the inspector was not there. Tried to escape from Mr. Wood the same day, or day after. Went into a yard to make my escape, but did not know what I was doing. I sent for the pri soner to Wood's house to get him to lend me £2O to pay Mr. Wood. Told the prisoner the £lOOO note w as changed. Wood told the prisoner I had offered him a £lOOO note as security for £2O. Wood told the prisoner it was stopped at Barned's. Did not say I had received it from the prisoner, and was before Mr. Turner and Mr. Fletcher, and told them it was a family concern, and I was entitled to a fifth of it. The note was at that time stopped. Was called before Mr. Turner to account for the note, but did not mention the prisoner's name. Said the note had been received from my brother in America, and that he was lodging in Tower-hill, London. Was taken before Mr. Rushton the day after my apprehension, and gave the same account I had given the day before. Wrote something on a piece of paper, and gave it to the prisoner to enable him to get me some money. Told Mr. Wood I was going to Squire Clegg's. at Allerton, to. get the money. He is a farmer, and I thought he might lend it as he is a particular friend of my uncle's. Mr. Clegg keeps his carriage, but I have never seen it. Put my head out of the coach window when I was going to Al lerton with Mr. Wood to look for Squire Clegg's car riage. Drove to the London-road, and said I would wait there for the Squire. Mr. Wood caught me at the rail way station, and I said I was waiting there for a friend. Toid Mr. Dowling I got the £lOOO note from the prisoner, and that it was the only money transaction I ever had with him, and did not tell him I had known prisoner only six months. Suspected something when the prisoner asked me to change the £lOOO note. He proposed it after I bad been there about a quarter of an hour. Can not swear, but I think Bentley was in the room. I did not express any objection to do it. Had nothing to de. P end upon but my salary. Believe the first note was given in October. Never told Mr. Dowling the three first £lOO notes were given in September. Changed the first note the day after getting it, and the others in two or three days after that. No one ever saw the notes in my possession. Got the others about a week after, and I ex - - changed them in a day or two, and two others soon after that. Had eight £lOO notes; had always said so. Did not recollect telling Mr. Dowling the first note was got on the first night after sleeping at the prisoner's house. Most of the transactions took place at the prisoner's house; some of them at a public-house—l don't know where. Generally gave the prisoner the notes at his own house. Gave one at a public-house-1 don't know where it was. Examined by Mr. BAINES.—Took the pin from the prisoner for changing two £5O notes. Was taken up on the charge of having a £lOOO note which I got from pri soner. He said he got it from a person who came down from London night before. Said that one man and another saw a person come out of a banking house and get into an omnibus, and that he held his hand on his right side pocket, and that when he got out they followed him, and one of them took the notes out of his pocket. One setoff to Li verpool, the other watched the gentleman and saw him go back to the same house, and that when he told them they would not believe him. The other man then came down to Liverpool. Prisoner came to me on the 7th, and said he wanted to meet me, and I saw him at a public-house in Copperas-hill, and he took out a newspaper and shewed me an advertisement about three £lOOO notes, and the night after I went up to his house in Stafford -street, and he gave me a £lOOO note. That was the note about which I was taken up. Harriet Bentley.—l am a single woman. In the begin ing of last year lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh.street, and afterwards went to live in Seel-street. Was ac quainted with Jennings before I went there. I first knew him in August, 1842, and went with him soon after to prisoner's house. Was there on the night when the watch was taken. There was a bed in the room, and Jennings and I were there about half an hour. A watch was lying on the table, and 1 took it up and showed it to him, and he said he would take it, and if he heard nothing about it during the week, he would publish it. Ile put it in his waistcoat pocket, and we went away together. Was with him two or three days afterwards, at Seel-street, and two persons came to fetch Jennings. It was the prisoner and a Mr. Lever. Jennings went down stairs to the prisoner, and gave him some gold and a watch, but I did not hear any thing till we went to the York Hotel, where I saw the prisoner again, and we staid about an hour or more. There was nothing said that I heard. V': then went to prisoner's house, in Elliott-street, and remained all night. Prisoner asked Jennings where he worked when we were in Seel• street, and he said he was at the Branch Bank in Hanover-street. Had a breast pin given to me by Jen nings. [Witness here described the pin.] Had seen it in possession of Anderson, who wanted to sell it to Jen nings for 1:2 10s. The pin was pledged at Richardson's, - London-road, and I gave the ticket to Greaves, the police officer. Cross-examined by Mr. WuxiNs.—First met Jen nings, in Ranelagh-street, about eleven or twelve months ago, and we went to a house, and we soon became very intimate. He used to see me nearly every day, and al ways paid me, mostly with a sovereign. He never kept me for a month. He bought me some caps—a good many—fashionable ones. He gave me £lO once, and at another time £5. Cannot say that he has given me more than £4 besides. We went to the theatre occasionally. Did not know he was married, or I should not have al lowed his visits. Jennings took the watch off the wash stand. After the matter about the watch was present the whole evening, and heard prisoner say something about a note. Have not seen Jennings since he was in prison. Heard what prisoner said when be went away to see the parties about the watch. Have not had any conversation since I came into court. By Mr. BAINES.—I am 18 years of age nearly. Thomas Lever said.—l know the prisoner, and he came for me in August last, and we went to a place in Seel street, and Harriet Bentley came down stairs and spoke to witness and prisoner, who said to her, " Where is that watch ?" "0 ! George is up stairs and has got it." A man then came down stairs, and she said, " here is Mr. Anderson come about the watch." He had it round his neck and took it off, and delivered it to the prisoner Jen nings ; they went out with the prisoner, who gave me a sovereign for my trouble in going with him. George Greaves, a police-constable, produced a pin ; also a pawn-ticket for the same. Eliza Silvester.—l live in Oak-steet, and Harriet Bent ley lived with me. I know Jennings—he went by the name of George. I know the breast-pin. George Richards, a pawnbroker. proved the pledging of the pill on the 29th Dec. by Harriet Bentley. Th e p i n was taken by the constable. The pin was then shown to Harriet Bentley, who said it was the same that Jennings had given to her. Mr. Fletcher, one of the managers of the Branch Bank, was called.—Jennings was a clerk ; he came in July, 1842, and was in the inspector's office, with the exception of a short time he was in the discount office, till he was taken. The notes are first taken by the teller, and he counts the money to see that it agrees with the ticket brought by the customer. He then doubles them up, and puts the name, of the party paying it in on the outer note, and the total amount of the notes themselves. They are then put in the teller's drawers, and taken out by the inspector when he comes round. He calls out the numbers with the tel lers, and the amount on the notes to see that they agree with the numbers in the books, and they are then taken to the inspector's office. He separates them into three parcels, first putting down in a hook the total amount, and then lays them out in three divisions, for Manches ter. Liverpool, and other branches. They are then put in the inspector's room in bundles, and are entered in three books by the clerks. Jennings was one of those clerks, and had access to those bundles. On reference to the cancel note-book for Nov. 14, there is the following entry :—No. 99727, for £100; in a parcel paid in by Mr. Arbuthnot; Nov. 26th, 97504, for £lOO, paid in to the credit of Captain Broad; Dec. sth, 97474, for £lOO, paid in by the customs ; Dec. 15th, 97631, for £lOO, paid in by Charles Imer, Paulett and Co.; Dec. 17th. 9 5 15 1 , for £lOO, paid in to the credit M. La Barre ; Dec. 21st, two notes, 00313, for £lOO, and 01107, for £lOO, paid in by the customs. Mr. BAINES said he would then go through the history of No. 99,727, and called James Hazel, cashkeeper to Hodgson and Riley, who received on the 14th November, £552 17s. 11d., at the Bank of Liverpool, and had four £lOO notes. '1 hey have my name on them. They were Nos. 82,629, 69,317, 81,084, and 81,831. The same day paid to Jones, Mann, and Foster £lO2, G. Barnsley and Son £lB3, and Glad stone, Serjeantson, and Co. £233, and paid away those notes. Cross-examined by Mr. Wuxu4s.—Kept a book in which I entered the numbers. William Cameron Sillar, clerk to Jones, Mann, and Foster, received on Nov. 24 £lO2 from Hodgson and Riley, which he paid over to Mr. Clarke, the cashkeeper, who refused to receive a £lOO note. George Harkle, clerk in Leyland's bank, on the 15th Nov., gave change to Jones, Mann, and Foster for a £l3O note, No. 12,629, being the first of the notes men tioned by Hazel. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINs.—We don't give change except to parties who are known to us. Maurice Williams, clerk of Barnsley and Co.—On the 14th Nov. received from Hodgson and Riley £lBl, on account of Baring Brothers. Roderick M`Kenzie, cashkeeper to Barnes and Co., received £lBO from Barnsley and Co., and paid into the Borough Bank £2,027, which was deposed to as having been received by a clerk in that establishment. The number was 69,317. William Bird Redish, clerk to Gladstone and Co., re ceived on the 14th Nov. £233 Bs. from Hodgson and Riley, and paid it to Ogilvie and Co.. of whom Arbuth not is a partner. George Hopwood, clerk to Arbuthnot and Co., re ceived from Gladstone and Co., Nov. 14, £230 Bs., and paid £llO on the 14th Nov. into the Branch Bank of England, and £l2O on account of the firm. Benjamin Shaw received, on the 14th Nov., £llO on account of Arbuthnot and Co., and folded it up and put it in the letter drawer. _ _ Jon. Francis Heath, an inspector of the bank, took the above notes out of the teller's drawer, and from the entry made at the time there appeared No. 99,729, a £lOO note. Had a payment of £l2O the same day, in which there was a £lOO note, No. £81,084. _ _ _ Claudius - ratitin, cashier of the Liverpool banking com pany.—The prisoner, on the 18th Nov. last, made a pay went of 4:25, and gave a £lOO note, No. 81,831, and re ceived the change. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The prisoner wrote his name on the back of the note, and it is my custom to endorse the notes on the back. The prisoner has banked Pith us for sevon years. THE- LIVERPOOL STANDARD Richard Green, clerk in the office of the Liverpool Banking Company, refetred to an entry, on the 15th of November, of No. 81831. Mr. HENDERSON said they would now proceed with 97631, substituted for 12168, which they proposed to trace to the prisoner. J. J. Kirby, clerk to liner, Paulett, and Co., deposed to getting some notes changed at the Borough Bank, in December, one of which was 12168 for £lOO. Francis Nevett, a teller in the Branch Bank, gave change for two £lOO notes on Dec. 15, 1842. One had his mark on it, and 12168 was one of them. Knew by the entty in the book. Cross-examined.—The cancelled note books spew the entries. .Mr. Heath.—l was on duty on the 15th December at the hank, and received two £lOO notes, No. 97631. Did not find 12168. James Todd.—On the 15th Dec. entered two notes, Nos. 97631 and 80714, paid me by Paulett and Co. Claudine Vantin.—The prisoner made a payment on the lith Dec. of £6O, in a bank note of £lOO, No. 12168. M r. ADOLPH us.—The next note we trace will be 97504, substituted for 80348. Wm. Fisher, jun., a clerk in the Bank of Liverpool.— I remember copying a parcel of £lOO notes on the 25th November. We put the numbers on them, and entered them in the cash book. No. 80348 is one of them. Wm. C. Ashlin, a cashier in the above bank, paid a check of Schroeder and Co. for £450, in four £lOO notes and one £5O. It was paid to their clerk. One of them was 80348. _ _ _ Alfred Pickering, clerk to Schroeder and Co., received the £450 in notes, as stated by the preceding witness, and cave them to Mr. Mahs, who banded them over to Capt. Broad, on the 26th November. Capt. Broad received the notes from Malls in Novem ber, and took them to the Branch Bank. Mr. Agard received them from the last witness, and they were handed over to the inspector, who stated that he had received them. One of them was 97504 ; 80348 was not one of them. Mr. ADOIPHUS.—We now proceed to show what be came of 80348. Mr. Shaw, of the Branch Bank.—l remember a check coming in on the 28th Nov. from Coventry and Glover for £359 9s. Bd. It was paid in a £5, a £5O, and three £lOO notes ; one of the £lOO notes was 83615. George Nicholson, cashier to Steill and Co.—On the 28th Nov. gave a receipt to Coventry and Glover for £359 9s. Bd., and made a payment of £9OO into the bank. Alex. Gillespie made a payment into the Branch Bank, receiving the money from the last witness. Francis Bocquet, teller at the Branch Bank.—There is an entry of money from Steele and Co. on the 28th Nov. Mr. H eath, teller at the above bank.—Remembered the payment of Steele and Co. It contained some £lOO notes. No. 83615 was not there, but 80348 is one of them. The others were 83616 and 83617. _ _ Mr. Imer.—The number; paid to Coventry and Co., were 83615. 83616, and 83617. John Quayle.-1 am a tailor and draper, and live in Elliott -street, next door to prisoner, who paid some money for work. It was about Dec. He gave me a £lOO note. I gat it changed by ltighton. Mr. Righton, a grocer in Lime-street.—l commenced an account with the Union Bank in December. Got the note from the last witness. The number is 83615. Hugh Makin, cashier in the Union Bank. On the 22d December Righton paid the note into the bank. Mr. BAINES.—The next we shall trace is 95151, which bad been abstracted and 07089 substituted. Mr. Long, clerk to Jones. Lloyd and Co., Manchester. —Paid on the 20th Nov. £7OO to Mr. Douse. There were two notes of £lOO each, one was 07089. The number of the other was 07302. Mr. Douse, a surgeon at Huddersfield, received the notes and paid them to Mr. Stocks. My wife took the numbers. They are a £5OO note. 15459. The first £lOO note was 07089 ; the second, 07309. Mr. Stocks deposed to receiving the money from Mr. Douse, and paying it to John Booth. John Booth received the same, and banded to M. Le Barre, who paid it into the branch bank in December. It amounted to £2,900 Mr. Heath took Le Barre's payment. There was a .£5OO note. No. 15459. Among the A;100 was No. 07309; 07089 was not among them, but 95151 was there. Mr. Quayle.—After the first note the prisoner brought a second, and 1 got it changed at Mr. Rightotes ; but af terwards went and took it from Mr. Righton, and gave it back to the prisoner. Mr. Righton deposed to the same fact as the previous witness. James Sixsmith, publican, of this town, remember the prisoner coming to my house near the latter end of last year to ask for change fora £lOO note. Obtained it from Mr. Howard, in Cunliffe-street. Sent the boy for it and gave the change to the prisoner, who went away with it. John Debney, clerk to Mr. Howard, proved the changing of the note for Mr. Sixsmith. lie afterwards took it in a payment of 1:173 to the Royal Bank. Adam Lowe, of the Royal Bank, proved the payment of the money as stated by Debney. Thos. Scholes received the note for Howard. It was 07089. This was the whole of the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury for the prisoner. He observed, that before he commenced any comment or observation on the details of the case he must remind them what they had to do. They had to consider whether the prisoner then in the dock had been proved to have been guilty of receiving several of the notes stolen from Mr. Marquis, at Preston Guild, on the sth of September. They were not to consider whether the prisoner might have received the produce, but whether he had received the notes that were stolen on that occasion. He thought they must have observed that the evidence of the wit nesses who had been called was, what the poet Milton called "confusion worse confounded." It appeared to him to have very little to do with the case befcre them, He hoped to be able to convince them that what the pro secutor had made out, namely, that certain notes had been put off, for which the stolen notes had been substituted, and a hat was suspicious at first sight was perfectly com patible with the innocence of the prisoner at the bar. It was not enough that the indignation of the jury should be excited by an allusion to it on the part of the prosecution, hut his learned friend had said he should be able to prove it, and he had failed to do so, for one witness had told them that the house in Stafford-street was not a brothel. It was not his duty to uphold the conduct of any man en gaged in such a calling, and he thought that if the priso ner had any feeling about him it would be sufficient to make him ashamed of the course of life which he had pur sued. There was a great deal of humbug abroad on that subject, and there were a great many gentlemen, and Chris tians, too, who would treat the conduct of such men with loathing, but who have yet condescended to indulge in those places which the prisoner was charged with keeping. One thing was certain : it was not the poor man, but it was among men of money and rank where they would find the parties who supported institutions of that character. They were not there to consider as to his moral character, but whether he was guilty of the charge laid against him in the indictment. He contended that Jennings was not corroborated in any single point affecting the guilt of the prisoner; and unless that were the case, his testimony under such circumstances amounted to nothing. Be would ask them whether there bad ever stood within the bar a man so base, and so divested of everything that could dignify and ennoble the human character, as that thing which had been in the box that day ? He had taken pains with his external habit, but had there been such a wretch as he ever introduced into a witness-box? Why, when he came to Liverpool he was a thief ; and he has not been in Liverpool two months before he goes with a girl and steals a watch, and the fellow was coward enough to try to fix it on the poor girl : the wretch, in order to screen himself, said it was the poor girl who had done it. He then alluded to what he conceived was sufficient to upset the whole of Jennings' story—namely, that he had stated it was either the end of September or beginning of October when the note transaction commenced. lie got from him the time when they took place, and, giving him the greatest possible latitude, all the notes except two, according to the evidence of the other witnesses, must have gone out of the bank in the month of October. He finds he is in the strong arm of the law, and that it is ne cessary to adopt some means for his deliverance. Why, what did Mr. Wood do ? He treated him as a felon ; and he thought if they gave to reason and truth that share which they ought to occupy in the case, they could never believe the story which Jennings had told them that day. The learned gentleman then alluded to his conduct to his wife, for at the time he was married he was actually pick ing up an intimacy with Harriet Bentley, who had that day been before them in the box, and who had stated that, had she known he was married, even she, degraded as she was, would not have admitted him into her com pany. After some further remarks on other parts of the evidence, he concluded by calling on them to consider the case with all that caution and deliberation :which its im portance demanded. If they wished to see the bearing of one who was guilty and one who was not, they must con trast the bearing of the prisoner with that of Jennings. The prisoner courted inquiry—Jennings tied from it ; the prisoner never told a lie from beginning to end—Jennings never told the truth. He thought the situation of the pri soner such as ought to make him more strenuous in his behalf, and he considered it his duty to lay the case before them in a calm and dispassionate light, and he asked them to acquit him because the principal evidence against the prisoner was that of one of the most vile and degraded individuals that had ever come into the dock. The Learned JUDGE then went carefully over the evi ewnhtoitlperehsiemntteod dence to the jury, remarking that it depended principally on the credit they could attach to the witness Jennings, credit unless circumstanceshieiid satis fied not ti s- tied them that he was borne out in what he said. And if they found him upon the evidence to be of such a charac ul himself e n s d s e t r he circumstances other ter, it would be their duty to discredit him provided his evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses. The question they had to decide, as regarded the prisoner, was whether the prisoner received, or had in his possession, certain notes being the produce of the Preston Guild rob bery, knowing them to have been stolen. After the jury had consulted for a short time, one of them wished to know from his lordship the particular point they had to consider. The JUDGE.—Notes are given (if you believe the testi mony of Jennings) by the prisoner to him for the purpose of being changed. He changes them, and he says, those gonoteafo tor fourthe prisoner. re a Now, four thie notes hands which of changed he the prisoner at the bar. The question was, whether the pri soner received the Preston Guild notes, and according to Jennings he did receive them. Then it is for you to say whether Jennings speaks the truth. The jury retired, and after being absent about an hour, returned with a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. Mr. Ant:menus said, the other indictments would not be proceeded with. His LORDSHIP observed that the prisoner had been convicted of one of the worst of crimes—and one that was fraught with the most dangerous consequences to society •, and whatever might have been the moral delinquency of Jennings, he (the prisoner) had taken the advantage of the charge of felony which might have been proved against him to serve his own wicked purposes. The sentence of the Court was, that he be transported for fourteen years. The Court rose at half-past eight. NISI PRIUS COURT. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL took his seat at nine o'clock. SMETHHURST V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER. This was an action, before a special jury, for goods sold and delivered on an account stated. The defendant pleaded not liable. Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Atherton for the defendants. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff, Richaro, Smethhurst, is a manufacturer, carrying on busines at Chorley, about twenty miles from Manchester. The de fendants, John Taylor and William Potter, ate in a large way of business, in Liverpool, who send a large quantity of goods to India and China, and this action was brought to recover a sum of £2400, alleged to be due by them to the plaintiff, arising out of a sale of goods in March, 1841. The parties who immediately bought these goods were persons carrying :on business in Manchester, under the the firm of Saml. Kni g ht an d C o . Th e y h a d been carry ing on business for some time as commission agents, and from the year 1838 till 1841 they had bought goods for the defendants to the extent of £lOO,OOO. They were uni versally known as being the agents of Taylor, Potter and Co. As to themselves, one of them, at least, had been a bankrupt, and they were a firm who never could and never expected to receive credit for themselves. They never, to any extent, sold goods on their own account. In March, 1841, the plaintiff bad in hands a very large quantity of shirtings, an article very largely exported from this country to China and the East Indies. He employed a person named Pilkington to sell goods for him, and, accordingly, in March, he called upon Messis. Knight and asked them if they were purchasing goods for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co. ; he told them at the same time that if they were disposed to buy the plaintiff would take a bill for 3 or 6 months. The ordinary way of business was to pay cash in 1841, or a bill for a month. Messrs. Knight said they were not at present in the market for Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co., but when they were they would let them know. Accordingly, on the 27th Mach, Mr. James Knight came to Mr. Pilkington, told him Taylor, Potter and Co. were in the market, and requested that samples should be sent to them. He (Mr. K.) said he was about to go to Liverpool, and he would take the samples with him. Five pieces of each description of arlicle were sent to Mr. Knight as samples, and when Mr. Pilkington called on him next day he stated th t he had taken the samples to Li verpool, shown them to defendants, who were willing to give 12s. a piece for one kind, and 12s. 6d. for another. After some time the plaintiff was induced to take the prices offered, but in order to ascertain properly that he was dealing with the defendants he sent down his nephew, who, with Mr. Pilkington, waited upon Mr. Knight. Mr. Pilkington said, " You are buying these goods for Taylor, Potter, and Co." " Yes," was the reply, " and more than that, we are buying them to go to China in a ship called the John Bibby, and you look at Myers's Gazette. you will see that the vessel is going to sail in a few days." They then went to the news-room, and finding the vessel was entered as stated, the nephew returned home, told what he had ascertained, and the plaintiff determined to conclude the bargain. He wrote to the effect on the 50th March to Mr. Pilkington. Accordingly, the goods were sent to Lees and Jenkinson, the packers ; they were af terwards sent down to Liverpool, shipped in the John Bibby, and went to China. This being the state of the case, he (the learned counsel) understood the defence to the action would be that when young Smethurst went to Mr. Knight's office, after he had learned that the goods were for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co., he said to Mr. Knight, " To whom •are we to make out the invoice ? Are we to make it out to Taylor, Potter and Co. ?" Mr. Knight said, " No, when goods are sold per six months bill, the bills are not made out to them but to us." Accordingly, the invoice was made out to Mr. Knight. Mr. Martin continued by saying that he wou:d prove, from letters found in the possession of Messrs. Knight, who had since become bankrupt, that he had autho rity to buy for the defendants. He then read a letter signed W. P. Livingston, which, he said, was written by authority of the defendants; and added, that when the defendants were applied to they said that Messrs. Knight had had a general authority to buy for them up to January, but not since. It would appear, that in this instance the invoice was made out to Knight and Co., but he submitted that the goods were sold to the authorised agent of Taylor, Potter, and Co., who had full authority to buy them. After reading letters written by W. P. Livingston and other persons on behalf of the firm, relating to the pur chaseoo vobviously ueo of Johnyfl y g t ea o l ta d t s ee , Bibby,vd t e i tr i oey which h e al aierirce6neh,elodsoaoci of o ept u di n es : soe e es g c oeo o f odn shirtingdat e ys c d ee later I t t p l ut a tohr t n t l a l ws e i ena s d e from the plaintiff, and nothing as else. s He would prove to b th y e t h j originally intended. There was a person named Nixon, at Manchester, who sold goods for other persons, the same as Mr. Pilkington, and he asked Messrs. Knight who their principals were. They replied that Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co. were. He sold them goods to the amount of £20,000, and some of the invoices were made out to Taylor, Potter, and Co., some to Knight and Co., but the goods were all sent down, without destination, to Taylor, Potter, and Co. The mode in which Taylor, Potter, and Co. did business at first was for cash, but about the end of the year 1838 they commenced signing bills to get money to discount and pay for the goods ; and the mode in which Knight and Co. carried the money to pay for the goods was by bills signed by Taylor, Potter, and Co. These were discounted by the bank of Daintry, Ryle, and Co., at Manchester, and in no case did Taylor. Potter, and Co. interfere. The delivery of the goods was completed on the 2d of April, and by the terms of the purchase agreed upon the money was to be paid in four teen days, and it became due on the 16th. On that day application was made by Mr. Pilkington to Mr. James Knight, who said, " 1 am sorry to disappoint you, hut 1. have not done my discount in Liverpool as I expected, therefore I have sent off the bills to London to be dis counted." At the latter end of April Mr. Pilkington obtained £1,500 in bills on account of the shirting, and so things continued until the beginning of May, when the concern of Knight and Co. closed. After that, Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co. were applied to for payment for the goods, and the statement made by Mr. Taylor was, that they had not given authority to Knight and Co. to purchase goods for them since the January preceding. He (the learned counsel) undertook to satisfy the jury that the goods were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co. through Messrs. Knight. 2,000 of the pieces came to the house of Taylor, Potter, and Co. ; but there was a firm, Living ston, Gilliott, and Co., who carried on business under the same roof with defendants, and the remainder of the goods were shipped on board the John Bibby, with the name of Livingston, Gilliott, and Co. on them, but how that name got there he could not tell, as, in looking over the bank rupt's book, it was not found that there were any dealings between the parties. Mr. MARTIN then called a number of witnesses to prove the sale of the goods, the general course of busi ness, and the agency of Messrs. Knight. The total cost of the goods was stated to be 43,975, of which £1,500 had been paid, leaving a balance of £2,475, for which sum the action was brought. _ _ _ Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said, there were two questions for the jury —whether Messrs. Knight and Co. had authority to bind the defendants in the matter, and supposing that they had, had credit been given to them or to Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co.? lie said there was no proposition of law more distinct than this, that if a party sells goods to an agent, knowing that he is dealing for a principal, and the principal's name be known to him, and the seller gives credit to the agent, the principal can never be made liable, whatever becomes of the agent. The learned counsel then contended, at some length, that the invoice was the only proof of the party debited, and concluded by expressing an opinion that his learned friend (Mr. Martin) had failed to make out the two propositions which would entitle him to a verdict. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, there were two questions for the jury to decide—the first was, whether the goods were sold on the credit of Knight and Co., or on the credit of Taylor, Potter and Co. and if they (the jury) should be of opinion that Smet burst knew that they were for Taylor, Potter, and Co., and he consented to give Knight and Co. credit. he could not after that claim against Taylor, Potter, and Co. But if they were of opinion that the credit was not given to Knight and Co., but to Taylor, Potter, and Co., then would come another question— whether Knight and Co. had authority to pledge Taylor, Potter, and Co.'s credit. If the jury were of opinion in the affirmative that they were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co., and Knight and Co. bad authority to pledge their credit, then they (the jury) must find the verdict for the plaintiff, and if otherwise, their verdict would be for the defendants. If for the plaintiff, it would be for £2475. The jury, after half an hour's deliberation, found for the defendants. BIRCH V. WOOD AND ANOTHER. This was an action to recover damages for the infringe ment of a patent. The plaintiff (for whom Mr. Martin, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Webster appeared as counsel) was Thomas Birch. The defendants (for whom Mr. Knowles and Mr. Townsend appeared) were Charles and Richard Wood. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was a man now in very great poverty, and endeavou re d t o get a live lihood by acting as an assistant to an engineer in Salford. He was a very ingenious man, and in the early part of his life devoted a good deal of his time to the improvement of machines, rather than to pecuniary matters. He was formerly in partnership with two gentlemen of the name of Shorrocks, manufacturers of carding and spinning ma chines, and whilst in partnership with them he made the invention in question, a patent was granted in 1837, and it was for an inf r i ngemen t o f th e pa t ent th a t the present ac tion was brought. In 1830 the partnership between the plaintiff and the Messrs. Shorrocks was dissolved. Plain tiff sold his interest in the concern for £425, to be paid in promissory notes, and went to Ireland, where some tempting o ff er was held out to him. He remained in Ire land till he lost all his money, came over to Manchester about seven months since, and had remained there ever since. The patent was for an addition to the old machine for carding, whereby the seeds, and nots, and dirt which comes in the cotton from abroad was got out much more effectually, in less time, and did a great deal more work. When the plaintiff came back from Ireland he found that his patent was in very general use in the manufacturing districts. He applied to many persons, all of whom agreed to give him something for the use of the patent, with the exception of the defendants, who used it to about sixty machines. Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said that at the time the partnership was formed the Messrs. Shorrocks were monied men, and it was of great importance to have a mechanical genius in manufacturing concerns, and it frequently happened that such a person was taken into partnership, on the understanding that the result of his inventive genius was to go to the benefit of the partner ( ship. This, he alleged, was the case in the present In stance; the partnership was at the expense of moleli and experiments, and the machines were all made on account of t' - -e concern. He contended, that by the deed pro viding for the dissolution of partnership, plaintiff assigned over all right and interest in the concern, and, therefore, that the pate ,, t right passed to the Messrs. Shorrocks, who became bankrupts in 1839. Under the direction of his Lordship, a verdict was re turned for the plaintiff. Damages, 40s. The Court rose at a quarter to six o'clock. CORRESPONDENCE. THE BISHOPS AND THE TRACTS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. SIR.—Not having seen in your paper any notice of the Bishop of Ossory's primary charge, it occurred to me that a few words on the main points set forth in it might not prove unwelcome either to your readers or yourself : there are many, doubtless, among the former, who, though not likely to procure or peruse the charge for themselves, would be glad of the opportunity of seeing an outline of its contents. The well-known power and perspicuity of the writer's mind, his sound judgment and habitual caution, the weight of his personal chatacter and the dignity of his office, all combine, together with the topics on which he treats, to lend a more than ordinary interest to this charge, recently published. The tracts on " Reserve" and the notorious No. xc. are especially dealt with : while a valuable sketch of the rise, progress, and tendency of the entire move ment is faithfully and succinctly presented with all the solemn authority that belongs to such an address. A line in your " Notices to Correspondents" will de termine whether you may hear again from, Sir, Yours, Scc., . A. M. Liverpool, August 27, 1843. [We have heard sufficient of this admirable charge to induce us to wish most earnestly to present its principal features to our readers ; and we therefore receive with joy our correspondent's communication, and shall, insert with pleasure his future favours.] COMMITMENTS TO THE SESSIONS.—On Thursday a boy named James M'Ginn was committed for trial for stealing a shirt, value 2s. 6d., out of the sale shop of Mr. Thomas Higginson, pawnbroker, Park.lane. He ran off with the article, but dropped it on being observed in the street, and pursued.—On Friday, Patrick Bryan, a boy who had come out of jail the previous day, was committed for stealing a pair of boots, value £1 55., from a shop in Dale-street. Also, a woman, named Catherine O'Neill, (who had an infant in her arms,) was committed for trial for stealing a pair of boots from the shop of Mr. Ileyes, pawnbroker, where she had gone to price them. FEATHER-DRESSING MACHINE.—An entirely novel, and certainly unique, contrivance for restoring old and dressing new feathers has recently been introduced into this town, by /Messrs. Lee and Co. We had the pleasure of seeing it in operation a few days since. It consists of a large cylinder, in the interior of which are several arms, which work not unlike the devil !n a cotton factory, tear ing the feathers asunder, and keeping them in continual motion, while the heat emitted from a large coke fire under the cylinder, which is constantly revolving, com pletely disinfects and expands them far beyond' their original bulk.—See Adverlisement. POLICE CHARGES OF DRUNK-AND-DISORDERLY.-- We have frequently had occasion to remark that the mass of the police-officers, in preferring a charge of " disor derly" conduct against any individual, appear to deem it necessary to prefix, on almost all occasions, the little monosyllable " drunk," on the supposition, apparently, that it would scarcely be credited that a man would be violent unless he were inebriated. The constant recur rence of the double charge has on many occasions—when parties quite as respectable as police-officers have utterly denied the drunken portion of it at least—often brought ourselves and others to suspect that the practice is a ra ther sharp one ; and we had an instance at the police court yesterday which confirms a very general opinion that (as has been remarked in one of the newspapers) the words are " stereotyped" on a policeman's tongue. A clerk to an attorney was brought up and charged by In spector Brown with having been " drunk and disorderly," and the witness added that he had consequently committed him to Rose-hill Bridewell. The defendant (who was perfectly sober) denied that he was any more drunk than at that moment, and appealed to the Bride well. keeper, Edward Keenan, whether he was or not. Keenan said that he was not drunk when brought there. Mr. Rushton asked the keeper why then he had entered him in the book as drunk as well as disorderly. The witness said that he had before refused to receive a charge of drunkenness and disorder from an inspector, the person given in charge not being, in his opinion, drunk, and that he was, in consequence of such refusal, brought be fore the police committee, and told that he must receive and write down the charge, whatever it was, from his su perior officer. Mr. Rushton said that no bridewell keeper ought to do so unless he himself saw that the man was obviously drunk. If such a charge was given by an inspector as that under consideration, he ought to write in his book, "charged by with being drunk and dis orderly; but Ido not believe him to be drunk." The de fendant in this case was then discharged. THE WORKHOUSE.—We direct at'ention to a report in our paper of this day of a case of aggravated assault on the governor and another officer of our Workhouse, into which the tender mercies of the new poor-law have at length found their way, and though not yet to their full extent, in a manner sufficiently to show that that heart less enactment never can be brought into full play in the town of Liverpool, wherever else it may be tolerated. Here we have an instance of a pauper, refractory and out rageous we admit, but nevertheless a human being in des titution, labouring under disease, and consequently enti tled to some modicum of the humanities of our common and sinful nature. He had been confined in gaol for re fractory and threatening condnct for fourteen days, during which he was in the gaol hospital, and having no means of living, returned to the workhouse. He stated at once that he was " past labour," from the disease that hung upon him, and that two surgeons out of doors had so affirmed. But no examination whatever of his person was made : he was pronounced fit for work ; and the new governor (for the administration of the new poor law) on hearing of his return, exclaimed (by his own account) " What ! the notorious Smith come back again 1 send him to break stones." A hammer was then put into the man's hands, and he was told that he would be punished if he did not work. Being, as must be admitted, a despe- - rate character, and exasperated at such treatment, he st ruck the officer, and afterwards the governor, with the dangerous weapon, and was proceeded against for a mur derou: assault, though it appears, from the evidence of the surgeon of the gaol, that the blows were not dangerous to life, and alleged, that he in reality was still labouring under disease which would be aggravated by the work he was ordered to commence. His being sent to break stones was certainly no palliation for so savage an assault ' • but why should a man who had undergone punishment for a former offence, and had legally purged himself of it by undergoing it, be received and treated on his return to the house as a criminal? Why was he not examined es to his infirmity, and treated accordingly? We can devine no reply that can be made, but that the new poor law contemplates poverty as a crime, and adjudges all who seek relief under it to a measure of irksome and degrading labour, which shall compel them to one or other of the alternatives—begging, stealing, or, as in this instance, to desperate revenge. As the magistrate properly remarked, character, in a case of want and illness, ought not to be taken into consideration. If he and we (who accord with him on this point) be not mistaken in our position, the case is one which, we think, the Poor-law Commissioners are bound thoroughly to investigate, for the benefit of the public. Of the general working of the poor-law act so far, in this town, we have only to say that it is already driving the poor wholesale from the establishment. Al though there is little or no improvement in the market for employment, the inmates are already reduced by about 400; and if the system be persisted in, there will be no need for the erection of the contemplated build ings on a larger scale. So stringent are the rules, that in a short time it will be deserted by all but the utterly helpless ; and the town, inundated by persons struggling in desperation for a living, will be more grievously burthened for the prosecution of criminals than for the support of paupers. THE CURRANT Caops.—Advices from Cephalonia, Zante, Ithaca, and Patras reach down to the sth of Au gust. The crops are likely to be under the usual average from the dryness of the season. The collectorship of the customs of Bristol, vacant by the superannuation of Thomas Morris, Esq., has been conferred on the late assistant-secretary to the Board of Customs, John Ker, Esq. WILL OF COL. FAWCETT.—The will of this gentleman has just been proved in Doctors' Commons'. The pro perty is sworn under £3OOO. The following remarkable sentence occurs :—" In the event of the death of myself and my said wife at the same period of time, from acci dent or unforseen causes," &C. THE QUEEN'S SPEECH AND REPEAL. —In pursuance of a regular summons, a cabinet council was held into on Sa turday. at Mr. O'Connell's non-official residence in Mer rion•square, for the pu r p ose of takin g consideration such paragraphs of the Royal speech as had reference to the repeal sedition at present organized in Ireland, and to found a report thereon. DEATH FROM CUTTING A CORN. — Died, on the 17th instant, aged 64, Mr. Richard Herbert, of Beaconsfield. About ten weeks since deceased cut a corn on his fobt till it bled; he neglected it, and inflamation ensued. This confined him to his bed fo r a b ou t s i x wee k s , w h e n a fatal termination took place from mortification.—Aylesbury News. REPEAL INTIMIDATION.—The Newry Teleyraqh states that many Protestants in the neighbourhood of Keady, in the county of Armagh, are joining the repeal ranks through fear, in consequence of the organization of the repeaters, and their method of recognition by cards is sued from Dublin ; but, above all, in the absence of Military to protect the loyal and right-hearted. - - SYDNEY SHIPPING.—The number of vessels arrived at Sydney, New South Wales, from the Ist of January to the 31st of March, this year, amounted to 119, whose united burdens made 26,813 tons, by which 1,645 passen gers had arrived. The departures during the same period were, 128 vessels, the aggregate burdens of which amount ed to 21,833 tons, and the number of passengers was 1.232. Two young Englishmen, driven by want to commit a highway robbery near Salbris, in France, were tried, on the 22nd, at Blois. The jury, their youth and repentance, and the t c e z c u r s t ted it as much ashwich the crime was perpetra d t„et;,,ecex,l the eldest to only taking . into csonneseisdeurnt:ier possible ; and the CourLse d the other to fi fteen months. two years' imprisonment,