The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-05 00:00:00

GatAt SALE OF CAUILIAGES.—We beg to cirawaitentio: to Messrs. Lucas's great annual sale of carriages and harness which will take place to-morrow at the Repository. Thi sale exceeds in number of lots that of last year : it comprise 250 lots. There are 50 lots of harness. A great number o the vehicles are quite new and very elegant, and all taste, may be suited. PERU AND BOLIVIA.—The intelligence received on Tuesday at Liverpool of the complete defeat of Gamarra and the Pe. ruvian army in Bolivia comes confirmed by the official detail: of this decisive action. The bulletin of the Bolivian army, printed in Paz de Ayacucho, and dated November 25, con. tains a lengthened account of the operations of the two armies previous to the battle, with the complete relation of the manceuvrtes and circumstances attending the battle itself. It appears, that since the former advices published under this head, Gamarra, The President of Lower Peru, and Commander-in-Chief of the invading .army, had advanced to and occupied the city of La Paz, whence be subsequently pushed forward to, and occupied, a position at Viacha, a vil lage five leagues in advance, which he proceeded to fortify. In the mean time General Ballivian, the newly elected President Of Bolivia, was collecting forces from various parts around his head-quarters Sicasica, in order to make head against the foe, and at length, on the 13th, having received all the reinforcements available, commenced his march and preparations for attack, at the head of less than 3,800 men, upon the enemy whdse force, according to the muster-roll found afterwards, ascended to 5,200. On the 18th the de cisive battle was fought at Ingavi, close to Viacha. The Bolivian forces, though the least numerous, were the assail ants. and from the first were victorious on all points. Such was the impetuosity of their attack that the two wings of Gamarra's army were instantly broken and put to rout, the centre still stood firm, when Ballivian brought up his reserve and artillery for a final charge. This was successful and decisive. Gamarra was killed fighting in the midst of his men, and Castillo, the second in command, with 24 other superior officers, 159 subordinate officers, and 3,200 troops, were taken prisoners. The operations before, with his skilful manteuvres, courage and coolness during the action, of which the bulletin drawn up by the chief of his staff affords ample evidence, serve to stamp Ballivian as one of the most able commanders yet produced in the course of the intermi nable revolutions of Spanish America. His chief of the staff, General Sagarnaga, who at the head of the right wing charged and routed the left of the enemy, greatly distinguished him self also. Private accounts state that after the-action General Ballivian commenced his march upon Arica, Arequipa Puno , and Cuzco, previous to ente r i ng upon negotiations for peace with the L ower ' Peruvia% republic. MERSEY AND IRWELL DOCKS. --FIRST ARRIVAL OF A FOREIGN LADEN VESSEL.--It is always gratifying to us to notice any extension of the port and trade of Runcorn. For many years the Irish and coasting trade has been of consider able and growing importance at this port ; but on Friday of last week, the 'AlerseyAtndirwell docks welcomed their first vessel from the Continent. The " Marie - Agnetc," a tine schooner from Norway, arrived with an entire cargo of Chro mate Iront imported by i4lessrs. W. Dentith and Co., mer chants, Manchester, and notwithstanding the attempts of some interested parties in Liverpool, to deter the captain from coming up the .river to Runcorn, he has expressed himself so much pleased with the dock accommodation and facilities afforded him here, that we may look for a succession of fo reign vessels at Runcorn. The only impediments to the transhipment of the cargo proceeded from Liverpool, which have caused such a searching investigation, that we are quite sure it will not be good policy of Liverpool to manifest any jealousy of the rising port of Rnncorn, by opposing vexatious obstructions to vessels trading to this place.—Manchester Courier.—[Our contemporary appears to imagine that the people of Liverpool entertain a very unworthy jealousy of " the rising ports of Runcorn" and Manchester. We really have no wish to offer any impediments to such seagoing cock boats as can be accommodated and " pleased with the dock accommodation " provided for them at Runcorn or Man chester. On the contrary, if they will only telegraph us in passing we will undertake that a landing waiter (for the want of which, we presume, the impediment in question occurred) shall be forwarded up the river with all possible despatch, to attend upon our good neighbours' " entire cargoes," whether of chromate of iron, or any other com modity. We assure the Courier that our noble river has no more fear of rivalry from the Irwell than from any other muddy ditch whose waters it bears to the ocean. Why will our contemporary make himself so ridiculous ?—Ed L. S.] ABDUCTION CASE [The following appeared in a third edition of the STAN DARD on Friday.] CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE THIS DAY. The case was resumed this day at two o'clock. The court was again crowded with auditors, curiosity being on tiptoe to hear the result,—it being fully expected that the proceed ings would, at this sitting, be brought to a close. On the bench, with Mr. Rushton, sat Messrs. H. Horuby, Wm. Brown, Booth, T. Rathbone, J. Aiki n , J osep h H orn b y, Councill ors Kilshaw, Cooper, Jordan, and others. Mr. Rushton enquired of Mr. Grocott whether be pro posed to call any witness in behalf of his client, and he said he did not intend it. To the question, Mr. Davenport also replied in the negative. Mr. R. then said that be would not put the names of the other witnesses who might now be called on the back of the indictment. It. was necessary that they should be present, in order to identify the prisoners, or any of them, and such witnesses might be cross-examined for the prisoners. He then enquired whether either Mr. Grocott or Mr. Daven port were engaged for Duval. They severally replied that they were not. An officer came into court and stated that he had been to Dr. Dryden's,—(examined yesterday,)--and found that gen tleman dressed, and lying in bed ; that he stated he was so ill that he could not attend, and that he had been on the way to the court but found himself so ill that he was obliged to return home. He wished witness to request the court to send a medical gentleman to see him, and certify to his state of health. Mr. Rushton appeared to be satisfied that Dr. D. was unable to appear. Considerable delay then took place, and at a quarter to three the witnesses were brought into court, and the seven prisoners, who were brought up on the previ ous day, were again placed at the bar, with the addition of George Wm. Duval, who had been taken into custody on Thursday. Mr. Rushton addressing Duval, said, he had been taken into custody in consequence of the evidence affecting him, which he would read..t.a. him- One of the witnesses could not attend to-day from illness, but he would have an op portunity of cross-examining him on a future occasion. The other evidence affecting him was that of Miss Crellin herself, and some others, and these might be cross-ques tioned.. Mr. R. then read the evidence of Miss Crellin, Dr. Dryden, and having completed it, said that it appeared from it .that he (Duval) had been engaged in the matter from the commencement, that he was mixed up with it throughout, and had aided and abetted the other parties in the trans action. If he wished to say anything he might do so, but in doing so, he (the prisoner) must be cautious in what he should say. Mr. Ducal declined to say anything at that stage of the proceedings. _ _ Mr. Rushton then asked Will, with the usual caution, what he had to say. He declined saying anything. then. Mr. Quick said the manner in which the prosecution had been conducted was most unjust and disgraceful towards him. He had no knowledge of Miss Crellin for more than six days, nor had not seen her till after she was at St. Paul's Church. He had no knowledge of her going to Egremont, and had only gone to Rogerson's to see a sick child. He considered it very hard that he should be taken and kept in custody, as he had taken no part in anything improper. Jones (the man) and Mrs. Jones, his wife. said nothing. Mrs. Clayton said,—l accompanied Miss Crellin and Mr. M`Gill to Scotland, at the request of both. 1 went to bed in the next room on the night of the marriage, as I shall prove on my trial. I was called up by Miss Crellin in the morning part. She knocked me up and requested I would come to her. My door was locked. I put on my clothes and went. She complained of great pain in her finger from the tight ness of the ring. It was much swollen. She requested me to take it off; and I bathed her hand in cold water,and tried to take it off, but could not. Her husband asked her to go back to bed, saying that the swelling would fall before morn ing, and he would then take it off. I was never in bed with them, and what she said on that was ill-founded. The ring was got off next morning. It was filed off, and a large one put on. She wore that ring as long as I remained with her — till we came to Liverpool, and appeared to be quite satisfied. That is all I have to say respecting the marriage. With respect to the £2O, I had nothing to do with the transaction. What it was said I stated to Mr. Dowling is not correct. The police-officer himself contradicted the statement, and it was ungentlemanly in Mr. Dowling to bring it up. Mr. RusHTON asked Mrs. Clayton whether she had any thing more to say ?_ _ Mrs. Clayton.—Not anything at present, sir. Mr Rushton then addressed the prisoner James Dunlevie, and said that under all the circumstances of the case, and considering that there was some doubt of his being con cerned in the second part of the transaction, namely, the taking away of Miss Crellin to Gretna Green, he would ad mit him to bail. He must enter into his own recognizance of £lOO and two sureties of £25 each to appear to answer the charge in that court when called upon, and also into fur ther recognizances to answer any indictment that might be preferred against him. Mr. Davenport urged, on the part of Mrs. Jones, that she had act e d i n t hi s matter un d er t h e di rect i o n s of herhusband. Mr. Rushton said no bail could be taken for Mrs. Jones, as she had been proved to have frequently acted distinctly from her husband. Mr. Grocott applied on the part of Rogerson, contending that there was but little difference between his case and that of Dr. Dryden. Mr. Rushton said Rogerson could not, under any circum stances, be admitted to bail. Mr. Snowball applied for the immediate committal of the prisoners. Mr. Rushton replied that he could not consent to that, because he thought the prisoners ought to have an opportu nity of cross-examining the witnesses before their names were put on the back of an indictment. Mr. Grocott reminded the court that the borough sessions were approaching; they would be held on the 14th. Mr. Rushton.—l am afraid it will be impossible to commit them in time for the sessions—if indeed I commit them for trial there at all. Mr. Snowball said if they were committed to the sessions it would be impossible to prepare the case as it ought to be. Mr. Rushton would not commit them upon any considera tion at present. , Some conversation then took place between Mr. Rushton and Mr. Snowball, as to who should prosecute. The Court saying that the corporation prosecutor must undertake it, and Mr. Snowball stating that Miss Crellin was anxious that he should prosecute, especially as he was engaged in taking proceedings to set aside the alleged marriage. This matter was eventually settled by Mr. Rushton observing that it would be easily arranged out of court. The prisoner Rogerson hereexpressed hisdesire to say a few Words in the hope of inducing the court to admit hlm to bail. He said he had never taken the slightest part by way of advising or planning, in this matter, and that he had al ways behaved with the greatest respect towards Miss Crellin. He had six young children and a wife depending upon him for support, and unless he were admitted to bail, this cir cumstance would be the entire destruction of his family. Mr. Rushton said he should have thought of his family before; at present he could not be bailed. The case, how. 'ever, would be further investigated, and if any circumstances .came out likely to alter his opinion, he would give them his 'best eousideration, but he could make no promise. Mr. Grocott.—May the prisoners see their friends ? Mr. Rushton.—l cannot make any such order; but they `may see their legal advisers. The prisoners were then remanded till Fr ida y next, a t one Vclock. The court was crowded to excess during the whole of the ;proceedings. SEVERE BUT JUST PUNISHMENT—Wm. Whatoff` charged r 'lt the L e i cester A ss i zes w i t h t h rea t en ing to accuse several ;"Peetable persons of infamous crimes unless they sent him ..1 ,.7er, was sentenced to transportation for life, the Learned ge (Williams) justly remarking, that the pr i son ers offence c ° o l r elbended the murder of ;character, which to a man ;of munour .and fine feelings was dearer to him than life. Te high sheriff f New So - u - th - we lea by the last lelvi h ces ey, has committ e d suicide rn . Pecuniary u ffficulties ape assigned as the reason. TIIE IRON TRADE.—SOUTH WALES.—Of the 113 fur nacese in blast in this district, sixty- one are on f u ll make, and fifty-one at the reduction of 25 per cent. The average weekly ? h ake is not given, but may be taken at eighty-five tons— tus giving an aggregate make of 6000 tons weekly, or 468,000 os.per annum. 111EATRE-ROYAL We briefly announced; in our publication of Tuesday last, that Shakspeare's play of " A Midsummer Night's Dream " had been produced on the previous evening. Those who are conversant with this exquisite creation of the poet's fancy must have at all times been fully atvare of the difficulty that exists in putting it effectively on the stage. The student, with a fervent love of the immortal author, feels, while he pores over the pages, his own imagination glow, and create pictures wherein the fairies revel and sport in all their ethe rial brightness. He will depict them as diminutive creatures with graceful and fragile forms, well suited to attend to Ti tania's bidding —beings that can `'Hang a pearl in every cowslip's ear." When the student sees theie fairies appear before him on the stage, good flesh and blood, of stature like his own, instead of being small enough to " Creep into acorn cups, and hide them there,' • he cannot but feel disappointed that his own conception is not worked out. If we cannot have talented people of fairy like size, we must be content to find them as they are, more especially when we imeet with them capable of understanding rightly and appreciating the great bard's silver-toned num- That " A Midsummer Night's Dream " has been better put on the stage than on the present occasion, we doubt. It has never been excelled, or perhaps equalled, in the provin ces, we may safely affirm—whether for novelty and beauty of the scenery, appropriateness of costume, or care in the general getting up. " A Midsummer Night's Dream," as a play, is not want ing in interest; but it reads better than it acts. There are in it four plots, if they may be so called : there is one in which Hippolyta and Theseus are concerned ; one in which Hermia and Lysander, .Demetrius and Helena, are engaged ; another wherein we become acquainted with the fairies, and lastly with those droll fellows the " hard-handed men which never laboured in their minds till now." The play is strange, wild, and irregular. Although the scene is laid at Athens and its neighbourhood, we find events detailed by Plutarch, Ovid, and Virgil, mixed up with the fairy tales of early English time, made racy by the introduction of Manager Quince and his operative company. But what of this strange mixture of character ? We are too much delighted with the playfulness of Puck, the philosophy of Theseus, the spark ling and exquisite imagery of Oberon, and the humour and simplicity of the actors, to care about the mode in which it is conveyed to us. We take it as it is, and feel thankful that such a drama adorns our country's literature. There is in the " Midsummer Night's Dream " an airi ness, an etheriality, in the treatment of the subject. It re nds one of a garden spangled all over with flowers : stoop where we will, we cannot but pluck one of surpassing beauty. The working out of the story is singularly felicitous and in genious ; and though we are not kept in snspense as to the result, the mind is held captive, and feels interested from the opening to the close. Having thus briefly mentioned the play itself, we now turn to notice it as placed before us by Mr. Hammond. The first scene represents a view of Athens, frorp the colonnade in the palace of Theseus. In the distance is the proud City of Minerva, the seat of ancient literature and fine art; to the right is the Temple of Jupiter, the plain stretching widely to the left; the middle ground is occupied by a lake. In the foreground we see the cupola of a portion of Theseus' palace, statuary and gardens occupying the stage. The next scene worthy of notice is the " Fairy Haunt." Here we are in troduced to the rulers and subjects of Fairyland. Some very beautiful groups are formed ; after which, the scene changes to " Titania's Bower," painted by Messrs. Parker and John son. Some very striking dioramic effects are produced in a scene entitled " A Wood near Athens." It is first shown by moonlight, and afterwards by sunlight. A purling brook occupies the right of the stage, an old and thickly-foliaged tree the middle, and to the left is a sloping bank leading to a thick green alley, through which the light appears to stream. In this scene is a well-conceived and cleverly-executed dance of fairies. Some pretty groups are here formed. One is remarkable for its novelty and effect : we allude to that in which Oberon, standing in the centre, appears by means of scarfs as if in the midst bf a party-coloured shell. The " Hall in the palace of Theseus" is very chastely designed and well executed. This scene is by Mr. Johnson. In it the episode of " Pyramus and Thisbe " is performed. The last scene is very novel : the background is occupied by the palatial halls of Theseus, brilliantly lighted; in the middle of the stage is an illuminated gallery, thronged with the fairies, holding various-coloured lamps in their hands, wbo, by continually passing to and fro, produce a curious and pleasing effect. At the conclusion, the scene is lit up by coloured fires, and is magnificent. • We can hardly estimate the labour in the getting up of this play, but the expense may easily be calculated as being con siderable. Mr. W. J. Hammond bas put all his energy to work, and, we must say, succeeded in placing one of Shak speare's finest plays before the public in a manner that re flects the highest credit on his talent and ingenuity. A great outcry is always raised for the legitimate drama. It is now placed before the public in a style totally unprece dented out of London; a large sum of money has been laid out, labour both of mind and body has been expended, and what is the consequence ? Here we have Shakspeare's most fanciful and beautiful play acted admirably, and for the first time, with splendid scenery and appointments, and none will go to see it!—and yet we believe the Amphitheatre has been crammed 1- Yankee mountebanks versus Shakspeare—John Bull presiding as judge and jury —verdict for the plaintiffs! Talk of public taste !—it makes one sick to think on 't. We now speak of the acting. Miss Gardner looks Oberon extremely well : her handsomely-formed figure is displayed to advantage. She sings the difficult recitations and airs with great sweetness, expression, and ability. The duet with Miss Honner, " I know a bank," has been encored every night. The glee, "Ye spotted snakes," has been ex cellently given by Mr. Travers, Messrs. Lunt, and Miss Honner. Miss Honner, as the " first fairy," sang abomi nably out of tune on Monday. She has improved since. Her opening air, " Over hill, over dale," would be better if sung more carefully and with greater spirit. Mrs. Barton, as the " second fairy," moves about really like one. She sang on Friday the recitative, " Lo ! Night's swift dragons," and air, " But we are spirits of another sort," very sweetly. Miss Ellen Chaplin has greatly improved since she was last here _ She played Titania very steadily. Miss Bennett gave the impassioned language of Helena with fervour and pathos. On two or three occasions she drew loud plaudits from the audience. Miss Cleaver acted Hermia very cleverly, giving great expression to the language. Mr. Nantz appears likely to please: he-possesses good figure and voice :. he - reeitea, as my Lord Ogilby says, with " good emphasis and discre tion." Puck was very leverly and humorously personated by Miss Webster. As for the " hard-banded men,"—Bot tom (Mr. W. J. Hammond), Quince (Mr. Baker), Flute (Mr. Slaiter), Snug (Mr. T. Lee), Snout (Mr. Vivash), and Starveling (Mr. Bellingham),—they carried all before them. We have seldom heard such shouts of laughter as " - Pyramus and Thisbe" elicited. Baker's Quince was inimitable : his delivery of the prologue was very rich. Mr. Lee's Lion not only set the " spectators on to laugh," but those on the stage could not restrain from a broad grin. Mr. Hammond, as Bottom the Weaver, played admirably throughout. When wearing the ass's head, his comical voice and odd appearance set the house fairly in a roar. His Pyramus was extremely laughable. Mr. Mude as Theseus, and Mrs. Baker as Hippolyta, had little to do, but that was done well. Indeed, all parties seemed to exert themselves to the utmost to make the play go well. It is altogether a very fine production, and reflects great credit on the ma- nagement DISASTROUS FLOOD AT DERBY Great devastation of property has been occasioned at Derby by a sudden and tremendous inundation which. occurred on Friday morning last. Between 1 and 2 o'clock the water of the brook which runs through the town, owing to the heavy fall of rain in the night, overflowed its boundary walls, and ran about one foot deep into the neighbouring streets ; an alarm was instantly given by the night police, but the flood swelled so rapidly that they were soon driven ftom their stations. The rain came down a complete deluge, and as the culverts of the brook course in Victoria-street would not admit one-third of the waters that rushed along them, all the lower streets were speedily inundated, and two rapid currents were soon formed by the flood ; one running down Cheapside, the Wadwick, and Victoria -streets, the other along Willow-row, Bold-lane, and Saddler-gate ; these streams met " fast and furious " in the Corn-market, where by 3 o'clock the inundation was at least six feet deep ; it thence forced its way through Thorntree- lane and every yard and avenue which led to the river Derwent. About four the rain abated, and at sunrise the flood was gradually lowering. As it was market-day and Easthy fair, it was impossible to describe the confusion which existed among the inhabitants and the country people who were crowding to the town with their various wares. It is a melancholy circumstance that this disaster has been attended with a loss of human life : a poor woman, named Ingram, fell into the flood, at the back of her residence, in Upper Brook -street, about. 6 o'clock ' • and in about hall an hour afterwards she was found quite dead by her husband. Several other persons have been seriously, but not dangerously, injured. Many 'horses, cows, calves, and pigs, have been drowned ; and the gentlemen and tradesmen residing in the streets visited by the flood have sustained great damage in their houses and furniture, &c. Great loss has also been suffered by the shop keepers in the Corn-market, whose premises on the ground floor were inundated to the height of four feet. The draw ing-room of Mr. Joseph Strutt's house among others was completely flooded. The solid stone bridge near St. John's church was partly destroyed, and the most compact masonry seemed unable in some parts of the town to resist the rush of waters. In the afternoon business was resumed, and the principal streets which had been inundated were again passable, No accurate estimate can yet be formed of the damage sustained, bnt the amount must be something serious. It is supposed that, as the flood rose to such a fearful extent in two or three hours, a water-spout must have burst over the town. The following letter, dated Ist of April, has been addressed by a respestable inhabitant of Derby, to a gentleman in this town : " All yesterday it was raining in torrents, and almost in cessantly, which continued with equal violence until about three o'clock this morning, when the town had a most awful appearance. You will be able to form an idea when I tell you, that it nearly came in at our shop door, which you are aware is in a very high situation; it stood four feet in Mr. James Strutt's dining-room, and six feet in the Sadler-gate. The cellars and ground floors of the principal inns have suf fered very much ; in fact there is not an inn in the town fit to go into ; all the shops in the Corn-market are closed, and have circulated hand-bills, promising to open their shops in the course of next week, to dispose of their damaged goods. Messrs. Massey, Mr. Sale, Messrs. Cooke, Mr. Walton, Mr. Wild, Mr. tiellaby, Mr. Huggins, Mr. Wallis, and se veral others, are very considerable losers ; many pigs, and a great quantity of cattle were swept away. You may think I am exaggerating, but upon my soul I thought we were all going together. The worst part of the story is yet to be told, that 4, the loss of life. I understand three people were drowned, among whom was a poor woman, drowned in her own house, in the Willow-row. There has been a great many accidents also in Ashbourne, attended with the loss of several lives." TIIE BANK' or ENGLAND.—The usual average . return . under the old act of the liabiliti es a nd assets of the Bank of England, embracing the period from the 4th of January to the 29th of March, both inclusive, which appeared iu Friday night's Gazette, g i ves th e f o ll ow i ng resu lts, viz.:—" That the average of the 13 weeks ending the 29th March, as com pared with the average o f th e 13 wee k s ending the 4th of January, shows An increase in the circulation of .. 320,000 An increase in th e d e p os it s o f 709,000 An increase in the stock of bullion of Wherefore it appears t h at t h e i ncrease i n t h e liabilities is £ 1 ,029,000, and this represents the increase in the total quantity of mon e y i n t h e 13 wee k s en di ng t h e 29th of March, as compared with the 13 weeks ending the 4th of January, in so far as regards the administration of the currency by the Bank of England. The yearly comparison is as follows: The average of the 13 weeks ending the 29th of March, 1842, as compared with the 13 weeks ending the 30th of March, 1841, shows An increase in the circulation of 415,000 An increase in the deposits 0f.... An increase in the stock of bullion of Wherefore it appears that the increase in the liabilities is £1,860,000, and this represents the increase in the total quantity of money in the 13 weeks ending the 29th of March, 18 as compared w i t h . the 13 weeks ending the 30th of 42, March, 1841, in so far as regards the administration of the currency by the Bank of England." ANIMAL MAGNEMM. On Friday evening a lecture was given at the Medical Hair by Mons. La Fontaine, who some time ago appeared before the Liver pool public. But very few persons were present ; amongst them were several medical gentlemen. We noticed Mr. Nottingham, Mr. Brett, Mr. Currie, &c. Mr. La Fontaine delivered his lecture in the French language, Mr. Le Febre, Mr. Nottingham, and other gentlemen occasionally interpreting. Mr. La Fontaine stated, that from the interruptions he had met with the last time he appeared in this town, and the misrepresentation he had undergone, he came forward on the present occasion, in the hope of setting himself right on the subject of animal magnetism. He had lately lectured in Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, with great success, and had there been listened to with politeness and attention, and those who did not believe, at any rate refrained from interrupting. He had restored the blind to sight at Birmingham —as was stated in the papers of that town—and at Leeds he had performed several cures. A young 1 ady was here introduced, upon whom the experi ments were to be performed. Mr. La Fontaine, in continuation, said that animal magnetism was a phenomenon of which we could not as yet give any explanation ; we could only shew the effects, and he did so on the present instance that medical men might apply it to their patients. Mr. La Fontaine now proceeded to mesmerise the patient, and in the course of a few minutes he placed her in a state of somnolency. Mr. La Fontaine's mode differed from Mr. Braid's. although the principle is no doubt the same, both fixing the patient's eyes on an object—Mr. Braid held up his lancet ease—Mr. La Fontaine kept the patient's eyes rivetted on his own. The lec turer said he should divide his lecture into three portions. He would first experimentalize on the subject before them; he would then answer any questions asked; and thirdly, would perform on any person present. If any one intended to interrupt him he would beg them to retire. He begged that the judgment would be sus pended until they had seen his examples. At this stage of the pro ceedings two or three individuals, who instead of coming to listen, evidently made their appearance for the purpose of throwing an air of ridicule over the proceedings, indulged in unseemly and rude laughter, which the lecturer checked by stating that he was not to be put down by grimaces. Heuppealed to the good sense of the meeting, whether he should not be allowed to go on without inter ruption. Mr. La Fontaine said, that at Birmingham lie was listened to with great attention, and societies bad there, as well as in Man chester, been formed for the purpose of investigating the subject. Dr. Leveson and Dr. Elkington had both been present, who were sceptics. Dr. Leveson had been sent to sleep under the magnetic influence. An observation was here made that the patient appeared sleepy before she came into the mom. Mr. La Fontaine said, if he had previous to the lecture drugged his patients with opium or other narcotics, how could they speak, act, or walk at his bidding? Mr. Currie here stepped on the stage and commenced feeling the patient's pulse. lie declared it to be 102. Considerable confusion took place in consequence of several persons putting questions to the lecturer, and some unseemly demonstration occurring from several parties,— Mr. NOTTINGHAM begged the meeting to give Mr. La Fontaine a fair hearing. He was deserving of it at their hands, not only for the sake of science but as a foreigner. The LECTURER said, that while questions were put to him so thickly, from the left and the right, it was impossible to go on. Mr. NOTTINGHAM suggested that Mr. La Fontaine should meet them on another evening, and that it should be understood that he was to be allowed then to go on without interruption. Mr. Currie then stuck pins in the patient's legs, arms, and head, but no symptoms of pain were exhibited. He also tickled the soles of her feet, without the slightest indication of annoyance being felt. She was partly demesmerised, and again milgnetised,, until thrown into slight convulsions. She was then dernesnicrised. Her arms and shoulders were then thrown into a cataleptic state, when experiments were tried with a galvanic battery. A great deal of interruption took place, when the lecturer begged that on Tuesday (he having previously announced that he would meet the present company on that day, giving them a free admission) some medical men would bring the blind, deaf, and dumb, and allow him to operate upon them. He had that day operated on a man at the infirmary who had been troubled with the rheumatism, and had enabled him to lift up his arm, which he had long lost the use of. The patient, on being tried with the galvanic test, said she felt the shock in her shoulder, her arms only being mesmerised. Mr Currie here appeared sceptical as to the administration of the shock being so forcible as it was supposed, but be contented himself with the doubt, rather than testing the effect of the shock. Mr. LA FONTAINE asked if Mr. Currie had ever galvanised a corpse. • He must be aware that the arms were thrown up in a con vulsed state A very irregular conversation then ensued, the upshot of which was, that Mr. La Fontaine selected a gentleman out of the audience to try his powers upon. Mr. Currie whispered something in the ears of the party, which Mr. La Fontaine requested might be spoken up. After some hesitation, the gentleman stated that Mr. Currie told him not to shut his eyes unless he was asleep. Mr. La Fontaine said if he succeeded with him he peed not fear that, for he should not take that trouble. After a lapse of fifteen minutes no effect was pro dared, and Mr. L. said he could not succeed with him. He could not succeed with every body. Mr. CURRIE said he had considered the subject, and that he came there with an idea that animal magnetism was absurd, arid nothing he had seen that night had tended to alter his opinion. A gentleman, who appeared in a great bustle and excitement, at tempted to move a resolution, to the effect that the meeting con sidered the subject a humbug, but it was rejected unanimously, and an amendment of adjournment proposed. We may here remark, that the young lady (a native of Man chester) held her legs in one position, namely, extended, for 1 hour and 38 minutes, until they were demesmerised. Another meeting will take place this evening. [As public journalists, we have devoted some space to this subject, but without implying our belief or disbelief in the matter. We were present at a private meeting at the George Hotel last night, at which Mr. La Fontaine magnetised one of the servants of the establishment, and placed her in a somnolent and cataleptic state, She presented precisely the same appearances as the young lady at the lecture on Friday evening. Mr. La Fontaine also operated upon a person who, we believe, is connected with the Apotheca ries' Company. lie stated that he did not feel any effects, except a sleepy sensation, and that he could have roused himself at any time. He, however, presented all the appearances of a person in a deep sleep. He described Mr. La Fontaine's action of pass. ing his hands down his face as if pins were slightly pricking him-. -krt. L. S TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, St a,—lf, in your next publication, you should have space which could be devoted to this subject without excluding more important matter, I shall feel obliged by the insertion, of a few remarks. It appears to me that nothing which stands in connection with mes merism or the magnetizers is more obvious than the fact that one of the leading features of the business is stage display and effect ; and that the travelling professors who favour us with their visits would seem to think that they cannot in any other way so com pletely convince their auditors of any assertion they may please to make as by producing some extraordinary or shocking exhibition in connection with it, apparently thinking that the truth of their systems can only be demonstrated by the miracles they themselves are able to work. Opinions have been offered respecting the moral or non-moral tendency of animal magnetism. On this subject, however, I would rather be silent, having seen but few of such exhibitions. Those I have witnessed would not induce me to think that the mesmeric stage was better than any other. Mesmerism appears to have met with much ill luck in Liverpool of late, which may, perhaps, be partly attributed to want of power in the miracle workers who now introduce it,—they do not seem to go sufficiently far; for those who have attended to the literature of the subject, even as far as its teaching in Liverpool is concerned, must be aware that they are little better than the shadows of their predecessors in the last century. As a proof of the great difference between that which is done now and the things done before, we may introduce the following extract, which is the title-page of a book, printed for the author, and entered in Stationer's Hall in 1792 "THE GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PRINCIPLES ANIMAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM, &c., in which are found Dr. Bell's Secrets and Practice, as delivered to his pupils, in Paris, London, Dublin, Bristol, Gloucester, Worcester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Shrewsbury, Chester, Liverpool, Manchester, &c. &c. Showing how to magnetize and cure different diseases, to pro duce crises, as well as somnambulism, or sleep-walking; and in that state of sleep to make a person eat, drink, walk, sing, and play any instruments they are used to, &c. ; to make apparatus, and other accessaries to produce magnetical facts ; also to magnetize rivers, rooms, trees, and other bodies, animate and inanimate; to raise the arms or legs of a person awake, and to make him rise from his chair ; to raise the arm of a person absent from one room to another; also to treat him at a distance. All the new experi ments and phenomena are explained MONSIEUR LE DOCTEUR BELL, PROFESSOR OF THAT SCIENCE, and member of the Philosophical Harmonic Society in Paris, Fellow Correspondent of M. le Court de Geblin's Museum; and the only person authorised by patent from the first noblemen in France to teach and practise that science in England, Ireland, &c." On the next page is found the " certificate" granted to Dr. Bell, in Paris, in 1 785, showing how he was admitted as a corresponding member. and authorised to established "corresponding societies" in Great Britain. After looking carefully over the pamphlet of Dr. Bell, I think it not improbable that Monsieurile Docteur, as he is pleased to call himself on the title-page, had more important, and, perhapS, more profitable business than magnetizing groves, or astonishing fish ponds, for, on the last page of the book we find the following : " From these few experiments it is easy to conceive that any ani mate or inanimate body may be electrified or magnetized, which you may please to call it; that is to say, to increase an action which it had not before. All these are upon the principles of the learned Dr. Mesmer, the first inventor as to the theory - ; any inge. nious mind may make one of his own (ride nzy new system of the world) as to the effects which were known ten years ago. Never theless the pretended improvements made in this kingdom by some modern practitioners are very wonderful, such as, by fixing your eyes (with attention, abstraction, intention, &c.) upon the heart of a man, a horse, or a dog, you may kill them instantly by stopping the circulation of the blood according to Van Helmont ; and to sink a ship at sea; this would be an excellent thing for an admiral, and to magnetize a sword which would kill his enemies a mile off, or through a wall six feet thick, If I knew these improvements, I would carry a magnetized sword to Mons. de la Fayette, as a mem bee of the harmonic Society, but that he may do more execution{ with his own is my sincerest wish." Whether Dr. Bell played any tragical, magnetical, or concealed part in the French revolution or not is probably known to diplo matists, but he appears to have had very great undertakings. Ire dedicates his book "To the ladies and gentlemen pupils of my different classes," and afterwards remarks very wisely, " You daily hear ignorance condemn what it cannot comprehend ; and those half-learned beings, who laugh at you and me, and call them impositions, because they do not strike their ideas ; neither will they take the trouble of informing themselves of the truth. A liberal-minded man—superior to prejudice--should investigate matters before he passes condemnation ; but you, ladies and gen tlemen, who walk in a more enlightened path of life, and whose education and birth place you high above vulyar prejudices, doubts, and suspicions despise them, I hope, as you are convinced of their fntility and uncharitable attempts." In short, the whole tenor of the production is such as to render it a very valuable text-book fur any " compagnie ambulante" of magnetizers. Dr. Bell appears to have thought that the art of curing diseases by animal magnetism was known in very early times, and deplores the factor its having been lost during so long a period. He says, " I have myself been looked upon by many ignorant people in France, England, and Ireland, as a magician, by putting several ladies and gentlemen into somnambulism, or sleep-walking, and in that state, having made them eat and drink, sing, and play upon the harpsichord, or any other instrument they were used to,,by telling an unknown person their diseases, and 'prescribing for them, &c." He adds, •• It be too long to recite the names of the ancients who have written on this subject; I shall only mention Find, the Mosaical Philosophy, Tentagelinus ' • the art of curing by sympathy ; Paracelsus, so much known by his alkahestical tinc ture, &c., Digby, Friend, Maxwell, Musgrave, Lord Bacon, and many more who have treated on that subject. Among the many who are supposed to have performed cures by touching was Pyrrhus, King of Macedon, and Epirus, who used to touch his pa tients with his toe; the Emperor Vespasian, who performed many cures by touching; Edward the Confessor and Queen Anne used to touch for the scrofula, since their time called the King's evil. Several kings in Europe have had that gift. Louis XVI., when crowned, touched several patients, saying, the king toncheth thee, God may cure thee. It is since Philip the First, king of France, that his successors have practised it. Valentine Greatrak, from the county of Waterford, so much known, and called by Boyle the " Stroker," cured many by touching, particularly the Duke of Buckingham, and several of the first people in England. Dr. Gasner, at Ratisbone, in 1774 made several cures." This doctor did well to guard his pupils against credulity, while he was engaged as their teacher, still better when he endeavoured to show how easy it is for men to do supernatural things. The pamphlet in question contains many other indications of want of development in the animal magnetism of the present day; and as one item in the history of medicine, like many others, it shows how great is the analogy found to have prevailed—and the varying medical fashions of all tune—for, amongst professors of the art of healing, as in theology, nothing, it would seem, appears to have been, now and then, too monstrous to assert ; experience has been despised, and learning, at times, regarded as contempti ble, and vagaries as remarkable as those we now see existed in Rome with the sectarians of Celsus, and in England were known when our forefathers admired the practical acumen of Sydenham, and could boast the erudition of Mead. As far as the chronological view of the matter is concerned, the greatest prejudice, supersti tion, and credulity marching onward with the most acute observa. tion and extensive acquirements; but in the flitting varieties of scene, which this medical history presents to our notice, we may always rind some trace of the features of one class of men, whether in ancient times they were called followers of "Esculaplus, or sons of Podalirius, and Madson, whether adherents of Empedocles, or Democritus,— if to pass over in any like Greatraks, they cure by touching, or if as on the magnetism of our days, the hands and eyes were together employed, whether they have been called magnetists,allopathists, homeopathists, hydrophathists, it matters not, they have been. and they are, those who while they promise to cure the diseases of niens' bodies, only treat the weakness of their minds, for no sooner as any one of these systems of folly, destroyed, than Phcenix-like a something more glaring arises from the ashes of its destruction. Had I not been afraid of rendering this communication more tedious than useful,—a few more details on the subject of Dr. Bell's Pamphlet might have been given, for it is equally curious and am usin g;—they may however be reserved for another occasion, when I may also have an opportunity to state the result of my own observations on individuals " magnetized" in public as wel as on those not previously prepared for exhibition. Whether mesmerism be true, or whether it be not,—whether thei peculiar nervous excitement of delicate and hysterical patients, supplying pheenomena. said to be the result of the operation of a general " law of the animal economy," is not taking the exception for the rule,—and regarding indications of disease, as one set of the features of health,—presenting to the notice of the credulous, the wondering, and the curious—an assemblage of the human frailties,—calling them by the mistaken name of powers, which ever may be correct, I have DO hesitation in affirming that—the subject is ill fitted for public—fur stage exhibition, and is of all others the last one could fairly have supposed would have been introduced to the indiscriminate notice of men women and children ; yet I sin disposed think we need not fear that the thing will make much progress in this way, as the cost of admission will presently tend to blunt the general curiosity, and make speculators very select ; and in conclusion, we may be allowed to remark that however disinterested some Mesmerists have been or may be, to a few just now famous, the words of St. Paul would apply . Quos oportet redarg ill, qui universos domos—subvertunt, doceutes gum non oportet turins lucri gratift. MEDICUS - [Since the above letter, which is the production of a gentleman of eminence in his profession, was in type, we have been favoured by Mr. Hugh Neill (who, however, we may observe, is not our correspondent " Medicos ") with a sight of the work alluded to. —ED. L. S.] QUALIFICATION OF SHIPMASTERS AND MATES TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. - - Srk,—Two letters inserted in the Albion, signed " J.," have excited much attention ; permit me to offer one or two remarks on them. The real opinions of "J." I cannot make out, further than that he is decidedly against the for mation of the proposed board ; bat whether he is against all exertions for improving the situations and elevating the mo ral tone of our mercantile marine, I am unable to make out. From his second letter I should say not; and if I am right in so thinking, why does not " J." point out the defects of the proposed bill, and suggest those improvements that he may think it requires? Gentlemen who step forward with pure motives, to render what they deem will be an essential service to the country, should be met in the same honoura ble spirit, and not with vituperation. The following extract from " J.'s " first letter, I think every candid reader will allow, conveys a slur, which, though it may be beneath the high-minded gentlemen it affects, to notice, may not be out of the way for a humble individual like myself to comment on : " Let us see whether the proposed enactment is founded on any thing like common sense, or where the argument lies for special surveillance. In the first place, I can say from experience, and I am certain I speak the experience of the larger portion of respectable shipowners, that proper pay ments, proper inquiry, and the ordinary thinking that any man ought bring to a business in which he has a right to ex pect lie will succeed, leave shipowners using such means in no difficulty about securing masters and mates competent in every way. If, however, a class of shipowners should not bring such appliances to bear, what other result than failure can be expected ? And the cause of failure in this is now wished to be made different from the cause of failure in other matters of business, namely to be transferred from the prin cipals to the servants, in ()Cher words, the masters and mates to he punished in the place of the shipowners." Now, sir, I, for one, require something more than assertion before I can even entertain a suspicion of the honouroble dis interestedness of the public-spirited gentlemen who have stepped forward to carry out this noble measure; and when I sven attempt to think of the desire here imputed to them, by J., of wishing to shift their responsibility to the shoulders of their servants, it seems so ridiculous, that tope it seri ous attention is out of the question.- = As for J.'s monthly or periodical exarnination into charac ter, I have read the printed rough draft of the bill with much attention, and have be en una bl e to f i nd it out. I find a clause, indeed, for depriving them of their certificates in case of gross misconduct; but that could only come under the cognizance of the board (except in special cases of public no toriety) by the special complaint of their employers, whose servants the board will really be. They are to be elected by them, and the same power can eject them. How, then, the board can ever become the dictators of the shipowners, as J. seems to imagine, I am at a loss to conjecture, unless, indeed, the board should discover the longitude; and even then I doubt the shipowners' gratitude will fall considerably short of the surrender of their rights. In J.'s second letter he asks this question—" What would be said to a board being appointed to examine engineers, en gines, or axles on railroads, each time they start, to prevent, as far as possible, the risk of accident, and loss of life ?" In reply, I have to observe that this principle is acted on in the navy, and the result has been most beneficial ' • and that so far from the prop ose d exam i nat i on reducing shipmasters and mates to the level of ticket porters, as he assumes, its ten tency will be to elevate them in the scale of society with the liberal professions; and I doubt not, in a few years, if this great national measure is carried, of finding the, honorary distinctions of our scientific " societies" as prevalent among the shipmasters as other denominations of gentlemen. The fact is, Mr. Editor, that it is requisite for our mer cantile welfare, and national honour, (as I will endeavour to shew in a future letter,) that our mercantile marine should never in anything fall short of our rivals, who are striving hard to outvie us. This measure will go a great way to pre vent such a catastrophe. Let, then, every patriotic heart rally in remembrance of " by-gone days" of England's fame, sound the supporters of this great and good measure with their counsel and their influence, till it is firmly estab lished a monument that our enemies may fear and our country for ever venerate In conclusion, Sir, I would with due humility suggest to the framers of the proposed bill, the advantages likely to accrue by giving the Board the power of investigating into all cases of shipwreck. I remain, Sir, your obedient Servant, B. W. TRACEY, Lieut. R.N. Mates' Association, 11, Duke-street, March 31st, 1842. [We insert Lieut. Tracey's letter, Without committing ourselves as the advocates of either side of the question. JUDICIAL DISCRIMINATION, TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, SUL—There are few exhibitions in life more imposing, both in their aspect and their consequences, than the crim inal trials in our courts of justice ; and there are few positions more honourable, and at the same time more responsible, than the office of judge. The administration of justice in England, civil and criminal, has for a long series of years be en so impartial, that m en h av e a decided objectimi to question ing its decrees. It is, on the whole unexceptionable, and an example fit to be imitated by all the other nations of the world. But uprightness of intention, profound learning, and years of experience can never overcome the infirmities of nature; and therefore it is no reflection upon the purity of the ermine to say, that individual and isolate decisions or sentences are either above or beneath the merits of the particular case. It is with these feeling that, using the undoubted privile g e of a subject of England, I take leave to exanline two sentences passed upon two convicted prisoners at the present assizes, by Mr. Baron Rolfe. The cases came before the learned Baron in the Nisi Prius court on Thursday last. In the first of them, a young per son, whose name I do not recollect, was indicted for having wilfully and maliciously wounded (by stabbing) a horse, the property of Mr. Entwistle, a naagistt ate of the county, resid ing at Foxholes, near Rochdale. The prisoner was commit ted for trial, and after he had been in prison nearly a month he was admitted to bail by Mr. Justice Pattison. Mr. Baron Rolfe after his conviction, sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment in Lancaster castle—a prison in which the discipline is considered to be, at least, much severer than Kirkdale, or any other house of correction in the county. The horse which was stabbed by the prisoner was not mate rially injured, and at the time the offence was committed, Mr. Entwistle was with his hounds trespassing, in violation of a notice to the contrary, upon the farm lands of the prisoner's father. The second case was one of manslaughter—a very grave crime in the eye of our law, for our law is more jealous of hu man life than the law of any country in Europe. I knosy well that manslaughter is a crime the absolute degree of which is to be estimated by circumstances ; but still it is a branch of our criminal proceedings that receives the greatest investiga tion. The prisoner in this case was an ex-pugilist, a . reformed boxer, named Sampson, and he was accused of having killed a man named Ireland, by throwing him twice down upon the flags of the causeway, opposite the door of his own (Samp son's) public-house. It was alleged, in extenuation, that the deceased had used language of a disgusting nature towards the wife and daughter of the prisoner; but whatever the lan guage was, it was not proved, and Mr. Baron Rolfe justly remarked—that it would have been infinitely more satisfac tory if some evidence had been adduced in support of the allegation. It was not, however ; nevertheless, the learned judge gave the prisoner the benefit of it. The deceased died in less than twenty-four hours after the violence had been in flicted upon him. The sentence on the prisoner was that he should pay a tine offive pounds to the Queen. These cases have suggested one or two considerations to my mind which, without attributing any improper bias to Mr. Baron Rolfe, I should wish to mention in your columns. The first is the obvious disparity in the punishments directed to be imposed for these offences. One case involved the wounding of a brute animal, and the other the death of a human being —a fellow-creature. The man that would stop to make a comparison between the value of the two I shall not allow myself to describe ; but as Mr. Baron Rolfe, in administering the law, has apparently invited a comparison between the two degrees of punishment, it may be worth while to make it. Mr. Entwisle's horse was not permanently injured; and at the time it was injured he was in the commission of an unlawful act, by trespassing upon anether's land. Ireland's life was sacrificed to the unrestrainable vengeance of the moment for using offensive expressions ; for which any other but a man of ungovernable anger would have contented him self with calling is the police ; and if that had been so, Mr. Rushton would have dealt with the offender as he deserved. Unfortunately, the man's life was the penalty he paid for his offence. Who will say, under these circumstances, that two months' imprisonment for wounding a horse is a just punishment, if five pounds are sufficient to wipe out the guilt of killing a man? The disparity is too apparent to be enlarged upon. Another consideration which these cases have suggested, is the effect of pecuniary punishments, so to speak, for such, weighty offences against life as manslaughter. Merely to fine a convicted party is not to punish him, especially if he can afford to pay ; and I apprehend that thp original object in prescribing punishments was imprisonment. I have no objection —on the contrary I think it highly salutari, 'because the tender point is reached by it, for fine and imprisonment go together; but I do protest against nominal fines being imposed for such offences as manslaughter. In short, my high regard for Mr. Baron Rolfe's character for just intentions and for impartial administration of the law, cannot alter my opinion that in these two cases he has not sufficiently discriminated the circumstances of each. Sampson has, at least, escaped remarkably easy; but Mr. Entwistle has the enviable satisfaction of thinking that the offender against him will have been confined nearly twice as long as his horse was, and that although the case of the horse was not sufficiently important to call in' the aid of a veterinary surgeon to the animal, the accused felt his liberty sufficiently important to him to spend not far . short of twe n ty pounds in endeavouring to obtain it,—besides makin g an abject apology.--I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant, PEN SATORE. Great George-street, April 2. Mr, Charles Pearson, the city solicitor, is likely to be ap. pointed town-clerk of London. There are many candidates for the former situation. Several Irish families are already on the move from England, to avoid a property taz. The other day, at Oxford, a man was tried for stealing a bee-hive. The hive was produced in court, covered with a white napkin; in order to be identi fied b y its marks, but o n account of its being filled with bees, the jury did not venture to examine it, and the man was acquitted for want of evidence. The number of bodies thrown on the coasts of France, from Boulogne to Dunkirk, in consequence of the storm of the 10th inst., amounts, says the Courrier du Nord, to 150 CONVICTION FOR MURDER, AND SUICIDE OF THE CON• VICT.—At the Mold (Flintshire) assizes on Friday, Robert Pierce, aged 24, was indicted for attempts to murder his wife by the administration of arsenic. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. On the following morning, when the gaolor entered the condemned cell of the convict in the Cas tle of Flint, he was found suspended by the bars above the door. The body was nearly cold when discovered, and it is judged that he had been dead some time. It appears that he formed a noose of his braces, and having attached them to his neck and fastened them to the bars, he placed his feet upon an earthenware utensil and a Bible, which he kicked away, and thus left himself hanging. Th e.un f ortu. nate man confessed to having committed the crime for which he was convicted, on the night after his condemnation. Another "delicate affair" came before one of the police offices, Dublin, on Saturday. Mr. F., a gentleman of pro perty, charged Miss M., a lady, with a conspiracy to rob his house. The prosecutor did not appear to support the charge. Miss M. then explained, that Mr. F. bad been paying his addresses to her, when she found that he was already mar ried, and broke off the intercourse. He then proposed to settle £l,OOO -ayear upon and to marry her after his wife's death, should that occur within a certain period, upon con ditions which she indignantly repelled ; and in revenge be instituted the present accusation. The lady was discharged from custody. SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. Mr. Justice Parke took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock. THE :MANCHESTER COACH ROBBERY. James Thelwell, James Skerrett, and William Mooby, stood indicted for having, at Manchester, on the 18th of Fe bruary last, feloniously s t o l en fifteen hundred sovereigns and one hundred £5 notes, the property of Messrs. James Cun liffe and others; and James King and Bridget Jones were indicted for having received the same, knowing them to be stolen. Mr. Baines and Mr. Hulton appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Wigharn defended the prisoners Thelwell and Jones; Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Overend the prisoner Skerrett; Mr. Greene the prisoner Mooby ; and Dr. Brown the prisoner King. All the witnesses having been ordered out of court, Mr. BAINES proceeded to state the case to the jury. He said, after explaining the charge against the prisoners, that it would be his duty in the present case to call before them a very considerable number of witnesses, whose evidence would run a good deal into detail, and that the best way in which he could render assistance to the jury, would be to give them an outline of the evidence, in order to render more easy their task of following the witnesses. The prosecutors were Messrs. Cunliffe, Brooks and Co., bankers of the first respectability at Manchester and Blackburn, and who had been in the ha bit, for several years past, of sending parcels of cash and notes from their establishment at Manchester to their other esta blishment at Blackburn. Those parcels were usually sent on Tuesday and Friday every week, and the conveyance selected for this purpose was the coach called the Perseverance coach, which left Manchester at half-past four o'clock in the after noon, starting at the Old Boar's Head coach-office, Hyde's cross. It would appear from the evidence, that on Friday, the 18th of February, the cashier of Messrs. Cunliffe and Co. made up a parcel, consisting of 1500 sovereigns and £5OO in £5 notes; that he enclosed it in a small leather box or port manteau, which was locked and fastened with a strap • and that it was delivered to the porter of the bank to be taken to the coach. The porter accordingly took it to the coach, and placed it, as usual, in the front boot. This occurred about four o'clock in the afternoon. Two of the prisoners, Sker rett and Thelwell, about the time that the porter had been carrying the parcel, were seen coming towards the coach in company, Skerrett having in his possession an old carpet bag, of a drab colour, which was a good deal torn at one side. Thelwell mounted the coach-box. Mooby was on the seat immediately behind the coach-box; and when Thelwell and Mooby had been in this position, the porter of the bank came and deposited the box or portmanteau in the boot. Immedi ately after, Skerrett, who had been approaching the coach shortly before with the carpet bag, came to the coach, mounted the fore-wheel, began putting the carpet bag in the foreboot; and he was observed, by persons about, to have his head and shoulders in the boot, " rooting about," as the witnesses ex pressed it, and this he was doing for some time. While he was in this position, the probability was that he had been engaged in putting the box into the carpet bag ; at all events, he certainly had the opportunity for so doing. He was so long about this, that the persons who stood by had their attention directed to the circumstance ; so much so, that the individual who was holding the horses looked and was about to approach him when he came down, and no further observation was made. The coach started from Manchester with thirteen persons, nine of whom were known to the coachman, and the others were not so. When the coach had reached within a mile of Bury, Mooby got down. The coach then proceeded to Bury, and there the prisoner Thelwell, who up to that time had been sitting on the box seat, got down from the box and took out of the boot a carpet-bag, which had then the appearance of being extremely heavy, so heavy that when the man swung it out he fell off the wheel with it. He went into a public-house with the bag, which was a light drab coloured one, corresponding in appearance with the one which was very light and apparently empty, and which had been put into the boot by Skerrett. Some conversation then took place between Thelwell and the landlady of the house and her daughter. The coach went on to Blackburn, and when it reached there the clerk of the bank was waiting for the parcel, but the coach was searched and no such parcel was to be found. What had been charged in the present case was this—that the three prisoners, Skerrett, Thelwell, and Mooby, had taken part in the stealing of the parcel, and before he (the learned counsel) described the evidence as it affected each, he apprehended it would be quite clear, in point of law, that the jury should be satisfied that Skerrett, at Manchester, was removing the parcel but an inch from the place where it was left by the owner, or the agent of the owner, with a felonious intent, that that constituted a stealing of the property by him. If they should be further of opinion that Thelwell and . Mooby were joined with him at the time so to steal the property, and near enough, by giving alarm or otherwise rendering assistance, they would be equally guilty. If they believed that Skerret had, at Manchester put the box into the port manteau, he apprehended that that would constitute a com plete act of stealing by him and the others, although the property was not actually removed from the coach until Thelwell arrived at Bury. This being so, he would take the evidence as it affected each. And, in the first place, with respect to Skerrett. Skerrett was a person who some years had been horsekeeper to the " Perseverance" coach. He left the employment in the month of May previous to the present transaction. He, therefore, had an opportunity of knowing what the practice at the bank was, and the days on which the parcels might be expected to go. It had already been stated that he was seen with The!well going with a car pet bag towards the coach—that he was seen on the wheel of the coach putting a carpet-bag, which had the appearance of being light and empty, into the boot—that the ba g had a rent in the side, and that that opening would afford him an opportunity for introducing the box. The jury had more . over been told of the circumstances under - which he was standing on the wheel, and how he had had his head and shoulders in the boot. After this, on the next day, Skerrett who, up to this time, had been under the necessity of bor rowing money, had his stall better furnished than usual, and seemed to be no longer in want of money. In consequence of suspicion having been attached to him, the superintendent of police went and took him into custody on the charge ; and it would be material for the jury to attend to what passed on that occasion. The superintendent asked him about the carpet bag, and the statements he made about it were ex tremely contradictory in themselves. In the first place he stated that the bag was for a gentleman he could not see; next, that it was for a gentleman on the box; then, after wards, that it was for a gen tl eman s itti ng b e hi n d t h e b ox ; and, finally, that it was for a stranger whom he bad seen about half-a-dozen times, but whom he did not know. He also denied that his head and shoulders were ever near the boot whereas it would be satisfactorily shown they were. This would be the case as regarded Skerrett ; and now as re garded Thelwell. Thelwell and Mooby had for some time been porters with a Mr. Thelwell brother of Thelwell the pri soner, who kept a silversmith's shop, at Manchester. The jury had been informed that Thelwell had been coming along with Skerrett—that the former took his seat on the box be fore the porter put the parcel in the boot—that he got down at Bury and took the carpet bag out of the boot, and went with it into a public-house, and that he had a material conversa tion with the landlady. This transaction occurred on Fri. day, the 18th of February, and it would appear that on the Monday after Thelwell and Mrs. Jones, who was living with him, were in possession of very considerable sums of money, and that on Thursday, the day before the robbery, they left their lodgings, alleging that they we re una bl e t o pay th e rent. A person named Wild would be called as a witness, and he would depose that he had been for some time in a society called the Odd Fellows, with Thelwell, and that he had been desired by Thelwell to pay his contribution fur him, he being unable to do so himself. On the Monday after the robbery Wild was sent for by Thelwell, and was desired to meet the latter at a public-house. He accordingly did so; and the jury would find that the four pounds which Thelwell owed him was paid on that occasion, and the` ne had told NI ild if he would meet him next day, that h., should not want for £2O or £3O, or £4O, if he wanted it. A bargain was then made by him for a horse, and the jury would find that Jones was seen with her hands full of sovereigns, and that she said something important. On the day after this occurrence, Thelwell was taken into custody by a police-officer. When the police-officer came, he said to him, " I have come to charge you with having had a hand in stealing a parcel from the Old Boar's Head, in Hyde's-cross, in Manchester," upon which Thelwell remarked, " I have not been at Bury for the last six months." The officer asked who had men tioned Bury; some further conversation passed; and this was the case against Thelwell. With regard to Mooby, the jury had already been informed that he was the brother por ter of Thelwell—that he was sitting in the coachbehind Thel well at the time it started, and that he had got down about a mile from Bury, so as to be able to join Thelwell very spee dily. They would further find that on Wednesday, 23d Feb ruary, the two prisoners, Mooby and King—King being a hawker in Leeds—came to a lodging kept by a person living at Southend, near London. They seemed to be on terms of intimacy with each other, remained in the house that day, and had very considerable sums of money about them. Among other lodgers in the house there was a person of the name of Collins and his wife, who left the house suddenly on Thurs day morning. The landlord accordingly said to Mooby and King the same morning, " I hope you haven't lost anything by Collins." They said not. The same evening, however, King said that Mooby bad l os t £l7O i n b an k notes , an d h e added, I have been more fortunate : for I have £7OO in gold here, and that I have kept safe." The jury would find that both those parties had gone to tradesmen in Southend—that Mooby passed two £5 notes, one to a tradesman from whom he purchased a pair of boots, and the other to a trunkmaker —that he changed those two £5 notes, although he had only to pay a sum of 12s to the shoemaker from whom he made the purchase in the first instance—that the shoemaker asked him his name, and that he gave the name James BeimOre— . - that the shoemaker gave an i nvo ice, and that that invoice was subsequently found in the possession of King. Mooby and King were afterwards taken into custody in London ; they effected their escape ; they were taken into custody again : they were then brought down to Manchester, and there all the prisoners were committed for trial. K great number of witnesse;WeiTexamined, who proved the facts stated in the opening, when Mr. Greene addressed the jury on behalf of Mooby, and Mr. Wilkins for Skerrett. The jury consulted for ten minutes, and then found all the prisoners guilty.—His lordship said that they must return King guilty or not guilty.--The jury then acquitted King.— His lordship then sentenced the prisoners to seven years' transportation. NISI PRIUS COURT.--FRIDAY. The West Derby list was opened to-day. WOOD AND OTHERS V. LLOYD AND ANOTHER. Mr. CROMPTON stated the case, which was undefended. The plaintiffs are ironmongers in Liverpool, and the defen dants were, the one the traveller to the firm, and the other the guarantee for his integrity. After he had quitted their employment, the next traveller in Wales found that his accounts were falsified, and the action was brought to recover the defalcation. A verdict was then taken for £37 155., being the whole sum claimed, minus £B, which had been made a present of to defendant, the younger Lloyd, on his leaving plaintiff's service without notice. LIDDLE AND WIFE V. NIXON. After an ineffectual attempt to obtain a postponement of this case, Mr. Wortley withdrew the record. TODD V. BOCHEIIBY. Mr. WATSON opened the pleadings. The defendants, Bocherby, Alison, and Brown, are workers of the Hunwich Colliery, in the county of Durham. Alison and Brown had suffered judgment to go by default, but the defendant pleaded he was not liable. The action was on a bill of exchange for £427, accepted by Alison, and for goods sold and delivered. All that would be necessary was to prove the partnership. Verdict for the plaintiff, £432, being the full amount claimed, with interest. THE SAME V. THE SAME. The verdict was taken in another similar action for £360, and £9 interest. DAVIES AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES V. BAKER. Mr. HOGGINS appeared for the plaintiff in this case, which was undefended. The defendant is a publican in War rington, and the plaintiffs are assignees of a brewer named Robinson. The account was £69, on which there had been payments received. Verdict for the plaintiff for the balance, £33. It being stated that an assignment had been made to defeat creditors, immediate execution was granted. ORRELL V. PENHEAD. Mr. CROM PTON s t a t e d the case, which was un d e f ended. Mr. Orrell w h o res id es near St. Helens, had l ent t h e defen dant £240 in cash, for which security was promised, b u t never given. Some payments had been mad e , b ut the ba lance, with interest, was £223, for whi c h a verdict was taken. BROWN V. BRADFORD Mr. WATSON opened the case. It wa s an act i on f or debt, for the proceeds of a policy of insurance, and the defendant pleaded that he was not indebted ; he also pleaded a set off for work and labour done, and also pleaded a special lien on all which issue was taken. Afr. DUNDAS said tauthe appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Robert Brown, a merchant at Brigus, in New foundland. Th e d e f en d ant was an insurance broker in Lon. don, and the question for the jury was, whether he, as an in. surance broker, having effected an insurance on a vessel for the Liverpool agent of the owner, was entitled to retain the policy as a general lien for a balance due to him by the agent. He says that he knew no party in the matter but the agent, but he would show that defendant knew very well that it was not for the house in Liverpool that he was insuring the ship, but for the house in Brigus, in Newfoundland. In 1838, there was a mercantile house in Liverpool doing business under the firm of Ferris, Butler and Co., of whom Mr. Fer ris was a resident at Bristol, two Messrs. Butlers were resi. dent in Liverpool, and the fourth partner, Mr. Bulley, was resident in Newfoundland. At the same time there was a house in St. John's, Newfoundland, styled Bulley, Butler and Co., consisting of the same partners precisely. In New foundland, in the town of Brigus, there was also a third firm, styled Robert Brown and Co., consisting of the same partners, with the addition of Mr. Brown, the present plain tiff, who resided out there. In March, 1838, the house at Brigus became part owners of a vessel called the Mary Anne, the firm being registered owners of one-half the vessel, and Mr. hobert Brown of the other half. The house in Liver pool, being agents for the house in Brigus, effected an insu rance on this ship, through the defendant, a broker in Lon don. The letter written to him on March 23, 1839, stated what he must have known, that the insurance was not effected on their own account, but as agents for the house at Brigus, and that Ferris, Butler and Co. in Liverpool, were doing business as agents for Robert Brown and Co., at Brigus. If he knew that, then he had no right to retain the policy as a lien. The firm under which defendant did business, Messrs. Robert Bradford and Co., was a most respectable one—he had no in structions to say anything against it ; this was simply a ques tion of law. They insured £741 on the vessel, £1,240 on her cargo of fish, and £460 on her freight to Oporto, and this action was brought by the plaintiff for one halt of what was recovered on the body of the vessel of which be was one half owner. The letter to the defendant stated " Remember, this is a vessel purchased by us last fall for our house at Brigus." It proceeded to enter into particulars as to the quality of the ship. O n M arc h 27, 1839, the defendant writes a letter to the Liverpool house. According to the practice of insurance brokers, he retains the policy and sends a copy to his principals, with a debit note. The letter stated that the policy had been effected, and he debited Ferris, Butler, and Co., for Robert Brown and Co., with £ll2 15s. 6d., the premium and commission. This vessel subsequently became liable to a general average loss to the extent of £561, which the broker would receive on the vessel as well as on her freight and cargo, but the plaintiff was only suing for his moiety of what was due to the body of the vessel which was calculated and admitted to amount to £ll6 3s. sd. In the .course of- the year 18-10, the house in Liverpool became em barrassed and subsequently bankrupt. And about that time a gentleman named Turner, residing at Truro, being involved in the partnership's concerns, wrote t o d e f en d an t, inquiring about policies, and seeking to obtain possession of them to indemnify himself. Defendant's answer to Edward 'Turner, Esq., M.P., stated the nature of the insurance, in which po:i cies it did not appear that a claim could be established for more than he had already obtained, and went on to recount the expenses which had reduced to so low a sum the recovery on a general average loss. Mr. Brown also heard what had happened, and felt anxious to know what had been received under the policies. To him the defendant wrote sufficient to show the receipt of the £561, and also that he knew it was received on account of the Brigus house. It was addressed to Mr. Robert Brown, which showed that he knew Mr. Brown was a partner in the Brigus house. He told Mr. Brown that he had put the £561 to the account of the Liver pool house. In his last letter to Mr. Turner, he said not one syllable about anything due to himself; but, subsequently, he claimed a lien upon the insurance, and its proceeds for the balance due to him by Ferris, Butler, and Co., refusing to give Brown anything. The question, therefore, was, whe ther at the time of the insurance being effected he was aware of the existence of the Brigus house, and that Mr. Brown was partner, in which case he could not retain the policy on a general lien for a balance due from the agents. The ship's register was then admitted, showing Brown to be half owner of the vessel. The letters were also put in and read. Mr. James Henry Butler proved the nature of the partner ship in Liverpool, and its failure, and also the other partner ship as stated by counsel. Defendant personally knew the partners in the Liverpool house. By Mr. kNowLEs.—ln the . Brigus firm Robert Brown had one half of the house, and the other partners had half—in the same proportion in the ship and in the firm. The Mary Anne belonged to the firm at Brigus. Mr. DUNDAS—That will appear in the register. There were several other vessels held the same way—the Jane, Comet, and lanthe. Defendant insured those vessels also. In 1840 the Liverpool house was considerably in debted to defendant, to more than the money received on the insurance of this ship and cargo. I am not aware that we were indebted in insurances on the Jane, Comet, and lanthe. I cannot tell without consulting the books. I have an im pression that Mr. Turner is the party proceeding in this action. Ido not know whether Mr. Brown has anything to do with it. The Mary Anne was partnership property—pur chased with partnership funds, and treated as partnership property up to the date of the failure. I am not aware of any settlement of accounts between the Liverpool and Brigus houses since the failure. The Brigus house was largely in debted to the house here. Mr. KNOWLES.-DOD't you know that the house of Brigus has been credited with this insurance ? Mr. DUNDAS objected to the question. Mr. KNOWLES appeared for the defendant, and addressed the court on the point of law. The ground of his defence, he believed, must have been obvious. It was quite clear that Mr. R. Brown was jointly interested with other parties in the ship, which was treated as partnership property. His objection was, that Brown could not sue alone. On no other principle could he sue but as a partner, and in partnership all the partners must sue, except for something which one has done alone. The plaintiff would probably say that the inte rest was not a partnership but a part-ownership. The learned gentleman referred to the case of Drake v. Douglas, in a note to the case Seward v. Welsh. His opponents might rely on it to prove that one owner might sue separately for his share in any interest in a. vessel. But if ever that was law, it was not law now. It had lost the support of Mr. Baron Parke, who had expressly s ated that he did not concur in it. In the case of Halsall v. Griffiths, where the plaintiff was part owner,—to allow, for argument sake, that the plaintiff in this case was part owner,—the plaintiff bringing his action on his third share, Baron Burney nonsuited the plaintiff. And on motion, Sir J. Parke ruled in favour of the nonsuit, on the ground that all such actions should be joint, and that a broker should have his remedy, not against one owner, but all. Lord Tenterden concurred. But this was a still weaker case than that. The parties here were not part owners but partners ; and the parnership being established, all the inci dents of the partnership must attach. This plaintiff must be nonsuited, as Brown alone cannot sue. Mr. ToNtLnisoN followed on the same side. Brown, the plaintiff, as partner, was more indebted to defendant, than he claimed from defendant as part owner ; so that there was no equity in this action. The instructions from Messrs. Ferris, Butler, and Co. described the insurance " for us," and said, "remember it is purchased by us for our house." It was doubtful to him that any one could maintain an action but Ferris, Butler, and Co. The COURT suggested a nonsuit subject to a motion. Mr. KNOWLES wished to take the opinion of the jury on the question of fact, whether defendant had sufficient notice of the ownership of the vessel. Mr. DUNDAS contended that " to us" only meant to our order, and that " our house at Brigus" pointed out for whom the insurance was, and that the defendant knew that the two houses were different. The learned gentleman then pro ceeded to contend that the parties had distinct, not joint, interests, the plaintiff having one-half the whole interest in the vessel, and entitled to recover separately. Mr. WATSON followed on the sane side. The insurance follows the interest. It is not a joint insurance by the whole, the parties not being entitled to the whole to divide among them, but to the insurance, with reference to the interest, as was well known to brokers. At law and equity there was no title to the ship, or anything arising out of her, beyond the register. The COURT suggested a non-suit, but Mr. DUNDAS re fused to accept it, and Mr. KNOWLES proceeded to address the jury on the third issue, and called on them to relieve the defendant from a vexatious action brought by a Mr. Turner, of whom nobody knew anything. Mr. DUNDAS.—He is member of parliament for Truro. Mr. KNOWLES did not think a bit the better of him for being member of parliament for Truro or any of the adjacent boroughs. The learned gentleman then proceeded to con tend that he was entitled to their verdict—which would set the whole question at rest—to the effect that defendant had no reason to think that Messrs. Ferris and Co. were acting any otherwise than'as principals. The COURT charged the jury. It was his lordship's opinion, on the point of law, that it was a joint insurance of the whole five ; and that not Brown alone, but he and all the other partners should have sued. On the first issue, there fore. they must give their verdict for the defendant; on the second, the set off, on which no evidence was given, and which was only material as regarded costs, they must find for the plaintiff; on the third issue they must say whether, on the evidence, the defendant did or did not know whether the plaintiff was a party interested. The jury found a verdict for the defendant on the first and last itsues, which terminates the action. MOUNTFIELD V. MOLYNEUX. An action on a promissory note. Undefended. Verdict for £212 ss. Od. NICKELS V. MASON AND ARNLSON AND ANOTHER. This was an action fir work and labour done. The plain tiff was Mr. Joseph Nickels, a sailmaker in this town, and the defendants were Messrs. Mason and Arnison. Mr. DuNnAs, with whom was Mr. Martin, — appeared for the plaintiff, and stated that the plaintiff had supplied new and repaired old sails for the ship Abbotsford. There was no dispute as to the bill, which amounted to £56 16s id ; but the defendants' reply was, that they were not on the ship's register at the time the work was done. The question was, whether they were really and actually owners; and if so, they were liable. The only person, they asset ced, who was in the register, was Mr. Jonathan Laidwan, and this was true ; but the defendants were beneficially interested. Mr. Laidman had since become bankrupt. Witnesses were called, who proved the work done to the Abbotsford. James Nickels, son and clerk to the plaintiff, in his cross examination by Mr. BAIN ES, admitted that the only person they knew when the work was done was Mr. Laidman. The work was done before November 7, 1839. The bill of sale which transferred the property of the vessel from Laidman to the defendants was not produced to the Collector of the Customs of Liverpool until November 18, 1839. Mr. Jonathan Laidman stated that he was managing owner of the Abbotsford ; she was bought in 1835 by Mr. Bousfield and himself, and paid for by them and other par ties, Dixon, R. Laidman„krnison, and Mason. Mason and Arnison, for a sixteenth each, paid £338; and afterwards a further sum of LOG 7s 10d each. Her first voyage was to New Orleans, and the first voyage was a losing one. The next was a beneficial one, and £1,200 was distributed in the proportion of £75 the sixteenth. The same in subsequent voyages, up to March, 1838. [A book w a s p u t i n, w i th an agreement to divide £lOO on each sixteenth of the Abbots.. ford, signed by the owners, including the defendants.] In March, 18-10, the freight was distributed in the same propor tion. This was for a voyage ending in September, 1839. The account for the next freight was never made up, as I became a bankrupt. _ _ _ A letter was read from Mr. Arnison, dated December, 1839, to plaintiff, acknowledging the receipt of the bill, and stating that the owners would take the affairs of the ship into consideration, and in the mean time referring the plaintiff to Messrs. Lowndes and Robinson. By Mr. B AI N ES.—Mr. Arnison is a draper at Penrith, and Mr. Mason is a bleacher at Eamont Bridge, in Westmore land. Neither of them ever took any share in the manage ment of the vessel. No one appeared but myself. It was the same with the Inglewood and some other vessels I was manager of. I became bankrupt in November, 1840. In November, 1839, I owed the vessel about £BOO. I now owe her £4220. Nickel's credit was six months ; but he some times gave me twelve or fifteen months' credit. Had had general accounts sent in to him for that and other vessels, but could not find them. Had searched for them with Mr. Banner, accountant to the assignee. Mr. Du N DAS contended that secondary evidence could not be taken of the contents of such documents, until better proof was shown that they could not be found. The COURT ruled that the papers of the bankrupt being in custody of the assigaee, the assignee must be called either to produce those documents or prove they could not be found ; and that, failing such proof, parole evidence could not be taken of their contents. The next document produced was a bill of gale of the ship, dated Nov, 18, 1839, which witness swore heti been executed drily two or three' days bei 3 / 4 4,:e' that date,- in his 'brother's office. The freight due in September, 1839, was accounted for in Aug ust, 1810. Mr. BR INES, for the defendant, contended that the only question was, whether the articles were supplied on the credit of the defendants or of Laidman. The defendants were never held out as owners to the present plaintiffs. To make them responsible, they must be proved to be legally owners; to make them this there must be a conveyance. It was specially enacted that no bill of sale passed the property of a ship, until produced to the collector or controller of the port where registered. No such production took place until November Is, after this work was done. The bill of sale bore date in 1828, but it was not exteuted until 1839, and up to that time the title of defendants was inchoate; and it was in Laidman and I3ousfield, who originally purchased the vessel, or rather in Laidman, who was sole registered owner. Here neither were the defendants legal owners of the vessel, nor was their credit held out to the plaintiffs, so that there was no proof of their liability. Mr. CROMPTON followed on the same side. There was here no personal credit—defendants were not legal owners ; and he cited a case to show that agreements under inchoate interests to divide profits or convey shares had not any lia bility, so long as they were incomplete, Mr. Do NDAS contended that this was a case for the jury. What was done was on the credit of the ship's owners, and the bills were made out to them. There was no pretence for saying that they were supplied on the credit of the ship's husband, whether called Jonathan Laidman or Jonathan Laidman and Co. The defendants had the beneficial inte rest. They were the real and substantial owners for whom the work was done, and who got the benefit of it. The COURT asked if Mr. Dundas would be content with liberty to move? Mr. Dundas refused. Mr. MARTIN followed on the same side. Laidman first acted as owner, then as ship's husband, and the credit was given to the owners of the ship—to those benefitted by the contract. The obj ect o f t h e reg i stry was not to give, but to distinguish British property ; and was it to be tolerated that those who viol a t e d the law should take the advantage of the violation to avoid the responsibility for repairs made to the vessel ? The COURT.—There is no law violated. They are not compelled to register the transfer. Mr. MARTIN continued. —But if they omitted what the law enabled them to do, they could not take advantage of their own omission. The case rested entirely on whose cre dit the contract was made ; and the learned gentleman went on to contend that the cases cited went to prove that, prima facie, the parties liable were those who were beneficially in terested, who in this case, were certainly those who paid their money for the ship, and were dividing the profits year after year—and to cite others to show that the legal owners must be held to be, not those whose names are in the register, but who have the beneficial interest in the property. Mr. BAINES was about to continue the argument, when The COURT suggested that it was useless, as they must go to the jury on the question whether the goods were supplied to the credit of the owners or of Laidman. Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury, and contended that Laidman was the only owner the plaintiff knew. It would be a monstrous thing to make the defendants liable. Laid man, it appeared, owed the vessel .12-1000, and from their ne glecting the registry they could recover nothing ; so that they would be compelled to pay for what they could not receive. Besides, the plaintiff had no b us i ness t o give Laidman these long credits ; to let him set deeper into insolvency ; and then send in the bills to the owners too late for the owners to learn the true state of the affairs of the ship to any good purpose. The COURT charged the jury. It was always a question when a party came into court with a fair claim, whether he was claiming from the party who ought to pay him. The law said there should be no interest in a ship unless the name was upon the register. The true test was—on whose credit were the goods supplied ? The first question was, had Laid man any authority frout the defendants to purchase those sails ? The evidence went strongly to show that he had ; for, though not owners, they were receiving profits, and employ ing him as ship's husband to manage the ship, and to do what was necessary for the management. If they thought so, ttey must find for the plaintiffs. There was another feature in the case, that Laidman managed other ships, and their bills were sent in together, made out to the owners. The question was, whether this was not an inartificial way of saying that they furnished them to Laidman on the credit of the ship. The jury found for the defendants. FLETCHER, PUBLIC OFFICER, V. CROSEIE AND OTHERS. Mr. CROMPTON opened the proceedings, which were e_x tremely complicated, almost every defendant having a differ ent set of pleas. Mr. KS 7 OWLES expressed his fears that the case would be an extremely long one, there being fifty-three defendants, of whom twenty-three pleaded. The plaintiffs were the Phoenix Bank, which originated in the failure of the Northern and Central Bank, of which the Liverpool branch was found to be profitable, and was continued under the name of the Phoenix Bank. The defendants were styled the " British Lead, Silver, and Copper Mining Company." Mr. Baines appeared for Mr. James Cooper, of the Isle of Wight, and six other defendants. Mr. Wortley appeared for Thos. Wilson, Thos. Brancker the younger, and several others. Mr. Seager appeared for two of the defendants. Mr. Roebuck appeared for one of the defendants. Mr. Watson appeared for the first defendant in the record, Mr. Crosbie, who had suffered judgment to go by default, and who, by statute, was at liberty to cut down the demand for costs, and to fix the other defendants. For two of the defendants no counsel appeared. Mr. Crompton, for the plaintiffs, put in the register of the Plicenix Bank, and of its public officer, John Fletcher. Mr. Robert Sheraton, secretary of the British Silver, Lead, and Copper Mining Company, was examined. His cross-examination lasted three hours and a half, after which the court adjourned, one or two of the learned gen tlemen declaring that they were " all at sea" in the compli cation of dates, parties, and documents, of which no report can give any idea. CROWN COURT -SATURDA MURDER Thomas Hetherington was arraigned for the wilful mur der of Peter J ackson, at Manchester, by striking him down and kicking him. He pleaded not guilty. Dr. BROWN proceeded to open the case, when his LORD sun, inquired whether the prisoner had counsel. Dr. B. said he had not, and that he believed the case would turn on the questi6n whether the prisoner were sane at the time of the assault. His LORDSHIP appointed counsel for the prisoner, and postponed the case, so that he (the co unse l) m i ght have time to look into the depositions. MANSLAUGHTER CASES. William Shaw, aged 27, was charged with having, at Ash ton-under-Lyne, killed and slain a child, named Martha Og den. The prisoner was a carter, and, while his cart, which was loaded with clover, was passing along the street, one of the wheels knocked the deceased down, and she was so much injured that, after sobbing once, she expired. The deceased was a year and nine months old, and was the daughter of Mr. William Ogden, a butcher. She had been in company with her sister, who was four years of age, and who had left her and gone across the street. The prisoner had been talk ing to another man, and the cart went on a little way, he moving towards it backward while he talked. He ran after it, and immediately after a scream of some women was heard, just as the cart was turning a corner of the street. The wheel, however, passed over the deceased, who got into the way, be fore he reached the horse's head. The prisoner, on being apprehended, explained to the head constable, Mr. Newton, the whole of the circumstances as they appeared in evidence, and expressed great sorrow for the unfortunate catastrophe. The prisoner had borne a good character for carefulness and humanity. He was ably defended by Mr. Brandt. The jury, after sitting some time, were allowed to retire, as they could not come to a decision. John Davies, 23, stood indicted with having, at Manches ter, killed and slain Joseph Lawson. Mr. Chapman conducted the prosecution. Patrick Starkie said he lodged at the time at Dooley's house, Cornwallis-street. Witness, on the 21st Nov., went to bed, and Lawson was also in the room. Davies came up into the room in a quarrelsome temper, and he challenged the deceased, and they had a struggle together. The land lord came up and separated them. The prisoner, however, attacked the deceased again, and in the struggle the deceased fell upon a peculiar kind of candlestick, used by shoemakers, on which the socket for .the candle moved up and down to any required height, on an iron rod, about two feet long, and fixed in a stand formed of a block of wood. The point of the rod stood perpendicular, and the deceased's head, when he fell, struck the point of it, and it entered his temple, and pe netrated the brain. The deceased died soon afterwards from this injury. The prisoner was drunk at the time, and was the friend of the deceased. The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. The learned JUDGE said that the prisoner did not, cer tainly, intend to take away the life of the deceased, but was culpable, inasmuch as he had got drunk. Considering that he had been in custody since the 23d November, be should only remand him to gaol for one week, at the end of which he should be discharged. MURDER John Taylor, a respectable looking young man, was char t _ ed with the wilful murder, at Warrington, of James Taylor, (his own brother,) by stabbing him with a knife. Mr. WILKINS stated the case to the jury, and with him was Mr. Monk. Jane Taylor, widow of the deceased, said, on the l'ith of February she went to an inn in Warrington, called the Tower Angel, to look for her husband, and he said he would go with her at eight o'clock to receive some money. I went back at eight o'clock to the Lower Angel, and we went together with Mr. Carter and his wife, the deceased, and another, to the White Hart. We all went from there to the Bear's Paw. We had a glass of ale a piece. No words took place there. Ido not think the prisoner had any drink before that. They staid about an hour and then went to the Lower Angel, where they had two glasses of ale each. My husband and John Taylor had some words about the cutting shop. My husband was a fustian cutter, and the prisoner is a printer. My hus band was very tipsy. The prisoner was not drunk. All the party left the Lower Angel at the same time. John Taylor, (the prisoner) had hold of one of his arms and I held the other to assist the deceased, he was so tipsy. Carter and his wife then left us. Near the Infant School my husband said to prisoner, •` Jack, I'll tell you what, I'll take another shop to-morrow. I'll neither be bothered with thee nor thy set any longer." The prisoner said, " Thou may go to hell and take another shop. 1 cou ld h ave set the shop and the PIC . , ses six months ag o f or £2O a-year. " They were quarrelling till they got nearly h ome, and were going to fi g ht. I c annot d husband and squaring. They were not stripped. I pul!Fe. then saw say which begun ; they were both standing before e ach other away. I had not then seen either of them f s a t e r e it: prisoner strike deceased on the side of his face, the first blow I hand or fist, I can't say which. T u h r a ther. I did not see my saw. My husband went on a little f He might strike him, but husband strike the prisoner at all. t there w as a gas-lamp dark, bu lttle further he I did not see him. It was ton a i with his open band ri'r L .„if,," Ile spoke not far off. When my h' T , Where ' n 'Y --- - . lifted it up. stopped. John then said, lied his k nife ou this up. lie then either his Docket and When the knife was. He then put his hand in diSssiiid nothing when him open. He had, and opened it. Deceased he would rip . knife '''' d , li here's n}. pulled out. Prisoner said i said, before when he . he held up his hand with said so once ond time, When he said so the second funbuttoned his coat or . t him not to take his knife, before: the knife it. I begged I : I was standing in that position, pri soner e a d s standing between the prisoner andd W bile several times, but the blows did not reach soner struck at him husband said, " what are you going to do ?" him. MY ~I I kill you, by God." 1 then got from he thhee pulled deceased. it t . husband said, Prisoner said, In tween them• dme in the belly." They then both fell on a minute or two after my " He has stabbe husband to go away I told my when he was get the floor. . out and afterwards when he took it • the knife ring t Francis Stockton came up with a light, but screamed on • ut. Another candle was brought. My husband it went o lay stretched in my bed, "lam d ,* " and I said, us he . mg, thensaw him spit blood. He was carried into his father's house. great sorrow Prisoner went in ond expressedl , and his thumb was cut, as if the knife had closed upon it. L fetched a surgeon. A police-officer was sent for, and. poi- _ goner remained till he came. Constable Fain came, 44d L, went with him to the spot where my husband saick sae. was stabbed, and saw the knife, and the officer picked itc AP, found:, was closed, and there was blood on the blade. 11l v/P•s- foun ''' less than a yard from where my husband stood when he was., stabbed. My husband died on the 14th February. He ; . could not stir himself after the wound. Cross-examined by Mr. BRAN3a.-,-1 have been married . three years last July. 1 did Ott live with hire, as we had no means of furnishing a bowie- My husband. used, to drink, and waf quarelsoruu viltOlt tirtinit nu WM about six feet