Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-24 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY. [BAore Mr. Baron WATSON.] His lordship tookhis seat this morning at flint, o'clock, and immediately proceeded to pass the following SENTENCES. Militon Garai, 22, a Spanish seaman, for the man slaughter of William Marshall, on the 3rd of April last, six years' penal servitude. John M'lntyre, 37, who pleaded guilty to the man slaughter of John Maxwell at sea, on the 26th of February, 1859, imprisonment and hard labour for fifteen calendar months. THE MURDER OF A POLICEMAN'S CHILD AT LIVERPOOL Mary Ann Gibbons, 15, was indicted for the wilful murder, on the 21st of July last, cf John Thompson, a little boy of the age of four years and nine months, the son of a police-officer named John Thompson. Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Raffles appeared for the prose cution ; and Mr. Pope, instructed by Mr. Bluck, defended the prisoner. It appeared from the opening statement of the counsel for the prosecution that the prisoner had been in the service of Mrs. Thompson only two or three days before the occurrence, into which they had to inquire, took place; and that on the very day, July 21, she had been told that she would have to leave, as she was not capable of doing the work. On the evening of that day . , the mother saw the child playing in the Street, about eight o'clock, and shortly afterwards sent the prisoner out to fetch him in. She returned in a minute or two, saying she could not see him, and was sent out again, when she returned after twenty minutes absence, tying she could not find him. A little boy came into the shop kept by Mrs. Thompson at this time, and said he had seen a womau take up the child and go away. Mrs. Thompson told the prisoner to go and inform her husband at the Rose-hill police station ; but the girl only returned about three o'clock next morning, and in the meantime the child had been found drowned. About ten o'clock, soon after the prisoner had been sent to the Rose-hill police station, she was met on the canal bank by a boy named Fox, a considerable distance from Mrs. Thompson's house, and she asked him the way to Bankfield-street. She suddenly called his attention to something in the water ; with the assistance of a flatmar, she pulled it out, and it was eventually, identified as the missing child. She did not, however, recognise the child until a considerable time after it was taken out of the canal. On returning to Mrs. Thompson's house at three o'clock in the morning, she said that she mistook her mistress's instructions about sending her to the Rose-hill station, and that she had gone to the Sandhill station. He (Mr. Aspinall) should call before the jury a little girl whose evidence was most material, but which was not heard of until the previous day. That witness would tell them that she saw the prisoner talking to a woman, and that that woman carried a child about the time in question. He should likewise call before them a woman of the name of Ellen Jones, who would state that on the night in question she saw the prisoner going alon g Doncaster-street with a child in her arms. He would also call before them a boy named Hill, who would say that he saw a strange - woman take up the deceased in the street ; and he would, as before, speak to a.. pa r ticular woman whom he identified as the person he saw take up the child. This was a woman of the name of Latham, whom he should call as a witness, for however truthfully the woman might speak as to circumstances, he was, no doubt, mistaken as tothe woman Latham. The route from Mrs. Thompson's house to the Sandhills-bridge was a distance of lj miles, and the route was so intricate that it would be extremely difficult for any person who had not some previous knowledge of the line of streets to find the way. The mystery of thi3 case arose from the impossi bility of ascribing to -the prisoner any reasonable motive for such a crime. Hannah - Thompson, examined by Mr. Raffies.—l am the wife of John Thompson, a police-constable in this -town. I live at 61, Conway-street, Everton. I keep a provision shop. My eldest child is named John ; he is four years and nine months old. The prisoner came into my service on the 18th of last month. She told me that she was fifteen years old. I did not get any character with her, as she said the family she last lived with had gone to London. It was part of her duty to a tt et L , lto the children. My eldest boy was a healthy child, but he hi a weakness down one side, which prevented him walking well. On the afternoon of the 21st July I told the prisons; that she would not suit me, and in the evening of that dayl missed the deceased. The deceased was playing in t,`.. 1 .e street, about the door of my house, at a quarter past eigh. o'clock. He had on a red frock, but no hat or cap. M y ilittle boy was playing about the house, and I told the pri2oner to bring him in that he might go to bed, but she ret„;.-ned in about a minute, saying that he was not there. / a ent her out again, and she returned in about twenty mintt,:les, say pm she could not find him. This would be about ine o'clock. I then told her to go to the Rose-hill station, to tell my husband. When looking for the child, a ' little boy, named Charles Hill, came into the shop, and on asking if he had seen Johnny, he said, "Your little boy, Mrs. Thompson ?—why, I saw a yellow woman take him up, and go into Gordon-street." On the return of the prisoner, after her second search, I told her to take this little boy with her to the station, but he did not go. My husband returned that night a few minutes before ten o'clock. I did not see anything of the prisoner from nine o'clock until two or three o'clock the next morning, when she came home alone. I asked her if she had taken my boy. I had then heard from my sister that my boy was drowned. I continued asking the prisoner why she did not know the boy when he was taken out of the canal, and she replied that it was dusk. I still kept accusing her, and she replied that she did not do it. I asked her why she went to the wrong station, Sandhills station, instead of Rose-hill, and she said she thought the way I directed her was the wrong way. I asked her why she had not come home before, and she said the neighbours would not allow her. She remained at my house until Saturday, the 23rd July. I kept ac cusing her all the time between th e 21 s t an d the 23rd J u ly. It never took the least effect on her, and she said that I should find it out. Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.—l did not know the prisoner or her mother before she came to my service. I took the prisoner into custody because her mother seemed a very tidy and respectable person. I had noticed no unkindness on the part of the prisoner to the children. I told her I thought she was guilty, and that everybody else said she was guilty. John Thompson, a police-officer, the husband of the last witness, stated that the prisoner did not come to the Rose-hill police station. Ellen Jones examined by Mr. Raffles.—l am the wife of John Jones, and live in Hedley-street. I was out on the night of the 21st July. It was about nine o'clock. I met the prisoner, and she had a child in her arms. It was dressed in a red frock, leather boots, but had no hat or cap on. She was going very fast down Doncaster street, towards the docks, from Great Howard-street. I said, " Mary Ann, where do you live now?" but she made no answer. She must have heard me. Her mother lives next door to me. On Monday, the 25th of July, I saw the prisoner in the next house to mine, on the other side. I asked her what night it was the child w as drowned, and she said on Thursday night. I said that is the night I met you, and she said " No, I was not out that night." She also said that she had been scourinc, the rooms all day. I went into m y own h ouse , and she followed and said the reason she did not speak to me that night was that she was afraid of meeting her mistress, as she was going to see her mother. Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.—When I met her she was going in the direction of her mother's. I heard of the child being drowned on Monday morning ; but I did not then hear of the prisoner being accused. A little girl, who at first „crave the name of Ann Owens, but afterwards admitted that it was Ann Patte son, was next called. She was a new witness; and had been heard of only the previous day. She said :—I am fourteen years of age, and live in Newsham-street with tny grandmother. I know the deceased from going to the shop. I remember the day he was lost. I think it was Tuesday, but I am not sure. I know t h e p rison e r, and on the mght in question I saw her at the bottom of Howe -street. I saw a woman there with the deceased In her arms I do not know whether I should know said, Th t agam.When the prisoner til "" na n is the child I have been looking for," and the womana said, "Yes, I know it is Thompson's boy." They talked together for a while, when the prisoner w ho e ns zt e " a ' n sawa?:fL followed the prisoner to Mrs. Thompson's street wheher come ou t again and go into Gordon ,re she met the woman again. She followed the Bou nda prisoner, and saw the she left and the prisoner in ry-street, where left them together. She could not tell what ma d e her f any b o dy until sherteoldothse dapyo.lieeall:;ffiwc. She never told police-officer at the door . of th e court on the ptrial. She wanted to get into th e court to hear the viu Cross-examined by Mr. p ope ri name as Ann ow °w ca me you to and would not answer the repeuten give your down her head, questions both of the learned counsel and of his l a ord d in. She then began crying, but afte r a little time stated that she would not have come to the court this morning if the officer had not fetched her. The wit ness admitted that she had told several different stories, and that the day after the child was drowned she met the priaoner in the street and quarrelled with her. Charles Hill, a boy about nine years of age, exa mined by Mr. Rafiles.—l live in Conway-street, Ever ton. I know Mrs. Thompson's children. 1 remembet seeing the deceased playing in the street on the night he was lost. I saw a yellow woman come up to little Johnny Thompson, take him in her arms, and go down Gordon-street. He had a red frock on. Afterwards my mother sent me to Mrs. Thompson's shop for a can dle. Mrs. Thompson was crying about Johnny, and I told her what I had seen. She said she knew very well somebody had nipped him away. John Fox, a youth, examined by Mr. Aspinall.—l live in Everton-view, Bootle. On the evening of 21st May I was returning home along the canal bank, having got on the bank at Bankhall-bridge. I saw the prisoner; she came from behind my back. She asked me for Bankfield-street. She said she had been in the brick field, and that she had met a man who said there were kidnappers in the field, so she had climbed over the wall on to the canal bank. While she was talking we were walking along towards Bootle, when after going about 100 yards she said there was a child in tba water. I said it was a dog. On looking again it appeared to be a child. The prisoner then began to cry. I asked her if the child was any relation of hers, and she said no. She asked me to pull it out ; I said, " No, you may pull it out." A flatman came past, and he and the prisoner got the body out of the water. I went to the police. I and the prisoner accompanied the police with the body to the dead-house. A man stopped the police on the way, to look at the body under a lamp. The prisoner said she was looking for a child dressed in a red frock. I said, " The child that has been found is dressed in that way." She first recognised the child at the Collingwood station. John Carroll, a flatman, said that he helped to get the body out of the canal. He did not know how the child was dressed. Thomas Hayes and Burke, police-constables, stated that the prisoner was beside the man who looked at the child under the lamp, but she did not then recognise it. Detective-officer Wilson said that he took the prisoner into custody at her mother's house, 65, Hedley-street. I asked the prisoner several questions. I asked her what time she saw the child alive on the night it was drowned. She said the last time she saw it was with the old woman in Gordon-steeet. I said what old woman do you mean ? she said an old woman who was in bridewell, Mrs. Latham. She was going towards the waste ground, and she said, Missis, that is the child lam looking for. The old woman replied, I know, it is Mrs. Thompson's child; I am going to take , it home with me ; you go back, and don't say anything to Mrs. Thompson about it. She did so, she said, and. Mrs. Thompson ordered her to go to Rose-hill station. She then went down Conway-street, through Great Homer-street, towards Christ Church School, when she met the old woman she had arranged to meet, with the child in her arms. The prisoner took the child, and they went to a new street in Scotland-road, opposite Doncaster-street ; and the old woman said, " You go down Doncaster-street, and I will go down Athol-street, and we will meet at Athol-street bridge." She carried the child. At the bridge the woman took the child from her, saying, " Come along ' • I live down here." They turned down a steep place leading to the canal bank, and then went on to Bankhall- i bridge. There they saw a man in the field with a horse, and the old woman said, " There is a man there ; he may see us, or else we would go farther." They then turned back a short distance towards Liver pool. The old woman stopped, and looked ronnd to see if anybody was coming; and the she said, "I am going to put the child into the water; it will sink to the bottom, and no one will ever know anything of it." She then stepped to the water's edge and dropped the child quietly in. The old woman said, " I will get over the wall into Bankhall-street, then into Great Athol-street ; you can run along the canal bank, and I will meet you there ' • if any body wants to know what you are run ning for, tell them that you are going to Bankfield street." The old woman told her to swear she knew nothing about it, and that no one could find it out. She ran along the canal bank until she met the boy Fox. This was her statement. It appeared that the officer had not given the usual caution before asking questions of the prisoner ; he was severely reprimanded by his lordship for this neglect. Esther Latham, the old woman identified by the boy Hill as having taken up the child, said that she was a widow, living in Back Sandown-lane, Everton. She declared that she never knew anything of the parties or circumstances connected with this case before she was charged. She accounted for the way in which she had spent her time on the day in question, and was then set at liberty. Dr. A j yrton gave evidence regarding the cause of death. The preceding is the case for the prosecution. - Mr. Pope, in defending the prisoner, said it was a f ean ",-21 thing for a girl of the prisoner's age t o b e charged with the crime of murder. He would impress upon the mi.lcis of the jury theprinciple in English law, that it was the, :luty of the prosecution, and the prose cution alone, to m t ;_ke out a case, without trying to eke out from the girl's cs:vii statements materials for her condemnation. He A pp e 4led h toth m e try as th t a o t t i h f e there was the slightest doubt in ..heir pri soner's guilt, to return a verdict of not guilty. The first step was to prove that a , murjer, had been com mitted ; and the burden of proof by psitive evidence was with the, prosecution. The next step On the part of the prosecution was to prove, beyond all rOsonable doubt, by a chain of evidence, that if a mQrder had been committed, it had been done by the prisone- He contended that it was not at all impossible that the child might have strayed to the canal ; nor was it im possible to suppose that the child was nipped up for the purpose of robbery, or child !stripping, and for somereason or other put down near the canal, that it strayed from that point and fell in. But the more important part of the defence was, had the prosecutor brought together a chain of probable evidence which could lay the crime on the prisoner ? No possible motive of enmity had been shown that she should have carried away the child a mile and a-half, and deliberately dropped it into the canal. Could they believe that a girl fourteen years of age could plan such a consummately wicked act ? The mother herself had stated that the prisoner's conduct was kind, and that she trusted her with an infant, for which she was far more responsible. Not a single cir cumstance of spite or malice had been adduced, yet they even asked to find that little girl guilty of murder, with out motive, without malice. Leaving out the girl's own statement, there was not a tittle of evidence against her. Yet the case for the prosecution was and must be, that what the prisoner said to officer Duncan was not true, else if it were true why had they not put Mrs. Latham into the dock, instead of in the wit ness-box ? It had no value as a confession, for not only had it been proved untrue, but in many of its circumstances it could not possibly be true. This statement had been got by extracting evidence from the prisoner, without first mentioning the conse quences to her. The learned counsel then commented on the evidence of the girl Owens, and in conclusion he said the case for the prosecution was one of mystery, and full of doubt and uncertainty. Two witnesses, who had known the prisoner from a child, spoke very favourably of her character. His Lordship, in summing up, said that the jury must be satisfied that the prisoner, by herself or with others, wilfully and purposely threw the child into the water. They could only find her guilty from a train of circumstances that led to that conclusion. The present case was extremely mysterious. The learned counsel for the prosecution had not ventured to offer a theory as to the murder, and he must confess that he was at a loss himself, even at that stage of the enquiry, to estab lish a theory in his own mind on the evidence upon which the prisoner committed ,ths offence of drowning the child. ObservatiOnsliat•-been made about motive, but there was no apparent motive here. The mystery was in the hands of the jury, and they must deal with the evidence. The jury retired to their room to consider their ver dict, and after the absence of a few minutes found the prisoner not *silty. She was then discharged. MkICCIIESTEIt WILL FORGEILIZE: It was airanged to take the case of the Manchester Will Forgeries to-morrow (Wednesday) morning immediately after the sitting of the court. Hu lordship then proceeded to try civil causes. ROBINSON V. JEFF In this case, Mr. Attorney-General Bliss and Mr. Quain appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Edwin James, Q. C. and Mr. Melhuish for the defendant. The plaintiff was Thomas Robinson, a builder and joiner of Hull ; and the defendant was Richard Jeff, porter merchant, also of Hull. The action was for goods sold and money paid, arising out of a coa -1 tract made in 1858, for some building work to be done by the plaintiff. There was a claim of £561 for \the first instalment due, and there was a further claim of abo u t £204 f or ex t ras . The: plaintiff was nonsuited. Th e court then rose. NORTHERN DAILY TIMES. CBefore Mr. FORSYTH, Q.C.] William Kinsella was found guilty of having received stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, belonging to Captain Graham, of Blackburn. Sentence—twelve months' imprisonment. Michael Nolan, aged 26, charged with cutting and wounding Jane Taylor, at Liverpool, on the 26th July 1 4.1 a ;11+.111 crravinna hada v Harm woo Sentence deferred. - William Sagg, aged 35, was charged with having, at Windle, on the 30th June last, embezzled £43 65., which he had received on account of his master, Francis W. Tinker. The prisoner was acquitted. ---♦- NISI PRIUS COURT .-YESTERDAY [Before Mr. Justice HILL and a Special Jury.] GALLAGHER V. BUTTERWORTH AND ANOTHER In this case, which ws tried on Monday, and in which the jury retired to consider their verdict, they re turned into court at a late hour, with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages one farthing. ROBERTS V. PATTERSON In this case, which was an action for slander, arising out of the previous case, a juror was withdrawn by mu tual consent. GULSON AND ANOTHER V. HERNAMAN AND OTHERS This was an action to recover from the assignees of a bankrupt a large quantity of silk, which was in his hands at the time he became bankrupt. Mr. Wilde, Q.C., Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Bayliss, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Temple, Q.C., Dr. "Wheeler, and Mr. Jones for the defendants. Mr. Wilde, Q.C., stated the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Gulson and Caldecott, who are silk merchants and silkmen at Coventry, very largely en gaged in business, and the defendants were the assignees of a bankrupt named Heaps, who was what is called a silk-throwster, at Macclesfield. In the months of February and March, in the present year, as many as twelve bales of silk were sent to the bank rupt to be thrown, the weight of the silk being 1,2681b5., and of the value of between £7OO and £BOO. It was necessary to observe that silk-throwsters were not gene rally persons in affluent circumstances, and therefore it was of importance that the silk merchant should take stringent precautions for the purpose of ensurinc , a re turn of the same weight of silk which he sent to the silk thtowster, less the waste, which there always was to some extent. The rule was that if the throwster did not return the same weight of silk which he received, the amount of difference was deducted from what he was to be paid for throwing the silk. In May of the present year, the bankrupt was reported to be in insol vent circumstances, and Mr. Caldecott, hearing of this, went over to Macclesfield, to Heaps's warehouse, in order to see how things really stood. On arriving there, he found that the bankrupt had ab sconded. He, however, met with a Mr. Day, the manager, and, in compliance with Mr. Calde cott's request, Mr. Day pointed out to him one bale of silk which was lying on the counter. There were also several other lots lying about, and there was a private mark upon them which proved them to be the property of the plaintiffs ; and, therefore, he did not think the jury could have much doubt as to the identity of this portion of the silk. These lots, which were in books, and untied, consisted of 299 lbs. weight. Three other pieces were also pointed out to Mr. Caldecott, weighing 582 lbs., which, together with the other lot, made 8811bs. ' which was the quantity of silk w hi c h th e plaintiffs now claimed as their property. The next day the silk was put into bags, and sealed, preparatory to being taken away by the plaintiffs ; but there was a Mr. Dean on the premises, who stated that he had a bill of sale on the stock, and he interfered at the time to prevent the silk from being given up to the plaintiffs. Ultimately Mr. Caldecott was induced not to insist upon taking the silk away that day, but to wait until the following day. On the 27th of May Heaps was declared bankrupt, and before Mr. Caldecott took the silk away the creditors wished to know whether it really belonged to Mr. Caldecott or not, and after making an examination of the silk on the 28th, the following day, when the defendants were present, the creditors came to the decision that the silk belonged to Mr. Caldecott, and that he should be allowed to take it away ; but in June another objection was raised. On the 24th of June the assignees were appointed, and then Mr. Caldecott made a demand upon them for the silk, stating at the time that the plaintiffs were ready to pay for any of the silk which had been thrown, and that they would send a person named Waller for the silk on the 29th. On that day Waller accordingly went to the warehouse, and after making some demur, the assignees said that they were not prepared to give up the silk, and refused to do so. The learned counsel then stated that a large quantity of the silk was Taysaam, and having de scribed the particular kinds and qualities of the s ilk, which enabled the plaintiffs to identify it as their property, witnesses were called. Mr. Caldecott, one of the plaintiffs, was examined by Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and confirmed the opening state ment of the learned counsel. Mr. Day, formerly manager to Mr. heaps, the bank rupt, deposed to pointing out the different lots of silk to the last witness as the property of the plaintiffs. With the exception of a small quantity of silk which had come from Mr. Fisher, there was no other silk of the same kind in the warehouse at the time. By the Judge : Mr. Fisher's silk was not there the day that Mr. Caldecott came into the warehouse. None of Mr. Fisher's silk was put up in the bags by Mr. Caldecott. The silk was subsequently taken possession of by the messenger. Cross-examined by Mr. Temple, Q.C. : I do not re member Taysaam silks like that sent by the plaintiffs being brought into the warehouse to be wrought by Mr. B:,;:ips on his own account, and not for customers. Mr. Heal:* told me that the silk I pointed out to Mr. Cal decott to be worked up for the plaintiffs. The wit ness was fara2er interrogated as to silks received from other parties, besides the plaintiffs, with the object of showing that the sirs in question might belong to other customers of the bank - riipt. His Lordship interposeb; and said that unless the learned counsel could_ prove thtzt the silk really did not belong to the plaintiffs, his course of cross-eiamination was irregular, and a waste of time. _ Mr. temple observed that had he i;pen allowed a greater extent of discretion in conducting hio own case, at least half an hour might have been spared. His Lordship desired the learned counsel to pro:eed, and not make remarks. Some other witnesses having been examined, Mr. Caldecott was recalled, and stated that the value of the silk held by the defendants was £796. Mr. Temple, Q.C. addressed the jury on the pa r t o f the defendants. H ei admitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict for a portion of the silk which had been worked, and that they should have that particular portion handed over to them on payment of £63 to the assignees, which was the cost of working the silk. With regard to the rest, the learned counsel contended that the plaintiffs had failed to make out that it belonged to them, there being no proof that it was the identical silk which was delivered to the bankrupt by the plaintiffs fox the purpose of being thrown. In the absence of such proof, the plaintiffs must come in with the rest of the creditors for any dividend which the bankrupt's estate might ultimately realise. Witnesses were about to be called for the defendants, when the jury stated that they were satisfied, from the evidence of Mr. Day, that all the silk pointed out to Mr. Caldecott by Mr. Day was the property of the plaintiffs. Mr. Temple then said that he had abundant evidence to show the improbability of the silk being that of the plaintiffs; but if the jury relied so entirely on the evidence of Mr. Day, he did not see the utility of carrying the case further. The jury then returnee a verdict for the plaintiffs for £796. SIDEBOTTOM V. SIDEBOTTOM. In this case Mr. Monk, Q.C. appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Overend, Q.C. for the defendant. The plaintiff, Emily Sidebottom, sought to recover the sum of between £6O and £7O from the defendant, John Side bottom, who was her brother, being the amount of interest on a principal sum of £ 41 7, lent him by the plaintiff in 1846. On the ease being about to be opened, Mr. Overend, on the part of the defendant, said, as this was a purely family dispute it was desirable that it should be settled without the details coming before the court. Mr. Monk said he should be glad to assent to any suggestion of his lordship, but he must say that there never was a case in which the defendant better deserved exposure, and lie (the learned counsel) should certainly use strong language if the case proceeded. Mr. Overend said the whole was the result of a mis understanding between the parties, and on the part of the defendant he did not wish any iaputation to be cast upon the plaintiff. The defendant, it was understood, was to have had the use of the money without the payment of interest, but this the plaintiff, from having misunder stood the terms, denied. however, the defendant was no w willing to pay 21 per cent. interest for the use of the money. Mr. Monk most emphatically denied that no interest was to be paid. Ultimately, at the sugges tion of the judge, the defendant's offer was accepted, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff upon the terms proposed by the defendant. - ACTION FOR SEDUCTION.-LEECH V. UNGARO, In this case, the parties reside at Ashton-under-Lyne. Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Aspland appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Spinks for the ueienuant. iue uectaraiton stateu mac Lae (Lei...—. had seduced the plaintiff's daughter, and that she gave birth to a child, and afterwards died. Mr. James, Q.C. said this was quite a different case to the run of cases which had been brought before the jury within the last few days. It was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for an injury which he had received at the hands of the defendant ; and, when the jury had heard the circumstances in connection with the case, he thought they would say the plaintiff had very good grounds indeed for the course which he had taken. The plaintiff in this action was a corn dealer, a grocer, and a yeast merchant, carrying on business in the borough of Ashton-wider- Lyne, and the defendant was a butcher, and a cattle dealer, carrying on business in the same town, and near to the plaintiff. He was also a mem ber of the town council of Ashton-under-Lyne ; the defendant was a man advanced in life, being upwards of fifty years of age ; the youtg woman, who unfortu nately was no more the daughter of the plaintiff, was a young lady of the age of twenty-six when she died. It would be made to appear to the jury that an intimacy sprung tip between the defendant and this unfortunate young lady when she was much younger than she was when she died. It was in the year 1855, when the deceased was between twenty-one and twenty-two years of age. That intimacy did not meet with the approbation of the plaintiff, who expressed his decided disapproval of it ; and as soon as he learned that the defendant was paying his addresses to his daughter from circumstances with which he was familiar, and which he would relate to the jury when he got into the witness box, ielative to the character, the conduct, and the conversation of the defendant, he refused to allow his daughter to receive the defendant's addresses, and he told the defendant himself that he insisted on no further intercourse taking place between them ' • and, in addition to that, although hitherto he had been on terms of intimacy with the defendant, he told him him self that from that time he would not meet him in society. Unfortunately the young lady did not attend, as she ought to have done, to the instructions of her father • and it would appear that the plaintiff's daugh ter s and the defendant continued to correspond in ~a clandestine manner, and the defendant then went the length himself of proposing a matrimonial alliance. This she never communicated to her father, but carried on the intercourse in spite of her father's wishes. This went on during the years 1856, 1857, and 1858, when, on the 29th of March last, she was brought to her confinement ; she suffered much during that confinement, and onthe 9th of April she died in consequence. Now the question was, who was the seducer of that young woman ? He should lay before them most conclusive evidence that the defendant was the' seducer and the father of that child, and he felt assured they would have no doubt that he took the opportunity of securing the affections of the deceased in a manner by no means creditable to himself ; and that although, in the first instance, he tried to convince her that his intentions were honourable, and that matrimony was to be the result of his connection with her, yet, that having effected her ruin—having obtained possession of her person, and having had his passions gratified, —his manner towards her became cool, and at length he acted as though he wished to have nothing more to do with her. There was not, unfortunately, the evidence of the young woman herself, but he should show the jury, by the evidence of other witnesses, the tendency of the intercourse which had existed between the parties. He would also show them that, when the plaintiff's daughter was ill, the defen dant expressed sympathy with her situation, and wished to see her, which was not allowed. He also made a proposal for the support of the child. He should now take the liberty of reading to the jury four or five letters, which were found in the possession of the young woman after her death. He did not mean to read over the whole of the letters, but only a few of them. The first letter he would read was as follows : Monday, Feb. 23, 1857. MY DEAR MARY,—I hope you will read this note, and this time take notice of one that is not allowed to see you. Your father says he will not have anything to do with it, so Brad shaw tells me. Dear Mary, you misunderstood my note, lam quite sure; and Martha, too. I told Martha it was very hard, and I would like to be comfortable. Now, Mary, if you will send me the size of the ring, and the day you will be married on, I will not want to see you until I meet you at the church, without any further preparation, for it is all that that has made both you and me so very unhappy. Name the day, and I will buy the ring. The bride-cake was made last week but one, the cards are printed, and there is a heart and home for you the moment you may choose to say " I will ;" without you it is a void. If you will not see me, nor be married, you can have the license for the marriage ; it will be of no use to me, as it is made for you and me. I had it in my pocket on Thurs day, at Holmfirth, but I must not see you ; and my heart was too full to make any disturbance, for I saw that all had been taken the wrong way. Mary, ask yourself a few questions, and yon will find your heart cannot refuse to speak. You may think for a moment, when all those around you are laying down the black side, that you will despise me ; but for you I will either die or live, I will not, cannot have another; and if you will not be married, my life shall be devoted to you, for I shall never again know real pleasure, such as I have passed in your company. I may seem cheerful ; but, no, Mary, I will never marry another; and you have often told me that, and it is the only wish of my heart that you will stick to that. I have been too sanguine of making you happy, and bringing you home honourably, and now they wont have anything to do with it. Mary, review some of our past life, and see how happy we have been in each other's company, and how often we have pledged to love no other upon this earth. I now repeat mine, and hope you will yours, and a life of love shall repay you. The friends that have fetched you and received you with such apparent kindness, Mary, may sometime be as they have been before; and, as it affects our whole life, Mary, do consider it, and let us make each other happy. My sister Mary, in Stamford-street, will be most happy to see Martha, or receive any communication you may think proper. Mary, think at our plighted vows, and mine would and shall be carried into effect this day, week, but for this un happy mistake. It shall be any day you may nam.e; Mary. DO forgive one unkind act. You know if you take •it for unkind ness, it is the first in my-life to you.—Whether or not, I remain, yours until death, J. LINOARD. Now, on the 14th of March, in the present year, he again writes in these terms— Saturday Evening, March 14, 1857 Mir DEAR MARX, —Your kind and welcome note is to hand. You cannot conceive how unhappy I have been for this three or four days, for every day I expected to hear from you, but could not. I could tell what was the reason. I left you the night I saw you for your sake, for fear of Martha seeing us together, and then making you unhappy. Mary, if ever man loved woman, Ido you, and will do all I can for you. I never made one pledge but I intend to make good. I feel as if I could not live without you, and I hope you feel the same towards me. My dear Mary, as far as I have led you I intend to lead you further, I intend to lead you to the altar, and there all the vows and promises I have made to you; make you my laiyful wife, and lead you to the end of our existence. Now, Ma.ry, calm your fears about me and my promises, for if I live and ~'u willing, then shall all be made good when you desire. Do not think of leaving home until you come to a home, and lover that will endeavour to make your life one of happiness for ever, aid repay you for all that you have under gone for him that you say you can live with and love for ever. If you cannot see me, write and tell me what to do about the wedding, for I shall make nozort of stir now until it is over ; and, my dear Mary, do not be so very much afraid about them ; for, if through you seeing me closes you one moment's displeasure, the morning following shall see you my wife. Mary, I have made up my mind, and Ido not value them. If by any pretext you could go out to-morrow eight, or to night; if you can only let me know, I will meet you aigi set all your fears on one side. If you choose not to be married for a week or two, it is perfectly right. I am willing to accOgimodate you any way I can ; but you know, Mary, we cannot get married without the ring, and 1 cannot get one without ybp. I should very much like to see and have some talk with you. You know we ought to see each other, and then we can say more than we can write.—But believe me yonrs until death doth us part. J. LINOARD. Now, there was a postscript to the letter which might throw a little light on her fears, and which might prove that those fears were Rot altogether groundless :—" The talk about Elizabeth is all scandal. I speak to no one ; neither can they get to, know if I have seen you." This postscript showed that the poor girl thought that his attentions to others were not such as they ought to have been, considering the relations between them. On the 9th of January, 1858, he again wrote to her the follow ing letter January 9, 1858, Air DEAR MARY,—I must confess your mite did not contain much consolation. You very justly said you could not say much ; but what you did say was very hard upon me, and I think partially uncalled for. If, on calm reflection, you can write so cool and sarcastic a note, I wonder what it would have been had I been at your side, to have heard your tongue at the same time. Now, Mary, one word from you would have been more consolation than all that some people could say, and for that reason I eased my mind by writing to you, little expecting so short and cutting a reply ; for, at least, I thought you the only person to afford consolation and to sympathise with me, knowing that my affairs, my business, and every action of mine is identified with you, and must tend to your social and domestic comfort. Now, Mary, would this be the case when I come home, or look to you for advice and infor mation, as well as comfort and consolation ? Is this the way you intend to give it ? for I can assure you I would not have wrote to you if I had thought that would have been the sort of answer I should have got. You very well know that if anything has come across me I have always told you, in full confidence of your advice and sympathy; and I do hope it was only a flying word without meaning, and not such as you would say upon calm reflection. You never thought of speak ing to me again. Am I to take that as meaning you never wish to see me any more ; or what does it apply to ? Is it my conduct on Sunday night towards you : was it so unkind, or is something else? for I can assure you that whatever opinion you may form, or what construction you may put upon it, it was, sorry tonything, but pure affection on my part, and am very set) it put you about all. But enough anti: I see you, for you deprived me of my sleep last night. I could not go to sleep after reading your note, for I could' not believe myself that you meant what you said. If I am to see you to-morrow, will you name the time and place ? I think we might have seen each other this week, if you bad thought proper. Hoping you are quite well, believe me to be yours until death, .1. LIIMARD. P.S.---I have seen J. W. Mellor since dark, and he says I am all right ; but I am going to see ltim to-morrow forenoon, and than I shall kw.. unnr. - • There were two or three more short scraps that he would read to them ; and then, after having called witnesses, he would leave the case in their hands. There were some written without any date, evidently towards the last, and one of the scraps found contained the follow ing :—" If I could see you to night I should be most happy. Pluck up your spirits. Go out. Never mind. I have spoken to Mr. Light to-day about marrying us." He thought the jury might very well see from that what had passed between them; and when he was inviting her to keep up her spirits, and never to mind, there could be little doubt as to what had passed, and what was distressing her at the time. The next letter was the last he would read to the jury. It was as follows: DEAR MART,—Would you believe it ; Miss Wild has been married this morning, and she said she met you when she was coming here, but could not speak. They were just having some coffee when I came from the shop ; and when I motioned to you they were just going to the railway. They arc gone to Southport. They wanted me to rub against her. Our Eliza said you were at the door when they came in. Now I fancy you got up before your breakfast this morning ; did you not? I think you and me will have a cheap trip again some day ; what think you? I expect if I ask, you will say no to going to have a walk to-morrow evening. Hoping you have a more conte ited mind than I have, I remain, yours ever. J. LINGARD. T'L.ose, then, were the letters. On the face of them they breathed a strong feeling of attachment towards the deceased, and it was reasonable to believe that the man who wrote them had honourable intentions. The jury would also find that this young woman would have done anything—would have sacrificed herself and married the defendant—in order to save herself from the infamy which she knew awaited her. She was not the party to give up the engagement between them ; but the defendant, having gratified his own grovelling inclina tions, had then left the poor creature to die in misery and in disgrace. The jury were now called upon to award compensation to the plaintiff. His wounded feel ings, it was true, were entirely beyond the reach of any of them ; but the laws of this land offered no other remedy to a man for such an injury as this, than an ac tion for the deprivation. of his daughter's society, but when they were considering what amount of damages they were to award as compensation for such an injury, they were not bound to limit their views of compensa tion to the mere money amount which the services of his daughter had been worth to her father, but they were to take into consideration all the circumstances, and he trusted they would inflict such an amount of damages as would enable the plaintiff to go before his friends with the intimation that a jury of his country had responded to his call. Witnesses were then called. Mr. Robert Leech, the plaintiff, examined.—l carry on the business of a corn-dealer, a grocer, and a yeast merchant, at Ashton-under-Lyne. My wife died in 1854. I had three daughters. Since my wife's death, my daughters carried on my house. My deceased daughter, Mary, was the eldest ; she assisted me in the business and in the house. The defendant, who is a butcher and cattle-dealer, resides near me ; he is a member of the Town Council, and has been so for some years. In 1855, I learnt that the defendant was paying his attentions to my daughter. I at once saw the de fendant on the subject of the rumour. I asked him what the rumour meant about him and my daughter. He replied that it was all her grandmother. I then said to him, " I'll cut thy acquaintance." Some cus tomers came in, and I left the shop. I had my reasons for not desiring a connection between my daughter and defendant. He told me ten years ago that he went to the house of a lady, in Manchester, who had got married ; and that in a fortnight afterwards her husband threw a cup of coffee at her, in consequence of his visit. He afterwards often visited her, and she came to see him. On another occasion, he told me that he was in a railway carriage with a young lady going to Rotherham, and took liberties with her, and that he had some money to give her in order to make it up. He also spoke to me on another occasion about getting hold of a female when she fainted, and he thought she would have died In consequence of having heard these stories from the defendant himself, I objected to my daughter having anything to do with him. I put a stop to it, as I thought, at once, and it was not until March of the present year, that I found that the acquaintance be tween them had been still carried on. Shortly after wards I discovered that my daughter was in the family way. She became very ill, and died on the 7th of April. The child also died. I was put to about £45 expense in funeral charges and medical attendance. Cross-examined by Mr. Monk.—My daughter was confined on the 31st of March, and died on the 7th of April. I never saw her during her illness. lam sure the defendant is 45 or 50 years old. My daughter Martha is here. She was present when I thrashed the deceased with a stick. I had not that night seen her walking with the defendant. My daughter Martha came be tween us. I did not attempt to thrash her as well. It was a walking stick that I thrashed the deceased with. It might be in January, 1857. I may have said in the presence of my daughter Martha that I would not keep a w—e for Joe Lingard. I believe I have said so. I did not turn her out of the house the night I struck her. She did not sleep at home that night, nor for six weeks. I was never at Holmfirth with the deceased. She returned from Holmfirth to my. house. I do not remem ber a man namel Bradshaw coming from Lingard to ask my consent to marry my daughter. I don't recollect saying that Lingard might hang himself. I said he might hang his clothes and drown himself. Bradshaw said Lingard had told him to come and make it up. A man named Grundy called upon me, and said Lingard wanted to settle the matter. I told him that if he wanted to settle it, he must go to his lawyer. I did not threaten to go to the reporters for the papers, and have a full report of the case published all over England. Re-examined.—The deceased was my eldest daughter, and had attended to all the arrangements of my house. I did not see her when she was confined, because I con sidered my presence would make her worse. I provided medical attendance for her. Martha Leech, examined by Mr. Aspland.—l am the second daughter of the plaintiff. I remember the de fendant first becoming intimately acquainted with my sister. It was in 1855. My father, on hearing of it, on his return from Holland, was very angry. lam aware that after that my sister kept up an acquaintance with the defendant. I was not their confidante. I did not approve of it. My father did not strike me at the time he struck my sister. On the night he struck my sister I left the house with her, and that night we slept at a neighbour's house. The next day I went with her to Holmfirtb. I returned the next day. She re turned from Holmfirth in 1857. Whilst my sister was at Holmfirth, defendant wished me to write to her, and said it was through me that they were not married. I wrote to her, and told her what he had said to me. I said nothing more. He afterwards said that my letter to my sister was the reason why he did not marry her. Cross-examined.—l swear that after my sister's return from Holmfirth I did not how that the defendant cor responded with her. I never carried letters between them. lam not aware that my youngest sister did. I did not know that my sister was in the family-way until after the child was born. Mary Ann Gill examined.—l am sister of the late wife of the plaintiff. It was about August, 1855, that I heard the acquaintance between'the deceased and the defendant was going on. I did not communicate it to the plaintiff. In the Spring of the present year I heard that she was in the family-way. I was very much shocked about it. I remember her attending Dr. Turner in December last. She kept her state quite secret. Cross-examined.--4 knew of the acquaintance between the deceased and the defendant after her return from Holmfirth ; I also knew that her father could not be indncei to give his consent to the marriage Mr. Galt, surgeon, of Ashton-under-Lyne, was next ailed, and deposed to being called in to see the deceased, but it was not until after the child was been : the deceased's death was the result of child-birth. Cross-examined ti - Mrt --- Alonkr. SW — the defen dant after the deceased was confined, and he looked much dejected. He desired me to tell her to keep her spirits up, and that as soon as she could be removed she should come to his house, and he would marry her. Re-examined by Mr. James.—He also said that he would deposit £2OO in the bank for her and the child. Elizabeth Taylor examined.—l know both the plain tiff and the defendant. I remember talking to the de fendant after the present action was brought. I told him that I had heard that he had offered to give £2OO, and that £lOO was to be returned if the child died. He did not deny it. This was the whole of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff; and Mr. Monk having intimated that he did not intend to call witnesses, Mr. James addressed the jury on the evidence. Mr. Monk then addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant in a powerful and eloquent speeeb, and urged AUGUST 24, 1859. that it was owing to the personal hostility of the plain tiff towards to defendant that the marriage between the latter and the defendant could not take plaoe, and that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the plaintiff was not entitled to anything more than nominal damages. Th • ~e learnedjudge, in summing up, said that the sedue .4.— - - • - -- ...rt. Al thA AACA"`"‘ - 1...1. *Au.. aumiLieti 011 r _ the only question for the jury was the amount of damagei. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £3OO. WATTS V. SH 'TTLE WORTH This was an action to recover the sum of £2,145, in respect of an alleged breach of agreement. Mr. Manesty, Q.C. and Mr. Aspland appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilde, Q.C., and Mr. Millward for the defendant. As soon as the case had been opened, his lordship sug gested that it was a very proper issue for a special case in the court above. The learned counsel on each side assenting, the jury, under the direction of the learned judge, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move the court to have the same power to amend as a judge in Nisi Prins, and to have power to draw any conclusion of fact that they thought the jury ought to have drawn if the matter had gone to them. BARROW V. TOOTAL This was an action of ejectment in reference to an estate at Pendleton, in the parish of Eccles. Mr. Manesty, Q.C., and Mr. Aspland for the plaintiff, and Mr. Monk; Q.C., for the defendant. ; The only question was as to the construction to be put,upon a will made in 1799, by a Thomas Charlton. Before any evidence was .offered, it was agreed to make the matter a special case, and to enter a formal verdict for the defendant. The court rose about half-past four o'clock. COUNTY COURT -Y ESTERDA T [Before J. K. BLAIR, Esq., judge.] A BREACH OP CONTRACT.—LOWE V. SIMPSON This action wag brought to recover the sum of 41 2s. 4d , loss sustained by a breach of contract on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff, Thomas Lowe, is interested in the old St. Paul's Church Sunday-schools, and the defendant, Thomas Simpson, is a baker, carrying on business in Oldhall-street. Mr. Hime appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Grocott for the defendant. It ap peared that it was the intention of the parties interested in these schools to give the children a treat at Eastham on the 26th July last. The previous day, the com plainant calitd at the defendant's shop to order some buns, and left a memorandum for the defendant to supply 660 buns at fourteen for Is., to be delivered on board the-Enstham boat: at one o'clock on the day in question. This the defendant agreed to. The plaintiff, however, called subsequently, and he was told that the buns would not be supplied, as the defendant had learned that he, the plaintiff had been at Radley's, an opposition shop. The plaintiff then said that he would be obliged to employ a competent person to go round' and collect the number of buns required at the different shops, and charge him with the extra expense. This the plaintiff was obliged to do, and the sum now sought was the expenses he was put to. in consequence of the breach of contract. The difference in price he had to pay for the buns from that agreed to with the defendant was 7s. 10d. There was also car-hire, loss of plaintiff's time, and the allowance to the man engaged to collect the buns. It was set up for the defence, that no agree ment was entered into to supply the whole number re quired, and that a portion was made, which the plaintiff refused to take ; and that the words used on the occasion were to the effect, that the best would be done to supply as many as possible, the time being s h or t. Hi s h onour returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 15s. ACTION FOR SEAMEN'S WAGES.—GODWINF. WOOD.— The plaintiff in this action sought to recover £lOO for work and labour done, as chief mate of the City of Manchester, and for being unduly discharged ; and the loss sustained thereby. The defendant was captain of the ship in question. Mr. Carr appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Williams, barrister-at-law, for the defen dant. Mr. Carr, in opening the case, said the plaintiff first sued for wages which he had earned, and then he sued for a breach of contract, and for an assault and battery. The plaintiff shipped at Liverpool, on the 29th of April, 1859, as chief mate of the City of Man chester, for a voyage from Liverpool to St. John's, New foundland, thence to New Brunswick, and thence to any port in the United Kingdom. He signed the usual articles, and proceeded upon the voyage ; but during the voyage he was sub j ected to no en d o f a b use by th e captain. The plaintiff had been upwards of eighteen years at sea, and had been a chief mate f or fi ve years ; and he had been a master mariner for six years, and held a master mariner's certificate. During the voy age the captain subjected him to all kinds of degradation before the men, and had boasted of having had forty-eight maths, and that he would " work him off." When the vessel reached St. John's, the plaintiff made a complaint before the magis trates there of abusive language on the part of the captain. The magistrates advised the plaintiff to ge on board again, as there were no blows struck. The plain tiff took the magistrates' advice. But at St. John's, such was the conduct of the captain, that eight of the crew ran away from the ship, and she was obliged to sail short-handed. Of that the plaintiff did not complain, but worked on to New Brunswick. Matters went on until the 9th of July, when the defendant refused to let the plaintiff remain any longer as chief mate, and directed the steward to throw the chief mate's things out of the cabin, and ordered the plaintiff to go forward. The plaintiff said he was ready to do his duty as chief mate, the capacity in which he had shipped, but the captain refused to let him do duty as such, and then discharged him. The plaintiff went to a court at New B s runswick, for the purpose of seeing whether he could dot get a proper discharge, and get rid of the ship. The magistrates said they had no jurisdiction, and told the pl a i n tiff h e must seek redress when he got home to England, and advised him to go on board again. The plaintiff again took the magistrates' advice, and returned on board. The defendant renewed his abuse and called the plain tiff most scurrilous names, and said he should not return to his duty as chief mate. The plaintiff went to seek advice from a counsellor at New Brunswick, and got into a debt of about £6 from these proceedings, for which he was apprehended and put into jail. About two days afterwards, when the plaintiff got out of jail, he found that the captain had taken his master's certificate with him, also his clothes, &c., which he had not yet re covered. The plaintiff also complained that the captain had assaulted him. The amount of wages due to the plaintiff was £l7 :10s., having worked from 26th April to the 9th of July, at £7 per month. He thought there would be no doubt as to this item. He still had in his possession a certificate stating that the conduct and character of the plaintiff was very good on a former voyage. The plaintiff was called to substantiate this statement ; and stated, in addition, that OR one occa s i on the defendant brought ou t hi s pi s tols, loaded, and used threatening language. John Eaton corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff, in the various points in which he had been witness. It wits contended for the defence that the plaintiff had forfeited his wages through his own misconduct. With regard to the 'certificate, the defendant could not give that up except:before authori ties at the Sailors' Home, and at the proper dis charge of the plaintiff. No such discharge had taken place. With regard to the clothes there - twas no deten tion, as they had not been claimed. As'to the assault, it was contended that no such assault took place ; and in reference to the imprisonment, it was done under the authority of the magistrate who adjudicated in the matter, and that the plaintiff had forfeited all claims by becoming a deserter from the ship, an -entry of which had been made in the official log. The judgment in the case was deferred till Monday. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES.—The following persons were committedfor non-compliance with the orders of thecourt : Richard Cartridge, 4 Court, Kitchen-street, fourteen days ; month. Thomas to be homastt e e n yw for eed, ced s 4 e 3 n , te D n h ce ek t i o n :b4e d nf -s o tr r e c e e t d , infoua m eu days; rte in a 'month. Bryan Cl arke, Sandon-ter race, Beacon street, fourteen days; to b e enf orced in a month. James Kelly, 42, Foster-street, Great Howard -street, fourteen days; to issue in two months. John Troake, 18, College-I=e, fourteen days; to issue in a month. Timothy Hawkesworth, 106, Henderson-street, Park, fourteen days; to issue in a month. HOUSEKEEPERS.--The Coffee sold by Thompson Brothers, 5, Elliott-street, at Is. 4d., is better than you pay Is. Bd. for at any other establishment. HOLLOWAY'S PILLS cure headache, bile, loss of appe tite ; can be taken without danger from wet or Cold, and require no restraint from business or pleasure. They act mildly on the bowels, without pains or griping, strengthen the stomach, promote a healthy action of the liver, purify thp blood, cleanse the skin, brace the nerves, and invigorate the whole system. They prove an admirable restorative of a debilitated constitution, creating appetite, correcting indigestion, removing bile, giddiness, and nervous or sick head aches. It is impossible to speak too highly of therm pills,