The Northern Daily Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-12 00:00:00

velto ) The 1 1:auai mom.), Chester W3B held i o'clock yes .REPORTER.) ge of that citN •, at eleven as it was known th occupy their atte-, of Cheater, At . 4 considi. ,jor ti roue dispos e d of ..I-able amount of rou ti ne an d local b usiness was . very full attendance, ant subjects were to vas taken by the mayor tion THE GAS QUESTION, next question before th e counc il was the considera of the re commendation of the committee appointed to .ttekeßionot d o e c e onsideration and report up on th e app li cat i on of Pith thebefor gag company for permission to amalgamate Chester gas light company. The subject was e the council at the last monthly meeting, and certain Ceinditi ons were submitted by the committee, on which the amalgamation might be allowed. The subj ec t was a dj ourned f or the oP Purpose of affordi ng th e i nhabitants of Chester an hceanpdtoirettnunenity of conaiderino• were 'Pro Me ' since th en, that o sed that the fo. tion.the e oancil be ret, vot e , a d k division was by „e Dpeared for or a .asting vote of th e ati tme, with some sligh tredor. Brown d rew the atten gi ve rd r • Ile contended t had ° ceasei their or i g i nal rec , d, and that th ey h 74L_ he been in town he would nu toustlolltellded that it w as w h o ll y out of order. Ile therefore aillad th a t t h e original recommendations should be itd oyted l "ered as carr i e d unanimously, and not as merely Which uy the casting vote o f th e c h a i rman of a committee, set at all,in Point of fact, had no legal existence or power to Th n t Mayor exp resse d an op i n i on similar to that of Mr row . r. 4011/ Jones denied th a t tne he considered as having been camel unanimou , i y . telnitt so me conversation on thi s po i nt, which did not qttio`l; a lly resolution, the counc il proceeded to the actual -re' it em -rhillip Jones moved th a t th e report and recom ati,,, 'ations of the committee of the 11th March, be now pted by the council. mr. Glover seconded the resolution. et r * Cutter brought forward an amendment, to . the ber ect that it be an instruction to a sub-committee, „frpfter to be appointed, to see that proper and ample tC ri tY be taken, that the price of gas supplied by tho„emalgamated companies should not exceed 4s. 6d. per te„"liaticl feet, and that if this security be not given, the listed do rot sanction the amalgamation. If the amalga al tebti com pany should have the name and the conditions Nunalthoode gas company, that restriction would be et - e eesea rY ; but if the old company, over which the council •genu.„..l C ontrol, should s till b e part and parcel of the amel oe , ° or then h e th oug h t i t highly necessary that the i ti ku should be in a position to tie them down. To r the Ch airman : Then I su pp ose i n paint of fact you vote IletaiV t roalgamation, with a sub-committee to arrange the t ot t ir e Cutter : A nd that there be an instruction to that I put Ed tee to tie down the compa n y as to the price. vvards seconded the amend ment. andl3rown : Then it amounts to this • % al ° se who think with hitr gatnation ? l e r • Bowe : Oh, yes, some of us are, sir. (Laughter.) Air, Brown said the 'protection Mr. Cutter required was virg!ubtedly a Part O F . the arrangement now contemplated. b ak e e l t l i the a malremation was proposed ss, was the sum I °4l 4 8 ulatmum ; but that sum had been abandoned, Mee; ' 4 Nva°,, now laid down as the maximum. The whole . , Ple (If amalgamation proceeded upon the supposition te t c eonapany was bound to a maximum of 4s 6d. Tha ,s ser en ) e , Ze case, he presumed he had satisfied Mr. Cutter did lll , l ;* Cutter s a id, as h e had stated from the first onset, he not east obje c t t o the amalgamation, provided the price did e xceed 49. 6d. (Hear, hear.) Upon the statement of (If Bro wn, therefore, he woull withd raw hi s amendment. L, hear ) t hat Musgrove th en proposed an amendment t o the effect di ra ,,gle council d e clin e t o sanction the amalgam a ti on, an d Approve o f it a lt oget h er. I ti r Jones seconded the aree-2 th "qr. Cutter thought it only bee resolutions passed at the me read. (hear, hear.) „Resolutions were then read and passed at meetings of the 4:John's Broughton, Trinity, St. M ary ' s, an d St. Oswald's 4 11 8, all expressing a di s app rova l o f th e ama l gamat i on, calling upon the council not to sanction it. 11_411r. Rowe supported the amendment. He said he had ith hi' doubt that every man in the room had come there with I,lolrolnd made up, and therefore all the talking in the he wo now asked not cause any man to alter his opinion. N ed th e council, were they prepared, in the pres ß en ti c t e of the ..d e t l ilti c l os which bad been come to at the various ward e-c gs r to go and vote away that which they must a (ipider be the property of 1 3 face of bear.) He contended, the. _ to too individ ua l s w h o com p ose d those Ivhi c i" such a step, they were going to do that dt , they w ou ld one Jay regret. (Hear, h ear .) flog e last council meeting the consideration of that ques opiej:woesl3o3tponed in order that the council might have the ° Pite o ",, 4 of the people. (Hear, hear.) They now had the tbei n i "" the f the people, and were the council going to tell tall ed 7 did not care for that opinion ? The c ou n c il h a d dote u p o nthe people to spe a k out, and the people had are al so at various meetings. The supporters of the itth,,,gekation had had an opportunity of stating their ast kongeote, and the public never knew until the I thethe:llt that Mr. Salisbury could say he would amalgamate eon whether the people liked it or not. (Hear, the lie strongly obje c t e d t o th e counc il, i n t h e face of IStle-B°4olons before them exp ress i ng t h e v i ews of the eiti zeh ' , acting openly contrary to the general opinion of the „ Meat., hear.) Nle a ,,,* alter disputed the assertion that the opponents of ey—neTaMation had the voice of the people. It was not o 11 1 ,"„ n ‘ e Who liked to attend a pot-house meeting et night, r ' es elo pe l tit i n 'Zd make a fool of himself. (Laughter.) The ~. of the ward meetings world have been more l itta i c ,"'olr and more effective, if they had the signatures t t e r, ed to them, tbe ttjirost said he could state that there was no drink at Th`°„oghton Ward meeeting. (Laughter.) Of ti uhairman : I don't think Mr. Walker accuses you lenkin g. thkr:M„usgrove denied that there was any drinking at " e "og which he attended. it r • Brown said it would be unbecoming upon his part he VI be t, er e to allow the question to be finally disposed of, c oped ho ped it would be, without his stating his views. lie * should carry a ma j or i ty of the Council along with e l . eh to 4 stlPport what he considered the only safe measure A 0 C ould be adopted. 11110,10.°Uncillor asked if Mr. Brown had a right to speak d t otn'.e subject, being the solicitor to the amalgamate eat Th 'mro,: Chairman expressed a decided opinion that Mr. lif, ll ,l'ad a perfect right to speak on the subject. etalu," - urown : I am not solicitor to the amalgamation l ed e' e °3', for the very good reason that there is no amalga ,ob. . . A r‘ e.Pany exastence. havenLughter.) onncillor : But you it in prospect ? ge t ", Brown : I can't tell you anything about that. ttrtguter.) Mr. Brown then at some length proceeded to Nekobe,ePen the general question, and strongly supported the ed amalgamation. He denied that the measure e Na le l 3o fairly considered one conducing to monopoly. H tio a that it was not possible the present ruinous compett ee„tinZold last long, and that the probability was that the `aeyi"Awould be left at the mercy of a company over which 45t Eles -a " controul whatever. They would never get any tor e ilePersons to emberk in an oppcsition scheme, and there hoeontended that to allow the present opposition to go c, 4 ,t11",,`,1,,eu1y be destruction to one of the companies, and e t i ,""u would be most injurious to the community of )1 4-1. • (Rear, hear.) eti n etc (as we understood) denied that the ward sa k t : represented the people of Chester, except , upo t n `c s ea r , Principle as the three tailors of Tooley-street. b 'ir'earl and laughter.) b i l e a r ia' ;:laclows Frost declared himself willing to agree to - ieh ,ZgarQatiOn, provided the amount of capital upon t •4r. Public had to pay i n t eres t was re d uce d. t he eollale consid e red th a t th e comm i ttee was en titl e d Itnrdyeat thanks of the council, for having brought for eeilu,ch a report as that now before them. (Hear, hear.) for- Wit 01,„"e°ded that the city of Chester could not support eh lt h rrelife°lB.ing companies fairly. Competition was very well el lte en ee to large communities, but in arch a place as optth e r r. wher he :o , 311 it must be destructive to the interests of one *h i„, e4 competitors, they might depend upon it that N' r t ) "tune unity would be sufferers in the end. (Hear, ai ?ir ' pre therefore cordially supported the recom k I° 4. k ,. • e 4 11 b a c nu denied that the members of the council were a tl t t e - , i te tes 0 1 4 d to surrender their own judgments to the k b , th allY ward meetings. (Mar, hear.) He r.epudi bouaea %,"l e tiugs which were held as fair expressions of °r ' l:l `° ll . These meetings were held in public hear4 e an the debates were mainly sustained Party of eleven perambulating agitators. (Hear, the ,and tt,„ltited „loghter.) Gentlemen who did not belong to `Po se awuose meetings they attended, went there for the „ r° wlog double tides, in getting lip an agitation. fit ell „"..,111at those meetings, of which so much had been -- `tlen t ;'" said, and for which the special services of a " 4 of the press from Livecpool had been called into st cour al a reso committee m was ions be rescinded gama- Ihe motion was then lost origin t additions, again brought before to the person on of the council to a question en the committee had THE CATHEDRAL SCHOOLS. The following motion, of which notice had been given by Mr. Temple, stood on the paper :—" To call the attention of the council to the exhibitions provided by the cathedral statutes for King's scholars to Oxford and Cambridge, and to the divinity lectureships established by such statutes." Mr. Tempi , in proposing the motion, said he was fully aware that this was a matter of extreme delicacy and diffi culty, nor was it without the greatest possible caution that he called the attention of the council to a most important subject as regarded the citizens of Chester. He begged, in the first instance, to say, that in drawing attention to the subject, he was actuated by no hostile feeling whatever to the cathedral of that city. On the contrary, he believed that if the cathedral followed out the principles of its statutes, it would be, under Divine Providence, of the greatest and most essential importance to the well being of the community. (Hear, hear.) Feeling the great delicacy and difficulty of the subject, now that the report of the cathedral commissioners had made public the peculiarities of the administration of the cathedral establishments throughout the kingdom, so that no longer could public attention be said not to be rivetted upon the question, and at the same time knowing that their most excellect diocesan had revived what appeared to him of all importance to the well being of every community, namely the proper superintendence, according to the laws and constitution, of the body—the bishop having instituted or rather revived the visitations in the cathedral system—of course every man of proper feeling would wish not in any degree to run counter, or to meddle with that which belonged to another functionary. Had the results of that visitation been male public, so that they could have known what were the subject matters included in the enquiry of the visitors, of course they weuld be in a very different position from that in which they now are. He was sorry to say that it was deemed not essential to make public the results of that visitation. He had communicated to the Bishop his intention of bringing the question before the council, in order that he might be quite secure against run ning counter in any degree to the wishes of one for whom he and everybody had the profoundest, the deepest, arid the most sincere respect. He had always received from that prelate what every man had received at his hands, the greatest courtesy, the strictest attention, and the most satisfactory answers. The Bishop replied, that nothing had transpired at the visitation, or as a consequence thereof, which could impede him (Mr. Temple) in bringing the matter before the council. He therefore now brought the question forward, contending that it was one which legiti mately affected the interests of the community. The King's School was a school created under the statute which created the Cathedral establishment itself, it being consid ered an essential part of any cathedral establishment that there should be a school attached, for the purpose of the education of the community to which the cathedral belonged: It was of the utmost importance to the community, to see that the school was fairly and openly dealt with by those who had to support it. The support of the school was thrown upon the cathedral establishment. Originally the whole of the revenues then existing were divided propor tionately with reference to the importance of each particular part of the establishment. To the schools in question, among oth , r things were attached four exhibitions for four scholars out of that school, to be supported when sent to either university—Oxford or Cambridge. He need not make one word cf remark upon the importance of this not being allowed to remain a dead letter. Hew great was his astonishment, when, on looking through the report of the Cathedral Commissioners, be saw the following ques tion put to the cathedral body of that city :—" Is there pro vision made for them (that is to say, the scholars), when leaving the schools," and he found this answer to it—" No provision is made for the grammar scholars when leaving the school, but for the choristers who remain to the end of the term, and conduct themselves well, a sum of money is ,heir functions d no right to meet t, and .ecommendations that 'Ur. Cutter , are not opposed to this ) the varioui wards, that gs since the last council .opriated, varying from £5 to £5O each.' From that y were answer one would suppose that there was no provision at all for any exhibition. Therefore he was most anxious, even if he could do nothing more, to direct public attention to this matter, which, if they were to adopt the answer of the cathedral system itself, had sunk so low as to be in non existence. Unless one were conversant with the statutes, he could not have found out that any provision was made at all. It was only mentioned in a place where they would hardly have expected to find it—in the answer of the head master of the school himself, to whom the public were greatly indebted for filling up that omission on the part of the cathedral establishment. He said, "By the statutes provision is made for four exhibitions to Oxford or Cambridge, but I am not aware that any appoint ment has been made to it of late years. If it were revised it would, no doubt, assist in raising and improving the character of the schools." He (Hr. Temple) only now asked the council simply to take steps to enquire why this was so. It was possible that the dean and chapter might be prepared with an explanation, although it was difficult to surmise what that explanation could be, The same remarks would apply to the divinity lectureship. The answer was, in that instance, "By the charter of Queen Elizabeth, a divinity lectureship was founded in the cathedral, at a salary of £4O. The duties of the office, which were merely the preaching of certain sermons in the choir, had been always performed by the canons, and the salary divided amongst them, so as to form a part of their gross receipts." (Laughter,) Mr. Temple contended that this was not an equivalent for a divinity lectureship, and that this, too, should be enquired into. Ile concluded by moving the appointment of a committee to make respectful enquiry of the dean and chapter upon these two points. Mr. Meadows Frost had much pleasure in seconding the resolution. Mr. Hicklin expressed a general and candid concur rence in the necessity of enquiry. lie stated that the revenues had not been appropriated by the Dean and Chapter, but there had been a sorgloof retribution of the income of the Cathedral of the kingdom, under the direction of the ecclesiastical commissioners. Money had been taken from one cathedral and given to another, with a view to a sort of equalisation, and in that transfer of property he was afraid some of the obligations of the statute had been neglected by the commissioners. He would have come prepared to go into the question at some length, but that he knew the gas question would occupy considerable time ; and besides, they would have this question before them again, when the reply of the Dean and Chapter was received. (Wear, hear.) He supported the motion. A motion was then carried unanimously, and a com mittee formed in accordance with it. • After disposing of some detail of business, the council adjourned. LIVERPOOL BOROUGH SESSIONS The Recorder, G. Anderson, Esq , resumed the trial of prisoners yesterday morning, at nine o'clock, when the following cases were disposed of:— Maria Mitchell, aged 48, was found guilty, and sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment, on a charge of stealing a dress, the property of Mr. Bee. Mary Williams, aged 21, and Mary Smith, aged 29, were charged with breaking into the house of John Smith, and stealing therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel. The fcrmer was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment, and the latter was acquitted. Mary Moore, (alias Mary A. Davis) and 21 years, was sentenced to four years' penal servitude, on a charge of stealing twenty yards of woollen plaid, the property of Agnes Hooson. Mary A. Hobson, aged 40, and Mary Hobson, aged 48, were each sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, for stealing a coat from a sailor named Frederick M‘Knistry. Ellen Barry, and 22, was committed for four months, for stealing some money belonging to her mistress, Miss Ken neth M'Kenzie Pugh. George Barwell, a aged 18, Henry Burford, aged 17, and John Connor, aged 16, were found guilty of having stolen £lO from the shop of Mr. William Hetherington. Barwell, four years' penal servitude; Burford, twelve months' impri sonment ; and Connor, eight months' do. Margaret O'Brien, aged 19, tw e l ve mon th s ' imp r isonment, for stealing a waistcoat, the property of a sailor. Patrick Hoffmann, aged 18, was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, for stealing a coat. William H. Dctvnes Chapman was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, for maliciously wounding William Seed. The court adjourned until this morning, CI-1E STF R TO WN COUNCIL requisition, really e x p resse d the public opi n i on o f Chester. i The members of th e counci l were not bou n d t o act as the • puppets of pothouses, or the nominees of other parties, but they were bou n d t o d ec id e upon every quest i on according to 0 lec,ing of th e t own counc il o f a their own f ree an d independen. t individu a l v i ews. (Hear, hear.) He re p u di ate d the idea of members being called 0 upon to act as mere delegates, and to echo the voice of a portion of their constituencies. Mr. Hicklin strongly ° advocated the amalgamation, as the most prudent measure the council could adopt, under all the circumstances. I Mr, Musgrove denied that there had been any pethon'te gatherings among the opponents of the amalgamation. He declared that the perambulating agitation, and the pot house assemblies, had been on the other side. Mr. Glover, who supported th e ama l gamation, objected , 1 turn which had been given to the discussion. He declared that he, himself, had been grossly insulted, and wickedly maligned for supporting the amalgamation, and that the most gross, vulgar, and blackguard abuse had been heaped upon him. The Chairman urged the adoption of the recommenda tions, as an act of justice to the company, and prudence to the public. The Council then divided, when there appeared for the amendment, .8 against it, 23. The amendment was therefore, declared lost. The original resolution was carried by the same majority. Mr. Hicklin moved that a proportionate charge for smaller burners than those specified in the propositions be recommended, which was agreed to. Mr. Brown said he had been requested by Mr. Salisbury to state that every exertion should be made to ensure the amalgamtion being carried cut with the fullest faith and integrity, and, so far as he could control it, to the entire satisfaction of the council. (Hear, hear.) On the motion of Mr. Temple, a sub-committee was appointed to carry out the arrangements. THE NORTHERN TI , 1 ES.-LIVHRPOOL, SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 18 COURT OF PASSAGE.-YESTERDAY COURT ..YESTERDAY Before Mr. YamEs, Q. C., the Assessor, who took his seat on the bench this morning at nine o'clock. LAYER, v. Pnais - ELL.--In thi; action Mr. George Layer, formerly a shit) br,icer, in Liverpool, sought to recover of the defendant; Mr. Charles Purnell ; dock master, comp-nsa ton for having falsely and maliciously, petitioned the Court of Bankruptcy for an adjudication against the plaintiff, by which the plaintiff had been permanently injured in his business. A second count charged the defendant with having entered the dwelling-house in Water-street, and illegally seized his goods. The defendant pleaded the general issue. In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Blair said—lt was a most serious matter that he had to present to the court, for, by the act of the defendant, the plaintiff had been stopped from pur suing his avocation as a ship owner and ship broker, and had been obliged again to become a master mariner. The transaction arose out of the joint possession of a vessel called the Neva. The defendant was one of the dock masters of Liverpool, and, from bolding that position, was not allowed to be the owner of a vessel. However, having some money in band he proposed to the plaintiff to become the owner of a vessel called the Violante, and suggested that the house of his son should be entered on the register. That arrangement was carried out, and half of the purchase money was advanced by the defendant. Mr. Purnell was to 'op the books, and the plaintiff was to act as the ship's and. Shortly after another vessel, the Catherine, was sed under the same circumstances. After this some as arose between the plaintiff and the defendant's and the plaintiff pressed from time to time for a full statement of the accounts of the two ships, but those accounts were never delivered. While matters were in this condition a proposal was made by the defendant for the joint working of another vessel—the Neva—and it was out of the latter transaction that the present question arose. On this occasion Mr. Laver told the defendant that he could at deal with his son, upon which Mr. Purnell proposed the plaintiff's name should appear on the register as the sale owner, and that arrangement was at first assented to, but afterwards objected to, and it was proposed that the son's name should be on the register as usual. For some time negotiations were going on upon that point, and finally it was arranged that all the books and papers should be referred for inspection to Mr. Oxley. Only a portion of the accounts were given up, but one of them contained the accounts of all the three vessels, placing each on the same footing. Mr. Laver, anxious to know the position in which he was placed, directed his attorney to threaten proceedings in Chancery for obtaining a settlement. Up to that time the parties had acted as partners, and no debt was alleged to be due from one to the other. The defendant, however, put in a claim for the sum of £268, and shortly after proceedings were taken in the bankruptcy court, calling upon the plaintiff to answer the claim. Mr. Laver put in the usual affidavits to the effect that he had a good defence, but as proceedings were about being commenced in chancery, the plaintiff, under the advice of his solicitor, declined a personal examinstion. The plaintiff refused to give a bond, and Mr. Purnell petitioned for au adjudication in bankruptcy. swear ing as to the existence of the debt. On the petition being filed, the plaintiff was adjudicated to be a bankrupt, and the messenger of the court took possession of his house, papers, and property, thus consequently stopping him from proceeding in his business. After this the court of bankruptcy investigated the matter, and concluded that there was no act of bankruptcy. It was on account of the injury thus sustained, by having been made a bankrupt, that the plaintiff now sought to recover compensation. The pro ceedings in the bankruptcy court were then put in, and those portions necessary to the case were read, Mr. Gee. Laver, the plaintiff, was then called and examined, and his evidence fully corroborated the statement of the counsel, but in his cross•examination gave some very contradictory answers as to certain cheques being in his handwriting, and denied ever having had certain sums of money lent him by the defendant, or that he had ever given any receipts for such sums lent. Mr. Aspinall addressed the court at considerable length for the defendant, arguing that at the time the proceedings were taken in;the bankruptcy court, the money was owing by the plaintiff, and therefore that there was no malice on his part in taking the steps he had done, and called upon the jury to give a verdict for his client. He called Mr. Purnell, the defendant, who stated that ho bad been instrumental in getting his son to j o i n th e p l a i ntiff in the purchase of the ships, but he himself had no interest in the matter, saving the benefit of his son. The defendant contradicted the statement made by the plaintiff, about the money, and distinctly swore that he had lent him money, and received receipts for it. kir. David Laver, the nephew of the plaintiff, and formerly in partnership with him, was next called, an I stated that the receipt of the 10th of August was in his hand writing, and that he had written it at the request of the plaintiff, who had put his mark thereto. The other re ceipts were also in his hand writing, as was also some other documents. Mr. C. H. Purnell, the son of the defendant, identified a cheque for .fe6o, as being in his own hand-writing, and the signature in the hand-writing of the plaintiff. After the counsel had replied, the learned assessor summed up the evidence, and in the course of his observations directed the jury, if they were satisfied that the defendant really was not interested in the ships, and that the money advanced by him was' for the joint interest of his son and the plaintiff, then there would be reasonable grounds for the proceedings which had been taken in the bankruptcy court, and he would be entitled to a verdict, but if they believed that the plaintiff and the defendant were partners in the ship Neva, or that the money was advanced to th alone, then there would have been no cause for such pro ceedings, they would infer malice, and the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict for such damages as they might think fit. In coming to a decision they would have to decide whom they believed, the plaintiffs or the defendants. The jury then retired, and, after some consultation, re turned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—That he and the plaintiff were partners—Damages £lOO. HAux Y. SHAND.—This was an action to decide who was the owner of certain furniture on a certain day. Mr. J. P. Hauk, formerly a furrier In Bold-street, was the plaintiff, and Mr. George Shand was the defendant. Some time since a Mr. Jacob fell into difficulties, and the present plaintiff purchased his business, but afterwards let him retain possession of it. Subsequently Hank ascertained that Jacobs was again in difficulties, and he took posses sion of the house and furniture, and had left a man with them. At that time Jacobs had left the house, a verdict having been found against him in the Court of Passage on the day previous. The facts were clearly proved, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. 11A.wkm v. CUTHBERT AND ANOTHER.—in this case the plaintiff was a lumpier at the docks, and the defen dants were the joint owners of a vessel called the Templer. The claim was for £2O for compensation for an assault and false imprisonment, and likewise for a certain amount the plaintiff claimed for discharging the cargo of a vessel, which he was not allowed to do by the defendants, hence this action. A verdict was re t urned for the defendant Carmichael, and for the plaintiff as against Cuthbert, for the false imprisonment. Damages 50s. The court adjourned shortly after seven o'clock. atssen THURSDAY. (BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, ESQ., Q.C., ASSESSOR.) WILLIAMSON V. BEETLESON.—The plaintiff is a plumber and glazier, and the defendant is a publican in Bevington•bush, and the action was brought to recover £7, balance of an account. In February last the plaintiff entered into a contract to paint the outside of the defendant's public house for £.5, and the inside for £7. After completing his contract the defendant directed him to strip the paper from the walls of some of the rooms, and other extra work, which amounted altogether to £l5 15s 6d. He accordingly sent in his bill for £27 15s 6d, and when he ealled for payment on the sth of March the defendant said that he would pay it if the plaintiff receipted the bill. The bill was at once receipted, but the defendant refused to pay more than £ll 14s, £9 having been already paid on account, and leaving still due the balance now claimed. The defendant paid £1 into court, and contended that the work had been done in an inferior manner, and that the extra work had not been to the extent the plaintiff stated. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Mr. Brett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for defendant. MAWDSLEY AND ANOTHER V. PEEL.--This was an action to recover £22 for work done, and goods bar gained and sold. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defendant. From the opening statement it appeared that the Messrs Mawdsley were stationers, carrying on business in Castle-street, and suc cessors to the Messrs. Gore and Son, publishers of Gore's Advertiser. Mr. Peel was an a tt orney, also residing in Liverpool. The action was to recover certain printing expenses, incurred by Mr. Peel, as a member of the committee for conducting the election of Messrs. Turner and Mackenzie, in 1852. The question in dispute was whether Mr. Peel was liable for the expenses. Witnesses were called in order to show that Mr. Peel t oo k an eminently active part in the proceedings of the election, on the part of the Conservatives, and that he was a member of the committee. It appeared that amongst the sub-committee there was a printing committee, but Mr. Peel was not a member of it. A nonsuit was entered before the case was concluded. HESSELTINE V. DOBSON.—In this action Mr. George Hesseltine was the plaintiff, and Mr. H. Norman Dobson, of Tranmere, was the defendant. This was a claim for a breach of contract. In 1853 the plaintiff, a gentleman residing at Tranmere, called upon the de fendant, a cabinet maker, of Liverpool, and there it was agreed that the latter should make a cheffionier, and some other articles of furniture, out of a lump of mahogany, found by the former. The furniture was to be solid, and not veneered. The charge was to be £23. Some of the furniture was, however, made, but it was found to have been veneered, and not solid mahogany, The other portion of the furniture, nor the mahogany, had ever returned. For the defence, it was contended that no agreement had been made therefore there had been no breach of contract. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. After disposing of some other cases of no public interest, the court adjourned. COUNTY (BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ., JUDGE.) INTERESTING TO " MISSES."—RIGHT Or SERVANT'S TO EN TERTAIN SWEETHEARTS..—JON ES V. IIAWTHORNE.--.This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to recover lOs 2d, balance of wages, end 15s, in lieu of a month's notice before dismissal. Mr. Gray, Who appeared f r the plaintiff, e excellent character, but before , he should ask his Honour proceeding D the facts of the cas, woman, so situved, was entitled to have a sweetheart ? His Honour replied, that so far as that went, his answer would he in Mr. Gray's favour. Mr. Gray then continued to say that the plaintiff had been maid-of-all-work in the defendant's house (Dr. Hawthorne, of St. Anne street), in Decemper last, and on one night, her sweetheart, a young man named Richard Brown, visited her. She was engaged in washing at the time, in the cellar kitchen, and she accordingly took him in there, and treated him to some bread and butter and tea. Their pleasure was soon dissi pated by the entrance of the defendant's son, who, on seeing the plaintiff's beau, called a constable, and gave them both into custody. They were detained in bride well ali night, but as no one appeared to prefer a charge against them they were discharged. Happily this circumstance has caused no interruption in the " course of true love ;" the banns have been published, and they will shortly be married. Mr. Hime appeared for the defendant, and contended that the plaintiff had forfeited her wages by sureptitiously introducing a man into her master's house. The defendant's son deposed that he found Brown hid beneath the kitchen table by a lot of cloths thrown over him. His shoes were off, and witness, con ceiving that it was an attempt at robbery, gave them into custody on that charge. His Honour said that it was fortunate for the plaintiff that the young man whom she had so improperly introduced into her master's house was disposed to act honourably towards her by marrying her, a result which did not always follow such in!ercourse. The public should, however, understand that a servant, who surep titiously introduced a man into her master's house, forfeited all claim to her wages, and that being the law, the verdict should be for the defendant with costs. He considered there was no fault to be found with the defendant, excepting giving the girl into custody—a step which be, himself, should have hesitated before taking. T a you THURSDAY. LYNCH V THE DROGHEDA STEAM PACKET COMPANY.— This was action brought by a butter dealer to recover -' . 2. 8s 6d for damage done to a box of butter, by careless ness upon the part of one of the company's servants. It was alleged that a labourer, in the employment of the defendants, had let the box fall from a pile of other boxes, in consequence of which the butter was thrown out and damaged. Mr. Grocott appeared for the company, and contended that the damage occurred because the box was not strong enough to bear the ordinary strain necessary in transport and removal. It appeared, however, that the box had been certainly thrown from the top of a number of others. His Honour gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £l, including all costs. SLATER v POWER.—This was an action brought to recover £5O, for money lent under very peculiar circum stances. The plaintiff was.a young woman named Jane Victoria Slater, and the defendant was the captain of an emigrant vessel. The facts of the case appeared in another shape before the magistrates at the police office lately, when the defendant was summoned by plaintiff for an assault and fined £5. Mr. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bremner for the defence. Mr. Campbell opened the case at some length: the effect of his statement being that in the year 1853, the plaintiff took a passage for New York in a vessel of which the defendant was captain. She lived in Ireland, and the place from which she was to sail was New Ross. The defendant represented to her that his vessel was sailing for New York, although it subsequently appeared that the vessel was sailing to Quebec. She paid the money for her passage. The captain paid many marked attentions to her on the voyage, and enquired from her what her intention was when she arrived in America. She ex plained that she intended to set up a milliner's establish ment, on which he said it would be much better for her to get married, and asked her if she would like to be a captain's wife. He expressed very great affection for her, and offered to marry her when the vessel arrived in America. The result was that he became master of her person. When the vessel arrived at Quebec she found for the first time that she had been deceived as to the place of her destination. During this time the captain had borrowed several sums of money from her. For some days he did not allow her to go on shore, and when she got on shore he did not fulfil his promise of marrying her. She became in the family'svay. She got a situation in Quebec, and the defendant fre quently visited her, living with her when he did so as his wife, but always putting off marrying her. She returned to this country, and then she found the captain was a married man. Mr. Campbell detailed at some length the occasions on which the sums of money, amounting to £9O, were lent by the plaintiff, at the urgent entreaties of the defendant, and also a series of violent outrages made upon her person and her property by the defendant, both in this country and in Quebec. On several occasions she had to bring him up before the magistrates in Quebec, and had him committed to prison, but she was always induced by his entreaties to endeavour to have him released. From the statement of Mr. Campbell, it would appear that, up to the last moment, the defendant had kept the plaintiff under the impression that ho was going to marry her, and had thus been enabled to borrow from her ail the money she possessed, and of which she now sought to recover, by this action, £5O, being the highest amount for which the court had jurisdiction. Jane Victoria Slater, the plaintiff, sworn and examined : Was at Keogh's hotel in New Ross, in 1853; had then from £4O to £55; saw the defendant there, and asked --a the ship wal going to ; was told it was to Nett' _.. passage in her; before sailing, a woman ovo:children came to see the defendant, and he stated thet they were his sister's children; after sailing paid £3 103 additional to,.the defendant for a cabin pessage ; he said he would take care of her and be a " father to her," and leave her safely in New York ; efter being some days at sea he proposed marriage to li -I. ; she did not know that the vessel was bound for Quebec, until their arrival in the St. Lawrence ; he saw what money she had when she paid him the additional £3 103 for the cabin passage; while lying in the r ver St. Lawrence, he bor rowed ass and £2O from her; on reaching Quebec, went into a situation, but had to leave in three or four months through illness ; on the return of the defendant to Que ' bec in June, 1854, he found the plaintiff with an old lady and gentleman named Coutts, who had adopted her as their child. The plaintiff further deposed to the truth of the various statements contained in Mr. Campbell's ad dress. She minutely described all the circumstances under which the defendant borrowed her money, promised marriage, ill-used and finally abandoned her in poverty and sickness in Quebec. She proceeded to state that she followed him to Liverpool, and ascertained that he was a married man, and had a family. When she met him in Park-lane, she taxed him with his baseness ; whereupon he denied that he was married, and proposed that she should go immediately to Dublin, and that he would fol low her, and that they would be married there. Finally, he admitted that he was married; and when she proposed that if he paid her what money she lent him she would have no further claim on him, he promised to do so within six months. He afterwards called at her lodgings in Liverpool, and begged of her not to put him into the County Court. On the 28th of last month he came to her lodgings in the middle of the night, and slept in her bed until morning, she herself sleeping in the chair. His Honour : You are very remarkable persons, you and Captain Power. On cross-examination by Mr. Bremner, the plaintiff said that her father and mother had lived at Carlow. She left her mother's house on pretence of going to Dublin. She had received nearly £5O from a genpeman, named Peter Sterne, who had also gone to America. She admitted that she had lived with that man, for two or three years before. Ills Honour said it would be imp oss ib le to conclude the case that day, as it would occupy, necessarily, several hours. In order to do justice between the parties, it should be fully gone into. It was a case which he much regretted to have to investigate, as it was perfectly apparent that the girl had gone wrong in the first instance, and from the money and other property which she had in Quebec, and:which she could not have obtained by being at service, that she must have continued doing. He should have thought that any man who had been involved with her would have preferred arranging the matter out of court. His Honour then adjourned the case until the first open day, the 21st of May, on the understanding that if defen dant was about to leave th e town, in the meantime, Mr. Campbell might have the case heard at once upon giving notice. Mr. Bremner said the defendant had no intention of going to sea again, being at present engaged as teacher of navigation in a school. The court rose at half-past five o'clock. him who: York ; tool THE EMPRESS EUGENIE.—At the close of the present month the Empress Eugenie will leave the Tuileries for St. Cloud. The Emperor walks in the little garden before the palace almost every day, accompan i e d b y the nurse who carries the infant Prince in her arms. PUBLIC PETITIONS.—The nineteenth report, yesterday published, includes 4,480 petitions against Sunday recrea tions, &c., signed by 603,320 persons; 323 against abolish ing church rates without providing an equivalent, signed by 13f840 persons ; 34 in favour of the Bleaching Works Bill, signed by 2,222 persons ; 92 against the Factories Bill, signed by 23,987 persons; and 831 in its favour, signed by 14,118 persons ; 43 against the Medical Pro fessional bill, signed by 3,738 persons, and 596 in its favour, signed by 2,610 persons. MEMORIAL OF TILE CONGRESS.—M. Goupil, the printseller at Paris, has commissioned M. Dubufe, the celebrated painter, to produce a picture of the Peace Congress. The picture is to be 18 feet long, by 12 feet high, and a large sum is to be paid for it. All the plenipotentiaries have kindly consented to sit for their portraits, and the room in which they assembled at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is, with its furniture, to be exactly represented. The painting is to be engraved, and it will form a companion piece to Isabey's celebrated painting of the Congress of Vienna. THE FERMOY PEERAGE.—The Committee for Privileges sat in the House of Lords on Tuesday to consider the claim of Edward Burke Roche, Lord Fermoy, in the peerage of Ireland, to vote in the election of representa tive peers for Ireland. Lord Redesdale presided. The Lord Chancellor referred a question to the judges embrac ing the facts of the "case, and a‘lting whether, in their opinion, the extinction of the Earldom of Menrath in 1812 was such an extinction as had been ~ontemplated by the Act of Union to entitle the Crown to create a new peerage of Ireland. The learned judge took time to con eider the question. POLICE COURT -YESTERDAY (BEFORE MR. T. 1). ANDERSOIkL) CAUTION involved the ch yesterday morn of the case were these— On Monday nig Jd John Braithwaite, was robbed, of his watch, in a publichouse in Whitechapel. FIVM inf inflation received by the police, it wad ascer tained that a man named Fleury Charles Howard, who • hr•street, had pledged a ' Deverill's TO PAWNBROICEP , which aracter of a pawnbroker, was investigated ing. The fact :ht a man nat lodges in a house. in Pet, watch at Messrs. Critchley ant, pawnshop, Park-lane. The man was taken into custody, and he said he got the watch from a woman named Mary Dodd. She was also arrests iA The officers went to Messrs.Critch/ey's f and described the watch to Mr. Deverill, who denied (according to the sworn testimony of the police), all knowledge of the watch, though it appeared that at the time he had the watch in pledge. The police sUbsequently left a printed notice at, the pawnshop, describing the watch. On thiS odcasion, Mr. Deverill also denied that he had the watch, but said, if it was offered, he would stop it. Yesterday morning the police, the miller of the watch, and the man Howard, went to the shop of Messrs. Critchley, and then Mr. Deverill stated that the watch had been pledged there, and produced it. He then came to the court with the police. Mr. Clough addressed the bench, and also Mr. Deverill, and said, if the police had had time to have procured a warrant, they would have had Mr. Deverill in custody on a felonious charge. If the present had been the first complaint against this pawnbroldng establishment, it might have been perhaps forgiven, but there had been frequent and serious corn plaints made by the police, of the ob, had received there. Other pawnhrokk of justice, whilst that house did all they could to fruStr. it. Be (Mr. Clough) thought it right to make the remarks, in order to caution Mr. Deverill in futu- Wybergh said, in the present case it looked v receiving stolen property with a guilty knowledge, in consequence of the conduct of Mr. Deverill. Mr. Wybergh asked if he was in custody ? Mr. Clough said if he had got a warrant, for which he had applied, but was refused, he Would certainly have Mr. Deverill in custody. Mr. Deverill said his character was well known ; he did not remember having seen the police at his place before that morning. Mr. Clough said most of the pawnbrokers were in the practice of sending to the central police office when they received notices of stolen property, that they had received such property in pledge, and if an article was offered after notice served, it was stopped, and word sent to the office. In this case, even after the notice was served on Mr. Deverill, and when he must have known that he had the watch, he denied it. Mr. Deverill declared that he could - bring evidence to show that the police had not been at his house at all. Mr. Anderson said the case was clear enough. It was rather extraordinary that Mr. Deverill could not recollect the visits of the police. Pawnbrokers instead of frustrating the ends of justice, should assist, in detecting felonies. From the observa tions of Mr. Clough, it appeared (said his Worship) that this was not the first occasion on which Mr. Deverill had been there. He (Mr. Anderson) trusted he would be more cautious in future. At present they would not pro ceed further against him, but the woman must be re manded, and the order in reference to the watch would await the result. UNLICENSED EMIGRANT RUNNERS.—Lieutenant Prior, one of the Emigration officers, complained at the instance ofpolice officer Darrow, 375, of James Corcoran, No. 20, Charters -street, for acting as an emigrant runner without license. The defendant took some American passengers, for whom he acted as runner without a badge or license. He was fined £1 and costs. (BEFORE MESSRS. ANDERSON AND DIXON.) BEERHOUSE CASES. —The following beerhouse cases were disposed of Ambler, Dalton Street, acquitted. Mary Colley, Crown Street, acquitted. William Clegzs, Argyle Street. acquitted. Jane Cane, Stewart Street, £2 and costs. Mary Owens, Upper Beau Street, 5s and costs. John Munz, Henderson Street, lOs and costs. Edward Cope, Albert Street, £l. Anna Windsor, Upper Pownell Street, 5s and costs. John Caddock, Spitalfields, ss. Agnes Simpson, Cambridge Street, ss. Sarah Edwards, Northampton Street. ss. James Walsh, Sawneypope Street. ss. Philip O'Donnell, Circus Street, acquitted. Margaret O'Brien, Lo wer M yrt l e S treet, 2s bd and costs. James Bourke, Garden Lane, '.£s. Christiana Sudley, Frederick Street, ael and costs. Edward Roberts, Abstinence Street, ss. Thomas Gouldson, Ilughes's Street, 5s and costs. PUBLICANS' CASES.—Harold Lumb 2s 6d. Edward E- ion which they ry like Gore-street, fined .ans, Pete 1 and costs (BEFORE MR. J. H. SMITH.) CHARGE OF' MUTINY AT SEA.—TWO sailors, named William Barton and John Yates, late belonging to the ship John Millar, were charged by Captain William Bell, master `of that vessel, with a mutiny :at sea. Mr; Almond appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Tindal Atkinson attended as counsel for the prisoners. From the opening statement of Mr. Almond, it appeared that on the :4th December, 1855, the ship left London for Mobile, the prisoners being part of the crew. On the 12th January, the vessel put into Apalachicola for orders, where the captain went on shore. In his absence the chief mate, Mr. Kelly, had charge of the vessel, and it seemed that some of the men mutinied and refused to work, and amongst these were the prisoners, and two others. The captain was called and examined at great length, and the whole case will be found in the following portion of his evidence. He said, I went on shore at Apalachicola on the 12th January, and the ship was ready for sea, on the 21st January. I left the shore on the 17th, but could not get on board till the 20th, as the weather was heavy, and the distance 30 miles. Sent the mate to tell the men to return to their duty. Barton came aft, and I asked him if he was going to his work ; he said he would not do any more work; he said the mate wanted him to work in the rain and he would not ; I told him it he did not, I would put him in irons ; he said there was not a man on board could do it ; he threw me oe " - and the mate hauled him off. swing mallet, and called to the crew, " come boys." I had a full crew of twenty men ; Yates, Hernar and White, then came running aft to his assistance. I drew my pistol and threatened to shoot the first man that interfered. They then turned and ran into the fore castle on deck. I followed them in a few minutes, and told them to come out, and that if they did not I would shoot them. Barton cried out "fire away." I then snapped one barrel of my small pocket revolver without a cap, and that had no effect; I then pointed the pistol at and struck him (Barton) in the leg ; I then pointed at Yates, but he said he would not come out; I then fired at and shot him in the leg. The other two men came out and held their hands up for the irons. I examined the wounds which were flesh wounds, with balls about the size of a pea in the fleshy part of the thigh. I got the doctor to examine them in Mobile, after which they were put into hospital; I attended to the wounds before that. I produce the log book with the entries in it. Cross-ex amined by Mr. Atkinson—The weather was rainy and cold. Barton said he had been unwell, and would not work in the rain. I told the mate to bring the irons, whilst I collared Barton. I did not hear anything about oilskins. There were four barrels of the pistol loaded, and I had put it in my pocket that morning; the wounded men were put in irons, and had bread, meat, tea, and coffee. They were kept on bread and water for five days before that. I went to th e consu l an d gave him my official log book. There was not two inches of water under them on the half deck poop. They were not tied up with elects they spoke to me about the hardship, but I did not say I would put another ball into them. I won't swear that they did not ask to see the consul. I b e li eve Barton has got the ball twelve inches into his leg, an d t h at it is there still. I believe the other prisoner has the ball in his leg also. Mr. Smith :Do you mean to say that both men have the balls in their legs ? M r. A tkinson : They have, sir. The witness, in continuation, said the men were facing , him when he fired. I said, " Come out, men ; if you doiFt I will shoot you, but I don't want to shoot you." The prisoners were brought home in irons, and lived in a house on deck. To Mr. Smith : The ship was in Mobile Bay, about thirty mil es f rom Mobile. Nicholas Kelly, the chief mate, was examined, and stated that four of the men " knocked off " work while the captain was on shore. He corroborated the evidence of the captain, and was cross-examined by Mr. Atkinson, but the facts were not disturbed. The captain, in reply to Mr. Atkinson, said Barton had a good character from his former ship. Mr. Atkinson hoped the case would not end there, as the chief object was to get a decision from the court to prejudice the case before another tribunal. He trusted, therefore, that his worship would not give any decision in the case there. Mr. Smith said he would not give any decision in the case, and the prisoners were therefore discharged. THITRSDAY.--(GEFORE MR. BENN.) A BAD DAUGHTER. —Mary Fields, was charged by her father, Samuel Bretherton, who resides in Sand-street, with having broken a quantity of glass in his house, and with being drunk and disorderly. The complainant, an old man, seemed mu c h di s t resse d at the position of his daughter. He stated that she was a confirmed drunkard, and was in the habit ofgoing to his house when in a state of intoxication, and bre a ki ng th e w i n d ows and furniture. He had pardoned her several times, but all to no purpose. About a year ago he had been obliged to take her before the magistrates, and she th en ma d e a premisenot to offend again, and she was th e n forgiven. Since that time, however, she had fallen into the same offence several times. She was a widow and was at one time in a high respectuble position, but lost all by her vile habits of drunkenness. The prisoner begged hard for forgive ness, and protested to her father she would amend her life. Her father again forgave her, and she was dis charged with a strong caution as to her future conduct. (BEFORE MR. T. D. ANDERSON,) Saor LIFTING.—Two girls, named Mary Jones and Mary Anne Brady, were brought up by detectives Carlyle and Povey on a charge of hailing stolen two shawl s , value 2/ 28, from the shop . of Mr. T homas Porter, St. James's-street. Carlyle said the prisoners went into the prosecotor's shop under pretence of purchasing a bonnet, and whilst there they succeeded in stealing the shawls. They then went to the shop of Mr. Richards, pawnbroker, at the corner of James and Parliament streets, where they pledged the property. When he got information of the robbeiy he went in search of the prisoners, and found them in company of a sailor, wh o i n f ormed him that they had.stolen a gold ring, which was discovered on ono of the prisoners. A young lady from Mr. Porter's shop identified the shawls, and also the prisoners, who had been in the shop just before the property was missed ; and a person fr om M r. Richards identified the prisoners as . the petsons who :pledged the shawls. Mr. Anderson said the pawnbroker oug ht t o h ave been much more cautious than to take such articles from girls of the descirption, as be must naturally know they could not have got them properly. The young man said he asked the prisoners where they got the shawls ? and they said they bought them for £1 4a each. Mr. Wybergh : That is certainly a very improbable story for you, to; believe. Mr. Anderson said the pawnbroker He then s should have ; been much more cautious, and he trusted in future this Would be a warning to him. He (Mr. Ander son) ordered the shawls to be returned to the owner, and said that Mr. Richards must suffer the loss. The prisoners v YORK AT FAO', i%PLeoad, Brid, Elizabeth Bre' ,med John LockwOod. w having stolen £ll from him in a They were re A " TICKEI Carver MADE TO " Go , who said he a nubl med Isabella Johnson, and Mt the iron 'ked, with pit alfields. —Mr. Thomas charge street, a . u a young . woman named Bridget Ryan' with having stolen a gold watch (value 22 guineas) from him. From the evidence. it appeared that on the night of the Ist of April, the complainant was going home, and in the neighbourhood of Duke-street the prisoner accosted him, and at the same time snapped his hat from his head. He followed her, and went into the parlour of the house she had run into, and sat down on the sofa, deinanding his hat. The prisoner ran up stairs with it, but after a short time she came down. He had fallen asleep, and whilst in this state, the prisoner took his watch and chain. Mr. Wybergh : What made you fall asleep? Witness : I had taken a couple of glasses of punch. The evidence was corroborated, and the prisoner was remanded for a week, in order to look out for the watch. -Messrs. Benn and Smith sat yesterday in Mr. Mans field's court, in the absence of that gentleman, and dis posed of a large number of drunk and disorderly cases, common assaults, claims for seamen's wages, and dock, other cases that usually nothing particularly summons informations, a come before this court, but their v interesting in the det PRIVATE STERIAL INVESI ATIONS M A G TO THE EDITOR OF TIT& NOF Sir,—Yesterday I ventured to Drt note to you on the sub] investigation held by magistrates at the Police-court, touching a public com plaint, and, by your paper of yesterday, I find you have treated thesubject in a manner, for which the public must feel indebted for the independent spirit you have assumed—as you have always acted towards the public— free and fearless. The point now at issue may _ little importance, but, with your permission, I shall prove that it is one of great public import, and that whatever the notion of ponce magistrates may be on the subject of publication, they have no right to investigate any case with closed doors—at least, that they have no right to exclude the legitimate representatives of the great public body—the reporters of the public press, from their court —no matter what the case may be which comes under magisterial notice. In the first place, there is a pre cedent why the doors of a police-court should not be closed ; and, in illustration of this, I may point to the Lon don police-courts. The metropolitan magistrates would as soon entertain an application for a private investigation of any case brought before them as they would one to prevent the proceedings of the House of Commons being reported in the pages of the Times newspaper. In London there is no secrecy, no mystery observed about any police case, and are the magistrates of Liverpool more omnipotent than the supreme courts of lords and com mons ? Are our justices greater than the judges of the Queen's Bench, and other superior courts of law, who not only sanction the presence of the reporters, but who provide the next best place to the bench for them, and instead of excluding them, give them the utmost facilities for the discharge of their impor tant public duties ? I admit that the comparison of the supreme courts of this realm, and that of the Liverpool police courts is very odious; but I merely mention the fact to shew the absurdity of the latter tribunal in exclud ing the reporters when a " gentleman " is in the case. When, indeed, we come to the conclusion that there is one law for the rich, and another for the poor, then, and then only, is Liverpool magisterial law to be sanctioned. Suppose Paddy Gaffney and Bill Casey to be the parties engaged in the case on Thursd,., BOid:street, and Mr. their worships have c —, of 11 I the c seem of len," would and requested the is of Liverpool are our able assistance, atory. What, may __:y say if the corres pondents of the newspaper press were prevented from furnishing the details of the Crimean campaign ? What would the , people of England say—nay, and do, if the reporters were excluded from the gallery of the House of Commons ? And yet the Liverpool bench of magis trates, or at least some of that body, take upon them selves the power of excluding the reporters, because a gentleman is charged with an unnatural offence. In the next place, I assert it is quite illegal to exclude the repre sentatives of the public, or any one member oi the public, from a court, which, by legal authority, is open to all who chose to enter its portal. I am quite aware that there exists antiquated notions about publicity, but such notions bear the same resemblance to an express train that travels sixty miles an hour, as does the old jog trot system of posting, that got along at the rate of ten:miles in the same period. If such ancient notions are to be tolerated, let electiic wires and magnetic telegraphs be at once closed up. It is proved, beyond dispute, that speedy and accurate publication arre.ts the progress of the murderer; it is the dection of the fraudulent debtor, the seizure of stolen property, and delinquents of every description, sooner than all the activity of the most experienced de tective on earth. In fact, the detective system would prove a dead letter but for publication. I appeal to your own columns for the truth of this. The man who flies from Australia, defrauding his creditors in that distant colony, has the bankruptcy cour t messenger wa i t i ng erpool. The assasin who thinks him ight, is met by the offiners of justice at the seaport from which he hopes to escape. How comes this ? Why, by the fact, that the circumstance is com municated by means of publication through the newspaper press. Put an end to publication, and murderers will escape—dishonest debtors will laugh at pursuers—the gates of escape are open to thieves and criminals of all description. Put an end to publication, and you foster and protect crime, for it is the very fear of publicity that stares men in the face, and present more terrors before their eyes than the halter of the hangman. The law fails when publicity succeeds. The fear of public ?.xposure is greater than death. It was this fear that rushed Sadleir to his doom—he could bear death by his own hand, but he feared to look on publicity. A man con. templating a crime will ask himself—" What will the public say when lam discovered ?" And this feeling prevents many fearful crimes. How, then, can the Liver pool magistrates justify the act of attempting to screen a gentleman from publicity, because he happened to come under that denomination ? We all hold in horror the idea of the Inquisition—what have we been doing here but re vising that ;dread system? Even in mercy to the cul prit, private investigations should not be tolerated, for public opinion is sure to make a man even blacker than he may really be when he is tried with closed doors. It is repugnant to our notions of English liberty ; it is against common sense, and, above all, it is unfair, both to the accused and to the public, to hold a private investigation in any case, particularly where the accused party happens to be what the world ,:calls a " gentleman. On these grounds —on the the terms of equal law and justice to all, I protest against secret tribunals, and soliciting your powerful aid in this respect, I call on you to denounce them—Yours, &c., R. S. P.S.—lt was the fact of publication that led to the con viction and execution of the murderer of Lord William Russell—the murderer would have escaped otherwise. [We publish the above, without at all adopting many of the data on which the observations and animadversions of our correspondent are founded —En. N.T.] Liverpool, April 11, 1856. reporters to retire interested in thi p_pup le justice in LivE questio, Lswer the inter BIRKENHEAD POLICE COURT THURSDAY, (BEFORE MESSRS. BARTON, SHAW, AND JACKSON.) A. great number of poor persons were summoned for allowing their ellimnies to be on fire, and were fined in various small amounts. CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.—TIIO3. Addison, a letter carrier, was charged for embezzling the sum of 205., the property of Her Majesty's post-office authorities, and likewise with having delayed delivering certain letters entrusted to his charge. Mr. Bretherton appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Dacon, the sub-postmaster of Rock-ferry, stated. that on the Ist of April he entrusted the prisoner with 20s. to get some postage stamps from the head office in Birkenhead. On the afternoon of that day the prisoner said lie had forgotten to get the stamps. The prisoner then absconded and was afterwards appre hended at Kendell and brought to the station. Mr. Shaw, the chief clerk of the Birkenhead post-office, said it was part of his duty to supply all the sub-officers with postage stamps for distribution, but the prisoner had never applied to him for any stamps on that day or on any subsequent day. There was another charge against the prisoner, that of having delayed delivering a quantity of letters entrusted to him. Several witnesses were called to prove the facts, when the prisoner was called upon to answer the charge. He admitted that he had taken the money, but had lost it. The prisoner was then committed to take his trial on the above two charges. LONDON GAZETTE, BANKRUPTS.—PETER Mr,LLISIT, New Bond Street, Soho, trunk and packing case maker. CHARLES KIDDING. TON GILL, Castle Headingham, Essex, chemist and drug.. gist. GEHIGB HESIIAM, late of Bethnal Green Road, wholesale confectioner. WILLIAM JACKSON, Sheffield, brush manufacturer. CHARLES SPENCER, Birmingham, draper. WILLIAM BAKER, Combertou, Cambridgeshire, blacksmith and brewer, WILLIAM RICHARD DRAKE, North Walsham, Norfolk, coach. builder. EDWARD RHEAM, Kingston-upon-Hull. currier and leather seller. GEORGE WILLIAM VATERS, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, currier. JoHN JOSEPH, draper, Wimbledon, victualler. GEORGE WiLsoN, late of Milford Lane, Strand, but now of Nor thampton Street, Lower Road, Islington. licensed victual ler. GEORGE SIMMONDS, Fore Street,. Cripplegate, carpet bag manufacturer, and dealer in waterproof clothing. JOHN OSTLER, Kingston -upon-Hull, merchant and commis sion agent. BERNARD SUMMERS, Gogh Street, North Gray's Inn Road, paper stainer. hal' .BuxTorq, Leaven greave, Rochdale, Lancashire, cotton spinner and manu facturer,