The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-03 00:00:00

_ . ....4.l.3 .\.4\ Ni i ii t '' vK,..... been ..).14%,...). SOUTH LAN IRE SPRING ZITS. ! ~A) • wessrs ed . ltious,roevbeeteon'kn, cotton nieodi toabout tlie . ) 11 .......du. % ,,, T.—TUESDAY. SENTENE ON BARLOW. b w hether 1 1 ;ey R I!. l a e crc , I the quality they had pure sed from the Messrs. Knowles • and Richards, namely, about 7-id. per lb. The plaintiffs said _ eesene Ri c hard Barlow, convicted of forgery on Monday, was i that they had , that those were the sam p les by which they had pl a ced at the bar. ' The Judge said, it had appeared from the i purchased, and that their man had been to mark them off. evidence adduced in the course of the trial, that the bill for Mr. Sleddon agreed to buy thirty-five bales—twenty for Mr. £492 18s. in question, which the prisoner had uttered know- I Riley, and fifteen for another customer. This was on the ing the same to be forged, was one of six forged notes which 1 3d of June, 1839. The price of the purchase would have he or his family had been. enabled to take up. Th e t e kt s ia. I come to 1:285 and a fraction. On the-following day the cot ture had removed the extreme punishment in these cas es, 1 ton was to be delivered, and the person employed by Mr. Sled but they had -still left open a discretion to v i s it the offence . don, together with Messrs. Musgrove's man, went to Knowles severely, and if judges did not do their duty, it was probable 1 and Richards's wareh ouse, to receive the thirt y -five bales the crime would increase. In a commercial ' community like i sold to Mr. Sleddon. When they got there, they found that this, it was necessary that they should be enabled to pun i s h i Knowles's man had allowed another person to take the sixty crimes of this nature severely. The p r i s oner w as sen tenced 1 bales which had Previously been marked. Of course the plain tiff's man complained of this. Knowles's man acknowledged to transportation for 15 years. ARSON. that he had been careless enough to permit the marked Thomas Robinson, aged 22, was indicted for having wil- bales to be taken away •, but he said, " Say nothing about . fully and maliciously set fire to the warehouse of Mr. James it, and you shall have the privilege of selecting from the a bundance that stiftremains, and of rejecting any bales yo u Bradshaw, of Manchester, with intent to destroy the s ame, and with having stolen therefrom a box of gold leaf , the p ro- like," and he (Mr. Cresswell) believed that there was an ad vantage in taking cotton of that description. They then went perty of the said James Bradshaw. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Wilkins conducted the prosecu- off together to Mr. Sleddon's, and there found the defend ant's clerk and Mr. Riley. They explained to the clerk the tion • Dr. Brown defended. state of things at Knowles's warehouse, and what had been William Rogerson, a copper-plate printer, in the emp lo y of Messrs. Bradshaw, stated that, on the 6 th Januar y , the said by Knowles's man. Mr. Riley said, " Well, well I don't prisoner at the bar was a shopmate of his. T he y left work care aboutit; but take . care . (addressing Knowles and Ri on that day at the usual time, a little af ter ei g ht o'clock. cha . rds'smap , ) ... that you give me no re d or bl ue b a l es ." The , The prisoner had no business on the pr emises after eight. reply was, Your own rim must take of that." Twenty When witness left he saw him standing o n the to p landing. hales were accordingly picked out, and he (the learned coun- . Witness saw him next evening, about half past .six, at the sel) was told that in selecting - those twenty, six or seven were corner of Union-street, opposite Bradshaws warehouse. He rejected—a very unusual proportion in picking cotton in that said he had been in a privy at the back of the premises, on manner. The cotton was forwarded to Tishwick, near Pres the night of the fire, (which was the evening before,) about ton. Payment became due ten days afterwards, and at that twenty minutes. He desired witness to be at the court the time the platntiffs received a communication from Mr. Thos. following morning, to say that the back of the warehouse Sleddon, to the ellect that three bales would be sent back, was a thoroughfare. Could not tell whether it was a tho- because they were falsely packed. Now, he (Mr. Cresswell) roughfare or not. It was not a public road. Some person understood that though a person making a purchase from a came up while he was talking to the prisoner, and the latter mixed parcel could not reject the purchase because it happened ran away. • to be a little bel ow th e sam pl e , y e t, if it were falsely packed, John James Bradshaw , son of the prosecutor, described he had a right to return it. If it were a fact that the bales the warehouse and fastenings, and that there was no tho- had been falsely p a cked, they must be t a ken back. He would roug hf a re through the premises, but only a back passage. prove, however, that this was not the case. Mr. Clare, a The prisoner was one of his father's workmen on the 6th of man conversant with the cotton trade, was fixed upon by both January. The whole of the third story was used as a work- parties as the person who should examine the cotton, and the shop for the men. They had about twenty hands altogether. jury would see, from his evidence, whether it had been falsely The usual time of giving up work is . eight in the evening. packed or not. It was then found out that the defendant The prisoner was a printer in their service, and he worked had returned, not three, but seventeen of the bales. They in an upper room. 'Witness looked through the warehouse were all examined, and Mr. Clare said that they were not soon after eight o'clock, and satisfied himself that there was falsely packed, and therefore there was no obligation to take no one on the premises, though there might have been some them back. Mr. Sleddon then said that if the cotton was one concealed in the upper rooms. He saw that all the fires not falsely packed, it did not answer the sample. The plain were out in all the rooms. He locked the front door out- tiffs replied; that it had not been bought by sample, because side, having previously bolted the back door and the yard the sixty bales sampled -had been sold to another person, door inside. He left the premises shortly after eight o'clock, "and the next day you sent your man to select what you and'a few minutes past ten o'clock word was brought to him took." Mr. Clare, however, went to examine it with a view that the warehouse was on fire. Some persons who were to comparison with the sample, stud he said that it was within friends had gone in. The front door had not been opened, a very trifling degree of that which had been sampled. But, but the back doors had. He ran- immediately up towards if the three bales which were not returned wave rather better the room where the gold leaf and some other valuable pro- in -quality than . the sample, as very probably they were, a perty was kept, and found that a panel had beep broken out sample taken from. them, and added to that of the seventeen, of the door at the top of the staircase ; the door was in flames, would bring the whole up to the original sample. and the fire rushed out so fiercely through the panels that Israel Harris, (the warehouseman of Messrs. Musgrove,) they durst not approach. They went to the'window of the Mr. Clare, Mr. James H. Wrigley, Mr. Silas H. Prichards, back room where the gold leaf was kept. It was very dark, and Mr. Isaac. Bankcroft Cooke, were examined, and de but witness had placed the gold leaf shortly before his de- posed to the facts opened by Mr. Cresswell. Mr. Clare parture in a position where he could at once lay his hand said that in his judgment the sample of the returned cotton upon it in the dark. He stove missed it. There were a set was about tl., certainly not Id., inferior to the original of drawers in the large room which had gold leaf in them, sample ; the hales were not falsely packed. Mr. Cooke and these were burned. No marks of violence appeared on mentioned that he purchased a part of the parcel from the fastenings. Messrs. Musgrove, for Mr. Armstrong, and he never heard Jane Critchley resided with her brothel . , who keeps the any complaint of it. Globe Tavern. On the evening of 6th January, about half- Whilst Mr. Alexander was cross-examining one of the past nine o'clock, she heard some knocking at the door, witnesses with respect to the custom of the 'trade in the which led into the passage above mentioned. She went to purchase of cotton from mixed parcels, the door and found the prisoner at the bar. He entered the His LORDSHIP observed—l suppose it will not be con house and had a glass of warm ale. This passage had no tended on the other (the plaintiffs) side, that if twenty bales outlet save the back door of the warehouse, and of the inn, of cotton be bought by a sample of twenty bales, and if the and the door in Birchen-lane. The prisoner drunk his warm average of the bulk do not correspond with the average of ale and went away. The fire was discovered about twenty the sample of the twenty bales, that it may not be returned? minutes after he had been there. . Mr. CRESSWELL.—Of course, it may. Thomas Drummond, landlord of the Globe public-house, His LORDSHIP.—But you contend that the twenty bales confirmed the account as to time, and the circumstances of were purchased from a sample of the average of sixty bales, the prisoner's visit on the sth Jan. He was certain that no and that the purchaser took the risk of getting better or one had passed backwards and forwards through the yard worse? . previously. There were barrels, lumber, and coal in the Mr. CRESSWELL.—Undoubtedly. • passage. Mr. ALEXANDER (with whom was Mr. TomerersoN) Mary Drummond, wife of the last witness,' further corro- stated the case for the defendant. He began by remarking, borated the testimony as to the time of the prisoner's en- that if the hard rule which was said to prevail amongst the trance at the back door. She went out about half-past nine trade in the purchase of cotton did really exist, and received o'clock, and about ten minutes before ten, she was passing the sanction of a jury, the cotton-spinners must be consi the warehouse which she saw on fire. dered as a race of men much to be pitied. He hoped, how- Nathaniel Forth, a police-officer, of Manchester, stet- ever, that, before the conclusion of the case, he should ed that about a quarter to ten o'clock, he was standing advance sufficient to induce the jury to protect his client on the opposite side of the street, when he saw a light in against the operation of a rule so entirely one-sided. He Messrs. Bradshaw's warehouse. He looked intently. It contended that the purchase had been by sample, and not went out, and in a minute or two blazed up again. He was at all on terms coincident with those laid down by the bro then convinced that it was a fire, and he went and gave the kers. Mr. Riley expected to have cotton of a quality equal alarm. to the sale sample. The cotton was sold on the 3rd of Edward - Hartley, another officer, of the Manchester pa- June; on the 4th it was weighed; and on the evening of trolling police, deposed that after the fire was discovered, he the sth part of it (six or seven bales) arrived in Preston, went into the warehouse, and up to the first landing, and having been carried thither by the canal. Those bales were there he found a panel broken out of the front room immediately opened, and three of them were found to be door. He found the panel of the door out, and the extremely defective. - The samples had not then arrived ; room on fire. He found a candlestick and a paper cap on the they were, with the remainder, not yet carted up. They came, floor. He found the door in Birchen-lane fastened, and saw however, on the following morning, and dissatisfaction was a man who said he would go round and get it open. He immediately felt, for on inspection all but three bales turned could not say who that man was. Witness was engaged in out to be very inferior to the samples. The defendant did saving the property. He wanted the door in Birchen-lane not rest satisfied with his own judgment, but sent for Mr. opened, and went round to get it open. He found a man Swainson, a partner in the firm of Swainson, Burley, and trying to open it from the inside, but he did not know who Co., the most extensive spinners in Preston, and his opinion that was. He got in and found the back door leading to the was, that with the exception of the three bales, the cotton Bradshaws' yard, and the back door leading from thence into was not equal to the sample. " What must Ido ?" asked the warehouse, both open. Mr. Riley. " Why, you must send it back, it will not suit Ralph Hales, landlord of the Unicorn public-house, in your btisiness at all." The consequence was, that seventeen Church-street, stated, that the keys of Mr. Bradshaw's bales were Immediately returned in Liverpool on the Bth of warehouse were usually, left at his house for the accoinmo- June, and what had been done with them in the meantime dation of his workmen. On the evening of the 6th January, he could not say. This was a time when the defendant was the keys were left there shortly after eight o'clock. A little in want of cotton, and if it would at all have answered his before ten o'clock, he heard that the warehouse was on fire, purpose, he would willingly have retained it. It was a time, and went with the keys. He unlocked the front door, and too, when cotton was rising, and the defendant must therefore accompanied Hartley up stairs. The panel was taken out of have gone into the market to make a fresh purchase at a dis the door, and stood against the wall. Smoke and flame advantage. appeared in the room, and they could not enter by reason Mr. Ward, managing clerk for Mr. Sleddon, was then thereof. examined. He remembered the purchase by the defendant Richard Caldwell stated, that the paper cap found on the of 20 bales of New Orleans cotton, at ild per lb., from the floor was shown to him the morning after the fire. It was Messrs. Musgrove. There was no agreement about the qua his cap, and he had left it on a table in the top room that lity. The purchase was madeby sample. A letter from Mr. evening at eight o'clock. No stranger had been in that Riley, complaining of the cotton not being equal to sample, room during the afternoon. and that it had been falsely packed, had been sent to Mr. John Blagden, a police-officer, proved that he received the Sleddon, and was put in by witness. He took the letter and prisoner into his custody on the 7th January, on the charge showed it to one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Henry Musgrove, who of having wilfully set fire to his m aster's p remises. He took said, "They must be sent back, then." They were sent him about nine in the morning, and kept him till about two back ; and lie (witness) had compared a sample drawn out of o'clock, when he made his escape, while the attention of the seventeen bales wills the sale sample. The former was witness was occupied by another prisoner. He retook him very much inferior to the latter. The difference would be about nine o'clock. about '.eld per lb. Cotton had risen in the interval between , Alexander M`Mullen stated, that he examined Messrs. the uurCliase and the return. Shortly afterwards, however, Bradshaw's warehouse on the morning of the 7th. There the market fell to a lower price than it had been at the time were no marks of violence on any of the doors, but the back of sale. door of the passage appeared to have been opened by prising Cross-examined.—He would not take it upon himself to the staple back. When the prisoner was told that he was swear that he had shown the letter to Mr. Harry Musgrove. charged with having set fire to his master's premises, he said His strong impression was that he did so, and that Mr. he could face that out, for he was innocent. He was told by Musgrove read it. He (witness) did not recollect stating inspector Irving, that he had been seen to pass through the that he said to Mr.. Musgrove that it had been found that Globe tavern, about half-past nine o'clock on the night before. three of the bales were falsely packed ;he thought he showed He said, Rogerson and Mullen had seen him go away from the letter. He believed he said the cotton was falsely packed, the warehouse about eight. and then Mr. Musgrove said that it was to be sent back. He lames Aspinall, a skinner, stated, that he was working in did say that Mr. Riley had written that some of the bales the Irwell soon after the fire, when he found a parcel of the were falsely packed, and on that statement Mr. Harry Mus missing gold leaf swimming in the river. He gave it to an grove said, " Why, then, they must be sent back. officer named Richard Green, who produced it, and a large Mr. Thomas Sleddon deposed that when a complaint had parcel, which was afterwards found near Oldham-road. Mr. been made of the cotton, he told Mr. Harry Musgrove that Bradshaw, jun. said. their was a quantity of gold leaf which Mr. Riley did not like it. He did not explain that it was was made peculiarly for them. He could swear to this as falsely packed, and Mr. Musgrove said; " Send it hack." part of the gold leaf missed. Richard Pollock, a card master in the service of the de- Richard Beswick, deputy-constable of Manchester, stated, fendant, compared the six bales first opened with the sample. that he was present when the prisoner made a statement as Three were in accordance with the sample, and three were to where he was on the night of the 6th. As this statement not. He also made a comparison of the sale sample with a was not then taken down in writing in the depositions, his sample of the seventeen returned bales, and the latter was lordship refused to receive again a repetition of it as evidence. inferior. If the cotton had been equal to the sample sent, it Dr. BYOWN having ascertained that very small quantities would have suited their business ; but there were only three of paper, as well as large parcels thereof, were sold at Mr. bales that would suit. The mixture nf inferior cotton with Bradshaw's place of business, put it to his lordship whether the proper sort of cotton (fitted for the spinning of 40's) the premises were properly described in the indictment, is a would spoil the yarn. From experience, he should say that warehouse, when perhaps a halfpenny-worth of paper might one of those bad bales, when mixed with twenty good bales, be sold there. would spoil the yarn. The three bales retained were not His LORDSHIP said, as large parcels were sold wholesale, better than the original sample. ' there, the fact of small parcels being sold there did not cer- John Ashworth, warehouseman and clerk-to the defend tainly make it not a warehouse. ant corroborated the evidence of the last witness. - Di-. BROWN all u d e d t o a case , Ly ons v . D e P ass , re ported Mr. Wm. B. Swainson, of the firm of Swainson, Burley, in 9 Carrington and Payne, which he thought might perhaps and Co., cotton-spinners, of Preston, stated that the three bear him out, on examination, if his lordship would make a bales used were a fair average of the sample. The remainder memorandum on the point. were decidedly bad ; unfit for the use of the mill, and inferior Mr. PASHLEY said he was counsel in the case alluded to, to the sample. and it was held that the premises were a shop, but it was not Mr. Wm. Taylor, a cotton-spinner, had examined the held that they were not a warehouse. • sample said to have been drawn from the seventeen bales, His LORDSHIP thought that conclusion a very natural one. and it was very much worse than the sale sample, to the ex- Dr. BROWN appealed earnestly and eloquently in behalf of tent of id. per lb. He spun 40's in his mill, and such cotton the prisoner, exhorting the jury not to convict him in a case would be unfit for his ntirpose. of mere suspicion, depending on circumstantial evidence. Mr. CRESSWELL then replied, maintaining that there had His LORDSHIP, in the course of hi s c h arge to the * jury, been no answer to the case of the plaintiff. pointed out a great difficulty in the case. The course of the His LORDSHIP summed up at considerable length. After case for the prosecution left it to he impli e d, t h at t h e pr i son- h av i ng state d t h e nature o f th e case , l ie sa id t h a t if a man er had remained concealed on the premises. The circumstance purchased goods by sample, the seller was boundto send goods of the prisoner baying presented himself at the ha c k door of equa l to the sample, or there was no sale ; and perhaps, if the Globe, there being no o t her mode of getting out of the g o o d s were so ld un d er o n e uniform sample, and a portion of place, pressed v ery h ar d aga i ns t hi m ; but as the gold leaf the goods sold was according to sample and the rest not, the had been removed, and he presented himself without any purchaser might be allowed to keep the goods corresponding box or parcel, the difficulty there was undoubtedly very great with the sample, and to return the rest, because he might say on the other side. On the whole he thought the case had that he bought those only that corresponded with the sample been brought before them with so much of doubt in i t , that it and not the others. But in the present case, even according ' would be very painful to th em to convict. The wo uld see to the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, the cotton was whether they agreed with him in this view ; if not, he would not sold according to one uniform sample, but an average read over the whole evidence. sample. Then, when such a contract as that was made, that The jury acquitted the prisoner, and his lordship ordered the average of the bulk should correspond with the average him to be discharged. of the sa m pl e , t h e purchaser was not allowed to keep one po u r t tion, which mi g ht b e t h e same or b e tt er th an th e samp l e ; sdtuei might, rereh ti bargain aso t r i the bulk vi b nu u r l a ikc circumstances ti doaisgdee purchased." .o i , e t , r. c , o ia r i r ne e db s upntol say,i nghdhe might had no o e bh r s aa a i cvg m keh ptitlll to oet , b r wse e h p no u t h l d e e m iat e e n ketp the better p or ti on , and send b ; ack the worse, throwing that upon the vendor's hands. Then if, according to the defendant'step. r sd mt e i o n an c n e aan o d, f e the r,iva.eigtt etni d reo e nsf f s e tet n bsw d e et a i n nt' irdte ym s nha e oa v i tnl i e t dm n se e ,ar s k.h s ee e s , h the aa n sale g h h a t d t f e e k n e e o p n a e But out the any e s v u i n d h en a ce na o s f e th a e s o t that, a n t 0 , t b t because u o s n e t a h o i s averagewas not , sample according o f to th theire twenty evidence,a purchased bales, but a sale of twenty bales, a portion of on an average sample of the larger lot ; and then the lot,e fendant, in order to justify himself in repudiating the c - tract, should show that the bales delivered and the other bars forming the larger lot would, when put together, form a lower . a verage than the average sample of the whole lot. But there had been no evidence adduced of what the 15 bales were which were cent to the other party ; therewas only evidence of what the bales were that were sent to the defendant. According to the evidence of one of the defendant's witnesses, the purchase of Mr. Sleddon was made from an average sample of 40 bales. Another witness, called for the defence, said that there might have been 40 bales, but he would not swear that there was not an average ererwagee 40,sanple of 60 bales. Both concurred in stating that there and that from them Mr. Sleddon purchas ed 20 for Mr. Riley, and 13 for another person. He did not b purchase eent orr forged ; the w a h n o ti l e lot accordingout to c h o i 1 n c h i n the on s average f s a a nptuprl purchase was made from the average of a larger lot, it could not be expected that a smaller portion should correspond with the whole part that was sampled, because some of the bulk might be good, some bad, and some intermediate. But the vendor did not pledge himself that the average of 20 bales should be in quality the same as the average of the whole, but merely that the sample of the whole should correspond with the ave rage of the bulk. Then, if a purchaser took from the bulk the first 20, or the second 20, or the third 20, he must run the risk of getting something better or something worse than the average ; and to justify himself in sending back even the whole, he must prove that t v l e l io e dern 2 ne o ce , n,i :vhen compared with the other 20 (suppo s i ng i N ti o g w th t e h re er w e e h re ad 6o h ) e , e ( i l l id nonoe t there we re -10), or the other 40 (suppos atso h t e h e h a a d v h e r e t t. t o g r e e s s a t m a r e l d e : of what was the quality of the 15 bales purchased by Mr. that correspond there w t o a s the no sample. justification Sleddon for another party : it m i g h t have been that t h ey were so much better than th e 20 b a l es sent to Mr. Ril ey, would then, that to the whole}rim, ap pearedonthe part of the defendant to repudiate the contract. But it seemed that this was not even the manner in which the purchase of the defendant had been made ; f or th e 60 bales from which the original sample was made had been allowed to be taken by another person, and then, as Messrs. Knowles and Richards could not give the plaintiffs the same 60 bales, they offered to give Mr . Rile y the p rivile ge of selecting his 35 bales, so as to rej ect the inferior ba l es . With re spect to the plea of false package, if that could be substan tiated, the goods would then be returnable. The evidence of Mr. Clare went to show that there had been no false pack age, and only one of the defendant's witnesses spoke to any- NISI PRIUS COURT. —TUESDAY. MITIGATION OF THE SENTENCE ON . THE ME S SRS. SOWLEIt. The Messrs. Sowler attended this morning to hear his lordship's decision on an application which had been made for the mitigation of the sentence pronounced on them._ If is . lordship s a id—M r . Th om as Sowler, and Mr. Robert Scan Sowler, an a ppli cat i on h as b e en made to me for a mitigation of the sentence which I thought right to pronounce on you a few days ago, and that application has been supported by the earnest solicitations of Mr. Garnett, the prosecutor. Re presentations have b een ma d e t o me , s h ow i n g the contrition you feel for the o ff ence wh i ch you have comm itt e d against the laws of the country ; and, at the same time, pointing out the evils which must result, not only to yourselves, but to your families, if the se n t ence were carr i e d i nto effect. I always indulge in when I can cons i stent l y w i t h my pub lic duties, m those f ee li ngs wh i c h are natura l to t h e man ; and the solicitation of Mr. Garnett, joined with that from other parties, has" afforded me an opportunity of re mitting or altering, your sentence. The sentence of the court is, that you be . fined one shilling, and then discharged, entering into recognisances to keep the peace as before. BUYING COTTON.—SAMPLES.—PACKING. MUSGROVE AND ANOTHER ?J. RILEY.--The declaration in this case was for goods sold and delivered, and an account stated ; and the defendant pleaded,.that as to all, except £3B, he had made no such promise to pay ; a n d th at, as to all the amount in demand, except £3B , he had d e li vered cer tain bales of cotton, in satisfaction of the promi se , an d that the plaintiff accepted them in satisfaction ; and that as to t h e £3B, he brought it into court. The plaintiffs accepted that sum in part sa tisf a ction of their demand, and denied the rest of the pleas. Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. CROMPTON) stated the plaintiff's' case. This was an action brought by Messrs. Musgrove against Mr. Riley, to recover the value of a por tion of twenty bales of cotton, sold by the plaintiffs and deli vered to Mr. Riley. The defendant, as the jury had heard in the pleadings, had paid into court the sum of £3B, which he (the defendant) meant to be the value of three bales, and contended that, as to the other seventeen bales, lie returned them, and that the p ar ti es accepte d th em i n satisfaction of payment for those seventeen bales. The circumstances were these, and he believed that they were not without interest to . those engaged in the co tt on tra d e of the port. I n t h e M a y of last year, Messrs. Knowl es an d Ri char d s h a d a m i xe d par cel of interior cotton, of between five and xis hundred bales, for sale. They sent samples to the Messrs. Musgrove, who purchased sixty bales of th e parcel, and sent their ware houseman to Messrs. Knowl es and Richards's, to take a sample, and mark out for them sixty bales out of the gene ral parcel. He understood that in fo rm i ng a sample out of a mixed parcel, the practice was to t a k e a small quantity from each bale and mix the whole up together, so as to form an average ; and, in purchases of this kind, h e was told, one man might get a parcel a little better, and another a little worse, than the average or sample. When the Messrs. Mus groves' warehouseman went to the warehouse in which the cotton was deposited, he was shown what was termed " a wall pile," consisting of about ninety bales, and of these ninety, sixty were marked and set aside by the man, for the plaintiffs. Shortly after, Mr. Sleddon, a cotton broker, who tit .: Nt h 1P , 316 Ching like false packing, and he did not see the bales when they were first opened. He saw them after they had been returned, and he said " Two or three of them seemed to me as if they were falsely packed ;" but they might have Wen those bales opened at Riley's, and in which some mixture might possibly have taken place in the course'of examination 'and comparison. In their evidence as to the comparative qualities, the defendant's witnesses generally spoke of having compared the sample drawn from the 17 returned bales, with the.original one, or that taken from the 60 hales. If the jury were of opinion that the plaintiffs had voluntarily agreed to take back the 17 bales in satisfaction of the price, then, no matter what was the contract, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The evidence on that point rested principally on the evidence of Mr. Ward, which his lordship read over. After some further remarks for the guidance of the jury, he concluded. The jury, after ten minutes' deliberation, found for the plaintiffs, on both issues : damages £248 15s. being the amount claimed with the deduction of the £3B paid into court. This case lasted five hours. Several undefended causes were then disposed of. LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY TENANTS OR CUSTOMERS FOR GOODS DESTROYED BY FIRE. ARMITAGE V. WINTERBOTTOM AND ANOTHER.—The de-. claration stated, that, in consideration that the defendants would provide the plaintiff with certain steam power and standing room, and would also dry a certain quantity of wool for the plaintiff, he undertook to pay them a yearly rent of £2OO ; that afterwards a quantity of wool belonging to the plaintiff was destroyed by, fire, and nevertheless the defend ants, though they had promised to indemnify and save the plaintiff harmless, had not done so. There was a second count for money had for the plaintiff's use, and not paid over to him. The plaintiff was Mr. Joseph Armitage; and the defendants had pleaded separately. Mr. William Winter bottom pleaded first, non aseumpsit ; and secondly, that the wool was not on the premises of the defendants as stated. The defendant, John Hextall, pleaded the general issue; and secondly, that no wool of the plaintiff's was on his (Hextall's) premises. . The Jury, after a minute or two's consideration, found for e defendants. CROWN COURT.-WEDNESDAY. FRAUD ON THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF CHELSEA HOSPITAL. .Tohn Gorton, 76, and James Gorton, 28, were charged with having, at Great Bolton, personated and falsely assumed the name of Richard Royal, deceased, and previously entitled to a pension for service done in the army, for the purpose of fraudulently receiving that pension, and with having forged a certificate concerning the payment of the said pension, with . . intent to defraud the Eords and other Commissioners of the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea, in the county of Mid dlesex. _ _ Serjeant Atcherly, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Fitzgerald conducted the prosecution. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the County Palatine ob served that it was a splendid thing that, in this country, there were no less than eighty thousand men who received pensions for services rendered in the army alone, and the amount paid to them was not less than £1,300,000. The elder prisoner, John Gorton, has been in the army, and has received a pension. He is a very fine looking old man, with white locks, and a fine bushy pair of white whis kers, which he wore under his chin. Though seventy-six years old, he stood much more erect than his nephew, a lout ish looking person, whose innocence of any participation in the offence was frequently declared by the old man. It appeared, in the course of the evidence, that very exten sive frauds had been practised on the commissioners by indi viduals personating dead pensioners who had resided in the country, and that the elder Gorton, in company with John Heyes, had been in the habit of drawing the pension of a man named Hodgins, deceased, during a number of years. The jury found both prisoners Guilty. John Hayes, a fine old man, aged 76, was placed at the bar. He was charged with having personated the name of Richard Royal, on the first of January, 1839, with intent to defraud the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the prisoner had re ceived the pension of a man named Hodgins during eight years. The learned counsel recommended James Gorton to mercy, as he had reason to believe that he had been a tool in the hands of his uncle. His LORDSHIP said, the legislature hail considered this offence of such enormity, that they had fettered the hands of the judge, and he had no discretion but to pass sentence of transportation. It was painful to send two such old men, even for the shortest term in his power, out of the country, where it was probable they would spend the remnant of their days • but it was necessary to mark the crime by a severe punishm3nt. His lordship said it was probable, from the evidence, that the prisoners had been led into the commis sion of this crime by love of drink, which he was of opinion was the cause of two-thirds of the crime committed in this country. The two old men, John Gorton and Heyes, were sentenced to transportation for life ; James Gordon to trans portation for fifteen years. CHARGE OF WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER. William Gill, a well-dressed, respectable-looking man, aged 42, was indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously beaten, cut, and wounded his wife; Mary Ann Gill, with intent to murder her. Mr. Sergeant Atcherley and Mr. Cobbett prosecuted, and Mr. Wilkins defended. The prisoner, it appeared, had some years ago married a respectable young woman at Manchester, where he was the son of a dissenting minister. Soon after the marriage some disagreement arose, and a separation ensued. The prisoner, it was supposed, went abroad. After a time he returned, when he pressed his wife, who was respectably stippOrting, her three children at Openshaw, to live with him. She re ceived him with kindness, but refused again to live with hint. The circumstances which led to the act of which the prisoner was accused, will be gathered from the evidence. Mary Ann Gill, a respectable and interesting-looking fe male, stated that she had been married to the prisoner four teen laws. Soon after they were married they had some disagnfment, in consequence of misfortune and his inatten tion to his children. They had not much disagreement ; but at length, about four years ago, she considered that it would be best for th to separate; she could provide for her children • sit ontinued to do so, entirely f un aided by him. She di not see him for two years till the middle of last January. when he called at the house which she occupies. He said he had conic to stop with her, and she told him that he had better not. He insisted upon staying, and she, after a short time, went out to her sister's house, where she remained till the following evening (Sunday) when having been informed that he had left the house, She returned. lie visited her again on Monday evening. He sat down and remained. A neighbour, named Shepherd, came in to purchase some articles, and%;she .asked bins to remain. The prisoner persisted in staying, and he stayed, till Wednesday. She requested Shepherd, and another neighbour, named Jones, to stay with her, as she did not like to remain alone with the prisoner. He left her on Wednesday morning and returned again on Wednesday night. She sent for a constable to put him out, according to the advice of the attorney whom she had consulted. The constable asked him very quietly to go out, but he insisted upon being taken to the New Bailey. She appeared against him. He leaned over the bar and asked her not to press the charge. He was discharged on promising that he would not annoy her again, and that he would quit the town. He called again on the following Monday ; he did not remain long; he called again the following afternoon, and again left the house; he did the same on Wednesday, and on Thursday he called again and pressed her very much to let him live with her. She said she could not do that, but she would do what she could towards his support. He called again on Friday the 31st January. He sat down, and they were talk ing on the same subject of his living with her. She repeated that she could not let him live with her. She prepared tea, and invited him to partake. He renewed the subject during tea, saying, " How is this to be, Mary Ann, do you intend to live with me?" She said, " No, I never intend to live with you again." He said, " What, never !" She said, " No, never while I live." At the moment she said this she was passing him. He arose, took her by the shoulders, and pushed her into a small passage. He threw her down, and kneeled upon her breast ; he took a clasp-knive from his pocket ; it was a knife such as gardeners use ; he bent her head upon her breast, and felt round her ears for the jugular vein. When he did so, she exclaimed, "Oh spare my life, for the sake of my children." He said, " No, you shall die now." He then cut her across the throat. She did not recollect anything till she found herself in the yard scream ing. Witness exhibited the mark on her throat to the jury. She was able to appear before the magistrates on the follow ing Monday, the wound having been previously dressed by a surgeon. On cross-examination by Mr. WILKINS, Mrs. Gill said, on occasion of their Various interviews, he always expressed the strongest affection for her and her children. Mr. Wil kins questioned the witness concerning a person named Moscha, who formerly resided with Mr. Fechini, the husband, of her sister. The object of this part of the cross-examina tion appeared to be to establish that an improper intimacy had existed between Moscha and witness. It merely ap peared that witness had frequently taken her home from the houses_ of her sisters, Mrs. Fechini and Mrs. Leresche, and that he had made her and her children some trifling presents. Moscha went abroad six years ago, and she had only seen him once since, about four years ago. Her husband was in Lancaster Castle about 17 months, and at that time Moscha made her children a present of some frocks. Mr. Wilkins also pressed her to state whether some improper intimacy had not subsisted between her.and Thomas Sheppard. She de nied this in the most decided terms, saying she never had such a thought. She admitted that she said to her husband —but not on the night when he cut her—" Suppose, from your long absence, that I had transferred my affections to some one else." She had not transferred her affections to another. Other witnesses having been examined Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the prisoner, and called a witness, Lieut. Jones, of the Royal Navy, who gave him a good character. It did not ap pear, however, that Lieut. Jones had seen much of the pri soner for some years. The jury retired at a quarter past four o'clock, and re turned in three quarters of an hour, and found the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent to murder, recommending him strongly to mercy. The prisoner was asked what he had to say why judgment of death should not be recorded against him ? . . The prisoner entered into a long statement of the misery and hardship which he said he had suffered during his ab sence from his wife, and gave a detail of the events which he alleged had happened immediately before the commission of the act for which he was tried, but as the address threw some severe reflections on his wife, we forbear to publish it. The JUDGE said, the merciful recommendation of the jury had certainly saved the prisoner's life, for if they had found the verdict which they had returned, and not coupled it with that recommendation, he should have felt it his duty to have passed that awful sentence which he never did pass, without the most rooted intention of carrying it into effect ; he never trifled with that awful sentence. The life of the prisoner would be spared, upon what terms it was not for him to say. Sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner. Thos. Ford, alias Roger Barry, aged 25, John Ford, aged 24, who had two or three other names, and James Yates, 29, were charged with having , at Todmorde n an d W a l s d en , bur glariously b ro k en into the shop of George Davies and stolen thirty silver watches, one gold watch, three pairs of silver cases and other articles, the property of the said George Davis. Thomas Ford pleaded guilty. The Jury found both prisioners Guilty. Thos. Ford said he deserved punishment. He was a de serter from the 88th Regiment which was at Todmorden on that night, and he committed this crime rather than be taken. Hedenied that the other two had any participation in it. The prisoners were sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. The chartist cases are fixed for trial on Saturday morning, if the felonies he then concluded. The trials of the officers of the 86th will not come on before Thursday next. The court adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. i'eNKe.l- NELSTROI' AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, seAl -- n This was an action brought by the plaintiffs Messrs. i strop and Walmsley, corn dea lers, a t Stockport, as the assignees of Timothy Bod din g ton, a baker, for merlyea ing on business at Salford , to recover the sum of £B6, as for money had for the use of the assignees. Mr. WIGHTMAN, in stating the case, said this action was brOught to recover the money above stated, for the purpose of effecting an equal distribution of the effects of Bodding ton, who was a bankrupt. The circumstances of the case were, that Boddington having a short time before his bank ruptcy been called upon by the traveller of Messrs. Fletcher and Moss, and being deeply indebted to them, was in duced, in the hopes of getting more goods from them , to g ive them a warrant of attorney. At this time Boddington was indebted to several other persons, and among others to the plaintiffs in this case, but he appeared only to have thought I of paying Messrs. Fletcher and Moss, and he was to pay them £2O a month. Of course he did not do this long; he failed, and then this warrant of attorney was put in force. The warrant of attorney was put in force on the 13th July, last year, a seizure was made on the 15th, and his effects . were sold. The other creditors of Boddington hearing of his bankruptcy, which took place on the .120, in order that Messrs. Fletcher and Moss might not get the lion's share of the effects determined to take out a fiat to obtain that equal distribution of the bankrupt's effects contemplated by the. bankrupt laws. A fiat was taken out, and assignees had been duly appointed: He lAieVed that, so far as the facts of the case were concerned, there would be little difference between the plaintiffs and defendant, but he believedthat the substantial point would be with reference to a late act of Parliament affecting the case. This act was the 2d and 3d Vict. c. 29. Previous to the passing of this act, there i ould not be a doubt but 'the plaintiff would be in a condition to recover; and the question was, - : whether the act would apply to this case. The act of bankruptcy was committed on the 15th July, the fiat was taken out on the 18th, and. the act passed on the 19th: -the question would be,therefore, whe ther the act had a retrospective action. • Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, intimated that he should dispute the fact that Boddington had ever committed an act of bankruptcy, and witnesses having been called, the case was submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff on this plea. On the other point, which was a question of law, a verdict was also given for the plaintiff's, under the direction of his Lordship, subject to future decision on the point, which was reserved. . BROWN V. PRICE AND OTHERS. This was an action brought to recover £2O, the amount of a promissory note given by the defendants, who were mem bers of a society termed the Independent Order of Recha bites. The action was undefended, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff of £lB ss. ; the remainder having been admitted to have been received. WATERHOUSE V. TOLLER. This was an action for the recovery of £3B from the de fendant, for the loss alleged to have been sustained on a quantity of tea sold by the plaintiff to him, and afterwards returned upon his hands. Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. COWLING), in opening the case, said the plaintiff in this case was a respec table tea-merchant in Liverpool, and the defendant, Mr. Toiler, was a tea-broker, also living in Liverpool. The action was (as stated by Mr. ,Cowling in opening the plead ings) for the recovery of money lost upon teas sold to the defendant, and which had been afterwards returned upon the plaintiff's hands. The amount sought to be recovered was the sum lost upon the resale of the teas, in consequence of an alteration in the market. At fit'st it was anticipated that the loss upon the resale of the tea would be considerable, but it turned out, after an investigation of the whole of the matter, that the loss was but small, and Mr. Waterhouse would have let the matter sleep, but it sometimes happened that defendants did not know when they were well off, and the moment a plaintiff seemed disposed to act leniently, they said, " Oh, no; you wish to withdraw because tou see that it is a bad case ;" and accordingly the plaintiff was forced into court, as in the present case. The tea which formed the subject of this action was brought from China by the ship Juliet, and was afterwards sent over to . Ireland in a vessel called the Amity, where it was purchased and sent back in two steamships called the Liffey and Britannia. On the Bth June, 1838, the tea was sold to the defendant, and on the 9th news arrived from London that an immense sale of teas had taken place there, and this caused a fall in the prices of the article, whereupon the defendant, probably fear ing that he would be a loser by his bargain, returned the teas, aileging that they were .not of the quality ordered. Subse- • quently, however, the defendant went to look again at the teas, and after having a number of the chests opened, said he was quite satisfied with them, would not have the remainder opened, and requested to have the invoice back. After this he again sent the goods back, but the plaintiff said this was rather ton bad, and refused to let him rescind the order. He refused to have the teas however, and the result was that there had been a loss upon them, upon resale, of £3B. What sort of defence would be set up remained to be seen. It ap peared that his first plea-was there had never been a bargain ; secondly, that there had been no delivery ; thirdly, that the sale was by sample, and that the quality of the teas was in ferior to the sample; fourthly, that the tea was to have been tea out of the Liffey and Britannia ; and lastly, that the con tract was obtained by fraud. After commenting on these pleas, the learned counsel proceeded to call witnesses to prove - the case, and put in the contract note, which was for 52 chests of Congou teas to be paid for on the Bth Sept. 1838. Mr. WIGIITMAN (with whom was Mr. Charles Crompton) raised two objections to the contract. The first was that the contract was not good, because the vendor's name was not upon it ; and.the second was, that it was not signed by the defendant or his agent, the party whose name was signed (Cooke) not having been shown to be the agent of the de fendant. His LORDSHIP said the first point was one now under dis cussion in the Courts of Westminster, and he should reserve his opinion upon it till their decision was known. On the second point he observed, that in his opinion the agency was sufficiently made out. Mr. WIGHTMAN then addressed the jury, contending that a sample having . been produced to defendant of the teas, it must be considered to have been a contract of sale by sample, and he called witnesses to show that the bulk of the teas was not equal to the sample, and. that the contract was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations. The other pleas were not gone .upon.. Mr. CRLSSWELL replied, quoting. authorities to show that 'no account of samples being mentioned in the contract, it was not a conteact•bysample, and consequently that the evi dence for the defendant was of no value. • ••' His Loßnsnir summed up, and the jury almost immedi atelpfcitindlorthe plaintiff. Damages £3B. LEATHOM AND ANOTHER V. HOPKINSON. The plaintiffs in this action were the, assignees of a bank rupt, riamed'Beckett, who was formerly a partner in business with Mr. Leathom, as an ironfounder; in Liverpool, and the action was brought to recover the sum of £26 from the de fendant, Mr. Hopkinson, a coachbuilder, for work done by the bankrupt previous to his bankruptcy. Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. VENABLES were for the plain tiffs, and Mr. 'CaesSWELL appeared for the defendant. The work for which the sum claimed was charged` consisted' of a large, plate, weighing upwards of 30 . cwt. ,- and of peculiar formation, placed up in the yard of the defendant,. for the purpose of being used in coach wheeli. The work was Com pleted in March, 1839. At the time it was put. up in defen dant's yard the plate had a crack in it, .which „afterwards ex tended, , and the plaintiffs Sent workm'eu . for theorpose of tivtting, the parts together... The plateWas:kept,in work till. SepteMber, making no complaint of it ; but then they, sent word that the crack had extended across the plate, aiid Work men .I, : vure, sent ,to pt. 1 •, ,4 .,:ki.,(1 0 11, 11 PQA it. ~Wheiuthe:workinen got there, objectionser . e ode to its beingoilonc,all4,W . w7:-, time was .work - men' 'Weiit'd' fife tinie apnointed; hat were.,again : sent back, and thexlefenclunt now, paid into court ten guineas,„ and said that this,surnwas a suf ficient diseliiirie' of the debt; The counsel for the plaintiffs called a great number of witnesses, to - prove that, .until a subsequent quarrel between the plaintiffs and defendant, no fault ivaS found with the plate, but that, •On'the contrary, it was received in a very. satisfactory way ;:that the crack was the necessary consequence of a contraction of the metal, aris ing from the peculiar construction of the plate, and that the cracks across tbeldate, when properlrrepaired with wrought iron, were not detrimental to it, but, in fact, rendered it stronger, and better fitted fir the purpose than before. One of .the witnesses called by the plaintiffs had been subpoenaed by the defendant, and was a workman who was employed by the defendant, and has used the plate in question. This wit ness, however, though he proved the use of the plate, contra dicted the former evidence, as to the plate being as useful as it would have been if not cracked, and said for several pur poses it could not be used. A good deal of amusement was caused by this witness, on being called, demanding, in a loud tone, that his expenses should be paid. His Lordship held that the .witness was justified -in the deinand, when Mr: Alex ander at once observed, that there would not be the slightest objection to it. " Then tip !" exclaimed the witness, holding forth his hands towards the learned counsel with character istic gesticulation. The court was convulsed with laughter. The witness, of course, got his expenses (245.) without de lay, and his warmth gradually subsiding, he proceeded to give his evidence with tolerable coolness. Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defence, con tending that the plaintiffs, by their own witnesses, had not shown, that the plate was ever fit for use, and said that he should be able to show that the defendant made an objection to it from the first, but that he was persuaded to keep it on a warranty from the makers that the crack in it would not extend, that the crack did extend, and that, then, it was sent back. The plate in fact had been repudiated from the first, but that the plaintiffs having put up the plate in defendant's yard, the latter could not get it removed. He should call witnesses to prove that the only value of the plate was its value as old iron, and its value as old iron had already been paid into court.—Witnesses were then called. Mr. ALEXANDER replied, and Mr. Justice ERSKINE hav ing gone over the evidence, The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs.—Damages £l5 14s. 41. CROWN COURT.-THURSDAY. STABBING AND WOUNDING. John Smith, aged 42, stood indicted on a charge of having, at Heaton Norris, maliciously stabbed and wounded one William Derbyshire, with intent to murder him. Mr. BRANDT stated the case for the prosecution. William Derbyshire said he was a stonemason. On Satur day, the 28th of September, he went to a beer-house, in Heaton Norris, where the prisoner and his wife were. Wit ness asked prisoner's wife to drink, and prisoner was vexed at this. Witness said something, hut did not remember what. He was put out, and while in the passage prisoner struck him twice. He was much hurt, but made his way home. When getting into bed he found that he was wounded in the side. The blood was flowing from him. He was drunk at the time, so that he could not remember what was said by himself or the prisoner. Abel Stansfield, keeper of the beer.house, said the prose cutor asked the prisoner's wife to drink with him, which she did. The prisoner then asked her (his wife) to drink with him, and she refused, saying, she would drink with no such a black looking fellow. The prosecutor then said to pri soner, " You see she will drink with me, and nut with you ; and she'll go with . me. I can go with her when I like." Some other words passed, and witness turned the prosecutor out. He returned, and a scuffle took place, in which the wife again showed her preference to the prosecutor. Witness's wife soon afterwards came in — and said, " Smith, yon've stabbed Derbyshire." There 'had been a good deal of talk about Smith's wife and Derbyshire. Another witness saw Smith strike Derbyshire twice. Wit ness saw a knife in prisoners's hand, and endeavoured to take it from him. Prisoner said he'd stab either his wife or Derbyshire—whichever came up first. He said the law would justify him in it. Mary Stansfield, wife of the beerhouse-keeper, was sent for to Derbyshire, and brought word back of his being stab bed. Prisoner said, "if he had not done it, he would do it." Richard Greenfield saw Derbyshire when he came home, and he was wounded. His worsted belt was pierced through. Brammil, a constable, apprehended .the prisoner, and found upon him a knife, now produced. Witness had never heard anything against the prisoner. Mr. Rayner, surgeon, attended the prosecutor. He found a wound about the centre of the 6th rib. There was another small wound on the hip. Such a knife would make the wound. The knife had struck the rib. Had it gone between the ribs, the wound, if given with force, would have been dangerous. As it was it was not dangerous, but the patient behaved ill ; he drank hard, and ran away on the Tuesday. The prisoner said in his behalf, that he always lived in peace with his fellow man, and in the fear of God. But if a worm were trodden upon it would turn. He was malici ously treated, and in his excitement attacked the prosecutor. His wife was every thing to him in this world, and now his peace of mind was destroyed for ever on this side of the grave, and he felt regardless of what might be his destiny. His lordship said the case was a most painful one. An improper intimacy had undoubtedly taken place between the prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, and language had been used calculated to provoke a man to an act of violence. No provocation, however, could justify the use of a deadly wea pon. His lordship explained the law with regard to cases of a dultery, where the party injured killed the adulterer. If a man canoe in by accident, and found his wife in criminal intercourse with another man, and he, in the moment of aggravation, killed the adulterer, the law reduced the offence to manslaughter. But if a man previously know that an improper intimacy existed between his wife and another limn, and he prepared himself with a deadly instrument, and knowing they were together, went and killed the man, the act constituted murder. The jury would have to decide with what intent the prisoner stabbed the prosecutor. The Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner " Guilty of stabbing, with intent to do grievous bodily harm." Sentence was deferred until this clay, and his LORDSHIP called up the ,prosecutor. and said to him :—" Derbyshire, von are a much more guilty man in the eyes of God than the prisoner. If Ido what it is almost necessary for me to do, I ought to send him abroad for fifteen years. But you are a much more guilty man than he. The whole guilt, indeed, of the offence is to be attributed to you—a drunken man and an adulterer. After injuring the man in the most tender point, you, unworthy as he was, appeared here as his prose cutor. Go down, sir!" John Allen, 24, was charged with having, at -Todmorden and Walsden, feloniously and maliciously stabbed James Crowther, with intent to murder him, or do him some grievous bodily harm. It appeared that on Sunday night, the Bth of September, as the prosecutor was going home, he saw the prisoner knocking at the door of a house, which turned out to be that in which he lodged, and said to him " What are you knocking there at on Sunday night ?" Pri soner replied—" I'll let you know what I am knocking for." The door of the house was soon after opened, and the pri soner entered, and took a knife from a table, with which he hastened out, crossed the street, and struck the prosecutor twice, wounding hint on the first false rib on the left side. The wound, hut for the knife hitting the rib, might have been fatal. As it was, it was not of a dangerous character. The pocket knife with which it Was inflicted was produced. When found there was blood upon the blade. Another knife, (a butcher's) was also found. The prisoner had taken it up, and there was blood upon it from his hands. He had in tended to use it also, but. was prevented. It appeared that the prisoner was in liquor when he committed the offence. The JUDGE, in summing"up, stated, that being in a state of intoxication brought about by the party himself was no excuse in law, for a criminal act committed while under the influence of such intoxication. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner said it was his first offence, and besought the mercy of the court. His LORDSHIP said to the prisoner :—The jury have very properly found you guilty. of stabbing with intent to do the prosecutor some grievous bodily harm. Considering the whole of your conduct, I cannot help thinking that the jury has treated you mercifully, as a verdict for a higher offence would have been justifiable. You were, it appears, at the time under the influence of liquor ; but this was no excuse for crime. I cannot take it as a ground of mitigation of pu nishment. O❑ the coutary, I would rather he inclined in such cases to administer some additional punishment. No thing so greatly aggravates offences as intoxication, which I regret is so prevalent. I feel convinced, indeed, that if the people of this country were a sober people, they would be more, moral, and there would be fewer depredations, and the crimes of grievous assault and murder would be much less frequent. I have no difficulty in determining the amount of punishment which you must undergo. It has become neces sary to visit this offence with severity. The use of the knife has of late been lamentably on the increase. In this instance you were not contented to use the pocket knife only. Ido .not think you would have acted as you did if you had not been intoxicated. In the excitement of liquor you deliberately inflicted a wound upon your antagonist with a pocket-knife. Not contented with this, you then went into the house for another weapon ; and there is every reason to believe that you would also have used the butcher's knife, the handle of fvhich was stained with blood from your hand, and perhaps have, in the darkness of the night, hurried the prosecutor into eternity. The sentence of the court is that you be trans ported beyond the seas for the term of fifteen years. John Greaves, 24, and William Bottomly, 24, were in dicted on a charge of having, at Prestwich-cum-Oldham, feloniously killed and slain one Ralph Jackson. The prisoner Greaves had been repeatedly challenged to an up-and-down fight (as it is called in this county), in which kicking as well as blows is frequently resorted to. After fighting some time " for love," the deceased was repeatedly " punched" or kicked on the head and breast. After the last kick, the de ceased died almost instantly. The prisoner was intoxicated at the time, and the deceased, who had provoked him to fight, still more so. The prisoner Bottomly so slightly in terfered with the fight, that the case was not pressed against him, and he was acquitted by direction of the judge. The fight was, in the part of the country where it took place, con sidered a fair fight. The jury found Greaves guilty. His Lordship said : John Greaves, you have been found guilty of manslaughter,— that is, taking away the life of a fellow creature. The pu nishment for this offence very properly varied according to the greater or less aggravation of the case. It might be transportation for life, or imprisonment for a term, or the party might simply he required to pay a small fine, and he dismissed the court. The present is a serious case, and here again the offence arose from the baneful influence of liquor. You and your antagonist were both drunk, but Jackson was drunker than you ; and it was deplorable to reflect that a man in a state of intoxication should be hurried into the pre sence of his Maker. The offence was committed, too, early on Sunday morning. The parties had doubtless been drinking till late on Saturday night, or, perhaps, had scarcely been in bed, and were infuriated with liquor. It was shocking to think that men in that state should be seen stripped stark naked and fighting in a field. After you had " punched," or kicked, your antagonist for a few minutes, he died almost immediately. To the , latest day of your life, such an act must hang upon your mind. The manner of the fight was according to the barbarous practice of this county, which it behoved all parties to endeavour to put down. There is something, indeed, in the system of kicking which is almost worse than stabbing itself. I take into consideration-, how ever, that you were much provoked, and that the deceased had been principally accessory to his own death. The sen tence of the court is, that you be imprisoned in; the county House of Correction for eighteen months, and that during that time you be kept to hard labour. POSTPONEMENT OF TIIE TRIAL OF MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR. Mr. WATSON made application to his lordship, in behalf of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, for the postponement of the trial of this individual for sedition, &c. from the present to the summer assizes. He stated that the ground for this application was„the.unavoidable absence of a witnese whom the defendant and his attorney conceived to he most material to his defence. Ile read affidavits from Mr. O'Connor, and from Mr. Clarkson, solicitor, to the effect that a material witness, named. John Taylor, a physician of Carlisle, was in so dangerous a state of health that he could not attend at these assizes ; that all due diligence had been used to pro .cure his attendance ; but that the result of a correspondence with an attorney in Carlisle, showed that Mr. Taylor was not to be.found; and that , he had either.. left the country .for France, or was about to do so. They'll - ad every - reaSou to believe, however, he would be forthcoming, at the summer disizes; it he recovered",\ aild they. therefore', prayed That his Nrdship would postpone the • trial to. the next assizes. Mr. Ti 100 teas veryle.eble . wheli retehtigiat the York Assizes Os a - witness, • . • • . . . mr. WrGicrm.kN, who was . fortheProsecution, said he did notwish. to stand in the way of the application. He had seen the affidayits,!and did not object on the ground of a want of diligence in.procuring,the witness. His LORDSHIP acceded to the request of the applicant, and the trialaecordingly_stands postponed:. Thomas Bigiert4lo.l . l 3 A•iind',Sittnit.et Lord, stood indicted on a charge Of flaying, at Oldham, burglariously- broken and entered the dwelling-house of William Eastwood and stolen a silver cup, sixteen silver spoons, a silver cream jug, and various other articles, the property of the said William East wood ;—and Margaret Clayton and William Pollitt, stood indicted for having received the articleS, knowing them to he stolen. The trial was protracted and tedious, and had no peculiar feature of interest. There did not appear to be suffi cient evidence to prove the burglary ; but the property was carried off by the two first prisoners, and was pledged or sold by the other two. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of larceny against Butterworth and Lord ; and guilty of feloniously receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen, against Clay ton and Pollitt. Sentence was deferred. TRIALS OF THE CHARTISTS. Mr. Bronterre O'Brien applied to his lordship to be in formed as nearly as possible at what time the trials of the chartists would come on, as there were about 50 of them, and many of the witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced if they were required to remain long from their homes. His lordship stated that so far as he could foresee those trials would commence on Monday. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Hannah Blackburn, a factory girl, aged 18, was indicted on a charge of having wilfully murdered a male child ; also with having concealed the birth of the child. She, in the first instance, pleaded not guilty to both charges ; but after wards withdrew her plea on the latter charge and pleaded guilty to it. The prosecution on the first charge was not pressed against her by the crown. . . . . Mr. PiEL, for thiprosecution, said that he did not wish to state anything in aggravation. In answer to questions from the judge, the prisoner said she was married when 16 years of age ; that her husband deserted her four days after their marriage, and was now a soldier in, she believed, the East IndieS, and that she now worked in a factory. The Learned JUDGE very feelingly addressed the prisoner. He stated that the bill against the prisoner charging her with wilful murder had properly been thrown out by the Grand Jury, as he did not think the indictment could have been sustained. There were so many probabilities that the child came to its death through no act of her's, that he was willing to believe that she was not guilty of the major offence ; and the prosecutor, under the same feeling, had abstained from urging anything in aggravation. She had, however, pleaded guilty to the offence of concealing the birth, by disposing of the body in a secret manner. This was a serious offence, which frequently led to crime. He did not find that she had made any preparation for . her offspring. (The prisoner said that she had. The child was full grown, and was probably born alive. It was her duty to have done everything for it in her power. He, however, took into consideration her being deserted by her husband, that she worked in a factory, and that she had already suffered imprisonment for some time. The sentence was that she be imprisoned in Kirkdale House of Correction for nine months, and be kept to hard labour. Elizabeth Green, aged 20, was indicted upon a charge pre cisely similar to the last, and also pleaded guilty to the Con cealment of the birth of her child. The prisoner, who is a neat little person, was still in feeble- health, and was allowed a chair. It was stated by Dr. Brown on her behalf, that it was not now assumed that she caused the death of the child ; but that it died from want of proper attendance at the time of its birth. He added that the prisoner was married ; her "husband had gone to sea, and remained away two years, and she had learned that he was dead. He had, however, re turned some months ago, and had again joined his ship. Mr. Theophilus Harvey being called, said—l am a sur geon. The prisoner applied to me in January to attend to her during her confinement, and arrangements were made by her for the birth. Mrs. Higgs, a witness for the prosecution said—The pri soner lodged with me. I searched the prisoner's box after the child was born, and found in it a small chemise, some new flannel, and other articles of child-bed apparel. The learned JUDGE then proceeded to pass sentence. The offence of the prisoner was similar to that of the last female brought before him. A stop must be put to the practice of concealing births. He had no reason to suppose that the prisoner had intended to destroy the child ; but she had thought to conceal the birth, by putting it into a box. She had, however, made some little preparation, and had spoken to a surgeon to attend her. The sentence of the Court was that she be imprisoned in Kirkdale House of Correction, for eight calendar monthS, and to be kept to hard labour. Dr. BROWN suggested to his Lordship that the prisoner's health was not such as would enable her to endure hard la bour without danger. His LORDSHIP intimated that it was understood that in such cases the labour should be only such as was' suited to the capability of the party. MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Marnato, 26, was charged with having, at* Liver pool, on the 23d March, feloniously killed and slain Sarah Griffiths. The details of the case were so lately before the public, that we need but remind our readers that the prisoner is a car driver ; that he alighted near the top of Brownlow hill, and went for a short time into an entry ; that the horse which was left by itself, took fright, and ran down the street. passing the Adelphi Hotel, and thence down Ranelagh-street. On its way the deceased was knocked down by the ear, and when carried into a druggist's shop was found to be dead. The witnesses to these facts having been examined, Mr. Ratcliffe, jun., said he had sold the horse to the prisoner's master. The horse was not a spirited one. The prisoner was a married man with a family, and bore a good character. The prisoner was defended by Mr. JACKSON HONE, who called witnesses to character, all of whom, including the pri soner's master, spoke of him as a steady and well-behaved man. The learned JUDGE said that the prisoner was not justified in leaving his horse ; neither was it any excuse to say that the horse was a quiet one. It appeared that it had got frightened, and the consequence was the fatality that had oc curred. The case was, he thought, one of manslaughter, though not of an a,ggravared nature. The jury, after some consultation, returned a verdict of guilty, but strongly recommended the prisoner to the merci ful consideration of the court. The prisoner's employer being called, said, in reply to the Judge, " that he would take the prisoner again into .his em ployment on his being released." • His Lordship addressed the prisoner in a very feeling and impressive manner, on the situation in which he- had placed himself, by his carelessness. He concluded by passing sen tence upon him of six weeks' imprisonment and hard labour. Another indictment against the prisoner, for the man slaughter of another girl, in a :similar way, on the same evening, was withdrawn, and a verdict of " not guilty, taken upon it. Joseph Dunn,l9, Michael Cody, 20, William Shoeboltom, Michael Sullivan, Richard Jones, 21, and William Salis bury, 32, were charged with having, at Manchester, feloni ously killed and slain Patrick Canovan. appeared that Dunn and the deceased had agreed to fight, and that the latter came to his death in consequence of the blows lie received in a contest of 50 minutes' duration. Shoebottom was the stakeholder, and the others acted as backsetters. What is called " butting": with the head was allowed. The head of the deceased was dreadfully beaten, and effusion of blood bad supervened on the brain. The jury found the whole of the prisoners Guilty. The JUDGE commented at some length on the impropriety of such fights, and particularly the practice of butting. He did not, however, find that the fight was characterized by the brutalities too common in this county, and he also con sidered that the prisoners had already been imprisoned for six months. The sentence of the Court was that Dunn should be imprisoned for two months, and the others for one months, and all be kept to hard labour. William Wright, 23, was charged with having, at Man chester, killed and slain one George Johnson. The prisoner and the deceased had quarelled in a public-house, and a scuffle ensued, during which the prisoner kicked the deceased on the right temple with his clog, and thereby caused his death. The jury, after a long deliberation, found the pri soner Not Guilty, and he was discharged with an admonition. ARRAIGNMENT OF CHARTISTS. The following chartists were brought up to plead to charges respectively of an unlawful assembly and seditious speeches : William Simpson, Benjamin Fitton, Richard Walker, John Rawson, Joshua Stowell, and Richard Hankin. They all pleaded not guilty. The court rose at seven o'clock The murder cases will be tried on Saturday. NISI PRIUS COURT.—Thunsnar. FREEMAN V. COMER. This was an action to recover £2B 15s. Od. alleged to be due as wages. Mr. WORTLEY appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. KNOWLES for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff and the defendant's wife are sisters. The defendant is the captain of a vessel belonging to this port, and lives in a house in Upper Pitt-street. The plaintiff's Father, nearly six years ago, being unable to main tain her, she went to live with the defendant as a servant, and evidence was produced that she was to receive five pounds a year. On the other hand it was contended, and evidence to that effect was produced; that the plaintiff was taken in merely from motives of charity, and that clothes were pro vided for her in consideration of her services. It was also urged that this action had been brought by way of revenge, because the defendant had insisted upon the repayment of £2O which he had, some years ago, lent to the plaintiff 's father. The Learnd JunGn -summed up, and after a trial of up wards of three hours, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £25 ss. WILSON V. MARSON. This was an undefended action to recover two sums of £lOO each, the amount of two bills of exchange. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £2OO, and £3 12s. for in terest. SMITH V. HOWARTH AND ANOTHER This was an action to recover the sum of £lOO lent to the defendants on a promissory note. Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. WIGIITMAN appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. TIMLINSON for the defendants. Mr. WIGHTMAN opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Joseph Smith, and the defendants John and Samuel Haworth ; and the declaration stated that the plaintiff had lent £lOO to the defendants on the 16th November, 1829, on a promissory note, and that they were indebted to him that sum with lawful interest. To this the defendant Samuel pleaded the statute of limitations ; and the defendant John, that he had been a bankrupt, and also the statute of limita tions. The plaintiff withdrew his plea as to John Howarth. Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. This was an action upon an old promissory note, in which the defendants, Samuel and John Howarth, joined many years ago, for money lent by the plaintiff. Down to the year 1831 the defendant John paid £5 a year for interest ; he afterwards became bankrupt, and the following year, 1832, the defendant Samuel paid the interest. After that John recommenced business, and continued to pay the interest from year to year, as it be came due, but he became bankrupt again. At last the plain tiff wished to have his principal, and his attorney wrote to and met Samuel Howarth, who said, " I hope you will not press for your principal at present, as you have had your in terest punctually, and I have ordered my brother John to attend to that." He now said the cause of action had accrued more than six years ago, and two questions would arise. One of them was, whether Samuel Howarth, having suffered and directed his brother to pay the interest did not prove the payment of interest by his authority sufficient to prevent the application of the statute of limitations. But if that were not sufficient, he should say that the payment by one of two joint contractors, although after a bankruptcy, was a payment by both, and that kept up the liability of Samuel. Samuel Smith, brother of the plaintiff, proved the lending of the money, and the payment of the interest, as described by the learned counsel. Mr. John Alcock Dixon, the plaintiff's solicitor, proved that he had applied to Samuel Howarth for the payment of the promissory note, and that he gave the reply stated above. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the jury, and said this was an attempt to fasten upon the defendant, Samuel Howarth, the payment of this note, for which interest had been regularly paid by John Howarth, except in 1831, and subsequently, except in 1838, when he became bankrupt again. The only payment of interest by Samuel Howarth was when his brother was unable to pay. He would take his lordship's opinion upon the point—that any payment of in terest by a party who had ceased to be liable was not admis sible against the co-maker of a promissory note ; therefore anything done by Joint since 1832 was no act that could compromise Samuel. • John Howarth, the bankrupt, was called, and he proved 'his two bankruptcies, and the certificateS'were produced. Mr. ALuxiiNntn, in support of his point, referred the learned judge to three cases—Mai tin v. Bridges, 3d. Car rington. and Payne, 83; Grave v. Edmondson, 4 Payne, 622; and to. Slater v. Lawson, 1 Barnewell and Adolphus, 396. He also referred to Craven and Anderson, 6th Moore and Payne. Mr. TOMLINSON contended on the authority of a number of cases that the parochial statements of Samuel ought not to be presented to the jury. Mr. CRESSWELL replied, and contended that all the cases cited applied to a totally different state of things, and did not refer to the circumstances of the present case. He sub mitted that the payments by John Howarth were made as the agent of Samuel. The Learned JUDGE briefly summed up. If the jury were satisfied that the interest was paid by the authority of Samuel, they would find for the plaintiff; but if not, for the defendant. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £lOO, with interest.for 3 years, £l5 ; total, Xll5. SMITH V. HAavorern AND A NOTHER. This was an action between the Caine parties to recover £lOO under another promissory note. The circumstances were exactly similar to' those in the last action, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with £l7 for interest. JONES V. WILSON. Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wortley for the de fendant. Mr. CROMPTON said, the declaration was upon the war ranty of a horse. To this the defendant had pleaded first that he had made no promise that the horse was sound, and secondly, that the horse was sound. Mr. CRESSWELL, said the plaintiff was Mary Jones, the widow of Mr. Joseph Jones, formerly a West Indian mer chant, to recover damages from the defendant, who lived on Brougham Terrace, Everton, and was a pro Vision merchant, for a horse he had sold to her, which proved unsound. In October last Mrs. Jones wished to have a horse, to draw a four-wheeled phaeton, put an advertisement in the Mail newspaper, of the 24th November, for such an animal to be warranted sound. The same day the defendant called at the country house, where the business of the late Mr. Jones was carried on, stated that he had seen the advertisement, and that he had come to offer a horse of his for sale. Young Mr. Jones said his mother wanted such a horse, but that she would not buy one unless she, had a warranty of its sound ness. On the 14th November the defendant took the horse in a gig, where it was exhibited. He represented that he had refused £BO for the horse a short time ago ; and that nothing should induce him to part with it, but his intention to leave Liverpool for Scotland. Mr. Jones again asked him about the warranty, and he replied he would warrant it sound in every respect and very quiet. The plaintiff, however, did not like to give the price, and was rather fearful that it was too high eouraged ; her son, however, rode it as far as Prescot, and the horse went very well, still Mrs. Jones refused to pay the price. On the 18th Nov, the defendant again called at the counting-house, where he saw Mr. Jones in the presence of two persons who assisted in the business, one of whom said to him " You recommend this as a very fin?, animal ; but you cannot expect Mrs. Jones to buy it without a warranty." He then came down to £55 ; and being again spoken to as to the warranty, he said, " I assure you it is very sound—it would be very wicked for me to attempt to deceive a lady who wants a horse ;" but he (Mr. Cresswell) should shew that two months before it had been pronounced unsound by a veterinary surgeon. Mr. Jones, however, said, " I should like to shew the horse to a veterinary surgeon—let him go to. Mr. Bagnall's for examination." The defendant then said, " What use is that? these veterinary surgeons are always finding something the matter with horses :' the young man, however, pressed it, and ultimately the defendant agreed to let Mr. Bagnall look at it. Then, for the first time, the de fendant said—" a horse after standing in a stable two or three days will often have a swelling about his legs." Mr. Bagnall, who was a young man, and had but just commenced practice, thought the horse was sound ; and Mr. Jones, relying upon the warranty, gave £5O. for the horse. It was taken home, and used for a fortnight or three weeks, when some person observed something wrong about the horse's hocks : and in order to be satisfied about it, the horse was immediately taken to Mr. Bretherton's, who, on seeing it, exclaimed, " Oh, here is my old friend again." " What do you know about him ?" was the answer. "Oh !" replied Mr. Bretherton. " I had him standing .here two months ago on sale, but I could not get the price for him, and 1 told Mr. Wilson, then, that he had bog spavin in his hocks. Mr. Bretherton, on the 18th, therefore, wrote a certificate to this effect, and notice was sent to the defendant, that as the horse was unsound he would take him back. The reply was that he had not warranted him. Other people, however, had ex amined the horse, and there was not the least doubt of its being unsound. Mr. Cresswell then called Henry Jones, son of the plaintiff, who proved that an advertisement was inserted in the Mail for a good strong horse, warranted sound, to which the defendant replied, stating that he had a fine animal answering the description: Witness desired him to take the animal to his mother's house in Deane-street, near Kensing ton. The day but one afterwards he brought the horse in a gig, and witness saw it, but the plaintiff did not . . Ile drove witness into the town, and as they were going into Edge-lane, he asked him whether he could warrant it sound, and he said he could, and that he asked 60 guineas for it, and that he could not part with it under £BO, only that he was leaving town for the North. Witness detailed the other circumstan ces mentioned by the learned counsel. Mr. Bagnall's certi ficate pronouncing the horse sound was put in and read ; as were Mrs. Jones's letter to the defendant, arid Mr. Brether ton's certificate, of unsoundness, from bog spavin in his hocks. A letter from the defendant was also put in, in which he denied having warranted the horse, and said he should have no more to do with it. The horse was sold afterwards at Lucas's for £2O, and witness's mother received £l7 10s., after having deducted the expenses of sale. Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—Wrote a letter to the defendant after receiving the defendant's letter, and there the correspondence terminated. Mr. ALEXANDER asked the Judge whether his learned friend might not put in this letter? The JUDGE replied that Mr. Alexander himself might. Cross-examination resumed.—As far as witness could see, the horse appeared to be a very fine, good horse. The horse underwent a thorough examination by Mr. Bagnall, and wit ness pointed out to Mr. Bagnall a swelling in the right hock. Mr. Bagnall said it was nothing at all against the horse. Witness, after the examination, asked the defendant for a warranty, but he refused to give it. Re-examined. — lt was a written warranty which the de fendant refused to give ; but after that he said the horse was '' Edward Roberts, Managing-clerk to the representatives of the late Mr. Jones, recollects the defendant calling at the country house on the 18th November, and assuring Mr. Jones the horse was a fine animal, and "all right." He afterwards asked witness, on the stairs, bow far Mr. Jones would g o as to price, as lie was willing to make a great sacrifice, repeat ing the good qualities of. the horse, as he had to go to the north. The defendant added, that he knew the horse to be sound, because he had never been in any other person's hands since he was a colt. Cross-examined.—The defendant did not tell him the breeding of the horse, or from whom he had had him. Henry Sage said he was present in Mr. Jones's office when the defendant was there, and heard him say, in reply to a question from Mr. Jones, whether he would warrant the horse?—" Yes; he's all right." Cross-examined.—The defendant praised the horse very much, and said it was worth £BO. • Joseph Brethertou said, he was a veterinary surgeon, in Liverpool . , in extensive practice. On the 17th of June, last year, the horse was sent to his stables to be sold. He was then unsound, having. an enlargement and crusting of both hocks, Pointed this out to Mr. Wilson. • The horse was taken from his stables on the 15th of July. Saw him again on the 18th of December, when Mrs. Jones had him, and found the hocks in the same state as before. He was then an unsound horse, and worth about £25. Cross-examined.—If he had not had this unsoundness he would have been worth £5O. £BO was the price put upon him. James Kirkman, a veterinary surgeon, said he had examined the horse, and found him unsound, from bog spa yin, on the 24th of December. Cross-examined. — The ordinary use of a horse, which has bog spavin, is sure to produce lameness. John Walton, a veterinary surgeon, examined the horse on the 4th of January, and found it unsound, from bog spavin, in both hocks. Cross-examined.—The horse was not then lame, and wit ners had a horse which had worked three years without lame ness. if a horse was ill used, and worked hard, bog spavin would produce lameness. Re-examined.—A horse with bog spavin does not deserve the description of sound. A Juror.-1 suppose you would'nt recommend any one to buy a hunter with bog spavin. The witness.—Not unless he gave a small price for him. Nelson Curia said he was an assistant in Mr. Lucas's repository, and that the horse was unsound, and that he sold for X2O. _ _ Cross-examined.—He was sold as a horse in dispute. lie was in good fair condition. This was the plaintiffs case. ; :. , • • Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defendant, _ _ and commented upon the fact that IClr.Bagnall had not been called to state his opinion of the horse. The question was two-fold—had there been a warranty, 'and had there been a violation of it. The whole evidence showed that no war ranty was given ; and that the swelling had been pointed out before the late Mrs. Jones was bound to keep the animist. The learned JUDGE in summing up, directed the jury to consider first, whether there was a warranty, and next, whe ther that warranty, if there was one, had been broken. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on both points — damages £25. The court adjourned at six o'clock. TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS. The usual monthly meeting of the Council was held in the Town-hall on Wednesday, for the dispatch of business. There was but a slender attendance. JOSHUA WALMSLEY, Esq. the mayor, took the chair. The proceedings of the last monthly meeting were read by the DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK. . The proceedings of the Finance Committee were read over by the deputy town-clerk. They contained a statement to the eifect, that at the meeting of the committee on the pi e vions day, a deputation from the Dock Committee had attended with reference to the bill now before parliament. The denutationttated that a strong opinion had been ex pressed by their legal adviser and others, that the compul sory clause between the council and dock trust would cause a discussion in the committee of the House of Commons as to the probable price of the land forming the graving-dock and strand to the west side of the Salthouse Dock, and would place the bill in jeopardy, and that therefore the legal adviser recommended that the price should be fixed by the council, under the direction of the lords of the treasury. The surveyor had therefore been instructed to make a new valua tion, from the price of land for the last eighteen months, and they had come to the conclusion that the graving -dock and strand were worth £3 4s per square yard, which, with cer tain deductions for paving, &c., would leave a nett price of 50s ; that they thought reasonable as between the council and dock trust. The Finance Committee were of opinion that £2 13s. 6d. would be a reasonable price, and instructed the town-clerk to insert that price in the bill, - where there had been a blank left. The proceedings of the Finance Committee were con firmed without observation ; so also were those of the Improvement Committee, and the leases. WATCH COMMITTEE. In the proceedings of this committee were embodied a letter from the mayor to Lord Normanby, on the subject of clauses in the county constabulary bill, enacting that that bill shall have force in all the boroughs and towns already having a police force, and that the regulations for the police force, whether belonging to counties or the towns thereof, shall be framed by the secretary of state and the justices of the county. The letter objected to this power of regulation being.vested in the secretary of state and the justices, so far as Liverpool was concerned, inasmuch as they, and the jug , tices in particular, would frame regulations applicable to county exigences, and unfit for a great commercial town. The letter further stated, that under the municipal reform bill the council possessed the power of passing bye-laws for the regulation of their police force (those regulations being subject to the approval of the secretary of state,) and that the Liverpool force exceeded in number the whole of the force contemplated for the county, and that the outlay thereon was much greater. .Under these circumstances, his worship wished that the provisions of the bill should not extend to thiS town. It was subsequently mentioned by the MAron that he had received from Lord Normanby, through his lordship's secre tary, a reply to the letter which he had written in accordance with the wish of the Watch. Committee, informing him that the bill for the - amendment of the county constabulary bill would not in any way interfere with the Liverpool police: The Watch Committee's proceedings also set forth that the Town-clerk and Surveyor had recommended alterations and additions to the central bridewell, the estimates for which amounted to .*;300.. These, however, were not recommended with the view of making the place lit for a permanent bride well (which it was impossible to do by any alteration), but t] make it reasonably tit for the prisoners until a new bride well dould be built, either in connexion with the new courts or somewhere else. The proceedings of the committee were confirmed. METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT. The TOWN-CLERK read the following, petition for the ex tension of the metropolitan police act " The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, Burgesses . . of the Borough of Liverpool, " Showeth,—That an act was passed in the last session of parliament, intituled, An act for further improving the po lice in and near the metropolis.' " That gle provisions of the said act have been found to be of a most beneficial and salutary nature within the district therein comprised. " That it would tend greatly to the public benefit of the inhabitants of the borough of Liverpool and the adjacent dis tricts, and be, in the opinion of your petitioners, generally advantageous to the county at large, if many of the provisions of that act were extended to the whole of England and Wales, such provisions being amended, qualified, and adapted, as to the wisdom of parliament shall appear requisite, and the exe cution thereof placed under existing jurisdictions, and parti cularly in corporate towns under the municipal authorities provided by the act of 5 and 6 William IV., c. 76, for the regulation of municipal corporations. " Your petitioners therefore pray that an act may be passed in the present session for effecting such extension. " And your petitioners will ever pray, tkc." Mr. TuonNium. moved, and Mr. BRIGHT seconded, the adoption, of the petition.—Carried. ADMISSION OP REPORTERS TO TITS MEETINGS OF THE DOCK COMMITTEE. In the proceedings of the Dock Committee there was the following resolution :—" Resolved, that the reporters for the public press be admitted to the meetings of the Dock Com mittee, subject to exclusion by a vote of the majority of the committee." _ On the motion for the confirmation of the proceedings of the Dock Committee being put, Mr. Aldermen LE ATuom, the chairman of the committee, objected to the above resolution, which, he said, had been passed during his absence, which he much regretted, as he should have wished to have recorded his opinion against the measure. The member for Ahercromby Ward (Mr. R. Gladstone), who he was sorry to see was not then present, was the mover of the resolution which had been adopted. The objections which he had to the admission of reporters were, that their presence would tend materially to increase the labours and embarrass the proceedings of the members. On every committee-day subjects came before them which were not then disposed of, and it would be inexpedient to allow the discussions on them to go before the public when the matters were in an immature state. If repotters were admitted, it would lead to the appointment of sub-commit tees to discuss the majority of the measures brought for ward, and thus take up a great deal of the time of the Mem bers in attending those sub-committees, of which, according to established rule, he should be expected to be a member. He had nearly every day something to do in connexion with the dock affairs, and if, iu addition to what he now did, he-• had to sit upon sub-committees, there would be no end to his labours. He did not know the reasons of the member for Abercromby Ward in bringing his motion ; but he could say, without fear of contradiction, that that member attended the meetings less than any other member. It was difficult to keep him in his seat for more than half an hour ; and it perhaps would be convenient to him to read, next morning, in the papers, the proceedings of the committee meetings which he had not attended, and that the rest had attended all the time. Mr. Alderman Boone entirely agreed with Mr. Leathom, but he did not think it worth while dividing the council on the subject. He mentioned his objections to the propositionf but stated that he was nevertheless willing to try the experi ment. Mr. Alderman G. Holt seconded the motion of Mr. Alder man Leathom, that the proceedings be confirmed, with the exception of the resolution for the admission of reporters. Mr. Alderman EARLE said that the fact of their being a provision to enable the committee to exclude the reporters when they thought fit, showed that the supporters of the motion were conscious that some inconvenience would attend the admission of the press. The very circumstance of letting the reporters retire when certain points were to be discussed , would show the public those points ; and he did not know whY they (the council) should not allow the reporters to go to the meetings of the Improvement or Finance Committee, as well as to those of the Dock Committee. There were a great many conversations going on there which would be de trimental to their objects to have published. Mr. BOLTON suggested to the chairman of the Dock Com mittee that he should allow the proceedings to be confirmed , and when the committee again met, propose a resolution for the annulling of that already passed. He had better do so than press his motion then, because it would require two thirds of the council to do away with the resolution that bad been adopted. Mr. LEATHOM approved of the suggestion, and allowed the proceedings to be confirmed. THE MARRIAGE CR MUTABLE FUND. The MAroit stated that he had received a communicatio n from S. U. Thompson, Esq., the treasurer of the Marriage Charitable Fund, intimating that the subscriptions on the part of the public amounted to £2859. 10s. 6d., so that the charitable institutions were now entitled to the second grant of £5OO- from the corporation. Mr. PLATT asked whether the subscription was now to be closed ? The MAYOR replied, certainly not ; the committee thought that th e y should still be able to raise a considerable sum, and it was also their intention to have a fancy ball in aid of the fund. Mr. CuRRIE moved that the corporation grant of £lOOO. should now be paid.