The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

.\‘ II .4.%"6 1 ROVTII LANCASIMIE SPRING AF 'QZES, CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. -.a•-64 His LORDSHIP, with his accustomed punctuality, took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock, SENTENCES OF THE REMAINING CHARTISTS. John Wilde, George Jackson, and William Aitkin were placed at the bar to receive sentence. His Lordship ad dressed them in nearly the same language which he used to the other prisoners. He lamented that parties of auch abili ties did not devote them to improving the condition of them selves and neighbours, in place of involving themselves in dangerous political disturbances, in the vain hope of altering or amending the institutions of the country, or improving the general condition of society. In their own sphere they might do good to themselves and others. After a kindly ad monition, his Lordship sentenced each of them to 9 months imprisonment in Kirkdale gaol, and at the expiration of that period to find sureties to be of good behavionr and to keep the peace for three years, themselves in £2OO each, and two sureties in £5O each, and to be further imprisoned until such sureties should be found. In the sentence of Wilde (on a representation of his health, and that he had friends in that town), he had his place of imprisonment changed to Lancaster. MILITARY OUTRAGE AT WIGAN CONTINUED. John Whittle.—l went to the Three Crowns on the night in question. I found Farnworth, Mr. Frazer, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Cash, and two others whom I did not know. Lamb, and Swarbrick, and Smith, and Heath, policemen, were also there. The soldiers came in, and called out, " Where is he? where is he ?" Mr. M`Nally, a magistrate, was there. They knocked the table over, seized hold of Mr. Frazer, and dragged him across the room. Mr. Farnworth having hold of him, Farnworth was dragged by the soldiers to the ground. I did not hear Plunkett give orders to the soldiers to ab stain. Some of the soldiers afterwards 'returned. I had previously sent for a magistrate to read the riot act, and get them to disperse. I and Mr. W.Nally requested them to go, but they paid no attention. Mr. Plunkett spoke to them twice. He said, "Go to your barracks." I went to the barracks with Mr. Farnworth the first time, half an hour after Frazer was rescued. Farnworth pulled at the bell and was told that the commanding officer was not in, but would be in in half an hour. I went a second time with Farn worth and Rylance. Farnworth was told the commanding officer was not in. The door was open and Mr. Cash was on the lobby. He said he would only see the head man. Mr. Cash saw me at the Three Crowns, but I did not tell him that I was head of the police. Cross-examined. —On the first occasion it was half-past seven. It was about an hour after the rescue that we saw 'Mr. Cash. I ascertained afterwards that Mr. Cash was lame. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The soldiers cried on entering—" Where is he?" I did not know but Mr. Plun kett belonged to the Wigan detachment. I apprehended him at Hay dock Lodge. On the night in question he appeared to be perfectly sober. I was present during the rescue. While I was in the room, I did not set: Mr. Plunkett touch Farnworth at all. Re-examined.—When the soldiers entered, my attention was drawn towards them. John Maclead.—l am a clerk to Mr. Wallace, sheriff's officer. I was outside the Three Crowns that night. I saw a crowd of all sorts. I saw an officer going from the direc tion of the barracks towards the Three Crowns. It was, I have since learned, Mr. Cash, who sits there. There were a number of private soldiers with him. I saw them go into the inn. I did not see the officer go in, but I saw him close to the door. I heard some one say that the magistrates were coming to read the Riot Act. Some one of the soldiers said, " Hell to the magistrates ! They will not be magistrates muc h longer for us ;—we'll have him out." They came out in about five minutes with Frazer with him. He was in front, and the soldiers on each side of him. They said—" Who'll take him from us now ?" Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—I could not see all that occurred, as there was a great crowd. I was not exa mined before the magistrates as to these facts. Ido not know how it is lam brought here as a witness. One of the police told me I should he wanted. Ido not know how he knew that I could give any information. I might have men tioned to somebody that I saw part of the row. I mentioned it next day in a public.house. A fortnight since I heard for the first time that I should be wanted. This was subsequent to my speaking to Rylance. James Rylance.—l am an attorney's clerk. On the night in question I was coming down the street about 7 o'clock. I saw a number of persons in the street. I went up. A man dressed as an officer's servant ran into the Three Crowns lobby. In about a minute he returned. Mr. Cash came out immediately after him, and went in a direction to the barracks. In a minute or so I saw a large number of sol diers in their undress uniform. Mr. Cash was with them. They ran into the Three Crowns lobby. I did not see Mr. Cash enter with them. He was about eight yards off. They shouted. (Here witness imitated an Irish howl.) (Great laughter.) One had a stick as thick as my wrist. They came out with somebody crying, "We have him ! We have him !" I then saw Mr. Cash walking froin the barracks towards the Market-place. He passed the Three Crowns on the opposite side. I said to him, " Recollect, sir. I have marked you as the ringleader of this row.". He did not reply. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—There appeared to be two sallies of soldiers from the barracks. John llodgkinson.—l am a traveller to an ale and porter house. I saw the soldiers rush into the Three Crowns. I was in the house, and went out at the back door. I might be a little frightened. I saw Mr. Cash in the street. He was about ten or fifteen yards from the door of the inn. Ile was in the middle of the street. I saw Rylance two or three minutes afterwards. He asked me what was the row, and I said it was a row with the soldiers. William Irving, a traveller, saw Cash with the soldiers, after the rescue. He did not interfere to quiet the soldiers. John Copeland.—Saw the soldiers going to the inn. I saw Mr. Cash soon after the soldiers came out. Rylance recalled.—Mr. Cash had a cap, I think a glazed one, and a coat buttoned up. He had a thick stick in his hand, with a knob the size of my fist. I think he had slip pers on. I cannot tell the precise kind of coat. It was gas light. _ William Rider, a boy, saw the soldiers come, some run ning and some walking. I saw John Bergen, the little drummer, and Mr. Cash. Mr. Cash was seven or eight yards from the inn. I knew there would be a row. I ran away to lock up the shop, and then heard them shout, " We've got him! we've got him !" Cross-examined by Mr. MURPIIY.—Mr. Cash was walk ing. The soldiers might be going a little quicker than he. There were some soldiers behind him as well as before. This was the case for the prosecution. The case against the boy was not pressed. Mr. MURPHY then addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant Cash. These two young men belonging to an honourable profession, would, if their verdict were against them, not only be submitted to the civil consequences, but their prospects in life must he marred ; for they would also have a still more severe infliction to undergo—the loss of their commissions in the army. The question to be deter mined was, not whether Mr. Plunkett had represented him self as Mr. Frazer,—that was but indulging in a natural feeling to endeavour to save his friend from arrest,—but whether the defendants sanctioned the interference of the soldiers, and aided or abetted the rescue. He then proceeded to make ingenious deductions from the evidence. The cir cumstance of the officers retiring to a corner of the room was natural enough, the probability being that they were merely speaking or whispering in private as to the means of raising the money for their friend, so that he might be released. It was not to be assumed that they were concocting a rescue. Even Farnworth admitted that he thought it likely they were conversing on the raising of the money, He then dwelt on the insults given by the drunken landlord of the inn to Mr. Cash, who ' peculiarly sensible from his rank and station, naturally lifted his stick, which any other man would have done under similar aggravation. After the rescue, too, Mr. Cash was seen in the street, walking up nobody knew where, and altogether unconnected with the soldiers. It was not won derful that the soldiers, hearing that a favourite officer was insulted and kept, as they thought, wrongfully in custody, should in their mistaken zeal and attachment towards him, make a rescue. This was perfectly consistent with the inno cence of Mr.. Cash, who was not seen leading the soldiers on or in any way aiding or abetting. He was in undress at the time, had no command over the men, and took no Leave part whatever in the rescue. A strict analysis of the whole evi dence led to the inference that Mr. Cash was no participator in what was done by the soldiers. Mr. INTLKINs then spoke in behalf Mr. Plunkett. The evidence went to show that many of the witnesses had shown a disposition to pervert and exaggerate the facts. He then alluded to the press, which had taken great pains also to create prejudices against his client. One of the papers in particular had given a garbled, false, and perverted account of this affair, and had the audacity to state that it was derived from a gentleman of high respectability in the legal profession. This he denied. Such an account must have been furnished by some scrub of a lawyer's clerk, who had nothing to do, and wrote the disgrace ful statement for a penny a line. Never was the press more dangerous than when thus employed in perverting the truth ; and he trusted they would dismiss from their minds all impressions injurious to his client that might have arisen from the perusal of those statements. He declared his absolute conviction that Mr. Plunkett never kicked Mrs. Burgoyne at all. (The learned counsel here made some re marks relative to the alleged kick, which called forth an in terruption from Mr. BRANDT, who said that his learned friend was mistaken as to the evidence of Heath on this point. The learned JUDGE referred to his notes, and it appeared that witness had not said that Mr. Plunkett merely lifted his leg to keep her off, as had been stated by the defendant's counsel—Mr. Wilkins ' • but that, in cross-examination, he said " it might have been to keep her off; I think it was a kick." Farnworth was recalled, and examined as to whether the kick was given by Mr. Plunkett while he lay on the table, arid in reply to the Judge said, " Half an hour in tervened between the time when he lay on the table and the giving of the kick. Mr. Plunkett was standing up at the time, within less than a yard of Mr. Burgoyne, and while be held the gas suspender in his hand. He could not have held the suspender in his hand, if he were lying on the table.") The learned counsel endea voured arduously to throw discredit upon the evidence of several of the witnesses. He concurred with his learned friend, that the whispering was to he construed into a con sultation on raising the funds, to obtain the release of their friend. Mr. Plunkett was grossly insulted and goaded. He concluded by pronouncing a warm eulogium on the aristocracy of the land, to which his client belonged , and to whom the consequences of a conviction would indeed be dreadful. He belonged to one of the first 'familes in the kingdom; his name had never yet been tarnished, and he (the learned counsel) trusted that the verdict of the jury would leave it still untarnished. The Learned JUDGE prefaced his summing up of the evi dence, by stating that the two counsel who had just ad dressed them, had taken higher grounds than their clients were entitled to. The conduct of Mr. Plunkett as cer tainly reprehensible ; and if some c i rcumstances occurred not altogether agreeable to his feelings, he had no right to complain in such high terms, as the cause arose out of his own indiscretion. It was quite certain that he had done extremely wrong. .He had deceived the sheriff's officer, the result of which, had the deception been continued, might have been attended with serious consequence to that in dividual : it might have saddled the officer with debt and costs. He (the learned Judge) did not, therefore, con _ eider this a case which entitled the parties to take the high ground which had been assumed. With regard to Farnworth irritating Mr. Plunkett or behaving uncivilly towards him, the opposite conduct was his own interest, and he neither knew Mr. Plunkett nor entertained any animosity towards him. He made these remarks in justice to thewitnesses,as so high a ground had been taken in the defence. His lordship then said, the jury would first have to consider whether the defendants had aided or abetted the soldiers ; and next, whe ther they had committed the assaults charged against them as having been committed on Farnworth and Mr. and Mrs. Burgoyne. His lordship then carefully summed up the evi dence, commenting upon it as he proceeded. With reference to the officers not at first ordering the soldiers away, and the defence set up, they (the jury) were as good judges of military affairs as either of the learned counsel. They could not for a moment entertain the opinion that one of the defendants, being in undress, and the other belonging to a detachment quartered at Haydock House, a few miles dis tant, —they had therefore, no power to order the sol diers to go. Had they been so ordered, they would in all probability have dispersed : but nothing of this kind had been done until after the rescue. Plunkett had the power to order them home, and might have done so at first if he had chosen. In conclusion, he stated that the consideration of their verdict was most important as af fecting these officers. if they were not satisfied that the charges on either of them were made out, let them acquit the defendants. On the other hand, if they were so satisfied, and it appeared that the defendants, with a view to save their is\ ‘ \ 4 \N th ct\ :K -?'..~ Si• itrr had so far forgotten themse • ato act in tlx n 4ruted to likeni,—it vNuld ty, hotpiror ful be, td 4 ftl wes4ll,oo£%uilt sentencedeferred.`4.l ..... 1 BURGLARN., Pierce Rigby, aged about 22, was charged with having, on the 25th of August, 1836, broken into the shop of Elizabeth Barnes, in the township of Windle. Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. 'Mur phy for the defence. The prisoner, it appeared, had been seen by David Low, assisting a man named Harrison to take down the shutters of Mrs. Barnes's shop. They broke the window, and took out three or four pies and some bread. Harrison was tried, convicted, and transported for the offence some time ago. The prisoner, Rigby, was apprehended on Monday last ; and as a bill was formerly found against him, it was determined he should be tried at the present assizes. The JUDGE remarked on the circumstance of Low having witnessed the robbery without having done anything to pre vent it. There were two other indictments against the pri soner for manslaughter, in having by his negligent manage ment of the engine of a coal-pit, caused two persons to fall down the shaft, whereby they were killed. His lordship observed that, according to the depositions, it did not appear that the alleged manslaughters were more than accidental. It was, however, strange that he should have been for some time after the burglary was committed working at a coal-pit within two miles of the spot, and not have been taken. The jury found the prisoner Guilty; and as, by the law as it existed in 1836, the offence was capital, judgment of death was recorded against the prisoner. Mr. Murphy stated that he had witnesses to his character, who had been in court all day, but were not now present. His lordship said he should not transport the prisoner; he should hear what might be said as to his character, and decide upon the punishment. INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY.-QUEEN V. SMITH. The prosecutor in this case was Mr. George Meldon, and the defendant, Mr. Christopher Smith, both of Chorlton upon-Medlock. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Murphy appeared for the prosecu tion ; Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Monk for the defence. Mr. BRANDT said the charge was one of wilful and cor rupt perjury against the defendant, formed on a written affi davit signed by him, and made with the view of procuring the prosecutor's arrest by a creditor on the ground that he was going to run the country. The prosecutor was an old man, 75 years of age, and the defendant was his nephew. The affidavit alleged that the prosecutor had stated on the 3d June last, that he was going to quit England. The pro secutor was called, and he stated that he had not left his home on the 3d of June, and called his daughters to prove that he had not, on that day, when the defendant and he had a quarrel at his house, said anything about quitting England. The defendant called witnesses who swore that they had seen the prosecutor at the public-house kept by the defendant, and that he stated that he was going to Sydney, where his son was now living. . . His LORDSHIP stopped the case, as the corroborated evi dence required by law, to establish a case of perjury, had not been proved. The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Justice ERSKINE and a Special Jury.) • DOE DEM. SEGAi V. NAILING. This was a cause in which the validity of a will made by a deceased lady in the neighbourhood of Ormskirk, was dis put dby her surviving sister. Messrs. Cresswell, Alexander, Wightman and League appeared for the plaintiff ; and for the defendant Sir W. Follett (who came down on a special retainer), Mr. Watson, and the Hon. J. S. Wortley. After a long consultation between the learned counsel, Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT rose to address the court and jury. In this case he had the honour to appear before thein its counsel for the defendant, Mr. Robert Waring, of Ormskirk, in this county. If this cause had gone oh, and the jury had been called upon to investigate the evidence, it would still have been his duty to address them first for defendant,• be cause he should have admitted at once the title of the heir at law, for whom his learned friend Mr. Cresswell appeared, although he insisted the defendant had a right to the estate under a will devising that estate to Mr. Robert Waring. But he was happy now to say that an inquiry, which mivitt have lasted some time, and have occupied the jury in that,box some hours, was 'not likely, now, .to be necessary ; and he had risen for the purpose of telling them what was the nature of the case in which they had succeeded in making this arrangement. The action was brought by Miss Segar, an elderly unmarried lady, now considerably advanced in years, for the purpose of recovering a small estate devised by her sister, the late Mrs. Molyneux, to the defendant Mr. Robert Waring. Mr. Robt. Waring and his father were attorneys at Ormskirk, and he believed he might say that Mr. Waring the father, and Mr. Robt. Waring the son, were perons of the highest character in the neighbourhood, and that they both stood very high in the profession. The case was of far more importance to Mr. Robert Waring, from some supposed charge made against him because Mrs. Molyneux had cho- sen to devise to him a considerable part of her property, than from the value of the property itself. The property was not very considerable. The estates in question were small; but Mr. Waring could not bear in a state where any thying like suspicion rested upon him with regard to the will of the testatrix. It was understood upon the part of the plaintiff, Mrs. Segar, that she, being disappointed at not receiving so large a bequest under the will of her sister as she expected, thought fit to institute legal proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not, at the time the will was executed, Mrs. Molyneux was competent to execute it. Under the will, Mrs. Molyneux had devised her estates in this way : a small portion of land was left to Mrs. Segar ; another estate, which was the subject matter of this action, to the defendant, Mr. Robert Waring; another estate to a brother of his ; another to a third brother ; the sum of XI,OOO to the Liverpool Blue Coat Hospital; £2,000 to Miss Jane Segar; another legacy to Mr. Lax, a medical man who had attended her for a great number of years ; and another to Mr. Boyer, the agent and manager of the property of Lord Skel mersdale. The deceased lady had a personal estate amount ing to between £I,OOO and £5,000. The residue of the pro perty she left to her executors, Mr. Boyer and Mr. Robert Waring, not for their own advantage, but in trust to be dis tributed to the poor of the parish of Ormskirk. The part of the will quarrelled with by Mrs. Segar, was the part relating to Mr. Robt. Waring. With Mr. Waring's family Mrs. Molyneux was on terms of the greatest intimacy ; his father had managed her property for many years, and through his management it had considerably accumulated. The greater part of it, however, she had derived under the will of her late aunt, Mrs. Crane ; and as he (the learned counsel) had already stated, for a con siderable period she derived accumulations by savings made during the time it was under the management of Mr. Waring. The real property amounted to about £lO,OOO, and the per sonal property to about £5OOO. After the death of Mr. William Waring, Mrs. Molyneux was on terms of intimacy with Mr. Robert Waring, but with her own sister, Mrs. Segar, she was, unfortunately, not on terms. She had de- vised no property which she received from her father's family ; the property which she had from her father was left . . to her for life, and at her death it went to Mrs. Sugar. So Mrs. Segar derived all the property of her father, and she had a considerable income herself. There was every reason to suppose that Mrs. Molyneux would have selected some person—indeed, if the case had gone on, he should have been able to prove that she had repeatedly said it was not her in tention to leave the property to her sister, but to other persons; and she had left it in the way described. His learned friend (Mr. Cresswell) had been instructed by Mrs. Waring to contest the competency and the capability of the testatrix to make this will ; but he (Sir Wm. Follett) believed there would now be no attempt to dispute the will upon that ground. He (Sir Wm. Follett) ought, however, to state, that Mr. Waring, feeling the position in which Mrs. Segar was placed, as being sister and heir-at-law to the deceased, held her justified in making inquiries into the validity of the will, and in insti tuting these proceedings. Mr. Waring was anxious that no expense should fall upon her, therefore, and had consented that the matter should be disposed of ? as if it had been in another court. If it had been litigated before the ecclesias tical courts, and in due course taken before the Privy Coun cil, the hosts would come out of the estate, and not from the parties proceeding. Mr. Waring, however, wished that no expense should fall upon Mrs. Segar ,• he consented that she should be at no expense at all. Of course he did not mean to call upon the parties interested in the charitable part of the property to take any part of the costs ; but as for that part of the property which had been given to the benefi cial interest of Mr. Waring and his family, he was satisfied the matter should be disposed of exactly as in the Ecclesias tical Courts. Mr. CRESSWELL said he appeared for the plaintiff. Un doubtedly he had no desire to say one syllable reflecting at all upon the character of Mr. Waring. His learned friend had already stated some circumstances which had induced the plaintiff to institute this investigation; and there were one or two others which he (Mr. Cresswell) desired to state on behalf of that lady. Mrs. Segar and her sister un fortunately were not on familiar or intimate terms for some time before Mrs. Molyneux's death. Mrs. Molyneux was a 'person of great eccentricity ; she was very singular in some of her habits, and among others, she had a con stant desire to maintain a delusion in the minds of those about her, as to the parties who were ultimately to benefit by the disposal of her property. It was true she stated sometimes that she did not mean to leave her sister anything; but she had, quite as frequently, and in the presence of quite as respectable persons, stated that she did not mean Mr. Waring to have it. He (Mr. Cresswell) believed, from its being known that. Mr. Waring was Mrs. Molyneux's confi dential adviser, that rumours had spread that he would be nefit by her property, though, as if for the purpose of keeping people in the dark, she , continually stated that Mr. Waring should never have a farthing. The lady died. The will was made out long before her death, and it was natural, under these circumstances, that rumour should be busy. We all knew that when a rumour was once started, and f 'Milady repeated, it acquired many additions and exag gerations, till a suspicion, entirely unfounded, attach ed where it ought not. Thus it was Mrs. Segar was lead to institute this inquiry. Persons came forward to give information of this or that, which was very much the crea tion of their own brain, so parties were frequently misled, and they fell into a false position. It was only after a scrupulous and accurate investigation of the evidence which *as to have been brought before the jury in explanation and in proof of the case; when this mass of evidence was placed before him, being a grave case, on the one hand imputing to a respectable gentleman misconduct in the preparation of a will ; and on the other hand, the consideration that an elderly lady was not to be benefitted by the - property of her' deceased sister; he investigated it with great care, and ex ercising the best judgment he could upon it, and having formed his own opinion, he had requested Mrs. Segar to allow her counsel tojudge for her. He would at once say he had no ground forestablishing acharge ofanything like misconduct against Mr. Waring, and having that feeling he considered that to obtain a verdict would be out of the question. A communication therefore had been brought about between his learned friend and himself, and they had come to this conclusion, with which he hoped Mrs. Segar would be satis fied. A verdict therefore would now pass for the defendant. The JUDGE said it must be satisfactory to the jury, that , their cause had conclude d in a manner so creditable to the parties. Nothing could h d e the fairer jyur thtahefor nerthese could tate leavementsmaldioe by the learned counsel, and difficultyA verdictin g w i a v s in t g he a nr e verdict tu r n e t odr for hre the defendant. BRANCKER AN'D ANOTHER V. MOLYNEUX. This was an action in which Mr. Thomas Brancker, the younger, and Mr. Thomas Martin, the assignees of the es tate and effects Of Mr. Charles Humberston and Mr. Samuel Frodsham, sought to recover from the defendant, Mr. Ed rnund Molyneux, the value (about £3000) of 304 bales of Uplands cotton, alleged to have been converted and disposed of by the defendant. Counsel for the p laintiffs, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightrnan, and Mr. Cowling; for the defendant, Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Crompton. Mr. ALEX kNDEIi stated the facts of the case. He said that this wa s - an action in which the assignees of Messrs. liumberston and Frodsham, commission merchants, lately carrying on business in Liverpool, sought to recover the value of 304 bales of cotton, taken by the defendant and con verted to his own use. He believed th a t there would be no difference as to the value q uestion would be wh e t er of the cotton, and that the only the taking was a lawful one, and he hoped that he should be able to prove that it was not. In 18:35, Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, who had since become bankrupts, had a vessel named the Diamond, which ma de several voyages to America, andluring the time a mor tgage was made to the present hdefendant. on the vessel, secu ring to him £ 5OOO, and entitlinognti at any time to seize the vessel and sell it. The cirnza;ge es which a h gave There w t ;ls rise to the present auction arose in 1837 . whom A nh l r it . Thomas Baynes Molyneux residing at withCharleston,in he h Messrs. Humberston, Frodsham, and Co., were of dealing. He made a purchase for them and sent it to this country, and the action a rose out of this p urcha se. :s 31st October, 1836, Mr. John Toole, the captain of th e nhe Dia mond, received instructions to p roceed to Charleston, and take on board a cargo of cotton, At the same time instruc. • k \,44 0% Nib„ dons Bent to Mr. T. B. Ma4ne;i.t,pia stun reeting purchase u• itaof_ too: er pool fir an stating p \at ottaaa, Zgla c ain qmality could be obtained at a cer t a i n p r i ce , 300 b a les were l'be• shipped ; if not, 100 were to be left entirely to Mr. Molyneux's sown choice. In the April of the following year, Captain Toole went to Charleston and received from Mr. Molyneux 304 bales of cotton. Four bills of lading were prepared, and they.were to the order of the Liverpool house, ortheir assignees. On the 13th of June, 1837, the vessel arrived in Liverpool. On the preceding day, the 12th, Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham had become bankrupts. The Diamond, as he had stated. arrived on the 13th ; on the 14th, the defendant, Mr. Edmund Molyneux, went on board the vessel, and fixed a notice on the mast, intima ting that the vessel was his property, and warning any per son from interfering with it. Within an hour after, the pro visional assignee wider the commission of bankruptcy went on board, and gave notice that the cargo belonged to the assig nees, and forbidding any one to touch it. There were, there fore, two claims ; that of the assignees, because they consi dered that the property of the cargo was vested in the assig nees, from the time of its being placed on board, and the defendant claimed as the mortgagee of the ship. Toole, the captain, was at a loss what to do, but, having got professional assistance, he determined to disregard both notices ; to get the cargo landed and sold, and pay over the proceeds to some person who might be fixed upon. This intention the captain was hindered from carrying into effect by the defendant, who, on the 28th, sent a large posse of people on board the ship. The cargo was afterwards discharged, on an understanding that the same should be disposed of, the proceeds to be de tained, and await the ultimate determination of the court. After having been a long time before the courts, the casehad at last come there, and a most important one it was, from the value of the property at stake. There were two seizures by the defendant, the first of which took place on the 14th, when he claimed as mortgagee, and the second on the 28th ; when he claimed as the agent of Mr. Thomas B. Molyneux, of Charleston. He first claimed as the owner of the vessel ; and then he represented himself as the agent of Mr. T. B. Molyneux. The defence he had now. set up was, that he bad a right to stop the cargo, because it was goods in transitu, and the property had not been in the bankrupt's possession ; and he said that, in defiance of the vessel being in the pos session of the captain by themselves, of the vessel being their own, subject, of course, to the mortgage, and of the bills of lading being in their name. He (the learned counsel) thought that the inference which the jury would draw from the facts which would be laid before them would be, that the moment the goods were delivered on board the vessel they became the property of the Liverpool house, and that there could be, no stoppage in transitu. Mr. Alexander then noticed the several pleas on the record, one of which afterwards gaverise to a very long discussion. Evidence and documents in proof of the facts were adduced. Mr. CRESSWELL, in the course of the.examination, raised several technical objections, which he requested his lordship to enter on his notes. The plaintiffs case having ended. Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that the plaintiffs must either be nonsuited, or a verdict givh for the defendant. The plain tiffs declared in trover for certain cotton. The defendant justified with respect to 304 bales, which he admitted to have been placed on board of Toole's ship, and that certain cir cumstances existed with reference to those 304 bales which made out a justification. The plaintiffs admitted, that as to those 304 bales placed on hoard of Toole's ship, they had no answer, but said that they claimed in respect of other 304 bales. He (the learned counsel) therefore apprehended that the plaintiffs were bound to prove 304 bales to which those circumstances were applicable, and 304 other bales different from those. That they had not done-; they had merely proved one lot of 304 bales consigned to Humberston and Frodsham, by Toole's ship. He therefore contended that before the plaintiffs could recover on their new assignment, they must exhaust their plea, and then recover the surplus, just as in a common action for assault and battery. It had been con tended on the other side, that although the cotton was the same in both cases, the circumstances were different, The truth was, that the plea applied to cotton ; whether the cir cumstances did or did not was another thing. If they meant to say that the circumstances did not apply, they should have traversed. The question was this : was that plea of conver sion (the 4th) pointed to this cotton? If it was, than there was an end of the case. If it were said that it was not, to what other cotton did it apply ?. There was no evidence from beginning to end, of other cotton. They must make that out ; it was not enough for them to say, the circumstances in your plea do not apply to this cotton," because they had not traversed the circumstances. But the fact was that the plea (the fourth) must apply to the 304 bales of cotton brought over in Toole's ship, and which the defendant pleaded that he had converted under circumstances which- justified him, and that plea had been admitted by the plaintiffs. It could apply to none o i ther, because none other had been proved. He contended,) therefore, that unless a different let was proved, the plaintiffs must be nonsuited. Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. WIGHTMAN, and Mr. COWLING opposed this view of the case. They contended that though the defendant had put in a plea that a lot of 304 bales had been legally converted by him, and that plea had been ad mitted, there was a lot of 304 bales which were under dif ferent circumstances to those which had justifiably been stopped in transitu by him—a lot which the plaintiff alleged he had no right to stop in transitu, and that he was bound to show that it was subject to stoppage. The conversion of which they spoke, was a conversion different to that acknow ledged to have been justified. The cotton might be the same, but the circumstances were different, and they were not bound to show a different lot. They cited, as a prece dent, the case of Bolton and Sherman. The learned JUDGE—Then it is a question whether you are to prove a negative or they an affirmative. You say that it lies on them to show that the ownership did not belong to the bankrupts. Mr. COWLING did not care in whom the legal ownership was vested. He claimed from actual possession, and con tended that as soon as the goods were placed on board the vessel, the bankrupts were in possession. In the first place, the defendant claimed as the mortgagee of the vessel, and of the conversion which took place under that claim, they did not complain ; but he afterwards claimed as the agent of Mr. T. B. Molyneux, and they did complain of the conversion which took place under that claim. His LORDSHIP, without giving any opinion, overruled the objection of Mr. Cresswell, that the point may be argued at length before the higher court. Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury for the defen dant. The Messrs. Humberston and Frodshatti sent a vessel to Charleston (to which vessel they had appointed their own captain), having previously sent directions to Mr. T. B. Molyneux to purchase for them 300 bales of cotton, and to draw on them for the amount. He shipped the cotton, and drew on them for the amount ; but before the bills were paid and the cotton had arrived, Messrs. Ilumberston and Frod sham had become insolvent. Clearly, therefore, the law gave the original vendor of the goods the right to stop them in transitu. But then Humberston and Frodsham , said, with reference to that, we have made out that the ship was ours, and the delivery to our captain, on the other side of the Atlantic, was a delivery to us, so as to stop that right of stoppage in transitu. But it had been shown in evidence that there was another person who was part owner of the vessel, [Mr. Taggart, a partner with Messrs. Hum berston and Frodsham, in a ship-building concern, carried on in the Isle of Man], and they were bound to account to him for the freight. There was the plainest proof of that : in their own bills of lading they were bound to pay freight-9-16ths of a penny sterling. If the ship were their own, and they had not to account for any freight, would they have put that into the bill of lading? But if the ship were under mortgage, and the mortgagee got' possession of it before the goods were delivered, could Humberston and Frodsham, as against the mortgagee, who on taking posses sion was entitled to all the freight, have brought that bill of lading, and asked to have the goods delivered up without paying freight ? He apprehended not, because it was strictly the law that if any person became the endorsee of a bill of lading, and claimed under it, he made him responsible for the freight expressed in it. The mortgagee, then, had a clear right to take possession of the ship ; and how could Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham claim the cargo without paying the freight expressed in the bill of lading? Mr. Edmund Molyneux took possession immediately after arrival, as mort gagee, and before the messenger of the bankrupts went on board, and he kept possession from that time. The assignees, on the other hand, preferred their claim ; but on the 28th of the month, Mr. Molyneux said, " No ; I hold this cargo for Mr. T. B. Molyneux, because he is an unpaid vendor." Every act done for the benefit of another party, if afterwards ratified, was as good in law as if it had been.previously men tioned ; and did any one doubt that that act received the sanction of Mr. T. B. Molyneux ? The question for the jury narrowed itself into this—were not the goods brought home on freight, and not in the absolute possession of the Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham—were they not undelivered, and actually stopped in transitu by Mr. Edmund Molyneux, and by the ultimate sanction of Mr. T. B. Molyneux ? Those were the only two questions of fact in the case, and he felt confident that they would be decided in favour of the defend ant, and he expected that they should turn out to be equally right on the question of law. His LORDSHIP then summed up. He said that the plain tiffs, as assignees of Charles Humberston and Samuel Frod sham, complained of Mr. Edmund Molyneux, in an action of trover, for the purpose of recovering the due of certain bales of cotton, alleged to be their property, as the assignees of Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, and wrongfully con verted to his own use by the defendant. The defendant first pleaded that he was not guilty, and by that plea put in issue only the fact of conversion. He admitted that the property did belong to the plaintiffs, and that if the goods were con verted at all, they were wrongfully converted by him. Now, inasmuch as it appeared that the 304 bales of cotton had been consigned, by bill of lading, to Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham ; that they were in the possession of Toole; the captain appointed by them •, and that afterwards Mr. E. Molyneux took possession of them, and refused to deliver them up, and actually disposed of them, that was a conver sion, leaving, of course, untouched the question as to whose property the goods were, and the right to take possession. On that plea, therefore, the verdict must be for the plain tiffs. The second plea was, that the plaintiffs were not the assignees of Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham ; but the jury had heard the evidence on that point, and he believed there was no contention about any fact proved in evidence. There had been a dispute as to the substitution of one peti tioning creditor for another, but there was no dispute as to the plaintiffs being the assignees of the bankrupts, and there fore on that plea the jury would find also for the plaintiffs. Then there was a third plea, in which the defendant said that the plaintiffs were not possessed of the goods as of their own proper persons. The counsel for the defence con tended that the verdict on this plea should be for him, as it appeared by the evidence that, although the captain of the ship had been appointed by the bankrupts, and he had re ceived the goods for them, Mr. Edmund Molyneux, as the mortgagee, took possession of the ship for himself, and of the cargo for Mr. T. B. Molyneux, who, it was alleged, was the consigner of the cotton, and consigned it to the bankrupts, subject to the payment of freight, but that it did not reach t atn l ogo i e ethnil l cun i y a la iid tfeh s i‘eol o url f e.ta t ar h nd e owners, and that Mr. T. B. Molyneux, as he had a ri E ght to do, stopped it in transitu through the ee m ads u ej n u d wd hg Molyneux,eic)iihwowuelvd however, that stthi afthehe defendant.dju defendantr seemeditn giving lead y the verdict to him because the captain was appointed by Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, and was, therefore, y their their agent, and th e deliver to agent was a delivery to them. After that delively,theiefbre,lhe right of stoppage in ar transituose oout of, f though as gone 'n o : u h p e o n n ca , frie e fo t u he rtl fourth. plea issue, The so uto sought fourth which plea stated the f ac t s un d er which the defendant justify that the good s were purchased by Mr. T. B. IVIoI y neux, and consigned by hi m to the bankrupts, :and by him shipped on board the v esse l o f Captain Toole, and that they were to be paid for by a draft on Humberston, Frodsham, and Co. ; that no payment had been made ; and that, while in the possession of Toole, and before they the reached the hands of Huinherston, Frodsham, and Co ' the.. defendant, as the owner of the ship): iw)yerae ssttoppedage by transitu. Now, here the plaintiff might have taken n p in onef two courses ; either he might have denied the f ac t s stated in the plea, or, as he had done, he might have admitted all the facts as true, but said that they were no answer to his claim, inasmuch as the action was not brought for the value of the ' 304 bales of cotton in the plea, but for the value of 304 bales which the defendant had converted under other circumstances than those. On this the jury had heard the discussion which had taken place, and which would probably not end there ; it depended more on a point of law than or any particular evidence, because it had been admitted by the counsel for the plain • tiff that there was, in point placed, no other lot of cot. under different cir ton, only that those hales were p that they were bound cumstances. Now, it appeared to him to prove that there were other bales of cotton converted by the defendant than those which were consigned by Mr. T. B. Molyneux, and that it was not enough to show that these same 304 bales were converted by the defendant under diffe . - rent circumstances, and without the justification alleged in t J~ J t4t.t so, they (ittptit to I'll i rversed thlt4 plea. o fuifigtiv uryon tt pa, was who :der, i Men were 0E67104. bale converted by the defendant than the 304 bales shipped by Mr. T. B. Molyneux, on board of the vessel in possession of Captain Toole, and consignea to Messrs. Humberston, and Prod sham. If the jury were satisfied that there were not, and it seemed to he admitted that there were .not, then the verdict on that issue must be for the defendant. The jury retired to consider their verdict, but during their absence the parties agreed to take the verdict thus—on the first, second, and third issues, for plaintiff—fourth, for the defendant. LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS. - COOKSON V. CARTER. This was an action brought. by Mr. William Cookson, a manufacturer of waistcoat pieces, carrying on business in Kendal, against Jane Carter, the keeper of the King's Arms inn, in Old John's-lane, to recover the value of a bag, said to have been lost from the premises of the defendant, through the negligence of herself and servants. The defendant pleaded not gifilty. Mr. WATSON stated the case for the plaintiff. The plain tiff was in the habit of travelling through the country for or ders, taking with him a variety of specimens in a bag. On the 6th of January last, he came to Liverpool, and put at the house of the defendant. 5n the evening of the 9th, after having been out seeking orders, he returned to the inn, de positing his travelling bag in the commercial-room, where he himself sat down. Shortly after, a man And woman came into the commercial-room, and the plaintiff, not liking their company, went into the news-room. When the disagreeable persons had gone, he returned into the commercial-room, and ascertained that his bag had gone from the place where he had deposited it. It could not be found, and, no doubt, had been taken by those two persons. The value of the hag was estimated at £42. 12s. 6d. Mr. Watson said that as a plea of not guilty had been entered, all that he should, by the rules of pleading, have to prove, was, that the bag had been lost, and to call evidence to show the value of the property lost. He also wished to ask for damages for the loss of busi ness which had resulted to the plaintiff in consequence of the loss of his specimens; but, on his lordship representing that that was quite a novel claim to make on an innkeeper, Mr. Watson abandoned it. _ Richard Browne, who was, at the time mentioned, boots at the King's Arms, stated that he saw the plaintiff's bag in the commercial-room about seven o'clock on the evening of the 9th of January. Mr. William Charles Stripe, tailor and draper, White chapel, proved that about five o'clock on the same evening Mr. Cookson called at his shop, having then with him his bag of specimens, and that on the following morning., when he again called according to appointment he was without it. Witnesses were called to show the value of the specimens, which was estimated at a much lower amount than that claimed. _ _ Mr. CRESSWELL, who appeared for the defence, said that though, an innkeeper was ,undoubtedly liable for the loss of any of his guests' propertt, when that loss Was owing either to his own negligence or-that of his servants, he was not liable when the loss resulted from the fault of the guest him self, and that, he contended, was the case in the present instance. On the evening mentioned, Mr. Cookson saw a man and a woman, or a gentleman and a lady, or whatever other title might be more suitable, standing in the passage, and they asked him the way into the house, he showed them into the commercial-room, and then politely requested them to take a seat near the fire. They, however, refused, and presently after the old gentleman (the plaintiff) went out of the travellers'-room into the news-room ; laughing at what he conceived to be a very merry occurrence ;—he had seen the man chuck the woman under the chin, and toying with her. He told the company in the news-room whet he had witnessed, and added, " I have come out of the traveller's room, for fear of spoiling good sport." He was asked what he meant, when he told of his having introduced a man and woman, who seemed to him at first to he father and daughter, into the commercial-room ; but he had now found out that his first idea was incorrect, as he had seen the old man chuck the young woman under the chin, and —. When Mr. Ford, a person who assisted in the management of the inn, heard Cookson speak in that light manner of the two persons, he went, as a necessary precaution, into the room, but found two very respectable looking persons, not at all answering the description given by the plaintiff. He (Mr. Cresswell) would also prove that when the bag was lost, Cookson said, " Oh, it is no matter; when she (taking it for granted that the fe male was the thief) finds what is in the bag, she will be dis appointed. She has got a few things that, if she makes patchwork of, they will not cover a chair ; they are not worth 25." The plaintiff might, undoubtedly, have meant that they would not be worth 2s. to her; but still the way in which he spoke, showed that the estimate that day upon the lost specimens, was a most extravagant one. Mr. Ford, the manager referred to, was called, and testified to the facts opened by Mr. Cresswell. He also deposed, that on the evening named he saw Mr. Cookson enter the house, and that he had not then his bag with him. When the plaintiff mentioned his loss, witness asked him whether he had brought his bag in. The plaintiff hesitated, but at last said that he had. Other witnesses were called. His LORDSHIP then summed up, and the jury found for the plaintiffs—damages, twenty shillings. The court rose at seven o'clock. Once or twice during the afternoon there was extreme dif ficulty, and at length an impossibility, in raising a jury. The following gentlemen, who had been called over in the early part of the afternoon, and again in the evening, and who did not answer on either occasion, were ordered by his lordship to be fined .-E.s:—Messrs. William Carter, John Eaton, Ben jamin Fletcher, John Grantham, John Harrison, Henry Higson, Jas. Lister, James Nasmyth, John Pilling, Daniel K. Reay, Peter Saville, Daniel Waterhonse, and J ohn Ware ham. The list of absentees would no doubt have been found much greater, had not Mr. Sergeant Atcherley entered into conversation with his lordship with respect to a case which he wished to have tried that night, but stating that it seemed to him needless to attempt getting a jury. During the con versation, the jury which had retired came in, and they were empanelled to try the case, though sorely against their in clination. CROWN COU RT.—SATURDAY. Mr. Justice Coleridge, who had doffed the scarlet and ermine in favour of his black silk gown and short wig, took his seat a few minutes after nine o'clock. His lordship looked considerably the worse for his labours in Liverpool, which have, undoubtedly, been very severe. SENTENCE OF MR. HENRY CASH AND THE HON. EDWARD SYDNEY PLUNKETT. His LORDS I P asked if the above-named parties were in court, and, having been answered in the affirmative, he or dered that they should stand up. The defendants, who were sitting on two of the seats op posite to his lordship, usually occupied by counsel, immedi ately arose. His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoners, said :—Edward Sydney Plunkett and Henry Cash, you are now to receive the sentence of the court for the offences of which the jury who tried you have, after a very long investigation and the examination of many witnesses, found you guilty. You, Edward Sydney Plunkett, have been convicted of having par ticipated in the rescue of a fellow-officer, named Fraser, from a sheriff's officer of the county, and of an assault on Mrs. Burgoyne ; ;and you, Henry Cash, have been convicted, by the same jury, of an assault only on the person of John Bur goyne. His lordship proceeded to say, that, had this been a case of mere assault, and had the verdict been to that effect, he should still have regretted that gentlemen of their station and profession should so far have forgotten themselves, under whatever circumstances of annoyance, as to have committed such an assault. He could not but think, and the feelings of all gentlemen, he was sure, would go with him, that even an insult from persons in the station of the parties assaulted should have passed without any such notice as had been taken of it, as the line of conduct which had been adopted supposed a sort of equality which did not exist. Though Mr. Plunkett had disclaimed the kick, he had not disclaimed the use of im proper language ; and he (the learned Judge) greatly re gretted, that the defendants had so far forgotten themselves. He said nothing of the person assaulted by Mr. Plunkett being a woman, because he entirely acquitted him of any un manly feeling in the action ; and he believed that he did not kick at her with the intention of doing her any bodily injury. He regretted that this was not the only circumstance in the case of Mr. Plunkett, for he had been found guilty of an of fence which, committed by any person, the law regarded as one of great magnitude, but, 'committed by a soldier, it was greatly aggravated. He had always considered the profession of a. soldier as one of the most honourable, but it was only honourable inits combination with the character of citizen. A soldier never drew his sword with propriety unless in- defence of the liber ties of his country or in support of its laws, and he never bore it honourably unless he bore it among his countrymen as a fellow-citizen. It was a melancholy state of society when it was otherwise, but what could be expected, if soldiers found, in their officers, an incentive to break the laws ? He had, in the course of this trial, heard of one cir cumstance, which he noticed with great pain. It was, that one of the soldiers had said, that the magistrates held their places only by the support of the military. He thanked God it was not so, and he hoped it never would be so ; but that soldiers should speak thus, when they were led by their officers to violate the laws, was not much to be wondered at. It was the interference of the soldiery with the civil power that gave this case its peculiar features of aggravation. He always regretted exceedingly when the sentence of the law was likely to be attended by any collateral effect, and he should be very sorry if, in this case, the sentences which he felt it his duty to pass were attended by any other conse quence than the punishment inflicted by their fulfilment. He should deal with them as if there were to be no ulterior result, and, so far as lie had any power or influence, he should use it that such might be the case, as he should con ceive the ends of justice fully answered. His lordship passed sentence as follows :—The sentence of the laiv on you, Edward Sydney Plunkett, is, that, for this offence, you be imprisoned in the . Castle of Lancaster for a period of twelve calendar months ; that, at the expiration of that period, you enter into recognizances, yourself in five hundred pounds, and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, that you be of good behaviour and keep the peace towards all her Majesty's subjects for the space of two years. The sentence upon you, Henry Cash, is, that you be imprisoned in the Castle of Lan caster for a period of three calendar months ; that, at the expiration of that period, you enter into recognizances, your self in three hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, that you be of good behaviour, Sic-for the space of two years. During- the delivery of the above address and sentence, Mr. Cash stood looking fixedly at the Judge, with a smile on his face. Mr. Plunkett, who is a gentlemanly-looking young man, hung down his head, and appeared ashamed and dejected. The parties were immediately beckoned by Mr. Amos, who was in the dock, and they walked reluc tantly into his custody. Immediately after sentence being passed upon Mr. Plun kett and Mr. Cash, his. LORDSHIP addressing the bar and auditory said, in effect—l wish to take this opportunity to remove an erroneous impression, which, I regret, has gone abroad, with reference to some remarks that fell from me re garding the prosecution, at an early period of the assizes, of two men—l believe Larkin Lee and William Pearce. I must have been greatly misunderstood in what I stated on that occasion, if it could be so construed as to imply that 1 . meant to cast any reflection, with respect to the commitment of the parties, upon the magistrate who sent them for trial. On the contrary, I now distinctly state that I had not even the magistrate in my mind at the time. I'certainly did make some strong remarks with reference to the manner in which one one of the prisoners had been dealt with, but I alluded solely to those who conducted the prosecution. A charge of uttering forged notes had been brought against that man, and when it was found that it could not be sustained before the Grand Jury, it was intended that he should he used as an innocent witness against the other prisoner, Lee, after he, (Pearce) had been detained in gaol from the month of August. This I considered reprehensible, and Ido not with draw any observation I then made respecting the course taken by the attorneys for the prosecution ; but I repeat that I disclaim having• imputed any blame to the committing magistrate, who acted only on the , evidence brought before him. THE RETURNED CONVICTS. Charles Dolphus and William Emmonds, the two returned convicts, who were sentenced to three months imprison ment and transportation for life, were placed at the bar. His LORDSHIP said, that, on consideration, he had deter mined upon altering their sentences. Instead of three months' imprisonment, previously to being transported, they were only to be imprisoned one month. His Lordship proceeded to the trial of the following civil cases. • TARLETON v.ASHTON. This action was brought to recover the value of certain timber sold to the defendant. Mr. WIGHTMAN was about to enter upon a statement of the case, when Mr. STARKIE inter rupted him, and said the parties had consented to withdraw a juror. MISAULT.—..PIKR v, ORIFFITHS. The plaintiff in this ease was Mr, Ilayes Pike, of Evetton and the defendant Mr. David Griffiths, the deputy rate.col lector of that district. This action was brought to recove compensation in damages for an alleged assault. The defend. ant pleaded not guilty. Mr. MARTIN, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that both the parties in the case were " good conservatives," yet the. dispute arose out of a political question. They agreed on almost every subject of general politics ; such as the war with China, the acts of the Ministry, and other matters ; but, un fortunately, they differed on the subject of the person who was to represent the ward in the town-council of Liverpool. The defendant had taken a strong part in these contests, and it had been alleged, and he should offer it in proof, that the defend ant had given receipts for taxes to several persons who had not paid the money, in order that they might he placed on the registry. (His lordship informed Mr. Martin, that he could not bring forward such evidence.) Mr. Martin proceeded to state, that the plaintiff and defendant had met at a coffee house, in Everton, where the plaintiff taxed the defendant with having given these receipts; upon which, the defendant, who was a powerful man, knocked the defendant down. His LORDSHIP suggested. that the parties would, probably, be better friends in future, if such a trial as this were not pro ceeded with. The plaintiff's attorney objected, as there was the question of costs to be settled by the trial. His LORDSHIP said, from the opening of the case, it was not so sure that the plaintiff would get the costs. The defendant's attorney, through Mr. Sergent Atcherley, said he was willing to withdraw a juror. The plaintiff's attorney still objected on the ground of the costs. His LORDSHIP said, as it was evident great provocation had been used in the accusation alluded to, the plaintiff . . should consider that he was not by any means sure of his costs Ultimately, the plaintiff agreed to the Judge's suggestion, and a juror was withdrawn. THOMPSON V. BROADFOOT. Robert Thompson, the plaintiff in this action, was formerly steward of the ship Abbotsford, on a voyage to Bombay, and he sought to recover compensation for an alleged assault and false imprisonment by Robert Broadfoot, who commanded the above vessel during a part of the said voyage. The de fendant pleaded, first, - not guilty ; second. that he was justi fied in the imprisonment on the ground of mutiny; and, third, that he was justified on the ground of the plaintiff hav ing tried to excite a revolt on board the ship. Mr. HENDERSON, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that the ship, on her outward voyage, was commanded by Captain Tucker, who became ill, and suddenly disappeared from his berth in a mysterious manner, and the belief was, that he had juinped overboard. The defendant, who was chief-mate, took the command. Shortly afterwards, he called upon the crew to sign a paper, which Thompson refused. On their arrival at Bombay, the plaintiff was imprisoned by the cap tain's orders, and when the vessel again sailed for England the plaintiff was liberated and taken on board, when he found that a new steward had been engaged, and he was ordered to do duty as a mariner, which he did not understand. In con sequence of his refusal to do what he did not understand, he was imprisoned. His legs and arms were manacled, and he was placed upon some water casks, on which a few sails were laid, and he was kept entirely in solitary confinement, where his sufferings were intense. He remained in this state one month, with no other food but bread and water. On the arrival of the ship at this port, the plaintiff was given into the custody of two police-officers, but the defendant could not make out any charge on which the authorities would de tain him. William Threlfall, the carpenter during the voyage alluded to, was called. From his statement it appeared, that the plaintiff had been very harshly treated, but that he had also behaved very ill, and had circulated a very offensive rumour respecting the mode in which the former captain had disap peared. At this stage of ,the case, the parties agreed to withdraw a juror. - - OXTON V. SHARP.---lIREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, &C This action was brought for the recovery of damages for a breach of promise of marriage, and also of various sums of money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. It appeared, by the statement of Mr. JOHN HENDERSON, counsel for Mrs. Oxton, that she had some property left to her by her deceased husband, and that her father left her proprietrix of the Steam-packet Tavern, near the northern docks, in this town. The defendant had known her many years, and it had been arranged more than once that they should be married. The defendant, who was a musical instrument maker, in this town, had induced her to dispose of her house, telling her that he did not wish to continue in the public line after they were married, but that they would take a shop in Church-street and pursue his business. He obtained possession of her money, which she had placed in Messrs. Leyland and Bullin's bank, and placed it in Hope's bank, in his own name. In the month of Octo ber, 1836, the defendant married another person, and the plaintiff had subsequently borrowed a sum of money which she had lent to him. She was now reduced to poverty, and sued as a pauper. Margaret Birchall, formerly a servant with Mrs. Oxton when she was at the Steam-packet Tavern, was called. She proved some circumstances tending to corroborate a portion of the above statement. Before her examination was con cluded, the defendant agreed to a proposal that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, damages £3OO. DAXENDALE V. SHAW. The plaintiff in this case Y was Mr. Richard Baxendale, coach-builder, of this town ; the defendant, Isabella Shaw, keeper of the Edge-hill Coffee-house. The action was brought for a balance on a promissory note, and for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded, that the note was obtained by fraud ; that it was an accommodation note ; and that the only balance due was £6 13s 6d, which had been paid into court. Mr. MARTIN, counsel for the plaintiff, in a very humour ous address, which was, withal, in some parts, rather indeli cate, stated, that, some time since, a person, named Lewin, arrived from London, who was possessed of personal attrac tions which Miss Shaw was unable to resist, and, accordingly, she married him. At this time, she and Lewin had a car built by the plaintiff, for which the bill of exchange in ques- • tion for £BB Is 10d was paid. Subsequently, a wife, whom Lewin had married previously, came from London, and car ried him off. After this, the defendant called her creditors together, and arranged to pay them all, if time were given to her. On the bill of exchange she paid, at the rate of .1:5 per week, all but £22 is 10d. Subsequently, she had another car built and other work done, on account of which some money was paid, leaving a balance due on these transactions of X73.13s 6d. • . • Witnesses having been called to prove the work done and the delivery of the goods, Mr. CROMPTON, who appeared for the defendant, admitted that he had no defence. A verdict was accordingly given for the. plaintiff, damages .£95 15s 4d, less £6 13s 6d paid into court. WILLIAMS B. BERRY. This was an undefended action, brought by Mr. Williams, coaldealer. of this town, to recover £64 2s t'id from Thomas Berry, builder, for coals and slack sold and delivered. The sale and delivery were proved, and the jury found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. WHITEHAME V. FLOCKTON, Mr. COWLING, who appeared for the plaintiff in this case, stated, that the action was brought in respect of certain calls on some shares in the Great North of England Railway, which the defendant, Mr. Flockton, on purchasing the shares, had undertaken to pay. The defendant pleaded that he never made the contract alleged, and that the contract was illegal, • inasmuch as the company itself was illegal, not having been incorporated by act of parliament at the time of the sale. From the learned gentleman's statement of the case, it ap peared that Mr. Whithame thought favourably of the under taking above mentioned when first it was proposed, and that he paid a deposit of £2 per share on twenty shares of £lOO each, before the act, which had been applied for, had been passed. As the shares rose rapidly in value, he determined on disposing of them, and, in pursuance of this design, he sent the scrip to a Mr. Dashfield, in London, who sold them to Mr. Flockton, the defendant, the latter giving a written undertaking to pay all the calls. The act was subsequently passed, and since then the defendant had sold the shares ; but in regard to the other ten he had refused to fulfil the terms of his contract. There had been eight or nine calls ;, but for some time the company did not press the plaintiff for payment, and he had forborne to press the defendant. At length the company became urgent for Mr. Whithame to pay the calls, and he had called upon the defendant to pav them, as he had undertaken, which he refused to do. The first plea of the defendant, that he had never made any such con tract, would be met• by the evidence of Mr. Dashfield, that he had done so, and it was, in point of fact, admitted in the second plea, which was that the contract was illegal. The pretence that the company did not act as a corporation till the act was made, was idle, as the company was formed for the purpose of obtaining the act. Mr. Lake Dashfield was called. He swore, that he re ceived the scrip of the shares in question in March, 1836, and sold it, on the same day he received it, to Mr. Flockton, for £6 per share, receiving for himself 2s. Gd. per share commission, which made the whole amount put into his hands £122 10s. He stated to Mr. Flockton, that they were sold for a friend in Liverpool, and Mr. Flockton gave him a receipt and a written undertaking to pay all future calls. The receipt, &c., were given on the head of a sheet of writing paper, on purpose that he might send it to Liver pool. The defendant also gave him a receipt for his own private satisfaction. The undertaking was put in and proved by the witness. Mr. Dashfield was cross-examined, at very great length, by Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY, who, with Mr. Hoggins, ap peared for the defence. The object of the cross-examination was to show, that the witness had purchased the shares for £BO from Mr. Whitehame, and sold them again to Mr. Flockton as from himself. The witness stated, that he had made copies of the letters which had passed between him and Whitehame on the subject, and that the transaction ap peared on his books. He had had a running account with Mr. Flockton, and owed him money at the time, and though he admitted that the price of the shares was settled in ac count, he denied that the shares were turned over as his own for the purpose of paying part of what he owed Flockton. His books, he said, were in London, and he could give a more minute account of the circumstances upon which he was pressed, if he could refer to them. He afterwards ad mitted, that he had given his books up to the clerk of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, on the occasion of his taking the benefit of the Insolvent Act. He paid Mr. Whitehame also in account. Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY suddenly produced the books, which had been brought from London by the clerk of the Insolvent Court. The witness examined the books, but could not find any entry beyond February, 1836. He then said he had other books in London. Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY: Did you not swear, when the list of nine books was delivered in at the Insolvent Court, that you had given in a full list 1" Witness: " I don't know : I swore what was required." Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLY said, his books had been examined, and there was not a trace of the name of Whitehame throughout, nor was there any copy of the letter to him spoken of by the wit ness. ' The witness was examined on his banking check book, touching shares which, it was recorded on one of the counterparts, had been purchased from Mr. Whitehame for £BO, and touching certain remittances to that amount, also recorded in counterparts, bearing dates 18th March and Ist and 4th April, to have been sent to a Mr. Ruddle, a relation to Mr. Whitehame. The witness varied very much in his explanations of this and other circumstances. He, however, admitted, that he had only remitted £BO to Mr. Whitehame, • though he had received £l2O for the shares from Mr. Flock ton. He said, as he had made a bargain for the sale of the scrip to another person who had wished to be rid of the pur chase, though the shares were rising in value at the time, and, as he had paid this person £2O for not taking the shares, • he thought himself justified in putting the remaining £2O into his pocket. The name of Whitehame did not appear in the undertaking given by Mr. Flockton. It was proved, by the clerk to the company, that the shares still stood in the name of Mr. Whitehame, and that calls to : the amount of £43 per share had been paid up. Mr. COWLING stood upon the undertaking, and produced accounts tending to show, that, however Dashfield might have acted in the transaction, he had conducted it as a sale of shares belonging to Mr. Whitehame, and had received a commission of £2los. from Flockton for the sale. Mr. Serjeant ATCHERLY left it to the jury to say whether they could believe the witness upon whose testimony 'the allegations of the plaintiff were established and the proof of the documents rested. The jury retired, and, after an absence of two hours, they returned and delivered a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £430. Leave was given to move for a new trial or a nonsuit. LAWRENCE V. HOPKINSON. . . Thomas Lawrence, a coach and omnibus proprietor, in this neighbourhood, was the plaintiff,: and George Hopkin son, a coachmaker, the defendant. Mr. WIGHT:4A gtatad that the plaintiff chimed a hal awe of £74, on a long series of accounts which commenced in 1837. As the accounts were very intricate, he would pro pose a reference. This was at once acceded to, and - a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. SHAW V. SCARISBRICK ESQ. This action was brought, nominally, against the late High sheriff of the county, Charles Scarisbrick, Esq., but the real defendant was Joshua Oglethorpe, one of the sheriff's offi cers. The record set forth, that a writ had been made out against William Hamilton, and that the defendant, having been furnished with the execution, had failed to arrest him that he had given the writ to others, who were not officers, &c. The defendant had entered various pleas, amongst which, the first was, that no debt was owing by Hamilton. The account charged to be owing by Hamilton was £6O. Mr. Oglethorpe was called and ordered to produce the war rant. He said he had not it. When asked when eit was, Mr. Wightman, his counsel, directed him not to answer, unless on oath. The question was repeated and the witness was mute. Mr. Serjeant Atcherly directed that the subpoena of the witness should be read . . The subpoena was read. It commanded Joshua Oglethorpe to produce the warrant ; and again he replied that he had not got it. He was asked where it was, but not one word did he answer. His lordship inti mated that the witness was not bound to answer till he was sworn. Mr. Serjeant ATCHERLY . Then I will submit to be nonsuited, and wilt settle with Mr. Oglethorpe another day. SERVICE AND ANOTHER V. HART. Mr. \%TIGHTMAN, Henderson, who, with Mr. appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. Thomas Service, and his brother, who are painters, stated, his clients claimed £49 from Mr, Lewis Joseph Hart, who amongst other pleas, pleaded a tender. As the proof of this issue rested with the defendant, Mr. CROMPTON, his counsel, stated the case. He said the claim arose out of the employment of plaintiff to do some work on the premises of the defendant, who was a shop keeper, in the Crescent, in this town. When the work was . _ finished, there was some dispute, as was frequently the case with contracts, about the money due to the plaintiff, the latter claiming £49, and the defendant not being willing to pay more than £45. As the plaintiff had declared his in tention of going to law, Mr. Hart, at first, determined to re sist the demand, as he was of opinion that the work of the plaintiff had done his premises more injury than good ; but, at length, he was persuaded, rather than go to law, to pay the amount claimed. It had been offered and refused, and he would call Mr. Harding to prove the. tender of £49. Mr. John Harding, who said that he was a book-keeper in this town, stated, that he made a tender of the money to Mr. Thomas Service on the 25th of October last. The reply was, that the business was in the hands of an attorney, and he had nothing farther to do with it. He (witness) said, Mr. Hart did not wish to have anything to do with an attorney, and he offered Mr. Service £49 6s. 9d. . _ Mr. WIGHTMAN cross-examined the witness minutely, touching the circumstances that had occurred, and the words that he made use of in making the tender. It came out, that the witness was clerk to Mr. Yates, attorney, and that• he had been sent to make the tender by Mr. Yates. After the witness had answered even question put by Mr. Wight man, and pointed out Mr. Thomas Service, the learned counsel told him to look steadily in the face of Mr. Service, and tell him, on his oath, if there were one word of truth in all that he had sworn to. In the midst of the loud laughter that followed this question, Mr. Service exclaimed, that there was not a word of truth in all that the witness had said, and that he had never seen him or received any tender. Mr. WIGHTMAN said, he was unable to contradict the witness, except upon the testimony of Mr. Service, whom he could not call. A verdict was taken for the defendant. It was intimated to his lordship, that there were no more causes for him to try. Hereupon he bowed a farewell to the jury, and left the court, which broke up at four o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. ALLEGED ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.-THOMAS V. QUICK AND ANOTHER. _ _ In this action Mr. John Thomas, a tidewaiter, was the plaintiff; the defendants were Thomas Quick and Thomas Browne, police-officers ; and the action was brought by the plaintiff recover compensation in damages from the defen dants for an alleged assault and false imprisonment. The defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Murphy were the counsel for the plaintiff; there appeared on behalf of the defendants Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Sergeant Starkie, and Mr. Crompton. The jury, after a few minutes consultation, found a verdict for the defendant. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. FENESSY V. SHARP. This action was brought by Miss Catherine Fenessy to re cover from the defendant, Mr. George Sharp, a pawnbroker carrying on business in Liverpool, compensation in damages for a breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Murphy for the plaintiff; Mr. Cresswell for the defence. Mr. ALEXANDER having opened his case, called Mr. Richard Fenessy, who, said, I am a joiner and cabinet maker in this town. The defendant is a pawnbroker. He was a widower seme time since. He had married a sister of my wife. He had no surviving children by her. In the month of May, 1837, my sister, the plaintiff, came over from Ireland to Liverpool, and resided with me. The following day was Sunday, and on the evening of that day Mr. Sharp came to my house, and I introduced Miss Fenessy to him. From that time up to.last May Mr. Sharp came to my house every night in the week, except Saturday night. We were on very intimate terms, and when we were not at his house he was at ours. Some time after I was induced to suppose that an affection had (sprung uli between the plaintiff and defendant. In January, last year, I had a conversation with him re specting my sister. He was in our house, but he called me out, and said, " Mr. Fenessy, I know what our Mrs. Fe nessy's humours are. It's all about me and Miss Fenessy." I said, " I know it." He then gave me his hand, and said, " Tell Miss Fenessy, that, whatever Mrs. Fenessy does, or says, above all things for Miss Fenessy not to take any no tice of her, for, in a short time, I will marry her ; but do not let Mrs. Fenessy know anything about it." On the follow ing Sunday, Sharp invited me to (line with him at his house. My wife was then taking care of his house during the day time, in consequence of his having lost his housekeeper. I and Sharp went out to take a walk in the evening. In the course of conversation, we turned to the subject of his mar riage, and Sharp distinctly told Ide, that the reason he did not marry was, that, if he did, the Misses Watts would stop his business. The Misses Watts were the daughters of the person to whom he scrved his time, and with whom be after- wards formed a partnership. He said, he thought, that after the summer, his plate stock would cover what he owed the Misses Watts, and that by the next -January he would marry Miss Fenessy. 1 then told him that I would insure my life for his for £lOOO, and he said that insurance would not shorten life. My object was' that it should be for Mr. Shaip's benefit. Ile spoke often to me about the marriage, and always as of a fixed and settled thing. I had afterwards some conversation with him respecting the substance of some rumours. In the early part of September Mr. Sharp was in Whitechapel, in company with a person named Smith. I told him (Sharp) that.l was looking for him, and asked him if he had said my sister Catherine was pushing herself upon him. He said that he had not said so, nor had he ever any reason to say so. I then said that Mrs. Fenessy had told me that that was the reason of his having promised my sister marriage. He, went back with me to my house ; to show that he had said no such thing; and I said to Mrs. Fenessy, " There is Sharp, to explain the words he is said to have made use of in respect to my sister, Catherine Fenessy." •They went into the house, and sirs. Fenessy said to him, " You did say so." He said, " I did not." She said, " You did ; and you also said that you had taken a second thought, or consideration, I forget which." And he said, " I did say so ; that she was a Catholic and I a Protestant ; and that it would be for life, and we might not live happily together, perhaps." He then said that he was determined to marry, but not in the same family as before, let the consequence be what it would. , _ _ Cross-examined.--Mrs. Fer►essy was very kind to the de fendant on every occasion when she had an opportunity. She went every Saturday night to his house, and stood behind his shop for him. Her objection to the marriage, I suppose, was on account that she had reared his first wife from a child until she was married to him. My sister, the plaintiff, is 32 or 33 years of age. I could not swear that she is any more, nor could I swear that she is not 34, seeing that 1 have not got the register. Re-examined.—l believe Sharp's stock, from his own ac count of it, to be worth fully £lOOO. He showed me his books, that he was making something more than £lOOO a-year by his business. He has repeatedly told me that, but not since May or June. _ _ By Mr. CuusswELL.—l know there is a large mortgage on his stock, somewhere about £3OOO. Mrs. Frances Fenessy.—Mr. Sharp's first wife was a sis ter of mine. lie told her, on her deathbed, that he would never marry any one again. [The witness then corroborated the principal part of her - husband's evidence.] Mr. Sharp will be 36 on his next birthday. The plaintiff is about 32 ; she is not old. Mr. CRESSWELL.—When do ladies, in your opinion, be gin to grow old? Ido Lot know, sir. Mr. CRESSWELL.-1 beg your pardon for putting such a question to you. [The witness was an elderly woman.] By Mr. CRESSWELL.—I was never in any humours about the intended marriage. I thought Mr. Sharp had a right to please himself. He candidly acknowledged to me, when I asked him, that he bad promised the plaintiff marriage. He said, " I promised her marriage ; she shoved herself on me." -(Laughter.) Mr. William Smith, flour-dealer, was examined, and tes tified to the correctness of the first witness's evidence with respect to conversation which had taken place in his presence. Mr. Jas. Martindale, the clerk of Christ's Church, proved, that the defendant was, on the 25th of December last, mar ried at that church, to Miss Healing. Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury in mitigation of da- Ife e t s liict for the plaintiff. Damages, £4O. ASSAULT.—SHAND b. SHARP. This was an action to recover damages for an assault, al leged to have been committed by the defendant, Mr. Win. Sharp, an innkeeper, in Liverpool, on Mr. Shand, also an innkeeper, in Liverpool. The defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Addison for the plaintiff; andiMr. Cresswell for the defendant. Mr. ALEXANDER, in his opening statement, said, that the parties were connected, they having married sisters, on which the learned Judge endeavoured, but ineffectually, to have the dispute arranged out of court. It appeared, from the evidence, that, on the evening of the 13th of April last, the plaintiff went home in a state of in toxication, when his wife, seeing the state he was in, pre vailed on him to go immediately to bed. The bed-room of the plaintiff was on the same floor as the kitchen, and he had got to the door of the room when the defendant, who had been in the house nearly an hour before, said, on hearing that Mr. Shand had come in, that he must have a glass of ale with him before he (plaintiff) went to bed. The plaintiff accord ingly returned into the kitchen, each of the parties had a glass of ale, and then Mrs. Shand got him to bed • and, lest he should be induced to get up again, locked up his clothes. Not a long time had transpired, when noises were heard in the kitchen, proceeding from the bed-room. Mrs. Shand went up, and, on her calling out for assistance, a Captain M'Culloch hastened to the room. The defendant and the plaintiff were in the room. The former having hold of the latter. The bed-clothes had been torn from the bed. The plaintiff was standing in the middle of the bed-room, in his shirt, which was torn, and he was bleeding from the mouth and nose : his chest was sore, as if it had been severely beaten, one of his ribs was broken, and the left thigh was hurt. The defendant was torn away from the plaintiff and induced to leave the room. Mr. Shand, in consequence of the injuries he had received, was confined to his bed for ten days, and the surgeon attended him for three weeks longer. There was no evidence to show why Mr. Sharp had entered the bed-room ; and the only evidence as to the cause of the assault was an admission stated to have been made by the defendant to one of the witnesses. Mr. Sharp was stated to have said, that the dispute arose respecting the quality and quantity of the ale respectively sold by them. Mr. CRESSWELL contended, that several of the circum stances elicited in the course of the evidence showed, that the assault had been rather a fight between two drunken men, and was of such a nature as to call for very trifling damages. The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, £2O. With this cause the business of the Assizes terminated. That was at a quarter past six o'clock. WIG AN.—We have great pleasure in announcing, that the extreme distress which so long and so extensively prevailed amongst the labouring classes in this borough, has at length, in a great measure, passed away. Most of the hands are at work, and the prospects of the poor begin to look a little cheering. The relieving committee have this week had very few new applications.—Wigan Gazette. THEATRE.ROYAL, LIVERPOOL, EASTER MONDAY, APRIL 20th, 1840. The popular VOCALISTS, Miss ROMER, Mr. TEMPLE TON, and Mr. G. STANSBURY, of the Theatres- Royal Drury-lane and Covent-garden, are engaged fpr Ten Nights, and will make their first appearance here, this Season, on VASTER MONDAY, 20th April instant, when 'will be performed the favourite Comic Opera of THE LOVE SPELL; Being the English version of Donizetti's Italian Opera of L'Elisi d'Amour. ri i* Adina, Miss Romer ; Nemorino, Mr. empfeton! Doctor Duicamarai Mr. G. Stansbury ; as o - nally performed by them in London ; Belcore, Mr. P. Cr we ; Giannetta, Miss Grant. To conclude with the Tragic Play of DAMON ANDPYTHIAS. Damon, Mr. Stuart; Pythias, Mr. . Howard; Hermion, Miss Cleaver ; Calanthe, Mrs. W. H. Bland. On TUESDAY, the Comic Opera of the LOVE SPELL. After which, the Tragedy of BRUTUS. Lower Boxes, 4s. ; Upper Boxes, 3s. 6d.; Pit, 2s. 6d. Gallery, Is.—Doors to be opened at Half-past Six, and the Performance to commence at Seven. The Box-office will be open on EASTER MONDAY, when Places in the Lower Boxes may be taken of Mr. MINSTER, from Ten until Three o'clock. GOOD FRIDAY. On Friday' next the office of the LIVERPOOL STAN DARD will remain open until PEN O'CLOCK, A.M., after which hour the paper may be procured at Mr. Arnold's, South John-street, Messrs. Wilmer and Smith's, Church-street, Mr. Gaskell's and Mr. Ayl ward's, Lord-street, Mr. Pugh's, Marybone, and the other News Agents. (fit Etinrpoot iPtanbarb, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 14, 1840. The extinction of slavery is an object which ought to engage the attention, and call into vigorous exercise the energies, of every true philanthropist. Great Britain has had the peculiar honour of taking the lead in this truly noble enterprise. She has set the ex ample, -in the: first instance, of putting a stop to this abominable traffic among her own subjects. This has been followed up by the utter abolition of slavery in our own colonies, But this does not comprise all that this country has done in its endeavours to wipe off this foul blot upon humanity. We have spent millions of money, and wasted the lives of thousands of our countrymen, in endeavouring to prevent other nations from carrying on the infamous trade in human flesh. All, however, has proved unavailing. The slave trade still exists in all its activity. The humane endeavours of Great Britain have been, unfortunately, most signally frustrated. Under these circumstances, we are not at all surprised that such men as Mr. Buxton, and those who have been in the habit of co-operating with him in his praiseworthy efforts to extinguish the slave trade, should have been induced to try other and new ex pedients for the same benevolent purpose. We have, however, proved that the sche:ne recently sanctioned by Lord John Russell must necessarily fail in accom plishing the object avowed by its partisans ; and it now becomes our duty, in fulfilment of our promise, to point out those means which we think will prove effectual in securing so desirable an end. Those means have. bet ri more than once glanced at in the columns of this paper. They may be briefly and comprehensively characterised by stating that they consist in the en couragement of the free labour colonies of Great Britain, and the discouragement, as far as consistent with prin ciples of sound political economy, of those colonies cad those countries from which slave-grown produce is now exported, We have briefly enunciated our scheme for the ex tinction of slavery, and it now remains for us to de monstrate its practicability, and to point out its in evitable results. The West India colonies of Great Britain have been placed, by our legislative interference, in circum stances of peculiar difficulty and embarrassment ; and it becomes an inquiry worth entering upon w:lether the money which it is proposed to squander upon the utopian enterprise of colonising Africa might not be more profitably laid• out in aiding and fostering our own colonies, and in rescuing them from their present depression. The experiment which we have made in the West Indies has not yet been fully completed. We have abolished slavery, it is true—we have con ferred upon the Negroes the boon, of unconditional liberty—we have admitted them to all the privileges and immunities.of free-horn British subjects : but, in doing this, we have completely disorganiaed all the social arrangements of the West Indies —we have cut off the foul and disfiguring wen of slavery, but We have left the wound caused by the Exci, don undressed and unhealed. It is an undeniable fact that this (ountry has not clone its duty to the West Indies. It is true that we have purchased the freedom of the Negro populatiOn in those colonies ; but it is not true •that we have secured their happiness in their altered condition. They cannot be made happy by allowing White civili- sation to disappear from the islands. They cannot be made happy by being left to sink into all the de grading superstitions of their forefathers. They can not be made happy unless they are converted into a • class of diligent and contented labourers. It is true also that the Whites in the West Indies have been paid the purchase money of emancipation. But it is not true that we have secured for them those advantages• which might be expected to accrue from our liberality and their spontaneous concessions. Indeed, it is notorious that the planters, as a body, after generously' and voluntarily anticipating the benevolent intentions of this country towards the Negroes, have been driven to the very verge of ruin. Their estates lie unculti vated, and their capital is rapidly vanishing out of their hands. While the staple exports of our 'West India colonies are rapidly diminishing in amount, and as long as the cultivation of these products cannot be carried on excepting at a ruinous loss, need we wonder that those colonies in which slave labour is still continued should become more and more prosperous, in the same ratio that our own are declining ? Need we wonder that the slave trade should be perpetuated in all its activity ? Are we not directly encouraging this trade by our gross and culpable neglect of our own free colonies ? Shall we pursue this impolitic, this cruel, this insane career any longer Shall we not rather strike a fatal blow at the foul monster of slavery in other countries by rendering ourselves independent of any !supplies but those produced by free labour in our own colonies? Nothing 'short of this will reach the root of the evil- Every other expedient will prove unavailing. As we have already intimated, the adoption of Fowell Buxton's new project will cost.the country £35,000 of primary outlay, and £10,546 annually to carry it into effect. Instead of throwing away this large amount of money on a scheme which is certain to prove a miser able failure, let the Government employ it in pro moting immigration into our iVest India colonies. `Thus employed, it would contribute, in a variety of ways, to put an end to the iniquitous slave traffic ; while, at the same time, it would give a powerful stimulus to the prosperity, not only of our colonial possessions, but of Great Britain itself. Why should we grasp at a shadow like Mr. Buxton's plan, when we can secure, at the s ame expense, a tangibl e an d permanent advantage d so important a character ? All that is necessary to increase the productiveness of the West Indies, under the present system of free labour, is, an increased supply of labourers. There is . no reason why we should not obtain all our supplie s of sugar, coffee, cotton, &c., from these splendid col o-. nies. The capabilities of the soil in these colonies ar e scarcely equalled in any other part of the world. Thereat millions of acres lying uncultivated for want of labour ers, especially in British Guiana. With all these golden, advantages within our reach, we are still contented tl3 spend our mone y i n suc h w ild s p ecu l at i ons as the Ni ger expedition. Shame upon the Government of Eng" land for its blind perverseness ; and still greater shoo!, upon the people of England for per m itti ng a line 01 policy so destructive to the best interests of the Cow" try. The result of the division upon the motion of S ir. James Graham is now before us; and although, by : ,, ,3 ` miserable majority of nine, the administration of Ur' Melbourne has escaped the infliction of a direct vot e of censure upon one of the most important quOti" g of the session, they have most assuredly no great rya' son to congratulate themselves upon their ; yOorY' Not one position taken up by the right honourable ba ronet has been overthrown, not one charge successfully' rebutted; and the division by which the debate has at been terminated has been taken not upon th e merits of the question at issue—not upon the question'