The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER 'ASSIZES, CROWN COURT.-7-FaiDAY. aimed JUDGE (COLTMAN) entered the court precisely o'clock STABEINC imas Unstrorth, aged 19, was indicted for feloniously • and wounding John Cheetham, with intent to do him -vously bodily harm. The prisoner who was in an ill state of health, and apparently not long fc t this .lependeut of his juridical danger, was accommo ,u with a chair when placed in the dock. )r. Brown appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy defence. The prosecutor, it appeared, had been nn the night of Sunday, the 29th March, at a beer nine or ten o'clock he came to the house of the -in-law, Geo. Cooyer, in Moss-lane, Ne- A dozen men, including the prisoner, came ont and said that Cheetham had been listening at the window. This gave therton, near Sefton _ _ 'eat offence to the party, and a iersonal ltercation ensued. One of the men, named Bentham, was struck by Cheetharn, and knocked down. The prisoner then took a knife from his pocket, and declared that if any one should strike him, he would be the death of him. He flour ished his knife about Cheethatn's head, and was knocked off. He came up a second time and Cheetham knocked him down, and fell upon him. While they were on the ground, the pri soner stabbed him four times, in various parts of the body. The prosecutor bled for more than an hour that night, and on the Tuesday was obliged to send to Dr. Formby for his assistant The prosecutor, John Cheetham, was examined to these facts, and subsequently cross-examined by Mr. Murphy. He -4 that he met the doctor accidentally at the Rev. Miles state Formby's Thomas Rothwell gave similar evidence. Dr. Formby, of Liverpool, stated that he was at his bro ther-in-law's, the Rev. Miles Formby, at Melling, on the Tuesday after the occurrence, and saw Cheetham. He ex examined his wounds, and found a stab directly upon the haunch bone. It was of slight depth, as the bone has a very superficial covering, and was stopped by the bone. There was a cut upon the wrist and another upon the thigh, and the linger too was marked. None of the wounds were deep. They were evidently inflicted with a knife. There was a cut in his carter's frock, three or four inches long. It corresponded with the stab on the hip. . . . . Cheetham, on being recalled, stated that there were five cuts on his frock after the affray. One, on the breast, one about the hip, and one on the lower part of the skirt. Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury for the defence, stating that there were certain circumstances of palliation in the case, which removed it from the ordinary charges of stabbing. Se veral other persons who were standing by and witnessed the circumstance had not been called, because it was apprehended that they would so have varied the case as to endanger the conviction. He contended that the knife had only been used as a last resort, when his life was placed in imminent peril, and called the following witnesses : Robert Unsworth stated that he saw Cheetham knock the prisoner down and fall on him. Cheetham appeared to be holding him down. John Rothwell came up at the time, and stamped his foot upon the prisoner's head. Witness saw no knife in his hand at the time he fell. He should have seen it had there been such a thing. He heard him use no ex pression about stabbing. He was near enough, and should have heard it if it had been said. He saw Mrs. Cooper pul ling Cheetham away from the prisoner. Cross-examined.—He did not see his brother with a knife that evening. Cheetham knocked him down without any been said. _ _ -examined.—Cheethain had previously knocked down Bentham the JUDGE.—The prisoner had no altercation with Cheetham. He asked Cheetham what he had knocked down Bentham for, and he said he would serve him the same, and did so immediately. Mrs. Anne Cooper, wife of George Cooper, and sister of the prisoner, remembered the party leaving her house. She heard the noise outside, and, on looking out, saw them all squabbling in the lane. She afterwards saw the prisoner on the ground, and Cheetham upon him, with his knees on the prisoner's breast. He appeared to be pressing on him. John Bothwell had his foot on the prisoner's head. She tried to pull Cheetham away, but could not quite get him off. Cross-examined.—She saw him after he was off, but did not see that •he was cut. Her brother had been out of the house about half an hour, during which time the disturbance She did not see whether her brother had 'a knife that night, or whether he had one at all. 'William Bentham corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses. In answer to a question from Mr. Murphy, he said that Chatham and Bothwell were very stout men ; the prisoner was of slight stature and frame. Cheetham struck some boys who were there before he struck Unsworth. , Thomas Moss gave similar evidence, and added, that Cheet ham pulled_ his frock off before he struck the boys. He heard no quarreling until the blows were struck. They were t king for a quarter of an hour in a friendly manner. He saw nothing of any knife, nor did he hear of any wounds. "Witness did not see Cheetham put on his frock again. He had it on when he went home. continued John AN Mosey, John Garner, Richard Moss, a farmer, and Mr. Browne, a solicitor, in whose service the prisoner bad been, gave him a character for being a mild, inoffensive young man. Dr. BROWN remarked on the contradictory nature of the evidence, stating that, according to the testimony of the witnesses for the defence, there had been no stabbing at all, and no knife used, and that Cheetham had no frock on, though the cuts were on the frock and the wounds had been inflicted. It was impossible that the jury could give cre dence to the defendant's witnesses, without believing that those for the prosecution had perjured themselves. The learned JUDGE put it to the jury to say, whether the prisoner had wounded the prosecutor, and whether he had done so in necessary self-defence, his own life being in danger, and having no means of retreating. y, after a few moments' consideration, returned a if not guilty generally—the prisoner having used the knife ►n self-defence, conceiving his life to be in danger. The JUDGE allowed the costs on application, and ordered the prisoner to be discharged. The jur RECEIVING STOLES PROPERTY Samuel Horrocks, 36, who had been tried and acquitted on in indictment last Wednesday, with Joshua Kirk, for burgla iously entering the dwelling-house of James Clare, at Fails vorth, and stealing therefrom a quantity of spirits, was now ndicted for having received the same, knowing them to have )een stolen. The witnesses and evidence were precisely the same as on the former occasion. The counsel having mis stated the day on which the goods were alleged to have been tr. Lilt p. lava., ' a pusatssion, the latter expressed a wish Lo be permitted to ask that gentleman some questions. The - - a. n 4,4,1 nn iittla annll•arrtant et them Peter Kelly, 20, was indicted for having feloniously stab ounded Rosannah Morgan, with intent to do , . her some grievous bodily harm Ir. Henderson conducted the prosecution. The prisoner Mr. HENDERSON stated that between two and three o'clock on the morning of Sunday, the 21st of June, the prisoner kith Rosannah Morgan and two other women were in Bird- street. Some angry words passed between the prisoner and the women, and he struck Morgan, who ran away. She re turned again, and passed into an entry. The prisoner was seen with a knife and again struck her, on which she. Called out that she had been stabbed. No search was then made ; but there was afterwards. No knife was found, but the who saw it called out to the prisoner to throw - it away. The woman was wounded, and was taken to the Dispensary. The wounds were not only grievous but dangerous, and she remained under surgical treatment two months. She was here at the commencement of the assizes, but was not now forthcoming ; but he should be enabled to prove the case without her assistance. As to the provocation which the pri soner had received, it would be well for the jury, in consider ing it, to take into their consideration also, not only the na ture of the instrument, but the sex of the party injured. He then examined the following witnesses : John Kennedy—l live in Toxteth-park, Liverpool. On Sunday morning, the 21st of June, I was in New Bird-street, between one and two o'clock. I saw Rosannah Morgan there. Any Gibson was with her. We went with John Fagan up an entry to a public-house to get some ale, and were joined by another girl. Kelly followed and struck the girl that came last, wha ran away. Rosannah Morgan said, " Kelly, you should not strike me that road." On that, he hit her with the back of his hand on the face. The blow *ss a very light one. Gibson and Morgan laid hold of him by the jacket, and they fought for two or three minutes, and Kelly was knocked down. The girls run down the entry, and out of the street, and Kelly pursued them. Shortly afterwards Morgan ran again into the entry, and Kelly after her. They got to fighting in the entry "a second time ; and, after being engaged a considerable time, Morgan called out that she was stabed. I was within a yard of them, but saw nothing in his hand. I cannot swear that I said before the magistrates I saw a knife in Kelly's hand. Ido not know whether he had one or not. I told him if he had such a thing as a knife not to use that, but throw it away. The police came up and took them all into custody, and conveyed them to Bridewell. I did not see Morgan bleeding. Cross-examined—The girls knocked Kelly down, dragged him through the channel, and kicked him, and he cried, " Murder." I did not see them strike him with a stone, but they tore his jacket and shirt. I did not see them go up any r entry Re-examined—This was before he had struck Morgan and the other girl. The latter had run away with a shilling from him. After he was knocked down the girls ran away. About ten minutes elapsed from the time they began fighting to Morgan calling out that she was stabbed. _ Andrew Conolly, police-constable, stated that he came up when the cry of murder was raised. Morgan was bleeding at the breast. She was conveyed to the Dispensary. Kelly was taken into custody about a hundred yards distant. Witness searched him when Morgan told him she had been stabbed, but found no knife on him. He examined the place after he had conveyed the prisoner to bridewell, but found nothirig. He produced the clothes worn by Morgan at the time of the occurrence. _ _ Andrew M'Clellan, one of the house-surgeons at the South Dispensary. When Morgan was brought there, he examined her person. She had received three wounds. One on the right side was a punctured wound of about an inch in depth, and rather less than a quarter of au inch long. A penknife might have inflicted the wound. He could con ceive nothing so likely. Her clothes were cut. The wound was close to the false-rib. He should have - considered it dangerous to life. There was a cut on the left shoulder about half an inch in length. It was superficial. She had also a cut on the index finger of the left hand. Witness attended her at home for four or five days. She required active treat ment for the first twenty-four hours, and was slightly in danger during that time. There were symptoms of inflam mation. After the first shock to the constitution had gone off, she began to recover. The wound on the belly was in a very dangerous place, if it had been carried further. The prisoner said the women had taken a half-crown from him, and used him very ill. He called Sarah Cunningham, his sister, who saw the latter part of the affray. The three girls had hold of him. She loosed Gibson and Kennedy's hands from his . neck. He was nearly hoked, and his tongue was out. Morgan said she would - - Nothing was then said about the stabbing. police came up immediately afterwards. Cross.examined.--Witness did not see a knife in his pos -ion all the week. When she got to thecorner of Jordan , she heard the first about the stabbing. H er mother ran for the police while she loosed the woman's hand s f rom his neck. She was present when the prisoner was before th e magistrates, but did not tell this story then, as she thought she could do him no good. She had been to bed, and was aroused by the disturbance. Elizabeth Matthews also deposed to the ill-treatment which the prisoner had suffered from the girls. She had gone out to fetch some ale. He was shouting for the police, and she ran to his house and told his mother. Kennedy cried out to the women to "go it." She was not before the magistrates, not knowing that it would be of any use. Kennedy was recalled, and said he did not encourage the women to beat the prisoner, as he saw they were too many for them the first. lie had not his hand at any time on the prisoner. choke him The JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty of a comtnon assault. His lordship said that the pri soner had been acquitted of stabbing in its aggravated form, but had been convicted of doing so without a felonious intent. The practice was unfortunately so prevalent, and so danger ous, that it was his duty to mark it, whenever it occurred, with the severest punishment. The sentence of the court was, that he ahould be imprisoned in the House of Correc tion, and kept to hard labour for eighteen calendar months. STABBING BY WOMEN. _ _ Mary Ann Cain, 19, and Mary Ann Lacy, 18, were in dicted for having cut, stabbed, and wounded William Cun ningham, with intent to do him some grievous bodily h arm . There was a second count, charging Cain as the principal, and Lacy with aiding and abetting. Alta for the prosecutfon, I Mr, littAie and Mr. Mtlr The prix nerg were utidgroaded The prosecutor lives in Preston-street, Liverpool, On the 44th of June, Lacy lived at his cellar ; Cain, on that day, Went to see her, and threw herself on the bed where the prosecutor was lying. He got up and sat on the table, and his wife would not let Cain lie there. She went out very much provoked, but soon afterwards returned. Lacy went to the door to wash some linen, and Cunningham desired her tO do it inside. She was much irritated, and threw hot water and mud over him. At last she told Cain to get a knife from the cupboard and stick it into him. Cain did so, and in flicted one wound in the cheek, another in the neck, near to the jugular vein, and one in the breast, which penetrated a considerable depth. Cunningham deposed to these facts, and Was cross-examined by the prisoners as to whether he had liot acted improperly in his house, and ill used Lacy because she would not comply with his impure solicitations. He de nied all the imputations. Mrs. Carr, a neighbour, corroborated some parts of pro- Aecutor's statement. John Carney, a provision dealer, living in the same street, deposed that he met Cain with a woman named Careful, a few hours after the occurrence. Cain was very tipsy. Care ful said that Cain had stabbed Cunningham. On going to Cunningham's house, he found him wounded and fainting from loss of blood. A knife was produced by a man in the cellar, but witness saw no blood on it. Cross-examined.—Cunningham's is a lodging-house where women of the town live. He saw Lucy drunk at ten. Nicholas Bowman, a police-officer, produced the knife. He saw Cunningham on the bed, bleeding from the wound in his breast, and apprehended the prisoners. They had been drinking, but were not then drunk. Mr. Thomas Brandreth, house-surgeon at the Infirmary, said that Cunningham was brought there about seven o'clock in the evening. He was in a very exhausted state, and his pulse very feeble. He gave him stimulants. There was a wound an inch and a quarter in length and scarcely half an inch deep on the face, extending nearly to the mouth. All the muscles were cut. There was another superficial wound in the neck, near to the carotid artery ; and one on the left side of the chest. The latter was an incised wound, over the cartilage of the third rib. It was dangerous to life. There had been a stab and cut in the same stroke. _ The prosecutor, on being recalled, said the knife was usu ally kept in the cupboard or knife-box. It had been left there about two hours previously. Cain told the jury that she merely struck the prosecutor in self defence, after she had interfered, as he was ill-using Lacy, and he bad attacked her with the knife. The JUDGE having gone through the case, the jury retired, and were absent an hour, when they returned with a verdict of " guilty of cutting and stabbing, but not with intent to murder. They considered it to be something more than a common assault, but not to that extent." His Lognsnip-explained that the intent to murder was not laid in the indictment, but the intent to do some grievous bodily harm. They must therefore reconsider their verdict. They might find the prisoners guilty of the felony, of common assault, or acquit them altogether. The jury again retired, and returned in about forty mi nutes, with a verdict finding Lacy guilty of the felony, and Cain of misdemeanour. The JUDGE told Cain that her offence had been one of a very bad description, and he had his doubts whether he ought not to transport her for the term of fifteen years; but, con sidering her sex and other circumstances, he was not disposed to deal hardly with her. The sentence of the court, there fore, was, that she should be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for three years. Address ing Lacy, he said she had not been found guilty of so aggra vated an assault; but she had used very improper language, though she had not struck a blow with so dangerous a wea pon. She would be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for six calendar months. The costs of prosecution were allowed. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Joseph Arm.fleld, 40, was indicted for having in his pos session, knowing it to have been stolen, a decanter, the pro perty of John Deardeu, of Houghton. Mr. Buss stated the case for the prosecution. The pri soner was undefended. A burglary was committed in Mr. Dearden's house on the night of the 13th of May, 1839, and the decanter, which was a part of the property stolen, was sold by the prisoner to Mr. Whitehead, of the King's Arms, in Ashton-under-Lyne, for six or seven shillings. The prisoner told Mr. Whitehead that he bad been employed to sell it by a respectable neigh bour who wanted money. Mr. Whitehead kept it until May last, and then gave it up to Newton, the constable of Ashton. The prisoner said he had it from a man named Slater, who was transported for ten years, at the last Chester Spring As sizes, for the burglary, and he did not know it was stolen. He had washed the jugs and glasses in the bar, at White head's often since. and might have destroyed it had he enter tained any suspicion. He had no witnesses but Mr. White head, who gave him a good character, and said he had his perfect confidence, and was allowed to go into any part of his house at the time he employed him. The jury, after a short deliberation acquitted the prisoner. The JUDGE allowed the costs. BURGLARY. Isabella Wensley, 17. was indicted for having stolen three sovereigns, four shillings, one brush, and other articles, the property of Morris Yacoby. Mr. BRANDT appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner had no counsel. The prosecutor is an auctioneer and jeweller in Ashton under-Lyne. The prisoner had been in his service about a fortnight prior to the 3d of May, when she absconded with the articles in question during the night, breaking out of the house for that purpose, which by the law is a burglary. The prosecutor traced her to Liverpool, and they were found on her person and in a box in her possession, on the Wednesday following. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred. BURGLARS' Jonn Guire; 19, and William Webster, 16, were indicted for having burglariously broken and entered the dwelling house of Thomas Smith, at Salford, and stolen therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel. There was a second indictment against M`Guire for a burglary in the house of David Seddon, of Salford. He pleaded guilty to both indictments ; Webster pleaded not guilty, and the case was proceeded with. A prin cipal witness, Ann Reeves, was not in attendance, and was called on her recognizances. The only evidence against Webster was the finding of a hat, which had been stolen from the premises, in, his possession. This, he said, had been given to him by Maguire, Webster was acquitted.— The Judge told M`Guire that he had once before suffered for his offences in this way, and now confessed his guilt on two inainfm.nta_ It woe 1.03: elft tent of:punishrqent ; but the sentence of the court was, that he should be transported beyond seas for the term of ten years. BURGLARY Richard Heaton, 37, Richard Tootell, 35, were indicted for a burglary in the house of James Hazelden, at Pember ton, near Wigan, when a great quantity of provisions and other articles were stolen. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prisoners. The prosecutor was a farmer at Pemberton ; the offence was committed on the night of the 30th of April, and• the property in question taken away. Suspicion having fallen on Tootell, his house was searched on the same day, and part of the goods found therein. Another part was found at the house of Heaton, and his wife said she had bought it in the market. It was, however, identified by the prosecutor. The prisoners were found guilty. Heaton was sentenced to ten years' transportation, Tootell to twelve months' im prisonment and hard labour. BURGLARY. Richard Vaun, 29, was indicted for burglary in the house of Samuel Leech. Mr. Hulton was for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. The prosecutor lives at Saunton, near Ashton-under-Lyne. The prisoner was found in the act of removing some panes of glass, with intent to enter and steal, on the night of the 4th of April. Some inner fastenings had been raised, and a crow bar and dark lantern were found outside, and on his person a box of lucifer matches. He was found guilty, and ordered to be transported for ten years. The court adjourned at a quarter before seven to nine next moraing. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) BLUNDELL V. LORD CAMOYS. This case, which concerns the will of the late Mr. Blun dell, of Ince, was, on the application of Mr. Alexander, fixed to come on for trial on Monday next. ENGLAND V. LISLE In this case, which had been struck out yesterday, but was restored on an affidavit, a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff. Damages £97. MOORE AND OTHERS V. HODGES This was an undefended action, to recover the sum of £3l, being the balance of an account which had existed between the parties for several years. The plaintiffs are ironmongers at Wigan, and the defendant is a blacksmith at Chorley. A verdict was returned for the amount claimed. MATHEW V. LOGAN A verdict was taken by consent in this case, for £2OO, sub ject to a reference. DOE DEM GRICE AND ANOTHER V. ASTLES This was an action of ejectment, to recover possession of certain messuages and lands, in the parish of Warrington. Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Wilkins were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightman, and Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. 11 , 1 i. WILKINS opened the pleadings. Mr. CRESSWELI, then proceeded to state the case. This was an action in ejectment brought by John Grice and Joseph Robinson, the devisees in trust under the will of Samuel Astles, of Warrington, to recover possession of some pro perty under his will. The defendant was brother to Samuel Astles, and he said he held the property in question as heir at-law, seeing that Samuel Astles bad left no valid will dis posing of his property. The question, then, would be, whether or not Samuel Astles did or did not leave a valid will devising this property. The deceased had, for many years, carried on business as an innkeeper at Warrington, and on the 17th December, 1838, he was in possession of the property in question. He was a bachelor, of about 47 or 48. It would seem that he was a person respected by those who knew him; and that many of them, knowing him to be a thriving man, had an inclination to try to obtain, for some of their children, the notice of a bachelor reputed to have property. Accord ingly, it would be found that he was godfather to a number of children, to each of which he had left legacies. At the time he died he was the reputed father of a son of Catherine Brown, whose sister was married to John Grice, one of the devisees. There was some intimacy between Grice and Astles, Grice was a book-keeper, and had been for several years in the habit of keeping Astle's accounts ; later, however, he had a barmaid in the inn, and then Grice ceased to do business for him. They were, before, joint executors or trustees respecting some property in Warrington, and consequently there was great intimacy between them. Samuel Astles was the reputed father of Catherine Brown's child, and the jury would find him bringing up this child as his own. This child he had at Warrington, to see him, as well as a son of John Grice, and they lived with him till his death. The jury would find that he had left a legacy of some amount to this boy, and that he had desired that both of them should be brought up together, under the care of Catherine Brown, the mother of his reputed son. Samuel Astles had a brother, the present defendant, who was not the same careful, friendly, money -making man that the testator was. He had borrowed money from the deceased more than once, and it had been found that the deceased had 1-ft to him £2OO over and above the money he had borrowed. There could be no question or doubt Whatever, that the testator was perfectly competent, throughout his life, to transact business of any description, until the period of his death drew near. The learned counsel then proceeded to describe the illness and death of Mr. Astles, and the circumstances under which the will was made, and he concluded by stating that it would be proved that the de- ceased was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements that were made, and that no doubt could be felt as to his competency to execute the will. The learned counsel then called wit nesses. John Clare, examined by Mr. COWLING, said be knew the deceased, and occupied a house under him, for which he paid rent to the day of his death. It was for the recovery of this house that the action was brought. John Perrin, glass manufacturer, living at Warrington, examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Knew the deceased. Saw him on the Saturday before his death, when he appeared rational. He had sent for w i tness in co nsequence of. having been a joint security with witness for a person named Furnival. Witness told him not to be uneasy about this affair, as h e would look after it. He wished witness to do so. The de ceased was very ill at the time, but he appeared quite rational. Croiss.examillea by Mr. ALIMANDY.R.—Witness was not more than four or five minute with the deceased. Witness, however, should not say that he was able to understand a will of fourteen or fifteen sheets of paper. He was not capable hi his-opinion of understandinff the disposal of a number of • legacies, gifts, and conditio n s." Witness had known him fif teen or sixteen years, 'and shOuld say he was not a man of very strong.mind. Re-examined.--In the conversation witness had with him he appeared rational. witness concluded he was unable to make the will from his state of bodily suffering. • Mary Smith lives at Padgate. Some years ago witness was employed to nurse a boy of Catherine Brown's, which will he nine years old next month. Knew Samuel Astles. He used often to come to see the child, and brought him pre sents. The child's mother paid witness for her trouble. Astles used to come and see the child if he was ill, and to bring him something. Padgate is a mile from Warrington. Astles had the boy to see him at Warrington, and when he returned he brought presents with him. Astles, on the boy's birthday, always brought other boys, to make a merry day. The boy used to call him " father.' Mr. Astles bought the boy's clothes till the time of his death. _ _ _ Gross-examined—Catherine Brown is now living at Man chester, but witness cannot say whether she was married. The boy is now living with witness. Witness does not know John Lawrinson. John Johnson examined by Mr. CowLING—Is a tailor at Warrington. Knows Richard Brown, the child of Catherine Brown, and William Grice, the son of John Grice. Witness has been in the habit of making clothes for both those boys. They are nearly of the same age. Mr. Samuel Astles paid witness for the clothes. Elizabeth Brown, examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Is the sis ter of Catherine Brown. Remembers thq birth of her sister's son, whose reputed father was Mr. SainuetAstles. Mr. Astles had for some time before been paying attention to her sister, and the family thought he would marry her. Witness re members drinking tea at Mrs. Ashworth's, Marshall-street, Oldham-road, Manchester. There were present Mr. Ash worth, Mr. Mayer, the two children, witness's sister, and Mr. Astles. Mr. Astles said he should not marry witness's sister until he had settled some property upon her. Mr. Mayer had previously asked him to marry her. Mr. Mayer is re lated to the family., Mr. Astles said, " If I marry her and don't make a will, my brother will turn both Kate and Richard into the street. ' The deceased then spoke of the boy as his own child, and said that he had worked hard for his money, and he should be sorry to leave it to his brother, as he would make it away. He said he had lent his brother money to build in Manchester, but he had made it away by going to the Isle of Man. Remembers going with Mr. Astles and a party to Frodsham bazaar. Catherine Brown was there. There is a school at Frodsham, kept by Mr. Church. Mr. Astles said, " Elizabeth, that is a very good school, and I will send the children there." Witness asked when, and he replied, " They are too young yet, but I think Ph about four years." - - Cross-examined.—These things happened two years ago. Knows John Lawrinson, who now lives in Liverpool : it is five years, if not more, since he lived at Warrington. There was merely friendship between Lawrinson and witness's sis ter. Witness's family lived as tenants under Lawrinson's master. When witness left Warrington, Lawrinson's family consisted of his father and mother, a brother, ar.d two sisters. Catherine Brown is now married. By theJuno . E.—N ever went to Manchester with Lawrinson at a time when Lawrinson proposed to marry her sister. Her sister has now married a person named Morris. Mr. John Ashton, attorney, of Warrington, knew the late Mr. Samuel Astles, and had transacted business for him. In December, 1838, witness was requested to attend Mr. Astles. John Grice brought that request between ten and eleven in the morning. Went to him in about half an hour. This was on Saturday, the 15th December. Grice told him his was wanted to take instructions for Mr. Astle's will. Found Mr. Astles in bed ; he inquired if witness had brought any pen and paper. Witness told him he had not ; but some was procured, and the deceased proceeded to give instrue tionsAfostrietlsiewillr are several witnesseral st o e were 19 guineas the legacy duty would be saved. Mr. Astles mentionedT There a, but e i d . i t 9 h that if guineas. they Mr. replied that would be a very good thing. All the names and these sums were mentioned by Mr. Astles. Had no recol lection of Grice interfering. Mr. Astles mentioned in the instructions that he wished Richard Brown to take the name of Astles ; afterwards, when he executed the will, that sub ject was mentioned. Witness asked him if he had any copy hold property, and he said he had not. He desired that the legacies should he paid twelve months after his death, and, as several were minors, he wished they should be paid to their fathers or mothers. During the whole time he was giving witness these instructions he appeared to be in perfect possession of his faculties. Witness suggested that the executors should pay a part of the income for the education of the children, and the remainder to the mother till they were 21 years old, but he objected to that. In the event of the mother marrying again, and the children dying, he said he would leave his property to the charitable institutions ; but on witness suggesting that he could not leave real pro perty to them, Grice suggested that he should leave it to his heir-at-law. Mr. Astles assented. Witness then went away with these instructions. About one o'clock witness met Mr. Steel, and had some conversation with him ; after which witness proceeded to get the draft of the will-finished. The draft was here produced. Witness took the draft the same evening to Mr. Astles. Grice was there. Mr. Astles was calm and collected, and he appeared to understand the draft. When witness read him that part about Richard Brown tak ing the name of Astles and the arms, be remarked that he was not aware he had any arms. Witness explained to him that he had introduced a provision in case of Catherine Brown's death, and he said it was very right. He also said he wished the property not to go away from Richard Brown if he refused to take the name of Astles. Witness had in troduced a clause enabling the executors to let leases, and he said that was very proper. Before the reading of the draft was finished Mr. Steel came in, but he went out very soon, and witness followed him. On his return he finished reading it, and handed it to Astles for his signature. Does not re collect whether any offer was made to assist him. He signed it, remarking that any one who knew his hand would recog nise it. Witness and his clerk attested the signature. On the following morning witness applied to Mr. Steel to go with him to see a fair copy executed. Witness went to Mr. Steel with it in the afternoon, and Mr. Steel told him he was not then in a fit state to execute any document. Cross-examined.—Had known Mr. Astles for some years, and for anything witness knew to the contrary he was a man of temperate habits, but he did not know him sufficiently to give a decided opinion. Mr. Robinson hati-renounced as executor under the will, and the will had not been proved. th 6 deceasediv - as - perfectly rational. Mr. Robert Bickersteth, surgeon, of Liverpool, was next called. He stated that, in affections of delirium tremens, there were lucid intervals, and that he had taken upon him self the responsibility of advising that a will should be made in those lucid intervals. He had himself been a witness to wills made under such circumstances. It was consistent with his experience, that a will might be made within a few hours of death. In delirium tremens the delirium was upon one point only, such as fancied danger; upon all other sub jects the party might be perfectly rational. Cross-examined.—The inducing cause of delirium tremens was intemperance. It was attended with violent muscular exertion sometimes. Mr. Andrew Gillon, surgeon, of Liverpool, had been in practice twenty years, and had attended many cases of deli rium tremens. Does a great deal too much business in that way. Patients suffering from that complaint almost always have lucid intervals. During those intervals the patient would possess sufficient understanding to make a will ; and witness is at this moment executor to the will of a party who died from delirium tremens. Was present at the dictation of that will. That will was dictated during several lucid in tervals. Perfectly coincide with with the views of Mr. Bickersteth. Mr. Thomas Mayer, foreman in the office of the Manches ter Guardian, knew the late Mr. Astles, and recollected him taking a boy of Mr. Grice's to live with him at Warrington. Witness was at Warrington fair in 1836, and saw Catherine Brown's boy with Mr. Astle's. Mr. Astles appeared very fond of him, and the boy called him father. Was at Frod sham bazaar with Mr. Astles in August before his death ; saw a person named John Robinson there, who invited them to his house to tea. As they were going there, Astles called witness aside, and told him he intended to make Robinson one of his executors, Grice another, and he would introduce witness to a third before he left Frodsham, which he did. The will was then put in and read, and the instructions for it. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the court and jury on the part of the defendant. They had been told, by his learned friend, that the question would be whether or not the party of whom so much had been heard, the late Mr. Astles, had made his will with a' competent mind, and a perfect under standing of what he was doing. He was possessed of consi derable property, and from the many and complicated ways in which he had disposed of it, it would undoubtedly be neces sary that he should be of a competent understanding. He (the learned counsel) never saw a case containing so many particulars which more required to have been fully put than this—when and in which there had been more lamentable de ficiency of evidence. Three witnesses had been called for the purpose of speaking to the man's competency at the time of making the will—one of them, the attorney who made the will, his clerk, and Mr. Perrin, who had told them that the deceased was not of a capacity to make the will. Not one medical man had been called who saw the man, nor one of the servants who had attended upon him ; and from the pau city of evidence, of what they thought upon the subject, he argued that the jury had not been fairly dealt with. The learned counsel then commented on the principal topics in the case for the plaintiff, and next proceeded to detail the substance of the evidence he should call on the part of the de fendant. The following witnesses were then called : Mr. Steel examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Ise a surgeon and apothecary at Warrington. Knew the late Mr. Astles from the year 1820, and always considered him a very tem perate man. Was called in on Wednesday, the 12th ; on Thursday he was worse ; on Friday morning the servant told witness that Mr. Astles had been saying that witness should not come near him any more. Witness saw him again at 12 o'clock that day, again at 2, again at 5, and again at 7 in the evening, when he was worse. The disease then put uu thu appearance of delirium tremens, which it had not before. The witness then described the progress of -the disease till the visit at which he met Mr.-Ashton; and stated that, as he was out of the room, he heard Mr. Ashton, who was in the room with the deceased, used the words " that he should have full and discretionary power," or to that effect. The moment the witness went into the room, Mr. Ashton closed the paper, and no more was read whilst he was there. John Grice was in the room. The disease was rapidly increasing. The delirium continued from two o'clock on Saturday afternoon till the time witness left him. Mr. Astles died on Monday morning. During the three or four minutes witness was in the room, Mr. Ashton never asked witness to sign a paper. In witness's opinion, he was not in a fit state to make his will. At 9 o'clock, becoming worse, witness called in Dr. Kendrick. Witness remained with him for some time, and there was no interval from 2 o'clock on the Saturday afternoon to his death, in which he was in a fit state , to make his will. He was not in a fit state to dictate instruc tions for a will at any time that witness saw him after 2 o'clock. At nine o'clock on the Saturday night, he was not in a state length sunday o na f tuhrenwinigll whethpro erbuecewd.uulNdVbiteneasws competent to comp re h en d th e e ff ect o f an i nstrument of the s a s s t k u ed tb o e n w t i li ll e , i w t n a e s and he did not refuse. Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—If witness had known that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Astles were pre liminary to delirium tremens, he should not have ordered leeches. The symptoms of delirium tremens disclosed them selves between five and seven on Friday evening. Witness got rational answers from him sometimes, and sometimes he did nrit answer at all. Remembers John Grice saying on the Saturday morning that Mr. Astles had not made a will, and witness told him to take the opportunity of the first lucid interval to make one. Grice went with witness to fetch the attorney, Mr. Ashton, to make it. When witness returned, he re iirned, he found Mr. Astles quiet, and composed; administered morphia. Witness knew, when he heard Mr. Ashton using the words, that the executors must have full and discretionary power, he knew he was either reading a will or a draft. When Mr. Ashton came out, he said, " It's not the will I've been reading, but the draft." Witness did not say, " Well, well, get it signed and have done with it." Cannot recollect using anything like these words as it is two years since. Did not tell Mr. Ashton his opinion upon the state of Mr. Astles's health. Mr. Ashton called upon him on Sunday morning, and asked him if he would be a witness to Mr. Astles's will, as it was necessary to have a medical-man as a witness in a case like that. Witness's answer was, that he would if he were at home. Mr. Ashton called with the will in the afternoon, and then witness told him Mr. Astles was not fit to sign it, but promised, if the patient ha4.,any lucid intervals, he would let him know. Dr. Jun i& Kendrick Faid Ls was called In to the &mod t eleven o'clock on the night hf the 15th of December, end he was then by no means fit to make a will. Has known one instance of a will being made in an apparently lucid interval, which he had no recollection of afterwards. ' Anne Cash said she was barmaid to the late Mr. Astles to the time of his death. She described his illness, and said that on the Saturday night, when Mr. - Ashton was reading the will, she took off her shoes, crept up stairs, and listened - ot the door to what was going on ; Mr. Ashton read very quick, and she heard 'him say Richard Astles Brown. John Grice said that had better be altered, and she saw'Mr. Ash ton go to the table, and he appeared to alter it. She heard Mr. Astles mutter something to himself, and he called out louder, " Hey, hey." When 'Mr. Steel came in she went away. - She went in to tell them the - doctor was come, and they asked her to tell him to wait. When Itlie went in the room Mr. Astles's eyes were directed to the top of the room. and he was hiccOu'ghing and muttering, When Mr. Steel had left, she tvent and listened again ; and when Mr. Ashton had finished reading, - she heard John Grice say that Would do—it 'could not be better. She did not hear Mr. Astles Make any answer to the remark. -' Mr. - Astles was then raving, and talking to himself. Mr. Ashton then came out, and she asked him whether they were ready for his clerk to come in. Witness is now in the service of Joseph Astles, the brother of the deceased, at the sameohouse, .and in September next would have been there two years. Cross-examined.—This was the first time witness had ever come out in the character of a listener. Was certain that the name Richard Astles Brown was mentioned. . • By the JUDGE.—The business of the house was carried on during the week. _ Thomas Jackson said he lived nearly opposite to the house of Mr. Astles. At the request of Robinson, witness followed her there on the Saturday night to see Mr. Astles. He went into the bar where he found Mr. Grice. Witness said perhaps he should be disturbing. Mr. Astles, but Martha Robinson' said he could not be disturbed worse than he had been. He was hiccoughing and rambling, and mut tering to himself, and when she asked him a question, he re turned an answer which witness could not understand. He did not seem to know witness. _ This witness was cross-examined at considerable length, and his statements varied from those he had given before. William Grice was next called, and he stated that he had often heard Mr. Astles say that he was not father of the boy Brown. Saw Astles on Friday; he was rambling, and what he said was incoherent. Should not think him capable of understanding a long will. Saw him again on the Saturday, and staid with him all night. He still went on =tabling in the same way. _ _ James Hoilgkinson Beckett said, he was acquainted with Mr. Astles. He had a severe illness about eighteen months ago, and witness often pressed him to make his will.. He said there was no occasion to make it, as he had no other re lation in the world but his brother Joe. Mr. Astles called upon him one day at his house, .and.'they went into a private room together. • He then said to witness, "You have spoken to me about the disposal of my property ; and I am come to consult with you about it. I see no necessity for making a will, as I have no relations, and pnly,a feW legacies which I • , wish to leave," and be wrote them- on a sheet of foolscap paper. They were a watch to each of his godchildren who had not had it, and £2O to each on coming of age. He said, " You know I have purchased from Mr. Aston, at Prod sham, the house and land where I was born, and am build ing a house there, and thostlikely my brother Joe will take my business." He wrote a plain hand, and witness- never saw him write like the signature ,to the draft produced. Wit ness asked him whether he had not left his old sweetheart, Catherine Brown ' anything ; and he replied, " I have left her something to buy a suit of mourning. ' The boy Brown was mentioned. He said, " You know, Beckett, I disclaim that child ; and you have seen me take the Bible in my hand repeatedly, and if I was in a court of justice I would do the same, to swear he is not mine." On the Sunday following witness saw him again, at a masonic meeting ; he came late. When he was going away, he said, " Beckett, do you recol lect the conversation we had on Thursday ?" Witness said, " I do, Samuel ;" to which he replied, " For God's sake, don't forget it." This was on the Sunday before his illness. Went to his house on Saturdliy, the 15th, and was told they were making his will. Witness went up stairs to see him, and he met John Grice, who told him he could not see Astles, as he was rambling, and had been for some time. Had seen the deCeased'sbrother once or twice, and always understood they were on good terms together. Witness knew John awrinson." Cross-examined.—Witness is a wine and spirit dealer, and an innkeeper. Witness had been high constable for the hun dred of Nahtwich, and had been charged with obtaining money under false pretences. An indictment was preferred against him, and it was tried at Chester in 1832, before Mr. Baron Bolland. Left the office of high constable in April, 1831. Witness was acquitted. John Furnival said he knew Mr. Astles, who said to him, after the death of his mother, " Now, John, I have buried my mother, I have nobody for my property but my brother,;' About two months before his death, Catherine Brown was in Warrington, and witness said to him, " Samuel, Kate is in town," and his answer was, he would have nothing more to do with her. Witness then asked him what he intended to do with the child which she said was his, and he replied that he should leave it the same as the rest of his godchildren. Witness saw him twice on the Friday before his death, and he was then rambling. Cross-examined. Just before this time witness had failed, and had assigned his property. John Bailey Maguire, hair-dresser, said be knew the de ceased. This witness gave similar testimony as to the de clarations of the deceased—that he intended to leave his pro perty to his brother, and that he did not consider the boy Brown to be his son. Witness was called in to shave him on Saturday, the 15th, and he was then raving. John Craike, Wm. Caldwell, of Frodsbam, and Thomas Harper, of Low-bill, gave similar testimony. Margaret Hewitt proved that she had applied leeches to Mr. Astles, and that be was very restless and rambling. Mr. Cunnah, solicitor, of Chester, acted as attorney for Joseph Astles in a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, in 1839. Witness was in Warrington in December, 1838, and saw Joeph Lamb, or Robinson, one of the lessees of the deceased, who said he would have nothing to do with the will, for there was such a squabble about it ; and if he had money of his own, he would sooner' bury it than the lawyers should have it. He should not believe Astles was in his proper senses when he saw him, but he did not say whether that was before or after the will had been.made. Witness saw John Grice the same evening, and in said he 4could give £5OO to have the matter settled. Witness asked hint if he had anv money, and he said " No, but Mr. Ashton would find it." Cross-examined.—Witness had taken the benefit of the in it./I LII Mr. Citzsswzn, then proceeded to reply—a duty which occupied the learned counsel about an hour. The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that the main question for their decision was, whether the testator had a lucid interval when he made the will. The learned Judge went over the evidence at great length, and concluded his ad dress at eight o'clock. The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, thus establishing the validity of the will. The trial lasted upwards of ten hours. The court adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock. CROWN COURT, --SATURDAY John Williams, aged 30, was indicted for having, at Great Bolton, on the 28th March, feloniously uttered a forged £5 note of the Bank of England. Mr. Huvrox stated the case, and called Mary Child.—The prisoner cane to our shop, and said he would buy a leg of mutton it I would change a£s note. I said I could, and sold him the mutton, giving him £4 145...9d. out. We had no other £5 note in the shop at the time. The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length, and she admitted that she said to the policeman, when he afterwards apprehended him, " Look well at the man, for he will look different in the morning." She also admitted that the policeman said, ." Don't be afraid : if you are sure he is the man, you will be all safe." To questions from the Judge, witness said that the impression of the police-officer was not elicited, by any doubt she had expressed as to the identity of the prisoner. Re-examined.—l never had any doubt that the prisoner was the man. By the JUDGE.-We had candles burning when the pri soner' bought the meat. William Child, the husband - of the last witness, received the note from her, and took it, on the following Wednesday, to the bank, to ascertain whether it was good. Brought it back, and locked it into the drawer, after marking it. It was afterwards given to Mr. Barton. of the police. Mr. Barton produced the note, which was marked. A gentleman belonging to the hank pronounced the note to be a very bad one, neither bank paper nor bank engraving. Sarah Roberts, who kept an inn, said that a man had come to her on the 3d of April, and asked her for change for a £5 note for a person named Monk. She thought it was not good, and demurred. Ile'got possession of it, stating that he would go to a neighbour's and see if it was good. Wit ness followed him, and saw that, in place of going to'that neighbour's, finding himself watched, he ran off. She cried, " Stop thief !" The witness described the note as being similar to that produced in thickness and in portions of the printing. The prisoner .was brought back by a man who pursued him. She was sure he was the man. A,man heard Mrs. Roberts cry, Stop thief!" and pur sued the prisoner. He ran him through several streets and entries, and he finally captured him in a yard, at the top of a passage. He was out of breath. Nothing was found. Fie was given into custody. A police-officer detailed some conversation be had had with the prisoner, in which the latter made admissions that be had done wrong, and appeared to intimate that he had swallowed the second note. Mr. Monk, a tripe-seller, stated, that he did not know the prisoner, and never sent him for change. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. The learned JUDGE said, that the offence of which the prisoner was convicted was of a heinous nature, inasmuch as it went to materially injure persons in humble life. Formerly the offence would have subjected him to Capital punishment ; Mit the present law was more lenient. It was necessary, however, to visit it with severity, and the sentence of the oourb woo, that ho ohould be tianSpOrtca tv ouch settlement as her Majesty, by advice of her Privy Council, should think fit, for the term of ten years. PASSING A"FORGED BILL Thomas Healey, aged 45, stood indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously forged, offered, disposed of, and put off a bill of exchsnge, for the payment of £5O, with intent to defraud John Dunning and Thos. Hemmingsley, the accused knowing the same to be forged. The case was entirely devoid of interest. The jury I eturned a verdict of Not Guilty. FELONIOUS POSSESSION OF GOODS William Heys, a grey headed old man of 65 years of age, was charged with having received and had in his possession twenty yards of cloth, one cloak, and one cape, the property of John Wood. In this case also a verdict of Not Guilty was returned by the jury. _ There was another indictment against the prisoner, but the trial was deferred until Monday. EXTENSIVE FORGERY. Alfred Sidebottom ' 34, stood indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously forged an order for the payment of money, purporting to be the order of one' James Buckley, upon the Bank of Manchester, for IVA and with having feloniously uttered the same knowing it to be forged. The prisoner, a good-looking man, genteelly dressed in black, was a bleacher at the Garret Works, Manchester. Dr. BROWN stated the case, and called Wellington Ainscough, who said—l was in the service of the prisoner in July last. On the 25th of that month he gave me a check for £6OO, and told me to take it to Mr. Blomily, and borrow £l5 upon it. It was on a Saturday. I took the check. My master wanted the money to pay wages with. I got the money from Mr. Blomily and left the check. My master told me to say that it was past bank hours, and he could not get the check cashed. • Mr. BRANDT (for the prisoner) cross-examined the wit ness.—Mr. Sidebottom only told me to show him the check. He (Mr. B.) said nothing, but gave him the money. When I returned back, my master said, " You should not have left the check ; you should only have shown it." Re-examined.—l have been in the gaol to see the prisoner, in company with Mr. Taylor, his attorney: It was'on Mon day last. One of the keepers was present with us. Mr. Joshua Blomily, grocer and flour-dealer, in Chorlton on-Medlock, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He lent the £l5 and received the check. He sent for the money several times during the week, but did mit get it. I took the check from the Bank of Manchester, and it was afterwards given to the police. Cross-exannined.—The premises rented by the prisoner are large. The rent may be five or six hundred a-year. James Buckley, being sworn, said, I reside at Queekhead, Sadd'worth. I fun the prisoner's uncle. I never went an account with the Bank of Manchester, I did . not sigr. this check. Cross-examined.--The writing does not resemble mine in the least. The prisoner married my niece. She will not receive a large sum on my death, unless I leave it to her in my will.___ John Wood, cashier of the Bank of Manchester said, that no one named James Buckley had any account with the bank. A person of that name did bank there three years ago. The signature. to this check does not at all resemble that of the James Buckley who banked with us. The prisoner once banked with us, but closed his account about three months ago. _ _ - James Buckley, of Tintwistle, in Cheshire, an innkeeper, said, he had formerly banked with the Bank of Manchester. That cheek is not signed by me. Edward Frank Hall, of Manchester, a traveller, said, on Tuesday, the 21st July, I was at the Garratt Works Inn. The prisoner was there. He asked the landlord to take a glass, and said, " Perhaps your friend (witness) will take one." He afterwards said, he believed he had not money to Pay for them, unless the landlord could give him change for a £6OO check, which he produced. The landlord did not change it. The prisoner afterwards asked witness if he knew the signature. Witness said he did not. Prisoner said, he was his uncle, and that he had taken it to the bank, but they would not cash it, as his uncle had dated it on a Sunday. Archibald M`Mullin, of the. Manchester Police, a'ppre hended the prisoner on Saturday, the Ist of August. He was told, that the charge against him was, that he had sent a forged check to Mr. Blomily and had obtained £l5 upon it. He said, he had sent a. check, and admitted that that pro duced was the same. He said, he had it sent to him from a person in London, named James Buckley, who was going into partnership with him. Witness asked him where Buckley resided. He said, he,did not know, but he was to direct his letters to him at the Magpie and Stump, Fetter lane. He was asked to produce the letter that the check came in, and he looked in his pockets for it but could not find it. He said it was probably in his counting-house. He was taken into custody. A number of letters was brought from his place, at his own request. Witness looked over them with him, but found none with the signature of James Buckley. Witness took him into custody. He said, he had written to Buckley, at the Magpie and Stump, blowing him up for dat ing the check on Sunday. Mrs. Hannah Hart, landlady of the Magpie and Stump, said, she had been in that inn for seven months, and no per son named James Buckley had asked for or received any let ters during her time. Mr. BRA.NDT, for the prisoner, considered it improbable, that a person in his station, having extensive premises, and a business which, if, pursued, would have led to .honourable emoluments, should be so foolish as to run the risk of ruin and disgrace for the sake of a paltry £l5. He commented on the whole of. the evidence, and urged that the prisoner had had some communication with a person named James Buckley, who was negociating with him for a partnership, and that this man had signed the check, and, by giving it to ,the prisoner, had made him his victim. He argued that, be ing so signed, thtrugh by a dishonest person, it was not a forgery, and implored the jury to give the case the most fa vourable, consideration which the circumstances and the pro babilities would permit. The learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury retired. On their return, they gave a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was put down, to receive sentence hereafter. The old man, William Heyes, was again brought up, on a second charge against him ofstealing a - hat ; but the case was so trifling that no evidence was tendered against him, and he was consequently found Not Guilty and discharged. The court adjourned at five o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. ~-THE QUEEN V. PRENTICE AND ANOTHER, This was a criminal information against Archibald Prentice and William Cothran, printers, publishers, and proprietors of the Manchester Times newspaper, at the suit of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, Bart., of Hindley Hall, near Wigan, for libel. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the prosecu tion ; Mr. Prentice appeared for himself and his partner. Mr. COWLING having opened the case, Mr. CRESSWELL rose and said, he had the honour to ap pear as counsel for Sir R. H. Leigh, who had instituted this prosecution against the defendants for publishing of him that which he felt, and that which every man must feel,- to be a grievous libel, imputing to him great misconduct, which, if true, would render him unworthy of the situation he occupied in society, and expose him to the animadversion and to the contempt of the public. Sir Robert Holt Leigh was now a baronet, far advanced in years, residing at Hindley Hall, near Wigan. He possessed considerable property in that neighbourhood, and, formerly, he had represented that bo rough in parliament for a period of twenty years. In the latter part of his life he had acted as one of the trustees for a free grammar school, established for a long series of years in Wigan, and it was in the capacity of one of those trustees that this libel was published of him in the paper issued to the world by the defendants. He said, that it was published of Sir Robert Holt Leigh in that capacity, and not that the transactions mentioned in it took place at a period when Sir Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee, although, in one of the let ters he (the learned counsel) should have occasion to bring before the jury, it was imputed to him that he did. Of all the imputations that could be cast upon a gentleman in the position Sir Robert Holt Leight occupied, one of the most grievous and mischievous was that of malversation in the office of a trustee of a charitable estate. He (the counsel) did not know anything more calculated to excite and set one class of society against another, _than to impute to the higher and more wealthy, who commonly acted as trustees for public charities, that they were guilty of malversation in that office, and that they appropriated to their own use and profit those funds which ought to be devoted to the proper objects of the charity. He should now proceed to point out the libels pub lished by the defendants, and of which Sir Robert Holt Leigh complained. It was evened in the information, that there was a free grammar school in Wigan ; that an act of parliament was passed, at a certain period,- for regulating the affairs of that school. These two facts must be proved as preliminary matters. It was said that the libels in question were published respecting .the school, respecting the act of parliament, and respecting Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He (the learned counsel) would, therefore, introduce before the jury evidence to prove that there was such a school; he should lay before them the act of parliament which was referred to, and which was made evidence by, a clause in it, and the court would see, by that, that a certain number of trustees were thereby incorporated to take charge of the affairs of the school, and that certain powers were given them to dispose of a por tion of the property of the school, under certain limitations and provisions. The act of pailiautout was pacsocl iu 1812, ttLY - Caft ,' nStr -s akeli l i!iia l ce - whitTi'vas - niaite — the abjed - of attack upon Sir R.,H. Leigh. The articles he was about to read were published by the defendants in their newspaper. The learned counsel then read the article in which one libel appeared, and called particular attention to the following passage :—" Whose fault was it that the school was sot long since made more generally useful? Let the report of the commissioners upon public charities answer. Paid R. Grim show, for the purpose of alienating the school property .and promoting the interests of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, £951." Thus directly imputing to the plaintiff, that, by a job of the vilest character with the trustees he had obtained a portion of the school property for the advancement of his own pur poses, and not for the promotion of the interests of the school. The learned counsel proceeded to read the remaining part of the alleged libel, and also called attention to this passage : " Do the public expect that any good will be derived from the interference of Sir R. H. Leigh ? Is it reasonable to look for anything from him who has been the only gainer by a previ ous act of alienation of the property of the school ?" Thus imputing to the plaintiff such conduct in a transaction with the trustees, in 1813, under the act of Parliament, that now no good could be looked for from him, for be was disgraced by it. Perhaps the Jury might be told, that this was not an attack upon the plaintiff, but upon the governors of the school. What was it but an attack upon the plaintiff leading the pub lic to, expect that no good could be expected from him, he having been,guilty of so much misconduct with regard to the property of the trust? This article was.published on the 16th November, 1839. It would seem, that, between that time and the 30th of November, some communication had taken place between the parties, either directly or indirectly ; for, in the Manchester Times, of the 30th November, we found ' this article. The learned counsel then read a letter, addressed to the editor of the paper, signed " Your Reporter," con fessing that fact; and inference had been improperly com bined in the article in the previous paper, that he ought to have stated, that the sum of £951 was paid for obtaining a bill authorizing the disposal of a certain part of the property of the school. the writer then apologized for this uninten tional misstatement, and concluded his letter by stating, that the funds of the school were sufficient to effect twelve times a greater amount of good than had been effected. Here (the learned counsel proceeded) the " Reporter" admitted, by that which was offered as an excuse, that he had not quoted correctly, as he affected to do, from the Commissioners' Re port, that the abbreviation was for the purpose of promoting the interest of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. According to the first publication, he quoted from the Commissioners' Report ; and his affected apology in the second was, that the commis sioners did not state that management to be for the sale of the property. What excuse did he make? What explana tion or retraction of the charge ? None. He left the matter as it was before. Again, the jury would find,, in another part of the same paper, of the 30th of Nov., another article uppeared, purporting to come from " An Occasional Reader," and they would observe how artfully it was written to make it supposed that the writer was a political friend of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, but that, on the affairs of the school, he was op posed to him. In this letter there was this passage :—" In your last week's paper you showed us what, good may be ef fected : a large sum of money was squandered on lawyers' bills in getting an act of Parliament to ,enable the trustees to sell the best part of the sch6ol property to one of themselves." Here, then, was the "Reporter's" excuse, and this letter of " An Occasional Reader" making charges worse than the other. This last letter, then went on to describe some meet ing of the trustees, and what passed at that meeting. The learned counsel having commented on this letter, observed, that these constituted the, libel of which the plaintiff com plained. The learned counsel', in conclusion, explained, that the plaintiff had resorted to the remedy of a criminal • infor mation as the best means of clearing his character from the imputations thus thrown upon it. The rule for it was made absolute ; the record was brought down to Liverpool to be tried, charging thg defendants wia, at the libels, and the only question for the jury would be, whether they contained that which was an imputation calculated to injure, to degrade, and to disgrace the plaintiff. Mr. Wall, a clerk from the Stamp-office, proved that the de fendants were publishers of the Manchester Times, and the publication of the paper containing the alleged libel was ad mitted. Mr. John Thompson, an iron -merchant, in Wigan, said he knew the prosecutor, Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He resided at Hindley Hall. Sir Robert was, for many years, member of parliament for Wigan, but now he lived retired. The ar ticles in the Manchester Times related to Sir Robert Holt Leigh. - Cross-examined by the defendant.--Sir Robert Hoit Leigh acts as a trustee to the Wigan Free Grammar School, but wit ness does not know when he commenced acting. A copy of the act of parliament, authorising the alienation of the lands in question, was then put in. It named and in corporated the trustees at• the time it was passed : the name of the plaintiff did not appear among them. The alleged libels from the papers of the lith and 30th of November, were then put in and read by the Clerk of the Court. Mr. CRESSWELL said, this was the plaintiff's case. Mr. PRENTICE submitted, that no case at all had been made out. His lordship would observe, that the publication of the two papers from which the alleged libels had been read had not been proved. The JUDGE.--I understand you to admit that. Mr. CRESSWELL.—CertainIy, my lord. Mr. PRENTICE said, he merely adinitted that he and his partners were the publishers of the Manchester Times, but not that they had published the two papers ;low produced. Mr. CRESSWELL cited the act 6th and 7th George IV., chap. 4, sect. 76, as disposing of this question. The JUDGE said, it was certainly necessary, before pro ceeding against a newspaper publisher, to prove that he sold the paper in question. Mr. PRENTICE contended that the plaintiff was bound to prove the publication of the two papers he had produced. If he did not, he might, for any thing he (Mr. P.) knew, have brought them for the express purpose of bringing some other charge against him. The JUDGE said that what he bad taken down was this, that the defendants admitted they were the publishers of the papers in question. Mr. PRENTICE.—I admitted I am the publisher and pro prietor of the paper, but I did not admit the publication of these particular papers, because I wished to crpss-examine the person who was to prove it. The JUDGE.—What is it that you do admit Mr. PRENTICE repeated what he had maid before. The JundE said le would leave the question to the jury. Mr. PRSNTICE.-Will• your lordship take a note of the objection The JUDGE said he would, as follows :—The defendants object that there is no evidence that they have published the two papers in question. - They admit themselves to be the publishers of the Manchester Times, but say there is no proof that these two papers are the Manchester Times. I over rule the objection, and leave the question to the jury. Mr. CRESWELL.—Your lordship has a copy of the certi- ficate from the Stamp-office. The JUDGE.—Yes. Mr. PRENTICE then proceeded to address the court and jury. He was not at all surprised that Mr. Cresswell should have been anxious to prevent their hearing that rigmarole read, which either he or some of the lawyers in the Case had contrived to put in the bill of indictment preferred against ltim and his partner. He was sure, when they heard it, they must have asked themselves what it had to do with the case between Sir- Robert Holt • Leigh' and the publishers of the Manchester Times. Some of them might think he was taking something like a lawyer-like objection, with regard to the publication of these alleged libels ; but he had not taken it to prevent the, case coming before the court, but because he ex pected he should have an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Gaskell's clerk, who purchased the papers, and who, he expected, , was to have proved the publication of them this day. He had been deprived of that advantage, and he had now no opportunity of proving the truth' of anything he might say. All the explanation he could give must be given by himself; but, at the same time, he could not but think that he should have had all the advantage the court could give him. He had, therefore, to complain that evidence had been withheld from the court, and that the other - side had taken care not to produce witnesses who could prove any thing. The witness they had brought from Wigan did, not prove that Sir Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee of the school, but only his belief that he was; and, consequently, the court and jury had no means of judging of that part of the alleged libel. He should ask the court to lay before the jury the information upon which he was indicted. It was a very ex traordinary document, and he could not imagine upon what ground it was called an information. He supposed it must be upon the same principle that the gentlemen behind him called their briefs brief because they were not brief ; anc that, therefore, this was called an information because ii contained no information. It had been found convenient to keep information out of it, which information as it was im portant to him should have been given. He should, there fore, have to show them what it contained and what it did not contain ; and, he believed ) they would find that what it did not contain was vastly more important than what it did contain. The reason why he appeared himself was, that this had been such a vexatious, troublesome, and expensive pro secution ; he had been so troubled, vexed, and angered with it, that he was determined not to pay a single farthing more, and not to spend the little money he had in getting up a case. He had,,therefOre •himself come before a jury of his countrymen, knowing that Englishmen altVays looked more to the judgment of their own conscience than to the elo quence of, the advocate. Me. Cresswell had been exceed ingly magniloquent about the way in which the plaintiff had proceeded : he (Mr. Prentice) had observed, that whatever course was adopted in cases of this kind, the lawyers were always ready to argue it was the best. The learned counsel said that the plaintiff had not brought this action for dama ges, because he did not wish to put money into his pocket by means of his character. The learned counsel talked on this subject as if it were necessary that Sir Robert Holt Leigh should put any damages that he might obtain into his own pocket. He might, for instance, if he were above re ceiving pecuniary compenSation for the injury done to him, have presented it to the school of which he was a trustee. There was, therefore, nothing in this part of the learned counsel's argument. Mr. Prentice then proceeded to show the disadvantage he was under by the mode of proceeding, and to contend that, if another had been adopted, by which evidence could be called, the whole of the facts in the case would have been elicited. The affidavits of Sir Robert Holt Leigh and Mr. Gaskell certainly contained the truth, but they did not contain the whole truth, which would have been elicited if he (Mr. Prentice) had had an opportunity of cross examining them. Mr. CRESSWELL said, the defendant might put these affi davits in. Mr. PRENTICE intimated, that he would put them in. He had always admitted, that Sir R. H. Leigh paid the full price for the estate : lie had always been willing to publish that, but this willingness to make this acknowledgment had not stopped them from proceeding with this troublesome pro secution. There was no charge of anything unfair on the part of the plaintiff. What the reporter had said—for the court would recollect that none of these things were his own production —was, that he imputed no fraud to Sir R. H. Leigh, but that it was an improper act, on the part of the trustees, to pay £951 for obtaining the act of parliament, and that, therefore, they were not so much promoting the interests of the school as the convenience and pleasure of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. Nothing dishonourable was imputed to Sir Robert Holt Leigh, but only mistaken policy, on the part of the trustees, in alienating any part of the property. Sir R. H. Leigh was an honourable man; and he ('Mr. Prentice) wotild declare his conviction that a full price had been paid for the estate ; but his affidavit of that did not justify him in declaring, as he did in the information, that everything the defendants had said about him was false, malicious, and done at the instigation of the devil. The jury would observe, that the whole sum and substance of the alleged libel was a mere inference on the part of the reporter, that it was not for the interest of the grammar school for any part of its property to be alienated, and that the reporter had taken an opportu nity of declaring in the letter just read, that he had made a mishap. Yet, all this was charged upon him (Mr. Prentice) as a false, malicious, and scandalous libel. Did it not strike the jury as very strange, that the information should suddenly stop at the very point where the reporter , apologised for hav ing mixed up fact and inference. The reporter apologised to the plaintiff,,to the public, and to the proprietors of the paper for the mistake. Again he would ask, did it not strike the jury as very strange, that the "information" should sud denly cease at the time they wanted information ? Here he felt the difficulty he was under of nothaving an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Gaskell's clerk, because he would have proved, that the defendants offered to make any repara tion in their power. However, they wereto bethe judges whe ther the publication had been proved, and of the hardship he was under of not being able to prove the preliminary part of the proceedings. The "information" took for granted that all reparation had been refused, and that he (Mr. Prentice) had obstinately refused to give the name of the author. Mr. Prentice was about to read Mr. Gaskell's affidavit, but the judgolield that 'it had no relevancy , t te hi rt , stion. Mr_ under, and to state that he had written to Air. Gasi v e a ll otrel ing to make any reparation. Mr. Gaskell, therefore, was his witness to furnish him with all the facts, and all those facts he could establish. He (Mr. Prentice) was, therefore, now in the situation of being prevented from having the evi dence fully sifted, because this case was taken out of all the rules of the court, and came before the jury not under any statute, but judge-made law. He would now proceed to ex amine the indictment against him. In it was contained all the documents that had been read ; and they would recollect, that, if they found hint guilty of one part of it, they would find him guilty of all. This precious document—this most beautiful instance of the folly which still lurked about courts of justice, contained four counts. Mr. Prentice then pro ceeded to examine these counts separately, but we have not space to give his speech. He told the jury, that they must take the indictment, look its averments carefully over, and, before they , pronounced him guilty, satisfy themselves that all the counts were proved. They were sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence ; and could they, upon the evidence now produced, pronounce him guilty ? They had not to find, simply, that a libel had been printed, but that it was a false, malicious, and scandalous libel, and that every word therein charged was .false, scandalous, and malicious, It might be said, that, if this doctrine were acknowledged, a loop-hole would be made whereby any man who had libelled another might escape. "That, however, the jury could not consider; the fault of that lay in the practice, and ought not to be iiSited'upon the defendants. He concluded by a strong appeal to the con'sc'iences of the jury to give their verdict according to the evidence before them. The speech of the defendant occupied about forty minutes in the delivery. The learned JUDGE then addressed the jury, pointing out the principal question for their decision. The jury withdrew to consider their verdict, and after an absence of a quarter of an hour they returned and pronounced the defendants Guilty. BUTTERWORTH V. WADE AND OTHERS This was an undefended action. A. verdict was of course returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £l2O. TINKER V. WAGSTAFF. The parties in this case reside in Ashton-under-Lyne. The plaintiff was tenant to the defehdant, and the action was brought to recover damages for an excessive distraint. Ver dict for the, plaintiff, damages £65. MORRIS V. SPEED AND ANOTHER. In this case, which was of no public interest, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £270. • TVII.ELL V. TOLLEMACRE. This was an action against the Sheriff's of Cheshire for a false return to a writ against the goods of a party named Brit tain, against whom execution had been obtained. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. Several undefended causes were afterwards disposed of, and the court adjourned about half-past five. CROWN COURT.—MONDAY His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. This was one of those cases which have recently been so common, in which a man met his death from rough fighting. The prisoner, a stout low-set man, aged 30, was indicted for having killed George Crumby, in this town, on the 3d ofMay last. Mr. Cardwell conducted the prosecution. • It appeared that the prisoner cohabited with the sister of the, deceased, Catherine Crumby, otherwise Catherine Win ter. On Saturday night or Sunday morning, the 2d - or 3d of May, the deceased and the prisoner met at the house of the prisoner's brother in Jordan-street, where they had some liquor. It was stated that the deceased was exceedingly cross with the prisoner, on account of the loose life which his sister was leading. The prisoner sent for a pint of rum, and encleavnnved tp appease the , wrath of the deceased, but - us they became more intoxicateu the rury of Crumby increased, till at length when they went out to go home. the deceased said to the prisoner, who lodged with him, " if you come home to-hight I'll have your life or you shall have mine. Soon after Crumby got home, the prisoner entered the house, where the deceased knocked him down. The prisoner was at first reluctant to fight, but at length, he was exasperated to it, and they rushed at each other. Several violent blows and heavy falls ensued on both sides, and at length the pri soner struck the deceased a blow which felled him to the earth, and he never again stirred or showed signs of life. The police were called in, and a surgeon was sent for. The officers found both the prisoner and the deceased stripped to the waist, the prisoner intoxicated. The surgeon, Mr. Hutchinson, stated that C rum b y was qu i te dead when he ar rived. He made a post mortem examination, of the body, and found many signs of h eavy bl ows beneath the scalp, and effusion of blood at the base of the brain. The jury consulted together ,about half a minute and ac quitted the prisoner. MANSLAUGHTER. James Potter, a decent-looking man, aged 53, was charged with having, on the 29th of April last, at Prescot, caused the death of John Berry, by striking, &c. Dr. Brown conducted the prosecution. The deceased was a brickmakere and, he worked under the prisoner at the brick-fields near Prescot. On the morning of the 29th of April, the prisoner went to Mrs. Hewitt's public-house, which was near the brick-fields, as was in ferred, for the purpose of finding the deceased, who was sitting there drinking. The prisoner asked the deceased why he was not at his work. The deceased, who had had some ale, called the prisoner " a d—d old scut," and said he would not work for him any more, as he had not paid him for what he had already done. The prisoner struck the deceased a blow on the cheek, which the latter returned by another blow, and immediately " collared the prisoner fast." A struggle ensued, and the prisoner got the deceased down, and kneeled upon him, pressing him violently with his knees, but whether this were done purposely, or whether the prisoner was pulled down in that position, could not be accurately de termined. The deceased after this went to a surgeon, and told him that he had a pain in his side; which he accounted for by saying that he had fallen over a stool. A fortnight after, the prisoner called again upon the surgeon, and coin plained of being very ill. The surgeon then examined him more particularly, and found that the second and third ribs were broken. The surgeon found that he was in considerable danger, and the deceased himself ntlw became convinced that his case was hopeless. He died on Saturday, the 23rd May, having previously made a deposition which was taken down in writing in the presence of the. prisoner. The surgeon made a post•mortem examination, and found that the Immo• diate cause of death had been inflammation of the lungs, pro duced by pressure of the ribs on the fractured lungs. The. deceased was a man of bad constitution. His lungs were unsound, and the surgeon was of opinion that the same fatal result would not have occurred in a man of a good habit of body. The lungs were very extensively diseased, inde pendently of the injuries from the ribs. The surgeon had" attended him during two years, and be had had considerable difficulty in getting over the two preceding winters. It was the surgeon's impression that he would not have survived many months even if he had not received any injury. The deposition of the deceased gave a more circumstantial detail of the quarrel and the fight. His statement was that when struck hi fell over a bench. The prisoner called a witness named. Richard Hornby, who detailed the circumstances of the fight without any material deviation from the facts stated for the prosecution. . _ The jury found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP said he would take into consideration the provocation which the prisoner had received. Sentence, 3 months imprisonment and hard labour in the House of Correction, at Kirkdale. CUTTING AND STABBING Philip Malone, aged about 36, was charged with having, in this town, on the 9th August, inst., cut, stabbed, and wounded David Mooney. Mr. Buds and Mr. Buss for the prosecution ; Mr. WILKINS for the defence. On the night of Saturday the Sth inst., the prisoner and Mooney were playing at cards and drinking together at a public-house in Toxtett-park. On their way home, between twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, they had some altercation about the game which they had been playing. Both were intoxicated, and as the prisoner had won some money from Mooney the latter said—" If I had won so much money as you have from a friend, I would return him the half of it." At length they came to blows, and after a scuffle both came to the ground. A policeman went up, dispersed the crowd, and sent the com batants home. The prisoner had been at another public house that night, and had a scuffle with another person who played at cards with his brother. He swore, however, that he had not,. " to the best of his knowledge," encountered any other any after he left the prisoner. A wan, named M'Allister, who saw the scuffle, endeavoured to separate the parties and received two stabs in his thigh. As Mooney was going home he found himself very faint, and that blood was dripping from him. He sat down upon some steps and became nearly insenstble. In this state he was found by the police-officer, about half-past two o'clock on Sunday morn ing. When the prisoner was taken into custody a penknife with two blades was found in his possession. The wound was described by the surgeon as superficial and not dan gerous. There were eight or nine wounds, one of which was across the nose. The surgeon was of opinion, from the 'thickness of cloth cut through, that the penknife found on the prisoner was not the weapon with which the wounds were inflicted. _ _ _ While Mr; Wilkins was doing' all he could for the defence of the prisoner the latter was, in dumb show, threatening vengeance against the witnesses who had appeared in support of the prosecution. With a most fierce aspect, looking at Mooney, his brother, and M'Allister, he clenched his fist and repeatedly threw it out from him towards them, as if to indicate how he would punish them if he were near them. He was repeating these actions still more vehemently, when he was restrained by Mr. Davenport, his attorney, and by Mr. Wilkins, who, however, saw only a few of hia.ges tures. _ _ _ Mr. WILKINS impressed upon the jury that there was no evidence that the prisoner had inflicted the wounds upon the prosecutor. The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted the prisoner. MANSLAUGHTER William Montgomery, aged 24, was charged with having, at Salford, in May last, killed Daniel Wall. Mr. Bratidt conducted the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins the defence. On Saturday, the 25th of May, shortly after midnight, the deceased, Wall, was passing, in company with a man named James Leach and two young women, Ann Fox and her sister, froffi 'Salford, by the New Bailey Bridge, into Manchester. As they approached the bridge they saw the prisoner standing with a woman. The deceased, with Ann Fox, was walking first, and Leach and the other young woman were walking behind, and as they came up to the prisoner he violently struck the woman to whoffi he was talking; Wall said, "If yOu were a man you' would not strike a female in that manner." The prisoner cursed him, and asked him what it was to him. Wall said, "it is something—and if I had been Op at the time I would have struck you." The prisoner upon this struck Wall, and an exchange of blows ensued. The young women pulled Wall away, Leach interfered, and he also interchanged some blows with the prisoner, after which Wall, Leach, and his party made off over the bridge. The prisoner followed, passed Leach and the young woman who was with him, and placed himself face to face with Wall, and struck him in the belly. A scuffle ensued, and Wall fell, but' soon got up again, and threw the prisoner against some shutters. They again struggled for a short time, when Wall ran away, crying murder ! Leach thought at this mo ment that he saw a knife in Montgomery's hand, but he was not certain. Wall went into a house, complaining thathe was cut in the belly. This was found to be 'the case, and he was taken to the Infirmary. John Bamber, one of the witnesses for the prosecution , who had witnessed the affray from his shop door, stated, oil cross-examination, that the prisoner was very much ill used by the deceased and Leach. He never in his life saw a mall so much ill-used. The prisoner on being charged by the police-officer, with having stabbed Wall, tacitly admitted the offence, but said be had done it in self-defence. A clasp knife was found in possession of the prisoner. The officer, remarked, " I doubt this is the knife you stabbed him with. The prisoner replied, •` It is the only one I have." When the deceased was taken into the Infirmary, he was found to have two wounds just below the navel, penetrating into the, cavity of the belly. Through the right wound, a portion of the intestine protruded, and on after examination, it was found that a portion of the intestine was cut. A portion of the contents of the intestine had escaped into the cavity of the belly, and the inflammation produced by this was the cause of death. The deceased died on the fourth day. The trousers which the deceased wore were produced. There were several cuts on the front of them. Two cuts on the outside bad been torn into one, but inside one of the curs corresponded with the size of the clasp blade, as did, accord' ing to rphe surgeon, the wounds in the abdomen. Mr. Wiffirms pleaded the gross provocation which th e l prisoner had received, and contended generally that he ho acted, if he really used the knife, entirely in self defePet and that all the testimony, except that of Barnb er . NO' necessarily highly coloured, from the prejudice or the witnesses. , The jury found the prisoner guilty. A witness was called, who gave the prisoner a good chi meter, as d peaceable well disposed man. Mr. WILKINS hoped his lordship would bear in mind the strong provocation which the prisoner had received. , His LORDSHIP said the case was a very bad one indee'!' The prisoner had made a terrible use of the knife. The Po' soner might be put down, and he would consider of the sea' tence. MANSLAUGHTER James Horrop, aged 28, George Wroe , 18, and Alice Wroe, 39, were charged with having, at Manchester, in April last, killed Isaac Higham. Dr. BROWNE conducted the prosecution.—lt appeared that Higham, the deceased, lived with the p r i soner Al . .iee Wroe as her husband, though they were not marr i e d. r, went home on the night of the 24th April last, in a state intoxication, and said he would go to bed. Alice Wroe told him that he should not have any bed there that night, and she accused him of having taken her money and spent George Wroe, who was son bo Alice, lived with. them, and he also said Higham should not sleep there, as he would he master. Higham replied that he was master there, and oil° master was enough at a time. Wroe struck Higham one a two blows, and a short fight ensued. They soon gave over , however, and sat down before the fire. Shortly after Hay rop entered, and became urgent for the parties to fight itoat• Higham immediately struck Harrop, upon which the Latta: said he would not fight him in his own house, but if he woUl' go out, he would see it out with him. The moment thei r reached the street, Herron struck Higham two blows, which knocked him down, and while he was on the ground, Georg Wroe went up, and with his heavy boot knocked his tee° out. Higham got up, and went over and stood leaninf against a window, when George Wroe went over to him, en kicked him in the left side. A witness who saw the transaction from a house o il the opposite side of the street, stated t hat Higham offered ° fight Harrop " for ten bob, up or down," and that wile!! Higham was knocked down, Wroe wiant to him and kicked him several times. " as quickly as hit ; foot could go." Abuil t the third kick, Higham uttered o a exclamation of pain' When he arose, according to this w itness, Wroe continue° to strike at the deceased till he ku ocked him down into • cellar. Mrs. Wroe, it appeared, said to her son, when be was kicking the deceased, " Lay i nto him," but afterwirds she behaved with great attention t , a him, and applied 'ceche. to him. A witness, named Haz!,ehurst, said that HarroP had admitted to him that he ki eked the deceased in the mouth. Harrop denied this. Mr. Oilier, surgeon to the pc lice at Manchester strati body* the deceased was greatly bruised all o ver hi s dt, had lost three teeth. He had cl:.ed from rupture of the intell tines, which had caused intim/ nation. There was an ester nal injury corresponding to the ; rupture. The jury, after a few minute s consultation, acquitted rop, and found George Wroe 'guilty, but recommended hp", to mercy, on account of the 1 irovocation. They found A.liu` Wroe guilty, of aiding and a getting. George Wroe was sentenc ad to six months' imprisonmen t and hard labour ; and Alice Wroe to two months imprison" ment and hard labour. L 4 RCENY. Henry Andrew, a faski onably dressed young man, *Se 28, was charged with hay ing, in July last, at the Aintree race-course, stolen from aipuel Towers, a quantity of silve r money. Mr. CARDWELL condo ~ted the prosecution, Mr. WiLsitio the defence. Mary Rimmer, a servs .nt to Mr. Towers, stated that ot; Wednesday, the 15th .3 . 1 aly last, she was at Mr. Towero booth or stand, at AintO• ze race-course.- Witness _here AO' scribed the various owl 'part...lents of the stand.: She WI in the kitchen that looks i n to th e b ar . B e t ween seven a n eight o'clock in the even ing,. she saw a man with a w hit e cos' on him, from the bar, v ?}Lich was enclosed on all sides, 14 that no one could get in tide. He turned from the counter? and she saw in his hand' either a bason or a porter mug. She called out loudly, " Std p that man with a white coat on, 'f br he has stolen sornethil 1,,t7." She ran out and called, ",SWP thief !" There were atl.h a t ti me th ree or f our persons stand' ing about, but no and had a white coat on except the Ice that went out. She fol lowed him. She ran about fifty yerws She ran as fast as she could, and turned back when shefontl" that she could not cat ch him. • Elizabeth Houston stated that she was, on the day in g oes" tion, serving in Mr: Towers's front bar. She saw the Pry' soner in that ,place several times during the day. The mond was kept in earthen Jowls under the counter. One was kel/ for shillings and h a If- crowns , anot h er f or s i xpences, e t another for copp er ., B e t ween seven an d e i g h t o ' cloc k BD ' missed one (if the h owls. The prisoner was standing at the counter, directly oR posite to where the money was place d ' She saw hirr i before money was gone, and did not see hip after. She ceased t , a see him the moment the call of". sto r thief " was 'aeard. !The prisoner had on a white coat, a blac stock, and a small-1 triped waistcoat. There was no one the booth in a whi to coat but the prisoner, and only tvie other perso as altogether, and they had come in with him. Mr. Sam uel Tow( !rs, jun., son to Mr. Tower s , the prosecutor, corr oborated the above evidence as to seeing the Pr . : soner standing at the bar, close to where the money ' lll ' placed. _ _ Mr. Sam ael Towers, sen., further corroborated the testi; moray of S. trah Ilmiston. The boson was about 1 fOot inches fron r the top of the counter. It contained shoo° twelve pour. cis. He served the prisoner several times during the day. Ile had on a light-coloured coat. David Al isworth, police 469, deposed that he apprehende d the prisoner on another charge, which was dismissed by S r ; Rushton, a ad as thr prisoner answered the description OP was given t( r him of the man that had robbed Mr. Tovierl' he sent Mr. Towers word. Mr. WIL Ki NS addressed the jury at great length on bebnl f of the prisoner, ands ailed Thomas Collett, butcher of OW hall-street; Patrick Miller Smith, butcher ; Thomas Hari butcher, an I partner with Thomas Collett; who swore Tn a 4 the prisoner wore ada rk blue sur t ou t on the Wednesday O A ( Thursday ; t hat he di d not wear a white coa t on e ither r these days ; and that .he was f requen tly i n M r . Tower on the Thurt ;day, the day a ft er th e ro bb er y w as com micr. 4 ::, It came out , on cross-exami na tio n , th a t th e prisoner so what is coma only tern led " a sporting character." The jury rr. ;turned a 'verdict of not guilty. The court 0 1 ' at ten o'clock V 3! In ( l ea ti v 8y ath] ban tha par ma ar, Froi bar bee Tno the pre