The Northern Daily Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-07-21 00:00:00

THE LEEDS POISONING CASE. TRIAL OF WILLIAM DOVE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS THIRD DAY'S (FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.) [The following evidence for the defence was adduced after our parcel had been despatched.] Mr. Jenkins : I am one of the senior Masters of the Col lege, at Madras. I knew very little of Dove before he became a suitor of my sister. I saw him several times before I went to Madras, on the 20th July, 1854. From my knowledge of them both they lived affectionately, some times marked by intense and foolish affection—intense in ardour and foolish in its tone, more like ihe fondling of children. I went over to my brother-in-law a few months after they had been married. She came to me, and told me of a dreadful circumstance—that he had a pistol, and was acting strangely. I went to Bramhall Moor. My sister spoke. to me, and introduced the subject as quietly as sbe c?.utd, and said that William had a pistol. I said, what does he ask for it ? I believe he stated lie gave 60s , and I gave the same. They had not been very long married before I was disgusted with his insanity. This was what I beard. I found him invariably incoherent in his ideas. There was scarcely a subject upon which his ideas were coherent. * When I was at the farm he talked about clearing £7OO at the end of the year out of 80 acres. His character was altogether impulsive. Sometimes he was elated, sometimes miserably depressed. His character was altogether of an impulsive kind. He appeared to be most religious, read portions of Scripture, and often sang hymns. I have heard of my sister's death, and the symptoms of it. If I had not heard of Palmer's case, I should have believed her to have die,i in one of the extreme fits to which she was subject. Cross-examined : I had no approbation to give to my sister's marriage. She was of age, and I knew nothing of him, not even his name. My sister asked my advica about it. said I had none togive, but his family was so excellent that I saw no objection. I never thought the prisoner clever ; far from being a sensible man. I have never seen him drunken. He has never been so in my presence. He was a reprobate ; that is, he used improper language to the servants. He was sometimes depressed and sometimes elated. So am I. He was elated without any reasonable cause. Charles Hanmer : I live near Normanton, and am a schoolmaster. I was engaged as assistant teacher at a Mr. Highley's school, near Leeds, where the prisoner was. I had opportunities of observing him, as he was under my care six hours a day. I always looked upon him as of a low order of ittellent. In addition to embecility of mind, he manifested a great want of moral power; there was no resistance to evil or the indulgence of vicious inclinations. There was a certain liberality about him. On one occasion saw his father in reference to a pistol he had at school, and r;'aich I took away from him. In consequence of a Complaint made to me, I went to William Dove and said to him, " The boys say you intend to shoot your father ; is that true t" He made no answer. I said, " You shall not go home to-night unless Igo with you." I was deputed to go to him, and went to Christopher Dove and said, "I took this from your sob William, who has avowed his intention of shooting you as you come down from breakfast in the morning." He was very much shocked. My opinion now is that he was then of an unsound state of mind, and had a decided tendency to insanity. He was always at the bottom of his class. He was very frequently corrected ; he did not seem to regard it in the least ; he took fifty lashes as com placently as one. Cross-examined : I thought him insane then. I did not tell the head master that being insane, he ought not to be flogged. He was flogged by the master for incapacity when he examined morning classes. He might have re mained a year or more. I have never seen or known any thi.ng more of him since, until I saw his name in the public Mr. Richard Hiley : I keep a boarding school at Thorp Arch. I know the prisoner, who was in my school. I was led to discover his capacity after he had been with me some time. I had reason to believe he was " not altogether there." (Laughter.) He was not teachable, generally, and his conduct was bad. He appeared to be fond of mischief fet mischief's sake. His reasoning powers were extremely limited. His temper and disposition were bad. He had no idea of consequences, of which he was quite regardless. Punishment had no effect upon him. He never took it well. I paid attention to his use of religious terms, but there was no idea attached to the use of them. On one occasion he was charged with stealing drawings from his sister. He said they were his own production. I said, " sit you down and produce something like them." He tried, and presently said, " Oh, sir, I forget." I sa id, " You n ever k new ." H e was punished for that. I recom mended his father to procure him some employment in the country, and that he was not fit to be his own master. I was convinced then that he laboured under an an aberration of intellect. 1 heard he had a pistol after that, to shoot me and his father. He was expelled the school. Cross-examined : I had a large school then He did not stay a year after he had the pistol. By the Judge : There was a low cunning about hi He would not h es i tate to perpetrate his crime openly. m. I can not say whether he generally did it slyly. He had same glimmering of intellect. Rev. John Manners : I am a clergyman of the Established Church. I was principal of the Wesleyan College, Shef field, about the year 1839 or 1840, the prisoner was placed there, and remained there about a year. He was exceed ingly foolish, and seemed to partake more of the animal than of a rational nature. He would put on a sort of vacant stare. The impression upon my mind was that Dove was very different to other youths. Cross-examined : At the time he was there there might have been 150 pupils. Mr. Frankish : lam a farmer, residing at Therburn. I have been there about five years. I had a farm previously where I received the prisoner as a pupil. He remained with me five and a-half years. From what I knew then, I think now, and I was led to conclude, he was of unsound mind. While he was with me I had five or six cows and two calves, and he put oil of vitriol on the cows and on one of the calves. When I charged the prisoner with it he wanted to deny it at first, but at last he made a full confession of the truth. The reason he gave for not burning the other calf was, that it was a favourite with him. The servant came in one night, and seemed horrified and frightened, and said the cats had come in ; they were horrid sights. She said there was something on them that seemed alive. The next morning two kittens were found with their eyes burnt all around with vitriol. He said then he was very sorry for it. I also had occasion to examine the water trough, out of which the horses would not drink, and found in it a bottle of oil of vitriol. He also elevated some beasts through the agency of a beam, so that the b east rested entirely on the fore l eg . S ome of my fences were also burnt. I spoke 'to him about it, and he said he was sorry for it. I heard he went afterwards to America. There was something said by him about a tribe of red Indians. I remember one thing, he said the premises was on fire, and, pursuing him, he toak some matches out of his box, and made a fire before him which he followed, and which burnt a way through, and then the fire behind him stopped. I remember one night his staying with me after he was married, he asked his wife to play a tune. She declined because it was late. He got quite out of temper, and called for a candle. Soon after Mrs. Dove went to bed, the door was fast, and he would not open it. My wife said if he did not open it she would burst it open, and the door was opened. Next morning he aplo gised to both of us, and soon after I saw him with Mrs. Dove in his arms, and saying, " My love and my dear." During the time be was with me he used to associate with the ploughboys. I was giving him a talking to one night and often did, and next morning Mrs. Frankish told me, in Dove's presence, that he b a d sa id to her, " You ought to be th an kf u l you have a husband this morning, for I bought this knife to destroy him." Cross-examined : He brought the oil of vitriol with him when he came to my house. The burning of the fence he did not say was an accident. He had not been with me a week before I thought he was a curious lad, but I thought he might grow better. He grew worse. He was cunning, and would try to deceive you in every posssble way. Re-examined : He did not deny that he had burned the hedge designedly. I never trusted him to buy and sell for me; he was not capable of doing so. He knew very little more about farming when he went away than when he came. By the Judge : I had great difficulty in teaching him about the succession of crops. James Powell said : lam a farm labourer, and was ser vant to Mr. Frankish when the prisoner was on the farm. I was with him three years. I remember his putting a bottle of oil of vitriol in a horse trough. He attempted to stab me because I would not let him have some straw I required for the horses. If I hadn't slipped oat of the way he would have bit me. He ran at the door, but he did'nt want to hit me. I remember the hedge being on fire. The Rev. William Lo r d was then examined : I am the governor of Woodhouse Grove School, near Leeds. I know the prisoner, and have known his father forty years. I in vited him before the death of his father to give him religious instruction. I endeavoured to ascertain the character of his mind, but I could not make any impression upon his heart or his head. I could not make any impresson Mis fath er consulted me as t o what provision upon him. he should make f or hi m . At that t i me h e was not, in my opinion, capaole of di s p os i ng of property to any amount. He had not visited at my house for a considerable time, because he could never be introduced to the company without great mortification to us all. Cross-examined : I knew him before his marriage. I :vas not informed of his paying his addresses to Miss Jenkins until a few weeks after that engagement had commenced. I mentioned to her brother that I objected to him on account of his general strange conduct. He would never read, talk, or follow an action to its conclusion. When he conversed he was always irrational. I have conversed with him about farming. I can't recollect any single instance. He was not only crude in conversation, but contradictory. Re-examined : He manifested an ignorance on the ordi- nary topics of conversation. I had known him fourteen years Matthew Cooper examined : I was a farm labourer at Mr. Frankish's when Dove was theie: He confirmed the last witness. John Gibson examined : I am a tenant of a farm, and know the prisoner. He was with me as a pupil. I formed an unfavourable opinion of his mind. I was not successful in teaching him to be a farmer, He was twenty-one when he left me, and he then went to America. After his return I saw him. The Tann was taken in his father's name. I went on the farm for a few months after he had taken it. He did not farm it in a workmanlike manner. James Shandon examined : In the year 1852 I went to live with the prisoner as his servant. I Was there about nine months. There was something that attruted my attention to the state of his mind. A man was passing . they were at prayer. He asked him to come in and stop while they were at prayer. Some time after that he got a gun of his own, and used to carry it about in a most extras ordinary way. After that he had pistols, with which he alarmed the charwoman. I remember his riding too; one day he gallopped through a ford of water when his horse was in a'sweat, saying it would do them no harm, as it was cold. He also had a bull dog, and one day a man was in one of his carts, and he went with the ball dog in one hand and the pistol in the other, and pointed the pistol in the man's face. I said. " Take care what you are doing or you will shoot the man." He said. " That is what I intend." I remember being sent to Apperley f or hi m , b u t m i sse d hi m. The horse th a t he rode was cut in the leg. Crosssexamined : I have seen him the worse for liquor. Re-examined : The opinion I now entertain is that he was not of sound mind. By Mr. Overend : He was very careless with firearms. Mary Peck said : I was housekeeper at Dove's farm. He acted in a very foolish way. Ile set my Cap on fire in two instances on purpose. It was oh my head on each occasion. He threw a handful of water over me another time. I was moving at the time. He came in and said be had been waylaid by four men—suspicious characters —and he (Dove) knocked a man down. On the occasion of saying that, he loaded the gun full of powder, and placed it near a candle stick, in which was a lighted candle, Robert Tomlinson: In September, 1852, I was with the prisoner at the farm. For the first month I did not observe anything particular there, but afterwards I saw him carry his wife about on his shoulders and in his arms. H e cr i e d when they h a d a littl e bickering. I have seen him cry for nine or ten raloute'S. In September, 1853, I remember coming home, and finding my wife very much frightened. Dove had a loaded pistol, which he pointed at me. I said, " Master, what are you going to do ?" He said, " I'll blow up the whole place." I said, "Hush, hush Eventually I got it away, but before r did so he put the moss le of the loaded pistol in his mouth. I fired the pistol off as soon as I got it away. I think he was rather drunk then. After that he got a six barrelled revolver, which he carried about with him—three barrels loaded with powder and three with ball. I have seen him pull up and cut apple trees. Cross examined : I say he was not a sound minded man when he was sober. I mean that he was not a sound minded man. I can't explain it in any other way. I did not observe him particularly the first month. I an not sure that his mother blamed him for his conduct to his wife, Re-examined : There often appeared to me to be danger in the mode in which he handled the pistols—they were on full cock. I never saw any other man behave as he did. William Tomlinson : I am now a mason's labourer, and was a farm labourer. I remember the month of June, 1853. The prisoner once came to me in a field with his shoes and stockings in his hand. The next morning, at five o'clock, I found him in the granary, buried in oat sheaves. The following morning he told me he had " signed the pledge." He sent a lad also to borrow two linseed cakes, saying they would fatten the beasts by the next morning. Cross-examined : I don't know whether he had a quarrel with his wife that day. I don't believe he was drunk at that time. By the Judge : When he was sober he talked like other men. Emma Spence : I went into the prisoner's service. in December, 1853, as housemaid. I have seen him serve my mistress like a child. On one occasion I saw him with a brace of loaded pistols, which he pointed at his own mouth, and also threatened to shoot me. I would not look at him, for I thought they were going down his throat. She spoke to general violence of this nature, which she described. He has often helped her to cook and assist in woman's work. I was frightened of the man when I was there. I did not think he was a sound man. Mrs. Dove was a very jealous woman. Cross-examined : I might have remained until March, as the shooting I refer to took place in December. Emma Wilkinson : I was servant in July, 1852, to Mr. Dove, three weeks before his marriage, and six months afterwards. He did not appear to me to behave like a reasonable man. I have known him get up sometimes in the middle of the night. When he has left the house in this way he has been sober. Hannah Wilson : I was sent to Mr. Dove in December, I 1853. I was there five months. I have seen him cry like a child, and was sure that he was not right in his mind. Mr. Joseph Adams, a schoolmaster at Normanton, said I knew the prisoner, and in reference to conversations T had with him, I formed an opinion that he was of unsound mind. He told me that he had grown some black ; potatoes. He never acted like a rational man. I i ns i s t e d it was a mistake, but he said it was true. He talked r about his extensive property, which he said he should leave to Mrs. Dove. The last time he was at my house he was sober. I left him in a room for a short time, and when I came back I heard a jingling, and my impression was that he was drinking. He appeared not to be a man of ordinary prulence, and of acting in his business like other men. Cross-examined by Mr. Overend : I never saw any black potatoes. His Lordship said he had a most undeniable authority for the existence of black potatoes. William Watson: lam a postmaster. The prisoner introduced himself to me on the 29th March, 1855. He met in my class as a Wesleyan. I did not think him per fectly right. On one occasion, I have heard him converse about his property. He said he was as good as worth £5,000 then, and that he intended to be worth £20,000 before he died. When he desisted from coming he gave us notice, and assigned the noises in his house as a reason for not coming. He had got up several times in the night and had gone about the house, but could not find out what they were. The Rev. J. Woolmer, Wesleyan minister : In September, 1852, I preached at Leeds. I was in the habit of visiting Mr. Dove's family. I saw the son occasionally. I re member going there one day and finding the family in a state of great alarm. The prisoner was in the house some where with a loaded pistol, and had threatened to shoot his father and mother, and also to destroy himself. I went in search of him ; he had been in a laundry, and from there he got into a small shop adjoining, and very much alarmed a poor family there. I sent for two policemen, and he was taken away ; that act and others confirmed the opinion that he was a man of unsound mind, and ought not to be at large. From the short conversation I had with him, he seemed to be very low in intellect, and was restless. Cross-examined : In August, 1854, I saw him with the pistol. I could not determine myself that he was drunk ; his gait was perfectly steady. Sarah Furness: I live at Normanton. I remember Mr. and Mrs. Dove living next door to me. lam of opinion that, from what I saw of him, he was a man of unsound mind. He put vitriol on the cows, and cut their tails off. I have seen him wheel Mrs. Dove in a wheelbarrow. By Mr. Overend : I don't think he wheeled her more than twice. The court adjourned at seven o'clock. FOURTH DAY.-SATURDAY. CONVICTION OF THE PRISONER, AND SENTENCE OF DEATH YORK, SATURDAY NIGHT, Mr. Baron BRAMWELL took his seat at nine o'clock, when the examination of witnesses for the prisoner was resumed. John Thompson called : I am a schoolmaster at Aber_ ford. I have known the prisoner from 1853 to the pre sent. I have frequently seen him wild, incoherent, and inconsistent. He never talked rationally on one subject, but kept flying about. I have heard him speak about his journey to America. He said he had engaged with Red Indians, and had got to be their chief. He afterwards met with a bear. who caught him in its paws and endea voured to suffocate him with its breath. - He pulled a knife out of his pocket and plunged it into its bowels. On his return from the woods, after killing the bear, the Indians crowned him with laurels. One day in July 1 saw him lying on his face in the middle of the high road lead. ing to his own house. He was crying. On another occa sion I saw him on horseback. He was pricking the horse with a nail. There was a crowd of people following him, and he said he was showing them how expert 110 was at horsemanship. In the latter part of 1654 I was at his house, when he said he had given notice to quit the farm, and wished me to take it. He said he had employed the Wizard to charm the steward that he might leave him (witness) the farm. He said he believed in the power of the Wizard to control human events. One day I went with a farmer to his house to look at some sheep. The prisoner got a bottle and some liquid, and gunpowder, and began playing tricks. He afterwards shewed us some needlework, which he said was his own. I have always believed him to be a man of insane mind. Cross-examined by Mr. Bliss : He had met with the prisoner, and the Wizard stayed at a publichouse. The Wizard was talking about the formation of man. He (the Wizard) said that if he had made man, he could have done it much better, as he would have placed the calves of his le gs i n f ront, which would have prevented him knocking hi s s hi ns as ho went up a ladder. By the J u d ge : T here i s a probability of the story about the bear gbin e in t g he tr n u e e i . ghb H o e u t r o h l o d od it . in a romantic egotistical m a n a y n t n h e i r n Mr. John Noble, governor of York Castle, examined : The prisoner was brought to York Castle on the 17th of March. ,J produce a letter written by the prisoner to Harrison, the wizard. The letter was produced, and was about to be read, when Mr. Overend objected to the letter being read, in con sequence of there being no proof that it was the prisoner's handwriting. The prisoner's brother-in-law was then re-called, to prove that the letter was in the prisoner's handwriting, as also btherS which were fdund in the possession of the prisoner When he was searched in the gaol. [The letter to Harrison, the wizard, was then read by the officer of the court. The writer asked the wisard for his opinion as to whether he should get off or not, stating that he (the wizard) knew better than any one else. The letter addresssed to the devil, and another letter found in the prisoner's possession, were also read.] Examination of Mr. Noble continued : When the letters were handed to me by the gaoler, I consulted the magis trates as to what I should do with them. A copy of each he ultimately supplied both to the prosecution and the prisoner's attorney. I produce another document found on the prisoner. The document was handed in, and was about to be read when Mr. Bliss objected, on the ground that he had not tendered it in evidence. Dr. CalehWilliards, a member of the Society of Friends, examined : I am a medical practitioner in York, and one of the visiting medical officers of the Quakers' Retreat (Lunatic Asylum). I have given my special attention to cases of insanity for thirty years. I have repeatedly seen the prisoner whilst in custody 1 consider the pri soner a person of unsound mind. I have formed that opinion from what I have heard in court. I believe that murders and suicides are often the result of imitation by persons of weak intellect. The letters written by the p: ironer to Harrison, and to the devil, pr o v e t o my mind that he is insane. I believe the delusions on the mind of the prisoner, that he had sold himself to the devil, to be genuine. I believe that when the prisoner produced the bottle, the liquid and the gunpowder, referred to by a former witness, that he thought he was under the influ ence of supernatural agency. Talking about strychnia in the way he did, indicates his feeble powers of mind. I do not think the prisoner has the power of controlling his emotions and faculties. He seemed to labour under an uncontrollable impulse to injure or take life. I judge of this by his killing the cats. From all I have heard, I should say that during the week of his wife's death, the prisoner's inclination that week was to take life. lie was probably influenced by a belief in supernatural agency. He might retain the power of judging of the means to an end, and its consequences. Under this feeling, he would not have the power to resist impulse. Cross-examined by Mr. Overend : I have not expressed any strong objections to capital punishments. I do not believe them to be wrong. I never heard of an insane person taking:away life by'small doses of poison. Assum ing that the prisoner administered poison six or seven times in succession, I should not call that impulse. I should call it an uncontrollable propensity to destroy life. That state of mind might last for an hour, or a day, or a week. Ido not think that a person with such a propen sity would not know he was doing wrong. Ho might not be sensible of the punishment which would follow if he was detected, and yet have a desire to conceal what he had done. ft is one of the texts of insanity that, when an in sane man commits a crime he acknowledges it, and gives himself up to justice. The propensities of the insane sometimes come on very suddenly. I think that a man of weak habits and cruel character wishing to get rid of his wife, would be actuated by vice. I believe that a man who had admistered poison to his wife six or seven times, and prepared her friends for her death, would be actuated by vice, and not by insanity, more especially if he denied that he had administered the poison. I believe that when a man obtains a propensity to kill, which he cannot control, he becomes insane. Supposing a man entertains a notion to kill his wife for a week, or a month, and nourishes that feeling for such a time, his condition of mind at the end of that period, by encouraging such a feel might amount to a state of moral insanity. I consider that the prisoner talking about strychnia as he did, indi cated an evil power of mind. I assume that when he so talked about strychnia, he knew he had poisoned his wife. Supposing him then to have poisoned his wife, or talking about strychnia, would indicate an evil power of mind. Re examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins : I think no one can speak with certainty as to the sanity or insanity of an individual, without knowing his antecedents. Re peated acts of cruelty from youth to manhood, with the fear of special punishment are, I shall say, indications of unsound mipd. I have known lunatics in the Retreat, attempt to escape, and mature their plans for several days. Having heard the history of the prisoner, and his various and unaccountable acts, I would have no hesita tion in signing a certificate that he was a person of unsound mind, and ought to be committed to an asylum. A propensity to steal and deny the theft is an indication of insanity. By the Judge : I think that a person who nourishes a desire to destroy the life of a certain individual, is labouring under monomainia until he accomplishes his purpose. The whole system of the government of lunatics is one of moral control. Dr. Smith examined: I am a doctor of medicine, residing at Leeds, and am the proprietor of a lunatic asylum there. I have heard the evidence in this case, and I believe the prisoner to be of unsound mind. I think he was of unsound mind from the 25th of July last to the Ist of March, and that he has been insane for twenty years. By - Mr. Oyerend : I think he was able to judge right from wrong. _ Re-examined by Mr. Bliss : A man may be decidedly insane, and yet know right from wrong, and still be regardless of duty consequences. Mr. John Kitchen, a member of the Society of Friends, and the superintendent of the York Retreat, examined . I have heard the evidence in this case, and I am of opinion that the prisoner is of unsound mind. I have examined him with Dr. Caleb Williams, since his incarceration. Cross-examined by Mr. 0 verend : I have no doubt that if the prisoner committed the murder with which he is charged, he knew he was committing murder, and that if he were found:out he would be indicted and punished.: Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins : The previous life of the prisoner suggests to my mind that he was a person who would commit some deed of violence. I think he has been mad all his life. A Juror: Do you adopt the theory of Dr. Williams as to irresistible impulse ? "Witness : I do, generally, but not in this case. I account for the murder, if the prisoner committed it, on different principles. I think the prisoner was originally deficient in mental powers, and that he is insane. This; condition of mind renders him liable to commit any cruel, malignant, absurd, irrational, or vicious action that may present itself to his mind. By " vicious " I mean not " virtuous." I think when a woman trusts herself as a wife into the hands of a man such as the prisoner is described to be, a result like this is just the catastrophe that might be expected. (Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr. Overend : I think the prisoner considered that he was violating the law when he com mitted the offence with which he is charged, if he did commit it. This closed the case for the defence. Mr. Overend then commenced his reply on behalf of the prosecution, at half-past one o'clock. He said that his duty was a plain and simple one, namely, to see that the jury arrived at a right conclusion on the issue before them. As far as he was personally concerned he would be glad that the prisoner should be acquitted, but he had a duty to discharge to society, and that was to bring to justice a man whom he belived to be the perpetrator of a foul and cold-blooded murder. The defence set up on behalf of the prisoner was that he was insame, but the jury were bound by their oath to decide according to the law, and the law declared that the insanity of a man would not avail him if he knew he was doing wrong at the time he committed the offence with which he was charged. The crown was bound to shew that a murder had been committed, and that the prisoner at the bar was the per son who committed the murder. The counsel for the defence had called a host of witnesses to speak to the early habits of the prisoner, when a child and a youth, but the issue which the jury had to try was whether the prisoner was insane during the fatal week expiring on the Ist of March last. His learned friend had not ventured to call any witnesses who were with the prisoner day by day during the fatal week of the illness of Mrs. Dove, neither had he cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution to show that he was wild, mad, and irrespon sible. If the prisoner was insane, as it was alleged, why had he not called Mrs. Witham, or Mr. Morley, who saw him day by day during the illness of his wife ? The prisoner's counsel knew too well, that they dared not put Mr. Morley into the witness box, although he had known the prisoner all his life. But the case did not rest there. His learned friends never even ventured to call the sur geon of the gaol, or the governor of the gaol, who minutely scrutinised the conduct of the prisoner during his incar ceration, but they called witnesses like Mr. Williams and Mr. Kitchen, to show that in their opinion the prisoner was to be excused from his acts, on the grounds of unac countability. He cautioned the jury how they received such evidence, as if it were once supposed that medical testimony, based upon vague and theoretical scientific opinions, could avail to save a criminal from justice, there was not a single hearth in the country which would be safe from the deadly manipulations of the prisoner. It was idle and absurd to hold that, because the prisoner was a mischievous and bad boy twenty years ago, that he was now insane. The antecedents of the mau showed that, from his earliest youth, he was a violent. vicious, ill-conditioned boy, but it was from such boys that bad and cruel men were produced. His doing acts of cruelty, only showed the bias of his natural character, but no acts of cruelty had been spoken to of late years, and it was monstrous to say that, because he flung a cat out of the window by the tail when he was seven years of age, and tied cows tails together at sixteen, he was insane and irresponsible for his acts at 32. Why, the letters which the prisoner wrote to Mr. Morley dur ing the period when Dr. Williams and his other witnesses deposed to his insanity, were better written than most Yorkshire farmers could write, and he believed there was not a farmer on the jury or in the court, who could have written better. He declared that in the whole records of crime, he never heard of a more cold blooded and cruel murder than that with which the prisoner was charged. Day atter day he witnessed the anguish of her whom he had sworn to protect—day by day he witnessed the deadly throes of his victim, and then with the malignity of a fiend he foretold the hour of her death, and speculated on the woman who was to succeed her as his wife. He (the learned counsel) would admit that the prisoner had been a dull and stupid boy, and was not an intellectual man, but he had managed to farm for some years ; he had paid his rent, ho had bought and sold cattle, and he had con ducted the whole affairs of his household without the suspicion even having been raised that he was a lunatic. The steward of Mr. Markham, who let him the farm, and who collects the rent, had not been called to prove that he was insane. The defence of insanity was only an after thought, and now, at the eleventh hour, the old friends of the family were callednipon to depose to boyish THE NORTHERN TIMES. LIVERPOOL, MONDAY. acts of anger, passion, and cruelty, from which they gathered the conclusion that he was insane. But could it be supposed that a respectable person like Mrs. Jenkins would allow her daughter to marry a lunatic? or did they suppose that a pious and exemplary man like Mr. Chris topher Dove, the prisoner's father, would permit his son to marry into such a fl.mily as that of airs. Jenkins, if he was of unsound mind ? or would he have allowed him, in that condition, to go alone to America? There could be no doubt that the prisoner was often drunk, and eccentric, but drunkenness and eccentricity were not madness. It was not because the man was insane, but it was because his life was in danger, that this absurd de fence was set up on his behalf. He submitted, that the whole of the prisoner's antecedents exhibited a vicious and uncontrolled temper, but that there had not been a particle of evidence tendered to the jury to prove that he was insane when he committed this atrocious crime. Where was the mother of the prisoner ? where his brothers and sisters, and who knew every phase of his character? He knew that it would be an agonizing trial to them, to bring thaw into a court of justice on such an occasion. His mother was absent, not because she would not make sacrifice to save the life of her child, but be cause she knew in her heart that she dare not come into court, and swear that her son was mad. The argument that the early attacks from which prisoner's wife suffered were caused by hysteria and not by strychnine, was blown to the winds by the circumstance that the prisoner's counsel had not ventured to call a single medical man to show that her symptoms were inconsistent with strychnine. It had been said by the counsel for the prisoner that there was nothing so encouraging in Palmer's case that he should have attempted to follow his example. But what were the facts ? Why, that at the very time when th prisoner was reading the report of the inquest on Per'sain victims at Rugeley, Dr. Taylor was reporting that he could not detect strychnine in the body of John Parsons Cook. This it was that encouraged the prisoner to do the act. The extreme anxiety of the prisoner to prevent a post mortem examination was a feature in the case preg nant with suspicion against him. It was true he af er wards gave his consent to the post mortem examination, but he delayed it as long as he could, because he believed Dr. Alfred Taylor's statement that, in his opinion, strych nine could not be discovered more than fourteen hours after death. The learned geutlomen concluded a powerful address by calling on the jury, as they valued their oaths and what they owed to society, to discharge their duty fearlessly and independently. Mr. Baron BRAMWELL commenced his summing up a few minutes before four o'clock. He said : Gentlemen of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence, and the addresses of counsel on both sides. You have now to hear me, and then to consider and give your verdict. I need not repeat to 'oil that you have a most important duty to perform, for upon your verdict depends the life of the prisoner at the bar. You have also entrusted to your care the interests of public justice, and the interests of society at large. If you return a verdict of acquittal when you ought to return one of guilty, you do society an injury and a wrong. But if, in order to vindicate society, you find a man guilty when he ought to be acquitted, that man's life is then taken away when it ought to have been preserved. Your duty is therefore a most responsible one. I hardly know, for my part, which of the two errors would be the most fatal—that an innocent man should suffer, on the one hand, or that a man guilty of such a dreadful crime as this should go unpunished. Gentlemen, I must join in the recommenda tion of counsel on both sides that you should dismiss from your minds anything which you have heard of this case, and any opinion that you may have formed upon it, because yeti cannot have heard the circumstances of the case in so complete a form as you have now heard them here. The question which you will have to form an opinion on will be this:—The prisoner being charged with the crime of wilful murder, the defence is, that if he did the deed he ought to be acquitted on the ground of insa nity. Now, you will have to determine this. Did the deceased die from the administration of strychnia, and was the prisoner the person who administered it ; and if so, was his state of mind when he administered it such as to exempt him from the consequences of this act ? It is mindsfor t h e t h p a r o t s t e h c e u t d i e o e n e a t o s e m d a d k i e e d o f u r t e m t o s t t h r e y s e a h t n i a fa , c a t n i d o n t of f a y t your wp counsel r a i s so i n n prisoner such administered teshanthat i f i h t e; did a d administer i s for tthhee poison, c w ondition of mind at the time as to exempt him from the consequences of the act. Now, gentlemen, the rule I shall lay down is this, that every man is pre sumed to be responsible for his actions until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the jary. That is to say, that at the time the accused committed the act charged against him he was labouring under such a defect ofreason or disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know its nature and quality that he did not know he was doing that which was wrong. If he was conscious that it was an act which he ought not to do, and that it was contrary to law, and that he would be punishable, if detected, you will have to consider this view of the case, and to say whether you are of opinion that the prisoner had sufficient know ledge to be aware that he was doing wrong. It' you should be of opinion that he was labouring under a partial delu sion only, and was not in other respects insane, he must be considered in the same situation, as far as responsibility is concerned, as though there was no delusion at all. That is the law. It is not for me to justify the law, or for you to approve of it. We are bound to administer the low as we find it. You have sworn to administer it to the best of your judgment, and even if you may think that the law is hard upon the prisoner, still it is your duty to obey it, and seek the improvement of it not by violating it and your own consciences, but by appealing to the legislature as you can do, having the power of selecting representa tives. But so long as it is the law we are bound to obey it. Do not, however, suppose that I doubt the reason ableness of the law I have laid down, for to me it is most reasonable. Now, suppose a case. A man labours under a delusion, and thinks I have done him a wrong , and he waylays bn the road and mur d ers me, can it be conceived that the present state of the law will excuse his acts on the ground that he was not an accountable being ? I must tell you, gentlemen, that such is not the law. Why should his delusion, for which I assume there would be no foundation, excuse him in the commission of the crime ? Again, we have heard of some people imagining that some parts of their body was made of glass, and under this delusion committed various kinds of crimes. Well, sup posing a man robs and shoots another under the influence of this delusion, is he to be acquitted because he happens to have got hold of some insane notion about some part of his body ? Punishment, gentlemen, is not administered Out of revenge, but in order to correct the vicious, and to hold him up as an example to others. If you punish a man who is not accountable for his actions, you can do no good, either to the individual or to society, but if you punish a man who has done wrong knowingly, the next time temptation comes upon him to exescise his propensity for evil he remembers the punishment, and is probably deterred from repeating the offence, whilst you also deter others, who have the same propensity, from exercising it. But, if you announce to the world that a man of strong animal propensities may thieve, and murder with impu nity, the more likely will you be to encourage the vicious to do so, the less likely will it be that others will be de deterred from the commission of such offences, and the less probability will there be that the true interests of society will be consulted. The learned judge then com menced to read over the evidence on the part of the prosecution, commenting upon it as he proceeded. Having gone through the evidence offered on the part of the crown, he gave the jury a resume of the case, expressing an opinion that the evidence showed that the deceased had died from the administration of strychnia, and that it would be for the jury to say whether the prisoner had administered it, and if so, was he in such a state of mind as to render him accountable for his conduct at the time he committed the act. [The court was here again adjourned for a quarter of an hour.] His Lordship then went through the evidence offered on behalf of the prisoner, and at the commencement, he observed that he did not know whether the jury understood the character of the evidence, but for himself, he must confess, that he could not reconcile it with the consistency of the prisoner's i nsan ity. Referring to the evidence of Dr. Caleb Wil liams and other medical witnesses, he remarked that the jury had no right to receive the evidence of those witnesses as to the state of mind of the prisoner as the general opinion of the Profession. Mr. Bliss here remarked that the prosecution might have called other medical evidence to rebut their testi mony. His Lordship said undoubtedly they might, but as they had not thought proper to do so he must only take the case as he found it. If the jury could understand rationally . the character of the medical evidence offered on behalf of the prisoner, they would, of course, be guided by it in some measure in considering their verdict. His Lordship, in continuation, read the evidence of Dr. Caleb Williams. This witness stated that he believed the prisoner's state ment that he had sold himself to the devil was a genuine statement. Now he (the learned judge) confessed that he did not set the same value on this portion of the witness's evidence as the jury perhaps might. As another proof of the prisoner's insanity, this witness stated that he seemed to have brooded over the poisoning of his wife for some time, and that this brooding over the intended com mission of the offence would necessarily induce a condition of mind amounting to moral insanity. Now, he must remind the jury that the same a rgumen t applied to many criminals who were brought to justice for the commission of small offences. There could be little doubt that crimi_ nals of this caste had, in many instances, brooded over their crimes before they were actually committed, but still, in point of law, such characters had never, as a general rule, been regarded as insane. The witnesses had also stated that the prisoner's state of mind was such that his uncontrollable impulse placed him in this position, that he could not refrain from doing wrong. because the temp tation was too strong for him ; but if the jury believed the theory of these medical men, it would amount to this, that they wished to remove one great check to committing crime which now existed, and which applied more parti cularly to the cases of weak minded men. The state of the law, as regarded weak minded men was intended to operate as a check upon their committing crime, and con sequently to operate against temptation; but if the theory of these medical witnesses was to be received as sound and desirable to act upon, this check ought to be removed, and the consequence would be, as he (the learned judge) thought, that greater temptation to the commission of crime would be offered, and the effects upon society would be injurious and dangerous. Having gone through the evidence, his lordship said it would be for the jury to say, taking all the facts into consideration, whether, in law, supposing them to believe that the prisoner had adminis tered the poison, he knew at the time that what he was doing was wrong, and that, if detected, he would be . pun ished for it : and if he laboured under a delusion, was there any grounds for believing that such delusion was founded on fact. Their duty was a most solemn one, and in the consideration of their verdict they might perhaps take a long time. He was afraid that he had occupied an unusu- , ally long period in laying the evidence before them, but the erious nature of the ease demanded from him that he I I should carefully bring before them all the facts and circumstances. He had endeavoured so to sum up the case as to present those topics before the jury which were in favour of the prisoner, as well as those which were against him. It was his duty to lay before them the law, but not to give them any opinions of his own. It was for the jury to act on their own judgment, and be guided by that alone. If the prisoner should be found guilty, it would be by a jury of his country, and not by the judge. Let them not be led by him. Judge of the facts, and the law of the case, as he endeavoured to place it before. them. Weigh well the nature of the evidence which they had heard and do not come to a hasty conclusion. Probably they would be anxious to retire. If they did so he advised them ,to deliberate seriously and dispassion. ately, because the life of the prisoner was in their keepinw. If they should be of opinion that he was guilty they would say so by their verdict, whatever their feelings or dispo sition might be. If, on the other hand, they should come to the conclusion that the charge was not fairly and fully brought home to the prisoner, it would be their duty to acquit him. His lordship concluded his address at ten O'clock, having occupied six hours in its delivery. The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and at a quarter to eleven returned into court. The Clerk of Arraigns : Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict ? The Foreman : We have. We find the prisoner 6,* tr TY, Tr, but recommend him to mercy on the ground of his defective Intellect." The learned Judge, having pug n the black cap, said : William Dove, you have been found gu;!!:y of the crime of wilful murder. You have been found guilty upon evi dence which must have been clear to the mina of every person who has heard it. Crime in all cases of ii;!q nature is of a very serious kind, but in your case it is much worse than in ordinary cases. You have murdered your wife, a woman whom you had sworn to cherish, to and to preserve. It is a murder under circum stances of ektradrdinary aggravation. In my mind the jury have done their duty to their country in the verdict which they have returned. In repelling the defence which has been made in your behalf, they have shown a firm determination to do their duty, but in the recornrnenda• tion with which their verdict is accompanied, they have yielded to a natural impulse. That recommendation shall be forwarded to the proper quarter, and if it be concurred in, your life will be Spared; but it is my duty to pass upon you, not my sentence, but the sentence of the law. cannot hold out to you any hope that the recommenda tion of the jury will be attended to, and, therefore, I implore you to employ the short time allotted to you in this world, in preparing for that solemn change which awaits you, just as though no such recommendation on your behalf had been made. I have no doubt, from what I have heard, that you have a capacity for receiving religioal consolation, and I do hope that you may now employ your time in endeavouring to benefit by its consolations. As I have already said, the recommendation on your behalf will be forwarded to the authorities, but I cannot encourage you in the hope that will have any avail. My duty is to pass upon you that solemn sentence of the law. That sentence is, that you be taken from hence to the prison from which you came, and from there to some place of execution, there to be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and that your body afterwards be buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall have been confined, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul. The prisoner received both the verdict and sentence without evincing the slightest emotion, and left the dock with a firm step. POLICE COURT.-SATURDAY, (BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.) A RUFFIANLY CAR DRlVER.—Charles falter, a car driver, in the employment of Mr. Morton, Dale-street, was charged by a boy named John Lomax, the driver of a spring cart, belon g i ng to M r. Peacock, for having assaulted him. It appeared that on Friday evening the boy was driving his cart down Byrom-street, and was walking quietly along, when the prisoner came down Shaw's-brow, driving his car rather rapidly. On coming in right angles with the cart, the prisoner drew up, and without any provocation commenced lashing the boy most furiously. A policeman who saw the transaction, took him into custody, and stated that he had acted in a very ruffianly manner to the boy. Mr. Mansfield said the conduct of the prisoner was brutal, and he would fine him 10s, and costs, or to be committed for one month. STABBING BY FEMALEB.—Bridget Clinton, and Mary Anne Clinton, her sister-in-law, were charged with having committed a violent assault on a woman named Catherine Holt, in Saltney-street. Mr. Chilton and Mr. Bluck defended the prisoners. The complainant said, on Friday afternoon she was walking in the street, when the prisoners and another woman (not in custody) attacked her; one of them had a hand brush, with which she struck her violently, and the third woman had a knife in her hand, and with this she was wounded very severely in the arm. She had several cuts, and the doctor who attended her said these wounds were of a very serious description. On cross examina tion by Mr. Bluck, the complainant admitted that there was a general fight between them all, and she had hold of the hair of one of the prisoners, and that she beat her ; also, she could not tell who struck her with the knife, but she saw it in the hand of the woman who was not now present. Mr. Bluck, on this, con tended that there was no evidence to convict the prison • ers. It was clear, he said that the woman had been seriously injured, but from her own evidence it was equally clear his clients were not the persons who indicted the wound. He contended that they must be discharged. They would be forthcoming at any time to answer any charge that might be preferred against them. Mr. Man,field did not think the evidence sufficient to sustain the case against the prisoners, and discharged them. THE CHARGE OF SCUTTLING A SHIP.—John Town, who had been remanded on the above charge, was brought up. Mr. Bluck, for the prisoner, asked for a further adjournment, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Tindal Atkinson, who was counsel in the case, and Mr. Harvey, for the prosecution, consenting, the case was allowed to stand over to one o'clock this day. (BEFORE MESSRS. R. GLADSTONE AND BENN.) A DIGGER ROBBED OF £1,645.—A young man named Timothy Murphy, a native of Queenstown, who had just arrived from Australia by the Earl of Sefton, charged two women named Margaret .Al'Kenzie, and Jane Anderson, on suspicion of having stolen £45 in gold, and two drafts on London for £BOO each. Wilson and Laycock, two detectives, who had the prisoners in custody, said they were informed on Friday morning of the robbery, which took place in Banastre-street the previous night. They went to a house in Byrom-terrace, Byrom-street, where they got the two prisoners. They asked M'Kenzie if she had any money P and she replied she had not. They pro ceeded to search the place, when they observed M'Kenzie take something from under her dress and throw it behind her. This proved to be a purse, which Wilson picked up, and asked her what it contained ? and she replied £6, which she got for her furniture that she sold, to send her daughter to America. The purse contained eight sovereigns and the prisoner gave various accounts of how she came by it, There was no money found on Anderson, and the only evidence against her was, that Mr. Murphy was under the impression that he saw her in the house where he was robbed. Mr. Bluck, who defended the prisoners, urged that this was not sufficient to detain her, and the magistrates agreeing in that view of the case, discharged her, In reply to Mr. Bluck, the officers said they had not got any one to identify the purse or money ; Mr. Murphy did not claim either, as he knew nothing of the purse, and could not identify the gold. Mr. Bluck strongly contended that the woman ought to be discharged. Mr. Clough said he would produce evidence to show that she handed several sovereigns out through a window to her friends, and that she had not got the coin honestly. He asked for a remand, as he said he would be able to prove something additional. The officers said they knew who had the drafts on London, but could not yet catch that party ; hut they were sure to do so in a short time. Payment of the drafts had been stopped. Murphy said he had been at the " diggings " for some time, where he made a trifle of " tin," and then went to Melbourne and entered into businees, where he realised the remainder; and now he had lost all. The magistrates said that was the inevitable consequence of his own folly, in going to the house he did in a state of drunkenness. The woman was then remanded. BIRKENHEAD POLICE COURT.-SATURDAY, (BEFORE MB. JACKSON AND MR. BRYANT.) A RAILWAY CASE.—A gentleman, who was represented as a commercial traveller, was summoned for having travelled in a railway carriage, from Chester to Birkenhead, without having one of the company's tickets in his possession. It appeared that lie had taken a return ticket on the previous day, which he imagined would ho available to retur❑ with at any time, but in that be was mistaken, having, by order of the court, to pay the fare, 2s 6d, and was fined lOs and costs. E A MILITARY D saarioN.—A Cork p a p er says : "tin officer of the 39th Regiment arrived in Cork from Malta last week, in charge of some invalids, and in coming up th,e river the Quartermaster-General noticed in him a breach of military regulations, and placed him under arrest. Ile was sent to his room, but on Wednesday he broke his ayaest and absconded. He has not been since heard of." ITALIAN BRIGANDS. —We read in the I Jilan Gazette, of the 12th instant :—" Michell, the guard of the mail coach proceeding from Mantua to Milan, was attacked to-day by twelve or fourteen malefactors, who broke open the iron chest and carried away all the money it contained. This daring outrage occurred within two miles of Cremona. The carriage, with the guard and postillio n , w a s brought into the fields to the distance of a mil e by the banditti, chi e fs who were armed with guns and pistols, an d had handke - over thcir faces to disguise themselves, COURT OF PASSAGE.-SATURDAY. (BEFORE EDWARD JAMES, ESQ., Q.C., ASSESSOR.) The court sat at nine o'clock on Satarday morning. NUNNELY Y. CUMMING.—This was an action brought by Joseph Nunnely, of Burton, to recover £4 193 from Henry Cumming, of Liverpool, being the value of a hogshead of ale, and also of an empty kilderkin, fur nished to him on the 10th of March, 1855. Mr. Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defence. On the part of the defence, it was contended that the hogshead in question had not been delivered, and that the entry of it must have been made in mistake. The jury found for the plaintiff. TURNER V. Hußay.—ln this case a verdict was taketi by consent for £lO. BaomiLow V. Locxwoon.—This was an action brought to recover £3 6s ld, in addition to £4 paid into court, for work done. Mr. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brett for the defence. The work done was an alteration in the chimney of a baker's premises, and the ground of defence was, that the work had not been satisfactorily executed. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. ANDREWS ♦. LAWRENCE, AND ANOTIIER.—The plaintiff in this case did not appear, and a notisti it was accordingly entered. ITALLLM V. HALLAIII.—The parties in this case were brothers. The plaintiff was George Hallam, collector and estate agent, residing in Lime street, and the defend ant, William Hallam, of Renshaw-street, auctioneer. The sum claimed by plaintiff was £lB 12s 10d. for goods sold and delivered, and money paid to account of d e f e fint. Mr. Tindal Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Simon for the defence. The action n was of a very unint,i'restingature, and involved simply a dispute relative to some transactions of an ordinary character. The claim was re:2uced to £7 18s, and a verdict for the plaintiff for £7 returniZi• ROGERSON v. BELLHOUSE.—The plaintiff in case was Anne Rogerson, an unmarried lady, possessing house property at Beciles, in Suffolk, and the defendant wag William Dawson Bellhouse. Mr. T. Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. S. Raffles for defenjant• Mr. Atkinson in opening the plaintiff's case stated, tha: the defendant was a gentleman of many professions, being a medical galvanist, a photographer, and, in addi tion, a soothsayer, who looked into the future for the satisfaction or those who were cu , ious as to the charac ter of the spouse they were to wed, the fortune they were to possess, or the number of children who were likely to follow a matrimonial alliance. The plaintiff had heard of defendant's fame as a soothsayer, and went to consult him as to whether she would be more happy in Irelaa'i than here. As her question was an swered in the neg li ;Jve, she wished to take a hous e in Liverpool, and asked tut; defendant if he could recom mend her a suitable one. lle informed her he was going to Southport, and he would let her the house he then occupied. After several interviev , 7s , she agreed to take the house for a quarter. a t a ren t a l of £42 per annum, the defendant being allow e d th e s t u dy bc a con sultation room when he visited this town on TuestLaVs and Thursdays. The fixtures were to be valued at Lti los, and she paid him £2 lOs on account. Shortly after, not finding a suitable house in Southport, or for some other reason, the defendant returned to Liverpool, and required the plaintiff to give up possession of the house. She refused to do so, upon which he said she was only a weekly tenant, and at once put in an execution for three weeks' rent. which he alleged to be due, taking away furniture to the value of £l5. The action was accordingly brought to recover the value of the furni ture seized, and damages for breach of contract. The defence was, that the tenancy was only a weekly one, and that the amount was due for which the execution was put in. The defendant himself was examined, and admitted to Mr. Atkinson, that he did employ his time a little in looking into the future for the benefit of those who came 'icr consult him. He also stated, that he had made astrology his especial study, but repudiated any acquaintance what ever with the occult science of spirit-rapping. Several witnesses were examined upon each side. Raffles, in replying to the evidence, denied that any discredit, or even ridicule, should attach to the defendant, because of any profession he chose to follow. He thought, even if the defendant did profess a knowledge of the future, much more ridicule should attach to a lady who was silly enough to consult him. (Laughter.) If he found people silly enough to come and consult him as to the future, and that he thought he could make anything by it, that was no ground to affect his credibility. (Laughter.) Mr. Atkinson replied in a humorous address, in which he dwelt facetiously upon the singular character of the 'professions combinedly followed by the defendant. The Assessor having summed up, the jury found for the plaintiff, damages £2O. LUCAS V. BUSBY, AND ANOTIME.—In this action, the plaintiff, Henry Lucas, a cart owner, of Knotty Ash, sought to recover the value of a horse, which was killed by an omnibus belonging to the defendants, William and Daniel Busby, in the Waterloo road, on the 17th of April last. It appeared that the driver of the plaintiff's cart, an inexperienced boy, had left his proper side of the road to turn into Vulcan-street, without looking if the way was free, and the consequence was that the horse was knocked down and killed by an omnibus which was passing at the time. On hearing this state ment from the boy himself, the counsel (Mr. Blair and Mr. Aspinall) consulted, and the action was withdrawn, as the affair was quite accidental. SLATER V. HENDRICK.—This was an undefended action for £3 18s 6d, and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff. BAKER A ND A NOTHER V. DAWSON.—The plain'iffs iR this action were Thomas and Samuel Baker, engineers and boiler makers, and the defendant was Alexander Mutter Dawso n M r. Aspinall was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brett for the defendant. The plain tiffs brought the action to recover £B7 lis ld from the defendant, for work done in repairing the screw steamer Northman, trading between Liverpool and Westport, in I eland. The repairs in question, were in November and December last. The amount of the claim was not disputed, but it was contended for the defence, that the defendant was not liable, as the order for the repairs had been given by the defendant's brother, wh o h a d since left town. It was proved that the defendant was the owner of the vessel, and his brother only acted as his agent. Mr. J. 0. Lever, of Manchester, in the months in question, was in negotiation with the defen dant for purchasing the vessel, which lie did for the sum of £3,825, but she was to be put in thorough repair before being handei over to him, and it was to recover the sum for these repairs, that the action was brought. A verdict was given in favour of the plaintiffs. DORAN V. PATON AND OTHERS.—In this action, the plaintiff, Jas. Doran, sought to recover the sum of ..Cl2 17s 6d, from the defendants, the owners of the ship Onego, for shipping and 44 trimming," the ballast, and stowing away the chain, cable, and anchors, in July, last year. Mr. O'Donnel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for the defendants. It was contended by the defendants, th a t th e p l a i nt i ff ' s men did their work so unskilfully, that they were engaged longer than was neccessary. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for nine guineas. The court did not rise until near eight o'clock. STILL NO ANSWER FROM THE REV. J. B. LOWE TO " VERAX !" TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES Sir,—ln your impression of July 17, Mr. Lowe asks " lrho is Irerax ?" I answer, that as the contest between Mr. Lowe and " Vertu" is, on both sides, confessed to be " with doctrines and not with men," " with things and net with names only," so the personality of " Verax" is altogether unimportant. Besides, Mr. Lowe has already given the public to understand, that he recognises the style, and knows the author of the letters from your correspondent " Verax." Now, either the acute literary perception of Mr. Lowe has led him into an imprudent assertion on this sub.. ject, whilst he was uncertain who "Verax" was, or Mr. Lowe has satisfactory proof as to the origin of " Verafai• epistles. If the former supposition hold, who is the " reckless correspondent?" If the latter hypothesis be accepted by Mr. Lowe, then why does he press for infor mation regarding that which he already knows ? But, sir, is it not strange, that while Mr. Lowe was addressing you, on the 15th of July, he did not think it worth while to answer the few simple questions which I put to him, through the columns of your paper, on the .sth instant ? Mr. Lowe has no objection, evidently, to answer " Verax" when he. thinks he can make the shadow of a point. Why, with re f erence to " Verafs" letters, in your impressions of Ju ne 23, June 21, June 28, and July 5, does the Incumbe n &Lc., t, of St. J u d e ' s wr i te— " I shall not take an y further notice of hi m ? " —Yours VERAx. THE ROYAL CHARTER, 40, Tower-buildings East, July 21 st, 1856, Mess:g. Gibbs, Bright, and Co. cientlemen,—l am directed by from ale ythe ComttpearsrsecGeiovmedmfirtoterne 'co' send you the following extract the Rev. Dr. Scoresby, and to state that you are at liberty to publish the same, or make any oth er use of it which yots may think advisable. — am, gentlemen, your obedient. servant,(Signed) M. W. RuNDELL, Secretary. Extract referred to above—" You will have learnt from other sources some particulars of the successful and splendid passage, under the blessing of Divine Providence, of the Royal Charter to her outward destination of Port Philip or Melbourne. The performance and behaviour of the ship were truly admirable, but I am decidedly of opinion that her full capabiliti es h ave, as yet, b y no means b een b rought out. lier qualities as a sea boat,' and her model in respect of naval architecture, are, I think, perfect ; or, at all events, as perfect as anything yet produced.