The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZEik CROWN COURT MURDER. James Hanson, a mild looking man, aged 36, was charged with having, on the 21st of March last, at Manchester, mur dered Williar Mr. Am tion : the -TUESDAY Cheetharr strong and Mr. Wilkins conducted the prosecu- risoner was undefended. --___ISTRONG laid before the jury, lb detail, the circum stances which he intended to bring forward in evidence. John Clayton, sworn.—l am a waterman. I live in Rich- Mr. AR ard-street, Rochdale. lam the captain of a boat belonging to William Shepherd. On Saturday, the 21st of March, I was at an eating-house in Tibb-street, Manchester. I left at half-past two, and went to the Crown and Anchor. From there I went to the boat. That was about three o'clock. Some men were there, loading my boat with slates. Mine was the only boat at the Manchester end. I went then to the Brownsfield Tavern, in Brewery-street. The prisoner was with me all the time. We met the deceased there. The prisoner and the deceased were the two hands in my boat. I left the Brownsfield Tavel n about a quarter before eight. was asleep, during the afternoon, about two hours, on the , or. John Cheetham left with me at about a quarter before 'it. I don't know whether I left the prisoner and Wm. Ahem there or not. I know that they were there before asleep. I was drunk when I left. The prisoner and eased were algo drunk. I went to Mill's-hill station , the railwal, and slept there all night. I returned about nine o'clock on Sunday morning. I met Hanson in the street, near the Brownsfield Tavern. He asked me where I had been all night, and I told him. He said I had not been there, and that he had heard of me being in Manchester. He said, " Why, Bill's dead." I said, " He's not, surely, is he ?" He smiled, and said, " No, he's not dead, but he's such a face as thou never see." I said, " Come, let us go look at him, and see how he is." When I left the boat, there was some horse-corn on board ; nearly a bushel. He -id the corn was stolen • somebody had stolen it, but he -+ know who. He did not say anything about a sack. arn was in a sack. He said another boat had been ed of some ropes. He did not say who had done it. said Bill had told him that four men and a woman .ad pelted him on his face. This was as we were go ing along to the boat. About this time, directly after nine o'clock, we got to the cabin of the boat. I opened the cabin door, and saw the deceased kneeling , with the upper part of his body on the bed. His hands were under him, like; on his side. I called him by his name three times, and he never answered me. I shook him by the back of his waistcoat. He never answered. I g ot hold of his hair, lifted up his head, and looked at his f ace. He was dead, but warm. He was dressed all but his hat. His hat was lying on the floor, ' 41,e crown broken nearly out. lie had two black eyes His lip was swollen, and the 'end of his chin and one of his cheeks, I believe the right, was scarred. I think it had been done with feet and fists. The cheek looked , s if it had been dragged along the ground. There was a *tie blood, about the breadth of half-a-crown, on the floor, -- -fife. It looked as if it had been done by conti . With swollen up nual dropping in the place. The prisoner said, " Wkat must we do now, John ?" I said, "We must go and fetch a po liceman ; he's dead." I went for a policeman and found one. The prisoner went with me. We took two policemen back with us to the boat. The policemen went on board. There were three pieces of blue slate found in the cabin by the policemen. As we were carrying the body off to the Infirmary, the policeman picked up a piece of a brick about three yards from the canal. I believe the prisoner did not help to carry the body, nor did I. The piece of brick was bloody. I and the prisoner underwent an examination al most immediately, but were dismissed. Hanson was taken nost immediately. The bed-clothes in the cabin ambled as if they had been slept on. I Saw a wooden mallet found on the cabin-floor by Soulby, the constable. We had used it to break coal with. I had seen it on board the boat on Saturday. The corn amounted to about eight or nine feeds. It was about an hour after the body had been removed that this mallet was found. A part of a loaf was missing from The cabin, but no lines. The sack which contained the corn was missing, and I never saw it after. I saw my boat last about half-past three on Saturday after noon, close to the wharf wall. There was part of a truss of hay on board. A portion of this hay had been taken. The prisoner had only been with us a week. 1 never saw him in a passion. By the pr soner.—Did I not assist to carry the body to the bearing-barrow ? Witness : lam not quite sure. George Rose, sworn.-1 am a private watchman to Mr. Binns. He has a factory which overlooks the arm of the canal in which Shepherd's boat was. The boat was lying op posite our engine-house on Saturday, the 21st of March. I was on duty that night. I heard a cry of murder two or three times from a boat which lay there. This was between ten minutes and a quarter past seven. I, in consequence, went into the engine-house to see what it was. It was a darkish night. I was about fourteen yards from the place._ When I got there, a man was coming out of the boat, and the cries were not repeated. He came out of the cabin and went into the wharf. As he came out, he said—" I will cut your head off if I could find a stone. I will make you remember for throttling me." I did not see any other person in the boat. I saw a man put his head up at the cabin, which the other had come out at. The man who had come out threw some stones, or something of that sort, at the man who put his head out. He kept going about the yard, and searching for stones, and throwing them. He kept swearing at him, and - hat he would do at him ; he said once—he would id, " I dont care for the boat—l can have He went on to the boat and towards the threateni murder him another any day cabin. 'I _lead of the man had disappeared once, but re appeared again. He kept calling out watch, and telling the man who threw the stones to go away. The man, who had gone on board, either struck, or threw, or kicked ; and then the man who had his head out of the cabin dropped. My impression was, that he fell from a blow. All was still from that tim The man who had thrown the stones was going ito the cabin, and was about half down when I went away. All this occupied about twenty minutes. The man that was killed said something to me just at first, but I could not tell -it was, that they had been fighting, or summat —summat about fight. I did not say anything to him. I never interfere with boatmen, they are often fighting, and they would have broke the windows if I interfered. I did not see enough of the man who threw the stones to know him again. He had something dark coloured on him. It was either a round jacket, or a waistcoat with sleeves. He had on a pair of light coloured trousers. I saw a man named Bold, come up with a lime-boat, after this matter had begun. He came through the lock, and brought his boat up by Shep herd's boat, passed it, any lay about a quarter of a mile fur ther up. I heard no disturbance after that time. The per son who threw Stones appeared to me to be a less man than the prisoner. The floor where I stood, was about three feet higher than the deck of the boat. The man was speaking angrily when he threw the stones, and he had a voice like a lad's voice. The prisoner did not, at the coroner's inquest, speak at all like the person who was at the boat. About the same time as the murder was done, I saw a man on the con trary side of the lock-gate : this was just after Bold had come hat it was— .....__ o ; the lock. He shouted, as - I thought to me, but I could not tell what he said. I heard a sentence like " come James Bold sworn—l live at Hatherlowe, the other side of Stockport. lam a boatman in the employ of Messrs. Booth and Co., lime-dealers. On Saturday, the 21st March, as I was ttoing: through Brownsfield Loch, I was near Shepherd's boaC•iCwas about eight o'clock. I saw a man come off the top of the brick wall on to the end of the balance pole. He vas apparently coming out of Bridge's slate-yard. He mped off the balance-pole on to the bank. He ran towards corner and then back. He stepped back, and began to stones or brick ends. He said, " I'll either Kilt thee or cut thy head off." Another voice cried out, " Get off with thee—get off with thee ' • I'll have no more to do with thee." The voice came from the stern end of Shep perd's boat. The man who got the stones kept drawing nigher to the vessel. As I passed Shepherd's boat I said to George Rose, " There's a storm here, I think, George." The man who was upon Shepherd's boat—l think it was the man ho had gathered the stones—said, " Jem, what must I do " There were two persons upon Shepherd's boat ; _ stber so at him son deck, and the other partly in the cabin. I said, Leave him alone." The man in the cabin was crying out ' Watch," and the other said he did not care for all the ien in Manchester. He then took his foot, and, as I t, gave him a severe punch. I thought I heard a (slip.) He jumped on the bank, and began rattling • the slates. I said, " Leave him ; I think thee's done - enough at him." Ile cursed and swore, and jumped on the hatches, and began to throw slates out on the bank. I did riot hear anything frpm the man in the cabin after the kick. I knew the deceased, anti I knew him by his waistcoat when I saw him at the dead-house in Manchester. I could only iought , he was so disfigured. I could not ir to the waistcoat. The man who threw the s had on a pair of light-coloured trousers. He had a lad's ;he was speaking in a passion. I can't sower is like him or not. My name is swear to the waistcoat Lk voice like Jantes ; the man called me " Jena." I don't know the pri soner at all. There are many knows me that I don't know. By the JUDGE.—I saw a lad on the contrary aide of the anal, who shouted something w hi c h I th oug ht was " come yt James Howart Tavern. On the Tavern is sworn.—l am a waiter at the Brownsfield of March I was so. The Brownsfield Jout 150 yards from Bridge's slate-yard. On the the 21st of March, Wm. Cheetham and John at the tavern, and the prisoner. Between •eased went away, and the prisoner went risoner asked Shepherd, the owner some money.. but he refused to give him any. In liquor except Mr. Shepherd. I'saw the line o'clock. He suppered his horse, and )f beer. Jds. Howarth and Jas. Cheetham Prisoner told me that some one had been, n shamefully. That was all he said about walked out. I did not hear Howarth say nff to him. The prisoner had a pair of light-coloured and a waistcoat on, and a waistcoat with sleeves. -, ny more of him that night. Howarth said Cheetham's boat being robbed. Between morning, I saw the prisoner. I saw him `le was inquiring for the captain. He said "If he could have waked m wer of the boat, fo were in the he and beaten W it. He soon afte I did not see five and six next again about nine, he could not tin William, they would have gone with the boat. He (William) has such a face as y ou never see. " O ne o f our se rvant girls said " have yoir gotteti noliody to him. He replied—" . 9; only bleeds at th e nose a li tt l e —l t hi n k h e 'll d o i n a Int away, and the captain (Clayton) and the prisoner pack in a short time and said, " William's dead—where -all we find a policeman ?" Th e capta i n h a d tears i n hi s eyes. The prisoner had not time to go to the boat when he went out; he only went a short distance and met the captain. James Howarth sworn.—l am a boatman, and I live at Boreshaw Clough. I belong to a boat owned by John Cheet ham. On the afternoon of the 21st of March I and Samuel Cheetham left our boat, and I returned about six. I re mained about half an hour, and then went to the Brownsfield 'avern. IMI _ on the Piccadilly basin ; .there was a ick between my boat and Shepherd's. 1 returned t o toy oat about half-past seven. I rema i ned till about a quarter iast eight. I left my boat then in the same place. I went Brownsfield Inn to give my horse its supper, and on my return the was shifted nearer to the lock. I found that three towing-lines and a pair of trousers had been stolen. When I discovered the robbery I went to the Brownsfield Tavern and told the waiter. The prisoner sat in the tap_ I said the lines had been stolen , he said "have if they would lend us a line. He said one word about his own boat He went ly boat was past eight. 1 ieu may uu. to Brownsfield Inn to giv I asked I LI. He d nor about the man who was dead. This ._;;;;;110 - t;i - ni . ne o'clock. I went back to the boat and Samuel Cheetham and I took it through the lock. We fastened her alongside Shepherd's boat. When we got there the prisoner cried out "Jena," and asked us if we had any matches. I said no, and he asked if we had any sulphur. I said we had, and I took a piece about half as big as an egg. He tried to make a fire and he could not. He went to Mrs. Jackson's at the lock-house fur a light. It was then about half-past nine. Up to this time he had not said one word about the deceased. The prisoner gave me a piece of dry line, and I ent and got a light which was handed to the over the wall. gave him the lighted rope and followed him into the cabin. • • I him to make a lire. I saw the deceased sitting on the sleeves of his shirt were bloody. He said, "it was dun i'th cabin," and the prisoner responded, "it was done in the street." Tire deceased had been resting with his head for wards towards his knees, but he raised himself up. One said it was done in the cabin, and the other in the street, two or three times over. I then came away. I went next morning about six o'clock for the hauling line which he had promised to lend me. The prisoner was in bed; and the deceased, with his clothes on, lay with his back on the bed, and his feet off. I asked the prisoner if he would find me the line, and he said he would. He got up and dressed himself. He had to heave the line from under the bed. As soon as he had got dressed he shouted out " Bill ;" but as the deceased did not stir, he got hold of each arm, and shook him, and kicked him on the bottom of his shoes. He pulled him off the bed on to the 41aielkit Mg ksteer4lithe oo a his ad sunk to the ground. He'neithet:stirred nor'spoir. Hewil; not dead. He gave a great snore when I went into the cabin, and I could see the veins of his neck give way. I did not think that any thing ailed him, but that somebody might have hit him over the nose or summat o' that. The deceased was in the same bed as he had occupied the night before, and I supposed him to be stupid with drink. The prisoner had, on the preceding night, a light coloured pair of trousers, and he had the same con next morning. He was not lifted up while I staid. Samuel Cheatham.—l am a fellow-boatman with the last I was at the Brownsfield Tavern on the 21st of witness March. The prisoner and William Clayton were quarrel ing. The prisoner was angry and called the deceased names. Clayton tapped the prisoner on the cheeck, and told him if he wanted to fight, he would fight. I left the tavern a little before seven, and they were all three there. Clayton was asleep on the form. I next saw the prisoner at the same tavern a little after eight. The prisoner suppered his horse, and I and Howarth left him !here. lye went to the boat, and found that our lines were stolen, and I sent Howarth back in con- sequence. I went to the prisoner's boat next morning. I looked into the cabin. The deceased was in a kneeling pos ture, close to the bed, on which his head rested. The prisoner pulled the deceased over, and he then lay on his back. He seemed pressed for his wind, but I thought it was with what they_had done at him to awaken him. 1 saw marks on his cheek and chin. There was dry blood upon hrslaCe: His eyes were swelled up as if he had been fighting. Thomas Sidebottom.—l live in Long-street, Manchester, and work in Mr. Bridge's slate-yard. On Saturday the 21st of March, I left soon after seven o'clock. I saw the prisoner a little before seven go out of the yard with a bag, like pro vender for his_horse in it. I could not tell what it was. It appeared to he heavy. If it were corn, there would be half-a dozen, or more feeds. I had seen the deceased, a little before that, go out of the gate. He was very drunk. William Paton locked the gate when we all went. The prisoner stood outside the gate, and asked if we were going to lock up. Paton said, in aminute." I asked the prisoner if he were _ . going in. He said he did not know, but he went in a moment after. He had not the bag with him then. There is no en trance to the yard but through that gate, except over the wall. Tha wall, at the lowest place, is six feet high. _ . . . . - William Paton ;corroborated the testimony of the last wit ness, so far as related to the interview at the gate. Thomas Prichard, of Booth-street. Manchester.—l am in the employ of Mr. Booth. I left my work on Saturday, the 21st, at seven o'clock. About half an hour before I left, I saw a man pass into the yard towards Shepherd's boat. I _ could not tell who it was ; I did not notice. 'Some time after, shortly before I left, I saw a man, with a bag on his shoul der, go out of the yard. It was not the man I had seen go in before. I did not see him go back. Sarah Taylor.—l five at the Brownafield Lock-house. On the 21st of March, a person came into the house, and got a rope lighted about seven o'clock in the evening. Soon af te t: 1 heart cries of murder repeated about three - times. I did not take any notice, as I am in the habit of hearing such Soon - after Bold came, and told me what he had seen I did not hear any cries He said he had seen a good fight after that. Martha Jackson, daughter of Mrs. Jackson, who keeps the Lock-house. On the night of the 21st of March she deli vered a light to some one who handed a rope over the wall to her. She heard the screams of murder three times. George Fisher.—l am a carter, in the en ploy of Mr. Airy. On the 22d March I was at the stable in Browns field. On my way to the stable I met with the prisoner. He asked me to pay for a pint of ale, saying that he was unwell. I agreed. He said they had had a serious misfortune ; that John Cheetham's boat had been robbed of the whole of the lines, and William Cheetham had been very badly used. He had lent John Cheetham an old hauling line. Their corn had been stolen, and he bad an extra feed and that was gone too. He said two men and a woman had abused the de- ceased. Prisoner.—l said four : the deceased told me four Peter Hambleton, a beer•seller, stated, that the prisoner was athis house on Sunday morning, the 22d, wheii he told me that two men and a woman had been on board and had used Cheetham sadly. He said he had requested deceased to get up and wash himself and he had assented. Witness remarked, that it was strange that they should have so many robberies, so many Saturday nights together, and that no one should have looked after them. Two or three boats had been robbed of their lines some different Saturday nights be fore that. Witness asked the prisoner why he did not alarm either him or Mr. Wormbold about it. He replied, " I thought he was only sadly beaten and he would he better in the morning." He said they robbed his vessel of a line and a sack and corn. William Shepherd, owner of the boat of which Clayton was the captain, after corroborating a slight portion of the for mer evidence, said the prisoner had been in his employ nine or ten years. When he was in a passion his voice was rather shrill. Mr. William Smith, a surgeon, proved that the deceased was brought to the Manchester Infirmary on the 22d March. The cause of death was fracture of the skull and effusion of a great quantity of blood on the brain. There were lacera tions of a scalp and several contusions on the face. The fracture was produced by a blow from some heavy body. A brickbat thrown violently would produce it, or a blow from a mallet, but a kick would not. James Wardle, a policeman, of Manchester, deposed, that, having heard of a murder, he proceeded to the boat. He described the appearance of the deceased. The prisoner was on board, who told him that the deceased had informed him that he was beaten by four men and a woman, who had rob bed him of five shillings and the boat of a line and the corn. There was a large hole in the hat of the deceased, as if cut with a slate or a brick. There were marks of blood on the floor and bed. John Butcher, a sergeant in the Manchester police, corro borated the above testimony, as regarded what the prisoner stated he had heard from the deceased. The prisoner did not believe at first that the deceased was so bad as he was. Witness produced a brick which he had found on the canal bank with blood upon it. The blood was still on it. The morning had been wet, but it had ceased raining, and the brick was quite dry. James Sauley, one of the superintendents of the Manches ter police, proved that there were some marks of blood upon• a mallet found in the cabin of the boat. The blood was then quite fresh. The prisoner had on a pair of uncut fus tian trousers : there were spots of blood upon them about the knee, which might have been done when the prisoner assisted to carry the body. The trousers were produced. They were of a dark dirty-coloured fustian. Haworth was recalled by the Judge. He said, in reply to a question from his lordship, that when he saw the pri soner and the deceased, the latter did not say anything that indicated an intention of blaming the prisoner. His LORDSHIP, in putting the case to the Jury, remarked on the confusion which appeared throughout the case, through which they must endeavour to see their way as clearly as they could. Ere they could find the prisoner guilty, it would be necessary for them to satisfy themselves that the prisoner was the man who had inflicted the injuries of which the party had died ; if they were of opinion that that had not been satisfac torily made out, the prisoner must be acquitted. On the other hand, if they felt satisfied that he had inflicted those injuries, they would then have to consider whether the case amounted to murder, or only to manslaughter. The offence appeared to have been committed by the man who threw the stones ; and from what he had , said about his having been throttled, it would appear that there had been a struggle be tween the parties in the cabin, and that the man seen on the outside had, in a state of exasperation, committed the vio lence which had produced the fatal effects described. It was not sufficient, in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter, that there had been a fight previously, for if it were proved that the retaliation had exceeded all reasonable limits, or that the conduct was such as to exhibit a savage and brutal tem per, and a determination to wreak vengeance, it would un doubtedly take a more serious aspect. It was always neces sary in such cases to ponder upon the evidence very carefully. His Lordship proceeded to read over the evidence very mi nutely, dwelling in his progress on such points as were ma terial. The Jury retired at four o'clock, the case for the prosecu tion and the summing up having occupied seven hours. They returned at five o'clock, and delivered in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. His LORDSHIP remarked upon the barbarity with which the circumstances of the case had been marked, and passed upon the prisoner sentence of fifteen years' transportation. CHARGE OF MURDER. James Al' Kiveringan, aged 30, was charged with having killed George Washington, in this town, on the 21st of July. The coroner's jury returned a verdict of manslaughter, and so the .prisoner stood charged in the calendar ; the Grand Jury had returned a bill for wilful murder, on which the pri soner now stood for trial. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Murphy conducted the prosecu tion, Mr. Wilkins the defence. Mary Brown sworn.—(This witness is a woman of colour.) —I am a widow residing in this town. I knew the deceased. His name was Washington. I know the prisoner slightly. He keeps a public-house iu Stewart-street. In July last I remember coming up Stewart-street, about eight o'clock in the morning. I saw WlCiveringan standing a few doors from his house. He had a stone larger than my fist in his hand. I saw Washington pass inc. He went on a-head of me towards the prisoner. The prisoner stood on the foot walk, and Washington stepped off to pass him. (Washing ton, the deceased, it appeared, was a black man.) There were two other persons with the prisoner. When Washing ton had passed them, he put his foot on the parapet to go on it again. The moment he did this, M`Kiveringan struck him with the stone between his two shoulders, a very severe blow. The deceased fell. As the deceased was falling, the prisoner succeeded his blow with his foot, kicking him on the side of the head. As this was done I ran up. I said, " Oh, Mr. Washingion's dead." Two or three men and women ran up to help him up. He could not speak, but bled at his mouth, nose, and ears. I saw the deceased conveyed home. He did not recover his senses while I remained with him. Cross-examined by Mr. WI LKIN s.---I am a native of Ame rica, and I get my living by washing for seamen. The de ceased was rather infirm. (It appeared that he was 63 years of age.) One of the men who went up when he fell was Mr. Smith ; has since gone to sea. Margaret Treadwell stated, that on the morning of the 21st July she was in Stewart -street. She saw a crowd, and the deceased, George Washington, lying on the ground. He was insensible, and blood was coining from his ears, nose, eyes. and mouth. I raised up his head and gave him a drink of water. He gave a kind of cough, and the bloody water all came gushing back again. Bridget Lyon.—l reside near Stewart-street. I recollect the morning of Tuesday, the 21st July last. I went out that morning in consequence of having heard something about a black man. I crossed over the street, and saw the black man lying, as I thought, dead. I went by direction of Treadwell to get a drink of water. Witness described the application of the water as the last witness had done. About 25 minutes after I saw WlCiveringan in the street. He said to a woman that he had on the night before got beaten by a coloured man, and he would beat every coloured man he came across. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I don't know the woman to whom he said this. It was about a hundred yards from WlCiveringan's house. It was beside the lowest Jew's k w i a ie s w hi ‘ m va s s e h lf in a gtotl. shop in the street. I saw him after he had pri soner lived Daniel t d under Atkin s, chargehouse o w f m h s a t e n a r b e obhfi he lodged . I d s ° g l u v e o r i . n w . I been brought home. He was sitting in a chair. He w as in sensible. I saw Mary Brown soon after, and in consequence of what she said to me, I went in search of the prisoner. I and my companion found him. J asked him why he struck such an old man. He said three or four coloured men had beaten him the night before, and he was determined to strike the first coloured man he saw that morning. I returned to my lodgings, and soon after Washington was taken to the hospital, where he died. Bridget Dewell, a creole, proved that the deceased was brought home insensible on the morning of the 21st July last. William Gaskill, one of the house-surgeons of the Northern Hospital, stated that on the 21st of July, in the morning, George Washington was brought in in a state of partial stupor. He had on him no mark of external injury, but he had a swelling at the back of his neck. On account of the colour of his skin, he could not observe any marks of bruises. He remained in the hospital nineteen days, when he died. A post mortem examination was made. All the organs of the body were healthy except the brain. Beneath the scalp on the right side there was a clot of blood, which could only have been produced by violence. There was an abscess in the brain, and a slight trace of inflammation. There was also a lacera t e d appearance, which is frequently found after death from blows on the head. These appearances were all occa sioned by external violence. A blow from a stone might of aggravated man occasion such appearances , violence. of which might have been produced by one violent blow. slaTuhghetejru.ry found the prisoner guilty Mr. WiLxisis called: witnesses, who spoke to the general good character and humanity of the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said, the crime of the prisoner had ap. proaaed very nearly to murder, for he had evidently had malice in his heart against the people of the colour of those who had offended. The prisoner was sentenced to trans portation for fifteen years. The Court arose at six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAY. SEDUCTION. - AINSCOUGH V. ASHCROFT The plaintiff, Thomas Ainscough, is farm-bailiff to Mr. Scarisbrick, of Scarisbrick-hall, and he brought the present action to recover compensation in damages for the loss of the service of Jane Ainscough, his daughter, who had been se duced by the defendant. The defendant, who was a neigh bouring farmer, had access to the plaintiff's house, as there was some relationship between the families, his brother hav ing married the plaintiff's sister. On one of these visits he took advantage of the plaintiff's daughter, and the result was that on the 25th May, 1839, a child was born. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff. Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, contended that the case was not one that should have been brought before a jury, but have been taken before a magistrate, and an order in bas tardy applied for. The JUDGE, in directing the Jury told them that this course could not have been taken. _ _ The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4O DOE DEM. ROGERS AND ANOTHER V. ADCOCK This was an undefended action to recover possession of certain premises in Charles-street and Oxford-street, Chorl ton-upon-Medlocir, Manchester, let to the defendant as a weekly tenant. The jury returned a verdict for the defen dant. DRINKWATER V. WOODCOCK The declaration in this case stated the defendant had driven a gig against a car driven by the plaintiff, whereby he had done certain injury to the plaintiff. The defendant set up three pleas in answer;—first, that he was not guilty, that the accident had arisen from the plaintiff's own carelessness and improper driving, and, lastly, in consequence of a colli sion between the defendant's gig and an omnibus, the acci dent was unavoidable. Mr. Wightman and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the defendant. On the part of the plaintiff, who is a bleacher at Harpur hey, near Manchester, it was proved that he intended to visit, with some friends, Newton races. The defendant was a so licitor and clerk to the magistrates, at Bury, in this county. The plaintiff had a horse and gig of his own, but as the gig was not large enough to accommodate the party, he hired a car, attached his own horse to it, and they proceeded to the races. At seven o'clock in the evening, and before the races were over, the plaintiff quitted Newton on his return home. When they arrived in Market-street, Manchester, as they were driving on the proper side and only a few feet from the curb stone, the defendant, who was coming in a gig in an op posite. direction, and upon the wrong side of the road. drove against the car, upset it, and in the end one of the shafts was broken. The amount of the damages was stated at 30s. The defendant, on being asked his name, refused to give it, and threatened, " if they wanted law, they should have plenty of it, as he could get it cheap." Eventually the police inter fered, and the whole party, gig and horse (as one of the wit nesses said), were taken to the watch-house. The .plaintiff was somewhat hurt by the collision ; alai the defendant hav ing refused to pay for the damage or to apologize, the present action was brought. For the defendant Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the whole was a trumpery affair, and that the action was brought not so much to serve the interest of the plaintiff as for the purpose of putting costs into the pockets of a third party. He should be able, also, to prove that the plaintiff was drunk at the time the accident happened, and that it happened through his own carelessness, whilst the defendant was per fectly sober. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. RIVAL QUACRS.-LAMERT V. BEDALE. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Cresawell and Mr. Green for the defendant. Mr. WATSON said, the plaintiff, Samuel Lamert, was a i surgeon and apothecary, carrying on business in Manchester, and the defendant was a surgeon, also carrying on business. there. The declaration stated, that the defendant had pub lished a libel of the plaintiff concerning his profession ; to this the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. ALEXANDER said, the plaintiff was a person of the Jewish persuasion, who, after passing through the Univer sity of Edinburgh ten or twelve years ago, was admitted a member of Apothecaries' Hall, London, and of the College of Surgeons. He then commenced practice in the south. In 1838, he removed to Manchester, where he commenced the practice of a peculiar branch of the profession ; he met with great success, and had a great number of patients. It was his'misfortune to have in his neighbourhood, Isaac Bedale, the defendant, who was formerly an operative spinner, but who had left that trade and took to the medical profession, education for the purpose being, of course, out of the ques tion. From the evidence he should lay before the jury, they would find, that about the close of 1832, a Dr. Taylor, who resided in Lever-street, was obliged to leave the place, and settle elsewhere, in consequence of being libelled and de famed in a similar manner, as the present plaintiff had been by the defendant. The defendant, it appeared, had had a printing press upon his premises, and finding that Dr. Tay lor was injuring him, he published the same libel of him which he had of the plaintiff, with the exception of the address. In the same manner, he had driven Dr. Berry, Dr. Davison, Dr. Perry, and other practitioners in the same line from the town. That had been his practice from 1834, to April in the present year ; and this, he told his servants, was merely an experi ment. When he heard the plaintiff was obtaining business, he said he must have Falkner-street introduced into the bills instead of Lever-street, and then, he said, they would suit the plaintiff. Immediately, he began to issue the bills, they were distributed in the streets, and the result had been a con siderable loss to the business of the plaintiff. Now, what ever might be the fate of Messrs. Davison, Perry, and Tay lor, from this system of persecution, the plaintiff was deter mined not to submit to it,. and he had brought the present action. He would now read the libel. It was beaded " Quackery exploded," and it went on to state, that in con sequence of numerous applications made to Dr. Bedale for aid, by those who had been duped out of their money and health by a notorious Jew impostor, who lived not one hundred miles from Falkner-street, Manchester, and, for the public good, Dr. Bedale was induced to lay be fore them an abridged account, taken from those given by the sufferers from Jew quackery. " The Jew," it went on to say, " is a young man of fashionable appear • ance. He generally commences his impositions by looking into the patient's mouth ; then he starts back in apparent astonishment, &c., &c." It then described the large sums demanded by the plaintiff, and asserted that his pills never did any good, but sometimes harm. After the words "So much for Jew quackery," it ended with " The itch cured in one hour." The learned counsel went on to argue that this bill was a gross libel upon the plaintiff, for which lie was en titled to receive damages. Thomas Kenniwell, a man in the service of Lamert, proved the publication of the libel. In cross-examination, he said his employment was to cut up paper for those sort of bills ; that Lamert employed seven men to distribute the bills, and that he cut up a ream of paper for them every day • and that, in short, these bills contained announcements as filthy as the one just described. He stated further, that when he first entered his service, Lamert had from fifteen to twenty pa tients on Saturday and Sunday, but they had decreased, in consequence of Bedale's bills, to five or six. Charles Gresley, who called himself a chemist and drug gist, said he entered the service of Bedale on the 10th of June, 1839, as his assistant, and left on Easter Monday. He had since that been in the service of Lamert. This witness stated that he had heard Bedale give orders for the address in bills to be altered so as to mean the plaintiff. Charles Hassel proved that the placards and bills had pro duced the desired effect, of driving out of Manchester the quacks hostile to Bedale, and that Bedale sent him with some of the bills to Lamert's. Patrick Dunn gave similar testimony. Philip Solomon, collector of the pew-rents of the Jews' Synagogue in Manchester, proved that there was no other Jew but the plaintiff, living in Falkner-street, Manchester. Simons Leir, of Bold-street, Liverpool, said he knew the plaintiff ten years ago, was a student attending medical lec tures in Edinburgh. The libels were then put in and read. They excited great laughter, in which the learned Judge heartily joined. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the jury for the defendant. He admitted that the plaintiff, if the jury considered the libel proved would be entitled to their verdict, but he contended that the very lowest damages would satisfy the justice of the care. Indeed, he thought, Bedale had done some good in driving away the other quacks whose names had been men tioned. It might be bad enough to have Bedale, but to have them all was really too much. The JUDGE in summing up, told the jury that the only question for their consideration would be the amount of da mages. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one farthing. WILD AND OTHERS V. HOLT AND OTHERS. This was a case in which a question arose as to the posses sion of a coal mine in Middleton, near Manchester. Under the direction of the learned Judge, the jury found a verdict for the defendants. The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock. CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock. SENTENCES. Isabella Wensley; a decently dressed young girl, aged 17, convicted, on Saturday last, of having robbed her master, Morris Yacoby, of certain money, trinkets, &c., and of hav ing broken out of his house, was sentenced to transportation for ten years, with an intimation that she would spend the term in imprisonment in the Penitentiary. William - Montgomery, aged 24, convicted, on Monday, 6 manslaughter, was sentenced to 15 years transportation. MURDER. John Fagan, alias Patrick Fagan, aged 43, was charged with the wilful murder of James Sheridan. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Perry conducted the prosecution; Mr. Murphy the defence. Mary Sheridan, sworn.—l am the widow of Mr. Sheridan. I live in the Park. On a Thursday in July, 1838, he came home about four o'clock. The prisoner at the bar and his brother came with him. My husband was a lumper. When they came in, they appeared to have been quarrelling. There was a cut over my husband's eye when he came in. He said he had received very bad usage, and he was almost exhausted by them. The prisoner and his brother said they would have their money from him, and they would have it or else his life. I did not then know they had been working for him : they were then strangers to me. He told them to stop till the work was done, and they should have their money like other people. The prisoner said to his brother Charles, " Lay on him." Charles struck him with his fist. My hus band resisted, and they both fell to the ground. The pri soner went up to him, and kicked him nearly at the bottom of his belly, and loosed Charles. Charles was uppermost. The prisoner slapped me with his open hand. and knocked me down, and then he put his foot upon me to keep me down. Charles was meanwhile busy enough. My husband had got up, and after a struggle with Charles, the prisoner joined him, and they threw my husband down, and both of them kicked him. Charles kicked him four or five times, after which the prisoner returned to him, and gave him more than Charles had given him a good deal. He kicked him very se verely about the bottom of the belly. I dare say he kicked him seven or eight times. He was on the ground then, un able to get up. I kept crying murder all the time, and at length John Burrows came to my assistance. One of the Fagans went out when Burrows came in, and the other was still upon my husband. When the two men had gone my husband was in a very bad state. Burrows helped me to get him on to the bed, and he remained very bad indeed all the night. Next morning I sent for Dr. Harbord, who attended him till be died. He never again ate a bit of victuals, or rose from his bed, to the time of his death, which happened three weeks after to the day. I know Patrick Campbell, who I sent to look for the Fagans next day. Charles was tried for the offence. Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.-1 am sure it was John Fagan that knocked me down, and put his foot upon me. I have always said so. Re-examined by Mr. ARMSTRONG. —After I had me t getting an I went down to the ship , with the intention of an o ffi cer to take the prisoner. I saw the prisoner the but I did not speak to hi m. I knew him t o be the same man.' No one spoke to him in m 7 presence, but they h a d b een speaking to him. I heard this from Campbell. By Mr. Murphy.—l did not see Charles Fagan that morn ing. He was transported afterwards. John Burrows.—l am a labourer in this town. I n J uly 1838, I lived next door to Sheridan. I remember being at home one afternoon, and hearing cries of murder. I went in and I found Sheridan in the bed. There was another tnan and a woman. The woman was Sheridan's wife. The man and Sheridan were in the bed fighting. Sheridan was in the bed and the man was leaning over. I ran over and pulled the man off him and put him out of the cellar. There was another man standing outside the cellar. Sheridan appeared as if he had had some drink. There was a little blood on one cheek. I remained in the cellar about ten minutes, and She ridan continued in the bed. I did not observe that he made any complaint. • Patrick Campbell, labourer.—l lived in the house over the cellar occupied by Sheridan. _ I was at home in bed when this occurred. I had my clothes on. I went down stairs when I heard the noise. I stood at my own door I saw a man outside stripped, whom I supposed to have been Charles Fagan. I went into the cellar and I saw another man. To the best of niy knowledge and belief it was the prisoner. He was standing on the top step and looking into the cellar. lie had all his clothes on. He was, proclaiming against She . . ridan foithe using of his wages. TWo police ()leers entered the street, and the man who was stripped entered my houSe and hid himself under the table. The prisoner stood in the street telling the people the wrongs that Sheridan had done him in not giving him his wages. I don't know when the officers went, but when they went away the prisoner came into my house. When he entered he began to tell me that he was much exhausted by separating Charles (his brother) and Sheridan. I gave Charles a shirt to put On him, and after that they went away. I heard one call the other Charles, and the other call out Patrick. His own shirt was all torn and dirty. I went the next day to the King's Dock by de sire of Sheridan. I saw the prisoner there. He is the same man to the best of my knowledge. I said—" Fagan, what , • fetches you here ?" He said—" Why ?" I said—" Sheridan won't live." He said, as near as I can recollect, that he might die, for he was a great rogue, and he (Fagan) got tre- rnindous "abuse between Sheridan and his broihei• Charles I never saw the _prisoner from that day till he was recently taken into custody By Mr. Munuy.-1 cannot say that Charles Fagan has a p_ said man Ti her Patrick. I did not this morning say that if they chew me Patrick I would not swear to this man, but I if they would shew me Patrick Fagan, it would clear the at the bar,—because they could not minas Quick, a superintendent of police in this town.— On the 3d of August, 1838, _in consequence of information which I receivedl went to the cellar of Sheridan in Toxteth- park. I found him on the bed, apparently in a dying state. He said he was aware that he could not survive many hours, and that he had made preparations for the change. He was a Roman Catholic, and had received the sacrament. He died on the 16th. Preiously I had received a surgeon's certificate on the subject. Henry Gordon Harbord.—l am a surgeon. I was called in to visit Sheridan on the morning of the 27th July. I found ... . . _ him very severely beaten about the head and face. , He com plained of intense pain about the belly, and interior vomiting. I considered him in extreme danger, and informed his wife of the fact from the first. From the very first I give instruc tions to the friends to have the man apprehended, and my fears of his death increased from day to day. I considered that the man could not possibly recover. After consulting with two other persons, I gave a certificate to the effect that lie could not possibly recover, and I also informed the de ceased of the same. He said he was aware that he was a killed man from the first. He died on the 16th August. I made a post mortem examination. Th3re was a wound over the eye, evidently inflicted by a kick. On the belly, during life, there was a slight echymaye spot, corresponding to an injury in the liver. The right lobe of the liver was ruptured, and hanging in shreds. The capsule of the right kidney con tained only the remains .of the kidney, and was filled with water ; and, in fact, the right kidney was an abscess. There were abscesses in the bow'els, which had been occasioned by external violence, as had all these injuries, which occasioned death. The only matter of wonder, by all who were at the post mortem examination, was, that he had lived so long. I did not know that a man could have lived so long with such injuries. Superintendent• Quick recalled.—l took down a, statement in writing. from the deceased's dictation. (Document pro duced.) This is his deposition, and that is his signature. I read it over to him carefully before he signed it. _ The statement was put in and read. It was to the effect that Sheridan had employed Charles and Patrick Fagan to wheel out a load of lirne. They had demanded money from him which he could not give them, as he had not received money from the captain. When he could not give them money they both struck, knocked him down, and kicked him, and followed him to his cellar and beat and abused him, aA above detailed. James Kennedy, inspector of police, deposed, that on the 26th July, 1838, he saw the deceased, the prisoner, and Charles Fagan quarrelling. Charles bad his shirt sleeves rolled up, in the attitude of going to strike. Charles said he would have money from the deceased. Patrick (the prisoner at the bar) said the same, he would have his wages. Sheridan said, as soon as he got money from the captain, he would pay them. I pushed Charles away, telling him that as the man had not money just then, it might satisfy them. They all went away. I have known the prisoner eight or nine years ; I never knew him by any other name than Pat Fagan. Mary Cain deposed, that she resided in Friargate, Preston. She had known the prisoner about two years and a half. She knew his brother Charles also. They had worked on the railway. She deposed that the prisoner, whose name was John, had lodged with her, and that, some time since, Patrick Fagan, his brother, called upon him, and afterwards had communicated together in Irish. Patrick said he was com pelled to go away in consequence of what his brother had done, for the d-d old wife had put his name down wrong. She had heard what John had done from his wife, and she asked him how he could find in his heart to use a man so He replied, " Be ; I must have my wages." On cross-examination, the witness said the prisoner had threatened to take her life if she ever told of this job, and on one occasion when he was about to kick her, she told him if he did so she would bring the policeman to him. He did strike her, and she told the police of him. Patrick Kelver stated that he apprehended the prisoner at Preston. He asked him if he knew John Sheridan, and he said he had known him 19 or 20 years. He asked him if he had ever worked for him. He said " No," he hail worked with him. Witness told him that he was apprehending him on suspicion of killing John Sherridan in July, 1838. He said "I am innocent of it." He said he understood that it was his brother Patrick. Next day, as they were coming on the rairway, he said the deceased got the beating because lie would not pay Charles the money. On being told by the officer that he seemed to know all about it, he said " Only from what I have heard." The officer told him he ought to be cautious what he said then. The defence got up was that the prisoner was not the man who had been engaged in this transaction at all. Mr. Mur phy contended, in a very powerful speech, that the whole evidence tended to show that it was Patrick Fagan, while the name of the prisoner was John, his brother. The learned gentleman called Elis Boyle, an aged female, who stated that she had known the Pagans from infancy. There were John and Charles and Patrick and Peter. Never knew the prisoner, John Fagan, to be called Patrick Fagan. He was christened John. Was passing Peter-street, in the Park, on the evening in ques tion. Saw Charles Fagan coming up out of Sheridan's cellar without his shirt, and Patrick Fagan standing above on the cellar steps. Mr. ARMSTRONG briefly replied, and his LORDSHIP summed up the evidence to the jury, remarking with great care on the most material points which it offered for cousi- deration. The jury, after a few moments consultation, found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. His LORDSHIP remarked on the barbarous circumstances of the case. He should pass on him the same sentence as had already been passed on his brother. The prisoner was sentenced to transportation for life. MURDER. Ellen Bannon, a good looking young woman, aged 20, was indicted for having in this town, in May last, murdered her female bastard child. Mr. Venables and Mr. Paget conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy the defence. The circumstances of this case are not fit for publication in detail. The particulars, so far as they could be put upon record were published at the time when the prisoner was committed. It appeared that on the 14th of May last, as two nightmen were taking out a privy from a court in Addison-street, they found the body of a female child, which had been evidently recently born. A police-officer was sent for, and the child was delivered to him. The prisoner worked as a shoe binder and stitcher, in the service of a Mr. Fenelon, a shoe maker, residing in Addison-street, not far from the privy where the child was found. The circumstance of the child being found caused the female inmates of Mr. Fenelon's house to recall to mind the conduct of the prisoner on the day preceding, for some time previously to which it had been observed that her person had undergone a very marked al teration, which she accounted for to Mrs. Fenelon, by a statement which was believed by that lady. It was deposed that on the morning of the 13th of May she was exceedingly ill, and that she sent the young woman who slept with her out of the room to obtain some medicine for her, and subse quently for coffee and on various other errands. The young woman on her return with the medicine saw the prisoner crouched down by the side of the bed, apparently in great pain, and immediately afterwards she heard a sort of smothered cry, upon which the prisoner observed that she was ill in her inside, and asked the girl if she did not hear the noise therein. The prisoner had placed herself between the bed and the wall, and had erected a board so that her person was only partially visible. This witness, who was very young, did not observe much more, except that the pri , soner was in bed when she went up subsequently. There were other appearances and acts of the prisoner observed, by Mrs. Fenelon and others, which subsequently led to the inference that the prisoner had given birth to a child. The pri soner went out that evening with her cloak on, but with out her bonnet, and remained about ten minutes. She subsequently stated to Mrs. Fenelon that she had mis carried in the street, which Mrs. Fenelon doubted, as she had been led to believe that something had occurred at her house. Mrs. Fenelon was much affected while giving her evidence. She gave the prisoner a very excellent character, as a good, industrious, sober, and sweet-tempered girl. Po lice-officer Guy stated that the prisoner admitted that the child was hers, and that she had put it in the privy. Mr. Cooper, the surgeon who examined the body of the child, stated that there were two punctured wounds in the head, which had been inflicted after death, no doubt by the prongs of the nightmaies fork. The only mark of violence was on the face, where pressure appeared to have been ap plied over the face and nose, which pressure he was of opi nion had produced suffocation. From the development of the lungs there could scarcely, be a doubt that the child was born alive. He examined the lungs by the hydrostatic test, and that confirmed him in his judgment that the child was born alive. He believed death had been caused by suffoca tion. • On cross-examination, Mr. Cooper said that it was possi ble, from the crouching attitude that the prisoner was stated to have been, that the child might not have been born alive. Mr. MURPHY dwelt strongly on the latter fact, upon the ignorance of the poor girl of what she should do under such circumstances, and of the little likelihood there was that one who was described as so s weet -tempered and so gentle should have violated all the instincts of such a nature and laid violent hands upon her offspring. While his LORDSHIP was summing up, Mr. MURPHY re quested permission to put another question to Mr. Cooper, the reply to which strengthened the inference that the child might have been suffocated during birth. The jury acquitted the prisoner of the murder, and found her guilty of concealing the birth. The prisoner was sen tenced to two years' imprisonment. CONCEALING A BIRTH. Catharine Murphy, aged about 30, was charged with hav ing, at Prescot, in the present month, concealed the birth of a male infant, of which she had been delivered. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution. The circumstances, as detailed in evidence, went to prove that on the 9th instant the prisoner, after having exhibited the appettrance of pregnancy, was delivered of a male child, and that she pretended she bad miscarried. She was in the habit of going to the cellar of a woman named Mallory, to get water from a well that was there. Soon after the rumour of her miscarriage, in consequence of the appearance of the water the well was examined, and the body of a male child, in an advanced state of decomposition, was found. Informa tion of the circumstance was given to the police, and the pri soner was questioned as to the time of her confinement, and as to what had become of her child. She said she had buried it in the church-yard. It was sought for in three different places which she indicated, but it could not be found.— The well was fourteen or fifteen yards deep, and a coal miner wits sent down. The surgeon who was called said de composition had proceeded so far that it was impossible to tell whether the child was born alive or not. His LORDSHIP said as the indictment was for concealing the child in the well, the jury must be satisfied that the child found in the well was that of which the prisoner wts deli vered. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour. MURDER. Thomas Wilkinson, a stou t man, aged 29, was charged with having, at Manchester, on the 14th June last, mur dered Maria Connor. The coroner's jury had returned a verdict of manslaughter, but the grand jury preferred a bill for wilful murder. At another inquisition which was taken a verdict of wilful murder was also given it. Mr. BRANDT conducted the prosecution, and Mr. WIL KINS the defence. Ann Hampson.=—ln June last I lived in the house of Joseph Worthington. There were two rooms in that house, one above and one below. The room above was occupied by the prisoner and Maria Connor, and I and Worthington oc cupied the room below. On the night of the 12th of June they came home together in liquor. She had had more liquor than he had. He lay down at that time, and when they went up stairs he asked her to turn up some money, which he said she had taken from his pocket. There was a noise as if he had been kicking her, and she called " Oh ! Joe, come and save me." Worthington went up and soon after called to me. When I went up she was lying on her side, and Worthington was holding his arms fast. The de cessed had something running out of her mouth. She was on the floor near the bed. I lifted her on the bed and bathed her temples with cold water. A doctor was sent for, but she appeared to be dead before he came. Joseph Worthington corroborated the first part of the above statement. When he arrived up stairs, Maria. Connor was out of the bed, and the prisoner was kicking her in the side. I asked him to be quiet for he might kill her with a chance blow. I said "be quiet," and got hold of him round the body. He cursed her, and said he would have his money. I asked her to give him his money if she had got it. She put her hand in her left stocking, and pulled out half-a-crown and a shilling, and gave it to him. He said that was not it all, and he began to kick her again, and catched her with his foot on the right side of her head. He kicked her in the side with his foot. I got hold of him again, and he up with his foot and kicked her in the mouth, which cut her lip, and her mouth began to bleed. She still sat, and I asked him to come down stairs, and was pulling him away, when he up with his foot and kicked her in the throat. She then fell off the bed side, and began vomiting something dark coloured. I called for Ann Hampson, and she came, and the prisoner went down stairs with me. I told him I thought he had " done it," and he said, " not I." Ann Hampson shouted down stairs that she was dying. She shouted down stairs again that he had killed her, and he said, " if lie bad not done so, when he went up stairs again be would do so." We both went up together shortly after. We felt to find if she could breathe, but she did not, and I said, " let's have a doctor." He said never mind a doctor. I sent for a doctor. It appeared on cross-examination, that both the deceased and Ann Hampson were living in prostitution in this house in question, with the prisoner and Worthington : answer to Mr. Wilkins, Worthington denied that - he had held out any threat to induce Ann Hampson to give any particular evidence. Joseph Wardle, a police-officer of Manchester, stated that he found the girl, Maria Connor, dead. She had several wounds on her face, and a severe wound in her neck, under her chin. When this was pointed out to him he said it was there before. Ann Hampson shook her head. The prisoner said if she had not taken his money he should not have done it. The prisoner when he got down stairs said, he had struck her once in the head, and when she, was falling he kicked her in the throat, and if they would go up stairs they would see the marks of his shoe in her throat. Mr. Taylor, the surgeon, compared her shoe with the mark in the neck. There were five nails in one shoe, which corresponded with marks in the neck. Witness described other marks. _ Mr. Taylor, surgeon, of Manchester, described the injuries which the deceased had received. She had two old bruises about her eyes, a recent contusion in the eye, a cut in the lower jaw, and a very severe laceration across the throat, which had evidently been inflicted by a kick—the shoes hav ing nails in, and the kick going directly upwards. There were severe bruises on the hips, and one on her right hand. The five nails in front. of the shoes, which were produced, exactly corresponded with the marks on the throat and hand. On a post mortem examination, it was found that death had been produced by an effusion of blood on the brain, and rup ture of the blood vessels at the base of the brain, produced by the injury in the throat. Mr. WiLKINs made a powerful appeal to the jury in behalf of the prisoner, contending that the case was one of man slaughter, as it had been found to be by the twelve intelligent men who had constituted the coroner's jury. The Jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. Mr. WILKINS called a witness, who stated that the pri soner was a peaceable and humane man. His LORDSHIP remarked on the barbarity of the offence, and said he should mark, by a severe sentence, such barbarity on an unfortunate female. His lordship passed sentence of transportation for life. The court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr. Baron Rolfe and a Special Jury.) • ADAMSON V. MITCHELL AND ANOTHER. This was an action upon a charter party. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman for the defendants. In the course of a trial which lasted nearly four hours, it appeared that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the schooner William and James, Captain Jethro, of Dundee. The action was brought to recover compensation for demurrage caused to the ship through the defendants not having discharged the cargo. The defendants, by their house in St. Petersburgh, chartered the vessel to convey a cargo of hemp to a port on the east side of the coast of Great Britain, between H ull and Aberdeen inclusive. Thirty days were allowed for loading and unloading, and in case of demurrage £3 a day was to be allowed over and above those terms. The present action was brought upon the assumption that, through the neglect of the defendants, twenty-seven days were occupied beyond the time originally agreed upon. When the vessel arrived at Hull, a dispute arose between the owners of the cargo and the captain, whether the ship was not bound to proceed to Kirkaldy instead of discharging the cargo at Hull. Negoti ations went on for some time, but as they produced no re sults, the captain discharged the cargo into the bonded ware houses of the dock company. On the part of the defendants, three pleas were set up : first, that the ship proceeded from St. Petersburgh, without their directions, to the port of Hull ; that after she got there they gave directions for her to proceed northward to Kirk ably, and it was by reason of that refusal that additional delay had occurred. The second plea differed from the first only in stating, that whilst the vessel was proceeding to Hull, notice was given to the plaintiff for her to proceed to Kirk aldy, but she proceeded to Hull without their leave and li cense ; and the third plea was, that instructions to that effect were given to the captain before he sailed from St. Peters burgh. A variety of oral and documentary evidence was g iven in support of these pleas—all of which were denied by the plaintiff. The JUDGE. in charging the jury, told them that on the fitst and third pleas the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict, and for the defendant on the second, subject to the decision of the court above, whether it was a good plea. The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues. Damages, £Bl. IHLER AND OTHERS V. DUNN The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of Josiah -7---- Swann Wood, a bankrupt, and the action was brought to re cover a sum of money which the defendant had received. The defendant pleaded a set-off, which was denied, Mr. WATSON for the plaintiffs, stated that Mr. Josiah Swann Wood began business in Liverpool as a wine and spirit merchant, in the month of January last. He purchased goods from the plaintiffs to the amount of £5OO, upon the sugges tion that they were to be exported to the West Indies. He had been in business about three months when he incurred debts to the amount of £9OO. He had a house at Seacombe, where he resided, and a place of business in Liverpool. He had some furniture in the house at Seacombe, and stock and fixtures in Salthouse-lane, Liverpool. On the 29th of April he left his home at Seacombe to avoid his creditors, and up to the present time he had not been heard of. The plain tiffs, although they had made every inquiry, could not dis cover who Mr. Dunn, the defendant, was. When Mr. Wood was away from his creditors, Mr. Dunn appeared and sold both the furniture in the house, and the stock and effects in the warehouse, for £ll9 17s. 61d., the whole of which he had put into his own pocket. It was for the recovery of that amount that the plaintiffs, as the assignees of the bankrupt, Wood, had brought the present action, for the purpose of dis tribution among the general body of creditors. The fiat in bankruptcy was put in. Mr. Walker, auctioneer, proved that he had sold the pro perty of the bankrupt for the net sum of £ll9 17s. 61d. Dunn engaged him, and told him he was selling under a deed of assignment, Mr._ J.. 1. Clare, father-in-law of the bankrupt, Wood, proved that he commenced business in January last; that he had some furniture at Seacombe, and stock and fixtures in Liverpool. He did not know where the bankrupt and his daughter were. Mr. Alexander Ibler proved the debt of the bankrupt to the plaintiffs to be £5OO, and that he had repeatedly called for the money, but had not been able to obtain it. He had also had interviews with Dunn upon the same subject, and he pro mised to call upon the plaintiffs concerning it. He said he only knew in confidence where Ward was, and he could not tell. He acknowledged having the keys of Wood's ware house ; witness went with him to look over the stock. A Mr. Ledson, a wine merchant, came in and asked where Wood was ? Dunn said he could not tell, but he could con vey a letter to him. Wood had not since been heard of. Mr. CRESSWELL, for the defendant, then addressed the court. The bankrupt went away in May. Mr. Dunn took possession of his effects for the purpose of making arrange ments with his creditors. He was in communication with the bankrupt, and of course he expected remuneration from him for his time and trouble. That, however, did not bind the assignees ; they insisted upon their right ; but he (the learned counsel) could not help saying they had used the de fendant very hardly. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—.£ll9 17s. 6d. The JUDGE said, in consideration of the circumstances, execution should not issue until the expiration of a month. MORRIS V. BUTTERWORTH .... This was an action to recover the costs of an action, which had been instituted against the defendant and a person named John Whitelegg, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange, which purported to have been accepted by them. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Green were for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Martin for the defendant. It appeared that the bill in question was given to the plain tiff for £23; it was returned, whereupon an action was com menced agairist each of the acceptors, Butterworth and White legg. The latter paid the bill and costs of the action against himself, but Butterworth refused to pay the costs against him on the ground that he had not accepted the bill. The man Whitelegg was called, and he proved that he had accepted the bill. Mr. MARTIN said he had no question to put to the witness ; but the learned Junuz said he had. In answer to questions from the JUDGE, Whitelegg said he had accepted the bill, that Butterworth was not there, that the bill was not signed by Butterworth, or by any one on his behalf, and that he knew nothing about it. _ The JUDGE was about to ask him who had written the name, but he said he should not, as it might criminate himself. Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury in indignant terms on the conduct of the witness, contending that he was totally unworthy of credit. The JUDGE told the jury that the only question for their consideration was, whether the defendant had accepted the bill? If they were satisfied of that point, they would return a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages one shilling. The JUDGE said, prima facie evidence of a forgery had been given, and he was not sure whether he ought not to commit. Where was the plaintiff? Mr. Partington, the pl a intiff's attorney, replied, that he was not in court, and that he resided at Bing-house, near Halifax. The JUDGE desired the defendant, Butterworth, to stand forward, and said he should send for a magistrate to take the depositions against Whitelegg. Sir Thomas Brancker shortly afterwards came into court, and the learned judge explained the circumstances to him. All the parties then went before Sir Thomas and the depositions were taken. HALL AND OTHERS V. WALLACE. The pleadings in this case were excessively long, occupying thirty-two brief sheets. Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. HOGGINS were for the plaintiffs; Mr. WIGHTMAN and Mr. —, for the defendant. Mr. CRESSWELL said the question in this case would be whether Oe plaintiffs, who were assignees of a person named Taylor, who became bankrupt in 1839, or the defendant, were entitled to the proceeds of certain goods which were in the possession of the bankrupt at that time. Those goods were sold, and they produced about £l2OO. Mr. Wallace, the defendant, was a gentleman residing in the county of Dur ham, and about the spring of 1839 Taylor was engaged to marry his daughter ; the marriage took place on the Ist of April, and Mr. Wallace lent his son £6OO, with which he commenced bnsiness as a draper in Sunderland. In the month of November following, a warrant of attorney was given by Taylor to his father-in-law to secure that sum. Taylor was not successful in business, and he was under the necessity of borrowing money ; he borrowed money from two or three banks, for which his father-in-law became security, for which he received another warrant of attorney, dated the 4th of May, 1839. The father-in-law being in possession of these two securities, the bankrupt, in the course of the same month, assigned to him some policies of insurance, one upon his life, and two against fire effected upon his stock. He (the learned counsel) believed that these were accompanied with an assignment of his book debts. One or two creditors, towards the close of the year 1839, were pressing the bank rupt for money, when h'e threatened them that if they became troublesome they would find he was secure against their at tacks, and that the law, although sometimes an enemy, was sometimes a friend. He gave other creditors a similar re ception, but at last, Mr. Robson, another creditor, issued execution against him on the 3d of December.. Thebankrupt resided in Sunderland, his father-in-law in Durham, anfl Mr. Phillips, another gentleman, residing in Stiraderland, who had married a daughter of Mr. Wallace's, on hearing of the execution, went to Durham and told Mr. Wallace what was going on. The father-in-law immediately issued an execu tion and swept away everything. The sum of £l2OO was made by the sale, and with that Mr. Wallace paid himself and those to whom he was security, and now the other cre ditors might whistle for their money. He (the learned counsel) apprehended that these transactions constituted a violation of the bankrupt law. He quoted the 3d section of the act 6 George IV., chapter 16, in support of this proposition, and to show that the giving of the warrants of attorney was of itself an act of bankruptcy, and he concluded by detailing the substance of the evidence he should produce. The fiat in bankruptcy and evidence of the formal part of the pleas having been put in, a number of admissions before the commissioners in bankruptcy by the defendant were read. Mr. Phillips, the person alluded to by the learned counsel, was also called, and he confirmed the statements made in the opening. Mr. WIGIITMAN addressed the jury. The question was not whether there was a bona fide debt due to Mr. Wallace upon his judgment, but whether he did not of himself put it in execution, or at the instigation of the bankrupt ? It had been distinctly proved that Mr. Phillips was the person who urged him to it, and that the bankrupt had expressly refused to go to Durham for that purpose. The learned counsel strongly insisted that this was the true complexion of the case. Mr. WIGHTMAN, after the Judge had summed up, and before the jury consulted, contended that, by the act passed in 1839, all bona fide executions before the issuing of the fiat were good, provided the parties had no notice of the act of bankruptcy. Mr. CitasswELL contended that the giving of the warrant of attorney was an act of bankruptcy, and that putting it in execution was in defeazance of the law. The JUDGE said the point was perfectly new, and he would reserve it. His lordship then directed the jury to say whether or not the defendants knew that the message to put the war rant of attorney into execution came from the bankrupt ? The jury retired for consultation. _ At nine o'clock the jury returned into court. The foreman stated that they had found a verdict for the plaintiff, da mages £1190; and they further found that the execution had been procured by the contrivance of the bankrupt, but with out the privity of the defendant. CASE AND ANOTHER V. LACEY This was an action► to recover £5O tine from the defendant to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs reside in Manchester, and the defendant in Todmorden. A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. CRONICSRAW V. RAMSDEN The plaintiff is a cotton manufacturer, residing at Arring ton, and the defendant, who was in the same trade, resides at Bolton. The action was brought to recover the balance of an account. Verdict for the plaintiff, £5O. CROWN COURT.-Y ESTERDAY William Seddon, aged 26, was charged with having at Westhoughton, assaulted Sarah Bellard with intent to com mit a rape. The grand jury threw out that portion of the bill that constituted the capital offence. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Cardwell were for the prosecution, and Mr. "Wilkins for the defence. Females were ordered out of court. The prosecutor, a good-looking young woman, was on her way—on foot—from Manchester to Wigan, when she met the prisoner and another man near Westhoughton. They entered into conversation, and the prosecutrix was finally in dikced to accompany them, for the purpose of procuring lodg ings with their assistance. They called at a public-house, but did not obtain lodgings, and the prisoner then said that she might sleep with his sister, and they accordingly went on together. The prisoner took her through several fields, and at a particular spot committed the alleged assault. The details of the case are altogether unfit for publication. The prosecutrix and her mother being examined, the pris oner was found not guilty. William Dickson, 26, and who, it is stated in the calendar, can read and write imperfectly, stood indicted with having feloniously and carnally known and abused Elizabeth Platt, and Ellen Barton. The case was one which, like the pre ceding one, it would be improper to particularise. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy. The prosecutrixes were both girls of tender years. Adam Bamford, a young man• whose name is not in the calendar, was indicted on a charge of assaulting Alice Fitton, with intent, &c. in the township of Crompton. The prose cutrix was an interesting young woman, of 18 years of age. The parties had been to a fair, and had called together at five or six public houses, and the girl admitted that at one of them she sat a short time on the prisoner's knee. The pro secution was conducted by Mr. Brandt ; the prisoner's de fence by Mr. Wilkins. After the prosecutrix had been cross-examined for some time, his lordship expressed his opinion► that the evidence was too slight to support the charge. Mr. Brandt stated that he had no stronger testimony to offer, and the jury, under direction, found the prisoner not guilty. FORGERY Matthew Farley, an elderly man, stood indicted for forging a note for the amount of £lB, purporting to be signed by a person named Peter Ward, and uttering the same, with in tent to defraud the Loyal Hibernia Total Abstinence Lodge. Owen Leary said he was secretary to the said society. The prisoner was treasurer. There was an audit of the accounts, and it was found that there was a balance of £lB ls. Id. against the prisoner. Witness communicated the fact to him, and he said it was all right. When the money was not forthcoming, witness called upon him several times. Pri soner promised to pay it ; but said he could not then do so. Witness asked him for a security, promising, in that case, to give him three months longer to pay it. lie said .he would get a promissory note from Mr. Peter Ward; In cross examination the witness said that the society was not en rolled pursuant to act of parliament. Another member of the society said that the prisoner went to him with a blank promissory note stamped to get filled up, he (the prisoner) stating that he would get it filled up by Peter Ward, of the firm of Ward and Newton, of Vauxhall-road. Witness tilled it up, and prisoner brought it back with a signature of Peter Ward to it. It was given to the president. Thomas Butler, another member, said the prisoner brought him the note, and asked him to put his name to it. A per son named ranny had been employed by the prisoner to get the note signed by Ward, but did not procure it. Witness signed the note as a witness, not knowing what it tended to. Prisoner then asked him to give it to the lodge, which he did. The learned JUDGE admonished the witness to beware of signing notes in the manner described, otherwise he might stand in the position of the prisoner. John Healey, assistant secretary, saw Connell take a note out of the secretarys box. He took the note to Ward, who would not pay it. Prisoner was told that it was not paid ; and he admitted that he had forged the name. Peter Ainsworth, police-officer, apprehended the prisoner, who admitted to him that he had forged the name. He also said that he had asked Mr. Ward to sign the document, but that he had refused. Mr. Peter Ward, manufacturing chemist, said that the signature was not his, nor did it appear to be an imitation of it. The prisoner had called upon the witness to request him to be bail or security for him, as he was about to become an officer of a society ; but he refused. Witness gave him no authority to sign his name. In cross-examination witness said he had known the prisoner for eight years, and he al ways considered him an honest man. The prisoner had stated, when before Mr. Rushton, that the evidence against him was correct ; that he had offered to pay the money by instalments, but was not allowed, and he begged for mercy as he had a large family depending upon him. Mr. MURPHY took an objection to the indictment, in asmuch as it did not describe the alleged forged document in the language of the statute. The instrument, he considered ought to have been set forth in the specific terms. Besides, one of the witnesses had admitted that the society was not regularly enrolled according to the act. The purport of the note was to pay to the parties named, and not to the society. The learned counsel spoke at some length on behalf of the prisoner. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Sentence was de ferred. James Whitworth, 39, was indicted for having forged and uttered an order for the payment of money, purporting to be the order of Leo Schuster, upon the Manchester and Salford Bank, for £2OO, with intent to defraud the said bank. John Reid M'Kenzie said he was a cashier of the Bank in question. The prisoner-came there on the 27th June, and presented a check. (Witness identified it.) It was signed Leo Schuster, and the writing was a close imitation of Mr. Schuster's writing. Mr. S. banked there. Witness, how ever, thought it was not Mr. S.'s writing, and sent for a po lice officer, to whom he handed the check. Witness asked him where he got it, and he said a man gave it to him. It was on a Saturday afternoon, when they were busy at the bank, and the chances were that it might more readily have passed. Mr. Schuster said the signature was not his ; nor was it a good imitation. Mr. Schuster's clerk, who was in the habit of filling up the bodies of his checks, said that the handwriting was not his ; but was like his. He did not give the prisoner the check. The writing appeared to be an imitation of his writing. The prisoner was clerk to Mr. Lees, and used to call for that gentleman's account. Mr. Lees said the prisoner had been upwards of seven years with him. He always believed the writing of the note, including the signature. There is a little tremour about it, but it is clearly his writing. M`Mullen, a police officer, took the prisoner into custody. He told the prisoner the check was a forged one, and his re ply was that he knew nothing at all about it. He said he had been at an eating-house where there were two men, one of whom said he would give him a shilling if he would go to the bank and get the money for the check. He said he did not know them, but had left them there in a room up stairs. Wit ness went with him to an eating-house in Thomas's-street. We went up stairs to a small room, but no one was tlgee. The servant said he had been there to dinner; and that ere were others there whom she knew. Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—Witness found up wards of £7O on the prisoner. He (prisoner) said he thought the check was on the Commercial Bank. Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the prisoner. The prisoner received a good character from several re spectable individuals. He had fulfilled the office of clerk to a chapel, and had been a book-keeper to several persons, all of whom spoke of him as having been a sober, industrious, honest man, up to the present time. The jury found the prisoner guilty of uttering the check knowing it to be forged ; but recommended him to mercy on account of his previous good character. The learned JUDGE said that the offence of forgery was one which it was found necessary to punish with severity in a commercial country like this. Until recently the penalty was death itself ; but that was now done away with, though parties were still liable in aggravated cases to transportation for life. The court could not, however, go that length on this occasion. The offence of the prisoner WAS of a serious character. It was one of the worst cases of the kind which had come under his consideration at the assizes, and could not be said to be induced by the pressure of w an t. The sen tence of the court was, under all the circumstances, that the prisoner should be transported beyond the seas for the term of ten years. SHEEP STEALING John Whitton, an elderly man, and . Timothy Whitton, a boy, (his son), were charged with stealing a sheep at Pendle ton, the property of John Batterson. There was nothing peculiar in the case ; and it appeared that the son was merely employed by his father to leave the skin at a place of sale. Mr. WILKINS spoke at considerable length in behalf of both prisoners. The jury found the elder prisoner guilty, and the younger, by his lordship's direction, not guilty. Sentence on John Whitton wag deferred. The boy way discharged. Daniel Atkins, 25, was indicted on a charge of having, at Liverpool, feloniously gut and stabbed James M`Laughlin. The prisoner was a witness at a recent trial for assault at. these assizes, and his testimony went to the conviction of the accused. He is a shoemaker ; and, it appeared, was called upon by the prosecutor and some other parties while he was at work, and a quarrel and a challenge having ensued, he went out, fought the prosecutor, and proved himself the better man. The prosecutor, it appears, and a number of others, friends of the convict before alluded to, afterwards burst into his house, while he was quietly seated, cutting some tobacco for his pipe, and so assaulted him that he con sidered his life in danger, and made use of the knife in his defence. The jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. The court adjourned at eight o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY. On Mr. Baron ROLFE taking his seat, he informed the counsel in the last cause tried yesterday, that the jury had found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £ll9O, but that the father-in-law was not privy to the act of bankruptcy ; that the issue of the execution was bona fide on his own account; in fact, therefore, that the son-in-law, the bankrupt, had procured the issue of the execution. Consequently, accord ing to his view of the case, the bankruptcy act of last year protected the father-in-law. What must be done then must be to enter a verdict for the defendant ; it could not be a nonsuit, because it resulted, from the finding of the jury, that the father-in-law was not privy. THE QUEEN V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY COMPANY This was an issue from the Court - of Queen's Bench, for the trial of several questions arising out of a return from the Manchester and Leeds Railway Company, to a mandamus obtained at the suit of the trustees of the Rochdale and Oldham Turnpike Road, and commanding them to comply with certain directions contained in the act of parliament authorising the formation of the railway, with regard to a bridge or viaduct for carrying the line over the turnpike road at Rochdale. A special jury was sworn, most of whom had previously paid a visit to the locus in quo for the pur pose of personal inspection. Messrs. Alexander, Starkie, and Wightman appeared on behalf of the trustees ; Messrs. Cresswell, Tomlinson, and Hildyard for the railway company. The pleadings, which were very voluminous, having been opened, and one of the most material of the pleas alleging that the company had done what they were required to do by the mandamus, Mr. CRESSWELL contended that the affirmative lay upon the defendants, and consequently that he had a right to begin. After some discussion the learned JUDGE decided the question in his favour, and Mr. CRESSW ELL proceeded to open the case for the defend ants, illustrating his observations by reference to a very neatly executed model of the viaduct, turnpike-road, and premises adjoining. It appeared that in 1836 the company obtained an act em powering them to make a railway between Manchester and Leeds. Subsequently they proposed to carry the line nearer to Rochdale than they had originally contemplated, and this, a subsequent act, obtained ou the sth of May, 1837, enabled them to do. About the tinacathat application was made for this act, the Rochdale Canal Company made certain altera tions in their line, interfering with the contemplated line of railway, and in consequence of this, when the company came before parliament, a clause was introduced in committee, which imposed upon them the necessity of departing from the line which it was proposed to take, and to take very nearly that which they had adopted. It happened, however, that the property adjoining the new line had not been mentioned in the books of reference, so that the company had no power to compel the owners to sell it. The last act pointed out the place in the outskirts of Rochdale, where the railway was to cross the turnpike road, and directed that there should be an opening for the bridge of 30 feet wide, leaving a passage of 24 feet wide for carriages, &c., and one footpath of six feet wide, exclusive of the pillars between the carriage road and the footpath for foot-passengers ; and also that the ground should be excavated and lower"d so as to keep the turnpike road on a proper level. By the original plan for the bridge prepared by Mr. Gooch. one of the engineers of the com pany, it was proposed, in strict conformity with the act, to make an opening of thirty feet wide, devoting six feet of it to a footpath, and the rest to the carriage road. They had just commenced with the bridge, when Mr. King, one of the trustees of the turnpike road, Mr. Hibbert, the clerk, and Mr. Luar, the surveyor to the trustees, called upon Mr. Gooch at his office in Manchester, and in consequence of their suggestions the bridge was built' as it now stands, namely, with a centre opening of 24 feet wide, and two side openings of ten feet wide each, one on each side of the street. Instead, however, of excavating and lowering the whole road, only that intended for carriages was lowered, and the foot path on each side was left several feet above that level, being protected by retaining walls, and steps being provided at intervals for the accommodation of passengers and persons occupying the houses on each side of the street. The soil was of a loose and sandy nature, and it was shown, on the testimony of Mr. Gooch and various other wit nesses, that any further excavation of the road would have been dangerous to the houses, the foundations of some of which were very slight, and particularly to a large cotton-mill, which stood on one side of the street. The case of the de fendants was, in fact, that the road in its present state was much better for the public in every respect, than it would be if lowered in the manner required by the mandamus. To prove these points a host of witnesses, including surveyors, engineers, mill-owners, and others, were examined, many Of them very tediously, apparently to prove, amongst other matters, that a wide road is better than a narrow one, where the former can be had. Amongst the witnesses were two or three members of the firm of Messrs. Livesey and Co., cotton-spinners, whose mill fronts the turnpike road, one end abutting on the railway viaduct. They expressed their perfect satisfaction with the alteration, and said it was much better as it was than it would be if the foot-path had been lowered to the level of the carriage road. They were of opinion that if the foot-path had been lowered the founda tion of the mill would have given way, which, indeed, Was actually the fact with respect to the end abutting on the via duct, when the foundations of the latter were laid. Mr; George Parker Bidder, once the celebrated "calculating boy,' now surveyor to the London and Blackwall Railway Com pany, said that in the formation of the viaduct and footpaths, the defendants had done all that they were required to do Inv the act, and much more than he would have done unless he were especially consulting the convenience and advantage of the public. After the examination of some other witnesses on the part of the defendants, the court adjourned at a qua" ter before seven o'clock till this morning, when the case fo r the prosecution will be opened. BRITISH INDIA -GREAT . MEETING IN MAN . : CHESTER. (FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.) One of the largest, and at the same time most respectable meetings ever held in Manchester, took place on Wednescle/ night in the Corn Exchange, Hanging Ditch, for the pur-: pose of considering the propriety of forming a society to be called the Northern Central British India Society for Or purpose of improving the condition of the natives of Bride? India by procuring an alteration of their condition as regard s the land tenures, the mode of collecting the revenue, fit• The boroughreeve, John Brooks, Esq., presided, and among the leading gentlemen present were Daniel O'Connell, Esq.' M.P. ' • Jos. Brotherton, Esq. M.P. ; Sir Thos. Potter ; Joseph Pease, sen., Esq., Darlington ; George Th nni psoe , Esq. ; Charles Lennox Remond, a gentleman of colour, deputy from the Anti- Slavery Society of Pennsylvania ; &c. Scc• The first resolution was moved by GEORGE HADFIELD , , Esq.—" That contemplating the awful importance of the duty imposed on the t -overnment and people of England to consult the interests and remedy the political evils of the null' titudinous inhabitants of British India, more than one how dred million of whom are subjected to British dominion, we anxiously and earnestly desire to rouse public attention W. the manifold and aggravated grievances which were near, sarily concomitant with and resulted from the present system of landed tenures and revenues prevalent in our East Indiell territories ; and that we are convinced if the people of Eng' land can be brought to learn and fully comprehend the heinous evils resulting from the operation of the present elir, tens, they will be anxiously desirous that those evils she': cease, and a paternal government be immediately substituted in place of the existing tyranny." (Applause.) This motion was seconded by Alderm — an CAL-ENDER GEORGE THOMPSON, Esq., then rose and supported the, motion in a speech of great length, in which he read most 01 the documentary evidence which has from time to time been laid before the public on the present state of India and its mode of government, and contended that the' improvemen t sought to be effected by this society in the land tenures, &e.: would lead to the cultivation of sugar more extensively, and especially of cotton, and this by its reflex power would ope' rate upon, and indeed was the only practical mode of briur ing to an end the slave trade of the United States ; on the other hand, it would be the means of throwing opal to this county an immense field for our manufactures. kle entered into a great many details of the injurious operation of the land tenures in India, and of the mode adopted by the Indian government to collect its revenues. He gas! the India Board credit for being anxious to turn to ad" vantage the opportunity which presented itself of makingi. that country a cotton-growing country, but denied OP such an alteration had taken place in their land tenure', and the operation of their other laws as would render tbv t ", practical to any extent — the distrust occasioned by the hither!: tyrannical conduct of exacting taxes from them being like' , also to prove for a time a serious obstacle. He said that tb slave-owners of America, however, already began to read in 11 the downfall of their present system, and he exhorted th e meeting to support the object of the British India Society 011 the ground of justice to men, who. were as much their fellow - I subjects as the inhabitants of Middlesex—on the ground 0 ' humanity, on the ground of religion, and on the ground wher e no other ground would avail, even of self-interest. ABsALOM WATKIN, Esq., moved the next resolution' which was to the effect that the redress of the evils now pre' valent in India, existing as they did in a country of the great' est extent and fertility, whose soil was capable of supplYing most of the demands for tropical produce, and whose inhabi tants, under an improved system of government, would be consumers to an indefinite extent of British manufacturOt would greatly augment the resources of commerce, and pro' mote the comforts of the industrious population of that coup' try M . r. JOHN Bamirr, of Rochdale, seconded the resolution; which was supported in a long speech by Mr. Remond, and adopted. Jos. PEASE, sen., Esq., of Darlington, moved the a ppoin' ment of a committee, to carry into effect the spirit of the re' solutions, and DAVID HOLT, Esq., seconded the motion. , DANIEL O'COYNELL, Esq., then came f orwar d amids t great cheering, and spoke at great length on the evils which, he said; at present Ain cte d India, including the salt mono' poly, the forced growth of the poppy, and the mode of 101' ing rent upon land, not at a fixed rate, but according to oe' price. The East India Company, he said, denied that th is land was their's : they said to the tenants, " The estate s your's ; the only thing we lay cl a i m t o i s t o lay w h a t rent We please upon it.' (Laughter.) He then proceeded to trace the present system of government in the frequent famine s which had visited that country since the East India Coot' pany held it—in 1762, in 1764, in 1770, in 1782, in 1793, in 1803 and 1804, in 1820 and 1821, in 1823, in 1833 and 18 3 1' in 1835 and 1836, and in 1839—famines which swept off mu' titudes of inhabitants. In describing the results of that gi ) ; verument as he had done (said Mr. O'Connell), you wool'; suppose I was drawing upon my imagination —you wont!: imagine these frightful facts were something to be attribute;,, to the goules, and ogres, and vampires, and the foul spin ' t of fable. Oh, no ! this is the result of British governrae u —this is the glorious East India triumph. You have your heroes of one scene or other; you have their feats blazon in history ; your magazines and newspapers have told you their great battles; how that 'Wellington or some great ant dier or other has rushed to the field, and obtained a v ictor 9,; They have taken care to tell you that • they take care to t o p you of their victories; their glories; ;hey recite their feast s „; but they forget to tell you of their famines—they forget tell you of their crimes, of the insecurity of property,_,, 81 ' 4 of the consequent destruction of life. (Applause.) WP', if the East India Company were to come to-morrow and aar; " We desire to slaughter 500,000 inhabitants of India -- 1, wish to cut their throats," would you not be ready to Its A , for a commission of lunacy against them ? They do not O . 5P c us to let them slaughter these people with the sword, b 9 don't they do the same thing when they ask us to stand and see them starve by hundreds of thousands ? hear, and applause.) f• The thanks of the meeting were afterwards moved to O'Connell, and carried amid great applause, and this O r eluded the proceedines. It is enacted by the County Constabulary Amendni ePt f Act, that all horses or carriages employed in the service ° the county police shall be exempted from toll.