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

~~ t.\ .- \i•P 1, i .4iON 3''a J. ), a~. ~-,~ SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—TITESDAY. SENTENCE ON BARLOW. Richard Barlow, convicted of forgery on Monday, was placed at the bar. The Judge said, it had appeared from the evidence adduced in the course of the trial, that the bill for £492 18s. in question, which the prisoner had uttered know ing the same to be forged, was one of six forged notes which he or his family had been enabled to take up. The legisla ture bad removed the extreme punishment in these cases, but they had still left open a discretion to visit the offence severely, and if judges did not do their duty, it was probable the crime would increase. In a commercial community like this, it was necessary that they should be enabled to punish crimes of this nature severely. The prisoner was sentenced to transportation for 15 years. ARSON. Thomas Robinson, aged 22, was indicted for having wil fully and maliciously set fire to the warehouse of Mr. James Bradshaw, of Manchester, with intent to destroy the same, and with having stolen therefrom a box of gold leaf, the pro perty of the said James Bradshaw. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Wilkins conducted the prosecu tion ; Dr. Brown defended. William Rogerson, a copper-plate printer, in the employ of Messrs. Bradshaw, stated that, on the 6th January, the prisoner at the bar was a shopmate of his. They left work on that day at the usual time, a little after eight o'clock. The prisoner had no business on the premises after eight. When witness left he saw him standing on the, top landing. Witness saw him next evening, about half-past six, at the corner of Union-street, opposite Bradshaws' warehouse. He said he had been in a privy at the back of the premises, on the night of the fire, (which was the evening before,) about twenty minutes. He desired witness to be at the court the following morning, to say that the back of the warehouse was a thoroughfare. Could not tell whether it was a tho roughfare or not. It was not a public road. Some person came up while he was talking to the prisoner, and the latter ran away. John James Bradshaw, son of the prosecutor, described the warehouse and fastenings, and that there was no tho roughfare through the premises, but only a back passage. The prisoner was one of his father's workmen on the 6th of January. The whole of the third.story was used as a work ' shop for the men. They had about twenty hands altogether. The usual time of giving up work is eight in the evening. The prisoner was a printer in their service, and he worked in an upper room. Witness looked through the warehouse soon after eight o'clock, and satisfied himself that there was no one on the premises, though there might have been some one concealed in the upper rooms. He saw that all the fires were out in all the rooms. He locked the front dpor out side, having previously bolted the back door and the yard door inside. He left the premises shortly after eight o'clock, and a few minutes past ten o'clock word was brought to him that the warehouse was on fire. Some persons who were friends had gone in. The front door had not been opened, but the back doors had. He ran immediately up towards the room where the gold leaf and some other valuable pro perty was kept, and found that a panel had been broken out of the door at the top of the staircase ; the door was in flames, and the fire rushed out so fiercely through the panels that they durst not approach. They went to the window of the back room where the gold leaf was kept. It was very dark, but witness had placed the gold leaf shortly before his de parture in a position where he could at once lay his hand upon it in the dark. He now missed it. There were a set of drawers in the large room which had gold leaf in them, and these were burned. No marks of violence appeared on the fastenings. Jane Critchley resided with her brother, who keeps the Globe Tavern. On the evening of 6th January, about half past nine o'clock, she heard some knocking at the door, which led into the passage above mentioned. She went to the door and found the prisoner at the bar. He entered the house and bad a glass of warm ale. This passage had no outlet save the back door of the warehouse, and of the inn, and the door in Birchen-lane. The prisoner drunk his warm ale and went away. The fire was discovered about twenty minutes after he had been there. Thomas Drummond, landlord of the Globe public-house, confirmed the accouilt as -to time, and the circumstances of the prisoner's visit on the sth Jan. He was certain that no one had passed backwards and forwards through the yard previously. There were barrels, lumber, and coal in the passage. Mary Drummond, wife of the last witness, further corro borated the testimony as to the time of the prisoner's en trance at the back door. She went out about half-past nine o'clOck, and about ten minutes before ten, she was passing the warehouse which she saw on fire. Nathaniel Forth, a police-officer, of Manchester, stat ed that about a quarter to ten o'clefek, he was standing on the opposite side of the street, when he saw a light in Messrs. Bradshaw's warehouse. He looked intently. It went out, and in a minute or two blazed up again. He was then convinced that it was a fire, and he went and gave the alarm. Edward Hartley, another officer, of the Manchester pa trolling police, deposed that after the fire was discovered, he went into the warehouse, and up to the first landing, and there he found a panel broken out of the front room door. He found the panel of the door out, and the room on fire. H e found a candlestick and a paper cap on the floor. He found the door in Birchen-lane fastened, and saw a man who said he would go round and get it open. He could not say who that man was. Witness was engaged in saving the property. He wanted the door in Birchen-lane opened, and went round to get it open. He found a man trying to open'it from the inside, but he did not know who that was. He got in and found the back door leading to the Bradshaws' yard, and the back door leading from thence into the warehouse, both open. Ralph Hales, landlord of the Unicorn public-house, in Church-street, stated, that the keys of Mr. Bradshaw's warehouse were usually left at his house for the accommo dation of his workmen.' On the evening of the 6th January, the keys were left there shortly after eight o'clock. A little before ten o'clock, he heard that the warehouse was on fire, and went with the keys. He unlocked the front door, and accompanied Hartley up stairs. The panel was taken out of the door, and stood against the wall. Smoke and flame appeared in the room, and they could not enter by reason thereof. Richard Caldwell stated, that the paper cap found on the floor was shown to him the morning after the fire. It was his cap, and he had left it on a table in the top room that evening at eight o'clock. No stranger had been in that room during the afternoon. John Blagden, a poliee-offieer, proved that he received the prisoner into his custody on the 7th January, on the charge of having wilfully set fire to his master's premises. He took him about nine in the morning, and kept him till about two o'clock, when he made his escape, while the attention of witness was occupied by another. prisoner. He retook him about nine o'clock. Alexander AV - Mullen stated, that he examined Messrs. Bradshaw's warehouse on the morning of the 7th. There were no marks of violence on any of the doors, but the back dour of the passage appeared to have been opened by prising the staple back. When the prisoner was told that he was charged with having set fire to his master's premises, he said he could face that out, for he was innocent. He was told by inspector Irving, that he had been seen to pass through the Globe tavern, about half-past nine o'clock on the night before. He said, Rogerson and Mullen had seen him go away from the warehouse about eight. James Aspinall, a skinner, stated, that he was working in the Irwell soon after the fire, when he found a parcel of the missing gold leaf swimming in the river. He gave it to an officer named Richard Green, who produced it, and a large parcel, which was afterwards found near Oldham-road. Mr. Bradshaw, jun. said. their was a quantity of gold leaf which was made peculiarly for them. He could swear to this as part of the gold leaf missed. Richard Beswick, deputy-constable of Manchester, stated, that he was present when the prisoner made a statement as to where he was on the night of the 6th. As this statement was not then taken down in writing in the depositions, his lordship refused to receive again a repetition of it as evidence. Dr. BYOWN having ascertained that very small quantities of paper, as well as large parcels thereof, were sold at Mr. Bradshaw's place of business, put it to his lordship whether the premises were properly described in the indictment, is a warehouse, when perhaps a halfpenny-worth of paper might be sold there. His LORDSHIP said, as large parcels were sold wholesale, there, the fact of small parcels being sold there did not cer tainly make it not a warehouse. Dr. BROWN alluded to a case, Lyons v. De Pass, reported in 9 Carrington and Payne, which he thought might perhaps bear him out, on examination, if his lordship would make a memorandum on the point. Mr. PASHLEY said he was counsel in the case alluded to, and it was held that the premises were a shop, but it was not held that they were not a warehouse. His LORDSHIP thought that conclusion a very natural one. Dr. BROWN appealed earnestly and eloqueutly in behalf of the prisoner, exhorting the jury not to convict him in a case of mere suspicion, depending on circumstantial evidence. His LORDSHIP, in the course of his charge to the jury, pointed out a great difficulty in the case. The course of the case for the prosecution left it to be implied, that the prison er had remained concealed on the premises. The circumstance of the prisoner having presented himself at the back door of the Globe, there being no other mode of getting out of the place, pressed very hard against him ; but as the gold leaf had been removed, and he presented himself without any box or parcel, the difficulty there was undoubtedly very great on the other side. On the whole he thought the case had been brought before them with so much of doubt in it, that it would be very painful to them to convict. The wo u ld see whether they agreed with him in this view ; if not, he would read over the whole evidence. The jury acquitted the prisoner, and his lordship ordered him to be discharged. NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAYI ;,, CE t" 0: - 1 '~' . k-s ,~,,. v MITIGATION OF THE SENTENCE ON THE MESSRS. SOWLEI!.. The Messrs. Sowler attended this morning to hear his lordship's decision on an application which had been made for the mitigation of the sentence pronounced on them. His lordship said—Mr. Thomas Sowler, and Mr. Robert Scarr howler, an application has been made to me for a mitigation of the sentence which I thought right to pronounce on you a few days ago, and that application has been supported by the earnest solicitations of Mr. Garnett, the prosecutor. Re presentations have be en ma d e t o me , showing the contrition you feel for the offence which you have committed against the laws of the country ; and, at the same time, pointing out the evils which must result, not only to yourselves, but to your families, i if the sen t ence were carr i e d i n t o e ff ec t. I always.feeldelighted, whe n I can cons i s t en tl y w i t h m y pub lic duties, indulge in tho se f ee li ngs wh i c h a r e natura l to t h e man ; and the solicitation of Mr. Garnett, joined with that from other parties, has afforded me an opportunity of re mitting or altering your sentence. The sentence of the court is, that you be . fined one s hilli ng, and then discharged, en tering into recogiusances to keep the peace as before. BUYING COTTON.—S AMPLES.—PACK IN G. MUSGROVE AND ANOTHER a. RILEY.—The declaration in this case was for goods sold and delivered, and an account stated ; and the defendant pleaded, that as to all, except £3B, he had made no such promise to pay ; and that, as to all the amount in demand, except £3B, he had delivered cer tain bales of cotton, in satisfaction of the promise, and that the plaintiff accepted them in satisfaction; and that as to the £3B, he brought it into court. The plaintiffs accepted that sum in part satisfaction of their demand, and denied the rest of the pleas. Mr. CRE3SWELL (with whom was Mr. CROMPTON) stated the plaintiffs' case. This was an action brought by Messrs. Musgrove against Mr. Riley, to recover the value of a por tion of twenty b a l es o f co tt on ; so ld by the plaintiffs and deli vered to Mr. Riley. The defendant, as the jury had heard in the pleadings, had paid into court the sum of £3B, which he (the defendant) meant to be the value of three bales, and contended that, as to the other seventeen bales, he returned them, and that the parties accepted them in satisfaction of payment for those seventeen bales. The circumstances were these, and he believed that th ey were no t w ithout interest to those engaged in the cotton trade of the port. In the May of last year, Messrs. Kno w l es an d Ri c h ar d s h a d a m i xe d par cel of inferior cotton, of between five and six hundred bales, for sale. They sent samples to the Messrs. Musgrove, who purchased sixty bales of the parcel, and sent their ware houseman to Messrs. Knowles and Richards's, to take a sample, and mark out for them sixty bales out of the gene ral parcel. He understood that in forming a sample out of a mixed parcel, the practice was to t a k e a small quantity from each bale and mix the whole up together, so as to form au average ; and, in p u rchases of this kind, h e was told, one man might get a parcel a little better, and another a little worse, than the average or sample. When the Messrs. Mils groves' warehouseman went to the warehouse in which the cotton was deposited, be was shown what was termed " a wall pile," consisting of about ninety bales, and of these ninety, sixty were marked and set aside by the man, for the plaintiffs. Shortly after, Mr. Sleddon, a cotton broker, who N\v , e I i> 1 ~~ k-\\ ♦ \•••3 )11 1,‘.. appeared to have been employed by Mr. Riley, applied to the Messrs. Musgrove to know whether they had cotton of about the quality they had purchased from the Messrs. Knowles and Richards, namely, about 'ad. per lb. The plaintiffs said that they had, that those were the samples by which they had purchased, and that their man had been to mark them of. Mr. Sleddon agreed to buy thirty-five bales—twenty for Mr. Riley, and fifteen for another customer. This was on the 3d of June, 1839. The price of the purchase would have come to £286 and a fraction. On the following day the cot ton was to be delivered, and the person employed by Mr. Sled don, together with Messrs. Musgrove's man, went to Knowles and Richards's warehouse,. to receive the thirty-five bales sold to Mr. Sleddon. When they got there, they found that Knowles's man had allowed another person to take the sixty bales which had previously been marked. Of course the plain tiff's man complained of this. Knowles's man acknowledged that he bad been careless enough to permit the marked bales to be taken away ; but he said, " Say nothing about it, and ycu shall have the privilege of selecting from the abundance that still remains, and of rejecting any bales you like," and he (Mr. CreSswelf) believed that there was an ad vantage in taking cotton of that description. They then went off together to Mr. Sleddon's, and there found the defend ant's clerk and Mr. Riley. They explained to the clerk the state of things at Knowles's warehouse, and what had been said by Knowles's man. Mr. Riley said, " Well, well I don't care about it; but take care (addressing Knowles and Ri chards's man) that you give me no red or blue bales." The reply was, " Your own man must take of that." Twenty bales were accordingly picked out, and he (the learned coun sel) was told that in selecting those twenty, six or seven were rejected —a very unusual proportion in picking cotton in that manner. The cotton was forwarded to Tishwick, near Pres ton. Payment became due ten days afterwards, and at that time the platntiffs received a communication from Mr. Thos. Sleddon, to the eflect that three bales would be sent back, because they were falsely packed. Now, he (Mr. Cresswell) understood that though a person making a purchase from a mixed parcel could not reject the purchase because it happened to be a little below the sample, yet, if it were falsely packed, he had a right to return it. If it were a fact that the bales had been falsely packed, they must be taken back. He would prove, however, that this was not the case. Mr. Clare, a man conversant with the cotton trade, was fixed upon by both parties as the person who should examine the cotton, and the jury would see, from his evidence, whether it had been falsely packed or not. It was then found out that the defendant had returned, not three, but seventeen of the bales. They were all examined, and - Mr. 'Clare said that they were not falsely packed, and therefore there was no obligation to take them back. Mr. Sleddon then said that if the cotton was not falsely packed, it did not answer the sample. The plain tiffs replied, that it had not been bought by sample, because the sixty bales sampled had been sold to another person, " and the next day you sent your man to select what you took." Mr. Clare, however, went to examine it with a view to comparison with the sample, and he said that it was within a very trifling degree of that which had been sampled. But, if the three bales which were not returned were rather better in quality than the sample, as very probably they were, a sample taken from them, and added to that of the seventeen, would bring the whole up to the original sample. Israel Ilarris, (the warehouseman of Messrs. Musgrove,) Mr. Clare, Mr. James H. Wrigley, Mr. Silas H. Prichards, ' and Mr. Isaac Bankcroft Cooke, were examined, and de posed to the facts opened by Mr. Cresswell. Mr. Clare said that in his judgment the sample of the returned cotton was about d., certainly not inferior to the original /sample ; the bales were not falsely packed. Mr. Cooke mentioned that he purchased a part of the parcel from Messrs. Musgrove, for Mr. Armstrong, and he never heard any complaint of it. Whilst Mr. Alexander was cross-examining one of the witnesses with respect to the custom of the trade in the purchase of cotton from mixed parcels, His LORDSHIP observed—l suppose it will not be con tended on the other (the plaintiffs') side, that if twenty bales of cotton be bought by a sample of twenty bales, and if the average of the bulk do not correspond with the average of the sample of the twenty bales, that it may not be returned ? Mr. CRESSWELL.—Of course, it may. His LORDSHIP.—But you contend that the twenty bales were purchased from a sample of the average of sixty bales, and that the purchaser took the risk of getting better or worse ? Mr. CRESSWELL.—Undoubtedly. Mr. ALEXANDER (with whom was Mr. TOMLINSON) stated the case for the defendant. He began by remarking, that if the hard rule which was said to prevail amongst the trade in the purchase of cotton did really exist, and received the sanction of a jury, the cotton-spinners must be consi dered as a race of men much to be pitied. He hoped, how ever, that, before the conclusion of the case, he should advance sufficient to induce the jury to protect his client against the operation of a rule so entirely one-sided. He contended that the purchase had been by sample, and not at all on terms coincident with those laid down by the bro kers. Mr. Riley expected to have cotton of a quality equal to the sale sample. The cotton was ' sold on the 3rd tf June ; on the 4th it was weighed ; and on the evening at the sth part of it (six or seven bales) arrived in Preston, having been carried thither by the canal. Those bales were immediately opened, and three of them were found to be extremely defective. The samples had not then arrived ; they were, with the remainder, not yet carted up. They came, however, on the following morning, and dissatisfaction was immediately felt, for on inspection all but three bales turned out to be very inferior to the samples. The defendant did not rest satisfied with his own judgment, but sent for Mr. Swainson, a partner in the firm of Swainson, Burley, and Co., the most extensive spinners in Preston, and his opinion was, that with the exception of the three bales, the cotton was not equal to the sample. "What must I do?" asked Mr. Riley. " Why, you must send it back, it will not suit your business at all." The consequence was, that seventeen bales were immediately returned in Liverpool on the Bth of June, and what had been done with them in the meantime he could not say. This was a time when the defendant was in want of cotton, and if it would at all have answered his purpose, he would willingly have retained it. It was a time, too, when cotton was rising, and the defendant must therefore have gone into the market to make a fresh purchase at a dis advontage. Mr. Ward, managing clerk for Mr. Sleddon, was then examined. He remembered the purchase by the defendant of 20 bales of New Orleans cotton, at lid per lb., from the Messrs. Musgrove. There was no agreement about the qua lity. The purchase was made by sample. A letter from Mr. Riley, complaining of the cotton not being equal to sample, and that it had been falsely packed, had been sent to Mr. Sleddon, and was put in by witness. He took the letter and showed it to one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Henry Musgrove, who said, " They must be sent back, then." They were sent back ; and he (witness) had compared a sample drawn out of the seventeen bales with the sale sample. The former was very much inferior to the latter. The difference would be about Id per lb. Cotton had risen in the interval between the purchase and the return. Shortly afterwards, however, the market fell to a lower price than it had been at the time of sale. Cross-examined.—He would not take it upon himself to swear that he had shown the letter to Mr. Harry Musgrove. His strong impression was that he did so, and that Mr. Musgrove read it. He (witness) did not recollect stating that he said to Mr. Musgrove that it had been found that three of the bales were falsely packed ; he thought he showed the letter. He believed he said the cotton was falsely packed, and then Mr. Musgrove said that it was to be sent back. He did say that Mr. Riley had written that some of the bales were falsely packed, and on that statement Mr. Harry Mus grove said, " Why, then, they must be sent back. Mr. Thomas Sleddon deposed that when a complaint had been made of the cotton, he told Mr. Harry Musgrove that Mr. Riley did not like it. He did not explain that it was falsely packed, and Mr. Musgrove said, " Send it hack." Richard Pollock, a card master in the service of the de fendant, compared the six bales first opened with the sample. Three were in accordance with the sample, and three were not. He also made a comparison of the sale sample with a sample of the seventeen returned bales, and the latter was inferior. If the cotton had been equal to the sample sent, it would have suited their business ; but there were only three bales that would suit. The mixture of inferior cotton with the proper sort of cotton (fitted for the spinning of 40's) would spoil the yarn. From experience, he should say that one of those bad bales, when mixed with twenty good bales, would spoil the yarn. The three bales retained were not better than the original sample. John Ashworth, warehouseman and clerk to the defend ant, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. Mr. Wm. B. Swainson, of the firm of Swainson, Burley, and Co., cotton-spinners, of Preston, stated that the three bales used were a fair average of the sample. The remainder were decidedly bad ; unfit for the use of the mill, and inferior to the sample. Mr. Win. Taylor, a cotton-spinner, had examined the sample said to have been drawn from the seventeen bales, and it was very much worse than the sale sample, to the ex tent of td. per lb. He spun 40's in his mill, and such cotton would be unfit for his purpose. Mr. CRESSWELL then replied, maintaining that there had been no answer to the case of the plaintiff. His LORDSHIP summed up at considerable length. After having stated the nature of the case, he said that if a man purchased goods by sample, the seller was bound to send goods equal to the sample, or there was no sale ; and perhaps, if goods were sold under one uniform sample, and a portion of the goods sold was according to sample and the rest not, the purchaser might be allowed to keep the goods corresponding with the sample, and to return the rest, because he might say that he bought those only that corresponded with the sample, and not the others. But in the present case, even according to the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, the cotton was not sold according to one uniform sample, but an average sample. Then, when such a contract as that was made, that the average of the bulk should correspond with the average of the sample, the purchaser was not allowed to keep one portion, which might be the same or better than the sample; but he might, if the bulk did not correspond with the sample, repudiate the bargain altogether, and say, " You have not sent me such as I purchased." He might send back the whole under those circumstances ; but he had no right to keep the better portion, and send back the worse, throwing that upon the vendor's hands. Then if, according to the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, the sale had been one from an average of twenty bales, he had no right to keep a portion and return the remainder. But the evidende of the defendant's witnesses did not make out any such a case as that, because this was not, according to their evidence, a sale of cotton on an average sample of the twenty purchased bales, but a sale of twenty bales, a portion of a larger lot, on an average sample of the larger lot; and then the de fendant, in order to justify himself in repudiating the con tract, should show that the bales delivered and the other bales forming the larger lot would, when put together, form a lower average than the average sample of the whole lot. But there had been no evidence adduced of what the 15 bales were which were sent to the other party ; therewas only evidence of what the bales were that were sent to the defendant. Accordi ng t o the evidence of one of the defendant's witnesses, the purchase of Mr. Sleddon was made from an average sample of 40 bales. Another witness, called for the defence, said that there might have been 40 baies, but he would not swear that in there was not an average sample of 60 bales. Both concurred stating I p i e . rs S o l e n d . d e p udricdha nots- e t h d a 2 t o t I; b e r re m w r e . r eR4i Riley, n a d n h d l a s t ffroorm anotherth em 11 purchase the whole lot out of which the average sample had been formed ; and according to common sense, if a purchase was made from the average of a larg er lot, it could not the be expected that a smaller portion should correspondwith whole part that was sampled, because some of But the thevendor bulk might . be good, some b a d, an d s ome intermediate. did inel unotn quality t p y l etdhgee same himself as t t h h e a a t v t e h r e a g a e v e o r a f g the ofe whole,2o bae s should hu t merely that the sample of the whole should correspond with the ave rage of the bulk. Then, if a purchaser took from the bulk the first 20, or the second 20, or the third 20, he must run the risk of getting something better or something worse than the average; and to justify himself in sending back even the whole, he must prove that the 20, when compared with the other 20 (supposin g there were 40), or the other 40 (suppos ing there were 60), did not come up to the average sample. Now there had been no evidence, as he had before stated, of what was the quality o f t h e 15 bales purchased by Mr. Sleddon for another party : it might have been that they were so much better than the 20 bales sent to Mr. Riley, that the whole would correspond to the sample. It ap peared to him, then, that these was no justification on the part Of the defendant to repudiate the contract. But it seemed that this was not even the manner in which the purchase of the defendant had been made ; for the 60 bales from which the original sample was made had been allowed to be taken by another person, and then, as Messrs. Knowles and Richards couldivenomt samegniveßtilheeyptlhaientpiffrsivtihleeof se 6O le b e a t l i e n s, they offered tog g his 35 bales, so as to reject the inferior bales. With re spect to the plea of false package, if that could be substan tiated, the goods would then be returnable. The evidence of Mr. Clare went to show that there had been no false pack age, and only one of the defendant's witnesses spoke to any- `s, s\* thing like false packing, and he did not she the bales when they were first opened. He saw them after they bad been returned, and he said " Two or three of them seemed to me as if they were falsely packed ;" but they might have been those bales opened at Riley's, and in which some mixture might possibly have taken place in the course of examination and comparison. In their evidence as to the comparative qualities, the defendant's witnesses generally spoke of having compared the sample drawn from the 17 returned bales, with the original one, or that taken from the 60 bales. If the jury were of opinion that the plaintiffs had voluntarily agreed to take back the 17 bales in satisfaction of the price, then, no matter what was the contract, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The evidence on that point rested principally on the evidence of Mr. Ward, which his lordship read over. After some further remarks for the guidance of the jury, he concluded. _ _ _ _ _ The jury, after ten minutes' deliberation, found for the plaintiffs, on both issues : damages £248 15s. being the amount claimed with the deduction of the £3B paid into court. This case fasted five hours. Several undefended causes were then disposed of. LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY TENANTS OR CUSTOMERS FOR GOODS DESTROYED BY FIRE. ARMITAGE V. WINTERBOTTONI AND ANOTHER.—The de claration stated, that, in consideration that the defendants would provide the plaintiff with certain steam power and standing room, and would also dry a certain quantity of wool for the plaintiff, he undertook to pay them a yearly rent of £2OO ; that afterwards a quantity of wool belonging to the plaintiff was destroyed by fire, and nevertheless the defend ants, though they had promised to indemnify and save the plaintiff harmless, had not done so. There was a second count for money hadi for the plaintiff's use, and not paid over to him. The plaintiff was Mr. Joseph Armitage; and the defendants had pleaded separately. Mr. William Winter bottom pleaded first, non assumpsit; and secondly, that the wool was not on the premises of the defendants as stated. The defendant, John Hextall, pleaded the general issue; and secondly, that no wool of the plaintiff's was on his (Hextall's) premises. The jury, after a minute or two's consideration, found for the defendants. CROWN COURT.-WEDNESDAY. FRAUD ON THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF CHELSEA ~*\ ~~ S ,S 6 % -. \ . \ t• \I HOSPITAL. .Tohn Gorton, 76, and James Gorton, 28, were charged with having, at Great Bolton, personated and falsely assumed the name of Richard Royal, deceased, and previously entitled to a pension for service done in the army, for the purpose of fraudulently receiving that pension, and with having forged a certificate concerning the payment of the said pension, with intent to defraud the Lords and other Commissioners of tie Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea, in the county of Mid dlesex. Serjeant Atelierly, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Fitzgerald conducted the prosecution. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the County Palatine ob served that it was a splendid thing that, in this country, there were no less than eighty thousand men who received pensions for services rendered in the army alone, and the amount paid to them was not less than £1,300,000. The elder prisoner, John Gorton, has. been in the army, and has received a pension. He is a very fine looking old man, with white locks, and a fine bushy pair of white whis kers, which he wore under : his chin. Though seventy-six years old, he stood much more erect than his nephew, a lout ish looking petion, whose innocence of any participation in the offence was frequently declared by the old man. It appeared, in the course of the evidence, that very exten sive frauds had been practised on the commissioners by indi viduals personating dead pensioners who had resided in the country, and that the elder Gorton, in company with John Reyes, had been in the habit of drawing the pension of a man named Hodgins, deceased, during a number of years. The jury found both prisoners Guilty. • Job; Moes, a fine old man, aged - 76, was placed at the bar. He was charged with having personated the name of Richard Royal, on the first of January, 1839, with intent to defraud the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the prisoner had re ceived the pension of a man named Hodgins during eight years. The learned counsel recommended James Gorton to mercy, as he had reason to believe that he had been a tool in the hands of his uncle. His LORDSHIP said, the legislature had considered this offence of such enormity, that they had fettered the hands of the judge, and he had no discretion but to pass sentence of transportation. It was painful to send two such old men, even for the shortest term in his power, out of the country, where it was probable they would spend the remnant of their days ' • but it was necessary to mark the crime by a severe punishment. His lordship said it was probable, from the evidence, that the prisoners had been led into the commis sion of this crime by love of drink, which he was of opinion was the cause of two-thirds of the crime committed in q this country. The two old men, John Gorton and Heyes, were sentenced to transportation for life ; James Gordon to trans portation for fifteen years. CHARGE OF WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER. William Gill, a well-dresSed, respectable-looking man, aged 42, was indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously beaten, cut, and wounded his wife, Mary Ann Gill, with intent to murder her. Mr. Sergeant Atcherley and Mr. Cobbett prosecuted-, and Mr. Wilkins defended. The prisoner, it appeared, had some years ago married a respectable young woman at Manchester, where he was the son of a dissenting minister. Soon after the marriage some disagreement arose, and a separation ensued. The prisoner, it was supposed, went abroad. After a time he returned, when he pressed his wife, who was respectably supporting her three children at Openshaw, to live with him. She re ceived him with kindness, but refused again to live with him. The circumstances which led to the act of which the prisoner was accused, will be gathered from the evidence. Mary Ann Gill, a respectable and interesting-looking fe male, stated that she had been married to the prisoner four= teen years. Soon after they were married they had some disagreement, in consequence of misfortune and his inatten tion to his children. They had not much disagreement ; but at length, about four years ago, she considered that it would be best for them to separate ; she could provide for her children ; she continued to do so, entirely un aided by him. She did not see him for two years till the middle of last January, when he called at the house which she occupies. He said he had come to stop with her, and she told him that he had better not. He insisted upon I staying, and she, after a short time, went out to her sister's house, where she remained till the following evening Stuiday) when having been informed that he had left the house, she returned. He visited her again on Monday evening.. Ile sat down and remained. A neighbour, named Shepherd, came in to purchase some articlel, and she asked him to remain. The prisoner persisted in staying, and he stayed till Wednesday. She requested Shepherd, and another neighbour, named Jones, to stay with her, as she did not like to remain alone with the prisoner. He left her on Wednesday morning and returned again orr Wednesday night. She sent for a constable to put him out, according to the advice of the attorney whom she had consulted. The constable asked him very quietly to go out, but he insisted upon being taken to the New Bailey. She appeared against him. He leaned over the bar and asked her not to press the charge. He was discharged on promising that he would not annoy her again, and that he would quit the town. He called again on the following Monday ; he did not remain long ; he called again the following afternoon, and again left the house ; he did the same on Wednesday, and on Thursday he called again and pressed her very much to let him live with her: She said she could not do that, but she would do what she could towards his support. He called again on Friday the 31st January. He sat down, and they were talk ing on the same subject of his living with her. She repeated that she could not let him live with her. She prepared tea, and invited him to partake. He renewed the subject during tea, saying, " How is this to be, Mary Ann, do you intend to live with me?" She faid, " No, I never intend to live with you again." He said, " What, never !" She said, " No, never while I live." At the moment she said this she was passing him. He arose, took her by the shoulders, and pushed her into a small passage. ' He threw her down, and kneeled upon her breast; he took a clasp-knive from his pocket ; it was a knife such as gardeners use ; he bent her head upon her breast, and felt round her ears for the jugular vein. When he did so, she exclaimed, "Oh spare my life, for the sake of my children." He said, " No, you shall die now." He then cut her across the throat. She did not recollect anything till she found herself in the yard scream ing. Witness exhibited the mark on her throat to the jury. She was able to appear before the magistrates on the follow ing Monday, the wound having been previously dressed by a surgeon. On cross-examination by Mr. WILKINS, Mrs. Gill said, on occasion of their various interviews, he always expressed the strongest affection for ber and her children. Mr. 'Wil kins questioned the witness concerning a person named Moscha, who formerly resided with Mr. Fechini, the husband of her sister. The object of this part of the cross-examina tion appeared to be to establish that an improper intimacy had existed between Moscha and witness. It merely ap peared that witness had frequently taken her home from the houses of her sisters, Mrs. Fechini and Mrs. Leresche, and that he had made her and her children some trifling presents. Moscha went abroad six years ago, and she had only seen him once since, about four years ago. Her husband was in Lancaster Castle about 17 months, and at that time Moscha made her children a present of some frocks. Mr. Wilkins also pressed her to state whether some improper intimacy had not subsisted between her and Thomas Sheppard. She de nied this in the most decided terms, saying she never had such a thought. She admitted that she said to her husband —but not on the night when he cut her—" Suppose, from your long absence, that I had transferred my affections to some one else." She had not transferred her affections to another. Other witnesses having been examined Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury at some length on behalf of the prisoner, and called a witness, Lieut. Jones, of th e Royal Navy, who gave him a good character. It did not ap pear, however, that Lieut. Jones had seen much of the pri soner for some years. The jury retired at a quarter past four o'clock, and re turned in three quarters of an hour, and found the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent to murder, recommending him strongly to mercy. The prisoner was asked what he had to say why judgment of death should not be recorded against him ? The prisoner entered into a long statement of the misery and hardship which he said he had suffered during his ab sence from his oife, and gave a detail of the events which he issi s o o n m o e severe reflections on his wife, we forbear to publish it. f thealle alleged for rd which p e h n e e d w i a m s tried, n i e dia but te ly a h se before a t cl h d e r ecso commission threw m The JUDGE said, the merciful recommendation of the jury had certainly saved the prisoner's life, for if they had found the verdict which they had returned, and not coupled it with that recommendation, he should have felt it his duty to have passed that awful sentence which he never did pass, without the most rooted intention of carrying it into effect; he never trifled with that awful sentence. The life of the prisoner would be spared, upon what terms it was not for him to say. Sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner. Thos. Ford, alias Roger Barry, aged 25, John Ford, aged 24, who had two or three other names, and James Yates, 29, were charged with having, at Todmorden and Walsden, bur -1 glariously broken into the shop of George Davies and stolen thirty silver watches, one gold watch, three pairs of silver cases and other articles, the property of the said George Davis. Thomas Ford pleaded guilty. tddndwtttfohoowir fifteenhsh tai The Jury found both prisioners Guilty. ifiinemt rxe t e e e e Thos. Ford said he deserved punishment. He was a de serterTtHh hTeaeth dpneeri f oigc r sh: o f ta m nareta t rti o l ssh i td e awtc B hea B erts t ehec h esso o ß amonr e tote g h: retill crimeall was on y a lyrie s aastpr a haas t ett, trti T iit.cd o hi apa lo m a, tibi o noe r oo d tra e li y inko transportation.ne on that if the felonies be then concluded. The trials of the officers of the 86th will not come on before Thursday next. The court adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock. E E f p n N t V. AANRIYIeS's II sr It s I . C N K e . I- NISI PRIUS COURT. NTEhtissT wasß O P a A n N a p e t a i : n o b T r H o E u a g h , t A b S S y I t r e E pla s strop and Walmsley, corn dealers, at Stockport, as the assignees of Timothy Boddington, a baker, formerly carry ing on business at Salford , to rec over the sum of .tB6 f or - money had for the use of the assignees. Mr. WIGHTMAN, in stating the case, said this action was brought to recover the money above stated, for the purpo se of effecting an equal distribution of the effects of Bodding ton, who was a bankrupt. The circumstances of the case were, that Boddington having a short time before his bank ruptcy been called upon by the traveller of Messrs. Fletcher and Moss, and being deeply indebted to them, was in duced, in the hopes of getting more goods from them, to give them a warrant of attorney. At this time Boddington was indebted to several other persons, and among others to the plaintiffs in this case, but he appeared only to have thought of paying Messrs. Fletcher and Moss, and he was to pay them £2O a month. Of course he did not do this long ; he failed, and then this warrart of attorney was put in force. The warrant of attorney was put in force on the 13th July, last year, a seizure was made on the 15th, and his effects were sold. The other creditors of Boddington hearing of his bankruptcy, which took place on the 12th, in order that Messrs. Fletcher and Moss might not get the lion's share of the effects determined to take out a fiat to obtain that equal distribution of the bankrupt's effects contemplated by the bankrupt laws. A fiat was taken out, and assignees had been duly appointed. He believed that, so far as the facts of the case were concerned, there would be little difference between the plaintiffs and defendant, but he believed that the substantial point would be with reference to a late act of Parliament affecting the case. This act was the 2d and 3d Viet. c. 29. Previous to the passing of this act, there could not be a doubt but the plai► tiff. would be in a condition to recover ; and the question was, whether the act would apply to this case. The act of bankruptcy was committed on the 15th July, the fiat was taken out on the 18th, and the act passed on the 19th: the question would be, therefore, whe ther the act had a retrospective action. Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, intimated that he should dispute the fact that Boddington had ever committed an act of bankruptcy, and witnesses having been called, the case was submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiff on this plea. On the other point, which was a question of law, a verdict was also given for the plaintiffs, under the direction of his Lordship, subject to future decision on the point, which was reserved. BROWN V. PRICE AND OTHERS This was an action brought to recover £2O, the amount of a promissory note given by the defendants, who were mem bers of a society termed the Independent Order of Recha bites. The action was undefended, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff of .ElB ss. ; the remainder having been admitted to have been received. WATERHOUSE V. TOLLER. This was an action for the recovery of £3B from the de fendant, for the loss alleged to have been sustained on a quantity of tea sold by the plaintiff' to him, and afterwards returned upon his hands. Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. COWLING), in opening the case, said the plaintiff in this case was 'a respec table tea-merchant in. Liverpool, and the defendant, Mr. Toiler, was a tea-broker, also living in Liverpool. The action was (as stated by Mr. Cowling in opening the plead ings) for the recovery of money lost upon teas sold to the defendant, and which had been afterwards returned upon the plaintiff's hands. The amount sought tb be recovered was the sum lost upon the resale of the teas, in consequence of an alteration in the market. At first it was anticipated that the loss upon the resale of the tea would be considerable, but it turned out, after au investigation of the whole of the matter, that the loss was but small, and. Mr; Waterhouse would have let the matter sleep, but it sometimes happened that defendants did not know when they were well off, and the moment a plaintiff seemed disposed to act leniently, they said, " Oh, no ; you wish to withdraw because you see that it is a bad case ;" and accordingly the plaintiff was forced into court, as in the present case. The tea which formed the subject of this action was brought from China by the ship Juliet; and was afterwards sent over to Ireland in a vessel called the Amity, where it was purchased and sent back in two steamships called the Liffey and Britannia. On the Bth June, 1838, the tea was sold to the defendant, and on the 9th news arrived from London that an immense sale of teas had taken place there, and this caused a fall in the prices of the article, whereupon the defendant, probably fear ing that he would be a loser by his bargain, returned the teas, alleging that they were not of the quality ordered. Subse quently,.however, the defendant went to look again at the teas, and after having a number of the chests opened, said he was quite satisfied with them, would not have the remainder opened, and requested to have the invoice back. After this he again sent the goods hack, but the plaintiff said this was rather too bad, and refused to let him rescind the order. He refused to have the teas however, and the result was that there had been a loss upon them, upon resale, of £3B. What sort of defence would be set up remained to be seen. It ap peared that his first plea was there had never been a bargain ; secondly, that there had been no delivery ; thirdly, that the sale was by sample, and that the quality of the teas was in ferior to the sample; fourthly, that the tea was to have been tea out of the Liffey and Britannia ; and lastly, that the con tract was obtained by fraud. After commenting on these pleas, the learned counsel proceeded to call witnesses to prove the case, and put in the contract note, which was for 52 chests of Congou teas to be paid for on the Bth Sept. 1838. Mr. WIGHTMAN (with whom was Mr. Charles Crompton) raised two objections to the contract. The first was that the contract was not good, because the vendor's name was not upon it ; and the second was, that it was not signed by the defendant or his agent, the party whose name was signed (Cooke) not having been shown to be the agent of the de fendant. His LORDSHIP said the first point was one now under dis cussion in the Courts of Westminster, and he should reserve his opinion upon it till their decision was known. On the second point he observed, that in his opinion the agency was sufficiently made out. Mr. WIGHTMAN then addressed the jury, contending that a sample having been produced to defendant of the teas, it must be considered to have been a contract of sale by sample, and he called witnesses to show that the bulk of the teas was not equal to the sample, and that the contract was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations. ' The other pleas were not gone upon. Mr. CRESSWELL replied, quoting authorities to show that no account of samples-being mentioned in the contract, it was not a contract by sample, and consequently that the evi dence for the defendant was of no value. His Loitusnir summed np, and the jury almost immedi ately found for the plaintiff. Damages X3B. LEATHOM AND ANOTHER V. HOPKIZ;SON. The plaintiffs in thii action were the assigneeS of a bank rupt, named Beckett, who wds_formerly a partner in business with Mr. Leathom, as an ironfounder, in Liverpool, and the action was brought to recover the sum of £26 from the de fendant, Mr. Hopkinson, a coachbuilder, for work done by the bankrupt previous to his bankruptcy. Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. VENADLES were for the plain tiffs, and Mr. CRESSWELL appeared for the defendant. The work fur which the sum claimed was charged consisted of a large plate, weighing upwards of 30 cwt., and of peculiar formation, placed up in the yard' of the defendant, for the purpose of being used in coach wheels., The work was coin pleted in March, 1839. At the time it was put up in defen • dant's yard the plate had a crack in it, which afterwards ex.: tende„and,itlie. plaintiffs seat; workmeg for the purpose of rivetting the parts together. The plate was kept in work till Septeinbery nneomplaint of it ; but then they, sent word that the crack. had extended across the plate, and Work- . men were sent to put a hoop, upon it, When the workmen got there, objections were made to its being done, and ano ther time was appointed. The workmen went at the time appointed, but were again sent back,, and the defendant now paid into court ten guineas, and said that this sum was a suf ficient discharge . of the debt. The counsel fur the plaintiffs called a great .number of witnesses, to, prove that, until a subsequent quarrel bet Ween the plaintiffs - and defendant, no.:• fault was found with the plate, but that, on the contrary, it was received in a ,very,satisfactory way ; that the crack was the necessary consetruenceOf a contraction of the metal, aris ing from the peculiar construction of the plate, and that the cracks across the plate, when properly repaired with wrought iron, were not detriinental to it, but, in fact, rendered it stronger, and better fitted for the purpose than before. One of the witnesses called by the plaintiffs had been subpoenaed by the defendant, and was a workman who was employed by the defendant, and has used the plate in question. This wit ness, however, though he proved the use of the plate, contra dicted the former evidence, as to the plate being as useful as it would have been if not cracked, and said for several pur poses it could not be used.. A good deal of amusement was caused by this witness; on being called, demanding, in a loud tone, that his expenses should be paid. His Lordship held that the witness was justified in the demand, when Mr. Alex ander at once observed, that there would not be the slightest objection to it. " Then tip l exclaimed the witness, holding forth his hands towards the learned counsel with character istic gesticulation. The court was convulsed with laughter. The witness, of course, got his expenses (245.) without de lay, .and his warmth gradually subsiding, he proceeded to give his evidence with tolerable coolness. Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the july for the defence, con tending that the plaintiffs, by their own witnesses, had not shown that the plate was ever fit for use, and said that he should be able to show that the defendant made an objection to it from the first, but that he was persuaded to keep it on a warranty from the makers that the crack in it would not extend, that the crack did extend, and that, then, it was Sent back. The plate in fact had been repudiated from the first, but that the plaintiffs having put up the plate in defendant's yard, the latter could not get it 'removed. He should call witnesses to prove that the only value of the plate was its value as old iron, and its value as old iron had already been paid into court.—Witnesses were then called. Mr. ALEXANDER replied, and Mr. Justice EnsiciNE hav ing gone over the evidence, The Jury found' a verdict for the plaintiffs.—Damages £l5 14s. 41d. CROWN COURT.—THURSDAY. STABBING AND WOUNDING. John Smith, aged 42, stood indicted on a charge of having, at Heaton Norris, maliciously stabbed an d woun d e d one William Derbyshire, with intent to murder him. Mr. PRANDT stated the case for the prosecution. William Derbyshire said he was a stonemason. On Satur day, the 28th of September, he went to a beer-house, in Heaton Norris, where the prisoner and his wife were. Wit ness asked prisoner's wife to drink, and prisoner was vexed at this. Witness said something, but did not remember what. He was put out, and while in the passage prisoner struck him twice. He was much. hurt, but made his way home. When getting into bed he found that he was wounded in the side. The blood was flowing from him. He was drunk at the time, so that he could not remember what was said by himself or the prisoner. Abel Stansfield, keeper of the beer •house, said the prose "cutor asked the prisoner's wife to drink with him, which she did. The prisoner then asked her (his wife) to drink with him, and she refused, saying, she would drink with no such a black looking fellow. The prosecutor then said to pri soner, " You see she will drink with me, and not with you ; and she'll go with me. I can go with her when I like." Some other words passed, and witness turned the prosecutor out. He returned, and a- scuffle took place, in which the wife again showed her preference to the prosecutor. Witness's wife soon afterwards came in, and said, " Smith, yon've stabbed Derbyshire." There had been a good deal of talk about Smith's wife and Derbyshire. Another witness saw Smith strike Derbyshire twice. Wit ness saw a knife in prisoners's hand, and endeavoured to take it from him. Prisoner said he'd stab either his wife or Derbyshire—whichever came up first. He said the law would justify him in it. Mary Stansfield, wife of the beerhouse-keeper, was sent for to Derbyshire, and brought word back of his being stab bed. Prisoner said, " if he had not done it, he would do it:" Richard Greenfield saw Derbyshire when he came home, and lie was wounded. His worsted belt was pierced through. Brammil, a constable, apprehended the prisoner, and found upon him a knife, now produced. Witness had never heard anything against the prisoner. Mr. Rayner, surgeon, attended the prosecutor. He found a wound about the centre of the 6th rib. There was another small wound on the hip. Such a knife would make the wound. The knife had struck the rib. Had it gone between the ribs, the wound, if given with force, would have been dangerous. As it was it was not dangerous, but the patient behaved ill ; he drank hard, and ran away on the Tuesday. The prisoner said in his behalf, that he always lived i n peace with his fellow man, and in the fear of God. But if a worm were trodden upon it would turn. He was malici ously treated, and in his excitement attacked the prosecutor. His wife was every thing to him in this world, and now his peace of mind was destroyed for ever on this side of the grave, and he felt regardless of what might be. his destiny. His lordship said the case was a most painful one. An improper intimacy had undoubtedly taken place between the prosecutor and the prisoner's wife, 'and language had been used calculated to provoke a man to an act of violence. No provocation, however, could justify the use of a deadly wea pon. His lordship explained the law with regard to cases of adultery, where the party injured killed the adulterer. If a man came in by accident, and found his wife in crimi na l intercourse with another man, and he, in the moment of aggravation, killed the adulterer, the law reduced the offence to manslaughter. But if a roan previously know that an improper intimacy existed between his wife and another , man, and he prep are d hi mself w i t h a d e adly instrument, an d knowing they w ere together, we nt and killed the man, the . act constituted murder. The jur y would have to decide with what intent th e p r i soner stabbed the prosecutor. The Jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner " Guilty of stabbing, with intent to do grievous bodily harm." Sentence was deferred until this day, and his LORDSHIP called up the prosecutor, and said to him :—" Derbyshire, you are a much more guilty man in the eyes of God than the prisoner. If Ido what it is almost necessary for we to do, I ought to send him abroad for fifteen years. But you are a much more guilty man than he.' The whole guilt, indeed, of the offence is to be attributed to you—a drunken man and an adulterer. After injuring the man in the most tender point, you, unworthy as he was, appeared here as his prose cutor. Go down, sir!" John Allen, 24, was charged with having, at Todmorden and Walsden, feloniously and maliciously stabbed James Crowther, with intent to murder him, or do him some grievous bodily harm. It appeared that on Sunday night, the Bth of September, as the prosecutor was going home, he saw the prisoner knocking at the door of a house, which turned out to be that in which he lodged, and said to him " What are you knocking there at on Sunday night ?" Pri soner replied—" I'll let you know what I am knocking for:" The door of the house was soon after opened, and the pri soner entered, and took a knife from a table, with which he hastened out, crossed the street, and struck the prosecutor twice, wounding him on the first false rib on the left side. The wound, but for the knife hitting the rib, might have been fatal. As it was, it was not of a dangerous character. The pocket knife with which it was inflicted was produced. When found there was blood upon the blade. Another knife, (a butcher's) was also found. The prisoner had taken it up, and there was blood upon it from his hands. He had in tended to use it also, but was prevented. It appeared that the prisoner was in liquor when he committed the offence. The JUDGE, in summing up, stated, that being in a state of intoxication brought about by the party himself was no excuse in law, for a criminal act committed while under the influence of such intoxication. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The prisoner said it was his first offence, and besought the mercy of the court. His Lounsrup said to the prisoner :—The jury have very properly found you guilty of stabbing with intent to do the prosecutor some grievous bodily harm. Considering the whole of your conduct, I cannot help thinking that the jury has treated you mercifully, as a verdict for a higher offence would have been justifiable. You were, it appears, at the time under the influence of liquor ; but this was no excuse for crime. I cannot take it as a ground of mitigation of pu nishment. On the contary, I would rather be inclined in such cases to administer some additional punishment. No thing so greatly aggravates offences as intoxication, which I regret is so prevalent. I feel convinced, indeed, that if the people of this country were a sober people, they would be more moral, and there would be fewer depredations, and the crimes of grievous assault and murder would be much less frequent. I have no difficulty in determining the amount of punishment which you must undergo. It has become neces sary to visit this offence with severity. The use of the knife has of late been lamentably on the increase. In this instance you were not contented to use the pocket knife only. Ido not think you would have acted as you did if you had not been intoxicated. In the excitement of liquor you deliberately inflicted a wound upon your antagonist with a pocket-knife. Not contented with this, you then went into the house for another weapon ; and there is every reason to believe that you would also have used the butcher's knife, the handle of which was stained with blood from your hand, and perhaps have, in the darkness of the night,' hurried the prosecutor into eternity. The sentence of the court is that you be trans ported beyond the seas for the term" of fifteen years. John Weaves, 24, and William Bottomly, 24, were in dicted on a charge of hating, at Prestwich-cum-Oldham, feloniously killed and slain one Ralph Jackson. The prisoner Greaves had been repeatedly challenged to an up-and-down fight (as it is called in this county), in which kicking as well as blows is frequently resorted to. After fighting some time " for love," the deceased was repeatedly " punched" or kicked on the head and breast. After the last kick, the de ceased died almost instantly. The prisoner was intoxicated at the time, and the deceased, who had provoked him to fight, still more so. The prisoner Bottomly so slightly in terfered with the fight, that the case was not pressed against him, and he- was acquitted by direction of the judge. The fight was, in the part of the country where it took place, con sidered a fair fight. The jury found Greaves guilty. His Lordship said :—. John Greaves, you have been found guilty of manslaughter,— that is, taking away the life of a fallow creature. The pu nishment for this offence very properly varied according to the greater or less aggravation of the case. It might be transportation for life, or imprisonment for a term, or the party might simply be required to pay a small fine, and he dismissed the court. The present is a serious case, and here • again the offence arose from the baneful influence of liquor. You and your antagonist were both drunk, but Jackson was drunker than you ; and it was deplorable to reflect that a man in a state of intoxication should be hurried into the pre sence of his Maker. The offence was committed, too, early on Sunday morning. The parties had doubtless been drinking till late on Saturday night, or, perhaps, had scarcely been in bed, and were infuriated with liquor. It was shocking to think that men in that state should be seen stripped stark naked and fighting in a field. After you had " punched," or kicked, your antagonist for a few minutes, he died almost immediately. To the latest day of your life, such an act must hang upon your mind. The manner of the fight was according to the barbarous practice of this county, which it behoved all parties to endeavour to put down. There is something, indeed, in the system of kicking which is almost worse than stabbing itself. I take into consideration, how ever, that you were much provoked, and that the deceased had been principally accessory to his own death. The sen tence of the court is, that you be imprisoned in the county House of Correction for eighteen months, and that during that time you be kept to hard labour. POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRIAL OF MR. FEARGUS O ' CONNOR. _ _ Mr. WATSON made application to his lordship, in'behalf of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, for the postponement of the trial of this individual for sedition, &c. from the present to the summer assizes. He stated that the ground for this appliCation was, the unavoidable absence of a witness whom the defendant and his attorney conceived to he most material to his defence. He read affidavits from Mr. O'Connor, and from Mr. Clarkson, solicitor, to the effect that a material witness, named John Taylor, a physician of Carlisle, was in so dangerous a state of health that he could not attend at these assizes ; that all due diligence had been tised to pro , . cure his attendance ; but thatthe result of a correspondence with an attorney in Carlisle, showed that Mr. Taylor was not tbbe fonnd; and ihat he had - either' left the country for Prance, or was about to do so. They' had every reason to helieve, however; he would be forthcoming at the summer assizes, if he recovered, and they. therefore, prayed that his lordship would postpone the trial to the next assizes. Mr. Taylor was very feeble when recently at the York Assizes as a witness. Mr. WIGHTMAN, who was for the prosecution, said he did not wish to stand in the way of the application. He had seen the affidavits,. and.did not object on the ground of 4 want of diligence in procuring the witness. His.LO.APAkimacceded.to the.requestof the - applicant, and `le trial accordingly stands postponed. . . • z 131.T1W1LARY. Thomas Butterworth, 32, and Samuel Lord, stood indicted on a charge of having, at Oldham, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of William Eastwood and stolen a silver cup, sixteen silver spoons, a silver cream jug, and various other articles, the property of the said William East. wood ;—and Margaret Clayton and William Pollitt, stood indicted for having received the articles, knowing them to be stolen. The trial was protracted and tedious, and had no peculiar feature of interest. There did not appear to be suffi cient evidence to prove the burglary ; but the property was carried off by the two first prisoners ] and was pledged or sold by the other two. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of larceny against Butterworth and Loid ; and guilty of feloniously receiving the goods, knowing thew: to have been stolen, against Clay ton and Pollitt. Sentence was deferred. TRIALS OF THE CHARTISTS. _ _ Mr. Bronterre O'Brien applied to his lordship to be in formed as nearly as possible at what time the trials of the chartists would come on, as there were about 50 of them, and many of the witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced if they were required to remain long from their homes. His lordship stated that so far as he could foresee those trials would commence on Monday. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Hannah Blackburn, a factory girl, aged 18, was indicted on a charge of having wilfully murdered a male child ; also with having concealed the birth of the child. She, in the first instance, pleaded not guilty to both charges ; but after wards withdrew her plea on the latter charge and pleaded guilty to it. The prosecution on the first charge was not pressed against her by the crown. ' Mr. PEEL, for the prosecution, said that he did not wish to state anything in aggravation. In answer to questions from the judge, the prisoner said she was married when 16 years of age ; that her husband deserted her four days after their marriage, and was now a soldier in, she believed, the East Indies, and that she now worked in a factory. The Learned JUDGE very feelingly addressed the prisoner. He stated that the bill against the prisoner charging Ivr with wilful murder had properly been thrown out by the Grand jury, as he did not think the indictment could have been sustained. There were so many probabilities that the child came to its death through no act of her's, that he was willing to believe that she was not guilty of the major offence ; and the prosecutor, under the same feeling, had abstained from urging anything in aggravation. She had, however, pleaded guilty to the offence of concealing the birth, by disposing of the body in a secret manner. This was a serious offence, which frequently led to crime. He did not find that she had made any preparation for her offspring. (The prisoner said that she had.) The child was full grown, and was probably born alive. It was her duty to have done everything for it in her power. He, however, took into consideration her being deserted by her husband, that she worked in a factory, and that she had already suffered imprisonment for some time. The sentence was that she be imprisoned in Kirkdale House of Correction for nine months, and be kept to hard labour. Elizabeth Green, aged 20, was indicted upon a charge pre cisely similar to the last, and also pleaded guilty to the con cealment of the birth of her child. The prisoner, who is a neat little person, was still in feeble health, and was allowed a chair. It was stated by Dr. Brown on her behalf, that it was not now assumed that she caused the death of-the child ; but that it died from want of proper attendance at the time of its birth. He added that the prisoner was married ; her husband had gone to sea, and remained away two years, and she had learned that he was dead. He had, however, re turned some months ago, and had again joined his ship. Mr. Thepphilus Harvey being called, said—l am a sur geon. The prisoner applied to me in January to attend to her during her confinement, and arrangements were made by her for the birth. Mrs. Higgs, awitness for the prosecution said—The pri soner lodged with me. I searched the prisoner's box after the child was born, and found in it a small chemise, some new flannel, and other articles of child-bed apparel. The learned JUDGE then proceeded to pass sentence. The offence of the prisoner was similar to that of the last female brought before him. A stop must be put to the practice of concealing births. He had no reason to suppose that the prisoner had intended to destroy the child ; but she had thought to conceal the birth, by putting it into a box. She had, however, made some little preparation, and had spoken to a surgeon to attend her. The sentence of the Court was that she be imprisoned in Kirkdale House of Correction, for eight calendar months, and to be kept to hard labour. Dr. BROWN suggested to his Lordship that the prisoner's health was not such as would enable her to endure hard la bour without danger. His LORDSHIP intimated that it was understood that in such cases the labour should be only such as was suited to the capability of the party. MANSLAUGHTER., Thomas Martlaw, 26, was charged with having, at Liver pool, on the 23d March, feloniously killed and slain Sarah Griffiths. 'rhe details of the case were so lately before the public, that we need but remind our readers that the prisoner is a car driver ; that he alighted near the top of Brownlow hill, and went for a short time into an entry ; that the horse which was left by itself, took fright, and ran down the street. passing the Adel* Hotel, and thence down Ranelagh-street. On its way the deceased was knocked down by the car, and when carried into a druggist's shop was found to be dead. The witnesses to these facts having been examined, Mr. Ratcliffe, jun., said he had sold the horse to the prisone r ' s master. The horse was not a spirited one. The prisoner was a married man with a family, and bore a good character. The prisoner was defended by Mr. JACKSON HONE, who called witnesses to character, all of whom, including the pri soner's master, spoke of him as a steady and well-behaved man. The learned JUDGE said that the prisoner was not justified in leaving his horse ; neither was it any excuse to say that the horse was a quiet one. It appeared that it had got frightened, and the consequence was the fatality that bad oc curred. The case was, he thought, one of manslaughter, though not of an aggravared nature. The jury, after some consultation, returned a verdict of guilty, but strongly recommended the prisoner to the merci ful consideration of the court. The pfisoner's employer being called, said, in reply to the Judge, " that he would take the prisoner again into his em ployment on his being released." His Lordship addressed the prisoner in a very feeling and impressive manner, on the situation in which he bad placed himself, by his carelessness. He concluded by passing sen tence upon him of six weeks' imprisonment and hard labour. Another indictment against the prisoner, for the man slaughter of another girl, in a similar way, on the same evening, was withdrawn, and a verdict of " not guilty, taken upon it. Joseph Dunn,l9, Michael Cody, 20, ZYilliam Shoebottom, .21lichael Sullivan, Richard Jones, 24, and William Salis bury, 32, were charged with having, at Manchester, feloni ously killed and slain Patrick Canovan. It appeared that Dunn and the deceased had agreed to fight, and that the latter came to his death in consequence of the blows he received in a contest of 50 minutes' duration. Shoebottom was the stakeholder, and the others acted as backsetters. What is called " butting" with the head was allowed. The head of the deceased was dreadfully' beaten, and effusion of blood had supervened on the brain. The jury found the whole of the prisoners Guilty. The JUDGE commented at some length on the impropriety of such fights, and particularly the practice of butting. He did not, however, find that the fight was characterized by the brutalities too common in this county, and he also con sidered that the prisoners had already been imprisoned for six months. The sentence of the Court was that Dunn should be imprisoned for two months, and the others for one months, and all be kept to hard labour. William Wright, 23, was charged with having, at Man-, chester, killed and slain one George Johnson. The prisoner and the deceased had quarelled in a public-house, and a scuffle ensued, during which the prisoner kicked the deceased on the right temple with his clog, and thereby caused his death. The jury, after a long deliberation, found the pri soner Not Guilty, and be was discharged with an admonition. ARRAIGNMENT OF CHARTISTS The following chartists were brought up to plead to charges respectively of an unlawful assembly and seditious speethes : William Simpson, Benjamin Fitton, Richard Walker, John Rawson, Joshua Stowell; and Richard Hankin. They all pleaded not guilty. The court rose at seven o'clock The murder cases will be tried on Saturday. NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY. FREEMAN V. com Ft. This wai an action to recover £2B 15s. Od. alleged to be due as wages. Mr. WORTLEY appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. KNOWLES for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff and the defendant's wife are sisters. The defendant is the captain of a vessel belonging to this port, and lives in a house in Upper Pitt-street. The plaintiff's rather, nearly six years ago, being unable to main tain her, she went to live with the defendant as a servant, and evidence was produced that she was to receive five pounds a year. On the other hand it was contended, and evidence to that effect was produced, that the plaintiff was taken in merely from motives of charity, and that clothes were pro vided for her in consideration of her services. It was also urged that this action had been brought by way of revenge, because the defendant had insisted upon the repayment of £2O which he had, some years ago, lent to the plaintiff 's father: The Learnd JUDGE summed up, and after a trial of up wards of three hours, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £25 ss. WILSON V. MARSON. This was an undefended action to recover two sums of £lOO each, the amount of two bills of exchange. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £2OO, and £3 12s. for in terest. SMITH V. HOWARTII AND ANOTHER. This was an action to recover the sum of £lOO lent to the defendants on a promissory note. Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. VV IGHTMAN appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr. TIMLINSON for the defendants. Mr. WIGRTMAN opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was Joseph Smith, and the defendants John and Samuel Haworth ; and the declaration stated that the plaintiff had lent £lOO to the defendants on the 16th November, 1829, on a promissory note, and that they were indebted to him that sum with lawful interest. To this the defendant Samuel pleaded the statute of limitations ; and the defendant John, that he had been a bankrupt, , and also the statute of limita tions. The plaintiff withdrew his plea as to John Howarth. Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. This was an action upon an old promissory note, in which the defendants, Samuel and John Howarth, joined many years ago, for money lent by the plaintiff. Down to the year 1831 the defendant John paid £5 a year for interest ; he afterwards became bankrupt, and the following year, 1832, the defendant Samuel paid the interest. After that John recommenced business, and continued to pay the interest from year to year, as it be came due, but he became bankrupt again. At last the plain tiff wished to have his principal, and his attorney wrote to and met Samuel Howarth, who said, " I hope you will not press for your principal at present, as you have had your in terest punctually, and I have ordered my brother John to attend to that." He now said the cause of action had accrued more than six years ago; and two questions would arise. One of them was, whether Samuel Howarth, having suffered and directed his brother to pay the interest did not prove the payment of interest by his authority sufficient to prevent the application of the statute of limitations. But if that were not sufficient, he should say that the payment by one of two joint contractors, although after a bankruptcy, was a payment by both, and that kept up the liability of Samuel. Samuel Smith, brother of the plaintiff, proved the lending of the money, and the payment of the interest, as described by the learned counsel. • Mr. John Alcock Dixon, the plaintiff's solicitor, proved that he had applied to Samuel Howarth for the payment of the promissory note, and that he gave the reply stated above. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the jury, and said this was an attempt to fasten ulion the defendant, Samuel Howarth, the payment of this note, for which interest had been regularly paid by John Howarth, except in 1831, and subsequently, except in 1838, when he became bankrupt again. The only payment of interest by Samuel Howarth was when his brother was unable to pay. 'He would take his lordship's opinion upon the point—that any payment of in terest by a party who had ceased to be liable was not admis sible against the co-maker of a promissory note ; therefore anything done by John since 1832 was no act' that could . compromise Samuel. John Howarth, the bankrupt, was called, and he proved :his two bankruptcies, and the certificates were produced. Mr. ALEXANDER, in support •of his point, referred the learned judge to three cases—Martin v. Bridges, 3d. Car rington and Payne; 83 ; Grave ' v. 'Edmondson, 4 Payne, 622; and to Slater v. Lawson, 1 Barnewell and Adolphus, 396. He also referred to'Craven and Anderson, 6th Moore and Payne. Mr. TOMLINSON contended on the authority of a number of cases that the parochial statements of Samuel ought not to be presented to the•jury. Mr. CRESSWELL replied, and contended that all the cases cited applied to a totally different state of things, and did not refer to the circumstances of the present case. He sub mitted that the payments by John Howarth were made as the agent of Samuel. The Learned JUDGE briefly summed up. - If the jury were satisfied that the interest was paid by the authority of. Samuel, they would rind for the plaintiff; but if not, for the defendant. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £lOO, with interest for 3 years, £l5 ; total, Xll5. SMITH V. HAWORTH AND ANOTHER This was an action between the same parties to recover £lOO under another promissory note. The circumstarices were exactly similar to those in the last action, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with £l7 for interest. JONES V. WILSON Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. CROMPTON appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wortley for the de fendant. Mr. CROMPTON said, the declaration was upon the war ranty of a horse. To this the defendant had pleaded first that he had made no promise that the horse was sound, and secondly, that the horse was sound. _ _ _ Mr. CRESSWELL said the plaintiff was Mary Jones, the widow of Mr. Joseph Jones, formerly a West Indian mer chant, to recover damages from the defendant, who lived on Brougham Terrace, Everton, and was a provision merchant, for a horse he had sold to her, which proved unsound. In October last Mrs. Jones wished to have a horse, to draw a four-wheeled phaeton, put • an advertisement in the Mail newspaper, of the 24th November,.•for, such an animal to be warranted sound. The same day the defendant called at the country house, where the business of the late Mr. Jones was carried on, stated that he had seen the advertisement, and that he had come to offer a horse of his for sale. Young Mr. Jones said his mother wanted such a horse, but that she would not buy one unless she had a warranty of its sound ness. On the 14th November the defendant took the horse in a gig, where it was exhibited. He represented that he had refused £BO for the horse a short time ago ; and that nothing should induce him to part with it, but his intention to leave Liverpool for Scotland. Mr. Jones again asked him about the warranty, and he replied he would warrant it sound in every respect and very quiet. The plaintiff, however, did not like to give the price, and was rather fearful that it was too high eouraged ; her son, however, rode it as far as Prescot, and the horse went very well, still Mrs. Jones refused to pay the price. On the 18th Nov. the defendant again called at the counting-house, where he saw Mr. Jones in the presence of two persons who assisted in the business, one of whom said to him ." You recommend this as - a very fina animal ; but you cannot expect Mrs. Jones to buy it without a warranty." He then came down to £55 ; and being again spoken to as to the warranty, be said, " I assure you it is very sound—it would be" very wicked for me to attempt to' deceive a lady who wants a horse ;" but he (Mr. Cresswell) should slim that two months before it had been pronounced unsound by a veterinary surgeon. Mr. Jones, however, said, " I should like to shew the horse to a veterinary surgeon—let him go to Mr. Bagnall's for examination." The defendant then said, " What use is that? these veterinary surgeons are always finding something the matter with horses the young man, however, pressed it, and ultimately the defendant agreed to let Mr. Bagnall look at it. Then, for the first time, the de fendant said—" a horse after standing in a stable two or three days will often have a swelling about his legs." Mr. Bagnall, who was a young man, and had but just commenced practice, thought the horse was sound ; and Mr. Jones, relying upon the warranty, gave £5O. for the horse. It was taken home, and used for a fortnight or three weeks, when some person observed something wrong about the horse's hocks : and in order to be satisfied about it, the horse was immediately taken to Mr. Bretherton's, who, on seeing it, exclaimed, " Oh, here is my old friend again." " What do you know about him ?" was the answer. "Oh !" replied Mr. Bretherton. " I Lad him standing ,here two months ago on sale, but I could not get the price for him, and 1 told Mr. Wilson, then, that he had bog spavin in his hocks. Mr. Bretherton, on the 18th, therefore, wrote a certificate to this effect, and notice was sent to the defendant, that as the horse was unsound he would take him back. The reply was that he had not warranted him. Other people, however, had ex amined the horse, and there was not the least doubt of its being unsound. • Mr. Cresswell then called Henry Jones, son of the plaintiff, who proved that an advertisement was inserted in the Mail for a good strong horse, warranted sound, to which the defendant replied, stating that he had a fine animal answering the description. Witness desired him to take the animal to his mother's house in Deane-street, near Kensing tn.. The day but one afterwards he brought the horse in a gig, and witness saw it, but the plaintiff did not. He drove witness into the town, and as they were going into Edge-lane, he asked him whether he could warrant it sound, and he said he could, and that he asked 60 guineas for it, and that he could not part with it under £BO, only that he was leaving town for the North. Witness detailed the other circumstan ces mentioned by the learned counsel. Mr. Bagnall's certi ficate pronouncing the horse sound was put in and read ; as were Mrs. Jones's letter to the defendant, and Mr. Brether ton's certificate, of unsoundness, from bog spavin in his hocks. A letter from the defendant was also put in, in which he denied having warranted the horse, and said lie should have no more to do with it. The horse was sold afterwards at Lucas's for £2O, and witness's mother received £l7 10s., after having deducted the expenses of sale. Cross-exarnined by Mr. ALEXANDER.—Wrote a letter to the defendant after receiving the defendant's letter, and there the correspondence terminated. Mr. ALEXANDER asked the Judge whether his learned friend might not put in this letter? The JUDGE replied that Mr. Alexander himself might. Cross-examination resumed.—As far as witness could s ee ' the horse appeared to be a very fine, good horse. The horse underwent a thorough examination by Mr. Bagnall, and wit ness pointed out to Mr. Bagnall a swelling in the right hock. Mr. Bagnall said it was nothing at all against .the horse. Witness, after the examination, asked the defendant for a warranty, but he refused to give it. Re-examined.—lt was a written warranty which the de fendant refused to give ; but after that he said the horse was " all right." Edward Roberts, managing -clerk to the representatives of the late Mr. Jones, recollects the defendant calling at the country house on the 18th November, and assuring Mr. Jones the horse was a fine animal, and " all right." He afterwards asked witness, on the stairs, how far Mr. Jones would go as to price, as he was willing to make a great sacrifice, repeat ing the good qualities of the horse, as he had to go to the north. The defendant added, that he knew the horse to be sound, because he had never been in any other person's hands since he was a colt. Cross-examined.—The defendant did not tell him the breeding of the horse, or from whom he had had him. Henry Sage said he was present in Mr. Jones's office when the defendant was there, and heard him say, in reply to a question from Mr. Jones, whether he would warrant the horse?—" Yes ; he's all right." Cross-examined.—The defendant praised the horse verf much, and said it was worth £BO. Joseph Bretherton said, he was a veterinary surgeon, in Liverpool, in extensive practice. On the lith of June, last year, the horse was sent to his stables to be sold. He was then unsound, having an enlargement and crusting of both hocks, Pointed this out to Mr. Wilson. The horse was taken from his stables on the 15th of July. Saw him again, on the 18th of December, when Mrs. Jones had him, an d found the hocks in the same state as before. He was then an unsound horse, and worth about £25. Cross-examined.—lf he had not had this unsoundness be would have been worth 4,'50. £BO was the price put upon him. James Kirkman, a veterinary surgeon, said he had examined the horse, and found him unsound, from bog spa vin, on the 24th .of December. Cross-examined. — The ordinary use of a horse, which has bog spavin, is sure to produce lameness. John Walton, a veterinary surgeon, examined the horse on the 4th of January, and found it unsound, from bog spavin, in both hocks. Cross-examined.—The horse was not then lame, and wit ners had a horse which had worked three years without lame ness. If a horse was ill used, and worked hard, bog spavin would produce lameness. Re-examined.—A horse with bog spavin does not deserve the description of sound. A Juror.—l suppose you would'nt recommend any one to buy a hunter with bog spavin. The witness.—Not unless he gave a small price for him. Nelson Corfa said he was an assistant in Mr. Lucass repository, and that the horse was unsound, and that he a for £2O. Cross-examined.—se was sold as a horse in dispute. He was in good fair condition. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury for the defendant , and commented upon the fact that Mr. Bagnall had not been called to state his opinion of the horse. The question was two-fold—had there been a warranty, and had there been a violation of it. The whole evidence showed that no war ranty was given ; and that the swelling bad been pointed out before the late Mrs. Jones was bound to keep the animial. The learned JUDGE in summing up, directed the jury to consider first, N4ether there was a warranty, and next, wile' tiler that warranty, if there was one, had been broken. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on both points-- damages £25. The court adjourned at six o'clock. TOWN COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS. The usual monthly meeting of the Council was held in the Town-hall on Wednesday, for the dispatch of business. There was but a slender attendance. JOSHUA WALmsts.Y. Esq. the mayor, took the chair. The proceedings of the last monthly meeting were read b 1 the DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK. The proceedings of the Finance Committee were read over by the deputy town-clerk. They contained a statement t 0 the effect, that at the meeting of the committee on the pre vious day, a deputation from the Dock Committee ha d attended with reference to the bill now before parliamen t ' The deputation stated that a strong opinion had been ex pressed by their le ga l a d v i ser an d o the rs , th a t the compul sory clause between the council and dock trust would caus e a discussion in the committee of the House of Commons as to the probable price of the land forming the gravin,g-doe k ., and strand to the west side of the Salthouse Dock, au', would place the bill in jeopardy, and that therefore the leg s ' adviser recommended that the price should he fixed by the council, under the direction of the lords of the treasury. The surveyor had therefore been instructed to make a new valus; tion, from the price of land for the last eighteen months, alle, they had come to the conclusion that the graving - dock a nd strand were worth £3 4s per square yard, which, with ca . ', tain deductions for paving, &c., would leave a nett price 50s ; that they thought reasonable as between the council a ue , dock trust. The Finance Committee were of opinion th at £2 13s. 6d. would be a reasonable price, and instructed the, town-clerk to insert that price in the bill, where there b ee been a blank left. The proceedings of the Finance Committee were cow firmed without observation ; so also were those of t he Improvement Committee, and the leases. WATCH COMMITTEE. In the proceedings of this committee were embodied 11 ; letter from the mayor to Lord Normanby, on the subject 01 , clauses in the county constabulary bill, enacting that th s ' bill shall have force in all the boroughs and towns Ora& having a police force, and that the regulations for the poll. force, whether Felonging to counties or the towns there() ; shall be framed by the secretary of state and the justices °` the county. The letter objected to this power of regulati o ! being vested in the secretary of state and the justices, so f Bl as Liverpool was concerned, inasmuch as they, and the jus tices in particular, would frame regulations applicable t ° county exigences, and unfit for a great commercial toval' The letter further stated, that under the municipal reforro_ bill the council possessed the power of passing bye-laws f or the regulation of their police force (those regulations being subject to the approval of the secretary o f s tate,) and th at the-Liverpool force exceeded in number 'the whole o f the force contemplated for the county, and that the outlay thereof' was much greater. Under these circumstances, his w orslo wished that the provisions of the bill should not e xtend t ° this town. bud It was subsequently mentioned by the MAYOR that be received from Lord Normanby, through his lordship's, secre7 tary, a reply to the letter which he had written in accord/10c°, with the wish of the- Watch Committee, informing him the bill for the amendment of the county constabulary b" would not in any way interfere with the Liverpool police. „ The Watch Committee's proceedings also set forth that t b " Town-clerk and Surveyor had recommended alterations Ku additions to the central bridewell, the estimates for whi c A amounted to £3OO. These, however,-were not recommenc e with the view of making the place fit for a permanent bride; well (which it was impossible to do by any alteration), but to make it reasonably fit for the prisoners until a new bride" well could be built, either in connexion with the new cour t ' or somewhere else. _ _ The proceedings of the committee were confirmed. METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT. The TOWN-CLERK read the following petition for the et tension of the metropolitan police act : " The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, Burge of the Borough of Liverpool, " Showeth,—That an act was passed in the last session ° I parliament, intituled, An act for further improving the P cr lice in and near the metropolis.' " That the provisions of the said act have been found t ° , be of a most beneficial and salutary nature within the dist rict therein comprised. " That it would tend greatly to the public benefit of t,l! e inhabitants of. the borough of Liverpool and the adjacent dr,: tricts, and be, in the opinion of your petitioners, genera l ", advantageous to the county at large, if many of the provisio o of that act were extended to the whole of England and Wal e , o s ' such provisions being amended, qualified, and adapted, as ' the wisdom of parliament shall appear requisite, and the VT cution thereof placed under existing jurisdictions, and pa r ": cularly in corporate towns under the municipal authoritire provided by the act of 5 and 6 William IV., c. 76, for t" regulation of municipal corporations. . a " Your petitioners therefore pray that an act may be pas' e in the present session for effecting such extension. ".And your petitioners will ever pray, &c." Mr. THORNHILL moved, and Mr. BRIGHT seconded, t he adoption, of the petition.—Carried. ADMISSION OF REPORTERS TO THU MEETINGS OF TO DOCK COMMITTEE. be In the proceedings of the Dock Committee there was t following resolution :—" Resolved, that the reporters fort public press be admitted to the meetings of the , Dock Coto ; mittee, subject to exclusion by a vote of the majority of t he committee." On the motion for the confirmation of the proceedings ° the Dock Committee being put, Mr. Alderman LE ATIIOM, the chairman of the committee, objected to the above resolution, which, he said, had ber e passed during his absence, which he much regretted, a 5 should have wished to have recorded his opinion against IL measure. The member for Abercromby Ward (Mr. t _ Gladstone), who he was sorry to see was not then presen A : was the mover of the resolution which had been adopt eu . The objections which he had to the admission of reporte, were, that their presence would tend materially t o i n crea-, the labours and embarrass the proceedings of the inembe l l, • On every committee-day subjects came before them whi c h were not then disposed of, and it would be inexpedient to allow the discussions on them to go before the public wil e , the matters were in an innnature state. If reporters we r , - admitted, it would lead to the appointment of sub-col:now tees to discuss the majority O d elle measures brought for" ward, and thus take up a great of the time of the wow hers in attending those sub-committees, of which, accordion to established rule, he should he expected to be a rueruberi; He had nearly every day something to do in connexion wi t the dock affairs, and it, in addition to what he now did , ' e i n e had to sit upon sub. committees, there would be no end his his labours. He did not know the rea s ons of the meteu e ,d for Abercromby Ward in bringing his motion ; but he corn say, without fear of contradiction, that that member atteau e i t the meetings less than any other member. It was diflici l u to keep him in his sea t for more than half an hour ; and It perhaps would be con v e n i en t t o hi m t o rea d, nex t morniab; in the papers, the proceedings of the committee meeting which he had not atte n d e d, an d th a t th e res t h a d attend all the time. Mr. Alderman BOOTH entirely agreed with Mr. Leathotitt; but he did not think it worth while dividing the council °,, ' the subject. H e men ti one d hi s o bj ec ti ons t o th e propo sitit but stated that he was ne v erth e l ess w illi ng t o try the exPe'' . ment. Mr. Alderman G. Holt seconded the motion of Mr. Altlf e man Leathom, that the proceedings be confirmed, with P' exception of the resolution for the admission of reporters. 3 Mr. Alderman EARLE said that the fact of their being r ; provision to enable the committee to exclude the repoe te when they thought fit, showed that the supporters of repot motion were conscious that some inconvenience would atte ° „ g the admission of the press. The very circumstance of lett l l the reporters retire when certain points were to be discual or would show the public those points ; and he did not know w ile they (the council) should not allow the reporters to go to the 1 ` meetings of the Improvement or Finance Committee, well as to those of the Dock Committee. There wee e ,,,,, great many conversations going on there which would be " trimental to their objects to have published. Mr. BOLTON suggested to the chairman of the Dock ‘- ,0 mittee that he should allow the proceedings to be eontirla and when the committee again met, p r opo s e a resolution ", the annulling of that already passed. lie had better do than press his motion then, because it would require L t i o 'd thirds of the council to do away with the resolution tha t " been adopted. t he Mr. LEATHOM approved of the suggestion, and allowe d proceedings to be confirmed. THE MARRIAGE CHARITABLE FUND. The MAYOR stated that he had received a communicati° from S. U. Thompson, Esq., the treasurer of the Marr iag e Charitable Fund, intimating that the subscriptions ou tn part of the public amounted to £2859. lOs. 6d., so that ttw, charitable institutions were now entitled to the second g rAa' of £5OO. from the corporation. Mr. PLATT asked whether the subscription was now to be closed ? The MAYOR replied, certainly not ; the committee thought/ that they should still be able to raise a considerable s un',, it was also their intention to have a fancy ball in aid of tiw fund. Mr. CURRIE moved that the corporation grant of £looo' should now be paid. i