The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-21 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.-TUESDAY The assizes for the southern division of the county pala tine of Lancaster commenced in this town on Tuesday, before the Honourable Mr. Justice Coltman, and the Honourable Mr. Baron Rolfe, one of the Barons of the Exchequer. Their lordships, whohad arrived from Lancaster in the afternoon of the preCeding day, attended divine service on Tuesday forenoon, in St. George's Church, where an:, p- propriate sermon was preached by the Rev. T. Pedder, of Churchtown, near Garstanv chaplain to the High Sheriff, „ . Thos. Fitzherbert Brockholes, Esq., of Claughtoti-hall. About twelve o'clock, Mr. Justice COLTMAN took his seat in the crown court ; and the court having been opened with the customary forms, the following gentlemen were formed Grand Jury The Hon. R. BOOTLE WILBAMIAM, M.P., Blythe-hall, Foreman. Sir Benjamin Heywood, Bart., Claremont. Peter Ainsworth, Esq., M.P., Smith Hill's-hall. John Ireland Blackburn, Esq., M.P., Hale. Hugh Hornby Birley, Esq., Swinton-house. John Bourne, Esq., Halliwell-hall. Henry Critchley, Esq., The Hayes. Robert Garnett, Esq., Oak-hill. William Gale, Esq., Lightbourne-house. Alexander Halliburton, Esq., Wigan. Robert Joetas Jackson Norreys, Esq., Davyhulme. Robert Henry Norreys, Esq., Davyhulme. Charles Orrell, Esq., Black-brook. Shakspeare Phillips, Esq., Barlow-hall. Jose* Ridgway, Esq., Ridgmount. William Rathbone, Esq., Green-bank. William Gillibrand Unsworth, Esq., Maghull. George William Wood, Esq., M.P., Singleton lodge. Francis Haywood, Esq., Liverpool. Richard Walker, Esq., M.P., Woodhill. Jos. C. Ewart, Esq., Liverpool. Samuel Sandbach, Esq., Woodlands. Sir George Drinkwater, Rnt., Liverpool. The Queen's proclamation against vice, profaneness, and immorality, having been read by the clerk of the crown, the learned Judge proceeded to deliver the charge to the Grand Jury. He spoke as follows : " Gentlemen of the Grand In quest,—The calendar presents to us a very long list indeed of cases in which human life has been sacrificed. There are, I believe, no less than fourteen cases in which the parties have been killed. It appears, undoubtedly, from the depositions, that the cases in general are not cases of excessive malignity ; but a great many of them are cases which may probably, in the result, be properly classed under the head of manslaughter only. In some of them the coroner's jury have found verdicts for murder, and in others for manslaughter only : however, what they have done will be no guide for your discretion ; you will, of course, exercise your own judgment upon them. Un doubtedly, the distinction and difference between murder and manslaughter are, in many cases, very nice. It is matter of considerable difficulty sometimes to say, whether an offence ought to be classed under the head of murder, or be considered only as a case of manslaughter. In order to constitute the crime of murder, it is not necessary that the party should have the intention of destroying life. If he intended to do a very serious mischief,—such as waylaying a person with an intent to beat him severely, and he carried the matter further than his original intention, and destroyed life, the circum stances of the case may be indicative of a vicious and mali cious state of mind, and he ought to be convicted of murder. These matters will undoubtedly require minute investigation ; but, as far as I am aware, there does not appear any case in which the parties who have inflicted the wounds have had a previously concocted design of murder. But, if there are circumstances of cruelty which show a malignant disposition of mind, in that case the party will be liable to be found guilty of murder, although his original intention was not to com mit that offence. Upon these cases, however, you will exer cise your own discretion and judgment, and if you find there are in any case such marks of a cruel and wicked disposition, that you think the party should be put upon his trial for sour der, you will find a bill for that great offence, if not, if a bill is found at all, you will find it for the lesser offence. There is, also, a case of a young woman who is charged with the mur der of her child. If there are grounds for finding the bill for that offence, and it should afterwards turn out, there is some doubt whether that charge is made out, a separate indictment may be prepared and the party shall be convicted of conceal ment, as a substantive offence. There are in the calendar, also, a number of cases of an offence which unfortunately has become prevalent in England, that of stabbing. In some of those cases you will find that life has fallen a sacrifice : and, I think, independently of them, there are six cases of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm or mur der. Five of these are cases of stabbing. I have no re marks to make upon them ; they are simple matters of law. There.can be no doubt whatever, if a wound is given by a knife, it is within the statute ; but, if there should be circum stances that reduce it below a statutable offence, the party will still be liable to be found guilty of an assault, and be punish able accordingly. There are, I perceive, two persons under charges for violence to females. One of them is a case of violence to a child under ten years old. With regard to this case, it is hardly necessary to remind you, that the consent of the child makes no difference in the offence ; it is a felony, and the party is liable to be found guilty of it, even though the child should consent, which in this case there may pro bably be some reason to suppose she did. The other case is a charge of an injury upon a permit of adult years. I should observe, that in cases of this sort, unless there is good ground for putting the party upon his trial, the case ought not to be brought before a jury. It will perhaps be necessary for you to investigate the matter a little further than is ordinarily the practice in grand juries, in order to see whether there is sufficient ground for bringing forward the charge. In this case, there are circumstances upon the depo sitions which make it advisable. It appears that the party did not make a complaint of the injury she had sustained in the way that would exactly be expected of her; so, perhaps, you will investigate the case closely before you determine what you will do. Of course it is a very great outrage ; and, if there is reasonable ground to suppose it can be established as laid, you will find a bill ; if there is no reasonable ground to suppose that it can be sustained, it is but reasonable that the pain of a public investigation should be spared.—Gentle men, there will be brought before you five cases of forgery. They are for the most part cases of an ordi na ry and simple description. One is fur uttering a forged bank note. The only observation called for in this case is, that, generally speaking, forgery is in common parlance supposed to he con. stituted by the forgery of some individuals name. In one or two of these cases fictitious names appear to have been used. It is hardly necessary to state to you, that that may produce all the mischief of forging a real name ; therefore it falls equally within the charge, although no such person may be in existence as the man whose name was forged. There are some cases of uttering base coin, and one of them if made out, is of a very bad description. It, is the case of a man who appears to have gone before the police for the purpose of ob taining a reward by a false accusation against another person in whose house he was charged with having deposited spuri ous money, in order to bring that person within the penalties of the law. It is, if made out, a case of as wicked a nature as can be conceived, and I am sorry to say it is not the first of the kind within my recollection. When I was here last year, some of the gentlemen on the grand jury may recollect a simi lar case, in which I passed the severest sentence the law allowed me, because I conceived it was one of the most malignant Offences that could be found in the calendar of crime. There are a number of cases of burglary, but I am happy to say they are not of a nature to call for any remark. We may apply to them the term venal; that is to say, as far as regards the disturbance of families, or the perpetration of violence, they may properly be classed under the denomination of lar cenies. Among the cases of felony there are only a few I would advert to. I believe there are two of persons hiring horses and running away with them. In these cases the owner had parted with his property, and it might strike us at first that the offence did not amount to a felony; but it has been held, that if a party hires a horse with an intention of stealing it, the offence of larceny is committed. It would be a different case if it should turn out he had not an inten tion of stealing the horse when he hired it. In that case the crime would not be complete ; therefore it will be a question upon the facts before you what his intention was. There are two cases of this nature. These, gentlemen, are all the re marks that the calendar calls upon me to make, and you wi'l how retire to your duties, forwarding bills into the court as quickly as possible. The grand jury then retired to their room. MANSLAUGHTER. _ - James Barnett was indicted for the manslaughter of James Standring, at Rochdale, on the 25th of April. Mr. Hulton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the pri soner. It appeared, that on the evening of the day in ques tion, the deceased and the prisoner were drinking together at a public-house, and a trifling dispute having arisen between them, the prisoner proposed to settle it by a tight. The de ceased said he might fight if he liked, whereupon the pri soner hit him upon the eyes, and the unfortunate man died the following ally. The evidence of two medical witnesses who were examined, was to the effect that death was caused by haemorrhage produced by the blow. The jury found the prisoner guilty. He received an excellent character. After a suitable address, the learned judge sentenced him to pay a fine of and to be imprisoned till it be paid. CUTTING AN MAIMING. William Atherton, 21, was indicted for having unlawfully and maliciously cut and wounded Michael Conner, a soldier in the 86th regiment, at Ashton-in-Mackerfield, with intent to maim, disable, and do him some grievous bodily harm. Dr. Brown appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoner was undefended. The case had been opened, and the first wit ness was under examination, when the mother of the prisoner requested that the trial might be postponed until witnesses for her son had arrived. She stated that sha understood the assizes commenced on the 19th instant instead of 17th. After some consideration, the learned Judge granted the applica tion, and the trial was postponed on the authority of deci sion by Mr. Baron Parke, in Stoke's case, C. and P., 151, confirmed by Mr. Baron Rolfe, in a case at the late assizes at York. John Clarke, 2G, was indicted for a similar offence upon the person of Peter Reynolds, on the 27th July last. The prosecutor is a shoemaker, residing in Ben Jonsop-street. On the evening of the day in question, he sent his wife to his employer's shop in Fontenoy-street for some work. As s he was away longer th an he deemed necessary, he went to seek her, and found her engaged in an altercation with the pri soner. He seized the prisoner, in order to prevent him stab bing the woman, and during a struggle which succeeded, the prisoner stabbed him in five different parts of the body. The prisoner then ran away, but he was shortly afterwards appre hended by a policeman. In the course of the struggle, the prisoner slso stabbed a sist er -i n -l aw of the prosecutor in the throat. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a common as sault only. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprison ment. MANSLAUGHTER. Moses Ashworth, 53, was indicted for having, at Rochdale, feloniously killed and slain one James Wilcock, On the 22d July there was a dispute between the par ties in a public.house after which the deceased struck and throttled the prison er .' The prisoner then knocked the deceased down, an d w hil st he lay on the floor kicked him twice on the left side, from the effect of which he died. Both of them were intoxicated. The prisoner, in his defence, denied that he had kicked the deceased. The Jury found the prisoner guilty of man. slaughter, under great provocation, and recommended him to mercy. Sentence deferred. The Court adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY. Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat at twelve o'clock. IBITSON V. SPORR. Mr. Baines appeared ou behalf of the plaintiff Joseph Ibitson. The acti on , w hi c h was un d e fended, was brought against Mr. Spurr and another, to recover the amount due on a bill of exchange. A j u d ge ' s or d er was pro d u ced, in which the liability of the defendant was admitted. Verdict for the plaintiff £3l 10s. TIPTON V. JACKSON AND ANOTHER. This action was brought to recover the amount of a bill of exchange. Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff. The action was undefended. The defendant, in his plea, denied the acceptance, but a judge's order was produced, proving the liability. Verdict for the plaintiff £260 with interest. TAYLOR V. ROBERTSON. This was an undefended action on a bill of exchange. Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, William Taylor, who was the indorser, and who sought to recover the amount of the bill from John Robertson, the acceptor. In this case also a judge's order was produced, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages £503 12s. 7d. RAYNER V. ARCHER Joseph Rayner was the plaintiff, and John Archer the de fendant. The action was brought to recover the amount of £l9 3e. Bd. and interest on a bill of exchange, and £l5 for money lent. The defendant pleaded in respect to the bill of exchange that he did not accept, and on the alleged loan that he was not indebted. Joseph Williamson Westmoreland, attorney for the plaintiff, proved that the defendant had ad- mitted the debt bith the till and the loan. The interest on the bill was £1 is. 9d., making the total debt on that ac count £2O 115.5 d. This, with the £l5 lent, made £33 l ls. 5d., for which amount the Jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff SIR BENJAMIN SMITH V. JENNINGS This action was brought to recover £BlO arrears of an an nuity. The defendant had covenanted to pay the money, but he pleaded a release. As he did not appear in court to prove his plea, it fell to the ground. Verdict for the plainlitT, 4:810. WARD V. CARSON This action was brought by Mr. Edmund Ward, attorney, against Robert Carson, a publican, to recover £7 17s. 6d., a balance of account for work and labour done. The defend ant pleaded that he was not indebted. The action was undefended. The plaintiff is an attorney at Prescot, and the defendant, a publican at Wigan. The defendant formerly bought his ale from Messrs. Birchall and Cross, brewers. In the year 1835, Alexander Smith, who travelled for Messrs. Birchall and Cross, called upon Mr. Carson for orders as usual. Carson showed Smith a promissory note from person named Parkin, of Liverpool, and requested him to call and get the amount for him. Smith was unable to get the money, and he received orders from Carson to take legal measures for the recovery thereof. Mr. Ward, being the attorney for Messrs. Birchall and Cross, the case was put into his hands, and the action was ultimately settled. The taxed bill from Mr. Ward was £l7 17s. 6d., of which £lO had been paid, leaving a balance of. £7 17s. 6d. due. The above facts having been proved on the evidence of Mr. Smith and Mr. Thomas Oliver, Mr. Ward's London agent, the jury returned for the plaintiff damages £7 17s. 6d. MULGRAVE V. WORRALL The plaintiff, in this case, was John Mulgrave, an Irish labourer, and the action was brought to recover £2-1 from John Worrall, a farmer of Halewood, for work and labour done. Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Whigham for the defendant. The witness, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated, that Mul grave had worked during the years 1829, 1830, 1831, and 1832, and that he had subsequently been engaged by him in 1834, 1835, and 1836, during the two latter years of which the plaintiff had suffered his wages to accumulate in his master's hands. It was assumed, that the wages, during 1835, were and during 1836 £l3 per annum ; but the proof on these points did not come out. It was stated, that the defendant had admitted, from time to time, that he owed the plaintiff upwards of £2O. On behalf of the defendant it was con tended, that the whole evidence produced by the plaintiff was a fabrication, and witnesses were called to show, that though Mulgrave had been employed by Worrall at different times he had always been paid. A document was also pro duced, showing that, in July last, the plaintiff only claimed £lO, which it was contended had been paid in a sum of £ll 155., which the defendant's man swore he had seen paid. The latter, on cross-examination was asked if he had not re quested his brother-in-law, who was not called as a witness in the main case, not to appear in court, as it would " break the old man," (the defendant.) He, (the defendant's son,) said l►e had requested his brother-in-law not to appear, but it was on the ground that it would make mischief in the family. The brother-in-law was called by Mr. Martin. He said that young Worrall had requested him not to appear be cause it would " break the old man if he had to pay Mul grave's wages." Mr. WIGUT3AAN, in the reply which he was entitled to make, on this witness being called, contended that the wit ness was unworthy of credit. Mr. MARTIN, in return, called on the Jury to believe that all the witnesses for the defence were unworthy of credit, and that the paper produced was a mere fabrication, got up for the purpose of evading the payment of the sum due to the plaintiff. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages £24. BELLIS V. COWARD This was an undefended action brought by John Bellis, a horse-dealer, of Staffordshire, to recover £42, the value of three horses sold to the defendant, James Coward. The de fendant pleaded that he was not indebted. The sale and amount were proved by the signature of the defendant to the contract. Verdict for the plaintiff; damages £42. CARR V. BIDDLE In this case John Carr was the plaintiff and Richard Biddle the defendant. The action was undefended, and was brought to recover £250, on a promissory note, given for money lent. The defendant denied that he was indebted. The loan and signature to the note were proved, and the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages £250, with £l5 4s interest. The court adjourned at five o'clock. THE C A.IISE PAPER.—The following causes were disposed of in the West Derby list : Plaintiff, 1,2, 3,6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 29, 30, 33. Nos. 4 and 5 were understood to have been settled out of court. No. 31 is fixed for trial this morning. CROWN COURT—WEDNESDAY. The business of the court commenced at nine o'clock. CHARGE OF BURGLARY. Samuel Horrocks, aged 36, and Joshua Kirk, 28, were in dicted for having, in May last, at Failsworth, burglariously entered the house of James Clare, a publican, and stolen therefrom two casks, seven gallons of rum, one gallon of British brandy, two bottles and two gallons of French brandy, and two gallons of whiskey. Horrocks was defended by Mr. Wilkins. Mary Crompton, M. Clare's servant, proved that on the night of the 25th of May last the house was properly secured. On the following morning it was discovered that the premises had been broken into, and a quantity of spirits, &c. stolen. On the night of the 29th of May, Thomas Haslam, a pub lican, saw Horrocks and Kirk in company together at a tavern kept by Mary Sewell. Next morning Horrocks called upon Haslam with a cart. He asked Haslein if he would purchase some spirits. Haslam replied that he did not want any spirits, upon which Horrocks drove the cart away, ob serving that he must take the spirits somewhere else. About a mile and a half further on was the residence of Mr. Wm. Hurst, a publican. Here both prisoners called soon after they had been at Haslam's. They had the cart with them. They drank two pints of ale, and Horrocks asked Mr. Hurst if he would purchase some spirits, indicating that he had some in the cart. Mr. Hurst not being in want of any_ spirits, he went directly to a tavern at a short distance, kept b y a Mr. Booth, and asked the latter if he would purchase some rum. In all the!:e cases he said he could sell the liquor cheap ; and in one instance, when asked where he bad got the spirits, ho replied, he believed they were some smuggled spirits which had been found in the cart. Meanwhile two officers who had been cognisant of the robbery at Mr. Clare's house, heard that the prisoners were offering spirits for sale. They set off in pursuit, came up with the cart at Mr. Hurst's, and apprehended Kirk and Horrocks on the return of the latter from Booth's. Two kegs of spirits were found in the cart. A constable named Wilde deposed, that on the way to the lock-up Horrock's sister called out to him—" Now, James tell the truth and say but little." He replied, " I will. I did not do it myself, but I know who did. Only two know beside myself." On cross-examination touching this point, it appeared that the prisoner said further, that " Tom Bainbridge and Kirk had stolen the liquor, and had requested him to sell it for them. If," said he, "I am committed for it, lam committed innocently." Bainbridge, the constable said, had been transported for felony since the alleged burglary took place. The kegs found in the cart were identified as the same which had been sent by Mr. Gill, spirit merchant, to the house of Mr. Clare, and which had been stolen therefrom. _ Mr. WILKINS said he should prove that Horrocks could not have been present at the burglary, and, however repre hensible his conduct might have been in attempting to put off goods under such circumstances as they had heard de tailed, as he was indicted for having committed the robbery, if they found that he had not been a participator in that crime they would be bound to acquit him. Kirk, in his defence, said he overtook Horrocks on the road with the cart, and merely accompanied him along the road. It was not his place to ask what was in the cart, and he did not know that there were any spirits in it. Abigail Clayton was called by Mr. WILKINS.—She stated that Horrocks and his children lived with her. On the night of the 25th of May she saw him in bed at ten o'clock. She slept with his children in the same room with him. She got up at five o'clock, and employed herself in weaving. Horrocks got up between six and seven, and went out to his work about eight. Mrs. Mary Schofield, whose husband is a cart-owner, for whom Horrocks has been employed to drive, deposed that the latter went to his work in the morning of the 26th of May, about eight o'clock, or between eight and nine. His LORDSHIP thought that nothing had been offered to show that the offence was a burglary, as the robbery might have been committed after six o'clock in the morning. The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted both prisoners under this indictment, but expressed an opinion that Horrocks was guilty of knowingly having the stolen goods in his possession. His LORDSHIP ordered another indictment to be prepared. MINT CASES.—POSSESSION OF A MOULD — SINGULAR CASE. John Matthew:, aged 30, was charged with having had in his possession, in May last, a mould for casting coin to re semble shillings. Mr. Sergeant Atcherly and Mr. Penny conducted the pro- secution. It appeared that in April last year the prisoner made him self known to the police of Manchester, and stated that he could give them some information relative to parties who were engaged in the manufacture of counterfeit money. He stated to Superintendent Allcock that a man named Ken nedy, a tinker, who resided in a cellar near to him, was in the habit of making and selling bad coin to some extent. The superintendent attended to the information which the prisoner gave him from time to time, and furnished him with money with which to purchase counterfeit coin. The pri soner brought several packages of base sixpences which he said he had bought from Kennedy for twopence each, and ..one shillings for which he said Kennedy had charged him threepence each. The superintendent asked him if he could not detect Kennedy at work making bad coin. The prisoner said it would be very easy to do so, and on one occasion the prisoner informed the police that if they would go that night to Kennedy's cellar they would find him at work " making money." The superintendent caused the cellar to be recon noitred that night, but nothing was seen to indicate that any such operation was going forward. The superintendent, in order if possible to get at the truth, frequently watched the cellar of Kennedy through a hole in a door which communi cated with another cellar at the back, but he could never see anything suspicious. At length the superintendent imbibed the opi n i i 4 o u n i t t y h a i t ,a h r i t s y n (the prisoner) re i mm ed i m a t i e g l y h t t a h k i e m n s e t l o f dbiesctohveer if these surmises were well founded. The prisoner told the officers that if they would search Kennedy a cellar at a particular time, and look in a particular place, they would find some materials for coining. The officers, being watchful to discover the truth, set one of their number to observe the prisoner. On the day when he had requested that the experiment should be made on Kennedy's cellar, the prisoner was seen to go to his own residence, and to come out with a small parcel, with which he went to Ken nedy's, where some neighbours were assembled, as Kennedy, being about to change his resi dence, was disposing of his few goods. The prisoner went into Kennedy's cellar with the parcel in his hand. He went up to the fireplace, and there lighted his pipe. Without addressing himself to any person, he quitted the cellar, and the officer who was on the watch observed that he had no longer the parcel in his hand. The officers went to Kennedy's cellar at the tim e a pp ointed, and there, ab ove th e fireplace, in the very spot to which the pri soner had di rec t e d them, they found a mould for the purpo s e of counterfeiti ng shillings. The prisoner's own residence was afterwards searched, and the officers found sonic mate rials commonly used in coining, a piece of a mould which corresponded with that found at Kennedy's, and several counterfeit shillings which had been made from that mould. The prisoner cross-examined the several witnesses very adroitly, and with much boldness of demeanour. In the ichcourseeoraes asked eooduf round his iast his o twaist.fi ce r ifhe cross-examination of S u p er i n tendent Allcock, The had officer searchedsaid b e h a belt a dwhich searched Kennedyh not. but heT The prisoner no t exactly was wh inh wore a ore im acourt, a m n bi d neul h tte e elry, had no doubt he had then the belt on in which he kept his bad money. Mr. Sergeant ATCH LILLY said he should call Kennedy, and the latter was desired to stand forward till he was wanted. When Kennedy was examined, he said he once had a fight with the prisoner, who hadbiiitittehne off ff ou h rs i e s of a dispute wit and man named O'Neilie, (O'Neille's) lip, flattened his nose. Kennedy took O'Neille's part, and fought the prisoner, who was subse quently imprisoned for the assault. The prisoner had subse quently threatened " to be revenged on Kennedy for that af fair of O'Neille's." Kennedy told him to stand up and take his revenge then. He replied that he would take it in ano ther way. A witness stated that he had heard the prisoner say that he would have his revenge for the six months which he had served in Manchester for the assault. He would transport Kennedy if he were twenty years in compassing it. This witness was asked by the prisoner if his cellar had not been once searched. The witness replied " Yes." " What for ?" asked the prisoner. Witness—" Because you came to the cellar so often. The neighbours knew you had a bad name for ' making money,' and they suspected me because you came to my cellar." (Laughter.) The prisoner cross examined Kennedy at some length. He directed him to take the belt from his waist, which Kennedy (lid very readily. He said he wore it to strengthen his back, and when he travelled he secreted his money in the pockets. The prisoner, how ever, persisted that Kennedy had used these pockets for se creting bad coin. The prisoner asked Kennedy many ques tions tending to implicate him in felonious transactions : all the insinuations and assertions of the prisoner to this intent were steadily denied by the witness. Amongst other ques tions, the prisoner asked, " What was the reason that you refused to sell me some had shillings in May last." " You never asked me any such questions," said Kennedy—" if you had I'd ha' knocked you o'er very soon ; an' that you know." One of the sergeants of the Manchester police proved that the prisoner had said, when taken into custodys for the assault, that he would lagg (transport) Kennedy be fore he died. The prisoner broadly stated that Kennedy had been tried at the Chester Assizes some years ago, under the name of Valentine, for counterfeiting, for the truth of which he referred to Mr. Powell, inspector of coins for the Mint. Mr. Powell knew nothing whatever of Kennedy. The prisoner addressed the jury at some length, principally w . th a view to shew that Kennedy had been long engaged in coining, and that the police had not duly attended to the in formation which he gave them, or he would have been de tected. The prisoner called a witness (a boy twelve years old), to prove that he had seen Kennedy " making money." The lad stated that Kennedy's son took him down to the cel lar one day, when he saw Kennedy turning money from " chalk thing" upon the hearth, and that upon Kennedy see ing him (witness), he said, " Take that kid out ; he's too old-fashioned to be here." On cross-examination many discrepancies appeared in the testimony of this witness. The jury retired at ten minutes to rive o'clock, the trial having occupied six hours. They returned in ten minutes, and delivered in a verdict of Guilty. Mr. Sergeant ATMERLY obser - ved, that a similar case occurred last assizes but one, the first he had ever seen. His LORDSHIP observed that he perfectly concurred in the verdict, and animadverted in strong terms on the magnitude of the offence. The prisoner was sentenced to transportation for life. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN Sarah Boyle, alias Catherine Boyle, aged 46, was charged with having unlawfully uttered a counterfeit shilling in this town on the 22nd July last. The counsel for the prosecution were the same as in the last case. It appeared that on the 22nd July last, the prisoner went to a public-house or spirit shop, kept by a person named Darlington, in Great Charlotte-street. She asked for a glass of whiskey, in payment of which she tendered a good half crown, and received 2s. 3d. change. She returned what she wished it to be supposed was one of the shillings, and asked to have change for it. There was some doubt about this shillipg, and a Mr. Birch, who stood by, was appealed to, who pronounced it to be a bad one. The prisoner stood near the dripper, which was behind the counter, and in the drip per was found a piece of rag which contained three counter feit shillings, which had been cast from the same mould as the bad shilling which the prisoner had tendered for change. The prisoner was hereupon given into the custody of an officer. The jury found the prisoner guilty of uttering one shilling, knowing it to be base. She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, in the House of Correction at Kirk dale. _ _ — Moses Ashworth, convicted of manslaughter on Monday, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale. The court adjourned at six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.--WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) MADDY V. M`DONALD. This was an undefended action, brought to recover from the defendant the sum of £39 2s. for cigars and other goods supplied. All the parties reside in Liverpool. Verdict for the plaintiff. RAWCLIFFE V. TOWNLEY This action was also undefended. The plaintiff is a pub lican in Blackburn, and the defendant a cotton-spinner, re siding in that town. The action was brought to recover the sum of £2O is 91:1, for wines, spirits, and beer supplied to the defendant. A verdict was returned for the amount claimed. MARTIN AND OTHERS V. HILL The plaintiffs in this case are ships' store dealers in this town, and the defendant a small trader to America. The action was brought to recover £93, the value of a quantity of ale bought from the plaintiffs by the defendant, and de livered by his older on board the Shakspeare, for the pur pose of exportation to America. The action was undefended, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs. PARTRIDGE V. LAWTON. This was an undefended action upon a bond, the debt under which was £2O, and the penalty .£2lO. Verdict for the plaintiff. LEWTHWAITE AND OTHERS V. DE LA PRIME AND OTHERS. This was an action to recover £277 12s, due upon a bond and promissory note. A verdict was returned for the plain tiffs. BARWICK V. BROWN This was an action brought against the defendant as the drawer and endorser of a bill of exchange for £5O is. The bill was due on the 29th of June last. The defendant pleaded that he (lid not sign the bill, that he received no coriedera tion, and that he received no notice of dishonour. The par ties reside at 'Bradford. Verdict for the plaintiff. EARL OF SEFTON V. WIGGLESWOItTH This was an undefended action upon a promissory note, to recover the sum of £231 10s. Verdict for the plaintiff. FOSTER V. MORRIS Mr. Foster, a large iron-master, carrying on business at Stowbridge, was the plaintiff in this action, and the defendant lives at Brighouse, near Leeds. The action was brought to recover the sum of £lO5O 95.,• for iron sold and delivered. A verdict was found for the plaintiff. BANKS V. EDWARDS This was an action to recover £33 15s 3d, for coals sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff. REYNOLDS V. SR ERLDA'N• In this action, which was brought by the plaintiff, as pul lic officer of the . National Bank of Irefand, to recover several amounts due from the defendant on five bills of exchange, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff—damages £l7l. HOLME V. BARRY This was an action to recover the sum of £2BO, due upo a bill of exchange. Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. WatsOn for the defendant Mr. CROMPTON stated that the plaintiffs were Messrs. Samuel and James Holme of this town, and the action was brought against the defendant, as the acceptor of the bill. The defendant pleaded, in effect, that before and at the time the bill was drawn there had been an account between him and Messrs. Morrall and Woodward, that the balance of it had not been ascertained, but that for the accommodation of Messrs. Morrall and Woodward he accepted the bill ; that it was agreed the bill should be deposited before it became due in the hands of the plaintiffs, as collateral security for the payment of any balancethat might be ascertained to exist be tween himself and Messrs. Morrall and Woodward. The plea, in fact, was, that there was an agreement that the bill should not be enforced, but this was denied in the replication. Mr. WATSON said he appeared for the defendant. The de fendant and Messrs. Morrall and Woodward had had tran- sactions together, and some time ago an arrangement made between them for the settlement of their accounts, it being supposed that there was a large balance due from him to them. The bill in question was drawn on the supposition that a balance was due, and it was to be returned if the balance should be in his favour. The accounts were gone into, and a balance was found to be due from Messrs. Morrall and Woodward to Mr. Barry of upwards of £l,OOO, so that the bill had been given without. consideration. It had, however, been passed away to some other parties, and as he (the learned counsel) could not connect the plaintiffs with the transaction, and as his witnesses were not present, he must consent to a verdict for the, plaintiffs. A verdict for the plaintiffs was then returned—damages £282 ss. 3d. RAWDON AND ANOTHER V. BARRY Mr. CROMPTON said the circumstances of this action were the same as in the last, and he dared say the defendant's plea was equally true. It was brought to recover £314 6s. 6d. due upon a bill of exchange. A verdict was returned for the Mr. CROMPTON applied for immediate execution, on the ground that there was not the slightest pretence for the pleas set up by the defendant. . . . MI. WATSON said, if his witnesses had been in attendance he should have been able to have established the pleas. Mr. Baron ROLFE said he would grant execution in the same way as in other ur defended causes—in a fortnight from the commencement of the assizes. STEPHENSON V. BERRY. The plaintiff in this case is a type-founder at Sheffield, and the defendant is a printer, carrying on business at Clitheroe. The action was brought to recover £99 9s. 6d., for type sold and delivered. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. ALBRECHT V. MOORE Mr. WIGHTMAN appeared for the plaintiff ; the defendant did not appear, From the statement of the learned counsel it appeared that the plaintiff, who is a merchant in London, chartered a vessel called the Dorothy Gales, of which the defendant was owner and commander, to convey a cargo of goods from Liverpool to Ceylon, in January last. All the goods were regularly. delivered on board except sixty half barrels of gnupoWder, for Colombo, which, according to the rules of the port, could not be sent on board whilst the ship lay in dock. 'rimy were, therefore, put on board a boat and ordered to be taken on board the Dorothy Gales, from near the Black Rock ; but when the vessel arrived there the de fendant refused to receive them. The gunpowder had to be sent by another vessel, and the action was brought to recover the value of the freight. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. Damages £2l 2s. 3d. WOODCOCK V. MARCH. Verdict for the plaintiff, £75 2s. SAME V. SAME. Verdict for the plaintiff, £l9 14s. Bd. LAWSON V. JACKSON. Verdict for the plaintiff, £29 17s. 2d. CLARKE V. SCOTT. Verdict for the plaintiff, £l3O 19s. COTTRELL V. STOCKS. This was an action against the defendant, a cotton manu facturer, at Heaton Mersey, to recover damages for certain injuries done by his negligence to Elizabeth Cottrell, the plaintiff; Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for the defendant. Mr. ATHERTON opened the pleadings. The plaintiff in this action was Elizabeth Cottrell, who sued by her nearest friend and guardian, the Honourable Anthony Ashley Cooper, commonly called Lord Ashley. The declaration stated that the defendant was possessed of a certain mill, and a shaft in the same mill, which shaft, when in motion, proceeded with great velocity and power. The plaintiff was employed in this factory, and the defendant, neglecting his duty, had omitted to fence or box off the shaft, in consequence of which it caught the plaintiff's clothes, and inflicted certain injuries upon her, whereby she had been put to certain expenses. The defendant had pleaded not guilty. Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury. He was happy to inform them that their time would not be occupied long in the investigation of this case. His learned friend and himself, after a few minutes' conversation, had arranged what serving should be done between th e part i es ; but, inasmuch as the case presented one feature which was n t not a fs e t v u e r r v y , sued common, he re namely, that a young woman, by Lord Ashley, as her next friend an d guardian,' he thought it but right that the circumstances und er which the action had been brought should be correctly understood. He dared say it was well known to the jury, that that noble lord had devoted his time and his talents to a great question, which had more than once been agitated in parliament, namely, the degree of legislative interference that ought to t a k e p l ace be tween the owners of factories a nd t h eir servants. Th e no bl e lord, turning his atten tion to that subject, could not fail to feel, as every man would feel, for those unfortunate beings who, by thousands, were calle d to work in fact ories beyond their strength, in order to obtai n a scant y subs istence. That noble lord could riot but feel it was necessary that some pro tection should be interposed on behalf of those wh o were so r t e u a r t s e e x t t s en e t t. that feeling h u a n d ab b le ee t n o had been passed, whereby : nspectors and superintendents had s p h r s o r t e e d c u t h h e y m : l e i e l v legislature been appointed, in order to watch over the necessities and isl T at o ur a e g , poor children serving in certain factories. As to the nature safety, and to act to a certain extent as the guardians, of the of the contracts which might be made with the master, by which they might be put to certain descriptions of work, and the hours they might be kept to it, the legislature had inter posed, and appointed certain persons to take care that the igulations established by law were not violated. But there 'as another particular in which the legislature had not inter wed, because the common law of the land, if rightly under 7 tood, would be found to give an adequate degree of protec mn, namely, as to the construction of machinery in the neigh ourhood of which these children were called upon to attend their duty., Accidents would be sometimes happening f the most frightful description, owing to the construction f the machinery being such, that an adequate degree of pro action was not given to those who served it. This case was , ne of that description. An upright shaft, revolving at the peed of some sixty revolutions iu a minute, was left without .ny casing round it, so that those who passed near it, par icularly females, were liable to have their dresses caught by t, and to be torn in the most frightful manner. The poor _ girl, who was the plaintiff, was caught by her clothes by this haft revolving at the great speed he had named; and, sup ring five minutes to have elapsed before the engine could )e stopped, and the motion of the shaft to cease, she must lave made 200 or 300 revolutions. He would not describe he nature of the injury she had received. She could only •eceive a pecuniary compensation for it, and the amount lad been arranged between hii learned friend and himself. tut as it was not generally understood, the defendant was tot for a time convinced that the law bound him to make ompensation to those who sustained any injury in conse uence of his machinery having been left in such a state as to xpose the servants in his factory to a degree of danger to rhich they ought , not to be exposed. The plaintiff, a poor ectory girl, had no means of instituting such an action as he present in her own behalf. She might, perhaps, have Irevailed upon some person to undertake the risk of bringing uch a case into court, naming her father as her next friend ; int Lord Ashley, hearing of this am^”.".. -filer circumstances :onnected with factories, thought .t beams ' , im, as a noble nau who professed to entertain a deep fe3 tog on behalf of 'hose engaged in these pursuits, at t,... place his name won the record as her guardian, so that if he were wrong in opinion that the Lai; did not take the responsibility ftOin tbl mill-owner, he might be found to pay the expenses of the set' in. It was with that feeling that Ms lordship's name Nu daced upon the record, that it might not be said a pauper was brought forward, who could not pay the costa if he failed ; and that if it had been found that the law gave no protection to persons suffering as the plaintiff, then it was time to call upon the legislature for its interference. But the defendant was now satisfied that the law did impose upon him such an obligation ; and he (the learned counsel) trusted that others would be convinced the defendant had not yielded without good advice, and that they had their machinery in ouch a state as to expose their servants to risk, they would forthwith cause it to be altered. He would not trouble them with any further observations. Poor compensation, indeed, must money be to the poor girl, for she had been reduced from health to the state of a cripple for life ; but still more moderation had been observed. Undoubtedly the misfortune was not wilfully caused—it was Merely negligence, which vas always removed from criminality. A verdict would be taken by consent for £lOO Mr. ALExANDite. would take advantage pf the present ,opportunity to say a few words to the jury on the part of the defendant, in order that there might be no mistake as to his character. The defendant felt very deep regret that such a misfortune should have happened; but it was perfectly clear, as far as he was personally concer►►ed, he could not have had any share in the negligence, or in any other mischance to which this accident was referred. He had no doubt the jury were aware of the able, praiseworthy, and he ►night almost add, the godlike conduct of the noble lord who had inter fered for the last few years in protecting the interests of the helpless factory children. They would all feel alike upon that subject. But he might be permitted to say, that although the public might now be better informed as to what was a master's duty with regard to his machinery, that the machi nery in question was made in the year 1835, by one of the oldest firms in this county, and it had been in work till Janu ary last, when this misfortune occurred, without the least-in terruption or accident. The defendant himself was at Man chester at the time, at some distance from the place where the accident happened, therefore he could have no share in it whatever. But, influenced by motives which did honour to human nature—for had there not been a doubt, the case would not have gone before a jury—he had consented to an arrange ment whereby the plaintiff would be satisfactorily provided for during the lengthened continuance of her sufferings. He (the learned counsel) did not think that the settlement in this case could do anything but afford pleasure to the poor and helpless ; and he was sure the verdict would raise, ►n the es timation of the jury, the defendant, who was represented to him as one of the most independent and respectable manu facturers there was in this county. Mr. CRESSWELL observed that it would not have cost more than 10s. to have put the machinery in proper order. A verdict was then taken for £lOO. and costs. WOOD V. RENSHAW. Verdict for the plaintiff, £3B. 6s. 3d. BIRKETT AND ANOTHER V. DELLIS. This was an action to recover the sum of £45, the value of a horse and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs. Mr. Creswell and Mr. Wortley were counsel for the plain tiffs, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Martin for the defendant. This trial lasted for several hours, but the facts of the case may be very shortly stated. Mr. Birkett, one of the plain tiffs, is a clerk in the house of Sir Thomas Brancker and Co. sugar refiners, but is also in business, in partnership with a Mr. Benn, as a cal-lowlier. The defendant is a horse-dealer, residing near Market Drayton. The plaintiffs had some time before bought horses from the defendant ; afterwards, being about to discontinue one of their teams, they sent a person to Wigan fair for the purpose of selling the horse which formed the subject of the present action. This person met the de fendant, and the defendant sold the horse to a Mr. Lee, who, after having had it for some time, returned it as unsound. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant refused to receive it, and the animal wandered about the streets till a policeman took charge of it. The police sold it for £3O. The answer of the defendant to the case was, firstly, that he had not bought the horse ; and secondly, that if he had bought it, it was through the false representations. of the plaintiffs' agent. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £45. BATTYE V. TOMLINSON. Verdict for the plaintaiff, £139. 8. 2d. KERR V. HUGHES. Vardict for the plaintiff, £2OO. subject to a reference BURGESS V. EDWARDS. Verdict for the plaintiff, £5O. NiCHOL AND ANOTHER V. FARRIMOND. Verdict for the plaintiff, X 55. 10s. - . ---~-- CROWN COURT.—YEsTE RDAT Bernard Hickey, 35, was charged with unlawfully having in his possession 828 pieces of false and counterfeit pennies, and 530 counterfeit halfpennies, he well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit. Police-officer Moneypenny said—l was on duty at the Clarence Dock, on the 2d of August,in the morning. I know a porter named Richard Bryan. He was carrying a box. I asked him who owned it. He said, " this man," pointing to the prisoner. I asked the prisoner what it contained, and he said " copper." I took it to the hut. The prisoner gave me the key of the box, and I opened it. I found copper money made up in papers. I sent for the inspector, and took the prisoner to Bridewell, where he was searched. Some silver was found upon him and some had copper. The cop per was produced. The JUDGE asked the witness how he knew it was bad. He said he did not know, but it was not like the usual money. One of the jury remarked that such money was current. The ATTOILNEY-GEN EIZAL said it was base notwithstand- ing. The porter, Richard Bryan, said he carried the box, and was to receive sixpence from the prisoner. Inspector M'Gill said he asked the prisoner what the box contained, and he said, " bad copper money." He said he had bought it ; had not given half price for it, and that he intended to sell it. He added, in reply to questions, that he was going to take it to a Mr. M`lieirs, where a man named Martin lodged, who would assist him to get shut of it. He was taken to the Bridewell. The prisoner said he was a stranger in the town. and that Martin would assist him. The witness admitted that the prisoner had said so. Mr. Dowling said—l received the money. It consisted of pence, halfpence, and tokens. There were 138 pence of Geo. 111., 386 of Geo. IV., 7 of 'William IV., 228 Irish pence, of different reigns, 19 halfpence of Geo. IV., 108 of Geo. 111., 8 pence made of lead, and 1 halfpenny. There were many of what are termed harps. The whole of the coin was not pro duced. The Inspector of the Mint said they were base. They were cast in loose moulds, of what is called pot metal. About 28 of them (the pennies) to the pound. Of the genuine there are only 24. The counterfeit ones are filed and redened. The metal is worth only 6d to 7d. The Mint pays lid a pound. This was the case for the Mint. The prisoner said he bought it as old copper, and brought it here on sale. • • The JUDGE summed up, and the jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. The learned JUDGE then, without remark, sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in Kirkdale House of Correction for 12 calendar months. John Watson, ag ed 40, Francis Pullen, 23, Denis Rogerson, 28, and Mary Richmond, alias Lawlor, 28, were indicted for having, on the 19th of July, at Wigan, unlaw fully uttered and put offeight counterfeit sixpences, knowing them to be so. They stood further indicted with having, at Ince-in-Mackerfield, feloniously had in their possession a die, or mould, having the impress, and apparent resemblance of both sides of a sixpence. The case presented no features of peculiar interest, though the evidence to prove the several acts of uttering was neces sarily gone into minuteness. The three male prisoners and others, had gone to several public-houses, in each of which one or other of them, in payment for ale, &c., of which they all partook, gave sixpence, which in each case was found to be bad. In the house ot ! Rogerson, a constable found the mould together with a slow cinder fire and a small pot, in which was a quantity of white metal. Pullen, on being taken into custody, was told the charge against him, and cautioned that he did not say anything unless he liked. He then stated that he had met Richmond and 'Watson at Preston on the Monday before ' • and that all the bad sixpences be had paid he had received from Watson. He also admitted that he had passed some of them, and that he was present in a beer-shop in Standish, and at a public-house there, when others were passed by the other prisoners. The inspector of coins of her Majesty's mint proved that the coin was counterfeit, and cast in the same mould. In reply to questions from the judge, he explained the process of moulding and the peculiar marks by which he identified the sixpences to be from the same mould. The metal was a composition of tin, bismoth, zinc, &c. The prisoner Rogerson said that Pullen came to his house in company with the ot her two. Pulle n was his brother-in-law, the others he did not know. In the after noon, Pullen and W a tson, he said , asked him to go and drink with them, which he did, and Watson paid a sixpence for it ; but he (prisoner) did not know it was bad,—and that the mould found in his house, he added, might have been brought there by Watson and Pullen. He called Isaac Crusha, who had worked for him as a shoemaker. The witness spoke to knowing the prisoner, but nothing affecting the case. There appeared to be no evidence of the presence of the female prisoner at any of the utterings charged. The case as against Rogerson was not very strong ; nor did it appear that Watson was so strongly implicated as Pullen. The jury found a verdict of guilty against Pullen of separate .utterings on one day, which is felony ; Watson guilty, simple larceny—and Rogerson and the woman Richmond—Not guilty: The learned JUDGE, a ddressing the female, said she had been properly acquitted ; but that she had in all probability been aware of two of the sixpences being false, and he cautioned her as to her future conduct. She was then dis charged. His Lordship then addressed Pullen, who he said had evidently been dealing in a wholesale way. He sentenced him to imprisonment and hard labour in Kirkdale gaol for two years. His Lordship said he was not sure whether, if the truth were known, he was not the more guilty of the two. He then sentenced him to imprisonment and hard la bor in the same house of correction for twelve calendar months. • MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Fletcher, a stout man, aged 45, stood indicted for having at Manchester, on the 21st of April last, feloniously killed and slain one William Wallworth. It appeared that there were several fights on a hard piece of ground, and the prisoner and deceased were fighting together. In the end the deceased received a severe kick and other injuries, of which he soon afterwards died. The deceased was in the act of rising after a fall when he was kicked. He died in ten minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards. The prisoner afterwards appeared t o be greatly distressed. A surgeon stated that the deceased died from apoplexy of the spine. The vessels of the spinal marrow in the upper part of the neck. It might have been occasioned by a kick rather than a fall. As soon as the frenic nerve was pressed upon, the party would die. Mr. Brandt defended the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. The learned JUDGE severely commented on the conduct of the prisoner, through whom the deceased had come to his death. He would not be doing his duty to society did he not visit the offence with severity. The sentence of the court was that he should be imprisoned and kept to hard la bour in the House of Correction for the county, for eighteen calendar months. MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING William Atherton, aged 21, was charged with having, at Ashton, in April last, unlawfully and maliciously wounded one Michael Connor, on Saturday, the 4th April last. Michael Connor, a soldier of the 86th foot, said :—On the day in question a number of men came to the door of a pub lic-house out of which I was coming, and the prisoner came out from amongst the crowd with an iron weapon behind his back. He drew it to strike ms. He struck me across the forehead with it first—a back-handed blow, that knocked me down. When I was getting up, he struck me again on the cheek with the. same weapon. I have not the use of my cheek yet. I fell again to the ground.. I then received ano ther blow on the head with some weapon. He struck me twice on the same part of the head. I afterwards became in sensible from loss of blood. I never saw the prisoner before that time. I recognised the prisoner afterwards at the In firmary. He came with some other men. John Longmore, a private of the same regiment, was with Connor when the matter happened. When coming up to wards the barracks from the public-house, we saw some men standing at a corner. We went into the middle of the road, to keep out of their way. When we got opposite to them, two men came out from amongst them, and one of them struck my comrade. (The witness corroborated the testimony of Connor, and said he was sure Ihe prisoner was the man.) The other man who was with him caught me and threw me down. They both went away. Connor was on the ground, insensible, and I could not lift him: I left a woman with him, and went for a picquet, and he was carried away. In cross-examination, witness said that a man came to the guard-house with his head bleeding, from a blow of a stone thrown by him (the witness) just as he was entering the bar rack-gates. Luke Smith said :—At the time in question I saw a man with a poker in his hand, near Thos. Abraham's beer-house. I saw a soldier lying on the ground. I did not see a blow struck. The man threw the poker across the lane, and ran towards Newton. I cannot say that the prisoner was or was not the man. William Smith heard the poker sound on the pavement, and saw the prisoner afterwards. He afterwards picked up the poker, and gave it to his mother. • It was given by her to one of the picquet. James Mungan, one of the picquet, produced a tremendous thick kitchen poker. Thomas Pennington.—l keep a public-house in Ashton. I believe this poker is mine, but cannot swear it. I missed it on the'Sunday. It was there on the previous night. My house is about half a mile from the spot where Connor was picked up. William Smith, recalled.—The knob-end of the poker was all over blood. Mr. John Strath, assistant-surgeon to the 86th, said,—l saw the witness Connor between two and three on the Sun pay morning. He was insensible. The skull was not inter nally fractured. There were cuts on the head, cheek, and nose. There was a contused wound on the left side of the head, with much swelling. The forehead was cut, and the nose. He was insensible for nearly three days; and was in great danger for some time after. Cross-examined.—There is still a depression of the skull ; but I do not think his mental faculties are affected by it. Mr. Muurn Y addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner, dwelling particularly on the absence pf evidence to prove the identity of the prisoner. It was, said, extremely difficult to identify parties at a glance, between one and two in the morning on the 4th of April. The soldier, who spoke more particularlp to this, admitted that he had been sitting several hours in the puglic-house, and had drunk only one pint of beer ; but the probability was, that he and his comrade were intoxicated at the time. The prosecutor was so much injured that he was altogether incompetent to identity him, and, moreover, had never seen the prisoner before. If any doubt whatever existed, the prisoner must have the benefit of it ; and he contended, that the preponderance of the evidence went to create a strong doubt of the prisoner being the man. His LORDSHIP summed up with great perspicuity. The jury retired, and were absent for about a quarter of an hour. They retut ned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner, a rather good-looking , stout young man, ap parently a labourer, smiled when the verdict was returned, and said, " My lord, and gentlemen of the jury, I thank you, although I am not guilty of the crime that I was brought here for." The JUDGE.— ." I hope you are not guilty." FORGERY Donald Munroe, (whose case we recently reported, as it transpired in the police-court, on Monday last,) stood in dicted for having forged an order on the Liverpool Savings Bank for £7O 18s., with intent to defraud Jonathan Brookes and other - trustees of the said bank. Mr. ST/MIME (with whom was Mr. Henderson) stated the case. Margaret M`Bride sworn.—l am the wife of Alexander M`Bride, Custom-house officer, and live in Heath-street, Toxteth-park. I knew Robert Munrose. He was a sailor. I had known him for five years. He left the pass-book with me frequently, and 1 have gone with it to the bank, and got money. He left it with me when he went to Demerara.- The prisoner is his brother. He came to me five or six weeks ago, and said his brother was dead—that he had died at Demerara in August last. He told me to go to the bank and give a month's notice that Robert Munroe's money would be wanted. I kept the book for the month, and then gave it to the prisoner. I gave it because he called for it. It was on the 6th of this month. I never saw it again till I saw it in the hands of Mr. Shaw, the secretary at the Savings Bank. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKiNs. 7 —He told me his brother was dead. I had heard of his death before. My daughter was present at the time, and he asked for the book. I knew that the deceased owed the prisoner money. I saw him pay the prisoner four sovereigns, some years ago, as part payment. Ido not know what he owed in all. The prisoner kept his brother five years while he was ill and unable to go t) sea. The Rev. Jonathan Brooks said he was one of the trustees of the Savings Bank. His brother rector was also a trustee. I paid all the money. A:person brought this book on the '6th:August. (The rev. gentleman here explained the form which he pursued on paying money, as it appeared in our paper of Tuesday last.) The money was asked for. 'lt amounted, with interest, to £7O 18s. The clerk who re ceived the check was Robert Lawton. Robert Lawton said, that on that day he prepared and re ceived the book and money orders or checks for payment. This order is filled up by me. I passed it over to the party who produced the pass back, to be signed. Ido not remem ber the prisoner. A person signed it and I believed it to be his own signature, Another clerk received the check and the pass book, and deposited them in the usual places. . Mr. Shaw, secretary of the bank, met with Ainsworth on board the Maria, lying at the Rock, and found the prisoner, who was captain of the ship. Witness said there was some mistake about the money he had received at the bank. Pri soner said there could be no mistake in his money, as he had drawn one fifty pound note, two ten pound notes, and eighteen shillings. The officer said there was a mistake, and he must go on shore and have it rectified. He was taken to bridewell. The officer showed him the check and asked him if the signature was his, and he said it was. The officer then asked him his name, and he said it was Donald Munroe. He was asked why he wrote it, and replied either " ignorantly" or " innocently," I don't remember which. Ainsworth, police officer, corroborated this. He went to the prisoner for his keys and he gave them to him. I asked him if he had any money on briard, and he said no. He after wards said it was partly spent in fitting him out. He then said " I'll tell you the truth—the money was my brother's, who died at Demerara; he was a man before the mast in the ship Kingston." The ship the prisoner commanded was bound to Africa. Mrs. M`Bride recalled.—l never saw or heard of any brother of the prisoner's but the deceased—nor ever heard of any sisters. Mr. Bradburu, from the office of the Clerk of the Peace, Preston, produced documents showing that Mr. Jonathan Brooks was a trustee ; they also embodied the rules of the Liverpool Provident Institution or Bank fOr Savings. The check was read, signed Robert Munroe. Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He contended that the questions to be tried were not whe ther the prisoner had signed the check, or received the mo ney, but whether he had signed it with a fraudulent inten tion. He commented on the openness of the priSoner's con duct. He stated to Mrs. M`Bride and her daughter that the money would be wanted. He made no secret, required no manoeuvre to be practised. He told her to give notice at the bank in the usual way. That he signed the cheek in his brother's name, arose probably from a mistake. He proba bly, when he received the check, asked what he was to do ? and the clerk might have said, " Sign Robert Monroe at the bottom ;" and he did so accordingly, thinking it a form required. He dwelt on the fact that he had for years sup ported his brother, who, it had been proved, owed him mo ney ; and as he knew his brother to be dead, he naturally considered himself his heir, and applied for the money. Had he been a lawyer in place of a sailor, he would have taken out letters of administration, or procured a probate of the will of the deceased ; but how could it be supposed that a seafaring man like him should know that this was the legitimate mode of proceeding ? As to fraudulent intention, there was no one else to claim the money ; no one shown to have a right to it but himself. He concluded by depicting in strong terms the general character of a sailor, who was made up of strong impulses, and but little discretion, and therefore more liable than other men to be led into error. _ _ Jane Blissett, a respectable female, said she had known the prisoner from his infancy, and gave him a good character. The Learned JUDGE summed up with great perspicuity. . _ The jury in a very few minutes returned a verdict of " Not guilty of a fraudulent intention,"—which amounted to an acquittal. William Spencer, aged 24, was charged with having felo niously forged and uttered a certain order for the payment of money, purporting to be the order of one Matthew Brig nall, upon the Union Bank of Manchester, for £66, with intent to defraud the said Matthew Brignall. Joseph White, a boy between ten and eleven years of age, said.that he was in Marble-street, Manchester, on the 20th of June, at six o'clock in the evening, who' he saw the pri soner. The prisoner asked him to go an errand. Witmss said his master was in, and he could not go. Prisoner said he would give him a penny then, and three-halfpence when he came back. Prisoner came back iu about a quarter of an hour after he (witness) had 'shut up, and asked him to go to the Union Bank for him. Prisoner went to the top of the street to show him where the bank was. He then gave wit ness a note, and told him to get it changed for him. He told him to get five notes for it. Witness went to the bank, and gave the note to a gentleman there. That gentleman (whom the witness identified) asked him who gave it to him, and he told him. He was told to tell the person -who sent him to come himself. He went to the prisoner, and told him. William Sudworth.—On the 22nd June last, the prisoner asked me to take a note or letter to the Union Bank, and directed me where it was. He told me to wait for an an swer. I went. I was to meet him again in Market-street. In place of giving the money, they took the prisoner into custody. Mr. Mansell, of the Union Bank, remembered the witness White coming to the bank on the 20th June. He handed me the check. I said, " What will you have for it?" and lie said " Ten"—not tens. I asked him the amount of the check, and he said he did not know. I finally told him to tell the man to come for it himself. I kept the check. I afterwards marked it and gaVe it to the officer. On the 22d June the witness Sudworth brought a note. I took him into the private room. He said a man had given it to him. (A note or letter was here produce . d.) The prisoner was taken into custody .— ln cross-etammat!on witness said that no doubt at the time arose in his mind that the signature to the check was genuine. Mr. Mathew Brignall being shown the check, said, the signature is so like mine that I will not swear it is not, but I believe it is not. The check is not filled up by me. I never authorised any body to fill up a check for me. I never signed a blank check. I find there are two places, if not three, without any marginal references in m check book. That check was not drawn out with my consent: No one had access to the counting-house when 1 kept the check-book but the prisoner and myself. The check ar.d the note were both read. The note pur ported to be signed by Mr. John Clegg, in whose favour it was drawn, and was to the effect that he had sent a check for £66. on Saturday, by a boy, who brought back a message, to the effect that it was closing hours, and lie must send again, and that he would feel obliged if the bank would now pay the amount to the bearer. • A police-officer said he apprehended the prisoner. Wit ness told him he was charged with sending a forged check by a boy on Saturday, and afterwards with sending by another a note to procure cash for it that day. The prisoner said he knew nothing of it. Mr. WILKINS, for the prisoner, addressed the jury with great eloquence and ingenuity. He contended that as Mr. Bagnall would not swear that the signature of the note was not his; yet he swore that he never signed a blank check, and that the check was not filled in by the prisoner. Here was a gross inaccuracy, and the probability was that he had himself written out andsigned the check in favour of Clegg, with whom he admitted he had dealings, and that the check had been laid aside, and afterwards stolen by the prisoner. That was a crime and a great one; but it was one for the commission of which the prisoner was not on his trial this day ; and if they thought with him, (the learned counsel) they must acquit the prisoner. As to the charge of forgery there was no evidence to prove that the prisoner ither filled up or signed the note. Several witnesses_gave the prisoner a good character. • In summing up, the learned Jrinoz said, in whatever way the case was viewed, the prisoner had undoubtedly acted in a very dishonest manner. This was evinced by his employing the boys to go to the bank. His lordship carefully recapitu lated the evidence, and commented upon it as he proceeded. The jury, after some minute investigation, found the pri soner guilty of uttering the check, knowing it to be forged. His Lordship deferred passing sentence until this morning, and the court closed for the day, five minutes before seven. At twenty minutes past six the grand jury had completed their labours, and his lordship, in taking leave of them said, that the country was much indebted to them for the atten tion which they had given to the cases brought before them. In all the murder cases, four in number, true bills were found. NISI PRIUS COURT.—THURSDAY HUMBLE V. LANGSTON. This was an action brought by Mr. Michael Humble of this town, against Mr. Langston, a sharebroker, in Manches ter, to recover a sum of between £9OO and £lOOO, which he had been compelled to pay in consequence of the default of the defendant. • Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the defendant. ' From the statement of the learned counsel, and the evidence Of the witnesses for the plaintiff, it appeared that in the year 1838 the defendant was speculating considerably in the share market. In the beginning of that year he was disposed to speculate in the shares of the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company. He requested Messrs. Atkinson and Townley, sharebrokers, of this town,,to purchase some for him. They accordingly purchased thirty shares for him, from Messrs. Richardson and Thompson, who had them on sale for the plaintiff, for £7 2s. 6d. per share. After the purchase had been concluded, the shares were sent to Manchester to the defendant, who sold them again at a considerable profit. He now sought to avoid the liability of paying the calls upon them, and to throw it upon the plaintiff. The transfer had been sent to the defendant ; it was not in the name of the plaintiff, but of another person ; but the defendant took it to the office of the company, and, instead of getting the shares registered in his own name, he caused them to be entered in the name of the plaintiff, thereby making him responsible for the payment of the different calls that were afterwards made upon and paid by him to the company. Mr. Townley and .Mr. Thompson, the two brokers, gave evidence as to their part in the transactions, and Mr.-J. P. Badham, secretary to the Bristol and Exeter Railway, proved that the calls upon the shares had been paid by the defendant. Some corre spondence between the defendant and the brokers was also put in. The case for the plaintiff being closed, Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, submitted to his lordship that he was entitled to a verdict, upon the ground that there was no evidence of priority between the plaintiff and the defendant. The JUDGE said this very question had .been raised at Taunton, and was now depending for decision in the Com mon Pleas. He had himself reserved the point in that case, and it seemed to him that the best course now would be to take a verdict for the plaintiff with leave to the defendant to move for a verdict. Mr. ALEXANDER said he had, further, considerable evi dence to produce which would shew that this rule existed among brokers—that the broker employed by the vendor was, unless the contract provided other stipulations, the one whose duty it was to enter any change in the ownership of shares in the books of the company, in order to rescue his .principal from any risk that might otherwise ensue. Mr. CRESSWELL intimated that he was satisfied with the course suggested. A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for £9OO. with liberty to the defendant to move for a nonsuit. During the trial of this case, Mr. Bentham, bookseller, of Manchester, one of the jurymen, was suddenly taken ill, and being unable to attend to the proceedings, they proceeded by the consent of both sides with only eleven jurymen. JONES JUN. V. LITTLER. The plaintiff in this case is Mr. Robert Jones, jun., brewer, of Rosehill, Liverpool, and the defendant, Mr. Peter Littler, manager of the stone quarries belonging to the Earl of Der by. The action was brought to recover damages for certain slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff by the defendant, whereby he had sustained certain damage in his business. Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for the defendant. It appeared that the offensive words were spoken on the occasion of a coursing match at Kirkby, at a public house. The parties continued drinking in the public house till near midnight, and in the course of the evening the alleged slanderous words were spoken. Part of the words had reference to the case of personation by the man Connor, which will be in the recollection of our readers, and another pai t to the effect that Mr. Jones had been in a sponging house for debt within a fortnight before. Mr. CRESSWELL, after opening the case,, said, if the de fendant was sorry he had used the slander, and would say so, and indemnify the plaintiff against the costs of the action, he (Mr. Cresswell) would be content.—This offer was declined, and the action proceeded. It was not of the slightest interest. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. RUSSELL AND WIFE V. SMITH. In this case the principal point in which was a dry ques tion of Scotch law, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, subject to a case. BRANCKER AND ANOTHER V. MOLTNEUX. This was an issue from the Common Pleas to try certain points arising out of an action tried at the last assizes, to re cover the value of a large quantity of cotton. The plaintiffs were the assignees of Messrs. Humberston and Frodsliam, bankrupts ; , the defendant bad seized tke cotton in question as mortiagee . of the ship in which it was imported, and the question was, whether he had legal power to do so. The case occupied several hours, but was entirely destitute of in terest. A verdict was entered for the defendant upon the principal issue, subject to a case for the opinion of the court, above. The court adjourned at half-pass six. THE CAUSE LIST, The following is the state of the cause list up to the close of the court last evening. FIRST LIST -WEST DERBY HUNDRED For the Plainti f f' -Nos. 1, ,16,11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 80. Withdrawn-Nos. 4,5, 19, 35, 42, 48, 49, 52, 63, 75. Referred-No. 40. Struck out-Nos. 54, 60. Twenty-one cases remain to be disposed of in this list. Four of them will be tried before special juries, namely, " The Queen v. Prentice," which is fixed to come on the first to-morrow morning (Saturday) ; " Blundell v. Lord Canaoys" (the great will cause), which is fixed for Wednesday next; " Adamson v. Mitchell and another," also fixed for Wednes day ; and " Hay dock and others v. Grugeon and another," which is appointed for -Monday. There were altogether 82 cases in the list for the hundred of West Derby, and 93 in that for the hundred of Salford. r ...w.......mradcrocoirrsincercauumnroursznopeta DR. SOUTHEY. — The delicate health of the poet laureate has obliged him, for the present, to abstain from all literary labour. The Queen has been pleased to appoint Lord Poltimore to be a Lord of the Bedcamber in the place of Lord Gardiner. Ministerial paper. The radical papers are reporting that the Duke of Beaufort is turning a Whig ; true,—he is turning her Majesty from a Whig to a conservative. The queen dowager, we understand, has taken Sudbury Hall, the seat of Lord Vernon, and that her majesty will enter upon her tenure in September next.—Derby Reporter. CHARLES KEAN AND THE MURDERERS OF LORD NORBURY.—(From the New York Herald.) —By the recent arrivals from England, we perceive that the London papers have asserted that " Charles Kean brought home from America the confessions of two men who were implicated in the murder of Lord Norbury." As we happen to know the facts of the matter, which were communicated to us by an intimate friend of Mr. Kean, it may be as well now to give them publicity. Whilst Mr. Kean was staying at the Globe Hotel, an Irishman called there, and introduced himself as a sub-engineer employed on the Croton Water Works. He said his object on calling on Mr. Kean was to induce him to state to some person high in authority in England the fact that two brothers, of the name of —, were working as labourers on the works, who made it their boast that they were the murderers of Lord Norbury. One object Mr. Kean 's visitant said he bad in view, was the reward which he understood had been offered in England for their apprehension ; and he wanted Mr. Kean t o t a k e th e necessary steps, on his arrival in England, to have a demand made for the brothers by the British government. Mr. Kean mentioned one or two noblemen as likely to forward his views; but both were objected to as belonging to the high tory party. Mr. Kean then told his visitor, that he would communicate with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the subject ; and taking the man's name and address, they parted. Mr. Kean at the time conceived it to be all a hoax, but wished the inci dent not to get into the New York papers until after his ar rival in England. We are not of opinion, that any men, even Irishmen, would he so lost to shame as openly to boast of the commission of a murder ; and we should be induced to think that it was a ruse to cover the retreat of the guilty parties, who, in all probability, are now lying perdu in the old country. THE SiA. SERPENT CAUGHT.—On Sunday evening about s ix o'clock as the schooner Wasp, Captain Williams, and the schooner Independent Eagle, Captain Owens, were c o m i ng up the bay, they descried, about three miles below North Point, a strange-looking fish or serpent to the leeward. A boat from each schooner was manned, and a chase for the prize took place. A harpoon was driven into the creature, and away it flew, dragging the boat for nearly eight miles, like a chip down a cataract. It was found necessary at length to stop the speed of this marine locomotive, and a couple of balls being shot into it, the death flurry came on, and it soon floated a lifeless carcase. It was borne in triumph to the foot of South-street wharf, where it was visited by most of the old cruisers about town who had been to every part of the globe, and knew everything , that partook of the nature of fish, flesh, or fowl, like a book. They all declared that they had never seen such a nondescript. It measured twelve feet in length, and nine feet from fin to fin ; it has a head like a seal, with teeth, and its back is covered with a hard shell. It has four fins or flippers, and its general appearance bears some resemblance to a turtle, or rather a monstrocity of that specie of fish, which nature in one of her freaks had created. How it came into the Chesapeake bay is a mystery. It can be seen at South -street Wharf.—Baltimore Sun. The Bal timore American says :—" The creature would be a curiosity, we should suppose, anywhere, from its enormous size, but it is certainly a rarity in our waters, its weight is supposed to be about I,ooOlbs.'' E NEW BEER ACT.—By the provisions of the new beer act (3rd and 4th of Victoria, cap. GI), which received the royal assent last week, all persons licensed for the sale of beer or cider, to be drunk or consumed on the premises, within the cities of London and Westminster, or within the boun daries of any of the boroughs of Mary -le-bone, Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, or Southwark, may keep open their houses until twelve o'clock at night, and open them at five o'clock in the morning, with the exception of Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day but not after eleven o'clock " within any parish, or place, within the bills of mor tality, or within any city, cinquc port, town corporate, parish, or place, the population Of which, a c c ording to the last par liamentary census, sh a ll no t excee d 2,500, or within one mile, to be measured, from any polling-place used in the last elec tion for any town having the like population, and returning a member or members to parliament ; nor after ten o'clock in the evening elsewhere." They are not to be open at any time on Sundays, &c., during which the houses of licensed victuallers now are, or hereafter shall be, closed (sec. 15). By the 10th section, a ll li cense d re tailers of beer or cider re ceiving into, keeping, or having in their possession, any wine, or spirits, or sweets, shall, in addition to all other penalties, forfeit £5O ; and all wines, spirits, and sweets so found shall be forfeited, and, on conviction, the license to sell beer shall become null and void. SECOND EDITION. Standard•ofce, Three o'clock DEATH OF MR. BIBBY At eleven o'clock this forenoon, James Callon, who had been remanded from Monday, was again brought up at the office of Messrs. Lace, Clay, and Myers, before Thomas Birch, Esq., Miles Formby, Esq., and John Formby, Esq. Mr. Carson, solicitor for the friends of the deceased, stated that he had received a letter to the effect that several parties who were most important to the investigation would in a ll probability be in custody in a few hours, and he had there fore to make application that the prisoner should be re manded until these parties were apprehended. He thought that on Monday at latest he would be prepared. He should give Mr. Davenport, the prisoner's attorney, due notice of what was to be brought forward. Meantime he had no fur ther immediate evidence to offer. He handed the letter to the magistrates. At the request of Mr. Davenport, a police-officer, named Tracey, was called. His evidence merely went to chew that he knew the prisoner, and had often, while going his rounds, seen him going to his work, in Mr. Bibby's brick-field, be tween four and five o'clock in the morning, during the last two months,—and that he was an industrious man, and always one of the earliest. He did not see him on the morning Mr. Bibby's body was found. The remaining evidence of this witness, and also that of another officer who was examined, arose out of an opinion entertained by Mr. Davenport, that police-officer Ratcliffe, who has given the principal evidence hitherto, has fallen into a discrepancy on one point; but the evidence of the last witness removed this impression. In the end Mr. Carson repeated his application,—to which the magistrates acceded, —remanding the prisoner till Monday LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE,---This DAN' Within the past two days we have had a moderate enquiry for Wheat, and Flour in bond, and a few parcels of the former, on the spot as well as to arrive, have been taken for invest ment at previous rates, while several thousand barrels of the latter have changed hands at 31s. to 325., the currency of our last circular. Sales of free Wheat for consumption have at the same time been rather limited, and the trade for other articles has ruled somewhat dull, without alteration in value-- With the exception of several hours of heavy rain early on Wednesday morning, the general character of the weather since the date of our last report has been very favourable, and with a return of hot sun, accompanied with drying winds, the harvest is again in active progress in all this dis trict. In parts of this and the neighbouring counties many of the low lands have been much flooded, but otherwise we consider that no material injury "has been suffered from the late rains, which would not in a great measure be repaired by a continuance of the present seasonable change of wea ther. The duty on Wheat recedes this week to Gs. Bd., on Oats to 3s. 3d. per quarter, on Flour to 4s. per barrel; and is ad-1 vanced on Barley and Indian Corn to 12s. 4d. per quarter. The fresh arrivals of grain from all quarters are exceed• ingly moderate, having scarcely anything coastwise or from Ireland ; and of American Flour the import since Tuesday does not amount to 8,000 barrels. • At this day's market the transactions in British and duty paid foreign Wheats were to a limited amount, and prices must be noted id. to 2d. per 701bs. lower than on Tuesday'• Free foreign Flour was also dull, at a reduction of 6d. per barrel. Grinding Barley was saleable in retail quantities only et our last quotations ; but Oats and Oatmeal, in the absence of any country demand, were the turn cheaper. In Malt, Beans, and Pease no change. About 2000 barrels American Flour, in bond, changed hands, at 325. per barrel ; but no further sales of Wheal under lock are reported to-day. ARRIVALS OF CORN, From the ISth to the 20th August, 1840, inclusive. Iro- ToTA b AMON. LAND. I WISE. 'STATES 436 ( 13 I 1 0 i 7755 D)SCRIPTION Wheat Qrs.' Barley Qrs. Malt Oats Rye Qrs. Beans Qrs. Pease . Qrs. Shelled Barley . Qrs. Indian Corn . Qrs. Rapeseed Qrs. Oatmeal . . . . Loads Flour . Sacks Ditto . Bris. EXPORTS.—Foreign. Wheat, qrs. ; Barley, qrs. ; Oats, qrs. ; Pease, qrs. ; Indian Corn, qrs. ; Flour, 4 brls.- - ; - : Ireland. Wheat, qrs. ; Oats, qrs. ; Rye, qrs , ; Indus" Corn, qrs. ; Oatmeal, loads ; Flour, Sacks.—Coa st ; wise. Wheat, 204 qrs.; Barley, 522 qrs.; Malt, 31 qrs. ; Oats, qrs. ; Rye, qrs. ; Beans, qrs. ; Pease, 101 qrs. ; meal, 234 loads ; Flour, 70 sacks, 1361 brls. Average prices of Grain, for the week ending Aug. x 113- 0 ' Wheat 725. 4d. Barley.. 325. 4d. I Oats.. 30s. Sd. Rye 40 , " _ _ 465. !id: I Pease.. 44 Aggregate average of the six weeks. Wheat.. 71s. Id. LBarley.. 335. sd. 1 Oats.. 2y*.2d. Rye.. 365. 14 _ . . Beans .. 465. 3d. Pease.. 455. 6d fluty on Foreign Gratin, &c. this week. Wheat 6s. 8(1.Brley 12s. 4d. Oats ...... 3s. 3d. Rye .. 13,* 611 d I Beans, Is. Od. Pease 2s. Od. i Indian Corul2s. 4d. I Flour 4s. PP Liverpool Averages, week ending 18th August, 1840. Wheat. Barley. Oats. 1 Beans. PCO.Se. 4409 207 515 38 70s. 4d. 28s. 2d.1275. Sd. 50s. Od. OS. Od. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE FRIDAY, AUGUST 21. AattivEn.—Paragon, , from Jamaica—Robert Bto Hill, from St. John, N.B. ; sailed 25th July—Acasttv, Hayek 11— Charleston—and Ann. Pugh , from Wicelow. SAlLED.—Active, Moore, for Kiel, &c.—Jane, Tather, for Quevg bet —Oxford, Rathbone, for New York—Joveu Teresa, Van Dine. ' d Havre—Albion, Donkin, and Lanark, Simpson, for Quebec—Jon' Margaretha, Wyknieyer, and Eliza, Wygers, for Rotterdarn— nix, Kniper, for Antwerp—British Queen, Minn. for Harbour Gro,,, —Sweden, Harmer ; Grace, Forrester ; and Henry Tuke, Brist°,4 for New Orleans—Vigilante, Simons, and Frances, Delpierre. Ostend—Courier, Stinet. for Bremen—Don, Muir, for St. Androi, Hanibal, Mumford, and Fairfield, Lyon, for New York—Plat o , Kirk, for Barbados—Zeldenrunt, Konig, for Zwolle—Puella, mas, for Leghorn—Gentleman, Morris. for Sydney, Cal.—Hon, Rockwell, Prescott, for Portsmouth—Johanna Vitriuga, Boswi c i e for Amsterdam—Mersey, Buchanan, for Rotterdam—Louise, and Ocean, Barnes, for Dordt—Michael, Christopher, for Hayti—Carl, Konig, for Pernau—Selma, Dotloff, for Danzic—.lo o _," Rawlins, for Treport—Chamois, Cundy, lot Lisbon and M. Vide" Elbe, Lotherington, for Algiers. r 0 8 ' Sultana, Holly, from Laguna, at this port ; sailed 25t11.1 1 4 On 3rd Aug. in lat. 42, long. 52, spoke the Richard Watson, I r. Laguna to Liverpool Rothschild, -, from Bombay for this port, was spoken lI I' July, in lat, 11 N, long. 27 Matilda, - from Calcutta for I iverpool, was spoken I tit' July, in lat. 1S N, long. 33 0 0 Elvira, Simpson, sailed from St. Helena for Liverpool 23rd 1 Franklin, -, hence to New Orleans, was spoken 2:ad. , '" • in lat. 28, Tong. 38 Alligator, Cook, hence at Dardanelles Phantom, Saunders, from Odessa, at Constantinople, and 27th July for Liverpool Trinacria, Lagana, sailed from Messina fOr Palermo and pool 27th July Emily, Woods. hence at Harlingen • Magula Despatch, Cailingto, hence at Texel Sjoumenta, Schotten, hence at Brielle Tantivy, Wilson ; Agenoria, Evans, and Arethusa, Wave, P at Helvoet Eugene, Perre, hence at Antwerp t Sally, Hurr, hence to Quebec,. was spoken 30th ult. in la* - long'. 22 Reis Effendi, hence at Monte Video Auckland, Richardson, from (*Us at ditto Petrel, Turcan, from Cape Verdaat ditto Mary, Brakeh am, from Lisbon at ditto SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. MANCHESTER—TUESDAY EVENING. THE ST. LEGER.—The important race of this day 1: 01 1;0. ° has come (as regards speculation) into a very narrow cowri, st So few are the horses now attracti ng th e s li g h tes t notice, sl quotations will be needless. L aunce l ot i s d a il y on t h e rt t o Crucifix, the reverse. Against the former at noon, 4 10 200 was laid ; 50 to 25, as well as some smaller sums at , price, were got on. So eager, h owever , were the acre n e that 100 to 5 was pencilled down, which must be cows the outside offer ; 100 to 10, " bar two," was given out, but, under 12 to 1, the mare had no friends very small sums, 11 to I was offered in ponies • 8 to Ivitj ) j , have been taken on Gibraltar—a point - less - offered. lig 9 'l wath and Theon both a good deal inquired after ; but we A 4 no business done—the layers would not " come out" wit 9 oo to 1 against the former, and 20 to 1 against the latter. bo i to 11 was at last taken on Theon, r a th er eager l y. 100' was offered against Broadwath ; a l so 14 t o 1 aga i nst mar 7 „ 0 1, Galen's friends were silent, plenty laying against hitt , it some others—but Launcelot seems to stop all notion o "turn-up." Dr. Caius was offered against at 25 lat Viceroy backed at that figure—then 20 to 1 offered; 20 0 riot offered against Calypso (takers to 3 ;) 40 to 1 offered ae l s pi Alonzo. The field was offered to be taken against two just as the room broke up, 5 to 4, in a very good 0 81 3 V would have taken that they named the winner at twice:, to ji Andrew was named, but we heard no price; an d the Z' °9 'Un would have been backed at 200 to 4. d / nig LEAMINGTON STAKES.-40 to 20 was offered ag 6l Iletman Platoff. ta DONCASTER Cup.-60 to 20 offered on the field; 6 54 against Charles XI I. offered (take 7;) 10 to 1 against t y Francis (offered.) Offers to take 6to 1 Scott wins both St. Leger and Cup. STATE OF TRADE t i l t MANCHESTER.—The apprehensions for the fate Of A d harvest, excited by the extremely unfavourable weather or has prevailed during the last few days, and probably also th ol unsettled appearance of foreign affairs, have c hecked ,io vi 'd tendency to improvement which was manifested last , and the demand yesterday, both for goods and yarn, t ho moderate and steady, was on a smaller scale than on the t'i y s vious Tuesday. There is no decline in prices ; indeed , ,l f elf descriptions of printing cloth, which are compare' scarce, have been held for rather higher rates. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, AUG. I p Considering it has been the wakes to-day, there has h 14 , tolerable quantity of business done, but a t l ow p r i ce s. 'if has also been a good attendance of buy ers . A no ther 01 ,10 among the small manufacturers has become known to- t ill which is the fourth or fifth that has taken place month. English wool is rather stiffer, but foreign wool be quoted a shade lower. Lb , 101, HUDDERSFIELD MARKET, AUG. 18.—As migu'i 0 0 ; been expected, the only terrific weather on the eve ° w it ' market had a somewhat depressing effect, but, we are g b o§li state, not to any great extent. On the whole, a fair, lie ness was done in most descriptions of woollens anu.„o" ( fancy goods ; but former prices were difficult to roith ° In wools there was not much done, either in Eng" f et e ; foreign, the struggle for even a small profit being ;forti f y Great anxiety is felt for the result of the harvest. rov e., hold back for the present; and, should th e h arv est .ec e failure, low as prices are, they must s till rece de. no little or no change to note in respect to b us i ness done warehouses during the week. —Manchester Gum diam.