The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

'4* rendered mere than usually painful from the circumstance of one of the prosecutors being, the father and the Other the brother of the prisoner. A police-officer named Archer, was on duty in Church street, on the morning of the 18th insiant, about two o'clock. As he was passing Mr. Richardson's shop he heard a crack like the noise produced by lighting a lucifer match. He lis tened, and the sound was repeated, and he discerned a faint gleam through the fanlight above the door. He was called away for a short time. lie returned with another officer, and then sent for Mr. Richardson, who opened the shop door. They proceeded to search the premises, and found the prisoner in a privy which opened from the back yard. lie had a large quantity of property with hint which had been taken from Mr. Richardson's shop. It consisted of knives, razors, gold and silver pencil cases, scissors, surgical instru ments, &c., value about .C3O. The prisoner appeared to have got in through the grid leading to the coal cellar, she staple securing which had been forced out. The prisoner had also taken twenty-one shillings in silver, which Mr. Richardson had left in the shop. Mr. Richardson, Jun., stated that when the prisoner was taken, he asked him how he came to rob him, who always behaved so well to him ? He replied that he had been driven to it by the neglect of his relations. He was in a starving condition.' Mr. Richardson added that the prisoner was un doubtedly in a wretched condition, from having kept away from his family. The Jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Richardson, jnn. was recalled by the Judge.—He stated that the prisoner was 21 years of age. He had, when young, preferred going to sea to remaining at business. He (Mr. Richardson) had since employed him. Mr. Richard son, with tears in his eyes, said he would willingly take the prisoner again into his service, if a lenient sentence were passed upon him. The learned JUDGE, in a very feeling address, intimated to the prisoner that he foraore to transport the prisoner solely in consideration of the brotherly offer of Mr. Richardson, jun. The prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and bard labour at Kirkdale, the first and last weeks to be spent in solitary confinement. CHARGE OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY. Richard Chadwick, aged 25, William Winter, aged 20. and William Lawton, aged 21, were indicted for having, on the 15th of May last, at Ince-in-Mackerfield, assaulted John Taylor, and robbed him of his watch and appendages and what money he had about him. The prisoners, Winter and Lawton, are soldiers who, in May last, were quartered at Wigan. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were not defended. Taylor stated that. about one o'clock on lee morning of the 15th of May, 1839, he was going home from Wigan to Apsall, when he was joined by the three prisoners. They asked him to join them in a pint of ale. Winter and Law ton were in their soldiers clothes, and Chadwick in plain clothes. He did not like their company, and after having called at a public-house to try to get some drink, he left them at Rose Bridge, and went along the canal. He ran, and the prisoner Chadwick pursued him and knocked him down, and pulled out his watch, and afterwards thrust his hand into his pocket and took out half-a-crown and a shilling. On his ex amination before the magistrates Taylor had stated that he could not swear to the man who took his money. He had not seen Chadwick from the time when he was robbed till December last. His lordship questioned him at considerable length on this point, but he varied so much in his answers, and appeared undecided on the point, that the judge said there was no dependence to be placed upon this part of his testimony. Richard Culshaw, the keeper of a beer-house, proved that on the morning in question the prisoners and Taylor called at his house, and asked for some drink. Two other witnesses deposed to having seen Chadwick on that morning in :orn pany with two soldiers, near the place where the robbery was committed. The learned JUDGE said, there was no evidence against the soldiers, and they were removed from the bar. Chadwick, in his defence, admitted that he had been at Culshaw's house, where he had seen two soldiers, but he knew nothing whatever of the robbery. The Jury at once acquitted the two soldiers. They could not agree as to Chadwick, and retired at twenty minutes past four-o'clock. They returned in a quarter of an hour, and gave in a verdict of Guilty against Chadwick. Sentence de ferred. STEALING A COW, &C. Thomas Plimpton was charged with having, on the 22d Oct. last, stolen a cow and two heifers, the property of Geo. Mounsey. Dr. BROWN appeared for the prosecution. It appeared from the evidence, that on the 22nd October last, Mr. Mounsey and another person were driving a cow, two heifers, and a flock of sheep from Liverpool to Man chester. The cow and heifers were the property of Mr. Mounsey. At Woolston they met the prisoner, who under took to drive forward the cattle and sheep toward s Manches ter, while Mr. Mounsey and his companion breakfasted. He took the animals forward, Ps requested, but left the sheep in the road, about 250 yards from the house where he had left Mr. Mounsey. It turned out, afterwards, that the prisoner had driven the cow and heifers on to Manchester, and sold them to a Mr. Hargreaves for eight pounds. They were afterwards returned to Mr. Mounsey. The latter had given .£l2 12s. for them. Mr. Hargreaves said, after they had been at his farm, they were worth £t.:4 more than before. The prisoner, when apprehended, told the constable that he had sold the cattle for £lB, and had been robbed of the money. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to imprison ment for one year. SENTENCES OF PRISONERS The following sentences were passed upon the prisoners convicted on Thursday. John Mack, found guilty of having unlawful possession of a mould for coining, was sentenced to fifteen years trans portation. - George Bath, for uttering base coin, having a previous conviction against him, was sentenced to seven years trans,. portation. _ _ William Johnson and Jane Broadbent for uttering base coin, were sentenced, the former to two years imprisonment and hard labour at Lancaster Castle, and the latter to six months imprisonment at Kirkdale Gaol. James Rooney, who pleaded guilty to the possession of cer tain moulds for coining, was sentenced to ten years trans portation. NISI PRIUS COURT—Fitio.kv. (Before the Right Hon. Chief Justice ERSKINE.) His LORDSHIP took his seat at twenty minutes past nine o'clock. DEBT. BUTTE RFIELD v. HoLT.—An undefended action, in which Mr. John Butterfield was the plaintiff, and. Mr. James Holt the defendant, to recover the sum of £36 17s. 81, the ba lance of an account, for goods sold and delivered.—Verdict for the plaintiff. WILDE v. BANIFORD.—Joseph Wilde, cabinet-maker, in Manchester, was the plaintiff, Frances Ann Bamford, a mil liner and dress-maker, was the defendant, and the action was brought to recover the sum of £2G 4s. 31, the balance of an account for cabinet furniture sold and delivered to the de fendant.—Verdict for the plaintiff. DRINKWATER v. BROOKES.—An undefended action to recover the sum of £B7 7s. 6d., the balance of an account for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff, Mr. \Vm. Drink water, is a commission agent in Manchester. and the de fendant is a manufacturer, living at Cole, on the borders of Y orkshire.—Verdict for the plaintiff. GRAYSO24 V. SHEPHERD An undefended action, brought by Bevas Grayson, who had been in the employ of the defendant, Edwin Sheppard, a joiner and patent sawyer, to recover the sum of £B3 2s 6d, the balance of wages due. The plaintiff was overseer, and was to receive 5s per day. Verdict for the plaintiff. HEYWOOD V. SCRIITON. Undefended. The plaintiff, Mr. Benjamin Fenshaw Hey wood, a manufacturer in Manchester, sought to recover from the defendant, William Scruton, a draper in Huddersfield, the sum of £3O, the balance of an account stated. Verdict for the plaintiff. TOPLIS, THE YOUNGER, V. GELL. The plaintiff, John Toplis, jun., is a tanner at Nottingham, and the defendant, John Gell, a currier, at Manchester, The action, which was undefended, was to recover a debt of £lO3 is id, for goods sold and delivered.—Verdict for the plaintiff. HATTON V. WEBSTER AND OTHERS. An action of debt, in which the plaintiff, Mr. James Hat ton, sought to recover from the defendants £23 9s 9d, the account for iron and steel, together with interest thereon, there having been a special agreement that interest should be paid. Verdict for the plaintiff. ASSAULT.—THE QUEEN V. SOWLER AND ANOTHER. This was an action of assault, the particulars of which have already been before the public. The plaintiff was Mr. Jeremiah Garnett, the editor of the Manchester Guardian; the defendants were Mr. Thomas Sowler, th e e di tor o f th e Manchester Courier, and Mr. Robert Scarr Sowler, his son.. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for the defendants. Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. He said that this was an indictment which had originally been preferred by the prosecutor, Mr. Garnett, against the two defendants, for an assault. The defendants had thought fit to remove the case into that court, and have it tried before a superior judge and a jury, instead of the magistrates at sessions. He should prove that the defendants had committed an assault of a very extraordinary character, because he presumed that, if the elder and younger Mr. Sowler were called upon, they would consider themselves entitled to call themselves gentlemen ; and yet they had acted in concert in this extraordinary as. sault, one holding the arm of Mr. Garnett while the other beat him. The occurrence happened on the 24th of July last, at three o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. Garnett was walking through St. Ann's-square, and when he had come to the shop kept by Mr. Farmer, the younger Mr. Sowler got to the front of him, with a horsewhip in his hand ; the elder Mr. Sowler held the arm of Mr. Garnett, and the other struck him on the head with the horsewhip. Mr. Gar nett struggled, broke away, and struck the younger Mi . . Sowler with his umbrella, as might have been expected. The old man then again caught hold of the arm of the plaintiff, who received another blow ; and he defended himself as well as he could, till other persons came tip and separated them. This was the ease which he (the learned counsel) should lay before the jury, and leave it to them to decide whether the defendants, one or both, ay or no, committed an assault upon Mr. Garnett. . . Mr. Jeremiah Garnett was then called and examined. He said—On the 24th of July last, at three o'clock in the after noon, I was passing through St. Anne's-square, which is a very public part of Manchester. I saw Mr. Thomas Sowler, and another person whom I did not then know, hut whom I have since ascertained to be Mr. Robert Scarr Sowler. run ning across the square, apparently from the door of the shop of Mr. Robert Sowler, which is on the opposite side to that on which 1 was walking. I walked on without noticing them. They came , up to me. Robert Sca n S ow l er had a horsewhip in his hand. He spoke to me. and said, "lour name is Jeremiah Garnett, or Mr. Garnett ?" 1 answered, " Yes." At that moment Mr. Thomas Sowler came behind me, seized hold of my right wrist, and said, " Now, Robert." Upon that Robert struck me with the whip ; the blow lighted on my hat. I broke loose from Mr. Sowler, and struck Robert Scarr Sowler with my umbrella. He had just struck me with the whip, and was raising his hand for another blow, when I struck him with the umbrella. Mr. Thomas Sowler interfered again, caught hold of my arm a second time, and Robert Sowler struck me again with the whip ; the blow was on the shoulder. It was my right arm that Mr. Thomas Sowler caught hold of—the arm in wnich 1 had the umbrella. I again broke away from him, and again used my umbrella. I struck both of them two or three times. Robert struck at me repeatedly with the whip, and Thomas came up to me, sometimes as if he intended to seize my arms, and sometimes as if he was going to strike me with his fists. This continued until several individuals came up to us, and interfered. The first person was Mr. Thomas Hopkins. The matter then ended. . _ _ Cross-examined by Mr. Wii.iciN:; —Mr. Hopkins is my brother-in-law. The JUDGE.—CouId not this matter be amicably arranged ? There seems to have been no great damage done. Mr. WILKINS stated that he was willing to accede to any thing which his lordship proposed. Mr. CKESSWELL said as this was a ease in which his client had been insulted, his lordship would see that the offer of accommodation could not be expected to come from him. Mr. WILKINS said that he could not offer any apology on the part of the elder Mr. Sowler, because he still denied the charge brought against him. The case then proceeded. Witness.—Mr. Hopkins is my brother-in-law. He does hot occassioually assist to write articles for the Guardian. He has sometimes contributed one or two letters, but never any leading articles. Recently, however, according to my recollection, he has contributed nothing. He has not a share in the Guaidian, nor is be in treaty to become a t shareholder. There has been a report to that effects but there is no truth in if. I did not strike in a javelin fashion with my umbrella. I never struck with the point downwards. I used it like a stick. I had some reason to anticipate the attack made upon me. No one accompanied me through the square. I was not aware that Mr. Shuttleworth and Mr. Hopkins were close behind. I have not admitted to you that I was the writer of an article in the Manchester Guardian calling the writer of an article in the Manchester Courier " a crawling. cowardly liar." Mr. WILKINS was proceeding to examine the witness on this point, when Mr. CRESSWELL objected to the witness answering with respect to any writing, unless the writing itself was put in. His LORDS fur decided that the objection was good. Witness (in continuation) : The horsewhip employed by Mr. Sowler was a very small one. I was not hurt. . Richard Hall was then called, but he did not answer. Mr. CRESSAVELL said to the attorney, " Call him on his subpcena." The attorney replied that he had not the subpoena with him. Mr. CRESSNVELL then intimated that the case was ended. Mr. WILKE:vs addressed the jury on behalf of the defen dants. He said that they had heard the nature of the case explained by his learned friend, and if, without uttering one ' word, he left them solely to draw their own judgment from that statement, what, he asked, would be their opinion of the case? The only person called in support of the case was the person most interested, and whose testimony ought to he received with the greatest possible suspicion. The trans action had taken place in the middle of the day, in one of the most frequented parts of Manchester, and why had not some person besides Mr. Garnett been called on to prove the case? Had the jury remarked the extremely cautious manner in which the witness had answered certain questions put by him (the learned counsel)? His learned friend re marked at the time that the answer was a very proper one. Of course it was, in a legal point of view ; it was just the one which he (Mr. Creswell) wanted, because it would im pose on him (Mr. Wilkins) the necessity of calling witnesses and putting in documents, which would give him (Mr. C.) the right of reply. But he (Mr. Wilkins) should disappoint him; he would neither call witnesses nor put in documents, but confine himself to a very few additional remarks. Ac- . tion was in all instances the result of motive, unless in the case of idiots or madmen ; and did the jury believe that Mr. Robert Sowler, for mere sport and pastime, ran through St. Anne's-square, with the smallest horsewhip in his hand that anybody had ever seen, for the purpose of tickling Mr. Jere miah Garnett, or did they not think that there must have been some shameful outrage to induce the conduct which had that thy been described? Some of the jury were no doubt acquainted with the facts, and had doubtless antici pated, as Mr. Garnett himself had anticipated, that some thing similar to what had happened was very likely to take place. The mode in which Mr. Garnett had been tutored to answer the question relative to the article in the Manchester Guardian might be the legal one ; but there were occasions on which persons ought to be anxious to give the whole truth to the warld, and not only do what was lawful, but what was honourable. That Mr. Garnett had been horsewhipped was well known, and there was no denying that the younger Sowler was guilty, but that the elder was guilty he (the learned counsel) denied. Mr. Wilkins then went on to contend that the obvious reason why the elder Mr. Sowler had caught hold of the right arm of Mr. Garnett was to prevent him striking the younger Mr. Sowler with the umbrella, and that the words " Now, Robert," instead of meaning " Now, Robert, beat him," (the inference attempted to be drawn from them,) meant, " Now, Robert, escape while I have hold of his arm ;" and this con struction was supported by the admission of the plaintiff, that he would again have struck the younger defendant, had not his arm been held. To suppose that Mr. Thos. Sowler had instructed his son to beat the plaintiff was absurd, be cause if Mr. Sowler had been desirous of having that done, he himself was far more cap ible of doing it than his son, who was a man of not more tl al half the dimensions of Mr. Gar nett. Mr. Wilkins mentioned, in conclusion, that the rea son why he did not call witnesses was, that he was afraid of the extraordinary powers of Mr. Cresswell—his capability of making "the worse appear the better reason," his sophistry, his ability, and his power of working upon the minds of the jury. He should, therefore, not give his learned friend the right of reply. If any of the jury were acquainted with the person of Mr. Hopkins, he begged that they would look round the court, and then they would see at once whether the plain tiff was not afraid of calling even his brother-in-law in evi dence. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the plaintiff had stated on oath the circumstances of the assault, and there had been nothing in answer but the observations of an ingenious counsel ; and the jury would say whether they would put these observations, however ingenious, in opposition to the oath of a man who, if he bad sworn false, might have been contradicted by numerous witnesses ; for it ought to be borne in mind that the fact of the transaction having taken place in a public square afforded to the defendants the same opportu nity of calling witnesses as it. did to the plaintiff. The cir cumstance of publicity was therefore as much a reason for believing as disbelieving the evidence of the prosecutor. The ju►y had nothing to do with the occasion of the assault. If it were true, as suggested, that Mr. Garnett had used the coars est possible expressions in a newspaper, or anything else, to wards one of the defendants, that formed no justification for the assault. They were bound to give a verdict against the defendants, whatever might have been the provocation given, either by writing or speaking. The provocation was always a subject of inquiry in settling the amount of punishment, but had nothing to do with finding the verdict, unless the provocation consisted of a previous blow. The answer on which Mr. Wilkins had commented was a very proper one, as they could not receive any evidence as to written or print ed papers, unless those papers were produced. The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty. His LORDSHIP, having been requested to pronounce sen tence then, stated that he would consider, and pronounce the sentence on the folloWing day. • HAIGH AND ANOTHER D. BROOKES This was an action brought by Messrs. Haigh and Fran- 1 ceys to recover from the defendant, under an undertaking al- . leged to have been entered into by him, the value of three bills, amounting in all to £9666 13s 7d, together with inte rest thereon. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Cresswell for the defendant. Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case, and after referring to its unusual nature, said that this was an attempt to defeat the just claim of the plaintiffs to more than £lO,OOO. In the early part of 1837 the plaintiffs, who were cotton merchants in Liverpool, were induced to sell cotton to a firm in Man chester, Messrs. John Leigh and Sons,,and the defendant, who was in a large business, guaranteed the payment of three bills. The guarantee was in these terms :—" In considera tion of your being in advance to Messrs. John Leigh and Sons in the sum' of £lO,OOO, for the purchase of cotton, I hereby give you my guarantee for that amount, say £10,000." That guarantee was signed by the defendant. Not a long time elapsed before the bills became due, and they were dis honoured. Previous to this, however, the defendant had made an appliCation, for some reason or other, to have the guarantee delivered up to him, saying that he did not like to have his name attached to it. The plaintiffs said that they had no objection to give up the guarantee, but they must be protected against the outstanding bills. Mr. Brookes could not deny that, and he said that he would take care of them, provided the plaintiffs would give up the guarantee. This was done, and then the defendant signed the following un dertaking •—" In consideration of giving up the guarantee for £lO,OOO, I undertake to see paid, at maturity, the three bills of Messrs. John Leigh and Sons." After the bills had been dishonoured, of course an application was made to Mr. Brookes on the subject. He, however, declined coming forward, or making up the bills in any other way, and the consequence was that an action was brought. That was in June, 1837 ; but every difficulty had been thrown in the way, and the cause, after having been in the Court of Queen's Bench and in Chancery, had again come there, and he (the learned counsel) hoped that it would now be terminated. There was, however, one difficulty in the way. At the last trial the original guarantee was asked for and produced, and on production it appeared that there was no stamp on it. An objection was then urged by his learned friend (Mr. Cress well) that the document was an illegal one ; but Baron Alder son was of a different opinion • and the plaintiffs got a verdict. He'understood that the original document could not now be produced—that it had been destroyed, and they therefore had had a copy attested and stamped. Richard Bosire was then called, and deposed that he was a clerk in the office of Messrs. Haigh and Franceys. He produced the undertaking, on the giving of which the ori ginal guarantee had been given up. He knew the hand writing of Mr. Brookes, and the signature was his. [The undertaking was put in and read.] When that was signed by Mr. Brookes, the guarantee was given up to him. He (witness) had a copy of the guarantee. Cross-examined by Mr. CILESSWELL.—He could not swear whether the original document was stamped or not. He had not the least recollection. He would not swear that it was stamped. To Mr. WIGHTMAN.—The copy produced is a true copy of the original. To Mr. CrtEsswELL.—Mr. Franceys read the original, and he (witness) read the copy. All he knew was, that the copy corresponded with the original, as read to him. The copy was made on the morning of the day when the original was given up. The J U DG E.—And that copy is what you have had stamped ? Mr. A L EXANDER.—Yes. Mr. WIGHTMAN .—Put it in. Mr. CRESSWELI..—No, sir; we have had no proof that it is an examined copy. The .1 UD GE.—The copy may by read, and then it will be thrown on you to prove that the original was without a stamp. Mr. CRESSW ELL then addressed the jury for the defence. He said that his learned friend had been pleased to tell his attemptedt ile, n practised ( l taot gross r m oa sv p so u itde fraud. thet o Mr. Brookes paymentro o ke learned 0 f h s at justfr j a t h e n debt—that(ei hadl stated improperlyhe that a guarantee had been given by the defendant o.i the 4th of contracted tb law.ruli a } t b r l y e tlf before as; q th at,uNt ihtboeewe e a er t ew thewa s o given, Mr. intended Mnor liability Brookesof considerationt wasile geacuilfiaeirasraearonttnce: had defendant was to be in respect of debts incurred after that time, to secure future credit, and not to meet ant ece dent . debts • because, if it was con ce d e d th at t h e guarantee was for antecedent debts, it was worth nothing. if the claim were for goods furnished to Messrs. Leigh in furtherance of the guarantee, Mr. Brookes would have raised no objection ; hut, su bsequent to the (late of that guarantee, another document was presented to him, at the bottom of which some bills were enumerated. Mr. Brookes signs that and goes away 'be , - lieving, at the time, that the three bills were to become due at a future period ; but on investigation it turned out that one, for between £3OOO and .X4OOO had been due at a former period, and the plaintiffs had thus sought to impose on the defendant a liability to which, under the - first grant, he was not liable. After remarking upon the evidence of Mr. Bosire, who, though he was at the last trial, and was called upon to the oint on which the case hinged, give his evidence on . p could not now ' reco ll ec t whether the original document was stamped or not, Mr. Creswell said that he would not waste another word on that subject, but at once call Mr. Hum phreys, who, he was certain, would give his evidence in the straightforward manner becoming a gentleman. Mr. John Humphreys, one of the attorneys.of the plain tiff, was then called, and examined by Mr. Tomlinson, who acted with Mr. Creswell. The witness stated. that he at tended at the former trial of this case at the last Spring Assizes, and remembered Mr. Cresswell having taken an objection to the guarantee on account of its not being stamped, but could not take upon himself to swear that it was not stamped, as be did not recollect having seen it. Mr. WIGHTM N here objected to the witness being exa mined touching a document not produced. The instrument, he contended, ought to be produced, in order that they might know of what they were speaking. Mr. CREsswELL said that his object was to prove that the document produced at the last trial s the original gua rantee, and indentified as s uc h, not care a straw as to what was in thepaper. The JUDGE observed that it would 'L he necessary that Mr. Cresswell should show that the document of which Mr. Hum phreys spoke was the document delivered up, or his evidence went for nothing. Mr. CHEsswELL thought he should do sufficient if he proved that the paper identified at the l as t ass i zes by the plaintiff's oWn witnesses as the original guarantee, was not stamped. Mr. WIGHTMAN submitted that that would not remove the difficulty one jot. Mr. Cresswell was trying to connect with this trial a paper, of the nature of which he had shown nothing. What right bad he to say it was the sane paper without producing it ? Let him produce it ; he had got it. His LORDSHIP said that the difficulty ne felt was this. The witness had stated that he had not seen the document which was Produced, and therefore he did not prove that the document of which he Spoke was the same as that which the other witness had spoken of as having been delivered up. He (the learned judge) did not think that Mr. Cresswell had •,N,urt Nl' Ns- 6 •.'`'s ss' 3-- '4 gone far enough to show that the documents were the same. Mr. Humphreys was further examined, and some more conversation took place between the counsel on both sides. His Lortnsnir then observed that he did not see clearly his way to come to the presumption that the origi❑al docu ment was not 'stampea, and yet the only way to raise the question for the court above would be to make that presump tion. He should therefore do so, and receive the copy, giving Mr. Cresswell leave to move for a nonsuit. ALEXANDER than re;liecCandttrged&jury to di vest their minds of a ll th e technicalities which had been brought before them, as they had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the case, which was itself a plain and simple one. He would just mention the amount of inte rest. Mr. CRESSWELL —Yon have no right to interest. • The JUDGE.—They are not entitled to interest, as interest, but they are to whatever damages the jury may think them entitled, in lieu of interest. Mr. ALEXANDER.—The interest is £1,421 2s. sd. His lordship having summed up, the jury found for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed. EJECTMENT. DOE DEM. BEAUMONT AND ANOTHER V. DALTON.—This was an action of ejectment. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Hog gins appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Wightman for the defendant. Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the case, said the action had been brought to recover possession of a chapel belonging to the plaintiffs, called Patmos Chapel, in Todmorden. It had been instituted in consequence of some dissensions between different highly respectable parties respecting the uses to be made of this chapel. The chapel, he understood, had origi nally been built for the use of parties who► belonged to the Methodist New' Connection, the property being vested in trustees. Some of those trustees wished that the doctrines to be inculcated in this . chapel should be those of the Inde pendents, and in consequence some difference of opinion prevailed. He should be able to 'show very distinctly the title to the property to be in the plaintiff Mr. Beamnont, and that would entitle him to a verdict. But he had no desire to continue anything like a feeling of animosity between the parties, and therefore, he should be very glad to take any course best calcUlated to allay irritation. If it were more agreeable to the other side, lie was quite willing that some person should settle the question in private ; but if not he was prepared to shoiv his title, on which he should be en titled to a verdict. The JUDGE asked Mr. M'ightman what he had to say ? Mr. CRESSWELL said there were rival trustees, and the probability was, that if the matter was proceeded with it would arrive in the Court of Chancery, and when it would come out again no man knew. Mr. WIGHTNIAN inquired what course his learned friend proposed ? Mr. CRESSWELL replied that he proposed to leave it to some gentleman of the bar to ascertain the rights of the parties, and what should be done with the property—to leave him to decide all the rights legal and equitable of the several parties. . . WIGHTMAN said he felt a difficulty in consenting to refer a question in which other parties besides his clients were interested. Mr. CRESSWELL said, that as far as the question of trusteeship was concerned, his learned friend represented some persons whom he (Mr. C.) called pseudo trustees — trustees not properly appointed; and he (Mr. C.) repre sented the survivors of the legitimate trustees. Mr. WIGHTMAN thought his learned friend proposed a reference only as respected the owner of the fee. Mr. CRESSWELL professed to represent some of the trus tees, but the action was brought by the owner of the fee; and he avowed that the action was brought in consequence of the differences. A mortgage on the chapel was in the hands of a very respectable gentleman ; and as his interests would be protected, he could have no objection to a reference. The JUDGE enquired whether this mortgage had been granted by both trustees? Mr. CRESSWELL.—By Mr. Wightman's trustees. The JUDGE.—There's the difficulty. Mr. CuEsswELL.—Those who are claiming the property will undertake to indemnify the mortgagee against loss. Mr. WIGHTMAN.—What does my learned friend propose? Mr. CRESSWELL.—To leave to a gentleman of the bar competent to deal with such matters, all questions legal and technical arising from these matters. The JUDGE.—That would include the mortgagee, then? Mr. CaEsswELl,.—Yes, my lord. The JUDGE.—But it cannot be done without the mort gagee's consent. Mr. CRESSWELL.—I cannot suppose be would object upon obtaining a guarantee. The J UDGE. — The mortgagee is not here. CRESSWELL replied that he was, and added that if his learned friend wished he was ready to zo on. The JUDG E. — It would be very desirable that this matter should be arranged. A consultation took place, and it was ultimately agreed to refer. A verdict was consequently taken for the plaintiff, subject to the reference. There had been some difficulty experienced throughout the day in getting cases to proceed with, and the learned Judge, after having, in their order, struck off several, in which nei ther of the parties were prepared, found, at last, that if he went on striking off all the cases not ready, he would leave very few on the list. H e therefore ceased hearing civil causes, and took a criminal one. CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE took his place shortly before nine o'clock, and immediately ordered that the prisoners con victed on the preceding day, who had not received sentence, should be placed before him. SENTENCES ON RETURNED CONVICTS Charles DoWas, aged 23, was placed at the bar. The charge against him was, that, having been convicted, about four years ago, of burglary, at the New Bailey SessiOns, - at Salford, and transported beyond 'the seas for the term of 14 years, he had, on the 18th of November last, appeared at large, in the borough of Manchester, without lawful cause. He pleaded Guilty, His Lordship was about to pass sentence when the pri soner begged to be allowed to address a few words to the Court. The prisoner's statement was of much greater length than we have space to publish, his address having occupied nearly an hour in the delivery. It was, in some parts, ex ceedingly touching, and created a powerful sensation in the court. We should be glad if we could convey, even in print, a notion of the impressive manner in which the prisoner de livered himself. His great and unaffected earnestness ren dered him occasionally eloquent; while, in some of the de tails, his language became pathetic from the excited state of his feelings and from the emotions which he was unable to controul communicating their colour to his thoughts and words. He commenced by saying, that four years ago, when he was only nineteen years of age, he was tried for burglary, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. He did not then believe, what he had since been so powerfully con vinced of, , that transportation was so full of misery as he had proved it to be from experience. He could assure his lord ship, that it was terrible, and those who thought otherwise were in very great error. He was first' sent to the hulks, where he remained six months, and there, though he suffered much hardship, which he need not describe, it was nothing to the misery wnich he had since endured. He was, at length, sent on board the transport that was to convey him to Botany Bay ; and he looked forward to this change with some satisfaction, indulging a hope that it would better his circumstances ; but he was fearfully mistaken. The severe regulations of the hulks were exchanged for the military rule to which the prisoners were subjected ; and he soon found what it was to be under the strong discipline of a convict vessel. The prisoner described the manner in which the several classes of convicts were taken away from the ship on their arrival. Those who were doomed to the chain gangs for life were first sent off to their horrible punishment, which he described as being considered, by all convicts who knew anything of the matter, as a thousand times worse than death in its most dreaded form. Many thought they had a chance of bettering their condition when transported, but they were dreadfully mistaken. Even the gentlemen who were tran sported, he meant those who were well educated, and who thought their education would prove an advantage to them, were doomed to suffer equally with the most ignorant and depraved, for they were ranked amongst those who were in firm and invalids, and were, being useless, sent to a quarter where they were under the command of men whom they re garded, in all respects, as their inferiors, so that, instead of being better, they were absolutely worse off than their fel lows. He was attached, he said, to what we believe, he called the Woolaloo party, with which he continued, for a time, working under a burning sun by day and subjected to the most severe discipline. Every thing was under military regulation, and on the slightest infraction of rule or orders, the convicts were tied up to the triangles and flogged. At length a lady and gentleman wished to take a man into their ser vice, and he was assigned to them. He behaved well, and he found his circumstances as good as he could expect, or even better, for he had done wrong and deserved punish ment. This lasted only about twelve months, for Mr. —, —he would not mention the name of that gentleman in juxta position with his own, for, he believed, he was in London at that moment, and, if he was not, he had a brother there, — but he told him that he was going to England, and must turn him over to government. This was done, and •he again expe rienced a renewal of the hardships to which he had at first been subjected. But even these hardships were nothing to what he had afterwards experienced, for the governor was changed, and when Governor Phipps went out it was much worse for convicts. He was now sent with others to work in the interior of the colony, amongst the chain gangs, and here it was that he saw transportation in its true colours. They were miserably dealt with, indeed, forced, by the most se vere treatment, to work, all day, beyond their strength, be neath a burning sun, not daring to utter a complaint for fear of the lash, and with scarcely food enouzli to support them, consisting only of a wretched meal of homminy. It was out of the power of language to describe what they endured. (The prisoner wept at the recollection of his sufferings during this period.) The most conspicuous object of their encampment was the triangles, and for the most trivial error they were taken before a military gentleman, who assigned them a flogging, which always took place at dinner time; after which they were taken to toil again, beneath the scorching sun. At night they slept in huts. They had no beds, and mere ly a covering of a sort of stringy bark. If one word were spoken during the hours of rest, the sentinel called out the offender, and he was handcuffed till morning, when he was flogged for having violated the regulations by the expression of even a natural and involuntary complaint. Here his life became a misery to him, and he had no consolation from the ' 1 reflection, that he had deserved the punishment. He assured his lordship, that his constant, unmitigated sufferings were unbearable, for they were treated worse than dogs, and were looked upon as even worse than beasts. One night he awoke from sleep. He saw before him three hundred men, each of whom had been the author of some crime. He then felt leftvghr which they h o esyt escapeoecfrkeacdt stockade d together.theirtogether; liberation. deeply his degraded and miserable situation, and he spoke to y a young man named (as we understood) Carney, and they statingahn They yr proceeded o e e r t merely said em s d aeifadanrmeans they nlt) o l N ' V ie th p o r u i t s , ; the bush, and werewellnigh • exhausted, when they discerned a party of the aborigines, who were • roasting a kangaroo. His companion was afraid to venture near them, but he, being pressed by hunger, went to them, and they gave him a piece of a kangaroo and a piece of an opossum. The prisoner pro , ceeded to detail the particula •their journey till they arrived at a small bay, which he of •d and from which the whole district . wasal was ll called Botany Bay, his horror at hearing footsteps wheitilica. He mentioned suddenly awoke, from sleep, as he would rather have died th e an h daylight they saw a vessel, which he, having returned. At to the sea, knew was going out of port, frongi t r ie eribrought up blue Peter at her mast head. She was about two miles from them, and he and his companion, after some consultation, resolved any risk rather than remain where they were, . to run plunged into the water and swain to her. They contrived to get on board, and to get into the hold, unperceived, where each agreed to con ceal himself as he best could. He knew not wh ere hi s com rade concealed himself, but he got into a water tank. Shortly afterwards the inspector came on board and examined the ship, and he was under inconceivable dread that they would be taken, when, by the law of the colony, he would have been sent to Norfolk Island for fourteen years. The inspector did not find him, but he hea rd th e sailors putting on the hatches and tarpauling, and immediately his compa nion joined him. A new horror appeared before them. The prisoner stated, that it was customary, when convicts w ere suspected of having concealed themselves on board ships, to smoke the hold, to force them to come forth. 1 o this opera tion they became convinced they were about to be subjected. Believing themselves to be in this fearful extremity, his panion asked him if he had any memorial which he wished him to deliver in England, in case he survived him, and ever reached his country. He replied, no : he had no one in the world who cared for him, and, tharefore, no one whom he wished to be reminded of him. His companion (the prisoner wept at the remembrance) took out a dirty letter, and told l him where to find his poor mother in London.. Sobbing as be spoke, he bade his brother-convict, if ever he should reach England, to tell her that, the last time he saw him, he was well and prospering, and would, some time or other, come and see her, " and that," said he, - `! will add many years to my ' poor, dear mother's life." The prisoner said, he then wetted a pair of drawers, and swathed them round his comrade's head. He himself got into the tank of water, when he, some hours after, heard the order to put up the topsails, which gave him sonic satisfaction, as he knew, by that, that the vessel was going to sea. He knew not where she was bound to, nor did he care, so that they got away from the miserable place which he had quitted. He remained in the - tank. amongst the water, twelve or fourteen days, suffering extreme torture, and had still, and should hate to the end of his days, a recurrence of the pains which he then endured. During the whole time, his only food was seven biscuits. The prisoner proceeded to 'state, that they were di.-:covered, and described with what horror he beard the captain, Who, - he supposed, suspected what they were, give the order to put the ship about, and how he and his companion, being ' resolved to brave any fate rather than be - taken back, jumped overboard when the ship was about six or seven miles from the Feejee Islands. His comrade was on the point of sinking when they perceived an old canoe, bottom upwards, into whiCh they, after many attempts, managed to get. The canoe swamped with them once or twice, but at length they reached the land in safety. The natives soon saw them ; and, as they were known to be cannibals, they had great dread of them. They took hold of Carney, who foolishly resisted, upon which they forced him away, but not before one of them inflicted a wound upon his (Dolphin's) shoulder, which brought him to the ground. He suffered great torture for several days, being without food or water, and unable to help himself. He tried to eat the grass which was within his reach, and, at length, worn out with suffering, he became insensible. When he recovered, lie found himself lying with his head resting against a native woman, who was applying antidotes to the wound, which had been inflicted by a' poisoned spear. On his recovery, the young woman indicated to him that there was a white man in the hush. Ile went to the spot which she pointed out, and there found the dead body of Carney, the flesh nearly all taken from his bones either by the natives or the hogs. He interred him in some soft ground, an operation which he described as having given him great satisfaction. It turned out, however, that he had infringed upon what the natives deemed privileged ground, and he would have been sacrificed but for the interference of the young native woman, who was a chieftain's sister. At" length, one day, the girl ran to him exclaiming, " Kibooker," which meant a large man-of-war canoe: This turned out to be a French ship, the Angelica, of Havre de Grace, which was on a whiling cruise. When the boat took him away, he said, the affec tionate young-native girl swam after him, and he was com pelled to take her with him._ A short time afterwards he had an opportunity of consigning her to the care of a bene volent missionary, who took her back to the island which she had left, where he wished to establish a missionary sta tion, and in which design her influence would be useful. The prisoner detailed many other hardships, sufferings, and adventures which he had undergone before he reached Eng land. His intention was to have entered on board one of her Majesty's ships, where, after some years of good service, lie was in. hopes he might have obtained his pardon. He concluded by imploring his , lordship to be merciful to him, and not to send him back to exile. He sobbed, in his earn estness, as he beg,ed that any punishment might be awarded to him rather than this. If again transported, he should he sent to Norfolk Island, or Goat Island, places which he would not pollute his lordship's ears by pretending to de scribe. Even on board the hulks he would be chcined to crosstrees all the day, and would not be allowed the privi lege of another convict; and it would be the same on hoard the ship. He would be thankful for even the scaffold in preference. His LORDSHIP interrupted the prisoner. If he were ad dressing him in the hope, that he should prevent him from passing sentence of transportation, he was sorry to say, he had no option. Prisoner (with great emotion)—Then, God help me ! I'll not describe what I shall suffer. I would not wish to offend your lordship's ears by telling you about Norfolk Island. Oh ! if you would but pass sentence of death upon me, I would summon courage to die, for then I should die like a man ; but, if you send me back, I shall spend a few miserable years in chains ; and, after all, I shall not die like a man, no, not even like a dog. 1 beg, iny.lord, from my heart, that you will rather consign me to death than again to transporta tion. If it be in your power to show kindness to a miserable man like me, do my lord. I never knew what it was to re ceive parental instruction—indeed, my lord, I did not ; and I have been fearfully punished for toy crime. I never was taught what was right till I learned it from experience : I shame to say it, but I never had any instruction but what I received from the schoolmaster of the gaol. Do be as mer ciful as you can, my lord. [His lordship shook his head, as if intimating that he had no will in the matter.] I have done my lord.. You may consign me to misery, but it shan't be for long. Do doom me to death, my lord, if you have the power : all I want is a few hours preparation. I have done my lord. His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoner, said, that the statement which he had made, in the hope of obtaining a mitigation of punishment, was one which every person in court must have heard with a great degree of pain. If it were true, and he had no reason for supposing that the pri soner had been stating what-was not true, the narrativemight serve one very useful purpose, for it was commonly supposed by persons who had committed crimes in this country, that, when they were sentenced to be transported, they were about to be sent to a land where they would not suffer, but would improve their condition in life. Many a person had been drawn into the commission of crime under the supposition, that ,the punishment was one in name, and notin circum stance. If what the prisoner had stated were true, a great impression ought to he made on the minds 'Of those persons. They 9ught to know what'-was•really the fact, that, on pas sing tp?, this country to that . to which they were to be trans- I:0;1e ,acountry.which had been described as rot a land for honest men, they.went to a place, where they must suffer dis grace and hardship; and . where they must lose that which it was the most painful ttchtiman being to lose,—all hope of liberty. ..He(the prisonet)•had pleaded guilty to a charge of haVing committed the offence 'of returning from tratisporta don. He had been transported for a crime which, at the time, was a capital offence, and for which he might have suf fered .on the gallows; hut he was sentenced to fourteen years transPoitation ; and; had as that sentence was, it was one to which he ought to have submitted; and his - own statement slao'ived, that, if he had persevered in the line of conduct which he had observed when he became the servant of a kind master, he • might have had the same good fortune. But he had thought proper not to submit to his lot ; and he had that day given an account of the hardship; which he had in con sequence suffered. He (the prisoner) was about to receive sentence for returnink before the term of his sentence for transportation had expired. . He had appealed to him (the Judge) in mitigation of punishment; but it was fit that he should tell him, that he had no discietion in the matter. He (the prisoner) must be transported for life ; and, previous to his transportation, he must suffer some term of imprison ment. The sentence of the Court was, that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction, at Kirk dale, for three months ; and that, at the expiration of his sentence, he be transported for the term of his natural life. Prisoner.--That shall be a short one. Clod bless your lord ship—you have been as merciful as you could, I know: The JU DGE.--Don't say that the term shall be short. You speak as if there were nothing beyond this life, and you speak of it as a matter of indifference. If you were, by any act of your own, to shorten your term of existence, and thus put off your day of repentance, the sufferings which you have endured in this life will be nothing to the punishment which you will suffer in the life that is to come. __ William Edmonds, a tall, very well built man, was charged with being an escaped convict from transportation. • He pleaded guilty. His sentence was similar to that of the last prisoner. Tli E CHARTIATS The chartists, 23 in number, who traversed from the last assizes, and are at large on bail, were called upon, and notice was given to them, that their traverses must be entered im mediately preparatory for trial, or their recognizances would be forfeited. The number of chartists in custody for trial is four. The following chartists, who had not pleaded, were called upon to do so, having been previouSly given to understand, that they would be respited till the time of trial, of which due notice would be given. Fearyus O'Connor, charged with seditious conspiracy, un lawful assemblage, and seditious speeches, at Manchester, pleaded not guilty. Bronterre 0' Wien, similarly charged, pleaded not guilty. John Hart, William Simpson, James Mellor, Benjamin Fitton, john Durham, John Swires, Isaac Wood, Thos. Brown, fFalter Scott, Thos. Morris, James Wheeler, Thos. Bird, Wm. Patifield, R. J. Richardson, Edw. Coar, James and Jeremiah Doodson, and Chas. Morris, all charged with seditious conspiracy, unlawful assemblage, and seditious speeches, some at Manchester, some at Aspall, and some at Ilindley, pleaded not guilty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the county palatine asked his lordship, if he could appoint a day for the trials. His LORDSHIP said, it was impossible at psesent. It was plain that the misdemeanours could not be entered upon till the felonies were all disposed of. SENTENCES. Thos. Ball, convicted of having stolen a mare, belonging to Thomas Hewitt, and a gelding, belonging to Thomas Al lenson, was sentenced to two months' solitary confinement for the first offence, and to 15 years' transportation for the second. John Lee, who pleaded guilty of having stolen property be longing to John Harrison and other parties, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale, the two first and last weeks to be passed in solitary confine ment : he was afterwards to be transported for 10 years. Richard Chadwick, convicted of highway robbery, at Ince, near Wigan, was sentenced to eighteen months' imprison ment, the two first and last weeks in solitary confinement. MANSLAUGHTER CASES. Elizabeth Brown and James Lynch were indicted for hav ing killed William Dunn, in Liverpool, on the 19th day of February last. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Henderson. Mr. Murphy defended the prisoner Eliza beth Brown. The principal witness in the case was Ann Farrell, a very young but intelligent little girl. It appeared that, between ' six and seven o'clock on the 19th February, Mrs. Mary Far rell, who keeps a cooper's shop, in Gibbon's-lane, Queen street, had a quarrel with the prisoner Brown, who had as sailed her with violent abuse in the street. From words the parties came to blows, Mrs. Brown having struck Mrs. Far rell, who returned the compliment. The two females were fighting, when the little girl, Ann Farrell, went into the shop and called out the deceased,. William Dunn, a cooper, who was then at work. lie ran out with his drawing-knife, which he had been using, in his hand, and attempted to separate the two femals. The p r i so ner Lynch, who was looking on, immediately interfered on behalf of Brown, by whom Dunn was, at the same time, attacked, They shook him, and endeavoured to take the knife from him ; and, as Lynch was a much more powerful man than Dunn, the lat ter made off. Mrs. Brown threw a brick at him, which struck him in the forehead, and inflicted a wound. Lynch went up and struck him on the wound, knocked him down, and kicked him. He appeared to have been seriously in jured, and was carried away to a surgeon, who dressed his forehead. He was afterwards, on the 20th February, car• tied to the Northern Hospital, afflicted with a locked jaw. The wound over his forehead was healing. A severe contu sion was found on his kick, about four inches from his spine. He died on the 4th of March. The immediate cause of death was stated to'be lock-jaw, which the surgeon of the Northern Hospital attributed to the wound which he had received on the scalp, though it might have been occasioned by the con tusion. The deceased was a man of about forty years of age, and had been a drunkard. Previous to his death, and while under the full conviction that he could not recover, he de tailed to Mr. Dowling the circumstances under which the' injuries were inflicted. Mr. Dowling took down his state ment in writing, and it was read to the court. It was, ge nerally, confirmatory of the evidence given by the witnesses. The little girl, Farrell, was re-called, and a good deal of doubt was thrown over her testimony by some discrepancies which were discovered between her evidence in court and that in the deposition taken before the coroner. Two wit nesses, both of very humble rank, were called to depose as to the character of Elizabeth Brown. They described her as a very sober and peaceable woman. The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation in the box, re tired at a quarter past one o'clock. They returned in about forty minute s , an d d e li vered a verdict of G u ilty against both prisoners. Elizabeth Brown was sentenced to one year's im prisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale : Lynch to two years' imprisonment and hard labour in the same gaol. Both prisoners to spend the first and last weeks of their imprison ment in solitary confinement. William Bibby. aged 44, was indicted for having killed his wife, Susan Bibby, at Kirkdale, on the 13th October last. Mr. Armstrong appe are d for the prosecution ; Mr. Murphy for the defence. The prisoner was seen, by several individuals, cruelly beat- . ing his wife, who was very much injured by his blows. She ran into a neighbour's house, and being extremely ill, a sur geon (Mr. Bradbridge, of Kirkdale) was sent for, but she died before his arrival. Mr. Bradbridge, who made a post mortim examination 'of the body, was called as soon as the leading features of the case had been established. He stated, that Mrs. Bibby had died a natural death. He found that she was afflicted with dropsy in the chest and an en largement of the aorta. Though her death might have been hastened by the blows which she had received, he could not swear that it had been caused by them. The prisoner, under the direction of hiS lordship, was acquitted. Elizabeth 211`Avoy, aged 30, was charged with having, in Liverpool, on the 31st December last, killed her husband, William M'Avoy. Mr. Murphy prosecuted : the prisoner was not defended. On the 31st of December last the prisoner and her husband had a quarrel, which arose out of the dissatisfaction ex pressed by him that the prisoner had neglected to have his dinner ready. She seems to have been a woman of violent temper, and was exasperated at him tbr finding fault with her. She took the potatoes which were tci = be served for his dinner and threw them on the fire ; upon 141%hich he, annoyed at her conduct, threw her (not violently, it was stated) on the bed. She arose, seized the fryingpan, which was at hand, and struck him violently on the head. He uttered an exclama tion, and sank into the chair. She seized a brush by the handle, and with the head of it struck him again on his head. He became very ill soon after, and a surgeon was sent for, by whom he was bled, blistered, and cupped. He became de lirious, and died on the 6th of January. It did not appear that, during his illness, the deceased had at all accused pr blamed his wife. On the contrary, it •was stated that she was very attentive to him during his illness ; and one witness stated that he exonerated her from all blame. • The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced toimprison ment and hard labour for one year, at Kirkdale, the last week to be spent in solitary confinement. .4, . UTTERING FORGED ACCEPTA-NCES. William Sedinvick, aged 20, was charged with having fe loniously uttered certain forged acceptances, at Prescot, in this county. Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution, Mr. WILKINS the defence. i. The particUlars of this case were puhjished at full length when the charge was broughtbefore the i magistrates, at Kirk dale, in November last. The prisoner went, at several times, in the month of October last, to M. Richard Bradshaw Southern, draper, Mr. Edmund Warik; solicitor, and Mr. William Deakin, tailor, all of Prescotip each of whom lie was indebted, and, offering to pay thern,,portions of their ac counts, procured discounts of divers bilk of exchange, which purported to be acceptances of William Newman and other persons in London. The case relatiVA to the bill on Mr. Newman, paid to' Mr. Southern, was the only one heard. The Jury, at once, found him guilty. Dr. Brown recom mended him to the favourable consideration of the Court. Mr. Southern also spoke favourably of him, and stated, that lie had been recently married to a young lady in a sphere somewhat above him. Dr. Brown handed up a letter from the Rector of Prescot, recommending the prisoner very strongly to mercy. It was stated, by the Chaplain of the Kirkdale Gaol, that the prisoner had been a teacher in a Sun day-school at Prescot. Ili, LORDSHIP alluded to the mercy of the prosecutor in not pressing the other charges, and stated, that, if they had been pressed and conviction followed, he should have felt it his duty to send the prisoner out of the country. His lord ship took the excellent character which the prisoner had re ceived into consideration, and passed the most lenient sen tence in his power. The prisoner is to be imprisoned at Kirkdale during two years, the last week to be spent in soli tary confinement. COWSTEALING. John Parr, alias Thomas Marshall, who was stated to be a master butcher, was indicted for having stolen two cows, the property of John Ledger. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to 18th months' imprisonment and hard labour. The court adjourned a few minutes after six o'clock, till uine o'clock on Monday morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. His Lordship took his seat, this morning, at a few minutes after niue o'clock. The Court was occupied until three o'clock with Nos. 40 and 27 in the Salford list, two actions for the recovery of trifling debts. SENTENCE ON THE MESSRS. SOWLER. After the conclusion of the above case, his Lordship pro ceeded to pass sentence on the defendants in the case of " The Queen v. Sowler and another." He said :—Thomas Sowler and Robert Scarr Sowler, you were severally con victed, yesterday, of an assault on Jeremiah Garnett. During the progress of the plaintiff's case, it appearing that no per sonal injury had been sustained by him, and, from the state ment, conceiving that the transaction had originated from some newspaper quarrel, I did think, that the best mode of Concluding the prosecution would have been for you to have made an apology to the man whom you had assaulted, and, if Mr. Garnett had been contented to have accepted that apology, I should have felt diposed there to allow the case to have dropped. But you, Thomas Sowler, objected to such a course, atid put it on the ground, that you had not been guilty of an assault, thereby charging Mr, Garnett with hav ing faliely sworn to the fact he had then deposed to, that you seized by the aria and there kept him confined while your son assaulted him with a horsewhip, which, however, appears to have been but a small one. I then felt it quite impossible that I could take any further step, but must per mit the case to go onto the conclusion, and that you must abide the result. The case went on. No witnesses were called on your part to rebut the testimony of Mr. Garnett, and the jury very properly found you guilty ; and, although insult, and not personal injury, appears to have been the ob ject yon had in view, I cannot say that the insult was given under circumstances that reflected any great credit on either of you, because you appear to have gone in company to commit the assault, and when the son was ready to strike Mr. Garnett with the horsewhip, the father was engaged in holding the hand of the plaintiff', either to prevent him ward ing off the blows directed at him, or returning them with the umbrella in his hand. Now, this is not the way in which the law allows. newspaper editors to settle their quarrels. You may have imagined that you were acting correctly, in asmuch as your aim was not personal injury, but to insult the plaintiff, so as, perhaps, to induce him to break the peace in'atiother way ; but the law will not allow you to insult for such apirpose, and i.must, therefore, pasS on you such a sentence as will tend to restrain such acts. The sentence of the Court is, that you be severally imprisoned in a gaol of the - county for three months, .and that, at the expiration of that imprisonment, you severally find security 'to .keeri the peace for two years, yourselves in £2OO each, and two secu rities in £5O each, and that you be further imprisoned until that security he found. One of the defendants intimated, through his attorney, that the New Bailey would suit them. The JUDGE.—The New Bailey be it, then. An application was subsequently made, at the request of the prosecutor, that the learned Judge would allow the de fendants to be at large until Monday. His Lordship complied with.the request. FOSTER V. BENTLEY AND ANOTHER. After this case'had occupied. the Court above an hour, the parties consented to an arbitration. ASULT.-HIBBERT V. BUCKLEY. In this case Mr. Brandt was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ciesswell for the defendant. Mr. BRA` DT, in opening, said that this was an assault case, in which Mr. William Hibbert, who, in the month of June, last year, was overseerof the township of Gorton, was the plaintiff, and the defendant, Mr. John Bradley, was a farmer in the township. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, one farthing. The Court rose at ten minutes past five. CROWN COURT. - ESTERD A Y George Hargreaves, 31. was charged with having, at Hea ton Norris, feloniously stolen a mare, the property of George Dearden. The prisoner pleaded 'guilty,' and was sentenced to' two years' imprisonment and hard labour at Kirkdale. Charles Hunt, 25, stood indicted for having, at Ashton under-Lyne, burglariouslv broken and entered the dwelling house of Christopher Bolton, and stolen 25 sovereigns, a watch, and other articles, the property of the said Christopher Bolton. The prisoner was discharged on bail on the Bth inst. and sgain committed, charged with having. at Ashton, stolen 20 books, the property of Edward Hobson. It appeared that the money was taken from a school room. The evidence was almost wholly circumstantial. The prisoner lodged with the prosecutor, a butcher, and his wife. The latter party missed the money mentioned in the indictment, which was kept in a secret drawer, in a box, and from this it was abstracted, as well as the watch, &c. and some suspicion of the prisoner arose, from the circumstance of his having been entrusted with a key, by which he could admit himself in . the absence of the family. On the night of the robbery, the latter went out to market, and the prisoner announced his intention of going by the 7 o'clock. coach to Manchester, to see his mother who was ill. He however, did not go by that coach, but' booked himself by the nine o'clock coach in his own name. At nine c'clock, the house doors, which were left closed, were found open; and it appeared that the robbery had been com mitted before that hour. A witness swore that he saw a person like the prisoner coming out of the front door about that time ; he was not then sure that it was the prisoner, but from what had since transpired, he felt certain that it was he. The money, watch, &e. were afterwards found in the cellar of the house, in a parcel, amongst some rubbish. The pri soner returned to the house next day, and was apprehended by Newton, police constable, who rather prematurely said that he suspected him of having committed the robbery. To some questions from the officer, the prisoner said he bad gone by the seven o'clock coach, &c. which was not precisely true. There was no evidence that the prisoner had ever seen the box in which the money was placed, or that he had been in the room where it was. The Learned JUDGE summed up in a very perspicuous manner. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Another case against the same prisoner-remains to be tried. Mr. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins ably defended the prisoner. SHEEP STEALING Cornelius France, 34, William Ashcroft, 33, and Hcnry Highton, were charged with having, at Wigan, feloniously stolen a sheep, the property of one Thomas Welsh. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the defence. Thomas Welsh, a butcher, of Wigan, said he had a sheep on the 9th of October, in a field, which he missed on the following day. He afterwards saw the skin of a sheep, which he knew from the skin to be his. He afterwards went to the house of Cornelius France, where Ashcroft lived. He there found part of a neck of mutton, part of a shoulder, and a shank. He said that it was his, and that he had a foot that would fit the shank. The prisoner was afterwards appre hended at a coal pit, by Mr. Whittle, constable, who was accompanied by the witness. Mr. Whittle, chief constable of Wigan, said that he saw the mutton,. and afterwards took the prisoners France and Ashcroft into custody. The prisoners said they had bought it in the market place. France aftewards said that it would be a had job for him. He afterwards said that he and High ton had gone into the field, that Highton had caught the sheep ; that they cut its throat and flayed it ; and that they afterwards took it to Highton's house, and that he got one half of it, and they the other half. Several persons deposed to having purchased mutton from Highton. Mr. Woodcock, magistrates' clerk, heard the prisoners Ashcroft and France examined. On being cautioned, France admitted that he was with Highton, and that the latter caught the sheep, and that they killed and divided it. Ashcroft ad mitted this to be the fact. Mr. WILKINS spoke for the defence of Higliton only. He contended that what was said by the other prisoners was not legal evidence against him. All that appeared th e refore , was, that b e was selling some small q uantities of mutton. This, it might be said, was suspicious, but did not, he thought, amount to absolute proof, and he therefore looked for an ac quittal, upon the doubts which must arise in the minds of the jury. The learned JUDGE directed the jury to find Fiance and Ashcroft guilty, they having confessed. With respect to Highton, the legal evidence amounted to only a case of sus picion. The Jury found France and Ashcroft guilty, and Highton not guilty. His LORDS/11P, in addressing the two prisoners, said they had been found guilty on the clearest evidence. The crime was one which, if it continued to increase, the judges would be compelled to visit with most severe punishment. The present case was an aggravated one, the parties having acted by previous concert. He would not, however, sentence the t p h r e iso itn ne p r rs sitoontne trai n is t portation, but hoped they would benefit by which they would have to undergo. The prisoners were then sentenced to 18 months' imprisonmen and hard labour in Kirkdale Gaol. • F )RGERY Richard Barlow,: 8, a resp e c tably-d ress ed man, stood in dicted with having, ,danchester, feloniously uttered and paid to Joseph Seddon, a forged bill of exchange, for £492125, purporting to be accepted by Leaf and Co., merchants, London. . _ _ Mr. Joseph Seddon.—l am a banker in. Manchester, and have four partners. On the 4th May last the prisoner pre sented the bill produced, drawn - by himself, and purporting to be accepted on Leaf •and Co., -merehants,tLondon. . He stated they were a branch of the house of Leaf and Co., and a very rich house. The bill -was dishonoured and returned. It wasdue ott the 18th August, and was returned ou the .20th. Mr. BAINES defended the prisoner, Witness had known the prisoner for 15 or 16 years. His friends were highly re spectable in Manchester. He had paid five bills previously to the last, from £1,500 to £2,000, all of which were duly honoured... . Re-examined.—A bill made payable to a particular party might be taken up without the knowledge of the acceptor. Mr. Leaf,. partner of Leaf, Coles, & Co., said he was a partner also of Leaf, Crofts,•& Co.—This bill is not in the handwriting of any one - in either house authorised to sign acceptances: I never saw this bill before. Cross-examined.—l, take an -active part. in the• - firm of Leaf, Coles, & Co., in the Old 'Change, but not in the other in the Old Jewry. There is also a firm in London of Leaf, Smith, and M`Dougal._ .: • - • - John Smith, a police-officer, said,-1 received the pri soner into'custody at the ComPter. He said' lie had met at Liverpool a young man named •Robert• Leaf,. who said be was a nephew of Leaf & Co.. and that he had signed.the bill. W'itn'ess asked him where Robert Leaf was, and prisoner replied that he had been looking - after him in Liverpool and London, but had not found him. Cross-examined.—Messrs. Leaf & Co. have a great many purchasers in the - country. I •' Mr. Owen, a clerk to the hank of Messrs. Seddon & C 0.,. heard the prisoner say that Leaf & Co., by whom the accep tance was signed, were a branch of the house of Messrs. Leaf, Coles, & Co., of London. Mr. BAINES addressed the jury, in an able manner, in behalf of the prisoner, contending that he had been made the dupe of an artful individual, who had represented him self as a party authorised to draw a bill on Leaf & Co., and had himself escared from punishment, while he had left the prisoner in the meshes of the law. He besought the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubts that arose in the cage. Many gentlemen of the highest' respectability, who had known the prisoner a great number of years, g ave him a most •.excellent character. . • • . The learned JUDGE summed up: He stated that a party making use of another party's name, by putting it to a bill, even though he hoped to be able to take it up, was in law guilty. of forgery ; and stated that thequestion was, did the prisoner know, or did he not know, that the bill when he ut tered it was a forgery. The jury retired, and 'after an absence of fifteen minutes returned a verdict of Guilty. Thelrsentence was deferred until this day. STABBING AND CUTTING. William Harney, aged 32, stood c.harged with having, at AsMop-under-Lytle, feloniously and: maliciously stabbed and wounded John Degnan. Dr. BROWN conduciCd the defence.... John Degnan said that on the 3d. f ugust last he was in vited into James Harney's house; by 'inself, to dinner, and saw there William Harney and others. James spoke of some disturbances lgt Staley Bridge, and witness said he wished they were done away with, for i he had no spite at any one. Wm. Harney said, "I am not sd-with you," and took the pOker and struck me on the nose ft violent blow, which cut me. James Harney then took a. Anne from the table, and cid me in the cheek. I was afterwards kicked, and became insensible. I was here af ; t 4 he last Assizes, when JameS - Harney and the other man whogstruck me were here. Sarah Hunt said she heard Jam e Harney ask Degnan iu. Witness advised him not to come in. James Harney said lie was as welcome as the flowers Of May. They after wards talked about the disturbances amongst the men at Staley Bridge, and the prisoner and his brother struck at him several times, one with a poker, another with a piece of wood, and JameS Harney stabbed him with a knife. There were four upon him. Witness cried murder, and got Degnan out. He was taken home in a state of insensibility. He lodged with witness. They said they were happy to see the blood of . a Connaught man flow. Witness, in reply to the judge, said that the quarrelling parties were Munster and Connaught men, and that she and her husband were from Connaught and the prisoner from Munster. D. Vaughan, of Stalybridge, saw the prosecutor the same night. There was an incised wound on the left cheek. ? A contused wound across the nose. The cuticle was entirely separated. There were appearances of other blows all over the head. He was seriously ill for two or three days. The prisoner said he hoped his lordship would mercifully consider'his case ; and take into account that he had been nine months in prison. The learned JUDGE proceeded to pass sentence. His lordship sai l that the prisoner had been found guilty of taking part in a grievous assault, for which three indivi duals had, at the last assizes been tried, and being found guilty, one of them was sentenced to three years' imprison ment, and the other two to eighteen months each. He was not sure, if the parties had not been tried before; but he ' would have found it necessary to visit the prisoner with transportation. This was no disparagement to the manner in which his predecessor had punished those who had taken part in this offence ; because it was the determination of the judges, finding that the crime continued to increase, to visit it in future, with the utmost severity of ..the law. True, the. prisoner's was not the hand that used the.knife, but being of a party who united in attacking the ' prosecutor, he was equally guilty in law of the act. oletztting - . He (the Judge) should, however, take into account the time during which the prisoner had been in prison, (since 'September last), and would on that account abridge the term .of imprison ment which he would otherwise- have had to undergo. He did hope:that he would never again have recourse to deadly weapons, and. that his case would. furnish 'a - wholesome ex ample to others in the same line of life. The -sentence of the Court was, that the prisoner should be imprisoned in Kirkdale gaol for two yearx, and - that 'during that time he should be kept to hard labour. 'John Gri f fiths, 2-1, was inaiiited on a charke of having, at Royton, felOniously cut and - wounded one Hannah Hall, with intent to. murder her. There wer=e btlicr counts in the indictment, charging the assault as having an intent of minor aggravation. . _ _ Bitows: stated the case for the prosecution, as one of a very aggravated deseription. The pitisoner was undefended. Hannah 'Hall, an "elderly quakeress, said she was upwards of 72 rears of.age, and kept a small shop at Royton. On the 27th December the prisoner came to her shop. She had known' him beldre! - and asked him if lie worked 'at the same plaCe. It was about nine o'clock at night, 1 live alone. 1 have no one helping me except on the seventh day. The 27th Decerriber was a Friday. 1 was in the kitchen when he came in. There is a lobby between the shop.- and the kitchen. There is a front door to the lobby, the shop being, on one side of it, and the kitchen on the other:- He' was in the lob by. He asked for a-loaf sand a half pound of cheese. lam sure it was the prisoner. I went to fetch the loaf and cheese from a back apartment, where I kept them. I went into the shop to weigh the cheese. He stood near the shop door, in side the shop. While I was weighing the cheese, he asked for half-a-pound of butter. The butter was in a cask on the floor. 1 was standing upright when .1 weighed the cheese. I had a candle with me. I took it in my hand, and was go ing to cut the butter, and I had to stoop down to do so. The prisoner was about a yard from me. He struck me on the left side of the head a very heavy blow. I suppose I fell, and cannot tell much after then; lam not Conscious of hav ing felt any other blow, I found myself in the kitchen after wards, with a neighbour named Collins. I laid the cheese on the counter after I had weighed it, and also the loaf. The prisoner had not put out his hand to take either of them. I am sure the prisoner is the man. The loaf or cheese were not taken away, nor any thing else that I know. John Collins said, I live neat door neighbour to the shop of the last witness. About nine o'clock I heard a noise like heavy blows lighting upon something. I went into Mr. Hall's. The outer door was shut. 1 found all was dark. 1 felt my way till I got to the scales, and then I stopped. 1 turned round to come out, when I heard a groan. I found the last witness lying on the floor. I raised her, and lifted her into the lobby. She said, "Eh dear what is to do ?" 1 took her to the kitchen and got a light. She was very bloody. The cut was off her head, and her hair hanging down. She was insensible. She told me it was a young man who did it. I went to go into the shop, but my light went out in the lobby. I got another light. I found in the shop the candlestick near where her head was, and the candle on the floor, at some distance. Saw also the lid of the but ter cask which was broken in two. I got a medical man to her. I heard like two struggles before I went out of my house. Robert Savage.—On the 27th December he was at a col liery, about a mile from Mr. Hall's. The prisoner worked there on the 27th, but not for two or three days before. Witness saw him covered up at the back of the engine boiler. He ,vas there for three or four hours. He said he was going to Turf Lane. To go there he must pass Mrs. Hall's. I saw him about ten minutes after, and he said he had only been at the other hut. (There was some discrepancies be tween the testimony of this witness and that which he gave before the magistrates.) Ratcliffe Scholfield saw the prisoner that night, and he took a direction to a lane that leads towards Mrs. Hall's. He came back in about ten minutes, and in about half an hour afterwards lie was taken by the constable. Another witness said, that he was in the lane that night, and saw a man running in the direction of the coal pit. Before I got home I found that somebody had welly killed Mrs. Hall. A Constable at Royton said—the colliery and Mr. Hall's house are about 500 yards apart. After nine o'clock, on the 27th, I apprehended the prisoner at the engine-house of the colliery. He wished to know what he was accused of. Wit ness did not inform him, but took him to Mrs. Hall's. Wit ness produced the lid of a butter tub, which had been broken. He found no money or other articles on the prisoner, except a collier's strap. Mr. Earnshaw, surgeon, stated, that he found on Mrs. Hall's head, neck, and shoulders, several wounds. Some of these were triangular, and appeared to have been inflicted with a sharp instrument. The wounds were not dangerous. Mrs. Hall was under his care about a fortnight. The prisoner declined saying anything in his defence, merely repeating that he knew nothing of the charge. The JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty _of the assault, " with intent to do some grievous bodily harm." His LORDSHIP said the jury had found the prisoner guilty of cutting and wounding, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. That verdict would relieve him from a painful duty, for had their finding been with intent to murder, for which the punishment was still capital, he certainly should have found great conscientious difficulty in not. leaving the law to take its course. The prisoner had gone into the house of a poor, defenceless old woman, and had inflicted upon her blow after blow, and that with malicious severity. Although, therefore, the prisoner's life would be spared, he must pre pare himself for a serious punishment. He hoped, however, it would have a good effect on the prisoner, and a salutary one on all who resorted to such' cruel and dangerous attacks upon their fellow creatures. The sentence of the court was,• that ha should be transported beyond the seas for the term of fifteen years. It being a few minutes past six o'clock, the court adjourned until this day. NISI PRIUS COURT.---MoNnAr. (Before Mr. Justice Erskine.) STARKIE V. RIMMEK. This was an undefended action, to recover . - C7O from the defendant, a chemist and druggist, in Scotland-road, Liver pool, part of £3OO agreed to be paid to Mr. Starkie for the goodwill and stock-in-trade of the plaintiff, who formerly carried on business in Scotlaud-road as cheniist and drug gist, and sold his business to the defe,ndant in July '1837. — Verdict for the plaintiff. • M'KENZIE V. JONES. This was an action to recover £52 175., the balance of an account owing by the defendant, who carries on business at Liverpool under the style of R. G. Jones & Co. for coals purchased from the pl a i n tiff. Th e act i on wa s undefended. —Verdict for the plaintiff. BONNY V. WIIITEHEAD. This was an action urought upon an award made by a re feree, appointed by the plaintiff, Mr. James Bonny, and the defendant. Mr. John Whitehead, to determine the amount of a debt standing between the two parties in 1838. The amount of award was £630 2s. Gd. The action was unde fended.—Verdict for the plaintiff. WOODS V. TWEEDLE AND ANOTHER. The plaintiff in this case was an attorney at Rochdale, and the defendants are woollen-taanufacturers, carrying on busi ness at the same place. The action was brought by the. plaintiff for the recovery of £124 95., the amount of plain tiff's bill for .defending . the defendants in an action brought against them. by a person named Smith, at the Liverpool Summer Assizes for 1838. In this action a verdict was 64 7 - tained for the defendants, but the plaintiff. either from po verty or some other cause, preferred imprisonment. to pay ing. the costs of the action, and the conseqUence was, that Mr. Woods, the defendants' attorney, (and in the present action the plaintiff,) Chained his bill from Messrs.. w eed . Mr. ALExANDun (with whom was , 4lr. IlOuGtss.) stated the case to the jury. lie said the action out .of which this debt arose originated as follows :—Messrs. John and Robert Tweedle had taken from Mr. Chad Wick, of Rochdale, a piece:of ground in the neighbourhood of their manufactory, for the purpose of building upon, and they had built upon it to the height .of two stories, when a farmer named Smith said they had built upon laud of which he was tenant, and brought his action for recovery of damages. Messrs. 'Tweedle defended them Selves upon the ground that Mr. Chadwick had, when he sold thetn the land, the right reserved to him of selling the land occupied by SiLith. In this de fence, which was conducted by Mr. Woods, the present plaintiff', they succeeded, and after some delay, Mr. Woods sent in his bill, which amounted to £124 19a. The defend ants intimated that they 'did not intend to pay the bill, on the ground that Mr. Chadwick was the proper person, inas much as the action arose through him. This probably was the fact, but Mr. Chadwick refused to pay, and as Mr. Woods had no Oahu upon him, be was compelled to seek the recovery of his bill from the present defendants, Messrs. Tweedle. Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was Mr. WATSON) ad dressed the jury for the defendants disputing the retainer, and contending that the plaintiff, being the solicitor of Mr. Chadwick, had attended the Liverpool Assizes in the action - 7 ' in question as his solicitod and not as the solicitor to con duct this case for Messrs. Tweedle ; and, in fact, he observed that his learned friend, in opening the ease, said the defend ants had refused to pay the bill on the ground, which he ad mitted was reasonable enough, that Mr. Chadwick having brought the defendants into this difficulty, was bound to see them harmless out of itt: The learned counsel then called witnesses to prove that there was an understanding through out the case; that the Tweedles were only nominal parties in the action, and that Chadwick, being the landowner, was the only person having an interest in the action, and consequently . responsible for the expenses • that witnesses in the action • were paid by Mr. Sutcliffe, fand-agent to Mr. Chadwick's estates, for their attendance at the assizes, and that he also paid for the plans of the estate. Amongst the witnesses called by Mr. Cresswell were several of those subpoenaed in the former action, and one of these proved that Mr. Woods, in a conversation with the Messrs. Tweedle, before the action, when they objected to' it, that they would rather lose the cost of the buildings, than dispute the matter, replied, " Never mind, you will not have to pay a farthing, but your names are necessary to carrying on the . action." Mr. ALEXANDER replied. . . Mr. Justice ERSKINE said, the learned counsel .for the plaintiff had put the case to the jury as though the question was whether Mr. Chadwick, Messrs. Tweedle, or any one - else had retained Mr. Woods, and whether Mr. Woods 'vas . to lose the remuneration for his professional labours. Now this was not the question. The question was whether had or hail not a retainer from Messrs. Tweedle; because, if an attorney to a landlord undertook to defend the tenants in an action, under the supposition that the landlord would pay him, and gave the tenants an assurance that he would not come upon them, he was not to turn round when he' found out his mistake and that he could not get it from the landlord, and claim his bill from the tenants. Prima facie there was a case for the plaintiff, but the question was, whe ther tlrt was not satisfactorily answered by the witnesses for the de endants. - Thejury found for the defendants. ROCKLIFFE V. TOPPING. The' plaintiff in this case, Mr. Richard Rockliffe, was blacksmith, residing at West Leigh, and the defendant Mr. John Topping, a gentleman residing at the same place. In the year 1828, Mr. Topping commenced working some coal ; mines in that neighbourhood, and had employed the plaintiff to mariutlicture implements required in the working of these )ruined. The action was brotight to recover £2B. Is. 5d., the balance of an account due to plaintiff for the work. The ~action was undefended. Verdict for the plaintiff. MARSH V. COLLARD. John F. Marsh, the plaintiff, is the owner of a house at New Ferry, and some time since let that house to the defend ant, Mr. Abraham W. Collard.. The rent became due, when the defendant being unable to pay, gave the complainant a promissory note for the amount, at four months, which, on its becoming due, the defendant denied. The amount was £46 Is. fid. The action was undefended=—verdict for plaintiff. GREENALL AND OTHERS V. HUMPHREYS. This was an action brought to reserve the amount of two bills of exchange from the defendant John Humphreys, one for £6O and the other for 469. The bills were drawn so far back as 1832, and the interest accumulated upon them brought the claim up to £155 17s. 3d. The defendant when called upon denied that he was the party who signed the acceptance. The action was not defended, and the jury round for the BROTIIERTON V. SOTHERN. Mr. Brotherton is a tailor in Liverpool, and this action was brought by him for the recovery of £l2O 17s. due from Mr. Benjamin C. Sothern, for clothes supplied to him by the plaintiff. The action was undefended. Verdict tor plaintiff, . . JONES AND ANOTHER V: GORE. • Messrs. John and William Jones, the plaintiffs, and Mr. Gore. the defendant, are builders in this town. The action was brought to recover £2l 8s 2d., the amount of a bill due from the defendant for the work of two men whom he had sup plied to defendant for seven weeks. Action undefended— verdict for the plaintiffs. SPENCE V. ETRKETT. • The plaintiff is a merchant in this town, and in the course of last year built seven cottages. The defendant, Robert Birkett, is a joiner, and undertook to erect the seven houses for Mr. Spence, at the rate of £7O each. The defendant, as was stated by Mr. Wightman, was not in very good circum stances when he undertook the contract, and the mode of doing business between the plaintiff and defendant was, that the former supplied the money and materials. At the conclusion of the contract there was a balance due to plaintiff of .-t:104 3s 11d, for cash and materials supplied over and above the contract. The case appeared to be undefended. - and his Lordship was about to address the jury, when the defendant appeared in court. and said that his attorney was . :igg out of town, and that was the reason why he was unprepared 'l, l O to go on with the case. He wished the case, however, to go on, and his answer was that he undertook to build the cottages for £490. He commenced the buildings', but before a week was over, he came and set his men off their work. He then came < ll again, and set to work part of the men.. He set four, with a painter of the name of Jones. When Jones- had completed' his work, he called upon Mr. Spence for the 'payment. He • would not pay Jones, and lie employed an attorney, and com- .1 0 ., pelted him to pay the amount. He let the plastering- and slating to a person named ..M`Neile.. There was a person • ' whom defendant employed for the masonry, and .plaintiff turned him away. He.turned others away in the same man- r tier. Under these circumstances, defendant asked his lord ship whether the contract.was not broken ? His Lordship said he must see the contract ; but the defendant had not a copy of it. Defendant then called witnesses, who proved what he had stated, and also that plaintiff had repeatedly said defend ant had nothing to do with the buildings. Notwithstanding this defence, the defendant admitted a written document, acknowledging a balance of the sum claimed, and under the direction of the learned judge, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant in this case had an action in the cause list against the plaintiff for £39, arising out of the same transaction. The case had been called on in the morn ing, but was withdrawn. Mr. WIGIITMAN, however, stated, that in order to secure theMselves against the cause being re-entered, they were willing to deduct that amount from the present verdict. A verdict for .Eti4 only, was therefore re turned. STOCK AND ANOTHER V. IDDON. This was an action on the part of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Stock and Co., to recover from the defendant, Mr. Richard Iddon, of Charley, £l5O Is Bd. the amount of a bill of ex change accepted by defendant, and Al 12s Bd. The action was undefended, and the jury found a verdict for the plain tiffs. GOSLING AND ANOTHER V. KMDROSE. The plaintiffs in this case are spirit merchants in this town, and the defendant a publican. The action was brought to recover a balance of £45 10s. on an amount remaining • , from 1830. The defendant's plea was that the money had been paid, and as the case would involve an examination of the books, the parties consented to a verdict for the plaintiff for the .amount claimed subject to a reference. The court adjourned at half-past five. IMPORTANT DECLARATION OF THE KING OF HOLLAND (From the Handelsbladd (BY ExpitEss.) I hasten to communicate to you the highly important news that his Majesty the King, yesterday made known his reso lution to desist from his marriage with the Countess d'Oultre mont. _ _ AMSTERDAM, M ARCH 25.—The King has vanquished him self ! Let us rejoice at a triumph to which so few of the heroes whose names once tilled the world can pretend ; a triumph not gained at the expense of blood and tears, but will be recorded in history among the glorious deeds of the House of Orange. The prince who governs us has conquered his own heart, which is a greater act of self-denial than sa crificing his life for his country. The prince, who manifests such virtue, excites admiration, but when he does it to avoid grieving his faithful subjects, to turn their mourning into joy, he deserves our sincerest, and most affectionate grati tude. THE HAGUE, MARCH 26.—From the information which we have from good authority that the (above) news given by the Handelsblad is correct, and that it causes a lively and deep sensation in this town.—Journal de la Hoye, Mar. 27. MARCH 25.—" I am happy to send you to-day the joyful news that our revered sovereign moved by the manifest wishes of his faithful subjects, has renounced his intended marriage with the Countess d'Oultremont. His Majesty yesterday evening announced this happy news to his assem bled family." Though another correspondent yesterday sent us this news by express, we thought it right to give our readers this second letter. 01* 4O Her Majesty, we understand, intends giving a series of 12 139 E rtl state balls at the new Palace, the first to take place imme- 51v diately after Easter. ;3 1 9 The high repute which E. and T. Taylor's Concentrated 13* Meat Lozenges have ac qu i re d i n th e op i n i on o f th e f acu l t y , " has caused a most unprecedented sale, and when we consider•" tb , how essential they are in families where prompt nutriment is the object, we recommend them without hesitation, more I Q: 3i ; especially to those who have been prematurely deprived of ~.„0 1 6 , their masticatory p ower , as we ll as to t h ose w h o h ave passe d the meridian of life ; in fact, they arc invaluable to the 0 0 1 . a 0 . invalid, whose digestive organs cannot bear the tardy process of animal nutriment in the usual course of nature. None are T . ' • ' genuine but those bearing the signature of E. and 'l'. Taylor, , 1 4 (on the small portable box which contains them,) of 17, . si ft Lower Holborn, L on d on , w hi c h ma y b e obt a i ne d i n ever y -, principal town throughout the kingdom.—See adrt. There are to he ga y d o i ngs a t Badminton. The Hereditary 11. Prince of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, who is fond of hunting, bil; - ; has arrived at that elegant seat, and it is stated in the Lon don papers that his Royal Highness Prince George of Cam- -- bridge leaves town in a feW days for Badminton, on a visit to the Duke and D uc h ess o f B eau f or t, during the sojourn of , his Serene Highness. The Earl and Countess of Chester aai,- field, the Earl and Countess Wilton, Lord Adolphus Fitz- ,k clarence, the Hon, Captain Macdonald, Mr. Wombell, &c.. Ito ?. are expected to join the circle.—Bath Chronicle. DEFEAT OF THE CORN LAW REPEALERS AT BRISTOL.— 3;'1 " A meeting of the radical corn-law azitators was held at the e if . Corn-Exchange, on Monday last. The chair was taken by 1.}91 )0' Mr. Rey no ld s . M r. R. B ruce p r ofe s sed hi mse lf i n f a vour o f of a gradual abrogation, but an amendment demanding their A go - df , total and immediate repeal was moved by Mr. Tuthill and bos seconded bY --k Mr. Cox, amid the rising discontent l ot leading radicals and cries of " The Charter," and,!`-bri l ;Si - iq from the \vhigs." The clamour increasing; tempted to pacify the people, but was . I n terru l‘ P ri t . e i d l u l- t y ! e i N n r fo i a l t : - - gan, a well-known chartist, who carried the inegAigg! such 5 1 ''' a r as it was, befdre him. The whig-radical tempted to put him down, and he was followed by abother. " 9 01" Great w ere th e e ff o rt s to coun t erac t the opposition, but the h Is ll/ ' radicals were compelled to leave the platform to thechartists, • who gave three cheers in token of their triumph. The re pealers were totally routed, and the petition which they in tended to adopt was carried off unsigned.—Bath Chronicle. ~:-t 01 on ,r 8 un not t Kea P or 1, Mr Alle l I voM; Ohara Ti, ..arc I,tree, p o , C4i till I ' 4 r. Bat a s crit J e , e n Ir k , Ti e .3ee Th e for' fl eeu ' S ~'~AP so 11 _ ~d \\- Pl d 4 sS 14 N 441 tht 'l