The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZES CROWN COURT.--FRIDAY. learned JUDGE (COLTMAN) entered the court precisely STABBINC worth, aged 19, was indicted for feloniously aiding John Cheetham, with intent to do him r bodily harm. The prisoner who was in an state of health, and apparently not long fr sr this dent of his juridical danger, was accommo- it when placed in the dock. peered for the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy The prosecutor, it appeared, had been night of Sunday, the 29th March, at a beer or ten o'clock he came to the house of the w, Geo. Cooyer, in Moss-lane, Ne- A dozen men, including the prisoner, that Cheetham had been listening at the great offence to the party, and a personal One of the men, named Bentham, was n, and knocked down. The prisoner then is pocket, and declared that if any one be would be the death of him. He flour- Cheetham's head, and was knocked off. Lie and Cheetham knocked him down, dle they were on the ground, the pri times, in various parts of the body. nore than an hour that night, and on d to send to Dr. Formby for his seoutor, John Chectham, was examined to these subsequently cross-examined by Mr. Murphy. He "-- doctor accidentally at the Rev. Miles lothwell gave similar evidence. aby, of Liverpool, stated that he was at his bro 's, the Rev. Miles Formby, at Melling, on the ter the occurrence, and saw Cheetham. He ex is wounds, and found a stab directly upon the le. It was of slight depth. as the bone has a very covering, and was stopped by the bone. There t upon the wrist and another upon the thigh, and the D was marked. None of the wounds were deep. They lently inflicted with a knife. There was a cut in his Frock. three or four inches long. It corresponded ;tab on the hip. am, on being recalled, stated that there were five is frock after the affray. One on the breast, one hip, and one on the lower part of the skirt. 1111P11r addressed the jury for the defence, stating were certain circumstances of palliation in the case, noved it from the ordinary charges of stabbing. Se.. er persons who were standing by and witnessed the ancc had not been called, because it was apprehended would so have varied the case, as to endanger the in. He contended that the knife had only been used resort, when his life was placed in imminent peril, e following witneses tswortb stated that he saw Cheetham knock the n and fall on him. Cheetham appeared to be down. John Rothwell came up at the time, .... his foot upon the prisoner's head. Witness in his hand at the time he fell. He should have it had there been such a thing. He heard him use no ex about stabbing. He was near enough, and should :ard it it it had been said. He saw Mrs. Cooper pul eetham away from the prisoner. 3 -examined. —He did not see his brother with a knife ;wing. Cheetham knocked him down without any ..aving been said. Re-examined.—Cheetham had previously knocked down Bentham that eve JUDGE.—The prisoner had no altercation with ..... He asked Cheetham what he had knocked Bentham for, and he said he would serve him the same, Ind did so immediately. Mrs. Anne Cooper, wife of George Cooper, and sister of the prisoner, remembered the party leaving her house. She heard the noise outside, and, on looking out, saw them all squabbling in the lane. She afterwards saw the prisoner on the ground, and Cheetham upon him, with his knees on the prisoner's breast. He appeared to be pressing on him. John Rothwell had his foot on the prisoner's head. She tried to pull Cheetham away, but could not quite get him off. Cross-examined.—She saw him after he was off, but did not see that lie was cut. Her brother had been out of the house about half an hour, during which time the disturbance continued. She did not see whether her brother had a knife that night, or whether he had one at all. William Bentham corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses. In answer to a question from Mr. Murphy, he said that Cheetham and Rothwell were very stout men ; the prisoner was of slight stature and frame. Cheetham struck some boys who were there before he struck Unsworth. Thomas Moss gave similar evidence, and added, that Cheet ham pulled his frock off before he struck the boys. He heard no quarrelling until the blows were struck. They were t king for a quarter of an hour in a friendly manner. He saw nothing of any knife, nor did he hear of any wounds. 'Witness did not see Cheetham put on his frock again. He had it on when he went home. John \Villasey, John Garner, Richard Moss, a farmer, and Mr. Browne, a solicitor, in whose service the prisoner se him a character for being a mild, inoffensive oung man. Dr. BROWN remarked on the contradictory nature of the nce, stating that, according to the testimony of the , sses for the defence, there had been no stabbing at all, io knife used, and that Cheetham Mid no frock on, cuts were on the frock and the wounds had been It was impossible that the jury could give ere __ _ie defendant's witnesses, without believing that ,se for the prosecution had perjured themselves. The learned JUDGE put it to the jury to say, whether the :r had wounded the prosecutor, and whether he had in necessary self-defence, his own life being in danger, no means of retreating. iter a few moments' consideration, returned a generally—the prisoner having used the ..-uetence, conceiving his life to be in danger. JUDGE allowed the costs on application, and ordered toner to be discharged. it guilt RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. 1 florrocks, 36, who had been tried and acquitted on went last Wednesday, with Joshua Kirk, for burgla ntering the dwelling-house of James Clare, at Fails d therefrom a quantity of spirits, was now tor 4.4 a. The witnesses and evidence were precisely the a the former occasion. The counsel having mis day on which the goods were alleged to have been Lie prisoner's possession, the latter expressed a wish iitted to ask that gentleman some questions. The the application excited no little amusement at the STABBING A WOMAN Peter Kelly, 20 , was indicted for having feloniously stab- It, and wounded Rosannah Morgan, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. -son conducted the prosecution. The prisoner Mr. H END ER3ON stated that between two and three o'clock m the morning of Sunday, the 21st of June, the prisoner with Rosannah Morgan and two other women were in Bird street. Some angry words passed between the prisoner and the women, and he struck Morgan, who ran away. She re turned again, and passed into an entry. The prisoner was seen with a knife and again struck her, on which she called 'Jut that she had been stabbed. No search was then made ; but there was afterwards. No knife was found, but the per son who saw it called out to the prisoner to throw it away. The woman was wounded, and was taken to the Dispensary. The wounds were not only grievous but dangerous, and she remained under surgical treatment two months. She was here at the commencement of the assizes, but was not now forthcoming ; but he should be enabled to prove the case without her assistance. As to the provocation which the pri soner had received, it would be well for the jury, in consider ing it, to take into their consideration also, not only the na ture of the instrument, but the sex of the party injured. He then examined the following witnesses : John Kennedy -I live in Toxteth-park, Liverpool. On morning, the 21st of June, I was in New Bird-street, Jetween one and two o'clock. I saw Rosannah Morgan there. Nita Gibson was with her. We went with John Fagan up an to a public-house to get some ale, and were joined by girl. Kelly followed and struck the girl that came who ran away. Rosannah Morgan said, " Kelly, you lould not strike me that road." On that he hit her with le back of his hand on the face. The blow *as a very light ine. Gibson and Morgan laid hold of him by the jacket, Ind they fought for two or three minutes, and Kelly was knocked down. The girls run down the entry, and out of the street, and Kelly pursued them. Shortly afterwards Morgan ran again into the entry, and Kelly after her. They .fighting in the entry a second time ; and, after being ,aged a considerable time, Morgan called out that she was Abed. I was within a yard of them, but saw nothing in tis hand. I cannot swear that I said before the magistrates I saw a knife in Kelly's hand. Ido not know whether he had one or not. I told him if he had such a thing as a knife tot to use that, but throw it away. The police came up and ook them all into custody, and conveyed them to Bridewell. did not see Morgan bleeding. Cross-examined — The girls knocked Kell, down, dragged im through the channel, and kicked him, and he cried, Murder." I did not see them strike him with a stone, but ev tore his jacket and shirt. I did not see them go up any another -exam'ined ,ther girl. —This was before he had struck Morgan and The latter had run away with a shilling from After he was knocked down the girls ran away. About a minutes elapsed from the time they began fighting to Morgan calling out that she was stabbed. Andrew Conolly, police-constable, stated that he came op then the cry of murder was raised. Morgan was bleeding at he breast. She was conveyed to the Dispensary. Kelly was aken into custody about a hundred yards distant. Witness searched him when Morgan told him she had been stabbed, hut found no knife on him. He examined the place after he had conveyed the prisoner to bridewell, but found nothing. He produced the clothes worn by Morgan at the time of the Andrew M'Clellan, one of the house-surgeons at the South Dispensary. When Morgan was • brought there, he examined her person. She had received three wounds. One on the right side was a punctured wound of about an inch in depth, and rather less than a quarter of an inch long. A penknife might have inflicted the wound. He could con ceive nothing so likely. Her clothes were cut. The wound was close to the false-rib. He should have considered it dangerous to life. There was a cut on the left shoulder about half an inch in length. It was superficial. She bad also a cut on the index finger of the left hand. Witness attended her at home for four or five days. She required active treat ment for the first twenty-four hours, and was slightly in ' Inger during that time. There were symptoms of intlam . After the first shock to the constitution had gone ,egan to recover. The wound on the belly was in a __gerous place, if it had been carried further. The prisoner said the women had taken a half-crown from !11, and used him very ill. He called Sarah Cunningham, his sister, who saw the latter part of array. The three girls had hold of him. She loosed ;on and Kennedy's hands from his neck. He was nearly :ed, and his tongue was out. Morgan said she would :e him. Nothing was then said about the stabbing. police came up immediately afterwards. rocs-examined.—Witness did not see a knife in his po s . ion all the week. When she got to the corner of Jordan et she heard the first about the stabbing. Her mother for the police while she loosed the woman's hands from ck. She was present when the prisoner was before the rates, but did not tell this story then, as she thought uld do him no good. She had been to bed, and was d by the disturbance. abeth Matthews also deposed to the ill-treatment the prisoner had suffered from the girls. She had ut to fetch some ale. lie was shouting for the police, e ran to his house and told his mother. Kennedy iut to the women to " go it." - She was not before the ;rates, not knowing that it would be of any use. ,nedy was recalled, and said lie did not encourage the to heat the prisoner, as he saw they were too many n the first. lle had not his hand at any time on the The JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault. His lordship said that the pri soner had been acquitted of stabbing in its aggravated form, but had been convicted of doing so without a felonious intent. The practice was unfortunately so prevalent, and so danger ous, that it was his duty to mark it, whenever it occurred, with the severest punishment. The sentence , of the - court was, that he ahould be imprisoned in the House of Correc tion, and kept to hard labour for eighteen calendar months. STABBING BY WOMEN. Mary Ann Cain, 19, and Mary Ann Lacy, 18, were in dicted for having cut, stabbed, and wounded William Cun ningham, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. • e was a second count, charging Cain as the principal, b • cy with aiding and abetting. at he it Mr. Starkie and Mr. Murphy were for the proaeciition. The prisoners were undefended. ;The prosecutor lives in Preston-street, Liverpool. On the 2th of June, Lacy lived at his cellar ; Cain, on that day, went to see her, and threw herself on the bed where the prosecutor was lying. He got up and sat on the table, and hks wife would not let Cain lie there. • She went out very much provoked, but soon afterwards returned. Lacy went to the door to wash some linen, and Cunningham desired her tci do it inside. She was much irritated, and threw hot water and mud over him. At last she told Cain to get a knife from the cupboard and stick it into him. Cain did so, and in flicted one wound in the cheek, another in the neck, near to the jugular vein, and one in the breast, which penetrated a considerable depth. Cunningham deposed to these facts, and cross-examined by the prisoners as to whether he had acted improperly in his house, and ill.used Lacy because would not comply with his impure solicitations. He de- I all the imputations. was not she nied Carr,a . neighbour, corroborated some parts of pro- secutor's statement. John Carney. a provision dealer, living in the same street, deposed that he met Cain with a woman named Careful, a few hours after the occurrence. Cain was very tipsy. Care ful said that Cain had stabbed Cunningham. On going to Cunningham's house, he found him wounded and tainting from loss of blood.. A knife was produced by a man in the cellar, but witness saw no blood on it. Cross-examined.—Cunningham's is a lodging-house where women of the town live. He saw Lucy drunk at ten. Nicholas Bowman, a police-officer, produced the knife. He saw Cunningham on the bed, bleeding from the wound in his breast, and apprehended the prisoners. They had been drinking, but were not then drunk. Mr. Thomas Brandreth, house-surgeon at the Infirmary, said that Cunningham was brought there about seven o'clock in the evening. He was in a very exhausted state, and his pulse very feeble. He gave him stimulants. There was a wound an inch and a quarter in length and scarcely half an inch deep on the face, extending nearly to the mouth. All the muscles were cut. There was another superficial wound in the neck, near to the carotid artery ; and one on the left side of the chest. The latter was an incised wound, over the cartilage of the third rib. It was dangerous to life. There had been a stab and cut in the same stroke. The prosecutor, on being recalled, said the knife was usu ally kept in the cupboard or knife-box. It had been left there about two hours previously. Cain told the jury that she merely struck the prosecutor in self defence, after she had interfered, as he was ill-using Lacy, and he had attacked her with the knife. The Junoir having gone through the case, the jury retired, and were absent an hour, when they returned with a verdict of " guilty of cutting and stabbing, but not with intent to murder. They considered it to be something more than a common assault, but not to that extent." His LORDSHIP explained that the intent to murder was not laid in the indictment, but the intent to do some grievous bodily harm. They must therefore reconsider their verdict. They might find the prisoners guilty of the felony, of common assault, or acquit them altogether. The jury again retired, and returned in about forty mi nutes, with a verdict finding Lacy guilty of the felony, and Cain of misdemeanour. The JUDGE told Cain that her offence had been one of a very bad description, and he had his doubts whether he ought not to transport her for the term of fifteen years ; but, con sidering her sex and other circumstances, be was not disposed to deal hardly with her. The sentence of the court, there fore, was, that she should be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for three years. Address ing Lacy, he said she had not been found guilty of so aggra vated an assault, but she had used very improper language, though she had not struck a blow with so dangerous a wea pon. She would be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for six calendar months. The costs of prosecution were allowed. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Joseph Armfield, 40, was indicted for having in his pos session, knowing it to have been stolen, a decanter, the pro perty of John Dearden, of Houghton. Mr. Ihiss stated the case for the prosecution. The pri soner was undefended. A burglary was committed in Mr. Dearden's house on the night of the 13th of May, 1839, and the decanter, which was a part of the property stolen, was sold by the prisoner to Mr. Vl hitehead, of the King's Arms, in Ashton•under-Lyne, for six or seven shillings. The prisoner told Mr. Whitehead that he had been employed to sell it by a respectable neigh bour who wanted money. Mr. Whitehead kept it until May last, and then gave it up to Newton, the constable of Ashton. The prisoner said he had it from a man named Slater, who was transported for ten years, at the last Chester Spring As sizes, for the burglary, and he did not know it was stolen. He had washed the jugs and glasses in the bar, at White head's often since. and might have destroyed it had he enter tained any suspicion. He had no witnesses but Mr. White head, who gave him a good character, and said he had his perfect confidence, and was allowed to go into any part of his house at the time he employed him. The jury, after a short deliberation acquitted the prisoner. The JUDGZ allowed the costs. BURGLARY Isabella Wensley, 17, was indicted for having stolen three sovereigns, four shillings, one brush, and other articles, the property of Morris Yacoby. Mr. BRANDT appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner had no counsel. The prosecutor is an auctioneer and jeweller in Ashton under-Lyne. The prisoner had been in his service about a fortnight prior to the 3d of May, when she absconded with the articles in question during the night, breaking out of the house for that purpose, which by the law is a burglary. The prosecutor traced her to Liverpool, and they were found on her person and in a box in her possession, on the Wednesday following. The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred. BURGLARY Jonn 31' Guire; 19, and William Webster, 16, were indicted for having burglariously broken and entered the dwelling house of Thomas Smith, at Salford, and stolen therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel. There was a second indictment against NV Guire for a burglary in the house of David Seddon, of Salford. He pleaded guilty to both indictments ; Webster pleaded not guilty, and the case was proceeded with. A prin cipal witness, Ann Reeves, was not in attendance, and was Pet nn t was her th e r" Rn ui diWg " g a si hat, he which o tirig e 7a c e e en a iagi t i from the premises, in his possession. This, he said, had been given to him by Maguire, Webster was acquitted.— The Judge told I‘l`Guire that he had once before suffered for his offences in this way, and now confessed his guilt on two indictments. It was quite clear, therefore, that he was re gularly engaged in this trade. Though no violence was used, be had his doubts whether he ought not to go to the full ex tent of punishment; but the sentence of the court was, that he should be transported beyond seas for the term of ten years. BURGLARY Richard Heaton, 37, Richard Tootell, 35, were indicted for a burglary in the house of James Hazelden, at Pember ton, near Wigan, when a great quantity of provisions and other articles were stolen. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prisoners. The prosecutor was a farmer at Pemberton ; the offence was committed on the night of the 30th of April, and the property in question taken away. Suspicion having fallen on Tootell, his house was searched on the same day, and part of the goods found therein. Another part was found at the house of Heaton, and his wife said she had bought it in the market. It was, however, identified by the prosecutor. The prisoners were found guilty. Heaton was sentenced to ten years' transportation, Tootell to twelve months' im prisonment and hard labour. BURGLARY. Richard Vaun, 29, was indicted for burglary in the house of Samuel Leech. . Mr. Hulton was for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. _ The prosecutor lives at Saunton, near Ashton-under-Lyne. The prisoner was found in the act of removing some panes of glass, with intent to enter and steal, on the night of the 4th of April. Some inner fastenings had been raised, and a crow bar and dark lantern were found outside, and on his person a box of lucifer matches. He was found guilty, and ordered to be transported for ten years. The court adjourned at a quarter before seven to nine next morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Baron RoLFE.) BLUNDELL V. LORD CANIOYS. This case, which concerns the will of the late Mr. Blun dell, of Ince, was, on the application of Mr. Alexander, fixed to come on for trial on Monday next. ENGLAND V. LISLE. In this case, which had been struck out yestexay, but was restored on an affidavit, a verdict was taken b!consent for the plaintiff. Damages £97. 1400 RE AND OTHERS V. HODGES. This was an undefended action, to recover the sum of £3l, being the balance of an account which had existed between the parties for several years. The plaintiffs are ironmongers at Wigan, and the defendant is a blacksmith at Chorley. A verdict was returned for the amount claimed. MATIIEW V. LOGAN. A verdict was taken by consent in this case, for £2OO, sub ject to a reference. DOE DEM ORME AND ANOTHER V. ASTLES This was an action of ejectment, to recover possession of certain -messuages and lands, in the parish of Warrington. Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Wilkins were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightman, and Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. Mr. WILKINS opened the pleadings. Mr. CRKSSWELL then proceeded to state the case. This was an action in ejectment brought by John Grice and Joseph Robinson, the devisees in trust under the will of Samuel Astles, of Warrington, to recover possession of some pro perty under his will. The defendant was brother to Samuel Astles, and he said he held the property in question as heir at-law, seeing that Samuel Astles had left no valid will dis posing of his property. The question, then, would be, whether or not Samuel Astles did or did not leave a valid will devising this property. The deceased had, for many years, carried on business as an innkeeper at Warrington, and on the 17th December, 1838, he was in possession of the property in question. He was a bachelor, of about 47 or 48. It would seem that he was a person respected by those who knew him; and that many of them, knowing him to be a thriving man, had an inclination to try to obtain, for some of their children, the notice of a bachelor reputed to have property. Accord ingly, it would be found that he was godfather to a number of children, to each of which he had left legacies. At the time he died he was the reputed father of a son of Catherine Brown, whose sister was married to John Grice, one of the devisees. There was some intimacy between Grice and Astles, Grice was a book-keeper, and had been for several y ears i n the habit of keeping Astle's accounts ; later, however, he had a barmaid in the inn, and then Grice ceased to do business for him. They were, before, joint executors or trustees respecting some property in Warrington, and consequently there was great intimacy between them. Samuel Astles was the reputed father of Catherine Brown's child, and the jury would find him bringing up this child as his own. This child he had at Warrington, to see him, as well as a son of John Grice, and they lived with him till his death. The jury would find that he had left a legacy of some amount to this boy, and that he had desired that both of them should be brought np together, under the care of Catherine Brown, the mother of his reputed son. Samuel Astles had a brother, the present defendant, who was not the same careful, friendly, money -making man that the testator was. He had borrowed money from the deceased more than once, and it had been found that th e d eceased had l . ft to him £2OO , over and above dthe hmoneywhatever, he had that borrowed. the te s t at nr There w a could r perfectly t n l y o question competent,o throughout his life, to transact business of any description, t u h n e t n i I proceededt lieperiodhis t o n f d ‘ es e r d i e h a e t t h h d e r i e l e n s e s a a r n . d e The h l learned d counsel A i he and e concluded ncircumstancesg that t r t which l would the he will o v was ed that made,r. th the and de ceased was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements ') made, and that no doubt could be felt as to ilB competencyhat were to execute the will. The learned counsel then called wit nesses. John Clare, examined by Mr. COWLING, said he knew the deceased, and occupied a house under him, for which he paid rent to the day of his death. It was for the recovery of this house that the action was brought. John Perrin, glass manufacturer, living at Warrington, examined by Mr. WILKINS.--Knew the deceased. Saw him on the Saturday before his death, when he appeared rational. He had sent for witness in consequence of having been a joint security with witness for a person named Furnival. Witness told him not to be uneasy about this affair, as he would look after it. He wished witness to do so. The de ceased was very ill at the time, but he appeared quite rational. Cross-exarofned by Mr. ALEXANDER.—Witness was not I more than four or five minutes with the deceased. 'Witness, I however, should not say that he was able to understand a will of fourteen or fifteen sheets of paper. He was not capable in his opinion of-understanding the disposal of a number of legacies, gifts, and conditions. Witness had known him fif- teen or sixteen years, and should say he was not a man of very strong mind Re-examined.—In the conversation witness had with him he appeared rational. Witness concluded he was unable to make the will from his state of bodily suffering. Mary Smith lives at Padgate. _Some years ago witness was employed to nurse a bo u y of Catherine Brown's, which will he nine years old next month. Knew Samuel Astles. He used often to come to see the child, and brought him pre- scuts. The child's mother paid witness for her trouble. Astles used to come and see the child if he was ill, and to bring him something. Padgate is a mile from Warrington. Astles had the boy to see him at Warrington, and when he returned he brought presents with him. Astles, on the boy's birthday, always brought other boys, to make a merry day. The boy used to call him " father.' Mr. Astles bought the boy's clothes till the time of his death Cross-examined—Catherine Brown is now living at Man chester, but witness cannot say whether she was married. The boy is now living with witness. Witness does not know John Lawrinson. - John Johnson examined by Mr. COWLING—Is a tailor at Warrington. Knows Richard Brown, the child of Catherine Brown, and William Grice, the son of John Grice. Witness has been in the habit of making clothes for both those boys. They are nearly of the same age. Mr. Samuel Astles paid witness for the clothes. Elizabeth Brown, examined by Mr. WILKINS.—h the sis ter of Catherine Brown. Remembers the birth of her sister's son, whose reputed father was Mr. Samuel Astles. Mr. Astles had for some time before been paying attention to her sister, and the family thought he would marry her. Witness re members drinking tea at Mrs. Ashworth's, Marshall-street, Oldham-road, Manchester. There were present Mr. Ash worth, Mr. Mayer, the two children, witness's sister, and Mr. Astles. Mr. Astles said he should not marry witness's sister until he had settled some property upon her. Mr. Mayer had previously asked him to marry her. Mr. Mayer is re lated to the family. Mr. Astles said, "If I marry her and don't make a will, my brother will turn both Kate and Richard into the street." The deceased then spoke of the boy as his own child, and said that he had worked hard for his money, and he should be sorry to leave it to his brother, as he would make it away. He said he had lent his brother money to build in Manchester, but he had made it away by going to the Isle of Man. Remembers going with Mr. Astles and a party to Frodsham bazaar. Catherine Brown was there. There is a school at Frodsham, kept by Mr. Church. Mr. Astles said, " Elizabeth, that is a very good school, and I will send the children there." Witness asked when, and he replied, " They are too young yet, but I think in about four years." Cross-examined.--These things happened two years ago. Knows John Lawrinson, who now lives in Liverpool is five years, if not wore, since he lived at Warrington. There was merely friendship between Lawrinson and witness's sis- ter. Witness's family lived as tenants under Lawrinson's master. When witness left Warrington, Lawrinson's family consisted of his father and mother, a brother, and two sisters. Catherine Brown is now married. By theJuD GE.-N ever went to Manchester with Lawrinson at a time when Lawrinson proposed to marry her sister. Her . sister has now married a person named Morris. Mr. John Ashton, attorney, of Warrington, knew the late Mr. Samuel Astles, and had transacted business for him. In December, 1838, witness was requested to attend Mr. Astles. John Grice brought that request between ten and eleven in the morning. Went to him in about half an hour. This was on Saturday, the 15th December. Grice told him he was wanted to take instructions for Mr. Astle's will. Found Mr. Astles in bed ; he inquired if witness had brought any pen and paper. Witness told him he had not ; but some was procured, and the deceased proceeded to give instruc tions for the will. There are several legacies of 19 guineas. Mr. Astles mentioned £2O, but witness suggested that, if they were 19 guineas the legacy duty would be saved. Mr. Astles replied that would be a very good thing. All the names and these sums were mentioned by Mr. Asdes. Had no recol lection of Grice interfering. Mr. Astles mentioned in the instructions that he wished Richard Brown to take the name of Astles; afterwards, when he executed the will, that sub ject was mentioned. Witness asked him if he had any copy hold property, and he said he had not. He desired that the legacies should be paid:twelve months after his death, and, as several were minors; he wished they should be paid to their fathers or mothers. During the whole time he was giving witness these instructions he appeared to be in perfect possession of his faculties. Witness suggested that the executors should pay a part of the income for the education of the children, and the remainder to the mother till they were 21 years old, but he objected to that. In the event of the mother marrying again, and the children dying, he said he would leave his property to the charitable institutions ; but on witness suggesting that he could not leave real pro perty to them, Grice suggested that he should leave it to his heir-at-law. Mr. Astles assented. Witness then went away with these instructions. About one o'clock witness met Mr. Steel, and had some conversation with him • after which witness proceeded to get the draft of the will finished. The draft was here produced. Witness took the draft the same evening to Mr. Astles. Grice was there. Mr. Astles was calm and collected, and he appeared to understand the draft. When witness read him that part about Richard Brown tak ing the name of Astles and the arms, he remarked that he was not aware he had any arms. Witness explained to him that he had introduced a provision in case of Catherine Brown's death, and he said it was very right. He also said he wished the property not to go away from Richard Brown if he refused to take the name of Astles. Witness had in troduced a clause enabling the executors to let leases, and he said that was very proper. Before the reading of the draft was finished Mr. Steel came in, but he went out very soon, and witness followed him. On his return he finished reading it, And handed it to Astles for his signature. Dues not re collect whether any offer was made to assist him. He signed it, remarking that any one who knew his hand would recog nise it. Witness and his clerk attested the signature. On the following morning witness applied to Mr. Steel to go with him to see a fair copy executed. Witness went to Mr. Steel with it in the afternoon, and Mr. Steel told him he was not then in a fit state to execute any document. Cross-examined.—Had known Mr. Astles for some years, and tor anyttnng witness Knew to tne contrary irc of temperate habits, but he did not know him sufficiently to give a decided opinion. Mr. Robinson has renounced as executor under the will, and the will had not been proved. Joseph Smith (clerk to the last witness) proved his attes tation to the draft of the will, and added that, in his opinion, the deceased was perfectly rational. Mr. Robert Bickersteth, surgeon, of Liverpool, was next called. He stated that, in affections of delirium tremens, there were lucid intervals, and that he had taken upon him self the responsibility of advising that a will should be made in those lucid intervals. He had himself been a witness to wills made under such circumstances. It was consistent with his experience,' that a will might be made within a few hours of death. In delirium tremens the delirium was upon one point only, such as fancied danger; upon all other sub jects the party might be perfectly rational. Cross-examined.—The inducing cause of delirium tremens was intemperance. It was attended with violent muscular exertion sometimes. Mr. Andrew Gillon, surgeon, of Liverpool, had been in practice twenty years, and had attended many cases of deli rium tremens. Does a great deal too much business in that way. Patients suffering from that complaint almost always have lucid intervals. During those intervals the patient would possess sufficient understanding to make a will ; and witness is at this moment executor to the will of a party who died from delirium tremens. Was present at the dictation of that will. That will was dictated during several lucid in tervals. Perfectly coincide with with the views of Mr. Bickersteth. Mr. Thomas Mayer, foreman in the office of the Manches ter Guardian, knew the late Mr. Astles, and recollected him taking a boy of Mr. Grice's to live with him at Warrington. Witness was at Warrington fair in 1836, and saw Catherine Brown's boy with Mr. Astle's. Mr. Astles appeared very fond of him, and the boy called him father. Was at Frod sham bazaar with Mr. Astles in August before his death ; saw a person named John Robinson there, who invited them to his house to tea. As they were going there, Astles called witness aside, and told him he intended to make Robinson one of his executors, Grice another, and he would introduce witness to a third before he left Frodsham, which he did. The will was then put in and read, and the instructions for it. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the court and jury on the part of the defendant. They had been told, by his learned friend, that the question would be whether or not the party of whom so much had been heard, the late Mr. Astles, had made his will with a competent mind, and a perfect under standing of what he was doing. He was possessed of consi derable property, and ti om the many and complicated ways in which he had disposed of it, it would undoubtedly be neces sary that he should be of a competent understanding. He (the learned counsel) never saw a case containing so many particulars which more required to have been fully put than this—when and in which there had been more lamentable de ficiency of evidence. Three witnesses had been called for the purpose of speaking to the man's competency at the time of making the will—one of them, the attorney who made the will, his clerk, and Mr. Perrin, who had told them that the deceased was not of a capacity to make the will. Not one medical man had been called who saw the man, nor one of the servants who had attended upon him ; and from the pau city of evidence, of what they thought upon the subject, he argued that the jury had not been fairly dealt with. The learned counsel then commented on the principal topics in the case for the plaintiff, and next proceeded to detail the substance of the evidence he should call on the part of the de fendant. The following witnesses were then called : Mr. Steel examined by Mr. WIGIITMAN.—Is a surgeon and apothecary at Warrington. Knew the late Mr. Astles from the year 1820, and always considered him a very tem perate man. Was called in on Wednesday, the 12th ; on Thursday he was worse ; on Friday morning the servant told witness that Mr. Astles had been saying that witness should not come near him anymore. Witness saw him again at 12 o'clock that day, again at 2, again at 5, and again at 7 in the evening, when he was worse. The disease then put on the appearance of delirium tremens, which it had not before. The witness then described the progress of the disease till the visit at which he met Mr. Ashton, and stated that, as he was out of the room, he heard Mr. Ashton, who was in the room with the deceased, used the words " that he should have full and discretionary power," or to that effect. The moment the witness went into the room, Mr. Ashton closed the paper, and no more was read whilst he was there. John Grice was in the room. The disease was rapidly increasing. The delirium continued from two o'clock on Saturday afternoon till the time witness left him. Mr. Astles died on Monday morning. During the three or four minutes witness was in the room, Mr. Ashton never asked witness to sign a paper. In witness's opinion, he was not in a wftscoo oai fi rtmtmn t us epo s ys t a efknsotale t eeryc e nhaat at t iliws e lfmtetiowed m lel;ci nia a l aonlokt.: afternoon nii h rt th. i will.esoeK%rNhe,eai Kendrick. dd anresoi acnt A tkohi i 9 aN. t efi o n %irctt'vict state al lock, becoming worse, i e tica s if s tir eohr to reeoimw2daaioi dictate t ac e i ri d tiocea w k fl it to h ns h t ai thent instruc tionses n n p y re t h im en e d th t a h t e w e i ff tn e e e s t s o s f aw an hi i m ns a tr f u te m r e 2 n o t 'c o l f o t c h k e . Alsettnilcngnr(tiiiyeos Cross-examined e ' tx c oh l are o nm c wi k innigl o el d n lv,i,o t hb h wey e . t ph S rNe a ori t dr u hu. r ec d ce a wdß y .oE n us. i lw g sdw h bi t tze , i l ea l Lse witness _N iN V vt a ina s fse snaswos asked ote i n n dtehs a oes state nwhtiahl de, and he did not refuse. known that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Astles were pre liminary to delirium tremens, he should not have ordered leeches. The symptoms of delirium tremens disclosed them selves between five and, seven on Friday evening. Witness got rational answers from him sometimes, and sometimes he did not answer at all. Remembers John Grice saying on the Saturday morning that Mr.. Astles had not made a Will, and witness told him to take the opportunity of the first lucid interval to make one. Grice went with witness to fetch the attorney, Mr. Ashton, to make it. When witness returned, he found Mr. Astles quiet, and composed; he had previously administered morphia. Witness knew, when he heard Mr. Ashton using the words, that the executors must have full and discretionary power, he knew he was either reading a will or a draft. When Mr. Ashton came out, he said, " It's not the will I've been reading, but the draft." Witness did not say, " Well, well, get it signed and have done with it." Cannot recollect using anything like these words as it is two years since. Did not tell Mr. Ashton Iris opinion upon the state of Mr. Astles's health. Mr. Ashton called upon him on Sunday morning, and asked him if he would be a witness to a N s lr Astles'sll a . %itnessinwia case, as it li k w e a t s h n a e t necessary Witnesss a y to he a , s a have answerme di e a: man thlt that he would if he were at home. Mr. Ashton called with the will in the afternoon, and then witness told him Mr. Astles Was riot fit to sign it, but promised, if the patient had any lucid intervals, he would let him know. Dr. James Kendrick said he was called in to the deceased at eleven o'clock on the night of the 15th of December, and , he was then by no means fit to makes will. Has known one instance of a will being made in an apparently lucid interval, which he had no recollection of afterwards. Anne Cash said she was barmaid to the late Mr. Astles to the time of his death. She described his illness, and said that on the Saturday night, when Mr. Ashton was reading the will, she took off her shoes, crept up stairs, and listened of the door to what was going on. Mr. Ashton read very quick, and she heard him say Richard Astles Brown. John _ _ Grice said that had better be altered, and she saw Mr, ton go to the table, and he appeared to alter it. She heard Mr. Astles mutter something to himself, and he called out louder, " Hey, hey." When Mr. Steel came in she went away. She went in to tell them the doctor was come, and they asked her to tell him to wait. When she went in the room Mr. Astles's eyes were directed to the top of the room, and he was hiccoughing and muttering. When Mr. Steel had left, she went and listened again ' and when Mr. Ashton had finished reading, she heard John Grice say that would do—it could not be better. She did 'not hear Mr. Astles make any answer to the remark. Mr. Astles was then raving, and talking to himself. Mr. Ashton then came out, and she asked him whether they were ready for his clerk to come in. Witness is now in the service of JOseph Astles, the brother of the deceased, at the same house, and in September next would have been there two years. Cross-examined.—This was the first time witness had ever come out in the character of a listener. Was certain that the name Richard Astles Brown was mentioned. By the JUDGE.—The business of the house was carried on during the week. _ _ Tho c inas Jackson said he lived nearly opposite to the house of Mr. Astles. At the request of Martha Robinson, witness followed her there on the Saturday 114.;.t to see Mr. Astles. He went into the bar where he found Mr. Grice. Witness said perhaps he should be disturbing Mr. Astles, but Martha Robinson said he could not be disturbed worse than lie had been. He was hiccoughing- and rambling, and mut i ttring to himself, and when she asked him a question, he re turned an answer which witness could not understand. He uid not seem to know witness. This witness was cross-examined at considerable length, and his statements varied from those he had given before: - William Grice was next called, and he stated that he had often heard Mr. Astles say that he was not father of the boy Brown. Saw Astles on Friday; he was rambling, and what he said was incoherent. Should not think him capable of understanding a long will. Saw him again on the Saturday, and staid with him all night. He still went on rambling in the same way. _ James Hoagkinson Beckett said, he was acquainted with Mr. Astles. He had a severe illness about eighteen months ago, and witness often pressed him to make his will. He said there was no occasion to make it, as he had no other re lation in the world but his brother Joe. Mr. Astles called upon him one day at his house, and they went into a private room together. He then said to witness, "You have spoken to me about the disposal of my property; and I am come to consult with you about it. I see no necessity for making a will, as I have no relations, and only a few legacies which I wish to leave," and he wrote them on a sheet of foolscap paper. They were a watch to each of his godchildren who had not had it, and £2O to each on coming of age. He said, " You know I have purchased from Mr. Aston, at Frod sham, the house and land where 1 was born, and am build ing a house there, and most likely my brother Joe will take my business." He wrote a plain hand, and witness never saw him write like the signature to the draft produced. Wit ness asked him whether he had not left his old sweetheart, Catherine Brown, anything ; and he replied, " I have left her something to buy a suit of mourning." The boy Brown was mentioned. He said, " You know, Beckett, I disclaim that child ; and you have seen me take the Bible in my hand repeatedly, and if I was in a court of justice I would do the same, to swear he is not mine." On the Sunday following witness saw him again, at a masonic meeting ; he came late. When he was going away, he said, " Beckett, do you recol lect the conversation we had on Thursday ?" Witness said, " I do, Samuel ;" to which he replied, " For God's sake, don't forget it." This was on the Sunday before his illness. Went to his house on Saturday, the 15th, and was told they were making his will. Witness went up stairs to see him, and he met John Grice, who told him he could not see Astles, as he was rambling, and had been for some time. Had seen the deceased's brother once or twice, and always understood they were on good terms together. Witness knew John Lm - vrinson." Cross-examined.—Witness is a wine and spirit dealer, and an innkeeper. Witness had been high constable for the hun dred of Nantwich, and had been charged with obtaining money under false pretences. An indictment was preferred against him, and it was tried at Chester in 1832, before Mr. Baron Bolland. Left the office of high constable in April, 1831. Witness was acquitted. John Furnival said he knew Mr. Astles, who said to him, after the death of his mother, " Now, John, I have buried my mother, I have nobody for my property but my brother.;' About two months before his death, Catherine Brown was in Warrington, and witness said to him, " Samuel, Kate is in town," and his answer was, he would have nothing more to do with her. Witness then asked him what he intended to do with the child which she said was his, and he replied that he should leave it the same as the rest of his godchildren. Witness saw him twice on the Friday before his death, and he was then rambling. Cross-examined.—Just before this time witness had failed, and had assigned his property. John Bailey Maguire, hair-dresser, said he knew the de ceased. This witness gave similar testimony as to the de clarations of the deceased—that he intended to leave his pro- Browperty to his brother, and that he did not consider the boy nto be his son. Witness was called in to shave him on Saturday, the 15th, and he was then raving. John Craike, Wm. Caldwell, of Frodsham, and Thomas Harper, of Low-hill, gave similar testimony. Margaret Hewitt proved that she had applied leeches to Mr. Astles, and that he was very restless and rambling. Mr. Cunnah, solicitor, of Chester, acted as attorney for Joseph Astles in a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, in 1830. Witness was in Warrington in December, 1838, and saw Joseph Lamb, or Robinson, one of the lessees of the deceased, who said he would have nothing to do with the will, for there was such a squabble about it ; and if he had money of his own, he would sooner bury it than the lawyers should have it. He should not believe Astles was in his proper senses when he saw him, but he did not say whether that was before or after .5,.; will - - --- evening, and he said he would give 1:5C0 to have the matter settled. Witness asked him if he had any money, and he said " No, but Mr. Ashton would find it." Cross-examined.—Wituess bad taken the benefit of the in solvent act in August this year, and had been discharged forthwith. Mr. CRZSSWELL then proceeded to reply—a duty which occupied the learned counsel about an hour. The JUDGE, its summing up, told the jury that the main question for their decision was, whether the testator had a lucid interval when he made the will. The learned Judge went over the evidence at great length, and concluded his ad dress at eight o'clock. The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, thus establishing the validity of the will. _ ...... The trial lasted upwards of ten hours. The court adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock. CROWN COURT, SATURDAY John Williams, aged 30, was indicted for having, at Great Bolton, on the 28th March, feloniously uttered a forged £5 note of the Bank of England. Mr. HULTON stated the case, and called _ Mary Child.—The prisoner came to our shop, and said he would buy a leg of mutton it I would change a£s note. I said I could, and sold him the mutton, giving him £4 14s. 9d. out. We had no other £5 note in the shop at the time. The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length, and she admitted that she said to the policeman, when he afterwards apprehended him, " Look well at the man, for he will look different in the morning." She also admitted that the policeman said, " Don't be afraid : if you are sure he is the man, you will be all safe." To questions from the Judge, witness said that the impression of the police-officer was not elicited by any doubt she had expressed as to the identity of the prisoner. Re-examined.—l never had any doubt that the prisoner was the man. - - By the JUDGE. — We had candles burning when the pri soner bought the meat. William Child, the husband of the last witness, received the note from her, and took it, on the following Wednesday, to the bank, to ascertain whether it was good. Brought it back, and locked it into the drawer, after marking it. It was afterwards given to Mr. Barton. of the police. Mr. Barton Ploduced the note, which was marked. A gentleman belonging to the bank pronounced the note to be a very bad one, neither bank paper nor bank engraving. Sarah Roberts, who kept an inn, said that a man had come to her on the 3d of April, and asked her for change for a £5 note for a person named Monk. She thought it was not good, and demurred. He got possession of it, stating that he would go to a neighbour's and see if it was good. Wit ness followed him, and saw that, in place of going to that neighbour's, finding himself watched, he ran off. She cried, " Stop thief !" The witness described the note as being similar to that produced in thickness and in portions of the printing. The prisoner was brought back by a man who pursued him. She was sure he was the man. A man heard Mrs. Roberts cry, " Stop thief !" and pur sued the prisoner. -He ran him through several streets and entries, and he finally captured him in a yard, at the top of n passage. He was out of breath. Nothing was found. He was given into custody. A police-officer detailed some conversation he had had with the prisoner, in which the latter made admissions that he had done wrong, and appeared to intimate that he had swallowed the second note. Mr. Monk, a tripe-seller, stated, that he did not know the prisoner, and never snt him for change. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. _ The learned JUDGE said, that the offence of which the prisoner was convicted was of a heinous nature, inasmuch as it went to materially injure persons in humble life. Formerly the offence would have subjected him to capital punishment ; but the present law was more lenient. It was necessary, however, to visit it with severity, and the sentence of the court was, that he. should be transported to such settlement as her Majesty, by advice of.her Privy Council, should think fit, for the term of ten years. PASSING A FORGED BILL. Thomas Healey, aged 45, stood indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously forged, offered, disposed of, and put off a bill of exchange, for the payment of £5O, with intent to defraud John Dunning and Thos. Hemmingsley, the accused knowing the same to be forged. The case was entirely devoid of interest. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. FELONIOUS POSSESSION OF GOODS. William Heys, a grey headed old man of 65 years of age, was charged with having received and had in his possession twenty yards of cloth, one cloak, and one cape, the property of John Wood. In this case also a verdict of Not Guilty was returned by the jury. There was another indictment against the prisoner, but the trial was deferred until Monday. EXTENSIVE FORGERY. Alfred Sidebotlom, 34, stood indicted for having, at Manchester, feloniously forged an order for the payment of money, purporting to be the order of one James Buckley, upon the Bank of Manchester, for £6OO, and with having feloniously uttered the same knowing it to be forged. The prisoner, a good-looking man, genteelly dressed in black, was a bleacher at the Garret Works, Manchester. Dr. BROWN stated the case, and called Wellington Ainscough, who said—l was in the service of the prisoner in July last. On the 25th of that month he gave me a check for £6OO, and told me to take it to Mr. Blomily, and borrow £l5 upon it. It was on a Saturday. I took the check. My master wanted the money to pay wages with. I got the money from Mr. Blomily and left the check. My master told me to say that it was past bank hours, and he could not get the check cashed. Mr. BRANDT (for the prisoner) cross-examined the wit ness.—Mr. Sidebottom only told me to show him the check. He (Mr. B.) said nothing, but gave him the money. When I returned hack, my master said, " You should not have left the check ; you should only have shown it." Re-examined.—l have been in the gaol to see the prisoner, in company with Mr. Taylor, his -attorney. It was on Mon day last. One of the keepers was present with us. Mr. Joshua Blomily, grocer and flour-dealer, in Chorlton on-Medlock, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He lent the £l5 and received the check. He sent for the money several times during the week, but did not get it. I took the check from the Bank of Manchester, and it was afterwards given to the police. Cross-examined. —Th e premises rented by the prisoner are large. The rent may be five or six hundred a-year. James Buckley, being sworn, said, I reside at Queekhead, Saddleworth. lam the prisoner's uncle. I never kept an account with the Bank of Manchester. I did not sign this Cross-examined.---The writing does not resemble mine in the least. The prisoner married my niece. She will not receive a large sum on my death, unless I leave it to her in . my will John Wood, cashier of the Bank of Manchester said, that no one named James Buckley had any account with the bank. A person of that name did bank there three years ago. The signature to this check does not at all resemble that of the James Buckley who banked with us. The prisoner once banked with us, but closed his account about three months ago. - James Buckley, of Tintwistle, in Cheshire, an innkeeper, said, he had formerly banked with the Bank of Manchester. That check is not signed by me. Edward Frank Hall, of Manchester, a traveller, said, on Tuesday, the 21st July, I was at the Garratt Works Inn. The prisoner was there. He asked the landlord to take a glass, and said, " Perhaps your friend (witness) will take one." He afterwards said, he believed he had not money to pay for them, unless the landlord could give him change for a £6OO check, which he produced. The landlord did not change it. The prisoner afterwards asked witness if he knew the signature. Witness said he did not. Prisoner said, he was his uncle, and that he had taken it to the bank, but they would not cash it, as his uncle had dated it on a Sunday. Archibald M`Mullin, of the Manchester Police, appre hended the prisoner on Saturday, the Ist of August. He was told, that the charge against him was, that he had sent a forged check to Mr. Blomily and had obtained £l5 upon it. He said, he had sent a check, and admitted that that pro duced was the same. He said, he had it sent to him from a person in London, named James Buckley, who was going into partnership with him. Witness asked him where Buckley resided. He said, he did not know, but he was to direct his letters to him at the Magpie and Stump, Fetter lane. He was asked to produce the letter that the check came in, and he looked in his pockets for it but could not find it. He said it was probably in his counting-house. He was taken into custody. A number of letters was brought from his place, at his own request. Witness looked over them with him, but found none with the signature of James Buckley. Witness took him into custody. He said, he had written to Buckley, at the Magpie and Stump, blowing him up for dat ing the check on Sunday. Mrs. Hannah Hart, landlady of the Magpie and Stump, said, she had been in that inn for seven months, and no per son named James Buckley had asked for or received any let ters during her time. Mr. BRANDY, for the prisoner, considered it improbable, that a person in his station, having extensive premises, and a business which, if pursued, would have led to honourable emoluments, should be so foolish as to run the risk of ruin and disgrace for the sake of a paltry £l5. He commented on the whole of the evidence, and urged that the prisoner had had some communication with a person named James Buckley, who was negotiating with him for a partnership, and that this man had signed the check, and, by giving it to the prisoner, had made him his victim. He argued that, be ing so signed, though by a dishonest person, it was not a forgery, and implored the jury to give the case the most fa vourable consideration which the circumstances and the pro babilities would permit. The learned JUDGB summed up, and the jury retired. On their return, they gave a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was put down, to receive sentence hereafter. The old man, William Heyes, was again brought up, on a second charge against him of stealing a hat ; but the case was so trifling that no evidence was tendered against him, and he was consequently found Not Guilty and discharged. The court adjourned at five o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT LIBEL.--THE QUEEN V. PRENTICE AND ANOTHER SATURDAY This was a criminal information against Archibald Prentice and William Cathrall, printers, publishers, and proprietors of the Manchester Times newspaper, at the suit of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, Bart., of Hindley Hall, near Wigan, for libel. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the prosecu tion ; Mr. Prentice appeared for himself and his partner. Mr. COWLING having opened the case, Mr. CRESSWELL rose and said, he had the honour to ap pear as counsel for Sir R. H. Leigh, who had instituted this prosecution against the defendants for publishing of him that which he felt, and that which every man must feel, to be a grievous libel, imputing to him great misconduct, which, if true, would render him unworthy of the situation he occupied in society, and expose him to the animadversion and to the contempt of the public. Sir Robert Holt Leigh was now a baronet, far advanced in years, re!iding at Hindley Hall, near Wigan. He possessed considerable property in that neighbourhood, and, formerly, he had represented that bo rough in parliathent for a period of twenty years. In the latter part of his life he had acted as one of the trustees for a free grammar school, established for a long series of years in Wigan, and it was in the capacity of one of those trustees that this libel was published of him in the paper issued to the world by the defendants. He said, that it was published of Sir Robert Holt Leigh in that capacity, and not that the transactions mentioned in it took place at a period when Sir Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee, although, in one of the let ters he (the learned counsel) should have occasion to bring before the jury, it was imputed to him that he did. Of all the imputations that could be cast upon a gentleman in the position Sir Robert Holt Leight occupied, one of the most grievous and mischievous was that of malversation in the office of a trustee of a charitable estate. He (the counsel) did not know anything more calculated to excite and set one class of society against another, than to impute to the higher and more wealthy, who commonly acted as trustees for public charities, that they were guilty of malversation in that office, and that they appropriated to their own use and profit those funds which ought to be devoted to the proper objects of the charity. He should now proceed to point out the libels pub lished by the defendants, and of which Sir Robert Holt Leigh complained. It was averred in the information, that there was a free grammar school in Wigan ; that an act of parliament was passed, at a certain period, for regulating the affairs of that school. These two facts must be proved as preliminary matters. It was said that the libels in question were published respecting the school, respecting the act of parliament, and respecting Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He (the learned counsel) would, therefore, introduce before the jury evidence to prove that there was such a school ; he should lay before them the act of parliament which was referred to, and which was made evidence by a clause in it, and the court thereby incorporated to take charge of the a ff a ir s of the school, and that certain powers were given them to dispose of a por tion of the property of the schb - 01, under certain liMitations and provisions. The act of parliament was passed in 1812, 27 years before the libel in question appeared : 27 years after that had taken place which was made the subject of attack upon Sir R. H. Leigh. The articles he was about to read were published by the defendants in their newspaper. The learned counsel then read the article in which one libel appeared,. and called particular attention to the following passage :—" Whose fault was it that the school was not long since made more generally useful? Let the report of the commissioners upon public charities answer. Paid R. Grim shaw, for the purpose of alienating the school property and promoting the interests of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, £951." Thus directly imputing to the plaintiff, that, by a job of the vilest character with the trustees, he had obtained a portion Of the school property for the advancement of his own pur poses, and not for the promotion of the interests of the school. The learned counsel proceeded to read the remaining part of the alleged libel, and also called attention to this passage : " Do the public expect that any good will be derived from the interference of Sir R. H. Leigh ? Is it reasonable to look for anything from him who has been the only gainer by a previ ous act of alienation of the property of the school?" Thus imputing to the plaintiff such conduct in a transaction with the trustees, in 1813, under the act of Parliament, that now no good could be looked for from him, for he was disgraced by it. Perhaps the Jury might be told, that this was not an attack upon the plaintiff, but upon the governors of the school. What was it but an attack upon the plaintiff leading the pub lic to expect that no good could be expected from him, he having been guilty of so much misconduct with regard to the property of the trust ? This article was published on the 16th November, 1839. It would seem, that, between that time and the 30th of November, some communication had taken place between the parties, either directly or indirectly ; for, in the Manchester Times, of the 30th November, we found this article. The learned counsel then read a letter, addressed to the editor of the paper, signed " Your Reporter," con fessing that fact; and inference had been improperly coin bined in the article in the previous paper, that he ought to have stated, that the sum of £951 was paid for obtaining a bill authorizing the disposal of a certain part of the property of the school . the writer then apologized for this uninten tional misstatement, and concluded his letter by stating, that the funds of the school were sufficient to effect twelve times a greater amount of good than had been effected. Here (the learned counsel proceeded) the " Reporter" admitted, by that which was offered as an excuse, that he had not quoted correctly, as he affected to do, from the Commissioners' Re port, that the abbreviation was for the purpose of promoting the interest of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. According to the first publication, he quoted from the Commissioners' Report; and his affected apology in the second was, that the commis sioners did not state that management to be for the sale of the property. What excuse did he make ? What explana tion or retraction of the charge ? None. He left the matter as it was before. Again, the jury would find, in another part of the same paper, of the 30th of Nov., another article appeared, purporting to come from " An Occasional Reader," and they would observe how artfully it was written to make it supposed that the writer was a political friend of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, but that, on the affairs of the school, he was op posed to him, In this letter there was this passage :—" In your last week's paper you showed us what good may be ef fected : a large sum of money was squandered on lawyers' bills in getting an act of Parliament to enable the trustees to sell the best part of the school property to one of themselves." Here, then, was the " Reporter's" excuse, and this letter of "An Occasional Reader" making charges worse than the other. This last letter then went on to describe some meet ing of the trustees, and what passed at that meeting. The learned counsel having commented on this letter, observed, that these constituted the libel of which the plaintiff com plained. The learned counsel, in conclusion, explained, that the plaintiff had resorted to the remedy of a criminal infor mation as the best means of clearing his character from the imputations thus thrown upon it. The rule for it was made absolute ' • the record was brought down to Liverpool to b e tried, charging the defendants with the publication of the libels, and the only question for the jury would be, whether they contained that which was an imputation calculated to injure, to degrade, and to disgrace the plaintiff. Mr. Wall, a clerk from the Stamp-office, proved that the de fendants were publishers of the Manchester Times, and the publication of the paper containing the alleged libel was ad mitted. Mr. John Thompson, an iron -merchant, in Wigan, said he knew the prosecutor, Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He resided at Hindley Hall. Sir Robert was, for many years, member of parliament for Wigan, but now he lived retired. The ar ticles in the Manchester Times related to Sir Robert Holt Leigh. . _ _ Cross-examined by the defendant.—Sir Robert Hoit Leigh acts as a trustee to the Wigan Free Grammar School, but wit ness does not know when he commenced acting. A copy of the act of parliament, authorising the alienation of the lands in question, was then put in. It named and in corporated the trustees at the time it was passed : the name of the plaintiff did not appear among them. The alleged libels from the papers of the 17th and 30th of November, were then put in and read by the Clerk of the Court. Mr. CRESSWELL said, this was the plaintiff's case. Mr. PRENTICE submitted, that no case at all had been made out. His lordship would observe, that the publication of the two papers from which the alleged libels had been read bad not been proved. The JUDGE.---I understand you to admit that. Mr. CRESSWELL.—CertainIy, my lord. Mr. PRENTICE said, he merely admitted that he and his partners were the publishers of the Manchester Timex, but not that they had published the two papers now produced. Mr. CRESSWELL cited the act 6th and 7th George IV., chap. 4, sect. 76, as disposing of this question. The JUDGE said, it was certainly necessary, before pro ceeding against a newspaper publisher, to prove that he sold the paper in question. Mr. PRENTICE contended that the plaintiff was bound to prove the publication of the two papers he had produced. If he did not, he might, for any thing he (Mr. P.) knew, have brought them for the express purpose of bringing some other charge against him. The JUDGE said that what he had taken down was this, that the defendants admitted they were the publishers of the papers in question. Mr. PRENTICE.—I admitted I am the publisher and pro prietor of the paper, but I did not admit the publication of these particular papers, because I wished to cross-examine the person who was to prove it. The Junoz.—What is it that you do admit ? Mr. PRENTICE repeated what he had said before. The JUDGE said he would leave the question to the jury. Mr. PRENTICE.—WiII your lordship take a note of the objection ? The JUDGE said he would, as follows :—The defendants object that there is no evidence that they have published the two papers in question. They admit themselves to be the publishers of the Manchester Times, but say there is no proof that these two papers are the Manchester Times. 1 over rule the objection, and leave the question to the jury. Mr. CRESWELL. -- Your lordship has a copy of the certi ficate from the Stamp-office. The JUDGE Yes Mr. PRENTICE then proceeded . to address the court and jury. He was not at all surprised that Mr. Cresswell should have been anxious to prevent their hearing that rigmarole read, which either he or some of the lawyers in the case had contrived to put in the bill of indictment preferred against him and his partner. He was sure, when they heard it, they must have asked themselves what it' bad - to do with the case between Sir Robert Holt Leigh and the publishers of the Manchester Times. Sonie of them might think he was taking something like a lawyer-like objection, with regard to the publication of these alleged libels ; but he had not taken it to prevent the case coming before the court, but because he ex pected be should have an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Gaskell's clerk, who purchased the papers, and who, he expected, was to have proved the publication of them this day. He had been deprived of that advantage, and he had now no opportunity of proving the truth of anything he might say. All the explanation he could give must be given by himself; but, at the same time, he could not but think that he should have had all the advantage the court could give him. He ha& therefore, to complain that evidence had been withheld from the court, and that the other side.had taken care not to produce witnesses who could prove any thing. The witness they had brought from Wigan did not prove that Sir Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee of the school, but only his belief that he was ; and, consequently, the court and jury had no means of judging of that part of the alleged libel. He should ask the court to lay before the jury the information upon which he was indicted. It was a very ex traordinary document, and he could not imagine upon what ground it was called an information. He supposed it must be upon the same principle that the gentlemen behind him called their briefs brief because, they were not brief ; and that, therefore, this was called an information because it contained no information. It had been found convenient to keep information out of it, which information as it was im• portant to him should have been given. He should, there. fore, have to show them what it contained and what it die not contain ; and, he believed, they would find that what ii did not contain was vastly more important than what it did contain. The reason why he appeared himself was, that this had been such a vexatious, troublesome, and expensive pro secution ; he had been so troubled, vexed, and angered with it, that he was determined not to pay a single farthing more, and not to spend the little money he had in getting up a case. He had, therefore, himself come before a jury of his countrymen, knowing that Englishmen always looked more to the judgment of their own conscience than to the elo quence of the advocate. Mr. Cresswell' had been exceed ingly magniloquent about the way in which the plaintiff had proceeded : he (Mr. Prentice) had observed, that whatever course was adopted in cases of this kind, the lawyers were always ready to argue it was the best. The learned counsel said that the plaintiff had not brought this action for dama ges, because he did not wish to put money into his pocket by means of his character. The learned counsel talked on this subject as if it were necessary that Sir Robert Holt Leigh should put any damages that he might obtain into his own pocket. He might, for instance, if he were above re ceiving pecuniary compensation for the injury done to him, have presented it to the school of which he was a trustee. There was, therefore, nothing in this part of the learned counsel's argument. Mr. Prentice then proceeded to show the disadvantage he was under by the mode of proceeding, and to contend that, if another had been adopted, by which evidence could be called, the whole of the facts in the case would have been elicited. The affidavits of Sir Robert Holt Leigh and Mr. Gaskell certainly contained the truth, but they did not contain the whole truth, which would have been elicited if he (Mr. Prentice) bad had an opportunity of cross examining them. Mr. CRESSWELL the defendant might put these affi davits in. Mr. PRENTICE intimated, that he would put them in. He had always admitted, that Sir R. H. Leigh paid the full price for the estate : he had always been willing to publish that, but this willingness to make this acknowledgment had not stopped them from proceeding with this troublesome pro secution. There was no charge of anything unfair on the part of the plaintiff. What the reporter had said—for the court would recollect that none of these things were his own production —was, that he imputed no fraud to Sir R. H. Leigh, but that it was an improper act, on the part of the trustees, to pay £951 for obtaining the act of parliament, and that, therefore, they were not so much promoting the interests of the school as the convenience and pleasure of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. Nothing dishonourable was imputed to Sir Robert Holt Leigh, but only mistaken policy, on the part of the trustees, in alienating any part of the property. Sir R. H. Leigh was an honourable man ; and he (Mr. Prentice) would declare his conviction that a full price had been paid for the estate ; but his affidavit of that did not justify him in declaring, as he did in the information, that everything the defendants had said about him was false, malicious, and done at the instigation of the devil. The jury would observe, that the whole sum and substance of the alleged libel was a mere inference on the part of the reporter, that it was not for the interest of the grammar school for any part of its property to be alienated, and that the reporter had taken an opportu nity of declaring in the letter just read, that he had made a mishap. Yet, all this was charged upon him (Mr. Prentice) as a false, malicious, and scandalous libel. Did it not strike the jury as very strange, that the information should suddenly stop at the very point where the reporter apologised for hav ing mixed up fact and inference. The reporter apologised to the plaintiff, to the public, and to the proprietors of the paper for the mistake. Again he would ask, did it not strike the jury as very strange, that the " information" should sud denly cease at the time they wanted information ? Here he felt the difficulty he was under of not having an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Gaskell's clerk, because be would have proved, that the defendants offered to make any repara tion in their power. However, they were to bethe judges whe ther the publication had been proved, and of the hardship he was under of not being able to prove the preliminary part of The infrmatio" took fr.-FrAnted that all reparation had been refused, and that he (Mr. rrentice) had obstinately refused 'to give the name of the author. Mr. Prentice was about to read Mr. Gaskell's affidavit, but the judge held that it had no 'relevancy to the question. Mr. Prentice proceeded - to enlarge on the hardship he was again under, and to state that he had written . to Mr. Gaskell offer ing to snake any reparation. Mr. Gaskell, therefore, was his witness to furnish him with all the facts, and all those facts he could establish. He (Mr. Prentice) was, therefore, now in the situation of being prevented from having the evi dence fully sifted, because this case was taken out of all the rules of the court, and came before the jury not under any statute, but judge-made law. He would now proceed to ex amine the indictment against him. In it was contained all the documents that had been read ; and they would recollect, that, if they found him guilty of one part of it, they would find him guilty of all. This precious document—this most beautiful instance of the folly which still lurked about courts of justice, contained four counts. Mr. Prentice then pro ceeded to examine these counts separately, but we have not space to give his speech. He told the jury, that they must take the indictment, look its averments carefully over, and, before they pronounced him guilty, satisfy themselves that all the counts were proved. They were sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence; and could they, upcn the evidence now produced, pronounce him guilty ? They had not to find, simply, that a libel had been printed, but that it was a false, malicious. and scandalous libel, and that every word therein charged was false, scandalous, and malicious, It might be said, that, if this doctrine were acknowledged, a loop-hole would he made whereby any man who had 'shelled another might escape. That, however, the jury could not consider ; the fault of that lay in the practice, and ought not to be visited upon the defendants. He concluded by a strong appeal to the consciences of the jury to give their verdict according to the evidence before them. The speech of the defendant occupied about forty minutes in the delivery. The learned JUDGE then addressed the jury, pointing out the principal question for their decision. The - jury withdrew to consider their verdict, and after an absence of a quarter of an hour they returned and pronounced the defendants Guilty. BUTTERWORTH V. WADE AND OTHERS. _ This was an undefended action. A verdict was of course returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £l2O. TINKER V. WAGSTAFF.. _ The parties in this case reside in Ashton-under-Lune. The plaintiff was tenant to the defendant, and the action was brought to recover damages for an excessive distraint. Ver dict for the plaintiff, damages £65. MORRIS V. SPEED AND ANOTHER. In this case, which was of no public interest, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £270. TYRELL V. TOLLEMACHE. _ _ This was an action against the Sheriffs of Cheshire for a false return to a writ against the goods of a party named Brit tain; against whom execution had been obtained: The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. Several undefended causes were afterwards disposed of, and the court adjourned about half-past five. CROWN COURT.—MoNDA'e His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. This was one of those cases which have recently been so common, in which a man met his death from rough fighting. The prisoner, a stout low-set man, aged 30, was indicted for having killed George Crumby, in this town, on the 3d ofMay last. Mr. Cardwell conducted the prosecution. It appeared that the poisoner cohabited with the sister of the deceased, Catherine Crumby, otherwise Catherine Win ter. On Saturday night or Sunday morning, the 2d or 3d of May, the deceased and the prisoner_ met at the house of the prisoner's brother in Jordan-street, wheee they had some liquor. It • was stated that the deceased ivas exceedingly cross with the prisoner, on account of the loose life which his sister was leading. The prisoner sent for a pint of rum, and endeavoured to appease the wrath of the deceased, but as they became more intoxicated the fury of Crumby increased, till at length when they went out to go home. the deceased said to the prisoner, who lodged with him, " if you come home to-bight I'll have your life or you shall have mine. Soon after Crumby got home, the prisoner entered the house, where the deceased knocked him down. The prisoner was at first reluctant to fight, but at length, he was exasperated to it, and they rushed at each other. Several violent blows and heavy falls ensued on both sides, and at length the pri soner struck the deceased a blow which felled him to the earth, and he never again stirred or showed signs of life. The police were called in, and a surgeon was sent for. The officers.found both the prisoner and the deceased stripped to the waist, the prisoner intoxicated. The surgeon, Mr. Hutchinson, stated that Crumby was quite dead when he ar rived. He made a post mortem examination of the body, and found many signs of heavy blows beneath the scalp, and effusion of blood at the base of the brain. The jury consulted together about half a minute and ac quitted the prisoner. MANSLAUGHTER James Potter, a decent-looking man, aged 53, was charged with having, on the 29th of April last, at Prescot, caused the death of John Berry, by striking, &c. Dr. Brown condueted the prosecution. The deceased was a brickmaker. and he worked under the prisoner at the brick-fields near Prescot. On the morning of the 29th of April, the prisoner went to Mrs. Hewitt's public-house, which was near the' brick-fields, as was in ferred, for the purpose of finding the deceased, who was sitting there drinking. The prisoner asked the deceased why he was not at his work. The deceased, who had had some ale, called the prisoner " a d—d old scut," and said he would not work for him any more, as he had not paid him for what he had already done. The prisoner struck the deceased a blow on the cheek, which the latter returned by another blow, and immediately " collared the prisoner fast." A struggle ensued, and the prisoner got the deceased down, and kneeled upon him, pressing him violently with his knees, but whether this were done purposely, or whether the prisoner was pulled down in that position, could not be accurately de termined. The deceased after this went to a surgeon, and told him that he had a pain in his side, which he accounted for by saying that he had fallen over a stool. A fortnight after, the prisoner called again upon the surgeon, and com plained of being very ill. The surgeon then examined him more particularly, and found that the second and third ribs were broken. The surgeon 'found that he was iu considerable danger, and the deceased himself naw became convinced that his case was hopeless. He died on Saturday,. the 23rd May, having previously made a deposition which was taken down in writing in the - presence of the prisoner. The surgeon made a post-mortem examination, and found that the immr diate cause of death had been inflammation of the lungs, pro d uced by pressure of the ribs on the fractured lungs. The - sed was a man of bad constitution. His lungs were nsound, and the surgeon was of opinion that the same fatal esult would not have occurred in a man of a good habit of iody. The lungs were very extensively diseased, inde pendently of the injuries from the ribs. The surgeon had attended him during two years, and he bad had considerable difficulty in getting over the two preceding winters. It was' the surgeon's impression that be would not have survived many months even if he had not received any injury. The deposition of the deceased gave a more circumstantial detail of the quarrel and the fight. His statement was that when struck he fell over a bench. The prisoner called a witness named Richard Hornby, who detailed -the circumstances of the fight without any material deviation from the facts stated for the-prosecution. The jury found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP said he would take into consideration the provocation which the prisoner had received. Sentence, 3 months imprisonment and hard labour in the House of Correction, at Kirkdale. CUTTING AND STABBING. Philip Malone, aged about 36, was charged with having, in this town, on the 9th August, inst., cut, stabbed, and wounded David Mooney. Mr. ELLIS and Mr. BLISS for the prosecution ; Mr. WILKINS for the defence. _ On the night of Saturday the Bth inst., the prisoner and Mooney were playing at cards and drinking together at a public-house in Toxteth-park. On their way home, between twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning, they had some altercation about the game which they had been playing. Both were intoxicated, and as the prisoner had won some money from Mooney the latter said—" If I had won so much money as you have from a friend, I would return him the half of it." At length they came to blows, and after a scuffle both came to the ground. A policeman went up, dispersed the crowd, and sent the com batants home. The prisoner had been at another public house that night, and had a scuffle with another person who played at cards with his brother. He swore, however, that he had not, "to the best of his knowledge," encountered any other any after he left the prisoner. A man, named M'Allister, who saw the scuffle, endeavoured to separate the parties and received two stabs in his thigh. - As Mooney was going home be found himself very faint, and that blood was dripping from him. He sat down upo►► some steps and became nearly insenstble. In this state he was found by the police-officer, about half-past two o'clock on Sunday morn ing. When the prisoner was taken into custody a penknife with two blades was found in his possession. The wound was described by the surgeon as superficial and not dan gerous. There were eight or nine wounds, one of which was across the nose. The surgeon was of opinion, from the thickness of cloth cut through, that the penkniffe found oil the prisoner was not the weapon with which the wounds were inflicted. While Mr. Wilkins was doing all he could for the defence of the prisoner the latter was, in dumb show, threatening vengeance against the witnesses who had appeared in support of the prosecution. With a most fierce aspect, looking at Mooney, his brother, and M'Allister, he clenched his fist and repeatedly threw it out from him towards them, as if to indicate how he would punish them if he were near them. He was repeating these actions still more vehemently, when he was restrained by Mr. Davenport, his attorney, and by Mr. Wilkins, who, however, saw only a few of his ges— tures. Mr. WiLaiNs impressed upon the jury that there was no evidence that the prisoner had inflicted the wounds upon the prosecutor. The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted the prisoner. MANSLAUGHTER William Montgomery, aged 24, was charged with having, at Salford, in May last, killed Daniel Wall. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins the defence On Saturday, the 25th of May, shortly after midnight, the deceased, Wall, was passing, in company with a man named James Leach and two young women, Ann Fox and her sister, from Salford, by the New Bailey Bridge, into Manchester. As they approached the bridge they saw the prisoner standing with a woman. The deceased, with Ann Fox, was walking first, and Leach and the other young woman were walking behind, and as they came up to the prisoner he violently struck the woman to whom he was talking ; Wall said, "If you were a man you would not strike a female in that manner." The prisoner cursed him, and asked him what it was to him. Wall said, "it is something—and if I had been up at the time I would have struck you." The prisoner upon this struck Wall, and an exchange of blows ensued. The young women pulled Wall away, Leach interfered, and he also interchanged some blows with the prisoner, after which Wall, Leach, and his party made off over the bridge. The prisoner followed, passed Leach and the young woman who was with him, and placed himself face to face with Wall, and struck him in the belly. A scuffle ensued, and Wall fell, but soon got up again, and threw the prisoner against some shutters. They again struggled for a short time, when Wall ran away, crying murder ! Leach thought at this mo ment that he saw a knife in Montgomery's hand, but he was not certain. Wall went into a house, complaining that he was cut in the belly. This was found to be the case, and he was taken to the Infirmary. John Bamber, one of the witnesses for the prosecution; who had witnessed the affray from his shop door, stated, on cross-examination, that the prisoner was very much ill used by the deceased and Leach. He never in his life saw a mart so much ill-used. The prisoner on being charged by the police-officer, with having stabbed Wall, tacitly admitted the offence, but said he had done it in self-defence. A clasp knife was found in possession of the prisoner. The officer remarked, " I doubt this is the knife you stabbed him with." The prisoner replied, •` It is the only one I have." When the deceased was taken into the Infirmary, he was found to have two wounds just below the navel, penetrating into the cavity of the belly. Through the right wound, a portion of the intestine protruded, and ou after examination, it was found that a portion of the intestine was cut. A portion of the contents of the intestine had escaped into the cavity of the belly, and the inflammation produced by this was the cause of death. The deceased died on the fourth day. The trousers which the deceased wore were produced. There were several cuts on the front of them. Two cuts on the outside had been torn into one, but inside one of the cuts correanondpd with the size of the clasp blade, as did, accord ing to the surgeon, the wounas in nit Mr. WILKINS pleaded the gross provocation which the prisoner had received, a❑d contended generally that he had acted, if lie really used the knife, entirely in self defence, and that all the testimony, except that of Bamber, was necessarily highly coloured, from the prejudice of the witnesses. The jury found the prisoner guilty. A witness was called, who gave the, prisoner a good cha racter, as a peaceable well disposed man. Mr. WILKINS hoped his lordship would bear in mind the strong provocation which the prisoner had received. Hi; . ' LORDSHIP said the case was a very had one indeed. The prisoner had made a terrible use of the knife. The pri soner might be put down, and he would consider of the sen- MANSLAUGHTER James Horrop, aged 28, George Wroe, 18, and Alice Wroe, 39, were charged with having, at Manchester, in April last, killed Isaac Higham. Dr. BROWNE conducted the prosecution.—lt appeared that Higham, the deceased, lived with the prisoner - Alice Wroe as her husband, though they were not married. He went home on the night of the 24th April last, in a state of intoxication, and said he would go to bed. Alice Wroe told him that he should not have any bed there that night, and she accused him of having taken her money and spent it. George Wroe, who-was son to Alice, lived with them' and he also said Higham should not sleep there, as he would be master. Higham replied that he was master there, and one master was enough at a time. Wroe struck Higham one or two blows, and a short fight ensued. They soon gave over, however, and sat down before the tire. Shortly after Har rop entered, and became urgent for the parties to fight it out. Higham immediately struck Harrop, upon which the latter said he would not tight him in his own house, but if he would go out, he would see it out with him. The moment they reached the street, Harrop struck Higham two blows, which knocked him down, and while he was on the ground, George Wroe went up, and with his s heavy boot knocked his teeth out. Higham got up, and went over and stood "leaning against a window, when George Wroe went over to him, and kicked him in the left side. A witness who saw the transaction from a house on the opposite side of the street, stated that Higham offered to tight Harrop " for ten bob, up or down," and that when Higham was knocked down, Wroe went to him and kicked him several times, " as quickly as his foot could go." About the third kick, Higham uttered an exclamation of pain. When he arose, according to this witness, Wroe continued to strike at the deceased till he knocked him down into a cellar. Mrs. Wroe, it appeared, said to her son, when he was kicking the deceased, '• Lay into him," but afterwards she behaved with great attention to him, and applied leeches to him. A witness, named Hazlehurst, said that- Harrop had admitted to him that he kicked the deceased in the mouth. Harrop denied this. Mr. 011ier, surgeon to the police at Manchester, stated that the deceased was greatly bruised all over his body, and had lost three teeth. He had died from rupture of the intes tines, which had caused inflammation. There was an exter nal injury corresponding to the rupture. The jury, after a few minutes consultation, acquitted Her rop, and found George Wroe guilty, but recommended him to mercy, on account of the provocation. They found Alice Wroe guilty, of aiding and abetting. George Wroe was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour ; and Alice Wroe to two month s imprison ment and hard labour. LARCENY Henry Andrew, a fashionably dressed young man, aged? 28, was charged with having, in July last, at the Aintree race-course, stolen from Samuel Towers, a quantity of silver money._ Mr. CARDWELL conducted the prosecution, Mr. WILKINS the defence. Mary Riznmer, a servant to Mr. Tower's, stated that on Wednesday, the 15th July last, she was at Mr. Towers' booth or stand, at Aintree race-course. Witness here de scribed the various compartments of the stand. She was in the kitchen that looks into the bar. Between seven and eight o'clock in the evening, she saw a man with a white coat on him, from the bar, which was enclosed on all sides, so that no one could get inside. He turned from the counter, and she saw in his hand either a bason or a porter mug. She called out loudly, " Stop that man with a white coat on, for he has stolen something." She ran out and called, " Stop thief !" There were at that time three or four persons stand ing about, but no one had a white coat on except the man that went out. She followed him. She ran about fifty yards. She ran as fast as she could, and turned back when she found that she could not catch him. Elizabeth Houston stated that she was, on the day in ques tion, serving in Mr. Towers's front bar. She saw the pri soner in that place several times during the day. The money was kept in earthen bowls under the counter. One was kept for shillings and half-crowns, another for sixpences. and another for copper. Between seven and eight o'clock she missed one of the bowls. The prisoner was standing at the counter, directly opposite to where the money was placed. She saw him before the money was gone, and did not see him after. She ceased to see him the moment the call of " Stop thief " was heard. The prisoner had on a white coat, a black stock, and a small-striped waistcoat. There was no one in the booth in a white coat but the prisoner, and only two other persons altogether, and they had come in with him. Mr. Samuel Towers, jun.. son to Mr. Towers, the prose cutor, corroborated the above evidence as to seeing the pri soner standing at the bar. close to where the money was placed. Mr. Samuel Towers, sen., further corroborated the testi mony of Sarah Houston. The bason was about 1 foot- 5 inches from the top of the counter. It contained about twelve pounds. He served the prisoner several times during the day. He had on a light _coloured coat. David Allsworth, police 469, deposed that he apprehended the prisoner on another charge, which was dismissed by Mr. Rushton, and as the prisoner answered the description that was given to him of the man that had robbed Mr. Towers, he sent Mr. Towers word. Mr. Wlmarls addressed the jury at great length on behalf ,of the prisoner, and called Thomas Collett, butcher of Old hall -street; Patrick Miller Smith, butcher; Thomas Hales, butcher, and partner with Thomas Collett, who swore that the prisoner wore a dark blue surtout on the Wednesday and Thursday; that he did not wear a white coat on either of these days; and that he was frequently in Mr. Towers' bar on the Thursday, the day after the robbery was committed. It came out, on cross-examination, that the prisoner was what is commonly termed " a sporting character." The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The c ou r t root at ten o'clock. asiigne against of the and, Mr. that Ti Subject 21st j u n bank ij the s ail fe re pee, trtec' Mr. questioi out of 1)':i a c slgssce was ent which; ther th( diatribe uPon tl exebute the ban curity. credi6 of the li Self in stop pal but to to mak portion a case but a le fined tb Griffith as a cax of 1836 they w aiderabl to the g ance, p on the timber accepte came d maulb ank u Mr. Gt at matt. Stittitet e 4 o u g t i n e o : hadi Ito runt se ' , Poll 1-r ether ; wits noi Was no de e d w e lecutt ther m. believ e rily ; a for it m that tl i have w ay th Th e f i a Phtee, ner s f or the Pose a Prov e — ; and th, at)out corky mee t c lea rnet that IN 8 5 Id, ever, 8 P eng avbe t hen w !statin g tw o WI the bai ing 01( for 4:;2, done ed, ani til e stt 11-)ar: st ance , The Mr. lord s h whethi and th bankr, that tit part of The oPinio stance the pa that ti been a that h hensic Prove. Nless r do? rnatel. hank; froth bank Mr• he Wo With rupt ; of tht to Ulu of the 1 2,r st a 'pre Mr. ( in Y 1( who!, ence. up on bill i 3 Prese sever fr om Nta n , ,Grifn °Y th wort the I) prefe Th Th said Tr, The and t rem Will Ph, def . , Plot Plait they