The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

N ~~~ CHESTER LENT. *SSISTS.-S ATURDAY, Reported expressly for the LIVERPOOL SI ANDARD. SOCIETY. - OXLEY V. REAP. i ~•,, „,.. ---?....,:,, ,a r.• e" -- 1 - ''-'' 4 / ,*:: Ta f'• ~1 4 1 r-- ! . s ..- `'N - -- :7:4'1 1 r• ~... ...., ...„. ..,,,, ~. t d.. , j I --' : '.." II" a' ..• 7 .1 P-.' ~--.• , '...-.% e........ .., ~.4 I 1 ,.... ~..., p-- I - (f -I, ~' • 11ik-NN-`• IMPORTANT TO TRADESMEN.-THE LIVERPOOL GUARDIAN Before Mr. Justice Williams and a common jury. Mr. Cottingham, with whom was Mr. Welsby, conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Jervis, Q. C., and Mr. Towns bend appeared for the defendant: Mr. WELSBY having opened the pleadings, Mr. COTTINGHAM stated the case, as follows :—Gentlemen of the jury, I have the honour to appear in this case on the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Oxley, who is a solicitor, carrying on business in Liverpool, and who has also a house at Sea combe, in this county. And, gentlemen, the plaintiff com plains against the defendant, who is the Secretary of a So ciety called the Liverpool Guardian Society, (as they say, for the protection of trade,) for a libel published by him re flecting on the plaintiff on the 3d of January, in the present year. Gentlemen, I have stated to you that Mr. Oxley is a professional man, carrying on business at Liverpool, and I need hardly remind you, that, in the exercise of that profes sion, character (if 1 may so speak) is a staple commodity, because without a good character it is quite clear that no lawyer could expect any party would confide and entrust him with the management of his legal affairs. Therefore, it is of the last importance to a gentleman exercising the profession of an attorney that he should have a perfectly good and un impeachable character. Gentlemen, the defendant, Mr. Reay, is, as I am informed, the secretary to this society, which calls itself a society for the protection of trade. Gen tlemen, on the 3d of January the defendant thought proper to issue a circular to every member of the society, which is composed of no less than 900 individuals, and in which cir cular the libel in question is contained. Perhaps, before I make any comments upon it, I had better state to you what the libel is. The circular is headed, " Private, and not to be disclosed to any person ;" then, after stating that two letters had been received by two members of the society, respecting some orders for goods by other parties, it proceeds thus to attack the plaintiff—" a person representing that he was sent Sy George Oxley, attorney, in Dale-street, meaning the plaintiff, and who lives also at Seacombe, on the 26th of the last month, brought a written order, purporting to be signed by George Oxley, meaning the plaintiff, to a member for groceries, which were supplied to the amount of 18s. 10d. On the Saturday following, the same person tendered in payment a printed check of £5, also purporting to be signed by George Oxley, meaning the plaintiff, upon a bank in the town, who stated that he had missed the banking hours, that the check would be paid on the Monday, and requested to have the difference. The member however declined, and upon inquiry at the bank it was ascertained that Oxley had no account there. Subsequently, application was made to Oxley, for payment of the 18s. 10d., and the money was paid. Then it proceeds to describe the appearance of the person who presented the check. Now, gentlemen, it is for you to say, whether this is not an imputation upon the plaintiff's character. He feels that his name is introduced in this circular in a way that it ought not, and he feels that an insinuation is intended to be conveyed. He says that by his order, or with his knowledge, a check was presented in order to be changed, but it is alleged that he (Mr. Oxley) well knew at the time it purported to be signed by him ; that he had no funds in the bank upon which to draw. Now, gen tlemen, first of all they say that they put us to the proof of the libel, that is, they call upon us to show upon the libel being read, whether it is a libel or not. Then afterwards they say they had good ground for publishing, and that they were justified in so doing. Now, gentlemen, the short facts of the case are these, Mr. Oxley had been in the habit of dealing with a person of the name of Docker, a grocer, in Liverpool, and on the 26th of December he sent a person whom he knew to Mr. Docker, to order some groceries to be sent to Mr. Oxley's house at Seacombe, where they bad usually been sent. The person thus directed to order the goods stated the plaintiff was going to Manchester on the Thursday, and would return on the Saturday, when the amount would be defrayed. Gentlemen, Mr. Oxley did go to Manchester, and on his return to Liverpool, on the Saturday, a person for whom he had transacted some business paid him the £5 check in question. He gave it to the person who ordered the goods, who took it to Mr. Docker's to pay for them, but, however, he declined, requesting that it might be left; but the indi vidual said, he should want some of the money, and, there fore he would get somebody else to do it. The person thus entrusted with the check, accordingly went and received money for it, and the individual who accommodated him presented the check on the Monday, when it was paid, and on the same day Mr. Oxley paid the sum due to Mr. Docker. Now, gentlemen, in the first place, the check, which they state in their justification, was signed by Mr. Oxley, turns out to be signed by a totally different person. namely, a Mr. John Abbott Kaye, a highly-respectable merchant at Liver pool ; but, however, they choose to say that it was presented by a person in the employ of Oxley, and was signed by Oxley, he (Oxley) a. that time well knowing that he had no funds. Therefore that fact is di s pro v ed by the check itself. It appears that the check, instead of being signed by Oxley, was signed by John Abbott Kaye, and was made in favour of Oxley. Now, gentlemen, so matters were on the Monday, that was, the 31st of January ; and so soon after as the Thursday, although this matter was settled by payment of the money on the Monday, this protecting society, as they call it, issued a circular in which they state these facts, well knowing, as they might have done, upon inquiry, th a t they were utterly without foundation. Now, gentlemen, it was their bounden duty, before they issued this circular, to have ascertained these facts, or abstained from making a publcation ; and if, in your opinion, it is a false publication, how are they justi fied in making it ? They had opportunities of testing the truth ; but instead of that, they issue a circular to each member of their society, of which Mr. Oxley justly com plains. Now, gentlemen, Ido not know whether my learned friend intends to call witnesses—l should rather surmise not. The libel will he put in, and it will be for you, under my lord's direction, to consider what construction ought to be put upon it. I do not see what witnesses my learned friend can call in answer to my case, because he has stated the facts upon which he affects to justify the libel, namely, the circumstances I have stated to you, the nature of which will be proved by evidence. It is stated that the check was drawn by Mr. Oxley, purporting to be signed by him, when in point of fact it was not. Ido not know whether my learned friend will call any witnesses to alter that : the fact will appear upon the document itself when I produce it. Therefore, gentlemen, I am apprehensive it is possible I may not have the opportunity of addressing you again ; and I beg to remind you that Mr. Oxley asks, at your hands, damages by way of compensation for the injury which his character has sustained by the imputation contained in this publication. John Edwards examined by Mr. WELSBY.—Is tierk to a Railway Company at Liverpool. Knows the defendant. Be lieves hisa to be secretary to the Guardian Society at Liver pool. Has seen his name attached as secretary. Believes the signature to the circular produced to be his. Went by the plaintiff's desire to the defendant on the 12th of March, in the present year, and asked him for the names of the parties giving the information contained in the circular. De scribed the circular as one received by Mr. Pearson, a mem ber of the Guardian Society. Stated that the plaintiff, if the request was complied with, would withdraw his action against Mr. Kaye, and begin a fresh one. Went with Mr. Reay to his attorney, and they refused to do it. Cross-examined by Mr. Jen:ism—Has seen Mr. Reay write. Bought a hat at his shop for the purpose of obtaining his receipt. Is not a friend of Mr. Oxley nor his clerk. Was clerk at the time to Mr. Pearson. Mr. Oxley is Mr. Pear son's attorney. Mr. Oxley's offices are at Liverpool. Wit ness lives at Liverpool. Has known Mr. Oxley probably eighteen months, certainly not two years. Cannot tell how long he has been in Liverpool. Does not recollect at all when he came from New South Wales. Cannot tell how long he has been practising in Liverpool. Does not know the name of his clerk, or that he has one. Has met Mr. Oxley at public-houses on one or two occasions. Re-examined by Mr. WELSBY.—Does not know of his own knowledge of how many members the Society of Guardians consists, but has heard that there area great many members. (The libel was here read.) Thomas Edwards examined by Mr. Corrzsrmtam.-Knows the shop of Mr. Docker, hut knew nothing of Mr. Parkin son when he first went there. Ordered some groceries from Mr. Docker's shop in November. Was asked by Mr. Ox ley where he could be supplied with groceries, and recom mended Mr. Docker's. On the 26th of December was sent by Mr. Oxley for another supply with a written order. Mr. Oxley was going to Manchester, and witness went by his di rection to Mr. Docker's, and requested that some goods should be sent according to former orders, and when Mr. Oxley returned from Manchester he would call and pay for them, which would be on the Saturday. On that day he re turned to Liverpool between four and five o'clock in the af ternoon. Went with him to John Abbott Kaye and Co., wine and spirit merchants, in Chapel-street, and waited till he came out, when lie received a check from him for £5. Mr. Oxley gave instructions as to what was to be done with the check. The banking houses at Liverpool close from two till four. Has been at the bank at six o'clock in the even ing. Cannot say what time the close on a Saturday. The banking house was closed when be got the check. Went with the check to Docker's shop. Saw Mr. Parkinson when he first entered, and presented it, saying that he had come to pay Mr. Oxley's account, who had just arrived from Man chester. That he had received the check from a respectable house, wished to pay the money, and have the balance. Laid the check upon the counter. Mr. Parkinson said he would call Mr. Docker and when he came he told him the same as he had told Mr. Parkinson. Gave the check into Mr. Docker's hands, who looked at it, and said he had been paying an ac count, and had not sufficient change, he had only 9s. 6d. in silver, that he might leave it, and call for the balance on Monday. The check was drawn by John Abbott and Co., wine and spirit merchants. Looked at the check, it was signed. "J. Abbott." The check produced is the one witness re ceived from Mr. Oxley, and would have no hesitation in going into any house to get it changed. It is the same check that witness presented at Mr. Docker's. Cross-examined by Mr. Jeßvis.—Knows where the check came from. Did not see it signed. It was signed in favour of George Oxley. At the bottom of the check was the name of J. Kaye & Co. It was signed A. Kaye. Don't know whether they put their name in full. Is certain it was made payable to George Oxley. Is not aware whether Mr. Abbott or Mr. Kaye is a friend of Mr. Oxley. Mr. Abbott is here. Both Mr. Docker and Mr. Parkinson looked at the check attentively. There was gas in the shop. Docker said he would give the balance on Monday. Witness told him he wanted some money. It was Saturday night the 28th of De cember, and the check was payable on the Monday. Is pot a clerk to Mr. Oxley ; but a general broker, and lives at No. 35, Bostock-street. Is not aware whether Mr. Oxley is a friend of his. Mr. Oxley has offices in Liverpool, and has known him somewhere about two years. Cannot say how long he has been in practice. Has not particularly acted as his clerk. Has done business for him, for which he was paid, but not for serving writs. Collected accounts for him and recommended him clients, and has been paid for it. Gets his own living by industry. Was in the excise about 20 years ago, but gave it up because he did not like it ; after that commenced business in Liverpool as a wine and spirit mer chant—continued so between 11 and 12 years, and should have kept it on but for some attorney's clerk who persuaded him to give an inventory. Was a bankrupt, but not then. Has been an insolvent. Could not obtain his certificate when a bankrupt because he had no money to carry it on. Knows a Mr. Hardisty a wine and spirit merchant, and lived in his service about 18 months or two years, during which Mr. Hardisty was robbed three times. Was not dismissed for robbing him. Never advised Mr. Hardisty to forge a name to a bill. Remembers a woman being prosecuted for theft while in the service of Mr. Hardisty. Cannot recollect the name of the woman ; she was not a servant of Mr. Har disty, but a prostitute. She was not charged by way of steal ing money for the purpose of making up a deficiency in wit ness's account. She was acquitted. Cannot tell on what ground. Re-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—Carried on business once to a very great extent. Others were unfortunate who were more cautious. Has a family of 14 children, whom lie has maintained in credit and respectability for the last ten or twelve years. No truth in the insinuations thrown out in the cross-examination. Is quite clear that the check pro duced is the same that he received from Mr. Oxley, and pre sented at Mr. Docker's shop, and paid it to Mr. John Con way Brooks somewhere about six o'clock in the evening of the same day. By the JUDGE.—Refused to leave it till Monday, and got it changed that night, as he wanted temporary relief. By Mr. JERVIS.—It was between five and six o'clock that he went to Mr. Brooks, who gave him two sovereigns on ac count. Went to Mr. Docker's shop soon after five o'clock. Will swear he did not go to Mr. Docker's shop with the check about seven o'clock. Mr. Joseph Abbott examined by Mr. WELSBY.—Is a partner in the firm of Messrs. John Abbott Kaye & Co., wine and spirit merchants, at Liverpool. On the 28th of December last gave Mr. Oxley a check at his counting-house. That is the cheek produced. It was between five and six on a Saturday evening. Has au account at Messrs. Moss and Company, bankers. qe: k Nk\.S s &mined by Mr. JERVIS.—The check was dated as payable on Monday. Knows little of Mr. Oxley. Is not a friend of his, Gave the £5. for procuring a document which he otherwise could not have obtained. Re-examined by Mr. COTTINGIIAM.—The.£S was given for getting possession of an agreement. Mr. Oxley made no direct charge, but it came from witness himself. Had not sufficient money, or he should not have given the check. Mr. Oxley said it would be of service to him or he should not have done it. It was after banking hours. Mr. John Conway Brooks examined by Mr. COTTING ITAM.—Ie a licensed victualler in Liverpool. Has known Edwards between seven and eight years, by coming back wards and forwards to his house. Remembers his bringing a cheek, to the best of his recollection it was a little before six o'clock. Gave him two sovereigns on account of it, and kept it till Monday morning following, when he got it cashed at the bank and gave him three sovereigns. Mr. John Evans examined by Mr. JERVIS.—Is clerk to Messrs. Moss and Company's Bank. Mr. Oxley has no ac count there. Inquiry was made whether he had, and the answer was that he had not. Mr. JEnvis submitted that no libel had been proved. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS was of opinion that it was a ques tion for the jury. Mr. JERVIS then addressed the jury for the defendant as follows :—Gentlemen, I put that point to his lordship, ex pecting he would decide if this was a libel or not ; that will now be a question for the court to pronounce upon here after, and therefore I will not trouble you at all upon that matter, I will merely observe as to the publication itself. The simple question will be as to the malice and the truth of the publication. It may be convenient for me, in the course of the observations I have to make, to say something upon the character of the publication ; and before I take notice of some of the remarks of my learned friend, I beg to say that I perfectly concur in the observation of my learned friend the Recorder, that to an attorney it is of the deepest import ance that be should be a man of character; and there are honourable men in the profession who stand in that enviable position, but as in all other professions, there are black sheep ; and, although it may be of great importance to a man to have that staple commodity, a good character, it is certainly a much greater misfortune to his neighbourhood, and a much greater infliction and injury to his clients if they should happen to meet with a man who is paid for bringing in business, and to be put under the controul of an attorney who employs such unworthy means of acquiring professional engagements ; and it is the bounden duty of every man, if he knows an attorney is so situated to expose him, in order to pre vent parties being entrapped in a manner that may lead to ex pense if not to their ultimate ruin. Character, my friend says, is the staple commodity of Mr. Oxley, the plaintiff. Certainly, gentlemen, we have not had a good specimen of the manner in which he has treasured and valued his character, when, upon the evidence of his own witness—Mr. Abbott, a gen tleman of high respectability, as I am bound to admit—it appears that Mr. Oxley. took £5 actually to behave in a very unbecoming way towards the man who had placed confi dence in him. That is the sort of character that Mr. Oxley now sets up, but that is not all as to Mr. Oxley's character, as I will shew you before I have done. Mr. Oxley says that character is to him of the deepest importance—that he ex pects employment from his character alone—and that his respectability of character is valuable to him in his own im mediate neighbourhood, in Liverpool, where he practises; and yet Mr. Oxley has chosen, at some expense, to bring all his witnesses from the town of Live r pool, where he is known, for the purpose of trying his professional character before gentlemen in a county adjoining, and perhaps some coming many miles distant from that place ; thereby viola ting that salutary old rule, that jurors should come from the neighbourhood where the inquiry was to take place, that they might know something of the respectability of the wit nesses who were called—take Mr. Edwards, for instance— that they might know something of that precious jewel upon which Mr. Oxley alone relies, namely, the staple commodity of his good character. You are selected from a distance — many of you farmers and agriculturists—in preference to the inhabitants of the town and immediate neighbourhood where this respectable attorney practises, because, forsooth, you must be far better qualified, knowing nothing about him or his witnesses, to estimate the extreme respectability of his character in his own immediate neighbourhood! But he is an attorney ; he can, therefore, bring his action at slight cost ; if he loses he has nothing to pay, I fear, as he manages his own cause at a cheap rate. He kills his own mutton, as the common term is; and why, in God's name, won't he sell it in his own market ? He flies from Liverpool, where he is known, to court inquiry amongst strangers. My learned friend says, that if poison is circulated, the antidote should be applied at the same place. People must be in clined to suspect what sort of a character the plaintiff has, when he challenges a public investigation at a place so re mote, and asks compensation for his injured character. He has sought it, and he shall have it. You shall hear some thing of his character before I have done. Gentlemen, 1 have the honour here to represent the Liverpool Guar dian Society, the number and respectability of which I am not ashamed to own, comprehending 900 members, consist ing of the first merchants of Liverpool; and the reason my friend assigns for coming here to try this question is, that they cannot trust any people in that great commercial town to try it, because there are 900 members in this society, with the mayor at their head. Now, certainly, if a society so constituted keeps within the ordinary line of its duty, if, with out comment or observation, it states simply facts, not wrest- Mg them from the naked truth, for the purpose of putting the unwary upon their guard; if they do that—if they state but the truth—l am quite sure you will be of opinion they fairly discharge their duty. It is the bounden duty of every man, in their relative positions one to the other, not to permit a man to obtain credit, station, and employment, under a false character : and he who seeks to screen his real conduct from the world, is an impostor. As to the Guardian Society, every man states that which he knows to be true, and he states it in writing, where there can be no mistake about it ; and you will find that this statement was made in a letter professing to be private, and circulated only among members. It was obtained, nobody knows how, from Mr. Pearson (whether stolen or not I cannot say) for the purpose of founding this action. You will find that the circular con tains only a naked statement of facts, without exaggeration, and it is now attempted to be met in this way. My learned friend says, you say there was a check presented to Mr. Docker, signed by Mr. Oxley. Now I will show you my client had a check from John Abbott Kay that evening, be tween four and five o'clock, the consideration of that check having been a breach of his duty. I will show you that is the check which was presented, and I will call a witness, a Mr. Edwards, who will swear that was the check that he presented. Now the fact of having got a cheek from John Abbott Kay proves nothing, unless it be impossible to suppose that this respectable Mr. Oxley could not have drawn it in his own name. It depends entirely upon the evidence of Edwards, the companion of Oxley, and whom we shall show is not to be believed upon his oath. I will call witnesses before you for the purpose. 1 defy my learned friend to enter into the particulars ; he may do so, if he pleases, but I cannot ac cording_ to the rules of law. Edwards, according to his own account, has been once a bankrupt, once an insolvent, and, while in Mr. Hardisty's service for a short time, it happened unfortunately that Mr. Hardisty was robbed three times, and Edwards admits that the woman who was accused of stealing on his evidence was acquitted. Upon his demeanour in the witness box alone, 1 ask you to say if you can believe him ? Either he was acting in a manner most disgraceful or he was insulting the solemn dignity of the court before which he appeared, by coming to depose on oath when he was in a state of beastly intoxication. Now, if he is not to be believed on his oath, and if Mr. Oxley be a man of the character that I shall prove him, I ask if it is at all unlikely that a check was drawn by Oxley upon Moss and Co., though he had no account with them at all. It is not unlikely that he might have the other check, to enable him to account for his own. by mystification. Ido not see any other reason, but I will prove beyond the possibility of doubt, coupling the evidence of Edwards with that which I shall call, that the check of fered to Docker was not a check drawn by John Abbott Kaye. That check by John Abbott Kaye was cashed between five and six on the Saturday, as Mr. Brooks has sworn ; and I will call two witnesses before you who will prove, that, when the check upon which the allegation is m a d e was presente d at Docker's shop it was past seven o'clock. Two witnesses, Docker and Parkinson, will swear to that fact ; one of whom, Mr. Docker, is a man of the greatest experience in such mat ters, and Mr. Parkinson will tell you that, having his atten tion drawn constantly to bills, he looked most attentively at the signature to the check. Both of them will swear most positively that it was signed by George Oxley. You may say, is it likely that a man, an attorney, even though lie had sold his own client, could have been a party to such a fraud as this ? Now, I shall he obliged to show you who and what Mr. Oxley is. Mr. Oxley was a soldier, who served in New South Wales. He returned to this country, and became an attorney. I will call numbers of witnesses before you, who will prove that in his professional capacity he has not acted in a manner very consistent with propriety. I will call witness after witness, who will prove to you that Mr. Edwards is not a man of character, and ought not to bo so thought. My friend says character is a staple commodity, and seeks for damages, because Mr. Oxley's character has been injured. I will prove to you that he is a man of no character, and let my friend if he dare ask the particulars, and although that only would go in re duction of damages, if your verdict should be against the society, yet it is of the deepest importance to see when this inquiry is before you, whether any man in the position of an attorney, would condescend to commit this most atrocious fraud. I shall show you it must have been committed— I shall call before you, as I have stated, both Mr. Docker, and Mr. Parkinson, t o p rove th e p resen t a ti on o f t h e c h ec k and the signature, and I shall also call witnesses who will prove that Oxley is not to be believed on his oath. My witnesses will support each other, that he is a man of general bad character, and 1 again invite my friend if he dare to in vestigate the particulars of Mr. Oxley's character, if he thinks a public exposition will raise him in the estimation of the public. Mr. TOWNSHEND then called THOMAS PARKINSON,—I assist Mr. Docker in his shop in Liverpool. He is a grocer. On Saturday the 28th of Dec., I recollect a person coming to the shop, with a check for X 5 ., for whi c h he wanted change, in payment for some groceries. His name was Edwards, and it was past ;o'clock when he came ;—the check was signed George Oxley. (The J. notAtii e Kayetohnee checkahn e d C b r o o . uwg whichhats wE h e ad i s - w e oa h rf a da n s d l bg d rho t t u o bg the ute. check signed by w l i e t x n a e m ss ild m it i , s an is d colour. Mr. JERNIS.--On which bank was the check drawn Mr. CorriNGßAm.-1 object to the question because if the story be true which my learned friend has told, he ought to have given notice for the check to b e produced. - The JUDGE. Was the paper which Edwards produced taken away by him. Witness.—lt was, my lord. The JUDGE decided that notice ought to have been given for the production of the paper. Cross-examined by Mr. CorrixoHnm.-1 am not a mem ber of the Guardian society, but my employer, Mr. Docker, is. I did not know anything of the report made to the society before it was sent. I swear I did not join in the concocting of the report. I knew that Mr. Docker had made the report on the Tuesday, but I did not see it, nor did 1 say anything to him concerning it. Mr. Henry Docker, grocer, of Liverpool, examined by Mr. TOWNSEND.---I pay my subscription to the Guardian Society. Mr. COTTINGHAM.—Are you a party in defending this action. Witness.—No. Mr. COTTINGII AM.—Are not the funds of the Guardian Society expended to defend this action VNitness on .—I my am own noto k n n t o h w e ledge. committee, and do not know it to be a fact By Mr. TowNsEND.—I am sure that it was between seven and eight o'clock when Parkinson called me out to look at the check, because I was going home at the time, and that is the usual hour at which I leave the shop, excepting on the Saturday. I have been in a mercantile office before I was in business for mybelf, and have had many bill transactions go through my hands, and I swear positively that the check produced was not the one tendered by Edwards. The one he tendered was of a light blue, or slate colour. (A blank check of Messrs. Moss of the colour mentioned by the wit ness was here handed to him, the check signed by Messrs. Kaye and Co. being of a pink colour.) This I now hold in my hand I should think to be a fac simile of the plate from which the check brought by Edwards was printed. Mr. Parkinson had supplied Mr. Oxley with groceries on the previous Saturday. After the check was tendered, I made inquiries at Messrs. Mosses' Bank, as to whether Mr. Oxley had any funds in the bank, and the answer was that he had not, and I then made the report to the Guardian Society. Mr. check k s b day morning, Edwards. a In Oxley had promised to come to my shop on the Mond a y follow ing the presentation of the check , to pay the IBs 104 for groce ries rinnd : es h to e b l u d fit him instance, b t r as s h a ed o l u d t the prese ntation plres said wen t enthttaaotti I himofwas on s the the c rry that I could not change the check at the time, but asked him if he had got it with him then. I believe I mentioned to him that the check brought by Edwards purported to be of the value of . - E5. Mr. Oxley, on my mentioning the subject of the check, seemed rather fluttered, and said "say nothing about it, here is the money for the groceries," and he threw down the sovereign and I gave him the change..l know the firm of J. A. Kaye and Co., and know them to be highly respectable. If I had seen their names upon the check produced by Ed wards to me, I should have cashed it at the time, as I had plenty of money in the house to have done so: I merely said thatlhad notbecause I would not cash . a check for Oxley without making enquiry. Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I informed the secretary of the Guardian Society on the Tuesday following the tendering of the cheek verbally and the report complained of was published a week or two afterwards. I will swear-it was more than a week after I informed the secretary, that the report was published. lam not threatened with an action for libel by the plaintiff. I know that Messrs. lteay and Evans wereapplied to give up to the author of the report, but 1 do not know that that was for the purpose of bringing an action against the author. I examined the check by gas light. _ - By Mr. JELVIS.—The circular containing the report was dated the 30th of January. Mr. George Hardisty called and examined by Mr. TowN SEND.—I lately carried on the business of a wine and spirit merchant in Liverpool. The witness Edwards was in my service in 1833. I have heard him asked about the matter of the bill. Mr. TOWNSHEND was then about to ask the witness as to the nature of the transaction of the bill before alluded to, when The JUDGE said,—l do not think you can ask that ques tion about the bill. You can ask him whether he would believe the witness on his oath. Mr. TOWNSHEND.—You have said that you have known the witness from being in your service. Would you believe anything that he said? Mr. Hardisty.—l say, from my own knowledge of his character, that I would not believe him on his oath, unless he were corroborated. Cross-examined by Mr. WELSBY .—lt is about seven years since Edwards was in my employ. I heard him examined at the Sessions-house, in Liverpool, against a female, who was acquitted. I can almost give you the words of Mr. Clarke, the recorder, on the occasion. Mr. WELSBY.—WeII, what were they ? Mr. Hardisty.—Mr. Clarke, the recorder, looked at the jury, and said, " Gentlemen, you may see as clear• as I do into this case." The jury then turned round, and immedi ately acquitted the prisoner. Mr. CorrINGLIAm.—A very excellent summing up, I think. (Laughter.) Mr. Weaver•, a boot and shoemaker, in Hill-street, Tox teth-park, was then called. Mr. TOWNSHEND.— Do • you 'num the plaintiff in this. action ? Witness.—l do. Mr. TOWNSHEND.—What is his character? Is it good or bad ? Mr. COTTINGHAM said that he objected to that question being put. The plaintiff had been libelled, and had denied that he had been guilty of that laid to his charge, and, that as he could not put in evidence of his good character, it was not legal that general evidence of bad character should be received. Mr. JEavis contended that the evidence could legally be received, and quoted several cases from Roscoe's Reports, among - which were those of " Moore v. Oastler," tried at York, " Hardy v. Alexander," tried at Liverpool, and the more recent case of Holden v, Richards, against the Guar dian Society, in all of which general evidence against the plaintiff's character was admitted. An argument on this point ensued between the plaintiff's and defendant's counsel. The JUDGE, after referring to the cases quoted, said he would admit the evidence, although he did not like the prin ciple of it. Mr. COTTINGHAM hoped the Judge would take a note of the objection. His LORDSHIP said he would do so. The Witness then stated that he knew the plaintiff, and from his own knowledge, and from reports, he could say that his character was not good. Mr. JERVIS said that Mr. Cottingham could enter into particulars with the witness if he thought proper. Mr. COTTINGHAM declined to do so. Mr. John M`Quistian, a landing-waiter, of Liverpool, was then called by Mr. TOWNSHEND.—I know the plaintiff, and have done for two or three years, and 1 can swear that he has a bad cha racter. Cross-examined by :Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I employed the plaintiff as an attorney, and he sent in a bill of sale of my goods. Mr. JERvis.—What do you mean by a bill of sale of your goods. _ _ Witness.—l employedhim to settle with a person to whom I owed money, and he received the money from me, and did not hand it over to the creditor, and I am now paying it over again. MR: John Askew, the harbour master of Liverpool, was called, and said, that he had sold Oxley some goods, and had never received payment for them. He had only one trans action with him. On cross-examination, the witness said, that he had no great opi n i on o f th e plaintiff, nor of attorneys in general, for he had sold property to one of that pro fession to the amount of £23,000, and had not got paid for it. Mr. J. Williams examined.—l am a charcoal-burner in Liverpool. I have known the plaintiff and his family for many years. He had been a soldier, and I know that his character and reputation is bad. When he first came to Liverpool, I recommended him to some friends to get in money for them, and he received the money but never handed it over to his employers. The parties to whom I re commended him, said I ought to make up his deficiencies; they claimed from me inconsequence of my recommendation. I do not hesitate to say, that I would not believe him upon his oath. Cross-examined by Mr. CorTINGnAm.—I have been a bankrupt and an insolvent, but my misfortunes were brought on by the attorneys. The plaintiff never supported my fa mily at Rotherham. He used to come to a fruit shop kept by me in that town, with his comrades, to purchase goods; but that is all he ever did for me. I never heard of any kind nesses done by the plaintiff to my family. I was connected with some alum works at Rotherham, and left of my own accord, and was not discharged for concealing myself on the premises, to obtain possession of a secret. Be Mr. JERVIS.—I am an operative chemist. The plain tiff came to me, and said that he had been abroad among the bush rangers, and after some conversation. I said that I could get him plenty of business if he would be honest. He never gave up the money I recommended him to collect. By Mr. Corrowilam.—l never knew the plaintiff was an ensign in a regiment. I understood he was a private soldier. Mr. Ackroyd, a tailor and draper, of Liverpool, was then examined.—l saw the prisoner on the 20th of September last, and he swindled me out of a suit of clothes. Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I suppose you made a suit of clothes for him and he did not pay you. That is it, is it not? Witness.—He got them by false pretences. He said he would try them on to see if they would fit, and then he would pay me ; but when he had got them on, he would not part with them again, and said that there was no law in England which could take them from him. I never give credit, and the plaintiff could read on a large board in my shop, as if it was over this court, "No credit given." I did not proceed against the plaintiff, because I thought he was nothing bet ter than a common swindler, and that I should get nothing by it. By Mr. JERVIS.—The plaintiff first sent his servant for the clothes, but I would not part with them without the money, and he then came himself and said that he wanted no credit, but to try the clothes on at home, as he did not like to try them on in the shop. I sent them to his house, and he promised to send the money back, but I was miserably disappointed. (Loud laughter.) Mr. Blacker.—An auctioneer in Liverpool, on his ex amination by Mr. TOWNSREND.—Said that he had had dealings with the plaintiff, who was formerly a friend of his, but he was truly sorry to say that his character was very bad. He had reason to say so from having employed him, and also from his general reputation. By Mr. CorririnfiAm.—l sold the plaintiff's household furniture when he was in difficulties, and I have accounted to him for every farthing of the proceeds of the sale. I am not a member of the Guardian Society. Mr. JERVIS said that he could call a number more wit nesses to give similar evidence, with regard to the plaintiff's character, but he thought he had shewn sufficient, and here concluded the defendant's case. Mr. COTTINGHAM then addressed the jury in reply, stat ing that the evidence against the plaintiff's character had nothing to do with the question for the jury, which was whe ther or not the publication in the Guardian Society's circular was a libel on the plaintiff's character or not. He believed that attorne‘s generally were not popular with the public, which might account for the evidence . given. However respectable an attorney conducted his business, people could be found to say something against him. The Learned JUDGE then summed up the evidence, leaving it to the jury to say what the amount of damages should be. With respect to the publication, he had no doubt of its being libellous. The Jury, with but little hesitation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing. Mr. JERVIS.—I hope your lordship will certify in this case ? The JUDGE.—I will take time to consider of it. FELTED CLOTII.—In reference to the recent patent for manufacturing felted cloth, a correspondent has directed our attention to the following passage in Dr. Rees' Cyclopwdia, at the conclusion of an article on the " woollen manufacture," in vol. 38 :—" Among the attempts to improve the woollen manufactures we must not omit to notice the invention of Mr. Joseph Booth, for fabricating woollen cloth without spinning or weaving. This was effected by felting wool into a web by the aid of machinery, which operated mechanically upon a tissue of carded wool, to entangle and interlace the fabrics together. The inventor took a patent for this in 1793 or 1794, but before the time for the enrolment of the specifi cation of his process, he obtained an act of parliament, the preamble of which states, that on account of the great importance of the art, and the danger of its being carried abroad to the injury of the staple manufacture of the king dom, parliament had determined to keep the specification sealed ; hence we are not able to give the details of this ma chinery. 'We find these expectations have not been realised ; for, although the process has been repeatedly tried on a large scale and in the most complete manner, it has been aban doned. Three large mills were established at Taunton and near Salisbury, by experienced woollen-manufacturers of the west of England ; another mill was converted to the purpose at Lewisham, in Kent ; and the last mill was erected at Merton, in Surrey, the property of James Perry, Esq. We learn from this gentleman, that he was able to manufacture cloth of a fine surface, and of a very even and regular sub stance, but it was rather deficient in strength, for want of the threads which form the substance of common cloth ; and in respect to wear it was less durable than common cloth, as it did not withstand brushing; otherwise the ex pense of the process, which was not one-fourth of the com mon process, would have brought it into general wear." ,ueH e mrd l sdi r a,g o ej in L el naslEytteNeys soon hoo E poaf sonr H.M.rna beenfel E R graciously MAJESTY pleasedANn toPßlNCEsignify ALBERT. her i n joteofnytpiitoloronr to provide for the widow and children of Lieutenant after rA lli s be t e e hr a ta m dt o - t y ht a he c i steam-yacht honour n F ll i n r e t Firebrand, bringndn who e aorvl eyr d l i ii e l fi d es g —Her who was then a pilot, had the good fortune to prevent her Majesty from being injured, perhaps killed, by warding off from her the spar or gaff-boom of a sailing.yaCht, near which she was sitting with her illustrious mother, en todact: m m aquatic and o e f x a c r sicii. government For a this tea ma_cyta steam-yacht. w . a s oen r h o e m a o r i t n e the quarter-deck, r a t n e n r - d d e e r c s k , a, death, her hnr m ultimately aj theetsoty is s l , al id u t a o bl h p al a e n and lu crative much affected, and lost no communicatingtimseoetihrneanlaeftt gra cious intention to his r d uh i r s ge c n o a n nh s d o is l G ate widow. The othe le r r ii ° Firebrand,. Mr. Hicks, the master of the hk a oe s n ao f follows o tn w x et s h: Coburg royal yacht William and Mary, having been temporarily placed in command, his serene highness made several kind return de n inci dent ius inquiries after Lieutenant Shambler, the officer who had on a former occasion brought him over, and learning that he Highnesshi sco untthrey country, Reign lugelhcels had accepted the command of a West Indian packet, and fallen a victim to the climate, his serene highness, in the kind. est manner, warmly expressed his tympathy for the orphans and widow, who were left totally destitute, and immediately wrote a letter, which he requested Mr. Hicks to take charge of, and personally deliver to LieutenantF. S eymour, one of the equerries to his Royal Highness Pime A lbert, which humane mission the gallant o ffi cer faithfu ll y p er forme d, in and the result is, that Mrs. Shambler has receive d a roy al ti by a pension to the widow.—Morning Herald. mation that the long services of her husband will be rewarded N ..•,_ \ _s 'es ~~ ~,`l~~ ~- ~~. ~~~ SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. RAPE. George lII' Kinnon was chargal with havin g , in this town, in February last, f e l on i ous l y ralished Mary Bone, junior. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Pere conducted the prosecution, and Mi. Wilkins the defence. Mr. WILKINS desired that all the witnesses should be sent out of court. Mr. A R MSTI2 0 7 N G stated the case. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances minutely, but witlfgreat firmness and consideration towards the prisoner, intimating the points of evidence which he had to bring forward, and cautioning the jury to give the case their most serious attention, and to - give the prisoner the benefit of any doubts which they might reasonably entertain. Mary Bone, a well-favoured young girl, stated that she was turned 13 years of ate. (The witness looked rather older than the age she mentioned,) Having mentioned the cir cumstance attending her engagement by the prisnoer, to take care of his house, he living apart front his wife, who it ap peared was a drunken female, she proceeded to state that he occupied a house in Great Howard-street, jointly with a per son named Memmon. She was to have eighteen pence per week. He had a parlour and a garret, and he and the chil dren slept in the latter. In the-garret there was a bed and a mattress.' It was from the commencement arranged that when the prisoner, who was a custom-house officet, did not sleep at home, witness was to sleep with the children, and when he slept at his own house she was to go home. On the Saturday night following her engagement, a woman named Edwards was at the house, and Mr. and Mrs. Memmon were out. Mrs. Edwards went away after tea. The prisoner told her he should sleep at home that night till twelve o'clock, and that she was to take the matress down to the parlour as he would sleep there till he went out. He sent her out for some milk. When she returned he had some tea made. He took two cups of it. While she was at the cupboard he poured out a cup of tea and put some milk into it. He presented a full cup to her, and told her to drink it up. She drank about half of it, and could not drink any more, it tasted so bad — just like poison. It looked very black. He said, " drink it up, it is just the same as mine." She tried to take some more, but she did not like it, and spirted the last mouthful into a bucket. She had had tea, before, that afternoon. He told her about half an hour after to go to bed. She had washed her night cap, and told him that she wished to dry it. He said, " Oh, never mind it—l will bring it up." She went to bed, and according to his directions, called to him to bring up the nightcap. He did so. He then said, " I think I will bring up my mattress, and lay it beside the bed and sleep there." She replied, " No, Mr. M'Kinnon, I shall not like that." He told her to bold her head, and he would put on the night-cap. He did put it on. He afterwards brought up the mattress and quilt which she had previously taken down. He said, " I shall be a good bit before I come to bed." She fell asleep. Witness next described in what manner she was awakened, and weeping, and with some little hesitation, she told how the crime was perpetrated. He said, " Dod't cry, and I will buy you a new frock on Monday." She told him that she did not care for him or his new frock. She told him she would go home and tell her mother. He begged of her not to go, but she persisted. He went down stairs, and she got up. She called to him to ask where the candle was. He took it up stairs lighted, took his matress and quilt, and went down again. She could not find her bed-gown, and when she was dressed all but that article, she went down for it. She asked him for the candle. He told her she should have it to find her bedgown, but she should not go home. She asked him for her bonnet. She had left it behind the door, but it was not there. He said he did not know where it was. She pressed him to tell her where it was. He said, " Look under the table." He then told her that she should not go home. She persisted, however. He asked her if she knew what o'clock it was—it was just striking twelve. He begged of her not to tell her mother what had happeried. She said she would. He said, " Tell your mother that I was going to sleep at home, and that you could not sleep here." She went away to her mother. The latter was living servant with Mrs. Bates, who resides in Vauxhall-road. Mrs. Bates went with her into the parlour, and she told her all that had occurred. Mr. WILKINs cross-examined the witness at some length. He pressed her to say what sort of house Mrs. Bates kept, and whether young women did not lodge there. He asked her if she did not know a gentleman named Palmer, which she confessed she did, and then he put it to her, she having acknowledged that she knew Mr. Palmer, if her mother had not kept a brothel? _ _ _ The witness wept bitterly when this question was put to her, and earnestly replied in the negative. The prisoner during the cross-examination was quite cool, and employed himself in writing, apparently taking notes of the evidence. Mary Bone, sen., stated that the last witness was her daugh ter; she was thirteen years of age last December. Her hus band was captain of a ship which sailed from this port. He has been away eleven years. He went away before his last child was born. The ship returned, but her husband had left it in Quebec. She had never heard of him since. She after wards gained her livelihood by taking in lodgers. She went to live with Mr. Bates, who is an engineer, eight months ago. Her daughter lived there with her as nurse. She wanted a place for her. Her daughter went to live with the prisoner on the 26th February. She told her daughter to come home whenever Mr. M`Kinnon slept at home. On the Saturday night following, about half-past eleven o'clock, she heard a knock at the door. She found her daughter crying bitterly. She said, " Oh, mother, mother ! that man, that man ! ' Witness said, " What is the matter has he been striking you ?" She replied, "He has done worse, mother." Mrs. Bates came and led her into the kitchen. Mr. Bates went up stairs to bed, and the daughter told Mrs. Bates every thing. Witness examined her, and here described her con dition. The evidence was confirmatory of the statements of the girl herself. A surgeon was sent for, and the particulars were laid before the police next morning. Mrs. Bates was called.—(Mr. WILKINS explained that the insinuations which he had made against Mrs. Bates arose out of a mistake in his instructions. He did not mean to insi nuate any thing against Mrs. Bates.)—Mrs. Bates stated thnt the conduct of the girl, Mary Bone, was exceedingly good and proper during the time she lived with her. Mr. Craig, surgeon, stated the appearances presented on the examination of the girl. They were corroborative of her testimony, to the extent of showing that her person had been recently violated. . John Cameron, another surgeon, gave similar testimony. ?Mary Edwards, a char-woman, confirmed the first part of the testimony of the principal witness, with the exception that she stated that she did not see any tea. Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury at considerable length for the defence. His LORDSHIP impressed upon the jury the trite observa tion, that this crime was one of the easiest to make, and one of the most difficult to. rebut. His Lordship commented upon the evidence with great care, weighing it in its bearings for and against the prisoner with extreme caution. The jury retired at half-past one o'clock. They returned, after an absence of two hours and a half, and acquitted the prisoner. CHARGE OF WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER. Robert Jenkins, aged 18, was charged with having in August last wounded William Mackenzie, with intent to murder him. Several counts in the indictment charged the crime as having been committed with various other intents. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Preston for the prosecution ; the prisoner was undefended. It appeared, that on the 20th of August the prisoner was passing along a part of Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, with a dog. A man named Hessam Small, who was with Macken zie, claimed the dog. The prisoner attempted to strike this person. Mackenzie took hold of the dog, and the prisoner told him that he would stab him if he did not loose the dog. He took out a knife. Witness held the dog, and the prisoner stabbed him in his left breast. He was taken to a surgeon, and continued ill about 16 weeks. The statements of Mackenzie were confirmed by other witnesses. The surgeon who attended him described the wound as a severe one. If the knife had taken a lateral in stead of a central direction, immediate death would have ensued. The wound was a very dangerous one, and the sur geon was apprehensive during several days that he would not survive. The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with in tent to do some grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to transportation for life. Emanuel Route aged 43, was charged with having ma liciously wounded Terence Ward. Mr. Perry appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Murphy :or the defence. Terence Ward is a car driver in this town. On Thursday night, the 27th February last, he was standing with his car in Williamson-square, when the prisoner came out of James Ward's public-house and indecently exposed himself in the footwalk. There were females near, and witness called him a dirty fellow, and told him to be off—and that he ought to be ashamed of himself. The prisoner resented this and put himself in a fighting attitude. Witness sparred back and struck the prisoner the first blow, upon which he retired back into Ward's public-house. In a few minutes he re turned—asked witness if he were the man who called him a dirty fellow. He replied in the affirmative. They had another sparring bout, and the prisoner threw Ward down and stabbed him in the neck and arm. Several persons, among whom was the policeman on duty, who saw the trans action, confirmed the above statement. Mr. Chambers, a surgeon, who attended Ward, stated that he had received three wounds on his neck, one of which went very near to the carotid artery. Mr. MURPHY se up in defence, that in consequence of an injury formerly received in his head, the prisoner on the oc casion of any excitement, had not the perfect command of his reason. It was stated, by witnesses for the defence, that five years ago, when the prisoner was at work uptin the steamer Liver pool, his skull was fractured by a beam falling upon it, and that he had been easily excited by a slight provocation ever since. The jury retired. They returned in about twenty minuers, and delivered a verdict of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. They recommended the prisoner to mercy. The prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. CHARGE OF ,MANSLAUGHTER. Joseph Brown, aged 35, was charged with having unlaw fully killed and lain Heury Sephton, at Liverpool. Mr. Pugh conducted thc prosecution, and Mr. Murphy defended. On the 26th of February last, the prisoner, the deceased, and several other persons were at a beer-shop, kept by Thos. Massey, in Vauxhall-road. The prisoner and the deceased were both in drink, and they had a quarrel. The prisoner knocked the deceased clown. The deceased, it appeared, was very quarelsome, and provoked the prisoner exceedingly. There was a broken tumbler on the floor, from which the deceased, when he fell, received a wound. The deceased fell of himself, without a blow, at the last round. He was taken up, and died almost immediately. A post mortem examina tion was made by Mr. Black, surgeon. The deceased had a wound in his chest, through which the finger could be in troduced to the cavity of the chest. Mr. Black, however, could not say what was the cause of death. His lordship said, as this was the evidence of the sur, eon, there was an end of the case. The jury acquitted the prisoner. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Joseph Barber was charged with having feloniously killed and slain Francis Hully, at Chorlton-upon-Medlock. Mr. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Brandt de fended. The prisoner was employed by the authorities of Chorlton. In Chatham-street, at that place, a sewer was being exca vated, and according to the contract the soil taken out of the sewer was to be relaid upon the street. It was necessary, therefore, that the soil should be kept at hand. By the pri soner's orders, it was removed and placed in Clarendon -street. The deceased was passing in a cart, which came in contact with the rubbish, was overset, and the deceased killed. Before the case proceeded to the detail of evidence, Mr. PEEL said there was room enough for two carts to pass, and the prisoner had placed lights at first, but which had been subsequently removed, but that they did not know by whom. Mr. PEEL said there was, in Manchester, a contest be tween the two coroners, and they had returned two very different verdicts. His LORDSHIP observed, that in such a case it would be very hard to put a man upon his trial for manslaughter. A verdict of Acquittal was consequently taken. PERJURY. William Dunn, aged 9 2, was charged with having, at W ar _ rington, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution. It appeared that on the evening of Wednesday, the 27th . of N ovem b er l ast, the prisoner wen t to Mr. Jon es , d eputy constable of Warrington, and stated that on the previous evening when he was on his way from Staley Bridge to Man chester, he met four men whom he charged with having robbed him. lie induced Jones to go with him to the road, where they met the men and apprehended them. They were Thomas Bryan, son. and jun., and the two persons named Hogan. These men were brought before the magistrate, Mr. Stubbs, the following day. Mr. Jones proved the de position of the prisoner on oath, before the magistrate, by whom, and by the prisoner it was signed. In the deposition the prisoner charged the men above named with having vio lently essaulted him on the highway, and robbed him of three pound five shillings. The younger Bryan, and the female with whom they had lodged at the time when the robbery was alleged to have been committted, proved that they were at her house all that afternoon and all that night, and that they did not leave their home till the following morning. A Mr. M'Cormick, a catholic priest of Manchester, proved that the prisoner called on him a week before the time alleged in the depositions, with his arm in a sling, and stated that he had been robbed. He represented that he was in distress, and Mr. M'Cormick relieved him. Mr. Jones stated that the prisoner bad not his arm in a sling when he called upon him. The prisoner protested frequently during his trial the Bryans and the Hogans robbed him. The jury found the prisoner guilty. • The learned Juno); remarked on the heniousness of the offence, and passed the sentence of seven years transportation. NISI PRIUS.-FRIDAY. The court was occupied above four hours in trying the case SEDDON V. SALKELD. The question was merely one of the accuracy of accounts, involving a dispute as to the sum of £lOO. Verdict for the plaintiff for £5OO. \VINSTANLEY AND ANOTHER V. KURTZ, This was an action for the recovery of £2O 9s. for work done. After the statement for the plaintiffs had been made, his lordship, finding that the case was one which would lead to long and tedious investigation into accounts, proposed that it should be referred to arbitration. This was at first refused by the plaintiff, when his lordship said it would be a question, then, whether he should not suffer a case of that kind to stand over until those causes of more importance, in which a number of parties were concerned and witnesses de tained, had been disposed of. That this was precisely such a case as ought to be tried by an arbitrator, and why, there fore, should witnesses in other cases be detained while the court was occupied by the examination of accounts ? The parties ultimately consented to a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. The three following cases, which were of the same nature, were similarly disposed of. SMITH V. HEMINGWAY. This was an action to recover a balance of wages. Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. CROMPTON for the plaintiff Mr. MARTIN and Mr. WATSON for the defendant. It appeared that in the year 1838, Wm. Kavanagh, an ap prentice to the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Smith, a master cooper in this town, shipped on board the ship Ann, belonging to Messrs. Hemmingway and Agett, as cooper. The vessel was bound to the coast of Africa. Kavanagh understood that he was to have five guineas a month. He signed articles in the river, before sailing. After he had gone, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he was not to pay the wages, to which Kavanagh would become entitled, to Kavanagh him self, but to him (the plaintiff,) as he had a legal claim to what ever might be earned by his apprentice. In consequence of that notice, the defendant refused to give Kavanagh his monthly note. The voyage was about ten months and a half, and his wages would amount to fifty-two guineas and a half. The defendant had paid into court forty-two pounds, and the dispute was only as to the remaining thirteen pounds. Two shipping notes given to Kavanagh, although not paid, indi cated the wages to be £5 ss. per month, and those were put in and proved ; but the plaintiff grounded his claim on the general merits of Kavanagh as a workman, and the current rate of wages paid to able coopers. Kavanagh had been in the service of Mr. Smith about five years, and was stated by witnesses to be equal to a journeyman to his master. The defence was that Kavanagh proved to be an incompetent workman, and evidence to establish this was called. The witnesses directly contradicted each other on several points, and differed materially in their estimate of Kavanagh's ca pacity. . . In the course of the trial, Mr. MARTIN took an objection to the indenture of apprenticeship, on account of its not hav ing been stamped until more than six months after the date borne by it. The Judge admitted the document, giving Mr. Martin liberty to move for a nonsuit. CROWN COURT, SATURDAY. Mr. Justice Coleridge took his place shortly after nine o'clock. SENTENCES. Samuel Lord and Thomas Butterworth, indicted for bur glary, and convicted of larceny, on Thursday last, and Mar garet Clayton and William Potlilt, convicted, on the same day, of having feloniously received the goods stolen by the above, were placed at the bar, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. Joim Smith, for stabbing William Derbyshire, with in tent to do him some grievous bodily harm, was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. CHARGE OF MURDER. Joseph Knight, aged 33, was charged with having, at Man chester, murdered a female child, not baptized. There were several counts in the indictment, charging the prisoner with having deprived the child of life in several ways, by suffocat ing, strangling, drowning, &c. Br. Brown and Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution; Mr. Venables and Mr. Wilkins defended. The prisoner presented himself at the bar with a firm and almost bold demeanour. As the indictment was being read, he exclaimed, boldly and abruptly, " I cant't hear ! I can't hear!" Mr. WILKINs.—Your counsel can hear : don't you inter, fere. The prisoner was furnished with paper and pencil. He put on an aspect of very intense and inquiring scrutiny as the counsel for the prosecution were addressing the jury ; and, with many occasional odd gesticulations, took notes of what was said. Mr. BRANDT detailed the circumstances of the case, up to a certain point, to the jury. It appeared, the prisoner bad formed an improper con nexion with the wife of his brother. The latter had been absent abroad for some time. The result of the intercourse was, that the prisoner's sister-in-law was pregnant by him. They were both wishful, when the child was born, that it should be removed, in order that the husband, when he re turned, should not see it, and the prisoner undertook to con vey it to a hired nurse. The mother believed that he had placed it in safety. At length the neighbours began to won der what had become of the child, and the rumours that were rife begot inquiry. The prisoner's statements were unsatis factory, and, at last, he was taken into custody and exa mined before a magistrate. He would not give any account of where the child was, and, in consequence of this, he was remanded several times. At length he stated that the child had been very closely wrapped up to keep it from the cold, and that, as he was going to the nurse, he stumbled over some stones and fell to the ground. When he got up, be uncovered the infant to see if it were hurt, and found it dead. Upon this he took it and threw it into the river. The river was searched, but no child was found. Mr. BRANDT said, there was this difficulty in the case which he did not know how to get over : the law required either that the body of a person slain, where an indictment for murder was preferred, should be forthcoming, or that evidence of the death should be produced. In this case, as the body had not been found, the only evidence of death was the prisoner's own statement. There the difficulty was : if they took a part of the prisoner's statement as evidence, they ought, in justice, to take the whole, and believe all his story. His LORDSHIP said he had noticed the difficulty, but he waited to see how the indictment would be framed. With such evidence, it would be impossible to find the prisoner guilty. A verdict of acquittal was taken. Mr. WILKINS said, Mr. Amos has just informed him that it is the general opinion of all the visitors of the prison that Knight was insane. The JUDGE.--I wish he may he. MURDER. George Murray, aged 25, and John Costello, 27, were charged with having murdered Patrick Stakam, at Parr, near St. Helens. The indictment charged Murray as the principal, and Costello with having aided and abetted him. Dr. Brown and Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wilkins defended Murray, and Mr. Murphy, Costello. In the opening statement of counsel, it was set forth, that the quarrel which had led to the melancholy event which it was the duty of the jury to investigate arose out of some dis putes between the natives of two Irish provinces, of which they had heard so much during the present assizes. Peter Maguire, a native of the county of Wicklow, in the province of Leinster, stated, that he knew the deceased, Pa trick Stakam, who lodged at a beer-house, kept by Larry Hall, at Smithy-brow, St. Helens. In the course of the afternoon of Sunday, the 24th of November last, he and Stakam had some ale together. They went to Larry Hall's about half-past nine o'clock. The sat some time, but there was no quarrel in the house. Stakam went out, and Maguire followed him shortly afterwards, when he found him lying on the ground with his head up against the door. Maguire himself received a violent blow, but lie could not say who from. Stakam was taken up and carried into the house. His head was cut and bleeding. He died on the following Friday. Mary Club, wife of Thomas Club, who resided next door to Larry Hall, stated, that, on the night of the 24th Novem ber, she heard a quarrel opposite to the house. She was in bed, and being alarmed at the noise, she opened the window and looked forth. She saw four men fighting. The pri soner, George Murray, was one of them, but she did not know the other three. Stakam came out at the door of Larry Hall's, she saw Murray go up to him and knock him down with some weapon which he had in his hand. Maguire came out and he was struck also by Murray. Peter Smith, an Englishman, whose father keeps a beer shop in St. Helen's, stated, that he resided next door but one to Larry Hall's. On the night of the 24th November, he saw Murray and Costello in the road opposite to Larry Hall's house. Murray had a small stick or poker in his hand, with which he struck at Larry Hall's door, and immediately went into the middle of the highway. There was a man named Flynn there, and Murray struck him with the weapon on the hat, saying, " You b-, why didn't you come out and help me ?" He replied, " What could Ido !" Costello' went away for a few moments. Witness saw him coming up the street afterwards, calling to Murray in Irish. He followed Murray, and observed that Costello had a potatoe fork in his band. When they got back to Larry Hall's, Stakam came out, and they immediately changed weapons. Stakam exclaimed, " Don't hit me !" Murray struck Sta kam on the head with the potatoe-fork, and repeated the blow on his belly as he was falling, exclaiming, " I'm a Con nuaght man, you b-! I'll knock your brains out." Ma guire came out, and he also immediately struck him, speaking aloud in Irish. Mr. MURPHY and Mr. WILK!Ns tried to get from the wit ness that his father's beer-house was frequented principally by Leinster men, and that there was another beer-house in the vicinity to which the Connaught men usually went. The witness, however, said that they went to both indifferently. Maguire was recalled, and he stated that Maguire was a Leinster man. William Storey, a police constable of St. Helens, found two potato-forks at Costello's house. When he apprehended Murray, he told him what he was charged with, and Murray replied that it was a bad job, but he had got beaten himself, but the blows which he gave happened to be a little harder than those he received. When told that he had inflicted the wound with a potatoe-fork, he said some person must have put it into his hand. Mr. Thomas Gaskill, surgeon of St. Helens, stated that he was called in to the deceased. He found him lying insensi ble with a compound fracture of the skull, which extended from the left ear to the crown of the head. He had no hopes of his patient's recovery from the first. He died on the Friday following. He examined the head of the deceased after death, and found that the brain was lacerated to the depth of two inches. One of the potato forks found at Costello's house was produced, and the surgeon said that the wound might have been inflicted by such a weapon as that. _ _ _ Mr. WILK iris, on behalf of Costello, contended, that the crime amounted to no more than manslaughter, as it was evident that Murray had been grossly insulted and provoked by those men seen by Mrs. Club, and whom she afterwards missed, they having run away. When told that he had in flicted the wound with a potato fork, the prisoner was un conscious of that fact, so blinded had he been by his fury. It was evident, therefore, that he struck the deceased, con ceiving that he was one of the men who had just struck hint and excited his anger. Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury on behalf of Costello. He contended generally, that there was no proof of such premeditation and malice in this case as was required by law to constitute the crime of murder. Two respectable witnesses deposed to the peaceable and general good conduct of the prisoners. The jury retired at twenty-five minutes to one o'clock. They returned at twenty minutes to three, and found Mur ray Guilty of wilful murder, and Costello of aiding and abetting. His Lordship did not immediately pass sentence, as another case was in progress. When the trial was concluded, the JUDGE ordered the prisoner to he placed at the bar. Murray is a tall, strongly-built man ; • Costello is rather of low stature, but broad-shouldered. They both advanced to the bar without much appearance of trepidation, but when the Judge put on the black cap, which be did the moment they had come to a stand, a marked change was visible in both their countenances and demeanour. Murray, who was in dicted as the principal, burst into tears, while Costello trem bled and turned pale, and his face was convulsed with pain ful emotion. As his Lordship proceeded with his address, which at the first sentence indicated that lie was about to doom the prisoners to the scaffold, Murray's suffering appeared to increase considerably, till, at one point, he sunk, in a state of momentary insensibility, into the arms of the offi cers. The Judge paused, and the unfortunate prisoner ral lied, and was more composed, or rather, he was in a state of stupefaction during the remainder of the speech. Costello, on the contrary, was comparatively firm during the delivery of the first portion of the oration which preceded his doom, but at length, he also seemed to sink beneath the agony of his feelings. He trembled violently, hid his face iu his hands, and sobbed convulsively. When the concluding awful words uttered; he looked a living picture of despair. His limbs re f Used to support him, and he was assisted, or more properly carried from the bar. Murray walked away slowly between two officers, and he appeared in a state of dream-like bewil derment, completely unconscious of what was passing around him. His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, addressing each of the prisoners by name, said, they had now to receive the most awful sentence which the law could pass, a jury of their coun try having, after long and patient deliberation, found them guilty of the crime of wilful murder. It was a great satis faction to him, that both prisoners had been defended with great zeal and ability, and that the counsel, in putting the case to the jury, had taken care that nothing but the facts delivered in evidence should have any weight. The jury were the judges of those facts, and when it was considered how reluctant they must be to entertain proofs which doomed two of their fellow-creatures to death, it must be believed, that they had performed a painful but conscientious duty. He hoped the example would have a useful and salutary effect in this county, and that men would learn from it not to give way to their passions and array party against party and county against county, as it appeared, by the evidence in this trial, had been done. They (the prisoners) had sent a fellow-man, without a moment's preparation, out of the world. (It was at this part of his lordship's address that Murray sunk into a state of insensibility. On his recovery; his lordship pro ceeded.) He would say nothing which could add to the misery which they must at the present moment be suffering but exhort them to employ their whole heart and soul in preparation for their great account. He besought them to dismiss all hope of any longer remaining in this world, and to take no more part or interest in its concerns, but to pre pare for another, to which they must now be sent. They would, in the interim, have the comfort of ghostly consola tion, and, he trusted, they would endeavour to bring them selves into a proper state of mind to meet their late, by reflec tion upon the awful change that must soon take place. They were about to receive punishment for the crime which they had cgmmitted, and he trusted, through the merits of their Redeemer, that their sufferings would be taken into account. It was now his duty to pass the last awful sentence of the law. His lordship concluded by passing sentence of death in the usual manner. CHARGE OF MURDER. Nicholas Flemming, aged 22, was indicted for having, at Manchester, on the Ist of March, wilfully murdered Cathe rine Demarest. The first count in the indictment charged the murder as having been committed by shooting at the de ceased with a pistol, loaded and charged with paper, card, and wadding : the second count set forth that the pistol was load ed with gunpowder, wadding, and a leaden bullet. The pri soner was also charged with murder on the inquisition taken before Mr. Chapman, the borough coroner for Manchester, and Mr. S. Rutter, who claimed to have jurisdiction as coro ner for the county. Mr. BRAN DT and Mr. MONK conducted the prosecution, and Mr. WILKINS defended. It was stated by the counsel for the prosecution, that it was probable the injury which caused the death of Catherine Demarest was inflicted by a pistol which was loaded with powder and wadding only. The case would require the most anxious attention of the jury, and they would probably have to inquire, amongst other things, whether the prisoner was in full possession of his faculties at the time when the act was committed. Mary Redmane stated, that she resided at No. 70, Thomp son-street, Manchester, and the prisoner lived next door to her. On Monday morning, March 1, while she was in bed, she heard an unusual noise in the prisoner's house. She raised up her head to listen, and heard the screams of a fe male, which presently were suppressed, as if the tone were muffled. She heard her say, " Oh, dear me !" in a tone as if she were exhausted. The noise appeared to come from the front room. The houie was open on Monday, and not after. On the Friday following she went into the house with the police. The front room floor was marked with blood, but it had evidently been washed and scoured, and sand left upon it. There was blood in several other parts of the house. Three persons lived in that house, Mr. and Mrs. Flemming and Catherine Demarest. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—She was awakened by the noise. Catherine Demarest got her living by making caps. By the JUDGE.—She was about twenty-three years old, and was good-looking. Mary Lowry resided in Thompson-street, next door to the prisoner, on the other side of Mrs. Redmane. She was awakened on Sunday morning, the Ist of March, by a noise in Flemming's house. She heard a great scream from a fe male, and heard some person exclaim either " Oh ! murder," or "Oh ! mercy." Then followed a noise as if some one had leaped off the bed on to the floor. She heard another scream, and then a subdued screaming as if the person had been pre vented from screaming. She heard a noise of some persons, one or two, running up and down stairs several times. She heard the back-door open and shut. On the Tuesday' follow ing she observed that the house was closed. She had not ob served it before. By Mr. WiLxvcs.—Thomas-street is a quiet, but a public street. Flemming had always been very peaceable. She be lieved the_ prisoner was a married man : his wife resided with him. Mary Stock, a night-nurse, at the Manchester Infirmary. On Sunday morning, the Ist of March, at an early hour, the prisoner at the bar, and a woman whom she had since learned was Catherine Demarest, came to the Manchester Infirmary. She was bleeding very profusely from a wound in her fore head and at her nose. Witness asked her what was the mat ter. She said she was shot by a gun. Witness asked where she was at the time„ She said, -" Oh ! 1 was in the,bed." Witness asked her who shot her. She or the prisoner. re plied, " We don't know." She (witness) asked who were in the house. The prisoner replied, " None, but my wife and myself, and her" (the deceased.) She said her bed-room door was shut, but not fastened. Witness asked, if they went to bed and left the house door unfastened. The pri soner said she was the last up. She said, " I was the last up, but the door was fast enough." The prisoner, in reply to a question from the nurse, said, the girl was a widow ; lie and his wife slept in one room and the deceased in another. The deceased had on her night-gown, chemise, cloak, and a pair of old shoes. The prisoner had on only his trowsers and coat and top-coat. He had come out without his trowsers braced. Thomas Crompton stated, that in March last he was an in-patient at the Manchester Infirmary. He was called into the kitchen there on the morning of the first of March. • He saw the prisoner and Catherine Demarest. She was bleed ing profusely. She said, in reply to a question from him, that a man had shot her; and the prisoner, who was very much agitated, said it was done by a man in a long top coat. Mrs. Stock recalled.—She thought the girl was the pri soner's wife, because he was so very kind and affectionate towards her, often repeating the words, " Catherine, my dear." Mary Williams, another nurse at the Infirmary, stated, that Catherine Demarest made a statement to her. Before this evidence was allowed, the house surgeon at the Infirmary, William Smith, was called. He stated, that he attended the deceased till her death. She had received a small wound on the forehead. Her eyelashes, and her eyes, and the right side of her face were scorched and marked with gunpowder. He was of opinion, that the wound on the forehead had been caused by wadding. The pistol must have been fired in a slanting direction. The wound could not have been caused by a bullet. The wound was not dangerous at first. On Friday, the Gth of March, symptoms of locked jaw were manifested, and on Sunday they were quite con firmed, and he then knew there was no chance for her life. She died on Tuesday morning, the 10th of March. He examined her body after death, which he attributed to locked jaw, occasioned by the wound on the head. She might have fancied that she had a bullet in her head, but he never heard her express such a fancy. He thought she was never con vinced that she should not recover till the day preceding her death, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon, when lie informed her that he thought she would not recover. Cross-examined by Mr. W ILKIN S.—He had made up his mind, on Sunday, that she would not recover, and he in formed the magistrates on Monday. Had read cases of somnambulism. He had heard of acts being done in sleep as extraordinary as if this act had been committed during sleep. By the JUDGE.—He could not say, positively, that she was convinced she should die after he told her. Mary Williams (examination continued.)—When the girl asked her, which she did frequently, if she thought she would get better, witness told her that she thought she would. The deceased several times said she was afraid she would die, as she was sure there was a ball in her head. After Mr. Smith, the surgeon, had told her that she could not recover, she did not express herself more strongly on the subject. The above witness was called to prove the statement of the deceased. As it could not be proved that deceased was under immediate apprehension of death at the time, the evi dence could not be received. Ann Shore stated, that she knew the deceased and the pri soner at the bar. She saw the latter on the Thursday. He came out of his house with two pieces of bedstocks on his shoulders. They were Yeinoving from the house, which they left on Wednesday. David Lipsett, an inspector of police, at Manchester, stated, that he apprehended the prisoner on the sth of March, at Manchester, at a house in Fetter-lane. He stated that his name was John Flemming, and that he resided in Hunt street. Witness was in search of Nicholas Flemming, and, not finding any one named John Flemming, he took him, telling him that he suspected that he was Nicholas Flemming. The prisoner said, " You are right." He added, that he could not tell what made him do it ; it was a had job. He did not know what made him do it; he knew nothing of it till he was awakened by the report of a pistol, and found her in his arms. He volunteered all this. He was going further, when witness told him it was a serious charge, and he might have to give it in evidence against him. The prisoner asked if witness was aware that any ball was found, as he did not know that there was any ball in the pistol. Witness had not mentioned the charge to him. Cross-examined.--The prisoner was very miserable when he found him. He said he was more sorry on account of his wife and the deceased than for himself. His wife and he were exceedingly affectionate to each other. Melville Burton, an inspector of police, at Manchester, stated, that, on the day when lie was taking the prisoner to the inquest, he said he did not think what was in the pistol could have shot her; there was nothing like a bullet in his house. He had purchased the pistols in Ireland, and thrown them away on the Leeds Railway. By Mr. WILKINS.—When told by witness that the young woman was dead, he fainted away. On his recovery lie ex claimed, " Oh ! my God, what have I done—what have I brought her to." Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the defence. He said be approached the case with more than ordinary anxiety, as he as firmly believed in the innocence of his unfortunate client as he did in his own existence. He was about to set up a most extraordinary defence, but unfortunately he was crippled, as the only witness who could be called to corro borate the prisoner's story was his broken-hearted wife, whom the law did not allow to be called. The defence set up by the learned counsel was, that the prisoner had committed the act in a fit of somnambulism. He remarked on the im probability of the prisoner committing such an act in his senses, as no motive whatever could be found to account for it. He commented on the anxiety and affectionate solicitude for the unfortunate girl as proofs of the truth of his story. Mr. Wilkins was about to read some extracts from Mac nish's Philosophy of Sleep, for the purpose of showing what extraordinary acts had been committed during the state of somnambulism, when Mr. BRANDT, though he expressed himself loath to inter fere, objected. He said he would not, in this particular case, press the objection, if his lordship thought fit. His LORDSHIP said, it was better to be strictly regular. His Loin:min), after a brief charge to the jury, concluded by saying, that, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case, he thought the safest verdict the jury could rind would be not guilty. He did not wish to take the case out of the hands of the jury, but if they agreed with him, it would save the time necessary to go through the evidence. • The jury acquitted the prisoner. WOUNDING William Bradshaw, aged 22, was charged with having, at Widnes, in July last, cut and wounded William Radcliff. There were counts in the indictment charging the offence to be with intent to murder, do grievous bodily harm, &c. • Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Murphy, for the defence. 'William Radcliff, the person stabbed, is a gamekeeper iu the service of Mr. Crosthwaite, whose estate is called Widnes. The prisoner was connected with a gang of poachers, some of whom Radcliff had assisted in capturing and taking to Kirkdale Gaol. It did not appear that the prisoner himself had been addicted to poaching. On the 18th of July last, the piisonerfound Radcliff on the road. The prisoner said he was a poacher, which the prosecutor denied. He then challenged him to fight, and became exceedingly insulting, and at length,.after the parties had itearly come to blows, he stabbed the prosecutor in his hack. He called out for help, and was taken back to a public-house, from which he had first departed. The blood was overflowing from his shoes, and he was fainting from exhaustion. The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with in tent to do grievous bodily harm. His LORDSHIP passed sentence of transportation for life. FALSE REGISTRY OF DEATH. Samuel Stretch, aged 49, was charged with having, in this town, in the month of October last, unlawfully made a false statement touching the particulars required to be known and registered in the Register of Deaths, in the District of Great Howard-street, in this town, respecting the alleged death of Elizabeth Stretch. The prisoner pleaded guilty and begged for mercy. Mr. CROMPTON, who appeared for the prosecution, said. many cases of this description had occurred, and the prisoner was prosecuted as an example, in the hope that others would be deterred from the commission of this offence. In con sideration, however, of the very long imprisonment which he had already endured, he would recommend him to his lord. ship's favourable consideration. A gentleman named Rigg, who was espied by the prisoner in the court, was called upon to give him a character. Mr. Rigg said he had known the prisoner many years, and he had always considered him honest and industrious. His Loansiair said, this was an offence which must be put down. Now, that it had become the law of the country that registers of births and deaths should be kept, it was of importance that they should be kept perfect. As it appeared very satisfactorily, by the testimony of a witness challenged, as it were, by the prisoner, and not brought there by the prisoner, that he bore a good character, he should take that and the long imprisonment which he bad already suffered into consideration. The prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment in Kirkdale Gaol. CHARGE OF FORGERY Thomas Arthur Barfield, a very respectable-looking young man, aged 23, was charged with having feloniously forged and uttered a certain paper in writing, purporting to be a recommendation from the Reverend Edward Girdlestone, vicar of the parish of Deane, and an undertaking from him to be answerable for rent, &c. on behalf of the prisoner. Mr. Lawrence Peel prosecuted, Dr. Brown defended. In the month of June, 1839, the prisoner was recommended by the National School Society to the Rev. Mr. Girdlestone, to fill the office of head-master of the school of Deane. For some reason, not mentioned, he quitted the neighbourhood in the ensuing November. He wished to become the tenant of a house, at Markland Hill, belonging to Mr. Thomas Markland, of Bolton. He applied to Mr. Girdlestone for such a character as would satisfy Mr. Markland of his eligi bility to become a tenant, the latter requiring some guarantee or recommendation from him. Mr. Girdlestone refused to give him a character, on the ground that he was, with the exception of the recommendation from the committee of the National School Society, a perfect stranger, and he was not in the habit of giving such recommendations to the masters. The prisoner, it appeared, afterwards went to Mr. Markland with a written recommendation, couched in glowing terms of eulogy on the prisoner's character and attainments, and pro mising to become security for the rent. The prisoner obtained possession of the house, and remained in it some time, when it was discovered that the recommendation and guarantee had not been written by Mr. Girdlestone. On cross-examination by Dr. BROWN, Mr. Girdlestone said, the prisoner was married, and had, when head-master of Deane school, £35 per annum. He would not say that he was a young man of considerable attainments, but he was a young man of considerable professions. He was an artist, and had taken a portrait of him (Mr. Girdlestone.) He taught his daughter to write. He (Mr. Girdlestone) knew that the prisoner was wishful, and had intended, to commence a boarding-school, and both he and his curate were referees as to the prisoner's complete competency for this undertaking. Dr. BROWN took an objection to the instrument, that it was not such an instrument as rendered the prisoner liable to be indicted for forgery, nor such an one as bore out the term guarantee used in the indictment. His LORDSHIP held the objection to be valid, and a ver dict of acquittal under this indictment was taken. There was another indictment against the prisoner for hav ing obtained four works from John Heaton, a bookseller, of Bolton, under pretence that they were for Mr. Girdlestone. Mr. Heaton supplied books for the library of the school at Deane. The prisoner was, during the time he was master of the school, in the habit of purchasing books on account of the Deane school, and also on account of Mr. Girdlestone. On the 13th August last, he went to Mr. Heaton's shop and or dered several articles, amongst which were some works on natural history. On the following Monday he called, and in quired if the bookseller had received back the books on na tural history, and selected better books as those were not approved of by Mr. Girdlestone. He selected Goldsmith's work on Animated Nature, and directed it to be placed to the Deane school account. He took the books away with him. The prisoner had a private account of his own. Mr. Girdlestone stated, that the prisoner bad no right to purchase books for the library. At the time when the prisoner pro cured these books, Mr. Girdlestone was absent in Devonshire. The prisoner was apprehended on the 9th Dec. He had with him at the time, a man who carried his box, and is was stated by the police-officer, that he was at the time ab,ezinding. The four volumes of Goldsmith's work were found in the box. The jury acquitted the prisoner. The court adjourned at half-past seven o'clock, to Monday mor , mine_ - . The felony cases having been all ' disposed or, the iiials the chartists commence on Monday. , NISI PRIUS COURT-SATURDAY. ASSAULT.7 - DEANE V. EDWARDS AND OTHERS. This was an action of assault, in which William Deane was plaintiff. and Jonathan Edwards and William and Amy Reed were the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cromp ton; for the defendants, Mr. Alexander. The jury found Wrn. Reed, not Guilty, Edwards and Mrs. Reed, Guilty ; and the damages £3. RAILWAY SHAD.LS.-DELL AND OTHERS VERO. In this action Mr. Thomas Wm. Bell and Mr. Arthur Valentine, the assignees of the estate and effects of Messrs. Richardson and Thompson, bankrupts, were the plaintiffs , and Mr. John Vero was the defendant. The action was brought to recover the difference in value of 50 half-shares in the Great Western Railway, alleged to have been sold by the defendant to Messrs. Richardson and Thompson, and after wards withheld. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton were counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Cowling for the de fence. Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the case for the plaintiffs , said, that in this action the assignees of Messrs. Richardson andThompsou sought to recover the damages to the estate of the bankrupts sustained by reason of the non-fulfilment of a contract to sell and deliver certain shares of the Great Wes tern Railway. The circumstances were these. :—Richardson and Thompson had been partners in trade, and Mr. Vero was a gentleman of property m this town, but carrying on no business ' though he occasionally speculated in shares . Messrs. Okill and Cooke, share-brokers, on the 24th Janu ary, 1840, entered into an agreement to sell to. Messrs. Rich ardson and Thompson fifty half-shares in the Great Western Railway, on which £5 had been paid, at the rate of £3 12s. 6d• per share, or £1 7s. 6d. discount, the purchaser to pay the calls due, and the seller allowing interest. Messrs. Richard son and Thompson employed Mr. J. C. Townley, share broker, to call on Messrs. Okill and Cooke, and take up di; shares. On the 24th, Mr. Townley accordingly called, an said, that, at the request of Messrs. Richardson and ThomP: son, he had come to take up the shares, handi n g them b's authority. Mr. Cooke looked at the paper, and said, "It iS all right ; but our principal is not in town, and we cannot de liver them to you. He will, however, be in town iu a few days." Mr. Townley called again, and saw Mr. Cooke, wh o said, the calls, of which none had been paid, amounted to considerable sum, about £2O on each half-share. Mr. T. re plied that he was then quite prepared to pay both the calls and the price —that is, if the transfer were made. He, how' ever, received the same answer, that their principal had no t come back, and that they could not complete the transaction until his return. A day or two after, on the 28th or 29th 01 January, one of the firm of Richardson and Thompson, the former he believed, committed an act of bankruptcy. u ° the 31st of January Mr. Townley called again on Messrs. Okill and Cooke. and he was then told that Mr. Vero Way the seller, and that he (Mr. Vero) had stated, that as Messrs' Richardson and Thompson were bankrupts, he would n°' complete the transaction ; that he was not bound to deliver the shares to bankrupts, and that he would not do so ;. 1 " point of fact, that they had been r e so ld un d er th e directio i ; of Mr. Vero. Richardson and Thompson having becol° l bankrupts, of course Mr. Townley could d o no m ore uutl assignees were appointed. They were appointed, and afte r ,'" wards Mr. Townley waited on Messr s . Okill an d Cooke,l made a formal tender of the price of shares. He recelvv - _, the same answer that he had pr ev i ous l y rece i ve d, an d tber was an end of the matter. The difference in value would be this :—the shares were sold at a discount of £l.7s. 6d.: t h ° first time that the def en d ant re f use d to comp l e t e the nil. chase, they had attained a p rem i um o f £1 10s., making a au ference of £3 per share. , The contract having been put in, a Mr. Thomas Clarke, s h ar e-broker, was th en ca lled, and stated that the purchase of the 50 half-shares was made °, the 20th of January, on the terms stated in the contract. Cross-examined.—On the evening of the 20th Mr. Vero went to Dublin, and returned on th e 29th. Th e firm Richardson and Thompson had become insolvent in t"0 meantime. He should say that they were not insolvent no` the 24th or 25th. When M r . T own l ey ca ll e d, on th e 2; no tender of the money was ma d e , nor any trans f er oft shares offered. On a subsequent day, perhaps a day or after, Mr. Townley spoke of the intention of Messrs. Ri c o ardson and Thompson with respect to the shares. He 1 sa ,; that they intend e d t o se ll t h e s h ares i n the market, an d that he (witness) reminded Mr. Townley of what had b een said before. H e sa id , " I thought that they were to req, a lot of 50 shares which had been purchased from Mr. s. Roskell." M r. T own l ey sa id that that was originally Mona Richardson and Thompson's intention ; but since they be become insolvent, they would not do so, as that would 1 , shewing a n un d ue pre f erence to M r. R os k e l l. He (";lbe ness) could not say that he had asked for the name of transferee, or f or th e money ; b u t h e certa i n l y did mentrbe that they had not go t th e name o f th e t ran sferree. t 30th of January the shares were resold at £5 per sbarelf par. This was done in consequence of the instruction s the Mr. Vero, who had entered into an obligation to pal 0 0 calls in the month of January. The calls would fall do e o r the Ist of February, and amounted to £25 per 8 / 10 %11- £1250 altogether, exclusive of interest. Mr. Thompson alf ed on the 25th or 26th, and stated that he applied on b ee n of the credit ors , an d th a t hi s ass i gnees h a d no t then " appointed. Mr. Charles James Townley s t a t e d, th a t, on the 24th t v o January, he called at Messrs. Okill and Cooke's ofh. e i t ie re have the cont rac t com pl e t e d. M r . C oo k e o b serve d, that.':, o wes a specific u nderstandi ng th a t th e ca ll s s h ou ld be pal' ea mediately after the transfer. Witness replied, that he 0 , 3 s dertook that the calls should be immediately paid. 14° ,, u 1a told that Mr. Vero was out of town, and that nothing be done until his ret urn . O n th e 25th an d 27th h e went ng t , re- On the latter day he was told that Mr. Vero had not I t ' ne ss) turned, but that he would return on the 29th. (`;. oke did not call on the 29th, as both Mr. Okill and xr' t arn' had promised to let him know whe n M r . Vero did r? He met Mr. Cooke, on the Ist February, on the Stoc l ` t hea change, and went with him to hi s office. Mr. Cooke ine j told him that the shares had been resold. He then obtla.inel from Mr. Cooke a note statin g that Mr. Vero was hi s P tia pal. Nothing further was done till the assign ees were . ~s ti e pointed, and, after that, h e wen t a nd tendered the purt, 0 money, £lBl ss. It was refu s ed. He had made no 3 e t _,ed, tender of the money bef ore that time ; but he had state from the first, that he was ready to lay down the moue) . * u . Cross-examined.—lt was, he believed, on the 20th Febr