The Northern Daily Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-02 00:00:00

rEPLY TO DR. M`NEILE'S PAMPHLET ON THE SABBATH PART I. Sir, --Although Mr. Bardsley has not conde scended to answer me, I am somewhat consoled by the appearance of Dr. M`Neile's pamphlet, whi ch I have very carefully read, and which--to use an expression of Panurge—l have found "very Pretty, and very strange." Perhap s I cannot speak more highly of it than to assure Dr. M`Neile that, in point of style, argument, and illustration, it is well worth binding 111,1) wi th that ce l e b rated sermon which compared "Ince Albert to our Savi our ! A n d y e t I mus t "13 thyself disappointed, for when the copia tierborunt inf austa is of no avail, it strikes me that ti t-it:abr i dge sch o l ars are more powerful than ablin divines, nobler and that Mr. Bardsley is the 14 opponent. :: it seriously_d ropping all irony, for the flue is too grave—it is a sad sight to see how th e ne Y of exp ress i on will pass for depth of ° tight, and how scanty learning may take shelter illider amplitude of pretension. Was a pamphlet e l ve ll r , be weak than this ? Argument is R e a r i i - y ` e i t Y hypothesis. A theory is tossed fa ct - -,' and presently becomes incontrovertible t '---- Le believe less than Dr. il'Neile is unbelief; th ° e be e l l i t eve with him, (and there is some truth in D r P it r , r es , si cic), " is child-like faith." • ''''Neill commences his pamphlet by ex pressn„, .11tp, 6 UlB " child-like faith" in the literal 1 -- -Pretti on of the book of Genesis.—The whole roatte i qUe sti r o ' s SO extremely immaterial to the real Sabb at - b n at issue (viz.: whether the Jewish to t h '-`ll-aa transferred by the first Christians to a rgue s day of th e wee k), th a t I do not care i f , with Dr. M`N e il e on thi s p o i n t. Of cours e there is any y spiritual edification in ignoring eli °4lB book of nature in deference to the first ca aPter A of Genesis—it is right enough to do so. I rub- ceraPara,tively little about it. Dr. M`Neile an - i r fight it out with Sedgwick, Lyell, and the A gainst animals. pr otes Dr. M`Neile's next assumption I must ilooliditia Probable "—he is speaking of the world before k th e e the 4.1 . that, ," amongst their other iniquities which provoked on d tile v ? „ 4l ; , hutY to anger, and eventually brought a deluge , 1V ow the neglect of this (the Sabbath) was one. thi s ° ,!' in the first place, Dishes`l only think d s BeconTbable because he it certain ; an it dees - , - ,.Y.,.! it is extremely improbable, because .th Rani,— hat that (Genesis vi. 1-4) we know,wi dow n " neertainty, what sins they were that drew Sabbath-atre's displeasure, and we also know that Thi s - - ure a -- king is not among them. in th,, Probability of Dr. M'Neile's is strengthened „,' tn . ost ingenuous manner : b et _lhis i s rendered only more probable by the contrast of 4; l ra the wide spread wickedness and the character do read of doah was an exception, and in his history we ~ See 11.ecognition of this observance of the seventh day." for S °v v D_ M'Neile substitutes " seventh day" abbath -114,1t! is in the fact, familiar to us all, of the mission s of en a d ays. ,, Ark Ark after seven days, and a;ain after s even Sabha Sabb Fn this rests the proof that Noah kept the . thi s : I n 1 He takes no notice of the fact that 11 Prov -rgat nent prove anything, (which I deny), i 4,, °s that Noah also desecrated the Sabbath. c alp P p e Cillia r - f orgets that if any number of days has any forty „, -,llnportance in the history of the Deluge, Iy u 'llu not seven is the number. Aftlb - n t h i th is puerile argument is based upon a "i --- ' . e mistake. arise , e noe could this recognition of the seventh day h . av , e , 1.1178 There was nothing in external nature to teach rt. of ti, its th ere not 9 Did Dr. M`Neile never hear thai-e quarters o ? and was he not aware Plet e l le Y are as distinctly observable as the corn lunation Inla I •• ree 7 a se in Thrro. him that the ancient Hindoos d n e gnised a week of Ye werehatsevthene kereabie l' - named ' in s S ey a e n n Seri t d ays, afteran themoon, t th e zghts in in sun, the and sh ould planets. This last point I am anxious f haven„ he noticed, as I am terribly afraid of o tta,.ng, hereafter, to confute some hypothesi . s of in the v on or _ 1 Pia antediluvian Sabbath lingering i . 81 04 "' S t, but quite unknown till the present occa Th re quired it. ee nel eti s i., f°ll ews an argument so remarkable, and so in est il - " e ' against Dr. M`Neile, that I feel h e p Rrateful for the strong emphatic way in which eceplltttahit• Every one of the ten commandments, a s 130 e observance of the Sabbath, is mentioned Sabb at r before the time of Moses; therefore,. the tt r ik i , was known. Dr. M'Neile's logic is too 48 1 11% I° ' me to dwell upon it—it is best left to Ile Zherned simplicity ! obs ery en asserts —what nobody denies—that the few at a m nee of the Sabbath was enjoined upon the all e P • -ennt S inai• Finally, he modestly makes tkbl e ~it 0 ti le of the commandments of the "first tOf theca a Companion to St . Paul's epitome s lble. , - com mandments of the " second 46 law on these, he adds, " hang all 4 : bit t - c , , and the prophets." Dr. M . Neile 6 11 eXp er e .," ; °ll ol when " a Churchman" attributes - "stead r- :suan to one part of the New Testament re teal another. May I venture to suggest, most I,,,ll;_,_"ndlY, that Dr. M`Neile read the passage tIleg' 1 14 )r e"c1114 8, " On these hang all the law and kathew°Pbets: — and that he also refer to St. At th i ' "ix, I-7, 18. ente red a Pint a new branch of the question is Part of the Was the keeping of the Sabbath or was et moral Was law, binding upon all the world 9 11 1, 1)°4 th e l- 3 , Part of the ceremonial law, binding 1 141 0 8 -,wS 01149 The answer appears to us rarts ll ;, f ,I:he. moral law is written upon the 1. 4 % 0 111 4n5 ' ‘rentile as well as Jew. Greeks and s l ti rt e fi l . th a ' t n° l ess than the children of Israel, ,naurder, and robbery, and adultery were Peeldia tot observance of the Sabbath was ci n i4 Pen r he Jews. It lasted while the old v,hris,.B4tion asted. It was abrogated whin the la w ' Proclaim d - , and Church instituted the two Sacraments of his cub ere D r.r,u"t a ne, findin g i t necessary f or a 111e'callledrgumeent attempts to prove that the, rai%ed n 'moral observance of the Sabbath, was e hSen ce I: : With certain rites which were, in their e the r ' 'erernonal. tit. must endure. la roughout The on e was transient—the your " Y e shall kindle no fire .B_cot.,_ .112 habitations on the Sabbath day," 4 ,_ch ou ;W a r t % eat, we learn, no longer binding. bi- i..4.°,11. resting on no manner of work," is an 0 i r,re.itrary Er ., . us all. Such a distinction i s b mo g st 4 ApNeir inadmissable. But suppose it e . as ny 4 , 1 e States • suppose that without doing 1 cl e antler f work ' , the household - ' fire is kindled, keeh ilY entirely that theca' er dre am the most rigidSabbatarian se ao long • • s Jew s. , s of keeping, the moral Sabbath of as the Sabbatarian employs a - ert a i ni Or uses a carriage, or cooks a dinner, so i nent, 0.,,Y does he violate the Fourth Command , It wa-aexPiained in the 20th chapter of Exodus. t"reaks th e moral Sabbath that our Saviour u ed and he tells the sick man to take up his jlisti-.`nt Walk. It was this moral Sabbath he th e e`" his (11SCipieS in breaking, when they pluck Which" of corn Itthis fao_rta ecthe _randier' oral Sabbath on was nz .. authorises works of mercy to be pei meela ros ., .-Lt Was of this moral Sabbath that he St. 11._ hilt the Lord. oft en h mii a statement from Colossians ii. 16, has often bee n quoted in this controversy—" Let no it 11 0 r - "ge You in meat or drink, or in respect to i Y d a fig-4 a. at e Y , °r new moon, or of the Sabbaths." It u r n rebuke to those who do judge, and judge the k en ur n : ercifully, all who differ with them as to r ebuk e - Ding of the Sabbath. Dr. M'Neile feels the asid e ~ a nd end eavours to turn the point of it her, t . l . l " e cause " Sabbaths" is in the plural num eretnc. Apostle was speaking of the Jewish lea nn „ n 4 les, and not of the Fourth Commandment. 40 far'f' es t inyself to stigmatise criticism so false, Pas sar , et ched. The true interpretation of this pr esa P__e is confirmed by Justin Martyr, who ex a,,„ V states that the Sabbath,circumcision h, Mcrin e . as 13 •e, was abolished by Christ. t , But i t _ _ .. Rath ers " useless to refer Dr. M`Neile to the observanee, a ' ne one and all and all they repudiate Sabbath One and all they repudiate Sabbath e, atal will they be repudiated by the Evangelicals of to-day. For the sake, then, of those benighted folks who care for truth more than party, I would say that no passage of the early Christian writers can be tortured into a belief of the perpetual morality or binding obliga tion of the fourth commandment ; they assert that the Lord's Day is kept (not as a Sabbath, but) in honour of the resurrection, and they declare that the Lord's Day is a day of rejoicing and of festival. When, therefore, Dr. 111`Neile, after declaring that the Jewish ceremonial was repealed, goes on in very strange English to assert that the moral commandment remained, he simply asserts on his own responsibility what the early Fathers emphat ically denied.* . . Dr. M'Neile's statement is : It (the moral commandment) had preceded, and it now survived the parenthesis, (!) of the Jewish ceremonial ; and the inspired apostles transferred the observance of it, from the seventh to the first day of the week. This is straightforward, and uncompromising. There is only one little difficulty in the way of adopting this view,—there is not the slightest evidence for it. Even our author seems to feel the ground tremulous beneath him. We freely grant that we have no direct precept in the New Testament, totidem verbis (in so many words) for this transfer, but are left to gather it by fair inference, from what had been written before concerning the seventh day, and what we find written concerning the first day of the week. We are hardly, perhaps, so grateful for the toti dem verbis concession, as we should be. But as for the "fair inference," totidem verbis we deny it. Indeed, Dr. I\T•Neile disproves it for us. He continues : The first day of the week is a fruitful theme in the new testament. It is spoken of I. As the day of Christ's resurrection. 11. As the day of Christ's post-resurrection visits to His disciples. 111. As the day of Pentecost. IV. As the day of the assembling of the infant apostolical church. V. As the day of money gatherings for the poor. VI. As the day of the beloved disciples' vision. Now, remember, we know the moral observance of the two days to be the same, by what is said of them both. Will Dr. I\l`Neile show me a single passage in the Old Testament in which any one of these distinctive peculiarities of the Lord's Day is predicated of the Sabbath? And then will Dr. M`Neile point me out a single passage in the New Testament in which the Lord's Day is called " the Sabbath," the " Day of Rest," or the " Day enjoined by the fourth commandment ?" When he shall have accomplished this, we will begin to talk of fair inference. Of the Lord's Day, and its observance, I need not speak, though our author, most unnecessarily, fills up several pages in elaborating the different heads he had previously given. No Christian, I suppose, denies that our Lord rose from the dead upon the Sunday, or that upon it descended the Holy Spirit, or that the other incidents which are recorded as happening upon it, are true and indisputable. All this, however, is nothing to the main question. Is Dr. M‘Neile—as the plover draws one from her nest—drawing us away from too close an examination of that inferential argument of his ? Or is it that he judges that ; because we do not keep the Jewish Sabbath, we do not understand the Christian Sunday, and he, in the plenitude of his goodness, would enlighten us ? The first part of the pamphlet here comes to an end, with some further misinterpretation of St. Paul, some more inconclusive and illogical reason ing; and the declaration that if we believe that the Sabbath is a permanent moral obligation—and that if, believing this, we believe that St. Paul thought the - Sabbath need not be kept, we are Antimonians !—which is extremely possible. With one more instance of Dr. I\l'Neile's accurate biblical knowledge, culled from this part of the pamphlet, I conclude for the present. " Had man continued holy as at first, doubtless, after the example of his Maker, he would have continued in a state of sir days salubrious labour, followed by one day of refreshing and devotional rest." May I commend to Dr. M'Neile the 33rd page of his own pamphlet ? May I ask him whether " labour" was not the punishment for Adam's sin— "in the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread ?" May I ask him how he dares to venture upon another perversion of the Bible ? Before long I hope to review the second part of this pamphlet. Dr. M'Neile will probably decline to answer me, and will plead the old excuse " anonymous." I shall have something to say on this point when next I write. Meanwhile I admire the ingenuity of a plea which can cover so usefully lack of argument and difficulty of answer.—Au revoir. B. *Justin Martyr Dia. with Trypho. Ignatius ad. Mag., c. ix, ; Tertullian de Idol, xiv., de. Cor. Mil. iii. ; Clemens Alex. Strom, vii. THE 00 4-THE 11/Egb—LIVERPC-674, WI DNB APRIL 2, Me BIRKENHEAD COMMISSIONERS. The usual monthly meeting of the Board of Commission ers was held last evening at the public offices, Hamilton square, Birkenhead. Mr. J. Laird occupied the chair. The other commissioners present were Messrs. Gough, Bryant, Cook, Hornblower, M'Whirter, Goulborne, Bradley, K. , 2ightley, Tylee, Holme, A spinal and Harrison. The Secretary read the minutes of the last meeting, which were confirmed and adopted. LIGHTING AND WATCH COMMITTEE• The proceedings of this committee were read. The committee had granted the superintendant of the reforma tory frigate the use of the room adjoining the police station, for the examination of boys prior to going on board ; also, that through Mr. Aspinal they had received a donation of £lO from the Royal Exchange Fire Office, towards the purchase of the new fire engine. THE MARKET COMMITTEE. The proceedings of this committee were read and con firmed without comment. THE HEALTH COMMITTEE. The proceedings of this cmmittee were also confirmed without comment. They contained no matters of public importance, except with regard to the affairs connected with the night soil of the township, whieh the railway had refused to carry at its former rate; therefore, the committee requested to know how they were to proceed in the matter. Mr. Bryant, not being a lawyer, expressed his surprise that a railway company should be empowered to make such an extra charge without any public notice. After a brief but interesting discussion, the subject of th e removal of the night soil was referred back to the committee for their consideration, and with a request that they should report upon the subject at the next meeting. THE PUBLIC CEMETERY. A long letter was read from Mr. Alexander Neilson, on the subject of forming a joint stock company for the formation of a public cemetery. At the suggestion of Mr. Cook, who stated that he did not understand exactly the purport of the letter, The Clerk was instructed to inform Mr. Nelson that he had better, if he had a wish, to form a joint stock company, confer with the proper committee on the subject. THE ROAD AND IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE. The proceedings of this committee were devoid of public interest, and were confirmed without comment. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. The proceedings of this committee contained a letter from he secretary of the Birkenhead and Claughton gas and water committee, requesting the commissioners to allow them to purchase a pl )t of land for the purpose of erecting new water works to meet the anticipated demand for that necessary article. The committee sti7ulated certain conditions, which would be neces sary to make before entering into . such an engagement. The committee also recommended that Mr. Stitt's offer for the plot of ground for building purposes be accepted. The proceedings were confirmed. THE FERRY COMMITTEE. 7 he proceedings of this committee recommended that the contract of Mr. Wm. Moss be accepted, for coals for the supply of the ferry. The ferry receipts for the month of March, in the two last years, were as follows :—For 1855, £1,769 15s 8d ; and for 1856, £1,994 5s 2d. The receipts from the 24th of April to the 31st of March. ending in the year 1855, were £25,720 4811 d ; and for 1856, £25,057 14s 2d. The expenditure during the same period was—for 1855, £21,414 2s 9d ; and for 1856, £21,859 4s 4d. In answer to a question put by Mr. Hornblower, The Chairman said tho commissioners would watch the interest of the ferry, to see that no new ferry was established by Liverpool, at the south reserve, as had been intimated in a Liverpool paper. The proceedings were confirmed. THE FREE LIBRARY COMMITTEE. This committee recommended, for the purpose of carrying out of the establishment of the library, that the board apply to her Majesty's treasury for leave to borrow £l,OOO on the security of the library rates. The proceedings were confirmed. TUB BOARD R3OM. Mr. Hornblower suggested, from the heat and incon venience of the room, that the market committee should bo permitted to e x p er i mentalise, in order to obtain a little ventilation. There being no other business, the board adjourned. SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY. His Lordship, Baron Martin, entered the court at nine o'clock yesterday, and proceeded with the criminal business. THE MURDER IN CHISENHALE-STREET.—PhiIip Wall aged 25, seaman, end James Carr, aged 28, seaman, were, placed in the dock, charged on a coroner's warrant, with the murder of James House. Mr. Aspinall stated the facts on which the charge rested, and which have already become well known to the public through the police reports. The case was one resting on circumstantial evidence. The deceased and the prisoners were seamen. It appeared that the deceased left his lodgings in Denison-street about eleven o'clock on the night of the 19th February last. He was to leave the town the next morning, because he had engaged to sail in a vessel which was about to leave Hartlepool, and which he was to join on the following day. The jury would hear what money he bad with him, and also how he was dressed, which latter was a very material fact, as a great part of the case wculd depend upon the identifying of the clothes he had on when he left the lodgings. It appeared that he went to a publichouse, a few doors from the place where he lodged, and remained there until about twelve o'clock. After some conversation with the landlord he left the public house, in company with a girl to whom ho was previously known. She would tell the jury that she accompanied him some little distance in the direction of her own lodgings, and left him about twenty yards from a place called Chisenhale-bridge. The next witness would be a policeman, who was the first witness brought at all into any contact with the two prisoners. Tho policeman would tell them that he saw the deceased going across Chisenhale-bridge, with the prisoners, one at each side of him, leading him. He took some notice of them, but after he had asked them some questions he left them, and saw them no more. The next witness was a girl, who lived in Chisenhale street, very near the bridge, and who had occasion to go from her own house, between twelve and one o'clock, into a cook shop. As she went across the street she saw the deceased and a girl coming across the bridge. Upon coming out of the cook shop she saw the deceased lying upon some steps. Sho also saw the two prisoners standing at some little distance. One of them was known to her, but neither the deceased nor the other prisoner was known to her. She would tell the jury that she also saw another man, a wit;;;;;; who would be called before them, who came across and helped to get the deceased up. While lifting him up the two prisoners came up and addressed the deceased as shipmate, took his arm, one at :each side, and walked away with him. The man whose attention was called to this circumstance by the girl, followed them for a certain distance, and saw them go through a small street, called Knight's buildings, which led into a street called Clement street. He watched them ; and a policeman, in consequence of having his attention called to them by this man, watched them also. They saw the deceased and the two prisoners pass through Clement street, and go into No. 5 court, and the second house in that court. The person who kept that house would be called, and would tell the jury that they remained in the house a short time, and would describe the way in which they left it. It appeared that opposite to the entrance to No. 5 court was an entry, called Bagging's entry, in which there were no houses, but a stable. The woman who kept the house in No. 5 court, would tell the jury that the two prisoners and the deceased left her house, and went out by a passage immediately opposite the opening of Bagging's entry. This was the last time in which the man was seen alive by any of the witnesses for the prosecution. He left that house probably about half-past one. At four o'clock in the morning he was seen lying on his back, by a carter, who was going into the stables in Bagging-entry. He was then lying at a distance of 631 yards from the house which he had left about half-past one. At the time when the carter saw him, he was without a considerable portion of his clothing, having no boots, coat, or waistcoat on. Now, unfortunately, the neighbourhood was one of the very lowest description, and it was by no means an uncommon thing for parties to be seen drunk there. Probably some suggestion of that kind occurred to the carter's mind, for he did not go up to the body when he first saw it. It remained there a considerable time, until at last he called the attention of another man to it. The other man did not choose to go up to it at first, but, seeing that it remained there so long, one of them, as they got alarmed, went and found a policeman, an inspector of police, who was going off duty at the time, and told him of it. He came, with another policeman, and found that the man was dead. The body was without a considerable portion of the clothes, and had a muffler tied tightly round the neck, which the jury would see, from the evidence of a surgeon, taken in connection with that of the policeman, was, beyond all doubt, the cause of death. Now, it appeared, that after they had left the house in No. 5 court, 'about half past one o'clock, with deceased, the prisoners were not seen again until about three o'clock in the morning, when they went into a house in Banastre street, about a quarter of a mile from the former place. They came into that house with a third person. Of that third person no trace could be found. Every enquiry had been made upon the part of the prosecution, but it could not be ascertained who he was, or where he went. He left them at the door, and they went into the house. At that time it would be seen, beyond all doubt, that they were each wearing a portion of the clothes of the deceased, and that they made a statement with reference to that fact, which the jury would find was of the utmost importance. They did not stay there very long, but left that house and went to another, where they slept each with a girl whom they had previously known. Statements were made in that house, and conversations would be detailed which were very material. In the morning they sent a girl to pawn the coat worn by Carr, and the vest worn by Wall. The girl took them to a pawnbroker, who hesitated at first to take them in, and insisted on her fetching the persons to whom they belonged, which she offered to do, but finally he took them, and advanced her eight shillings on them. That coat and waistcoat would be identified, so that there could be no doubt whatever they were the clothes which the deceased man wore on the night when he lost his life. The jury would find also that in the first house into which they went they were asked by the woman who lived there for a muffler, which it appeared had been lent to the prisoner Carr, arid belonged to Mary Fanning, the landlady ot the house. With reference to that muffler the statement was made which he had already mentioned. The jury would find that the muffler would be proved beyond all doubt to have been the 1 property of that woman, to have been lent to the prisoner Carr, and to have been the muffler subsequently found around the deceased's neck. It would also be found that the muffler which deceased bad on that night when he left his lodgings, was found to be worn by the prisoner Carr when he was appre hended. The prisoners were not seen again until the middle of the following day, when they were in a boarding house where they had something to eat, and where they gave the landlady the ticket for the coat and waistcoat which had been pledged, and upon which they were subsequently got back. On their apprehension, which took place late the same day, the prisoner Wall was found wearing boots which would be identified as the boots of the deceased, by the best possible evidence, that of the bootmaker who had sold them, and who not only sold them, but had seen them on the deceased in his shop on the evening previous to his death, at which time he would state that he also saw the prisoners outside his window. The police who apprehended the prisoners would relate the different statements made by them on their apprehension. These were the circumstances of the case, and if these circumstances were proved, the learned counsel submitted that the jury could have no doubt of the guilt of the prisoners. ---The evidence of the landlady of the deceased's lodgings ; of the landlord of the Public house into which they first went ; the girl who accom panied him ; the girl who saw him crossing the bridge; the policeman who accosted the deceased and the prisoners, and the man who saw deceased sitting on the steps, and helped him up, was then given, and exactly bore out the opening statement so far without any variation. All the witnesses deposed that deceased wore a pilot cloth coat, a black satin waistcoat, a figured shirt, striped trowsers, and a blue and red muffler. The landlord of the lodgings added, that deceased was in the habit of leaving these clothes in his care while he was at sea, that he had them at one time for three years in his care, and could, therefore, positively identify them. Mary Brophy deposed, that she kept the house in No. 5 court. On the night of the 19th Feb ruary, Carr knocked at her door; she went down and opened it, and saw the prisoner Carr and another young man, whom she afterwards knew to be the deceased ; they came in, and they appeared to be tipsy ; the deceased had a black satin vest on, and a pilot coat. [The proceedings were here interrupted by a painful incident. One of the jurors suddenly fell in a fit, and had to be carried out ot court. A medical gentleman at once attended to him, and presently certified that it was not possible he could resume his duties that day. Some discussion took place as to the course which should be pursued. Finally, it was agreed that another juror should be sworn, and that his Lordship should read over his notes of the evidence, each witness being called, and asked, in turn, if the notes accurately represented the evidence given. This was accord ingly done, and occupied considerable time.] The evidence of the witness, Brophy, was then resumed. When the parties came into her house, Carr was dressed as he is now. Wall was with them. They asked if there were any girls there, and she said there were none. After remaining there a few minutes, they went out, and turned down the court. James Bryan, a carter, residing in Clement-street, was examined by Mr. Brett, who, with Mr. Aspinall, appeared for the prosecu tion, and deposed that at half-past four o'clock he saw the deceased lying on his back, in the passage called Bagging -entry. After some time he went into Vauxhall-road to look for a policeman. Could not succeed in finding one, and when he came back the body, was there still. Sent another man then for a policeman to the bridewell. An inspector and an officer came, and went up to the body. The man was lying dead. The witness was cross-examinod by Mr. Tindal Atkinson, who appeared, with Mr. M'Donnell, for the defence. John Duggan, inspector of police, examined by Mr. Brett, deposed that about a quarter past six, upon the morning of the 20th of February, he went, on being summoned by a person named Hughes, into Bagging entry. He there saw the dead body of a man near the stable door. The man was lying on his back with his hands down by his side, and his legs straight out. He had a striped trousers on, and a figured shirt. He had no coat or waistcoat. He had stockings, but no boots or shoes. He bad a coloured muffler wrapped tightly twice round his neck, and tied in a hard knot. Witness immediately unloosened the knot, which was very difficult to untie. His face appeared very black. 'Witness sent for a doctor. There was no money found upon him. 'William Sayers, s urgeon, d epose d th at h e examined the body of the deceased, and that there was a bluish red mark on his neck, his mouth was open, and he had all the symptoms of strangulation. Having heard the evidence describing the position in which deceased was found, witness does not think the deceased could have tied the muffler round his own neck, and then disposed himself in that position. Could find nothing to account for his death except strangulation. On cross-examination by Mr. Tindal Atkinson, the witness stated hat there was no abrasion upon the neck. This witness spoke in a tone as low as if he were carrying on a confidential whisper with some one close to him, despite repeated retnonstrances from the judge and counsel. The cross—examination was directed to show that the death of deceased might have resulted from an apopletic fit. Mary Fanning deposed that she lived in 12 court, Banaster Street : On the morning of the 20tb February, Wall and Carr, both of whom she had known before, came to her house with another man; the third man who appeared like a steamboat man, and whom she had never seen before, went away after ten minutes, and she has not seen him since; Carr had on a coat and muffler, and a black satin vest ; Wall had a black coat, very thick, with a black velvet collar ; they remained about half an hour ; Carr chewed her the clothes he had on, and asked her how much she thought she would get on them in the morning ; she said she did not know; she asked him for a muffler of hers which she had lent to another girl who gave it to him ; the muffler produced by inspector Duggan is hers ; Carr staid she could not have it because it was o❑ another man's neck ; Carr had another muffler on at the time, and that was the reason why she asked for hers; Carr said he would go to bed, but witness said he should not, for she would call a policeman ; Carr said he had plenty of money, and pulled some cut of his pocket ; Wall called to him to come away, and they went away. To Mr. McDonnell : The girl who lent Carr the snuffler lived in the house for three weeks. She was called " Red Mary." No other girl lived there at the time. To the Judge : Carr said he would tell me where the muffler was round the man's neck, but I must keep it a secret. Mary Higgin (the Red Mary alluded to) stated that three weeks before the 20th of February she exchanged mufflers with Carr, and gave him one lent ,to her by the last witness, which she identified as that found round the neck of the deceased. Mary Anne Lanerty deposed that she lived in Mrs. 'Washington's house, 17, Court, Chisenhalesstreet. It is a brothel. At five o'clock on the 20th of February the prisoners came in. That she was sent out for ale, and when she came in she said an awful thing had happened in Bagging-entry. Carr said ho would take a man's life at any time if he had enough of money. Wall said he would kill a man for ten cents. She did not think lie was in earnest. This witness deposed that she pawned the coat and waistcoat for the prisoners at Mr. Rowland's pawn-office, Vauxhall-street. The clerk refused to take them at first, unless the persons who owned them came. She went back for the prisoners, who came and stated that the clothes were theirs, and they were taken in pawn, and a ticket given. Thomas O'Brien, clerk in the pawn office, corroborated this evidence, and identified the coat and waistcoat, which were handed over by him to the police. Anne Harrison, keeper of a sailor's boarding house, deposed that the prisoners came into her house on the Wednes day, and had something to eat; they gave her a pawn ticket for the clothes. 'William Wilson, detective officer, deposed that he apprehended the prisoners in a house in Waterloo road; searched Carr, and found in one of his pockets a pair of braces, and in another pocket is Bd. Witness produced the coat and waistcoat which was pawned. Carr said he knew nothing about tho matter, and that ho had purchased the clothes in New York. John Gresthwaite, detective officer, who was also present at the arrest, deposed that he searched Wall, and asked him where he got the boots which he had on, and which appeared to be new. Wall said he had received them in exchange three days before from a man who had gone to sea. Wall asked was there any thing about them ? and witness said he believed they belonged to a dead man. Wall then said Carr had given them to him that morning, but Carr said he knew nothing about them. A third detective officer, also engaged in the arrest, produced a muffler which he took from Carr. Mary Martin, a prostitute, identified this mud er as one which she had given to the deceased before his death, and which he wore. He wore a pair of braces like those produced, but she could not identify them. Michael Hannan, clothier and outfitter, Great Howard—street, identified the boots taken from Wall as a pair which he had sold to deceased, and which deceased had on when in witness's shop making some purchases on the evening of the 19th. Witness also identified the coat and waistcoat produced as those which deceased wore on that occasion. Deceased was purchasing another pair of boots, and he showed witness those he had on, saying two such pair would do him for a voyage. Saw the two prisoners at the time ; they were walking backwards before the window whilst witness was serving the deceased. To Mr. Atkinson : The prisoner Wall had a red shirt on at the time. Observed the prisoners particularly, because he thought tbey were going to steal something. Had seen the prisoners passing his shop before that night. They appeared to him to be what are called in that neighbourhood " whitewashed Yankees." (Laughter.) The witness Mary Anne Laverty was recalled at Mr. Atkinson's request, and deposed that on the 19th and 20th of February Wall had on the same shirt as he had on that moment in the dock—a striped white and brown shirt. The:case for the prosecution having closed, Mr. M'Don nell addressed the jury in defence of the prisoner Carr, and strongly deprecated the thought of a conviction upon evidence so merely suspicious as that which for the most part had been given.: Mr. Atkinson then addressed the jury on]behalf of the prisoner Wall. He contended that there was no sufficient proof at all that the death had been caused by murder, and dwelt in eloquent terms on the unsatis factory character of the evidence to support so solemn a charge. His Lordship charged the jury. After retiring for about an hour, the jury again came into court and found heal prisoners guilty, but added a recommendation to mercy! The prisoner Carr gazed at the jury before they delivered their verdict with an expression of fearful anxiety, and after the verdict had been delivered his head dropped heavily. The other prisoner received the verdict quite indifferently. SENTENCE OF DEATH. His Lordship then drew on the black cap, and pro ceeded to pass sentence on the prisoners. He said : Philip Wall and James Carr. The jury, after a most patient investigation of the case and hearing everything that could be urged on your behalf, have found you guilty of murder. They have accompanied that verdict with a recommendation to mercy. With that I have nothing to do beyond furthering it for the consideration of the advisers of the Queen who will act upon it as they shall think fit. But so far as I am concerned I have but one duty to perform, and that is to sentence you to die. I did not inquire what were the reasons which have induced the jury to give that recommendation, but I presume it is in consequence of the state of drunkenness in which you probably all were, or may be supposed to have been in ; but, however, that may be it is their recommendation and I shall further it to the proper quarter. At the same time I may say that my own judgment goes along with their verdict, which they have found, and I do not see how they could have arrived at any other conclusion but that the unfortunate man House came to his death by your hands upon that night. The circumstances were such as, 1 own, left no doubt upon my mind that their verdict was a correct one, and that there was no way in which the death was to be accounted for, except that you, both of you probably, made use of the muffler which Carr had belonging to the woman Fanning to choke him, and carried away that which he had about his throat, in lieu of the one so use d. Y our object. Probably , was to rob him of the little money he had. No doubt your conduct in then staying about the place and openly pledging the clothes the following morn ing, may have induced the jury to think you not so responsible for your conduct, as other people who would have acted differently. But, however that may be, I have but one duty to perform, and I beseech you both not to place any confidence in the recommendation to mercy. I shall not at all stand in the way of it, but I by no means feel certain that the advisers of the crown will advise a remission of your sentence. Take warning by what I tell you and do not put too great confidence, or any con fidence, in that recommendation. Iby no means feel certain that the recommendation of the jury will be acted upon.. Therefore, I do beseech you to take timely warning and to avail of the opportunity which will be given to you to make your peace with God, because it may be that you will very shortly be called before Him. All I have to do is to pronounce the last sentence of the law, that you, Philip Wall, and you, James Carr, for the crime of murder of which you are now convicted, be taken from hence to the prison from which you came, be taken from thence to the place of execution, and there to be hanged by the neck until your bodies be dead, and then to be buried within the precincts of the prison; and may the Lord have mercy on your souls !—His Lordship seemed deeply affected, and immediately left the bench. The prisoners were then removed, and walked down with firm steps. The hearing of this case occupied the whole day. NISI PRIUS COURT.—YESTERDAY. (BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES.) SPECIAL JURY CASES.—At the sitting of the court this morning, the special jury cases in the Salford list were entered on. It is supposed that Baron Martin will be able to take up the undisposed common jury cases, this (Wednesday) afternoon. FIRTH V. THE NORTH OF ENGLAND FIRE AND LIFE ASSOCIATION.—The plaintiff is a machinist of Manchester, and he brought the present action to recover from the defendants, the value of his stock in trade, &c., which he had insured for £2,000 in their office,and which were des troyed by a fire which broke out in his premises in Hallam-street, last July. A great portion of the property consisted of patterns, and these not being considered by the defendants, as strictly belonging to the stock-in-trade, they refused the full' amount claimed by the plaintiff, and offered him £7O. Subsequently, however, they thought better of the matter, and paid £1,200 into court. The plaintiff claimed £1,670, and under these circum stances a verdict was entered by agreement for the plain tiff, subject to a reference. WHITEHEAD V. PARKSON AND WlFE.—This was an an action to recover compensation, for the improper diverting of certain streams from the plaintiff's land, near Elton, on which were certain bleaching premises, now rendered useless by the act of the defendants. The Attorney-general, with Mr. Monk, appeared for the plaintiff's ; and Mr. Atherton, Q-C., with Mr. Jones, for the defendants. After the case had proceeded some time, it being evident that there were most important points of law, both as regarded the rights of the parties to the water, and also the damages, supposing that the verdict was in favour of the plaintiffs, it was agreed that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff for £5,000, nominally, subject to a special case, the damages not to be estimated until the questions of law have been decided. GEE v. BOOTS AND OTIiEBS.—This was an action f ejectment brought to recover possession of certain premises in Manchester. Mr. Watson, 7Q.C., with Mr. Spinks, was for the plaintiff; andPlr. Hill, Q. C., with Mr. Millward, for the defendants. The plaintiff is Joel Gee, of Ashton-under-Lyne, and the defendants are John Booth, Charles Smith, and Thomas Lee, all of Man chester. The case was wholly one of pedigree, the plain tiff claiming to recover as heir at law to a person of the name of Jane Gee, who died in 1854. She was the last of a particular line counting from John and Peter Gee, and the plaintiff, who was her cousin in a remote degree, was the descendant of Robert Gee, the brother of John. Jane, the party last seized of the property in question, who died December, 1854, aged 74, was for several years before 'her death a lunatic, proceedings in lunacy having been taken against her in 1806. At her death she was possessed of real and personal property, the former of which should as a matter of course pass to the heir at law, and the latter to the next of kin. She was the daughter of Peter Gee, who derived from John Gee. Robert Gee was married twice, his second wife being Rosa Lingaril, by whom he had sons John, Ralph, and Joel, the father of the plaintiff. Nathaniel, the alleged common ancestor by the plaintiff, was a schoolmaster at Duckinfield, near Manchester, and from a book in the possession of the plaintiff it would appear that he was born about the year 1695. fie was married to Margaret Cheatham in 1717, and he died in 1767, leaving several sons, John, Robert, Samuel, Joseph, and Thomas. John and Robert were in partnership together as cotton spinners, in Duckiufield, but after some time they separated, one going to Manchester, and the other remaining at Duckinfield. John's line was very easily traced to Jane, in whom it ceased. Robert's line was traced to Joel Gee, the plaintiff; but the difficulty was to connect. the two lines, and to show that they were brothers. Robert Gee died in 1759, but his widow, Rosa Gee, lived to 1824, and frequently spoke of the relationship between him and John Gee, and also stated that their common ancestor was Nathaniel Gee. Mrs. Saxon, the granddaughter of Rosa Gee, was examined, and deposed to the statements made by her during her lifetime as to John and Robert having been brothers. The defendant's case was that the common ancestor was Newman Gee, who married in 1715, and that he left two sons, John and Samuel, and other chil dren. John's line became extinct in Jane Gee, but Samuel, who married, left several children, among them three daughters, who are represented in the present defendants. In proof of this, the proceedings in lunacy against Jane Gee were put in, among them being the affidavit of Martha Shortcross, who deposed that she was the maternal grandmother of the lunatic Jane Gee ; that the common ancestor was Newman Gee, whose eldest son was John, and second eldest Samuel, and that he had no son named Robert. The jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendants. The property, we believe, is worth £3OO a-year. MONDAY. GARDNER V. CAZENOVE AND OTHERS.—In this action the defendants consented to a verdict being entered for the plaintiff for 10001, with costs, subject to a special case to be agreed upon between the parties. RAWSTHORNE V. HOLT.—M. Sergeant Wilkins, with Mr. Rae, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hill, Q.C., with Mr. Segar, for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins stated the case. He said that in the month of July, 1849 the plaintiff took from the defendant, as a yearly tenant, at 301 per annum, the house and premises called the Washhouse mill, in Birtle-cum-Bamford, near Bury, the terms of agreement, among others, being that the defen dant should keep the premises in repair, so far as regarded the outer walls, roof, and principal timbers ; and that if the plaintiff did any damage, he would have to make it good. The mill being an old concern, was at the time in a state of dilapidation, and the jury would, therefore, not be surprised to hear that for some time after the plaintiff came into possession, alterations of a most important character were required. The mill was worked both by steam and water, and it was soon discovered that the pipes which carried the water to the wheel were insuffi cient in point of bore. New pipes were then substituted for the old :ones, and then it was found that they poured in a quantity of water as to render the goit too narrow, and consequently a new goit was supplied by the defen dant. It was then found that the boiler, which had been standing for some time unused, had become caked with rust, and when it began to be used, large flakes of the metal came off. A new boiler had consequently to be got, and then when the boiler was supplied, it was found that the chimney was too small, (laughter), that there was not sufficient draught, and that to get up the requisite heat, a quantity of coal would have to be consumed, which would render the speculation a ruinous one. At first, the defendant demurred to putting up a new chimney, but afterwards, when it was proved to him that it was indis pensable, and when he discovered that if he did not build it he would lose an excellent tenant, he consented to build it. He desired the plaintiff to look out for some man capable of doing the work, and that he was not to exceed 20s per yard, and he contended that a'chimney, seventeen yards in height would be sufficient. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that it should be twenty-one yards, and ultimately it was agreed between them, that the de fendant should erect seventeen yards of the work, and also be at the expense of making a sufficient and proper excavation for the foundation, and that the plaintiff should add the other four yards at his own cost. The excavation proceeded, and when they got to a depth of about ten feet, the defendant contended that it was sufficient for the purpose. The plaintiff contended that it was not, and pointed out that the site selected was insecure, inasmuch as the foundation was being excavated from what was called made earth. Wilful men, however, must have their way. The defendant ordered the work to be pro ceeded with, superintended it himself, and told the work men to desist after they had got to the above depth. He then sent in the bricklayers, and the chimney was in pro cess of being built, when it was discovered after they had got up to a certain height, that it leaned to one side more than another. The defendant was then so thoroughly con vinced that the foundation was insecure, that he ordered the persons who were building the chimney to pull it down, in order that a further excavation might be made. After some portion of it had been taken down it again righted, and then the defendant said it was unnecessary to pull any more down, and ordered the men to resume the work of erection. The chimney was accordingly built to the height of 21 yards, but shortly after its completion, it again got out of the perpendicular, and leant very much over the mill. On the 15th October, last year, a tremen dous storm passed over the neighbourhood. The chimney was much shaken, and some days afterwards fell across the mill, broke in the roof, destroyed a large quantity or the I:achinery, and struck one or two persons, who were at the time at work there, but fortunately killed no one. When the chimney had got out of the perpendicular, the plaintiff gave notice of it to the defendant, and after its fall, he admitted that he was bound to make good the I damage, and promised to do so, but having failed to make good his word, the present action was brought. Mr. Hill then stated the case for the defendant, and in doing so said, that it would rest largely on a conflict of testimony. Mr. Holt was the owner of the premises in question, which was used as a shoddy-mill, and when the plaintiff rented it, the nature of the agreement under which he entered in the possession was, that after the first alterations, the plaintiff should keep the mill in re pair. That was the nature of the agreement, and not such as had been set forth by the plaintiff, and on the occasion of its being made, the defendant's son was pre sent. In proof of that, he might mention that when the new boiler was put in, it was only on the condition of the plaintiff consenting to allow six per cent on the cost to be added to the rent. As to the erection of the new chimney, it was done solely under the directions of th e plaintiff, and the def-ndant merely contributed 161 towards the work, which was to cost 211 altogether, to secure its being well done. The jury returned a verdict for th e plaintiff. The damages are to be estimated out of court. ADDITIONAL NEWS BY WEST INDIA MAIL. In our early edition of yesterday morning we announced the arrival of the La Plata, at Southampton, with the West India mail, and in our second edition we published the following additional intelligence. The royal mail steamer La Plata has arrived with the West Indian and Mexican mails. She left St. Thomas on the 18th ult. Amongst the cargo is specie to the value of 2,839,117 dollars, of which 4.5,000 dollars are on account of Mexican bonds. The specie consists of 2,329,377 dollars in silver ; 400,916 dollars in gold; 11,240 dollars in Plata pins; and 5,150 dollars in pearls. She brings 78 passengers, amongst whom is the Hon. Mr. Sharp, chief justice of St. Vincent. The Atrato arrived out at St. Thomas on the 16th ultimo. The West India Islands are healthy. The British admiral was at St. Domingo and was about to proceed to Havana. At Trinidad the weather was favourable, and the sugar crop promises to be a good one. The riots in British Guiana had been subdued. About 800 Portuguese shops had been pillaged, and the destruction by the riots entailed a loss of 200,000 dollars. About 1,200 prisoners had been sentenced. The trial of Orr, the anti-catholic preacher, was to come off on the 14th April. The sugar crop in Demerara would be short. The colony was healthy. From Nicaragua we hear that dissatisfaction prevailed in Walker's army, and the opinion is, that he will be obliged to leave the country. The executive power at New Grenada had been anxious to liquidate the New Grenada debt to Mexico, but circumstances had prevented this being accomplished. Commerce and in dustry had made great advances in New Grenada. At Bagota the Vice-president gives a favourable account of the state and prospects of the country. Great excitement prevailed in Oregon on account of some gold discoveries there. Dreadful shipwrecks had taken place in Chili. The mines there are reported of favourably and are improving. Exchange at Jamaica, on London, 90 days, 1 per cent. prem. ; 60 days, 14 per cent prem. ; 20 days, 2 per cent. prem. At Mexico,it is stated that Tamaris is supported by the clergy, and that if he would " declare," several states would probably constitute themselves a separate republic. DEATH OF JOHN BULL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES. Sir,—That pugnacious, but otherwise estimable person, poor dear Bull had so made up his mind " to go in for another round" that I lament to inform you the intelli gence of the proclamation of the treaty of peace in Paris had so alarming an effect upon his nervous system that he departed this lite immediately on the intelligence reach ing this country. Respect for his memory induces me to place myse fin mourning for the next six months.—. Yours in deep afflic tion and humiliation, Abacus. MEETING AT SOUTHPORT. On the evening of Monday, a public meeting of the ratepayers of North Meols was convened at the Town_ hall for the purpose of hearing Mr. Joseph Stoner, of Ormskirk, a candidate for the guardianship of the poor of that parish, deliver his sentiments, and enable Messrs. Baker, Hunt, and Linaker to attend that the ratepayers may judge as to the qualifications of the several candi dates. Mr. T. Stanley took the chair. The only persons on the platform were, the Chairman, Mr. Stoner, and Messrs. Hunt and Baker, while about 200 persons occu pied the body of the hall. Before the business of the meeting was commenced, Mr. Hunt said he should hold the chairman responsible for any libellous language that might ba uttered by Mr. Stoner, and he wished that to be distinctly understood. The Chairman having briefly addressed the meeting Mr. Stoner came forward and in a very lengthy address reviewed the past conduct of the guardians of the union, which he strongly condemned, • and likewise that of the inspector of schools, and the system of centralization, and concluded by asking if such persons were to represent the ratepayers? Mr. Hunt then produced two letters which had been written by Mr. Stoner, the contents of which were a personal attack on one of the guardians, and said he was present then to answer any charge which might be brought against him, but as no charge had been made, which he expected, it was for the rate payers then present to say whether they would again re-elect him. After an exciting scene, Mr. Esttv moved, and Me. Dixon seconded, a motion to the eff Tt that the rate payers would again support their present guardians. This motion was unanimously adopted, after which most of the company left the hall. Mr. Stoner, however, still occu pied the platform, and in an address of considerable length, proceeded to animad7ert upon every conceivable topic, and concluded by moving that the ratepayers ought not to support their present guardians. This motion, however, did not find a seconder, and Mr. Stoner and the Chairman then retired, and the meeting dispersed. INQUIRY INTO THE LOSS OF ANOTHER LIVERPOOL SHIP. Yesterday morning, at eleven o'clock, Messrs. Mansfield and Captain Schombergh held a court of inquiry in the Grand Jury room, into the loss of the Liverpool ship Daniel Grant, belonging to the Messrs. Lockett, of this town. The inquiry was ordered by the Board of Trade, under the 432nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act. The investi gation was, however, at the suggest i on o f t h e M essrs. Locketts, in order to satisfy the underwriters of the ship. Mr. Tyndall appeared on behalf of the Board of Trade. James Edgar Brown, the master of the late ship, was present, and just as the inquiry commenced, Mr. Lockett said the captain had been in their employment from a boy, and they had great confidence in him, and held him in high estimation. They would give him another ship, having the highest opinion of him. It appeared from the opening statement of Mr. Tyndall, that the Daniel Grant was a vessel of 470 tons, and that on the 19th of April last she sailed from Shanghai, in China, with a cargo of tea and raw silk, for Liverpool. It appeared that all went on well until the 16th of May, when she struck on the Helen coral-reef, in the Pacific-ocean. She subsequently went down, and it would appear that the captain had acted with great coolness, energy, and determination. That he sent the boys and his wife away from the wreck first, the men afterwards, and that at last he himself and the officers of the vessel left, not before she was actually sinking. They were ten days out in open boats, and were subsequently picked up by the ship Kingstown, the master of which treated them kindly and considerately. The captain of the Daniel Grant (Mr. Brown) was exam ined at great length, and he attributed the loss of the vessel to the reef being laid down wrongly on the chart. By the chart which he had he was some distance from the reef. which was only a small space above water. It was sun down when the vessel struck ; he had made the same voyage before in the same ship, and had been 16 years in the trade, five years as a master. He had a certificate from the Board of Trade and had passed his examination in Liverpool. Ile put in several first-rate certificates as to character and competency. He was examined at much length by Captain Schombergh, and then the carpenter of the ship, named John Pollock, was examined, and he gave the same account as the captain of the loss of the vessel. He stated that the conduct of the captain was of the best description, and that but for his energy and firmness, and cool determination, the lives of the crew might have been lost. The court decided to send up the certificate to the Board of Trade, but stated that they would suggest its return as soon as possible. The court gave every credit to the captain for his conduct after the vessel struck. The case of the Europa will be resumed this day. POLICE COURT.-YESTERDAY. (BEFORE MR. ALDERMAN HOLME.) THE FORCE of HABIT. —A fellow, named John M'Donnell alias Elizha, was brought up on a charge of attempting to commit a burglary in the house of Mr. Dent, pub!ican, back Chapel-street. At one o'clock in the morning the prisoner, with two others (who escaped), were found endeavouring to break into a grid over the cellar of the house stated. The prisoner, in reply to the alderman, said he could not help it— it was all the force of habit. His worship said : I find you have been convicted of felonies no less than twenty-one times, and that you have besides been five times discharged. I think it would be a great blessing to the country if you wore sent out of it. I will rid the town of you for three months. Let him be sent for three months with hard labour. SHOP LIFTING.—Sarah Hughes, a young woman well known to the police as a shop-lifter, was brought up on a charge of having stolen fifteen yards of moreen from the shop door of Mr. William Hughes, draper, of Scotland-road. The prisoner was caught in the act, and was sentenced to three months hard labour. STEALING A COAT.-Mr. Woods, pawnbroker, White chapel, ()barged a man named John Molloy, and a female named Maria Penlington, on suspicion of having stolen a coat. Mr. Woods said on Friday evening ho took in a coat in pledge, and on Saturday morning he received a notice that it was stolen ; he, therefore, had an eye on the matter, and on Saturday evening the male prisoner went to release it, when Mr. Woods gave him into custody, and on learning that the woman had given it to the man, he had her arrested Also. It did appear that the woman had stole the coat, and she was sent to jail for a month, and the man was discharged. The conduct of Mr. Woods was commended as very proper. ROBBERY AT ST. GEORGE'S HALL.—Patrick McDonnell (father) and John and Francis McDonnell, (his sons) two returned convicts, were brought up by detectives Thompson and Scaife, on the following charge. From the evidence of the officers, and also that of Mr. Gardner, the librarian at St. George's-hall, it appeared that the latter left a bag containing shirts, collars, fronts, and other things, in the lodge at the gate, and, on Tuesday last, the bag and contents were stolen. On Monday night the officers arrested the two younger prisoners, and on one of them was found a pair of boots, be longing to Mr. Gardner, and on the other a pair of stockings, the property of the same gentleman. On searching the lodgings of the father, in 10 Court, Preston-street, they found a variety of other property, that also belonged to the prosecu tor. The older prisoner, on being asked by the police where he got the articles, told them his brother had given them to him. The three prisoners were fully committed for trial. AWKWARD MISTAKE.—Two females, named Mary Anne Harrison, and Mary Lyett, were brought up by officer 228, on a charge of having stolen a snuff box from a person, described as a" gentlemen, named Henry Jennings." Mr. Bluck appeared for the prisoner s. The policeman said the prisoners were in a public-house in St. James-street, and it appeared that the complainant went in there also. After some time he called the witness, and gave the prisoners in charge, for stealing his silver snuff box. After the charge was entered at the bridewell, Mr Jennings found the box in the lining of his coat. Mr. Bluck : Where is he now ? Policeman :He does not appear. Mr. Bluck : I will make him appear in another court to answer this case. Alderman Holm : It is very unfortunate for the gentleman, who ever be is, that he gave these women in charge—he has done so, although it appears he had no right to charge them. I do not say the policeman had not a right to take them when they were given in charge to him, but it appears they ought not to have been given into custody by the gentleman for stealing his snuff box, when it was not stolen by them or any one else, but found in his own coat at the station. I think it is most unfortunate for the gentleman that he has charged them without any cause. It is a great hardship on the pri soners to be brought here on such a charge, and I now, with these remarks, discharge them. MID-DAY ROBBERY IN A SHOP.— Two very ill-looking persons named John Mulhern, and Margaret O'Brien, were brought up by detectives Scaife and Thompson, charged with having committed the following gross outrage in the shop of Mr. Cohen, Old Hall Street, on the 22nd March, in the middle of the day. It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Cohen, who although small in stature, exhibited a degree of moral and physical courage rarely to be met with in the fair sex, that on the day in ques tion the prisoners entered the shop and asked to be shown some trousers. Whilst she was handing some off a shelf, the man took three vests off the counter, and gave them to the woman, who, it seemed, had a double skirt to her gown for the purpose of stowing away property in it. Mrs. Cohen saw the move ment, but said nothing at the time, until sho got assistance, as her shopboy had gone out for change. The man asked again to be shown some trousers, and again he took some Vests from the counter, and gave them to the female prisoner. This was also observed by Mrs. Cohen, who then went round the counter and boldly seized on both the prisoners. The man, in a ruffianly manner attacked her, and after a sharp struggle, he succeeded in getting the female prisoner away, but Mrs. Cohen held on by him with heroic determination, calling for help. The shop boy coming in at the time, seized on the ruffian, and gave him a black eye with a blow of his band ; but the fellow was too strong for Mrs, Cohen and the boy, and succeeded in escaping. Both prisoners were then described to the police, but were not seen again until the office rs arreste d t h em i n hitechapel, on Monday night. They were then placed amongst a number of persons, and were at once identified by Mrs. Cohen and the boy. They were fully committed for trial.