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

A ‘1;--Nacs, 41. Nub rendered more than usually painful from the circumstance of one of the prosecutors being the father and the other the brother of the prisoner. A police-officer named Archer, - was on duty in Church street, on the morning of the 18th instant, about two o'clock. As he was passing Mr. Richardson's ship he heard a crack like the noise produced by lighting a lucifer match. He lis tened, and the sound was repeated, and he discerned a faint gleam through the fanlight above the door. He was called away for a short time. He returned with another officer, and then sent for Mr. Richardson, who opened the shop door. They proceeded to search the premises,. and found the prisoner in a privy which opened from the hack yard. He had a large quantity of property with him which had been taken from Mr. Richardson's shop. It consisted of knives, razors, gold and silver pencil cases, scissors, surgical instru ments, ez.c., value about X3O. The prisoner appeared to have got in through the grid leading to the coal cellar, the staple securing which had been forced out. The prisoner had also taken twenty-one shillings in silver, which Mr. Richardson had left in the shop. Mr. Richardson, Jnn., stated that when the prisoner was taken, he asked him how he came to rob him, who always behaved so well to him? He replied that he had been driven to it by the neglect of his relations. He was in a starving condition. Mr. Richardson added that the prisoner was un doubtedly in a wretched condition, from having kept away from his family. , The Jury foimd the prisoner guilty. Mr. Richardson, jun. was recalled by the Judge.—He stated that the prisoner was 21 years of age. He had, when young, preferred going to sea to remaining at business. He (Mr. Richardson) had since employed him. Mr. Richard son, with tears in his eyes, said he would willingly take the prisoner again into his service, if a lenient sentence were passed upon him. The learned JUDGE, in a very feeling address, intimated to the prisoner that he forebore to transport the prisoner solely in consideration of the brotherly offer of Mr. Richardson, jun. The prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and hard labour at Kirkdale, the first and last weeks to be spent in solitary confinement. CHAUGE OF HIGHWAY ...ROBBERY. aged 25, Winter, aged 20. Richard ~,,,,,,, and William Lawton, aged 21, were indicted for having, on the 15th of May last, at Ince-in-Mackerfield, assaulted John Taylor, and robbed him of his watch and appendages and wh - at money he had about 'dip. The prisoners, Winter and Lawton, are soldiers who, in May last, were quartered at Wigan- Mr. Brandt conducted the .prosecution. The prisoners were not defended. Taylor stated that about one o'clock on the morning of the 15th of May, , 1839, he was going home from Wigan to Apsall, when he was joined by the three prisoners. They asked him to join them in a pint of ale. Winter and Law ton were in their soldiers clothes, and Chadwick in plain clothes. He did not like their company, and after having called at a public-house to try to get some drink, he left them at Rose Bridge, and went along the canal. He ran, and the . prisoner Chadwick pursued him and knocked him down, and pulled out his watch, and afterwards thrqt his hand into his pocket and took out half-a-crown and a shilling. On his ex amination before the magistrates Taylor had stated that he could not swear to the man who took his money. He had not seen Chadwick from the time when he was robbed till December last. His lordship questioned him at considerable length on this point, but he varied so much in his answers, and appeared undecided on the point, that the judge said there was no dependence to be placed upon this part of his testimony. Richard Culshaw, the keeper of kpeer-house, proved that on the morning in question the prisorith and Taylor called at his house, and asked for some drink. Two other witnesses deposed to having seen Chadwick on that morning in .xim pany with two soldiers, near the place where the robbery was committed. The learned JUDGE said, there was no evidence against the soldiers, and they were removed from the bar. Chadwick, in his defence, admitted that he had been at Cuishaw's house, where he had seen two soldiers, but he knew nothing whatever of the robbery. The Jury at once acquitted the two soldiers. They could not agree as to Chadwick, and retired at twenty minutes past four o'clock. They returned in a quarter of an hour, and gave in a verdict of Guilty against Chadwick. Sentence de ferred. STEALING A COW, &C. Thomas Plnmp ton was charged with having, on the 22d Oct. last, stolen a cow and two heifers, the property of Geo. Mounsey. Dr. BROWN appeared for the prosecution. _ _ It appeared ft:Om the evidence, that on the 22nd October last, Mr. Mounsey and another person were driving a cow, two heifers, and a flock of sheep from Liverpool to Man chester. The cow and heifers were the property of Mr. Mounsey. At Woolston they met the prisoner, who under took to drive forward the cattle and sheep towards Manches ter, while Mr. Mounsey and his companion breakfasted. He took the animals forward, as requested, but left the sheep in the road, about 250 yards from the house where he had left Mr. Mounsey. It turned out, afterwards, that the prisoner had driven the cow and heifers on to Manchester, and sold them to a Mr. Hargreaves for eight pounds. They were afterwards returned to Mr. Mounsey. The latter had given £l2 12s. for them. Mr. Hargreaves said, after they had been at his farm, they were worth 4:4 more than before. The prisoner, when apprehended, told the constable that he had sold the cattle for £lB, and had been robbed of the money. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to imprison ment for one year. SENTENCES OP PRISONERS. The following sentences were passed upon the prisoners convicted on Thursday. John Mack, found guilty of having unlawful possession of a mould for coining, was sentenced to fifteen years trans portation. George Davis, for uttering base coin, baying a previous conviction against him, was sentenced to seven years trans portation. _ _ _ - William Johnson and Jane Broadbent for uttering base coin, were sentenced, the former to two years imprisonment and hard labour at Lancaster Castle, and the latter to six months imprisonment at Kirkdale Gaol. James Rooney, who pleaded guilty to the possession of cer tain moulds for coining, was sentenced to ten years trans portation. NISI PRIUS COURT—FRIDAY. (Before the Right Hon. Chief Justice ERSKINE.) His LORDSHIP took his seat at twenty minutes past nine o'clock. DEBT BUTTERFIELD v. ITOLT.—An undefended action, in which Mr. John Butterfield was the plaintiff, and Mr. James Holt the defendant, to recover the sum of £3fi 17s. Bd., the ba lance of an account, for goods sold and delivered.—Verdict for the plaintiff. WILDE v. BAMFORD.—Joseph Wilde, cabinet-maker, in Manchester, was the plaintiff, Frances Ann Bamford, a mil liner and dress-maker, was the defendant, and the action was brought to recover the sum of £26 •Is. 3(1., the balance of an account for cabinet furniture sold and delivered to the de fendant.—Verdict for the plaintiff. HAIGH AND ANOTHER V. BROOKES. DRINKWATInt V. BROOKES.—AII undefended action to recover the sum of £B7 7s. W., the balance of an account for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff, Mr. Wm. Drink water, is a commission agent in Manchester, and the de fendant is a manufacturer, living at Cole, on the borders of Yorkshire.—Verdict for the plaintiff. GitAYSOisi V. SHEPHERD. An undefended action, brought by Bevas Grayson, who had been in the employ of the defendant, Edwin Sheppard, a joiner and patent sawyer, to recover the sum of £B3 2s 6d, the balance of wages due. The plaintiff was overseer, and was to receive 5s per day. Verdict for the plaintiff. HEYW - 00D V. SCRUTON Undefended. The plaintiff, Mr. Benjamin Fenshaw Hey wood, a manufacturer in Manchester, sought to recover from the defendant, William Scrnton, a draper in Huddersfield, the sum of .E3O, the balance of an account stated. Verdict for the plaintiff. TOPLIS, THE YOUNGER, V. GPM.. The plaintiff, John Toplis, jun., is a tanner at Nottingham, and the defendant, John Gell, a curlier, at Manchester, The action, which was undefended, was to recover a debt of £lO3 is Id, for goods sold and delivered.—Verdict for the plaintiff. HATTON V. NVEBSTER AND OTHERS An action of debt, in which the plaintiff, Mr. James Hat ton, sought to recover from the defendants £23 9s 9d, the account for iron and steel, together with interest thereon, there h` been a special agreement that interest should be paid. Verdict for the plaintiff. ASSAULT. —THE QUEEN V. BOWLER AND ANOTHER. This was an action of assault, the particulars of which have already been before the public. The plaintiff was Mr. Jeremiah Garnett, the editor of the Manchester Guardian: the defendants were Mr. Thomas Sowler, the editor of the Manchester Courier, and Mr. Robert Scarr Sowler, his son. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for the defendants. Mr. CRESSWELL stated the case. He said that this was an indictment which had originally been preferred by the prosecutor, Mr. Garnett, against the two defendants, for an assault. The defendants had thought fit to remove the case into that court, and have it tried before a superior judge and a jury, instead of the magistrates at seSsiouS. H e should prove that the defendants had committed an assault of a very extraordinary character, because he presumed that, if the elder and younger Mr. Sowler were called upon, they would consider themselves entitled to call themselves gentlemen ; and yet they had acted in concert in this extraordinary as sault, one holding the arm of Mr. Garnett while the other beat him. The occurrence happened on the 24th of July last, at three o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. Garnett was walking through St. Ann's-square, and when he had come to the shop kept by Mr. Farmer, the younger Mr. Sowler got to the front of him, with a horsewhip in his hand ; the elder Mr. Sowler held the arm of Mr. Garnett, and the other struck him on the head with the horsewhip. Mr. Gar nett struggled, broke away, and struck the younger Mr. Sowler with his umbrella, as might have been expected. The old man then again caught hold of the arm of the plaintiff, who received another blow ; and he defended himself as well as he could, till other persons came up and separated them. This was the case which he (the learned counsel) should lay before the jury, and leave it to them to decide whether the defendants, one or both, ay or no, committed an assault upon Mr. Garnett. Mr. Jeremiah Garnett was then called and examined. He said—O n the 24th of July last, at three o'clock in the after noon, I was passing through St. Anne's-square, which is a very public part of Manchester. I saw Mr. Thomas Sowler, and another person whom I did not then know, but whom I have since ascertained to be Mr. Robert Scarr Sowler, run ning across the square, apparently from the door of the shop of 11/Ir. Robert Sowler, which is on the opposite side to that on which 1 was Walking. I walked on without noticing them. They came up to me. Robert Scars Sowler had a horsewhip in his hand. He spoke to me. and said, " Your name is Jeremiah Garnett, or Mr. Garnett ?" 1 answered, d. y e s." At that moment Mr. Thomas Sowler came behind me, seized hold of my right wrist, and said, " Now, Robert." Upon that Robert struck me with the whip ; the blow lighted on my hat. I broke loose from Mr. Sowler, and struck Robert Scarr Sowler with my umbrella. He had just struck me with the whip, and was raising his hand for another blow, when I struck him with the umbrella. Mr. Thomas Sowler . interfered again, caught hold of my arm a second time, and Robert Sowler struck me again with the whip ; the blow was on the shoulder. It was - my right arm that Mr. Thomas Sowler caught hold of—thn arm in wnich I had the umbrella. I again broke away from hint, and again used my umbrella. 1 struck both of them two or three times. Robert struck at me repeatedly with the whip, and Thomas came up to me, sometimes as if he intended to seize my arms, and sometimes as if he was going to strike me with his fists. This continued until several individuals came up to us, and interfered. The first person was Mr. Thomas Hopkins. The matter then ended. _ . • . —Mr. Hopkins is m Cross-examined by Mr. WILI:IN brother-in-law. The JUDGr..—Could not this matter he amicably arranged ? There seems to have been no great damage done. Mr. WILKINS stated that he was willing to accede to any thing which his lordship proposed. Mr. Cutsswitm. said as this was a ease in which his client had been insulted, his lordship would see that the offer of accommodation could not be expected to come from him. Mr. WILKINS said that he could not offer any apology on the part of the elder Mr. Sowler, because he still denied the charge brought against him. The case then proceeded. Witness.—Mr. Hopkins is my brother-in-law. He does not occassionally assist to write articles for the Guardian. He has sometimes contributed one or two letters, but never any leading articles. Recently, however, according to my recollection, he has contributed nothing. He has not a share in the Manchester Guardian, nor is he in treaty to become a shareholder. Tilmhas been a report to that effect; but there is no truth in it. I did not strike in a javelin fashion with my umbrella. I never struck with the point downwards. I used it like a stick. I had some reason to anticipate the attack made upon me. No one accompanied me through the square. I was not aware that Mr. Shuttleworth and Mr. Hopkins were close behind. I have not admitted to you that I was the writer of an article in the Manchester Guardian calling the writer of an article in the Manchester Courier " a crawling, cowardly liar." Mr. WiLstss was proceeding to examine the witness on this point, when Mr. CD.EsswELL objected f - o the witness answering with respect to any writing, unless the writing itself was put in. His LORDSHIP decided that the objection was good. Witness (in continuation) : The horsewhip employed by Mr. Sowler was a very small one. 1 was not hurt. Richard Hall was then called, but he did not answer. " Call him on his Mr. CRESSWELL said to the attorney, subpoena." The attorney replied that he had not the subpoena with Mr. CRESWELL then intimated that the case was ended. Mr. Wii.xisis addressed the jury on behalf of the defen dants. He said that they had heard the nature of the case explained by his learned friend, and if, without uttering one word, he left them solely to draw their own judgment from that statement, what, he asked, would he their opinion of the case? The only person called in support of the case was the person most interested, and whose testimony ought to he received with the greatest possible suspicion. The trans action had taken place in the middle of the day, in one of the most frequented parts of Manchester, and wily had not some person besides Mr. Garnett been called on to prove the case? Had the jury remarked the extremely cautions manner in which the witness had answered certain questions put by him (the learned counsel)? His learned friend re marked at the time that the answer was a very proper one. Of course it was, in a legal point of view ; it was just the one which lie (Mr. Cresswell) wanted, because it would im pose on him (Mr. Wilkins) the necessity of calling witnesses and putting in documents, which would give him (Mr. C.) the right of reply. But he (Mr. Wilkins) should disappoint him; he would neither call witnesses nor put in documents, but confine himself to a very few additional remarks. Ac tion was in all instances the result of 'notice, unless in the case of idiots or madmen; and did the jury believe that Mr. Robert Sowler, for mere sport and pastime, ran through St. Anne's-square, with the smallest horsewhip in his hand that anybody had ever seen, for the purpose of tickling Mr. Jere miah Garnett, or did they not think that there must have been some shameful outrage to induce the conduct which had that day been described? Some of the jury were no doubt acquainted with the facts, and had doubtless antici pated, as Mr. Garnett himself had anticipated, that some thing similar to what had happened was very likely to take place. The mode in which Mr. Garnett had been tutored to answer the question relative to the article in the Manchester Guardian might be the legal one ; but there were occasions on which persons ought to be anxious to give the whole truth to the world, and not only do what was lawful, but what was honourable. That Mr. Garnett had been horsewhipped was well known, and there was no denying that the younger Sowler was guilty, but that the elder was guilty he (the learned counsel) denied. Mr. Wilkins then went on to contend that the obvious reason why the elder Mr. Sowler had caught hold of the right arm of Mr. Garnett was to prevent him striking the younger Mr. Sowler with the umbrella, and that the words " Now, Robert," instead of meaning " Now, Robert, beat him," (the inference attempted to be drawn from them,) meant, " Now, Robert, escape while I have hold of his arm ;". and this con struction was supported by the admission of the plaintiff, that he would again have struck the younger defendant, had not his arm been held. To suppose that Mr. Thos. Sowler had instructed his son to beat the plaintiff was absurd, be cause if Mr. Sowler had been desirous of having that done, he himself was far more capable of doing it than his son, who was a man of not more than half the dimensions of Mr. Gar nett. Mr. Wilkins mentioned, in conclusion, that the rea son why he did not call witnesses was, that he was afraid of the extraordinary powers of Mr. Cresswell—his capability of making "the worse appear the better reason," his sophistry, his ability, and his power of working upon the minds of the jury. He should, therefore, not give his learned friend the right of reply. If any of the jury were acquainted with the person of Mr. Hopkins, he begged that they would look round the court, and then they would see at once whether the plain tiff was not afraid of calling even his brother-in-law in evi dence. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the plaintiff had stated on oath the circumstances of the assault, and there had been nothing in answer but the observations of an ingenious counsel ; and the jury would say whether they would put these observations, however ingenious, in opposition to the oath of a man who, if he had sworn false, might have been contradicted by numerous witnesses ; for it ought to be borne in mind that the fact of the transaction having taken place in a public square afforded to the defendants the same opportu nity of calling witnesses as it did to the plaintiff. The cir cumstance of publicity was therefore as much a reason for believing as disbelieving the evidence of the prosecutor. The jury had nothing to do with the occasion of the assault. If it were true, as suggested, that Mr. Garnett had used the coars est possible expressions in a newspaper, or anything else, to wards one of the defendants, that formed no justification for the assault. They were bound to give a verdict against the defendants, whatever might have been the provocation given, either by writing or speaking. The provocation was always a subject of inquiry in settling the amount of punishment, but had nothing to do with finding the verdict, unless the provocation consisted of a previous blow. The answer on which Mr. Wilkins had commented was a very proper one, as they could not receive any evidence as to written or print ed papers, unless those papers were produced. The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty. His LORDSHIP,' having been requested to pronounce sen tence then, stated that he would consider, and pronounce the sentence on the following day. This was an action brought by Messrs. Haigh and Fran ceys to recover from the defendant, under an undertaking al leged to have been entered into by him, the value of three bills, amounting in all to £9666 13s 7d, together with inte rest thereon. Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightman for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Cresswell for the defendant. Mr. ALEX ANDEIL stated the case, and after referring to its unusual nature, said that this was an attempt to defeat the just claim of Olt, plaintiffs to more than £lO,OOO. In the early part of 18:17 the plaintiffs, who were cotton merchants in Liverpool, were induced to sell cotton to a firm in Man chester, Messrs. John Leigh and Sons, and the defendant, who was in a large business, guaranteed the payment of three bills. The guarantee was in these terms :—" In considera tion of your being in advance to Messrs. John Leigh and Sons in the sum of £lO,OOO, for the purchase of cotton, I hereby give you my guarantee for that amount, say £1 0 , 000 ." That guarantee was signed by the defendant. Not a long time elapsed before the bills became due, and they were dis honoured. Previous to this, however, the defendant had made an application, for some reason or other, to have the guarantee delivered up to him, saying that he did not like to have his name attached to it. The plaintiffs said that they had no objection to give up the guarantee, hut they must be protected against the outstanding bills. Mr. Brookes could not deny that, and he said that he would take care of them, provided the plaintiffs would give up the guarantee. This was done, and then the defendant signed the following un dertaking •—" In consideration of giving up the guarantee for £lO,OOO, I undertake to see paid, at maturity, the three bills of Messrs. John Leigh and Sons." After the bills had been dishonoured, of course an application was made to Mr. Brookes on the subject. He, however, declined corning forward, or making up the bills in any other way, and the consequence was that an action was brought. That was in June, 1837 ; but every difficulty had been thrown in the way, and the cause, after having been in the Court of Queen's Bench and in Chancery, had again come there, and he (the learned counsel) hoped that it would now be terminated. There was, however, one difficulty in the way. At the last trial the original guarantee was asked for and produced, and on production it appeared that there was no stamp on it. An objection was then urged by his learned friend (Mr.. Cress well) that the document was an illegal one ; but Baron Alder son was of a different opinion • and the plaintiffs got a verdict. He understood that the original document could not now be produced—that it had been destroyed, and they therefore had had a copy attested and stamped. Richard Bosire was then called, and deposed that he was a clerk in the office of Messrs. Haigh and Franceys. He produced the undertaking, on the giving of which the ori ginal guarantee had been given up. He knew the hand writing of Mr. Brookes, and the signature was his. [The undertaking was put in and read.] When that was signed by Mr. Brookes, .the guarantee was given up to him. He (witness) had a copy of the guarantee. Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL. — He could not swear whether the original document was stamped or not. He had not the least recollection. He would not swear that it was stamped. To Mr. WrGrursiAN.—The copy produced is a true copy of the original. To Mr. CRESSWELL . .—Mr. Franceys read the original, and he (witness) read the copy. All he knew was, that the copy corresponded with the original, as read to him. The copy was made on the morning of the dzy when the original was given up. The J UDGE. — And that copy is what you have had stamped? Mr. ALEXANDER.—Yes. Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Put it in. Mr. CREsswELL.—No, sir; we have had no proof that it is an examined copy. The JUDGE.—The copy may by read, and then it will be \ N thrown on you to prove That the original was without a stamp. Mr. CuEsswELL then addressed the jury for the defence. He said that his learned friend had been pleased to tell his tale, and to impute to Mr. Brookes that he had improperly attempted' to avoid the payment of a just debt—that he had practised a gross fraud. His learned friend had stated that a guarantee had been given by the defendant on the 4th of February, 1837. Now if money had been advanced, or a debt contracted before the guarantee was given, Mr. Brookes was not liable for that, because there would be no consideration in law. It was quite clear that the intended liability of the defendant was to be in respect of debts incurred after that time, to secure future credit, and not to meet antecedent debts ; because, if it was conceded that the guarantee was for antecedent debts, it was worth nothing. If the claim were for goods furnished to Messrs. Leigh in furtherance of the guarantee, Mr. Brookes would have raised no objection ; but, subsequent to the date of that guarantee, another document was presented to him, at the bottom of which some bills were enumerated. Mr. Brookes signs that and goes away, be lieving, at the time, that the three bills were to become due at a future period ; but on investigation it turned out that one, for between 3000 and £4OOO had been due at a former period, and the plaintiffs had thus sought to impose on the defendant a liability to which, under the first grant, he was not liable. After remarking upon the evidence of Mr. Bosire, who, though he was at the last trial, and was called upon to give his evidence on the point on which the case hinged, could not now recollect whether the original document was stamped or not, Mr. Cresswell said that he would not waste another word on that subject, but at once call Mr. Ilum he was certain, would give his evidence in the phreys, who, straightforward manner becoming a gentleman. Mr. John Humphreys, one of the attorneys of the plain tiff, was then called, and examined by Mr. Tomlinso n , who acted with Mr. Cre sswell. The witness stated that he at tended at the former trial of this case at the last Spring Assizes, and remembered Mr. Cresswell having taken an objection to the guarantee on a ccount of its not being stamped, but could not take upon himself to swear that it was not stamped, as he did not recollec t having seen it. Mr. WIGHTMAN here objected to the witness being exa mined touching a document not produced. The instrument, he contended, ought to be produced, in order that they might know of what they were speaking. Mr. CRESSWELL said that his object was to prove that the document produced at the last trial as the original gua rantee, and indentified as such, was not stamped. He did not care a straw as to what was in the paper. The JUDGE observed that it would be necessary that Mr. Cresswell should show that the document of which Mr. Hum phreys spoke was the document delivered up, or his evidence went for nothing. Mr. Cansswma, thought he should do sufficient if he proved that the paper identified at the last assizes by the plaintiff's own witnesses as the original guarantee, was not stamped. Mr. WIGHTMAN submitted that that would not remove the difficulty one jot. Mr. Cresswell was trying to connect with this trial a paper, of the nature of which he had shown not hi ng . What right had h e t o say it was the same paper w ithout producing it ? Let him produce it ; he had got it. His LORDSHIP said that the difficulty he felt was this. The witness had stated that he had not seen the document which was produced, and therefore he did not prove that the document of which he spoke was the same as that which the other witness had spoken of as having been delivered up. He (the learned judge) did not think that Mr. Cresswell had r \k , gone far enough to show that the documeas were the same. 1 Mr. Humphreys was further examined, and some more conversation took place between the counsel on both sides. His LORDSHIP then observed that he did not see clearly his way to come to the presumption that the original docu ment was not stamper, and yet the only way to raise the question for the court above would be to make that presump tion. He should therefore do so, and receive the copy, giving Mr. Cressweil leave to move for a nonsuit. Mr. ALEXANDER then replied, and urged the jury to di vest their minds of all the technicalities which had been brought before them, as they had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the case, which was itself a plain and simple one. He would just mention the amount of inte rest. Mr. CRESSWELL.—You have no right to interest. The JUDGE.—They are not entitled to interest, as interest, but they are to whatever damages the jury may think them. entitled, in lieu of interest. Mr. ALEXANDER.—The interest is £1,421 2s. sd. His lordship having summed up, the jury found for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed. EJECTMENT. DOE DEM. BEAUMONT AND ANOTHER v. DALTON.—This was an action of ejectment. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Hog gins appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Wightman for the defendant. Mr. CRESSWELL, in opening the case, said the action had been brought to recover possession of a chapel belonging to the plaintiffs, called Patmos Chapel, in Todmorden. It had been instituted in consequence of some dissensions between different highly respectable parties respecting the uses to be made of this chapel. The chapel, he understood, had origi nally been built for the use of parties who belonged to the Methodist New Connection, the property being vested in trustees. Some of those trustees wished that the doctrines to he inculcated in this chapel should be those of the Inde pendents, and in consequence some difference of opinion prevailed. He should be able to show very distinctly the title to the property to be in the plaintiff Mr. Beaumont, and that would entitle him to a verdict. But he had no desire to continue anything like a feeling of animosity between the parties, and therefore, he should be very glad to take any course best calculated to allay irritation. If it were more agreeable to the other side, he was quite willing that some person should settle the question in private ; hut if not he was prepared to show his title, on which he should be en- ' titled to a verdict. The JUDGE asked Mr. Wightman what he had to say ? Mr. CRESSWELL said there were rival trustees, and the probability was, that if the matter was proceeded with it would arrive in the Court of Chancery, and when it would come out again no man knew. Mr. WIGHTMAN inquired what course his learned friend proposed? Mr. CRESSWELL replied that he proposed to leave it to some gentleman of the bar to ascertain the rights of the parties, and what should be done with the property—to leave him to decide all the rights legal and equitable of the several parties. Mr. WIGIITMAN said he felt a difficulty in consenting to refer a question in which other parties besides his clients were interested. Mr. CRESSWELL said, that as far as the question of trusteeship was concerned, his learned friend represented some persons whom he (Mr. C.) called pseudo trustees — trustees not properly appointed; and he (Mr. C.) repre sented the survivors of the legitimate trustees. Mr. WIGHTMAN thought his learned friend proposed a reference only as respected the owner of the fee. Mr. CRESSWELL professed to represent some of the trus tees, • but the action was brought by the owner of the fee ; and he avowed that the action was brought in consequence of the differences. A mortgage on the chapel was in the hands of a very respectable gentleman ; and as his interests would be protected, he could have no objection to a reference. The JUDGE enquired whether this mortgage had been granted by both trustees ? Mr. CRESSWELL.—By Mr. Wightman's trustees. The JUDGE.—There's the difficulty. Mr. CRESSWELL.—Those who are claiming the property will undertake to indemnify the mortgagee against loss. Mr. WronTmAx.—What does my learned friend propose ? Mr. CRESSWELL.—To leave to a gentleman of the bar competent to deal with such matters, all questions legal and technical arising from these matters. The JUDGE.— [hat would include the mortgagee, then ? Mr. CRESSWELL.—Yes, my lord. The JUDGE.—But it cannot be done without the mort gagee's consent. Mr. CRESSWELL.—I cannot suppose be would object upon obtaining a guarantee. The. J uDGE.—The mortgagee is not here. Arr. CRESSWELL replied that he was, and added that if his learned friend wished he was ready to go on. The JUDGE.—It would be very desirable that this matter should be arranged. A consultation took place, and it was ultimately agreed to refer. A verdict was consequently taken for the plaintiff, subject to the reference. There had been some difficulty experienced throughout the day in getting cases to proceed with, and the learned Judge, after having, in their order, struck off several, in which nei ther of the parties were prepared, found; at last, that if he went on striking off all the cases not ready, he, would leave very few on the list. He therefore ceased hearing civil causes, and took a criminal one. CROWN COURT.—S,tTuRnAy, - Mr. Justice COLE IDGF, took his place shortly before nine o'clock, and immediately ordered that the prisoners con victed on the preceding day, who had not received sentence, should be placed, before him. SENTENCES ON RETURNED CONVICTS. Charles Dohhus, aged 23, was placed at the bar. The charge against him was, that, having been convicted, about four years ago, of burglary, at the New Bailey Sessions, at Salford, and transported beyond the seas for the term of 14 years, he had, on the 18th of November last, appeared at large, in the borough of Manchester, without lawful cause. He pleaded Guilty. His Lordship was about to pass sentence when the pri soner begged to be allowed to address a few words to the Court. The prisoner's statement was of much greater length than we have space to publish, his address having occupied nearly an hour in the delivery. It was, in some parts, ex ceedingly touching, and created a powerful sensation in the court. We should be glad if we could convey, even in print, a notion of the impressive manner in which the prisoner de livered himself. His great and unaffected earnestness ren dered him occasionally eloquent; while, in some of the de tails, his language became pathetic from the excited state of his feelings and from the emotions which he was unable to controul communicating their colour to his thoughts and words. He commenced by saying, that four years ago, when he was only nineteen years of age, he was tried for burglary, and sentenced to fourteen years' iransportation. He did not then believe, what he had since been so powerfully con vinced of, that transportation was so full of misery as he hail proved it to be from experience. He could assure his lord ship, that it was terrible, and those who thought otherwise were in very great error. He was first sent to the hulks, where he remained six months, and there, though he suffered much hardship, which he need not describe, it was nothing to the misery wnich he had since endured. He was, at length. sent on board the transport that was to convey him to Botany Bay ; and he looked forward to this change with some satisfaction, indulging a hope that it would better his circumstances ; but he was tearfully mistaken. The severe regulations of the hulks were exchanged for the military rule to which the prisoners were subjected ; and he soon found what it was to be under the strong discipline of a convict vessel. The prisoner described the manner in which the several classes of convicts were taken away from the ship on their arrival. Those who were doomed to the chain gangs for life were first sent off to their horrible punishment, which he described as being considered, by all convicts who knew anything of the matter, as a thousand times worse than death in its most dreaded form. Many thought they had a chance of bettering their condition when transported, but they were dreadfully mistaken. Even the gentlemen who were tran sported, he meant those who were well educated, and who thought their education would prove an advantage to them, were doomed to suffer equally with the most ignorant and depraved, for they were ranked amongst those who were in firm and invalids, and were, being useless, sent to a quarter where they were under the command of men whom they re garded, in all respects, as their inferiors, so that, instead of being better, they were absolutely worse off than their fel lows. He was attached, he said, to what we believe, he called the Woolaloo party, with which he continued, for a time, working under a burning sun by day and subjected to the most severe discipline. Every thing was under military regulation, and on the slightest infraction of rule or orders, the convicts were tied up to the triangles and flogged. At length a lady and gentleman wished to take a man into their ser vice, and he was assigned to them. He behaved well, and he found his circumstances as good as Ile could expect, or even better, for he had done wrong and deserved punish ment. This lasted only about twelve months, for Mr. —, —he would not mention the name of that gentleman in juxta position with his own, for, he believed, he was iu London at that moment, and, if he was not, he had a brother there, — but he told him that he was going to England, and must turn him over to government. This was done, and he again expe rienced a renewal of the hardships to which he had at first been subjected. 'But even these hardships were nothing to what he had afterwards experienced, for the governor was changed, and when Governor Phipps went out it was much worse for convicts. He was now sent with others to work in the interior of the colony, amongst the chain gangs, and here it was that he saw transportation in its true colours. They were miserably dealt with, indeed, forced, by the most se vere treatment, to work, all day, beyond their strength, be neath a burning sun, not daring to utter a complaint for fear of the lash, and with scarcely food enough to support them, consisting only of a wretched meal of homminy. It was out of the power of language to describe what they endured. (The prisoner wept at the recollection of his sufferings during this period.) The most conspicuous object of their encampment was the triangles, and for the most trivial errorthey were taken before a military gentleman, who assigned them a flogging, which always took place at dinner time ; after which they were taken to toil again, beneath the scorching sun. At night they slept in huts. They had no beds, and mere ly a covering of a sort of stringy bark. If one word were spoken during the hours of rest, the sentinel called out the offender, and he was handcuffed till morning, when lie was flogged for having violated the regulations by the expression of even a natural and involuntary complaint. Here his life became a misery to him, and he had no consolation from the reflection, that he had deserved the punishment. He assured his lordship, that his constant, unmitigated sufferings were unbearable, for they were treated worse than dogs, and were looked upon as even worse than beasts. One night he awoke from sleep. He saw before him three hundred men, each of whom had been the author of some crime. He then felt deeply his degraded and miserable situation, and he spoke to a young man named (as we understood) Carney, and they agreed to escape together. The prisoner merely said they left the stockade together, without stating the means by which they effected their liberation. They proceeded far into the bush, and were well nigh exhausted, when they discerned a party of the aborigines, who were roasting a kangaroo. Hig companion was afraid to venture near them, but he, being pressed by hunger, went to them, and they gave him a piece of a kangaroo and a piece of an opossum. The prisoner pro ds sleep, ye fromig hearing the t pro ceeded to d e t a il t h e part i cu l ars of the i r j ourney t ill t h ey daylight . arrived at a sma ll b ay, which he said was called Botany Bay, a whole footsteps district heu was h c e al s l u e d d d . e n i l y I e aw m u e k n e t mentioned from r his horrorlp, as they y sa would rather vs s vessel, which ave h died e havingh have, b e e returned. ur n ed . brought At p t to the sea, knew was going out of port, from the blue Peter at her mast head. She was about oi two iles from them, and he water and swam to her. They c and his companion, after consultation, et resolved nn bna onboard, run a n d to get into the hold, unperceived, any risk rather than remain some twhyerweeeraei:h plunged agreed itnotothe con ceal himself as he best could. He knew not where his com rade concealed himself, but le got into a wa ter t an k. Shortly afterwards the inspector caniboard and examined the ship, and he was und er iucoric e on ev le dread that they would be taken, when, by th e law the have been sent to Norfolk Isl an d for fourteen colony, he would inspector did not find him, but h e h eard the s years.ls The putting on the hatches and tarpauling, and immediately his r compa nion joined him. A new horror appeared beforethelnTheprisoner stated, that it was customary, when convicts were suspected of having concealed themselves on board ships, to smoke the hold, to force them to come forth. To this opera tion they became convinced they were about to be subjected. Believing themselves to be in this fearful extremity, his com panion asked him if he had any memorial which h e w i s h e d him to deliver in England, in case he survived him, and ever reached his country. He replied, no : he had no one in the world who cared for ham, and, tharefore, no one whom he wished to be reminded of Mm. His companion (the prisoner wept at the remembrance) took out a dirty letter, and told ndon Sobbing as he him where to find his poor mother in Lo • ) spoke, he bade his brother-convict, if ever he shoula reach England, to tell her that, the last time he saw him, he was well and prospering, and would, some time or other, come and see her, " and that," said he, "will add many years to my poor, dear mother's life." The prisoner said, he then wetted a pair of drawers, and swathed them round his comrade's head. He himself got into the tank of water, when he, some hours after, heard the order to put up the topsails, which gave him some satisfaction, as he knew, by that, that the vessel was going to sea. He knew not where she was bound to, nor did he care, so that they got away from the miserable place which he had quitted. He remained in the tank. amongst the water, twelve or fourteen days, suffering extreme torture, and had still, and should have to the end of his days, a recurrence of the pains which be then endured. During the whole time, his only food was seven biscuits. The prisoner proceeded to state, that they were discovered, and described with what horror he heard the captain, who, he supposed, suspected what they were, give ,the order to put the ship about, and how he and his companion, being resolved to brave any fate rather than be taken back, jumped overboard when the ship was about six or seven miles from the Feejee Islands. His comrade was on the point of sinking when they perceived an old canoe, bottom upwards, into which they, after many attempts; managed to get. The canoe swamped with them once or twice, but at length they reachedlhe land in safety. The natives soon saw them ; and, as they were known to be cannibals, they had great dread of them. They took hold of Carney, who foolishly resisted, upon which they forced him away, but not before one of them inflicted a wound upon his (Dolphin's) shoulder, which brought him to the ground. He suffered great torture for several days, being without food or water, and unable to help himself. He tried to eat the grass which was within his reach, and, at length, worn out with suffering, he became insensible. When he recovered, he found himself lying with his bead resting against a native woman, who was applying antidotes to the wound, which had been inflicted by a poisoned spear. On his recovery, the yoring woman indicated to him that there was a white man in the bush. He went to the spot which she pointed out, and there found the dead body of Carney, the flesh nearly all taken from his bones either by the natives or the hogs. He interred him in some soft ground, an operation which he described as having given him great satisfaction. It turned out, however, that he had infringed upon what the natives deemed privileged ground, and he would have been sacrificed but for the interference of the young native woman, who was a chieftain's sister. At length, one day, the girl ran to him exclaiming, " Kibooker, , ' which meant a large man-of-war canoe. This turned out to be a French ship, the Angelica, of Havre de Grace, which was on a whaling cruise. When the boat took him away, he said, the affec tionate young native girl swam after him, and he was com pelled to take her with him. A short time afterwards he had an opportunity of consigning her to the care of a bene volent missionary, who took her back to the island which she had left, where he wished to establish a missionary sta tion, and in which design her influence would be useful. The prisoner detailed many other hardships, sufferings. and adventures which be had undergone before he reached Eng land. His intention was to have entered on board one of her Majesty's ships, where, after some years of good service, he was in hopes he might have obtained his pardon. He concluded by imploring his lordship to be merciful to him, and not to send him back to exile. He sobbed, in his earn estness, as he begsed that any punishment might be awarded to him rather than this. If again transported, he should be sent to Norfolk Island, or Goat Island, places which he would not pollute his lordship's ears by pretending to de scribe. Even on board the hulks he would be chained to crosstrees all the day, and would not be allowed the privi lege of another convict • and it would be the same on board the ship. He would be thankful for even the scaffold in preference. His LORDSHIr interrupted the prisoner. If he were ad dressing him in the hope that he should prevent him from passing sentence of transportation, he was sorry to say, he had no option. . Prisoner (with great emotion.)—Then, God help me ! I'll not describe what I shall suffer. I would not wish to offend your lordship's ears by telling you about Norfolk Island. Oh ! if you would but pass sentence of death upon me, I would summon courage to die; for then I should die like a man ; but, if you send me back, I shall spend a few miserable years in chains ; and, after all, I shall not die like a man, no, not even like a dog. I beg, my lord, from my heart, that you will rather consign me to death than again to transporta tion. If it be in your power to show kindness to a miserable man like me, do my lord. I never knew what it was to re ceive parental instruction—indeed, my lord, I did not ; and I have been fearfully punished for my crime. I never was taught what was right till I learned it from experience : I shame to say it, but I never had any instruction but what I received from the schoolmaster of the gaol. Do be as mer ciful as you can, my lord. [His lordship shook his head, as if intimating that he had no will in the matter.] I have done my lord. You may consign me to misery, but it shan't be for long. Do doom me to death, my lord, if you have the power : all I want is a few hours preparation. I have done my lord. His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoner, said, that the statement which Ire had made, in the hope of obtaining a mitigation of punishment, was 'one which every person in court must have heard with a great degree of pain. If it were true, and he had no reason for supposing that the pri soner had been stating what was not true, the narrative might serve one very useful purpose, for it was commonly supposed by persons who had committed crimes in this country, that. when they were sentenced to be transported, they were about to be sent to a land where they would not suffer, but would improve their condition in life. Many a person had been drawn into the commission of crime under the supposition, that the punishment was one in name, and not in circurn . - stance. if what the prisoner had stated were true, a great impression ought to be made on the minds of those persons. They ought to know what was really the fact, that, on pas sing from this country to that to which they were to be trans ported, a country which had been described as not a land for honest men, they went to a place where they must suffer dis grace and hardship, and where they must lose that which it was the most painful to human being to lose,---all hope of liberty. He (the prisoner) had pleaded guilty to a charge of having committed the offence of returning from transporta tion. Ile had been transported for a crime which, at the time, *as a' capital'offence ' and for which he might have suf fered on the gallows ; but he was sentenced to fourteen years transportation ; and, bad as that sentence was, it was one to which' he ought to have submitted ; and his own statement showed, that, if he had persevered in the line of conduct which he had observed when he became the servant of a kind master, he might have had the same good fortune. But he had thought proper not to submit to his lot ; and he had that day given an account of the hardships which he had in con sequence suffered. He (the prisoner) was about to receive sentence for returning before the term of his sentence for transportation had expired. He had appealed to him (the Judge) in mitigation of punishment; but it was fit that he should tell him, that he had no discretion in the matter. He (the prisoner) must he transported for life ; and, previous to his transportation; he must suffer some term of imprison ment. The sentence of the Court was, that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction, at Kirk dale, for three months ; and that, at the expiration of his sentence, he be transported for the term of his natural life. Prisoner.—That shall be a short one. God bless your lord ship—you have been as merciful as you could, I know. The JUDGE.—Don ' t say that the term shall be short. You speak as if there were nothing beyond this life, and you speak of it as a matter of indifference. If you were, by any act of your own, to shorten your term of existence, and thus put off your day of repentance, the sufferings which you have endured in this life will be nothing to the punishment which you will suffer in the life that is' to come. William Edmonds, a tall, very well built man, was charged with being an escaped convict from transportation. He pleaded guilty. His sentence was similar to that of the last prisoner. THE CHARTISTS The chartists, 23 in number, who traversed from the last assizes, and are at large on bail, were called upon, and notice was given to them, that their traverses must be entered im mediately preparatory for trial, or their i ecognizances would be forfeited. The number of chartists in custody for trial is four. The following chartists, who had not pleaded, were called upon to do so, having been previously given to understand, that they would be respited till the time of trial, of which due notice would be given. Peargus O'Connor, charged with seditious conspiracy, un lawful assemblage, and seditious speeches, at Manchester, pleaded not guilty. Bronterre 0' Brien, similarly charged, pleaded not guilty. John Hart, William Simpson, James Mellor, Benjamin' Fitton, John Durham, John Swires, Isaac Wood, Thos. Brown, Walter Scott, Thos. Morris, James Wheeler, Thos. Bird, Wrn. Patifield, R. J. Richardson, Edw. Coar, James and Jeremiah Doodson, and Chas. Morris, all charged with seditious conspiracy, unlawful assemblage, and seditious speeches, some at Manchester, some at Aspall, and some at Hindley, pleaded not guilty. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the county palatine asked his lordship, if he could appoint a day for the trials. His LORDSHIP said, it was impossible at psesent. It was plain that the misdemeanours could not be entered upon till the felonies were all disposed of. SENTENCES Thos. Ball, convicted of having stolen a mare, belonging to Thomas Hewitt, and a gelding, belonging to Thomas Al lenson, was sentenced to two months' solitary confinement for the first offence, and to 15 years' transportation for the second. John Lee, who pleaded guilty of having stolen property be longing to John Harrison and other parties, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale, the two first and last weeks to be passed in solitary confine ment : he was afterwards to be transported for 10 years. Richard Chadwick, convicted of highway robbery, at Ince, near Wigan, was sentenced to eighteen months imprison ment, the two first dad last weeks in solitary confinement. MANSLAUGHTER CASES. Elizabeth Brown and James Lynch were indicted for hav ing killed William Dunn, in Liverpool, on the 19th day of February last. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Henderson. 'Mr. Murphy defended the prisoner Eliza beth Brown. The principal witness in the case was Ann Farrell, a very young but intelligent little girl. It appeared that, between six and seven o'clock on the 19th February, Mrs. Mary Far rell, who keeps a cooper's shop, in Gibbon's-lane, Queen street, had a quarrel with the prisoner Brown, who had as sailed her with violent abuse in the street. From words the parties came to blows, Mrs. Brown having struck Mrs. Far rell, who returned the compliment. The two females were fighting, when the little girl, Ann Farrell, went into the shop and called out the deceased, William Dunn, a cooper, who was then at work. He ran out with his drawing-knife, which he had been using, in his hand, and attempted to separate the two females. The prisoner Lynch, who was looking_ on, immediately interfered on behalf of Brown, by whoin Dunn was, at the same time, attacked. They shook him, and endeavoured to take the knife from him ; and, as Lynch was a much more powerful man than Dunn, the hit ter made off. Mrs. Brown threw a brick at him, which struck bins in the forehead, and inflicted a wound. Lynch went up and struck him on the wound, knocked him down, and kicked him. He a ppeared to have been seriously in jured, and was carried away to a surgeon, who dressed his forehead. He was afterwards, on the 20th February, car• tied to the Northern Hospital, afflicted with a locked jaw. The wound over his forehead was healing. A severe contu sion was found on his back, about four inches from his spine. He died on the 4th of March. The immediate cause of death was stated to be lock-jaw, which the surgeon of the Northern Hospital attributed to the wound which he had received on the scalp, though it might have been occasioned by the con tusion. The deceased was a man of about forty years of age, and had been a drunkard. Previous to his death, and while under the full conviction that he could not recover, he de tailed to Mr. Dowling the circumstances under which the injuries were inflicted. Mr. Dowling took down his state ment in writing, and it was read to the court. It was, ge nerally, confirmatory of the evidence given by the witnesses. The little girl, Farrell, was re-called, and a good deal of doubt was thrown over her testimony by some discrepancies which were discovered between her evidence in court and that in the deposition taken before the coroner. Two wit nesses, both of very humble rank, were called to depose as to the character of Elizabeth Brown. They described her as a very sober and peaceable woman. The Jury, after a few minutes consultation in the box, re tired at a quarter past one o'clock. They returned in about forty minutes, and delivered a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. Elizabeth Brown was sentenced to one year's im prisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale : Lynch to two years' imprisonment and hard labour in the same gaol. Both prisoners to spend the first and last weeks of their imprison ment in solitary confinement. William Bibby. aged 44, was indicted for having killed his wife, Susan Bibby, at Kirkdale, on the 13th October last. Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. -Murphy for the defence. The prisoner was seen, by several individuals, cruelly beat ing his wife, who was very much injured by his blows. She ran into a neighbour's house, and being extremely ill, a sur geon (Mr. Bradbridge, of Kirkdale) was sent for, but she died before his arrival. Mr. Bradbridge, who made a post mortem examination of the body, was called as soon as the leading features of the case had been established. He stated, that Mrs. Bibby had died a natural death. He found that she was afflicted with dropsy in the chest and an en largement of the aorta. Though her death might have been hastened by the blows which she had received, he could not swear that it had been caused by them. The prisoner, under the direction of his lordship, was acquitted. Elizabeth 211'Avoy, aged 30, was charged with having, in Liverpool, on the 31st December last, killed her husband, William iNPAvoy. Mr.' Murphy prosecuted : the prisoner was not defended. On the 31st of December last the prisoner and her husband had a' quarrel, which arose out of the dissatisfaction ex pressed by him that the prisoner had neglected to have his dinner ready. She seems to have been a woman of violent temper, and was exasperated at him for finding fault with her. She took the potatoes which were to be served for his dinner and threw them on the fire ; upon which he, annoyed at her conduct, threw her (not violently, it was stated) on the bed. She arose, seized the fryingpan, which was at hand, and struck him violently on the head. He uttered an exclama tion, and sank into the chair. She seized a brush by the handle, and with the head of it struck him again on his head. He became very ill soon after, and a surgeon was sent for, by whom he was bled, blistered, and cupped. He became de lirious, and died on the 6th of January. It did not appear that, during his illness, the deceased had at all accused or blamed his wife. On the contrary, it was stated that she was very attentive to him during his illness ; and one witness stated that he exonerated her from all blame. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to imprison ment and hard labour for one year, at Kirkdale, the last week to be spent in solitary confinement. UTTERING FORGED ACCEPTANCES. William Sedgwick, aged 20, was charged with having fe loniously uttered certain forged acceptances, at Prescot, in this county. Dr. BROWN conducted the prosecution, Mr. WrttliNs the defence. The particulars of this case were published at full length when the charge was brought before the magistrates, at Kirk dale, in November last. The prisoner went, at several times, in the month of October las't, to Mr. Richard Bradshaw Southern, draper, Mr. Edmund Ward, solicitor, and Mr. William Deakin, tailor, all of Prescot, to each of whom he was indebted, and, offering to pay them portions of their ac counts, procured discounts of divers bills of exchange, which purported to be acceptances of William Newman and other persons in London. The case relative to the bill on Mr. Newman, paid to Mr. Southern, was the only one heard. The Jury, at once, found him guilty. Dr. Brown recom mended him to the favourable consideration of the Court. Mr. Southern also spoke favourably of him, and stated, that he had been recently married to a young lady in a sphere somewhat above him. Dr. Brown handed up a letter from the Rector of Prescot, recommending the prisoner very strongly to mercy. It was stated, by the Chaplain of the Kirkdale Gaol, that the prisoner had been a teacher in a Sun day-school at Prescot. His LORDSHIP alluded to the mercy of the prosecutor in not pressing the other charges, and stated, that, if they had been pressed and conviction followed, he should have felt it his duty to send the prisoner out of the country. His lord ship took the excellent character which the prisoner had re ceived into consideration, and passed the most lenient sen tence in his power. The prisoner is to be imprisoned at Kirkdale during two years, the last week to be spent in soli tary confinement. COWSTEALING. John Parr, alias Thomas Marshall, who was stated to be a master butcher, was indicted for having stolen two cows, the property of John Ledger. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to 18th months' imprisonment and hard labour. The court adjourned a few minutes after six o'clock, till nine o'clock on Monday morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. His Lordship took his seat, this morning, at afew minutes after nine o'clock. The Court was occupied until three o'clock with Nos. 40 and 27 in the Salford list, two actions for the recovery of trifling debts. SENTENCE ON THE MESSRS. SOWLER. After the conclusion of the above case, his Lordship pro ceeded to pass sentence on the defendants in the case of " The Queen v. Sowler and another." He said :—Thomas Sowler and Robert Scarr Sowler, you were severally con victed, yesterday, of an assault on Jeremiah Garnett. During the progress of the plaintiff's case, it appearing that no per sonal injury had been sustained by him, and, from the state ment, conceiving that the transaction had originated from some newspaper quarrel, I did think, that the best mode of concluding the prosecution would have been for you to have made an apology to the man whom you had assaulted, and, if Mr. Garnett had been contented to have accepted that apology, I should have felt diposed there to allow the case to have dropped. But you, Thomas Sowler, objected to such a cuirse, and put it on the ground, that you had not been guilty of an assault, thereby chargin g Mr, Garnett with hav ing falsely sworn to the fact he had then deposed to, that you seized by the arm and there kept him confined while your son assaulted him with a horsewhip, which, however, appears to have been but a small one. I then felt it quite impossible that I could take any further step, but must per mit the - case to go on to the conclusion, and that you must abide the result. The case went on. No witnesses were called on your part to rebut the testimony of Mr. Garnett, and the jury very properly found you guilty ; and, although insult, and not personal injury, appears to have been the ob ject you had in view, I cannot say that the insult was given under circumstances that reflected any great credit on either of you, because you appear to have gone in company to commit the assault, and when the son was ready to strike Mr. Garnett with the horsewhip, the father was engaged in holding the hand of the plaintiff, either to prevent him ward ing off the blows directed at him, or returning them with the umbrella in his hand. Now, this is not the way in which the law allows newspaper editors to settle their quarrels. Yon may have imagined that you were acting correctly, in asmuch as your aim was not personal injury, but to insult the plaintiff, so as, perhaps, to induce him to break the peace in another way ; but the law will not allow you to insult fur such a purpose, and I must, therefore, pass on you such a sentence as will tend, to restrain such acts. The sentence of ihe Court is, that you he severally imprisoned in a gaol of the county for three months, and that, at the expiration 'of, that imprisonment, you severally find security to keep the, peace for two years, yourselves in £2OO each, and two secu rities in £5O each, and that you be further imprisoned until that security he found. One of the defendants intimated, through his attorney, . that the New Bailey would suit them. The JUDGE.—The New Bailey be it, then. An application was subsequently made, at the. request of the prosecutor, that the learned Judge would allow the de fendants to be at large until Monday. His Lordship complied with the request. FOSTER V. BENTLEY AND ANOTHER. After this case had occupied the Court above an hour, the parties consented to an arbitration. ASSAULT. - HIBBERT V. BUCKLEY. In this case Mr. Brandt was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defendant. Mr. BRANDT, in opening, said that this was an assault case, in which Mr. William Hibbert, who, in the month of June, last year, was overseer of the township of Gorton, was the plaintiff, and the defendant, Mr. John Bradley, was a fanner in the township. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, one farthing The Court rose at ten minutes past five. CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY. George Hargreaves, 31. was charged with having, at Hea ton Norris, feloniously stolen a mare, the property of George Dearden. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and hard labour at Kirkdale. Charles Hunt, 25, stood indicted for having, at Ashton under-Lyne, burglariouslv broken and entered the dwelling house of Christopher Bolton, and stolen 25 sovereigns, a watch, and other articles, the property of the said Christopher Bolton. The prisoner was discharged on bail on the Bth inst. and sgain committed, charged with having. at Ashton, stolen 20 books, the property of Edward Hobson. It appeared that the money was taken from a school room. The evidence was almost wholly circumstantial. The prisoner lodged with the prosecutor, a butcher, and his wife. The latter party missed the money mentioned in the indictment, which was kept in a secret drawer, in a box, and from this it was abstracted, as well as the watch, &c. and some suspicion of the prisoner arose, from the circumstance of his having been entrusted with a key, .by which he could admit himself in the absence of the family. On the night of the robbery, the latter went out to market, and the prisoner announced his intention of going by the 7 o'clock coach to Manchester, to see his mother who was ill. He however, did not go by that coach, but booked himself by the nine o'clock coach in his own name. At nine c'clock, the house doors, which were left closed, were found open ; and it appeared that the robbery had been com mitted before that hour. A witness swore that he saw a person like the prisoner coming out of the front door about that time ; he was not then sure that it was the prisoner, but from what had since transpired, he felt certain that it was he. The money, watch, &c. were afterwards found in the cellar of the house, in a parcel, amongst some rubbish. The pri soner returned to the house next day, and was apprehended by Newton, police constable, who rather prematurely said that he suspected him of having committed the robbery. To some questions from the officer, the prisoner said he had gone by the seven o'clock coach, &c. which was not precisely true. There was no evidence that the prisoner had ever seen the box in which the money was placed, or that ht had been in the room where it was. • The Learned JUDGE summed up in a very perspicuous manner. The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Another case against the same prisoner remains to be tried. Mr. Peel conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins ably defended - the prisoner. SHEEP STEALING. Cornelius France, 34, William Ashcroft, 33, and Henry Highton, were charged with having, at Wigan, feloniously stolen a sheep, the property of one Thomas Welsh. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the defence. Thomas Welsh, a butcher, of Wigan, said he had a sheep on the 9th of October, in a field, which lie missed on the following day. He afterwards saw the skin of a sheep, which he knew from the skin to be his. Be afterwards went to the house of Cornelius France, where Ashcroft lived. He there found part of a neck of mutton, part of a shoulder, and a shank. He said that it was his, and that he had a foot that would fit the shank. The prisoner was afterwards appre hended at a coal pit, by Mr. Whittle, constable, who was accompanied by the witness. Mr. Whittle, chief constable of Wigan, said that be saw the mutton, and afterwards took the prisoners France and Ashcroft into custody. The prisoners said they had bought it in the market place. France aftewards said that it would be a had job for him. He afterwards said that lie and High ton had gone into the tield, that Highton had caught the sheep ; that they cut its throat and flayed it ; and that they afterwards took it to Highton's house, and that he got one half of it, and they the other half. Several persons deposed to having purchased mutton from Highton. Mr. Woodcock, magistrates' clerk, heard the prisoners Ashcroft and France examined. On being cautioned, France admitted that he was with Highton, and that the latter caught the sheep, and that they killed and divided it. Ashcroft ad mitted this to be the fact. - Ma. WILKINS spoke for the defence of Highton only. He contended that what was said by the other prisoners was not legal evidence against him. All that appeared therefore, was, that he was selling some small quantities of mutton. This, it alight be said, was•suspicious, but did not, he thought, amount to absolute proof, and lie therefore looked for an ac quittal, upon the doubts which must arise in the minds of the jury. The learned JUDGE directed the jury to find Fiance and Ashcroft guilty, they having confessed. With respect to Highton, the legal evidence amounted to only a case of sus picion. The Jury found France and Ashcroft guilty, and Hi ghton• not guilty. His LORDSHIP, in addressing the two prisoners, said they had been found guilty on the clearest evidence. The crime was one which, if it continued to increase, the judges would be compelled to visit with most severe punishment. The present case was an aggravated one, the parties having acted by previous concert. He would not, however, sentence the prisoners to transportation, but hoped they would benefit by the imprisonment which they would have to undergo. The prisoners were then sentenced to 18 months' imprisonmen and hard labour in Kirkdate Gaol. V )11,GERY. Richard Barlow,: 8, a respectably-dressed man, stood in - dieted with having, si“vianchester, feloniously uttered and paid to Joseph Seddon, a forged bill of exchangle, for X-19212, purporting to be accepted by Leaf and Co., merchants, London. Mr. Joseph Seddon.—l am a banker in Manchester, and have four partners. On the 4th May last the prisoner pre sented the bill produced, drawn by himself, and purporting to be accepted on Leaf and Co., merchants, London. He stated they were a branch of the house of Leaf and Co., and a very rich house. The bill was dishonoured and returned. It was due on the 18th August, and was returned on the 20th. Mr. BAINES defended the prisoner, Witness had known the prisoner for 15 or 16 years. His friends were highly re spectable in Manchester. He had paid five bills previously to the last, from £1,500 to £2,000, all of which were duly honoured. . . —..—._. Re-examined.—A bill made payable to a particular party might be taken up without the knowledge of the acceptor. Mr. Leaf, partner of Leaf, Coles, & Co., said he was a partner also of Leaf, Crofts,' & Co.—This bill is not in the handwriting of any one in either house authorised to sign acceptances. , I never saw this bill before. Cross-examined.! take an active part in the firm of Leaf, Coles, & Co., in the Old 'Change, but not in the other in the Old Jewry. There is also a firm in London of Leaf, Smith, and M`Dougal. John Smith, a police-officer, said,—l received the pri soner into custody at,the Compter. He said he had met at Liverpool a young man named. Robert Leaf, who said he was a nephew of. Leaf & Co.. andthat be had signed the bill. Witness asked him where Robert Leaf was, and prisoner replied that he had been looking after him in Liverpool and London, but had not found him. Cross-examined.—Messrs. Leaf & Co. have a great many purchasers in the country. Mr. Owen, a clerk to the bank of Messrs. Seddon & Co., heard the prisoner say that Leaf & Co., by whom the accep tance was signed, were a branch of the house of Messrs. Leaf, Coles, & Co., of London. Mr. BAINES addressed the jury, in an able manner, in behalf of the prisoner, contending that he had been made the dupe of an artful individual, who had represented him self as a party authorised to draw a bill on Leaf & Co., and had himself escaped from punishment, while he had left the prisoner in the meshes of the law. He besought the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubts that arose in the case. _ _ _ _ Many gentlemen of the highest respectability, who had known the prisoner a great number of years, gave him a most excellent character. . The learned JUDGE summed up. He stated that a party making use of another party's name, by putting it to a bill, even though he hoped to he able to take it up, was in law guilty of forgery ; and stated that the question was, did the prisoner know, of did he not know, that the bill when he ut tered it was a forgery. The jury retired, and after an absence of fifteen minutes returned a verdict of Guilty. The sentence was deferred until this day. STABBING AND CUTTING. William Harney, aged 32, stood charged with having, at Ashton-under-Lyne, feloniously and maliciously stabbed and wounded John Degnan. Dr. BROWN conducted the defence. John Degnan said that on the 3d August last he was in vited into James Harney's house, by himself, to dinner, and saw there William Harney and others. James spoke of some disturbances at Staley Bridge, and witness said he wished they were done away with, for he had no spite at any one. Wm. Harney said, "I am not so with you," and took the poker. and struck me on the nose a violent blow, which cut me. James Harney then took a knife from the table, and cut me in the cheek. I was afterwards kicked, and became insensible. I was here at the last Assizes, when James Harney and the other man who struck me were here. Sarah Hunt said she heard James Harney ask Degnau in. Witness advised him not to come in. James Harney said he was as welcome as the flowers of May. They after wards talked about the disturbances amongst the men at Staley Bridge, and the prisoner and his brother struck at him several times, one with a poker, another with a piece of wood, and James Harney stabbed him with a knife. There were four upon him. Witness cried murder, and got Degnan out. He was taken home in a state of insensibility. He lodged with witness. They said they were happy to see the blood of a Connaught man flow. Witness, in reply to the judge, said that the quarrelling parties were Munster and Connaught men. and that she and her husband were from Connaught and the prisoner from Munster. D. Vaughan, of Stalybridge, saw the prosecutor the same night. There was an incised wound on the left cheek. A contused wound across the nose. The cuticle was entirely separated. There were appearances of other blows all over the head. He was seriously ill for two or three days. The prisoner said he hoped his lordship would mercifully consider his case; and take into account that lie had been nine months in prison. The learned JUDGE proceeded to pass sentence. His lordship said that the prisoner had been found guilty of taking part in a grievous assault, for which three indivi duals had, at the last assizes been tried, and being found guilty, one of them was sentenced to three years' imprison ment, and the other two to eighteen months each. He was not sure, if the parties had not been tried before, but he would have found it necessary to visit the prisoner with transportation. This was-no disparagement to the manner in which his predecessor had punished those who had taken part in this offence ; because it was the determination of the judges, finding that the crime .!ontinued to increase, to visit it in future, with the utmost severity of the law. True, the prisoner's was not the hand that used the knife, but being of a party who united in attacking the prosecutor, he was equally guilty in law of the act of cutting. He (the Judge) should, however, take into account the time during which the prisoner had been in prison, (since September last), and would on that account abridge the term of imprison , ment which he would otherwise have had to undergo. He did hope that he would never again have recourse to deadly weapons, and that his case would furnish a wholesome ex ample to others in the same line of life. The sentence of the Court was, that the prisoner should be imprisoned in Kirkdale gaol for two years, and that during that time he should be kept to hard labour. John Grifiiths, 24, was indicted on a charge of having, at Royton, feloniously - cut and wounded one Hannah Hall, with intent to murder her. There were other counts in the indictment, charein. , the assault as having an intent of minor aggravation. - -Dr. BaowN stated the case for the prosecution, as one of a very aggravated description. The prisoner was undefended. Hannah Hall, an elderly quakeress, said she was upwards of 72 years of age, and kept a small shop at Royton. On the 27th - December the prisoner came to her shop. She had known him before', - and asked him if he worked at the same place. 'lt was - .about nine o'clock at night. I live alone. I have no one helping me except on the seventh day. The 27th December was a Friday: I wits in the kitchen when he came in. --There is a lobby between. the .shop and the kitchen. There is a front door to the lobby, the shop being on one side of it; and the kitchen on the other. He was in the lob by. He asked for a loaf and a half pound of cheese. lam sure it was the prisoner. I went to fetch the loaf and cheese from a back apartment, where I 'kept them. I went into the shop to weigh the cheese. He stood near the shop door, in side the shop. While I was weighing the cheese, he asked for half-a-pound of butter. The butter was•in a cask on the floor. I was standing upright when 1 weighed the cheeie. I had a candle with me. 1 took it in my hand, and was go ing to cut the butter, and I lied to stoop down to do so. The prisoner was about a yard from me. He struck me on the left side of the head a very heavy blow. I suppose I fell, and cannot tell much after then. I am not conscious of hav ing felt any other blow, I found myself in the kitchen after wards, with a neighbour named Collins. I laid the cheese on the counter after I had Weighed it, and also the loaf. The prisoner had not put out his hand to take either of them. I am sure the prisoner is the man. The loaf or cheese were not taken away, nor any thing else that 1 know. John Collins said, I live neat door neighbour to the shop of the last witness. About nine o'clock I heard a noise like heavy blows lighting upon something. I went into Mr. Hall's. The outer door was shut. 1 found all was dark. I felt my way till I got to the scales, and then I stopped. I turned round to conic out, when I heard a groan. I found the last witness lying on the floor. I raised her, and lifted her into the lobby. She said, "Eh dear what is to do ?" 1 took her to the kitchen and got a light. She was very bloody. The cut was off her head, and her hair hanging down. She was insensible. She told me it was a young man who did it. I went to go into the shop, but my light went out in the lobby. I got another light. I found in the shop the candlestick near where her head was, and the candle on the floor, at some distance. Saw also the lid of the but ter cask which was broken in two. 1 got a medical man to her. I heard like two struggles before I went out of my house. Robert Savage.--On the 27th December he was at a col liery, about a mile from Mr. Hall's. The prisoner worked there on the 27th, but not for two or three days before. Witness saw him covered up at the back of the engine boiler. He was there for three or four hours. He said he was going to Turf Lane. To go there he must pass Mrs. Hall's. I saw him about ten minutes after, and he said he had only been at the other hut. (There was some discrepancies be tween the testimony of this witness and that which he gave before the magistrates.) Ratcliffe Scholfield saw the prisoner that night, and he took a direction to a lane that leads towards Mrs. Hall's. He came back in about ten minutes, and in about half an hour afterwards he was taken by the constable. Another witness said, that he was in the lane that night, and saw a man running in the direction of the coal pit. Before I got home I found that somebody had welly killed Mrs. Hall. A Constable at Royton said—the colliery and Mr. Hall's house are about 500 yards apart. After nine o'clock, on the 27th, 1 apprehended the prisoner at the engine-house of the colliery. He wished to know what he was accused of. Wit ness did not inform him, but took him to Mrs. Hall's. Wit ness produced the lid of a butter tub, which had been broken. He found no money or other articles on the prisoner, except a collier's strap. Mr. Earnshaw, surgeon, stated, that he found on Mrs. Hall's head, neck, and shoulders, several wounds. Some of these were triangular, and appeared to have been inflicted with a sharp instrument. The wounds were not dangerous. Mrs. Hall was under his care about a fortnight. The prisoner declined saying anything"in his defence, merely repeating that he knew nothing of the charge. The JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty of the assault, " with intent to do some grievous bodily harm." _ _ His LORDSHIP said the jury had found the prisoner guilty of cutting and wounding, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. That verdict would relieve him from a painful duty, for had their finding been.with intent to murder, for which the punishment was still capital, he certainly should have found great conscientious difficulty in not leaving the law to take its course. The prisoner had gone into the house of a poor, defenceless old woman, and had inflicted upon her blow after blow, and that with malicious severity. Although, therefore, the prisoner's life would be spared, he must pre pare himself for a serious punishment. He hoped, however, it would have a good effect on the prisoner, and a salutary one on all who resorted to such cruel and dangerous attacks upon their fellow creatures. The sentence of the court was, that ha should be transported beyond the seas for the term of fifteen years. It being a few minutes past six o'clock, the court adjourned until this day. NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY. (Before Mr. Justice Erskine.) STARKIE V. RIMMER. This was an undefended action, to recover £7O from the defendant, a chemist and druggist, in Scotland-road, Liver pool, part of £3OO agreed to be paid to Mr. Starkie for the goodwill and stock-in-trade of the plaintiff, who formerly carried on business in Scotland-road as chemist and drug gist, and sold his business to the defendant in July 1837. Verdict for the plaintiff. M'EENZIE V. JONES. This was an action to recover £52 175., the balance of an account owing by the defendant, who carries on business at Liverpool under the style of R. G. Jones & Co., for coals purchased from the plaintiff. The action was undefended. —Verdict for the plaintiff. BONNY V. WHITEHEAD. This was an action !nought upon an award made by a re feree, appointed by the plaintiff, Mr. James Bonny, and the defendant. Mr. John Whitehead, to determine the amount of a debt standing between the two parties in 1838. The amount of award was £630 2s. Gd. The action was unde fended.—Verdict for the plaintiff. 'WOODS V. TWEEDLE AND ANOTHER. The plaintiff in this case was an attorney at Rochd a l e and the defendants are woollen-manufacturers, carrying on iiusi ness at the same place. The action was brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of £124 95., the amount of plain tiff's bill for defending the defendants in an action brought against. them by a person named Smith, at the Liverpool Summer b Assizes for 1838. In this action a verdict was ob tained for the defendants, but the plaintiff. either. from po verty or some other cause, preferred imprisonment to pay inr, the costs of the action, and the consequence was, that Mr." Woods, the defendant:' attorney, (and in the present action the plaintiff,) clamed his bill from Messrs. Tweedle. Mr. ALEXANDER (with whom was Mr. HOGGINS) stated the case to the jury. He said the action out of which this debt arose originated as follows :—Messrs. John and Robert Tweedle had taken from Mr. Chadwick, of Rochdale, a piece of ground in the neighbourhood - cif their manufactory, for the purpose of building upon, and they had built upon it to the height of two stories, when a farmer named Smith said they had built upon land of which he was tenant, and brought his action for recovery of damages. Messrs. Tweedle defended themselves upon the ground that Mr. Chadwick had, when he sold them the land, the right reserved to him of selling the land occupied by Smith. In this de fence, which was conducted by Mr. Woods, the present plaintiff, they succeeded, and after some . delay, Mr. Woods sent in his bill, which amounted to £124 19s. The defend ants intimated that they did not intend to pay the bill, on the-ground that Mr. Chadwick was the proper person, inas much as the action arose through him. This probably was the fact, but Mr. Chadwick refused to pay, and as Mr. Woods had no claim upon him, he was compelled to seek the recovery of his bill from the present defendants, Messrs. Tweedle. Mr. CRESSWELI. (with whom was Mr. WATSON) ad dressed the jury for the defendants, disputing the retainer, and contending that the plaintiff, being the solicitor of Mr. Chadwick, had attended the Liverpool Assizes in the action in question as his solicitor, and not as the solicitor to con duct this case for Messrs. Tweedle ; and, in fact, he observed that his learned friend, in opening the case, said the defend ants had refused to pay the bill on the ground, which he ad mitted was reasonable enough, that Mr. Chadwick having brought the defendants into this difficulty, was bound to see them harmless out of it. The learned counsel then called witnesses to prove that there was an understanding through out the case, that the Tweedles were only nominal parties in the action, and that Chadwick, being the landowner, was the only person having an interest in the action, and consequently responsible for the expenses ; that witnesses in the action were paid by Mr. Sutcliffe, land-agent to Mr. Chadwick's estates, for their attendance at the assizes, and that he also paid for the plans of the estate. Amongst the witnesses called by Mr. Cresswell were several of those subpoenaed in the former action, and one of these proved that Mr. Woods, in a conversation with the Messrs. Tweedle, before the action, when they objected to it, that they would rather lose the cost of the buildings, than dispute the matter, replied. " Never mind. you will not have to pay a farthing, but your names are necessary to carrying on the action." Mr. ALEXANDER replied - . - Mr. Justice ERSKINE said, the learned counsel for the plaintiff had put the case to the jury as though the question was whether Mr. Chadwick, Messrs. Tweedle, or any oue else had retained Mr. Woods, and whether Mr. Woods was to lose the remuneration for his professional labours. Now this was not the question. The:question was whether he had or had not a retainer from Messrs. Tweedle ; because, if an attorney to a landlord undertook to detand the tenants in an action, under the supposition that the landlord would pay him, and gave the tenants an assurance that he would not come upon them, he was not to turn round when he found out his mistake and that he could not get it from the landlord, and claim his bill from the tenants. Prima facie there was a case for the plaintiff, but the question was, whe ther that was not satisfactorily answered by the witnesses for the defendants. _ _ _ _ _ The jury found for the defendants. ROCKLIFFE V. TOPPING The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Richard Rockliffe, was 3 blacksmith, residing at West Leigh, and the defendant Mr. John Topping, a gentleman residing at the same place. In the year 1828, Mr. Topping commenced working some coal mines in that neighbourhood, and had employed the plaintiff to manufacture implements required in the working of these mines. The action was brought to recover £2B. Is. 5d., the balance of an account due to plaintiff for the work. The action was undefended. Verdict for the plaintiff. MARSH V. COLLARD. John F. .Marsh, the plaintiff, is the owner of a house at New Ferry, and some time since let that house to the defend ant, Mr. Abraham W. Collard. The rent became due, when the defendant being unable to pay, gave the complainant a promissory note for the amount, at four months, which, oa its becom . ing due, the defendant denied. The amount was £46 Is. 6d. The action was undefended—verdict for plaintiff. GREENALI. AND OTHERS V. HUMPHREYS. This was an action brought to reserve the amount of two bills of exchange from the defendant John Humphreys, one for £6O ant: the other for £69. The bills were drawn so far back as 1832, and the interest accumulated upon them brough t the claim up to £155 17s. 3d. The defendant when called upon denied that he was the party who signed the acce ptance. The action was not defended, and the jury found for the plaintiff. BROTHERTON V. SOTHBRN. Mr. Brotberton is a tailor in Liverpool, and this a ction was brought by him for the recovery of £l2O 17s. due from Mr. Benjamin C. Sothern, for clothes supplied to hie' bY the plaintiff. The action was undefended. Verdict for plaintiff, JONES AND ANOTHER V. CORE. Messrs. John and William Jones, the plaintiffs, and r . " Gore. the defendant, are builders in this town. The action was brought to recover £2l 8s 2d., the amount of a bill du e from the defendant for the work of two men whom he had or plied to defendant for seven weeks. Action undefended verdict for the plaintiffs. SPENCE V. BIIIKETT. The plaintiff is a merchant in this town, and in the course of last year built seven cottages. The defendant, Rob ert Birkett, is a joiier, and undertook to erect the seven boa=° for Mr. Spence, at the rate of £7O each. The defendant, 33 was stated by Mr. Wightman, was not in very good circi n u ll 'i stances when he undertook the contract, .and the mou e - doing business between the plaintiff and defendant w3,5' that the former supplied the money and materials_ At till: conclusion of the contract there was a balance due to plaim tl a of £lO4 3s lld, for cash and materials supplied over 3 1 , above the contract. The case appeared to be undelendT e and his Lordship was about to address the jury, when ''lo defendant appeared in court. and said that his attorney gyre d out of town, and that was the reason why he was unprep a : to go on with the ease. Be wished the case, however, to goo r'; and his apSwer was that he undertook t o b u ild th e c ottages I° A £490. He commenced the buildings, but b e f ore a week 0' over, he came and set his men off their work. He then co'f, again, and set to work part of the men. He set four, wi th - a painter of the name of Jones. When Jones had comPl e l e i c his work, he called upon Mr. Spence for the payment. would not pay Jones, and he employed an attorney, and an pelled him to pay the amount. He let the plastering aon, slating to a person named M`Neile. There was a ec r s tid whom defendant eir,ployed• for the masonry, and Pi 3 turned him away. He_ turned others away in the same to d. ner. Under these circumstances, defendant asked his l c a id ship whether the contract was not broken? His Lordshia 'of he must see the contract ; but the defendant had not a coObe it. Defendant then called witnesses, 'Who proved wlo t c t. had stated, and also that plaintiff had repeatedly said defe, l ? a ant had nothing to do with the buildings. - Notwithstau °l l , this defence, the defendant admitted a written doeun ie t h o e acknowledging a balance of the sum claimed, and under f o r direction of the learned judge, the jury found a verdic t ip the plaintiff. The defendant in this case had an actiV the the cause list against the plaintiff for £39, arising out of same transaction. The case had been called on in the 'l l ia, ing, but was withdrawn. Mr. WIG itmt N, however, , t 34% that in order to secure themselves against the cause u` t ie re-entered, they were willing to deduct that amountfroa ) present verdict. A verdict for £64 only, was therefor e turned. STOCK AND ANOTHER V. IDDON. f„,afi; This was an action on the part of the plaintiffs, 31 '"i; s rd Stock and Co:, to recover from the defendant, Mr. R' c s. Iddon, of Chorley, £l5O is Bd. the amount of a bill 01 , e 00 change accepted by defendant, and £1 12s Bd. The was undefended, and the jury found a verdict for the V' tiffs. GOSLING AND ANOTHER V. AMBROSE. thi s The plaintiffs in this case are spirit merchantsbt town, and the defendant a publican. The action was breefo to recover a balance of 1:45 10s. on an amount rem ein bici from 1830. The defendant's plea was that the money of been paid, and as the case would involve an examinatiqutiff the books, the parties consented to a verdict for tbe l ift for the:amount claimed subject to a reference. The `" adjourned at half-past five. Of IMPORTANT DECLARATION 6P THE KIN- HOLLAND. (From the Handelsblad I )' (RY EXPRESS.) . hasten to communicate to you the highly imporlam t o• that his Majesty the King, yesterday made. known h„i'„ i i t re' lution to desist from his marriage with the Countess tru" mont. h ilsr AMSTERDAM, MARCH 25.—The King has vanquish e self ! Let us rejoice at a triumph to which so few c",i ; s heroes whose names once tilled the world can pretenot triumph not gained at the expense of blood and tea rs itb e , will be recorded_in history among the glorious deedi ° ler & House of Orange. The prince who governs us has cong l i his own heart, which is a greater act .of self-denial tineots crificing his life for his country. The prince, who ma 0 14 ',,01 4 such virtue, excites admiration, but when he does it t ° int o grieving his faithful subjects, to turn their m nurnitl dr ste joy, he deserves our sincerest, and mos t a ff ec tionate ° tude. l THE HAGUE, MARCH 26.—F rom th e informaLio--, s c e p qf we have from good authority th a t t h e ( a b ove ) ne ws , g i , v- 5 0 ; the Handelsblad is correct, an d t h at i t causes a liVe s. ,. o. deep sensation in this town.—Journal de la Hays, jl ol MARCH 25.—" lam happy to send you to-day the nic e', news that our revered sovere i gn m oved by the wishes of his faithful subjects, has renounced his it: t is ji 4 ! marriage with the Countess 41 ' 0UltrealOnt. Ills yesterday evening announced this happy ne ws to his bled family." Though another correspondent yesterday sent us " .. ec°' by express, we thought it right to give our readers this 5 . . letter. • • o tier Majesty, we understand, intends giving a seriesioor state balls at the new Palace, the first to take plac e diately after Easter. r pl The high repute which E. and T. Taylor's Conc ei f s edi( Meat Lozenges have acquired in the opinion of the os ia o has caused a m os t unprecedented sale, and when we 1. ..,,e0 t r e how essential they are in families where prompt nt 1 " 1 " , vi tl o t the object, we recommen d t h em w i t h out hesitatili f e!i,j especially to those who have been prematurely d e l, egl o e their masticatory power, as well as to those who 113 ''to the me r idi an o f lif e ; i n f act , t h ey are invaluable sere invalid, wh ose di ges ti ve organs canno t b ear th e tard'4,...l o pes' r , of animal nutriment in the usual course of nature. Tgenuine but those b ear i ng th e s i gna ture of E. and of r y (on the small portable box which contains then'o., ev e Lower Holb orn , L on d on , w hi c h m a y b e o btained principal town throughout the kingdorn.—See ar t ' itiol' There are to be gay doings at Badminton. The H e h r u e ol; Prince of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, who is fond 0f t he 1 " ° , 1 1' has arrived at that elegant seat, and it is stated i n fCa t ° . don papers that his Royal Highness Prince Georg e : v isit 0 1 bridge leaves town in a few days for Badminton. 01 0 ; o ar . 1 1 er . the Duke and Duchess of Beaufort, during the s his Serene Highness. The Earl and Countess °, l. bus field, the Earl and Countess Wilton, Lord id ol ' f c Clarence, the Hon, Captain Macdonald, Mr. W°l n e are expected to join the circle.—Bath Chronicle. 0 c ./ O.O T DEFEAT OF THE CORN LAW REPEALERS AT ` i ejd at f or A meeting of the radical corn-law arritators was ta k.e.o co r Corn-Exchange, on Monday last. The chair IN,'? fo,' Mr. Reynolds . Mr. Bruce professed' • hinise".,ia, of a gradual abrogation, but an amendment, denn;:,ojthill the total and immediate repeal was moved by Mr• seconded by *Mr. Cok, amid the risingAisco n y.. A bije leading radicals and cries oft - •` The : Charter ," A rigtl fo r from the whigs.". The clamour increasing, by %ill tempted to pacify the peoPle;Thiti interrulite - et i o g, a t gala, a wellLknown . Chartist; whOl. , cstrritd:the vsl fi ber' as it was, before him. The Whig-radical, clique . 1 sn ot tempted to . put him ,doWit; . and 'he Nvai'followed 1.))' bu t .ti , Great were the efforts!to nouKtietrict • tW ortpositioi;,hotr..,„ radicals were compelled, to leave.thaPlatform to t . h . who gave three cheers in token ` 6f he y , petition wh h n-,,,,0ic pealers 'Were totally routed , ' And -Vie tended to adopt was carried off unsigned.—Bath " Itt 1, 151 10, „fri i :' ” - ' " . 't s i 10 1 ) • 4 1141