The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

March 31, 1846. SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. CROWN .—TUESDAY. Ris LORDSHIP read an COURT opinion of Mr. Justice Willi ams relative to the case of Richard Bent, who, at the last assizes, it will be recollected, was charged and found guilty of personating a voter at Bolton municipal election, "" In whose case a respite of judernent was moved. It I PPeared that th e wor d " wilfully " had been omitted from ertain counts in the indictment, and the question which bad be en ra i sed was, whether this omission did not vitiate i t ° se Counts. Mr. Justice Williams was of opinion that did, and that judgment must be arrested. j, Put Williams was indicted for having uttered and 1„°f 1 a bad half-crown to Sarah Feber. Another count "4,0 e indictment charged the uttering to Ann Lucock. The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty, and he ,„ "as sentenced to one year's imprisonment to hard labour. Wilkinson, 28, was indicted for unlawfully has- Io his possession fifteen false and counterfeit coins, 'tended to pass for shillings. said His LO RDSHIP , a f ter exam i n i ng th e co unterfeit money, • In the rough state in which it appeared, it th was ex -'euingly doubtful whether it coul Rd be said that e pH iTiner intended to utter it. This being considered fata!, th e Prisoner was acquitted. i i„,. a ne Kilian, 38, pleaded guilty to having intermarried b e lt , Johnston Rolston, Patrick Kilian, to whom she had a Previously mar r ied being then alive. "Is Lordship sentenced the prisoner to four months' hard labo ur. t o ja rnes Jackson, 23, pleaded guilty to having mariied 4 41 Clarke, hi s former wife being at the time living.— rd as se ntenced to be imprisoned for twelve months to -4 labour. fßichard Loynd, 46, pleaded guilty to having feloni- VY married Margaret To sentenced to wers, his former wife being at the time.—He was six months' im -,sonrnent to hard labour. 7 :avid How ar th, 27. was indicted for having, at Little er, on the 3d of February last, feloniously cut and , I b ou nded John Douedale, with intent to do him grievous n ;milY harm, & c .—The ju r y found the prisoner guilty of assault only. Sentence deferred. tr . fchael Sagar, 21, was charged with having, at atehinworth and Calderbrook, in the parish of Roch gt-,4, feloniously and violently assaulted Hannah Scott, 4 d stolen from her person half-a-crown. Several wit t:,,ales were called, who gave the prisoner a good charac r; for honesty. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but ..„,, , ornend e d him to mercy on account of his previous "'".9! c haracter.—Sentence deferred. i William Howarth, 35, Patrick O'Neil, 30, and WU tp:l4 While, 32, were indicted for having feloniously cut 41s , Wounded Robert Fletcher, with intent to maim, dis fi7, or do him some grievous bodily harm.—The jury te4l l the prisoners Howarth and O'Neil guilty of an as- Th e la Only, and acquitted White. Sentence deferied. The of this case occupied nearly four hours. 1 4 ,7 1 . 'c Prisoners were then indicted on a chare of the W °ffences committed by them towards one John Hey toe , arising prefer of the same tr ansaction. This indict- W4 l . t had been pred in order to reach .the prisoner Il e n e , and the prosecution went for merely an assault. Pri soner was found guilty. Sentence deferred. CROWN COU RT.—WEDNESDAY. Nilt enrY B oys, 31 , (neither read nor write.) was fou nd Y. anti sentenced to transportation for life, for having, ja allot, f e l oniously killed Robert Tattersall on t h e 2d 11 4 1 ,1 11 ,Y last. Th e pr i soner, d ecease d, an d o th er p ar ties, at (A L 'een drinki ng on N ew Y ear ' s D ay at a pu bli c -h ouse at i'sw a ldtw istle, near Blackburn, and were going home kid!? o'clo c k in ' the morning, when a quarrel took place, pris:eeeased was hit over the eye with a stone cast by the a n ", and di e d f rom t h e i n j ur i es on t h e 3d M arc h. elia -(tri es Michaelson, 26, (superior education,) was kentfed with having forged a bill of exchange for the pay- A'O od ",,,4300, with intent to defraud Sir Benjamin Iley %lilt' tie withdrew his plea of Not Guilty, and pleaded Y. p kie n , r * • ° I.LocK appealed to the Court on behalf of the diZ'er• Theisoner had considered himself entitled to asiderable Sum of money, and being in the greatest cetl t e o " ' and unable to obtain any employment, was indu his .()Eurnit the o ff en ce with which he was charged. "146e'rt°1113111P deferred judgment. pe rfect) William Marson, 27, (could read and write im torodtlleaYbo'ilwr,sfsorsentenced to one years' imprisonment and cutting and wounding John Taylor, at . 1110 1:41 vv er p t :PPeared that Taylor and a man named Al ''c'n had ",_gh.thag when the prisoner, hearing that Mar tashed got hold of, Almond, and the former t w a e e r k e v v i t i l ti T aYlor, and inflicted a deep wound on his but the knife. Ad the parties, except the prisoner, n2 Prnved to have been dreadfully intoxicated. keri a t el Clegg was sentenced to one years' imprison- Alianhard labour for a burglary near Rochdale. Qre ee % Voss pleaded guilty to having married Walter to ~"1 . her former husband being still alive. Sentenced six months' imprisonment and hard labour. fel o q in Flinn, who had been previously imprisoned for fift. n Y. Pleaded guilty of burglary, and was transported for j j e n years. itirid Howarth, who had been found guilty of wound- So; aD rm gdale, was sentenced to eight months' impri -,tnent anti hard labour. titration: Howarth, Patrick O'N e ill, an d Wm. White, whom had been convicted of assault, were sentenced im prisonment and O'Neill to ei g ht, an d Whi te one mont h s ' ''..ptisonment and hard labour. ti Suar, conv te ious day fo robbery, 141, sentenced g to twelve icted month h s prev imprisonment, r and hard k 4 .4 chard Foster, previously imprisoned for felony at foOehester, pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary at Sal ' a nd was sentenced to ten years' transportation. Mr. 13 CROWN COURT.—THURSDAY. l oar d 4 11ry • LAIR intimated to his Lorp, that as the Grand e ln the case of Mr. Howell, the manager of the Ha ttie Iron Foundry, had i gnore d the bill, it was not Gee s rat ion of counsel to offer any evidence on the od cero tetur„lnquisition. The jury the r efore, under direction, !Thue,_ll verdict of acqu itt a l. loth eLui ll s against John Jenkins and George Gillaird, tittio!u ar ged with ma ns l aug hter in this town, were also • or :elit e :" Ledger, 22, (could neither read nor write , ) was 'or er ;eed to tw o m onths imprisonment and hard labour, eil Licl 114411 E 1 g at Man c hester the birth of her illegitimate erJeant wmarls Nt • in t imated to the Court, that, : gre ed i t " consideration, the parties in the libel case had satisfied in the suggestion of his Lordship. and b k ij s atisfied to hold the prisoner, William Stephens, 'tor dia LORDSHIP said he would take time to con h.the G at amount of bail he should fix. I j., o „rand Jury were dismissed at eleven o'clock, after tilt,„ - " s hip had tha nked them for their services. - o ? l 3 , anna n and Daniel . Handley were found old 1. 0 having, at Manchester, in their possession a Etcl4ls r coining. Nite r l C aliert was acquitted of •a charge of burglary at ao the 20th December last. t !ilortP v ,, I IP:ND JURY ROOM.—THURSDAY. gf n a rter twelve o'clock, ROBERT B. ASEMSTRONia, b eaßecorder for the Borough of Manchester, sat 4ui i iii e f t alinal cases in the Grand Jury Room. fr7til noberts was sentenced to ten years' transport lte't b urglary and robbery at the house of Richard flV lanchester. kirinie was sentenced to two months' imprison : 14 /t pti ~,u lg arny. The prisoner and his wife had agreed -l ati - `e , and the latter had married again before the t rP ii e tr a tl id so. t e ,aLo4 Bentley, 19, John Kenyon, 20, and Mary Ann tio 4s i were charged with having, at Manchester, bur tip,s4 k e „/, broken and en tered the dwelling-house of Tho- VaeC' e .Y, and stolen therefrom a quantity of wearing at a wi 4o it turned out that there was a possibility that 4,r e „ le as tV,bad been left open, and under these cir . cum- N h `aY. i t " two male prisoners were only found guilty of m„ke h ''enYon was acquitted. John Kenyon and Mary 'aelplcln Were further tried, on an indictment, charg -44;11041_111th having broken into and entered . the dwell ;4l4 eh ' of James Gourley, and stolen a pair of boots tw a i wi r nu the 21st of January last. They were i hs - ntY of larceny. Bentley was sentenced to two and ti sonment y' hard labour • Mary Ann Kenyon b e e and hard labour, and John Kenyon, who had tilL'llitt:e convicted of a similar offence, six months and eo y e , u rr for the larceny on the 21st of January, and Ary:ra' transportation for the larceny on the 20th of it:t 4 a :14 e ",are;", 19, was charged with having, at Manches "V`i tii. r 'auslY broken and entered the dwelling b ius ta tltii . stolen therefrom one watch, twenty gold ea s, 4 10: k e h al box, and various other articles ; and Eliza- Mitr." ll agan was charged with having received the ruti n , l g them to have been stolen. The prisoners Nibo R d guilty. Slater, who had been previously con 4(Vistmaa sentenced to seven years' transportation, -a gau three months' imprisonment and hard la k; /.0 4 11 I CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. William itlci,aQei,Cs,irkhanz, 26, Samuel Broadh urs t, _ten'iln 32, were Z tk l et ed ;6, James Cearke, and Charles on D k 1t h ,, 4 of (3 "having, at Warrington, the night of the •,. 11 4 .4 ,; witt'ebruari feloniously assaulted James Jon t e h s e , qt'' pit ha sharp piece of iron, st . ruck him upoh kit as,ah intent to do him some grievous in nodily which harm. the t os k tler s ttl t was committed in a street row , w as the deputy riciktsble were engaged. The prosecutor hi t , ey e ° l' . Warrington, who was_ wo n unded over tbe 4, iron dog," tr 4 ,ta h a ,' i with an instrument . called 11404 4 i'' at ' u een taken from the timber . y a aFd,o d f er A e l n r d . e M d.t o h t- e sLatchford--Mr. Sergeant Wdkins d Broadhurst ," , t4. 4 eo n ' and contended that Kirkham 'C r th " l itY only of a common assault, au an d d ise t h ha ar t g t e h d e . c, ) ,,,t i ll , l'ee prisoners ought to be at once I‘4,Ah foetid Broadhurst and Kirkham guilty of k trs . ',6l 4 seeult, and acquitted the other three Prtieepnreefreer r‘eo::•les said he understood it was intended i o ns t the tqeoerlediettnent, of the same character, I , ll e ll a,ilt 4 il ;_k?ld, although not engaged in the case, he '2,.''' 6" 418 duty to apply, on their behalf, that they kr 'it -y e time allowed to prepare a plea of war t elo n is i leLfl\lr t kril, th , • Monk and Mr. Burke, for the prosecu io , ri t • rr, as the second indictment was for a riotoul_as y4 - 'L'et, 6 4 ei a different character to the former. The I V% ,s'wever, o Ppose the application for thought iliti,per..t..l,,le prisoners to prepare any plea they Y 4 tt ' ; 4. 4 "i 8 Lordshi after looking at the indictment, t _ e • leared to hi p m , that both transactions were the ,Ikllatitn:he Prisoners might stand down : and, ‘ 4 ti t he n t - r s ' the counsel fur the prosecution might co i n u F'der i 110(hateetY would proceed.—SubsequentlY, Mr. Burkeceed Sot' th o t ° his lordship that they should not It4DiNerr°ther indictment •, and the learned Judg p e ro then Wtoto'Ne'n, Broadhurst and Taylor to eighteen months' tleTk 4•1 2 11 t• The other prisoners were disc . harg d tp l il e? 'l,ll,ttoa.7e/eugh, 27, was indicted for having, e at . St. ro, , en assault upon John Cunliffe, and stabbed " he qt_tiktneitifeh, e t u h r e s re a b ft y er c . ausing a mortal wound of. 'The prisoner pleaded not guilty.—Mr. Grainger appeared for the prosecution, and from his statement it appeared that on the Ist of January last, the deceased, in company with two fellow-workmen. were sitting at work in his master's shop at the back part of Church-street, St. Helens. The prisoner came into the shop, where he had occasionally worked some months before. He was intoxicated. He asked• a man named Simms to lend him lid. Simms refused, and the pri soner then made a similar application to the deceased, from whom he also met with a refusal. An angry con versation ensued ; they both stood up, and the other men saw a blow struck, but could not tell trom whom it came. Both parties afterwards struck, and both fell to the ground, and the witnesses saw the deceased attempting to bite the prisoner's thumb. One of the witnesses threatened to strike the deceased if he did not let go the thumb, and he did so. Both then got up, and at this stage Simms and the other persons present unfortunately left the shop, and what took place afterwards there was no evidence, except what was said by the prisoner himself to the police. But the witnesses saw the deceased come out of the shop shortly afterwards, staggering, and heard him say, "I am stabbed." He was fol owed by the pri soner, who took to his heels, and was ultimately captured. The deceased died the same night, and his death was owing to a wound he had received in•his back from a shoemaker's knife. Simms had left the knife on a seat when lie went out of the shop, and it was found under the deceased's seat afterwards. The prisoner was de fended by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, and was acquitted. James Howarth, 28, and Henry Howarth, 19, were in dicted for having, at Oswaldtwisle, feloniously damaged a carding machine, in the mill of their employer. It appear ed that the prisoners were employed in the 'mill, and en tertained some grudge against the carding master. On the 9th of February, James Howarth said to Henry, that the carding master was against him, and that he would try to banish him if he could. For some days the spinners found great obstruction in proceeding with their work; and on the 13th of February, the prisoner James Howarth, was seen to get under the scotching machine and put paper under two of the gratings. The effect of this was to pre vent the dirt falling through the gratings, and to injure the carding machine. James Howarth was found guilty, and the other prisoner was acquitted.—Sentence was deferred. II m. Henry Chapman, 22 was indicted for having ut tered a forged bill of exchange, with intent to defraud Samuel Aston. Samuel Aston is a capsule manufacturer, at Bordesley Green, near Birmingh'im, and received by post a letter, dated Lord-street Chambers, Liverpool, 23rd May 1845, signed William Bell, ordering 10 gross of copaiba capsules. Sent the goods; and afterwards received another letter, dated 28th of the same month, enclosing a bill for £29 18s. 9d., ptaporting to be signed by W. H. Norcliff and Co., Liverpool, end addressed to Mr. E. Williams. This bill was a forgery. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth and the belief that he had beers an instrument in the hands of other parties. His Lordship was of the same opinion. Sentence—two years' imprisonment and hard labour in the House of Correction. • GRAND JURY ROOM.—FarDAY. (Before Mr. ARMSTRONG, Q. C.) Edward Birch, 42, and James Hardy, 21, were in dicted for having, at Manchester, together with several other persons, with personal violence, robbed Charles Dailey of a watch and 12s. in silver. The prisoners and Dailey had been drinking together at a beer-house in Tib-street, and a neighbour saw the prisoners and some other men, who had thrown him on the ground, ill-treat ing him. When he reached home, it appeared from the evidence of his mother, that he had been robbed ; but in consequence of Dailey having gone out of the country, the evidence was not sufficient to establish the fact of the robbery.—The jury found the prisoner Birch guilty of an assault, and acquitted Hardy. Birch was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but a point was reserved in his favour, similar to one which had been raised by Mr. Joseph Pollock, in the Crown Court, as to whether a pri soner could be convicted of an assault, under an indict ment charging him with robbery. John Heddon and Cornelius Hartley were charged with having, on the 22(1 instant broken into the house of Mrs. Warburton, publican, at Bury, and stolen a quan tity of provisions, wine, spirits, &c.—Hartley was found guilty, and sentenced to ten years' transportation, and ileddon was acquitted. Edward Parry was found guilty of having returned from transportation. It appeared that, at Salford ses sions, in 1834, he was sentenced to be transported for fourteen years.—To be imprisoned six months, and at the expiration of that term to be transported for life. Philip Ribby, a boy 16 years old, was charged with stabbing Lawrence Murphy, who said he was 11 years old. The wound was inflicted with a knife, behind the ear. The occurrence took place in Hornby-street, Liver pool, and the boy appeared to have given the prisoner no provocation • but just before the wound was inflicted, the prisoner had been fighting with another boy, and the boy had struck him with a stick.—The jury found the priso ner guilty, and he was sentenced to one year's imprison ment, the last fortnight solitary. Mary Ann Henry was found guilty of stabbing Eliza beth Evans, at Liverpool, with intent to do grievous bo dily harm. On the night of the 20th of February, Evans was going with a companion along Northampton-street, when the prisoner came into the street and brandished a knife. She struck Evans with the knife on the arm, and a person said, " You are stabbed." Evans said, " I am not." " Then if you are not," said the prisoner, " You shall be ;" and she immediately stabbed her on the left breast. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. Robert Rodney Hazekes was indicted for having ut tered counterfeit orders for the payment of £4 each, well knowing them to be forged and counterfeit. This case has already been published. The prisoner went to the house of Mr. James Church, publican, and obtained money upon shipping notes, which he repre sented as having been signed by Captain Quayle, of a ves sel called the Derby. The prisoner denied his knowledge of the documents being forged, and said he had received them from a per son on board the Derby, whom he conceived to be the agent of Captain Quayle. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sen tenced to two years' imprisonment and hard lthour. .00r , top? 3 y tile Ni 131 i i ' ter °- g c: 3 cg 0503 7. b' o f the Oft ee ' 'l" KAIgTOI4' by gb te ige bec ' go t t i,oW. Abbey at 1,59 JOO S _. 10 csteo. tile l ' l' Mis s to i,, , .4, ne Rea geo - t io for jstef' re , lA' elej:, 'of P e i s to^o, 00 1 c'r;te c ora / ' a t e ;thy " .ut. la te t be o.olc ca t ' cb , iii , ) . rittG s ,/ Sgt` the 1,1, 1 A!, to S „ple 1 ;01 L e. .rer ° U P3Y. CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY, John Knew was acquitted of having caused the death of John Lever. The prisoner and deceased were two boys who worked at the foundry of Messrs. Smith and Wil:is, at Windsor, and on the 15th December prisoner was observed to strike Lever, who, falling, became insensible, and was removed to the hospital, *here he died on the 7th January. The prisoner was stated to be a harmlesi. inoffensive boy, and the blow did not appear to have been wilful. _ _ Henry Stevens Osborne was acquitted of the manslaughter of his wile, in Dailsie-street, in this town, on the Igth January. On that day the prisoner and his wife were found quarrelling in the house, and the latter complained of her husband kicking her. All the parties were in liquor, and some of the witnesses said deceased had not been sober since Christmas Day, and had fallen down some stone steps, from which she had received in jury. The juoge stopped the case, ai it could not be proved that the kick on the leg had caused the death of the deceased. Mr. BRANDT made an application to the Court to have a pri soher, named William Clapham, who was charged with murder, but had since been sent to the County Lunatic Asylum, brought up for trial. Mr. J. Pommel{ made a similar application in the case of Isabella Pilkington, also charged with murder. His LORDSHIP said both cases were under the jurisdiction of another court, and he could not interfere without applying to the Home Office. _ James Hopwood, H. Mellor. and J. Mellor were charged with the manslaughter of John Jackson, at Chadderton, on the 18th of February. The deceased, it appeared, was cut and stabbed in an affray, in which some police. officers were in disguise, and the defence was, that the deceased had given great provocation curing the affray. The jury retired, and the prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. Ralph Cowburn was charged with having stolen £l4O from the dwelling-house of Thomas Monks. The money was de posited in a box under the bed ' • but though the plsoner was afterwards flush of money which he had net earned, there was no distinct proof that he had stolen that in question, and the jury acquitted him. _ Charles Murphy was charged with the mar_slaughter ol Mary Brace, by running over her with his cart, in December last, in Upper Parliament-street, in this town. The case was noticed in our paper on the occasion of the inquest. The jury found him guilty, but recommended him to mercy. Some circumstances transpired against the prisoner, who had before been repeatedly in gaol, and he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in the House of Correction. The court then adjourned. [The cases at the Crown Court yesterday will be found on page 8 ] NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAY. ROSS THE YOUNGER V. HIGNETT. In this case, Thomas Ross, jun. was the plaintiff, and John Hignett the defendant.—Mr. Martin stated the case. The plaintiff was a stock and share broker, at Manchester, and the defendant a dealer in canvass there. The action was brought to recover £147 from the defendant, being the price of 12 Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Man chester railway shares, No. 3, and £llos. for commission upon the shares purchased by the plaintiff for the defen dant, on the 3d of October last. The order to purchase the shares was given by Mr. Hignett on the 3d October. On that day Mr. Ross's clerk wrote an advice note, in forming the defendant that the shares had been purchased on his account, and the advice note was delivered by an errand boy to the defendant.'• The shares had been pur chased for the account day on the 15th of October; the plaintiff made no application for the shares, and nothing was heard from him until the 16th October. On that day he went to Messrs. Green and Oldham's, sharebro kers, and requested them to sell 30 Sheffield and Man chester quarters, No. 3 at as good a price as they could obtain. 12 of these shares were those which the defen dant bad employed the plaintiff to purchase for him, and he wrote to Mr. Ross stating that he had sold 30 shares, of which the 12 in question were a part, and requesting Mr. Ross to deliver the 12 shares to Messrs. Green and Oldham, at £lO 7s. 6d. per share, and to receive the mo ney for them. On the 16th the shares had fallen £2 per share, and Mr. Ross did not deliver the shares, being un willing to submit to the loss. The question was whether those shares were bought by the defendant or not.—Mr. Thompson, the plaintiff's clerk, was called to prove that the defendant had offered to take the shares and pay for them as be could, and the documents referred to were put in evidence. Mr. Barnes. for the defence, objected that the advice note sent by .the plaintiff to Mr. Hignett, could not be given in evidence, not being stamped ; but his lords hip overruled the objection. Mr. Baines then con tended that there had been no contract proved, inasmuch as at the time the alleged bargain was made, the 3d Oc tober, there were no shares of the kind in the market, nor within a month afterwards.—His Lordship remarked that, on the 10th October, the defendant had treated it as a purchase.—Mr. Baines asked his lordship to take a note of the objection, and his lordship did so. There was no dispute about the facts, and the jury found for the plain tiff, damages, £l4B 10s. MARSDEN V. NEWMARCH AND ANOTHER. This was a cross action, in which the plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Marsden, cotton spinner, and the defendants were Messrs. Newmarch and Withington, sharebrokers, of Manchester.—Mr. Martin, on the part of the plaintiffs, stated the case. Lie said, the plaintiff had been the de fendant in an action tried the night before, and it was now sought to recover damages from the defendants for the non-sale of certain shares which they had thought proper not to sell, after having been directed by the plaintiff to dispose of them. The amount of damages was upwards of ..£l9O. It appeared that a Mr. Duckworth was a friend to both parties ; and that on the 2d of September the plaintiff gave an order to the defendants, through Mr. Duckworth, to purchase 50 Leeds and "Yorks, 30 Leeds and Thirsks, and 50 Shrewsbury and Herefordahires. The order was given, and the shares were bought for ac. count of the plaintiff, whose object was to re-sell in a ris ing market, and thus realise a profit by the transaction. On the following day, there was a considerable rise in the market, and the plaintiff having determined to sell, he au thorised Mr. Duckworth to tell the defendants to sell for him the Leeds and York, and also the Leeds and Thirsk shares. Mr. Duckworth accordingly saw Mr. Newmarch that morning, and delivered the order. Mr. Newmarch then went into the market, and sold the Leeds and York for account of the plaintiff, and thereby realised a profit of nearly £6O. The same day, on coming off 'Change, he saw Mr. Duckworth, and told him that he had sold the plaintiff's Leeds and Yorks, but that he had not sold the Thirsks, believing: that they would rise in the market; and in short he added that, if they did not go up, lie would stand the risk. Mr. Newenarch's anticipations were never realised, for the Thirsks went down. On the 3d September they were selling at Liverpool at 221, at Manchester at 214, and in fact they were sold at Man chester that day for £2O 15s. He held them until the 13th of September, and then, of his own accord, he sold them for £lB. The difference between what they would have fetched on the 3d, and what they were actually seld for on the 13th, constituted the first part of the plaintiff's claim ; and that would amount to a sum of about £9O. On the 13th, the defendants wrote to the plaintiff to say that they had sold the Thirsks that day for £lB, and they added that, there being such a loss en the sale, they would not charge any commission. On the 6th or ith of October, the plaintiff authorised them to sell the Shrewsbury and Herefordshires, but not having sold them at that time, the plaintiff sustained a further loss of £lOO. Mr. Mar tin concluded by contending that if a man held the pro perty of another, and did not sell that property when di rccted to do so by that other, and loss ensued, the person disobeying the direction must be answerable for the loss. Sir. Duckworth having been examined, Mr. WATS9N submitted a variety of points, which were all overruled by the judge. He then addressed the jury at some length, and stated that a more unjust action had never been brought. He admitted that an order had been given to sell the Yorks on the 2d, but he denied that the order to sell the Thirsks was given until the Bth, when the market was failing, and buyers could not be had. Witnesses having been called for the defendant, The jury returned a verdict for the defendant as to the issues on the Leeds and Thirsks, and for the plaintiff on the Shrewsbury and Herefordshires, for the difference be tween the price of the shares on the 7th October and to day, £lOO, with liberty to the cor.rt to reduce damages by altering dates and referring to share-lists. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD'. cember, 1840, the dividend warrant was made out and sent to her. This was t-ansmitted to ber through the means of Messrs. Wakefield and Crewdson, of Kendal. Upon the sth of September, she wrote to know what price she could get for her fifty shares, supposing she sold them. On the 9th, Mr. Forbes wrote an answer, stating he considered the shares at that time would not fetch more than £6, or £6 2s. each. On the 26th, she wrote again; and on the Ist of July of the following year, another dividend was declared, and sent to her in the ordinary way. In the January following, she again wrote, wishing to know if she could sell her shares. From this correspondence it was perfectly clear that she was a partner in the bank. Witnesses were then called to prove these facts. Mr. WATSON then addressed the jury for the defend ant, contending that Mrs. Butcher could only be con sidered as the executrix of another, and not a partner in the bank. The learned Judge then summed up, and the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 5.59 is. 3d. MONEY CLUB.-'DEBT. - HOOD AND OTHERS V. LANG- FIELD. This was an action for the recorery of certain sums of money borrowed from the members of a money-club hold ing its meetings at a temperance hotel, Portland-street, Manchester, which bad been stipulated to be returned by instalments, but some of which the defendant had f to pay. Verdict for plaintiff for £23 10s., subject to a rule nisi applied for. NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY. REFUSAL TO PAY CHURCH RATES.--RAMSDOTTOM V. DUCKWORTH AND OTHERS. Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowley for the defendant. Mr. KNOWLES stated the facts of the case. The plain tiff was a farmer living in the township of Shuttleworth, in the parish of Bury, but also living in the chapelry of Edenfield. One of the defendants was chapel-warden, and in the exercise of his office it became his duty to en force a rate, out of which the present proceedings arose. The chapelry of Edenfield was in the parish of Bury, but for ecclesiastical purposes it was independent of it. It was a porochial chapelry, having its own chapel, and they. fore administering the rites of christening and burial, which his lordship was aware distinguished a parochial chapel from a chapel of ease. It had always been a custom to impose a rate for the repair of the chapel, &c. The rate, however, was generally very low. The defendant Duck worth was appointed chapel-warden in March, 1844, and in September of that year he gave due notice of a meeting to impose a rate, which meeting took place accordingly. The plaintiff's proportion of the rate was Is. 7d. This he refused to pay, alleging as his only reason that he was a dissenter;—and his cow had been seized, but afterwards returned to him, and the question was whether the defen dant was at all justified in taking it. Evidence of the facts having been given, Mr. Martin then urged a number of legal objections. The principal one was, that in the information and sum mons, the money was stated to be due to John Atkin and Lawrence Duckworth, chapel-wardens of the chapelry of Edenfield, whereas, John Atkin was not at the time one of the wardens; and in the avowry and order the name of Duckworth alone appeared. His Lordship noted the objections to allow of their con sideration in another court. Mr. Martin then proceeded to address the jury on be half of the plaintiff. The statute required that before a rate could he imposed, certain steps should be taken, and before it was justifiable to issue an order, it was necessary that the party should refuse or neglect to pay the rate ; and he submitted that the refusal should be made to some person authorised to receive it, which he contended had not been so in the present case. The learned Judge then summed up, and stated that the only question at present to decide was whether there was reasonable ground to suppose that the order had been duly served, and that there had been a neglect or refusal to pay. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain tiff, finding the order had been duly served—damages is. ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT. WILLIAMSON:V. BAXTER.—This was an action to re cover compensation for the breach of an agreement, whereby the defendant, who is a reed manufacturer, in Manchester, agreed to sell for £3BO a piece of land, with the premises. steam-engine, &c., thereon erected, in Allen -street, Manchester, to the plaintiff, who is a bobbin turner, in Ancoat's-street. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had authorised Mr. James Smith, house and land agent, to sell the premises in question, and that Mr. Smith, in virtue of this authority, entered into a written agreement to sell the premises to Mr. Wil liamson, who, in consequence of this agreement, paid £lO deposit; that defendant approved of the sale, but subse quently refused to transfer the property to plaintiff, and sold it to another party. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to recover the £lO deposit, and some compensation for the loss of his bargain. The jury found for the defen dant. TRESPASS IN A COAL MINE. SCHOLES v. TAvLor..—The declaration in the case stated that the plaintiff was possessed of large quantities of coal and culm, and that the defendant took and con verted the coal and culm to her own use. The defendant pleaded she did not so convert, and that plaintiff was not possessed of the coal and culm as alleged. The plaintiff, John Scholes, has for some years been the lessee of 'he colliery, and the owner of the coals under the Doghill estate, in the neighbourhood of Oldham. The defendant, Sarah Taylor, was the owner of the Bole Bottom colliery, immediately adjoining, and the action was brought to re cover damages - for a large quantity of coals, which, it was alleged the defendant had taken from the pit of the plain tiff between September. 1841, and July, 1843, and con verted to her own use. The jury found for the defendant. NISI PRIUS COURT.-TRIIRSDAY. BENTLEY V. FLEaiING.—His Lordship intimated that he would consent to the postponement of this case, which stands No. 49 in the first list, on condition that the plain tiff should pay the costs of the application, the costs of the day, and agree not to bring an action for any sales which may take place from the present time to the next assizes. The action is for the infringement of a patent, and the application for postponement was made on the ground of the absence of a material witness. JURYMEN FINED. At the conclusion of the coal mine case the jury retired, and upon another jury being called, only four gentlemen appeared. His Lordship ordered all the absentees, who were not serving in the other courts, to be fined £5 each, and the next case, which was undefended, was tried, by consent, before a jury of four. The next two cases were also, by consent, heard before five jurymen-only._ OVEREND AND OTHERS V. CHEDV:rICR AND OTHERS. —ln this case Mr. Baines and Mr. Hall appeared for the plaintiffs, Abraham, William, and Peter Overend. Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling conducted the case for the de fendants, William Chadwick and George Ashworth. The declaration alleged that the defendants on the 19th of November last, broke and entered the mill of the plantiffs, at Fodmorden, and seized and carried away a quantity of cotton goods. The defendants pleaded not guilty. The defendants were magistrates of this county, indemnified by the overseers of Todmorden, and the action was brought to decide the validity of certain proceedings taken under distress warrants signed by the defendant, and under which the goods of the plaintiffs, to the amount of £l2O, were seized and sold. The warrants were for alleged arrears of poor rates—one rate being as early as the year 1839. The judge decided that the publication of the rate was bad, as it had only been published upon one of the doors at the new church at Todmorden, and his Lordship said that the old church was still a church, though divine set vice had not been performed in it since 1832, and it was now only used for burials, baptisms, and vestry meetings. Forty-four bundles of calico were seized, but seventeen were returned, and the jury found for the plaintiff, dama ges £B4. NISI PRIUS COURT.--FRIDAY. LIABILITIES OF SIIAREHOLDERS IN JOINTS STOCK BANKS. LUCAS V. BUTCHER. In this case Mr.Vaiiinand - ir:Rainson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson for the defendant. Mr. MARTIN stated the facts of the case. Mr. Lucas, the plaintiff, was a gentleman living in the Isle of Man, and the defendant, Mrs. Alice Butcher, was living at Bowness, in Westmorland. The action was brought to recover £5OO, and interest, from May, 1843. Mrs. But cher was sought to be fixed as a partner in the Isle a Man Bank ; and the manner in which she was sought to be mane liable was this. The bank in question was a joint-stock bank, in which her husband was a proprietor, and held fifty shares. He died in 1839, after which time she received the shares, and drew the dividend upon them till 1843, when the bank stopped, and Lis (Mr. Martin's) claim was, that Mrs. Butcher thereby became a partner in the bank, and was responsible for its transactions. Mr. Martin then proceeded to dilate upon the law beating upon the case. The joint-stock bank was formed by a deed, in which Mrs. Butcher's husband was a partner, and the court would know that an executor, before com ing to a dividend, was bound to give satisfactory evidence of title; and this lady seemed to have taken the usual course, by sending, the probate of her husband's will to the manager of the bank. It appeared from the docu.. ments that would be produced, that, in 1839, the defend ant was required to pay a call ; and on the 28th of Decem ber of tat year, she again wrote to the manager, request ing the dividend• to be paid to her. In August of that year„ the dividend became due; and niou the Ist of De- ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEIZURE. PARRY V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND OTHERS. —ln this case, Messrs. Martin and Atherton were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Adolphus, and Mr. Ro binson, tor the defendants. Mr. Martin stated the case. The plaintiff was Mr. John Parry, a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, and the defendants were the Archbishop of York, the Earl of Devon, and John Loch, Esq., M.P., the trustees of the late Duke of Bridgewater. The ac tion was brought to recover the value of four canal boats, called the Wizard, the Witch, the Gem, and the Amere, which had been seized and sold by the agent of the trustee., Mr. Marsden, at Manchester. Mr. Parry, the plaintiff, had a son, who, at the latter end of 1843, en tered into a carrying concern at Manchester, which had been carried on under the firm of Deakin and Co. Soon after John Parry, jun., got into the concern, he found that the state of its affairs was not so prosperous as h€ was led to suppose, and in consequence an application was made to the plaintiff to advance money by way of mort gage on two of the boats belonging to the new firm, which was then carried on under the title of Parry, Deakin, and Co. The plaintiff, after consulting his authority, Mr. Tyrer, declined doing so. It was then arranged that the plaintiff should purchase two of the boats for £3OO, and that the firm should pay a certain sum weekly for the use of these boats. This was done, and accordingly the money was paid by Mr. John Parry for the Wizard and Witch. Subsequently Mr. Parry purchased the Gem from Messrs. Anderton and Gartskill, of Runcorn, for £235, and the Amere, from Mr. John Deakin, of Bootle, for £194. The latter boats were also used by Parry, Deakin, and Co., on the same terms as the others. The business then went on until the 15th of August, 1845, when the agent to the defendants seized the boats for tonnage, haulage, and canal dues, there being then about £l,lOO due, and sold them for £6OO. Two of the boats were seized as they were passing through a lock on the canal, and the other at the canal basin at Manchester. The evidence of Mr. John Parry, jun., Mr. J. Ken worthy Deakin, Mr. John Anderton, and Mr. John Deakin proved the facts as stated by Mr. Martin. Mr. Knowles cross-examined the witnesses, with a view of shewing that the carrying firm had exercised the owner ship over the boats. His LORDSIIIP, however, intimated that the defence could not be maintained. Here was now proof that two of the boats had been purchased from parties not at all connected with the son of the plaintiff. He supposed Mr. Knowles was about to call witnesses to alter all those facts. Mr. KNOWLES said the trustees l had been entirely de ceived about the matter. Up to that mom nt they had no knowledge whatever of the facts which had been proved by these very respectable witnesses who had been called, and, of course, as he could not contradict that testimony, he felt, acting on the part of the highly respectable defen dants, that he ought not to resist a verdict. He must, however, say that the agents of the defendants, seeing the name of " John Parry" on the boats, and knowing nothing of any other John Parry, they believed the boats belonged to the carrying concern. Mr. MARTIN said the plaintiff had over and over again offered to furnish the whole particulars about the matter. Under the direction of his Lordship, the jury found for the pl intiff, damages £7OO. Mr. George Thompson, of Manchester, was attorney for the plaintiff in this important action. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY The further hearing of the case of Scholfield v. Rhodes wa proceeded with. Mr. Seijeant Wilkins addressed the jury foi I the defendant, and called some witnesses to show that the plaintiff's claim was unfounded ; but the jury pronounced a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount and interest. LEE V. GRAY.—The plaintiff, a surveyor of Manchester. brought this action for w , rk done in attending in parliament to oppose a bill for making a railway from Liverpool to Wigan, Bolton, and Bury. The plaintiff had made out the maps and plans requisite to be put before p n liament in November last, at great tr.,uble and expense, for which he chimed, in all, £l9l, including expenses. The defendants had paid the plaintiff £4O, and had also paid into court in February, when the action was brought, a sum of ten, but the balance.,6 -4, was yet due. The defence was that, although the plaintiff had undoubtedly been employed, his charges were most exorbitant. his Lordship was of opinion that the plaintiff ought to be paid according to some well known rule. Witnesses were called to prove what would be a fair sum, and the jury gave a v. rdict for the defen dant. Another case brought by the same plaintiff against Colonel Coape, who had paid 50 into court, was similarly disposed of, REPUDIATION OF A RAILWAY CONTRACT TOOTAL v. JOHN STON.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Frederick Tootal, against the defendant, Henry Johnston, for the reco very of damages sustained by the defendant failing to fulfil a railway contract. The defendant pleaded that he did not pro mise ; he also pleaded a vat lety of other pleas. Mr /Jams stated the case, The plaintiff was a sharebroker, in the town of Manchester, and the, defendant was a coach builder, in the town of Sheffield, and a person who had entered largely into railway speculations. Several cases of this description had been tried at the present assizes, but in the present one there had not only been a distinct repudiation of a contract, which, on every Principle of law and justice, the defendant was bound to perform, but there were circumstances attending his conduct of an ex tremely discreditable character. It would appear that on the 28th of September, last year, the defendant applied to Mr. Wales, a sharebroker, in Sheffield, to purchase for him fifty shares in the railway called the Huddersfield and Sheffield, which shares were then very high in the market. In consequence of this direction, Mr. Wales wrote tothe plaintiff and commissioned him to purchase fifty Huddersfield and Sheffield shares; and, on the same day, the plaintiff went into the market and effected the purchase from three brokers. From Mr. Graves he bought twenty shares; from Mr. Hahn, twenty; and from M'Lean and Ce. ten ; so that in this way he made the fifty, and be purchased them at the market price of the day. The total cost of those shares amounted to a large sum. The plaintiff came under liabilities for the shares so purchased to the amount of £2106. He purchased them in his own name, according to the rule in the Manchester market, and on that same night, the 29th of September, be wrote to Mr. Wales, in forming him that the shares had been bought. On the following day there was a letter from Mr. Wales to the plaintiff expressing satisfaction at the purchase; and Mr- Wales entered those shares in his book to the account of the defendant. On the same day the defendant called on Wales, and told him to give authority to the plaintiff to sell the Huddersfield and Sheffield shares for as much above t5O as possible. Mr. Wales accordingly wrote to that effect, and - .lame over to Liverpool and Manchester. Whilst in Liverpool he received two letters from the defendant, urging the immediate sale of the shares; but, high as the price of those shares was on the 28th of September, and rising as they were in the market, yet so little were they thought of on the 2nd of October, that they were absolutely unsaleable in Manchester. Prom that time forward the defendant used every attempt to shuffle out of the transaction by saying, amongst other things, that the shares bad been purchased, not for him, but for somebody else. The 31st of October, the settling day at Manchester, having liaised, and the account not having been paid, Mr. Graves placed the twenty shares purchased by the plaintiff from him in the hands of the cha roman of the committee of tha Stock Exchange for the purpose of being sold out against the party, and those twenty shares were sold out at £22 each, so that there was a loss of £355 upon that transaction. Mr. Hahn also resold the twenty shares bought from him at £22, by which there was a further loss of £532 ; and M'Lean and Co. re-sold their ten at .€lO, by which there was an additional loss of X 321. The plaintiff was called upon by Mr. Graves, Mr. Hahn, and Messrs. M'Lean to make good those differences ; and to him those claims were most ruinous. He was obli,ed to suspend payment. He called his creditors together, and they having agreed to accept a composition of three shillings in the pound, be had paid Mr. Graves, Mr. Hahn, and Messrs. M'Lean £4ll I Is., and for the recovery of that sum the present action was brought. On the Bth of October the defendant had at tempted to get out of the transaction by going to Mr. Wales, of Sheffield, and telling him a story about a Mr. Owen, for whom he said, the allures were meant; and he requested Mr. Wales to alter his books, to get new ones instead of the old, and to change the entry from Johnston" to "Owen through Johnston." Mr. Wales had the weakness to yield to the request: but the new and old books would be produce I; the alteration of the entry would be proved; and, at all events, if any error had been committed, the fault lay not with the plaintiff, but with the defendant's own agent, Mr, Wales. The first witness called on the part of the plaintiff was Mr. Wales. He was a long time under examination. His evidence detailed the wholeof the leading incidents in the transaction as they had been stated by the learned coon el John Birley, clerk to Mr. Wales, identified a letter which be had written to the plaintiff, at the dictation of the defendant, telling him to sell tits fifty shares without delay. The three brokers from whom the shares were bought were ex amined. _ _ _ . . . • . _ -- ifi.iisitTnt submitted to have the verdict go against his client- At the same time he was instructed to say, that Owen told the defendant to order the shares through Wales, and that the impres sion on the-defendant's mind was, that, when he ordered them to be purchased, he gave the order in Owen's name. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £465 lie. NISI PRIUS-YESTERDAY. The learned Judge in taking his seat at ten o'clock, apologised for having kept the Court waiting from nine o'clock ; the mistake was on the part of the Under Sheriff, who had fancied the Jury was summoned for ten o'clock. CARDWELL AND OTHERS V. CANE. Mr. Knowles for the plaintiff and Mr. Martin for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff by consent. Dama ges £5OO. WOOD AND OTIIVRS V. ROBINSON. This was an \ undefended action, to recover the sum of £3O, the amount of a Bill of Exchange, and 9 6d. interest Mr. Blackburn for the plaintiff. Verdict £3O 93. 6d., with 40s. costs ; his Lordship granted ex ecution in a week. SHAW V. GARTSIDE. The plaintiff was a farmer at Winney Croft, in the parish of Rochdale, and defendant kept the Sun Inn, on the Turnpike adjoining. Mr. noggins for the plaintiff, and it appeared from his statement that an ill-feeling existed between the parties, in consequence of the defendant hav ing been summoned before the Honour Court at Ponte fract, and fined £3 12s. Od, for permitting his cattle to trespass on the farm of the plaintiff. On the 31st of May, about five in the morning, James Gartside, the de fendant, was seen to go into a field belonging to the plain tiff, called the Rooden Field ; and there forced 9 cows and an ass, over a stone wall in the adjoining field which belonged to John Gartside, brother of the defendant. They then sent for the prisoner, and had them taken to the pinfold, but in the meantime, Shaw was informed what was going• on and came down to the Rooden Field. Re then offered 10s. far thew, but the defendant refused, and said they would have their £3 12s. Od. back again. Plaintiff had to pay £1 98. Od. to the prisoner for the cattle; and suffered considerable damage by the cows being taken out of his own possession, one of- whieh calved while at the prisoners. Witnesses were called to prove this statement; and subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr. Watson, for the defendant, to show that there was a gap in the fence, and that the cattle went over by themselves. The only witness who swore to this fact was Moses Mills, and he it appeared was but an indifferent character, baying been imprisoned many times in Lancaster Castle and Manchester House of Correction. Mr. Watson then addressed the jury, and called Giles 'Wood and his Son, who happened to be passing the field early in the morn ing in question, and actually saw the cattle going through the gap themselves ; and Wood. on his return called at the Sun Inn, and knocked up James Gartside, the land lord, who came down half dressed to let him in. Three others also proved that at the time Mills said he saw the cattle diving over the gap, they were quietly lying down in the defendants field, as if they had been over some time. His Lordship briefly summed up, and the jury re turned a verdict for the defendant. DEMURRERS. His Lordship said that he would hear the argument in the demurrer, Hobson and others v. Kenworthy, No. 23 in the first list, in which Messrs. Hill and Cowling were the contending barristers, on Tuesday evening, at his lodgings. The demurrer Case v Woldon, 18 in the second list, is to be taken the same evening. CLAYTON AND OTHERS V. NETHERWOOD. This was an undefended action for £l6l 165., the ba lance on a bill of exchange. Verdict for plaintiff for that amount, and 40s. costs. ALCOCA V. HATTON. Another undefended action for a balance on a bill of exchange. Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £2O 6s. 4d. and 40s. costs. FIJOU AND OTHERS V. MOORE. This was an action brought by Pijou and Wilks the celebrated gunpowder manufacturers, for damages against a person named Moore, a gunpowder dealer in Brook street, Manchester, who had injured the plaintiffs by sell an inferior article, as that of Messrs. Pijou and Wilks. Mr. Martin and Mr. Huggins appeared for the plain tiffs, the defendant did not appear. It appeared that in January, 1845, the -defendant ordered a certain quantity of powder, and was supplied with labels and cords. In November, Mr. John Hard castle, the traveller of Messrs. Pijou and Wilks, called at Moore's for payment: while he was detained at the door he looked in at the window and observed a large number of packages in the window, with the genuine window card hanging over them, and on the top one or two genuine packages : the rest were all spurious. Witness found a little at the door and after a little consideration, he went in, and being quite unknown to the defendant, he asked if they sold Pijou and Wilks's sporting gunpowder, and Moore said " yes." Witness asked for treble C the best that was manufactured. Moore gave him some, told him he might rely on the quality, and asked Is. 41(1, a pound. Witness said how is that at Mr. Conway's, a large dealer, it is 2s. 6d. per pound. Moore said that he did an im mense business and frequently sold 4 or 500 lbs. per week for Messrs. Pijou, and they allowed him an extra disconnt. Mr. Baron, a respectable dealer in Manchester, after a communication with Hardcastle, went to the shop and bought 2 pounds of treble C at Is. 3d. per pound. Witness had dealt with Pijou and Wilks for 6 years; and latterly, the sale had very much fallen off. His shop is in the neigh bourhood of Moore's. Other witnesses gave similar testi mony. Itwas proved by the foreman of the works of Messrs. Pigon & Wilks, that on trying the composition strength of the genuine powder, and that purchased of Moore, with an instrument called an evoquette, at the manufactory at Dartmouth, the difference in the strength was 11 to 44. Verdict for plaintiff £lO damages. CLEGG AND ANOTHER V. BROWN. In this case, a verdict for £l5O was given to the plain :if by consent. CALDECUT V. PULFORD This was an undefended, action for £25 on a Bill of Exchange, and lOs interest. Verdict for the amount sought. WHARTON V. WRIGHT. Another undefended action on a Bill of Exchange. Verdict for the amount sought, with interest, £3O 63 6d. ASPINALL V. PENNY. An action on a Bill of Exchange,—by consent,—for £lBl2. Verdict for the plaintiff. STANIFORTH V. ORANGE. Mr. CROMPTON said that this was an action for ass)ult and false imprisonment, and stated that the plaintiff, a journeyman boot maker, while engaged in a jumping match on the river side at Birkenhead, was suddenly in terrupted by the defendant, a master boot maker, who came up with a constable and had him handcuffed and taken to bridewell. The next day when the plaintiff was brought up before Mr. Harden, the magiitrate, defend ant had no other charge to make except this:—The plain tiff had passed by his door with his hands in his pockets and laughed at him ; but it was not proved that the plain tiff was the party who had committed this flagrant offence. The action was therefore brought to recover damages for this insult and false imprisonment ; and the defendant pleaded in defence that he had not caused plaintiff to be taken into custody. Witnesses were called to prove these facts, and Mr. James, who appeared for the defendant, addressed the jury in mitigation of the amount of damages ; on the ground that the defendant had been repeatedly assaulted and insulted by the unionist bootmakers, whom he had refused to employ. Verdict for the plaintiff, costs 40s, damages 40s. CASE OF SEDUCTION. SPOFFoRTII V. TARBUCK. Mr. JAMES said, this was an action brought by the plaintiff for the seduction of his daughter. The defendant does not defend the action, but merely pleads he is not guilty. The plaintiff was a man in humble circumstances, but respectable in his station of life. The defendant was a young man. now about 22 years of age, and carrying on business at Kirkdale as an ironmonger. It would ap pear that in January in last year the daughter of the plaintiff, in her business as a dressmaker, was employed by the sister-in-law of the defendant, and the defendant visited at the house, where he met with plaintiff's daughter. Shortly after he began to pay his addresses to her •, and he told her that when he was of age, which would be on the 2nd or 3rd of July, he would marry her. There was no question but that the young woman fully believed in the honour of his intentions; and from time to time he made her such presents as frequently pass between parties so situated; gold trinkets, a gold watch, and among other things he gave her a plain gold ring. His circumstances being so much better than hers, he presented her with various articles of clothing, and pur chased and sent to her several pieces of household furni ture. At that time he had been informed by her of the situation he had brought her into ; and be continued his visits afterwards, indeed until the Bth of July. He then said his circumstances were somewhat difficult, and he wanted to raise money, and requested her to return the trinkets and the gold watch to him to raise money upon, which she did; but his after-conduct would reveal to the jury his real motives. On the Bth of July he told this unfortunate girl to prepare for the marriage, and the wedding dresses were ordered. On the 18th of July they heard that he had married some body else; and immediately afterwards this man had the face to send a cart to the plaintiff's house for the purpose of taking back all the furniture he had sent there. Con sequent upon the intimacy of the defendant with plain tiff's daughter was the birth of a child, which took place early in the present year. The plaintiff complained of the severe injury which, under these circumstances, had been inflicted upon his feelings, for in estimating the damages they must not only take into consideration the mere loss of his daughter's services, for which the action was tech nically brought. They must consider, the feelings of a father, whose daughter bad been thus beguiled of her re putation, and consider all the circumstances of the case, to arrive at a proper amount of damages. Defendant had not come into court to resist the action, and he must there fore be satisfied that their verdict would be against him. He trusted when 'they had heard the witness they would think it a case deserving of exempt-ry damages, The young lady was very young, only just 19, at the present time, and had been foully seduced under the semblance of honourable addresses, while the manner in which the young man had obtained possession of the object cf his desires, showed but too clearly what that object had been from first to last. He concluded by calling— Sarah Spofforth, an interesting-looking girl, who said she was the daughter of the plaintiff, Wm. Spofl'ortb, who resides near Liverpool, at Windsor View, and wit ness lived with him and assisted in the household affairs. Witness had been brought up when a girl with the daugh ters of Mr. Pringle, a merchant, of Liverpool, and that gentleman had paid the expenses of her being taught dress-making. In• January, last year, witness went to work at Mrs. Win. Tarbuck's, the sister-in-law of the defendant, who resides in Smithdown-lane ; and then wit ness saw the defendant. He soon paid her very great at tention ; and as his addresses went on, he made her pre sents and visited her at her father's house. Witness went day by day to Mrs. Tarbuck's; she went be tween eight and nine in the morning, and returned about the same hour at night ; she worked there, off and on, for more than three months before she ever knew the defendant. He bought her a dress, ring, a work box, a wedding ring, and a guard. He. talked from time to time of their being married when he was of age, on the 30th of July. The child witness had was born on the 9th of January last. She commu nicated her situation to defendant, and he still talked of their approaching marriage; after that he purchased some furniture and sent it to her—such as two small tables, a set of tea trays, a looking glass, a tea caddy, and various other little articles. He also purchased her some dresses and other articles of clothing. Witness then described the manner in which she had been wheedled out of the jewellery and watch he had given her, which fully bore out the statement of the counsel. By the JUDGE.—He effected his purpose in the begin ing of April, the child was still living, and lived with witness at the defendant's. Witness was 19 years of age on the 21st of January last. Elizabeth Spofforth, a younger sister of the last witness, corroborated much of this evidence. John Lyon spoke to having seen defendant as a suitor at plaintiff's house ; and to the defendant having a well furnished ironmonger's shop in Scotland-road. Mr. Kenneth Pringle, merchant, of Liverpool, said that plaintiff had been his coachman for many years, and that he was a very respectable man. The girl was brcught up by his daughters ; and her conduct bad ever been above reproach. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said that the jury must not take into account the injury done to the daughter; they must only consider the damage and injury sustained by the father. The girl had her remedy in an action for breach of promise. The Jury, after a few moments' consideration, gave a verdict for tho plaintiff. Damages, £lOO and costs. GEDDES V. DIXON. An undefended action for the balance of an account due from the defendant, a grocer, at Macclesfield, to the plain tiff, a wholesale tea-dealer, in Liverpool. Damages, £3O. HOLMES V. DUCKWORTH. The parties were builders, at Kirkdale, 'and defendant bad cut a drain through a corner of plaintiff's garden without leave. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Atherton for the plaintiff; Mr. James for the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £l5. The Court rose at a quarter to six o'clock. GENERAL MISCELLANY. Three vessels arrived last week from South America having on board 100 barrels of seed potatoes. The University Printing Office, at Edinburgh, has been destroyed by fire. A vacancy has been caused for the borough of Rich mond by the death of the Hon. W. N. RiJley Colborne. Private M'Phadden, of the 65th Regiment, has just had bequeathed to him, by an uncle deceased in India, the large sum of .£lO,OOO. Madame Pasta, the celebrated singer, has lost her hus band, from whom she had been separated, and to whom she allowed en income of £51.0 per annum. NEWSPAPERS. — It was stated that 150,000 newspapers Were dispatched from the General Post Office on Saturday night, exclusive of those forwarded by the district posts. Mrs. Loudon has had a pension for life of £lOO granted to her by government, in consideration of her deceased husband's labours and writings on natural science. A very numerous meeting of peers took place on Thurs day in London, when it was unanimously resolved to op.. pose, by every constitutional means, the progress of the Government free trade measures in the House of Lords. Admiral Collard committed suicide at his seat, Tod.. dington, Middlesex, a few days since, in a fit of despon dency, occasioned by the loss of his wife. The deceased had attained the advanced age of 76. Among the articles saved from the wreck of the Great Liverpool was a splendid box, containing some rich dresses, a. present from a nati'e merchant of Bombay to the Queen. At the Maidstone assizes, James Bowney was convicted of dropping a stone on a train as it passed under Higham bridge,, on the Gravesend and Rochester Railway, and sentenced to hard labour for six momtbs. At Warwick, on Friday, Elisha George Blaney was found guilty of having stolen, at Leamington Priors, on the 4th July last, one hundred £lO notes, the property of the Leamington Bank. Sentence deferred. The Times' courier, on his way from Folkestone to London, with Indian despatches, had a narrow escape of his life, by his carriage being flung off the rail. It was smashed to atoms; but the courier, nothing daunted, rode up town on the engine. SCARCITY OF SOLDIERS.—Such is the difficulty found in procuring recruits for the army, that, with a view to tempt mechanics and other, the sum of £5 17s. 6d. is be ing offered to any one who will join the royal artillery at Tynemouth garrison. On Tuesday afternoon Mr. James Partridge, a solici tor, residing in Tiverton, and who was one of the coro ners of the county of Devon, committed suicide by throw ing himself into the Tiverton canal. It is said his affairs were embarrassed. A SLIGHT ERROR OF THE ?RESS.—A Nottingham pa per regrets " that by a typographical error last week, in noticing a burglary at Mr. Clarke's, Dutch's Yard, New castle-street, he was described as ' brother to Mr. Clarke, the taell.known house-breaker,' instead of horse-breaker." _SUPPOSED I\lli EDEE.7On Thursday morning, the bod of Charles Edwards, a lock keeper, was found in the Fazeley canal, about a mile from Birmingham, with a deep gash across his face, and a number of bruises on his body. Three men have been apprehended on suspicion. FANCY FAIR UNDER THE THAMES.—The fancy fair in the Thames Tunnel proved highly attractive last week, having began on Monday, and bee-. attended on the average by 9000 persons daily. The amhunt received at the usual charge of one penny only was £lB5 up to Friday evening. On Tbutsday, two men, who had taken shelter in a barn at Ratcliffe, near Nottingham, were struck with lightning and killed. No injury was done to the barn, but the men were dreadfully injured about the head and. face. A cow was also killed, and a barn in the neighbour hood was set on fire. AMERICAN ICE.—A vessel called the America arrived in the St.. Katharinc's Docks, two or three days since, from Boston. United States, having on board, with the exception of 28 boxes of provisions, a cargo consisting entirely of ice, amounting to the immense quantity of 46i) tons weight. The launch of the splendid iron steam-ship Pottinger, of 1225 tons burthen, belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, and built for the purpose of carrying the mails in the Indian and China seas, took place at the yard of her eminent builders, Messrs. Fairborn and Son, Millwall, on Saturday. Southampton was visited with a terrific thunder storm on Friday. Hail stone of large size came down. Some vessels were driven from their moorings, and there was great destruction of tiles, chimney poles. &c. The peals of thunder shook the strongest buildings, and the flashes of lightning were awfully vivid. William Hubbard, aged 23, and described in the calen dar as an uneducated person, was tried before Mr. Justice Coltman, at Leicester, on Saturday last, and found guilty of the murder of Hannah Hubbard, his wife, in the town ship of Newark, on the Ilth of August last, by cutting her throat. His execution has been appointed for the Ist April. _ _ _ ATTEMPTED MURDER AND SUICIDE.—On Sunday week, at Truro, George Best, a tailor, under the influence of insanity, made an attempt on his sister's life, by hitting her on the head with a heavy iron. She ran down stairs; he followed, seized a knife, and attempted to cut her throat, inflicting a severe wound. He then ran out of the house. He was afterwards found drowned in the river Cober. A shocking accident occurred on Thursday at the con tract works for the steam-basin in Portsmouth dockyard. A chain guy of one of the derricks, which are used for lowering or raising the stones, broke, and the end strik ing one of the carpenters who was at work near it, named Cooke, dashed in his skull and killed him instantly—pre cipitating bis body at the same time into the bottom of the excavation, about twenty-Fix feet deep. THE WOODMANPS OCCUPATION GONE.—A new and simple machine for cutting down trees, &C., called the cir cumpolar, is now on view in London. It can be fixed, it is said, in a minute and a half, and will cut through a tree at the rate of three inches per minute, without causing the waste the woodman makes with his axes, leaving a groove of only one inch and, a half round the tree. It is applica ble for other purposes, such as the cutting of stone or iron. - A SHIP UPSET WHEN LAUNCHING. - A fine new full rigzed, belonging to Mr. William Hodgson, was lannched from a shipbuilding yard, Monkwearmouth shore, Sunderland, on Monday afternoon, but, in conse quence of being checked, whilst launching , on the wrong side, she upset, and the navigation of th river Wear is completely obstructed by the vessel lying on her broad side in the channel of the river. Fortunately no lives were lost, but some persons got a severe wetting. THE YARMOUTH MURDER.—At Norwich, on Friday, Samuel )(aril= was found guilty, and sentenced to deaili for the murder of Harriet Candler, of Yarmouth, on the 18th November, 1844. It will be remembered that the deceased kept a chandler's shop, and soon after she was murdered three men were tried for the offence, the priso ner being the principal witness against them. Since then he was apprehended, and on the testimony principally of a Mrs. Dick (whose evidence before the magistrates we re7ently published) he has been condemned. THE A UDLEY MURDER.—At the Staffordshire assizes, James Dean, aged 33, was tried for the wilful murder of Adolphus Fielding, on the 12th November last, in the parish of Audley. It will be recollected that the prisoner murdered tne pedlar with an axe, cut off the hand of his victim, and roasted it on the fire, committing other acts which raised great doubts of his sanity. When placed in the dock, he remained motionless, and took no notice of the proceedings. The surgeon of the gaol gave evidence of his insanity, and the jury returned a verdict accord ingly. He will, of course, be confined for life. _ FIRE AND Loss OF LlFE.—Between nine and ten o'clock on Saturday night smoke was seen to issue in large quantities from No. 33, Marshall-street, Golden square, London, when the door was burst open, and it was ascertained that the back parlour, which was occupied by Mrs. Trenterburn, an elderly lady, was in flames. The engines commenced playing upon the fire, which was soon extinguished. Upon examining the room, Mrs. Trenterburn ' who was left only a few minutes previously reading her Bible, was found lying on the floor greatly burned, and quite insensible. She died before she could be got from the house. The Society for Improving the Condition of the Labour ing Classes has just completed a set of small houses be tween Gray's-inn-lane and Bagnigge-wells ' London, as an experiment bearing on the question of better habita tions for the poor. There are, we understand, about eight or ten houses with three rooms in each, as many with two rooms, and one house cf thirty rooms, intended to be let to thirty poor widows, at ls. 6d. per week each. The greatest care has been taken with the 'drainage and ventilation of these cottages, and it is hoped that they may prove the first of great numbers of similar efforts. One half of these dwellings have been occupied since August last, the remainder will be tenanted next week. SUICIDE OF A YOUNG WOMAN THROUGH JEALOUSY, AND SUICIDE OF HER LOVER.—On Saturday an inquest was held at Mile-end, Old Town, London, on view of the body of John Warren, aged 20, a young man of respecta ble connections, residing in the neighbourhood, who com mitted self-destruction by drowning himself in the Re gent's Canal—a young woman, named Caroline Beale, about 18 years of age, having committed a similar act near the spot at which the deceased was found. The de ceased and the young woman had, a few months ago, formed an acquaintance, which resulted in a strong at tachment to each other, and they were to have - been married at Easter. On Sunday week they were to have taken tea with an acquaintance of the young woman's, named Amelia Bane, where the deceased went, according to his appointment. Caroline Beale did not arrive till some time after, when she remarked to him that she knew he bad been taking tea with Amelia, and that if he pre ferred her she would have nothing to do with him. She was in a very excited state, and left the house ; deceased followed her, when she accompanied him a short distance back, but she ran away, and the same night her body was found in the canal, search having been made for it in con sequence of her bonnet and shawl being found on a stone by the water-side. The young man, on being informed of the melancholy event, was thrown into a state of great dis(ress, avowing his determination not to survive the girl, and requested to be buried in the same grave. He was, in consequence, strictly watched. On Saturday evening, however, his bat and coat were discovered on the same stone upon which Caroline Beale's bonnet and shawl were found, and shortly afterwards his body was dragged from the water, and attempt to res tore animation proved fruitless. They will bo buried in the same grave.