The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-09-08 00:00:00

OF lON Etter- ;ince d in peat pub , the ober ,0011 lare ° , ) W • dir nob :loud lel nstir, eas.,` 0 at s'; e , beg Whig 9' , WW l ' at 1))' !On' idle 1119 dy e ice! No' f tiag e [ld of I the 4 111 ' !ne t ' I tile and to the " famous" Irish •rebellion. The drift of these allusions is but too obvious. But let the wily Jesuit take heed. His inuendoes, his artful sugges tions, his broken periods, may yet prove insufficient to screen him from the consequences of his treasonable designs. He may yet have to undergo, in his own person, the penalty of the law: The preservation of the safety and integrity of the empire may render it necessary that he should be arrested in his mad career. The anti-corn law agitation has been resumed with as much energy as was manifested at the commence ment of the year. The itinerant and stipendiary lec turers of the " League" are perambulating the king dom in every direction, mingling in their incendiary harangues the most ridiculous nonsense with the most awful blasphemies, and stimulating the evil passions of the mob by ribald abuse of both houses of legislature, and by denunciations of vengeance against the aristo cracy of the country. One of these paid orators, a member of the numerous family of Smiths, has been endeavouring, during the past month, to gull the inha. bitants of Liverpool with his trashy verbiage and shal low sophisms in favour of a repeal of the corn laws. We are glad to say that he. seems to have made but a very slight impression on the minds of the operative classes in Liverpool, who are, generally speaking, too well informed to be led astray by such superficial rea goners as Mr. Orator Smith. We trust that the recent exposures, made. by Mr. Handley and others, of the gross and fraudulent trick ery practised in th e ecorn trade, by the speculators for a repeal of the corn -laws, will convince the people of Great Britain of the folly of trusting to the tender mercies of the free trade gentry. Even under tly2 pre sent system of re s trictive duties these very conscien tious individuals are able, by means of fictitious sales, to raise the price of corn almost to starvation point, and that in spite of the powerful competition of the whole agricultural interest of Great Britain and Ire land. How much more terrible woul'l be their tyranny if they had an almost unlimited command over the sup ply of the . staff 'of life ? We should soon find the locks and bolts upon the granaries and the storehouses of these monopolists a far more fearful practical sys tem of corn laws than the most stringent acts of par liament that could be devised. It is a singular and rather anomalous circumstance, that the two classes who are most conspicuously active in carrying on the anti-corn law agitation, are actuated by different and opposite motives. One of those classes Is composed of the corn dealers. They are anxious to obtain a repeal of the corn laws for the sake of securing a more complete Lontrol of the market, and, of course, more remunerating prices. Thus, the cry of this section of the clamourers for a free trade in grain resolves itself Into a cry for " dear bread." It would be preposter ous to suppose that the corn merchant would he other wise benefited by a repeal of the corn laws, than as it would•enable him to secure larger profits. Those who imagine that such men as Sir Joshua Wahnsley are disinterested in their exertions to procure a free trade la corn are fools of the first magnitude, upon whom argument would be utterly thrown away. The other class of agitators for a repeal of the corn laws com prises the manufacturing interests generally. Their object is to procure a supply of cheap bread for their factory slaves. Without cheap bread they know that they cannot have cheap labour. Their uniform coin plaint is, that they cannot possibly compete with the foreign manufacturer, because labour is dearer in Eng land than it is on the Continent. Repeal the corn laws, say they, and we shall he enabled to procure a Bu2ply of cheaper labour, and, consequently, to eater into competition with the manufacturers abroad. Granting for a moment that this would follow, how would the poor operative be benefited by such a change ? With diminished wages—and that, we em phatically repeat, is what the manufacturers are la bouring to bring about—of what benefit would be cheaper bread to the poor artisan ? It is a consum mate fraud—a mean and rascally trick—a cruel and Satanic delusion—to say that the condition of the la bouring classes, in the manufacturing districts, would be in the slightest degree improved by the repeal of the corn laws. To them " cheap bread" would be but another name for " low wages" and a more limited supply of the mere luxuries of life. In proof of the correlative advantages of " cheap bread" and `'''cheap production," we may refer to the condition, of the operatives on the Continent—not as described in the lying, ex parte, and well-paid-for re ports of Dr. Bowring and other political empirics, who have been sent abroad on purpose to get up a case in favour of the manufacturers—but as we find it de- scribed in the voluntary, matter-of-course statements of intelligent and impartial tourists. 'We could fill our paper with extracts from the works of trustworthy tra vellers, descriptive of the misery and want, the phy sical sufferings and moral degradation, of the opera- five classes in various countries on the Continent. We feel convinced that no British artisan would ex change his lot for that of most of these wretched vic tims -of the " cheap labour" system. Operatives of England! your worse than Egyptian taskmasters want to reduce you to the same level with the serfs of the cheap-production lords of the Continent. If you have any spirit left in you—if your energies are not annihi lated by the grinding tyranny of those who are coining the sweat of your brows and the strength of your si news into gold,—tell the vagabond orators of the Anti- Corn Law League that you will not listen to their lying declamations. Tell these bloated scamps to go and labour for their bread, instead of prostituting their abilities to so unhallowed a purpose as that of seeking to grind the faces of the poor. But we deny that " cheap labour" would be, in the long run, of any advantage to the manufacturing inte rests of this country. Indeed, so convinced are most of the respectable and conservative manufacturers of this fact, that they have systematically kept aloof from the Whig tyrants of the Anti-Corn Law League. It is obviously the interest of the Continental powers to protect- their 'own manufactures. If they cannot do this in any other way, they will do it by depriving this country of the benefit of a free trade in corn. Let us remove our restrictions on the importation of corn and we shall soon find foreign governments imposint restrictions on its exportation. It would be an infatu• ation to expect any other result : and let it be remem. bered that this result would only-be rendered the more certain and inevitable by previously making this coun. try dependent upon the countries of the Continent fo: its supplies of corn. We believe that the conservatives of Liverpool will stand well upon the municipal registry for the present , year. The preparatory struggle has been well sus tained, and nothing now remains, in order to secure such a victory, on the first • of November, ps shall for ever extinguish the hopes of the Whig-radical faction, but an energetic and persevering canvass throughout all the wards in the borough. There is very little time left for exertion. We are, therefore, anxious that that time should be well employed. candidates ought to be forthwith chosen in each ward, and those candidates, when once definitively fixed upon, ought to have re course to a personal canvass. Much will depend upon this point. Our opponents have all along been fully aware of the importance of a personal intercourse be tween the'candidates and the electors ; and wherever the conservatives have, on former occasions, acted upon this policy, they have been generally successful. We may, .perhaps, be told that we are, too sanguine in our expectations with reference to the approaching municipal election. We may be reminded of the gi gantic efforts made by the Reform Association and the Protector Society to swamp the registry. We are fully aware of the desperate expedients to which our oppo nents have resorted, in order to secure, if possible, their lost ascendancy. We need not be reminded of the extent of their preparations. We are in possession of ample information on the subject. With a full cog nizance of their trickery and of their lavish expendi ture of money, we still maintain that the strength of the conservative party in this town is comparatively greater than at any period subsequent to the passing of the Reform Act. We wish that we could say that the zeal and confidence of the conservatives had kept pace with their increasing strength. The principal source from which the augmented strength of the conservative party of this town is de rived, is, the gradual reaction which has taken place in favour of constitutional principles. The universal disgust excited by the reckless and unprincipled pro ceedings of the Whig-radical faction has done far more to swell the ranks of the conservatives than all the ex- ertions that have been made to add to the number of voters on the registeis. We venture to say that there is not an individual, under whose notice these remarks may happen to fall, who cannot, without a moment's hesitation, point to some of his friends or acquaintances who have deserted the ranks of their former destruc-* tive allies, and joined themselves to the conserva tive party. But we challenge nine out of ten of our readers to tax their memories for a single instance in which a conservative has joined the ranks of the ra dicals. Such a thing would be a prodigy worth re- cording Such being our own convictions, we wish to inspire our conservative friends with a corresponding degree of confidence, in contemplation of the approaching struggle. Let them fight like men determined to win the battle. " A long pull, a strong pull, and a pull al together," during the present year, will secure the final ascendancy of conservative principles in our municipal councils. Let us not rest satified with anything less than a clean " sweep out" of the Augean stable. FAILURES IN MANCHESTER.—There have been two ex tensivelfailures in Manchester, Mr. Fort and Ma. Lavino. THEATRE ROYAL.—Mrs. Fitzwilliam and Mr. Mackay commenced their engagement last evening, and as may be expected from their high reputation, they gave the highest satisfaction. The " bill of fare" for the week is very rich. Mr. Paul Bedford will appear this evening.—See advt. MODEL OF WATERLOO.—We understand that this unique and elaborate production, which has been visited and ad mired by thousands of our townsmen, and which has been pronounced, by competent military authorities, the most perfect thing of the kind ever exhibited, will be very shortly removed from Liverpool. We recommend our readers to avail themselves of the brief interval which will elapse before the exhibition closes for the purpose of inspecting this splendid model. MR. HASSARD'S TABLES. —We understand that these singular and beautiful specimens of workmanship have been inspected by multitudes during the past week, and it will be seen from an advertisement that they will be on view for one day only. Mr. Hassard deserves well from those gentlemen to whom he specially appeals for the disposal of his ingenious works of art, as he has been compelled to make many sacri fices in defence of those principles he holds dear. As some misapprehension was caused by the wording of the advertise ment in our last, we may as well state, that Mr. Hassard will feel proud to exhibit his rare productions to all whp may honour him with a visit, whether with the intention of pur chasing or otherwise. It will be melancholy, if Mr. Hassard be compelled to leave our wealthy town without disposing of his unique designs. NAVAL AND MILITARY BIBLE SOCIETY.—The annual meeting of the members and friends of the Liverpool Aux iliary Naval and Military Bible SOcietY was held last evening in the Music-hall, Bold-street, and was most numerously attended. Thomas Porter, Esq. was called to the chair, and the proceedings were commenced by the supplication of the divine blessing. The Rev. W. Maynard then read the report of the committee's proceedings during the past year ; from which it appeared that, since the formation of the Parent So ciety, in 1780, it had distributed no less than 356,000 copies of the Holy Scriptures amongst the men belonging to the navy and the army. The Liverpool Auxiliary .had been pe cutlery successful during the past year; the subscriptions had increased from £37 to £lBB 18s. 6d. ; but still it entailed a loss of £5OO upon the Parent Society. An association had been formed at Birkenhead; and since the last annual meet ing, 907 copies of the Scriptures had been distributed, mak ing a total of 7,112 copies since the formation of the Aux iliary in the year 1832. The meeting was afterwards ad dressed by the Rev. W. Maynard, the Rev. J. H. Stewart, Rev. J. Bavlee, Mr. Howard, Lieutenant Symonds, and the Rev. J. C. Richards ; and the Doxology having been sang, it dispersed, all being highly gratified with the proceedings. THE MANCHESTER NEW POST-OFFICE.—This office was yesterday week opened for business. It is said that there is nothing superior in point of accommodation out of London. The principal room covers a space of upwards of two hun dred yards, and is most profusely lit from the roof. The number of private boxes are 1,320. DESTRUCTION OF A COTTON MILL AT STOCKPORT BY Ftrus.—On Thursday afternoon, about half-past four, an alarm of fire was given, which was found to be at the Churchgate Mills, the property of Mr. Elkanah Cheetham, but occupied by a number of tenants who manufactured weft from the lowest qualities of cotton waste, and which made a catastrophe like the present exceedingly imminent. It is said that none of them are insured. The building, however, is understood to be so. Scarcely anything was saved. — CHESTER CATTLE FAIR.—The shOw of cattle on Thurs day was tolerably good for the September fair. ' Milchers and barren beasts were in tolerable demand ; the former averaged from £l5 to £lB, and the latter from £lO to £l3 each : fat cattle, of which the show was only moderate, sold well, from 51d to 61d per lb. and sink. There was a fair supply of sheep : fat weathers were worth 6-id and 7d, and ewes 6d to 61d. Lambs had only a dull sale. Pigs were in tolerable demand, at about the same prices as last fair. Serviceable horses were in good demand. The city was not very thronged, as the favourable harvest day kept many of the farmers.away. MR. WINTERBOTTONI, OF STOCKPORT.—We understand that information has been received in this town that an individual has been residing at Newmarket, in Monmouth shire, for the last three weeks, answering in every respect the description of Mr. Winterbottont, with the simple exception that he has no whiskers, which were rather a conspicuous feature in Mr. Winterbottom's countenance. This individual was consequently suspected to be Mr. Winterbottom himself ; but the parties entertaining that suspicion, not venturing to take him into custody without further evidence, sent to this town' for some person to go over and identify him. We believe that a police officer who knew Mr. Winterbottom personally, went to Newmarket on Wednesday or Thursday last ; but we are not aware that any information has been re ceived from him:—Manchester Guardian. ACCIDENT.—On Friday last, as a boy iri 'the employ of Mr. Jones ' Castle-street, was cleaning the office windows, he lost his hold, and was precipitated from a height of fOrty feet, through the skylight of Messrs. Swainson and Son's counting-house, and fractured his skull. Mr. Swainson, jun., who was standing under the skylight at the time , nar rowly escaped being killed, the boy in his descent striking him on the back. Assistance was immediately procured, and he was conveyed to the Infirmary, where, we believe, small hopes are entertained of his recovery. SUPERB CIIINA.—We have inspected the truly elegant stock of china, Bisque figures, &c., at Mr. Hodgso n ' s roo m s, Church-street. The selection of orname nts (some of great size) for drawing-rooms, boudoir, &c., are most unique. We understand the sale will continue the whole of this week-- See advt FATAL ACCIDENT.—One of those accidents which, for tunately, are of rare occurrence in our town, happened in Tithebarn-street on Friday afternoon, about five o'clock. A gig, driven by a young man, was passing, at an ordinary speed, through the street, a boy ran across from the opposite side at the time, and, it is supposed, came in contact with the feet of the horse, and fell. The gig passed over the neck of the child, and when taken up he was found to be quite dead. We are not aware that any blame can be attached to the person who was in the gig when the accident occurred. The child belonged to some poor people in Pall Mall. THE CHARGE AGAINST L. J. HART.—We stated, last Tuesday, that the legal advisers of Lewis J. Hart had ex pressed their intention of making an application to Baron Rolfe to enlarge the prisoner on bail. On Saturday night Mr. Crompton intimated to his lordship, that he was about to apply to that effect, his lordship having had the deposi tions and certain affidavits laid before him on the preceding evening. Mr. Watson said, he had instructions to resist the application for hail, but certain essential affidavits which he had to present were not quite ready, and others were only just sworn. He wished his lordship to postpone the case till Monday morning. Mr. Crompton said, there had been am ple time to have had an opportunity of seeing them. Mr. Watson said, they had been got ready as soon as practicable ; but there was one important affidavit, the affidavit of the woman herself, which was not completed. Mr. Crom p ton : " The woman herself I—That is a reply !" Mr. Watson : "To be sure—and a most important one." His lordthip fixed a quarter past eight for hearing the affidavits on both sides. His lordship could not say, that he would hear the application in open court, but it should be somewhere within the building.—Yesterday morning, at a quarter-past eight o'clock, Lewis Joseph Hart was brought before Baron Rolfe, in his private chamber, in the Session's-house, for the pur pose of receiving formally the application of the prisoner's legal advisers to let him go at large on bail. The witnesses for the prosecution were in attendance in the ante-room •, but, saving the official persons concerned; no one was allowed to be present, the application being strictly private. Mr. Crompton, on the part of the prisoner, produced the affidavits of certain parties who formerly lived at the White Bear, and of a person who was formerly a servant with Mr. Fadeuilhe, and of the prisoner himself. Mr. Watson, in resistance of the application, produced counter affidavits from parties who were enabled *to contradict the allegations of the deponent on the prisoner's behalf. His lordship, having heard the argument of counsel on both sides, said he saw nothing in the statements produced to justify his interference. His lordship refused to allow the prisoner to be bailed. TILE ORIENTAL.—The splendid steamer Oriental arrived at Falmouth on Wednesday morning, at 6 a.m., from South ampton, to receive the mails for Alexandria and India. At a very early period after she put in, the Mayor, S. Blight, Esq., and the corporation, were accompanied on board by Captain Plumridge, in his barge ; and she was likewir visited by a large concouse of the gentry of the town and neighbour hood, admitted at is each ; amongst them were Sir Charles Lemon, M.P., and family, J. Ennis, Esq., W. Vice, Esq., Captain Pengilly, R.N., Lieutenants Herrick, Leslie,Crook, Coghlan, and Smith, R.N. We learn that so large a sum as £94 was collected, by the admission fee, towards the funds of the Fishermen's Charity, whilst she lay at Southampton. The extreme civility of her commander and officers, and her magnificent but chaste fittings, with the cleanliness and order prevailing, excited the admiration of every one. There were 103 soldiers of the 77th regiment, Captain Egerton, in Com mand, and ensigns Rook and Duff. She had passengers for Alexandria—Captains Reed and Ewart ; Messrs. St4ton, Ford, Weller, Stockham, Palmer, Daly, Powell , Rich, Black, Fletche, Strath, Dr. Fletcher, and Hassan Gammiel. For Malta—Colonel Gordon and family, Captain Rawlinson and lady, Captain Gardner, Lientenant Middleton, Lieutenant Munro, Mr. and Mrs. Dick, Messrs. Harvey, Duniell, Wil liams, Reynolds, Langhorne, Hanson, Privilege, and Terry, rs. L rvant, Mrs.ancaster. F Custan bor Gi ce, Dr. Stewart n rt , and Mrs. Custance se and Messrs. Em mett and Savage. She left Falmouth at half-past 1 p.m., Lieutenant Turncock in charge of the mails. Lieutenant Green goes out to take charge of a mail steamer between Malta and the lonian Islands. There appeared an uncertainy • whether the Oriental would return to kalmoutli or go up to Liverpool direct. Blackpool. Southport, Waterloo, Crosby, and otherbathing places, have for a few weeks past been quite overflowing. THE ISLAND OF IHINDY.—This island, situate in the mouth of the Bristol Channel, and forming part of the hun dre-d of Braanton, in Devon, was last week sold for 9,400 gui neas. It is three miles long by one mile wide, and contains nearly 2000 acres of land. It possesses a mansion, with offices and outbuildings, including a smith's shop and forge, and there are several labourers' cottages. It is said that a small harbour might easily be formed near the present land ing-place. Lundy is famous for its butter. SHAKSPERE'S DERR STEALING.—MaIonc, it is known, threw doubts on the fact of Shakspere's deer stealing in his early days, thereby offending the poet's admirers, inasmuch as otherwise the bard's' attack upon Lucy of Woodcote seemed unaccountable ; and the reason he gave was that the offence could not have been committed, inasmuch as Sir Thomas Lucy, so Malone averred, had no deer walk to be poached upon ; but time, the great settler of all things, has set the matter, as well as the commentator, right ; for it ap pears, froth a record of those who sent presents to Chancellor Ellesmere, when he entertained Queen Elizabeth, at his seat at Harefield, that among the givers of bucks on the occasion was the aforesaid Sir Thomas. This corroboration of the poet's deer stealing is now on veritable record among the papers published by the Camden Society in their last volume, from'" the Egerton papers," furnished by . Lot d Francis, the 'owner of these curious and hitherto unknown documents. LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZES NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY THE MILITARY ASSAULT AND RESCUE AT WIGAN At the sitting of the court this morning, Mr. Crompton said he had to show cause against a rule nisi, for an attach ment obtained against the defendant, Mr. Adolphus Fraser, for a rescue, at Wigan, of the body of Mr. Plunkett, now in prison at Lancaster. The learned counsel contended, that Mr. Fraser had already been sufficiently punished for the offence and public justice satisfied; that the. body of Mr, Plunkett having been eventually taken, the plaintiff (Mr. J S •- remedy ag - - • ornbbs, of Manchester) hail had his a private individual, in an oppressive manner, and at an unnecessarily late period after the offence. He submitted that it could answer no purpose but that of throwing costs upon the de fendant ; that the issuing of an attachment for contempt was optional with the court ; and that this was not a case in which the court ought to interfere.—Mr. Martin appeared in sup port of the rule, and contended that the issuing of the at tachment on proof of contempt was a matter of course, and that the court was bound to accede to the application. When the application was argued on the merits, he should be pre pared to show that the application was not wanton or op pressive, but was in fact the only means the plaintiff had to met at his debt and costs. He would assent, however, to the enlarging of the rule, until nearer to the period of the de fendant's imprisonment ; and applying for it in term time, so as to allow both parties a full opportunity of being heard. —The learned judge, after expressing his concurrence in the view taken of the application by Mr. Crompton, acquiesced in the arranzement. PRESTON AND OTHERS V. FORD The plaintiffs in this case are . M7 Robert Preston on his own part, and Messrs. Jones and Dagley, as assignees to Mr. Herdman, bankrupt, formerly Mr. Preston's partner. The plaint ifs, Preston and Herdman, were wine and spirit mer chants at Manchester, and the defendant is a publican in that town. The action was brought to recover the amount of £27 odd, the balance of an account due -from the defendant for goods sold and delivered. The case possessed no interest. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for £26 lOs 4d. PIXTON V. RHODES. This was an action brought by Elizabeth Piston, tenant of T. J. Trafrord, Esq., for the Croft Bank Farm, to recover about £5O rent of the defendant, a farmer, to whom she had let about 1,100 square yards of land. For the defendant it was contended that he was not liable to the plaintiff, but to Mr. Trafford, for the rent.—The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £46 10s., there being a set-off of some £3 odd. ALLEGED LIBELS ON A BEER RETAILER. HAWLEY v. WA GG.—The declaration stated that the de fendant had published two libels of the plaintiff, and the de fendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. John Hawley, the plaintiff, is a beer retailer at Grcenheys, near Manchester, and has also been an excavator ; and this action was brought to get compensation in damages for the libels in question. In Ja nuary last, the defendant, William Wagg, who is a police man at Staveley, in Derbyshire, came to Manchester, and, amongst other places, went to the plaintiff's beershop, with some of the Manchester police. The plaintiff was out, but they told Mrs. Hawley that the, had come to search the house. She made no objection, and they searched, during which process the plaintiff came in, found nothing, and went away. Some time afterwards, namely, on the 29th of Fe bruary, the Derbyshire Courier, published at Chesterfield, contained one of the libels ; and, as that paper circulated in Manchester and the neighbourhood, they had, it was alleged, done great injury to the plaintiff in his busineis. The libels in that paper, and in the Derbyshire Chronicle, were the result of communications to reporters for those papers, made orally by the defendant (Wagg) himself, and appeared as news. That in the Courier was headed— " Spirited and Successful Pursuit of a Thief." After stat ing that there had been many robberies in the neighbourhood of Stavely, and that Wagg had been directed by the Staveley committee of police to spare no expellee to trace the thieves, it went on to say, that Wagg, having some suspicion, ob tained a search warrant to search the house of Hawley, who formerly lived in the neighbourhood of Staveley, but then resided at Manchester ; and that in his house at Green Edge IGreenheys], parish of Holme [township of Hulme],_YVagg found a quantity of property, — not, however, the produce of the recent robberies,—which induced Wagg to leave Hawley in custody. The article then .related the circumstances of the apprehension of a man named Platts.—The alleged libel ' in the Derbyshire Chronicle was in somewhat similar terms, being headed,—" Dispersion of a Gang of Thieves, and Cap ture of one of the Leaders."—Mr. John George Portman, sub-editor and reporter of the Derbyshire Courier, proved that the defendant communicated to him the paragraph in question for publication, which was read over to him, and he said it was all right. The defendant, subsequently to its publication, said if any one came to inquire about it, the printers might give his name as the author.—Mr. Henry Adams, editor of the Derbyshire Chronicle, gave similar evi dence as to the oral communication of the statement by Wagg to him for publication in that paper. He subsequently showed Wagg a proof, and Wagg said it was quite correct. — Mr. Cyrus Alcock, superintendant in the Manchester police, stated that he went with Wagg to search the plaintiff's house, and on the way there he told Wagg that he lie had known Hawley and his house some years, and he thought him re spectable and honest. Witness was very sorry afterwards that the search was made at all. No stolen property of any kind was found.—lnspector Richard Green gave similar tes timony.—Mr. Brailsford, of the Brown Bull, Salford, proved that he took the Derbyshire Courier; and another witness, named Lowe, proved that he had read the paragraph aloud to the.company, and then he and his companions determined amongst themselves not to go again for beer to the house of Hawley, in whose neighbourhood they lived and worked. — Robinson, another workman, gave similar evidence.—For the defendant, Mr. Watson addressed the jury, admitting that the plaintiff must have their verdict, but urging circumstances in mitigation of damages.—The learned judge said there could be no doubt that the defendant was the publisher of these statements ; and it would be absurd to say that they were not libels. He thought juries ought to deal liberally with plain tiffs in cases oflibel of this kind ; and if it was once allowed to defendants to escape, on the supposition that a man who publishes what injures another is not to be civil!y responsible for it, there would be an end to all free discussion. The de fendant, there was reason to believe, had not been actuated by any malignant motives. This was one of a class of libels which ought to arrest the attention of juries, being so parti cular and specific in statement. The jury found for the plain tiff, damages £2O. ... HARRISON V. KNIGHT The plaintiff in this action (which was in trover), Mr. Henry I - larison, was a shipping merchant at Manchester; and the.defendant, Mr. Nathan Knight, was also a merchant here. In 1838, the plaintiff bought from the defendant some " drills," to the amount of £470 55., for which he gave him, on account, a bill for £440, leaving a balance of £3O ss. ; for which balance security was given, by the plaintiff en dorsing to the defendant a bill of XlOO, at twelve months, which he had in his possession at the time. This £lOO bill being dishonoured, the plaintiff next gave the defendant an order on London for £3l 10s., and he also paid £1 expenses. That order being also dishonoured at maturity, legal pro ceedings were commenced 'against the plaintiff in August, 1838, to recover the £3O ss. principal debt. The plaintiff was arrested, and he then paid £33 18s. Gd. the debt and costs (but without interest) ; but have never received from the defendant the £lOO bill and the £3O ss. order, given as security for the payment : For the plaintiff it was contended, that, the debt and costs being paid in full, there was no pre text for keeping these instruments from the plaintiff. It appeared that the defendant's solicitor, Mr. T. T. Marriot, said to Mr. Mariner, the party sent by Knight in April last, to demand the bill, that he or anybody else might have it on payment of 12s. law charges. Mr. Knight subsequently went to Mr. Harrison ' and said he was exceedingly , sorry that this should have happened ; he thought all had been settled, and he knew of no claim against him. Mr. Harrison said, " I have no feeling against you, Mr. Knight ; I only wish to recover my bills • and to show you that I have not any feeling against you, I will leave it to any respectable merchant or man of business in Manchester." Mr. Knight appeared exceedingly desirous that it should be so ; but Mr. Marriott, he said, was out of town, and he did not know what steps he had taken, but he would see him on the subject when he returned. Mr. Harrison said he was going to London that night and some party must be named that day. Mr. Knight said he could not act without Mr. Marriott ; and, at the recommendation of Mr. Knight, Mr. Harrison gave Mr. Mariner a letter, authorizing him to act for him. Mr. Mariner was subsequently told by the defendant's son-in-law that the defendant had seen Mr. Marriott, who was certain that he was right in holding the bill In cross-examination, the witness, Mr. Mariner) stated, that in 1837 the plaintiff was insolvent, and this year he had made some arrangement with his creditors. When a written demand was presented to Mr. Marriott, he said—" Very well." This was the case for the plaintiff,—For the defendant, Mr. Cresswell sub mitted that there was no evidence of conversion, as there was no refusal, and there was both demand and refusal to make out a conversion ; and all that Mr. Marriott had said was, " Very well."—His Lordship said, he thought there was no evidence as against the defendant.—Mr. Dnndas, for the Plaintiff, said, the bill was retained by the defendant's attor ney.—The Judge : Yes ; but it was held by him against the will of the defendant. A letter was then put in from Mr. Hodgson, then a clerk of Mr. Marriott's, stating that part of the costs and interest remained unpaid, and that the bills would be handed over to the plaintiff, on :payment of costs. —His Lordship thought this was sufficient to establish primd facie conversion.—Mr. CreSswell, for the defendant, said, that the pleadings only referred to the £lOO bill, and did not include the £3O order. The plaintiff was arrested for £3oss, but could not be arrested for interest, and therefore the de fendant still had a lien on the bills, and was entitled to hold the bills until the interest and costs were paid. The £lOO bill was endorsed to the plaintiff " without recourse," and therefore it was not worth one farthing to him. The plaintiff had issued two writs for the bill; and, he submitted, that, in point of law there was a balance still due, and therefore a lien on the bills ; and, however small that balance, the de fendant had a right to retain the hills till that sum was paid. No witness was called for the defence.—The learned Baron said, that the £lOO bill, being endorsed to the plaintiff "with out resource," was no more in effect than a promissory note, and was no more than Mr. Harrison's personal security. Time draft for £3l lOs was next given as collateral security. The question was, whether or no there was any interest or any costs due to Mr. Knight at the time of the demand for the restitution of the bills. There was an amount of £1 lOs added to the £3O 5s in the order for £3l 10s. If there was a right to add that LI lOs there was, no proof of that amount having been paid, and that remaining unpaid would give the defend ant alien on the bills. The jury found for the plaintiff, da mages ls, costs 40s. SATURDAY JOULE V. JACKSON Mr. Joule; an extensive brewer in Salford, brought this action against the defendant, who is a bailiff of Sir Oswald Mosley, baronet, lOrd of the manor of Manchester, to re cover possession of certain casks of his which the defendant had seized under a distress for rent, against William Brier ley, a publican, in Manchester, a tenant of Sir 0. Mosley. Mr. Cresswell was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman for the defendant. The question in this action was, whether the casks of brew ers, in Manchester, and, indeed, in all the district, were lia ble to be distrained by the landlord of a publican. The cus tom, it was proved, was, for brewers not to sell their casks, and that Mr. Joule had upon his invoices the words, "the barrels to be returned when empty, being never sold." In June last he supplied four casks or half barrels to Brierley, who, being in arrears of rent, his furniture and stock were seized by the defendant for the landlord. At that time two of the casks were empty, and the others contained porter. All of these casks were seized and sold under the execution. The only question was, whether the barrels in question were distrainable. . A verdict for 40s. damages was taken for the plaintiff, leave being given to the defendant to move to enter a •non suit, when the question of law will be fully argued. . WHITEHEAD V.. CHADWICK AND OTHERS: The plaintiff, in this case, is an attorney, and th e defen dants are surveyors of the highways for the parish of Middle ton. The action was brought to recover a sum of money due for work and labour done, but the proceedings did not pos sess the slightest interest. The. Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £l7l 2s. 3d. NALL V WILSON. The plaintiff in this case was John Nall, a butcher and cattle-dealer, at Manchester. The action was brought against the defendant, who is also a butcher, to recover the sum of £240 ss. ' being the balance of an account due from him for cattle. There had been dealings between the parties for cattle, for several years, to the amount of £7,000, and the sum soughtl to be recovered was the balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £240 53. HOLFORD V. DUNNRICT This was an action brought by Mr. John Holford, the owner of a house at Rusholme, about two miles from M an . cheater, to recover 'compensation for damages - done to the house, grounds, trees, shrubs, &c., by the defendant, Mr. William Dunnett, accountant, Manchester, who was tenant of the house, which was called Heald House, and about two acres of land for four years, at a yearly rent of £5O. The term was from Lady-day, 1836, and the• defendant left the house in April last. Several offers were made by the plain tiff's counsel to refer the matter, but they were refused. It appeared, that the defendant had removed a conservatory, a gate, and other articles, which he had before put down, on finding that the plaintiff refused to renew his lease. A con siderable body of evidence was laid before the jury, but it was totally uninteresting. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £lO. POTTER V. GREGOR This was an action to recover damages for false imprison ent. The plaintiff is a fishmonger, in Salford, and was in his fish from a company, described as ie habit of procu the Dublin Fish Conpany. --- in the course of his business he received a number of salmon-boxes, in which that fish is conveyed from one place to another. In the beginning of the present year he took two houses in Smithfield Market, Man chester, which wanted repair, and one of the salmon-boxes which he had by him was sent there to be used. Whilst it was lying there, some person connected with the company saw it, and gave information to the defendant, who was an agent of the company, and, by his directions, the plaintiff was taken into custody. He was lodged in the Shudehill lockup the whole night : the next morning he was examined before Sir Thomas Potter, and discharged. For this imprisonment the present action was brought. It was proved that the plaintiff suffered considerably from the effects of the night's mprisonment. On the part of the defendant it was eon ;ended, and witnesses .were called to prove that the police- --- officer who apprehended the plaintiff had acted upon his own authority. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, da- ages £lO. r - - - The Court adjourned at seven o'clock MONDAY. SHEFFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY V MACAULEY - - Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightnian appeared for the plain ifs.; Mr. Dundas. Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Cowling for the defendant The declaration stated that the defendant, who is a sur geon at Leicester, was the proprietor of twenty shares in the Sheffield and Manchester Railway Company, and that he was indebted to the company in the sum of £450, for four calls upon his shares. To this the defendant pleaded that he was not indebted in the manner and form described, and, secondly, that he was not a shareholder in the company in the manner and form alleged. Mr. CRESSWELL said, this was an action brought to reco ver from the defendant the amount of four separate calls made upon him in respect of his proprietorship of twenty shares in the company, which was established in 1837, for making a railway from Sheffield, in the west riding of the county of York, to Manchester, in the county of Lancaster. The pro ceedings in this action would be regulated according to the directions of the different clauses in the act of parliament. The jury'woutil be well avilirettat alien a concern of this sort was in progress, it was absolutely necessary that from time to time calls should be made upon the shareholders, and recovered without any great degree of difficulty, otherwise it would be impossible for them to be carried into execution. Accordingly, in this act of parliament there were provisions to recover calls, and the nature of the evidence which should be given was specified. He should, therefore, direct their attention to the various clauses in the act by which the di rectors were empowered to make calls, and describing the manner in which they were to proceed, if they found occasion, in courts of justice to recover those calls. The act of parlia-. meat was passed in May, 1837. After that had been done, and before they were to make any calls, of course it was ne cessary the directors should comply with one requisition of the act, namely, that all the capital of the company should be subscribed for, and until all of it had been so subscribed for, the directors were not authorised to take any steps to wards carrying the act into execution. The legislature, the jury would find, provided for evidence to be given that all the capital had been subscribed for; for, in section 107, it was enacted, that a certificate, Under the hand and seal of a. justice of the peace, should be given, that the whole £700,000 had been subscribed, and which certificate the justice was authorised and reqUired to give, upon due proof being given before him. He . (the learned counsel) should show that this preliminary matter had'been complied with, by the produc tion of the magistrateN certificate. That having been done, the statute required the company to make a register of the shareholders, by section 110, and he should show that this had been made. The 115th section enabled the directors, from time to time, as they should find it necessary, to carry the act into execution to make calls, no such call to exceed £lO on each share, and 21 days' notice to be given in one or more of the newspapers circulating in the counties of York; Lancaster,' Derby, and Chester. The proprietors were next required to pay the calls at such a time and in such a place as the directors appoint. The next' clause to which he would direct attention was the 116th, which pre scribed the mode of proceeding incase the calls which were made were not paid. The learned counsel read this clause. It. provided, that in case any proprietor neglected or refused to pay the instalment due upon his shares at the time and place and in the manner appointed by the directors, together with the interest, for two months after the day for paying the same, then it should be lawful for the company to sue the proprietor in any court of record ; the clause next provided, that the company might, if they pleased, forfeit the shares, but that no forfeiture should be acted upon, unless confirmed, not merely by the directors, but by a general meeting of the 'shareholders. In the 118th section, the legislature pointed out the mode in which the parties should proceed when an action was brought—the form of declaration and the nature of the evidence. His lordship would, of course, see whether the record was drawn in conformity with the act, and that upon the trial it would only be necessary to prove that the de fendant was a proprietor at the time of making such calls, that such notices of calls were given, without proving the ap pointment of directors who made such calls. In order to prove that the defendant was a proprietor at the time of such calls being made, the production of the register of share holders was prima fade evidence of the deendant being a proprietor, provided that the name of the defendant on the record agreed with that in the book. He (the learned coun sel) should shew by the register he should produce, of August, 1838, that the defendant was then a proprietor of twenty shares in this concern. He should complete this portion of the evidence by producing two newspapers which circulated in the four counties he had mentioned, and when he had done that, he should have proved the formal part of the evidence. He should next prove that on the 13th March, k3J, a call of £2los. was made, payable on the Ist May ; that on the 10th July, 1839, a call of £5 was made, payable on the 6th of August ; that on the 20th November, 1839, another call, was made, payable on the Ist of January, 1840 ; and on the 11th of March, 1840, a call of £lO, payable on the Ist of May, 1840. This would make, on the whole, £22 10s. per share. When he had given this evidence, he apprehended he should be entitled to the verdict of the jury, unless his learned friend could shew that the defendant was not a proprietor, or that he had paid his quota according to act of parliament. William Rhodes, a clerk in the office of the company, pro duced the register of shareholders, dated 29th August, 1838. The name of the defendant, Thomas Macauley, of Leicester, in the county of Leicester, surgeon, was therein registered as the proprietor of twenty shares. The witness next produced several books of proceedings of the directors, apd referred to an order of the 13th March, 1839, for a call of £2 .10s per share, to be paid on or before the Ist May. The proceedings of this meeting were signed by Mr. William Sidebottom, the chairman. Another call was made on the 10th of July, for £5 per cent., (the shares being £ lOO each , ) payab l e on or before the 6th August. This was also signed by Mr. William Sidebottom. On the 20th November, 1839, another call was made of £5 per share, payable on the Ist January, 1840. Another call of £lO was made on the 11th March, 1840, pay able on the Ist May. This was also signed by Mr. Sidebot tom. Witness could only say Mr. Sidebottom signed these calls from knowing his handwriting. Cross-examined by Mr. DUND AS.—The entr y of Mr. Macaulev's shares in the registry was in the handwriting of Mr. G. B. Johnson. Witness was not present at the general meeting. Witness himself wrote the order for the call of £2 10s. Mr. Thomson wrote the order for the call of the 10th July, 1839, for £5. He .wrote that. which was in pale ink, and the signature which was in dark ink. Witness went into the service of the company in October. 1838. Lord Wharncliffe was then the chairman, and Mr. William Side bottom was the deputy-chairman. There were sixteen direc tors. Mr. Sykes, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Bennett were then directors. Mr. Rawdall was not, but he became one at the general meeting of February, 1840. Mr. Thomson was secre. tary when witness entered the service of the company. Mr. Ward was secretary before him. Mr. Thomson was appointed July 13th, 1838, and witness read the terms of his appoint ment. The first general meeting after the act was passed was held on the 23d October, 1837. At that meeting a resolution was passed for appointing John Bennett,. of Manchester, Mr. Sykes, and Mr. Dalton directors, in the place of three others, who had retired. At that meeting another resolution was passed, for adjourning the meeting to the first Wednes day in February, 1838, and stating also, that in the meantime no call for money be made for carrying on the work. At the meeting on the 7th February, 1838, a. resolution was passed, " that the chairman of the meeting affix the company s seal to the share register." In this register the name of Mr. Macauley appeared for the same number of shares as in the former register. Witness here referred to the entry of the 18th April, and among other things found, it was ordered that the:subscription deeds and one copy of the magistrate's certificate should be sealed up, and deposited in the Man chester and Salford District Bank by the deputy-chairman; and then it was resolved that Mr. Vignoles be appointed en gineer for completing the work, upon the terms specified in his engagement; that Hadfield and Grave, of Manchester, and Mr. Parker,. of Sheffield, be appointed solicitors to the com pany. Then there was set out Mr. Vignoles' letter to " G. B. Johnson, Esq.," secretary to the company, detailing what he engaged to perform to the company. Mr. 'Johnson was a per son who kept the books. Witness does not know whether there was any treasurer appointed. On the 9th October 1839, Lord Wharncliffe in the chair, a meeting was held, at which it was moved by Mr. Ellison, seconded by Mr. Bennett, and carried unanimously, that a special general meeting be called on the 25th October, to determine the expediency of enforc ing the payment of arrears on calls already made by the di rectors, and whether any and what remuneration the engi neer was entitled to receive in consideration of his services in surveying and setting out the line. On the 25th October, the special general meeting was held in the Cutlers' Hall, Sheffield. Lord Wharncliffe was in the chair ; and his lord ship stated, that the meeting was saved the necessity of con sidering the second subject, as a letter had been received from the engineer, withdrawing all claim for remuneration beyond his contract. Then there was an enumeration of the arrears of calls ; and after a full explanation from the chairman of the causes why they had not been enforced, a resolution was passed, by which the meeting expressed a fall reliance that the directors would carry into proper effect the powers of the act for enforcing the payment of calls in arrears, and for forfeiting shares on which there were calls in arrears ; and that they deemed it most desirable to leave the matter to the discretion of the directors, and not to lay down any fixed rule for their government. (Mr. Cresawell said there was a duplicate book of the same meeting in which the entry was made rather better sense. In this book the words or forfeiting were substituted for and forfeiting.) Wit ness believed that there was another book containing an entry of this meeting at Sheffield. A rough draft book was kept by the secretary of what was to be done at the meetings. On.the 4th December, 1839, there was a board meeting held, Mr. Sidebottom in the chair. There was an entry in the proceedings of that meeting, of Mr. Vignoles having ten dered his resignation as engineer, which was accepted, and a resolution passed stating, that there was no blame to be attached to his professional character. A subsequent reso lution related to his giving information to his successor, and to the appointment of a sub-committee, to receive from him a correct schedule of the shares held for him by parties to whom he had given indemnity, preparatory to the board de termining upon the course to be pursued with reference to those shares. The Manchester and Liverpool District Bank, at Manchester, and Messrs. Parker, Shaw and Co. were the bankers•for the company , at Sheffield. Witness had paid money into 'and received from the District Bank on account of the company. Witness could not refer to the appoint ment of the bankers. The secretary paid money. On the ' 31st August; 1840, Mr. John Parker, M. P., signed, as chairman, the proceedings of the meeting, thanking Lord Wharncliffe on the occasion of his retirement from the office of chairman of the company. Mr. parker was solicitor to the company, but witness did not know that he was clerk before he was solicitor. Re-examined. —Tire second call of the 6th April, 1839, for £2 10s. per share, was advertised in the Leeds Mercury and the Manchester Courier, of April 6th. These advertise ments were signed " Charles Thomson ' clerk and secretary." The third call was advertised in the ,Sheffield Independent and Sheffield Mercury. Mr. Durams,said lie would admit that the calls were duly advertised. . . Mr. DUNDAS.—Do you know whether . any notices about the calls were sent out to Mr. Vignoles' friends before June ? Mr. CitEsswnm. objected to this question. Mr. DuxiiAs repeated the question in another form. The witness said he' had no recollection of any notice being sent to Mr. Macauley., of the call. Circulars were sent round to all the shareholders. Mr. CRESSWELL put in a proxy to vote at a general meet ing, signed by Mr. Macauley. It was signed 16th Dec. 1837, and appointed Mr. J. S. Sidebottom, of Waterside, Derby shire, to vote for him. - This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. DUNDAS said he had an objection to take under the 115th section of the act. By that section the several pro prietors of shares in the capital stock of the company were required to pay the calls made . upon them " to such person, at such time, in such place, and in such manner; as the di rectors of the said company shall from time to time direct for the use of the said undertaking." Now in the resolution of the directors for the call on the 13th March, 1838, there was no direction of any place, where, or any person, to whom the call should be paid, nor of the way in which it should be paid. Mr. CIIESSWELL said he should not answer this objection, as his lordship had disposed of it already - at Durham. Mr. COWLING begged his learned friend's pardon. The learned judge had reserved the point for him (Mr. Cowling). The learned JUDGE said the calls were intended to be paid in such a manner, in such times and places, as the directors should from time to time appoint. In his judgment the re solution was what the directors had done among themselves ; but if the objection extended to that, it was certainly not what the act meant. The act, he considered, meant the no tice by which the public should be informed when and where and to whom. the calls should be paid, and that appeared in the advertisement. If, however, there was any thing in the objection, it was fatal ; but he should overrule it, giving the defendant leave to move for a nonsuit upon that ground. Mr. CRESSWELL said he did not think there were any di rections as to the places of payment in any of the calls ; and if this objection were to be fatal there would be au end to the case. the four calls ; but there was another to which he would call his lordship's attention. In the resolution of the 13th March, for the first call, it was not for a call from' the date of that resolution, but for a call on a future day. This he appre hended could not be done. The entry stated that on the 13th March a resolution was passed, ordering a call to be made on the 30th March, payable on the 30th May. The JUDGE said it might be a blundering way of transact ing business, but he should overrule the objection with leave to move. Mr. COWLING then objected that the book and entries of the directors' proceedings were not evidence against the de fendant. By the 109th section they must be proved to be signed by the gentleman who acted as chairman of the meet ing ; but the witness could not prove the signatures to the • proceedings to be in the handwriting of Mr. Sidebottom. _ Mr. CRESWELL thought his learned friend, Mr. Dundas had exercised a sound discretion in not making this objection and_in leaving it to his learned friend Mr. Cowling. The prO- ceedings were signed by Mr. Sidebottotn, as chairinan ; then was evidence that lie 'acted as chairman ; and therefore no further evidence was required. Mr. Wion•rmAN quoted the latter part of the claim to shew that the book of proceedings was to be read without proof of the meeting being called, or of the signature of the chairman. All of these were to be presumed. The JtiDGE overruled the objection, but reserved the point. Mr. DUNDAS then addressed the jury on the part of the defendant. After a few remarks upon the advantages which railway and other companies had in courts of law over ordinary plaintiffs, he said he was there on the part of the plaintiff, Mr, Macauley, to answer why it was that he resisted this claim, and why he ventured to put him self before a jury to maintain him in his resistance.— . The defendant said in the was a proprietor, which he denied first place, that if h, the directors had ab- ;olved him from all liability with reference to these calls and that the claim they now set up was in breach of good Mr. Macaulay said that. for cvant of evi knee he could not prove this, and therefore, he fell back upon his right of the law, and said to the_company, " If you fix me as a pro- prietor by law, you shall bylavi be judged, and I will slew you that within that act of porliawent I am no proprietor at His defence, therefore was two-fold directors had discharged him from liability ; next that they made this claim upon him in breach of good faith. His learned friend Mr. Cresswell had told them that this concern began in .1837, the date of the act of parliament ! It was a very large concern ; £700,000 were to be subscribed in shares of £lOO each, and there were various enactments in the.bill for securing such a proprrty. Mr. CRESSWELL begged his learned friend's pardon for interrupting him ; he had forgotten to put in the magistrate's certifi,'ate Mr. DUNDAS would consider it as read Mr. CRESSWELL put the document in. itpurported to be signed by J. F. Rister t Esq Mi. DuNDAs continued The company seemed from the first to have been involved in great difficillts Numbers of persons had subscribed, but in 1837 there was still wanting a considerable amount of subscriptions to carry on the concern , and the compulsory powers of the act could not be enforced till the list was full: A great number of persons wl their scrip would not register, and many who had wer tremely anxious to sell o had Very active measures were taken by persons, who, on this occasion, he might c4ll nluits," to break up the company ; and imd, . . cumstances, the company, through their agents, officers, and directors, tried to excite Mr. Vignoles, the engineer, by every means in their power, to purchase as much of the scrip as he could. He did so, and in that way the subscription list was filled. , In November in that year:he was pressed, right and left, by the persons belonging to the company, to make some bold measure, to strike some chew of operations upon the share market, in order to support the credit of the concern. Mr. Vignoles, who was a person of very warm and ardent views in these matters, thought he was justified in taking the steps he did, which was to make a very large purchase, to the amount of between 1300 andl4oo shares, a liability . . that not he, nor twenty such, could withstand This was perfectly well known to'the company. Mr. Leeds, a broker at Manchester, was introduced as a person through whom he might make these purchases, and through this gentleman a very large investment was made by Mr. Vig►►oles. After this the concern seemed to have got new life. The marketbeing thus lightened, the subscription list in the month of April was tilled up ; then and not till then the concern went on ; but up to the present day, he believed, the -shares were worth nothing at all. The jury should judge whether the conduct of the gentlemen who had the management of the concern had not contributed to that. The company at its origin had for its . . chairman a nobleman whose name was a tower of strength, Lord Wharncliffe—a man of the highest honour, of the most strict integrity, and of the most excellent conduct both in public and private affairs. Of course, the noble lord's busi ness took him much to London, and though his lordship attended meetings occasionally, the management of affairs was in the hands of other parties. Mr. William Sidebottom was appointed deputy chairman. There Were 14 directors besides them, and in the management of these persons from the passing of the act to the 7th of June in the present year was the foundation and government of the whole concern. The market, by the purchase of Mr. Vignolles from Mr. Leeds, being lightened of pressure, and the concern restored to integrity, it then became a question with whom Mr. Vignolles's shares had been lodged. Mr. Viguolles handed them over to friends who acted as trustees for him ; his (Mr Dundas's) client to day was one, for he had no earthly interest in the concern, having never paid one farthing to wards it or taken any interest in it whatever. True, a proxy had been put in, but it was mere waste paper, for his client had nothing to do with the concern except his name having been given to Mr. Vignolles for 20 shares. Every person who could thus be got to act as a friend to Mr. Vignolles took so many votes • if he had 20 shares, for in stance, he had 20 votes, and ' the jury would see at once the advantage the company had in being backed by Mr. Viguolles and his friends. So went on the concern. The first regis tration of any proprietor—of Mr. Macauley himself—did not take place till February 1838. Before that the whole lay in scrip shares ; there were no shares properly so called, be cause there had been no register prepared. Some calls were made in the course of next year, but no charge was made against the defendant, no demand was made upon him, no steps were taken against him,—in fact, he was not looked to by the company for any payment with reference to these shares. These calls were made in 1839 ; and about the 25th October, 1839, there arose, for the first time, a consideration of what should be done as to the arrears of the calls upon the shares bought by Mr.Vignolles, and transferred to his friends. Just before the general meeting, in October, 1839, negocia tions were set on foot to relieve Mr.Vignolles from the charge of engineer to the company. There was a requisition for calling upon the subscribers in general, to know what should be done with Mr. Vignolles' shares, and a special general meeting was held for that purpose in effect, although the re quisition did not mention Mr. Vignolles in terms, and also for considering upon what terms he should be discharged from his office. Lord Wharncliffe was in the chair at that meeting. The matter was fully discussed, and the share holders came to the unanimous opinion, that the directors should exercise their discretion with regard to the expediency of calling upon the parties in arrear to pay. The meeting also decided that Mr. Vignolles' resignation should be accepted. Immediately after that meeting had dissolved, a board meeting was held—there was no evidence of the fact, but still he could prove it —Lord Wharncliffe and some other directors of the company were present, and they exercised their discretion. That meeting thought that in duty and in conscience the shares purchased by Mr. Vig nolles from Mr. Leeds, the object of it having been effected, should be forfeited, and he be discharged from all liability with respect to them. It was so stated to Mr. Vignolles by Lord Wharncliffe and Mr. Sidebottom, who came out of the committee room for the purpose of communicating it to him. From first to last the negotiation was carried on in perfect good faith, as might be expected when Lord Wharncliffe was a party. So stood the matter. Mr. Vignolles believing he was released from responsibility, took no steps in the busi ness ; when to his infinite astonishment, he found, after the matter had been slumbering seven or eight months, 011 the 7th June—although he (Mr. Dundas) found no entry of it in the book of proceedings, he should be able to prove it—the directors resolved that Mr. Vignrilles should still be held liable for all the past calls upon his shares, besides two calls made in 1840, since the time of the arrangement made with him that the shares should be considered as forfeited. This resolution of the directors was carried by a majority of 'one only ; there being seven to six that Mr. Vignolles should be held answerable. Was this fair play ? Could any one doubt it was a breach of faith? Lord Wharncliffe, who voted in the minority, was so sensible of the ill conduct of his brother directors, that like a man of conscience and honour, he re nounced the chairmanship, and he retired from the direction of a concern in which the parties he was connected with bad not the same sense that he had of what was due to a man's word. Did not the jury think that Mr. Macauley, having now being called upon for the first time for the pay ment of four calls, was justified in saying he was relieved from all responsibility • and when there had been a breach of the engagement in taking advantage of points of law under the act of parliament ? Such was the history of the first part of Mr. Macauley's defence; the other part rested upon legal points which he (Mr. Dundas) would address to the learned jndge. On the evidence as it stood there was no register of proprietors till February, 1838, and then, for the first time, Mr. Macauley's name appeared as a registered proprietor. He was not an original subscriber, therefore he must have been made a proprietor under the terms of the act of parlia ment. Notice had been givento produce the transfers under which Mr. Macauley was a purchaser. If they were produced he should see whether they proved what the act required be fore a person could by law become a proprietor. Mr. Macauley, if he purchased the shares at all, purchased them from some one who was no proprietor; he might have pur chased them from some one who was the possessor of scrip but who could not at the time be a proprietor because the holder of stock was no proprietor till he was registered, anti no one was registered till February, 1838. The learned counsel quoted the 10th section of the act in support of this position, contending that until the register had been sealed no holder could legally transfer his shares. Another ob jection he should take was that a certificate ought to have been given by the seller to Mr. Macauley, because without it there could be no memorial of a transfer or sale, and the seller continue liable on the productio n of the transfer ; if it were produced, he should see what was the consideration upon the face of it, for that must be duly stated according to the 55 George 111, chap. 84. Mr. CREsswELL asked whether his learned friend meant to contend that his client had stated that on the transfer which was false ? Mr. DUN DAS dare d say that Mr. Ma.auley, when he signed the transfer, did not care farthing for the consi deration, for he was a mere nominee. When that instru ment was produced, he (Mr. D.) should see wheth er t h e num b ers were properly inserted , which he apprehended was necessary. There were other objections, which went to the root of the whole direction. The first of these was; that there had not been, since 'October 1837, any legal direction )ort of this the learned counsel cited the section enacted that the directors should _ _ 3t meeting of proprietors, by those then t that meeting there were no proprietors, be- The.thing was absolutely and' appointed. In silt 146th section. Th entirely void. 'The learned counsel also cited the 152nd sec tion. It was in evidence that at the first general meeting, Mr. Sykes, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Bennett, were elected directors ; but he apprehended, as they were not proprietors, every thing done by , them was invalid, and went for nothing The Jun Gr. asked how that point was Mr. DUNDAS replied that = they could not be proprietors, inasmuch as they were not registered, there being no register. The other directors were appointed by the act of Parliament. Now of these three, two, Messrs. Dalton and Bennett, were in the majority of 7, which repealed whathad been done before for releasing Mr. Vignolles from liability. This would havegiven a majority for Mr. Vignoles. Another objection related to the qualification of the directors. There was no treasurer to the company, but the Manchester and Liverpool District Bank did that duty. Now, Mr. Sidebottom, deputy chair man of this company, was a shareholder and deputy chair man of this bank • Mr. Dalton was a shareholder in it, so also was Mr. iandal. He apprehended, therefore, that these three persons by being partners and having an interest in the bank, were disqualified as directors, according to the 150th section. If Mr. Sidebottom was disqualified - under this section, an express part of the direction had not been . appointed, and there was not a sufficient direction to carry on the affairs which the law had cast upon them. The learned counsel, after a few general remarks, concluded his • Mr. CROMPTON called upon the other side for the original deed of subscription, stating that notice had been given to produce it. Mr. CRESSWELL said it would not be produced. Mr. CROMPTON next called for the transfer of shares from Thomas Wylie of Sheffield to the defendants. Mr. CRESSWELL produced it. It purported to be dated on the 16th December, 1837; that the shares were num bered from 1419 to 1431, and the consideration was £lB 15s. Mr. CROMPTON observed, that in the book there was a memorial of these shares having been entered in the register on the 10th of January, 1838, signed by Mr. Ward. Mr. George B. Johnson said he was under-secretary to the company before the passing of the act, and afterwards a book keeper in the service of the company. He prepared two re gisters of shares, A. and 8., which he has no doubt are those now produced. Witness has seen the subscription deed ; the defendant was not a party to it. Thomas Wylie was a perty to it: Remembers an opposition being got up to the railway. The concern was sleeping at that time. It was in the latter part of 1837. The subscription list was not then filled up. The witness was asked whether Mr. Vignolles had not interfered, at the request of the directors, about the shares ; but Mr. CRESSWELL objected to the question, and the JUDGE held thembsectign valid._ • In cross-examination by Mr. CRESSWELL, said there was a book kept for the memorials of the register of transfers. Ite-examined.—No seal was kept on that book. It was written short, and every half-year copied into the sealed transfer. Mr. Edward Leeds said he was a sharebroker, at Man chester. Witness negociated the transfer of shares produced. The witness was asked what consideration was paid for the shares, and Mr. CRE3SWELL objected to the question. The learned Judge allowed the objection, but said he would take a note of the point. Mr. T. S. Eldrin, a clerk from Somerset House, produced an examined copy of the proprietors and shareholders of the Manchester and Liverpool District Bank. Mr. CRESSW ELL objected to the reception of this evidence Mr. CROMPTON cited act 7 Geo. IV. ch. 16, section 6. to show that this return was made evidence in all cases. objection WELL said, after this he would not press the The witness then produced the return, from which it ap peared that Mr. Sidehottom, Mr. Randall, and Mr. Dalton It was admitted that Mr. Sidebottom was the deputy-chair in and a director of that bank in 1837, and had continued so ever since Durir the progress of this evidence, a number of ques tions were put by the defendant's counsel, which were dis allowed. Eventually the learned judge took a note to this " Mr. Dundas tenders evidence to show that there •eement between some of the directors and Mr. that Mr. Vignolles, at the instigation of the nduced the defendant and a number of other per- was an agr Vignolles . n agreement to indemnify them from all liability, to take_ shares; that they did take them accordingly; that afterwards some of the directors, at a board meeting, of which there is no entry in the books, agreed that those should be forfeited.—l think this amounts to no forfeiture, and refuse to receive the evidence as irrelevant." This was the defendants' case. sons, by ,sswELL, in a brief reply, vindicated the proceed- A verdict was then returned for the plaintiffs, damageS £465, subject to the decision on the points of law. In seventeen other causes, dependent upon similar points, verdicts for the several amounts, were recorded for the plain tiffs. The business of the assizes terminated at half-past three in the afternooon, having occupied exactly three weeks. HEARNE y. STOWELL The following letter has been addressed to the editor of the Times:— " SIR,—As much misapprehension prevails in reference to the case in which I was involved . at the recent Liverpool Assizes, will you oblige me and serve the cause of truth, by . allowing me, through the medium of your journal, to assure the public that the document which I read at a public meeting in Manchester, and which constituted the ground of trial, was neither fiction nor forgery, and that I was as little deceived as deceiving in giving it publicity ? There are at least four credible witnesses who are prepared to authenticate the narrative in every particular. These were in court during the time of the trial, besides a num ber of witnesses ready to prove that the imposition of degrading penances upon her members is alike the princi ple and the practice of the church of Rome. Why, then, it will naturally be asked, was not all this evidence ad duced ? There, Sir, there was the fatal mistake : my dis tinguished counsel considering the action to he, as it in reality was, utterly frivolous and vexatious, declined al- together calling witnesses, and rested ;his defence mainly on ;a :point of law. That point the judge so determined as to leave the jury no alternative but to return th 6 verdict which they did. Deeply do I deplore the course which was r ustled, and which was contrary to my judgment and wishes lowever, we have abundant room as well as reason to move for a fresh trial. This will be done with as little delay as possible, and then, if the Lord spare us, the fullest evidence shall be laid before the public. Till then I would intreat them to suspend their judgment on the case. Let me just add, that had I omitted the priest's name in the narrative which I read, there could not have been even the shadow of a pretext for charging me with defamation, but I thought it more manly and straightforward to give the document as it stood, pledging myself to afford the Romanists opportunity to test its genuineness, should they require it. Of this promise they might have peacefully availed them selves, but they chose rather to make no application to me on the subject, save through an attorney's letter. " am, Sir, your obedient servant, " HUGH STOWELL THE LATE MRS. HENRY CUTTS, OF CARBURTON It is with feeling recur to the a s of the most painful nature that we agair Every circum stance connected with the brief but eventful life of this de praved woman, far exceeds those detailed in fiction. Young, handsome, accomplished, and of the most captivating man ners, apparently artless and ingenuous, her heart appears to have been " deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." The cool and systematic manner in which she for months kept administering poison to an affectionate husband ; the pleasure with which she witnessed his daily and ni s htly sufferings, the gradual wasting of his frame, and the total deprivation of the use of his limbs appear too monstrous for belief. But yet these are, unhappily, facts beyond the possi bility of a doubt. Nor does it appear that her murderous ef forts were confined to her unsuspecting husband, for it has been also ascertained that poison had been administered by her to the household servants and farm labourers in his ser • vice. We feel it necessary to make this preliminary state ment lest any of our readers might be ignorant of the facts stated on oath upon the inquest held in October last upon the mother of her husband, when the corpse of the old lady was disinterred, in order that the charge Of having poisoned her mother-in-law by means of small doses of arsenic might be investigated before the coroner. Mrs. H. Cutts had been placed at that time under the surveillance of the police at her hUsband's residence, and in formation was brought to the inquest-room that she bad effected her escape from their custody. Nothing was heard of her until July last, when Mr. Cutts had intelligence of her at intervals. Shortly since, her husband was informed that she was entitled to some copyhold property at Bolsover, under the will of her father lately deceased, and Mr. Cutts finding it necessary that they should be admitted to it. and also being anxious to make a competent provision for her, he authorised Mr. Payne, the solicitor,. of Nottingham, to go to Chester field, and find out the wretched woman, whom he saw there, rred by her to Mr. Drabble, her attorney, in that Cutts offered to settle on her the whole of the :m cut ui lady refusedto come tc.EZ less £3tlo were first given to her. After re- interviews with Mr. and Mrs. H. Cutts, their Bed that they shonld meet in the presence of ►nd the tryistees ; and it was ultimately arranged that Mr. Cutts should give her £lOO down, and adhere to the first proposition 'as to the se ttl emen t. In addition to this the watch and chain purchased on his mar riage, together with the elegant wearing apparel (the most costly part of which had been obtained with money secretly purloined from her husband), 'trinkets, &c., were given up to her ; . and it is but; justice to Mr. Cutts to say, that Mr. Bagshaw, the lady's uncle, declared that gentleman's con duct to be " handsome and liberal in the extreme." This agreement was completed on the Saturday, and Mrs. H. Cutts remained at Chesterfield.until the Wednesday, when she took her departure for Worksop, in company with a cele brated swell coachman well known here and at Retford. Her conduct at Mr. Evaus's inn, at Chesterfield, on the above-named Saturday, was very extraordinary and alarming; and such was the apprehension. entertained from her ex citement that the stomach-pump was resorted to. She was known to be in the habit of taking exciting drugs. and dur ing one of the paroxysms she gave the sum of £BO to Miss Evans, and her-gold watch to her brother ; but of course they were given up to her again. From this period up to that of her death, Mr. Cutts was totally ignorant of whither had gone, until Saturday week, when he received Bence of her appalling death. Accompanied by one brothels, he immediately proceeded to Miss Sankey's, at New Terry. It appears that during her residence' at New Ferry, she had represented herself to be the Hon. bliss and at other times as - the Hon. Miss A. Coop er, Coutts, r of W a t n all-ball, Nottinghamshire. We are. i n f ormed that ' she had previously lodged at two pl aces b efore she went to Miss Sankey s, and that she was in the habit of getting so intoxicated and excited, that the people of the house were obliged to watch her when under these.eircumstances, lest she should set herself or the houses on fire. There is no doubt that this fatal propensity caused her death. When she lived with her husband she was guiity of this practice, and she was always anxious to have a candle burning in her bedroom at night. It is PrOls^ ' ' 1 night in which she was burnt to death that s' le that on the f the was intoxii the cinders of a stocl oaaaey ueuvered to Mr. H. Cutts a mass of letter's from noblemen and gentlemen with whom the guilty woman bad been corresponding • some of them were very curious, containing highly-inflated affectionate assurances. To some of these admirers she represented • herself as the victim of treacherous guardian, to others that her husband had obtained .possession of her property, leaving her without funds. By these artful sc h emes she obtained from time to time consi derable sums of money I one man of high rank making her frequent rernittances. n some letters she is addressed as " My. dear Mary Anne," and the copies of h er r ep lie s breathe the spirit of youthful fervour _and affection. From. delicacy to tliose who would suffer from the exposure of their connections, the names of these writers are suppressed. Mrs. Cutts' maiden name was Mary Steele, and not Mary ; she was born at Palterton, near Bolsover, in the icounty of Derby, in 1919. Her late father was an opulent man, and highly esteemed by ,all his neighbours. She was married to Mr. H: Cutts on the 14th January i 1838 and died on the I4th ultimo. —Nottingham Journal. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—FnmAI STEALING A SHAWL A miserable-lookingwoman was brought up, charged with stealing a shawl from Mrs. Ridgeway, a lodging-house keeper n Park-lane ; also, with having pledged the same with a pawnbroker in town. Mrs. Ridgeway stated that on Wednesday night she met the prisoner in Park-lane, in a state of intoxication ; and ti ,risoner having recognised her, begged some money, wh was refused. She then took witness's shawl from h iers, conveyed it to a pawnbroker's shop, and _ I shilling. Witness gave inform a tio n t o th e police, and _ _ her apprehended. The pawnbroker being called upon, produced the shag and identified the prisoner. who was sentenced to be impr soned for three months. CAUTION TO PAWNBROKERS Thomas Timmons, a boy ten years old, was a ccused of stealing a table-cloth from Mr. Beasley; with whom he had been employed, and pledging the same with Mr. Holland, pawnbroker, Scotland-road. Mr. Beasley said he engaged the prisoner to keep an office he had in town. For some time past several articles were missed from the premises, and, having suspected the pri soner, he discharged him. Afterwards he employed him to attend upon his sister-in-law, from whose house the pi isoner had stolen a table-cloth and pledged it. The mother of the boy stated, that when the table-cloth was brought home she inquired where he had got it, and being told that he had received it from his employer, .slie directed him to take it to a pawnbroker, as she was in want of money. Mr. Beasley thought the pawnbroker was greatly to Man and suggested that he should be inquired at as to whether was customary to take goods from children of ten years Mr. Rushton was convinced that the pawnbrokers shoul be checked. No good would be done till five or six of thes individuals were indicted. Every day some one or other of these cases were brought up. The mother of the ho - - yielded to poVerty, but the pawnbroker had no exctu had taken the article without any questions, and Ig have known that a child ten years old could not honest tain possession of a table-cloth so valuable as that offeret He considered the pawnbroker highly culpable, and said 11 would remand the prisoner till Saturday. The prisoner was remanded accordingly. STRIKING A SAILOR ON THE HIGH SEAS - Riley, chief iiateo - f - tfieship Mary, was charged wit flogging and otherwise striking John Cornish, a seaman i the said vessel, whil e on h er voyage from Bombay.to Live' pool. _ _ _ The complainant stated that he had been flogged and struck by the chief mate while in the performance of his duty, and that his health had been materially injured thereby. He also accused the chief mate with having applied offensive names, and done everything to torment him during the in - defence, Riley admitted that he had struck the pri soner, but denied that he had done him apy bodily harm. He called several witnesses who proved that when Cornish was shipped he was suffering from disease, and quite incom petent to act as an able seaman. Mr. Rushton said the best way would be, when seamen shipped themselves in a diseased state, thatthc captain should refuse to pay them, and then it would be a question whetbe they were entitled to any wages, and if any, what He condemned the system of heating seas complainant could not substantiate his char„ miss the case WITH INTEN was placed g round under ver ses of N heard an unusual r ,fterwar appreher E STE RDAV SUSPICION 01' ENTERING A HOUS] COMMIT FELONY A young man of the name of Edward before Mr. Rushton, on a charge of bein suspicious circumstances,_ on the preen. shopkeeper, Islington night, about half-past k yard, ar whom he had a 'scuffle, and who w in the entry. He afterwards found that a bedroom window, which his boy had closed a few minutes before, was opened ; that a hair-brush, a clothes-brush, and the looking-glass, (the last soiled by some one's hands), had been placed on the floor of the room, apparently in readiness to be carried away. He alarmed the watchman, who found the prisoner in the entry. A young man also stated that he saw the pri soner in the act of dropping from the yard wall, about two minutes before he was apprehended,• and assisted Mr. Lister to seize him. Mr. Lister produced a pick-lock, found on' the spot where the prisoner was detained; and a brace-button, which corresponded with those on his trousers, on which there was one wanting, picked up in the yard. He was remanded until this day. ROBBERY FROM A SHOP, A youth named John Knowles.was charged with having, on Saturday night, between eight and nine o'clock, stolen a cap -om a shop. He was seen by the shop-keeper, and was sken while in the act of putting it on. He stated that he aw a lad running away with it, and he took it from him, Then he was caught. He was committed to gaol for fourteen ATTACK ON A GENTLEMAN William 'Wallace, a young man of bad character, was ,laced at the bar. The police officer stated that, about 12 >'elock on Saturday night, he saw the prisoner and a num )er of other desperate characters surrounding and endeavour ng to rob a gentleman who was intoxicated, at the bottom of 3loucester-street, where there was a gang of them constantly m the look-out for passengers. The prisoner was sent to lard labour for a month. HARGE OF STEALING WHISKY ON BOARD OF A VESSEL. Jasan Swain. the carpenter of the ship Ambassador, wa ;barged with having abstracted a quantity of whisky out of !.ask belonging to the ship. It. api 3ad been taken out of bond on board the ship. Suspicion on the prisoner from his appearing to be intoxicated, that ie had abstracted some of it, and his chest being searched here was found in it a large bottle containing whisky. He was remanded until this day, so that further evidence might . )c produced. Lredthat six Puncheon SMUGGLING An old black man, named John Smith, was complained of by a white gentleman, named Mr. James Crow, of the Cus toms, who had found in his possession about 71b of foreign manufactured tobacco, of the kinds known as negro-head and Cavendish. Prisoner said he brought it for his own use. Mr. Rushtcn said that he knew full well that in bringing it on shore he was doing an illegal act, and remanded him till Thursday, at the instance of the agent for the Custom house. ROBBERY BY A VI BOTES A T.: A respectable-looking young man, named John Hollins head, was charged by his employer, a shopkeeper, with taking several articles of dress, consisting of gloves, &e., which were found in his trunk. The prisoner was remanded until further inquiry should be made. ASSAULTING A POLICE-OFFICER Simon Cummins, and five others, were charged with a violent assault on a police-officer, in Upper Mann-street, while in the execution of his duty. It appeared that the prisoners and two others bad been fighting, and making a disturbance in the street. The officer endeavoured to restore quiet, and was finally, it appeared, at the instigation of Cummins, set upon by the whole eight, who knocked him down, beat and abused him, and tore his clothes. The whole of the prisoners (the two other aggressors having es- Gaped; were afterwards apprehended in Cummins's house. The evidence against the five not named was not complete as to identification, and they were discharged with a strong caution.—Cummins was required to pay a fine of £5, or bu imprisoned for two Months. ASSAULTING AN OFFICER Robert Peters, William Peters, and Samuel Scott, three genteel-looking young men, were charged with being disor. derly in the streets, and afterwards with assaulting a police officer. They offcred no defence. A respectable eicle male, mother of the two brothers Peters, stated the bad all been well-behaved until recently, when she had covered that they frequented a notorious public-house in Knight-street. She appealed to the magistrate to have the house put down, by withdrawing the license. Several of the officers corroborated the testimony of the witness relative to the house; and instructions were immediately given to institute proceedings against it. The three young men were each fined for the assault 20s. and costs. LIST OF PASSENGERS PER THE BRITANNIA. SEPT. 4, 1840 FOR HALIFAX.—Lord Falkland, Lady Falkland, Hon Master Falkland and suite, Miss E. Hill, Moore, Mrs. Macdonald, Miss Aitken, M Bunker, Alexander Morris, Esq., Mrs.Mo____ ' . Scadding, Fred. Paull, Esq., John B oger t, Esq_ „..__ E. Ross, Esq., James Farish, Esq., and Mrs. Farish, James Osborne, Esq., and Mrs. Osborne. John Torrance, Esq., and Mrs. Torrance, Andrew Brand, Esq., W. H. Jeffery, Esq., Edward Oliver, Esq. Count de Barreul, Wm. Lovett, Esq., M. Worms, Esq., Rev. George Bradburne, J. Wood, Esq., Ineutenant Blackburn, 85th regiment, E. Billing, Esq., R. F. Maitland, Esq., J. Greig, Esq., Rev. W. Sommerville, Thos. G. Taylor, Esq., Edw. Nickols, Esq., John Fraser, Esq., Rev. M. Ritche, Benjn. Davis, Esq., Jos. Rose, Esq., Robt. Watson, Esq., Mr. Jos. Thompson, Mr. Jno. Barker Mr. J. Richardson, Mr. Geo. Barton, Mr. Gc Mr. Wm. Johnson. FOR BOSTON. — Alexander Brown, Esq. family, Mrs. Cunningham, Alfred Waller Waller, W. H. Clarke, Esq., E. Vt Beck, Esq., S. Adams, jun., Esq., S. Oakford, Esq., E. H. R. Lyman, Esq man, Esq., J. Lawton, Esq., J. C. Johnston, Esq Long, Esq., J. H. Greene, jun., Esq., T. C. H. P Esq., M. Joseph Bigwood, Esq., Charles Homer, J. F. C. Vies. Esq., J. de Castro Foubla, Esq., R Haller, Esq., David Been, Esq., Peter Allen, Esq., Ar Hilliary, Esq., H. A. Newton, Esq., Richard A. Poole, and Master Poole, Samuel Charlesworth, W. Esq., Fletcher, Esq., J. W. Burke, Esq., and Mr. i Franklin s. Boy Rev. 'Henry rs. Bro T. Tryon, Esq., Ed D. B. Stracy, Es( J. Moore Nor The number of visiters to the Zoological Gardens, London in the month of August, was 16,248, from whom upwards o £6lO was taken. HARD CASH. -" Musket balls, full bore," were a legal tender in Massachusetts, in 1656, and were current for a farthing a, piece, provided no man was compelled to take above 12 at the time. Mr. Richard Smith, of Broad-stre e t, in this city, has suc ceeded in so c ross i ng t h e b ean as to produce a beautiful va riety, plump, fleshy, and of a fine flavour. It is a cross be tween a foreign common horse-beau and the broad-I it is very remarkable to observe which has taken place in six years its stages, and pronounce it Gazett( radual improvemeu We have seen it in all great acquisition By an act of the legislature, which became law on the 11th August Warden'arid Fellows," heretofore Collegiate Church of Manches: by•the Chapter of tl _h to cease, end the warden is to be Dean," and the Fellows Canons," of Mancheste M ajesty There is at .present the eldest son of a member of her government, a youth of seventeen, wandering about the streets without a shoe to his foot, and denied relief by his father, and threatened with a police officer if he goes to the house ! So much for whig-radical parental affection ! OXALIC ACID.—It may be important to mention, espe. cially in this suicide -loving age, that two ounces of magne- sia, mixed with about a quart of water, or the same quantity of common whitening, thrown into the stomach by any means (the stomach-pump being readiest and most preferable on such occasions), will effectually neutralise and rendei inert this most active poison. Novue SCENE. — On Saturday last, the village -.. church of High Holyhead, presented a rather pectacle. The Right Rev. Athanasius Abdelinesih, a Syrian Jacobite bishop, from Diarbekir, in Mesopotamia, and his interpreter, Mr. Joussuf Mussaili, from Aleppo, were on a Ti,it to the Rev. Dr. Wolff, L.L.D., D.D., Curate of Iligh Holyhead, with whom the bishop had contracted a friendship when the doctor was in Mesopotamia. It having been pre viously announced th a t t h e r i g h t rev. bi shop wou ld present himself at church that day, and would deliver an address in the Arabic language, which Dr. Wolff would interpret, a very great sensation was excited in the neighbourhood. The church was crowded to excess, and many hundreds could not gain admittance. The estimated number present was from two to three thousand persons. The rev. gentleman congratulated the Christian church. in England on the near affinity it bore to the oriental churches, and alluded with fervent gratitude to Dr. Wolff 's visit to Mesopotamia in the year 1823. After service the rush to get a sight of him was immense, he being dressed in the oriental costume, with a fine flowing beard. The right rs2v. gentleman seemed to be highly . pleased, and kept continually bowing to the assembled multitude on his return to the rectory house, accompanied by the churchwar dens and neighbouring gentlemen.--Leeds Intelligencer.