The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 18, 1849.

the doctrines of the Chuech of Engtand, or of the Book tf
Common Prayer. The act of unsormity ti,und noir, all Pea-
MAW the retina of the cowmen pupil as .mik.rative on
them, and peel of the law of the hat. The rubric aspre, sly
pros ribs& that the es ochism Ovoid be toed, and that
i every
as
master sliesid. every Sunday, imagist the people n
church in thhpe shunt religion. Wes sea that a sufficient
the Issidaten tho destriaes esataised is
410=:ff demerin Payer ? Risher Barest said that the
estedian of Me Chola of inflend IPM ele most edema
declaration of the doiriee of the Chunk of England.
Tits utilise and the Prayer Book stood IS the footing of
two statutes said. in pen wouldo, to ordinary
constctioa do cows payer correct and control
ru
the ankles. Thrp kail been repeatedly WM that the ankles
were the one et UM, and that the
tea
a Prayer kny was the
code of doweden. If she ail were = per-
dealer psi. Mat was geed law. hat if the Camases Prayer
Book treated of she semis desiolae, and =planed it more
fully, and ammeleted that whisk was lasendstait with the
articles, Wt most be the esusenden of the Many
of the articles were drawn up rearm le men the rianiroverey
of the day that to him • empties code ef &shine. Several
SON ISIMINISI win sot NONNI' UM ill the
&Midas. nine tenn est see word on the Am Of the Holy
Obres. gal yet ft was clear that was a most mines &striae
of Ma drenals. Be agaia is the doctrine of previimn,
*hie wee fall is the Prater Book, there w see word ,
sheen it la the snake. So that to talk about the arbieles I
=sli trini sad explicit, was sank, oa
loekiag
.... a wyea There were toasty dings lonely
end many altonother omitted.
—rele—i—Camphell—There is a dada. deelaratioa of divine
prealiates la the first ardele.
Mr. Baddeley—lt was said that it was oat f.r wirers of
dedeles that iastitation could be refused. lie apprehended
that was set se. The doctrine laid down in an Prayer
Book tans IS the clergy, so that if any one infringed
any oats dem. deal es, he would be just as liable to cen-
sure oe deprived.. as it he infringed those which ware
positively sealed.
Sir J. Kellett Braces—Can you say that if a clergyman were
to deny the sanctifying oldies of the Holy Ghost he would
aot be entradicting the ankles
Mr. Baddeley—He would be clearly contravening the
Prayer Book. All that was in the Prayer Book and shun.
rained, was m well known as anything could be in the articles
The articles bad nothing to do with the people at large.
No penes who was aot • elsegyman was bound to sabanihe
the 39 articles, but the laity generally had nothing to do
with the articles. The laity were instructed through the
medium of the prayer book, and they were to draw their
I authority from the prayer book. He would now consider
the third proposition, via., that the articles and formularies
of the church, the latter, at least, if aot the former, dis-
tinctly declared the doctrinei of unemeditional regeneration
and baptism. The 2611 s article said that the anransents
ordained of Christ, were not badges of &Asian men's pro-
fession, but sore witnesses and effectual signs by which he
worked in se—certa K effwacia aria. In the sacrament of
baptism there was • clear declaration, on the part of the
church, of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The
baptism was declared to be the instrument by which all the
textiles should be conveyed. It followed that the
child who was baptised remind at owe the benefit of the
sacrament. Regeneration was expressly stated as the direct
and immodiete soasequence of baptism. Could there be
any doe. that the articles plainly expressed that children
were le seedve the fall benefits of the sacrament t The
sheath immilseed infants at once as proper subjects of trip-
Sem The sinks far private baptism showed wore ems-
OM* ditt deonise for which he was canoodles!. The
Same desidne was contained in the order of confirmation,
sod them Gems the catechism, in which the anawe,a fully
bore out his statement of the doctrine of the church. By
t, • homilies the same views were earned out.
Vioe.CbanceUer Brace asked what was the origin of the
particular expression " prevenient gran?"
tile. eadieley said that he had never hosed of it till it
was used by Mr. Gorham.
Lord Campbell—As tar as infant baptism is smarmed,
there is no difference between the doctrine of the church
of Rome and the church of England.
Baddeley—The doctrine maintained by the Church of
England was the same as that of the Church of Rome. By
the fact of the due administration of baptism all the benefits
of hsptirm were conferred. The thumb taught that it was
by baptign that the child was saved; the church had never
qu &bad it, and the whole catho:iii church combined in the
bailie view that children were recipients, and that
bf
that they received full ad ' 'ratios of the sacrament. If
di! I:septum did not confer this benefit, then be wanted to
know when it was conferred; there was nothing to show
that ft was at all prevenient grace or prandial faith in the
case of Infants. The rubric declared that children dying
before committing sin were undoubtedly saved ; all the be-
nefits of baptism were conveyed at once to the infant. The
c-airch said, bring your children; it encouraged
them to come; and expressly required that bap-
tist should not be delayed beyond the first five days.
He hoped he had said enough to show not only that the de-
clarations of the shank of E,ngland were law, but that they
were to be colleeted from the articles and formularies He
should nert appeal to antiquity, because it was the appeal
universally mode by those who took part is the reformation.
If it be sappeeed by anyone that any doubt was left as to the
doctrine either church, the resort must be, not to the opinions
of the relermen, but to the doeerine of the early church.
That was sinerly enunciated by those who took part in the
reformation. h 1662 the reformation was not in its infancy,
was Mao kindred years old. The church of England
helog one aad the same church, the church was only re-
isesudi aeesrdls to the models of the doctrine of the pried.
the diaries. All that they professed was to strip off those
InliiiithMe which had grown up on it in the lame of time.
There was a passage in Bishop Jewel's " Apology " which
NM that their intention in departing from the church of
Biome was to accede to the church ol the apostles. There
was • distinct appeal to eatiquity. We found it alas
la the articles end homilies, which teemed with quota-
does from the fathers, sad therefore, la inquiriag its
Me early church, we were referring to that tribunal
which was marked out by the reformers themselves. In
respect to the baptism of infants, we should find regains-
don was, in fact, connected with Update—that they were sew
v, ruble tetras, and the doctrine was handed down from the
early church to the period of the Reformation. What-
ever was not altered at the period of the Reformation INS-
tinned to be the doetrine of the churedi at this day. What-
ever may be the law of the church as to adults, one uniform
Isw has bees held as to the baptise' of infanta. la the
canons of the church made in 1671, it was ordered that
nothing should be taught but what bad formerly ham
taught. In the directions gives to the bishops in 1682, they
were enjoined if the Jessica should wrest the Scriptures,
call for interpretation of the aid doctors in the time of
Gregory I. In all disputatka we find the appeal was made
to the early church.
It being now five o'clock, and Mr. Baddeley saying that
he was not likely to conclude he an hour or two, the further
I hearing of the case was adjourned till to-morrow (this day).
re.

EQUITY COURTB.—YzerzsDAL
sat Loan Comic=lei.
Ti. ATTORNEY-01)11W. O. TIT COMOIATION 07
LONDON.—RIGIT TO Till BOIL AND BID or THI RITZ.
MaII...—PLIADIIII3.—.A.MW aI.—PRODC CHOW Or DOCTI-
MINTS.
The Lord Chaacellee gave judgment in this appeal,
brought against an order of the Master of the Rolls, direct
Mg the defendants to make a Misr answer in respect to oar-
tarn documents stated by them te lie is their posmegos
(The material facts of the ISM were stated in the report in
this jeered last Saturday.) His lordship mid the Wiener
tisa related to the Mb to the soil mad bed of the
rim Thames. begaa by slang the amoral per
melds. that hetlt
Majesty, I. right of the Crewe, was
Gadded to the green& sad sell M the is. asset sad el
every poet sad arm. the sea, sad tow nil and bed el el
navigable Rivers inn whisk the sea lows mad ebbs, sad per
titularly that her Majesty to right of the mem was siesd
at the port el Leedom sad et the rim Thames, the tame
being as its. of the ses sad a itaie rim. It stated
that the mayor and 'separatist' it Legion were esassivelen
of the river sad claimed tale Mthe freehold of the bed sad
soil therm., sad mealedlisseses to emend pintas to rein
embeekamea. The Idarmstiea OM alleged that these
malsakmeals Weal to the eaveptioa of the rime,
sad k Met is the rind way what Memo the
deilmints make, mad gas, it alleges that the &-
IMMO pretended to ham a tills by skater, toff
to hew derived therefrom Salk right es they eureka&
The ielermatkm them &Med that the defeadeals
pea's
suet Mester, mad then alleged that the defeadeals
to hem a great km Henry VI., sad then dueled areg smi
groat to ham been. The mat protease alleged was MOM,
arepoestioa possessi the they Mimed by mangiest
mg% whisk the laisemift also dialed; wed them ems
the general Marge la the ifferesMies, that the eshemisale
had ra their pesseemisa melm &lemmata whisk if per
deed, would ohm that they had no title nee ma grand
I.
for the various mermen est up by them. The de
in their answer, say they have a right to the hhhhhbeeeeeedddddd
and sal of the river, which was is effort a
derail of the right sad title of the plaintiff.
Nothkm is mere deer la the maim of the mixt din
that the ebbed is melded to dismay et the title envp by
kis adversary. His bribe patinae tans as es=
the eight. The animal masks* was to sok the
to show what was his tide to the right es, thing Mimi he
canine& tylis jels. had a right es the dismay. (His
=Cilleasralibee Sid gm PrtnelPle sad the memdeas kto
Wierre's ' Treaties ea Disemery." sad to
" Mitieres , pp. IN, 190.) The statute et James
did not @Sem the t Memoirs to dismay; the object of
whisk veal to pea IY minim themes Modes is respect to
einibps essealease. The delasbate is this am say they
gal enennesse ; hat that was sat owassebdp, which they
Mimed. They vtmld be say la the si,Mn of agents.
Bat the enemata= are set euessrvalseee but the Lord
Wier. They my they an esessevators, mist
by the Lord Mayor:: that is no resew wiry the pleintiff is
not willed to the diesewery. His isetW. p likened the
refusal of direevery is this seas to motive plass pat la to
bills, as ia " Jones v. Davis' (16 Vesely, 262), " Jimara.
Hank" (2 Tway sad Beseses,362), and" Harlem' et. Esser
men" the Roues of Lords (I Eller 62, and 2 Clark sad
=10.) If a delendsat Is to have the Meseta"' of
against dimmay, he is bound to show that the
leri
sought does not go to establish the plaintiff's title.
iliabM reed the exceptions to the answer seriatim
and observed that it was aew in practice to have a defeat-
sat denying the pleiatire title, sad yet refusing Mr
may. TIM defendeate alleged that there are charters in their
pennons, the plaintiff says there may, but acme of them!,
peels the soil or bed of the river. Mk pert it the plehatifft
am that there is no mush grant The defeadanor delmig
die miler a shorter, are irked what the skeeter is, aid they
mend le bon. The *MI hat • right to manna la the
maim ef the mse all wink weas ea the sun Mk
deb. Is es the wt
HA IS.
MHO, IBA gat lei dAHBOMI we 'added OD

tke protection claimed by he.. against discovery. They I
take on thtraselv.• to say that, to the best of their belief,
and as they are advised, none of the instruments oo which
they rdy in support of their own title serve as evidence of
the plaintiff 'a title. If aipledgis of elief of that wAt was to
be admitted, no plaintiff wield ever get discovery. The
defendant is bound to state the feet, and let the
o.utt judge. " arced e. Saunders" (2 Vesey, jun. 187).
It was asserted ncile the united claims of title and
emiestvasey by the defendants. The information
was not ocefined to the assertion of ownership of the crown
in the river ; it also alleged injury to the aavigation of the
river, and leaked protection far it. His lordship was of
opinion that the plaintiff was entitlid to the diseovery,
that the blaster of the /lolls came to a right conclusion, and
that the motion should be dismissed in the ordinary way,
with coots ; but, ea Kr. Bothell said, there were recent dad-
Mons in the House of Loris to the effect that, as the crows
did sot pay costs, it ought see to sinosive Wets, he would like
to see these eases bekwe he &sided the question of assts. An
ordinary respondent waist te this evert and successfully de-
fending his judgment wadi be entitled to costs. If there
be • rule hilt down, as stated by Mr. Bothell, that would be
en exception to the principle.
Mr. Bothell said it was so laid down in the case of " Smith
v. the Offleen of State in Scotland," decided in the House
He
wouldaet session—cot yet reported, except in the Aria.
He find the particulars of that decision, and he be-
lieved there was another in the House of Lords, which he i
would also furnish to his lordship.
Mr. Mauls, also of counsel ter the plaintiff, said he would
give a list of the cams that were cited before the Master of
the Rolls on the question of soots.
The defendants, on the application of Mr. Bothell, got two
months to put in • fuller answer.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YEsTaiDAT.
Invoice AT Nor Pares Nl' GOILISALU—Barou Ila. Janes
rots AND Srecus• Josses.
Tutus v. Boaaars.—laaat rake or BANXBIA we=
ENDORSAMINTI OX BILLS ACCEPT= AT TIMM
Morris eu 101101 D.
Mr. Martin, Mr. Bramwell, end Mr. Pitt Taylor
for the plaintiff; and the Attorney• General, Sr F. Ta=4,
Mr. Serpent Saes, and Mr. Bantow for the defendants.
This was an action brought by the secretary of the Pelican
Life Insurthes Company, on behalf of the company, against
Messrs. Roberts and Co., the bankers, to recover 6,0001., the
amount of a hill of exchange drawn by the Pelican Insurances
Company, of which company Mesas. Roberts were the
bankers under the following carcumstances : A gentlemaa of
the sae et Isherwood,whl lived near Stockport, insured Isis
Wein the Pelican °Kee for 5,0001 ,throsigh the medium of their
agency aloe at Manchester, of which a Mr. Tait was ma.
eager. In 1839 Mr. Isherwood died, sad by his will ap-
pointed his wife and his three daughters 'scenarist.. TM,
elk loyed a Mr. Winterbottom, who had been the confides
tial attorney of Mr. Isherwood, to get the policy in question
paid, and he applied to Mr. Tait, who required the mdse.
iron of the usual certificates and of the probate of the
which were duly provided by Mr. Winterbottom, and is
Dee., 1839, the policy was ripe for payment. The usual
eeerse p ed by the Pelican office in the case of parties
lawed and dying in the country was that a bill of exchange
abonid be drawn by the local agent of the company, payable
I le lbe parsons entitled to payment, and there was • form by
whisk leave was given to the agent to draw. When the bill
sae M the company for acceptance a clerk com-
b with the fame for leave to draw, and no bills were ac-
espeed Vila the muses of the payees were endorsedthereon.
This was done in the present case as with all other bills. Mr.
Wiaterbottom delivered up the policy, and received a bill of
Wm Kai from the toed agent, drawn by him and directed to
the mates of the Pelican Company, and payable seven days
der eight to the pinions entitled to receive the money due
en the policy. On fith January the bill posed through the
Othekport Bank, and came into the hands of Misers. Jones
Lo
yd, an Co., and was presented for acceptant, at the
Ofllos. It was there examined, and the names of the
=s la whims favour It was drawn were found to be en.
ee it. It was accordingly accepted, linable at Messrs.
Rehashes, and paid by them on 16th January through
the clearing house and entered in the pass-book, and the
bill was sent back to the Pelican-office and entered in their
books as an amount paid. In the following June letters
were received by the Pelican Company, inquiring if the
money on the policy had been paid, and giving notice it it
had not been paid, not to pay to any one who did not pro-
duce the policy and probate of the will. In August it was
ascertained that the inuothements of Mrs. leherwood end her
&lighten had been forged by Winterbottern, who had
absconded, and a question arms as to whether the
company were discharged by this payment. They were
threatened with an action, and were advised, as there
was no doubt of the forgeries, to pay the policy over again,
and the matter was eventually cemprouthed by the payment
of 4,8001. A legal question then arose as to who should
bear the lees, the insuranos company or the bankers. The
late Biz W. Curtis was a partner in the bank of Messrs.
Roberts, and also a director of the Pelican Insurance Cont.
peal, sad the partite therefore went into Equity, and an
issue was directed by the Court of Chancery to
try the question at law. The imes came on for
trial at the sitting after Ham Term, 1848, before Lord
Denman who was of °pintos that the matter resolved itself
into• natter of law ; but, on being urged by the defendant's
exemel, his yip left the cam to the jury, when a m-
ake was fowl he is defendants. A motion was made for
a aim Wislotei easewoo argued, and on the 29th of
Sammy, 18% Ile Mort gave judgment to the effect "that
but g fully maddered the am, they were of opinion that
these was not miasma to go to the jury to show that the
deemstances exampled the bankers from the ordinary duty
las:Ze.wherlows the right party had endorsed the bill,
lime mess he a now trial."
It wee new argued At the plaintiff that the question was,
wheel a customer of a beak accepted a bill payable at those
Imakees, what authority was given to the banker—whether
he was to psy it to any one or only to the person who was
known to be entitled to the money. In the case of " Fontes'
v. Clemente" (2 Campbell, 17) Lord Illenborough held that
the payee's indorsement should be proved, and that the bill
was payable only to the payee on his order, and not to any
one who presented it, and if the banker paid it without as.
*whining that the indorsement was genuine he paid et his
own loss, In " Smith v. Chester' (1, Term Reports,
664) it wee decided that the acceptance of a
bill had nothing to do with the indonemeny. In
" Paul v. Puller" (6, Barnwell and Creswell, 750)
where a cheque wee drawn by a customer of a banker, which
described the sum in words and figures, and was attred so
as to be for a larger amount, it wee held that the banker
was to bear the lose of the whole amount, after having paid
it. It was al<o laid down by Pothier that, when a bill
wee made payable to a special payee, and his name was
forged in the endorsement, the banker paying it was liable.
It was said that the Pelican Company ought to have taken
a receipt from Winterbottom on behalf of the Ishenroods ;
but it was not necessary, as the policy itself was a sufficient
discharge. The bankers had nothing to do with the manner
in which the bill was drawn, end the only question was
whether they had authority to pay the money ; but they bad
authority to pay only to persons legally entitled to Mein
it, and they were bound to see that they did not pay on a
forged indorsement.
The fasts were all admitted, sad the sdadsdeas, oertifl,
eates, he., were pat in.
For the defence, it was submitted that on the sasses se
given the plaintiffs ought to be nonsaited. The declaration
stated as the basis of the dellssdante' liability that they were
retaiaed as bankers, and promised in that character to
pay to the extent of the funds of the company in their
lads, the bills of exchange sad drafts of the company on
them, and not to pay to any one who were not lawful
holders of such documents, and who weld give them a dis-
charge. There wee no evidence to prove that the bombes
well bound to do more with regard to bills of exchange Men
to he that they were accepted by their eastomers, sad te mss
ordinary diligence to ea that they wore in the Made if
proper persons. There might he knadreds of bills draws ea
them every day, payable hears o'clock, the ssikeee.
meats on which may have hem made In Greece, CoaelaM4
nople, and all over the weld, eh" in all sad malt
was said they wen hated te see Mat shahs andcessemate were
genuine, which they semi hews* mews of knowing. The
only case baring as the paha eked ea the mks aisle wee
that of " Forster v. Ciumishi," which was oily a
up of Lord Bllenbersugh in ea undefended ems, theii
in which was cured by as admission. All that beams
were bound to do was a see that they did set pay on forged
somptanors of their sesteiners, sad se to the rest to me
ordinary diligence to see that the doeumsats were genuine.
It appeared by the admission that is the ease of parties
dying in London the practise of the Pelican office
was to require aselidesem of the death, and
the eaves of- death ; sad the prelate of wills ins
left at the case, sad the examitees, or their
=attended thers,rps:gesals Ming required to praises
authority, and a was gemseathe may ea the'
payment of the mossy. Ikea/Revery of Wi kagmy
the directors had stand their peeslies Issiereia the
as la the erentry, as it did net Ward ss hespinet I
head. The same of the midessees IsdAsnt
ei• die wawa
It was mooted by the sompeay was a
the beakers. There Wall no evidence Mae Wl==
was the spat of the Ishenroods' to rush* their mosey.
Mr. Justice Mk said that he was baud by law Maim
ef the avert, ad must direst the jury assolig to that 40.
Mr. Marti' mid he would take a "waist he 6,0001. on the
event for mosey lent, and damages of le, on the special count
he breech of duty.
The Attorney 04041•1 objected to this.
Mr. Justice Erie—l dm's haw hew las direct the jury
le led separate damages ea sweats, which, although spa.
Ni., fa West Re same demand.
sense hesessine it was amazed that his lordship
lb direst the jury to find • verdict for the plaina,
me the fleet meet et the deciaratioa damages is. and on the
mutt hr mossy Mat for 6,0001., on the graved that that,
wee nifficient evidence to rapport the plaintlfe case, and no
evidence to support the defendants' pleas.
The Attorney. General then tendered a bill of exceptions to
his lordship's ream, by which the question will be brought
before • Court of Error.
The verdict was then head for the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-Yi
_ Boost YR. COSEISITONIM Haas ,

Is RI Joax OAAnixsa.-1

tsars.
Thu insolvent a " dismount agent" who had been some
time in prism and wines ease had been werel times before
the court, again made his epplarasor. He had been ordered
to modem MI son, James Gardiner, who was stated still to
advertise to lend money. He alleged Le could not did
him,
and asked the court to adjudicate upon the oars without his
attendance.
Mr. Nichols again named to woes, sad stated the ist-
solemn's son sow advertised by the name " Abate," aad
was tress& a isw days age to a /sle hoes' MA* West-end.
Mr. C--'nioase Mania ~wed his dannainatian not
M adds the ewe WI the beetroot prolong it, sun. Es

reeolieeted enough col the ease to my that the insolvent bad
peed by teri,.es names.
The it.e.dernt said he could not produce hie roe, and if he
wee agate remanded it would be perpetual imprimenirst.
, The learned Comunbeioner told him that tb. justice of the
' cue required his sou to attend, and if he did not appear he
meet mown in ectelliement.
The ins 'lomat wee gain remanded to_prhort.
-IN on CATIIIII3III ROMIRMLW LCD BLIZLBSTII CATBII-

11111
Them insole's% (pertain), who bad been milli
be
re an
dressmakers in Daritiostreet, Berke',rogues*, appl to
dressmakers
discharged.
Mr. Cooke opposed for Marra. Sewell and Cross, silk-
mercers, and Mr. Dowse and Mr. Sergoud supported.
It appeared that the insolvents had petitioned under the
Protection Act, sad their petitions were dismissed. On
brag arrested they petitioned under I & 2 Vic, and were
Musmieed as to the sander of en attorney named Phillpott
mad a clerk named Webb, as to the disposal of their pro-
perly. When a distress was put in f..r rent, on th• advice
of Webb, aerated by Mies Horseman, a workwoman named
Nicho:s pretended to purchase the property and appese.d
as
the owner. It was now admitted that the insolvent Hormr
man gave her the money for the purpose.
Ultimately the ease was adjourned for the attendance of
Mr. Theo. €l. Phillott, on Ti.ursday nest.
BRAMAN O. 141111RIC1.—T1111 PALLOR COURT.
This was • summons under the Staid Darts Act. The
plaintiff, en attorney, sued Herrick on a bill of exchange,
whisk the latter land endorsed en account of a person named
Foulkes. Herrick was en officer of the Palace Coart, and had
applied tor competes. ien to the Treasury under the recent ay.
Mr. Cooke appeared for Herrick, and detailed the circum-
stances of the cue. He observed that the Chief Commis-
sioner bad a few days since granted Herrick, who bed peti-
tioned as en insolvent, until June next, in order to see what
compensation he was awarded by the Treasury.
Mr, Commissioner Harris adjourned the summons to the
lth January, when he would hear evid.nce on the case ;
hd on the next occasion he defend expect to see of
e memorial forwarded by the ant to the Treasury
claiming compensation.
Bums Ma. Comotsmosaa ruu.mrs.,
Ws Honour sat for a short time, and disposed of a few
matters of no public importance.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YoaK, DEC. 15.
inroad Ma. Jrwrica WiwiAlga.
The court this mmuing resumed the trial of the
RAILWAY ROBBERY CASES.
Walton Whiteley, 33, John William Bowden, David
Hallowell, end Joseph Wood, the elder, wire indicted for
having on the 28th of August, at Huddersfield, stolen a
bag of wool, the property of the London and North
Western Railway Company.
The facts of this ease were of a similar nature to those
which have already been detailed in reports of the previous
trials arising cut of the same robberies.
At the close of the case for the prosecution. the judge
decided that there was no one against Ramsd. n and Mellow ell.
The Jury found Whiteley and Wood, the elder, Guilty.
A previous conviction, at the Pontefract sessions, was proved
against Wood in this ease.
There were three other indictments connected with similar
robberies, one against the two men last convicted, one
against Mellor, Was. Whiteley, and Wood, and the third
against Wood &lone.
Mr. Hall, the leading counsel for the proncutian, asked
his lordship if he thought it necessary to go into these
farther cases, and his lordship replied, that he did not think
the ends of justice required it, and accordingly no evidence
was offer. d.
Tee men esnvieted of this sal ether similar robberies were
Jos Wood, son„ Jos. Wood, jun , William Mellor, Welton
Whiteley, and James Bailey ; John Farrar, William White-
ley, David Hallowell, and Richard Cooke, were acquitted.
The two Woods, William Mellor, and Walton Whitely,
were sentenced to be severally transported for seven years;
James Bailey to be imprisoned and kept at hard labour for
lb month..
ATTEMPT TO POISON A CHILD AT LEEDS.
R. Clsideray, 21, was indicted f. r having, on the 15th of
September last, at Leeds, administered to Ruth Honfield, a
child ten weeks old, two oreulas Indians berries, and a quail.
tity of coppers., with intent to murder the said child.
The evidence proved that the child was an illegitimate
daughter of the prisoner, and that he had administered the
poison in question at different periods during the mother a
absence.
The Jury returned a verdict Guilty, accompanied by a
recommendation to mercy on account of the prisoner's pre-
ViOtal good character.—Sentenced &kneel.