The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-28 00:00:00

«•ARRINOTON MURDER.

EXECUTION OF PATRICK LYONS FOR THE

On Saturday at noon the extreme sentence of the
law was carried out in the case of this wretched man. Ti e
scene of the execution was the usual place at the north-
western corner of liirkdale Gaol.
Early in the morning crowds of people were to be seen
wending their way to the placeof ear, ution ; and some thus
before the hour of mat there could not be less than front
15,000 to 20,000 present. Precisely at 12 o'clock the culprit.
accompanied by Caleraft, the executioner, the Rev. J. 11.
Marshall, and the Rev. J. Egan, Roman catholic priests
fhis spiritual instructor.), the ender•Sherilf, and the dif-
erent officers in attendance, came forward upon the plat-
form. Ile stepped to the front of the piatliirtn with unusual
firmness, and looking upon the audience with a smile upon
his countenance, bowed to them repeatedly. On the execu-
tioner proceeding to draw the cap over his face, ilex culpri:
said to him: •• Do not pull it over nay face yet; I wish tt,
speak to the crowd." Calm-aft then rained the cap again,
on which the miserable wretch, still sittidng upon the crowd,
and again repeatedly bowing, addressed them as follows,
manila sting, during tile delivery of his address,
the most extraordinary self-possession:—•• Dear bretli•
run, I tun sorry for what I have done. I confess to
the Almighty Goal, and before you all to-day, that 1
am guilty of this murder, anal I firmly believe that my rot
wife is innocent—innocent us a child. Lord have mercy oat
me. Here is the hands that has done the murder; here is
the body that has committed the sin. I thank Gal that
MU withal; to surfer; but my suffering is nothing. lam
willing to be nailed to a tree. lam willing to be dragged
betwasai four horses. lam willing to put me into fire and
to burn me to ashes, for the sake of my soul, heltase I km as
I was tilting wrong. I knew I committed the sin, and. In)
dear brethren, what must be the cause of this ? I neglected
nay masses —I neglected God—l neglected my prayers morn-
ing anal evening; and only for I dial I would not be here to
die for such a guilty crime as this. My dear Christians, let
it he a warning aid ye, anal learn to be wise in thin world. I
hope in my Saviour Jesus (land for salvation, and
the blessed Virgin to pray for me and all the
• good Christians. I expect that you will pray for
me to-dal, and I pray God will listen to me, ano
• the holy Vir 'in Mary and all angels in heaven pray for rue
i to-day. My altar Christians, learn to Ire wise in this world.
; We are here to-day, and gunetoduorrow."
"- •

The apparent coolness and the extraordinary solidity in-
dicated by the countenance of the culprit seemed com-
pletely to :imam and astonish the crowd who were looking
on, and the nerve which he displayed was the kUbikVi. Ut
universal renurk among the bystanders. His bows and
smiles were all indicative of a feeling that he was receiving
the congratulations of his friends, and presented a contrast
to the ke'ings in.•pired by his address, which it was never
our lot to witness before. It is umkrstood, however, that
!a. was truly penitent. After the eundmion of his address,
the cap was drawn over his fare, and in a few moments
afterwards the unhappy mum was launched into eternity.
After the execution the rev. gentlemen attending upon
the prisoner expressed a strong opinion that he was truly
penitent, and stated that he lost frequently in conversations
with them attributed the crime he had committed to the
neglect of his religious duties.
It is not yet known what will be done with the prisoner's
wife, but the general impression here is that she will be

Raba lattelligenti.

EQUITY COURTS.-SATURDAY.
Ewa= in Uaain or =a Roca
IN RE lIALL'I4 CHARITY.

This was a petition for a scheme to settle the proportions
in which cortain property belonging to a charity, called
Hall's Charity, should be distributed. The charity was
established in the tenth year of the reign of Queen Elisa-
beth by Edward Hall, a resident in the parish of Upton-on-
Severn, in the county of Worcester, who enfeotfed trustees
with certain messuages, ote., in the above parish and else-
where, for the purpose of repairing the parish church, and
for the purpose of repairingthe bridge of Uptomon-Severn,
old for other necessary things to be done in the parish
from time to time. The fund is of the value of about 901.
a year, and has been applied by the trustees on the trusts,
but since 1839 no port of it was applied for the repair of
the bridge. A petition was therefore presented, asking the
court to direct one-half of the fund to he paid to the magis-
trates of the county of Worcester, and so much of the other
half also as was nut wanted for the repairs of the church,
to be accumulated to form a fund to rebuild the bridge,
which is now much dilapidated, and for a reference to the
Master to settle a scheme.
Mr. Itoupell and Mr. Amphlett for the petition.
Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Young for the trustees opposed it,
contending that the trustees had a discretion in the appli-
cation.
The Master of the Rolls said he would look into the
papers before giving his opinion.

&JAMS Viet,CHAwcKune Kmonv Parc%
Ix Ith THE WORCESTtiIt CORtx EXCHANGP..

This was a petition for an order of retbrence for winding
up of the affairs of the above company.
Mr. Smythe, for the petitioner, stated that a preliminary
inquiry had taken place before the Master as to the pro-
priety of winding up the affairs of the company. rho
Master thought it was a case fur winding up the coneern.
One difficulty was. that there had been no advertisement of
the preliminary order of reference, as required by the act
of 1804; but, it was thought by the Master that the adver-
tisement was nut necessary, in consequence of the Itith het-
lion of the Winding-up Act of 1319, which rendered such
ailvertistments unnecessary.
Mr. Bagshawc appeared for the secretary, and consented
to the order prayed.
• His Honour considered that if the Master had expressed
his satisfaction on the question of the necessity of advertise-
ments, be could safely accede to the prayer of the petition.
The order was tunic accordingly.

trronK Loup CIANIROFIn (vier. rn ofert.tnal.
r. con AN IN-
JUNCTION TO UESTILAIN INTEUITIIENCE WITH A WATEI4-

cornse.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the de-
fend int from cresting any water mill on a stream caned the
Park Hall Rivulet, near Longton, in Staffordshire, within
the limits of that pert of a piece of ground called
the Anchor Ground, which had been purchased by the
defendant, and Irvin using or permitting to be used
any of the water of the rivulet running within tho
aforesaid limits for the purpose of supplying or working
any mill or engine of any description, and from building
any culvert, or otherwise enclosing the rivulet, and from
eorertetine. earnovitie, or interfieing with the watercourse,
and from doing any act to interfere with the right of the
plaintiff to cleanse the said rivulet.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Amphlett appeared in support of the
motion, and stated diet the plaintiff was the owner of a mill
upon the Park Hull Rivulet. lie derived hie title to the
land upon which it was built from Sir John ileatlente,
under a conveyanee in which there was a covenant on
the pert of Sir John ileatheute that he would nut obstruct
the water by making plods, dame, or weirs, or otherwise
within halt a mile either above or below the plaintiffs
mill. That the defendant had since purchased a piece of
land in the Anchor grounds near to the mill of the plaintiff
from a descendant of Sir John lit•atheote, and intended to
erect a steam mill, anti to construct a culvert of such width
that the stream would he narrowed, anti the water which
was at present only just sufheitnt fur the plaint itr. use would
be rendered deficient, and would therefore caner an injury
to the plaintiff. It was also contended that the construc-
tion of a culvert would interfere with the plaintiff's right of
elenn.ing and opening the pools and ditches in the Anchor
Mr. Rolt anti Mr. l'earson for the defendant econtended
that the culvert intended to be built by hint would nut in-
terfere with any use the plaintiff could make of the stream,
and that it would be quite as catty to cleanse the culvert as
the rivulet. It was submitted moreover that Sir John
ileatheote had no power to grant the use of the water
flowing over any laud which was not actually conveyed to
the plaintiff, anti that such a clause was contrary to public
policy.
bird Cranworth said he would reserve his judgment, but
he would state his opinion as to two or three points. Ile
thought there woe great foree in the argument that the
clanee soeurine to the plaintiff the use of the water was
against public policy. It never could be permitted that a
man should bs' able for all time to come to grout the use of
water running over other hands in his possession so as to
I prevent any one else front having the enjoyment of it.
this appeared to result front the provision respecting half
a mile on either side of the plaintiffs mill, which would
have the effect of giving him a monopoly. The conveyance
included a grunt of the stream. The meaning of this he
did wit quite understand ; he doubted whether any man
had power to give a right to the we: of water running over
land more than he had of granting a right to the air.
Ilis lordship recollected a curious case with regard to
this subject. An action of trespass was brought against
a person who swung itimeelf over the pleintiffs ground out
rat his own window, for the purpose of pulling deem a sign-
board. The learned judge who decided the case said it
was only an interference with the superincumbent column
of air, and could not be held to be a trespass. There was
another question, however, in this ease, as to whether
there was not a good grant of an easement that the plaintiff
might be at liberty, at all times, to go on the Anchor.
ground for the purpose of opening and cleansing the
There was a contradiction in the evidence übout
the facility of going through the culvert to cleanse the
stream, and he should have to consider whether the narrow-
ing of the stream by means of the culvert was not ass inter •
terenee with the plaintiffs rights.
Judgment reserved.
COURT OF QUEEN'SBENCII—SATt•RDAY.

SITTI76II 1.• BANCO. 111.711L1t MIL. JII,TILS PAITWON, NS. JURY=
VrnuTYAN,AND Ma. Jtorrnm
THE QUEEN T. THE RYAN AND CHAPTER. OP ROCHES-
-.

TER.—THE ROCHY.TF.IL GILAMMAIL SCHOOL.
In this rase a rule had been obtained by the Rey. Robert
Whiston 14 a mandamus, culling upon the than and Chap-
ter of Rochester to show cause why a writ of efasulamus
should not i sue, canneauding them to reiwtate him as
Head Master sf the Oramm it Schwa of !Oche:ter. That
rule had been wale absolute, in order that a !alum to the
mandamus might he made, and the matter argued upon this
return. The writ stated that the Rev. Robert Whidota had
been elected the Read Master of tiro Grainatar :idiom, that
he had properly conducted himself in that capacity, but that
the dean and chapter had removed him. To this the dean
and chapter made a return, and stated that Henry
being seized in fee, by letters patent, dated 20th June, in
the 30th year of his reign, founded and endowed
the cathedral church of Rochester, and on the
30th June, in the 3Gth year of his reign, or-
dained certain rule. and statutes for the government of
the said cathedral. The return then act out all these statutes
verbatim, and then averred that hi those about,. the Bishop
of Rochester was visitor of the and cathedral church ; that
the said Robert Whiston was elected to the althea• of head
mader in conformity with those statutes; that the Right
It, v. Ih. Murray was the preo'nt bishop; and that the naid
Itohert Whiston having been removed fur a lawful MUSE',
had not appealed to the bishop, and the dean and chapter
therefore submitted to the court that they ought not to be
called upon to give any other or further answer. To this
return there were three pleas in bar. First, that the cause
of removal was not a lawful cause. Secondly, as to so much
of the return as stated that the add Raised Wheaton had
not appealed to the hi-hop, that he was renewed for writing
a certain pamphlet, and that in that pamphlet the Bishop of
Rochester was mentioned, and that the pamphlet was
written with the intention of imputing to the said bishop a
knowledge of the misapplieation by the Dean and
Chapter of Rochester of the fowl; vested in them,
and that thereliwe the bishop had so much interest
in the subject matter of the Call, of removal ; that he the
said Robert Whistim was not obliged to appeal to the said
bishop under the statutes. The third plea stated that the
said Robert Whiston was eh dial to the heatamastership in
the year 1442, that he hail properly conducted himself
therein, and was not unfit for the office; but that he had
insisted on further allowance and alimony for the scholars;
and that he had applied to the bishop, as visitor, to call
upon the dean and chapter to allow such further allow-
ance. That the bishop refused to enter intothe matter. And
that thereupon he published a pamphlet, entitled "Cathe-
dralTrusta and their Fulfilment." The plea than set out
this pamphlet verbatim, and alleged the allegations therein
to be true. The plea then alleged that many of the offices
required by the statutes of the cathedral to lie filled up
were not filled. That there were no deacon., no " barbi-
tensor," or cook for the echoul. That the dean and chapter,
by deed poll, dated June, 11319, removed the said Robert
Whiston without any iuquiry, and that un the 11th August,
1819, they reinstated him, awl afterwards again determined
that lie should be removed. The plea then Met out verba-
tim another deed poll, under the seal of the dean and chap-
ter, for the removal of the and Robert Whiston, and alleged
that the deed contained no other cause of removal but the
writing of tho said pamphlet.
To these pleas the dean and chapter demurred, and on
the demurrer the case came on for argument.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly (Mr. Cowling with him) now
contended for the dean and chapter that, as it olafeffn-4
upon the record itself that there was a visitor, to him, and
to him alone, the appeal lies, and that their was no concur-
rentjuriadiction in that court; this was clear upon principle
and upon authority; and all that that court could iim W:Lntl3
compel the visitor by mandamus to enter upon the inquiry
if he refus,d so to do. That although it hail been thought
necessary by both aides to put all the statutes upon the
record, 'the real question nevertheless was contained in
a very nartowcompass. That it would he no part of his
duty (at all events ut the present stage of the argument) to
gwohiiict tho
the
ee
itrpagdphtlheotugfohrt it their duty ofth
remove Mr. Whiaton front his office. The facts were, that
a Whiston
led to proceediuga in. Chancery, upon which . .
was reinstated. An inquiry' then took place, and another
they first removed. hie., without any formal inquiry: this
dismissal was the resu.t. It is allaged by Mr. Whiston
d"enant'annt'docfhat
that the dismissal was for this pamphlet alone, nod that
that was no sufficient cause; but whether there be a suffi-
cient cause or not is iminat:rial—his remedy was by appli-
cation to the visitor, anti not to this court. There were not