The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-31 00:00:00

NAVAL.

.. •
Polo, roux, Mama 30.—The Salamander, at. sloop, sailed yester-
day for the Esetward to y off. It is stated that the court of In-
emu will not, se penenllj anticipated, produce my court martial.—
The rortload frigate wear out of harbour under mil 'viand ty Ibr
'rebind with meaL -The oidon, st., to expected to arrive at Bounced
from her cruior in time fur the Lords of the Admiralty to visit her an
their arrival tO.6IOCrOW.

ADXMALTT, MARCO 30.—A cm' sromers.—Com. J. M. Pot=
Growler ; Lieut. end Cos. H. kicker to Kestrel. peat H. T. I
Mandy at steamtactory, Woolwich. Midshipmen J. J. Emma W
Queen ;C. V. Name to Excellent. Asaat..surgeons J. R. H. Cuttings
to Trident; C. Robert. to N.111t11.. Masters' Magma J. W. Par-
rott to Vkma ; W. U. Harrison to Crocodile. Third Engineer J.
Coope to William sal Rory. Cleric R. F. Morrime to St. Vincent.
Neal instructor C. 1. E. H. Madame to Volage. Acting GIAI2O//t
J. Steward to Ezcalent. Gonna J. Nigh contlemed to Harle lola.
Acting licatainiu J. Armstrong to Hibernia. Oupenter W. "'jay
warmed to Harlequin.

tats intelltgenct.

74.9111 TY

BefereVrceilianeeilie Knighi Brace.
GILCHRIST V. CATOIL—SIPARATI Use.—DISSORTION ce
WIFE.-rje this case, which was partially heard on Monday,
annuities had been given by will to four unmarried ladies.
one married lady, sod a gentleman, during their respective
liven ; and the testator directed that the said annuitants, or
either of them, should not have power to sell, disp se of,
charge, or otherwise encumber, part with, or anticipate, the
said annuities respectively, or any part thereof; and that if
such sole, &c., should be attempted, then the annuity so
dealt with should be divided among the residuary legatees.
The testator also declared that the annuities should be taken
as some provision towards the maintenance and support
of the several annuitants ; and declared that the annuity
given to the married lady should be for her separate use, and
free from the control of her present or any future husband.
Shortly after the death of the testator, one of the unmarried
ladies married; but she and her husband separated about
fortnight after the marriage. This suit was instituted by the
wife against the trustees of the will and her husband, in order
to have the annuity paid to her separate use. Mr. Russell
and Mr. Miller, for the plaintiff, keurd, first, that by the
will the testator had sufficiently declared his intention that
the annuity should be enjoyed by her independently of any
husband she might marry ; and, secondly, that if this were
not so, the court would, under the circumstances of the case,
direct the annuity to be paid to the wife's separate use, as
the husband was not masntainicg her, but had deserted her
very shortly after the marriage, and at the last interview
between the husband and wife he had threatened her with
personal violence. Mr. T. Parker, on behalf of the husband,
conteaded that ;he desertion had been on the part of the
wife. Mr. Lewin appeared fur the trustees. The Vice-
Chancellor said that, whatever he might have said if the
will had not contained an expiress direction that the annuity
of the married Lidy should be for her separate use, and Lf
there had not been a male among the annuitants, he
was clearly of opinion that the words of this will
were in.sutlicieut to create a separate interest in
the annuities given to the unmarried ladies. But as
to the desertion of the wife, he thought the husband's
conduct could not be justified and he considered
that the wife was entitled to receive the whole of the an-
nuity, on the ground of such desertion. The costs of the
plaintiff and the trustees must be paid out of the arrears,
and the residue be paid to the wife for her separate use.
The annuity must be continued to be paid to the wife for
her separate use, until the further order of the court. The
husband might so conduct himself in future as to entitle him
to the consideration of the court.

Before nice-ChanoaDer wriest.
CORTOBADIE V. COSTO/Ltlns.--CONSTItULTION 07 WILL.
—Hie honour delivered judgment in this case the facts of
which were shortly these : By the will of the Rev. Jacob Cos-
tobadie, the testator in the cause, certain property woe devised
to trustees upon trust, inter alia, out of the income, to
pay the sum of 17001. to the plaintiff (a daugh-
ter of the testator), upon the death of her mother,
the widow, or upon her marriage, with the consent of the
widow; also an annuity of 501. a year each to the plaintiff,
and some of the other children of the testator, and subject
thereto, and to certain other payments mentioned in the will
upon further trust " that my said dear wile shall receive all
the rents, dividends, interest, and profits, of all and singular
my said real and personal estates, and pay and apply the
same to and far the use of her my said wife and the children
of our marriage, agreeable and according to her own discre-
tion during her said life. And upon and after the decease
of my said deer wife, dce.," upon trusts in which the plain-
tiff took no interest. It appeared that the plaintiff attained
her age of twentyone in the lifetime of the testator, and
that the testator died in November, 1828, from which
time till 1833 the plaintiff resided with her mother.
In 1833, the plaintiff left her mother's house on
a visit to her tinter, and although she afterwards paid
occasional visits to her parent, she from that time ceased to
reside with her. The bill, after stating these facts, com-
plained of want of motherly affection on the part of the de-
fendant, the widow, in consequence of which the plaintiff
had been obliged to separate herself from the defendant, and
alleged that, tune such separation, she had been allowed by
the mother only about 171. a year in addition to the annuity
riven t••.• her by the will, and that such allowance was wholly
inadequate to procure her the comforts and enjoyments
which she had been accustomed to during the life of her
father, the testator ; and the enjoyment of which she might
reasonably expect from the amount of the fortune left to
her by the testator. The bill then charged that
the additional allowance made to her by the defend-
ant was not such a sum as the plaintiff was en-
titled to receive annually out of the rents and
profits of the testator's estate, if justly and impartially
administered according to the trusts of the will ;
and it prayed that directions might be given for securing the
payment of the legacy of 1,7001., and the annuity of 501.
given to the plaintiff by the will, and that a proper part of
the residuary income of the testator's estate might also be
secured for the benefit of the plaintiff. His Honour, after
stating that there must, of course, be a preliminary inquiry
u to the number of children, said the plaintiff would
at least be entitled to an account of the residuary
agate; for to deny that, would be to make the mother
the absolute owner of the though it had-
been admitted on all sides that ,1772ti1f had an equity,
subject to the discretion of the mother. He thought the
plaintiff entitled to an account ; but at present to nothing
more. With regard to the discretion given to the widow,
the testator had undoubtedly a right to give it or not r he
pleased. He might give kin property absolutely to his
children, or with limitations, as he thought proper. Ile might
give it to them subject, as to its distribution, to a diaretion in
a third party; and so long as that person exercised a sound
and honest discretion there was no principle upon which the
court could interfere. If the discretion given by the will
had been exercised correctly and honestly, the court would
hold the plaintiff to have obtained all she would he entitled
to, consistently with her having an interest subject to that dis-
cretion. The plaintiff, however, had a right to a discovery
both of the property in which she had an interest, and of the
mode in which it had been dealt with ; and she hod that
right in order that the court might see whether that which
had been done by the trustee was consistent with the exer-
cise of a sound and boner discretion. Where a bill is filed,
and the court ter reason to be dissatisfied with the exercise
of the discretion, it will either deprive the trustee of it alto-
gether, or require him to exercise it under the view of the
court. If the present case had been only one of an improper
exercise of the discretion, the case would probably
have been disposed of ; but, to make that case, the
bill should have been otherwise framed. It should
simply have stated the will, the state of the family, and
prayed the judgment of the court. The plaintiff, however,
instead of staling that simple case, had made, or attempted
to make, a geoid ere against her mother, the defendant,
by introucing charges in the bill which were wholly un-
supported by dm seldom, and which the court would there-
, fon Moat es entirely without foundation. That course was
the man to be regretted as it appeared from the corre-
spondents that the defendant had offered to add annually the
sum of 401. to the annuity given to the plaintiff by the will,
and the plaintiff herself had only asked for an addition of
501. We Honour then said that from the gpiglanee en it
stood there egpsessi to be so pound for serlhrgtherbquis
ties bad been dew, au fee divesting any • • •
than in ea itliillll7 ere Oa bill taking LE; • • • end OM;
judgment of the rtesma le whether a b lOWA heill
been committed, and directed inquiries • • Wire
the Hester, to ascertain dm number of • b., a 2..
tater ; the amount of the residuary estate 7• • • • the
testator; and of what it now consists; •." r, se • •
whether the widow was entitled or • • "c" *-
s u-1-•;..--1.

it
!

whether the plaintiff's legacy of 1.7001. had been raised ; and
if cot, whether any steps shou:d be taken for that purpose.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Yes'erdav the Westminster County Court of Middlesex,
was opcnid before D. C. klojlaa, E.sq., the judge, s•-id
Francis Smedley, Req., the high bailiff of Westrainstez, for
the trial of eases under the New Small Debts Act, at the
Court-house, Castle-street, St. Martin's-laae. reeve were
63 cases ect down for trial, and being the eat Sitting, in any
court, the proeiedings excited an unusual degree of interest.
The learned judge took his seat at 11 o'clock.
El ECM EN T.—LANGLEY O. PARR.—This was a summons
taken out under the 122 d section of the act, which:gives
power to the judges to order possession of premises to be
given up where the rent does not exceed 501 per annum, to
order the defendant to give up possession of certain premises
whiclehe occupied of the plaintiff at a weekly rental. Mr.
Pierrepoiut, • solicitor, who appeered for the defendant,
after admitting the service of the notice, said, that having
looked at the act of parliament, he found that the 122 d sec-
tion was ruled by the 126th section, which set forth, that " if
the person by whom any such warrant was sued out, had not
attics time any lawful rightto the premises in question, then
the suing out of any such warrant shall be deemed a trespass."
Now, what he wished to do was to proceed with an action
of trespass against the plaintiff in • superior court, the de-
4endant questioning the lawful right of the plaintiff. Ile did
not wish to enter into detail, but to give in bail. The learned
judge raid, before he could make an order that the warrant
win bad, and that the execution of it would be a trespam, it
was the duty of the defendant to give evidence that the
plaintiff had no legal right to the premises. Mr. Griffith,
the plaintiff's agent, said he could prove that he held a leave
of the premises from the Duke of Bedford, and that the de-
fendant paid • weekly rent at the rive of 2111. per annum to
him for his portion. Evidence was then given, showing that
the defendant had occupied the premises since February,
1640, and that he hid been several times aammoned under
the Westminster Court of Requests for arrears of rent. The
110tihe to quit the premises on the 15th of Marffs was served
on the 6th. After a lengthened discussion the learned judge
made an order for the defendant to give up possessien
within ten days. The defendant said if that was the de-
cision of the court, it would be a loss to him elf 5001. The
learned judge was sorry to hear that, and trusted that some
amicable arrangement might be come to between the
plaintiff and defendant before the law was put is force.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, MAUCH 30.
The commission for Surrey was opened on Monday. There
are seventy-five causes entered for trial. The business en
the criminal side is rather heavier than usual, there being
forty-five prisoners in the calendar.
Clem sloe.
SKIP, E. BURBIDOE.—RECOVIIRT or DEPOSIT FOR
Batt..—This was an action to recover the sum of 801.
from the defendant, an attorney, which had been
placed in his hands by the plaintiff, to indemnify him for be-
coming a surety for his appearance to prosecute a person
named Burtield for felony at the Central Criminal Court.
It will be remembered that the prosecutor was robbed of his
pocket-book, which contained 3001., at the Catharine-wheel
Inn, in the borough, and • inan named Burfield, whose' em-
ployed at the establishment, was convicted at the last session
of the Central Criminal Court of the robbery, and sentenced
to six month' imprisonment. The present defendant acted
as attorney for the prosecution, and owing to Skipp being at
the time in some pecuniary difficulties, and from other cir-
cumstances, the case was a good while under invessfigation,
and when the pocket-book containing the money was found,
the magistrate refused to all,w it to be delivered up to the
prosecutor, unless he entered into sureties for his appear-
ance at the sessions, to prosecute the delinquent; and the
defeadant in the present action, his then solicitor, consented
to become security, upon his depositing the sum of
eighty pounds in his hands, and some sort of
arrangement was entered into, that this money
should not be restored until after the trial at the Ceneral
Criminal Court. Some disagreement tubsequeutly took
place between the parties, and it appeared that although the
trial at the Old Bsiley did not, in point of fact, take place
until the Gth of March, the present action to recover the
money was commenced on the '2nd; and it was one of the
ground, of defence that the plaintiff had not at that time
fulfilled the condition upon which the money was to be
restored ; and the defendant also pleaded a set off, and put
in his bill for 931, for conducting the prosecution, against the
sum sought to he recovered by the plaintiff.—The jury found
for the plintiff for the amount claimed.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—BURY ST. EDMUNDS,
MARCH 29.
Chotre Cootre.—Before the Lord Chief Bare.
_ .

Calltstrsne Foster, who had been convicted on Saturday
of the murder of her husband, by administering poison to
him, was brought up for judgment at the sitting of the court.
The learned judge, after expressing his entire concurrence in
the verdict of the jury, sentenced her to death. The prisoner
listened to his lordship wilt an appearance of apathy that
surprised all present.
Nest eans.—Before Mr. Jcidee Coleridge.
MCLLET V. \YAWN AND ANOTHER.—EXPENSES AT TEE
LAST ELECTION TOE IPPWICH.—MI. Serjeant Ryles and
Mr. O'Malley were counsel for the plaiwiff; Mr. A non de-
fended himself; and Mr. Rennie, the other defendant, had
allowed judgment to go by default. The plaintiff is an up-
hobterer, and sought to recover the sum of 131. ss. for
erimson milk flags, crimson silk carriage decorations, and other
electioneering trappings and furniture, supplied to the de-
fendants at the last election fur Ipswich, when they were
candidates on the liberal interest. The defence was, that the
liberal candidates, at the election in 1841, had, so was
usual on such occasions, paid a sum of 6001. to the leaders of
the lib.ral party, on the understanding that they were not
to be liable for a farthing more ; that the plaintiff was one of
the leaders of the liberal party in the borough, and knew of
the arrangement, and that the sum of 6001. so paid, had
been misapplied bT the liberal committee, inasmuch as the
sum of 7001. was still due for legal expenees. In support of
this defence, witnesses were called by the defendant, but
failed to bring home to the plaintiff (who appeared to have
been an active liberal) knowledge of the arrangement relied
on. The learned judge left the case to the jury as an unde-
fended action, and a verdict wu returned for the plaintiff.

WESTERN CIRCIIIT.—BODMIN, MARCH 29.
Crow Cover.—Before Mr. Justice Crewrell.

Tae s7:iiAiiiikllßETEßl=4;;y7s;;;;Cott, aged 30,
was indicted for the wilful murder of Samuel Hoskin, at the
parish of St. Mabyn, on the 10th Oct. Mr. Rowe and Mr.
Cornish, for the prosecution ; Mr. Slade, for the prisoner.
The deceased was a cooper at the village of St. Mabyn. He
was a married man, and had before and since his marriage
mrried on an illicit intercourse with the prisoner, who
lived in the same neighbourhood. They had quarrelled
qn various occasions previous to the fatal deed. John
Clements, a labourer, stated that on Saturday, the 10th
of October, he was passing along Denham-bridge-lane, about
• quarter before six o'clock in the morning, when he found
the deceased lying upon his face. There is a house on the
Tot where the body was found, and the head was close to
that house. Theback of his head was severely cut, and there
Nsis a quantity of blood UDOU it. The wall was covered
with brains. His coat pocket was pulled down and
torn. The coat was also torn up the back.—
William Perry, living at St. Mabyn, stated that on the
same morning .the last witness came to his house and called
him. He accompanied him to where the body of Samuel
Hnckin lay. He was not quite dead, but iasensible. He
found a stone about 5 feet 6 inches from the body, and there
was blood upon it. He afterwards saw it in the possession
of the constable. On the Sunday before deceased's marriage
witness visited deceased, who was then living with the pri-
soner. lie saw Hoekin standing with his head bleeding, and
a few minutes afterwards the prisoner came in. The witness
went on to state that on that occasion a quarrel took place be-
tween the prisoner and deceased, and the former threatened
to knock his brains out. . _ _

Mr. Oared, the surgeon, deposed that he was of opinion
that such wounds u the deceased died of could be pro-
duced by the stone which was produced. He was present
when the house of John Treverton was searched bv West
the constable. In a bedroom upstairs West found a pair of
shoes between two chaff matt:mese The heels of the shoes
were turned down as if worn elip•shud. They were wet,
and the right shoe appeared to have been wiped or scraped.
He observed some spots on the upper part of the right shoe,
which be believed to be blood.

Ann Hockin, the widow of Samuel Hockin, said he was
fifty years of re at the time of his death. The prisoner had
been living with him before witness was married to him.
After the marriage the deceased still continued to visit the
prisoner, and he was on four occasions absent from witness
all night. Three weeks subsequent to the marriage Mary
Trewerton and he went away from the village and were
absent about three weeks. Ever since the period of hie re-
turn the deceased continued to live with witness—but she
had often seen him at the prisoner's house. Deceased was
at home on the evening of Friday, the 9th Oct., and he went
out at 7 o'clock. She went to bed at 12 o'clock, and had
never seen him alive from that time. She did not
know whether he had any money about him on the
night in question. He never gave her any money.
Cress-esunined--He was continually v'siting Mary Trever-
ton down to the time of his death. Witness had • child by
the deceased. It was IT months old. He was quite sober
when he left the house on the night of the 9th October, but
he had been drinking • little that day.
John Ilockin, son of the deceased by his first wife, saw his
father and the prisoner together at Denham-bridge-lane,
about a month before the 9th October. The prisoner abused
the deceased, saying—" I'll blow thee and thy wife up with
gunpowder, if there's any to begot to-night between this and
Bodmin."
George Stephen., a shoemaker, at St. Mahyn, was at the
prisoner's house the night before the deceased WAS found
dead. The prisoner lived with her father and mother, and
sister. The prisoner went out a little before ten o'clock. and
the deceased followed her. The latter appeared to have
been drinking. The deceased and the prisoner appeared to
be very good friends that night. They appeared to be very
fend of each other, at times.
Mary Pooley said, the spot on which the body was found
was within sight of her bed-room window. Her house was
between Tee verton'a house and that spot. On the morning
of the 10th of October, at sock-crow, she heard
• scuffle outside her wall as if a person was "drag-
ging something along the road." She heard the voice of
Samuel Hockin, repeating the words, " Let me go," twice.
After this she heard another voice, but she did not identify
it. They were going in the direction where he was found
dead. About Ave minutes afterwards she heard some person
running back in the opposite direction past her house. She
heard no cry oe sereant.
Jane Had rid the apartments phe occupied were under
the ems roof where the prisoner lived. There was a pas-
sage betimes the two tenements, and a door in it. On the
plight of the 9eit October, she went to her bedroom about

nine o'clock. The room in which she slept adjoined tea
bedroom ia the prisoner's house. The partition was a 'very
light one, and In the course of the night she beard *;ne
sage door open several times. The last time she heard this
was about four o'clock, and, on that occasion, somebody went
upstairs in 'freverton's house. In the morning, about seven
o'cloak. Mary Dart came to the house, and said, " The
cooper's brains are beat out." The t ?teener answered,
". Whoever could have the heart to do it ?" Shortly after-
wards the prisoner's father came in, and he said" The place
is ',frightful where the old cooper was killed." He said
someshing else, and the pri,oner replied, " What, do you
think I killed him ? I didn't go further than the door with
him."
Mary Dart said she sat up the whole of that night in a
kitchen which looked into the road. In the course of the
night, between one and two o'clock, she observed a light in
the kitchen window at Treverton's house. It was a moon-
light night, and between two and three o'clock she observed
a man pass her window twice. He was dressed in a light
fustian coat and trousers. She thought it was Samuel
Hockin. Between five and six o'clock that morning she left
her own house and went into Treverton's passage.. The
door was not fastened, but Treverton's door was lucked or
bolted. A few minutes afterwards the prisoner came down
and opened the door. She had on a day cap, and
her clothes appeared " trammed." Witness asked her if
she had been to bed, and she replied " Yee." They then
heard voices outside, and the prisoner looked out of win-
dow. Several people then came to the door and said, "He
is dead." Witness's little girl came in afterwards and
stated that Samuel Hockin was found dead. The prisoner
replied, " Who could be so gruel ?" Witness asked her
why she did not go out, and she said she couldn't on an
account whatever. Witness said she thought she saw S.
Hockin pass by her window on the preceding night ; and
the prisoner made no answer. At that time G. Stephens
came in and said, " In a few minutes your house will be
searched." Whereupon the prisoner went up stairs and did
not come down again until the constable arrived. West,
, the constable, said something to the prisoner's mother, who
thereupon called her daughter down. She had no shoes on,
and she took a pair of slippers from under the stairs and
put them on. The constable told her she must go with him,
and she raid "What do you mean by that ?"
The constable WM produced the shoes, and some hair cut
from deceased's head after his death, also the stone, which
still presented marks of blood.
John Treverton, the father of the prisoner, said, that at
the time in question she was living at his house. There was
only one bedroom there, and it contained two beds. His
wife and himself, with their youngest child, slept in one of
them, and Mary Treverton in the other. Oa the night of
the 9th October he went to bed at seven o'clock. He was
very unwell, and his son brought him a drop of ale after he
went to heel. He could not swear to the prisoner's shoes.
He never took any notice of her shoes. Tho shoes produced
were not hie own nor his wife's. On the night of the
9th October the prisoner went to bed at half-past eleven
o'clock. He was very wakeful the whole of that night. Mary
did not go out during the night, and is the morning he saw
her get up. Hockin had once promised the prisoner mar-
riage Stephens was recalled to identify the shoes, and
he stated that he believed them to be the prisoner's. He
was in the habit of making shoes for the family. John
!Nigh. a shoemaker, proved that he made a pair of shoes
last year for the prisoner. The shoes produced were made
by him, and they were similar to those made for the prisoner.
This was the ease for the prosecution.
Mr. Slade addressed the jury for the prisoner, and after
commenting upon the whole of the case, contended most
emphatically that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant
them in finding a verdict of guilty.
Mr. Justice Cresswell having summedup the jury delibe-
rated for a few minutes, and returned a verdict of Not
really.—The prisoner clasped her hands for joy, and was
immediately conducted out of court.
The excitement caused by this trial was, as usual on such
occasions, very great; and crowds of people were seen
hastening towards the court at s-von o'clock in the morning.
It was remarkable that the majority of the spectators at
the trial were females; and Mr. Justice Creamed] took
occasion to observe, in the course of his summing
up, that there were many women whose curiosity
led them into scenes, from which the better feet-
ings of human nature ought to exclude them. It was
greatly to be regretted that such was the ease, and the oppor-
tunity taken by his lordship for alluding to the subject was,
when he came to that part of the evidence where it was
stated that the prisoner did not go out to see the body of the
deceased. Some people, he said, were always anxious to
avoid sights of horror, and others were actuated by the oppo-
site feeling. The ladies present appeared fully to understand
this rebuke from the learned judge.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-LIVERPOOL, MAICIf 30.

Clown Comet—Before 71Ir. Baron Aldence.

ALLEGED MUNDELL ON THE HIGH SEAL. The trial of
Captain Thorp, for the murder of John Oristallio, termi-
nated about 5 o'clock, and resulted in his Acquittal.
ALLEGED MURDER AT BARTON-UPON-IRWELL.—Eliza-
beth Johnson, aged 33, was indicted for the wiltul murder of
William Henry Johnson, on the 27th of November last, at
Barton-upon-Irwell, by administering arsenic to him.
Several witnesses were first called, who stated that up to
t4e Friday before deceased's death, he was in his usual
health. Martha Livesey said : I live at Barton-bridge with
my mother, who keeps a shop there, and sells drugs. I have
known the prisoner for about a year. I recollect her coming
to the shop in November last. It was on Friday. the 27th
of Nov. She asked for three pennyworth of arsen...c. She
said it was for rats which were in a gutter near her house and
that she intended to put the poison into the gutter. I ;eked
her if there were any children in the house, and she said
there were not. I served her with the arsenic, which she
took away with her. I recollect being at the police-eflice at
Crott's-bank on the 4th of January last. Forrester the
policeman was there. I raw him with the prisoner at kis
home. She went up stairs with Mrs. Forrester. When
she came down again, Forrester asked her if she knew me.
She said she had no recollection of me. I said it was strange
she did not know me, so often as she had been at our
shop. She said she did not know me, and that she bad
never been in the shop. I said she had been there fre-
quently. I told her she had been there far arsenic. She
said I was quite mistaken; she had never been in the
shop for that. I told her she had, but she still denied it.
Sarah Hardman corroborated the evidence of the last wit.
nese, having been present when the prisoner bought the
arsenic. She added, I saw the prisoner the same afternoon,
afterwards, in Eccles-lane, going towards Barton.--Jane
Bradshuw : My father keeps the Trafford Arms at Barton-
bridge. I know the prison, r. I saw her on the 27t bof
November, when she came and called for a glass of gin and
water. I saw her go into Mrs. Livesey's shop.—John
Whitehead : I knew the deceased, Johnson. I lodged with
them for a few weeks. I left home on the 24th of November
sad returned on the 28th. I saw Mrs. Johnson when I re-
turned. She said her husband was very poorly, and that be
was taken ill on the Friday evening. He had vomited very
much I asked her if she had sent for any assistance. She
maid she had not, but had sent for some stuff for him from
Mr. Hopworth's, the surgeon. I saw Johnson, on the Sun-
day morning, in his bed. He appeared to be very poorly,
though be did not complain much. He hod been vomiting.
Mrs. Johnson removed the utensil, and I did not observe it.
I saw him again two or three times on the Monday; he was
then very ill. I saw him again on Tuesday, and be was still
in the same state. Mrs. Molt was from home, but returned
on Tuesday evening. I saw Johnson again on Wednes-
day evening. He was very ill indeed. Mrs. Johnson asked
me to go up stairs and read for him. I went, and while I was
reading he vomited very mach. That was about twelve
o'clock. Mrs. Johnson came up to him. No one else at-
tended to him. I saw him two or three times on the tame
afternoon. On the but occasion I was called up, it was to
assist Johnson out of bed. The prisoner's father called me
up. Generally speal/4ing I was not much at home.—
Benjamin Mellington call. d lam a cousin to the prisoner.
I went through Barton to Davy liulme one day in Nov.
I called and saw the deceased Johnson. He was in bed,
and seemed to be very sick. I asked him if he was in pain.
He retched very much as though he wanted to vomit but
could not. He complained of being thirsty. I was with
him about half an hour. I dined there, I believe with Mrs.
Johnson. She seemed quite cheerful, and did not appear to
apprehend any danger —Several other witnesses were ez•
amined, and when our report left the trial was still going on.