The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-11 00:00:00

STOCKPORT WATISWORKS COMPANY T. SMIRKS.

This cause was being proceeded with when our parcel left
on Thursday evening, after which time the following took
place :
Mr. L H. Pitman, Kr. George Graham, and Hr. A. H.
Shaw, medical gentlemen connected with Stockport, spoke
of the general healthiness of the place.
Mr. Collier having replied at some length, the learned
Judge submitted to the jury the following questions :-
1. Assuming that the water was in a natural state except
for what the defendants had done, would what they had
done sensibly deteriorate it? 2. Assuming as before, and
supposing there is no actual sensible deterioration caused
by the defendants, would what they have done, if con-
tinued, seusibly deteriorate it? 3. Have the defendants
sensibly deteriorated it as it stands—that is, taking into
account its other pollutions? 4. If they had continued,
would they have done so? ii. Has any actual leas accrued
to the plaintiffs ? G. Is there any defence to this action
upon the authority of the awe " Hole v. Barlow
The jury then retired, and at a late hour proceeded to
his lordship's lodgings, where they stated that with refer-
ence to the above prepositions they were enabled to answer
the first four in the affirmative ; the fifth and sixth in the
negative ; and that the place of business was convenient,
but the mode of conducting it was objectionable. This was
virtually a verdict for the plaintiffs.
This concluded the business of the circuit.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WELtA, Aro. 10.
CROWN CocßT.—(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
CHARGE OP MURDER.
James Norris, 19, a farm labourer, was indicted for the
wilful murder of Benjamin Rich, at Chewton Mendip, So-
uwreet, on the 19th of July last. The occurrence arose out
of a poaching affray.
Mr. Thring prosecuted, sad Mr. Edwards defended the
prisoner.
The jury returned a verdict ef Not Goiltp.

The prisoner and Nh Norris were further charg..,l wish
the manslaughter of Benjamin Rich, on the coroner', inqui.
sition, but as no evidence on this csae was offered they w,se
both discharged.

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Henry Staniforth, lably • confidential clerk in the sr-
vies of Mr. James Harrison, warebouseman, in Milk-strftt,
Chespaide, underwent • final examination upon a charge of
embezzling money belonging to his employer, to an amount
which ham never yet been exactly lied by the complainant,
but which has always appeared on the charge sheet at the
nominal figure of 301., though a much larger sum has been
&ill:against him.
acme had been repeatedly remanded at the instance el
the defendant, who always contended, through Mr. Lewis,
who appeared for him, that if he had an upper.
Malty a/forded him to examine the complainant's books,
he should be able to establish his innocence by
making it clear that be lied paid away in the complainant s
business at various times the whole of the money which he
wars charged with embezzling. He alleged, too, that with
the view to deceive a person in the country for whom the
complainant acted as agent, the complainant had eyetemati.
calli omitted receipt' and payments from his *comma, to
which he (the defendant), who acted es his caehierior some
time, and kept his books, was privy against his =Md. The
complainant, on the other hand, always denisciand ridi-
culed that allegation, but when under examination he
evaded and fenced with the question put to him to such an
extent as to drew down upon himself a sharp rebuke
from Sir Robert Carden, who first heard the ease, and
to produce the impression in court, rightly or wrongly,
that the statement of the defendant was not altogether
devoid of truth. This view, also, was rather confirmed by
ari un will i ngness on the part of the complainant, in the
drat instance, to allow the defendant to search his books
for materials for proving. his innocence. He certainly gave
the defendant that permission, but always with such reser.
vation as excited ornspicion. Eventually, however, at
the suggestion of the Loral Mayor, on whom the final ad.
judication of the case devolved, the complainant granted
the requisite permission unconditionally ; and he and the
defendant, each assisted by an accountant of their own
choice, went over the disputed accounts. The result of this
examination was, that yesterday Mr. Lewis, on the pirt of the
defendant, put in a statement of accounts, showing, on the one
hand, that the total amount received by the defendant fee
his master, and not entered in the books, was 170 e: 16e. 4d.
and that he had paid away for his master and not entered
in the book, 1711. 13e. 7d. So that upon that state of
bets—and it was scarcely, if at all, questioned by the
complainant's accountant—there was a slight balance in
favour of the defendant. The complainant, it is true, at
first demurred to the statement of figures so produced, but
on being put into the witness-box and submitted to a
severe cross-examination by Mr. Lewis, he at length stated
that the defendant had received on his account, and net
entered in the books 1701.165. 4d. in all, and then admitted,
one .by one, items which the defendant had paid away be
him, and amounting in the aggregate to 1711. 13e. Td.
There was then a dispute about a sum of 131.15 e., which
the complainant charged the defendant with misappropris
ling, bat that was eventually abandoned by the cone
r, that in the end the case fell to the ground, and
ind so
Mayor, amid some manifestations of applause, ,Lis.
charged the defendant.