The Express.
London, England, 1858-04-01 00:00:00

T.HE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EvENIIvG, APRIL 1, 1858.

tab
EQUITY COURTB.—Meson 31.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
LAT ANOLIAN RAILWAY COMPANY V. GOODWIN.
this cogs two witnemee—Mr. Bverard, a former di-
rector of the company, and Mr. Lacy, the former chairman of
the company—were examined in court, respecting an alleged
forfeiture et shares by a Mr. Dawson ; and, at the close of
the eaaminatamt,
The Vice-Cboneellor intimated that be would give his de-
claim on the second day of next term.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—MAnca 31.
(Before Mr. Commiosicear Goa'burs.)
IN RU GABRIEL-11101411 OF 1110111'0•021J).

The bankrupt in this cam woo a sswyer, of Tottenham-
court-ruad. In July kit he gave an equitable mortgage on
Ws kneel:told premises to the Western Bank of Landon, u
security for an advance of 2001, and other moneys due. It
a:i.erwards appeared that there were other mortgages on the
machinery, &c., sad a question arose as to prionty, and alao
as to the *Rud the bank's mortgage. The petition prayed
for a sale of the property, all parties being ordered to concur,
and that the Waiters Bank might be declared entitled to
their debt oat of the proceeds, after payment of the landlord.
the difkrant
Ide. Bagley, Mr. Walker, sad other gentlemen, represented
mass.
His Meow maimed his judgment.
IN 11 NANNSPORD.

The bankrupt, a date merchant, at Rateliff-crose, applied
for his certificate. Debts, 1,7371. ; meets, about 2e. tld. in
the pored. The bankrupt had oome to the court on his own
l:tition; the easels not having realised 1501., an adjournment
was ordered, and they now exceeded that amount.
Mr. Lawrence supported; there wee no opposition.
His Honour, observing that the bankrupt had coin-
=before, that there was a very small sum for the ere-
sad that the books had been badly kept, suspended
the certificate (third clam) for nine months from the date of
the petition in November last.
lb. Lawrence observed that the bankruptcy had followed
close upon the composition. The bankrupt had paid Ile. in
the pound under the composition.
The Commissioner—Yes, to some creditors; the others
or ly get 2a. 6d. This Illealastee whet I said the other day,
thgt in warmly any of these mm eg of composition do the ore-
ditore get fair play.

- -
IN RI vtaxog.
The bankrupt was • bui/der, of Fish-street-bill, and of
Richmond-road Hackney. This was the certificate mese-
Mg. Unsecured debts, 3,3391. ; mete, about 6601., besides
a surplus expected to be derived from the secured property.
On a trading of two years and two months he bad made •
profit of 8781.. on • return of 14,039/. ; tha trade expenses
bad been 1,2971. ; personal ditto, 1,1761. • losses on realisa-
tion, 4841. The official wigwam stated that the books had
bee, well kept.
Mr. Norton, for the aseigaece, said that the bankrupt had
rendered material assistance in realising his estate. His sc.
counn were vouched to a penny—a most remarkable feature
in • builder's case. He had been in trade fourteen years, and
had never failed before, or compounded with his
The deficiency was owing to depreciation in the value of MS
property. Ilia homes had been really built too well for spe-
cul
the ativbankrupte purposades. The propertyr had realised 1001. mom than
hit at.
Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, submitted that the use
was one bra Ent-class certificate. The failure was solely
attributable to the depreciation in the value of property dur-
ing the commercial panic of last year and the increase in the
pries of materials at • previous period.
Mr. Penmen said that the dividend would be 6s. in the
Pwiposed, Independent of any surplus from the mortgaged pro-
teT bankrupt was examined at to the cause of his failure.
He attributed it to the greet rise in the price of labour and
materials, and the high rate of interest which prevailed last
7•F:

—His Honour said the. were a great many favourable cir-
cumstanced in the awas, and grouted an immediate certificate
of the Brat dam.

and his friends interfered in order to armage his affairs,
and the plaidlt was asked to wait until some t
could be made. He would not, however, do so, end upon
the present action bring brought the legal advisers of the de-
fendant, when they were made acquainted with the reel
nature of the transaction, had felt it their duty to put upon
the record the plea that had been brought to their notice, and
if be made out the facts as be had sided them he believed
they would be a good answer in law to the action, and the
defendant would be entitled to a verdict. The learned counsel
then called the attention of the jury to the statute passed in the
reign of Queen Anne, which enacted that every deed, bond,
Or other security given to necure money for the purposes of
Flying gambling bete, or where any portion of the money
advaneed should be employed for such a purpose, should be
null and void; and he said that although this statute had
been repealed, similar enactments had been made in subsea
quent Mantes of the 6th and Bth Wil. IV., and the Bth and
9th Vic., and the law was quite clear upon the point. Bets
upon hone racing undoubtedly were gaming in the eye of the
law, and If he made out that this deed was given to secure
the payment of bets, or for the purpose of paying bets lost
upon • horse race, he should be entitled to their verdict.
Mr. E. B. Fox was then examined. He said—l am the
defendant in this rause, and reside at present in the Wand of
Jersey. Before I became connected with the tare I was a
gentleman of property. I know the plaintiff vary well. He
is coma-end with the turf, and before the transaction now
in question we have had many betting transactions together.
I made some bet', with him upon the Derby of 18.50, and
after the race I owed him about 1,7001. for beta I had lost.
The ran was run on the 29th of May, and the 4th of June
following would be the settling-day. On the second or
third day after the race I went to the plaintiff's house, and
told him that I had lost more money than I could possibly
pay then, and he Naked me how much I had lost in addition
to his beta, and I said that about 3001. more would enable me
to coy everybody. He then agreed to advance me 2,0001.,
upon the condition that I paid his account out of it. I agreed
to this at ono', and be went with me to his solicitors,
Messrs. Hill and Williamson, who were to strange about
the security I was to give for the money, and it was agreed
that I should give the bond now in question and hand over
• policy for 1,60 W., and effect another for 6001. upon
my own life, and also give a promissory note. I went to the
of Messrs. Hill and Williamson about 12 o'clock on the ,
4th of June, and after I had signed an agreement for the 1
and • promissory note payable on demand I re-
:°lZ. ohegue for 2,0001. It had been arranged that I
should meet the plaintiff at Webb'. Hong, In Piccadilly, and
I went there immediately I received the cheque and handed '
it to hint, expecting that he would give me the difference.
He mid that I ought to have got the moque cashed, and he
asked me to go in his chaise (which was at the door) to the
tanker's, and get the money, and I did so, and when I came
beck I paid the plaintiff 1,6601. which Ina the amount of '
the bets he had won. I afterwards paid 6001. as premiums
end interest, and the premiums were paid by me upon the
policies down to November, 1866.
Mr. Jeri. e Erie inquired whether this last metier was at
all relevant to the inquiry ?
Mr. Peteradorff said be asked the gaud= in justice to the
character of the defendant, to show tinkle went on paying
as long as he was able! -"•.•
Edwin
James. defendant was then croes7ex—aTeined by—Mr7 Edwin
Jame& He said—The plaintiff need to'od me money very
often; but I do not think he ever lent me so large • sum as
1,0001. at one time. The largest sum I ever recollect him to
have lent me at one time was 8001. The money was lent me
for my convenienoe, and possibly some of it was to pay
loans I had sustained on the twL I had borrowed money
of the plaintiff both before and after this transaction of 1850.
In 1866 I was a defaulter on the turf is about 6,0001., and
since that time I have been abroad. I have been out of the
way of my creditors. I only came in their way last Monday.
(A laugh.) I intend of course to get out of their way again
as soon as this trial is over. (Renewed laughter.) I did not
"t show" at Tattersall's on the settling day after the Derby of
1868. I did show on the Monday, and received some bets,
but did not pay any. I received altogether 2841. for different
beta. One bet was paid me by Mr. Richard Tattersall,
another by a gentleman named Maxwell, and a third by Mr.
Whitburn. I did not pay a farthing of the beta I had lost
myself The money I received did not pay my journey to
Jersey. I received the money on the Monday, and started
for Jersey on the following morning. I believe this is what
is called on the turf " levitating." (Laughter.) I received
the money in the course of the Monday afternoon. I did
sot ask Mr. Tattersall to pay me the bet he had lost,
" Thome'," the porter at the rooms, brought me • cheque
from him. Iffid not tell Thomas that I was going off to Jersey
the moment 'obtained the money. (A laugh.) I don't know ,
where I received the money from Mr. Whitburn, but I will
swear I did not tell him that I should be at Tatteniall's on the
Tuesday morning. I will swear that I saw the plaintiff at
Webb's Hotel on the 4th of June, 1860, end that I paid him
the money there ; and I will swear that I did not pay him at
Tattereall's. I believe that I walked with him from Webb's
Hotel to Tattersall's. I lost altogether about 2,6001. on the
Derby of 1850, and I paid everybody. I am not ewers of the
plaintiff having ever lent me any money without charging
Wired, but he never charged me more than 5 per cent.
Re-examined—l owed other debts besides my sporting ones
when I went to Jersey, but all my bock fide creditors are or
will be paid. My friends have come forward to assist rue to
do this. I went away in order that I might live more mono-
mically, and I have now only an allowance of 1001. • year,
upon which I support myself.
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and he
said that when they bad heard the evidence he would give
them, he had no doubt they would be of opinion that the
defence set up on the present occasion was a most ecandalous
one, and that it was characterised by the basest ingratitude
on the part of the defendant. Before, however, the jury
could give effect to such a defence, they must be satisfied that
there was an express, understanding that the money to be ad-
vanced upon the instrument that was sought to be rendered
invalid was advanced for the purpose of paying bets, and he
should show them that nothing of the sort took place, and
that the money was advanced as a loan in the regular
and ordinary manner, and that there was not the
alighted" pretence for the attempt that less now made to resist
payment of the bond in question. He should show that Mr,
Hill had kindly assisted the defendant on this as he had
done on several other occulters with the loan of money ; and
it was a moat discreditable act on the part of the de .Indant
to put such • plea as this upon the recce* and it was a pro-
, carding that could not be justified either in law or morality.
It had been stated that Mr. Hill was connected with the
turf, and his learned friend had admitted that net • word
could be said in impeachment of his honour and Integrity.
He would be called to give his version of the transaction, and
would flatly contradict many of the statements made by the
defendant; and he believed the jury would not
have any difficulty, when they looked at the conduct
of the two parties, to my which of the two was entitled to
We verdict. The defendant, according to hie own showing, had
been guilty of about as scandalous and dishonest a transaction
as had ever been perpetrated. The great majority of the
transactions upon the turf were conducted with the strictest
honour and integrity ; but what was the conduct of the de-
fendant ? In 1868 he lost 6,0001. upon the Derby—he knew
' the settling day was on the Tuesday, and in geese violation
and fraud of all the rubes of the turf h,e went on the Monday
and received the bete that were due to him, to the amount
of 2841., and then "kvanted," as it 'era termed, and did not
pay a single farthing of the amount he had lost himself. The
real tesneaction that took place relating to the bond now
in question was this at the Derby the plaintiff won
about 1,6001. from the defendant, but the greater
poetics of this sum was for tate that he had
made for the defendant with other parties. On the
Saturday following the defendant went to the plaintiff, and
told him that he had lost more money on the race than he
could pay, and that he should be declared • defaulter if the
e lame
did not lend him 2,000/. The plaintiff said it was a
sum, and be could not advance it without consulting his
solicitors, and taking their advice as to the security that was
to be given. He accordingly went to Messrs. Hill and Wil-
liamson, who were highly respectable gentlemen, accom-
panied by the defendant, and he gave them his cheque for
2,000/., in order that they might give that amount to the
defendant, if ke satisfied them as to the security that was to
be given for its repayment. The menrity now in question
was afterwards executed, but the money was advanced as a
loan, and in no other shape, and from the ilettarday hardened
to, until the following Tuesday, when they met at Tattersell'e,
the plaintiff saw nothing of the defewitrat, and he was in-
structed that it was a deliberate falsehood that the plaintiff
met the defendant at Webb's Hotel on the 4th of June, or
that he requested him to go and get the 2,000!. cheque cashed
at the banker's. The transaction was merely • loan trans-
action of the ordinary description. The money was advanced to
the defendant upon the security referred to, and be might have
kept the whole of it if he had been pleased to do so. The de-
fendant had never denied the validity of the deed until this
moment, end he now put Mr. Hill to the expense of bringing
this action, and also to the expense of a bill ha equity which
had been di missed, in order to detest • claim to which he
mast know he had no answer either la morality or justice.
Mr. H. Hill, the plaintiff, was then trilled as • witness.
He said -1 have been for a great many years etigeged on the
turf, and am the Oil air of moshorms, and am in the habit of
betting very largely. I have known the defendant for 30
years, and I have been in the habit of lending him money
from time to time for the last 20 years. He frequently ap-
plied to me for loans to pay his losses upon the different
rams. I frequently lent him 6001., and once I lent him
1,0001. I always lent him money whenever be asked me
for it. (A laugh.) 1 remember the Derby of 1850. It was
won by Voltigeur. My horse was the second. The defen-
dant would have won a lame trim if my horse had won the
race. Shortly after the Derby had been run the defendant
came to my house, said that he wanted 2,0001,
and he should be much obliged If I would let
him have that sum by way of lout. I told him
that all my money matters wen mewed by Mews. Hill
and Waitresses, my solicitors, and he mast state to them the
nature of the security he proposed to offer foe the ken, and
if they were satisfied I would let him have the money. Not
a word was said about paying me 1,6501. He did not loss
that was to MC On the same day I accompanied the de- ,
itredent to the office of Masers. Hill and Williamson, and I
left with than • cheque for 2,0001, for them to make the
advance if they thought proper to do so. On the settling
day, the Mk of June, I went to Tattersall'', about two o'clock,
sod sew the &trident there. I had not seenhim at all
diniag the interval, and it is not true that I was with him
et Webb'. Hotel on the 4th. It is also not true the I
sent dim is my chaise to the banker's to get the 2,0001.
cheeps eashed. I never saw the cheque at all on
thst day. 'The distant paid me what was due to me
at Talisman; but it was ormehlemdsly under 1,6001.
It eanalsed prtrely of bets I hid made et the request of
the delmaisut with I had myself Wd the de-
fendant a bet of 2,000/. to LwthLagaind the wiener, and but for
his having made Ober beta, he weld have bad a large sum
to motive dram me. I swear positively that no agreement

was MR entered into by me and the defendant that a por-
tion of the loan was to be returned to me in payment of the
beta I had won.

Creee-axamined—l have been on the turf for quite thirty
years, and I believe the defendant has been so for as long
a wind. I bet largely on my own account, and I have had
be with the defendant for twenty years. I have no cl tie
open him except for this bond and a sum of 6001., which he
owed me when he " levanted" in 1856. I hedged the bet of
2,0001. to 601. against Voldgear at the requeet of
tho defendant by laying 2,3001. to 1001. against him
shortly before the race. I paid that 2,300!. When
I agreed to advance him the 2,0001. I expected, of course,
that he would pay me the beta I had won, and he would have
been a very dishonourable man if he had not done so. I lent
him the money in order, no doubt, that he might pay his beta,
but he might have put it into his own pocket and kept it If
he pleased. I gave my cheque for 2,0001. to the solicitors on
the Saturday, bemuse I was busy, and it would have been
inconvenient for me to have gone again, and I left it to them
to prepare the necessary security. lam not in the habit of
going to Webb's Hotel, bat I may have been there on one or
two moutons.

Mr. James—l believe Webb's Hotel is a place frequented
by a good many of the people from the north
Witness-1 believe it is. You know I have seen you
there with Mr. Scott. (A laugh.)
Mr. James--Yes, I believe we have met there cook
Mr. Hill, of the firm of Hill and Williamson, deposed that
they were the solicitors of the plaintiff. He said he rennet-
bared Mr. Hill owning to the office accompanied by Mr. Fox
in 1850, and the former stated that he was going to lend Mr.
Pox 2,0001., and it was arranged that a mortgage should be
executed of the two policies of assurance, and a promissory
note, payable on demand, given is addition. The trainee-
tion was one of the ordinary description when a loan we to
be advanced, and the defendant thoroughly understood the
nature of the security that he was to give, and he declined to
have &copy of the mortgage deed, as he said he was quite
aware of the nature of the instrument. On the Tuesday
following witness gave the defendant his own cheque for
2,0001., and be subsequently executed the deed that we now
the subject of inquiry.
Mr. James then briefly summed up the plentiff's case.
Mr. Chambers, in his reply, contended that although an
attempt had been made to give the transaction the colour of
an ordinary loan, there could be no reasonable doubt that
the object of the plaintiff in advancing the money was that
he should be paid the beta Its bad won, and he said that such
a transaction was undoubtedly illegal, and that the defend-
ant was entitled to a verdict.

Mr. Justice Erle, in summing up, briefly called the Mks-
lion of the jury to the na•ure of the action, and said that if
it warn made out to their satisfaction that it was understood
when the 2,0001. was advanced that a portion of it was to
be returned to the plaintiff in payment of the beta he had
won, the defendant would be entitled to their verdict. He
should also inform them that if they were of opinion that the
bond was merely a colourable proceeding, with a view to
defeat the statute, in law the defendant would still be en-
titled to a verdict, but if they thought neither of these facts
was established by the evidence, then the plaintiff was
clearly entitled to recover. The learned judge then re-
layed to the statutes respecting betting, and said that betting
was not in itself illegal, and all that the law endeavoured to
do was to prevent the giving facilities for the recovery of
money won by betting. He was, however, of opinion that
it a person paid bets for another at hie request that he was
entitled to recover the money so paid, and that any instrn-
matt that wae given as security for money so paid would not
be vitiated on that account. The case on the part of the
defendant was that the whole transaction was merely &colour-
able proceeding to evade the statute,while Mr. Hill untended
that the operation wee for a loan of the ordinary kited, and
the question for the jury to decide would be on which side
the truth lay. He could not, however, help observing that
it warn a strong corroboration of the testimony of Mr. Hill
that he had left the cheque for 2,0001. with his solicitors on
the Saturday, being there to arrange what security should be
taken for the repayment of the amount.
The jury inquired whether it was not in evidence that Mr.
Hill admitted ha expected to be paid his beta out of the money
that was to be advanoed P

Mr. Juotkw Brie mid be wae of opinion that if it were so,
that feet would not avoid the loan.

Mr. Chamber.ta;tiseed a bill of exceptions to this ruling of
his loadehip.
The jury then deliberated, and in about five minutes they
returned a verdict for the plaintiff fur the full amount of the
bond end interest, together 2,5591.

CHESTER CIRCUIT.—CnEsTait, ➢ARCH 31.
Blau (CURT.—(Before Barra Bramwell.)
THE BIRKENHEAD MURDER.

/ohs Dais*, 30, labourer, was charged with wilfully and
maliciously murdering Thomas Flanaghan, at Birkenhead,
on the 20th of February, 1868.
Mr. ll'lntyre and Mr. Wood appeared on behalf of the
prosecution ; Mr. Austin (by request of the court) defended.
In opening the case, Mr. Wintry said that as far as con-
cerned any malice aforethought, there was very little evidence.
Philip King deposed that he kept a beer-house in Wataon-
etreet, Birkenhead. On the night of the 20th of February,
the prisoner and several others besides the deceased were in
his house; in the course of the evening a song was sung by
the prisoner, at which the deceased and his friends took
offence. At witness's request the prisoner left the house.
Cross-examined—The prisoner left before the deceased.
Patrick Savage deposed that he was in Watson-street on
the evening in question, when he saw the prisoner and the
deceased ; they joined hands and began wrestling, and after a
few minutes the prisoner gave the deceased a blow in his neck,
and the deceased immediately fell. On ping up to him
witness found Lis neck bleeding ; and he was immediately
carried into a droggiet's shop.
Cross-examined—The affair took place at half-past ten.
There were two other men with the prisoner. Witness saw
nothing in the prisoner's hand. The prisoner ran away se
soon as the deceased fell.

Hugh Lynch deposed that he was in Watson-street on the
evening in question when be saw the prisoner and deceased
run at each other and commence wrestling. After three or
four blows the prisoner struck the deceased in the neck, when
deceased fell and the prisoner can off. While running away
the prisoner put his hand into his pocket.
Croes-eumined—Thare was a crowd in the street as soon
as the deceased fell. It was not dark at the time. The pri-
soner was not attacked by sny other person to cause him to
run away.
Jams, M 'Vey knew the prisoner' because he lodged with
witners's brother. Wittier was in his brother's house when
the primmer came in on the night of the fight. The prisoner's
head wes bleeding when be came in. Directly after the con-
stable came in, end the prisoner was taken into custody.
Abouta week before the fight the prisoner showed witness a
knife, which he said was his property ; it resembled the
knife produced.
Patrick firVoy deposed that the prisoner lodged at his
horse. On the night of the fight he came in about ten
o'clock bleeding from his head. Witness then beard that
the prisoner had killed a man, when prisoner said, „I
; I only did it in self-defence ; give me up to the
police." In a few minutes the police came in, aid the pri•
soner, who was then in the oialhole, was taken into custody.
Witness afterwards pointed out to the police where he had
concealed the prisoners knife.
Patrick Doyle, a lad, was in the house when the prisoner
came in, end while the prisoner was wiping his hands he
said, " My knife is in ray coat pocket," when witness imme-
diately took it out and gave it to Patrick M•Voy. (The judge
asked this witness several times why he took the knife out
of the prisoner's pocket, to which the witness replied by re-
peating what he had said before, and after trying the patience
of the court for some time, refusing to give any other an-
swer, his lordship ordered him to betaken to gaol for pre-
varEr)
Police.constable Keenan deposed to apprehending the pri-
soner, and making an unsuccessful search for the knife in the
prisoner's coat. On the way to the station the prisoner said,
" I did it in self•defence and lam sorry that I did not kill
two more," Witness took the dammed to the hospital.
Produced deceased's clothes. There were eight cuts in the
waistcoat.

Creseasamined—Patiick M'Voy did not directly tell
witness where the prisoner was, but by a significant motion
indicated where he was concealed. M'Voy, in a similar
manner, indicated where the prisoner's knife was conosaled
when witness made a second eeareb.
Mr. Lambert, resident surgeon at the Birkenhead Hos-
pital, deposed that when the deceased was brought into the
hospital, he found him suffering from a seven) wound in his
neck, three inches in length, and an inch and a half in depth.
There were three or four other cute about his back and neck.
The deceased died on the evening of the 23rd of February.
On making a post-mortem examination, witness found the
deceased had been suffering from a liver disease, but be-
lieved the direct cause of death to have resulted from the
wound in the neck. The knife produced was such a weapon
as might have produced the wound in the neck.
This closed the case for the proareation, end Mr. Austin
made an impressive and able speech in defence, with a view
to reducing the charge to one of manslaughter.
His Lordship then summed up the case, pointing out to
the jury very clearly the distinction between manslaughter
and murder._ - _ -

The jury found the pilaus'. Guilty of manslaughter, sad
he was sentenced to penal awritado for life.

WESTERN CMCUTT.—TAuwrox, MARCH 30.
Czowx CooRT.--(E•Con Mr. Judos Wili•II.)
SHOOTIKO AT A CLIROYKAN. _

iosejali sigmas, who wu yesterday acquitted on an indict-
ment =erring him with firing a gun loaded with blood, at
the Bev. G. A. Mahon, curate of Leigh-open-Mendip. on
the 2711 of September, with intent to do him grievous bodily
hues, was arraigned win another indictment charging
with an aggravated assault upon the man= gentleman.
The =se counsel appeared for the prosecution and the
defence; the same witnesses gave the same evidence, with
but slight variations; and almost the same speeches were
addressed to the jury in support and in opposition to the pro.
position that the prisoner was the guilty party.
The learned Judge, in summing up, ...mho lad too much
rapist for the institution of trial byjurf to silos any of the
matters which were disposed of by the verdict gives yes-
terday to be addrreed to them on the must eamelen. The
only question to be considered in this cam was whether the
Omar was the person who tired the gem at the preemptor,
and is order to determine that question he would refer to
the evidence which had been adduced to bring hem the
=the prisoner. His lordship mcepitn-
m to
each parts of the statements of the various =tam= as
bore es this pert of the cam, leaving the jury to say yytheir
meet whetlaer they could arrive at any other rationalcom
Mules =ea that the prisoner was the man who fired the
gas et the preeseator on the day in question.

The jury retired, and after an absence from court of about
a quarter of an hour returned with a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. Prideaux, on behalf of the prosecutor, recommended
the prisoner to mercy.
Mr. Justice Willed then passed sentence in the following
terms—Joseph Ashman, you have been convicted of an as-
sault, of an aggravated character as an assault, and of •
misdemeanour committed against the Rev. Mr. Mahon,
curate of the parish in which you lived. At the time you
committed the offence you took such means to get off at
once that you were able to evade the suspicion—it turns out
the just suspicion—which fell upon you. There can be no
doubt that you are permed of very considerable influence in
the place in which you lived, and have succeeded in raining
a cloud of doubt upon the evidence which has been adduced
against you. Bat those boys who were by at the time, and
other circumstances which have also come out, have at
length come forward ; and it is fortunate, for the sake of
justice and of decency, that you have been convicted. There
is one circumstance which above many, if not all, which we
have heard to-day, satisfies my mind that the jury
have arrived at a just anti true conclusion. It is
this. Your brother-in-law, Henry Philter, brought an
unfounded action against Mr. Mahon, for giving him into
custody upon that night, under circumstances which threw
a suspicion upon bim as well as upon you. Mr. hf 'bon, as
I said, pre him also into custody, and upon Saturday last
that action was tried here. You were proved to have been
most intimate with Pleister, who was also shown to have
entertained spite against Mr Msbon. It was all but eaten-
tial to that action that it should be proved that you who
were found in his company on that night, IMO not guilty of
this offence. You were bound to attend these suites to take
your own trial. You must have known of this action having
been brought, and you had the Advantage which is denied to
most prisoners—whether wisely or not I will not say —of
coming for ward and stating on your oath whether or not you
were guilty of this charge. The learned counsel
who appeared for the plaintiff in that action were
challenged to put you in the box so that you might be
examined as to the fact ; but you were not called, and as it
now appears, because you were the guilty man. The learned
judge having stated his entire concurrence in the verdicts
delivered on Saturday, yesterday, and on the present, said—
I proceed to pass sentence on you, and for what offence ?
A nun so abandoned as to discharge a gun loaded with a
disgusting substance among • congregation assembled for
the worship of Ood. I have already stated daring these pro-
ceedings, and I do not now recede from it, that it appears to
me that the circumstance of the gun having been discharged
in a church only shows the audacity of the offender ; it
neither aggravates nor diminishes the offence. To be guilty of
en offence of this kind, however, is to be guilty of an
offence against order and against religion, and argues
its perpetrator to be a very base and brutal man.
Whether it committed in a church or in a chap.'
of any of the dissenting congregations appears to me entirely
immaterial, and I desire to say that this consideration will
not add a day to your sentence. But I must consider the
extraordinary character of the charge, taking it as proved, to
have been committed against the minister of a Christian con-
gregation. Turning the matter over in my mind, I protest
that the only circumstance which occurs to restrain me
from passing on you the entire sentence which the law
awards is, that I doubt if there is another man—l will not
say in the pariah in which you live, but in the whole county
of Somerset—base enough to repeat such an outrage.
Punishment is inflicted not so much for the correction of the
individual as for the prevention of similar offence', and I
cannot help thinking that this is an offence which it is almost
impossible for any person to believe will be repeated in the
course of his lifetime. I need hardly revert to one cirmim-
, stance in this case. You appeared to have entertained
a spits against the rev. gentlemen, which must have found its
way into the instructions of the learned gentleman by whom
hau were defended, and yet be is now the man, whom you
ve injured sad maligned, who comes forward and recom-
mends you to mercy. I will deal with you as mercifully as
it is possible for me to do, but solely and entirely upon the
ground of that gentleman's most worthy act. The sentence
upon you is, that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
in the House of Correction of this county fur twelve calendar
months.
This case concluded the business of the assize.

eIIORTHERN CIRCUIT.--:LivEnpoo4.ldeacn 31.

CIVIL BlDE—(Before Mr. Justice *km.)

BEARD AND ANOTHER O. TANBEAWIL-ACTION TO RECOVER

001111181110 N.

An action brought by commission merchants at Manches-
ter, to recover commission on goods consigned by them to
the defendant's house in New York, was commenced late
yesterday afternoon and closed to-day.
Mr. Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler, for the plaintiffs and
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Unthank for the defendant.
The defendant carries on btudness as a commission mer-
chant in Manchester and New York. In 1863 a communica-
tion paused between him and the plaintiffs upon the subject
of procuring manufacturers and others to consign goods to
the New York house for the purpose of being sold there.
After some negotiations the defendant agreed to give the
plaintiffs one per cent. commission on all the consignments
they should procure, or that should be made through their
introduction. Several consignments from Swainson Brothers,
manufacturers in Manchester, had been procured by the
plaintiffs, and no dispute had arisen on these transactions ;
but Mr. John Swainson, jun., who had formerly been the
managing partner of the firm, took the whole business into
his hands, and made consignment. to the defendant to the
extent of 60,0001., upon which the plaintiffs claimed, but the
defendant refused to pay.
Evidence was giant to the effect that it was the usage in
this class of commercial transactions that the commission on
goods sold through introductions of the kind alluded to ex-
tended to all subsequent transactions. On the other hand,
it was stated that there was no such custom, and it was urged
that the arrangement in question was only to pay the com-
mission on a sines consignment which was obtained on the
Introduction of 1853._

Defendant denied that a paper produced, and which was •
memorandum—" Beard's, one per cant." relativo to a con-
signment of 62,2451., subsequent to 18.53—was in his hand-
writing.
A verdict was given for th• plaintiffs—Damages 6001.