Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-07-08 00:00:00

TIM NORTHERN TIMES, FRIDAY, JULY' 8 1-,59

that of the transatlantic service from Galway, though it
was not on this special account that he proposed the appoint-
ment of the committee.
.•

Mr. S. Herbert protested against re-opening the question
of the contracts for the services between England and
Ireland, which wonid fill the Irish public with apprehension
arid dismay.
Mr. S. Northcote in expressing his approval of the
objects and appointing of the proposed committee, entered
into 'some details on the progress of public contracts. He
wonid have the inquiry as wide as possible, and thought
that the principles under which contracts were granted
ought to be examined. He promised all the assistance in
the.power of the opposition towards furthering the objects
of the committee.

After some discussion on points of detail connected with
the several routes, and approving the motion,
Mr. George defended the contract arrangements between
England and Ireland, which stood upon higher grounds than
the past, and which, he trusted,would not be interfered with.
Lord Dankellin reminded the house that the Gal Way trans-
atlantic contract had been already signed by the late
government, and had become a. matter of public faith.
Mr. Wilson said that there was no intention whatever on
the partof government to disturb that contract, 110"4 that it
had been made.

Mr. Realty hoped that the inquiry would not be narrowed

to suit the views of particular persons.
Mr. Bouverie characterised the Galway contract, as one
of the most reckless, hasty, and inconsiderate instances of

waste of public money on record. '
The Liverpool Company, had been grievously ill-treated
by the late Government, in connection with this affair.
That Government had acted, as no gentleman would have
acted in his private affairs, and had been influenced in so
doing, by other considerations, than those of the public
service. The first duty of the committee, would be to in-
quire into the Galway contract.
Mr. Horsfall took credit to himself, for having 'already
brought the subject before the kouse, in the same spirit as
Mr. Bouverie, but as it was a national qUestion, he had
left its further.consideration to the judgement ot the house.
Mr: E. Ellice declared that great
to Canada by 'the Galway stibsidy. The inquiry proposed
by the committee could have no practical end, and he warned
the House to be jealous of its authors and abettors. He
reprobated the manner in which Mr. Cunard had been
treated after his long services, and denounced the Galway
contract as a gross squandering of the public money—as ,a
scandalous job—into which it would he the first duty of the
committee to inquire

THE
RICHMOND POISONING

CASE.

prove the charge, and. *unless u SO
guilt .3f the accused, they would give the prisoner the benefit
of any doubt that might Exist in their minds

Mr. Spence defended 'the conduct of the late Government
.rd to the Galway Company. As to the charge that
it was not put up to public competition, neither was the

with rep

TRIAL OF DR. SMETHURST.
Yesterday (Thursday) morning having been appointed foi
the trial of Dr. Smethurst, accused of the murder of Isabella
Bankes, at Richmond, the greatest excitement appeared to
prevail to hear the proceedings, and. every available seat in
the Central Criminal Court was occupied long before the
usual hour for the commencement of the proceedings. The
Lord Chief Baron took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock.
The prisoner, Thomas Smethurst, aged 48, and described
as a surgeon, was then placed at the bar. He was charged
upon an indictment, and also by the coroner's inquisition;
with the wilful murder of Isabella Bankes.
The prisoner pleaded "not guilty" in a low tone of voice.
The jury, were then about to be sworn, when the prisoner
said he objected to the Lord Chief Baron trying him as he
understood he was an intimate personal friend of Dr. Taylor.
The Chief Baron said that he, in common, he believed,
with all his brother judges, and every member of any literary
or scientific institution, certainly was acquainted with Dr.
Taylor, but, with the exception of his having met him at a
large party a few days ago, he had not seen him for a
considerable time. The objection of the prisoner would
probably apply to every one of the learned judges, and he
did not think he ought to adjourn the trial on the ground
suggested. He would, however, confer with Mr. Justice
Wightman upon the subject.
A. short conference accordingly took place between the ,
learned judges, and the Lord Chief Baron then stated that
Mr. Justice Wightman coincided with him in the opinion
that the trial should not be postponed.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine was especially retained with Mr.
Bodkin, Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Merryweather, for the prosecu-
tion. Mr. Serjeant Parry was specially retained with Mr.
Giffard to defend the prisoner.
Just as the case was about to proceed, one of the jurymen
begged to be excused from serving, on the ground that from
what he had heard he was strongly prejudiced against the•
prisoner, and therefore considered he ought not to be on the I residing
jury.besides t
jury.
'd have made the ,„.„A

)laintiff w

The Chief Baron told him be shout`
objection before-he was sworn, and the court had no powt.
to interfere.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then said it would be his painful biaup.:}it
duty to lay before the jury the evidence it this case, and it
would' e necessary for the sake of public justice, for the sake
of the prisoner at the bar, that they should well consider
; simply the evidence that would be broaght before ther-

....
,
BREACH OF PROMISE. THE MERSEY DOCK BOARD.
The weekly, meeting of the Dock Board was held at one
DUKE v. STONE.—III the Court of Exchequer, Guildhall, o'clock
yesterday, Mr. Charles Turner in the chair. Thii
London, before Mr. Baron Martin and a common jury, on other members present were —Messrs. Rankin; Brockle-
Wednesday, an action for breach of promise of marriage was bank, Hutchison, Rounthwaite , Langton, Moss, Inman,
Mandell, Boult, Forwood, Bold, Smith, Anderson, Tobin,
brought. The defendant denied the promise. Mr. Lush,
1 Farnsworth, Littledale, Lockett.
Q.C., and Mr. James Brown, were counsel for the plaintiff, I
and Mr. Skinner, Q.C., was counsel for the defendant. Mr.
Lush, in stating the plaintiff's case, said it was one of a
peculiar character. The plaintiff is the daughter of a retired
tradesman residing at Oxford, and the defendant is a corn
dealer in a large way of business, carrying on business in
the same city. The plaintiff is twenty-six years of age, and
the defendant is thirty-eight. About eleven years ago, the
,plaintiff and defendant were on terms of affection ; but
about six years ago she married a classical compositor at the
University of Oxford, who died,, about three years ago,
leaving her with two children; when she returned with her
children to reside with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. 'Wyatt.
About eighteen months after the death of the plaintiff's
husband, the plaintiff and defendant had renewed their
acquaintance, when he made proposals of marriage to her,
which she accepted, and he continued to visit her at her
father's house for some time afrerwards. Under the pro.
mise of marriage, the defendant had taken advantage c
the affection the plaintiff entertained for him.
consequence was that, in February last, the

TENDERS FOR OLIVE-OIL

Mr. Smith objected to a payment being made to Messrs.
Harrison, for refined olive-oil, on the ground that there was
a notice on the paper having reference to the supply of that
article, and a letter on the subject from Messrs. Harrison,
The letter of Messrs. Harrison was read. It invited
attention to the quality of the oil selected for the use of the
lighthouses and lightships, which by the advertisement
calling for tenders was expressly stipulated to be best
refined olive-oil. The writers stated that the oil selected
did not bear out the character set forth in the advertisement,
and had no pretensions whatever to the character of refined

olive-oil. -
A report from the engineer was read upon the subject,
enclosing a report from Mr. llewson, analytical chemist, of
the analysis to which he bad subjected the various specimens
of oil. lie stated that samples 1,2, 3,4, and 8, were
genuine well-refined olive-oil, of equally good quality, and
that if any preference were to be given, it ought to be in
favour of 3 and 4. The latter was the sample under dis-
cussion.
Messrs.

ad been

Mr. Smith moved that the amount be not paid tc
Harrison until the letter of Messrs. Bancroft 1
inquired into.
This motion, however, was not carried, and the account,
went period of the

but at a subset