Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-19 00:00:00

COMMERCIAL,

NEW YORK, March s.—Cotton firmer • sales about
4,000 bales. Flour and wheat firm. dorn in better
request. Coffee and sugars active. Freights moderate,
and rates unchanged. Money as cheap as ever-4 per
cent. being the rate at which all new call loans are being
made. In the stock market there was a better feeling, and
higher. prices.

YOUNG AMERICA ON SLAVERY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.

Sir,—My " goodnatured lecture" to " Young
America," evidently did not produce much effect,
but was very much like water thrown on a duck's
back. Nevertheless, if only to correct some of his mis-
apprehensions, I must fain give him a second edition.
In my last, while admitting much he had said from
conviction, for arguments sake, I admitted that all
he had said might be quite true (in order to show
that it was quite irrelevant to the subject), and fell
back upon what is, and always must be, the back-
bone of the question, viz., the inherent right of the
subject, whether the thing itself is right or wrong,
or whether -it is not, per-se, a gross violation of all
justice. Now, " Young America" takes credit to his
side that I admit so much, and then very summarily
despatches what is left in the following words :
" Non-prejudice is obliged to fall back upon the
timeworn argument of the equality. of all men.
That:equality I deny. As one brain is larger than
another, so one race will command and govern
another race." As though he understood me to be
absurd enough to say, that all men are intellectually
equal, that the Anglo-Saxon, and the aboriginal
Australian, stand on the same mental footing. No ;
I quite agree with him that there is a great diffe-
rence, though I disagree with him in thinking that
that difference must necessarily continue, for what
were our forefathers but savages, 1500 years ago ?
But what I mean is simply that they have an equa-
lity of rights ' • that what is a lie to one, is a lie
to another ; what is robbery to one, is robbery to
another ; that there is one universal law of justice to
which every man, be he black, white, or red, is
equally amenable. If the fact that " neg.roes always
have been and always will be slaves " is a justification
of slavery, the fact that selfishness has always
existed, and that in all ages men having the oppor-
tunity to do so have fleeced their neighbours, is
equally a justification of cheating. For myself, I
don't believe the former statement concerning the
future of the African to be a fact, because I believe
in the ultimate triumph of the Gospel. But, as I
said before, if proved to be a fact, it no more justifies
slavery, than an argument drawn from the existence
of vice from the creation till now is a justification
of vice.

There are certain moral laws, which, if there is
such a distinction as right and wrong at all, none
can violate without self-conviction; and all that
Messrs. Beecher and Parker meant to say in the
statements quoted in to-day's article was simply
this : that if it could be shown that the Bible,
instead of being founded on those laws, taught us to
violate them, that would prove to them that the
Bible was not a divine revelation, and they would
discard it. " Young America " deserves credit for
his generosity to those gentlemen in not desiring to
take advantage of what he conceives to have been
an unguarded admission ; but I believe that either
of them would willingly endorse their statements
to-day ;at any rate, I would do so. I will only
refer to one other point in my letter that " Young
America" notices. He says : " Let Non-Pre-
judice ' change the word slave to servant
and it will sound less harshly." Of
course it will ; but my moral perceptions are not
quite so blunt as to mistake the one for the other.
To my mind there is as great a difference between a
man becoming my servant and his becoming my
slave, as there is between my making a bargain for
the contents of a man's wallet and my knocking him
down and appropriating the contents ; and all
comparison between what " Young America " erro-
neously calls slavery in England and slavery in
America, is made without distinguishing this differ-
ence. He says, " that servitude, like happiness, is
only comparative." So is generosity. Money may
be cheerfully given for some charitable object, or
some inferior motive may induce a selfish man to
grudgingly give it, but I conceive that there is as
wide a difference between the most begrudged
voluntary sacrifices and robbery, as there is between
the hardest forms of servitude and slavery.—l am,
your obedient servant, NON-PREJUDICE.
March 16, 1859.

YORK ASSIZES.-WEDNESDAY.

ACTION FOR LIBEL.—HARRISON v. LEADER.—This case
was heard this day. The plaintiff and the defendant are
newspaper proprietors at Sheffield, the former of the Times,
and the latter of the Independent. The action was brought
to recover damages for a series of alleged libels contained in
the report of a meeting which were published in the
Independent on the 13th of November last. The plaintiff
had had a dispute with his workmen on account of belong-
ing to the Printer's Union ; and, owing to what had
appeared in the Sheffield Telegraph in connection therewith,
he brought an action in the Court of Exchequer, against
the proprietor of that journal. A verdict was then
found for the plaintiff for £5OO. Whilst that action was
pending, viz., in November last, a meeting was held at the
Town Hall, Sheffield, when speeches were made relative to
the conduct of Mr. Harrison, which were characterised as
libellous and calumnious. Some of the speakers recom-
mended that the plaintiff's papers should not be brought
until the action was withdrawn. A report of these speeches
was inserted in the Independent, and it was for this publica-
tion that the present action was brought. It was sub-
mitted that owing to this publication the plaintiff had
suffered considerable injury in his business, and that in
fact he had been obliged to give up the publication of the
Daily Times. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Verdict
for the plaintiff for- is.

PUBLIC BATHS FOR EVERTON.
Yesterday evening, a public meeting was held in the
Schoolroom, Mill-road, Everton, for the purpose of adopting
a petition in support of a memorial already presented to the
Town Council, on behalf of the erection of baths for the
working classes of Everton and vicinity. The chair was
taken by Adam Hodgson, Esq. There were also present—
Messrs. T. D. Andersen,-D. Crosthwaite, T. Chilton, jun.,
and J. J. Stitt ; and the Revs. Hindley, Kelly, Lester, and
Macnaught.
The Chairman said he responded to the call to preside
over the meeting with pleasure, as he had always felt a deep
interest in all that related to the comfort of the inhabitants,
and especially the working classes of Everton, and he be-
lieved that the object of the meeting was to effect that com-
fort. In fact anything that was connected with sanitary
purposes were well known to be such. To expect that they
could have morality and religion where it was hardly
possible to have the common decencies of life from the way
in which the people were huddled together, was very foolish.
If they sought the welfare of the country, they must begin
at the beginning, and make the habitations of the working
classes fit for them to live in, and give them an opportunity
of cleansing their bodies. There was no local or national
representative that would ask them for their votes without
being in some degree ready to assist them to health and
comfort. That was the, object of the meeting, to have
public baths in Everton, as there were in the town of
Liverpool itself. He saw by the newspapers, and he had
also been told, that a memorial had been presented to the
Town Council from the Workinc, Classes Association, and that
it had been referred to the Bathsb Comnittee, but he thought it
would be better if the whole township would unite and
express themselves on the matter to the Council, by petition.
Such was the object of the meeting at which they had done
him the honour to make him chairman.

The Rev. W. Lomas moved the following resolution :
" That the establishment of public baths in the northern
and southern districts of Liverpool, has materially con-
tributed to the comfort and well being of the working
classes, by inducing habits of personal cleanliness and
healthful exercise, as well as by dissuading, to some extent,
from objectionable and injurious pastimes."
This resolution was seconded by hir. Chilton, -and passed

. _
the meeting .unanimously.
The Rev: ,Mr Kelly moved the next resolution, which
was---" That this meeting regards with satisfaction the
memorial recently presented to the Town Council, on
behalf of the erection of baths within the township of
Everton, where the population has so largely increased as
to demand prospective attention to provisions for the main-
tenance of the public health."
This resolution was seconded by Mr. Stitt at considerable
length.
The following resolution was then moved by the Rev. Mr.
Ilindley : —" That the following petition be presented to
the Baths' Committee of the Town Council :—To the Baths'
Committee of the Town Council of the Borough of Liver-
pool. The petition of certain ratepayers and others, resi-
dent within or adjacent to the township of Everton,
respectfully sheweth—That your petitioners beg to support
the prayer of a memorial for the establishment of baths in
Everton, as referred to your consideration by the Town
Council of 9th March. That your petitioners observe with
concern, that a gradually increasing density of popu-
lation within some portion of this district tends to
the encouragement of habits detrimental alike to
heath and to - morality. That your petitioners re-
gard public baths, accessible at a low charge, as a
most important branch of that agency, which, under existing
circumstances, is best fitted to promote the most social
well-being of the working classes. That your petitioners
ai)
are informed that an eligibl situated piece of land, pur-
chased several years since by t e Council with a view to the
erection of baths, is still ava le for that purpose. Your
petitioners, therefore, pray that in such report. to the
Council as your jnkment may suggest, due regard may be
paid to the present circumstances and prospective exigencies
of this neighbourhood, and to the wishes of its inhabitants."
Dr. Chalmer, in a few remarks, seconded the resolution,
which passed the meeting, and the petition was signed by
the Chairman. _

The Rev. Mr. Macnaught moved at ()Teat length, " That
the thanks of this meeting be given to Adam Hodgson, Esq.,
for his services in presiding on this occasion ; and also to
those members of the Town Council who have rendered
their valuable aid."

The Rev. Mr. Lester seconded the above resolution.

The thanks of the meeting was given to the Rev. Mr.
Macnaught and the committee of the schools for the use of
their premises on the occasion, and the meeting broke up.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
WESTERN CIRCUIT. - EXETER, MARCH 'l7.

(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CROWDER.)
HOOPER v. Row E.- Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Collier,
Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon ; counsel for the defendant, Mr.
M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Cole. This was an action for
breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was Miss Ann
Hooper, the daughter of a farmer at Chagford, Devonshire,
aged 28; and the defendant, Mr. Andrew Rowe, is
a yeoman residing at the same place, nearly twice
the defendant's age. The defendant commenced paying
his addresses to the plaintiff before the year 1854—at
that time he said he could not marry the plaintiff until after
the death of his aunt, with whom he lived, and from whom
he expected property. In December, 1854, the defendant's
aunt died, upon which he came to the plaintiff's father and
said that his aunt had left him sole executor of her
property—had given him £1,900 in money, an estate worth
£5O a year for life, and all the stock on the farm
and that the marriage should take place imme-
diately. The defendant, however, continually put off
the time for the marriage • and in the year 1857 the plain-
tiff's father went to him and asked him if he intended to fulfil
his promise ? He replied that he did ; but that, he wished to
pay off legacies, &c., so as to make things comfortable before
he got settled. Afterwards he promised to marry at
Michaelmas, 1858, but had not fulfilled his promise, and
had subsequently denied even having given any promise
of marriage. The plaintiff's sister, Mrs. Brewer, stated that
all the wedding cloths had been prepared,with the exception
of the cape and bonnet. Her sister wished to have a white
cape, but defendant expressed a wish that she would dress
more in the style of his age. (Laughter.) Defendant purchased
a blue satin handkerchief, which ho brought to the plaintiff
and requested her to make out of it a wedding necktie.
(Laughter.) The defendant and her sister were on
affectionate terms, for witness had seen him kiss her hun-
dreds of times. (Laughter.) In cross-examination witness
admitted that the plaintiff had been previously engaged to
a young man, but that was when she was of very tender
age. Mr. Smith said that he had consulted his client, and
he had agreed to give the plaintiff £2OO, which his learned
friend had agreed to accept. There was not a breath against
the young woman, but his client was an old man, and he
could easily understand his thinking it to be a rather
serious matter to marry a woman of her age. (Laughter.)
Mr. Collier : That excuse is not on the pleadings. (Re-
newed laughter.) A verdict for plaintiff, damages £2OO,
was then entered.

DEATH OF A CENTENARIAN. At Leeds, on the 14th
inst., died Mary Wright, aged 103 years, a member of the
Society of Friends. For the last few years she has been
blind, but with this exception she retained her faculties to
the last. She suffered from no disease, but passed away in
the greatest tranquility from exhaustion of the bodily
powers.
A HUNGARIAN PLOT.—WC read in a Vienna letter :
There is a rumour in the city which is so " ugly " that I
cannot venture to repeat it. It may, however, be stated,
that it arose from the circumstance of a young Hungarian
having attempted to shoot himself in a hackney coach
The wounded man was taken to the hospital (as is said,
to the hospital in the city prison), where he made com-
munications which have led to the arrest of several
persons in Hungary.
POPULATION AND VOTERS. —A good many returns have
been made within the last fortnight of great use in forming
a just estimate of the claims to representation of counties
and boroughs. The one at present before us gives returns
of the annual value of property rated under schedule A, in
England, Wales, and Scotland, the present population,
computed by adding to the census of 1851 the pro-
bable increase of the population since that time,
the number of voters and the number of members.
Disregarding the details of each county and looking
at the total numbers, it appears that the value of pro-
perty under schedule A, for all the counties of England
and Wales, is £60,501,167, and the present population
10,495,930. Of these ten millions, 506,654 are voters
• The boroughs and cities of
returning 159 members.
I England and Wales possess property under scghee,dulveeoatcAehr
of an annual value of £42,995,086, with a present popu-
I lation of 7,431,679, an electoral body of 435,604,
eachand
1337 members. On making a few rough calculations
from these figures we find that, on the average,
county member represents 3,200 voters, each voter repre-
senting about 22 of the whole population, and £l2O
annual value under schedule A. In the borollis
member represents roughly 1,300 voterseac
and cities ilO7.
representing 20 of the population and
In the
counties of Scotland the annual value
under schedule A is £8,013,005, the present
of property
possess pro-
perty 1,726,620, the electoral body popu-
lation
population of
101'54699;676484; and 23 memberF.
50,403, and the
members 30. The boroughs
pl,elrt3y6,lo2f2rananenlueacltorvaallubeoodfy
On treating these statistics in the same way as those for
England, we find that each county member represents about
1,700 voters, each of whom in his turn represents about 34
of the population, and £l6O annual value under schedule A.
therepresenting
2
boroughs
3of h
eatche
member represents 2,100 voters, each
population, and £94. It will thus be
seen that the county members
of the most wealthy represent the greatest number
voters.—Parliamentary paper.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-THURSDAY.
IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

IN THE MATTER or ELSDON PRINGLE, SHIPOWNER,
SOUTHPORT. - This was an application by the assignee of
Elsdon Pringle, who became bankrupt on the 28th of Octo-
ber last, claiming as against Miss Jane Thomasine Pringle,
his daughter, the property in certain furniture, iu a house
occupied by the bankrupt, as tenant under a lease for
bofi
fav
ne yea.lrctlprbst
a an
nk Tdr
uhhpi
istsc lyde,aa
us
but
ub
.ad httetrh
resided
x p expired r
daughter i at t L
th advda
ehafido house
8 herself
r sal
etlsf
theBb. e
ctiLmhe
ee
tenant of it frpm Ladyday, 1858, under an agreement dated
the 14th of June last, and had herself paid two quarter's
rent previously to the bankruptcy, out of an income pos-
sessed by her, independent of her father, of £lOO a year.
The house was, by the daughter's directions, advertised to
be let furnished in July last, by means of a board on the
premises, referring to a Mr. Hargreave, the agent from whom
she had taken the house ; but though visited by several per-
sons with the avowed purpose of taking it, it remained unlet
at the time of the bankruptcy. The furniture was assigned
by way of mortgage for £3OO, with interest at £lO per
cent., by a deed bearing date the 17th day of June, 1858, to
Mr. Palgrave' the solicitor, as trustee for the daughter, who
had advanced to her father £2BO on the 24th of November,
1857, and who had frequently, from January until June,
applied for security for her money. The mortgage extends
also to secure a further sum of £3OO to Mr. Palgrave, for
money lent by him, and it is registered under the Bills of
Sale. Act. The furniture is described in a schedule to the
deed. It is admitted that this deed was executed at a time
when Mr. Pringle was embarrassed in his circumstances.
Mr. Conway appeared as counsel for the assignees., and Mr.
Deighton as counsel for Miss Pringle, and it had been agreed
that in place of a vesting order being granted, with a view
to a trial of the right of property in the furniture before a
jury, the whole question of the property in the furniture
should be decided by this court. Mr. Conway, though not
questioning the bona fides of Miss Pringle, contended that
nothing had been done to alter Mr. Pringle's position, that
she allowed him to r emain in the house, and to have the
use of the furniture just as before, and. that her possession
was concurrent with that of her father, and therefore was
within the reasoning in the case of Woodall v. Smith, 1
Com. B. R, 333, where a servant of the creditor was put into
possession, and remained there conjointly with the assignee.
lie said that Mr. Ilargreave was the only person who was
aware of the change of ownership. He argued that the
furniture was in the order and disposition of the bankrupt
at the time of the bankruptcy, with the consent
of the true owner who was, he contended, Miss Pringle,
and cited Stansfield v. Cubitt, 27 L. J. 27, and the observa-
tions of Lord Justice Turner in support of the position that
the registry of a Bill of Sale does not affect the order and
disposition clause in the Bankrupt Law Consolidation
Act. He cited Twine's case' 3 Coke 81, upon the statutes
13 Elizabeth c. 5, and 27 Elizabeth C. 10. Edward's v.
Harben, 2 T. R. 587, in which latter case the creditor who
took an absolute sale of goods of his debtor, agreed to leave
them in his possession for a time. In the interval the
debtor died. The creditor was held liable to be sued as
executor de san test, for the debtor's continuing in possession
was inconsistent with the deed. That case was also cited
for a dictum of Justice Buller that " unless possession accom-
panies and follows the deed it is fraudulent and void." Now
as to this dictum, we find Justice Dallas in Jezeph v. Ingram,
1 B. Moore 193, denying that Edwards v. Harben lays down a
general rule, that in transferring chattels the possession
must accompany and follow the deed, and Baron Parke also,
in Martindale v. Booth, 3 B. and Ad., which was cited by
Mr. Deighton, says, " the dictum of Justice Buller inEdwards
v. Harben, has not been considered in subsequent cases,
to have that import. The want of delivery is only evidence
that the transfer is colourable." Mr. Conway also relied on
Wilkins v. Bromhead, 7 Scott N. R. 921. There Smith and
Bryant had constructed a green-house for the plaintiff, and
had been paid for it. He requested them to take care of
it until wanted. They packed it up and placed it with a
glazier, Waite, who was informed that it belonged to the
plaintiff. On the bankruptcy of Smith and Bryant, it was
claimed by their assignees and delivered to the messenger
under the petition. The plaintiff brought his action, and
the judge on the trial refused to nonsuit the plaintiff, who
recovered in the action, and the court subsequently refused
a rule to enter a nonsuit. That case does not, therefore,
on examination, prove to be an authority in support of the
assignees' contention in the present case. Lingwood v.
Messiter, Barn and Cresswell, 308 was also cited.
I do not think that that case is of much authority now, and
I will shortly give the reasons for it. There the property in
question was machinery, which had been conveyed by bill
of sale, but left in the possession of the bankrupt until his
bankruptcy, he paying a rent for the use of it. The
creditor's initials were marked on all the goods. It was
held that there was no evidence of the notoriety of the
change in the property, and therefore no evidence to go to the
jury that the bankrupt had ever ceased to be reputed owner.
In Bell v. Hamilton, 24 L. J., Ex. 46, which was cited
by Mr. Deighton for another purpose, Chief Baron Pollock
says : Lingard v. Messiter may have been rightly decided at
that time, but would not be so decided now, for it is
notorious that machinery is often hired, and, therefore, it is
no presumption that machinery in the possession of a manu-
facturer is his own. In the same case, Baron Alderson said :
" That occurred in Somersetshire, where, perhaps, there was
no such practiced as is now common in Lancashire for
machinery to be hired." Baron Parke says : " I do not
quarrel with the decision in Lingard v. Messiter, although
had it appeared that it was the custom to hire machinery,
the decision might be questionable." Mr. Deighton con-
tended that the furniture was not in the order and
disposition of the bankrupt with consent of the true owner;
that it was in a house of which Mr. Pringle was originally
the tenant, under a lease expiring in March, 1858, and that
he had borrowed money of his daughter in the November
previous, on an undertaking to give security, that every-
thing had been done which could be done to transfer the
possession; that so far as any consent of the true owner is
required, that is not given. In support of this last position,
Mr. Deighton cited Jarman v. Wollaton, 3 T. R. 619; where
the trustee under the wife's settlement was held the legal
owner, and the wife only the agent of the trustee. There
the husband, the bankrupt, had paid the rent of the house in
which the furniture was placed. The court said, "it is
sufficient to say, that the husband had not the order and
disposition of the property with the consent of the true
owner." In further support of this view, exparte Dale,
Buck 365, might be cited, when it is said, "By the true
owner,' here is to be intended the person who has the legal
right to the possession and the power of dealing with the
property, and such a person is the trustee." Mr. Deighton
cited also, Fraser v. Swansea Canal Company 1 Adol. and
Ellis, and in accordance with these authorities, contended
that Mr. Palgrave was the true owner, and his consent to
the possession by the bankrupt had not been
given. Mr. Deighton also referred- to the note
on Twyne's case in Smith's leading cases. Ido
not assent to Mr. Deighton's view of the observations
of the , Lord Justice Turner in Stansfielcrv. Cubitt ; and I
do not think that his lordship will see fit to re-consider
them. The question, whether the order and disposition
clause is affected by the registry of a bill of sale, has been
the subject of decisions in Ireland and England - by Mr.
Commissioner M'Cann in Ireland, and by Mr. CommhpisetssalLipeoran;o_wer”
Holroyd in England. The latter has said, in 25 Law
t
Times : " I have looked through it, and it appears to me
vtcoi
Consolidations inbos
neo
sl
icdloaef at rothe
t Act
aac
ctt t ther
tlt2hasef
rt
ehrc
et
ges
dei
sc
titrni
ao
tr itihoinosfrespect kyof bills of ru
tAh ge abinan:
ko'rf'ulpbfti
ltilhsaewolegislature
ou
ut
elhaddd
restrainoiwnntecnd
ownership,
shed ipt tfihi at
ot
wouldp
et
rhae regis-
tration i o nha vohave
expressed its intention clearly, as it has done with regard to
transfers of ships, both in the proviso to the 125th section
of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, and "in the Mer-
chant Shipping' Act, 17 and 18 Vict., c. 104, sec. 77
reasoning to which I give a ready assent. I would add
that, in Manton v. Moore, 3 T. R. 67, where a bill of sale
was made of goods to the Oakum Canal Company, and the
goods remained on the premises of the canal company, to
whom the conveyance was made, it was held that the deed
was not fraudulent. In the case before us, Miss Pringle
was the tenant of the house previous to her acquiring an
interest in the furniture, and the circumstance of her father
living in the house with her, does not, in that case, affect
her right to retain the furniture assigned to her trustee
who, and not Miss Pringle, is the "true
owner" within
which
ohhre m
ei
c,htehiasantii
nnmcgl
uiosdfs
etdph eloinnl2gt
hfetehissse eheeent
di
todint
le.
June, 1858, held for her benefit,e id.nlttahme opinion,boillofsa l
eotfhle7rtei-i
and as
h aavesetchueritfy7naittureall
assignee,events,
furn furniture
ftoor Lre2dB.eoema,nd interest ; and as I presume that the
ainbgsolautt the evidence of value given by Mr.
.argreave, who estimated it at £230 or £240, would not be
:e the
to
to orderMissw Pringle,
ethat r thheeiv
trustee, d o convey
a t
her cost, in satisfation of her debt. The costs of the motion
must be paid to Miss Pringle by the assignees.
YESTERDAY.
In re THOMAS HlLL.—This was a last examination
sitting, which stood adjourned from Thursday. The
bankrupt formerly carried on business in Liverpool as a
broker, under the firm of Balmain and Hill. Mr. Norris
appeared on his behalf, and Mr. Deighton for his late
partner Mr. Balmain, who is the assignee. The bankrnpt
was examined at some length by Mr. Deightond,enute:eeitolinnt
reference to his accounts, which it appeared had not
a resb
tertheeddl correctly are
toin
hthi
se l sheet,abtael'apnacretner,
alsop a ratsi ctuoithimar,
Mr. Anderson. His Honour sabide,foaere
the balance-sheet were necessary debt due
tthheesbeankrupt passed,
tehpepeienasteed thehad betterst h
April fo
be adjourned j (
the next
tfosrittthiantg.purpose, and he

The Baron de Steinberg, Hanoverian Minister in Paris,
had a conference on Tuesday, with Count Walew:-ki, on the
subject of the last note in the Moniteur.

PREP° OL POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-YESTERDAY,
BEFORE MR. MANSFIELD.

THE " CA P ERA TI ON S" OF MASTER CANE.—Martin Cane,
a young gentleman, whose contempt for shirt collars was
-very plainly perceptible, and who seemed to have the same
affection for soap that a Sepoy has for lard or greased
cartridges, and to whom an ablution of even Pike water
would have been equal to a miracle, was brought up by
officer Stockdale, who generally regulates the disorderlies
of Lime-street during nocturnal rosy hours, on a charge
of having knocked down and assaulted • Miss Mary Ward,
a young lady
who resides in Villa-street, The prisoner
was rowdying it through Lime-street the previous night
at rather an early hour, and without any provocation he
went up to the young lady, and with a degree of audacity
even unequalled in Lime-street, deliberately knocked her
down. The officer was present, and saw him do it ; and
gripped him by the collarless shirt, when Mr.
It. Cane began to try experiments on the shins of
the officer, whether the said shins were as hard as the
tops of the wooden clogs on Master Cane's feet.
The clogs, in this instance, seemed to carry the palm, but at
the same time, Stockdale carried him to Hotham-street.
The prisoner appeared to treat the matter with a sort of
Borth pole icy indifference, but his Worship, considering six
months' exile from Lime-street would be an advantage to
the legs and respiratory organs of this " bamboo" cane,
considerately sent him out of harm's way for that period,.l
where be can indulge in kicking the steps of the ‘‘
in place of bone and flesh and the sinews of policemen's

egs•
A " SWEEPING" AFFAIR. —John Morgan and William
Webb, two young sweeps, were charged with having
violently assaulted a " flying stationer," named Thomas
Finerty. An officer said, at half past eleven the previous
night, he heard shouts of " Murder," in Scotland-place, and
on going forward he met Webb running, and took him into
custody. A man came up and told him that the prisoner
and another fellow had killed a man with a sweeping machine.
He lodged the prisoner in• bridewell, and then went to the
place, and found Finerty lying in a state of insensibility on
the street. He conveyed him on a shutter to the dispen-
sary, where he was attended, and in some time after he
revived. He then arrested the other. The complainant
said he was in a public-hosse in the locality of Scotland-
road, when the prisoners came in, and began to quarrel
with him about drink. He went out to avoid them, when
they followed, and one struck him with his hand, and the
other hit him with a sweeping machine, and he knew no
more of what took place. A surgeon from the dispensary
stated that the man was brought in quite insensible, and he
bad afterwards an apoplectic fit, but recovered, and although
he was much hurt, he (the surgeon) did not apprehend any
immediate danger. The prisoners were sent to gaol for
two months with hard labour.
How TO OBTAIN BOARD AND LODGING FOR NOUGHT."—
Hugh Hughes, whose appearance was not quite so green as
the leek that represents " his own, his native land," was
brought up for having patronised a country woman of his,
named Mrs. Ann Roberts, a beerhouse-keeper in Smithfield-
street, to the extent of 4s. Patronage and payment, accord-
to Mr. Hugh Hughes, are not relative terms ; but, at all
events, he was much more honest in his intentions than
other gentlemen belonging to the country, that now gives
title to a certain young gentleman, who in all human proba-
bility will one day govern this country, except he fulfils
the wolf cry of certain old ladies, who faint at the mere
mention of a " Holy Roman," and get fits of " St. Vitus's
dance," at the notion of that illustrious juvenile having got
into fearful proximity with a certain portion of the toe of
the "Sovereign Pontiff " Mr. Hughes, remembering the
charitable maxim of beginning at home, concluded that, as
Mrs. Roberts was his countrywoman, she was specially
entitled to his attention. Mrs. Roberts, as well as selling
good beer, lets beds to the weary, and does other corporal
works of mercy, such as feeding the hungry (and she
might have done something in clothing the naked,
only she does not keep an outfitting shop), and
the like. Her benevolence would be complete if she could
afford to do these things for nothing, but she could not.
On the previous evening, the prisoner asked her if he could
have a lodging, and being answered in the affirmative, said
he was a sailor, and called for tea, supper, beer, and " all
the rest of it !" He got up in the morning, and was walking
away, no doubt in a fit of abstraction, when Mrs. Roberts
ventured to remind him of a trifling incident—a " little
bill" of 48 pence—that would be acceptable to her, but
Mr. Hughes scorned the imputation to such an extent as
led him directly' into the claws of the law, to wit, a police-
man. The prisoner was remanded for a week.
THE BRIBED POLICEMAN.—In reference to the policeman
(Chambers, No. 347) who had been bribed by a mate of a
vessel, an account of which appeared in our paper of yester-
day, Mr. Clough stated that the man was taken before
Major Greig, and the case being proved there, he was at
once dismissed, and a forfiture of the pay due to him was
also inflicted.

Morin or Miss Lucy CLARE'S DOINGS, —A few days ago,
we gave some of the adventures of Miss Lucy Clare, with
her opera mantle. Thelsame lady, but in quite a different
costume, was brought up yesterday morning by
eirizer M 3. If any good novel maker, or the
maker of good morals will favour us with a line, "private
and confidential," we will supply him, her, them, they,
thou, and all the rest of " them," with materials for a
three volume copy, based on the last evening's adventures
of Miss Clare, and of —, but at present the only infor-
mation we will afford "inquiring friends," is that Miss
Clare will not be visible (except in her cell) for the next
seven days.

In reference to some observations made by Mr. Mans-
field some days ago, regarding the swearing of a military
sergeant belonging to the 89th Regiment, about a deserter
named Eaton, alias Edwards, in which his Worship spoke
in strong terms of the alleged mistake of the sergeant, and
which observations were published in our paper, his
Worship now said : Having had certain doenments from
the war officer laid before him, and comparing these and
the circumstances, he found that there could be no doubt
the sergeant was right, and he thonght in justice to the
sergeant he ought to state so. Evidently the deserter had
told a lie, and he was now suffering a month's imprison-
ment as a rogue and vagabond. His Worship trusted that
*egress would give this publication, as the censure he had
passed on the sergeant had already been published, and he
was sure the same publicity would be given to the sergeant's
exoneration. The sergeant thanked his Worship, and
withdrew.

A DODGER CAUGHT.—Charles John Scott, who was
described as a pawnbroker's and publican's assistant,
was charged with having robbed several houses where
he had been lodging. There were some dozen or
more charges against the prisoner, but the following
oily were gone into. It appeared that the pri-
soner went to the house of Mrs. Tineley, 21, Garden-
street, Edge-hill, on Friday night week, and took a lodging.
Be got up early in the morning, and walked off with the
bed, bolster, and pillow, which he pledged immediately
after for £l. He took a lodging in the same way at Mrs.
Ellen Stephenson's, Collins-street, Park, and "sloped" with
half a dozen silver spoons, a sugar tongs, and other
articles. He did the same sort of trick at Mrs. Irvine's,
31, litathbone-street, and ran off with a timepiece, all of
which he pledged. He was identified by the pawnbrokers'
people as the pledger of the articles, and he was sent for

PUBLICANS' AND BEERSELLERS' CASES.
BEFORE MMES. CASTELLAINE AND HOUGHTON.

William Irving, publican, Richmond-row, was charged
with permitting drunkenness. It would appear that at ten
voiautes to three on the 12th inst., the officers visited the house,
and found eight men and four prostitutes in the bar, with drink
before three—four of the men, and all the prostitutes, were
drank. The defendant denied the drunkenness, and stated
that he had refused to sell anything to the prostitutes.
Fined 20s and costs.

Benjamin Davis, beerhouse keeper, was charged with
selling ale at illegal hours on Sunday ast. The officers saw
a woman come out of the house with a pint jug containing
ale. Fined 10s and costs.

Stephen Scholfield, beerhouse keeper, Richmond-street
was charged with selling ale at five minutes to twelve on
13''daY• The officers noticed a woman coming out of the
house vith a pint of ale, and a girl with a gill. It was
asserted that the drink was supplied to a dying man, and
a woman in her confinement. Mr. Cobb appeared for the
defence, and the magistrates acquitted the defendant.
Miles O'Brien, tieerhouse keeper, Gerard-street, was
charged with selling beer at ten o'clock on Sunday morning
last. The officers found six men on the premises, and four
of them there had a pint of beer
before them. Fined 5s
and costs.

Patrick Cohen, beer-house kneewpeorra, chisenhale-street, was
charged with selling beer to
on Sunday morning last. The woman
at a quarter to two
home with a can containing half a niicame out of the
woman endeavouced to destroy it, but the of beer. The
sufficient to test that it was beer. The o
Loeffieer obtained
the defendant keeps his house open nearly all rnsiAtiated that
purpose of supplying brothels, a great number t, for the.
m the street. Fined 20s and costs. of which are
Richard Naylor' beerhouse-keeper, Johnston-street,
was charged with selling ale at five minutes past
g
twelve on Sunday morning last. The officers saw a -
l
coming out of the house with a gill of ale, and, on going
into the house, they found four men drinking with ale
before them, and a pack of cards on the table. Fined 5s
and costs.
Joseph Dobbin, becrhouse-keeper, Ormond-street, was
fined in as and costs for selling ale at illegal hours on
Sunday last.
Ann Jones, beerhouse-keeper, Norfolk-street, was fined
in 2s 6d and costs for- selling drink at illegal hours last
nnday,
Ann Devonshire,
beerhouse-keeper, Peel-street, Toxteth-
park,. was charged with selling drink at illegal hours, and
peruutting drunkenness. At twelve o'clock on Sunday

last the officers found three men in the house, with ale
before them, and at four o'clock on the same afternoon
he found six men in the house, three of them being drunk.
As the defendant had been fined for the same offences
repeatedly, the magistrates inflicted a penalty of 50s.
and costs.

John Prest, publican, was charged with selling brandy
after hours. Mr. Bluck appeared for the defendant, and he
was addressing the bench when the magistrates stopped him,
saying the case was a very paltry one, and discharged the
summons.

Thomas M'Gowan, beerhouse keeper, Park, was fined in
10s. and costs, for refusing to admit the officers.

BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETIES AGAIN.—Mr. Bluck ap-
peared on behalf of Catherine Gibbons, widow of the late
Robert Gibbons, a labourer, to prefer a charge against the
Liverpool Imperial Benefit Burial Society for the sum of
£6. Mr. Bluck complained of the conduct of the society.
The complainant had paid every week for three years, up
to the very Sunday before her husband died, which was on
the New Year's Eve, 1857. When the death took place she
saw the collector, and he stated that there was 3d due,
this she offered to him, but he refused it, although he said
she was not out of benefit, and to fetch the register of the
death, and she was to get the money. She went the next
day, when the collector said, " Oh, I am very sorry you are
out of benefit, but we will give you £l, as you are
a poor widow woman." On cross-examination the plain-
tiff said that she changed her children into another burial
society—the Liver. Mr. Cobb : Oh, ho ; it's coming out
now; Mr. Bluck appears in another case for the Liver.
Mr. Bluck : I didn't know that her children were in the
Liver. The defence of Mr. Cobb, who appeared for the
defendants, said that the whole point of the defence was
that she was entirely out of benefit, and if such could be
proved, then he should call upon the magistrates to dismiss
the case, for, however hard it should be on the poor
woman, the rules were legal and lawful, and there was no
case. Mr. Hughes, secretary and manager to the society,
produced his books to show that there were a number of
arrears, which in all amounted to eight weeks, which,
according to the rules, put her out of benefit, and the sum-
mons was dismissed.

CHARGE OF ASSAULT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER.—
Police officer John Lynch, 252, was charged with violently
assaulting Patrick Kelly, an American shipping-master. It
would appear that the complainant had shipped a number
of seamen on board the American ship Lombard. One of
the men who received an advance note did not go to sea.
This advance note was cashed by a Mr. Nelson, and of
course the agents of the vessel refused to pay the money.
Mr. Nelson, on the 4th of March, gave Kelly into custody
on the charge of obtaining money on false pretences to
Lynch. From the evidence of the complainant, it would
appear that he offered to walk along with the officer on the
charge, but he alleged that the defendant violently assaulted
him, caught him by the arm, and turned it round, dragged
him through the streets to his little hut, locked him in there
for two hours, and afterwards took him to the "stone jug."
The summons was dismissed.