The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-14 00:00:00

sion, and I have never since had mann to alter my opinion of him ;
he generally had in nor bandit a balance in his favour.

erosts-extimined—ire might have illl4lloniecilTakefield's pa-
per in our house, but I don't recollect haring ever seen any of it.
The prisoner was not the book-keeper.
Evidence was then given to show that the same sort of paper
which was found in the prisoner's drawer was geacral thruughou
Manchester.

111 r. Justice Pang charged the Jury, who immediately pro-
nounce.] the prisoner—Not °lathy.
The FOREMAN requested, in the nnme of the Jury, that his
Lordship would order the immediate discharge of the prisoner, as
they were perfectly satisfied of his innocence.
31r. Justice PARS; loud, the impression upon his own mind, from
an early part of the trial, Will, that The officer was mistaken to the
person of the prisoner, and he was immediately discharged.
Julia St.dt and Thomas Barnes were indicted fill committing a
highway robbery on the person of Tonsong, a Chinese Tartar.
The robbery was committed between Oldham and Holboxwood.
The prosecutor, who obtains his living by exhibiting as an Indian
Juggler. had been, on the day of the robbery, at the returning to
Hollingwood, when he was attacked and severely beaten mind robbed

or some propertT. The prosecutor was put into the witnets'a box,
when Mr. I). F. JONES. who appeared for the prisoner*, asked
I.im what religion he profraaed. The prosecutor, who spoke Eng-
lish ♦er imperfectly. replied, " All same English."
Mr. JowEs—Were you ever baptized ? To' Sorg—Oh, yes.
Mr. JOXES—When ? Oh many time; all town I come to I
baptized. _ . -

Sir. Juytice PATlR—Really I don't know whit to do with him.
It is clear he does not understand. (To the witness), NVltat book is
that in your hand ?
We 4 ould not hear the answer.

An interpreter was then 11170111. He said he was a Swiss, and
was the brother-in-law of the prosecutor.
',llr. Justice PARR—Now ask him where he has been baptized.
The intcrnrcter put the question, and accompanied it by making
the sign of the cross on his forehead.

Tonsong, who imitated the action, answered at once, " Oh, es."
Mr. Justice l'Anli—Oh, he stems to understand it ; he makes

the sign or the Cross. Pray where were you baptized?—Oh every
plit...!R tilt! England.

Alr7JuStiCC Titan—Reolly this is very distressing; I cannot tell
whit to make of him. If he were a Pagan, I should have nu
difficulty in swerving him according to the custom of his country.
but here the difficulty in, he tells us he is a Christian. Pray wok
. - . .

11 he has ewer been at church ?—Have you ewer been with him at
church ? Interpreter. No. my Lard.
31r. Justice PARE-113n you ever heard hint say how people
are sworn in this country ?—interpreter. No, my Lord.
11lr. Justice PARK—WeII, ask him whether he can tell how it is
. _

done?—The Interpreter and Tonsong having had sonic conversa.
Linn. the limiter said that Tonsong only assured hint that the re.
ligion of En !land was the same as that of his country.
Jl r. Justice blaisa=Really, Gentlemen, what can I do with
him ? It is clear he knows nothing about it.
Mr. COLTMAN—I think, my Lord, he must be considered as
professing the religion of his forefathers, and he must be sworn as
people arc sworn in China.
Mr. Justice PARK—I shall be glad to do so. I have no objec.
tion to swearing a NLahometan on the Almon, or a Scotch Presby-
terian by bolding up his hand. I have no objection to an, form
of riat'i, provided it binds the conscience of the witness. But bow
do.I know-what oath will bind the conscience of this witness? fie
says, 1.!:e religion of his country is the same as the religion of Eng.
land. That, we know, is not the fact. Perhaps we can make some-
.

thing of him this time.---(To the prosecutor.) Where do you go
when you die? Tunaong—l go in ground.
r. CO 11. THAN —A 110 M me to try, my Lord. Pray, where RTC
your father and mother? Tonsong—Tbey ticatl.
Mr. COLTMAN—Aye, but where are they gone? Tonsong
I no kno.

am afraid, my Lord, I can make nothing of

Tonspag was then directed to leave the witness box t and sere-
ral other witnesses were calLll—from whose evidence it appeared
that the transaction was much more like u brutal frolic than a high
way robbery. The peotoncra were consequently acquitted.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Hut.usest.]
CHAU EDE CLERK v. CLOUGH.

Mr. 714:1/AL opened 'the pleadings. The declaration stated,
dia. the defendant was the proprietor of a mail coach, and that the
plaintiff became an inside passenger therein ; and that, in tonne
quence of the neglect of the defendant sad his servants, the coach
Vas overact, and the plaintiff seriously injured.—Plea, genera
issue.

- It was admitted by the Counsel for the defendant, that the de-
fendant was proprietor of the mail. and that the plaintiff' had been
• passenger, and paid his :are, on the 26th January last.
.Ir. Wm. Gaul examined—l was a passenger in the mail from
Liverpool to Edinburgh M. the 25th January last. The plaintiff
was also an inside passenger. 1 cannot exactly speak as to the rate
which the mail went just before it was overturned, but it s:ruck me
that we were going at very great speed. We had got some distance
beyond Preston when the niaa overturned. The road in that part
was good. We were going Wawa hill. After the accident I asked
the coachman what was the matter with one of the horses. The
coachman said that i was a very unruly horse, and had ocean oned
accidents of that kind before. Mier* the accident the plaintiff got
into the mail again, and went with us as far as Lancaster.
Cross-examined by Mr. 55'1141*ms—I did not ask any ques-
tions before the accident happened. I had not been in a mail-
coach for sonic years before, but the apeed at which the mail went
when the accident happened appeared to me to be greater than.
that at which the mail went when I was last in it. Ido not
recol-
lect whether there had been any frost during the night. There a
a slight turn in the road, at the place where the accident occurred
—I had observed, before the mail overact, that one of the horses
was unsteady. Idu not recollect whether it was a leader or wheel.
hare.
Mr. Isaac Greenwood—l am a surgeon residing in Lancaster.
I was called in to attend the plaintiff shortly after the accident in
question. The collar bme of die plaintiff had been broken in two
places, and he appeared to suffer much pain.
Cron-examined—Thy fracure would of court have got we 1
sooner if the plaintiff had remained in Lancaster instead of going
on to Edinburgh.
Dr. J. Aitkin—l attended the plaintiff at Edinburgh in Jure
last. The plaintiff continued under my care for nearly three
months. I was obliged to confine his arm in a sling for six or
seven weeks. It would be a very long time before the shoulder
would Fe as well an it hatl been previously to the accident. 11y
charge to the plaintiff was 25 guineas.
51r. Mitchell, the managing clerk to Messrs. Hunter and Co.,
Writers to the Signet at Edinburgh, produced topics of letters
which had been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on the sub-
ject of the injury.
Mr. Gaux recalled—The coachman bled in the face, but he did
not appear to be bruised severely. 1 was not hurt, but all t e test
I of the inside passengers were.
Mr. W lI.EIAMS, fur the defendant, submit'ed that he plaintiff
ought to he nonsuited. Every count of the declaration alleged that
the plaintiff contracted fur an absolute conveyance from Liverpool
to Edinburgh, but in no count was it stated that the defendant had
contracted to use proper care anti caution. The plaintiff' had been
conveyed to Edinburgh, and therefore the terms of the contract had
been complied with.
Mr. Baron II t; Linea thought that the law raised an implied
undertaking. on die put of every coach proprietor, to use proper
care and caution. Besides, lie thought that one of the counts in
the declaration contained an allegation to that effect. At all events,
he would not stop the cause on that objection.
Mr. WILLIAMS then addressed the Jury for the defendant. Ile
thought that the Jury would agree with him, that the object of
the defendant, iu writing the letter which had been read in evi-
dence, had been perfectly wise and proper. The prudence of the
wish expressed in that letter, to have the case settled by amicable
arrangement, he should be, able presently to show. But first. be
would make one observation on the law of the case. By the law
as it now stood, a coach proprietor was not to be regarded as an
insurer who was liable, at all events, for the safety of every thing
that was entrusted to his care. The defendant had been aware
that such was the law, but he had seen the propriety of making,
In, his letter, an oflbr of amicable adjustment of the plaintiff's
claim. He had been aware that there was a feeling, on the part
of the public, which would not allow a plaintiff in a cause like
the present, to go out of Court, whether flea or wrong, witkout
awarding some sort of compensation. The present Chief
Justice of EnAland appeared to entertain the attune opinion.—
Thin doctrine lie hoped the Jury would apply to the present case,
for here, with clue excepli n of a solitary expression front a bleed-
ing and sat and Ad coachman, there was not any evidence to she,
that this lad not been as pure an accident as any duet had ever
happened. If a gentleman chaise to go to a coach which he knew
was obliged to travel at that rate, he must in some measure be
prepared for the possible consequences. Only one inside passen-
ger had been called as a witness, and from his testimony, it ap-
peared that the accident had occurred near a cottage. Whether
any unknown obstruction had existed, or w: a had been tie imam-
' diate Cause of the accident, Mr. Gaux could not knew, and yet
the plaintiff had carefully abstained from calling either of the
; outside passengers, although one of them resided at Manchester.
t No attempt had been made to prove that the harness had been de-
fective, aryl no evidence at all had been offered imputing want of
skill to the defendant. He therefore contended that, unless the de-
, fendant was to be considered as an insurer, the plaintiff could not
[ , recover in this action.
Mr. Baron H tr ',LOCK summed up the case.
The Jury, after a short couaultation, Wand a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages SOL
LANCASTER. AUOVST 12.
John Wainwright, &farmer's labourer, was indicted under Lord
Ellenbarough's Act, for having, on the 9th day of Jnne last, on
the road from Newton to Calshett, stabbed Thomas Pomfret, a
weaver of Calshett, with intent to kill him, or to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. D. F. JONsts having stated the facts, as they afterwards ap-
peared in evidence, called
Thomas Pomfret—l am a weaver at Calsliett, near Newton.
On Friday, the 9th of June, about nine o'clock, I was returning
home from the election at Newton, lit company with some neigh-'
boars. Two persons named Aldred and Bate,
.had a quarrel,
with which I had twilling to do. Bate had the worst of it, and
he went, but he returned shortly afterwards, with six other per-
sona. When they came up near us we all ran, because we knew
they were coming to beat us. Before this nobody had blows
but Aldred and Bate. George Mower, George Dickinson, and
iI, were together. The seven men came up to us and said,. " now,
my lads, come up," and then we ran away. One at the men
caught me and beat me. I think the seven had their coats off'.