The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-26 00:00:00

were indicted for assaulting James M‘Dermott on the 12th of
September last, at Norton Canes, putting him in bodily fear,
and stealing from his persen two sovereigns, a tobacco-box,
and a small quantity of tobacco, his property.
Mr. Iluddleston conducted the prosecution; Mr. Yardley
defended the prisoners.
_ _ .

It appeared that the prosecutor, with a party of other la-
bourer:., all natives of the sister isle, had been working for a

farmer of the name of Roberts, and assisting him to—get in
his harvest. On the day in question he paid two sovereigns
and eight shillings to one of their number for division
amongst the rest, and his wife sold half an ounce of tobacco
to the prosecutor. Almost immediately after he end two
or three of his companions, as was alleged by 141‘Dermott,
were dragged or pushed into the cellar of a beer-shop
kept .by the prisoners. What thereul on took place
it was difficult to ascertain, in consequence of the confused
manner of the witness. Screams and cries of murder were,
however, heard issuing from the premises of the prisoners,
and upon one point the prosecutor seemed perfectly clear--
namely, the loss of his money, his tobacco-box, and its con
tet.ts. Immediately after the occurrence he made a loud
lament, bitterly deploring the cruelty of his aggressors, re-
peating that he was now ruined entirely, and unable ever to
return to his Irish home. A considerable amount of evidence
was adduced in corroboration, but there seemed to be some
variance .respecting the material facts to which we have
alluded, and from the time which had elapsed since the
event, some trifling discrepancy was also elicited upon minor
points.
By the croas-examination of the prisoner's counsel, cue
witness, who appeared to entertain an undue bias against
the men at the bar, arising from transactions irrelevant
to the one under consideration, was checked by the Learned
Jadge for the alacrity which he displayed in relating cir-
cumstances adverse to them, which had no connexion with
this ease.

The trial occupied the Court nearly five hours, and termi-
nated in a verdict of Acquittal.
. A second indictment against the same men for robbing
Michael M'Dermott, under similar circumstances, was then
read by the officer of the court, but no evidence was offered,
and the jury having, pro forma, pronounced a verdict of Not
Guilty, the prisoners were discharged.
The few cases which still remain are wholly unimportant
in their details, and at their termination the two Learned
Judges will proceed to open the commission at Shrewsbury,
where the business of the assizes commences on Thusday
morning at twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 24.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. JuAice COLERIDGE.)
ROSS V. HIGNETT.
This was an action in which the plaintiff declared that be
was employed by the defendant to purchase railway shares
for him on his (the plaintiff's) personal responsibility, and
the defendant, in consequence, undertook to provide the
money to complete the purchase, which he failed to do.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Baines and Mr. Cowling for the defendant.
It appeared that on the 3d of October the defendant had
given directions to the plaintiff to purchase on his account
twelve shares in the Sheffield, Ashton• under-Lync. and Man-
chester Railway, and the same day, having completed the
purchase at 121. 55., Mr. Ross, the plaintiff's clerk, made out
an advice note of the purchase of these shares, and sent a
duplicate of it to the defendant.
On the duplicate sent being called for and not produced,
that retained in Mr. Baines's office was tendered in evidence;
neither copy it appeared was stamped.
Mr. BAINES objected that it required a stamp, on the
ground that it was evidence of an agreement relating to a
mat ter above the value of 20/.
On the other side it was contended that it was not evi-
dence of an agreement, but was merely notice to the de.
fondant that an agreement had been entered into on his
behalf.

His LORDSHIP overruled the objection.
It appeared that the shares iu question had been pur-
chased by the plaintiff from other brokers—Dinwoodie and
Co. They were bought en the 3d of October for the account
of the 15th of October, and subsequently paid for by the
plaintiff. It is the practice in the share-market to hold the
broker responsible for these bargains, neither selling nor
buying broker usually disclosing his principal. The scrip
was not handed over for some time after the sale; in point
of fact, on the 3d of October and for some time after there
was no scrip or certificate representing these shares in ex-
istence.

It appeared that about•the 16th of October the defendant
desired another firm of brokers in Manchester to sell on his
account 30 shares in the same railway, and a note was re-
ceived by the plaintiff from a person of the name of Thorpe,
who assisted the defendant in the conducting of these trans-
actions, advising the plaintiff of this sale, telling him that
the 12 shares in question formed part of the lot, and direct-
ing him to apply to the brokers for the amount at the rate
of 10/. 17s. 6d. per share. The plaintiff, however,' declined
to do so, as he was entitled to receive the full purchase
money he had paid, and his commission amounting altogether
to 12/. 7s. 6d., and the shares consequently remained in his
hands.

On the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. BAINES ob-
jected that the contract alleged in the declaration was not
made out, inasmuch, as a;, the time of the alleged employ-
ment of the plaintiff to purchase, and the purchase of the
alleged shares, there really were no shares or scrip•certificates
t.) represent them in existence.
His LORDSHIP reserved the point.
Mr. ILIAINEs admitted that on the facts he had no case to
go to the jury, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff.
MARSDEN V. NEW MARSH AND ANOTHER.

This was an action on alleged retainer of the defendants to
buy and sell shares for him, in consideration of which the
defendants engaaed to use due diligence and to obey the due
and lawful orders of the plaintiff. The declaration then
alleged that the defendants had in their possession and charge
divers shares and scrip certificates, subject to the order and
dispoAtion of the bankrupt, and that they disobeyed the
orders of the plaintiff respecting them, by which he sustained
a loss.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wat-
son and Mr. Cowling for the defence.
The substance of the case, as set up for the plaintiff, was
that he had directed the defendants to purchase for him a
number of shares in the Leeds and' York, Leeds and Thirsk,
and Shrewsbury and Herefordshire Railways, and had after-
wards directed them to be sold out. The defendants sold the
Leeds and York at the time directed, but did not sell the
Leeds and Thirsk until a considerable time after, when the
market had fallen considerably. The Shrewsbury and
Herefordshire remained unsold.
It appeared that the order in qaestion was given on the
80th of September last, and on the same day the contract
was completed, and the advice notes forwarded to the plain-
tiff. It appeared, according to the evidence of a Mr. Duck-
worth, a broker, that he had introduced the plaintiff to Mr.
Newmarsh on the 30th September, at the time the order was
given. Witness saw Mr. Marsden on the Ist October. On
the 2d October saw Mr. Newmarsh on the subject of those
shares ; and on the behalf of Mr. Marsden, directed him to
sell the Leeds and Thirsk and Leeds and York. He told
witness he had had a written order from Mr. Marsden to that
effect. The Leeds and York were that day sold. After the
Exchange closed, witness saw Mr. Newmarsh again, and
asked if he had sold. He said he had not sold•the Leeds
and Thirsk, as they were sure to go up and reach :30/. or 401.
Witness said he should have sold. Newmarsh said as this
was the first transaction he had had for Mr. Marsden he
would wish it to be a good one, and would take the respon-
sibility upon himself. The shares were then at 214 or 24
They were actually sold on the 13th at 18/., and the defen-
dants in advising the plaintiff of that fact said, they would
not charge cammission, as the business had been an unfor •
tunate one. Witness had a conversation with Mr. New-
marsh on the 6th or 7th about the Shrewsbury and Here•
fordshire, and directed him expressly to sell. He then also
said, he had received a written order from Mr. Marsden to
the same effect. These shares still remain unsold.
In the cross-examination some papers were put into the
witness's hand, which he identified as the handwriting of the
plaintiff: One of these was an order to sell the Leeds and
York, dated the 2d October. In that no mention was made
of the Leeds and Think. There was another, of the Bth of
October, directing a sale of the Leeds and Thirsk, but
nothing was therein said of the Shrewsbury and Hereford.:
shire.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. WATSON submitted
there was no case to go to the jury. Ile said there was no
evidence of any such general contract as that alleged in the
declaration. The contract, if any, was on etch particular
parcel which the plaintiff directed to be bought or sold.
There was, further, no evidence that after the making of
the contract they had in their possession and charge any
shares or scrip certificates of the plaintiff. The shares were
purchased for the account day, and the mode of settling was
for the brokers to set off with each other the amounts of the
several shares they had bought or sold, receiving or paying
only the balance. No shares or scrip had been delivered at
the time of the sale.
His LORDSHIP overruled the*objection, and said there was
evidence to go to the jury.
For the defence witnesses were called to show that the
plaintiff, after sending the order for the sale of the Leeds and
Thirsk shares, was quite satisfied with the delay which had
taken place, and, admitted it had been for the best, con-
sidering the flat state of the market, and that a_ balance-
sheet being furnished to him shortly after the sale. he made
no objection or complaint. The present action was not com-
menced until Messrs. Newmarsh and Withington had com-
menced one against him, for an alleged claim they had on
him, arising out of these transactions. It was urged that
the statements of Mr. Duckworth also were inconsistent
wi.h the written orders, which were admitted to be the
genuine orders of the plaintiff.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury returned a verdict
for the defendants, on account of the Leeds and Thirsk
shares, and for the plaintiff on account of the Shrewsbury
and Herefordshire. some difficulty was felt in settling the
measure of damages, but it was finally agreed that a verdict
should be taken for 1281., the difference between the value of
the shares on the Bth of October and the present day; it
being left to the Court above to say whether any other date,
and what, should be fixed on as the point of comparison.

WEST ERN CIRCUIT.-=Exeter, March 24.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
Reuben Smith was indicted for killing and slaying Eleanor
Baker, in the city of Exeter, on the 10th of February.
Mr. Searle was counsel for the prosecution, and Ifr. Cox
for the prisoner.
The prosecutor and prisoner had lived as man and wife to-
gether for many years. On the day in question there was
some quarrel between them, which ended in the woman
screaming violently. The sister of the woman, who lived in
the same house, Jan into the room, and found her sister
bleeding from the nose. She stated to her that the prisoner
had struck her on the face while she was nursing the child,
and that he had previously thrown something at her. The
woman lingered a few days and then died. The surgeons
were of opinion that congestion of the brain led to the death,
which had been caused by violence.
Mr. Justice ERLE having summed up,
The jury expressed an opinion that there was no evidence
to show that the prisoner had struck the blow.
Mr. Justice ERLE said, that if a jury required an eye-wit-
ness, many persons would go unpunished. The deceased had
told her sister, in the presence of the prisoner, that he had
struck her a blow; the prisoner had not denied doing so.
Would not the natural inference be that he had struck the
blow ?'
A j:iror said that all but one of the jury took that view of
the case.
11. if an hour elapsed, and the jury then returned a verdict
of Guilty.
Sentence—Three months' imprisonment.

THE SILK TRADE—Among the strange sayings of
the protectionists, this week, in the House of Commons,
Mr. Caley, one of the Members for the North Riding of
Yorkshire, has asserted that a public meeting of silk-weavers
had been held in this town, at which resolutions were una-
nimously passed in oppoiition to Sir, R. Peel's propose far asd re-
duction of the import duties on silks, &c. Now, so
our knowledge of the town extends, we do not know that
there is a silk weaver in it. There may be a few, but gene•
rally speaking that branch is altogether unknown in this
borough. It is, therefore, not likely that the silk-weavers of
Leigh, Middleton, and the neighbourhood • would come
hither, a distance of several miles, to hold a meeting, and we
believe no such meeting has occurred. Had such a meeting
taken place, we venture to say their poor neighbours—the
muslin hand-loom weavers—would have proved to them that
the best years for both, as for all other classes of workin,
men, are those of "cheapness And plenty."—Bolion Free
Press.