The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-19 00:00:00

SANDFORD V. JACKSON.

This was an action of trover to recover the value of
a parrot and cage.
Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Brandt for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a widow lady of a
certain age. She had a brother who first owned the
parrot, and she, it was alleged, purchased Poll and
the cage of him for 51. 105., a receipt for which sum
was produced. It was admitted, however, that no
money actually passed, the brother being at the time
indebted to the plaintiff in a larger sum. Some time
afterwards a sister of the plaintiff, who resided with
her, fell ill, and could not bear the noise of the bird,
on which account Poll and the cage was sent back to
the brother's for a while. The brother, then being
in difficulties, said he feared if it remained in his
house his creditors would take it, sent it to the de-
fendant's. The occasion of its removal being passed
over, the plaintiff was desirous to reclaim her favourite
bird, and sent to the defendant for it, who refused to
deliver it up, alleging that it belonged to the brother,
and had passed to his assignees ; on which the pre-
sent action was brought. It had, however, been
allowed to slumber, and would no doubt have been
dropped altogether, had not the defendant compelled
the plaintiff to proceed with it ; the consequence of
which was a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 81.10 s.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
Joseph Farrell was indicted for the manslaughter of
Amelia Farrell, his wife, at Manchester, on the 31st
of July last.
Mr. F. Pollock conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Wilkins the defence.
It appeared from the evidence, that on the day
named in the indictment, which was a Sunday, the
prisoner came home to his dinner at a later hour than
usual, at which the deceased expressed her displea-
sure, and accused him of having been 'in the com-
pany of another woman, to whom she applied a
variety of epithets current on such occasions. He
assured her it was not so, and begged her not to use
such language, especially in the presence of " Em-
ma," his daughter by a former wife, She, however,
called him a liar, and continued her vituperations,
when at length he was so much provoked that he
threw some boiled potatoes at her, and as she still con-
tinued, he struck her with 'the back of his hand once on
the eye, and once on the mouth. She did not fall
immediately, but after a little time appeared to slip
down beside the wall, when it was found that her nose
was bleeding. The child cried out, and some neigh-
bours ran in. The deceased said " This is hard
usage," to which the prisoner replied, " Then you
should have held your tongue. She walked with
help to a neighbour's house, and the next day kept
her bed, but so far recoved as to go about the house,
complaining of giddiness in the head. On the 7th of
August she got worse, and a medical man was sent
for. She soon after died. On a post mortem ex-
amination it was discoved that there was considerable
extravasation of blood on the left side of the brain,
which at that time adhered to the skull, and appeared
to be of several days' standing.
It appeared on cross-examination, that before the
31st of July she had complained of her head, and said
she should not long survive her sister, who had died
of apoplexy about a month before.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and contended that the death might have been caused
by apoplexy, and not by the blow from the prisoner.
The jury, after deliberating for some time, found
the prisoner Guilty.--Sentence deferred.

Edward Maylett was indicted for the manslaughter
of Thomas O'Donnell at Manchester, on the 23d of
July last.
Mr. Monk conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Wilkins the defence.

It appeared that the prisoner was a boatman on the
Rochdale canal, and on the morning of the 23d of
July last, was conducting a boat to the Piccadilly-
wharf, in Manchester. The boat was in the empty
lock, and the prisoner had raised the sluice for the
purpose of letting the water in. The deceased, who
was a boy, had been bathing, and on coming out of
the water was crossing the lock-gates, at the end of
which the prisoner was standing, for the purpose of
getting his clothes, which were on the other side.
The prisoner, as if in sport, caught at him as he
passed, and the poor boy slipped into the full lock,
and was drawn down by the current, and did not rise
again. For awhile the prisoner seemed stupified, but
some boys shouting that he had murdered the lad, he
jumped into the boat, and began searching for the
body with the boat-hook. Not finding it, he closed
the sluice and let the water out, when he succeeded
in getting the body out, after it had been submerged
about ten minutes, but life was quite extinct.
Mr. Wtr.wirts addressed the jury, who returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Aug. 17.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fo,inLANQUn.)
D. ROSS'S BANKRUPTCY.

The bankrupt In this case was a commission agent
carrying on business in Love-line, and to-day he
applied for his certificate. He was opposed on the
ground that he had speculated and been extravagant
in trade and personal expenditure, having at the time
liabilities hanging over his head for 11,000/.connected
with a Scotch sequestration.
The COURT considered the opposition justifiable,
and a postponement of the bankrupt's certificate was
made for one year and a half.