The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-02 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.--Fitipast.
(Before Mr. Baron PARK.)
His lordship took his seat on the bench a few minutes
before one o'clock. In obedience to his lordship's directions,
William Rogers was placed at the bar to receive the sen-
tence of the court. His lordship then proceeded to pass
sentence. He said the prisoner was tried at the last assizes,
before Baron Alderson, for having in his possession at Man-
chester, in violation of the Bth section of the 2d William IV.
chap. 34, a mould, with the intention of uttering base coin,
and with having base coin in his possession. He was taken
into custody, and was tried with a man named Thos. Large,
who was convicted of having 16s. of base coin in his posses-
sion, and sentenced to be transported. The prisoner had 2s.
in his possession, and they were both indicted for having this
coin, for the common purpose of uttering the same. An ob-
jection was taken on the part of the prisoner that his offence
was not a violation of the statute. His lordship read the
clause referred to, which is as follows :—" Sec. 21-2 4.
chap. 34. If any person shall have any such matter in his
personal custody or possession, or shall knowingly or wil-
fully have any such matter in any dwelling-house or other
building, lodging, apartment, field, or other place, open or
inclosed, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or not,
and whether such matter shall be so had for his own use or
benefit, or for that of another, every such person shall be
deemed and taken to have such matter in his custody
or possession within the meaning of this Act." His
Lordship then went on to say, it was contended that,
as the person had only 2s. of base coin in his possession,
the offence was not complete. The learned baron reserved
the point for the consideration of the judges ; all but two
were preesnt when it was submitted to them, and although,
at first, they all felt some difficulty on the question, they,
however, finally agreed that the prisoner was guilty of the
offence charged. According to their interpretation of the
clause; proof was not required to the extent that the indivi-
dual accused had in his possession three pieces of counterfeit
coin. It was enough if the money was found in the posses-
sion of one who acted as an authorised or indirect agent of
the accused, or if it was found in the dwelling of the party.
It was therefore the unanimous opinion of the judges that
the prisoner was guilty. He (the learned judge) had con-
sulted Baron Alderson as to the extent of punishment to
which he would sentence the prisoner. It was the learned
baron's intention to have sentenced him, at first, to 18
months' imprisonment ; but as the prisoner had been already
7 months in confinement, the sentence of the court now was,
that he be further imprisoned in the House of Correction at
Kirkdale for 11 months, and be kept to hard labour. The
prisoner appeared in a very infirm state of health.
CUTTING AND STABBING AT MANCHESDBH.
Philip Tone was indicted for having, on the 28th October
litst, at Hulme, Manchester, feloniously cut and stabbed one
Thomas Eddleston.
Dr. Betower stated the evidence that would be produced
in support of the prosecution.
George Wooley, being sworn, said—On Sunday, the 28th
October last, I saw the prisoner at the bar at the Bull's Head
Inn, Hulme, between 11 and 12 o'clock. He asked me for
the' loan of sixpence. I told him I had no money. He then
eiught me and knocked me down, and said he would give me
more, as I was taking five or six pounds out of his pocket.
He did not explain what he meant by this remark. He fol-
lowed me for 30 or 40 yards, and struck me frequently.
Some hien then interfered in my behalf.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I never had the
slightest quarrel with him. He appeared excited by drink.
Samuel Oxwood.-1 live in Hulme. On the 28th October
I saw the prisoner and Wooley at the Bull's Head, Hulme.
I saw the prisoner ill-using Wooley. He struck him several
times. Vs'ooley did not return the blows, but begged him to
be quiet. Wcoley at last said he would bring Mr. Alcock,
the deputy-constable of Hulpee, to him. Wooley then went
away, and the prisoner folloeved and struck him several times.
He said he would make him:fetch Alcock. Two young men
then came up ; their names kre Bigger and Eddleston.
Mr. WILKINS said the prisoner desired him to retract his
plea of Not Guilty, and he would throw himself on the mercy
of the court.
His LORDSHIP said it was better to proceed with the case,
as it would determine the amount of punishment he should
award' o the prisoner.
The witness proceeded to say, that the prisoner stabbed
Eddleston on the left side with a knife. Mr. Alcock then
came tip. I knocked the prisoner down with a bunch of
celery. He had been drinking, but was not drunk.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Four of them re-
proached prisoner for striking Wooley. None of them said
they would give him a good thrashing, nor did Eddleston say
it would serve right to do so.
Thomas Eddleston.-1 saw the prisoner and Wooley quar-
relling in Moss-lane. The prisoner held Wooley by the.col-
lar, and was ill-using hie,/ very much. I said it was a shame
to abuse 'an old man in that cruel manner. The prisOner
then walked away, and said kg would ill-use any amongst
them that attempted to interfere with him. Ile then ran at
me • I raised my bands to protectenyself, and we both fell.
When down, I thought he kicked ate in the side ; but on
getting up and throwing open my 'taistcoat, I perceived
blood flawing from my side, and on examining myself I found
I was stabbed in the left side. I was then'. taken to Mr. St.
Clair's, a surgeon. I did not know the prispner before that
day.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—I can t say if I called
him a blackguard, but I said it was a shame for him to ill use
the old man so. I did not lay hands upon hien, nor did I see
any one else do so.
John Bigger.—l saw Eddleston and the prisoner struggling
together on the 28th October last, in Hulme. Eddleston'
and I were walking together, and when we got to Moss-lane
where the prisoner and Wooley were quarrelling, Eddleston
said it was a shame for him to abuse Wooley as he was doing.
He said be would ill use any of them, and with that he put
his hand in his pocket and brought out a clasp knife, which
he opened, and then ran towards Eddleston, put out his
hands to stop him, and they both fell. I did not see the pri-
soner stab Eddleston.
Samuel Alcock (constable of Hulme) said.—l came up to
the parties during the quarrel. Shortly after it was over I
took the knife out of the prisoner's pocket, which I can pro-
duce. It was then wet and dirty, but had no marks cf
blood upon it.
Martin St. Clair, (surgeon).—l examined Eddleston. He
was wounded near the heart, between the fifth and sixth ribs.
The wound was a very dangerous one, and might have proved
fatal. He was much injured, and was under my care three
weeks.
Mr. Wreaues declined addressing the court on behalf of
the prisoner.
The learned JUDGE then recapitulated the evidence to the
jury, who, after a few moments deliberation, found the, pri-
soner guilty.
His LORDSHIP then sentenced the prisoner to be trans-
ported beyond the seas, for the period of 15 years : and in
pronouncing this sentence, he took occasion to express his
deep regret at witnessing, as he did in this and other places,
the introduction of the use of the knife in the disputes and
quarrels that arose amongst the people.
HORSE-sTsiuNG AT BOLTON.
James Woodward (36) was indicted for having, at Great
Bolton, on the 15th October last, feloniously stolen one horse,
the property of Samuel Bennet.
Samuel. Bennet being called and sworn, stated.—l sent a
colt to the fair of Bolton for sale, on the 15th October last,
by a servant boy of mine named Job Tong. The prisoner
and another man came up to buy it. I asked £lB for it.
They agreed to give me that sum, and we went out to a pub-
lic-house where the prisoner said I would be paid the money.
After some conversation they left me there, and when I came
out the colt was gone. I made no bargain as to the price of
the animal, nor did I agree to swop it with the prisoner's old
horse. He stole the colt without any bargain whatever.
Next day I went to seek for the colt, and on coming to Long-
sight bar, which is on the London road from Manchester.
William Coates and 1 met the prisoner, and the other man
who was with him at the fair of Bolton, with the colt. The
man who was leading the colt begged of me not to mention
anything about the theft, and offered me the halter. The
prisoner came up to me and also offered me the colt, and
asked me to forgive him, and to shake hands as friends. I
said I would never forgive or shake hands with a rogue and
a thief. My son was with me, and we were then going to
give information against the prisoner and his companion.
William Coates told me not to take them into custody, nor
trouble myself about them, as the police officers would have
them soon enough. The prisoner afterwards came to my
house, as he said, to shake hands with me, but my son on
hearing that the person who stole the colt was in the house,
went for the constable, and he had him taken into custody.
The prisoner then fell on his knees, and said he wished that
his eyes might fall into his hat, if he would have attempted
to take the colt, if James Grundy had not told him that I was
a quiet old man, and that once I got the colt out of the fair,
I would not Say a word, for that he had frequently put his
cattle to graze on my pasture, and that all I ever did was to
turn them out, without ever throwing a staye or raising a
whip at them. (The unsophisticated manner in which the
witness described his goodnatured weakness, created much
merriment in the court, in which his Lordship heartily
joined.) My colt was worth £lB then. Now I would not
take £24 for it. The old horse that I was to swop for it as
the prisoner has stated, was not worth more than £l. He
has since been sold for 12s. 6d. (Loud laughter.)
The prisoner here observed that the colt was lame and
blind, and that his horse was broken winded. (Continued
laughter.)
Job Tong being sworn, said—l took my master's colt to
the fair. The prisoner came up and asked me if it was for
sale. I said it was. He asked me where my master was,
and I pointed him out in the fair. He also asked what the
price was. I told him £lB. He then desired me to walk
the colt out. I did so twice. He then called to my master
and said he would give him £lB for the colt. My master
said he must have the cash paid. They then went to the ale
house, where the prisoner said his father was, and that as he
had plenty of money, he would pay him at once. Shortly
after the prisoner came out and said he had bought the colt,
and that my master desired him to have it. Another man
then came up, put a saddle and bridle on the colt, and took
it away,
William Coates.—l am a groom. I was at Bolton fair on
the day in question. I saw Mr. Bennet's colt there, and the
prisoner and another looking at it, and offering to buy it. Ben-
net said he would not take less than £lB for it. The prisoner
said if Bennet would swap the colt with his old horse, the
other man would give him £lB for the old horse. (Laughter.)
Bennet declined the offer. About half an hour after this I
met the prisoner and the other man taking away the colt out
of the fair. I then met the old man, who was grievously
complaining of the loss of his colt. I told him I met the
prisoner and his companion with it. Mr. Bennet and his
son came to my house the next day, and as I was accompa-
nying them to the police we met the prisoner and his com-
panion with the colt in their possession. The old man claimed
the colt, and the prisoner at once delivered it up to him, say-
ing, that I was the occasion of finding them out.
The learned Judge then charged the jury.
Verdict—Guilty.
ASSAULT AND ROBIMAY AT SOUTHPORT.
William Kilner was indicted for feloniously assaulting
Thomas Sawyer in the neighbourhood of Southport, on the
Ist of January last, and for robbing him of the sum of one
shilling.
Thomas Sawyer stated—l am a labourer, and live at
Ainsdale, in this county. On last new year's day I went
to Southport, accompanied by a young man named Peter
Rimmer, to pay some bills that I owed. After paying the
bills I had two sovereigns and some silver left, which I had
in a purse. We then went to the Hesketh Arms, where we
met the prisoner. We all had some drink there. We next
went to the Cross Keys' public-house, and had more drink
there. Afterwards we went to the Ashtree, where there was a
dance. I treated the prisoner to a glass of ale there, and
then left him, and went up stairs to where the dancing was.
He saw me taking ont the purse containing the money to pay
for the drink I. had at the different places we called at. I
was not drunk, though I had been drinking during the day,
when I was at the Ashtree. I lay down there, and my brother
came and took, what money I had on me from me, lest I
should fall asleep and be robbed of it. I left Ashtree between
twelve and one o'clock, but before going away Rimmer gave
me one of three shillings that I lent him in the course of the
day. About half a mile from the Ashtree the prisoner came up
to me with a staffin his hand, and told me to delivea up my
money. I told him I had only a shilling and he might have
it. He then knocked me down with the stick ;he searched
my pockets, examined my watch fob, and took the shilling
from me That I had from Rimmer. My head was, by the
blows he gave me with the stick, dreadfully cut ; both my
eyes were blackened and closed up; and 1 lost my hat in the
struggle. I then went to the house of a man named Miles
Blundell, to whom I told what happened to me. On the 3d
of January I gave information of the robbery and assault, and
had the prisoner taken into custody some time after.
Cross-examined by Mr. BRANDT.—I never saw the prisoner
before new year's day. The money I had on that day was
my awn. The prisoner was admitted to hail by the magis-
trates before whome wan taken. The ernes-examination of

this witness by the learned counsel as to the quantity he drank
during the day, which it appeared was beyond his reckoning,
created much laughter in the court.
Peter Rimmer was next produced. He corroborated Saw-
yer's evidence as to the incidents of the day, their meeting
with the prisoner, and the returning of one shilling out of
three that he had borrowed from Sawyer.
John Sawyer, brother of the prosecutor, stated that he took
two sovereigns and some silver out of his brother's pocket at
the Ashtree.

Robt. Marshall.—l live at Halsell ; and was at the Ashtree
on new year's day. Ott returning from escorting my sweet-
heart home, I met the prosecutor on the road from the Ashtree
to Miles Blundell's, and about thirty or forty yards behind
him I met the prisoner, who had a stick in his hand. I spoke
to them both.

Cross-examined.—l never saw the prisoner before that
night at the Ashtree. I' don't recollect what dress he had on
but it was a dark dress. I was not drunk.

Miles Blundell stated, that when Sawyer came into his
house, he was all daubed over with blood and sand. His
head was cut. He lost his hat, but found it the following
morning where the quarrel took place. There was a pool of
blood on the road side.

Caesar Lawson examined by Mr. WILRINS.—Caesar! are
you not a constable ? (Laughter.) Yes, sir, I am. He
then stated that the prisoner was arrested in Preston about
three weeks after the assault, and was admitted to bail by
the magistrates before whom he was taken.
Mr. BRANDT addresssed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.
He dwelt with much force on the difficulty there was of
proving personal identity generally, but especially in the pre-
sent instance, when the only evidence they had to rely on
was that of men who, by their own acknowledgement, had
been drinking from morning to night during the day the as-
sault is alleged to have taken place. He submitted that it
would be extremely dangerous to return a verdict of guilty
founded upon such testimony, and thereby not only subject
a fellow being to a very severe punishment, but also be the
cause of depriving him of his liberty for a considerable length
of time.

The learned JUDGE, in discharging the jury, animadverted
on the neglect of attorneys for prosecutions, who, in many
instances, as in the present, omit to send in the depositions
of witnesses, which, he said, were necessary, as being the
foundation of bills of indictment.
The jury found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP then
addressed him. You have been convicted of a desperate as-
sault and robbery ; and if the indictment had been properly
framed, your life would be in danger, you have been guilty of
so much violence. that feel it to be my duty to sentence you
to transportation beyond the seas for 15 years.
KILLING AND SLAYING AT LIVERPOOL.
Charles Fagan, labourer, of Liverpool, was indicted for
having at Liverpool, on the 26th July last, feloniously killed
and slain one John Sheridan.

Margaret Sheridan.-1 am the widow of the late John
Sheridan. He was a lumper, (one who contracts for the load-
ing or discharging of vessels by the lump) in Liverpool. We
lived in Bury-street, Toxteth-park. I remember my husband
coming tome in the month of July last, between four and
five o'clock in the afternoon, in company with Patrick and
Charles Fagan, The prisoner is Charles Fagan, (on identi-
fying him, she became much agitated, and exclaimed he was
the murderer of her husband.) My husband was much
bruised about the body. The prisoner came into the cellar
in which we lived, holding my husband by the collar, and
his brother, (Patrick Fagan) followed them. My husband
said to me, in the prisoner's presence, that he had been
almost killed by him. They then both fell upon my husband.
Patrick knocked him down, and lay upon him on the floor,
while Charles kicked him in the stomach, and on the lower
part of the belly—kicked him six or seven times. Patrick
knocked me down, when I tried to save my husband. I got
up and screamed out, and John Burrough, who lives next
door, came to my husband's relief. The prisoner was curs-
ing and swearing when he was kicking my husband. When
Burroughs came in the prisoner slipt out, but his brother
Patrick still lay upon my husband, who was then stretched
on the bed.

Cross-examined by Mr. MURPUY.—I do not recollect
what answer the prisoner made when my husband came in
and complained that he was beaten. My husband did not
tell
.me that he had got a beating in a fight before this quarrel
took place. 1 can't say my husband was fond of drink—he
took a hearty glass sometimes. I can't say he was sober
when he came into the cellar—he might have been drinking
some hut he was not drunk. lam sure it was the prisoner
brother knocked me down. 1 sent for a doctor the following
morning. I gave my husband no spirits to drink that
evening.
John Burroughs.—l live in Bury-street, Toxteth-park,
next door to Sheridan. I was told by a man passing, that
some one was committing murder in the next cellar. I went
in and found Sheridan lying on the bed, anik Patrick Fagan
over him. I caught Fagan by the collar—pulled him off the
deceased, and put him out of the cellar. I can't say whether
there was any other man in he cellar. 1 saw none.
James Kennedy, (a police-officer.) When I was going on
duty, at five o'clock in the evening, of the 26th of July last,
I saw several !Persons quarrelling. Sheridan, the prisoner,
and his brother were the parties. I heard the prisoner ask
Sheridan for money. He said he had none, but as soon as
the captain paid him he would pay them both. They then
parted, but on going away, the prisoner said he would meet
the deceased again. His shirt sleeves were folded up his
arms, and his fists were clenched when he used these words.
John. B. Davis, keeper of the Bridewell in Brick-street.
I remetnbser that the prisoner, his brofher' and Sheridan
were brought to Bridewell in the month of July last, on a
charge of being drunk and disorderly. I did not detain
them, but allowed them to go, on their promising to behave
themselves. They were all the worse of drink, Sheridan
-WOO not then hurt.

Thomas iaTila (superintendent of police)—l went to
Sheridan's residence, on the 13th of August last. He was
than greatly exhausted. I went in consequence of receiving
certificate of the surgeon who attended him.
Henry Gordon Harman, (the surgeon,) was then called by
the desire of his Lordship. Being sworn, he said—l was
L.. surgeon of the South Dispensary last July. I remember being
sent for to attend deceased on the morning of the 27th July ;
Vound the deceased almost dying—he himself expressed a
conviction that he was going to die. I did not expect he
could survive for any length of time. He was vomiting, and
complained of excruciating pains in the body. He was so
bruised about the head that it was hardly possible to discover
a feature of his face. I attended him in conjunction with
Surgeon Archer for three weeks. He died :on the 16th of
August. I saw him frequently before his death. When I
signed the last certificate it was a few days before his death,
when death was inevitable. From the first day I saw him I
was of opinion, and so was the other surgeons, that he could
not long survive. He was aware of his condition. I exa-
mined his body after his death ; the liver was ruptured ; the
capsule containing the kidney was full of matter, the bowels
were ruptured, and there were abscesses in the abdomen.
Part of the lobe of the liver which hangs on the kidney was
also ruptured. Those injuries were, no doubt, the cause of
his death. There were no external marks, but one, which
was over the region of the kidney. Severe blows might be
inflicted on the soft parts of the belly without producing ex-
ternal marks.

Cross-examined.—Nothing passed the deceased's lips but
water, from the time I saw him till his death. He would
drink 14 or 15 quarts of water daily, which he afterwards
vomited up.
Thomas Quick, recalled.—When I called on Sheridan be
was in a dying state. I asked him if he was sensible of his
condition—he said he was. I asked him if he was prepared
for a change—he said, yes, and that he could not survive
many hours. He wished to make a statement, he did so,
and I took it down in writing as he gave it, in presence of
his brother and his wife.

In the absence of this document, which could not be im-
mediately produced, the Counsel for the prisoner consented
to take the substance of it from the witness. The witness
then went on to say that the deceased stated to him that he
had engaged Charles and Patrick Fagan to land lime-stone
from a vessel in one of the docks. It came on to rain about
noon, and after they left off work, they demanded half a
day's pay from him—he said he had no money, but that he
would pay them when ne received money from the captain.
They then went to a public-house in Garden-street, and had
three pints of ale, for which Patrick Fagan paid. On leaving
the house Charles Fagan insisted he had money. Com-
menced searching his pockets, on finding no money on him,
he knocked him down and began to kick him in the lower
region of the belly. A gentleman then came up and cried
" Shame—shame,' and gave them in charge to a police
officer, who brought them to Bridewell. When he was at
Bridewell he made no charge against either of them, as he
was anxious to get home. The prisoner and his brother fol-
lowed him home, and Charles shouted down the cellar steps,
" We have not half served him out yet," or words to that
effect—and "we will give it to you now." They then de-
scended into the cellar, and knocked him down and jumped
upon him. His wife endeavoured to part them, but in doing
so, she was knocked down, and on her getting up she screamed
out murder ! This brought in the assistance of a neighbour,
and they were both ejected from the cellar. That is the
substance of the statement of the deceased. Both of the
Fagans kicked him when he was in the cellar.
George Tyrrell, police officer, stated that he arrested the
prisoner. He could not find his brother, Patrick, he has ab-
sconded.
Mr. Murphy addressed the jury for fhe prisoner. He con-
tended that Patrick Fagan was the person who should be on
his trial, and not the prisoner, for it was against him chiefly
that the evidence of Mrs. Sheridan and Burroughs was di-
rected. He pointed out the discrepancies between the state-
ments contained in the depositions of Mrs. Sheridan and
Mr. Quick, made before the coroner, and those now given
by them in evidence; and again strongly urged that Patrick
Fagan who had absconded, was the person that was guilty of
the crime, charged against the prisoner.
His LORDSHIP said--It appeared from the evidence they
both went to the residence of the deceased for a common
purpose, and did not matter which of them it was who in-
flicted the fatal blows.

After a brief charge from the learned Judge, the jury re-
turned a verdict of guilty.
The Court then (six o'clock) adjourned'.

NISI PRAYS COURT.-FRIDAY.
' (Before Mr. Baron Aufnasoisr.)
StnucrioN.—llasskyr v:Si4ALLEY.
This was an action• to recover compensation in damages,
for the loss of Ihis daughter's services by the plaintiff, Mr.
Bassett, of Bury.
• Mr. BRANDT appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant
did not appear in court.
'Mr. BRANDT stated that the present action had'been laid
to ieeover compensation in damages for the grievous injury
which the plaintiff had received in his feelings by the seduc-
tion of his daughter. Cases of this kind varied very much in
the circumstances in which they were attended ; and if ever
there was a case in which the conduct of the parent of the
girl who had been seduced was raised above all suspicion, it
was the case which he was about to lay before them.
Both the parties were in comparatively humble circumstan-
ces. The parent was a mechanic, and so also was the defend-
ant ; but he had occupied the situation of overseer in the
place where he was employed. The defendant had resided
for some time at the house of the plaintiff, whose family con-
sisted of himself, his wife, and an only child—the young wo-
man, whose ruin was the subject of the present action. The
defendant was there on terms of intimacy, and became fami-
liarly acquainted with the daughter, who had a child by him ;
and, previous to her confinement, the defendant had left the
house of her parent—proceeding to Bolton, and shortly after-
wards married a woman of some property. From the atten-
tions of the young man, it had been supposed that his inten-
tions were honourable, and he was received in the character
of a suitor. The fact was undoubted, and could be proved,
indeed, from the letters which the defendant had written.
The defendant entered the house of the plaintiff about the
latter end of the year 1835, and continued to reside there
until the spring of 1837. In 1836 the intimacy commenced,
which, unfortunately, terminated in the ruin of the young
woman to whom he had ;paid his addresses. After leaving
the house, in 1837, he continued for a short time to pay his
visits ; but, after going to Bolton, those visits ceased, and
communication was carried on only by letter. At Bolton,
the circumstances of the defendant improved ; he became a
book-keeper—went on improving, and married a woman of
fortune, or, at least of substance. The defendant, much to
his credit, did not appear in court that day ; but he had en-
tered a plea of not guilty, and had forced the father of the
young woman to come into court to seek reparation for his
loss—he had driven the young woman herself to be the nar-
rator of her own shame, and to expose herself to the gaze of
the people, before he would make the compensation, which,
in justice, he should have paid without a murmur. These
facts would be made apparent, by looking into the defend-
ant's conduct. The young woman, he (Mr. Brandt) ought
to mention, was confined in September, 1837. Perhaps sur-
prise might be expressed that the action Was not brought
sooner ; but, when the lett6rs of the defendant had been
read by him, it would be seen that there had been sufficient
cause for delay, in the expectation that, as the letters stated,

the defendant would give any reparation in his power. No
action was brought until it was found that the defendant was
a man of profession Only. A letter of the date of October 4
would show what the defendant's opinion was of his conduct
to the plaintiff's child. The letter was then read by Mr.
Brandt. In it the defendant stated that be did not know
what to say with respect to his conduct to the daughter of
Mr. Bassett. It was a subject which had long excited his
most anxious thought, and had been to him- the source of
much pain and humiliation—so much so, indeed, that when
he first began to think that his suspicions were well founded
[viz., that the plaintiff's daughter was enciente] he could not
bear to meet the family, nor to think upon the subject of the
girl's discovery. Nothing should prevent him from acting
the most honourable part, and he entreated that no expense
might be spared during the confinement of the young
woman, assuring them that he would defray it all. He was
far from thinking that anything but marriage would be suffi-
cient to atone for what he had done. Unfortunately, he had
no means of writing at the time, as he had an extravagant
father, who was confined, in Lancaster Castle, and it would
require all the funds he could raise to free him. After that,
he should be at their command. A second letter, dated Oct.
11, which had been addressed to the aunt of, the young
woman, was also read by Mr. Brandt. It was to the follow-
ing effect :—" I am anxious to inquire after your welfare, as
well as about Ann, and the little one—God bless it, how is
it ? Have you yet given it a name ? Tell her to make her-
self as comfortable as she can, and not to neglect herself. As
to the little one, lam sure that he will not be neglected. I
feel that it cannot be long before I shall come to you. I
have at present some business with- our attorney, about my
father, and attorneys are sad dogs." Notwithstanding these
professions, (Mr. Brandt said,) time passed away and nothing
was done by the defendant, and the consequence at last was
that the present action had been brought. The wife of the
plaintiff, since the ruin of their only daughter, had died. He
did not lay her death at the door of this young man, but he
did say that her latter days had been embittered by his con-
duct. If the jury thought that this were a light subject, they
would of course give light damages ; but if they thought that
it was a serious case, and that a serious injury had been in-
flicted upon the feelings and respectability of the parties,
humble though they might be, he hoped that their damages
would be such as to meet the case.
Ann Bassett was then called. She stated that she was 28
years of age. Her father was a mechanic, residing in Bury.
At the letter end of 1835 the,defendsnt came to their house,
and resided there between two and three years. After some
time he was treated as a suitor of witness's, and was,accepted
at such by her father. An intimacy grew up between her
and the defendant, and in consequence she became the mother
of a child. The child was born on the 29th of September,
1837. He came to see her sometimes after leaving. 'He at
last left Bury, and proceeded to Bolton, since which time he
had been married. She knew his handwriting. The letter
dated October 11th was the defendant's handwriting. When
in Bmly, he received 30s. a week : he was now getting about
£2. The name of the young lady whom he had married was
Ward ; her father was a cotton-spinner.
This concluded the plaintiff's case.
The learned JUDGE observed, that it was quite clear that
the injury which had been inflicted was sufficient to entitle
the plaintiff to damages. That point was an admitted one ;
and the question for the jury to determine was, what the
amount of damages, in the circumstances should be.

,
The Jury, at first, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £6O ; but the Judge informed them that as only £5O
had been claimed, they should not award a larger sum. The
verdict was then altered to the sum claimed—Xso.

TAYLOR V. WOLSTENHOLM AND OTHERS

Mr. KNOWLES stated the case for the plaintiff:- This was
an action on a promissory note, dated October 20, 1834. Two
of the defendants had suffered judgement to go by default.
On putting in an admission by the other under a judge's
order, he should be entitled to a verdict.—Verdict for the
plaintiff, damages £7O 10s.

LUPTON V. STEAD.
Verdict by consent of the plaintiff, damages £2B.
HILL AND ANOTHER V. ROOSE AND OTHERS.
_ _

Mr. WIGHTMAN stated the case for the plaintiff. The
action was brought on a promissory; and an admission on a
judge's order was put in.—Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages
£47 10s.