The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-27 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT—FRIDAY.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN took• his seat shortly after nine
o'clock.

CHARGE OF MURDER IN LIVERPOOL.

Francis Toorens, a native of Ostend, aged 23,. was charged
with having wilfully murdered Mary Milligan, at Liverpool,
on the 3rd of August.
Mr. ARMSTRONG and Mr. HULTON conducted the prose-
cution, and Mr. MURPHY defended the prisoner.
One-half the panne], it was intended, in the first instance,
should consist of foreigners. One of the gentlemen sum-
moned, refused to serve as a foreigner. He was born in
Holland of English parents, his grandfather having been a
subject of England. His Lordship said that in point of
fact the gentleman was not a foreigner. Only three of the
foreigners answered. Mr. Murphy said he was perfectly
content. His Lordship said the jury was perfectly good to
try, providing Mr. Murphy were content.
Mr. ARMSTRONG detailed to the jury the circumstances
of the case,
The Belgian consul was sworn to act as interpreter to the
prisoner, who, it was supposed, did not understand English
sufficiently.
The prisoner is a sailor, and the crime with which he was
charged, arose out of a dispute which he had with a woman
of ill fame, of the lowest class. Many of the circumstances
are of a nature which we cannot publish.
Rosa Ryley, a female of dissolute habits, stated, that on
the 3rd of August last, she resided at a house in a court
in New Brick-street.
The witness stated that she got up and let the prisoner and
Mary Milligan into the house, on the night in question.
They went up stairs to a garret, when a dispute arose between
them respecting the nature of a bargain which they had
made with each other, and regarding which there was a
mutual understanding. Witness was called up and informed
by the deceased of the cause of dispute ; she saw the prisoner
with a knife in his hand, which he put into the sheath, and
threw on the bed. Soon after this, the prisoner requested
the deceased to let him out. The deceased refused to refund
a shilling which he had given to her. They went down stairs
together, and witness heard the deceased call out, " I'm
stabbed !" She went down stairs and found the deceased
lying on the ground bleeding. About half an hour after she
saw the prisoner in custody of a constable. Mary Milligan
had been put to bed. The prisoner was taken to the bed-
side, and the deceased said, " That's the man that stabbed
me for a shilling.".
Mr. MURPHY cross-examined the witness, and elicited
that the house was a very disorderly one, that Wilson, who
kept it, was in prison in default of bail, for keeping a house
of ill fame ; that she (witness) was before the magistrates on
Monday last for disorderly conduct, mid was committed for
one day ; and that she had been once charged with having
robbed a sailor.
One of the foreign jurors questioned the witness, and
elicited that his knife was given to the prisoner from the bed
by a girl named Bagley, and that he did not attempt to take
it till it was given to him.
Ann Gibson gave similar testimony to that of the last wit-
ness.
She was cross-examined by Mr. Mintrny, and it was evi-
dent that she was a very dissolute character. She had on
Monday last been charged with having robbed a person of
£1.105., and was now brought from prison to give evidence.
Mary Bagley further corroborated the testimony of the
first witness. She stated that when she found the deceased,
after she had called out she was stabbed, she (the deceased)
was in a gore of blood, which flowed from her left side. A
knife, belt, and sheath were produced by a police-officer
named Jarvis. The witness said these were exactly like the
knife and belt used by the prisoner.
This witness, in cross-examination, admitted that she had
been in custody many times for drunkennness, and that she
had once stolen a pair of shoes out of a man's pocket.
John Findley, who was stated to be a labourer about the
docks, but who, it appeared, was a " fancy man," as it is
termed, of, one of the girls, stated that he was in the house at
the time. He further corroborated the testimony of the
females.

William Bates, who was in the house in bed at the time,
deposed to having heard cries and uproar in the middle of the
night. He heard some one say " She was stabbed," and that
was all that he heard distinctly.
James Leonard, who resides in the same court as Wilson,
the keeper of the house in question, proved that he heard
cries of murder, and that he went out and found a knife,
which was given to Mr. Superintendent Jones.
Ann Schrooder stated that she resided at the mouth of the
same entry, and that on the morning in question she saw the
prisoner and deceased go to Wilson's house and knock at the
door. Some time afterwards she heard him calling out " Offi-
cer, officer," and said some one was going to rob him. She
went to her door, and she saw his hat fly off into the chan-
nel ; he did not wait to pick up his hat, but ran very
violently away. He turned to the left hand out of Brick-
street. She was sure the prisoner was the man. She heard
a cry of murder down the entry, and immediately closed her
door. She went afterwards to Wilson's, and found Mary
Milligan in the arms of two women bleeding, She (witness)
remained there till five o'clock. Was there when the pri-
soner was brought in by the officer. The prisoner was the
man whom they brought in, and he was also the man whom
she had before seen run away.
Police-officer Jarvis deposed, that on the morning in ques-
tion he was on duty in Brick-street. He met a. sailor run-
ning. The man stopped of himself. He was a foreigner.
Police-officer Halsall was with witness. They asked the man
what he was running away for. He said a man and a woman
had attempted to rob him in an entry. They proceeded to-
wards the spot, and the man accompanied them of his own
accord. They found a hat in the entry, which the man
claimed. Witness went forward to Wilson's house, thinking
that Halsall and the man were following him, but Halsall
came in without the prisoner. The man spoke broken
English, and was clad in the garb of a sailor. They after-
wards went and took the prisoner into custody on board the
Pauline, a vessel lying on the west side of the Brunswick
Dock. He had a hat near him which was a remarkable one,
and very like the one found in the entry.
William Halsall corroborated the above. •
Mr. Superintendent Jones, after detailing-a
few corrobo-
rative facts, said in reply to a question by Mr. Murphy; that
knives similar to that produced were frequently used by sail-
ors, native as well as foreign. The prisoner when taken ap-
peared to have been drinking.
William Lowcock and another officer proved the finding of
the knife, sheath, and belt in a box beneath the prisoner's berth
in the round-house on board the Pauline.
Peter Harwood, the Custom-house officer on duty at the
Pauline on the night and morning in question, proved that
the prisoner went on board some short time before the officers
came. He drew some water which witness thought he might
have drunk. Witness did not see him wash himself with it.
one of the Burgeons to the o..th Dlspcobcoy tuttes -that
he was called in to see the deceased, and he found that she
was wounded in the left side. The wound had been bleeding,
but had stopped. She was removed to the hospital, where
she died.

Mr. Arnault, another surgeon of the same hospital, de-
scribed the wound, which had penetrated the abdomen and
wounded the gut. The wound was dangerous. She died
on Sunday morning. The kidney was wounded. The de-
ceased died of inflammation, arising from the urine passing
through a hole in the kidney. The wound was about three
inches in depth, and much force must have been used to cut
through the clothes and plunge to that depth.
Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury for the defence. The
learned counsel animadverted emphatically on the dissnlute
character of the principal witness, and contended that the
chief proofs were in favour of the prisoner, tending to show
that the offence had not been committed by him, but by some
other person.

Hisloansuip said, if the witnesses were to be believed,
a case of murder had been made out. There would be no
middle course in this instance ; therefore, if the jury did not
think the first witness entitled to credit, it would be their
duty to acquit the prisoner. The learned judge went through
the evidence very minutely, commenting largely thereupon
in his progress.
Captain Peter Terran, commander of the Eugene, just
arrived from Ostend, appeared at the conclusion of the charge
to give the prisoner a character. He had known the prisoner
eight or nine years, and could say nothing but what was good
of him, in point of temper and in every other respect. He
stated that the Pauline had sailed on the preceding day, and
that the captain had staid a week over his time to await the
result of this trial.

The Jury retired at twenty-five minutes to six o'clock.
They returned at twenty minutes past seven, and returned a
verdict of Not Guilty.

POLYGAMY.

Moses Foulkes was brought to th bar on a charge of poly•
gamy. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six months
imprisonment, with hard labour, in Kirkdale Gaol.
BURGLARY.

William Jones, aged 20, and John Smith, aged 21, were
indicted for having burglariously broken and entered the
dwelling-house of Isaac Valentine, of Stretford, in July last,
and stolen certain of his goods ; and further, with having
burglariously entered the house of Thomas Wingfield, and
stolen a quantity of apparel and other articles.
Mr. Wilkins conducted the prosecution. The prisoners
were undefended.

The first indictment tried was that for breaking into the
house of Mr. Wingfield, of Broomhouse-lane, on the old road
From Manchester to Eccles.

Mr. Wingfield stated, he went to bed on the night in ques-
tion, (Friday, the 19th July,) at nine o'clock, being very ill
with rheumatism. He saw all about his house secure. He
came down about one o'clock, and still all was safe. He
rose, finally, about seven o'clock in the morning. The floors
of the house were covered with lucifer matches burned at the
ends. One of the iron► stauncheons of the back-window was
found to have been broken, and entrance had thus been ef-
fected to the premises. Several pairs of boots and shoes,
two coats, and many other articles of apparel, were found to
have been stolen.

Richard Rooney stated that he apprehended the prisoner
Jones on Monday, the 22nd July, in a beer-house near Ec-
cles.- Witness found upon him a pawn-ticket for a coat,
which ticket he gave to Benjamin Hartley, another police
officer. He asked Jones to what property that ticket relat-
ed. He replied to his own coat.
John Diggles, police-officer, of Salford, stated that the
prisoners were taken to the New Bailey on Monday, the 22d
July. He searched Smith, and found in a belt under his
trousers four or five pawn-tickets, one of which he produced.
-It was for some shoes. Witness had known the prisoners
some months. They were companions, and he had seen them
together on the evening of the robbery.
Benjamin Hartley, another officer of Salford, proved that
he had received the ticket mentioned, and had taken it to the
pawnbroker's shop, where he received a coat folded in a piece
of print. He had also taken the pawn-ticket which Mr.
Diggles produced, and procured some shoes which had been
pledged, and for which this ticket had been given.
The pawnbrokers were called, and they proved that the
prisoners had, on the Saturday, the day after the robbery,
pledged the articles which the tickets produced represented.
The articles stolen were produced, and fully identified by
Mr. Wingfield.
The Jury acquitted the prisoners of burglary, but found
them guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling-house, and
stealing therein.
Mr. WiLimrs mentioned a long and black catalogue of
crimes in which the prisoners had been engaged.
It was not deemed necessary to go into the case.
The prisoners were sentenced to transportation for ten
years.

The court adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
SECOND BLOOMSBURY CASE.—RIDSDALE V. CRAVEN.
In this case a verdict for the plaintiff, similar to that in
the former case, was taken by consent of the parties, subject
to the same points to be raised.
POLICY OF INSURANCE.—STOCKDALE AND ANOTHER
V. DUNLOP.
In this action, Messrs. Thomas and John Stockdale, soap-
manufacturers, of Liverpool, were the plaintiffs, and Mr.
James Dunlop, of the firm of Messrs. Borradale and Co., of
London, underwriters, the defendant, and the action was
brought to recover the amount of expected profits on a ship-
ment of palm oil purchased by the plaintiffs to arrive, and
insured with the defendant.
Mr. Wightman and Mr. Crompton for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. Cresswell for the defendant.
Mr. WIGHTMAN statedthe case. The plaintiffs carried on
business in Liverpool, as soap manufacturers, and the de-
fendant was an underwriter in London. The action was
brought to recover the subscription of the defendant to a
policy of insurance, dated September IZ, 1838, which was
made by the plaintiffs on the profits that they expected to de-
rive on 100 tons of palm oil, bought by them, to arrive, from
Messrs. Harrison and Co., merchants, of Liverpool. The
palm oil was to come in a vessel called the Maria, which was
trading on the coast of Africa. In April, 1837, she was in
the Bss river, and in attempting to get out she struck on

the bar. In consequence of that, and a continuance of bad
weather, she remained there till Fabruary, 1838, when- she
did get out. She had previously made two or three ineffec-
tual attempts, and again got on the bar. She proceeded to
Fernando Po, and thence to the river Benin, where she was
lost.

Evidence having been called to prove these facts, Mr.
CRESSWELL replied.
His LORDSHIP then summed up, and in so doing pointed
out the merits of the case. He said that the plaintiffs had
effected an insurance on the profits of 100 tons of palm oil,
expected to arrive, and many questions arose out of the ac-
ceptance of the risk, that would be settled elsewhere. The
statement was, that the vessel had been lost by the perils of
the seas ; the loss was admitted to have taken place, but
there was a dispute as to the time when the injuries causing
the loss took place. In the plea which the jury would have
to try—and the only one which could come under their con-
sideration--the defendant alleged that the ship Maria, in the
month of July, 1837, was driven on certain shoals, which ul-
timately caused her loss, between that and May, 1838 ; that
those injuries happened before the making of the insurance,
and that there was sufficient time for the captain' to have
made these facts known to the owners (and through them to
the defendant) before the affecting of the policy. The ques-
tion for the jury to consider was, therefore, whether there
was time to have communicated, not that she struck on the
bar in Brass river, but that she had received such damages
as to make her incapable of completing her voyage. Captaini
Beattie said that he did not know that the vessel had sus-
tained any material injury until she got into the Benin river
in May, 1838 ; that he wrote home as soon after as he could,
namely, in July, 1838 ; and that that was too late to prevent
the insurance. To that Mr. Cresswell had replied, that as
the damage which caused the loss happened in the Brass
river that fact might have been communicated. The question
for the jury was whether that was the losing damage.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for £l5O, subject to a Motion for
the reduction of damage.
INDICTMENT.—THE QUEEN V. BRUNTON AND ANOTHER.
This was an indictment brought by the trustees of the
Rochdale and Halifax road, against the Manchester and
Leeds Railway Company, and the complaint was that in
throwing a bridge over the turnpike road, at Littleborough,
that had ,interfered with the safety and convenience of the
public. The case was tried by a special jury.
Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sergeant Starkie, and Mr. John
Addison for the plaintiffs; Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Brandt, and
Mr. Tomlinson for the defendants.
Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case. He pointed to the act of
parliament which related to the bridge, and said it was therein
specified that the bridge should be an elliptical one. As it
had been erected, it was a skewed arch of only fifty-eight
degrees, (the width being 24 feet,) and there was in conse-
quence an obstruction of the view, which was highly Mem-
venient and dangerous to persons in vehicles. The extent of
vision was thirty yards only, so that persons approaching the
bridge were not aware of a carriage coming in an opposite
direction, until nearly upon it.
A number of witnesses, consisting of architects, surveyors,
engineers, and coachmen were called, who deposed that by
making an arch of from 38 to 42 degrees obliquity, and re-
moving the northern abutments a little farther north, the
whole inconvenience and danger might have been removed.
A skewed arch of 38 or 40 degrees might have been built,
sufficiently strong to answer all the purposes of the railway.
The only difference would have been that the cost of the
erection would have been greater, to the extent of about
£5OO. There was nothing, either in the nature of the ground
or anything else, to make the building of such a bridge im-
practicable. One of the witnesses (a driver of a stage coach)
spoke to the great inconvenience of the bend of the road at
the arch, and stated that he himself had met with accidents
in passing through. Another coachman said, that on Wed-
nesday he had a narrow escape; in going through he came
in contact with a cart. On their cross-exm.luation, the wit-
nesses said that there was danger of accidents of of this na-
ture occurring, even though drivers kept to the proper side
of the road. They could not see far enough to prevent col-
lision. One driver said he could see before him thirty yards,
and if necessary could pull up in five yards ; another said that
he could see about sixty, and that it would require one hun-
dred yards for him to pull up—an assertion which excited
much laughter. He afterwards explained himself by saying
that the loss of time taken in pulling up was great enough to
allow him to go 100 yards. A letter was also put in from the
trustees to the directors of the railway, giving them notice
that if they proceeded to erect the bridge after the intended
plan, so as to decrease the convenience for passengers, either
in waggons, carts, coaches, &c., or on foot, they would indict
them for so doing.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, contending that his clients had
acted within the limits of the powers granted to them by the
act of parliament, and had made the road much more con-
venient to the public than it would have been if they had not
gone to the full extent of their powers. As it was, there
could not possibly be any danger of collision if drivers kept ,
to their own side of the road. Even if he admitted that a
mail coach could not be driven under the arch at the rate of
ten miles an hour, but was obliged to slacken the pace to
five, so as to occasion the loss of 100 yards, was that a reason
for pulling down a costly bridge belonging to a railway ? The
trustees had first gone to the Vice-chancellor's Court, and
told a cock-and-bull story, and when sent about their busi-
ness, they brought down a lot of engineers from London,
Leeds, and other places, in order to uphold their case here.
The expense of such a proceeding must have been enormous.
Had the trustees expended one-half the money in purchasing
any corner of a building which obstructed the line of board,
or in-other ways improving it, it would have been much more
to their credit as administrators of public funds.
The Jury having stopped the examination of witnesses for
the prosecution, considering the fact of inconvenience fully
established,
Mr. CRESSWELL declined to call witnesses on the opposite
side, stating that, as most of the jury had seen the spot in
question, he would leave the point to them.
His LORDSHIP briefly summed up, observing that the
question for the jury would be, whether there was any in-
convenience to the public, or whether that might have been
obviated at a reasonable expense.
The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
INJURY SUSTAINED ON THE RAILWAY.

MULLIGAN 27. LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY Co
—This was a special jury case. The action was brought by
Francis Mulligan, a joiner, of Manchester, to recover com-
pensation in damages for an injury alleged to have been sus-
tained in consequence of the negligence of one of the servants
of the company, named Griffiths.
,Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. CROMPTON, and Mr. MARTIN for
the plaintiff; Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. VENAOLES for the
defendants.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in stating the case, said, that Mulligan
was a young man who was by-trade a joiner and carpeuter,,in
a very good employ in Manchester—that of Messrs. Bellhouse
a d,Sons. He left Manchester on the evening of February
15, in the present-year, -oy tne-seconu-Rw iaarana wniewstarts
'at half-past five. It was one of the characteristics of the
second class trains that they stopped more frequently than
the first class trains ; and it appeareolthat there were several
places at which they stopped—among others, at Newton;.
and there the misfortune happened. Several individuals. got
out for momentary purposes. The plaintiff . did so, and was
about to return to take his place, wheidie found tlifo, door
unexpectedly locked. The off-doors, he supposed, were
locked for the purpose of hinriering persons getting .out,nt
that side, so as to prevent accidents from the carriages ,that
come down on that side. While the plaintiff stoodd, on the
step, in a state of some embarrassment at finding the-door
locked, Griffiths, the clerk of the station, went ups Whim,
and seized hold of him, under the idea, .perhaps, that he was
a person endeavouring to enter without .payment. Com-
plainant replied that he had come from Manchester, and had
paid his fare. At that moment, without auy notice having
been given the engine started, and whether it was that , Grif-
fiths pulled the plaintiff, or the plaintiff stumbled, he did not
know ; but in consequence of that obstruction Mulligan fell,
with both of his legs across the rails, and the train passed
over them. After the occurrence of the accident, the parties
were very kind to him (Mulligan.) They removed him into
the Legh Arms, and immediately sent for a medical man, Mr.
Barrow, who had been in the habit of attending persons in-
jured at the railway. Mr. Griffiths suggested that he should
at once be taken to the Liverpool Dispensary,; but to that
Mr. Smith, the landlord of the Legh Arms, objected, until
it should be acquiesced in by the surgeon. Mulligan re-
mained in the house of Mr. Smith four. days, and all the ex-
penses were paid by the company. He was then sent-to the
Liverpool Dispensary, where he remained eighteen days, the
expenses of his stay there being also paid by the company.
Thinking, however, that he should be better attended to
among his friends, he left the dispensary and want to St.
Helen's. Mulligan was about to ,have been married to a
young woman there, and he went to the house of her father.
The owners of a plate-glass company, at St. Helen's, heard
of the case of the unfortunate young man, and kindly sup-
ported him with work which he could execute when sitting,
because his accident rendered him incapable of standing.
He believed that the young man was one who, in his best
times, had been able to earn from 30s. to 355. a-week in Man-
chester ; and with respect to the expenses at St. Helen's, the
defendants had had nothing to do with them. He hoped
that the jury would consider him entitled to something for
the pain and suffering he had undergone, as well as for the
loss of time. He had been confined months and months,
and though he had returned to his work, he was not his'Own
man again. His recovery, however, had been attributed in a
great measure to his excellent constitution. The medical
men said that if he had not been a most healthy and vigorous
man, the recovery of the plaintiff might have been a matter
of doubt. He (Mr. Alexander) did not impute that Griffiths
had taken hold of the plaintiff, as though he had been a thief,
but that he had acted carelessly or neglectfully ; and if that
were the case, he thought that the company should pay the
costs. Evidence was called : the accident was proved to
have occurred by Griffiths taking hold of Mulligan,—a short
struggle took place, when both Mulligan and Griffiths fell.
The latter, as the medical gentleman proved,'sustained a for-
midable injury. It was also proved that the carriage started
without notice, by the ringing of a bell or otherwise.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied. He said that the question for
the jury would be, whether theplaintiff had not got out of his
place in an improper manner and at an improper place. This,
he contended, was the fact, and that by so doing, he had
subjected himself to a suspicion of having attempted to gain
a surreptitious entry into the carriage, which the officer of
the company had a right to resist.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury immediately rerurned a verdict for the plaintiff,—
Damages, £6O.
The CoUrt rose at six o'clock.'

GROWN COURT.—SATURDAY.
HAVING POSSESSION OF A MOULD.
William Yates, a very old man, was charged with having
had possession of a mould for coining, without lawful excuse.
• The facts of the case were, simply, that the police of Man-
chester, having received information that the prisoner was
in the habit of coining, paid him a visit. At his house they
found a mould for coining sixpences, two counterfeit shillings.
a qua-Itity of white metal, which had been melted, and many
materials usually used by coiners. The prisoner was also
proved to have passed a bad shilling, to a shopkeeper.
The prisoner, in defence, alleged, that a man named Thorn-
hill, who, he had ascertained, had been incarcerated in
Kirkdale Gaol for coining., lodged with him. He (the pri-
soner) knew not that such things were in his house, till they
were found by the constables.
One of the turnkeys of Kirkdale Gaol proved. that a man,
named Thornhill, had " served" twelve months there for
coining.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Thomas Brierly, aged 21, was charged with having, in
July last, at Prestwich-cum-Oldham, killed John Buckley.
John Hardy and James Cocker were charged with having
been feloniously present.
Mr. Cobbett conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
defended Brierly and Hardy.
It appeared that the prisoner, Brierly, and the deceased
were drinking in a beer-shop, at Prestwich, when some dis-
pute arose, the result of which was, that an agreement was
made to fight. It did not appear, that Brierley had any
great wish for the contest, as his antagonist was much bigger
than he. Hardy and Cocker acted as seconds, according to
one of the witnesses, but, according to the testimony of
others, they were only present looking on as spectators. The
prisoner wished once or twice to give up fighting, but was
not permitted. Buckley, at length, received a blow or kick
upon his head, which compelled him to yield. He was car-
ried to a public-house, where he lay, in great pain, till the
next morsing. Inflammation of the brain came on, which
proved fatal.

The jury found Brierly Guilty ; but, under the circum-
stances, recommended him to mercy. Hardy and Cocker
were acquitted.
The learned JUDGE sentenced Brierly to three months'
imprisonment and hard labour, at Kirkdale.

THE CHARTISTS.
The learned JUDGE haVill& intimated, that he should take

the pleas of the Chartists, the Attorney-General for the
County Palatine was sent for.
Samuel Bardsley, John Bardsley, Wm. Cox, and James
Wardle, were called up. They were indicted for having, at
Ashton-under-Line, been present at a riotous assembly, and
illegally training to arms. The prisoners pleaded guilty.
William Vicars Jackson, commonly called the Rev. Wm.
Vicars Jackson, George Henry Smith, Christopher Doyle,
and John Kaye were placed at• the bar. The indictment
charged them with having committed a misdemeanour, in
having spoken seditious speeches, at Hulme. The prisoners
severally pleaded not guilty, and announced their intention
of traversing to the next assizes.
The Rev. Mr. Jackson asked the amount of bail that would
be required.
His LORDSHIP intimated, that the information would be
given to all the prisoners when the pleas had been taken.
WM. Butterworth was next placed at the bar with the
Rev. Mr. Jackson. The prisoners were indicted for having
uttered seditious speeches at Manchgster. They pleaded not
guilty, and decided upon traversing.
The Rev. Mr. Jackson was then placed at the bar solus.
He was indicted for a seditious conspiracy, riotous assem-
bling, and seditious speeches, at Manchester. He again
pleaded not guilty, and intimated his intention of traversing.
William Tillman, Joseph Linney, and John Quin were
indicted for a riotous assembly and seditious conspiracy at
Hulme. They pleaded not guilty, and said they would
traverse.
Samuel Scott pleaded not guilty to a charge of sedition, at
Hulme, and decided upon traversing.
John Holmes pleaded not guilty to a charge of seditious
conspiracy and unlawful possession of arms, at Manchester,
and said he would be tried at these assizes.
Timothy Booth, indicted for seditious conspiracy and un-
lawful possession of arms, at Manchester, pleaded not guilty,
and declared his intention of traversing.
James Leach, for a similar offence, pleaded not guilty, and
declared his intention of traversing.
John Smith, William Tillman, and William Butterworth
were again placed at the bar. They were indicted for sedi-
tious conspiracy, unlawful possession of arms, and seditious
speeches, at Manchester. They, pleaded not guilty, and said
they would traverse.
Edward Ryley was, indicted for riot and for being present
at an 'unlawful assembly for military training, &c., at New-
ton. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and decided upon
being tried at thes&assizes. It was subsequently intimated,
that he had not the right to traverse.
William Nailer, William Stanfield, John Wright, John
Rouges, and William Darren were charged with having been
present at and attended, at Newton, a meeting and assembly
of persons for the purpose of being trained and drilled to the
use of arms, &c., without any lawful authority. The prisoners
pleaded not guilty. They will be tried during the present
assizes.
William Fairplay, alias James Coupe, charged with a
similar offence, at the same place, pleaded not guilty.
Joseph Booth, charged with riot and assault, at Manches-
ter, pleaded not guilty, and expressed his determination of
being tried at these assizes:
John Degnan, indicted for having used seditious words, at
Castleton, pleaded not guilty, and intimated that he should
traverse.
'William Barker and Frederick Davidson pleaded not guilty
to a charge of conspiracy and riot, at Manchester, and ex-
pressed their determination to traverse.
Charles M Milian and John Green was indicted for having
demanded money from Ellen Seddon, wife of John Seddon,
and for conspiracy. The prisoners pleaded not guilty, and
would be tried during the present assizes. John Latchford
and Adam Doodson were placed at the bar with the above,
and the four were charged with seditious conspiracy and riot
at Hindley. They pleaded not guilty, and will be tried at the
present assizes.
Thos Ratcliffe pleaded not guilty to a charge of seditious
conspiracy and riot, at Apsall : will be tried during the pre-
sent assizes.
Robert and Daniel Ball, indicted for seditious conspiracy
and unlawful possession of arms, at Bolton, pleaded not
guilty, and intimated, that they would traverse. Daniel
Ball was then charged with conspiracy and unlawful posses-
sion of arms, at Bolton. He pleaded not guilty, and would
traverse.

Win. Willoughby, John Warden, and John Lloyd, to a
charge of seditious riot and conspiracy, at Bolton, pleaded
not guilty, and would traverse.

Jan Wightman pleaded not guilty to a charge of riot, at
Bolton, and will be tried at the present assizes.
James Sharpies, Andrew Morgan, Thomas Farrell, John
Holt, James Pilling, Henry Parkinson, Jonathan Merle,
Joseph Rostock, and John Gill, indicted for a riot, at Bolton,
severally pleaded not guilty; and all expressed their determi-
nation to be tried during the present assizes, excepting Henry
Parkinson, who said he would traverse.

James Heywood, Joseph Wilde, John Holt, James Morris,
Edward Glennon, Christopher Gillebrand, John Pearsall,
Chas. Morris, Irene Crompton, William Openshatc, Riehd.
Eastwood, Andrew Morgan, Solomon Greenhalgh, John
Pilling, and Thomas Heywood, were charged with riot, at
Bolton. They pleaded not guilty, and will all be tried dur-
ing the present assizes, except Charles Morris, who said he
would traverse.

William Baldershaw, William Harvey, and Joseph Fitton
were placed at the bar. The indictments preferred against
them had been cut by the Grand Jury. They were, there-
fore, discharged.
The Rev. Wilson Pickers Jackson was again placed at the
bar for the purpose of hearing what bail would be taken in
his case.

Mr. Sergeant ATCIIERLY said, he would merely mention,
that there were three bills against him. He was described in
them as a dissenting teacher. All that he (the learned ser-
geant) asked on behalf of the crown was, such security as
wmdd- satisfy the ends of justice.
Mr. AnoLPHy§, on behajf of the prisoner, said, it was not
to be presumed that the latter was a rich man because he was
a minister, and because .he made a respectable appearance.
He was instructed to say,:. that the contrary was the fact, and
that he would have difficulty in procuring hail.
The JtipiK-Said„the prisoner must find security, himself
in £1Q0,9 4119,',s1,ireties in :COS each, for his appearance at
w
the next assi;- 'Pie tike sureties to be. given in each of the
three indictrneAtf,,,,, It 'was 'arranged; that forty-eight hours'
notice of the,lipl Should.hei4iVen,but that such notice should
be y‘;,ai;ved 4ejopment th'et,solicitorfor the prosecution were
sattsVecl;;NT ,the'bail.
..- ,_,':
A
e.o;;qp. 4'4 Smith.; against whom were two bills, was
told that, fispe bail *Mild be:required from him.
4h 1414 p, addressing Mr. Adolphus, said, it was to
be:imFM
499 that the. securities were to include that the
-proTect isihoil pie of good behaviour and keep the peace in
111 e 11)idap tim,,,-
_H &ion. BulYerworth, against whom were two bills, was
requireditagiVe similar sureties. The prisoner put it to his
:1-
,-,...1-1,...., !_. 1
...•.
jidoi• labouring man as from one who had moved in better
society and could more easily procure it.
His•LORDSTIIP said, if two -X5O sureties were difficult to
procure, if it .voultl accommodtite the parties, they might bring
forward four in ;£25 each.

William Tillman, against whom were two indictments,
was required to find the same bail in each.
ThewbOle of the Chartists who had traversed, except the
fair individuals last named, were placed at the bar.
l'AlSt.'*COluiE•rr said, he appeared for Lloyd and Warden.
T4firvere in the situation of labourers, and it would be
difflonitifor thern'to procure such bail. He thought it was
Wot'lnsii'al or requisite for the prisoners to he bound to good
behavidur, which would render it almost impossible for them
to het out df prison.
His Loiinstur said, it was formerly usual to require the
sureties to be bound for good behaviour, but that had lately
ben neglected. The state of the country required that it
-Shot'ld'bb so in these instances.
I‘J r. ecinnETT said, it was assuming, as it were, that the
frisoners'hid already been found guilty.
His Lounsint. said, they were indicted for that of which
they had not cleared themselves.

IStr. COBBETT asked if the amount of bail could not be
reduded.

On application from. Mr. WiGnTmAN, the recognisances
in the case of Higgings convicted at Chester, and sentenced
to eighteen 'months imprisoninent, were destroyed.
Samuel' and :Tani Bardsley, William Cox, and James
Wardle were brought up.
His LORDSHIP said, he did not intend to pass sentence
upon them HI the others were tried : but, as Mr. Wilkins,
their counsel, had some doubts whether he should be present
when they were next brought up, his lordship consented to
hear what he had to say in their behalf.
Mr. WILKINS informed his lordship, that the prisoners
had erred unwittin4ly, without having any notion that they
were breaking any law, and they were now full of sorrow and
.
contrition.

The AT;roßtitY-GENERAL, in reply, admitted,' that the
character of the prisoners might be exemplary. They had,
however, been present at a riotous and dangerous assembly,
where the cap' of liberty was carried on a black flag. In the
house of the Bardsleys were found two sharp ground pikes,
two staves that fitted them, and instruments for rivetting
them in.

Witnesses were called who gave the prisoners good cha
racters.

His LORDSHIP repeated, that he shouldelefer passing
sentence till the others were tried.

It was fixed, that the trials Queen v. Ryley, Queen v.
Holmes, Queen v. Fairplay, alias Coupe, be tried on Mon-
day.. The Bolton cases will come on when the felonies are
all disposed of.