The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-08-20 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

MANCHESTER.
We gave in our Wednesday's publication, such full parti-
culars of the occurrences on Monday and Tuesday last, in
this town and its immediate neighbourhood, that we have
little to add to the details then published. We are happy to
say that.the lawless attempts which were made to force work-
people from their employment, and thereby add.to the num-
ber of the rioters„ failed completely in this town, and to so
great an extent elsewhere that the agitators did not venture
upon any serious attack on persons or property. Since Tues-
day morning not the slightest attempt has been made to force
out the hands employed in the factories ; nor has there been
any renewal of those dangerous and illegal meetings which
caused so much alarm a week or two ago. In the evening
of yesterday, (the anniversary of the memorable 16th of
August, 1819,) there were some rather large assemblages of
people in the neighbourhood of New Cross and on St. Peter's
Field, but no appearance of a regular meeting. We under-
stand that some mischievous or thoughtless person had
posted up a few handbills, printed last year, announcing a
procession to St. Peter's Field, in commemoration of the
day, which caused the assemblages in question, amounting
probably in each place, to something like two thousand peo-
ple. Those in St. Peter's Field appeared to have assembled
for the mere purpose of looking on, and were entirely with-
out leaders or any point of union. The parties who met at
New Cross seemed rather inclined to form a procession, but
no leaders appeared to direct them ; and, after remaining
assembled about a hour and a half, they quietly dispersed.
We understand that a considerable body of them moved,
but without any order, about half-way down Oldham-street,
where they met Mr. Elijah Dixon, and requested him to put
himself at their heid, with the view of forming a procession
to, and holding•a meeting upon St. Peter's Field. Dixon,
however, had too much sense to accede to this request, and
advised the parties to go quietly home, which at length they
did. Information of these proceedings.w,as very early con-
veyed,to the borough police-office, where several magistrates
assembled, and. the_iroost effective preparations' *ere made
foi putting down any attempts. at disturbance. About 150
policemen' were collected' in the police.:office and the south
station in George.street, and the military in Tib-street Bar-
racks' and BYwater's Repository, were directed to hold therd-
selves ready, in case their services should be required ; but
the magistrates did not think it necessary to disperse • the
orovids assembled unless they showed some symptoms of a.
misehievous intention, which, fortunately, did not app6r.
Indeed,ate, prompt and, effective interference of the police
and military on former- occasions during the . week, have
suffiCientlY prOved that riots are not now committed with
impunity./ , About .nine.o'clnck last' ifivds had
dispersed,Tand ivith .them, .;ye. trust, Alisappeared the last
symptoms Of the 0 national holiday", ill this town.—Man-
chester Guardian.,l- ' 0"; •

• 7i1!:, • • .
• ' - .WARRINGTON.
But little has been heard of the a sacred month" in War-
rington, those who have employment having been too glad
to avail themselves of the means of earning a subsistence, in-
stead of wasting their time in riot or idleness. There has
not been even a private meeting of the chartist body in the
town during the week, and the original leaders appear ex"-
ceedingly, anxious to disavow all connection with the chart-
ists.-7-Manchester Courier.

BOLTON.
We mentioned in our last the disturbed state Of Bolton,
where the chartist spirit appears to have been more prevalent
than in any other large town in the neighbourhood ; and, we
are sorry to say, that the disorders mentioned in our first
edition on Wednesday were not all that occurred. The
lowing communication from our Bolton correspondent, dated
Wednesday, seven o'clock in the evening, appeared in a se-
cond edition of that day :—I stated, in my communication
yesterday, that at seven o'clock all was peace. At the time
I was writing, the mob were breaking the windows' at the
Town Hall, Little Bolton, and destroying any furniture they
could find. The disturbance then originated in consequence
of a man being arrested by one of the special constables ; a
rescue being attempted, the constabulary force were driven
into the hall by the crowd, and were obliged to defend them-
selves by preserving the passage into a back room to which
they had retreated. The mayor not being aware of the pro-
ceedings, in consequence of being in another part of the town,
no coercive steps were taken to allay the riot ; and the con-
sequence was, that every pane of glass, and article of furni-
ture were destroyed, that came within the reach of the mob,
which consisted principally of boys, encouraged by the men.
An attempt was also made to set fire to the building, but hap-
pily no conflagration took place. A report was prevalent to-
day, that the books of the township were destroyed ; but, On
inquiry, I find that there is nothing missing of material value.
or importance. At eight o'clock the soldiers appearedond
two of them fired into the Hall • but no lives were lost. The
constables, the mob having fled, were then released from
their perilous situation, and a search was made, and several
persons taken into custody. The constables then paraded
the town, and a number of persons who had been engaged in
riots were brought before the borough justices, who sat the
greater part of the night to receive evidence. The following
persons were brought up, and committed for trial at the as-
sizes at Liverpool.—Thomas Farrell was charged by George
Greenhalgh. About a quarter past six o'clock, the pri-
soner was one of the mob, near the Wheat Sheaf, and threw
stones at the windows. On searching him, a stone was
found inhis pocket. —James Pilling was also brought up
under a similar charge, and had been caught with a stone
in his hand near the same place.—William Willoughby
was then brought up, charged with being possessed of
arms.. Mr. Baker, the inspector of pollee, stated, that he
apprehended the. prisoner in Spring Gardens, about twelve
o'clock at noon, and asked him if it were true that he had
a pistol about him.. The prisoner said he had, and he had a
right to carry it, and would shoot thefirst bloody tory he met
with, and would tight for love and liberty like a Turk.
Witness then saw him attempt to pull something out of his
pocket, upon which he seized him. On searching him, a
pistol was found in his pocket, loaded with two bullets, and
powder, and primed. Witness saw it unloaded by a soldier.
The prisoner had a flask full of powder, and in his waistcoat
pocket there were twelve or thirteen bullets. The prisoner
endeavoured to excite the mob several tine's to rescue him,
but they did not do so. Jonathan Merle, John Gill, and
Joseph Wild, were proved to have thrown stones, and been
guilty of rioting.—Richard Eastwood, Solomon Greenalgh,
Robert Gillibrand, John Pearsail, Isaac Crompton, William
Barlow, and William OPenshavr, were all proved to have par-
ticipated in the riot at the Town Hall.—Henry Parkinson,
John Holt, and James Heywood, were proved to have been,
throwing stones in Newport-street, and assaulted the consta-
bles, and broken a number of windows. They were all com-
mitted, as above stated, and conveyed out of the town to
Kirkdale at three o'clock this morning. The police peram-
bulated the streets during the greater part of the night and
to-day. The mayor also, with the yeomanry and military
stationed here, went through the town, and partially cleared
the streets, and a great number of persons have since been
arrested. At this hour all is quiet, and is likely to remain
so. The chartists have lost their leaders, and no excitement
now prevails except amongst mere rabble or boys, which will
be immediately stopped. The chartists of Leigh have met
in thousands, I believe, and it was expected here that they
would'be brought to assist their fellow rioters in this town,
but I am glad to state they have not done so ; otherwise the
mischief would have been dreadful, as they (the Leigh chart-
ists) are pretty generally armed with pikes, and would doubt-
less have offered resistance to the military. '
WEDNESDAY NIGHT.—The town has since been in a state
of peace ; and business is resumed as before throughout the
town, except as to a number of the chartists, who arenot
permitted to return to their employment, from which they
had absented themselves without permission. The following
prisoners, in addition to those already named, have been
brought up for examination :—Robert Bell, Daniel Ball, and
William Baldershaw, were charged with being in possession
of arms for an unlawful purpose, under the following cir-
cumstances :—ln consequence of some information received,
the new police and a party of special ronstables, with a de-
tachment of the 96th regiment, went to a cellar in Back
Crook-street, on Wednesday, and found three pikes (pro-
duced in court) in a box under a bed. The pikes with the
shafts were each ten feet long, very sharp, and were wea-
pons of a most formidable nature. The also found books of
rules and cards of the Working Men's Association. The
prisoners were also found in the cellar.—Andrew Knowles,
Esq., a borough magistrate, said that there was a great riot
and disturbance in the neighbourhood of Great Moor-street,
and he saw.a number of persons carrying large weapons like
those produced. He was accompanied by the constables and
military, and as soon as the mob saw the latter they threw
brickbats and stones, and on the officer threatening the sol-
diers to fire they ran off.—William M`Lean, police-officer,
stated, that Ball informed him he had bought one of the pikes
produced from Matthews, a blacksmith, and paid a shilling
for it, and that t4e other two prisoners had each bought a
pike. He also said that there were twenty more pikes at
Matthews' when those were bought. Robert Bell and Da-
niel Ball, after being cautioned, both said that they had bought
the pikes to protect the house at night, and Baldershaw said,
he was in the cellar with the other prisoners but had nopike.
They were all committed for trial at Kirkdale.—Joseph Ros-
tock, charged with flinging stones at John Entwistle, and
kicking him severely, on Tuesday afternoon, in the New
Market Place, was also committed.—Edward Glenmen was
charged with throwing a stone through 'the factory window
belonging to Messrs. Ormrod and Hardcastle, about half-
past one o'clock on Wednesday last, and (with a large mob
of other persons) declaring that they would have the hands
out of the mill, was committed for trial.—James Sharpies
and John Morris, for a similar offence, were also committed
for trial. The whole of the prisoners were taken under a
stroll.. escort of the military and special constables, about
two o clock on Thursday morning, to the railway, where a
carriage, provided for the purpose, conveyed them to Man-
chester, and they were ,from thence committed to Kirkdale.
THURSDAY.—The town appeared peaceable this morning,
and business was resumed. The police proceeded to appre‘
hend the different parties charged with offences, and the fol-
lowing were brought up :—Andrew Morgan was committed
for trial for being engaged in the riot at the Town Hall.--
Samuel Sandiford charged with absenting himself from the
service of William Garnett Taylor, Esq. at Sharpies, was
committed to hard labour for threelrofifffiL—Charles Mor-
ris, for the riotat the Town Hall, having been seen breaking
the chairs, committed for trial.—John Pilling was also com-
mitted for asiwilar offence.—James Greenwood, charged with
absenting himself from the service of W. G. Taylor,—com-
mitted for'ont' inrinth.—John Wightman, charged with inti-
midating the work-people at Mr Slater's bleach works, at
the head of a mob, and, causing them to leave their employ-
rhat,--4chifinitteil for trial.—During the above examinations
Mr. ,Baker, the inspector, brought 12 pike staffs into court,
which he had found at the workshop of George Lloyd, the
chartist leader; who was committed on Tuesday.
FurnAY.--,Order is completely restored, no apprehensions
of prisoners have this morning taken place.—The Bth Hussars
left the town this morning for Rochdale.—Manchester
Guardian.

ECCLESIASTICAL AND UNIVERSITY
INTELLIGENCE.

(From the Oxford Herald.)
On Tuesday last, Mr. Edward Brabant Smith, B.A. was
elected a Fellow, on the Michel Foundation, at Queen's Col-
'lege.
On Sunday, the 4th inst. the following gentlemen of this.
University were admitted into Deacons' orders by his Grace
the Archbishop of York :
William Jepson Newman, B.A. Oriel College.
Thomas Booth Wright, B.A. Wadham College.
James Thompson, B•A. Lincoln College.
PROMOTIONS.
Mr. Allan Wallace, B.A. of Pembroke College, Cambridge,
educated at the King's School, and the brother of the Head
Master, has been appointed Second Master of the Grammar
School, at Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.

Rev.' Geo. Cromwell, to the Perpetual Curacy of Trinity
Church, Louth. _

Rev. John Williams, to the Perpetual Curacy of Cilycwn,
Carmarthenshire.

Rev. James Dalton, to the Rectory of St. Issell's, Pem-
brokeshire.

Mr. C. Easther. B.A. of St. John's College, Cambridge,
to the Second Mastership of Richmond School, Yorkshire.
Mr. T. Lowe, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's, Warrington,
to the Vicarage of Leigh, Lancashire, vacant by the death of
the Rev. J. Topping; patron, Lord Lilford.
Rev. T. Scott, to the Perpetual Curacy of Poulton-le-
Sands, Lancashire, vacant by the death of the Rev. T. But.
ler ; patron, the Vicar of Lancaster.

CHARD CANAL.—It is with pleasure we notice the rapid
progress of this work. Upwards of five hundred men are
now employed on different parts of the line, Enid it is confi-
dently expected that the whole will be completed by the time
specified.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.

FRIDAY, AUG. 16.

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Thomas Rowe, aged 23, stood indicted for having, at Li-
verpool, on the 18th of June last, killed and slain -William
Owens. The prisoner was ably defended by Mr: MURPHY.
Mr. HARDEN appeared for the prosecution, and opened the
case to the jury. -
Hugh Owens, sworn. I keep a coal-yard in Bolton-street,
in this town. My father, William Owens, used to go to the
coal-yard every, day. On the 18th of June, the prisoner
came there. He had drunk a few glasses. He asked me to
lend him 3d. I said " No." There was a loaf in the little
hut, and he took it to give it awaY. I took it from him and
cut a slice and gave it to him. He threw it down, and took
the loaf, and went with it to the jerry-shop. He came back
with the loaf. My father was standing outside the gate. He
offered the loaf to my father, but did not give it—only aggra-
vating him. He then took hold of my father's nose. He
let go his nose, and dragged him into the yard by the
body. There was a coal-heap in the yard, and they both
fell down upon it. The prisoner's sister was there. The
prisoner and my father got up. They fell a second time—
my father on his back. Rowe's sister then came up. 1
then went to my father and took him off. Some one else
came and took the prisoner off. My father went to the hut,
and complained of being hurt. My father could not speak
a word of English.
Cross-eXamined by Mr. MURPHY.—It occurred between
three and four in the afternoon. I think the prisoner was
laughing when he took hold of my father's nose. They did
not fall tillthey got to the heap of coals. Row's sister struck
my father and dragged him ; and his arms were swelled.
Elizabeth Robinson.—l am the wife of R. Robinson. On
the 18th of June last I saw the prisoner. He had hold of
the old mam. They dragged one another down. The sister
came and tried to get her brother from him.- They both
got up. I put the old man into the shed. They had hold of
each other; but I saw no blows.
Elizabeth Richardson.—l reside in Skelhorne-street. On
the 18th of June, I. heard the. people about the coal-yard
say—" They will murder the old man." I ran up; and saw
the deceased in the middle of the coal-yard. The prisoner
was near him, and they were both standing. The prisoner
ran at the old man with his -Rand up ; but I did. not. see
blow. I was shocked to see thO-old, man tell so heavily, and
turned round. The old inanliafAhis arms up to prevent the
other from strikifig•him.'Matey '
Owens.;---The. deceased lOOgEO.,sith us. He went to
the coal-yard that daY ht Apradnuilg, and,;eterned at
eight at night. He.colla reiecV 14-Aas:pale,—quite over-
done. He wetted -.F*,i'well. and healthy in
the morning. 'He asked; WlYezi7ceisne. to -go to bed; but
he could not get up to the garedt Where his bed was, and
was obliged to go- tra-mrbert—NeirMoiiiing`Tre—Was very
ill. He kept his bed for a fbrtniglat.. On the Thursday we
got a doctor to him. lie was very much swelled, and passed
blood at times. Mr. Emmet and other medical men were
*called in. He lived a month within oue day.,
-Mr. Emmet, surgeon,—Stated that he found the deceased
much swelled, and he was very weak.- He-died from exhaus-
tion. He made post imortem examination. The deceased
died from inflammation, caused by disease of, the bladder.'
.The disease could not' arise suddenly„ from a blow, but the
accident might have had some connexion with it. He
.thought the coagulated blood would not have been there
Without violence.,

Cross-examined.—lf I had examined the body of . the de-
ceased; not knowing any thing of the circumstance, I should
have said that the deceased died from extreme irritation of
the-bladder. Old people are subject to a disease in that
region by which there might arise a coagulation. Great in•
jury might also arise from the patient not being medically
attended for three days. There were no external appear-
ances of violence. Old people were subject to diseases of
the heart and the brain, which would affect the whole System:
Re-examined.—When the bladder is diseased from natural
causes; it is not often that blood is found. The voiding of
generally comes on gradually.
Mr4•Mrnmy eloquently addressed the jury in behalf of
the prisoner, contending that the deceased; according to the
testimony, died from natural disease, incidental td old age.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, in a perspicuous man-
ner, and the jury found the prisoner guilty of the assault.
The Judge reprehended the conduct of the prisoner, a young
man, int maltreating an old man, pulling his nose,-and drag-
ging him about. The sentence of the Court was, that he
should, be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in Kirkdale
-gaol for six calendar Months.

;,Mr. MURPHY, at a subsequent period of the day, stated
to the learned judge, that he had just been informed that the
.prisdner bad.previously been fined by the magistrates for the
assault, and the present prosecution against him was there-
fore, he believed not legal. The judge requested the counsel
!to look into the act, an to recur to the subject.

CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
, John Wilson, aged 21, was indicted (having been com-
mitted by the coroner) for having, at Liverpool, killed and
:slain. Hugh Jones.
Mr. MURPHY conducted the prosecution.
Wm. Bell being sworn, said,—l am a ship-smith, em-
ployed by :Messrs. Sidebotham, of Sparling-street. I knew
the deceased Hugh Jones. The prisoner and he were both
employed at the same place. On the evening of the 31st
July; at half-past fivei I was standing near the anvil I was'
working at, Jones and the prisoner were a few yards distant.
They had been • quarrelling or disputing for about half-an-
hour. Prisoner said he was not satisfied, and would leave
his place. Deceased said he ought to leave, and say no more
about it. There was a piece of hot iron on the anvil, and the
prisoner and an apprentice were striking at it. They struck
it " foul." This knocked the iron on one side. and the de-
ceased, who was superintendent of the anvil, looked at them
and said, " Do you think I am a fool, to put up with that."
More words took place at the next heat. The prisoner said
to deceased, " he did not care a damn for him nor the shop,
nor anyone in the shop." The deceased said, " Do you think
I care for you ?" The deceased let the iron fall, but kept hold
of the tongs, and moved to the other side of the anvil, and
struck the prisoner a severe blow on the side of the face. He
then retreated, and the prisoner followed him up, and I think
hit him. The deceased became more irritated—and finally
again struck the prisoner, who struck the deceased with his
hand and then retreated. A sledge hammer was,a short way
off. The prisoner went in a stooping position while he re-
treated, and lifted the hammer, with which he struck the
deceased. He flung it sideways at the deceased; and it might
have been partly in self-defence. It struck the deceased
over the left ear, and he fell against a vice. He was Nild and
uncollected when be• was lifted up. He died in about eight
days after. The prisoner struck the deceased only once with
his fist. He was turned sideways to the deceased when he
threw the hammer.

James, Bryning, an apprentice, said he was working at the
same anvil with the prisoner. When the prisoner said he
did not care a d—n for him or any other man, the deceased
struck him. Jones struck him two or three times, and the
prisoner struck him. I tried to keep the prisoner off, but he
threw me back behind an old wall. When I got up, de-
ceased was falling. The deceased was the. stronger man of
the two.

Mr. M`Lean, surgeon, described the injury clone to the de-
ceased. He had received a blow over the left ear. There
was a small wound; and he was labouring under symptoms
of concussion of the brain. He died on the following morn-
ing. On a post mortem examination, he found a small frac-
ture on the left side of the skull, and extensive inflammation
of the brain. He died from the inflammation, which was
caused by the blow.
The prisoner said he and the deceased had quarrelled ; that
the deceased struck him • a scuffle took place, and deceased
followed him up to strike him again ; that in retreating he
took up the hammer, and lifted it to ward off further blows,
when it overswung, hit the deceased on the head, and threw
him (the prisoner) to the ground. The hammer was a black-
smith's sledge of lilbs weight.
The learned JUDGE summed up—explaining that in self-
defence, violence to a certain extent only, and proportioned
to the violence offered, was admissable. He left it to the
jury to consider the statement of the prisoner, and if they be-
lieved that the hammer was taken up in self-defence, and that
the blow arose from its becoming over-balanced, he would be
entitled to an acquittal.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he was dis-
charged, with an admonition to be careful in future.

MINT CASES.

James Gorman stood charged with having in his possession
a Mould for the forming of base shillings.
The ATTORNpIC-GENERAL, with whom was Mr. ARM-
STRONG, detailed the case.

Betty .Nott said—l live at Lees,. near.Ashton-under-Lyne.
The prisoner came on the 4th August to our house, and asked
for change for a shilling, which I gave him, and he went
away. 1 afterwards found that the shilling was a bad one.
He afterwards came and changed half-a-crown, which was
also base. He came again on the following Monday, and
asked for change for another half-crown. I told him he, had
paid me a bad half-crown and a shilling. He said he only
paid what he had taken at his standing. I kept the last half-
crown, and sent for the constable, who apprehended the pri-
soner. The daughter of this witness was present when the
half-crown was paid. The bad money was marked.
William Bates, constable, took the prisoner into custody,
and told him he was charged with passing bad money... He
said, if it was so, he had taken it at his standing. He had
some money in his pocket, but it was all good.
Joseph Wild received the bad money, and searched the pri-
soner's house. He kept lodgers. The prisoner described
the house. Witness found a mould with the impression of a
shilling. It was amongst some cinders, and wrapped up in a
piece of cotton. Witness also found some metal and sand
paper in the chimney behind a brick. He also found a pipe
with metal in it, and a spoon partly melted, &c.
Another constable found sbme metal.

The prisoner said the metal, sand paper, and white powder
were used by him for soldering, as he sometimes tinkered.
Mr. Powell, inspecting-officer of her Majesty's mint, stated
the half-crowns were counterfeit; also the shilling. The
mould had the obverse and reverse of a shilling of 1817, and
had been used. The pipe had been used for melting white
metal—a mixture of tin, antimony, and bismuth. The whole
tube of the pipe was filled with it.... Them-4ali.s all Britannia
Metal: The Ilite powder is I:olaieibf Paris, and the mould
is made of that material. This shilling (passed by the pri-
soner) has, I believe, been made in the mould. It corresponds
irievery particular. Britannia metal is too hard to be used
as solder.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of
guilty:: The prisoner was then lint down.
„800/ Taylor, alias Mary Carbutt,' alias Elizabeth Carbutt,
was charged with having, at Great Bolton, feloniously uttered
two base half-crowns, she well knowing the same to be base ;
and having been previously convicted of uttering base coin.
Mr. Powell, inspector of the mint, produced the record of
the previous conviction of the prisoner, at the Salford sessions,
in February, 1833.

piggies, a constable of Manchester, said he was
present when the prisoner was tried.
Ellen Hart, said she kept a shop in Bolton. On the 24th
of April, the prisoner went to her shop and asked for half an
ounce of tobacco. She gave a bad half crown.
May• Bell said she kept a shop, and the prisoner came, and
bought some things. She gave a half-crown in payment,
and witness gave her the change out. Witness gave it to her
daughter to change, and afterwards gave it to the'constable.
Mary Bell, the younger, a little girl, remembered her mo-
ther giving her a half-crown. She took it to Hart's, over
the way, to get changed. Hart's son looked at it, and said it
was a bad one, and gave it back to witness, who took it back
to her mother.

- Loftus, a shopkeeper in Bolton, said that on the 25th
of April, the prisoner came inand bought some cord, for which
she tendered a bad half-crown. He said it was a very bad
one. She had another in her hand, and said she knew where
she got it, and went away.
Ellen Hart, said she kept a shop. On the 25th of April,
the prisoner came and bought a loaf for 74d. She had two
half-crowns in her hand and gave one of them. It was bad,
and the constable,
Thomas Hart corroborated the last witness.

The constable, Rollinson, received the two half-crownS,
and marked them and gave them to the deputy-constable.
John Barrow, deputy-constable of Bolton, received the
two half-crowns and identified them.

One of the jurymen was here seized with a violent fit, ap-
parently epeleptic, and had to be carried out of court. ,
A medical gentleman attended him in ah adjoining room,
and in afew .minutes came into court 'and being 'sworn,
stated; in reply to the Judge, that, the gentleman was in such.
a state that he did not thinkhe'aiiuld return into court that
day, and tlischarge his duty as ajtrryrnan. His place was
supplied by another, and anew,paneiwas taken. .The,whole
case was then reheard froth' beginning to end, in addition to
which, Mr. Powell deposecLitthat the thialf-crowns pibtluced H
(those which had been nds-011E to, Mrs:
Bell and to Loftus) Were base Ones: .
The jury immediately found 'Old SentenceprisoliWkttiltr:l%-
deferred.
Edward 111`Mahon, 45, was indicted for unlaWfully hiving

in his possession certain moulds for coining half-crowns and
shillings.

The prisoner lived at Manchester, and, in consequence of
information received by the police, three officers were sent to
search his house. On arriving, the officers found the dobr
partly open, and the prisOner sitting beside a table. On see-
ing the officers, the prisoner was observed to throw some-
thing into a corner of the room, and, upon examination, it
was found to be a mould of plastor of Paris, with the observe
and reverse impression of half-a-crown upon it. A number
of articles used in the process of coining were found in dif-
ferent parts of the house; and the appearance of the pri-
soner at the time the officers entered left no doubt of his
having recently been engaged in his nefarious trade.
The prisoner cross-examined the different witnesses, but
in anything but a Lawyer-like style. He admitted that the•
moulds belonged to him, as Ile was a plasterer by trade, and
said the impressions had been placed, upon tbqui merely by
way of a " curiosity." He handed in ,a document .to his
lordship, in which he stated that lie bad been previously con-
victed, and, owing.to this circuMstance, and having a small
family-to provide for; he prayed the alcrey of the wort.
The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. Belitence
deferred.
The court adjourned at a quarter to seven.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRID NY.
LIBEL.-QUIT V. BROWNE.

This was an action brought to recover compensation in
damages for a libel on the defendant, published in the Mal
Packet, of Friday, June 14.

. ,
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. John Henderson appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for•the.defendant. , • •
Mr. CRELSWELL stated the case. He said that-Mr. Henry
Quin was a gentleman holding a•eomistiesidninher Majesty's
navy •, bu;.• as there was not now sufficient employment for
the whole of the officers who had gallantly entered the service
during the war, he had, like many others, turned his atten-
tion to another occupation. Per 'some' time past he-had been
acting in *literary capacity; he had been superintending a
newspaper (the Hull Times)- in the
.g.,aSt, Riding of York..
The defendant, Mr. Robert Browne,. was also an.editor of a
newspaper—the Hull Packet; and ;the libeled' whielt Mr.
Quin- 'complained,. which was., undoubtedly of a., gross and
• aggraVated nature, was publiShed in the Hull Packet} of the
14th June, 1839. He believed that both the plaintiff and de-
fendant belonged to that party called the conservative, in the
town of Kingston-on-Hulle 'and Whether there was any
jealousy on the part of Mr. BroWnc,—whether he considered
that Mr. Quin enjoyed more influence aelong,' the party, and
therefore sought to disparage him in the minds of the public,
—or whether it was for the purpOse of injuring thepaper
with which Mr. Quin was,coneected, iu order to advance the
interest of his own, it was 'totter hint (Mr. Cresewell) to-
say. It was sufficient if there was found such an unjust and
gross attack on the plaintiff as to justify the jury in awarding
him such compensation in damages as to show there was not
the slightest ground for the imputation cast on him. In
fact, the defendant did not contend that there was any ground.
Mr. Browne was charged.,in the decletrations with having
Published this libel, to which Ise,replied that he was not
guilty, which would enable him to say that he did not publish,
or that which.was published was not libellous, They would
see that there had been published an imputation, that Mr.
Quin was guilty of Wilful perjury ;:.and whetheror not the
gentlemen of Liverpool would say that that •was a libel he
would not stop' to inquire. In, the present state, of society,
to charge a man with deliberate falsehood was looked upon
as a very gross thing; but to impute wilful perjury was one
of the gravest offences with which a man in civilised society
could be charged. The declarations that there had been a
scrutiny before a committee of the House of Commons rela-
tive.to the Hull election ; that Mr. Quin was there examined
as a witness ; 'that a report of the evidence. was published;
and that, after the publication of that r-eert, certain pro-
ceedings took place in Hull, and then te.: defendant pub-
lished the libel in question, charging the witness with having
stated that before the committee which was afterwards proved
to be false. That which appeared to have moved the spleen of
- Mr.- Browne on this occasion, or rather that which he seemed
to be afraid of as likely to injure him, was an occurrence in the
Conservative Association at Hull. It appeared that that body
which was associated for the purpose of promoting the in-
terests of the conservative party, had an annual meeting for
the purposehf electing officers for the ensuing year. Mr.
Quin appeared to stand high in the estimat on of that body :
he had been the honorary secretary for the preceding year,
and so far retained the confidence of the members that he
was re-appointed for the ensuing year. In the Hull Packet
of the 14th of Juhe, there appeared a letter, signed " A Lover
of Truth," which stated that at the meeting of the associa-
tion, Mr. Theophilus Carrick moved the re-election of Mr.
Quin as secretary, in consequence •of his - having the con-
scientious belief that there was no man more devoted to the
cause of conservative principles in Hull, and no man more
worthy to hold the office. Mr. Christopher Bolton and Mr.
Thomas Wayne were stated to have coincided in this expres-
sion of opinion, and the writer of the letter put it to them
whether they were at all'acquainted with the evidence of Mr.
Quin - before the election committee. On that inquiry, a
per Son named George Laing was examined, and he said, ". I
got about £lOO from Mr. Quin, at three different times, at
the Hull Packet-office. It was in bank notes and silver."
Now, that evidence was given, said the letter, after Mr.
Quin had solemnly sworn that he had never paid anything
On account of that election. He (the Lover of Truth) would
merely ask Messrs.-Carrick; Bolton, and •Wayne what was
their opinion, and 'what must be the opinion of the public, of
Mr. Quin, after his having Made such a statement ? Having
read the letter, Mr. Cresswell went on to say that the three
gentlemen named had been called upon for their opinion, and
they had sent it to Mr. Browne. They said, with respect to
the letter of the " Lover of Truth," that they had been led
to examine the evidence.given by .Mr, Quin, and printed in.
• the report ordered by the House of Commons, and. they had
no hesitation in pronouncing it, a charge wicked and false,
and evidently put forward to serve. a party and analignant
purpose. They required that their letter should be inserted
in his paper, together with the whole of the evidence of Mr.
• Quin and Mr. Lairige.in order that the whole. facts of the
case might go before 'the public through the same medium
which had published the atrocious libel. Mr. Quin, having
seen the letter of " ii. Lover of Truth," in the Hall Packet,
instructed his attorney to write a•letter to _Mr. Browne, call-
ing on him to give up the author of th'e letter, in delimit of
m dog•which before ten O'ClOck onthe fellowa 4, Morniarg, ac:
action would be commenced agai!ist,4n..e_Teetiii.4 law.
answer was returned, hilt, in reply titetlikletteq.cifilesers.
:Cartick, Bolton, and Wayne, the defeittlaapnyealstelljes ii
paper of the 21st of June a paragraie eAating.„tbutilp,e had
receivedthat letter, and that lie skolvt,htlyp,j3qFp)vu as
far as was in hiS power, to' ComplY'vittli its. requeste. nd he
not received a letter from the prefeseional adviser of the
editor of the Hull Times, tljreatening him ,with,ert act* ;
but not being Willing to stultify 'hi ohn ,caeeehe/cetthl not
consent to do as required. Why;(said the learned,coutl:, el,:,
if he (Mr. Browne) had publiAsed a statement. Whiela
correct, could he not have publishedtisecid,e: ee.sydesieed,
to show that he had not brought 411 i'l'iliffluiffac aF&I,I _PS
rt
Or if, after having carefully read.'( 4 hpeftti Jae 0
that he had been misled, that afalse iFtiaoaatimailsa. i of
put up on and that a most wrdqfpleltafgep,iperjeespied
been made, could he not have expOssialorp,thft
had so hastily-published the eicusatiOn'? i ' nt- beijarotems
that he not only refused to give int theati . or, o Oft -fli
plaintiff an opportunity of-justiftretis character, but de-
clined to publish the evidence of Mr..Quin, or to make tut
apology to him.
Copies of the Hull Packet of the.l4th and 213 t June, an
the letters referred to, were put is and read. .... H,. adT
Mr. ALEXANDERthen addressed the jury for theideFeae.
He did not come forward on the part, of his clienttoisustifyl
the charge which had been made ; but he did wish-that:the
case--had been tried in Yorkshire, where
...both of. the!pertieS
Were well known, as well as the manner in which their re-
spective papers had been conducted.: As it was at present,
the action had to
.he tried by a, jury who -haffnever before
heard of either of the parties, and who hadeperhairs, never
heard of their newspapees before. It appeared that there
was one person in Lancashire who took the Hull Packet, and
on that account the venue had been brought here. He was
satisfied, however, that the cause would be tried fairly. and
he thought that they would not take the advice 'of his friend
(Mr. Cresswell) to visit the defendant with the heavydatnages
asked for; when they considered by whom, on whom; and in
what times the libel had been, published. Considering the
absence of justification, andthatthe defendant did not deny
the mistake contained in the letter, he
.could not avoid ex-
pressing a wish that the plaintiff had treated the whole mat-
ter with that high, and frank,: and generonsspirit whichhe-
longed to his profession, and not have sunk into the noisy
and quarrelling tone of that to-whit:llle was now attached.
He looked upon the letter as orfe-of those attacks which were
continually made by newspapers on each other-on their po-
litical as well as their pecuniary opponents: He admired the
facilities which the law afforded forthe justification of cha-
racter, but he thought that the' jury would pause, before they
allowed the means of justifying character to •be perverted
into the means of exacting a large amount of damages' from
the editor of a rival newspaper. The two papers, it appeared,
were in the same interestebutoccesionally came into opposi-
tion; and no doubt that, the jury were familiar with the way
in which newspapers of the day were conducted, •for the
times were too interesting not to attend to themeand. of -the
tone in which they too, frequently, indulged 'with regard to
each other. Whether arrising from personal Motives, or froth
a desire to fo'rward 'the interests of their' respective • paperS,
it was certain that the press did indulge in.high and inflamma-
tory language against Its rivals. He .could see charges made,
which, in point of substance and, language, would not be made
under any other circumstances than in nconflict between the
press and itself. It wasin such a conflotasthis that tine libel
complained of must have originated eand though it '(lid not are.:
pear what had been the plainti/Vs and.defendant's conduct to
each other before or after, it, seemed that such was the fact,' and
that the libel was the Prodnction of ansurknonneorrespondenti.
in matters of trade—such as advertisements,. and things of.
that sort, there was of course a knowledge that they 'must be
paid for if inserted in a newspaper.; ,but if a letter'on a poli-
tical subject were sent, addressed to the editor, - or to a peli.
tical opponent, it was very well known that' it wits: -receiVed
With the greatest readiness, and in ninocases.oht-of ten in-
serted; so that the ,facility with whichthepwere receiVed;
and the ,number of them,. tendedeteeere to shell' letterA the
least possible value in the public mineieee 'Bid jtirseisitistitl•
collect the proceedings on the•.HUlLtelectian eceiAlstilite4,)
whiCh would never, be forgotten wliiieieleaiat cforinatte.i:S:
were remembered... He had looted intasthedrep4rfoa -klie
evidence taken, and. lie knew veryewell thatAltd` Qrtih'itettl
not sworn what lied been attributed To hitmeett.*asethittrite'
that Air. Quin had swoest that be never paidlanythiniebiiia&
count ofthe eleetion, and therefore it,wasipb'siibid• thhthiS
client
could''juetify. 1--Il cuald.'ceasily•.tintie'rgtand;.ltokvelier,'
'that Mr. Browne .had. not ,the•exceedingly'lVoluminons evi-
dence—for no man would consent to read the whole •of that
evidence unless he was. forced, to do so—aridconseqUently
that he had put in the letter-without being aware of its falsity
or inisrepre4entation. He had•deperlded on the faith of the
writer, and that writer, it now appeared and• Was confessed,
.hatl.either not read the whole of the evidence or-had miscon-
ceived the portion which he had reads The parties on the
trial were both on the same side in politics, and-what seemed'
to' him (Mr. Meiander) quite .certain, was, that they were
between them injuring, as far as they were' able, the cause to
which they were. attached. But if the disputes of editors
were always to furnish grounds for a trial at law, they and
all other juries would, have little else to do than to decide
upon the opposing statements of political rivals, seeing that,
in these times of
,excitement, no, man could mix in politics
without subjecting himself to attack. Ile did not seek to
throW any
,blame on. the, conductors of the public prints when
he spoke thus, because, there were times when most men
thought and. epoke strongly, , and this could not but be the
case snore especially with,those men who were se intimately
connected with nolitics as editors. of newspapers; but What
he'wished was., that if they .had disputes and differences, they
wouhrnOt make them the grounds of legal proceedings The
press had a great deal of• liberty in these-days, as muchein-
deed, as was consistent with the liberty of Englishmen ; but
these were not times when the conductors of it should come
forward with actions of this'sort. • _ _ _ ' •

HisLonosuiv, in summing up, observed that -the only
queStion which the jury had to try was, whether the .publi-
cution had takers place, and
.whether it was libellous. It was
not at all pretended that the charge was true, and therefore
the truth of the statement would no.`,.eome within' their in-
•quiry. After having deeided whether or not the matter was
libellous, they would, if they .agreed in the affirmative, belt
take into their consideration the amount of damages to which
the plaintiff was entitled... It appeared that theie was no hos.
tility between the parties on, public grOunds; 'and this ought
to be taken into consideration in. awardinwthe'damages, be-
cause, when opponents in polities attacked one another, peo-
ple of sense did not care what • was,s.,:id ; but the case was
somewhat different ss hen the parties ,:belonged to the Sadie
side. Still, agood many people paid attention to all that
they saw in print, and therefore a libel was likely to do harm,
particularly among those people not acquainted with the in-
dividual. The letter,.too, bore the appearance not Of ati at-
tack on rr politicollnpponent,,but of having been extolled by
the alleged conduct of another person belonging to the same

party with the individual attacked, he being represented as
one who was doing harm by his conduct to the party he was
supporting. The letter purported not to have been written
by the editor of the paper in which it appeared, but was signed
by " A Lover of Truth." If the letter had been written by the
editor, it would not have been surprising ; but it was rather
strange that he should find a second person to sympathise
with him in his individual opposition to another man in the
same line of politics. They would therefore take it into their
consideration how far it was likely whether the letter had
originated from the defendant himself.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3o._ _ _

JOHNSON V bonGLAs.—An undefended action. Verdict
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed—X2 6s. Od.

'BREACH OF COVENANT.-TURNER V. BROWNE AND

ANOTHER

This was an action brought by John Turner, an appren-
tice, to recover from Messrs. Browne and Powell, late own-
ets of a cotton mill, and engine builders, at Stockport, to
whom the plaintiff had been apprenticed, compensation in
damages for not learning him his trade of an iron and wood
turner, as also.a. sum Of money due as arrears of wages for
the last six months.

Mr. Cressweli and Mr. Wightman for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Brandt for the defence. _ _

It appeared that Turner had been bound for the period of
six years to Messrs. Browne and Powell. The indenture
was dated 29th April, 1836. After having been with them
about three years, the firm made an assignment of their
property, but the business was continued, and the appren-
tices received their wages. On the 20th of April last, how-
ever, the trustees put an.end to all work in the mill, a bailiff
took possession, and the boys, on presenting themselves,
were told by the bailiff that the mill had stopped, and that
they were to go there no more. He asked for compensation
for the non-performance of the conditions of the covenant,
and to recover the wages he had not received. There were
owing him six months' wages, at 9s. per week. One of the
witnesses calculated that it would, in the present depressed
state of the trade, take about £3O or £4O to obtain for the
boy another place as good as his original one. Masters were
now asking large premiums with boys.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £l5.
IRVINE V. CRRISTINSON.

An undefended;ction. V The plaintiff, Mr. James Irvine,
a saltlmerchant in this town, sought td recover from the
defendant, Mr. Paul Christinson, the Swedish and Norwe-
'gian consul, the sum of X 37 65., the balance of a debt owing
for a quantity of salt shipped on board the Ernst, to the
order of the defendant.
Verdict for the plaintiff for £34 is., the amount proved.
• WADE AND OTHERS V. CHRISTINSON.

This was an action, to recover from Paul Christinson the
mini of £217, the value of 310 tons of salt, furnished to him
by the plaintiffs. It was undefended.

Verdict for the sum claimed.
PAILLET V. ANDERTON.
_ _ _

An undefended action on a bill of excha nge.—Verdiet for
the plaintiff for £95 35„6d.• • -

SUTTON ?". LEIGH.

This was an action brought by Thomas Sutton against his
late landlord, Thomas Leigh, Esq., to recover compensation
for an alleged illegal distraint made upon him by the defen-
dant for rent, when no rent was due.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Cresswell for the defendant.
Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case. He said that if the
evidence he should produce made out fully the instructions
he had received,' this would prove a very hard case indeed.
The action was brought by a tenant against his landlord for
having distrained when no rent was due, by which the man
was entirely ruined, for the whole that he possessed was
seized. He was certain that because the plaintiff in this
case was a poor man, and the defendant an extensive land-
owner, justice would not be denied. The plaintiff was a
farmer, and having seen one of the Leigh estates, called
Haydock Lodge, in Lancashire, advertised, he opened a
communication with Mr. White, an agent of Mr. Leigh's;
and in pursuance of an appointment, he went over, in com-
pany with a relative, on the sth and oth of April, 1836, to
see the farm, and to arrange with Mr. White about taking
it. The result was that the farm was let to Sutton, at a rent
of £3OO per annum, nominally payable at Michaelmas and
Lady-day, but really in November and May. Sutton entered,
and continued to occupy the farm as tenant until turned out
in the way alluded to. The rent was paid by him till 1837,
but in Lady-day of that year a. balance of £5O was owing,
and a distress was entered for £350. It was then found- that
the landlord was claiming a forehand rent, for the rent which
would not be due to the expiry of another year. The event
terminated, however, by the steward ordering the bailiff off
the premises on the payment of £5O. In the month of
March, 1838, the landlord distrained again under the follow-
ing circumstances :—Sutton was about to leave the premises,
anadvertised his property for sale. The rent was not then due,
though it was about becoming due, and the agent thought,
perhaps, that the best plan to secure it would be to be before-
hand with Sutton, and to seize the property again. He could
not do that for-rent, because no rent was due until the 23d,
and this was on the Ist of March. He, however, distrained
for £150; the property was seized, and in five days it was
sold, and the proceeds went into the hands of the defendant.
The plaintiff, therefore, had brought his action to recover the
value of his property, and such damage as he was entitled to
for the inconvenience and loss resulting from the sale of his
goods under such circumstances.
George Hands, examined.—H6 was a farmer at Dodding-
ton, in Cheshire... In the beginning of April, 1836, he accom-
panied Sutton to look at Haydock Lodge Farm, which was
then• to let. They met Mr. White on the farm. Sutton
agreed to take it at the rent of £3OO. • Mr. White said that
the rents were due'at Michaelinae and Lady-day, but that
they were paid in • November and May. Sutton entered on
the farm in the following .May.
Cross-examined by-Mr. CRESS*ELL.—He had married
the 'sister of the plaintiff's wife. He never knew that the
.rents were reserved payable on the 24th June, although pay-
ment might not be exacted till aziothertime, at the option of
the landlord. He had heen'aennairited with farming for sonie
time, but had never heard of such a-custom.

Mr. Edward Woods deposed that he *as assistant agent
to Mr.,:Lekh, the'defendanE On the sth of March, 1833,
he•receivitil directions to enter the plaintiff's premises with a
traint-for,Xl3o.

cross-10±dinined-:—ltAras the chstoin on Mr. Leigh's estate
to,vesetwe'the rents payable on the 24th June.
Toithe vh/DGE---The plaintiff gave up pcssession of the
lapclitt-Fehtuary, 11838, and quitted the house on the suc-
veedi4 AIWA Otv,May.
`fiddon'---t'e'as formerly auctioneer for Colonel George
Itaittd, the !principar agent to Mr. Leigh. He sold up
;-.4ltton for £B9 and odd.

Mr,-Georg'e!Pentiirigtori---.--11e!Was 64 auctioneer at Leigh.
I retnembered-thO'plaintiff advertising his property for sale
ire AtarMaask;.and was employed by him to sell. He com-
inended.ilte shle, but by die titoc he had sold a few lots, he
was gt4ped,by-,thengent of Mr. Leigh. He made An inven,
• itpry;ankrivalinitinn of the • property altar having been thus
A6cording to a' fair valuation, it was worth.
iXI22 • -
Anktio.iciiiirt said that it had been admitted that the
raliAtitesniliaft4oibefotehand rent, and that closed his case for
the plaintiff.
roc' Mrl 'CU44Viti,i, submitted that there was nothing in the
evidence to show that Mr. Leigh was responsible. The agent
Filad.certainlydistrained, but itliiid.not been proved that he
acted with the knowledge 'or 'consent of his employer.
u,hHis Lininnitx said that Mr. Raitte as the accredited
!ingent of Mr. Leigh,- was supposed to act with•his con Cu-
r• rencti.!!• They haddistrained for rent, but, as it appeared to
him; for rent- whiCh they thought' due.

Mr. Clii,,sswimt said that the decision of his lordship had
•relieved Mr. Leigh and his agent from the imputation Of hay—
ing..acted oppressively in this matter, inaSmuch'aS theY had
distrained for rent' which, 'if nbt really due, they at least
thought due. -• NoW, the only .grOund -on which they could be
responsible, was that they had acted. in.an illegal and oppres-
sive;;manlier.''::But the'jury 'were to assume that Mr. Leigh'
and his agent intended Iddo that which was right, and that
they :believed that the' rent diStrained for was due. •The
learned counsel- then went on to state the origin of the mat-
ter in diSpute. Sutton was about to quit the farm on Lady-
Aar, and on the sth of March 'he commenced selling every
. thing on the 'Premises. He was then in arrears with his rent,
and there hail always been a difficulty in obtaining payment
from him. -What was the landlord to do under suc circum-
stances ? \Vas he to allow every thing to be sold, the money
to go into the pocket of the tenant, and the tenant to depart,
leaving
.his rent unpaid ? • It was complained that Sutton
lad been sold up for £BO, and that the money had passed
into the hands of the defendant, through 'his 'agent ; but it
was not once mentioned that there'was a sum of £l5O owing
for rent, which it was never pretended had been paid. An
auctioneer had valued the property at £122, but even that
would not have paid the landlord's rent. if the goods had
been 'sold to the best adVantage and had realized the sum
mentioned, the landlord would still have been £35 out of
pocket, and the only difference now was that he was a loser of
£7O instead of £3O. This was the sole effect of the proceed-
ings, •unless it was •assumed that the tenant would have put
the of the proceeds of the sale in his pocket, and gone
away,. and that, he thought,' was what the opposite party
would scarcely assume. If it were fair to suppose that such
would have been his conduct, then it would be right to esti-
mate his damages on that ground ; but if he intended 'to
have paid his landlord, as far as the money would"go, then
he had sustained no los's whatever. A tenant was not al-
lowed to remove his goods to prevent a distress; ;—he thought
there was some provision with respect to that, but, whether
or not, the very fact of such a thing being practised might
have led landlords to reserve their rents beforehand. The
landlord might say, " I will reserve my rents payable at such
a time ; but I will collect them 'half-yearly. I will not op.
press my. tenants ; but if I thinkthey'are going to deal un-
fairly:by „me, I will call upOn theni." And such would be
found to be the custom of the district in which Mr.' Leigh's
property.lwas situated. The landlords had a reserved pay-
ment beforehand.
..They made the rents payable on the 24th
June, so that in any. ease of suspicion, they might put in a
distresstO defend themselves ; but if no particular occurrence
took:pi:1(v, the rent was collected in November and May.
Mr. CREsswEr.i. then called - • _

; Mr. James Fate, Who,Statect -thine was agent to Sir H.
Houghton, who has large estates in this county, in the neigh-
bourhood of Mr. Leigh. The usual time of entry was—for
lands, on the 2d of February.; and for houses, on the Ist of
May. They made the rents payable on the 3d of February
and 2d.of -August. Supposing that a tenant entered at the
usual time, they had power-to call for rent any -day after the
-3d of February, if, agreementto that effect were made.
Selby.---4-le was agent td Lord Lilford, who had
property near to Mr. Leigh. The custom was to enter
pasture and arable lands in February, and houses in May.
lt•was the custom to reserve the whole year's rent payable
on the 24th June, but it was generally received in November
and April.
Mr. ALEXANDER replied; after which

The learned JunGn summed' up, pointing out that one
effect of the sale by the agent had been, if the valuation of the
witness was correct, to leave the plaintiff a debtor to the
amount of £7O, whereas, had the goods been sold for £l2O,
he. would have owed £3O only. •
_ _

After a brief consultation, the jury found for the plaintiff—
damages, £47 ls. Pd.

DROWN AND OTHERS V. MELLOR.

An action to recover a debt of £ll 9s.—Verdict for the
sum claimed.

KEARNE V. CALVERT. •
The same as the 4bove.—.--Verdiet £76 lls.: 3d.
DAVIES V. PARLOUR.

Undefended. The action was by the drawer against the
acceptor of a bill of exchange for N1:900, thoamount of which;
with.• interest for three months, was claimbd. • Verdict
£907 10s.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.---CARR V. STANLEY..
This was an action:brought by Ellen Carr against Francis'
Slaney, to recover compensation in damages for a breach• of
promise of marriage': ' •
Mr.. Brandt and -Mr. Martin for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Alexander for the defendant.

Air. BRANDT stated the case. The 'Parties were in a hunt
ble station is life, but he-hoed, if he proved that a breach of
promise had taken plakte, ithat his client would receive such
compensation atthe.hanr&of the jury. as she was entitled to
claim fOr.the injury, and the defendant could afibrd to pay.
Ellen Carr was a nurse in a respectable family at Cheadle,' in
Staffordshire, and the defendant was. :a stepson of the person
who kept the Unicorn Inn in the same town, and had expecta--
tions of succeeding' to the hcinse, besides having. about 4200
of his own money. The defendant had sedulously attempted
to induce the young woman to receive his addresses, but she
• discountenanced him until h;:, male his addresses in a proper
shape:. Slane); then, in order to induce her to consent to his
visits, and.as it afterwards appeared, for the sole pUrpese of
obtaining his own vicious ends,' as was too• Often the case,
made her a promise of marriage. He signed a paper, in which
he' promised either to marry the young woman or to forfeit
£lOO.. The document was. certainly not drawn up ...in the..
the "most ClasSical style, for it had ibOibs. not £lOO sterling ; ••
but.he would leave it to the jury whether that was not really

to induce the plaintiff to believe that he would forfeit the sum
of £lOO in the event of not marrying her. He thought that
it was, and he hoped that the jury would keep him up to his
own estimate at the least. After this transaction he was re-
gularly received as a suitor, but the result was that the un-
fortunate young woman became pregnant by him (Slaney,)
left her master's house, and was deserted by the defendant,
who refused to fulfil his engagement. He was happy to state
however, that though her prospects of becoming a decent and
wedded wife were blasted, her prospects had not been utterly
destroyed, for she had since obtained a situation in a clergy-
man's family. The present action had been brought at the
instance of her late master.

Wm. Stephenson, a schoolmaster, in Cheadle, deposed that
Slaney.had seen a pupil of his. He (Slaney) was 17 years of
age when he first went to witness's school. He taught him
writing but not grammar; it was too late to do that. The
paper produced was in the defendant's handwriting,
The document was handed in and read. It was as follows :
" I, Thomas Slaney, does promise to marry Ellen Carr, and
if not will forfeit 1001bs,'
Margaret Wright stated that she was in the service of Mr.
Catlow, solicitor, at Cheadle. The plaintiff was in the same
service as nurse. She left in 1838, after having been there
about two years. The defendant lived opposite to Mr. Cat-
low at the Unicorn Inn, the landlord of which was his step-
father. Slaney was in the habit of visiting Ellen Can.. She
.remembered her going dowit stairs one day and bringing
back a paper. It was the promise of marriage which had
been read. The plaintiff was away on that occasion about
half an hour. Before that she had not received Slaney's
visits freely; but after, receiving that paper, she received them
without scruple. About two months before the plaintiff left
the house of Mr. Catlow, witness knew that she was in the
family way, and spoke to the defendant about it. She (wit-
ness) told him that Ellen was pregnant, and asked him whe-
ther he remembered having taken an oath to marry her. He
replied that he did remember it. 'Witness considered that
paper to be an oath, but the plaintiff also took the Bible with
her when she went to him, and she said that he took an oath
on it to marry her. He did not deny the oath. Witness
told him that she should acquaint her mistress with the affair,
and he desired her not to. do so, as he intended to marry
Ellen. At a subsequent time, she heard the defendant say to
the plaintiff that he would send her to Manchester, give her
money to pay her expenses thither and of her confinement,
and then that lie would follow her and marry her there. He
had also promised to marry her at the time of the Hanley
races (about three months before), if she would go. She
consented, and purchased a dress for the occasion, but he
disappointed her. Slaney had said in the hearing of a wit-
ness that he was worth £2OO, and that he was going to take
a farm.

Cross-examined.—Slaney was the hostler at the Unicorn.
The nursery window looked into.the inn yard, where the de-
fendant worked. The plaintiff was about twenty-three :..ears
of age.

Re-examined.—He never talked of his expectations on the
inn. He said that his stepfather would assist him in taking
the farm.

Ellen Carr, the mother of the plaintiff, proved that her
daughter had, on the 18th of October, borne a child, which
was still living, and that, although the defendant had pro-
mised to marry the young woman, when she remonstrated
with him about sending home her daughter in such a
scandalous state, he had never yet done so. Charles Thorley,
a cousin of the plaintiff's, went to Slaney for the purpose of
inducing him to come to some arrangement, but he said,
" I can do_ no more than I have done."

Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defence, said that there must be
undoubtedly a verdict for the plaintiff, but the amount of da-
mages would have to be proportioned to the merits of the
Case, and to the circumstances of Slaney, who had been ridi-
culously magnified in the relative of a grand hotel-keeper,
with great expectations and some property in hand, whereas
he was merely the hostler at an ordinary village, and had no
claim whatever on his stepfather, who had children of his
own to provide for. The case, too, was such a one as was of
frequent occurrence. There had been thousands and tens of
thousands who had made similar promises to that of the de-
fendant, though they had not been such fools. as to write 100
lbs. weight for XlOO sterling. Such a droll way of courtship
as that adopted by the plaintiff he had never heard of. She
seemed'determined to have the hostler, whose dexterity in
handling the fork, three-pronged like that of Neptune's tri-
dent, she had often witnessed, no doubt, through the nursery
window, and that she might not miss him for a mate, she
went out armed with a Bible, and made him take an oath.
He had conceived a very low idea of her moral worth the
moment he heard that fact stated.

The learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury had a brief consultation, and agreed upon a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—damages, £5O.

CRIM. CON.-TAYLOR V. BOYLE.

This action was brought by the plaintiff William. Taylor,
a paint and colour manufacturer, carrying on business in
Whitechapel, in this town, to recover compensation in da-
mages from the defendant, James Boyle, of the Liverpool
Customs, for a criminal connection with Ms wife—or, ra-
ther, as the law terms it, for the loss of his wife's services.

Mr. Cressweil and Mr. Venables for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Murphy for the defendant.

Mfr. VLNABLES having opened the pleadings,
Mr. CRESS WELL proceeded to state the facts of the case.
He said that they had already been occupied in one trial
arising out of the intercourse between the sexes, and they
were now called out to try another of rather a graver charac-
ter, in which, the injury done was rather of a more serious
nature than in the last case, though he by no means wished
to undervalue the feelings of a girl who had been seduced by
a promise of marriage which was afterwards broken. But in
this instance, the seductive. influence of the defendant had
deprived the husband of the company of his wife, and five
young children of their mother. Mr. Taylor, the plaintiff,
carried oda respectable business as a colour manufacturer in
Whitechapel. In 1829, he married a lady in Birmingham,
and after having resided there a number of years, he came to
Liverpool. • His residence was in Toxteth-park—his place of
business in Whitechapel. Mr. Boyle was in the Custom-
house, and was in the receipt of a salary of £2OO a-year: -• In
1838, Mr. Boyle was admitted into the house of Mr. Taylor
as a lodger. Between the time of her marriage, in 1829, and
the spring of last year, Mrs. T. bore her husband five chil-
dren—at least, it must be supposed that they were the children
of her husband, for until then there had not been the slightest
imputation on her character. Mr. Boyle remained in the
house of Mr. Taylor far three months; during which tithe, as
the plaintiff was necessarily absent a good deal on business,
the defendant made use of the opportunity to ingratiate him-
self with Mrs. Taylor, and to withdraw her affections front
her husband. After having remained there three months, he
went away; but Ile subsequently called several times, under
the excuse of obtaining lodgings' for a friend, though the
excuse was little called for, as the Inisband was away. Such
was the fact, however, that he did go there; and remained
generally an hour or two, shut up in 'a room with Mrs. Tay-
lor. On those occasions, the children were put out, and the
servant had instructions not to let them go and plague her
when she had visitors. It might well be fancied that there
was no proper motive for those visits, when the children
were thus sedulously and regularly secluded. The hus-
band remained in ignorance of ail this for many months,
and the intercourse remained uninterrupted for a very
long period. Mr. Taylor afterwards went and resided at
his place of business in Whitechapel. He had not been there
long when his attention was attracted by seeing Boyle so
Often in the neighbourhood, and making further observations
ho detected him in making signs to his wife. This assured
him (Mr. T.) that something improper was going on. He
consequently, questioned the servant girl, and ascertained
, from her that the defendant had been there very often ;
that she had carried several notes to him from Mrs. Taylor,
and answers back ; and that generally on the same day Boyle
paid a visit to the house. The plaintiff, as might well be
supposed, was much distressed at this, more especially as' he
had grievous suspicions, and could not be certain that they
were well founded. If there was one state more full of
anxiety and torture than another, it was where a husband
had suspicions of the honesty and chastity of his wife, and
was not able to bring the offence home to her. A circum-
stance, however, happened in the month of May, in the
present year, which tended to set the matte in a clearer but
a most painful light. The servant girl who had been spoken
to placed in the hands of Mr. Taylor a note from his wife to
Mr. Boyle. It was as follows :—" Dear Boyle, be firm. I
am afraid we are betrayed. For heaven's sake meet me at
four o'clock this afternoon, in St. John's Market. For
mercy's sake protect .me it occasion requires. This may
alarm you • but, oh ! meet me." What construction could
be put on ;his, but that a criminal connexion had taken place
between the parties ? Mr. T. took a copy' of the note, sealed
it again, and delivered it to the servant, *lib took it to the
defendant. In due time the answer was received, and that
was also carried to Mr. T. It ran thus:—" I know all about
it, and will be there at the time you mentioned." Having
likewise taken a copy of that, the original was sent forward'
to Mrs. Taylor, and a person was directed to watch at the
market, with instructions, when he had seen the parties meet,
to go for Mr. T. and a friend of his named Guy, to whom he
had confided the whole affair. That person saw them meet,
bu he thought that if he returned to tell the husband, they
might possibly be gone away before -he could return. He,
therefore, staid and watched their Motions. :They shortly
left the market; he followed them, and after
.making many
turnings and twistings they at last went into a house, No. 7,
Pilgrim-street, kept by a man named M'lntYre, and well
known to the police as a house of ill-fame. Now, taking this,
in connexion with the other circumstances mentioned, who
could entertain the slightest doubt that they went there for
the purpose of a criminal intercourse ? To what, then, was
the plaintiff entitled ? Compensation for the injury could
not he made in money, and yet that was all that 'the law al-
lowed. It was impossible for a husband to be always at
home guarding the chastity of his wife, and the husband's
necessary absence had' in this instance been taken advantage
of by the defendant. Through his instrumentality she had
become depraved. If he had not only debauched her person
but her mind, and induced her to sink herself so low in de-
pravity as to enter a house of ill fame, who was blameable ?
The defendant, assuredly ;- and the jny, he felt convinced,
would punish him by the infliction of heavy damages.
Miss Eliza Edwards proved that the marriage of Mr. and
Mrs. Taylor.took place in Birminghame in 1829. They re-
sided there until within the last few- years. The witness was
in the habit of visiting them up to the period'of their depar-
ture, and Mr. Taylor, as far as she knew, was always kind
and attentive. Mrs. Taylor conducted her Self in a proper
manner. They have five children. Mrs. Taylor's age was
twenty-nine.

Martha Booth had lived as servant with Mr. Taylor, for
18:mouths. When they resided in Toxteth-park, her Master
was in the habit of leaving home early in the morning and
returning about nine at night. Mr. BOyle came to lode at
the house about a monthafter-she went Them* He remained
three months. After he ceased to lodge there, he frequently
visited the house in the afternoon, and sonaetirnes stopped a;
couple of hours. Sornetimes he was with. Mrs. Taylor in
the parlour, and sometimes in'the drawing-room.: The Chit::
dren were not allowed to go in when he was there: Witness
had directions to keep them out. She, had often taken notes
from her mistress.to Mr. Boyle; whe sometime.s.retnrned an
'answer by her. Her Master had resided .allqut twelve weeks
in' Whitechappl. After the removal, She: remembered her
master speaking. to 'her • about Boyle.' Subieqpently her
gave her a note to the defendant. - She•gave it to
her, master, who returned it, and she then 'took it to Boyle.
'He gave her an answer: She gave that also toper master,
and after he had-read it took it to her mistress. •

Mr. William ,Quy, glover, saw the notes, given to Mr.
Taylor., lie (witness). caPied both at the request of the
plaintiff. ~The witness proved the on which were then
handed in., • - '

Mr. William Jones, a tailor, said that he was a relative of
the last witness.. He was requested to go-to St. John's
Market, to observe whether Mrs. Taylor and Mr.• Boyle met
there. He saw them• meet there, and afterwards followed
them, through a very circuitous route, to a house in Pilgrim-
'street, . No. 7. They aremained there twenty-five minutes.
Witness w,aited till. they. came out. They did not leave the
house together. • Mrs. Taylor came out first, at the front
`tibbr. :Boyle came out •at the back door, down" the entry.
14 4 followed her, joined. her,. and they separated;at the top
.„

Cros-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—What induced you to
undertake this discreditable occupation of following a woman
to it house of ill fame ? Because I was desired to do so.

What did you get for it? I did not get a farthing ; I
thought it my duty.
Do you-think it your duty to follow women to houses or
that description? No, I don't. •
And don't you-think it discreditable? No, Ido not.
Re-examined.—He thought there was nothing discredita-
ble, if a woman committed adultery, to find it out.
John Bewse, police-officer, No.- 23, proved that the house
No. 7, Pilgrim-street, is a, house of ill-fame, kept by 'one
M'lntyre. _ _ _

Mr. Joseph Mossop proved that the salary of Mr. Boyle
is £2OO a•year, less five per cent. for the superannuation
fund.

kr. llionruy addressed the jury on behalf of his client,
whose offence, even admitting, which he did not, that it was

• fro°l
fully proved, he characterised as one aPLifilliginegherd"4
thoughtlessness and the passion of a man in
his youth. [The defendant is about 45.]
His LORDSHIP briefly summed up.
The jury, after two or three minutes' consult:l6°l3'
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £3OO.
The Court rose at five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—Sar oan A-v•
CUTTING AND STABBING• deri
Vo;
Locker: Locke was indicted for havinaw.lae jaaichit
Faaakerly, a police-officer, of Manchester: --"
contained the usual counts.
Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution. Dory
Melville Barton, one of the acting
Police of Manchester stated, that, on the lltn,
.50100,
was on duty in the neighbourhood of Stevensola,,tveafsro
Manchester,' when he 'heard the usual signal by an
sistance. He ran. to the spot, accompain some' ai
named Fazakerly. He saw the prisoner wa avo,
women. The prisoner threatened them Sudden,:'as` on Pa:,
inspectors oPhitiestot.
pressions of defiance. He saw Fazakerly Faze
ing his head, stooping and in great pain. y
claimed, " Oh, I'm stabbed! Oh, I'm stabheaetteeaaa
God !" The prisoner ran away, pursued by' the t 0 1111°"
struck him on the head as he turned into an entry
escape. He fastened himself in a house. hanted, al
by witness. His mother, who was there, ele-i We'
my boy is killed r" He said, " Let me alone,;
no more than I deserved for what I have don' _eheslet'iel
Thomas Fazakerly, a police constable, of 31anc,000,
posed, that, on the night of the llth instant, laf,'
Barton into Little Lever-street. The witness aescespasfo
the prisoner, after threatening and defying hlrsido,sae
him and stabbed him twice ; once in the lea' y
in the soft -part of his belly.stated tecibat'"/
David Lipsitt, an inspector of police, head a'
searched the house when the prisoner e-a was aPPrc iter'sKp
found, on a cross-beam under the stairs, a Saoaaargeon.,
Mr. Charles Jukes, assistant to Mr. 011ier,
scribed the nature of the wounds, which, tipereatt'cy
were not of a dangerous nature. They were if the be;
dangerous state when he examined them, ?ii' aate
the side had not been stopped by the ribs, it "3"
fatal. farae
The prisoner pleaded intoxication as all rrac'lestr.
crime. He called his mother to give hira a drag set
poor woman, who appeared in great distress, 010
for her son. She said be supported his father a
and four children.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty. otabbl"aa
His-Loaansann observed, that the crime this cl*., orci
becoming too common in this country, and, "'rsoll
was aggravated by the circumstance of the re -bow'
He ,31111
being an oliicer in the execution' of his dual. Ake an e-aftao
therefore, be acting correctly if he did not Ina'a„atoll
by a severe sentence. The prisoner was seatenu--
years' transportation. a_ be°
COINING.
Michael Grogan, aged 37, Bridget
Farrall, 50, and Ellen Rowley, 48, were inalo as as sil
at Manchester, counterfeited -a
number of shila
peaces. te4 for "
tine and
The Attorney-General for the County Pala ..nners
,
Armstrong, conducted the prosecution. Tlie jaa
undefended. aestet riatf
Mr. Diggles, and some others of the lianc- 0.
t D°3 • O'
went to the house kept by the prisoner Bridge is „at
found all the prisoners there. Grogan was of tastesolJ•
sleeves, and he went immediately to a gnus of a le a
in which was afteiwards found some fragment-so there,
The house was searched, and, in several Parts etale.thal
nuantity• of counterfeit money and imiderne'latanaelooor
used in coining were found concealed. Tlie eci yO5 de
entirely fix Elizabeth Farrall and Ellen PirStoet
plices ; consequently, their case was not suffere Greentito
Jury. Grogan and Dolan were found G • poio°
sentenced to three years' itnprisonment, a„n", kola aaa,
years' imprisonment, with hard labour, e tur.g. coin"
HAVING POSSESSION OF IMPLEMENTS r°"-grea'4o'oCer
George Lister, aged 55, and Mary Lister,
charged with having knowingly had in their P°:-.ohill,ltlo
tarn moulds for coining base shillings, and a arae°
The counsel for the prosecution were the sa
alet;eat
last case. ; lied
On the 22d of April, the prisoner, Mary L'i:lietit°,
Diggles, of the Salford Police. She said sheic.ce bag
to him. He stopped, and she said she could Pa
she It
information respecting a party who were eoli,aliheas,l‘olo
chaster. He went with her to a public-house, ~when
ur,qo
him, that a man, named Smith, and his sister,of c• ol
tha
No. 60, George Lee-street, were in the bate' th,tet%ll'ea;
some extent. Her daughter, she said, lianay,:raoawholtrjr
morning, and she had seen them conceal til",
oven. He appointed to meet her at seven a, cher o',e,
unable to keep the appointment. She anu„igbc_d°
went to him at the Police-office, about half-Pas" eight,
went
She said, " You never came, and we have been t she iv:
seven o'clock." He asked the daughter whit., she
She said she had been at Smith's that afte,r,nald' the'll'e• a▪ °
officers would gu at that instant, they woula ..11„ OhW' r,
in the oven, as she had seen Smith and his s,,,sytet'heaag
there. He directed two officers to accomPla pea
jamin Hartles and another officer went with tat-he ot,eiidr
of
way the prisoner said, " Don't go directly Are
look about you a bit, and if they ask what /Id a': ;he
for, say you are looking for whiskey.." Th,eY,,,cp 313,,
sired them. In Smith's oven they found a
cel, which contained a mould complete. to• Pie-
taining an impression of a tail side of a sh.rliagatks
of metal. All this was duly reported to Slllso`‘
the sister of Smith was taken into custorlY,a't-.D'i-elr
self being ill from recent confinement. ocepe'o"94
being informed of the circumstance, set linlia,he f'ooce°
to make inquiry into all the circurnstance,!- ft-loaivfi,cot;
a strong evidence, that the Smiths were ° • s °
and that it was sought to make them the victouliibtert,
spiracy. It was proved in evidence, that the da
the
prisoners had called repeatedly at Smith's, a hiali Ail a
placed herself near the oven. The cellar tnt•ab d is
soners resided was searched, and a ladle in,"4--iton,7,, .ieefeal
been melted was found. The piece of rae'.- tia- 0
oven fitted this ladle. Several fragments of Ine°olilted
plaister of Paris, a counterfeit shilling, andwshlareceeiviti;
were found, with some other imlements
have been used in the manufacture of moulds' Joel of
bacco pipes, which appeared to have had talel'ael;ePa4
them, were found.
,Smith was stated to be ale of itY4,"
dustrious habits, in the employ of Mr. Gars,: Ceelallsl'ea
street. Mr. Garside proved, that Smith ha' 'al P' ye;
from six o'clock in the morning of the '22d of April theoio
hour at night. The counterfeit shilling, found at f°
of the prisoner, had been used to make ele in°
at
the oven at Smith'a, was•ti 6°oo
The evidence against the male prisoner Late of
sufficiently conclusive. The jury found MarYl the ace
The COURT, after alluding to the enorraitY °a sot' mi.
of which the prisoner had been guilty, Passe P"
a 00
transportation for life. vide
The prisoners prosecuted by the Mint, colic asta-
arase
day, were brought up to receive sentence• his
tiefl
P°•
Edward M`Mahon, for having moulds in
was sentenced to transportation for 15 years- ins sell
Betty Taylor, for having uttered base coin, teli
,01,
to ten years' transportation. wae ,td:
John Gorman, for having tittered base eouhaorth ata°
to imprisonment and hard labour in Kirkdale,', base„ot• :
Michael Grady, who pleaded guilty to havinaniasotv
his possession, was sentenced to two years' inir ara
11°1
STABBING• ritaaaea a-
Thomas Moran, aged 35, was chargeu "JP
Warrington, cut and stabbed William Taker't ahstcoaKor
five counts in the indictment. The first cot ra £o4.ith
offence as having been committed with inarci;riel°
murder, the second with intent to maim, troll:le' ;fl'
tent to disfigure, the fourth with intent to ago some
avilit/i
bodily harm, and the fifth with a col:an:ton ass'afta '
Dr. Brown appeared for the prosecution;
the defence. dieted
of,
The offence for which the prisoner was 1 n
,s 3 7, ty
mitted so long ago as the 26th March,Geo
quently, came under the provisions of the 9thd that "Yej:Pra
31, in which it was more seriously consider a illoAo
present statute. The prisoner had absconde et, tb
after the commission of the offence, and could node l'opit"
be sooner brought to trial, as he continued 0
till the 4th of April last, when he was recognise afillisa
011
hended by a constable at Altrin,gham. Ase
The following are the particulars of the t;et.e
Taker was, on Easter Sunday, the 26th Alateart'd °La
ing in Scotland-road, in Warrington-, at the "a. dov,„4,
called Cock-edge. The prisoner was coUniiboaer,.'ol. ;tall
called the Town-hill, and, as he was erossing.t__t hi, a,
named Rowlandson and another mall ran agai;ctaiatiilai!tee
prisoner crossed the road where Taker Nci.asa at Peato.iti,
after looking at him for a moment, rus'aearinit,fithrw
stabbed him in the right buttock. The Pris°-aest P.
ran off. The prosecutor walked home with griee 1'1°1;P Ile
He was put to bed, and was confined about t
~aa
10°"POW
rr
The aboVe was the account given by 'state-to
eye witness, named John Tickle, varied the street `ttoPoot
said, that when' the prisoner ran across the Pad
his hat fell off, and he exclaimed, " The first plat'ea
me, I'll put the -knife into him, if 1 can. rivartl'edi'd
see the knife. man, named Brow°, afttteer Oltioit?
Taker upon the prisoner, upon which the la, oaerhe
stabbed him. It was also proved, that the Pris piipelti!t
the prosecutor £lO to make it up.
Mr. Robinson, surgeon of the Warrin,,glescribevilly
stated, that he examined the wound• tleetdarterP
of
x.
dangerous. It had narrowly missed the Pit re° Ile
had it opened, would have caused death. foe?, ele
Mr. WILKINS addressed the jury for these
evil
ing energetically on some discrepancies inners te he'ar
called a man, named Knowles. The wi,, solaet,
transaction. He said the prisoner was eatle'er na,ao,o'oa
but he could not say whether he had a kill his eclat ati
ti
cording to his Statement, the prosecutor anti of bull wijeoer
teased the prisoner, and, after- making *or
iengta,
time, knocked him down repeatedly. At .r
the ground, one of them put his hand, °!g-ener!'alt.
mouth, and Takerput his hands to his Oahe 0'40.0 e
The jury • found the prisoner guilty of tt for ,ft
p
LORDSHIP passed, sentence of imprisons ig,C.
with hard labour. atua--r
A point was reserved for considerationsich aitiernia.ditee,
prisoner was indicted under the old law, , owe ,
of the modified verdict for assault. He was' for `"- „'
for and found guilty of the assault. It" 'd goodaejoe''
to decide whether such conviction can stialseveri °
. ~..The coutf. adjourned, at a quarter-Past
„nine on Monday. ,ttcr
• NISI Pam ouR s cT—soreolot3
Mr. Barona lttaariaai took his seat on the 13'
• reel
past nine o'clock.
FINLso) ala tO
DEBT.—hDWARDS
This was an action brought by Robert far vi d
from John Finlayson a sum of about x2-,a his siat
Dished by the plaintiff to the defendant alet paid ad.
a period of five or six weeks. The defenalthis saanm
X 4 lls. to meet the demand as resPeetealiable- • plinFatfi
respect to himself pleaded that he was not d the tiPe oat
sum of X 6 ss. claimed for spirits,
_he plea nor
,eat'
, Mr. Cresswell.and Mr. John Henderson -t :seat'
Mr. ,tePcj
and Mr. Martin for the defendant. f the Pr",, aP
Mr.. CRESSWELL said, that in June 0 Load° 0° ear
Messrs. Gibbles and Poole chartered in We, the tois
p
vessel called the Dartford, to ply betweeerly beci taidy
Beaumaris. The defendant, who had forinessea ra"eriaartlot
twin,-thought right, after bringing the vials Old 001'41,
port, to remain on board the steamer_•
introducerentic,iois,le
from sea shortly after, and he also wa",--„,1 apP:aalo ass'
and Captain . Finlayson, his swoon,
came with the Steamer, were supplied "a • nif, a• aaf,ti, ta
the Pia-i" •
ing wine, spirits, and porter, by wino' 1,51,0 .10
steward. Part of the account
and, with respect to the charge for sp!rL',,,i.osa
defendant pleaded the tippling act, vebiener,2oa 104 he
Man obtained spirits to, the amount that 4
should be liable, but if to a smaller ow
not be liable.
Evidence was heard at considerable lerigattlite'rnigattbhai,e.
The defence was, that the parties agree to 0.001.'0
who accepted a bill drawn by tlae owners
teataer' be " 1
Finlayson should remain on board the s oils to
et
of it on behalf of the owners, and that 1,!, cot, btocle'"Ae,
with provisions by the steward, free.f`soa co,!.!vosiX,
wines or spirits. The steward, who, 3.",eorge Pe,.s' con,e
not the plaintiff, but a person name,"aharte.r „I
and,. 'he bell' be
to supply Captain Finlayson
Poole, with the customary provisOat, etc. °
apiriLa
pensation, allowed sell wines, •
vessel. c defenriet
The Jury returned a verdict for the 41,
The trial listed nearly four hou!s• FP,ersale
TRESPASS.—SPEAEMAN iliogther
This was an action brought hYttel'her
eof..oaafg,
against Joseph Eckersley, And • " for
trustees of the highways of the towns

aad "'be! 18
too etiterect 'a
3
3141tY, the said ell
Plaiart: Wight)z
„,‘11'1111.1144, ;or;
def &II; Mr. Cr
1111;1 ghrh4,ll:droarsd,
do a
1)1
llead ; aon
slillt6ielltZi
Which °W. a better
setsiOn
It Bso
ci
!ellan af the °s!
t fro 11 a ‘l,d'i
ofw r"1 Mr, t7r.
Ile aste, cot 4 °,
defeoreinailled--. err
tdallts t:a
res.Pas„eugh'
red
plaintiff, thiliP
Ikealittle Val„ e
•
iklad"ed with Nv
tte , The ,~1l out
?•efhda
iii)aessesut: pi(
tad tiY the Plaehre"
ilee e._e
trti;)_t the 017, erected,
tt, waste.
4440 a Year to r t
.
r, et,t_
Out Spa
:S;WEL
paa
ahe ti
4?„fes°ll: there k
14t e°lltl
P 414 as he nu
ttait4 them Put
,Own,
lib :Altos
Ifrst a 21IP t
ter. , caisrong(
65:,0Yer.,NLELI
or that ~.;‘,•md,
ii,"dhat nottrie Plair
W Which Las to
kiittrittet 74 „,,hot
IrF use to „
ha,il)4Bia Lae sit,
14, r!eeligr,, irinsm
Ipeatlhrra7s to it
lt44oan, that It
p~OPieT*e'
flinti sarn fritud
lets' (lent
I°4 had ‘ga
a•44},tedlY be'
,4 hag go
e 4
to , posse
i e°hte
A der Ilatartee theh
14$ Nant
ktCe -,Whit 8. Wel
Svh °t res
,N' but ell.
the
,Nir4st an` dal h
k • C.)than
11'00 aPPreh
kg 4 I}4*
odflAtin
Atte!
iBati his •
kt e• Th
trespa
'll,//.i4te rws th
tt e lea Or mate
la e qopt•tied
dp,t/ tO tha
that ,•• land ,
uite, the "
Pal • the other
41ssae, th they
t
itikd atid Whether
tbo-;
ee„e_r t.
t-,,l7l4thosetall, but,
IVe Were tc
to ret„

Ile °D art
art a CRo
wtt
gr7leY
ged
With •w•
Ith3
br°t6e, r
late
trow°llats
• g pro,
'tNt" traiu s
etit of -acti
tud~o,
the n
*ICto?! t
awo
pro
4)yVll ght.
vok4eridge•
',e4to tics ‘'ere ,
ti„,llltiv occu -
11e eEs thertr
j'ttilz fileni4g ot
'hi p,
Vdly fanner
vras
4'
he f which •
41, yi) j
‘'
444/. 0114
tt,l kit arty,
4 eta
eerl allsi
th
1/4kiklf °Ped ;re 1'
awe we
"ir°o
44 (4,g /lean
pitirg a f
Wiatiii9lifesefert
ki.4,11141. • pr
4r,°''4 and
ki
loaf
i,71,1 tGuyf
klk fell
at th with
4 '4( eti
taikh,to to are,
};:t0 to f her ho
t...„-or a
11:117rtleais'"!
tr, eon the evid
ui; he ,pstabie
srehetict
1441 es ~roke 0
ti, ll
lithip's°llers •
'lt'llll of the
H, the 444 njun:
11,eY Pr°
tde see ferl'
StdlllV
to t,!tths Q.
1411 41P ti
ttl4t Rrlevo as
us
44sti. citil44"ll4ea'nans; b
VAlttalte
tit"stattee_ tc
tie,14414,1th4t
iHet'lls E
4'.ly
;flit
l'e°lltt °lllld
ti
Y of
tlittekPri seater,
too•/4 Ilths a"
k44N ,
ts, ATI/h
'°'l, 2
ati Th
tyhheis ajant4
11'14(14 the rltt r, ttthe prison
ktt'",;:,,()4tkils said tl
itt
tN'vlco:lcal(,ell
41f' Iler4etilltl
.r to t‘f tine
N 444 4 'ell e I
ce
‘i i ere
ttilkiff:/t th" 4 a y
e deee
°httt A lit a
th tie t.
4,16 i tool: ella •
t
sit'e 1,0 Thi °l4l
Nt • s fact
Itt,,,fror:4 4141(
10,1- 4.4
ktd
trlkk
hrew
Ne he 11341':iurit
11:111,k4Ireld. a
kr ;4 tv'eh}th
.1(1,11_
'O4O (q 1 'e
a~ovßl4l4' a"e
1%, 44141
oa, rathei
tli
Ail t' 41ASe
"RM t11,14t it a of
N. kis •-e wa,
N.
c
cl'iNll4l tll'eslble
tyethe tka,etfren
s whi
(I:4'ttibrtti.°f th,
t41.4,°41),!
a
4C'ri4,411kw4,4 '
\I4 'lei 10414
(Peat„
the
Prgar
..!
Noo ros,
l't,t4ti:'llls is
, • „..
i4L the w~
to a meee.
,110, %la '
htraw it
.414 fe the
'4'l';',,§4`)t4nd
1,41
•c, 'h()tir
•
detk4. 0
31.
,„ „ „
Ger
141sk. Dr,
~,1„ Aro
; w d,
treat.
t, 4, 0 Ith
4 qi
4ql4llcre(l t
4, eti 114
(titer
tetti,
Oik4kat4tr)
t 4114 V!stiag
tlkl4,
14 011
1.4Y1(
°Ce(
QIN eltlaa
FeV at 44 I)
4
lOtt.ti4ttS the
:4': 11.4 4,4'4
r! e ah
41,`\%0
ti air
cal a
'•
‘•• 1, tg,
th,
-t,
141 i
4tt-c ti
%Oil(

• {pro,
springoghey.dg'
La in the

ce'
onsultatiog, gI
D.

r G.
ounded:rbto°
I'4 WThe

BO°
tors of the st,
to 11th, di in stAitore,
vens°n'..sqo for
•• (mai e 004
,1
ranted. by an icc?
.4,
.015 e
.1n vdviii";ed mend.
a ddeel! rl! e
su Fazakoeb i _
stabbed'fficet,
by the ° 014 e
to
en'. to
He ; ,b
4. VW
elelairllTlS're 4L4
a I e 1 P
done
of M. Jester,a th"'lp
be ace°
14, ri to
ness cle6c lIP
it him, ea o°'
left side, y
ed, tbstol
stat detio.
apprehene,
shoonake,e'os,
;flier,
it, theee'°rec et, '
e e'd
if the eV;
it mast bar
„doe f°r;
an --ractr,
eba cd
7ess, P and rood
father

le
of sobbicogo
id, in this 01'4,
,he persorl4
" He sbuppol?,
:make alto 14t
en tence

•ter
110

to
j 5
vie ° d'' ti
s 61•10
id it'd0 the
on,
• lips'
tiPPohlio
P to,
t 0
reset' ste°tl
o'll°
gen oerroo or.
tothe tai,
e
;Oa e hcf{;
csrabcsrlio
°tfile4lol'
ioe't,ro
;piticon,
fis l'he
g 40'
dd
the

Cl,
the IclPret.
toi‘
~0i 401
not ``..;10
.
JO' re"
. eg •o,
,c0P,.00
0 e 4
ra"' tr.
ho~

r POO

21111 o„,_
kid tir°ber, 1836, and at sundry other times, broken into
s
county_ 71:ed a close in the township of Bedford,
.tm . this
11..'e,said close being the property of the plaintiff.
the
Plaintiff"Mulan, Mr. Greene, and Mr. Cowhng, der'adatit r• Cresswell and Mr. Joseph Addison,
for the
4r. f, s•
~,v!itt.E opened the pleadings.
i'lb.44est :11.1.44N stated the case. He said, that the close
s',P of 11-- was a boundediangular piece of land, in the towanie-
Phipt,, Bedford, , ori- one side, by an orchard olf _
highro, and fl the others partly by a brook, and.part yt%
el hi 844 d.; d the plaintiff: says, that the locality of
,h
ea 4 shoilentlY points out that unless there is a personvt ho
whieh
i.. a better title, it clearly' belongs to his property, to
-os-
teEsion‘ 7se closely allied. The plaintiff had been in
.1,
as
IA ei the adjoining- land dox-vn to 1834, holding
sit_ . .
41? fro,,AII: a Mr. Woodcock, He then purchased his hold=
.
'ifiNte-:
c'olur.lA:oo. dc9ek, and enclosed. the triangular piece
e relnai siuering it as part of that which he had purchnasede.
eldant!'ed ill undisturbed possession till 1836, whe . th _
till tprN3—a.ss'ucought right to dispute.his title, and committed
, lam, nuiplained of. Previous to the enclosure by
4..e.rY littie`lvaal the land had never been enclosed. It was of
'ell ta . 'le, was often overflowed by the brook, and had
lazd. edi:iithout comment by- the owner of the adjoining
tile,,lefel:3 learned cousel then went through the wholeeorf
I,_%icile7ns pleas, which were seven or eight in numbthe.
‘R.4 hv iles were called who proved the enclosure of .
01; e4th ef it.' ...ueeo rrPeelha ha
: t.
id
sir 'o'flin'i theee:lr
0 oPitt,ce e eted.
of 'Speakman stated, that
hreakino, down of the hedges
rite. Por that daughterorcahaTde rthhad p formerly
nti
ff pa been
ea, portion
i.
nt
'Tofu Year to the Duke of Bridgewater, the lord ofthe
th'illaotest"sw. ELL put it to his lordship whether. the evidence
44 he c).w the title was clearly not in the plaintiff, seeing
As to
t;*ior'n'd Chief rent to the lord of the manor.
Le, hee 11' there had, evidently been none, seeing that there
fast "a.,a he
cuntinual dispute the time of the enclosure.
r'tedt- tie Put hedfi-es, the defendants
,bed" down, - 's flthe --e •biliro• to show equal
His / an: at last erected ala .
is 4„„,--nansul „
\post a w P thought there was evidence of possession
,r , rongdoer
kCltEss - •
oin .
ki fie' ov r WELL raised two or three other p ' ts,..,which
s
,trilth:CPli_ and he then went to the jury. .--1. was
le *hit the plaintiff had been so far overcome by temper,
Ilii,,ttot, as to involve himself in a lawsuit for a piece f
1ea.,1 ileji w
bat ritte as not worth the' parchment en which the re corod_
Nlar.ins ' Though of to him, however, it was I
, the surveyor, who was one of those accused of
'Ad
ke reeOlar. much as, beinr, a piece of waste. land, he L ilitli 'e to it for sand and' gravel wherewith to repair hrekiii as• It had been allowed by the. daughter of
44,eati, that had
would not grow on the disputeddlannda
k il_rPle were continually going there for seasns,o,,,a
n..„
sAe,_fdrud.(Mr. Wightinan) relied
,on , oe'se'kori Lerit gall-Ista wrongdoer, and fotaidPa°csitse 'where
kalithltdiY be .
454h` had'een so allowed as sufficientTh;isfowrouthlde y4h ~.0 ha- good in a case.of actual possession
,ed to ' Possession had a right as against the. man who
I.."'isitist-c..°°'e 1.4 after without having a better title. But
ro.docrs •, all
the the persons were not simply :wro .n
tile h .allts were. - • the township who had been.
404 ahu
Necil whet rtehsortiPnegrsotonsthienTdiseputed land to take gravel.
The planted some
IS48; but clid iseY -Pleased' plaintiffpossession thereby, as
alr.i.,- kin, ue instantly gain _
tt,, v.) • Nan who might go for sand next day ? He
tiNtnaPPrehended not, and that was not a soi , of Fos-
tktio titain a trespass. The learned counsel, at
the
0r,4 '' °f his lordship, at last consented to plead h
datllwiti!!telB,ttlEtei Thedefenants would admit that they had
ta kilo respass, but that they had done it under the
hweigte for the surveyor of highwaysa tso. have recourse
do tot:tint, that
itoe;eoletrZcitilautoereial to rep,air.thenhighslav
_y,
ttfieinsusruv'neymoirniladPs' simply
asserted if the jury
07 thilt eland for thepurposes connected with .
10et the her his defendants had only assisted him in his
Lis'lle,t, the her
would find for the defendants on the gene-
to'llatbe'e4use the notice of action required by the act
tOtid '4 given by the plaintiff. They would have also
it 11110 it'll. nether the plaintiff was in possession, whether
r there was a
t‘th 'Y °ver't"ion was a waste, and whether
ilet, ,e,te om It,. There were several other matters
_noti.ceed_ ,loe '', out as the counsel on both sides had ape d
t se Were. to'
ttLc.ittry go, he' would- not trouble the jury with
Nil. returned for the defendants lestle. a verdict on the

c
e'llrt 0 t-IWN COURT.—MONDAY.
wt 44411 Pened at a little after nine o'clock.
Ceti 1-4,_ MALICIOUS STABBING.
Nllari;,(l7 30, John Harney, 35, and John Carty, 19,
'ett ' With jut•4lth maliciously cutting and stabbing one John
brtbet,
content to do him grievous bodily harm. There
t•i!ro,ts in the indictment varying the intent.
ao,,l2sprosecuted ; the prisoners were undefended.
tra,! stating the case, said, he was sorry to say
4444 of i-rtion forming the subject of the indictment,
44tid ce'f taro e aoi,mosity which existed between the inha-
,le nau, Provinces in Ireland,—the men of Munster
tri provinces The prosecutor and prisoners lived at
't° then
The
•prosecutor. was a on g ;
C nau ht man and
'4l? thersZre natives of Munster. For s9nie t.me'pre-
of varrenee, an animosity had existed between
everlit, ne two provinces resident at Stayley Bridge.
441.eslithrouji Princes-street,
3d of'August, the prosecutor. was
rie4o, arney rinces-street, where the prisoners lived,.
4;S' manner as standing at the door of his house, and in
.t„
.ner invited the prosecutor in, to partake of
f which in .
olltdinvitation prosecutor accepted. In the
Akls4, Wlll ear,`.l°hn Harney, William Harney, (not i9dclulos-t
het_otae ally' and another man, whose name
x_
Tg„ hweerl th "
,„ lon was made to the difference which e
okir oPed °len of the two,provinces, and prosecutor
II It., owe n't, would soon be at an end, for he did not
tr'7dir,-I'444o`sity to any man. William Harney, who
,(14 tt, (IQ °ear the fire said " It's not so with me, you
4pNek pitirogsa foul expression,) and seized the fire poker,
trAttLs knit. ecutor across the face, and James Harney
it, e from the table and struck him across the
anciPtr?s,ecutor. fell forward, and John Carty ran
Ow, N.icked him on the eye. The whole the.
444;, 6 with William Harney, and the other man Ott, gate, ec. fell to beating prosecutor. A person named
n
liOt the with
t4i.,,,e4 time whom prosecutor lodged, was in Harney's
to h.
~ and sent for a.surgeon. The prosecutor
Yet ro 'r, house where he became insensible, and re-
'h.ptate r a length of time 11e'tly ttents inade by tho. learned counsel, were esta-
''ihNistahlevidence.
•hteol_k Carty into custody deposed, that
NI; %trot e'aded him he said, " I wish we had put the
Otlitis°l4er • and then he could not have
0,04:cf then' In their defence, detailed at great length
Aift the atigb unfortunate difference which existed between
ty Pro 4len, and the natives of Munster,. and stated
s-eeutor
lde Inc(' as the aggressor. The pTisoner,.James
stick `'.lvlng struck the prosecutor with a knife, but
(.4otiNliosa that was near him.
Nease,4' told the jurfthat the intent, most applica-
trievouwas that of doing grievous bodily harm. By
tiit;tl44:fh a luaus b°u4Y harm," was not meant merely
.I.te
tlk, 414; but inflicting such abuse as might occasioneOreCilra in take Illness
To judge of the intent of the prisoners
joikstaa o consideration the kind of weapons, and
01441:4fied tees under which the blows were given. If they
6al oqs cause the prisoners inflicted the wounds without
out not with the intent of doing some
ant,tFTbelprlilty they must acquit them of a felony, but
hats n assault.
Net:s'l(l the prisoners guilty of an assault only.
INisoe„4teoced the prisoner, James Harney, to three
akalt`;irus lit and hard labour, and the other two to
allcl hard labour.
:.4st„lla 40,2, MANsLAtiGirrEa.
Ijr, tithe .was charged with the manslaughter of
yepde The indictment charged that the
her
teeantia," of the deceased, by striking her with a
\IN 8 aPpe' 'eking, or stamping upon her.
hst.t,the „_aorecl for the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy
ti,,`etet:is
,r,ier.
4Qth''',hed 0;4, 4'.,0e particulars of the case were, for the most
oft ii‘ "le face of the indictment. The deceased was
t 4 cellar e. Prisoner's wife, and the parties lived to-
''Ol 0,0 io Portland-street, in this town. Between
el;?°k °ck on the morning of the 16th of June, a
eW ck ate in e cellar, the dd an
qt. he, e
o.h 10e
are veiob servethd to comeand ecease
out of the cellar,d with
Ve; ' de, l' disordered state. Prisoner came out
4 ,he 4-e aleased into the. cellar, leaving his wife on the
fter •
ith • to 4 door
this soner and dece;tl were bold' u and, during the scuffle, ,de-
ad'ft Lsr. factf the poker, fighting,and 'struck at the prisoner
,Nfro the learned Council said, was important
,*as°4lrauritclid h 7 the jury, inasmuch as it reduced the
letl!',Oftuek tO that of Manslaughter. After the pri-
-1,k441.1;' threw'''Lith the poker, he closed upon the de-
Nti e hija . uer down, and it was at this time that she
e of hti),teeli,ries which had caused her death.
004,,e, addressed the jury for the prisoner. He
1.4 yvhiels under much disadvantage, owing to the
:tt,"l4-rlilet,l: Precluded him calling the wife of the pri-
ttqp,44lß,l.elik'teeL cofuld this be done, they would have a
etio Ividu ° coming at the truth of the matter,
4 111 ' 1.4 at who was present in the cellar during the
to Ilk he tiler th
d_ an from those who merely viewed it
thttkea '2,°r, with the window shutter closed, by the
,the morning light. He was not prepared
te'l4lt7lts„ 'Leath ' uot the violence of the prisoner which
eressibi °f the deceased, but he would contend that
tot,. the to 11, •
10440,,,,0 Renee it appear that the prisoner was
;,oat`es Thiel, or manslaughter. The case presen. d ,148tit'brl Of ,fete 4 showed that there was that aggression
k,614414) qerik°l•4 'woman which made the conduct of
sikC,ree 'lig the blow with the poker, (and this
aY,, shown in evidence which ad caused
q('4„J4t,,?w, of self defence, and if so, it would not
4kiea,o4od'e° to an assault
1,44,'5e0t6.0 the prisoner not. guilty. '
rl'h;ti'oll.ldi44, 4, was charged with the manslaughter
itkleill),,N4otoPrsge.cute
11,tel'ieh."'ke e„ is anted the prisoner was undefended.dVt
de-
at
dtc,,,respe itike;'.,„ls called a " winder," and the 16Y 4fe4Ked etive ea • !II May last, they were empl.oyed
t44the evaa b_, Pacities in sinking a pit near Wigan.
'ltrt ;,!9 4rdec,,erc to fill the " hopper," audit was the
Iti:es he it after winding it up, to " strike" it,
4t, °ugh,. overthe mouth of the pit to empty it. In
YttL not to h • •
ilt 124aq with me used any instrument, as it
Ofeek e h danger ; however, contrary to his
lt , iltha
tide
of a hook, and the " hopper" slipped,
agdae (114), 14)4 the the pit, and knocked down a stone,
ueceased, and caused death.
thegle Prisoner Guilty, but strongly recomt
kqla)." vi,a,,,°:eerY of the Court.'
t_ utenced to three months' imprisonment
141:1)11,,,•40 MALI mi.
11.11 q" --, 21 STABBING.
114 14, eOrge a was charged with feloniously cutting
t • Pro, -..ogath, with intent to murder him.
-'cuted, and Mr. Murphy conducted the
ti4,,,tks,bll.rNe
eh elitor
,t!tated that_he was an apprentteirceb:foorae
t►:trt thltett'ek, teethe 15th , t. was of„ July, about a guar
Where t: Tone oiarybone, near to the corner of
irtteraieCer,
t, ere we"'resorier and a girl named M`Namara
k kire s tbrillarreiii several females along with prosecu-
N 41444 hib,ithe pur,r'g• The prisoner laid hold of one of
'(4fte sea, tO des;!'!'se of taking her away, and prosecu-
get•p• Prose 4", 'whereupon the prisoner called him
,eite4o4lrett) 'rig cutor then knocked prisoner down, 44,1'4 wasweet ',„Walked away without saying a word.
ck t'itandi-a,,,ss the street to where the girl
tPtlte _ ~,Nl`Narnara said, " George, get a
IN ~ `u cust„ •
•A police-officer came up, and Oil, groe,r-stre,,.-u7- Prosecutor then went to the
'l,3at Lae after standing there for a few
04 It, -g, who Edgar-street. A person of the
Ne 4t °it
bout I.lh , aboh, fore even
ehvad been in prosecutor's company
41ohet . four ening, followed prosecutor down
h'4,P;•rritasekiactlayd, oearYa4r_ds behind him. When they
ar-
i?:'et,4lle strYeerres,,o-_',th,t s?apery, a person, whose
tta
till; 04
et ,
with ri
head vth that ofd the
aponsostnz,
'tat thiihanging
and subsequently owi,
from he-
ttal apehbeu b. As Prosecutor did not see the per-
-Ibe t (It 10: 1q4ara0),,41,,, he would only undertake to swear
I,4titltliiti:lev'triine,`,Jeing that of the prisoner. Prose-
'+iAt ttlii r 4 cross. °11! Isaac, I am stabbed."
1,,,,hat
~_de by tltarniried the witness, and put in
le4 a4ltit•e•Li,fe awilheo before the magistrates,, in which
~trt4t Q 1,4111,1,4, staVarriara said to the prisoner,
te
aaud. „,itn George " was picking a bone
'et tic Ur oce,, :I he witness' declined to swear to
„he p„r7°4- Where the dead wall was it
"1eq1e"444 who stabbed was coming up
was goiug
,down. Prosecutor

lived with the female, the prisonr was pulling away in
Marybone. She was a disreputable character. The boy
Flemming, who was along with prosecutor, was her brother.
Prosecutor said he would swear he did not strike prisoner
more than once.

Isaac Flemming, corroborated the account given by the
prosecutor of the transaction, and swore to the prisoner being
positively the person who inflcted the stabs.
In cross-examination the witness admitted that he had
been twice in the Borough Gaol for picking pockets. He
said his sisters were like many others, and would not take
advice. The depositions made before the committing magis-
trate by the witness were read, and the statements made by
him, on the present occasion differed in many•material points.
At the time Hogarth was stabbed, there was no one present
except witness, prisoner, and prosecutor. There were three
persons taken up on suspicion of having stabbed the prose-
cutor on the same night the offence was committed ; the pri-
soner was not apprehended till the Thursday following.
James Read, a police-officer, stated, that he was in Mary-
bone on the night in question. There had been a quarrel
with some females. The prisoner, in company with a young
man in a blue jacket and light trousers, and the prosecutor
were there. The young man with the prisoner, wanted
Hogarth to fight; and the prisoner wished witness to take
Hogarth into custody, but he (Hogai th) ran off.
Mr. Murtrnv wished the boy •Flemmino• to be recalled
to ask which way he went when he fetched the police-officer.
The boy said up to Marybone, a little way from Edgar-street.
He went to Bridewell about half an hour after the offence
was committed, and there were three persons in custody.
Mr. Dean, the surgeon who examined the wound in the
abdomen, said he was of opinipn it had been caused by a
sharp cutting instrument, and was dangerous to life. The
other wound, on the thigh, was very trifling.
'Mr. MURPHY, in an ingenious speech, addressed the jury
for the prisoner. He contended that the evidence for the
prosecution was not to be credited, for several reasons—the
corrupt source from which it emanated; the descrepancies
which existed between the statements made by the witnesses
that 'day and those made before the committing magistrate.
After commenting on the doubt which existed as to the iden-
tity of the prisoner, Mr. Murphy said it was not for to
serve the ends of justice that the witnesses for the-prosecu-
tion were there that day, but to satisfy some personal pique,
which might be inferred from the fact of it being the aban-
doned female with whom the prosecutor lives in a state of
prostitution, that the prisoner had pulled away from her
companions in Marybone.
Mr. MURPHY then proceeded to call the following wit-
nesses to prove an alibi.
Ann M•Namara stated that she was the daughter of a
publican in Alarybone. She recollected on the 15th of July
a girl named Blower, coming to their house. The prisoner,
Burchill, Webster, and witness's sister were there. In con-
sequence of some disturbance being heard in the street, they
ail went out together. Webster, and a person named Hughes.
who was also with them, went into the crowd. Witness and
prisoner were standing together, and Hogarth came across
the street, and knocked the prisoner down. The prisoner,
when he got up, asked what that was for, and turned into
Edgar-street •, the prosecutor followed, and again knocked
him down. Prisoner brought two policemen with him out
of Edgar-street, and charged Hogarth into custody, but the
policeman refused to take him, and advised the prisoner to
go away or he must be taken into custody himself. Prisoner
then went with witness to her house, and whilst he was there,
a woman came in and stated that a man had been stabbed in '
Edgar-street. The prisoner, from the time he went with
witness into the house,—until the time the woman came in,
had not been out.

Catherine Simkins.—Saw Hogarth come into Edgar-street
followed by the 'prisoner, he knocked the prisoner down
opposite her door. The prisoner fetched two policemen and
charged Hogarth.—The policemen told the prisoner he had
better go home, or he might be charged himself. He then
went away. out a quarter of an hour after the prisoner
had been knocked down, Hogarth came to Mrs. Evans's
steps, and said he was stabbed. Mrs. Simkins asked him
who had done it. He said he did not know.

Mrs. Bailey deposed that she saw the boy Flemming, in
Naylor-street on the morning of the 16th July, and had some
conversation with him respecting Hogarth being stabbed.
He then stated to her in answer to a question she put to him,
that he did not know the person who had done it.
The FOREMAN of the jury said tfie jury were perfectly
satisfied that there was a mistake with respect to the identity
of the prisoner. Tile prisoner was discharged from the dock.
The trial lasted upwards of five hours.
The court adjourned at a quarter to seven o'clock.