The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

WALKER V. SMITH

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an assault. The plaintiff. Thomas Walker, is a banks-
man in the service of the trustees of the late Duke of Bridge-
water, at a colliery in Worsley. The defendant, Lot Smith,
is a publican, keeping the Red Lion Inn, in the same neigh-
bourhood. He is also the owner of several carts, and on the
6th of February, insisting that one of his carts should be
loaded out of its turn, the plaintiff took a hook from his ser-
vant, with which he was catching the tub as it came from
the pit, when the defendant seized him, wrested the hook
from him, threw him into the cart, and the defendant's ser-
vant, at his master's command, threw the coals into the cart
upon him, whilst the defendant held him down, by which
his leg was hurt, so that he complained next day, but was
not prevented going to his work. These facts were proved
by James Atkins, a farmer and carter at Worsley, who was
cross-examined to show that an undue preference had been
given to other recently arrived carts over those of the de-
fendant, which had been a long time waiting, and that the
assault was a very trifling one. In the course of his re-exa-
mination he stated that the defendant's horses had no right
to a turn, and that he had been told he must not come.
Abraham Pollitt proved that the defendant was taken be-
fore the magistrates at petit session for the assault, and fined
a shilling. _ _ _ _

Mr. WILKINS, for the defendant, contended that the fine
of a shilling was quite sufficient.
The JUDGE intimated that there could be no doubt that
legally an assault had been committed, but he thought very
little substantial injury had been proved.
. .

The jury found (or the plaintiff' damages, ss. The Judge
declined to certify.

WILKINSON V. WALKER

This was an action to recover compensation in damages for
grievous injury sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of
the misconduct of the defendant.

Mr. CRESSWELL stated that the plaintiff, Mary Ann Wil-
kinson, a young woman, aged 22, a milliner and dressmaker,
herresiding with mother at Audensbaw, near Gorton, and
the organist of the dissenting chapel in the latter place, was,
in August, 1837, at the house of Mr. Adeyard, a hatter, in
Gorton. There was a party there, and she had been playing
music for their amusement. After supper she was going to
sit down to the piano, when the defendant, who was then a
butcher and farmer at Gorton, withdrew the chair. and she
fell back violently against the chair, and was severely hurt in
the spine. A gentleman who was present, remonstrated with
him, and when, in spite of her pain, she was going to proceed
with the music, the defendant made a second attempt. She
could not go on with the music, and was taken home, a dis-
tance of a mile and a half. The next day she was seriously
ill, and having sent for an old woman residing in the place, a
liniment was applied to her back. but it did her no good. As
her sufferings increased, a day or two afterwards, Mr. Old-
ham, a medical practitioner, was sent for, and finding that
much inflammation existed, leeches were applied. In Nov.
she went to the chapel to play, but it was too much for her,
and she had a relapse. During 1838 and 1839 Mr. Oldham
attended her. She could not continue her occupation, and
her mother and herself had to go to Manchester to keep a
beer-shop. She was obliged to visit Southport, and have
other medical advice, but became no better, and was still sub-
jected to great pain and suffering. The defendant had paid
Mr. Oldham's bill without any communication with the
plaintiff. lie pleaded, first, that he was not guilty ; second,
that he had paid Mr. Oldham's bill with the plaintiff's con-
sent ; and thirdly, that he had her leave and license to do as
he had done.

These facts having been proved in evidence, Mr. Alexander
proceeded to state the nature of the defence at considerable
length as it frequently came out in evidence, the principal
portions of which were that of the defendant's mother hav-
ing discharged the amount of Dr. Oldham's bill for profes-
sional attendance on the plaintiff, it was received as a satis-
faction for any injury suffered ; that the plaintiff, after the
accident, was able to follow her customary occupations as
usual ; that the taking away of the chair on the night of the
occurrence was done for the purpose of creating merriment,
the party being a juvenile one, and the night being full of
jollity in the village; that nothing was heard of the plain-
tiff's intention to bring the present action until immediately
after the defendant was married to another lady, in October
last ; and that the plaintiff, who was subject to fainting fits
in sultry weather, was at present in a state of convalescence,
and likely to be perfectly recovered in a short space of time.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, and the JUDGE having gone
over the evidence. the jury found a verdict for £5O damages
and 10s. costs.
The Court adjourned at ten minutes to seven o'clock.

CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY.
FORGERY.
John lingo, a very respectable looking man, aged 60, was
placed at the bar, charged with having, on the 29th October,
forged and uttered a warrant and order for the payment of
money with intent to defraud Richard Bateson.
Mr. Henderson conducted the prosecution and Mr. Wil-
kins the defence.
It appeared, from the statement of the learned counsel for
the prosecution, which was afterwards borne out in all mate-
rial points by the evidence, that on the 29th October last the
prisoner went to the branch of Manchester and Liverpool
Bank, in this town, and asked for an order for £8 on the
bank in Manchester. A letter of credit was prepared for
him, and, previous to his receiving it, prisoner signed an
order in the name of " J. Smith." On the same afternoon

the letter was brought hack to the bank, when it was dis-
covered that the letter " y" had been added to the word
" eight", and a cypher to the 8, making the amount of eight
pounds into " eighty". On the preceding Monday, the pri-
soner went to the shop of Mr. Robert Newby, a grocer in
Richmond-row, in this town, and introduced himself by in-
quiring about an advertisement which had appeared in the
Liverpool Mercury, for a situation as warehouseman, light
porter, or collecting clerk. Mr. Newby said, that he had in-
serted such an advertisement. The prisoner then said, that
he had been in the habit of collecting considerable sums of
money in Liverpool, Manchester, and Wales ; that it fre-
quently occurred, that, after collecting as much of the money
as he could himself, he appointed a person to collect the re-
mainder; and that he allowed such person 3d. in the pound
for sums under £5O, and 6d. for sums above that amount,
and that the money was sent to him by a bank order. Mr.
Newby said, that he would be glad of employment of that
nature, and prisoner said he would give him a trial, giving
his name as Thomas Wilson. Newby was then told by the
prisoner, that he might expect an order for £6O or £7O to be
sent to his (Newby's) house; and if it came, he was to
go to the bank and draw the money, which, on being
paid over to him, (prisoner,) he would give him bills
to collect. Prisoner afterwards called on Newby, and
asked if any letters had been received, as he had di-
rected his agent in Chester to send all letters ad-
dressed to him to his shop. He told him not to open any
letters addressed to him (Wilson). He then went away,
and in a few minutes afterwards a letter came, directed to
Thomas Wilson. Prisoner called again on the Thursday,
about an hour after he had been at the bank, and, after open-
ing the letter, he said, " This is a bad job. I have here a
letter calling me to Chester, as a great failure is apprehended ;
and I have an order for £Bll on a bank in Manchester. I
can't be in two places at once." He then requested Newby
to go to Manchester ; and they set off together to the railway
station, but the train had just started. They therefore took
a car, and drove off to the station at the end of the tunnel,
in Edge-hill; but the train had gone three minutes before.
Prisoner then said, that Newby must go by the train at seven
o'clock in the morning to Manchester, where he was to re-
ceive the money, and give a receipt in his own name. Pri-
soner then hurried off, as he said, to the pier-head, to catch
the boat going to Chester; and Newby went home. He,
however, happened to show the order on the bank to an ac-
quaintance, and, his suspicion being excited by what he said,
he took it to the bank here, the same afternoon, when it was
discovered to have been altered. Next day the prisoner
called at Newby's shop, where a police-officer was in waiting
for him ; and, on being taken into custody and told that it
was for a forgery on a bank for £BO, he said, " I am aware
I have done wrong. I did it for want, for I have a large
family, and I hope you will allow me to go." The cashier of
the bank, Mr. Bronson, said that the person who got the
order at the bank had a wig on. When the prisoner was
taken into custody a wig was found in his pocket.
Mr. WILKINS said, be had nothing to say for the defence
as regarded the facts of the case, but he called several wit-
nesses, who proved that the prisoner had always borne an
excellent chardcter, until the present case was brought against
him.

His LORDSHIP said, that the prisoner had been found
guilty of forging an order for the payment of money. The
case was, some years ago, punishable by the severest penalty
of the law, which was almost invariably carried into effect.
The legislature had, however, wisely reduced the capital
punishment, but had still left an adequate penalty, for the
forging of such instruments, which were exceedingly injurious
in a mercantile country. Transportation for life might be
pronounced; but, from the good character which, it appeared,
the prisoner had previously borne, and the recommendation
of the jury, he considered he would be justified in following
up that recommendation to a considerable extent. The
manner in which the forgery was made also led him to sup•
pose, that the prisoner was note very practised hand. If the
prisoner had ever been brought before a court before on a
charge of felony, he would have considered it his duty to
send him out of the country ; but, under all the circumstan-
ces, he should pass the most lenient sentence which the sta-
tute allowed—namely, that he should be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for two years.

TEALING POST LETTERS CONTAINING BILLS OF E

CHANGE, 8C(

John Brown, aged 16, was indicted for having feloniously
stolen, at Manchester, a number of letters, containing bills,
bonds, &c., to the amount of £6,408 ss. 9d., sent from the
Bank of Liverpool, and various other letters from Bury,
Newtown, &c., containing bills and money to a large amount,
the property of the Bank of Manchester.
The Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Pollock, con-
ducted the case for the prosecution. The Hon. Stuart
Wortley defended the prisoner.

. - -
Mr. Robert Healey, clerk in the Bank of Liverpool, said,
that on the 18th of .December he wrote a letter to Mr. Bur-
dican, enclosing bills to the amount of £6,408 ss. 9d. ; he
sealed up the letter, addressed it to Mr. 8., and handed it to
one of the clerks. (Here some fragments of a letter were
produced.) These are portions of the letter he wrote.
Mr. F. Rawson received the letter, and handed it to F.
Blonhom, another clerk, who said he put it into the
post-office.
Win. Drennan made up the letter-bag as usual for Man-
chester, and despatched it.
A clerk of a bank at Bury identified a bill sent by him on
the 18th Dec. The bill had originally contained the words
" Bank of Manchester ", but that was now erased. He
also identified some portions of the letter he had then writ-
ten.

Sarah Dawson, assistant to the postmaster at Bury, said,
that a letter posted to Manchester at five in the evening
would be sent off at nine at night. He posted the letter on
the 13th of December last, and she identified the Bury post-
mark.

Henry Robinson, a clerk in the Manchester Post-office,
opened the Bury bag, and forwarded the letters to their des-

tinations

John Hall, a clerk of the Bank of Newtown, in Montgo-
meryshire. Mr. Bretherton there is agent for the Manches-
ter Bank. On the 18th December Mr. B. enclosed a bond
to James Parr, Esq., at the Bank of Manchester. Witness
took it to the postoffice. lie identified the bond.
W. H. Dunn, clerk of the Manchester Bank, said, there
were boxes or pigeon holes for the letters of the several firms;
the number of the box of the Bank of Manchester was 286.

Robert May, another clerk of the Manchester Bank, said,
that he thought th 3 prisoner was the person that came and
called 28(i, but was not certain. He admitted that he had
fired upon another party as the individual, from his personal
resemblance to the prisoner. The prisoner received the let-
ters, and went away deliberately looking .over the letters, as
if they belonged to him. A Mr. Wcbb afterwards came for
the letters for the bank.

Edward Morris, clerk to Messrs. Hodgson and Son, Man-
chester, went for their letters, and then saw a person whom,
he believed, was the prisoner, and who called out 286. He
did not see him receive the letters. There is a slight resem-
blance about the nose between Brown, who was mistaken for
the prisoner by the last witness. The resemblance was slight
in the nose only. Brown had bushy whiskers.

Richard Webb, clerk of the Manchester Bank, went for
the letters of that establishment to the post-office on the day
in question, and was told they were all gonebut one large let-
ter, which he received.

Thomas Thistlethaite, clerk to Jones Loyd and Co., Man-
chesier, said, that, on the 18th Dec. the prisoner came with
a check. He identified the check. Witness asked him how
he became possessed of it, and he said a Mr. Brown had given
it him to get it cashed. I spoke to Mr. Loyd and gave him
the check. The prisoner was allowed to go.
Edward Loyd, Esq., said he was a partner in the bank.
The last witness brought me a check on the 19th December.
This was the same. He spoke to the prisoner, and asked
him how the check was iu that state, partly erased. Pri-
soner said, Mr. Brown belonged to Preston. We detained
the check but not the man, and I did not see him again until
he was in custody.

Archd. AV Mullen, police-officer, Manchester, saw prisoner
brought in, in custody. From what he heard he went to Mr.
Lewis, a hosier, who pointed out a jacket and a mackintosh ;
the prisoner owned them. In the jacket he found the bond
produced, and in the mackintosh nine sovereigns. He was
asked if he knew how much money he had, and he said he
did not exactly know, £7 or £B. He declined saying any-
thing about the bond,. stating that he would account for it
before the magistrates.
Mr. Burdican, clerk in the Bank of Manchester, said, he
he received the letter produced on the 22d of December.
The prisoner was a stranger to him, and had no authority to
to take letters out of the Post-office.

Mr. R. H. Rowe, hosier, Church-street, Manchester.—
The prisoner was in his employ in December last. The pri-
soner always wore a jacket in the office. The letter handed
him was in the prisoner's handwriting. The paper and the
star, or seal, were the same as those we were then using in
the warehouse. The crossing of Mr. Brown's name on the
check was, he believed, written by the prisoner. He tound
the fragments of two letters (produced) under a counter.
One of the letters appeared to be in a disguised hand ; but
was, he thought, in the prisoner's writing. The letter was
read. It was addressed to the manager of the Manchester
Bank, and signed J. Brown. It inquired of the manager
how much he would give to have the bills and bond he had
taken out of the bank returned; and requesting him to ad-
vertise in the Manchester Guardian, anti he would return
all, to the amount of £7,000, except the check, which had
been sent to Messrs. Jones Loyd and Co.'s bank by another
person. Another letter in the handwriting of the prisoner,
signed with his own name, and addressed to his master, was
also read, in which he acknowledged the felony, lamented
his conduct, and expressed his gratitude to him as an em-
ployer.

The Hon. STUART WORTLEY objected to the indictment,
;Wing, that, from the facts proved by his learned friend, the

case was not one of larceny ; it was only one of false pre-
tence, as the postmaster-general, by the hands of his ser-
vants, intended to part with the letters, and when he had
done so they ceased to be his property, which they only were
by act of parliament while he held them.
His LORDSHIP ruled, that the party delivering the letter
had no intention of giving it to the wrong person, and the
prisoner having, in receiving it, gone further than the inten-
tion of the deliverer, the case was therefore one of larceny.
The Hon. STUART WORTLEY addressed the jury in behalf
of the prisoner, at considerable length and with much elo-
quence._ _

The learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury found the
prisoner Guilty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then brought forward another
indictment of a similar nature, the abstraction of a letter
from the Postoffice of Manchester, containing bills, &c.
A clerk to Messrs. Caffrey and Co., of Dublin, said, that'
on the 16th December last, he copied a letter to Messrs.
Bannerman and Sons, of Manchester, and enclosed in it two
bills, one for £69 155., and another for £23 1 ls. (The letter-
book, containing the copy of the letter and of the bills, &c.,
was put in, and the bills were read.) The bill for £69 15s.
was payable at the London and Westminster Bank. Ano-
ther clerk said, that he posted the letter on the 16th De-
cember.

Mr. Thompson, of the Dublin Post-office, made up the
mail bag at ten minutes before eleven o'clock on the same
night.

It was shown that the letter would reach Manchester at
three o'clock on the following afternoon.
W. H. Nichols, a clerk in the London and Westminster

Bank, proved the receipt of a- containing
the larger bill, and requesting an order for payment in Man-

chester

Mr. Lowe, hosier, of Manchester, who appeared in the
last case, said, that the letter was in the hand-writing of the
prisoner. The letter was read. It was signed Wm. Wil-
kinson, and requuested the reply to be sent to the post-office,
at Knott-mill, to be left till called for.
Henry Hardman, a clerk in Heywood's Bank, Manches-
ter, said, that on the 19th the prisoner came to the bank,
and asked if there was a sum of £69 15s. there, payable to
Wm. Wilkinson, from Masterman and Co., of London. He
was told there was, and was asked if his name was Wilkin-
son. He said, no ; and witness drew out a check and gave it
him to get Wilkinson's signature. He afterwards came back
with the check signed, and received the money from another
clerk, in sovereigns, half-sovereigns, and silver.
A. clerk in the bank of Messrs. Clarke, Robarts, and Co.,
of London, received, on the 29th December, a letter, signed
Wm. Wilkinson, containing the other bill for £23 lls., re-
questing an order for payment on the Liverpool and Man-
chester District Bank, to be addressed to him a:: Knott-mill,
Manchester, to be left till called for. From intimation re-
ceived, the money was not sent.
M. H. Bannerman, partner of Bannerman and Co., said,
he did not receive either of the bills. No one was authorised
to endorse them to \Vm. Wilson.
The daughter of the postmaster, of Knott-mill said, the
prisoner came for a letter directed to Mr. William Wilkinson.
She gave it to him, He came again on Tuesday, the 29th,
similarly addressed, and it was handed to him.
Mr, Lowe said, the endorsements of both bills were in the
prisoner's handwriting. The two letters were read.
Police Inspector Bibby, of Manchester, was employed to
go the Postoffiee. at Knott-mill, on the 99th December. He

Saw the prisuue► wag, out, and tollowLd hiu. He gave his
name as John Bourne. He found the letter addressed to
Wilkinson, in his pocket. The letter was a made-up one
for the purpose of detecting. -
Mr. Lowe saw the prisoner afterwards at Bridewell. He
said it was a bad job. He said his father would pay counsel
for him ; and, if he did not, there was some money concealed
in a bag in an empty house in Holme, which should be used
for that purpose. Witness was present when the bag was
found with forty-six sovereigns in it. The bags belonged to
witness.

Mr. Sorley, Superintendent of Police, in Manchester,
went with the last witness to the premises pointed out in
Cambar-street, and found the bag under the cellar steps
amongst some rubbish.

The Hon. S. WORTLEY addressed the Jury for the pri-
soner. There was no proof that the prisoner was the actual
person who obtained the letter ; but he might have been the
tool of another individual. He could not deny that the pri-
soner had had possession of the bills, and had endeavoured
to negociate them. The evidence would be pointed out by
his lordship, and he would leave the case in their hands.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury returned a verdict
of Guilty.

The learned JUDGE said the prisoner had been found guilty,
on two indictments, on stealing certain letters from the post-
office, containing bills and money. It was a most serious
offimce, inasmuch as large sums of money were constantly
transmitted by post from place to place. It did not, how-
ever, appear that the prisoner had shown much skill in the
several transactions, although he had certainly used no little
art in obtaining the letters and disposing of their contents.
His master had, however, given him a good character, and
the case was one in which he would be authorised in not
transporting him from this country. If he ever came there
again, he might feel assured that be should -be transported
for life. He hoped that the imprisonment to which he should
send him would lead to a reformation ; that he would attend
to the advice of his parents, who were respectable people, and
would endeavour o get him into an honest way of living.
The sentence of the court was, that he should be imprisoned
and kept to bard labour for one year, except the last fort-
night, when he should be put into solitary confinement.

DETAINING POST LETTERS.
Joseph Holloway, 25, was charged with having, at Liver-
pool, in February last (he being a person employed by and
under the post-office), contrary to his duty, unlawfully and
wilfully detained and delayed twelve post letters. The pri-
soner pleaded guilty.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that in the months of Ja-
nuary, February, and the beginning of March, the prisoner
had detained above 700 letters. Since the reduction of the
postage rate, there was not a sufficient check upon the letter-
carriers.

His LORDSHIP, addressing the prisoner, said,—You have
been fouud guilty, on two indictments, of detaining letters
intrusted to you for delivery by the post.office. It appeared
that you detained several hundreds of letters within a short
period. You did not, indeed, open them, and I hope you
had no such intention. The transaction, however, was a
mischievous and ruinous one in its consequences.—[The pri-
soner here said that he had repeatedly mentioned to Mr.
Banning, and to another gentleman belonging to the post-
office, that the round assigned to him was more than he could
get through.]—His Lordship continued :—Still the offence
is serious. Many persons rely, in their business, on receiv-
ing remittances or valuable information by letter. To pre-
vent a recurrence of such conduct, the sentence of the court
was, that he should be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
for four calendar months.

BIGAMY.
Betty Booth, the wife of George Booth, of Stockport,
stood indicted for having married one John Robinson, at
Ashton-under-Lyne, her former husband being still alive.
Mr. Murphy appeared for the prosecutor, Mr. Wilkins for
the defendant.
William Jackson, a labourer, of Stockport, was acquainted
with the prisoner, whose name should he Booth. He knew
George Booth, and saw him and the prisoner at Northern
church about eight years ago. He saw them married. He
had seen Booth a few weeks ago. Her name was " Chea-
tham"—Chiatharn.
A witness saw the prisoner married to John Robinson, at
Ashton - under- Lyne.
Mr. Sadler, of the Stockport police, examined the certifi-
cate produced at Stockport, and it was a true copy of the
registry of the first marriage. (The certificates of both mar-
riages were read.)
William Hough, of the Stockport police, apprehended the
paisoner in Stockport, and told her that there was a warrant
against her for marrying Robinson. She said, that she had
married again in order to be protected from the assaults and
ill-usage of her first husband. •
Mr. WILKINS said, that he should not attempt to deny
that the second marriage had taken place ; but there were
circumstances which, he trusted, would go far in extenuation,
and induce the Jury to recommend the prisoner to the mer-
ciful consideration of the Court. He called a female, who
proved that the first husband of the prisoner, who was a
drunken, worthless fellow, had used her with great barbarity;
that she supported her• old father• until his death by her own
industry ; that her husband constantly assaulted her, and, on
two several occasions, sold all the little furniture she had got
by her own labour, and turned her, friendless and pennyless,
into the street ; and that, on the last occasion, she was far
advanced in pregnancy. Her first husband, it appeared, had
threatened her life ; the police had been sent for, and he had
twice been in gaol for ill-treating her.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, but strongly re-
commended the prisoner to mercy.
His LORDSHIP said, the prisoner had, undoubtedly, been
guilty of a breach of the law, and that, too, with her eyes
open. There were, however, extenuating circumstances in
the case, and he concurred in the recommendation of the
jury. The sentence of the court was, that she should be im-
prisoned for one month.

CUTTING AND STASHING.
James Hand, 22, and James Kerr, 27, were charged with
having, at Castleton, stabbed and cut John Bradley. The
case presented no 'particular feature of interest. The pri-
soners were drinking at the house of the prosecutor, on tho
24th of October. A. quarrel arose and a scuffle ensued, du-
ring which, the prisoner Kerr drew a small sword from a
stick and slightly wounded the prosecutor with it in the
cheek. A man, named Healey, was afterwards slightly stab-
bed by Kerr. The jury fonnd both the prisoners Guilty of
a common assault.
Kerr was then put up for stabbing Healey. In this care
the jury also brought in a 'verdict of Guilty of a common
assault. •
His LORDSHIP, after a suitable and impressive address on
the folly and danger of carrying such weapons, sentenced
Hand to two calendar months' imprisonment, and Kerr, who
used the dagger, to four months' imprisonment.

CUTTING, STABBING, &C.
John Rozelle, aged 40, stood indicted for feloniously stab-
bing and cutting one James Lowe, at Todmorden and Wals-
den ; he was also charged with stealing a silk gown, the pro-
perty of William Bock.
Mr. Brandt was for the prosecutor. The prisoner was
undefended.
It appeared that on the 12th January, the prisoner and
the prosecutor met together in a public-house. After a
scuffle, the prisoner stabbed the prosecutor with a knife in
the region of the left hip. He afterwards cut him in the arm,
and cut his clothes in several places by repeated stabs. He
became exhausted, and his trowsers were ripped open, and a
woman came and held the wound together. The prisoner
then said, " Now, what can you do ? You see you have had
the wrong man to deal with." There were six cuts in all on
his clothes.
The prisoner smartly cross-questioned the witness, with a
view to show that the prosecutor was a regular subscriber to
the Book of the Moral World ; that he was an avowed
Atheist, and did not believe in the sanctity of an oath. He
stated, that he (the prosecutor) had often declared his
belief, that Robert Owen, the socialist, was a better man
than Mahommed, or Moses, or Jesus Christ, or any man
who had ever appeared on the earth ; and that he held the
Bible altogether fabulous. The prosecutor admitted that he
was a subscriber to the work named, as he considered he
had a right to be in a free country such as this. In reply to
his Lordship's question whether he. believed in a state of
future rewards and punishments, he said, that he considered
himself bound. on taking an oath, to speak the truth. The
The prisoner ssid he conceived it to be of no use to put any
further question to the witness, who had come there with a
determination to do him an injury.
A witness who saw the affray did not see the prisoner stab.
The prisoner was afterwards struck and kicked by the com-
pany as a sort of summary revenge for stabbing his shop-
mate. Another admitted that the place was much crowded,
and it was possible that some one else and not the priioner
Ind stabbed the prosecutor.
The knife, a pointed pocket-knife was produced. When
the constable apprehended the prisoner, he said be would
give himself up, and held out his hands to be handcuffed. The
prisoner was rather bloody at the time, and appeared to
have been struck.
The prisoner said, there was not proof that he had used the
knife, and as he was all over blood at the time, it was not un-
likely that the knife would bear marks of it. He was much
abused, and had two ribs broken. He added, .that he had
never been known, by the police or others, to have commit-
ted the slightest breach of the peace.
The JUDGE summed up with great care, and
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of stabbing, with in-
tent to commit some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. MURPHY stated that there was another indictment
against the prisoner for stealing a silk gown.
His LORDSHIP expressed his wish to proceed with it.
Mr. MURPHY said, he feared all the witnesses were not
then present, and it was not usual to sit very late on Satur-
day night. If the Court now rose, the jurymen would be en;
abled to go, so as to be at home on Sunday.
The prisoner was then put down, and the Court rose at five
minutes past six.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY

PARKER V. BODY

In this case, which stands No.42—in the second or West
Derby List, Mr. CRESSWELL on the part of the defendant,
said, it was an action for demurrage, and part of the question
in dispute would turn upon the detention of the ship at
Odessa. The vessel arrived in England so long as twelve
months ago, yet the present action was not commenced till
the 4th of March instant, the very last day on which the
issue could be made up for trial at the present assizes. The
application he had to make was not made for the purpose of
delay, but because the defendant believed that he had a good
defence to the action, but it was necessary, for that purpose,
that he should examine witnesses at Odessa, who must either
come to England or be examined by a commission. The de-
fendant, therefore, prayed for the trial to be postponed the
requisite time._

kule nisi granted: cause to be shewn on Monday.
MIDDLETON AND OTHERS V. SHERBURNE.-THE GREAT