The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

N

with him then. I believe I mentioned to him that the check
brought by Edwards purported to be of the value of £5.
Mr. Oxley, on my mentioning the subject of the check,
seemed rather fluttered, and said " say nothing about it,
here is the money for the groceries," and he threw down the
sovereign and I gave him the change. I know the firm of J.
A. Kaye and Co., and know them to be highly respectable.
If I had seen their names upon the check produced by Ed-
wards to me, I should have cashed it at the time, as I had
plenty of money in the house to have done so. I merely
said that I had not because I would not cash a check for Oxley

without making enquiry.
Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I informed the
secretary of the Guardian Society on the Tuesday following
the tendering of the check verbally and the report complained
of was published a week or two afterwards. I will swear it
was more than a week after I informed the secretary, that the
report was published. lam not threatened with an action
for libel by the plaintiff. I know that Messrs. Reay and
Evanswereapplied to give up to the author of the report, but
I do not know that that was for the purpose of bringing an
action
_against the author. I examined the check by gas
light.
By Mr. JELvzs.—The circular containing the report was
dated the 30th of January.
Mr. George Ilardisty called and examined by Mr. TOWN-
sEND.—I lately carried on the business of a wine and spirit
merchant in Liverpool. .11ISL7itness Edwards was in my
service in 1833. I have hear im asked about the matter
of the bill.
Mr. TOWNSHEND was then about to ask the witness as to
the nature of the transaction of the bill before alluded to,
when

The JUDGE said,-1 do not think you can ask that ques-
tion about the bill. You can ask him whether he would
believe the witness on his oath.

Mr. TOWNSHEND.—You have said that you have known
the witness from being in your service. Would you believe
anything that he said?
Mr. Hardisty.—l say, from my own knowledge of his
character, that I would not believe him ou his oath, unless
he were corroborated.

Cross-examined by Mr. WELSBY.—It is about seven years
since Edwards was in my employ. I heard him examined
at the Sessions-house, in Liverpool, against a female, who
was acquitted. I can almost give you the words of Mr.
Clarke, the recorder, on the occasion.
Mr. WELSBY.—WeII, what were they ?
Mr. Hardisty.—Mr. Clarke, the recorder, looked at the
jury, and said, " Gentlemen, you may see as clear as I do
into this case." The jury then turned round, and immedi-
ately acquitted the prisoner.
Mr. CorrlNGllAat.—A very excellent summing up, I
think. (Laughter.)
Mr. Weaver, a boot and shoemaker, in Hill-street, Tox-
teth-park, was then called.
Mr. TOWNSHEND.—Do you know the plaintiff in this
action? •

Witness.—l do.
Mr. TowNSUEND.—What is his character? Is it good
or bad?

Mr. COTTINGHAM said that he objected to that question
being put. The plaintiff had been libelled, and had denied
that he had been guilty of that laid to his charge, and, that
as he could not put in evidence of his good character, it was
rot legal that general evidence of bad character should be
received.

Mr. JERVIS contended that the evidence could legally be
received, and quoted several cases from Roscoe's Reports,
among which were those of " Moore v. Oastler," tried at
York, " Hardy v. Alexander," tried at Liverpool, and the
more recent case of Holden v. Richards, against the Guar-

dian Society, in all of which general evidence against the
plaintiff's character was admitted. An argument on this
point ensued between the plaintiff's and.defendant's counsel.
The JU.OGE, after referring to the cases quoted, said he
would admit the evidence, although he did not like the prin-
ciple of it.
Mr. COTTINGRAM hoped the Judge would take a note of
the objection. _ _ _

HiSIORDSHIP said he would do so.
The Witness then stated that he knew the plaintiff, and
from his own knowledge, and from reports, he could say that
his character was not good.
Mr. JERVIS said that Mr. Cottingham could enter into
particulars with the witness if he thought proper.
Mr. COTTINGHAM declined to do so.
Mr. John M`Quibtian, a landing-waiter, of Liverpool, was
then called by
Mr. TowNsnEND.-1 know the plaintiff, and have done for
two or three years, and 1 can swear that he has a bad cha-
racter.

Cross-examined by Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I employed the
plaintiff as an attorney, and he sent in a bill of sale of my
goods.

Mr. JERVIS.—What do you mean by a bill of sale of your
goods.
Witness.—l employed him to settle with a person to whom
I owed money, and he received the money from me, and
did not band it over to the creditor, and I am now paying it
over again.

MR. John Askew, the harbour master of Liverpool, was
called, and said, that he had sold Oxley some goods, and had
never received payment for them. He had only one trans-
action with him. On cross-examination, the witness said,
that he had no great opinion of the plaintiff, nor of attorneys
in general, for he had sold property to one of that pro-
fession to the amount of £23,000, and had not got paid for it.
Mr. J. Williams examined.—l am a charcoal-burner in
Liverpool. I have known the plaintiff and his family for
many years. He had been a soldier, and I know that his
character and reputation is bad. When he first came to
Liverpool, I recommended him to some friends to get in
money for them, and he received the money but never
handed it over to his employers. The parties to whom I re-
commended him, said I ought to make up his deficiencies;
they claimed from me inconsequence of my recommendation.
I do not hesitate to say, that I would not believe him upon
his oath.
Cross-examined by Mr. CorrlNGHAsz.—l have been a
bankrupt and an insolvent, but my misfortunes were brought
on by the attorneys. The plaintiff never supported my fa-
mily at Rotherham. He used to come to a fruit shop kept
by me in that town, with his comrades, to purchase goods ;
but that is all he ever did for me. I never heard of any kind-
nesses done by the plaintiff to my family. I was connected
with some glum works at Rotherham, and left of my own
accord, and was not discharged for concealing myself on the
premises, to obtain possession of a secret.
By Mr. JERVIS.—I am an operative chemist. The plain-
tiff came to me, and said that he had been abroad among the
bush rangers, and after some conversation, I said that I
could get him plenty of business if he would be honest. He
never gave up the money I recommended him to collect.
By Mr. CorriNoliAm.--I never knew the plaintiff was
an ensign in a regiment. I understood he was a private
soldier.
Mr. Ackroyd, a tailor and draper, of Liverpool, was then
examined.—l saw the prisoner on the 20th of September
last, and he swindled me out of a suit of clothes.
Mr. CorrINGHAm.—I suppose you made a suit of clothes
for him and he did not pay you. That is it, is it not?
Witness.—He got them by false pretences. He said be
would try them on to see if they would fit, and then he would
pay me ; but when he had got them on, he would not part
with them again, and said that there was no law in England
which could take them from him. I never give credit, and
the plaintiff could read on a large board in my shop, as if it
was over this court, "No credit given." I did not proceed
against the plaintiff, because I thought he was nothing bet-
ter than a common swindler, and that I should get nothing
by it.
By Mr. JERVIS.—The plaintiff first sent his servant for
the clothes but I would not part with them without the
money, and he then came himself and said that he wanted no
credit, but to try the clothes on at home, as he did not like
to try them on in the shop. sent them to his house, and
he promised to send the money back, but I was miserably
disappointed. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Blacker.—An auctioneer in Liverpool, on his ex-
amination by Mr. TOWNSHEND.—Said that he had had
dealings with the plaintiff, who was formerly a friend of his,
hut he was truly sorry to say that his character was very
bad. He had reason to say so from having employed him,
and also from his general reputation.
By Mr. COTTINGHAM.—I sold the plaintiff's household
furniture when he was in difficulties, and I have accounted to
him for every farthing of the proceeds of the sale. I am
not a member of the Guardian Society.
Mr. JERVIS said that he could call a number more wit-
nesses to give similar evidence, with regard to the plaintiff's
character, but he thought he had shewn sufficient, and here
concluded the defendant's case.
Mr. COTTINGHAM then addressed the jury in reply, stat-
ing that the evidence against the plaintiff's character had
nothing to do with the question for the jury, which was whe-
ther or not the publication in the Guardian Society's circular
was a libel on the plaintiff's character or not. He believed
that attorneys generally were not popular with the public,
which might account for the evidence given. However
respectable an attorney conducted his business, people could
be found to say something against him.
The Learned JUDGE then summed up the evidence, leaving
it to the jury to say what the amo;nt of damages should be.
With respect to the publication, e had no doubt of its being
libellous.
The Jury with but little hesitation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.
Mr. JERVIS.—I hope your lordship will certify in this

case ?

-- -
The JUDGE.—I will take time to consider of it.

FELTED CLOTH.—In reference to the recent patent for
manufacturing felted cloth, a correspondent has directed our
attention to the following passage in Dr. Rees' Cyclopiedia,
at the conclusion of an article on the " woollen manufacture,"
in vol. 38 :—" Among the attempts to improve the woollen
manufactures we must not omit to notice the invention of
Mr. Joseph Booth, for fabricating woollen cloth without
spinning or weaving. This was effected by felting wool into
a web by the aid of machinery, which operated mechanically
upon a tissue of carded wool, to entangle and interlace the
fabrics together. The inventor took a patent for this in 1793
or 1794, but before the time for the enrolment of the specifi-
cation of his process, he obtained an act of parliament, the
preamble of which states, that on account of the great
importance of the art, and the danger of its being carried
abroad to the injury of the staple manufacture of the king-
dom, parliament had deternined to keep the specification
sealed
; hence we are not able to give the details of this ma-
chinery. We find these expectations have not been realised ;
for, although the process has been repeatedly tried on a large
scale and in the most complete manner, it has been aban-
doned. Three large mills were established at Taunton and
near Salisbury, by experienced woollen-manufacturers of the
west of England ; another mill was converted to the purpose
at Lewisham, in Kent ; and the last mill was erected at
Merton, in Surrey, the property of James Perry, Esq. We
learn from this gentleman, that he was able to manufacture
cloth of a fine surface, and of a very even and regular sub-
stance, but it was rather deficient in strength, for want of
the threads which form the substance of common cloth ;
and in respect to wear it was less durable than common
cloth, as it did not withstand brushing; otherwise the ex-
pense of the process, which was not one-fourth of the com-
mon process, would have brought it into general wear."
BENEVOLENCE OF HER MAJESTY AND PRINCE ALBERT.
—Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify her
erys suddenly
lateehnnl
yesssoo f
Prince in-
tention
to provide for the widow and children of Lieutenant
Saunders,
nrilinatc..tMeer.hsetearn-yacht Firebrand, who died
v
Alberth to adththeis honourcountry. to bringn eaoryleyrlliife
is
Royal
Mr. Saunders, who was then a pilot, had the good fortune to
prevent her Majesty from being injured,
perhaps killed, by
warding off from her the spar or gaff-boom of a sailing-yacht,
near which she was sitting with her illustrious • mother, u
en-
joying an aquatic excursion. For this act heoS
was promoted
to the quarter-deck, and ultimately to the valuable and lu-
crative command of a government steam-yacht. On hearing
of poor Saunders's death, her Majesty is said to have bee?'
much affected, and lost no time in communicating her gra-
cious intention to his disconsolate widow. The other inci-
dent is as follows :—When his Serene Highness the Reign-
ing Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha left this country, on his
return home, in the Firebrand, Mr. Hicks, the master of the
royal yacht William and Mary, having been temporarily
placed in command, his serene highness made several kind
inquiries after Lieutenant Shambler, the officer who had on
a former occasion brought him over, and learning that he
had accepted the command of a West Indian packet, and
fallen a victim to the climate, his serene highness, in the kind-
est manner, warmly expressed his sympathy for the orphans
and widow, who were left totally destitute, and immediately
wrote a letter, which he requested Mr. Hicks to take charge
F. Seymour, one of
Prince Albert, which
othir'e aenqdu eprerri sensnatollyhdiselnivoeyratlo
Highness
sant
received a royal
__
humane mission the gallant officer faithfully performed, and
the result is, that Mrs. Shambler has
inti-
mation that the long services of her husband will be rewarded
by a pension to the widow.—Moriting Herald.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.

.^-FRID AY.

RAPE.
George M' Kinnon was charged with having, in this town,
in February last, feloniously ravished. Mary Bone, junior.
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Perry conducted the, prosecution,
and Mr. Wilkins the defence.

Mr. WILKINS desired that all the witnesses should be
sent out of court.

Mr. ARMSTRONG stated the case. The learned counsel
.detailed the circumstances minutely, but with great firmness
and consideration towards the prisoner, intimating the points
of evidence which he had to bring forward, and cautioning
the jury to give the case their most serious attention, and to
give the prisoner the benefit of any doubts which they might
reasonably entertain.

Mary Bone, a well-favoured young girl, stated that she
was turned 13 years of age. (The witness looked rather older
than the age she mentioned.) Having mentioned the cir-

curnstance attending her engagement by the prisnoer, to take
care of his house, he living apart from his wife, who it ap-
peared was a drunken female, she proceeded to state that he
occupied a house in Great Howard-street, jointly with a per-
son named Memmon. She was to have eighteen pence per
week. He had a parlour and a garret, and he and the chil-
dren slept in the latter. In the garret there was a bed and a
mattress. It was from the commencement arranged that
when the prisoner, who was a custom-house officer, did not
sleep at home, witness was to sleep with the children, and
when he slept at his own house she was to go home. On the
Saturday night following her engagement, a woman named
Edwards was at the house, and Mr. and Mrs. Memmon were

out. Mrs. Edwards went away after tea. The prisoner told
her he should sleep at home that night till twelve o'clock, and
that -she was to take the matress down to the parlour as he
would sleep there till he went out. He sent her out for some
milk. When she returned he had some tea made. He took

two cups of it. While she was at the cupboard he poured
out a cup of tea and put some milk into it. He presented a
full cup to her, and told her to drink it up. She drank about
half of it, and could not drink any more, it tasted so bad—
just like poison. It looked very black. He said, " drink it
up, it is just the same as mine." She tried to take some
more, but she did not like it, and spirted the last mouthful
into a bucket. She had had tea, before, that afternoon. He

told her about half an hour after to go to hed.

She had

washed her night cap, and told him that she wished to dry it.
He said, " Oh, never mind it—l will bring it up." She went
to bed, and according to his directions, called to him to bring
up the nightcap. He did so. He then said, " I think I will
bring up my mattress, and lay it beside the bed and sleep
there." She replied, " No, Mr. M Kinnon, I shall not like
that." He told her to hold her head, and he would put on
the night-cap. He did put it on. He afterwards brought up
the mattress and quilt which she had previously taken down.
He said, " I shall be a good bit before I come to bed." She
fell asleep. Witness next described in what manner she was
awakened, and weeping, and with some little hesitation, she
told how the crime was perpetrated. He said, `' Dod't'cry,
and I will buy you a new frock on Monday." She told, him
that she did not care for him or his new frock. She told him
she would go home and tell her mother. He begged of her
not to go, but she persisted. He went down stairs, and she
got up. She called to him to ask where the candle was. He
took it up stairs lighted, took his matress and quilt, and went
down again. She could not find her bed-gown, and when
she was dressed all but that article, she went down for it.
She asked him for the candle. He told her she should have
it to find her bedgown, but she should not go home. She
asked him for her bonnet. She had left it behind the door,
but it was not there. He said he did not know where it was.

She pressed him to tell her where it was. He said, " Look
under the table." He then told her that she should not go
home. She persisted, however. He asked her if she knew
. _

what o'clock it was—it was just striking twelve. He begged
of her not to tell her mother what had happened. She said
she would. lie said, " Tell your mother that I was going to
sleep at home, and that you could not sleep here." She went
away to her mother. The latter was living servant with Mrs.
Bates, who resides in Vauxhall-road. Mrs. Bates went with
her into the parlour, and she told her all that had occurred..
Mr. WILKINs cross-examined the witness at some length.
He pressed her to say what sort of house Mrs. Bates kept,
and whether young women did not lodge there. He asked
her if she did not know a gentleman named Palmer, which
she confessed she did, and then he put it to her, she having
acknowledged that she knew Mr. Palmer, if her mother had
not kept a brothel ?
The witness wept bitterly when this question was put to
her, and earnestly. replied in the negative.
The prisoner during the cross-examination was quite cool,
and employed himself in writing, apparently taking notes of
the evidence.
_

....., ........,...._
Mary Bone, sen., stated that the last witness was her daugh-
ter ; she was thirteen years of age last December. Her hus-
band was captain of a ship which sailed from this port. He
has been away eleven years. He went away before his last
child was born. The ship returned, but her husband had left
....

it in Quebec. She had never heard of him since. She after-
wards gained her livelihood by taking in lodgers. She went
to live with Mr. Bates, who is an engineer, eight months ago.
Her daughter lived there with her as nurse. She wanted a
place for her. Her daughter went to live with the prisoner
on the 26th February. She told her daughter to come home
whenever Mr. .M`Kinnon slept at home. On the Saturday
night following, about half-past eleven o'clock, she. heard a
knock at the door. She found her daughter crying bitterly-.
She said, " Oh, mother, mother ! that man, that man! '
Witness said, " What is the matter? has he been striking
you?" She replied, "He has done worse, mother." Mrs.
Bates came and led her into the kitchen. Mr. Bates went
up stairs to bed, and the daughter told Mrs. Bates every
thing. WitnesS examined her, and here described her con-
dition. The evidence was confirmatory of the statements of
the girl herself. A surgeon.was sent for, and the particulars
were laid before the police next morning.
Mrs. Bates was called.—(Mr. WILKINs explained that the
insinuations which he had made against Mrs. Bates arose out
of a mistake in his instructions. He did not mean to insi-
nuate any thing against Mrs. Bates.)—Mrs. Bates stated that
the conduct of the girl, Mary Bone, was exceedingly good
and proper during the time she lived with her.
Mr. Craig, surgeon, stated the appearances presented on
the examination of the girl. They were corroborative of her
testimony, to the extent of showing that her person had been
recently violated.
John Cameron, another surgeon, gave similar testimony.
Mary Edwards, a char-woman, confirmed the first part of
the testimony of the principal witness, with the exception
that she stated that she did not see any tea.
Mr. W LKINS addressed the jury at considerable length
for the defence.
His LORDSHIP impressed upon the jury the trite observa-
tion, that this crime was one of.the easiest to make, and one
of the most difficult to rebut. His Lordship commented upon
the evidence with great care, weighing it in its bearings for
and against the prisoner with extreme caution.
The jury retired at half-past one o'clock. They returned,
after an absence of two hours and a half, and acquitted the
prisoner.
CHARGE OF WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO MURDER.

Robert Jenkins, aged 18, was charged with havinr, in
August last wounded William. Mackenzie, with intent to
murder him. Several counts in the indictment charged the
crime as having been committed with various other intents.
Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Preston for the prosecution ; the
prisoner was undefended.
It appeared, that on the 20th of August the prisoner was
passing along a part of Toxteth-park, near Liverpool, with a
dog. A mars named Hessani Small, who was with Macken-
zie, claimed the dog. The prisoner attempted to strike this
person. Mackenzie took hold of the dog, and the prisoner
told him that he would stab him if he did not loose the dog.
He took out a knife. Witness held the dog, and the prisoner
stabbed him in his left breast. He was taken to a surgeon,
and continued ill about 16 weeks.
The statements of Mackenzie were confirmed by other
witnesses. The surgeon who attended him described the
wound as a severe one. If the knife had taken a lateral in-
stead of a central direction, immediate death would have
ensued. The wound was a very dangerous one, and the sur-
geon was apprehensive during several days that he would not
survive.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with in-
tent to do some grievous bodily harm.
He was sentenced to transportation for life.
Emanuel Routcliff; aged 43, was charged with having ma-
liciously wounded Terence Ward.
Mr. Perry appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Murphy for
the defence.
Terence Ward is a car driver in this town. On Thursday
night, the 27th February last, he was standing with his car
in Williamson-square, when the prisoner came out of James
Ward's public-house and indecently exposed himself in the
footwalk. There were females near, and witness called him
a dirty fellow, and told him to be off—and that he ought to
be ashamed of himself. The prisoner resented this and put
himself in a fighting attitude. Witness sparred back and
struck the prisoner the first blow, upon which he retired
back into Ward's public-house. In a few minutes he re-
turned—asked witness if he were the man who called him a
dirty fellow. He replied in the affirmative. They had
another sparring bout, and the prisoner threw Ward down
and stabbed him in the neck and arm. Several persons,
among whom was the policeman on duty, who saw the trans-
action, confirmed the above statement.
Mr. Chambers, a surgeon, who attended Ward, stated that
he had received three wounds on his neck, one of which went
very near to the carotid artery.
Mr. MURPHY set up in defence, that in consequence of an
injury formerly received in his head, the prisoner ou the oc-
casion of any excitement, had not the perfect command of
his reason.
It was stated, by witnesses for the defence, that five years
ago, when the prisoner was at work upon the steamer Liver,
pool, his skull was ,fractured by a beam falling upon it, and
that he had been easily excited by a slight provocation ever
since.
The jury retired. They returned in about twenty minuers,
and delivered a verdict of wounding with intent to do grievous
bodily harm. They recommended the prisoner to mercy.
The prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Joseph Brown, aged 35, was charged with having unlaw-
fully killed and lain Henry Sephton, at Liverpool.
Mr. Pugh conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Murphy
defended.
On the 26th of February last, the prisoner,. the deceased,
and several other persons were at a beer-shop, kept by Thos.
Massey, in Vauxhall-road. The prisoner and the deceased
were both in drink, and they had a quarrel. The prisoner
knocked the deceased down. The deceased, it appeared, was
very quarelsome, and provoked the prisoner exceedingly.
Ti.ere was a broken tumbler on the floor, from which the
deceased, when he fell, received a wound. The deceased fell
of himself, without a blow, at the last round. He was taken
up, and died almost immediately. A post mortem examina-
tion was made by Mr. Black, surgeon. The deceased had
a wound in his chest, through which the finger could be in-
troduced to the cavity of the chest. Mr. Black, however,
could not say what was the cause of death. His lordship
said, as this was the evidence of the sur.,eon, there was an
end of the case. The jury acquitted the prisoner.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
Joseph Barber was charged with having feloniously killed
and slain Francis Hully, at Chorlton-upon-Medlock.
Mr. Peel Conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Brandt de-
fended.
The prisoner was employed by the authorities of Chorlton.
In Chatham-street, at that place, a sewer was being exca-
vated, and according to the contract the soil taken out of the
sewer was to be relaid upon the street. It was necessary,
therefore, that the soil should be kept at hand. By the pri-
soner's orders, it was removed and placed in Clarendon-street.
The deceased was passing in a cart, which came in contact
with the rubbish, was overset, and the deceased killed.
Before the case proceeded to the detail of evidence,
Mr. PEEL said there was room enough for two carts to
pass, and the prisoner had placed lights at first, but which
had been subsequently removed, but that they did not know
by whom.
Mr. PEEL said there was, in Manchester, a contest be-
tween the two coroners, and they had returned two very
different verdicts.
His LORDSHIP observed, that in such a case it would be
very hard to put a man upon his trial for manslaughter.
A verdict of Acquittal was consequently taken.
PERJURY.
William. Dunn, aged 22, was charged with having, at War-
rington, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. The prisoner
pleaded not guilty.
Dr. BnowN conducted the prosecution.
It appeared that on the evening of Wednesday, the 27th
of November last, the prisoner went to Mr. Jones, deputy
constable of Warrington, and stated that on the previous
evening when he was on his way from Staley Bridge to Man-
chester, he met four men whom he charged with having
robbed him. He induced Jones to go with him to the road,
where they met the men and
apprehended them. They were
Thomas Bryan, sen. and jun., and the two persons named

Hogan. These men were brought before the magistrate,
Mr. Stubbs, the following day. Mr. Jones proved the de-
position of the prisoner on oath, before the magistrate, by
whom, and by the prisoner it was signed. In the deposition
the prisoner charged the men above named with having vio-
lently essaulted him on the highway, and robbed him of three
pound five shillings. The younger Bryan, and the female
with whom they had lodged at the time when the robbery
was alleged to have been committted, proved that they were
at her house all that afternoon and all that night, and that
thew did not leave their home till the following morning.
A Mr. M'Cormick, a catholic priest of Manchester, prove:l
that the prisoner called on him a week before the time alleged
in the depositions, with his arm in a sling, and stated that
he had been robbed. He represented that he was in distress,
and Mr. M'Cormick relieved him.
Mr. Jones stated that the prisoner had not his arm in a
sling when he called upon him.
The prisoner protested frequently during his trial the
Bryans and the Hogans robbed him.

The jury ft,und the prisoner guilty.
The learned JUDGE remarked on the heniousness of the
offence., and passed the sentence of seven years transportation.

NISI PRIUS.-FRIDAY

The court was occupied above four hours in trying the case

SEDDON V. SA LKELD.

The question was merely one of the accuracy of accounts,
involving a dispute as to the sum of £lOO. Verdict for the
plaintiff for £5OO.

WINSTANLEYAND ANOTHER V. KURTZ,

This was an action for the recovery of £2O 9s. for work
done. After the statement for the plaintiffs had been made,
his lordship, finding that the case was one which would lead
to long and tedious investigation into accounts, proposed
that it should be referred to arbitration. This was at first
refused by the plaintiff', when his lordship said it would be a
question, then, whether he should not suffer a case of that
kind to stand over until those causes of more importance, in
which a number of parties were concerned and witnesses de-
tained, had been disposed of. That this was precisely such
a case as ought to be tried by an arbitrator, and why, there-
fore, should witnesses in other cases be detained while the
court was occupied by the examination of accounts ? The
parties ultimately consented to a verdict for the plaintiff,
subject to a reference. The three following cases, which
were of the same nature, were similarly disposed of. •

SMITH V. HEMINGWAY

This was an action to recover a balance of wages.
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. CROMPTON for the plaintiff
Mr. MARTIN and Mr. WATSON for the defendant.

It appeared that in the year 1838, Wm. Kavanagh, an ap-
prentice to the plaintiff, Mr. Thomas Smith, a master cooper
in this town, shipped on board the ship Ann, 'belonging to
Messrs. Hemmingway and Agett, as cooper. The vessel was
bound to the coast of Atrica. Kavanagh understood that he
was to have five guineas a month. He signed Articles in the
river, before sailing. After he had gone, thelilaintiff gave
notice to the defendant that he was not to pay, the wages, to
which Kavanagh would become entitled, to Kavanagh him-
self, but to him (the plaintiff,) as he had a legal claim to what-
ever might be earned by his apprentice. In consequence of
that notice, the defendant refused to give Kavanagh his
monthly note. The voyage was about ten months and a half,
and his wages would amount to fifty-two guineas and a half.
The defendant had paid into court forty-two pounds, and the
dispute was only as to the remaining thirteen pounds. Two
shipping notes given to Kavanagh, although not paid, indi-
cated the wages to be £5 ss. per month, and those were put
in and proved ; but the plaintiff grounded his claim on the
general merits of Kavanagh as a workman, and the current
rate of wages paid to able coopers. Kavanagh had been in
the service of Mr. Smith about five years, and was stated by
witnesses to be equal to a journeyman to his master. The
defence was that Kavanagh proved to be an incompetent
workman, and evidence to establish this was called. The
witnesses directly contradicted each other on several points,
and differed materially in their estimate of Kavanagh's ca-
pacity.
In the course of the trial, Mr. MARTIN took an objection
to the indenture of apprenticeship, on account of its not hav-
ing been stamped until more than six months after the date
borne by it.
The Judge admitted the document, giving Mr. Martin
liberty to move for a nonsuit.

CROWN COURT, SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Coleridge took his place shortly after nine
o'clock.

IiENTENCES

Samuel Lord and Thomas Butterworth, indicted for bur-
glary, and convicted of larceny, on Thursday last, and Mar-
garet Clayton and William Pollitt, convicted, on the same
day, of having feloniously received the goods stolen by the
above, were placed at the bar, and sentenced to seven years'
transportation.

John Smith, for stabbing William Derbyshire, with in-
tent to do him some grievous bodily harm, was sentenced to
fifteen years' transportation.

CHARGE OF MURDER.

Joseph Knight, aged 33, was charged with having, at Man-
chester, murdered a female child, not baptized. There were
several counts in the indictment, charging the prisoner with
having deprived the child of life in several ways, by suffocat-

ing, strangling, drowning, &c.
Br. Brown and Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution
Mr. Venables and Mr. Wilkins defended.

The prisoner presented himself at the bar with a firm and
almost bold demeanour. As the indictment was being read,
he exclaimed, boldly and abruptly, " I cant't hear ! I can't
hear!"

Mr. WILKINS.—Your counsel can hear : don't you inter
fere. _

The prisoner was furnished with paper and pencil. He put
on an aspect of very intense and inquiring scrutiny as the
counsel for the prosecution were addressing the jury ; and,
with many occasional odd gesticulations, took notes of what
was said.

Mr. BRANDT detailed the circumstances of the case, up to
a certain point, to the jury.
It appeared, the prisoner had formed an improper con-
nexion with the wife of his brother. The latter had been
absent abroad for some time. The result of the intercourse
was, that the prisoner's sister-in-law was pregnant by him.
They were both wishful, when the child was born, that it
should be removed, in order that the husband, when he re-
turned, should not see it, and the prisoner undertook to con-
vey it to a hired nurse. The mother believed that he had
placed it in safety. At length the neighbours began to won-
der what had become of the child, and the rumours that were
rife begot inquiry. The prisoner's statements were unsatis-
factory, and, at last, lie was taken into custody and exa-
mined before a magistrate. He'would not give any account
of where the child was, and, in consequence of this, he was
remanded several times. At length he stated that the child

had been very closely wrapped up to keep it from the cold,
and that, as he was going to the nurse, he stumbled over
some stones and fell to the ground. When he got up, he
uncovered the infant to see if it were hurt, and found it
dead. Upon this he took it and threw it into the river. The
river was searched, but no child was found.
Mr. BRANDT said; there was this difficulty in the case
which he did not know how to get over : the law required
either that the body of a person slain, where an indictment
for murder was preferred, should be forthcoming, or that
evidence of the death should be produced. In this case, as
the body had not been found, the only evidence of death was

the prisoner's own statement. There the difficulty was : if
they took a part of the prisoner's statement as evidence, they
ought, in justice, to take the whole, and believe all his story.
His LORDSHIP said he had noticed the difficulty, but he
waited to see how th,e indictment would be framed. With
such evidence, it would be impossible to find the prisoner
guilty.
A verdict of acquittal was taken.
Mr. WILKINS said, Mr. Amos has just informed him that
it is the general opinion of all the visitors of the prison that
Knight was insane.
The JUDGE.—I wish he may be.
MURDER..

George Murray, aged 25, and John Costello, 27, were
charged with having murdered Patrick Stakam, at Parr, near
St. Helens. The indictment charged Murray as the principal,
and Costello with having aided and abetted him.
Dr. Brown and Mr. Ilulton conducted the prosecution.
Mr. Wilkins defended Murray, and Mr. Murphy, Costello.
In the opening statement of counsel, it was set forth, that

the quarrel which had led to the melancholy event which it
was the duty of the jury to investigate arose out of some dis-
putes between the natives of two Irish provinces, of which
they had heard so much during the present assizes.
Peter Maguire, a native of the county of Wicklow, in the
province of Leinster, stated, that he knew the deceased, Pa-
trick Stakam, who lodged at a beer-house, kept by Larry
Hall, at Smithy-brow, St. Helens. In the course of the
afternoon of Sunday, the 24th of November last, he and
Stakam had some ale together. They went to Larry Hall's
about half-past nine o'clock. The sat some time, but there
was no quarrel in the house. Stakam went out, and Maguire
followed him shortly afterwards, when he found him lying on
the ground with his head up against the door. Maguire
himself received a violent blow, but he could not say who
from. Stakam was taken up and carried into the house.
His head was cut and bleeding. He died on the following
Friday.
Mary Club, wife of Thomas Club, who resided next door
to Larry Hall, stated, that, on the night of the 24th Novem-
ber, she heard a quarrel opposite to the house. She was in
bed, and being alarmed at the noise, she opened the window
and looked forth. She saw four men fighting. The psi-
soner, George Murray, was one of them, but she did not
know the other three. Stakam came out at the door of
Larry Hall's, she saw Murray go up to him and knock him
down with some weapon which he had in his hand. Maguire
came out and he was struck also by Murray.
Peter Smith, an Englishman, whose father keeps a beer-
shop in St. Helen's, stated, that he resided next door but
one to Larry Hall's. On the night of the 24th November,
he saw Murray and Costello in the road opposite to Larry
Hall's house. Murray had a small stick or poker in his hand,
with which he struck at Larry Hall's door, and immediately
went into the middle of the highway. There was a man
named Flynn there, and Murray struck him with the weapon
on the hat, saying, "You b-, why didn't you come out
and help me ?" He replied, " What could Ido !" Costello
went away for a few moments. Witness saw him coming
up the street afterwards, calling to Murray in Irish. He
followed Murray, and observed that Costello had a potatoe-
fork in his hand. When they got back to Larry Hall's,
Stakam came out, and they immediately changed weapons.
Stakam exclaimed, " Don't hit me !" Murray struck Sta-
kam on the head with the potatoe-fork, and repeated the
blow on his belly as he was falling, exclaiming, " I'm a Con-
nuaghtman, you b-! I'll knock your brains out." Ma-
guire came out, and he also immediately struck him, speaking
aloud in Irish.

Mr. MURPHY and Mr. WILKINS tried to get from the wit-
ness that his father's beer-house was frequented principally by
Leinster men, and that there was another beer-house in the
vicinity to which the Connaught men usually went. The
witness, however, said that they went to both indifferently.
Maguire was recalled, and he stated that Maguire was a
Leinster man.

William Storey, a police constable of St. Helens, found
two potato-forks at Costello's house. When he apprehended
Murray, he told him what he was charged with, and Murray
replied that it was a bad job, but he had got beaten himself,
but the blows which he gave happened to be a little harder
than those he received. When told that he had inflicted the
wound with a potatoe-fork, he said some person must have
put it into his hand.
Mr. Thomas Gaskill, surgeon of St. Helens, stated that he
was called in to the deceased. He found him lying insensi-
ble with a compound fracture of the skull, which extended
from the left ear to the crown of the head. He had no hopes
of his patient's recovery from the first. He died on the
Friday following. He examined the head of the deceased
after death, and found that the brain was lacerated to the
depth of two inches. One of the potato forks found at
Costello's house was produced, and the surgeon said that
the wound might have been inflicted by such a weapon as
that. _

Mr. Wft.xiss, on behalf of Costello, contended, that the
crime amounted to no more than manslaughter, as it was
evident that Murray had been grossly insulted and provoked
by those men seen by Mrs. Club, and whom she afterwards
mussed, they having run away. When told that he had in-
flicted the wound with a potato fork, the prisoner was un-
conscious of that fact, so blinded had he been by his fury.
It was evident, therefore, that he struck the deceased, con-
ceiving that he was one of the men who had just struck him
and excited his auger.
Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury on behalf of Costello.
He contended generally, that there was no proof of such
premeditation and malice in this case as was required by
law to constitute the crime of murder.
Two respectable witnesses deposed to the peaceable and
general good conduct of the prisoners.
The jury retired at twenty-five minutes to one o'clock.
They returned at twenty minutes to three, and found Mur-

ray Guilty of wilful murder, and Costello of aiding and

abetting.

His Lordship did not immediately pass sentence, as another
case was in progress. When the trial was concluded, the
JUDGE ordered the prisoner to be placed at the bar. Murray
is a tall, strongly-built man ; Costello is rather of low
stature, but broad-shouldered. They both advanced to the
bar without much appearance of trepidation, but when the
Judge put on the black cap, which he did the moment they
had come to a stand, a marked change was visible in both
their countenances and demeanour. Murray, who was in-
dicted as the principal, burst into tears, while Costello trem-
bled and turned pale, and his face was convulsed with pain-
ful emotion. As his Lordship proceeded with his address,

which at the first sentence indicated that he was about to
- -

doom the prisoners to the scaffold, Murray's suffering appeared
to increase considerably, till, at one point, he sunk, in a
state of momentary insensibility, into the arms of the offi-
cers. The Judge paused, and the unfortunate prisoner ral-
lied, and was more composed, or rather, he was in a state of
stupefaction during the remainder of the speech. Costello,
on the contrary, was comparatively firm during the delivery
of the first portion of the oration which preceded his doom,
but at length, he also seemed to sink beneath the agony of his
feelingS. He trembled violently, hid his face in his hands,
and sobbed convulsively. When the concluding awful words
uttered, he looked a living picture of despair. His limbs re-
fused to support him, and he was assisted, or more properly
carried from the bar. Murray walked away slowly between
two officers, and he appeared in a state of dream-like bewil-
derment, completely unconscibus of what was passing around
him.

His Lonnsmr, in passing sentence, addressing each of the
prisoners by name, said, they had now to receive the most
awful sentence which the law could pass, a jury of their coun-
try having, after long and patient deliberation, found them
guilty of the crime of wilful murder. It was a great satis-
faction to him, that both prisoners had been defended with
great zeal and ability, and that the counsel, in putting the
case to the jury, had taken care that nothing but the facts
delivered in evidence should have anay weight. The jury
were the judges of those facts, and when it was considered
how reluctant they must be to entertain proofs which doomed
two of their fellow-creatures to death, it must be believed,
that they had performed a painful but conscientious duty.
He hoped the example would have a useful and salutary effect
in this county, and that men would learn from it not to give
way to their passions and array party against party and county
against county, as it appeared, by the evidence in this trial,
had been done. They (the prisoners) had sent a fellow-man,
without a moment's preparation, out of the world. (It was
at this part of his lordship's address that Murray sunk into
a state of insensibility. On his recovery, his lordship pro-
ceeded.) He would say nothing which could add to the
misery which they must at the present moment be suffering
but 'exhort them to employ their whole heart and soul iu
preparation for their great account. He besought them to
dismiss all hope of any longer remaining in this world, and
to take no more part or interest in its concerns, but to pre-
pare for another, to which they must now be sent. They
would, in the interim, have the comfort of ghostly consola-
tion, and, he trusted, they would endeavour to bring them-
selves into a proper state of mind to meet their fate, by reflec-
tion upon the awful change that must soon take place. They
were about to receive punishment for the crime which they
had committed, and he trusted, through the merits of their
Redeemer, that their sufferings would be taken into account.
It was now his duty to pass the last awful sentence of the
law. His lordship concluded by passing sentence of death
i►► the usual manner.