The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-25 00:00:00

MANSLAUGHTER

William Montgomery, aged 24, was charged with having,
at Salford, in May last, killed Daniel Wall.

Mr. Bratidt conducted the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins the
defence.

On Saturday, the 25th of May, shortly after midnight, the
deceased, Wall, was passing, in company with a man named
James Leach and two young women, Ann Fox and her sister,
froffi 'Salford, by the New Bailey Bridge, into Manchester.
As they approached the bridge they saw the prisoner standing
with a woman. The deceased, with Ann Fox, was walking
first, and Leach and the other young woman were walking
behind, and as they came up to the prisoner he violently
struck the woman to whoffi he was talking; Wall said, "If
yOu were a man you' would not strike a female in that
manner." The prisoner cursed him, and asked him what
it was to him. Wall said, "it is something—and if I had
been Op at the time I would have struck you." The prisoner
upon this struck Wall, and an exchange of blows ensued.
The young women pulled Wall away, Leach interfered, and
he also interchanged some blows with the prisoner, after
which Wall, Leach, and his party made off over the bridge.
The prisoner followed, passed Leach and the young woman
who was with him, and placed himself face to face with Wall,
and struck him in the belly. A scuffle ensued, and Wall
fell, but' soon got up again, and threw the prisoner against
some shutters. They again struggled for a short time, when
Wall ran away, crying murder ! Leach thought at this mo-
ment that he saw a knife in Montgomery's hand, but he was
not certain. Wall went into a house, complaining thathe
was cut in the belly. This was found to be 'the case, and
he was taken to the Infirmary.
John Bamber, one of the witnesses for the prosecution,
who had witnessed the affray from his shop door, stated, oil
cross-examination, that the prisoner was very much ill used
by the deceased and Leach. He never in his life saw a mall
so much ill-used. The prisoner on being charged by the
police-officer, with having stabbed Wall, tacitly admitted the
offence, but said be had done it in self-defence. A clasp
knife was found in possession of the prisoner. The officer,
remarked, " I doubt this is the knife you stabbed him with.
The prisoner replied, •` It is the only one I have." When
the deceased was taken into the Infirmary, he was found to
have two wounds just below the navel, penetrating into the,
cavity of the belly. Through the right wound, a portion of
the intestine protruded, and on after examination, it was
found that a portion of the intestine was cut. A portion of
the contents of the intestine had escaped into the cavity of
the belly, and the inflammation produced by this was the
cause of death. The deceased died on the fourth day. The
trousers which the deceased wore were produced. There
were several cuts on the front of them. Two cuts on the
outside bad been torn into one, but inside one of the curs
corresponded with the size of the clasp blade, as did, accord'
ing to rphe surgeon, the wounds in the abdomen.
Mr. Wiffirms pleaded the gross provocation which the
l
prisoner had received, and contended generally that he ho
acted, if he really used the knife, entirely in self defePet
and that all the testimony, except that of Barnber. NO'
necessarily highly coloured, from the prejudice or the
witnesses. ,

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
A witness was called, who gave the prisoner a good chi-
meter, as d peaceable well disposed man.
Mr. WILKINS hoped his lordship would bear in mind the
strong provocation which the prisoner had received. ,
His LORDSHIP said the case was a very bad one indee'!'
The prisoner had made a terrible use of the knife. The Po'
soner might be put down, and he would consider of the sea'
tence.

11. tnam••
Inge, pro-
igs. The
angs were
same fatal
d habit of
ed, inde-
rgeon had
nsiderable
s. It was
e survived
ury. The
.lial detail
that when

nby, who
y material

ration the
Sentence,
Houhe of

Ih having,
thbed, and

ion ; Mr.

ironer and
ether at a

o'clock on
t the game
ted, and as
r the latter
aye from a
ength they
he ground.
it the com-
ber public-
)erson who
wever, that
ncountered
lan. named
:o separate
ks Mooney
that blood
e steps and
lund by the
Iday morn-
a penknife
The wound
I not dan-
r which was
k, from the
fe found on
he wounds

the defence

threatening
l in support
looking at
led his fist
nu, as if to
near them.
ently, when
ley, and by
of hissges-

here was no
Is upon the

equitted the

vith having,

Wilkins the

idnight, the
man named
d her sister,
Vanchestar:
ner standing
was walking
ere walking
he violently
ill said, " If
nale in that
him what
nd if I had
The prisoner
ows ensued.
erfered, and
ironer, after
r the bridge.
oung women
e with Wall,
d, and Wall
oner against
t time, wlien
t at this mo,.
, but he was
ining that be
he case, end

prosecution, l•
or, stated, on
nuch ill used
Fe saw a inal,
Lrged by the
admitted the
ce. A claeP
..The officer,
him with.
ve." When
was found to
sting into the
, a portion of
ition, it was
A portion 01 •
the cavity of
this was the
th day. The
iced. There
► cuts on the
Le of the cute
I did, accord-
,n which till
that he h,'"
self defeece'
litunber
dice otz the

a good chs'

r in mind the
red.
d one indeed'
fe. The pri-
er of the sea'

3, and Alice
anchester, in

—lt appeared
risoner Alice
married. He
in a state of
ice Wroe told
at night. and
and spent it.
tit them, and
he; *Mild be
kers,- and one
iigham one ig
on gave overt
tly after Her'
to fight it oat'
ich the latter
ut if he wok!
moment they
blows, which
ound, George
:ked his teeth
stood leaull
!I' to him. en

a house 011
iam offered to
nd that obeli,
xi and kicked
d go." About
lion of pain;
roe continued
down into
son, when he
)ut afterwards
pplicd leecheli
that IlarroP
;eased in the
rester, stated
his body, and
of the lutes'
was an ester,

cquitted
emended hif
y found Alice

imprisonment
hs imprison'

ig man, age('
t the Aintree
ntity of silver

\in wiLloso

tated that q
Mr. Towel
/less hare -‘l9'
nd. She VII
en seven and
i a white coat
all sides, °
the counter'
,er mug. SP.,e
coat on, for
;ailed,
ersons stuns'
:ept the WO
at fifty yard;
ben she founo

day in tiger
saw the Po'
The monet
Dne was kept
:pences, and
t o'clock 50"
anding at the
was placed•
I not see him
:all of" stoP
coat, a black
is no one in
►nd only two
with him• _

s, the prose'
:ing the
pfl-
money viz'

ed the testi'
mit 1 foot 5
:ained about
times during

spprehendea
ssed by Mr:
cription ths,
fir. ToWag'

th on beba,lf
!her of Olov
omas Hale'
) swore Oa,:
dnesday a°l;
on either °'
Towers' bar
comtni.tted'
wisoner vras
e court rose

NISI PRIUS COURT.—YEsTERiAr.
_ (Before Mr; Baron Rolfe 'and a Special Jury.)
_}.(t.YDOCK AND OTHERSGRuGEON AND OTHERS.
a Alm
---
was an action brought by -Haydock and another,
against
of the estate of Thomas Griffiths, a bankrupt,
t James Grugeon and James Hamilton, public officers
of_r
he Commercial Bank of England.
Cresswell and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiffs,
ikliMr. Wightman and Mr. Watson for the defendants:
that renostrrox opened the case. The 'pleadings set forth
Thomas Griffiths was entitled to certain plots of land,
;liisor t to certain mortgages upon the same ; that upon the
the June, 1836, he executed a mortgage between himself on
part, and Thomas Langton, manager of the said
n
ba kone
nPon the other part. The issue raised was, whether
the said mortgage was executed by way of fraudulent pre-
ference, and in contemplation of bankruptcy. The plaintiffs
asserted it was, and the defendanis denied it.
Mr. CRESSWELL addressed the court and jury.. The
question, as they would'understand from the pleadings, arose
out of the bankruptcy of a person named Griffiths, whose
assignees had thought it right to institute these proceedings,
to ask of the court to grant this issue, in order that it might
bea ascertained whether the Commercial Bank of England
W
which was entitled to retain the proceeds of the estate in question,
• I was conveyed to them by way of mortgage; or whe-
ther the assignees were entitled to them, for the purpose of
distribution among the creditors at large. The assertion
upon the part of the plaintiffs was, that this mortgage was
executed' to the bank, not in consequence of any pressure by
the bank upon the debtor that he should give them this se-
curity. but to place them in a better position than the other
ocifenrs. By law that could not be done. The principle
the law of bankruptcy was, that when a trader found him-
self in insolvent circumstances, it was his duty at once to
ttloP payment, to wake no further distribution of his effects,
t to allow his Assignees, under the authority of the law,
t i
o make an equal division of them to every creditor in pro-
portion
to the amount of his claim. When he said this was
a case of fraudulent preference, he did not mean a moral,
but a legal fraud. The learned counsel, having further de-
fined the term, proceeded to state the circumstances. Mr.
Griffiths, the bankrupt, for some years carried on business
as a carpenter and builder in Liverpool. In the early part
of 1836 his affairs had become much embarrassed ; by May
they were'hopeless, and he foresaw that bankruptcy must
follow. In December 1835 he bought timber to a con-
siderable amount from Messrs. Williams and Co.—one lot
to the amount of £629, for which he gave them his accept-
ance, payable four months after date. That bill became due
on the 26th April. In January he bought another lot of
timber from them to the amount of £239 7s. Bd., and he
accepted their draft at four months, which acceptance be-
came due on the 29th May. These two acceptances were
Baid by Messrs. Williams and Co. into the Commercial
ank of England. As might be expected from the state of
Mr. Griffiths' circumstances, they were dishonoured when
at maturity ; but before the second was due, the bank in-
stituted proceedings upon the first; and he believed' a
cognovit was given for both bills, although 'the second
had not become due. In the beginning of the month of
June several acts of bankruptcy were committed. The bank-
rupt sent to Mr. Bardswell, solicitor to the assignees, and
upon mature investigation, it was found that there was no
other resource but for him to go through the Gazette ' • there
Was not, therefore, the slightest doubt that Mr. Griffiths, who
was now dead, must have contemplated bankruptcy when the
deed was executed. On the 21st of June a mortgage was
executed to the bank for between £4OO and £5OO, after ano-
ther mortgage had been given. There was strong reason to
believe that these were given on his part perfectly volunta-
rily ; and he (the learned counsel) had the best proof of that,
fur it was not until a considerable period after the bankruptcy
that the bank knew they possessed that security. It might
have been placed in the hands of a third party, but the fact
Was the bank did not know of it till long after the bankruptcy.
The fiat issued upon the 15th of July ; the adjudication took
Place, and on the 2d of August, Mr. Turner, one of the part-
ners in the bank, attended the commissioners under the fiat
for the purpose of proving their debt. The jury would sup-
Pose that a partner coming forward on the part of a firm to
Prove a debt, would know the state of affairs between them
and the bankrupt, and that Mr. Turner would have known
about the mortgage ; but he stated that the bank held no se-
enritY except the two bills in question, and the verbal engage-
ee" of Mr. Thomson that the money should be paid. The
learned counsel then read thi bank's proof of debt, stating
that Mr. Griffiths was indebted to them in the sum of £869
Ss ld, for which they had no security or satisfaction what-
ever, save and except the two bills of exchange and the verbal
engagement of Mr. Thomson for the payment thereof. Here
then was the bank, with. their own attorney at their elbow,
stating that they had no security for this money except the
two bills which had been mentioned. But some time after,
the bank produced the deed of mortgage. The assignees find-
ing the property mortgaged, offered it for sale, subject to the
portgage. It was mortgaged altogether for £l9OO, and sold
for x 2200. There was some discussion as to what should be
done with the surplus. Chancery proceedings were threaten-
ed, and at last the assignees consented to the bank receiving
the surplus. His case, then, was this :—he should show the
embarrassments of the bankrupt, that he was frequently de-
nied to his creditors, and that it was under these circum-
stances the mortgage in question appeared to have been
executed in the presence of some person unconnected with
the bank'; he should show that the bank themselves were
perfectly ignorant of its existence, and it would appear to have
n executed voluntarily, unless the bank could show that
they had exercised pressure to the bankrupt. If they could
not, be apprehended that was a' fraudulent preference, and
the bank was not entitled to the surplus.
The learned counsel then called witnesses, who proved the
act of bankruptcy and the other circumstances mentioned in
the opening. The proceedings under the commission of
bankruptcy were put in, as well as the mortgage, dated 26th
June, 1836. It purported to be signed for the bank on one
lona, the bankrupt on the other, and to be witnessed by
William Morris, clerk to Mr. Thompson, solicitor. Mr.
Bardswell, solicitor to the assignees, was also called.
The plaintiffs' case being closed,
Mr. WIGHTMAN said' he would take the opinion of his
lordship upon this point. There were two issues. The first
whether the mortgage was executed by fraudulent preference,
and the second whether it was executed in contemplation of
bankruptcy. Had sufficient evidence been given to show
that the execution of the deed had been voluntary upon the
parf the bankrupt?
The JUDGE decided that there had.
Mr. WIGHTMAN said his lordship having expressed that
opinion, it became his duty to state to the jury the circtm-
stances of the case. as they would be presented to them on
the part of the defendants. Their case rested upon this-
-that there *as nothing in the whole of it -to show there had
been a voluntary preference on the part of the bankrupt, or
that he did not execute the deed under the reasonable appre-
hension and fear of pressure which the circumstances would
prove. Two of Mr. Griffiths' bills, paid into the bank by
Messrs. Williams, were dishonoured. What did the bank
do ? They adopted the ordinary course taken by creditors :
they 'applied to Mr. Griffiths for payment ; he refused ; pro-
cess was taken out against him ; he was arrested ; and ulti-
mately a cognovit was given. Mr. Watson, solicitor to the
I?anlc, prepared the cognovit, upon a verbal understanding
row Mr. Thompson, the bankrupt's solicitor, that if the
bank did agree to take the cognovit, he would see them paid.
Mr. Thompson was a very respectable practitioner : no doubt
he would have fulfilled his part of the undertaking ; and it
was upon the faith he would that the bank was satisfied
with the cognovit. A fiat was issued against the bank-
rupt the proof which had been read was made upon the part
up
would admit that of the bank ; and he (Mr. Wight:nan)
to that time neither the bank. nor their solicitor were aware
of the mortgage in question, and that accounted for Mr. Tur-
ner stating that the back held no security except the two bills
of exchange and the verbal undertaking of Mr. Thompson.
Some time after that proof had been made, Mr. Thompson,
4,?Firehensive that proceedings might be taken against him as
Griffiths had become bankrupt, handed over the mortgage
di question for £468, and another for £4OO, to the bank ; the
whole of the debt owing to the bank was £B6B, and these two
mortgagees made up the exact amount. Whether Mr. Thomp-
son asked the bankrupt to give him this mortgage, or what
took place upon the occasion it was executed, he had no
means of thawing, fpr Mr. Thompson died before the answer
of the assignees to the suit in Chancery was put in. This
mortgage
having been given, Mr. Watson on the part of the
bank entered into communication with Messrs. Littledale
and Bardswell, solicitors to the assignees. The assignees were
disposed to sell the mortgaged property, but when Mr. Wat-
lPti cause in his claim was to be preferred. An arrangement
finally took place, by wbicb the bank agreed to join in the
tti9oveyance of the property to the purchaser, without preju-
_ Ice to their claim for the right of tacking the mortgages.
tie thought the,bank had been hardly used, for up to that
time nci mention had been made to them by the assignees of
"te mortgage having een given hy way of fraudulent refer-
ence. In consequenc'be of that proceeding the bank insisted.
bpd
their right to tack the mortgages, and they filed their
ill in Chancery, and a suit was instituted uhder which the
Present issue arose. The learned counsel then detailed the
!everal proceedings in the Chancery suit, and contended that
Irons the answer of the assignees, as well from the c u
ircm-
stances of the case, it was evident the bank had pressed Mr.'
Griffiths to sign the mortgage. He should also establish this
by the witnesses he should call.
Me- Morris, clerk to Mr. Thompson, proved that the
bankrupt was a client of Mr. Thompson, and his signature
to the mortgage.
Mr. Watson, solicitor to the bank-, said he had sued the
bankrpt, on the first bill of exchange, and he was arrested.
Her
put in bail, and a cognovit was given with an understand-
ing that the money should be paid. The witness produced a
variety of documents connected with the cause for the purpose
of establishing the case for the defendants, but they were too
long to enable us to give even a summary of them.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, urging that the bank had not
been at all ill-used by the assignees, and that the fact of the
mortgage being given, not to Mr. Thompson himself but to
the bank, was the strongest possible proof of a fraudulent
preference.
The learned JUDGE summed up at considerable length.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the judge
said he would certify this was a case for costs if it were found
necessary.
„•,' • HARDY V. STOWE.
This was an undefended action to recover £32 las. 6d.
The plaiuttffis a 'wine and spirit merchant, in Manchester,
and the defendant is a publican. The action was brought to
recover the balance of an account. A verdict was returned
for the amount claimed.
JORDAN AND ANOTHER V. MORTON.
This was also an undefended action to recover £6olls. sd.
A verdict was returned for the amount claimed. The
plaintiffs are colour and varnish manufacturers, in Liverpool,
and the defendant resides in Manchester.
LAIRD D. PIM AND OTHERS.
In this case Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Wightman and Mr. Crompton for the
defendants.
„,__Mr. COWLING opened the pleadings. The plaintiff was
William Laird, and the defendants were Joseph Robinson
Pius and John Aspinall. The declaration stated that the
defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiff a certain
Plot of land, and to pay the purchase money for it ; that the
Plaintiff allowed the defendants to enter upon the land, and
they accepted possession of it; and that the plaintiff was
ready to give a good and sufficient title, and would have
tendered a draft of the conveyance, but that the defendants
discharged him, and had not paid the purchase money. To
this the defendants pleaded that they had never promised,
that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to make good his
title, that he did not offer to execute and make good a con-'
Ysennee, that they did not discharge the plaintiff from ten-
-ering a draft of the conveyance, that the plaintiff did not
allow them to take possession, and that they had made no
Promise. Upon these issue was joined.
Mr. CRESSWELL said this was an action brought on behalf
of Mr. William Laird, or on behalf of his creditors, for he
ad not been able to meet all his engagements, against the
defendants, Joseph Robinson Pita and John Aspinall, to
recover the price of a certain plot of land which they and
fibers contracted to buy of him in April 1836. The defen-
', „8 Pnn and Aspinall, with others known and unknown,
le, ,"",e Year 1836, contriving, and no doubt intending, to
be-
te the public more than themselves—but to a certain ex-
et to benefit themselves also—got up a grand joint-stock
pelnPany to protect the public against paying extortionate
obtain for timber—to assist builders and dealers in timber to
throeit at a reasonable price—and, he presumed, to produce
e small return to themselves for their labour.' This was
reedPr,U.spectus they put forth. (The learned counsel• then'
ches,cas document. It was headed, " Liveipool and Man-
eapinr Timber and Saw Mills Joint - Stock Company ;"
:1140`411n £500,000 ; solicitor, H. B. Walker, Esq. ; and
. g the directors were the names of the two defendants.)
committee was appointed, consisting, he believed, of
14r81.1b157
couldrtn3 and Mr. Aspinall, to consider the best spot that'
esseb„°? Selected upon the Cheshire side of the water for the
lend bedannent of a timber-vard. They selected a piece of
Pool, andgin to the plaintiff upon the margin of .Wallasey.
the plaintiff sent them in an offer to sell it to them.

•
(The learned counsel then read the offer: It was dated 6th
April, 1836, and offered to sell the company the land in
!question at 7s. 6d. per sqUare yard.) This land, he (Mr.
'Cresswell) believed, formerly 'consisted of a portion of the
large estate belonging to Mr. Price, in the conveyances of
which clauses were introduced, preventing the parties from
making bricks or introducing steam-engines ; bat Mr.
Laird's land was not subject 'to such restrictions. The an-
swer to this came from H. D. Walker, solicitor to the com-
pany, and he, on behalf of the company, accepted the offer.
Subsequent communications took place, from which it ap-
peared that the company were willing' to buy a much larger
plot in addition to that which was the subject of the present
action, consisting of 16,000 square yards, but the negocia-
tions were absolute, and no contract was founded upon them.
`This contract having been entered- into, an abstract of the
title was sent for the' inspection of the purchasers. In the
mean time they commenced the' operation of making bricks
upon it, and in the course. of the year, they made 500,000
bricks upon ,it, thus 'clearly taking possession of it by the
parties with whom they contracted to make the bricks in
question. On the sth of August the plaintiff's attorney
thought it was time the purchase should be completed, and
he addressed a letter to Mr. Walker, the defendant's attor-
ney, to that effect. At that time Messrs. Rowlinson,
Howard, and Wyche, a respectable firm, acted as attornieS
for the plaintiff. No answer was sent to that letter. On the
16th of August another letter was sent, and on the 18th an
answer was sent to this effect :—" We have no money for
any thing at present." He did not dispute the veracity of
the gentleman who wrote that letter, but it added, " I will
lay your note before the directors at their next meeting, and
then I will see you personally." Here was no repudiation of
the contract, no complaint about the title, but simply a
pithy sentence—and one that undoubtedly interposed a diffi-
enity in the way of parties fulfilling their contracts—namely,
"We have no money :" so the matter rested. In the' begin-
ning of the next year, 1837, Mr. Laird having met with other
persons who were in the same position as the company—he
did not speak of Mr. Pim and Mr. Aspinall, for he believed
they had money enough—became embarrassed in his affairs.
The transaction had to be taken up by trustees, and they put
it into the hands of Mr. Watson, who now acted as the at-
torney for the plaintiff. Mr. Watson' then inclosed an ab-
stract of the title which they previously • had. (The learned
eounsel read the letter.) Theee was some personal commu-
nication between the parties which lie would not detail, be-
cause he could not prove' it except through the medium of
Mr. Watson. On the 6th October another letter was written
offering, that if the abstract of the title was not satisfactory
it should be amended. On the 20th of October following the
abstract was returned in a letter, which stated that the com-
pany declined to take a conveyance of the land, so they put
an end to the contract. The defendents now pleaded a
variety of pleas—all of which the learned counsel noticed,
and contended that they would all be refuted by the evidence
he had to produce.
Mr. H. B. Walke‘was then called. He said he was so-
licitor to the compatry named. He proved the prospectus of
the company, the defendants to be directors, and the cor-
respondence which had been read by Mr. Cresswell.• In
cross-examination he stated, that without the water commu-
nication marked on the plan the land would have been of no
value to the company. Samuel Stansfield was one of the
directors.
Mr. Clarke R.amplin, architect and surveyor, proved that
he had made a plan of the land, and delivered it to the com-
pany.
Mr. John Walker, builder, proved that he had made on
the land in question 484,000 bricks for the company. lie
was engaged by Mr. Stansfield.
Mr. Watson was then called, and he proved several docu-
ments. In cross-examination he said that part of the bricks
had been sold, and the money deposited in a bank, in the
name of himself and Mr. Mallaby, to await the issue of the
trial. The amount was about £4OO. This was the plain-
tiff's case.
Mr. WIGHTMAN then submitted to the Court that his
learned friends had not made out any contract, as alleged in
the declaration. The learned counsel compared the evidence
with the declaration in support of the objection.
The JUDGE said he would reserve the point, and give leave
to move for a nonsuit, in case the court above should be of
his opinion, that the evidence did not sustain the contract.
Mr. WIGHTMAN then objected, that it had not been made
out that the plaintiff was ready and willing to give a good
title. It bad been merely shown that he had sent in an ab-
stract.

The JUDGE said that resolved itself into the same question.
Mr. WIGHTMAN said he was now assuming that the
plain-
tiff had made out a contract Hand now he contended he had
made out a good and sufficient title.
The JUDGE overruled the objection. It would be a ques-
tion for the jury whether the circumstances under which the
abstract was received and returned shewed the title.
Mr. WIGHTmAN.—WiII your lordship give me leave to
move on that point?
The JUDGE replied in the affirmative,
Mr. CRESSWELL applied for his lordship to amend the
declaration with regard to the interest to be paid, and he as-
sented.
The JUDGE then left the case to the jury, to say what in-
jury the plaintiff had sustained, the interest of money, and for
the use and occupation of the laud.
The jury returned a verdict for £6BO, for the interest upon
the purchase money, £7O for the clay, and, if not entitled to
interest, £4O for four years' use and occupation of the land ;
both parties being at liberty to move to increase or reduce
the damages.
DOE DEM. MYATT V. ST. HELEN'S RAILWAY.

This was an action in ejectment, to obtain possession of the
St. Helen's and Runcorn Gap Railway. It appeared that
the plaintiff had advanced £3OO, by way of mortgage, to the
company, and being unable to obtain either principal or in-
terest, he brought the present action. Several questions, of
a purely legal nature, were raised on the- act of parliament
incorporating the company. Eventually a verdict was en-
tered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court
above, on the points raised on the part of the defendant.
MAIINSELL V. AINSWORTH.

The plaintiff in this case subpoenaed the defendant (who is
a police-officer in Liverpool) to give evidence on a trial for
perjury, but he neglected to obey it, and, in consequence of
a want of his testimony, a nonsuit was entered. The action
was brought to recover the expenses of the nonsuit. The
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; damages £2O.
HUNT V. BRIERELY.
This was an undefended action, brought by an attorney
to recover the costs of some proceedings he had been em-
ployed to institute by the defendant. Verdict for the plain-
tiff, £27 19s. 10d.

IVALFOURD V. TALE.
The parties in this case carry on business in IGranclicttcr,
and the action was brought to recover £216 12-s; for goods
sold and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff.
The court adjourned about seven o'clock.

CAUSE LIST.

WEST DERBY HUNDRED!

1,2,3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36,
37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58,
59, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 80, 83.
Defendant.-61.
Withdrawn.-4, 5,35, 48, 49,5243, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82.
Referred.-40, 62.
Guilty.-12.
Postponed.-19, 74.
Struck out.-54, 60, 67. •
SALFORD HUNDRED.
Plaintiff.-Nos. 6,9, 23, 41, 13, 27.
Withdraum.-8, 21, 34, 71, 72.

HORRID, 'BARBAROUS, AND MYSTERIOUS AT-
TEMPT ON THE LIFE OF A COMMERCIAL
GENTLEMAN, AT LUDLOW. •
(From the Ludlow Standard of Saturday.)
On Wednesday morning last, this town and neighbourhood
was thrown into the., greatest state of excitement, first by a
report that a commercial gentleman had committed suicide.
at the Angel Inn, by cutting his throat, and subsequently by,
its proving too true that a most barbarous and mysterious
murder had been attempted on the life of Mr. William Miller
Mackreth; Traveller for the firm of Christopher George and '
Co., Patent Shot Manufacturers,. Bristol, at the above Inn,
by cutting his throat, extending over seven inches in length,
also by a frightful horizontal wound extending across the
mouth literally "from ear to ear." The whole circumstances,
as detailed in the following report of the judicial proceedings
of the local authorities and examination of witnesses, to
unravel and discover the perpetrator of this almost unparal-
leled deed of blood, will be read with the deepest interest, as.
partaking in a very extraordinary degree of the character of
the frightful murder of Lord William Russell. The 'person
now under suspicion of the deed is a young man of very
youthful appearance, of the name of Josiah Mister, who till
lately lived, in the neighbouring town of Leominster, and we
believe he has a brother living near Birmingham in a very
respectable line of business as malster. We are in posses-
sion of many interesting facts relative to the accused, which
in the present state. of the inquiry we forbear publishing.
He is about five feet seven inches high, dark hair, sallow
complexion, dark eyes, animated with a lurking expression
of cunning and penetration, slim figure, and well dressed,
might pass for a person who had seen tolerably good society.
His present appearance is somewhat below the " Shabby
Genteel." At times, during the examination of witnesses,
his expression is that of a care worn person, at other times
he shows a confidence somewhat bordering on discretion for
a person in so serious a situation, and he has more than once
shown a little flippancy of manner in his mode of questioning
the witnesses.. As one gentleman observed in court, he
seems "to be watching the extent of the case against him."
At an early hour in the morning, the Mayor, John Smith,
Esq., Humphrey Smith, 'Esq., John Hutchings, Esq., the
Rev. Charles Walcot, of Bitterly, and other county and bo-
rough magistrates, were at tfie Angel taking deep interest in
tracing out the perpetrators of the' crime. And here we must
pause to say, that the anxiety of the medical gentlemen con-
sulted, Dr. Lloyd, Mr. Henry Hodges, Mr. Baines, Mr.
Crawford of Shrewsbury, &c., to render the wounded man
prompt aid, to console him in this terrible visitation, and
through whom an early suspicion of the fact that a foul mur-
der had been attempted, originated, entitle theM to the
thanks of society ; nor must we withhold a weed of praise
from the mayor and his judicial coadjutors, and Mr. William
Downes, town clerk, for the untiring zeal with which they
have acted up to the present tin-.e. We witnessed it and feel
it our duty to record our unqualified approbation of the
course pursued. Being on the spot at an early hour in the
morning, we can truly say, that the scene of blood was the
most frightful we ever witnessed, and the unhappy object of
the assassin's knife presented a most appalling spectacle ; the
room where he lay, passage, stairs, walls, &c., were literally
smeared and deluged in blood to an extent scarcely credited.
The medical gentlemen called in being unable to say the
wounded gentleman could long be expected to survive, the
mayor and borough magistrates, in whose hands the manage-
ment of the case necessarily rested, determined on taking the
deposition of Mr. Mackreth, as he lay on his bed. They ac-
cordingly proceeded to his room, and, partly in whispers, for
the almost dying man spoke with great difficulty, and was
obliged to be propped up with pillows, took the following