The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-27 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.

The assizes for the southern division of the county of
LancasterusticeColeridge
n commencedand the
H yesterday.on.r
.T
Justicehe lea
Erskine
r ned j g,eas
r, r
iMv
erd.
J
in this town on Wednesday afternoon, accompanied, as usual,
by the High Sheriff, Thomas Fitzherbert Brockholes, Esq.,
of Claughton Hall, near Garstang, and an escort of his men.
They proceeded to the Crown Court, where the commission
was opened with the customary forms. Their lordships then
went to St. George's Church, where prayers were read by
the Rev. Mr. Pedder, the sheriff's chaplain. At ten o'clock
yesterday morning Mr. Justice Coleridge entered the Crown
Court, which was opened with the usual forms.
The roll of magistrates was read over, as was also that of
coroners. Mr. Dearden, the coroner for the Rochdale divi-
sion, did not answer to his name. The learned JUDGE said
coroners ought to attend the court early. Their presence at
the assizes was of real importance ; there were a great many
cases of coroner's inquisitions, and it might be that a case
might fail without their presence. His lordship then ordered
Mr. Dearden to be fined 40s.
The following were sworn on the grand inquest :
Sir Henry Bold Houghton, Bart., of Bold Hall, Foreman,
Sir George Drinkwater, Knight, of Liverpool.
Sir Thomas Brancker, Knight, of Liverpool.
Henry Ashton, Esq., of Woolton.
James Aspinall, Esq., of Liverpool.
Charles Dixon Archibald, Esq., of Rasland Hall.
John Bourne, Esq., of Liverpool.
Peter Bonnie, Esq., of Liverpool.
Thomas Bright Crosse, Esq., of Shawe Hall.
William Wallace Currie, Esq., of Ellerlies.
Pattison Ellames, Esq., of Allerton
Michael Hughes, Esq., of Shirdley Hall.
Ralph Thicknesse, Esq., of Beech Hill.
William Gerard Walmsley, Esq., of The Platts.
Joshua Walmsley, Esq., of Liverpool.
Hugh Hornby Birley, sq., of Swinton House.
William Gale, Esq., of Lighthouse House.
John Lewis Phipps, Esq., of Doe Park.
W. G. Unsworth, Esq., of Maghull.
William Rathbone, Esq., of Green Bank.
Huraphry Trafford, Esq., of Trafford Park.
William Garnett, Esq., of Lark Hill.
William Blundell, Esq., of Crosby Hall.
Nicholas Blundell, Esq., of Crosby Hall.
Silence having been proclaimed, the royal proclamation
for the suppression of vice, profaneness, and immorality was
read.
The learned JUDGE then proceeded to deliver the charge
to the grand jury. He was sorry diet the calendar they had
to dispose of was a very numerous one, he was afraid even
for this county, and to perceive at the same time that a very
large proportion of it was for very serious offences. A great
deal of their time, he feared, must be taken up in the exa-
mination of these cases, and he need not say how much of
their serious attention. With regard to the first—to the
time they would. be employed upon the calendar, be knew not
whether it was. necessary—perhaps it was riot—to state that
as they sat only as a court of preliminary enquiry upon the
part of the Crown, if they found a very great number of wit-
nesses brought before them in any particular case, it would
not be necessary to go into the examination of all of them,
but to cease as soon as they were satisfied there was proof of
a case for enquiry before a petit jury. With regard to the
other point, the degree of attention they should bestow, it
was unnecessary for him to say a single word more than this,
that if they should find, upon the examination of this or that
witness, a reasonable probability that the charge wasunfound-
ed, that circumstance should lead them at once to a more dili-
gent investigation, for they did not meet so properly to pro-
tect the interests of the prisoner, but as they were a step be-
tween him and the common jury, any thing like that arising
in their minds should lead to a more full investigation of the
case. Having so much before them, he would not detain
them by any further general remarks, but go at once to the
individual cases on which he thought it necessary to say 'a
few words. He was sorry to find there were no less than
five cases of wilful murder to come before them. None of
these cases, however, presented to his mind any peculiar cir-
cumstances of aggravation, considering the serious nature of
the charge ; and a great many of them, he thought at all
events the larger proportion, would melt down to a charge
of an inferior description. The first of these cases which oc-
curred to him as calling for observation, was No. 72 in the
calendar, against a man named Joseph Knight. This was a case
attended by very remarkable circumstances. They would find
he was charged with having wilfully murdered an infant female
child before its baptism : its mother was his own sister-in-law,
and he was the father of it. The husband of his sister-in-law, it
appeared, had fled to America, but under what circumstances
it was immaterial to inquire. The child was born, and within
a few hours afterwards, with the consent of the mother, it
was taken away by the father, and from the time of his hav-
ing possessed himself of it, it had never been seen again.
Suspicion attached to the prisoner and to the mother from
the disappearance of the child, and both were taken betbre
the magistrate; but the magistrate was very shortly satisfied
that the mother was innocent of any wrong done to the child.
She then became a witness for the Crown, and stated that
there had been an agreement between the father and herself,
before the child was horn—not an unnatural one under such
painful circumstances—that the child should be disposed of
privately, and taken to nurse, and that feeling anxious about
it, she often asked him for it, but he refused to tell her
where it was. The prisoner refused to produce it, but as-
serted it was alive, and in the charge of a nurse. He ulti-
mately stated that he had taken the child that night (and no
doubt he. had) to nurse, but that on his way he stumbled
over a heap of stones, with the child in his arms, and that,
on getting up, he found it was dead—he knew not how, hut
he attributed it partly to the fall and partly to the compres-
sion of flannels, used to protect it from the cold—and that,
in his disturbance of mind and agitation, he had thrown it
into the water. This was after he had stated many circum-
stances of a contrary description; and in addition, it appear-
ed that the witness who spoke of this was also the bearer of
a message from the father, to find the father a female child
of five or six weeks old, to produce before the magistrate.
It was therefore a case made out almost entirely by the pri-
soner's statements and the contradictions of them ; and the
most remarkable circumstance attending it was this, that
the body of the child was not produced. The water into which
the father said he had thrown it had been searched; but this
was several weeks afterwards, and the decomposition that
would rapidly take place of one so young, might account for
the non-production of the body. That great and good judge,
Lord Hale, had laid it down as a rule for his own guidance—
and that which was a rule of guidance for him might be a safe
one for any person—that he would never proceed to the con-
viction of a party charged with murder where there was not
direct evidence of the putting to death, or the production of
the body. Neither of these was the case here : but he
apprehended that Lord Hale, in laying doatn, this .svit,
meant it only as a safe rule to guide discretion by-, :but cer-
tainly as no rule of law. It would be very easy to produce
cases where the want of evidence of the crime would be suf-
ficient to make out the charge. Suppose two men went to
sea, and only one returned : one man might have thrown the
other overboard, and the body not be produced, though the
party had actually committed the offence. He did not mean
to put this to them as a point of law, or as a stringent reason
for throwing out the bill ; but to see whether the amount of
contradictions would not justify them in sending the prisoner
for trial. The prisoner alleged that the child was bound in and
covered with a great many and rather tight flannels, so that
it was suffocated. That was open to inquiry—how was the
child sent out by the nurse, and so on ; but he only mentioned
these points to give an example of the mode in which they
should enter on the inquiry. There was another case, No.
74, in which a prisoner named Nicholas Fleming was charged
with murder. This also was a remarkable case. The de-
ceased lodged in the same house with the prisoner and his
wife. There was no, reason to suppose that there was any
improper intimacy between the prisoner and the deceased,
or anything like a grudge. The deceased was employed as a
dressmaker, and was not in affluent circumstances ; she was
not therefore an object for plunder, for it appeared she had
about her only half a sovereign and a few coppers. It ap-
peared pretty clearly, that in the course of the night the
prisoner entered the room where she was in bed ; he was
half dressed • she was awoke by the noise, and found him
with a pistOl in his hand; she spoke to him, but he dis-
charged his pistol at her, and she was severely wounded.
The wife came in, and implored the deceased not to say who
did it, and the prisoner carried her to the Infirmary, upon a
promise that she would not reveal the fact he desired her to
say that it was an individual in a white frock coat, whose per-
son she did not know; and he (the learned Judge) believed
that she did say so. A great many declarations were made
which he could not say were evidence, inasmuch as they
were not made in the contemplation of death. However,
there were statements enough, not made between the parties,
but overheard when they came to the Infirmary, to make it
pretty clear that the prisoner was the man. But the circum-
stance should be noticed, that although the deceased was
grievously wounded, there was no ball in the pistol. The
prisoner said the pistol was his, but he seemed hardly con-
scious whether it was loaded or not. It was a very remark-
able and mysterious case, and the question would be whether
he was conscious of the act he was doing, or, if he was con-
scious, whether he was conscious that the pistol was loaded ;
because it was attended with the remarkable fact, that there
was no ball in it. None had been found, and the medical
men spoke of nothing like injury by a ball, but said her death
was occasioned by severe laceration and the general shock to
the system, which produced lock jaw, of which she ultimately
died. He should wish them, in determining whether it was
murder or manslaughter, to investigate what was passing in
the prisoner's mind ; whether he was conscious or not that
the pistol was loaded. If they believed he knew it was not
loaded, yet went so near the deceased as to kill her, that
would be murder ; for no man had a right to use loaded wea-
pons with so much incompetency or carelessness as to take
away the life of another person. If it was not reducible to a
pure accident, nothing less than a bill for manslaughter would
satisfy the justice of the case. There were two cases, No 71,
against Hannah Blackburn, and No. 72, against Joseph
Knight, both of child murder. There was no doubt, he
thought, in either of these cases; and in each case, that the
mothers were both the mothers of the children so destroyed.
The grand jury were aware how the law now stood with re-
gard to the offence of child-murder by the mother, with con-
cealment of the birth afterivards. Until the latter end of the
reign of George the Fourth, the only mode in which a party
who was mother of a child base born, afterwards disposed
of the child—the only way in which this offence could be
reached, was by charging the mother with the crime of wilful
murder. But if the jury were satisfied that there was no
ground for that charge, they might bring in a verdict of con.
cealing the birth. That was felt to be an improper state of
the law, because it authorised the grand jury to find a bill for
wilful murder, although they were satisfied there was no evi-
dence of it. The law was now altered, and concealment of
the body, by disposing of it, was made a misdemeanour, pu-
nishable as the offence was before ; and at the same time as
trcßwlehieumeilltldloietwvrfgheehtiendhsalc.etbaryatwiTusinsaerhhseeeobgmruofioerlade that alteration, the law, was extended to
rdidnnsu.tgbc
eget Tudoo
question
steoat:ppeodistinctionopinion
nfeinfos oon,r
tttl hhoi
awaetit
att bihshneeetqt
yshwueawietrreeyeonrrfest
wouldohcneo asn,
aboutc
knowing
concealment.
n 280 ne whe-
therb noewt.
come mothers of children, placed themselves in such a situa-
tion, or neglected to make such precautions, that the neces-
vary and inevitable consequence was death to the child so
born, then it brought itself like any other case in which ne-
glect or want of care occasioned the death of another human
being, and there must be a bill for manslaughter. Then
again, he was sorry to say, the legislature, remedying the
defect as they did before, had left the law unaltered with re-
gard to the crime of wilful murder; and it now stood thus—
if any woman Murdered her child, it would be lawful for the
jury to find her guilty of concealment : therefore, unless they
found a bill for wilful murder, the parties would not be reach-
ed 'for the offence of concealment, of which they were pro-
bably guilty. The law must not, however, be strained. If,
in the end, they should find a bill for manslaughter, and that
should terminate in an acquittal, and the jury should be sa-
tisfied that the party did conceal the birth, recourse must be
had to another bill, on the charge of concealment. But he
would not, in any case, advise them to find a bill for wilful
murder unless there was evidence sufficient to put the party
upon their trial. Then came the charge against Nos. 69
and 70 in the calendar, George Murray and John Costello,
for wilful murder. The facts appeared to be, briefly, that
there was between Murray and Costello, and other persons, a
drunken scuffle and fighting, and that Murray and Costello
had, received provocation by blows. It seemed probable that
what they did afterwards was done under a great deal of
provocation
from blows received, when their blood was ex-
cited, and they being also in a state of intoxication. A few
words from him upon this plea of provocation would proba-
bly serve to save time in several other cases that would have
to be brought forward. With regard to provocation, there
was no doubt that when provocation had been received by
blows, and the blood excited thereby, and when, in that state
of excitement, something was done that took away the life
of another person, the law of this country, in condescension
to human infirmity, knowing that such a state of mind took
awaY the goverzuwout and control of the paiiione, reduced

the offence from wilful murder to manslaughter. The pecu-
liarity in this case was, that the deceased seemed to have
been altogether unoffending, for he had been quietly sitting
with one of the witnesses in the room. He went out, and
Murray and Costello appeared to have mistaken him and his
companion for the two persons with whom they had been
quarrelling. The deceased was felled to the ground, and
killed upon the spot. The witness, who came up immedi-
ately after, received a similar blow, but not so violent ; and
when he had recovered he found his coinpanion in the state
he had described. So that in this case the parties who re-
ceived the blows were not the parties who gave the provoca-
tion. The grand jury, however, could make no distinction
between the cases. The fact was, that what the prisoners
had done was done under the influence of provocation and
excitement ; and he (the learned Judge) thought, therefore,
that the deceased and his friend must be put in the same
situation as the persons quarrelling with them ; but whether
the provocation was of that nature which would reduce the
crime to manslaughter they would take into their serious
consideration. Although the law condescended to human
infirmity it would not allow human infirmity a cloak for
malice ; consequently, if they found that this deed was not
done from excitement and provocation, it would he wilful
murder. The other circumstance in this case and which was
common in occurrences of this nature, and which indeed
was always urged by way of excuse, was drunkenness. By
our own law, drunkenness, that was voluntary drunkenness
or that which a man brought upon himself, for he (the learn-
ed judge) was not satisfied that a man could be made drunk
by other persons, was no excuse or alleviation for any crime
whatever. The law, though it condescended, as he had before
observed, to human infirmity, would not allow any M5ll to
urge the infirmity which he thus voluntarily brought
upon himself. Therefore, if any man in a state of vol-
untary drunkenness took away the life of another per-
son, he (the learned Judge) had no hesitation in saying that
that simple circumstance alone would not make the case less
than wilful murder. It was vain for a party to say, " I was
drunk, and I would not have done it if I had been sober."
The law said, 6` You have no right to be drunk ; you have
no right to put yourself in a state in which you lose the go-
vernment of your passions." The law did not lay down one
rule for the drunken, and another for the sober man. If it
did, the sober man would meet with much more severe pu-
nishment than the habitual drunkard : besides which, there
would be a difficulty in ascertaining whether the party had
not got drunk for the purpose of committing the offence.
He (the learned Judge) was aware they would find it stated
in some of the books, that in certain cases judges had been
allowed to take into consideration the circumstance of drun-
kenness where malice was an ingredient in the offence. Now
he must wholly dissent from that proposition, and he would
mention, that the cases in which that principle was laid down
had been overruled by his learned brother, Mr. Baron Parke.
But there was still this to be considered, that sometimes you
wanted to ascertain the existence of malice from collateral
facts or declarations. For example, one man had stabbed
another, and you wanted to know whether he intended to
murder him. If the prosecutor tried to make out malice
by the language the prisoner made use of, it was tit to in-
quire whether the man was drunk when he used the
words, because, as a matter of evidence, the same
words used by a sober men might have a different
meaning to those of a drunken man, and those of a
drunken man a different meaning to the same words of a
sober man ; therefore he (the learned judge) quite agreed
that they were proper to be investigated. But at the same
time, and he wished this to be distinctly remembered by all
who heard him, henceforth no man who had made himself
drunk would be allowed to plead drunkenness, either as a
defence, or as an alleviation for his conduct. These, then,
were the cases of wilful murder. He passed from them to a
class of cases, which he knew not whether they were not
almost more revolting and disgraceful in the present
state of this country than. any other crime—he meant
the cases of stabbing and cutting. He was sorry to find
they were very numerous, there being no less than eight or
nine of them. In this country, if there was any thing among
the classes more immediately concerned, of which we once
had reason to be proud than another, it was the English
mode of settling little disputes, in the right and natural way
which their own limbs and hands enabled them to do. They
had not used to have recourse to the foreign and un-English
mode of taking vengeance by using the knife or the stiletto.
He was sorry to say that we could not now take that
boast justly to ourselves, for the offence of stabbing
not only here but in other circuits as he found by the charges
of learned judges had alarmingly increased. He musts in
that place state that it would be absolutely necessary in
order to put down so dangerous and increasing an offence,
that the judges should exercise the utmost severity, that
they should see whether people would still have recourse to
this dangerous and wicked mode of vengeance—to see whe-
ther they could not put a stop to it by means of severity and
punishment. After some further observations on cases of
this nature and an exposition of the present state of the law,
in the course of which he noticed that of William Gill as
being the worst in the calendar, the learned judge referred
to a charge of rape and one of arson in each of which he gave
an outline of the circumstances and applied the law to them.
He then proceeded to observe that these were all the serious
cases on which he should think it necessary to trouble them
with any observations. It was possible in disposing of the
calendar that they might find some other cases in which they
would be desirous of asking him questions. He could only
say that with regard to them or to any other he should be ex-
ceedingly glad to be applied to render any service in his power.
He was sorry to say it was impossible for him to close these
without noticing, with regret, that in addition to the large
number of twenty or thirty or more—of persons indicted at
the last assizes for offences of the nature of sedition, some
others were to be presented before them on charges of a like
description. He dared say that on the last occasion they
cwoeur
setiftuul
tlyi
n of t instructedhis iona
nt ht
reynatthuereuotfintl(l)os
tse
pooffsesni
bclees .
freedom
was allowed for the discussion of the conduct of persons
however high in the state—and for the discussion of the
r itch. t
ey
r,
eofrolegalitye
wolft
sa any measureslmced
al
also
of government,fo perpersons
proper Whe-
ther
and for propriety,
peacemabeleytiotgos aosfsetuhribsle
natureand dwiserrlisseitrillieorse:pirnuedaesoutreosr.
he must he allowed to feel the greatest possible doubt. When
we considered how little possible good could result from
ttohedmis,cuhsos thwioe questions,ll;qualifici th
how dangerous
eindividualsa
thetten ssedinagtmhebi
miii were
• ofere
the people in large numbers was, how rapidly excitement pro-
pogated itself from one district to another, how soon the peo-
ple forgot their principal objects—doubt, he said, was not
the proper term for him to use, because he had no hesitation
in saying it was most improper, unprofitable, and highly
dangerous practice for persons of that description. And he
mint say that many persons who went •to meetings of this
sort out of idle curiosity, had far better stay away. It was
•herdly liessiblefor.any- persons .ti;.laso-uaglanoenied specudaen..
Thg mere assemhliug.of large numbers added to the, danger,
and by exciting the fears of persons not there, made it more
difficult to put down meetings of this sort. Therefore the
true course for the well disposed was not to attena them; but
if they had not the courage to assist the civil magistrate to
put them down—as it was their duty tout them down--
let them withdraw themselves and go ho. He had said it
was lawful for persons to meet in the way he had described
and he had said also it was higly dangerous and unwise for
them to do so. At these meetings speeches of the kind
here alleged were made; but the grand jury, as magistrates,
knew they had a duty to discharge. The law cornered 'eon
them large powers. It would be wise when they did inter& T,
to interfere with promptness and with as strong a hive a
they had at their command ; and in addition -to the
powers with which the constitution invested them • of
swearing in special constables, they had the power to call
in, and make it the duty of those to whom the call was ad-
dressed—all the peaceable and well-disposed of her Majesty's
subjects—to assist them in keeping the peace. He would
fain hope these things would draw to au end. That would
not, however, be done—it were idle to suppose it could be done
—simply by the measures the courts of justice should take in
the way of punishment. It could not be done merely by the
measures the magistrates might take by inflicting 'minor pu-
nishments, because that would only keep down the evil before
hand, and not keep down the cause of it. It was idle to say
that in this country there were not causes atwork to keep it up.
The magistrates, the gentry, the merchants, the manufacturers
of the country, had all great and important duties cast upon
them by the present state of things. The problem was, how
shall we restore that peaceful state of things, that good feeling,
that cheerful loyalty for which this country had been so re-
markable,' that harmony between the higher andthe lower
orders. If, in answer to that, he said a little upon the sub-
ject of education, it was not because he undervalued it—it
was not because he was one of those who thought education
was not producing the effects promised from it. Upon the
centrary, he firmly believed that a Christian education must
produce all the good effects promised from it, in time ; but
he did not omit from his consideration the many discourag-
ing circumstances they had to contend with. The rapidly
increasing population, the great growth of manufactures, the
wealth among the higher classes and the depression of the
lower orders, were dangerous juxta-positions, if he might use
the term, between the comforts of one class of the people
with the necesary pressure upon the other—all these things
must be considered ; they all tended to retard the effect of
education. Besides, education must operate upon the rising
generation, whereas the pressure was upon the adult popula-
tion. Without time the effect of education could be but
small. And allow him to say, that education had not
been tried a sufficient time to effect any change in the
whole population ; it had neither been carried to a
sufficient extent nor carried out upon true Christian
principles. In his notion. a Christian education did
not conist in being taught the catechism and to read
the Bible ; if it gave no more it gave but little ; a
Christian education must be founded upon principles which
pervade it in every part. But, as he had said before,
the effect of education was not so much upon those who
pressed upon us most now, as those who were coming here-
after ; and he merely said this that we might not slacken
their, own efforts. Indeed he was sure that in this town
where so much had been done on so great a scale, they
would not. It was not however for him to point out de-
tails. He would only point out that upon them, and upon
men of all classes, upon each in the circle of which he was
the centre—upon each and all, was the bounden duty of at-
tempting to restore that wholesome feeling which once did
exist. He believed much more might. be done by individual
benevolence and wisdom, by kindness, by going among
the people, by reminding them of their relative duties
in life, to promote harmony and good feeling, than by
agitating upon political questions—or by teaching them
they had, rights which were withholden from them, or by ex-
tending the franchise the exercise of which was an hindrance
instead of an advantage. It was in short by extending their
comforts, and by teaching the people how to appreciate them,
by giving them a Christian education, that the most good
would be done. These were questions which were perhaps
out of place, but he had felt it his duty thus to allude to them.
The learned Judge then dismissed the grand jury to their la-

bours.

The grand jury having found several true bills, the court
proceeded to try the
BANK AND MINT CASES.

Ann Collins, aged 28, stood indicted on a charge of having
at Manchester, feloniously had in her possession one mould,
upon which was impressed the figure and apparent resem-
blance of one of the sides of a shilling, and also with having
another mould impressed with the obverse.
M. Sergeant ATCHEPLEY (with whom was Mr. Perry)
stated the case to the jury as it afterwards appeared hi evi-
dence.
John niggles, a police inspector, said he was on duty at Sal
ford on 22d April last. He saw Mary Lister, the prisoner's
mother that afternoon, and in consequence of information
from her, sent other constables to search a house in George
Leigh-street. They brought a perfect mould and a half one.
He afterwards went to the cellar where the prisoner and her
mother lived. He there found a counterfeit shilling, and
pieces of moulds, some plaster of Paris, some metal, and a
ladle—produced. Lindsay, an officer who was with him,
gave him a knife which was marked with plaster of Paris,
Hartley, a police officer, said he went, with others, to a
house in George Leigh-street, Manchester. He saw the
prisoner as be went, with her mother. In the house they
found Smith's wife and sister, the prisoner's mother. In an
oven, in the front room, or house part, they found a complete
mould, a half mould, and some metal wrapped in a brown
paper parcel. Ile took Smith's sister into custody, and
afterwards Smith. On the Tuesday following he went with
another officer to the cellar of the prisoner's mother.
Samuel Butterworth, a police watchman, accompanied the
last witness, and searched the cellar of the prisoner's mother.
He found several articles there, and afterwrads took the
prisoner into custody. The mother pointed out Smith's
house.
James Lindsay was with the last. and searched the cellar.
They found several pieces of moulds.
Mary Smith, wife of Aaron Smith, said, she lived with
her husband in George Leigh-street. He was employed as
a maker up of piece goods. On the 22d of. April. her hus•
band went to work at eight o'clock in the morning, and did
not return tilinight. The prisoner oame to their house that

forenoon. No one was there but the prisoner and herself.
Witness had searched the oven that morning, and there was
nothing in it but three bits of white paper. She cleaned it
out. The prisoner sat near the oven. She stopped about
half an hour. In the afternoon she came again. Witness
was still working. Prisoner Eat in the same place as before.
Witness had her back to the oven. Witness was present
when the officer found a brown parcel in the oven. She had
never seen it before.
Adam Smith, husband of the last witness said, he went to
his work at Mr. Garsides that day, and did not get home
again until between 11 and 12 at night.
Mr. John Garside said, the last witness was in his father's
employ, and was at his work the whole of the 22d of April.
He saw hint last at about half-past ten at night.
The JUDGE here remarked, that the evidence so far did
not prove a guilty possession against the prisoner.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY said, they:could prove the find-
ing of the shilling with which the mould was made in the
cellar of the mother.
The JUDGE.—Even that would not prove the guilty pos-
session by the prisoner.
Anne Booth said she saw the prisoner on the 22d April in
the street, with her mother and her mother's sister.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY said he could not carry the
case further.
The learned JUDGE said that there was no evidence that
the prisoner knew what was in the parcel, and that she might
have been employed by her mother as a messenger only.
Under his lordship's direction, the jury returned a verdict
of Not Guilty.
George Davis, alias Gerard, 24, was charged with having,
at Salford, feloniously uttered to Thomas Curran, on the
15th August, two counterfeit half-crowns, well knowins the
same to be counterfeit ; and he having before been conticted
of a similar offence, for which he suffered a year's imprison-
ment. The offence occurred in Salford.
Mr. Murphy defended the prisoner.
William Edward Powell, assistant solicitor of the Mint,
produced a copy of the previous conviction, and identified
the prisoner as the man.
The conviction having been read,
Thomas Curran was called, and deposed as follows
am a shoemaker, in Richmond-court, Manchester. The
prisoner came to me and wanted a pair of Clarence boots
mending. He came for them two days after, between eleven
and twelve o'clock at night, and excused himself for coming
at that hour by saving he was going off by the mail at three
in the morning. I gave him the boots. The repairs came
to six shillings, and he paid me two half-crowns and a shil-
ling, which I put on the chimney-piece. My wife got the
money. In the morning she gave me a half-crown and
shilling, and they were both bad. '
Mary Curran corroborated the last witness. She went to
buy some bread, with the money in her hand. She gave the,
shilling, but it was refused. She then gave one of the half
crowns, and got the_change. She afterwards took the other
half-crown to a pawnbroker's, who refused it. The prisoner
was the man who came with the boots.
Thomas Eccles rernemhered the last witness giving him
the bad shilling for some bread, and afterwards the half-
crown, which he changed. Soon afterwards, his sister
brought him the same half-crown out of the till, and he then
saw it was a bad one. He gave it to one of the police. No
other half-crown was taken that morning.
Nothing material was elicited in cross-examination.
Dorothy Eccles, sister of the last witness, said she found
the half-crown in the till, and gave it to her brother. She
saw it was a bad one.

Normansell, a police-officer, said that Curran brought him,
on the 15th of August, a bad half-crown and a bad shilling.
He (Curran) described the prisoner, whom witness afterwards
found at the Rising Sun public-house, the same afternoon,
playing at dominoes. In the prisoner's possession he found
£3 18s 20, all good money. He went into the prisoner's
bed-room, in the same house, and found some white sand
and white powder. The prisoner, on being told that he had
passed two bad half-crowns and a bad shilling, said, if he had
it was unknown to him.

Job Diggles, of the Salford police, re'eeived the prisoner,
who said he must have taken the money in change. He
afterwards said he had got the half-crowns from a girl, but
his story was not consistent.

Mr. Powell of the mint said, the money produced was all
bal. The sand produced was called silver sand, and was used
by coiners to finish off the irregularities left by the mould.
The coins were then identified, and Mr. Murphy addressed
the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He pressed upon the
jury the disadvantage under winch the prisoner laboured, in
consequence of the statute requiring that the former con-
viction should, in the first instance, be read ; and besought
them to consider the case on its own individual merits. He
contended that the case was one . of suspicion only, and
hoped they would not convict upon it.
The learned judge then summed up in a perspicuous man-
ner, and the jury, after a short consultation, found the
prisoner guilty.—Sentence was deferred.
John Mack, 29, stood charged with having in his posses-
sion a mould, upon which was impressed the figure, stamp,
and apparent resemblance of both sides of a half-crown, and
the figure, stamp, and apparent resemblance of both sides of
a shilling.

Mary Ann Steel.—l sell cakes and oranges on the qauys.
On the 16th January, about 6 o'clock in the evening, I was
at the Clarence Dock. There was an Irish steamer going to
sail. I saw the prisoner and asked him if he would buy any
cakes or oranges. He said he had no money. He afterwards
said he would buy a penny cake and two biscuits. He gave
me Gd and I gave him 4d in change. I afterwards looked at
the Gn and found it was a bad one. I afterwards went on
board the boat and asked him to change it. He said he had
not given it me. He walked round the packet, and I followed
him. He gave me back my own cake, one of the biscuits,
and two pigs feet. He asked me not to expose -him. 1
agreed to take the pigs' feet, &c., for my sixpence. He then
took out some money. It was in a paper, and two or three
half-crowns, and some shillings and sixpences fell on the deck.
He had a bundle under his arm. I saw the bundle afterwards
in the hands of a policinan that night. 1 gave the pigs' feet
to a policeman. There were gas lights and moonlight.
Catherine Welsh, the wife of Patrick Welsh.—l was at the
dock that night. I had pigs' feet and biscuits. I sold him
two of the feet and a biscuit for a sixpence in silver which
he gave me. 1 afterwards saw the pigs' feet with Mary Ann
Steel. I knew them again. I had come out in a hurry with
them that night, and had left the back hoofs ou them. I then
went to a light and found the sixpence the prisoner had given
me was a " bad one. I gave it to police officer Kelly.
The prisoner was afterwards brought from on board in cus-
tody, and on him was found the biscuit he had bought from
me. It was marked " Stewart," the baker's name.
Edward Wallace, porter to the Dublin Steam Packet Com-
pany. It was his duty to let no one on board who had not
tickets. Mary Ann Steel showed me a sixpence, and 1
thought it was a bad one.- She told the prisoner he 'had
given her a bad sixpence. He said he had not. Witness
said it was a shame to cheat the little girl. He said he had
not done so. He then offered her the pig's feet and biscuits
for the sixpence. He pulled out some money, which fell,
and he picked it up. It appeared to be two or three half-
crowns and some shillings. He had a bundle. Fisher, the
officer, came on board, and witness showed him the bundle,
which was then in the hand of another person.
Henry Kelly, police-officer, said—l was on duty that night
near the dock, and saw Catharine Welsh. I went on board
the vessel. Welsh gave me a sixpence as we went along. I
saw the prisoner, and charged him with giving the woman a
bad sixpence. He denied it. I found in his possession this
file and composition. Wallace aaid the pri,soner had a bundle
on board. The prisoner said nothing to this. Fisher brought
the bundle ashore, and we found the moulds in it. The pH-
s mer said it was not-his. I found a biscuit in his pocket,
which the woman said she had sold to him.

Fisher, a dock-constable, said he was sent on board the
Ballinasloe to fetch the bundle. A man on board had it, and
said a man had given it into his charge. The bundle was
searched in the hut. It contained a couple of moulds, some
plaster of Paris, four Britannia metal spoons, some wearing
apparel, &c. Witness said, here are some tools, any how.
Prisoner said, " If you find any mould for making sixpences
I'm done.
Mr. Dowling produced the mould, and a bad sixpence, as
received from Fisher.

Mr. Powell said the sixpence was a counterfeit. The mould
had the obverse and reverse sides of half-a-crown, and also
of the obverse and reverse. It had evidently been used ; as
also had the file, which had some white metal in the teeth of

The bundle was produced, and four spoons taken from it.
Mr. Powell contintted.—These are Britannia metal, and
many of them are purchased for the purpose of being fused
into base coin.

The bundle was identified as that which the prisoner had
when he bought the cakes from the girl Steel.
Mr. MURPHY addressed the jury for the prisoner. His
principal argument was that the bundle was not traced to the
prisoner, and that as the money found on him did not cor-
respond with the mould, it belonged to some one else.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY spoke briefly for the prosecu-
tion, recapitulating the principal points that more particu-
larly bore against the prisoner. The prisoner's remark when
the mould was found in:the bundle was a strong circumstance
against him, as was the finding of the spoons.
The learned JUDGE carefully summed up the evidence,
dwelling particularly upon the points that appeared favour-
abte to the prisoner. The two letters found in the bundle
were not addressed to, nor did they refer to the prisoner.
The jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner
guilty, and he was put down.
William Johnson, 33, and Jane Broadhurst, 22, stood
charged with having at Handley, feloniously offered and put
off two counterfeit sixpences.
Mr. Serjeant ATCHERLEY in stating the case, remarked
that there were circumstances relating to the female prisoner
which entitled her to considerable compassion.
Ann Mahony said her husband kept a lodging house in
Warrington. The prisoners came there as man and wife.
The woman paid.
Sarah Cooper said she lived with her brother-in-law at the
Ship inn, Warrington. Tne female prisoner came into the
lobby and asked for a pennyworth of tobacco, for which she
payed a bad sixpence, and received five pence out. Witness
gave the sixpence to her brother-in-law.
Mr. Lighfoot said the last witness gave him the sixpence
which he Faye to his wife.
Mrs. Lightfoot received the sixpence and gave it back to
her sister. She marked it and gave it to Mr. Whittle,
chief-constable.

Julia Robinson said, she was the wife of John Robinson;
who keeps a public-house in Sankey. The female prisoner
came for a pennyworth of tobacco, as before, and gave a bad
sixpence, which she put aniongst others, giving her the
change.
James Rigby, keeper of the Bull's Head inn, Pemberton,
said, a person like the prisoner came in a similar manner to
him, giving a bad sixpence for tobacco, and receiving the
change out. A bad sixpence was afterwards found amongst
his money. The prisoner did not swear to the identity of
the female prisoner, but thought she was the same.
Mary Leigh said my husband kept a beer-shop in Hind-
ley. The female prisoner here, too, asked for a pennyworth
of tobacco. I gave it to her. It was in white paper, and
screwed at the ends. I saw it afterwards at Wigan, in the
possession of Norman France, the head constable of Hand-
ley. The risoner
gave sixpence, and witness gave her the
p
change. From what she had heard she took all her silver
out, and the constable found the bad sixpence amongst it.
Margaret Harrison; the wife of Thomas Harrison, who
keeps a beer-shop at. Hindley. Here the female prisoner
passed another sixpence in precisely a similar manner. It
was given to Norman France. When the female prisoner
was told she had given a bad sixpence, she said to witness,
that if witness knew it was not a good one, why did she not
return it
Ann M'Gee said she lived at her mother's lodging-house
near the Scholes. The ,prisoners came and slept there all
night.
Norman France went in search of the prisoners, and saw
them together. The female gave the man something, and
he then went on before her. They again met and again
parted to about the same distance. He took the woman into
custody, and afterwards the man. On being accused of
passing bad money, she said if she had, she would give good
for it if it was returned. On the male prisoner he found a
file, two papers of tobacco, a small spoon, and 3s. 9d. in
copper. Nothing was found on the woman but a bit of
thread and a halfpenny.
Mr. Whittle, constable of Wigan, said, that the female
prisoner after being in custody, had told him she and the
man had left Manchester on their way to Prescot ; that she
had called at different public-houses, as stated, for tobacco,
and had given bad sixpences, getting the change. She had
called at most of the public-houses and shops in the way,
at some of which she passed sixpences: at others the parties
would not receive them. In consequence of the minute
description of the different houses given by the prisoner, he
went round some of them, and found three of the sixpences.
William Heath, police constable of Wigan ; witness heard
'the female prisoner's confession to the last Witness, and in
consequence want to one of the houses and found a bail
sixpence.

Mr. Powell said, the whole of the five sixpences were
counterfeit, and made from the same mould.
The female witness, a rather good looking girl, being
asked what she had to say, became much affected, and said
she hoped his lordship would have mercy upon her. She
was about to enter into a'statement of the male prisoner's
conduct towards her, but his lordship intimated that such a
statement could only avail her hereafter. The male prisoner,
who appeared in the ordinary dress of a Lancashire country
man, said that he had nothing to say, and that he did not
need to do so, as there was no proof against him in the
evidence.

The learned judge then summed up the evidence. The
jury found both the prisoners guilty; but recommended the
female prisoner to mercy as, having been an instrument in
the hands of the man.—Sentence deferred.

NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
The lion. Mr. Justice ERSKINE entered the Nisi Prius
Court shortly after one o'clock, and a jury was immediately
impannelled for the trial of causes in the Salford list, in which
the parties were ready.

KING V, COLE.
In this case a verdict for the plaintiff for £295 ls.
subject to a reference upon terms agreed upon, was taken by
consent.

UNDEFENDED CAUSES.
No. 2. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £5l 18s 6d.
No. 32. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3l ls.
No. 12. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £46 8s 6d.
No. 11. Verdict for the plaintiff, £4013s 10d.
No. 5. Verdict for the plaintiff, £63 15s.
No. 6. Verdict for the plaintiff, £133 9s 10d.
No. 8. Verdict for the plaintiff. £2B 2s.
No. 14. Verdict for the plaintiff, £4O.
In No. 3, Barker v. Ashworth, Mr. ALEXANDER appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. WIGHT/WAN for the defendant.
The case was of a very interesting character, and the jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.

RILEY V. IRVING.
This was one of the actions arising from the attempt to
force the charter of incorporation upon the town of Man-
chester. Mr. CRSSSWELL and Mr. JOHN HENDERSON
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. ALEXANDER and Mr.
CROMPTON for the defendant. The action was brought
nominally to recover the penalties under the police and im-
provement act of the township of Hulme, from the defendant,
who was alleged to have acted as a commissioner without
being qualified, but in reality to try the question of the
meaning of the act as to the commissioners surrendering
their powers. Several witnesses were examined, and the ne-
cessary facts having been elicited, a verdict was taken for
X5O, subject to a special case on the construction of the act.

GARNETT V. SOWLER.
. . _

On this cause, which stood No. 4 on the list, being called,
Mr. WILKINS rose and said he appeared for the defendant,
but that he was not prepared to proceed, having but that
moment had his brief delivered to him. He hoped the
learned judge would postpone the cause till to-morrow, as
there were a great many" documents in the cause which would
require lengthened reading. The defendant had further been
misinformed as to the time when the cause would come on—
he understood there was no chance of its coming on at that
late period of the day. Under these circumstances he trusted
the court would not proceed with the case till to-morrow
morning.
The JUDGE.—Who has misinformed the defendant ? If
any body has, it must have been the attorney. He knows
very well what course the court takes, and he ought to have
been ready. The assizes have commenced a day later than
was originally announced, and he could not have been misin-
formed.

Mr. WILKINS only wished for a postponement until to-
morrow morning, and he apprehended that could not produce
any inconvenience.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—I must apply for the trial not to be
fixed for to-morrow morning, as I shall be engaged in a Bank
of England case in the other court.
The JUDGE.—You are upon the other aide?
Mr. CRESSWELL.—Yes, my lord.
The JUDGE wished it to be understood that it was no ex-
cuse for any party to say he did not think the trial would
have come on so early. However, it might stand over. but
not for the first thing, till to-morrow.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—Perhaps your lordship would take un-
defended causes in the morning for a short time ? That
course would be a great indulgence to me.
Mr. WILKINS.—Can any precise time be fixed conveni-
ently to my learned friend, Mr. Cresswell.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—As soon as the bank case is closed, I
shall return into this court.
The JUDGE.—WeII, at what time do you think?
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, that the case would occupy some
time he was sure—from two to three hours. He hoped to
return by twelve o'clock at the latest.
The JUDGE.—Then the case should he called on as soon as
the case which is in progress when Mr. Cresswell returns
into court is finished.

Mr. NVit.icixs.:Very well, my lord.
The court adjourned at half-past five, till nine o'clock this
morning, (Friday.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.---TUESDAY.

JOHN HODGSON V. THE BOLD-STREET CLUB.
Mr. Richard Shaw, secretary to the Liverpool Friendly
'Society, established in the year 1811, commonly called the
Bold-street Club, of which the Rectors of this town are, with
Mr. Ripley, joint-trustees, appeared before Messrs. Rushton
and Booth. on behalf of the above society, to answer the com-
plaint of John Hodgson, one of the members, who alleged
that he had been improperly excluded, and that certain ar-
rears of an allowance which he had claimed during confine-
ment, in consequence of an accident, had not been paid to
him.

Mr. Shaw, when called upon by the magistrates' clerk,
produced the rules of the society, and directed attention to
the 17th and 30th articles. Mr. Shaw, further, admitted the
former membership of the claimant, and the accident.
Mr. John Hodgson stated, that, on the 20th day of Feb.
last, he was employed in taking in a lot of oil for Mr. Max-
well, when, by some means or other, he lost his hold of the
package which he was directing, and fell upon the parapet.
He was taken up and carried home, (as we understood,) and
placed in the kitchen. He was hurt about the knee. Upon
taking up his trowsers to examine the extent of the injury, he
saw a wound, into which he could have laid his two fingers.
He became insensible, and his wife, while he was in that
state, ran for Mr. Evan Thomas, the bone-setter, who visited
him immediately, and did what he considered necessary to
the injured limb. He had been put to bed, and when he
came properly to himself he considered it best to send for the
club doctor. Acooodingly Mr. Lockwood was sent for. When
he arrived he said, " Well, Hodgson, what has happened
now?" Witness told him how the accident had occurred.
Mr. Lockwood turned down the bed-clothes, and, upon see-
ing the bandaged limb, he said,—Who has done this ?--who
put these splints on ? Witness told him that Evan Thomas,
the bone-setter, had been sent for; upon which Mr. Lock-
wood turned round, and appeared to be going away. He
(Hodgson) said,—l hope, Doctor, you are not offended that
Mr. Evan Thomas has been here. Mr. Lockwood said,—
Yes, he was greatly offended that a quack should have been
called in. Witness replied, that he was a very clever quack.
Upon which Mr. Lockwood replied,—lt may be so, but you
have, in consequence, lost your club money. Mr. Lockwood
had refused to sign his weekly note, and, in consequence of
his (witness's) representations, a board had since been sum-
moned, but the board refused to admit his witnesses. All
his applications had been useless, and at length he (witness)
had thought it best to apply to the magistrates to decide the
point.
__ _

Mr. Flodgson called up his witnesses, when Mr. Shuttle-
worth observed, that all that they could prove had been ad-
mitted..

Mr. Rushton read aloud the 17th rule as follows: " That
no person shall be entitled to any relief from the society till
he shall have been a member, &c., nor shall any member be
entitled to any relief who refused to have his case examined ,
by any physician or surgeon appointed by the directors, &c."
Mr. Rushton said, it did not appear that Hodgson had re-
fused to have his case examined. He took the evidence to
be, that Evan Thomas had been sent for, that he dressed
the wound, and that when the regular surgeon was sent for,
the limb was offered to his inspection, and that he would not
examine it. At least that was the state of the evidence at
present ; he was ready to hear the testimony of the surgeon
if he were in court.
Mr. Lockwood, surgeon, was sworn.—Mr. Lockwood
stated, that on the day in question Hodgson's wife called
upon him about a quarter to three o'clock. He was with
Hodgson before a quarter past three. He asked him what
was the matter with him, and he said his knee was dislocated.
He (witness) turned over the bed clothes, and on seeing
the bandages, he asked Hodgson who had been called in.
He replied that Evan Thomas had been sent for. He (Mr.
Lockwood) told that he could not act with him, and that it
would be necessary for him to give up Evan Thomas, or give
up him (Mr. Lockwood.) Hodgson replied, that he would
not give up Evan Thomas. Mr. Lockwood upon that told
him that he would forfeit his club-money.
Hodgsou handed in the following certificate from Mr.
Evan Thomas : " This is to certify that Mr. John Hodgson
is under my care in consequence of broken cup of his knee
since the 20th of February, and that he is unable to follow
Lis usual application. March 24, 1840, Liverpool.
(Signed) EVAN THOMAS, Bone-setter."
Mr. Rushton said, there had been a point of professional
etiquette in the case, which he knew to be usual. It did not,
however, appear before them that Evan Thomas had not a
diploma. That point did not appear to him at present to
have anything whatever to do with the case. The knee had
been submitted to the inspection of the surgeon, and there
was no evidence to show that Hodgson had refused to allow
the surgeon of the society to examine the case.
Mr. Shaw referred the magistrates to the 30th rule, a por-
tion of which Mr. Rushton read. The parts which bore on
the case were as follows There shall be as many snrgeons
appointed to the society as the board shall think fit, &c. No
gentleman shall be eligible to be a medical attendant or sur-
geon of this society wlio does not possess a diploma as sur-
geon, or who is not licensed to practice according to the
Apothecaries' Act. The medical officers shall attend the
sick members of the society in their respective districts as
assigned by the board. Those who are incapable of attend-
ing, from sickness or lameness, at the surgeon's house, shall
be visited at their houses assoon as possible, (either
by himself or some sufficient assistant,) after the delivery of
the note to visit, and as often after as the case may require ;
and all such members who shall not be visited within three
hours after the delivery of the note, or, in case of sudden sick-
ness in the night time, without a note, shall be at liberty to
employ any other medical man at the charge of the surgeon.
The medical officers shall furnish the sick members with
good and proper medicines, when prescribed by themselves
or their assistants, sign the sick members' weekly notes prior
to their being presented for payment, whether attended by
themselves or any other physician or surgeon, &c."
Mr. Rushton said, it was certainly mentioned that no per-
son was eligible but one who had a diploma. He did not
know whether Evan Thomas had a diploma or not.
Mr. Shaw—Evan Thomas has not any diploma.
Mr. Rushton—How do you know? I cannot take that as
evidence. This is a question involving the rights of this
member, and the rights of all the members. (To Hodgson)
—You showed the surgeon your knee ?
Mr. Hodgson—l sent for the doctor, and showed him my
knee, and he looked at it himself, and then said I had lost
my club-money for employing Evan Thomas.
Mr. Rushton—That is no refusal. I do not say how the
case would stand if Mr. Lockwood averred that the case had
been improperly treated—or if the man had been longer on
the club, in consequence of the treatment, than he ought to
have been. But this has not been shown.
Mr. Shaw—Mr. Lockwood is appointed by the directors.
When the case was brought before the hoard, as he (Hodg-
son) has mentioned, the board told him that his payments
should commence from that day if he would conform to the
rules, and give up Evan Thomas, but he refused.
Mr. Lockwood—And 1 could not possibly act with Evan
Thomas. He has no diploma to practice at all; therefore,
professional etiquette prevents me from acting with him. We
are hound by oath to put down quackery of every kind. I
will stand up for the profession in every way, and am deter-
mined not to give way one inch. I cannot do it. I should
be pointed out by the profession as a black sheep if I did.
complainant, and I cannot see that he should be exc
Mr. Rushton—This is a point of some importance toludtelide
because he sent for this man, and—
be
AMI rr
Rushton—ltH dgson edoweassnsoetnatpfpeorawr,hl
so long as he did
to remain under his treatment afterwards,
attend
him,
Isealy,wtahsatinhse7slisiobuleld.
excluded because Thomas was sent for, andbecauasnedhseeechtilosaet
not refuse to let the regular surgeoninjury,
j
ury, particularly as it
it was really a case of serious
_appiloawrsatroe
well ? improperly treated. (To Hodgson)
V ry nearly quite well. I never had any.
Mr. Hodgson---ll e 900 n. 1 don't wish to stop on the club
hyaevue_b euni
ten not
thing that got we
any longer. I shall attend to my business. I tun merely

seeking to recover the arrears of the allowance which ought
to have been paid to me while I was in bed.
Mr. Rushton—This is a question which involves some
grave points touching the rights of members. In the first
place, there is the professional etiquette, respecting which
professional
.<4.entlenien are, I know, extremely delicate ; but
it cannot be left out of view, that the patient had nothing to
do with that etiquette, and perhaps knew nothing of its
existence.

Mr. Shaw put in certain records of cases, in which persons
had been excluded when they had persisted in employing in-
dividuals with whom the regular surgeons could not co-ope-
rate. It appeared that Mr. Hodgson had been served with
one or more copies of these records.
Mr. Rushton said, if Hodgson, knowing of these eases,
had refused to dismiss Thomas, it 'might alter the aspect of
the case. It was another point for consideration, however,
that he had not refused to submit his wound to the examina-
tion of Mr. Lockwood, but had tendered it for such exami-
nation. The case was not quite clear, and he would take till
the following day to consider it. He had an impression,
knowing the rules on the subject, that it might appear that
the refusal to dismiss the person who was first called in, was
in reality tantamount to a refusal to have the case examined
by the regular surgeon. There was not, however, any direct
act of refusal on the part of the man, and he was not prepar-
ed to say that Evan Thomas was not a very good bone-setter.
Mr. Lockwood knew that there were in this country some
irregularly educated persons, who were very famous for their
skill in that department, and that some persons had great
confidence in their mode of treatment. This individual, for
aught he knew, might be a very good one.
Mr. Lockwood said he knew that such was the case, but
he should, under similar circumstances, act again in the same
way.

kr. Rushton promised to give his decision on the case on
Wednesday.

On Wednesday, accordingly, Mr. Rushton gave his deci-
sion. He said, that having considered the case, he was of
opinion that Hodgson was entitled to the allowance ; but he
wished it to be distinctly understood that this decision was
not given on the general principle, but from the peculiar cir.
cumstances of the case only.

WEDNESDAY.
EXCISE INFORMATIONS.
A number of officers in the Excise appeared to prefer
several informations against parties for breaches of the Ex-
cise laws.

Johnitobert Jones was fined in the mitigated penalty of
£5 for selling ale without a licence. An excise officer had
gone into the house of Jones and purchased there a glass of
ale, for which he paid lid.
An information was laid against John and Margaret Regan,
who keep a public house, for having in their possession
smuggled whiskey. On the 14th of November, an officer
went to the house of the defendants to examine the stock.
On going into the bar, he saw Mrs. Regan doing something
which excited his suspicion ; he found that she was attempt-
ing to hide something beneath her petticoats, and that " some-
thing" turned out to be on examination, three stone bot-
tles containing whiskey. She declared that her husband
knew nothing of them, and that they had been left there by
a woman in order that he might see the whiskey, and if he
chose, make a purchase. The stock was below permit
amount. Mr. Rowlands, the officer who made the seizure,
said that Regan was a poor and honest man. John Regaii
was acquitted ; his wife was convicted, but her penalty was
mitigated to the lowest point in the power of the magistrate,
namely, £25.
Henry Child appeared to answer an information, charging
him with having continued to sell beer after the expiry of
the license granted to him. An excise officer, on the 25th of
November, went into the house of the defendant, and pur-
chased a pint of beer, for which he paid 3d. The license
which had been granted to Child expired in November, 1838.
The defendant said that he had not the least knowledge that
he had been doing wrong. The officers came to his house
every day, and if he had been doing wrong, it was their
duty to have told him. The magistrate pointed out to him
that his license expressly mentioned that his power to sell
expired on the day mentioned. He was convicted and or-
dered to pay the penalty of £5.
An information was laid against Patrick Fearon, a fireman
on board one of the Irish steamers, for having in his poses-
sion smuggled whiskey. An officer stated, that for reasons
which it was unnecessary to mention, he believed that
Fearon was in the habit of bringing over whiskey from Ire-
land, illegally, and unshipping it. He accordingly went to
Fearon, on the 11th of the present month, told him of his
suspicion, and of his intention to search his (Fearon's)
house, and asked the defendant to accompany him (the
officer) thither. Fearon did so, and in the room occupied by
him the officer found jars and bottles containing two and a
half gallons of whiskey, the greater part of which was con-
cealed under the bed. He had previously acknowledged to
another officer that he had in his posession two bottles. The
defendant was convicted in the penalty of £25.
Michael Murphey appeared to answer two informations,
charging him with having a still for illicit distillation, and
with having attempted to frustrate the objects of the excise
officers by breaking a bottle containing whiskey. On the
21st of December last two officers went to the house of Mur-
phy, and searched it. In the cellar he found a still, thirty-
six gallons of wash, a quart of low wine, nine tubs, and a
worm. The house had been let by Mr. Jones, the agent of
the landlord, to Murphy. When the officers went into the
house, Murphy took up a bottle, which he broke by per-
mitting it to fall on the hearth stone, and then said, " There,
that will save a bit of fine ; I am an old hand, you see.''
An officer tasted the fluid which had been contained in the
bottle, and found it to be whiskey. The magistrate informed
the cunning Irishman that instead of having " saved a bit of
a fine," he had made his case much worse. By breaking the
bottle, to attempt to avoid detection, he bad forfeited to the
queen £2OO, in addition to the fine of £2OO for having a still
for illicit distillation. The defendant endeavoured to make
the magistrate believe that he had broken the Dottie by acci-
dent, and that the cellar was not in his occupation, but in
that of his brother-in-law. He, however, brought no wit-
nesses, and the magistrate told him that he disbelieved his
story, and was of opinion, as the defendant himself had
said, that "he was an old hand" in the trade. He (Mr.
Rushton) strongly advised the defendant to seek out a more
honest calling, or the probability was that he would spend a
large portion of his life in gaol.—Convicted, and ordered to
pay the mitigated penalty of £5O on each information.
YESTERDAY.
The proceedings at the Police Court yesterday were of a
very trivial nature, no case of any public importance having
been brought before the magistrate, and the court closed at
an unusually early hour. On this day, and generally, for
some time back, the cases of drunken and disorderly conduct
have Materially decreased. Thesystem generally adopted by
Mr. Rushton, of ordering those votaries of Bacchus, who
abuse his bounties, to be imprisoned on their non-payment of
the fine inflicted, and, in some cases, where the culprits have
been repeatedly brought before him, of committing them for
from seven days to one month, has had a very salutary effect.
The cases of petty pilfering, about the docks especially,
do not diminish. Daily are prisoners brought before. Mr.
Rushton charged with stealing pieces of iron, copper, &c.,
of very trifling value. It is to be feared that sufficient cau-
tion to prevent these offences is not used by the parties con-
cerned. The advice given by Mr. Rushton a few days back,
that property should be better watched, is very valuable,
and ought to be mote closely attended to than it is. The
number of loiterers about the docks is immense—many of
them poor men and boys in search of employment; and it
amounts to little less than an encouragement of crime to
leave property, however small its value, in the way of needy
individuals, to lure them into error. It is to be hoped this
piece of advice will in future be better attended to.
One case which occurred reminded us, without disparage-
ment of the worthy magistrate, of some of Sancho Panza's
decisions ; two boys having possession of a pigeon, of which
they could give no satisfactory account, were ordered to be
discharged, no one appearing to claim the bird, or give evi-
dence against them. The pigeon was also discharged, not,
however, in the custody of its quondam guardians, but into
its native element, to seek its master.

THE LIVERPOOL OPRTIIALMIC INFIRMARY.—The re-
port of this deserving institution for the past year is now
before the public. The number of cases cured or relieved
during the year has been 2,230 ; since the formation of the
establishment, in 1820, upwards of 29,000 persons have par-
ticipated in the benefits which it is daily administering to the
poor. We regret to see that the annual expenditure still
falls short of the income. The public benevolence could not
be exerted in a better cause ; and assistance at the present
moment would be peculiarly valuable, in order to enable the
committee to effect a very desirable alteration without inter-
fering with the funds of the charity.
ACCIDENT.--An accident happened on Tuesday which
might have been attended with the most unfortunate results.
The horse in a gentleman's carriage took fright in Bold-
street, and, after throwing the servant who was driving him,
(and who appeared to behave remarkably well under the
circumstances,) galloped off at a frightful pace down the
street. When opposite the Music-hall, it came in contact
with the Park omnibus, the horses of which also became
unmanageable, and ran off at great speed after the carriage.
The omnibus was brought up in Church-street by the fall of
one of the horses, which was much injured, and the passen-
gers got out without any other inconvenience than the alarm
occasioned them ; the pole was broken by the shock. The
driver conducted himself with extraordinary coolness. The
carriage was stopped in Lord-street, the pole and splinter-
bar both broken, but fortunately no other damage was sus-
tained.

DEATH OF JAMES MAURY, ESQ.—A veneraule tindvod
man has sunk to rest. The aged James Maury, after tr
simple, and blameless life, extended to the.9sth year, sleeps
with his fathers. Mr. Maury was a Virginian, and, as is well
known to most of our readers, was appointed by Gen. Wash-
ington, the first American consul at Liverpool. He held that
office for nearly half a century, doing its duties faitafully,
and without possible offence to any human being. He was
superseded by General Jackson, and soon after returned to
his native country, to which he
was warmly welcomed by
thousands whom he had the opportunity of serving abroad,
and by the commercial community at large, whose interests
he had vigilantly guarded. A. public dinner was given to him
here, which was most numerously attended ; and in Vir-
ginia he was received as a patriarch, returning after long ab-
sence, among his people. Subsequently, he-took up his resi-
dence in the city, with his sons and an only daughter ; and
his life wore peaceably away, exempt from suffering, until its
tranquil close. Mr. Maury was a man of education and in-
telligence, a gentleman of the old school, and, withal, a sin-
cere and steady Christian.—New York American, of Feb. 24.
MERSEY AND IRWELL COMPANY'S DOCKS.--TheSe docks
are situated at the entrance of the Mersey and Irwell navi-
gation, about 16 miles above Liverpool, on the course of the
Mersey towards Manchester, and afford great advantages to
the Irish, Scotch, Welsh, and coasting traders generally. On
Wednesday last they were made the scene of great attrac-
tion to the inhabitants of Runcorn, by the largest vessel that
ever entered this rising seaport coming up the river to them.
A. beautiful new brig called the Thomas Tattersall, after her
proprietor, amidst a gay display of flags and banners, and
d crowds along the piers, brought her first ca rgo into
Runcorn from Drogheda, to be transhipped into the lighters
of
11 hters
registered
of the Old Quay company, for Manchester.
that She
er
is
came s o far
for a greater tonnage than any es
up the river before, nearly three hundred
dredtones t•eing her car-
go at a draught of 14 feet of water. Thanks_ to the application
of steam for propelling vessels of this burthen, and rendering
the navigation of the Mersey safe, delightful, and expeditious.
We hope that improvements in the river will proceed until no
transhipment becomes necessary at Runcorn, and vessels of
equal dimensions to the Thomas Tattersall, come direct up
to Manchester.—Manchester Courier.
NEW STEAM-SHIP " ADMIRAL."—We have been favoured
by a gentleman, who accompanied this fine vessel on her trial
trip down the Firth. on Friday last, with the particulars
thereof. The Admiral, having been loaded with as many
coals as will generally be required to take her from Glasgow
to Liverpool, and back again, and with as much pig iron as
represents the weight of a full cargo of goods, left the
Broomielaw at twelve o'clock ; she steamed the length of
Greenock in one hour and fifty minutes, which, although
pretty good work, formed of course no criterion to judge by
of her capabilities, in consequence of so much slowing, and
other obstructions in the river ; but having fairly got into
deep water, she performed a distance of sixteen miles in one
hour and six and a half minutes, which is five minutes less
time than it was ever done in by any other vessel ; and our
informant thereby calculates that she will perform the voyage
from Greenock to Liverpool in sixteen hours, with her steam
power alone. The Admiral has cylinders of seventy inches
diameter, by six and a half feet stroke, made by Mr. Napier
of the Vulcan Foundry ; her cabins are not yet finished,
but when they are so, they will not be second in taste and
comfort to anything that has yet been done in Clyde.. The
arrangements in the fore-part of the vessel, in part
have been much improved on, it being divided into spacious
and airy state.roo.ns-of oM,nly two berths each. a nuclei.
stand that, when finished, she will be laid.. opal) to the in-
, spection Of the public.—Scottish Guardian.