The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-16 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.

Eibtsrpool qembarbi

I ciation

FROM 0

t.. 8; SP OND ENT.

LONDON CORY"

speak of took nearly a hundred p
3 authority of JOHN TIRD PRATT

s a piece

I answer to their wolfish inquiry

Oh, cer

'it of that or

as Lord BYRON used to s

firth's animatic

ly out of a

w me, 1
s of the

dad be,n to ti

will complete what le
e'en put the result "v
numbers of beautiful :

station begat

nal
bby must

his pipe and smoke it." Great
ew cabs are now on the ranks,—

ti~eofthedr

busy as possible'ivi

ney
tion as it seems to have

ice the ques-

r cabs

ICAGOIMIIMIIEOMMMOSIIONHIWMMiI
THEATRE-ROYAL

IN alluding last week to the amusements at this theatre,
incidentally mentioned that those accomplished his-
.

trzones, Mrs. FitrAi'ham a
menced a brief engagement
performing, with mark

Mr. Buckst

Since then tla
lnd gratifying sum(

aad com-

have been
, to highly

pieces and some novelties bare been
the peculiar talents of those performers
scope, while the general dramatic

allowed free

Ascent of

_don to Mr. Buckstone b -- Mount Par-
,.as"—was the production, on Friday evening, for the
oenefit of Mr. Buckstone, of a new comedy, in three acts,
)3, the author of The King of the Common*, entitled
The Mousetrap." As a dramatic composition this
',us on public attention. Its plot is
-ct is neither sparkling nor brilliant,
.hiefly concentrated in oppor-

and its aim appears
tunities for displayin

he conflicting professions and sen-

heritance of a rich uncle, has been induced to don the
habiliments, to assume the profession, and to adopt the
-II name of ^ " Obadiah Jack Marling"—a character
•acy ably s- I albeit in all probability a little over acted,
India by " ne. The points to be elicited in unfolding
4--
)ecbre. I I ire the involuntary outbursts of generous
ndignation, felt and expressed by the gallant tar, pro-
_ - ___

1 Quake

;ustaine

eneralship of Ina

sir. Bucksicr

Clerimont Waldron, towards his protegi, George Marling,
whom the worthy quaker has good reason to believe the
baronet's son. The emotions this belief gives
expresses in language, accompanied by action, 'nor
to the quarter-deck than in accordance with '

ise to ne
e suited

conventionalities of the " Friends' Society." In rendering
this this character, with its contrasting anomalies, Mr.
Buckstone was quite at home, and he delivered many
pointed sarcasms, aimed at the vagaries of the "Peace
Society," in a mariner which convulsed the house with
laughter, and excited immense applause from a crowded
and fashionable audience. Mrs. Fitzwilliam, in the cha-
racter of Judith Smith, a gipsey, had not much to do, but
what she had to do was admirably gone through. The
unobtrusive and quiet truthfuhwss with which she rendered
the character of the generous and naturally high-toned
feeling of the woman, despite her adverse antecedents, was
charming. Her performance in this character did not
elicit bursts of applause, but it did more, it won and fixed
the admiration of the beholders, whose silent and pleased
attention spake more eloquently her triumph than repeated
rounds of noisy approbation could have done. Of the
other characters of the drama it is but justice to say they
were in general most creditably performed. Mr. Baker, as
Sir Clerimont Waldron, was far above mere respecta-
bility. His deportment was that of a gentleman ; and,
considering the very insignificant part he had to sustain,
we think his maintaining such a deportment throughout
was. no mean achievement. As Helen Dallaway, Miss
Chaplin was pleasino• and natural. The comedy, which,
as we have already stated, possesses no great merit as a

gh he had

.SAY, the 10th

llow-subjects in

pietly let " down the

SPEAKER

ltecl hour of 11
absence of hon.

review. at .Spithead

es Bill,

which was read a third time and passed sub silentio on

bearing the same title;

They are

titill rotten at the core, and I shall tell you why that. rot-
tenness and rain Prevail—Joni TIDD Pe.A.TT, the mam-
moth actuary, notwithstanding to the contrary. Who

drama, was succeeded by theserio-burlesqUe entertainment
of Mr. Buckstone's .eent of Mount Parnassus." This

lating the numerous and extravagant whims by which
theatrical popularity has of late sought to be buoyed up ;
in too numerous instances to the sad deterioration of legi-
timate drainatic taste. In the introductory portion of
this acted satire, the mystical quality which lent a factitious
charm to the drama of the " Corsican Brothers," is happily
ridiculed, as are also the elaborate extravagance which
characterised the displays at Drury-lane, and the scarcely
less bewildering varieties by which success was sought to
be enchained to the performances at the Lyceum. The
predilection for the German plays likewise receives a
smart, but not unmerited castigation, and the censure
is happily wound up by a telling exposé of that
dramatic abortion "Uncle Tom's Cabin." All this is
passed in unstrained review before Mr. Buckstone in his
character of theatrical manager, assisted by Fortune, most
attractively impersonated by . Mrs. Fitzwilliam. The re.

view completed, after some deliberation on the sUbjec7,tl;
manager determines on the " Ascent of Mount Parnassus,"
,and, accompanied by Fortune, sets out on his enterprise.
In this portion of the entertainment, it would be difficult
to speak in overstrained terms of the illustrative views
from the delightful pencil of Mr. Charles Marshall. Each
individual scene is a picture of high merit ; while some of
them fully deserve much higher encomium. In particular,
the " Vilinge of Krissa, near the Gorge of the Pleistus,"
the " Ruins of the City of Delphi," and the " Castalian
Fountain," are scenes of great artistic excellence—rich
and truthful in colour and outline, and brilliant in effect.
The " Coryphean Cave" is dazzlingly theatrical, and in it
the spectators are treated to a charming ballet, sustained
by the strength of the corps de ballet, led on and ani-
mated by the fascinating grace displayed by Miss Rosina
Wright. As a whole the spectacle is exceedingly pleasing,
and we can hardly/wonder at the popularity which greeted
its production in the- metropolis, or at its success in the
provinces. We may be permitted to add that, in our
Theatre-Royal, it has been admirably put upon the stage,
and has received every justice from the manager, and from
the company.

Standard will believe me when I state that I have eaten COMMERCIAL
Italian ham and drank Seltzer in No. 5, Bennett-street,
the poet's pet London house. The varmintry of the asso-

I.IONETARY NEWS,

MONDAY

NIGHT,

no said, in
THE termination of all apprehensions as to im-
y, you can mediate hostilities in the East—the recent de-

streets of London ; I

in the moue

and the value of public securitie

held at a hi

oftener, his clothes rate of interest, anti the continued drain upon
specie, the returns of the stock of bullion in the
Cabby, now, is aligientnma .aitil :c rheea
st ih* oanv.le,sv
are less (? more) mended, he is altogether a better man Bank of England again showing a decrease to the
outwardly. These are superficial changes, produced by extent of nearly a third of a million. This con-
tinued decrease, notwithstanding the many
means come-at-able. The razor and needle of MEcnt ;
the soap of nEN HAWES, can accomplish them. It is thereceipts
of bullion from Australia and elsewhere, has natu-
cabman's new and good manners which surprise and de-
rally excited much attention as to the probable
light the lieges. I resemble Colonel SIBTIIORP in, perhaps,
- than one particular; in this certainly, that lam cause. ln the absence of any reliable statistics on

b when I travel throvigh Babylon; the subject, much is left to co
-ce, like the Colonel's, is vast. can be very little doubt '
men are as bland and polite as attributed to thi
poetry of motion ;" they touch the hat,
this co, t •
an ry, own
atitude, take the " tizzy," now called
i harmless slang is abandoned ; pro- a partial can c.

; but there

hat it is mostly to be
balance of trade being against

country at highc

tations,while

employment

er wages, and con-

u sump n
greater part, now on at higher prices, requiring a greater
amount of the circulating medium.
manner born. Is

it all cunning ? hyPocrisy ? or were they at heart always The more peaceful tone of political affairs has
so, and would have shown that they were so, but for the had its effect in giving firmness to the markets for
whips and scorns of a vile world ? My own opinion i§, manufactures, and, coupled with the return to
that Cabby is polite on compulsion. He certainly made work of the Stockport operatives, would have
an ass of himself by his two days braying in tap-room, tended to enhance the value of Cotton ; but the
instead of holding his ribbons ; he fears harsher legisla-
spinners having previously stocked themselves,
ion, and new competition. Parliament can hardly do
re to take latent bluster out of Cabby --.tition refrained from purchasing, P...

'he market, without

having given NV-ay , has been quiet.
The same circumstances, coupled with the glo-
horses also ;—a new race of masters are srining rious weather, have operated to depress the market
al g •
.41 declare that the alteration isp for the for Gram. From all parts of the kingdom we
.er,—that they are ready to go to have reports of the promises of harvest, in some
work like Britons at the new fare. Meantime, account places Wheat having been cut, and in all cases
For this. During the cab strike, the omnibuses and looking well, with a prospect of being very little
steamers were not nearly so well filled as formerly, and below the average. The consequence has been a
now you shall see half a dozen empty cabs where you
general fall in the value of Wheat, amounting in
could not obtain one before the row. In proof whereof, 0
cab proprietors are now taking among them £3OO a the whole to about a shilling a bushel.
--qs receipts, while the Inland Revenue clerks are as The me' - .i-- ~,,,w. o,—, '*^ "L- has

!erpt or ti

prevented the ne
Ram Win a crAncli4

stolll9 ACt to- ti

T guarantees on

laglierreotipes are adm

-The return

in the Bank of England for the
he following

th of At

compared with the previous wee

Increase

12,475,528; Decrease 279;510
.342,683 i increase 93,980

Increase 160,488

)ecrease 441,070
Li is £23,552,795

and the stock of

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.

CONTINUED PROM OUR SECOND PAGE

NISI PRIUS COURT,—MoNnAY, AUGUST 15.
Before Mr. Justice Erie. •
,E.—This was an undefended case, and judg-

ment was given for the plaintiff
BLAIR AND OTHERS V. NICHOLS.—This was an action to
recover the sum of .t'67 15s. 6d., amount of damaged alleged

_ upten oy
lane, near Salford. It appeared
occupied the premises for
dart of the plaintiffs, who
_ late Mr. Joseph Blair, it
was stated that defendant had used cottages as depots for
chemicals and other matters, and had so deteriorated the
floors and other portions of the premises as to render
them unfit for habitation or use. For the defence it was
contended that the premises were very old ; that they
had been long used for the purposes of trade; that the
damages sustained by them were such as arose neces-
sarily in the ordinary course of business ; and that defend-
ant was not liable to maintain or leave the premises in a
state of repair ; and that he had to leave the premises in
consequence of their want of repair. An attempt was made
on the part of the plaintiff to have the case referred to some
competent parties in Manchester, but this was not acceded
to, and the case went to trial.—After several witnesses had
been examined, Mr. James, for defendant, contended there
was no evidence of tenancy. The question, he said, arose out
of a case of trustees for the late Mr. Joseph Blair. This could
only be established by writing, which had not been adduced.
—His Lordship couldnot admit such a relation as that o f trus-
tees. The court could only deal with owner and tenant. That
relation was established! by the defendant, who gave notice
to plaintiff that he should quit the premises.—Mr. James

I him as dye works, inillodgi

sixteen or seventeen years

-On the

Langford-` also pleaded guilty to both the other charges, and
the learned counsel for the prosecution s:(id he did not think
it necessary to proceed with them as against the other pri-
soners. Previous convictions against all the prisoners, with
the exception of Kelly, were produced in court. l'he pri-
soners, are part of a notorious gang of burglars who have
for some time infested the neighbourhood of Manchester.
Langford and Price had been twice before convicted of felony,
and Delaney and Buckley had already both been convicted
once. All the prisoners had likewise been several times
summarily convicted, and imprisoned. for various terms.

then sentence
Pr

to twelve

wished a note of his objection taken, which his lordship
agreed to.—Mr. James next said there was no evidence to
show that the defendant was bound to do anything but use
the premises in a tenant-like manner.—His Lordship : The
presumption of an ordinary tenancy is, that the premises
shall be used in a tenant-like manner, and left in a tenant-
able condition. The claim in this case is for wilful damage.—
Mr. James then addressed the jury, contending generally
that the damages arose in the ordinary course of tear and
wear, and that many of the alterations set forth as damage
were effected with the concurrence of the late proprietor (Mr.
Joseph Blair) who had seen the mode in which the premises
were occupied, and tacitly acknowledged the propriety of such
alterations and uses. He also maintained. that much of the
dilapidation had taken place prior to the occupancy of the
defendant. Nothing, in fact, had been done in the premises
inconsistent with their legitimate uses. The condition of the
premises was not better when they came into the possession
of the plaintiff in .1849, than they were when the defendant
left thew.—A juror was withdrawn, and the matter was settled
out of court.

to
.ten years' transportation (I

sentenced to tell years' transportation for a former felony), and
Buckley and Delaney each to seven years' transportation.
The female prisoner, Kelly, was sentenced to be imprisoned
for twelve calendar months.

WILD v. lionsoN.—This was an action brought by Eliza-
beth Wild, an unmarried woman, who keeps an establishment
for teaching millinery in Corporation-street, Manchester,
aaainst John Hobson, who is in the employment of Mr. Dun,
draper, Newcastle-on-Tyne. It appeared that on the 30th of
December last defendant called at the establishment of Miss
Wild. and having obtained •

FORGERY AND EMBEZZLEMENT BY A RELIEVING OFFI-
CER.-Philip Barlow was charged with haying at Salford, on
the 17th of December last, feloniously forged and uttered a

...., Liao u _..- 00, __.... an interview with her, said he had
called for payment of the account; on being asked what acount,
he said, "Oh, you know very well ; it is for money due to
Mr. Dun, a draper in Newcastle, and I was told you would
deny it." He then said that plaintiff had been in custody for
two years at the instance of Mr. Dun, on a charge of having
forged a bill.' On plaintiff denying this, he said he knew it to
be true, and 'further, that in addition to the charge of the
forged bill, plaintiff had been detained in a top room
of Mr. Dun's house in Leicester, for a debt of .650, from
which she had made her escape. These statements he
repeated in the hearing of several parties, and as they
were calculated to do serious injury to plaintiff in her
business, and as she utterly denied the truth of any part
of the allegations, the present action was brought to recover
compensation for such damages as she might have sus-
, tained through the misrepresentations. On the part of
the defence it was stated to have arisen out of a mistake as
to the person ; and it was attempted to be shown that reason-
able means had been adopted to make such reparation as the
case required. It was also admitted that the plaintiff was a
highly respectable person, and an entire retractation of the
averments as against the plaintiff was read by the counsel
for the defence ; written, however, after the present action
had been commenced.—The learned Judge, in summing up,
dwelt at considerable length on the recklessness with which
the charge had been made against Miss Wild in the first in-
stance, and also on the tardy nature of the proferred repara-
tion. He likewise pointed out the probability of some portion
of the stigma attaching to the plaintiff, unless the jury, by
their verdict, indicated the degree of injury they considered
she had sustained.—The jury returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, and awarded the sum of .4/00 damages, with 40s. costs.
SHIPTON V. BEAUMONT AND, ANOTHER.—This was an ac-
tion as to the efficiency of some machinery furnished by the
plaintiff to the defendant. It having been agreed to refer the
case, it was withdrawn.

certain order for the payment of money with intent to de-
fraud. The prisoner was further charged with having, at
Salford, fraudulently and feloniously embezzled six pounds
two shillings, the moneys of his masters, the guardians of the
poor of the Salford Union.—Mr. Monk and Mr. Leeming
conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Sowler defended the

WHARTON V. HILDITCH.—This was an action for the sum.
of £2BO, alleged to be due to the plaintiff for work done in,
erecting some buildings in the city of Manchester. The case,.
as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff, was that, prior to
commencing operations, a contract was entered into between
the parties, a condition of which was that certain payments
were to be made to the plaintiff; from time to time, as the
work was proceeded with. In course-of the operations such
alterations had been ordered by the defendant as to amount
to a nullification of the original contract, and the plaintiff
claimed to have the work paid for by measurement, at a rea-
sonable rate of charges. The amount in all as under the
original and subsequent contracts was to be .4'419 10s. ; by
various instalments the sum of .4107 Ss: 11d. had been paid.
and the difference between the sum claimed and the appa.
rent balance arising out of the proposed mode of measuring
the work, instead of having it ruled by-the contract. After
a lengthened conference between the counsel on both sides,
the case was withdrawn, with a view to its settlement by
reference.

SHAW v. MADELEY. —This was an action to determine
whether the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain possession of
certain goods which he had purchased from one Chas. Hunt,
which goods Hunt bad purchased at an auction sale. From
the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff's father, who car-
ried on business in Salford as a painter, having become em-
barrassed in his circumstances, sold off his stock-in-trade and
household furniture, for the purpose of aiding him in liqui-
dating his debts ; and that the goods having been duly adver-
tised to be sold by auction,. Hunt became the purchaser of the
whole, which he bought in one lot. The plaintiff, who is
second son to the vendor, in the course of the same day
purchased the whole from Hunt. The latter had purchased
the lot for .414, and the plaintiff allowed him £4O for it,
and paid him in two instalments of £'2l and „ell). It
also appeared that, prior to tlin ilie derendant had ob-
tained a judgment execution against the plaintiff's father,
and, under it, he sought to secure the goods and furniture in
question.—On the part of the defence, it was attempted to be
shown that a collisive arrangement had been entered into be-
between the plaintiff and his father. This, however, com-
pletely failed, and the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
PHIPPS V. JACKSON.—This was an action to recover the
sum of £1,144 10s.t the principal and interest due by the
defendant to the plaintiff on a promissory note. Verdict for
the plaintiff b! consent.

ALSTON V. GRANT &ND ANOTHER.—This was an action to
recover compensation for damage alleged to have been done
to goods belonging to the plaintiff, through the negligence or
imperfectly constructed works which had been made and
maintained lay the defendants. The plaintiff is a grocer at
Ramsbot tom, and the defendants are extensive manufacturers
and cloth printers at the same place ; they also are extensive
proprietors in the neighbourhood of Ramsbottoin. It was
admitted, on the part of the defendants, that the sewer by
which the alleged damage was occasioned, was-constructed by
them for their own benefit. One part of the sewer, near its
upper portion, was of larger dimensions than the part
below, which was nearly level. The level part was con-
structed of flag bottom and ton, with what is called
random walls at the sides ; that is, the walls were
loose, and built without mortar. In February, 1851, and
again in February, 1852. extensive floods took place, which the
sewer was unable to carry off, and in consequence of the loose-
ness of the walls of the sewer and its small dimensions, a
portion of the-water escaped into the cellar of the plaintiff.
In the flood of 1842 the water rose in the cellar to a height of
about three feet. In consequence of this access of water, the
plaintiff sustained-damage to the amount of 4160 or upwards
on a quantity of sugar, and a loss of £l4 12s. 3d. on soap
and candles. It had, in addition to the actual loss, occasioned
an outlay of 4.7 15s. for clearing the water out of the cellar.
The plaintiff estimated his loss by comparing the amount be
had in stock before the floods with what had been laid in
and what had been sold in the interim. [Tawas agreed to refer
plaintiff's books for inspection on this point to Mr. Asplin,
who was appointed to examine the books and report.]
Subsequent to- the occurrence of the second flood, the de-
fendants made such improvements in the sewer, as, it was
contended, would, if effected earlier, have prevented the in-
fliction of the injury complained of.—The Attorney-General,
for the defence, said no cause of action had been made out.
The defendants built the cottages at: their own cost, and let
one or more of them to the plaintiff. In doing so, they gave
no undertaking beyond the existing state of things. The
whole was their own Property, and in their buildings they
accommodate the sewer to the property, and the property
to the sewer. In doing so, they only did what any one was
entitled to do.—His lordship said, if' the sewer was not
so constructed as to be of a reasonably perfect kind, the
defendants were liable for such damage as might arise from
it. He-might illustrate this by considering the effects which
might arise from the action of another element. If a
party wall between Mr. Grant's house and his neighbour's
were by him so imperfectlyconstructed as to admit of flames
passing through it, and burning the adjoining house, Mr.
Grant would be liable, if it could be shown that reasonable
care and skill had not been exercised in its construction. It
"was, he considered, a continuing duty to maintain all such
works in such a condition as. to be a reasonable security
against accidents to the property of the tenants, in the same
way as if it were the property of a separate party. It
might be left for the jury to consider whether the -sewer
in question was constructed with due care and skill.—
For the defence witnesses were called, who proved that
under ordinary circumstances the sewer was amply sufficient
to convey away all the water which was likely to run into it.
They likewise stated, that on the two occasions referred to in
the cause, the floods were unusually heavy. His lordship
then summed up, enforcing his previously intimated opinion
as to the importance of settling the proper construction of the
sewer, and its capacity for carrying off the water. The jury
consulted for a short time, and returned a verdict that the
sewer was not properly constructed. Judgment stayed till
the fifth day of next term.
The Court rose at half past six o'clock.

prmuner.-1t appeared, from the statement of the learned
counsel for the prosecution, that the prisoner had been
employed as a relieving officer in the Salford Union, and
that on the 24th of September last, at a meeting of the
relief committee of the guardians, the prisoner brought before
the committee the case of a widow, named Elizabeth Row-
botham, residing in Thompson-street, in Salford. The case
having been considered, the committee decided to allow
Rowbotham eighteen-pence a week for thirteen weeks, and
the then chairman of the committee, Mr. John Whittaker
Williamson, signed his initials, "J. W. \V." in the " Appli-
cation and the Report-book," which authorised the prisoner,
on production of this book, to receive the amount of relief
allowed by the committee. The amount was received by the
prisoner, and the sum of eighteen-pence a week was paid by
him to Rowbotham up to the 28th of October, on which day
Rowbotham died, and since her death no further sum had
been paid by the prisoner. At the expiration of the
thirteen weeks, however, viz., on the 17th of December
last, the prisoner wrote the initials "J. W. W." in the
Application and Report-book, representing that a fur-
ther sum of eighteen-pence a week had been allowed to
Rowbotham for thirteen weeks, from the 17th day of
December last. On this the prisoner received the further
sum or eighteen-pence a week for the thirteen weeks, and de-
bitted the union with the amount. On its being discovered
that the initials "J. W. W." entry on the 17th December was

CROWN COURT, YESTERDAY.
(BEPORE MR. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN.)

His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
ALLEGED ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT SALFORD.—
Richard Vipond, 21, and William Brierley, 21, were
charged with, having, at Salford, on the morning of the
9th of July, violently assaulted William Isherwood, and
felonionsly stolen from his person the stun of three
shillings and sixpence. Mr. Higgin conducted the prose-
cution, and Mr. Sowler defended the prisoners. The
prosecutor stated that about one o'clock on the morning of
the 9th of July he was going home along Cannon-street,
in Salford, when he was attacked by the prisoners, and
after being violently assaulted by them, was robbed of
three shillings and sixpence. In cross-examination the
prosecutor stated that he had had some liquor during the
night, but was not drunk. On behalf of the prisoners,
Mr. Sowler denied the charge of robbery altogether, and
called, amongst other witnesses, Mrs. Richardson, who
keeps a public-house, in Manchester, and who stated that
the prosecutor was at her house until twelve o'clock on the
evening of the Bth July, and was very drunk. Before he
left the house he asked for a quart of ale, but had not enough
of money to pay for it. He turned out all his pockets to
spew witness that be had no money.—Mr. Higgin was about
to address the jury in reply on behalf of the prosecution,
when his Lordship remarked that there was no evidence that
the prisoners had robbed the prosecutor. The jury almost
immediately acquitted both the prisoners, and on the appli-
cation of Mr. Sowler his Lordship ordered their discharee.
EXTENSIVE BURGLARIES AT MANCHESTER.—WHERITI
Langford, 25, Patrick Delaney, 19, John Buckley, 21, Richard
Price, 28, and Catharine Kelly, 22, were charged with having
at Manchester, on the night or the 14th of May, burglarionsly
broken and entered the dwelling-house of Thomas Turner,
and stolen therein three coats, ten waistcoats, ten gowns, ten
petticoats, and various other articles, of the value of £2O.
The prisoner Langford was further charged with having, at
Manchester, on the 16th of April, broken and entered the
dwelling-house of Edward Mc Loughlin, and stolen therein
one shawl, one shirt, one pair of sheets, and other articles, of
the value of .e 4. The prisoner, Patrick Delaney, William
Langford, and Catherine Kelly, were further charged with
having, at Manchester, on the night of the 30th of April, bur-
glariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of John
Leonard, and stolen therein two shawls, one sofa cover, ten
pounds weight of meat, a quantity of wearing apparel, and
other articles, of the value of eio. Langford pleaded guilty,
and the others not guilty.—Mr. Monk conducted the prose-
cution, and stated the facts of the case in connexion
with the burglary at the house of Thomas Turner, from
which it appeared that the burglary took place about
eleven o'clock at night, during the absence of the family from
home. Evidence we' then adduced which implicated the
prisoners Langford, Buckley, and Kelly in the burglary, and
also the prisoners Delaney and Price in afterwards receiving
a portion of the property, knowing it to be stolen. The
prisoners, who were undefended, were all found guilty,
Langford, Buckley, and Kelly of burglary, and Delany and
Price with receiving the property, knowing it to be 4191e11i