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
' Lancaster commenced yesterday. The learned judges, Mr.
Justice Coleridge and the Hon. Mr. Justice Erskine, arrived
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 Bourne, Esq., of Liverpool.
Thomas Bright Crosse, Esq., of Shawe Hall.
William Wallace Currie, Esq., of Ellerlies.
Pattison Ellames, Esq., of Allerton Hall.
Michael Hughes, Esq., of Shirdley Hall,
Ralph Thicknesse. Esq., of Beech Hill.
William Gerard Walmsley, Esq., of The Platti.
Joshua Walmsley, Esq., of Liverpool.
Hugh Hornby Birley, Esq., 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.
Humphry 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 that 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, he knew not
whether it was necessary—perhaps it was not—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 chargewasunfound-
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 wasa 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 froin
the disappearance of' the child, and both were taken before
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 born—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, but
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 asafe
one for any person—that he would never proceed to the cons
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 these here but he
apprehended that Lord Hale, in laying down this rule,
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 astringent 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 anythbig 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 c:iild-murder by the mother, with con-
cealment of the birth afterwards. 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-
tnhe
i shab le
legislature a s themade
offence
th
that
iasitbeerfaotri
n e andthe
laatwthe a sames exte
ntimeto
children base born. The distinction between them was now
removed. The first question for their inquiry would be, whe-
ther the crime reduced itself so low as that of concealment.
But if they should be of opinion that these persons, knowing
well what was going to happen, that they were about to be-
come mothers of children, placed themselYes in such a situa-
tion, or neglected to make such precautions, that the neces-
sary 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
wbat• 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 government and control of the passions, 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 companion 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 ivas, 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 qUarrellitig 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 be wilful
. murder. The other circumstance in this case and which was
common in occurrences of this nature, and whidh 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 man 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 heaitation 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
uo.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 hi 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 fit to in-
quire whether the man was drank when he used the
words, because, as a 'matter of evidence, the same
words used by a sober 1121m11 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 whieh 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. lie 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
were fully instructed 'in the nature of those offences. By the
constitution of this country the utmost possible freedom
was allowed for the discussion of the conduct of persons
however high in the state—and for the discussion of the
wisdom, propriety, or legality of any measures of government,
and for that therefore, it was allowed also for persons
peaceably to assemble and .discuss those measures. Whe-
ther meetings of this nature were either ',prudent or. proper
he must be allowed to feel the greatest possible doubt. When
we considered how little possible good could result .from
them, how ill-qualified-the individuals attending- them were
to discuss those questions, how dangerous the assembling of
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,. uuprotitaole, and highly
dangerous practice for'persons of that description., .'And he
must say that many persons who went to meeting.-.of this
sorrout of idle:curiosity, had' far better stay away. -It:was
hardly possible for any persons to be tuiconcerned.spe.ctators.
The mere assembling-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 bad not the courage to assist the civil magistrate to
put them down—as it 'was their duty to put them down—
let them withdraw themselves and go home. 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 magis.rates,
knew they had a duty to discharge. The law cornered upon
them large powers. It would be wise when they did nterfe •e,
to interfere with promptness and with as strong a ii.rce

. .
they had at their command; and in addition to the
powers with which the constitution invested them 01
swearing in special constables, they had the power to cal
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 an end. That would
not, however, be done—it were idle to supposeit 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 downthe evil before
hand, and not keep down the cause of it. It was idle to say
that in this country there were not causes at work 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 keen so re-
markable, that harmony between the higher and the 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 rapi fly
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 ATCHEILLEY (with whom was Mr. Perry)
stated the case to the jury as it afterwards appeared in evi-
dence.
John Diggles, 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 he 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 vould, and some metal wrapped in a brown
paper parcel. He 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 till night. The prisoner es= 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 sat 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 athis work the whole of the 22d of April.
He saw him last at about half-past ten at night.
The JunciE here -rernarked, that the evidence so far did
not prove a guilty Possession against the prisoner.
Mr. Sergeant ATCHantsiv said, they:could prove. the find-
ing of the shilling With which 'the' mould was made in the
cellar of the mother:
The JUDGI:.—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, wellknowing the
same to he counterfeit ; and he having before been convicted
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, e.ssistant 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 :-1
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 saying 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 wire got the
money. In the morning she gave me a half-crown and a
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 remembered 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 polics-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 2.41, all good money. He went into the prisoner's
bed-room, in the same house, and found souse 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, received the prisoner,
who said he must have taken the money in change. - lie
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 which the prisoner laboured, in
consequence of the statute requiring that the former con-
viction should, in the first instance, be react; and .besought
them to consider the case on its own individual merits. He
contended that the case was one of suspiciou 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 16tIsJanuary, about G 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 6d and I gave him 4d in change. I afterwards looked at
the 6n and -found it was a bad one. I afterwards went on
hoard the boat and asked him to change it lie said he had.
not given it me. He walked round the packet, and I followed
hitn. He gave me bads: my own cake, one of the biscuits,
and two' pigs feet. He asked me not to expose 'him. I
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 hada bundle under his arm.- I saw the bundle afterwards
in the hands of a policman that night. I gave the pigs' feet
to a:policeman. There were gas lights.and moonlight.
Catherine Welsh, the wife of Patrick Welsh.-1 was 'at the
dock that night. I had pigs' feet and biscuits. I sold him.
twoof the feet and a biscuit fora sixpence in silver which
he gave ine, I 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 hack hoofs on 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 hoard 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 rue 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 lie picked it up. It appeared to be two or three half-
crowns and some shillings. He had a bundle. Fisher, the
officer, came on hoard, 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 cotnnositiOn. Wisllace said the prisoner had a bundle
on board. The prisoner said nothing to this. Fisher brought
the bundle ashore, and we-found the moulds in it. The pri-
x finer 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. Dovsling 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 continued.—These are Britannia metal, and
many of them arc 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. Mraetty 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 ATCIIERLEY 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 spoone. •
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 gave 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 amongst others, giving her the
change.
James Rigby, keeper of the Buil's Head inn, Pemberton,
Said, a person like the priSouer came in a similar manner to
him, giving a had 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 prisoner gave sixpence, 'and witness gave her the
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
, t 4 female prisoner's confession to the last witness, and in
consequence went to one of the houses and found a bad
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 Hon. 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 Is. 30.,
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 Is.
NO. 12. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4d 8s fid.
No. 11. Verdict for the plaintiff, £4O 13s 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. WIGUTMAN 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. CRESSWELL 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
£5O, subject to'a special case on the construction of the act.

GARNETT V. SOWLER.
On this cause, which stood No. 4 on the list, bein; 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
mornin.
The JUDGE.—Wbo 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 11.ve
been ready. The assizes have commenced a day later
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
flied for to-morrow morning, as I shall he engaged in a Bank
of England case in the other court.
The JUDGE.—You are upon the other side?
Mr. CaisswELL.—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. CntsswELL.—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. CnEsswELi. 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. WILK xxs.7--.Very well, my lord.
The court adjonrned at half-past five, till nine o'clock this
morning, (Friday.)