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

BURGLARY

Richard Heaton, 37, Richard Tootell, 35, were indicted
for a burglary in the house of James Hazelden, at Pember-
ton, near Wigan, when a great quantity of provisions and
other articles were stolen.

Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins
appeared for the prisoners.
The prosecutor was a farmer at Pemberton ; the offence
was committed on the night of the 30th of April, and• the
property in question taken away. Suspicion having fallen
on Tootell, his house was searched on the same day, and part
of the goods found therein. Another part was found at the
house of Heaton, and his wife said she had bought it in the
market. It was, however, identified by the prosecutor.
The prisoners were found guilty. Heaton was sentenced
to ten years' transportation, Tootell to twelve months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

BURGLARY.
Richard Vaun, 29, was indicted for burglary in the house
of Samuel Leech.

Mr. Hulton was for the prosecution. The prisoner was
undefended.

The prosecutor lives at Saunton, near Ashton-under-Lyne.
The prisoner was found in the act of removing some panes of
glass, with intent to enter and steal, on the night of the 4th
of April. Some inner fastenings had been raised, and a crow
bar and dark lantern were found outside, and on his person
a box of lucifer matches.

He was found guilty, and ordered to be transported for
ten years.

The court adjourned at a quarter before seven to nine next
moraing.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
BLUNDELL V. LORD CAMOYS.
This case, which concerns the will of the late Mr. Blun-
dell, of Ince, was, on the application of Mr. Alexander, fixed
to come on for trial on Monday next.

ENGLAND V. LISLE

In this case, which had been struck out yesterday, but was
restored on an affidavit, a verdict was taken by consent for
the plaintiff. Damages £97.

MOORE AND OTHERS V. HODGES

This was an undefended action, to recover the sum of £3l,
being the balance of an account which had existed between
the parties for several years. The plaintiffs are ironmongers
at Wigan, and the defendant is a blacksmith at Chorley. A
verdict was returned for the amount claimed.

MATHEW V. LOGAN

A verdict was taken by consent in this case, for £2OO, sub-
ject to a reference.

DOE DEM GRICE AND ANOTHER V. ASTLES

This was an action of ejectment, to recover possession of
certain messuages and lands, in the parish of Warrington.
Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Wilkins were for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightman, and Mr.
Hoggins for the defendant.

11,1 i. WILKINS opened the pleadings.
Mr. CRESSWELI, then proceeded to state the case. This
was an action in ejectment brought by John Grice and Joseph
Robinson, the devisees in trust under the will of Samuel
Astles, of Warrington, to recover possession of some pro-
perty under his will. The defendant was brother to Samuel
Astles, and he said he held the property in question as heir-
at-law, seeing that Samuel Astles bad left no valid will dis-
posing of his property. The question, then, would be, whether
or not Samuel Astles did or did not leave a valid will devising
this property. The deceased had, for many years, carried
on business as an innkeeper at Warrington, and on the 17th
December, 1838, he was in possession of the property in
question. He was a bachelor, of about 47 or 48. It would
seem that he was a person respected by those who knew him;
and that many of them, knowing him to be a thriving man,
had an inclination to try to obtain, for some of their children,
the notice of a bachelor reputed to have property. Accord-
ingly, it would be found that he was godfather to a number
of children, to each of which he had left legacies. At the
time he died he was the reputed father of a son of Catherine
Brown, whose sister was married to John Grice, one of the
devisees. There was some intimacy between Grice and Astles,
Grice was a book-keeper, and had been for several years in
the habit of keeping Astle's accounts ; later, however, he had
a barmaid in the inn, and then Grice ceased to do business
for him. They were, before, joint executors or trustees
respecting some property in Warrington, and consequently
there was great intimacy between them. Samuel Astles was
the reputed father of Catherine Brown's child, and the jury
would find him bringing up this child as his own. This child
he had at Warrington, to see him, as well as a son of John
Grice, and they lived with him till his death. The jury
would find that he had left a legacy of some amount to this
boy, and that he had desired that both of them should be
brought up together, under the care of Catherine Brown, the
mother of his reputed son. Samuel Astles had a brother,
the present defendant, who was not the same careful, friendly,
money-making man that the testator was. He had borrowed
money from the deceased more than once, and it had been
found that the deceased had 1-ft to him £2OO over and above
the money he had borrowed. There could be no question or
doubt Whatever, that the testator was perfectly competent,
throughout his life, to transact business of any description,
until the period of his death drew near. The learned counsel
then proceeded to describe the illness and death of Mr. Astles,
and the circumstances under which the will was made, and
he concluded by stating that it would be proved that the de-
ceased was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements that were
made, and that no doubt could be felt as to his competency
to execute the will. The learned counsel then called wit-
nesses.
John Clare, examined by Mr. COWLING, said be knew
the deceased, and occupied a house under him, for which he
paid rent to the day of his death. It was for the recovery of
this house that the action was brought.
John Perrin, glass manufacturer, living at Warrington,
examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Knew the deceased. Saw him
on the Saturday before his death, when he appeared rational.
He had sent for witness in consequence of. having been a
joint security with witness for a person named Furnival.
Witness told him not to be uneasy about this affair, as he
would look after it. He wished witness to do so. The de-
ceased was very ill at the time, but he appeared quite rational.

Croiss.examillea by Mr. ALIMANDY.R.—Witness was not
more than four or five minute with the deceased. Witness,
however, should not say that he was able to understand a will

of fourteen or fifteen sheets of paper. He was not capable
hi his-opinion of understandinff the disposal of a number of

•
legacies, gifts, and conditions." Witness had known him fif-
teen or sixteen years, 'and shOuld say he was not a man of

very strong.mind.
Re-examined.--In the conversation witness had with him
he appeared rational. witness concluded he was unable to
make the will from his state of bodily suffering. •
Mary Smith lives at Padgate. Some years ago witness
was employed to nurse a boy of Catherine Brown's, which
will he nine years old next month. Knew Samuel Astles.
He used often to come to see the child, and brought him pre-
sents. The child's mother paid witness for her trouble.
Astles used to come and see the child if he was ill, and to
bring him something. Padgate is a mile from Warrington.
Astles had the boy to see him at Warrington, and when he
returned he brought presents with him. Astles, on the boy's
birthday, always brought other boys, to make a merry day.
The boy used to call him " father.' Mr. Astles bought the
boy's clothes till the time of his death. _ _ _

Gross-examined—Catherine Brown is now living at Man-
chester, but witness cannot say whether she was married.
The boy is now living with witness. Witness does not know
John Lawrinson.

John Johnson examined by Mr. CowLING—Is a tailor at
Warrington. Knows Richard Brown, the child of Catherine
Brown, and William Grice, the son of John Grice. Witness
has been in the habit of making clothes for both those boys.
They are nearly of the same age. Mr. Samuel Astles paid
witness for the clothes.

Elizabeth Brown, examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Is the sis-
ter of Catherine Brown. Remembers thq birth of her sister's
son, whose reputed father was Mr. SainuetAstles. Mr. Astles
had for some time before been paying attention to her sister,
and the family thought he would marry her. Witness re-
members drinking tea at Mrs. Ashworth's, Marshall-street,
Oldham-road, Manchester. There were present Mr. Ash-
worth, Mr. Mayer, the two children, witness's sister, and Mr.
Astles. Mr. Astles said he should not marry witness's sister
until he had settled some property upon her. Mr. Mayer
had previously asked him to marry her. Mr. Mayer is re-
lated to the family., Mr. Astles said, " If I marry her and
don't make a will, my brother will turn both Kate and
Richard into the street. ' The deceased then spoke of the
boy as his own child, and said that he had worked hard for
his money, and he should be sorry to leave it to his brother,
as he would make it away. He said he had lent his brother
money to build in Manchester, but he had made it away by
going to the Isle of Man. Remembers going with Mr. Astles
and a party to Frodsham bazaar. Catherine Brown was
there. There is a school at Frodsham, kept by Mr. Church.
Mr. Astles said, " Elizabeth, that is a very good school, and
I will send the children there." Witness asked when, and
he replied, " They are too young yet, but I think Ph about
four years."

- -
Cross-examined.—These things happened two years ago.
Knows John Lawrinson, who now lives in Liverpool : it is
five years, if not more, since he lived at Warrington. There
was merely friendship between Lawrinson and witness's sis-
ter. Witness's family lived as tenants under Lawrinson's
master. When witness left Warrington, Lawrinson's family
consisted of his father and mother, a brother, ar.d two sisters.
Catherine Brown is now married.

By theJuno.E.—N ever went to Manchester with Lawrinson
at a time when Lawrinson proposed to marry her sister. Her
sister has now married a person named Morris.
Mr. John Ashton, attorney, of Warrington, knew the late
Mr. Samuel Astles, and had transacted business for him.
In December, 1838, witness was requested to attend Mr.
Astles. John Grice brought that request between ten and
eleven in the morning. Went to him in about half an hour.
This was on Saturday, the 15th December. Grice told him
his was wanted to take instructions for Mr. Astle's will.
Found Mr. Astles in bed ; he inquired if witness had brought
any pen and paper. Witness told him he had not ; but some
was procured, and the deceased proceeded to give instrue-
tionsAfostrietlsiewillr are several
witnesseral
stoe
were 19 guineas the legacy duty would be saved. Mr. Astles
mentionedT There
a,
but
eid. it9h that if guineas.
they
Mr.
replied that would be a very good thing. All the names and
these sums were mentioned by Mr. Astles. Had no recol-
lection of Grice interfering. Mr. Astles mentioned in the
instructions that he wished Richard Brown to take the name
of Astles ; afterwards, when he executed the will, that sub-
ject was mentioned. Witness asked him if he had any copy-
hold property, and he said he had not. He desired that the
legacies should he paid twelve months after his death, and,
as several were minors, he wished they should be paid to
their fathers or mothers. During the whole time he was
giving witness these instructions he appeared to be in perfect
possession of his faculties. Witness suggested that the
executors should pay a part of the income for the education
of the children, and the remainder to the mother till they
were 21 years old, but he objected to that. In the event of
the mother marrying again, and the children dying, he said
he would leave his property to the charitable institutions ;
but on witness suggesting that he could not leave real pro-
perty to them, Grice suggested that he should leave it to his
heir-at-law. Mr. Astles assented. Witness then went away
with these instructions. About one o'clock witness met Mr.
Steel, and had some conversation with him ; after which
witness proceeded to get the draft of the will-finished. The
draft was here produced. Witness took the draft the same
evening to Mr. Astles. Grice was there. Mr. Astles was
calm and collected, and he appeared to understand the draft.
When witness read him that part about Richard Brown tak-
ing the name of Astles and the arms, be remarked that he
was not aware he had any arms. Witness explained to him
that he had introduced a provision in case of Catherine
Brown's death, and he said it was very right. He also said
he wished the property not to go away from Richard Brown
if he refused to take the name of Astles. Witness had in-
troduced a clause enabling the executors to let leases, and he
said that was very proper. Before the reading of the draft
was finished Mr. Steel came in, but he went out very soon,
and witness followed him. On his return he finished reading
it, and handed it to Astles for his signature. Does not re-
collect whether any offer was made to assist him. He signed
it, remarking that any one who knew his hand would recog-
nise it. Witness and his clerk attested the signature. On
the following morning witness applied to Mr. Steel to go with
him to see a fair copy executed. Witness went to Mr. Steel
with it in the afternoon, and Mr. Steel told him he was not
then in a fit state to execute any document.
Cross-examined.—Had known Mr. Astles for some years,
and for anything witness knew to the contrary he was a man
of temperate habits, but he did not know him sufficiently to
give a decided opinion.
Mr. Robinson hati-renounced as executor under the will,
and the will had not been proved.
th 6 deceasediv-as-perfectly rational.
Mr. Robert Bickersteth, surgeon, of Liverpool, was next
called. He stated that, in affections of delirium tremens,
there were lucid intervals, and that he had taken upon him-
self the responsibility of advising that a will should be made
in those lucid intervals. He had himself been a witness to
wills made under such circumstances. It was consistent
with his experience, that a will might be made within a few
hours of death. In delirium tremens the delirium was upon
one point only, such as fancied danger; upon all other sub-
jects the party might be perfectly rational.
Cross-examined.—The inducing cause of delirium tremens
was intemperance. It was attended with violent muscular
exertion sometimes.
Mr. Andrew Gillon, surgeon, of Liverpool, had been in
practice twenty years, and had attended many cases of deli-
rium tremens. Does a great deal too much business in that
way. Patients suffering from that complaint almost always
have lucid intervals. During those intervals the patient
would possess sufficient understanding to make a will ; and
witness is at this moment executor to the will of a party who
died from delirium tremens. Was present at the dictation
of that will. That will was dictated during several lucid in-
tervals. Perfectly coincide with with the views of Mr.
Bickersteth.
Mr. Thomas Mayer, foreman in the office of the Manches-
ter Guardian, knew the late Mr. Astles, and recollected him
taking a boy of Mr. Grice's to live with him at Warrington.
Witness was at Warrington fair in 1836, and saw Catherine
Brown's boy with Mr. Astle's. Mr. Astles appeared very
fond of him, and the boy called him father. Was at Frod-
sham bazaar with Mr. Astles in August before his death ;
saw a person named John Robinson there, who invited them
to his house to tea. As they were going there, Astles called
witness aside, and told him he intended to make Robinson
one of his executors, Grice another, and he would introduce
witness to a third before he left Frodsham, which he did.
The will was then put in and read, and the instructions for
it. This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the court and jury on the
part of the defendant. They had been told, by his learned
friend, that the question would be whether or not the party
of whom so much had been heard, the late Mr. Astles, had
made his will with a' competent mind, and a perfect under-
standing of what he was doing. He was possessed of consi-
derable property, and from the many and complicated ways in
which he had disposed of it, it would undoubtedly be neces-
sary that he should be of a competent understanding. He
(the learned counsel) never saw a case containing so many
particulars which more required to have been fully put than
this—when and in which there had been more lamentable de-
ficiency of evidence. Three witnesses had been called for the
purpose of speaking to the man's competency at the time of
making the will—one of them, the attorney who made the
will, his clerk, and Mr. Perrin, who had told them that the
deceased was not of a capacity to make the will. Not one
medical man had been called who saw the man, nor one of
the servants who had attended upon him ; and from the pau-
city of evidence, of what they thought upon the subject, he
argued that the jury had not been fairly dealt with. The
learned counsel then commented on the principal topics in
the case for the plaintiff, and next proceeded to detail the
substance of the evidence he should call on the part of the de-
fendant. The following witnesses were then called :
Mr. Steel examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Ise a surgeon
and apothecary at Warrington. Knew the late Mr. Astles
from the year 1820, and always considered him a very tem-
perate man. Was called in on Wednesday, the 12th ; on
Thursday he was worse ; on Friday morning the servant told
witness that Mr. Astles had been saying that witness should
not come near him any more. Witness saw him again at 12
o'clock that day, again at 2, again at 5, and again at 7 in the
evening, when he was worse. The disease then put uu thu
appearance of delirium tremens, which it had not before. The
witness then described the progress of -the disease till the
visit at which he met Mr.-Ashton; and stated that, as he was
out of the room, he heard Mr. Ashton, who was in the room
with the deceased, used the words " that he should have
full and discretionary power," or to that effect. The
moment the witness went into the room, Mr. Ashton
closed the paper, and no more was read whilst he was
there. John Grice was in the room. The disease was
rapidly increasing. The delirium continued from two o'clock
on Saturday afternoon till the time witness left him. Mr.
Astles died on Monday morning. During the three or four
minutes witness was in the room, Mr. Ashton never asked
witness to sign a paper. In witness's opinion, he was not in
a fit state to make his will. At 9 o'clock, becoming worse,
witness called in Dr. Kendrick. Witness remained with him
for some time, and there was no interval from 2 o'clock on the
Saturday afternoon to his death, in which he was in a fit state
, to make his will. He was not in a fit state to dictate instruc-
tions for a will at any time that witness saw him after 2 o'clock.
At nine o'clock on the Saturday night, he was not in a state
lengthsundayonaf tuhrenwinigll
whethpro erbuecewd.uulNdVbiteneasws
competent to comprehend the effect of an instrument of the
sasstkuedtboenwtilille,
iwt na es
and he did not refuse.
Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—If witness had
known that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Astles were pre-
liminary to delirium tremens, he should not have ordered
leeches. The symptoms of delirium tremens disclosed them-
selves between five and seven on Friday evening. Witness
got rational answers from him sometimes, and sometimes he
did nrit answer at all. Remembers John Grice saying on
the Saturday morning that Mr. Astles had not made a will,
and witness told him to take the opportunity of the first lucid
interval to make one. Grice went with witness to fetch the
attorney, Mr. Ashton, to make it. When witness returned,
he
re iirned,
he found Mr. Astles quiet, and composed;
administered morphia. Witness knew, when he heard Mr.
Ashton using the words, that the executors must have full
and discretionary power, he knew he was either reading a
will or a draft. When Mr. Ashton came out, he said, " It's
not the will I've been reading, but the draft." Witness did
not say, " Well, well, get it signed and have done with it."
Cannot recollect using anything like these words as it is two
years since. Did not tell Mr. Ashton his opinion upon the
state of Mr. Astles's health. Mr. Ashton called upon him on
Sunday morning, and asked him if he would be a witness to
Mr. Astles's will, as it was necessary to have a medical-man
as a witness in a case like that. Witness's answer was, that
he would if he were at home. Mr. Ashton called with the
will in the afternoon, and then witness told him Mr. Astles
was not fit to sign it, but promised, if the patient ha4.,any
lucid intervals, he would let him know.

Dr. Jun i& Kendrick Faid Ls was called In to the &mod
t eleven o'clock on the night hf the 15th of December, end

he was then by no means fit to make a will. Has known one
instance of a will being made in an apparently lucid interval,
which he had no recollection of afterwards. '

Anne Cash said she was barmaid to the late Mr. Astles to
the time of his death. She described his illness, and said
that on the Saturday night, when Mr.- Ashton was reading
the will, she took off her shoes, crept up stairs, and listened
-ot the door to what was going on; Mr. Ashton read very
quick, and she heard 'him say Richard Astles Brown. John
Grice said that had better be altered, and she saw'Mr. Ash-
ton go to the table, and he appeared to alter it. She heard
Mr. Astles mutter something to himself, and he called out
louder, " Hey, hey." When 'Mr. Steel came in she went
away. - She went in to tell them the -doctor was come, and
they asked her to tell him to wait. When Itlie went in the
room Mr. Astles's eyes were directed to the top of the room.
and he was hiccOu'ghing and muttering, When Mr. Steel
had left, she tvent and listened again ; and when Mr. Ashton
had finished reading, -she heard John Grice say that Would
do—it 'could not be better. She did not hear Mr. Astles
Make any answer to the remark. -' Mr.-Astles was then raving,
and talking to himself. Mr. Ashton then came out, and she
asked him whether they were ready for his clerk to come in.
Witness is now in the service of Joseph Astles, the brother
of the deceased, at the sameohouse, .and in September next
would have been there two years.

Cross-examined.—This was the first time witness had ever
come out in the character of a listener. Was certain that
the name Richard Astles Brown was mentioned. . •
By the JUDGE.—The business of the house was carried on
during the week. _

Thomas Jackson said he lived nearly opposite to the house
of Mr. Astles. At the request of Robinson, witness
followed her there on the Saturday night to see Mr. Astles.
He went into the bar where he found Mr. Grice. Witness
said perhaps he should be disturbing. Mr. Astles, but
Martha Robinson' said he could not be disturbed worse than
he had been. He was hiccoughing and rambling, and mut-
tering to himself, and when she asked him a question, he re-
turned an answer which witness could not understand. He
did not seem to know witness. _

This witness was cross-examined at considerable length,
and his statements varied from those he had given before.
William Grice was next called, and he stated that he had
often heard Mr. Astles say that he was not father of the boy
Brown. Saw Astles on Friday; he was rambling, and what
he said was incoherent. Should not think him capable of
understanding a long will. Saw him again on the Saturday,
and staid with him all night. He still went on =tabling in
the same way. _ _

James Hoilgkinson Beckett said, he was acquainted with
Mr. Astles. He had a severe illness about eighteen months
ago, and witness often pressed him to make his will.. He
said there was no occasion to make it, as he had no other re-
lation in the world but his brother Joe. Mr. Astles called
upon him one day at his house, .and.'they went into a private
room together. • He then said to witness, "You have spoken
to me about the disposal of my property ; and I am come to
consult with you about it. I see no necessity for making a
will, as I have no relations, and pnly,a feW legacies which I

• ,
wish to leave," and be wrote them- on a sheet of foolscap
paper. They were a watch to each of his godchildren who
had not had it, and £2O to each on coming of age. He said,
" You know I have purchased from Mr. Aston, at Prod
sham, the house and land where I was born, and am build-
ing a house there, and thostlikely my brother Joe will take
my business." He wrote a plain hand, and witness- never
saw him write like the signature ,to the draft produced. Wit-
ness asked him whether he had not left his old sweetheart,
Catherine Brown' anything ; and he replied, " I have left
her something to buy a suit of mourning. ' The boy Brown
was mentioned. He said, " You know, Beckett, I disclaim
that child ; and you have seen me take the Bible in my hand
repeatedly, and if I was in a court of justice I would do the
same, to swear he is not mine." On the Sunday following
witness saw him again, at a masonic meeting ; he came late.
When he was going away, he said, " Beckett, do you recol-
lect the conversation we had on Thursday ?" Witness said,
" I do, Samuel ;" to which he replied, " For God's sake,
don't forget it." This was on the Sunday before his illness.
Went to his house on Saturdliy, the 15th, and was told they
were making his will. Witness went up stairs to see him,
and he met John Grice, who told him he could not see Astles,
as he was rambling, and had been for some time. Had seen
the deCeased'sbrother once or twice, and always understood
they were on good terms together. Witness knew John

awrinson."
Cross-examined.—Witness is a wine and spirit dealer, and

an innkeeper. Witness had been high constable for the hun-
dred of Nahtwich, and had been charged with obtaining
money under false pretences. An indictment was preferred
against him, and it was tried at Chester in 1832, before Mr.
Baron Bolland. Left the office of high constable in April,
1831. Witness was acquitted.
John Furnival said he knew Mr. Astles, who said to him,
after the death of his mother, " Now, John, I have buried
my mother, I have nobody for my property but my brother,;'
About two months before his death, Catherine Brown was in
Warrington, and witness said to him, " Samuel, Kate is in
town," and his answer was, he would have nothing more to
do with her. Witness then asked him what he intended to
do with the child which she said was his, and he replied that
he should leave it the same as the rest of his godchildren.
Witness saw him twice on the Friday before his death, and
he was then rambling.
Cross-examined. Just before this time witness had failed,
and had assigned his property.
John Bailey Maguire, hair-dresser, said be knew the de-
ceased. This witness gave similar testimony as to the de-
clarations of the deceased—that he intended to leave his pro-
perty to his brother, and that he did not consider the boy
Brown to be his son. Witness was called in to shave him on
Saturday, the 15th, and he was then raving.
John Craike, Wm. Caldwell, of Frodsbam, and Thomas
Harper, of Low-bill, gave similar testimony.
Margaret Hewitt proved that she had applied leeches to
Mr. Astles, and that be was very restless and rambling.
Mr. Cunnah, solicitor, of Chester, acted as attorney for
Joseph Astles in a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, in 1839.
Witness was in Warrington in December, 1838, and saw
Joeph Lamb, or Robinson, one of the lessees of the deceased,
who said he would have nothing to do with the will, for there
was such a squabble about it ; and if he had money of his own,
he would sooner' bury it than the lawyers should have it. He
should not believe Astles was in his proper senses when he
saw him, but he did not say whether that was before or after
the will had been.made. Witness saw John Grice the same
evening, and in said he 4could give £5OO to have the matter
settled. Witness asked hint if he had anv money, and he
said " No, but Mr. Ashton would find it."
Cross-examined.—Witness had taken the benefit of the in-
it./I LII

Mr. Citzsswzn, then proceeded to reply—a duty which
occupied the learned counsel about an hour.
The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that the main
question for their decision was, whether the testator had a
lucid interval when he made the will. The learned Judge
went over the evidence at great length, and concluded his ad-
dress at eight o'clock.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, thus establishing the validity of the
will.

The trial lasted upwards of ten hours. The court adjourned
at a quarter past eight o'clock.

CROWN COURT,

--SATURDAY

John Williams, aged 30, was indicted for having, at Great
Bolton, on the 28th March, feloniously uttered a forged £5
note of the Bank of England.
Mr. Huvrox stated the case, and called

Mary Child.—The prisoner cane to our shop, and said he
would buy a leg of mutton it I would change a£s note. I
said I could, and sold him the mutton, giving him £4 145...9d.
out. We had no other £5 note in the shop at the time.
The prisoner cross-examined the witness at some length,
and she admitted that she said to the policeman, when he
afterwards apprehended him, " Look well at the man, for he
will look different in the morning." She also admitted that
the policeman said, ." Don't be afraid : if you are sure he is
the man, you will be all safe." To questions from the Judge,
witness said that the impression of the police-officer was not
elicited, by any doubt she had expressed as to the identity of
the prisoner.
Re-examined.—l never had any doubt that the prisoner
was the man.

By the JUDGE.-We had candles burning when the pri-
soner' bought the meat.
William Child, the husband -of the last witness, received
the note from her, and took it, on the following Wednesday,
to the bank, to ascertain whether it was good. Brought it
back, and locked it into the drawer, after marking it. It
was afterwards given to Mr. Barton. of the police.
Mr. Barton produced the note, which was marked.

A gentleman belonging to the hank pronounced the note to
be a very bad one, neither bank paper nor bank engraving.
Sarah Roberts, who kept an inn, said that a man had come
to her on the 3d of April, and asked her for change for a £5
note for a person named Monk. She thought it was not
good, and demurred. Ile'got possession of it, stating that
he would go to a neighbour's and see if it was good. Wit-
ness followed him, and saw that, in place of going to'that
neighbour's, finding himself watched, he ran off. She cried,
" Stop thief !" The witness described the note as being
similar to that produced in thickness and in portions of the
printing. The prisoner .was brought back by a man who
pursued him. She was sure he was the man.

A,man heard Mrs. Roberts cry, Stop thief!" and pur-
sued the prisoner. He ran him through several streets and
entries, and he finally captured him in a yard, at the top of a
passage. He was out of breath. Nothing was found. Fie
was given into custody.
A police-officer detailed some conversation be had had
with the prisoner, in which the latter made admissions that
be had done wrong, and appeared to intimate that he had
swallowed the second note.

Mr. Monk, a tripe-seller, stated, that he did not know the
prisoner, and never sent him for change.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The learned JUDGE said, that the offence of which the
prisoner was convicted was of a heinous nature, inasmuch as
it went to materially injure persons in humble life. Formerly
the offence would have subjected him to Capital punishment ;
Mit the present law was more lenient. It was necessary,
however, to visit it with severity, and the sentence of the
oourb woo, that ho ohould be tianSpOrtca tv ouch settlement
as her Majesty, by advice of her Privy Council, should think
fit, for the term of ten years.

PASSING A"FORGED BILL

Thomas Healey, aged 45, stood indicted for having, at
Manchester, feloniously forged, offered, disposed of, and put
off a bill of exchsnge, for the payment of £5O, with intent to
defraud John Dunning and Thos. Hemmingsley, the accused
knowing the same to be forged.
The case was entirely devoid of interest. The jury I eturned
a verdict of Not Guilty.

FELONIOUS POSSESSION OF GOODS

William Heys, a grey headed old man of 65 years of age,
was charged with having received and had in his possession
twenty yards of cloth, one cloak, and one cape, the property
of John Wood.

In this case also a verdict of Not Guilty was returned by
the jury. _

There was another indictment against the prisoner, but the
trial was deferred until Monday.

EXTENSIVE FORGERY.
Alfred Sidebottom' 34, stood indicted for having, at
Manchester, feloniously forged an order for the payment of
money, purporting to be the order of one' James Buckley,
upon the Bank of Manchester, for IVA and with having
feloniously uttered the same knowing it to be forged.
The prisoner, a good-looking man, genteelly dressed in
black, was a bleacher at the Garret Works, Manchester.
Dr. BROWN stated the case, and called
Wellington Ainscough, who said—l was in the service of
the prisoner in July last. On the 25th of that month he
gave me a check for £6OO, and told me to take it to Mr.
Blomily, and borrow £l5 upon it. It was on a Saturday.
I took the check. My master wanted the money to pay
wages with. I got the money from Mr. Blomily and left the
check. My master told me to say that it was past bank
hours, and he could not get the check cashed. •
Mr. BRANDT (for the prisoner) cross-examined the wit-
ness.—Mr. Sidebottom only told me to show him the check.
He (Mr. B.) said nothing, but gave him the money. When
I returned back, my master said, " You should not have left
the check ; you should only have shown it."
Re-examined.—l have been in the gaol to see the prisoner,
in company with Mr. Taylor, his attorney: It was'on Mon-
day last. One of the keepers was present with us.
Mr. Joshua Blomily, grocer and flour-dealer, in Chorlton-
on-Medlock, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.
He lent the £l5 and received the check. He sent for the
money several times during the week, but did mit get it. I
took the check from the Bank of Manchester, and it was
afterwards given to the police.
Cross-exannined.—The premises rented by the prisoner are
large. The rent may be five or six hundred a-year.
James Buckley, being sworn, said, I reside at Queekhead,

Sadd'worth. I fun the prisoner's uncle. I never went an
account with the Bank of Manchester, I did .not sigr. this
check.
Cross-examined.--The writing does not resemble mine in
the least. The prisoner married my niece. She will not
receive a large sum on my death, unless I leave it to her in
my will.___

John Wood, cashier of the Bank of Manchester said, that
no one named James Buckley had any account with the bank.
A person of that name did bank there three years ago. The
signature. to this check does not at all resemble that of the
James Buckley who banked with us. The prisoner once
banked with us, but closed his account about three months
ago. _ _

-James Buckley, of Tintwistle, in Cheshire, an innkeeper,
said, he had formerly banked with the Bank of Manchester.
That cheek is not signed by me.
Edward Frank Hall, of Manchester, a traveller, said, on
Tuesday, the 21st July, I was at the Garratt Works Inn.
The prisoner was there. He asked the landlord to take a
glass, and said, " Perhaps your friend (witness) will take
one." He afterwards said, he believed he had not money to
Pay for them, unless the landlord could give him change for
a £6OO check, which he produced. The landlord did not
change it. The prisoner afterwards asked witness if he knew
the signature. Witness said he did not. Prisoner said, he
was his uncle, and that he had taken it to the bank, but they
would not cash it, as his uncle had dated it on a Sunday.

Archibald M`Mullin, of the. Manchester Police, a'ppre-
hended the prisoner on Saturday, the Ist of August. He
was told, that the charge against him was, that he had sent a
forged check to Mr. Blomily and had obtained £l5 upon it.
He said, he had sent a. check, and admitted that that pro-
duced was the same. He said, he had it sent to him from a
person in London, named James Buckley, who was going
into partnership with him. Witness asked him where
Buckley resided. He said, he,did not know, but he was to
direct his letters to him at the Magpie and Stump, Fetter-
lane. He was asked to produce the letter that the check
came in, and he looked in his pockets for it but could not find
it. He said it was probably in his counting-house. He was
taken into custody. A number of letters was brought from
his place, at his own request. Witness looked over them with
him, but found none with the signature of James Buckley.
Witness took him into custody. He said, he had written to
Buckley, at the Magpie and Stump, blowing him up for dat-
ing the check on Sunday.
Mrs. Hannah Hart, landlady of the Magpie and Stump,
said, she had been in that inn for seven months, and no per-
son named James Buckley had asked for or received any let-
ters during her time.

Mr. BRA.NDT, for the prisoner, considered it improbable,
that a person in his station, having extensive premises, and
a business which, if, pursued, would have led to .honourable
emoluments, should be so foolish as to run the risk of ruin
and disgrace for the sake of a paltry £l5. He commented
on the whole of. the evidence, and urged that the prisoner
had had some communication with a person named James
Buckley, who was negociating with him for a partnership,
and that this man had signed the check, and, by giving it to
,the prisoner, had made him his victim. He argued that, be-
ing so signed, thtrugh by a dishonest person, it was not a
forgery, and implored the jury to give the case the most fa-
vourable, consideration which the circumstances and the pro-
babilities would permit.
The learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury retired. On
their return, they gave a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was put down, to receive sentence hereafter.
The old man, William Heyes, was again brought up, on a

second charge against him ofstealing a-hat ; but the case was
so trifling that no evidence was tendered against him, and he
was consequently found Not Guilty and discharged.
The court adjourned at five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY.
~-THE QUEEN V. PRENTICE AND ANOTHER,

This was a criminal information against Archibald Prentice
and William Cothran, printers, publishers, and proprietors of
the Manchester Times newspaper, at the suit of Sir Robert
Holt Leigh, Bart., of Hindley Hall, near Wigan, for libel.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Cowling appeared for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Prentice appeared for himself and his partner.
Mr. COWLING having opened the case,
Mr. CRESSWELL rose and said, he had the honour to ap-
pear as counsel for Sir R. H. Leigh, who had instituted this
prosecution against the defendants for publishing of him that
which he felt, and that which every man must feel,- to be a
grievous libel, imputing to him great misconduct, which, if
true, would render him unworthy of the situation he occupied
in society, and expose him to the animadversion and to the
contempt of the public. Sir Robert Holt Leigh was now a
baronet, far advanced in years, residing at Hindley Hall,
near Wigan. He possessed considerable property in that
neighbourhood, and, formerly, he had represented that bo-
rough in parliament for a period of twenty years. In the
latter part of his life he had acted as one of the trustees for a
free grammar school, established for a long series of years in
Wigan, and it was in the capacity of one of those trustees
that this libel was published of him in the paper issued to the
world by the defendants. He said, that it was published of
Sir Robert Holt Leigh in that capacity, and not that the
transactions mentioned in it took place at a period when Sir
Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee, although, in one of the let-
ters he (the learned counsel) should have occasion to bring
before the jury, it was imputed to him that he did. Of all
the imputations that could be cast upon a gentleman in the
position Sir Robert Holt Leight occupied, one of the most
grievous and mischievous was that of malversation in the
office of a trustee of a charitable estate. He (the counsel)
did not know anything more calculated to excite and set one
class of society against another,
_than to impute to the higher
and more wealthy, who commonly acted as trustees for public
charities, that they were guilty of malversation in that office,
and that they appropriated to their own use and profit those
funds which ought to be devoted to the proper objects of the
charity. He should now proceed to point out the libels pub-
lished by the defendants, and of which Sir Robert Holt
Leigh complained. It was evened in the information, that
there was a free grammar school in Wigan ; that an act of
parliament was passed, at a certain period,- for regulating the
affairs of that school. These two facts must be proved as
preliminary matters. It was said that the libels in question
were published respecting .the school, respecting the act of
parliament, and respecting Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He (the
learned counsel) would, therefore, introduce before the jury
evidence to prove that there was such a school; he should
lay before them the act of parliament which was referred to,
and which was made evidence by, a clause in it, and the court
would see, by that, that a certain number of trustees were
thereby incorporated to take charge of the affairs of the school,
and that certain powers were given them to dispose of a por-
tion of the property of the school, under certain limitations
and provisions. The act of pailiautout was pacsocl iu 1812,
ttLY-Caft,'nStr-sakelili!iialce -whitTi'vas -niaite—the abjed-of
attack upon Sir R.,H. Leigh. The articles he was about to
read were published by the defendants in their newspaper.
The learned counsel then read the article in which one libel
appeared, and called particular attention to the following
passage :—" Whose fault was it that the school was sot long
since made more generally useful? Let the report of the
commissioners upon public charities answer. Paid R. Grim-
show, for the purpose of alienating the school property
.and
promoting the interests of Sir Robert Holt Leigh, £951."
Thus directly imputing to the plaintiff, that, by a job of the
vilest character with the trustees he had obtained a portion
of the school property for the advancement of his own pur-
poses, and not for the promotion of the interests of the school.
The learned counsel proceeded to read the remaining part of
the alleged libel, and also called attention to this passage :
" Do the public expect that any good will be derived from the
interference of Sir R. H. Leigh ? Is it reasonable to look for
anything from him who has been the only gainer by a previ-
ous act of alienation of the property of the school ?" Thus
imputing to the plaintiff such conduct in a transaction with
the trustees, in 1813, under the act of Parliament, that now
no good could be looked for from him, for be was disgraced
by it. Perhaps the Jury might be told, that this was not an
attack upon the plaintiff, but upon the governors of the school.
What was it but an attack upon the plaintiff leading the pub-
lic to, expect that no good could be expected from him, he
having been,guilty of so much misconduct with regard to the
property of the trust? This article was.published on the 16th
November, 1839. It would seem, that, between that time
and the 30th of November, some communication had taken
place between the parties, either directly or indirectly ; for,
in the Manchester Times, of the 30th November, we found
' this article. The learned counsel then read a letter, addressed
to the editor of the paper, signed " Your Reporter," con-
fessing that fact; and inference had been improperly com-
bined in the article in the previous paper, that he ought to
have stated, that the sum of £951 was paid for obtaining a
bill authorizing the disposal of a certain part of the property
of the school. the writer then apologized for this uninten-
tional misstatement, and concluded his letter by stating, that
the funds of the school were sufficient to effect twelve times
a greater amount of good than had been effected. Here (the
learned counsel proceeded) the " Reporter" admitted, by
that which was offered as an excuse, that he had not quoted
correctly, as he affected to do, from the Commissioners' Re-
port, that the abbreviation was for the purpose of promoting
the interest of Sir Robert Holt Leigh. According to the
first publication, he quoted from the Commissioners' Report ;
and his affected apology in the second was, that the commis-
sioners did not state that management to be for the sale of
the property. What excuse did he make? What explana-
tion or retraction of the charge ? None. He left the matter
as it was before. Again, the jury would find,, in another
part of the same paper, of the 30th of Nov., another article
uppeared, purporting to come from " An Occasional Reader,"
and they would observe how artfully it was written to make
it supposed that the writer was a political friend of Sir Robert
Holt Leigh, but that, on the affairs of the school, he was op-
posed to him. In this letter there was this passage :—" In
your last week's paper you showed us what, good may be ef-
fected : a large sum of money was squandered on lawyers'
bills in getting an act of Parliament to ,enable the trustees to
sell the best part of the sch6ol property to one of themselves."
Here, then, was the "Reporter's" excuse, and this letter of
" An Occasional Reader" making charges worse than the
other. This last letter, then went on to describe some meet-
ing of the trustees, and what passed at that meeting. The
learned counsel having commented on this letter, observed,
that these constituted the, libel of which the plaintiff com-
plained. The learned counsel', in conclusion, explained, that
the plaintiff had resorted to the remedy of a criminal • infor-
mation as the best means of clearing his character from the
imputations thus thrown upon it. The rule for it was made
absolute ; the record was brought down to Liverpool to be
tried, charging thg defendants wia, at the
libels, and the only question for the jury would be, whether
they contained that which was an imputation calculated to
injure, to degrade, and to disgrace the plaintiff.
Mr. Wall, a clerk from the Stamp-office, proved that the de-
fendants were publishers of the Manchester Times, and the
publication of the paper containing the alleged libel was ad-
mitted.

Mr. John Thompson, an iron-merchant, in Wigan, said
he knew the prosecutor, Sir Robert Holt Leigh. He resided
at Hindley Hall. Sir Robert was, for many years, member
of parliament for Wigan, but now he lived retired. The ar-
ticles in the Manchester Times related to Sir Robert Holt
Leigh. -

Cross-examined by the defendant.--Sir Robert Hoit Leigh
acts as a trustee to the Wigan Free Grammar School, but wit-
ness does not know when he commenced acting.
A copy of the act of parliament, authorising the alienation
of the lands in question, was then put in. It named and in-
corporated the trustees at• the time it was passed : the name
of the plaintiff did not appear among them.
The alleged libels from the papers of the lith and 30th of
November, were then put in and read by the Clerk of the
Court.

Mr. CRESSWELL said, this was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRENTICE submitted, that no case at all had been
made out. His lordship would observe, that the publication
of the two papers from which the alleged libels had been read
had not been proved.
The JUDGE.--I understand you to admit that.
Mr. CRESSWELL.—CertainIy, my lord.
Mr. PRENTICE said, he merely adinitted that he and his
partners were the publishers of the Manchester Times, but
not that they had published the two papers ;low produced.
Mr. CRESSWELL cited the act 6th and 7th George IV.,
chap. 4, sect. 76, as disposing of this question.
The JUDGE said, it was certainly necessary, before pro-
ceeding against a newspaper publisher, to prove that he sold
the paper in question.
Mr. PRENTICE contended that the plaintiff was bound to
prove the publication of the two papers he had produced.
If he did not, he might, for any thing he (Mr. P.) knew,
have brought them for the express purpose of bringing some
other charge against him.
The JUDGE said that what he bad taken down was this,
that the defendants admitted they were the publishers of the
papers in question.
Mr. PRENTICE.—I admitted I am the publisher and pro-
prietor of the paper, but I did not admit the publication of
these particular papers, because I wished to crpss-examine
the person who was to prove it.
The JUDGE.—What is it that you do admit

Mr. PRENTICE repeated what he had maid before.
The JundE said le would leave the question to the jury.
Mr. PRSNTICE.-Will• your lordship take a note of the
objection
The JUDGE said he would, as follows :—The defendants
object that there is no evidence that they have published the
two papers in question. - They admit themselves to be the
publishers of the Manchester Times, but say there is no proof
that these two papers are the Manchester Times. I over-
rule the objection, and leave the question to the jury.
Mr. CRESWELL.—Your lordship has a copy of the certi-

ficate from the Stamp-office.
The JUDGE.—Yes.
Mr. PRENTICE then proceeded to address the court and

jury. He was not at all surprised that Mr. Cresswell should
have been anxious to prevent their hearing that rigmarole

read, which either he or some of the lawyers in the Case had
contrived to put in the bill of indictment preferred against
ltim and his partner. He was sure, when they heard it, they
must have asked themselves what it had to do with the case
between Sir- Robert Holt • Leigh' and the publishers of the
Manchester Times. Some of them might think he was taking
something like a lawyer-like objection, with regard to the
publication of these alleged libels ; but he had not taken it to
prevent the, case coming before the court, but because he ex-
pected he should have an opportunity of cross-examining
Mr. Gaskell's clerk, who purchased the papers, and who,
he expected, , was to have proved the publication of them
this day. He had been deprived of that advantage, and he
had now no opportunity of proving the truth' of anything he
might say. All the explanation he could give must be given
by himself; but, at the same time, he could not but think
that he should have had all the advantage the court could
give him. He had, therefore, to complain that evidence had
been withheld from the court, and that the other-side had
taken care not to produce witnesses who could prove any-
thing. The witness they had brought from Wigan did, not
prove that Sir Robert Holt Leigh was a trustee of the school,
but only his belief that he was; and, consequently, the court
and jury had no means of judging of that part of the alleged
libel. He should ask the court to lay before the jury the
information upon which he was indicted. It was a very ex-
traordinary document, and he could not imagine upon what
ground it was called an information. He supposed it must
be upon the same principle that the gentlemen behind him
called their briefs brief because they were not brief ; anc
that, therefore, this was called an information because ii
contained no information. It had been found convenient to
keep information out of it, which information as it was im-
portant to him should have been given. He should, there-
fore, have to show them what it contained and what it did
not contain ; and, he believed) they would find that what it
did not contain was vastly more important than what it did
contain. The reason why he appeared himself was, that this
had been such a vexatious, troublesome, and expensive pro-
secution ; he had been so troubled, vexed, and angered with
it, that he was determined not to pay a single farthing more,
and not to spend the little money he had in getting up a
case. He had,,therefOre •himself come before a jury of his
countrymen, knowing that Englishmen altVays looked more
to the judgment of their own conscience than to the elo-
quence of, the advocate. Me. Cresswell had been exceed-
ingly magniloquent about the way in which the plaintiff had
proceeded : he (Mr. Prentice) had observed, that whatever
course was adopted in cases of this kind, the lawyers were
always ready to argue it was the best. The learned counsel
said that the plaintiff had not brought this action for dama-
ges, because he did not wish to put money into his pocket
by means of his character. The learned counsel talked on
this subject as if it were necessary that Sir Robert Holt
Leigh should put any damages that he might obtain into his
own pocket. He might, for instance, if he were above re-
ceiving pecuniary compenSation for the injury done to him,
have presented it to the school of which he was a trustee.
There was, therefore, nothing in this part of the learned
counsel's argument. Mr. Prentice then proceeded to show
the disadvantage he was under by the mode of proceeding,
and to contend that, if another had been adopted, by which
evidence could be called, the whole of the facts in the case
would have been elicited. The affidavits of Sir Robert Holt
Leigh and Mr. Gaskell certainly contained the truth, but
they did not contain the whole truth, which would have been
elicited if he (Mr. Prentice) had had an opportunity of cross-
examining them.
Mr. CRESSWELL said, the defendant might put these affi-
davits in.
Mr. PRENTICE intimated, that he would put them in. He
had always admitted, that Sir R. H. Leigh paid the full
price for the estate : lie had always been willing to publish
that, but this willingness to make this acknowledgment had
not stopped them from proceeding with this troublesome pro-
secution. There was no charge of anything unfair on the
part of the plaintiff. What the reporter had said—for the
court would recollect that none of these things were his own
production—was, that he imputed no fraud to Sir R. H.
Leigh, but that it was an improper act, on the part of the
trustees, to pay £951 for obtaining the act of parliament,
and that, therefore, they were not so much promoting the
interests of the school as the convenience and pleasure of Sir
Robert Holt Leigh. Nothing dishonourable was imputed to
Sir Robert Holt Leigh, but only mistaken policy, on the part
of the trustees, in alienating any part of the property. Sir
R. H. Leigh was an honourable man; and he ('Mr. Prentice)
wotild declare his conviction that a full price had been paid
for the estate ; but his affidavit of that did not justify him in
declaring, as he did in the information, that everything the
defendants had said about him was false, malicious, and done
at the instigation of the devil. The jury would observe, that
the whole sum and substance of the alleged libel was a mere
inference on the part of the reporter, that it was not for the
interest of the grammar school for any part of its property
to be alienated, and that the reporter had taken an opportu-
nity of declaring in the letter just read, that he had made a
mishap. Yet, all this was charged upon him (Mr. Prentice)
as a false, malicious, and scandalous libel. Did it not strike
the jury as very strange, that the information should suddenly
stop at the very point where the reporter, apologised for hav-
ing mixed up fact and inference. The reporter apologised to
the plaintiff,,to the public, and to the proprietors of the paper
for the mistake. Again he would ask, did it not strike the
jury as very strange, that the "information" should sud-
denly cease at the time they wanted information ? Here he
felt the difficulty he was under of nothaving an opportunity
of cross-examining Mr. Gaskell's clerk, because he would
have proved, that the defendants offered to make any repara-
tion in their power. However, they wereto bethe judges whe-
ther the publication had been proved, and of the hardship he
was under of not being able to prove the preliminary part of
the proceedings. The "information" took for granted that all
reparation had been refused, and that he (Mr. Prentice) had
obstinately refused to give the name of the author. Mr.
Prentice was about to read Mr. Gaskell's affidavit, but the
judgolield that 'it had no relevancy
,t tehirt,stion. Mr_
under, and to state that he had written to Air. Gasiveall
otrel-
ing to make any reparation. Mr. Gaskell, therefore, was
his witness to furnish him with all the facts, and all those
facts he could establish. He (Mr. Prentice) was, therefore,
now in the situation of being prevented from having the evi-
dence fully sifted, because this case was taken out of all the
rules of the court, and came before the jury not under any
statute, but judge-made law. He would now proceed to ex-
amine the indictment against him. In it was contained all
the documents that had been read ; and they would recollect,
that, if they found hint guilty of one part of it, they would
find him guilty of all. This precious document—this most
beautiful instance of the folly which still lurked about courts
of justice, contained four counts. Mr. Prentice then pro-
ceeded to examine these counts separately, but we have not
space to give his speech. He told the jury, that they must
take the indictment, look its averments carefully over, and,
before they, pronounced him guilty, satisfy themselves that
all the counts were proved. They were sworn to give a true
verdict according to the evidence ; and could they, upon the
evidence now produced, pronounce him guilty ? They had
not to find, simply, that a libel had been printed, but that it
was a false, malicious, and scandalous libel, and that every
word therein charged was .false, scandalous, and malicious,
It might be said, that, if this doctrine were acknowledged,
a loop-hole would be made whereby any man who had libelled
another might escape. "That, however, the jury could not
consider; the fault of that lay in the practice, and ought not
to be iiSited'upon the defendants. He concluded by a strong
appeal to the con'sc'iences of the jury to give their verdict
according to the evidence before them. The speech of the
defendant occupied about forty minutes in the delivery.
The learned JUDGE then addressed the jury, pointing out
the principal question for their decision.
The jury withdrew to consider their verdict, and after an
absence of a quarter of an hour they returned and pronounced
the defendants Guilty.
BUTTERWORTH V. WADE

AND OTHERS

This was an undefended action. A. verdict was of course
returned for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £l2O.
TINKER V. WAGSTAFF.

The parties in this case reside in Ashton-under-Lyne.
The plaintiff was tenant to the defehdant, and the action was
brought to recover damages for an excessive distraint. Ver-
dict for the, plaintiff, damages £65.
MORRIS V. SPEED AND ANOTHER.

In this case, which was of no public interest, a verdict was
returned for the plaintiff for £270. •
TVII.ELL V. TOLLEMACRE.

This was an action against the Sheriff's of Cheshire for a
false return to a writ against the goods of a party named Brit-
tain, against whom execution had been obtained. The jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.
Several undefended causes were afterwards disposed of,
and the court adjourned about half-past five.

CROWN COURT.—MONDAY
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

This was one of those cases which have recently been so
common, in which a man met his death from rough fighting.
The prisoner, a stout low-set man, aged 30, was indicted for
having killed George Crumby, in this town, on the 3d ofMay
last.

Mr. Cardwell conducted the prosecution. •
It appeared that the prisoner cohabited with the sister of
the, deceased, Catherine Crumby, otherwise Catherine Win-
ter. On Saturday night or Sunday morning, the 2d-or 3d of
May, the deceased and the prisoner met at the house of the
prisoner's brother in Jordan-street, where they had some
liquor. It was stated that the deceased was exceedingly
cross with the prisoner, on account of the loose life which his
sister was leading. The prisoner sent for a pint of rum, and
encleavnnved tp appease the , wrath of the deceased, but-us
they became more intoxicateu the rury of Crumby increased,
till at length when they went out to go home. the deceased
said to the prisoner, who lodged with him, " if you come
home to-hight I'll have your life or you shall have mine.
Soon after Crumby got home, the prisoner entered the house,
where the deceased knocked him down. The prisoner was
at first reluctant to fight, but at length, he was exasperated
to it, and they rushed at each other. Several violent blows
and heavy falls ensued on both sides, and at length the pri-
soner struck the deceased a blow which felled him to the
earth, and he never again stirred or showed signs of life.
The police were called in, and a surgeon was sent for. The
officers found both the prisoner and the deceased stripped to
the waist, the prisoner intoxicated. The surgeon, Mr.
Hutchinson, stated that Crumby was quite dead when he ar-
rived. He made a post mortem examination, of the body,
and found many signs of heavy blows beneath the scalp, and
effusion of blood at the base of the brain.
The jury consulted together
,about half a minute and ac-
quitted the prisoner.

MANSLAUGHTER.
James Potter, a decent-looking man, aged 53, was charged
with having, on the 29th of April last, at Prescot, caused the
death of John Berry, by striking, &c.
Dr. Brown conducted the prosecution.
The deceased was a brickmakere and, he worked under the
prisoner at the brick-fields near Prescot. On the morning
of the 29th of April, the prisoner went to Mrs. Hewitt's
public-house, which was near the brick-fields, as was in-
ferred, for the purpose of finding the deceased, who was
sitting there drinking. The prisoner asked the deceased why
he was not at his work. The deceased, who had had some
ale, called the prisoner " a d—d old scut," and said he
would not work for him any more, as he had not paid him for
what he had already done. The prisoner struck the deceased
a blow on the cheek, which the latter returned by another
blow, and immediately " collared the prisoner fast." A
struggle ensued, and the prisoner got the deceased down, and
kneeled upon him, pressing him violently with his knees, but
whether this were done purposely, or whether the prisoner
was pulled down in that position, could not be accurately de-
termined. The deceased after this went to a surgeon, and
told him that he had a pain in his side; which he accounted
for by saying that he had fallen over a stool. A fortnight
after, the prisoner called again upon the surgeon, and coin-
plained of being very ill. The surgeon then examined him
more particularly, and found that the second and third ribs
were broken. The surgeon found that he was in considerable
danger, and the deceased himself ntlw became convinced that
his case was hopeless. He died on Saturday, the 23rd May,
having previously made a deposition which was taken down
in writing in the presence of the. prisoner. The surgeon

made a post•mortem examination, and found that the Immo•
diate cause of death had been inflammation of the lungs, pro-
duced by pressure of the ribs on the fractured lungs. The.
deceased was a man of bad constitution. His lungs were
unsound, and the surgeon was of opinion that the same fatal
result would not have occurred in a man of a good habit of
body. The lungs were very extensively diseased, inde-
pendently of the injuries from the ribs. The surgeon had"
attended him during two years, and be had had considerable
difficulty in getting over the two preceding winters. It was
the surgeon's impression that he would not have survived
many months even if he had not received any injury. The
deposition of the deceased gave a more circumstantial detail
of the quarrel and the fight. His statement was that when
struck hi fell over a bench.
The prisoner called a witness named. Richard Hornby, who
detailed the circumstances of the fight without any material
deviation from the facts stated for the prosecution.

. _
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
His LORDSHIP said he would take into consideration the
provocation which the prisoner had received. Sentence,
3 months imprisonment and hard labour in the House of
Correction, at Kirkdale.