The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-24 00:00:00

MALICIOUSLY STABBING

John Ball was indicted for having cut, stabbed and
wounded Thomas
Kelly.
The particulars of this case appeared in the police reports
a few days ago. The prosecutor, at a little before twelve
O'iucsltoCrbeekaonnthe night
of the 7th of August, was passing up
B acnknaastre-swtirnhet
eet the
d, in company with his wife. There was a
d e street at the time, and several men were
enragedi
in
man
kickinga man who was lying on the ground.
Prosecutor interposed, observing that it was not fair play to
k
prisonerowih He
gave
v had a
him
mn o
several
lr
stabsmade
itnh et
boeb
faceser-
vation, than the
Prosecutor seized hold of the prisoner, and
they both fell together, and when down he received several
other stabs in different
lgei
suc-
ceeded in disengaging parts of the body. The prisoner suc-
imedse
thelf f rf ooimi 0
wthe t
g g
inr a
os pr n
ionfgt the
whilstprose-
cutor,
in
but was apprehended A knife was founad
morning, near the place where
detfleierreadlt.ercation took place,
which was shown to belong the prisoner. The jury found
the prisoner guilty.—Sei to
John Case, 27, indicted f
jio.ouurnnded a little rbemfoarliecisoiux o,
maliciously woundingck. Mary
guilty, and sentenced to 18 months
A imprisonment.nn
Thec
Cox, r
u t, A
adjourned
ds
NISI PRIUS COURT. FRIDAY.
WALKER AND ANOTHER ASSIGNEES KHORN.
Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings,
he the case, and en-
treated were rather
complicated. Mr. CRESSWELL stated the W
a n_eesunorfavtebleledesittasteciorT
wa,shsiiligeid the defendant a ma-
etruelantsetdanteheesa. tteTtibteionoodfintthiffesjtairrey
Cartwright, a bankrupt, in Bolton
assignment, a nufacturing chemist. Shortly before the a
ge-
neral transfer had been made of all the stockiin bankrupt's
possession, without any estimate or description of particular
articles, for £700; and, according to the statement of the
learned counsel, to cover this, he had access to bankrupt's

books, and made out a fictitious statement, while the real
case was, that he was indebted to the bankrupt's estate
X-100. The difference was made out by debating the bank-
rupt with bills ; but no trace could be found of those at the
time they were said to be paid, and as an account was ren-
dered every half year, in which they were not mentioned the
presumption was that they bad never existed, and that the
taking credit for them was fraudulent. The case, when thus
far opened, appeared so extremely intricate and complicated,
that his lordship expressed a very emphatic opinion, that it
was impossible for the jury, sitting as a jury, to come to any
satisfactory conclusion. A good deal of consultation with
Mr. Dundas and Mr. Thomlinson, defendant's counsel, then
took place, which ended in a reference to Mr. Armstrong, as
arbitrator, with power to examine the bankrupt himself.

HILL, SUING in forma pauperis, v. MACKENZIE.
Mr. CROMPTON opened the pleadings, and Mr. WORTLEY
stated the case, which, he said, was of a nature which not
unfrequently occurred, but which was somewhat peculiar in
its circumstances. It involved the question of the extent to
which masters of vessels might go in the punishment of per-
sons under their command. They would find, he believed,
that whatever fault the plaintiff had committed, there was on
the part of the defendant sa degree of violence, excess, and
cruelty which the circumstances could nut excuse. The
plaintiff was a common seaman, and so humble in his cir-
cumstances that he was compelled to come before the court
in forma pauperis. He engaged with the defendant, Wm.
Mackenzie, master of the ship Acadia, and having signed the
usual agreement, proceeded with her on her voyage. Oneof
the conditions agreed to by the plaintiff and the whole crew
was, that there should be no spirits introduced on board the
ship—a rule which the learned counsel said he understood
was becoming very common, and was certainly likely to be
very advantageous. In January, 1840, the vessel arrived at
Mobile, in the United States. Her cargo was salt, and
great progress was made in discharging it before the cir-
cumstances occurred out of which the action arose. But
before it was all discharged, a person came on board who
was the owner of five horses which had come in the vessel,
and he promised the men something to drink if they would
use extra care and despatch in discharging them. The horses
were delivered safe, and the men went on board the steamer
which the owner had brought for them, and received the ful-
filment of his promise. Defendant came on board the
steamer, asked what they were doing, was told, made no
objection, but told them to take no more, and sent a quantity
amounting to a gallon and a half, of spirits on board. The
number of the crew was 29, so that this was no very extra-
vagant allowance : and it would be shown that the captain
promised each of them to have a glass when at work, and di-
rected the mate to give them it. The spirits 'ming thus in
charge of, the mate, the men dined, and on going to work
asked for their glass. To this very reasonable request the
mate replied that be would see them cl—d first. And they
then refused to work. This refusal he did not justify ; in-
deed, in the present state of the proceedings, he was not in
a condition to do so. The question for the jury was not
whether in this refusal they were strictly right, but whether
the punishment which followed was not excessive and cruel
On the part of the defendant. Shortly after a signal was
made from the Acadia to a United States man-of-war—the
Jefferson—lying in the river. The second lieutenant came ,
on board, and advised the mate that the men's request was
only reasonable, and to give them the glass. He came on
board a second time, and gave the same advice. This was
on the Thursday, and the defendant being absent, matters
remained in the same state until Sunday, the mate refusing
the sp pit, and the men refusing to work without it. The
mate in the meantime put the men on bread and water, and
stoppe I their ether allowances. On Sunday the captain
came back, and without communicating with any one but
the mate, he made on Monday a fresh signal to the man-of-
war. The first lieutenant then came on board with a strong
party, armed with cutlasses, took six of the crew of the Aca-
dia on board the American vessel, and then, without any
further inquiry, the plaintiff, Hill, was ordered to the gang-
way, stripped, and twelve lashes were inflicted on him. The
first lieutenant then asked Mackenzie if that was enough?
He replied, " No, give him anotherdozen," and another dozen
was given. He (Mr. W.) did not know by what authority
a British sailor was thus taken on boatd a foreign ship, and
disgraced by corporal punishment inflicted by foreign hands,
though the captain might pucish an offender moderately on
board his own ship. Hill protested against this treatment,
as not being an American subject. He declared that his
agreement with his captain was at an end, and refused to
return to the ship, but with these bleeding stripes lie was
ordered, with five others, on board a small schooner, and
the hatches fastened down for twenty-four hours. Hill's spirit
was still not broken, nor could he (Mr. W.) tell by what
authority it was that this British subject was taken on shore,
and then, without inquiry, committed to prison for an indefi-
nite time, without any regular charge. In this state he lay
in prison 69 days, and thn Mackenzie began to suspect he
had gone a little too far, released him from prison, and
brought him home in his own ship in irons. The learned
gentleffian concluded by commenting with much force on the
hardships of plaintiff's case. Depositions taken in America
would be read for the defence. It was true the plaintiff might
have attended and examined the persons who made them,
but, in point of fact, from his poverty, he could not, and lie
entreated the jury to consider them merely as exparte state-
ments, taken behind the plaintiff's back.
Hugh Evans was one of the crew of the Acadia, and knew
the plaintiff. He related the circumstances of the tranship-
ping the horses. He went on board the steamer for the spi-
rits with a gallon can, and the gentleman said it was too
little, and sent him for a bucket. Captain Mackenzie asked
him what he was doing. He replied he was getting his al-
lowance, and the captain said there was enough in the bucket.
There might be a gallon and a half. The captain gave it to
another sailor, who gave it to the mate, on board the Acadia.
The captain told the mate to gh?e them a glass when they
were at work. The witness proceeded to relate what fol-
lowed, nearly as related by the plaintiffs counsel. The armed
party from the cutter went into the cabin, and conferred with
the captain, and then the mate called for six of them into the
cabin. The captain asked them what they would do : they
replied they would not work without their grog. They were
immediately bound, and " bundled" into the boat, without
being allowed to get their jackets, and taken on board the
Jefferson. After the lapse of three quarters of an hour, Capt.
Mackenzie came, and they were ordered below, and all hands
piped to witness punishment. Hill was called out, and pu-
nished with a dozen. The lieutenant asked Mackenkie if
that was enough, and by his desire another dozen was given,
by the boatswain of the Jefferson. Another man was then
flogged, and we were all put down below until three o'clock,
and then taken on board a schooner taking in salt. They
were put in irons in a small place in the vessel, and some
sacks laid on the salt. This was a most miserable place, and
on their entreaty a little hole was made for them to breathe.
Water and light was refused them. They could not stand
up, and they had no conveniences. They were kept there
nearly twenty-four hours,
.and were then taken to Mobile,
shut up in a prison without being asked any questions, and
remained there ten weeks, without any linen, and sleeping on
boards. Plaintiff's back was very sore, and he laid on his
side. All the time they were not out of the room, and they
washed it themselves. The captain came only once, at the
end of three weeks, and asked them how they liked it. The
day before he sailed he told them that, on paying their own
gaol fees, they might go. Witness paid part, and came home
in another vessel.

Witness was cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL. He
was asked whether the captain's direction was not to give
them any spirits until they had finished their work, but
denied this. The steamer had a tap. He would swear that
he had only one glass, but could not swear that some of the
crew were not excited with liquor, or that the mate did not
tell the captain they had had enough. Did not see the bucket
of spirit brought out from the cabin. The mate did not
offer to give them the spirit when they had finished their
work. The mate, captain, boatswain, apprentices, and one
of the men kept to their work and loaded the schooner.
There were lb or 17 of them mutinous. Does not know
that the canvass from the horse-box was stolen ; did not see
it taken to mend clothes. When the mate put them on
bread and water, some of the crew took some pork that was
hanging up, but witness did not see it eaten. Was in the
same room at Mobile with Hill, and will swear that the cap-
tain did not come several times to offer to release them if
they would return to their work. No one else came. They
wrote two letters to the English consul, but got no answer.
Will swear there was not an examination of witnesses in
their presence, before a magistrate, before committal.
Re-examined.—Their commitment was ready made out
when they got there. They were put in an office for about
two minutes, when there was one old gentleman who asked
no questions except he asked the captain the price of cotton.
(Much laughter.) The canvass had been inside the horse-
boxes the whole voyage. The pieces of pork were four one-
pound pieces.
John Stant, another of the crew of the Acadia, was then
called for the plaintiff, and gave a very clear and succinct
narrative of the dispute, corresponding with that of the
preceding witness. When the second lieutenant of the
Jefferson advised the mate to give the men their grog, he
replied to the offer, that he " would see them d—d first."
The officer then advised the men to go to starboard and
larboard, to see which would work, and all that Hill said was,
" what will be done to me if I stand amidships ?"—that is,
if he would not work. The captain made no inquiry into
their grievances. Witness was not one of the six taken on
board. Did not hear the captain invite the crew to return
to work on Monday.
Cross-examined.—Did not tell the mate the men had
spirits already, nor advise him to take care of the bucket.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied. He agreed that the question
was one of great importance and interest. He would main-
tain the rights of British subjects to protection with as much
zeal and sincerity as any one. But it was equally important
that a drunken and mutinous sailor should not be allowed to
endanger life and property. The duty of the master of a
merchant vessel was of a very onerous and difficult kind.
He had not the same means of keeping order as the com-
mander of a ship of war. This difficulty was particularly
felt in ports like Mobile, where there were high wages and
many temptations. On that ground the American govern-
ment, for the sake of preserving order, stations in those
ports ships of war, with order to render assistance when
wanted to foreign vessels, British among others. Such aid
was only given on request, and to give it was not a subject of
jealousy, but a proof of amity. A British master had the
same authority to punish there as on board his own ship,
and by doing so the punishment was more regularly inflicted,
and the danger of violent resistance removed. In this case
the crew were mutinous against the officers, nineteen to
three, and it was infinitely safer to go on board the American
vessel, and more proper to go within the American municipal
jurisdiction to inflict the punishment, than to send for the
ship of war's sailors to inflict it on board the British ship.
The learned gentleman then went into the particulars of his
defence. He would show that Stant had given his evidence
very incorrectly, and that the first witness was perjured up
to the chin. He argued that the probabilities were that the
men having been on board the steam-boat would go to the
tap and get excited by liquor. The real promise of the
captain was, that the men should have the whiskey after they
had loaded the schooner, not before, and that it would have
been wrong and imprudent in the mate to give them it when
they asked for it. The plaintiff had admitted, in his plea,
that the crew were mutinous, and he would ask if, after four
days' obstinate mutiny, two dozen strokes were in excess.
There was no evidence of any great severity, and this was
no more than was necessary, as an example to the crew with
which the captain and mate had to cross the Atlantic. The
learned gentleman read the deposition of the American cap-
tain, expressing his opinion
.that, without his interference,
the ship and property were in gi-eat danger, and that the
captain's conduct was humane and judicious. For the impri-
sonment, the defendant was no ways responsible. Suppose a
mutiny broke out on board a ship in the Prince's Dock, and
the mutineers were taken before the respectable gentleman
who presides over the police-court, he would be dealt
with according to the municipal law of the place, as it was
to be presumed the plaintiff was there. The witness,
Evans, was abominably perjured, and his evidence was false
in almost every particular. They were regularly examined
and committed on the oaths of the captain and mate and on
their own statement that they refused to work. The learned
counsel then read the deposition of Mr. Wilkins, the magi-
strate, to that effect, which stated also that he received the
British consul's directions to examine into the case. They
were committed, " subject to order of William Mackenzie,
or until liberated by due course of law." He would show,
also, that the witness had perjured himself in relation to the
captain's visits, and to prove this, read the depositions of
the gaolor and his deputy, to the frequent visits of the cap-
tain, and his kind and mild way of addressing the prisoners.
The British consul had also visited them, and endeavoured
to persuade them to return to their duty. What the plaintiff
suffered in person he suffered from his own obstinacy in the
mutiny, of which he was the ringleader.
Isaac Sinclair was mate of the Acadia. His narrative
differed in important particulars from that of the witnesses
for the plaintiff. Stant warned him that there were some
spirits coming on board, as there was some of the crew
not fit to have it. The captain was on the paddle-boxes of
the steamer alongside, and told witness to take it and give it

to them after they had done their work in loading the schooner
which might occupy two hours. He gave the ticket to the
steward. Two of the sailors took it from him, and witness
took it from them again. Several of the crew appeared to
hare had liquor. The captain left in the steamer for Mobile,
and left witness in command of the ship. He then sent the
crew to dinner, and they swore they would not work until
they got the grog. I did not think it safe to give it them.
They swore to the captain, before his face, that they would
not go to work without it. The captain might have said they
were to have a glass at their work, but cannot swear it.
When the captain went away he said they were not to have
it until they had done their work. They persisted in refus-
ing to work, and Simon Hill seemed particularly their leader.
The captain told me before he went that if they refused to
work the only redress we had was to hoist the private signals
to the cutter. The lieutenant of the cutter did not recom-
mend me to give them their liquor. I slept with the pistols
under my head every night. I wrote for the captain, and he
returned. Does not think the crew were asked to work on
the Monday. Three or four hours after the six were taken
on board the cutter, the rest of the crew went back to work.
It would have been imprudent to attempt to punish on board
the Acadia. Hill refused to work all the way home. An-
other of the six came home in the Acadia, and did work.
The boatswain is dead and the carpenter at sea.
Cross-examined.—None other of the crew are here. Hill
was not in irons on the way home from Mobile to Liverpool.
We had twenty-nine hands out, and we brought twenty-five
home, including a fresh hand at Mobile. Will swear that
Stant told him Viet men were not fit to have more spirits,
and that the captain said they might when the work was
done, which might occupy two hours. Does not recollect
the American officer telling Hill he had power to flog him,
but recollects Hill saying to officer " I am not under the
Yankee stripes but under the English coach whip." I can-
not recollect what I said to the captain when he came, it is
so long ago. There is no entry in the log of any inquiry
into a mutiny, but merely that the crew continued off duty.
and that during the night the crew had stolen the canvass and
pork, and made a mock of the Atherican lieutenant.
James Sagar, who described himselt as a merchant, usually
residing at Mobile, saw six of the crew of the Acadia brought
up before Mr. Wilkins. Captain Mackenzie was examined
before the prisoners, and the men were asked if they had any
thing to say, but they urged nothing. Saw the justice write
what witness supposed would be the commitment. Went
with Captain Mackenzie when he received the mate's letter
to consult the British consul, and he advised the men to be
taken before a magistrate. I am here accidentally on my
own business. The witnesses to the depositions I know, and
they are all abroad. The Jefferson IN as stationed to protect
revenue, and to render any assistance required by vessels in
the bay.
Cross-examined.—The Acadia was consigned to our house,
and I attended as a friend of the Captain. What the prison-
ers said was taken down in writing. They urged nothing in
their defence.'

By the Court.—The constables took the men to prison.
The deposition of Mr. Schroeder, the British procouncil
was then read. Among other matters, it stated that defen-
dant had frequently visited plaintiff in prison, and entreated
him to return to his duty. The depositions of Lieut. Fors-
'ter, commander of the Jefferson, were read, who considered
the punishment " mild, and richy merited," both by his con-
duct on board the ship, and his obstinate refusal to return to
his duty when on board the cutter, and that until the Jefferson
was stationed for the protection of commerce, ships'companies
were iu the habit of mutinving,and running away with the ships
boats to New Orleans ; of J. Wilkins, justice of the peace in
Mobile; of C. S. Wilkins, deputy marshal and actingconstable
of Mobile ; of Ezekiel S. Bass, gaoler of Mobile, who spoke to
the frequent visits of the defendant to gaol, and his mild and
conciliating deportment ; of J. S. Narvaez, deputy gaoler,
who stated that the conduct of the men in gaol was good and
orderly ; all of which, more or less, confirmed the state-
ments of defendant's counsel and witness. A copy of the
warrant of committal was also read. A certificate or report
to his superiors was also read from Lieutenant Forster, to
the effect that every effort had been made to induce the crew
to return to their work, and that finally, they addressed very
insolent and opprobrious language to himself and crew, and
that the conduct of the captain was forbearing and humane
to the verge of prudence.

Mr. Sagar was recalled, and questioned by Mr. WORTLEY.
Does not recollect whether the prisoners said anything in
their defence or not; could not recollect that they said a
word.

Mr. WORTLEY replied for the plaintiff with much energy.
He contended that the story, as told by his witnesses, was
the most probable and consistent in itself ; that the men had
committed a fault, but that the punishment was excessive,
and a wanton exercise of despotic power. Their conduct ap-
peared to have been excellent the whole voyage, and it was a
great hardship after so long a privation of spirit, to refuse
them a small quantity that was made a present of, and which
was too small to do them any harm. When the mate is
pressed on the point, he admits that the captain " might"
have said what the witnesses said he did say, namely, that
they might have a glass at work. No witnesses could have
conducted themselves with more propriety in the witness-
box than Evans and Stant, and it was clear that the captain
did not see any, drunkenness, by his permission to drink the
spirits in two hours after. It was clear, also, that the mate's
recollection was incorrect and coloured by his feelings, for,
according to his account, they flatly swore to the captain they
would not work, and if that, was true, he must have gone
away and left his ship with the crew in a state of mutiny—a
thing quite incredible. It was clear, also, that there was no
intention of violence, as for four days they were nineteen to
three, and might have committed any violence—helped them-
selves to the spirits or anything else they liked. It was a
mutiny of the lightest and most venial kind, and the captain
did very wrong in acting on the angry letter of the mate, and
in not conferring end reasoning with the men on the Monday
morning. But no attempt was made until the shackles were
put on their limbs and they were turned on board the Ame-
rican ship, where pride, independence, and perhaps a fool-
ish obstinacy to which we were all liable, prevented
them making any concession. The American magistrate
had no right to interfere, as there had been no
violenca, no offence against American law, simply a
refusal to fulfil a civil contract. It was obvious that
the seamen resented the being taken on board the
American ship, and that the feelings of the American
captain came into play, for in his report. which pur-
ports to be official, he uses violent and abusive language,
not fit even for oratorical display. They used, he says,
"violent and abusive language towards muse% es, our
nation, and the service in which we were eno-aed. Forbear-
ance ceased to be a ditty," and certainly all loruearance was
now at an end, and the men were subjected, quite unneces-
sarily, to twenty-four hours shutting up in the forecastle
of the schooner, without food or water, under that climate.
The learned counsel then commented on the hearing before
the magistrate ; without any reflection on Mr. Sagar, it was
obvious he was incorrect. He says the mate was not ex-
amined. The deposition of the justice says he was. The
inference is, that the oaths and examinations of all parties
were taken in the absence of the prisoners, before the British
consul, and that the statement of Evans was perfectly cor-
rect; for that plaintiff was not asked for his defence is to be
inferred from the circumstance of its not appearing in the de-
positions, and Mr. Sagar's evidence, that though the "orator"
and " ringleader" of the party, he really said nothing. The
committal was, in fact, a committal for life, subject to the
disposal of another person, and he (Mr. W.) believed it
would be as bad in America as here, and that the justice
living in a slave state had laid his hand on a form for impri-
soning runaway negroes. That the defendant went up to
the gaol he believed, and that he saw the plaintiff he did not
believe ; for it was clearly in evidence that they remained in
prison ten weeks without change of linen, and came out
covered with vermin, and it was impossible for any man of
common humanity to have seen the vilest felon in that con-
dition without a change of linen. The real object of the
visits of the captain, and the real object of their detention,
was to drive a bargain for the fees, and after stoutly refusing
for ten weeks to pay one half of the costs of what these poor
men considered an illegal detention, the defendant at last
thought it prudent to liberate them at his own expense. Of
their good conduct in prison, the deputy-gaoler spoke in his
deposition. The learned gentleman again commented on the
violent and excited language of the American officer s' report,
and concluded a very powerful speech, which occupied nearly
two hours in the delivery, by an earnest appeal to the feelings
of the jury.

•
The Learned JUDGE charged the jury. The question was,
whether the punishment was excessive and disproportionate
to the offence, which the plaintiff himself admitted on the
fecoid he had been guilty of, namely, mutiny and insubordi-
nation. The learned judge carefully went over the evidence,
and remarked that it did not appear from the evidence on
either side, that at any time the plaintiff offered to return to
his work without previously receiving the grog, so that, in
point of fart, from first to last he remained in a state of con-
tumacy to orders. It would never do for seamen to regulate
for themselves, when they would have spirits and in what
quantities. Nothing could be more pregnant with danger
than such a rule. If they believed the evidence of the
gaolers, the plaintiff might have got out at any time on
ceasing to be obstinate and returning to his duty.
The jury, after a few minutes conversation, found a verdict
for the defendant.

SHEFFIELD, ASHTON-UNDER-LINE, AND MANCHESTER
RAILWAY V. WHITWORTH.
Verdict, by consent, for plaintiff's, for £865 and costs.
I3YRNE V. BUGGELN AND ANOTHER.

Withdrawn

BURKE V. COLLISTER.
This was a special action on the case brought by the plain-
tiff, who is a railway engineer, against the defendant, who is
also an engineer, for slanderous words spoken against him in
his profession. He had been employed as engineer on the
Manchester and Leeds Railway, and the imputation, which
was uttered ill the month of May last at an inn near Wake-
field, originated in a conversation on a projected North Lan-
caster Junction Railway, and was to the effect that the plain-
tiff had received a bribe of £5O to carry the railway through
Mr. Fielden's uncle's estate, instead of his own, and had
given a receipt for the money, and that he, defendant, was to
be employed to take another survey through Mr. Fielden's
estate, which would be cheaper. The case was proved by
Mr. Lockwood, the landlord of the Spotted Dog, Wakefield,
and Hattersley, a contractor on the Leeds and Manchester
line, and others, and Mr. Scott, an engineer.
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Tomlinson appeared for the plaintiff,
and after a speech from Mr. Cresswell for the defendant to
the effect that the proof was insufficient, and that the pre-
sumption was that the imputation was a different one, the
Court said the imputation was a scandalous one, but it was
for the jury to say whether the communication was a confi-
dential one, drawn out by questions from the plaintiff's wit-
nesses themselves, or whether it was made voluntarily for
the purpose of reflecting on:Mr. Burke. Were there circum-
stances to rebut the presumption of malice, or was the inten-
tion to defame ?
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages £5.
JOHNSON AND ANOTHER V. MACDONALD.
This was an action on an agreement to deliver one hundred
tons of nitrate of soda at 18s. a cwt. There was no dispute
on the amount of damages, or on the liability of defendant
through his agents, Messrs. Roscoe, Arnold and Leete, but
it was brought to take his lordships opinion on a clause in
the agreement, namely, the article to arrive, and to be deli-
vered,- " ex ship Daniel Grant, provided she is not lost."
The question was whether it was an absolute agreement to
deliver that quantity of nitrate soda whenever the ship
arrived, whether she brought the article or not, or whether
it was merely an avreement to deliver it when the Daniel
Grant arrived, it she brought it. The seller took the latter
view of the matter, and the buyer the former, and had sold
the article over again, and was bound to deliver it.
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Wortley and Mr. Crompton for the defendant.
It was agreed that a verdict be entered for the plaintiffs,
subject to an application to the court above, when the Judge
suggested whether it was not possible that the court above
might not think the mercantile meaning of the words a ques-
tion for the jury. But the defendant having agreed to waive
that objection, and treat the court above as a jury, the ver-
dict was entered as proposed, the damages being the differ-
ence between 18s. and 21s. 6d. per cwt. on the whole
quantity.

_...5w5.—•--

CROWN COURT.—SATURDAY.
STABBING WITH INTENT TO MURDER.
John Johnson, 43, was charged with having, at Salford,
feloniously stabbed, cut, and wounded Henry Walker, with
intent to murder him. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Wilkins the defence.
Henry Walker stated, that as he was going home on Sa-
turday night, the 19th June, he was struck down and became
insensible. Next morning he found himself at home, all
over blood, and wounded.
It was proved that the prisoner had called the prosecutor
from his house, and stabbed him several times with a chisel.
A surgeon of the Manchester Infirmary stated that the pro-
secutor bad twelve wounds. The back of the chest was per.
forated, so that the left lobe of the lung became useless. He
Was in extreme danger for some days.

Mr. WILKINS, for the defence, said he regretted that he
could say nothing in mitigation of the case.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced
to ten years' transportation.

FELONIOUSLY STABBING.
John Parker. 22, was charged with having, at Droylstlen,
feloniously cut and stabbed Job Goodier. The prisoner
pleaded guilty. It appeared that he had inflicted frightful
wounds on the face of the prosecutor, who was servant to a
publican. The only provocation was, that the servant had
refused to draw some liquor on a Sunday. The prisoner was
sentenced to twelve years' transportation.
Charles Bolton was indicted on a charge of having, at
Wigan, feloniously cut and wounded Thomas Pilkington.
The prosecutor was one of a band of musicians, who were
parading the streets of Wigan, during the late contested
election. They went to a public-house and had some drink.
A quarrel arose, in the course of which the prosecutor was
wounded near the throat. The surgeon deposed, that the
wound might have been inflicted, not with a knife, but by
a trumpet, or similar instrument.

Mr. 'WILKINS ably defended the prisoner, contending that
there was no absolute proof that the prisoner struck the
blow.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.
STABBING A FEMALE WITH INTENT TO MURDER HER.
James Frazer, stood charged with having, at Liverpool,
stabbed and cut Catherine English, with intent to murder
her. The case was fully reported when it was investigated
before the stipendiary magistrate. It appeared that the pri-
soner had committed the offence under circutnstances of great
provocation. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a com-
mon assault.

His LORDSHIP regretted the presence of the knife, but
admitted the provocation. As lie (prisoner) had already
suffered imprisonment for a considerable time, he would now
sentence him to be further imprisoned for seven days.

SHOOTING AT A POLICEMAN

John Murray, 41, was charged with having shot at John
Nicholson, with intent to maim, disable, and disfigure him,
or to do him some grievous bodily harm.

The case has already been fully before the public. The
prisoner carried on the busiuess of a publican in Atherton-
street. On the night of the day after the election, the 31st
July, there were several disturbances in the streets, arising
out of the popular excitement. A body of police, in the ex-
ecution of their duty, were patrolling the street about ten
o'clock, and, on going up Atherton-street, several of them
heard a report of a pistol, from whic'h one of them was
slightly wounded in the leg. A pistol was afterwards found
in the prisoner's hand.

Thejury acquitted the prisoner.
MALICIOUSLY SHOOTING

John Lovett, 27, was charged with having, at Manchester,
discharged a loaded pistol at William Newsham, with intent
to murder him. There was another count, charging him
with intent to disable ; and another, charging him with intent
to do some grievous bodily harm.

It appeared from the evidence, that the prosecutor and his
sons reside in Manchester, and are in the same employ. On
the 23d June prosecutor and prisoner went together to the
White Hart public-house, in Manchester, and they left it to-
gether at twelve o'clock at night. The prosecutor took with
him a pint of ale. When they had proceeded about twenty
yards, the prosecutor heard the report of a gun or pistol, and
immediately found himself wounded behind the ear. He
fell to the ground insensible, and was taken by some by-
standers to the Infirmary. Prosecutor had not had any
quarrel with the prisoner. The case against the prisoner
was fully proved.
A number of witnesses spoke in the highest terms of the
prisoner, as an exceedingly industrious and well-behaved
young man.

The jury found the prisoner guilty on the last count only

Mr. WILKINS, in extenuation of the priscner's offence,
said that he (the prisoner) had expressed himself utterly
amazed at his conduct. He had never entertained the
slightest animosity towarLis the prosecutor, and he must
have been incited to fire in a moment of temporary insanity,
caused by having some time before been attacked by robbers,
from which time he had always carried a pistol with him.
The JUDGE said, that the case was altogether of so unpre-
cedented a nature, that he should take time to consider be-
fore he passed sentence.