The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

'r.
11:#,% ,
.“.P
141.111‘
• it
,
- .
`?;

TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1841.

productions of the testator, this to the defendant must be
conceded to be his, and it showed that Mr. H. was a man
capable of coming to a free and independent judgment, and
one who was resolved not be guided by others in his own
affairs. In the course of this correspondence Mr. H. plainly
told his niece that neither she nor her children should in-
herit his property, meaning thereby, as was afterwards ex-
plained, the whole of his property, which was what was
claimed by Mrs. Eastwood. This determination was re-
peated, in cooler moments, on two subsequent occasions.
A partial reconciliation took place between the uncle and
niece towards the close of 1832, the former having requested
that the subject of their long dispute should be altogether
and for ever dropped. On New-year's day, Mr. H. sent
Mrs. E. a New-year's gift, which was gratefully and kindly
acknowledged. In the following June, the testator sent to a
son of Mrs. Eastwood a present of £5O, to pay for his board
at colle.e during the next year. This generosity, instead of
being received in the same spirit as that of the preceding
New Year's Day, called forth from Mrs. Eastwood what ap-
peared to be a very ungracious reply. She said that it was
impossible to regard this as a kindness done to her or hers,
since her uncle had declared that he looked upon her as an
indifferent person, and as one who was eager to obtain pos-
session of his property. The old argument was then renewed,
and Mr. Heatley replied by stating that he thought the mat-
ter had entirely dropped on both sides, and that the Book of
Numbers was no more to be referred to. .He begged that he
might no more be troubled with so unpleasant a topic. Mrs.
Eastwood, however,• was not disposed to be compliant. She
wrote to Mr. Heatley that the subject was distressing to
her; but she hoped that he would pause before he did
that which would risk the salvation of his precious soul.
"My temporal interest may suffer," she added, " but
it may be a stepping-stone to that happiness which
we hope to enjoy hereafter." The niece afterwards com-
plained that the estrangement between her and her uncle
had been caused by the interference of a third party (Mr.
Sherburne), hinted that the determination of Mr. Heatley as
to the disposal of his property, was the result of the advice of
that third party, and concluded by saying that a priest never
interfered in family concerns without betraying both parties
for whom he was interested. This accusation was indig-
nantly denied by the testator ; he cautioned his iiieee
against giving utterance rashly to calumnious stories ; de-
clared that he had acted under no dictation from any one,
but that his intention, as to the disposal of his property.
was the result of his own unaided and free judgment.
Mr. Cresswell then said, that at this stage of the proceedings,
it was desirable to show the jury what had been done. By
the first will, as had been seen, the testator left to.each of
his nieces £6OOO, and nothing more, and that will had been
made in the absence of Mr. Sherburne, the:gentleman who
was charged with having, by secret influence and malprac-
tices, induced Mr. Heatley to make a will in his favour, and
to the disadvantage of the nieces. The will of 1829, made '
long after Mr. Sherburne had returned to England, and when
the Eastwoods were in France, gave and devised Brindle
Lodge, the furniture, gardens, farm-house, and lands ad-
joining, together with various other farms, houses, and
cottages, to his two nieces, to have between them
during their joint lives, and the survivor to have the
entirety during her life, and after them to descend
to their lawful children, their heirs and assigns for ever.
To each of his god-children, and each of the chidren of
his nieces £lOO was left—to Mr. Teeby £lOO, to another
servant £lOO, and smaller sums to other domestics. The
remainder of his landed property, freehold and leasehold,
together with his debts and securities for money, were left
to his dear friend Mr. Sherburne, his heirs, administrators,
and assigns. Mr. Sherburne was constituted sole executor.
This was increasing the share of the nieces to at least double
what was devised to them by the first will. By a codicil to
this will an increased amount of landed property,. worth
from £BOOO to £lO,OOO, was left the nieces, and
by so much was the bequest to Mr. Sherburne de-
creased. This codicil was framed during the period
of estrangement, when the testator was supposed to
be under the influence of him who was called the
grasping priest. Mr. Cresswell said that he would show
on the next day, how, under the same influence, in the second
codicil still further benefactions were made to the two nieces,
and a further provision drawn from that originally left to the
defendant. He should produce a correspondence between
Mr. Sherburne and Mr. Wheatley, showing that the latter
was not a drivelling idiot, a bigot, and a slave to the priest,
but that their intercourse was that of one manly mind with
another ; and that the testator, seeing that his nieces were
well provided for, had thought that he might very well pro-
vide for an intimate and esteemed friend.

The learned gentleman concluded his speech about a quar-
ter before five o'clock, having spoken on Thursday and Fri-
day upwards of eleven hours. The time, however, was chiefly
occupied with documentary evidence.
The following witnesses were then called for the defen-
dant :--

Henry Turner said he was a farmer at Seagram, in this
county. In 1829 lived at Fleetwood-hall. In the month of
February, 1829, was sent for to Brindle Lodge. He proved
that the will was produced to him on that day, and signed
by him, Mr. Heatley, Mr. Orrell, a surgeon, and Thomas
Smith, a farmer. No one else was present. Mr. Heatley
said he was obliged to have witnesses to his will, and he had
sent for them to sign it. That observation was made before
lie signed it. Had known Mr. Heatley from a boy and fre-
quently saw him. They shot over Fleetwood-hall. The state
of his mind was very good.
Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT.—The gardener fetch-
ed me. I live about a mile and a quarter from Brindle. Mr.
Heatley charged us to be particular as to whether he was
capable of making a will. Dr. Orrell said he was, and we
said the same.

What was it you said ? We said we all thought that he
was capable of making a will. That was said before lie
signed it. That was said before he signed it. He clapped
his pen on the seal, and then he wrote his name after. We
sat some little time after we had, all signed. Mr. Heatley
said it was proper to have three witnesses to sign his will.
Smith and I are not tenants to Mr. Heatley. lam a Roman
catholic. Have seen Mr. Sherburne. Mr. Smith was priest
of Brindle, and Mr. Carter at Salmsbury. The chapel was
near Brindle Lodge, and Mr. Smith lived near. Mr. Pope
lived there before. Both I and Mr. Heatley went to that
chapel. Went to that chapel. Went to confession to Mr.
Pope and Mr. Smith.

Re-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.-Mr. Pope was an old
infirm gentleman. He was there twenty years. I some-
times went to Salmsbury.

Thomas Smith.—l am a farmer. In February, 1829,
lived at Walton, about a quarter of a mile from Brindle
Lodge. One of his servants came and told me I was wanted,
When I got to Brindle Lodge I went to a room where I saw
Mr. Heatley and Mr. Orrell. Henry Turner accompanied
me into the room. Mr. Heatley said, " I have called on
you as witnesses as I have been making my will, and I sup-
pose you don't think but that 1 am capable of making my
will." We said yes—all three of us. He also said, " I
don't make it with any ill-will to any one, but as a duty
which I owe to myself and everybody, and now you are
witnesses that I sign this as my last will—William Heatley."
He then wrote his name, and gave the pen to Dr. Orrell,
and myself, and Henry Turner, and we signed it. That is
the document, pointing to the will. I signed last. I have
known the late Mr. Heatley 30 years. I thought him a
man most excellent both in words and examples. I never
saw anything badly conducted about his farms.
John Orrell, examined by Mr. WATSON.—I am a surgeon
at Preston. Was acquainted with the late Mr. Heatley and
attended as his medical adviser for fifteen years, and conti-
nued down to his death. That is my name to the will. I
signed it in his library. I came in consequence of a note I
received the evening before, inviting me to take breakfast
with him. To the best of my knowledge no one was present
at the time I signed it, except Mr. Heatley. After 1 had
signed it two other persons came in, Smith and Turner. Mr.
Heatlev desired them to sign the paper which I had signed.
Don't know the words used on the occasion except request-
ing them to sign it, which they did in my presence and that
of Mr. Heatlev. Mr. Heatley was a man of sound strong
mind, a very shrewd and intelligent person, a gentleman of
general information and of strong intellect. I think he was
quite capable of managing his affairs. Thought him very
pious in religion, but had not much conversation with him
on that subject.. Was his only medical attendant except the
late Mr. Barlow, of Blackburn, whom I met at a consulta-
tion. Mr. Heatley had to undergo an operation which was
performed. This took place previous to the will. I attended
the household as well as himself. Attended many, poor per-
sons in the neighbourhood, for which Mr. Heatley paid me.
Have breakfasted there frequently, and occasionally have
dined there. I dined there four or five months previous to
his death. When I have visited the poor at his instance he
has accompanied me several times. I have met Mr. Sher-
burne, of the Willows, which is about 14 miles from Brindle
Lodge, at dinner there. Mr. Heatley and he appeared on
the most friendly terms. Mr. Heatley treated him with the
greatest respect. .

Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT.—Was not certain
Mr. Sherburne was Mr. Heatley's confessor. Had no know-
ledge of it except from report. lam not aware he was often
there. He was generally in the drawing-room. Never saw
Mr. Sherburne in Mr. Heatley's bed-room. Have seen
them together in Mr. Heatley's study. Have dined there
three or four times during the last fifteen years. On the last
occasion met there Rev. Mr. Sherburne, Rev. Mr. Thompson,
Rev. Crook, of Manchester ; Rev. Mr. Carr, of Blackburn ;
Rev. Mr. Dowden, Clayton Green; Mr. James Tebay, his
steward, and Mr. Tebay's son; the Rev. Mr. Carter, of
Salmsbury, but do not recollect any one else. With the ex-
ception of Mr. Tebay, and his son, all the rest were Roman
catholic priests. Never met any one there but Mr. James
Tebay. Mr. Heatley was not particularly in bad health dur-
ing the last fifteen years. He was a strong person for his years.
When he was indisposed he had an aversion to see any one.
His health on the whole was not of a nature to prevent his
mixing in society. I think I have seen the Rev. Mr. Thomp-
son there occasionally, but not so often as Mr. Sherburne.
lam a Roman catholic. Except Smith and Dowden, who
were of the regular clergy, all the rest were of the secular.
I have attended Mr. Sherburne. He never told me he was
confessor to Mr. Heatley. I have not had much conversa-
tion with Mr. Heatley on religious subjects. 11a attended
mass at Mr. Smith's chapel, at Brindle. He was very strict
in fasting. Never had any transaction of business with him
except professionally.

It was now half-past five oTeli;elt,—;l7l Sir W. FOLLETT,
seeing that the court was about to adjourn, proposed that
his learned friend should permit Mr. Watson, his junior, to
proceed then with the reading of the other documents, as
the case wotild, to go on in the present way, last a fortnight.
Mr. CRESSWELL replied, that the course suggested was
unusual, and that he could himself do his own business.
Sir W. FOLLETT said that it might be unusual, but he bad
never before heard a case opened at this length.
Mr. CRESSWELL observed that the Attorney-General
opened one in the same way last year.

The learned JUDGE said that the case was so imptortant,
and the learned counsel bad been speaking for so many hours,
that he could not press him to proceed.
The court, therefore, adjourned till one o'clock on Friday.

FRIDAY.
This being Good Friday, Mr. Baron ROLFE did not take
his seat until five minutes before one.

Sir W. FOLLETT.—Were you not expecting a legacy from
Lim ?—I can scarcely answer that.

Sir W. FoLLETT.—Have you said anything about it ?—I
believe I have. (Laughter.)
Sir W. FoLLErr.—Have you not said that if you could
get Sherburne out of the way you would have a legacy ?—De-
cidedly not. I expected a legacy merely because I had at-
tended him for fifteen years. Was not angry at not receiving
a legacy.

Sir W. FoLLErr.—Will yOu swear that you never said he
was an old bigot ?—I am not aware I ever made use of such
an expression ; I may have said he was very warm in his re-
ligious feelings ; I may have done so, but I am not aware of
using the expression.

Si W. FOLLETT.-Will you undertake to swear that you
did not say he was a bigotted old fool ?—I will swear I never
made use of such an expression. I live about five miles from
Brindle Lodge. 1 reside in Preston and attend the Roman
Catholic chapel there. It is not usual for the priest of the
chapel they attend to be their confessor ? they may go to any
priest they think proper. I was, decidedly, in the room, and
signed my name before the other two persons came in. Ido
not recollect Mr. Heatley asking whether we considered him
capable of making a will. He did not state it to be his will.
1 did not know it was his will. All that passed washis asking
me to witness his signature, and I did. Nothing was said
about his will whilst the other two persons were present.
Was not aware that it was his will until the morning of his
funeral.. Did not go by direction of Mr. Sherburne to get
an alteration made in the printed judgment of the court.
William Smith examined by Mr. MURPIIY.—I am a far-
mer at Walton-le-Dale, near Brindle Lodge. In the month
of August, 1835, was sent for to Brindle Lodge. Found
Cornelius W.Manus and John Ainsworth. Mr. Heatley
said to us that lie would wish us to sign a paper. (Witness
said he signed the codicil.) Saw also the other parties sign
it.) Ido not recollect seeing Mr. Heatley sign it. I know
him nineteen years. Considered him a man of business. He
superintended and gave directions about his farms.
• Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.--I did not see any one
else in the room except Mr. Heatley and us three at the time
the will was signed. Ainsworth signed first, I second, and
Y took the will into his band
Mtahnisuswill . 'dice)! iveHlerycwateu.
He then gave us each Is.,
and ordered said,rMdred the butler to give us
some liquor, and we went
away. _
theno
--

Zjornelius WlVlanus —I am a tailor and draper at Hough-
ton. Went to Mr. Heatley's in 1835, and signed this will.
Signed it in the study at Brindle Lodge. Squire Heatley
sent for me. John Ainsworth and William Smith were pre-
sent. Mr. Ainsworth signed the will first, then Ainsworth,
then Smith, and me last. Mr. Heatley said he sent for us
to puc our names to a codicil of a will. This was said before
we signed it. Jew Mr. H. better than 20 years. Had
dealings with hfliffrequently, and used to converse with him.
His mind was decidedly good.

- Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—I used to work for
Mi.Heatley. Knew Mr. Sherburne very well. Have been
at Heatley's house often. Have never done business for
Mr. Sherburne. I am a Roman Catholic. Have been in
the habit of attending the chapel at Brindle. Have been
twice at Mr- Sherburne's chapel in my lifetime. He gave
me one shilling. . _

My a yr—.
HI
eaamtleays,haonpd-
Jo
keeper hn Ainsworth
Preston.
at
examinedwas
b
as a
tt
by Mr.
house ofe
signed his will. He saw me in the morning, and he asked
me to go to the lodge in the afternoon, and bring M'Manus
with me. We went, and Mr. Smith was also there. We
saw Mr. Heatley in the study. He said—" Do you think I
am sensible and capable of doing anything?', I said I
thought he was. He then produced a paper, and put it on the
table. This is it, and I signed it. Mr. Ileatley signed first,
andwe put our names after.
Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS—I deal in pork and pro-
visions. I knew Mr. Sherburne at that time. I used to be
at Brindle Lodge. I have seen Mr. Sherburne there. Was
living about a quarter of a mile from Brindle Lodge.
William Holmes examined by Mr. WATSON.--I am a
grocer in Preston, and have been in business thirty-three or
thirty-four years. Was acquainted with Mr. Heatley.
Knew him when he first went to Barton Lodge about forty
years ago. I signed this will in my office in Preston. Mr.
Heatley called upon me. It was about eleven o'clock. My
father and a young man named Samson, my partner, were in
the shop. Mr. Heatley said be wished to speak to me, and
walked into office. He then said he had a document in his
pocket connected with his will, which he wanted me to sign,
and there would be two other signatures required. He saw
my father in the shop, and asked if he could write. I said
he could if old age did not prevent him, and Mr. Heatley re-
plied he would do for one. Pointing to Mr. Samson he said
he would do for the third. "He is your son, is he not ?"
I said he was not my son, and he wanted to know who he
was. I told him he was my partner. He then asked me if
he was a catholic, and I said he was a church of England
man. He said he would do. Whilst this took place my fa-
ther went out, and I said I could find another in his stead,
and Mr. Heatley said " Who is he ?" I.told him Mr. John
Horn, a neighbouring corn dealer. He asked me who :he
was, and I told him his uncle lived near Barton Lodge. - Mr.
Heatley did not appear to know him. I then said he was
the same gentleman who went into partnership with Charn-
ley, at Liverpool, and who died there. I then went and
fetched Mr. Horn into the counting-house, and there were
present Heatley, Horn, Samson. and myself. Heatley then
took this paper (the will) out of his pocket and said it was a
document connected with his will, and we must see him,exe-
cute it. He then signed it in our presence. I then signed
it, next John Horn, and next Thomas Samson. I saw all
sign it. Mr. Heatley then put it in his pocket -and went
away, thanking us for the trouble he had given us. I used
fhriesqueegnutally tboehseinedMhr.imH. (Laughter.)eat Never heard himley. He used to call frequently
and talk to me. He was of sound intellect, and has not left
spoken ill of until after he died.
Sir W. FOLLETT.—Do you mean that he had not left his
learned friend is jealous.
equal in point of intellect ?—Yes.
Smirr.\\cr.RFEossLz..--Tmheyn you considered him the greatest
man in existence. (Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued.—He used to come often to
call on me, and I used to talk with him on politics and reli-
gion. My office was near his coach-house and stables, and
he often came and stayed with me while his carriage waa.got
ready. Have been at Brindle Lodge, but not on a visit.

AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.

SATURDAY

[POSTAGE FREE.

Called on him about some land. I know Mr. Sherburne. • and to no intention to say anything offensive to a lady.
Did slot see Mr. Sherburne on the day I signed the docu- I The learned JUDGE expressed his great gratification at the
merit. Mr. Sherburne used to call on me, and I used to talk I termination of the trial. In this case, as in a former very
with him. Mr.Tebay came and spoke to Mr. Heatley whilst similar one, (that of the late Mr. Blundell, of Ince, we pre-
he was in my counting-house. sutne,) he had kept his judgment, and he doubted not the

Re-examined.--I always thought him a man of sound jury had kept theirs, in reserve. But he must confess the
mind. Never heard it doubted before he died. No one observation occurred to him in the progress of the case, that
could doubt it. I went to try to purchase some land from 'if this will could be successfully impugned, on the ground
him. j that the testator was not competent to make a will, it would

By Sir W. FOLLETT.—I tried to purchase some land from go far to shake people's faith in any will that could possibly
him to build a chapel on. Ido not know whether any mo- Ibe made..
ney was paid for the land. I subscribed, and was one of the 1 A verdict was then formally recorded for the Defendant.
committee and treasurer, and paid the money into the bank. [The remainder of the trials will be found in the STANDARD.I
After the bargain was gone into, Dr. Briggs, the Roman
Catholic, purchased she land, and I do not know whther any
money was paid for it. I paid no money towards the land, 1
but did towards building the chapel. I paid the money into
the bank considerably after I went to Mr. Heatley. I think 1 (Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Common Jury.)
Mr Sherburne is one of the trustees of that chapel. Never I CHURCH-RATES—TAYLOR V. WESTON, ESQ.
heard him say that Mr. Heatley gave the land, and no money This was an action against the defendant, a magistrate for
was paid for it. _ the county of Surrey, for an illegal trespass upon the plain-

KINGSTON ASSIZES

By the JUDGE.—The price of the land was to be 1-Id a tiff'a premises, and removing a coal-scuttle, his property.
yard. The defendant pleaded not guilty under the statute.
John Horn examined by Mr. AIURCIIY.—I am a corn- Mr. Peacock, in the absence of Mr. Platt, conducted the
merchant residing in Preston. Have known the late Mr. case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channel appeared
Heatley upwards of forty years. On the 25th June went into for the defendant.

the last witness's counting-house, and saw Heatley, Sanson, Mr. PEACOCK stated that this was an action brought by
and last witness there. Mr. Heatley produced a paper, and , the plaintiff, who was a person in humble circumstances,
said something about his will. Saw all sign it, and I signed i against the defendant, who is a banker and a magistrate for
it. Mr. Heatley was in good health, and appeared quite the county of Surrey, to recover compensation in damage for
well. what he considered to be an illegal entry upon his premises

Thomas Sanson examined by Mr. WArsoN.--I am in
partnership with Mr. Holmes. I signed this document (the
will). Saw Heatley and the rest sign it.
Mr, CRESSWELL here asked his lordship if he would there
pause ?
Sir W. FOLLETT wished his lordship to proceed, as, by ad-
journing so early, the cause would continue fora very consi-
derable time.
Mr. CRESSWELL said they had now reached a point in the
evidence, and, probably, that was'the most convenient place
to break off.
Sir W. FOLLETT said be was anxious to afford every ac-
commodation 4ie could to his learned friend, but very little
courtesy had been shown to him in the cause.
Mr. CRESSWELL (warmly)—More courtesy has been shown
to von than to me.
'the learned JUDGE said he had no objection to sit for half
an hour or so, if any real progress could be made ; but,
during the last six weeks, he had sat daily, on an average,
ten hours, and it was almost exhausting nature to continue
late.
A Juryman also expressed his wish to adjourn.
Sir W. FOLLETT said, after the intimation from the Bench
and the jury, he would readily accede to an adjournment.
The Court then adjourned at a few minutes before seven.

1-
by virtue of a warrant signed by him. The circumstances of
the case were these :—lt appeared that in the month of De-
cember, 1839, a vestry meeting of_the parish of Christchurch
was convened for the purpose of making a church-rate, and
by the notice it appeared that this rate was to be applied to
certain purposes such as insurance, paying the parish clerk,
paper, printing, and other items to which a church-rate ought
not to be legally applied. A penny rate was proposed, and
several inhabitants, among whom was the plaintiff, protested
against a rate being made for such purposes, but the rate was
ultimately carried, upon a poll of the parish being taken.
The plaintiff afterwards, feeling convinced that the rate was
not legally made, entered a caveat in the ecclesiastical court,
with a view to try its validity; but the churchwardens, not-
withstanding this, summoned him before the defendant to
show cause why he refused to pay the rate, and it was out of
this proceeding that the present action arose. By an act of
parliament of the 53d Geo. 111., cap. 127, sec. 7, power was
given to summon parties for non-payment of church-rates
when the sum in dispute did not exceed £lO, and the magis-
trates were empowered to enforce the payment by a warrant
of distress ; but by the same act, it was also specially
provided that, where a defendant expressed his inten-
tion to dispute either his liability or the validity of
the rate in an ecclesiastical court, the magistrate's
jurisdiction should immediately cease. In this case the
plaintiff, upon being summoned before the defendant,
expressed his intention to dispute the validity of the rate,
and, by that act, he should confidently submit, and take the
jurisdiction from the magistrates ; but, notwithstanding his
protest, the defendant had thought proper to assume
jurisdiction in the matter; and, upon the plaintiff refusing
to pay the amount for which he was summoned, an order,
and subsequently a warrant of distress was issued, and
under that warrant a broker and a constable proceeded to the
house of the plaintiff, and seized a cote-scuttle, which they
sold. It might be said this was a trumpery cause for action,
but he begged the jury to remember that this involved a
most important question, in which thc: interests of the publie
were materially concerned. It was a serious inconvenience
land injury to any one to have an execution put into his
house, and if the defendant had illegally authorised the pro-
ceeding, lie was liable to the plaintiff, and he trusted the jury
would give his client such reasonable damages as the justice
of the case required.
William Bridge, the beadle of Christchurch parish, proved
that he went with a broker named Lovelase to the plaintiff's
house, with a warrant of distress signed by defendant. The
plaintiff refused to pay, and they took away a coal-scuttle,
which was afterwards sold.
Mr. C. E. Meymott, the vestry clerk, produced the
minutes of the vestry at which the rate in question was

CONCLUSION OF THE GREAT WILL CAUSE

Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat at nine o'clock

James Tebay.—ls a land agent, residing in Brompton,
near Preston, and have been so forty-three years. Recollects
the late Mr. Heatley's father. Witness's father was land
agent to him, and to his son, the late Mr. Heatley, up to the
year 1805, when he died. Witness succeeded him, and con-
tinued so up to the time of testator's death. (An account of
property taken by testator on his father's death was put in
and identified by witness as his father's handwriting.) Re-
collects the building of Brindle Lodge, which testator regu-
larly
superintended. It must have cost £lB,OOO. He went
to reside there in 1808. Witness did not then know Mr.
Sherburne—not until 1820. Witness spoke to the sale of the
leasehold property to Mr. Brockholes, in 1812, for £58,000,
and considered it a good sale. Witness received testator's
rents, and settled with him. He directed a particular way of
making out the rental—making it up in separate sheets, tied
together like a lawyer's brief, that he might refer to each
year's accounts at any time. This continued to the period of
his death, though the settlements were less frequent, and a
cash account being constantly kept for his inspection. He
had appointed Thursday for the last settlement, and died on
the Tuesday. In the year 1824, witnessed a will for him.
(Identified the will, and the handwriting of the testator.)
Witness spoke to the offer of Brindle Lodge to plaintiffs, and
of the refusal ; of his subsequent purchase of property in the
neighbourhood to the amount of LlB,OOO. Witness was
directed to look out for another house for testator at Hough.
No attorney was employed in these purchases—witness made
them under Mr. Heatley's instructions, who looked over the
drafts. He was, in witness's opinion, a man of great under-
standing, equal in business matters to any one witness
ever met. He bought and sold property at Preston,
also very judiciously. Remembers a sale to Mr. Thom-
linson—a gentleman here at the bar, about two or three
years ago. Witness here also identified testator's letters
relative to a transaction for a purchase from Sir Henry B.
Hoghton. The letters were read, dated 1831—one a short
one, for Sir Henry's perusal; the. other a longer, for wit-
nesses private guidance. The instructions for the bargain
were minute and judicious, and from their legal precision
and prudence were listened to with some amusement by the
bar. Witness also identified letters, dated in 1815. address-
ed to him by Messrs. Pilkington, of Preston. relative to
drafts sent tot him for perusal, clearly showing they treated
him as having a perfect knowledge and understandnig of their
contents. His practice of perusing his own deeds and drafts
when he made sales or purchases, continued up to the end of
his life. Witness and his wife were invited to visit testator.
Recollects a Mrs. Talbot living at Salmsbury, near Brindle.
She had daughters. Recollects meeting one at the house,
Recollects Mr. and Miss Gradwell. The latter is now in
Ireland- Met many people there—many clergymen. There
are particular times of meeting, called a " conference," when
he had usually a party, but witness was not there at such.
Remembers borrowing of him, on witnesse's own account,
some money on bond. He asked if I had any objection to
have the bond made to Mr. Sherburne. (Bond for £3,800
to Mr. Sherburne produced and identified, with memoran-
dum of interest paid, in testator's hand-writing, up to the
last term before his death.) We died suddenly. When wit-
ness went immediately after, there was no one in the house
but servants. The same ;day Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood
came, and took possession of the papers in the house. He
heard testator speak of his correspondence with Mrs. East-
wood, and he said he had received letters from her, to the
effect, that he had no right to dispose of his property, and it
seemed to put him out of the way. He asked witness what
he thought, and witness told him that if property was not
entailed, a person had a right to do with it what he liked.
He spoke again of the latters latterly, and witness advised
him to put them out of the way and think no more of them.
On the :morning of the funeral the will was opened. Mr.
Eastwood read it the day after he died, and seemed much
disappointed, and said he would dispute it to the last far-
thing he had in the world. Mrs. and Mrs. Eastwood
remained at the house to the funeral. Mr. Eastwood, on
the morning of the funeral, gave the will to Mr. Sherburne,
saying it was a piece of waste paper and not a valid will. He
then ordered Mr. Sherburne's horse, who took the hint and
rode away. The property taken by the plaintiffs under the
will amounts already to a rental of £614, exclusive of Brindle
Lodge and the lands adjoining. Part is likely to increase,
from lives falling in, to £BO or £9O a-year more. The value
of the Lodge and land adjoining is, to let, about £250 a-Year.
Testator's nieces had fortunes of £lO,OOO each. Witness
knew by being accountant to Mr. Heatley when he settled
the executorship, and detailed interviews between the testa-
tor and the plaintiffs relative to the division of the property,
which one party considered was divisible, but which the other
contended was descendable in the entirety. This appeared
to be a long and intricate affair arising out of Mrs. Dease's
will, of which Mr. Heatley was executor. The property to
be divided among the three sisters, Mrs. Eastwood, Mrs.
Middleton, and Mrs. Dease, was about £30,000; and by the
death and will of the latter, the two former took the whole
in equal moieties.
Sir WM. FoLLErr objected 'to the production of the very
long correspondence.
Mr. CRESSWELL said his object was to show that, so late
as 1831, the plaintiffs were calling in testator to arbitrate in
their affairs.

made.
The minutes were read ; and it appeared that when the
vestry met, the plaintiff proposed that it adjourned sine die,
but the rector refused to-put the motion, ou the ground that,
as the vestry was convened for the express purpose of making
a church-rate, no motion but one having that object could
be put from the chair. A halfpenny rate, in lieu of a penny
one, was also proposed, but on the penny rate being carried,
the plaintiff and several other inhabitants signed a protest,
and among them were the following : That the former
churchwardens had not given any account of the expenditure
of the last rate ; that the present churchwardens refused to
state precisely what amount would be required ; and like-
wise that the rate was to be applied to purposes for which it
could not be legally raised.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL!, then addressed the jury, and
said he had the honour to appear on behalf of a gentlemen of
station and high respectability in the county, and he would
commence his observations to the jury by stating that his
client did not in the least complain of the proceeding that
had been adopted against him, and he admitted to the fullest
extent the right of the plaintiff to question the legality of any
act committed by him. He felt, however, confidently that
in the present case he had not only performed his duty le-
gally, but also kindly and considerately towards the plain-
tiff, and in fact be had done no more than the law, to which
they were all bound to submit, compelled him. He was
aware that the subject which had given rise to the present
action was one of great interest and excitement, but he was
quite sure that the jury would look calmly and dispassionately
at all the facts of the case, and he was confident that they
would return a verdict for his client. They had heard the
circumstances of the case, and it was quite clear that the rate
in question must have been abandoned altogether, or Mr.
Weston must have issued the warrant in question, and he
apprehended that in so doing he had acted in strict confor-
mity with the law. The.question at issue was one partly of
fact and partly of law. The learned counsel then referred to
the act of Parliament before alluded to, and said that the ob-
ject of that act was not to enable a party summoned for non-
payment of church rates by any frivolous objection to set
aside the jurisdiction of the magistrates and embarrass the
churchwardens, but it required a real, bond fide intention to
try the validity of the rate to be shown, and in that case only
superseded the jurisdiction of the magistrates. In the pre-
sent case a rate was laid before the defendant to enforce ; it
was prima fade a good rate, and he was bound to enforce it.
The defendant refused to pay, and he was summoned, and
when before the magistrates he handed in a paper, on which
he merely stated that he objected to the rate, and begged the
magistrates not to adjudicate upon the case. If such a pro-
ceeding as this was held to be sufficient to destroy the juris-
diction of the magistrates, the object of the act in question,
which was intended as an ease to the subject, and to prevent
the great expense of an appeal to an ecclesiastical court, would
be entirely frustrated. A man when summoned foe non-
payment of church-rate would only have to say he objected to
the validity of the rate, and the then churchwardens would have
no alternative but to expend an immense amount of the parish
money to compel him to do so, by expensive and protracted
proceedings in the ecclesiastical court. His impression
of the law, however, was that a magistrate was bound to see
whether the party's object was really to try the validity of
the rate, or whether it was merely to embarrass the church-
wardens and prevent its collection. The learned counsel
then cited the case of the " King v. the Chapelwardens of
Milnrow," in which the defendant gave notice that he would
not pay the church-rate because he was not liable, as he had
no seat in the church. In that case the court held that the
jurisdiction of the magistrate was taken away, because, al-
though the objection of the defendant was not valid in law,
still it evinced a bond fide intention on the part of the de-
fendant to try the validity of the rate ; and again, in the case
of " The King v. Wrothesley, Clerk," the Court of Queen's
Bench had to consider the question of bona fides, and Lord
Tenterden, in giving judgment, said it was absurd to suppose
that the 53d Geo. 111, intended that the mere statement of a
party summoned, that he disputed the validity of the rate,
should oust the magistrate's jurisdiction ; and he ruled that
the magistrate should be satisfied by the defendant that lie
had a real intention to try the validity of the rate, and that
he ought to be called upon to give some ground for opposing
it, and a mandamus in that case issued, calling upon the ma-
gistrate to adjudicate. The present plaintiff had only done
this ; he told the magistrates that he disputed the validity of
the rate, and, although the bench kindly told him it was not
sufficient, and that he must assign some ground upon which
he disputed the legality of the rate, he refused to do so, and
the magistrates, conceiving that they had jurisdiction, had
issued the warrant. He should produce witnesses to prove
these facts, and he was satisfied that he should be able to
show them that Mr. Weston had not only not exceeded the
law, but that he had only done what the law absolutely de-
manded of him, with kindness and consideration.
Mr. C. E. Meymott was again called, and he deposed that
he was present at the meeting of magistrates when the plain-
tiff was summoned for non-payment of the church-rate.
When the plaintiff was asked why he refused to pay, he re.
plied that he objected to the rate. The defendant told him
this was a mere statement, and that the magistrates would
adjudicate unless he stated what his objections were to the
rate. The plaintiff then handed in a paper to the following
effect :—" I do hereby respectfully give you notice that I ob-
ject to the validity of the rate, and I request you to forbear
to give judgment thereon.'.' The magistrates having read the
paper, again told the plaintiff it was not sufficient, and at the
same time informed him that there were cases decided in
which it had been ruled that a person under such circum-
stances was bound to give the magistrates his reasons for dis-
puting the legality of the rate. The plaintiff' replied that he
considered his notice was quite sufficient, and the magistrates
replied that they thought it was not, and unless he gave them
some reason they should adjudicate upon the application lof
the churchwardens. The plaintiff still refused, and-the de-
fendant had then no alternative but to issue the warrant,
which was accordingly done. One of the magistrates told
the plaintiff in the most courteous manner that if he did not
pay the rate they should be compelled to issue a distress
warrant.

Examination resumed.—During the last three or four years
have seen Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood visiting at Brindle Lodge
three or four times a year. about a week at a time. Had
seen Mr. Sherburne also. Had seen the former oftener there
than the latter. Had not seen the latter often there lately.
Mr. and Mrs. Middleton had been abroad for some time be-
fore testator's decease. Testator was very charitable to the
poor in every mode, and to a very considerable amount.
Some years ago assisted testator to sort his deeds, and he
kept those relating to the Brindle, Salmsbury, and Warton
properties, and said he should and those relating to the
Preston property, which Mr. Sherburne,.to Mr. Sherburne.
The rental of that is £467, some little of it improve* for
building ground. Remembers Mr. Eastwood asking me if
Heatley was not selling his property, and I told him he was
selling ground rents in different places in Preston, and after-
wards told Mr. Heatley of the conversation.
Mr. CRESSWELL called the plaintiffs to produce seventeen
conveyances to testator, from March 1791 to March 1837,
and put in twenty or thirty others from him. AU these,
witness said, Mr. Heatley bad perused himself.
Examination resumed.—Down to the day of his death
witness had'never the least doubt of testator's competency to
make a will.

Sir W. FoLLETT, after some conference with his client's
attorney, then addressed himself personally to Mr. Cress-
well, and the two learned gentlemen requested his lordship's
permission to retire together.

After having retired For nearly an hour, the counsel returned
to court, and

Sir W. FOLLETT said it would save time if his lordship
would allow him to state; thatan arrangement had been come
to in this case satisfactory to all the parties, and he begged
his lordship's permission to say a word or two to the jury,
relative to the terms on which it had been arranged. Mr.
and Mrs. Middleton and Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood being the
nearest relatives of the late Mr. Heatley, feeling themselves
aggrieved by his will, thought they were justified, and he
(Sir W. F.) thought also, that they were justified, in mak-
ing the most ample investigation into the circumstances un-
der which it was executed. That was done by a suit in
Chancery, out of which the writ issued, out of which that in-
quiry originated. The result of it had satisfied them, and it
had satisfied their legal advisers, that the late Mr. Heatley
was, at the time of making the will, and at the time of mak-
ing the codicil, competent to make the will and the codicil,
and that there was no ground for disputing his competency.
He, and his learned friend Mr. Cresswell, had arranged cer-
tain matters connected with the suit of a money nature, in
a manner satisfactory to both parties, and he rejoiced that
there was no further occasion for him to trouble the jury.
Mr. CRESSWELL said, as the case had gone so far, he
thought he also might be excused if he asked permission to
address a few words to the jury. He had stated, when be
first opened the case, he had stated on several subsequent
occasions, and he repeated now, that the sole feeling of his
client in the matter was, that of anxiety for his own reputa-
tion ; that he was anxious to have the matter probed to the
bottom ; and that he never disputed the right of the heirs-at-
law to institute any inquiry they pleased into a will which
alienated from them and their families property which would
otherwise have descended to them. But at the same time he
was determined for his own sake to have the inquiry, now
instituted, carried on until the other party expressed them-
selves perfectly satisfied with the manner in which the
will had been executed. He had now done that ; his
character was fully cleared ; it was admitted that there
waa no foundation for the suit in equity, nor for the
action:at law. With respect to the property in dispute,
if the other parties so pleased, he was willing to let them ac-
quire it on very easy terms. The will being confirmed, the
suit in equity will be dismissed, but the defendant, of course,
admitting the propriety of the inquiry, will not call on the
plaintiffs to pay his cost. Mr. Cresswell then apologised for
madesome on
eemmals
Dwehesice%
deaerelysereparet
eo4f
dtehres
ec as,
meel t he had
and
trusted that, having entered into the case with even more than
professional anxiety for the honour of the defendant, any re-
marks he made would be attributed to zeal and excitement,

Cross-examined.—No one was present but the magistrates,
the collector, the churchwardens, witness, and the plaintiff;
but if the latter had thought proper to bring a legal adviser
with him, there would have been no objection made. He
was present at the vestry meeting when the rate in question
was made, and he knew that the plaintiff protested against its
legality, and signed the protest to that effect.
Sergeant CHANNELL submitted that what took place at
.the vestry could not be evidence.
Baron PARKE said he would admit it as tending to shew
bona fides on the part of the piaintiff. There were three
questions, as appeared to him in the case, two of which were
purely of law, and the third partaking of fact and law. The
first was, whether under the act in question, the magistrates
had the power of deciding whetherthe objection to a rate was
made bona fide. This was a question that should be decided.
If the magistrates had that power, they had exercised it in
this case, and there was an end of the matter for the plaintiff.
The second question was for time jury to say (supposing the
magistrates had not power) whether the objection was really
bona fide or not ; and the third question was whether, sup-
posing the jury believed the party really did intend to dis-
pute the validity of the rate, whether he ought to assign his
grounds of objection. The most important point, however,
was whether the jury believed that the plaintiff really in-
tended to dispute the validity of the rate in an ecclesiastical
court.
Mr. Meymott was then further questioned, and in answer
to a question from the learned counsel, he said, that at the
vestry meeting one of the amendments proposed by the
plaintiff was, that it should adjourn.
Baron PARKE remarked, that as the vestry was specially
convened to make a church-rate, this could only be looked
upon as a vexatious opposition to the proceedings.
Cross-examination continued.—The churchwardens did
not reluse to produce the accounts that were required ; but
it was not in their power to so. One of the protests

against the rate was grounded on the fact, that a suit of the
late churchwardens against an inhabitant was then pending
in the ecclesiastical court.

Mr. Sergeant CHANWLI. baying addressed the jury upon
the minutes of vestry that had been put in,
Baron PARKE intimated h►s opinion, Ludt the only ques-
tion for the jury was, whether the plaintiff really intended to
dispute the legality of the rate ; or whether he had merely
made a frivolous objection for the purpose of procrastinating
the proceedings and annoying the churchwardens.
Mr. PEACOCK then took a variety of technical objections
to the form of order and the warrant, and contended that
upon the face of them they were bad.
Baron PARKE said it appeared to him that the only im-
portant objection was the one, that the warrant did not state
that the magistrates had jurisdiction. He should not, how-
ever, stop the case, but would reserve the point if it became

necessary.
Mr. PEACOCK then replied upon the whole case, and con-
tended that it was clear, under all the circumstances, that
the plaintiff really intended to dispute the legality of the rate,
and conseqtiently that the defendant had no jurisdiction, and
had exceeded the powers confided to him by law.
Mr. Baron PARKE then addressed the jury, and, after al-
luding to the act of Parliament, observed, that in his opinion
the jury had only one question to decide—viz., whether at
the time the plaintiff attended before the magistrates he had
a real and bona fide intention, to dispute the validity of the
rate. In his opinion the notice he had given the magistrates
was not sufficient, and he thought the law required that a
man should give them some reasons to satisfy them of his in-
tention. Because a man merely coose to say, " I dispute
the rate," were the churchwardens to be baffled and com-
pelled to resort to an ecclesiastical, court? He thought not.
If it were so, the act of Parliament in question would be al-
most a dead letter.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.
Baron PARKE, addressing the jury, said, that in case any
of the points that had been raised should be afterwards found
available to set aside the verdict, it would be necessary that
they should assess what damage they would give the plaintiff.
The Jury—The very smallest amount, my lord.
. They then consulted a short time, and agreed to give the
plaintiff ss. for his coal scuttle, in case the verdict should be
disturbed.
An application was then made respecting cots, when Ser-
geant CHANNELL said, that if the plaintiff would undertake
not to adopt any further proceedings in reference to the ver-
dict, he would pay his own costs.
Baron PARKE said this was a very handsome proposal, and
the plaintiff's counsel consenting to the arrangement, an un-
conditional verdict for the defendant was returned.

A female named Driscoll, who was married only eight
weeks ago, since which time she has made three attempts on
her life. and on one occasion took poison, made another un-
successful attempt to destroy herself by throwing herself into
the river at Shadw•ell early on Sunday morning, and was for-
tunately taken out alive. Previous to her marriage she was a
frequent visiter of the twopenny concert-rooms, and since
then has been very unsettled. On Saturday evening she
gave her husband the slip, went to the Pavilion Theatre, and
after stopping out all night attempted to drown herself.—
Times.

THE MURDER NEAR Clubbe, aged
27, was arraigned at Ruthin on Friday last, for the wilful
murder of Evan Evans, a gamekeeper of Edward Lloyd,
Esq., on the 30th January last. The circumstances of the
case appeared in all the papers at the time. The evidence
against the prisoner was slight, and insufficient to convict
him, had it not been backed by a curious confession he made
to Mr. Joseph Peers, the clerk of the peace for Denbigh-
shire, two or three days previous to the trial. The jury
found a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, and the judge
passed sentence of death upon him.

DOUBLE ESCAPES OF A SMASHER.—A MODERN JACK
SHEPPARD.—Yesterday's Government Police Gazette con-
tains the following description of a man named James Dixon,
who represented himself as an umbrella repairer, residing at
Carlisle, Cumberland, and who has within the last three
weeks twice effected his escape from the custody of the con-
stable of Masham, in Yorkshire, while under remand for fur-
ther examination, on a charge of having in his possession a
quantity of counterfeit coin, and of uttering the same ; and
also of felony. He was again apprehended on the 23d ult.
by the constables of Stokesley, in the same county, and was
again remanded for further examination on the same charges,
when he again effected his escape about one or two o'clock
on the morning of the 25th ult., by letting himself out of the
window of his bed-room ; in doing which, it is supposed he
must have received very great and serious injuries about his
head or face, as he fell from a height of 20 feet; and a very
large quantity of blood, and some skin and hair, were found
upon the stones below the window. He was traced by the
blood nearly half a mile, when all further track was lost.
When he escaped he had a handcuff on his left wrist, and a
strong iron chain attached to it.

MURDER AND DESPERATE CONFLICT.—OR the evening
of the 24th of March, two gentlemen. of the name of Sail-
lard, who had been called to Rouen on business, had alighted
at Yvelot, at about nine o'clock, and were proceeding home-
wards with two young servants, who had come to meet them
and carry their luggage, when, at no great distance from the
house of M. Saillard, senior, and at about 100 yards from the
house of one of the magistrates of Yvelot, the younger bro-
ther perceived something dark a few paces distant, and ad-
vanced towards it, when, on a sudden, he was seen to stagger
backwards, mortally wounded in the breast by the discharge
of a gun. The brother immediately rushed on the assassin,
and a horrible conflict commenced. The eldest servant took
to his heels, but the other, a lad of 15, came boldly forward,
and laid hold of the barrel of the gun, which the murderer
was directing against his master, and turned it aside, so that
it went off without doing any injury. The struggle still con-
tinued, and numerous wounds were inflicted on M. Saillard
by the assassin, who had found means to draw a dagger; but
at last the villain was defeated, and thrown down by the ef-
forts of M. Saillard and his courageous servant. When the
wretch was on the ground, M. Saillard despatched his ser-
vant to an adjoining house, to obtain as§istance to remove
the miscreant ; but during the lad's absence M. Saillard,
weakened by the loss of blood, was unable to keep down the
murderer, who, by a desperate effort, released himself from
his opponent's grasp, and effected his escape. In this horrid
struggle M. Saillard received seven dangerous wounds. It
is, however, expected that he will recover : his unfortunate
brother is entirely given up by his medical attendants. There
is some hope that the assassin will not escape, as he was
obliged to leave behind him, in his hurry to make off, his
gun, the handle of his dagger, which had broken in the strug-
gle, one of his shoes, and his cap.—French Paper.

THE KNIFE AGAIN.—TWO YOUTHS STABBED IN A
PUBLIC SCHOOL AT Baomyrow.—Since Wednesday last a
report has prevailed in Brompton that one of the young gen-
tlemen at the Brompton Proprietary Grammar School had,
in a fit of passion, stabbed two of his fellow scholars, one of
whom still remains in a very dangerous state. The school in
question consists of between 80 and 90 youths, and is situated
in Alexander square, Brompton, the Rev. Robert Lamb
being head master. The occurrence, it is understood, took
place in the school-room during the hours of instruction on
Wednesday morning, when, it appears, a youth, 12 years of
age, named Richard Batley, the son of Mr. Batley, liveryman,
opposite St. Peter's Church, Pimlico, was stabbed with a
penknife, in the small of the back, by a youth three years
his senior, named Taylor, whose parents reside at No. 15,
Rawstorne-street, Montpelier-square, Knightsbridge. He
also stabbedin the thigh a boy 12 years of age, named Nagle,
residing at No. 26, Church-street, Chelsea, who endeavoured
to prevent the injury on Batley.. Immediately the circum-
stance became known to the Rev. Mr. Lamb ; he despatched
a messenger for instant medical assistance, and in a few mi-
nfites Mr. Glen, surgeon, of Brompton-row, was in attend-
ance, when the wound on Batley, who bled profusely, was
dressed, and he was taken home to his parents. The wound
on the thigh of Nagle was, fortunately, but slight. Taylor
was immediately sent home to his friends, with an intimation
of what had taken place ; but, at the same time, considerable
surprise has been expressed that the managers of the school
have not felt it their duty to communicate the occurrence to

the magistrate of the Kensington police-court, in which dis-
trict it has taken place, that, should death ensue, the course
of justice should not be frustrated by the escape of the de-
linquent, which had nearly been the case in a similar
transaction at Hayes.
RIPON.—EXTRAORDINARY CELESTIAL APPEARANCE.—
On the night of Monday last, between half-past eight and
ten o'clock, the heavens presented one of the most unusual
aspects ever beheld by any one in this place. From what we
have heard of lunar rainbows, we should say the phenomenon
most resembled such an appearance. But how could the
moon operate in producing such an effect, when her light was
altogether absent? That luminary was just finishing her
monthly circuit. A continued stream of light extended,
nearly vertically, from one extremity of the horizon to the
opposite one. Unlike the Northern Lights its direction was
from east to west, as the wind in all probability, was a power-
ful agent in its production, and that at the time was, and had
been during part of the afternoon, blowing from the west.
Yet although in this important particular, dissimilar to the
Aurora Borealis, the light, when most brilliant, bore a great
resemblance to that beautiful object in its silvery whiteness.
In breadth it appeared considerably to exceed the solar rain-
bow, and its edges were less regularly defined. But this
might be owing to its vertical position. A more splendid
sight has seldom been witnessed. Its continuance might be
for nearly half an hour, during which many were its ob-
servers in the city of Ripon, as doubtless they must have
been elsewhere. From its greatest lustre it gradually waned
away, and by ten o'clock not a vestige remained of this ex-
traordinary and interesting visitant. After its departure, the
northern horizon presented the same bright appearance as it
generally does after the prevalence of the Aurora Borealis ;
as if that glittering display of celestial splendour had but re-
ceded within the borders of the opposite hemisphere. Many
and various were the expressions of conjecture as to the im-
portant events portended, and even the better informed por-
tion of spectators, divesting themselves of all superstitious
feeling, could not but remark the ominous indication of
pad-sing events in the east, as well as of the rumour of war
with our transatlantic rivals in the opposite direction.—Leeds
httelligeswer.

CAPTAIN DOUGLAS.—At the levee on Thursday week,
Captain Douglas, late commander of the Cambridge, mer-
chant ship, was presented to the Queen by Viscount Palmer-
ston, when her majesty was graciously pleased to confer on
him the honour of knighthood. The case of Captain Dou-
glas is one of which this great maritime nation may well be
proud. He arrived at Singapore the peaceful master of a
merchant ship, but hearing there the condition in which
Captain Eliot and other British officers in China were then
placed by the oppressive conduct of the Chinese authorities
at Canton, he at once got rid of his
.cargo, purchased some
32-pounders, doubled his crew, laid ma good store of ammu-
nition, and gallantly set sail for the Canton river ; and all
this he did on his own personal responsibility. In his short
passage from Singapore not a moment was 19st in working
his willing crew at the guns. He entered Canton river,
cleared for action, and gallantly took his station inside the
valuable fleet of British merchant ships there lying at an-
chor. There happened to be no vessel of war in the Canton
river at that moment, but Captain Douglas was alone suffici-
ent to afford protection. He repelled all assaults,but he was
unfortunately severely wounded in the attack upon the Chi-
nese junks at Kow-lane, on September 15th, 1839. Well,
when British vessels of war did arrive, it necessarily followed
that the gallant mission of Captain Douglas was at an end ;
but we have not yet done with this Captain Douglas. Ou
the arrival of the British vessels of war, he fell 'back into
the merchant seaman, and proposals were actually made to
him by some American captains for the purchase of his 32-
pounders. " No," said Captain Douglas, " you want these
guns to sell them again to the Chinese ; but f'd rather send
them all overboard than sell you one of them." We need
scarcely add, that Captain Douglas has already been reim-
bursed for the expenses he incurred in the puhlic service,
we trust there is truth in the report that both he and his gal-
lant crew have, moreover, received a handsome gratuity front
her majesty's government.—Observer.

EXTRAORDINAY MURDER.—A murder, attended with
some extraordinary circumstances, has lately been perpetrated
in the commune of Potnarede. A farmer named Filhol cul-
tivated a farm at Cassaignes, which was extensive enough to
require the assistance of two or three labourers. For some
little time past he has suspected that a criminal intimacy was
carried on between one of his men and his wife, but either
through indecision or fear he adopted no measures in con-
sequence. The insolence of the servant, however, became
so intolerable that he felt compelled to put a stop to it, as it
was but too evident that the man was encouraged by his mis-
tress. A few days since he had made preparations fur a
journey, and went into his stable to get his horse, but not
coming out for some time a search was made, and his body
was found covered with straw ; a large wound, intlictedbd;
a blunt heavy instrument, was perceived on his head, and
several others of less extent on his face. suspicion has been
thrown on the servant, who has been committed
to prison.