The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-04-13 00:00:00

,he Funds on

was the
present

accounted' for
for

From this a reaC-

tion took place up to 851, but the improvement was
only temporary, and at the close. of business they had
again fallen to 851 to 8 for money, and 851 to 86 for the
May account. .After the ordinary hours of business the
decline still continued, and the money quotation was as
low as 85k to R. No transactions occurred in Scrip, but
the price was about 31- to 3 dis. Bank Stock left off 191
t 0196; Reduced Three per Cents., 841 to t ; Three-and-
a- Quarter per Cents.. 86 to k ; Long Annuities, 81 to 9 ; India
Bonds ss. to is. dis.; South Sea Stock, 951; and Exchequer
Bills, ss. dis. to par. During the day, as was to, have
been expected, a number of vague rumouir
lation, but with the exception of one relating
cation in the north, which it was apprehended may
confirmation, but little importance was attached to them

LIW INTELL

IGENCE

were in circu-

vceive

BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY.—
Ele Chancery suit, Mozlev v. Alston, was part heard on

lay and
The e&

ftursday last, at t

Chancellor's
led

Court. came on upon demurrer to a bill _
by four persons, who alleged that they were shareholders
in the Birmingham and Oxford Junetir.-- - •

lion to restrain the defendan

hey mig

hst twelve

The bill prayed an injun

deliver over the common sea

The case

papers, documents, funds, and property in their posses-
sion into the control of the lawful directors.
stands adjourned for further argument on the 13th instant'
the first day of the next sitting.

-By th

JURORS 1N TOE NEW COUNTY COURTS.- -
County Courts Act the law as to the attendance of
in actions not e2eeeding-X2O is- altered, in eguww,..sheret
the amount exceeds £5 a plaintiff or a defendant may re-
quire a jury, but in actions under that amount the judge

County (

It has been enstomar

in every cause to swear the jury, but by a provision in the
new law they are not required to be sworn in each trial.
The expense on the part of the plaintiff or defendant re-
quiring a jury will be 55., which sum must be deposited
with the clerk of the Court, and be considered as costs in
the cause, unless otherwise ordered by the judge.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE: TOWNSEND V.
SYMES.—Thin trial took place at Gloucester on Friday
last. The plaintiff was a young woman about twenty-
one years old, the daughter of a cattle dealer, at Elton,
in Gloucestershire. The defendant was about twenty-

seven years old. He was living on a freehold property in
the neighbourhood. He had known the plaintiff about
five years, and, in 1844, she had a child by him, shortly
after which he promised, in the presence of witnesses, to
marry her, and even went so far as to give her father £5
to buy a wedding-ring, and, on being told that he must
himself procure the license, he declared his intentions of
doing so immediately. At this time his parents inter-
fered, and he was unable to fulfil his engagements, but
promised to do so on their death. This took nlooo not

long after, but, in 1846, 'he married a certain Miss Lane,
and this action was commenced. It seemed, however,
that the defendant was a weak, foolish, young man, who
had been inveigled into the promise by the plaintiff and
her parents. The jury returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages one shilling.
•

A. CL
LINS.-

AU:WS MATTER OF LOVE.—CRESWBEL V. COL-
-This was an action tried at the Hereford Assizes,
on Thursday, for a malicious prosecution. The plaintiff
is a young man, about 28, a veterinary surgeon at Leo-
minster ; the defendant is a Miss Fanny Collins, the
daughter of a deceased surgeon, who is very well con-
nected, and resides with her mother at Buckfield House.
On the the 15th of October, plaintiff went to the house
of a want's mother while the family

defenu.
--.y were at churcu,
walked into the drawing-room, looked at a number of
books, took one, and put it in his pocket, and then went
into the defendant's dressing-room' and took up a rug
belonging to her, and put it also in his pocket and went
away. He was on that evening arrested on the charge of
having stolen these articles, locked up, and brought before
the magistrates the next day, when he stated that at the
time he was taking the articles he told the servant maid
who let him in that he would bring them back in the evening
—that he had frequently spoken to the maid and her
mistress before—and that he was entirely innocent of any
felonious intention in taking them.. The defendant swore
that she had never spoken to the plaintiff,.or held any
communication with him. The case was sent to the ses-
sions, where the bill was ignored. Jane Hutchins was a
servant of defendant's mother in 1843. Got a letter from
the plaintiff and gave it to the defendant, who opened it
and read it to me. It was a love letter. Miss Collins
said that she hoped I would: say nothing about it to any
one. She was then twenty. She told me she had often
smiled on him, and on one occasion kissed hands to him.
I got a second letter from the plaintiff, and took it to the
defendant. In that he said he was afraid, from her si-
lence, she was offended.. She told me to tell him to come
to the back door of the yard in the evening, and to listen
she would

come and speak to him, and show
_ .aat he was not indifferent to her. He came in the
evening, and she and I talked, and he listened outside the
wall. She spoke very favourably of him, and said she
liked him very much. He came in a week again, and sass
sr at her bed-room windnw- He

sere, am
him ti

~poke to her. She threw up the window, and heard what
he had to say. She did not speak to him, She went an
a visit for some time. On her return he came again,• and
saw her at the window, and spoke to lwr. She did not
speak to him, but a Miss Beale, who was with her, did.
The next, night he came again, and then Miss Collins
spoke to him, That night he climbed up on the wall and
stood close to the window. The window opened from the
top, and he pUt his bead half way in. •He came often
afterwards, and used to stop talking from ten o'clock at
night till two in the morning. There was always another
person present, generally Miss Beak. She told him she
would go away with him, but she was afraid of her brother
and friends. Charlotte Watts—l went to live with Mrs.
Collins in May, 1844. 1 often saw the plaintiff talking to
the defendant. He used to write to her under enclosures
to me. Anne Edwards, a nursemaid in a neighbouring
family, proved that she once saw the plaintiff and defend-
ant walking together near Buckland HauSe. John Fos-
ter, a brickmaker, residing at Leominster; swore that he
saw the plaintiff and defendant walking together, last
spring, along a pathway near his brickfield, and that the
plaintiff assisted her over a stile. Mr. Serjeant Talfourd
addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant. He said
the plaintiff had been for a long time pestering the de-
fendant, who had applied to her uncle for a policeman to
protect her from the plaintiff. That on her going on a
visit he followed her, and that she complained to the gen-
tleman at Those. house she was staying of the annoyance.:
and he spoke to the plaintiff, and made him desist and
leave the neighbourhood. He was taken by surprise alto
,-;
gether by the reference to Miss Beale, and therefore cont'
not call her to-day. He would prove that on the ell,
ing after the bill was ignored the plaintiff,. in a lniul_t
room of Op Royal Oak, at Leominster, spoke in the mosr
dishonouring terms of the defendant. That her brothe
on hearing of it went to him, dared him to repeat the lan-
guage before the same company ; that he did not dare.
do so.; and that the brother then horsewhipped fiolulin"d
Evidence to this effect was then. given. The iurY I
for. the plaitltiff.—Damage,

for t
Ge
Sp

Dia
Whii
t
Ott

Oath
?Meta
Lgtro
b nare
ortsn,
111a,1
4r°4l
at cove
140n1
-"EA]
Ind nig
was she
"°wns,

SA'
ARRI
--Wan(
hleinP,

-7"!