The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

BURGLARY.

John Walker and Michael Whaling were charged with having,
on the morning of the 27th February last, burglarlodsly entered
the dwelling-house of Catherine Weight, at Pendleton, and
stolen therefrom a variety of articles. Mr. BRAN C/T appeared
for the prosecution.
Wm.Wilcock was the first witness called. El e deposed that
he slept. in a room on the.ground [lour of Mrs. Weight's house,
and was disturbed, about three O'clock on. the morning of the
27th February, by a noise at the door. He immediately got up
:and, looking through the key hole, saw a light in the adjoining
room. He made an alarm, and went out dins room; in doing
which he .heard.a.great noise in the music room, and presently
after the breaking of a window. The entrance had been effected
by taking a panel out of the door, and drawing two bolts. He
r found a pair of clogs inside the door, a hat in the music.romni
in which was a handkerchief, and five skeleton ke)s, On the
Steps leading into the garden, he saw several drops of blood,
which he could trace for about 100 yards. He was in company
with Mr. Allen when a piece of blue cloth (apparently from the
lap of a coat) was found in a strawberry tied in the gimlet'.
There were some palings which were broken down ; the untruth
ern seemed to have run against them, and by that means the
coat might have been torn.
Miss Weight deposed, that she resided with her mother, and
stated, that she had ascertained that all the small silver articles
fro 111 a work-box, which lay in the parlour, haul been stolen. She
had nut seen the articles in question for some time betiure the
robbery ; but she knew that the work-box itself had been re-
moved, on the night of the rubbery, trout the place in which she
bad left it.
Thomas Allen, constable of Pendleton, deposed, that he was
sent for to the house of Mrs. Weight, at five o'clock on the
morning of the 27th February. He examined into the state of
things there; and he saw some skeleton keys. which were de-
livered to him, as well as a hat and handkerchief, He observ-
ed traces of blood, extending from a broken window and across
the garden, in the direction of Salford. He had compared the
piece of blue cloth found on the strawberry bed with a rent in a
coat shown him by pity/zits, deputy constable of Salford, and
they corresponded. He saw the prisoners in enstody on the
following, morning (the 28th.) Ile took Walker's ,hues from
hint, and compared them with some impressions on a walk.
The shoes exactly tallied with those Impressions.
Miss Goold saiv fonr men pass the house on the evening of the
preceding dar, and she was positive that the two men at the bar
were among them. Her reason for remarking them was, that
they looked particularly at the house as they passed.
John Diggles, deputy constable of Salford, in consequence of
information which be had received, went in search of Whaling,
and found the two prisoners together at a public house. He re-
marked, that Whaling had on a fresh hat, and he noticed the
fact to him. Lindsay, a polite officer. bearing the remark, took
the hat from his head, which witness then observed was severely
' cut at the back. The blood was still trickling from the wound
upon his shirt collar. The prisoner accounted for the hurt by
saying, that a man had hit him With a big stone on the bead
that morning.• He took both prisoners into custody. Whaling
had on a blue coati from the skirt of which a strip, he found, had
been tern. He haul received a piece of blue r loth front Allen,
which had evidently come front the coat. Allen showed him
the hat found on Mrs. Weight's premises • he knew it was
Whaling's, because he had had it in his hand several times.—
(The coat, the strip of cloth, the hat, and shoes were handed in
and inspected by the jury.]
Lindsay, a police-officer, had been in the habit of having
Whaling's hat in his hand three or fottr times a week. He had
seen it on the Monday night, (the night preceding the robbery,)
' and there Was then in it a half handkerchief; the one prevtuus-
ly produced seas the one which he had then seen.
The prisoner Walker cross-examined nearly the whole of
the a itnesses at some length. He now addressed the jury in
his defence, maintaining that he. had not been absent from his
own house from half past eight on, Monday evening, till half-past
four op Tuesday afternouin. He called several witnesses, (his
nither.'and other persons resident in the same house,) to esta-
.lilish 'Their`the ;alibi. evidence, as far as the principal facts
`eon necteuf wit h'thepriSnoerwere concerned, varied but slightly.'
and tended to establish the truth of his statement; but, in the
searching cross-examination to which they were subjected by
Mr. Brandt, there were found. on all the incidental and extra=
citeumstances, many discrepancies. ' • •
The jury, after a short consultation, brought in a vedict of
guilty against both prisoneri, and they were sentenced to be
transported for life. - •
NISI PRIUS COURT.

This Court opened on Friday morning, shortly after 12
o'clock, before Sir J. F. Coleridge.

PAPER AND PENS POI?. THE BARRISTERS.

The ATTORNEt-GENERAL slid—My Lord, we are in a great
difficulty here: there is a dispute who is to find pens and paper
for the bar; there are neither pens nor paper, it is so small a
county.

His LortostitP—l am afraid I cannot assist you.
Mr. PI. ETCH ER RA I NCOCK.—The Attorney-General comes
froM the county of Chester, and therefore he takes liberties
with Lancashire. (A laugh.)
The Under Sheriff was sent for to eitplain the reason why
paper was not'ufforded as usual.
The ATTORNEY-GENERA I..—Your lordship is aware, that be-
fore the removalof the assizes from Lancaster, the county found
paper.
His Loßosnly.'•—But, before the removal; the Under Sheriff
says the Corporation undertook to find the paper.
The ATTORNEY-GENBItAL.—That is hi.ftween themselves.
A LEARNED GENTLEstAN.—They had better split the dif-
erence. (Loud laughter.)
Ills Lonnsole.—The county have refhsed to pay for the
taper supplied for last session, saying the corporation under-
,mk to do it.
Mr. C RESSWEL L.—Why, my lord, the funds of the corpora-
ion are now under act of parliament.
Mr. ItAttscock.—l think the barristers of Liverpool might
nbscribe a quire of paper each and surmount the difficulty. (a
'A message was sent to the Town Cleric, we believe, to in-
trtn him of the want of paper, but none was supplied.
This is candle-end and cheese-paring econopy with a ven-
!'aut.e. The whole cost of the paper would hot amount to £5.
RI! worthy of Liverpool Corporation ! None has sinee been
ipplied - and we undcrstand their Lordships are furnished
111-1 pens at the pi irate evense of the Mayor!
Cm PLAN]) V. CIIANKSIIA,k.
This was an 'action to ought to recover the Om of £46 on a
.adrantee, from the•defen(iant, who resides in Manchester.
Verdict fur the plaintiff lot the amount. •
Loma V. eASI,BIITTOM.
The plaintiff,- in this case, is a toil-bar;keeter, near Man-
`foster, ,auti the defendant, a roach-proprietor at Manchester•
act ion was),ought for the recovery el a stim Of £5B 4s. ltd.
tolls which the defendant had run in the debt of the plain
Sue the action hail been -oontnenced, two shins had been
aid in liquidation, leaving a balance of £23 t,. The del'end-
it also, to pay the costs of the action.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount.
ItACKIPtG V. LA ING.
This Was ad little** ed a &Med eneharle tdt EA and the

costs on' it £1 103. wilieelh.e.dlfendant had endorsed:
Verdict for the plaintifffOi the amount.
BUTYKISFIE!..2I
This was an stet ion -for-a debt, foriCtinis sold and rlelilit.red,
to the amount of £3B 133 8,1. It was undefended. The debt
was proved. Verdia for the plaintiff for the amount.
BA nioti v. EDGE.
This was an undefended delion for the recovery of £52 4s,
money lent and interest. VErdict for the plaintiff for the
amount.

SMITH V. WA.I.SH

Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Wightman rippeared for the plaintiff,
and the At rorney•General for the defence.
The declaration stated that the defendant was indebted to the
plaintiff for money had and received for the use of I he defendant,
which the defendant said be had not received, on which issue
was joined.
Mr. CHESSWELL, in opening the case, said this was an action
arising out of a contract for the sale of shares—a description of
action very common in Liverpool within the last two or three
Years, in consequence of the large speculations in shares. The
defendant was the manager of the Northern and Central Bauk
Brarfeh at Liverpool, and also the agent of Munk's Ferry Com-
pany. Mr. Walsh took upon him to sell some of those shares,
When the price was £6 lOs per share. The proceedings of the
Monks Ferry had been arrested in consequence of an action'
pending to be settled at the present Chester Assizes, to ascer-
tails whether the company had a right to establish a ferry or
not. In consequence of this, shares greatly fell in price in the
market. In 183E1 Mr. Walsh took upon him to sell ten shares
! of the company allotted to Mr. John Fernley, of Manchester.
Mr. Smith became the purchaser for £65 10s, which sum found
its way into Mr. Walilr'S pocket. Mr. Smith desired to have
the scrip. He was told that Mr. Fernley had not executed the
deed, and until lie. had done go, he could have no property in
the scrip. This Mr. Smith thought very strange, and after
applying several times in vain, a notice was sent to him that
another call of £2 per share was made in March, 1837, with in-
formation that unless the call was paid within a certain period
the shares would be forfeited. Mr. Smith, in order that they
might not be forfeited, paid that amount into the bank to Mr.
Walsh. Ultimately, it turtle(' out that Mr. Walsh had no shares
to dispose of, and that Mr. Walsh had altogether repudiated
these shares. Mr Smith then wrote to Mr. Walsh. saving he
could get nothing for his money, and therefore begged that he
would pay him back his Money. He receiver' fur answer, thir-
teen months after, when the shares had fallen in price to £2 lOs
per share, that Mr. Walsh was ready to transferother shares to
Mr. Smith, the•scrip of ithich he could get, and which he had
never refused to do. But this would 'nut do. It would appear
that Mr. Walsh had no right even.te transfer these shares.
Mr. John Middleton, assistant to Mr. Barber, of Liverpool,
sharebroker, on his examination stated tttat'Mr. Barber, by the
instructions of Mr. Walsh, sold ten share's in the Monks Ferry
Company to Mr. Smith. 1-Wproduted the sale note—" Mr.
'rhoteas smith bought of Thomas Barber', froM John Peiziley
originally, 10 Monks Ferry, £5 per share pair!, at £6 UV pet:
share, making altogether £65." Mr.-Smith-applied to him for
the scrip, but he told him he could only give him the banker's
receipt for the call, in the name of Fernley, and that the scrip
would not be issued by the company until thedeed of settlement
had been executed by Fernley.
Cross-exatnined.—Smith told Mr. Barber to sell the shares
for him, but Mr. Barber told him his limits were too high ; he
could not sell them at that price, Mr: Smith did not himself
wish to take original shares, which he might have had instead,
as he did not wish to 'sign the deed of settlement, and be made
responsible for the expenses of the chancery suit.
Ite-examitted.—Mr. Walsh Might have tdytitlrted other shares
on which he could have got the seripif he had thought fit.
By His LORDSHIP.—Mr. Walsh had pffered to transfer Mr.
Smith other shares in the place of these 10, but Mr. Smith, the
next time lie came, demanded his money.
A tender of 10 other shares by the plaintiff's solicitor to the
plaintiff was put in and read, and the scrip purported to be exe-
cuted by Mr. Walsh and Mr. Curet.
Mr. CRESSWELI. handed in a letter, stating that Mr. Curel
bad not executed the above deed conjointly with Mr. Walsh.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then ruse for the defence. He
designated the action as a tnost shabby attempt on the part of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff had bought the abates, and after en-
deavouring to sell them in the market for twelve months, on the
action against the company ripening, turned round, and said,
'Now I won't have the shares, 1 will have my money." He
wondered if the shares had risen in the market, whose shares
the plaintiff would have said they were.
His Lou osHIP, in summing up, said the plaintiff himself had
shown the consideration on which he was 'tohave - the shares,
to go to market with them the save as Walshr arid he must
say he thought the defendant wits entitled to a verdict. The
plaintiff bad adopted the shares as his own so long as there was
It chance of sale in the market. It was then too much for him
to turn round and say he would not have the shares.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant,
Mr. CRESSWELL gave notice of a new trial..
141`CLURE r. FItASER.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Wightinan appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Cresswell for the defeuce.
This was an action brought for the recovery of £45, ova gua-
rantee furnished by the defendant, who is a respectable draper
in Manchester for goods furnished by the plaintiff on the gua-
rantee of the defendant, to a Mr. Jardine, whoon 1836, niade.a
composition with his creditors, leaving the plaintiff a creditor
in the amount sought to be recovered, for which the plaintiff
came on the guarantee.
It appeared that the plaintiff had accepted the dividend of
10s. in the pound, front Jardine, ou £9O, and had given a dis-
charge in full.
His LORDSHIP said the obvious meaning of that was, that
there was an end of the debt.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

SCOTT V. FOSTER.

This Was an action for all assault. The parties reside in Man-
chester. It appeared that the plaintiff Scott's father, who was
a schoolmaster, not being able to obtain a debt of £lOO, em-
ployed the defendant, who is an attorney in Manchester, to
recover the debt. The defendant obtained about £7O of this
money, but as Mr. Cresswell, the counsel for the. plaintiff oh-
serve,l, it sometimes happened when money got into the hands
of an attorney, unless of first-rate respectability, there was much
difficult* in getting it out again. The plaintiff agreed to receive
vmetit from the defendant for the money which he had received,
byinstaldiefits; and as one insfalittent the defendant gave a bill
for 1.5, which *as not paid away; and when this became due,
the defebdairt sent his clerk with a £lO note. to the plaintiff, in
order tel recover possession of the bill. The plaintiff refused to
give up tiossesSi“n on receipt of this, saving he must have £5
more, the clerk then endeavoured to obtain re possession of
the LIO Ige, but the plaintiff said" No, Mr. Foster owes my
father more than this, and I will not give it up ;" whereupon.
the clerk went away acid !aid a charge of felony against him at.
the Police-office, for stealing tne £lO note, on which char4e he
was next day taken into custody, and brought before the magis-
trates, who dismissed the case as one of disputed property.
and not of felony. It teas for the assault of taking the plaintiff
into custody, and the imprisonment thereupon, that the action
was brought. Witnesses were called to prove the case„when
his Lordship interfered, and said he was clearly of opinion that
there was no pretence to a fetony itr the taking of the note,
which was endeavoured to he proved on the cross examination
of the witnesses.

--
His Loansute said the defendant's plea of felony was not
made out, and the verdict must
.therefore go for the plaintiff.
The only thing was the question of damages.- It really was a
pity that actions of this kitid were brought, and respectable
attorneys, when applied to about such actions, ought to say.
" vou, you get a verdict will get very trifling damages, and
will be pUt to great expense, while I only shalt gain by it." He
thoultht the damages ought to be eery moderate.
Verdict for the plaintiff a farthing damages.
H is Loidship refused to certify.
The court then adjourned at a quarter to five, to nine o'clock
neat mot ning.

CROWN COURT.—SATURDAT.
➢lr. Justice Patteson took his seat nine o'clock.

niGt-tWat ttonntiny.
James Turner, aged 21, was charged with having, in company
with others, at Guest Bolton, feloniously assaulted and rubbed
Thomas Taylor, on the 12th July last.
Mr. Cross conducted the case fur the prosecution, and Dr.
Brown defended the prisoner.
Mr. Burrow, deputy constable of Bolton, on the Monday
after the robbery received a watch from Mr. Blundell. That
was in July last. He kept it about three months, and then
delivered it to Mr. Thomas Taylor, the owner, having previ-
ously marked it. He got it back in December last. In July
last, witness received information of a robbery from Mr. Taylor.
Since then had endeavoured to apprehend hits. Apprehended
him in December last.
John Blundell stated, that he seas a pawnbroker at Wigan.
In .truly last, he received a watch from his sister in law, Jane
Watson, who is his assistant. Witness gave it to Burrow, the
deputy constable of Bolton, having first marked it. [Witness
here examined the watch produced by Burrow, and declared
that to be the same.]
Jane Watson stated, that she was sister in law'and assistant
with the last witness. On Thursday, 13th. July, at half-past
eight o'clock in the morning, a person Wought a watch to her.
That person was William Hulme.
Dr. Brown objected to the accounts of other person's for
which it might be assumed those persons had been made amena,
ble, being brought in as evidence against the present prisoner.
Mr. Caoss con.ended, that he had a right ter call such evi-
dence, if he proved that the parties were together, and acting
in concert. t.;
His Lonnsiate decided that the evidence would be admiss2t-,
ble when this had been shown.
Miss Watson went on to prove, that the WOO was
with her, and that the glass was broken. •
William Redfarn stated, that on the 13th of July last, the pri-
soner, and those others, Hulme, Leach, and Sharpies, carne
tai
his leer shop, in Wigan. They got seven quarts of beer, and
paid at first sixpence in copper. Afterwards two-of the partieS
got change of two sovereigns. As they were geeing out, the
prisoner at the bar offered him as old fashioned watch without
a glass, for twenty shillings. The- watch produced was similar
to it. Witness followed them down to the Wellington Inn, a
bottle having been broken near the fire, wnich he wished them
to pay for.
Ann Green stated, that she lived in Bolton. She was in
Wigan in July last. On TherSday morning the 131 h, abut
gshe saw the prisoner in companawith three other
eight
o'clock,
persons, rpleg, Leach, Mid Hulme, Sfiti knew Turner.
Sharpies spoke to her. She asked hilts What he was doing
there? and be said he had been coming trout Bolton all night.
They went together to a public house, (the Shovel and Bloom)
Sharpies having said he would trust them. The prisoner ac-
companied them. Hulme said, he had a watch that was without
a face, and.he would go and get it repaired. He went and re-
turned. When he returned, he said he had been to three
watchmaker's shots, and he could nut get it repaired. He went
out again; saving he would go again, and get it repaired.
Turner and Leath said he should not go unless he left security
that he word(' bring the watch back again; He left 7s. 6d. as
security with Thrner. On his return, he said he had pawned
the watch for 10s. Turner then returned him the 7s. 6d. The
10s. was divided—each taking 2s. 6d. They tossed up for the
pawn ticket, and Hulme won it. They all then went away to
another public house. They then began to quarrel about their
money. Sharpies said he hail not got his rights. Witness then
left them. She saw them again in about ten minutes. They
were in a field quarrelling about their-Money. Witness was
merely passing. A man said- the constables were coming, and
they all ran awat. Witness was herself taken into custody,
but discharged. 'Mary Smith was With her.
Mary Smith corroborated the eVidenCe of the lain witness.

Thomas Taylor stared that he resided in Bolton: On the
12th of July last he teas going to his house, which is about half
a mile out of the town, it iv,ts between eleven and twelve at
night, when he carne to Bradford-square he was knocked down
by three or four persons he felt a petion'S hand in his right
Jratirl pocket, a purse containing; two of inure Sovereigns. his
snuff box, and soMe sifter Were taken', his hat and a silier
watch were also taken. On pulling off his boots u hen he got
home, the glass of the watch fell out of his boot. Ile had re:
ceived several itijorieS, a blote across his eye deprived him of
the use or it for several (Log. tie was cow:inert to the honk
fur five or sik days in conseqtreote of the injuries he had re,
ceived. The men ran al4.' after they had robbed hini. Wit-
ness identified the watch produced by Berrtrve as his property.
lie was certain there were two pergous difacking him, but he
could not speak positively to inure, tre EDOught that thee were
more.
bruit-eitattained bt Dr: liften*N:=-- fettfitfini ftom.

Co'n'serlidtive dinner ad Bolton, and the wine had cireolatete
!treely.
Dr. OFlQ%yr.i, defertee of Pre prisoner, impressiii upon the
jury th-e-iincertainty-as whether the robbery was committed by
more than two, person's, the prosecutor not being able to identify
any person. nor to et'ate exactly il'Otry many bad robbed him.
Ilia Lord'rthip said' it was necessary for the jury to be satisfied
that thy pirsat4-er wl#'s present when the robbery was committed:
The Jury foundtwi prisoner guilty.
Dr. ifthrOtis# called two witnesses, who stated that they had
known the prisoner for several years, and he had borne a good
character during t E'er riine.
The learned J he should direct sentence of death to'
he recorded against the prisoner, but he should recounnendhint,
to her Majesty'''. uiercy,rthat his life might be spared. Onwbat
terms would d•fpend upon the result of the inquiries that would,
be made as to what depeddeace could be placed on the evident,
es to character.

HIGHWAY iseliatuar. •
Ric D',Yrirn, aged 20, and William Maguire, aged 21, were
charged With having, at Stratford, assaulted and robbed John
Atkinson Simpson. and Ann Ransome, of certain money: and
further with having, at Manchester, stolen three brace of pis-
tols, and one cheese, the property of Daniel Rowden.
Sir GMEGORI LLWIN conducted are prosecution; Dr. Baeirri
defended itiFiguire.
. ,
Mr. John Atkinson Simpson, (wbb Mr/ not wear the garb of
a quaker) was abowt to affirm, when IY,r. Urtrter asked him if
he were one of the people called qUak'el'ii Ir. Siropma said
he was one of the ire'Ciety of Frieniti till' abbot fifteen mouths'
ago, when, with °there; in CobseqUediT or some drfferenee,ota
points of doctrine, he seceded ;' but he was still of the same
oh-the with them o the siihiect of oaths, and on on other
point. The secession arose out of some disputes in which Mr.
Crowdon of Manchester Wes con't'erued. Iu point of fact he
was not a Quaker. -
Sir GlifiGOltYLewin coniehde4 that urrder an Act 3tl and
4th William IV., individuals of the pet udi,#h called Quarters;
might make the affirmation. The words " L.)trakers and filo-
ravians" occurred in a former Act of Geo. IV, arid the words
"of the persuasion called Quakers" constituted flci difference
between the two Acts. It was clear therefore that all persons'
who were of that persuasion, though not, in fact, belonging. to
the society. were entitled to affirm. The information would be'
receivable it it were equally binding on his conscience as at
oath.

Much loose discussion took place on the subject.
His LORDSHIP acid he had great diffieultv in construing
those Arts; but he thought the at and 4th of William IV, was
intended to extend the liberty of affirmation to persons n4tiri.-..
chided in the former acts. The Oth of Geo. IV., howeverAwas:
precise in its terms, that every Quaker should snake the affirm-,
ation. -The form of the affirmation. Was also Made in a particu-
lar form. And he should put these questions to the witness:
" Wil,l you make the affirmation in thesa words.—" I, John'
Plekiellon Simpson,. being one of thto people Caked Quakers
Anser.:—•: No."
Juobtc.—Wilk you make the afrirtriation tr 6 (tuns:—
" I, John Atkinson Simpson, being one of the petstialionlolttni
people called Quakers.'

• Answer.—" No."
The oath was then tendered to the witness in the usual form,'
but he refused to take it.

His Lou DSHIP then asked the witness if be had any objet.;
lion to to take the affirmation in general terms, as " I, John
Atkinson Simpson, do solemnly and sincerely declare and
atilini," &c., and if be should consider such an affirmatiort
binding on his conscience ?
The witness answered that he had no objection to such an
afgrmation, and he should consider it binding on his conselence.
His LORDSHIP said that the only question would be, whether
an individual would be indictable for perjury it he were found
to have spoken falsely after such an affirmation. He.
was at present under an impression that he could not administer
the affirmation generally, He said he would, however, conikeit
11Ir. Justice Coiridge ott the subject.
His LORDSHIP, on his return, said the other witnesses had
better be called, and Sir Gregory could see bow far his casd
would stand upon that evidence: 'Filen, if he thought proper'
to press the matter, be thought the best way would be to take
the affirmation generally, and afterwartii refer it to the opiniort
of the judges.

Cyrus Ancock was then called. tie dtrited that be was
constable in the township of Halrne. In the beginning of
February, he received information of a robbetli and- in conse.;
vence thereof he went with Mr. Boothby to ttit load between
Stretford and ilulme. They met these persons, wire; when
they saw them, attempted to run away. They took the pri:
saner Doran, and found in his po-ssession two pistols. He told.
the prisoner, when he got to the lock=up, that he was accused of
having robbed a lady and gentleman. tie trai4" I believe we
did." Witness then said " How Ninth did you tke froty
them ?" He replied, ..N About I. in silver." He examined
the pistols and found them loaded with bath Th appearance
of one of the men who escaped corresponded with the deiciir
lion he bad received.

William Boothbv stated that he was with &hat witnesri
when he was out on the 2,1 of Febrhaty; He sari that one of
the men was the prisoner Maguire:
John Smith, a constable of Manehegter, stated that on
Monday, the sth of February, he west in search' of Maguire:
He found him in bed at his father's house. He told him that
he wanted him for being on the Stretford hew road oh the 2d of
February. He was searched, and some keys and a dint were
found in his pocket. His box was examined; and h pistol, a
dagger, and a bag of powder were found. He gild; •"I"hose
things belong to Doran." This witness slated a con*eisatiori
that had taken place between Maguire and. Mt.• Thorne; the
deputy constable of Manchester, in which he (Maguire) saidi
in renly to certain questions, that he and Doran had comthitted
the robbery, and that they took two shillings from the gentleman
and that the lady gave them eight shillings.
Mr. Milne and Mr. Berwick, of Manchester, proved the de.,
position of the witness and the statements of the prisoners on
examination before the magistrates
The statements of the prisoners were read as follows:
" Richard Doran says he has nothing to say furthar, thad
that they took only len shilling 3."
The other prisoner had nothing to say.
As the evidence was not suffieient to prose the cage, hi/
Loensviti signified his intention of nettling the general
affirmation of M. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson *as recalled, and afilhhed.—tie gaited teat he
was on the Stratford road on the 31st of January. Was stitki
Miss Ransoine. Two men came tip to them.' One of the men
said " Stand add deliver !" and presented pistols. To the best
of his belief Doran was the man who presented the pistols.
The ether then look hold of him and felt in hi§ pocket*, He
had about 23a. Some money was certainly taken as he had only
Is. left. They took keys and some other matters which they
returned. The lady gave them her looney., requesting to be all
lowed to keep the purse. They said they could not Starve, and
departed towards the turnpike.
Ann Ransome was called.—She expressed herself of the
same opinion as Mr. Simpson. She stated that She was in com-
pany with Mr. Simpson oh the 31st of January. She was *of
much alarmed. She saw the face of the man who presented the
pistol very distinctly. She believed Doran was the than, and_
she believed Maguire was the mah *ho took her fihrse.
Richard Vaughan stated, that he was a was a hatter at the
sign of Paganini, in Manchester, in January last. On the 3lst
of January last the prisoners were drinking there together.
The jury found the prisoners guilty.
'His Loa nstr P said he should respite the judgment till he had
taken the opinion of the Judges on the evidence Of Mr. Simp-
son and Miss Ransome. His own opinion was that the evidence
would not stand good. The bill for the iatceny bad nut come in
from the grand jury.

M A N SI. A UG H TE R.
Patrick Crugan was charged with i 13% ing killed James Gora
raan, In tfii4 too n, on the 21th December last.
Mr. HAttDlNti conducted the prosecution.
All the details Of thiS Oise have been reCentlypbbliihed in the
journals bithis town. Ooriaaia and his wile, who had taken
some drink, were proceeding home together on Christmas eve,
when they met the lititi►her. some Kurth passed; and the pri.;
sorer struck Gorman, according to the opinion of the surgeon,
with some weapon, though none of the Witnesses had seen any:
thing in his hand. Gorrsan fell and the prisoner kicked him..
The unfortunate man died almost immediately. The officers of
police came up and took Cregan into custody, but; in the conz
fusion that succeeded, the otlieerS were struck by several per-
sons in.the crowd; and the prisoner got away. He was after=
wards taken into ctisiody in the month Of February.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty; but recommended him to
mercy.
A list was 'handed up to lii4 tordShip of persons who coald
speak to the charatter of the prisoner. Two of these angweied
The
id,
ahe had nd stated, thatiiei:iardneedi
ti Judge 4 tuhi
ep
inquiries
tewh•seahstorauultq6f,
hietni,litioie)eftztlf,evlt.
feloniously
inoffensive
passing
tytseaus ittioienusnuigt
aees:enihnitilsulawerinteo.Reguiem:edteielltd.
ing the
character
ixivebir:rH ofl
sNhter:ipitsriTlsvoiti logearoa.nii
indicted for .having, on *the!
Timothy Suaitua, aged 26,
William Lancaster.

Mr. SEG A lt conducted the prosecution. •
It appeared from the evidence, that Lancaster, a constable of
Wigan, was, on the 30th September last, c.tlied into•a
house, where a man named Skelly and another person were
fighting together. He took Skelly into tustudy, and .was pro-
ceeding with hint towards the Lockitip, when. he was•struck on
the head with a spade. The blow stall so violent that it cuts
through his hat, and inflicted a seiete wound. According,ts,
the evidence of the surgeon,-this *nand wat2i inehetalring, and
the'proiecultor Was for ;time tithe in rt slat!, tit considerable dart-1
ger. A man, named Hart, a stone-tuasou, arpt eittie
neSteSi proved OA the prisdnet Wai the Otion *NO itittailid
. _ . _

The Prisoner pleaded as ati excuse, that he wai istremele in=
toxicated when he struck the bliA6, and he did not know what
he was doing.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
His Lordship said, as the offence was committed on the dal
preceding that on which the new law came into operation, sen-
tence of death would be recorded against the prisoner. Hd
could nut now say what punishment might ultimately bd
awarded.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATunnAt.

WAKEFIELD V. GitsBoN:s.—SLANDER.
!qr. I✓ressi4ell, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Wightman appeared
for the plaintiff, and the Attorney •General for the defence.
The plaintiff, in this case, is the assistant overseer of the'
borough of Salford, whose duty it was to collect the rates as
they became due; and he was in the habit of Collecting about
£lO,OOO a-year; and his reputation the lertried counsel for theplaintiff, believed to be unblemished, poi the lightest itnputaz
lion ever having been cast 00 his charseier. Ile therefore belt
it due to him Self, to call upon the defendant; either to Make an
ample apology for the slanderons expressions he had tirade use
of, affecting his character; or to probe the truth of them. iii
the course of last year, an attiitant of Mt. Wakefield, of the
name of Ashton, received a tate from a rate-payer which he did
not communicate to Mr. Wakefield at the time; and, in conse-:
quence, Mr. Wakefield demanded the same rate again, of the
late-payer, which was paid him. When the revising barrister
visited the bortingh, skefield stated that the rate-payer had
not paid his rate in sufficient titne to entitle him to a vote.
The rate-paper said that he bad nut only paid the rate in time,
bet he had paid it twice over. It appeared that Mr. Wakefield
o.rfectly Correct, and that the error lay-i.iith Ashton, aho'
expressed his regret at the mistake and refunded the motley to
the rate-payer, and his Vote was allowed, and the Mallet', it wolf
thought, would here have ended. Some time after this occur-
rence, in October. it appeared that, actuated by some political
feetingi of excitement, the defendant *eat into the shop ora
respectable hat-Manufacturer, named Tinker, and said, "Well.
you area d---=--(1 nice set of fellowS. Mr. Tinker asked—" What
do end mean ?" He ,replied—" 1 mean some of you town-
servants : Ashton and 'Wakefield are two thieve"; they
have received money. and poi it into their own pockets, and not
accounted for it to the Ura)." 'Thin was the direct imputation
on Mr. Wirt:, field's character. which he telt it due to himself
and the public of SalfOrtl, to Call on the defendant either to
prove or apologiie for:.
Mr. John Tinker, harrnannfactiirer, >nas called to prove the
ounveriatinn which for Med the sUbStatice of the present action,
when
The ArroftNEy.GENERAII, IhOrieii the Case had gone fat'
enough. The fact was, the defendant went into a barber's 1104
ti, get shaved, Mitre he heard the report. and repeated it atter-2
wardi: Ail be timid gay was, I dead the dial* Arta itarcei
bad. (Claugh.) 4.4014
His Lords** thetisht thii 1011/414 WM! (14 44.04

6-eard.

.1 repeat even idle Rtories. wiaich he might have

. . .
,Hot..T, iltrrom.-3REACII 01,"::PAANtiSt MtltltfitGl. •
Mr. Cresswell and Mr. To hiinson appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Attorney-General for the defence. •
• ••14Jr. CithSSWELL, in -opening the case, sail' this was an action.
~:hroug,ht by Nlary Holt against Robert Fitton, f)i- a breach 01-
premise of marriage, and was one of those trials which. w'ere
-Ipot-too common when a very young woman had' bee'ri
•.: .arairomise of marriage,-by means of which a profligate man
had obtained possession. of her person, and then deserted her.
. -Theirlarintiff was the daughter of Robert Holt, whO•was a dealer
ita.cotton- waste, in the neighhourh,ed of Oldhim, and a person •
of some substance. The defendant Was also a dealer of eUtton
waste in that neighbourhood. Abut four years ago, wh,mt the
plaintiff was a girl of eighteen years of age, the defendant, who
-seas then twenty-six years old, 'began to pay hiS'addreSses to ,
•"• her. • This courtship continued for abotit two years,' the defeOd-
t .4nt•coutintied.to visit the plaintifrifather's' house, when it Was
discovered that the plaintiff was with child by the defendant.
He should be atitittii prove the fact that the defendant had said
.10 tirOor three people that he was going-to marry the plaintiff.
They would therefore have little difacUlty in aiming to the can-
.. elusion that-the-promise of marriage was given. After the period
-,,when the pregnancy was discovered, the- father remonstrated
with the defendant, and asked hitn when meant to perform
I,,itislivomise, anxious to defend his dauli,hrer frtiro diSgrace. 'The
defendant asked what fortune he would give with her. The Kt-
I-ther answered he could manage to give 'E3OO. "No," said the
t defendant; "that- is not enough." " Well," said the father, ,
"rather than that the marriage should not take Place I will go
• ,68 far as 1:40,-though it is more than I can afford." " ,t1(X)!"
t: said ,the,defendaut, " that is only a chip; I atn worth more
:•-than five times that sum." So the defendant went on hargain-
% ing for mare, endeavouring by the very disgrace he had brought
-on the father's family to extort from him. a large portion of
• :toy... The father•was not able to rneetlhese demands, end the
marriage did not take place. The reason why theac,tion was
-.note -brought, at a period of eightirMonths ii.fler the rbirth, of
the child, was, that the plaintiff had rentainedianxiims to avoid.
--4h&disgrace of a:public expoeure, and in hope the better
~,feelings of the defendant wOnld 'Prevail Over hiVivarice, and
,--that Ite would. do -what- was just and honeSt, tilt she-Waicom-
,hy.the marriage of the defendant, in January :last, to
-.another female of• larger fortune, to take the present step, and
oiseek that compensation for the injury which she had received
.ravhielva jury would award her. He should be able to show that
the defendant was a manor substance, and had recently bought
a large quantity of machinery, and the jury would judge from
1. that what he was capable of paying.
Robert Holt, the father of the plaintiff, was called, but it ap-
- i.pearing that he had
,employed the attorney for the prosecution,
his evidence could not be,received.
- • 4ohn,Garsitle was examined, and deposed to having some
-conversation with the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, in
order to come to some arrangement, and avoid coming to trial,
~.but that the defendant offered too small a sum (45()) as satis-
factimis and the negociatinn fell thriatigh.
.Dinah Graham, a friend of the plaintiff, was called to prove
the• courtship, She but often seen theta together;" and" tied
leassi the defendant say he would marry the plaintiff and she
told him she thought it was time.
On her cross-examination she said the brOther of the defend-
.ant was -coirrting ber,"rind othel: folks thou; ht he was a nice
yoang man. She herself declined saying whether he was or
The plaintiff, did nth go by' the nam;:)t 4011-o'-6vb.l in
the village. (Loud laughter) ."She had heard her' called by
• that nettle. The plaintiff, berate -she had the child, used to
work in a factory.
The parties, at this stage of the case, came to an agreement
.-to withdraw a juror, the plaintiff agreeing to. Pay a sum of
money.