The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-08-14 00:00:00

BURGLARY.

William Winward, aged about 25, was charged with having
burglariously entered the dwelling-house of John Spencer,
at West Houghton, on the 4th August last, and stolen there-
from certain articles, his property.
Mr. Hulton conducted the case for the prosecution.
The prosecutor is a draper, at West Houghton. On the
evening of Saturday, the 4th instant, the prosecutor secured
his shop. About oue o'clock on the following morning a
female named Anderson, whose residence is opposite to the
prosecutor's, saw a light moving about in the shop of the
latter. She called her husband and a person hawed Yates,
and they saw an individual, whom they described as the
prisoner, moving about the prosecutor's shop with a light.
They supposed it to be a dark lantern. They disturbed
Spencer, and found that the place had been entered and
robbed. Access had been obtained by breaking into a baker's
shop next door and forcing an entrance through the wall into
Spencer's. The shop till was found at the back of the pre-
mises, and some copper was found wrapped in a handkerchief,
which Mr. Spencer believed to belong to the prisoner's
mother, she having worn one like it on the preceding night,
when she was in the prosecutor's shop. Footmarks of two
persons were found in the garden of the prosecutor; one of
them had been barefoot. Footmarks of two persons were
found near the house of the prisoner; one of the persons
who had made these marks had also been barefoot, but the
shoe marks at the two places did not correspond. The pri-
soner loudly protested his innocence.
The Jury, after consulting together for about ten minutes,
requested permission to retire. They returned in about
twenty minutes and delivered in a verdict of guilty. The
prisoner was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation.
ROBBERY AND CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOOD.
_ _ _

John Disley, aged 23, and John Hodgson,aged 53, were
placed at the bar, the former charged with having stolen a
cask of oil, -the property of Joseph Davies, and the latter
with having received the same, knowing it to have been
stolen. The prisoner Disley pleaded guilty, Hodgson plead-
ed not guilty.
Mr. Rushton appeared for the prosecution, and Dr. Brown
defended the prisoner.
The circumstances of this case have been fully detailed in
all the papers very recently. Disley and others broke open
the warehouse of Mr. Davies, in Great Crosshall-street.
They took a cask of oil and sold it to the prisoner Hodgson,
who keeps an oil warehouse in Circus-street.

. _ .
The Jury at once acquitted the prisoner.
The learned Judge deferred passing sentence on Disley
till he had made some previous inquiries respecting his pre-
vious character.

The Court adjourned at five o'clock

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLiAms.)
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
• BOND V. PROCTOR.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for £75. accepted
by the defendant. The plaintiff is a spirit merchant in Li-
verpool, and the defendant is a publican at Clithero. They
had many transactions together, and the hill in question was
given in payment by the defendant.—Verdict for the plaintiff
fur the amount.
o'coNNott V. SCHOLEFIELD AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Alexander appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cress-
well appeared for defendant Scholefiebl,.and Mr. Armstrong
for the defendant Critchley. The plaintiff, Mr. Hugh O'Con-
nor, was a publican carrying on business in Tithebarn-street;
the defendant Scholefield was an attorney, and the defendant
Critchley was his clerk.• It appeared from the evidence that
the plaintiff formerly kept a wine and spirit vaults, and a
Mr. Carrol, a publican at Southport, found him money to
enter upon the house in question; he was to pay £7OO. on en-
trance, and £BO. a year rent; the plaintiff to manage the bu-
siness, and Mr. Carrot to be a sleeping partner. The house
was the property of Messrs. Ward and Greaves, brewers. On
the 2Gth of May last, the, defendant, Scholefield's clerk.
Critchley, went to the house, and according to the evidence
of Ellen Henry, was accompanied by 14 or-15 men armed
with sticks, and demanded possession of the house. After a
time, he went away again, Mr. O'Connor not being in. Soon
after, Critchley and his men returned when O'Connor was in,
and turned Mr. O'Connor and his household out of the house,
and in so doing Critchley struck the plaintiff They then
seized all the plaintiff's furniture, and he had got none of it
back but a bed. In the row which ensued witness's clothes
were almost torn off her back, and she was turned into the
streets without a bonnet. A bed, and bedroom furniture
which were taken, were worth £lO. Eleven new shirtsof the
plaintiff's taken, were worth £5. 10s., and some fine flannel,
ftc., was worth £l. The other furniture taken was worth
about £9., and there was a stock of porter, cyder, rum,
brandy, whiskey, and raspberry brandy, which was also taken.
The tenant succeding the plaintiff was called to prove the
value of the furniture in the house, and swore that the furni-
ture was not worth £lO. there were a few mugs and jugs "of
course." He gave £550 for the stock and good will. He
would not tell what the furniture consisted of. The evidence
having been gone through,
Mr. CRESSWELL submitted that there was no evidence
against Scholefield.

-His LORDSHIP thought there was not, and, therefore, the
case must go for the defendant as regarded Scholefield.
Mr. ARMSTRONG spoke for bhe defence on behalf of Critch-
ley He contended that •Critchley was armed with the au-
thority of the law, and the assault he contended was commit-
ted by the plaintitf, and not by the defendant, in his resisting
the execution of the law.
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury expressed a
wish to retire, and after an absence of half an hour, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages. 40s.

STAKER V. GRAHAM AND ANOTHER.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Wightinan appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defence..
This was an action brought for the recovery of the amount
of two bills of exchange, given in payment of freight and
average, of the amounts of £1.79 17s. 6d. and £3O 10s. 10d.
It appeared that the Plaintiff, who is a respectable mer-
chant at North Shields, and the defendants, who are also re-
spectable merchants at Liverpool, entered into a charter
party to charter the brig Loyalist to Newfoundland. The
goods of the vessel were consigned to Slade, Biddle and Co.,
of Newfoundland, who had a house at Poole, in England.
Slade, Biddle and Co. made au average, and paid the cap-
tain of the vessel in two bills, which they accepted, payable
at ninety days after sight by the English house. On pre-
senting the bills -it was found that the house of Biddle and
Co. had failed, and the bills were dishonoured; the plaintiff
then came upon the brokers, the other charty party, knowing
nothing of the house of Biddle and Co. The defendants re-
fused to pay on the ground that there had been great neglect
in transmitting the bills, and that, if they had been forwarded
in the due and usual course, they would have been presented
before the house of Slade and Biddle failed. It appears that
the bills became due only on the 29th of January last, and
were not presented till February. The bills were accepted
in November, and were dated the 12th of August; and in
the ordinary course, the voyage being about twenty days,
ought to have arrived much sooner. For the defence evi-
dence was called to show the custom, which was to send off
bills by the first conveyance, and get paid as soon as possible.
This, it was contended by the defendants, was very far from
being the case in the present instance.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at two o'clock,
and did not return before the rising of the court. At three
o'clock on Sunday the patience of the jury became exhausted,
and they returned a verdict for the defendant.

TREEWREE, ASSIGNEE, V. ROTHERHAM.
Mr. Cresswell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Alex-
ander for the defence.

This was an action which arose out of the cotton specula-
tions of last year. The plaintiffs are merchants at Savannah,

and the defendant is a merchant at Greenock. The defend-
ant sent a commission to the plaintiffs, in February, 1837,
commissioning them to purchase for him 400 bales of cotton,
at 14 cents per lb. But if there should be a change of
ministry, the defendant might give a slight advance in price.
Under this commission, the plaintiffs purchased 150 bales of
cotton under 14 cents per lb., and shipped this, begging off
purchasing the remaining 250 bales, owing to the bad state of
the market. The cotton was sent off, and the plaintiffs, in
the usual course of business, drew upon the defendant for the
amount of 'cotton, £l5OO, dated the 29th of March. On the
31st of March he received a countermand of the former order
from the defendant, after the bill for the cotton had been
drawn. The defendant refused to honour those bills, on the
ground that he'had countermanded the order. Lengthy evi-
dence was read, which had been taken at Savannah, proving
the purchase of the 150 bales according to the defendant's
order, and the receipts of the countermand severAlslays
afterwards. The cotton was afterwards sold for £9OO. It
was urged for the defence, that the 150 hales alleged to be
purchased, were the property of the plaintiffs; and also, that
the whole statement of the receipt of the date of the counter-
mand, depended upon the evidence of the plaintiff's clerk,
whom the defendant had no person to contractict.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffsless than amount
of sale.
The court adjourned shortly after five o'clock.

CROWN COURT.-MONDAY.
MINT CASES.

His LORDSHIP took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock.

UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN.
James Anderson, alias Gorman, was indicted for, having at
Newton in April and March last, uttered severatiounterfeit
shillings, knowing the same to be base, he having previously
at Salford, ou the 3d of April, 1833, been convicted of a simi-
lar offence, and imprisoned for one year.
The previous conviction was proved by Mr. Powell _an
officer for the mint, and by the officer of the Salford New
Bailey prison.
Thomas Aldred, keeper of a Beer House on Newton Heath,
proved that on the 4th March last the Riisoner called at his
house, and purchased a glass of ale. He paid a counterfeit
shilling, and received tenpence halfpenny in change. They
discovered that the shilling was bad, and sent for an officer,
but before he arrived, the prisoner had departed. The.shil-
ling was given to the constable; be (the prisoner) called
again three weeks after and played the same trick; he was
detained and given into custody. Mr. Powell proVed_ that the
shillings were counterfeit, and from the same mould.
The prisoner said in his defence that he was a weaver out
of work. A few shillings were collected for him amongst his
fellow workmen, and he received it in copper. He got the
copper exchanged for silver at Oldham, and he supposed he
must have received the shilling which he paid ou the 25th of
March in this way. He denied that he had been at Aldred's
on the 4th of March. •

Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong conducted the
prosecution.
The jury found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Serjeant Atch-
erley then informed his lordship, that the prisoner had been
tried twice before for uttering base coin, and twice for larceny.
Sentence deferred.

John Cosgrove, aged 49, was charged with having at Man-
chester, on Friday the Bth of June last, uttered a base shil-
ling, and with having on Saturday, the 9th of June, uttered
two other base shillings, he having been previouSly con-
victed of having uttered base coin. •
Mr. Powell Powell put in the record of a previous conviction,
which was read by the clerk of the crown, and the identity of
the prisoner was proved.
Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong
.conducted the
prosecution.
Margaret Thomas, tbe wife of a publican in Manchester,
proved that the prisoner came to her house on Friday, the Bth
June, and got a glass of beer. He paid for it with a shilling,
and received the change. When the prisoner departed, it
was discovered that the shilling was a bad one. The shilling
was delivered to Chesworth, an officer,
Mary Hassall, servant of John Bolton, who keeps a beer
shop in Smithy Door, Manchester, proved that on Saturday,
the 9th of June, the prisoner purchased a glass of ale from her
and received change. The shilling was afterwardsdiscovered,
to be a counterfeit, and it was delivered to au officer named
Nor bury.

•
The daughter of Mr. Durnville, a publican in Manchester,
proved that the prisoner had on the same day (the 9th• June)
paid a bad shilling to her. While the person was there, Ches.
worth the constable entered, and he took ,the prisoner into
custody. Mr. Powell proved that the shillings were all from
the same die.

The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence deferred.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A MOULD.
William Gregory, aged 38, was charged with having at Man-
chester had illegal possession
,of a mould for. counterfeiting
shillings.
Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong for the prose-
cution.
It appeared that on Thursday, the sth July, Phenix
Butcher and Bianchi, constables of Manchester, were passing
along Woodward-street, when they saw the prisouer, uho
turned quickly away from them round a Cartier. They took
him into custody, and on searching him'found in hiS posses.
sion a plaster of Paris mould for counterfeiting shillings, and
several base pieces of coins east from it. The, prisoner on
being questioned said, " a man put them in my pocket, but I
will never split, I will suffer myself."
The jury found the prisoner <runty. Sentence deferred.
Philip Makin, aged 29, andb.fehn Bannon, ligled
,23, were
charged with having had possession of certain moulds for
Counterfeiting shillings and sixpences, and some. other imple-
ments for coining.
Mr. Serjeant Atcherley and Mr. Armstrong appeared for
the prosecution, and Mr. 'Wilkins for the defence.
It appeared that in consequence of information received
several officers of Manchester went on -Thursday, the 3d of
May, to a house in Frank-street, in a district of Manchester
called Little Ireland, from the number of Irish who inhabit
there. A perfect mould, a quantity of white metal, several
broken moulds, a spoon in which had been molten white
metal, mere found on the premises.
Witnesses were called by Mr. WILKINS to prove that the
prisoners had not many weeks occupied the house, that they
did not know of some of the articles found twine. on the pre-
mises, and that the moulds bad been used by th;.wife of one
of the pi isoners to clean the hearth with.
The jury found the prisoners guilty: Sentence deferred.
Martin Kirlan, aged 31, and Henry Caster, aged:2l, were
indicted for having had in their possession a mould for coun-
terfeiting half-crowns, a mould fOr counterfeiting shillings,
and for being possessed of nineteen base shillings with intent
to utter the same.

Mr. Scrjeant Archerley and Mr. Armstrong conducted
the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins-appeared as counsel fur
Carter.

It appeared that on the 16th of June last, Sawlev Armi-
tage, and Hindley, officers of the Manchester.police, went
about half-past two o'clock to the house occupied by the pri-
soner Kirlan, in Mount-street, in that town. Notwithstand-
ing the early hour the two prisoners were up. The officers
entered the room on the ground floor, and there saw the pri-
soners, one sitting by the tire, and the other sitting on the
bed, smoking. The officers searched the room: Behind a
tub of water they found a bundle of wet rags, and within the
wet rags a mould which was warm. The rags it was supposed
had been used for the purpose of taking hold of the mould
while it was hot. In another parcel nineteen baSe shillings
were found. These shillings were hot. A mould for half
crowns was also found. Kirlan exclaimed, on seeing these
discoveries made, "Oh Mr. 6awley, dune—l'm done fur
ever!"

Mr. Powell deposed that the 19 shillings had been cast
from the mould produced. It. did not appear that Carter had
known the prisoner Kirwan for any length of time.
Mr. WILKINS contended that the grounds of suspicion
against Carter were too slight to warrant.convietion. He
exhorted the jury to give his client the benefit of any reason-
able doubt. Witnesses were called who gave Carter a good
character.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the county said he felt it his
duty to say that the police of Manchester knew nothing,
whatever against Carter previously to this charge.
The jury found the prisoner Kirlan , guilty and acquitted
Carter.

ALTERING FARTHINGS SO AS TO-MAKE TURN! RESEMBLE

SIXPENCES. - : • --!
Michael Earl, aged 66, and Francis Donelly, .aged 26, were
charged with having, at Manchester,. :feloniously filed'
marked, and coloured certain pieces of the current coin e,
the realm called farthings, so as to make themoresemble aPd
pass for sixpences.
It appeared that on the Bth of May last, Diggles, the de"
putt'-constable of •Salford, sent-severai linkers -I.6l*.the house
of Donolly. There they found the two. prisoners. TheY
found in the lower apartment a tin eau, -containing a owe'
her of farthings; several farthings which had been tiled devin
to the size of sixpences, some of which had. been lacquered
to resemble silver. • A tea cup, which contained tt mixture el
wash, which rubbed on copper give it a white appearance.
Two files and some,sand paper,. wh ichuppeared to have been
rubbed against copper, One of .0n . prisoners, on the re'
trance of the officers, got up and threw something out of the
window. A female who jived in - the Same, court, afterwards
found a filed farthing under .the window. Donolly said t°
the officers—" What can you make of it, it is not coin t
all ?" •

Mr. Powell stated that the filed pieces produced had origid
natty been farthings. Those which had been .coloured, ha
been washed with a solution of silver mixed with whitingLe
The counsel for the prosecution was the same as in t"..
preceding mint cases. Mr Wilkins was retained for the Pr,l e
miner Donolly, and at the suggestion of his Lordship
kindly undertook the defence of Bari. The principal pen
offered in defence was, that Donolly being a shoemaker, lisa,r
files and sand-paper to rub shoe. sot* With; that coPr,
sprigs were put into the best sorts of shoes, and that On.
were rasped in the finishing of the soles. Being in theb3Lll
Of going about gathering rags and bones, it was asserted 0,
his behalf' that he made the coins front farthings for toys, a,
pocket pieces to give children in exchange fur such matte'
as the above. de'
The Jury found both prisoners Guilty. Sentence
ferred. „
UTTERING AND BAYING POSSESSION OF BASE COIN •:11

INTENT TO OTTEE:
10'
Thomas Barlow, aged 3.3, and James Hall, aged 45, wo.e! to
dieted for a misdemeanour, in having unlawfully uttered „e
Rachel Dobson, on the 2d of June last, at .Warrington,
base shilling, in having. had in. their possession 90 counteb'e
feit with intent to utter them, knowing them t°
base.
Counsel as in the last case. The prisoners were ur
defended.
It aeared that on the 2d of June last, the too prisooers,
went tppo the shop of Mrs. Rachel Dobson, in Warringte,
Barlow went in and Hall remained at the door.
-13a,ri,is of
asked for twopenny worth of bread and twopenny w"r'l.
cheese, which articles weregiven to him. He gave i 0
Dobson half-a-crown, and she gave him two shilling9r
change. She was about to give him twopence in c"qo,l
when the other prisoner answered and said, 4‘ Thou ho'r to
occasion to et change—Ll've got cooper." Hail paid he his
copper, and Barlow returned her shillings and receivetijr..
half-crown back. They left the shop immediately, and
Dobson directly afterwards discovered that one of the 'ere
lings was base; she ran to the door, but the; prisoners wild
out of sight. In the evening the prisoner Barlow otitis
again and purchased some tea and sugar. He paid for 10,1
in copper. She taxed him with having paid her a wit
shilling. He denied it, and she.showedit to him. Ile oor
it up, and giving her a good shilling for it left the 140
hastily. It further appeared that Mr. Platt, one of the cte
to the magistrates of Warrington, saw ihe prisoner secrlice,
bag in a field opposite to his house. He sent for the P.°flet,'
and they examined the bag. It was found to contain n'pers,
five counterfeit shillings. They laid wait for.the Prise eel)
and about nine o'clock at night the two prisoners were of
to go to the spot. They took out the bag from the Pi" The
concealment, and one of the officers rushed at them•
bag had beets previously emptied, and some sand and len O'
pieces submitted for the counterfeits. The moment tv v oreP
soners wete detected thiy threw away the hag. The- I
taken into custody, and were conveyed to the lock-uP.,,e501
The prisoner Barlow frequently accused the wito.e:;r
perjury. Both prisoners said they had never seen el,t,ori
bag or the coin till they saw theta on their examinati
fore the magistrates.
The jury found both prisoners guilty.
pal"tbee
The learned ATTORNb:Y•GENERAI. for the county' t
said the prisoners were both tried together at Preston 'l hey
same offence, and were imprisoned for nine months., In the
were out only three weeks when they were dettier.., tried'
commission of this offence for which they were nu"
Sentence deferred. SY
• •
• POSSESSION OF AN INSTRUMENT Fon .staxts° psi%
• PIECES. at lan,
Patrick Savage, aged 52, was charged with having °[
chester feloniously in his possession a certain instil,'"
scent
tool for counterfeiting pennies. ,
_t be ,ot,
John Turner, formerly a policeman stated that 'tho
to the house of the prisoner the. With- of Ir'in
and as he entered the prisoner threw -soniethrod it to.er
fire. Turner went and snatched it opt, anti, Ilqbtile
a natNid for castiv, vennies tho pOcf;ClQ'

be found several counterfeit penny.pieces. Mr. Sawley went
afterwards and found several hammers, pincers, &c. a tin
dish with some metal in it and some Roman vitriol or sulphate
of copper, commonly called blue stone, for colouring the
pieces which are made of lead. The prisoner said the tools
were what he used for mending his children's shoes with. As
to the other articles he knew nothing of them bow they got
into his house, Mr. Powell produced the pieces of coin
found on the prisoner and his wife. Some were in the white
state, others were coloured ready for circulation. The officer
stated that the prisoner, when he asked what account he had
to give, exclaimed, " Why you've got the things, and that is
sufficient."
The Jury found the prisoner guilty.
POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT PENNIES.
Theresa Murphys a good looking young woman aged 21,
was-charged with having had in her possession 291 pieces of
counterfeit coin called pennies, with intent to utter the same.
Mr. Worthington, au officer of customs, whose duty it is to
rummage vessels, stated that on the 19th of July he went on
board the Herald, a Newry packet. He found a bag which
the prisoner claimed. It contained 291 pieces of copper
coin which he perceived to be counterfeit. She made no
secret of the matter, and said she had purchased the pennies
in Newry from the country people at eightpence, ninepence,
and tenpence per dozen. She said she lived with Mrs. Ken-
nedy in the park in this town. He gave her into the cus-
tody of the police. It afterwards appeared that she really did
live with Mrs. Kennedy.
The prisoner, in her defence, said she bad since the death
of her father dealt in fowls and butter which she purchased
at Newry. When she was there the country people brought
her these pieces of coin. They told her they were cried down
at Newry, but they were good money in Liverpool. She
bought them at 7d, Bd, and 91 per dozen and brought them
over.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty.
William lIPAvoy, aged 50, was charged with having bad in
his possession in this town, in July last, a thousand counter-
feit coins.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Armstrong for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Theobald for the defence.
It appeared that on the 6th July last the prisoner went to
the shop of Mr. Bigham, a pawnbroker, and, presenting a
ticket, said he wished to redeem certain silver spoons. He
tendered the amount in copper money, which the shopman
refused to take, as it was not good. Lloyd, the constable,
came in at the time and took the prisoner into custody, and
the money into his possession. He ascertained that the pri-
soner resided at 49, Vernon-street. Ile went there, and found
in his room, at the lodging-house which he keeps, a large
quantity of counterfeit copper coins, made up in five-shilling
papers. The prisoner informed Lloyd that he had received
2Us. in that coin from a man who came from Belfast in the
Corsair steam-packet.
Mr. THEOBA LD addressed the jury in defence of the pri-
soner. He called for a letter, which the counsel for the pro-
seciPion had failed to read. He read this letter, which stated
that the writer had sent a quantity of 'copper, and cautioned
the prisoner not to offer too 'fled; to any one person, and to
place it where no person would have access to tt.
A man named James M'Kay, who was in custody, having
been committed with the prisoner M'Avoy, was called. He
was the writer of the letter above alluded to. He stated that
he had taken the copper from the peasantry of Ireland in
Payment for cheese, in which he dealt. He sent the cop-
per over to Liverpool for his friend to buy cheese with. He
told him to be cautious because he was afraid the money
might be lost, and he told him not to give too much to one
house because he was afraid a per centage might be charged
fur receiving much copper. Before M'Kay spoke, the learn-
ed JUDGE cautioned him that if he said any thing that would
criminate himself he would be tried upon it. When the man
had finished his statement. the Judge told him be would be
sent to take his trial in Ireland.
Mr. Powell stated that upwards of two tons of this base or
inferior copper money had been circulated in Liverpool since
the last assizes.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty.

BAS COIN.
Isabella Fothergill, agedUTTERING E 30, was charged with having un-
lawfully uttered two base sixpences at Heaton Norris, in
July last.
'1 he prisoner, on the 23d July last, purchased a penny-
worth of milk from Anne Walker, and gave a counterfeit
sixpence in payment, receiving the change. On the 25th of
July, to Robert Thomas Walker she passed another counter-
feit sixpence in a similar manner. Both the aboVe witnesses
were children.
The Jury were not satisfied that the prisoner knew the
looney to be base. They therefore acquitted her.
POSSESSION OF A MOULD FOR COINING.
Thomas Large, aged 28, and William Rodgers, 26, was
charged with having at Manchester, had iu their possession
a certain mould for coining
Mr. Armstrong appeared'
on behalf of the mint. Mr.
Venables defended the prisoner Large, and Mr. Knowles,
defended Rogers.
appeared that on Wednesday, the 6th of June, the
prisoners were at Manchester races. A dispute arose in
c_(,),nequence of a bad shilling having been
presented by one
I". the prisoners. The result was, that the prisoners were
given into custody. The prisoners were searched, and seve-
ral counterfeit found on each. Large said he
~s
lived in Granby row, ;vith his mother. An officer was sent
to his residence, and the room stated to be his bed-room was
searched. here several gets of metal were found, and a
large piece of metal that had been melted. The officer went
to a cellar where the prisoners worked together as joiners.
Here they •
found a ladle into which the piece of metal fitted;
a mould for shillings, two tobacco pipes, some
plaister of
Plris , and other materials used in coining.
The evidence did not go to prove that Rodgers had any
thing to do with the possession of the mould, as Large only
had taken the shop in which it was found. He could not,
therefore, be convicted under this indictment.
The jury found the prisoner Large guilty.
Joh

:inderson alias Gorman..—His Lordship passed sen-
tence of transportation for 15 years.
John Cusgruve.—His Lordship ordered him to be trans-
ported for 15 years.
William Gregory.—Transported for 15 years.
Marti Philip Illakia.—Transported for 15 years.
n Kivlaransported 15 years.
Michael Earle, and F. Donolly.— His Lordship setenced
Earle. who is an old offender, to 15 years transportationn, and
Donolly to two years imprisonment and hard labour in Lan-
caster Castle.
Barton and Hall.—His Lordship ordered that the pri-
soners should be imprisoned 18 month in Lancaster Castle,
and be kept to hard labour.
Patrick Savage.—The learned Judge sentenced the pri-
soner to 18 months imprisonment and hard labour, in Lan-
caster Castle.
Theresa Murphy.—The prisoner was sentenced to 4 months
imprisonment in Kirkdale gaol.
M'Avoy.—The learned Judge ordered that he should be
imprisoned one year in Lancaster Castle, and be kept to hard
labour.

Thomas Large.—Trausported fur 15 years.
Previously to the adjournment of the Court, his Lordship
passed the following sentences:—
Thomas Disley for stealing a cask of oil, 18 months impri-
sonment and hard labour in Lancaster Castle.

Jame: Bell, for polygamy, two years imprisonment and
bard labour in Lancaster Castle.
The Court adjourned at seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice Wit.t.tssis.)
His Lordship took his seat at nine o'clock.
CHARLTON, V. WARD AND OTHERS.
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Whigham appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Wightmau, and Mr. Martin for
the defendants.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a lodg-
ing-house keeper at Southpott, against the defendant, who
is an attorney, a person named Scholefield, his assistant, and
the late Higfi Sheriff, T. B. Crosse, Esq., as Sheriff, for an
alleged illegal distraint of the plaintiffs furniture, valued £45,
and for damages for the assault and inconvenience of turning
him and his family into the street. It was stated that the
furniture was seized as the property of the son, and it appeared
that the furniture had been lent to the son by one individual,
and afterwards sold to the father, the elder Charlton. The
cause was one of those petty cases which too often disgrace
the cause 'list, waste the time of the court, and disgust the
public with the chicanery of some members of the legal pro-
fession.
MT. CeEsswxtt, for the defence, said it had seldom been
his lot to address a jury in a case more palpably fraudulent
thawthis, and he trusted that the verdict the jury would give
would tend rather to discourage people
from bringing actions
of this nature. It appeared that the from
formerly re-
sided at Knotty Ash, and getting into difficulties, handed
over his furniture to a person named Robinson. He then
removed to Southport to avoid a debt, and his furniture
found its way back to him in the name of old Charlton, who
was a common day labourer, and kept a lodging-house. The
plaintiff got again into difficulties, and the furniture made
several migrations backwards and forwards to different in-
dividuels, and the defendant and he contended there could
be no doubt but that the furniture was the plaintiff's, there
being no proof whatever that he had sold it; and that there-
fore the sheriff had a right to distrain on. the goods. The
plaintiff, after successively being a publican, a lodging-house
keeper, a butler to a gentleman, and a servant to a sacitor
for orders, bad got finally into the service of Mr. Biackburst,
solicitor, of Preston, solicitor for actions, as his clerk, who
brought the present action.
The jury, without troubling his lordship to sum up, found
for the defendant. This case occupied all the morning till
one o'clock.
SHARP V. NEWSHOLME AND OTHERS.
Mr. Cresswell Mr. Starkie ad Mr. Tomlinson appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightman,and
Mr. Higgins appeared for the defendants.
The plaintiff in this case, carries on business as a worsted
Manufacturer, at Bingley, in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
In March last, lie sent 226 stuff pieces to be dyed, to Messrs.
Holt and Bedford, dyers, at Bradford, on the recommenda-
tion of a nephew, named Henry Sharp Bailey, who gave
some directions respecting the dying of the goods for his
uncle. The goods were worth £469.- Bailey. at the same
time, sent some goods of his own to Messrs. bolt and Bed-
ford, to be dyed, and soon after became a bankrupt, when
his assignees, the defendants, Messrs. Newshulme, Stocks,
and Taylor, seized upon the goods which were at Messrs.
Holt and Bedford's as the property of the bankrupt, and
appropriated them for the benefit of the estate; and the pre-
sent action was brought by the uncle, the plaintiff, to recover
the value of his 'Dods, the 226 pieces so seized.
For the defendants it was contended, that the bankrupt,
Bailey, had exercised ownership over the goods, and that,
therefore, the defendants had right to seize them ; and that
it was but a pretext to save his uncle which induced the
nephew to say that the goods were only sent to his (the bank-
rupt's) dyers'on his recommendation. In reply, it was con-
tended, that the conclusion of the property belonging to the
bankrupt ought to be drawn from the acts of the plaintiff,
and not from the dealing with the property of another, who
might, or might not be authorised, so to deal, or only autho-
,iri,sed to give instructions respecting it by the real owner.
here was no proof of any positive transfer of the property.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

CLARK V. WRIGHT.—LIBEL.
for the plaintiff,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. CROMPTON appeared
and Mr. CRESSWELL Tor the defendant:
znThe ArrottNEY-GENERAL in stating the case said, this was
action brought by Mr. Clark, who was the manager of the
:,n,ik' 11;ed the Manchester and Liverpool District Bank,
ont—i'',_st Nit. Wright, of Liverpool: trading under the name
'',`)°o Wright, and Co., of Liverpool, for having written a
concerning him, calculated to do him serious injury with
toe Directors of the Rank in which he was employed. It ap-
Pe"red that some time ago, the defendant was desirous of
"ening an account with the bank, to an extent of some where
about £2OOO and was to give security to the Bank for the
amount. An account was by Mr. Wright, and carried
00 for some time, and finally his account not being satisfac-
tory, by the directions of the directors under whose superin-
tendence the plaintiff acted, the account was closed. This
action the defendant appeared to have attributed to Mr.
Clark. Shortly after the account was closed, an action was
brought for the recovery of the balance owing to the bank by
the defendant, and the defendant labouring under the im-
pression that this was owing to the interference of Mr. Clark,
wrote a letter to the Directors as follows, dated the 22d of
February 1,7, and addressed to the Directors of the Man-
chester and Liverpool District Bank.
"GENTLENIEN,-1 beg leave, respectfully, to lay the fob:
lowing statement before you :—On the ll3th ultimo, whilst 1
was front home, it was intimated to me that the bank, here,
had come to the decision of closing my account. I submitted,
without remonstrance, and without asking for any explana-
tion. The caprice of the manager, his chat acter altogether,
(my appreciation of it is not singular) bad created my dis-
gust and abhorrence of him to a degree which,
for a long
period, I could only, with difficulty, controul; and the just,
though, perhaps, imprudent, eression of which has, at last,
caused his bitterest enmity. The document enclosed is au
Abstract of my account with the bank, (I dn't go into arti-
- culars) to Avow bow triaing are the advantoageb and indul-

Bence I have received for a good business, and for a-prem-
ium of £l2OO, paid on shares, which I am now called on to
sacrifice. The result is, that, valuing the shares at the market
rate, I owe the bank £749 65., against unexceptionable secu-
rities amounting to £2400. Under these circumstances,
however, a suit has been brought against me. My proposals
to avoid it, made previously to your manager, have been re-
peated, through my solicitor, to your's, and are as follows:
.1. W. and Co. will pay the bank the amount which is due,
and also retire, at once, any bill passed to their credit, to
which there may be objections; or if required, J. W. and
Co., in what may be considered, between man and man, a
reasonable time, will retire every bill running to their ac-
count, howsoever distant the period of its falling due. The
bank will be required to give up the shares they hold, the
shares to be sold. Although upwards of twenty years in bu-
siness, 1 have never been at law, and I have never refused
indulgence to any one during the whole of that period; and,
it is, therefore, difficult for me to conceive that any one,
especially a public body, with such proposals as the above
before them, and in possession of undoubted wealth, will
countenance the infamous conduct of a party too despicable
a craven for other means, can, it appears to me, resort to
legal proceedings, merely through feelings of revenge.—l
have the honour to be your obedient servant,

"JOHN WRIGHT."
Mr. Clark felt it incumbent upon him to clear himself with
the public from so foul an imputation as this, and with the
sanction of the directors broughtl the present action —not to
seek for pecuniary damages, for if the defendant would
retract the offensive expressions contained in the letter, he
would be satisfied with mere nominal damages to carry costs.
The proposition not being acceded to, the case proceeded,
and

Mr. Jackson, the general manager of the bank, was ex-
amined to prove that-the bank was dissatisfied with the de-
fendant's account, and desired it might be closed, and that
the plaintiff was merely carrying out their directions.
Mr. Miller, the plaintiff's attorney, was also examined,
and deposed that he was instructed by Mr. Bateson, one of
the directors of the bank, to commence the suit against the
defendant for his account; and that the plaintiff was merely
carrying out their directions. The suit was stopped on the
defendant giving a cognovit.
Mr. CRESSWELL then rose for the defence. He designa-
ted the proceedings adopted by the bank against the defend.
ant as harsh and untiadesman-like in the extreme, and said
it only could be accounted for by private malice operating
against him, which he charged on the plaintiff; and that
that malice was seen in dragging 'unnecessarily the fact be-
fore the public that the defendant's account with the bank
was unsatisfactory, and that he had been obliged to give a
cognovit to stay a former suit. He contended that the letter
was not libellous, but came under the title of a privileged
communication.

His Loansme summed up, describing the nature of a
libel. If the jury were of opinion that the letter was written
by the defendant to serve himself and to stay the suit against
him it was not libellous. If they were of opinion tiwttt it was
written maliciously to injure the plaintiff, then it was libel-
lous, and they would find accordingly, and assess the da-
mages in their judgment.
The jury retired for about half an hour, and on their re-
turn found a verdict for the defendant.
The court adjourned at a little after six o'clock.