The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-08-27 00:00:00

POLITICAL MISCELLANY.

Neither Lord Fielding nor Mr. Lefevre will be candi-
dates for Cambridge University.

An influential party is forining in the University of
Cambridge, to bring forward Mr. Butt to fill the vacancy
caused by the death of the Recorder of London.
The Morning Chronicle announces a new candidate for
the honour of representing Cambridge, to wit, Mr.
Thomas Babington Macaulay. This is a strange choice
for a seat of learning which prides itself upon proficiency
in the " exact" sciences. _ _

THE SUGAR COLONIES--After showing that the slave
squadron has no power to prevent the slave trade, and
that free labour cannot successfully compete with slave
labour, the Morning Herald thus pleads the cause of our
sugar growing colonies :—" Are we to insist on their relin-
quishing slave labour, and at the same time are we to
pour slave labour into Brazil and Cuba ? Are we delibe-
rately to cut off the power of our colonists to earn their
daily bread ? If they prove to us beyond all doubt that
without a moderate protective duty it is not more easy to
supply us with sugar than it is for them to send their pro-
duce to the moon, are we still to deny their rightful claim,
and still to shower our favours upon the slave owner,
whose practices we proclaim abhorrent to Christianity and
hateful in the sight of man ? The question must be an-
swered speedily one way. or another. If we are content
to be simply just, Mauritius and Jamaica may long con-
tinue appendages of the empire and subject to the autho-
rity of the Queen. If we resolve to perpetuate the misery
of these unfortunate islands, no man in his senses can
arrive at any other conclusion that in a very brief space of
time starving men will repudiate all connection with the
power that has worked their ruin, and will claim elsewhere
the protection and aid to which they have a natural right,
and which, most assuredly, they will instantly receive from
nations more alive to the value of colonial connexion than
Britain, in her latter-day madness, has proved herself to
be

THE SESSION OF 1850.—John Bull sums up the lost
bills of the session in an amusing article, likening them to
lost parcels in a railway train. After the arrival of the
" Parliamentary" train at " Prorogation terminus," the
passengers seek for their luggage. An Irish passenger,
" Sir Patrick Somebody," is the first to receive his lug-
gage, consisting of a miscellaneous assortment humour-
ously described ;he is soon disposed of. " Here, master
brickmaker, that seems to be your box ; take it and get
out of the way :—two office messengers, one from the
Custom-house, the other from Somerset. house, a brown
paper parcel for each, value unknown ; and another, for
which an officer from the County Court is in waiting.
Who's next ? a smart young lady in half mourning ; ex.
pec:s to be married in allay or two, and to take motherly
charge of her dear little nephews antl nieces. Where
can that box be with the wedding dresses, and the special
license at the top of them ? Not come ! miscarried, I
declare ; what a woman that Mrs. Wortley is ! was there
ever so careless a creature seen in the shape of a milliner ?
'Tis no use repining, my dear ; take it as coolly as you
can. Now, then, make room for the undertaker. What
a load that fellow has brought with him ! Coffins of all
sizes, like pillboxes inside each other; and inscriptions
on all the lids : " Extra-mural. Warranted to travel."
Capital ! there's the doctor, close to the undertaker. Two
of a trade, as you may say. But these two agree won-
derfully well, which is rather uncommon. " Where's
the travelling gear of Sir A'sculapius ?" "Is it this box
here : Registration of deeds ? ' "—Horrible !"—" No,
no, that belongs to Sir Patrick, I seen he'll come back
for it presently, I dare say. Is this yours ? ' Sanitary
Board ?' " " That's it, man ! hand it over." Whose
trunk is this ? Looks like a sailor's sea-chest. All right,
no doubt ; there was a tar among the third class passen-
gers. He has taken a stroll, and will come to look after
his traps by and by. Let us attend, in the meantime, to
these factory workers, " What is it you want, my good
friends ?"—" A big parcel from Messrs. Ashley and Co.'s
gauze veil factory. What ! is it not come ? Surely they
promised to send it all correct."—" That's very possible;
however there's no such parcel as you describe. Stop !
there is a parcel, but 'tis a small affair, very different
from what you said. Well, take it or leave it, as you
please ; only don't stand bothering here." * * Now
for this last gentleman : There's nothing for you, sir, I
believe." "1 am not well acquainted with my own bag-
gage, Sir conducteur. But my page knows all relating
to the same ; Wood ! Wood ! my pretty little page,
where are you dat you are not here, to show the bags and
boxes of your master de Baron ? And where is dat mine
oder man, Smith ; able man, he, much able ; where is
he ?" " 'Tis no manner of use calling out for your page,
and your man Smith. You can see yourself, sir, that the
van is empty ; there is not a thing—the size of a pill-box
—here for you, or anybody else." " Not anything ?oh !
I see de trick of it. That Mr. Russell is one very great
rascal. He told me to pay de money first; and he has
not sent de goods. I vill never trust him again, after dis.
He is de Gentile all over, and has the impudence to call
me a Jew."

THE ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT:TU
ESDAY.
Ann Ball was charged with the murder of her infant at
Southport. The case was rather a curious one, for it
appeared that the prisoner, having given birth to an il-
legitimate child, had partly buried it on the sandhills at
Southport, but so that it was quite able to breathe. The
child was found there on the 24th of July last, and
although deprived of the attention and care of a mother
lived until the 29th. After the child had been found the
prisoner was apprehended, and she at first denied having
had s child, but afterwards admitted it. The medical
'vanes who attended the child otter it was found, wag

asked whether the child died because it was buried. ne
replied that he could not say that burying was the
cause of death; he thought that the child would have
lived after it had been taken out of the sand, it it had
then had the care and nourishment which its mother could
have supplied. The prisoner was therefore acquitted, but
his lordship ordered her to be detained in custody, in
-ender that an indictment for an attempt to murder might
be -presented against her.
Robert Leigh was charged with causing the death of an
infant, named Margaret Currie, aged seven ;Months, at
Liverpool, during the present month, by the admitristra-
tion of a narcotic drug. The prisoner, who practices as
a sort of quack doctor, not being a duly qualified medical
practitioner, was consulted respecting the child, .which
was labouring under a bowel complaint, on the 4th of
August, and he prescribed a dose of medicine con-
taining 14 drops of laudanum. The child lived seven
days after the administration of the medicine, and then
died.—Mr. Folkes, surgeon, said the child was evidently
labouring under the effect of a narcotic. On cross-
examination by the prisoner, he stated that the child did
not die until seven days after the administration of the
drug by the prisoner ; that narcotics generally proved
fatal in 24 hours, though he had known a case in which
death did not ensue for three or four days.—His Lordship
laid great stress upon the surgeon's statement that he had
known a case in which death did.not ensue until three or
four days after the administration of the poison, stating
that that implied that three or four days was tho extreme
point to which (in the opinion of the witness) the fatal
effect of the poison would extend.—The jury acquitted
the prisoner. . .

Thomas Sixsmith• (30), John Lever (52), and Ellis
Green (30), were charged with having, at Knowsley, on
the night of the 18th of April last, been out on the en-
closed lands, the property of the Earl of Derby, armed
with guns and bludgeons, for the purpose of destroying
game. The prisoner Sixsmith was also charged with hav-
ing feloniously shot at Richard Redhead, with intent to
murder him. On the night in question, the keepers of
the Earl of Derby were out watching, when they dis-
covered the prisoners in pursuit of game. On the keep-
ers coming up with the prisoners, and asking them what
they were about, one of the poacher's cried " Go at them,"
and Sixsmith then shot at Redhead, in whose hat the
contents of the gun hidged. Sixsmith was captured after
a struggle, but the other prisoners made their escape.—
Sixsmith was found guilty of firing the gun, with intent
to do some grievous bodily harm : but was acquitted on
the capital charge. The other two prisoners were ac-
quitted, but they were subsequently tried for the poach-
ing, were found guilty, and were sentenced to be im-
prisoned each for six months.
John Pye • (30), Frederick Witherington (21), and
Peers Harrison (38), were charged with having, at
Ashton-in-Mackinfield, been out at night, armed with a
gun and bludgeons, on certain inclosed land called Small
Lane, the property of Sir John Gerard, Bart., and having
there assaulted, beaten, and ill-treated James Ashcroft,
John Rigby, and Joseph Rigby, gamekeepers to Sir John
Gerard. The prisoners were all found guilty. Wither-
inttton and Harrison were sentenced to be imprisoned for
six months, and Pye for three months.

NISI PRIUS COURT,

TUESDAY

HOWARD V. PEAccm.—This cause, adjourned on the
previous day, was proceeded with. It appeared that the
precise words of the plaintiff's patent ran—" What I
claim is in silk plush the weaving of eight or more weft
threads between the introduction of each wire, and also
the floating of the pile threads over five or more weft
threads between those parts where they 'are woven into
the cloth to be bound." The defence substantially was,
that the plan was not new at all, and that the " specifica-
tion" was not sufficiently specific. About fifteen wit-
nesses were called by him. His LORDSHIP, in summing
up, remarked that there was one observation which he
could not help making. There was as little candour in

getting up a case to support a patent, or getting up a case
to resist a patent, as in any other class of cases which he
had to try. That, be was sure, bad been manifested on
the present occasion ; for if the parties had come candidly
there, if they had not deceived the court, if they had
come to try the real question, instead of keeping the jury
in that box tin ee hours on the previous day and five hours
on that, the case might have been disposed of in an hour
and a half. The jury retired, and after an absence from
court of five minutes, returned into court with a verdict
for the defendants, on the grounds that the plaintiff was
not the inventor, and that the invention was not novel.
BREACH OF PROMISE or MARRIAGE—IRWIN V. VOSE.
—Special jurors in this case had been summoned for this
morning, and as the defendant, who is a medical gentle-
well is known in Liverpool, the court was much
crowded to hear the particulars. Those present were
destined to disappointment, however. At the doge of
the previous case, the jurors in the present action were
told that they might go. The matter had been arranged.
:RIM CON : HOLT V. PLEMMING.—In this, an action
for criminal conversation with plaintiff's wife, the lovers
of gossip had to suffer a still further disappointment. On
the case being called, and a special jury sworn, Mr.
Attorney-General KNOWLES said, "My lord, in this
ease, (an action for criminal conversation,) that there shall
be no public scandal. I have offered my learned friend a
certain sum for damages, and he has accepted it." Mr.
MARTIN next said, " I have only to say on behalf of the
plaintiff, that he is exceedingly unwilling that his wife's
family should have the annoyance of a public investiga-
tion. He has, tneretore; consenteu to Tee piuptrszst

by the Attorney-General." Mr. Justice CRESSWELL
" What damages ?" Mr. KNOWLES : " £750." We
believe, although it was not stated in court, that the
pirties in the action reside in Dublin, and that the de-
fendant is the secretary of the Dublin Yacht Club.

POLAK V. GREENISD.—Mr. James Polak, the plaintiff,
is a picture-dealer in London ; the defendant is the sub.
manager of the goods department of the Lancashire and
Yorkshire Railway, and the complaint against him was,
that he had caused the plaintiff to be imprisoned without
the slightest reason for such conduct. It appeared that,
on the 20th of March, the plaintiff was in Manchester
along with a Mr. Hermann, also a picture-dealer. They
were in the country together endeavouring to dispose of
pictures to different artists, and took up lodgings in Man-
chester. Whilst there, at the request of his friend Her-
mann, the plaintiff went to the railway station to inquire
for a case of pictures, which it appeared Hermann had
brought from Normanton to Harrogate, where some dis-
pute had arisen in consequence of his not having obtained
an "excess ticket," as it was above the bulk allowed for
luggage, and he had left for Manchester without it. It
was detained for several days, and on the plaintiff apply-
ing for it at the railway station, he was told that it would
be sent to Hermann's lodgings in less than an hour. On
the faith of this assurance both parties arranged to come
to Liverpool that night, but they were disappointed. On
the following day the case arrived, about three o'clock in
the afternoon. On the following morning the plaintiff
and Mr. Hermann came to Liverpool, and the goods were
taken to their lodgings in Slater-street. They had with
them property worth £l,OOO. In the evening, they were
arrested. The charge was that he had stolen a case of
pictures. The officers stated they had received instruc-
tions from the defendant to take him into custody, and
take him they must. Whilst they were talking Mr. Her-
mann came in, and the officers took the two gentlemen to
bridewell, where they were kept all night. Next day they
were brought before Mr. Rushton and discharged. Ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages £2O.
MURRAY V. TOWNSON AND OTHERS.—The plaintiff
in this case was a wholesale tea-dealer, at Blackburn, and
the defendants are the members of a sort of joint-stock,
or co-operative company, for carrying on a sort of grocery
store, at Church, near Accrington. There were nine
defendants, eight of whom did not plead to the declara-
tion, thus admitting their liability. The ninth, Peter
Leeming, however, pleaded that he was not indebted, and
put the plaintiff to prove the partnership of the defend-
ants. This being done, the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

CROWN COURT,

DNESDAY

William Threlfall, cotton spinner, was charged with
having, on the 20th April, forged a certain Bill of Ex-
change, for the payment of £lOOO, with intent to de-
fraud Charles Tyson. • He was also charged with having
forged a false indorsement to the second bill, with intent
to defraud other persons. On the application of his
counsel, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, the trial was put off to
the December Assizes, on the ground that the prisoner
had not had sufficient notice of two of the indictments
which had been preferred against him since his committal.
Those indictments not being for the charges for which he
was committed by the magistrates.
This completed the whole of the criminal business, and
his Lordship intimated that if any causes could be brought
from the other court. he would take them, but as counsel
engaged in any of the cases were also retained in the
other court, his Lordship adjourned the Court, and pro-
ceeded to London the same evening.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

.-WEDNESDAY

WELLINGTON v. DALE.—This was an action for
damages for an infringement of a patent for the manufac-
ture of gelatine, assigned to the plaintiff by a Mr. Swin-
bourne. Immediately after the opening a legal objection
was taken by the defendant's counsel which proved fatal
to the case.
EA STHAM v. WHITEHEAD.—The plaintiff was a solicit r
o
at Kirkby Lonsdale, and the defendant, living in Man-
chester, the active promoter of a proposed railway, which
never came into active operation, called "The North
Union, Trent Valley, Midland Counties Junction, Mac-
clesfield, Warrington and Liverpool Direct Railway Comd
-
pany." The plaintiff seeing the railway advertised an
thinking it a good scheme applied for some shares, which
being granted, be paid two deposits at the rate of three
guineas per share, amounting to £63. The railway a
bo was
not w constructed, ncsot rnutcetneddz d and
thatth schemetehe m one
yhavingcrpi gibed
oe
dv e f
rshratri vees
it
could not be legally spent by the directors. It was con-
tended
that the defendant having taken an active part in
the management and responsibilities of the concern was
liable for the amount paid by the plaintiff. His Lordship
held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount
of the deposit except half-a-crown per cent. To this Mr.
Martin took exception, and more litigation will therefore
no doubt take place.
BELL v. STANLEY.—In the year 18-15 Mr. John Massey
Stanley, the defendant in this action, purchased from Mr.
the plaintiff, a bull and a cow. Mr. Bell stated
tllVta.tßlieeilliad never paid for the cattle; but Mr. Stanley,
on the other hand, alleged that he paid the money to a
man named Cooper, who was steward of Sir William
Massey, and Cooper affirmed that lie paid Bell, according
to instructions which he received from Mr. Stanley. A
verdict for the defendant was immediately returned.
' ITELEMAN V. GREENISIL—In this case, which was
similar to the one heard on Tuesday, in which Mr. Green-
ish was the defendant and Mr. Polak the plaintiff, a ver-
dict was taken for the plaintiff by consent.
The assizes were brought to a close on Wednesday eve-
ning. This early termination of the business being attri-
butable to the settlement of several of the most important
cases without the assistance of *jury.