The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

YESTERDAY'S ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
His LORDSHIP entered the court at a few minutes past
nine

TRIAL OF WILLIAM ANDERSON, FOR STAVING STOLEN
NOTES IN HIS POSSESSION.
This case having been fixed for to-day, the court was,
in consequence, crowded at an early hour.
Messrs. Baines, Crompton, Henderson, and Adolphus,
conducted the prosecution ; and Mr. Wilkins, assisted
by Mr. Overend, defended the prisoner.
There were four indictments against the prisoner. The
charge against him having the notes in Isis possession, the
produce of the Preston Guild robbery was first proceeded
with.

The prisoner, who is 34 years of age, and can read and
write in a superior manner, was then placed at the bar.
He pleaded not guilty.
Mr. BAINES stated the case for the prosecution, and
entered into a luminous detail of the principal facts.
Most of those, however, our readers are already acquainted
with, from the ample reports which have appeared of the
examinations in the Police-court; and anything that is
new will be found in the evidence itself, which we proceed
to give at length.
The following witnesses were then called :
Thos. Wilson.—Resides at Blackburn, and is manager
of Cunliffe, Brooks, and Co.'s bank. Knew Mr. Buck,
and paid him £5.934 6s. 2d. on the 6th August, in 13
notes of £lOO, 9 of £5OO, and 10 of £lO each, and £34
6s. 2d. in silver and copder. The £lOO notes were of the
Manchester branch of the Bank of England, except one.
Keeps a hook, and enters all the notes at the branch bank
that pass through their hands, and puts on the corner the
private mark of their own bank. There is an endorse-
ment on the back of the check. The private numbers of
the bank were taken ; they were written at the corners of
the notes. Produced the Bank of England note-book, in
which the notes were entered. The notes were as follow :
£lOO, 01564; 01563 for £5O; 00092, £100; 00313,£100;
97474. £lOO ; 95151, £lOO ; 01472, £lOO ; 93166, £lOO ;
99729, £100; 97631,' £lOO ; 97504, £lOO ; 01107, £lOO ;
01040, £lOO. Received some notes from Marquis on the
24th August—Xlooo and two notes of £5OO, which were
tw,o of the notes paid on that occasion. The payment
was made to Buck on the 17th August.
Richard B. Dodgson.—ls .a clerk in Cunliffe's bank.
When notes are received, a mark is put on the corner,
and an entry is made in the note-book. The note-book
produced contains the corresponding entries with those
on the back of the check.

Anthony Buck deposed to receiving, on the lith Aug.,
the sum of £5,934 fi um the bank of Cunliffe and Co.

Richard Eastwood received from Buck £715, which he
paid to Miss Forshaw, and £7OO was afterwards paid to
the Craven Bank at Burnley. They were the same notes
I had received from Buck.

George Stansfield called.—ln August last received £7OO
from Mr. Eastwood, in one £5OO and two of £lOO each.
The hundreds were 01564,QY. and 01563,QY. There
was a £5OO note.

Edmund Robinson.—l know Mr. Marquis. He asked
me to take a £lOO note to the Craven Bank, to get it
changed. I gave it afterwards to Mr. Marquis.
John Walker, clerk in the Craven Bank, recollected
Robinson coming on the 29th August, and exchanged it.
Made an entry at the time. The number of the note was
Y,01040.

Joseph Pilkington, cotton merchant at Blackburn, re.
ceived three notes from Marquiss, in August last, of £lOO
each.

James Stott, bookkeeper to Messrs. Pilkington, saw
Marquiss it. August last paying some money to last wit.
ness. It was in three £lOO notes ; they were L W,92086,
L W,92895, G Y,00092.
Cross-examined by Mr. WzmuNs.—They were not
paid in his presence. Mr. Pilkington gave them into his
hands.

John Marquis.—l live at Acrington, near Blackburn.
On the 17th August received some money from Buck.
After that made a payment to Cunliffe and Co. of £lOOO
at Manchester, and £lOOO to Curl Life of Blackburn; also
£lOOO to Jones, Lloyd and Co.—all in £5OO notes.
Made a payment to Pilkington. On Sunday morning the
4th counted the notes I had left, and had nine of £100;
had £1990 left. Preston Guild commenced on that day,
and I went there. Had my pocket book in my breast
coat pocket. Was in different places during the day, and
went into the White Horse about 'seven o'clock, and
staid about an hour; came out and had my book at that
time. Went up Church-street, and a ma❑ and woman
came up to me ; the man put his arm in mine and said,
" Ara you taking a walk," and I said, " I am not going
any further." They then ran away, and I lost sight of
them. Found my pocket-book was gone.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Went to Preston
to put the money in the bank, and also to walk in the
procession. Dined with •wo gentlemen at the White
Horse. They were strangers to me. Did not take any
wine or spirit. Had a small glass of brandy, and that was
all I had that day. Was quite sober when the man and
woman came up. Gave information of the robbery about
five minutes after it took place. My coat was buttoned
when I came out of the inn.

By Mr. BAINES.—It was an ordinary at which I dined.
Was at the Knutsford Sessions at a trial concerning the
robbery. A note was produced, No. 01472.
By Mr. WILKINS.-1-lad said the note was 01,473. It
was in consequence of a mistake of the printer of the
bills. Pointed it out on the Bth of September. It was
not pointed out to me. Mentioned the mistake, before
seeing the note, to Graves, the officer, who had not then
seen it.

By Mr. BAINES.—Got the number of the notes from
the clerk at the bank.

By the COURT.—The notes were those I got from
Buck, I am quite certain.
Taylor Jennings.—Was in the Branch Bank before
being taken into custody. Entered their service in July
1842, and was in the inspector's office till September, and
then went into the miscount office, where t remained two
months, and returned to the inspector's office, where I
remained till taken into custody. Knows Harriet Bent-
ley. She lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh-street, when
1 first knew her, and afterwards in Elliott-street, and
then in Oak-street. Knows a court in Seel-street, and
was with her there on one occasion, the beginning of Oc-
tober I think ; and the prisoner came about a watch that
had been stolen, and asked me if 1 had got it, and 1 told
him I had, and gave it to him. There was a person with
him, and prisoner charged me with taking the watch out
of his house, and said the man he had with him was to
take me into custody. We then went out, I, and pri-
soner, and Hai riet Bentley, together with the man who
came with the prisoner. Got the watch from Bentley at
the prisoner's house, about three days previously, where
he had been with her. We were in a parlour, near the
door, about half an hour. There was a bed in the room.
The watch was lying on a table ; it was a large gold one.
After I gave it to the prisoner, he said the man who was
with him was charged to take me, and I must go with him.
I said I was sorry for what had happened, and would re-
compense him if he would allow me to go; and I said I
would give all I had, which was two sovereigns, which he
took, and said he would go to the parties, and make it all
right if he could, and I was to meet him at the York
Hotel, Williamson-square, in an hour, where I told him
what I was. I went with Harriet, and he told me he had
made it all right,—that he told the parties lie had knocked
me down, and was ashamed to take me. He (prisoner)
called for some wine, and we got into conversation, and
then left, and went by his request to his house, as he
thought he could do some business with me, where he
gave us something to drink. He knew at that time what
I was, and inquired whether I had any thing to do with
notes in the bank. I said I had ; and the same night he
told me he bad a £lOO note, which lie wished me to
change, and that I must not let any body see it, and if I
would do it he would give me £7 10s. Nothing further
passed that night. I staid all night. When I went again,
which was the next night, he gave me the £lOO note. It
was of the Manchester branch. He said if I could change
it, and bring him another for it, he would give me the
£7 10s. I took it, and changed it by putting it into a
parcel, and taking out another for it from the notes in the
inspector's office. Put the prisoner's note into the same
parcel from which I took the other. Took the note to the
prisoner; it was a £lOO, and he gave me £7 10. He said
he had seven more ; and, feeling some surprise, I asked
him what they were, and he said they were part of the
Preston Guild robbery. He gave me two more soon
after. They were for £lOO, of the Manchester Branch,
and changed them in the same way, and gave them to the
prisoner, and he gave me £l5. He then said he would
wait awhile before he gave me any more ; and in a week
after or more I had another of the same branch for £lOO,
which I disposed of in the same way, and gave it to him,
getting the £7 10s. Had another soon after, and gave
the changed note to prisoner, and then another of the
same kind. The last two I received a little before Christ-
mas, giving the notes to the prisoner, as I had done be-
fore. Had a shirt pin from the prisoner, :which he gave
me in January. It was a gold one, with a small stone in
it ; I gave it to Bentley.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wmxtrzs.—l came from Lon-
don, but not a native of that place. Belong to Hertford-
shire. Was in a merchant's office when I first went to
London, in 1841, Barclay Brothers, of Austin-friars, and
was with them five or six months, when I got a situation
in the Bank of England, and stayed there five months, and
in three days after that came to Liverpool. I am a married
man, and have been married five or six months. Became
acquainted with Miss Bentley in September last, was
married in April, and knew Bentley at that time ; was mar-
ried to Miss Bartlett of London, but did not continue in-
timate with Bentley. I saw her occasionally sometimes
where she was living. I generally met her. She was
living at a brothel in Oakes-street, where I saw her on
several occasions. Made her presents at different times ;
on one occasion £2. Never gave her new dresses or
caps. Gave her a cap before marriage. Don't know
what money I gave her to buy them—it might be a sove-
reign. Have given her a sovereign since I was married.
Have not been with her on a great many occasions. Saw
her the day before I was taken up—l had passed the
night with her. Was three nights with her just before
that time. Never offered my wife any of Bentley's cast-
off clothes. Never kept Miss Bentley. Never slept with
her a fortnight together. Am in debt ; perhaps £2O would
clear me. Have not been in the habit of attending races.
Would swear he had never bet on races or prize-fights.
Do not practice pugilism. My wife had no knowledge of
my acquaintance with Miss Bentley until after we had
been married about a fortnight. Might have paid Bentley
£5O altogether. The first time I went to the prisoner's
house was the latter end of September, when I took the
watch. The value of it might be £l5 or £2O. She took
it out of the house, and I took it from her and put it in
my pocket at the bottom of Elliott-street. Had it two or
three days before being asked for it, and in the in-
terval was one night at home, and the other with Miss
Bentley. Was taken up on Monday, the 18th of July,
in consequence of being in possession of a £l,OOO note

which I had given to Mr. Wood, who had lent me £2O,
£lO of which I gave to Miss 8., which was after I was mar-
ried. Told Mr. W. the note was a family affair, and re-
quested him to get it changed at Barned's bank. He re-
fused at first, but afterwards consented, and, on theday af-
ter told Mr. W. 1 could not go to the bank as I was going
to the races, and he said such work as that would not do
for him. Pretended, when Mr. Wood came to the bank,
that he had gone into the bank, and the inspector was
not there. Tried to escape from Mr. Wood the same
day, or day after. Went into a yard to make my escape,
but did not know what I was doing. I sent for the pri-
soner to Wood's house to get him to lend me £2O to pay
Mr. Wood. Told the prisoner the £lOOO note was
changed. Wood told the prisoner I had offered him a
£lOOO note as security for £2O. Wood told the prisoner.
it was stopped at Barnett's. Did not say 1 had received
it from the prisoner, and was before Mr. Turner and Mr.
Fletcher, and told them it was a family concern, and I
was entitled to a fifth of it. The note was at that time
stopped. Was called before Mr. Turner to account for
the note, but did not mention 'he prisoner's name. Said
the note had been received from my brother in America.
and that he was lodging in Tower-hill, London. Was
taken before Mr. Rushton the day after my apprehension,
and gave the same account I had given the day before.
Wrote something on a piece of. paper, and gave it to the
prisoner to enable him to get me some money. Told Mr.
Wood 1 was going to Squire Clegg's. at Allerton, to get
the money. He is a farmer, and I thought he might lend
it as he is a particular friend of my uncle's. Mr. Clegg
keeps his carriage, but I have never seen it. Put my
head out of the coach window when I was goinlv to Al-
lerton with Mr. Wood to look for Squire Clegg's car-
riage. Drove to the London-road, and said I would wait
there for the Squire. Mr. Wood caught me at the rail-
way station, and I said 1 was waiting there for a friend.
Told Mr. Dowling I got the £lOOO note from the prisoner,
and that it was the only money transaction I ever had
with him, and did not tell him I had known prisoner only
six months. Suspected something when the prisoner
asked me to change the £lOOO note. He proposed it
after I bad been there about a quarter of an hour. Can-
not swear, but I think Bentley was in the room. I did
not express any objection to do it. Had nothing to de-
pend upon but my salary. Believe the first note was
given in October. Never told Mr. Dowling the three
first £lOO notes were given in September. Changed the
first note the day after getting it, and the others in two or
three days after that. No one ever saw the notes in my
possession. Got the others about a week after, and I ex-
changed them in a day or two, and two others soon after
that. Had eight £lOO notes; had always said so. Did
not recollect telling Mr. Dowling the first note was got
on the first night after sleepitig at the prisoner's house.
Most of the transactions took place at the prisoner's
house; some of them at a public-house—l don't know
where. Generally gave the prisoner the notes at his own
house. Gave one at a public-house-1 don't know where
it was.

Examined by Mr. BAINES.—Took the pin from the
prisoner for changing two £5O notes. Was taken up on
the charge of having a £lOOO note which I got from pri-
soner. He said he got it from a person who came down
from London night before. Said that one man and another
saw a person come out of a banking house and get into an
omnibus, and that he held his hand on his right side pocket,
and that when he got out they followed him, and one of
them took the notes out of his pocket. One set off to Li-
verpool, the other watched the gentleman and saw him go
back to the same house, and that when he told them they
would not believe him. The other man then came down
to Liverpool. Prisoner came to me on the 7th, and said
he wanted to meet me, and I saw him at a public-house
in Copperas-hill, and he took out a newspaper and shewed
me an advertisement about three £lOOO notes, and the
night after I went up to his house in Stafford-street, and
he gave me a £lOOO note. That was the note about
which I was taken up.

Harriet Bentley.-4 am a single woman. In the begin-
ing of last year lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh-street,
and afterwards went to live in Seel-street. Was ac-
quainted with Jennings before I went there. I first knew
him in August, 1842, and went with him soon after to
prisoner's house. Was there on the night when the watch
was taken. There was a bed in the room, and Jennings
and I were there about half an hour. A watch was lying
on the table, and I took it up and showed it to him, and
he said he would take it, and if he heard nothing about it
during the week, he would publish it. He put it in his
waistcoat pocket, and we went away together. Was with
him two or three days afterwards, at Seel-street. and two
persons came to fetch Jennings. It was the prisoner and
a Mr. Lever. Jennings went down stairs to the prisoner,
and gave him some gold and a watch. but I did riot hear
any thing till we went to the York Hotel, where I saw
the prisoner again, and we staid about an hour or more.
There was nothing said that I heard. We then went to
prisoner's house, in Elliott-street, and remained all night.
Prisoner asked Jennings where he worked when we were
in Seel• street. and he said he was at the Branch Bank in
Hanover-street. Had a breast pin given to me by Jen-
nings. [Witness here described the pin.] Had seen it
in possession of Anderson, who wanted to sell it to Jen.;
nings for £2 10s. The pin was pledged at Richardson's,
London-road, and I gave the ticket to Greaves, the police-
officer.

'Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—First met Jen-
nings, in Itanelagh-street, about eleven or twelve months
ago, and we went to a house, and we soon became very
intimate. He used to see me nearly every day, and at-
ways paid me, mostly with a sovereign. He never kept
me for a month. He bought me some caps—a good
many—fashionable ones. He gave me £lO once, and at
another time £5. Cannot say that. he has given me more
than £4 besides. We went to the theatre occasionally.
Did not know he was married, or I should not have al-
lowed his visits. Jennings took the watch off the wash-
stand. After the matter about the watch was present the
whole evening, and heard prisoner say something about a
note. Have not seen Jennings since he was in prison.
Heard what prisoner said when he went away to see the
parties about the watch. Have not had any conversation
since I came into court.

Thomas Lever said.--lirnow the prisoner, and he came
for me in August last, and we went to a place in Seel-
street, and Harriet Bentley came down stairs and spoke
to witness and prisoner, who said to her, " Where is that
watch ?" " 0 ! George is up stairs and has got it." A
man then came down stairs, and she said, " here is Mr.
Anderson come about the watch." He had it round his
neck and took it off, and delivered it to the prisoner Jen-
nings; they went out with the prisoner, who gave me a
sovereign for my trouble in going with him.
George Greaves, a police-constables produced a pin;
also a pawn-ticket for the same.
Eliza Silvester.-1 live in Oak-steet, and Harriet Bent-
ley lived with me. I know Jennings—he went by the
name of George. I know the breast-pin.
George Richards, a pawnbroker. proved the pledging of
the pin on the 29th Dec. by Harriet Bentley. The pin
was taken by the constable.
The pin was then shown to Harriet Bentley, who said
it was the same that Jennings had given to her.
Mr. Fletcher, one of the managers of the Branch Bank,
was called.—Jennings was a clerk ; he came in July, 1842,
and was in the inspector's office, with the exception of a
short time he was in the discount office, till he was taken.
The notes are first taken by the teller, and he counts the
money to see that it agrees with the ticket brought by the
customer. He then doubles them up, and puts the name
of the party paying it in on the outer note, and the total
amount of the notes themselves. They are then put in
the teller's drawers, and taken out by the inspector when
he comes round. He calls out the numbers with the tel-
lers, and the amount on the notes to see that they agree
with the numbers in the books, and they are then taken
to the inspector's office. He separates them into three
parcels, first putting down in a book the total amount,
and then lays them out in three divisions, for Manches-
ter. Liverpool, and other branches. They are then put
in the inspector's room in bundles, and are entered in
three books by the clerks. Jennings was one of those
clerks, and had access to those bundles. On reference to
the cancel note-book for Nov. 14, there is the following
entry :—No. 99727, for £100; in a parcel paid in by Mr.
Arbuthnot; Nov. 26th, 97504, for £lOO, paid in to the
credit of Captain Broad; Dec. sth, 97474, for £lOO, paid
in by the customs ; Dec. 15th, 97631, for £lOO, paid in
by Charles Imer, Paulett and Co.; Dec. 17th, 95151, for
£lOO, paid in to the credit M. La Barre; Dec. 21st, two
notes, 00313, for £lOO, and 01107, for £lOO, paid in by the
customs.
Mr. BA INES said he would then go through the history
of No. 99,727, and called
James Hazel, cashkeeper to Hodgson and Riley, who
received on the 14th November, £552 17s. 11d., at the
Bank of Liverpool, and had four £lOO notes. 1 hey have
my name on them. They were Nos. 82,629, 69,317,
81,084, and 81.831. The same day paid to Jones, Mann,
and Foster XlO2, G. Barnsley and Son £lB3, and Glad-
stone, Serjeantson, and Co. £233, and paid away those
notes.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Kept a book in
which I entered the numbers.
William Cameron Sillar, clerk to Jones, Mann, and
Foster, received on Nov. 24 £lO2 from Hodgson and
Riley, which he paid over to Mr. Clarke, the cashkeeper,
who refused to receive a £lOO note.
George Harkle, clerk in Leyland's bank, on the 15th
Nov., gave change to Jones, Mann, and Foster for a
£l3O note, No. 12,629, being the first of the notes men-
tioned by Hazel.
Cross-examined by Mr. WiticiNs.—We don't give
change except to parties who are known to us.
Maurice Williams, clerk of Barnsley and Co.—On the
14th Nov. received from Hodgson and Riley £lBl, on
account of Baring Brothers.
Roderick M'Kenzie, cashkeeper to Barnes and Co.,
received £lBO from Barnsley and Co., and paid into the
Borough Benk £2,027, which was deposed to as having
been received by a clerk in that establishment. The
number was 69,317.
William Bird Redish, clerk to Gladstone and Co., re-
ceived on the 14th Nov. £233 Bs. from Hodgson and
Riley, and paid it to Ogilvie and Co.. of whom Arbuth-
not is a partner.
George Hopwood, clerk to Arbuthnot and Co., re-
ceived from Gladstone and Co., Nov. 14, £230 Bs., and
paid £llO on the 14th Nov. into the Branch Bank of
England, and £l2O on account of the firm.
Benjamin Shaw received, on the 14th Nov., £llO on
account of Arbuthnot and Co., and folded it up and put it
in the letter drawer.
Jon. Francis Heath, an inspector of the bank, took the
above notes out of the teller's drawer, and from the entry
made at the time there appeared No. 99,729, a £lOO note.
Had a payment of £l2O the same day, in which there was
a £lOO note, No. £81,084.

Claudius Vautin, cashier of the Liverpool banking com-
pany.—The prisoner, on the 18th Nov. last, made a pay
ment of £25, and gave a £lOO note, No. 81,831, and re-
eeived the change.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINs.—The prisoner
wrote his name on the back of the note, and it is my
custom to endorse the notes on the back. The prisoner
has banked with us for sevon years.

Richard Green, clerk in the office of the Liverpool
Banking Cowpony, referred to an entry, on the 15th of
November, of No. 81831. .

Mr. 11 ENDEttsoN said they would now proceed with
97631, substituted for 12168, which they proposed to trace
to the prisoner.
J. J. Kirby, clerk to Imer, Paulett, and Co., deposed
to getting some notes changed at the Borough Bank, in
December, one of which was 12168 for £lOO.
Francis Nevett. a teller in the Branch Bank, gave
change for two £lOO notes on Dec. 15, 1842. One had
his mark on it, and 12168 was one of them. Kuew by
the entry in the book.
Cross-examined.—The cancelled note books shew the
entries.

%Ir. lleath.—l was on duty on the 15th December at
the bank, and received two £lOO notes, Nu. 97631. Did
not find 12168.

James Todd.—On the 15th Dec. entered two notes,
Nos. 97631 and 80714, paid me by Paulett and Co.
Claudine Vantin.—The prisoner made a payment on
the 17th Dec. of X6O, in a bank note of £lOO. No. 12168.
Mr. ADOLPHUS.—The next note we trace will be 97504,
substituted for 80348.

Wm. Fisher, jun., a clerk in the Bank of Liverpool_. -
I remember copying a parcel of £lOO notes on the 25th
November. W e put the numbers on them, and entered
them in the cash book. No. 80348 is one of them.

Win. C. Ashlin, a cashier in the above bank, paid a
check of Schroeder and Co. for £450, in four £lOO notes
and one £5O. It was paid to their clerk. One of them
was 80348.

Alfred Pickering, clerk to Schroeder and Co., received
the £450 in notes, as stated by the preceding witness, and
gave them to Mr. Mahs, who handed them over to Capt.
Broad, on the 26th November.
Capt. Broad received the notes from Malls in Novem-
ber, and took them to the Branch Bank.
Mr. Agard received them from the last witness, and
they were handed over to the inspector, who stated that
he had received them. One of them was 97504; 80348
was not one of them.
Mr. ADOLPHUS.—We now proceed to show what be-
came of 80348.

Mr. Shaw, of the Branch Bank.—l remember a check
comine in on the 28th Nov. from Coventry and Glover
for £359 9s. Bd. It was paid in a £5, a £5O, and three
£lOO notes; one of the £lOO notes was 83615.

George Nicholson, cashier to Steill and Co.—On the
28th Nov. gave a receipt to Coventry and Glover for
£359 9s. Bd., and made a payment of £9OO into the bank.
Alex. Gillespie made a payment into the Branch Bank.
receiving the money from the last witness.
Francis Bocquet, teller at the. Branch Bank.—There is
an entry of money from Steele and Co. on the 28th Nov.
Mr. Heath. teller at the above bank.—Remembered the
payment of Steele and Co. It contained some £lOO notes.
No. 83615 was not there, but 80348 is one of them. The
others were 83616 and 83617.
Mr. Inver.—The numbers paid to Coventry and Co.,
were 83615, 83616. and 83617.

John Quayle.-1 am a tailor and draper, and live in
Elliott-street, next door to prisoner, who paid some money
for work. It was about Dec. He gave me a £lOO note.
1 got it changed by ltighton.
Mr. Righton, a grocer in Lime-street.-1 commenced
an account with the Union Bank in Di-cember. Got the
note from the last witness. The number is 83615.

Hugh Makin, cashier in the Union Bank. On the 22d
December Righton paid the note into the bank.
Mr. BAINES.—The next we shall trace is 95151, which
had been abstracted and 07089 substituted.
Mr. Long, clerk to Jones, Lloyd and Co., Manchester.
—Paid on the 20th Nov. £7o',/ to Mr. Douse. There were
two notes of 130 each, one was 07089. The number of
the other was 07302.
Mr. Douse, a surgeon at Huddersfield, received the
notes and paid them to Mr. Stocks. My wife took the
numbers. They are a £5OO note, 15459. The first £lOO
note was 07089; the second, 07309.
Mr. Stocks deposed to receiving the money from Mr.
Douse, and paying it to John Booth.
John Booth received the same, and handed to M. Le
Barre, who paid it into the branch bank in December.
It amounted to £2,900

Mr. Hewn took Le Barre's payment. There was a £5OO
note, No. 15459. Among the XlOO was No. 07309 ; 07089
was not among them, but 95151 was there.
Mr. Quayle.—After the first note the prisoner brought
a second, and I got it changed at Mr. Righton's ; but af-
terwards went and took it from Mr. Righton, and gave it
back to the prisoner.
Mr. Righton deposed to the same fact as the previous
witness.

. James Sixsmith, publican, of this town, remember the
prisoner coming to my house near the latter end of last
year to ask for change fora £lOO note. Obtained it from
Mr. Howard, in Cunliffe-street. Sent the boy for it and
gave the change to the prisoner, who went away with it.
John Debney, clerk to Mr. Howard, proved the changing
of the note for Mr. Sixamith. He afterwards took it in
a payment of £173 to the Royal Bank.
Adam Lowe, of the Royal Bank, proved the payment
of the money as stated by Debney.
Thos. Scholes received the note for Howard. It was
07089.

This was the whole of the evidence for the prosecution.
Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury for the prisoner.
He observed. that before he commenced any comment or
observation on the details of the case he must remind
them what they had to do. They had to consider whether
the prisoner then in the dock had been proved to have
been guilty of receiving several of the notes stolen from
Mr. Marquis, at Preston Guild, on the sth of September.
They were not to consider whether the prisoner might
have received the produce, but whether he had received
the notes that were stolen on that occasion. He thought
they must have observed that the evidence of the wit-
nesses who had been called was, what the poet Milton
called " confusion worse confounded." It appeared to
him to have very little to do with the case betcre them,
He hoped to be able to convince them that what the pro-
secutor had made out, namely, that certain notes had been
nt off, for which the stolen notes had been substituted,
Niiig:Whatainiagvulgittaiikutia witgtiLifynr,
v as not enough that the indignation of the jury should be
excited by an allusion to it on the part of the prosecution,
Lut his learned friend had said be should be able to prove
it, and he bad failed to do so, for one witness bad told
them that the house in Stafford-street was not a brothel.
It was not his duty to uphold the conduct of any man en.
'gaged in such a calling, and he thought that if the priso-
ner had any feeling about him it would be sufficient to
make him ashamed of the course of life which he had pur-
sued. There was a great deal of humbug abroad on that
subject, and there were a great many gentlemen, and Chris-
tians, too, who would treat the conduct of such men with
loathing, but who have yet condescended to indulge in those
places which the prisoner was charged with keeping. One
thing was certain : it was not the poor man, but it was
emong men of money and rank where they would find the
parties who supported institutions of that character. They
were not there to consider as to his moral character, but
whether he was guilty of the charge laid against him in
the indictment. He contended that Jennings was not
corroborated in any single point affecting the guilt of the
prisoner; and unless that were the case, his testimony
under such circumstances amounted to nothing. He
would ask them whether there had ever stood within the
bar a man so base, and so divested of everything that
could dignify and ennoble the human character, as that
thing which had been in the box that day ? He had taken
pains with his external habit, but had there been such a
wretch as he ever introduced into a witness-box ? Why,
when he came to Liverpool he was a thief; and be has
not been in Liverpool two months before he goes with a
girl and steals a watch, and the fellow was coward enough
to try to fix it on the poor girl: the wretch, in order to
screen himself, said it was the poor girl who had done it.
He then alluded to what he conceived was sufficient to
upset the whole of Jennings' story—namely, that be had
stated it was either the end of September or beginning of
October when the note transaction commenced. He got
from him the time when they took place, and, giving him
the greatest possible latitude, all the notes except two,
according to the evidence of the other witnesses, must
have gone out of the bank in the month of October. He
finds he is in the strong arm of the law, and that it is ne-
cessary to adopt some means for his deliverance. Why,
what did Mr. Wood do? He treated him as a felon ;
and he thought if they gave to reason and truth that share
which they ought to occupy in the case, they could never
believe the story which Jennings had told them that day.
The learned gentleman then alluded to his conduct to his
wife, for at the time he was married he was actually pick-
ing up sn intimacy with Harriet Bentley, who bad that
day been before them in the box, and who had stated
that, bad she known he was married, even she, degraded
as she was, would not have admitted him into her com-
pany. After some further remarks on other parts of the
evidence, he concluded by calling on them to consider the
case with all that caution and deliberation :which its im-
portance demanded. If they wished to see the bearing of
one who was guilty and one who was not, they must con-
trast the bearing of the prisoner with that of Jennings.
The prisoner courted inquiry—Jennings fled from it ; the
prisoner never told a lie from beginning to end—Jennings
never told the truth. He thought the situation of the pri-
soner such as ought to make him more strenuous in his
behalf, and he considered it his duty to lay the case
before them in a calm and dispassionate light, and he
asked them to acquit him because the principal evidence
against the prisoner was that of one of the most vile and
degraded individuals that had ever come into the dock.
The Learned JUDGE then went carefully over the evi-
dence to the jury, remarking that it depended principally
on the credit they could attach to the witness Jennings,
who presented himself under circumstances which did not
entitle him to credit unless the other circumstances satis-
fied them that be was borne out in what he said. And if
they found him upon the evidence to be of such a charac-
ter, it would be their duty to discredit him provided his
evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses. The
question they had to decide, as regarded the prisoner, was
whether the prisoner received, or had in his possession,
certain notes being the produce of the Preston Guild rob-
bery, knowing them to have been stolen.
After the jury had consulted for a short time, one of
them wished to know from his lordship the particular
point they had to consider.
The JUDGE.—Notes are given (if you believe the testi-
mony of Jennings) by the prisoner to him for the purpose
of being changed. He changes them, and be says, those
notes go to the prisoner. Now, four notes which he
changed for four others are found in the hands of the
prisoner at the bar. The question was, whether the pri-
soner received the Preston Guild notes, and according to
Jennings he did receive them. Then it is for you to say
whether Jennings speaks the truth.
The jury retired, and after being absent about an hour,
returned with a verdict of guilty against the prisoner.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said, the other indictments would not
be proceeded with.
His LORDSHIP observed that the prisoner had been
convicted of one of the worst of crimes—and one that was
fraught with the most dangerous consequences to society ;
and whatever might have been the moral delinquency of

Jennings, he (the prisoner) had taken the advantage of
the charge of felony which might have been proved against
him to serve his own wicked purposes. The sentence of
the Court was, that he be transported for fourteen years.
Tue Court rose at half-past eight.

NISI PRIUS COURT.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL took his seat at nine o'clock.

SMETHHURST V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER

This was an action, before a special jury, for goods sold
and delivered on an account stated. The defendant
pleaded not liable.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Atherton for the
defendants.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff, Richarr',
Smethhurst, is a manufacturer, carrying on business at
Chorley, about twenty miles from Manchester. The de-
fendants, John Taylor and William Potter, ate in a large
way of business, in r,iverpool, who send a large quantity
of goods to India and China, and this action was brought
to recover a sum of £2400, alleged to be due by them to
the plaintiff, arising out of a sale of goods in March, 1841.
The parties who immediately bought these goods were
persons carrying ;on business in Manchester, under the
the firm of Saml. Knight and Co. Thel had been carry-
ing on business for some time as commission agents, and
from the year 1838 till 1841 they had bought goods for the
defendants to the extent of £lOO,OOO. They were uni-
versally known as being the agents of Taylor, Potter and
Co. As to themselves, one of them, at least, had been a
bankrupt, and they were a firm who never could and never
expected to receive credit for themselves. They never, to
any extent, sold goods on their own account. In March,
1841, the plaintiff had in hands a very bilge quantity of
shirtings, an article very largely exported from this country
to China and the East Indies. He employed a person
named Pilkington to sell goods for him, and, accordingly,
in March, be called upon Messrs. Knight and asked them
if they were purchasing goods for Messrs. Taylor, Potter
and Co. ; he told them at the same time that if they were
disposed to buy the plaintiff would take a bill for 3 or 6
months. The ordinary way of business was to pay cash
in 1841, or a bill fora month. Messrs. Knight said they
were not at present in the market for Messrs. Taylor,
Potter, and Co., but when they were they would let them
know. Accordingly, on the 27th Mach, Mr. James
Knight came to Mr. Pilkington, told him Taylor, Potter
and Co. were in the market, and requested that samples
should be sent to them. He (Mr. K.) said he was about
to go to Liverpool, and he would take the samples with him.
Five pieces of each description of article were sent to M r.
Knight as samples, and when Mr. Pilkington called on him
next day he stated th tbe had taken the samples to Li-
verpool, shown them to defendants, who were willing to
give I2s. a piece for one kind, and 12s. 6d. for another.
After some time the plaintiff was induced to take the
prices offered, but in order to ascertain properly that he
was dealing with the defendants he sent down his nephew,
who, with Mr. Pilkington, waited upon Mr. Knight. Mr.
Pilkington said, " Ytn are buying these goods for Taylor.
Potter, and Co." " Yes," was the reply, " and more
than that, we are buying them to go to China in a ship
called the John Bibby, and you look at Myers's Gazelle.
you will see that the vessel is going to sail in a few days."
They then went to the news-room, and finding the vessel
was entered as stated, the nephew returned home, told
what he had ascertained, and the plaintiff determined to
conclude the bargain. He wrote to the effect on the 50th
March to Mr. Pilkington. Accordingly, the goods were
sent to Lees and Jenkinson, the packers ; they were af-
terwards sent down to Liverpool, shipped in the John
Bibby, and went to China. This being the state of the
case, he (the learned counsel) understood the defence
to the action would be that when young Smethurst went
to Mr. Knight's office, after he had learned that the goods
were for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co., he said to Mr.
Knight, " To whom are we to make out the invoice ?
Are we to make it out to Taylor, Potter and Co. ?" Mr.
Knight said, " No, when goods are sold per six months
bill, the bills are not made out to them but to us."
Accordingly, the invoice was made out to Mr. Knight.
Mr. Martin continued by saying that he wou:d prove,
from letters found in the possession of Messrs. Knight,
who had since become bankrupt, that he had autho-
rity to buy for the defendants. He then read a letter
signed W. P. Livingston, which, he said, was written by
authority of the defendants • and added, that when the
defendants were applied to they said that Messrs. Knight
had had a general althority to buy for them up to January,
but not since. It would appear, that in this instance the
invoice was made out to Knight and Co., but he submitted
that the goods were sold to the authorised agent of Taylor,
Potter, and Co., who had full authority to buy them.
After reading letters written by W. P. Livingston and
other persons on behalf of the firm, relating to the pur-
chase of goods, the learned counsel contended that these
obviously related to the 6,000 pieces of shirting purchased
from the plaintiff, and nothing else. He would prove to
the jury that every parcel of these goods went to China
by the John Bibby, which sailed some days later than was
originally intended. There was a person named Nixon,
at Manchester, who sold goods for other persons, the
same as Mr. Pilkington, and he asked Messrs. Knight
who their principals were. They replied that Messrs.
Taylor, Potter, and Co. were. He sold them goods to
the amount of £20,000, and some of the invoices were
made out to Taylor, Potter, and Co., some to Knight and
Co., but the goods were all sent down, without destination,
to Taylor, Potter, and Co. The mode in which Taylor,
Potter, and Co. did business at first was for cash, but
about the end of the year 1838 they commenced signing
bills to get money to discount and pay for the goods ; and
the mode in which Knight and Co. carried the money to
pay for the goods was by bills signed by Taylor, Potter,
and Co. These were discounted by the bank of Daintr:,,,
Ryle, and Co., at Manchester, and in no case did Taylor.
Potter, anti Co. interfere. The delivery of the goods was
completed on the 2d of April, and by the terms of the
purchase agreed upon the money was to be paid in four-
teen days, and it became due on the 16th. On that day
application was made by Mr. Pilkington to Mr. James
Knight, who said, " 1 am sorry to disappoint you, but I
have not done mx discAprit cirulAytmasprz.sr.ta
counted." At the latter end of April Mr. Pilkington
obtained £1,500 in bills on account of the shirting, arid so
things continued until the beginning of May, wh.n the
concern of Knight and Co. closed. After that, Messrs.
Taylor, Potter, arid Co. were applied to fur payment for
the goods, and the statement made by Mr. Taylor was,
that they had not given authority to Knight and Co. to
purchase goods for them since the January preceding.
He (the learned counsel) undertook to satisfy the jury
that the goods were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co. through
Messrs. Knight. 2,000 of the pieces came to the house
of Taylor, Potter, and Co. ; but there was a firm, Living-
ston, Gilliott, and Co., who carried on business under the
same roof with defendants, and the remainder of the goods
were shipped on board the John Bibby, with the name of
Livingston, Gilliott, and Co. on them, but how that name
got there he could not tell, as, in looking over the bank-
rupt's book, it was not found that there were any dealings
between the parties.
Mr. MARTIN then called a number of witnesses to
prove the sale of the goods, the general course of busi-
ness, and the agency of Messrs. Knight. The total cost
of the goods was stated to be £3,975, of which £1,500 had
been paid. leaving a balance of 4;2,475, for which sum the
action was brought.
Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said, there were two
questions for the jury—whether Messrs. Knight and Co.
had authority to bind the defendants in the matter, and
supposing that they had, had credit been given to them or
to Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co.? He said there was
no proposition of law more distinct than this, that if a
party sells goods to an agent, knowing that he is dealing
for a principal, and the principal's name be known to him,
and the seller gives credit to the agent, the principal can
never be made liable, whatever becomes of the agent.
The learned counsel then contended, at some length, that
the invoice was the only proof of the party debited, and
concluded by expressing an opinion that his learned friend
(Mr. Martin) had failed to make out the two propositions
which would entitle him to a verdict.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, there were two questions
for the jury to decide—the first was, whether the goods
weresold
ponottltieer and Co.credit of
f Knight
ifiy (th
ighttalencl Co.,e j
or on
sthhoeuclr d b
credit
of Taylor,
of opinion that Smet hurst knew that they were for Taylor,
Potter, and Co., and be consented to give Knight and
Co. credit, he could not after that claim against Taylor,
Potter, and Co. But if they were of opinion that the
credit was not given to Knight and Co., but to Taylor,
Potter, and Co., then would come another question—
whether Knight and Co. had authority to pledge Taylor,
Potter, and Co.'s credit. If the jury were of opinion in
the affirmative that they were sold to Taylor, Potter, and
Co. and Knight and Co. had authority to pledge their
credit, then they (the jury) must find the verdict for
the plaintiff, and if otherwise, their verdict would be for
the defendants. If for the plaintiff, it would be for £2475.
The jury, after half an hour's deliberation, found for
the defendants.
BIRCH V. WOOD AND ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover damages for the infringe-
ment of a patent. The plaintiff (for whom Mr. Martin,
Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Webster appeared as counsel)
was Thomas Birch. The defendants (for whom Mr.
Knowles and Mr. Townsend appeared) were Charles and
Richard Wood.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was a man
now in very great poverty, and endeavoured to get a live-
lihood by acting as an assistant to an engineer in Salford.
He was a very ingenious man. and in the early part of his
life devoted a good deal of his time to the improvement of
machines, rather than to pecuniary matters. He was
formerly in partnership with two gentlemen of the name
of Shorrocks, manufacturers of carding and spinning ma-
chines, and whilst in partnership with them be made the
invention in question, a patent was granted in 1837, and it
was for an infringement of the patent that the present ac-
tion was brought. In 1830 the partnership between the
plaintiff and the Messrs. Shorrocks was dissolved. Plain-
tiff sold his interest in the concern for £425, to be paid in
promissory notes, and went to Ireland, where some
tempting offer was held out to him. He remained in Ire-
land till he lost all his money, came over to Manchester
about seven months since, and had remained there ever
since. The patent was for an addition to the old machine
comesf or carding,
in whereby f
rt
oh
me saebedrosa,da
was
sn
gotot s, and dirt
much
which
more
effectually, in less time, and did a great deal more work.
When the plaintiff came back from Ireland he found that
his patent was in very general use in the manufacturing
districts. He applied to many persons, all of whom
agreed to give him something for the use of the patent,
with the exception of the defendants, who used it to about
sixty machines.
Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said that at the
time the partnership was formed the Messrs. Shorrocks
were monied men, and it was of great importance to have
a mechanical genius in manufacturing concerns, and it
frequently happened that such a person was taken into
partnership, on the understanding that the result of his
inventive genius was to go to the benefit of the partner-
ship. This, he alleged, was the case in the present in-

stance; the partnership was at the expense of model• and
experiments, and the machine. were all made on account
of t'-,e co,icern. He contended, that by the deed pro-
viding for the dissolution of partnership, phintiff assi,2ned
over all right and interest in the ennrt rn, and, therefore,
that the patent right pas.sed to the Messrs. Shorrocks,
who became hankrut,ts in 1839.

Under the direction I)isl"rdshii,. a verdict was re-
turnedof
6- th, plaintiff. Damages, 40q.
The Court rose at a quArter to six o'clock.

CORRESPOADENCE.

THE BISHOPS AND THE TRACTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SIR,—Not having seen in your paver any notice of the
Bishop of Ossory's primary charge, it occurred to me that
a few words on the main points art forth in it night not
prove unwelcome either to your readers or yOUrseit : there
are many, doubtless, among the former, who, though not
likely to procure or peruse the charge for themselves,
would be glad of the opportunity of seeing an outline of
its contents.

The well-known power and perspicuity of the writer's
mind, his sound judgment and habitual caution, the weight
of his personal character and the dignity of his office, all
combine, together with the topics on which he treats, to
lend a more than ordinary interest to this charee, recently
published. The tracts on " Reserve" and the notorious
No. xc. are especially dealt with : while a valuable sketch
of the rise, progress, and tendency of the entire move-
ment is faithfully and succinctly presented with all the
solemn authority that belongs to such an address.
A line in your " Notices to Cori espondents" will de-
termine whether you may hear again from, Sir,
Yours, &c.,
Liverpool, August 27, 1843.

A. M.

[We have heard sufficient of this admirable charge to
induce us to wish most earnestly to present its principal
features to our readers ; and we LeretOre receive with joy
our correspondent's communication, and shall, insert with
pleasure his future favours.]

COMMITMENTS TO THE SESSIONS.—On Thursday a
boy named James M`Ginn was committed for trial for
stealing a shirt, value 2s. 6d., nut of the sale shop of Mr.
Thomas Higginson, pawnbroker, Park-lane. He ran off
with the article, but dropped it on heir; observed in the
street, and pursued.—On Friday, Patrick BrNan, a boy
who had come out of jail the previous day, was committed
for stealing a pair of boots, value £1 55., from a shop in
Dale-street. Also, a woman, named Cathetine O'Neill,
(who had an infant in her arms.) was committed for trial
for stealing a pair of boots from the shop of Mr. Ileyes,
pawnbroker, where she bad gone to price them.
FEATHER-DRESSING MACHINE.—An entirely novel,
and certainly unique, contrivance for restoring old and
dressing new feathers has recently been introduced into
this town, by Messrs. Lee and Co. We had the pleasure
of seeing it in operation a few days since. It consists of a
large cylinder, in the interior of which are several arms,
which work not unlike the devil :1i a cotton factory, tear-
ing the feathers asunder, and keeping them in continual
motion, while the heat emitted from a large coke fire
under the cylinder, which is constantly revolving, com-
pletely disinfects and expands them far beyond their
original bulk.—See Advertisement.
POLICE CHARGES OF DRUNK-AND-DISORDERLY.—
We have frequently had occasion to remark that the mass
of the police-officers, in preferring a charge of " disor-
derly" conduct against any individual, appear to deem it
necessary to prefix, on almost all occasions, the little
monosyllable " drunk," on the supposition, apparently,
that it would scarcely be credited that a man would be
violent unless he were inebriated. The constant recur-
rence of the double charge has on many occasions—when
parties quite as respectable as police-officers have utterly
denied the drunken portion of it at least—often brought
ourselves and others to suspect that .the practice is a
ra-
ther sharp one; and we had an instance at the police-
court yesterday which confirms a very general opinion that
(as has been remarked in one of the newspapers) the
words are " stereotyped" on a policeman's tongue. A
cltrl, to an attorney was brought up aed charged by In-
spector Brown with having been " drunk and disorderly,"
and the witness added that he had consequently committed
him to Rose-hill Bridewell. The defendant (who
was perfectly sober) denied that he was any more
drunk than at that moment, and appealed to the Bride-
well. keeper, Edward Keenan, whether lie was or not.
Keenan said that he was not drunk when brought there.
Mr. Rushton asked the keeper why then he had entered
him in the book as drunk as well as disorderly. The
witness said that he had before refused to receive a charge
of drunkenness and disorder from ati inspector, the person
given in charge; not being, in his opinion, drunk, and
that he was, in consequence of such refusal, brought be-
fore the police committee, and told that he must receive
and write down the charge, whatever it was, from his su-
perior officer. Mr. Rushton said that no bridewell-
keeper ought to do so unless he himself saw that the man
was obviously drunk. If such a charge was given by an
inspector as that under consideration, he ought to write
in his book, "charged by with being drunk and dis-
orderly ; but Ido not believe hie, to be drunk." The de-
fendant in this case was then discharged.
THE WORKHOUSE.—We direct at enCort to a report
in our paper of this day of a case of aggravated assault on
the governor and another officer of our Workhouse, into
which the tender mercies of the new poor-law have at
length found their way, and though not yet to their full
extent, in a manner sufficiently to show that that heart-
less enactment never can be brought into full play in the
town of Liverpool, wherever else it may be tolerated.
Here we have an instance of a pauper, refractory and out-
rageous we admit, but nevertheless a human being in des-
titution, labouring under disease, and consequently enti-
tled to some modicum of the humanities of our common
and sinful nature. He had been confined in gaol for re-
! f.llo9.rEg wit (Hipp!, AtarturAgu, 491k4g
of livitig; returned to the workhouse. He stated at once
that he wts " past labour," from the disease that hung
upon him, and that two surgeons out of doors had so
affirmed. But no examination whatever of his person
was made; he was pronounced fit for work ; and the new
governor (for the administration of the new poor law) on
hearing of his return, exclaimed (by his own account)
" What ! the notorious Smith come back again ! send
him to break stones." A hammer was then put into the
man's hands, and he was told that he, would be punished
if he did not work. Being, as must be admired, a despe-
rate character, and exasperated at such treatment, he
struck the officer, and afterwards the governor, with the
dangerous weapon, and was proceeded against for a rour-
derouz assault, though it appears, from the evidence of the
surgeon of the gaol, that the blocs were not dangerous to
life, and alleged, that he in reality was still labouring under
disease which would be aggravated by the work he was
ordered to commence. His being sent to break stones
was certainly no palliation for so savage an assault; but
why should a man who had undergone punishment for a
former offence, and had legally purged himself of it by
umlergoing it, be received and treated on his return to
the house as a criminal? Why was he not examined as
to his infirmity, and treated accordingly ? We can devine
no reply that can be made, but that the new poor law
contemplates poverty as a crime, and adjudges all who
seek relief under it to a measure of irksome and degrading
labour, which shall compel them to one or other of the
alternatives—begging, stealing, or, as in this instance, to
desperate revenge. As the magistrate properly remarked,
character, in a case of want and illness, ought not to be
taken into consideration. If he and we (who accord with
him on this point) be not mistaken in our position, the
case is one which, we think, the Poor-law Commissioners
are bound thoroughly to investigate, for the benefit of the
public. Of the general working of the poor-law act so
far, in this town, we have only to say that it is already
driving the poor wholesale from the establishment. Al-
though there is little or no improvement in the market
for employment, the inmates are already reduced by -
about 400 ; and if the system be persisted in, there will
be no need for the erection of the contemplated build-
ings on a larger scale. So stringent are the rules,
that in a short time it will be deserted by all
but the utterly helpless; and the town, inundated by
persons struggling in desperation for a living, will be
more grievously burthened for the prosecution of
criminals than for the support of paupers.

THE CURRANT CROPS.—Advices from Cephalonia,
Zante, Ithaca, and Patras reach down to the sth of Au-
gust. The crops are likely to be under the usual average
from the dryness of the season.

The collectorship of the customs of Bristol, vacant by
the superannuation of Thomas Morris, Esq., has been
conferred on the late assistant-secretary to the Board of
Customs, John Ker, Esq.
W“.l. OF COL. FAWCETT.—The will of this gentleman
has just been proved in Doctors' Commons'. The pro-
perty is sworn under £3OOO. The following remarkable
sentence occurs :—" In the event of the death of myself
and my said wife at the same period of time, from acci-
dent or unforseen causes," &c.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH AND REPEAL.—III pursuance
of a regular summons, a cabinet council was held on Sa-
turday. at Mr. O'Connell's non-official residence in Mer-
rion•square, for the purpose of taking into consideration
such paragraphs of the Royal speech as had reference to
the repeal sedition at present organized in Ireland, and
to found a report thereon.

DEATH FROM CUTTING A CORN.—Died, o❑ the 17th
instant, aged 64, Mr. Richard Herbert, of Beaconsfield.
About ten weeks since deceased cut a corn on his foot till
it bled ; he neglected it, and iuflamation ensued. This
confined him to his bed for about six weeks, when a fatal
termination took place from mortification.—Aylesbury
News.

---
REPEAL INTIMIDATION.—The Newry Telegraqh states
that many Protestants in the neighbourhood of Keady,
in the county of Armagh, are joining the repeal ranks
through fear, in consequence of the organization of the
repealers, and their method of recognition by cards is-
sued from Dublin ; but, above all, in the absence of
Military to protect the loyal and right-hearted.
SYDNEY SHIPPING.—The number of vessels arrived
at Sydney, New South Wales, from the Ist of January
to the 31st of March, this year, amounted to 119, whose
united burdens made 26,813 tons, by which 1,615 passen-
gers had arrived. The departures during the same period
weld.e2r3et2o,
.12218, vB3e s3s el
tons, s , tle
aangdg r et
hg ae t e burdensoo
ff
passengerswhich am o uw.nat-
g

Two young Englishmen, .
driven by want to commit a
highway robbery near Salbris, France, were tried, on
the 22nd, at Blois. The jury, taking. into consideration
their youth and repentance, and the circumstances under
which coxttheelir:ed fifteen i t as
months.m ueh
tp: t
a rna d t
t dh. e
as possible ; and the Court sentenced the eldest to only
two y the
ear imprisonment,
crimp:pr ws peenr i s
o•
m