The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-11-13 00:00:00

LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—THURSDAY.
KEY v. NIELD.—This was an action tried before the Re-
corder of the city of Chester, for work and labour done, when
Ole jury found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Dunn applied to the Court for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, on the grounds that the ver-
dict was agziinst the evidence, and also either upon misdirection
or non-direction of the Learned Recorder, but. which he could
not say, as no person who was ene yard distant from the Re-
corder could hear what the learned gentleman uttered.
Mr. Baron Alderson-7-If the Recorder cannot be heard you
cannot show a misdirection, when it may turn out the direction
was a p-roper one.
'Mr. Dunn.—My Lord, I will go on the nonAirection.
Mr. Baron Aldersou.—lf the jury could not hear, can yon'
undertake to say the Recorderdid not direct them.
Mr. Dunn here read an affidavit of a gentleman upon the in-
audibility of the Recorder.
Mr. Baron Parke.—You had better go upon the evidence.
Mr. Dunn having stated the case, the Court granted a rule.
MONDAY.

AGAR V. BLETHETT AND COLLINS.—In this case the Court
ordered an issue, to ascertain whether the plaintiff was legally
the husband of Mary Burdock, who was convicted of poisoning
Mrs. Smith, at Bristol, and executed for the crime. Mr. Baron
Gurney heard the case at'Bristol, when the jury found that the
plaintiff was thl husband of the deceased, by which decision he
claimed all her money and effects.
Mr. Sergeant Merewethei now, on behalf of the defendant,'
who were the trustees of the plaintiff's late wife, moved for a
rule for a new trial. Mary Williams married Charles Agar in
1819. Her husband shortly afterwards being displeased with
some irregularity in her conduct, patted from her. They bad
not been separated long before he wished to live with her again.
She refused, and he ultimately left her in Bristol living in
adultery with au individual named Wade, who, on his death,
left-her £5OO in cash, and his stock in trade to the value of
-t750. She afterwards married a man named Burdock, having
no reason, from his protracted absence, to believe that her first
husband was alive. She settled her property on herself and
husband, and, at a later period, on the children she had had by.
the plaintiff. Subsequently to her death the plaintiff snade his
appearance, and laid claim to all her property. The learned
Sergeant argued that as the deceased, by living in &idultery, had
rendered Agar free from all liability on her account, it must
consequently be inferred that the wife possessed herself the
means of support, and had power to contract debts, and was
therefore entitled to dispose of her property in any way she
pleased. .
The Court not concurring in this view,.
Mr. Sergeant Merewether then urged that if the plaintiff, as
her husband, took all her effects, so he must, by the same rule,
be bound to pay the trustees the expenses incurred in the de-
fence of his wife at her trial for murder.
The Court said that it could nut make any order. If the
trustees could proceed against the plaintiff for the expenses
they could du so without the intervention of the Court.
The rule was refused.

THE REV. MICHAEL CROTTY.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DUBLIN, TUESDAY, Nov: 10.

JUDGMENT.

CROTTY V. AVM A !lON —The Chief Baron delivered the judg-
ment of the court on the demurrer, whic',i ha! been argued at
such length. His lordship said, the slander complained of was
contained in a letter, to which the defendant .pleaded justifica-
tion. The first question for the court to consider wa:4. whether
the demurrer should be allowed or overruled. The second was,
whether the matter contained in the letter was libellous or not.
After reciting the several plea, his lordship said the court did not
think that the pleas covered the whole slander, and therefore
that the demurrer should be allowed. The letter proceeded
thus, " He is running all over the country like the spirit of
darkness, seeking whom he may devour." It was difficult to
express more defamatory language. It was contended that he
only used scriptural language. It was true, indeed, that it was
scriptural language; but descriptive of the devil himself, and
used in the strongest terms, just as if applied to the devil him-
self. It was not possible to conceive any language more calcu-
lated to inspire hatred, particularly in the minds of the lower
orders. It was libellous to expose any one to public hatred or
execration ; hut not content with this, he calls upon Michael
Crotty. to whom the slander is lrrtten, ti, tarn him out of the
parish. He says, "Yon know he is a depraved wretch." Is
It passible to conceive anything snore mischievous, when
writ-
ten of a clergyman ? The letter proceeds, " Ynu can put bun
out of the parish; I therefore call upon you so to do." This,
and the latter part of the libel affirmed the writer's intentions.
It was said the words should be taken in their spiritual sense.
It was contended they meant that the people should hold no
spiritual communion with him ; but there was nothing in the
letter that would confine the words to that. It was clear that
the words meant general communication, because the defendant
called on Michael Crotty to put him out of the parish, not spi-
ritually but corporally. In this next place, the defendant seeks
to justify, on the plea that he bad been a Roman Catholic
priest, and had officiated as such—that he was subject to the
discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, and .that, according
to the discipline of that church, he had been excluded from the
communion of that church, which means excommunieation. It
went on to say that the plaintiff was guilty of several breaches
of discipline. and that the Rev. James O'Shaughnessy degraded
him, and that he did so under the authority he held as bishop
over the district, and that it was his duty- to excommunicate
him, acting as he had done. It should be recollected that there
were two species of excommunicatione---the greater and the
lesser; the lesser keeps the party from a participation in the
sacraments; the greater from all social intercourse or commu-
nication ; and when the defendant in his plea speaks of excom-
munication by the Rev. Mr. O'Sbaughuessv, it is !merely from
the church; but when he calls upon the leev. Michael Crotty
to put in force the greater punishment, by his total exclusion
from the parish, the lesser sentence could never justify the
greater punishment. The entire gist of the complaint seemed
to be, the complete success of the plaintiff in soliciting the pa-
rishioners to procure a chapel in which he might officiate, and
for this he is called a "depraved wretch." It was the first time
that a clergyman, having
fur his object the conciliating his pa-
rishioners over to himself, and making friends of them, was to
be called the devil. Under all the circumstances, the coact was
of opinion, that there was not, in any manner whatever, any
Part of the libellous matter justified.

MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT AT THE EIKLE FERRY.
DEATH OF MR. J. H. RICHARDSON.

We have this week the melancholy duty to announce in our
columns the sudden termination of the life of a most active, en-
terprising, and useful member of the community, whilst in the
discharge of his professional engagements in the north of Scot-
land. Mr. John Henry Richardson, the secretary to several of
the shipping societies at North Shields, and the returning officer
for the borough of Tynernouth, had been deputed by the com-
mittees, in conjunction with Alexander Bartleman, jun., to
proceed to Thurso, in consequence of the loss of the ship Ocean,
of Newcastle, in order to attend the sale of the wreck and pre-
servation of the stores, &c. They had completed the object for
which their journey had been undertaken, and were on their
way home, when, according to a letter received from Mr. Bar-
tleman, in crossing the Meikle Ferry, at the Dornach Frith, by
the ferry-heat, with about seventeen passengers, and having
arrived within fifteen or twenty yards of the shore, the boat
struck on an anchor, which immediately caused her to fill. Mr.
Richardson, being an excellent swimmer, was the first to leap
overboard, in order to reach the shore; lint the tide setting off
the point of laud drove him into the current, so that those in the
boat could render hint no assistance. One of the ferrymen then
=do a similar attempt, and was also driven into the current,
butfortunatelv succeeded in reaching a small boat moored at a
little distance, and was thus the mearte-of saving et the rest- of
the lives, as by this time the boat was nearly under water. Im-
mediately the passengers were landed Mr. Baitlemitn and four_
others pushed' offinto the curtest, to render assistance to their
struggling companion. After rowing nearly a mile they came
up with the body, which was still floating, but the head under
water. Every possible despatch was used in getting Mr. Ri-
chardson into the boat, and in reaching the shore, but life appear-
ed extinct ; and, as no houses were near the landing-place, the
body was placed in the coach which was waiting for the passen-
gers, and was driven as fast as possible to the town of Tain,
where two medical gentlemen attended, and tried every means
used on such occasions fur nearly an hour without effect. Mr.
Bartleman states further, that the kindness and attention of the
magistrates and principal inhabitants to him, under the trying
circumstances in which he was placed, had been very great, and
those from the person (Mrs. Ellison) who keeps the inn, beyond
all praise. Mr. Richardson, as a public notary, generalship
insurance agent, and a man of business, was greatly respected
and looked up to by his fellow-townsmen in Newcastle; in pri-
vate life he was kind, generous, and disinterested ; and his me-
lancholy death will he severely felt, and much and deservedly
lamented.—Glasguiv paper.

PARTS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.—The Museum of''
Natural History, at the Garden of Plants, Paris, every year
augments its valuable collections. That of reptiles and fishes
is composed of 5,880 species, and 21,350 individuals. The divi-
sion of the insects and crustacea have increased this year by
7,019 species, and '15,000 individuals. In the class of insects
are more than 30,0(X). which are described, and as many which
have not yet received a designation. The collection of mollusca
and zoophytes has received an addition of 550 species of living
shells, 380 fossils, and 300 dead and presersed in bottles. On
an average there are four individuals to each species. The
collections of comparative anatomy have .been enriched this
year by 31 skeletons, 146 preparations in spirits, 30 dried speci-
mens, and 15 new moulds of fossil fragments, of which 294
casts have been sent into the different departments and
abroad. As to the dried plants the herbal is considerably aug-
mented by the arrival of the rich collections made in India by
M. Jaquemout, consisting of 16,000 new specimens. Geology
has received considerable augmentations since 1833; more than
5,000 specimens of rocks have arrived; also a methodical col-
lection of fossil plants, containing 1,500 specimens. The mine-
ralogical department is less complete. The series of Varieties
in the colours of the species corindon, topaz, emerald, euclase,
spinefle. An expense of 10,000 fr would be necessary to put
this department on a par with the grand European collections.
The Library is composed of 13,5(X) volumes. The budget of
this establishment was fixed at 36,1.1X10fr. for 1831; an addition
of 61.0001 r. has beam obtained for 1835, in order to complete cer-
tain imperfect series. There are still ;many lacunaa in the or-
gatitc fossil remains of the ancient world.

TO 'rim ELECTORS OF CARLOW.
Da eityss NS ABBEY, Gth Nov., 1835.
FEf.LOW-COUNTRYMEN,-1 beg your pardon—l humbly beg
your pardon—for baying recommended to your soffiages that
most incomprehensible of all imaginable vagabonds, Alexander
Raphael: But the truth is, he deceived me—he altogether de-
ceived me. There is only one consolation, that he has precluded
himself front ever deceiving any one else again.
I am bound to acknowledge that 1 had been cautioned against
him—that I had been told he was a faithless creature, who never
observed any c utract, and with whom no person ever had a
dealing without being sorry for it. 'Why then did I disregard
these cautions ? Fur two reasons. First—l am in the habit
of, perhaps, undervaluing the effect of calurnny—and as to ca-
lumny itself, I know by the experience of a long life, that the
best of actions and purest of motives cannot, Ir. many cases,
mitigate calumny. I therefore treated Lore lightly than it now
seams I should have done those who condemned him. Secondly
—He had long solicited my support to obtaiu a seat in parlia-
ment. He canvassed me for assistance as a radical, when he
avowed himself a candidate for Westminster. After that spe-
culation was given up, he sought my aid at the last general
election; and-upon my return to Loudon he assailed me with
professions of purity and patriotism, taking up expressions of
mine, of my attachment to those who were friendly to Ireland;
and in his letters declaring hiMself the most ardent friend of
our unhappy country.
Perhaps f should not have attended to him—l probably was
wrong even in believing him; but this at least is in my favour;
that before I recommended him to your notice I obtainetlaroto
him a declaration of public principles, signed by him,- and of
which I was at
_liberty to make use publicly, if, as your repre-
sentative, he swerved from any of them in the slightest degree.
Sueh is my excuse for having at any time beeu deceived by
so very worthless a being, as his late mean and malignant, but,
at the same time, almost unintelligible attack upon me, proves
him to be. The disclosure of correspondence written in that
absence of caution with which men write when they do not
foresee the possibility of meeting the public eye, places him in
a predicament so deplorable, as to be an object of pity rather
than of reprobation or mere contempt.
This is my apology for having recommended to you so base a
man us he now shows himself to be—indeed he is at present a
creature so paltry as to be below reproach. Let me give you
just this specimen of this man's mendacity. There is iu his
publication this passage—mark the hypocritical candour ! !
"11hat I should not do him an injustice, it is fair that I should,
in conclusion, observe, that the second sum of £lOOO has been
accounted for by his paying in cash £350 to Mr. Baker towards
the law charges, and after repeated applications made for the
balance, by giving him a bill for it at a tong date, drawn by Mr.
,O'Connell himself on the self seine brewers as the £3OO before
alluded to was drawn for." _

Perhaps there never were so many falsehoods stuffed into so
small a space. It may amuse to analyse them.
Ist. It is false that the second £lOOO was accounted for in the
way stated. This is a pure invention—a simple falsehood.
2d. " Paving in cash £3.sotoMr. Baker towards law charges.'
I never'paid £350„ or one shilling, to Mr. Baker towards law
charges, or f,r any purpose. This is a Complicated falsehood..
3d. "And after repeated applications made to him for the,
balance." Mr. Baker never made to me any such application
—no person ever applied tome, or had any occasion Io apply to
me, for any balance. This is a multitudinous falsehood.
4th. "By giving him a bill at a I.rug date, drawn by Mr.
O'Connell himself, on the self same brewers," &c. I never
gave Mr. Baker a bill for any sum upon any brewer or brewers,
or any bill at any date. This is a similar falsehood with the
last.

sth. "As the £3lO before allttled to was drawn upon." Nei-
ther the £BOO, or any part of it, was paid to any person by a
bill drawn on any brewer or brewers. I never in my life 6ew
a bill on any brewer. This m:lkes falsehood the fifth and last.
After this specimen I think it is not going too far to say, in
the usual Irish phrase—that you, Alexander Raphael, are." a
mighty great liar."
I have dwelt too long on this subject ; I cannot conclude,
however, without stating that Raphael was aware that not one
shilling of the i.:2000 was, directly or indirectly, for me or for
my use; that I received the money merely as the trustee of Mr.
Vigors, who was the person liable to all expenses, I having been
his surety as between him and Raphael. I have to add, that I
paid Mr. Vigors at the time, and as he called for it, the entire
£2OOO, not only to the last farthing, but that I actually made a
mistake, and overpaid him by £l5, a mistake which he soon
discovered, and, of course, repaid me that sum.
As Raphael has had the indescribable meanness to publish
letters which certainly were not intended for publication, it may
be necessary to state, for the sake of the public, why the £2OOO
were required from him, as the purposes were strictly legal, and
beyond reproach ; if Mr. Vigors agrees with me, as I think he
will, in the propriety of that course, I will satisfy the public on
these points.
In the meantime, fellow-countrymen, this incident has tatiglit
me just so much of caution as never again to hold too lightly
representations by honest and experienced men against indi-
viduals who thrust themselves upon me, awl whose character I
have myself no personal means of estimating. The baseness in
the present case is at once almost equally incredible and unin-
telligible. If I could understand the man, he might surprise
but could not wound me. After all I, can afford to forgive him
this annoyance.
I have the honour to he, fellow-countrymen, your ever faith-
, ful servant, DANIEL. O'CONNELL.

TO DANIEL O'CONNELL, ESQ., M.P.
Ca tow, November 3, l83:3.
. Mr. DEAR O'CONNELL,—Hating seen iu one of the. Dublin
papers of yesterday, a letter from Mr. Raphael, of London, in
which he refers to certain transactions relating to his late elec-
tion for this county and the subsequent petition, I,do not delay
a moment in stating that the insinuations conveyed against you
in that gentleman's letter respecting pecuniary matters, are
perfectly unfounded. I make use of the wool insinuations, for
I see no direct charge, nor indeed can I by any means divine
the object of publication. The whole of the sum handed to you
by Mr. Raphael to cover the expenses of the contest in which
he was returned for this county, was transmitted by you to the
county through toe, to the uttermost fraction. The greater
portion of the money being intended to defray expenses incurred
in this county was necessarily remitted by bills on Dublin.
If it were not superfluous for me to 'bear testiaionv to the
people of Ireland in any proceedings in which )our bOnour is
involved, I would add that in all the transactions between Mr.
Raphael and this county, in which you acted as the mutual
friend of both parties,. and tb all of whit', I believe I was privy,
yoUr conduct was most liberal, upright, and honourable.
Believe me ever yours, N. A. VtGOLIS.