The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-10 00:00:00

LOCAL NEWS.

CORPORATION ACCOUNTS.—It is stated that the ac-
counts for the past year are now being made up, and that
they will exhibit a most gratifying result. The town
dues of last year exceeded the preceding by upwards o
£7,000! They were last year upwards of X 63,004 they
are this year above £70,000. The interest on the sales to
the Dock Trustees and Birkenhead Commissioners, to-
gether with a reduction of one-half per cent. on a large
portion of the bonded debt, will augment the ordinary
sources of income to not less than £20,000.
WHOLESOME AND REFRESHING BEVERAGES.—Mr.
Sainsbury, from Bath, has, it will be observed, opened a
very neat shop in Exchange-street East, for the sale of a
superior quality of soda water, &c. He has brought
with him testimonials of their excellence and sanatory
qualities from the most celebrated medical men of the
tashionable locality named, as well as from distinguished
private individuals • and, from what we have already
heard of their fine individuals;
and efficacy, we would recom-
mend an early trial, whether to those who sacrifice occa-
sionally to Bacchus, or to those who abstain altogether
from potent potations.
COFFEE.—The acknowledged superiority of in flavour of
coffee newly roasted and ground over that submitted to
the action air, has called forth many ingenious modes of
preserving that excellence so much desired—but by far
the most simple and successful, in our opinion, is that ad.
vertised in our paper of to-day by Mr. Walters, of Great
George-street, The coffee is roasted on the premises,
and immediateiy on being gaound, (in which process I
steam is used) it is canistered in air tight tin cases, by
which the fine aroma flavour is retained for almost any
length of time. To persons who reside out of town, to
captains, and, in fine, to all, the advantage must at once
be apparent. The grert difficulty of preserving roasted
coffee at sea, which with the action of the damp, becomes
tough and bad to grind, as well as void of flavour—is by
this means at once obviated.
COLLEGIATE INSTITUTION.—The first lecture of Mr.
Hicklin upon the " History of Printing" was given, on
Friday evening, to a respectable auditory. After a few
introductory remarks upon the importance of the art of
printing, which were loudly cheered, the able lecturer
proceeded to trace its origin and progress, from the Ba-
bylonian brick and the Roman stamp to the invention of
wooden blocks for the dissemination of religious pictures
among the people, a variety of which he exhibited. From
this to the invention of types, at first wooden, afterwards
metallic, the transition was easy. The opposition which
the first printers met with from the monks, the only
scribes of that age, was graphically given ; and, indeed,
when the immense labour and time consumed in writing
works is taken into consideration, it is no wonder that the
monks were alarmed at the new and easy mode of multi-
plying works, an improvement which threatened an extinc-
tion of their craft. Mr. Hicklin quoted several passages
of Shakepere, to show the lamentable ignorance which
generally existed in England at the period when printing
was first introduced and the popular prejudice against
the art. He concluded an exceedingly agreeable lecture
by the recitation of an apposite extract from the works of
Mr. James Montgomery. A printing-press, &c., will be
introduced at the lecture this evening, for the purpose of
showing, practically, the improvements gradually intro-
duced into the art.
EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT.—Yesterday. at the po-
lice-court, a young man, named William Rankin, was
charged with having embezzled several considerable sums
of money, the property of his employers. Messrs. M'Fee,
sugar-refiners, Batchelor-street. Mr. William M'Fee, a
member of the concern, stated that the prisoner had been
Custom-house clerk to the firm, and as such received
sums of money from time to time to pay the duty on
quantities of sugars. It was customary to pay in such
instances a sum or sums that would fully cover the sup-
posed amount of duty, as deposits ; and when the article
was weighed and delivered and the account accurately
made out, the surplus amount was paid back to the party.
It was stated that on the 15th, 21st, and 22d of August,
the prisoner had, for this purpose, received the respective
sums of £385, £375, and £3-10,—making in all £l,lOO.
This, it appeared, was paid to Mr. Flewker of the Cus-
tom-house, who sent a check for the amount to the credit
of the house to Mr. Norris, the collector of duties. Mr. N.
finding the three entries relating to the transaction to
amount to a total of £1,035 lls. 6d., returned to the
prisoner the sum of £64 Bs. 6d., which precisely " squared
the yards." The prisoner, it further appeared, did not
account for, but retained, this balance ; and shortly after-
wards, his engagement having terminated, he left the em-
ploy of Messrs. M'Fee. On the 30th of August the re-
turns were applied for, when it came out that the prisoner
had received them, and (it was also stated) some others,
which were not, however, inquired into. Mr. M'Fee
(the clerk before noticed) was despatched in search of him
to the Isle of Man, and with the assistance of Mr. John
Jone:, constable there, succeeded in finding and appre-
hending him in the town of Ramsay, on Friday last.
When told of the charge against him, he admitted the
fact, and asked Mr. M'Fee "whether he thought, pro.
vided the money were made up, his employer (Mr.
M'Fee, sen.,) would let him off;" to which the reply of
the clerk was that he did not know, and that he must be
taken back to Liverpool. A£s Scotch bank note was
found upon his person, and 40 sovereigns were afterwards
discovered in his carpet-bag, which last he acknowledged
were his master's property. He declined to say anything
in his defence at this stage of the proceedings against him,
and was committed for trial at the sessions.
APPREHENSION OF A MAN CHARGED WITH A MUR-
DER COMMITTED ELEVEN YEARS AGO.—On Saturday
a police-officer named Harrington, of the Inchageela
(County of Cork,) constabulary, brought before the
magistrates, a man named Cornelius Reardon, whom
he had apprehended by a warrant granted by the justices
of the peace of Inchageela, on a charge of having mur-
dered a man named Cornelius Sullivan, so far hack as the
year 1833. The prisoner, who is a low, thick-set young
man, of prepossessing appearance, had fur a considerable
' length of time been living at 51, Atherton-street, under
the name of John Macarthay. He is a married man, and
has two children, but his marriage took place in Liverpool,
after the alleged murder; and when apprehended, his wife,
a woman of respectability, knew not but that his name
was Macarthy. On first coming to Liverpool the prisoner
was employed by Mr. Morgan O'Connell, of North John-
street, or subsequently, and when taken into custody he was
;in the service of Mr. Thompson, ship chandler. The cir-
I cumstances relative to the alleged murder are these : The
murdered man, Sullivan, was a small but respectable
farmer living at Illaninaghi near to Macroom, in the
j county of Cork, and the accused party, Cornelius Rear-
don, was also a farmer living in the same neighbourhood.
In the month of February, 1833, the deceased was driving
pies to a pound, when the prisoner, who had a grievance
against him, it is, said, " dogged" him, and knocked
out his brains with a spade. Not the slightest doubt at
the time existed as to who was the murderer, but the
prisoner managed to abscond, and has since the time of
the murder been living in the heart of the town of Liver-
pool, notwithstanding that the police in Ireland have for
eleven years' been in daily search of him. The circum-
stances which led to the prisoner's apprehension are
these :—lt appeared that the prisoner had r. ad a
quarrel with a fellow-countryman, who lived in the
same house with him, and to whom his guilt was
known ; after the quarrel this man left Liverpool,
and went to live in his native place, in Ireland, near
to the scene of the murder ; and, out of revenge for the
difference which had existed between him and the priso-
ner, betrayed his former friend, and gave information
which threw him into the hands of the police.—The
constable who executed the warrant, applied to Mr.
Rushton to have the prisoner detained until Tuesday, as no
vessel before that day would sail for Cork, and if he took
him to Dublin, the land conveyance was such that it
would be Tuesday before lie arrived at his destination.—
; Mr. Rushton said it was to the interest of the prisoner
that he should be conveyed with all possible despatch to
I the tribunal where the charge would be made, as he
might perhaps have that to urge which would prevent a
'committal ; moreover, he had an objection to order the
detention of any prisoner under such circumstances, in
the main bridewell ; he must be taken off forthwith.—
The prisoner was then given into the charge of the officer,

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY, SEPT. 2.
DECISION OF THE JUDGES.

The House of Lords met this day at ten o'clock, when
immediately the house was crammed.
After a short interval, the case of O'Connell a. the
Queen was called on, when the greatest anxiety was ma-
nifested.
Lord Chief Justice Tindal said—ln this case the first
question propounded to her Majesty's judges was if any
of the counts in the indictment were bad in law, and if
so, which of them? The answer to this question (upon
which all the judges were unanimous) must depend upon
the framing of the different counts. If the counts had
been drawn in loose and v gue terms, the defendants were
entitled to the benefit of them on demurrer, and they
were entitled to the same benefit in writ of error. To
constitute the offence of conspiracy, it must be clearly
proved that two or more persons combined together for
' known illegal purposes. The gist of the offence was, did
the parties meet together for the purpose of knowingly
breaking the laws? Now the wording of the first five
counts in the indictment were not disputed ; those counts
related to the character of the offence; the 6th and 7th
counts charging the defendants with creating dissatisfac-
tion in the minds of her Majesty's subjects, &c. The
judges all agreed that these counts did not state the offence
charged in the indictment with sufficient legal accuracy
and certainty. Although the object of the defendants
might be to break the law, they considered that it wasnot
stated with sufficient certainty. The counts ought to have
stated what person or persons it was intended to intimi-
date and raise discontent in, but the counts only alleged
that such intention was certain by a display of numbers.
They did not think those counts had been drawn up with
sufficient certainty. The Sth, 9th, and 10th counts in the
indictment set forth the purpose and objects of
the defendants, which, it was alleged, were an intent to
violate the laws of the land, diminish confidence in
the existing government, and bring into disrepute
the administration of justice. Now if either of those
offences was proved, it was a most grievous •rid se-
rious offence. The answer of the judges therefore
to the first question propounded to them was, that they
were of opinio❑ the 6th and ith counts were not valid in
law, and if they had stood alone, no jueginent could have
been had on there. The next question then arose with
respect to the finding of the jury—whether there were any
errors in the finding. They all :greed that the finding cf
the jury on the Ist, 2d, 3d, and 4th counts were not sound
in law, as set forth in the itelict &had not been sus-
tained by legal evidence. Each count charged all tire
defendants with one conspiracy, and therefore there
ought to have been only one finding. It was not compe-
tent to find some of the defendants guilty of some
pits of the charge, and others not guilty. It was net

a valid finding to say that the, defendants were guilty of
several conspiracies, when the counts only charged them
with one. The judges, thdrefore, considered the findings
in the first four counts.were not correct in law, and there-
fore improperly entered on the record.

The third question was. whither there was any reason
to revers:• the judgment, in consequence of the defect in
the finding of the jury in some of the counts in the indict-
ment ? On this point there was a difference of opinion
amongst the judges, and therefore he now only delivered
his own humble judgment. Ile was of opinion, that if
one or more counts on which a defendant was convicted
were good, and some of the other counts were defective,
it was not a sufficient reason to reverse the judgment on
writ of error. Their lorthhips' question must, therefore,
be answered in the negative.

The fourth questi4icas, whether the plea of abatement
was a sufficient' ecaible: to reverse the judgment? The
judges are all of opinion that ft was not ; and their lord-
ships' question must be answered in the negative.
The fifth question was, whether 'the trial being conti-
nued during the vacation, was a sufficient reason to re-
verse the judgment? The judges all agreed that the tilel
had been properly continued, and therefore they ans-
wered the question in the negative.
The sixth questiettevas, whether there was sufficient to
reverse the judgment, in consequence of the objections
taken by the eletendants to the jury panel. The judges
were of opiaien that the sheriff was bound to select the
jury from the jut:), book. He could not be held respon-
sible if a Mistake occurred ; for instance, an overseer in
the country might neglect, or there might be a mistake in
the sending in the jury list of a particular parish in the
county. If that was held to be a valid objection, the
greatest difficulties would arise in England. Business at
county assizes might be suspended, as all trials could be
stopped by cne party or another. The judges were alt
agreed that the objections taken,. to the jury list were not •
sufficient, and this question must be answered in the
negative.
The seventh question, whether the objections taken to
the continuance of the trial were sufficient to reverse the
judgment, the judges were of opinien they were not;
that the trial had been properly continued, and they
therefore answered the question in the negative. •
The next ancLecighth question was, whether there was
Eufficien t to rev-dtse or v4ry the judgment, in cons, quence
of negligence or irregularity in entering the recognizancese
'This question the judges answered in the negative;
they did nct.ponsider sufficient had been stated to reverse
the-judgment.
The ninth question, whether sufficient bad been stated
on the assignnient of error to reverse the judgment, the
judges answered in the negative.
The tenth questioe, whether sufficient grounds for re-
versing the judgment, in consequence of irregularity in
, the record and the time of entering the judgment of
guilty against the prisoners, the judges were of opinion
. the answer must be in the negative. They were of opinion
' there was no sufficient reason to reverse the judgment.
The eleventh and last question he (Lord Chief Justice
Tindal) considered must be ansees.d altogether in the
negative. He gave this as his own opinion only, as he
understood some of his learned brothers took a somewhat
different view of parts of the question.
Mr. Justice Patteson said be agreed with the answers
given to their lordships' questions, except as to those
which related to the first, second, third, and fourth counts;
he thought on those counts the judgment of the court be-
low could not be sustained. He was of opinion, how-
ever, that the other counts were good.
Mr. Justice Maule shortly stated, that he agreed in the
answers given to their lordships' questionS. He was of
opinion that the- judgment could not be reversed on the
writ of error.

Mr. Justice Coltman said, he was of opinion that there
was sufficient substantially to support the judgment; al-
though there were some technical imperfections in the
proceedings.
Mr. Justice Williams considered there was enough sta-
ted in the record to sustain the judgment. He,therefore,
answered all their lordships' questions in the negative.
Mr. Baron Gurney, who spoke in a low tone of voice,
was understood to say that he agreed in the propriety of
the judgment, and therefore his answers to the questions
were in the negative.
Mr. Baron Alderson at some length stated his opinion
on the questions prop)unded to the judges. It was the
rule of courts to give judgment on the good counts of an
indictment, and not on the bad counts, and, therefore, in
considering a writ of error, it was necessary to ascertain
whether there was sufficient in any of the counts to sup-
port the judgment appea•.ed against. The learned baron.
in conclusion, said his answer to all their lordships' ques-
tions must be in the negative, and in confirmation of the
judgment pronounced by the court below.
Mr. Baron Parke said it must he recollected, when
considering the questions submitted to the judges, that
convictions in criminal eases were very different to ver-
dicts in civil actions. If on writs of erior verdicts in
civil cases were set aside, a new trial might be had ; but
in criminal cases the effect was different, as the p i oner
was at once set at liberty. The learned baron, after citing
a number of legal authorities, said he could not altogether
agree with the majority of his learned brethren. He felt
bound to answer the third and the eleventh questions in
the affirmative. He answered the other questions in the
negative.
Lord Chief Justice Tindal said, one of his learned bro-
thel s (we could not hear which) was too unwell to attend;
but he had authorised him to say that his answer to the
questions was in the negative.
The Lord Chancellor, after the judges had read their
opinions, rose and said, the case before them was one of
the greatest importance ; he therefore moved that its fur-
ther consideration be adjourned until Wednesday next.
Lord Brougham,—And that' the opinions of the judges.
be printed in the meantime.
The Lord Chancellor.—Yes, certainly.
The consideration of the judges' opinions was then
postponed until Wednesday.
Continued on 2nd page.

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-MONDAY.

CROSSKILL V. GROUNSEL.

This case was resumed.

Mr. KNOWLES briefly addressed the jury.
His Loanstur then summed up, and the jury, after a
few minutes' consultation in the box, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff.

RIGHT OF FOOTPATH THROUGH A FIELD.
PAST V. JAMES ELLISON.

Mr. MARTIN, for the defendant, stated this case to the
jury.
Mr. John Part, of the firm of Woodcock and Part,
Solicitors, Wigan, appeared as plaintiff, but was only no-
minally so, the real plaintiff being C. Scarisbrick, Esq..
a wealthy proprietor in the neighbourhood of Wigan;
and the action was brought against the defendants, James
Ellison, a weaver, and another, for breaking down certain
walls that blocked up a certain foot-walk leading through
a field, known as " Folly Field, " near Wigan-lane,
(north of the town,) and which the plaintiff had in No-
vember last enclosed for beneficial purposes to himself.
The defendant stated, in defence, that the road, which
had been in public use as long as the oldest inhabitants of
the neighbourhood could remember, ought not to be so
blocked up. Hundreds had daily passed along it for at
least 70 years. A number of witnesses, all of them of
the defendants, and proved
question (and also another path,
respect to which another action had to be heard) had
ggereanetrally age, twhaetretblehen road calledin b
been in use upwards of 60 years without interruption to
those who used them. After a variety of tedious evi-
dence was heard, as to the long usage by the public o
the particular foot. path referred to in this action, the
plaintiff agreed to withdraw a juror, so that the case fell
to the ground, it being understood that an arrangement
would be made for the accommodation of defendants.
The other case was by consent similarly disposed of.

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

VON DADELZEN V. LUND AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Baines and Mr. Denman were cOtinsel for the
plaintiff, Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton appeared for
the defendants.

The plaintiff was a German merchant, carrying on bu-
siness in Liverpool on an extensive scale; and the de-
fendants were soap manufacturers in this town. It ap-
peared that, in Sept. 1834, the defendants had a quantity
of palm oil on hand, and they were anxious to notice the
stock without at the same time bringing down the price
of the article in the market. They accordingly consulted
Mr. J. 11. Reiner, a broker, and it was agreed that Mr.
Von Dadelzen should take 203 tons of oil at £27 per ton,
he, at the same time binding himself to sell to Vie (Wen-
darts some time between the let of February and the
I 30th of June the same quantity at t'le sane price. After
I that the price of the oil began to rise, and the deendan •
were congratulating themselves on their profitable wen-
, lations. The price continued to Elie during the months
of February and March, after which time its tendency.
' was downwards. On the 18th of Ju- e the plrinliff wrote
to the defendants, informit g them of 1,6 re sdiness to deli-
ver the 2:0 tons. On the 22nd he rgiin wiote, informinc
them that the oil was landing, hut, receiving no answer,
he, along with Mr. Reyner, waited uoon the defendants.
They saw Mr. Lund, who said Mr. Unsworth knew about
it, and lie would have nothing to do pith the matter. Mr.
Reyner wrote out a del very order; but Mr. Lund re-
fused to sign it. Nothing more was heard of the matter
till Saturday, the 29th of June, when, after Mr. Von Da-
delzen bad left the office, the delivery orders were sent to
be signed. Mr. Von Dadelzen not being at his office,
his clerks refused to sign the orders, and on the ground
inlnidasadt
ne
ot refutedb
being
ee completedi.nntokr
pcte—ilesetec according
oil.tr dh that
gAt tothe
e..
cagreementthatthe
ct contract
et roci
defendants
ad
markets were falling—was sold by auction. The gross
amount of sale was £5,012 2s. 3d. ; and after deducting
expenses plaintiff received only £4,930 15s. 2d. The price
at which the oil was invoiced to the defendants was
£5,228 4s. Id., so that loss accrued to the plaiktiff of
£297 Bs. 3d., which sum the plaintiff sought to recover.
After a long investii:ation the jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount clalmel

INDICTMENT.- REGINA V. THE MAN'CIIESTER AND

LIVERPOOL RAILWAY.

This was en indictment preferred by the boroughreeve
and constables of Salford against the Company of the Li-
verpool and Manchester Railway, for a nuisance alleged
to have been committed in violation of their act of Par-
liament, by the placing of pillars for the support of a
bridge in New Bailey-street, Salford, which contract:a
the foot ay on each side to the extent of two feet six
inches. The questions resoled thewselves 'into a point
of law, and the jury, under his direction, found the de-
fendants guilty.
Leave was given to enter a verdict for the defendants,
should the court above he of opinion that the defendants
were authorised by their act to wake this obstruction.
The Ceurt adjourned at s;x
continued en Crd page.

Literaturr.

POETRY.

THE DYING GIRL.

And thou art dying, beautiful and young
When smiles cfjoy should on thy lips be playing,
And thou shouldst bound with sportive glee along,
111 ere merry maids are in the meadows maying.
The spring sun shineth through thy window pane,
The pleasant breeze with balmy breath is sighing,
And thou eanst hear the feathered minstrel's strain,
In that still room where thou art pale and dying.

Why is thy spirit summoned to the skies.
Untried by years, unvisited by sorrow ?
Why art thou called, ere yet thy gentle eyes
have feared to look upon the coining morrow?
Thy cheek hath never paled with anxious care,
Thy heart hath never throbbed with guilty sadness;
Even as thyself thy course was pure and fair,
Hallowed by love, and cheered with looks of gladness

Why didst thou leave thine own immortal heaven,
For earthly guests to cherish and caress thee ?
Why unto us wert thou, sweet girl, given,
And called away when we had learned to bless thee ?
Why wilt thou fashioned lovely to the sight?
Why were thine eyes with tender radiance streaming?
Why didst thou come, young being of delight,
To fade like mirage ou the pilgrim gleaming?

Selfish and weak !- -why should we wish thee here?
Pass to thy home, unspotted, happy spirit;
Hasten on blissful wing to that glad sphere,
Where thou wilt glory evermore inherit.
Mingle and dwell among the angel-band;
But, oh! while stars beneath thy path are burning,
Think thou at times upon our sinful land,
And plead for those whose gaze is upwards turning.
' The Wandering Angel, and other Poems,' by John Bol-
ton Rogerson, 1844.