The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-09 00:00:00

STABBING

Joseph Pedley was indicted for stabbing Richard Webster,
at Liverpool. On Thursday, the 21st July, the prosecutor
was in Maguire-street, and observed the prisoner holding a
little child with its face down in the hot water which pro-
ceeded from Bullen's brewery, and immediately interfered
and collared him, soon after which the prisoner took out a
knife and stabbed him in the breast, causing a wound to be
produced about two inches in, depth. The prisoner was im-
mediately apprehended.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced
to sixteen months' imprisonment and hard labour. ,
Alice Carron was brought up, and sentenced to eighteen
months' imprisonment and bard labour.
The court rose at a quarter-past five.

NISI PRIUS COURT.--FRIDAY.
(Special Jury Case.)
Bowker and Another v. Burdekin, public ollicer.—This
was an action in trover to recover possession of certain
goods, or the value of them.—Mr. Knowles, in stating the
case, said that the plaintiffs, Joseph Bowker and John
Whitelegg, were the assignees of Messrs. Richard, John,
and James Potter, bankrupts, and the defendant, Mr.
Edward Burdekin, was one of the public registered officers
of the Bank of Manchester. For many years Messrs. Potter
carried on business at Manchester, and the plaintiffs, as their
assignees, sought to recover from the bank a sum of between
£20,000 and £30,000, being the value of goods which the
defendants had obtained possession of and which the plaintffs
said the bank was not entitled to retain in opposition to the
claim of the bankrupts' assignees. There would, in fact, be
scarcely any questions for the jury, however, because, after
he had given formal proof, and shown the several ingre-
dients necessary to raise the questions, his learned friend
would then justify under the execution, and it would become
a question for the court, or perhaps for a higher tribunal, as
to which party was entitled to hold under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of the case. The bankrupts carried on business
at Birkacre, near Chorley, where the works were situate,
and at Pollard's Mill, in Ancoats, Manchester. The at-
tendance of Richard, the father, was not so regular as that

of his two sons. James was not altogether employed at the
works, and John attended at the mill, and also on 'change.
In 1841 the Potters were embarrassed ; some of their
creditors were paid by small instalments, but for the
most part not at all. That would be general evidence
of their insolvency at the time that Mr. Bowker, a cotton
merchant, and a petitioning creditor under the present fiat,
was a large creditor. the bankrupts owing him, when the fiat
was issued, the sum of £2,400. The defendant, in one of
the pleas, disputed the petitioning creditor's debt; but Mr.
Booker held a dishonoured acceptance of the bankrupts quite
sufficient to establish his claim. It was necessary to esta-
blish an act of bankruptcy in the conduct of each of the
three partners at some time previous to the issue of the fiat,
namely, the 13th September, 1841. The learned counsel
then detailed circumstances which amounted to acts of bank-
ruptcy on the part of Richard, James, and John Potter,
which it is unnecessary here to detail. The Bank of Man-
chester had made large advances to the firm on the security
of a warrant of attorney; judgment was entered upon it;
and the bank, availing themselves of their rights, put in an
execution. A question of law would arise for the considera-
tion of the court as to whether, under the circumstances of
the case, the defence as against the assignees of the bank-
rupts could be supported. The goods seized amounted to
between £20,000 and £30,000 ; and if the plaintiffs were en-
titled to recover, the next question would be to what
amount ? The learned counsel contended they were entitled
to recover the full value of the goods at the time they were
taken away by the bank. It might be urged on the other
side that what the bank ought _to pay was the amount
which the goods fetched when they were sold ; but, in an-
swer to that, he should say that the sale was grossly mis-
managed. The bank, indeed, had notice that the party to
whom the sale was entrusted was not a proper person to
manage such a sale ; and that the goods did not fetch more
than one-third of their actual value.
Mr. WORTLEY, on the part of the plaintiff, called the
attention of the learned Judge to an order from the court
above under the Interpleader act requiring the Sheriff to sell
the goods which had been seized, pay the money into court,
and directing the present action to try the right of the par-
tiet to the proceeds, the Sheriff in the mean time being in-
demnified. The money was now in court. Some discussion
on technical points connected with the practice took place,
at the end of which it was understood that the inquiry should
be directed to this point—the suggestion of a reference not
being adopted. Evidence of acts of bankruptcy was then
gone into; the fiat was put in, and the appointment of the
plaintiffs as assignees ; and evidence was also given of the
value of the goods and the mode in which they had been
sold.—Mr. Wortley then addressed the jury, contending
that in order to entitle the plaintiffs to recover the large
amount which they claimed, his learned friend must prove
an act of bankruptcy on the part of all the three Potters. As
to James Potter no proof had been given ; and as to the
other two the evidence was insufficient. The learned coun-
sel examined the facts of the case with the view of establish-
ing this proposition. The assignment relied on as an act of
bankruptcy was invalid because it was a collusive and a con-
certed act. Indeed is so great a hurry was it prepared that
James Potter had not time to sign it till after the fiat had
been issued. As to the valuation of the machinery, he con-
tended that if even the plaintiff had made out in this respect
he was entitled to only nominal damages; but if the court
should think differently, he would contend upon the evi-
dence that, when the period at which the sale took place was
considered, the proper value of them had been obtained.
Under all the circumstances, he called upon the jury to give
their verdict for the defendant. —Mr. Justice Maule having
summed up, the jury retired to consider,' their verdict, and
after a long absence they returned, giving a special verdict
for the plaintiffs, damages £15,000, on the assignment as
respected Richard Potter ; but as respects James and John,
that'they had committed separate acts of bankruptcy.
THE COMMERCIAL BANK OF ENGLAND.
Davidson, public officer, v. Heywood.—Tbis was an ac-
tion brought by Alexander Davidson, public registered
officer of the Commercial Bank of England, at Manchester,
against Richard Heywood, of Burslem, to recover £3,390,
alleged to be due from him to the bank. Mr. Knowles, Mr.
Crompton, and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and
for the defendant, Mr. Dundas and Mr. Warren.
Mr. KNOWLES said the object of this action was to recover
£3,390, which he alleged the plaintiff was entitled to recover,
eithe ras the price of certain shares sold to the defendant, or
for money lent to him to pay for those shares. On one or
other of these grounds the plaintiff would be entitled to a
verdict. The bank was established in 1834. It appeared to
be originally set on foot by a gentleman named Macardie ;
and a provisional committee, composed of the defendant,
and Messrs. Bower, Turner, Slater, and Palin. These five
gentlemen were afterwards appointed the original directors.
It was intended that the bank should consist of 100,000 shares
of £5 each, and it was the qualification that a director on the
Manchester board should hold 200 shares, and on each of
the local boards 100 shares. The five gentlemen just named,
who had been appointed provisional directors, were consti-
tuted directors, and it was resolved that their proceed-
ings should be under the supervision of the general board
of directors, which general board should be composed of
the Manchester directors, and of one man from each of
the local branches. Branches were established in Liverpool,
Burslem, and a number of other places. There was a re-
serve made, however, the particulars of which he could not
establish, by which the directors reserved 13,000 shares for
distribution among themselves. Bower, Ashton, Slater, and
the directors bad 1500 each, and Macardie had 2000, which
gave 9500 shares to the Manchester board and Macardie.
Then the local directors had 2300 to distribute among them-
selves. Among others, it would be found that the defendant,
who resided at Burslem, had 800; and he became one of the
members of the general board, in conjunction with the Man-
i cheater directors. He should, hereafter, show Che dates
when Mr. Heywood treated these shares as his own : the
exact date of their appropriation he perhaps should not be
I able to prove. Soon after the bank had been in operation,
it began to do an exceedingly profitable business. On the
0 3d February, 1836, there was a general board of the direc-
tors, at which Mr. Heywood was present, and at that meet-
ing a report was presented to the shareholders which said
I " the grand negative characteristic of this bank is the total
rejection of nominal capital." The jury would hereafter find
that the shares he was about to speak of were nominal capital
altogether. At the end of the report a dividend of 8 per cent.
was declared upon the appropriated shares of the company.
The general body of the proprietors accordingly voted thanks
to the directors, and consented to the report, which recom-
mended a dividend of 8 per cent. In that year, 1836,
these 800 shares were entered in the books, and Mr. Hey-
wood having another 100 shares, by virtue of which he was
entitled to be a director, received the dividend of 8 per cent.
upon his 900 shares. But it was part of the plan of these
gentlemen that they should borrow from the funds of the
bank the shareholders' money to pay for the shares they had
thus appropriated to themselves, and they agreed to pay the
bank interest upon the sums borrowed at the rate of 4 per
cent. On his 800 shares he received £320 as his divdend,
and then he was debited with interest on the shares from the
2d June to the 31st December, 1836, £252 18s. Bd., so that
he would be entitled to put in his pocket £67 ls. 4d., the
difference between those sums. This £67 ls. 4d. was car-
ried to the Burslem branch to the account of a firm of which
Mi. Heywood was a member, and thus he put into his
pocket, the difference between the interest he owed and the
dividend of 8 per cent. From this time the jury would find
that these shares were treated as Mr. Heywood's shares, and
at every subsequent meeting they would find that whenever
a dividend was declared of more than £5 per cent., Mr.
Heywood always got the amount of dividend after • having
paid the 4 per cent., and he bad to pay for the purchase of
the shares. After the first meeting, Mr. Heywood convened
a meeting of the Burslem proprietors, and communicated to
them what had been done in Manchester, and a vote of thanks
was voted to them in a letter from Mr. Heywood to Mr.
Bower. The next meeting was held on the 9th February,
1837, and the report of the directors was then sanctioned by
Mr. Heywood, in which the directors stated that they laid a
statement of the finances of the bank before the shareholders,
the result of which was that there had been a profit of £27,098
10s, 11d., which amounted to 101 percent. upon the paid up ca-
pital, of which £19,000 was available for the purpose of a
dividend. A dividend of 5 per cent. per annum upon the
paid up capital was declared. Mr. Heywood took that divi-
dend, and, like the former, it was carried to his credit in the
bank. The next meeting was held in February, 1838, being
the third annual meeting ; and, the directors then stated that
their paid up capital was £260,935 which included the 800
shares of Mr. Heywood, and they recommended a dividend
of 5 per cent, upon it. This dividend Mr. Heywood did not
receive upon his 800 shares. Why? Because a few days
before he had sold 200 of them to Mr. Holt; he completed
the transfer of those shares a few days afterwards ; he re-
ceived the money for those shares through the agent of the
bank ; and directed the agent how it was to be applied. He
sold those 200 shares at a profit of 12s. 6d. a share, making
£ll3B ls. 4d., which was paid in money by Mr. 13
',Olt, and
carried by the direction of Mr. Heywood to his creditin the
bank books. The meetings were afterwards altered to half-
yearly meetings, and when the directors made the report in
the August following, Mr. Heywood was there again, The
directors declared the amount of paid up capital, which in-
cluded the shares of the defendant, and they recommended a
dividend of 7 per cent. per annum, which Mr. Heywood re-
ceived on his shares. At the following half-yearly meeting a
similar statement and dividend were declared and made. At
this time some suspicions had crept into the minds of the local

lyeptar.l that this KM

tho batik, and cotigeqlieutWit vvea moved and aceettatoch that
fit the next general board meeting the current accounts at
the head branch should be submitted to inspection. They
were laid before the next board meeting, which was held on
the Ist Jan. 1840: auditors were appointed, and it was then
apparent that great irregularity had crept into the affairs of
the bank,—that the directors had borrowed large sums, and
were then largely indebted to the bank. Another half-yearly
meeting was held, at which a dividend of 21 per cent. was
declared, which Mr. Haywood put into his pocket. Soon
after this, namely, on the 27th of June, 1840, the bank
stopped payment, so far as public business was concerned,
although it was kept open even now for the purpose of wind-
ing up its own affairs or other transactions. Mr. Haywood
was then called upon to pay what he owed to the bank, and
then he declared that he had never accepted the 800 shares.
That was the question the jury would have to decide ; and
he trusted that the facts he should be able to prove would
justify them in finding a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Thomas Hebblewhite was the first witness. He said
he was one of the local directors appointed to the general
board. He proved the presence of the defendant at the
board meetings referied to, and his testimony generally con-
firmed the statements of the learned counsel. Mr. Hay-
wood was a brickmaker, and reputed to be rich, but witness
did not know whether he dealt in shares for other people.—
Thomas Jones, a clerk in the bank, produced the account
current, which it was his duty to make up from the ledger.—
Mr. Dundas objected to the production of this book, on the
ground that it had not been brought specifically under the
notice of the defendant at the general board meetings.—
The Judge allowed the objection, but took a note of the
tender of the book, and on the same ground which he had
previously refused to allow the book containing the state-
ment of the directors' accounts with the bank.—Mr. Swin-
dells proved the transfer of 200 shares from Mr. Haywood
to Mr. John Holt, for £11,251 4s.
Several formal proofs were then put, and some witnesses
examined in support of the other statements in Mr.
Knowles's address. A great variety of documentary testi-
mony was produced, which gave rise to many objections
from Mr. Dundas. The plaintiff closed his case at a quarter
to seven o'clock, at which time the court adjourned till nine
o'clock this morning.
In the course of the day the Learned Judge, in reply to
an application from Mr. Wortley, announced that after he
had concluded the first list he should proceed with the cases
in the second list, whether special or common, in their
order.

CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY

CHARGE OF RAVISHMENT

Thomas Bowker, aged 32, was charged with having com-
mitted a rape on Sarah Schofield.

Mr. Cros conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Wilkins de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared, from the evidence, the details of which are
unfit for publicotion, that the prosecutrix was a servant. On
the 9nd of May she left her place in the country, near Bol-
ton, to go to Spindle-point, close to that town, where her
parents lived. As she went on it began to rain, and she cal-
led at Lever Hall, a friend's house, where she remained until
seven o'clock in the evening, when she again set out on her
journey. Soon after, as she proceeded, she met the prisoner
and another man. She had known the prisoner before ; and
he said he had occasion to go in the direction of her home,
and would accompany her, which he did, the other man
leaving them. He made her an offer of marriage. After
proceeding about a mile and a-half on the road, when they
got near a place called Stone Cleugh, he took hold of her by
the waist, and carried her, through a gateway, into a field—
distance of forty yards—where he threw her down on a bank,
and in a short time (according to the prosecutrix's account)
forcibly effected his purpose, she continuing to scream. This
was about nine o'clock at night.
Mr. WILKINS addressed the Jury in behalf the prisoner.
The learned JUDGE summed up with great minuteness, re-
marking as he proceeded on every point on which doubts
might arise or facts be inferred.

The Jury retired to consider their verdict. After an
absencb of thirty-five minutes they came into court, and re-
turned a verdict of Guilty. His Lordship after alluding to
the peculiaratrocity of the prisoners offence, sentenced him
to transportation for life.

RAPE.
Samuel Peacock, aged, apparently, about3o, was indicted
for committing a rape on Mary Owen, at Cuerdley.
Mr. Wightman conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she
is the wife of the master of a flat, plying between St. Helens
and Fiddler's Ferry. On Sunday last the flat was lying on
a bank, opposite Cuerdley Marsh. Her husband had gone
somewhere on shore, and, about twelve o'clock on that day,
she left the vessel to endeavour to find him. She thought
she could most likely find him at the public house, and pro-
ceeded towards it across the Marsh by a foot-walk, which
extends about a mile. When she got about half way across,
she met the prisoner, who asked her whether she had been
mushrooming, and whether she had come from on board.
She gave him no answer and went on. She went on a little,
and, looking back saw him walking fast after her and, finally,
running. She ran on a short distance, he pursuing her till
she reached a railway, which she got over, and reached the
canal bank. The prisoner then got hold of her, and, taking
her by the shoulders, rolled her down on the bank. She
offered him her watch, or 58., or both, not to abuse her ; but
he persisted, and effected his purpose.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to be trans-
ported for fifteen years.

MANSLAUGHTER.
Wm. Cringle, sen., 52, and Wm. Cringle, jun., 19, were
charged, the former with having, at Liverpool, killed and
slain Peter Carlin, and the latter with aiding and assisting in
the act.

Mr. Hulton appeared for the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins
for the prisoners.

The elder prisoner kept a cart, as did the deceased, who
was 21 years of age. On the 6th of May, at six in the even-
ing, a quarrel and fight took place between the prisoners and
the deceased. Carlin, before the disturbance, came from on
board a vessel in the Victoria Dock, carrying a chest, which
he put into his cart. Cringle the elder was then standing
near the vessel, and said something. Carlin said, " What
are you jawing about ?" and the other struck him with a
piece of wood on the cheek, and they then began to fight.
While they were fighting, the younger prisoner was throw-
ing stones at Carlin, who ceased fighting with the father,
whom he struck very severely, and ran after the son, and
caught him. They fought some minutes. Carlin let go the
younger man, and turned to fight the elder. While the
younger men were fighting, old Cringle took up a stone, or a
piece of copper dross, the size of a man's hand, and threw
it at Carlin. It struck him on the back of the head. It did
not appear to be thrown with great force. Blood flowed from
Carlin 's head while the fight went on. He had no hat on
at the time. After the fighting was over, Carlin got his
head tied up, and went to the policeman's but at the gates
and lay down on a form. It appearei, from further evi-
dence given, that the quarrel had arisen out of the rivalship
between the respective parties, both of whom were getting
chests out of the vessel. One witness spoke to deceased
being struck three times on the head with pieces of copper
dross, thrown by the younger prisoner. The whole three fell
down several times on the pavement, and the deceased, at
one time, knocked the younger prisoner down with his fist.
There was a good deal of mystery about the origin and pre-
cise manner of the fight. Carlin was afterwards taken to
the Northern Hospital, where it was found that he was
wounded in the back part of the head, the bone being ex-
posed. A small piece of the bone, about the size of a pea,
had been chipped off, as if by an angular substance. He was
attended to, but died on the 22d of May. The immediate
cause of death was erysipelas. On the 9th of May be was
suffered to go out to attend the police-court. He had orders
to return to the hospital on leaving the court, but did not re-
turn for three days ; and the surgeon was of opinion that he,
probably, overheated himself when going about the town,
which predisposed him to erysipelas, and that he might have
recovered had he attended to the orders of the hospital. He
was not in danger on the 9th, but was so on the 12th when
he returned.

Mr. WILKINS spoke at considerable length for the pri-
soners.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after a short
absence returned a verdict of not guilty in favour of both
prisoners. They were immediately discharged.

SENTENCES

The following prisoners were then brought up for sentence.
Charles Grace, for forging a check for £4O, a second
offence, was sentenced to be transported for fifteen years.
Thomas Turk and Charles Sweet, convicted of horsesteal-
ing at Liverpool, were put at the bar. The former was sen-
tenced to be imprisoned and put to hard labour for twelve
months, and the latter for eight months.
Edward Mercer, for burglary at Liverpool, not under
aggravated circumstances, was sentenced to be imprisoned
for eighteen months, with hard labour, and the first and last
weeks of each six months in solitary confinement.

MANSLAUGHTER

James Riley stood indicted for the manslaughter of Mary
Woods, near Southport. The coroner's jury, on the inquest
on the body, had returned a verdict of accidental death.
The prisoner was the owner and driver of an omnibus run-
ning between Manchester and Southport. The. deceased
took her passage by the coach at Scarisbrick to proceed to
the latter place. The omnibus broke down, and the deceased
was so much injured that she afterwards died, and hence the
charge against the prisoner, from furious driving of the
machine, the insufficiency of the coach in strength and con-
struction to withstand the effect of driving on a rough and
broken road, and the machine being thereby upset.
A police-officer stated, that the horses, after leaving
Scarisbrick, were driven as fast as they could go. There
were ten grownup persons and two children passengers.
He described the state of the coach after the break-down,
from which it appeared that the wheels were not secured to
the axle-trees in the usual manner.

It appeared, however, that the prisoner did his utmost to
restrain the horses, and, in doing so, was dragged along the
road himself, with part of the carriage which was detached
by the shock, and that he was much bruised and injured.
There being, moreover, no distinct proof that the carriage
was peculiarly insecure, it was not considered necessary to
proceed further with the case, and the prisoner, being thus
virtually acquitted, was discharged.
Thos. Golding, a surgeon of Heaton Norris, was charged
with the manslaughter of Ruth Barnett, by unskilful treat-
ment, or neglect of attendance during her confinement. The
case was, however, scarcely opened by Mr. Brandt, when it
was found that the evidence would by no means bear out the
charge, and, under the direction of his lordship, the prisoner
was pronounced not guilty, and was discharged.
Thomas Riley was charged with the manslaughter, at Man-
chester, of John Ormerod. He had pleaded not guilty, but
now withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty. The case was
one in which stabbing was resorted to. The prosecutor was
his son-in-law. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 12
calendar months, the first and last weeks in solitary confine-
ment.
The court rose at a quarter before five o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Maule took his seat a few minutes past nine
o'clock.

DAVIDSON V. HAYWOOD.
This case, which was partly heard yesterday, was resumed
this morning, with Mr. Dundas's opening, on the part of the
defendant.

Mr. DuNDAs commenced with some general observations
on the importance of the case to the defendant, and ex-
plained that his client was not responsible for the pleas which
had been put on the record, as insinuated by his learned
friend ; they were the offspring of the special pleader, in
London, and the defendant had no knowledge of there. The
plaintiff had endeavoured to prove, that the plaintiff had
received the dividends on the eight hundred shares; but the
evidence on that point was altogether defective, for only
£67 Is. 4d. had been paid to the defendant, and that not to
his private account, but to his partnership account. As to
the other dividends, the plaintiff had furnished no proof
whatever that they had been paid to the defendant. With
regard to the sale of the two hundred shares to Mr. Holt,
the explanation was easy. They were sold for the benefit of
the bank ; the bank received the money, and not the defen-
dant. That was established beyond all doubt by the books
which bad been produced. The defendant had received no
benefit whatever from the transaction with regard to the
shares appropriated to him ; and it was his great misfortune,
like that of many other honourable men, to be involved in
this concern without having any control over its management.
He was at the Burslem branch, whilst the busy people who
were directing the whole business were at Manchester, and,
therefore, he could have no cognizance of their transactions.
In conclusion, the learned counsel strongly pressed upon
the attention of the jury the circumstance, that £67 ls. 4d.
was the only dividend (and that it was a dividend he denied)
which the defendant had been proved to have received, and

it bs¢ Itot beon provoil to bn

the eight hundrod 01144

Thee-Judge having summed up, the Jury, after a short de
liberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Daniaget
£3,300.

DEFAMATION

-BROADBENT V. CROMPTON

This was an action (before a special jury) for defamation
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff
Mr. Wilkins, Mr. 11111, and Mr. Cross for the defendant.

Mr. ATHERTON stated the nature of the pleadings.
Mr. WORTLEY stated the case. The gentleman who was
the plaintiff in this case was Mr. William Broadbent, and he
brought it before the Jury in order to obtain reparation, at
their hands, for a very serious and grave injury done him by
the defendant. Mr. Broadbent came before them to vindi-
cate his character as a man and a tradesman : he came for
reparation and compensation for a grievous injury which had
been done him. Mr. Broadbent was in the paper grade : he
had been a paper dealer in Manchester, and he had also,
within the last three years, established a paper manufactory
near Bolton. Mr. Compton was a gentleman holding a high
station in the county : he had lately had his name placed in
the commission of the peace for the county, and he was
reputed to be possessed of considerable wealth and posses-
sions. He was a gentleman (therefore, whose assertions
would carry with them very considerable weight. He was
likewise engaged in the paper trade, and was the owner of an
extensive manu actory of paper about three miles distant
from that of the plaintiff. The defendant's manufactory was
an old establishment, and for many years he had enjoyed a
comparative monopoly in that neighbourhood, and, there-
fore, it was but natural that he should view with some jealousy,
and, perhaps, with some disappointment, the establish-
ment of a new manufactory in competition with his own.
It appeared that, from some motive or other, the defendant
had thought himself justified in communicating, in a quarter
where it was most likely to be injurious to the plaintiff, as-
persions upon the plaintiff's character, both as a man and as
a tradesman, which could not but bring upon him immediate
and great inconvenience, and expose him to great loss in his
trade and also in character. All manufacturers of paper
were subject to visits from the Excise, and it was usual for
the officers to mrke periodical visits to the works of persons
engaged in that trade. The manufacturers 'were bound to
return to the Excise all the paper they manufactured ; all
the paper was afterwards put into reams ; those reams were
stamped by the Excise, and in that form the Excise certified
that the duty had been paid. In the month of January last
the Excise-officer, whose duty it was to call at the defendant's
manufactory, called there as usual for the purpose of exami-
ning and-receiving the return. On that occasion he saw the
defendant. No inquiry was made by the officer, and there
was nothing to suggest what was afterwards said by the
defendant; but, in the course of the interview between the
officer and the defendant, the defendant made use of these
expressions—" There is something wrong in the paper
trade." "Is there ?" said the officer, " what do you
mean ?" Now, if the defendant was actuated by nothing
but public motives, he, would have said so, but he took
a slip of paper and in pencil wrote down three or four
names, and at the head of the list he wrote the name of
the plaintiff. He put his finger upon that name and said,
" That man is selling paper fifteen per cent. under the mar-
ket price ; he is either running into the Gazette, he is selling
paper at such a price, or he is running the Excise." " In-
deed," said the officer ;* and something more passed, but
these were the important words which fell from the defend-
ant. It was true that the officer had this in confidence. The
officer behaved as he was perfectly justified in doing : he im-
mediately reported the matter to his superior. That superior
refused, at first, to give credence to the information, but the
officer, whose name was Goodhire, was sent back to make
further inquiry. He then asked the defendant whether he
was sure that tbe paper he alluded to was manufactured by
Mr. Broadbent : on which the defendant said, " Yes, I
know it : it is a fact : the paper I mentioned was manufac-
tured by Broadbent, and it is time that something must be
done •, ' clearly intimating, that the Excise was cheated, and
that the excise should take some measures against Mr. Broad-
bent for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent they had
been defrauded. The officer reported this to his principals,
and it was their duty not to neglect this information
coming from a gentleman of Mr. Crompton's character and
station in life. A search-warrant was, therefore, issued,
and, in the absence of Mr. Broadbent, his warehouse, in
one of the public streets of Manchester, was searched.
The premises of the plaintiff were searched from top to bot-
tom ; and all he mentioned this fact for was to tell the jury,
that it turned out that the information so conveyed to the
excise was utterly without foundation. The excise were per-
fectly satisfied : every facility was afforded to them in their
search ; and they found that there was not the shadow ( f
pretence for this very serious imputation. The next time
that Mr. Goodhire saw Mr. Crompton lie repeated to him
what had happened, and said to him, What would you ex-
pect a man to do when you had given him such informa-
tion ?" " Expect you to do ?" replied the defendant,
" I should expect you to do just what you have," express-
ing no regret or anything of the sort. The plaintiff had
afterwards considerable difficulty in ascertaining from
whom the excise had derived this information. The
officers of excise, with great propriety, refused to give
up the party. They were bound to act upon the informa-
tion, but not to expose their authority. And it was a
difficulty under which he (Mr. Wortley) should labour
that he should be obliged to call the excise-officers, who
were not always willing to disclose more than what was
absolutely necessary. Doubtless, however, they would tell
the truth, although they had given no assistance to the
plaintiff; but, at the same time, he felt confident that the
evidence would support the charge. From other sources
M. Broadbent discovered that there was every reason to
believe the defendant was the party who had made this in-
formation, and proceedings were commenced against him,
the result of which was the present action. One would have
thought that, by this time, Mr. Crompton would have had
time to reflect, having discovered that the information lie
had given to the Excise was false, and that he would have
expressed himself sorry for what had occurred. If that had
been done, proceedings would have been stopped. But, so
far from this, the defendant, on another day, met a Mr.
Stones on the station of the Bolton and Manchester Railway,
and said, " I have had a writ served upon me by Broadbent."
" What about ?" he was asked. " Because," he replied, " I
gave information to the Excise that he was running the
Excise ;" and, he added, " I would tell Broadbent to his
face, if he were here. Ido not care about him nor about his
writ : they may both be d—d." The jury, then, would judge
of the tendency of such imputations. Now, what was to be
the defence in this action ? The defendant had pleaded that
he was not guilty of making these imputations, but he should
have no difficulty in proving that. But perhaps he might
endeavour to contend, under that plea, that the communica-
tion made to the Excise was, under the circumstances, pro-
tected by law, as it was a privileged communication. He (Mr.
Wortley) contended that it would not be held as a privi-
leged communication, inasmuch as it was a purely voluntary
communication of what turned out to be entirely -false. The
other two pleas of justification were the most remarkable
that he (Mr. Wortley) had ever seen in a case of this descrip•
Lion. In point of law, those pleas were not worth a farthing.
They did not attempt to justify the real gravamen of the
charge : they did not say it was true that the plaintiff was
defrauding the excise. As to that part of the case, there-
fore, the action was undefended, and the only question then
was the damage. What could possibly be the motive of the
defendant? He had been in the enjoyment of a monopoly
in the neighbourhood; his works were old; they were not
newly constructed, embracing all the improvements made in
modern times. The plaintiff's works, on the other hand,
had been newly constructed ; a large sum of money had been
spent upon them, and that must account for the difference
in the expense of manufacturing paper. The expense of
manufacture depended also upon other circumstances. The
learned counsel concluded by expressing a hope, that, as the
defendant had been lately added to the commission of the
peace, his conduct in this case was not a sample of the way
in which he would deal with the rights of others.
Mr. Richard Goodhire, supervisor of Excise in the Bidton
District and Wigan Collection, proved the expressions uttered
by the defendants on the two occasions described by Mr.
Wortley. In his cross-examination, by Mr. Wilkins, lie
admitted, that, subsequently to the information being given,
the Board of Excise censured him for his conduct in the busi-
ness. The impression upon witness's mind was, that he gave
the information to protect himself in the way of trade and
the revenue.

Mr. John Stones, paper-manufacturer, of Little Lever,
near Bolton, proved the expressions used by Mr. Crompton
on the Ist of March, whilst they were together at one of the
stations on the Bolton and Manchester Railway. This
witness said, that, in his judgment, the plaintiff's works,
which had beed re-built within the last three years, would
produce more paper in less time than Mr. Crompton's.
Mr. 'WuxiNs said, that he should be willing to withdraw
a juror, if his learned friend would consent.
The JUDGE, would offer no objection to the withdrawal of
a juror, if it was desired.
Mr. 'WORTLEY said he bad no objection, on condition that
Mr. Crompton would publicly retract the imputation upon
the plaintiff, express his regret for what had occurred, and
indemnify the plaintiff against all expenses.
Mr. WlLions said Mr. Crompton, who was a gentleman
of high character and respectability, did not care a single
farthing about the amount of the damages, but he did
wish to stand well with his neighbours and friends. He had
not the least objection publicly to withdraw the imputatio❑
upon Mr. Broadbent, but it must be in such a manner as to
leave no imputation upon himself.

Mr. WORTLEY suggested that NI r. Crompton should pub-
licly state he was perfectly satisfied there was no foundation
for the imputation.

Mr. WORTLEY understood Mr. Crompton to be willing to
say this—that, upon further inquiry, he found the imputation
he had made against the plaintiff, as to having defrauded the
Excise, was without foundation, and that he regretted hav-
ing made it ; and that, upon further inquiry, he also found
that he was mistaken in saying that Mr. Broadbent was sell-
ing fifteen per cent. under the market prices, and he re-
gretted having said so.
Mr. WILKINS requested this to be written down. After
some consultation,

Mr. WiLturrs consented to a nominal verdict upon these
conditions. Mr. Crompton, after further inquiry, was sa-
tisfied that the imputation of defrauding the Excise was not
well founded ; that, after further inquiry, he was satisfied
that the statement of the plaintiff selling fifteen per cent.
under market price was a mistake; and he regretted that,
though mistaken, he had made the imputation. Mr. Cromp-
ton would not have come into court to defend this action if
he had not been anxious to stand well with his neighbours.
When he made the statement he believed what he was say-
ing : he had since ascertained that his belief was not well
founded, and he regretted having said so. He hoped that
this declaration would cause Mr. Crompton to retain that
good opinion which had always attended him through life.
Mr. WORTLEY, on the part of the plaintiff, was perfectly
satisfied. - . . .„..

A verdict of 40s. was then taken for the plaintiff.
CONTRACT FOR BUILDING A UNION WORKHOUSE.
ORE AND ANOTHER V. THE GUARDIANS OF CHAPEL-EN.

LE-FRITH

This was an action brought by the assignees of a bankrupt,
named Salford, against the Guardians of the Poor for the
Union of Chapel-en-le-Frith, in Derbyshire, to recover a
sum of money amounting to between £3,000 and £4,000.
The bankrupt had contracted with the guardians to erect
a workhouse for the union, and the building was proceeded
with, but the guardians were not satisfied that it was exe-
cuted according to the plans and specifications. A sum of
the money was paid to Salford, but before the matter in dis-
pute could be settled he failed, and his assignees brought the
present action to recover the balance. As the question in-
volved a great many points connected with the plans, as well
as the execution of the work, the cause and all matters, in
difference was, after some consideration, referred.