WORCESTERSHIRE l- WvlWH' Na 600. WORCESTER, SATURDAY, JULY 25, 1846. [ GRATIS. WORCESTER CITY AND COUNTY SUMMER ASSIZES. The actual business of our City and County Assizes— we stated in our last that the commissions had been opened on Friday afternoon— commenced at eleven o'clock on Saturday morning, when Mr. Justice Maule took his seat in the Crown Court, Mr. Sergeant Gaselee presiding at Nisi Prius. The following is the daily report of the proceedings in both Courts up to the close of the business on Wednesday night. NISI PRIUS COURT. ( BEFORE MR. SERGEANT GASELEE.) SATURDAY. There were seventeen causes entered on the list, viz., six- teen for the county, and ono for the city. The first on the list was that of— READ V. EDWARDS. In this case, an undefended action for debt, a verdict was given for the plaintiff for the amount sought to be recovered (£ 23. 12s. 3d.), with execution in a fortnight. Attorney for the plaintiff, Corles; for the defendant, Pullen. PARRY" V. ASKEW. An action of debt, for the recovery of £ 250, with interest. Mr. Godson and Mr. Carrington were for the plaintiff, attorney, Brampton ; and Mr. Lee for the defendant, attorney, Jerwocd. This was rather a complicated case. The plaintiff is a glover, residing in this city, and the defendant, a carpenter, living in London. The facts are brieily these. The defendant being on a visit at Worcester, took the opportunity of pur- chasing certain Corporation property, but having no money to pay for his purchase, he borrowed the sum required from a client of Mr. Brampton, solicitor. Subsequently Mr. Bramp- ton called in his money, and the sum of £ 250 was then borrowed by the defendant of the plaintiff for the purpose of paying off Mr. Brampton's debt. For this amount the defendant gave a note of hand for £ 250, and appointed plain- tiff receiver of the rents. The defendant's reply to the action was, that the plaintiff's receipts of rents had satisfied the £ 250 borrowed, to which the plaintiff rejoined that the rents had barely paid insurance and interest on mortgages on the houses. The plaintiff having opened his case, handed in the note, and being unable to produce the attesting witness to the defendant's signature, called Mr. Birbeck, of this city, and Mr. Cotton, clerk to Mr. Brampton's London agent, to prove that diligent inquiries had been made in London at, the reputed residence of the witness to the note ( a carpenter named Godsall) to find him out, but without effect. Mr. Godson submitted, that under these circumstances he had a right to prove the defendant's signature to the note by secondary evidence; but Mr. Lea contended that the necessary " diligent inquiries" had not been made. It appe. ared that the inquiries had been made at several places, and amongst them, at No. 12, Pen- tonville, London, whereas the place of residence of the witness was ( according to the information of his relatives) No. 15, Pentonville. Sergeant Gaselee ruled that the secondary evidence was admissable. The note was then produced. It was dated " Birmingham, August 4, 1841," and, having been read to the Court— Mr. Brampton, solicitor, was called, and gave the informa- tion required. He also proved that two sums of £ 100 each were lent to the defendant on property in Carden Street, purchased by Askew. Mr. Brampton's client, who lent the money, subsequently called it in, and the defendant there- upon called upon witness and told him that he had not the money by him to pay off the mortgage, but that he had em- ployed his relative Mr. Parry to receive the rents, and that lie ( Parry) would pay off the mortgage. The old notes of hand given by the defendant to his ( Mr. Brampton's) client for £ 100 each were handed over to Mr. Parry with the title deeds, when he ( Parry) paid off the £ 200 mortgage. There was also a sum of £ 50 borrowed by Askew of the plaintiff, and these three sums made up the consideration for the note subsequently given for £ 250. Cross- examined.— The entries in the book produced, pur- porting to contain an entry of the receipts by Parry for rents of the property in question, were in the handwriting of the plaintiff. Mrs. Ann Stephenson proved that she had received from Mr. Parry interest on her mortgage on the houses in Carden Street, from time to time. Mr. Pumphrey, agent to the Birmingham Fire Insurance Company, proved the receipt from Mr. Parry of insurance in respect of the houses in question. Other witnesses to prove payments by Parry out of the rents received were about to be called, when it was announced to the Court that the parties had come to an arrangement, whereby it was agreed that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff for the amount sought to be recovered, with execu- tion in two months. BRADLEY V. IRONMONGER. This was an undefended action, brought by the plaintiff, residing at Dixon's Green, against the defendant, a resident of Shiffnall, for recovery of a sum of £ 17. 15s. on a note of hand which had been renewed. The necessary evidence to prove the plaintiff's case having been given ex parte, a verdict was given for the amount sought to be recovered, with execu- tion in a fortnight. Attorney for the plaintiff, Robinson ; for the defendant, Brown, DOE DEM LLOYD V. FARMER. This case— an action on promises— was withdrawn. BATE AND ANOTHER V. BLDRTON AND ANOTHER, EXECUTORS. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, with whom was Mr. Whitmore, appeared in this case for the plaintiff, attorney, II. Corser ; and Mr. Alexander, Q. C., and Mr. Lee for the defendant, attorney, Talbot. It will be remembered that this cause came on for trial at the Summer assizes held in this city in 1844, when a verdict was given for the defendants, but a new trial had since been granted. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Bate and Robins, bankers, of Stourbridge, against the defendants, Mr. Blurton and Mr. Scott, executors under the will of the late Patience Clarke, of Stourbridge, for the recovery of the sum of £ 500 upon a note of hand jointly given by the deceased for that sum to the plaintiffs. The defendants to this action were merely the nominal defendants, having, themselves, no interest under the will of the testatrix, Patience Clarke: the parties interested were Joseph and Richard Clarke, sons of the deceased. Mrs. Clarke had another child, who was named after her mother, and she married in 1836 Mr. Morris, a grocer, of Stourbridge. Morris had an account at the plaintiffs' bank, and in the year 1842 it was considerably overdrawn, so that the bankers called upon him for some security for the debt. Morris there- upon engaged to obtain the required security, and Mr. Rvland, clerk at the bank, wrote out a joint note of hand for signature by Morris and his security. This note was presented by Mrs. Morris to her mother, Mrs. Clarke, for signature. Mrs. Clarke declined signing it herself, but authorised her daughter, Mrs. Morris, to sign it for her, and the question thereupon arose whether the authority alleged was really given, or whether the note had been signed by Mrs. Morris for her mother without sufficient authority. For the plaintiff, Mrs. Patience Morris, wife of Mr. Morris, grocer, late of Stourbridge, and daughter of Patience Clarke, was called as a witness. She deposed that her mother died in December, 1842, leaving witness and two sons, her only children. Shortly after witness's marriage with her present husband, her mother, Mrs. Clarke, went to the plaintiffs' bank with her ( witness's) husband, and on her return she said she had told the bankers " not to let her husband stand for anything he needed." This was in 1830, and the witness's husband had money from the bank from that time. In the year 1842, Mr. Morris had become indebfed to the bank in upwards of £ 400, and her husband told her that the bankers wanted security, and brought a note of hand to her to get signed by her mother, Mrs. Patience Clarke. The note had already been signed by Morris when witness took it to her mother. A half- sister of witness's ( Miss Seager) was with her mother when she arrived at her house, and witness took her mother into the garden and told her that the bank wished to have her signature to the note. Her mother then went with her to her ( witness's) house. Her mother on arriving at her house told witness to " sign the note herself, as it would be the same." Her mother was nearly 70 years of age at the time. She was not in the habit of writing much. Witness then wrote, the name " Patience Clarke" to the note in her mother's presence, and gave it back to her husband. Soon afterwards her husband brought back the note, and in conse- quence of the bankers stating that they were not satisfied— that they wished Mrs. Clarke to sign the note herself— witness took the note to her mother again, and informed her of the circumstance. Her mother again told witness to sign it, and said that if Mr. Robins was not satisfied, he was to call upon her. Witness then signed the note " P. Clarke" at her mother's request, and it was subsequently again returned to the bank, Mr. Ryland, clerk at the bank, having called for it. At the time of the signing of this note, her brothers had had £ 500 each from the bank of her mother's money. On the cross- examination of this witness, she stated she had made various applications to her mother on behalf of her husband to borrow money, but had not been successful. Did not recollect ever having signed any document for her mother before the note in question, but believed she had done so. Did not know whether, at the former trial in 1844, she had sworn that she did not know her mother's signature, nor whethershe signed hername " Patience Clarke" or " P. Clarke." Swore at Stafford Assizes that she had seen her mother execute a certain deed. Never denied the fact of her marriage with her husband, in order to secure certain property. She had endeavoured to make the second signature to the note for £ 500 unlike the first, to satisfy Mr. Robins. This must have been to make Mr. Robins believe the second signature " P. Clarke" was her mother's. Never stated at any time to any person that she was not married to Morris; and never laid claim to any property on the ground that she was not married. She had laid claim to property in her own right, but not on that ground. Made a legal claim to property in her own right, but on the trial at Stafford the verdict was against her. This witness was still under cross- examination, when it was announced that an arrangement had been made between the parties. A verdict was thereupon taken by consent for the plaintiff lor £ 250, without costs. NASH V. HEMMING. This was an action brought by Mr. Abraham Nash, of Oldburv, against the High Sheriff of the county, for an alleged trespass upon his premises, and a conversion of his property under an execution issued against his brother, William Nash. Sergeant Talfourd, with Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Skinner, were for the plaintiff— attormes, Motteram and Knowles, of Birmingham ; and Mr. Whateley, Q. C., with whom were Mr. Gray and Mr. Lee, for the defendant— Harding, attorney. The declaration stated that the defendant had broken into his shop and dwelling- house, and taken and appropriated certain goods found therein. The defendant pleaded that the house was not the house ot the plaintiff, and that the goods had been seized under & fieri facias. The plaintiff's goods were, in fact, seized under an execution obtained by one Mr. Jos. Collins, against W illiam Nash, the brother of the plaintiff, and the goods were seized as the goods of William Nash, and not of Abraham Nash, his brother. It was contended, for the defendant, that the goods were really the goods of William Nasli. For the plain- tiff, several witnesses were called to prove that the house entered was let to Abraham Nash, and the business of a grocer carried on there in his name. George Birch, sheriff's officer, proved the entrv upon the premises alleged to be Abraham Nash's under a fieri facias, the seizure of the grocery goods, and their sale under the execution from the sheriff. He levied for £ 87. 14s. lid., and the sale produced £ 107, besides £ 7 found in the till. After paying the expenses of levy, there was still a balance in hand, which this witness retained. Mr. Caldicott, a trustee for the house occupied by Abraham Nash, proved that he let the house to him, and received rent of him : it was, however, paid through his brother William. The overseer of the parish produced the rate books, in which the plaintiff was assessed in respect of the house in which the execution took place. The name on the books had been altered from Wm. Nash to Abraham Nash, after Wm. Nash's bankruptcy, some two years ago. These witnesses, on cross- examination, admitted that Wm. Nash resided also at the house in which the seizure was made, and that he acted as assistant in the grocer's shop. Abraham Nash's proper business was scythe making, but on the failure of his brother William in the grocery trade, he took to it and carried it on in his name. The excise officer of the district stated that for the last three years he had granted licenses to Abraham Nash in respect of the grocery business, and that his name in full, " Abraham Nash," was placed over the door. A number of tradesmen of Birmingham were also called to prove that since Wm. Nash's bankruptcy, in 1842, thev had sold goods for the grocery buriness on the credit of Abraham Nash. Mr. Dakin, wholesale tea- dealer, Mr. Gilbert, chandler, Mr. Eollister, Mr. Smith, paper- dealer, Mr. Nott, hop- merchant, of Worcester, and others, proved that thev had served Win. Nash with goods for carrying on a grocery business to the end of the year 1842, and from that time to the present, similar goods had been supplied on the credit of Abraham Nash. Mr. Thomas Waldrou said he was engaged as assistant to Abraham Nash, three years ago : he remained with him twelve months, and was paid by Abraham Nash, whom he looked upon as his master. Wm. Nash was assistant to his brother Abraham during a portion of that time. Mr. William Nash was also Galled by the plaintiff, and was under examination for some time. He said that he became a bankrupt in the year 1842. Mr. Harding, the attorney for the defendant in* this case, was his attorney in the bankruptcy business, and put him in gaol for the costs incurred. Hi's brother gave Mr. Harding security for the debt, and took to the grocery business, witness conducting the business for him. He declared, that as he had no money, he never supplied any for carrying on the grocery business after his bankruptcy, nor had he become liable in respect of the business. This witness was cross- examined at considerable length by Mr. Whateley. On re- examination, a paper was produced* purporting to be an assessment charge for property tax. This was a charge on Abraham Nash in respect of the tax. The word " Abraham" had been written on an erasure, and the witness positively swore that the name was originally William, and that it had been altered by Mr. Collins himself ( the execution creditor) to Abraham. Mr. Scriven, another of the assistants at the grocery shop, gave similar evidence to that detailed by the witness Waldron, and fully corroborated William Nash's statement, as to the alteration made in the assessment paper by Mr. Collins, which was done in his presence. Miss Nash gave similar testimony to previous witnesses, as to the grocery business having been carried on by her brother Abraham, after William's bankruptcy, and a carrier proved the delivery of parcels of goods addressed to Abraham Nash. For the defendant Mr. Whateley addressed the Jury, con- tending, that in spite of the case set up by the plaintiff, the goods seized were really and truly the goods of William Nash, and not of Abraham., He said he had never seen a case in which the evidence of fraud had been clearer than in the present. He declared that the ordering of goods from the tradesmen in the name of Abraham Nash, and the altering of the rate books was a mere contrivance to cheat the creditors of William Nash. There was no proof that a shilling of Abraham Nash's money had ever been placed in the grocery business, but he would show by the testimony of witnesses whom he should call before them, that William Nash had been in the possession of £ 300. immediately before his bank- ruptcy. The first witness examined for the defendant was John Wedge, who deposed to a conversation between him and Wm. Nash, just after the bankruptcy of the latter, in the course of which Nash asked whether it would not be better to carry on the business in future in the name of one of his brothers, lest Mr. Harding should seize the goods under a fieri facias. After the sale under the bankruptcy, the fixtures in the shop ( purchased by Mrs. Thomas Nash) were retained there. The witness spoke to several articles seized as being the property of William Nash. On cross- examination by Sergeant Talfourd, the witness described himself as " a sort of lawyer, and green- grocer;" and admitted that he had been a defaulter to an amount something less than £ 100 to the county rate, when one of thehigh constables of Shropshire. The witness had had three sales under execution, and took the benefit of the insolvent act in 1842. Several other witnesses were examined, and their evidence went to show that several other tradesmen who had furnished goods for the grocery establishment, after the bankruptcy of William Nash, were under the impression that they were still furnishing them to William Nash, to whom they said they looked for payment. At the close of a tedious trial, the Jury found a verdict for the defendant. MONDAY. MILLINGTON, EXECUTRIX, V. CLARIDGE. This was an action on promises brought by Mrs. Milling- ton, executrix of her late husband, a surgeon, formerly residing at Persliore, against Mr. Claridge, also a surgeon of the same town, for recovery of the value of a certain mare, sold to the defendant by the late Mr. Millington. The defendant pleaded first non assumpsit, but secondly and chiefly, that the horse had actually been paid for. Mr. Godson, Q. C., with whom was Mr. Lee, was for the plaintiff — attorney, Savage; and Serjeant Talfourd, aud Mr. Gray, for the defendant— attornies, Oldaker, Woodward, and Ball. The plaintiff's case was very short, being merely a production of proof of the transfer of the horse in question from the deceased Millington to Mr. Claridge, in 1842. This proof was afforded by Mr. Charles Millington, son of the plaintiff, and an ostler named James Alcester; but there, was no proof of the actual sale of the horse. These witnesses valued the horse at between £ 20 and £ 30. The defendant, however, did not deny that the sale had actually taken place, but declared that the horse had been paid for by him at the time, and the parties being intimate friends and near relatives, no written receipt had ever been asked for or received by Mr. Claridge. The examination of the two witnesses named closed the plaintiff's case, on which— Sergeant Talfourd submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury. The mere proof of the transfer of the horse from the possession of one party to that of the other was no bar to the plea of non assumpsit: it did not prove that any sale had taken place on credit, and he cited the case of Bussey v. Barnett, 9 Easton and Welsby, 112, as bearing out his position. Mr. Gray followed on the same side, contending that it was quite as consistent, upon the proof offered, that the sale had been made for ready money as that it had been a sale on credit. The Judge.— I think there is evidence for the Jury, Sergeant Talfourd then addressed the Jury, and said he rested his case entirely on the allegation of payment made at the time of sale. The fact was, that the sale had been made without the presence of any third party, and that it had been closed at the time by payment. This was almost inva- riably the case even in sales between horse dealers, but as between friends and among gentlemen such a thing as a written receipt for the purchase money of a horse was never thought of. Without imputing any improper motive either to Mrs. Millington or to her son, Mr. Charles Milling- ton, who, he believed, had not been the originators of this action, he could not help remarking on the extraordinary fact, that although the debt was alleged to have been incurred in 1842, no demand had ever been made in respect of it until the month of April, 1846. He could not produce any direct proof of payment for the horse, but he would show by the production of the administratrix's accounts that no entry of this debt had been made in them. Sergeant Talfourd then called a Mr. Roberts, a baker, of Pershore, who lived with Mr. Claridge in 1842, and who valued the horse at about £ 15. The residuary accounts were then called for, and produced by the plaintiff, together with the administra- trix's release, which contained a recital that all the debts of the administration, as far as they could be got in, had been collected. Mr. E. Ball, of the firm of Oldaker, Woodward, and Ball, the defendant's attornies, made the release, being at that time attorney for the plaintiff. He deposed, that the first demand, in respect of which the present action was brought, was made on the 30th April in the present year. On this demand being made, Mr. Ball had an interview with Mrs. Millington on the subject, when she stated that she knew nothing at all about the matter, and that she left it to Miss Beamish— a lady who was living with her, and who was the sister of the plaintiff's attorney. Mr. Godson having replied, the Learned Judge summed up, and recommended the Jury not to yield to the inference draw by the defendant's counsel that all horse sales were ready money transactions: he thought their experience would prove to them that the majority of these transactions were upon credit, for most people were too fond of money to pay debts earlier than was actually necessary. There was no doubt of the sale and delivery of the horse, and it was for them to say whether there was anything in this case to take it out of the general rule— and he could not see that there was. If they thought so, they would find a verdict for the defendant, but if they believed that it was an ordinary transaction between the parties, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff. The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defendant. HIPKINS V. MARSHALL. This was a case of warranty— not of a horse but of a cow, purchased by the plaintiff, cashier at Messrs. Rufford's bank, at Stourbridge, and occupier of Woolscote Farm, of the defendant, a cattle dealer. Mr. Lea, with whom was Mr. Gray, was for the plaintiff— Harrison, attorney; and Sergeant Allen and Mr. Pliipson for the defendant— Bray, attorney. The declaration stated that the plaintiff purchased two cows of the defendant, representing them as sound, one of them, however, proved to be unsound and died. The defendant pleaded firstly that the cow was sound, and secondly put in the plea of non assumpsit. The plaintiff's case as laid before the Jury in evidence, was as follows. On the 1st October, the plaintiff's brother, Mr. Thomas Hipkins, bought for the plaintiff of the defendant, at Smethwick, two cows, one with a calf and the other in calf. The cows were driven home, a distance of ten miles, and immediately after their arrival at the plaintiff's farm, Benjamin Mathews, the plaintiff's cowman, detected what he called a " desperate cuff and husness" ( meaning cough and hoarseness) in the cow in respect of which the present action was brought — the in- calf cow. On the morning after her arrival this cow calved and was properly tended, but she got very ill, and five days after the purchase she died. On a post mortem examina- tion the deceased cow proved to be greatly diseased, the lungs and liver being much enlarged, and the chest being full of water. The carcase was sold to a butcher or sausage maker— the witnesses could not be brought to say who the individual Was— for £ 9. The lungs and liver were buried. The other cattle and pigs on the plaintiff's premises caught the same disease and sickened for some time, but afterwards recovered. The defendant on being applied to on the subject, at first expressed his regret at the cow proving unsound, and said he would make it " all right," but subsequently said he did not consider himself liable, and refused to make any com- pensation, saying he " would have his head cut off before he paid a penny." Mr. Ford, of Stourbridge, and Mr. Rose, of Worcester, veterinary surgeons of long standing, were ex- amined to prove the nature of the disease of which the cow died. They proved the presence of tubercles in the lungs, and gave their opinion on that fact that disease must have existed for a considerable time previous to death. They did not agree with a veterinary authority cited by Sergeant Allen ( Mr. Youatt) for the defendant, that the disease under which the cow died was of so rapid progress as to cause death in 48 hours. For the defendant, Sergeant Alien addressed the Jury at great length, and contended that the disease of which the cow in question died, had been contracted after it had been sold by the defendant, and that it had been induced by over- driving the animal while in a state of approaching parturition. Mr. Till, veterinary surgeon, of Worcester, gave his opinion to the effect that it was a very common thing for death to follow this disease after it had only shown itself for 48 hours. The fact of the cow having travelled ten miles while in a state of pregnancy would make the animal peculiarly subject to disease. This witness, however, admitted that if tubercles existed, they went to prove a long- standing disease. Mr. Ludlow, a butcher, of Birmingham, gave similar testimony to, Mr. Till, as to the rapid progress of this disease. A witness named Thomas Underhill, in the employ of the defendant, was called to prove the healthy condition of the cow in question when sold, but in consequence of his unsatis- factory mode of giving evidence, he rather damaged than helped the defendant's case. He professed to know more about this disease than " anyr vetinry surgeon," and said he had seen cows which had been attacked with this disease well and dead in 24 hours. The counsel for the plaintiff endea- voured to elicit from this witness the fact that other cows of the defendant had died of this disease, and after a great deal of cross- examination he admitted that a cow belonging to the defendant, and kept on another of his farms, had died of the distemper about a month before the sale. This witness was reprimanded by the Judge for the improper manner in which he had given his evidence, his constant answer to such questions put to him by the plaintiff's counsel as were likely to elicit points against his master being, " I don't know that," although he professed to know " more than the vetinry surgeons," he could not inform the Court what were tubercles, and said he supposed an effusion of water was a stoppage! After a reply by Mr. Lee, and a summing up by the Judge, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £ 9. 10s. 6d., being the balance of the purchase money paid for the cow, after deducting the £ 9 received for the carcase. MOORE v. GARDNER. Sergeant Talfourd, with whom was Mr. Phipson, appeared for the plaintiff in this cause— attorney, Capper ; and Mr. Whateley, Q. C., with whom was Mr. Whitmore, was for defendant— attorney, Reece. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman residing at Kingsnorton, against the defendant, a beer- house keeper, of Birmingham, for damages for wrongful detention in prison, under the following circumstances. This action arises out of a suit in Chancery, instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff in the present action. It appeared that some time since the present plaintiff borrowed of the defendant two sums of £ 800 and £ 200 on mortgage, and Mr. Gardner required that a mortgage should be executed of cer- tain particular property of Moore's. Mr. Moore objected to mortgage that particular property, and Mr. Gardner conse- quently instituted a Chancery suit for the purpose of com- pelling the execution of such mortgage. This suit terminated in an order by the Court requiring Moore to execute the mortgage required, and condemning him in the costs of suit. These cosls were subsequently taxed at £ 130. 16s. 4d. This decree was made in the Spring of last year, and Mr. Moore not being in a position to pay the amount, Mr. Gardner took the process which the Court of Chancery allowed, by obtaining a subpoena, upon which an attachment was issued, and the present plaintiff was, under that attachment, delivered into the custody of the Sheriff until the amount should be satisfied. Under this attachment, Mr. Moore remained in custody in Worcester county gaol for twelve months, and while in prison he met with an accident by falling down stairs and hurting his back. This accident impaired his general health, and efforts were made to raise the sum required for his liberation, and he paid the amount through his attorney, Mr. Capper, to the defendant: that amount was altogether £ 1491. 0s. 10d., which sum was paid on the 2nd of May, in the present year. A portion of the above sum was paid under protest, Moore considering that it could not legally be demanded. When the money was paid, a discharge from custody was asked for, but was refused, the defendant's attorney saying that the plaintiff must remain in prison until he was purged of his contempt of Court, in his refusal or neglect to pay the costs ordered by the Court. Upon this refusal, the plaintiff, by his attorney, applied to the Court of Chancery, and the Vice- Chancellor, Knight Bruce, immediately ordered the release of Moore, and the present action was now brought to recover damages for his detention in prison for five days after the pay- ment of money, that time havingelapsed between the time of the payment of the money and the order of the Court of Chancery having arrived at the prison. Several witnesses were examined to prove the facts above stated, the incarceration of the plaintiff on the decree of the Court of Chancery, the payment of the money, and the demand of the order for discharge of the plaintiff, by the plaintiff's attorney, of the defendant's attorney, in liis ( defendant's) presence. The case of Crozier v. Pillling, 4 Barnwell aud Cresswell, p. 26, was cited by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd as a case in point, wherein Chief Justice Abbott said it was imperative on plaintiff in the case ( a similar one to the present) to receive the money when tendered, and to give an order to the Sheriff for the discharge of the debtor. On behalf of the present defendant, Mr. Whateley contended that no evidence had been given of his refusal to give such order, or in fact of any application made to him. The application was made to the attorney of the defendant, in his presence, but he contended that was no application to him. Sergeant Talfourd contended contra, submitting that such an application was the most effective application which could be made. But he submitted that there was really no applica- tion necessary, inasmuch as that the present defendant was bound to give an order to the Sheriff for the present plantiff's discharge, on his satisfaction of the debt. This being a question rather of law than of fact, some dis- cussion took place between the Learned Judge and Counsel pro and con, as to what points should be put to the Jury, and what reserved for the Court. Counsel had some difficulty in making a satisfactory arrangement on these points, at length, however, His Lordship addressed the Jury, stating the facts briefly, and leaving it to the Jury to say whether there was anything malicious in the defendant's conduct at the time he was present, when a demand for Moore's release was made of his ( Gardner's) attorney— whether there was any evidence of malice beyond what the law would presume, in case the act was a wrongful act. They would also have to consider what amount of damages the plaintiff would be entitled to, supposing the Court should be of opinion on the points of law, that the verdict ought to go against the defendant. The Jury, after a short consideration, found that there was no malice in fact, and returned a verdict for £ 24 damages, in case the opinion of the Court should go against him. Do DEM BURTON, V. WHITE AND OTHERS. This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff, a farmer of Halesowen, against his nephew. Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, with Mr. Phipson, was for the lessor of the plaintiff— attorney James; and Mr. Whateley, Q. C., and Mr. Lee, for the defendant— attornies Hayes and Sons. This was another case in which the whole matter in dispute was a point of law, facts being undisputed. The question at issue arose upon the construction of the will of one Aaron White, some time since deceased. By this will, the testator devised certain property to his son, George White, but without continuing it by inheritance, whereby the plaintiff contended that the pro- perty did not descend to his heirs, that it therefore came into the residuary estate of the testator, at the death of the testator, and the plaintiff therefore claimed as one of the devisees of the residuary estate. The only question was, whether the words of the will vested only an estate for life in the original devisee, or whether an estate in fee. The wills of Aaron White and Nanny White, the family pedigree, and other documents, were handed in, but the Counsel on either side agreeing on the facts of the case, it was mutually arranged that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, sub- ject to a special case. STIRROP v. WHISTON. This was an action for breach of covenant, brought by the plaintiff, Robert Jewkes Stirrop, of Stafford, against George Whiston, of Madeley, for a breach of covenant. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Whitmore were for the plaintiff— attorney, Austin; aud Mr. Alexander for the defendant— attorney, Seckerson. The breach of covenant alleged was contained iu an indenture between the parties, whereby the plaiutiff sought to recover the sum of £ 350 therein covenanted to be paid. After proof of the execution of the deed had been given, Mr. Alexander submitted that as there was, independent of the special covenant alleged, another covenant on the part of the other parties to the deed, the deed was insufficiently stamped. His Lordship directed the Jury to find a verdict for the plain- tiff for the amount sought to be recovered, the question with reference to the stamping of the deed being reserved. COLE V. HICKMAN. This was an intricate case— an action of debt for goods sold and delivered, and on account stated. The declaration stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £ 200 for goods sold and delivered, but the actual balance sought to be recovered amounted to £ 24. 15s. l| d. Defendant pleaded that lie never was indebted to the plaintiff, except in a sum of £ 6. 8s. 2d., which sum had been paid, and further, that that sum had been tendered to the plaintiff aud refused. The plaintiff is a hop merchant and grocer, carrying on business at Stourbridge, and the defendant, Capt. Hickman, of Oldswinford, was formerly in the army, but was now a manufacturer of bricks. It appeared that the dealings between the parties had commenced in the year 1837, and had been continued down to last year. There had been a running account between the parties, each of whom held a pass- book. These books were made up half- yearly, but the settlements were not made regularly, and hence the present action arose. After the examination of a number of witnesses, servants of the plaintiff and others, to prove the delivery of goods on the defendant's order from time to time, the further hearing of the case was, at seven o'clock, adjourned to the next morning. TUESDAY. On the assembling of the Court at nine o'clock this morn- ing, the case of Cole v. Hickman was resumed. Numerous other witnesses were examined, who spoke to the ordering of goods, the delivery of goods and accounts, and sundry settle- ments of accounts. Several letters from the defendant, inclosing cheques, were also put in, and the Court was occu- pied for two hours further iu this most tiresome and unin- teresting cause. Attempts were made to shorten the case by certain admissions, and the Learned Judge expressed his regret" that such a trumpery case should occupy so much of the time of the county." It appeared at last, after going through an immense number of items in the plaintiff's accounts, that the amount £ 24. 15s. l^ d., now sought to be recovered, was a balance of an account running between the years 1841 and 1842, and omitted to be settled at the time. For the defence, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd addressed the Jury, contending at some length that the amount now sought to be recovered had been paid in former settlements between the plaintiff and defendant. The Judge in summing up con- fessed that he could give little, if any, assistanco to the Jury in arriving at a satisfactory verdict in this case. After addressing them on the evidence, his Lordship told the Jury that they would find a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant, accordingly as they gave credit to the case set up by each party. The Jury after retiring for a few minutes returned into Court with a verdict for the plaiutiff for £ 24. 15s. l § d. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Whateley, Q. C., and Mr. Lee— attorney, Collis; for the defendant, Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Whitmore— attornies, Price and Harward. WILLIAMS V. WALKER ( SPECIAL JURY). In this cause, an action on case, the following were em- panelled as a Special Jury:— T. G. Curtler, Esq., foreman. Cornelius Lister, merchant, John Crane, banker, Wm. Robins, merchant, Joseph Guest, gentleman, Wm. Faucett, merchant, Philip Wodehouse, Esq. Wm. Cotton, merchant, Wm. Harrison, merchant. TALESMEN. Jno. Pardoe Wilson, Wm. Cartledge, and another. Mr. Alexander, Q. C., appeared in this case with Mr. Whit- more for the plaintiff— attorney, Best; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Lee for the defendant— attorney, Harrison. Mr. Whitmore having stated the pleadings, Mr. Alexander opened the case. The plaintiff was Mr. Francis Williams, of Wichenford, in this county, the proprietor of Sutton Park Farm, near Tenbury, and the defendant Mr. Charles Walker, also a gentleman of respectability and property, was agent to a Mr. Thomas Pargeter, the proprietor of an estate and mill adjoining Sutton Park Farm. Both these estates formerly belonged to a family of the name of Gifford, but in the year 1828 they both changed hands, the plaintiff purchasing the Sutton Park Farm, and Mr. Pargeter the adjoining farm. At that time the plaintiff's farm was let to one Ephraim Swan, who occupied it up to the year 1841, when it was taken by Mr. Farmer, who occupied it up to 1845. Upon the farm was a watercourse passing through a meadow called the Mill Bank Orchard, and supplying the mill. The present action was brought to recover damages for a wrongful diver- sion of this stream of water, whereby the plaintiff had been deprived of some 70 or 80 square yards of land. The first plea set up by the defendant was a denial of the diversion, which, however, he should be enabled to prove to the satisfac- tion of the Jury. The second plea denied the tenancy of Farmer at the time of the diversion as alleged, but this he should also be enabled to prove. In the third and fourth pleas the title to the property was introduced, and upon it the defendant pleaded that he was justified in making the diversion in question, in order to restore the stream to its original course. With respect to these pleas he should be enabled to show that the original course alleged never existed. The fifth and last plea set up a right of soil in Mr. Pargeter, and if any evidence was offered on that point, he should be enabled to show by the title deeds relating to the property that Mr. Pargeter had no such right. After a few other remarks, the Learned Counsel proceeded to call witnesses. Joseph Berry, an old inhabitant of Little Hereford Parish, was the first witness called. He had been employed for 20 years by Mr. Walker, on the Sutton Farm. Remembered at Michaelmas, 1844, some conversation with Mr. Walker on the subject of the mill stream, which had got out of order, and had become quite a pool. Mr. Walker asked his advice on the subject of remedying it, and witness recommended its diversion to the present channel. In compliance with his advice, the stream was diverted, the soil taken out of the new course being thrown into the old. On his cross- examination, this witness gave his opinion that Mr. Willliams's land was im- proved by the diversion of the watercourse; originally it was rendered a swamp by the overflowing of the water, but now it was sound land. Francis Lane, another inhabitant of the same parish, in his ninetieth year, deposed that he had lived on Sutton Park Farm for 49 years, and gave similar evidence to the first witness.— James Badger, formerly one of Mr. Farmer's work- men, deposed that he had known the mill stream or " mill fleam" for nine years. In February last he pointed out with Lane and others, to Mr. Handley, surveyor, the old course of the stream. The land had slipped from the Mill Bank Orchard into the stream, at different times, and it had been removed for the purpose of keeping the stream clear.— James Kinnersley, miller, deposed that about 32 years ago he was grinder at Sutton Mill, and worked upon the farm. He assisted to mark out the course of the stream as it ran 32 years previously. The new cut was distant from the old course of the fleam at the greatest distance, about 9 feet. Mr. Slater, formerly a farmer, at Rochford, proved a con- versation on the 19th of April, 1845, when Mr. Walker pointed out to the witness the new course, stating that they had taken a piece of Mr. Williams's land, and offering to give another piece of land in exchange. A piece of tape was pro- duced and land measured out, which the witness said was not as much as that which had been taken. Mr. Walker was displeased with this, and the result was, that no exchange was made. Afterwards Mr. Walker said the stream had been cut wider than was required. This witness was cross- ex- amined by Sergeant Talfourd, with the object of showing that no such offer had ever been made, inasmuch as Mr. Walker had no land near to exchange. The witness, however, persisted in his statement. Mr. Richard Green deposed, that he succeeded Mr. Farmer in 1845 as tenant of the Sutton Park Farm. He accompanied the last witness in the Spring of last year to the Mill Bank- Orchard, and corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to the proposition made byr the defendant to give land in exchauge for that taken in the diversion of the watercourse. This being the plaintiff's case, Sergeant Taifourd rose to address the Jury for the defendant, and in the course of his remarks, he denounced the action as an unneighbourly and unhandsome suit, instituted by Mr. Williams on frivolous and vexatious grounds. The alteration, if any, made by the defendant, for the purpose of keeping open the watercourse had actually, even according to the testimony of the plaintiff's own witnesses, improved the plain- tiff's land. As to the evidence given by some of the plaintiffs witnesses, who spoke to an offer made by the defendant to give land in exchange, he could only ascribe those statements to some mistake made by the witnesses, for the fact was, that Mr. Walker had no land at all in the locality pointed out. The measuring with the tape, which had been spoken of, was made with the object of ascertaining the proper position of a hedge about to be put up for the purpose of fencing off some land belonging to a Mrs. Edwards. He could not call Mr. Walker to prove the fact, but he believed he was quite correct in stating that no offer of the kind alleged by the witnesses had ever been made by Mr. Walker. The Learned Counsel then called the following witnesses :— Elijah Rastall deposed, that in the year 1828 he lived at Sutton Mill, and spoke to the necessity of continual cleansing out of the watercourse, in consequence of the loose soil slip- ping in off the bank. There was very little difference in the position of the stream now and its position in 1838 : it was, if anything, a little higher up the bank, but witness did not think there was a foot difference. The stream did not appear to be wider now than it was in 1838. Richard Parker gave similar testimony. Thomas Corbett, who had been employed to clean out the mill fleam, spoke to the frequent slipping in of the upper bank as far back as 1826, and said Mr. Williams' land was improved by the recent alterations. John Parry, aged 70, gave precisely similar evidence. Mr. Farmer, formerly occupier of Sutton Park Farm, cor- roborated the evidence of the preceding witnesses as to the frequent slipping of the soil into the stream ; he added, that the miller always cleaned out the course when it was required. The watercourse, ho said, now occupied less land than it did before the alteration complained of, and had not done a half- penny worth of damage to Mr. Williams' land: indeed, it had improved it. The land was not worth £ 5 an acre to buy. William Price, miner, of Pensax, proved the raising of stone on the Mill Orchard, aud Mr. W. Farmer, jun., gave similar testimony to his father. Mr. Alexander replied, and his Lordship was proceeding to address the Jury, when Sergeant Talfourd announced to the Court that the litigant parties had just come to a mutual agreement for the settlement of the case. The defendant had proposed to pay the taxed costs as between attorney and client, on condition that the right was given to him to use the stream as altered. The parties therefore entered into a rule for a verdict for the plaintiff, with Is. damages, defendant to pay taxed costs as between attorney and client, and to have the right to the stream in its altered state. VARDEN V. HON. II. B. COCHRANE AND OTHERS. This was another Special Jury cause, brought by Mr. Varden, engineer and architect, of this city, against the defendants, in respect of some railway transactions. The case, however, was settled without being brought into Court. Attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. F. T. Elgie; for the defendant, Wilkinson and Cobbold. A common Jury having been again sworn, the remaining causes on the list were taken. DOE DEM BORASTON AND UXOR V. HORTON. This was an action of ejectment brought by Mr. and Mrs. Boraston, against Mr. Horton, brother of Mrs. Boraston, for recovery of the possession of one undivided fourth part or share in a certain piece of land called Brice Close, on the Teddon Farm, in the parish of Bayton, in this county. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, with whom was Mr. Lee, was for the plaintiff— attorney Daniel; and Mr. Alexander, Q. C., with Mr. Whitmore were for the defendant— attornies Bury and Gardner. This was rather an unusual case: it appeared that the one- fourth share was claimed under the will of Mr. Horton, father of the defendant. By this will, the property in question was devised in equal shares and proportions to the defendant, Mrs. Boraston, and two other children. The two other children had sold their individual shares to the plaintiffs for £ 70. 10s. each; and the same sum was offered to the defendant, but refused. The defendant, on the pleadings, did not dispute the plaintiffs' title, but alleged that there had been no actual " ouster." On the opening of the case, an offer was made by the defendant to pay £ 100. to the plaintiff for his share, and the defendant's counsel advised their client to accept the offer, but he disregarded their advice, and expressed his wish to contest the mattter at issue. After the admission of formal evidence, to prove the plaintiffs' title, they having let the property and effected a mortgage on it, Mr. Alexander submitted to his Lordship, that as no actual " ouster" had been proved, the action could not be maintained, and he quoted the case of Doe dem Richard- son v. Roe, as supporting his view. His Lordship said it was very desirable that an arrangement should be made between the parties, in order to avoid further expense; and at length the plaintiff consented to accept the defendant's offer of £ 100. for his share. A Juror was therefore withdrawn, and thus the case ended. BELLAMY V. BIRCH. This was the last cause on the county list. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray were for the plaintiff— attorney, Powell; and Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Lee for the defendant— attorney, Woodward. This was an action for damages for slanderous words used by the defendant in reference to the plaintiff. Both parties had been lessees of turnpike tolls, aud it appeared that on the 12th Nov. last the parties met in the Shirehall, on the occa- sion of the letting of the Powick and Malvern district of the Worcester Turnpike tolls, when, being rival bidders, the defendant made use of the following words in reference to the plaintiff—" He rented the tolls at Tewkesbury, and was a defaulter." The defendant put in a number of pleas of the usual character. First he pleaded not guilty ; secondly, defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not a lessee of tolls as alleged in the declaration; thirdly, that the plaintiff never attended the auction ; fourthly, that there never was such a meeting; and fifthly, the defendant pleaded that there never was any such auction as alleged. Richard Bricknell proved that the plaintiff was a renter of tolls, and that plaintiff and defendant were present at the letting of the Powick and Malvern district of tolls at the Shirehall, Worcester, on the 12th of November last. Both parties were bidding, and on Bellamy bidding £ 5 beyond Birch, the latter said " They wanted to see him ( Bellamy) at Tewkesbury, for he had not paid his rent there." Birch went on to say that Bellamy had only just come out of the madhouse. These words created some confusion, and after a short delay Mr. Bellamy's bidding was refused, and the bidding of Mr. Price was accepted. The tolls were let to Mr. Price for £ 2,315. Witness afterwards went to Birch and told him he deserved to have his kicked for saying what he had about Bellamy, to which Birch replied that it was to his ( witness's) advantage as well as his.— On cross- examination it came out that the plaintiff had actually been confined in the Gloucester Lunatic Asylum. William Robins, another of the parties present at the auction, corroborated the last witness's testimony. Mr. Price's bidding, which was accepted, was the same as Mr. Bellamy's, which was rejected. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd submitted on this evidence that the uttering of the slanderous words alleged in the declaration had not been proved. The Judge said that question had belter be left to the Jury. Sergeant Allen then applied to amend that part of the declaration alleging the plaintiff to be at the time of the using of the slanderous words a lessee of tolls. The appli- cation was granted. Sergeant Talfourd then addressed the JuTy for the defendant, and called the following witnesses, who gave a different ver- sion of the consequence of the words used on this occasion. Mr. Pierpoint, surgeon, of Worcester, and one of the trustees of the Worcester turnpike roads, said that confusion ensued on the words being used— they were ussd by several persons,— upon which Mr. Pierpoint called the people to order, and said it would be the duty of the Commissioners to see that he ( Mr. Bellamy) was a responsible party by his sure- ties. The words used did not prevent Bellamy's bidding being accepted, for Mr. Price advanced at once £ 5 above Mr. Bellamy's bidding His cross- examination did not elicit any material variation in his evidence. P. V. Onslow, Esq., another of the turnpike trustees, cor- roborated Mr. Pierpoint's evidence. Bellamy's bidding was not refused, and he did not bid after Price. It was not true that Bellamy lost the renting of the tolls in consequence of what was said. G. J. A. Walker, Esq., another of the trustees, gave similar evidence. Mr. Bentley, the auctioneer engaged on the occasion in question, said he never refused any bidding from Mr. Bellamy, Mr. Bentley held a paper in his hand, which set forih the names of the bidders on the occasion, but in which Mr. Bellamy's name was not mentioned. Mr. Bentley said he heard no bidding made byr Mr. Bellamy; there was a distur- bance in the room, which might have prevented his hearing a bidding by Bellamy. There was some strong language used, in the midst of which Mr. Price made the offer of £ 5. This being the defendant's case, Mr. Sergeant Allen replied, and his Lordship summed up. In the course of his observa- tions, his Lordship told the Jury that the words used were not actionable in themselves, but they would have to consider whether they entitled the ' plaintiff to special damages, as having injured him in his business as a lessee of tolls. The Jury found a verdict for plaintiff for 40s., without special damages. The Court, on application of Sergeant Talfourd, gave leave to move to enter a verdict for defendant on the first and second issues. CITY CAUSE. A city Jury was then empanelled to try the only city cause, viz., that of— MEEK V. SAYER. Mr. Godson, Q. C., appeared in this cause, with Mr. Whit- more, for the plaintiff— attornies, Higgins and Chamberlain ; and Mr. Whateley, Q. C., with Mr. Gray, for the defendant, attorney, Pullen. This was an action brought by Mr. Meek, coach proprietor, of this city, against Mr. Sayer, occu- pier of the Crown Hotel, for recovery of damages, in conse- quence of a breach of a certain agreement entered into between the parties on the 29th April, 1842. This agree- ment had been drawn up very briefly by Mr. Collett, the then bookkeeper at the Crown, and was to this effect. Mr. Sayer agreed by this agreement to let a stable for six horses, a coach- house and loft over to Mr. Meek, Mr. Sayer under- taking to find the post- boys bringing jobs to the Crown in the usual allowance, and the rent of the premises being fixed at £ 20 a year, which included rates and taxes, Mr. Meek to have the same standing for carriages which he had at the date of the agreement. The rent to be payable from the previous Lady- day; but Meek was also to pay rent from the 13th December, 1841, ( the day on which Sayer succeeded Mr. Freeland in the tenancy of the Crown Hotel) up to Lady- day, 1842. But the chief sentence of the agreement upon which the present action arose was the following:—" Mr. Meek at all times to keep post- horses to do the posting from the Crown." In the spring of the present year, however, the defendant had from some cause or other commenced the posting business himself, whereby the plaintiff alleged that about two- thirds of his posting business had been taken away from him. In answer to the declaration in this action the defendant pleaded that he had never made the promises specified, that he was not the tenant, that plaiutiff did not keep sufficient horses, and that he was not always ready to do the posting required. Mr. Godson having stated the case called the following witnesses:— Mr. J. L. Freeland, formerly tenant of the Crown Hotel, deposed that he was tenant of the Crown Hotel up to Dec. 13, 1841, when he was succeeded by Mr. Sayer. In the year 1840 witness had made over the posting and jobbing part of the Crown business to the plaiutiff, who thenceforth held posses- sion of all the carriages and horses and the use of the stabling at the bottom of the yard on the left hand side going towards Angel Street. The stands for carriages were on the right hand side. Meek paid no rent for the stabling. Cross- examined.— The " bounder" business, i. e. the posting of parties travelling through the city, was a different business to the fly business, which was confined to short distances out and back. Re- examined by Mr. Godson.— In letting the posting, did you consider the flys a part of the posting?— Witness: It included every sort. If I took to a posting business to. morrow I should consider it included every sort of flys. Mr. James Collett, bookkeeper to the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company, deposed that in the year 1842 he was bookkeeper at the Railway office, which was kept at the Crown Hotel at that time. In April 1842 he wrote out the agreement on which the action was brought at the dicta- tion of Mr. Meek, and it was signed by Mr. Sayer. There was a sufficient quantity of horses kept at the Crown to do all the posting business required. Remembered having had a conversation with Mr. Sayer on the hardship on Mr Meek being required to pay a rent of £ 20 for stabling and office, while he was bringing so many customers to the house. Mr. Sayer on that occasion replied that the rent was not paid for the stabling and coach office merely, but also for the good will of the posting. This witness produced a receipt signed by Mr. Barnett for Mr. Sayer ( his father- in- law) for £ 40. for rent. Witness recollected on one occasion in January, of the present year, when a gentlemen arrived at the Crown from the railway station, and wanted to go on to Bromyard, that it was said he could not find a post- boy in the Crown yard, and therefore went to the Bell, and there procurred the accommodation which he required. If, however, proper application had been made, there were plenty of horses in the stabling ready for use. Cross- examined.— There had been frequent complaints that post- boys and horses were not ready when required. Mr. Barnett had made frequent complaints of this nature. Re- membered on ono occasion a quarrel taking place between Mr. Barnett and a traveller who came to the Crown, which resulted in the traveller going elsewhere for the horses which he re- quired. He considered the use of flys for going to and from Spetchley came under the denomination of posting: did not know what other term could be applied to it. A " bounder" was a gentleman's carriage. Re- examined.— The traveller with whom Mr. Barnett quarrelled was a gentlemen who had a sort of " warehouse on wheels," and the cause of the quarrel was Mr. Barnett's re- fusal to horse it with less than four horses. The traveller, however, had his meals at the Crown. Mr. Barnett was a little hasty with the post- boys. Richard Hood, one of the servants at the Crown, deposed that there were always plenty of horses at the Crown. Latterly Mr. Sayer had done a good deal of the posting, the consequence of which was that Meek had done less since May. Mr. Barnett would not let us put our horses to a car- riage waiting, but put their own horses to the carriage. On one occasion, when Mr. Meek's horses were quite ready, they could not put them to as they were prevented by Mr. Sayer. Charles Hancocks was called to speak to similar facts, and to prove that the posting business had gradually left plaintiff. Mr. Langley, excise- officer, deposed that he received a weekly return from the inns, of the number of posting jobs done by them. He produced this return commencing 17th May, and finishing June 12th. The returns previously to that date were sent to London. The charges upon the jobs between the above dates, amounted to £ 24. lis. 6d., of which one- fifth was duty.— Mr. Hay, book- keeper, assisted in making this return, and corroborated it. He never heard of any complaint made of want of horses in the stables. He should think that jobs to at least £ 4 to £ 5 a month had boen taken away from Meek by Sayer. Thomas Turver, post- boy to Mr. Meek for four or five years, deposed that horses were always ready when required. Mr. Sayer took to posting himself about the middle of April, since which time many jobs had been taken by Sayer, which would otherwise have come to Meek. Until lately all the posting business from the railway came to the Crown. This being the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Whateley addressed the Court and Jury, contending that there was nothing in the agreement to prevent the defendant from letting horses and carriages himself. The Learned Judge briefly addressed the Jury, and said the agreement between the parties appeared to him clearly to be an agreement that Meek the plaintiff was to do all the posting that came to the Crown. He had a very strong opinion on that point, aud as it was more a matter of law than of fact, he should recommend the Jury to follow his directions on that point. They had heard the evidence as to the business taken away by the defendant having amounted to about £ 19 per month, deducting duty, and they would bear in mind that the plaintiff was only entitled to claim damages from the 18th of May to the period of the commencement of this action— the 12th of June. The Jury after a short consultation found a verdict for the plaintiff— damages £ 25. Mr. Whateley obtained leave to move on the construction of the agreement. The Court then adjourned, aud the Jury were discharged. CROWN COURT. SATURDAY. ( BEFORE MR. JUSTICE MAULE.) On the assembling of the Court this morning the following Magistrates on the Commission of the Peace for the county were on the Bench:— The High Sheriff, W. Hemming, Esq. * the Right Hon. Lord Lvttelton, the Hon. Gen. H. B. Lygon, M. P.; F. W. Knight, Esq., M. P.; the Hon. W. J. Coventry* Dr. B. Cooper, E. Bearcroft, Esq.; J. M. G. Cheek, Esq., T. G. Curtler, Esq., J. R. Cookes, Esq., F. Eyston, Esq,, J. H. Galton, Esq., It. Hickman, Esq., R. Hemming, Esq., C. E. Hanford, Esq., T. S. Lea, Esq., J. F. Ledsam, Esq., R. Mynors, Esq., J. Merry, Esq., W. H. Ricketts, Esq,, W. A. Roberts, Esq., E. Sanderson, Esq., James A. Taylor, Esq., A. Skey, Esq., A. Turner, Esq., Geo. Talbot, Esq., H. Talbot, Esq., W. Trow, Esq., E. Vernon, Esq., H. J. Winnington, Esq., J. Williams, Esq., Rev. C. Dunne, J. H. Allen, Esq., Rev. H. J. Ingram, Rev. A. B. Lechmere, & c. & c. The following were sworn of the County Grand Jury The Hon. Wm. James Coventry, Foreman. Hon. Gen. H. B. Lygon, M. P. James Taylor, Esq. John Williams, Esq. J. H. Galton, Esq. Thomas Beale Cooper, Esq. H. J. Winnington, Esq. James A. Taylor, Esq., M. P. Fred. W. Knight, Esq., M. P. Abraham Turner, Esq. W. II. Ricketts, Esq. J. Merry, Esq. J. F. Ledsam, Esq. T. G. Curtler, Esq. Robert Mynors, Esq. Richard Hemming, Esq. J. H. Allen, Esq. J. R. Cookes, Esq. Richard Hickman, Esq. William Trow, Esq. Arthur Skey, Esq. Edward Vernon, Esq. Edward Bearcroft, Esq. The following gentlemen answered to their names as connected with the City Bench :— W. Lewis, Esq., Mayor; Christopher Henry Hebb, Esq., J. H. Clifton, Esq., T. G. Curtler, Esq., W. Dent, Esq.; J. M. Gutch, Esq., J. B. Hyde, Esq., coroner. The following gentlemen were then sworn of the City Grand Jury:— Mr. Henry Barnard, Foreman. Mr. E. L. Mountford, — Edward Mason, — William Otley, — Richard Oastler, — Charles Parsons, — George Parkes, — William Sparkes, — Solomon Stannah, — John Sidney, — Francis Woodward, — Richard West. Mr. Samuel Burlingham, — Thomas Chambers, — Thomas Dutton, — Daniel Eaton, — Robert Felton, — Joseph Fisher, —. Benjamin Gorle, — Wm. Hartwright, — John Ivens, — John Kirk, — Richard Langdon, — Edward Lucy, The usual proclamation against vice and immorality was read by Mr. Bellamy, jun., after which his Lordship proceeded to address the County Grand J ury. He said the cases presented by the calendar before them were considerable in number, and some of no light description ; but, in looking over the depositions, as far as he could see there was not occasion to trouble them with any observations. Should any difficulty occur in the dis- charge of their duties, he should feel pleasure in assisting them. He then addressed the City Grand Jury to the same effect, casually mentioning the will forgery case, but in reference to which he did not offer any remark beyond assuring them that he would readily afford them any assistance they might require. A petty jury having been ernpannelled, the Court proceeded with— THE TRIALS OF PRISONERS. Samuel Attwood, 59, nailor, was first placed at the bar on a charge of uttering three counterfeit shillings, at Halesowen, on the 16th March last, to one Jane Bullock ; the indictment fur- ther charged him with having been previously convicted at the Stafford Assizes of a similar offence. Mr. F. V. Lee, and Mr. Selfe, conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The record of the prisoner's previous conviction was handed in by Mr. James Powell, assistant solicitor to the Mint, who was called by Mr. Lee, for that purpose, after which Alice Hall was called and examined by Mr. Lee. She de- posed that on the 16th March last, the prisoner came to her master's house, the Star and Garter public- house, Halesowen, and in payment for a quart of ale tendened a counterfeit shil- ling which she took to her mistress, who told prisoner it was a bad one; and he gave her another which was also a bad one, and she said to him " Why, my man, you have got none but bad ones." He then gave her another, which was also bad; all these he took from a piece of blue paper in which he had seven or eight more. He then endeavoured to conceal the lot, but dropped them on a man's lap near him, and policeman Robin- son was sent for; the prisoner then left the house. Jane Bullock, the prosecutrix, examined by Mr. Selfe, cor- roborated the statement of last witness, and said that on biting the first shilling she detected it as a spurious one. John Hall, nailor, of Halesowen, picked up the shillings which were dropped by the prisoner into his lap; these he gave to policeman Robinson, who was sent for to apprehend him. Policeman Robinson produced the bad money, and said he apprehended the prisoner, when he told the officer he had never been to Bullock's, but had come from Birmingham that night, witness received nine counterfeit shillings altogether which had been taken and received from the prisoner. Mr. Powell, the first witness examined, was rj- called, and having inspected the coins, said they were all spurious and struck from the same die.— Guilty ; seven years' transportation. Ellen Fryer, 22, single woman, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a pair of lace cuff's, three quarters of a yard of ribbon, and two pairs of gloves, the property of her master, Robert George. Mr. Huddleston, on behalf c. i the prosecution, recom- mended the prisoner to mercy.— Six months' imprisonment. Eliza Freeman, 24, single woman, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a watch and four sixpences, the property of George Sutton, at Pershore, on the 8th instant.— Six months' imprison^ ment. SUPPLEMENT TO THE WORCESTERSHIRE GUARDIAN, SATURDAY, JULY 25, 1 846. BURGLARIES AT DUDLEY. William Reece, 11), iron- moulder, was placed at the bar, charged on two indictments. The first was for breaking into the dwelling- house of the Rev. John Raven, at Dudley, on'the night of the 15th May last, and stealing therein a great coat, a handkerchief, and a missionary box containing a quantity of money . J\ lr. Huddleston prosecuted, the prisoner was undefended. Susan Stuart, deposed,— I am servant of the Rev. John Raven, at Dixon's Green, situated in the parish of Dudley. On Friday, the 15th of May, I was the last person up, and fastened up the house between eleven and twelve. I was also the first person down the following morning; and on going down stairs about half- past six, I found the doors all open. The lower kitchen window had been broken open ; it was safe when I shut the shutter the night before; and any person might open the casement by breaking the window. I also found a piece of candle there which was not so when I left it; and one was missing from the usual place of storing them. A coat was also gone from the sofa in the front parlour ; and a bunch of keys had been stolen from the back parlour, in which all the cupboards were broken open, and a missionary box was also stolen therefrom. The Rev Mr. Raven, examined by Mr. Huddleston, said he left a coat on the sofa containing a handkerchief with some nuts in, the night before, and also a missionary box, which had more than 30s. in it, but witness could not say the exact amount. [ Superintendent Jewkes produced the coat and handkerchief, which were identified by witness.] Mr. Mitchell, pawnbroker, of Wolverhampton, said the jjrisoner had pawned the coat and handkerchief at his shop, giving his name as John Smith, lodger, of Wolverhampton. Mr. Daniel Smith, butcher, met the prisoner the morning after the robbery, about five o'clock, going in the direction of Wolverhampton, about five miles from the residence of Mr. Haven. The prisoner asked no questions of any of the witnesses; and the Learned Judge having summed up with great conciseness, the Jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." The second indictment preferred against the prisoner was for breaking into the dwelling- house of Joseph Burrows, at Dudley, on die 14th of May, and stealing therein two waist- coats, a pair of trowsers, and a variety of other articles. Mr. Huddleston prosecuted in this case also, and called Mr. Joseph Burrows, the prosecutor, who said he was a spade maker, at Gates Hill, Dudley, and on the morning of the day in question left his house in a state of security, bolting the door, and pushing the key under it. The prosecutor's wife deposed that her husband had left his liouse about half- past five on the morning of the 14th, leaving her in bed. On coming down about half- past seven and looking for the key she could not find it; the door was half locked. The drawers were all open but one. From one drawer witness missed two coats, two waistcoats, a pair of trowsers, and two silk handkerchiefs; from the table, six tea- spoons ; and from a second drawer she missed a box containing four rings. The prosecutor identified six spoons, which were found on the prisoner by Jewkes. The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of guilty.— Ten years' transportation. Thomas Mole, 20, collier, pleaded guilty to breaking into a building connected with the dwelling- house of Benjamin Greenfield, at Dudley, on the 9th inst., and stealing therefrom five pigeons. The prisoner also pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a shop belonging to one James Round, at Dudley, on the 9th inst., and stealing therefrom a couple of fowls, the property of Benjamin Round. The prisoner was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. John Thompson, 25, horse dealer, and John Seymore, 35, shoe maker, were charged with burglariously entering the dwelling- house of James Wilkinson, at Dudley, on the 8tli May last, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of the said James Wilkinson. Mr. Whitmore prosecuted, and Mr. Huddleston defended hoth the prisoners. Mr. Whitmore opened the case, and said the point for the consideration of the Jury was whether they were satisfied of the felonious intent with which the prisoners had entered the house. Mr. William Wilkinson deposed his father kept the Swan, at Dudley, and on the 8th of May, Dudley fair day, the prisoners and three others came in and remained about a quarter of an hour. They returned again twice in the course of the day, and appeared to be examining the premises. They came again about half- past nine at night, and the prisoners went up stairs towards a private sitting- room. Witness put a servant to watch at the bottom of the stairs, and soon after that the servant called out, and Thompson was running away when witnsss seized him and did not let go his hold until constable Dawcett came. Prisoner was then searched and on him were found a life preserver, a candle, several skeleton keys, with other suspicious property. The money taken during the day was kept in a room to go to which any one must pass through the sitting room before mentioned. John Jones, the servant appointed to watch the prisoners, said he heard a bolt drawn, and two or three footsteps, when he called out and Thompson ran away, but was seized by the last witness. Mary Ann Hobson deposed that she saw Thompson up stairs and seized him by the arms, saying, " You thief, what brings you here," when he rushed from her arms, and made his escape. Mrs. Bunch, a daughter of the prosecutor's, was examined by Mr. Whitmore as to the identity of the prisoner Thompson. She stated that she had seen him in the house, and when he was brought back into the bar witness said " you are all right now Thompson." Prisoner replied " No, but I should have been if 1 had got your sugar." Policeman Dawcett was called and said that when he searched the prisoner Thompson he found in his possession seven skele- ton keys, two picklocks, a jemmy, a life preserver, a wax taper, a box of lucifer- matches, and a gold ring upon his finger. Wit- ness tried one of the skeleton keys with the lock of the room and it opened the door. Witness asked Thompson what he carried the life preserver for, when lie said " If you had gone on the right side of me, I would have knocked your b — brains out; 1 know what you can give me, only ten years." Mr. Huddleston addressed the Jury in defence, and impressed upon them how necessary it was that they should free their minds from the prejudice which had been endeavoured to be thrown into the case by the parade which had been made'of the implements found upon Thompson. His Lordship summed up at some length ; after which the Jury returned a verdict of guilty against Thompson, and acquitted Seymore. His Lordship on passing sentence said Thompson had been found guilty on very clear evidence, and that the finding of the implements upon him would add just five years to his punishment, inasmuch as it showed a determi- nation to use violence if necessary. This he mentioned for the benefit of his companions, if they were present, which was not improbable, unless they were confined in some other prisons. His Lordship sentenced him to fifteen years' transportation. Seymore then pleaded guilty to a charge of striking the prosecutor's son after he had been committed ; but in extenua- tion said that the complainant had sneered at him, He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. APPLICATION FOR POSTPONEMENT. Mr. Huddlestcn applied to the Court to postpone the hear- ing of a charge against James Millner, for not surrendering, on the 3rd of April last, to be examined at the Birmingham Dis- trict Court of Bankruptcy. He made his application on the ground that a material witness was ill and could not attend; in support of which he read a certificate purporting to be from a medical man. Mr. Yardley, for the defence, contended that the certificate was not an attested one, and therefore could not be admitted evidence. His Lordship thereupon ruled that the case must be heard, leaving it open for Mr. Huddleston to apply again at a further period in the Assizes. BIGAMY AT EVESHAM. Richard Durnell, alias Henry Lee Paget, 32, surgeon, was charged with bigamy, having married one Alice Lovell, at Bath, on the 7th March, 1844, his wife, Georgiana Durnell, being still alive. Mr. Lee, and Mr. Whitmore appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Godson, Q. C., and Mr. Huddleston for the defence. Mr. Lee opened the case for the prosecution. He said it was one of considerable aggravation. The prosecutor was Mr. J as. George M'Arcy, a dentist, of London, who was acquainted with an uncle of the prisoner's. The prisoner was introduced into his family in 1833, by his uncle, and became an accepted suitor to Miss Georgiana M'Arcy, to whom he was married at St. Pancras church, on the 20th of July, 1835. In February, 1836, the prisoner got into difficulties, and was confined in the Fleet prison, from whence he was released on the 7th of May, through the assistance of his father- in- law, Mr. M'Arcy, and continued to reside with him for some time. He then went with his wife to Newtown, Montgomeryshire, where, after pledging every article she had with her, he left her, and she returned home. Subse quently, the prosecutor, Mr. M'Arcy, heard of the prisoner on various occasions in different parts of the kingdom; and in 1844 he paid his addresses to a lady of accomplishments and some means ( residing in Bath), whom he married under the name of Henry Lee Paget. The first witness called was Miss Mary Joy, examined by Mr. Lee, who said— I knew Miss Georgiana M'Arcy; and I know prisoner ; 1 was present at their marriage at St. Pancras church on the 20th of July, 1835. There were present myself and Mr. Lee. They resided in Sidmouth Street, Regent Square. I knew the prisoner's father. I recollect the prisoner and his wife residing there for six months, and frequently visited them. Prisoner got into difficulties, and I know he was in the Fleet prison. When he came out he went with his wife to live at her father's, but I do not know how long. Examined by Mr. Godson.— I do not know how old Mr. Durncll was when he came up to London. I should suppose he was about twenty when he was married, and had been in London about two years at that time. I know the prose- cutor in this case; lie was a dentist. Mr. M'Arcy invited prisoner to come and live at his house before he was married. Prisoner, when he came of age, had some property. I believe the prisoner took the benefit of the Insolvent Debtor's Act. They lived happily together at first, but about eight years since they had a separation. After that she lived with her father. I visited them in Sidmouth Street. Mr. Durnell furnished the house there. Mr. George James M'Arcy examined by Mr. Lee I am a dentist residing in town. 1 was introduced to the prisoner in December, 1833, by Mr. Sinclair, who is a connexion of his. He was then about 21, as near as I can recollect. He was a surgeon. He paid his addresses to my daughter, and in July 1835, was married to her by my consent which I gave him at Liverpool. After their marriage they lived in Sidmouth Street, and after he had left the Fleet prison he lived with me. The fees for his discharge were paid by me. After living with me some time he left me. He came in May and left in September, 1837. He left for Kidderminster, but I do not think he went there. My daughter met him at Pitchford, and they then went to live in Newtown, Montgomeryshire. My daughter had a watch and some other trinkets when she left, but had nothing more than she stood up in when she came back. My daughter did not live with him after 1838. I received a letter from him soon after his wife's return. I do not think I saw the prisoner after 1 received the letter. [ The letter was read, as also one from an acquaintance of the prisoner's. They were dated from Aldridge, Northamptonshire, and asked the prisoner's wife whether it was her intention to join him, stating the particulars of the connexions he had formed, and his probable income, which was fixed at 100J. per annum, out of which she would have to keep house, pay rent, taxes, and keep a horse, the prisoner to find his own servants.] My daughter did not go to him. and the next time I heard of him was in October, 1842, when he resided in 37, Albermarle Street, Piccadilly. The next time I heard of him was that he was gone to Liverpool, and had altered his name to Jackson. 1 afterwards heard of him at Abergavenny, South Wales, and afterwards I saw him at Bengeworth, Eve- sham, in May last, when he was in the custody of Douglas the inspector. Cross- examined by Mr. Godson.— At his first introduction he was a very young man. About two years before he was married he was acting as a surgeon in London, without a certificate. He lived in my house about two years before he was married. Mr. Godson.— You have heard the letter which has been read. Was not the answer to that a deed of separation ? 31 r. Lee.— You must put it in. Mr. Godson— Indeed I shall do nothing of the sort. Examination resumed.— She did not go down in answer to the letter which has been read, hm remained with me, I got down to Evesham about half- past nine in the morning. He was taken up in the dead of the night and at that time was practising as a surgeon at Evesham. Mr. Richard Humphries.— I was at Bath on the 7th March} 1844, and was present at prisoner's marriage to Alice Lovell. I had known him about six weeks before that time, and he then went by the name of Henry Lee Paget. They went to live about a mile and a half from Bath, at a cottage near Bailbrook. I did not know of their going to Evesham. Inspector Douglas.— I apprehended the prisoner at the bar on Monday morning the 8th of June. Cross- examined by Mr. Godson.— I was not ordered to take him at any particular time. It was about a quarter past two in the morning when I took him. He had been living at Evesham about nine or ten months. Mr. Godson briefly addressed the Jury in defence. He said it was no use to struggle against the evidence produced, but he hoped the Jury in returning their verdict would temper it with mercy. His Lordship summed up in a very brief manner, and the Jury returned a verdict of guilty ; the foreman intimating to the Court by some few inaudible sentences that the Jury recom- mended him to mercy. Mr. Justice Maule observed that the foreman had muttered something of which he knew nothing. Certainly the foreman was a free- born Englishman and was at liberty to express him- self in a loud tone of voice and also in all the intermediate degrees down to whispering; but if he wished the prisoner to be benefitted he must speak so as to be heard. The foreman then repeated his request to the Court, where- upon the prisoner was asked if he had anything to say why the Court should not give him judgment. He replied that his Counsel had not been allowed to put in the deed of separation which had been sent him in answer to his letter, and which was so stringent in its provisions that he considered it equivalent to a divorce, and had consequently thought himself at liberty to marry again or he should not otherwise have done so. His Lordship said he certainly was surprised at his ignorance, anil could scarcely credit that any one in England could possibly entertain so ridiculous an idea of matrimonial obligations, as to suppose that a mere written consent to separate acknow- ledged by both parties was an efficient release therefrom. He did not know whether it would not be better for him ( the prisoner) that he should be transported and so be removed from a country wherein he must reside under assumed names ; however, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he would adjudge him to twelve months' imprisonment. FOAVL- STEALING AT MARTIN HUSSINGTREE. Thomas Harrison, alias Ilartles, 22, labourer, was charged with stealing four tame fowls, the property of Sarah Quarrell, at Martin Hussingtree, on the 11th July instant. Mr. Selfe prosecuted. The fowls were sold by the prisoner to two witnesses; and the feathers, & c., were identified by the prosecutrix. Guilty : Three months' imprisonment. MALICIOUS ASSAULT AT REDIHTCII. James Heath, alias Cribby Heath, 21, fish- hook maker, was charged with assaulting Thomas Bint, at Reddith, on the 14th March last. Mr. Huddleston briefly opened the case by stating that this charge was preferred by the special direction of the Lord Chief Baron at the last Assizes. The prosecutor had given evidence against Danks, Pitts, and two others, charged with killing a donkey, and when he returned home in the evening the prisoner had assaulted him. Mr. Huddleston then called Thomas Bint, prosecutor, who deposed that after leaving the Court at the last Assizes, having given evidence in the before- mentioned case, he met the prisoner, who asked him whether the sentence was " put on" the prisoners ; and told witness he was a" lying b ?" Witness then went into the Lion, but leaving on business the prisoner assailed him, and with some instrument he had in his hand, violently cut him on the nose and face. This so " dissensed" the witness that he was obliged to be carried into the Lion ; as soon as he was recovered he left the Lion to go home, when the prisoner again came from some hiding- place and ran at him, but witness seized him and threw him on the ground, where he held him for some time, but ulti- mately, at the request of the by- standers, he let him go. Mrs. Ann Bint corroborated her husband's statement, as did also the landlord of the Red Lion, who said that the prisoner threatened to shoot Bint in his presence. The Jury found the prisoner guilty of a common assault only, and he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. William Wakeman, 22, labourer, was found guilty of stealing en chickens, the property of Stephen Packwood, on the 6th instant at Stoke Prior. Three months' imprisonment. Thomas Hall, 35, labourer, was charged with stealing two half- crowns, the property of William Smith, at Mathon, on the 6th instant. Mr. Spooner prosecuted; and Mr. Huddleston defended. From the evidence it appeared that Smith was at the Cliffe Arms, Mathon, on the night of the 6th, which was wake time, and the prisoner was there. Witness sold him some cherries which he did'nt pay for. In the course of the evening prisoner followed witness out of doors and asked him to have a wrestle, which he did, and in the scuffle witness heard his half- crowns rattling, but on looking for the money on the ground, he could not find them. Prisoner helped him to look for them. There were a great many persons there dancing ; and the whole company were quite convivial. The following morning a man known as " Bosbury Jones" said to the company " Here's a man lias found half- a- crown what shall we do with it." Prosecutor said it was his; and a host of voices immediately cried out " spend it," and Smith who admitted that he was " in the suds," ( which he translated by saying he was sulky), sung out with the rest " spend it." No sooner said than done and the unlucky prisoner was deputed to tender the half- crown in payment for a jug of cider. Now it so happened that this very identical half crown had been given to Smith by the landlady of the Cliffe Arms, who at his request had engraved with her scissors the word " Smith" in legible characters upon the coin. Thus was the half crown identified as the lost one, and poor Smith was handed over to the authorities, despite his assertion that the money had been handed to him by Bob a/ ias " Bosbury Jones." Mr. Huddleston called several witnesses who spoke to his excellent character.— Not guilty. The Court then adjourned until nine o'clock on Monday. MONDAY. Mr. Justice Maule took his seat on the Bench about half- past nine o'clock, when the first case heard was one for SHEET STEALING AT ALVECHURCH. William Turner, 24, carpenter, was charged with stealing a ewe lamb, the property of Edward King, at Alvechurch, on the 26th May last. Mr. Whitmore prosecuted and Mr. Huddleston defended the prisoner. i The first witness called was William Farr, watchman at Alvechurch, who stated that while on duty on the night of the 25th May, he saw the prisoner witli a ewe lamb round his neck, coming in the direction from Mr. King's, and in answer to a question prisoner said he had won it at a raffle. Cross- examined by Mr. Huddleston.— I do not know that the prisoner was drunk, he was sober enough when I saw him ; but I don't know whether he had'nt been drinking before. I saw the prisoner put the lamb into his cellar and then I went and told Allday, constable of Redditch. Mr. Salter Allday was next called and said that he went to the prisoner's house in the morning of the 26th, two or three times and took the prisoner into custody. Witness found a lamb there which he took to Mr. King, and on putting the lamb down in the meadow from whence it had been stolen, with a piece of cord tied to its neck, it immediately recognized its dam, and vice versa. In the course of cross- examination this witness volunteered some remarks upon prisoner's character, and said he blamed himself for not taking him into custody at first. Mr. Huddlestou.— That is the first time I ever heard a con- stable blame himself. Mr. Justice Maule— And I will tell you, Mr. Constable, another thing you ought to blame yourself for, that is, foisting something about the man's ctiaracter upon the Court, without being asked. You have disgraced yourself, sir. I order that that constable be not allowed his expenses. Mr. King, the prosecutor, was examined, and said that the prisoner came to him before the robbery but did not ask him to lend him a lamb or say anything about one. Witness owed prisoner some money. A statement which had been made by prisoner at the time of his committal was read, in which he confessed to taking the lamb, but he had not done so feloniously. A friend of his had bet him that ha would not or could not get a lamb as big as a pig ; and to gain that bet he had borrowed the lamb. Mr. Huddleston argued that the principal ingredient of a felony was wanting in this case, viz., the intent with which the lamb was taken. There was no attempt to conceal or kill the lamb, and as to the falsehood told the constable, that he suggested was only an excuse that he might get time to return the lamb.— Not guilty. HIGHWAY ROBHERY AT YARDLEY. John Billingham, 1( J, iron tube maker, and Benjamin Garratt, 21, chain maker, were charged with violently assaulting Richard Briscoe, on the 29tli of May last, at Yardley, and robbed him of eight shillings. Mr. Selfe prosecuted and Mr. Huddleston defended. The first witness called was the prosecutor, who said— I am a farmer, at Yardley. On the day in question, was at the Fighting Cocks Inn, at Yardley, about ten in the morning. I was there again in the afternoon, and stayed there three or four hours. I saw the prisoners there in the garden, anil they saw me there. I left about seven o'clock, and went towards home over Moseley Wake Green, and when there the prisoners came up and attacked me. One of them put a pistol before my face, and another caught hold of my coat and pulled me down on my back ; I can't say which, but am sure the prisoners are the men. One of them put his hand in my pocket, and said " I've got it." They then left me ; I think that was Garratt; he had taken 7s. or 8s. which were in a purse. I told Anderton of them. I am sure the prisoners were the men, 1 saw them all day. Cross- examined by Mr. Huddleston— I was at the inn bowl- ing, but not with the prisoners, it was with a friend named Carpenter. I went to the Fighting Cocks about eight o'clock, and I then had a glass of ale, but did not smoke. We after- wards went and bowled for a bottle of porter. [ The witness kept fencing with the counsel's questions, and it was not until threatened by his Lordship with committal for contempt of Court, that he would give direct answers.] In the afternoon we had ten glasses of gin, and after that some ale. I was quite sober when I left. I was not frightened when I first met them, but I was when they put the pistol to my heart. M r. Carpenter is not here, but Mr. Alderton is. I am not quite certain what money was stolen; but I had 10/. in my other pocket which I had taken to pay a person an account, but he was from home. I can't say to sixpence what I had in my pocket, but 1 think it was about 12s.; I spent Is. lid. I saw the prisoners afterwards when they were searched. It was between seven and eight o'clock in the evening; but it was daylight. Re- examined by Mr. Selfe.— The liquors I have spoken of were drunk between us. 1 was quite sober as I was going home; and it was broad daylight. Mr. William Anderton.— I received information of therobbery about nine o'elock, and I went, after the robbery, in company with a man named Hewitt. He apprehended Billingham, and I appre- hended Garratt, who struck me on the head with a crowbar, which is in Court. 1 saw them searched. I saw 2s. 8taken from Billingham, also two small pocket keys and a file. I saw a pistol found the next morning, it lay by the side of a bank about 200 or 300 yards from the place where they were taken. It was on the road, I took them back and about there they made a halt. Cross- examined by Mr. Huddleston It was at Golden Hillocks they were apprehended. I had not been at the Fighting Cocks Inn. I gave the prisoners some beer at my house. Mr. Briscoe pointed out the place where the robbery took place. Re- examined.— The prisoners had not been searched when they made the halt. Superintendent Taylor.— I searched the prisoners, and on Billingham I found nine skeleton keys tied up in his shirt between his legs. I found the pistol, and on unscrewing it I found it loaded with two pebbles and powder. Mr. Huddleston addressed the Jury for the defence, and liis Iiordship having summed up, a verdict of guilty was returned against both prisoners. Garratt pleaded guilty to a previous conviction 5 Mr, John Barnett was called and gave Billingham a good character for four years, up to within four months of the present time. Fifteen years' transportation. HIGHWAY ROBBERS AT KINGSNORTON. George Hall, George Medlam, William Chambers, and John Woodward, four young men, were charged with assaulting John Bayliss, at Kingsnorton, on the 21st ult, and robbing him of eight shillings. Mr. Selfe prosecuted, and Mr. Yardley defended the prisoner. John Bayliss said he was a labourer, and was coming home from work about three o'clock in the morning, when he met the four prisoners about 200 or 300 yards from his own house. When they came up one said, " Who are you, my old fellow— where are you going? Are you a boatman ?" Witness said, " Yes, something of the sort;" whereupon they all surrounded him, and one struck him senseless to the ground. Witness then got up and went home, and after getting assistance he followed the prisoners, and about half a mile off they overtook them all four together. . As soon as they saw the party in pur- suit, one of them pulled out a gun barrel and stock, with which two of them armed themselves. They said to witness, who was in advance, that unless he returned they would knock his brains out. His wife thereupon came up, and went in amongst them, when they hit her several times with their fists, and then struck her on the head with the gun barrel and knocked her down. Witness had some money in his pocket when he left for home, but it was stolen in the scuffle. It was light at three o'clock. This witness was examined by Mr. Yardley as to the quantity of liquor he had taken on the night in question, but his testi- mony was not shaken. Ann Bayliss corroborated the statement of her husband ; and in answer to Mr. Yardley, said her husband was quite sober enough to know what he was doing. She ran up to the prisoners first, and it was possible she might have used a few expressions to them not altogether complimentary. Witness had been disturbed in the first instance by the prisoners making a noise with a donkey, and dancing round it; when they left it she returned to bed. Soon after that witness's husband came in and called her up, saying four men had knocked him down and robbed him. She then got up and followed them. The prisoners had some fishing- rods tied up in a bundle. William Turner was called, and said that on seeing Bayliss and his wife running after the men, he had joined them, and saw the prisoner Chambers strike the woman on the head with the gun barrel. Her head bled very much, and he told her to go back to the village and get some of the inhabitants to follow the men. All four then came up, armed with a gun barrel, stock, and some fishing- rods, and threatened to knock their brains out if they did not go back. Medlam used his best endeavours to prevent Chambers from striking the woman. A man named Cottrell apprehended Hall; and policeman Simmonds apprehended Woodward, and was present when Chambers was searched. A full complement of fishing appara- tus was found in the possession of the prisoners, and also a gun stock ; the barrel was found near the place where the assault on the woman was committed. When Simmonds apprehended Woodward he said he had only been fishing. All the prisoners arc Birmingham men. Mr. Yardiey addressed the Jury in defence, and called a number of witnesses who spoke to the character of the prisoners. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty of an assault only, as against all the prisoners, and his Lordship sentenced Chambers and Woodward to be imprisoned for four months, and Medlam for two months. CHARGE OF STABBING AT DROITWICH. Thomas Morgan, 33, carpenter, was charged with stabbing Samuel Smith, at Droitwich, on the 11th ult. Mr. Selfe prosecuted and Mr. Huddleston defended the prisoner. Mr. Selfe opened the case by briefly stating the facts, and then called the prosecutor, Samuel Smith, who said— I am a barber living at Droitwich. Between twelve and one on the night of the 11th of June I was returning home from hay- making, and when near a place called the Holfoways 1 heard the scream of a woman. 1 went in the direction, and on arriving I saw the prisoner Morgan beating his wife, and a woman said from a window, " Policeman, take him into custody :" Morgan then came up and looked me in the face and said" You are no policeman, go on about your business, you have no rights here !" I said 1 had when I heard the screams of a female ciying murder. He said I had not and had better walk on. I turned round and walked away, when he came up and said to me " I suppose you wants to rob me as you did Mr. Greaves." I said " Morgan, what do you mean by that ?" I turned round and we met each other. He made a blow at me which I endeavoured to ward with my arm, but I felt the effects of it in my chest and I could hardly fetch my breath. He kicked me several times till he nearly fell backwards. He then got me up in a corner and I lifted up my arm and he stabbed me under my arm. I laid hold of the knife and with a jerk pulled it out of his hand and said " Morgan, what did you stab me for ?" He said " Have you had enough ?" I said I had, and called to the neighbours to let me sit down. I after- wards went to Mr. KitsellJ surgeon. Cross- examined by Mr. Huddleston.— I had been working at Mr. Parry's, of Walmer. I did not hear any voice complain- ing about a supper not being got ready. All I was attracted by was the cry of a female in distress and 1 went like a man to assist her. I did not interfere or ask him questions until he said something to me of Mr. Greaves. People did taunt me about it, although I was not guilty of it. I was fined for assaulting Nicholls and also my sister, but that has nothing to do with the° present case. There was 110 tussle between us, but 1 tried to make my escape. I did not see the knife in his hand. It was a common old- fashioned shut knife. It is here. Re- examined by Mr. Selfe.— I carried the knife in my hand until I got to the houses and gave it to a Mrs. Harris. By the Court The affair was all out of the house. 1 did not go in at all. Mrs. Harris.— I live at the Ilolloways, near Morgan's house. I got up to my window in consequence of the noise, and saw Morgan and his wife at Bowles' door, they were talking, and after that Morgan began to beat his wife and she cried out '' murder." I saw a person coming up the road, and called out; he came up and Morgan said " You are Mr. Samuel Smith, and not a policeman." He then upbraided Smith about Mr. Greaves, and they had a tussle, when Morgan fell to the ground. 1 heard Smith say he was stabbed, and he went into Harding's house. I then went down and saw him in the house, he was bleeding and gave me the knife, which had blood on it. Thomas Harding saw the scuffle, but it was dark, and witness could not tell who struck the first blow ; nor did he hear anything about the supper not being got ready. Constable Harris was called up on the night in question, and saw Smith. Witness received the knife from the Magistrates, and produced it in Court. He apprehended the prisoner in a field ; he was not drunk or sober, but was in liquor. Mr. Kitsell, surgeon, said lie was called up to attend Smith, and found him being conveyed home in a very faint state from loss of blood and difficulty of breathing. On examining him witness found him with two wounds, one on the left arm, near the principal artery, about an inch deep, and another wound which penetrated the left side of the chest and punctured the luno's. He was in danger for three days. The wounds might have been inflicted by a knife similar to the one produced. Cross- examined by Mr. Huddleston— The wound on the arm might have been caused by the prosecutor lifting up his arm to ward off the blow. Mr. Huddleston addressed the Jury in mitigation of the circumstances. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty of the felony. In passing sentence his Lordship commented on the evil effects of intoxication, which he said was the origin of three- fourths of the crimes in the calendar.— Twelve months' imprisonment. George Lewis was charged with stealing a table- cloth, the property of Thomas Jones, at Kidderminster, on the 9th ult. Mr. Huddleston prosecuted ; the prisoner was undefended. A witness named Lloyd said the prisoner confessed to him that he had stolen the cloth and pledged it, but did so owing to his poverty. Prisoner now said that he had offered to return the cloth to the prosecutor if he would give him time to raise the 6d. He had gone out for work, but not succeeding, had stolen the cloth and pledged it to get food for his wife, who was lying ill in bed, having just been confined. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. One month's imprisonment. Henry Brooks, 23, labourer, was charged with stealing a pot of potatoes, the property of James Young, at Kidderminster, on the 2nd instant. Mr. Yardley prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended. From the evidence of prosecutor it appeared that he had pur- chased four pots of potatoes on the day in question, and the prisoner had been employed to put them into his cart, and had seized the opportunity to appropriate one of the four pots to his own use. A boy named Crook saw him remove a pot of pota- toes in a barrow from the spot where the prosecutor placed his potatoes. These potatoes were sold by the prisoner to a higgler on the same evening Guilty: Four months' imprisonment. MALICIOUS WOUNDING AT OMBERSLEY. William Woodward, 19, labourer, was charged with cutting and wounding Henry Mann, at Ombcrsley, on the 8th of November last. Mr. Whitmore prosecuted ; and Mr. Carrington defended. Henry Mann deposed.— 1 am an assistant gamekeeper to Lord Sandys, at Ombersley. On the 8th November I was in Gardner's Grove, in that parish, and saw Woodward with four others setting gins. It was about four o'clock. On seeing me Woodward said " Now, d— your eyes, come on." I have been in Lord Sandys'employ sometime. Woodward struck at me with a bludgeon about an inch and a half in diameter. He then said to the others, who were all armed with bludgeons, " Come on." They all struck at me, but 1 received the blows on my arm which they rendered useless, and I then had several blows on my head, one of which I am certain was from the prisoner. I fell to the ground and became insensible. I had a dog with me which was also much beaten. I went to Mr. Garnett, surgeon. I went to the County Gaol and was shown some prisoners, when I picked out the prisoner Woodward. Cross- examined by Mr. Carrington.— I had not seen any of them before. I was examined about the 13th of April on this matter first. I was here at last Assizes against another prisoner, who was apprehended on the same charge. He was acquitted ; but 1 swore as positively to him as I do to this one. This man has on the same trousers now, I believe, as he had then. He had on a middle sized smock frock. I can't say how many thousands wear the same kind of trousers. Policeman Richards.— I am stationed at Crowle, and on the 29th December I apprehended the prisoner on a charge of stealing a jacket. Crowle is about ten miles from Ombersley. He asked me if that was all, and if I did not want him about the Ombersley affair, for thrashing the keeper. I told him not to mention anything of that sort to me for all he said I should tell the Magistrates. He said Day and he had changed clothes and he had not seen Day since ; and at night he said " d his eyes, we gave liim something, and his dog," but I did not ask him who, nor anything about it. Cross- examined by Mr. Carrington. — I did not know so much about this matter in December as now. I did not tell the keeper. I went and lodged a warrant against this man to detain him till July. 1 will swear I did not tell him of the Ombersley matter when I apprehended him for stealing the jacket. I did not know of it. Mr. Carrington addressed the Jury in defence, laying par- ticular stress on the lapse of time which had occurred from the commission of the offence until the charge was preferred; and complained of the conduct of the policeman in postponing the case until the prisoner had undergone his period of imprison- ment on the prior charge of stealing a jacket, and thereby subjecting him to an additional incarceration for three months. Guilty of an assault, with a recommendation to mercy on account of his long imprisonment; one months' imprisonment. Thomas Floyd, 16, labourer, was charged with stealing a quantity of lead from a fishing- net, the property of John Jenkins, George Jenkins, and Daniel Spiers, on the 4th of July last. The property had been stolen from a net, which had been hung out to dry on the banks of the river, and was sold to Mr. King, tinman, by the prisoner, for 7£ d. Guilty. A second indictment charged the prisoner with stealing a quantity of lead from the net of Edward Jenkins and others. The lead in this instance had been cut from the net in sixty- eight places. This was also sold to the previous witness, King, when he gave his name as Jones, and said the lead was his father's. The prisoner's mother lives in Worcester, but he has no father. Guilty. His Lordship, in sentencing the prisoner, said that for the sake of a paltry ten- penny worth of lead he had destroyed a net. line valued at 24s., and if he continued such practices he would by and by burn a man's house down for the sake of baking a potato in the ashes, lie would, however, deal leniently with him, and as he had been imprisoned for some time already, he would only sentence him to six days' imprisonment. BURGLARY AT THE GROVE, ST. JOHN'S. George Hughes and Edward Davis were charged with breaking into the house of Mr. Rimell, the Grove, St. John's, on the 8th of November, and James Downes was charged with receiving a portion of the stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Groves prosecuted, and Mr. Cooke defended the prisoners Hughes and Davis, and Mr. Huddleston the pri- soner Downes. The first witness called was John Rimell, the prosecutor, who said— I live in St. John's parish, at the Grove. On the 25th of November I went to bed between nine and ten, and came down next morning between seven and eight. In con- sequence of what the servant said I examined the lower dairy, and found a- bar wrenched from it, and missed a leg of mutton some cheese, a quantity of pork, and other articles. Round the window there is some soil, and there were footsteps, which I ordered to be covered about seven o'clock. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke.— The servant girl was much alarmed. There was a great commotion in the house when it was discovered. There were three county and two city police- men came. I gave the order to cover the tracks to James Downes who lived with me. I had two men servants beside him. I was not the last person up. The servant girl generally locks up ; and she is here to- day. The pavement is 200 yards from the foot path across the orchard. Parties could make a cut across. Ann Bond In November last I was servant to last witness. I recollect the robbery. I went to bed about nine o'clock, and I fastened the doors. The mutton, bacon, and the cheese were quite safe before I went to bed. I barred and bolted the back door and bolted and locked the front one. I came down the next morning between five and six o'clock; when I observed the bar which was placed over the back door was thrown down in the back kitchen. I missed the meat and cheese from the dairy. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke.— I pulled the door of the dairy to, and at the same time I saw that the mutton was safe. George Attwood.— I was a servant of Mr. Rimell at the time of the robbery, and on going to my work about half past four in the morning I found the back door open. Policeman Dovey apprehended the prisoner Downes on the 28th of November, in the London Road. The other two pri- soners live about 200 yards from where he apprehended him. Witness told him he should apprehend him on suspicion of Mr. Rimell's burglary. Prisoner said he bought the bacon at Mr. Farmer's shop in High Street, and on being brought into High Street he went into Mr. Davis's shop and said he had bought it from a Air. Osborne who serves in that shop, but Mr. Osborne said he had not bought it there at all. Mr. Charles Osborne, the person mentioned by Dovey, said that he remembered that policeman and the prisoner coming into Mr. Davis' shop, and in answer to the prisoner saying he had bought the bacon oft' witness, he denied it, and the prisoner then turned to a man named Edwards in the shop, who examined the bacon and said that he had not sold it him. Witness had frequently sold him bacon. Mr. Davis, the proprietor of the shop, Edwards, the porter, and Martin, an apprentice, all deposed that they had not sold any bacon to the prisoner of the description produced. Mr. Davis said he had never sold any of the kind, it was of a peculiar " cut." Miss Eliza Spooner, daughter of the landlord of the Barley Mow public- house, Sidbury, said that the prisoner Downes had met the other prisoners at. her father's house on the 24th November, and on the Wednesday he had borrowed 8s. from her to pay for some bacon he had bought from the other prisoners, and also a pair of steelyards to weigh it; she saw him weigh it. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke.— I told the policeman when he came to me that 1 thought it was but of little use to get me to the Assizes, as my memory was not very good upon the matter ; but he said I should be bound to come and must recollect the whole of the particulars. I have seen the prisoners since the last Assizes several times, and know them well. Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston— The bacon was left in the back kitchen. Downes manages a boat for Mr. Hood, and frequently purchased provisions for his voyage, and left them on the table till he went home. Policeman Grubb said— I apprehended Hughes at his own house in the London Road, on the 30th of November, and I there found a piece of a shoulder of mutton, a piece of cheese, and a pair of shoes. The shoes were afterwards removed by Hughes' wife into the coal- hole. I got them from there and took them to Hughes, who was in Bateman's custody in the next house. He said they were his, and put them 011. I saw a piece of cheese Bateman found, and it appeared as though it were cut from the piece I found in Hughes' house. A piece of shoulder of mutton was also found by Bateman, and it seemed similar to that found in Hughes' house. I took the shoes to Mr. Rimell's, and the left shoe I compared with some footmarks pointed out to me by John Downes, and which were covered up with bricks. They corresponded exactly ; there is a vacancy where a nail is wanting, also a projection on the heel, and two nails standing by themselves. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke.— There had been heavy rain a night or two before the day I went to compare the mark. Thomas Bateman, of the city force, apprehended Davis on the 30th November, and in searching his house found a piece of bacon, cheese, and mutton, which he compared with the mutton and cheese found by last witness, and they corresponded exactly; and also with him compared the footmarks at Mr. Rimell's. John Downes covered the marks by Mr. Rimell's directions, " kivered ' em over nicely and closely with bricks, walled ' em in tight, so as rain nor a light frost shouldn't obliterate ' em." Witness also saw the policemen compare the boots with the marks. Miss Rimell identified the bacon by a notch which she had made in it at the time she cut it from the flitch, and to which she directed the attention of the servant at the time. The cheese lost was similar in quality to that produced; but she would not swear that it was the same. Mr. Cooke addressed the Jury in defence of Hughes and Davis, and Mr. Huddleston for Downes. Mr. Hood, merchant, was called and gave Downes a good character, he having been in his employ for about fouryears.— Hughesand Daviesguilty; twelve months' imprisonment; Downes acquitted. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock the following morning. TUESDAY. Thomas Rider, 55, blacksmith, of Stourbridge, was charged with having committed a rape on Maria Share, fourteen years of age, his servant. Mr. Yardley prosecuted, and Mr. Hud- dleston defended the prisoner— Not guilty. Edwin Cole, 16, grate fitter, was charged with having com- mitted an offence against the order of nature, at Dudley, 011 the 11th of May last. The same counsel prosecuted and defended as in the former case— Not guilty. BANKRUPT'S REFUSAL TO SURRENDER. James Milner, 42, writing clerk, was charged with refusing to surrender himself as a bankrupt, before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, at the Birmingham District Court, before three o'clock in the afternoon of the 3rd of April last, the offence being committed with a view to defraud his creditors Mr. Huddleston conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Yardley the defence. The venue having been laid in the wrong county ( Warwick- shire instead of Worcestershire) the prisoner was acquitted. STABBING AT DUDLEY. William Stokes, 31, nailor, and Samuel Cartwright, 27, miner, were charged with having, on the 29th December, at Dudley, feloniously and unlawfully cut and wounded Joseph Wardle, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. Selfe prosecuted, and Mr. Huddleston appeared for Cartwright, and Mr. Cooke for Stokes. Joseph YVardle said: I come from Stafford county gaol ; I was committed there for an assault. I resided in Dec. last at Waterfall Lane, near Dudley. On the 29th I went with the prisoners to the Bird- in- Hand, at Netherton. We went about middle day, and remained till about half- past six at night. We spent lie?, in chink and 3d. in eatables. A man named Richard Joseph was with us. ' Stokes appeared rather drunk; Cartwright was sober. The landlady refused to draw any more drink for the prisoners or any one who joined their company ; I therefore left their company, and would not join them again. At dusk Cartwright and Stokes went out, leaving Joseph and me together. About a quarter of an hour afterwards Cartwright came back, and asked Joseph to go away ; he refused unless I went with him. We shortly afterwards went out together, and when we had proceeded about 120 yards along the road I saw Stokes standing. He came up to me, and said " D n your eyes you won't drink in my company will you ?" He then pulled out his knife, opened it, aud struck me with it on the lip, which cut it through, saying, " I'll cut your b head off." The blow knocked me down. I got up and begged him to spare my life. He then said, " I'll cut your b heart out," and struck me another blow on the left shoulder blade. Cartwright who was standing, a few yards off, here came up and struck me on the left side with a knife, and I immediately fell down insensible. I did not strike either of the prisoners. Joseph interfered, and tried to take Stokes off me. I could see that both parties had knives from the light of the furnaces. 1 was afterwards taken to a druggist's, at Netherton. Cross examined by Mr. Cooke— Have been in Stafford gaol for beating my wife, and assaulting the police. I have also had three months for selling stolen pigeons. I have been in gaol four times. After the row 1 saw the wife of Stokes, and got 24s. from her for loss of time, and with a promise to get out of the way. Begged her to keep the prisoners also out of the way after 1 had left the country. They paid me the money to go out of the way. This was a good while before I went the last time to gaol. Am here in custody of the Governor of Stafford gaol, to whom I told the circumstance. There were four of us, and we were about 120 yards from the public house. Blakeway, Johnson, Joe, and the other came up immediately. I was not keeping their company, but Stokes wanted to fight with me, it was because 1 would not drink with them, nor keep their company. Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston— I do not know whether it was moonlight, but there was a good light from the furnaces and coke fires. By Mr. Selfe— Stokes offered to fight me, and not a word was said about a knife. The money was paid in February. We could see almost as well as by day. I was with Cartwright till I saw Stokes. Jesse Round, of Dudley, was next examined.— I was at the Bird- in- Hand beer- house, and saw there both Stokes and Cartwright; they got up and went behind the screen. Heard Stokes say to Cartwright, " If you can get Joe Wardle to go home with us I have a knife that will cut off' his b— y head." They then returned to the kitchen and wanted more beer, which was refused them by the landlady. They then left, and Wardle left also, but Cartwright returned into the house. Wardle and Cartwright then went out, and I and others soon after followed. We heard Wardle hoot " Murder." We ran to the place, and saw Stokes on him cutting with a knife. Cartwright ran off. We got Stokes off' Wardle, and he ( Stokes) had a knife in his hand. Cartwright had no knife. I assisted Wardle home; he was neither drunk nor sober. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke— This matter occurred be- tween six and seven in the evening. We were not tipsy. 1 did not think he was going to commit murder, and I did not mention it to any one. Did not hear Stokes say Wardle was throttling him, and that his life was as sweet as Wardle's. Stokes was on Wardle, and I helped to take him off directly. We had trouble to separate them. Did not see blood on Stokes, because he ran off". Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston— I was sitting at the back of the screen, and the conversation took place between Stokes and Cartwright. Stokes was drunker than Cartwright. By Mr. Selfe.— I heard Stokes say Wardle was throttling him, but not at that time. Edward Parkes was next examined.— I was in the Bird- in- Hand 011 the 29th December, and saw the prisoners go behind the screen, but did not hear what they said; they returned, and in a few minutes after they left. We went to the house about five o'clock. I was going home in a few minutes after they left, aud heard murder called. I ran to the place, and saw Stokes with a knife, and he cut Wardle on the lip. He cut him again. Cartwright was not there, but he came up directly and struck Wardle with a knife, and" he fell down. Wardle could not get up till we helped Mm. Blakeway came wp, and took the knife from Stokes. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke.— Joseph, Wardle, and Cartwright went out together. Have not seen Joseph since, except once, about three or four months ago, at Dudley. I was the first at the place ; Wardle was trying to get away from Stokes. Cartwright and Joseph stood by. Cartwright knocked Stokes down. Jesse Round was not long before he came up. Blakeway and myself were the first up, and helped to remove Wardle. Jesse came after; and it was Cartwright who knocked Wardle down. Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston.— I left the house a few minutes before Round, and left Blakeway in the house. The row was over very quick when I got there. The furnaces are about thirty or forty yards from the place. By Mr. Selfe.— There was plenty of light to see what was doing. They were sober enough to walk. William Blakeway, an elderly man, was next examined.— I was in the Bird- in- Hand, and saw Stokes and Cartwright. They left, and I and others left soon after. We heard murder called, and ran to the place. 1 found Wardle and Stokes were hugging each other round the neck. Helped to take the knife from Stokes, and gave it to Mr. Ilodgetts, the constable. Stokes and Cartwright then ran away. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke I do not know where they ran to; heard they ran into the engine- house. We got to the spot nearly together. Wardle and Stokes went down together, and Wardle was under. Six or seven ran up and soon put an end to the row, Joseph was at the place with Wardle, but never saw him before or since. Mr. Richard Manwaring, of Netherton, chemist and druggist, next said— Warille was brought to my shop about seven o'clock, and he had a cut on his lower lip ; I sewed it up ; 1 also found a cut at the back part of the shoulder; on the follow- ing morning I found another, one inch and three- quarters long, under the arm, and upon probing it, I found it extended down to the rib. I considered him in great danger. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke. — I have not passed the Apothecaries Hall. I dressed two of the wounds, but did not know of the other till the next morning. I treated it as a simple incision, and strapped it up. Mr. William Eagles Johnson was next examined 1 am a surgeon, and on the 1st of January I saw W'ardle, and examined his wounds, and also that on the blade bone of the left shoulder. On the 2nd day after I considered the man in danger, from the stab on the side superinducing pleuresy. Benjamin Hodgetts, constable, was then called, and said — I received information of the occurrence on the same even- ing, and proceeded to the place and found blood at the spot. I received a knife from Blakeway. Went in search of prisoners. They lived at Waterford Lane, two miles off, but I could not find them till I found them on the 11th April, and apprehended them at their own houses. I saw the man Joseph on the Monday after their apprehension, but cannot find him now. I believe he purposely keeps out of the way. Cross examined by Mr. Cooke I have not been to Staf- ford gaol to seek him, and I cannot find him. The last time I saw him he was with Stokes' wife. Cartwright, after his apprehension, said to me, " If you had only come at the time it would have been all right, and this would not have occurred." Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston. — I do not know whether it was Cartwright who told me there was a row, but somebody came to my house in the dark, and said so. I could not see who it was, being very dark, and should not have known where the row was but from hearing footsteps. It might or might not have been Cartwright, but could not tell who it was. I never heard anything wrong about Cartwright before. Wardle was here re- called, and he said he gave the jacket which he wore on the night in question to John Dawcett, policeman, who produced the same, and showed the three cuts which were in it. Dawcett said he sought Joseph, but could not find him. Cross- examined by Mr. Cooke.— 1 got the prisoners into my custody on the 19th of April, and read the warrant to them. When I was conveying them in the cart to prison Cartwright said to Stokes, " It was a devil of a fight whilst it was on;" and Stokes said to Cartwright, " 1 will tell you all about it. Wardle got me by the neck, and was throttling me, and I thought my life was as sweet as his. When the knife cut his lip he soon let go his hold." This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Cooke addressed the Jury on behalf of Stokes, and showed the discrepancy which existed in the evidence of the witnesses, and also spoke as to the general character of the prosecutor, he being a notorious boxer in addition to the other matters alleged against him. Mr. Huddleston also addressed them 011 behalf of Cartwright, who, he contended, was not at all implicated in the affair. He then called Mr. William Roberts, of Old Hill, and Mr. John Gould, of the Four Ways, who spoke well of Cartwright's general character. The Learned Judge then summed up, and the Jury con- sidered their verdict, finding them guilty of an assault only. His Lordship sentenced them each to four months' imprison- ment with hard labour. The Court then adjourned at lialf- past three to ten o'clock the following morning. WEDNESDAY. Business was resumed at ten o'clock. CHARGE OF BITING A MAN'S EAR OFF AT MATHON. Richard Burrow, a middle- aged man, was charged with assaulting Edward Thomas, at Mathon, on the 28th April, at Bough's beer- house, Great Malvern, and biting his ear off. Mr. Hill prosecuted, and Mr. Greaves defended the prisoner. The prosecutor was first called and narrated the particulars of the assault, as they have been already detailed in this paper. He said that he was standing near the house of Mrs. Bough, and had heard Richard Burrows say to some companions who were with him, " Let us break the door open." The witness continued— I then heard Miss Bough scream out, and I ran into the house, the door being open. Before I went in I heard a wrangling. When I got in I thought Burrow was going to strike Mrs. Bough. I interfered, and Price knocked me down, and fell on me. We got up, and he then knocked me down again and fell on me, and caught hold of my ear close to my head with his teeth, and pulled my ear clean off; and as he got up again 1 saw him spit my ear out of his mouth under the screen. I fainted away from loss of blood. After that I can recollect nothing. This witness was cross- examined by Mr. Greaves as to the quantity of liquor he had taken at Mrs. Bough's in the course of the day, but he positively asserted he was not at all intoxi- cated. Richard Smith corroborated prosecutor's statement in every particular.- Mr. Greaves, for the defence, submitted that the felonious intent specified on the indictments could not be sustained upon the provisions of the statute under which it was laid. The words of the Act were " stab, cut, or wound," and he argued upon a number of decisions which had been made, in one of which a man had bitten another's nose off, one a finger, and another a certain part of the person ; in all of which the deci- sion had been that as no instrument had been used, the offence did not come under the words of the statute. His Lordship said he bowed to the authority, although he must differ from the reasoning. Mr. Hill would suggest that the case was one to reserve for the decision of the Judges. If the decisions quoted were valid the present was a wrong without a remedy, and if a person was guilty of pushing his finger into another man's eye and gouging it out there was no corresponding remedy. His Lordship expressed his opinion, that when a man con- verted himself into a beast, and bit another man's ear off, that was a wound, but he considered the cases quoted as conclusive. Mr. Greaves would not offer any remarks to the Jury upon the assault, and his Lordship having summed up, a verdict of guilty was returned, and the prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. RIOTING AT MATHON. Mr. Hill applied to the Court on behalf of the parties charged with rioting at Mathon on the 3rd of June, 1845, in rescuing distrained goods. He said they had been at liberty under their own recognizances since the last Assizes, at which they appeared to answer the charge preferred against them, but the prosecutor did not then appear against them. They then paid £ 10 or £ 15 for expenses, and additional cost was now imposed upon them, which they were unable to find, being poor peasants, and he therefore applied, upon the agreement of the prosecutor, to withdraw their plea of not guilty, and to plead guilty, by which means they would avoid the expense entailed upon them. After some conversation between his Lordship, Mr. Greaves, who appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr. Hill, this course was adopted. The following were then placed at the bar on the charge :—. Richard Blakeway Clerke, jun., Charles Clarke, Henry Rogers, Edward Ostins, John Hogg, jun., John Hood, James Goode, James Giddins, William Smith, Thomas Jones, Thomas Smith, James Robins, Thomas Croft, Richard Jones, Stephen Rogers, Robert O'Neil, JohnWilks, William Stinton, Thomas Williams, George Weaver, and James Jones. The following did not answer to their names:— Thomas Chamberlain, Thomas Jones, and Henry Crowfoot. Mr. Bellamy called on each of them for their plea, when they all pleaded " Not guilty." This was directly at variance with the understanding conveyed to the Court by the Learned Counse for the defence; and his Lordship said that as they had not entered their traverses for trial at these Assizes, they must have their recognizances estreated. The consequences of this course being pointed out to the prisoners by their attorney and counsel, they all consented to withdraw their plea and plead guilty, with the exception of Stephen Rogers, who said he was not on the ground at the time, and had a witness to prove an alibi. Mr. Greaves said he had been instructed on behalf of the prosecutor, strongly to recommend the whole of the prisoners to the merciful consideration of the Court, and should state his grounds for so doing. First, that there was no personal violence used on the occasion, although there were persons in custody of the goods, but no blows were struck ; 2ndly, they were also all of good character ; 3rdly, it appeared some of the prisoners imagined that they had some right to the property ; and lastly, the prosecutor imagined they had made some compensation by pleading guilty. And he would humbly submit for the con- sideration of his Lordship, that the prosecutor would be satisfied if the defendants would enter into their recognizances to keep the peace for 12 months, and that they do appear at any time to answer the charge, if called upon. His Lordship agreed, but as Ostins and O'Neil had been im- prisoned for seven months since the time of their apprehension before the last Assizes, he passed upon them the nominal sen- tence of three days' imprisonment, and they were forthwith discharged, as was also a little boy named Wilks. In the case of Stephen Rogers, who pleaded " not guilty," Mr. Greaves applied that his recognizances be discharged, as some mistake had occurred by apprehending the prisoner instead of his brother William. On these grounds his Lordship con- sented, and Rogers was discharged. In all the other cases the parties formally entered into their recognizances, and then left the Court. DAMAGING A LOOM. John Tyers, 49, weaver, was charged with cutting a quantity of small and tail cords belonging to a carpet loom, the property of his master, Mr. William Fawcett, at Kidderminster, on the 15th April last. Mr. Broome prosecuted, and Mr. Hill defended the prisoner. From the evidence of the several witnesses it appeared that the prisoner was discharged from Mr. Fawcett's employ, and on the 15th, the prisoner returned to the shop and took away a variety of articles from the loom, and soon after it was discovered that some person had cut the simple tail cords. Witnesses were called who deposed that no other person had been up stairs beside the prisoner. The damage done to the loom amounted to about £ 4 or £ 5. When taken into custody by constable Peters, he denied having a knife in his possession, but on being searched one was found upon him. Guilty : with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of his good character.— One year's imprisonment. PERJURY. Benjamin Hill, 54, nailor, and Benjamin Hill, jun., 26, nailor, and Martha Hill, 24, married, were charged with perjury at the Quarter Sessions held in January last, at which they gave evidence upon the trial of one John Cooper, for felony. The case against Benjamin Hill, jun., was first tried. Mr. Huddleston prosecuted, and Mr. Selfe defended the prisoner. Mr. Huddleston opened the case by stating that Cooper had been convicted of cutting open a pair of bellows at Oldswin- ford, on the evidence of the prisoner, Benjamin Hill, jun., and his relatives, who said they saw Cooper between three and four in the morning, come from his father's shop where the bellows were kept. Several objections to the indictment were taken by Mr. Selfe, but were all overruled. The record of conviction was put in and proved by Mr. Edmund Lewis, clerk to Mr. Helm, deputy Clerk of the Peace, and Mr. John Sandilands Smith proved the administration of he oath to prisoner. The evidence adduced went to show that the prosecutor, jCooper, was in bed at the time fixed upon by Hill, as was also the prisoner, Benjamin Hill; and one or two witnesses were called who deposed that the prisoner had on several occasions since the trial, and once before said, that he did not know who committed the offence, and also that the prisoner was not the man who did it. The mischief was attributed to the influence of a nailors' club, at Oldswinford, of which the prisoner and his father had refused to remain members. This was denied by the witnesses, and Mr. Selfe addressed the Jury in a lengthy and forcible speech. His Lordship having summed up, the Jury consulted for about ten minutes, when they returned a verdict of not guilty. The charges against the two other Hills were then abandoned, and verdicts of acquittal recorded, Mr. Huddleston saying that the question put by the Learned Counsel for the defence had satisfactorily proved his clients' innocence. His Lordship expressed a hope to the younger Hill that he was mistaken, and that he had not wilfully given evidence about Cooper. Prisoner— I have not the least doubt that he is the man. This concluded the business of the Assize for the county, and the Jury were discharged. Mr. Justice Maule heard the following City trial after he had disposed of the whole of the county cases :— ROBBERY IN BROAD STREET. William Bowling, 18, labourer, was placed at the bar on a charge of stealing a half- crown from Catherine Egan ( whose name has already appeared in our columns under the head of police news, and who is one of the most notorious characters in our city), on the 22nd June last, in Broad Street. Mr. Huddleston prosecuted; the prisoner defended himself with considerable tact. The first witness called was the prosecutrix, who said that on the night of the 22nd of June she was in Broad Street, between ten and eleven o'clock, when the prisoner came up ( o her and said " You Irish cow, what did you say about me, you Irish cow." Witness at the time was counting some coppers, among which was a half- crown, and the prisoner struck her on the hand which jerked the coin to the ground ; prisoner then gave her a violent blow over the eye, picked up the half- crown and ran away to his companion, a boatman upon the other side of the street. To corroborate this statement, she called a little girl named Emma Harris, who was with her at the time, and her evidence was precisely similar. The { prisoner cross- examined the witness with a view of showing that some understanding had taken place between her and Egan, but to no purpose. He then called on a man named Meadows, who was nowhere to be found, and a volunteer entered the box, named Hargest, also of police notoriety, who stated that he had been at Catherine Egan's as lately as Friday night last., when she treated him with half a bottle of wine, and said to him " So help her God, what her Ijad said about Dowling to the Magistrates was all untrue, and her would con- vey that to your Lordship's memory, for her was drunk at the time, and the prisoner being an unprotected vouth, her looked down on him wi' a hi o'commiseration." ( Laughter.) Mr. Justice Maule— Is that all she said; why did'nt the prisoner say something about it ? Witness— He daint know on it your Lordship, sir, Mr. Huddleston.— Hargest, How often have you been tried ? Witness— You ought to know, you defended me. Mr. Huddleston.— Well, how many times have you been in gaol ? Witness ( with some hesitation) Why; that's a hard ques- tion, you see. I'se been in various times. By the Court— I'se been in twelve months for receiving stolen property, and I'se been in altogether eleven or twelve times, but for nothin' amountin' to felony; drunkenness was the principal. Mr. Huddleston.— Aye, and occasionally as a rogue and vagabond. Witness— Not a doubt of it. ( Laughter.) Mr. Huddleston— What brought you here to- day ? Witness— I should a ' bin a very bad man, if I'd a sat down and a heerd all as that ' ere hooman said, if I had'nt a spoke what I know'd as well. Mr. Huddleston.— Then, I suppose you looked " wi' a hi o commiseration" on him. Witness Yes. Catherine Egan was recalled, and in answer to his Lordship, said— I did not give him any wine, an plaze your Honour, I ha' got none for mesilf. Mr. Huddleston— Did you say that you looked on that man with an ' hi o' commiseration ? Witness.— No, an' sure I did'nt. I does'nt know what it manes, yer Rivrence. Mr. Justice Maule— How do you get your living ? Prisoner— Aye, and I must jist ax you a question or two on that subject. Witness— My Lord, Sir, I'se a poor unfortunate Irish hooman, yer honour, as has got nobody to protect me but Almighty God, with lots of enemies ( God blpss ' em all), and few friends ; an', plase yer honour, more's the pity, I'se got a child, yer honour, by a farmer, who pays for him, and has for these three years; but, plase yer honour, I should'na like to tell his name— och, and that's the very truth, yer honour, an' I gets my living in a honest way; I don't stale from nobody, an' plase yer honour. Prisoner — Did'nt you bate Mr. Jones, of the Falcon, and have a month for it ? Witness.— No, an' faith, that was tor a defendin* my very own self. Prisoner— Did'nt you steal a watch, and go to gaol. Witness Now, an'that's too bad. I'll ax Govnor ( appeal- ing to Mr. Griffiths)— Govnor, have I ever been in your house for stealing anybody else's things but my own. Gentlemen, I'se put on more by the lower classes, but I'se very much respected by the higher. Gentlemen, yer honour, Mr. Lordship, I'se put on and my poor child, for nothing at all, yer rivrence. Prisoner.— I wonder as some " every" affliction don't come down on you, Catharine; you knows you'se a very bad girl. Witness again broke out into a defence of her character and conduct, but with such " express" velocity that our humble powers of stenography were fairly beaten to a standstill. She brought it to a conclusion, however, by bowing out of the box, and saying " there now : I'll say no more to you." An elderly and respectable woman then came forward, and said that she was the mother of the little girl Harris, and that her daughter had been promised a new frock by Egan if she would say as she told her, but that if she did'nt she would send her to prison. The little girl was again called, and said that such was the case, but that it had special reference to " the boatman," and all she had said about the prisoner was quite true. Egan denied all knowledge of the circumstance, but the mother and little girl still persisted that it was so ; the former saying that she did not know any of the parties, but had thought it her duty to come forward and say what she had. Mr. Huddleston addressed the Jury for the prosecution, and threw out of the scale all Egan had said, resting his case upon the statement of the little girl. A verdict of guilty was returned, and the prisoner sentenced to seven years' transportation. ( BEFORE MR. SERGEANT GASELEE.) The whole of the Nisi Prius causes having been concluded on Tuesday night, Mr. Sergeant Gaselee proceeded on Wed nesday morning to the trial of— THE WILL FORGERY CASE. In this important and serious case Richard Farley and Ann Jones were indicted for forging a will of William Welsh, at the parish of St. Nicholas, in this city. Other counts charged the prisoners with the uttering of the forged document at the time and place aforesaid- Mr. Keating and Mr. Huddleston were for the prosecution, and Mr. Newton for the prisoners. The prisoners' counsel required that the indictment should be read at full length, which done, the prisoners pleaded not guilty. It will be remembered that on the examination before the Worcester magistrates, when the prisoner Farley was com- mitted on the present' charge, Ann Jones was examined as a witness, and distinctly swore that she saw the will in question executed by the deceased Wm. Welsh, and that she attested the execution, with two other witnesses since dead. The prosecutor having reason to suspect her as an accomplice, instead of charging her with perjury on that occasion, had her apprehended ( on Saturday last) as an accomplice, and hence her present position in the dock. Mr. Keating thus proceeded to state the case. The prisoners were on the present indictment charged with forging and uttering a forged document, purporting to be the will of William Welsh, of Llandilo, in the county of Monmouth, and previously of Newent, Gloucestershire, flour dealer. The deceased Wm. Welsh died at Llandilo, in the month of June, 1841, leaving seven children, William Welsh, another son, and five daughters, viz., Eliza, Mary, Hannah, Emily, and Ann. Hannah had married the prisoner, Richard Farley. A short time before his death the deceased borrowed of Richard Farley a sum of £ 60, on mortgage of the property, at Aston Ingham, Herefordshire, and Farley had by means of this mortgage entered into the receipt of the rents and profits of the property. As these rents exceeded the interest on the sum borrowed, it was presumed that the surplus would be applied to the liquidation of the principal; but be that as it might, Farley thus came into the receipt of the rents. Matters went on in this manner up to the death of William Welsh, when William Welsh, his eldest son and heir, proceeded to take possession of the Aston Ingham property, never having heard of the existence of any will. Richard Farley, the prisoner, however, set up a claim to the property, under an alleged will, which he said had been made by the deceased. Wm. Welsh the son, having consulted Mr. Daniell, his attorney, on the subject of the alleged will, went over to Newent with Mr. Daniell, and there had an interview with Farley, when they asked to see the alleged will. Farley persisted in refusing to show it, and Mr. Daniell and his client were consequently induced to believe that no such will existed. This took place in the month of December, 1841; and in January 1842, Richard Farley despatched his wife to Mr. Cadle, a solicitor, of Newent, to obtain for him a sum of money on the security of a will. Mr. Cadle, on inspecting the docu- ment, desired Mrs. Farley to send her husband to him, and subsequently he called on Mr. Cadle with the will. Mr. Cadle examined the document carefully, and then discovered that it was dated " this day of August, 1830," [ the day of the month not specified,] whereas the paper on which the will was written bore the watermark date " 1841"— eleven years after the date of the will. On this discovery, Mr. Cadle had an examined copy of the document made and compared by two of his clerks, and a memorandum endorsed on the back, stating that the watermark was subsequent to the date of the document. • Mr. Keating, who had frequently suffered interruptions in the middle of his speech, by Mr. Newton, was proceeding to read this certified copy from his brief, when Mr. Newton objected to the facts being opened in a manner which, he said, would not admit of corresponding proof. Mr. Newton's frequent interruptions called forth a rebuke from the Learned Judge. Mr. Newton hoped his Lordship would take a note of his objection. The Judge : I shall not. take a note at this time, Mr. Newton and I shall not have any more objections made at this period. I do hope, Mr. Newton, you will conduct your case more regularly. You are a member of a profession to which I have the honour to belong, and I trust you will not compel me to do anything which may be unpleasant. Go on, Mr. Keating. ( Continued in Page 2 of Paper.) Printed and Published for the Proprietor, at the Office No. 5, Avenue, Cross, in the Parish of Saint Nicholas, in the Borough of Worcester, by FRANCIS PARSONS ENGLAND, Printer, residing at No. 52, Moor Street, Tything of Wliistones, in the Borough of Worcester. Saturday, July 25, 1846,