West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. 7th August, 1857. Part 2. TRIALS OF PRISONERS - OLIVER NORTHEY, a miner, aged 18, was charged with maliciously stabbing and wounding SIMON WHITFORD, at Chacewater, on the 31st of March, with intent to maim, disfigure, and do him some grievous bodily harm. Mr. PHEAR conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. From the evidence of the prosecutor, confirmed by his brother JOSEPH WHITFORD, it appeared that, about ten o'clock in the evening of the 31st of March, they were returning from work, and passed the prisoner and one or two companions, who said to the Whitfords "go home, you have no business here," and followed them, throwing stones at them. The Whitfords turned back, and Simon asked Northey why he and his companions were throwing stones. Northey said he had not thrown any, and Simon Whitford said he had; violent words followed, and they called each other liar several times; still at last Northey spring forth, and thrust a knife into Simon Whitford's left hip, crying "take that, you b---r." Simon fell, and was caught by a third brother. Joseph asked Northey what he had done it for; on which he lifted his knife, and threatened to serve him (Joseph) exactly the same, if he did not go away. Mr. JOHN MOYLE, surgeon, of Chacewater, deposed; I remember being called to attend the prosecutor about half-past ten o'clock at night on the 31st of March. I found him at the house of his uncle, lying on the ground floor, partly faint from loss of blood. I examined the seat of injury, and found that his trousers, drawers, and shirt had been but through and that on the outer and upper part of the left thigh was an incised wound into the flesh; the wound measured one and a half inches in length, and from contraction of the muscle it gaped open three-quarters of an inch; I probed the wound with my finger, which passed readily to a depth of two-and-a-half inches. I dressed the wound, and afterwards attended the prosecutor in order to prevent unfavourable symptoms coming on, I thought it necessary to confine him to his uncle's house where I saw him daily for about three weeks. From the direction of the wound and its passing near the femoral artery and several important veins, it was a dangerous character. I have no doubt the wound was inflicted with considerable violence. By the Prisoner:- I do not remember hearing Simon Whitford say that he had stuck you; but I think I heard him say, before the committing magistrates, that he held his fist up before you and said he would knock you down. JOHN PHILLIPS, constable of Chacewater: in consequence of information I received, I apprehended the prisoner at his house about half-past eleven o'clock at night of the 31st of March; he had gone to bed, and was quite sober. Cross-Examined by the Prisoner:- When I took the prisoner to the house where Simon Whitford was, the prisoner asked him if he (Whitford) did not strike him first; Whitford replied that he was not quite certain, but that he rather thought he did. This being the case for the prosecution, the prisoner addressed the jury, giving a different version of the original affray from what had been stated by the prosecutor and his brother, and concluding by saying that, after Simon Whitford had struck him, he, in the heat of passion and not knowing what he was about, threw a knife at him in self defence. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of unlawfully wounding, but not with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The learned judge passed sentence of Two Years Hard Labour: stating that if the jury found the prisoner guilty of the greater offence charged in the indictment, he should have felt it his duty to sentence him to penal servitude for some years. GEORGE LACEY, glass-cutter, aged 20, was charged with stealing a crate of earthenware, the property of his master, STEPHEN BARTLETT, at Bodmin, on the 16th of June. Mr. COLE conducted the prosecution; Mr. CARTER the defence. Mr. Cole said the facts of this case were somewhat peculiar. The prosecutor was a dealer in earthenware, at St. Austell, and had been in the habit of employing persons to sell for him. In the present case there had been an agreement, by which the prisoner was supplied at wholesale prices with goods, to be sold by him, at any profit he could make, provided he paid the prosecutor the wholesale price. One day in June, the prisoner wrote to the prosecutor, requesting him to send a crate of specified goods, of the value of GBP3. 0s. 1d. at wholesale prices. The goods were accordingly packed in a crate and sent from St. Austell to the prisoner at Bodmin, in which town and neighbourhood the prisoner was to sell; but, in consequence of substitution of one set of articles for another, the actual wholesale value of the articles sent was reduced from GBP3. 0s. 1d. to GBP2. 19s. 1d., which amount it was the prisoner's duty to pay to the prosecutor, after selling the articles by retail at what profit he could get. But instead of so doing he sold the goods, crate and all, for GBP2, without unpacking, and immediately made off, and was afterwards traced to Torrington, some fifty-five miles from Bodmin. The crate, of the value of 3s. 6d., was clearly in no way the property of the prisoner; and Mr. Cole submitted, that the circumstances of the whole case amounted to larceny, and that the prisoner was rightly charged under this indictment. Stephen Bartlett, the prosecutor, was examined. He stated that he employed persons to sell for him, and that they entered into written agreement that they would work with him as servants, bone fide. At one time the prisoner entered into such a written agreement with him. - The witness produced the agreement, and after the judge had overruled an objection made by Mr. Carter to its admissibility as evidence, because it was unstamped, it was put in and read. The following is a verbatim et literatim copy of the document. April 1, 1857. I the said George Lacy have agreed to travel as a bonified servant for the said Stephen Bartlett and no one else from this time April 1st, 1857, until 1st day of August, 1857, either to sell the goods or return them. (signed) George Lacy. Witness, JAMES BENANNA. Mr. Carter objected that the agreement was invalid, from want of mutuality; but the court overruled the objection. The Witness went on to say that on the same day that this written agreement was drawn up, a verbal agreement was come to that the prisoner was to live in Bodmin and to hawk the country for ten or twelve miles around that place during each week, and keep Bodmin market on Saturdays. Every Monday the prisoner was to send to witness the wholesale price of all articles he had sold; and he had no authority to sell for less than wholesale price. Witness supplied him with goods, and he sent back the money from time to time. On the 15th of June, witness received from him a letter (which was produced), dated the 14th of June, and signed George and Mary Ann Lacey, requiring a supply of goods amounting to GBP3. 0s. 1d. in value, as wholesale price. Witness packed up and sent the goods as requested, except that he substituted a set of decanters for a toilet set; that reducing the value of the whole to GBP2. 19s. 1d. These goods were forwarded in a crate by PENHALLIGON, a carrier. The crate was witness's and the prisoner had no authority whatever to sell it. On the 20th of June, in consequence of some information, witness went to Bodmin, and found that the prisoner had left the place, leaving witness's license which had been entrusted to him in his room. Witness afterwards found the prisoner, in custody of the police, at Torrington. Cross-Examined. When I sent the goods, I debited him with the amount, at wholesale prices; the goods were charged against him, and he was always obliged to keep the stock of goods by him or return me the money. When he wanted goods he sent me an order, and I fulfilled the order by sending the goods. I did not charge the crate against him, because there was an agreement that he was to send back the crate every Monday morning. If I were to send goods to an ordinary dealer, I should charge the goods and make an entry of so much for the crate or other package. Where there is no agreement to return crates, we charge them, and if they are not returned they must be paid for. If he had broken all the goods, and paid me the money, that is all I should require; I did not want to see the goods again. By the Judge. He paid me on account from time to time; he did not send me the exact amount of money for any particular goods, but paid me on account from time to time. Since April he has paid me GBP31. 17s. 6 1/2d. I carried on the balance against him, from time to time. He was not to send me back the goods every week, but was to send the money every week and keep the goods charged against him. If he sent me the wholesale price, I did not care what profit he made; but he was not to sell for less than wholesale price. He himself paid the rent of a room at Bodmin, and did not charge the rent to me. I swear that I told him he was not to sell for less than prime cost. At various stages of the case, the prisoner's counsel had suggested, and insisted on, reasons for the opinion that the indictment could not be sustained, under the circumstances in proof; and at the close of the evidence, by the prosecutor, the learned Judge directed a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground that the circumstances were much too doubtful to sustain a charge of larceny; and the jury returned a verdict in accordance with the direction of the court. CROWN COURT, Friday, July 31. - CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER BY POISONING. JOHN BEARD, aged 64, a labourer, was indicted for the wilful murder of HARRIET JANE BEARD, at the parish of St. Allen, on the 4th of April. When arraigned, the prisoner pleaded in a firm voice, "Not Guilty." He was a rough, coarse-looking man, and appeared to have lost the sight of his right eye. The learned Judge asked if he had any counsel. Prisoner said he had no money to pay for one. The Judge then said, I have desired the learned counsel, Mr. YONGE, to watch the case on your behalf, and to defend you; do you agree to that? The prisoner said, yes sir, I do. The following were sworn as a jury to try the case:- PETER HAMMOND GUTHERIDGE, foreman; JOHN LANGMAN LITTLEJOHNS, ROGER BASKERVILLE, ABEL HICKS, JOHN RICKARD, STEPHEN GRYLLS, EMANUEL ROUTLEY, RICHARD S. SPEAR, VALENTINE POPE, THOMAS ELLIOT DAWE, GEORGE BICKFORD, and RICHARD ASHTON. The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. STOCK and Mr. PHEAR; attorneys, Messrs. CARLYON and PAULL. Counsel for the prisoner, Mr. YONGE. Mr. Stock addressed the jury, stating that the inquiry upon which they were about to enter, was one of the most lamentable and distressing that ever occupied the attention of a court of justice. The prisoner at the bar stood charged with the wilful murder of his grandchild, who was about three years of age, and the principal witness against the prisoner was the mother of that child, his own daughter. Mr. Stock they proceeded to state the circumstances of the case, after which he called the following witnesses, the first being Grace Beard, the daughter of the prisoner, who had been committed with him to take her trial for the murder, but was admitted as Queen's evidence by the prosecution: JECOLIAH ROBERTS, wife of THOMAS ROBERTS, who lives next door to the prisoner: OLIVIA ROBERTS, daughter of Jecoliah Roberts, said to be thirteen years old: SARAH ROBERTS, daughter-in-law of Jecoliah Roberts and living in the same house with her: JAMES GREEWOOD, chemist and manager of Mrs. MARTINS's business in Truro: JAMES TOZER, farmer at St. Allen: JAMES STEPHENS, sexton of the parish of St. Allen: WILLIAM JOSEPH NASH, Superintendent of Truro police: WILLIAM WOOLCOCK, serjeant of police at Truro: Mr. HERAPATH, Professor Chemistry at the Bristol Medical School: Dr. BARHAM, physician, of Truro: HENRY ANDREW, a surgeon and apothecary, residing at Truro. Mr. Yonge addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. After speaking of the important and solemn nature of the present inquiry, and its momentous consequences to the prisoner, he proceeded to remark upon the absence of anything like an adequate motive, on the part of the prisoner, to commit the dreadful crime of murder by poisoning this little child. As far as the evidence went, he had used no expressions of unkindness towards the child during her life-time. On the contrary, the mother says he had been kind to the child, and that the child was fond of him. It had been suggested that the child was a base-born child; and was a burden to him; but there was no proof that he considered she was a burden. It was true that he sometimes manifested anger, and used hasty expressions towards his daughter on account of the child, but although he reproached her, that was by no means sufficient to show that he wished to put the child out of the world. It was attempted to be shown that the child had died of poison; but he (the learned counsel) contended that there was no satisfactory proof of that. He admitted, after the evidence of the professional gentlemen, that there was alarming circumstances of suspicion, and that the appearance of body after death [three lines unreadable]... as for instance by the disease called gastritis, of which young children are the most susceptible, and which when not medically attended to, may produce a high degree of inflammation. Medical men cannot always speak with certainty of the appearances in such cases, because when deaths occur, post mortem examinations do not always take place. The blisters on the stomach seen in the present case, were different from other case of poisoning by phosphorus; Mr. Herapath had poisoned animals with phosphorus, and had not found such blisters. In ordinary poisoning cases which had come before juries, the poison had been found in the body, arsenic or some other poison. In such cases it was a matter of certainty that the death had been thus occasioned; but in the present case, no phosphorus or other poison was found. Mr. Herapath says he is not surprised at that, because the phosphorus would be chemically changed into acid; but was it not likely that so strong a colouring matter as indigo would be discoverable, especially when there was a minute microscopic examination? As to the experiments with flies, he did not consider they were by any means conclusive, or of much importance in leading the jury to a conclusion by which the life of a fellow-creature would be forfeited. He thought it was impossible to say, with certainty, that the child did not die from natural cases. Mr. Herapath had told them this was a new case, and he was not able to give them any positive opinion as to the effects of phosphorus as a poison. It was dangerous to jump to a conclusion in such a case, and he (the learned counsel) submitted that there was no certain and satisfactory proof that the child died of poison. If, however, the jury were disposed to believe that the child was poisoned, they must, before they could convict the prisoner, be clearly and beyond doubt satisfied that he administered that poison. There were other ways in which the poison might have found its way into the child's hands. Grace Beard's evidence in the case must be received with great suspicion and jealousy. There was nothing to corroborate her statement that the prisoner asked her to procure the poison; she might have wanted it to herself to destroy beetles or other things, and afterwards she might have wished to get rid of the imputation of having procured the poison, as it was her interest to exculpate herself from all grounds of suspicion. Grace Beard had stated expressions used by the prisoner; but was it creditable, if he had poisoned the child, that immediately after its death, he would have heightened suspicion against himself by showing ill-feeling towards the child. Did not those expressions tend to show his innocence of the crime? Then as to the colour of the stuff the child was seen eating, then witnesses said it was brown, like "beastly soap," but the phosphor paste was a bright blue. The insinuation was that it was mixed with brown sugar; why then was not Grace Beard asked by the prosecution whether brown sugar was in the house, when they knew the brown colour had to be accounted for? The paste itself was of so offensive a smell, that no child would use it as a comfit. Then on the next day the child was said to be been seen eating a crust, with something spread on it like butter. But there was no proof that the prisoner gave it to her; other persons gave her things to eat, and if the crust had been smeared with the blue mixture, it would have told its own tale. Where then was the evidence to connect the prisoner with the administration of this poison to the child; or that the child had certainly died of poison? One of the medical men spoke of seeing a white vapour when the body was opened; but that might have arisen from the child sucking lucifer matches, to which she had access in the bedroom. It was said there was no rats on the premises; but did it not occur to the jury that the prisoner might have wanted to poison rats at some other of the many places at which he worked. If the child was poisoned, might she not in some way have got hold of the poisonous substance herself? He contended that there was no case ever presented to a jury which was less conclusive, and more a case of mere suspicion. They had been told by Mr. Tozer that the prisoner was an industrious, honest, and hard-working man and such a man was not likely to commit the dreadful crime with which he was charged. He did not ask them to believe that the mother did it; but he asked them, by their verdict, to acquit the prisoner of the awful charge against him. He should call a witness to testify to the prisoner's good character; and he now besought the jury to consider all the reasonable doubts there were in the case, and to take care that they did not pronounce an unrighteous verdict, the consequences of which to the prisoner could never be reversed or repaired. The prisoner here said he wished to speak to the doctor who attended the inquest. Mr. Andrew then stood up, and the prisoner said - Did you not then question my daughter what the child had made use of? Witness - I asked various people on that occasion. Prisoner - Did not she say to you that the child had had nothing but vinegar and greens that she knew of, in the next neighbour's house? Witness - I heard that said by some one. Grace Beard was then told to stand up, and in answer to the Judge, she stated that Mr. Andrew asked her at the inquest what the child had made use of, and she told him that she had only given the child bread and a few sops, she did not tell Mr. Andrew that the child had been eating greens and vinegar; her mother told Mr. Andrew that a neighbour had killed a pig and given the child some pork which had turned the child's stomach; on the Friday she gave the child dinner herself. The Judge - Was there another little child living in the house with your father? Grace Beard - Yes, my sister's little boy, between seven and eight years old. The Judge - Was that a natural child? Witness - Yes, a base child. Mr. Andrew was then asked questions by the Judge, and in reply stated his belief that Grace Beard told him at the inquest she had given her child sops, as she said not; her mother said a neighbour had killed a pig and given pork to the child; and some one spoke of the child having had greens and vinegar. Grace Beard was then ordered to stand up, and the Judge said - Do you remember going to work with Jecoliah Roberts on Wednesday after the child's death? Grace Beard - I do sir. Did you say to her, you had accused your father wrongfully, and hoped the Lord would forgive you? I did, sir. Did she not say, why did you accuse your father wrongfully? She did, sir. Did you not answer, I don't know, I thought my child had eaten what it ought not to? Yes, sir. How do you explain that now, your saying that you had accused your father wrongfully? - Because when the medical man, Mr. Andrew, examined the child at the inquest, I thought he would have found out if there was anything wrong; that was the reason I said after the inquest I had condemned my father wrongfully. Mr. Stock here said the inquest was on a Monday, and the conversation alluded to took place on the following Wednesday. Jane Hosken, of St. Allen lane, was then called by Mr. Yonge, and said her husband is a small farmer, and prisoner had lived in a house of his as tenant for the last three years and eight months. His character had not been bad since he had been at St. Allen; he had been a quiet, well-conducted man. The learned Judge then summed up the case to the jury. He said the nature of it was such that the verdict must be either guilty of wilful murder, or an entire acquittal; the jury could not find a verdict of manslaughter, as there had been no provocation given. With regard to the amount of proof required, they certainly could not expect that there should be eye-witnesses of everything that had been done. Charges were often made out by circumstantial evidence, and all they required was to be satisfied, under all the circumstances, that the thing had taken place as alleged. Remarks had been made as to want of motive. People do not often commit shocking cruelties and crimes, and take away the life of another deliberately without some motive. But juries must be very careful how they estimate what is a sufficient motive. Rightly considered, no motive is an adequate one to take away the life of a human being; but motives, as they all knew, do sometimes operate which ought not to operate. Still, the jury would require that there should be some motive shown; and in this case the motive suggested was, that the prisoner was burdened with the base-born child of his daughter, and had another living with him in the house, and that he sought to rid himself of the maintenance of this child. It was for the jury to consider whether they could believe that was a motive sufficient to make what followed credible; or whether it was a motive so extremely slight as to make them unwilling to receive the rest of the evidence, as bearing against the prisoner. The learned Judge then stated the way in which the prosecution sought to make out the case against the prisoner, and then read over and commented on the evidence. He said he had assented to the application of the prosecution to admit Grace Beard as a witness; and he had been very much influenced in doing so, by his conviction, on reading the depositions, that she had taken no part in the crime, if such had been committed. Remarking upon the evidence, the Judge said it might be reasonably supposed, that if the prisoner intended to destroy human life he would have used more concealment in sending for the poison; instead of which he seemed to have been perfectly indifferent whether the poison had been fetched by Jecoliah Roberts or his daughter; if Roberts had been going to Truro he would have employed her. The prisoner's coarse expressions, before and after the child's death, were to be considered, but should not weigh too much with the jury, as a coarse-minded man would often use expressions of that kind, and not mean more than other people who expressed themselves in different language. Prisoner said to his daughter on one occasion, so you mean to hang me;" but that was said after application had been made to the Secretary of State, and the body taken up, and the prisoner might mean that any such questions as his daughter was asking would tend to attach suspicion to him. The prisoner was stated to be an honest, hard-working man, getting good wages, and such people were amongst the least likely to commit crimes. It had been shown, however, that there was no need of poison to destroy rates on those premises; and the prisoner had deliberately denied to Mr. Nash that he had ever purchased or sent any member of his family to purchase poison. That denial must have due weight given to it as a suspicious circumstance; at the same time, he should tell the jury that many men had not had moral principle or firmness eight to speak the truth, when a charge had been laid against them, although they had afterwards been proved innocent. They should give sufficient weight to this circumstance, but not too much. The learned Judge next remarked upon Mr. Herapath's and the medical testimony; and with regard to the phosphate paste, a pot of which was handed up to him, he said, if brown sugar was placed all over it, of course the blue colour would be concealed. There was no proof, however, that any brown sugar was in the house; and the child was first seen with a piece of the substance itself, not upon bread. Whatever that substance was, it must have attained more consistency than the paste in the pot before him, which appeared to be too soft for a child to carry about in the way described. His lordship concluded by saying the jury would have to look first at the amount of motive which had been spoken of, and the conduct of the prisoner towards the child; secondly, to the evidence as to the procuring of the phosphorus, upon grounds which it was alleged were not true; thirdly, of the evidence that the child was seen eating something of a brown colour, not blue [.............?] which, if it was not phosphorus, must have been [unable to read as blurred] The question is, said his lordship, whether the whole of this evidence will bring your minds to that undoubting conclusion which they ought to come to, before you can find the prisoner guilty of this offence; or whether there still remain certain difficulties in your minds which the prosecution has failed to remove; as for instance, what has become of this paste, what evidence is there that the prisoner ever gave any at all to the child, whether he may not have actually wanted the paste for Mr. Michael or some other person, and whether, if he did intend to use it for this desperate and deadly purpose, he would have gone about getting it so openly as he did. Questions of this kind will naturally suggest themselves to your minds, and it is not for me to draw the conclusion, it is for you; but this I must say, that unless, upon the whole, you feel clearly certain that the case is made out against the prisoner, your duty is to find him not guilty. It is far better that he should escape from human justice, and meet whatever retribution his great Judge shall award to him in another world, than that, if he should be innocent, you should pass upon him, by any mistake, an unrighteous verdict. On the other hand, if, upon a full consideration of the case, knowing that you are bound to do your duty to your country as well as to the prisoner, you are satisfied that it is made out to the reasonable conviction of all reasonable persons, that the prisoner, and only the prisoner, had been the cause of the death of this little child, then it is equally incumbent on you to say he is guilty. You will not consider the case, I am sure, with all the attention it deserves, and deliver such a verdict as you will have no reason hereafter to repent of. The learned Judge concluded his summing up at about half-past five. The jury then retired from the Court, and at six o'clock returned and gave a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was then ordered to be discharged, and went out of the dock with great alacrity. STANNARIES COURT - NICHOLLS and OTHERS v. HORSWELL. - Wheal Lopes - Mr. STOKES said this was a creditors' petition against Wheal Lopes, in Devon. The debt was a very heavy one, amounting to GBP1024. 16s. 11d., and he now moved on affidavits for an injunction to restrain the sale of the machinery, &c. One of the plaintiffs, JOSEPH MATTHEWS, stated in his affidavit that the mine is situate in the parish of Bickleigh, that defendant is the principal local agent, and that there is due from the mine to plaintiff and his partners the sum above named, for work and labour done and materials supplied. That there are now on and about the mine divers ores, halvans, machinery, and materials, which are in danger of being seized under a judgment obtained in one of the Superior Courts against one of the adventurers, for goods supplied to the mine; and deponent believed that unless the defendant, the adventurers, and all other parties be restrained by an injunction of this court, he and his partners would be in danger of losing their debt, and the security for its payment. Mr. Stokes read also an affidavit by Mr. EDMONDS, plaintiffs' solicitor, Plymouth, (for whom he appeared), stating that the petition had been filed by plaintiffs against defendant; that HENRY WILLS, of Plymouth, auctioneer and mine agent, had informed him, on the 17th June, that he was then suing, in one of the Superior Courts, one of the adventurers for goods supplied to the mine; that he should soon get judgment, and would then seize the goods and materials to satisfy his judgment; and deponent believed that unless an injunction was granted the materials would be sold. Mr. Stokes hoped these affidavits were such as to justify his Honor in granting an injuction; though in such affidavits there had been generally allegations to the effect that the defendant, or some agent of the mine, had threatened to sell and remove the materials, or had issued an advertisement for that purpose. He submitted, however, that these affidavits disclosed a state of facts which might induce the adventurers by some means to favour the creditor who was now suing in the Superior Court; and the equity of the thing would be to prevent any one creditor from obtaining preference. The Vice Warden said his impression was that he could not grant the injunction on the terms set out; he would however consider the affidavits. FISHER v. BRAY and OTHERS - Wheal Zion - This was a purser's petition against eight adventurers who were defaulters in calls. Mr. CHILCOTT moved for a decree for payment against one of them, JAMES VIVIAN. Mr. Chilcott explained the circumstances under which the service of copy of the petition had been delayed beyond a month, the time allowed by the rules of court; and his Honor under the circumstances, held the service to be sufficient. No answer had been put in to the petition, and his Honor granted a decree pro confesso for payment in seven days. In another case, against a defendant called STRUDWICK, service was not effected within a month from date of petition; but after hearing the special circumstances explained, his Honor made an order that the service be held sufficient. HIGG v. GREGORY and OTHERS - North Levant Mine - This was a purser's petition for recovery of calls in arrear, from ROBERT GREGORY, GBP9. 16s. 8d., N. SYMONDS, GBP39. 13s. 4d., and K. SYMONDS, GBP39. 13s. 4d. No answer to the petition having been filed, Mr. ROBERTS obtained a decree for payment in each case within seven days from service. GUMMOE v. POTT and OTHERS - Dowgas United Mines. - A purser's petition for recovery of costs. Mr. ROBERTS said the defendants were J. S. POTT and J. C. ROWLEY, (assignees of BRITTON RICHARDSON, of Manchester, a bankrupt), MARY JEWSON and JOHN JOSEPH EDWARDS (executrix and executor of the late JOHN JEWSON, of Islington) and W. C. MORGAN, of the Bull Inn, Bishopsgate-street. There was due from the bankrupt, Richardson, GBP1593. 15s. costs in arrear; from the defendants, Jewson and Edwards, GBP85; and from W. C. Morgan, GBP33. 5s. No answer had been filed to the petition, and he moved from a decree pro confesso for payment. - Decree granted. RODDA and OTHERS v. ROUSE - Tavistock United Mines - This was a creditors' petition, the plaintiffs being working men. JAMES RODDA's claim against the purser amounted to GBP31. 0s. 9d.; MICHELL and others, GBP15. 13s. 5d.; ELLIS and others, GBP15. 5s.; JAMES LEWIS, GBP5. 12s.; JOHN RICHARDS, GBP16. 16s.; and other plaintiffs, GBP11. 19s. 3d. Mr. Chilcott moved for a decree for payment of the several amounts claimed. Mr. Stokes, for defendant, consented to the decree, but asked for time for payment; the London solicitor concerned in the case having informed him that there was great difficulty in getting in the calls. The Vice-Warden made a decree for payment in fourteen days from service.