A MISTAKEN VERDICT. At the Liverpool Police-court, JAMES GANDY, 20, painter, a respectably-dressed young man, has been charged with having, on the 21st. October, stolen a mackintosh coat, the property of JOHN HOWARD, a railway porter, at Edgehill Station. At the time when of the foreman of the jury was delivering the verdict, a considerable amount of coughing took place in the court, which rendered it difficult for the verdict to be heard. The Clerk of the Peace recorded the verdict as one of guilty, and the prisoner then pleaded guilty to a previous conviction. There was a second indictment against him charging him with having, on the 13th December last, stolen a coat, the property of JOSEPH TOY; and MR. SEGAR, who was for the prosecution, asked the recorder if he considered it necessary for him to go into the case. The recorder replied that he did not think it was necessary. A previous conviction had been proved against the prisoner, and he would merely read over the depositions in the second case. Having done this, the recorder was about to pass sentence upon the prisoner, remarking that the jury had “very properly” found him guilty of the charge of stealing HOWARD’s coat. At this point, he was interrupted by the foreman of the jury, who asked if he was referring to the first case in which the prisoner had been put on his trial. The learned recorder replied that he was, upon which the foreman, amid considerable laughter, stated that in that case the jury had acquitted the prisoner. The recorder said he had certainly understood, as most people in the court had done, that the verdict was one of guilty. The foreman explained that at the moment he was delivering the verdict, a member of the bar coughed very violently, and perhaps that might have occasioned the misunderstanding. Several members of the bar present said they were under the impression that the verdict was one of guilty, and the recorder remarked that the prisoner himself was evidently of the same opinion. The prisoner was then acquitted on the first charge, and charged on the second indictment, but in this case the recorder ruled that the evidence of possession of the coat by the prisoner was not sufficient to sustain the charge. The prisoner was thereupon acquitted, the recorder advising him to be exceedingly cautious in the future. =======================================================