Lancaster, Wednesday, Sep...
SUA1I(ER 4SS7ZES. Befnrn Mr. TYaralin tA.cwr. Mlr. Joy opened the pleadlings. This wasa an a;itionaof'trover,. broughit by the plaintiff' against the defendant, to obtain st copy or hiis father's wil. The defendant pleadeld the generaliossue, and thereup~on i-ssue was joined. Mlr. bCAR.LFTT statedI thte ease to the jury. This wai an action. broughit by a young lady oe the name of Barrington against a vyery old friendl of his, Mir. Earle, for the purpose of obutaining froms him a copy of his father's will. In Cthe year 1817,- Miss Barrington lent 4001. to Mlr. Earle upon miortgage, and that gentleman, to make out his title, sent to her solicitor the counterpart of certain leases, a deed of pirtition, kind a copy, of his father's will. Shortly after- wards, hie obtained back thie cop7 of thlat will, for some purpose. of his ,'Own, .on a proruise that he would retarn it In a very shiort time. Ta promise, however, he didl not perform ; but the plaintiff' and hier solicitor Lthoughit little 'ef his non-performance of it, until in the course of time thzey found itlImpos.'ibletoolbtain paymnent of the interest on the moytgage.msoney. Proceeslings were then taken bYA fuss Barrinigton to enforc the payment, not only of the isterest, but also of the principal, and in the course of them Air. Earle's estate was put up and sold in lots. In makipg out a title to the pur- Chasers, it became neceAeavy fer the litlafitiff to show a copy. of the will of the defend(ant's fattier. Application wats thin miade to the defendant for It by the plaintiff's attorney, whoreni-nded him of the circumstancees unosier whtich lie Iliad obtained it. Air. Earle replied, that he liad no recollection of' it, and as Mlr. Earle said so.. he (51r. Scarlett) liad no dloubt that he had forgottell it. As Mir. Earle had not provedl his fathier's will whiceh Only relatedI to real ropet, wilienh would hanve come by descent to him, Itwsiosblfrth platn tif to et a copy of that will frons n te esn The P1.tfha,therefore, been, obliged to brn onato ftover agsiuist the defendant to compel hiro to miakadeiryoth copy of the will which hie lied obtainedi from herorletogv he te security of a verdict, that he would protec he gis n ose- (luences whlich might ensue from the non.prdconfit Mr. Johin Hiodgson, the plaintiff's attorney, wias thlen puit inito the box. who proved the delivery of a copy of thie will oF the defen- dant's father to the defendant, uniler the circumstances described by Mir. 'lcarlett. Witness askedl the defenidant to return that copy on thie 25th of Mlarch last, when he said that he hiad forgotten receiv- ing it. Hie also Asked hiim for it again on the 23d of last July, when he received a similar aniswer. He hadl applied threughi his agents at thl LEcclesiastical Co-arts in Doctors'-ommons, In York, and at Chester, for a copy of this will but no sueh will. was registered in any of those Courts. It was 2tnitted by the witness in* croiss~exa- mination, that the defendant had taiken the benelit of the Insoloent, Act in 1821. Wittnegs had never applied to the defendant for the oriinal of the will, because lie conceivedI it was not in the dlefen- dan' possession. Air. SCARLETrT then put in a letter adtlressed by thie defetidant to the plaintiff's attorniey, admitting Mliss Berrinigton'S claim on hiis estate, ansi calling htis attention to an eccompan ig oyof a letter, whiceh lie said he had previously addressed to a fr. Ewards, also a creditor on mortgage. The following is an extract from that letter, whiichi was dated Nov. 2, 18-21 ole aie neetdi rn- esat, Iherbygiv yo ntic, tatin respect of any debt ow- ingby e t yo onsecrit orothrwie,I claim to be entitled to pay he sme, nd veryparttherof,in a currency of no greater valu thn tat n wichsuc det hs hen contracted, And that no sale, madle or to he made by you, of the whole or any part of my property conveyred to you in trusit to sell, shall bar or prejudice sueh claims, or my righit to the benefit of any law or laws which miay be enacted for the relief ofdlehtorsorothers,o have suft'erd,orimay suf- fer loss, by fluctuations in thle value of th rec. And I further give you iiotice, that in the ensuiing ssinI Ihl petition Parlia. inent for relief fromi thie evils consequn onfluctuations in thae cur- rmncy-which evils for so long a thac past have vitiated the gentrali- ty 01 thle contracts, anti especially thiose respecting loans of money, anti sales and conveyances of landedi property. These claims are strictly just, and require no apology or qualification. Nevertheless, I feel desirous to inform- you, that it, through any favourable change of circumstances, a lsudicious ndcninnistratien of my own piroperty, or my own eyerin,l shall lbe enabled, consistently with the decent nmainteiance of my family, to pay nmy debts to the full nomiiNal amnount, I shall, notwithstandinag any suichi remedial laws-s I havet alluded to, be most anxious to pay thiem." This was thle case on the part of tbepanif Mr. WILrsAMrS, on the part of the defendant, submintted that thie case proved fell shont of a conversioni. All that the plaintiff had proved wvas thiis-that there had been a delireay of a copy of will in 1817, and that when it was demnanded back of the defendant, he said that hie had no recollection of it. There was hardly proof that a demaRd had been made of the copy of this will fromi the de-. fendanit, and certainily none that lielad ever had it in hisi possession since the time he had delivered it to the p laintiff' or her attorney in October, 1817. Besides, it was in evidence that the defendant had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act in 1821, and therefore he had nlo longer any conltrol over any papers or muniments which had for- merly belonged to him. Now, there was a case of'" Smiith v. Young," in Mlr. Campbell's Reports, which, he thoughit, bgore strongly upon the present cae. It was an actioni oF trover brought to recover possession of a lease. The defendant said that he could not gi-e it up, because liis attorney had a lien upon it for a small suem, anti that he would not give it uip, even if he could. Under thlese circumstances, Laord Ellemiborough held, that though the de- fendlant would have been gutilty of a conversion It he could, no con- version had actually, taken place. Mlfr. SCAUTLETT said, that his learnedI friend hiad mis-stated the evidence given in the causte. It wais dlistinctly proved that the copy of the will hadl been dlelivered to the defendant, uponi an, engagemient that lie wouldl return it withiin a reasonable time. If Air. Barle was not now in the possession of the copy, that alone was sulficient to constitute a contversion. Mr. Baruon hi IJtOCK thought that no such conversion had beeni provedi as wouild suipport the present action. The copy of the will wvas of no use to mnake out the title. It was demanded of the dle. fendant, according to the plaintiff's account, slix or seven years after the dlelivery had been made; and on its being demanded, he replied tlat he hiad no resollection of it. -Lie had unfortoinately been con-i-. pelled to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, and hail consequently atssignecd away all hisi property, and All the papers belonging to it. Hoas,, then, c'sulsl it ho inferred that ithere wvas a conversion wrong- fully madle of this paper to his own use ? Alr. SCAiRLETT contended, that if the defendant lied received this pape on apomise to return it, and had allowed some other person 'to keep i1t, tht wvas a conversiqn. If lie had handed it over to another person, wvho by some misfortune had lost it, there was still also a coniversiois. Mir. Baron IJr.LLOCIC again dieclared himself to be of opinioni, that no conversiomi had beets madle out in evidence in the present ctase. Tue copy of the will woaild be of no use to the plaintiff in making out a title ; and shie had a meansi of obtaining the original. fle did not see what motive the defendant could have for refusing to give up the document, if it were in his possession. Mr. SCA5SLETT.-5ly L-ord, the defend(ant wishes to prevent a sale bf thec property, in the hope, probably o f a ehange of circum- staimces.-Thc plaintiff was then nnutd THE KINGS V. HAMStPON ANI) OTHERs. Mr. Asttx oene th p ladigs.He stated that this, was an Ilaih olerJermia Haan, lia Jon Tompon,and Jaisies Farey lia Roerthirce fo anassultcomittdby them on John icharson,John ebstr, an Fracis Mld, fficers of ex- cis, hilt nggedinth excuio ofthirduty. There were also counts froercing the said officers inteexecution of their sluty. The dlefendnshdpleaded " imot guity"and tha't was the issue whichn the juy oa lory. Air. SCALT conducted the capse for the prosecution. He con- erratulated the juiry that they had at length conie to the last cause in their list ; but was sorry at the same time to observe to themn, that thoughi itf was the last cause, it wias one of a very serious and impor- tanat character ; for thougis it Merely bore the appearancee of an in- dlictment for an assault, the parties whlo had pleaded not guity to it mad lhad a very narrow escape for their lives, and might think thena. selves fortunate in being placed At the bar to answer for a misdemea-, nour, Instead of beinig placed thiere to answer for a more grievous offence. They were, he believed, All of them Irishmen, and issd been engaged in a practice little known in this country, but he was afraid only too common in their oivn-llasrtsly5 that ofreIting the p rocess of the lawv. The present prosecution was instituted by the B oardI of Excise, i'n consequence ofit Violent assault which th~e dlefendants hadl made on a partt of its officers whilst engaged in the performance of their duty. The learnedl counsel here detailed the particulars of this assault, as he afterwards proved them in evidence, andl contended that, they were of so aggravated a nature, thiat it was impossible for the Board to overlook themn, if it was anstious tO pro- tect its officers in future from insult andl danger.- It would be for them to decide whether hie brought hom-e to the defendants the dif- ferent facts which he had stated against them. If they were of opi- nion that be lied, they wouldI findI them guilty; but if they were of Opinion, that he had not, they would give-them the benefit of asn ac- quitta.L The learned counsel then coiled the following witnlesses to substantiate his case:- John Richardson, examined by Mrs Sgergeaht CaLoss.-t am a supevisr o exise t Mnchste. Iwas On duty On the 17th of Marh, henthi trnsatio hapend.On that day I was oni duty withJosph Wod,Thoms Mld,Joh;' Webster, and Francts Dalon,allof homareoffcer of exeie XV6 were engaged in seachig fr sme rivte tils' f wich we had received informba- tio. Bfor I o5loc wehat sezedtwo, one in Bennet-street, and the other in Five-houses.strect. After seizing themn, we pro;, cured a ho?aae and cart, anda sent Frailcis Dalton down withi them to the Excise-office WVe timai tepaired to asioth'er steect, Ithe name did not reaich the ear f the repoteri, where we Found anothier still, We seizedarit,,and theti went to St. George's-row, where We seized a fourth, which led to all the subse- quent disturbance. On 3eizingthat fourth still, we put it into acart whichn we hadl provided for the purpose of receivintg it. The c:art moved away without any impediment until it got Into a part 6f the road which was very baa, and full-Ofruts. A manof tliename of Armstrong, who has since abscondeil, then got.upon it, but not utntil he had first told the, crowd thathis name was "Freedom und Liberty", and had asked if there wasany bodY Of the same name int the crowd. That appeared to be the signal for a general attack upon us, for Armstrong immaediately got upon the cart, and, beganl to thirow the l{mponinth cllr.I adalo ee Iagn Bee as well as Brie.I dd otseeeihe ofthsetwo iue.e~ I hover knew Hamso bynae bfoe tatday Idid natmyef e an~ of our offcer sss5led,endthereaon asthat ws-b behind e cart, whchwa btee m adth cow.Whenteasutwsoe been taken to a pubhlic-house called the Coaeh andfforses. .1 went there,and found the landlordlholding Mold slp and washing hishead wlith sPirits. He was then fainting away. peFnt in osqssc for a surgeon. The sugoncme ftrIisdtta e,iwihMldO for` half an hour I went oust and left himn. I fousndWebstert'n- other'lhouse in &neigisbooshood. W 3e*i-cer1 woun4p ed. '1 ama quite sure 'that I saw IlaMPSOn in thle cellar where' we seized the last still I khtew Brice parsonally befbre. , Thero were other persons present besides Brice ain CiHaspbon that were com- pletesatrangers tomte. I saw all tihedefendante in the crowetlmme- duately before the cart was stopped. Cro,ss.eiamninedby IurW.tLLrAaS ,howevscunsel-f6r ilsepson aeiiz I{fughes.-.4never sswH~ampson to mT'iY leo?sledgo before thne 7th MIlarch. rtwas ali'ttle after 2-1o'cloeckthat thifsdistu-rba.nretook place; the seizure was rhafdeaboi't three-quartersof~ hourbefisre it- The last] seizure 'was made In Erlce's cellar. That, celhmer is in a new street, wvhich as yet has no namie, though it lias gd-t two houses. Teblu L-stkeet is ilie'neasest street to it. Ido not ksa osrvh isol time dWvber of the two houses.whbich areiboyp thte cellcir in which,we maile th6 seltuse A person of the namne of Uopley .-oqtcpild ohc~ bf the.houses.- .A t By-th COURT-.4 saw Mrice twice in the Celli :r~ were thme lasi semizute was httade. I cannot pretend tosa su'Why 'isa. ctulne fihto it. lid' c i)61 to ' if, l166ked' at the 6 stll b~utis"ald, ssetHbsg..- 1 dhid tiot me him dQ tiny thing afterwazdul'4b, 441 oil s~ was mnade uPon the officers, the cart was between .me and tbeni. As soon as they began to attack us, bricks were thrown at us in great abundance. There.was 4t the time a great ttmult, se that I coald not see what was going on elsewhere. I did not trouble snysclf-mugih with-wh%t was gotig on elsewhere. I had enough to do. in Iooking at what. was going on where I stood. There were soMine persons in the crowd wl?5 knew me. They said to nme, is Old man, If you, go near tlhem you. will be murderd." I was much alarmed. There were 300 or 400 persons present, and there was great tumUlt and confusion.' John Webscer, ekanilned ly Mr. PAnEtE.-I am an officer of excise. On the day nmentiehed by thie last witness I went on duty with him and other officers. I recollect our maling a seizure near Tebbutt-street. I saw a iman of the rame of Armstrone at the place where we made it. Wehen I first saw him, I had been fetching a cart. I placed some of the wash on the cart. I saw Armstrong co Into the crowd assembled about the cellar, and I heard him ask if any of his name were there. A cant word then passel among them. HeI thenl said, i' Aly name is Freedom and Li- berty." At that time T saw the defendants in the crowd. I saw Hampson and Brice in it. I knew Hampson bY eight before that time. Brice was a nhort distance from the crowd, and too]k no part in Its proceedinzs that I saet. After some delay, I got the cart loaded4 which thad brought to the premises. WVe set off with it, but were soon obliged to stop, on accouint of the badness of the road. Whilst we were In a deep rut, Armstrong took hold of the cart, and ordered the horses tO stOp. ha' calling out to them,'; W ho !" Armsirong at that time WaS beliind the cart. I tol1diim that le had better let the casit alone; He then jumped upon it, and rolled off a tub and the stdiihead, ldown some descending ground which therc was on the left hand of the stret. .I was following in order to se- cure them, when Armstrong struck me a severe blow on the head. Hagan then came up with a brick-end in his hand, knocked my hat ofi, and struck me several times with it on the back-part of' my heacl. I heard some persons who were standing by crying out, " Damn hint, kill him," and nf;erw.ards repeating, " Kill him, damn him, gill him-." In consequence of these blows, I fell iown' on my side, but was supported from falling (down altogether bv the railing of a pig-tote. My hat, i hare before said, was knocked off my head. I do nor knowv wh3t became of it. I got up, aind went forward about twoorthreeyards. l endeavoured to ascend the rising ground, when I-was struck severely by Hampson. Hagan andArnistronig. At that time they stnrck mac with sticks. Several bricks were then thrown at me, but by whom I cannot say. I was then bareheaded. and the bricks hit me on several parts of m' head and shoulders. In consequence of the blows I received, I t'el again wIt m y face downwards in some mud, and at tBat monent I had no other idea but that I roust be murdered amone them. There were four wounlds, of which the scars atill remain, inflictedl on mv head before I fell down the second time. They bledl very muchl. One of them laid my acull bare for nearly three inhces. I saw the defendant Brice in the crowd. MIe appeated to be very throsng in going backwards and forwards, but he dud naot strike me, aod I did not see him strike any other person. I saw him at~an early part of die transaction, and also whilstthe otherdefendants were beating me. They beat me whilst I lay upon the ground. I cannot say who particularly beat nme at that time, as I was lying wit1h my face down in the maud, and was splashed all over. After! had been got down, I was taken into a baker's shop. HIoxy I got there I cannot tell, as I was insensible for some titne. On coming to my senses. I found mtyself there. A surgeon was setit fsr. I was ti:en bleeding Yery much. A druggist, who lived rather cnearer, was sent for to stop thc bleeding. I was at. tended by a surgeon for six weeks, and was unahle to iumue m, business from the 17th of Mlarch to the 11 th or 12th of lay. Cross-examined by Mr. VIrLLIAMS.-I had seen Hampson be. fore. I was certainly stunned by the first blow I received, but I IVas not so muelt stupified by it as not to know what I was; about, and what was doing to me. The only consulation I had whilst all this violence was used towardls me. was, that I must be murdered. [This declartation excited much laughter in Court.] Hendricken was the name of the person who took me into tho bhaker's shop. Re-exaniined.-I knew Hampson's person well beftore this trans. action. He was dressed in a blue coat, fustian trousers, :tnd a snuff. colotired top coat. By the defendant Hlagan.-This disturbaice- toolc place between half.past twelve and one o'clock. How did it- first commence ?-By Armstrong's putting thic still- head out of the cart. Why you just said, that it commenced bv Arnmstrong's ?.aying that his name was " Freelotn and Libertv ," and asking if thern were any of his name in the crowd: and now you say, that it com- menced in consequence of-his pullin1g the still from tihe cart. HoW do you reconCile thits contradiction ?-I say, that his calling out that his name was *' Freedon and Liberty," ani lis pullinig the still out of the cart, were so Close upon one another as to be one and the same Itransaction. Who was it that Interfered for your protection, w.hen you were down in the mud near the pig-cote ?-I do not know who it was. I know that it was not you; because you had fled, for some reason or another, in a different direction. I ask you, from w hat you hav since learned, whether you do not know that some person interfered so prevenit ArmRstrong from beating you still more, when you were insensible ?-I ami not aware that aIny bodv did so interfere. I know that I was taken into the baker's shop; but by whom I canrnot say. I have never been infotrned that it was by you. Were you sober at the time you made this scizare ?-Yes; quite sober. Are you sure of that ?-Yees, quite sure of it. How much rum did you take that morning in ithe Red Bull ta. vern ?-Not a drop. WVell, then, it was in the B1dloon public-house. flow mucli li quor had you and your conmpanions there ?-We had a quart of beer amongst us, and somie cleese with it. WNc took it because we were very much fatigued with our exertions of that morning. lHow much whisky had you drunk in t6e cellar ?-Not a drop. MIr. Baron HIuaLocK.-These questions are not at all relevant to the matter in issue. You had better ask him something which will tenld more to prove your innocence of the offence laid to your charge. The defendant fHagan contended that the questions were relevant. and proceeded to interrogate the witness at sonme leneth for the pur- pose, as we conceived. of showing that he had interfered to save the witness's life. The arnswers of the witness completely negatived such a supposition. Francis Moldl, examined by Air. SCAStLETT.-This witness, after giving a similar account w-ith the preceding witnesses of what occurre(s at the seizure of the still in the cellar, deposed in the fol- lowYing manner as to the reimainder of the transaction:-" After the still antd tie wasl had been put In the cart, I saw Armstrong moving up and down the cellar. ?le was very sulky, and appeared as if he was tipsy. He had a stick in his hand; he put it into the wash, and said that he must taste it. I endeavoured to prevent him, atnd some person then said that " we were excise officers, and that we must do ourduty." Aftertlieccirt had proceeded afew yards, Armi- strong gave a wave with his stick, ansl juniped upon the cart. I did the same, and got hold of tte still head. Armstreng thedi struck me on the forehead with his stick, ansi k-ocked axe down. As I was getting up, after II had received that blow, I saw Hampton near me. I had scarcelv got upon my legs when a brick came against my isrehead, and sent ne down backwards. I don't know wh ether it was thrown at me, or I was struck by some person who held it in his hands. After I fell, I was beat bv sticks. i became tnsensihle. Thelast thing I recollect was the blood trickling down my forehea.d. Whilst I was in this state of insetnsibility, I telt one blow that was struck on the backpart of my neck. I was in the Cocaci, andi Horses public-house when I caine to my senses. I was supported in sotic person's arms, and tite landlord was pouring brandy on my heast to stop the bleedingof mry wounds. I cannot recollrct any person whit strtck nse except htampson and Armstrong. I kn;ow MHamison's person well. I survey the district in which he lives. Ile sells butter, &c., for sonmc person who lives in Deansgate. ! have often seen him at public-houses, where I have been surveying. I continued ill for some time of thie wound I received on mv hcsad. I amn not yet recovered from it, nor shall I ever again be perfectly well. I took the books as Usnal after the 17th of Mlfarch till the 231. 1 was then obligeAl to give teien ap, and I was not able to take them again till the IQth of April. I was then obliged to lay by again; and I did not resume my duties as an officer tiU the 5d of July. Cross-examined by Mir. WILL.rA Nes.-There might be 150 people present at this disturbance. A gooi nmany of thlem were scuffling about the cart. It wvas otn St. Patrick's day. William Mlorris, examined by AMr. Sergeant CRoss.-On the l7th of iMarch last, I was goingup George-row on my own business. It is not that of an exciseman. At the end of Tebbut-street, I saw a crowd, and some disturbance. I went to see what it was, and then I sawArmstrong and Hampson beating the officers very savagely with sticke. I saw Hampson beat Mr. Webster very much. Three men were at.orne time beating him with tboir s!icks. They beat him over his badk, his shoulders, and his head. He was at that time down upon the ground. and his bead was uncovered. Cross-examined.-I was close by the defendants at the back of the cart, around which there was a considerable crowd. I have nothing to do with the excise. Henry Bradshaw.-I am a baker. On the 17th of Mlarch last I saw a person, whom I have since learned to be Mf r. Webster, very much beaten, near a cart, in George's-row, by Armstrong and Hagan, who ordered It to stop. Hagan had at that .ime a long blue coat on. Webster was brought into my house. He appeared to be very much huttt Cross-examined by the-defendant Hagain.-I was on the top Qf the bakehouse when l first saw you. All 1 saw you do was striking. I neves saw you prevent Armstrong frorm striking WVebster. I wanted to get Webster into my house; but I was so flustered that I did not know how to F?i about it. A man of thename ofAnderton afterwards brought him in. Frances Morrni.-On the 17th of MBarch I heard a noise in the Street. I ran out to see what was a-gait. I saw a cart lorded, and some meni struggling around it. Somebody knocked the thigs off the cart. Webster inmmediately ran after them, tor the purpose of securing tbem. I then saw EIampson strike hitm down with a stick; he might-strike him w ith it two or three times. He was dressed that day in.a snuff.colottred great coat. 1 also saw Hagan in the crowd. He was bdsy beating the officers. This witness corroborated, ir many other reapecXs, the testimony of the witnesscs who had pre- ceded lher. This was the case on the part of the prosecution. Mr. WILLAAls then addreased the jury ori behalf of trie defen- dant Hampson, whsee real name, lie observed, was Hughe The nature of the transaction wvas so dearly blameable, that it vould be an insult to their good sense to saR a word in defence of it. A.ll he had tar do was, to show that his cLient had not been a party to It. Now, he contended that the identity of his client had not been at aU nuade Oit, as almost every witness had given him a differentdress upon that occasion, and had ascribed to him acts which the circum- stances of the case rshowed that he could not have committed. 'lhe excise-officers, in swearing that he was one of the parties who treat- ed them so barbarously, had labouired under some mistake and mis. apprehension, occasionel by thealarmn and confusion into which so SuNdei-an assault nust naturally have thrown them. He would prove to them by the evidence of several witnesses, that his client had never been on the spot at all; and as his ivitnesses could not be supplosed to labour under any mis- take occasioned by fer, he trusted that their evidence woald meet withigreater attention than that given by the excise-officers who had been alled. Itf he made out the case which he was instructed to lay before them., he was sure that they would return a verdict-of acqiait. tal for his client. Hasgan protested in, the most solemit terns his innocence of the charge pteferred against him. . I was present only as a spectator an this transaction, my Lord, andthey usiglst as well say that it was you mv Lord, vwho assaulted the officers, as that it was me."' Air. taron iULL,OCR 'said, that as there was no evidence to affeci BTric, it was unnacessary for ir tO say asuydthing in his defence. 1r. NVILXJA Ss then called the following witnesses on behalf o ihe dafendant Hamspson; otherwise Hughes :_ I ' - Jobn (lopIey.iy laniec is John (.opley, and I arm not calles John 3ingictop -Coplgy, neither ame 1 a-. Knight nor Rils ilrasty' most-leached -Attorney-.Gber'al. ' (A laWgh.) i lveatitelacl, 0 ffdoracifow. e d in the houlse abovet the .ceilar in wbich, the officer r,eizcd4lh'eizlgitet Itecollct ptweUctl eheteoftl hWi ming I was the fiyst man who went intothe cellaraftet theeselse had eateseid, and I continued there as long as they dfid. A britiMayer of t name of Kelly -was there, who was laying the floor of the cellar wXt bricks. -Ii eupson= was twt there. t knew his person befor. The seizure comnced shordg after -' o'dlork,and'isurhatee .as all over ata quarter past 32. The eXcise.officera swerein the- ellsr for half an hou r, perbaps, a little more. I swear that Hamnps6n Wr.s not in it at aiL Cross-exaunined by .Mr. SCAULE 'T.'-t have knovn Harnpson hvthe name.of Hughea for the lasti3 or.14 weeks-not more. I 1it on him abont fourteen reeks -ago. He is an lrisernan. I am not, as I know of. I was born aridbred ir. the town of lUanchester. I lived in the house over this cellar. but ldid not let the celar either to Armstrong, Hampson, or any of the party. r bad no control over the cellar. I know eld Patrick Hughes. Ie applied to me to let hinm this cellar. 1 told him I could not, and I sent him ta Mre. Bryward, who is a bit of a clerk. The nexttimneI satw hiea he was entcr6ig the cellar with a tub on his shoutlders. -The hiouse is not mine. It be- longs to a Mr. Bowker: and .Nrs. Hfayward is a kind of steward for him. Twenty personrs came in after the excise-offieers. I can- not say whio they were. I certainly did taste the whisky trude there. I drank a cup ftIl of it whqn the excise came in. They gave it me, an3 very good it was.- I did not take a parting cup fit with toy ohl frierd Aughes. Re-examined.-it was one of the excisemen who gave me the whisk;, to drink. I baa not lived in the honne more than two Thonths at the time this seizure took place. I had nothing to do with the cellar. I swear that. John Kelly.-I am a bricklayer. I was emrloyed by Mr. Bow- ker, the owner of the house at the time when ti:e scizare took place in the cellar. I was working in the cellar next to that in which the still was at the tinme of the stizure. I was there al the time the officers staved. The officers camne about 11, and staved aboaut three quarters of ar. hour. 1 know Hauwpson. I did not see'him there dalring any prt of the time that the o1icers were there. The cellar is but small, and if he had been in it, I think th3t I must have seen him; but I did not see him. When the excise-officrs went otit of the cllar, I went out- too. I saw all the disturLance which afterwards took piace. I did not see Hampson in it at any period of it from grst to last. Cross.cxamined.-I am ran Irishmoan. no question. I did IOt put up this still. -1 do not know v,ho did. At the time the officers came in, I wast not laving pipes for another still. In the three quarters ot an hour that the officers were in the cel1ar, many people camn in and went out. It was not forty or thirry, or twenty or ten per- sans who came in. Old Patrick Hughes did not come in, hs was at that tine ofil. He is no relation of the defendant fugbes that I know of. I am eure that the defend-ant Hughes never came into the cellar. I knew the greater part of thepersons who came in. i can- not tell you their names but I can tell vou a fair tale about them. Armstrong was the only person amorng the rioters who had a stick. Three other men, who had switches, struck the officers, hut who thev were I do not know. I cannot Pay what Hagan did on this occasion. I sCe'd him help to take the excise away. I did not see hima strike them. IV hern I say that I savr him h-elp to take tne ex- cise awav, I rmean that [ saw him pick up an officer that was down, and place himr under safe protection: Thompas Andertou.-I am a brickmaker in St. Geergde'-rowv, Mraenisester. I recollect eeeing the officers taking a still Ot t of a cellar in Copley's house, and their gettine it up into a cart. After it was there, a scuffle arose between the officers end people aboun it. [Tle witness here described the matner in which ArmbLstron assailed the officers prettv nearl3 in the same terms which had been used by the witnesses for tke prosecution.] I have known Henry Hughes for the last two years. He was not present at this disturbancc. I was a spectator of the affray betwecr the excise-officers and the still-men. I saw Webster muchl beaten, and, as I thought, in danger of his lite. I tnok isnm up, and left hiiLi in the care of the people who keep a bakehouse in that street. The other excise-officers had at that rime been obliged to run away. Alter that, I went into Georg,e's-row. When I had got SO or Vi yard4 Irotn thle spot where the disturtar.ce touk place, I saw Henry Hughes wralking tow-rds me in the direcrion leading from hisown hou5e, witich is in Fire-houlse-street. I walked with hin1 as far asR the - public-house. I did not remain with him more than five mintues. I then wtent myself into Pilling-s.treel. C'ross.examined.-I recollct+. Wrebstr r applying to me to be a wit- ness for the prosecution in this cause. I told him that I was afraid of bein s.-, lest I should be murdered bv some of these wilt3 Irish in my cabin. E did not tell him that I saw Hughes push the crowd upon him, but that Hughes thid not strike him. I swear that upon my solemn oath. Daniel HugheRs-ITn Mfarch last I lodged in the same house vith llenrv Huehies (the defendant Hampsoi4). I had done so for more than 18 mouths. I recollect being in George's-row on last St. Pa- trick's day, before I wvent htone to mny dinner. I saw the rotv int the cellar. I went home after it was conoluded, and it was about twelve o'clock wlhen I c-ot thlere. On nmv arrival at home, I found Henry Huglhes there before me. We got our dinners together. After din- ner we went out. I do not know whether the crowdl was then dis- persed or not. When I parted with him, it was abou- half-past 12 o'clock. Cross-examined by 5Ir. Sergeant Cttoss.-I amr no relation of tihe prisoner. I come from the contity of Armnagh, and so does he; hut there is no blood between us. The learned Sergeant here produced a cudgel of abont a yard in length, andl an inc' and a half it idiameter, and showed it to the prisoner. It had before been proved to have been one of the sticlks used3 bv the defendants. Whose switch is hat, mny lad ?-I dor.'t know. Do you not know that it is one which Henry Hughes has often handled ?-I dlo not. You stick to that, do you ?-Yes, I do. Did vou r.ot tell the witness Morris yesterday motning, tthat if I.e e'-lowetl his wife to give evilence in this cause, you would get a we- nan to swear, that to her knowledge, lorris had bo4ught and sold the whisky which had been made at this still ?-The witness gave no answer. Come, Sir, no hesitation. Did you or did You not tell forris so? -A woman told me that she knee that Al orris hatl dealt imn smug- gled whisky. and I certainly did tell him, that if his wife a-ppeared against the defendanit. I ivould get that woman to lay an information against him with the excise. Sarah Nadis deposed. that Henry Hughes Twas at houne at twelve o'clock on the dav when tlis disturbance hkappened. She had dress- ed the dintier thla.t day for hi.n and Daniel Huughes. They dned to- gether. Wl'hilst they were at dinntr, a woman came in. and tolui them of the row which sonie peoplc. had been having with the excise- officers.. On iter cross-examination, she stated that slie did not know the name of that woman. and that she could not tell where she lived. Ti:is was the case fun the part of the defendants. Air. SCARI.ETT desired the wi!nessW'ebster to berecaed. In answer to questions from Alr. SCARLETT, the witness deposed t'lat he had ticard the exaTnination ci the witness Anderton. He sirore, that on the Gils or 7th of'July last, Arderton told him that lile saw Hampson push the crowd upon him (Webster), but that Hampvon did not strike him- Mlr. SCARLETT t*hen replied upon the evidence in an able and argumer.trive speecit. Tlhe learned J UDGE told the jury that thev must acquit Brice, as thlete was no evidlence to affect him at dll; and was proceeding to point out to them the different parts of the evide,ce Which affectedl the two other defendants, when theiturv told him suat they wvorud spare him ntbe trouble of suiLiming it up, as they had already riade up their minds as to the guilt of those defetsdants. A vcrdict of guilty was then recorded against Hampson and Holgan, and of a,quitial in favour of Brice. With Otis cause, wlhichl did not terminate till 11 o'clock at night, the assizcs for the cCunty of Laucas.ter closed. LANCASTERR WPDnESDAVA. SE.P. 1S. - BE RIERUGTON V. EARtLEY.