work was complete it was legally assigned to Ricordi,
also an alien. Ricordi came to England, and assigned
to Boosey, the plaintiff, who is an Englishman born,
the copyright of the opera "for and in Great Britain."
Boosey published the opera on the 10th June, 1831;
and there had been no prior publication either in this
country or abroad. The defendant, Purday, pirated
"A Cavatina from the opera of 'La Sonnambula' by
Bellini," thus published; and the plaintiff brought his
action. On the authority of a previous case between
the same parties, Baron Rolfe, now Lord Cranworth,
directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant; a
bill of exceptions was tendered; and the matter was
brought into this court of error. Lord Campbell
delivered the judgment of the court, establishing the
right of an alien author to acquire a British copyright,
by first publishing his works in this country. The
court were of opinion that Baron Rolfe's direction was
wrong, and that he ought to have directed the jury to
find a verdict for the plaintiff.

A man named William Day was tried on the 14th at
the Central Criminal Court, under the Bishop of
Oxford's act for the Protection of Females. Harriet
Newman, a girl under twenty-one years of age, told the
tale of the prosecution to this effect. She was induced
to go to a certain street by receiving letters purporting
to come from one Roberts, her sweetheart; there she
was met by Day, who said Roberts had sent him; Day
forced her into a cab, and rendered her insensible by
holding a handkerchief over her mouth and nostrils;
and when she recovered she was in a strange house.
She defended herself from the attempts of some
"gentlemen" with a knife given to her by a woman: and
eventually was put out of the house into a cab, and
deposited on some door-steps, where the police found
her bloody and almost insensible, with a paper label in
her hand inscribed with her direction. This extraordinary
narrative was corroborated in several particulars.
The defence was an alibi, which broke down. Verdict,
"Guilty;" sentence, imprisonment for twelve months.

At the Central Criminal Court, on the 15th, F. Judd,
a youth of 18, was indicted for the Wilful Murder of his
Father. The prisoner and his father lodged together at
a house in Garden Street, Westminster, and on the
morning of the 12th of April the persons living in the
room underneath, heard the sounds of a scuffle and of
some person moaning, and shortly afterwards the prisoner
came down stairs and left the house. After he had
gone the father also came down, and it was observed
that his face was covered with blood, and that he had
received some very severe injuries. Ho was taken to
the hospital, where it was found that his skull was
fractured, the bones of his nose broken, and also his
under jaw, and it was the opinion of the surgeon that
these injuries had been inflicted by a poker which was
found in the deceased's room. The old man lingered
for about a fortnight and then died, the death being the
result of the injuries he had received. The prisoner
went away for two or three days, and he then gave
himself up, and when he was informed that he was
charged with cutting and wounding his father, the
deceased being at the time alive, he said that his father
had brought it all upon himself; and when he was
under examination before the magistrate he made a
statement to the effect that it was an accidental occurrence.
Several witnesses were called, who gave the
prisoner the character of a humane, mild, and inoffensive
lad. He was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced
to be transported for life.

A Shocking Murder has been perpetrated at the small
village of Marsland-green, a few miles from Manchester.
George Green, an elderly day-labourer, had been to the
Salford cattle-market, where he had sold some calves,
and was returning home in company with a man named
Mafoy in the cart of the latter. Near Marsland-green
Green left Mafoy, and went to the house of his son-in-
law, Jacob Thomason. Thence, after smoking a pipe,
he proceeded to the village alehouse, but found closed:
this was about ten o'clock. From this place he walked
up a lane leading to Morley Hall, passing through
swampy ground and a willow copse. At about 100 yards
up this lane, and close to a marl pit, the murder appears
to have been committed. An inquest was held on the
body at Bedford, near Leigh, on the 17th, when several
persons were examined, who gave in evidence the
principal facts connected with the case. An adjourned
inquest has since been held without producing additional
evidence to criminate any one.

Erratum.—In last number (p. 87), it was stated that
George Carnt was tried for the murder of Elizabeth
Bainbridge, and Maria Clark for the murder of her
infant, at the Gloucester assizes, instead of the Suffolk
assizes.

NARRATIVE OF ACCIDENT AND
DISASTER.

A dreadful Railway Accident took place on the
Lancashire and Cheshire junction line, on the evening
of the 30th. Three very long and crowded trains left
Chester in the evening for Manchester, and the locomotive
power of the first train being insufficient for the
weight behind, it came to a stand-still in the long
tunnel between Frodsham and Sutton—a tunnel about
a mile and a half in length. A second train ran into
them soon afterwards, but was fortunately going at so
slow a pace, that but a few persons were hurt by the
collision. The third train then came up, and ran into
the second train at a fearful speed, smashing the
carriages, and killing and injuring a number of persons.
Six were killed on the spot, or died soon afterwards.
They were—Mrs. Withnall, of Bolton, a widow lady,
sister of Mrs. Ridgway, of that town; H. Anderson, of
Manchester, a paper-hanger and decorator; Jewell, a
boy from Whittay, in Cheshire; a man dressed as a
dyer, supposed to be a resident of Ardwick, near
Manchester; a person not identified; and J. Davidson, a
buyer-in for Messrs. Bannermans of Manchester. He
was not dead when found, but he expired two days
afterwards, at his own residence, Cheetwood, near
Manchester. It appeared that there were not less than
1500 persons in the three trains, which started from the
Chester station at intervals of not above fifteen minutes
from each other; that the first train came to a stand
from want of locomotive power in consequence of an
insufficient supply of water; and that no signal-men
were stationed at the entrance of the tunnel. A
coroner's inquest was held on the bodies of the sufferers,
and attended by Captain Laffan, Royal Engineers,
the government inspector of railways, who took an
active share in the proceedings. After an investigation of
seven days, the jury gave a verdict of "accidental
death," accompanied by the following severe censure:
"Although the jury have not felt justified in recording
any other verdict than that of accidental death, they
feel bound to state that they are unanimously of opinion
that great blame attaches to the executive committee of
the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction
Railway Company; and that there was a want of
prudence and discretion generally in the conduct of the
officers and servants of the company along the line from
Chester to Manchester on the day when the melancholy
occurrence took place, which resulted in the death of the
parties (on Wednesday 30th April) as to which the jury
have been inquiring. With respect to the locomotive power
of the company, it appears that no increase whatever
was made for the greatly increased traffic along the line
from Chester to Manchester during the Chester race-
week; and that there was no authorised superintendent
of the engineering department along that line appointed,
and no precautionary arrangements adopted for the
safety of the public in reference to the Sutton tunnel,
where the collision took place on the day above
mentioned. The jury find, that throughout the day
there was the greatest irregularity in the despatch and
the arrival of the trains from Manchester to Chester;
and the advertisement issued by the company, to the
effect that the trains would return from Chester at
5.30 p.m., and continue running, so soon as filled up,
to 9 o'clock p.m., was in the highest degree objectionable,
being calculated to lead to confusion and danger. The
Railway Company's superintendent himself has stated,
in the course of his evidence, that he does not consider
the stock of locomotives sufficient for their ordinary
traffic; and yet, as the jury have already noticed, no
increase was made for the greatly increased traffic