Star. — London, England, 1828-12-17 00:00:00

THE ARMY. De Sonweecits Military Secretary to General Lord isalingi in Chief, went through his List yesterday, at ie Horse Guards. A few Generale, and upwards of icers, transacted military busibers with his Lordship. tot of the 13th Regiment of Light Dragoons marched, rum London, for the Cavalry Depot at Maidstone. nt of the 48th Regiment arrived - this afternoon from on route to Deal ; a detachment of recruits of the idia Company's service left town this afternoon for nies of the Bth, or King's Regiment, are ordered to CAvart, to relieve the detachments quartered in vicinitt. )lt fog Lognuca cogaolons of Die. IS. • !fa! Sir EDWARD BLAIR/MY will in a few days leave re, to inspect the books of the Sled and 118th Depots, LLINEINAII'S Company of the 64th Regiment have baadAuartera v at Galway., to the town of Portumna, ed that Lord Olmaterowtr, M.P.. son of the Earl of :cited to the Colonelcy of the King's County Militia. le Staff will be moved front Monett) , to Parsenstown. ghlander4 arrived safe at the Cape of Good Hope, on the 2Vh September. as been issued by the Royal Staff Corps to cease re further girders. e..been received at this Office from Trinidad to the er, when the Ist !loyal Regiment was In excellent ving a casualty by death since the 15th of August. the 15th• of October hit, the Sergeants of the it a Ball at St. James's Barrack, to which were in rants of the other Corps in garrison, viz. Royal'Ar i West India Regiment: The company assembled about seven o'clock, when dancing, &c. commenced. unaasom. of the 25th (or Borderers), Acting Gover jot Daucnaa. of the. Royals, and nearly the whole' s of the Itrelment, honoured them with their pre their Ladies, who expressed themselves highly grad. evening's amusements. About twelve o'clock nearly to supper, which was provided of the best the reason fter supper dancing was resumed, end kept up with II daylight, whewthe . wliolc vetirest—evidently much b the entertainmeati. : •" • • 'wing Circular from the Sectetary of State me D.partnsent, to ase . LOriaieutenants, re pt °posed 'eduction in the expenses of the ff, has just been issued— " Whitehall, Dec. 13. D-1 have the honour to inform your Grace, that his vetnntent having raked into contideratien the expense r the Militia, have determined to submit to Parliament cting'sonte reduction in that branch of the public ex 7 g to the proposed measure. the future establishment, remanent jay at head quarters, wiU be, for eat% corps lent, one Sergeant Major, one Sergeant for every 40 one drummer f.ir every two Companies, with an ad tater for each flank Company ;over and above which, consisting of eight Companies and upwards, a Drum e allowed. Intended to dlscootioge..slll the 24th of June next. the nensisers of the /Alia Staff who will be included•h?' retlictioti. tete of this coannunlistion will be made. known to dam nithe different enips by the Secretary at War. .., have the honour to be, my Itord, - "Yo 4 Oruro"' must obedient.bumble servant; • " ROBERT PEEL city'( Lieutenant of the County of .....--" • • . Pull letter and for mula have been recently sent ruins Ice- to- the - Officers receiving Reduced or Retked - • . .. . • • • - • • , • : • " War Olce. • , 'poll the Secretary at War's instructions to transmit to •toceiving Other a Reduced 'or I&tire 4 Allowance. a saccampanying description, requiring' bins to iniert laniculan of his service. and situation ;.-end I am ast rued to desire that you 0ri11.611 up sod return to me fors. as far as regards your own code, carefully oh lbeT[ the gevetal pattladars *squired in their respetitive kit:omitting to furnish the information respired. will she to be entertained of bin being alive, or of the ou t' ,astyOlidavits which may be received In his name at ;ay. (Mee ; in such case, tberefore. the issue of his re tina SOW be suspended, until 'hi shall satisfactorily en ha by the trammission of the returns.. ".. • ; . r am, Sir, yolk most Obedient bumble servant,. t . •Ire':!: • 'a• L. SULLIVAN." • . . No. I. , • 1 I Foll•psy. 1 . . ! Half-pay: 2 6 I .i.* r . fit • t -s 2,. 23 liiii -.., X A ' .. a1...-i .. 1 7 .. ..•'5 71 1 ~ e., r 1,.. - 8 $ t•-; - ; e. OE 2 - p. 43 Tt 0 z ........ 4.. 3 . 0,3 0 . t i 0 r 0 5 . 2.1 's aE, -41 ce ,e 5 a••• 1.4 .er E I t 1 u re gC E: • A• 7• Sa. c " J 3 a 2 ' l. al C 0 I. .0 T. a, tb 2 , ow a C . 6 .... 2 S .. a '• I E ' • ad - .7a 3 7 W - g 7 Misers holding Situations. in More own Head-writing). _ • • Lid?, who kept a snuff shop, having supplipal in with an ounce of Princes mister,. he asked Iter the did not pinfifty per CO4l 1--" Sena, indeed.!" 44 Ladl. " I get link mists bi the asej;. and kw lrf .f! • tN-EXCIIANOF.; MARK-LANE" Dsc. 17. - diet Trade. although not way brisk, hilly supported Pricer pagirodsely but Foreign Wheat. Harley war "mar am arrival being large. Oats were ratbercroo sale, marosTivrabito men wampiar. WWI (vs.) 2,300 F o r e ign ash ...sm.! , Oat% lieglish me wl4oso I dab %NI • " 9411116 Fenoglio mob I rider (sack.) -.- - i 4 j . 1 I Wounded Olken holding ''. °lll !* li ' l• ' Officers. Civil Situations. - •. • . . If the.Olicen g Ii the If - th re s employed in I : pr ny civil ser-H, be s any chillfor in w athee' r si rbe Majesty. ti o r r b ir is il 43 l L es' arta Oicr nitres; their i aniennt of that the service of 4 , r% 'names and,pension, the sea- any other Gn..t. 9. n l dates of hirsletion where he eminent, she; 41 .. them to bewared was serving itie and nature,. , sehenderesath. when woroded. of that employ j . • the date ment, and the I ' l '5 ' • he commence - nual amend*, 2 r • tut of the inuolinnemsitri . • —' • ant, Is to be 114 • salary,,to 1 .6 .3. seated. .1.,e • i•.•: J_ - • . • ,• 4 1: ..• .1 .. ' 1 • d b . 11 : 1 21 1 .8 . j 1.. '6 ' 2 ° e i 2 sel l c „1 is ... i, 1 .0 s. Z g 44 t 1 1 V 42 0. a V I • . 1. . 6 .• ti * ' be 01 6 e... 1 j" • ' s I . 6Pt i c t ,... a : 4 3 ill: a I V i i '2 t • .2 11 17• A ii. 1 . Ai .4 I l se 0 . 4 # LAW I.NT4LLIGENCE: COURT OF CHANCERY. Dae. 16. • iN RR CHAN/MRS. A BANKRUPT. ".• The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case. 'The facts were, that William Ctrambers, a brother of the bankrupt, had proved under his commission for a debt of 5,7941. and had at the same time offered to prove another debt of 6281. which was not received by the Commissioners, because Mr. Wm. Chambers held a security for the latter sum, w hich he did not choose to 'relinquish. Hr then brought an action against his 'brother, as well for the sum for which he had proved, as for that which bad been rejected, and for others which had since become due to him. The action was undefended, and the plaintiff obtained judgment in the Court of Exchequer , where it was brought,under which ledgment he took in execution some of the property of the banksupt, the right . to which was then vested in the assignees. An application was made on the part of the Issigneei to the Vice Chancellor, - who directed the execution to • be . withdrawn: From ,Isis Honour's 'order an appeal had been made, which, after being fully discussed at the bar, his Lordship was now n . bout to decide. According to the opision of the Court pronounced in a recent case (in re Schlesinger), *creditor of &bankrupt had a right, notwithstanding his hav;ng proved one debt under a conintission, to proceed at law fora distinct debt. It Was . qiiite clear,' however, that having elected t 3 prole, he could not proceed at law for the same debt. Io this cafe, kow ever, both causes of action had been 00;ted, and as lee) ing execution on the bankrupt's estate f or the judg. Mint he had obtained in that action w a s altogether wrong, he did not see any other order the Court could have made than that which had been pionounked by the Vice ChancellOr. -it h 4cl been said at the bar, that' a quAified order might have been made ; but his Lord ship did not see how that wai possible.. It was clear - the Court of Exchequer could hive made no such par tial order, if it had been applied for. a noli prOteliki had been obtained, it would have operated as an nue guishment of the whole 'proceeding,-but could not affect any part of it. These difficulties, which had not bees adverted to at thc' bar, were insurmountable; but the Court was not to take their burden on itself. They were of Mr. William Chambers% creating, and if he wished ahem removed, he must so Alter the record at law as to 'get effectually rid of them. It was not now necessary to determine whether, if the record had been right, the plaintiff could have been at liberty to came his judg ment on property in the hands of the assignees. His Lordship therefore affirmed the judgment of the Vice- Chancellor, whith was all that could now be done, directing the execution to be Withdrawn for the reasons stated, and leaving it to the plaintiff in the action- to bring the case, if be could,.in "anotheembirpe befolodie Court. COURT 07 KING'S BENCH, WlLSTlthisets; Dm. Le. WARD V. CORSI'. This was an action by a landlcrd to recover rom, his tenant a small sum for land-tea. The only gtOstion was, as to Which of the parties" w as istabts to pay the tax: At appeAred that no agreementon-tite"subject had been made between the parties .t the time the defend. ant became 'the plait:tiff% tenant, but some payments for land•tax had - been made by he tenant *ROT the defendant succeeded ;. kind it was contended by-Sr J. Scant.nrr, for the .plaintiff, that under the Landotiz Act of the 88th tieo. 111.4.-5, the defendant was at all events liable to pay a proportion- of the tan, it net the •hole. Lord TISNTERDEN. however, diiected a nonsuit; on he gingni.l that where no specific agreement was snide betwixt) a landlord and his tenant, the flamer was liable to pay tin land-tax. A nonsuit was then entered, with libeity tti isSimit.to sit it aside. - - • DOLBELL , In. IIELCtti- This was an action aft. Of f icer iu t4e cover a Sum of 401. under the folloWing circuenstanegs The defendant, an army butter, had in 41.itgustline been applied to by the wife of the pi'int'ff to eficfeitioir to procure for her husband, who Was then, obi ralf pay, some situation in the army which would place Vas on full pay, and enable him to go abrearch and the defendant in the course of a shoit-time rePre4nted thi he had obtained a Payesastetship in the 97th ReiTment, and had written to the 'plaintiff, who was - then in- the otii tiy, to that effect. Mrs. Dolbell, who being lipart from her husband ( be plaintiff). and receiling a %elm. Ate income under s deed of settlement made on ha fiat' marriage, was subsequently applied to by the' .defendant for remuneration for his service., and upon the representation which he then made to her she was *litdOtekfto send him, through her trustee, drantitc, fn 404 but it ruining out ultimately that no situation had been priicUred for the plaintiff, the present action was brought in his name to recover back tle 401. •It appeared that the defeticlant twining aliplied to to re turn the money, prianited to do so on haiing a written i.rder from Mrs. Dolbell, tut no such order had been je t 12, es, s .~ 5,100 • 340 given tyon this evidence Lord TIINTeRDIAN stopped the cause, obsertringithsit as the.money which had been adianced to the defendant was the separate property of Mrs. D..lbell, this action, which was brought in the name of the husband, could not be maintained. The plaintiff was then nonsuited. • LINCOLN V. HIATIICOTIL This was an action by an organ-builder residing in' High Holborn . to recover a sum of 18/. 16i. for de livering and fitting up an organ at the defendanes,sesi• .dente.. The plaintiff bad been employed by the defer. dant, a gentleman of fortune, to build him an.orgsn, the price of whicb,,according to the origioil contract, was to be 5001. but . that contract was ultimately aban doned, and the . organ was afmr wards completed for 7001. egh;ch suns the defendant had paid. The organ was•sielivered and , fittrti up at the defenriaet's residence at Tottenham ; and ,the questitin now was, whether, according lo.the of igin 11 agreement bet omen the parties, the elpimes.of such delivery and fitting up were to be incluied in the price for building the organ, or were to be charged for t the defendant separately For the ptaiotiff, it was proved by Ur... Robson, of the . firm of Flight and *Own, organ builders. that According to the usual practice in the trade, the right to charge separately for the delivery of instruments of this descriptitz depended upon the terms of the contract diode I$ the parties; and that where no stipulation was made Fo the contrary, it was u:ssi to charge separately for the delivery. Ott the part of ;he, defendant, a Clergyman, of thrname of Haines, who was present at the time' the order• for the organ in question wee given by the defendant, was called, and deposed so the terms of the original contract. It appeared from his , evidence, that the , agreement was that the organ should be built for 5001. and delivered in three months 19r.that som 6 but it was contended by the Counsel .for. the plaintiff, that as the original contract was abandoned, ' and& new price agreed upon lot "the organ, it Was iteasessable to suppose that the agreement as to the de livery had also been varied,. and 4* .therefore AIM was.enttided to make the estrcharge, accord. injk'to the Cu, tom of the trade. 1.91c1 TERTERDIN, however, left the ease to the Jury utiatitliequerion as to the teems of the griginal con rract, tilling them that it they gave effect to the tebti mony of Mr. Wine., their verdict ought to be for the defendant. The Jury without hesitation found for the defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. GUILDHALL, Dec. ter. WITRILMNUTON AND ANOTHER V. HERRIN° AND OTHIRS. M. Sergeant 'FADDY and Mr. Sergeant Russet.[. ap peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Sergeant WILDR and; Mr. Sergeant STRPHRN far the defendants. Thii s ection was brought on nine bills of exchange drawn upon the . defendants, br a person named Crab tree, whom they had employed as an agent in Peru. The defendants hai it in contemplation to form a com pany for carrying on mining operations in South Ame rica, and had sent out Mr. Crabtree, as an individual acquainted with the country, to ascertain the prudence and practicability of their intended scheme. In case he should feel persuaded that' there was a fair field lot speculation, he had been empowered to take certain steps' towards the promotion of the business. The instruments by which he was thus autimiised to act were an agreement dated the Ist of November, 1825, a power of attorney, dated the Bth of the same month, and letters of credit written aba ut the same pc. inf. By the agreement it was arranged that Crabtree should proceed to South Ame rica, and be paid 1,0001. for his trouble, with the pro vision, that if he remained longer abroad than a year from his leaving London,f.e should receive 1 0001. for every year he might I k e obliged to stay, with a fifth put of the profits accruitternm his mission. The letter ofinstiuctions limited the discretional trust placed in Crabtree bs the rower of attorney, making some matters Therein left witho..t restriction subject to the review of the parties in England, conflating his expenditure to the sum of 10,0001. and forbidding him to take advantage of those who had suffered from puha ical sting g les,and whose property might be unsettled. It was evident that the agent had eicfreded his powers ; and f..ut bills, for sums amounting to more than 2,4001. were in consequence at once struck off f. ova the plaintiffs' claim. Three other hills were likewise. struck off; and only the remaining two, one of A+ hid) was for 4991. 19s. 10d. and the other for 1,0201. 16-. BJ. were allowed as being given for purposes in accordance with the agent's letter ot instruc tions. On the oiler hand it was contended, on behal of the plaintiffs, t' , at the defendants were liable forthe rest of the bills, as Crabtree, being admitted to a filth share of the profits of the undertaking, was virtually a partner. "The LORD CHltr Jorrics did not. concur inAhis Ilitv! of . the matter; and stated that he would' save the amuses:ion c:f.the instruments by which the agent aas itittborised for the consideration of the Court above. Crabtree, malting questioned 'by the Court, said that he.did .not showthein truments to tie persons. -with whom he had the transactions. • The LORD CHIRII JURTICS, in giving • his directions to tfit:Jory,, said it--was most important to the cornmer cial iaterests of Englitni that questions affecting het 'trade . Nigh Eueign commies should be - carefully esa ivined,.and decided according to the strictest principles justice. There had heels a claim for 6,200 i. advanced' Ai) the defepdenti l i agent, upoa nine bills,' on the faith' ,that the defendants were tespensible. F .ur of theseisad lieeteattoptesfiksoivd.pf r en.l it h id appewed.tbat other t iktk were tips aleriessdab'e.,- vs thi y applied to a Tint' ;peen a, for-which the priwer of attorney cleat ly gaited* -.gent no authority to boron," money. Then there r Taiimitbatwcibiliiiter 1,010116•.8 '. aticl499/.19:.10d: , Wit)rtegardle these thc . 3tiry Woold satisfy thentseleeiel 'irliatheh had Amor the leucr, of audit -fit* 10,600 L and - whether they wipe. swats of that letter ham,, been expended, the agent bad privatised any Setif 'the defendant's Were te.pon The Jury, fro* the ;Wass! oft tide, would say if the loiter of credit shO'ult j - iive,beetioieen.by the plaintiff s anti if it was their duty ter call for the agent's in;tructipns. The other bills de. -pended op Clear cireurnutanie - , but these loomed a cow plicated ease, in determining r, hick the Court abdtee iroula,lic guided by the decision Lf the Jury. The Jury retired for about tliiee . quas ter s of an hour, and found that ",it_was the pl.iititiff ? ' duty to call lot and eastinine the pow/el...pi attorney. and letter of crediti that teem was no evidence to show whether they had or had not. ,one this;- and that there was r.o evidence 'of the matey/on the two bills being 'advanced for any pin. prise but that specified in the_instructiptit." Damages f the plaintiffs 1,5204 16% 6d. being the /Moat of the two bill;. WIN'f ; FAi HOME CIRCUIT. ... • MAIDSTONE, Dm 16. Brtwa Mr. B rei'Varrenstr. • THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION or GEORGE NIGHTIN GALE, THOMAS . wt)OLLEY, ONE GENT. &C. RICHARD .CROUCH AND JAMES' hIETGALII. FOR CONSPIRACY. Mr. BRODRICK said this was an indictment against the thin derendAnts; for wickedly and maliciously con spiring to charge , the prosecut George Nightingale, with *capital offence of assaulting and robbing one of the defendants, - Ilichard crouch, at Warwick, in July, )132.5. A second count charged them with conwiringi )o prosecutethe said Nightingale, for the said capital felony, intent to estort.money, &c, - The defendota pleaded. Not Guilty. • . • I.lr..AD.lillue stated the facts of the case to theJurya 'he preient inquiry was one r f the first i.mportarce, gad 'dem s anded at the hind. of the Jury the most serious attention. The'defencLints were charged with, a mica. Demeanour, in having conspired to prefer a charge of robbery against the prosecutor, which chargehad at twin . From a sordid deare t on their parts to obtain the property of the prosecut9r, and which charge they attemi.ted to sopport.by committing. the ,vile.t perjuries. It would be nec: ssary, to enable the Jury to fully understand thecae, that he should detail the facts which he should prove by hit witnesses. In the yor 1827 the prosecutor, Nightingale, was tried' at Maidstone on a .charge of stealing the Italian mail bags out of the Dover mail. On that trial Nightingale proved, to the entice 'seas. faction of the Court-and Jury, that he was at Tiver ton, in Devonshire, at the very moment the robbery of the Dover mail took place, and he was acquitted. It would'be'proved that Woollea. and Crouch were at Maidstone at the time the trial 'of. Nightingale took place, and as loon is be was discharged they caused him to be apprehendek and •taken before Mr. Argal, a Magistrate, at Maidstone, on a charge of robbing the defendant (Crooch), at. the Cantle Tavern, at Wag wick, of 5501. on the. 19tb of July, 1825. The defendant Crouch had previously charged a bozer, - named Stock man, and another man, with the same offence, and hi had gone - before a • rand Jury with an indictment against those Pelson', which bill was ignored. The evi deuce given by the defendants on different occasions, when contrasted, crimpletely developed the conspiracy charged. Theros-cution against Nightingale was not thoeght of by thg : defendants till two years after the tob bay was CQflialitt,C4 ; and their conduct in keeping bick asiadictatoat till the last day of did Aniies atWarwiikst 400 "XI . . went strongly to show that there ienrk,. - money from the prosecutor in making this .atrocious charge. In the depo.ition first made by. Woollay.be6re Mr. Argal, he swore he saw Nightingale at the Castle Inn, at Warwick ; tut in a second depositiiin, he swore that he saw him in the Marketplace. In July, 1825, a fight had taken place near Warwick between .two pugilist., named Ward and Cannon, and afier the fight was over, Crouch had been attacked, and he- 'stetted thirt he had been robbed of cash amounting to above 3501. but, at the time, t) ft Jury would bear in mind, he never mentioned the 'mane t f any person as hying con cerned in the robbery except Stockman. Two years after that, she defendants formed thii conspiracy tir ea. tort money from the prosecutor. The deposition which would be put-in, would show that the defendant., Woolley and Crouch, hid sworn that the prosecutor was at the Castle Inn, and was actually concerned in the robbery, tvhich would b‘r disproved by many witneises, who would prove that the prosecutor - never was out of their sight for w long time before, ht the time, and also :after the robbery. Crouch had sworn that he had merely pre ferred a charge , f assault against Stockman, whereas it was a charge of highway rubbery. Tire evidence of Crouch, given in his deposition, proved that t•he saw the prosecutor at Doncaster some months after the robbery, yet he took no steps to cause his apprehen sion ; and in fact went to show ih At the charge of rob bery was a fiction from beginning to_end, and that these defendants had sought- to convert the 'voia of justice into the dagger of the assassin. It would probably be said that the prosecutor was not an u exceptionable character. His answer was, that it was persons of that . description who were generally nut keel out as objectsbf *etch nefarious attempts; he.was a person who attended fights and races, and be had been attackel by a gang - of desperadoes, aided by'the attorney, whose only object was to extort money from him by compounding the _ alleged fel-iny. George Nightingale examined I kept the Gen public house, at Holloway, near London. firm July 18'25 to 1827 ; I went with a horse and cbaise from that house to the.fight at Warwick.; I have known .Woolley, the attorney, lot six e n tears, and. also Crouch; . when •Crouch was in trouble: I . abetted I its. ; I and Woolley have had several bets, and se always paid and received, and they knew me well ; I don't know Metcalf; at tile Summer Assizes for 1827 f-was tried at. Maidstone for stealing the Italian Mail bag; I svas.acquitted ; on the same day I was apprehended by an officer in Maid stone, and was told by Woolley that Crouch, %shire/as present, had charged nit with robbing him rot. above thi ee hundred pounds at the fight at .Waswiek said "ForG on's sake don't tate me now ; if you had any charge . against me, why not take me before tl is? you always knew whine to find me, and why take me at this dis tance of timer I aCcompanied them to the Star pliblie house, and from . thence before fir. Argal, a Magistrate. ,who reroauded me. Mien I was in the presence of. the Magistrate,. Woolley said be . was qstite satisfied, and would be responsible for my appearance. I was . brought before the Mag' s trate on that day week. when Metcalf appeared. and 1 was committed. I was in prison a month before I was bailed before the Chief • Justice, and I surrendered at Warwick to take my l was there on the first day of the last Sport Assizes. • - which commenced off the Saturday, and the deka dant, Cu ouch did not prefer his bill against Me . 1111 .Friday following; I was at the fight- et Warwick fa - .Inly, 1825; I pat• up at the George; I know the Castle; They are th in the Mai kit Piece. on opposite side'. ,1 g , t into Warwick at a quarjer past three, and staid there till six o'clock; I never left the George "bkween throe . .and six o'clock; I was thee the whole time, in. company with several persons ; Joshua Hudson ; John Reeve, and a Mr. Dolby were present. I aims in a little room, front parlou.. by the side rf . the her. - The windows were open, as it .was an uncommonly warm day ; l was drinking sherry and water; between four and five o'clock! heard a gem noise over the witty ' i hy,the Cattle.sloor ; there we, a crowd collected, and ,Joshua Hude.n_ went out to : learn the eau, of she - row, and he came back shortlfafterwards; I never was in they astle,nnr.nearerlhan thekieorge, from iqtiarter past three emit six ; not go .into - the weskit place, nor did I . see M. Woolley these; any pers n in the Market place mipht hive seen.me..as the windows were open; I aid pot see Crouch at All that day. nee Metcalf. Between six and seven o'clock that evening got into my gi . g.at the George door.afid drove to Choi.. tenhatn; fun's there,four days, and tetnrnesi to my house at 11,•llowayi and continued there till 1827, ex cept on occasions when I went to figl te, fans, and races ; I was at the following aincaster St Leger Maces in Sep:eu.ber. 186 and saw Cri uch these. Cross-examined by Mr.CLARKSON.-4 kept the , house at Holloway several years ; I went the e in the latter part of the year 1825 ; I cannot say the month ; it might be in the middle or at the end of the year ;but I know 1 left the do 'r t t that house to go to the fight. Joshua Hudson visited my house at Holloway: Since the Warwick affair I have gone to rases andfairs.with Dolby ; I never saw D , lby at a fight; I was a leather dresser before I went to the Gun ; any shop was in my prernises in Ropemaker. street. Moor fields, and I worked occasionally up to 1825; I know the game of E . I know a little of the game ; I never played that game before the W rwick affair ; I have played since with D,,lby ; he has been My partner in that game since the Warwick bushes' at fairs and races; I had-sees Dtlby at Belcher's before the War. wick fight; I never slaw him Clete above twice; I did not see him at any taces . in,lB26; I.saw him at-races in 1887 ; I have been in partnership with Dolby in the E 0 tables only this year; I never had any partneribip with Hudson; I never stained him; he keeps the Half moon Tap, in Leadeehall-market ; I used to buy my leather of Mr. Elmore, in Seven Dials ;I live now upon my-property, and I attend races. I wai once tried at . the Old Dailey. fiir an assault, and that is 20 years ago; I have since that been tried at Guild( aq, for a misde meanor; 1. was charged with an attempt ton commit a .robbery ;there were nu housebreaking implements found upon me; I was not acquitted; I had a twelvemonth in Neergate; 'that is now 16 years ago; I never was tried any otheMiutie. Mr. Baroft Vauotrae—You have been in custody several time ' , on charges very improperly brought against you. Witness contirmed—No, I was not ; I beg pardon, about tight years ago I was taken by 'a lid et• street officer, because I had the halves of 5001. notes• in my pocket;. I was charged with picking a Gentleman's pocket, but my wife brought for ward the other halves, and I proved they were my.propetty ; I was indicted in 1824 by a m,n named Rowley for fraud; Rowley vra my friend.and did it to obtain money from mt ; it was not an indictment, it was an action Rowley brought against me; knew 'lkeySolomons, he used to visit the Gin; knew Hawkins, be is transported; I do not know what• key Solorisorts is now; I knew Chatley Turnley ;huh trans ported; I swear I never saw him at the Gun; I hay* een Km at different houses; I karts Jack Udycuck; aw-hias last Sunday; I etas at the last Canterbury 1 ~.. ~ • . I•- I '1 I