Star. — London, England, 1828-02-21 00:00:00

Ling a, T e 7 A 3itert pi ince 3 1 i ncess a select Ye beep &triage; attend. a NU Royal Admirat Elighneti amotii 'OLYILLZ Captaini rurroaDi Came to at elite_ Adieu or G Locus. >f Statist Ile Arch 'alace at Conti King cC Monsieur ith F.ari Sate for m yesren: ay at A* laslotis at it beta. . Hose. rens, from et ; Lady Captain an ; Jrls. Lee-street, Captain f France; 'arcs; the :ar Rock : ; Major "maga, in lbetn a de any, front aid-serest, D's Hotel, le Parker, it the St. en's, Bart. wen Gros. at ditto, itto, from at Cook's Esq. and heir seat, it !Manly, ind'a teat, 'shire, for t, Dolton GOO-Street, es Hot eL es Beech lel) , heavy D na loco ids mat at the day's nd a half, a au WOO beast the sag tlime tb of the d & fight was in training .altb. this affair y evening. eted their rye -Kurt, letter's Do onset, the I being in . )erforat polionicon : to Eraser. A. In the 1 I Jabal's Carnival Al was dye rear other:, andy. BUTTON the Ea.t ave.,* the adorn, viz. lA* BLAIR, Lovnhet; ted, last ns. that the in or Sr. recent de- Freerames ge pasty had a e of the inns con adverso• ih fur bins Mr. CA 16.. I to have ioo would Mr. Hue- !11, that iv arms of Hun. Ws. he other's Hen ford. it. oa iif 'COUNTY VF EDINBURGH ELECLION. Monday being fixed fc;7 — "' — the, electfon of.a Repre-enta 'live in parliament fur that County vazint in consequence of Sir George Clerk !seeing accepted the Ate Of ate of the Council of los R o yal Hiizhne." the Cord High Mistral, a numerous meeting of the FreeholdersisseMbled in the County Hall, gJinhursh, when between 60 and . 7o Freeholders voted for Sir George Clerk. who was declared unanimously reelected; and in the afternoon Sir G. entertained a numerous patty of his friends at the British lintel. MARY LA-BONNE PAROCHIAL MEETING. Yesterday the parishioners of Mary-la-bonne assem• bled at the B •iair, King-street, Portman-square, for the purposes of elf cling a reduction of tales, and pro curing Parliamentary redress for trariouS parochial grievances. The meeting was attentied q a numerous body of parishioners, amongst wham SVe noticed many individuals of rank. At one o'clock WILLIAM CRAW/FORD, t sq. was Calltd re the Chair, on the motion of Admiral (liver. In his opening address, the Chairman condensed much of what was delivered more diffusely by the subsequent speakers. Application had been made to him a few days previously on the subject of the present Meeting, by a patishioner of high respectability. He had complied with thatGerplenian's request, that he would inquire into the circomstancet which originated the verygeneral com plaints preferred against the Select Vestry by the parish of St. Mary-la bonne. The result of his investigation was a personal conviction that their discontent had been fully warranted by the causes which produced it. He felt assure t that the proceedings of their seit constituted select Vestry required a close, jealous, and vig•lant in. spection. He was equally satisfied that the parish was ru v e ri ,1:y indebted to tho.se Gentlemen who had un dertalcen the office of reporting tl.eir measures with a vice coward telormation and contioul. The same stria watch would continue necessary till the present system of secret accounts should be totally done away with. It was the duty and interest of the parish to co operate with its Committer., arid further the carnmon object, by 'every exertion that could conduce to its success. The Select Vestry imposed burdens, while at th • same time they were free from responsibility for exorbitant impo• sitions. The inexpediercy of thus placing them beyond the reach of consequences, and the supervisal of those whom they so liberally assessed, was sufficiently mani fest in the existing state of Mary-la-bonne. He con• 'eluded by desiring it might be distinctly understood, that they were now attacking measures and not indivi duals, the Committee being actuated solely by a desire for the general good. The report of the Committee was then read, and re ceived by the Meeting. It took a review of the abuses which it had been formed to inquire into and remedy since its first establishment in April last; and recom mended an application to Parliament for the redress of grievances occasioned by wanton and prodigal mal expenditure of parochial money, on the part of the Select Vestry. A series of Resolutions were subse 'trendy passed by acclamation. It was resolved that a subscription should be entered into for the pur, ose of defraying the expense of an application to the House of Commons for leave to bring in a Bill contemplating the re-constitution of the Mary-la-bonne Vestry. The Meeting was addressed at great length by Mr. Fielder, who animadverted on the Select Vestry's mis appropriation of the public money, and went into a de- tail of many cases where that body had been - guilty of unwarrantable extravagance in expending the parochial funds. They had assumed a right of assessing the parish and keepiog private accounts, by virtue of_an Act passed in the year 1795, which the parish now desired to h aye repealed. Mr. BEECHAM next made some animadversions on the measures of the vestry. Alter whom, Colonel Jones spoke to nearly the same effect as the first speaker, enlarging on the grievances of the parish from the present system of irresponsibility in the assessors, and secret accounts. Dr. Thompson suggested to the parish the expediency of refusing to delegate a power of framing the proposed Bill to the Committee, without submitting it for their approbation previous to its being .presented to Parliament. Till, Counsel appeared highly popular, and Mr. Pope assented tq it cheerfully on the part of the Committee. Dr. Thompson's name was' therefore added to those already appointed to inspect the proceedings of the vestry, and prepare the Bill in conteMplation. Apologies from Mr. Hume, General Fitzroy, and Major-General King, for non-attendance, having been 2e , d.—.The Meeting then separated, after thanks had been voted to the Chairman. There appeared to be about 4,000 persons present, all of whom entered into the proceedings with an enthusiastic degree of interest. Mr. Justice Basr is going to Bath, for the benefit 41 Ids health. A tine bill has been found against Jones for the mur der of Mrs. Jeffs. The trial as expected to come on to-mor row. Thursday last a question arose at the -Antiquarian Society, as to the election of a Fellow, which is likely to excite great discussion amongst the profoundly learned of that body. It is declared, by the statute for the admission of Fellows, that they shall be elected by ballot, and " that the election shall, in all cases, be de- termined by a majority of two-thirds of the totes of the members present and balloting on the occasion." The:* were 21 members present, all of whom balloted: 14 were for the admission of the candidate. WILLIAM HAMILTON, E.q. declared, under the authority of the words above quoted, that the candidate had not been elected. Died en Wednesday morning I:st, at an obscure lodging- in Lancaster Court, St. Martin's Churchyard, Charles Antony Delpini, the author of several dramatic works. and many years ago, the best Clown of his day, arboth the principal theatres; besides which, he was stage manager at the Opera House. Such were the volatility and eccentricity of Delpini's character, that be never once thought of the future, by either pro viding for his old age, or even subscribing to the Theatrical Fond, or any such provident institution ; so that he was laid on a bed of sickness for some years, and afflicted with a comptcation of disorders, without any resource but occasional relief from a few friends, amongst whom must not be forgotten the great kindness of his old pa tron, the Parses--his present MaJzsrx-who, about six years ago, was graciously pleased to send him the sum of 20W. Delpini had a strong and singular presentiment that he should not die till the year " Eight," as - he often declared, which was exactly realized, for he died in the year 18$8, at the age of 88. He was born in the parish of St. Martin, at Rome, and drew his last breath in the parish of St. Martin—nay, in Sr. Martin's Church ) ard, London. Yesterday afternoon an inquisition was taken at the Class Keys, Lawrence-street, Chelsea, on view of the btrly ol James Forster Sitwell, a fine little boy, aged six years, who was burnt to death. It appeared by the evidence that the deceased bad been left alone in a sonm occupied by his parents, and his clothes having caught fire, he was so dreadfully burnt before the fire \ could be extinguished, that his death was the come ‘uence. Verdict, " Accidental Dea,b." 'LAW INTELLIGENCE: . - COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Wssristassait, Fri ed. Sitting, at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, after Haar, Teem, before Lotd TkiIURDIII and Special Juries. THE RINGS, BEAUMONT, ESQ. Mr. PARKE opened the pleadings. This CVAS an in• formation filed by his Majesty's late Attorney General, Sir J .roes Scarlett, against the defendant, J.T.13.13eau• mont, Esq. It stated that the Hon. Thomas Wallace (since Lord Wallace) and several other persons had been appointed Commissioners to inquire into the revenue of stamps; that they made the inquiries, and published their report, and that the defendant, afterwards intend ing to vilify the Commissioners, and to provoke and eacite the said Mr. Wallace to a breach of the peace, wrote and sent to the said Mr. Wallace a letter, con taining various libellous statements and observations. The defendant had pleaded 44 Not Guilty." The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated the case. A few years back an inquiry was instituted under the authority of Parliament, as to the state of the revenue in Ireland ; that inquiry was afterwards extended to the state of the revenue in England. The Hon. Thomas Wallace (now Lord Wallace) was Chairman of the Commission of In quiiy. In the course of the year 1826 the Commis sioners.presented their fourteenth Report to the Lords ache rreasury : it was subsequently laid upon the table of the House of Commons. The Commissioners in that Report made certain statements relative to transactions which had appeared in evidence before them, between the D rectors of the County Fire Office (of whom the ' , defendant, Mr. Barber Beaumont, was one) and the' Stamp Office. Tho.e statements involved a charge of fraud by the County Fire Office against the stamp re venue. In making thsse statements, however, the Corn missioners cf Inqoiry had done no more than tt ey conceived to be their duty as public t fficers. They had expressed their oeinions upon what they con ceived to be fraudulent transactions by which the' revenue bad been defrauded; but they had no intended to make any imputation personally against the defendant, who, however, it appeared conceived that Arlt. Wallace, the Chairm •n of the Commis inner,, had with the other Commissioners h. en induced to make the report in consequence of s. , :r.e hostile feel. ing towards the County Fire Office. Shot tly after the report was pinta the deendant addressed a Petit on to the H tuse of Commons, complaining of the state ments contained in the report. Mr. Wallace defended himself in his place in the House, from the charges which the Pe. ition contained. The defendant, however, not satisfied with this appeal to Parliament, wrote to Mr. Wallace the libellous letter in question, for the pur pose. manifestly, of exciting that Gentleman to a breach of the peace. The Learned Counsel then read the let ter which formed the subject of prosecution, and com mented at great length upon its contents ; and he con eluded his address to the Jury by observing, that if pub- Isc officers were not protected in the performance of their duty, their labours would be altogether useless to the country. Lord Wallace was then examined from the Bench by the Sommon GENERAL.—Hii Lordship stated, that he had acted as one of the Commissioners under the Acts of Parliarteat of the Ist and 2d George IV. for inquiring into the state of the Revenue. The 14th R - poi t of the Commissioners was m ide to the Lords of tie Treasury in the year 1826. The report now pro duced is that report. Three copies of it were made— one for his Majesty, and two to be laid on the tables of the two Houses of PAlliamen.t. On the Ist of June last received a letter bearing the signature of Mr. Barber Beaumont. I received it at my own house in Portman quare. It was handed to me by my.servant, and was in an envelope, addressed " To the Right Hon. T. Wal lace. 33, Portman•scoare." The letter now in my hand was the one I received. Cross examined by Mr. F. PoLLocx-1 can't say what partictilar dip the report was I iid on the table of the House of Commons ; I was long a Member of the House. $e report was printed; it is usual to print such reports; a number are printed for the use of the Mernliers of the House. I believe a great many are printed ; but I don't know precisely the number. ATTORNEY GENERAL said he believed a great Many more were printed than were read—(A laugh). Cross-examination continued—These reports I believe gene. ally get before the public ; they get into the news papers, but I don't know how. A copy of the evidence taken before the Commissioners accompanied the report, and was laid c n the table of the House Of Commons. Swne of the witnesses were not sworn. A person of the same of Hubbard was examined before the Commis sioners relative to stamps on fire insurances. Appli cation was made on the part of the County Fire Office to the Commissioners of Inquiry, for the form of the oath on which Hubbard was sworn, with the view of indicting that person f.r. perjury. Some of the evidence before the Commissioners was taken bn oath, and some was not. The first letter I received from Mr. Beaumont was dated he 26th of October, 1826. A subsequent application was made in consequence of an order from the Ire a.ury. The letters nt.w produced were written in answer to those two letters. There was a reference irom the Lords of the 'f.essury, upon which a com munication was afterwards made by the Commissioners to the defendant. The date of the last letter was the Bth of June, 1827. A petition was presented to the House r f Commons on the 10th of April last, by Mr. Hobhouse; 1 answered the charges made against me in that petition, in my place in the House. The evidence before the Commissioners of Inquiry was contained in the Appendix, and the report and appendix were printed together. Re examinei—The defendant's own testimony forms part of the appendix. The Commis►ior.ers received letters from the defendant pending the investigation. Those letters were printed in the appendix. Mr. Jacob Thomas proved the defendant's hand. writing to the different letter s produced, among a Hai was the letter containing the alleged libel. That letter was then read. It was in the following words : County Fire Office, London, May Si, 1827. Sta—A public functionary of fourteen years standing myself, I can easily make allowance for another who, from mere error in judgment, or defect in temper, is betrayed into an occasional act of harshness or injustice; but the means which you, in confederacy with Mr. Sykes. have used to raise a charge of fraud on the reve nue against myself and others, and your perseverance in that charge for a period of two years, in spite of the proofs of its utter falsehood which have stared you in the face, so far exceed all the usual bounds of of injustice, that 1 can find no excuse or palliation for your conduct. I will just mention a few. of your acts, and if you can reconcile them to any principle of equity, you will do more than any other person can accomplish. Mr. Sykes's pretended hearsays set forth that we had defrauded the Stamp Office constantly of 2,000/. a year, in the duty account; that we were then making out fresh books—complete new sets of books; he aide, that the clerk who had made the wrong entries, and had absconded on a charge of felony, ►e suspected we had got out of the way, to stake the fresh books; that we bad refused the inspection of our books, and that we had tampered with the pen. pie at Edinburgh to disavow the payments of duty which they bad made. Now, Sir, you have not only received these pretended hearsay. and suspkions as evidence, which is contrary to every principle of justice, but you bare laboured to give them the semblance of truth 'by your own practices on our okras, eu• 'couraging the discarded ones to vituperate their employer by your own impertinent remarks, thrusting into their mouths the evidence you wanted, in the slope of leading questions, and • • • • endeavouring tb extract from she honest clerks admissions fu reign to th eir mean i ng, by worrying and intimidating then*. Our clerks, had an d goo d, documents, veer your our hooks and hand-; but all would not do. nur own esaminitions, in your own secret inquisition. of your own ; witnesses, .proved the fakehobd oi the attempted can. But though tQfeated you Would not be stop ped; you gave the Case hearsays and suspicions to the world b accredited evidence. and reported on the ease as one of undoubted fraud and collusion, and one in Which a pro seCution of. the County Fire Office was to he instituted. This publication war the first intimation we could obtain of the accus,ation, or of the evidence which had been worked against us for upwards of a year, the name of the accuser remaining conCealed to this day ; but your in justice to us did not stop with your repott. The moment we saw what the accusation was, we saw its falsehood, and set to work to prove it. We caused a full and accurate investigation to be made by competent persons, who have demonstrated that falsehood upon oath, and We caused an indictment for perjury to he prepared against your principal witness, the 'trial of which would have proved how basely we were maligned; but this legal redress you prevented, by extending your own mantle of impunity over your false witness. On presenting our petition to the House of Coninions, you had an opportunity of making some show Of com punction —some offer of reparation ; but you embraced that oppOrtU nity only to attempt to reproduce your demolished case, and do us further injury by your assertions. You had the hardihood to re late the fiction about two members, so laboriously worked up in your minutes and report to give an appearance of collision with the Chairman of the Board of Stamps; and upon this you boldly asserted, that " that fact was so strong, that if submitted to a Jury, it would inevitably bring down a verdict of guilty!" The gross and wicked misr e p resentat i on o f that pretended fact, however, has been so unanswerably expressed by Mr. Sedgwick, in his fourteenth letter to you,.that my chief wonder ii, how you can show 'your face in society after such an exposure. But your temerity carried you farther: you said this—for k took down your words—" I venture to say, that every one of the i ems in this 7561. is a fraud." To this you added, in effect, " and this is but a part —we have dis covered insteh more since." Now, this you could not possibly know to be true. You have evidence before you to prove that it could nut be true. lu point of fact it was totilly untrue. There had not been one shilling ut fraud on the Stamp Office ; no, nor even one shilling fur duty lett unpaid. It is now proved that the trifling Cr. rors in the duty account, made by the two bad, cleiks Whom see dismissed, were against the County Fire Office, and fa favour of the .tamp Office. It Is needless for me to deccribe to you your acts in further detail ; for if you ate constituted like other men, you will never be able to . . . _ shake them from your mind. I will not be so severe on your un derstanding, as to suppose that you believed a word of the imputa tion. which you pubii-hed. I will not dispute that, in what you did, you bore no ill wit. to the County Fire Office nor to tee; neither nor any one, can doubt your object, who has attended to your pei forntatwea. Indeed, your Report discloses it, when you say. that if a traml were committed, and the Chairman of Stamps ( Mr. Sedgwick) connived at it, " that you would have made a case, in which there could have been no choice how Government must have acted." and then proceed, with the delusiveness of a Jesuit and the artifice of a special pleader, to thew that such fraud and connivance existed. But can you suppose that I and my colleagues will sit tamely down with the insults and injuries you have heaped on us, although only done to enable you to wreak your vengeance on Mr. Sedgwick? Sir, I know that however atrocious your acts may be, I can have no legal redress, nor the alternative which a person in the rank of society of a gentleman is entitled to claim from another in the same rank who has basely calumniated him. This alternative, to which I should long since have resorted, bad your acts not been surrounded by the halo of privilege, I will not for obvious reasons name ; but I think there is no breach of privilege in my at length demanding of you, either to justify your acts, or to give me the best reparation in your power. I am, Sir, in the usual phrase, your obedient servant, J. T. BARBER BEAUMONT. Extracts from the printed Report (the 14th) of the Commissioners of Inquiry in reference to the County Fire Office Here then put in and read; as was also the correspondence between the defendant and the Com missioners subsequent to the publication of the Report. With the reading of these documents, the case for the prcaecution closed. Mr. F. Pott.ocit then addressed the Jury on the part of the defendant. The single question which they bad' to try in this case was, not whether the letter addressed by the defendant to Lord Wallace contained calumnious , imputations upon his Lordship; but whether it had been written with a view to provoke him to a breach of the peace? The Commissioners of Inquiry had been invested with a most extraordinary power—a power which he (the Learned Counsel) had no hesitation in saying, was riot only contrary to the spirit of the law, but was altogether unconstitutional. The Commis sioners, it should seem, had made thirteen reports before the report in question; and, if he might judge from this last specimen of their labours, be apprehended it would be beneficial to the constitution and the public justice of the country, if they were now to cease. He could not help thinkinr, that in their zeal the Commissioners had overstepped their duty, and done that with regard to the taking of hearsay evidence, which had worked a great injustice to many individuals. In considering tilt question of guilty or not guilty in this case, it would be necessary that the Jury should advert to several points connected with the report, and the conduct of the Commissioners. This 14th report, it appeared, had been laid before the House of Commons its May,1826, and was generally circulated towards the latter part of September or the beginning of October. Pi for to that cane the defendant, who, as one of the Directors of the County Fire office, was materially interested in the re port, had applied for information connected with it. That information, however, he had not been able to obtain. As soon as the report got into circulation, he rote to the Commissicriers, apprising them that it was intended on the part of the County Fire-office to insti tute a pi osecution against the witness Hubbard for perjury. He requested to be furnished with such in formation and documents as might be necessary to enable the Directors to support an indictment. He was informed, however, that the Commissioners did not conceive themselves warranted in complying with his request. Now, the Directors of the County Fite office had been calumniated by the statements in the report—they had been accused of fraudulent trans. actions with regard to the revenue, and had• had ro °ppm tnnity of rebutting the charges made against them. 'What, then, must be the impression made upon the de fenclint on meeting with a refusal of his request? Was it not calculated to produce a feeling in his mind that lie had not been dealt fairly by ? Was not this refusal something like a denial of justice? The great hardship, however, was, that the Commissioners had examined persons in support of the charges against the Fire-office, to whom they had not the power of administering an oath. The matieer in which the inquiry had been con= ducted throughout, was such as to call forth the strongest reprobation from every one who knew . how, to value that protection which the law casts around character. To the members of the legal profession, the mode in which the witnesses had been examined before the C o mmissioners must be a subject of deep regret. Even his Lordship on the bench, upon A_ recent occasion,. when a proceeding arising oat of this report ;erne be fore him, expressed his regret at. the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted. His Lordship ob served, with respect to a part of the examination, " that it was altogether irrelevant to the object of the inquiry, at least as far as the public was con cerned." The Learned Counsel then read, extracts from t he report, for the purpose of showing that hearsay evidence had been admitted by the Commissioners upon serious charges against the County Fire Office Directors, and that improper questions bad been put to the witnesses. How bad, the defendant proceeded after the publication of the report? He had addressed se.e ial letters to the Commissioners, and had preserved a petition to the House of Commons, but could obtain no redress for the injury done to his character. One of the newspapers had published extracts from the report con. taining the libellous imputations against him, and he in „„ •;,„f„,, consiNuetice tiodiat an ?cerr,ii t he purpose of jusiliyiiiikt;htintAT t i ;1 1 13,y; 1 tts.i..l them teemed to Tliiniu•spaPPl 'ef cetVed no prnteetion from lie r 4 ,,,m4ssionets as it dog t' have dope, had ihey ben able to sai,stantlate by Irg .1 evidence, AO thatitts,Mide against tie defendant. In that aition s tite general)isitiublY was, tdeaded, so that Mr. Oe summit. Was recluded from havink the charves made against Mm ikrestigated, and the d lily, spit sidet 7 ing that the Commi?sioiters or the Rollie of Co t nn k nn.. under whose authority the reptart . hid beesiput Soto ci. : culation, were alone tesponsihle for those charges, guy; Mr. Beaumont on that occasion only Is. damages. lit was under these circumstances that the defendant, as a last resource, resolved upon making an appeal to 1.01.41 Wallace. .The letter yias,not written until May, 187. He would now consider its character. Here the Learned Counsel wen; through the aperg libejilptis letter, and endeavoured to show that its object was not that im puted to it by the intorniation v was flee to confess that many parts of it Were objectionable, considering that it was a.ldressed to a person 611ing the situation that Lord Wlrljace did; and notwithstanding it was written at a time when the defendant was smarting under a sense of the wrongs that had been• ii , fllctrd upon him, many of its expressions were certainly tin justifiable. Still, however, he contended that the Jor y could not put upon it th4t construction wh i ch had been put upon it by the information. Let them look at the . . last paragraph of the letter, and say whether that was meant to provoke Lord Wallace to a breath of the peace, or to a•k for a reparation of the injuries tl,e defendant bad su+tained, by putting him in a cootie of bringing the charges that had been made against him before the legal tribunals of his country. If the Jury would only look at the letter, they would see that the defendant had expres•ly disclaimed any intention of calling upon Lord Wallace to wave his privilege, and to miet him in a duel; and it was quite clear that if the letter was not meant to provoke a breach of the peace, the charge upon the present in. fog m ition c•:uld not be sustained, however calumnious the letter might be. I , the defendant, had wished to challenge Lord Walla e, he woukl aithave suffered the communication to remain private. He would have blavmed it to the wort ; he a ould base advertised it. It was, however, MUD' for ,his Lordship's private e) c only, and the detenclaotbal tl erefore sent it sealed up to his Lordship's private residence. As a private commu nication, it was not even a libel ; jelled never been pub lished to the world, and no indicttsent for it as a libel could be sustained. The jury would. no d. übt hear an eloquent veil from the Attorney General, as he had a right, in a Crows prosecution, which this was, to ad dress them'. again. The questing after all, however, would come to this,--What was tie de fa mlant's intention in sending the letter to Lord Wallace? D:d lie •voish to provoke his Lordship to a breach of the peace, or did he merely want the means of justifying his character? He (the Learned Counsel) should have liked to hear Lord Wallace asked whether he at the thine considered that the letter was meant to incite him to a breach of the peace? That question, however, had not been asked, and it was now for the Jury to say what they conceived the defendant's intention to be. The case was now in their hands, and the defendant looked to them confidently for that justice which he had hitherto elsewhere failed to obtain. The ATTORNEY GENERAL having replied, Lord TENTERDEN bh..xtly summed up, leaving it to the Jury to say whether or no the letter was written with an intent to provoke a breach of the peace? if they were of opinion that it was, they would find the defendant guilty; otherwise they would acquit him. After the Jury had 4feliherated in the box for about half an hoer, they reque‘ted to be furnished with the letter, which was handed up to them. it was then about six o'clock. Shortly before seven they requested rer. Mission to retire to comider their verdict. An officer was accordingly sworn to attend them. The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. Potxocic then 'addressed his Lordship. and said ttey'clicl not tbink it necessary that he should be detained to take die verdict, ' as it was not likely that any question of law would arise on which*the Jut y would aeciuste to be instfucted. His Lordship assented, and shortly after left Court. The Jury remained loChedm until nearly,um o'clock, when they returned into Court, and pronounceda tret dict of Guilty. • . The trial occupied the entire day, from balf•past nine o'clock. Lord Wallace sat on the Bench from the commencement until after the summing up, at nearly six o'clock. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fes. 40. Sittinp after Hii.ry Term, before Mr. Justice PARK and a Special Jury, at Westminster. TAR TRUSTIES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM V. WHITS. Mr. PATTISON opened the pleadings. Mr. Sergeant WILDS stated, ihat this was•an issue directed by the Court of Chancery to try %sherbet a Gentleman, of the name of White, had duly executed his will, conveying certain land to the platatiffs, accord ing to the tsrovisons 01 the 29th Charles II cap 3. corn manly called the Statute of Fr acor•. That Act re quited that every devise in lapd should be in' writing, signed by* the devisor, and attested by three or more credible. witnesses. Here the will was in the hand-writing of the testator. After writing it, be obtained the signature of two of his 'servants, and of a Carpenter living in the neighbourhood, to whom . heesplained the nature of the in ! trument. The conclusion' oldie will was in the testators hand writing, and contained these- words---" And to this. asylum will and testament. I have set my hand and seal, in the presence of the following witnesses." Now this Statute drd not require that the witnesses. should-have seen the testator sign it ; nor that the witnesses should sign in the presence of each other; nor that they should know it was a will. Here the will was in two sheets; brit it had been held in a case before Lord Mansfield, that it was sufficient it both sheets mere in the room at the time, when one of them was signed, whsch was the case in the present instance. These were the circumstances on which the Jury were to decide. Witnesses were called, who proved the facts as - stated by the Learned Sergeant. Mr. Sergeant I3oSaNQUET contended, for the heir at law, that the statute was in this case imperative. All its previsions must be fulfilled, in or der to render the in - strumeat for the conveyance of real property valid. In the pieseut instance this had not bern done, and there fore the verdictsrf the Jury must be for the d. [entrall. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. They found that both stiii sheets were in the room when the will watsigiteds that the will was sigiled before the witnesses signed it ; that the two servants did not know that it was the ',statues% ill when thersigued the sheet; and that the carpeuter knew the nature of the instru ment he flad signed. ' CONSISTORY COUrtT, Fes 20. Dr. LUSHINCITuII to.ik his seat to-day as Judge of this Court. a GRANT AGAINST GRANT. This was a suit JOY divorce on the pound of adultery, promoted by Major Charles Grant, against Mary Ann, his wife. The libel had been admitted, and the vies-, E'C 4 : i 4 . ' 1 , I : i It . : f ( t a , • V e 1 . 4 ; i . I .. I f t l i' i . J ! I') , .. , , .., , . ~ t 1 1 1 , . , i 1 ! . li'' ~., ~.. . ...,..,,, 4 ,, 1 1 ., T t 1 i ll ,; ii 4,• • il. !; j a` 111