Star. — London, England, 1819-07-05 00:00:00

- t • 4AW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 3. CRIM. COM. PEACOCK V. DERBYSHIRE. Mr. Delmar/ opened the declaration in this case. It was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Richard Peacock, against the defendant Mr. Stewart Derbyshire, to recover compensation in damages for criminal conversation with his wife. The defendant had pleaded not guilty, and upon this issue was joined. Mr. SCARLETT, in his address to the Court and Jury, stated that the Plaintiff was by profession a Law-stationer, living in Chancery-lane. He was a person of great respectability, and found himself under the painful necessity of bringing this action, to recover compensation for the injury which he had sustained by the seduction of his wife. The Defen dant was a young man, the son of Mr. Derbyshire; an Apothecary and Surgeon of some eminence (car. rying on business in Berners-street, Oxford-street). — He held a situation in the office of Mr. Archibald Campbell, an Army Agent, and also held the com mission of an Ensign, in his Majesty's Service. In the year 1811, the Plaintiff became acquainted with the lady whose misconduct formed the subject of the present proceeding, kllci afterwards married her.— She was the daughter of Sir Henry David Peake, who was a Surveyor of his Majesty's Navy. After the marriage took place, they lived together in great harmony, and with uninterrupted confidence and affection, till during some porticn of the last year. In-the course of the last year, Sir Henry Peake and his family went upon a trip to France. Mr. Peacock. and his wife accompanied them, and were nbsenC from this country about eight days. While in France, the Plaintiff had the misfortune to form some degree of:intimacy with the Defendant. A lady, who was in ;:he house Sir Henry Peake, was acquainted with the family of the Defendant, and thus he, and a bro ther who accompanied him, were repeatedly invited to speed the evening. Thus an intimacy grew up between the families, arid they were occasionally in the habit of .meeting each other. Some time in the course of last year the Plaintiff observed that his wife did not pay the same attention to her family as she had been previously accustomed to do. He should have stated that the fruits of the marriage were two children, a boy and a girl, the eldest of whom was five years of age. It was remarked that the lady adopted a practice which was very unusual with hot at any former period. She walked out every day, and at an hour of the day which the Jury would find it probable was most convenient for holding a meet ing with the Detendaet. It was true that they oc casionally met together in the evening at Mr. Pea- I cock's house ; but Mr. Peacock being a domestic man,' mid spending his leisure time with his family, no op portunity was afforded for that species of intercourse which their passionate feelings suggested. Thus the lady found it convenient to walk out very frequently, and instead of taking her children with her (the eldest of w)tom was at least a desirable companion), and which she had been in the practice of doing, she went alone, alledging that they were rather an incum bratice. A circumstance attracted Mr. Peacock's at - tendon, which also excited suspicion. but which, as he could not make it evidence, he would not describe. It was sufficient to say, that it was strongly calcu lated to create distrust. He should, however, be ablso call evidence to prove, that about the time when the intimacy between Mrs. Peacock and the Defendant commenced, the former was observed to neglect her family duties. He might ,here observe, that such conduct alWays accompanied the violation of the marriage sanctuary. Hardly an instance ever occurred, in which a wife departed from the paths of virtue and honour, where it was not observed, that all the duties which she owed to her husband and to herself, were not abandoned. This unhappy worhan exhibited all those symptoms of neglect to her family mid to her servants. Mr. Peacock, in consequence of what he saw, watched her motions, and traced her very frequently in visits to the neighbourhood of Soho.square. At this time Mr. Peacock had not the least suspicion of the Defendant, who was several years younger than Mrs. Peacock. It was not till towards the close of the last year, as Mr. Peacock was going to bed, that any thing occurred upon which a correct conclusion could he formed. On that occasion Mr. Peacock observed his wife in some degree of confusion, as if she wished to conceal from his notice something which s:ie bad in her hand. He should have informed them, that at this time a bro ther of Mr. Peacock, an Officer in the Navy, was on a visit to him, and had gone to bed. Mr. Peacock kept his eye upon the lady, and at last saw her con ceal a paper in some part of the bed. This induced him to snatch the paper with some degree of violence. Her conduct at the instant proved the importance which she attached to it. It was sufficient to say, that she conducted herself in the most violent man ner. She followed her husband down stairs, un dressed as she was, and blew out die light to pre vent his reading the paper. • He, however, opened the street door, in order that he mit gratify his curiosity as well as his anxiety by the light of the lamp but her conduct was such as to prevent his efforts, until his brother arrived, when the letter, which he should now read, was secured. This letter was in the hand-writing of the Defendant, and the Jury would judge from its contents what degree of intercourse had taken place between the parties.— Before he read this letter he would make an observe tiou whichle considered applicable to all cases of this nature. In all instances in which married women had forgotten the duty which they owed to their hus bands, it was observable that the individuals upon - upon whom they had conferred their favours treated them with a degree of familiarity, which the circum- i stances of the relation in which they stood to the husband would forbid, if the last degree of intimacy had not passed. No man would presume to addrees' a woman whose virtue - was yet safi, and especially a married woman, in terms otherwise than respectful; but the moment the last favour was granted, that re spect would cease, and a more passionate style of address would of course be adopted. He made this observation because he thought it peculiarly appli cable to the terms of the letter which he was about to read. The Jury would recollect this letter to be from a young mast to a married woman—the mother of two children, and five or six years older than him self—and when they heard the language in which it was couched, they would say whether they could doubt that the last degree of intimacy had taken place between them. This was the letter : " What will you think of me, my deers* Mary? The block heads of this office did not give ms your letter till this morning: all credit is due to you for your excellent contrivance—and I shall not forget Mrs. Smith (the feigned name by which this lady was addressed.) But what did you suppose, upon not finding a letter for that Lady ; you must surely, I fear, have inquired before this ; but I hope you did not make any undue reflec tions. I did not, it is true, arrive here froth the city yesterday till all the Clerks were gone, but they should have left my letter , with the servant. I approve of your plan ;it will do very w ell for a little; but our best policy will be to change from time to time, as curiosity first, and then suspicion, and possibly detec tion, the natural offspring of these two, may follow each other, if time is allowed for it. The circumstance( by which these may . be excited, you will easily ob serve to be, first, your appearance' (by no means unattractive), which would lead the worthies at the Post-office to think you must have a house of your own; edly, the frequency of your applications would, no doubt, W.. (kice them to suppose your letters to possess some peculiar in terest for you ; and 3rdly, the nearness of the place to your own house would afford great facility to their at!empts to discover the mystery, should their curiosity be awakened. All these, however, are but, possibilities, against which, you know, it is my plan always to be on guard. From this it will be seen that the defendant, if young in years, was well advanced in artifice. " And this will serve all the purposes of a conveyance for our correspondence till lam able to fix upon a better. This I shall endeavour to do at a greater distance from bonne, but not so great as to be inconvenient to you—and where, if possible, there are no interfering tattling old or young women, who certainly are.wcialerfulunravellers of secrets ' where they chance to obtain a clue. You will by the time you have got thus far, no doubt. say or think, a truce to prudential considerations--love has no thing to do with such. I acknowledge it, and deFist, only re• commending to you discretion. I feel in your presence as you say you do in mine. I fo-g t all I wished to say when I see yot, and when I have parted, they all crowd upon my memory at once. I have hitherto omitted to thank you for your little pre sent, in every respect so gratifying to me, and so deserving of estimation on its own account. Yost will, however, I ant sure, believe me, when I say it possesses , in m y eyes, charms far. su perior to its own intrinsic value—which you only, in the world, can appreciate. I hope this will reach you in safety. I have met with at least a thousand interruptions since I began this, and am now forced to end abruptly. " Saturday." " Yours D. S." ever, , He should proceed to call witnesses to establish the fact. Thomas Putney, a parish clerk of St. George the Martyr, produced the registry of the marriage of the plaintiff with his wife, on the 23c1 of November, 1811, then being Miss Mary Ann Peake. Mr. Lewis Peacock, attorney, and brother of the plaintiff, proved the hand-writing of the plaintiff and his wife to the marriage 'registry. Mrs. Peacock was the daughter of Sir Henry Peake. The plaintiff and his wife lived together on terms of affection, as far as witness ever observed. They lived together until September last, when they separated. Fanny White lived servant with plaintiff and his wife, four years. next September. They had two children, a boy a girl. As far as she observed, Mr. and Mrs. Peacock rived happily together. Wit ness did not observe much t hen her mistress went oat. Never noticed any difference in the conduct of Mrs. Peacock towards her husband from what was when witness first w:nt there. Mrs. Peacock used sometimes to walk in the morning, at times with her little girl, and at times without. Could not say whe ther she went out oftener latterly than before. Re membered plaintiff and his wife going to France last year with Sir Henry an I Lady Peake. After return ing from France, Mrs. Peacock did not go out oftener than usual. Sometimes the plaintiff went out of an evening, and returned at ten o'clock. Remembered the dispute between plaintiff and her husband in Sep , tember last. Witness wai awakened by the disturb - atice, and went up stairs, and saw her mistress stand ing on the landing-place, undressed. Did not know what the dispute was about. I-ter mistress left the house next day, and never returned again. Witness could not swear to the defendant, but might have seen him. Elizabeth Williams was nurse in the plaintiff's fa mily a few days before Mrs. Peacock left her house. In the course of a night in September last, was dis turbed by a noise in her master's hed-room. Went up stairs and saw her mistress undressed. Saw no paper; only heard a noise. There was no light but the plaintiff called for one, which was brought by witness's fellow-eervant. Mrs. Peacock blew the light out. Mr. ADAM objected, that any thing done by Mrs. Peacock, was not evidence receivable in this cause. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, it was receivable as evi dence of the manner in which the letter alluded to was obtained by the husband. Sarah Jenkins was a nursery-maid in the plaintiff's family the year before last, and left the service 16 months since. The plaintiff appeared to be an atten tive husband to his and was fond of his children. Mr. Samuel Peacock, a Lieutenant in the Navy, and brother of the plaintiff, stated that he was in the habit of visiting the plaintiff and his wife, and they appeared to live happily. Did not know the defen dant—never saw him at plaintiff's house. Witness slept at plaintiff's house on the night the letter in question was obtained by the plaintiff. Heard an altercation between plaintiff and his wife. The latter said, " You shan't have it—it is my letter." Heard the bed-room door open, and a rush down stairs. Witness was about getting up, when the plaintiff came to him with a light, and requested hins-eci get.. up. He appeared in great distress. Witness got up and went out, and saw hlrs. Peacock in her bedgown, without shoes and stockings. Witness said, " For GOD'S sake, what is the matter? Compose yourself, and don't expose yourself to your servants." The plaintiff had a letter grasped in his hand, and was going to read it, when Mrs. Peacock snatched at it, but rushed into her bed-room, and blew the candle out. A considerable struggle and altercation af terwatds ensued, but the plaintiff succeeded in getting the letter. Next day Sir Henry and Lady Peake called and took Mrs. Peacock away. Saw the defendant on Saturday morning (the disturb ance mentioned being on a Thursday night) ;—wit ness called upon him, and told him that he came about an unpleasant business between him and plain tiff's wife. The defendant appeared agitated, and said, " I find I am in a scrape, and must get out of it as well as I can ;" and added, " that the errors of youth may lead us into acts which we may after• wards regret,- and which blast our future-prospects in life." Witness asked him for some letters belong ing to plaintiff's wife, and requested him to deliver them up. He replied, " Certainly not ;" but if wit ness would pledge his word of honour that the plain tiff's wife would consent, he would deliver them up. Witness said he could pledge himself to no such thing. This , was at the house of the defendant's father. The defendant asked witness to walk up stairs, which he did. After some conference between defendant and another person in the adjoining room, he returned, and said he could not give the letters up. ,Witness had said below stairs, that delivering the letters up might be the means of preventing public exposure in a Court of Justice ; defendant said, that *as most desirable. Cross-examined.—ln the course of the struggle which witness described, Mrs. Peacock said the letter was not her's. There was a greit deal of confused 'noise about the letter, one word of which witness 'could not repeat. Mrs. Peacock did not say it was a letter from her brother Henry. She might have said so. She said she had nothing to do with it, meaning the letter in the plaintiff's hand at the time. When witness saw defendant on the Saturday morn ing, he said to him (defendant) he was sorry that he had got into such a scrape. Recollected a conversa. don between plaintiff and himself about a Mr. Maund some days after the letter was discovered. The plain tiff said he had suspected his wife a long while; for on going down to his office after dinner one day, he saw a person whom he supposed to be a Mr. Maund; that he took no further-notice, and went to the of fice ; that on his return home, between nine and ten, he asked his wife whether any body had been there? and she said " No person ;' that he then asked of the servants whether any body had been there? and they said, " Yes, Mr. Maund has been here for nearly an hour." Witness told his brother, that as Mr. Maund was his wife's brother-in-law, there was nothing in that circumstance to excite suspicion. This was after the plaintiff had said he suspected his wife with Air.. Maund. Remembered a conversation also with his brother about a Mr. Bamfield, as to the treatment of Mrs. Peacock's children. The defendant was about nineteen or twenty years of age. Mrs. Peacock was 'i, about twenty-eight. The plaintiff was a law stationer in Chancery-lane; he was about thirty-six or thirty seven years old ; his private house was in Burton street, Burton-Crescent. Alexander Knight, a Clerk in the Office of , Mr. Campbell, the Army Agent, proved the hand-wri ting of the defendant to the letter in question ; defen dant had been a Clerk in Mr. Campbell's Office, and was now a half-pay Ensign in the Army. Tire letter was then put in and read. Mr. John Derbyshire, brother of the defendant, said his father was a Surgeon and Apothecary, in Berners-street, Oxford-street. Defendant boarded with his father. Mr. Derbyshire, the elder, attended Mr. Peacock's family professionally. Witness and defendant visited at the plaintiff's house. Never saw the letter in question, but heard it read to-day. Ne ver saw or heard of the present mentioned in the let 'ter. Has seen Mrs. Peacock at his father's house in the day time, in company either with her brother or her husband. Never knew of defendant meeting Mrs. Peacock in the street. Never saw any of her letters to him. Witness was the person whom the defen dant consulted about giving up the letters. which Lieutenant Peacock called about, and to which the lattet had spoken in his evidence. Witness said to the defendant on that occasion, that if he really had any letters' of Mrs. Peacock, he would advise him not to give them up. - Cross-examined.—Witness has six brothers and tom , sisters. Tee defendant was on half-pay as an Ens*, and was not twenty, bid not know of any ineansof' ..ce he had except his half-pay. ...e-examinecl.-.-Witness his since seen Mrs. Pea cock accidentally in the street, but did not know that the defendant had seen her; except by chance, he might have seen her at a distance in the street. Here the plaintiff's case closed. Mr. ADAM proceeded to address the Jury on behalf of the defendant, but Mr. SCARLETT interposed, and said he did not mean to interrupt his Learned Friend's observations; but as he had naturally anticipated the way in which the case must be left to the Jury, he felt that there was not sufficient evidence of the fact of adultery to warrant a conclusion of criminality; and therefore, with the consent of the Learned Judge, he would withdraw the case from the consideration of theJtiry, more especially as he perceived his Lordship to be in clined to concur with him in thinking that the case could not go with any expectation of a verdict. The CHIEF JUSTICE appeared to acquiesce, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. RIGGS V. GRIFFITHS. This was an action for an assault and false imprison ment. The plaintiff was the wife of a soldier resid ing at Chelsea. On a day mentioned in the record, Mrs. Riggs went to the defendant's shop to buy a straw bonnet, and having selected one, tendered a £1 note in payment. The defendant, on looking at it, said it was a bad one; on which Mrs. Riggs left the shop, and went to another in the neighbourhood, kept by Mr. Herring, where she bought a bonnet, and was in the act of paying for it with a £1 note, when Mrs. Guaths, who had followed her, entered the shop, seized the note from her hand, and charged her with being an utterer of forged notes. A Con stable•was sent for, and she was given in charge by the defendant, who, although it was mid-day, direc ted she should be taken to the watch-house, where she was kept in the dungeon all night. On the fol lowing morning the Constable went to the Bank, taking with him two £1 notes found in Mrs. Riggs' possession, when it appeared that the notes were good. She was then iiken'before a Magistrate and dischar ged. There was no defence, and the Jury, after an address from the Judge, who strongly reprobated the conduct of the defendant in keeping the woman in custody all night, when.thqe.was plenty of time for taking her before a Magigtate during the day, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £2l—Costs 40s. The Sheriff-Depute of Lanarkshire has published a notice, calling upon the Public to seize, apprehend, or give information of a woman, named Elizabeth 11F6stigan, charged with the murder of George Simpson, her husband, lately a porter ix Glasgow. Yesterday morning, about one o'clock, an alarming fire broke out in the house of Mr. NICHOLS, pawn broker, of Gray's Inn-lane, Holborn, which, together with the property it contained, was totally destroyed. The house of Mr. WiLmens, next door, was also considerably damaged. The engines, with a plenti ful supply of water, stripped its further progress. Saturday a young Ldp, aged 17, residing in Castle street, Leicester-square, in crossing the' road where the pavement is repairing,itumbled, and fell, and be fore she could recover herself a cart went over both her legs, and crushed them to pieces. CLERICAL INTELLIGENCE. CAMBRIDGE, JULY 2. The Parson Prize for the best translation of a passage f rom Shakespeare into Greek verse, was on Tuesday last adjudged Mr. Horatio Waddington, Scholar of Trinity College. Tkr subject was from Corlolanus , Act 5, Scene 3, part of Volum. nias speech, beginning with " Thou know'st, great son, the er d of war's uncertain ;" and ending with " Let us shame hien our knees."—Lord Hervey, eldest son of the Earl of Brined, t, admitted Nobleman of Trinity College, in this University. OXFORD, JULY 3. Monday, the following Gentlzmen were admitted Fellows of St. John's College :—John Joseph ERIN and Benjamin 'loll , rd Banner. Same day, Thomas Arthur Powys, and Edward Tur nout', were admitted Scholars of the same Society. Wednesday the election took place at Exeter College, vol:en Josiah Forshall, B.A. of 'the same College, and 'fitomas of lislliol College, were elected Fellows of that Society. Wednesday, the following Gentlemen were elected Fellows of Wadham College : Stephen Hurst tampion, Thomas GrES: I I, John Manley, and Peter Cramer Renew,. Same day, Jon Charles James Hoskyos Abraball, Edward George Si:ncos, tt ii. lints Oxnam, and blatbew Hughes George Buckle, were elev.-4 Scolars of that Society. Thursday, the Rev. John Walker, LLB. Fellow of N:w College, was presented by the Warden and Fellows of tit': ciety to the Vicarage of liornchurch, EVICT. Monday se'nnight, the Rev. Charles d, B.D. Student of Christ Church, was elected Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. Thursday, the following were admitted to degrees; DACHELOS IN DIVINITY. The Rev. Joseph Benson, of Queen's College. •ACHELOZ 1W CIVIL LAW. Rev. Frederick Charles Blackstone, Fellow of New Collyse. MASTERS Or ARM. Charles Edmund Keene, Fellow of All Souls' College. Rev. Thomas Trevener Penrose, Fellow of Exeter Witte. Rev. Bouchier Marshall, of Exeter College. Rev. Thomas Fryer Jennings of Wadham College. Rev. Joseph T. Kirkbank, of Queen's College. Rev. Harry Lee, Fellow bf New College. Rev. Edward Turner, of Balllol College. Rev. William Boyter Young, of St. John's College. Rev. Joseph Mayo, firasennose College. Yesterday, the following were admitted to degrees : Rev. Joseph Benson, Queen's College, was admitted Der..ar in Divinity. Rev. James Britton, Christ Church, was admitted Bachtior and Doctor in Divinity. Rev. Robert Broadley, of St. John's College, was admitted Master of Arts. At a General Ordination, held by the Bishop of Norwich, is that city, on Sunday last, the following were ordained : DEACONS. John Davies, late of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. James Allgood,.B.A. St. Mary Mall, Oxford. . John Frederick Benwell, B.A. Magdalen Hall, Oxford. • "must% Henry Harvey, B.A. Christ Church, Oxford. Watts Wilkinson, B.A. Worcester College, Oxford. ECCLESTASTICAL PROMOTIONS. Rev. J. 1). Churchill, Ls presented to the Rectory of Erpint ham, Norfolk. On the 3d ult. the original Burgher Associate Congregation, Kirkintolloch, gave Mr. John Russell, Preacher, an unanirnow call to be their Minister. On the 17. h ult. a call was nu;deratetli in the Relief Chapel, Dysart, for Mr. Junes Spence, Preacher, of the Presbytery, as assistant and successor to the Rev. W. Dillervrell. MARRTED. - Rev. R. 14. Millet, Vicar of Dedham, to Marc, second daughter of the late Rev. John Harrison, L.L.B. Rector d Wrabuess, both in Easel. Rev. Giles Daubeny, to Catherine, eldest daughter of the Rev. J. Collins ; of Benetton Berks. Rev. IL Williams, Prebe ndary of Lincoln, to Miss Round, eldest daughter of the late Stephen Round, Esq. cf King's Bet.ch Hill, Berkshire. Rev. C. D. Brefeton, Rector of St. Edmund's, Norwich, to Frances, youngest daughter of Jesoph Wilson, )wi g. of Highbury Hill, Middlesex. June 22, the Rev. Wm. Bradley, M. A. of Brasennose Col lege, Oxford, to Mary, daughter of the liev. Charles Gardner, Rector of Stoke Hammond, Burks. At Hallyboy Church, Francis Massey, of Newtown, meaty of Kildare, Req. to Anne, third daughter of John Molloy, d Der rinboy, King's County, Esq. DIED. Wednesday, at Clifton, Elizabeth Inglis, only daughter of the late Captain Arthur Clarke, R.N. At Little Malvern, In his 78th year, the Res*. Benj. Stone. At Mount Boone , Devon, the Rev. 11. Seale. Aged 22, Mrs. Lithgow, wife of Dr. Lithgow, of Coleraine. At Cloughwell, aged 85, the Rev. Jon Duffy, P.P. At Springfield, near Newtownards, aged IS, Alexander, se cond son of the Rev. James 'M'Culloch, Presbyterian Minister in that place. EAST-INDIA BIRTHS, MARRIAGES,.um DEATHS. TAM TIM CALCUTTA 7011111A1. BIRTHS. Jao.l , at Meerut, the Lady 01:1s4; M. Boyd, of a son and heir. Jan. I t, at Calcutta, Mrs. John d'Silva, of a son. Jan. 17, at Midnapore, the Lady of W. A. Pringle, Esq. al the Civil Service, of a daughter. Jan. 22, at Ca lcutta, Mn. A. G. Balfour, of a daughter. MARRIED. Jan. 14, at the Cathedral, John Henry Swinhoe, Esq. to Use Catherine Eliza Penny. Jan.2s, at Cakutta, Mr. J. P. Strange, to Mils Isabella Gosnes. DIED. - Dee.lo, at Rajmabal, Mr. B. O'Loughlin, of the Ordnance Department. an. 1, at Agra, Lieut. Benjamin Roebuck, of the 6th Jan. 12, at Tipperah, Mrs. Janette Pinto. Jan. 18, at Calcutta, Airs: E. Ham, aged 80 years. Dec. 19, at Banda, the Lady of Captain T. Bathhouse, his Majesty's 47th regiment. Just published, by T. HARVEY, of Blackfriars road, a Pocket Manual, being A few Minktes Ad vice from the Medical Board, in a Lecture on the Lues Venerea and Sexual Debilities, as deliver ed at Woodstock-House, and Charlotte-House, in March last, a Publication highly interesting to young Practitioners, and of importance to the vital interests of Society.—For the accommodation e: Patients at the West end of the Town, a Medical Board is established in Woodstock-street, Oxford street, under the patronage of Dr. Coopea, of Cha: lotte House, Great Charlotte-street, Blackfriars-road. The Board is composed of Gentlemen of the first talent, of nearly-forty years' experience, all Members of the Royal Colleges of London and Edinburgh. who are consulted daily by all ranks of inva lids with the greatest confidence. Patients afflicted with a certain complaint, strictures, erratic pains. eruptions of the skin, ulcerated throat, glandular swellings in the neck, nodes on the shin bones, &c are diseases which arise from improper treatmeat— the afflicted are immediately relieved, and speedil y ' cured, without confinement.—Messrs. Coo PER and C. _ _ are consulted at Woodstock House, from Eight in the Morning until Eight at Night ; and at Charlotte- House, Great' Charlotte -street, opposite the Rev• Rowland Hill's Chapel, from Twelve till Eight• and no where the in London.--Wechanics have Ad vice Gratis every evening, from Six till Eight, a! both Houses; and on Sunday Mornings until Twelve o'Clock.—N.B. Rnptures of 30 years standing, and of 24 inches in circumference, *radically cured, with• out surgical operation.—c} Private Entrance, and Private Rooms, for Consultation. LONDON t 'Printed and published by Lau VssioT, Plastic. Mice, Temple-NI. 1 .,1 • r l r se