Star. — London, England, 1825-03-19 00:00:00

41ir REIORT. COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 11 . REAL DEL MONTE MINING COMPANY. KINDIR V. TAYLOR AND °TRIM& Mr. SRABWRLL, who appeared as Counsel fot the defendants, was anxious that the arguments in this go* should be postponed, as sufficient time had not beers allowed to read the bill. A copy of the bill had not been furnished until Thursday, and the defendants, therefore, required further time to read and answer all the allegations and charges contained in it. After a short conversation, Wednesday next was fixed for the hearing of the case. BAYLIS v. PAUNTLBROY, HUME, ANSI GOODCRILD. Mr. HART stated, that this was a motion arising out of the' committed by Mr. &under and for _ _ __ forgeries . _.oy, which his life had been forfeited. That Gentleman had been joint Trustee with Mr. Hume and Mr. Goodchild, with respect to some property belonging to the plain tiffs, which was placed in the hands of the Bank of England. Mr. Fauntleroy had forged the plaintiffs' signature, and had thus drawn the whole money from the Bank. The present motion was for a reference to the Master to inquire whether any and what suit should be instituted against the Governors and Directors of the Bank of England, to compel them to replace the amount in their books? The Learned Gentleman re- gretted that, through inattention •to the plaintiffs in terests, the two retraining Trustees had suffered Mr. Fauntleroy to obtain the whole of the money out of the hands of the Bank.—Reference directed to the Master, according to the terms of the motion. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH IS. ORICE V. THE THAMES TUNNEL COMPANY. In this case, Mr. HEALD, at a late hour yesterday, moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of two houses, 325 and 326, High. street, Rotherhithe, or molesting the plaintiffs in the possession or enjoyment thereof; or from boring or mining under them, or under a wharf and other pre mises in the occupation of the plaintiff, and a Mrs. Mary Ann White, also in High-street, Rotherhithe. Alter hearing Counsel yesterday and this morning, The Vice CHANCELLOR gave his judgment, em bodying all the important facts in the case. His Ho nour said, this was a bill filed by James Grice, who was the owner, and John Grice, his son, who was the tenant, of four houses and other premises, situated in ltotherhithe, for the purpose of restraining the defen dants, who were engaged in cutting a tunnel under the itiver Thames, from proceeding in that undertaking, inasmuch as they had not acquiesced in the very large demand made by the plaintiffs as to the value of these premises. The plaintiffs had demanded between five and six thousand pounds, and aJury impanelled under the Act of Parliament had assessed their damage ul rimately at 1,8001. After noticing the arguments of Counsel generally, his Honour said, that this was an attempt to resist the verdict of a Jwy, on grounds perfectly untenable. and, therefore, the applicatit.n must be disn.issed with costs. LENT ASNIZES. KINGSTON, MARCH Is. Richard Mills was indicted for the wilful murder of William Fuller, at Wimbledon, on the 11th cfJanuary, by stabbing him with a butcher's knife. It appeared in evidence, that. the prisoner having been a poulterer by trade, became reduced in his circum stances, and was received into Wimbledon workhouse about a year since. Twenty years ago he had fallen from a horse, and in consequence became subject to epileptic fits. During the year he was in the w ork house he had frequent attacks of epilepsy, which affected his mind. The deceased was also a pauper in the work house. In the evening of the 11th of January, when he was getting into bed, the prisoner, who had gone an hour before, rose up and stabbed Fuller with a large knife in the abdomen, and killed him on thg spot. The prisoner then attacked another pauper, named Apple ton, and wounded him in several places. His cries Of murder brought other paupers to his assistance, and the prisoner was overpowered. A surgeon of Wimbledon, who had known the priso ner for twenty years, had no doubt that the epilepsy had affected his mind, and that he could not have been sane at the time of the transaction in question. Mr. Walter, the keeper of the gaol, said that whilst the prisoner was in custody, he behaved like a person of unsound mind. During that time he had frequently epileptic fits six times a day. Upon this evidence, the Jury, under the Learned Judge's direr. dons, acquitted the prisoner, on the ground of insanity, and be was ordered to be detained during his Majesty's pleasure. Anthony Dakin was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying James Frederick Taylor, at West Mouhey, on the 26th December. _ _ _ It appeared in evidence that the prisoner was gar dener to a Gentleman named Savory, a chemist, in Bond street, having a cottage at West Moulsey. The deceased was a bricklayer by trade. On the £7th December List, the deceased and two persons named Martin and Brown, went out Christmas-boxing in the morning. After going their rounds, they called at Mr. Savory's house. They knocked at the door. It was answered by the prisoner. They requested a Christmas-box. The prisoner said, that as his master was not at home, he could not give them any money, but that they were welcome to some beer, and he invited them into the kitchen, where they sat down. He then went to the cellar, and drew a mug of beer, and served them in a horn tumbler. They drank to his health, and wished him the compliments of the season. He returned the compliment ; and they air appeared to be very harmonious. The prisoner quitted' the kitchen for about ten minutes, and on his return the deceased addressed Mm, and said, " D—n my eyes, master, fill us another jug; this does net run two horns a-piece." The prisoner said, "Do you d—n my eyes 2' The deceased said "No; Goa forbid I should d—n any person's eyes." The prisoner turned himself round to wards the fire, and Martin said, " Don't let us have any words about a drop of beer ; let us go, mates."— Martin was stooping down to take up his hat, when the prisoner struck him with the fire-tongs across the loins. He then struck the deceased across his left arm with the same weapon. He followed up his attack by striking Brown on the head. and cut him to the bone. The, latter fell, stunned by the blow. Recovering himself, he said, " For Gos's sake don't murder me. What is this torr The prisoner said, " D—n your eyes I'll murder all three' The deceased and his com panions then ran out of the house, pursued by the pri• goner. When in the high road he aimed a blow at the which teak effect on his rigiM _ hand he seised the neckcloth, and dressed Igo them to a neighboadit e rt le•hottae, where Its gave . • them in charge of the- who was a constable, but he declined interfering. ,Thedocemed wits attended by a surgeon, the 28th of Dieeilsber, and he get daily worse from the wound in the elbow which produced a I bloody fungus, and, on the 20th Illannary, he died of a mortification which ensued. On cross-examination, it was admitted that the de- . ;ceased was fresh in liquor, and that he and his compa nions had drank at two or three public-houses in going their rounds. Martin and Brown denied that they were , intoxicated, .or that they had been uncivil or riotous at the public-hJuses which they bad visited. The prisoner, in his defence, said that the deceased and his companions having demanded More beer in violent mangier, he refused to give them any; that thereupon he suspected the, came to rob his matte. house, and Martin having attempted to strike him, he, in his own defence, thought it necessary to drive them away by violence. Several witnesses were called, who proved that the deceased and his companions were drunk in the after noon in question, and had conducted themselves in a disorderly manner at the public and private houses they had visited. Mr. Savory gave the prisoner an excellent character for general mildness of manners and humanity of disposition. Mr. Baron Gamma summed up the evidence.—The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to three months impri sonment in the common jail. SHREWSBURY MARCH 17. ROGERS V. MYTTON. This was an action by Mr. Rogers, a farmer, in the county of Salop, against Mr. Mytton, a Gentleman of fortune, who was formerly Member for Shrewsbury, for a libel. Mr. CAMPBELL stated the case, which he described as entitling him to a large compensation in damages. He was a man of great respectability, who was married to a very beautiful, amiable, and accomplished Lady. Mr. Mytton, the defendant, it appeared, had formed an attachment to this Lady, and determined to seduce her from the faith due to her husband. With this view, for no other construction could fairly be put on his con dect, he wrote a letter soliciting an interview. This Lady, justly feeling insulted by such a proposal, deli vered the letter to her husband, who, of course, ex pressed himself indignantly on such an attempt to de stroy his happiness and his honour. In order to justify himself from this charge, and to cast odium on the man whom he bad marked out for the bitterest injury, the defendant wrote to Mr. Lloyd, the uncle of Mr. Rogers, that letter which was now charged as libellous. In this letter he represented that his object in desiring an interview with Mrs. Rogers, was to warn her husband, by her means, not to continue a practice of poaching at night, which would subject him to transportation. The' charge was wholly false; the defendant had not dared to plead that it was true ; and therefore it must be taken to be a gross libel on the character of an honourable man, highly aggravated by the circumstances and the motives under which it was written. The letter addressed to Mrs. Rogers was proved and read. It requested an interview, at which the Lady " would hear something to her own advantage ;" begged that " she would meet the writer alone on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday;" and proposed as the time, " the dusk of the evening." The letter charged as libellous was then real. It was addressed to Mr. Lloyd, as 44 Dear Lloyd," and assured him of the innocence of the writer's intentions towards Mrs. Rogers, whom he had known slightly be fore her marriage, and requested him to warn his ne phew against poaching in the night, as he might not be aware that it would subject him to transportation. It also appeared in evidence, on the one hand, that the plaintiff had expressed his readiness to put an end to the action upon an apology and payment of costs; and on the other, that the defendant bad, over his wine, at the Hereford Races, coarsely expressed his feelings towards Mrs. Rogers. Mr. TAUNTON addressed tLe Jury for the defendant. He denied that the letter to Mrs. Rogers was intended as a solicitation of her chastity ; end contended that it was neatly directed to the object subsequently pro fessed—that of warning the husband as to some prac tices which he was supposed, rightly or wrongly. to follow. It was nut very likely that a Gentleman, ena moured of a beautiful woman, would woo her in so cold a strain—would beg her to come to him, instead of going to her—would assure her, in advertising phrase, " that she might hear of something . to her advantage ;" and would abstain from all expressions of flattery and 'regard. But, even if this letter bore the construction put upon it—a construction hich the plaintiff could not put on it when he listened to terms of compromise— still, in this action, the Jury could not take it into their consideration in estimating the damages. And if they thought the letter to Mr. Lloyd written bona fide to induce the uncle to warn the nephew against a prac tice he was supposed to follow, they would find a ver dict for the defendant, or at least think he ought only to be mulcted in reasonable and temperate damages. Mr. Justice Ltrrteon Le agreed with the Counsel for the defendant, that the July could not give damages for the solicitation of the chastity of the plaintiff's wife. But still they might take into their consideration the circumstances under which the letter was written ; whether it was designed to conceal and colour a system of conduct which the defendant wished to hide, or was really intended to prevent some supposed irregularities of the plaintiff. At all events, the letter could not be justified, and the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict; but the amount of damages might depend very much on the view taken by the Jury, of the object with which it was written.—The Jury found a verdict for the plain dff Damages, £lOO. • =MINDS V. PELJAK. This was tir% action by Mr. Edatuods, an attorney at Oswestry, against Mr. Pelham, the Member for the County of Salop, to recover a compensation for his services as agent in canvassing for Mr. Pelham, previoni to the late election. It appeared that Mr. Edmunds bad been retained in the defendant's cause, but no contest actually took place. and Mr. Pelham was elected without opposition. To stew a retainer, it was proved that Mr. Edmunds was introduced to Mr. Pelham, who said to him, " Yoi must be very active in my cause, as I mean to carry it to the poll; " and that afterwards he received a letter from Mr. Wingfield, who had the general management of the election, containing a regular retainer. It was also proved that Mr. Minshulf, who had received a similar retainer from Mr. Wingfield, had been liberally paid by Mr. Pelham. The Jury returned &verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £65 Su. CAMBRIDGE, MARCH 17. Thomas Miller was indicted for a burglary in the Dross Kell Iwo at Cum, and taking hog theta eta ~.; property to the amount of 9001. and upwards, belongik to William Steward. Mr. BODISSON stated the case-on the past' oldie pro.' secntion, and having proved the facts, Mr. FR; for the prisoner, took an objection to the iadictment ; he contended that thecrimedid not anteant to burglary, inasmuch. as it appeared that the barn, although forming a continuous lbw of • building with the dwelling-house, was separated from the dwelling house in this way--that there was it fence across the yard, thereby separating it. Also it appeared that the roof was much lower than that of the dwellingihouse be therefore thought that the barn, by that separation, could not be part and parcel of the dwelling-house, and if so, the crime did not amount to burglary. dr. Rostirson, in reply, chieSy relied on cues in East's Crown Law, where the barn and other out-olfices were laid down to be part of the dwelling-house ; he considered occupation to be the great question. His LORDSHIP said the only point which arose was, whether the railing across the yard caused such a separa tion as to make the barn distioct from the dwelling house? He didmot think there was much in the objec tion ; if he should have any doubt in any other stage of the case, he should refer the point to the Judges. Mr. Justice GASRLRIC then summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty. His Lordship sentenced him to transportation for life. Langhans Mu t* and George Goddard were indicted for stealing, in the dwelling-house of William Slack, property to the amount of 1301. They made no defence, and were found Guiky. William Spalding and Steven Cullen were indicted for sheep•ste.ding, at Waterbeach, in this county. Mr. Garratt, the prosecutor, proved the case, and that parts of the sheep were feuml in the huuses of both the prisoners—They were found Guilty. LANCASTER, MARCH is. SUTCLIFF6 V. TAYLOR. The Arroanev•Cianaam. (with whom was Mr. STAIWE) slated that this was an action brought by Mrs. Sutcliffe, to recover damages for the seduction of her daughter, whereby she lost her services It was one of those cases which occurred so frequently in this county. The plaintiff was a widow Lady, residing on a farm of her own, not far from the town of Burnley. She had several daughters, of whom the subject of this action was the youngest but one. She formed part of her household; like her sisters was respectably brought up ; and was now about twenty-two years of age, The defendant was the only son of his father, and ea• joyed a handsome copyhold estate. He first became acquainted with the plaintiff's family in 1822, and soon after proposed to marry the daughter in question. At that time the mother thought her daughter too young, and the marriage was postponed. An intercourse, however, was allowed to take place between the par ties, which ended in the seduction that . was now com plained of. Hannah Sutcliffe, examined by Mr. STARKIII.-I am one of the daughters of the plaintiff. She lives at the top of Townley Park, near Burnley, where my father , formerly occupied a farm. He died about eight years ago, and left seven daughters and two sons. My mother still continues to occupy that farm; in addition, she has independent property of her own. In 1822, three daughters resided with my mother—Myselt; my sister Rose Anne, and another. Rose Anne is the youngest but one, and is now about 22 years of age. I carried on the business of a milliner at my mother's; I in structed my sister Rose in it ; we all occasionally as sisted my mot* in her household business. I know the defendant, John Taylor ; I first knew him in the month of June in 1822; he joined my sisters and me on the road as we were returning home from Church; he walked with us a part of the way ; be came to our house in August, 1822 ; he came in company with an air prentice of my brother.in-law's ; he came again in about a fortnight after that. His father was a farmer at Clifden, near Burnley, and be died in the September of the same year. The defendant had the same farm after his father's death; it is a large farm : I heard him say so. lie repeated his visits frequently afterwards, and on one occasion he mentioned to my mother that he wished to marry my sister Rose. My mother said she was too young. He said that he would wait * and my mother permitted him to visit her. He came frequently to court my sister. He said that his mother wished him to be married ; he talked a good deal of his own affairs, and often said how comfortable he should be when married. He mentioned the month of March, 1823, as the tilde when he wished the marriage to take place. The de fendant condoned to visit my sister. He next men tioned June for marrying her, and still continued to visit her till the end of 1823. In the month of De cember it was first known in our family that my sister was pregnant. After that was known be ceased to visit us for about five weeks ; at the expiration of that time my sister and I went over towards his house. We re mained in the fields, and sent a man for hint. He came to us, and was told that my. sister was pregnant; he said be would come to my another's the next night; he did not come. My sister was confined in J0ne,1824. Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGNIAM..—My mother's farm is not small; she has four cows. The defendant is two or three years older than my sister. He is not a cebler so far as I know ; he is a clogger and cordwainer, and has one apprentice. He has a shop on his mother's farm, and there he cobbles—(A laugh.) My sister is a dress► maker, and has been so about eight years, since she leP school. Four of my sisters are married; one of them married to a tailor, and another to a shoemaker. the eldest unmarried. My sister who is married to tailor bad her first child about four months after was married, Another of my sisters is ;parried cabinet-maker. She had her first child within ,ponths.after her marriage. Another of my sisters ,Married to a cordwainer. Ido not recollect when had her first child. You may ask Peter Parker w? - was; he, perhaps, can tell. (The witness pointed person behind the defendant's attorney.) Re-examined—Peter Parker is married to the fendant's sister. The defendant had been apprenticed to a shoemaker in his father's life-time. He told us was heir to his father, and that the farm belonged to him. My father had a good many hundreds of pounds when he died. Rose Anne Sutcliffe was next examined. She na handsome. She appeared in the witness-box rather gaily dressed. She stated the circumstance of her mill, and of her connexion with the defendant, in the same way as the last witness. Mr. Adam Meanly, a surgeon, residing at Burnley. stated that he knew the defendant to be possessed of copyhold estate at Pendlacnest, worth at least I,oooi. Mr. Baouastasc addressed the Jury for the defen dant. lie really thought, that if this was treated as a is *skeet far damages, there was not a milkmaid, bar d maid, bosonnitid, chambermaid, or dress-maker in tin ... ~_ _ 'country, ik b. world out Ilittliwith .britig hek-lite. ?i heart intocomt. That they d a tit right so do•lhece was not the least doubt. is Learned, Friend, the Attorney-General, said that " is was one of thole eases which occurred toe Often its this county. NO doubt they did, bet they were going on in evety county of England, as well as in Lasscoehire, in consequence of that degree of intercourse which was permitted to take place *moist the snes in that station of life. 0,, iu. stead of ring through the usual course of nifiliaOhg the. child before the listiktrate, each of the females brought their action in tins - Court, there would Beim end to, them. What had they on this occasion ? A girl dressed out in the colours of the rainbow, it—what far surpassed the rainbow...in all the colours of a drew maker's shop. Beneath her purple pelisse, however, he saw her under-dress, and if that pelisse were taken off, together with her bonnet and veil, she would appear more fit foe a cobbler's stall thin for any other places What happened in this family was nothing more than what daily occurred in this station of life—the meat first, and the grace after. This family, in partictilat, seemed to prescribe for that custom, as almost all the 'married dau4hters were mothets, either before or tee soon after their marriage. The case was a most trollid pert one, and it would be an insult on their understanda ings for hir e to add one word more upon it. Mr. Justice Masora monied up the evideace, sad the Jury, after some hesitadea, head far the pialatif—Daempts MO. NOTTINGHAM, MARCH 17. Mary Keay, aged 2S, stood charged with the wil ful murder of her newly-born utak child, at the borough of Newark, on the 81st of July, 1824,---Not Guilty. . Government, it is said, have it in contemplation to abolish the office of Parish Surveyor of Roads, and to appoint a competent person to each hundred, to be paid out of the county rate; a plan which has been adopted in Ireland with great success. &cunt or FRIENDS or Fonzromens rrr Dtirratzt.— Thursday the Annual Meeting of this Society took place at the Citrof London Tavern. SAMORL Warr, ssq. in the Chair. The Chairman congratulated the Meeting upon the great encouragement and support which the Society met with from the liberality of Bri tish and foreign contributors, who had enabled the In stitution to extend its benefits. The Report was then read. It gave a most gratifying account of the state and operations of the Institution. The collection. last year amounted to 1,1881. 12s. and in consequence of the liberality of the contributions, the Board, in stead of encroaching. as in former years, upon the per manent fond, was enabled to assist the Charity, by pur chasing 2204 stock in the 'Three per Cent. Consols ; and the Committee had been administering relief without being compelled to have recourse to former measures. After enumerating some legacies left by three Gentlemen lately deceased, the Report stated, that during the year, fifty pensioners, whose characters were unexceptionable, azd poverty was extreme, were supported. A waterman, who plies in Mutton Cove, Devonport, received last week from the Admiralty a reward of ten guineas, given to him for his intrepid conduct in saving three sailors from drowning during one of the late gales At the Limerick Assizes, on the 11th instant, two men, named Ryan and Dugan, were sentenced to death for the mutter of Daniel Connell, at Coneen, near' Bilbao, in December last. They were to be executed on Saturday. DEATH saws Excessive Dasxxsaa.—An laquisim tion was taken on Thursday night before Mr. Sueirost, at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, on the body of Dennis M•Carthy, who, it appeared, was brought into that . Hospital, on Monday evening, by sonic persons who found him in the street in a state of stupefaction from liquor. He was immediately pat to bed, and the newly invented stomach syringe put in requisition, by means of which upwards of a quart of ardent spirits were extracted from his stomach. The next day he recovered so far as to tell who he was, and where he lived. He died in the course of the day, frees the effects of what' he had taken. No direct evidence was obtained, as to where he had been drinking; but there appeared reason to believe that he had been engaged unloading a vessel at the West India Docks, and that he had drank immo derately of the row to which he thereby obtained ac cess. Three other men, who were engaged with him in this debauch, were said to have since died. Verdict. Died from Excessive Drinking. Scteurinc BARDARITT.—The following declaration . has been signed by thirty-eight physicians and other medical professors at Bath: “ Raw, Yeaaosse $7. ' 4 like/hase names are underwrkten, medical • persons, ciskily pracdtiosers, resident at Bath, do hereby mpg* and declare that we wig; as far salmi us ties, prevent and discourage by our' example, inilessos, sad demosien, Mos painful and cruel anatomical ex- • perfumes upon Ivies animals, which, to the diem of selance, our opinion, are amide, sometimes without aecmiky or malty, eat tleddwithout say adettate end, ender the plea of monde( 7 ltowsrledge. The gradated= of mem ealiaLie trades ettavontlee hot neassential theories, or the easy • known and eceansive experiment, we consider very nes► f dies for the Midi= of torture. We do then p vees= i s reprobate owl conduct, esteeming it wholly unnni creditable to our profession. And we earnestly recommend t s jeer to the serious considered= of all students in =stony ; ago. trea -4.14 • Faded 1 lel )10011 be Ira no N 1 te sill sal D an Jr a 'sr O am ~I ;1 head of the deceased libich took 4 area, at the elbow. With each ha deceased sad Martin by the neckell la _ :_ set to tow _IOW 1M.00112011111 Or 1111 11011181118 in wasimoy ; ow. 114 alb treading thus, wader a ammo of aural gelmeigle, sat talk sahlad :abler hunk W thogtaukes al alba* who laielhogglidesely (u we r, and bop), bat imihnonatelyolegrw/ed raemitehee atherwko sermerho. i arm, rine mad i 01,10000." dress. le lek BI 'l & v . Mardi IS, the Lady of Calomel Joie Irma, of a lallOser- kau is Marti ii, at =lkea, the lal of Ilk Winos Maim Na" I amt pier, Bart. of a so& to th e myth it, at Cali* Bash, Mashhad, the Lady of Liontememb rt ille • a Lade.* Lit d a sIiaIb" :ARRIED. t h ree Mardi 5, at Bersaley, 'Thomas Beckett, Ifok third us of et , Jobs Beckett, Bari. at dad ow, neer Leeds, ta Carallsa, mum* . tens as daughter of Joseph•Beehatt,•Erg. Beredey. ea she DIED. ' rhea ir , At Hagman Haase, Desalt, aged 61, Eh B. F . i. Biker, Baru dto a March 16, at Bub, 0•114212 Alasmadat 02fteell. 111. N. • March 2, W. H. A. Oasis, the Watson e/Pift. G. Colume: . is de. Bad 14, II . the wlkw of Lisismusa imluel Xrip, el . _.!,- die*. Mises m•aulim March to, at altos Vkarage, sear . Bath, Ames, wife of the us be gee. H. T. wha t ILA. gad to Sept. 17, at langotam, Emmet Major Matthew Fader, of the Mk w„—ads Saunas of Fast. gepa. 21, at gladua, Cagnak George Black, at the 54th 140- swot of Foot. ie was MiAILIA--THIS DAL rather •1111.0110. MUM DM her fa- ama s o Francs 1 0 much Wacer 6 P 74 0 1 Hamborgh • • Guernory earl Jerelff 0 0 !Lesion 0 • Lisboa 0 0 Holland 1 • indef• Gone nburgh 0 0 Leeward Islands 0 • :d of a ' mats o 1 Junks 1 • . 'Mg' HlGirs. in Al h,“ at LONDON.BBIDGI TO-MOiltall. . defer- morning • • • NI mime« afters a :61 as a Afterno 42' as admetes akar I d, bar Luau : Proved wed Pabtiaied 4J. F. Kum, es eke SIAS Arks ill the NO-11 Askew Pox, Thaple.lar . . •