Star. — London, England, 1828-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF RING'S BENCH, Dec. to. THORNSERRY V. SHERWIN. This action was brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, to recover a bill for business done for the defendant. It appeared thkt Mr. Thornberry, jun. brother to the plaintiff, being in business, as a surgeon, with Mr. Pitt at Brighton, was desirous of disposing of his shire in that concern to the defendant, and the plaintiff was employed to enter into a negotiation and aurange the terms. In the course of.t)e transaction, thete was some season to suspect the solvency of one of the partners, and the defendant declined becoming a purchaser. The plaintiff then brought his action for business done on the defendant's account. Lord TENTSRDEN held that the real state of the par ties should have been communicated to the defendant, and as that had not been done, the plaintiff was non suited. BONNER V. NAYLOR. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who i, a broker, to recover the sum of Ic2ll. from the defendant, uhich sum the plaintiff had paid on his account. The circumstances of the case, as they appeared in evidence, were these :—The defendant applied to the plaintiff to sell for him four shares in the Severn and Wye Railway Company, and upon being advanced the sum of money in question, executed an assignment of the shares, to hich he signed the name of Richard Naylor, his own name being George Richard Naylor. Toe purchaser of the shares sent this assignment to the office of the Company, to have the transfer registered in their books ; but he was there informed that there was no shares standing in the name of the Richard Naylor whose signature was affixed to the assignment; but that 12 shares were standing in the name of his father, Richard Naylor, deceased, to which his three sons were entitled; ' that four of these shares were the property of the de fendant, but yet they could not be transferred, unless the , assignment was executed by his two brothers as well as himself, although he was always called Richard Naylor, and even in his fat' er's will he was so called. His brothers were out of England, end he had great diffi culty in procuring their signatures to the transfer ; but at last the signature of one of them, who was studying medicine at Gottingen, was obtained. The other brother was, however, not so easily met with, and the plaintiff at length brought the present action to recover back the money, not wishing to remain out of his capital until the defendant could make good the transfer, when the time at which the transfer could be done was so very indefinite. On the other hand the defendant refused to refund the money, telling the plaintiff that the transfer should be executed as soon as his brother returned to England. The defence was that Mr. Bonner, at the time he ad• !sauced the money, must have known that the shales were the property of the father, for he intimately knew the whose famly, and he was therefore boend to submit to any inconvenience which might follow. He knew that at the date of the shares, which was in 1810, the de fendant was only seven years r.f . age, and that he could dot possibly be the Richard N iy lor in whose name they stood. Mr. Bonner was a busker, employed by the defendant, and he ought to have conducted the business in a proper manner for him, which he had not dons, and now he sought to recover back the money, when all the inconvenience was the result of his own negli- - _ Bence, for which negligence the de!endant had no right to be the .uffcrer. The CHILF donut said that there was great ir regul4ri• y on all side, in the transaction, but he thought under ail ►l.e circumstances of the case that the plaintiff was entitled in point of law as well as iniquity to their verdict. The lay accordingly f'►und a •-rdict for the plain• I tiff to the full amount (Wined, being 1141. 14s. after deduc.itlg fur the profit upon a subsequent resale ul the shares. COURT OF CONIIIJON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, D. 10. HALL AND OTHILIis V. WRIGHT AND OTHERS. Mr. CHANNEL, in opening the pleadings. stated that' this ashen was brought upon the alleged breach of a contract which had been entered into between the plain tiffs and the defendant,, in December, 1826. The de claration stated that the plaintiffs were possessed of certain steam vessels, one called the Harlequin. and the other the Columbine. which they employed in the passage between London and Margate, and that in consequence of the machinery of those vessels having become unfit for service, a contract was en tered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, by which the latter agreed to take out the defective portions of the machinery and to replace them by new, and to make such alterations in other parts of the machinery as to render the whole complete and fit for service. It was fuithir agreed that the alterations and additions in the Harlequin should be completed by the 20th of April, and those in the Columbine on the 20th of March, 1827. The decl .ration then alleged a breach of this contract by the defendants. The defendants pleaced first the general issue, and after wards several special pleas; one of which was that the agreement con' aked certain exemptions, which were to exempt them f om the exact performance of th u contract, in case of :lie stoppage of the canals. They then alleged that such if >toppage had occurred. In an , ther plea they stated that there had been an accord and satisfac tion between the plaint ffs and the defendants, as the for mer had paid, and the latter had consented to receive, certain bills in pat mew t foe the work they had done. Mr. Sergeant 'WILDS stated that the plaintiffs were the Directors of an AssUciation fmmed for the purpose Of carrying on certain steam vessels as passage-bo .is from London to Margate and elsewhere, and that the i.ofensfai is were engineer*, cart ymg on business in Der byshir•, under the name r f the Butterleigh Company. The Jory had already been made acquainted with the nature of the action, from the opening of his Learned Friend. In December, 1826, the contract upon which the present action was brougl t was entered into between the parties, and in that contract the parties stipulated to Lase the vessels repaired in such a substantial man ner as to be able to stand the Leavy wear and tear pro duced by the extreme rapidity with which they pre formed their voyages. It was also important to the plant:ll's that the vessels should be ready for service in the early part f the spring. and it was therefore made a part of the contract that they sbuul be complete by the months of March and April.lB27. This being the nature ti the contract, the plaintiffs now complained that the defendants had tailed to fulfil it; and evidence 'would be given by which it would be proved that the old parts of the machinery had been properly removed, arid that those new portions wh ch had beer, supplied were of an insufficient degree of strength, and were made of an improper description of n.etal—ca,t iron, in many in stances, havir g been made u e of where copper ur Inns was absolutely nrcessary. Ile could not help feeling some sutpri , e at the na;we of the pleas which had been er..- tered nu the ri cord ; nor did be think that the defendants *maid be able to support them. The defendants would . probably say, that they had perfot Bled their contract, and that the vessel; had actually performed their, voyages during the season ; bat in reply to that, it would' be plowed on the rot of the plaintiffs, that although it was true that the vessels had been able to go through the season, yet that the machinery, in consequence the unsubstantial manner in which it had been fitted np by the defendants, was so constantly out of repir, that l i the plaintiffs had been put to. great expense to keep it in proper and safe order. Having produced &lid, evi dence, he submitted he should be entitled to a verdict, , ai it would then be evide .t that the defendant. had not performed the work in such a manner as to satisfy the contract. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after the first witness had been partially examined, suggested the propriety of re ferring the amount of damages tti some person out, of Court. The Counsel on either side immediately adopted the suggestion, and even carried it further, by agreeing to refer to an engineer not only this cause, but also two others pending between the same parties in the Court of King's Bench. Mr. BROUGHAM, who appeared for the defendants. said, he hoped it would not be supposed that his clients had furnished the defective pins ef the machinery, as, .f the cause had rme on, he should have proved from the plaintiffs' own witnessei, that the vessels had pet formed their work in the best possible manner. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE replied, that of course no judgment could be formed on•a mere ex parte statement. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, Dec. 10. Before the the RECORDS,. W. Morley, aged 21, and Thomas Maley, aged 22. were indicted for a burglary in the house of Mr. Car. penter Austin, and stealing sundry articles of property. Mr. Austin deposed, that he lived in Worship-street a l Shoreditch. On the 27th of October, about twelve at night, his house was broken open; he called the watch.l and, searching the house, found several snicks stolen. Morley had once been his servant. Several watchmen identified the prisoners. as appre hended by them on the night in question. Morley had a dark lantern, a key which unlocked Mr. Austin's door, and part of the stolen property. The Jury found the prisoners Guilty, but recom mencl,.d them to metcy. The Court received the recommendation, but in (wined the prisoners they must expect to 'leave the country. Thomas Lovell, John Ayres, and Harriet Cox, were indicted, and the first two fund Guilty, for stealing a sheep, value fifty shillings, from a flack of eighty-sit, placed to graze by the owner in a field at Hampstead.' on 22J November last. The Jury recommended the prisoners to mercy. liichard Kenny and William Ayres were indicted for stealing foul coats and other articles, value 101. the , property of W. Davison. W. Davi.on, who had passed by the name of Wm. Davis, refused to identify the property, though he had sworn to it before the Magistrate, and the pti.or.ers were Acquitted. The Foreman of the Jury inquired if the prosecutor could not he punished for his conduct? The RECORDER replied in the affirmative, and com mitted the prosecutur for wi:ful and cortupt perjury, binding over two witne.srs agatn-t him. The Sessions closed this day. NEW COURT. W. Varffield, a .young urchin, not more than ten years old, was charged by his father wilt stealing a pair of breeches, value nine shillings. The lather stated th.t to was obliged to take some step to save the child from ruin, as he would steal eve , y thing that he could lay his hands on ; although, when he took him before a Magistrate, he thought that a summary punishment would have been inflicted, and never intended w place him at ti e bar of that Court. A pawnbroker said, the boy pledged the pouters at his shop. COMMON SIIRGIANT--YOU ought not to take io pledges from such clrldren. _ _ The pass nbroker said he had been many times before, and always said he was sent by his father. Cosasatiti SattottANT—l consider your conduct im proper, and sh ill not allow your expenses. The father, who seemed much digressed, said, he thought the child not naturally vicious, but he was connected with a most daring gang of young thieves. On the boy being a ked what he did with the money, he said, " Oh, I spent it in lolly pops." The Jury found him Guilty. At half-past three the RECORDER entered the Court for the purpose of passing sentence upon the prisoners convicted in the course of the Sessions. The following prisoners were sentenced to suffer Death—Matthew ' Riley, John Nightengsle, John Ponsonby, Wm. Deacon, Robert Shearston, Peter Mennen. Edwin Harris, Wm. Woodward, Wm. ' Wood, Cherie s Yates alias Coombe', John Attridge, James Colman, Jas. Wheeler, Daniel J. Quay, Thomas 'kooks, Edward Rowley, William Humphreys, Jos. Mott, Wm. Murky. Thomas Maley, John Lovell, Thomas Ayres, Wm. Jones, and John Price. Miry, who had been convicted of forgery. on being asked what he had to say why he should not re• cthe judgment to dig•, said that he wished to ask whe ther the question meant anything, or whether it was metely put as a matter of form► ? Mr. SHELTON informed him, that if he had any ob• jection to mike on a pt•int of law, it was then that he I would he affot ded an opportunity of doing so. The pi ismirr said that he objected, because the law in its foundation was unn- mut y. The If ',column said, that he could not sit and heat die law atraigned. The prisoner said, that if the Recorder were in his situation, lie would think it very natural for him to arraign the justice of the law. He must arraign it. The RECORDER begged the prisoner to consider the situation in which he stood, and not to aggravate his offence. 11 he could point out any point of law in his favour, the Court would have much pleasure in listening in him, but lie mutt not arraign the justice of the law of the land. The prisoner said, that in that case he had to say that the .1 - Age who tried his case had neglected to point out die difference of time between the date of the letter and of the forgery. Besides which, his friends had proved that he was insane—decidedly mad at the time. The Ku nom' observed, that it w.is not he who had tried the prisoner ; but as the points of which he had spoken we:e facts, he Was quite sure that they must have been left to the Jury, who had decided against him. Toe prisoner said, that he merely took that opportu nity of speaking, that what he said might reach a hither quarter. Tt.e RECORDER assured the prisoner, that there was nothing that had transpired in the muse of Isis case that should not be faithfully reported to the Sovereign in Council. What might be the decision there is to his late, it was not for bans (the Recorder) to anticipate; and. indeed, it would be indecent in him to do so. John l'Onsonby, whose crime was a second conviction of wining base coin, on being asked the usual question; said, that it was the want cif employ that had ocra.! sinned him to do what he had dune. Edwin Hanes, who hail been c.invicted of burglary, said that he hoped the Court would take into its cor e:Oro-46m, that no wioletice had attended the commis %ion of hii clime. Willi m NVoodwaid made the same observation. The lollowing sentences were likewise passed: William Cunnerford, Jeremiah Sibley, Richard Kettle, George Smith, arid %Valliant Vyse—Transportation for life. Sarah Pratt, Sarah Smith, Robert Mills, Caroline Macleroy, Thomas Barge, Margaret Royland, Henry Bryant. Mary Price, Thomas Hawley, and Elizabeth Gray—Transportation fur fours teen years. Falward Seymour, Mary Ann Wallis, John Clark, William Buckland, William Cole, John Parsons, George Williams, George Reynolds, J. Jennings, Elizabeth Murphy, It. Hastings ' J. Mur rell, Mary Ann Crow;ley, Ann Walker, J. Bassett. J. Baylis, J. Drennan, Jane Golding. James Jackson, Ellen Morton. Jane Pro bin, John Williams, Ellen Wetherell, George Clark. John Mark bon, Thomas Powell. Thomas Carvill, alias George Johnson, George Gray, Mary Stewart, Mary Bryant, William Wright, William Taylor, William Clark, Ann Willianii, Henry Gardiner, Thomas Fitzgerald, Julia Welsh, Wdllam tiro%fn. Joseph Dor man, John Walker, William Edwards, Sarah Twin, Mary Clif ford, Mary Ann Ilasledowit, John Teenr, Ellinor Dwyer, Joseph Chapple, Armstrong M‘Naughten, and George Knight—Trans portation for seven years. Charles Todd, and John Stevens—lmprisonment, and bard labour, for two years. Francis Sweeney. and James King—lmprisonment, and hard labour, for 18 month*. John Stephens, alias Robert Stanley, and Thomas Jones—lm prisonment, and hard labour. for twelve months. Wni. Godirey. Wm. Johns, John Lane. Wm. Dickson, Sarah Ashley, Dennis Hayles, Hannah Smart, John Alexander Mourow, Alexander Morgan, and James Latimer—lmprisonment (or silt months and hard labour. Eliz. Davie and John Robertson—lmprisonment foi four months and hard labour. James Marshall—imprisonment for three months, bard labour, and one private shipping. John Ryan, Elia. Laren. James Fuller, James Brown, Mary Hell, Thos. Johnson, Thu.. Itariger, Thos. Collard, Itube rt Hay- Linton, Ji.hn Fulbrook, Thomas Johnsen', John Forrester, Henry Richardson, John Morgan, Daniel G. Whaley, Rich. Knight, and John Ityan—imprisonment for the. months and hard labour. James Edwards and lbontas Thonias—lmprisonment for two months and hard labour. James Webb—imprisonment for Piz weeks, bard labour, and to be publicly whipped near the place who re the felony took place. Wm. Davis Geo. Floward, Jame* Solidi, Sarah Comes, Jane Smith, Ann Bonner, Tim.. Howell, Geo. Spreogham. and John Hall—lmprisonment for six months, and hard labour. George Peanon—lmprisonment for one niestrh, hard labour, and to be whipped. Mary Slade ' Caroline MlCann, John Lewis, Charles Long, John Steele, Mary Woods, liseph harrow, Thomas Mullins, William Henderson, Josepb Clark, Susan Haley, Daniel !Daniels, Wildam Thomas, Dan. Mollie, Sarah Gri ffi th, John Baker, Sara h Kemp son—lmprisonment for one month, and hard labour. Ann Malotty—lntirisonment for three weeks, and hard labour. Catharine Long. James P. aree, John II mcock. Mary Grieves, and Hannah Connor, alias Dresser —lorpris..ilicrit for fourteen days in Newgate. William Brown. John Mahoney, William Hood. Patrick Brown, George Brown, Thomas Hughes, Johu Humphreys, John S.M. mons, John Thompson Wiliam.' Martin, Ben. Colston, EdWard Brett—to be whipped aod discharged. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Win JAWS and George Forrivgrev, were brought up yesterday before Alderman LUCAS, charged with a nanAl..m-atiour. Howell Goddard, it s/Wenn of the watch, stated, that in conse quence of information, on Tuesday night he went to the church of St. John Zachary, and he found the two prisoners in the church yard. Jones wore a piece of canvass before hint, which he said, on being interrogated, was his apron ; witness tuok it from bib person, and found that it was a bag. In the church-yard, serees where the prisoners were, witness found a stew shovel, and NI of who was assisting him found a small wrench, which it was presumed. was intended to be used for forcing open conies. The prisoners gave no satisfactory account of themselves. It was like. wise stated. that several bodies had been taken from the graves In that neighbourhood, and that the prisoners were frequently seen loitering about. Alderman Lucas asked the prisoner Jones what be bad to say to the charge? Jones cooly replied—l am employed in that way, your Worship. Axosassan—What do you mean by being " employed In that way ?" Jones—l work fur the Hospitals, your Worship. Acmes:ems—Pray what Hospitals do you work for? Jones--4t. Bartholomew's, and the Borough Hospital, St. Thomas's. Aensamax—You must drive a pretty good trade, having two Hospitals to supply—yours must be a good business? Junes (very cooly)—Yes, your Worship, when we can get it to do, Farrington, when called upon for his defence, bald he had nothing else to add mote than Jones had advanced. The prisoners wine committed for trial; hut were told that they might be admitted to bail. The prisoners notes ithstauding their presumed good business," bad a miserable appearance—they were poor. dirty. sickly lout:log wretches, and excited any thing but compassion in the minds of the people at the Justice.touni. There was a novel but useful decision at this office yesterday re.: specting the delivery of parcels to the inhabitants of the outskirts of the metropolis. The potter at the White Horse Inn. Fetter-lane, was oastpsi with d.nianding more than the legal porterage fora basket of game which irol arrived at the above inn front Swalf bam, directed to William Berry, Esq. at Kennington. The carriage was yid St twat ham and the porter, instead of forwarding.the basket by one of the coaches front the poulterer's .t the raid of Fleet-market, or the Kings and Keys in Fleet -street, which would have entitled him to only sd. porterage, he carried it to the Cross Keys, Gracechurch street. which entitled hint to rid. porterage, according to Me dis tance, and front thence it was conveyed to Kennington by the er rand cart. The charge fur conveying it from the inn to its desti nation was Is. 6d. and it reached Mr. Berry at seven o'clock in the evening, incead of one o'clock hi the day. Mr. Berry there fore complained nut only of the additional porterage, but the delay from taking it to the carrier instead of to the nearest coach. ' The porter said he left it at the booking.afice to go by the coach, and not the cart; and as there was no special direction that the parcel should be forwarded from any particular booking-office, he had selected Gracechureb street, because the coaches run front thence every half hour. Mr. Alderman Lucas expressed his opinion. that the innkeeper was bound to send such packages front the neatest booking offices:-. Mr. Payne, the Second Ckik, submitted that the iusikeeper could not be Lied fur the delay, as Mr. Berry resided beyond the limits mentioned in the statute ; nor could be be held to entrust his parcels to the nearest carrier; because the innkeeper being respon sible for their safe delivery, must Ise allowed to select his agent, and reject such as he might coutider unsafe. If the direction bad restricted him to sending the parcel from a particular booking house, his responsibility would have terminated as soon as it was delivered there ; but as it was directed simply to Kennington, his responsibility did not end till it had reached that place. The inn keeper had :to right to charge any porterage , because the carrying continued to Kennington, but be was entitled to charge the same amount under the name of carriage. Mr. Berry argued the contrary with the greatest seal ; and Mr. Alderman Lucas concurring with him, decided that a porter carry ing a parcel to the farthest instead of the nearest coach, for the sake of increasing his porterage, was not entitled to such increase ; and he fined the defendant ss. The porter immediately paid the line. 110 W—ST It EuT. John Vasil, alias Daniel Head . who stands charged with unlaw fully intermarrying with Margaret Evans, at St. Giles 's Church— his former wife, to whom be was married at St. Pancras Church, in 1823, being still alive—was yesterday re-examined. Mr. Harmer attended for the prisoner. Margaret Evans, who bad an infant at the breast strongly re sembling the pritoner, was asked if she bad ever seen the prisoner's first wife, and she replied that she had seen her. Benjamin Parrett said, be was a broker in Cromer street, St. Pancras ; be knew the prisoner by the name of Daniel Heath, and believed he was an artickd clerk to an attorney; he knew the pri soner's fist wife ; her maiden name was Caroline Cbarroneau ; she was the daughter of Mr. Charroneau, who lived in Cromer-street, vomit, to his botase, and kept a shop, and was also the proprietor of biMat d tables ; he (witness) remembered M ben Min, Charroneau was married to te prisoner, and she had been repeatedly introduced to Mm subsequently, as Mrs. Heath, the wile of the prisoner; he had seen her within tie last fortnight ; he knew nothing of the pri soner having separated from his first wife. Mr. Harmer said, that there appeared to be evidence sufficient to go to a Jury. Fagan, the officer, said, that he should have other evidence in a felt days to establish the celebration of the kit marriage, and that the first Wife was still aim. The prisoner was again immoded for a week. At a very late hour last night Deykin, the night Kentish -town. brought he custody to this office a man r sta t a l Page, who is charged with being one of a gang of fou r breakers who committed a burgl a ry at t h e k nust of a Lae uss-7 Mountain, who resales at Whetstone, near Barnet. stances of the burglary, as detailed by Mrs. Mountain' s gar4llll' whose courageous conduct merits the highest praise —will be f in the evidence ed that individual. Mrs. Mountain, the whose house was broken into, is the widow of Sir. Sintint,i,;7 l coach-proprietor, of the Saracen's Head. Snowhill.—altos, tat a solicitur r attended on the part of the prosecution. George fAwrence, the girdrner, having been sworn, d, follows: On the night of the k2d of October last I locked the o gate of the shrubbery, and bolted and barred the h a ll-d oor, the temak servant to secure the upper part of the house. ihmit went to bed. and was awoke about halt past one o'clock i n morning by the female servant, who, knocking at nay (6, 7 out," Gardener, gardener, there are thieves in the house! ro t ri sake get up, ur we shall all be murdered r At the s.m e too :" heard some persons knocking at the hall-door. I Itu ‘ d „ISt bed-room window and looked Out, but could see no ore , t r ek !? partly dres'ed myself, and taking a cord front my box, 1 4 47 to the foot of my bed, and lowered myself down in o t h e isok . 4 height of about fifteen feet. I took my gun with m e , .44'2 loaded with slugs. As soon as I descended, I perceived fou r running with all need front the outer iron door, which lead, ; to the hall, and which bad been very strongly secured. As vos the men saw me they all ran away, and 1 pui , uesl them, f t. sewed my gun towards them, and said, " If you don ut stop,; r blow your brains out." They did not mind me, but tow n , * running, and I then presented the gun at them a second thne, is t pulled the trigger, but the gun missed fire, and did not go e g o coatinued hit pursuit of the men, who were running toward s st gate. I came up wish one of the men (the prisoner) lust as h ats turning round the corner of the shrubbery-walk. I tarsel thew and struck the prisoner, either on the head or the thoulden, lent blow with the barrel, and knocked hint into a Lure! shrubbery. I did not stop to secure the pi isomer, h. I , : e;,, s 04:1 had disabled hint, but continued to pursue the other three la ,. Two of them, in forcing through the shrubbery gate. ein ato m the bell wire. and broke it. They gut clear off. Th: third sat was in the act of getting over the gate also, when I kutrcktd ky .olf with a blow of the gun, which broke the stock in two. 74 " I think you have broken my arms—l ghe toys u mz e. t e tt ri lu ed ittiele ou .nw t t , rierke stodiyi and brought with F o rts into the hands of the c , .r.stap. o bilmdeilnivteorcedu hint at that place. The man Iso secured w. I tried and convicted I se Friday upon my evidence at the Old Bailey. Mr. SitesiteLL—Are you quite certain of the idt-ntity of il k pri.oner ? Witness—l am, Sir. It was a beautiful moonlight manirg; had a perfect view of the prisoner's face ; and I camen he remak e s in him. Mr. Mitfrosucc—Let the prisoner put his hat on, and wines,* very particular, I request of you. The prisoner put on his hat, and the officer held a light to ta, face, and tbe . witness again said he was quite certain mini bib Mr. Mixstiou.— Were you suffic.ently collected at the titan observe accurately the face of the party whom you knocked dose Might you not have been flurried? Witness—l was nut at all flurried when I knocked t:rr.sn the K. l Goner. It was not until 1 had crossed the fence that I i* , .lt at agitated, and then it was In consequence of breaking the mott's tat ty Mr. Missum.—litat are you enabled to say wink certainty OA the prisoner is one of the men? Witneas—Most po-itively ; I could swear to Min any wine. Mr. hitraffus.t.—How was the prisoner apprehended ? Lawrence said, that the day atter the burglary he wen: to :Is Swan with Two Necks ptialic.bouse at, Whetstone, art: scribed the person of the man shorn he had knocked into the 1.. bush, desiring the landlord, if he saw a man an.we de, 7 , 4 „ tiun at his house again, to stop h.nt. Ye teiday aft. moon thel* inner called at the Swan with Two Necks with a burst sod ca-k and the landlord, from the desciiptii.n given, sent wend to:he at. nen, who went down and immediately tank the prisoner into no tody, and handed hint over to ll.yktn. Drykin produced a number ut pawithilikers' duplicates (0 6E 4 ei the prisoner. Mr. birusatut.s—Have you any thing to say ? Prisoner—l have a great deal to say, but would rather rt.. it wall a future opportunity. This much I will say, however, that the witness is mistaken. I never was down the road but once bt. fore to day in my life, and that was to purchase a cow. Mr. Sheaf man requested that the prisoner might be rems as he should be able to produce most satisfactory evidence again him on a future day.—The prisoner was remanded accordingly. UNION—HALL Assn Gulley was charged with defrauding his employers, Id Ruth and Barium, of 13ankside, Southwark, of ?s. in the cha of wharfage more than he had actually paid. The prisoner was with a cart-load of goods from the factory to Grilitn's wharf,Tooks. street, on the 6th sit. and for which he charged Ss. 6d. wharf", whereas in fact he only paid 31.6 d. as was proved by William War, one of the clerks at that wharf. The prosecutors had a variety d cases of a simiLr description, but refrained from pressing them... He was fully committed for trial. TOWN—HALL. Irellism Harper was summoned by Mr. William Ball, of Took,. street, for negligent driving, and itillictlng serious injury oe ha shopman, Frederick Stamp. It was stated in evidence that th defendant wilfully drove his cart against a truck drawn by the yea( man, who was in consequence thrown under the horses feet rel dreadfully kicked, and afterwards one of the cart wheels passed met his chest. When picked up he was insensible, and taken to Goff where be still remains in considerable danger. The beneath the truck seised the young man by the oat when be la, and dragged him i , ifttk disonce back, or the wheel must 1240 passed over his head.—The defendant said the whole was °COMM d by a cart on the other side of the truck, and not by him. He Cs held to bail. Monday morning a considerable space ef a garde% on the nest side of Montrose, was found covered ettk hefting soil. in general measuring about two Montt ore Porn A certain female, in one of the Atlantic cities, ssal pros , cuted for keeping a disorderly house. She engaged professional gentleman to defend the suit ; but, •hes the trial came on. she appeared in Cr,urt, and, pro e; sing a termagant spirit, she commenced a plea justthc tory, in propria persoxe. The Counsel which she I a retained for the occasion expostulated with her in vat The opposing Counsel, hoping she would commit te• self, encouraged her to proceed, and begged her tl g on. Her Lawyer, trembling for his cau se, leneseJ Ftt expostulations, when she appealed to the Judge. "Sr (said she), have I not got a right to be heard in my et. fence 1" The Judge, who enjoyed the embatrasstned. of her Lawyer, replied, 0! certainly, pray prtcced• She then ...eta on—" May it please your Honour, 10 accused of keeping a disorderly house. Can that disordetly house which is frequented by such get tleme , as Mr. —, and Mr. -r naming several marl,: merchants, and adding, at the same time. the tian.ot l a number of Lawyers. The Court was consul.ed . ts laughter. Upon which her Counsel, who cool,' co. tain himself no longer, begged, in Heaven's name, tit she would sit down. "what!" exclaimed the arLir/, smiling Judge, .4 you are not afraid, I hope, " No, may it please your Honour," t:e immedicell replied, with inimitable self possession, " 1 hale feats for the Bar, but I tremble for the Bench !"-I'' vetneu Jounial. MARRIRD. Rev. Marmaduke Thompson, of Woburn, Bucks, late Se° Chaplain to the Ilon. East India Company. at 11,n1rah to second dausbter of R. Hard, Ea+ of Teplow Hill, same cooly. DI BD. The sth inst. in the 224 year of bls age. William George Under Graduate of Peter-house, Cambridge. Saturday, Captain Sir William Haste, R. N. Bart. C.B. aro At Woolwkh Common, hlajor Robt. Hutchinson Ord, 616 the Royal Anilitry. f At Gibraltar, on the 11th November. of the epidemiceuteolle his 21st year, Hadwortb Huddiestoue Williamson , Esq let ,i in the 734 Regiment of Foot. . Li COAL MARKRT. Doc. io. Ships Sold. Pike. 44* 304 4il to 3 11 ' 14i 344 Cl to * Ships at Market. 43 Newcastle 161 Sunderland - HIGH-WATER st•LONDON.BRIDGR TO MORS& Morning 57 minutes ar , rr Afternoon SI memoirs alter . - I.owson: Printed and rubli:lttl try Joint AllArair t'at Fr: 7l. at t 11:: Ssa t OnNo I, P.t.lautt-plast ; 4:14" r lb ' •Ok • I X« 'of Jai lot a l 15t4 IN ,i I