Star. — London, England, 1829-05-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCL -wwww.e. COURT OP ZINO'S BENCH. Wsnuntwea, MAT 10. DO/DECRILD O. CORM AND DRUMM This case, according to the statement of Sir J. Scott- Lam excited a considerable sensation in the City. It was an action brought to recover a sum of between , 1,3001. and MOM money had and received by the de. * , feedants to the Use of the plaintiff. It was tried before Lord Tenterdeis. at Guildhall. at the Sittings after last Term, and the circumstances were stated at the time. The verdict was for the defendants. Sir JAMIIS &ASSM now applied for a rule to show cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted; and he briefly recapitulated the cir cumstances. The plaintiff waa employed to pay the dividends on the Prussian Loan. The persons entitled to the dividends were furnished with certain papers or tickets, called eat:pont. one of which each claimant pre sented at the house of the Messrs. Rothschild. as his title to receive the dividend. After these papers had been examined and passed, they were cancelled and set aside in a place appropriated for that purpose, and the Messrs. Rothschild gave cheques for the payment of • the amount, with the words " and Co." written across, the object of which was that the name of the claimant's banker should be prefixed (pre suming that each would have a banker) by way of pre. caution, without which the Messrs. Masterman and Co. Mr. Rothehild's bankers, would not pay. A clerk of the plaintiff, of the name of Byrne, whose duty it was to see the coupons cancelled and deposited in the proper place, on the payment of the dividends, contrived to leave one of them uncancelled, and took it out of the proper place, and had it passed and paid a second tithe, by a cheque in the usual form. This cheque came into the hands of a person of the name of Brady, a retail wine merchant, who had dealings with the defendants, who are wholesale wine merchants in the City. This Brady applied to the defendants to get the cheque passed through the hands of their bankers, as the plaintiff's bankers would not pay without having the name of some banker prefixed to the words " and Co." according to the usual practice; and he (Brady) had no banker of his own. Here it would have been but a rea sonable and proper precaution on the part of the de fendants to have demanded a full explanation as to how a person in the situation of Brady could have a cheque for a dividend to this amount, the capital of which must have amounted to fifty-three thousand pounds. They made no such inquiries. but sent Brady with the cheque to the plaintiff's house of business to see that the cheque was right. and Brady accordingly went to the house, and applied as directed to a clerk of the name of Turner. by whom he was informed as he stated to the defendants, that the cheque was all right, but that a banker's name must be inserted according co the regular rule. Upon the return of Brady with the cheque and this story. the defendants got the cheque filled up by their banker. and procured the money now in dis pute. which they paid to Brady. from whom it came into the hands of the clerk of the plaintiff who had corn . /flitted the fraud ; and that person, as it was understood, immediately afterwards fled the country. The plaintiff. on discovering the fraud, which had been practised OW him. brought his action against :he defendants for the amount of the money which he had lost ; and the clues. tion submitted at the trial by LordTenterden to the Jury was, in substance,whether, according to the us ral course of business the defendants had made the proper inqui ries, and used the proper precautions, before they con sented to get the cheque passed at their bankers? The Jury being of opinion that there was no want of proper precaution, found for the defendants. Sit J. Scarlett, however, contended, that there was a want of proper precaution, and again adverted to the obvious improba bility theta person in the situation of Brady should have capital in the Prussian Funds corresponding to such a dividend. He also submitted that the evidence of Brady. who was the principal witness, ought not to have been received, and relied on both the points as grounds for a new trial; but his chief ground was, that the cheque had not been brought to the defendants by Brady till five days after it became due, and that, as cheques were bills of exchange, the defendants could not be in a better situation than the person from • whom they took it; and. in order to make a good de fence. must show that Brady had given a good consi. deration for it, which they attempted to do, but had t . In the case of Walsh, who had defrauded Sir Thomas Plomer, which he had argued before the elve Judges, he endeavoured to make a distinction be tween a cheque and a bill of exchange, when he was an swered by Lord Ellenborough,who said." Sir, a cheque is emphatically a bill of exchange." If so, cheques must be governed by the same rules; and the defendants, having taken this cheque after it was regularly due. must either show that the person from whom they took it gave the proper consideration for it, or return the money; and he cited the case of Down v. palling, in Barn. and Cress. as one in point. The only distinction he knew was, that cheques Were often presented for pay. mew a day after they became due, while bills of ex• change were presented on the very day; but here the cheque was not presented to the defendants till five days after it had become doe. Mr. Justice BArLIT—The statement is, that the de fendants sent Brady to the house of Rothschild with the cheque, and that Brady got it authenticated there, on the same day or the day before it was passed by the defendants. Sir JAMAS Seantrre—That was only Brady's story. Mr. Gurney. at the trial, bad very ingeniously at tempted to turn the charge of negligence on the plain tiff; but the charge was unfounded. as it was utterly -impossible for any person, conducting such extensive concerns as the plaintiff, to carry on their business with mu reposing confidence in some others. Lord TINTINDIN—SuScient ground had not, in his opinion. been shown to justify the Court in disturbing the verdict. They could not lay it doivn that there was any rule of law as to the time when a cheque ought to be presented for payment, although it was a bill of es. change; but it was a very fit matter for the considers. tion of the Jury, whether the cheque was resented in proper time, or under circumstance; which ought to excite suspicion? In that way the question was left to the Jury, and if the case were sent again to a Jury. it did not appear • what other question could be put to them. The Jury were men of business themselves, and were the most competent judges of the question; and if the Court were to set aside the verdict, he confessed that be thought they would be trenching more on the pro vince of Juries than they ought to do. Mr. Justice Beetti—He could not say that the goes. don put to the Jory was net the tight one, and he could not say that the Jury were not the proper judges whe. ther the defendants had exercised a sound precaution?• but still he would here been satisfied if the verdict had been the other way. To be sure, it would have been a hard case on the defendants, after Brady, had been been sent by them toßothsebild's, and had suffered the cheque to go out of his hands, and bad it again returned to him at Rothschild's as authentic. But when, at the same time, the defendants were apprised that the plaintiff 'Mused I .. u to dispense with the regular *course with respect to this! cheque, this was an intimation that the-plaintiff required the security of a banker, in CM the cheque should be taker: under improper circumstances, and the defendants oughttfierefore to have taken the greater precaution ► and to have made the stricter inquiry. If he had been at the trial, he would have espected a verdict the other way; but still it was a question for the Jury to deciJe, and he acquiesced. __ Mr. Justice LITTLELCLI thought the direction to the Jury right, and that the 'question as to the precaution and time was matter for their consideration. Then as to the question of the cheque bring over due. Bills of exchange must be presented at a time certain, but banker': cheques, though they were bills of exchange, were not subject to the same rule. Small cheques were often kept a considerable time before they were pre sented for payment, and in law there was no distinction between a cheque for lOL and one for 10,0001. But, perhaps, if the banker were to fail in the meantime, the holder of the cheque might lose the benefit of it.—Rule refuted. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MAT 9. WATIRHOUSI IP. BooTM. Mr. Sergeant JONES moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict found for the plaintiff should not be set aside. and a new trial granted. It was an action against a carrier to recover the value of certain goods intrusted to his care, and by him delivered to Messrs. Eastwood and Co.* to whom the plaintiff was indebted. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Bayley, at York, at the last Assizes, when the Jury found for the plaintiff. The Covel granted a rule to show cause. TOWLIM V. CHATTIBTON. This was an action tried before Lord Chief Justice Best st the last L;ncoln Assizes, to which the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. A verbal promise, however, made within sil years, was proved; and upon that arose the question, whether, under Lord Tenter. den's Act (which says that no promise spell be given in evidence atter that Act shall have come into operation (January 1, 1829), to take the case out of the statute of hmitations, unless the same shall be made in writing, to be signed by the party making it), this promise having been made before the passing of the Act, but offered in evidence after the Act came into operation, was sufficient to sustain this action? In other words, whether this part of the Act was retrospective or merely prospective? The Lord Chief Justice having taken the verdict of the Jury upon the facts, nonsuited the plain tiff, and gave him leave to move to set aside the nun suit. and enter a verdict fur 71. the amount of damages found by the Jury. The CQURT observed, that the question was now pend ing iu another case before the Court of King's Bench, the decision in which would probably govern this. It was an important point, and they therefore granted the rule. KNIGHT 9. RUNT. This was an action tried at the last Hampshire A,- sizes, and was now brought before the Court by Mr. Sergeant Bompas, on a motion to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The question tor the Court was, whether or not a credi tor who signed a deed of composition in common with the nest of the creditors under a promise to receive goods for the residue of his debt, could afterwatO recover the amount of the composition? The Learned Sergeant contended that there was nothing in the case to invali date the plaintiff's claim upon the deed of composition. The Court were decidedly of a different opinion, for the creditor, in•signing the deed of composition, prac tised a delusion on the other creditors, who were thus induced to sign it also, in the supposition that this cre ditor bad manifested an honest opinion that the debtor was unable to pay a greater proportion of his debts. Their Lordships therefore refused the rule. SOMEBODY V. RtiVIES. Mr. Serjeant TADDY moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict found for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the grounds—first, that the statements of a testator bad not been admitted to vary the provisions of his will; and secondly, that evidence of the character of the subscribing witnesses had been admitted on the trial. The Court observed that the admission of statements made by a testator to vary his will, would have a most Mischievous effect. They might be made in passion, in sickness. where of course the testator could not be said to be capable of judging. Besides, it was contrary to the rules of evidence. The will of the testator was to be put into effeci, and the best evidence of that sill was the document 4hich be bad himself firmed. As to the second ground of the motion, if an imputation were cast on the subscribing witnesses to a wiloothing could be more fair than that evidence should be given to show that the character of the witnesses was such as to place their integrity above suspicion. The witnesses, from the lapse of time, could not be called, and, time line, some such root as this must be adduced for the purpose of showing the probable validity of the will. Their Lordships therefore rejused the rule. LEEDS BOROUGH SESSIONS, MAT S. EXTRAORDIN ARE CARR 07 CHILD STRALINO. lionnal Atherton, the wife of Mr. William Atherton, hardwareman, of Odey, was charged with stealing • male infant child, of the age of five weeks, the son of Samuel Lee. a cloth weaver at Woodhouse, near Leeds. The prisoner was a well dressed, respectable, matronly woman. She appeared to be greatly agitated during the reading of the indictment, and at the request of her Counsel, was allowed a chair. ' Elisabeth Lee stated, that she was the wife of Charles Lee, a cloth weaver, at Woodhouse; she had been con fined early in December last of a male child; witness knows the lady at the bar; she saw her, for the first time, on Sunday, the 11th January; sbe said that the prisoner (whose name she did not then know) told her that sbe had been desired by two Ladies to call and in quire into her circumstances. Witness told her that she had been much distressed, and if it had not been for the goodness of the Ladies, she would have been much worse off. On the following day, this Lady came to her house again, and told her that she came with Mrs. Smith's compliments, and with a message, which she said would be best explained by reading a letter, which stated that Mrs. Smith sent her compliments, and requested that she would let Mrs. Carroll have her child for a month or two, as she had lost her child, and was in danger of suffering from a milk fever, and unless she could have another awn to supply its place foi a month or two, she would die. The Lady added. that thechild would be well taken care of, and said, that if she lost her milk, a nurse would be pro- cured for the child. The witness asked the prisoner if the Mrs. Smith mentioned in the letter was Mrs. George Smith, of Little Woodhouse? The Lady said she was the person; and witness said she durst bust her life in her hands. Mrs. Atherton thee produced a dress, which the witness put upon her child, instead of the clothes it had on. The lady gave her a sovereign,, and witness accompanied her to the top of Woodhouse moor, when she gave her the child. Witness said, from • • - inquiries which she made at re. - -George Smith's, she was induced immediately :u set out search of her child, which she found at the prtsoner's lodgings in Woodhouse-lane. about. half-past one o'clock. The pri soner had the child in her lap. and was apparently in the act of suckling it. Witness exclaimed so That is my child;" the prisoner said," No, it is mine." Witness, however, took the child from her, and put it to her breast, on which Mrs. Atherton said, " If the cited is yours, the clothes are mine." Mrs. Alicelbbetson stated, that Mrs. Atherton lodged at her house; she came on the Wednesday before the transaction happened, and stated that she should semi* few days or a week. She stated that Mrs. Atherton went out on Monday. about 11 o'clock. and returned about one o'clock the same dig with a baby. Witness soon after heard that Mrs. Lee had lust her child,which she mentioned to the prisoner, who seemed much struck with it. Witness said she looked at the child, but from the difference of its dress she did not think that it was Mrs. Lee's child. The mother of the child soon came and claimed it; the prisoner at first said it was hes own child, but soon after delivered it up to Mrs. Ler. Wit ness, on her cross examination, said that Mrs. Atheiton treated the infant with the greatest tenderness, and wit ness did not think that she intended any harm to it. Mr. BAIN'S took an objection, founded on the con /unction of the words of the Act, which the Court overruled. Mr. Bair es then contended that the case bad not been made out against the prisoner ; there had been no evidence given to prove that Mr. George Smith had not sent the message which the prisoner represented her as sending, and no proof had been given of any in quiry having been made after Mrs. Carroll, and that, as far as appeared in evidence, the account she bad given to Mrs. Lee might have been strictly uue. Mr. MAYNIC spoke in reply. The Recommit said, though the specific fraud men tioned by Mrs. Lee had not been proved, there was in the whole transaction sufficient marks of fraud to raise a ease for the consideration of the Jury. The prisoner then put in a written defame, which was read by the Town Clerk. in which she entered into a long detail of her proceedings at Leeds, the purport of which was to show, that in consequence of what she had heard of the deplorable state in which Elisabeth Lee was, she had visited her, and had taken the child to nurse for her, out of compassion, and had given her a sovereign to relieve her necessities, and to induce her to part with the child. On the part of the prisoner, Mt. John Deighton, spirit merchant, of °deb was called, who stated that he had known Mrs. Atherton six or eight years; she was a woman of the most benevolent and humane disposition, and was particularly attached to children, and her con duct to the two orphans then in Court (looking at two fine ruddy children standing conspicuously in the front et the Bench) had been beyond all praise ; she had taken them and educated them with the utmost case and ten derness at her own expense. Three other witnesses, equally respectable, resident in Otley, concurred in the character given the priso ner by Mr. Deighton. The Recommit charged the Jury at some length, who retired for about 10 minutes, and on their return into Conn found a verdict of si guilty," but strongly re commended the prisoner to the mercy of the Court, on account of her previous good and humane character. The RZCORDER, in passing sentence upon the pri soner, said, the Jury could not have come to any other conclusion than a verdict of guilty, and be ex pressed his regret that a person in the respectable situ. ation in life in which the prisoner was placed should have been induced, from any motives, to seek to de pries a mother of her child. If the prisoner was fond of children, she ought to have considered what the parents of the child would suffer on being deprived of it. To be placed in a public gaol, even for a short time, must, to a person situated as the prisoner was, be a far severer punishment than a long imprisonment would be to a person of depraved and hardened habits. In conclusion, lie sentenced the prisoner to be impri soned one month in the Castle of York. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Saturday. the man named Luck and Steakls UM. who Were previously audited, for having barged a bill of exchange for 1501. and having several other forgeries in their possession. were again brought up. No person attended on the part of the bankers to prosecute. A Gentleman came forward, and stated that the female pdo meet had passed Mtn a bill of exchange for 60f. which was not yet due, bet his suspicion was sacked by the account of the prisoner's former eutainatios. and he had since 'ace:valued that the bill was a forgery ; however, he would rather submit to the loss than take bet lire. No prosecutor appearing, the Leas Pinion condoned tbepri. mien not to continue such a course after their narrow escape, and they were both discharged, apparently very grateful for their liberation. BOW-STREET. Saturday Edam! .1f fireasch,l;telnpanan to Mr. Palmer, dra• per and boiler, ot Ludgate. kill, was charged with robbing his late employer to a considerable amount; and dust MlCermick, the sister of the prisoner, was charged with receiving the property, well knowing It to have been stolen. J. Eaten was charged with hav ing in his possession duplicates of part of the property which had been pawned at different pawnbrokers' shops. It appeared that Mr. Painter bad been robbed to a very great amount by the prisoner Edward M'Cornalcit, whom he discharged in March last • and be subsequently found same of the property pawned by kkormiek's sister, la Gray's Inn-lane. On the olicen Gardner and Morgan searching the premises of Boston, In St. Ann's-coort, Dean•nreet, Solto4quare, they found dtplicates of other property belonging to the prosecutor, which had been pawned by the female prisoner. The Magistrate very much lamented that shopkeepers should be plundered to such an extent by their servanu, and ordered the pri sooere to be remanded. Mingled Lys was charged with robbing her funished lodgings. The prissier hired the lodginp el a Mrs. Turner, and decamped in a few days, taking with her sheets, blankets, Ike--She Wu com mitted for trial. MARLBOROUGSSTRIET. Romaav ay Ma. Baoonuases.—Owen majt, a lad about 11 years of age, was brought before Mr. Conan; charged with steal. log a hat from the residence of H. Broughams, Fag. M.P. street, Berkeley-sisal,. Robert Marlow deposed that be is servant to Healy Brougham, Fag. and between eleven and twelve &deck on Friday last be was in dle pantry, when be beard some strange steps in the hall; upon going out be saw the prisoner ascending the int steps of the area, and the prisoner seeing him, asked If the bricklayer was there? he replied in the negative, when seeing his hand behind him, be asked the prisoner what be had there 7 be replied nothing, bat suspecting that he had stolen something, he went up and saw a hat In his band, and inside of it his tap ; the prisoner then said that be was in great distress, which was the cause of his taking the bat away.— lie was committed. Ceases or SIDOCTIOIL—A fellow et the nese et =is was charged with having seduced a little girl if the name et Lawless, apparently about 14 years of age, ender the followleg disgraceful ercurnataeces Flom the evidesce of Webb, t►e officer, it appeared that die parents of the unioniste girl, who are respectable persons, bad missed their gangues on Wednesday afternoon. and owing to her set returning home during the sight they became very unhappy; epos the following day an Maguire was set as foot respecdsg her, aid at the same time suspicion fell upon the prisoner; the parents went to his lodgings, but be denied all knowledge of the f desk. Webb expressing his determination to examine his lodgings, the ptisoner refused, saying that he had done lathing to cause his place to be examined. end he would not suffer. His manner, however, being suspiciests the officer forced his way in, sod saw lying spec a mattress. without any covering, the female,* a Nate of intosica. don; he soda her dress herself end delivered her op to her Patent. The gill stated, that the prisoner and if the would live with hint , . be would WY bee a Merino sewn, a LegkirstlstMsei. sad a fr, 414 lodgings for in is the Regent's Park, where they Mould us e man and wife. In consequence adds proposal she agr ee d t o t him on the above night, when be made hen drunk; bur b e . whom she was taken up stairs she could net say. h Nam of this, he took the prisoner late cu.tody. The prisoner denied the charge in into. The girl was then sworn, whets she stated she had met hi m u appointment. and had no doubt but that she 'mid consented t o il, proposal—The fellow was then discharged with a repnmand. Wismar ay Irma stunt or WaLumerwis —44 he a rd stone mason, was charged with having btoica a quantity et ornaments frets Apsley House, the property of kis Grace the OE, of Wellington. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner bad ken db. gaged. during the last six months, at Apsley House, and, d o th. that time a considerable quantity of brass ornaments was in which the Clerk of the Works set a man to watch ; en pm. the prisoner was discovered leaving the place wick some i n Va l i; muloo.—The prisoner was remanded. MARY—LA—BONNE. Saturday Mary Brows e aims D•nekka". alias Meg, was dips with having robbed her master. Mr. George Wheeler, sarg eiss Orme.square, Bayswater, of a few articles of plate and ether pi a petty, under very aggravated circumstances. It appeared chat the prisoner was engaged by Mr.Wheak ri a.„ six weeks ago as botesentaid. A few days after the pi iaair — =. 6. tered the family Mrs. Wheeler was confined. On the mond i t the tntis ultimo the prisoner came up into the back drawing . where Mr. Wheeler dept. foe some directions. and in tbseer ines t half an hour be went down stairs, when be found the plea t is eke utmost confusion, the prisoner having absconded with tia linen, and a quandty of wearing apparel, a portions( whidishe - 1 , -- i: vied to Mrs. Elliot s. in Barrett's court, Oxford strict, whim ohs remained until Mr. Elam saw s description of her adverdsetkaad then gave her into custody. Oa being played at the bar sh e a ". attired in a bandsmen, shawl, worth four guineas, and a r at , pv i t " belonging to Mrs. Wheeler, of all of which she was inemsdisair stripped. Three silver spews, a silk dress. a new black coat, sag some able Wen, we r r: b sced. th e proms. bad m ad sebsecnot to the j.—She was cansuitted a &nate la LA M BETH—STREET. Can or Banmusr.—Amelia Preptee, a nibs, well lode s young woman, was brought up by the parish ulicersid lit.Grae s to affiliate a tamale illegitimate infant to its legal father. On bu y sworn, she was desired to point out the father of her MK 84 earning round, she selected a miserable decrepid old lossiosepayi on cretches, as its parent. The Magistrates expressed some astonishment whetting * the object of her affections, and desired her to mental d i *. remoteness that led to their letercoerse. Joiging Wa g ge * , dent's appearance, they ember thought that the bessalsetpeno. niter belonged to some one else. In answer to the , hlasistrate's question, else esti Oaths b i g lived as a servant In the defendant's family, and that me de ft during the absence et bee mistress, he made Mee mbar; a tespo t intercourse folkwred. iiefe;i;DiA Ufa; hew tea yss say that? Toe knew it mg yourself who seat your mistress out of the way when arks acquaintance took place--(Laud laughter, iss which the Bath pl. ticipated). The Magistrate to the defendant—What reason have Tee is show why you should oat be considered as the father of the Mt and give security for its maintenance T Defesdant.—Me the father, r.er Worship; no meet this yes we. I had as apprentice with whom she was very Indus; besides, there was a grocer in theneighbourbood who she was surf fond of visitiog, and, I think, between these two lads, a lathe; I she liked, could be found. Sbe was in the faintly way, sod es being moaned, she pops it on poor lame Jack—(Laughter). Magistrate—Then de lee deay that there was any intemerrel Defendant—Why, I can't say that. Whew I was alone of a. evade', sitting in my easy chair, and tenable to Move, she and to come and take liberties. Amelia here buret into tears, end declared it was aft Nth Mira he was a deceitful old man. _ _ The defendant instated that it was.—As Grier fit the num ef ea. dd. pee melt etas then made. TOWN—HALL A enemy leekleg fellow, named WWI= Igguldra, dressalk a blue smock frock, who aimed to look rrtremely sheepish. we brought up for a tossed time, charged with pratxhiog the files log trick on Mr. John Belehin, the propriesot of the Old Mgr vets, High-street, Borough. do long since as Friday wash, (he was reseeded from feet, day) this pretended dmpkten entered the Ship with a parcel bib hand, and giving it to the landlord, begged him to take mil care of it, as it contaieed family papers awl legal doessereteetet sweet impenance, Made' to a law stilt in Norse of watimeene GhtiMkell, Ms which be expected ° a mlnt of money." file be ce Se Isom ho said, especially on the towinom, and to t bed mil Malay, when all his go/den hopes would be Well, Mewls, ease, and ere Its sun destined Master Iggelaseer tend iffis ceilmeoen and announced that all was right ; bat Uhl waited Mar most was the modesty of his attoreey's bill, fill IA less than be impacted, and upon the strength of all this be ierinsl upset troolingaie company. Glasses IrVI round, Master boffin got sploodidly drank, was carried to bed, and in the awhile& rented with his MIL amounting to ft. M. lid. and the marl a* being fortkontiag, Wilkinson, an officer, was sent for, the pawl 'emitted. and hued to contain nothing more than a raw* d quack's advertisements and street bills, 64 Well, Mr. fuulden i said Alderman Amstar, ei have ye taken advantage of the time allowed you to write to your hi* and recollect who you are?" Mr. !widen growled I The Alderman—" Are you aware et the penally attachethe ni tricks under Mr. Peel's Act?" Another grewl!! The Alderman- 6 Have you any ball for your typewrote if let you go ?" A horrible growl I I ! Alderman Anatee-- 0 Lick him up agai n" the feel and be was accordingly remanded for sbe nand *ne. 11211DOISADART. Tam Daor.—Learb al day 11 bears OD salmis; twillsitail 74 adonis past 10. Meal Mad) 7 nada& Mr. Parserdia 11112. Towtoausw.—Mara acts 54 ode. past 10 at *M. Thetis begin to be speckled wkb lady birds. Wssossaay.—Noted in the Jewish Calendar. TM Main —Eli died." Mercury in peribelio. TRIIIISDAT...-Vanua rises 17 Wastes past 4 naerning. Mtn It of France assassinated. Fassay.--Noted by eke Jews as the day whereon 411doesss ezettsplarily plagued foe endeavouring to pull down she aid the Sanctuary. fiateasav—Battle of Album. 11111. Son ekes 13 ob. sets 13 Ws. before S. BIRTHS. The Lady of We Peel, 740 l &lima% of a detighter. Tuesday the Lady of the Rev. the Principal of Drammen 0 11 ' ler. (Monk of a deserter. Oa the 4th inst. at Dencrett Hesse, Staines, tbe Lai us* Colonel Carmichael, of a sea. MARRIRD. Tuesday, at Hastings, the Rev. Edward Cardwell, RD. W ' of BUSMAN College, Camden Professor of Melees Wel l the Valves*, of Word, and Rester of Stehe Betters, Nark* tooshke, to Cecilia, youngest daughter of the late Howl f Req. of Witten House, Lancashire. May S, by special Fleece. at Tichborue, Lord Dormer, st ONO Park, Warwickshire, to Elisabeth Anne, eldest fl Tkliborne, But. of Thitherto, Has. At Trinity Church, Mr. G. Waugh. Teemed on of de le Rev. Dr. Waugh, to Mary, second daughter of Mr. Clipstotse-street. At Dublin, the Rev. Charles Soho, Rector et CaulthaelA the diocese of Cork, to Fanny liasabrti, second deodMem late Jantes Bury Esq. of St. Leonard's, Rom At St. Mares, Islington, the Rev. C. C. Wheat, to Le ib youngest daughter of the late fir Thaw Wkidrate, Bea DIED. At the Vicarage, Oundie, Nenbentpgsaddre s the &IWO Beckham. At Dartford, the Rev. G. Heborden, third Gen el Dr. WO, of Pan Mail, aged U. In Upper Berkelerstreet, the Rev. G. F. Tavd, 110. Camper Ash, and Eames, Eatitelk. At Bath, the Rev. Goa Brat, Archaean el New ays ighb At the Lawn, Hemel Hempstead, Herta, the Net. NW" . of Eppenten, Notts. At Taus, in France, the Rev. Alexander Skirirdw o " ll Vicar el Great Dantnew, Ewes. Nag 4, at Stoke Datternen, Sturep.in her ]ooth gar. Soi l° ha of the Boy. Utrick Feadaeratonhaegb. 1 GSM ATER at LONDOWDRIDGIS TO MORRO* Idoremag ST Weems altrit 0 Asterooun U samess As Lassos; Prima uad Pabbibad by .1m Mam, obi TlOll. at As STMI 0711.1. lishou-pless, Temb .11 di a Bo an an Ind irk M; wb iv% ant ins Ms Tal NI Pad 1 wlli 7rai eau fek.4 era ire Nifor \