Star. — London, England, 1827-10-17 00:00:00

slot say to what aosouut—nearly 2,0001. Wood was suspended. Mr. Wood, examined by Mr. GURNEY, said he had never heard of it before. The ATTORNLY-GENERAL in reply, said, the last wit ness, Wood, had been bold enough to affirm that he had never been charged with any deficiency. There was an old proverb, better known in the Latin, Rescuer a wells, and he presumed that Wood's confidence in his own integrity was the result of the good company he bad kept among the Directors, the standing counsel, attor nies, agents, and contrivers of this unhappy Mining Company. If this had been really the action of the plaintiff, he (the Attorney-General) would have felt some regret; but as it was proved to be the action of Me. John Wilks, he owned he should not be sorry that he would be defeated in his claim. Mr. Wilks was a proprielor, l and he was in that happy situation, that alibob all the other proprietors had paid their shares of thklv, he had contrived'to put a large sum into his own porter. The first meeting—that of the 7th of April—was a meeting of four persons, with Mr. Wilk's honourable friend, Mr. Wood, fri ming the fifth; and hi was recommended to be the secretary. Among their resolutions, one is to give Mr. Wilks 128,0001. for cer tain mines, of the existence of which they had no proof, and still leashed they evidence that Mr. Wilks had any title to dispose of them. Indeed, in the rage for public companies which then prevailed, any prospectus pub lished by an ingenious man was sure to be attended with subscrii.tions. However, no man who did not attend that meeting of the 7th of April, could be_ made liable for any of the debts contracted before the 13th of April, unless he made himself liable under his owtr hand, for unless he had so done, he would be protected by the statute of frauds. Lord Tatirrenoin—They must show all the defend ants to be partners at that time, but there was no evi dence that Mr. Barber was a partner before the 16th of April. The ATTORNEY GENRRAL--.on the 13th of April there was a second meeting, at which some, but not a majority of the defendants, attended. At that meeting & ie Secretary was ordered to provide books, and a sta tioner was appointed, but the defendants were not lia ble, whatever Mr. Wilks was, for the goods supplied by the plaintiff, for what was the meaning of the appoint tent of a stationer to the Company, if the Secretary timid order goods of another stationer? Tire law did not authorise a servant to go against his master's orders." Aut when the Jury came to look at the bill, they would see that the greatest portion was not for books, but was for other articles of stationery ordered by Wood at his own suggestion, and without any authority, for there Was no book furnished until the 27th of June, and the plaintiff's claim, if he bad airy, was confined to the books. People were partners either in respect of their joint interest or in respect of having pledged their cre dit. Therefore, if any of the defendants had attended es a Director, and had done any act as such, although such defendant had no interest, and was only the victim of another man's fraud, still he was liable; but this rule did not apply to Mr. Barber. That Gierrtleman might, after he had made a payment on his shares, have com pelled the Directors by bill in equity to have admitted him as a partner, but the simply paying a sum of mo ney did not make him one. The Jury would not con found liability to each other with liability to the partner. The question was, whether Mr. Barter was liable to others? He might, after paying for his scrip, be liable to the Company, but he was not liable to the public until he did actually become a partner. The scrips were carried about in market, boug,litao-das, and sold to-morrow; would each man through whom they passed become a partner? Until he signed the deed, in Au gust, Mr. Barber was not,a partner al all, and therefore' he is not answerable for This demand, the goods having been supplied before that time. Sir John Perring never acted, he did nothing but pay the first deposie; he lost ' . that, and he did not choose to pay any more—how *as he a partner- 2 The defence rested on two grounds; first. Mr. Wood never bad authority to give the order for any thing at all, because the Company, such as they were, had appointed their own stationer ; and, secondly, neither Mr. Barber nor Sir John Perring were liable, Sir John Petting not having signed the deed. Mr. Gunnel, in reply. said, was the action rightly brought against all the defendants? If not, it was not' rightly brought against any of them ; but the Jury would see, when they canre to examine the case fairly, that there was no pretence for the defence. I: was, undoubtedly, a very gracious defence! The Directors' had quarrelled with Mr. John Wilks; they might settle that quarrel as they thought proper, and the Jury could form no opinion on the subject, but they should not transfer the quarrel to their stationer. The plaintiff supplied the stationery, the defendants made use of it, and the plaintiff deserves to be paid; and why should he not ? The ArronNay•Gansaat. then wanted to reduce the verdict, contending, that the defendants were not liable for what was ordered at the first meeting, but, that was not the case, for the defendants adopted what was done at that fira meeting. But the main defence was made for Sir John Peering and Mr. Barber: for the latter Gentleman, because he was not a Director until August, and for Sir John Perring, because, though recoils melded to be a Director, he had sever acted. If there were any two persons for wham it would be more un gracious to make such a defence, it would be those very two who were the bankers of the concern. All the persons who made payments on the 16th of April became partners in respect of their interests, and if they incurred the terrible responsibility of having goods to the amount of 501. they must pay for them. Lord Tarittranatr—lhe defendants wet e allegod arid were proved at some period to be partners iu the com pany. If they had held themselves forth as partners, or if the goods had been supplied under their authority, they were liable. It was an action of contract, which differed from an action of wrong, for if the plaintiff failed in the sbewing that any vile of the deem:ants was liable, none a them were liable, and he could not recover; but if he had shewn that all were liable for any part of the sum, he was to recover for that part. It appeared that there were other partners not iccluded in the action, but the defendants could only take ad.' vantage of that by pleading in abatement, which they had not done. They were therefore to see whether the whole of the de.endants u ere liable for any one part? Every defendant paid the deposits as early as the 16th of April. Mr. Barber was not then named •s a director, but he was appointed one by the settle. tent deed, which both he and Mr. Sullivan executed in the month of August. For what was ordered before the 16th April, his Lordship was of opinion iliac the defendants were not liable; for a partner could riot be compelled to pay debts incurred before be befainit . partner. It had been contended that the paiinent made by Mi. Barbet on the 16th of Aka frOuld not make him liable. If a person paid on the leth April upon his sharer and after that time executed is deed by which he became a partner, he, by that execu tion, chewed that he intended to become a paitner.— Taking into consideration the payment on the 16th of April, and the execution on the2d of August, his Lord ship wasof opinion that Barber and Sullivan did become partners on the 16th of April. It was the* said that the order given by Wood was unauthorised, another person having been appointed stationer, and havinesupplied some articles; but it appeared that the plaintiff sent in his bill, and no objection was made to the account for the goods'. which were all used- by the Company.— Another point urged was, that it was Mr. Wilkes action, and as he, being a.partner. could not sue, neither could the pliintiff, but because Wilk: said, 4 , Don't sue me, sue the others ; and if you fail, I will pay the costs," did it follow that the plaintiff: was to lose his right of looking to all the defendants? and did Wilks's indem nification destroy the legal obligation to pay which the defendants were under ? Certainly not. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover for all the goods ordered since the 16th of April, and actually delivered. Verdict accordingly for the plaintiff—damages, 351 13t.9c1. AGATIIIT LATON. This wit an action for goods sold and delivered. Mr. GURNEY said the plaintiff was a linen draper at Bishop's Stottford: The action was for 511. for goods supplied to M. Laton, the wife of the defendant. He' understood that the defendant meant to contend that he' and his wife jived sep.irate, and therefore that he was not liable; but as the goods were necessaries, and fit for the station of life of Mrs. Laton, who had no sepa• ration deed, the defence wonld not s avail. The defenda nt said he allowed his wife IQOI. a year until her father's death; but this was entirely unknown to the plaintiff. Mrs. Laton was on a visit to a friend at Puck . etidge, and she went with that friend to order the goods at the shop of the plaintiff, who had not theleast suspicion that she was living apart from her husband; the best proof' of which was, that he actually sent the goods to the house of the defendant, .oho lived in th e same village with his wife, and not very far apart from her. If he bai not meant to pay for the goods, he ought to have sent them back ; but instead of that it: s:nt them to Mrs. Laton, and when the plaintiff's traveller railed for payment, he was told that the defendant's wife"Tived separate from the defendant, who did not consiirr him self liable: JUshua White, shopkeerer to the plaintiff, tryoveil Mrs. Lawn came with thy. PeaChmaa, of Puckekidge, to his master's shop in 1824. and bought some goods, and left an order for others. Witoms served her. Mrs. 'Lawn came in a carriage, in . wbafh she took away the goods. Witottiecarried the goods ordered to the house of the delendadt, at liraffam, leaving a bill of parcels enclosed in it. Cross-esamined by the ATTORNEYGENERAL—Neither he nor his master knew that Mrs. Laton was a married woman. He took the good's by mistake w the defend ant's house. The set vant told hint that Mrs. Laton livid there. The parcel was addressed to her. He did not then know that there was a Mks. Laton. Witness dis covered the mistake on the delitery of a second parcel, which he brought back. William Sentence Itomsey called at the defendant's house on the 30:h of October, to subFcerta the servant, and saw the defendant, who told witness that he did not return the goods because the man went away so quick, but that he sent t' em immediately to Mrs. Laton. Mrs. Ann Prior. ►tated, that the defendant was a gen tleman living on his fortune. Witness visited Mrs. Laton, who had beets at Braffarn three or four years, and was visited by the other families in the neighbour hood. Witness knew that Mrs. Laton was at the time in want of the goods. Mrs. Park man was too ill to attend. Mr. Holtaway,an attorney, understood from the de fendant's father, who had been dead three years, that he had allowed Mr•. Laton 1201. a year upon her separa tion, but had after" ards withdrawn the allowances Cross•caamiued—He did not know this on his bwn know ; the defendant's lather was a Colonel in the army, and defendant had himself been in the army. - The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the defendant and Isis wife had been separated some years. The de fendant's father used to allow his son about 2201. a year, but upon his separation from his wife, he allowed the wife an annual sum of 1201. which was regularly paid to her until he understood that she had become entitled by the death of her father to the interest of 40,000 srcca rupees, being 5,0001. which, at the Ea.t India rate of interest, produced an annual income of 304. He then discontinued the_ allowance of 1201. a year, and Mrs. Lawn had ever since endeavoured to make her husband liable for her debts. Witnesses were called who proved that Mrs. Laton had become by her father's death entitled to the income stated, and that the allowance of 1201. a year was dis- continued only altar that had become known. It was also proved that the defendant depended chiefly upon his mother, who had an income of about 6001. a year. Mr. GURNEY replied. Lord Tarirkanett said, it appeared that the plaintiff did not know whether the lady was married or not ;he therefore could not have supplied the goods on the credit of the husband. It oat presumed that when husband mid wife lived together, that goods fmnish:ed to the wile were supplied nn the credit of the husband; bot where they live apart, it %% as incumbent on the party who supplied the wile with goods upon credit to thew that she was living separate withoet maintenance. All that they knew of thlfse parties was, that they were living separate by mutual content. That which was reason able was law. An allowance had been made to the laiy, but it turned one upon the death of her Lather that she became entitled to a separate income. This did not for some time come to the knowledge of the defen dant's father, but, when it did, he withdrew the allow. al ce. Was that unreasonable? Under these circum stances, the Jury were to give their opinion, whether it was reasonable that the liesband_shoold be held re ponsible ? In answer to a question from one of the Jury,' His LORDSHIP ardded— , . If a tradesman gives credit to a perscn who comes to his shop, he must be consi dered as giving trust at his peril." The Jury immediately found for the defendant. Lord TENTTRDEN—" Gentlemen, I think the verdict quite right." COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALI, OCT. 15. Sittings before Michaelmas Term, before the LOW) CHU/ Jumcz and Common Juries. RIDE r. LA NOST,N AND OtHERS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a secre tary to the ./Eis Fite and Life Insur a nce Company, to recover the amount of three cluatiers Salary. The de , Pendants were the directors ut the Company which was formed by Mr. John Wilks, dial* the period that thobe associations were so idepular. Its DeceMber 1825 the Plaintiff was appointed - mental. tt a Mary of 506 g. per year, and horse-rent free, an& itintibbed to act Cs such till November 1826, Whbri the company was brath up, and that in the literal sense of the word, the furni. ture and other effects being keiaed Under an etecution. During this time he had received no salary, and he was now compelled to come into Cddrt to enforce the pay ment of it. Mr. Sergeant ADAM stated the tate, SW called wit. nesse: to prove it. In cross-examination they said that Mr. John Wilts had received the wholes f the subvcrip. tions that had been paid by the shalt ehttideis.- Mc. Sergeant WILDE, for the defentitsnt, after hiving commented en the evils arising.fiom associatiansof 'kind, which were formed solely far theputpuse s.f era trapping the unwary, stated that he'vedultrploducel documents in the plaintff's handwrititig,'whiTh'would clearly prove him to be himself a partner. On the 6th June, 1826, it was resolved at a meeting of the Directors that the secretary (Mr: Ryde) 'should prepare 'a'stme ment of the affairs of the Company. This 'stitz - Ment was prepared and produced at a •sobsequent - meetingt among others it contained the following' items " Claims from persons connneltectwith,theCoMtiany) being partners-11) , de, 1251." This wilt written in the plaintiff's own hand.writit.g, so that there could hot be a doubt of his being a partner, when he himself had admitted it. The Learned Sergeant thought thil cir cumstance was so strong, that.it would be pettedly, unnecessary for him longer to occupy the time I f the Court by offering further observation.. Mr. Sergeant MEttawrrwart addressed a few words' in defence of one of the defendants; for whom he was especially retained. The documents having:beat pot ill, and read, The LORD CHIMP Josttcle inquired of the plaintiff's , Counsel vt hat answer he could make to this c Ise? The Learned Sergeant contended, that the plaintiff did lira become a partner until Jane, 152.1. and sub mitted that he had a right to'recovef his salary up to that time.. Mr. Dud6eld. a Secretary, alio LA been previously 'examined, was inane], and stated, that when the plain tiff teas appointed Secretaiy, lie was infrumed, that ft was on condition cif his paying 501. to the company, as a shareholder. • The LOaD 611114 JUSTICE hen this fact as thcisive of his havinebtiett a partner from the cummewr ment otitis service. and therefore directed a nonsuit.—Plaiu t:ff nonsuitel CRIBOIIIEI3 BOLTON. This was an action for a breach of contract. Mr. S.rgeatit JONES stated, that the defendant for merly kept a publicsihouse, known by the name of the Blenheim Arms, at St. Luke's, Chelsea, which he had since sold to the plaintiff, who paid him 1,500/. for the good will. The agreement under which this.piticbase took place, contained a clause, by which the defendant was restricted from opening any other house within a mile of the Blenheim Arms, under a penalty of 5001. to be recovererfas and for liquidated damages. In defi ante of this agreement, the defendant had since opened a house,' which, at the furthest, was little more than three quarters of a mile from the Blenheim Arms. This fact was proved by several whites es. Mr. Sergeant WILDS, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff hail.verhally consented to the act of. which he now complained, and would prove that he was present at the house warming given by the deren• dart on his entering his new house. and that he had said he would never have brought this action, but that Bolton had left Reid's house, with whom he (the plain-- tiff) dealt for beer, and had gont to Meues, addi* that it was Reid's peop!e sib° had advised him to bring. the action. The wi!nesses were called in' support of this statement. The LOUD Jotrribt left the question of the plaintiff's having assented to the defendatit's going into the home, to the decision of the Jury—observing, in the coarse of his charge, upon the great increase in the number of public houses, one hundredth part of whiai, he believed, would be amply sufficient for the real and necessary accommodation of the people. 'Chic multi plication appeared to him to be only for the purpose of increasing the dreadful monopoly which the brewers of this city .had so long• maintained. The Jaty• without hesitation returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Patnages 5001. In the course of his defence, Mr. Sergeant WILDE submitted, that by the terms of the agreement the 5001. could be recovered only as a penalty, and not in the shape of liquidated damages. Lea►e was granted him to move the Court in term on that point. WOOD V. rAvry. This was an action of assault and battery. The parties are both shoemakers, residing at Walwotth— , the plaintiff a very little, and the defendant a very large man. It appeared tharon the 16th of April last, some high words passed between these rivals, which even. wily led to blows. The plaintiff, however, asserted that the defendant commenced the assault by giving the first blow, and afterwards kicking him while down. .1 . 5 e defendant denied this charge, and said that the plaintiff had first struck him. Witnesses were called on both sides, but their evidence was most conflicting. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICR left it to the Jury lo:'say which they could. believe ; for his-own part, he thotight those for the plaintiff had told the most consistentAnty. Adverting to the evidence of the defendant's baying struck the plaintiff while down, his Lordship said," f detest the idea of a man kicking another when down; I have said so in another place, and always will, that am convinced no true English boxer would do it." The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 51. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW-STREET. The Landlord of a public-house, Hungerford-street, Strand, was yesterday surrhisned by tine of his customers to account for the dis appearance of five sovereigns, which the complainant alleged t have lest in the house in question on klondsy evening last. It appeared that a number of persons, amongst whom was the complainant, were assembled in the parlour. lbey were all tipsy, and the game of bagatelle was played ►y some of the party. The balls belonging to the table !Living been missed by the landlord, one of the company proposed that a general search should take place, and by way of example he turned his own pockets inside out. While undergoing a like ordeal, the complainant alleged that he bat hie five sovereigns. There being no evidence, however, to establish the fact against coy or the party, the complaint was dismissed, but the Magistrate asked the landlord if he had ever taken the trouble to read the recognizance which he entered into on obtaining hi. license.—The landlord confessed that he never looked into it. " Then," said the Magistrate," I shall just trouble you to hear the words of the Act of Parliament which are there quoted.'. He then read the passage, by which the landlord binds hims e lf not to allow tippling and drunkenoess in his house, and not to suffer cards, dice, bagatelle, or any other games to be played therein ; and then fined the landlord 51. for not obeying the terms of his recognizance. • ISrrs. Biggs, the landlady of a public-house in Round-coon, la the Strand, was summoned by Howell,4 fireman, belonging to the Westminster Fire Insurance Company, and Murphy and ano ther man, in the employment of the British Fire Insurance Com pany, for the usual reward for baying extinguished a fire alleged to have takes, place in the house of the defendant, en Monday even ing last. The defendant, who is a widow woman, loudly complained that the firem e n bad t en d ere d her ho-assittance w fi stever, and that in fact there was no occasion for their presence, the fire having been extinguished befdre they arrived. She brought witnesses to establitll this fact, one of whom admitted, however, that part of the soot was eh Ere *hen the men came with their engines. Sit Thenaitis Ilium said be believe' it Wis too much the custom for firemen to claim rewards for having extinguished fires, when, in fact, the exertions of ethers had removed the cause of danger, if any such flatted, before the firemen bad time to anise. In this case it appeared there was tittle or no danger; and although he wap bound; triim'the admissien of the defendant's own witness, to order some remuneration to the firemen, he 'liquid visit the defer.dant with the lowett penalty he bad ever inflieted in similar casts, and should therefore order her to pay to Howell, the n.an trio f. wrist d, 10s. and : elf that rum taints two assistants. H ArflYN-4: A R HRH. , • • J Smith anti J. tra.tvr were vorneskred. chaged by llatk ou p h oi landlord of the Hare and Hounds, in Bt. Jirm's - street, with sine . %icons Ids parlour oine bagatelle ball s , va l ue 325. as was E. )4,4.; for sttaling from the shop of Mr. J. Ferguson, on Saffron-bhl, at tight day Clock. M A R LBOROU GH- STRIERT. Yesterday Aim Elaineydwies, wallet at Hatehett'S Hotel; rf cc , dilly, was Mouthy to this °lce, charged with having robb e d k it ttnploytr of glasses, tumblers, decanters, and Inlets and forts to considerable aninfint. Thomas Chester, head waiter at the hotel, stated that the holm. keeps r hiving had Al. in money stolen oat other drawee, sib k iad fell upon the prisoner; and that he (Chester) and Schofield, tt, Deicer, proceeded to Henrietta-street, Minthester.seplar e , the lodg.' legs of Mary Cheeseley, who had b. en a chambermaid at the kart and to whom the prisoner was tnown tts babe been attached, Id her room were found many of the articles, glasses, &e aters &c. now produced, which air. Chester recognized to be ib cp ,„ pert# 4 his employers. There were also foamd some pawstbrokers ticked for loivet and forks; and the pawnbroker's clerk from Gilbert. street, Ifinchester-square, on having the tic►ets prevented to kiss; said that the knives and kirks bad been painted by :►e sand Maef °neselvy. When taken up, Mary Cheeseley turned Eines evidence, anti swore that it was the prisoner, who had been payinz his eldrelael to her fcir •two years, had brought her all tin: articles esceyt tht knives Ind forks, which she said she had bad in her possession fee upwards of two years. The maker of the decanters and glasses attended, and proved. that be had made those of this shape and Agute for ilatchett's Ha: gel, and-fur no other. The prieirser was advised by Mr. lii.mpbries not to say say thing so his defence, and was fully committed. Al AR Y. A-BONNE. Henry Perrot, a man with sine arm, who professes to le t Viiblk Agency Once," and to collect debts, was charted Ott obtaining k i ss. from Mr. Veinier, a baker, in Little Maryiv. bonne-straet, for the alleged purpose of taking oat sernmeases against various persons, at the Court of Retpieus, in Kis/tre. street, Holborn, and converting the same to his own use; sad wets embezzling Li 19s. 6d. which he was entrusted to Least for a widow.—He was committed for trial. LAM BETH-STREET. Yesterday Bernard Beatjamin, alias rulßa mew, a person well known to the illettoplanan Police, who has Letitia custody tut' some days part, on a charge of havint in his possession a watch, and various articles of property, of which he niused to give a sandat. torynccount, was brought up for final examinatios. Mr. Pierman, a Gentleman resisting in the Strand, attended,and stated that on the night of the 13th ult. whi'e walking with his mother in -I,w, in Holborn, they stopped at the winnow of a pawn broker's shop, between Brook-street and Gray's Ina lane; whiles standing there a man came up, and nithout uttering a syllable, struck him a violent blow with his clenched fist in the chest, which felird him to the ground, and before he cotddrecovet himself, the tuffi..n snatched his watch from his fob, ran up a narrow coon, lad got clear off. Mr. Pierman tow identified the watch produced as the same Which was inolen trom him on that occasion. Air. Anderson, a watchmaker, who had repaired the watcher the prosecutor previous to the rubbery, identified the *raki, and Van and Keys, the officers who apprehended the prisoner, Mott , sworn to finding it among other 'nicks on the ptisoor, ht the fully committed to Newgste to take his trial WORSHIP-STREET. Yesterday Wirt. Davis, well known in this district Rime of the most eepert of resurrection men, was placed at the bat before lit. llsouoisson. It appears that I young female, wbo had died n 4 private madhouse, was interred a day or two since is Winton's burying-ground, Golden-lane, and, owing to some meant, ht the case,whiel the meinbets of the faculty are ansion to ineestigns, tbe place has noes been constantly beset by felllifeaks irk lie guineas, it is said, baying been olfeeed.fer the body. A 'met wank Ina, however, been kept, and defeated all direct attempt. upon the grave ; but on Mooda.y evening it was discovered that the primer •and another had broken into asfempty house, three hotues Mum Irons the ground. They were provided with the necessary apts. . . . . . . . _ . .. ton for disinterring the body, also with two laddees, aod, hot twthi discovery, they would doubtleu have effected their purpose, by passing over the two houses adjoining, in the dead of the night. The prisoner was seined, and brought to the ottke that mini% 1 le was ordered to give bail, himself in £5O and two swedes lb 4'25 each, and committed in default. THAMES POLICE. A few days since a young female tame to this allite,iti sown* the greatest distress, and stated she had received 'donnas. that her brother, who was a seaman on board the Surrey Eat bedlam, had been murdered by the Commander, Captain Tacker, us the high seas. She hanged to the Magistrate a letter front a imam board the ship, who stated to her the fact of her brother ha•iogirea killed by the Captain, and she implored that the Case west be tem tigated. Captain Tucker at the request of the Maginrate.Mnsali* attended at the office, and said that he was tried in the Surma Court at Bengal, before Justice Chambers and Sir F. West, tarns murder of the young man, and was honourably acquitted, co de ground that the crew had mutinied, for which nine of them was tried and punished. Captain Tucker also haudtd a letter to die Magistrate, who, after perusing it, said he was quite satisfied dr justic.e had been done in the cue, and therefore dismissed tis ,complaint. UNION-HALL • Sop* Rhodes, an elderly woman, with a bloated countermine, -who his been often at this office for disorderly cooduet, asd se frequently eonunkted to Brixton, was yesterday brought befog Mr. Carouses on a more serious charge—vis. fur seethes a ohs watch fame - an old nun named Hall, under the following circus stances.—The prosecutor, it appeared, had ban venal the evening with a party of friends, and was somewhat elated, bet not intoxicated, and on his way home was accosted by the pn loner, near the Obelisk, at the Circus Toll-gate. She knimmult 4 hint fur liquor, which be declined giving. She then took bulrush from his fob, as abe thought unobserved, for he did not accost her of the robbery until they reached the watchhovse, being arPrelu,' sipe that she might escape. They went chatting together weans the watchhouae, the prosecutor having to go its that direction hew'. and the first watchman he saw, gave her into his custody. On searching her pockets, however, the watch was not fogad. fbe prosecutor then suggested that a light should be taken (klieg after midnight) to the spot where be felt her take the watching the constables wbo went thither, picked it up. The prisoner, who has been a well-known character for a series of years, and often suspected of robbing persons whom she me ird conversed with, was fully committed for trial, after a soiree de claration that she never matched the watch. Mr. Clusameesinquired particularly whether or not the pres!ci" tor was intoxicated, and'uras answered in the negative b►it , Constable of Surrey Watch-house, before the depositioas wets 1 116 by Mr. Burnaby, the junior clerk. A. short time since three gentlemen of the cleaver, 00 their return from Hailsham market to Hastings, or ped at the Red Lion, on Megham Down, and ordered dinner, as they were accustomed. to do, in their lief home from market; the landlady's moderate charge, one shilling and sixpence a head, being a strong induce' rent for them to dine at the Red Lion, rather than the market ordinary at Haikhans. Upon this octavo the hostess had been ex:irately liberal in the bill of fares providing, as she thought, amply sufficient for dotar the number of guests. The dinner consisted of a 60e roasted goose, a large chicken pudding, an apple Pi. ding, with a prorthion of vegetables, and the usual r. czteras, which this trio of trenchermen contrived to clear, leaving the landlady only a beggarly account of hempty dishes, and eighteen pence each for their repast ' —one article of which—viz. the goose, cost the good woman of the Red Lion just sixpence more than she had received of her cormorant customers BIRTH. Ott. 9, at the Palace of the British Envoy at eno, Littf Burghersh, Lady *Eche Eight Hon. Lord Burghersh,his Envoy at Florence, was happily delivered of a daughter. DIED. Sunday, at the Spa, near Glotterster, the venerable Archdeacon if Wills. MAILS—THIS DAY. ans. DUI. Atm Pi* 0 Dublin 1o I France 0 0 5 Wed, ird 1 0 Hamburg in 0 0 Gueri's, and Jeney 0 0 Flanders 0 0 Lisboa° 0 01 Sweden Donagbadee 0 0 1 Leeward Island/ 0 ° Mena Ayres o 0 Mexico 0 0 Tolland 0 0 I Jamaica 0 0 , •V ATE at LONDON 131UDG6 TO )I'ol -770 .C 1 ' Morning 4 minute. stet 0 irwirt.n..n 51 m es lo•ret4t l'tirtted and .Pub Weed by Jowls hlArste, the rrerf nlS ' at the SIMS ()IFNI, No. 1, riChltt-rtiCe, Terlrie•Da• -71 • • 'Ti Da Tai nr nit tty .21 1 eglq aid Itse Got Dr. En Doi Lk Sir Johi