Star. — London, England, 1827-07-05 00:00:00

only a power to act generally for the Interests ef the plaintiff with the proceeds of the estate, bat a power actually to sell the estate, without being reiponsible that the purchase money be duly paid. He hid no hesitation in saying, that that Court could not, for a moment, sanc tion such powers and prn•i , ions in any deed. He should therefore grant the player for an injunction against the defendant, and the rppointment of a receiver; and all that he could grant the defendant was, that he be per mitted to gn before the Master, and prove such sums as he had paid, or was liable to pay, in order that he might be indemnised in them. HMIS seat. in this case tie Vice Chance Tim refused, last week, to grant an injunction to restrain the defendant from negotiating a bill for 11,000, obtained in settlement of a gambling bet, upon ea-parts statements. Mr. Peers stated to-day, that notice had been served opon the defendant's house in Yorkshire, and upon bis Solicitor is Fornival's whe had refused to take it is. Ile Doped, as no one appeared to oppose the motion, it world now be granted. His liomoom said, that as no one appeared, the order for _an in junction might be taken. [This was a Seal day, and the last day of Term, and the Court sat till near seven e'clock]. COURT OF KING'S StNoH, JULY 4. CONSPIRACIfe—.-THI LING O. RAMADSN AND CLARKS, This was an indictment against the defendants, charging them with having entered into a conspiracy to sue out a fraudulent commission ofbankruptcy with aview to defraud the just credirors of the defendant Ramsden. The cause was tried at the London Sittings after last Term, before Lord Tenterden, and the defendants were found guilty. When the defendants were brought up to receive judgment in the early part of the present Term, it was urged on their behalf, that they were en. , titled to a new trial, upon the ground that an assign. anent of a non-enrolled commission of bankruptcy given in -evidence on the trial was inadmissible etidenee. Counsel having been heard against and in support of the application, the Court took time to consider. Lord TaNTERDEN this day pronounced the opinion of , the Court. The Court were of opinion that in this case a new trial ought not to be granted, The ground of the application was, that an assignment of a Commission of Bankruptcy received in evidence was inadmissible. The charge against the defendants was a conspiracy to sue out a fraudulent commission of bankruptcy, and, to establish that charge, it was aot necessary to give either the original commission of bankruptcy, or the assignment, in evidence. The Court had given the application the fullest consideration, and they were of opinion that the evidence objected to was wholly im material, and that it would be a disgrace to the Law, it persons convicted upon clear evidence of the once charged, should be entitled to a new trial, upon the sole ground that evidence wholly immaterial to the question before the Court had been received at the trial. If the defendants were present, the Court were ready to pro nounce judgment. The defendants having appeared upon the floor of the Court in custody, Mr. Pobbocx, on behalf of the defendant kainsden, and Mr. COMMON SERGEANT, un behalf of the defendant Clarke, trusted their Lordships would postpone their judgmenr, as the defehdants intended to offer in midge. tion of punishment, affidavits which were not then ready. The defendant, Mr. Clarke, addressed the Court, and said, that for this offence he had already suffered seven months imprisonment in Giltspur.street Compter, under a warrant granted by Mr. Justice Baley—that he was wholly innocent of o ff ence of whi ch he stood convicted, and that if an n)iportun;ty were afforded, he could convince their Lord,hips of hi. innocence. Lord TENTIERDEN—Oh, dear; the Jury say that you are guilty, and they are the proper tribunal tb decide upon that fact. After some further discussion, the defendants were ordered to be committed to the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench until the 10th day of next Term, then to be brought up to receive the judgment of the Court. 'I heard in part yesterday, and the further hearing resumed this morning. The facts appeared to have been as follow: That the defendants bad been possessed of a certain patent for distilling brandy from potatoes, and that, in the year 1825, they determined upon disposing of it, if possible, to It Joint Stock Company. They employed plaintiff to Aegociate k on their behalf, for that purpose, giving him a bond for icooci. for the advantage of Iris services, influence, and connections in promoting that object. The project, however, was unsuccessful ; but plaintiff alleged, that his past of the contract was duly performed, and . tbat he was, therefore, entitled to the amount - sekured to him, under the bond. On the patrol the defendants, it was contended, that the bond was in its own nature illegal, the patent being restricted in its use to five persons. The plaintiff de-, murred to the plea, and, on,this, the question came to; be argued. The Loan CHIZF JUSTICIL said, that, in a case such importance, the Court not only wished to do whes was right, but that the grounds of their deeision - shoild be distinctly understood.—Judgment would, therefore,, not be given until next Term. COURT 00 EXCHRQ,IIIIIt, JUL' - 4. LIABILITY 01 111)1111AND5.--4241IRY) B. DAIRY. In this case an action had been broug ht b y the plain -1 , , to recover fiord the defendant a certain sum, tbe bwrount of his charge for board And lodging furnished in the defendant's wife, who was the daughter of the ntiff. At the trial, the defendant contended, that . ing given his wife notice to return to his house,,from filch she had fled in consequence of alleged cruelty of (the husband), the plaintiff could not recover. The y, however, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. On a former day (before the resimmeet of Mr. Bares lOrahans) an application was made to the Court for a I new trial, when the Court were equalle.dividlelift opt- Ilion, bet pronounced no judgment. Mr. ALBIANDSR DOW rose, and prnyearthejedpsent, of the Court. , ,‘ The,Loiw Cater BARON regretted that the eiibject had not been allowed to drop; but as the Cake Was pressed—. Mr. Baron GAIROW proceeded to deliver his opinion, and after stating the nature of the action, said, that on the trial there had been evidence given (or suggested) that attempts had been made by the defendant to in dace his wife to return to his house. The principle of the law in cases of the present nature was, that if a hat band conducts himself towards his wife with such a dos gree of violence and cruelty as to render it no longer safe for her to remain under his roof, that she is not to be turned into the streets to starve (the husband being able to pay for her maintenance) —or be consigned to the parish .workhouse (as the present defendant bad proposed); but, that when he sends her forth—through his cruelty and misconduct—she bears with her the i tight to seek for, and obtain, on his credit , that species' of maintenance and raiment befitting the rank and , Circumstances of her said husband. By the terms bf the marriage ceremony, he contracts to cherish and protect his wife; and if.by his own misconduct the wifei be compelled to seek that ref oge and protection elseoi where of which be so cruelly deprives her, any persao who may charitably supply to her that relief of which she may stand in need is entitled% sue the husband for the amount, and must recover. That being the law, the only question is, at what point that principle is to be limited? It might happen that in such a case, before a Court of Common Law, that such Court, taking into consideration the length of time that had elapsed since the separation of the parties, and the altered demeanour of the husband, that the danger which autherized him in the first instance to withdraw from the house had passed over, and that thereftire she oeght to return to his houses In such a vase a Court of Common Lew mien pronounce such Is judgment en one day, whilean Eccle siastical Court, before whom a suit of divorce might have been in progress, having before it all the circumstances more in detail, might, on the very next day, prpnounce for SAIMUSAV IP. 11111 DOZ. a separation, upon an opinion that a state of things had. This was an action for the receverr of 13s. the hire of a chaise, not arrived which would render it safe for the wife to which the plaintiff took for himself and family, in consequence of the defendant, who was the driver of a stage-coach from Ciapton re' urn to her husband's house. Such had been his (Mr. to London, having neglected to call for him. Upon the trial, it Baron Garrow's) own opinion, and such had been the appearing that the plaintiff went to Clapton in the defendant's coach consjclei iation which had induced him to differ in opinion ono Sunday morning, and agreed to go back in the afternoon with ~.. morn h i s Lord sh ip. That opinion still remained un the defendant, who promised, but neglected to caß toe aim, a ter diet was found for the plaintiff. A Rule Nisi for a new trial was changed, notwithstanding the frequent consideration obtained, and on sheeting cause the defendant's Counsel argued that which the subject had since undergone—(for let it not the contract, being for carrying upon a Sunday, was void by the be supposed that the only place in which he and his Act of 50 Car. 11. c. 7. "for the better observation of the Lord's Learned Brethren applied themselves to the several Day." and that consequently no action could be maintained upon it. • Lord TEWSCADS24 now delivered the judgment of the Court, and matters brought before them, was in that Couit ; said that in the subsequent statutes, terms of doubtful import had on the contrary, they fiequently, and at great length, been used; the Court bad therefore hand it necessary to recur to discussed elsewhere the merits of those cases)—notwith- the statutes of 5d Charles I. c. 1. and Stith Charles 11. e. 7. and as standing that the case then before the Court had under they did not think that those statutes 11 - icteded hacks fled or stage-coach drivers, the defendant might have fulfilled his con- gone such consideration, his own opinion remained us er tract without violating them. The judgment of the Court must, altered, that if a husband drive his wife from his house taeretore, be for the plaintiff. by his •cruelty, he so sends her forth to draw upon his tee CUM MIASMAS ILICHAILD DOWNING RICIILIUSS.- credit on the bank of liuman;ty, feeling, and commise- Mr. BROW:MAU said, that the defendant, who was brought up, ration—and that any person honouring such draft, and was wilting to give security, that nothing further should be pub liaised in the Age newspaper against those persons for whom the in so doing, litinouting himself and human nature, such Anerney-Generai appeared, provided the judgment wasmilowed to a creditor has an undoubted right to call upon - the stand over without the defendant's being committed. husband for indemnity—for (continued his Lnrdship)we The Ammar-Gamma t. said he was not satisfied with this offer, have known cases its which wives separated from their Whereupon the Court ordered the defendant to stand committed . ~ r cumstances to tlicsA of the ad to be brought up for judgment upon the tenth day of neat tetm. husbands, under similar ci fill ZINO Y. surrom MID 01111113. present case, have be.n induced, by promises of amend 'Mr. Bannasuat moved fur a writ of cussemei, to remove into client on the part of their husbands, to return to their this Court an indictment, found at the Middlesex Sessions, against houses, and yet, returning only to incur new perils ; and doe five defendants, one of whom was an Bast India Director. This therefore the attempted defence of the husband, in the was the second prosecution under Mr. Perceval's Act, 49 Geo. 111. present instance, that he had given to his wife notice to and as the defendants believed that many points of law would arise, they wished to have the c use tried in this Court before a Special return to his protection, was not such a circumstance as Jury.—Writ granted. ought to induce a Court of Law to refuse to the plaintiff tea ZINO p. DA ROCHA: the benefit of that principle of our common law to which Whilst Mr. Justice Barter was this morning hearing common lat first referred. For these reasons, lam of opinion motions, the COMMON SZROZAZ4I made an application that the de fendant, who was confined in the King's Bench Prison under the that the wife, having been driven from her husband's sentence of this Court, for a libel upon the character of the Marquis (defendant's) house by his cruelty, the plaintiff is entitled ale Paimelia, be admitted to the liberty of the stales of the said prison. to recover ; and that, therefore, the verdict must stand, Mr. Justice B said, he had never known an instance in and the rule be refused. which a similar application had been granted by the Court, and he should wish it to be mentioned again in a full C o u rt. Mr. Baron 1 - lucLoce had very few words CO add to In the latter part of the day, the CoMALON SIOLOCANT aglin men- the statement and opinion of his Learned Brother. The tinned the nutter to the Court, and said, that he had the affidavit legal principle was undoubted, and his own hesitation of a stanNeal man, stating that the defendant was ifs a very bad to pronounce his opinion of the correctness of the ver state of health, and that bons the crowded state of the prison, the diet had been founded upon the doubts expressed by only accommodation that Could be afforded to the Gentleman was a malt room s which he occupied in common with three other pri- the Lord Chief Baron. It must be conceded that a sworn, to th e manifest injury of his health. wife had a right to withdraw lions the house of her hos. Mr. Justice Bavter.-1 have mentioned the application to my band by reason of his cruelty, and that she must cond. Learned Bruthets, and they agree with me, that we have ncrautho nue to be supported at his cost. The question to be rity to do what you ask. We can, if you like, remove him either tu Newsate or Cold Bath-fields prison, but we can do nothing else. decided was, Could the husband put an end to that 06. Probably. you would prefer the Kings Beach prison to either of ginally justifiable separation, by his simple request for Ca other two? her to return? In the present case, most certainly, the 'fete Common Sinusaaes.-.-We certainly do prefer the K i ng : Reads. husband could not discharge himself from his liability (This being the last day of Term, the Comsat until near half- to pay for his wife's board and lodging by such a notice put six o'clock.) only as that which he had caused to be served upon COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jinx 4. her. It was quits clear that such treatment as the LOU TRIMS!' Y. 'MOWS AND OVUM& wife had in this case experienced from her husband, This was an action fcr debt brought upon a bond.— would be a sufficient answer in an Ecclesiastical Court Several pleas had been filed, and the question raised to a Bill filed for restitution of conjugal rights, and, was the legality of the bond. On the part of the plain- consequently, that he.must be held responsible for the tiff, it was argued by Mr. Sergeant Memorials en ; and charge of his wife's maintenance during such separat i on. for the defendant, by Mr. Sergeant BOSANGUIT. It was Mr. Baron VAUGHAN said he felt some delicacy io, • delivering bit • Opiaion upon the ease, he DM having beer present at the arguments for and against the Rule; but, from what' he had heard of it elsewhere, he felt coin pelled to concur in theppinions of his Learned Brethren who had preceded him, that the Rule for a new iris ought to be discharged. the Lonn Cuter BARON said, the doubts he had already expressed were not at all affected by the general rule that had been laid down. His difference of opinion had arisen out of a doubt that the conduct of the de fendant did not amount to a cite of continued ci uelty, but was the result of an occasional quarrel, originating, perhaps, in jealousy of a young man, with whom he imagined his wife was too intimate. It appeared to him to be an alarming doctrine to lay down, that the cir cumstances of the present case would warrant a sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro, and, consequently, of a verdict such as that which had been given for the plain tiff. As, however, the opinions of his Learned Brethren were at variance with his own, the rule must be refused. —Rule discharged with costs, THE RING V. ONRCCO. The particulars of this case were given in the STAR some weeks since. A rule Alai had been obtained for a new trial, on the ground that a female witness exa mined at the trial was the mistress, and not a servant of the other witness Measochi, and that certain letters read at the trial, purporting to be written by the de fendant, were forgeries. The Souctroa-Gasanat. now appeared to chew cause, contending that the defendant had been at the elbow of his Counsel while the litters were read,. and no objection having been made to them, they must be held to have been in his handwriting. On the other side it was argued, that the defend:at, being an Italian, and translations only having been read, he could not be supposed to have been aware of their import. But it appeared that he had executed bills of exchange in the English language, and from other circumstances, that he understood that language. The COURT were clearly of opinion, that the letters were not forgeries, and therefore refused to disturb the verdict.—Rule discharged. ;D LETTER OF CROMWELL. At a late sale of autographs, an original letter of the Protector OLIVER was sold for five guineas and a half. This letter is addressed to his daughter (not the Lad? CLAYPOLI), and is characteristic both of the writer and the spirit of the times. It will thew that the hypor:ri,y of the crafty usurper, by frequently practising on tht credulity of others, came at length to impose or hi m . self, by a process quite natural. It is as follows: " October 25,1646, Loudon. " Dula Dasoncea—l write not to thy husband, pertly r onoyd trouble, for one line of mine begitts many of his, which I dosbi makes him aitt up too late; partly because I am myself, ineu r p eee d att this tyme, having. some other consideration& Your friends act Ely are welt ; yuur sister Claypole is (I trust in mercy) e rere , Aird with some perpleted thoughts. Shes aces her own vanitye and at: nal mind, be wanteing itt. She seeks ate? (a. I hop e d 4 0) dui which will Lula& ; and thus to bee a seeks is to bee of the be e t led neat pardon and such an one shall every faythfull h um b le k . eke , bee to the e nd. Hands seeker, hippie finder. What ev er us , a 4 that the Loan is gracious without some sense of &elle vault's and badneue? whoa ever tasted that gratiounesse of his and maid gos lease in desire, and then pressinge after feu enioyetnent? Dime daughter, prase op. Let not husband, let not any t hinge Lisle thy affections after Cultist. I hope het will be an occasion to Mum them. That which is best worthy of love in thy husband is that of the image of Court bee hearts. Look, on that and love it beat, and all the mate for that I pray for thee aid his do me fur m.; my service and done affection to the general! and generates. / w an th e to miry kind to the: ; it adds to all other obligations t my loss to sli. I am thy deare father. • OLIVER CROAIWIILL" me liollowiss olsoasrands are Axed to this letter_" Mind this letter I bad from my mother lAmmington, who bad It from old Mrs. Woes, who had lived with Oliver Cromwell's daughter.* 41 m o d second, this account was given by one of Mrs. Warner's h o e r of ....y,frosu whom I had the original in September, 1751. DOE, ON THE IHINIEE OE BOTSI7. CARTER. In this case, which was one of ejectment, the defend ant had possessed himself of certain premises, without any legal claim whatever. When called upon to state his title, the defendant said, the premises were as good as his estate, inasmuch as they were in Chancery, and refused to give up possession of them. Mr. R. MILLER having, on a former day, obtained a Rule to shew cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, Mr. Jatavia now appeared in support of the verdict, and contended, that the grounds upon whidt his friend (Mr. Miller) founded his application weft untenable. The first ground was, that the Receiver had recognised the tenantry of the defendant, by demanding rent of him. But it appeared here, that the landlord only de manded the rent of the premises, and not the rent due by the former tenant, who had run away. The second ground was, that the premises in question had not been fully described, because they were only stated to be in " the Parish of St. Luke, in the County of Middlesex;" whereas, there were two Parishes of St. Luke, in that County, namely, those of 44 ' St. Luke, Chelsea," and " St. Luke. 91d-street f` and, therefore, a more specific description was necessary.— The Learned Counsel proceeded to cite a number of cases to shew that the more particular description of the parishes was uncalled for. On the whole, so evident was the want of title of the defendant to the premises in. question, that the Lord Chief Baron, before whom the trial was had, in his charge to the .11try, said, that how. l ever modestly and ingetliously the-case had been con ducted by the defendant's Counsel, it was one of the most impudent, on the part of the defendant, that had ever come before a Court. On these grounds, he sub mitted, that the Rule must be discharged. -• Mr. MILLER, in support of the rule, contended, that although where there was only one parish of the same name in a county, a particular specification was wane; cessary ; still, that where there were two or more pa rishes of the same name in a county, the popular addi tions to their names or titles were absolutely requisite, and cited a number of cases in support of that position. The Learned Gentleman also cited cases, from which he contended that a demand for rent was a clear recogni tion of a subsisting tenantcy, and entitled the party to a notice to quit, a proceeding which had not been adopted in the present case. The COURT held, that the variance contended fur by defendant's Counsel did not exist, and that the premises had been sufficiently described. With reference to the other point, the person demanding the rent might have imagined the defendant was the representative of the real tenant Ashton, who had ab.conded. On the whole of the evidence it did not appear , that anything had been said or done, by which the tenantcy of the defend ant had been recognised, and that, consequently', the motion must be refused.—Rule discharged. PREROGATIVZ COURT, Joss 4. 11,AZZA_V! 3AW. This was a suit to try the validity of a vdn propounded byeto brother of the testator, J. Baker, and opposed by the wide% ends ground that the testator's brother had procured the will SOW pro pounded by fraudulent means, and that it was invalid. The widow would only take a legacy of ten guineas under the will, the bulk of the testator's property being left to his brother. The Coes?, in pronouncing its iadpsent, observed, that a person propounding a will was always bound to adduce satisfactory proofs of its validity. In this cue the Court was not *added of the vali dity of the instrument propounded, and therefore decided against the will, declaring the deceased to have died intestate, and decreeing administration to his widow. The Court, however, ordered that the costs of the suit should be paid out of the property of the deceased. TMINOLD V. 141111.11'. In this ease, it appeared that J. Pinion died at Highgate. In October. 1825, leaving personal property to the amount of xl6 ,SOO , and real property to the amount of al,OOO. The deceased left a sister and several nephews and nieces, and his will was now opposed on the ground that, at the period of its execution, the testator was of unsound mini.—The case stands for judgment. At the Court of Exci,e, on Saturday last, a wine and spirit-nsercbant, residing in Mary-la-tonne, was fined 250 for sending fills. gallons of spirits out of his house ithout a permit. The funeral of poor RICHARDSON, who was drowned in the Thames Tunnel, took place on Tuesday, at Ro therhithe. His fellow workmen, to the number of 80. followed him to the grave; and his relatives were pro vided with cloaks, &c. at the expense of Mr. BaumaL The crowd on this occasion was Immense. Last week, a number of individuals passed through York, by waggons, on their route from Stockton•on- Tees to Hull, where they expected to embark for Van Dientan's Land. There were between 30 and 40 in one waggon, and about 10 or 12 in another, with a very considerable share of luggage, &c. &c. Some of them were new married couples, and they seemed all ex tiemely cheerful, and appeared happy in she prospect before them. I i 1 i ° )it • i i i . I 1 ) i Vi 1 4i 1 iol • t i '' ) I' I l i i f 1 ' g i . 1 1 . . 1 . ! „ , I i t i I: ' 1 i • i . t. • .1` ii r t : Ili . 1 11 4t.. 4.„.1 , I;)IiI 1 i • t I' i . 0 !!, i; s.i , ) 1 , , i 1 ' , , .; N wize , • POLICE INTELLIGENCE. --.0i%.--- BOW-STREET. WAIL AMID tutu Tai oss.—Yesterday six journeymen tailors, most of them without employment, all of them Irishmen, lately imported from Cork and Kerry, were brought to this Wks, charged with committing a number of desperate assaults upon coo stables and others, and with acting in the most violent msoner. It appears that hundreds of journeymen tailors, and many of t h em recent imports from the Sister Kingdom, us in the habit of fro. (piquing different houses of call dolly, where they receive ammo nications from different masters who west the assistance of m additional hand. There are two rival house of milk, owe ler the "flints"—men who will not work audit peke I sod she oder for the " dungs"—who work under the trade peke. Ope of deer houses is situate in- Bear -street, Leierster-easero, the sip of do King's Head; and the other is the Rabin Hood, kielheeenie wag& bourhood. From twenty to thirty journeymen team were so Tuesday night at the King's Head, when an equal number came from the rival house, and forced themselves into the King's Head, whets each party, " dungy" and flints," set themselves in battle array, and fought like—tailors. They polled each other's noses kicked each other's shins, tore each other's garments, and b ange d up each other's eyes. Screaming, hooting, and crass of murder, with calls for assistance, raised the whole neighbourhood; and two constables who had the courage to eater the house, soon repented of their temerity, for they had no sooner set foot on the stairs, than they were saluted with two kettles of boiling water —were beaten, and their staves taken from them. Nbton's party of flow. street patrole were informed that murder was being committed, and they entered the house with drawn cutlasses, and at that tine the battle was at Its height. Sir Ricaaan BIONDI asked the patrol to describe the fight?— The patrol said, there were desist tweety•four in a few, and thug were engaged man to man. Sir %cumin EisatmeYiet am tailor to tailor, and twisty. four l tailors rizo of n a w r am ene—J e Lewd . dasusia - brogl ca it.7). aud were captured aid taken to thewatch-hosia. Sir &MUSD Brawn inked the prisoners what they had to say in defence of such desperate conduct?—They denied they were concerned in the array, but they were all identified, and was o►dered to find beiL Johts'Atesfsaid, a sturdy little fellow, a coach porter, was placed at the bar, charged with having threatened to split his wife's skollwith for of a child's carriage, which was produced. jun. one of the pat;e4stated that he was sent for to lean Ski prisoner, who 'was behaving in a very outrageous manlier to. wards his wife, at their losiginp.' •At the roman when he aimed the room the prisoner was in the Kt •of throwing the pole &this wife, ameba would have done her serious injury, had they not se cured him In time.' He was so violent that they were obliged to handcuff him, or they could not have got him to the office. The wife hesitated for some time to be sworn, till bee hashool l wbit was foaming with rage at being placed at the bar m hke ski" smite said, commanded her, upon the obedience shamed to bison lilt wife, to take the'oath and state every thing she knew. She thei stated that her husband bad been drinking, and that had caused him to behave as he bad dope, she supposed; for when be was sober be was a good husband. She did sot seem to wish to press the charge apitist him; bet the officer and the man who assisted Ishii to take the prisoner described his beha-iour as having been so violent, that Mr. MISIIMULL ordered him to - find bail. This so enraged him, that be wept with anger, and tried toresdt the officer from the bar where he stood ; but not being able to elect this, he vociferated, addressing the blagiatrate—.. Your Worship, kt me COMe at him! If you'll let sae come at him, bet you a guinea —no, I won't--but I'll bet you Ave shillings that I lick him! —l'd lick him like a.cock 1-11-11 me if I could's% wap him!" His Worship, howeverolectiood taking the bet, and John So- Sold was locked up. MARL BO ROU H-STREET. Robert Roberts, alias Edwards, wits charged with having tilled a person of the name of Hutchinson, called Fighting Bob," in a pugilistic contest, at the Coach and Homes public-house, in Lids Compton-street, on Monday evening. It appeared t hat the de ceased was a tailor, and after the fob' the prisoner attended kin for a short time, and had called to inquire how he was getting an? the quarrel originated about a pair of breeches. The prisoner saki' that be went tato the Coach aad Horses on Sunday eveaing wkh his brother, who was about Waving London, when they had a pot of parser togethea The deceased, whom he ktlew, was in the room, and challenged him to fight, but he took no notice of the in. sot, and left the hose. On Monday evening be called again, when the deceased apia rewired his insults, and afterwards struck kin ha the face, and caused his met to bleed—they then began to lisbt. He was remanded. A Coroner's Inquest was held yesterday, whes it was clearly proved that Hutelsinson was the aggressor, and the Jury retuned a verdict of "Jeseijkals Howittide." MARRIED. Rev. A. Donald, M.A. of Shepton lGriet Somemetshire, t Harriet, wood daughter of T. Greenaway, Esq. of Soutfounlim• The Rev. John Morgan, of Foram, Devon, to Mrs. Elisa beth HIY, of Cheltenham. DIEU The 15th tilt. at Velletri, In caneespence elan sodden, and after linpring many weeks, the Hoe. George Knox, son of the last Lord Not thiand. At Allahabsd, in the East Ladies, Oesoenthsa, wife of the Hon. J. R. Elphinstosse, Senior Mambor of the Board of Revenue. At Dover, after ping to bid well and hearty," Palmer, Esi• surgeon, formerly of Enfield. At Sunderland, on the 26th ult. Wm. Thompson, easter, fell deem in a fit while working in a keel, and died instantly ;d an Grey Appleby, a poor man, died suddenly while reading in Ws own house.—Sunday, Mr. James Irvine, spirit-merchant; sod suddenly, Mrs. Dorothy Wilson, who attended the butter :market as usual on the Saturday. 'HIS DAT. HAILS.—'_---- .... •ss. MT. ALS& MIL Dublin 1 0 1 Frame 1 • Waterfurd 1 0 ' Hamburg 0 1 G y and Jeney 1 o Flanders • 0 Lisbon o 0 Swedes 0 1 Donagbadee 0 0 Malta 0 0 Buenos Ayres 0 1 Leeward Wands 0 0 Holland 0 0 Jamaica 0 0 HIGH-WATER at LONDON-BRIDGE. TO MORROW. Morning 39 Warta after 11 Afternoon 12 sumacs after 12 (attoos: Printed and enbli.ked b) Jona Manna, tkt Proprietta at the SIAS Or Pka, No. I, Pickett-place, Teeple•Dar• war 10 1 I~ • letria NI cal* Arsdoe Sol* pear 41 Tbe ab Jake mom Ma 1 bah d Witt 10 ask 43 c 4 iid sift a dm ma ISM as SO Z, Dm ---------- CAPI I Oa Ii AE eI IIBRC Pohl with Fno_ _ leveral treit pin its ACILI 6 0' 21 1 At ais num Road flatit Oil tie% betel wiv Stab :111 lin itt Aim , .