Star. — London, England, 1829-06-04 00:00:00

3)ifc. <-• 'ln ,W INTELLIGENCL wuRT OF CHANCERY. Java 3. WESTMEATH O. wasrareAta. The Lord Chancellor sat in Westminster Hall to-day.' to hear the arguments of Counsel on a Petition pre sented by Lord Westmeath to the King in Council, com plaining of a decision of the High Court of Delegates, pronounced against him in a suit which he bad insti tuted against Lady Westmeath fora restitution of his conjugal rights. The Petition prayed that a commission of review might be granted, and had been referred in the usual course to the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Baciasucc was heard in support of the Petition, and contended that no evidence had been given in the cause establishing the fact of cruelty committed by the Marquis, on which the Delegates bad come to their decision. Dr. Luaniwovow appeared for Lady Westmeath, in support of the decree. The argument was not concluded. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wasesassma, Jena S. Sittings at Nisi Pitts. in Middlesex, after Easter Term, before Lord Tansaom and C ommon Juries. Sir JAMES SCARLET? appeared in Court to-day as Attorney-General. TUCKER W. JONES AND ANOTHER. This was an action against the Battle-bridge and Holloway•road Company, for a trespass in pulling down put of the premises of the plaintiff, a varnish manufacturer at Battle -bridge. The defendants jug. tiled the trespass under the Act of Parliament for making and maintaining a public road from Battle bridge to Holloway. which they contended authorised. them in taking down any house in the direct line of the intended road that might be necessary for the purposes of the Act. A point of law was raised upon the con struction of the Act of Parliament, and, it was agreed that it should be reserved for the opinion of the Court above, in case the defendants made out their defence on the facts. They, however, failed to prove that they bad, before polling down the plaintiff's premises, made a tender to the plaintiff of the value of his interest, as requited by the Act of Parliament, and a verdict was therefore taken for the plaintiff, by consent, for 101. LEATHER V. DUCKWORTH THE KOMAR. This was an action far criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. Mr. Gummy (with whom was Mr. PLATO stated the case for the plaintiff. The action was brought to re cover a compensation in damages for .a serious injury which the plaintiff had sustained by the defendant's having had criminal conversation with his wife. The parties were in a respectable, though not in an elevated situation of life. The plaintiff and defendant had been for some dote on terms of intimacy, and the defendant had availed himself of the opportunities which that in timacy afforded to seduce the affections of the plaintiffs wile, and to commit adultery with her, the consequence of which was, that the plaintiff was now obliged to pay for the maintenance of a child of which he was not the father. The plaintiff was a plumber and gluier at Barnet. and the defendant was in partnership with the father of the plaintiff's wife, who carried on the business of an auctioneer at Be ech-bill, near Barnet. The marriage of the plaintiff and his wife took place about fifteen years ago. It was a love match, or at least the matriage bad taken place without the knowledge or consent of the lady's father. There was little or no disparity in the ages of the parties. The plaintiff was 37 or 38 years of age, and his wife was about the same age, or perhaps a little older. The de. fendant, Mr. Duckworth, was about 30 years of age. Besides being a partner of Mr. Harris, the father of Mrs. Leather, be held a situation as steward to a gentleman a the name of Paris, residing in the neigh. bourhood of Barnet. The plaintiff and his wife bad lived on terms of affection for ten or eleven years after their marriage; but about three or four years ago some differ axes arose between them. in consequence of which Mts. Leather left her husband's house, and went to re side with her Lather at Beech-hill. At that time she bad been guilty of no levity of conduct, and there was every probability that after a short time a reconciliation between her and her husband would be effected. The defendant was, as he had before stated, in partnership with her father, and had consequently continual access to his house. He was in the habit of seeing Mrs. Leather there; but no suspicions were entertained as to his con duct towards her, until some time in the latter end of the year 1826, or the beginning of 1827. About that time they were observed on several occasions to be romping torber, and a female servant in the house of Mr. Harris saw the defendant once or twice kiss Mrs. Leather. These things, however, were allowed to pass over; but at length it was discovered that the parties met together in the evening, and were sometimes to the dark for several hours. Suspicions were at last aroused, and after some time it turned out Mrs. Leather was pregnant. Attempts were, however, made to conceal the circumstance, and for that purpose it was found convenient to remove Mrs. Leather to London. She left Bernet in the month of June in the last year, and, accompanied by her mother, took lodgings in the neighbourhood of Somers-town. After staying there a few weeks, she removed to other apartments, and in December last her accouchement took place in the house of a Mrs. Tli,ornbill. Immediately after she bad been pat to bed, she desired the defendant to be sent for, and a messenger was then dispatched to Bar net to request the defendant to come to London to see her. The defendant. on hearing what had taken place, exclaimed, " Good GOD 1 What will the Squire say to this?' and appeared to be very fearful of the conse quence of the affair coming to the knowledge of Mr. Puishis master • and he told the messenger that he could not come up to London immediately, because his master was at home. The. Learned Counsel bad no witnesses to prove that the parties bad been seen actually in bed to gether, but he should lay before the Jury such circum stances as to their conduct as would leave no doubt on the esieds of the Jury that the act of adultery had been committed; or, if they should entertain any doubt on that point, he would call the father of Mrs. Leather, and prove that to him the defendant bad, in August last. made a distinct acknowledgment of his guilt. He would prove also, that no longer ago than yesterday, the defendant, on being reproached with his conduct, bad said, " That as he had commenced a connexion with the plaintiff's wife, be might as well go on with it, and make up a round half dozen." He (Mr. Gurney) did not mean to represent this case as one of a description the most aggravated, or as One . calling for very large damages ; at the same time the Jul , would bear in mind that the defendant had, by his conduct, destroyed the possibility of a reconciliation being ever effected between the plaintiff and his wife, and had irreparably ruined the character of Mrs. Lea ther. The conduct of the plaintiff had been irreproach able, and his wife had also, before the intimacy with the defendant, conducted herself with perfect propriety. The Jury, in estimating the amount of damages, would take into consideration the hardship to the plaintiff of having a spurious issue entailed upon him, and they • soold also consider the expense to which he would be. put by the maintenance of the child to which his wife -.._-_ had given birth, in consequence of the intimacy with the defendant. The plaintiff bad been already called upon by the parish to pay for its support, and he bad in consequence been compelled to make some payments on account of it. besides having paid the accoucbeor's bill. The marriage of the parties was proved to have taken place in September, 1814; none of the wife's family were present. A young woman, named Charlotte Watson, a servant of Mrs. Leather's father, stated, that she had known the plaintiff and his wife for the last eight years; they bad not always lived on very good terms together; Mrs. Leather left ber husband three or four years ago, and went to live with her father; the defendant used to visit her there, and stayed with her frequently for an hour or two; witness several times saw them romping together; an d she also saw the defendant kiss Mrs. Leather. In cress examination by Mr. DMISIAII, the witness said she did not recollect the plaintiff complaining that his wife was, or had been , intimate with other men be sides the defendant. The witness admitted, rather re luctantly, that the plaintiff had taken some slight liber.- ties with ber, but she said, a be never injured me.' She did not know whether he bad also been familiar with a pretty. sister of hers, named Mary ; she never beard any complaints on the part of Mrs. Leather, that the plaintiff had been two familiar with witness or any other young woman; she remembered Ifirs.Leather being at Barnet fair in company with herself (the witness) and other young women; she (Mrs. Leather) on that occasion danced in a booth in the fair with a Mr. Pepper. This was while Mrs. Leather was living at her father's house. The party remained at the fair till about two o'clock in the morning, and afterwards went to sleep at the house of a Mrs.Alger,where a bed bad been engaged for them. Witness saw Mrs. Leather lying down in the bed room, and a Mr. Jones was on his knees by the side of her; she on another occasion saw Mrs. Leather-in the bed room of a Mr. Thomas, at her 'Father's house, about the time that Mr. Thomas was going to bed; but she did not remain there above a minute. Other witnesses proved that Mrs. Leather, after she became pregnant, took lodgings in London, and that she was visited there by the defendant several times ; that her accoucbement took place at the house of a Mrs. Thornhill, and that by her desire the defendant was sent for ; on which occasion she exclaimed—" Good God ! what will the Squire say to thiir It was also proved that Mrs. Leather was now living at the house of a baker in Kiagsland road, and that the defendant had visited her there. The accoucheur's bill amounted to SI. A young woman, named Carter, stated that she had seen the defendant in Court yesterday, and that she then] asked him whether he had called on Mrs. Leather lately ? and he said he had not. Witness told him that he had, and he then said, as he bad begun, he might as well go on, and make up a round half dozen." Edward Harris, the father of the plaintiff's wife stated, that the defendant, in August last, acknowledged to him that he bad bad criminal intercourse with his daughter. Mrs. Leather was older than ber husband. Witness did not know of their marriage until some time after it bad taken place. He did not know on what terms they had lived together. Witness and the defendant had acted together as partners, but there were no signed articles. In September last the defendant applied to witness to continue the connexion, but witness declined, after what bad happened, to couple his name with the defendant's. The defendant was steward to Mr. Paris; he had been engaged first at 12s. per week. and that sum was afterwards raised to 15s. and at last to 20i. Witness did not know that the de fendant had left his situation ; he certainly bad not been dismissed from it on account of this transaction; he had derived no benefit from the partnership with witness. Mr. DUMAN. in addressing the Jury for the defen dant, called their attention to the facts as they now ap peared in evidence. The plaintiff, it seemed, bad mar ried the female whose conduct gave rise to the present inquiry without the consent of her father, and the match had turned out—as these love-matches usually did —an unhappy one. The parties, it appeared, had lived on bad terms together for several years, and they at last finally separated. The wile bad gone to reside at the house of her father, and bad continued to live apart from her husband for several years. What domestic happiness then, bad the plaintiff lost by the conduct of the dell:I- I dant ? Aod how bad be made out the fact of his having been deprived of the is comfort, benefit, and assistance of his wife," after he had, as it were, turned her out of doors? But Admitting that the defendant had been to a certain extent culpable, what degree of seduction could the Jury consider there had been, after it had been proved that the Lady was so very come-at-able? She had, it op reared, not only been guilty of criminal conduct with the defendant. but had also romped and joked with other men. With one she had danced in a booth at a fair. where she had stayed till two o'clock in the morning, and had afterwards gone to a house where a bed had been en gaged for her and her party, and where she was found lying down, and a Mr. Jones on his knees by the side of her I With respect to the child to which she had given birth. there was no evidence to show that the de fendant was the father ; on the contrary, there was strong ground for inferring that the real father was one of the parties with whom Mrs. Leather had danced and romped. Under all the circumstances, therefore, unless the Jury should be satisfied that the defendant was the father of the child, be (the Learned Counsel) trusted that they would be of opinion that this was a case in which the very smallest damages would satisfy the ends of justice. Lord TeNTlntere, after recapitulating the facts to the Jury, told them that the question as to the amount of damages was one entirely for their corsideration. It certainly could not be supposed that the plaintiff had sustained very serious injury by the loss of his wife's society. The principal ground of complaint was, that of his having to maintain the offspring of an adulterous intercourse between his wife and the defendant. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 251. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Jot's 5. Loudon Sittiege before the LOAD Crier Junes Wesel's% and a Cosmos Jury. ZIRD V. WARDEN AND ANOTNRR. This was an action of libel brought under the fol lowing circumstances—The plaintiff. at the time in question, was one of the overseers of the poor of the hamlet of Mile End Old Town; the defendants, John Hopkins Warden pnd Walter William Thwaites, were two of Mr. Bird's fellow parishioners. A report having appeared in a Sunday Newspaper, called 14 L,,,glishinen, of a complaint made at ambeth- 1 street Police Office, on the preceding Saturday. by a Mrs. Ryder, whose son she said bad been sent to sea by the paris h authorities without the knowledge of his parents, the report went on to allege that Mr. Bird, one of the overseers, was present, and admitted that a woman named Roberts waif in the habit of receiving ss. from the parish officers for every boy whom she dis posed of. to Captains of merchant vessels, and that the boys were seat off without the hoewledge of their r parents, or any inquiry having been made as to the cha. racier of the Captains. This conduct, it added, was reprobated by the Magistrate, who described it as little short of kidnapping. This paragraph was retracted from the newspaper, and printed in the shape of fhand-bill. beaded 4 , Much like kidnapping in Mile-end Old Town," and to it were added observations Animadverting on the conduct of the parish officers, with some allusion to a Club call the 41 Union Club," of which, however, it did not appear in evidence, although it might have been the fact, that the plaintiff was , a mem ber. The bill was printed by the defendant Warden's directions, from a manuscript of his, and a number of copies struck off, S3MC of which were posted up in dif ferent parts of the parish; a number of them were also sent to the defendant Thwaites, who immediatelycalled upon one a' his neighbours, Mr. Temple, living three doors off, and showed him one, which he left with him, saying; that he had plenty more of them in his house; it appeared however that the statement of Mr. Bird having been present at the police office, and making the admission ascribed to him, was wholly without foundation, he never having been present at *lion the occasion referred to; and the boy's mother, upon the circumstance being investigated and ex plai ned,es premed herself perfectly satisfied with the conduct pursued to wards her son, as did also the worthy Magistrate. Mr. Sergeant SPANDIi t who was assisted by Mr. HOLT, and who made a very amusing speech in his opening to the Jury, having closed the plaintiff's case, Mr. Sergeant Wilma submitted to his Lordship, that the fact of publication was not sufficiently made out against either of the defendants; and that, at any rate, it they bad been guilty at all, they bad been guilty of separate and distinct acts of publication, and therefore the plaintiff could not recover against both defendants, as in the case of a joint publication, but must make his election as to which be would proceed against. Mr. Sergeant SPA NMI contended that acts of publi cation had been fully made out against both defendants, and that it was for the Jury to say whether they would not infer that Thwaites had been privy to and a party to the original publication by Warden. The Loan CHIEF ANTIC/ was of opinion that distinct, acts of publication had been proved, but that the fact of a joint publication had been disproved by the evi dence. The plaintiff, he therefore thought, ought to make his election. Mr. Sergeant SPANK!! still submitted that there was enough to go to the Jury upon the question of joint publication, and he would therefore take his chance. Mr. Sergeant WILDS then addressed the Jury on be half of the defendants, and contended that even if there were proof of publication bete, which be denied, still there was nothing from which the law inferred malice, as it was the duty of the parishioners, when a charge was brought at a public police office, and stated in a public newspaper, to take steps to have the affair in vestigated, and they were therefore privileged to com municate the contents of the statement to each other ; and at most it was merely a parish squib, which, from the constant squabbles which were known to 'list for years past between different parties in this parish, no person would pay any attention to. TheLeartedJunot, in summing up, told the Jery,that in his opinion this was an abominable libel; but that there was no evidence to prove a joint conblicatilo.— They were, therefore, he thought, bound to find a ver dict for one or other of the defendants, and give such damages against the other as they thought the circum• stances of the case called for. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against Warden—Damages Si. and found the other defendant Not Giriky. COURT OF CONDRI.EGATRS, 3m 3. COLVIN AOAIST DRAM AND MUNN& Dr. Puscumonn renewed his application for a li. mited administration in this case. now under appeal, peruktite lite. It had been ascertained that the .hole Commission could not meet before nest Term, and in the mean time the estate was sustaining material injury through the want of an administrator. The COURT, under the circumstances. ordered that a limited administration should be granted, until the Meeting of the whole Commission, or until further orders should be given on the subject; and no objection being made to the nomination of Mr. Fraser, the admi. nistradon was decreed to him. It is very generally believed that at least half of those permits who have gives sates of registering a 101. freehold, Is Clare, will totalby lily Is snaking out a title to that privilege. The scrutiny at ti Weft MR be very severe, and an Rants Paper states, that may of those noticed fee registry were quite ignorant of that dr. essistasee, the formula having been forwarded to the Peace Oast by the Ronan Catholic Priesthood.—Lis. atm At the Chequers inn, at Uxbridge, these is at present a hawk, nearly twenty years of age, generally supposed to be a male, which, about a week ago, actually batched five chickens, four of which are living, and which the unnatural parent fosters with as much seeming care and solicitude as if they were really of its own species. What renders the circumstance more singular is, that the rapacious bird still maintains its natural ferocity. and regularly destroys and feeds upon every other fowl which happens to come within its reach. Some time ago frequent complaints were made in the Paris journals of the opening of letter s . and the subtraction of money from them at the Paris General Post Office. One of the persons chiefly concerned in this violation of private correspondence, and this plunder of unsuspecting parties, was detected in the act of pocketing some letters supposed to contain mo ney, on the 6th of October last. His name is De 1,441. larme, to which he prefixes the title of Count. He had been advanced from an inferior situation, with a very small salary (ot about 3')l. a year) on the establishment, to be Chief of is Berme of Distrihrtioss, with emolu ments, which, though still small, afforded the means of decent livelihood, being about 4,400 francs, or 1761. a year. This salary might be inadequate to maintain a Count, and the rest be was obliged to make up by robbery. On the 6th of October last. the Count was detected by one of his assistants in slipping a letter into his pocket. The assistant immediately called in the Chief of Division on the Establishment. who asked Mallarme to produce the letter which he had pocketed. The Count at first affected ignorance of what his official superior meant but at last was made to produce, not only the letter in question, but seven others, all of which ht bad pocketed on the same morning, in expectation of finding money in them. They were all foreign let ters addressed to Paris, poste rothude (or to be called for by the parties); this being a kind of correspondence, the violation of which might escape detection longer than when an immediate delivery was expected. Count was immediately taken before a Commissary of Police, where he admitted the abstraction of the letters, ' and ascribed the fraud to the impulse of his evil genius .--to a diabolical suggestion which he could not muter. He was on Saturday tried before the Paris Court of &nine, found guilty on irresistible evidence, and con demned to the pillory and seven years imprisonment.— The culprit heard his sentence with great emotion, and wept bitterly. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW-STREET. _ Yesterday a Ponape* animas, dieing very respects*, ee h e gave his name /Masi, Redeem; was hank_ the vissoef_ of Tharipllol4 a patrol, OD a charge of having MOM a Men ON seg. brella from the dwelling boost of a gentlemen sonsit Odin It appeared that the primer, perceiviog theemaphismetoe set door open, very deliberately walked in. and attired blensdr la cloak which was hanging up in the hall. He then took op tee umbrella, and walked out with as much mouse. as if the sedd ee really belonged to him. Mr. Sae happened most forum** to be looking out of the front drawing roan window, and e nsis i det his apparel, sent Thompson, the officer. after him, who took hk e into custody& On the prisoner bast asked for his defence, be pretended setts modes:and English. `• rsenoispes." sod " A Iss Pois.,nst see entendre," was all that could be obtained from him, until F o rd, t h e gaoler. brought him to his rendienion and knowledge of the Ra g , lie language, by stating that he was a man of very bad charact e r,. and bad been once committed for trial for stealing a coat Ender the semi ch cumstances. The prisoner, who said nothing after all in his defence, washer ommusitted for triaL Yesterday the two young men named Omani and Castes, sei ,. einem a dual examination, upon charge.' of forgery on the bu l b of Omits and Co. sod that of Droinesood. The examination having Mooed Dearly an hour, the prisoners were fully committed to N ew . pre for trial, by Mr. Halts. A young man of the name of Charles Lowden was charged mi t being in the lobby of the public-house known by the Aso of t h e . Coeds and Horses, in the Strand, with a fends e besot The prisoner was steadies near one of the bed.ruson when tha maid servant came up stairs and inquired what be wanted? Lis replied that her mistress had sent him there. She, however, tea sospiciews. and would not go away whilst he remained. lie to , • derroured by every possible means to induce her to depart, hat so b s remained resolute. On offering bee some insult the landlady ande her appearance, and subsequently caused him to be taken vas to . Cody. On his person was found the duplicate of a watch, w hi ch, en inquiry. was ascertained to have been stolen from a fried of his. named Parker. The case was fully made out, and the prisoner was esennittsd. QU E ENoSQU A LLB. F. /lard was fully committed in default of bail. SS a public annoyance • be was parading in the vicinity s e r r e kte h e s with loaded pis tol. threatening to dre on any one who oppa aa d him, and caudal; the greatest confusion among the persons peeling. His brother described him ass most pnsSigate character. He was continually drank, and bad repeatedly threatened his father's life. He hod run through Ma duce Christmas, and be considered Ina totally fugginess:in. WO RS H I P•ST REST. Yesterday Jester Homed, Jews Greenleaf, and Dimas Wed, joaanymeo weavers. in the employ of Messrs. Francis and John Odes, were placed at the bar, charged with unlawfully conspiring with avast other persons se seal up a loom's work of silk bekepog to their employers. Edward Vickery. a journeyman weaver, in the employ of Maws. Gila, stated—On Saturday last between sixty and seventy mm in the same employ came to my house ; the prisoners VIM seem them. They wanted to get in. I told them I would not ono my work to be sealed. Use of them asked me why I acted aide the trade. and said I was the only one who made any alienist"— They asked me again if I would allow them to seal my work.... I said them so. They said they would report me to the delegate media, and I might* expect the consequences. Time phew Howard had a book in his hand. is which the IMMO and red. dance of the journeymen were entered, and thee whose weds were sealed. A mark was put against my name fee seising a bee my work sealed. Primmer Howard—There were no threats held est spine him. It waster determination that if any man refused to have his week sealed we would not attempt to force him. Vickery knows very well what wee is that beek ; it was eel, het week that be masses of the sakes blase& Before we sealed any work we always eked whether they were willing. Mr. Baum (to the witness Vickery)—lf yes have bees sof d the sealing party yourself yes ought to stand in the same piece so thleasers at the bar, as yes ere equally liable to be indicted. the certainly have been out wish them at the maleg d several works. Joba Harris said he new the min sod Vickery refused to have his work sealed. They said data m eeting had ban held en Friday moving, sod agreed to unseal the works; and another meeting it night, end agreed to seal them again. Mr. Cob/ said that by Mr. Pod* Act. the 7th and nth Ote. IV. c. 30. he meld balm the primers before two Magistrates, but the peeithmest soder that Act he thought was net suacisto for the offence. He therefore btought them before one Magistrate, wils could held them to bell to appear at the Medusa, where they weed be indicted. Mr. Beane sold the case did set stand on Vickery's widow alone. but was corroborated hy another witness. The mimosa were held to hail, and the witnesses bound ever ft prostate and give evidence. ChedesCipp. Mimi Moab, and J. sod G. assints, journeymen weavers, in the employ of Mann Duff and Brooks, were also charged wick a similar effsoce. Theses Wales, foreseen to Messrs. Duff and Brooks.—The prisoners are in ear employ. Yesterday morning I met them, sod suspecting they were esaiers I watched them. and saw Copp sod Bodes go into the prisoner Monk's house, and, after temsiong there a few missies, come out again. I the went date thelareme. and saw the work sealed with wafers and paper • the wafers were quite Wet ; Moors wife and the noes had just sealed it. I asked the releaser Hook if he intended to go to work? He mid, se; it was sot right ago to work; and if my weaver did go to wattle hoped be might be bang op in Haneetreenileide. I also saw Wm go Into soother weavers house, gamed Stephens. Bonbon—Recollect you are on your est!. Do pompon to ewe I went into Monk's house? Wallas—Yes, I do. Walks—Then you swear false. Copp—l as bring witnesses to prove that I news went ism his house. _ _ Vialien—l saw you go into Monies house Ant, aid thee Ms &spheral's. Charles Talley corroborated WaDen's statement, and said dos were bootees or Moen men together. Copp—We went out. VU admit, to get our sbop meet* tee' cher ; hot we never went into either of the homes u swan to by the witnesses. Mr. Baum said be should bold them to bail to appear at do Sessions. _ _ Three other persons who had been summoned fez a eisailsr of fence did not appear, and warrants were granted for their sepribea. sick. A journeyman weaver named Hunt, in the employ of Sk. ben, came to the *lke, accompanied by his landlord. to 0. 11161 snatiou of his door having been broken open last night by awake of men who wanted to cut his work. He said that he was at a shop meeting till twelve o'clock, and when he returned hooch: found his door had been forced open. Thomas Hanky, Hunt's landlord, said, that about eleven o'clock be heard a knock at the street dose, which was double locked. 1k got out of bed, and inked who was there? A voice answeisi Friends." He told them la should not let them in. They Wit he did not they would blow his tsy brains out. They ime♦ direly broke open the door, and the lock few of into his MOO/ He instantly rushed out into the street and sprang a rattle, and ik men all ran away. He saw the hacks of two persons, but cook not swear to them. Mr. Gilbert said he had about 1,11001. worth of silk Dow loth looms which ought to have been brought home three weeks se lie had had only two weeks est, and, in his opinion, the muss whom they were entrusted cot them, and he also thought the Ow men present in this case broke the door open themselves MO out of a blind. Hartley thanked Mr. Gilbert, and odd if the works were an mos were second of doing it thwassives ; god in ibis case. wheel's week had bons preserved, they euthenisd with as met a sees He mend Ms. Giblet thee ash slid semen for his wahlehl Ir taeghtble sheens he abiding Way heist, sad would warm a endue he the fame hew be lease misW with affairs dist 40 1 set amers lie. They Ed& Mt di the Imes in &demigod Were he druid tremble limelf Mr. Bum said, it wee he him to eel Miami ell it. No work appeared to be awe, emirs be could net W I ". but promised that sense AMMO shed* be pfd sear the bas w keep a watch epee it. • BIRTH. wy SO, In Charlesqtreet,DrAnkpnlown, dhe Li* sal lAd , Seq• • DUD. May 15, at Maim k 710 of Ais age. lity• T o t / Cridow, bee et die sad Perk Silegi. paay alto sal bed,lasgow. Mado May 116, alkbargii k lnst yaw Mrs. DOA a o, Maar; day of the I. Res. Dr. GeorgeWldisksio, — Makers of the Trott Char* aad Den of tbe CIAO ow' 1114111• W AT= at LONDON•BitIDGit T 0.1110111106 Menting • If Wow atter 0 Atteesson . 37 swat tet_ loman Noel end Pubhited by Jam Wm, the it the has Owe %Mt 1, Plikdoehce, Temple Ba• . _. •i 1 an Si IV Ilk sul we hH the sift of g and frog 'eh toil stir tow tans Past t a fa add' Prig Mei 59, 3,14 F! and