Star. — London, England, 1829-06-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE: ROLLS' COURT, Jess sit. The Master of the Rolls held his Court in one of the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons (No. X 111). His Honour disposed of his list of cause petitions, and beard some trifling matters of no public interest. His HOWOUR intimated to the bar, that his medical advisers were of opinion it was by no means certain he would be able to go through witb the arrangement be bad made for morning sittings. He therefore wished them to consider themselves at liberty as to their at tendance on his Court. • COURT OF KING'S BENCH, het et Holm THE ICING O. WELSH. At the sitting of the Court Lord TSNTERDZII delivered the opinion of their Lordships in this case, in which in the last Term a rule had been obtained for leave to file no information, in the nature of a quo warrant°, against the defendant, for exercising the office of a capital burgess of the borough of Wells. His Lordship said, it appeared that a by-law had been made by the Common Council of Wells, by which it was rendered necessary to the validity of an election of a capital burgess, that a previous notice of thirty days should be given at a regular meeting of the corporate body. The meeting .at which the defendant had been elected was held in obedience to a peremptory mate damns, at a time when it was impossible that the thirty days notice should be given, and it was contended in support of the rule that the election was invalid, as having been made at a meeting held without giving the thirty dayi' previous notice. On the other side it was urged that as the election took place in obe. dience to the peremptory mandamus, the effect of the by law was, for the time, suspended. It appeared also, that at the election the whole of the Members of the Common Council were present; and certainly they might, if they pleased, have rescinded the by law at the time. It further appeared, that no objec tion was made to the want of notice at the election by any one present; and, besides, the patties who now ap plied for the quo warranto were those who had applied for the peremptory mandamus, and they might have made it returnable at such a time as to render it com patible a ith the 30 days notice required by the by-law. On the whole, therefore, the Court, without at present deciding whether the effect of the by-law was for the time suspended by the mandamus, were of opinion that all the parties considered at the time of the election that it was 'in fact suspended, and' on chit gretind they thought,that the . rule for the quo warrahlo information ought to.be discharged.—Rule discharged accordingly. SCOTT V. BETAN. Mr. CASIPIELL moved for a rule nisi for a new trial in this case, which was tried at the late sittings at Guildhall. The action was brought on a judgment re covered in the island of Jamaica, for 1,5544 16s. Bd. current money in that island, with interest and costs ; and the question was, how the amount of current money was to be calculated in sterling money ? Oa the part of the plaintiff it was proved, that in Jamaica 1401. currency was estimated as equal to 1001. sterling. For the defence it st , as proved that 22f per cent. premium were paid upon bills rtf exchange drawn upon England, and it was con tended on the part of the defendant that this premium . being changed into currency and added to the 1401. would make the teal rate of exchange 1711.105.. For the plaintiff, however. it was insisted that the rate of exchange ought to be calculated at 1401. currency for 104'1. sterling ; and under the directions of Lord Ten. terdan the Jury found for the plaintiff. the defendant having leave to move to set the verdict aside. The Liarned Counsel now contended that the real rate of the exchange was shown to be 1711. by the premium paid at Jamaica 'for bills on England. Rule Nisi granted. LANCASTER V. °REAVES. In a former Term a rule Nisi bad been obtained to set aside the nonsuit in this case, and enter a verdict for the plaintiff for tool The action, which was for false imprisonment, was tried at the Westmoreland Assizes, Wore Mr. Baron Hullock, when it appeared that the plaintiff had contracted with a person of the name of Hullock to make a road near Windermere, and build a wall within a certain time; having failed to fulfil his contract, as information was laid against him before the defendant, a Magistrate of the county, who committed him to prison under the Act of the 4th Geo. IV. C. 84. The question now was. whether the plaintiff came within the description of persons contemplated by the Act, as subject to the interference of the Magistrates ? The Comm. after bearing Mr. Courtenay and Mr. Aglionby against the rule, said, that although the in formation described the plaintiff as a labourer, it ap peared before the Magistrate that be did not stand,with respect to Hullock, in the relation of a servant to a master, but in that of one man contracting with an. other, and that therefore he did not come within the description of persons contemplated by the Act.—Rule absolute. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jams as. WILLANS V. TAILOR. This was an action for a malicious prosecution. The defendant was the proprietor of a gaming house in Pall Mall, at which the plaintiff lost considerable sums Of money. The plaintiff's brother brought an action to recover three times the amount, under the statute of Queen Anne, and the plaintiff was a witness on the trial, upon which occasion he swore that he had lost certain sums at the defendant's house on the 4th, sth, ,sod Sib of April. For the defendant. however, witnesses .-were clii)ed, who swore that the sth of April in that "year fell on Good Friday, and that there had been no play in the house either on Good Friday or on Sunday. They would not swear, however, that the play of the Thursday night did not continue beyond twelve o'clock, and thus run into the Friday morning. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant brought a writ of error, and ultimately brought the case before the House of Lords, where the judgment of the Court below was affirmed. The defendant also preferred a bill of indictment against the present plaintiff. which . bill, however, was thrown out by the Grand Jury.— He then preferred a second bill, and went hiniselt before the Grand Jury to be emmined. This bill was found. When the case was ready for trial at the Sessions, Taylor lodged a writ of certiorari, re moved it into the Court of King's Bench. The plaintiff was thereupon obliged to procure fresh bail, ned a Clerk of the prose , cutot's then attorney called upon the wawa to whom he had applied to become bail, and endeavoured to die suade-thees, by divers misrepresentatioas, front so doing. For three years the prosectuot climbed by various ex pedients to keep the proceeding suspended over the ties head; and when at length the plaintiff compelled him to come to trial,Taylor bianself,although inCourt all the time, and although mg a previous occasion sworn to be a material witness,.was not examined. TheJury,witb• out hearing any evitipnce on the part of the plaintif f returned a ?erdict of acquittal. This was the prams , tion complained et, and for which the present action was brought. Ofi the trial of the action, it appeared 'that she Jury had paused before they returned their verdict and upon this grimed, as Well ai the contradiction with respect to the play on Good Friday, Lord Chief Justice Best held that the plaintiff, although he had proved es press malice,had failed to prove the absence of probable cause, and thetefore his Lordship nonsuited the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Caoss now moved for a rule to show cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the ground. as he contended, that the plaintiff had given some evidence of the want of pro bable cause, and that therefore thecase ought to have gone to the Jury. The Learned Sergeant went over the principal facts of the case, and dwelt upon those cistern. stances which, in his opinion, amounted to evidence of the want of probable cause. The Courts granted a rule to show cause. MILLS O. COALETT9 CLERK. This was an action for false Imprisonment, tried be fore Mr. Baron Vaughan, at the last Assizes for the county of Suffolk. The plaintiff was charged before the defendant, who is a Magistrate and a Clergyman, with having unlawfully and maliciously cut, broken, barked, uprooted, and otherwise destroyed a tree. of more than the value of one pound, the property of Dr. Baddeley. In the depositions, the plaintiff was stated to be the occupier of the land on which the tree grew. The Reverend defendant,.however, committed him to take his trial for a felony, under the 7th and Bth George IV. in conseqbence of which he suf fered several weeks' imprisonment in the county gaol, and was discharged by proclamation. It was for this imprisonment that the plaintiff sought to recover com- Pensation in the present action. On the trial two ob jections were taken by the defendant's Counsel ; one was, that the notice of action proved on thealefeodant, in pursuance of the directions of the statute for the purpose of enabling him, if he thought fit, to tender amends, was dated from Half-moon-street, Piccadilly, London." there • being no such place in London, but in Middlesex; the other and principal objection was, that the Magistrate, having been merely guilty of an error of judgment, in discharging his duty in a case over which be had jurisdiction, the action did not lie. It bad been admitted by the plaintiff's Counsel, in his opening address to the Jury. that the defendant had not been actuated by any personal malice or corrupt feel ing towards the plaintiff. The Learned Judge declared his opinion that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. but to save the expense of a new trial, in case he was mis taken, hedirected the Jury to estimate the damages. The Jury accordingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Farthing. Upon which his Lordship directed the plaintiff to be called, giving him leave to move to set aside the non suit, and. enter a verdict for a farthing damages. In the course of the last Term Mr. Sergeant Storks obtained a rule nisi to that effect. Mr. SergeantWana and Mr. Sergeant Russect. now showed cause against the rule, contending that both objections were fatal to the action. The plaintiff was not sworn to be the tenant of the _land, but merely an occupier, and might therefore be a wrongful occupier. But supposing he were the tenant, still there might be circumstances under which he would be guilty of fe lony in cutting down the trees on the estate. The act made no exception in favour of tenants or occupiers wbo cut down trees belonging to others. But even sup. posing the defendant had committed an error of judg ment in his construction of the Act, unless he acted cot. ropily and maliciously (which was disclaimed here) he was not liable to an action. With respect to the notice, it was dated from a different county altogether Irons that in which the party resided, and was therefore in sufficient. Mr. Sergeant &oats, in support of the rule. argued that the charge in the present case did not amount to a felony under the Act of Parliament, and that therefore the Magistrate had no jurisdiction; and having no kiwis diction, he was liable to an action for the consequence of his mistake. The Learned Sergeant cited a case from " Cowper's Reports," in which a Magistrate. who had convicted a party of a second offence on the same Sunday, in baking his bread. contrary to the injunctions of the Act of Charles, was held liable to an action, it being decided by the Judges that under that statute re peated violations of the Sabbath only constituted one offence, and therefore the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction in convicting of a second offence on the same day. As for the notice, it contained that descrip tion of the street by which it was best known, and con . trendy could not mislead the defendant. If he wished to render amends, he knew where to send, and that was all the Act required. The Loan Curer Juszice was of opinion that the Outwit was right, and that therefore the role must be discharged. The only question for the Coen was, had the Magistrate jurisdiction to hear the charge ? Now the charge was conceived in the very words of the Act of Parliament, for it charged the plaintiff with having maliciously and unlawfully cot, broken, barked, Up. rooted, and destroyed a tree of the value of more than one pound, the property of Dr. B .ddeley; and that was declared by the Act to constitute a felony. It had been always held from the time of Croke, Charles, down to the present, that where the party was charged with felony the Justice was not liable. On this occasion the plaintiff was charged with felony in the very terms of the Act. But he could tot help here observing, that either the Magistrate or his clerk had acted most re. piehensibly in taking down the depositions of the wit. tresses in the express words of the Act of Parliament. insteadof according to the true statement of facts. His Lirdship by no means acceded that the occupiers of land were exempted from the penal consequences of this Act, if they cut down trees belonging to the land lord. As, for instance, where trees wet e excepted room a demise, there the party to whom the land was de mised, if he cut down any of the trees, was liable to as action of trespass and not waste; and in his Lordship's opinion, therefore, might be guilty of a felony under this statute. But it was • not neces sary to decide that point at present. In the case referred to in Cowper, the moment the Magistrate convicted for the first offence he became/auks officio it and therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the subse quent charge. In the present case he did not exceed his Jurisdiction - in hearing the charge; and therefore nothing but cerropt or malicious motives (which were disclaimed here) would render him liable fur a mistake; and even theta it would be in a diftrent form of action, With re- I spect to the point as so the notice of attion, his Lord- *hip would gise no opinion upon it now, as the decision of the principal question rendered it unnecessary. Mr. Justice Pans was of the same opinion. He bad - rd yesterday that 80 bills bad beers thrown oat by the Grand Jury at the Middlesex Session ; now, if the doctrine contended for here on she part of the plaineit were correct, they might 'have 80 actions to try in this Court against Magistrates for false imprisonment, al though moat probably the usornsietals were perfectly' correct and proper according to the evidence. His Lord ship also took - Occasion to animadvert on the conduct of those btagiseratmor iheir clefts who dare to take done depositions from , witnesses in dm very words of an Act of Parliament. One of his Lassoed Brothers bad com plained that this practice had prevailed all mad the Circuit whichohe had•gone hst•spting. He (Mr. Jos: lice Park) took this opportunity of giving. not , ca, tint he should fine every Magistrate's clerk whom be iluruld find doing so on the Circuit which he should be upon. Mr. Justice Boanotrun and Mr. Justice GMIELZE concurred.--Rule di,cbarged. MAYOR'S COURT. CHILD AND MAHN V. THE CITY OF LONDON. Yesterday this case, which is one under the New ' 1 London Bridge Approaches Act, came on before a Jury, at Guildhall. The COMMON SERGEANT, •Me. BOLLAND, Ind Mr. Mast House were for the City; Mr. PLATT , 'BA MM. and Mr. BULLOCK. were for the claimants. The COMMON Sastogatrr stated the case. The chi& ants are attornies, and they sought for compensation. under the new Act, for the loss they sustained by being compelled to give up their premises, consisting of apartments on the first floor of the house No. 128. Upper Thames•street. It was rather extraordinary to see Gentlemen of the profession of the law come forward and make a large demand for loss of business in the same way as a retail shopkeeper would, whose whole trade perhaps depended upon his situation—in other words, upon chance custom. No, no, the law was not .subject to such contingencies. A tespectable solicitor did not depend for business upon casual passers by, upon persons who might step in by mere accident to purchase a little law, as they would to pur chase a penny bon,or to get fitted with a Chancery suit, Is they would with a pair of ready-made breeches or shoes—such an idea was quite preposterous. The busi ness of a proleisional man depended upon his connec tion and skip, and provided be had the first and a re putation for the last, it mattered but little where his offices might be, provided he was within a reasonable distance of his clients and the public offices and courts of justice. The following are the items of the claims, which caused some in Court to mule. - - By the loss of practice, occasioned by the said Francis Child and Charles Mann being compelled to quit their offices, No. 121, Upper Thames.ureet ; and by the loss of time occupied in looking out for offices, • and is the removal of the books, deeds; and papers X5OO 0 0 By the loss of half a year's ran of the offices, N 0.128, Upper Thames.street, it bring absolutely essential to get premises as near as possible to the previous situation; and there being no possibility of getting any eligible situation for that purpose,without taking them as from the half quarter before Christmas 42 10 0 By the expenses incurred in removing to the present offices .. ... .. .. 53 1 8 Unexpired term of 11 years, at Si years purchase 247 10 0 Fixtures remaining ea the premises, as valued . ---- £V43 1 $ The claimants bad, it appeared, already removed to a place in which they transact business. The Committee of the Bridge House Estatesoffered the defendants the sum of five shillings in order to bring the case to trial. Three Surveyors proved that the apartments in goes- Oen had been rack rented, and therefore the lease was of no value. The tent of 701. per annum now paid for them was the full Annual value. Mr. PLarr very ably contended, that the removal of the house in which his clients carried on business, was calculated to be very injurious to the business of an at- I I tomb and called witnesses to prove the injury. • A person, who had been clerk to the claimants, stated that they bad good connexions and business. The business, which had been increasing, was to the extent of about 1,5001. a year. Therhad fifty, or pvhaps a hun dred clients, and they ran the hazard of losing clients in consequence of the inconvenience of the place in which they now carried on business. Many, witness thought, of those who used to have their law business done by the claimants, would not go to the present place to have it done. On his cross examination witness said, that the claim ants had lost nothing by going from the borough, ss here they formerly resided, to Thames street, but that they must lose by leaving Thames street; many of the clients lived at the other side of the water, and although they were some of them men of great akuence, they would not like to pay pence a piece to cross the Southwark Bridge to go to the office; there was one gentleman, and a very liberal one too, who was worth upwards of 100,0001. and that gentleman would not like to pay a penny. The RECORDER—What, if he had to transact business to the amount of 2,0001. or 3,0001. would he hesitate Ito pay a Peony ? Witness did not mean that, but the rich man would not like to pay a penny to cross the bridge; thought the claimants' demand of 5001. for the injury of removal very moderate, and that 2,0001. ought to be the amount demanded—(A laugh). Another witness stated, that the common law business of the claimants was very good. The preteut offices were inconvenient, because a client had not the facilities of dropping in and writing letters to refresh the memo ries of debtors. Other witneves were examined as to the prejudice caused by the removal of the business, but nothing of a satisfactory nature was adduced. Mr. Elem, a respectable surveyor, considered'. the apartments to be woith 1001. a year. The RILCORDiII bummed up, and told the Jury to make a Lair assessment. but not to allow themselves to be influenced by any fanciful matters. The Jury retired, and returned a verdict, assessing the claims as follows—Lease, Is. Goodwill, I s. the other items, including fixtures, 1471. 16s. BJ. Yesterday an Inquest was held at the Ship and Last, Greenwich, on the body of John Frowd, a boy to etre years of age. The deceased got up behind one of the Chathaii coaches at Blackheath, intending to ride to Deptford Bridge, to receive some halfpence which the tieitchman had promised him for locking the wheel, when, by some accident, his legs came in contact with the spokes of the wheel, and he was carried round three times, and then tell, and the wheel passed over his chest. He died soon Wien—Verdict, Accidental Death. Sunday evening, between seven* and eight o'clock, a most lamentable accident occurred, between the south end of old I. ondim-bridge, and St. Olave's stain, to four young men returning from an excursion to Green wich in a skiff, unattended by a waterman, all of whom. were io the service of Mr. Rohner, ironmonger, High suet% Borough, by which three of them—namely, John Carter, 15, James Carter, his brother, 22, and Thomas Longstaff, s'ol, lost their lives; the fourth, John Any, 21, was saved with difficulty by a waterman plunging his oar in the river as be was sinking, to which he clang; and was drawn into his boat. The accident was occa sioned by the current dashing the.skiff against the newly made dam adjoining St. Olorees stairs, on their attempt . ins molest Ina arch of the bridge, The body. of Julies Omar was picked up 3writetday afternoon 'at Battl* ..bridge gain, Tooleystreet. . POLICE 11.11trittat"SCE. GUIDIDHALL. Maris Ilearee. a wilidresenl young Man, was charged wile snaking an unprovoked ansadiagenus attack upon Mr. Bottle, of Seaca Mr a l l o gi elle hated, that in returning hems tbrough 'Wearier,- toed, in a chaise, with a friead-on Sunday evening, defeattant, who was gate a stranger, overtook him in a gig, and without th e least provocation commenced whipping complainant's mare with the greatest fury. Unaccustomed to such naitsient, the m a d e k sudden spring. and new aims the road at her utmost speed till she reached the bridge. No mischief fortunately occurred. 'the de. fendant, upon being asked for his card, spin •began to flog th e complainant • bone. The defendant, in reply to the charge. said be had been out spending the day, and had no recollection of what bad occurred. Hr. Buckle said. that after this explanatioo he had no wish tO carry the case further. and consented to the defendant being di,. charged upon condition that he paid al. to the Girls' School of It, Sepulchre's Parish. BOW-STREET. A CCAIMANT TO THI THHODII.WIN , WAI /wale, landlord of the Druid's Dead, Merivale, St. Andrew's. city of Worcester, w a g brought up (or creating a disturbance at the Secretary of Street Oilice for the Home Department, demanding, as hi. right, MI. Throne of these Heaton. Among other documents !underlie SF RICHAKD liaise, was a certificate of his baptism, as the not d r i William and alaiy Davis, and also a copper coin, the sine of halfpenny. with the letters W. 1.. en it, which he stated to bait been found in the I.le of Anglesey, among what -he called the ancient Britons. which armed to be the amount of the proof be could advance of his right to he created Sovereign. Sir RICNAIIa BIRRIL seeing the state of bin mind, allowed him to proceed; when he stated that it was a most rascally thing that he should be kept out of trace by. Popery, and the spiritual power. Do yea believe that the Archbishop ut Canterbury can make a piece of groused holy any more than the Pope c .n forgive alas? Sir It. lustre—l don't interfere in these matters, nor much an. demand them. Lewis—No; and it', very little you do understand. Sir It. Bootie-1 don't know that I have stale with you yet. Lewis—The sooner you do the better, fur it is a very pretty thing for the Bishops to be tucking the blood, and the very marrow of the poor in this way—pray. Sit, where is the King ? Sir it. Blame—l really don't know, I have nut seen him to-day. Lewis —Pray where is the Court of Kacise? (Among the papers mentioned above, was an Backe receipt for £6 14,. which he desired Sir Rimiest) would take care and get fur him, as well as many others which he bad paid, and which he could have no right to pay). Sir Itteasaao—You had better apply to the Comniisaineen, Lewis—l9l thank you to do it for me—l shall have no chance; lawyers are sent by his Majesty to Oxford and Cambridge to bats the art of roguery, and after taking an oath, are legal men to rob the country. and the poor man cannot get justice? Sir itscinan—Pray answer me one question—where did you sleep last night? Lewis—At the Turk's Head, Old Kent-road. Sir Wein ao•—Have you a change of linen, and any clothes there? Lewis—No ; my boa and clothes are at the-Secretary of State's Office. This was corroborated by the dicer who term* him. Sir RICHARD—WiII you give me the key? and I will take care that every thing in it shall be taken care of, as well as yourself. Lewis—That is all that I want. Ile thenleft the office in custody, apparently quite satisfied with the result. - - - hUths Trimbey, a watchman, residing in Westminster, appeared before Sir RICHARD Blame. and made the tollowing charge azalea his son (a boy not quite eleven years of age), viz. of robbing him of three shillings on Wednesday last. and of absenting himself from house till Saturday night, just about the time be was goal on duty. Bring atraid to leave him at his lodgings, from his former conduct, be took hint to the watch-house. He stated be had already bees twice a prisoner ; and only on Monday last his fatter bought him a pair of laced shoes, which be pawned in the corns of that day for two shillings; in fact. his conduct has Owego atrocious, that he was obliged to proceed to the extreme. Committed to the Quarter Sessions Inc trial. MARY-LA-BONNE. James Maier. a footman, was yesterday brought before Mr. Ram meatus. the Sitting Magistrate. charged with refusing to return als livery to Lord Teralmsa, in whose service be bad been. Vicinities Holloway, globoids: to his Lordship. banded in a won addressed to Lord Manfeeds tie any of abs Magiestates at tie: Office, stating that the dekndest had been in his service, salsas discharged at his own desire, but refused to give up his Lomblip's livery ; and, upon his going to demand his wages yesterday morning with the livery on be was brought to this Mite. Mr. RAWLINS)), inquired what the defendant bad to say. The footman replied that he gave warning on the itetk of he month, and that on last Thursday a new footman sons, sad be bad Do place to sleep in. and that be was obliged top em to get a bd.—The butler here offered the defendant the money winskas (defendant) alleged was owing. if be would restore the livery. The defendant replied." Who's to find me in clothes until My month is up ?" and refused to accept the money. • - Mr. RAwunsost said he regretted that it was not in his pant to interfere.—Tbe prisoner was accordingly discharged. M A RL BOROU G H-STLtKRT. A man named Mims 211essipseM was placed yetierday al & bar. before Sir G. Fastigiate, charged with stealing a newspaper from a respectable coffee-house. The practice of purloiniag news. papers and publications from the colfge-houses at the West-end be become notorious. The prisoner went into the shop, and she taking some refreshment, took up one of the papers, end went um of the shop. He was pursued and taken into custody. Sir Gulags ordered the prisoner td be remanded, for die evidence of a young woman who bad witnessed the robbery. QUEBN4QU A RE. Alward &ado, a shabby-genteel fellow, with a club-foot. was charged by Wm. Lovegrove, of Knightsbridge, rating house keeper, with devouring the following sundries, at the sainetime not Isivieg the means to pay for them. It appeared that the defendant woo into the complaisant's shop, and coaled foe a plate of roast memo, bread. Ike. which he goon .finished; be then bad two cups of colt. two eg4s, mad two roll and batter; these soon vanished ; Est WA bad a ditto, after which be complained to the landlord that his Mb were cursedly mall and asked for a good substantial slice of the loaf, with moo gist and :ate; which be &swabbed. Oa the lagidlord demendisg payment for these sundries. be "wiled that Is bad not a farthing to pay for them, and he was given into custody. He bad no money in his pockets. He refused to give any 'coats' of himself or of his place of abode, and be was detained. MARRIED. • Yesterday, at St. James's, by the !tee. G. Andrews, Moab F. numb, to Miss Jane Hendrie. DIED. At St. Mary's Parsonage, Brldgenorth, aged 21 years, Summit Sine, wife of the Rev. 11. PoUnteney. At FalrlieM, near Boss, Isabella, wife of Lens Wolf, Esq. late Consul to Ms Danish Majesty at the Court of London. 1. SUCWOATE'iwo LRADENMALL MARKETS, Jun M. Beef... .. ...Ss ad to as sd Veal ... Ss 1041 to 4s M. Mott= :..3s 44 To SslOd I Pork Ss ad to as 64 Lamb Ss Od to 6a 4d' PRICES or HAY arm STRAW YESTEADAY. ST. JAMES ' S wrirocoarit. Hay 41 is bd to 51 Os 04 I Hay Si Os to 41 44 ei Clover 5115 s Od to 51 Sa Od Clover 51 10$ to 41 Held Straw 21 .1 • • Od to 21 7. Od I Straw 11 16$ to 21 510 i PRICE or TA LLOW, SOAP site. Town Tallow 40$ Od Yellow Soap ... 70 .1 Yellow Russia ... I 39.04 Mottled . White dine OA I Curd . - 4 : Soap ditto —s 04 Graves /deities .. 32s Od Good Dregs . Is" HOF& Market steady, inalatailleg the advance isjosierw. OM estimated at from &MAN le £55,000. The mamma Ns unfavourable to the growth. _..• PRICE OF LEATHER. Best Dressing Hides Common Ditto • Crop Hides, 55 to 401bs for cutting Ditto 45 to SOlbs 1314 to lted Calf Skins, 56 to 401bs ...... Ditto 60 to 701bs Ditto 70.t0 80Ibrv. ... .. Small Seals, Greenland) . 9od to 2ld Tanned Horse Hides ... ... .. sod to led Spanish Horse Hides ...... COAL MAILIC/It, Jos Mi. Ships at Market. Ships Sold. Frio. , 511 Newcastle 45i 244 a M 51. 71 !7* Sunderland ! I} • a s oil to TO it i GIN. w ATER at LONDON-BRIDGIC TO.RIORROII Morning 4 minutis atter T L ..Attegooon - • 41 inblites aft' 7 tows: 'Priatad aad T•abilabediaT Jelaritalia; die Pig. ° at the Seas Ovni No Plekoillee, VW alg! In • Tim 7.14 • 1 Md. reel • 611 Nig at Al • Its dleAn PAW D iii 4 *el dors Issim Corti 114 Os Sok .. Fi again OM M tie t Dr.. --11 - A nu =tt 1.1 = Celli Ur. Nest 0y Dr: A Ach the (whl pew - 4 WIC thigh X is. I Win Om COSA 4e• b?' N" Dig /0. Doi eih • 1 w►l led dee Des boo , I el• awl kb