Star. — London, England, 1827-07-11 00:00:00

I of the autho•, except at the high peril of paying da ma•ges for his honour and high-minded integrity. L•)rd TENTERVIIN, in summing up, said, that every Man Who wrote a book, was liable to fair and just cri ticism, and the only question for the considera•ion of the Jury was, did the criticism cast upon the plaintiff, of not, reflections which .were not called for by the. state ments contained in the book itselt ? If the J,lry thought it did, then the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict; but if they did not think so, the defendants were entitled to a verdict. He should put the books and the News paper into the hands of the Jury, with this single ob servation, that it seemed to him, that a man who had thotight fit to repeat, and publish to the world, the ap pellations of " Bear," and " Beast," applied.to men, the , friends of his early life, was not entitled to great da• mages from any person who happened to b►ing to his recollection, that he, in early life, also bore another name. The Jury having deliberated for a few minutes, found a verdict for the defendants. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 10. WAILES 9. GIB AND 011YERS. This was an action of treipasr, in which Christian Fiederick Weiles was plaintiff, and John Adair Gee, William Nesbit, William Macbeath, and Wm. Cooper, defendants. Gee pleaded that he was " not guilty," and the other defendants that they had acted as they had done with the leave and licence of the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant '%VIt.Da stated the case. Mr. Wailes was a person in delicate health, residing in the neigh bourhood of Chelsea, and the defendants, tin - believed were attornies, or attornies' clerks, at least Gee was an at torney. It appearerithat the plaintiff had had several trans actions with Gee, who had obtained a note of hand from him and his wife, and on the day in question when the trespass complained of was committed; he had issued two writs against the plaintiff and his wile, and having sent far a sheriff's officer, desired him to accompany the other defendants to the plaintiff's house for the purpose of arresting them. When this party arrived at Chelsea, the parties were out, but they watched their return, and on the door being opened forced their way into the house, where they so much terrified the plaintiff and his wife, that they succeeded in extorting from them a bill of sale of every thing upon the premises. The Learned Sergeant would nit detail the circumstances under which this instrument was obtained, as he should call the sheriff's officer, who was present during the whole of the transaction. That it had been obtained, however, by very improper means could not be doubted, when he said that on an application being made to Lard Tenterden, that Learned Judge had ordered it to be cancelled, Gee being unable to shew that it had been legally obtained. He thought that when the Jury had heard the testimony of his witnesses, they would consider that serious damages were necessary to compensate the plaintiff for the injury he had sustained. Joseph Warmsley was then called.—At the time of, this transaction, which was on the 28th of Feb. last, I was a sheriff's officer, and had two warrants in my pos session, the one for 191. 19s. against Mr. Weiles, and the other for 131.145. against his wife. The writs were dated the 28th of February, and were brought to me by Mr. Nesbit; they were both at the suit of Mr. Gee, who is an attorney. Nesbit desired me to meet him the next' day at Mr. Gee's office, which is in North-street, Red Lion square. I went accordingly, and found Nesbit, Cooper, and Macbeath in the office : they are clerks to Mr. Gee. We all went to Chelsea by Nesbit's desire ; he was to shew us the place where Weiles lived. Gee did not go. Macbeath and Cooper went in a chaise.— Nesbit, with my assistant and myself, went on foot.-- Weiles lived in Marlborough-sqUare,Chelsea, *here we all went. After waiting some little time, we saw Mrit:, Weiles going into the house. Nesbit pointed her out to me ; she appeared to be a middle aged woman. I emoted her, but did not take her away t this was be fore she got into the house. I afterwards went into the house, and arrested Mr. Weiles. I was going to take them away with me, when Nesbit said he dared say the matter would be settled without, and he proposed to Weiles and his wife that they should give a security. This was very shortly after the arrest. He said he un derstood they had some furniture in the house, which, if they would make over to him, should be a discharge to the action. I cannot say 'why he desired it should be made over to him. He did not mention Mr. Gee. Weiles and his wife said they would sign any thing rather than be taken out of the house. They were both extremely alarmed and frightened at being arrested. During the whole of this time the door of the house was fastened, and 1 had the key. They were in my custody, and 1 wculd not allow them to go out of my sight. I cannot illy positively who brought me the key of the door. There appeared to be nobody in the house but Welles and his wife. When they had consented to make over the furniture, Nesbit asked Cooper and Macbeath if they had a stamp wish them? They replied that they had not, but that they could soon obtain one, and im. mediately Started for that purpose. The door was kept continually lo:ked, except frit- the purpose of letting these persons out. I did not see Gee there at all during any part of the transaction. When Cooper and Macbeath came back, they produced a stamp, and an instrument of some sort was drawn up. Weiles was asked to let them have some tea, which he gave them. I believe a little gin was also produced; Nesbit had asked for some ; it was all drank. When the stamp was brought, Nesbit desired one of the others to fill it up, which was done, and the plaintiff and his wile signed it. They were told it was a bill of sale,and its nature was pointed out to them. We remained in the house altogether for about three hours. Nesbit made use of improper language to Mrs. Weiles, and beheired himself in decently towards her. a Cress•examined by 11r. Sergeant TADDY.—No violence was nude use of getting into the house: as soon as the door was a little open, we pushed in. There was not more than sixpenny worth of gin. I was anxious to take Weiles and his wile away, but Nes bit particularly desired me not to do so. Siporamined.—Aa inventory was taken of the goods by Cooper end:Nesbit. William Thompson, the assistant to the last witness, was next called, and fully confirmed his evidence. The summons issued by Lord Tenterden, calling on Gee to chew cause why the instrunient he had obtained should not be given up to he cancelled, was then put in and read. Mr. Sergeant JONES appeared for Gee, and Mr. Ser. geant TADDY for Nesbit and Macbeath ; Cooper was undefended. Mr. Sergeant Jotres submitted, th it as no evidence hid been given to :hew that Gce was a patty to the, transaction, he should be discharged. Mr. Sergeant WILDE contended, that Gee was an in terested party, and was liable, inasmuch as he had adopted the act of the other defendants, as appeared by the part he took before Lord Tenterden in support of the instrument they bad obtained. The LORD CHIEI JUSTICZ was of opinion that this to shew that he had adopted dm act of the others, and he therefore held that he could pet be • acquitted. Mr. Sergeant taring addressed the Jury fOr Nesbit and Mitcbeath. He contended that the defendantshad beendbilty of no trespass —they had not broken into the house, nor had they done anything to constitute g tres pass. On the contrary, it appeared by the evidence that Nesbit hid been the means of rendering a kindness to the plaintiff, and had actually prevented their being taken to prison. wh ch the officer had an undoubted right to do. Under these circumstances, the Learned Sergeant thought the Jury would consider this a case calling for very trifling, if any damages at all, as it ap peared the plaintiffs had suffered no personal damage, nor sustained any loss by the instrument they had signed, as it had since been cancelled by order of the Couit of King's Bench. Mr Sergeant JONES, for Gee, contended that the part he had taken when the application was made to Lord Tenterden, was not sufficient to spew that he had adopted the act of the three other d-Pendants. The LORD CHM' JUSTICE summed up very briefly, . _ telling the Jury the plaintiff had a legal right to recover for a trespass: to what amount, however, was peculiarly for their consideration. It did not appear to him to be , a case calling for any aggravated damages, further than that Nesbit's conduct had been proved to be most abo minable to Mrs. Welles, which ought certainly to weigh in their minds. The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plain tiff—Damages, 201. COURT Ott EXCHEQUER, JOLT to. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL F. FISH AND coLtina. This was an information filed by his Majesty's At torney-General, agaibst the defendants, respectable to bacconists, of St. John's-street, Smithfield, to recover a penalty of 501. for sending'out a pound of segars a certificate. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. With whim Was Mr. CLARA and, Mr. WALTON, opened the case. He statsd that previous to the Ist and 2i.1 Acts of the pre-ent King, every, trader was obliged to get a permit . for sending out any quantity of tobacco above lib. weight. That measure was thought too grievous upon the traders, and by mere recent Acts they were obliged to enter all quantities beta een 111 a. and 101 b. in a book, and send a certificate with it. All quantities under a pound were to be entered in anther book, fur- Dished by the Excise for that purpose. Oa the 17th of 1 lest February, some Excise officers were making a search pa the premises of a tobacconist named Roberts, in St. &An's-street, Smithfield, nithin 100 yards of the de fendant's house. They discovered a considerable de ficiency. in Roberts's stock, to bide which a 56 pound weight aas smuggled into the scale with the tobacco; that, however, was disSoirered, and during the search a servant of the defeudenti brought in some tobacco in parcels, and one parcel containing a pound of segars., The tobacco had permits, but the segars had no certifi ciAi. 'he Officers of course, examined the parcels,hud, ending no certificate, seii.d and condemned the gegars. The man who brought them instautly left the shop. He (Mr. Scarlett) then called the three excisemen who snide the search, and *rived the following factts---Nb•entry had been made atirtsh of,Opound sent ; they were straw segars, and at the. time of the con. detonation, weighed exactly a pound with the paper. One of the witnesses stated that it way an even pound ; with the paper would make it a good potind. , Mr. Tne.ssicatt, for the defendant, attempted• by cross-examination to prove that the pound of segars seized was nor full pound of tobacco, as laid in the, information. The &menet-GENERAL produceddefendantss book for' small entries, and proved that it had net been enteredlhere. The facts of the seizure were else" proved, and that the duties alleged to have been evaded was'3s. The case having closed for the Crown, Mr. Tit ESSIGZR addressed the Jury for the defendants. Nothing, he obsertird, could. be more captivating than the cool smoothness witli,Which This• ease was opened by the.Artorney-GeneraL fie bad admitted the re spectability of the defendants, who had in fact been in business earlier than the life of the Advocate who was addressing them (Mr. 'l'.)' and it woedd be for them to judge, whether men of such stability conldbe guilty of detra•iding his Majesty's Blind of Excise of the immense sum of three shillings! The Attorney-General had not been able to screw himself up to the belief that the defendants had committed a fr aud, and had not even accused them of it, otherwise than by insinuation. The case in itself was really so ridiculous, that he T.) could not have addressed them with gravity, if the case had not been harsh and oppressive towards his clients: There was his Majesty's Attorney General, assisted by two of the ablest Crown Officers, solemnly pressing for a sum of three shillings; and yet the case seemed of so weighty a nature, that they hardly seemed to be able to bear it amongst them-,(Laughter.) He admitted that it was an unfortunate coincidence, but nothing more; and it was the first time he had ever beard that no distinction was to be made between inadver tency and criminality. The condemnation had been brought forward to put' a gag, as it were, in their mouths concerning the weight of the tobacco, but he would yet overcome that objection;foe - he *Mild prove that the straw of the segars weighed at Wit fieN an ounce, and it would thus be for them to detide whether a pound of segars, including straws, .were a pound of tobacco? The Learned Gentleman then called a servant of the defendant, v.ho proved that a poUnd of segais had been borrowed from Roberts by defendants, and that the segars in question were intended as a re-pay ment. The segars weighed a pound; including the straws, which weighed about half an ounce The ATTORNEY GENERAL however proved, by cross etamination, that a pound of segars had always been entered, both to the Excise and the defendatitecustomers, As a pound of tobacco. The Learned Counsel then re plied for the Crown, that the defendants bad subjected theniselves to a penalty of 1001. fur not having entered them as being less than a pound in the Excise book.a- He had made them a pound both with the Excise and his customers, and it remained with them to say, whe., ther be could now, for the purpose of evading the pe nalty, contend that they were not a pound ? The LORD CHIEF BARON left the question to 0,4 Jury, remarking, hre,vever, that the condemnation had always been received as conclusive evidence of the weight or quantity. The Jury retired, and after an hour's deliberation, re turned the following verdict—" We find for the de fendants, because there was not a pound of tobacco." ADMIRALTY COURT, JULY 10. THE ANN. This is a case which has been very often before the Court, and has been argued in a great measure per ant rum. It is an action to recover the penalty of a bond given for the due return of a vessel to the port to which she belonged. The bond war given by th two owners of a moiety of the vessel, one of whom is the Capta'n, to the assignees of the owners of the other moiety, who have become bankrupt ; and the laver having to .inn t,. believi that there is an intention to keep the vessel away from England for an indefinite time. for the 'sole benefit of the owners in poisession, and to the prejudice of the co-owners, commenced this suit to recover the penalty in the bond, which is not of an unusual kind, being particularly mentioned in the present Lord Ten terden's Treatise on the Law respecting Merchant Ships. Dr. Jesse Aunaws, on this and on the preceding day, contended, that from the length of time the vessel had been absent from her port (Whitehaven) prosecuting voyages from Leghorn to Gibraltar, America, &c. but never visiting this country, there was no intention she should ever return—a fact established by the master and co-owner, who bad said she should never come back to Whitehaven again. He therefore called upon the Court to pronounce the - bond forfeited. Dr. LUSHINGTON, on the part of the absent owners, stated that the ship had been kept so lting at Leghorn, owing to the impossibility of procuring a cargo, that she was at present upon her voyage to Belfast, and ] might be shortly expected at Whitehaven. Some discussion here took place alto whether the bond was was not absolutely forfeited? Lord Srowsu., however, declared that he should gig., one month longer, and if the vessel did not arrive at some port of the United Kingdom within that period, he should pronounce the bond forfeited. - TUE A itErHUSA. • This was a case of salvage. The Atetbitta; 'bound from Liverpool to Nova Scotia, with a cargo worth. 17,0001. during a severe gale on the night of the SOth of September, was run on board by the Lewis, amAme tican, in the Irish Channel, and sustained considerable damage in her masts and rigging, though no material injury was done to her hull. The ensuing day, the Lord Blayney, a steam-vessel, bouts(' from Dublin to Liier pool, with a cargo of horses, black cattle, and sheep, valued at 1,8001. come in sight of the Arettiu,a, which had a signal of digress as wt II as a signal for a pilot, hoisted, and although the wind was loul, towed het that night into . Liverpool. For this service .501. was originally tendered, which sum, on the present soil . being brought, was increased to 1001. this tender was rejected by the salvors. Dr. LVSHINOTON and Dr. DODSON, for the mariners on board the steans-vesel (the owners being no party to the suit), contended that the services readered by tht Lord Blayney were of a valuable character; that the cargo of that vessel was of a perish.ble nature, and that there was only fuel on board for about an hoot beyond the period of her.mrival at Liverpool. Dr. Jamie,: and Dr. PIIILLISIORN considered the statement to be inflamed ; the service tendered was little more than towage; and the Lord Blayney was not di verted Irom, and but little delayed in, her voyage.. Lord Srowatt. observed that the period ot the year was a dangerous one, and it . was ma much to say that the service rendered was not signal. He was of opinion that the tender was much too small. Heshould give 3001. IN THE MATTER Or THEIR SLAVES. This was an appeal from the sentence of the Vice Ad miralty Court at St. Kitts, in a prosecution under the Slave It gistry Act. The case is as follows ! In May,1824, Mr. Milts, the owner of an estate and negroes at St. Kitt's, sent the three slaves in question from that island to the adjacent island of Nevis, under the same Government, in order to assist in the salvage of a vessel in danger near the latter island. These staves had been duly re gistered, and previous to their embarkation the record of their -registry had been exhibited to the officer of the Customs at St. Kitts, but no certificate was taken from bibs agreeably to the regulations ot the Act 59 Geo. 111. e. 120, which required that such' a certificate' should accompanta slave-embarked on board'ship to be sent to another colony. An officer of the eitstoms, named Randall, thereupon seized the three craves, and insti tuted proceedings byinformation in the Vice Admiralty Court at St. Kitt's; and, asuo . appearance "fulls en, and' no claim was Wide on chi pail of the owner, the Court, without examining witnessesiondentnid thealaves to the Crown.Alor the violation of the lave and Ifieabsence of a craiinant , and they have since been enfranchised. The owner. however, in•the mean time, astride applica tion (in July, 1824) to the Custorin.house in England, praying the interference of the Commissioners, who, having received a statement of the facts from their officer, took upon themselves to direct die negroe; to be restored to the owner, and that proceedings in the Vice- Admiralty Court should be ended. This mandate be. came inoperative by the'previous sentence of the Court, from which the owner asserted an appeal. The Knao's Any CATE, for the Crown and the re. spondent, defended the sentence, which was in strict conformity with the Act of Parliament. The Court was not called Ilion to inquire into the motives of the owner in shipping the slaves ; the provisions of the Act were imperative, and the Court was bound to uphold the policy of the slave laws. Dr. Lustuaoros, on behalf of tile former owner of the slaves, submitted that the sentence was conforMable neither to the strict letter of the Act of Parliament, nor to the equitable construction of it. There had clearly been no intention of Violating the law in this case ; the slaves had been employed in taking out the cargo of the salved vessel, and the absence ot the certificate was en tirely owing to the hurry and the emergency of the moment, which did not admit of the necessary delay.l The reason why no claim was made in the Court be low was this—the slaves were worth 2751. and the ee.l penses of defending the suit would have swallowed up their value. Mr. Mills therefore preferred applying to the Commissioners of the Customs, who, though they had not the jurisdiction they assumed. of slapping the I suit or of interdicting their officer from proceeding in his capacity of prosecutor under the,Act, had authority over him in his capacity of their servant. He (Dr. Lushiugton) admitted that these Sieve Acts were to be put in ex-cution with perfect sttictittess; but there was a difference between doing this, and perverting their enactments to the prejudicelof:slave owners. The Learned Advocate then proceeded at some length to contend, that the terms of the Act did hot comprehend negroes pot on board a ship,.not tribe conveyed to ano ther island, but merely to aid in an emergency like this, When not a moment was to be lost. The Act, moreover, excepted mariners. The KING'S ADVOCATE observed, and was followed by Dr. Dunsow, that the Act excepted mariners as to certain regulations, but expressly required a certificate of registry to be obtained, on pain of the forfeiture of the slave. Such an evasion of the law might (he did not say it was so in the present case) be employed for evil purposes. All he had to say was, th.t the regula tions of the law had not been complied with. Lord SzoweLL—The Act of Parliament requires ► tt I 4 was su • 'I, • • „ • , • , • . • . • that the slave should b. ;ng with him certain dlcurne,r,. All the ext.sise alleged toe that not be;ng done, is r!- e hurry attending the transaction. N r such exeelse is allowed in the Act of Parliament, nor is there all , deuce of it. It comes in no shape befote the C o q, t , b y which the Cr,urt can possibly admit it. lain sorry tor it, bccruse the case is a hard one, but I must .tE in the sentence. The appeal was, consequently rejected, the sentence affirmei, and the tense remitted. The KING'S ADVOCATE applied for the costs, but Lord Sruwau. declined giving them. POLICE IN IELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSR A case which is considered of some importance to the mitten W the city of London, came on yesterday before the Loao A. 4 The officers of the parish of Sc. Peter-le-Poor havi• g • ti . sue. l . arnongpt the claimants for support a man who was forme rly rl in a.. very respectable line of business, and who had once rented furintheal apartments in White Lion Court, Birchin.lane, at the rate ut 544 per anuum and upwards, applied a short' time agu to tne Lour MAYOR for an order of removal of the pauper iu.the parch ui ComhilL In this application his Lordship did not acl'ce ' he was of opinion, that in order to establish a claim upon parish, it a arisl s i iiwould be necessary to prove that the pauper had paid rent to th; amount of 101. per annum upon unfurnished apartment and that the : h c or, le d c onfin e d factstaproduced. produced .t r yesterday, eye upon t an d ks ai dim a t a argued e ptj to persons upon n o tf the ot hsthe much ,elah the fact of the premises being furnished was a bar to the s pauper's t o claim.—The case was put into the hands of Mr. Hobbler, jun. the Loans Mesiost said, that he would willingly listen to any ao linponante. dwr b i l i t7Ho w b il l i e ch r sta ni te i d gh ver cal authorities h w ic h h ic h h e which passed in 1819, all settlements depended upon the statute 13 o fettled in any tenement of the yearly value o; £lO, and who might reside thereon for forty days. By the word testament, in its ex. tended sense, everything that could be holden was intended, (a , Bi. Com. b. 2, c. 16); bat in its confined oe vulgar acceptation, it denoted only houses or other buildings in which persons dwelt. it was this sense which the Act 13 and 14 Car. It. seemed co hive contensplated when the word "tenement" was used. Now, acting upon that construction, part of a house had been consi dered a tenement, and in Rex v. Whitechapel," Bolt 154, a furnished room was held to be a tenement, without rualsitg any distinctioti as to separating the rent for the room and the furniture. The doctrine bad also been carried so tar as es rule that the master of a charity school, at a fixed salary, remov able at pleasure, who lived seven years in a house attached to his office, rent free, gained a good settlement, Rea es Lakeuheath,) 1 Br. C. 531. It bad also been ruled that a person return( two pieces of ground, on one of which stood a cottage where he resided, and each of which separately taken was under stiO value, though jointly equal to that sum, gained a settlement, (N. P. 1. 27). Aid the reason of this and similar determinationsveas, that apetion who was capable of being tenant of premises ut £lO annual value, should not be supposed likely to become chargeable toe parish. iNow,ifa man renting a tenement of Xi() annual value, before 1819, gamed a settlement, the rent he paid must be taken as the critcnon.of the value of the tenement demised; and that this opinion was wended stn correct principles,—vis. that the rent alone was the material pert to be inquired into—it had been held to be a sufficient holdingd such a tenement to gain settlement, it the tenant occupied fur forty days. The rent, therefore, being the criterion of the 'aloe, and a part of a house, even though furnished, hems c.iiisidered a viol tenement to gain a settlement, it had been ruled, that where the Sessions found that the amount of the rent paid was mote than HY per annum, the Court would conclude that the tenentent was sf that value, although it was stated that some personal chattels were likewise demised as furniture, and firing found by the landlord by the week (Res v. Whitechapel). Also where a stock ail hones, ropes, and other thinga necessary for working a colliery, were de mised with the colliery, the benefit derived from occupying those moveables was not considered pa. reducing the value below 101 because there appeared no separate value tot med or applicable to MOOR things. Mr. Hubler contended, that upon those arguments and ded ,fens, it was evident that the pauper bad gained a good senti ment, (or as there was no separation of the demise into so myth (or rent, and so much for furniture, it niust be taken as a whisk; but even after estimating the value of the articles which wets demised with the tenement he occupied; yet at the utmost liter could not reduce the value of the tenement below Aid, and its that ,ease he would be an occupier of a tenement of the value of £lO. The Loan MAYOR said, that he considered upon this shewbg that he was justified in making the order of removal. Mr. Hobler added, that in the cases of Ladies of a certtio de scription, we all knew that aome of them had lodgings for which they paid at the rate of two, three, and four guineas a week. The, Luau Mayo& with a smile said, that he was not aware of that fact, although Mr. Hobler might have reason for knowing it. Mr. Holster said, that it would be moot unreasonable to seppow„ that persona who peid at so enormous a rate should, upon a gnevoin exigency, be denied parish relief. The Luau MARRS agreed in this view of the subject, and stated, that if the parish of Gambill thought proper to dispute the order, they must make their appeal at the Quarter Stations. _ The order was accordingly made out. Application was made to the Lord Mayor to manumit ten slave, the property of a Gentleman in the island of Barbadoes. It wa mentioned on the occasion that an act of Asseinbly was about to pass in Barbadoes, in order to facilitate the manumission of slaves. It would then be unnecessary to apply m this country upon any oc casion of the kind, as the deposit of £5O or £lOO required by the overseers of the poor would no longer be considered necruary to be made. The object of making manumission in this country is, for the purpose of avoiding the expense incurred by the proceeding lin the island—expense which in many instances retards, and in rime totally checks, the merciful intentions of humane slave proprietors. Several slaves have been manumitted by the Bishop of liarbador+ and Lord Combemere, since the departure of the latter for India. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. A respectable looking lad was charged with having picked the pocket of down Petoyski, a Russian Nobleman, of a valuable ea snuff-box, on the Bth of June last, near blivart's Hotel, in Upper Brook-street. As the Count was at present on the Continent, the prisoner was remanded. BOW-STREET. Yesterday a Slaughtertnan was charged, before Sir Ricease BMUS, on suspicion of receiving four bullocks, for the purpose of Wag slaughtered, knowing them to be stolen. It appeared that on the night of Sunday last, four bullocks, the property of Joseph Whailer and John French, of Plaistow, Ewes, Were stolen from a field belonging to the prosecutors, who, CIDII4 RR immediate pursuit, succeeded in tracing their property to a slaughter.hoese in Newport-market, a few hours after the filmy was committed. The beasts had been slaughtered and prepared for ale, but their hides were discovered and fully identified by the prosecutors. The prisoner being the person who, according to his own admission, received the beasts from the supposed thieves, was suspected to Ce aware of the robbery. He denied, however, all guilty knowledge of the transaction, and said that two own CROW to the daughter-house on Monster morning, at four o'clock, driving the beasts before them, which they directed him to slaughter, desiring him to mark two of them with the letter D for Davis, and the other two with the initial F. for Fox. They told him that they lived in Paddington, near the Regent's Park, where they had lately taken a shop, and that they would send for the offal when the beasts were slaughtered. A man was accordingly sent to the slaughter-bola , with a cart drawn by two dogs, to whom the prisoner said he der livered the offal after the beasts were killed. No person, however, had conic forward to claim the carcasses. After ext Friday, when h lo e n n g be ex w am ill in b a e tio brou n, the ::t pr u is p o z e r r r w e es eiansin rems a n t ted n, it is expected additional evidence will be produced. untiln and w MARRIED. At Brussels, on the 2.3c1 of June, William, son of Str George Pigott. Bart. of Innishannon, county of Cork, to 11.. met, daughter and heiress of the late General Jeaffreson and the Y countess Gormanston, of Dalllnghans House, county of CambUiJfr• At Boston, Lincolnshire, the Rev. John Jolland, of Anderby,to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of the Rev. B. Gue, Vicar of Boston. Rev. Montague tiecrge Lascelks Wynyard, eblen Plll of tbt Rev. Montague Jobn Wynyard, of West Rounton, In the count!' .:f Yo: k, to Anne Pulleyn, youngest daughter of the late Thomas Mosley, F.•q. DIED. A rt, geidn 1,7 71 0 . rSingk.r Thomas Beauchamp Proctor, Ba r t . of Wd e Pa G ATEjt at LONDON-BRIDGE TO MORROW. Morning 24 minutes attrr 4 Memo's 43 minutes ate Losigaur the *rats • 21 of of ibu Nog aD lady. N- Irmo ••Il=.M. • : 4,61. • Sr - G Illr J. Sta. St S CAPI their 1 In Years, *he la Ins* leen htl Om I brim wits a WI metal Per lireitat Per If a da Oil Um a pa ion pi SE Prim Water Ti d V Pits . ii basil • g Was at Yu Mire Viat - eri B U WWI -reds he of amid and th and p e , rod e d 3 twine• Teel► geld one 73, Pr resert, Vends loped' *try h LE toit; mh at 4,1 uze i door s, by th 103 . C siltrat P y i shed e. Jottn e 3iATll, the Prtrrie : ea; V ~s'i Pat i . I . ow