Star. — London, England, 1826-10-20 00:00:00

CANTERBURY, Ocr. 19. It has been well known to the inhabitants of this part Of the county that a most formidable gang of smugglers has long existed in the neighbourhood of Allington, and It was generally supposed that the various gangs which have so often put the Preventive men to defiance, were organised and prepared for action at this spot. How ever, it is, we believe, for a time broken up, by the ap prehension of George Ransley, the Captain (is he was called) of the gang, and some of his associates. On Tuesday morning, between four and five o'clock, a body of the Preventive Service, consisting of about 120 men well ar - med, norched up from the coast to the heights' of Allingoon, *here they surrounded the house of Ran sky, and took him, with seven others, into custody.— They were marched away in the midst of the escort (handcuffed) towards the coast.• The names of the pri soners, we bear, are—George Ransley, Gilliam, Wks, two Doyleys, and the two nor,. ANOTHER ACCOUNT, PROM A CORRESPONDENT. A considerable party of armed seamen was landed from two ♦essels in Dymchurch Bay, in the night of Monday last, accompanied by their Officers; and (we are informed,) a smuggler who had been previously 'taken by the Coast Blockade, and who has given im portant information relative to the fighting party, and who, on several occasions, protected the running of contraband articles on different parts of the coast of this county and Susser. On proceeding to Allington, Bilsington, and Ruckinge, they captured in his bed the lamed Captain Bats, and seven others, whose residence and persons ware pointed out by the informer, and im mediately conveyed the prisoners on board the vessels, and proceeded to the Downs. The whole business was Managed under the direction of Lieutenant S. Hellard, R.N. and it is to be hoped may have a good effect in preventing the outrages, and defiance of the law, which the approach of winter caused the respectable part of the community to apprehend. Many rewards, it is said, have been offered by Government for their apprehension. THE FETCHAM MURDER. From the examination of the Chelsea pensioner Cart wright, which was given in our Paper of yesterday, it would be perfectly obvious to our readers, that he was not implicated in the murder of the infirm old man John A kehurst and his aged housekeeper, notwithstanding his self-accusation. It was, however, considered proper to make inquiries at Chelsea, to learn whether or sot he had asserted the truth with respect to his being dis charged from his Majesty's 46th infant, y regiment. and as to his having passed the Board at Chelsea on Wed nesday the 1 lth inst. With the view of obtaining that information, Johns was dispatched to Chelsea, and there he learnt that Cartwright did pass the Board on the day above named. The officer likewise ascertained, that on the same after noon Cartwright was drinking at the White Hart tavern, Duke -street, where he seemed to be known. The land lady said, that she was surprised he should have con ducted himself in so ridiculous a manner, as he was a steady man, and by no means inclined to drunkenness. Johns learnt also, that he was drinking on Thursday afternoon at a public-house in Oxford -street, which he left at a late hour in the afternoon, somewhat inebriated. It is therefore quite manifest that he could not be the guilty wretch who murdered the unhappy old people at Fetcham, being in Loadoa the whole of the night that the deed was done. r.Ca LOWELL, on discharging him, told him not to act in so foolish a manner again, when he chose to indulge in liquor. " That I will not, your Honour," replied the old pensioner, " you may depend upon it. It was ex ceedingly weak in me to assert what I did." Its discharge, and what little money was left out of his pension, were then given him, and he quitted Union Hsf , saying he hoped sever to enter that door again. On the preceding evening the man Armstrong, who Was taken into custody at the Caledonian Arms public house, Mary-la-bonne, the day before, accused of utter ing some expressions :fa mysterious description respect ing the murder, was brought from Mary-la-bonne Office, by Hewitt, and was also discharged. The story be told about meeting with a gipsy named Hayward six weeks back near Staines, who mentioned to him that there was a rich old miser living near Esher, and that he would have his pony and cart, if true, which perhaps may be most reasonably questioned, the miser spoken of could not by any possibility be the poor old man Akehurst. The latter, it will be remem bered, had not been out of his bed for some years, and, moreover, he had no such thing as a pony and cart in his possession. Hall and Pople have been absent two days, having received intelligence which they anticipated before they left London, might possibly lead to something which •would tend to elucidate the mysterious affair. At an early hour yesterday morning Urassmith set out for Fetcham, accompanied by the two gipsies, Walker and Draper, whom he apprehended in the neighbourhood of Windsor. They will be confronted with the witness Isaac Sheath, who met two men and a woman near o:kthot on the morning that the murder was disco vered ; but should they be the identical parties, as per haps thty are, that fact will prove nothing, unless coupled with other circumstances. In all prhbability, t!.ey will be discharged by the Rev. Mr. Bolland. Lady Cochrane is said, in the French Papers, to have left Geneva on the I 1 th, on her way to Italy, with the in tention of embarking for Greece to meet her husband. In the Court of Requests, Castle -street, yesterday, an apothecary named Sneitch, of Brydges.street, Covent Garden, sought to recover 11. Is. from Mr. Wilson, a tradesman in the neighbourhood, for attendance on Mr. W. West, the comedian, who, it appears, had taken pcison a few months ago, and went into Mr. Wilson's shop, who called in medical assistance, and INlr.West recovered. Plaintiff said he should look to defendant, Mr. West declining to pay him. The Court awarded the apothecary .ss. for attendance, and Is. 6d. for an emetic, which, it appeared, had been furnished from Mr. Wilson's mustard pot ! Tuesday evening, as Mr. B. Caddy, a local preacher in the Methodist connexion, was on his way from Sher .borne to Holwell, for the purpose of delivering a funeral discourse, he was taken ill on Gainsborough Hill, and requested the driver of a cart, which was passing, to sutler him to ride. The driver consented ; and after a short interval, on turning round to inquire how he did, discovered that he was dead The Duke of DEVONSHIRE, it h said, intends making a variety of alterations and improvements to his Mansion in Picca dilly, atter his return from Russia; one of which is fronting the building with stone, and instead of the present brick waU, which forms with the gates the entrance to the court-yard, is to be taken down, and replaced by the low screen, surmounted %tith the beau will colonnade that now decorates the principal front of Carlton DEATH FROM STARVATION. Yesterday evening an Inquisition was holden before J. W. UNWIN, Esq. at the Shears public house, Chequer. alley, Whitvcross.street, St. Luke's, on the body of an aged female, Mrs. Ann Barawall, whose death was occasioned by starvation. When the Jury was empanelled, they proceeded to view the body, which lay in a shell in a miserable hovel in the neighbourhood. The apartment containing it was destitute of even the common articles of furniture, and so desolate did it appear, as to attract tk attention of the Jury, who asked some questions in explanation, in reply to which, it was stated that the only article dis. coves ed after the wretched woman's decease was a flock bed, which was in so loathsome a state, and infested with vermin, that to prevent contagion, it was thought advisable to coibmit it to the flames. The corpse itself was in the most emaciated condition, and round the neck and shoulders exhibited some marks of discoloor. ation, which being observed by the Jury, they, on their return to the inquest room, asked the Coroner if any medical evideece was provided to satisfy them of the cause of them, as also of the deceased's death. The Coroner (to the beadle)—Have you, as I directed, given the parish surgeon notice to examine the body ? The Beadle.—l waited on Mr. Wilks, sen. the vestry clerk, to know whom I should call upon to perform that office, and that Gentleman said, as the parish board had determined to discountenance employing medical men in such cases, he would not think of putting the parish to an expense on the present occasion. He told me I might employ whom I liked, and let the county pay fur it. Not knowing what to do, I did not employ any one. The Coroner.—This is not the first time I have had reason to complain of the want of courtesy and atten tion of the authorities of this parish. In all the other parishes in and about London, the parochial stvgeon examines the bodies of such persons as inquisitions are taken on. I formerly had to threaten an overseer for refusing to provide a surgeon to examine the corpse of a murdered man, and it was only on his being warned of the consequences of his neglect that he consented to do so. (Turning to the Jury). if, Gentlemen, you should think it necessary to have medical evidence to satisfy your minds, it shall certainly be procured. The inquiry was then gone into. Susan Smallwood examined—l am nine years of age; on Monday night my mother told me to go and see how the deceased was. She was ill; I believe, some time before ; I went as I was desired, and found her in the house where she now lies. On going up stairs I found the door ajar, and on opening it I called out two or three times. I received no answer, and on going in I discovered her lying on the bed ; she was quite dead, and cold at the time. I gave an alarm, and Mr. Giles came to my assistance. The last time I saw the de ceased alive was on Saturday week: Edward Giles examined—l am landlord of the house in which the deceased resided. I did not see her for some days previous to her death ; she was, I understood, unwell ; the last time I saw her was when I was called on by the last witness. On entering the room I found her stretched on a miserable mattress • she was quite dead, and rolled up in a heap; her clothes were on her. I have heard she used at times to solicit alms, and that she bad a scanty allowance from the parish, which she found great difficulty in procuring. I saw no marks of violence on her person. 1 think she died by the visita tion of GOD. Comma—Have you any reason to think she died of want? Witness—l certainly have ; and, indeed, it is beyond a doubt. On Tuesday week, by the desire of some charitable persons who were in the habit of relieving her, I called at Mr. Price's, the acting overseer, to inform him that the deceased had determined to go into the workhouse. When I got to his residence he was not at home ; I saw Mrs. Price, who asked me in an abrupt manner what was my business ? I informed her it was to see her husband, in order to get the deceased into the poor-house ; she next asked me how long she had lived with me? and Itold her three and a half years; on which she observed, "I ought to support her myself." f re plied, that having a large family of my own, it was out of my power. She was very angry at my interfering, and having said she would inform her husband of the application, who would see about it, she slammed the door in my face and went in. No further =ice was taken of her distress, and neither Price, the overseer, or any one else, called to see her. She was 60 years of age. Juror—ls it true that when she before applied for relief, Price threw a quantity of water on her? Witness—l have heard she did. (Shame! Shame!) Elizabeth White examined.-1 live at No. 8, Bridge water Gardens, 01d-street Road ; my husband is a smith. The last time I saw the deceased alive was on Friday, between one and two o'clock ; she then told me she was dying for want of food. I was preparing some broth at the time, and prevailed upon her to take some; she ate only a teacup full, when she was quite exhausted and fell asleep ; in this she continued till past 4 o'clock, when she awoke, and went away. She about a month ago told me, that on her applying to Mr. Price for relief, a pail of water was thrown over her. The deceased was a sober, industrious poor woman • she received the principal part of her support from Mrs. Smallwood and myself ; but she latterly was so feeble that she was un able to call upon us. lam certainly of opinion that she died from starvation. Sarah Smallwood examined—l live with my parents in Sun-court. About 17 months since, I was coming past Mr. Price's house, the -relieving overseer of St. Luke's parish, when I saw the deceased at his door.— Mrs. Price came out, and exclaimed, " Got along with you," and at the same time threw a part of a bucket of water over her. (Horrible ! barbarous!) She frequently called at our house in tears, complaining that she had been to Mr. Price, who refused to do anything for her. I have heard her threaten to go to a Magistrate, and have Mrs. Price punished for her conduct towards her. Juror—How is it that this Mr. Price is continued so long u 17 months in office ? Another Juror—He is a perpetual acting and relieving overseer, and though there are other officers annually elected, the entire ma, nagement is left to him. The evidence closed here, and the Coroner, in sum ming up, said, the question principally for the consider ation of the Jury was, whether the death of the deceased was to be attributed to the neglect of the parish officers? That their conduct was blameless Was more than he would venture to say—yet he did not think that the evidence went far enough to inculpate them altogether; he would therefore recommend to the Jury to bring in a general verdict, without implicating any one. The room was then cleared, and after a quarter of an hour's deliberation, the following verdict was announced- 4 ' Died from want of the common necessaries of life." A greater number of petitions against the returns of Members to serve in the Parliament are expected to be presented to the House of Commons after its meeting, than at any period for the last forty yeas, after a General Election. SPORTING INTELLIGENCL NEWMARKET SECOND CTOBER MEETiNO. Newmann's:, Tstunsonx. Match-200 sots. It. ft. D.M. Doke of Grafton's Goshawk, Sat. 51b. . . I Lord Exeter's TiraiDeur, Ist. 51b. . . 2 S to I on Goshawk. Won by a length.. Stickle rade the winner. Handicap Sweepstakes of 10 sows. each. T.Y.C. Mr. Rogers's Muleteer, let. Mb. . • • 1 Lord Wharncliffe's Scandal, Bat. 10Ib. • . . e Lord Exeter's Palais Royal, Sat. 10Ib. . . _ _ S _ _ _ 6 to 4 on Muleteer ; 7 to 2 agst Scandal; 4 to 1 apt Palate Royal. Two paid. Won by five lengths. Wheatley rode the winner. Match-200 son. D.M. Lord Exeter's Recruit, Bst. 21b. • . 1 Duke of Grafton's Paul Jones, list. 91b. . . 2 Aya x 2to 1 apt R nit. Won by a length. Robinson rode the winner. Han to of £lOO f or 4 y ea r o ld s a nd u p w a r d s . A.F. Lord G Cavendish's b. b. Bi za rre. 6 yrs, 8 5 t.101b. ; 1 Lord neon's b. h. Sligo, 5 yn, sit. 61b. . 2 Mr. Stephenson's br. h. Logic, 6 yrs, Itst. 41b. . . $ 7to 4 apt Bizarre; sto 2 apt Sligo; 6to 1 ;get Ball Dog. Eight started. Three placed. Won by a length. ,mall rode the winner. Match-100 sous. T.Y.C. Mr. Payne'. c. by Hollydock, 7st. 111 b. . . 1 Mr. Greville's Fawn, 9st. sib. . . . 2 6to 4 apt c. by Hollyhock. Won by ten lengths. Connelly rode the winner. The Town Plate of ,e5O for three yeas oM, 7st. 41k. four, est. 41b. five, est. 111 b. six, 9st. llb. and aged 9st. 41b. T. M.M. Mr. Pettit's br. f. Rigmarole, 4 yrs Mr. Stephenson's br. b. Logic, 0 yrs - - Mr. Dilly's b. c. Wamba, 3 yrs • . 3 6to 1 apt Rigmarole ;6to 1 agst Logic. Eight started. Three placed. Won by a neck. Robinson rode the winner. Match-200 soya. h. ft. T.Y.C. Lord Rseter's Redgauntlet, 9st. 71b. . . . I Duke of Grafton's adorls„ sat. 71b. . • . I 7t04 on Redgauntlet. Won by three lengths. Robinson rode the winner. Sweepstakes of 100 sees. each, 60 ft. colts, list lib. fillies, est. 41b. D. I. Mr, Grevilk's bL c. by Whalebone ; Duke of Grafton's ch. c. Norman . 1 Mr. ThornkilEs c. The General . . 5 5 to i asst bL c. by Whalebone; even on Norman; 6 to 4 apt The General. Two paid. Wou by twenty lengths. R. Boyce rode the winner. Match-200 roes. D.M. The Duke of RutliacAdel6,llK. 2117;iie. 150 SOTS' from Lord Orford's Grimy Bst. 9lb: LAW REPORT. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Om 19. taxar..—isumitznoadist V. DANCES. This action was brought by the plaintiff against tbe l defendant for publishing a libel. The defendant pleaded—Not Guilty. Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case to the Jury on behalf of the plaintiff. He would have to occupy a consider able portion of time in stating all the facts of this clue, and then he would leave it, with perfect confidence, in the hands of the Jury, to say what compensation ought to be made for the injury done by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff having become acquainted with the defendant, and having been about to publish a work, the publication of which he bad actually advertised, the defendant, by a long libel he had published, had most materially prejudiced the sale thereof. The plaintiff began his life as seafaring man; he had been the captain-of a ship, and for some time occupied in engage ments in that line, He had resided a very considerable time in the East, and become acquainted with the seas in those parts, as well as with the manners, habits, lan guage, and commercial dealings of the natives. A treaty having been entered into between thermatives of India and some English traders, that a negociation should be carried on at Bombay, the plaintiff was to travel there, and after they were carried into effect, he was to hold a station there. He did start for Bombay, but having met with several accidents, he was detained for a considerable dine in his way to Bombay. In the course of his journey, he met with Mr. Bankes, who was then travelling in the gut for his amusement, at a convent near to Jerusalem. Their acquaintance soon be came warm, and afterwards as speedily grew cool.— ' They made short tours together, and particularly one to the ruins of Jerash, near the river Jordan, which occu pied seven days. At a subsequent period the plaintiff visited the spot again, and made ample notes of his journey, which continued for ten weeks; these notes the defendant knew of, and saw. The defendant also bad made notes of a tour through the same place; after. wards the plaintiff made up his mind to publish a book,, containing an account of his observations, to be called Travels in Palestine, and had advertised the publication of it in the Calcutta newspaper, of which paper he him self was at the time the proprietor and editor. A sum mary of the chapters was also published, one of which stated Dgerish was a place that had been explored and described. This advertisement having met the eye of the defendant, without taking time to see whether the Travels in Palestine were to contain a description of Jerash only, and having well known that the plaintiff had visited the place more than once, and had taken full notes, he, with unequalled jealousy and passion, wrote a letter containing the language now complained of. This letter had been decidedly written to meet the ' eye of others as well as that of the plaintiff, for it was sent to the plaintiff unsealed- and open, by a friend of the defendant's, a member of the East India Company, and with a request that he would shew it to others. The letter was dated Thebes, 12th June, 1819, and began by stating that he (the defendant) could not but address the plaintiff as the basest of men. His hand-writing, he was sure; was known to the plaintiff, for he had seen it, copied is, and was about to turn it to his own account.—The plaintiff had seen his manuscript, and practised the basest imposition by being about to publish it as his own. Any notes that the plaintiff had taken, had been taken at the request and from the di rection of the defendant ; many of them had been put down by the defendant's own hand ; the defendant had sketched out the plan of the "Ruins of Jerash ;" the ex pense of the whole tour had been defrayed by him; and the plaintiff would have to be laughed at for attempt ing to be a draftsman and an explainer of antiques, not being able to know the difference between Turkish and Romish architecture.—The letter concluded by accusing the plaintiff of being the most ignorant of the most im pudent and fraudulent pretenders. This was the effect of the letter, and the Learned Counsel contended, that a more unfounded and unmanly attack had never pro ceeded from the pen of any man. The fact was, that the plaintiff had copied none of the defendant's notes, nor had he used the sketch made by the defendant.— The expense had been defrayed between the two, of the seven days tour, which only amounted to 50s. each.— The defendant knew that the plaintiff was eng.4ged in tilling notes for future use: and it was very important to be recollected that the advertisement of the woi k ap peared in October, 1818; that the plaintiff's manu script was immediately sent to this country, which ar lived early in 1819, was instantly published, and ap peared to the public six months before this abusive let ,er came into existence; and the Learned Counsel hoped ...he Jury would visit, in the stronge4t possiblemanner, ,he writing of this letter, It had caused the pla intiff bit- WIT to regret the day he had been introduced to the de fendant, and to set that event down among the very worst of the very bad perils, that in the coarse of hu• man affairs, beset the wayfaring man. H. W. Hobhonse, examined by Mr. HILL—Was in the East India Company's service.; had refused to see the solicitor, who wished to take down hi , evidence ; received the letter now put into his hands from Mr. J. Bankes, the defendant; this was at the end of 1519, at Trieste; it was unsealed then; witness teed it at tl e rime; believed the letter was sent to him from Mr, Bankes; had conversation with Mr. Bankes about this letter before it was written ; can't describe the tooser. 'Won ; the conversation was partly about the lett' t. The nature and object of the conversation was th t Mr. Bankes had fallen in with Mr. Rockingham, slaw. where in Syria, who was about to publish a work, that he thought very unfair with regard to a publication tl , at the defendant himself was thinking of; and that he had written a letter, a copy of which he would send to wit ness; the defendant said something-about what he was to do with it; believed he had the note from the de fendant accompanying the letter ; the note proiuced was the note, which witness did not know there was any secret about. Witness at this time thought of going to Aleppo. Shewed the letter to Mr. John Palintt, of Calcutta ; thinks also he sheered it to Mr. Erskiae, an officer filling an office in the Supreme Court of Bombay, son of Sir James Mackintosh. Has no recollection of shewing it to other persons. Did not immediately, but did ultimately, leave it with Mr. Palmer. The note was this November 16th, 1818," signed le W. M. Banker," and addressed to witness,--« Dear Sir,l have found this morning, the rough draft of my !etter to Mr. Buckingham, upon first getting sight of his advertisement. I have transcribed it, and sent it to you enclosed. There may be verbal vatiat . ons in it from that which was sent, since I kept no duplicate of it; but it is essentially the same throughout. Some hues I have prefix-d to the copy, will give you my reasons for putting it particularly into your hands. I should wish you to shew it to my friends in Aleppo, and Mr. and Mrs. Rich. In India you will make what use of it you think proper ; but should you find that the work has been withdrawn, it will, perhaps, be best to be merciful." The libellous letter was now read. The advertisement of the work in the Calcutta Journal was next proved. Other Wien were put in and read, which had passed between the patties before the one of the 12th of June, 1819, to shew that, down to that time, the pureit friend ship subsisted between them ; that the plaintiff never ' had taken the least unfair advantage of any information . imparted to him by the defendant; and that the de ', fendant had the highest opinion both of the talents and honour of the plaintiff. Mr. Murray sworn, examined by Mr. PATTISON lam a publisher in London. The manuscript now pro duced I received about five or six years ago ; cannot fix the time more particularly. When I parted with it, I believe it was given by Mr. Clerke to Dr. Babington this was some months after I received it. _ By Mr. GURNEY.—At the time I got the manuscript back from Dr. Babington, I had not seen the letter Mr. Bankes sent to Mr. Hobhouse ; Mr. Buckingham sent me duplicates of drawings and engravings; cannot say how many drawings ; there were more than two—might be five or six; the rest consisted of old engravings, old French engravings. Those produced are some of the old engravings. Re•exatnined by Mr. BROUGHAM.—Those are some of the identical engravings ; they were not sent back, but, by some mistake of my clerk's, kept; they were afterwards put into the hands of Mr. Bankes ; they are Mr. Buckingham's property; by mistake they were not seat back to Mr. Buckingham ; it was not by mistake they were put into the hands of Mr. Bankes. There 'aught have been more drawings than five or six, but cannot say bow many more. The other eng ravings were sent by my direction to Dr. Babington. had a letter from Mr. Bankes's father before I gave up the docu ments put into my possession. I received a letter from Mr. Gifford, which was such, that I could not publish .the work afterwards, without first giving Mr. Bucking. ham or his friends an opportunity of altering it. The letter I received from old Mr. Bankes I gave up. Dr. Babington.—l am a physician ; I have travelled in the East; I became acquainted with Mr. Buckingham there; I have known him since April, 1815; when in the East we travelled together—this was before 1816 ; I have seen him copy ancient inscriptions—not many, but a few in India; he could copy those inscriptions certainly; he saw the foc4fmiles he made at the time; never saw him make drawings ; saw him in Madras in 1818 ; saw many of his note books in his possession at t h at t i me ; s aw small note books similar to the ones produced; Those I saw contained accounts of Jetash, and those were the statements that were afterwards pub lished. The book now produced, containing sketches, is a book like that which I saw ler. Buckingham have at Madras. After I came home I went to Mr. Murray, to look after Mr. B.'s interest, in pursuance of a letter received from Mr. B. On going there I received back the manuscript in the beginning of 1820. I took the manuscript to Messrs. Longman and Co. cannot say that the book was published from this manuscript. I have not compared any part of the manuscript with the printed book. Mr. Buckingham introduced Inc to some of his friends at Egypt, to Mr. Buckhardt at Cairo, and to Colonel Missett at Alexandria. They appeared to be intimately acquainted with Mr. B. I received civilities from them on his account. Perhaps 20 or 30 drawings were given up to me by Mr. Murray, when he deli. vered the manuscript to me in January or February 20, which at that time he had had in his possession for some months. By the Court—The inscriptions I saw Mr. Buckingham copying in India, were In an unknown language; I afterwards made one of them out, and found It was &merit. By Mr. Gustav—Those drawings were sent to me by Mr. Mur ray, along with the manuscript, hut I cannot say who drew them. I do not know that Mr. Buckingham drew them. By Mr. HILL—Mr. Rees—l am a partner in the house of Long man and Co. We received manuscript from Dr. Babington, and I believe this is the same. We put it into the printer's hands; it was afterwards published, the first edition in quarto, and the second in octavo. By Mr. Gunnar —There were a good many engravings on it. Parts of the publication were read, with a view to prove that the publication was made from tke manuscript of Mr. Buckingham. Mr. Arrowsmith.—l am a map-maker ; die particular map in the book, pointed out, is the reduction of the one I made from the original map that wai delivered to me. The map in the book is very different in its variations from the original sketch. The figures of the buildings differ, as laid down in the two, and there ar e a great many dissimilarities in other respects. I have compared the printed drawings with the sketches in . the little book belonging to Mr. Buckingham, wh:ch Dr. Babington deposed to having seen at Madras, and he found them to agree in ali respects. This was the case for the plaintiff. . • -