Star. — London, England, 1829-07-17 00:00:00

17.&• • 'LAW INTELLIGENCE. • - • • - COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY H. IN THE lAIATTER OF THE HON. WM. JERVIS JERVIS, A SUPPOSED LUNATIC. Mr. Home stated to the Court that he appeared for Lord St. Vincent, and suggested the propriety of all. par ties consenting to this matter being heard in private. The Solicitor-General rose and said, all the persons for whom he appeared objected to a private investigation : I,e was instructed to oppose it, and he must say he was :.stonished at such a proposition coming from Lord St. Vincent. Mr. Home said that an affidavit had been filed II Mrs. Graves; he had not even had time to read it at tentively, and as it was only sworn yesterday, he hoped that time might be granted, in order that (if necessary) it might be replied to. The Solicitor-General said, that Mrs. Graves had come forward in a manner highly me ,itorious ; she would waive all personal feelings, and de , :1.1 her son in the present proceedings; she had, from :.articular circumstances, not been able to swear her affidavit before yesterday. Mr. Home—Mrs. Graves's affidavit is a slander upon Lord St. Vincent. The Soli citor-General—Mrs. Graves's affidavit is no slander ; it is a mere recital of Lord St. Vincent's conduct, and is , :nanswemble. Mr. Home said he must press for time, it: order that Lord St. Vincent might, if he thought pro per, reply to this. The Solicitor-General--The affidavit is supported by numbers of others, and can be (if neces sary) still further supported. It contains nothing but the truth. The Lord Chancellor said, he should allow till Monday, but the fresh affidavit must be filed on Saturday, and the petition must come on the first thing on Monday morning. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jo' 16. IMPORTANT DECISION-BROOK MAII V. ROTIISCIIILD. The Vice-Chancellor proceeded, on taking his seat, to give judgment, as appointed in this case. It appears (said his Honour) that the plaintiff was, in the month of May, 1818, entitled to 20,0001. French rentes, and there was some sort of communication between him and the defen- dant, Mr. Rothschild, who carries on business in this country, and is also a partner with his brother in Paris, carrying on business there under the firm of Rothschild, Brothers, and Co. It is represented that the plaintiff was induced, by a letter written by the defendant, to give an order for the sale of the French rentes. The defendant writes a letter in answer on the 24th of May, requesting a sale of part, upon the receipt of which the defendant does sell, as he represents, the whole of the 20,000 French rentes. On the day following the defendant writes a letter to the plaintiff, which appears to me to be a direct and plain representation that Mr. Rothschild had, in pur- ' seance of the letter of the 24th, made a sale of 20,000 rentes. Now it appears as a fact that there was no sale whatever of the 20,000 French rentes, but that Mr. Roths child took the 20,000 French rentes to himself, giving credit to the defendant for 11,0001. and a fraction, which would be the price of the rentes at the price quoted in the defendant's letter, and invested that eleven thousand pounds and a fraction in Prussian bonds. Now the first question upon this case is, whether that transaction with regard to the French rentes, shall stand ? And my deliberate opinion upon that transaction is, that it ought not to stand. It appears from his answer that he had another transac tion respecting French stock on that very day, and that he himself sold, I think, a parcel of French stock at a less price than that which he took to himself, in respect of taking to himself the plaintiff's 20,000 rentes. But the general principle which this court has always acknow ledged and applied must be maintained in this case, namely, that the person who is the agent to sell, if ho ac cept the agency, is bound to sell, and is not at liberty to take to himself the stock, giving the party an equivalent for it. Now my opinion is, that an individual has a right to complain of a transaction in which an agent does not do that which he has said he would do, and represents he has done, and in a case where ho has done quite a diffe rent thing. It appetirs from what the plaintiff states in his bill, that in point of fact there were 14,0001. in Prussian bonds purchased, because he himself states, that in the months of September and October, 1818, 14,0001. Prussian bonds were delivered to him ; and of those 14,0001. bonds it must be taken that the plaintiff in some way disposed of 12,0001. No complaint is made of the 12,0001. of bonds, and there is an express statement of the circumstances which attended two of these bonds of the 14,0001. It appears to me, that upon this trans action the plaintiff is entitled, at his option, to have the present price of 20,000 French rentes, or to have that amount of rentes invested in his name ; he repaying to the defendant the 11,0001. and a fraction, the sum which he was credited on account with Mr. Rothschild; and I think he must repay that with five per cent. interest. The next part of this case re lates to the purchase of some Prussian bonds. It ap pears that about the month of June, 1818, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to purchase some Prussian bonds, and that he agreed to purchase from Mr! Rothschild 40,0001. of Prussian bonds at 82, 5,000/. at 81, and 5,0001. at 81 per cent. For the Prussian bonds, however, the plaintiff was not able to pay ; and the effect of the transaction} was, that the price of the bonds should be advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff giving his promissory note for the amount. The transaction was carried on according to this understanding, because there was a purchase made— apparently made, of 50,0001. Prussian bonds, for which the broker made out a charge, I think, of 41.6001. and the plaintiff gave his cheque to the broker for that sum. The plaintiff then gave his promissory note to the defen dant for the 41,0001. and a fraction. In October, an account was made out, by which it appeared that the whole amount of the bonds- at that time, 67,0001.. were sold at seventy-five per cent. making a considerable loss to the plaintiff, as he had purchased them, on the average, at eighty-one per cent. With this produce the promissory notes for 41,000/. and a fraction, and 85,0001. were cancelled, but the one for the 4,000/. and a fraction remained ; but a further deposit, greater than covered the 4,0001. was made : this was likewise sold, the note cancelled, and the surplus accountad for to the plaintiff. The question here then is (said his Honour) whether this transaction shall stand ? In other words, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to have paid to him such sums of money as he has lost in the way I have described ? Now I apprehend it was absolutely necessary, in order to sup port the transaction, that there should have been a bona fide purchase of the .50,0001. bonds ; but I think it ap pears most distinctly, from what the defendant himself represents, that there was no such bona fide purchase. I think there ought to have been a selection of the 50,0001. bonds, an appropriation, and a transfer of the numbers of the bonds to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, must in this respect have the accounts opened, so as to have repaid to him the losses he may have from time to time sustained. In the end of 1818 and the beginning of 1819 there was an agreement that the plaintiff should pia dome a large amount of French rentes, and representa tions at various times were made, stating that in the whole 115,000 French rentes were purchased. The plaintiff charged by his bill, that the whole repre sentatiens of these sales and purchases were fallacious -. , and fictitious. The defendant throughout his answer did not venture to traverse the allegation ; the onus lay on him to disprove the accusation, which he had failed to do ; on the contrary, from the correspondence it was evident that there was something Mr. Rothschild had thought it right to caution his house in Paris to keep concealed. Here, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to relief to the amount of all the sums he had lost or ought to have received, at five per cent. interest. Considering, on the whole, the nature of the circumstances, the judg ment of the Court was, that the plaintiff should have the relief mentioned in the course of this statement, and also that his costs should be paid to him by the defendant, Mr. Rothschild. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. JOLT 16. BAYLIS V. COOPER AND COPE. This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff, a pawnbroker, residing in Aldersgate-street, to recover the possession of some plate, or a recompense for the same, it having been taken from his house after he had advanced money upon it, by the defendants, one of whom is the City Marshal, upon authority of a search warrant, under the pretence (as it was alleged) that the plaintiff had obtained it by fraud. The Attorney-General, who appeared for the plaintiff, after several witnesses had been examined, said he was afraid he must be nonsuited, on account of the absence of one of the shopmen of the plaintiff, who was present when the money was ad vanced. Lord Tenterden observed, that it would be the best course to pursue, as the plaintiff would then be enabled to bring another action. The plaintiff was ac- cordingly nonsuited. GODWIN V. FOULKES. This action was brought to recover the sum of 211. which the plaintiff had lent to the defendant, a Methodist Clergyman, residing at Bishop Stortford. The defence set up was, that the money had been lent to the de fendant's mother ; but this could not be proved, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict for the amount due. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 11. iliwk. LIBEL.-SAVNDERS V. MILLS. Mr. Sergeant Wilde stated the case for the plaintiff to the jury. This was an action brought by Mr. Saunders, a respectable attorney, residing at Bristol, to recover com pensation in damages from the defendant, who is the pro prietor and editor of the Bristol Gazette, for a libel re flecting on the character of the plaintiff. This libel was contained in a report of the proceedings at the Gloucester Assizes, in an hction brought by Lord de Clifford against Mr. Saunders for a trespass, and if the report was a fair one, the defendant would have an opportunity of proving to the jury that it was so. The report, however, was a partial one, and reflected so much on the ch aracter of the plaintiff, that he felt it necessary to bring the present ao tion to clear himself from the imputations it contained. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, for the defendant, contended, first, that it was a report of proceedings in &Court of Jed*. tice, and was copied from the Observer; and, secondly. ' that the defendant offered to insert an apology, which the plaintiff refused to accept of.—Tho Observer was then put in containing the libel, and a letter offering to insert the apology, which also had appeared in the Observer.—Mr. Mills, jun. also was called, and proved that his father bad verbally offered to insert any explanation which might be offered by Mr. Saunders himself.---The Lord Chief Jut tice said, that if an editor gave a fair, plain, honest, un varnished statement of the proceedings in a Court of Justice, he might be successfully defended in an action, although it might hurt individuals ; because it was eon ' sidered right they should bo made public. His Lordship was not prepared to say, that giving the mere speech of Counsel, without following it up by evidence, would give the party a right to protection, because Counsel are often misinstructed. To write that a person keeps a poaching 1 establishment, is to vilify him, and therefore, when printed and published, is what the law denominates libel. This did not appear to be a speech of counsel, but it was a statement of the editor. It was but fair that if are side was given the other should be given also. His Lordship then commented upon the publication, end said that it appeared to him to be a libel. Moderate damages would be sufficient. They would consider the subsequent *in duct of the defendant in extenuation of, bat net as an answer to the case.—The jury consulted for about five minutes,and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 501. CONSISTORT COURT, Juar DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS. This was a suit of separation brought by the wle whist Richard William Globe Douglas by reason of adultery. The allegation asserted that the ponies were married in 1815, and continued to cohabit till 1828, during which period four children were born ; that while this eohabite don continued at their residence, Laurel Cottage, the de fendant seduced and conveyed away from her friends Miss Julia Nugent Brett, with whom he carried an an adulterous intercourse, and resided for e °midge able time, under the name of Smith. 'lle judge pro nounced sentence. It was requisite. he said, in suits of this description, for the court to have the fullest proof of the actual marriage of the parties. la his opinion, the peculiarity of the Christian name of the defendant, so much insir3d on as to the gasifies of identity, did not appear quite so satisfactory. The proof of facts may vary according to the circumstances of the case, and this the court will take into its consideration. The husband is now as insolvent in the Fleet, sad the lfact of the adultery had been freely admitted and clearly proved. lam therefore inclined to think the *ream stance of the marriage sufficiently established ; with this view the court pronounced for the separation. WYNN; 0. WYIXI. The snit was commenced in this Court by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, and opposed by allegation on the part of the husband, which asserted that at the time of his marriage with the promoter, she was sot truly • widow as she described herself, but that her former bus band was then living in some distant part of America.— Dr. Dodson, on behalf of the wife, opposed the admission of the allegation. as it contained no proof of the marriage with the person Robert Shaw, alleged to have been living in America ; and was of that vague description which would prevent the possibility of any sontradiction of the artioles.—Dr. Addams, on the part of the husband, said that the proof of the former marriage rested with the wife, who refused to supply the requisite information. The JUDO! said that the allegation, in its present form, was inadmissible, and if the Court should reject it, and compel the husband to take home his wife, and proof should be afterwards ebtained that a former hus band was still living, it would be insisting upon the con tinuation of an illicit connexion between the parties. This, difficulty was perhaps to be avoided by g i v i ng th e hus band further time—for there could be little doubt of a former marriage, the lady having described herself as Mrs. Shaw, widow of Robert Shaw--and if the husband was willing to pay into Court a sum of money as 'ai -1 mony, he would allow him to bring in fresh proofs till next Court day. If this was rejected, the Court would feel itself bound to refuse admission to the allegation. COURT OF DELEGATES, Jur 16. SIR LUMLEY SHEITINGTON, BAIT V. WRITS. This was an appeal from the judgment of Sir John Nichol, pronounced in the Prerogative Court In July, 1828, in a suit instituted by Sir Lumley, for the revoca tion of the grant of administration obtained by Mr. White, the nominee of Sir C. Flower, Shaw, and others, the creditors of the late Alderman Rowcroft. It appeared that on the death of the late Thomas Hubbert, Esq. (the maternal uncle of Sir Lumley), his two sisters, Lady Skeffington and Mrs. Donovan, renounced their prefer able claim to the grant of administration, in favour of Mr. Alexander Hubbert, the natural son of the in testate, who afterwards entering into partnership with Alderman Rowcroft, the estate in question came into his hands ; the Alderman then transferred the estate to his creditors, who recently effected a sale for a considerable sum of money to the present Lord Mayor ; but to enable their so doing, it became necessary (in consequence of the death of Mr. Alexander Hubbert) to obtain another grant of administration, the revocation of which was the subject of the present appeal, the argu ments of which excited the most lively interest, and were most ably conducted by Dr. Lushington, Dr. Jesse Adams, and Mr. Preston, on behalf of Sir Lumley ; and by Dr. Dodgson, Dr. Haggard, and Mr. Knight, on behalf of Mr. White. The Judges, by their decision, re versed the judgment of the Court below, condemning Mr. White in costs of both suits ; and thus Sir Lumley will become possessed of estates which have so long been withheld from him, and which are, we understand, of very considerable magnitude. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, July 16. --.01.-. These Sessions commenced this morning, before the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Recorder, Sheriffs, and City Officers. The Presiding Judges are Mr. Justice Burrough and Mr. Justice James Parke. Bridget Delany, aged 28, was indicted for stealing a gold watch, value 251. and other articles, the property of Lady Anne Bentinck; and Ann Delany, aged 69, for receiving the same, well knowing them to have been stolen. The prisoners are mother and daughter. Lady Anne Bentinck was examined from the bench. Her Ladyship stated that the yonnger prisoner was in her service, and detailed other circumstances connected with the robbery, but in so low a tone of voice that we could scarcely hear a word her ladyshipeakl. J. Ballard pro duced several articles of valuable jewellery, and a large quantity of wearing apparel, which he found at the resi dence of the elder prisoner in Kendal -street, Mary-la bonne, the whole of which Lady Bentinck identified as her property. The prisoners said nothing in their de fence. Mr. Justice Burrough was about to sum up, when the Jury said it was unnacrssary ; they were quite satisfied ^f the prisoners' guilt, and returned a verdict of Glary. Lady Benda& -.e . ,ornmewled the panzer pri soner to luny, on account of the ample confession she had made of the robbery. The Jury joined in the recom mendation, and wished 't also to be extended to the elder .prisoner. as they did not 41ink she was an old offender. Wave Sr. Judas Parka Joseph made:singsikii jamrsi6l;ort were indicted for steeling twin sheep, value thirty pounds, the pro pity of Awry e. The prosecutor deposed that the ; row sheep weft stolen ne of his fields at Walthamstow, on tha Tth of July; and other witnesses gave evidence with a view to trace 'them afterwards to the possession of the prisenars.--Fliteroft, an accomplice, who is known among his associates by the name of Lancashire Jack, was admitted ea evidence. He deposed that he was at White chapel market on the 2d of July, and saw the two prisoners there. Henderson told witness that he had bought some sheep in the country, and having him a recontpinse, requested him to go to promised Lea-bridge with them. They went into a field near that place, where there were some sheep. which Henderson said were his. Wit ness and Wilson went in and took out twenty sheep, which they carried to White's-row Spitalfields. Hender son had left them previously, but he came again to meet them before they got to White's-row. They slaughtered the sheep sad took them to market. Had not the slightest notion the sheep were stolen. It was at night they took the sheep out o the paddock, but this did not strike the witness Le odd. Received a pound for carrying the sheep, in all got 21.55. and the produce of the skins. The wit ness, on re-examination by the judge, said that Wilson re ceived a sum of money from Henderson, like himself, for his labour. Several witnesses were called, who gave Henderson a good character. One of them, named Hig hain..said he believed him to be above the common order of persons. The jury consulted for a few minutes, and found Henderson Guilty—Wilson Not Guilty. NEW COURT.—Before Mr. Sergeant Azasm. David anvil, alias Cavell, aged 70 years, was found Guilty of stealing, on the 2d inst. a pail, value 6s. the property of Messrs. Bennett and Hunt, the contractors for the works in the St. Katharine Docks. The prisoner, who had been already twice convicted of a similar offence, on leaving the dock vehemently protested his innocence, and declared that he would ac qu ai n t one o f hi s M a j esty ' s brothers, who was on the most intimate terms with him, of the injustice of the verdict. Emma Markwell, aged 63, was indicted for stealing, on the 15th June, a pair of shoes, value 10s. the property hot John Harnett. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. It appearing that she was an old offender, and has a son now sander sentence of transportation, and another in the Hones of Correction, the Court sentenced her to two years lila' prisoument in the House of Correction, and hard la bour. Nothing but her advanced age had saved her from being sent out of the country, Elizabeth Walton, a widow, aged 33, was indicted for stealing, on the 10th of June, seven books, two silver tea spoons, a piece of Irish linen, and a quantity of ar ticles of wearing apparel, the property of Sophia Lucas. The prisoner lodged in the house of the prosecutrix, in Ossulston-street, Somerstown ; and about the day named in the indictment, she missed a number of articles, which were found at a neighbouring pavrnbroker's. The pawn broker produced a quantity of property, and proved that the prisoner had pledged them with him as her own pro perty. The Jury without hesitation found her Guilty.— The same prisoner was again indicted, with Elizabeth Bright, aged twenty, for stealing a silk dress, and some pieces of fancy print, value 40s. the property of their employer, Mr. Thomas Simpson, silk mercer, No. 249, Regent -street. The Jury found both Guilty. Mr. Ser geant ARABIN informed Walton, ag ainst whom there is another indictment, that she wou ld be sent out of the country. The import duty on wheat is 3s. higher ; the duty is now 13s. Bd. per qr.—the weekly average is 665. sd. which makes it likely that the duty will be still higher next week. The amount of duty paid on wheat yester day is estimated at 250,0001. Money continues to be-extremely abundant every where but where it can be rendered useful to the industrious dames of society. Letters from Manchester induce the belief that a very serious strike is about to take place there amongst the workmen, the wages of labour being much below the expenses of subsistence, in consequence of the want of money. On the contrary, capitalists, and London bankers, feel much difficulty in gaining a small profit, on account of the &bandana,. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW.STRERT. Yesterday Mr.Tbowass, the conitable of St. Pail, Covent.gud,. complained to Sir Richard Broker a dreadful nuisance created - I": the nightly opening of a place of entertainment called the 3fi a 4 Theatre, in Catherine-street, Strand. Mr. Thomas stated tins*, place was an abominable nuisance, and an encouragement of p ro s i. guy of every description, particularly amongst the juvenile prat of the community.' He went into the theatre at two o'clock es oh d. nesday morning, and there found upwards of SOO of both les e . , sanbkd, the great majority consisting of very young persons, loft of them mere children. Romping and all sorts of indecent re ct a were going on, and when the audience broke up there we. a il . ' turbans in the meet for an hour after. Sir Richard Binds sri t g if the place was licensed, and Mr. Thomas said he believed sit , but at the request of Sir Richard he went to the Lord Masa o ; lahs's office, and ascertained positively that the proprietors had is license or authority from that odes. Mr. Mash told Mr. Thi s* in addition, that the Lord Chamberlain had received many ere, plaiots from the inhabitants, and from parents whose children s a d been induced to go to the place, and he heartily wished the au* crates would exercise their authority to shut up the house ahem* . Sir Richard said the whole strength of the police should be toned to put down so abominable a nuisance, and gave Mr. Thomas IL rections as to the course he sheuld pursue.—Mr. Thomas said`, would devote all his time and energy to the stammplidouent of 1 s desirable an object. Yesterday Charim Brown, a young man dressed he a very fashion able style, was brought before the Magistrate, charged with steaL lug in the court of the blaster of the Rolls, a new beaver hat sad pair of gloves, the property of S. Rothery, Esq. of Lincoln's lan. fields. Several gentlemen have recently lost their hats in the Con of Chancery and in the Rolls Court, and found oil oars, not won sixpence each, substituted, and these changes were managed sod*. terously as to elude the vigilance of Baker, a pollee officer who *. tends the Court of Chancery. and of Sm ith, the constable of th e Rolls. At length, however, Baker's suspicion fell upon the prisons, wham he had observed for some time past loitering about the courts, and happening to see him enter the Rolls Court on Wel. nesday evening. he told Smith to watch his narrowly. Smith did so, and took care first to observe what sort of bat the prisoner led brought with biro, and saw it was a veryold ono_ Ina few mho* he saw him leaving the court with a new beaver hat on, and he immediately stopped him. Mr. Rothery identified the hat sad gloves as his property, and said he had placed them on one of the benches only a few moments before the prisoner was detected.-- Mr. Halls—l suppose be has been practising to the " Four come," as they say in Ireland—(A laugh). The primacy declined raying any thing, and was fully committed for triaL Yesterday Mr. Nash, the barge-builder of Lambeth, anew pealed by his solicitor, appeared before Sir Richard Binds, to show came why he should not have a penalty inflicted on him for m alleged violation of the laws relating to the River Thames. The complaint was laid by George Heath, better known by the appal. lades of the Waterman.' Attorney General; and the summeas sat forth, " That one William Wright, appreadce of James Nash, e Freeman of the Waterman.' Company, did, on the 15th June last, as the River Thames, between Vauxhall Bridge and Blackwell Stairs, unlawfully row and navigate two craft, above ten tons burthen, molt fast to each other while under weigh, contrary to the Statute."... Heath observed that his object was to establish a right, rather the to seek any personal gain. In adopting the present proceeding,* only motive was to protect his poorer brethren, waterusen and Ughtermen, who were depending on their labour, and the privilege. they enjoyed as freemen of the Waterman's Company, for their bread. Many of them were then out of employ; and if the oil, which he sought to remedy. was not speedily removed, he mach feared they would experience great difficulty in obtaining work, Had he been so disposed, be might have gone voter the Act of Parliament. which authorised a penalty of 10f. to be Inflicted la persons guilty of the offeoce described in the summons • bat bevies no desire to draw messy unnecessarily out of Mr. N osh's pocket; he preferred to have the case decided according to the 454 dames( the bye.laws,wberein the penalty was considerably reduced. He this proceeded to read the clause, oa which be relied—" That if say freesias of the said company, (the Waterman's Company) or I* apprentice, or an apprentice of any widow of such (mom or ether person, or perms., rowing or navigating any lighter, barge. liat boat, n or other cra ft , between Vauxhall Bridge and Bleekwall •Stairs, shall, at the VIM time, navigate any other lighter, ate. at tached thereto, exceeding the burtben of ten tons, he or they shill pay for each lighter, rice. any sum not s uceeding 201. and net less than 10e." dr. Nash said that it was not his wish to avoid the consequences of the offence, or give unnecessary trouble. As the Magistrate had expressed it as his opinion that he (Mr. Nash) was liable to the penalty, be was willing to waive all objections aid have the matter put as sod to at once; and he was convicted in ewe penalties of 10s. each, together with costs and exposes. He mid the money, if. se and left the office. MARRIED. At St. Andrew's, Enfield, Merry Trawler, Esq. of Finsbury rire, to Ereweise=est jo rrter of HenryCaringtonßowies, . of Myoiehea At James's Mink PkeadMy, Monsieur Lo Colonel de &nanny, 011ie de Liles d'lionneur i et Croix de St. Louis, to Anna, dwegibme of the late Timothy Ha rty, Esq. Kilkenny. At Weemeiem,the Rev. Francis Russell Nixon. late Fellow of St. John's diem Word, to Frances Maria, second daughter of the Rev. Themes Streatield. of Chart's Edge, Kent. At St. James's Church, Westminster, Mr. Richard Canes, of Langport, in the county of Somerset, to Miss Mary Sewers, of Clifford.strest. At Midkurst, Sussex. the Rey. James William Geidart, LLD. Regius Professor of Civil Law, Cambridge, to Mary Jane, third daughter of R.Wardroper, Esq. Henry Wells Reynolds, Req. surgeon, of Theme, Oxon, to Agnes daughter of the late Edward Wells, Req. of Wallingford, Berks. Lotion: Prime sad Published by Jaw Wm. st.tbe kw Onslt, No.l, Ilikkiftybies, Taspie B. READIN T COCKS and SONS, fe • lasted READING cation the Nobility, Families, frauds sad impositions real opmen, who are offering (or ask as Resding Sauce. Na.o are genuine bat those die Impression. • J. Cocks, orange-adoured labels, Ro a di Griffin, ice. prepared sad sold, tr Reading." It is presumed time mo SUM el baths' and extensive sale : It is p moat families hi the Itingdma. the most respectable Oilmen and 1 Of mere In every chy, market t kingdom ' • most whom sell J. COCKS and SONS ESSENCE OF Wade with prise Gorgon The above Saran we particuli Gentlemen, as they are warranted twenty years in any dilute. • NUMBER 13: THE ANNUAL QUALIFIED hi ASSOCIATION will be litrand, on WEDNESD the Forenoon, to receive • Reports, to fill up V - ment of Five Directors bare given the required no Miller, of Farnham, Kent, Strand, Esq. A. Walker, Stevenson, of Piccadilly, S. stile, Holborn, Tailor. A no new Candidate. Noti of Motions, expressing the ceedings and appointments • Officers, and the confidence and Judgment—for a Cons • altering the Hales. sod hives pointntents of (lken,fitc. a minatlon of the Society to the Board of Directors shall same—expressing the thanks for their seal, integrity, • Institution. The whole of w —Dated this 17th day of Jul This day is TNTRODUCTION to A. DIFFERENT PART Words and engraved Count B J h:r The • Published by Whittaker, MAGOWAN'S This day le published, FIRST LESSONS GRAMMAR, with and easy Mo. In two Par • of Part I. 9s. Part 11, 3s. • These Lessons have been ranged ander the respective as Grammar, Reading Book, thus combines utility with • Printed fug Sherwood, Gi GRANTS EN This day was pu AGRAMMAR of t containing a complete cidation of the general Princi accompanied with critical an. Examination, and appropriate By JOHN London : Printed foe She Paternoster-row. " This work has claims en • the fabric of their native Lang and to requite an assiduous in suit of much intelligent and w " The present is an este • - BELLENGER'S FR: This day was publi MODERN FRENC tattling Elementary Pb French and English, upon the By W. A. Eleventh Edition, with could, London : Printed for Sherw Paternoster-row ; Milan and Kie This work contains, in a Lion and Answer, on every an convince of social fife. It is best elementary book extant, f manual for travellers it is Weal tains is as necessary as to eat, . gone oat of the old beaten t as were really wanted, which a AO persons travelling en the book with them. ANTI -CORROSIVE mended for Painting &u as well as for Painting rough o cultural Implements, Sic. It Colour., is more durable, Workman. Manufactured by Francis ' inures of Hamelin Mastic), N HAY AND CI BENJAMIN EDGING (who supplied the whole • Decorations, at the liortictiltur quantity of SECOND HAN Cloths, with Poles, site. eoniple the whole are in good Preservat day. by the Horticultural Soda F.astuaaers embarking for t lAtid, and other Stretemarre, and Marquees. with other Mitt comfort and convenience on thei Orders, by Post, to he addr. /S. Tooky.street. Southwark. EVER ANXIOUS TO P DAY and MARTIN re they have, after much la • pease, brought to perfection a I and extreme difficulty of nem' prewent the many Fraud. that a An attention so the foltuwiug • the genuine Blacking pmpased pink colour covers the principal My and Martin are printed in black, and placed on a white gr • 97, HIGH- as alto white letters edged with • lace pattern, the signature and p ground, the preamble and di black letters nn white ground. • iiimiMaMlllollB M A RLBOROUG H-STREET. Wednesday evening a man named William Ike applied to Ht George Farrant, and representing himself to be distressed, implored his assistance. Sir George Informed him that Like were on inquiry really distressed, he should receive some assistaace. The worthy Magistrate then sent the petition to the Mendicity Society, aid Chival yesterday waited upon the Magistrate. Sir George inquired if he had made any inquiries? Mud replied that the applicam was wen known to the Society, and for many years had bees prey. ing upon the public. He here produced petitions which bed km sent under different pretences to the: following illustrious WM. duals :—Lord Farnham, Lord Elliott, Captain W. H. Percy, M.P. ffirlienjamin Hobbouse, the Hon. G. Apt Ellis, Sir Chas. Farber, Lady Hampden, Lady Faroborough. Sir George inquired if he had obtained money from any of those individuals? Chivel replied that be had from many of the Nobility, but had beers fnutrated ti applications to the office.—Another man, named Linda". had sent petitions to Lord Su ffi eld, Lord Somerville, the Cosiness of Has. wood, Lady Mandeville. the Countess of Aberdeen, Lord Rasing, Lord Gambier, the Marchioness of Lothian, and Lady Cur, and these were exactly, in form, wads, and writing, the same as hire. Sir George regretted that the fellow had escaped, but told the td• neer to keep a sharp look out and be might soon be apprehmided. W 0 RS H I P—STREET. Yesterday John Redenson„ a carter, in the employ of Mrs. Moody of Holywell-lane. Sboreditch, was charged with driving a timid carriage over Jebeza Christmas. aged five years.. It appeared the on Wednesday evening the carriage, laden with five tons of timber, was passiog through the Curtain-road, on its way to the premiss of Mr. Gough, a timber awn:haat, when the unfortunate child, who had been playing under the carriage, was thrown down, sail the wheel passed over his body. Mr. Gough attended, and laves very unfavourable account of the prisoner, who was into:land, and guremely insolent when he arrived at his yard, after the acci• dent. The child is hopeless ; and it was stated at the race yester• day evening that it died in the hospital at two o'clock. BIRTHS. In Grosvenor.equare, the Countess of Cawdor, of a son. At Hammersmith, the Lady of Captain Make, Hon. Company's service, of a daughter. At Bedweky House, Monmouthshire, the Lady of Samos, Homfray, Eaq. of a daughter. At Astley Gawk, Warwickshire, Lady Barbara Neirdigatee a son. At Girard's HaIL in the county of Suffolk, the Lady el Patrick Reset. Esq. of a daughter. LI Dover-atreet, the Lady of Robert Gosling, Esq. of a daughter. DIED. At Bridll4ton-quay, Yodelslre, Elizabeth, relict of the late G. &Kiley, Bag. of Ashby, near Hull, aged 82. At Betts dam, Catherine Elizabeth, the second daughter 01 John Welk Reg. M.P. of Rickley, in Mom At ids outage at Radford Semis. near Leamington, Warwick shire, HearyGrenvold Lewis. Rog. of Malvern Hall, in that county At the house of her uncle, the Rev. Robert, Pope. bler o b o m9„ Kent, fda Anne, eldest daughter of the late Daniel Fowler, sit of Down Hill, In the same county. At Twickeoham, in her Seth year, Nuutetti Henrietta, wW d Dr. Prohyn, of the above place. HIGH- W ATIR at LONDON-BRIDGE TO-MORROW. Naraleg 56 mantas after S Aftwasas 14 Mosta atter