Star. — London, England, 1821-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CH A NC ERY, DECtMBER 10.• BOLD V. STEWART. The LORD CHANCELLOR decided, that the injunc tion which the plaintiff had obtained to restrain the • Sheriff from proceeding under an outlawry must be dissolved. He was of opinion that the Court of Er chequer only had jurisdiction to stay the execution of an outlawry'. COURT OP KING'S BENCH, DEEEMBER to. , - VIE KING V. THE REV. NA.THANIEL Mr. SHEPHERD stated, that this was aninforma-: tion preferred against the defendant, ter - a libel on his Majesty. . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on the part of the drown, said, this was an information which he had been reluctantly indeed obliged, in the perform anCe of his duty, to prefer against the defendant. for an extremely gross libel against his Majesty. The defendant was a Clergyman, and some time ago re ceived a pension from the revenues of Cornwall, but that pension had, for reasons unnecessary now to ex plain, been withdrawn, and since that time the de fendant, forgetting the respect due to the Sovereign, and the duty of a good subject, especially one belong ing to his profession, had conducted himself in a manner which had obliged the Law Officers of the, Crown to notice him. In May last, the defendant, as would be proved, delivered with his own hand, at Warwick-house, a letter addressed to Sir Benjamin Bloomfield, containing the grossest libel on his Ma jesty; and in this letter was also inclosed a letter to his Majesty, couched in terms of the mast disrespect ful nature. The letter to Sir Benjamin was the libel complained of; and he was convinced, when the Jury should hear that letter read, they would enter tain but one opinion upon it, and that the result of their verdict to-day would be, to convince this Gen tleman that he must, in future, abstain from a repe tition of such conduct. Ile felt it unnecessary to de tain them further, and should content himself with proving the defendant the author of the libel, and reading it, secure as he was of their verdict. The first witness called was Thomas Gates, one of his Majesty's footmen. Remembers receiving a let ter, on the 9th of May last, at Warwick-house. It was addressed to Sir Benjamin Bloomfield. The let ter now handed in was the same. Witness received it ironi defendant. It appeared to contain inclosures. The defendant gave his card, with his name upon it, at the same time. Witness marked the letter, so as tinknow it again, and then put it into Sir Benjamin's private box. Sir Benjamin was at that time absent; but on his return, on the same day, witness delivered the box to him, with the letter in question in it. Wit ness saw him open the box and tike the letter oat. Witness afterwards attended at llow•street, when the defendant was examined, and heard him acknowledge the letter to be his hand-writing. Sir ll.mjamin Bloomfield, Private Secretary to his Majesty, received the - picket now banded to him on the 9th of May list. On breaking the seal he found the papers now produced inclosed„ in the hand-writing . of the defendant, The defendant afterwards tcknow 'edged at Bow -street, before the Magistrate there,. that the vriting was his. Cross examined by Defendant. —Dues not recollect defendant waiting onlim at Carlton-house in 1811, or any conversation passing at that time on the sub ject of a petition. Had had many conversations on that subject, but had no recollection of conversations so far back. Does not recollect communicating to defendant that he had shewn the petition to Mr. Adam, his Royal Iligliness's.Secretary, and stating that there was no objection to his presenting it at the Levee, though such a conversation might take place. Witness had no doubt he might have referred the de fendant to Colonel MiMalion, if it was during the time the Colonel was in office. Was certain he had never said he entertained no doubts on the justice of the defendant's claims, because he always had enter tained doubts on the subject, and did so still: might have said he wished defendant to make out his claims as far as he was entitled to do. Tue libel was then lead.—lt was a letter, dated Surrey-street, May 3, 1821, addressed to Sir Benja min Bloomfield, Private Secretary to his Majesty; and stated, that. as his Majesty bad, by his conduct, shewn his unjust treatment of an individual, and the dishonour of his Royal word, he must not be sur prised if the terms used in the ordinary transactions of society were applied ,to such a breach of moral duties. This letter contained an inclosure, addressed 44 To the most ignoble. the lying , and cheating Duke of Cornwall, K.G. since become George the Fourth )l Carlton Palace." The Defendant then addres;ed the Court and Jury at considerable length; commencing with a review of the Ecclesiastical Laws of the kingdom from the earliest period ; and contended, that as the King was the Saprerne Head of the Church every ecclesiastical person had a right to petition. Upon that established doctrine he had acted ; and he trusted he should be able to slie.v, in the course of his defence, that he was entirely innocent of the charge now made against him of an intention to slur the character of the King, and to Brill his most geacions Majesty into con tempt. Ile then entered into a wide and extended history of himself and his early life; and read, from -a large printed volume which he held in his hand, a copy of a Petition presented to his Royal Highness 'the Prince Regent, soon after his Royal Highness was appointed to the Regency, in which he stated, that breleven years close study and application in the University of Cambridge, he bad succeeded in obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws ; which de gree, he contended, qualified him to act as an Advo cate in any one, or all of his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Courts, and to hold Ecclesiastical Offices. That this right was first given by Charter of Henry IV: and af terwards confirmed by the 13th of Elizabeth, and subsequent Acts and Charters. That he had applied sto be allowed to discharge the duties of an Advocate in the Courts and had been refused. He then ap plied to be permitted to show, that by the Canon, by Charter, and by Act of Parliament, he bad the right to the privileges he claimed ; but he had been refused a hearing. And he now humbly prayed, that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to com mand that lie should have a hearing. This Petition was presented to his Royal Highness, and in answer be had the promise of his Royal Highness to see him righted ; at least his Royal Highness's confidential servant communicated such promise as from his ;Royal Highness, and' as by his-Royal Highness's ex press command. If the servants had presumed to misrepresent their august master, and to communi cate as from him what was not true, they were an swerable for libelling his Royal Highness, and not ,him who,• led into error by their misconduct, had acted on their misrepresentation;' but he would shew, by the course pursued for three years immediately following the Tear 1812, and, indeed, up to the pre vent time, that his Royal Highness must have been aware of the promises made in his name. He then *proceeded to read copies and extracts of various let iters written to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Liverpool, !and others of his Majesty's Ministers, and minutes of :conversation which passed at different interviews with these respective individuals ; and, also, subsequent Petitions presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and contended that the course adopted throughout by Ministers justified him in adopting the terms he had adopted in the alleged libel. He then proceeded to comment on the course adopted in this prosecution. Why had not the course by indictment been adopted on this occasion ? In such a proceed ing, had the alleged libel alone been laid before a Grand Jury they would have come to the conclusion that the writer was an insane man : and if it had been submitted to them with all the accompanying circumstances of the last ten years, they would then have ignorcd the bill. He also contended, that here was no publication of the alieged libel: it was in closed in a letter left by himself at Warwick House, sealed and addressed to his Majesty's Private Secre tary, and marked private. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL shortly replied, and contended that not one word of the long address of the defendant, which occupied the Court and Jury four hours, had gone to effect the object he had in view, namely, the justification of this gross and scan dalous libel. He had applied to the King for what he had no right to obtain, and what the King, who, according to his own statement, was bound by the laws, could not, therefore, grant. In the libel be talk,:d of the King's breach of promise, when, in fact, from his own statement, it was plain his Majesty had made no promise ; all his Majesty had done, accord ing to the defendant's own statement, had been to receive the Petition graciously. The defendant had said there had been no publication of the libel ; but the sending it to Sir Benjamin Bloomfield was a pub lication. The defendant had said if this libel had been submitted to a Grand Jury they would have decided that the writer wa; insane. He (the Attor ney-General) could scarcely differ from such an opi nion ; it was alinost impossible to account for the de fendant's'aiticiuti on any other ground. Thus much he could.assure 'the Jury, that had it been possible to have restrained the defendant and to have pro tected his Majesty from continual insult in any other way, this prosLcution would not have been instituted. The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and in doing so observed, the great reluctance which lie always felt to interrupt or stop a defendant in making his de fence, had, he feared, induced him to allow the pre sent defendant to waste, on subjects it relevant to the case now before the Jury, a greater portion of the public time than he was strictly justified in doing. As to the publication of the letter in question, that was completed in law by the sending it to Sir Ben jamin Bloomfield : that its contents applied to his Majesty no one could doubt who bad read it, and beard the evidence. That it was gross, scandalous, and libellous, it was his duty to tell the Jury lie en tertained not the slightest doubt of. The Jury found defendant Guilty; but, at the same time, begged to recommend him to mercy. Defendant—My Lord, I ask for justice, not mercy ! Cuts). JusricsSir, you havebeen heard already. The defendant appeared far advanced in years, and very intim]. He left the Court in a state of exhaustion. PAYNE V. JONES, ESQ. This was an action against Mr. Jones, the Marshal of the Bench Prison; to recover the expenses the plaintiff had been at, and the fees to which he was entitled for the execution of a warrant and arrest of a prisoner an•l keeping him several days. Mr. NI ARRYATT, for the plaintiif, stated the case. In 1818 a prisoner in the Bench, named Parsons, made his escape; and, in November following, the plaintiff accidentally saw Parsons in Dorset•,hiie, and having heard that the Marshal had offered a reward of £2OO for his apprehension, he gave information to Mr. Jones that he had seen Parsons, and, if he had the property authority, could apprehend him ; at the same time mentioning the reward of 12200. Mr. Jones wrote to him on the subject; said he should be glad to have Parsons again in his custody, but bad not offered .C2oo—he would pay all plaintiff's expenses,' and make him a handsome preseht if he took him. At this time another person also gave information to the Marshal, and offered to take Parsons, but the Marshal -wrote, informing him Payne was employed, and the warrant would be sent to him. The escape warrant was, in fact, sent to Payne; but the other individual, offended at not having the job, gave in formation to Parsons, which enabled him to escape for a time ; Payne and his man, however, followed him from place to place for a month, and having traced him a round of upwards of 200 miles, at length lost him entirely at Bridport. In the April following, however, he again heard of Parsons, and gave infor mation to Mr. Jones,who repeated his offer of paying expenses, and adding a reward of ten guineas for the caption. A new escape-warrant was sent, •and Par sons was taken ; and, as the terms of the ChiefJustiCe's warrant directed, lie was taken before a Magistrate, and entered into recognizances to appear to the in dictment for an escape. Plaintiff then applied to Mr. Jones for payment of his reward and' eipenses, but Mr. Jones desired to have the prisoner brought up to town, and granted a warrant for that purpose. Parsons was accordingly apprehended by p4intiff and brought up to town, and for this the defendant paid him ; but for the previous expenses of the mid), for himself, • man, and horse, amounting to £BB. 18s. the Marshal refused to make him any compensation, saying he would settle when Mr. Parsons settled with him; and to recover the reward the Marshal had promised, but now refused, the present action' was brought.. Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff had already been overpaid, he having re ceived upwards of £3O of the Marshal ; that thestory• told by his witnesses of the pursuit of Mr. Parkons all over Somersetshire and Dorsetshire, was a fabri cation altogether ; that that individual was the whole ti,1211 at West Camel ) within three miles of Payas _ _ house, and might have been taken at any time in an hour. The Learned Counsel called witnesses to sup port this statement. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER is THE COTTON ESTATES.—BEER AND OTHERS V. WARD. This highly important cause, which has excited considerable interest, was concluded, after four days investigation, during which a number of witnesses, and much documentary evidence was produced; to enable the Jury to come to a decision. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL this day made an elo. quent reply to the Jury, contending that the legiti macy of the plaintiff and the lunatic son was not in the least shaken. After the CHIEF JUSTICE had taken nearly five hours to state all the facts and bearings of the case with precision, he left the Jury to decide upon all the evidence, whether the alleged cause of illegiti macy was made out. • - The Jury retired from the box, and on their re turn found a verdict for Mr. Ward, and consequently that William Cotton, the lunatic, was not heir at law of William Cotton, the father. The above decision gives the property to the wife of the Rev. defendant, who is the legitimate daughter and heiress. • OLD BAILEY SESSTONS. Yesterday, Thomas Bertrand was capitally indicted for assaulting E. James on the highway, and robbing him of 4s. 6d. The prosecutor. was passing through Whitechapel about midnight, when the prisoner and three others jostled and kicked him. threatened to call the watch, and was going on, when - the pri soner said—" What are you going to give charge for ?" and knocked him down. The prisoner's assn• dates helped him up and ran'off, but he overtook the pr4oner. At the watch-house he found his pocket turned out, and that he had been robbed of 4s. 6d. Two witnesses gave the prisoner a good character as an honest, industrious young man. The Jury found him Guilty—Death, aged 19. The prosecutor recommended him to mercy on ac count of his youth and previous good character, and. the officer of the district said, in answer to a question from the Court, that he never saw the prisoner before. Richard Jago and Thomas Beck were capitally in dicted for hurglariously breaking into the house of W. Orde, Esq. and stealing property to the amount of se veral hundred pounds ; and Mary Beck and Henry Lewis, with receiving that property. The particulars having appeared in our Police Reports, we shall state them but briefly now. Mr. Orde resides in Berkeley square, and the woman, who is now the wife of the prisoner Jago, was Mrs. Orde's confidential servant for fifteen years, but on her marriage was discharged. Mr. ()Ede and family going out of town for some months, left the house in the care of Mr's. Jago and her husband. From the day they took possession, Jago and the other prisoners commenced making away with the goods; and on the eve of the return of the family, they determined, in order to complete the wot k of robbery, and prevent suspicion from fall ing on Jago and his w ife, that the latter should go out, while T. Beck, and others not yet in custody, who had been admitted, should carry off the most valuable of the property, while the rest of k was thrown into confusion, to induce a belief that the house had been broken into in their absence. This was carried into effect ; and, although some suspicion did fall upon J.igo and his wife, nothing came out until Beck told his landlord, Gates, of the circum stances, and brought part of the stolen property into his house, with Gates s consent. Some of these arti cles were shewn to a man named Pugh, who imme diately gave information to the Police, and several persons were apprehended, who all made full 'con fesion of the circumstances, and strove to throw the greater weight of guilt on each other. Gates was ad mitted King's ev►dence, and some other witnesses spoke in corroboration of his testimony. The pri soners, Mary Beck and Lewis, had been detected in pawning part of the stolen property, and a great part of the goods had been conveyed to the lodgings, and disposed of by the female prisoner. The prisoners called no witnesses, but most strongly protested their innocence. The Jury, after retiring for nearly an hour, re turned a verdict, finding Jago and T. Beck—Guilty —Death, and acquitting the other two. '111.2 following were convicted of felony, viz.—James Dew, for stealing two pillow-cases ; Thomas Taylor, for stealing a coat and waistcoat; William Jones , for ate:sling 'Vbs. of tea; &c.Paul Seddons, fur stealing a coat, Sarah Smith, for stealing wearing apparel; Sarah Woodward, fur stealing a rug and other articles; Catherine Itooke, for stealing 6lbs. of bacon; and George Wickleart, aged 19, for embezzling 2s. the property of his master. He was sentenced to be fined Is. and to be dis charged at the end of the Sessions. The following were acquitted, ,viz.—George Goulding, of horse-stealing ; and Richard Wood, of maliciously stabbing in a quarrel, with a pair of scissors, his fellow-apprentice. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. Saturday, Mr. Robertson, clerk in the Navy Bill and Accountant Office, stood indicted for defrauding the Treasurer of the Navy Board of £3O. 15s. by means of a fictitious bill of exchange, in the name of Peter Mitchell, a pilot. Mitchell, it was proved, had piloted the Meridian, Erne, and Wasp, on the Smyrna station, in the years 1816 and 1817, and had been paid for his services by a bill for £.57, drawn by the Consul at Smyrna. Evidence was given by several clerks in the Navy Office as to the transaction with which the prisoner was charged. One of the clerks stated, that the prisoner had been twenty-five years in the Office, and had a salary of £420. Mr. WALFORD addressed the Jury for the prisoner, and called a great number of Gentlemen belonging to the different departments, among whom were some of the Commissioners, who all gave the prisoner a most irreproachable character. The CHAIRMAN impartially summed up, and the Jury found a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to the mercy of the Court.--Judgment deferred. Lord SILMOUTH attended the Grand Jury, to give evidence against John Shaw and otheis, for a conspi racy, in attempting to obtain money under a pretence that they could sell patent places through the influ ence of his Lordship.—A true bill was found. The Grand Jury, having gone through their busi ness, were discharged about two o'clock. Yesterday, Sarah Bishop stood indicted-for a mis demeanour, in inciting a girl to rob her father. The *defendant lodged in the house of Mr, Bilrmaß, a master baker, in Shepherd's-market. She mart ied a man who had conducting of a club - bone in Pic-, _ cadilly. She was on terms of intim: secutor's daughters, and frequently and accompanied them to the Them place the eldest daughter became ; young man, named Dalton, who defendant's rooms, against the wish At length she prevailed on the girl and procured a key for her to. open I store-room, till, and coal-cellar. 0 , she furnished the defendant abunk thing necessary. When a discovery prosecution was instituted. Mr. Barr his accounts, found a great deficient ters confessed what had been done. The Jury found a verdict of—Gu, The CHAIRMAN adjudged the de months imprisonment. Mawstox-iTorse.—Yesterday a little boy, seven y who had been found loitering about Swan-lane before cheep 1 on Sunday morning, was charged with being cohnecied gang of housebreakets. Ile would nut, at first, arm," a .. question till he bad duly weighed it, but he a t length bm-an't. confused, and it appeared he had been broaght ewer the wat c by three fellows well armed with housebreaking itqls-rtn.., t , aid in getting into some laundress's house.—H e was reitat„a.,!. Gcrentreee.—Yesterday, Theadosia Pt:lmer, an unforu t ,.i female who was prevented front throwing herself into front a boat, was claimed by her husband, residing at Whea t*. Ile stated that she had escaped from het hcr.n...: oa Fri‘lar„.i that he intended to have her conveyed to an asylum for loan.; where her son is already confine;i. J. Wil'icins, a watchman, was brought ep under the fel:onis t circumstances :—From the statement of R. Stn;th. fent% ) Mr. Ilearn, of Holborn-hill, and of Chadiah .Ihton, it peared that the defendant, whose beat was in Cow-late, to - 4 found sleeping at a door by soma Gentlemen, ver , and that the witnesses being the first objects he iivhcll awaking, be had instantly seized on them, amid spraag I i. Net; two other strangers then Caine up to see tht fray, : . r d with the witnesses, were taken to the watch-limise, a st r: posse of watchmen having asustered on hearin g t!•, rank. 3 . ! the watch-house, however, the defendant could ;alege charge than that the prisoners had called bins Mark, aralVj,stek the Constable of the Nigl.t, string Williams w..:s retch ime cited, dismissed the comphint, and ordered him to poll egh coat and go home. Ik, however, tainted to do this, as,l4 hayed with so much violence, that Wotrall dint:L.one l to taken to the Compter, and teen of his late prizoners to artferf, present complaint. Win-tall also said the prisoner isad !met, in some - person. previously, on the. cam: •tria;ti. ua * tßa l l unfounded charge. The prisoner, in his detince, gorse. d the witnesses had been making game of Mat, andatertarelh was not asleep. The witnesses seteheir, o4 4 denied that they had at all insulted biro, Alderman 44. §,,,„ said, he would take care. the deferdanrshouldl dianisst2; and that he would. represent to the Alderman of the Wud five innocent individuals might hive beta conf.atal ail cis;: the Compter, through his intemperanc'e, and how unS t he TB to be a watchman. HATMX-CARDEN.--YeStetdaySardiCe Was charged eiy stealing a quantity of linen. The: evidence went to show de the prisoner posted herself in the paswsge of Irs..3latic . .cr, is White Horse-alley, Cow•cross, who has a mangle; that si:ra standing by when a lxiy hirought a bundle of linen td he sfiji` x a by the next morning, and weht away at the same time as bpi, apparently in his company; that she returned to the house al said, the things the boy had left must be done on th.staftensc, instead of the 'following morning, when she weuld cal for:Sr:I; and that she-did so call, and get the linen. The Officer s f •-, :0 4 that a person answering the description of the prisoner had t.b. tained clothes from several manglers in a similar m:nyer, het none of them knew of the prisoner's apprehension. Tar pri. toner said, in her defepcz, she w.a servant in the family of Mr. Warne, in Strati - oil-O.We; she lived on hoard wage:; the far..i!y were then at their couittry seat, near ltansgate, and 'hewa on a visit to her aunt, in Stnithfield.—She was remanded, th the : it i l,z the 1 of I:;:.cattocyrh.cetg,llualoa:ditnittlecitsidilog: ........ 117111:11e • 1 to ro b her lather l e e n fc c i IdantlY with er ry took Place, (.1 :• I ttas Nv r man, o n b odanci . ..... oq.. ;nifig. C I )14 d I!! 460 Nis••• Ism A treen Vsnz et a awl the I odl Pub] jhk pliet Ilan pr bis I Nob the s Mr. low ugi Lis c BIRTHS. Monday se'nnight, at Edinburgh, Lady Elizabeth Hope Ten, of a daughter. 'Monday se'nnight, at South Stoneham Rouse, the Laxly of J. Fleming, Esq. N.P. of a daughter. Tuesday, at Limerick, the Lady of Captain Alesarsier Ray R.N. of a son. In Kilkenny, the Lady of the Rte. Mr. Thompson, Ara daughter. Dec. 1, at nollybrook Park, county of Dublin, thelad/ of the Itev. Jarnts M itchell, of a daughter. At Newcastle Glebe, county of Tipperary, the tatlyofkr Ilepper, of a dauzhter. In Waterford, the Lady of Lieut. Fish. R.N. of a rat • AlAttlt11:11. 'onday, at Tichfirld, Capt. Alachvnzie, ta Miss Se . ..Lai.: thebon, of that place. , DIEM Lately, after a ?lon Milos, Mary, wice of the Res,Ra Buddell, Curate of Willerscy, Glouccster.hire. Sunday se'nnight, aged 65, Richard Hussy Lloyd, L' a Alderman of Winchester. _ _ At Calcutta, on the 7th of June last, Alexander GOA Esq. of the firm of Goold and Campbell. Sunday sennijht, aged 62, Mr. Walter Scott, forme/Teo a respectable schoolmaster in Carlisle. At her lodgings, Taunton, aged 76, Mary Anne, Dow Baroness de Paravicini, relict of Jean Baptist, Baton de Pin vicini, formerly Lieutenant-Colonel Commandant of the ill ment de Vigier Suisse, in the service of Louis XVI. Sunday se'nnight, ilr. Richard Graham, of Longford!,l' rish of Commertrees. formerly of Maulseastle, aged II death was awfully sudden—returning from church, he Wig proceeded above 300 yards on his way home, when, with: any apparent indisposition, be foil down and instantly min. - NEWG ATE AND LIZA DENII LL MAItE ETS, Dn. a (By the Carcase.) Beef Is ad to 2s lid I Veal n; OJ to Is 11 Mutton.. ...... 2s 01 to Ls 61 Pork .........is 8d to .11 PRICES or 119 Y *au STRAW YESTERDAY. ST. JAMES ' S. NV tt II A rum Hay 31 Os 01 to 41 Os of Hay... 31 10. to 41 Od Straw 1 4s Od to 11 13. Od Straw 11 8s to 11 10 0 Clover 3115 s 01 to 4l 111. 01 Clover 41 Os to 51 Old PRICE OF. LIOPS. VIEW RACE. Kent Suisex 2l 4s to 31 08s Essex Foreign 1.; RIV POCKET,. Kent Sussex Kssex Farnham 7l Os tolol PRICE or TALLOW, SOAP, &c. per 112/b. Town Tallow 46s 6d Ditto rough ...... ......• •• ° Yellow Russia , 4.55, Od Yellow Soap ,. 0 White ditto ^ —s Ott Mottled 0 Soap ditto .. ... ... :.. : 39s Od Curd Melting Stuff •39s Od Palm • • S .. .. ____..... PRICE OF CANDLES—From Tallow Chandlers'llat Candles, per doz. 9s gdz.—Mould‘, 145 Od; 6d.pts 6 0 allowed for ready mnney :____ ______„ RAW HIDES.. • Best Hailers and Steers (per Ordinary ... gs Sd is lit stone) 3s 4d to 3.1 6d Market Calf 95.0 d ts, ol " I Middlings 3s Od to 3s 2d Eng. Horse Os Od to 91 Sheepskins, 33. 64. to 4s. Od.—Downs, 2s. 10d. tom _ . COAL MARKET, Dec. 10. Shipsat Market. Ships Sold. Trice. a 59* Newcastle 26i 321 0(11 to 440 w 11k Sunderland • 9 55s 61 to 4.5 491 . ____ MAILS ruts Do t. Dublin 1 0 Waterford 1 0 Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Holland 1 0 Flanders 0 • 0 Malta 0 0 A sa Liqbnis I I France I Ihnibuph 0 . Gbitenburgh I :. Leeward Islands 0 Jamaica ..0._..../ HI G m li ce li in A g TSlt at LONDON !ilt 1 1 2 ) 4 GE tain T u O. tes M ittitf OR • "'"Afieriloon . • 44 4 IdgaiDOkli rtilited and published lff LOU SO* BO T• sure alm4 tf 6. zand :ate; W of A qiiri wid anir 'No. De lire Ni Ir