Star. — London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

a“, , as“ LAW INfﬂLLIG’SNCE. ‘ COURT OF KING‘S BENCH, NOWHERE e. k noun "untrue-routs o. OAIDNII. - .~' Mr. An‘lm moved for It llule to shew cause 'why ’ in this case a new trial should not be had, or’the judgment arrested. It was an faction on the Bribery Act for penalties alleged to have been incurred by receiving money for giving avote at the List elecﬁon for llcltester. The case was ' tried before Mr. Justice Richardson at the last Assizes for Somerset. when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. At the trial there was no evidence, except that the defendant in the September after the election, which took place to June, admitzed that he had received money for giving his vote, and all the counts in the declaration “fed the expression “ fut giving,” butrtnt “ for havrng given.” nor did they charge any ‘O"."Pt “Ewe“ previous to tlte‘electinn. Now the Statute, rightly - considered, merely referred to prospective receipts or engagements, and not to monies given after the elec tion when no corrupt bargain ha previously existed. There was also another objection, that the poll-500k \vi’s not given in evidence to prove for whom the de ' fendant had actually voted, but it had merely been . shewn by parole testimony, that he went up to vote for the party charged-as giving the money. The Count observed, that there might be bribery although there was no contest, and consequently no poll-book ; and that though the poll-book, was re ceived as evidence before a Committee of the House : of Commons, sworn to try the merits of the election, :3 it did not follow that it was evidence in a Court of ‘ Law for collateral purposes. They, however,thought both questﬁ'ns worthy of consideration, and granted a' Rule to shew cause. me KING 0. runaway. Our Readers may remember, that the defendant, a fustiawcutter at Manchester, was indicted by the Bridge-sheet Association for selling Carlile'r New Year's (ii-t to the light-mars, and on the trial at the Assizes for Lancaster, was found Guilty. He after .' wards made an application to the Court for a new trial, on the afﬁdavits of himself and others, directed ti shew that the witnersuho swore to the purchase of the work had spoken falsely; and obtained a Rule to shew cause. These afﬁdavits were answered by others on “the part of the Association ; and, accord ing to the uniform practice of the Court, when the statements on behalf of the applicant are denied by positive depositions on the other side, the Rule was discharged, and the‘defendant received judgment. The Association then preferred a bill of indictment against him ‘for perjury, which was found by the Grand Jury at the Lent Assizes for Lancaster ; was traversed by the defendant; and stood for trial at the Summer Assizes. The subsequent proceedings formed the ground of that application which we have low to report. ' Mr. Bnouonau moved for a Rule to shew cause why the writ of ceiliorari, granted in this case, should not be quashed, and a procedemlo issue; and why certain persons, named Murray, Atkins, and Sewell, should not pay to the defendant his costs for not pro ceeding to trial, and the costs of this application; and why Murray, being an attorney of the Court, should not be called on to answer the matters contained in the afﬁdavits. He moved this on the afﬁdavit of the defendant attd of a man named Jeremiah Garnett, which stated that theindictment for perjury had been found at the Lent Assizes, and was traversed till the Summer Assizes. Notice of trial was given by the prosecutors for thOse Assizes. The Commission day at Lancaster was on the2lst'of August; and on Mon day, the 26th, which was the earliest day upon which the case could be taken, the defendant was in radi rtess, with no less than nineteen witnesses, brought from Manchester, where the facts in question oc curred ; and the expenses of whom pressed most heavily upon him, for he was a poor man, almost destitute of resources. On Wednesday, the 28th of‘ August, the case stood for trial before Mr. Baron Wood, and the defendant was ready to meet as} answer the charge. But on that day an application was made to the learned Judge, on behalf of the rosecutors, to put off the trial, on an aﬁdavit of R’lnrray, the Attorney for the prosecution, stating that a material witness—one oi the Police-ofﬁcers of MancliesierT—was necessarily absent at Chester, and was expected on the following day. On this appli cation. he (hlr. Brougham) and his learned friend Mr. Evans. objected, on the ground of the additional expense which would be thrown on the defendant in the continued maintenance of his witnesses, which he was so ill able to sustain. The learned Judge put 05‘ the trial till the next day, when he said it must cer tainly proceed. In all this there was every appear ance to induce belief that the application was made bonaﬁdc on Iccount of the detention of a material witness at Chester, and no hint whatever that on the next day the issue would not be decided. On the fol lowing motning, therefore, the Counsel for the de fendant came into Court ready to goon: the wit nesses were all in attendance, when, to their utter astonishment, and no less to thelastonishment of the learned Judge, a cem'orari was produced, which had arrived that morning from London, to take the case out of the’jurisdiction of the Judge, 'a'nd to suspend all the proceedings. An application was made to Mr. Baron Wood for costs, but he said he had no power to grant relief; but the defendant must- seek it elsewhere. V ‘ ; ‘ ' ' Mr. Justice Bas'tcv—Would'the case have come on for trial on Wednesday if the application 'for post ponement had not been made ?' ~ Mr. BuouctlAu—Undoubtedly it Would have been tried in‘the course of the day; for the delivery of the jail was completed, and nothing remained for trial but the traverses, which, with the exception of this, were all disposed of between eleven and twelveo'clock, and Mr. Baron Wood assisted in the trial of causes. _..The prosecutors in this case are persons who have subscribed a fund for the purpose of prosecuting inl cases of libel, and Murray is their attorney. .-Mr. Justice Bavuv—We can have nothing, you know, to do with that here. . Mr. BaoucuAu—Yes, my Lord; because my motion is, in part, directed a aiust John Atkins. Esq. and Sir John SeWell, Kur. wlio are sworn to be mem. bers and ofﬁcers of the Prosecuting Society, ailing itself the Constitutional Association. » . '{t - _Mr. Justice Bur—Were they at Lancaster during the trial ? ' ‘ ‘ Mr. Baoucnntb-No, my Lord ,- but I submit if '3‘. sons subscribe to a fund to put certain law in action, ’had appoint an Mtoeadiiwtionsﬂtq area-pensiblc for his aetsogll thinnest stem" to inforétation md'lidieﬁ‘d Milt themr’stial' to ‘ put of the uiat‘was only mode vogue «defer. the ceftiovars' t'isanive from [tendon- ~ v ‘ Mr. Justice Buy—Yes; but thisisuthe act. of an attorney‘at’lgtncaster, without the knowledge of the ‘ persons .ga‘am whom you apply. and who may go tirely disapprov; of the PW. . . Mr. Blindness—Certainly: [must in candour admit that, for anything I know. they may feel ex ceedingly indignant at the malpractice of the person whom they have em loyed; butyet. I contend that they are responsible got hisactS—not morally respon sible, but responsible ¢l’gally for the ruinous eﬁ'ects of his misconduct to en. He seems, on Wednes day, to have thought that there was no other moons of delaying the me! till the oedionm’ should arrive, ’ercept by trumping up this story of the ahsencc'of a material witness. . ’ \ The Loan Cum Josrtca—Dees your . atlidavit state that the witness had arrived on the Thurs; dai‘morning ? . 1 r..Baouorutst-No, my Lord: but it would be very easy to prevent his arrival. Besides, there was no second application made to put of the trial,whichl it is possible, notwithstanding what passed on the previous day, that the Learned Judge might have ‘granted. The aﬁdavits did not positively state when the certioran' arrived, but the deponents were that, to the best of their belief, it arrived on the Thurs day morning. ' Mr. Justice Barter—Your ground oi'_ application, then, is. that the motion of Wednesday was not made bona ﬁde on account ot the absence of .a material Witness, but was a mere scontrivance to give time for the ccrlioran' to arrive? Mr. Justice Best-. That it was a mere pretence without foundation ? s Mr. Baouctum replied, that this was one of his grounds shut another ground was, that the very pro ducing a certiorari, at such a period, was such an abuse of the process of the Court to the oppression of the defendant, as entitled him‘ to ask for his costs.— Here the prosecutors gave notice of trial; they gave‘ no countermand; and therefore they brought them-‘ selves within the rule, which directed that in every‘ case of delay by a prosecutor, where there had been no countermand in time, he shall save the defendant harmless. It was scarcely necessary to refer to cases on this point; but he might mention, that in the King 0. Bartrum, 8 East. 270, where the prosecutor removed the indictment by certiorars' without coun termand, Lord Ellenborough said, “that upon inquiry it appeared to be the established practice of the Court, if the prosecutor give notice of trial to the defendant, and do not countermand in time, he must pay the costs of the trial as in other cases; for otherwise de tcndants might be harassed and oppressed with un necessary expense." And in “ the king o. Haydon,” 8 Burrough's Reports, 1304, Lord Mansﬁeld, refer ring to numerous authetities, laid down a similar role But the present case was one of much greater hardship than these, for they were cases of removal from Sessions, for which there might be abundant reason ; but this was a mere removal from one Judge and one side of the Court to another. ~ Mr. Justice BAYLRY inquired whether the ratio ran' issued from the Crown Ofﬁce at Lancaster, or in London ? ‘ Mr. Bnouoruu said, that he was not aware the 05cc at Lancaster had the power to issue the writ. Mr; Justice Bauer obserVed, that such a power did exist, for he knew of one instance in which it had been exerted. The Loan Cum Jusrlcr asked Mr. Brougham whether he had not better ascertain the fact before he made his motion, as the Couit couid not interfere if the writ were granted at Lancaster? Mr. Bnouomm replied, that he had no doubt that the cerliorari was obtained in London ; because, when the writ was produced to the amazement of the Court, he stated in the hearing of the attorney, Murray, as part of the hardship, that the defendant would he obligied to come up to London, and put in hail, and won d have the expense of makin up the record. ‘ The Loan Cum Jonson—ﬁrm you were mis taken. When the prosecutor removes the indictment, he must make up the record, the bail below are dis charged, and no hail above are required without a fresh order. . T'HUI-r:gin-tumult: said, that he only mentioned this to ptove that no denial was men to the statement that the writ was sued out in , , don. _ . _ - The Lotto Cut" Jusrtcs said, that the only doubt of the Court would be as to the extent of the Rule...— Would not the ordinary rule for the costs of not pro ceedin to trial pursuant. to notice sufﬁce ? How could Ste Court require Sir John Sewell and Mr. At kins to answer the mattets in the aﬂidgvit ? _ Mr. BnouonAM.—No, my Lord; that part of the Rule applies only to Murray. The Loan Cum Jus'rlol, after consulting with the other Judges, said, you may take a Rule, calling on the parties you have named to shew cause why the certioran' should not be quashed, and a procedendo issue, and why they should not pay thecosts incurred by the defendant at the Assizes, and the costs of the ap plication; but not requiring them to answer the mat ter: in the aﬂidavits. ~ Mr. BBOUOIAIL—Not as to Murray, my Lord 9 The Low Cum Juarez—No; 'we think not. ‘This will answer all the defendant's purposes. i Mr. Baouonau assented, and took his Rule. ' m: use 17'. unset-rm. _ _ Mr. C. F. Wmuam moved that the Master should review his nation of costs in this case. It eras an indictment preferred by Sir Thomas SW73!!!” Champneys against the defendant, for attempting to submit witnesses. which stood for trial at l e Lent Assizes for the county of Somerset. When the day of trial approached, Sir T. S. Champneys was at Kingston ‘Assizes on another trial. where he was a material witness, and an application was made to: postpone the trial of this indictment in consequence of his absence. The trial stood over till a late period a: the day. when Sir Thomas not having arrived, the. record was withdrawn, and soon after’Sir Thomas came into Court, but found that he was too late.— The defendant moved for his costs. which were taxed by theMastel-lat 1561. Is. 4d. After this the special circumstances of the case were brought before the Court. and it was referred to the Master to inquire ibether Sir Thomas had used due dili ehce in his joamy to the Somerset. Assiaes: but 5.: Master would anteater into this discussion at all, because other Stunting e. hum-hm nos. mm“ m fa arm of invited”. 1* it! «in». the defendant wedded to s3th forth. ﬁre-testers not patenting? ﬁrst This time really i. ad nothing name «mm for. am no“ excuse we} sugemd for the delay t. but here the mm ‘the emote was the matter «fared to the Muster. and into thin he tofoeed to inqoim The Coeaﬁntirnﬁted. that its the Matter was not in Court. the motion should’be deferred tillhe should be present to give any eXPl‘anation that might he re quisiteF—Mr. C. F. Wtutnus acquiesced, and post poned his motion. ‘ '.. . . L me into minute nunost mutant. , ‘ At a late period of the day, Mr’.‘Bnouonnu' rose to move for a Rule to shew cause why the judgment in this case should not be arrested, or a new trial had The defendant was convicted of a libel on the Clergy; before Mr. Baron,Wood, at the last ,Assizes. for :rham. That part of his motion which was for a new trial would he chieﬂy rested on the misdirec . tion of the harried Judge. . V , The Loan Cmu Justice intimated, that as ‘the Court must very shortly rise, it wouldhe desirableonly to take such motions as must be made without delay. Mr. Bnouaunu was quite ready to meet the wishes of the Court, and would therefore postpone his motion until the defendant should be called up forjudgment,‘ it being understood that he should then‘be at liberty to urge grounds not only for attesting thejudgme’nt, but for a new trial. . . The Loan Cum Jus’ncn feplied, that certainly ‘ the defendant’s interests should receive no prejudice * from the delay, ' , Just after the Judges had retired, “’addingten ’ appeared to urge his ' motion for a new trial; but, ﬁnding he was too late, he left the Court, saying “ he i would call again on Monday." 1 ARCHES COURT, NOVEMBER 9. ~ ' ‘ I'ERRIN AGAinsr PBRRIN. Sir JOHN NicuoLt. gave sentence in this matter to-day. This was a suit of separation by reasonof adultery, brought by .J. L. Perrint the husband, against Frances Eleanor Perrin, his wife. ‘ _ Upon the whole of this case, though the Court did certainly .feel‘some considerable doubt ,as to the pit» priety of entirely discrediting the account which had. been given by the Stathams, yet, when it considered, on the other hand, that the case tested solely upon ‘their evidence: that, being husband and wife, they ﬁlled Opportunities of together concemng aiid.com bining their story, and of making up. a malicious charge; and that there were so many circumstances in the case to raise a doubt with respect to the Ruth of their stor'y'; the Court did feel a difﬁculty still greater in giving to their testimony that credit which would induce it to pronounce this libel to be proved. Considering, also, that Mr. Putin, the husband, if he failed in his proofs, was left only where he was before —living apart from his wife by his own choice, and allowing her a weekly stipend—whereas the Wife, certainly with the presumption of innocence in her favour, would, if the libel should be so pronounced to be proved, be left wholly destitute ; and that. this Court, if it felt the truth of the libel to be doubtful, would run less risk in pronouncing that the husband' had failed in proof, and in dismissin Mrs. Perrin from the suit, than in pronouncing for tie separation prayed ; the Court was induced to pronounce the libel not proved. If Mrs. Perrin was really the sort‘ of woman that the libel held her out as being, it was} highly probable that, pending this suit, she might? have furnished against herself some evidence of fresh 1 misconduct. Should the fact be so, the husbandi might have the opportunity of appealing this cause ;'; an of pleading. in the superior Court, such miscon-‘ duct .in support of his prayer for relief. But if no‘ such fresh misconduct could be imputed to her, then surely her subsequent correctness of conduct must‘ tend to conﬁrm her former innocence, with respect to the char e which had been brought against her in‘ this suit. ﬁpon the whole of the evidence, the Court pronounced that the husband had failed in proof of the charge brought a ainst her in this suit; from all further observance otswhichthe Court now therefore dismissed her. ‘ i ’ INSOLVBNT DEBTORS' COURT. Thomas Ambrose was apposed by Mr. Hearts, on behalf of Mr. Davis. . The Insolvent, on his examination, stated that he wasdischarged under the Act about two years and a half ago, from debts amounting to about £7OOO. He had been a bankrupt previously to his discharge, and again subsequently to it: the last time was in‘ January, 1822. About six months after his discharge,‘ he took the house in Waterloo lace, Pall-mall, in which the Waterloo Bank was aflt’erwardsearricd on,. from Mr. Davis. The Insolvent was an anonymous partner in that Bank, of which the ﬁrm was Willer ton, Beaumont, and Co. Willerton formerly lived near Pontel'ract, in Yorkshire, and now lives in Hull Beaumont former}, lived at 'lslih%‘oh‘; .where he now ‘ resides Insolvent does not knowl‘ ﬁls were drawn in the name of D. Wharton, but no person of that name had anything to do with the Bank. Mr. H mm! here shewed the Insolvent a bill drawn in that name. and asked him if that was his (Insol vent’s) hand-writing? but the Insolvent, before he “cold answer the question, appealed to the Court to know if he wps bound to do so, as it had nothing to do with any debt he owed, or with anything men tioned in his schedule? Counsel did not insist upon anionswer. _ ' The Count said it was clear that the Insolt-cnt's case did not come within the Act of Parliament; his insolvency was not produced by inevitable misfor tune; and he could not be entitled to a second dis~ charge. within ﬁve years after his former discharge, without the consent of three-fourths of his creditors. His Setition was therefore dismissed. ‘ ' T was Dyson was apposed by Mr. Coon, on behalf of Mr. Bruﬂ’, one of the attornies of this Court. Mr. Cooke stated that the insolvent was discharged in December, 1820, under this Act, when Mr. Bruff, who was his attorney, kindly allowed him to take his discharge without paying his hill of costs, amounting to 121. 8:. out of which he paid 81. 85. and for the balance Mr. Bruf was obliged to sue him, and ob-. tained judgment for debt and costswlricltﬂamounted to 25!. He (Mr. Cooke) hoped that the Court would protect its attornies from snﬁ'ering by their kindness in consenting to an hsolvent's discharge without pay ;iu his bill of'costs. ' l ’ ql'he insolvent admitted the truth of Mr. Cavizc's‘ : statement. but added that, since Mr. Bruﬁ~ had ob-; , I ‘mhmwm “uh-smm. of 151. in ll WKme, tun he mean to,” diam «H ”Md «wank-m in ulna by “am of ‘ _ I. 6 ' ' ' ' .v . 9%” Conn- «“15th candid “mums“ the conmphﬁuyd turbos, a” Mom ordered the hwlvcntfspuﬁipn :0 hedgmlgud, ' . umrmsmmimniiamcz. :5 caxmwn. new a. anuma'mo-Jmnnmw ' wJQMNMd lib Wmcmﬁ: ‘wm' " inning. r in. rt ““3"“ .W’ __(nnvllfl:w?.- m. qum’"' ~ ”gum (mm b (lama n Sundanhthiwhwrwg By, “.‘M‘Yé: Wumorddned: George Archdale} Mm.- Fellow 6f Emmanuel College. John deoyd. EA. Fallow of Catherine Hall." W Lyou, RA. Trinity College. Ewan! Claydon Lawton, ILA. Clare IlzlL Thomas Spencer Cobbohi. B.A._diuo. George Mai-“ Jules. . Robert Hopton Smith, 3. A. @een': College, Oxlord. Georg Word. EA. St. John‘s College. Joesph Conan Wignm, EA. Trlnlty‘ College. Joseph Phillips Gurney, ILA. Queen‘s College. mums. Charles Ffmeh Bron-head, M.A. Followof Trinity Collrg‘. John Husband. ILA. Fellow of Magdalen College. Henry Hume! Hughes, MA. Fellow of Sv. John's Collrgu. Charles Smlth, M.A. Fellow of St. Peter‘s College. Thoma Cadogan Willie, M.A. Fellow of Downing College. OXFORD, NOVEMBER 9. Monday, the Hon. Edwin Lascellm, and Mr. George In,“ .B.A. of Christ Church; and Mr. William Heathcole. ILL-u; Oriel College, were elected Fellows of All Sonlr' College. ~ Saturday} the following Degrees were conferred: nus-runs or Ann. I The Rev. Jolm Edmund Jones, St. Edmund "all. Charles George 'Venablos Vemon, Student of Christ Clnurdl. David Dulmdag-Studcm or Christ Church. a: Rev; Jameevl‘ormby, llrascnnose College. . Rev. Charles Ward, ditto. The, Rev. John Jean Coney‘ Oriel College. ucucmms or Ans. Hugh Usher 'nghcféb'r'ﬁixs (imam College. ﬁlfnq-ﬁobgns, Tnlity Cﬂicgc. jgﬁlléiiekon, Chrast Chuvrch. Thursday, the Rev. Charles Posthumus Redgrave. Follow 0; Lincolnﬂouege, was admitted Bachelor of Ditinity; and the lit-v. John Mathew Glubb, of Bum College, was admixed Mute! of Arts. ' ECCLESIASTICAL PROMOTIONS. ' The Rev. Joseph P. Pﬂlst, to die Rectory of Languee, Devooshire. The Rev. Wm. Wells. to the Rectory of Hating, Sussex. The Rev. Robert Simyoon. to .«he Perpetual Curacics or Wanlow and Elkatonc. Seaﬂ'ordlhire. Mr. Richardson. of Pitfour, has pmted Mr. Henry Hen. demon, Preach” of the Gospel. to the Church and Parish ..1‘ Kinclaven, in the I’mbytery of Dunkeld, vacant by xhe transla tion of the Rev. Mr. Walker :0 the Church and Parish of Lon;- fotgan, in the Presbytety of Dundee. The following is a verbatim copy of a letter from a Gentleman Commoner o£.B-———- College, 0:- ford, addressed to his father .in the country: “ Dear Sir—l write thirto-night ( Monday). and shat! put ?: into the post to-morrow (Tuesday). It will bein town on Wed. nesday, and ymwill receive It at Greenwich on Thursday.— Pray let me have some money on Friday, or 1 sh!!! set oﬁ‘ by the Worcester mat! on Saturday, and be with you on Sunny. -a . - “ Your'lgimolt. dulgfully, “H. 11." Bm'rng. Now. '2; the Lady of (He Rev, .110 “aware, of a non. Lately, of a ﬁn- boy, the wife of Mt. F. Dunn, Inc of mm. manby, but ‘now of Grucelound, near Hull—being her ﬁrs: child after being married twenty years! . Vn‘ihi’n’tib’.’ Nov. 2, at “'oolwich, the Rev. William Phelips, to Mary, second daughter of the Rev. Johnv'l'llessiter, of Woolwiglz Common. . At Clifton Church, the Rev. \Villiam Dlghy. Archdeacon c.’ Ephin, to Louisa. second dauﬁxter of the late Arthur French. Kt . of French Park. "l‘he Rev. B. Donne, of St. James's, Shafteshury, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of the-late Samuel Hadley, Esq. of Clapl:a.:: Common, Surrey. Thursday, at Battctm, Hutton Perkins. Esq. son of the 2:2: Rev. \V. Perkins, ILA. of 'l’wyford, and Vicar of Crewlaentc. to Caroline Elizabeth. only daughter of George Pepper, E: . In Exeter. Captain Holman (late of the 52d Regiment). 3J iutant of the First Devon Militia, to Elizabeth, daughter .5" Mn. Pidslcy. of (‘reditom Monday sc'nnight, at St. Hilary. Mrs. Polly Blight. widow, to Mr. George Searie, both of that Parish. The unit L-d ages of the haypy couple exceed 120 years. The younger pr tof [in linhnhitantl of the parish assembled in the evening. and tell-- ‘ bmtcd the happy event by playing a number of lively : its on u tiuus instruments. ﬁring of gum, &c. to the no small a must-mm of the people of the village. ‘ ~ DIED. At Paris, on the 6th inst. M. Bettholet, the celebrated chymi<t. The Rev. J. Banister, Rector of lddesleigh. Nov. 4,. aged 60, the Rev. Hugh Moises, Rector of Whiz church, ()xfordshlre. Vicarof East Farleigh, Kent, and fut nterly Fellow of University College, Oxford. ‘ Oct. 2, at Madeira, aged 29, the Rev. mu)": “111 m“, M.A. Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. Thie Gentleman c:~- tinguished him-elf in the public examination“ of jjjchaclnu, Term 1818, and gained a hut classin la'mi: Hmnimbus. Nov. 5, aged 21. William Langton Arnold, HA. Fellow vi Caius College, second ton of Thoma: Graham Arnold, ME of Stamford. ‘ At Albtighton, in the county of Salop, aged 21, ucw'cllt‘, eon of the Rev. Thomas Lloyd, Vicar of the same place. , A than time since, at Stephen aged si, 'l'homaa, eldest 9"! of the Rev. Thomas Carwavdlne, of Earls Colnc Priory, Emu fl‘huraday, at 'ﬁckncll, near Bewdley, Anna Maria, do I daughter of the late Arthur Outlow, DJ)- Dean of Worms: '- Tueaday ae‘innight. at'ltdhury, Lydia. reliet of the Rev. (5.."- greve Selwyn, Rector of Plxhy. and Vicar of Yotkle. Tuelduy, Min Bell, eldett daughter of Dr. Bell, of PE:- mouth Dock-yard. Sunday ec'nnight, aged 57, Mr. James Tubb, ten. 35 year: Clerk of St. Mary Magdalene Parish, Oxford, and Master (. Alderman Nixon's School for the tons of {lumen of that Cit}. Tuesday, at Bletchington, ()xfnrddiite. aged 28, “cum-1,5 James Annealey, RN. fourth 500 of Arthur Aunesley, Lulu! Bletchiugton Park. Saturday ne’nnight, at Bury, suddenly, whilst waiting a: 'w: hair-dresser'e shop to be shaved, Mr. lichen Coote, agents-r Lately, in the King‘s llench prison, Mr. Upech,kecpet c: 'L llautboy and Fiddle publicohouse,\}'arntingtmt, near Unmet..— The expenses of a funeral in aprison were found to exceed I‘- powcrs of an intolvent’s friends; the corpse was removed :3 ;..c stage-wagon, and interred in the family grave at \l’atmimtci. Nov. 4, whilst on a visit to Mr. Jameson, of Stamtanl, .nl‘f- Susanna Sonnerat, of Lamheth, aged 61, daughter of Mr. iiiro wick, formerly a tanner at Bourn. llcr remains were i'tzt'lru: beside thou of her family at Market Dee-ping. [let de.;tl: Wm awfully sudden : whilst in her usual heglth and spirits the r:-- ceding eveningwhe was suddenly seized with an upoplwti; amt?» and was carried «8' by a second attack on the following . :::i '3- Nov. 3, Hemel Hempstead School, Septimus, ton ot )- Farrar, 33f Necklenhurgh~square.-—-Not six weeks sine: 1;“. with his father and six brothers, followed hi~~ mozltcr to her gram HIGH-m'fﬁku LONDON BRIDGE TO-MUR [UV-V. Mam g - -‘ - .37 annual :t'c? I‘} Aﬁcmmn - - 57 minuxuaftcr 1:: .——‘—-——-———-————f- ~77 7—. A ~'-_'__";_‘."d {(3155): 71’};fo Lui punished [Klmu Km», mum yum, 'l':mylr-Ba. f i