The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-07-07 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY,44Timpa, jIIIIT i. PERUVIAN LOAN. Joann ANO °reeks V. xilinitit•AND Mr. Wirruansta. Moved on the part of the Defendants. that the injunction obtained in this cote, restraleing Mewl. Everett and Co. Hauliers from parting with a certain, sum of money in their h ands. nod Mr. /Chide' from Wail interfering is it; sod hfesere Gordo del McLeod Paroiesiew, Envoys from the Perevlass Gwen /sent - from remising themensy . , be dissolve& -• Ills Commute-1s It not a question worth , discos , s:ng i ; whethee this Court can nterfere at all ?. I ma bound, sittingtere in the King of this country's Court; to know that thisconatrtis at peace with the 00vdtalz anent of Spain; and t am bound to heave that this count don not receptive a Peruvian Government.— ' Therefore, the question is, ought this Court to interfere at all? Mr. W4THOORT.L would confine himself to time elass► tion, if his Lbedship•pleased, because certainly it soothed to overrule alt other questions; His Loabgair—Stippose, for instance, that money bg some slip or ether had got into this Court, to the etas count of the PerovianGovernment, would it not bolo Wiese...4 to the King of this country?. Mr. lYwrnaaat.is---The money is aot in this Candi NY Lord. His- Loanente—Ne, it happen. not to be ben; but if it btrl happened to have been in Coart, what would . havedieewthe consequence? Mr. WETHERELL—With great deference I reply, that n my opinion this country has so right to ask what is to be dole with this money. His Loamou v.—The neater way of putting the gentian is-.-s+ What right has any permit to call upon the Kings COillio of this country% ioterfere to forward or to pre vent inch negotiations?" N,. Wen tR Lt. thOught that was just what he wanted. Hie hoßessite—there has been a great deal said about the legality of the subscription raising for Spain, hut with that I have nothing to do. Yet supposing those sub scriptions to be legal (without committing myself either way by saying they are or are not), I should be glad to know whether, ise a sum of metier being paid into Chile's shop, or any other shop, for tfte purpose of being seat into that country, with which - we are at this moment at perfect peace, this country's King's Court could be called upon to interfere at all? As far as that goes, it is is your favour, Mr. Wetherell—for unless the Learned' Gentlemen an the other side, can, on this state of the re cord, say that this Court ought to interfere, then there ought to be no injunction. And that will depend on an other thing, namely, whether it can be made out. that if there bad been only one subscriber to this lean, he could have maintained an action for the recovery of the money is the Court of King's Bench ? And that I doubt very math. In short, ought this Court to interfere with per sons who thought proper to treat with a Government which this rouotry knew nothing at all of? Mr. HtALD proceeded to argue on the same side, when the Court rose: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jute 5. London Adjourned Sittings before Mr. Justice Burroughs, and a Special Jury. EDIvARDS O. SELL •AND oragßa. Mr. Dwell opened the pleadings. This was an ac tion [Ora libel, chsrging. the plaintiff with having thrown sort personal invectives from the pulpit of a Dissenting ideeting,agaiest a young lady of distioguished merit and spotless reputation. The defendants had pleaded tint. Not Guilty. and, Secondly, that the lady bad assisted at a Sunday-school, that she was a person of spotless repute lion, and that the plaintiff bad uttered personal invective against her from a place usually assigned in the chapel tor the delivery of the afternoon sermon. Me. Sergeant Pam. stated the cue to the Jary.—The plaintiff was a dissenting preacher of the sect of lade. pendent,. in the town of Great Marlow, and thealefend. ants were the publisher and proprietors of the Times rewspaper.—Tne plaintiff was a married man and the fa ther of a family, consisting of five children ; he had per formed the duty of Dissenting Minister in• the town of (West Marlow for a period of more than sixteen years, and he had ever deserved and obtained the good will of all who knew him. fie had been, and was still engaged in trade. He (Mr. Sergeant Pell) acquitted the respect able proprietors of the Times of any malicious intention of wilfully slandering the plaintiff; but when be saw that the news of several persons bad been introduced, as being able to prove the misunderstanding arising from the utterance of the words imputed, he felt warranted saying Chet to knew the defendants must have bad communication with other persons, who, in this instance. were fighting under their banners, and defending them selves with their respectable names. Again, he said,be ac quitted the proprietors of having published this libel with any improper motive, but they were primarily re sponsible for what they had inserted. It timid not be said to the Jory that damages ought not to be given for what might have got into their paper withouttheir know- Lidge, for they were hound by law to see that nothing imoro.,.er was admitted into its columns, and if they were guilty of neglect, they were amenable, though, ' not to the same extent as ,if they had been guilty of a criminal intention to .defame and injure the object of their animadventions. The present action was nut brought to recover heavy damages front the de fendants, but to gain a verdict with such moderate da mages as would prove to the public that the plaintiff's character had been unjustly and improperly attacked,and to chew that unfounded imputations had been cast upon it. The LearnedSergeaut then went on to state the facts a hiclk were afterwards proved in evidence, and observed that the libel imputed to the plaintiff the crime of having used the pulpit for improper purposes, • Mr. Beck. , the son of the plaintiff's attorney, was called to prove the proprietorship, which was admitted. ' Cross-examined,—Anether action had been instituted in the Bucks Chronicle for the same paragraph; he had not appliett to the defendants to give up the author be fore the action was brought. The alleged libel was read ; it was inserted in The 7'idres on the 26th April, 1823 : o A serious misunderstanding hat taken place between the independent congregation at Great Marlon', and their Minister, in consequence of personal 'inveetires used by the latter in the pulpit on a young Lady, of distinguish ed merit and spotless reputation. We understand the subject will be serionsly taken up by the Mends of the injured yoanieLady."—(ftucks Chronicle.) ' iMr. John Hartford hail known the plaintiff sixteen rears I knew him as minister at Marlow; knew the pa eageaph applied to him. Cross-examined.—l'he plaintiff had bent in the lace line; did not {wow that he lied been a cobler ; had heard that he had been. a shoemaker in Bristol many rinse; did not knew .that lie was about to have Marlow before the putiliestion of this libel; he was not altoge ther Ealisfied with the eituation, his salary was hardly suffii ient ; never heard it positively from the .plaintiff that he was ihont to heave Marlow untilafter the publi cation of the librl. Pits closed the plaintiff's case. , • , f. M r . Sergeant VAUGIAN submitted that the plaintiff nmst he terdsoited on two grounds; the first was that the vlaintitf had not shower himself tts have been >L licensed ministry. Mr. Jitstice 13uttenuons thought that eras to be pre sumed, sad refused to 'sunsuit the plaintiff on that ob jection. Mr. Sergeant V4VGBAN then made the second object nem.. soideli wag that the alleged libel was stated:in thu et7clarat:an to b e a libid published by the defeottantt; SOW OS sally taken tal variance Pis' ported the Mt. Jdit for the consideration of the Court above. Mr.SergnatilVinixas then adertissed the Jury for the defendants. He 'thought this action most unjustifiable, end when the Jury were acquainted with the eirclosstatiee, be was pomaded their.would hi of the trame opininm He had asked a witness whether the piaiiffiff bad not been a eobler, and he had done this in order A shew, as was.the fact, that.at least he had onto been in so low a station= would nofit.him through want of proper educe , tion, for undertaking the sacred office of a minis • r of the gospel. The paragraph complained of had first ap peeved 10 17. e Becks Chronicle. Why were not the pie. ties content with proceeding against that paper? ,WhV bad the plaintiff brought the present action in London) The answer was plain—it was that in the county of Buck initbam the object proposed by the action would. not, be so likely to .succeed. In that county he was known, while here. he was a.stranger. His ministry had; not made him so much an object of public attention as to render him the subject of the thoughts and admira tion of the citigens of London; the vindication of his character would be more effectual if it could be obtained in Buckinghamshire; but the action was bronghsliere that be might have the advantage of tailing his tale of sorrowfid complaint before those who were ignorant of those circtunstances with which his own townsmen must be well acquainted. However, the Beek. Mrs:mirk had been 'proceeded against; in another week that action word be tried, and a verdict was now sought from a London Jury, In order to enable some of the Learned Sergeants now in filbert to state the example to the Buck inghamshire July, and call on them to imitate it. The Leeward Sergeant then read the paragraph, and observ ed that if that was a libel it could not be said to be an aggravated libel—it was indeed one of the mildest and most diluted libels he had ever read. The words which the plaintiff had uttered in the pulpit would this day be proved, and the gentleman who *bowed so much morbid delicacy when.bis conduct was in question, should learn he ought to respect the feeliigs of others. If there was one place more than anothea from which all bad passions should be banished, and in which love, good will and charity, should alone have entrance, it was the pulpit. If the invectives which would be proved to-day were true, the lady and not the plaintiff was the person to complain; she was, indeed. ' more sinned against than sinning," and it was the duty of the plaintiff to have re. traced his steps, and have asked her pardon rather than have appeared here to-day as a public accuser. The Learned Sergeant went into a detail of the facts, and ob. served.that the onlv offence of which the lady bad been guilty, was in suffering two children to go home in the afternoon in order to afford their mother the opportunity of going to a Wesleyan Chapel. This was the conduct which bad been stigmatised as disgraceful—this was the conduct that had offended the plaintiff, who appeared to be a divine Calvinistic shoo maker, and' whose education, if more extended, would have softened his mind, and have improved his murals add feelings. The present action was a sort of corollary to the invectives he had need, and chewed to demonstra tine, that he could not be charged with the too frequent use of that Christian forbearance which it was his duty to inculcate and exercise. Ode other circumstance ' de. served to be meptioned • he (the plaintiff) had once al mitte.i that perhaps he bad better not have used the words ; he was requested to make an apology, but lame. diately and peremptorily refused to do so. observing (in imitation of a great Statesman, who once differed with a distinguished Leader of Opposition) that if the friends of the young lady Waited for an apology they would wait • long enough. In proving the justification he thought he should establish the plaintiff to have beenthe greater libeller. John Ceilings—l knew the plaintifk I was present at the afternoon service on Sunday, April 6 ; we sing first and then a prayer is delivered; after which we tiog again, and a text Is then given out ; the plaintiff was standing in the table.pew, that is the place where the Minister stands to perform the afternoon service ; before the text was delivered lie said something—l am afraid I cannot repeat the words exactly, I am an old man, and my me mory is sometimes at fault-1 believe what he'satti was this She is a disgrace to the school," he did notinen. -tion her name then, but afterwards ; " She has done more hurt than good by giving the children leave to go to other places," he seemed to signify that they ought-to have been attending their duty, he began of his own accord. ' Crose-examined—l am SO years old; I have lived in Marlow ever since I was three years old; the plaintiff has officiated there nearly 18 years ; my house was the first he bad when he came, and very good friends we were. . • Mr. Sergeant Pstg.—And I hope are still. Witness—Yes, ['should be sorry not to be good friends with him ; the meeting-house is calculated to bold nearly 1,000 persons, perhaps it may not be quite so large, but it is a very large place; the plaintiff has taken great - care of the school, he contributed very much to bring it forward at first ; •several gentlemen and ladies are kind enough to attend to instruct the children to theirduty .; the .plain tiff did not say any thing of Miss Fair's character many other way than in permrtting the children to leave the school; he said that in consequence of her permitting the children to leave the school she did more berm than gi)od. One of the Jury wished to know whether it was meant that she did more hurt than good by neglecting their education, or by permitting them to go to other places? Witness—He complained of the children being per- mitted to be in the street, the plaintiff was generally ap proved of by the congregation—he was always very active in prqpioting the interests of the schooL Mary Anne Stone gave words to a similar effect—tge words stated by this witness were—" I have something to say, which 1 thought of mentioning before, that is of a female teacher belonging to the Sunday school ; her •narne. is Miss Fair, she does more harm th an good, and if any girl dare ask her leave, she -shall be turned out and never enter the *hoot agsin—her conduce is a disgrace to the school." Miss Fair was one of the teachers at the school, and attended there regularly for six or seven years: she was about 24. Cross-examined—Miss Fair had asked the witness about the words. They had been read to her at Mr. Wash• bourn's; they had been read to her within the lest week ; they had been read• before; perhaps three times within the last month. Mr. Washbourn was brother-in-law to Miss Fair, Re-examined—Witness first gave the words to Miss F:6r, and these whirl. ikia been read .to her were the same, and thee-were the words witness heard pl.intilf utter. Miss ['Pair was a la.ly of spotless reputation and irreproachable charaeter. Miss Eliza Holding stated the words used to have been—" Miss Fair had been in the habit of giving the children leave to absent tbemselvea . trom school. He should not put it in the power of the teacher to give the children leave. She was doing more harm than good." Miss Smith stated the plaintiff began by saving that belittle!) wished to.mention something which be disap proved of ire one of the female teachers; he s.id, " I mean Mils Fair." At that time witness was obliged to leave chapel on account of a violent cough •, on iter.ra• turn she heard him say, " does more harm than good." Mr. Joseph Wright e ene of the Deacon,. whose duty it is to attend - to the secelar concerns of the chapel, b a j communication witli the plaitititrrespecting the worth- lib, into at he pew b 'd be the eonveniug ..s2himat ...alleOntrary to the lows governiug the Jadepe t meeting. for if any sectional wasmade against aey one of the members, be had E . tight to have a meeting, lied added, be could not beio Imposed on in the independest society, and that , a Meeting magi be called. Witness convened a meeting. .which wai accordingly held. Plaintiff said it mast he a poling it:letting: It was so. Witness read the letter 'which Miss Fair had sent him. After this, witness said to the Meeting, that he had mentioned the circumstance to. the plaintiff. and had proposed Fleeting. to which plaintiff had'ohjected, and witness observed that it was not jibe borne that a defenceless female should this be attacked witbbnt being beard. Mid how would be feel if it had been his own daaghter ? Witness believed plaintiff said it might have been as well if be bad not mentioned the name; bat, on being asked by Mr. Waebbourn to make an apology, lie said he should staid there a long while before he made any apology. Did the former oc casion, whoa witness saw the plaintiffin the vestry,plain 'tiff said Min Pair was a lying busty. `The matter oc casionerfgreat.confasion among the Independent Disseo tete in coeseqeence of the meeting being public, which ware the plaintiff's desire. Witness's son proposed a vote of 'tensors on the plaintiff, bat it was not seconded.: Miss Pair's ebseacter was in every respect iirrepro achable. Mr. Sergeser Piti.z.--Nobodyever denied it. The oritnewewas then uosnexamined.—He did express warmly;hipiseil had said other things of the plaintiff beyond went related to his conduct en this oc.ession.— The letter in question stated the charge which theylain tiff had made against Miss Fair, and then observed by way of reply, that she had only permitted toss of the children to go home to afford their mother an opportu nity of attending the Wesleyan Chapel. It went on to declare that since the plaintiff had expressed his disap probation of permitting the childrea to leave the school she had ceased to great them leave of absence. This was reed to the meeting, but the following part, although written at the same time, woe not stated. It was to the' following effect t—that she had occasionally left the plaintiff's chapel in the afternoon, " considering it suffi cient self-denial to hear'Mr. Edwards morning and even ing, he never having Leen a minister of her approbation, seer bad she ever derived any benefit from his ministry." Miss Fair, a young lady whose appearance and msn sers were extremely prepossessing, was then called—She std, I have assisted at this Sunday School about seven years and a half; I never received any reward for my services; I never at any time countenanced the absence of the children from their instruction; I have allowed two of the children to go home in consequence of their mother being unable to attend a place of worship unless they did; they had been present in the morning; I never allowed them to go home on any other occasions, except on account of illness. The letter was put into her hands, which she stated to be the same she had sent. Cross-exam:ned—The plaintiff was never a favourite preacher of mine nor of Ale. Miniboom ; Mr. Wash. bourn had been on friendly terms with the plaintiff, but not at the time of this transaction; Mr. Washbourti Lad been a bankrupt, and the plaintiff one of his creditors ; I bad never allowed any of the children to go hone, or out of the sehool, except for the reasons I have before ince. tioned ; l did not generally attend the afternoon service; I went to church ; others of the female teal hers were occasionally absent from the afternoon service ; I do not know who pat the paragraphs into The Bucks Chronicle. fly the JUDOS— che plaintiff had no voicein the school except as a member to choose the Conamiree; the school is governed by a Committee of Cachet. Mr. S. Waahbourn corroborated the testimony of Mr. Wright. Cross-examined—The Meeting did not express any disapprobation of the plaintiff's coudnet ; Mr. Wright proposed a vote of censure, which was not seconded ; he used expressions personallroffensive to Mr. Edwards; be said that the plaintiff had disgraced his professional character. Mr. Sergeant Pint replied. Beemionses charged the Jury. The charge of making use of the pulpit for the purpose of delivering personal invectives, was of the most serious kin I. A Minister might be permitted—indeed his duty required. Mtn to preach against VICO or immorality, bet he was not justified in pointing out a particular person as the. object of his censure; the charge was therefore a libel ; and the Jury ought' to find a verdict for the plaintiff on 'the general issue giving moderate damages, and if they believed the j ust i fication to be made oat, for the defend ants on that justification. The Jury retired at half-past three, and at seven re - harped a verdict for the plaintiff on the general issue ; rimnages forty shillings, and for the defendants on the justification. . .. .1 -: -t ' .**tgliAN . . . . , . _ T ....... . . - . . .. . . .. thaaviienewit motored +state iffseinsiorioi- had uttered. Witness told him boliado Jitter pat it dteiffram . 'TECH/ides CAroxicre. This was a fa- his beads of an unpleasant natant. relating to- what Noce between the feet ind.the ward.. . . had sad • f lee publicly in the pulpit. or in the table pe Fit.arr.whoWwwitifilir.Serteant Vaininatt; esp• and he *ought it necessary that titymetabetil 'should the objection. called together, which witness proposed to be on i rodeo Butiotions reserved the second objection evening of thatday. The likintiff objected to conveni consideration of the Court above, , the members. Witness said the oh on was. colitis COURT OF KING'S BENCH..-.SITURPAT. MAY V. BERTRAND.—This was an action by the late Vestry Clerk of St. Matthew's, Bethnal-green, for a libel published of and concerning his conduct in that office, by the defendant. In its circumstances this case was similar to that tried yesterday against a Mr. Brown, in which the plaintiff recovered 1001. damages. On both sides it was ndw - egreed that the defendant in'this action should submit to a verdict against him for nominal damages, which should carry costs. A verdict was accordingly en tered far plaintiff—Datnays, 40s. MK KING V. FREDERICK CURSTRADI MORTLOCKE. This was an indictment for perjury, assigned upon an answer to a hill in the Exchequer; filed by a Mr. John Eirlcby, againit the defendant and two other persons, 'gamed 's l ofitt Mortlocke,andJohn Cheethaus Mort lecke. Theileigoments of perjury were, first, That the defendants bad faliely sworn that person named Docra eras not the agent of himself and partners ; and second, that after the decease of Doers, he did not carry on the business of a coachenaster on behalf of the widow of the latter. Mr. GURNEY (with vshcint. ass Mr. Walford) stated the case for the prosecution,. The defendant bad been part ner in a banking-firm. ateambridge; and, having retired from business for some years, now lived in the county of Rutland. • The prosecutor, Mr. Kirkby, bad been a re .spectable fartner in the county of Cambridge, and occupied about one thousand acres of land of his own. The transaction which gave rise to this prose cution took place in the year 1815. TO account for the lateness of this prosecution, after ep long a lapse of time, it wets only necessary to observe, that since then, Mr. , 1 Kirkby had been in ulfficulties, and was not able to pos-, sess biassed( of the necessary documents until last yeas. The case he had to lay heroic the Jury was in substance this :—Mr. Docra, who had carried on business as a cat, le dealer, &was also a coach proprietor at St Ives,being desirous of becoming agent of the Cambridge bank,of which thede fendavit was a member, applied to the house io 1814, and they said they had no objection, provided be could give security for such money as they• should entrust in his hands as their agent at St. Ives. Mr. Docra accordi ngly applied to Mr: Kirkby, who then lived at March, in tae tale of Ely, and to several other respectable farmers, who agreed to become his iaretlits, W the extent of um . , and a surety-660d to that Ito Pointed notion , cuted. Notes to ,the amoupt.o) - 1901K. tr‘re transmitted to Deere al St. Ives, urfsero be apl4ased to 011ie world as agent, and acted ae sapb, • rot m 4 on bohalf. of the de fendant. la the.beginniartif Docra.fell into diffi culties, std•diedscOnaitterabli in debt to the defendant's house. 'The defeildhat 'andertook-ltrinnelge ikera'•. - - coach -business. for the widow's benefit, and also with a view ro pay orthe debt which Ise had incoreed,snd lava harmless his suedes.. In the mean time appliearito, wo k mate to the imeeties..who each paid the 'defendant house the sum of 3081. , their,rateable proportion, accort 4 ... int to the extent of theie Gability. Application was also made to Mr.Kirkhv.the prosecutor, who gave the defend ants' house hie bill of exchange to the anfount of 5004 which included a sum of 21101. which be owed theta on a !sinking acount. When this bill became due it was not paid, and Mr. Kirkby being seed upon it, the defendant and big partners obtained judgment. In order to preve. t I their suing out execution, Me. Kirkby filed a bill of it - •junction in the Court of Excherpor. suggesting that the defendant and his partners had funds in their hands or Doers sufficient to discharge the amount of the te-write. ,That hill was however dismissed, and Mr. Kirkby, after receiving some indulgence from the firm, was ultimately .compelled to pay the money. The defendant. in his an swer to the bill filed in the Exrhequer. had steed. that . I 'Ducra had never acted air agent for Messrs. Mortlake, and that be, the defendant, had oot carried on Decries coach business for the benefit of his widow; Whereat in tenth and in fact (esdlie indictment charged) both slat , - ments were false. The question for the Jury was. whe ther these statements hat been male %%Wally. - If they were, they were hound to find the defendant guilty: hot if they entertained any doubt upon the subject, they ought to give the defendant, in so serious a case; the be nefit of it sill acquit him. ' Mr. Kirkby. and I other witnesses, were then. called,•and proved the facts of the case in substance, as they were opened. ScaturrT, for the defendant, submittel, that upon; the/production of the book of accounts, it woula appear there was neither an agency nor a fraud. Mr. Itobinson was called, and Ise identified the ac count produced in the'ledger as being that beta's° the parties. The LORD Crate JUSTICE, afiee examining the eel count, submitted to the Counsel for the prosezutioi , ,, • be:her they could sustain so serious a charge upsn thin evidence. He admitted that greet irregularity was appa rent on the Itee cf the accounts; hut there tees nothing snfficiently strong, in his opinion. 'o establish an agency, or to support the indictment. Mr. GURNEY, after a few'remarks upon the irrega' tr complexion, to say the least of it, of the case, soh: n t ted to the opinion of the C.mrt, and the Jury immediate ly found the defendant --Iyor ttoihe. LONDON SiiSSIONSi On Satortlay.the Adjneirneil Sessions for the City of London was hell b-fore the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, and Aldermen Sir ,lames Shaw, Cox, and Venable% James F?as►tstll was tried for riot andassault in Whitf cross-treet prison. Tile e 031310,/ SPRIMA NT and Mr. I:lom.aszre conduct cil the prosecution in behalf of the City. The evidence stated, that Mr. Brown, the creditor of one White, a priaoner,agai oat who te he had attended at the Insolvent Debtors' -court, to protect his interest•, wt nt to the prison at the request of White, to accommodate the matter; that soon after he entered' preparations were made by a number elf the inmates to pomp on him, the having been filled with water, and the rxecutloners of the prison laws haring blackened their feces.. tailed up their sleeves, ; that in spire of h struggles they half drowned him, and then covered hien witn w.hes and saw duo, and that the defendant was amongst the most ac tive t.f his persecutors. The defendant said in his defence, th it he had washed• himself with the water he had pumped, and that the ter ror of the prosecutor had transformed him into one of the executioners. The defendant was foam! Guilts•, and senteneed to he imprie.ne•t in the Home of Co r •ction to hard Tabaue fur six months. A circumstance of a most heart-rending kind took place in St. James's-street, in this town, on Saturday last. A little girl of the name of llowcroft, about six Years of age, went out with her sister, live 'months obi, and as she us, playing over the month of a well, the co vering of which (being insecure by the rottenness of the timber supporting the outer flag) gave way, and bat, unfortunately, fell in. This circumstance being un known,the parents were kept in anxious suspense till about seven o'clock in the evening, when some circum stance caused swpicion to fall on the fatal sp it ; on whi h the father descended, and found his infant babe on t• e chamber of the well. immediate search was made • fur the elder sist-r elsewhere, supposing she had ebsconifed after seeing what had happened to her charge ; but dur . tug the absence of the father, another person went down and discovered bet suffocated at the bottom of the well, with the large flag, &..., upon her, fifteen yards leaver than the place where the infant was f tund. She had her thigh broken in two places, her shotilder dia'inatttd, anti' was otherwise mach bruised. An inilest was held oa the bodies on Monday morning, when a verdict of" At citiental Death," was returned--(beedi latelligeneer.) An inquisition was enTuesday.taken at Oiford,os view of the body A. T. Grey, coachman to the Regulator coach. It appeared that on Friday night preceding, the deceased had been running up High-street against at iend with Whom he had been spending an evening, who out ran him, and whom he then challenzed to a race back wards ; when the deceased, after running a few yards, fell with such violence on the pavement, as to cacsea cos cussion of the bra; A, which terininatel his existence en Monday morning. Verdict, Ac.:iden'al Death. Mr. Grey, who was forty-four years of age, and has It ft a wi dow, a son,and two daughters, was very much respected and esteemed. A dreadful accident occurred, we understand, near Hounslow, between four and tire o'clock on Tuesday af ternoon last. The coachman of the Bo b Chronometer coach s'ogps.sd at Smalibury Oreen to set an inside pas senger down, and incautiously left the horses without any person to hold them, for a few seconds. They set offal full speed. The coachman ran•after and succs &led to reganing the reins, but in so doing use tnroan and r the wheel of the coach, and had h's shoulder dislmated The horses afterwards oyes turned a cart and broke it to atoms, in which were two women and two childrin. One of the women was killed on. the sp st, the other toss so much injured that her life was despairs d of. The chit• then received but little injury.—(Backhanishire Chron ) A shock'ng a cident occurred • on Saturday, the sttt instant, in Fenchurch-street, to .51r. Leathaaite, who. in driving into town in his gig, struck against a hack ney-coach, and was thrown out La' a considerable dis tance, by which-his right elbow was crushed in many places. Mr. Basset, surgeon, was directly sent for, and after the removal of some of the bones forming the el_ bow-joint, was enabled to leave Mr. Leathwaite in th e hope of ultimately doing well, without losing his arm. MARRIED.-03 Saturday morning. at St. tieurge's Church. Haaover-square, Hata)ly. son of Thos. G. Knapp, Esq., to Esau, daughter ofJeffry Wyatt, Esq. architect. On Saturday, the Mb Inst., at St. George's. Slooinshary, Thomas Holroyd. Esq. fourth son of the lion. Mr. Justice lloiroyd, to Sarah, youngest daughter . of Wm. Morgan. Esq of Gowor-street. D I ED:-4411ifthea re. ia eiftiiii-stettet aptiatiquirs. se Me 3th ismt4l6 et ft of apoplexy, James Pratt, Esq, in his OUth yeoman& tosootail by bisolliolect On tinalibriallS; Mary. the Wile of Robert Fisher. Esq. of Alder and of Mitchel!). SurreY. I'..tt " Zit IT E4l.l". as. K i r :o n . l.l *l l iT an B 4 ll.t 'u nt i b t 7. d e t ttitt c l i Z.;. t . LT. D. to whom ell Cownottiottittits . Ordea l dre. are re velum. to be oddtetio.tt' ----r _'~~;.+ - 1 «w~:. FF. s•-• • j, ~` ~. ~4 . 1