The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-11-10 00:00:00

Were Hunt's whiskers shared of then / —No, they were tot. Did some of them sleep et your house on the Monday night 7—Yes, one, or both of the Thurtells ; I cannot say positively. Who versed year house on tbr Tuesday?—All mleept Pre tsprt. When did Hunt arrive at your house after this time ?—He arrived with the boy Jem on Tuesday ; at that time Prober* was not with him. Did the Timmons sleep at your house on the Tuesday night ? John did, I know; Thornss did not. Did any other person sleep in the same room with John Theriot' that nightY—Yes; a stranger to me slept there, in 'Thomas Thatch's bed. What sort of a man was he?—A short, rather Meal, pock fretted man, shout afty years of age. Did you ever see this man before or after that time— )(e'er. Where was this man when Rethven arrested John Thurtell ? In bed in the same room, and Ruthveo saw his. What became of the men I—He dressed himself as quick as possible and lett the house. Are you sure that that person tessera Hunt?—l am positive It was not. Did you ever hear the parties talk about shooting or mar define say OINI—No, never. Did you ever see a sack or cord in any part of your hoese, dr in Thertell's bed coons l—No, raid not. When were Hunt's whiskers shaved off?-0n the Tuesday I el:merited it. Do you know any timing morel—l have no recollection of soy thine further. *The Manse aid, "We must bold you to ball in the sum 0f.804. to appear " at the next Ageless, to give evidence against the sewed. Mr. Testull expressed his readiness to do so. His exami netion wes read over to him, and be signed It, and having entered into the required recognizance, be was discharged. MR. WOODS' STATEMENT. One readers will recollect a story of an attempt to murder a Mr. Woods. at a house in Manchester-buildings, by. John Thaetell, as it is believed, ai•ted by Joseph Hunt. Mr. Woods has published the following statement of that time mita cc* : • " Oa the morning of Monday, Oct. 7th. about a quarter before seven o'clock, a man, habited as a journeyman carpenter, about five feet eight or nine incites high, of dark complexion, and with large black whiskers, called at Mr. Woods' residence, and stated that a lady of the named Brese, with whom Mr. Woods was well acquainted, was desirous of seeing . him upon some important business, at a house in a street in Westminster, the name of which be • did not know, bet it was a street just beyond the Horse Ouards. Mr. W. Was not satisfied with the account, and q'eatiooe4 him as to the cause of Mrs. Brew being in Westminver; she resitting at Kensington ? His answer was, hat she was stopping at a friend's house, and wished to see Mr. W. that morning as she was going out of town. Upon this M.. W. accompanied him to Manchester-build• logs, where he stopped at No. 10, which Mr. W. imme diately saw was not inhabited. The door being ajar. his serpicions were awakener! that all was not correct, and he desired the man to step in, and tell Mrs. Brew, that he (Mr. W.) was there. The man entered, and having pro•eed-r1 along the hall or passage as far as the back parlour door, Mr. MIAs saw John There!) spring from the back parlour and strike 'he man a heavy blow, which knocked him tA jai great violence against the opposite wall. The man hallooed out something which Mr. Woods did not distinctly tindeistand, brit to the effect that Thurtell had dtistikra his man. Mr. W. immediately retired, nut runr•ing. nor related by J. Thortell, as it is stated by some of the Newspapers, but walking at an ordinary pace ; and. on looking back from the end of the street, he saw the messenger st the door of the house gazing after him, but not attempting any pursuit. Upon this Mr. Woods waited On the son of Mrs. Brew, and was informed by him that tbat lady had been for three weeks in the Isle of Man. What follows is very mysterious. On hls return home he found the following letter, which had been left at his resi dence by a man of shabby appearance, almost immediately on his quitting the house with the messenger. " DIAR Sta--An unknown friend informs you that there is a writ oat against you for 161.: keep out of the way till after Friday next.' 64 I n the evening of the same day he received the follow ing letter also:-- MONDAY ArTZRNOON, 4 o'cr.oce.--Sta —1 am happy to inform you. that an unknown friend of yours es settled the action. which you where about to be arrested for this morning fur 161 and costs : therefore you have no (secedes to make yourself uneasy about it. I understand you are indebted to a Mr. Otixens for his interfreisee in this u ngentlemanly art. 1 am, Sir, yours, 4 JNO. CLARKS.' " Clifford's Inn.'" FIRS.—A fire broke out on Saturday evening, at N 0.4, Pinion Place, Edgeware Road, occupied by Mr. Remnant, which destroyed the interior, together with the whole of the furniture. It was occasioned by the boiling over of a chemical preparation in the back parlonr, and the flames were so rapid that the inmates had but time to escape. 'rbe falling in of the walls stopped further mischief. • ANOTHIR FIRS AT I...MR.—DOVER, Nov. 70-14114 night, at eight o'clock, the alarm was given of another fire having broken out at the Duke of Wellington public boom, in Snargate Street, in this town, and from the sensation created by the calamitous fire of the day before,' four engines and many hundred persons were soon at the spot. Large volumes of smoke Issued from an upper back bed room window, and now and then flames ; but from the prompt assistance rendered and an excellent supply of water, the fire was got under in the course of an hour, and the only damage done was a bed, second bot tom flooring rafters, and a girder of the room where the fire broke out being destroyed. and the house deluged with water. How the fire happened is at present cave -1 Ted in mystery; but, from circumstances that have sub seqnently transpired, a strong suspicion has been excited that it did not arise from accident. A servant maid of the house has undergone a private examination to day before the Magistrates, but nothing was elicited. There is little doubt but a candle had been placed under the bed ; bat whether by the landlord's children, or by whom, is not I known. it is a little strenge, however, that the servant should have brought her box, containing her clothes,' down staiis yesterday morning; and upon being question eeti on this point, else stated it was for the purpose of hav ing her box painted. ROesitT Score.—The evening previous to his execu tion, he m ule en unusually hearty supper, and about 1 , 2 k at night remarked to those with him that lie thoeld get no rest unless be were ." lead asleep." Por tions of Scripture were then read to him, by one well fitted for such a duty, and he soon fell into a sound dumber. About an hoar afterwards he awoke and earn estly and cheerfully joined in prayer. Wiien his devotions wereended. he enter•il into discourse, and recounted many of his youthful frolics, and feats of running, Ike. ; and expressed hope that Wednesday (the day of execution) 'would prove the most tempestuous that ever fell from the. Leavens. so that many people might be prevented from witnessied his death. In the morning. after making a good breAraitt. he employed himself in packing up his and smile religions books, which •n ere io be sent • to his wile etid children. lie was even so collected and an provident, as to write the address of his wife for Dr . Munro, that the clothes in which he suffered might also re sent to his wife atter his dissection ;'and on one of the books, which W 47 given to him in• hie ionfi.lement, was written ail a dvice to his children to read them, but not IS lead them to any pewn, as those oho wanted books light bu• the fjr themselves. — (f atly' Mail.) 'sight buy thew 1 THE STATESMAN COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8. Goon Lev V. TIC DUNS Or SOMSRSETIMIDediRtOIy after his Lordship bad this morning taken his seat, Mr. Gourley addressed the Court, and again complained that his papers bad been taken away by the solicitor for the defendant. He was now only &moos to know from his Lordship whether there was any danger that the original papers would be in any manner injured or altered ?—The wait CHANCELLOR said, that the original document, were in the bands of the Court, and could riot by possibility be altered.—Mr. Gourley begged pardon for the unnecessary interreption he had given. Mr. WETHZRELL moved that a writ of Ile tweet regao which hadsbeen issued against Sir O. Wood, an Officer of rank in the East India service, should be recalled, and that all the proceedings had upon it should be reseind..d. It appeared that the following were the circumstances under which the writ bad been issued :—Sir O. %Vood had purchased ao estate of Mr. Parry, the East India Director, and Mr. Muspratt, who is at present a candidate for a seat in the directory, as trustees for a Mr. Hoban—an estate for which he was to pay 36,0001.—0 n the 29th of Sept ember 1819. Before the time arrived f or compl e ting thi s agree ment, Sir O. Wood took various objections to the due of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Parry and Muspmtt, and had since employed every legal means to get rid of his contract. — The plaintiffs having heard that Sir O. Wood had applied to the Court of Directors for leave to return to India, moved the Maser of the Rolls for a writ of see treat regno against Sit O. Wood, on the ground that if he left this country, they would be unable to compel him to complete the bargain which they had made with him. Having ob tained that writ, they put it into the hands of the proper officer, and had Sir O. Wood arrested for 36,0001. After Sir lieorge bad been five days in confinement, be paid the money into the hands of the Sheriff, and gave bail for any additional expenses that might be incurred under it.— Under these circumstances, Mr. Wetherell moved that the writ be discharged—first of all, because there was no debt due to the plaintiffs, as they bad not yet made good their title ; and secondly, that if there was a debt, it was not to the antosut which they demanded, as they still bad the estate to look to for their own indemnity , . After Mr. SHARI/ILL and another barrister had been beard on the same side, Mr. HART, Mr. SUODIN, and Mr. PRESTON, wereheard in defence of the writ. Mr. WiTHERSLL was rising to reply, when— The Logo CHANCELLOR observed, that he would bear him further on the subject on Monday. In the meanwhile he would inform the bar, that thought he admitted the right of the Muter of the Rolls to issue the writ of se tarot regno, he did not think that the Vice Chancellor bad power to do it. Indeed, in all cases where the Vice Chan cellor had issued such a writ, he had himself thought it necessary to inspect all the original documents. statement in the alleged libel was made front commendable motives, and with a sincere conviction of its troth: After the Jory had been absent from Court above - two bouts. they returned, and asked whether a malicious intent was not necessary to constitute libel; to which his Lordship returned no direct answer, but replied, that when a man published a paper ten ing to produce certain mulls, they might infer that be intended to produce those results, unless the contrary were proved, and the ones of proving the contrary lay on the defendant. The LORD Crater Justice expressed a doubt whether his expressions had been accurately reported ; as he thought that he began by laying down a more general propnsi• tion, sod afterwards made the particular application to the case. The Coarstox SERGEANT replied,that he thought his note was accurate, as it was taken immediately after the expres sions were used, and was confirmed by other accounts which be hail seen. Application had been made at the Crown Office for the short-hand writer's notes, but they had been refused; and therefore be could only rely on his own. Now he submitted that the Lord Chief Justice was wrong in representing& malicious intent as &presumption of law necessarily deducible from the tendency of a writing, 'Airlift was a question of fact for the jury to decide on all the circumstances before them. Undoubtedly, it was not accessary to have extrinsic proof of malice; the intention might be inferred from the tenour of the writing itself; but it wasclear the jail did not think it necessarily dedu cible from the writing, or their question would hove beets palpably superfluous. Mr. Justice BAYLET.—Are you not wrong when yea Wert that malice is not a presumption of law? On the "Hwy, the law often presumes it from the tendency of a No's actions. Thus, in a prosecution under 43 Oro. 111., be setting lire to a mill, where it was shown that the risoner was a man infirm though not of insane mind, the jury found him guilty of setting fire to the mill, but ex. pressed a doubt whether th-y ought not to have evidence of a malicious intent beyond that supplied by the act itself, to satisfy the terms of toe statute. The point was accord ingly reserved for the opinion of the Judges; but ..tbey thought it too plain for argument, and unanimously held the conviction right. The COULSON SIROCANTT said, that he was far front dis puting the law of that case, because there the act was unequivocal in itself, and could only spring from the motive imputed. He did not mean II- assert that collateral proof of malice was ever requisite; bat that the existence or non-existence of that necessary ingredient in guilt was a question in every case for the jury. Mr. Justice BATLEY.—When a man is tried for uttering a forged note, the intent laid is to "defraud the (governor and Company of the Book of England ;" not because theoffiender intended to defraud the Bank, about which be knew , sad cared nothing; but because the natural tendency of his act is to defraud the Bank. The Comfort SZIOCANT replied, that in such cases there was almost always a count inserted, laying the intent to defraud the party to whom the note was paid; otherwise he should greatly doubt whether a man who clearly had no idea of defrauding the Bank could be convicted. Mr. Jostice BEET.If a man, arrested by a police officer turns on him, and shoots him through the brad, there is ' no malice in the ordinary sense of the term —no previous ill will—sod yet lie is charged with murder, *of his malice aforethought." and executed. The COMMON SERGEANT proceeded to object to that part of the answer given to the Jury, in which it was said that the "ones of disproving the inference of malice lay oa the defendant," fro:n which he contended they would naturally infer that he must call witnesses to prove the circumstances under which he published, and could nut rely on mere observation and reasoning. Mr. Justice BATLIT asked whether any evidence was riven to justify the expression, " It is from authority we Peak ?" i The Comatose SIMIAN? replied, that there certainly was no evidence given, but that he bad argued that the words were natal° be taken in an official meaning,but that. fairly construed, they implied no more than the journalist received his intelligence front some one on whom he could rely. The existence of rumours was admitted, though they were also admitted to be grdundless ; and it was contended that, considering the circumstances, an editor bad a right boise fide to bring them before the public. Here, then. the jury were first told that the bare falsely imputing to a man insanity was criminal, without any qualification as to malicious design ; and when they returned and asked if they must not find malice, they were not answered in the direct manner which they were entitled to expect, but they were told that they mast infer malice from the act of publication, unless the contrary was shown. That they had doubts whether malice was fairly deducible from the passage itself, was clear from their long deliberation ; they were misled both by the original charge and the reply to their question ; and thus the defendants were deprived of their fair chance of acquittal. Mr. BROUGHAM rose to make a similar motion OR behalf of Mr. Harvey: He considered the objections to the charge and reply of the Lord Chief .ldsttee as resolving themselves into threat—first, his use of the word " false " in his charge ; se cond, his omission to answer the question of the jury in di rect terms ; and third, the explanation which he substituted for such answer. His Lordship told the jury, that " falsely to assert of any man that he was Insane, was criminal ;" and then added, that " the counsel for the defendant had admitted that the assertion was false." Now the counsel for the defend ant had made no such admission ; they. had, indeed, admitted that the statement was salt-se; but their whole reasoning was directed to show that it was not false—that was, wilfully false. Now there was a wide difference between falsehood and un truths, as every one knew, in common parlance; the former might be innocent ; the latter was always guilty, and usually expressed by a shorter term.—(A laugh.) A man might assert what he believed to be true, and which turned out to be un true; or he might assert that of which he had no knowledge. and yet might not be guilty of falsehood in its worst legal acceptation, as was proved by the case of " Haycroft v. I Creasy," where an untrue representation of matters which the party did not know. was holden not to @outfight ground of action. The use of this equivocal word, then, was calcolated (though not intended) to mislead the jury, especially when se companied by the rest of the charge. Again, why was not their question met with a direct answer? They asked. "Most we not And a malicious motive r' The plain answer to which was. "Yes ;" for malice was the gist of the charge; and yet that answer was not given. Instead of that plain reply, they were again.misled by the direction that they might later malice from tendency, unless the defendant proved its absence; pe cause they would naturally construe the word " prove "las appiicanle only to evidence, and not to mantra and reason ing ; and thus they might think the defendants had done no thing, because they had called no witnesses. This remark was more mischievous, severed from the cnarge, than if it had been part of it; and very probably induced the verdict. Oa these grounds the learned counsel submitted that the jury had pro biddy been misled, and that the defendants were entitled to a new trial. Mr, Justice BATLEY said, he was clearly of opinion that there was no ground for the motion; as the Lord Chief Justice had most correctly laid down the law in his origi nal charge, and had given a most proper reply to the question of the jury. it was the duty of jurors to apply the law to the facts of every case; and where, as in this, the evidence was all on one side, they were bound to give their verdict upon it. The words " from authority" implied knowledge, and pledged. the writer to the truth of his alley tions ; so that, in this instance, the libel was not only @atm, but it was false in the worst acceptation of the term. A statement might, indeed, be untrue, and yet it might be innocent, if the party made it with a belief of its truth; but if he made it without knowing whether it was (true or false, be was culpable, and might be indicted fur padary, as if he knew it to be groundless. If the defendants had any thing like authority for their assertion,. they might have proved it; they had not done so; and therefore the jury were justified in taking the assertion as a wilful false- COURT OF KING'S HENcH, WiSTMINSTAR, Nov. 8. MAY O. DROWN. The SOLICITOR GENIIRAL moved fur a rule to show cause why the verdict in this case, which was an action for libel arising out of die contests in the parish of Bethnal Breen, should not be set aside and a new trial granted. lie relied on three grounds of oil •ction : first, that evidence tendered on behalf of the defendant was improperly rejected :second. that one of the introductory allegations in the declaration was disproved ; and third, that the libel had been altered after the publication of tie defendant, and was set forth as altered, and not as originally published. On the first point, he stated, that at the trial be offered to prove a series of libels by the plaintiff on the defendant ; but that the Loan Cuter Justice refused to receive them, though lie allowed general evidence to be given , that before the publication in question, the plaintiff bad distributed papers defa matory of the defendant, leaving it to the plaintiff, if be chose, to enter into the particulars of those papers. Now be submitted, on the authority of the cue," Fieserty v.Tipper," that be Lads right to read the specific articles in evidence ; and urged. that to hold the contrary would be to make a witness a pate of what was or was not libellous ; that in an actiou for criminal con versation, evidence of specific acts of infidelity committed by the husband was admissible; and that in this instance, the very libel declared on was provoked by this series of antecedent libels. On the second point, he drew the at tention of the Court to the prefatory inducement in the declarations which alleged, that certain monies had been raised and applied to support the prosecutions against Mr. Mereeron ; whereas the evidence was, that tbe money was not applied to sustain the prosecutions while in progress, but to remunerate the parties. who bad instituted them, after their termination ; and as every count alleged the libels to be written " of or concerning the matters afore oaid." this variance was fatal. The third point, respecting the publication. was abandoned by the learned solicitor, on an Intimation that there was sufficient pro .f that the defendant bad recognised the papers in their altered ' form. The COURT, on the first point, intimated a strong opi nion in favour of the rule, as originally laid down by the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, that in a trial of an action for libel neither party can go out of the issue to introduce specific facts, though be might shew a general course of behavi our; because no man can come prepared with evidence to disprove or explain the extrinsic circumstances alleged against him, and because the allowance of the introduction of such extrinsic circumstances would lead to the admission of an infinity of similar evidence on the one side and on the other. As, however, the learned solicitor bad stated that the publication complained of by his own slanders, which would give relevancy to the papers excluded, they granted a role to show cause on this point as well as on the question of variance. Mr. ScaaLcrr, for the plainiff, admitted that a paper war had existed in the parish : but said the libels com plained of were far deeper seated, and of a more malig nant character. than the mere squibs by which they, were preceded. The SOLICITOR GENERAL eXp r cl his confidence that the reverse would appear, and took his rule to show cause. TUB KIN 4 V. HARTS, ANDCHANIAN. The COMIION SIRGIANT, on behalf of the defendant Chapman, moved for a rule to show cense why the verdict of guilty should not be set aside, and a new trial bad. This was an information filed by his Msjesty's Attorney (lonersl for a libel on the King in the Sunday Times, and was tried before the Lord Chief Justice, at Ouildhall, when the Jury after a deliberation of five hours, and after coming into Court with a question to the Judge, found the de. &tiaras guilty, but accompanied their verdict by a recom mendation to mercy. lie now moved for a new trial, on the ground that the Lord Chief Justice bad misdirected the July in point of law. The Loan CHIRP JUSTICE.-- , —Do you mean in my original charge, or in my answer to the question put by the July: • ' The LOMMON SERGEANT replied, that he intended to argue that there was unsafirertion on both occasions. In his original charge, the Lord Chief Justice stated, that .‘ to puolish falsely of the King, or of any other person, that he was afflicted with mental derangement *as a criminal act;" awl that in this cas.• the falsehood of the assertion was admitted. Now the doctrine contained in this opinion Was evial-ntly too broad; be, anse there were many instances in whirls it might he a duty in one person to communicate to ara,tner his belief that an individual was in-ans ; as, it' a man knew that a friend were about to marry into a family where the disease was supposed to exist; and even W the infSranant were mistaken in the fact, still if lie made his communication bona fide, he could not be regarded as criminal. In thie instance, no witnesses were celled for the defence, but a line of arguanekt was • presented to the Jury to induct them to conclude that the hood. No doubt could be entertained of the doctrine that malice might be inferred from tbr libel itself; It was laid don n in the case of "the king v. Creevey," by Justine lee Blanc, and bad never beenshaken. If it could be ilisprovetl, the evidence was in the power of the defendant, and there fore the .jury had hero rightly told by the L trd Chief Justice that the onus of disproving it lay on I • ; an that if it were not disproved, they bed a right to infer it from his actions. . Mr. Justice HOLROTD expressed Ilk entire coneurrence with his learned brother in ill that he had said. The Ebel was not only offensive to the feelings of his Al.rjesiv; hut calculated to produce great agitation in the public mind; and being at once Glee and inisellierdasi datild only spring from evil design. It had been said that the lend Chief Justice did not give a direct answer to the quesiioti of the jury •, but a Judge was not bound to answer ahstr4rt questions of juries in abstract terms, without applying them to time m Meta in issue; and besides, in this rase the jury were satisfied with the reply. IU thought the direhon right. and the verdict the only verdict which the jury could have given. . . _ Mr. Justice Ban , said, that it was impossible for any human being to read the article prosecuted without being convinced that it was justly described in the inforinethm as aG. false, scandalous, and melicions libel." What could be more mischievous than to hold out to the public that the King was incapacitated by mental derangement from discharging the duties of his high office, and especially when the writer dared toassert that he spoke from authority for the statement ? Even as a rumour, he had no right to give the falsehood currency; but when he declared that he spoke from authority, he undertook fur the truth of his assertions, and for his own knots ledge of that sloth. A distinction had been &ken between what ass false and what was merely untrue; it wisest in some cases be lan. portant, but he was not himself casuist enough to dis . criminat e between the case of a man who asserted what he knew to be false, and that of one who gave as from 'Mho ' rity what he had no authority for asserting; nor should be have thought an argument founded on such a distinction worth a remark, had it not been advanced by a person of Mr. Brougham's intellectual power. " Malice," it w as said, "was the gist of the charge:" hut the legal steep. tation of the term malice was different from its mural import • as even in the case of murder it did not signify personal spite, but a general disposition to do evil. And this malice might undoubtedly be inferred —ray, it most be inferred—from the acts of the party; and the Lord Chief Justice, instead of telling the Jury that they might infer it, would have been justified in saying that they ought to leer it, from the terms of the libel. Indeed, in his (Mr. Justice I Best's) judgment, malice was not necessary to the crime in this case; for he who pnblished so mischievous a statement from any motive was doing an act which rendered him amenable to the law. Here the statement was admitted to be false; but he was strongly inclined to think (though he did not mean to decide the t poin ), that even if it had been true, it would have been cri eee inal to state it thus publicly before the regular conssiluted a . thorities thought fit to disclose it to the world. It war time that editors of newspapers should learn that they were board to preserve dem ni; and they were not to take it for granted that they had a right even to publish truth on subjects of so delicate a swore, which the official servants of the Crown did not think it right to disclose; but that they ought to wait ourif It was announced io the regular course by those who could judge of the proper time awl manner in which it should he made public. The LORD COM JUSTICC said, fully concurring in the op'nions expressed by the orbs r Judges. he should men It add, that if it were held that other proof of make must to given besides that which the tendency of a paper itself supplied, the honour., the reputation, and the feelings of every WO, high and low, mould be left nitlion; the protection of the law. The role was accordingly refused. A MAKKeas AND k AIRS. LTYN, Nov. 6.-We had a tale supply of Wheat it oar Market on Tuesday ; the lint qualities sold readily at the prices of last week. Barley, of the best Malting quality. in good demand at our under noted quotations. White and Grey Peas may be noted 2s. per quarter dearer. Beam continue the same. Floor without alteration. YARMOUTS, Nov. 6.--The supply of Grain at our Market was tolerably large. Wheat was a dull sale. and rather cheaper. Fine Malting Barley is in request, and Is. per quarter dearer. In other Grain note no alteration from last week's prices. At Saaffliatn Fair on Monday was a great abundanee of Neat Stock, %ibid. met a slow pale, but there being a short supply of Lambs some sold as high as 20s. At Newark fair. on Saturday se'nnight, fat beasts met with a rapid sale, at 6s. and 61.6 d. per stone. Of horses Mete was a very indifferent show ; and sheep experienced a very dull sale. EAST RITIORD, Nov. 6.-Our November fair was held on Saturday last, very few hops were shown, a few bags were sold, of the growth of 1621. at 61. per cwt. Cheese was not in much demand; that which was sold may be quoted from Ms. to 561. per cwt. The unfavourable state of the weather prevented many from attending, consequently there was but little business transacted. Lawn CORN MAIM?, SATOSDAT ' Nov. 1.-- White Wheat, (old) 21.18,.; new. V. 12e.; red wheat, ( new) 2/. 125.; barley, (new) 11. Ws. to 11. 12s. ; oats, (new) 11. Is. to 1/. 4s. ; and pease. (new) 11.65. to IL 124.-Tnesday; Nov. 4.-White wheat, (old) 31. 25.; new, 21. 14s. 21. 165.; mixed wheat. (old) 31. •, red wheat. (old) 31.25. ; new.2.l. Se. to 21. 125.; barley, (new) 11.1.. to 1/. ifs.; oats, (new) 11. to IL Is.; and peas, grey (new) 11. 14s. per qr.; oil cake per thousand, 121. Lewes stock market, on Tuesday. was but indifferently supplied with beef and mutton, Which met with a ready sale. at prices about the same as those of last market day. AM/1401L CORN MARILBT.-Wheat (old), 131. to 14/.106 per load; new wheat, 111. to 121. per load; barley, foe melting, 295. to 325. per quarter; for grinding, 251. to 9t. per quarter; tares, 9s. per bushel; beans, 6s. 6d.; pew, 41. 3d. CRICUSSTSIL COON WIAIRRST.---Zospectoes return thit week-Wheat, 525. Old. ; barley, 25e. Id.; oats, 211.; pelo• 295. ; beans, 465, MATH ET FIGHTING.—.in 'tequila eras Itel.l on Ss• torday. at the Marquise' Meld, near Calabrook, on tle body of liabriel Heatueriugton. a labourer, who wet his death in a pugilistic combat with a man of the name of Wilson, on the preceding day. Verdict —Manslaughter. . MARRI ED.—the Saturday warning, at St. Pancras t:hureh, 0. Milord Esq. of Guildford-street, Itus.ell-square. to Frastos Margaret. eldest best. ter of the Iles% It. Holland, of Spreyton. DMIL On the Pith ult. at St. Cleorge's gut, Mr. Jae Morn. of G, 041 ,__,..., 116. Mtge-street, to Mary, eldest daughter a:Joseph Saaaders. S. 11 . 6 •" * road. DIND.--On the let instant, at Croydoo. Mra. Margaret Creed. Mot 3 ' Margaret, yooo6tsl d." 16 -__.- At her residence In Great CI ter of the late Oe .eral Shirriff. On toe 7th Instant, at Baling, bliiditmea. la blo 7ltli year. Patrick man, Bag. life,' 51. Oa the 7th inst.. Jacob Arallowley, of lifinehaeord RM. S % On Friday. the 7th instant. at Boveney, lo the Sikh year of hie 3ea de' taloa. (leaver. Bay. naanyn ears an attire timpani* Ibr the roomy 0 nights's. . On Friday last, at her house, St. Panama. la the egth Of "- Mary, the relict of tieorge Sig. late of St. Pancras, icratil° Beaufort Buildings. bb yai On Saturday last, at Jersey. aged 43, J. Dassiest EM. pa Attorney-Oeurral, and Colonel of Om Vint Regiment ot .4.131 1, uI Islan Lately at Chichester, Mr. John Snooks. one of the " Ir thedral, whose dolly labours in the wake at the deser.ra • r corded. He began, at are snook is the morabio, tit luiSci l'.° ree , for morning Praers—at haltpast tea and elects, fir th e r40 1 L,1i,, at a quarter bere four In the afternoon, fur thenir -.41 t C.). l;.fe t C!oyiter gates—at nine, tolling the curt,. boil sad. diniagtne caw gates. This (lute he performed Naar years. -........... _ ~.... London : Printed arid Published at the OBS% No. Yin, SUll luis by R. WAR ELL, LL.D. Proprietor. -ni._ • i U and a hes on th skin' cities pt R esea the gill i veto SELI • INO, lour, *eery reduc and • troll time! cad° Oral Cuff' • TC great irral (hit )and sant ening wind and I *Teti In 010111 4M% mom NI A' viebl To THE Mr. I Hand , Mr. I Mrs. Bo asenc TUE orwi frith ourPl bins t Ha fisw Untie Ex Irt in th+ Eisti one a knoll prod' pap • 11 . 'ma itti IA P►ep Br - o sap hvr 'Mal Kea Dr eest Bei; 4tri Ntte TY!' Cos Rol law I)ai tor R I a nal Cat ter