The Statesman. — London, England, 1813-07-17 00:00:00

by rel. i Costa, ~... - . -- , COWL? OF ICINOIi SEBOlli liasm-18.. --.--;.• oa too ~. Before Lord ELLENBOR011911! and (1 Special Lary. • , of the Election s /V ESTM I NSTEit Ei.ErTit tlV . to he made as on MORRIS, ESQ. V. SIR F. autumn, BART. , formed hint, and 1 This was an action by which Morris, Esq. ' were made, the has High Bailiff of Westminster, sought to recover from of the same extent i Sir F.- Burdett,, Bart. the sum of 2251. being the clerks were retained moiety of the expence incurred by the Plaintiff in all the stationary - '. erecting the Hustings, and-in providing Poll . Clerks, , poll. A cout , • Poll Books, Bcc. at the last Election of Members to cessary to ma, serve in Parliament for the City and Borough of Act required ' . two hours of , Westminster. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in stating the case, ob- farthest next ,Aorning, and the erecting of the West-, _ Barred that the Jury must think it singular that they rainster hustings would req uire seven days at the should ' be met here this day in Westminster Hall , far. least. Several Candidates had o ff ered themselves by the purpose of being asked the question, Who are printed baud-bills . , among others, Mr. Jennings, who, the Members sent to represent this very city of West- however, declitiedson the morning of the day of minter in Parliament?—.lf that question were put to Election. Cross-examined by Mr. ilao.cou.t m,the any other terefve men in the kingdom, he was certain , witne s s admitted • that he did not see Sir Francis Bur. the only answer could be, Lord Cochrane and Sir F. , dett on the hustings, during any part of the time the Burdett, or Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane . ' Election was proceeding. Who then but the. Noble Lord and the Worthy Ba- . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that 'was his case. i ronet ought, as the law atood, to pity . the expences Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that then the Plaintiff legally incurred in their election ?-11e presumed the.„must be called, as he had . proved nothing to affect answer must be, none but they. lie understood,.! his Client. however, that it would be said, that they had not ! I Lord ELLENBOROUGII did not see that enough had been Candidates, and therefore were not liable.— • been proved to bring the Defendant within the words Now, he was s serry to hear this defence, for of the of the Act, which applied only to Candidates. Some Noble j tord and .11onourable Baronet he wished to act must be seen to have been done on the part of flay nothing disrepectful, but, on the contrary, en. the Defendant,. or those acting by his authority, suffi tertained for_&seth of them the highest respect., Ho , k cient • to vest him with the character of a candidate. did not, to bMre, always agree with them in their ,' On the contrary, it was not shown that he bad been kiea of things, but this was nothing remarkable, as • a - Candidate, nor had he even been seen on the hus f, of late few people could be found to concur in sen- rfiegs. Stippose the case of a Gentleman who was timent with them, so that they were for_ the most Labiread at the time, would - his being elected have the part chummed by themselves. But it seemed, that ; seffitct of making him a Candidate, and, as such, .of in this City of Westminster there was something pe- ' subjecting bins to expences incurred without his euliarly excellent, as connetted eh!' the selection of . knowledge, or even against his will ? . the Noble Lord and 'of alm,Worthy .Baronet, and . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, here the Defers with the mode of carrying that selection into effect. dant assented, by taking on himself- the character in Here every thing was pure, every thing was lovely. , which he bad been placed. It was on this ground :The Mernbers.did notask a singlevote, butevery thing that his Lordship decided the former case between Was the' elect of free' and spontaneous choice.— . these parties. . 111 that Court, however, there was a ; maxim, that I Lord ELLENBOROUGU had it impressed on his re tie who did a thing hy anothei did it by himself ; : collection, that, iu the former case, there was eel and on this principle, if a man had an active Com- deuce of some communication between the Defendant mittee—if he litl a strong-headed Chairman, who, ' and those who, it appeared, acted on his account. instead of allowing the principal himself to ask for: In these circumstances, his Lordship left the ques votes, managed all.' those matters, and secured the; tiou, as to the proof of the Agency to the Jury, 'Election for him, that was equal to the Candidates' who held it to have been sullidiently made out. acting in person. But,the Jury would be told, that I Mr. Bitoucnare contended, that the difference in Westminster; not only were . votes not )ought, between the two cases consisted in this, that there, ;or even solicted, on the part of the Candidates, : there was proof of Agency, which, here, there was b'ut' that the Members were not suffered to be at the ; not. bitienie even of a,shilling. It vitas the practice for I Mr.. Avroasrev-Gesettar. contended that Mr. Members, on being sworn in at' the teble, to pay a! Brooks , _ jun. called on Mr. Took, as Agent for tea of 2s. to .the Clerk. To such an extent, how- !Sir F. Burdett. e'rer, was purity carried in Westminster, that the I Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, this Gentleman was Jury would be iiifornied, that on the day preceding stated to be son of the Chairman of the Westminster that on which the Mem . ' her - was to take his seat, his Election Committee. Committee, or a deputation . from his Committee, ; Mr. BROUGHAM contended, there was net an atom waited on him, in high state, and 'paid over to him 'of evidence -to connect the Westminster Election retire twelve pence, that . he might have it in hi* Committee with the Defendant. I power to say, that his seat in Parliament had not The ATTORNEYGENERAL wished the case to be cost him one skilliug! He (the Attorney.:General) put in the strongest form in which it could be placed should have no objection that this were the univer- for the Defendant, and still, be contended, he was sal practice :if so, then would he have been four liable: Admitting, for instance, that be had not Callings hi packet, having twice over taken the ;naked a single vote ; admitting even that he bad ori oaths aud his seat in the course of the present Session.. ginally been .reluctant to allow his name to be put This, however, was not the practice, but by the up; still, if he accepted of the honour when con hir, as it now stood, Candidates were liable in the,; (erred, that, he submitted, was an assent sufficient expence of the hustings, anenther necessary ex,' to vest him with the character of a Candidate, from penes. In the 'present instance, be gliout.d be able ' the beginning, and as such to subject him to the ex to show that the necessity erections, and other pre,' pepces to which Candidates were legally liable. i paratiens were made, at. the sight atif with tita.ap. I Lord ELLENBOROUGU said, the Attorney-General probation of the Comtifittei ilio acted in the De. ; should have this point reserved to him, whether the fendant's behalf ;. and that it was ,. at the time, un-; act of taking the oaths and his seat, after he had been derstocrd that 'the . WOrthy s laerottek .„was to be returned, had the effect of rendering such person a opposed by i itaunch petriiit ; itheiiii katown that Candidate. Such act must be supposed to be occa thesetentleineft, as avell'as ethersoometimes change • sioned by the compulsion of the law ; but could not Aka. Something' preparatory to a n election was' make a man a Candidate offering himself. Here the 461 known to be necessary In such liplace as West- I Defendant, at the best, was merely passive, and was tiiiiiiter,7Wherethe hustings were accuatemed to be'. even absent during the Election. pretty stoutly assailed. The Plaintiff, tie the pre-1 . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL .thought there was an sent occasion, was entitlectles credit for his conduct. ; instance of. a'persim who had never taken his seat, He caused the hustings to be erected in' the most' mu after -his election. No person could be cons. substantiel manner, so as to preclude the risk of . pelled to take his sent. clanger ; aad he also did a thing which had been I Lord Eccreacntoucit presumed a Call of the House thought almost impossible ; he so managed that not might compel him. . a morsel of the structure was carried away by fuel The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the House knew mob, who were in the use of claiming every thing. - , nothing of any Member till he had taken his seat. about the hustings as their perquisite. ' This hel The question was, whether the Defendant had eve r brought in is'a deduction fr om the charge to be made ?, acceded to the having been a Candidate, which, he by him againit the Candidates. Having done so, hei submitted, he had done by taking his seat. After thought he had nothing to do hit to give in lois ac-1 referring to the decision in the former case between count, and 'to receive payment of it. In this, how-, the same parties, ho contended that the Act of Par- ever, he was mistaken, and found Wise!! Com- i liameut was perfectly reconcilable to his present ar. pelted to bring actions against both the Members gument, the words. Candidate and Member being returned. • Lord Cochrane had suffered judgment ' convertible terms. to go by default, and had since ,paid. his. part, I The ATTORNEY-GENERAL again called Mr. Took thank it was well known that he was at ill times I to speak to what had passed between him and Mr. ready to fight any battle, either on shore or afloat. i Brooks's son, the Chairman of the Westminster ', He slipposed it •wai necessary, by agreement, that j Committee, as connecting them wlttraalr'F.-Burdett the worthy. Baronet, before he yielded,- should re.. i Mr. Bitoueume objected to this l however, 0 not tire into the last ditch. 011 the forme occasion, he : being evidence , and his objection ryas sustained. (the Attorney-General), along with Mr. Clifford' The A'TTORNEY.GENERA.I. then proposed to.call (now no more), had been entrusted with the Hon. I Mr. Brooks himself, but Baronet's defence; bet he could make no way in I Mr. BROUGHAM objected to this also , as the eas e' i persuading his Lordship that the Hon. Baronet had ' of the Plaintiff had been concluded. I any defence. If there was any, thing which could i Lord ELLiesottoucu was of this opinion, and ROW be urged in his favour, 'the Jury, he had no , the Plaintiff was nonsuited, with liberty, however, doubt, would hear it ably staled by his Learned: to have the nonsuit set aside, and a verdict entered I Friend, Mr. Broughams '' ~.' 1.. I for the Plaintiff, for the full sum, if the Court, on .Mr. PARK handed to his Lordship the Act of the I motion made to that effect, should be of opinion, I first of the King, on which the action was that the mere act of taking his seat and signing the brought.. . :,• .. _-, ! - •' .. Test Roll of the House of Commons l brought the ' Mr. Thompson, Clerk to- Mr. Took,. Solicitor for' Defendant within the meaning of the word candidate, the Plaintiff,. put in the precept aukreturn on the ' as used iu the Act in question. last Election for Westminster, which be had carefully 1 WARWICK V. BRUCE. examined at the Crown 04'fioe. .. . This was an action' brought by Plaintiff to re, Mr.„Witham, Clerk of the Journals and 'of the , cover damages for the non-performance -of a ton- Paper*, ia• the House of Gomnsons, produced the . tract, fora large quantity of potatoes. It appear.; 'rest Itoll of that. House for the present Parliament, I ing on the record that the Plaintiff .was an infant % having the same of _Sir F. Burdett signed under the I Lord ELLITSBOROUGH directed a nousuit, stithig . t h: ad of the City of .Westminster . . I that an infant could not Make a mercantile contract :1 ,Mr. Took said, he wits Deputy to the High Bai.l . if he could make the contract, he might be tusk lit On receipt of the Precept for thelast Election upon it ;• but au infant could not •be sued 'OD SliCit 11 1 1 , for Westminster, proclamation .war made at the se- t contract: - . • veral usual sMtioire, on the,..3Bth %ept. 1812, that THE KING V. 141TIPOILIL_ 'the Election would bu held at the usual place, being A bill of indictment having been found on Thurs.' the portico of St. Paul's Church, Covent-garden, on' day %sink the Defendant,' for an alleged eharge of Tuesday, Bth Oct. them next. On the day he re- perjury, in affidavits which he swore respecting eAved the Precept, Mr. Breaks jun. son of Mr. motion recently Shade in the Court of King's Beach t . !.11101 Brooke, of the Strand, i.;hairman of whist relative tea matter of Libel 0 . 11 t is ~ Wed doe Westminster Election Committee called , Mr. PooLEY, for Vie pros e c uti on,ot ed ' ov limit • 4 mid bus. 44 imprisonment, the 2,4th,0f . the iho regiment dbied tesether.at Tavern,. marrisge flineo 800 1. pros, by , usual i t h es eltm and .c l oasemtoot he•fathet- ithit sanitvenit ioniser he . r:_of N t o lie dentien i ticecr " p r r o g e d c wick. Defe4ant took the chair, Old they had. ,. much conilvialify!'lliey . had been d4iiking tege. ther sit Or • setypi"hOlirs'isteforeaoy ttiUig particular being e g er edi , orr happened. At near eleven o'clock, activate occurred ` *r_Wm.Sc prettrrnmidthe inerriage null an d between Mr. • Dunbar and anothepiOffisee, of , she! void.' • • ••:. • • • name of Shaftoe, in . which the Defeildigst.threetetted nett ii, - netr.. Mr. Dunbar with an,arrest. He said._ Mr, Dunbar„ I This was a suit foriliAtierce 'promoted by Mary I desire you will hold your tongue, or quit the room. Ann Neil, • against her”fitikhand,. Felix Neil; of Mr. D. said, I obey. A Gentleman of the name' f Prince's-streetOlanoter-square, by reason of cruelty Croft then sung a song, after which Mr. Dunbar rose and adultery. • Ito address the President, who said, Mr. Dunbar, if It appeared that the parties were married in June you say any thing more, it is my orders,lthat yen 1799,.'and had three children., The ill-treatment consider yourself under an arrest, and go to quer- complained of commenced' in the year 1805, and ters. Mr. Dunbar then abused' the Major, tailed cousistettot isis deprisinther of the management of him a scoundrel and a coward, and said, if he would the house aud giving it to ,serraats,• denying . her' • meet him the next day, be Would give him two shots food, and encouraging them to insult her ; frequentty for one. was going oat at the 'door, 'and the , swearing at.ber apt the grossest and Most epproba. Defendant exclaimed ,- Stop , Sir, you shall nOt•go ous language, and • beating and. otherwise ill-nsirg without a file of men. The Gentlemen, pre- I her. _Various acts of adultery,. with different . se,.. sent then got up, turned Mr, Dunbar opt, and I rants la his-house, were likewise spoken to . bythe conveyed hint ,to an adjoining room, where he i witnesses. No defence was offered, and • • was placid till the file of men shonld arrive; but be. Si; WK. SCOTT, after recapitulating the evidence, fore the latter came, he leaped out of the window, observed, it fully established a case of the most a;- and went to town. The file of soldiers went through I remitted cruelty. and abandoned profligacy agaiint Greenwich ia.search of him, but could not, ofcourse, the husband, 'and he therefore propounded for the find him,,, as. he.,bad gone to London. The next remedy which the wife prayed, with an allotmea morning he gave himself up to the commanding (after baring heard further evidence as .to the . hug. cer, and was put under close arrest. He continued I band's property)of 2001. perannata to• the wife for a prisoner from the 25th of October till the 23d of I permanent alimony. January, during which he was tried by atourt:inar-1,,,.. tial, and by sentence suspended from rank and pay for twelve menthe. , For the. imprisonment whisk the Plaintiff, considered illegal, he broughthis action, audit was contended that he was entitled to large dangles. All the witnesses admitted that the conduct • of the Plaintiff was extremely indetorou'l ht the' din ner.` Col. Sir C. S, neater said particolarly, that he considered Mr. Dunbar's offence / in a military pint of view, so bad, that he could not consent to enlarge his errest.when app'ed tp for that purpose. Mr. Serjeant farts, for the Defendant, lamented that the Plaintiff had brought the action, because it would doubtless add to the unfavourable impression made by his previous conduct. The Learned Serjeant then .produced. the 'Malay. Articles of War, ,. and contended that the Defendant was bound by the 90th I article to do as he had done. If he had Dot put the Plainiit under arrest for provoking, indecent, mu tinous language, he would have been unworthy the character of an officer and a Gentleman. ,The Learned. Judge left the Jury to decide whe ther.the Plaintiff, by his behaviour, had given the Defendant a right ,to confine him. If they thought he had, then they would find a verdict • tat Major Hitchcock. His Lordship expressed some regret that such an action had been brought into a Court of Justice, as it could only tend to expose to the world matters of insubordination, which the Legislature had wisely .qoanded- to the judgment of a. Court. martial. ~ • I The Jury, without the least hesitation, found a ' verdict for the Defendant. Mr. DUNBAR asked the Judge, after the trial, whether he might indict the parties fora conspiracy to injure him by their conduct ? Sir Jt'ics Mmtisrmo said, in answer, that if Plaintiff took his advice, he would have no more to do with law. CONSISTORY COURT, Docroas• Commons, JULY 16, OLD BAILEY, Jrza , 16. -~- I Richard Ralph, an oldnian, with a wo o den le; 'was charged with the niurder of his wife, by sutfo. `sating her: The Prisoner was;a: shoe-black residing at V, Rose4treet, Spitalfselds„"and the alleged murder *ai"coMmitted od Ai night of Saturday, the 46th of June: It appeared by the testimony of se veral wittitises, . 'hiker, in the house, that the Pri honer'and Ilk Witi - iiere continually quarrelling, but there was no proot of :Omit: pghting. At !en o'cloek' on the Saturday night ihe deceased was seen in her apartment's cheerful, and soon after something struck against the wainscoting of the room with much violence, and it occurred again directly after slightly. None of the witnesses could prove that the Prisoner was in the house that night. In the morning he went up and down stairs several times, and at length hrealled one of the witnesses, and said something was the matter with his wife ; on this Witness entering the room, she found her dead, lying on her back, bleeding from the mouth. Some of the lodgers Were up fate, but no noise was beard, except. ing that against the wainscot. The Parish Beadle proved, that the Prisoner told him his *ire hadheeh drunk on the over-night, soil had kicked against the wainscot, and fallen down; but Idle - Went out for beer after ten o'clock, when she fell down again and there remained. * Mfr: - Wright, a surgeon, stated, that there were two exteroarrnalts of violence upon the deceased, one on the tight jugular vein which caused her death, and the other upon the temple. Death was occasioned by a suspension of circulation of the blood, arising from pressure upon the jugular vein. It might have been prOduced by a fail, or by apoplexy. . • After an impartial charge from the Judge, the Pri soner was Acquitted. Charles Stanley was indicted for forging four 10- dorsetnents on a 501. Rank. poet bill, with intent to defraud Grant, Purley, and.C i ontn in-oiher counts with uttering it with intent Co. udLedbroke sad atri t 1 co.' There was another oust, tiiging tie Pelson& [ with erasing name* from the bill, ,-4. .. . . ' This was one of the mattresses brought to light by the confessions of Richardson, •Cook, and others, and which led .to , the 014%14010ne of. Kennet, Bur kett, and Brady. It appeared that . on the 11th of I April, 1812, the partiniouth Mail wes•rohbed on its way to London, and . this pelt .1)111, together with notes to a Considerable amount, was stolen from a package made up at the Portsmouth Bank, espe cially indorsed Grant, Burley, and Co. payable at the banking-house of LadbrOlte and Co. London. The name of Ladbroke and Co.had been erased by a chemical process, as described by Richardson, the witness, thropgh the dexterity of Burkett, now un der sentence of death, ft was sent to the accom plice ' ' "--milithatemiersofloe- I WARING V. WARING• This was a cause ofillivorce, or separation, pro moted by Mary Ann . Waring, the wife, against James Waring, Esq. her husband, by reason of cru elty and adultery. It appeared from the libel, and other proceedings exhibited, that the marriage took place between the parties on the 25th October, 1800 1 at the parish-church of St. Bartholomew bear 'the Esc:tango, with the consent of the father, the wife being at the time under the age of 21. That the parties cohabited together in Coram-street, 23d of January, 1811, during which period there wai the birth of five children, four of which are still living,when Mrs. Waring quitted her husband's house, and went to live with her father. That soon after the marriage Mr. W. began to treat his wife with great cruelty, swearing at her at dinner-time, and would' often take the things off the table, and throw them under the grate, and also:restrained het from seeinj her Tuber without his knowitcdge. That On the night of the 6th of April, 1808, without any provocation, Mr. W. put himself into a great passion, swore that she should go out of the house, beat her head against the marble of the chimney-piece, whereby the teeth of the comb in . her hair were forced into her head, which caused it to bleed very much, and that the wounds continued sore for a considerable time afters wards. That on their going down to Sandgate he . took his female servant, Ann Powell, into the eitrl. riage with him (with whom' adultery is alleged to have been committed), and refused his wife admish. sion ; and that while at Sandgate he treated his wins. with great cruelty. That on their return from Santf..l gate to Comm-street Mr. W. continued ill-treating his wife, and that "tn her miscarriage, in 1810, he compelled her to get up, having company to dinner, in consequence of whithothe became estreniely ill.— That in January, 1811, he put himself into a violent passion with his wife, dragged her by the arm, threw her ever thoback of a chair, and afterwards pushed her into a back parlour, and locked her therein. That OR the following morning she made her escape to her father's house, where she has continued to residiever since. The defence set up was a reneral denial of the acts of cruelty on the part of Mr. Waring, and fut. ther stated • them to have ,been occasioned by her re. Alamo to his attempts to restrain her violence, When say thing occurred to rouse her• naturally irritable dhposition. 'Sir Wu. Scorn was of opiniOn, find this defence um imIN p r i s og. sac robid.4 Wit anti VIM satisfactorily made out, 'anti that the provocation '• ' trl7alviiar6eited*S7tTht4Peic -e .ItOtintscia by 1,91 4 / 9 eD 4 1141 0 1-4...----- kitt, to 'manufacture. Richardson; Burkett, and the Prisoner, afterwards met in St. James's-perk, When Burkett handed the bill over to the Prisoner, with a quantity of stolen notes, to buy gold coin, and they were mutually to divide the spoil.. The Prisoner was identified by Mr. Miller, at' having purchased geld coin of him with the bill in question, on the . 3oth, of 'May, . 1812. He called himself Cap tain ti. Hunter, and said be received the bill from *Liverpool. the clerks from the banking-hoose proved that the indorsement of errant and Co. was is. forgery, but they seemed to know nothing about ae •othei names. , • • RTchirdson, on undergoing a cross.eximinatlini, -stated, ;that the Prisoner was not aware of any al. I I tetations made upon the bill when delivered to hint by Burkett, in the park, b u tt merely that it was stolen lu well as the notes. Here the:Prisoner'S Counsel juisted, that this indintinent muit fall, inasmuch u the Prisoner had no knowledge of the forgeries, and .consequently did not utter the hitt keening it to have been forged. I The Judge ioinCided in , this objection,. and the I Prisoner was itequitte4 Mr. Ji hn ''''' " l I I TTIFF I rt i ' '•' •.•• ' . . • . ... ... . , .. , • • . 1 ' STAT E S I ike R . • . . us against -all the edneilittrwitsihe by Mises 14ating, tnd , • .... witoeve,www-snmswwqry svapequwi • ---- ' ll6 ` --- a -- ` --- .. --:---."...•---- th e d a y • the -tunaocess ,Coprt eh Election,: twit * the moo w il t p oem wer e the said Jr.M bli Oid, and • 'that the 'saki Defends* the nudes violence need.. principally by .her, the bus. give 48 hours' trotice of b ail . .. , .. ' 1 9 1 , 1 4 fiir., , stOlgt orodisoa fo ilied r,the ih m il o p st ra va yg / tfo o r pi t the div ti o ef rce en . siss. li t 1 lAeOi i al ' rAuEvr eors cA v izE io n - dpr ilyb i t h i e r• yeu tiy n n g t e . r : 0 i made as on iorther-oceisions. w"it ne ss ru. should I him, and aecOrdingly the usual arrmsgemeats • The Court granted the ....40,.... m0ti . 0n. lade, the heating, being ordered to be erected. ). COURT OF MOWN PLIkAII. Jv&Y 11. •- .. - TllllWains slit for a flintily o( taarrleg same extent and: strength as formerly ; poll DUXIAa V. HITCHCOCK. ~ , sena talserlty promoted' '' . e, by reit. , by ( Atissulde Da Costa, were retained ; poll books were obtained, and rli t fl h g e t els . i n f s e tr of eet C ; a gii is st him, on the ground of stationary necessary in the contemplation of A This action was brotight by ? the g Plain „ fiif, a Tag_ .. ,. .g p i nsee inorl, he.being at the time not more than u tenant in the - Lon tegi den ni li en lil t k , ia to a ree fti o n v it er M trat r agek littl* for ' ' ?is m A contest was certainly expected. It was ne- cock of the same rto make • each preparations , as gle general false c . _ it f • thereod • i imprmonmentst . ap peased rem . eons . years of ale. The birth of the minor in Febtrinar_tryed 17y8lth,eanidIstithati Inked that the Election should proceed within .. • .... . _ , that on the 2,4th,pf October last, Abe geineritor *the 1 aura of the Candidates . being declared, at at • 9 . _--4 ---: ....1.L.....,...1......tihn \Vest- . re g i . Mett 4 16. 0. t6 .get il et al t11 . 43 -4 h iP Taveliks, Green- , marriage 'in JIM 'lBOO 'were " . ! _ .). . DIED. • On Sunday last, la George t street.Thasaa nialaer. 64, one of the Window of tfte Goldnuffles CarapaPv• On MondaY last, •a 4 Ids Sousa ess Naversteek-hill, I Hook, ita., late of Ottarimotralet, Middlesex Hospital.