The Statesman. — London, England, 1822-11-09 00:00:00

• ' qo eriei were P anation, an • Upon his ant entrained by A question ; Ricca rupees 1 which; or witl we thought Mi retort's, brunt , . denied in toto him to the MI 4 . l lntlx other s by him ; an:l authorizing th nnrported to hikutelf. • . If, as Mr. It the Treasury, t aion. W bell impossible ; an 1 o'heers of the • ' on such dellisic term conspirae Oer oph•ion nnuo..l d ,rut HAI ; by tilde] 1816, a letter Hook, adrertii I.f 15:!..5:12 rum Mr. 31,..re ' • a; rate in which b rich specie. 1 • ments, that at was received ? • Mr. link with Mr. Maur they differ mos • teen a conspi; Farquhar had Tie terms of I (;overtior'e Sri business, 1 Gill name, as Goo. 'after all our dollars " ' The Governs the suggestion 'of the payment name was, that vont Lordship (loodsir was di it to the public It is soperflt ships, any cot Treasnrer to I for another, th, ewer. It is with rel the qnestions t tioodsir, as for the military eh convince your - 1 ' to Mr. Goodsir, Treasury, we o tbat a per :cut specie was rece compare the fa • 3J of May, 181 • of the per centa Into the Treas.; • miry instead of So allusion ;specie to mere! , 'to the Treasure a) • • informed os afi , , , Vansactions, That eta close I the Treatnry, On.the 14th precisely on flat • tit's ,bringing crotint was k the cashiceepel to the autborit) some light on On advertin, amount had frstu Mr. Gook Or, stating, " as nearly as poi li..ollsir stated . tion, fur spei fia his subse • Mr. Hook, for the house of S; or Mr. Goodsir whether it had that it was coin • I . 1 documents. In our report et:instances, as Lordships. Upon the fat under your LA • 31st of August I we relieved Mr e part of the site cli tr:re:ble; which ire cook specie reset To Mr. Goof art . either for spec paid to the soh . military chest, E. Lase been requ linos of Saunuk terf, recce of 3 Treasnry to be Maur*, .111 r. II pow fioallyrien • 011; does not s mr•uitons arra but denies the .* observation, th not !satire cei payment into '1 I . 1 might have nu a s;nsller one? The observe with the bills tention. Mr. Gook al there was not I4' advance." I • So far frou ' It hate elorred 411). upon t h e < p or recovered, is a . I He is shark. which, it not Ydly. Mr, 1 IV•S made by I the difference lir Mr. Gook i m-nt, and the were Our Report Jely 1819. do • li•sz the oriiat • pilpineat by fm•tr.le rSteDA dee ; 241 y, tb CoVrlllol euo • thorized eve • tr ant.. os ti • • Atilb. --; ~- • prtriosed to him upon . ; et ind, among .others,. Fes Aim specie., 'steers tq, those qnerien lilies stte*adi . as viva race. arose venwcting specie, to the atuotint:yf 153,502, received from Mr. Mauer, with, ilia • ft limn very nearly corresponding to 11. Ir. Hook ought to be rnarded by the Erskly mnd that whlch hei admitted. Mr. Rook the receipt of anv Nncli slim. We referred 111 of Me Moire, for connedilia opon that alms °Neck stated to have helm procaied I to the letter from the thief Secroirti the payment of that bill, whieb authority be founded on a report froin Mr. nook Boo!: asserted, no each specie . was paid into -, the whole of these documents are a dela lieved, and do still believe, that this was mnd that the Governor and other principal colony could not have conspired to carry .ion. In that way only we made use of the racy. on on this point is further illustrated by the •unv nt, communicated to us by I,eneral ich it appears that on the 18th of October, was written by the chief secretary to Mr. ing to his information, that this very slim 'pees had - been paid into the treasury by and giving orders as to the manner and bills shonld be granted to Mr. Maure for Is it possible, my Lords, after tliegf deco. Ony doubts can arise whether such speck has, however, compared the transactions ire, to those with. Mr. Oomisir ' although ost There might, indeed, have *teary in 3lr. Goodsir's case, if Governor listened to the suggestions of sir. Hook. his private letter upon that subject to the ..rretary are as follow:—" In Goodsir's think, Maitre had better receive it in his Goodsir must not appear. The amount is, !alculations, as nearly as possible, 3,950 10f adopted the calculation, but rejected on of concealment; and the consequence it being made to Mr. tloodsir in his own lat the real state of the transaction came to ip's knowledge; the per centage to Mr. lisallowed, and measures taken to recover IC. luons to press on Ole minds of your Lord inment on a private proposal from the the Governor, to substitute one name that the truth of the transaction might nut ductance that we dwell ;ay longer upon arising upon the per ventage paid to Mr. ir specie received into the Treasury from :hest ; but as Mr. Hook has endeavoured to r Lordships that as a per centage was paid ir, even when he did not pay specie into the ought, upon his mere assertion, to believe .cage was paid to Mr. Maitre ulso.when no rece :yed, it becomes necessary to examine and • facts. Mr. Goodrir was examined on Ile 119 ; he then stated, that the.whole amount itage paid to him, ;has aithty for•specie paid asnry, or for paper rent:?eti fromthe 'I rea -1 of specie. on was then made by him tormypgyi,nent of terchants, in order to prevent tlsOr 11107ing sury for specie, in exchange fiir notes. tie also, that he had kept a rmastee of Use which was deitroyed from utontli.to month; of the business he 'hewed a statement to. which was found correct. • I ► of May, 1319, Mr. Hook was exantia . e4 the same subject ; lie recollected Mr. Goode nr a memorandum; be knew not how the kept; the creme received would appear in teepees hook ; and finally, Mr. Hook referred Pity for granting the per ventage, to throw the transaction. Ing to this authority, we found that the been fixed in conformity with the letter di to the Private Secretary of the Govern. • the amount is, after all our calculations,' possible, 3,950 dollars." The receipt of Mr. ed that lie had received the sum in quell. merie at different times." `iseiment examination on the 17th of May, sr the first time, referred to the payment to' Saunders and %Veike, as constituting a part ir's claim; he did not, however, recollect I been communicated to the Governor, and uninunicated, is not to be inferred from the le of the second of Joll, 1819, these cir as far as was necessary, are stated to your archer examination of Mr. Ho'ok's accounts Lordships warrants, Mr. Goodsir, on the st, 1821, gave that evidence upon which Ir. Hook front further responsibility for a mile with which he hail appeared to he nit there was no ground or analogy upon Id extend the same relief to the charge for rived from alt. Maure. toodsir, the per centage had been granted serie paid iato the Treason•, or for pipet fliers and others having demands on tho r, in lien of specie., which would otherwise mired from the Treasury; or because the Ices and Weike were prevented4y the in 31r. tioothdr, from pr.•tenting notes at the P exehaaged tot specie. With respect to 3lr. Hook at first denied, then admitted. and •vies that any such specie was received at sug ;t•c•st that the Government had, by any rangement, the advantage of such specie, it tact in Iwo; supporting his denial by the that Mr. Miare received one per ceM, and tnt : if so, why was it necessary to allege a the Treasury of a greater sum, alien he kceived the seine amount of per centage on rations of Mr. Hook upon Lis transactions Is of lionlioname and Co. neat claim at- alleges that " the auditors contras, first, one farthing lost to the public by the irons having made any inch confession, we ; Mr. Hook with the difference of interest original and substituted bill!, n hich, if nut a 106 f. iged also with the difference of principal, t recovered, is a loss. _ Hook tart " that not a farthing. of profit him." the interest received and not plid. between the produce of the bills applied . in liquidation of his own debt to Go►irn+ to amount of those deposited 1•y hint in their profit to Mr. Hook. its of the 22.1 of October last, or the 2J of to not impute any charge against Mr. !took ;lot loan, or the extension of the time of r Aar Gurercor, bat because, Ist, he ater- Hied the time contrary to the tioreinor's or that lie did (lot communicate to the acting tcli extension : Illy, Coat after inch utiotf tension, he anlistituted in lien of hills which the tiovervweut accoult, inituri+iatehy von- -~-.., vernal. into cash, others,—hie own property, doe at a longer date„; when, at rhe-any tune he thootht 1110 1 house of llonhommeamd Ces.• in such, a state, that pres•l sing.for,inttnediate payment would be their ruin. Mi. Hook states, tor Lords, that his share is this ttansieflen was itexatto nothing. • . , We hive refi r t er ry our L or d s hi ps , i s our report of the 2.11 of jaly,'lBl9, to the whale of his erideoce on this subject;. bittfior the lake of bringing under your Wine 'abate notice what was his share in the transaction, Wilbur the following question relative to it, and his • answer:— " Were these transactions that you maw allude to an. l thoriied by Government ?—No, I was afraid to men !ion' the circumstance to General Hail, being certain that hit' would have seised their property if did, as he' had exp d a determination to do so in cases of a similar natore." Was it nothing, my Lords, to assume the authority of Goverment, and protract.the time of payment contrary to the orders which be had rec ei ve d! Was it nothing to conceal this fact from .the.acting Governor, month after month, solely because be believed that he would have enforced the payment. The very reason assigned by Mr. Hook for this concealment—the dangerous situa tion of the house—was the reason of all others which should have bound him to a strict pertformancd of his duty, and deterred him from this assumption of autho rity. Was it nothing, in addition to these instances of disobedience to the orders of,. the Governor, to have taken out the Governm en t Bills and substituted others, in direct violation of every. principle which ought to hare guided his conduct? Mr. Hook next comments upon our expression, "that lie dealt a ith thu public money (not trafficked, as he terms it) as his own. Whether the unauthorized advances by Mr. /look to himself and others, his taking out the bills to a con siderable am o unt, and applying their produce in liqui dation of his own debt to the Government, sod substitut ing others as a security, were acts of dealing with the public property as his own, we submit to the lodgment of your Lordships. It is then imputed to as by Mr. Hook, that we insin nate that be connived at the abstraction of the money. A few observations on this point are requisite. The deficiency being admitted, it was our duty if pos• Bible, to trace out the delinquent. We areSinwilling, except from necessity, to extend the circle of 'cessation ; but in 'hewing to your Lordships that it could not have bean occasioned by Mr. Allen, we arertiriven to show who were the persons having the means of procuring the money out of the cheat witboot forcible robbery. The supposition of any such robbery is precluded by the fact, that a sentinel was placed to guard the building 'out of office bents, and that no suspicion of any such robbery ever existed. It is equally precluded by the fact, that after the departure. of Governor Farquhar, *hen, as Mr. Hook says, be bad himself the key of the office, and the transactions of the Treasury were so few that no error could have arisen, the deficit was di minished. It is therefore clear, eccordingto all probablelnferenee that the money must have bees removed by some per son haying COntrolll over the chest. The cashier had such controul in office hours. Mr. Hook hail the key out of office-hours • except during the year that he slept In the country, rime it was iu the possession of Mr. Chaillet. It is also observable, that during office hours Mr. gook used to give verbal orders to the cashier, through Mr. Chaillet, the wilier being in a separate building across the yard. These three are the only persons who, ai appears by the evidence, had any Means of abstracting the contents of the chest. lt,la for yoer iordabipe to determine, under all the•eitcumstances, where the ansplemu,snight to rest. With reference to the observations of Mr. Hook, res pecting the memorandum, by which be counted thechest, the fact that the memorandum was destroyed ie admit ted; of die motives your Lordship' will itidge, Hider all the circums:anres, and particularly by reference to th e evidence of ;W. Hook. Hit at first stated to us that the memorandum was, made by Allan, be being then " still in the office." 1-:e afterwards stated that it was given to him by Mr. 19hether male by Mr. Allah or Mr. Chaillet, if made from the books, it ought to have discovered the deficien cy, because it was on a comparison with those very books that it was discovered by the Committee. Neither could Mr. Alien have framed a statement adapted to meet the altered state of the cheat, arising from the Conversion of some of Bunitomme's bills into cash, the payment of their produce into the chest to diminish the defielanry, and the substitution of other bills to the amount of 6,60 dollars in their place, as a security to the Govern ment. Of this transaction Mr. Hook admits, in evidence, that Mr. Allen was is totally ignorant. This a most important fact' and proves beyond impossibility of doubt., that any memorandum made by Mr. Allen, or from the books which he had prepared, could not have corresponded with • the contents of the chest. There is, however, one view of this subject, which is most material for the consideration of your Lordships. Mr Hook has stated, that this conversion of bills into cash, and the substitution of others, took place when he became aware of the deficiency, because there was not a snrphis from the non entry or the dollars, 37,150. This, as he has stated, was before the discovery of the defici ency by the Committee, -Here then we have the admission of Mr. Hook that lie was aware of the deficiency to some extent. it ass the reason assigned for the extraordinary oreasurenpon which we herein-ea commenting. It is scarcely ce-alible that when Mr. Hook was so far convinced of the deficiency as to pay at. once into the Taeasnry arum of his own at the amount of more than 1,500141 e should have gone no farther, and not ascertained the:real amount of the deficiency. He could never truppose that payment of 6,600 dollars would compensate fir o de: ficiency of 37,150 dollars. Sir. Hook has stated to ea, on his oath, that he com municated to the Committee the whole of the trans. actions respecting the bills of flunhoutine and Co.; but no notice of the fact is taken in the report of that Committee. But whether communicated or not, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the explanation of Mr. !look's con duct on this occasion, as arising from his knowledge or suspicion of the deficiency, and his assertion that he bad counted the chest that morning, his invitation to the Committee to do the same, and his repeated statements before us, that upon such counting he found the balance correct. Mr. Hook proceeds to comment upon the statement in our retort, that the discovery of the deficiency was once prevented by a fabricated statement of vouchers, ond rests I:is assertion as to the correctness of the statement of vouchers on the certificate of toe Committee. lre have already expressed our full conviction that the ositifirate was completely erroneons • for oar reasons on mitt head, we must.refer your Lordsfripa to the 401 and sth paragraphs of our report of the 21 of July, Isl 2, 'iii which we have folly detailed the grounds of our • opinion, that the deficit on that occasion amounted to 101.782 dollars. Two points will, however, he decisive, to show that the Committee on that uay must have been misled. Had they counted accurately, and there had bee, no deficit. the creation of the duplicate notes for 5,0110 dolars must' • loom been discovered, as they were not hronglst to Recount ' i 40e-hooks, and t have appeared ea a miles. Of • their existence Mr. Allan was not informed, so that he WWWIT r .11 Po sae .. rg~.i conld not hare framed a statement that should meet this ditliculty. The nert point is equely derisive. To acconnt for I the sum of Lifelt dollrro, mentimonl in the statement of vouchers as the sum due from Captain WEI:, Mr. [look produced upon Ms esanaina , ion a 'statement altozother fall .clogs, as expressly shown in ourlreport of 2d of July, 1519. Here, then, my Lords, In support of that statement, which we considered to have been fabricated, another was produced to us, which turns out to be altogether Id-, lacious; and in the latter instance there can he no doubt whence it originated, as it was framed and delivered to us by Mr. Hook himself, on his oath. Mr. Hook has stated that we have not mentioned the rertificate of the find Committee which was appointed to investigate the state of the Tteasnry on its transfer. It referred expressly to oar report of the 23d of Oct. IS2I, and is moce.particolarty referred to in all its bear. into in our report of the 2il ofJuly.lBl9. With reference to the allegations by Mr. Hook. that the list of vouchers in our ;.essarssion is the orijnal, we have merely to refer your Lordship!' to his evidence, in which, upon being asked i.vbether the list presented by him to us was a trite copy of the statement delivered by him to the committee, he answered," I cannot state that positively, as I have not now the original." Be it however original or copy, it is certainly all in his hand-writing, still welt interlineations and altera Lions; and its a rem trkable fact, that one of the alscr ztions has been of the figures indicating the suits slue 1 . 14 , 111 Bonhomme and Co., which, as altered, stands at twenty thousand dollars, the amount at which it ought to have stood, prior to the charges made iu the securi ties by Mr. ILIA. it will also be within the recollection of your Lord ships, that Mr. Hook stated that be counted therouchers from month to month, and knew their exact amount; if so, and your Lordships shonld he satisfied that the stmetnent of vomiter% was fahriented, it is scarcely' po.- sible to believe that Mr. Hook was ignorant of its nature. Mr. Hook further states, that if the list of vouchers l i was felse, the vouchers mast have been true ; to this conclusion we cannot assent. For to recnr to the in stance attic)) is already before yoor Lordship., if there were vouchers of a balance due from Cept. Dick, cor responding With the false statement presented to us by Mr. Hook, those vouchers also must have been false. It being, however, as we think, established by incon trovertible evidence from the documents themselves, that the statement of vouchers %IRS fallacious, and the certificate of dor Committee of Examinstion erroneous, we mast advert shortly to the observations of Mr. Houk respecting the evidence of Major Webster. The character of that gentleman, from the confession of all opposing parties, is too high to stand in need of our commendation. It is, however, bat justice to state, that in his examinations before sir, he has shown great care and candour; it appears therefore to us, that when called upon by (fractal Hall to examine into the actual state of the Treasury, on the 19th of November, he did, after the fullest examinetion, admit in the most bononr• able manner, the error of himself and the rest of the Ceolotittee,• assigning the true reason for it—the want of time to tenter Into a scrupulotteexamioatipn of the do tunients. ' • With respect to that paragraph ;it Me, Boors letter which imputes tons thisrepresentatioo .aod misstate ment, we have repeatedly declared oar conviction, that the effect of the first examination was defeated by a fa bricated statement. We repear, that if the Commit:n.. l on the second investigation, had given credii to Mr -1 Hook's assertion, that he Lad counted the chest, sod to tbestmeessary inference that the Wines was correct, the44-mnd investigation ...might Imre bees - as ineffectuil as the first. We have only to express our opinion that such an invitation as that n.ade by Mr. Hook tithe Coinspi,ttee. was, antler the circumstances at least, no proof of in- nocence. We bare considered and simmered, almost paragraph by paragraph, the observations in Mr. Hook's letter, lw cause we thought they would thus he must trireme:ly refuted. Much do we regret the time that has been thus occupied ; but us your Lordships referred to us his letter for consideration, it became our duty to compare it with the evidence, of which a great part was given nearly these years since. As,the reort, upon which Mr. Hook's letter is a com ment, was signed during the time that Colonel Jenkin son was a member of this Board, we thought it right, for obvious reasons, to confer with bias on the subject ; and after a careful re-consideration of all the circum stances, we are authorised to assure you Lordships of bis entire concurrence in the views sad opinions which we have expressed in this report. We have the honour to be, Your Lordships' most obedient bumble Is E. H. LCIIIII:VGTON. EDMUND BIND. Tnos. liaamsox. COURT OF CHANCERY, Noy. S. Tun PORTSMOUTH CAUSR. Mr. Wyruntott.t. resumed at 10 o'clock, and conclude& at 12. Mr. SHADWSLL followed oa the same side, and spoke fur two hours. .. . Mr. !limy spoke also on the same side until the rising of the Court, at half.past two. [As the lame reason which induced us yesterday to withhold the details of this very delicate case still Opel. Rtes with the same force, we continue to suppress state ments that are purely ex parte.) COURT OF KINWS ItENCH.—YRIDAY. . STA tii.ll V. DODD. Mr. SOLICITOWG . moved for a role to show cum, ephyseerusteial should not be granted in this came, or whyttbe jnrigment should not be arrested. The di , fendant was thar,red with having Hewer.] the pe:.atty of this clanse, because be bring a governor of the poor of the parish of Bethnal-green, supplied the workhouse of that parish with milk. The case has been twice tried, and at the last trial before the Lord ChiefJusiice at Westminster. a verdict was found fur the plaintiff. This verdict the Solicitor-General now sought to set aside, on the ground that Air. Dodd was not a governor of the poor under the fair construction of the local acts for the di rection of the parish funds, hot only a vestryman. The Court granted a ride to show cause why there should not be a new trial, on the donht suggested res pecting theofficial character of the defendant. THE WINO V. JOLLINFE. Mr. Sergeant Pam. in..red for a rule to show eaw Why judgment in this should not be entered ter the. Cron n won obstanol7eridieto, ore new trial granted. This has a quo warraelu, calling on the defethlaut to show by what authority he exercised the .functions of Mayer of PeteVsliel.l, and was tried before Mr. Jettior Borough, at the last assizes for Hants. The ohjevioa to the defendant o as, that the jury of the Court beet by whom be was appointed were simmionrit. not by the bid ' lief, but I.y tke 'reward of the Court. On his behalf it w as that, by.inonetnorial custom, the steward had authority to summon the jury, which W 46 the sub stantial issue at the !rid. o support this custom, rei• dente was given of usaike only twilit; 20 years; and it was laid down by the Judge, that on the sli2htest•evi-! denca of usage, unrelnitied on the other side, tlw jury were hound to bud the esistenceedthe customs. On this , direction, the jury found a verdict for the def.mdant.4 which the Lemcd Scroaot argued wasentit e!y against - .-K,.. evidence, and could only be sustained Ivy a doCltiLe which was Contrary to law. The Court granted a rule to show cause. Input:to r. naLSay. Mr. CHITTY Mated fur a rule in this case to I,IIOW cause why the verdict fir the defendant should nut lie set aside, arid a new trial granted. It was on action under the game laws to recover cer. tain penalties from the defendant, and iris tried et the !wit Assizes of Hereford heftier Mr. Justice Park. It was proved that the defendant was teen he two g:w e , keepers appointed to watch him, set two snares is a hedge row. They remained op during the night, a n ,' saw the defendant come and examine the snares. o n the following day two other came-keepers watched Lim, who saw him cone and examine the snares; there gas then a hare in one of them, wh:ch he did not then tak e away, but reset ilie other snare whirls Was Sprang, to the dusk of the evening lie was seen to rome aid take away the hare wrapped up in his coat. The defenee wt op was, that he was the servant of a valified pe r , o „ , and was nut therefore liable under the Stalsts. Isis was, lan wryer, proved to be false. The Learned Jaf f e, its his charge to Om Jury, said, that every possession of game was not all unlau pose-scion; and that if a titan was foam' in possession of a hire fur the use of 11.1 to aster, it should he considered an tu.aurent poste,iians and, therefore, if the Jury were of opinion that tite'das fentlant took the hare fur his master's use th.y afraid find a verdict for him. Mr. Csarrrz contended that he was entitled to trial; on the ground of inisMirertium. If the master himself. in this case, bad been found with the hare, le would have been liable. because be was nut 4 0 .41.. J, and therefore so should the defeadaut. The rule wasgranted. Mr. Pitt, who has appeared as plaintiff in tar.) actions for bribery, rose and begged the Judges. whits were re tiring, to listen to an application fir hiving tap the bond, on whirl, lie had bee" arrested, to be cane-14 , 1 0 n the ground that the plaintiff had drtlared he uotild net wane him, lint seek his remedy against anothrr. The Con UT ilitOtUlall him that they could not hear the subject of his defence discussed on motion. They sever received affidagita in answer to an alli I.vit to mild to bail; and mustsdeal with his Cabe as it I all others. Mr. Pitt urged with great vehemence that the liberty of the subject ietrired the interference of the Court. That Logo Om., Jusztcz reins:el that the Court could nut interfere. Tel KING O. WADDINUTOg. Waddington was in COlll4 &Haley, it axiom:ly waiting for an opportunity to move fur at new trial. anti on the rising of the Court was proceeding to move. wheu Mr. Justice limas' 4141.1 anywise you are suing to move for a new trial. it is pow tuo IVadding too—This ii the last day. any Lord. for met ing for new trials. Mr. Justice flavhsv.—Nn, it is net; you can girt your name to the eacer. and Inure on another -.SF_ COURT OF COIIIION PLEAS—Famr. HOODART I. TONED AND CNA AIPOND. This ease was tried last week at Ore London Sittior. It was an action brought tty this plaintiff. a r'•Drealti• auctioneer. to recover front. the defendants IC:91. lot, Nhich he claimed t0,.i0 his opittion..• fair remuneration , for the trouble and 'epees, be incarret in preparing (sr sale an estate. of.whith they were the leavers, sad which they. coisigned to him for th t purp..so. however, afterward,' sold the estate for I Lena/. witheet the assistance of the plaintiff. mid altered him 69f. for hie trouble. The verdict of the trial sas for thin /latter sum. Mr. Sergeant P 21.1.1141 sLay.leoved for a race to almw eagle why that verdict should stet be set aid. as coa t/sr, to-evidence. ......Lord Chief Justice DA1.1.411 said that it was shown tit the trial that waggoners hid no fixed per rentage for tt!e transaction of their business; and therefore it vs I.cicarly a question far the jury to odic the fair ionanot..‘ /enumeration and they gave the NUM estimated .by IP vend respectable witnesses.—The rule for a LOA tliai was refused. CONS' STORY COL/ RT, Nov. S. THUILLOW is. THURIMW. This.which was a snit calling on the hnshand tbr restoration of conjugal rights to his wife tla►ia Otflow, and hail stood over from the last term, in consegneecr of an allegatioa propounded by her, in which exceptions were *tiered to the tem knotty on the other side, and the question now was whether such exceptions conj.' Ise ad mitted after publication ? After hearing Counsel at great length, the Judge (Sir C. Robinson) then observed, that the Court was here op plied to t to call on the husband for a restoration of use• jngal rights, and a return to cohabitation with his wife. Now in answer to the charges against her, she had at first confined herself to rceritninatioo. It was a a.tfsci ant reason for guarding that husband against any vexati ons or dilitory proceedings, that the expellees fell wholly upon him. With regard to the proffered olibisif twit dente were to be admitted, it would afford no very satis factory prospect of coining to a termination of the cause. It must however be decided by the rules observed la sits► tar instances, and to which be bad every disposition to Rat re. The Silt article involved V 44011111 particulars at to the laity and tor paramour ►tated as distinctly 4 4 por anal which it was fair to expect would Lava been met in the counter-plea. If the whole had not been die proved, it might Lave been partially controverted, takirg in, as it necessarily did, a wide snips of circumstanret. Unless, therefore, it was asserted, that the whole was a fabrication, the party hail deserted her own case in not bringing forward the alibi before, nor propounding any interrogatory atilt relation to it. The difference bowels the testimony of Lucy Anderson and Elizabeth White seemed to be immitenal, the words ow or shoat falling within the maul latitude of expression. Referring to the general practice of that Court, and to the probable issue of the inquiry, if gone into, he felt no hesitatio❑ in sayleg, that the first exeeplioo pa, brooctit forw:rd- trm late.— The second, as to the evidence ut Carr, he dionglst o hie fell *Wail the same rule so frequently lain down by his lAtifileti Predecessor. The witness was, no doubt. nab's. so souse suspicion, (tat Isis testimony was cotisistil t wills the other parts of the husband's case, and it waubt be going too great a length to enquire into Lis genera: character, on the ground of the expressions imputed to him. 'l•he fame observations applied to the third excep tion, as to the party's residence at Walwortli. Ifer de fence 113% simply ana!ibi, and under al these circen:- statutes, he felt himself bonml to reject the allegation. An ingirst WAS yesterday held at the Ihirdre Arm.. lieHtnall.reen. by Mr. Uroin,cororier,on tle. body 4): infant named Mary JonrsJt appeared from the rehlehrr that the drte.sed, while layinz asleep in bed, had hren v:ry in. entities!) , left there and tnrnril up with the hr.!. by which she was staicated, Tut. jory, .:;ter animad verting very severely on the conduct of the na.dot of the child, returned a verdict of—Acciden:al Death. DIED. At New York, of the yellow Geer. Ahrohom Moore, Darrister-al-law, a native of the Coon . ) , of Oevun. IA at•a for many years travel:o.l the Western l'irrn;t. On Monday last, Mr. R., Marks, of o.sea's-place. Gos well-street-road, aged 33 years. Londca : Medi Prialatt.. and Pown,,,oe, ese ogee cf Ito 6T0Taa11e.::".1414 Tag Coa FT ITVI4 . 11 " (Sendai Pdper.) No. t 97. Strand, by R. W whom adi coin adicationa, Ordvra, tkr.. are reiseittael be addrcased. • 9 .i _~ ll* I 2 4 cerl iria • 0 / 4 MI sac r 0114 , 2.1 ,T Cosi Coil; WWI , low and 1 r .jle Hies ford, St tv.-r 11 bay Sttc with at. at B, Han Hull and four Broi Bort art, %lilt Peal COat CUM otter Cp Non moo, e'er Ti feet( insid