The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1818-11-21 00:00:00

low quietly, until a proper opportunity occurs to loss oil. It appeart, from Cie affilaeits. OW one side and the other, that publication., attrilnit. nig blame to each party, respectively. h•sve Ise -1) *rid forth to the world. All "itch pishliestimi• are wersgsg--assel, therefore. the Court, iu discharging this rule, mean not to sanction them. Looking to ■ll the circumstances., thy Court feels that this not a case which call. for its tuterference—still brining in gssis:d that the door of justice is not thereby closed, toot that Lord C. Churchill, if sa advised. may yrt Lave recruits, to law. Rut, though she Court di.. charg►s this role, Lhey do not think that the Editor against *lmo it Was grooved ttandt in a ottnestiots to call for cost*. let it therefore lx disclurged with cut coat.. CRIMINAL INFORMATION. TVS SING S. TWO stactsrarras OF TOE COUNTY 07 lift D MUM. Mr. lit/RIMY trioved for a rule to sliew cause why a criminal ilifurination 'lmola not be filed *geisha two Magistrates of the 'chanty of Alidene wt, for misconduct, in refusing. from improper Hornets*, to liceme a public-huase. At present, the Learned Getitlemon conceived 'it would be better not to name the parties. The Came JosTice—" It is always better, n o such met: s, to withhold the Games." dlr. Gu . ansv said, his application was made at the sessialice of a Gentleman of the name of Arsitiniiiit, who was himself in the Commission of the Pratt; and he swore that he believed the refir ed' of the Magistrates to license a politic-house. built on Ins estate. arose from private pique against io consequeuce of his biteilig taken nu active pert ih expostitg in the licensing system, which hart rendered him obnoxious in the parties against whom he moved. Mr. Beaumont had, at Shepherd's Ludt, a eunsiderable estate. on which many houses were' Wilt, and he was requested, for the convenieuce of his tenants. to erect a public house. He did build a very saperior public house, at an evprosa of two thousand pounds ; hut every application. on the part of his tenant, to procure a heel's. had failed. At one lituethe'rea sou **sighed for the refusal was, that there were not houses enough—when houses werebuih, it was said there was not a sufficient number of inhabitants, although the Magistrates licensed a house. much inferior, in the same place. the reason last ad vanced, when • respectable man, regularly certi fied, ri quested a license, was, that his certificate was Not signed by the Clergyman and Church wardens, without which, by Act of Parliament, they could not grant the license. Mr. Beaumont 'Mewed them that such signature was not nee e y, hut still they refused, for private reasons. They however granted two licenses, to persons whose cer tificates were not ,;gored by tie Clergyman and `Churchwardens--and, in fact, the Clergyman of Hammersmith, in which district the house .lay, 'lever was in the habit of signing. The CHIMP JUSTICS said. if Mr. Gurney had given the usual notice to the Magistrates, he might 'take his rule. This nut heing the case, Mr. Gulags' was ob liged to withdraw his motion for the present. The followiug ere the affidavits on which Mr. Custi Sir grounded his application : The affidavit of George Rands stated, that he had mask *meal I applications fur a license to open the house tenanted by him at Shepherd's Sash, but had always bees refused. That having had the signatures of the thurcls wardens and Overseers, besides all the principal inhabitants, o ilie etitilleate of his character on former appiiratioos, be Irad only taken signatures of she inhabitants on the last oc casion. But the festive' refused the license, Aiming, that the Art of Parliament revoked the signature of the Minister and Churchwardens to the certificate of his character, which lie denied, and stated fiat they had nut required such signa tures to other eases. _ . The affidavit of J. T. Barber Beaumont, Esq. the Magis trate, s tated, that the Jo‘tirea bad declined to him, that they refused the licease because the certificate to character had nut the 'M mister and eh to rch wardens' signet um, as required by Art of Partitionist, w►ic► ►e denied toeing 114.1 required by the Actor to ►ave been required by t►e said Justices its othr r cases ; that he was ground-landlord of 70 houses in the •illage; that several yea.s ago ►e was urged to build Ibis house by his tenantr, for their necessary are ~,,,, motels .... , there being hut one public-house in the village, sod that one a great distance off ; that he bailt the how., three years I.efisie he ems iis the Commission of the Peace, at en em. prow of nearly 2,000/ ; that seven annual applications bid h llt made fur leave to upeu the hone, by respectable tenants, who bid all been refsmed. on •asiuna grounils— Ara, that there were not new Insures enough—then, when the., increased, that they were nat all innalotesl—and when ioliabitassts were procured, soil a license agreed to be issued, it was denied to Denonessi's bowie, and grants d for a meals thatched•building. slanging alone at ass incosivessieist disisuce ; and that :-601. was - peril to the Vestry ('lark fir procuring such license. that upon the license bring graiited fur the thatched house, the bind shoat it, which had been offered to be let as 'ridding rewind for several years to no purpose, became forthwith tateii and covered • ish houses; and that Depostent's land, which bail Arco previously freely taken, being then deified ilw conveniesice of • public-house, Com th:it time c‘-aped to be applird for as builifiug ground. 'Phut in the same hour sheu the !notices at Hainmerarulth I met fetuses' the license to his house, they ranted slew lie. lists in favour of Mr. Thunipsou (a brewer be She ',riffle hourhodel.) RIO UilWI S. fur two low tippling houses. which hail beeu suppressed by former Justices a. disorderly or un weeessary, both of which houses were adjoining or direct), opposite to existing licensed houses, sod in the immediate vicinity of several others ; amt that in neither of the oboe* waist wee a certifkate front the prodeced or jos speared fur. He lastly declared his firm belief that the cos tumed refusal of • license fur his house, so incousistent 'with the facility with which the said Justices grant ticcuses fur low tippling hulloes in places crowded with sock houses, to serve their friends, arose from • desire to injuie him in the fair eujionieut of his estate, in cousequence of the ',art he had take* during several years in opposing and exposing the errors of their conduct, and of the present iiceustug sysiti-iii generally. The affidavit iff William Cottee stated, that lie had built *even thod houses iii Beaumont-place, Shepherd's flush ; that in cousequence of the want of aeesperfable public house coo lithos's, he and usher tenants of Mr. bemisinwit persuaded him to build she public-house winch be had dune. There h.. no pulilielsouse widths three quarters of • mile of it, uo the lose of Winsil•lssie, or within a considerable distance un the road to Lowsion, and mine near the villeae which off. red a decent lodging that Were had been upwards of nor hundred new houses balk wtllstu the last seven yea's, and to the whole there were six times as many houses now In the village, as there were thirty ,r forty years toad., but that the umber of public-bosses (Iwo) remained the same. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Wimoureta, Fawar, Ruvuma O. TIM Duke of NEWC 4sTe.K. as one of the Contsnie. orto , s er/ .seorris if Hat and the adjacent Coun try, V. I'he ILOASI.ShIONIUS of IYli lIAILIIOUR. 'fity Plaintiff.. esti:tot a flaw a .(1 %Imcr on a u.stig dole strr4us, ruuuiug into Rye Ihrtmur, wt vusituse of thaunag us IJj4ccut Laud, lautirr the powers (as they conceived) a their commission. 'rule Defendinits.polled both down in the year 1816, as obstructing the navigation of a stream which ought to remain open fur the purpose of public convenience. An action of trespass was brought again -t the Defendants, and tried at Lewes, before the ',resent Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, in August, 1816, where a verdict was found, and damages given for the Plaintiff for 6661. 10. 641. In the following blichaelmna Term • rokle had been obtained to skew cause why the verdict should not be set aside. and • new 16,1 wanted on different grounds. This day was fixed for *hewing cause against the rule. The CRIER Justice first read all the evidence given no both sides, which went, ou the one side, to show that the erection of the darn and sluice was ne cessary for the drainage of the adjacent land, and that 3,000 acres were overflown occasionally, and more or less deteriorated in value by their destruc t' ; and, on the ether, that the construction of them prevented the navigation, and was unsieces. sery—the inundation having been before prevented by walla, which latterly were suffered to go to de cay, and the materials in great part removed by the proprietors of the land. The Chief Justice then, after having stated groerally the oetnre of the ac tion. explained the first objection made after the trial, VIZ. that the parties had no right to bring an actiuu tar trespass, us not having a sufficient poems. sion. That ohjecti.in, in his opinion, ought not to have been made, after sq much had been done by two companies of a politic nature, towards settling a question of great importance, and after so large a hotly of evidence had been given. On the trial the Juicy, after being out about an hour and a hall', came in and asked him (the Chief Justice) whether thestrearn was a navigable one, lie had told them there was a question of that, because it was admit ted on the pleadings, but that it was not material 'for them, the only question for their consideration 'being, whether the erection was necessary for drain ing the hawk; because, if the Plaintiffs did possess the power to stop the navigation, it must have beau only•iii - case of absolute necessity. Mr. Justice PACK said. that the form of the rule granted was 5 , to anew cease why judgment shook! not be entered for the Defendant, non Admits ye redkto," on the groudd that the stream was a navi gable one. Mr. Serjearit . Ltits . said, that the matter had been before the Court on different days; but that the rule granted on the last 12th of NI/ember compre hended three points-1. To shew cause why there should not be 'a non-suit, as there ergs too individual possession ill the Plaintiffs to enable them to main tain an talon of trespass. 2. Why 'the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted, the Jury having drawn • wrong conclusion 'from the evidence given. S. Why, as the river had been ad mitted to be navigable, judgment should not be entered for the Defendants, won obstaste verediete. The Cater Justice allowed that the rule ulti mately ran in the above terms. Fie added, that Admiral Mark was one of the Jury, which was most respectable, and composed of such persons as might be sopposed excellently qualified to come to a right conclusion on such a sullect, though their verdict was certainly rather against his opinion, but that was, in the then stage of the business, material. The Counsel had now (hr continued) heard read the report of all the evidence ; they had. therefore, saris what possession was proved to have been in the Plaintiff., so as to enable them to bring the action, and whether they should judge it advisable to adhere to the first objection ; if they did, it would be better if that part was argued se -1 parately. As to the point of setting aside the ver dict, lie should be glad it was 'considered in the most extensive view, as it was • question of great moment. Mr. Serjeant Best said, he was now willing the case should go to a new trial, if the other side would waive all objections. Mr. Serjeant LENS replied, that that proposi tion had been already before the parties, and he was instructed to ►ay it would not be acceded to. The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that when a pub lic body stood to such en objection, it must be on advice and consideration; and, therefore, it was to be supposed there was something of weight iu it; it consequently ought to be argued separately. Mr. Serjeant LENS had no objection to a new trill any where out of the county of Susses. The Cuter JUSTICE said, he cuuti not consent to that ; it would be another thing if it had never been tried ; but having been tried by a most re spectable Jury, it would be a wort of reflection un them. Mr. Serjeant LENS livid, it would not have that eliect, as ail the grialestieas of the county of Susses must be supposed to have an ititerrst in the ques tion, as connected with one or other of the parties. *Melt would probably operate without their owu knowleave. _ . Tile CAIEF•JUSTICE I saw nothing of such ferliiig." Mr. Serjeant BEST said, that if the cause were vent down for trial at the Spring Asoixes, it would come on at Horsham. If what war urged now had been brought forward before the trial, a trial at bar might have breu very proper. It was set tled, that the argument should be at first con fined to the 'first point, and then-- Serjesant LENS commeored by declaring, he never saw less ground for a new Isis' in his life.— The evidence to sustain the action hail been re spectable in the extreme, slid the verdict of the Jury was founded on it, and only contrary to the opirsiosis of speculative mess. He had come pre pared to argue the three points; he was sorry, how ever, that the first objection to the form of the ac tion had beers brought forward iss such a case us that ; he was astonished it should lie persisted in 'after the advice which (he was suit) had come from the ClllllllO in Court. The first question was, whether the Plaintstfs were so imissessed as to be entitled to loriog the actom ? lie contended they were, for this simple rearms, that if that pub lic body hail not a right, nobody had : the property was the right of no one. if not of the l'lnissitlf..- 11 was material to consider what *on of property that in toes was, and in what relation the at Ito it. It was a batik c posed of linsiwr and fa..wits. and other materials purchased elsewhere by the Plaintiff., and brought to thespot. Mr. Justice PARK observed, the structure was a wall, and riot a bank. Sir. Srij vital Lets—lo the pleadings and all The Adivits it was rated • wall ;but it would answer his purpose to take it as composed of tim ber and faggots brought from other places. That distinction was taken by Calhs, in his book on Sewers :—" A wall doth differ in ownership from a bank"—a batik is the property of the owner of the land--"■ wall is an artificial edifice, not part of the very soil on which it stands, hut of which the materials are brought from other places, and erected ad propria 111Nere et eostagia partis—so that the ownership and property of a wall doth appertain to him who has beets at the expense of erecting the same." Now, it was clear that this wall had been erected at the expense of the Plaintiff.; and there fore they had that kind of possession of it to enable them to bring an action of trespie , s. If they could not, the consequence would be, that that specific wrong would be without a remedy.; no other per son could maintain the action; the owner of the adjacent laud could not, because he had no pro perty in it. It might be said, that an indictment would furnish • remedy; bat it was insufficient{ because all it would do would be to inflict • pu. nishment for breaking down the wall ; but there was no other mode of obtaining compensation in damages than by a civil action. Conld it be said, that any property in this country was nut protected in both ways ? At the time the tres pass in question was committed, the parties had bought the materials, and built the wall, and in order to that must have had exclusive pos. session ; and if they had exclusive possession, whether fur themselves or as trustees, without question they might maintain trespass. He always understood this to be the distinction between tres pass and a certain other species of anion, trover, where there must be a right of property either ab: solute or qualified. In trespass, the right of pos. Keeton only was necessary, and here the Plaintiffs had that single requisite. It might be said the poesession was in the - King, and that they were only his servants, but that was not so; in many similar cases, the possession was considered not to be in the Crown, but in others. For instance, an of fi cer un. der the Crown who had a house attached to his office, was considered in possession of it, and might bring trespass certainly. The CUM JUITICI called the attention of the Counsel to a case of a nature something moiler tried before him at Maidstone. Mr. Serjesnt Laws—The action to which his Lordship alluded, had been brought by Surveyors of Enclosure. There were two counts ►n it—the first for a trespass on the land, on which there war a verdict for the Defendant ; the second for a trespass in taking certain stakes fixed by the Plaintiffs on the land, on which there WS4 a verdict for the latter, But he submitted the case did not at all make against him ; the Surveyors of Enclosures could not, from beginning to end, be considered to have pos session of the land. They had merely the right to go on the land for the purposes of their office; but here, the moment the Commissioners of Sewers had put the materials on the ground, they might say to the world, "You shall not come here, the po,session is ours." His Lordship said it hail been doubted whether the a..tion of trespass Would Ir, because three was not an exclusive possession iii the Plain tiffs. Without saying that that case had any appli cation to the ',resent, he wished to have a note of what passed at the time, if there was any. He he hewed, that as to the second count, when the sur veyors had lawfully fixed down the stakes, the owner of the land had pulled them up. a►►d threw them away. Mr. Serjeant BEST replied, that he had applied to the gentlemen who reported in the Court, who stated that no report of the cilia had been taken. There was no pretence for saying that the Survey ors of Enclosure ever had any possession of the land, but here the Commissioners were possessed of the focus qao. But in that case it was held, that the possession of the stakes was in the Surveyors, and on the same principles here, that of the timber and faggots was plainly in the Plaintiffs, the Commissioners of Sewers. He did not mean to say that the timber, &c. was put there by the Duke of Newcastle himself, but it was put there by those in his employ, and a " quifueis per ohm:n/41cl, per se." The Cntar JUSTICE—" ft has been admitted on the pleadings that this is a highway, how will you prove exclusive possession of a highway ?" If amen were allowed to build a house on the highway, the possession would be in him. It made no difference from whom tl►e wages of the labourers employed on the work came lastly—it must have come by the orders of the Commissioners. The agents who paid the money were their servants. It was quite impossible the Commissioners could receive and expend the money themselves, they must do such things by their agents. But the expending of money in that manner came clearly within the de scription " ad propria ',sera et eottagia perils." Mr. Justice PARK said there were Special Offi ten appointed by the Commission. The Learned Council continued—The Commis sioners were the only persons to represent the owners of the rates collected in • Court of Law; other wise it would follow that no one could maintain a civil action for them, for the receiver could not.— In a Court of • Law the Commissioners might be considered as trustees of that property, and might maintain an action for the property vested in them ; on this principle Churchwardens and Overseers might have an action fur injuries done to work houses and similar buildings in their parish.— But. on other grounds, it wrs quite clear that the Commissioners had possession of the wall ; as such they were expressly recognized by the statutes 4 Geo. 111. p. 845, and 37 Geo. 111. c. ISO. sec. 8. He could find no case exactly pa rallel ; but the captain of a ship was, with respect to Ins ship, in a situation something like the Plain tiffs and it had been long since deter 11l i l led, that he might maintain an action of trespass against • wrong doer. In I Sulkeid. p. I I, Lord Milt said "the ship does not belong to the master but the owner. but the master may bring all action of 'rea p's." The CUM JUSTiCE.-•-" Because he has exclu sive possession, which is the point for you to make out." The Learned Counsel—Assuming •nch posses sion to be twee he contended that the Com missiones• had posseision against all the world the moment one barrow of materials was put there. Hut he granted more than was neer*. try, because two persons in many cuts had an action of trespass, as appeared from 2 Rol?: 44ridgneerit, p. 551, where it was laid clown that the possersion of tenant sit will Hull by sufferance, war the po.session of the laudlord, snit that both might bring trespass; at the leapt he could mondani that the Contiiii.siotters might bring trespass againq all but the °wile's, tie slow COMIC to that part of the c:t•e which related to the place whereon the erection was made, been a highway : and he admitted that if the place consinued a highway, the mdion could not be matte. tuined .; but the Commissioners of this district had power-to stop the highway ur tiatigoble river. under laws peculiar to them. The Learned Coun sel here again veferred to and quoted star. 37 Geo. Il I. c. ISO. sec. 8. The Act aas a general one. and did nut require to tin particularly pleaded. ll' the Plairititio had not sufficient possroonni to enable them to bring a possessory action, the care relative tu the stakes had been wrongly decided. Mr. Juatice BuaaouoH said there was no distinct question about the stakes, that was only a part of the trespass. It did distinctly appear that there was a trespass on the materials as well as on the land. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN argued that an indict. ment did not affurd compensation to the party injured. The Carer Justice observed, that it appear-id from the 41h volume of Ws.. koone's Comententarits, that in all such cases the punishment was the only cum pen's, ion. Mr. Serje■nt VAUGHAN said, that in many such cases reparation was made to the party by ratite lion of his goods when stolen. He cited Mk Bar room, 1487, to shew that the law allows an action to a man though nut in complete possession, where there is no other to bring it. Of two tenants in common, one might bring an action against a wrong doer, though there was no exclusive pos. seession. In the case 6:4 East, 154, Lord Ellenbo rough was of opinion, that as against a wrong doer, the property of a bridge (in that case) reverted to the original owner, to Nimble him to maintain a poslessory action, and that a scintilla of property was sufficient for that purpose. The Cuter JUSTICH intimated, that he would be glad the Counsel who is to follow (Mr. Serjeant Copley) would examine before next day whether there was any instance of an action brought for injury done by persons merely having the conduct of public works, stating the possession to be in themselves. The COURT asid a st rising, that as theta was but one caw more on tTie paper, it would be better to Boish it, and let the argument on this case ataud Over. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Wursvaria, FRIDAY, NOVIIIIIIM 20. RUSSET. v. BUCHANAN and WIPE. Mr. DAUNCET had obtained a rule in this case to abets cause, on the part of the Defendant, why the iuterlocutory proceedings already had should not be set aside with costs. The application was founded on the affidavit of Mr. Levie, ass attorney, which stated, that Mr. Buchanan, the Defendant, had appeared by his attorney, but that his wife had never entered an appearance. In consequence of her absence, she was served with • writ under the statute. It was therefore contended, in support of the rule to vet aside the interlocutory proceedings, that the appearance of the husband singly was a mere nullity, and the proceedings already bad in formal and incomplete. Mr. MANNING was heard against the rule ob tained by Mr. Mimicry. He opposed it on two grounds: the first was, that the parties were ac tually in Court, and it was quite immaterial how they got there ; and the second, that, according to the statute, there was no distinction between the one Defendant and the other in the manner con tended for. The Learned Counsel, in support of these two points, sited 33 Henry VI. fol. 43, p. ea, and 43 Edw. 111. fol. I, p. I, which shelved, that the husband frequently appeared for himself as well as wife. He said, that the Defendant endea voured, by the course be had taken, not only to plead alone, hut also to harass the Plaintiff, by putting in that sort of plea which would not be re plied to without a re-pleader being awarded. Mr. DAUNCEY, in reply, contended, that the interlocutory proceedings were erroneous. The Plaintiff should either have made an application to the Court to compel the husband to appear, or an appearance muter the statute should have been en tered for both Defesidonits. The COURT were of opinion, that the appearance of the hub!)and was not a nullity, and that the ill. teriOcutory proceedings were regular. The rule was diocharged, with costs. PRICE OF STOCKS YESTERDAY. 3 per Ct. Red.... 76N I India Bonds ..86 87 pr. 3 per Ct. Cons. 77ifl I New Annuities ....77i 31 per Cents B6k I Es. Bills, 4..19 10 pr. 4 per Cents. 5 per Ct. N. Au... 1081 I Cons. for Acc...77M Batik L. Auu 4O COURSE OF EXCHANG Amsterdam.... 11 7 Ditto at algid .. 11 4 Rotterdam ..... 11 S Antwerp ex. Mo. 11 11 Harobargh F Altuoa ......... 33 9 Parili 3 day 's date 23 tis Ditto 24 15 Roordeaux, do. 24 15 Frankfurt on the Main l3O Madrid Cadiz 4O Hilboa 39/ Barcelona 30 Gibraltar 34 Leghorn Genoa 47t The overnice prier or wheat, fur the lust six week* of the quarter (milli% Nov. 15, ie Piths. 'ad. come quently the ports are again open fur importation Irom all plates between the Cyder nerd the Bit booboo. To the more distant parts, itscludlrd tinder the pro visions of the Corn Bill, no prohibition had taken place, as that eau only occur whets the average fur the whole quarter is under blur. FRIDAY', NOVtilitEll 20. Venire YS 50 Malta Naples .. . Palermo l3od, per oa. 4/liorto 54 Riu Janeiro 66 . _ Dub1in........ Ili per Ct. Cork .......... 94 MULLION. PurtuEal Gold it F •. d Glill, rer 0z....0 0 0 Foreign Gold ia Bars . .O 0 0 New Doubloons 0 New Dollars 5 Silver in Bars ....0 5 New Lc u (ewOP) 0 0 POLICE. -kak IoW•frlitf. STOLEN CHI LD. A liter was received yesterday at be office from Good. wit,, the constable, who is employed to pursue Cleri.ll Helmetl and the child of Mr. Horsley, of Canonbury-lane, Islington, accompanied by Mr. Hoesley's nephew, to iden tify the child. The "letter is dated from Casio, cud slated that they pursued them to that place, and arrived there oit Sitoday, ■nd they had 110 doubt but that they had traced Charles Rennet, and the child to have arrived at Calais on the Wednesday after Hewlett stole the child, and that he had bikes his place in a diligence, and is supposed to be goue to Dookiik. ALLEGED ILL-TRRATMENT OF A UHL& Yesterday afternoon an Inquest was held at the Monmouth Head, Castle-street, Leicester-square, on the body of Martha Purcell°, a child about four yesrs and ten months old, who met her death under the following circumstances:— Jane, the wife of James Street, No. 3, Whibrosihe4treet, Commodore of the India House, beingsworn, stated, that the deceased was pat to nurse to ;La wife of Joseph Hill, a tai lor, residing iu Heminiug's-row, St Martin's, fur which she was to receive 4s. per weak ; but the child beiug taken was conveyed home by its father on Tuesday week, and died on Sunday lasi. Witness attended the child from the 10th instant to the 15th . ; she was regularly attended by a me. dical Gentleman, and believes she died in consequence of treatineut. The day before she died, she said, " Oh! dots% hart sae—will you not hurt me?* but witness had nut seen her receive any ill-treatment. The day P. be was laid out, there were three or four black marks upon her back, 'high appeared to have been done by fingers. When she came home, she said she was afraid to tell soy thing fur fear her aunt would beat her, if she should be sent hone spin, mud begged nut to he sent back again. Mr. S. J. Moreau, Is, Great Newport4treet, Gorgon, sworn, said, he was requested to Weed tbe deceased at her father's house, No. I t l, Castle street. He saw her late in the evening, and found her labonring under an inflammatory fever, with a great number of blotches on the akin, produced by the sickness; she was also Wronged by Mr. D. Morgan, his partner; there was au likelihood of her recovery, but yet there were some hopes et her until within a few days of her death, when witness o*s called np at three o'clock,and found that violent symptoms bad returned attended with delirium every thing was dune which was deemed proper, but the symptoms terminated hi same low typhus, which caused her death. _ _ Coroner—" Can you judge what was moat likely to pro duce that fever!"—A." Nothing is more likely than the ill treatment ; but as a medical roan, I mien state that abso lutely, as many causes would produce it. The typhus fever has bee. very prevalent, it alight come on nein ally." Jurymen—" la the tourse of your attendance, had the child related any thing respecting her ill-treatment to you ?" —A. " She was only four years old, and the last four days she was quite insensible." Witness's partner corioborated his evidence, be having shortly after attended. Ann Sophia Blast, wife of William Blunt, bardwarentas, 12, Hemmiwg's-row, stated, that Mrs. Hill, who bad the child to nurse, lodged in her second door. Wbea she first had the child she iras is perfect health, and continued to until about ten weeks ago. Witness met her is Mrs. Hill's arms. She asked the child bow she Wes? She replied, " Not very well, Memo " Mrs. Hill said, she mast have gut a cold or wormy, as she is contently relaxed is her bowels. Witness asked Mrs. Hill, whether she had given her any physic? She replied, that she had given her rhebarb. Witness then recommended her to take medical advice, as if she was poor mostly all the medical men in the neighbour hood pve advice gratis. Witness thee west sat of toss, and returned shoat three or four week, ago, and asked her servant how the lodgers were ? She replied," " Very well," and then mentioned many cruel acts exercised upon the child. About the 3d instant Mrs. Hill brought the child down naked, hearing her matter swarthier, and in a few tainulett after heard her go to the water-closet sod empty a slop pail, which she filled with water. When she dose this she threw the water over the child, as slit supposed, from the noise the child had made ; heard the child catch her breath hardly, ua which Mrs. Hill said, " dont cry." Witness instantly raw into the passage where the wateeniott was and then sair the child quite naked, sud Mrs. Hill ill the act of demi/jag a second pail. %Vitoria exclaimed," Mrs. Hill, you will murder the 'child." Mrs. Hill answered, " Madam, mind your own family." Witness said, " you shall not do it in my house." Mrs. Hill again replied, " Mind your own family," and flinging another pail of water over the child, said, " There I will do it in despight of you, and ern* if I like." Witness called her husband to prevent it, bet she was too late, and be told her he would acquaint her husband when be came bume, adding, you are in the fa mily way, how would you like your child to be seed au. She answered "I don't rare." She at other times midribs did it to clean the child. Upon another measles she (Mrs. Hill) let the cock run over her, and left her in a damp place, naked, by way of puuishoietit, sod beat her very severely with a rod, of which she bore marks some days afterwards. On the day Mrs. Hill bad flung the two pails of water urer the child, she drove her up stairs naked, shut the door, and brat her violently. Some days previously, she had wiped the child all over with a flannel and cold water, she then dine her up stairs, and also beat her viuleatly. Ann Cole, late servant to Mrs. Blast, stated many other ions nees of cruelty used towards the child. Hannah M. Wood, a lodger iu the same house with Mrs. Hill, confirmed the foregoing evidence in most of the path ciders, Mrs. Hill is 23 yearend, but newer lead any eliddreu of her own. William Martindale Wood, the last witness's buthand, gave his evideuce corroborative of the preceding witnesses. The child's grandfather (who is a German) stated, that be had seen the child daily, but he never bad seen Mrs. Hill ill-treat her. Mr. Ort.t., the Coroner, asked the surgeon's opinion again, and be was answered that such treatment would pro duce death, but that it was doubtful in this ease. The Coroner summed up the evidence, and the Jury hay ing deliberated, retuned a verdict of Manslargkrer against Mrs. Hill, who was is the public-house, and was instantly taken into custody by Hartley, nu officer of St. Martin's, and she was committed to Tutkill.ficlds upon the Curoocr's warrant. CORN EXCHANGE, Fatimv, Novionstit SO. Having bad but a limited supply, with Wheat and Oata since Munday, although tlwre war plenty left over for the demanil, cacti of ilium articles hail a tolerable brisk sale ■t our last quoted prices. Barley supports its prim. Harlow a lurk, supply of Boiling Pease, the sale was dull. in Besot, and other knob of graiu, there is uu alteratiuu. SMITH FIELD MARKET, FRIDLY, Noweata 20. Thi. day's market had out a good supply of the radio'. kinds of cattle Mottoes awl Kirk were cheaper; St.( awl Veal ash! at last prices; and the trade in general was sumeer. what dull. The sale* in the Haymarket WIT,: out lively; Hay, Straw, am' Clover have dropped iii price. -------- COAL MARKET, NOVEIIIIIIII 10. S lips at hlarket. Ships Sold. Pries'. 1211 Newcastle 32 Sonata-laud 1 Cook's --..... BIRTHS. Lately, at Nitride, sear Boa thmutpten, the Lady of the HON. and Rev. J. L Duadu, of awn. On the 6th inst. at Genoa, Era. Edward Gibbon Woke' of • Dun and heir. - . . HIGH WATER THIS DAY AT LONDON-BRIDG E. Nursing 37 anti 7. I Evening o_!!..!8 -- LONDON: Printed autl Psitslmbed at the fillet, No 147, Stroud ; where Advertieemeuts are reeetv,il, zifil LAW' (puet-paid) meet be lieldressetl.—C. 8%.1TH, No Clement's lea, rfillltt —1 WHITE, Nu DT, Sl,lls + ' I siiil Ilw lle rrpi foci the ode Mr _ fore lulu gybe his grit can half II al her. oh ;.1 had of th la su 484 Se Or. 12, I