The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-07-12 00:00:00

MUTUAL MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. An extraordinary meeting of the Proprietors of this C nnpany took plate yesterday, at the City of London Tavern, for the put. poet of receiving the annual statement of the Chairman and Di rectors. Mr. RICJ*RD in the Cbair. The CHAIRMAN opened the business of the day, by stating that they were assembled fur the purpose of laying before the Pruprie. NM a statement of the transactions and funds of the Society, from August 1824 to Dec. 1813. By the deed of settlement, the Board of Directors were required to lay before the Proprietors, in July of each year, an annual statement of the proceedings of the Institution up to the December prCeeding. But as the Society was formed in August, 1824, the present Report necessarily included a period of s , steen months and a half, and therefore the Report was burthened wish a period longe r tha that which n regul rence arly attaehed to it. It was also important to state, that in refe to the profit and loss, it was very desirable that the profit and Item should be brought to attach itself exclusively to each year. In the account which they had to present, it so happened that the So ciety lied had to encounter four unfavourable, but not one favour able season. There were two autumns, one whole winter, part of another, and only one summer; and thee/Marc it would be obvious to every underwriter and gentleman that It was im. posaible that the Institution could have had a more unfavour. able opportunity to contend with. No doubt ell would recollect the calamitous period of November 1824, when the greatest losses on the best of risks in the annals of underwriting were sustained. It would be folly, with thedifficulties which the Society had had to contend with, to talk of profit; it was rot the intention of the Dia teems to come forwent with any such pretence ; but in an imps?. dal and just account their cause had nothing to fear, for candour courted discussion and in the Report which would be submit , ed. the Proprietors wouhl find a faithful and aaeuratesaposeof their affairs. The deed by which the Company wasregulated required the arrange ment of the transactions of the Institution wider two distinct heads— the one called `'` the Proprietors' fund account, " and the other the " Assurance fiend account." As regarded the assurance fund ac count, there was a surplus; but in the Proprietors' fund account, there was deficiency, owing to certain losses which had been oc casioned by the distressing events that had occurred in November, 1894. If the year 1823 had stood alone, it would have shewn a profit nearly equal to what was anticipated when the Society was formed. llowever, when a deficiency matte, the Lirectors were metered to mike a call for a further payment by the Proprietors on the amount of their ?thane. The Directors had no option in this respect, what ever might be the awe as regarded the Court of Proprietors. Ile confessed that he had nothing to propose on that head ; of course the Court of Proprietors would form their own judgment upon it. The object of the call was, that the Directors should be possessed of available funds, to meet any loss or losses that might occur, and to givi consequent security, by being prepared for every contin get cy. The Society had met with great difficulties, and yet he was happy to say they had a sum of 90.1401, in hand, while they knew of no loss that would materially e Luce that amount. The accounts would, however, he laid before the Proprietors, anti they would be able to judge for themselves. Although the acconnt for vie year 1825 would chew a profit, and the half year fur 1826 a still greater, yet he was fitly aware that those periods were of too short duration to come to any satisfac'ory conclusion as to ultimate suc cess. Ile confessed that his hopes of success rested on a sounder tied more sacred basis—on the print iple of tae Institwion, which was sound of Wier, and just as regarded its operation. Ile did not mean to say that the n was perfect, far horn it—there were amendments th t could be ad p ed, and such he hoped sooner or leer to see proposed. In whatever department of science or art imprr vemi nt was to be made, it could not be attained at once ; tor perfection was not in man, and time and experience alone could attain it. Yet they Mght modify and alter the structure where the foundation was good; arid such, lie venturcul to assert, was the case with their Institu inn, which was placed on a rock. For its success they were much indebted to their excellent Managing Di rector (fir. Staniforth); and he felt confident that the Mutual Marine Imurance Company would prove one of the most usefui Inetitutioes in the metropolis. Ti , e Report was then rad, which was little more than an echo of the circumstances detailed in the Chairman's speech. It alluded to the great losses sustained by ti.e Society in November, 1824, when ships of the most unexceptionable kind became losses ; it also stated the circumstance of the Society having insur.d the Kent (which was burned) in 10.0001. ; and that a very coadderable loss had been sw tained in the Bengal River. That although there was a surplus on the insurance fund account, the Directors d'd nut Ti C3lll. emend a dieidend beyond the interest to the Proprietors ; while, as regarded the Proprietors' fund, the accounts of expenditure ex ceeding the profits, it would be necessary, under the deed, to call for an instahnent of 13a. Ikl. per cent. on Mil share, the interest on the W. paid on each share to be taken in pert of such call. The amount of capital on the assurance fund account haul been 13.000,0001., t ie Premiums paid on which was £272,214 16 10 Losses and averages . . 228,807 0 1 Balance on t'te asturenc t. fund account to the 31st Dte. 1325 £43,407 16 9 The balance on the Proprietors turd account was 65,8601., but which was subject to r.ations d Auctions; but when they wore made, the mut available fund of the Socie . ywould stand at 96,5091, and whien was invested in various teturiatit ; and the whole of the ac cmir :a were stated to have hero regularly audited. Mr. DEWAR begged to ask the Chairman, with respect to the number Mamma, if they had been all disposed of ? The CHAIRMAN add they bad not. Mr. Drwait wished to know if any had been returned to the Company. in cons. qaence of the death or bankruptcy of the parties to whom they had been allotted ? TheCuAmSMAX said none had so come back into the hands of the Co.npany, to his knowledge. 'I het,: was a claim in the deed which allowed them to he dispeoed of. Mr. DEwrat said, then he was to consider that none had been returaed. The CH tltlckx said, certainly, no e there were 13,439 Shares HOW out. which had been disroted of to 295 Proprietors. Mr. Dcwart wished to understand from Mr. Allen, whom he saw preset t, and who was the legal adviser of the Company. whe ther the 13.439 Proprietors were not responsible to the amount of 5,000,0001., to which extent the capital of the Society went. The CHA in DIA N—Certainly not. Every care had been taken to take the Iti;best legal opinion upon that subjtct, and it decidedly exonerated them from that tesponsibility. Mr. DF.WAR expressed hlinttlf perfectly satisfied, and comoli. mewed the Chairman upon the very satisfactory manner in which the accounts bad been tend r d and explanation' given. Mr. DEWAR and another Proprietor objected to the principle of lend ng n o st y on mortgage on shipping. Mr. Aluntiocw said that the amount was limited to 10,000 L, beyond which tutu it mid not be carried. The Directors also um 's care that it should be advanced where they had the insurance of the ship, and in such cases and under such circumstances as would enable them to call in the money with the least possible dtl.y. Sir. DEWAR did uot, eller the handsome manner in which the bus.news of the day bad been brought fors ard, wish to make any oljec ion; still he considered that 700,0001., the ou•stand'ng earl. tal in risk• , was too large a sum, looking at the balance in hand which was to nicer it t which, of er paying all expmaea, only amounted to 43,4.7'. But having said so t orch, he should leave the matter where it was. The Report was then put and carried. Isle. Dan an said there was another subject well worthy of their consideration, which was the remuneration of the Chairmen aid Directors for their valuable services. After a long discussion on this point, on the motion of Mr. D:- war, it was cattiest unanimously, that the sum of 2,0001 per en um should be placed at the disposal of the Chairman and Directors, in order to afford renitineration to those gentlemen for thei- attend.ince on the &nitwit. d Ides of the Society ; the same to c:rnmence from the Ist of January last. The CHAIRMAN said, that the Meeting, as well as the Dive tors, were greatly indslred to Mr. Dewar, for his Interference and a:sistance ; at d before he let., there was one subject which he wished to have understood, that was, whether oe rot the call of 134. 6d. on the share. was to be made. The Directors had no power but to do so according to the deed, but of course it was open to the Proptie.o s generally to do so or not, as they should think fit. Mr. DEP Ai consid.re 1 tl at tie call should sot be male, and moved (after • long censer-at on on the subject), that it was not expedient to call for the instalment of laa 60., and that two Gene ral Co tuts should be asSemb ed, agreeable to the article of the • D el, in od r to guarantee the Directors from any blame hire after, in not having demanded it. A Paoestrron, whew Caine we could not learn, objected to the not making the call, and considered the departure iron. the rule laid down, a beet eh of public faith ; and, finally moved that the call in question of 13s. 6d. should be made ; which being netts. ttved, Mr. DEWAR'S resolution for abandoning the call of 13s. 6d. per share, was thin put and carried; 'object, of course, to the sanction of the two Get cal Mee lop, agreeable to the article of the deed. -.As. DEWAR the moved then thanks of the Proprietors to the Chairman. hr the very able conduct he had displayed in the duty that had devotee) ut on him, which was carried unanimously, and the Meeting broke up. The Gas •tie of Lyons states that the letters from Toulon bring accounts that all the ships capable of putting to sea, and tiy:: stationed on the coast of Spain, have received orders to proceed to the Levant, where some events are expected to take place. The Commission, charged to pro claim the Duke of Nemours, is to embark on board the Truite. MM. Harcourt and Dclavigne are arrived, but the Gazette of Lyons does not give any date to this extraordi nary information. The Afoniteur states in a paragraph that M. the Count Emmanuel llarcourt is to embark at Toulon. M•NUFACTUNING DISTRICTS.—We understand one of the most eminent of the manufacturers of Lancashire waited upon Ministers yesterday, accompanied by a cele brated capitalist, to represent the state of the manufactur ing districts. Mr. IVilson, who: is lodged in Galway gaol, on a charge of being concerned in a murder at the election, is a most respectable, intelligent magistrate of the County Clare; and it is thought will show on his trial that he was not in in the transaction for which he is now imprisoned. —Limerick Chronicle. ESSEX SUMMER ASSIZES. CHELMSFORD, TUESDAY, JULY 11. The Assiies for this county commenced here to-day, before the Honourable AIL Baron tta awes! on the Crown skit, and the Ho nourable Mr—Justice llocrtoru on the C •il side. On the Crown side the calendar contains a Imlg list of offcics, but none of them are cases of any enormity. The cause list contains an entry of tighte.n eases. CIVIL. SIDE. onirrix v. WILSON. This was an action for the work and labour of the plaintiff's wife, whilst sole, as a bar.maid. Mr. oit RNFY and Mr. NDREIYI condue' ed the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Banns tea the defence. It appeared that the defendant, a widow, kept the principal inn at ftoeltford. When the plaintiff's wife was a girl, she was taken into the defendant's house from mo lives of dimity, anti brought up as one of the family. It was ad mitted that she had conducted ItersOf with great propriety during a period of several years, axe pt that she had given birth to a child, of which the defendant's brother was the reputed father. After bring in the defendant's service for about fifteen years, the plain. tiff. an attorney's clerk, paid his addresses to her, and obtained her hand in marriage, anti now brought an action in her right to re cover her wages, at the rate of about fifteen pounds per annum.— . flo agreement to pay wages was proved, anti it appeared that, during the period in question, Miss Day, the plaintiff's wife, had the usual vail, and perquisites of waiter, bar-maid, and chamber. maid, which were proved to be considerable. It was admitted that she had been treated with great kindness by the defendant, and was brought up as one of the family. The defendant's Counsel contended that the action was not main tainable, and insisted that it was an impudent attempt to charge the defendant with a liability, which tire plaintiff's wife never thought of before she became the wife of an attorney's clerk. Ile was proceeding to call witnesses, for the purpose of negativing all right of claim front declarat , ons of Mrs. Griffin when single. when The Jury interpoked, and expressed their opinion that no case had been made out on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Justice 110LROYD concurred in the view taken of tire case by the Jury, when the plaintiff elected to be nonsuired. 4 OW' e rester ftec flat COW' Prot The men tide "A cow Cher casi 18114 *HI tim mli of tl "Cl cnnl the Thl of a to f SI k.le acct WOI dui a;:d vai mC uc 14.1 1 , 911 pet aft foe f CS9 Cur O rte I e• ten shi WI be Cu: tzi Tel er an 31, of Pi 131 111 1 . at sad a of via tt C r. iced be ate- and It of pod t, bet- itsea ides (W- -ryly 1 p on hill e 1 at — l l from by has e o the A cct.. f hit coat- from ✓ Se- of 40 d, fur ,art on Abets. rands ,reeks i with • and ~ it ta nakir; e Dot- to the broken steam- betlics, off die r Work, offavi ricerned Forte' t ' veil on m they tonterli" ere Po - lebole flames , he lot eeti 104 were a there , 'ern ire' forei" e re ster wee fe ll • for T ile „i te d b 7 tst asUld bet qua Ars DUX tav y ...., , from o ,zecl -1 Aber& (- nakir; off seuMlt . ere GATLLER ET UX. V. LAWRENCE. This was an action for assaulting and battering the plaintiff's wife. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff was stated to be a cowkecper, and the defendant a person of some substance. It was supposed that the defendant had borne some ill-will towards the plaintiff, in consequence of having been obliged to make the latter some compensation for irjuring one of his cows. On the day mentioned in the declaration, the defen dant, being in a passion, entered the plaintiffs house, and com plained that one of his sons had struck the child of a neighbour. The plaintiff himself was from home; and some angry expressions passing between the wife and the defendant, the latter struck her • blow on the wrist; fur which injury the present action was brought. The Jury. under the Learned Judge's directions, found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Ten Pounds. WESTI.:RN CIRCUIT. SALISBURY, JULY IL The Commission was opened here on Saturday. and the Judges hiving attended Divine Service at the Cathedral yesterday, pro ceeded to Court at an rally hour this morning. The Calendar contains- the description of no less than 63 cases, none of which appear to be of extraordinary enormity. A consi derable cumber of persons are charged with riotously assembling at Bradford and Trowbridge, in this county. In the Civil Court only 13 cases are entered, and but one of these is a Special Jury case. )lr. Justice LittWale presides in the Criminal Court, and Mr. Justice liaselee at the Civil Side. CROWN COURT.—PERJURY. Ann Davis, who was indicted at the last Asdres, was first put to the bar, charged with wilful and corrupt perjury. The evidence in thin case was of a nature which cannot properly be submitted to the public, but the circumstances are as follow: The prisoner, who is a coarse, and by no means agreeable-looking countrywoman, aged about 25, was In the service of a farmer, and was observed to be pregnant. Upon the interference of the parish officers, she stated that Walter Long, Esq. of Beynton House. a Magistrate of Wilts, was the lather of her child, and subsequently went before the Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions, and swore to the same effect ; adding, that she had met Mr. Long between Corshatn anti Bath, in the middle of the day, a short time before tae spring fair of Corsham ; that Mr. Long was driving his gig, but, that he pulled up when he saw her, and that after some conver ' safion he alighted, and she was induced by his solicitations to ac company him to a quarry by the road side, where an intercourse took place which was followed by the birth of her child. Upon has examination the prisoner torture stated, that she bad no inter. coarse sith any other tnan but Mr. Long, except on one occasion, with a person of the name of Carter, the servant of a farmer. She also described Mr. Long's dress very minutely. The present prosecution was founded on the evidence given before the Maristrates on this occasion. It depended mainly on the evidence of 31r. Long, who is a married man, and who positively contra. dieted the prisoner's evidence in every particular. lie distinctly swore that he had no intercourse with the prisoner on any occasion, and that lie never remembered to have seen her but once, when she called at his house on some businee, connected with his Magisterial duty. Mr. Long's testimony was corroborated by the evidence of several witnesses, who stated that the dress which wan described by the prisoner, was not that which Mr. Long was in the habit of ap pearing in at the period alluded to. and that the harness of his gig was different front that described by the prisoner. It was also proved that when the prisoner was first interrogated about her pregnancy, she old one person that the father of the child was s cart enter, resident in London ; and on another occasion she said that the father of her child was a cabinet-maker. The Learned JUDGE having recapitulated the evidence, the Jury, after consulting for a few minutes, returned a verdict of— " Guilty, by mistake." Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said the Jury must reconsider this verdict. The prisoner was charged with wilful and corrupt per jury, and if they did not believe her guilty of this, she must be acquitted. Formai Long. Air. Justice I.trTLEDAI.E—If you think the prisoner made a mistake, she is not guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. Foreman—We With to clear 31r. Long. The Jury then consulted together for a short time, when the Foreman said they had reconsidered their verdict, and determined that the prisoner was " Guilty." This verdict was recorded, but the prisoner was not sentenced. -We think she mistook some other person for Mr. HORSE-STEALING. Robe►t Botahicr was tried for stealing a hone, bridle, and saddle, the property of James Church. It appeared that the horse, with the bridle and saddle, was left in the owner's stable, at Alban, on the night of the sth June, and on the following morning the animal was missed. In the course of the following day the property was seen in the prisoner's pos session, at a distance of tome than 20 miles from 51r. Church's re sidence, where he stated that he had been robbed, and asked a farmer to lend hint whiney, saying he would leave his horse for security. This circumstance exciting suspicion, the prisoner was detained; and printed bills having been circulated, the prosecutor came forward and identified his property. In his defence, the prisoner said that he had received the horse from a man. named King, and was ignorant that it was stolen. lie declined calling any witness to support his defence. Verdict, Guilty—J' of sentenced. ROBBERY. Wm. Swarm was charged with breaking opea the dwelling. louse of Samuel YAWN and stealing a quantity of wearing ap parel, house linen, and other articles. It appeared that the prosecutor's house, which is situated at Westbury, was left eitirry by the occupants on the Ilith March lest, for a short time, during the middle of the day, and in their absence it was entered, and the articles in question stolen. In a few days after the property was found in the prisoner's possession; anti as he could not aatisfactorily account for having it, he was found Sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner, but the Judge intimated that his case would be taken into consideration. John Millard and John Lloyd, were tried for breaking open the house of John White, at Vt eatbury, on the 20th March, and taking front it a quantity of wearing apparel, Ac. The prosecutor stated, that his horse was broken open after he had retired to rest on the night above mentioned, and upon rising in the morning he found the door open and the property named in the indictment taken away. A part of the property was afterwards found in Ma lard's house, concealed in the tickingof a bed, and it was proved that the prisoners had disposed of the remainder of the property he to an old woman who dealt in rags and bottles at Westbu r y . T prisoners also sold a woman's inside garment, which was stolen from White's house, to a poor woman who sold nuts. The prisoners severally charged each other with the robbery, and denied all participation in the guilt of the transaction. They were found Guilty of larceny, bat were acquitted of the burglary. They were severally sentenced to be transported for seven years. Thomas Wallace and James Nash were charged with breaking and entering the house of William King., at Pottaut, in the day time, and stealing therefrom three one pound notes, and various articles of wearing apparel. King, who is • poor labourer, left his home soon after day-break on the morning of the 2d of this month, in company with his wife and daughter, to work in the fields. The door was locked and the key placed in the thatch, as is usual in the country. ‘Vhen the faintly returned to dinner at noon, they found that their house had been entered in their absence, and the property In question taken. The prisoners were observed loitering about King a house on the day of the robbery. The prisoner Wallace was subsequently detected exposing some of the property, and when Nash was taken into custody, a small purse, belonging to the prosecutor, was found on his person. The prisoners were found Guilty of the capital offence. Sentence of death was record. ed, but Mr. Justice Littledale said their lives should be spared. LARCENY. William Archer was charged with stealing a tortoise-shell snuff box, mounted with gold, the property of Francis S. Long. Mr. Long deposed that he resided at Warminster, that on or about the 21st of March he missed his snuff-box, and in consequence of some information which he received, he searched the prisoner, who was a servant in his employment, and discovered the snuffbox about his person. Upon leaving home a short time before, witness had left the box in a drawer, where it was usually kept. The prisoner offered nothlug in pis defence. fie was therefore found Guilty, and Kn. • ‘;.4 a.,~;; THE BRITISH PRESS. enced to be imprisoned and kept to bard labour foe threw calendar months. COW STEALING. John Goddard was charged with stealing three cows, the ProPeflY of John Thomas, Esq. It appeared that the cows were seen on the 20th May, grazing in the park of Mr. Thomas, at Widcombe, in the county of Somerset, anti on the following morning they were missal. 'fury wire traced into Wiltshire, and it was sworn that the prisoner was seen driving them in different parts of the country. Ha was apprehended, with the cows in his possession, at Wilton, a few miles from Sarum. Not being able satisfactorily to account for the manner in which he obtained possession of the property, ba was found Guilty. Sentence not pawed. CIVIL SIDE. HEVIR J. ELLISONAND OTHERS. This was an action brought by Mr. Bevir , an attorney, for pro fessional services. against the defendants. Colonel Ellison and John Gordon, Esq. the unsuccessful candidates fur the borough of Wot ton Basset, in this entente. at the contested election which took place for that borough in 1020. Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS stated the plaintiff's cam. He said his client was engaged as the defendants' agent at the period referred to. Mr. Bert, himself did not attend the election, but Mr. Mul lings, who was then the plaintiff' 'it articled clerk, and was a gentle man in every way quaiihed for such a eitisation, discharged the plaintiff's duties. For these services the plaintiff claimed 1441.. the amount of his bill, for which sum he submitted his client was miffed to a verdict. 3lr. dlullings was the principal witness in support of the plain tiff's case. Ile stated that he is no* an attorney ; that he attended for the plaintiff at Wolton Basset. as agent to the defendant during the contested election of 1820. 1 4 itoess was articled to plaintiff' at that time. Subsequently, when he was admitted en attorney, he was chosen by the defendants to conduct a petition which they presented to the House of Commons, praying that the peti tion referred to might be set aside. The netennants failed in the object they had in view in presenting that petition. Witneas was not at present on intimate terms with the plaintiff; there is a cold ness between them. The amount of plaintiff's bill is 1441., and in witness's opinion all the charges are reawnublc. The disbursements of the defendants exceeded 1,5001. during the election. Witness discharged the tins, but Mr. Bevies was not amongst the dis charged *mein a. Mr. Gordon and Colonel Ellison deposited 1,0001. with plaintiff in the first insnince, and dtlol. was 'hero/ads paid by Sir. i'i.t, who has great intaence in the borough. Mr. We:fo 11, another attorney, stated that he had examined the plaintiff's bi I, and considered Mat the charges were reasonable. Ile considered the last witness, Mr. 31ullings, in every way com petent to conduct a contested election in 1020. The plaintiff's case having closed here, Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressed the Jury for the defendants. He said, it it were admitted that Mr. Bevir was the principal on tile occasion referred to, and 31r. di ullings only the agent, the bill must assuredly be considered excessive, as the attorney's clerk could not be entitled to as much fur his services as if the master himself had acted. The plaintiff's bill charged at the rate of five guineas a day during the election, and three guineas a day before and after it. Now it that was the remuneration which it was usual for an attorney to receive upon such occasions, it could not be in stated that the attorney's clerk had a right to expect the same sum. lie made this observation in reference to the cars made out by the plaintiff; but the fact really was, that the witness, was the principal, and th it the plaintiff, Mr. Bevir, had never acted, nor did the defendant* know any thing of him as their agent. Mr. Multiply' was the Assessor in loaner elections; he was engaged by the defendants in 18211 ; they entrusted him with the payment of their bills, he followed in their train, and to lain, and not to Mr. Bevir, were the Candidates indebted. In support of this hrgunient, he need only observe, that the bills were made out in Mr. Mullings's name ; that all letters toncerning the elec tion were directed to that Gentleman, and answered by him in his own name and that nobody heard Mr. Bevir's name during the whole contest. These were circumstances which the Jury could not leave taut of their consideration ; nor should they forget an. other circumstance, which was, that the plaintiff' had allowed five years to elapse after the termination of the election before he com menced the present action. This, to say the least of it, was a sus picious circumstance, as no man, who had an unquestionable claim, would sleep over his rights, as Mr. Bevir had dune, for four or five earl. There were no witnesses called for the defendant, and the Jury having consulted for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. —Damages, 144/. BLAKE V. HARDING AND OTHERS. This also was an action arising out of electioneering interests, and the parties wen connected with the same borough, that of Wotton Basset. • Mr. Serjea nt WILDE and Mr.' MEREWEATIttIe conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. C. F. W. ILLIAMB and Mr. MANNINO appeared on behalf of the defendants. Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the plaintiff's case. He described his client as a very Ohl woman, who had resided for many years at Wotton Bassett, whew, site had a holding of a house and garden. that descended to her through several generations. The defendants were Mr. Harding the Mayor of the Borough, Mr. Ribblewaite, one of the Magistrates, and two other persons remotely connected with the Corporation. The cause of sawn was so alleged trespass committed in March last, when the defendants forcibly entered the plaintiff's garden and dispossessed her. The question turned upon the plaintiff's right of property% which was supported by the evi dence of many aged witneasesail wany documents, some of which. were very voluminous. There was s ring presumptive .evidence to support the attention made by plaint Ire Counsel, that the object of the defendants, ism*. rating the garden from the plaintiffs's cottage, was to it anufacture an additional wee fur the next election. Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS addressed the Jury for the defendants. , contending that his clients were armed with su ffi cient authority I from the real owners of the garden, when they took possession of at and ejected the plaintiff. After an investigation, which continued for several hours, the Jury returned a ye:diet for the plaintiff—Damages 101. OXFORD CIRCUIT. `2 ! —.--.. ' .— WORCESTZII. JULY 10. The Assizes commenced here this morning. On the Civil bide twenty-;wo cases have been entered, none of which that bare been tried yet have any feature of public interest. CROWN SIDE. There are forty.two prisoners insbe,Castle for trial, and the only case of any extraordinary nature is that of Samuel Cooke, a draper, charged on the oaths of William Hurst Tomson and Edward Smith, with having, on the 29th day of May last, written and pub lished, or caused and procured 'to be written and published, at Dudley in this county, a certain false, scandalous, and seditious libel. tinting to inflame the minds and alienate the affections of his Majesty's subjects towards his Majesty, and to incite them to tr itoruus insurreetiin against the Government. This is the offence alleged against the defendant, and explicitly stated by there terms in the Cal. ruler. We understand the libel written was a placard which the defers. dant posted up in his own window ; and as his offence is only a miAlerneanor, lie can traverse his trial, if he think fit, until the next Assizes. The following arc the only cases worthy of notice on the Crown side. Henry CAM wits indicted for feloniously breaking out of the house of Itiebard Bury, a tailor, in the parish of Astley, in this county, during the night of the 19th of October last, after having feloniously stolen a blue coat, value 41, a pair of woollen cord breeches, and other articles, the property of Richard Bury. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner lived in the prosecu tor's house, and on the morning of the 20th of October, he opened the street door, and decamped with the articles mentioned in the indictment. William Bevan, a " besim maker," as he is described in the Cidendu, residing at Stodderden ' in the county of Salop, bought the stolen breeches the same day for a shilling, and also the coat, which was a new blue one, fur one pound and a sixpence ; the pri soner, who sold them to him, saying that he was broken down by travelling, and that he wanted money to get the means of keeping life and soul together. The prisoner being called on to say whether he had any gun dons to put to this witness, replied that he had none, for he had never seen lievan in all his life before. Mr. Justice Ito naotiott then called up Bevan again, and he swore most positively as to the person of the prisoner, adding, that if he was nut satisfied, he (the witness) could produce another person to whom the prisoner had offered the same breeches on the same day for sale. The prisoner did not seem much satisfied at this answer, but he appeared to feel that it was quite unsatisfactory to put questions to this witness. Another witness was then called, and stated that on the same day the last witness endued to, the prisoner called upon him and of fered the breeches produced for sale to him. Mr. Justice Bunnouott, in charging the Jury, told them that the crime of burglary consisted as much in breaking out of a dwelling-house during tho night time, after the commission of felony by stealing something an that dwelling-house, as in the breaking into it; but the Jury must be convinced the forcible going out was committed while it was dark, otherwise the offence charged against the prisoner would not amount to burglary. The Jury acquitted the prisoner of the burglary, but found him guilty of stealing to the amount of 40s. in a dwelling-house. Mr. llEtt.amv then asked the prisoner what he had to say why he should not receive judgment to die according to law ? The prisoner replied, that he hoped his Lordship would spare his life upon die present occasion. Mr. Justice litinnotion—Well, I will not hang you upon the present occasion; but you may rely that you will be properly punished upon the present occasion. Afterwards the prisoner's sentence, which wit by law death, was commuted to transportation for life. MANSLAUGHTER. Samuel Clarke was indicted for wilfully and maliciously killing and slaying John Ockler, at the parish of Shlawley, in this county, on the 24th of April laat.l Mr. Itiraw conducted the prosecution ; and called the following witnesses:— John Jones—l was sitting in a room at the public bans, at Shrawlay, on the night of the 24 th of April. The deammalaal the prisoner were in the next room; and I heard a noise, as If of quarrelling. I heard the prisoner say he would not fightOckler. Ockler said he would make him fight. The prisoner said be would not tight the deceased, because he was a cripple. It was a die. turbance about some liquor; and then Oehler struck him first. Ockler, upon striking him, was struck by the prisoner in return. • • , They were then put outside the door by the landlord, Mr. Smith t and when they got outside, Ockler struck him again. Mr. JusTicE Buteounn—Well, was there any regular battle ? Witness—No, my Lord. They had a round or two after, Clarke struck Ockler first. Clarke fell across the work-bench 03 the top of him. Near a quarter df an hour after that, they went, by agree. ment, to a greeu plot by the aide of the river, and they had another round theft. After that they had a round. Oekler, the deceased, wits coming up to the house, end then Clarke, the prisoner, asked him for the drink that he owed him. Ockler, the deceased, then turned back, and pulling off his hat, said, " D—n you, I will Day you. They then had a set-to , to fight again. Ockler snuck first. There was not more than two or three rounds, when Ockler received a blow over the left eye, which knocked him down, and I never heard him speak afterdards. I raised hint up and put him against the pales, for I thoughfhe was in liquor, and I had not the less' idea of his death at the time. Mr. If cad, a surgeon, was next called, and deposed as follows opened the deceased on the 24th of June. He had a very severe bruise over the left eye, which had been inflicted by a blow that bad bloodshot the eve. On opening the skull I found a great qusn. thy of extravasated blood upon the brain, immediately under the bruise over the left eye, which I had no doubt caused death. Mr. Justice Btraaouon immediately charged the Jury, that these circumstances 'hewed the offence in qeeetion was only man. slaughter, if it was anything: but hie Lordship was inclined to think that it • as merely justifiable homicide. The Jury, under these circumstances, Mend the prisoner Not Guilty, and he was immediately discharged. MIDLAND CIRCUIT. LINCOLN, Jve.y IS. CROWN SIDE. The LORD CRIER' BARON, in charging the Grand Jury, ad verted to a case cf infanticide which appeared in the calendar, and observed that he had a work on this subject, written by the late Dr. Wm. Hunter, which would be very much at their service. Dr. Hunter's able tract.would, he had no doubt, tend to remove many unfounded prejudices an the subject. John Armitage and John Eattsor were capitally indicted for vie. lently assaulting John Hill, on the King's highway, on the lthh of June last, and taking from his person a gold watch his property. Mr. Hill deposed, that on going home towards Grantham, its was smutted by the prisoners, who called out " Go it !"—that he t received violent blows on the back of his head from sticks and. bludleons ; that his skull was laid open, and that in that situation he said, " My life can be of no use to you, I have but my watch, and that oT course you may take." The prisoniis then Tided hie pockets, and, as far as witness knew, made off towards Grantham. Witness endeavottred to walk home after they had gone, but the violence with which be had been treated brought on fever, and a medical gentleman attended him for several days. ' Armitage denied the charge, and principally relied on the fact that he was not dressed on the day of the outrage in the dress dr scribed by the prosecutor. Lydia Annersley was called, and said that the prisoners lodged with her ; but she had nothing to prove against the statement of the plaintiff. Several minor items were proved by different witnesses, but the main facts remained unshaken. The Jury, under the direction of his Lordship, pronounced a verdict of Not Guilty TCIVIL SIDE. simian. V. WALLING. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to recover the amount of certain goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff is a travelling Jew, in the jewellery line, and the defendant a jeweller in this city. A contract was put in. and it was admitted that it was in the hand-writing of the defendant. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant, stated that the watch delivered to him was certainly worth more than five pounds, though by no means equal to the amount now claimed by the plaintiff. A repeater watch was delivered, as if made by Johnson, of the Strand, London. It was also to be in possession of the de fendant for six months upon trial ; but at the end of that time, it wan found to be neither made by Johnson, nor calculated to keep time. Under such circumstances, the defendant resisted the pay. !MAI of the sum now demanded. Lazarons examined—l live in Lincoln; I know the plaintiff. and recollect seeing him in November last. I went with plaintiff in that month to the house of the defendant, with a view that Mr, Williams might buy something; he refused buying anything, but after some time he did buy something, and after a deal of talk Williams took a fancy to the gold repeater, and a bargain was made. The price asked was 601., and the defendant said, " I have a silver watch to exchange," for which plaintiffsaid he would allow 61. or 61. 10s. It was engaged to go well for six months, and if not, de fendant was to have any other articles to the same amount. The maker's name was Johnson, whom the plaintiff' stated to be one of the first watchmakers in the kingdom. All this passed before the bargain was made. The watch was here produced. but the witness not being able to read English, could not swear to its being the watcl in question. Plaintiff said after to defendant, " we are all likely to die, and I should wish a memorandum of the bargain," with which defendant complied. The plaintiff frequently complained to witness that the watch did not go well ; and after, on the defendant's going to London, he *nod itrat Johnson watt not the maker. An action was brought by the plaintiff; the defendant offered the watch—that each should pay his town costs, and that Williams could take the value of the watch in silver goods, but I could not get them to agree. Cruse-examined—l brought the parties together, to fight it out. I thought you said it was to make peace. Mr.DENMAN—Such things sometimes happen. Witness—l have nothing to gain by the business, and tame to tell the truth. The ruby was cracked, but defendant did not tell me how it became so. Mr. Williams never told me the watch fill : perhaps he told me he had just got it repaired. If it were ro: so, the watch would not go at all. A letter was put in from the defendant to the plaintiff; stating that Johnson, of London, was not the maker of the watch sold by the defendant to him, and that as such he considered the sale to be fraudulent, and would not hold himself bound to keep it. Mr. Johnson, of the firm of Grimaldi and Johnson, proved that the watch was not of their manufacture. There was one Johnson, th , rty years age, in Gray's Inn-lane, but this watch was made within ten years. It is a common watch, and I should say, that second-hand, it might cost about 401., and new about 601.—This Is made up in a very inferior way ; I can scarcely call it a watch. A good watch of this description could not be made under 701. William Hudson, the defendant's clerk, deposed to a conferee don held between the plaintiff' and defendant, as to the terms of the agreement. The LORD CutEr JUSTICE—The bargain is in writing, and I cannot take this evidence. The witness resumed, and corroborated the first witness, as to the nature of the conversation which passed between the parties. The COMMON SERGEANT replied. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and the Jury fiLuid a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages, 411. 10s. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. YORK, JULY 10. The Assizes commenced here to-day before Mr. Justice Pnits and Mr. Baron fluLLocc, the former Learned Judge presiding in the Civil, sod the latter in the Criminal Court. CROWN SIDE. The Grand Jury having been sworn, Mr. Baron Hu LLOCK proceeded to deliver his charge. The eel ming calendar, he observed, was not of a nature which rendered it necessary to detain them long; for although it contained one or two cases of an aggravated kind, yet he was glad to say that the majo- rity of the essea were not of that description. They would find that there were some offences which had been committed under the pressure of that distress which had recently affected different parts of the county. The perpetrators of such offences ought to know that outrage was not the best mode of remedying distress, and if that conviction could not be impressed by other means, then they should be taught by experience that the law was not to be violated with impunity. There was a case in which an individual was charged with stabbing with a sharp instrument, with intent to do some bodily harm to another. To support an indictment for that offence, it would be necessary that the circumstances of the case should be such as would have constituted the crime of murder, in case death had followed the infliction of the wound. It did not ap pear to him that those circumstances would be found in the present ease, as it seemed that the accused had been in illegal custody at the time when the offence had been committed. There was one ease of imputed murder, and for their guidance in that ease he would say, that if a man was disturbed in his house in do dead of the night, and under a bona fkie belief that his house was attacked by robbers, firei a shot, in consequence of which some individual died, that was not murder in the eye of the law. There was also a case of child stealing, an offence which depended entirely on the intention of the party stealing. If the child were taken away either by fraud or forte, with an intent to deprive its parents of the possession of such child, the offence amounted to felony. In the present case they would collect the intention from the facts submit ted to them. The Grand Jury then withdrew, and soon after returned with several true bills. CHILD STEALING. MariaStandeven was put to the bar, charged with having, on the 6th day of April, at Leeds, in the West Riding, feloniously led, taken, and carried away, one William Jepson Taylor, a child of the age of two years, with intent to deprive his parents of the pos session of such child. Air. HARDY stated the ease, and regretted that he should not be able to produce the parents of the child, as they had, since the commission of the offence, gone out of the country. Elisabeth Jepson stated that she was the grandmother of the child mentioned in the indictment. On the 6th of April last, wit ness was at her son's house in Little Queen-street, in Leeds ; she olowlat the shop-door, and held the child in her arms. The pri mmer tame up, and asked witness to direct her to a privy. Witness did no, and prisoner went away. Witness then gave the child to a bow of the name of Jonathan Holdsworth, and went into the him. On her return, which was in about three minutes, both the boy and the child were gone. The child was brought home the same evening by its father, who had taken it from the prisoner. Jonathanlioldsworth stated that the child had beets given into his care by the last witness. Soon after the prisoner came up to bins and inquired the name of the child. Wilmot told her, and . ~ ~. li she then asked Mai to go with her to bay t h e child assn = meats. Witness and the child accompanied the t timenee Commercial-road, and the primer dui took dyad arms, and gave witness a halfpenny to go into the next Mint mediate something. Witness went into the nut strait, and as his return both prisoner and the child were gees* William Thacker/ said thai be knew the child in question. 011 the 6th of April last, hi was walking with hie brother, aloof eV Commacial.road, when he sew the prisoner with the and In ken' Witness said to his brother, " that's Williens TOMO Priaeaer looked round, and then rim away quickly. 'Thomas Andertonot constable, deposed that he apprehended dee prisoner, at her lodgings in Kirkgate, Leeds. It was about 4 bas, the prisoner's lodgings to Little Queen-metes. Witness mill des,psisotier that he had come to take her up for stealing a dal- Witness said," I did not steal it; I met It ming neer the influsoiy; end took it up, and brought it home." Witness lifted her wiry she had not apprised the beliman of the findifig of the child, and she mid she had never given it a thought. The prisoner, in her defence, stated that she bad seen the child crying in the street, and had taken it home front motives of tee. passion. Mr. Baron Hut tome, in summing up the ease, obese.' span, the absence of the parents of the child who, it appeared, had sever been bound over to attend end give evidence. The Jury, In OW. ing their verdict, would be guided entirely by what Wei onsidend to have been the intention of the prisoner. The Jury, after a short consultation, retuned a verdict of Not Guilty. Thomas Joanna was indicted for stabbing, on the fld of Match. John Breckon, of Abilaby„ in the North Riding, with a gimp instrument, with intent to do him some grievous bona Dorothy Page stated that her mother kept a at A islaby. Witness recollected that on the dey . siendoissills thi• indictment, a great number of persons were drinking toolbars at the house, and amongst them was the prisoner. A quarrel Net piece in the house, and Bracken, a constable ' was sent de:— Breckon was the tither of the prosecutor. Upset the arrivalet eh e constable the whole party went quarrelling away. The prissest sae not intoxicated. Francis Bracken, the father of the prosecutor, stated that he was called to Mr. Page'tt house on the night of the Sid March, in see. sequence of a quarrel which was going on there. Wititen's sera came in soon after. The prisoner said he would go quietly base if prosecutor would set (accompsn_y) him a little we . Pressmen said he would, and they left the house turned in a few minutes with a wound it e t the ra v de, from whist' the; bloed flowed profusely. John Dreamt, the prosecutor, deposed that on the night is question he had gone to Page's public-house ; saw the penalise there. Prisoner asked him if he was e constable. Wittiest Model that he was not, but that he was the anistobee . e . eon, and bed mime to assist his father. Witness pressed thersoMe to go bassi. Prisoner said that he would if witness woul d stet him homi. Wit ness said that he would accompany the prisoner fee half a mile. They then left the house together. They had proceeded about or 60 ards, and witness was telling the prison , * what a pity it wee to kick up a disturbance in an old woman's Souse, when be felt something prick him in the side. Witnesi returned instantly to the public-house. There had been no quarrelling between then. In cross-examination, witness denied that he had ever marl himself a constable, or that after they left the public-house the pri soner was in his custody. He admixed, however, that foe the whole distance his right hand had been plated on therprisesiVir shoulder. Mr. Kay, a surgeon, stated, that he had examined the prelim tor's wound soon after the injury had taken lace. The weans was between the tenth And the eleventh rib, and was about half sa inch in width, and half SO inch in depth. lc reigln have been in flicted by a penknife. Witness saw a penkna taken floes the pocket of the prisoner. This was the case for the prosecution. • The prisoner, in his defence, stated, that before he len the sob. lic-house he hed been so m'sltreated by the prosecutor and ethos, that he had not the least recollection of any thing that moaned us.; til he found himself in prison. Mr. Baron Hut Luce, in dimming up the ease, directed the Jury to consider whether the wound had been inflicted undet cumatances which, if death had followed, would have constituted the crime of murder. If it hal not, then his Indictment Wald not be supported. It was his duty to tell them, that If a person wader Olt illegal arrest or detention killed the individual so arresting or detaining him, the offence, however reprehensible, and hewers: deserving of punishment, would not amount to murder. The Jury retired for some time, and on their return proneuhssd the prisoner " Not Guilty." CIVIL SIDE. (Before Mr. Justice PAIL) SMURFIT? U. APPLEBY. This was an action brought to recover the sum OW., being the amount of a year's wages alleged to be due from the defended to the Ilk. J. Wixt.rams stated, that his client was a eargeorti *re had laved his time to the defendant, and who now ought Wee.: "Us should _be abbe meet coirpensation for services reedwed to the defendant after ttoheshelew pirw th i em an o th r i ' l lai bef nti ore ff t e ht liren pfl ieellhi tiff rad gope to somplisti medical studies at Edinburgh, an agreement had !temente/1d km between the plaintiff and defendant, bf which *pause was to allow the former a salary of 401. a year as long as 14 Avid Is dips _fondant's. service. . ' • The brother of the plaintiff swore that an agreement bud WAR, made in his presence, to the effect stated by the plaindra Counsel. For the defence it was shown, that the defendant hod takes the plaintiff from the parish workhouse, and alter bestowing Mat os some education, had gratuitously apprenticed bias ; and to. fore the expiration of the apprenticeship the defendant bad seabird the plaintiff to attend for six months the medical lectures at Mir. burgh. It was contended, therefore, that the six months wide& the defendant had spent at Edinburgh during his apprenHeaskip, were a fair set oft against the short time during which the ds fendant had continued to auist the plaintiff after the (aphelion of the apprenticeship. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, lat. WRIT OF RIGHT. ANGEL V. ARGIL. --- This cause is again entered for trial, and will Algot alt at the end of the present week, as the Attorney tained for the tenant, is expected in York on Thursday. PRIVILEGES OF FREEMEN OF LONDON. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen have, by the mouth of the Recorder, delivered into the Vice-Chancellor's Court the answer to the questions proposed in the Court of Aliar-. men, and discussed before the Court by Mr. Shadwell and Mr. Sergeant Spankie, about three months ago. The Re corder, upon the occasion, went in robes different front those which he had been accustomed to wear under other circumstances, and stated that he appeared to certify, ore Mom, the custom of the City of London, upon the question whether Sir Francis Samuel Drake wag, under the circum stances represented in the Court of Aldermen, according to the directions of the Vice-Chancellor's Court, a Freeman of London, within the custom which entitled his widow tw the customary distribution of the estate of a freeman dying. intestate ; and whether the settlement made upam her marriage debarred her from such materna* , share. • The certificate was as follows : " We, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Ltrodiert. do certify, that Sir Francis Samuel Drake, Bar t being intestine in the pleadings In the cause mentioned in the annexed order. oho, when a Rear-Admiral of the Red in the Regal Navy, was r la-opo sequence of Lord Rodney's victory in the Wen Indies, with mime officers under Lord Rodney's command, pratented with din fess dom of the City of London. pursuant to a veld of she Orsyrt of Common Connell of the said City of Loads% whist paid fir that purpose on the 40th of June 1782, owl who, on Ilia ill day of Amos+, 1784, was made a Lire of the Carmay of Grocers in the said City of London, and swami be, and reek the several oath. which are required to be taken by all pea. sons who become free of the said f 4 i t ti eiree astd,wbo wen am free of the said dig birth, or by servi tut~e, by P=or othey wise than a%msaitL and died so ma on the 18th day of November, 1789, intestate, and without knee, leaving his widow him surviving; was at the time of his dads a n of the City of London, in the sense, meaning, and of the custom of the said city, relating to the distrtbutkin kb* of freemen who die intestate; and we further certify in ale MB' ller, by the mouth of the Recorder, that there Is not any em of the City of London, by virtue whereof the widow, having tbs be nefit and provisions of the settlement in the pleadings On allied cause stated, is debarred ftom her customary share of the inssmash's personal estate." The decree of the Vice-Chancellor will consequently be in favour of the claim of Mr. Sergeant Onalow, the buo• band of the widow of the intestate. The Learned Sergeant will be entitled to that customary part which will .cased the distribution under the statute. By having married the widow of a freeman, he gains, it is said, in this re spect, considerable property. The widow Of a freeman, of course, does not lose her claim by her marriage with a none freeman. Mr. Beaumont's election expenses for Northumberland are estimated at 80,0001. ' • Mr. Liddell's and Mr. Bell'i 30,000/ each ; Lord Howick, about 20,0001. We learn by a gentleman from Gourock, that the opera tions for raising the Comet have hitherto been attended with complete success. The vessel has been raised @doe T feet from the ground, and drawn soma the shore. The most difficult part o[ ' ,;` now over, as she is now out of the sand. ant fan gabberts moored two and two by the stern, alongside of each other. Across the decks are placed large logs of Oak, to which are fastened the chains which go under the bot tomwit of the Comet. At low water the y are made • en that lithe rise of the tide she is nusW from 10 to 4.e. At h' water the whole vessels are drawn to ' ski shore y a windlass on the beach. 1; I.