The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-12-10 00:00:00

te: sl:2==l Ur. COl le he • Bankrupt 1' , ctrf. ,- forc 17- (l ,sh •. Pr-Coventry v. Au . vi I , ttt sreeinN II: th There' To I e o kyart Pe titi on to r cep' /.11arr i `e" I. Oakes Nen' - yerryis,,,,,,s Loo o fir? spanks 'tt • for' fhi. 1 Elbe 4511 - •. od, rad. ttbe - Wpm., ill re INSglysoie v. IA& Wri-ht. c Nsistsrlt ao t , rseto!.'• d,,. W . l'res"7lj a ynilg. t met Caw. for v. W omen ' r' on. net.Coek , ""• gds 5t. 1 . 01 " • C h et 1. lurson, ioex At • me Nire!'"lr PVI • on g i tha, tt Alr. • DV, COUF 1 62 loft] CAClLlarsti dr. floliiday at. y,.cs r. Baas trd lirlttt. Meese • fstoo ow de ll too. setoburn Ite c' • - T. SM. .he tic liodecoe fr. Moth t. Loyd Ihe lor r- ik'44ll Icy Two r. ?rya roc Ross IL lift T. Ent India comer ea. yea il•awley )0. bists r. Has is a COI Ile le.rool causes et. Dicky v. Cordes tth COU ,tl. lriop at tar rd!. LAS • k COURT OF IN 2 lt On ass a pct. , r• a A',l/ed Brothnton, ' co ter Cesuricsienen ~ " I ' new assets. it a TM rail by taro as to I, ''t for the Banker "' . sad 5,001. to. Ii t. IIEoLD teas lamed Gentleman I 'he alai in examining IN meaty until an act erg are confined, twirl:be tradinz I lie 'foto he had cantor "' knots the COMelllllPil ' 2 *a tient by the Legi•la NY e. .. theerairoittal con, be ewe/tinnier in., the at snub it "seed th.: la The winters was el br maionch r s forma • re armed eommi en ruse forth in it • at roan maiefial n. night have served td Gentleman ri '" arrant and Inc at Mt. W. BlouOtt s Ir. (ILION, for t crmittal.. • !Ai° ClUlat at r umination, al et ' • answers of th is e only qnsatior t 3 1111 dischary Groin - -7 . Bench had sine • :eby caused a Y.• Act of Portia y .ning wiineese l .re an act of b in y him. Still i in .eht not go. 'I , imp, had 213 b. rurpoae of d st toy that in ..nt to discover in •tc? It SR% n the petitie ' - ....uotey was con • ItSdayst W state said. the cire, the Court • .. that the ware ,stuck a it did 'hough the ut that examined • - •!'orler. which • I. eir further °ugh ..).r urrOw to con,te a WIL Ail WU all *Mal e 211 0, diticti - g that .b'i'n in depute is tl ,t t.e.tv. Hit Honour ateial, on the app riint that ti'e cyder I almi - tot by t V.ce.fhatec,... at refuge, was ma 'e 3r. Hoists was be. VCR-CHANCE st% has L CA arMIaOR c F so o s N 'to a bill In ",lore as heirat-1 - 'e, deceased, ay • neta7. and on tJ.et of the bil detriments in I nal represtmd +/don for sere Governmet • •zstion. eon. /in • , roust or Sir ':al nature yeti J ...%PGrepti • ti.inzting with e authority in 'ltd. On the ' Www made cla • ['smeary, a ire& The 0 . I.lr kir John h•yli sena 'relieve he 1t to recleaned s 'l to t h e sijust • re. / N at Nought by in eons of the des ' ' e defendants ' - heady erranti .4 isaldidy to " . tc Ymfying Si- t hands of ti product!. r.wded the '.aocwy they e toe genera r - elll.o p.. ~io .itation• in iterrmil The who ..4 VAT T MOTO • "C ~!CL.CRANCI tt*MaTtlit LAW NUTICFS. COURT OF CHANCERY. ISD CIIANCILLOI THIS WORSTIVI, AT TIN. be spoke to—Cooper v. Thins& let l'etLion (per order)—Ex-parte Pont. tor R, and funher directions (pert heard)—Oart v. atin-stone v. Aiken t Itothwelf v. Askew. ~ Watson ; Attorney-General v. Mayor of v. Reade, four causes. :11-CIIANCILLLOIL THIS 1110ININ0 AT HALF /AST TIN. remaining motions will be heard. "ci be spAir to--Horn v. Horn. , to be spoke to—Fat-parte Prideaux T. Systss. captions and fluke, directions :- 1 Farmer v. Francis Duke of Norfolk T. Malcolm v. Myers Walker lladd:ky v. Harding Attorney-General • . Lowe v. Lord Hun- Tyler ti:lgtower I Clarke v. Faux Blew v. Winchester ROLLS COURT. TO SE FIZAR D THIS MOBNIXO AT MHZ. I Peixote v. likl■or, Petition Jo. :I.rer. Calm it, Peittoo . ao. Samson v. Hoe, do: Ihrri:n..n v. Harriman, do. PI , sche'l v. Paris, do. 51.Cunin v, Vavryour, do. ‘Voodall v. ‘VoodAll, do. Dotrus v. Rulkeley, du. In re Ready, do. In re Ryley, do. Braband v. Patrick, de, Powell v. Bonney, do. I Invnes v. Ward, do. Cimino° v. Hauling, do. C . 6. do. aWO Petition 'w hy', do. ,tkirson, do. -,•therdirectkus ING'S BENCH. eimom JUII/11 141:,;1. Stringer v. Field Hendrnon v. Ledden H. ynolds v. Pellatts Jennings V. lilabony Bateman v. Turner Itingley v. L;lley (Attendee v. Lewis Clarke v. Dore Lock v. Quigley Kerby v. Roubcll P.Ol. v. Sharp Luca,. v. Halt Blackford v. J. (teeters Same v. D. Grmees. Amber v. Cave LEAS. 1.411. MIMS TII/S v. Cocks lURT OF KI TO BC TRISD BY Co LSINO AT lIAL7.FAST Smith Y. Prisdbcry Same T. Same I Marshall v. Slater Kirg v. Bennett SIAS v. Nicholson S:ory v. Sampson Paton v. Ford Seek v. Smith Armstrong v. Em. Doe, lie. v. Pose:l Bennett •. King IlafFson v. Hen dricks Poling/11v. Short Seginort v. Akers Awes v. Samia RT OF COMMON P PTO T. TitiEn NY MCC MORNING AT TEW. Corder I Wyou OURT OF EXCHEQUER. 'a -Inn-Hall, this tr.ornirg, at tee, for Motions W INTELLIGENCE. IT CHANCERY, F/lIIMIN Dm. t HABEAS CORPUS. EMILY, A DANERCIPT. petition war presented to the Court en the part inton, who had been committed to Newgate by . of Bankrupt", for refusing to give them antis appeared chit when the petitioner was qua's to the amount of certain sums of money paid ankrupt, he replied that the amount was lutween COOL vu heard yesterday for the petitioner. The tan said that Committaldriers of Bankrupts were ping witnessaa as to the extent of a bankrupt's act of bankruptcy via first clearly established. A, is the first instance, to an examination a); of the bankrupt, with' a view to ascertain committed an set of bankruptcy. In the present sissicmers had gone beyond the limits prescribed gialatuie, at d therefore submitted to the Court, could' not stand, u the only complaint egoist that be did not satisfactorily answer questions •r: Commissioners were not vmpowered to ask. entitled to his diacharFe on other grounds, ter examination was dist.nctly referred to in intittal. though cot one word of that examina. it. This, the Learned Oentleman submitted, I arniirsion, as, for aught the Court could judge, red to explain the petitioner's answers. The Itrthey tonteidect that, it, point of substance, witJle nP thestoctectings we . Te irreular. )unet follnwedon the einie Bide thi•motaing. the peiitionisig credi:or, er t ;ued in support ot. CNAICELLOa said that he had read sttentlsely s, end End no heitatinn in declaring his (Tinton the petitioner were not satisfactory ; if that legation before the Court he clearly would not be liseharge. AS the law once stocd, s haters!. a sit. stsere.-was taken as satisfactory. The Court of since altered that iererpretstion of the law, and ni a great deal of inconv.n!ence. Acenrding to Parliament the Cornmiraioners were not jurvikd 'tomes ss to she dealings of estate of the bank. f bankruptcy was proved to hare been coin. ' it Was difficult to draw the line beyond which They might, for instance, inquire whether made any delivery or transfer of his property ` delaying his creditors; and who could - pre_ in order to ascertain that fact it might be discover what the amount of the property trans. It wan not necessary that previous to suing out a r petitioning creditor have positive proof that an act was committed ; It was quite enough for the party to state his belief that such an act had taken plecr. dd, that however trnsatistaetory the petitioner's an. Court was bound to order his discharge, on the warrant of committal was defective—it was deice. did not set forth a previous exemination alluded. e unsatisfactory nnswers were said to havers:S. ination. His Lordship dismissed the petition of rch was before the Court yesterday. Whether ought to be done respecting it, he would take 4ILLIAINS rt. GOODCEILD. Spreal from an order of his Efor.cur the Vice•Chan `at a new trial at law be had in the cults. The a is the rizht to the vicarial ti•hes of the parish of (moor the Vice-Chancellor granted an order for a • a•tplicatirta of the present appellant, who also icr he accompanied with directions that certain • tile oppoiute party previous to going to trial. rrfuseil the latter part of the application, sod le the ground of apnea). heard in part for the appellant. :ELLOR'S COURT, FRIDAY, Dec. & oR SERVIC&SIONEY IN INDIA. 101 v. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY, ANM ASTELL. , Mr domovery tiled by the plaintiff; Sir John (.4m.lew ard representative of Sir John M Gregor apiirta the llonourable East Indio Company, one of their Directors. bill was to compel the defenear,ts to produce in their mansion, substamisting the claim of ntmesentative of the late Sir J. M'Oreeor Murray to tor &eyelets performed by . the deceased in behalf of the - nment and interests in India. It slimmed from rifled in the bill that, in the year Ins. etii;ng Sir J. bl`Pherson, services °flan irnponent sod were rendered the British Governtnent in India by ;rester Murray. By his activity and intelligence, a rid* the native princes, fur the overthrow of all c in that part of the soft& was discovered and the round of these very Important services Sir claims for compensation at the hands of the , ty, and the reasonableness of his application Ororernor.Geneml concurred in the propriety Am Murray. and on his arrival in lingland im am of the advantages derived to the Company he had rendered. and vouched for the justice of mensation. Things remained in this state, when, .;.‘stment of hie claim. Sir John Murray died. 1y him had never since been conferred on his Jitegoefice of which ' the present plaintiff. as deceavel, commenced an action at common law lama for the recovery of compensation foe the eanserated. However. the ptsintiff speedily dis.. y to proceed. without the enlivens., of numerous • Sir John Murruy's eladuis Theo document. the Company. and the bill bad been filed to :don. In the Conrt below. the defendants se. general issue and the Statute ct Limitations; r confined themselves to the averment that they teral issue in the Court t.f Lou. vs 1-Loa—That is (await tent ; the defendants muted they Intl availed dirt:selves of the Sta. in the Court below. It is not enough to say •eral issue, although that cotirt!tutrd a Part of whole pin * 1 nu Id have appeared. laved that the i leas be taken off the tile and z-Cketectiame ;ranted the moti.r. CONTE)IPT. LORD a. Lolly. trmeave moved the Ceutt that the Jitentlait, lithe was in Court on a writ of Habeas Coipus, should stand committed to the Fleet Prison for a contempt of Vourt, incurred in consequence of the nompayment of a ALP!! of 1:11. costa, purivaut to an order made under the authority of his Honour. The defendant, who stood on the flour of the Court, and was an elderly gentleman, of respectahie appearance, opposed the motion, on the ground that he had been scandalously treated by the opposing parties. The attorney, plaintiff' and bar were united in *conspi racy against him. The Vice. Cit Atecti.Lon—if there exists good grould for com plaint against any of the parties in this cause, the Court a ill attend to an application properly made upon the subject, and redress any actual wrong* which, on examination, may appear to have been sas.sined. For the present the defendant must stand committed to the Fleet Prison for a contempt in non.payment of costs, in pursu ance of an order of the Court. The defendant was then removed in custody of the officer in at. tendance. - - COURT Ol KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, FRIDAY, DEc.9. Sittings at Prins, byl.se Pie Loup Carter JUSTICZ and Common Jurors. TOCOCICE s, MOOSE. This was an action to recover damages for an assault committed on the plaintiff by the order of the defendant. Mr. AltillAM opened the pleadings, which set forth that the plaintiff had, by the defendant's order, been assaulted by a con. stable by him falsely k e p t i n i mpr i sonment, and carried before the Magistrates on a false charge of imprisonment, &e. The Loan CHIE, JU , TICE said, that the special pleader who I drew the &clan: ion had shown very bad taste in throwing such a multitude of reedicssi charges of aggravation into it, when the gra- Yemen of the complaint was merely an assault. Mr. Biseibottlas stated the rase to the jury. It appeared that the parties to this action reside in the City-road, that they are rela tions, jointly occupying the same house, that there had been some family disputes between them, that the plaintiff being about to re move had attempted to take away a stove and some other trifling articles which the defendant claimed as hie property, that a sctifill, ensued. that the defendant sent for a hesdborough to take the plaintiff into custody on a charge of felony, and that on the head borough corning for ibis purpose the plaintiff voluntarily offered to go with bhn to Worship -street, whi•her they went accordingly, wlizn the charge was dismissed. This was the assault for which the_ present actton was brought. Mr. SC•IILETT, for the defendant, contended that in law this was no assault, insammit as the plaintiff had, of his own uccird, offered ro go to Woishlp-street with the heralborough. The Loan CHI,/ JUSTICE. In summing up. said that he did not agree with the doctrine laid down by Mr. Searlett. The plain. ' tiff's offering to go with the constable made no difference. lithe constable had been sent for to take him into custody, and Pocoeke, to prevent bands being !aid upon him, offered voluntarily to go. this was unquestionably an assault, and such a constraint of his li berty as to consfitute a false imprisonment. The only question, therefore, which the Jury had to consider was, whether these things had really occurred. Three witnesses had been coiled who proved that they did take place, and no witnesses hail been called to dl.- prove their testimony. lithe Jury thought that they were entitled to crenit, they would find for the plaintiff; with such damages as they thought reasonable. The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the olaintiff—Da. huge', One Farthing. WHITTINGTON V. GLADWIN. This was an action for slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff by the defendant. Mr. PAYNE opened the pleadings. The words charged in the declaration as spoken of the plaintiff were--" You arc a pauper-- you have reeeired pariah relief—you are nothing better than a bank rupt, and will be in the bankrupt list in less than twelve months." Plr. SCARLET? stated the ease to the Jury. He said, that the Plaintiff was a respectableinnkeeper at Edmonton, and that the de- fentlant was a smith. In the month of November, 1823. the de fondant, with two or three other persona, accidentally met at the plaintiff's house, which is the Angel Inn, and took dinner, to which they invited the landlord, Mr. Whittington. They drank a little wine, but by no means in quantity sufficient to Intoxicate them, and afterwards sat down to a game of four-handed cribbage, the plaintiff not joining in the game, but only smiog by to peg the holes for the players. Tile defendant having pegged thirty or forty holes more than he ought to have done,the plaintiff pointed out that he bad manes mistake, which after some little dispute Wee cor rected. From this moment the defendant began to manifest the greatest animosity towards the plaintiff: He first took his hat and struck the plaintiff on the face, and bruised his nose with it, appa rently in joke, and it wu so taken and submitted to. Presently, closing his fingers in the form of a wedge, he pushed his band into the breast of the plaintiff. The plaintiff remonstrated, and said that his breast-bone had been formerly broken, and that in conse quence he was easily hurt by any blow there, and hoped the defend. ant would not repeat his joke. A short time after the defendant again pushed his hand at the same part, when the plaintiff called upon him for an explanation of his conduct. High words ensued, in the course of which the defendant used the words charged in the de claration. A later was shortly afterwards written to the defendant by the plaintiff's eon, who is an attorney, ceiling upon him to re. tract his words, but he refused to mike any explanation, or retract a sillable. The LORD CHIET JIYINTICE asked whether this OHM could not be settled ? Mr. ScAILSTT said, that he had even now no objections to withdraw a juror, if the defendant would retract his words, end pay the costa. Mr. 1116211'AT. who was on the other aide, would not consen', and the came went nn. Snencer Witham, who was present on the occasion when theme wards were spoken, was examined by Mr. BeounNAM, and proved the case which Mr. Scarlett had opened. Andrew Belson corroborated the statement of the preceding witness, and said that he bad offered to mediate between the plain tiff and defendant, which mediation was, however, rejected. Crosmexamined by Mr. LUDLOW—The plaintiff called the defendant a poJr paltry bin/its:Di:h. I do not recollect whether the defendant used the words " pauper, Se." before or after this. Re-examined by Mt. SCANLETT-1 know that the plaintiff had not used the wont's poor paltry blacksmith" before the defendatt had raperedly struck him. ilr. Lee, examined by Mr. SCAELETT—I was at the Angel slim these words were spoken: they were not spoken jocularly. I did not hear Mr. Whittington use any insulting words, or make any provoking gestures, before Mr. Gladwin spoke these words. I told Gladwin that evening that I had been a witness of the whole transaction, and wished him to make an apology. He made no apology. They were all quite sober. trosmexamined by Mane TAT—Whittington did not call (Had. win any hard names before these words were spoken. This was the plaintiff's ease. The Loup Cotter Juittet, addressing Mr. Marryat, said that he supposed the case most go on to its end. Mr. AlAngYAT—Cettainly, my Lord; your Lordship will see tram the record. that there can be no such result as my Learned Friend anticipates. lie then went on to comment on the evidence which had been given. He said, that. if the plaintiffs son had not been an attorney this ease would never have been heard of. It was merely a question who should pay the cats; the plaintiffs son hoped to make the &rendes: pay them, and it was with this view be brought this action. The whole mattes had arisen out of a drunkest fray. It had been very carefully kept out of sight how much wino bad been drink; some wine had been drunk; this was admitted ; but in what quantities there was ro one to tell. The Jury, after consulting a few minutes, returned a verdict tor the plaintiff—Damages 10/. 1131ITH NESSaII. PAL 31ER. This was an action to recover the sum of SW., for oats sold to the defendants. 31r. SCAIIILETT stated the caw to the Jury. The plaintiff is s corn-merchant, the defendants are timber-merchants, carrying on busineel IR Stratford, in Essex. The claim was resisted on the ground that the oats were sold, not to the firm, consisting of the two brothers, Henry and William Mater, but to the brother Henry Palmer personally, and that it had been a setoff against some gambling debts due from the plaintiff (slr. Smith) to Henry Palmer, one of the defendants. Witnesses having been gulled to prove the sale and delivery of the mita in the month of November, 1623, to the order of Messrs. Pa'tner, Abr. eO7O MON SCROEAXT addressed the Jury for the defence. Ills Learned Friend hail rightly sated that Mr. William Palmer was a moat nspectsble many though it WAS equally true that so mach eraikl nct be 3r.id for his brother Henry. The Learned Count' contendeJ, that this sale of oats was a transaction between the plaintiff and Mr. Henry Palmer; that the oats had not been sold to the firm; and in particular inquired why the order to the sharanger, which most be in the porsession of the plaintiff, bad not beta produced, as it would have shown at once whether the dlesses. Palmer bad anything to do with the sale. The Learned Contest read a variety of documents, consisting of correspondence, aceouni, he., to show that this matter had always been treated as a ptin . e transaction between the plaintiff' and Mr. Henry Palmer. The LORD Om, JUSTICE having called back one of the plaintiff's witnesses, Mr. (Marius Smith, a brother of the plain. tit salmi him what credit was usually given ? Ile said two months for oats, and one month for wheat. His Lordship having then asked 'h r. trcariett whether he conld carry his case any further, and he having admitted that he could not, his Lordship proceeded to that so long a period haring elapsed, an interval as it ap. peered so much beyond the usual period of credit, before any de. , mend well made, he thought that this delay, coupled with the docomentary evidence which had been read on the other side, did not leave a doubt that the sale of the oats, for the proceeds of which this action was brought, was not a partnership, but a private transaction, and be should therefore direct the plaintif to be notnuited. Plaintiff Nonsutted. CUSSELL, CliTiT.24. VINES. This was an action on a Bill of Exchange for IBt. accepted by the defendant. and indoned to the plaintiff. Mr. Otis NET tasted the ease. He said that he understood the defence to this action woe, that the defendant was under an at the time he accepted this bill--a most ti;shonest defence undoubtedly. The defendant had, however. had notice ta appear; and he (Mr. Gurney) was assured that the Jury would Le cotirMrel un the view of him, that be was at least four or f ve-and-twerty. AgJn he might to tell the Jury, that this bill was given for a horse which Ole young man bed purchased for 181. and sold fur /A Could he then be ender age ? The proof of the issue being on the parr of the defendabt. 3lr. TAISOU RD, who wall for th? defendant, culled 11r. COONT• stirgeun prac.i,ing at ReadicE, where Ow art; -too. -`~`~ - BRITISH' PRESS, who bad been present at the birth cf the defendant, of wimm he had an entry in his book, from which it appeared that the de fendant woo barn in November lilII,.• 3lr. firtrearEt made some objection to the proof of the Weedy of the defendant, which being over-ruled by the Lord Chief Justice, the plaintiff was immediately nonsuited. PALMER V. SPARKS. This was an aetidn foe an assault and false imprisonment. The ! defendant is the occupier of Chalk Farm. The plaintiff is an operative coachmaker. The plaintiff, with some friends, on the lit July last, was walking towards Chalk Farm ; when they got near the house they observed a party or sparrow-shonters. There I were some boys outside the hedge gathering up the sparrows that fell there. A sparrow fell in the hedge, which the boys could not get at; and the plaintif, Mr. Palmer, got into the hedge for the purpose of picking up the sparroW for them. While in the act of doing this, Sparks came up, r.nd celled Palmer a scoundrel, and ! other opprobrious names, for trespassing on his grounds, and or. tiered him to come down and leave them. Before he got down ! Sparks pushed the muzzle of his gun into the side of Palmer; struggle ensued, and a constable came up, to whom Sparks gave orders to take Palmer away. Palmer went with the constable to the Chalk Farm public-house. Some time after a friend came in, and asked Palmer if he was in custody, to which he replied that he did not know, when his friend said he had better take his hat and walk off. when hr would see whether the constable would stop him. lie did so, and the officer did not atop him. This was the assault and imprisonment complained of. There was pleaded. first, the general issue; second, ajustifica. don that the plaintiff first committed the assault. Mr. GURNEY havirg proved his case, Me. SCAR LETT addressed the Jury at some length for the de fendant. and called several witnesses to prove his justification. Mr. Oust:we replied. The Loan CRIES JUSTICE, in his summing up, told the Jury that there were two points for their cunsideration,—the assault and the false imprisonment. In respect to the first of theme, as there was no justification, and as all the witnesses concurred is saying that Sparks had been the assailant, there must be a verdict for the plaintiff, with such damages, as they might think proper. With respect to the charge of false • impdsonment, the qu,estion ior their consideration was, whether Sparks had given orders to take the plaintiff into custody, or whether he had merely given orders to the officer to take him away out of the field ? If they were of the for. nice opinion, they would find a verdict on this point also fat the Plaintiff: and of the letter they would find for the defendant, The Jury, after consulting together the some time, returned a verdict for the defendant on the false imprisonment ; and tor the assault they found a verdict for the Ilaintiff—Damages tarty shillings. COXSISTORY COURT, FRIDAY, Dec. 9. In the case of the Marchioness r. the Marquis of Westmeath, the reading of the voluminous allegations was resumed, and continued to a late hoar. The COURT appointed Thursday as the first day of the extra sittings, when the arguments of Counsel in this important case, will be heard, and the remaining business disposed of. The case of the Earl of Po•timouth's committee against. Mary Ann Hanson, styling herself Lady Portsmouth, stands over to the rest term. INSOLVENT DEBTORS• COURT, TnuasnAT, DEC. 9. Captain Theophilus Patterson. of the Royal Marines, on half_ pay, was opposed by Mr. Blurt', on behalf of Mr. Blscksted and ten other creditors, resident at Deal, where the Insolvent had been for some time living. The case occupied the Court nearly the whole day, but at length turned upon a point of law, via. as to whether there existed a de taining creditor's debt. It appeared in evidence that the insolvent had attempted to com promise with his creditors, but the attempt proved abortive. Sub sequent to that he had disposed of his furniture for about 80/. and part of the proceeds was paid to the insolvent's wife. With respect to the debt num which lie was detained, it arose In the following manner :—.3otne months back, heir!: indebted to a Mr. Inglis, the insolvent said he gave hio: a till of exchange, which he (Inglis) afterwards indorsed orer to Mr. Brown, his de. detaining creditor. 111 r. Inglis had been paid the ISL since the sale of the furniture by his (insolvents) agent, 31r. Moore. A tedious examination having closed, Mr. Coon s made an ingenious address to the Court on behal of the insolvent. Mr. li - Ara prayed the judgment of the Court. There was no doubt but Captain Patterson had been badly advised in many re spects, and he (Mr. Heath) was sorry for it ; but as the case stood he was in duty bound to pray the judgment of the Court. Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said that it was impossible for the schedule to stand, as a full Recount had not been made nut of the insolvent's property ; but, leaving that and all other points of the case, it was reduced to a sisgle inquiry —slid a debt exist between the detaining creditor and the insolvent ? The Court thought not, because full satisfaction had been given to Inglis the indorsee, to Brown the plaintiff, who turned out to be a man of straw ; at all events, it was quite clear that he was not a creditor to the insol vent, therefore, the Court had nothing more to do than to dismiss the petition. Mr. HEAT/I said, the creditors would prefer receiving a portion of the insolvent's half-pay. which they would be predoded frets doing if the Court dismissed the petition. Alter the Commissioners had consulted fora short time, Mr. Commissioner Bow EN' said, that the Court saw no reason why the petition should not be dismissed. The petition was dismissed accordingly. OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, FRIDAY, Dtc. 9. CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER. Julia Barry, aged 18, stood indicted for the wilful murder of a male infant child, of which she was pregnant, on the 19th of November last, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, and that she did, with her own hands, after the birth of bar child, throe it down the privy, by which it wan smothered. .11r. ADOLPHUS stated the case, observing, that if it should be proved that the child bad been burn alive, then it would he mur der, and not otherwise. The prosecution was conducted by the pari‘h, and there wait of mine no malice in the proceeding. He would merely observe, that a bill had been brought before the Grand Jury, who did not think the charge of murder substantiated, and theretore threw out the bilL But the Coroner's Jury had re turned a verdict of murder, which was sufficient The prisoner was extremely young, and had been a servant in the house of a person in Lamb's Conduit-street. On the night in question she was observed to lilt up very late, keeping up • large lire in the kitchen. Ott one of the servants going into the yard, he saw drops of stain, which the prisoner was droning up with a glove. The child was afterwards found in the privy. In her box there was not a single article of child linen found prepared. Henry AVestley—l am a grocer and tea-dealer in Lamb's Con. duit.street. The prisoner came into my service as a single woman. I never asked her the question if she was married. I never heard that she was with child. Win. Brook West—l ant a fellow.servant of the prisoner, being a shopman to Mr. Westley. 1 never heard that the prisoner was married. I once said to her. " you look large ;" and she said, "I don't know what you mean." I go to bed about half-past ten. It is not the prisoner's duty to be last up. On the l h of Nov. she was anxious to get me to bed by ten o'clock. I sleep in the attic, and went to bed. The prisoner's room was on the same {bor. I did not hear her come to bed. nor any noise in the night. I got up next morning at seven o'clock, sod saw the prisoner in the kitchen about half an hour after. I saw a place an the righi hsnd side of the fire fresh washed. I saw other stains where the washing was. They wero not washed out. There were drops on other parts of the room. I said nothing to the prisoner. I ob served drops also in the yard. There were stains of drops that had been washed out. I SiL7i the prisoner coming up from the privy. I did not see her do anything. I informed Mr. Westley of what I saw. After be went down stairs I went to the privy, and on looking down I saw something lying on the top of the soil. I returned into the house, and told the porter and lodger's salient . • after which the privy was searched, an d t h e su b. stance I saw taken up. I saw before that it was a child—a male child. By el r. Justice Bavxt r—l saw the prisoner come up the yard ; I how long she had been there I cannot tat. That was about eight o'clock. I saw nothing particular in the . ..peisoner's walk when I coming up the yard. Our house is large. t was in the shop from I revert till eight. The shop is above the kitchen, but we cannot hear what Is going oo in the kitchen. I cannot form an opinion how long the places had been washed, but 1 should judge it was after she came from the yard. John Itoldry, porter to Mr. Westley-d lived there before Anne (Julia) came. She was there about six months before this affair happenet I. I never asked her if she was monied or single. I was present v.hen the last wittier' said to her. " you look large." On the night in question she told us to go to bed, that it was half-past ten ; but I knew it was only ten. About half-past four o'clock in the more ing my master woke me, on account of some noise that he board. I slept in the same roost as the but witness. About seven o'clock I went to the yard, and observed large drops of stain near the knife-house. I saw the prisoner. wipe them up ; she knew that I observed her. I told her my master had heard a great noise in the night, and asked her what it Was? I said the noise VAS like g 1 roans. She made no answer, but observed that it was net decent to see such drops in the yard. 1 saw the places near the right I t and aide of the tire newly washed. I did nut see the child taken from the privy. By the J t , DGE—i remained in the yard three minutes; I thought the prisoner looked very WO. Sarah Gut tge—l ant a servant to Mrs. Winter, who lodges at Weatleti's. I lodged there eight peeks. I never heard from the prisoner that she wu In the family way. I saw her a quarter be fore eleven on the Friday night, sitting and lear.ing back on the chair by tho fire-side. I asked her did she not go to bed at half past ten? d she replied. yes. I went to bed at half-past twelve. I did not I ar her come up stairs. I looked into her room as passed, but t he was not there. Betwixt four and five I saw a light in her bed.rt um, but heard nobody. I never made ar.y observation so to the ;mist mer's appearance. Rebecca J 1 trd-1 am servar.t to Mrs. Winter. and live in the same house. - ,1 never made any observation as to the prisoner's Om 1 got up in the morning at 'wren, and observed some drops of stain War t.lO knife-house. 1 asked the prisoner how she did ? She said, `• Pretay well, I thank you, except a bad head-ache." The prisoner wrf. dressed on the Friday in a dark bine dress. By time j unG L-1 saw the child in the ptivy before it am pulled cut. It lay or. r.tae sc:fst a. It might have suck if any attempt • ~...i 4, h been made to sink it down ; but there appeared to have been iir re made. A broom could have reached it. Mr. Watley recalled—On the night in luestion I heard very lewd groans pee:ceding from up stairs. I sleep in the second floor. I then went tip atairs with a light to Anne's room, and asked her if all was r ght, and if she was well. I repeated the question three times before I got an se ewer. lithe said that all was right, and that she was well. I afterwardeeent for the poliee-officer. Before the child was foam), I said.th Anne, in the morni, that there were strange appear a n ces , by Me fire having been lig hted already in the morning as halt-past tour, and by the wAsbing beside it, and that there appeared to be fresh coals put on. She said she knew nothing at all about it. Wm. Thisslzton, the police-officer at Batton-gig:den, went to Mr. Westlev's house and lock away a child from there, which he showed to Mr. Fernandez, son. the surgeon. Mr. Fernandez, jun.—l saw the child which the officer brought. My father waq there. Mr. Fernandez. sen.—l hold a note of the observations l made immediately atter I saw the child. I saw it on Saturday, the Lath November. It wasp full grown male child. There was a wound on the hind part of the hevid..l consequently examined the brain and the bones. The bones were not broken, and there was no Injury done to the brain. I examined the windpipe and other parts of the body —thoy were lateral. I made experiments, from which I infer that the child was born alive, but I cannot say that it may not have died of convulsion,' soon drier. By the JUDGE—What were the experiments you made ?—I took out the lungs and the heart connectedly, and put them on water, and they all swam. I detached the heart and lungs, and the lungs were put on the water, and they swam again. I cut off a portion of the lungs, and pressed them, endeavouring to press out the air, but they afterwards swam. Hence I inferred the child had brea.heil. I inferred that the child had not breathed binee it had fallen into the vault. lam positive it breafhen then—at least that is the inference I formed. Any breath of air will inflate the lungs on coining into the world. [Mr. F. here explained occurrences usual at natural births.] I made every Inquiry respecting the wound on the head, but could not assign it to have been done by any instru. ;•.tent ; it was not very material, and might have bees done while the child was taken up from the privy. The result of my evidence is, that the child was not smothered there—it might. have dropt Marc. A consultation took place between the Judges and Alr.Adol phus, after which Mr. Justice BA YLVT summed up, observing, that by the evi dence of the surgeon the child had not been smothered,. and they must acquit the prisoner of that charge, for there was a possibility that it might have dropt, and they could not, in their consciences, find her guilty of so heinous a charge, without the most satisfactory, proof. lie had not therefore called upon her for her defence. They would acquit the prisoner. The Jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner appeared to be deeply effeved during the trial. She looked even younger than her years betokened. She left the bar wish a brightened countenance, and was discharged. MANSLAI.7OHTER. Alexander Dobie was indicted on the charge of having killed John Dillon, by striking him against the pavement, and thereby inflict ing wounds and bruises on him width caused his death. The witnesses were ordered to withdraw. Miss Palmer —On ' Thursday, the 21st of July last, I was living with my father,and, hearing a noise, went to the window about two or three o'clork. I asw a person endesvouring to get John Dillon into a public-house. It was a 3lrs. Leach who was persuading him to go. The deceoed went in and cane bark again. He stopped at the next door at the prisoner's shop. I saw the prisoner before in the shop. The deceased used very abusive language to the pri soner, and was swearing at him. The prisoner was In the back part of the shop. He slid not come forward, and seemed to be avoiding the deceased. The deceased then appeased to be.going to the shop door, and prisoner then rushed out and put his arms in a lighting postu re. AIL Justice PA K—l do not expect you to show me a fighting posture. • Before the prisoner put himself in a fighting posture the deceased menaced him, and stood in a fighting posture. They came to an actual light, and closed ; the deceased did not fight, but fell. The prisoner struck him. The deceased fell on the back of his head on the main road. He attempted to get up again and fell. The pri soner did not strike him again. The deceased was an old man. I had seen him often before. The prisoner keeps a coal and potatoe warehouse. Cross.examined.—When I first saw the deceased he was near his own house, and people seemed to be soothing him. Ills face was all over blood, and he was going towards the prisoner's shop, after which happened what I described. Mrs. Leach—l knew the deceased six or seven years. I saw him on the day in question, and he was rather in liquor. He was not quarrelsome that day, that I observed. Mien he took me by the hand his face was bloody. I told him he had better go in, and went with hint to his own door. I told his daughter to take him in. She said he bad been out of work. In the mean time he loosed front my hand and went towards the prisoner's. I called him back, I and told him I wanted him to do a job to-morrow. He returned and went to his own door, but came out again, and went to the corner. The prisoner seemed in a great passion, and was wiping his face with a towel which he had in his hand. He threw the towel away and struck the deceased, who was in a fighting attitude. The deceased attempted to strike, but I think he was too weak. He struck the deceased in the forehead, and he fell. lie struck him several blows before then. The deceased fell after the blow on the temple, and attempted to rise, but could not. He did not die im mediately after. The prisoner kicked ins foot towards the deceased, and then went sway. I did not see where he kicked him, or if he did strike him. The deceased was then carried away, and died the same night about four or tire. Cross-examined by Mr. C. lint t tars—After the deceased broke away front me. I did not see him at the prisoner's door immedi ately, nor did I bear him say any thing. He appeared to be stand ins at the door Irritating the prisoner. Mr. John Ilriant—l am a surgeon, and was on the day in ques tion near the spot where the accident happened. I was visiting a patient, and saw a crowd. I went up and saw the deceased lying on his lice. I did not ree the prisoner. I went away, and on my return saw two persons in the act of raising the deceased. I saw a wound under the left eye of the deceased. I felt his pulse, and was of opinion that he was labouring under symptoms of compressed brain. I directed that the person who had given the blow should be taken into custody. I thought the case a dangerous one. lm. mediately before the Coroner's Inquest I opened the deceased, and found about live or six ounces of extravaseted blood on the brain, which blood lay over the right hemisphere of the brain. I do believe that the extravamited blood caused his death. That appearance might not have been produced by a blow, but by the concussion occasioned by a violent fall on the ground, which would occasion a rupture of the blood vessels, and death would ensue. The vessels might have been ruptured by intoxication, and the same conclu sions might be formed. After the rupture that I saw, I think the deceased could not stand on his legs. The vessels might very easily give way either from intoxication or concussion. Dy M. ANDREWS—If a man had been engaged in fight, or in a great passion, he was more susceptible of concussion than other wise. I have seen instances of concussion from violent rage. Mr. Lewis—l saw one blow given by the prisoner to the deceased, and no more. I beard no words. Mr. Brant recalled by Mr. Justice Pani--Supposing the state of the brain to have been occasioned by intoxie.ttion, it would not follow so soon as if done by a viohnt blow, and the deceased might have walked about for some time in a state of intoxication before the effects would be produced. An old man said that he saw the deceased, who appeared to have been very vexed in his mind. He went to the prisoner's window and said, " I want recompense for the injuries you have done me." There seemed to be words between them. The prisoner was wash ing himself, and came out and knocked the deceaaed into the ken nel. He never rose afterwards. Cross.examined—The deceased used very irritating language to the prisoner. The prisoner, in his defence, said that he owed the deceased no animosity whatever. Mr. ANDREWS said that he would merely call another witness, which was material. Ann Hervey said, that she heard the deceased use bad language to the prisoner and his mother. He called Iris mother "an old convicted b---d, who had been in Newgate for picking gentlenien`s pockets." The deceased struck the prisoner first. The prisoner had been very kind to the deceased in his lifetime, and had given him money and provisions. He worked for the prisoner. The prisoner used no bad words to the deceased, but told him to go away. George Dobie, the brother of the prisoner, gave similar testi mony. His brother hal been invariably kind to deceased. The prisoner lives in Upper Dorset -street, Bryanatone-square. Several witnesses bore testimony that the prisoner's conduct to the deceased had been always kind and humane. Mr. Justice PARK then summed up, observing, that if the de ceased had conic to his death through intoxication there was an end of the case. end the prisoner must be acquitted. There was no evidence that the deceased had received a fsll previously to the fall occasioned by the prisoner. But the main question wan, whether this was murder or manslaughter ; and he had no hesitation in say ing that it was not murder. It was evident that the deceased had used very gross and irritating language, but no abuse, however grievous, could justify blows. The prisoner was a young man of 23, and was no doubt much incensed, but it was endeavoured to show that death had been occasioned by intoxication. The case was clearly one of manslaughter, or of justifiable homicide in self defence, and they would And whichever verdict they thought pro per—the punishment would only be slight. The Jury consulted for a short time, actl returned a verdict of Guilty of ltfuerlaughter, 31r. Justice PARK—The prisoner has not been in custody, I suppose, and I shall not name the puni s hm e nt now , b u t it w ill be very slight, on account of the good character he has received. Addressing the prisoner, his Lordship said, " I don't ap prove of part of the defence which you have brought for ward, and it would have aggravated the case hot for the good chi. racier which you have received. I shall represent your case fa vourably." The prisoner then bowed and withdrew. G) , rtn. alas sA R T:eZ, VaTisnaio ea for assaulting Wm. Thomas, and stealing from his person a watch and other articles, his nrope-te. Win. Thomas deposed, that on the of October he was walking through Eari.street, Lissor.-grore. %hen the prisoner came up and drew this trawls out of his pocket. The watchmrrt was near him at the time. Witness pursued the planer, who had rut off, and overtook him in th- pisti?* of a publieMouse called the Riven lfeal. Ile held him by the calicr, and said, "Oh, clear. lye lest my wr.tch; ycc took it from me!" Hy then recetoel --.JA •• ..,-- • two blows, but held the prisoner until his handkerchief came n 1 .• his. hand.. •Pritioher was i at,thie time in the tap.rovno. The was then handed to wifices i s by vome person. He was quite sure that the prisoner was the penion alto took she watch from him. In leis cross-examitianosvihe mines% admitted that at the tin: t of the transaction in question he wes somewhat Henry Lenny eorrolmrated the statement of the nvoseentoe, re. lattve to the occurr.tricesio the tap-roam-of the public-bowie. • For the defence. a witness was examined, who deposed that ha saw the prosecutor in the tip-roum of the public-house, crying lot his watch, which was in his hand all the white. The prosecutor was at the time much intoxicated. 111 r. aktice Etta summed up the evidence, and inlitenel • ht Juryethat, es it did not appear. that any violence bad been usek towards the prosecutor, they could not find the prisoner guilty . -f the capital part of the charge. Verdict—" Guilty of atealin g from the person." The Judges then left the Court, and the Reacted,: proceeded t 6 try cases of larceny. NEW .COURT. (Before the Coetwow -SEctoteßirT Sarah Jeffrier, a respectable-looking young woman, shoot fif , , was indicted for stealing a battle of gin, the property of Char::! Chapple, a distiller, in Shorediteit. It appeared that the prisoner was cook in the service of the pro. secuttw, who having missed a quantity of spirits, suspected her, • and had her box searched ; and the bottle Of gin in question was • there found. The prosecutor knew by the flavour that it was his - gin. Ile had never given the prisoner any, nor did he believe thst any had been given to the servants on washing days. It must have coins out of hi. vat, as he kept none in bottle. Vann, the officer, who searched the prisoret's bones, stated thee when lie had searched one box, the prisoner told him, that if ho looked into the next, he would find the gin he wanted. Re made no promise of letting her of on her making the admissioo that she and her fellow.serrant stole it from the vat, she bolding the bottle whilst her fellow-servaot turned the cock. .He also found thirty. two sovereigns and some silver in her box. Re detained them, be.' cause the prosecutor said lie had lost ten sovereigns. • The COMMON-SE RO EAN T was of opittnin that no officer bad a right to take money or property from a prisoner, milers it appeared she had stole it. The officer thought that all property taken from a primmer was to be produced at the trial. The Money was given to the prisoner. * Set era' witnesses gave the prisons ■ pond character. Her two tut employers raid they hart lately paid her wages, which accounted fa her postessicm of the money. The COMMON SNAGEANT MUTIZMId Ara, sad the Jury found • verdict of Not Guilty. J. Catlin and R. "ell were convicted of stealing a leaden valve, the property of Thomas Brooks, be privately whipped sod discharged. _ _ [Before Mr. Sergeant Auxtru.) SWINDLING. Charles lioldrsorth wns charged in no lers than eight indictments with having, under false pretences, obtained goods from vaiiott* tradesmen. The first iodictment charged him with stealing a pair of boots and a pair of shoes, the property of James Smitzer. The prosecutor stated that he resided in Fore•strcet. On 'Wel. needier, the 16th November last, the prisoner came to his shop, and ordered a pair of boots. They were made by the following Saturday. He had seen him a month before, when he bought a pair of shoes.. The boots were worth 2bs. The prisoner came on the Saturday and tried the boots on. They fitted him, and he asked witnesawhether he had any light shoes that would fit him. On being answered ip the affirmative, he bought a pair that cost Os. Witness asked if he should send them home? The prisoner directed him to send them to No. EP, Myrtle-street, Hoxton, ■d: dressed to Mr. Smith. The prisimer sato the witness write the name of Smith on one of the shoes. The prisoner directed a biil and receipt to be sent wttli them, and said that he shou t ; he at home till half.past four. Witness took the articles to Dlprtlo street, N 0.30. The prisoner opened the door, and asked him into the parlour. Witness produced the articles, and put the bill aced receipt into the prisoner's hand. The prisoner asked what discount he allowed ? Witness answered, that they were at cash price. The prisoner then took up the articles, and went into is back parlour with them. The witness waited about five miontes expecting the prisoner. The landlord and landlady came and asked hint his business? hut when he stated it, and they looked for the prisoner, they could not find him. He would not bare parted with the goods unless he had expected to be paid. He thohght the prisoner went into the beck room to try on the abaft and get the money. Wit ness immediately gave information at Worship-street. On Tues day night lie apprehended the prisoner et the Engle Tavern Gar dens t whilst there, the prisoner raid he would pay for them. He accordingly pulled out some silver, amounting to about 17s. and a watch ; but witness would not take it. Witness took him to the office, and there told him that lie could get the shoes at his lodg. ings at the Poulterers' Arms. Witness :mulct not take the watch, as he thought it ;would defraud the other sufferers, and that it did not belong to the pritrinr. Elizabeth Newman, the landlady of the house in Myrtle -street, stated that the prisoner came to her house on the 16:h November, at • quarter before twelve, and hired the ground floor. lie told witness that he came from the country, and that I:ia name was Smith. Prisoner was to have taken possession on the Monday. Witness was out of the house on Saturday. When he took the lodgings, he looked to see if there was a back door. He never sent any luggage. Miss Maria Newman, the daughter of the last witness, was next called. She was at home on Saturday the 19th. The prisoner came about ten minutes past four. Witness immediately after los in Mr. Smitztm, who went into the parlour, the door of which was shut by Mr. Smith. She never saw him after that till be was ap prehended. Vann, the officer, stated, that on Tuesday evening, the 22d, he went with Mr. Satitzer to the Poulterers' Arms, and there found the shoes. - • W. %Westbrook, the landlord of the Poulterers' Arms, examined. The prisoner had lodged with him tor riz weeks previous to his apprehension. He went by the name of Holdsworth. Witness showed the critters the room *there the prisoner sket, and *titre the shoes were foattd. This was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner, in his defence. stated that be bought the hoots,. and intended to pay for them ; and that the prosecutor, when he gave him the monty at the Eagle Tavern Hardens, accepted it as part payment. Mr. Sargent Alfairw, In summing up, observed, that if they thought that Mr Smitzer never intended to part with his property without immediate payment, and that it was a_premeditated scheme on the part of the prisoner, they must Mid him guilty. The Jury immediately foundhim Guilty. Mr. Sergeant ARAfIIN said, that he wis afraid that to reprove him trout(' be waste of time.. Had this been n solitary case, the Court might have been inclined to view it with commiseration ; but when they found no lees than seven similar cases on the records of the Court, he should fail in his public duty if he suffertd him to zemiin in this country. The sentence of the Court was that he should be transported for life. A pawnbroker, with whom the prisoner had pawned a Eute for 21. Ins., which he had got tinder similar circumstances w i t h t he boots, from Clemens, file IW., wished to know if he was to give it up without any remuneration ? Mr. Sergeant ARABlx—Certainly ; it is stolen property. The pawnbroket said, kin ease wi particularly hard, for the prisoner had shown him the hill and receipt for the flute. He had but just err up In business, and had always been • tro-t anxious to detect and atop persons who had improperly obtained any goods they might offer for pawn.. Ile had already yielded up four a:. ticks in cases that came before Mr. Rawlinson. Mr. Sergeant Musts said,. that certainly the pawnbrokers sometimes lay under great headships, but the public must be pro tected. The flute and a number of other article?, were then given up to their mpectire owners. liTtlam Thomas was convicted of stealing Three pounds of bo. con. the property of Henry Harlin, of St. Giles's. He was sentenced to be privately whipped and discharged. This utehin was ten years of age, but was a chubby little boy. not in appearance more than four years old. His bead barely came above tile bar. JYliflam 'Val.:cc was indicted for stealing a set of fire-irons, a teapot, candlesticks, snuffers, knives, a lamp, a toasting fork, and venous other articles, the property of G. B. Thompson. The defendant was a servant of the 'prosecutor, a furnishing ironmonger, and, it appeared, had purloined the articles at di f e. rent times, pawning some an d secret i ng ot h ers i n his born, where they were found. The Jury found him Gniktr, and The COURT ifitittialUti, that as this was an offence which tradesmen could not guard against, he should scud hint out of the many. W. R. ilidvard was indicted fa stealing fifty.six pair of hoots, awl a hundred anti four pairs of shoes, value..W. on the 11th No vember, the property of Samuel Byland. The prosecutor stated that he was a shoemaker in Hanway•street. The prisoner had been in his service three years. Ile discharged him in November last for quarrelling with another servant ; Lut having reason to suspect him he went with en officer to his father's boner, where he found the prisoner, who denied, when accused. that he had committed a robbery. Avis, the officer, searched lain, and found on his person eight du. plicates, which he confessed were for witness's property. He their confessed that he had other duplicates and he agoodarlf,,poo &teed 98 dnplicates, which he confessed were for witness', pmperty. Nearly a dozen pawnbrokers produced she pniperty dim had been pledged by the prisoner. Some produced bags full of boots and shoes which had been pledged by him. This was only a small portion of the duplicates, they being considered nulficient for. rho CH!. Mr. PHILLIPS. for the prisoner. crose.examined them. None of them had made any inquiry at the addressees given by the pri soner when he pledged the goods. They had ill inquired his place of residence and whether they were his own. AU the articles were new. Mr. Pnit.r.ire asked the last vritnen why he had not inquired • at the place of residence given in ? Tne pawnbrokers said they were busy. Mr. PHILLIPS Said, that were pawnbrokers to be mere cautious., so many robberies would not he committed. The mind ro'rere—Rut what are we to do 1 Mr. Punt-IPS— I t is not my business to give you advice; late I dare say the Court will give you some that will be i• iglityan. cructire. Fee my part, if I was a tendon tradesmen,(shouts not think it wry bones: in a pawnbroker to mire in new goods repeatedly wittiont uniting aoquines. Some remedy ought to be apnlitd to this evil; no one is seta, The P :rent:Ater—l think the gentltmen that Leve beer ea- i I I