The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1818-12-19 00:00:00

~~- . i L.l3' INTELLIGENCE. vier.Cli ANC C LLOR'S COURT, LiNcou's FRIDAY, DECEMBER Is. DEMURRER—THE BLENHEIM ESTATE. 111 F. A TTO7.NLY-GENERAT., at the relation ry' the Marquis of BLANDFORD aid the Hon. AGAR iLL is v. his Grace the Duke of maausnaouais. Mr. Hastiosr, the Junior Counsel fur the Noble Delentlio:t, !dated that this was • bill fi! r d by the I'l •ii.tiff-, praying that the Noble I)4enolonit nt•:; i h.• ordered to account for the ',induce oit coat tiers which he hail cut d a y:ii its Blenheim Perk end disposed of ; and that he •hould be restrained by injunction born atiir4 down timber, and from committing waste on the Blenheim estate. The bill stated some pro. cerdings which took place in Parliament in the reign of the 311 and 4th of Queen Anne, when the House of Commons, on account of the emi nent military services and valorous exploits of the then Duke of Marlborough, particularly that of his victors• at Blenheim, presented an Address to her Majesty Quo en Anne, in which they ex pressed their gratitude for his service•, and hoped, as her Majesty was the fountain of honour, that she would grant his Grace some reward to iwrpetu ate his name and services. A sirnillor address was pre. sewed to her Majesty by the House of Loyd.. Her Mojesty, no answer, expressed her ready acquiescence to forward the wishes of both Houses of Parliament. An Act of Parliament then passed, griming Ile NVooolstrock estates, in Oxfordshire, to his G ace, coukuuing 1,g94 acres. It was afterward% thought necessary by her Majesty, and approved of by Par liament and his Grace, that the estates should go ;dotal.; with the title. '[he same Act empowered her Majesty to raise a certain sum to erect a splendid mansion, to be called Blenheim House, that pus wry might know of the gratitude of the country, sad that it might stand as a public monument of his Groce's achievements. An Act of Parliament afterward. passed in the first year of the reign of George the First, winch, after reciting the provisions of the Acts of Queen Alone, set forth that the erection of the mansion, gardens, and grouoids had been carried on at the expense of Queen Atone, out of the revenue granted to her by Parliament for that purpose. It was, therefore, enacted, that all tle. 'rands and claims of tradesmen prior to the year 171% should be diaehorged by the Crowoo. The bill complained that the Noble Dr. lentlant had cut dowu several trees of coot siderable value in Blenheim Park, which were no ; on ly hi g hly ornamental, but useful as a pro- tection to the property ; and that he had also cut down a number of towline at an unseason able period of the year, which he lied sold, rod that he had contracted to furnish several timber merchants with timber from the Park. The bill then alleged, it the Court did not interfere and pre vent him Irian doing so, the Plaintiffs would be deprived of the protection which Parliament intend ed to clothe them with, as the heirs awl descendants of the great Doke. To this bill the Noble De. !rodent had put in a general demurrer—first, that no such wane had been committed as the bill charged ; and, secondly, that the discovery sought by the bill could not be of any service to the _ _ . _ ..... Mr. BELL, leading Counsel for the Noble De. fendant, stilted, that the intention of the grant was to vest the estate in fee simple in the Doke and his successors, for which reason there was no reversion vested in the Crown; therefore, his Majesty's At torney-General was improperly introduced as a party in the ;peseta suit. The VICE-CHANCELLOR- 44 I take it that the Duke Troubled reversionary in fee, because the second Act of Queen Anne could never deprive him of the- fee he had taken by the first Act." Mr. BELL said, that was precisely the case, and it co. firmed his argument, because the second Act of Queen Atom limited the estates to go with the title, granting at the same time to the Duke and Iris successors certain privileges, but preventing them Nan alienation. There were two questions, there fore, to he argued—first, what had been the doctrine of Cowls of Equity in cases of eqnitable waste, so far as tenants fur life were concerned ; secondly, whether there was any thing in the castor the Duke of Marlborough that should tuake it be oreeeted in a different manner from others. Before he entered on the argument, he would oh. serve, that when the injunction was moved for before Lord Chancellor Eldon, his Lordship felt some difficulty in granting it, he not having in his recollection, in the course of his long experience, any care precisely similar, except that of Lord Shrewsbury, and he granted it on the specific CUII. ditto's that notice should he forthwith served on the Noble Defendsted. By the practice of the common I,w, persons, except guardians, who were te nants not for life, had full power to cut down timber. The first statute to prevent the commit tin;; of waste, was that of Marbridge. Lord Coke, in his Secand Institutes, '199, epeakilig of that eta. tote, sap, " It punishes tenants its dower, tenants by courtesy, amid guardians, but not tenants for hie; for it says, if these commit waste, it must be owing to the negligence of the donors, in not making a proper provision against waste." The 2d statute was that of Gloucester, which gave triple &twee' for waste committed. The next *us the 2d of Westminster, which not only gave the same damages, but gave them retrospectively. In the cease of Vane and Lord Barwird, iii the year 1716, whies was fee son injeitertion to restrain the Defendurit Irmo willing down a inomiois.house, the Court 1...1.1 it was contrary to the meaning of Ale donor, and it restrained limn. The case of Abrams and Budd, as reported in 2d Freeman, 53, which was for felling trees, Lord Chancellor Nuttinglimn Is. lel he could not restrane the De frodoist ; beet if lie went to pull down houses, the C o urt would restrain him. The Learned Counsel stated several other cases to the same effect, and «a.teilded, that the fee was rested in the great I liike and his successors, under the Airet Act or Duren Anne ; and whoever was 111 possession iu tail, lied the right to cut down the timber and dispose of it. Tile by the present proceeding. were trying to deprive the No -Me Defendant of his common how eight. lie would ask, pould it not be too moll' in deprive the Miller of the ...state and his heirs irom making any alteration it; Abe impralieSpeiltb 2 Su v vvbc the trees in the Park were stripped of their foliage, and 1 ~d become complkely rotten, were thew to stand ua a nuisance? Would the Learned Counsel for the Nandi& contend that the estate ought to stand precisely in the same state as when it was granted by Queen Anne The Vic e-Cu ANCELLOR—" They must contend that, for the meaning of the deed of gift is, that Blenheim was to remain in the same state as it was possessed by the first Duke of Mailhorough." Mr. BELL, in continuation said, then they must contend that the Noble Defendant had not the right to make any improvement on the premises. It was well known that the fashion of carriages was much altered in modern days from what they were in the time of Queen Anne. and according to this argument, his Grace could not enlarge a coach house so as to admit a modern carriage in it.— When the gardens were laid out, it was well known that the Dutch fashion prevailed, that of trimming trees into grotesque figures. The Vicii-Ctiatictat.oa—t , The greatest ornis. meats made at Blenheim were in the last reign, which must have been in contravention of the deed." Mr. BELL then contended that there was no right in the Crown to authorise the interference of the Attorney-General ; the Marquis of Blandford was a Plaintiff, to contend for what, if granted, would disinherit himself by making him a tenant for life instead of a tenant iii tail. The bill had been amended to make Mr. Agar Ellis a party, the son of the sister of the Noble Defendant ; but how he was interested he had vet to learn. He supposed it would be contended, that the Noble Defendant would, if the itijunction was taut continued, level the mansion to the ground, and that every Englishman would he angered that such a monument of the coutittl's victories should be destroyed. Would it not be better to trust its safety to the honour of the owner in possession, than for the Court to interfere? He knew no case tantamount to the pre►ent, except that of the heir of a lunatic couni.g to the Court and saying, '• I want to prove the marriage of my father sod mo ttles., and there is but one witness who can prove it, sod he is feeble and in advanced years." The Court would not listen to such an application, for which reason it ought to allow the demurrer and dismiss the bill. Mr. Waarand Mr. ilasisoN followed on the same side. The SOLICITOR-GENIRRAL, Counsel for the Plaintiff., said, that this was s qtvestion of great importance, inn only to the parties but to the peon pie of the country at large; for it was, whether the Duke of Marlborough,•or any subsequent one, had the right and pinver of pulling down a splendid monument of British gratitude for the unparalleled victories of his ancestor. The demurrer must ad mit, for the purpose of the argument, that the Noble Defendant had cut down the trees, snit he had a right to contend that they were plaided in Queen Anne's time; so he was not driven to the resource of saying that the Defendant might level the mansion with the ground. The VICE-CHANCELLOII—" It is tile Usual time, Mr. Solicitor, for the Court to rise ; I will, there fire, hear you on this case the first thing in the awning." Further consideration postponed. Lord mitstNcrom v. the Earl of PORTIIORE and OTHERS. The SOLICITOR-GEN BRA L stated that this wigs bill tiled against the trustees of the marriage settle 'nein of the Earl of Portmore, praying that the Court would decree that they should forthwith grant leases of the trust estate, which they had refused to do, to the injury of the tenants and of the estate.— To this bill the trustees had demurred, on the ground that they were vested by the trust deed with a discretionary power to act as they thought proper relative to the grouting of leases. Therefore the Court had no jurisdiction, and the bill ought to be dismissed. The VICE-CHANCELLOR —" I am of opinion that the Court has jurisdiction. It is certainly pro. per that trustees should have ts discretionary power to act for the property vested in them by the trust. deed ; but this Court will not permit them to use it in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Therefore 1 have no hesitation in overruling this demurrer." COURT OF KING'S BRNO', Gut LpHALL, Fit;DAY, Diessaata IS. Siftlegs Riser Michaelmas 7'ernd, before Cldief Justlce ABBOTT, and Common Jurses. ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT. STAIGHT V. G€ and MILVV.R. Mr. M4RIITATT stated, that this was an action in which the Plaintiff, • reepeciable tradesman, re siding in East Harding-street. sought to recover a compensation in damages. for a very gross assault and false imprisonment, committed on him by the Defendants. Gee wits the landlord of the Cock public-house, at hackney, and Girver was the con stable or beadle of that parish. It would appear from the evidence, that, on the sth October last. Sleight, accompanied by a person of the name of A listey, a livery-stable-keeper, in Carey-street. went down to homerton, to look at • horse a hirli the Plaintiff had at grass there. In their May back, they stopped at Gee's house, for the purpose of taking some refreshment. They wishial to have some berf-inealis or mutton-chops, and. as Gee had none in the house, they gave him a pound-note to procure some. Gee examined the note, declared it *ass bad our. and inquired whether Plaintiff and his friend had another. They produced a second note, which he also pronounced to he a forgery— and stated that lie would keep them both, until he could positively ascertain the fact. Accordingly, notwithstanding they offered to give the most re• bpe ct 6 hI e references to their characters, he refused to return either of the notes. The Plaintiff and his friend then consulted together, and determined to leave the house, for the purpose of procuring a constable to aid them in recovering their property. They had proceeded but a few yards, when a mem aenger overtn..k them, and demirrd them to come hack. As they supposed that Gee had repented of Ilk colididel, and wished to reetpre the notes, they returned. They were ►mmediately taken into custody by a constable of the name of Marry, us e:stet! by the Defendant, Girve►. Plaintal and liiiyouisibiteitits, shord that they were willing to stay until it was ascertained whether the notes were good or bad. They also stated whom they were, and offered to give satisfactory referetices. It huppenrd that a Bank-note Inspector, stained Fish, resided bear Hackney, and to loin Merry took the notes, for his examination. Fish stated, that they were genuine notes—and he wrote his moue on them. Merry, on his return, reported what Fi-h h a d ►.Uri. but oh:erred, " that he was an old fellow, and always drunk—and, fur hi. own part, he would nut pay iattelition to what he said." The parties then proceeded to make the Plaintiff and his friend strip, ill order to search them. In coniclthioo, th e y were hand-cuffed together, and, in that situation, 'were marched, clueing a heavy shower of rain, from Hackney to Worship-street Office, Girver heading the party, and flourishing a large *bee. They ar rived at Worship-street Office, about eight o'clock in the.evening, but there was no Alagistrete sit ting. The Clerk at the Office advised them to libe rate the Plaintiff and his friend, whirl' was done about nine o'clock, Ginter still declining that he believed the notes to be forged. To prove this statement, the Learned Counsel balled Mr. Anstey, ainl several other witoteses, who fully substantiated the facts, Mr. SCARLET?, for the Defendant, Gee, sub. mitten, that it verdict could not be recorded against him, 104%111114:i) as he did nothing, of himself, hut acted under the direction of the constables. Merry had been called in by another person, without his knowledge, and he, essisted by Girver, had tekets the parties into custody, and detained them, his chew never having given them in charge. Ile would prove further, that Gee remonstrated against searching, or detaiiiing them, slier the Inspector's opitdoo was obtemed—mud that lie most particu larly objected to their being hand-cuffed. The Learned Gentleman called a witness of the name of Jones, a soldier, who was quartered in 'a house, who stated that he went for the con stables without tiny direction from Gee, on hearing the conversa relative to forged notes. He also deposed that Gee remonstrated against Mr. Staigitt or his friend hen% timid-cuffed. Mr. GURNEY, for the Defentlmnt, Girver, sub mitted, that there must be ti verdict in favour or has risen,, founded ou the statute of James I. By that statute it was enacted, that in any proceeding attain -t the constable, the vertu should be kid in the county where the cause of action lima , . In the present case the cause of action arose iu Middlesex, sod the ream was laid in Loudon. The CHIEF JOSTICE held that thiaobjectien Ras good, an.l, wider his Lordship's direction, a verdict was returned for the Defendant. Girver. _ The Learned JUDGE then summed up. briefly. w►th respect to Gee. It was, he observed, for the Jury to consider how far the evidence in the ease bore on this Defendant. If they were of opinion that he was Rehm; as a principal in the arrest of the Plaintiff, they would find a verdict against awirding such damages as they thought is fair re. muneratirn► for w h at Plamiiir had suffered. They would, in doing this, take into their consideration the evidence of the *‘itiicss, Jones, from which it appeared, that Gee expressed 1 ' eelfagaitist search ing or lunitlctiffiii,g the Plaint►ff sad his friend. The Jury found a verdict fur the Plaintiff— damages sOl.—cost* 40v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GveI:VHALL, FRIDAY, DEMMER 18. Sittings after Term. before C'hirt Justice DALLA* and Special Juries. LI li F.L. WALDEGRAVE V. IHGNOLD. This was au action to recover damages for a false, scandalous, and malicious publication by the Dc fendant against the Plaintiff. Mr. CAMPBELL ()polled the pleadings. Mr. Serjeant LENS stated the case to the Jury. His client had brought the present action to obtain such comperwatioa us tl►e Jury might deer► ade quate, for a foul and wicked attack on his charac ter. It was known to them, that he was unfortu nate in trade ; he once. however, had property, and lie had hopes of having it spit), hut before his industry could be successful, it was indispensably necessary he should be restored to that fiir fame which he had never lost till the cruel attempt of the Defendant. The libel con►plaiued of consisted iis a most flagrant misrepresentation of what took place iu a Court of Justice. Mr. Walilegrave had iosisred his premises situ furniture with the Norwich UlllOll Society, of which the Defendant was Secre tary. The premises were afterwards accidentally consumed by fire. The property lost and damaged was estimated, and the value demanded of Mr. Big- Hold lie refused to it,y, an action was brought by Mr. Wablegrave's assignees against him, and tried in that Court, and damages recovered for the full sum claimed. Mr. Bignold afterwards thought pro per to compose and publish the account of the trial that formed the subject of the action then before the Court. He was far frosts objecting to the publcation of fair and impartial reports of judicial proceedings : to many they were au amusement, to a larger class of utility, and it was desirable that they should be communicated to the public, if it was only to prove the truth of au Englishman's I it boast, that jos tice was administered on a (outing of equality to the highest and th►e lowest. But assuredly the parties should be the lust in the world to publish a history of their own case ; and it was singularly imprudent and rash in Mr. }lipoid tit sit down to such a task while his mind was heated by passion and pre judice. It would be more tolerable too if he had confined himself to the trite charge against Juries, of findireg a verdict contrary to evidence. But after having already asserted that the damages claimed were five times the actual loss, and when the verdict of the Jury had *hewn that they were not in the smallest degree exaggerated, and the whole had been recovered, he slti►uki have abstained from repeating such au imputation. He had not stopped, however, there, but in almost direct terms alleged that Mr. Wahlegrave had Ititiself set fire to his preini.es. " All sespicini►s tires happen on a Saturday si'ght„ or is Sunday—oho happened on a Sato's* night, and the ca use of it was never ascertained." The Learned Counsel then adverted to. and commented on, the roller parts of the !Owl . (the purport of which will appear more fully in the evidence), :tinl inferred that the most ocepttcol could net doubt but Mr. litgiould Ili- 414,1 ii i t e wled by it to charge iris client with the ..otninissioti of au abominable fraud. -- Barnet , was then culled, and c.ramingd. Ia keiver of the 801 l lii.hu l oo.ote- t oreet, adjacent to Air. Wal:legi..te', sovisoisr:•; recollects the lire ; it lidupeneri un S3turrloy night, May 8, Ihi l7 ; it WIER caused by 2 htlrgr-keeper going into the at•ldes with a candle, itstaxic ; the mils was burned to death ; some of 6 uotlik its the sun were datum:rd. • _ G. Cockerell valued the good* destroyed And injured. belonging to Mr. Waltlegravy. at 719/. 6.. 'Elva was the sum Chtillitarl and recovered in tlie act . agoinvt Mr. Bigot)ld by the v...ignees. • The Clerk then retni en account of the action from the record... E. MIL printer to the Norwich Union, was banded s printed hand-bill, emit:Awing the libel. of Which, lie bold, lie received the copy from Mr. owl printed sod published immediately shoot 3,000 of the :ante description mom% ►he Members. The libel was then read Ity the Clerk. It was entitled, A Summary of Mr. Mgt's)ld's reasons for resisting the demand of Wals-grave," and stated, that all.snspiesous fires happened on s Sa turday night, or a Sunday; this happened on a Saturday night, and the cause of it was never as certained; that Mr. IValdegrave's evidence was at variance with the landlord's and occupiers of the inn; that the damages recovered were live times the amount of the loss; that the bankrupt had dis posed of the pretnises•descrilied sai the declaration to John and Mary Anne end that conse quently they were not his, whe tt as, he swore at the trial that the interest of then; was in himself; that the premises burned were lint those described in the policy of insurance ; that the proper premium had not been paid to the Company ; that the policy had not been received by Mr.. 11'uldegrave; and that the asssigiirea, by making Wahlegrave a bankrupt, were enabled to hrin4 him forward as a witness, whsle they excluded Mr. Ilignold, lay snaking haul Defendant. George Clarke took R copy e,f the hand-bill for publication to the ollice of the British Luminary. • London weekly Paper. The CHIEF JUSTICE milted of what number of members the iisi.ociatioo coo•i•ted ? Defendant's Counsel replied 80,000. W. Chambers, publisher of the Paper, proved the publication, and stated that the circulation on that day was 2,000. Mr. Bigooltl, jun. believed his father to be pos &costal of ci.to.illtr4l,:e property. bin was unable to enter into particulars. lie could not say that his profits ►n the last year, as Secretary, were 5 or G,oool. Cross.e.rwarined.—His father is not on good terms with him ; lie was not secretary at present. The former action was not brought at the desire and by the direction: of Wablegrave ; Mr. Lamb, who con ducted it, was not his agent; he was not in any way professionally concerned in it ; .lid not esquire into the facts of the rase. The meetings to inspire into the Society's athirs were sidisequetit to the trial. lie-examined.—The trial gave rise to the meet ings ;iltol ;sot attend the first of them. was the MeioticPe case. Mr. S rjeant COPLEY «aid, he was extremely happy to address gentlemen who could judge calm ly and tensperately on the occasion of the present action; and he was confident they would believe that no intenti of maligning Air. Waldegrave, of imputing fraud to him, or M describing him to the world as a man who heal VOIU:It;Irlly Net tire to bus own house, for the purpose of rubbing the Norwich 'hoots Society, could have actuated his client. It was necessary fur theta to revel to mind the cir cuinotencei under which the publication took place. Mr. [lipoid had been fur many years Secretary of the Society ; his exertions had been highly bench ciel to it ; *. but he was not in throw circumstances of afiluence he was this day represented to be. lie had been removed from the situation he held, whether from a misconception of his conduct on the part of the Members, or through the instal mentality and agency of his own son, lie should not then inquire. The former action had been brought egaitist him as Secretary, sod though he had considered it as a duty he owed die Members to defend the action, lie lisd never set up. or glanced at, such a defence as fraud on the part of Mr. Al'altlegrave. The result of the action gave rise to various meetiogsi, in which the propriety of Mr. B.'s conduct and motives was queNtioned and strougly iirrnigued. Ile, eccorthogly, thou ht it a course which prudence dictated, to draw up u sum mary of the circumstances whlch, in his mind, jus t tilled him in resisting :fir. W.% demand, until an investigation was entitle, and is coropellitig 'aim to establish the justice of his claims. That was the sole motive of the ptildit al inn— to convince the Members that lie lied nut acted improperly in defending'; the octioh, to vool,cat- his ow n character, aid thew that he hail strong groinols for proceeding as be had. The Learned Counsel than examined and com mented on various p tit- of the puhlitution, contend iu.z there was ninth colon r of truth to justify his client in Ins asset timis. '1 he cause of the fire had never been proved till that nay. The policy had, in point of fact, been seta to Air. IValilegrave. but he tun being at home, had been returned to the Society for alteration. The premises were partly mortgaged to John and Mary Anne "Vella. The whole, lie continued. was merely an etliort by Mr. Bigtiold, to sheet the members that he was Wood to pot the facts in a trout of inquiry before lie paid away funds of which he was intrusted with the superinitaidence mid management—at all events, he we* sole they would not consider it as a case of damages. The publication not possibly have the effect of injurjoig Mr. Waldegitive's chi:- racier—every shade of suspicion had been removed from him by the pircalliiig public trial —a trial much discussed and itiquirt d isitn, and notorious in ,every part of the knigiloin. lie could, therefore, have stisqiined do datonge from any thing said of him by Mr. Bignold. The 4..71;;EF JlATtns, iii the course of his charge to the Jury. observed, he greatly reorited to ecr a soli brought foilvard in a public t'ou't of Justus', to give evidence against his own father—to de, P4f• to the extein ul Ins failles'a property, fur the purpose of causing heavier damage. to be ivy:ward apiiist hint. Whoever might have been the cense of producing Into, it wait a thing that ou4lit tout to have l?ren dune—lad if by had ap. ~►.• :,,;;~~ w „ pealed ,af hinacelf. deplorahle muet he the state of his feelings. Serjeaut Lens said something in extenuation of Mr. Bignold, junior, which was not audihie to Tile Jury, without leaving the rum, found a vety diet fur the Plaintiff—Damages, 500(. ' LOW V. ASTITIPHEL. Thitr was in action for urn., ey had and received ; it woa brought by the Plaintiff, one of the cum tnoners of Hackney Mandl, against the Lleferidant, ass bead-marker of the rattle turned into gr..ze dur. M I ; 0 cell:tits purl of the Fear therein, for an alleged „. re k arv ,,, s 4 ass, fur mocking two head of cattle, as ,161,14 and it cow. The D:lendarst offered to pay OA. a head, the old cheige—the Defendant insisted ou, and ultimately received Qs. hi. producing an or der of the Court Baron to that effect, of A l ai! 1817. The object of the action was to try the right ot . the . ttouit Baron to advance the demand opium all the commoners. On the part of the Plaintiff two witnesses proved the tender and rcflisal of Is. and viyinetit of As. for the marking; nod that the charge hail been raised at different times from Id. up to 2•. al. Defendant's Counsel produced a local Act of Parliament, empowering the General Court Baron to make by-laws for the regulation of the common. mid the steward of the manor read from the pre, sentations of the homage Pevrral resolutions of the Court, directing payments fair ins king cattle, and in particular, two of April, 18 I7—the fir.t speci fying the sum of , 2s. Gil. a head kr the list time, and tid. after, mid the iierroid providing tlint the overplus of such profits, after reasonable allowance to the markers and drivers, should be applied to drat.:ing and improving the COIIIIIIOII. Tile Cute, therefore, resolved itself into a question of whether the Court Baron bud authority to make such regulations. A verdict wits found for the Plaintiff for 4s. cud a case directed to be made out for argumrot. THE DROPPED CHILD. (FURTHER PARTIEVLARL) The public cariosity was very much recited reMerdav respecting the child dropped at the dour of Mrs. imam's., 24, Tastes', .et, Gray's-Ism-lane. The name and addrem of the mother ore still kept a secret by the parish officers, as when Mrs. Symons, the midwife, was examined, all the miter witnesses had to withdraw; bat it is certain that she is as lady of independent fortune, said • widow, her resith flee is in the City-road, and the name of the father it Tissue. Further respecting them we cannot state, bait that ota the examination of Ann hymn..., it appeared that this is the third child disposed of in a similar manner-- On Saturday, as soon as the child was horn, it was given (Picture it was washed or dressed, Paul wrapped up in a iettanel petticoat), by Mrs. Symons to a Mrs. White, wife of Jano s White, auctioneer, 43, Maiden-lane, Covent-garden, to he carried by her to nurse to a sister of Mrs. Sy 9, lodging in a two-pair back -fount at Nu. 5, Silver-street, at the hack of Clerkenwell Sessions House, said whose husbau.4 (Mr. Evans) is clerk to Mr. Cable, stove-grate-manatfarturer, Little SalTrou-bill, and Mrs. White is sistta- to M.* Evans. Mr.aucl Mrs. Evans not living on the best terms, she left him about three days before, and went to live in Dover-NI eet, St. George'e.fields; on which Mes.Wlaite agreed to leave the child to nurse with Mrs. Winter, a respeciabie wornan, living iq the front room, at the same time telling her it helonged ba a lady; that the birth was to be concealed; that be well satisfied for her trouble, and that baby-clothes woidd be sent. Mrs. Warder agreed to the proposal, the cloths w. rc sent her, and she kept the child until Tuesday. when Mrs. Symons, the midwife, called un her, and informed her it a as the lady's intention to send the child to the country to be nursed, and that when she sent it there she only meant to leave it for a few days. Mrs Symons then gave her seven shillings fur the time she kept it, and told her to bring the child to her lodgings, at the house of Mr. Fthilcia Skegg, who keeps an academy at 28, fiirBy-street, Hation•earden. Mrs. Winter accordingly cleaned and dressed the child, and carried it to Mrs Symons, at four o'clock ain Tuesday even ing, and in her way thither she called into Mr. %Villiams's (grocer) shop, within two doors of her own, near Minton. hill; sbewed the child, and related the mysteri..us tie. enmstances relative to its birth, and that she was then tak ing it back to the midwife in order to be sent 10 aurae. At halt-past seven o'clock the same evening, it being v , ry dark, a servant to Mr. Cullingwuaid, butcher, in Brook's. market, picked up an old rash market-basket at the door of Mr. James, 24, Trish-street, mid on examining it, he foood it to contain au infant, wrapped up in a piece of old blanket, •nd fait asleep, there were a few baby cloths in the *mac basket, but of the meanest description, none of the clods! it had at Mrs Winter's being with it, except the little shay it had ou ; the child was takes into Mr. James's, said ales. wards carried to the work-hoarse, where after it awoke, it went into strong convulsions, in which state it remained a considerable length of time, owing to its having received a large quantity of syrrup of poppies to make it steep. Shortly after the child was found, woman 010 happened to pass that way, and seeing a great crewel collected, in. quired the cause, of which she was iliformed. Lt her way home, gibe called at Mr. Williams's, the grocer, in Silver street, Turnmill-street, where she related the circumstance of • child being found, as already stated. Mrs. Williams, recollecting the child that Mrs. Winter ,chewed her, and whose birth was involved in mystery, went immediately and related the story to Mrs. Winter, and desired her to pa to the work-house, to satisfy herself if it was that child Or no Winter being otherwise employed, did nut go heisulf, but sent her daughter to see the child, who immediately knew it to be the same her mother carried to Mrs. S s at four o'clock—she identified the piece of blanket and the shirt, but all the other clothes were chauged for those Of OW meanest. Mrs. Winter, Mr. James, and all the willnes.rs who knew any thing of the matter were sent forlo the Wnek house, where they were strictly examined. Mrs. Ault Symons, the midwife, and all the witnesses had lien to at. tend the Magistrates at Halton-garden. Mac. Symons, with great reluctance, and from fear of im prisonment, was then under the arc-ssity of Who; the lady's name, her address, and the mime of the father, all of which are carefully concealed at present ; Fut she tae. quently contradicted herself in the other parts of Inc (*.h. deuce, that she was considered as an accompliee in the crime, and conspired to make away with the rhal'J, ma whirl, she was ordered in custody. Her statement Was. that she was ordered by the mother of the child to send it to aurae into the consitry, the better to conceal its birth; that after Mr;. Winter left her the child, at t tor o'clock 1111 Tllestio s h e gas it to a woman named Mary Long, who told lire she lived at 43, Raguigge.wells.road, near Battle-bridge. She gave MR. y Long two guineas as hush money, and was to pay her 104. week fur nursing the child, and that she did not see her since, nor before. The officer' have made thestrietest in quiry, but no such person as Mary Long can be made out. The basket, ill which the child was foetid, proves to have been in the possession of Mrs. Symons. Ma's Symons on, to have given the child some syrup of puppies, as sin" said, to prevent its crying, when she wave at to Mary Long ; the persons iu the house. saw Mrs:Wooer come watt, the child, but saw no Mary Long take it •way. Juba. Lim tank, the officer, had a w-arrant to take the lady Iwo ra m s. truly, but owing to her daugerous awe, and • physician road surgeon attendiag her, she could 1101 be remov. .1. Yesterday the parish officers attend.d in Halton earth n, where Am. Symons, the midwife, a gem... Hooking wa m as wan brought up; and the charge agaiast her twang Into da• Mr. Fratams Skeyg, her landlord, and Mr. J am. a W tow, auctioneer, 43, Maiden-lane, Covent-garden, became Lir mutate is 401. each. Air A '} j~+"~r . •~v'~' ~~►# .~ • ~ 1 H .~. ../:,