The Sun. — London, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

RNING SUN LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 2. This being the first Seal after Michaelmas Term, the Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn Hall to-day. THOMAS V. SHIRLEY. .MT : TENNANT said he was instructed to make an ap plication to the Court in this case, which had been ren dered necessary by the last new orders. Previous to the issuing of those orders, all causes in Chancery were distinguished under two heads—they were either Rolls' causes, and marked accordingly, or they were Lord Chancellor's senses ; and in that state things remained, in the interval between 1837 and November last. In that month there was an application made to the Vice- Chancellor of England in the cause of Thomas and Ferrers, and on the 11th of November, the day on which the last new orders were issued, his Honour pronounced an order in the cause for a Sergeant-at-Arms. The propriety of that order it was now desired to dispute, on the ground that in pursuance of the new callers the cause of Thomas and Shirty had been appropriated to be heard before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. By the Act creating the two new Vice-Chancellors the jurisdiction of each was defined, and neither of them had any jurisdiction whatever to interfere in any way with orders made by any of the other Vice-Chancellors. In this state of circumstances, an order having been pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor of England in a cause which was set down before Vice- Chancellor Knight Bruce, he (Mr. Tennant) had to ask leave to give a notice of motion for next Thurs day, to discharge that order. The LORD CHANCELLOR at once gave the leave required, OLDPIELD V. COBBETT. Mr. Cobbett, the son of the celebrated Member for Oldham, was again brought up before the Court, upon habeas, having been committed to the fleet for con tempt, in not paying certain costs, for the purpose of making a motion of an appeal from the order thad had been pronounced against him. Mr. V. PARKER submitted that Mr. Cobbett could not be heard until he had cleared his contempt by paying the costs he had been ordered to pay. The LORD CHANCELLOR held that Mr. Parker's ob jection was fatal to Mr. Cobbett's application, and re fused to hear his motion until he had cleared his con tempt. BLUNDELL V. GLADSTONE—BLUNDELL V. STONER— BLUNDELL V. BLUNDELL. The arguments in this part-heard case were then re , Mr. HODGSON proceeding to address the Court on be• half of the plaintiff, following Mr. Tinney. The arguments had not concluded when the Court rose, ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 2. The MASTER of the BoLLS sat this morning in the Rolls' Court, Chancery-lane, and heard several motions, none of which were of any general interest, after which his Lordship rose,there being no causes ready for hearing. VICE CIIAIVCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 2. (Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.) TOLEDO V. VIETA. His Hotroutt on entering Court this morning proceeded to give judgment in this case, the hearing of which had occupied several days. It appeared to him that there was only one question in the case, because, if there had been no decision at all in the French Court, it was im possible to say that the case was not one into which that Court would have made inquiry before it parted with the trust fund ; for there was nothing whatever to impugn, first of all, the proceedings which were had in France, in consequence of what were called "lettres rogatoires" sent from the Court of Spain, or to impugn the proceedings taken in Spain, in what might be considered as a com mission of lunacy, and by which it was found on the 11th of April, 1840, that the Duke del Infantado was of un sound mind. It was stated: in the bill that the Spanish Commission had found that the Duke's im becility appeared to have commenced in 1836, and to have gone on gradually increasing until the year 1840. However that might be, it was certain that in the spring of 1840 the Duke was, in the opinion of those who exa mined the matter in France, of unsound mind. Then the question arose, whether he was of such unsound mind at the latter end of the year 1839, and the four first days of the year 1840; so that it should be held that Vieta was not legally constituted the trustee of the fund in question for the benefit of Madame Josepha Monte negro and her children. Now it was impossible to observe the manner in which the gift was effected without entertaining very great doubts about the integrity of the transaction, because it appeared from Vieta's own answer that 400,000 f., raised on the Duke's estates in Calabria, were first handed over to Madame Montenegro as a gift ; that she then returned them to the Duke ; and that the Duke afterwards dealt with the sum of 250,000 f., now in dispute, as his own property, by transmitting it to this country, and investing it in Eng lish stock. The Court of Premiere Instance at Paris had found that Vieta had been legally constituted the trustee of the property, inasmuch as although it appeared that the Duke del infantado had been very weak in intellect at the time of the gilt, he was not of unsound mind. It was to be observed, however, that besides the facts brought before the French and Spanish Courts, there was the singular circumstance of sa inventory having been taken of the Duke's personal property, from which it appeared that his personal assets were in a must extraordinary state, the whole of his clothes and furniture amounting in value to no more than 387 francs. It was clear that if the de cision of the French Court did not stand in the way, the whole matter should be inquired into by that Court ; and the only question then was, whether the sentence of a foreign Court should prevent that Court from examin ing a case brought before .it. He did not think that it should ; and it was evident that if a contrary doctrine were laid down it might lead to a suspicion of the English law in cases in which it differed from the laws of other countries. He would say, therefore, after considering the whole of the papers, that he was of opinion that there was quite enough of doubt in the case to warrant him to make the order for the injunction to restrain the transfer of the stock.—lnjunction granted. (Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.) IN RE WITTY. This case, which has already appeared at considerable length in The Sun, engaged his Honour during the early part of the morning in his private room. Mr. Spencer, Mr. Swanston, Mr. J. Russell, and other Counsel engaged in the cause, were in attendance. The hearing was strictly private. SMITH V. SPENCER. In this cause, which stood over to be spoke to from the last week of term, Mr. Pickner addressed the Court on the issues already decreed in it by his Honour ; but nothing arose of the slightest public interest. FISHER AND OTHERS V. WICKS AND OTHERS. Mr. SWANSTON, en behalf of the plaintiffs in this case, moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants from receiving the rents of certain leasehold pre mises, and to have a receiver appointed. The plain tiffs were the surviving partners of Thomas Fisher, with whom they had carried on businesss as bankers in Cambridge, and they claimed, as equi table mortgagees, for a sum of 8001., of the estate of a Mr. Redfarm, deceased. The defendants were the executors of Redfarm, and Sarah, his widow, who also had been appointed executrix by her husband's will, and had since married Wicks. Redfarm bequeathed to his wife all his effects and personal estate. She had also obtained possession of the testator's leasehold estate, which consisted of certain premises in Cambridge, where he during his life had carried on business as a tailor and brogue-maker. The goodwill of the trade carried on by Redfarm in those premises had been made over by his widow to a person named Bailin], in consideration of which the latter paid her an annuity of 40/. a year, and the present application was to restrain the defendants from receiving the rents and profits of the testator's estate, and the annuity of 40/. His HoNomt—This is in f act a creditor's suit. Mr. SWANSToN—It is so. His HONOUR—Take then aa order for the receiver ship without an injunction. HOWELL V. TYLER. This was a suit instituted by the plaintiffs as legatees against the execut ors of the legator. The bill prayed an account of what was due to the of for p i. rine_ipal , and interest in outn : , and that that respect e f a legacy plaintiffs, accord ing amoun might b e d ecr eed to be paid to th e to their respective interests,out of the personal estate of the executor and heir-at-law, or, in case of defici ency, mortgag e . Hi s account applicable to th e amount to be raised by rtg Hi s H O NOUR decreed the ordinary the personal estate of the debtor of a legacy. The COURT rose at a quarter past four o'clock. (Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.) His rioNoux took his seat at ten o'clock this morni ng in one of the New Courts, Old-square, Lincoln's Inn. This Court adjoins that of the Vice - Chancellor .. Bruc e m The surprise generally felt a t the astonishing expedition with which these Courts have been erected was increased this morning by a view of the interior. Ihe buildings are not more substantial than the general arrangements are elegant, and complete. Curiosity, or business caused the Court to be crowded during the whole day. JONES V. S3IITH. His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. By the settlement made upon the marriage of David Jones with the defendant Sarah Jones, then Sarah Hartley, which was dated the 30th of August, 1820, the messuages, lands, and premises, which it was the object of this suit to redeem, were conveyed to the use of David Jones for life, with remainder to the use of Thomas Hartley, brother of Sarah, during the life of David Jones, to preserve contingent remainders, with remainder to the use and intent that Sarah should receive out of the premises an animal sum of 1001. by way of jointure, and in bar of dower, with remainder to the first and other sons, with remainder to David Jones in fee. The settle ment contained a power to David Jones to charge the property- with 2,000/. David Jones died on the 22d of February, 1836, leaving the plaintiff, the eldest son of the marriage, and entitled, as such eldest sop, to the messuages and premises in the settlement, subject to a charge not exceeding 2,0004 It was admitted that the power to charge this sum was well exnuted, and that Esther Smith, as the executrix of her late husband, was entitled to the benefit of it. The bill was filed to redeem the property comprised in the settlement, upon payment of that sum. The defendant, Esther Smith, claimed 4,000/. to be due to her late husband's estate, and submitted that the estate could only be redeemed upon payment of that larger sum. On the 20th of August, 1820, the premises were claimed for a term of 500 years, to secure the re payment of a sum of 1,8001. and interest. A further sum of 2,000/. was advanced by Thomas Smith to David Jones, upon which a deed was executed by the latter, purporting to be in execution of the power contained in the settlement. The question was whether Esther Smith, widow of Thomas Smith, and defendant in the cause, was entitled in equity to the benefit of the term of 500 years, for securing the 2,0001. excee di ng the amount with which David Jones had power to charge the premises. This de pended upon whether Thomas Smith was affected with the necessary and instructive notice of the set tlement of August, 1820, before advancing his money. An account was sought by the plaintiff of all the transac tions connected with both deeds. Mr. Parrey had been appointed as receiver of the rents and profits under the word of those deeds. His Honour, after commenting upon the evidence as to constructive notice, and citing a number of cases on the subject, pronounced the follow ing deffee :—Refer it to the Master to inquire whether by thellealings and transactions between Mrs. Smith and Mr. Parrey after the death of David Jones, Mrs. Smith had constituted Mr. Parrey her agent. The usual de cree for redemption must be made, treating Esther Smith as mortgagee for 4,0001. The costs of the suit, so far as it is a suit to redeem, must follow the usual decree in a suit for that purpose. But so far as regards the costs, which have been occasioned by the litigation respecting Mrs. Smith's interest in the 500 years, I shall follow the precedent afforded me in the case of Hanbury v. Lich field, before Sir John Leach, and give no costs for those parts of the suit. Liberty to apply must be reserved. LITTLE V. GREVILLE. In this case the bill was filed for the purpose of com pelling the defendants to pay into Court the sum of 6,0001., of which they had become possessed in the character of trustees, under the will of the testator, Mr. Priest. The arguments, not being concluded at the rising of the Court, are to be resumed to-morrow. COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Dec. 1. SMITH v. WALPOLE. This was an action upon a bill of exchange for the sum of 2001, brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman, living in the Albany, against the acceptor, Mr. Edward Walpole. The bill was drawn in October, 1838, by a person named Griffith, and the defendant pleaded that it. was an accommodation bill, for which he had never re ceived consideration, and secondly, that when it became due it was not in the hands of plaintiff but of a gentle man named Curry. Mr. Lambert—ln 1839 I was solicitor to Mr. Curry, a military gentleman, and in the latter end of that y ear I had placed in my hands, by him, a bill for 2001., dated October, 1838. I presented it for payment, and it was dishonoured. I wrote to defendant about it. Mr. Smith applied to me about the bill some months after it became due. I told him that Mr. Curry had told me that he had given only 171. for the bill to a Mr. Goldshire. I ultimately agreed to let him have the bill for 171. An agreement was drawn up, dated Sept. 14, 1840, between myself and Mr. Smith, in which it was alleged that the bill belong ed to Smith, and that, in consideration of the sum of 171., the bill should be delivered up to him, which was accordingly done. I was acting as the agent of Lieut. Curry, and it was agreed that Mr. Smith should not sue Lieut. Curry for two years. Smith said he had had a great many bill transactions with Griffith, and had lost a good deal of money by him. It was then proposed on the part of the defendant to read the agreement, but Counsel for the plaintiff objected, on the ground that such a document could not be given in evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. YATES V. ASTON. _ _ _ This was an action to recover a sum of 1,5001. with interest, being money lent to the defendant and his brother. It appeared that in 1823 a gentleman named Black, advanced a sum of 1,2001. on mortgage to the defendants. In 1833 Mr. Black wishing to obtain back his principal, applied to the defendants, who being unable to pay the money, called upon the plaintiff to advance them that sum, with an additional sum of 3001., which the defendants required. Mr. Yates agreed to advance 1,5001. for that purpose, and accor dingly Mr. Yates paid off the mortgage with interest and costs, amounting to 1,4001. and odd, and handed the ba lance, 621., to the defendant's solicitor. That took place in the year 1833, and the interest was regularly paid by the defendants up to November, 1836. The defendants pleaded that they were never indebted, and also the sta tute of limitations. Plaintiff's solicitor proved the advance of the money to the defendant. and the drawing up of the agreement, and also, that in August, 1836, he received 71. 10s. in terest, from the defendant William Aston. Mr. KELLY for the defendant, submitted that the plaintiff could not recover in an action under the present form. The action was in debt, and for money lent, in stead of having declared upon the deed. After some discussion between Counsel, it was agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed, with interest, amounting to 1,9521 . , and to prepare a special case for the opinion of the full Court. CRIM. CON.-ORFEUR V. WATKINS. Mr. KELLY (with whom was Mr. Hoggins) stated the case. The plaintiff complained against the defendant of the deepest injury man could inflict upon man—that his happiness was totally destroyed, and he left the father of seven children, who could no longer enjoy the affection and love of their mother, and who could never again men tion her name without a blush. It was for that injury that the plaintiff now sought compensation at the hands of the Jury. The plaintiff was in a situation of life which enabled him to support his wife and family in comfort and respectability. He was the part-owner and captain of a vessel called the Leda, trading to the Mediter ranean. He married his wife in 1825, when she was about eighteen, and he himself about twenty-seven. They were married with the consent of her parents and friends, and she was aware of his profession, and that it would call him away from home for months at a time. In November, 1840, he was at home, after the conclusion of his fourth or fifth voyage. They had always lived in the most affectionate and happy manner ; the eldest boy was now sixteen years of age, and there were several daughters, the eldest of whom was about twelve, and the youngest about two. They resided in East-lane, Ber mondsey. On the 17th of November, 1840, the plaintiff sailed to the Levant, on board the Leda, his eldest son accompanying him. During his absence he had several letters from his wife, couched in the usual terms of affection ; but on his return, in the month of August last he received a letter of a very ex traordinary nature. Before he read that letter, how ever, he would show the terms of affection on which he lived with his wife, as shown in the letters addressed to him by his wife. [The Learned Counsel here read ex tracts from some of the letters, which were couched in a very affectionate strain.] However, on the arrival of the plaintiff at Falmouth, he received a letter, which he would now read to the Jury. Mr. TRESIGER, for the defendant, objected to the letter being read until it was shown that a criminal inter course had previously taken place between the plaintiff's wife and the defendant. Mr. KELLY would contend that he was entitled to read the letter. :Its object was to blind the husband, and to impose upon him a child which was not his own. He was prepared to make the letter evidence in the cause. The COURT did not think the letter could be read at present. Mr. KELLY then proceeded. He believed there could be no doubt of the facts which he should lay before them, for the purpose of establishing his case. Plaintiff had left England at the latter end of November, and the letter at Falmouth apprised him that she had been confined on the 15th of August, and what created the strongest suspicion in his mind was that in all the letters she had addressed to him while he was abroad she had never mentioned a word of her being enciente. The plaintiff came to London imme diately, and after a great many shifts and evasions, he ascertained that his wife had left her home, and that in stead of her being confined on the 15th August, she was not confined till the 3d of October. The defendant, of whom he wished to say but little, was a young man who Ind been for some years on the most intimate terms with the family of the plaintiff. He would pass over the fami liarities which would be proved more directly in evi dence, and which would leave no doubt on the minds of the Jury that the criminal intercourse had taken place betwen the parties. The only remaining question was the amount of damages. If it was shown that the plain. tiff ill-treated his wife, :that he had left [her short of money, or had ever left her, unless when compelled by his duty, that would, of course, lessen their amount ; but if that could not be shown, then he would leave it to the Jury to say what damages that man should pay who had inflicted so deep a wrong upon the plaintiff. They should also take into account that the plaintiff would now have to bring up these children himself, they being deprived of the countenance and support of their mother. He would now leave the case in their hands, and he was sa tisfied that they would give such damages as the plaintiff was entitled to under these distressing circumstances. The following witnesses were then examined Frederick Charles Fordyce produced an examined copy of the registry of the marriage of the plaintiff with Hester Richards, 27th March, 1825. Jane Robson Kidner—l am the wife of W. Kidner, a butcher, living near Bermondsey. I know the plaintiff, who is master of a vessel. I was present at the marriage. Her father was a ship-chandler, and she was about 18 at the time. Captain Orfeur was from 25 to 27. I visited them after their marriage, and they appeared to be very naPPY and comfortable. Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER— They were living seen her tweilre at F.ast-lane, Bermondsey.. I have not been more than twice in th • s h a o house s m e for y h the ous e with five e rSears, husband dt also l shoe in n e time. I never aw that time. them more frequently before that plaintiff and Agnes saw westeoe the defendant Watkins at their house. his j v j was present at the marriage of c e visiting th er. there. esraew. bars. thought e ~ o a r t and have r last in been e t n h e in month the habit ofe u l y o f . they lived very happily to- I live in Union -street five times in the course ofrooamug3:e.ae there. I have some times seen Mr. Orfeur at h tetirace, Bermondsey. livedhave known Mrs. Eliza Ellis-1 live at Covingt o . I know the family of Mrs. Orfeu ll ; l near me. My Orfeur since she was a child. The oungest two father was in the sea service. The ' ptillteintiff has seven the house, and happily together. , children alive—the eldest 16, and years old. I have been very frequently at Y was often absent for months at a time ways appeared to live very an ir d . t o h r eir eu a r l Mrs. Orfeur's father died about four years ago,at sea. lived d bu as t previously to that tim e Ca p tain and Mrs. Orfe ur part of their family. I know William Watkins the de fendant. He is a pilot, and has two steam -tugs_ 1, Lie Flora and the Fiddler. His father also owns some ves sels. Have often seen the defendant at Mrs. Orfeur's when the plaintiff was absent. To a stranger he would appear to be her master. I have seen him pull her on his knee, kiss her, and put his arms round her neck fre quently. I have seen the defendant and Mrs. Orfeur on the sofa together. They were lying down. At anoth©r time she appeared to be lying in the defendant's arms on the sofa. I saw either him or her pull down her clothes, which were up nearly to her knee. That occurred about three weeks after last Christmas—the other familiarities I have seen before and since Christ mas. I have seen the defendant there as early as seven in the morning. He was then washing himself. I helped to make the bed that day, and remarked that it looked as if two persons had slept in it. I thought so at the time. I saw William (the defendant) get over the garden wall about eleven at night coming into Mrs. Orfeur's premises. I have often seen them walking' and sitting in the rope-walk behind the house. He generally had one arm round her waist and THE SU N, LONDON, FRIDAY, DECP.4II!. BER 8, 1841 the other in her bosom. She sometimes us ed to sit , upon his knee. His mother used frequently to come for him and he used to hide ft om her. I have known defendant remain till eleven .or twelve at night, when Mr. Orfeur was away. I have known him throw things at the window at night, and she used to open the window. On one occasion she came down stairs, and let him in. She had been in bed, and had a shawl on over her night dress. I went in one morning, at nine, to Mrs. Orfeur's bed-room, to fetch the youngest child away, and William was in her bed-room. Y heard him, last summer, ask Mrs. Orfeur when she meant to be up, and she said she did not know. He said, " I hope you will, before Old Harry (the plaintiff) comes home." They did not think I was near them at the time, and were confused when they saw me. I have seen him fre quently come to supper, and they always supped by themselves in the best parlour. Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—My house is very close to Mr. Orfeur's. I have been lately living on some property of my mother's. I have known William since we were children together. lam twenty-one, and I think he is about two years older. It is about three years since I saw him first at Mrs. Orfeur's. I never saw any familiarities till Capt. Orfeur went his last voyage. There was a female servant in the house the time I saw them lying on the sofa. I said nothing when I came into the room on that occasion. I should say I have seen them kissing and sitting on his knee 15 or 20 times. I once said to Mrs. Orfeur, that if Captain Orfeur came home he would not like it. There was a glass door to the room where the sofa is, and anybody looking in could see what was going on. I saw something thrown up at the windows from my own door. It was then eleven at night. I was at the time living at No. 25. When I spoke to Mrs. Orfeur she said it was no business of Captain Orfeur's, or mine either. When I saw them on the sofa it was after Christmas, and. about seven in the evening. There was no candle in the room, but a fire. He never told me that the steam-tugs were his father's, but he made them over to him lately. I was told so. I knew William Morgan. I have met him at Mrs. Orfeur's twice. I saw John Baker there at two parties. Mrs. Orfeur's mother was married again to a Mr. Batchelor, about two years ago. Susan Matthews—l was servant in the house of de fendant's father. I went oa the 20th of May, 1840, and remained a year. The defendant lived with his father during that time. I have frequently seen Mrs. Orfeur at Mr. Watkins's house. I saw them together on one occasion when the family were gone out. She asked for the defendant, and walked into the back parlour, where he was. She sat on his knee by the fire, , his arm round her waist, and her arm round his neck. At another time I saw her sitting on Mr. William's knee. Her clothes were above her knees and his hand was under her clothes. That was in the back parlour. On a Sun ,:lay afternoon they were in the back parlour together for s' son time, and the door shut. Bet Pearse—l am 16 years old. I was servant to M rs . o r tor for seven or eight months. I went there on the 13th of December last. Captain Orfeur was then away . M r . wil; l 2iam Watkins was there almost every evening. He stopr an hour or an hou and a halt Saw them at one time, d 1 1 ._rs. Orfeur sitting on his knee, and his arm round her waist. Mark Davy—l am a carman. I lived in the Rope ground behind Mr. Orfeur's house. I have seen Mrs. Orfeur and the defendant in the rope-ground at eleven, half-past eleven, and at all hours. He sometimes bad his arm round her waist, and sometimes round her neck. Hannah Everett—l live inWater-lane, Dockhead, I lived as servant with Mrs. Orfeur for four months before Betsy Pearce. I saw William Watkins there almost every day. I saw them walking together in the rope ground late at night. I saw them together in the back parlour, Mrs. Orfeur sitting on his knee. I went into Mrs. Orfeur's bed-room, one morning, about a fortnight before I left. I saw William Watkins lying in the bed with Mrs. Orfeur. His back was towards me, but I knew him very well. Mrs. Or feur told me never to answer the bell at night. It used to be rung two or three times a week. Ido not know who answered it. Elizabeth Orfeur—l am the wife of Captain John Orfeur, the plaintiff's brother. I live at Yarmouth. I supplied Mrs. Orfeur with about 100/. during my bro ther's last voyage. I have been often at plaintiff's house, and have seen the defendant there. George Reed—l am a pilot. I took the brie. ' . Leda from St. Katherine's Docks to the Downs on the 22d of November, 1840. Captain Orfeur then came on board, and went on his voyage to Constantinople and Syria. The defendant came as far as Limehouse-reach. He is a waterman, and assisted with a boat and kedge-anchor. Robertßullem—Deposed that he went the voyage with Captain Orfeur, and returned in August, 1841. Mr. Lock, the Registrar of Shipping, said the steam tugs Monarch and Fiddler, were entered as the property of William Watkins. A new Registry was made in Oc tober, 1841. Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Jury for the de fendant. He said it was no part of his duty or his in clination to treat the plaintiff's claim with levity. The principal witness in the case was Miss Ellis, who ap peared to treat the matter with much unconcern, but he did not mean to say that the injury of which the plain tiff complained was not a very serious one indeed. He could feel for his sufferings and privations, and for his situation, in being deprived of a protectress for his children ; but he called upon the Jury to weigh the whole circumstances of the case, which gave it a charac ter he never recollected before to have witnessed. He trusted he would satisfy the Jury that whatever the in jury might be that the plaintiff had sustained personally, what he had lost was of a very trifling and valueless na ture. The parties had been married for 16 years, and had a family of seven or eight children, and the de fendant was, at the time these transactions were said to have taken place, not more than 22 years of age. These were circumstances of a very peculiar character, and de served their serious consideration. Another point to which he would refer the Jury was that there had been no evidence given as to the station in life or property of the defendant. If the wife had been a virtuous character it was impossible, from , her age and character, that the de fendant would have taken the liberties that were alleged. On the contrary, the most indecent familiarities were openly permitted and encouraged by Mrs. Orfeur, and although seen by several parties, not the least notice was taken of it, showing that she was hardened in her guilt. Let them then look at the position of the plaintiff, who was scarcely ever at home, and at the absence of any evi dence to show what terms the plaintiff and his wife were living previously to the last voyage, and the natural infe rence must be that the affection of Mrs. Orfeur for her husband must have been for a long period diminisking. The Jury could not doubt that the overtures must have come from Mrs. Orfeur in the first instance, and that she, not the defendant, was the seducer, because it was shown that she had actually gone to the house of the defend ant's father to solicit these interviews. Now if that were so, it would form a very important ingredient in their consideration of the damages which the plaintiff was entitled to , _ and they would not give one farthing more than such a woman was to be considered worth. It appeared to him that this young man had been en trapped into a connexion which would redound to his shame and disgrace to the last hour of his life, and that, on the whole, " he was more sinned against than sinning." He did not mean by that to extenuate the offence of an adulterer, or to screen him from the penalty of such an offence. Allowance, however, must be made for the youth of the defendant, and the tempta tions thrown in his way, when a woman older than him self stooped to solicit his affections. He had fallen' a prey to arts which it was impossible for him to resist ; but he was there to pay the penalty of the law for the injury he had inflicted on the plaintiff. He would now call their attention to the circumstances of the defendant, and he would observe that they had no evidence to show that he was possessed of any property whatever. That did not prevent his being liable for whatever damages the Jury might award, lint it would form a necessary in gredient in the conclusion they should come to. He now left the case in their hands, trusting that the verdict they would pronounce would be of .4 very light charac ter, and duly commensurate with all the circumstances of the case. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN having summed up, The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da mages, 201. COURT OF EXCHEQUER,Dec. 1. CARPENTER V. SMITH. This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for the infringement of a patent, for making what is called the "Rim Lock." After Mr. KELLY had opened the plaintiff's case, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the plaintiff's specification. He admitted that his client had made a lock containing the common bolt and a spring lever bolt within the same rim. _ _ ...... Mr. KELLY admitted that they had not connected them together as in the plaintiff's lock, but contended that the placing them in the same rim was an infringe ment of the patent. Upon these admissions the case was likely to go off for consideration of the Court above, but as the Attorney- General refused to admit that the combination was new, Mr. KELLY called Mr.Cartmail, Mr. Cowper, of King's College, Mr. Bramah, Mr. Coxe, a lockmaker of twenty five years' standing, Mr. James Coley, a dealer in locks upwards of thirty years, all of whom had never seen the combination, or any lock upon the same principle, before the date of the plaintiff's patent, 1830. The lock was a most useful one. The sale was proved to be be tween five and six thousand dozen a year. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury upon this evidence. He said it had surprised him, for the model, which Mr. Cartmail had so frankly admitted to be on the same principle as that of the plaintiff, was the very model upon which upwards of 80 locks were made in 1809 for Martello Towers, which were raised for the public service. He would prove that fact, and there would be an end of the novelty of the plaintiff's lock, for if the patent were to stand, the very man who invented and made upward,: of 80 upon the same principle upwards of 30 years ago, would be prevented from ever making another or using Izis own invention. He woul d also p rove that a who street in Birmingham was furnished with locks made from the same model, and these were put up in 1825, but he had been using them ever since the time that Napoleon Bonaparte was mar ried samert' a d e o r d a t e : l ) t s o i l l r i a o t a w e tl o to M ar i a L ou i sa of Austria—(Laughter) he seemed t o remember part i cularly. He a l so prod p ap e u l r ab c i ia e o n d di : tiff's alleged invention y or combination was only claimedma t m th o hen principle e t o h t e t p g l e a or nutsi ffe d. in n d - t g fha a ee t m e tt . w a e t a c s h , t imitation of that of Mr. Chubb. If he proved all these whichp Thomas,r, v h e e d the fo m r o tir i e y l e o a f r t s h a e Ar fac s ts,:as ther e not an end of the case ? He then ca ll e d - pwah u ihd e eo l . h e a wasm, which a 'They e w m e r a e d e m u a p d w e a r o d n s ot the e ighty, gh y principle, for w o h f i c both h o l t i locksmith artello T in e ß r i l r o m ck i n , g o - f latch said Chubb' s p a t ent was pu b l i she d i n 1829, John a n a l i o r c y k . and in principle it did not differ from the plaintiff's. John Birch, a locksmith, near Birmingham, proved ' the use of locks in that place, havi ng a lock-bolt and a latch within the same rim, during the last 16 years. A number of workmen around Birmingham were called to prove that the combined principle had been long known and acted upon. It was proved that some had been made for the American market, and sometimes used in this country, but he failed to prove that the streets in Bir mingham exhibited any. They were all single latches. Mr. KELLY replied at great length. His LORDSHIP summed up, and the Jury without he sitation returned a verdict for the defendant. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 1. IN NE THEOPHILUS GAMAUFF. This day being appointed for the adjourned examina tion of the bankrupt, who carried on business in Fetter lane, Fleet-street, as a furrier, and had very large trans actions with several German houses, the Court was crowded to excess. Mr. Alderman T. Wood said that some goods had been sent to Ireland, concerning which he and the assig nees wished for information. Me should therefore hope the Court would consent to an adjournment for a short time. Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—Have the assignees any reason to suppose that there is property in the bankrupts hands, which has not yet become available to the creditors? Mr. Alderman Wood—Yes, it is supposed so. The Learned COMMISSIONER. then ordered the case to be adjourned to the 16th inst. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dec. 2. IN THE MATTER OF WM. FITZROY SCUDAMORE. Mr. CooKE, on behalf of the assignee to the insolvent's estate, moved that the Court would issue an order, di recting Captain Wish to pay over certain moneys to which the insolvent had latterly become entitled. In 1834 the insolvent, who was a person moving in an upper sphere of life, married the sister of Captain Wish, with whom he got a large fortune, and some time after became insol vent, and passed through this Court, owing a sum of 1,0101. A portion of his wife's property was appropriated to pay his debts, and Mr. Loder, a coach maker in Ox ford-street, appointed assignee. Some time after he and his lady parted, and he again passed through the Court in the year 1839. Through the death of Mrs. Fitzroy Scudamore's mother and sister, a further sum of money was willed to her, and the Learned Coun sel now applied that the Court would direct Captain Wish, who was appointed one of the executors to Mrs. and Miss Wish's wills, to pay the same to Mr. Loder. In reply to the Commissioner, Mr. Cooke said it was the wish of the assignee to act with as much kindness and courtesy towards Air. Scudamore as possible, and also that Captain Wish would at once pay over the money, only he considered he was not justified in doing so with out an order from this Court. Mr. Commissioner LAW said he could only grant a conditional order. IN RE BENJAMIN ARCHER. The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Woodruffe, and supported by Mr. Cooke. The names of upwards of 60 creditors appeared in his schedule. The Learned COMMISSIONER, after hearing lengthened evidence, said the insolvent had contracted debts without any intention of paying them, and he had also accepted accommodation bills when in a state of insolvency. He should, therefore, be remanded for eight months, from the date of his vesting order. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT. POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.— William Henry Mence, a messenger in the employ of the Post-office, was charged with stealing a letter containing one penny piece, the property of the Postmaster-General. The prisoner expressed a desire to plead guilty to the minor charge of stealing a penny, but Mr. Adolphus who (with Mr. Bodkin) appeared for the prosecution, said that it was so necessary that every irregularity on the part of those employed in the Post-office, should be thoroughly investigated, that he could not consent to the adoption of such a course, but should proceed with the case. It appeared that a letter, with a penny pinned in it to pay the postage, was put into one of the receiving houses in Drury-lane, and was in that state forwarded, in the regular manner, to the General Post-office, St. Martin's le-Grand, where the prisoner was employed as a letter stamper. Another, letter-stamper, who was employed at the same table, observed something odd in the conduct of the prisoner with regard to some of the letters. Tyr rell, the officer, was sent for, and the letter was found in the prisoner's hand firmly clenched. He resisted very much, and it was with great difficulty that the letter was taken from him. ➢Zr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the prisoner, who received an excellent character from several wit• nesses, one of whom had come up from Tamworth for the purpose. Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner guilty of the major offence. Sentence was deferred. _ _ CUTTING AND MAIMING. -- Michael Conlan was charged with cutting and wounding Mary Mahony, with intent to murder her. There was a second count in the indictment, charging him with the commission of an assault. Mr. CLARKSON having stated the case for the prose cution,:called the following witnesses : Mary Bridget Mahoney—l am living in service in Upper Stamford-street. On the 30th September I had permission to go to my father's, in John-street, Com mercial-road. I met my sister and a young man named Larkin, and just before we came to John-street we met the prisoner, who lives next door to my father. lie was walking with his wife and a man on the other side of the way. Ile called after us, making use of abusive language. I said he had better go about his busi ness, and that there was another way to make him pay for what he had said. Larking went up to him and said, " Are you aware that you are taking those young women's characters away." I told Larkin to come away, and went to fetch him away, when the prisoner struck me on the head with his fist, tore my hair, and tore my dress completely off. My mother came up, and he commenced beating her. I went borne to put on another dress, and after doing so, came out at the street door. I saw a crowd outside, and as I was goinc , out of the gate of the court he threw a stone at me, and said, " Take that." I fell senseless, and know nothing more. Before that I saw some gar den-pots thrown down from prisoner's house. I never offered him the least provocation. I was in the hospital a month. Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—I did nothing to the prisoner or his wife. Larkin, I believe, has been living with his mother. He has not lived at my mother's since this transaction. I did not see yriioner's windows smashed. George Larkin—l am a barge-builder, living at 28, John-street, Commercial-road. I remember being in company with last witness and her sister Margaret on the occasion referred to. I saw the prisoner standinc , at the head of Bond-street with two females. He called after the last witness. He called her a b—y w—e. l re monstrated with him. Prisoner said he did not want to have any quarrel with me. This witness then corroborated the evidence of the last witness as to the first assault. After the last witness had changed her dress, and had come to the front door, I saw the prisoner throwing down flower-pots out of his up-stairs window into the front yard of the house where the prosecutrix's father resided. When proSecutrix came outside the door prisoner came out of his own house with a brick in his hand. He flung it at the pro:•ecutrix, making use of the same words he did before. It struck her forehead. She fell senseless, and was taken to Mr. Menzies. He afterwards threw a pint pot at the prosecutrix's father. Ile flung nothing else. Cross-examined—l have never said that he flung a flint stone at her. I have mentioned the pint pot before this morning. I went before the Magistrates. Prisoner .was suffered to go at large on his own recognizances. I have not been very intimate at the Mahoneys' since this business. I did not see prisoner's windows broken. No violence was offered to prisoner's wife in my presence. Margaret Mahoney, sister to the prosecutrix, corrobo rated her testimony. She also saw the prisoner fling a flint-stone. John Thoms—l live near the parties. On the evening in question I heard the cry of murder, and went out. The witness then detailed the assault as described by the former witnesses. _ Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—Did y ou ever say you saw him throw a large flint-stone. Witness—Never. Dir. C. PHILLIPS—I must put in the depositions. On inquiry it appeared that no depositions had been taken. Mr. C. PHILLIPS--We are not, then, in the situation in which we ought to be. The attorney for the prosecu tion kindly gave us a copy of his depositions, and from them it appears that the witness said distinctly he saw the prisoner fling a flint stone. The a ttorney fur the prosecution said that witness had stetted so. On inquiry it appeared that the prisoner had been committed on a Judge's warrant. The policeman who took the prisoner into custody, produced a flint stone and a brick, which he had received from Margaret Mahoney, who swore that they were thrown by the prisoner. The medical man who attended the prosecutrix, stated the nature of the wound. Mr. C. PHILLIPS, for the defence, complained bitterly that no depositions had been returned. Be should prove by his witnesses, that so far from this b ein g the unpro voked assault it had been represented to be, the prisoner had received the greatest provocation. He then called Anthony Bennet t —l was in company with the pri soner, his wife, and a young woman, on t h e n i g ht in question. George Larkin came over and said t o pri soner, " What have you said to these two women, my friends." Prisoner had said nothing then. According to this witness's version of the story, the Mahoney party had begun the abuse and the assault, and had beat the prisoner and his wife before any thing was done by prisoner. George Jones, a master baker, had seen the transac tion'; and, according to his account, Larkin had begun the row by addressing the prisoner, and the two Mahoneys had bent the prisoner's wife, while Larkin beat and kicked the prisoner. William Choine passed the house of the Mahoneys at the time, and saw the girls stripped to fight, and waiting for Conlon; when he passed, the Mahoneys and Larkin seized him and beat him. The prisoner then went into his house, and the Mahoneys cam e out hooting at him. One of them had a b r i c k-b a t in her hand, and threatened nortest testified b t ri h c e k - A b i a a t h t e ti n r e ;: s n to throw it at the prisoner's house. Prisoners windows were smashed. Cross-examined by Mr. DOA NE.—Never saw any Several other witnesses wet; ,;:i row, and had flower-pots is t :,rown ; never saw any flint stone thrown, xarnined ; all of whom smashed the prisoner's windows; and one of them, nri.:.' e d Parker, stated that the prosecutrix had received the notes Magistrate, wound from falling on the step of her own door. s a t t a to te r d n , e) w r h fo e r n h t e h f e er d e ef t e h n e ce ifagi T Mr. Cutchlore, the attorney for the prosecution, took t h h e e n h ad distinctly s eena begun had what an d the n r n m i i s t h n e e d s s a e se copy yd of said i d t h m e sh e e when before etes te theth e s h t e r a w t ,t witness s t flint stone thrown before the brick was thrown. Lord DENMAN re-called the surgeon, who stated that a very heavy tall might of possibility produce a wound such as that the prosecutrix had on her forehead, but that if the prosecutrix had fallen, her face would in all probability have been injured, which was not the case. Mr. I)oANE replied. Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty. CHARGE OF MURDER.—Job John Ward, aged 28, WAS indicted for the wilful murder of Timothy Easted, by striking him on the head with a hammer. The prisoner p:eatied Not Guilty. Mr. CURWOOD conducted the prosecution, and called Mrs. Easted—l am a widow, residing at Regent-street, Regent's-park. I had a child aged one year and nine months. I lived with the prisoner. He was not the father of the child. I left it on the night of the occurrence safe in bed; there was nothing the matter with it. Prisoner asked me to go and fetch some beer. I refused at first, but at last consented, and said to him "Don't hit the baby while lam gone." Ile had before that ill-treated it. I returned in three minutes, The baby was groan ing dreadfully. I said, what have you done to the poor baby. He made no reply. I went to the child and took it up. It appeared to be dying. I ran up to Mrs. Rowe, and in consequence of her advice took the child to Mr. Burfoot the surgeon. I !nought the child back, and saw prisoner, and said to hint, " You have murdered my poor:baby." He made no reply. The child was taken to the hospital, and died in two hours. Prisoner was home the next morning. He was taken into custody. He said nothing to me about how it happened. Cross-examined by Mr. PAYNE.—I had lived with prisoner three months. We had once separated, and afterwards came together again. He was frying some meat when I came back from fetching the beer. We were to have been married. The banns were out-asked. There were other lodgers in the house. The sergeant of poricejwho took the charge at the sta tion-house was present when the prisoner was rx amined before the Magistrate. Knows the Magistrate's handwriting. The statement produced is signed by him, The statement of the prisoner before the Magistrate was then put in and read, in which he stated, that on going to the cupboard to fetch some onions, he had fallen on the child. Mrs. Easted recalled—The bed is a good distance from the cupboard. There is no probability that any one fetching any thing from it could fall on the child. A clothes-horse was standing between the bed and the cup board. That was undisturbed when I returned. I had left a hammer in a basket by the side of the cupboard. It was not probable that the clothes-horse could have fallen on the child and injured it. Cross-examined—l cannot be very accurate as to the space between the bedstead and the cupboard. Prisoner had been drinkinc , that night, but he knew what he was about. We had' been living in the place six weeks. (Two plans of the kitchen were then put in and proved.) Elizabeth Rowe—l lived in the same house with Mrs. Easted at the time of this occurrence, on the 20th of November. She brought the child to my door. It was dying. I accompanied it to the hospital. It groaned dreadfully. John Rowe, son to the last witness—l know the pri soner ; he came home on the night of the 20th of No vember, about half-past nine or ten o'clock. On the next morning I saw the prisoner going out. I followed him, intending to fetch a policeman. Prisoner asked me why I was following him, and said he would not have it. He went further down, and ran. I ran after him, and caught hold of him, and a policeman came up and asked what it was about. I told the policeman that a child had been brutally ill-used the night before by him. The policeman asked him how he came to do it, and he said he fell upon the child—that he did not beat the child. Mr. Barfoot—l am a surgeon, residing in Regent-street, Regent's Park. The child was brought to me on the night in question. It had evidently received some ex ternal violence. There was a swelling on the right side of the head, extending from behind the ear to the back of the head, arising from effusion of blood between the skin and the bone. On a post mortem examination it appeared that the skull had been fractured. In my opinion a mere falling on the child in bed would not produce such fracture. There were two fractures. I should say there must have been two blows to produce the fractures. Any blunt instrument would produce such appearances ; an instrument like a hammer would pro duce them. The fractures might possibly have been produced by one blow, but it is not probable. (The hammer found at the lodging was produced.) The wounds might be produced by such an instrument as the hammer produced. Cross-examination.—There was no separation of the skin externally. It is not absolutely impossible for a fall to have produced the injury, but exceedingly im probable. A man must have fallen from some consider able height to have inflicted such a wound with his elbow. Thomas Finder—l was the policeman who took the prisoner into custody in the street. I asked why he was given into custody, and was told it was for ill-using a little child. The prisoner said " I did not ill-use the baby. I was getting into bed, and fell upon it." Cross-examined—Rowe was close by at the time, and had just as good an opportunity of hearing what he said as I had. W. Moody—l am a police constable, and was at the station-house when prisoner was brought in. I sent to the hospital, and found the child was dead. I asked Mrs. Easted what charge she made ; she said I charge him with murdering the child. 1 said to the prisoner this is a very serious charge. He said, I never ill-used the child. I came home drunk last nigkt, and getting into bed I fell upon it. Cross-examined—l was present when the prisoner was searched. There were onions found in his pocket. What passed was in the hearing of Mrs. Easted. Mr. Robert Daudy—l am a surgeon at University College Hospital. I saw the child of Mrs. Easted when it was brought in there. It was insensible. I noticed a small mark on the right ear, and another on the right side of the head. It died in a few hours. By order of the Coroner, I instituted a post mortem examination. There was a large quantity of blood on the right side of the head, between the scalp and the skull. I found two fractures of the skull. It might have been produced by one blow, from an instrument having two points of con tact, at the same time. Such wounds might have been inflicted by an ordinary hammer, like the one produced. I should say the face, and not the claw, could have in flicted those wounds. They might have been inflicted by the side. Cross-examined by Mr. PAYNE—The largest fracture went across the whole of the parietal bone. There was another fracture extending upwards, towards the top of the head, in a slanting line. There was also another fracture. I think it very improbable that one blow could have produced all the fractures, or that a man falling on the child could have produced the injury. Lord DENMAN—CouId a drunken man falling on the child, or gettinc , into bed, and coming with his - elbows on the child, produce such a fracture ? Witness—l do not think it possible. The witness, on being shown the tools found in the prisoner's pocket, said he did not think they could produce the fractures. Mrs. Easted re-called, and examined by the COURT— I told the prisoner not to ill-use the child, because he had done so before. I have found marks on it when I re turned. On one occasion he said he had fallen down in the street with it. On another occasion he said, " Take the little b— out of bed." There were no marks on the body, but on the face. He slapped it once when it was in my arms. Mr. PAYNE addressed the Jury for the defence, and contended that there was no proof whatever that the prisoner bore any malice against the child. There were no marks of ill-usage on its body, nor did the lodgers in the house hear any screams or sounds of blows during the absence of Mrs. Easted. He should prove, by evidence, that the prisoner had always been fond of children. The. prisoner could have no mo tive for killing the child. He was not bound to maintain it. He was not even bound to marry the mother—what motive could he have had for killing it ? Again, had he been conscious of guilt, he would have run away instead of remaining as he had done. When taken into custody he had the hammer in his pocket. Would he have kept it there had he used it for such a purpose ? The Learned Gentleman then commented severely on the conduct of the policeman in questioning the prisoner. Could they convict a man of an offence for which he might be executed on the testimony of the medical men, who both admitted that it was possible the wounds might have been inflicted by a person falling on the child? It was not impossible but it might have happened as the prisoner stated, and there fore it would be much better to be on the safe side, and to give the prisoner the benefit of the uncertainty. Having concluded his address, the Learned Gentleman called the following witnesses : William Wildman—Has known the prisoner sixteen years ; he always considered him a humane man, and particularly fond of children. Several other witnesses, who had known the prisoner several years, gave similar testimony. Lord DENMAN in summing up, said there could be no doubt but that the prisoner had been the cause of the child's death, and it was for them to consider whether he had done so wilfully or accidentally. They should watch narrowly the conduct of the party charged, and it ap peared from the evidence of Mrs. Easted that when asked what he had done to the baby, he did not say I have met with an unfortunate accident, but he said "I have done nothing." When before the Magistrate, he stated that in going to the cupboard to fetch some onions he had fallen on the child. It was for them to say, taking into consideration all the circum stances of the case, what credit they might feel inclined to attach to that statement. The distance of the cup board from the bed appeared from the plan to be four feet nine and a half inches. With regard to the conduct of the police, although he did not approve of policemen putting questions to prisoners, yet he did not approve of their preventing persons in custody from making state ments, because the first statement of an innocent was very likely to be of service to him. In the present instance it was very improbable that the policeman thought the matter would ever come before a Court of justice, and it differed altogether from those inquisi torial proceedings on the part of the police, of which he had sometimes had to complain, and which might be really said to extort answers from prisoners. In the present instance the question of the police had elicited the account of the transaction most favour able to the prisoner. With regard to the medi • cal evidence, if they were of opinion that the wounds had been inflicted by two successive blows, then he was afraid that there could be little doubt on the sub ject. If they were of opinion that he killed the child accidentally, then they would acquit him of the murder, but it appeared extraordinary that if such were the case, he had not men - -ned it to the mother, and that he should have different accounts of the transaction. He given two could hardly imp,: how they co uld acquit him entirely, because if he had through Carelessness occasioned the child's death ho was guilty of manslaughter. They could not acquit him unless OK were _convinced that the child's death had been oecasinnefi by the result of the merest accident in the world. If they shetlld be of opinion that he had wilfully killed the child, it would be their duty to convict him of murder. The Jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after an absence of half an hour returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was then removed from the bar, and when brought up for judgment, The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to pass upon the prisoner the awful sentence of the law, in the most impressive and feeling manner. He said—John Job Ward, you have been convicted by a careful and considerate jury of your country, of the highest crime known to the law—a crime, lam sorry to say, greatly aggravated by its being committed on a helpless and un offending child, the offspring of the woman with whom you had been living in connection. It is perfectly clear this act was deliberately done, and that you have resorted to the most gross falsehoods in order to defend it. You was tempted by tome evil spirit in the few moments she left you in order to get something for your supper, to take that opportunity of making away with her child. It appears to me that there is no choice left for me but to leave you to that fate which you have inflicted on this unfortunate infant. The criminal law of this country should extend its protection in a peculiar manner to those who are unable to protect themselves, and I hope the example you furnish will be duly con sidered by all who live under its protection. I can make no supposition favourable to your case. It is idle to suppose any provocation could be given by this infant. It is clear to me that you intended to take away the life of this child, and your conduct, after you had committed the murder, was such as it is almost impossi ble for the human heart to conceive. After you had committed the horrible act, andiwhen the mother returned, you sat quietly preparing your supper, without utter ing a syllable. Let me beg of you to prepare for the awful change that awaits you, and let me hope that in the short time that remains to you, you will en deavour to secure, by repentance and prayer, that for giveness in another world which in this you can never obtain. It now only remains for me to pass upon you the awful sentence of the law which is, that for the fe lony and murder of which you stand convicted, you be taken from hence to the place from whence you came, from thence to a place of execution, and there you be hung by the neck till you are dead, and may the Lord God Almighty have mercy on your guilty soul. It is also necessary that I should add, that your body should be buried in the precincts of this prison. The prisoner seemed deeply affected, and left the bar apparently in great agony, covering his face with his hands. EXCHEQUER BILL CASE. In the course of the morning the Grand Jury returned four true bills against Edward Beaumont Smith for fe lony. The bills charged him with forging and uttering. Mr. ADOLPHUS applied to the Court to fix a day for the trial of Smith. Lord DENMAN said that it had been understood in Westminster Hall that to-morrow would be the most convenient day for the trial to take place, and that it had better be fixed for that day, iDlothing further should be said about it. Afterwards, Mr. ADOLPHUS said, that he had been in communication with the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and with Sir Thomas Wilde, on the subject of the pro secution of Smith, and he, in consequence, applied to the Court to take that case on Saturday. Lord DENMAN thought it would be extremely incon venient to take it on Saturday, as it might last two days. He would, however, say that it should not be taken to morrow, and the Learned Counsel could make applica tion to-morrow to the Judges who would preside here on the subject. It was fixed late in the evening that the trial should come on before Lord Chief. Justice Denman on Saturday (to-morrow) morning, at ten o'clock. NEW COURT. Richard Bull, 24, William Johnson, 23, John Critile, 23, and Dennis Leonard, 31, were indicted, the three first named prisoners with having stolen, and Leonard with having received, with a guilty knowledge, one black mare, of the value of 151, the property of Henry Ruck. Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Espinnasse, and Mr. Chambers, appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoners. Mr. CLARKsoN stated theed - te to the Jury, from which it appeared, that on the 11th of October last, the prose cutor was possessed of a horse, which horse had been safe in his stable on that day. On the next morning the prosecutor's groom went to the stable, and found it open and the horse gone. The prisoners, on the 11th October, were seen together at Ashford, in Kent, at a public-house there, and were observed to go in the di rection of Merstham. The;prosecutor is a farmer residing at Merstham, and on the day succeeding the departure of the prisoner from Ashford the horse was missed. Two of the prisoners, Johnson and Leonard, were seen riding two horses in the direction of London, one a black one, corresponding with the horse jn question. It was sub sequently ascertained that the prisoner• had sold the horse to a cabman for four pounds. This horse was identified as the property of the prosecutor. There had been several robberies committed in the neighbourhood of Merstham, and the prisoners were detained upon these several charges, one of which was for stealing a gelding, value 251., which corresponded with the description of another horse which was• seen in the possession of the prisoners on their road to London, POLICE INTELLIGENCE. WORSHIP STREET. A young man named William. Simmons, one of the wandering musicians called " Waits," whose midnight serenading announce the advent of iristmas, was placed before Mr. Broughton, the Magistrate, upon a charge of demolishing a violoncello,.helonging to a brother musi cian, named Richard Williams. They were part of a quartdtt of "Waits," who had been about all night Collecting-pence and drops of drink, in payment of their harmonious greetings, until they be came quite fuddled, and about four o'clock in the morn ing, when a lady, as one of thetn stated, looked out of a window, and called for a particular overture, the com plainant and prispner were quarrelling about the division of the parts and the pence. In their contention the vio loncello was thrown down, and the complainant charged the other with wilfully stamping on and crushing it to pieces.. _ _ _ The instrument, broken into about twenty pieces, was produced, and the prisoner said, rather jeeringly, that it could easily be glued together again. The complainant, in reply to a question, said the value of the instrument was 41. Prisoner—Four pounds ! Why he enly:gave 9s. for it. The complainant said it was true that he had given a friend only 9s. for it, but he—found it to be a fine-toned instrument, and worth at least what he had stated. Mr. BROUGHTON said be had heard 50L or 601. men tioned as the value of good instruments of the kind, but after inquiry into the facts of the case, he ordered the prisoner to pay 205., or be imprisoned ten days. The prisoner had not the wherewithal to pay, and The complainant interposed, and begged that he might not be sent to prison, intimating that, although the de struction of the instrument was a serious matter, the fracas in which it had occurred-need not entirely destroy the harmony between them. He would take the prisoner's word for payment of the damage. The Magistrate, finding this appearance of returning concord, sanctioned the proposed arrangement, and the prisoner was therefore discharged. THE LATE OUTRAGE IN THE CROYDON WORKHOUSE. At the last meeting of the Croydon Bench of Magis trates, an application was made on behalf of the Board of Guardians of the Croydon Union for a summons, in accordance with the provisions of the New Poor-law, against the master of the Croydon workhouse for mis conduct while engaged in that,eapacity. The circumstances that - originated the application having created very considerable sensation, it will only be necessary briefly to alludb to them. It will be re membered that a labouring man on his way home being reduced to the necessity of applying for a night's shelter at the workhouse, was admitted, and when he was about to go away in the morning, the master of the workhouse insisted upon " marking " him by cropping his hair, and when the poor fellow refused to allow this to be done, fearing that if his hair bore the appearance of having been cut in a gaol, that he should not get employment when he returned home, the master of the workhouse, and two or three of his, subordinates, seized him and forced him into a chair, and, after a violent struggle, in the course of which the poor man's clothes were nearly torn from his back, and he received the most brutal treatment, a strait waistcoat being also sent for by the master, at length they succeeded in cropping his head, and he was then turned out. The occurrence would never have been heard of in all probability, but that the poor man, feeling indignant at the treatment he had received, immediately applied at the Croydon police station, to know how he could obtain redress ; and Collier, the inspector on duty, upon hearing his story, and seeing the condition he was in, directed him to go at once to the Town-hall, and make his complaint to Mr. Currie, the presiding Magis trate, who, after a full inquiry, expressed a very decided opinion as to the impropriety of the course that had been adopted. These facts having been made public at the next meeting of the Board of Guardians, the subject was taken into consideration, and Sir Edmund Ikad, the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, attended the inquiry, in consequence of the account which appeared in the papers ; a full report of the whole proceedings was furnished to the Poor-law Commissioners ; it Was understood that sonic instructions would be given by them to the Board of Guardians, as to what further steps should be adopted ; and it appeared that the present ap plication was the result. Mr. Andrews, the Clerk to the Board of Guardians, said he was instructed, on their behalf, to apply for a summons against the master of the workhouse, for having misconducted himself, by infringing t he regulations of that establishment. Mr. Currie wished for some explanation as to the grounds of the application. He was aware of what had already occurred, and that the whole of the facts had been t submittedno toknow whetherthe Poor-lawh t epresent Commissioners, application w an dh a he wished o k s made by their direction. Mr. Penfold, the Clerk to the Bench, said that it ap peared that the Poor-law Commissioners wished the Ma gistrates to investigate t he matter, and u p o n the result of that inquiry would depend whether the master of the workhouse would be retained in his situation or dis charged. By the section of the Act under which the present proceeding was framed, the master of the work house was liable to a penalty of 201., if the Magistrates should commit him. Mr. Andrews confirmed the statement of Mr. Penfold relative to the Board of Guardians having been directed by the Commissioners to institute the present complaint. The Bench then directed the summons to issue; and upon a suggestion being thrown out by some of the Union officials as to the expediency of having the inquiry i n private, the Bench unanimously scouted the proposi tion; and Mr. Currie observed that he thought it was a subject which required investigation, and that the inves tigation could not be too public. The occurrence has created great excitement in Croy- MORNING , SUN ----- don, and a number of the principal tradesmen i?f to t's r town have expressed their willingness to enter in subscription to enable the poor man to appea l to a J4l,4Yee for redress for the outrage inflicted upon him. b people connected with the Union have endeavoured. all the means in their power to prevent given to the occurrence, and they are dreadfully annoru at the exposure which has taken place. publicity 1005 le THE MARKETS.—(YESTER DAV COLNIAL MARKET. 9 A fair amount of business transacted, and prices wer, generally firm, the h ome trade were the princiPal operators. The imports were fair. TEA MARKET. The market was dull, but prices were firm, and Qt .' pany's Congou could not be purchased under ls. 90.041,-* TALLOW MARKET. Prices firm, with a good demand for P. Y. Canw e, .4 48s. 6d. on .the spot, and 48s. for delivery up to th e e" of the year. OI M. A limited demand fur L Oils, A but holders were firm An ti Cod Oil was not to be purchased under 311. per tan• The supply was middling; WIIITEC LI APEL II AY MARK ET. t he best qualities; the middling and ordinary sorts heavY°. sale. Clove, 31. to 51.185. • H 41. to 4/. Ws. ; Straw, it. 12s. to 1/. 145. ay, the trade pretty fair for f CORN AVERA GW- 4 - GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH C..9, ll „ N re 'i of For the Week ended Nov. 20, 1841, made up from tht... 1 1 1 "0 t oJ the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns ill EB B Wales. per Imperial Quarter. . .. 411. 1 1 Wheat.... .... 645. 9d. i Vats Barley 32s. 4d. I Rye AVERAGES OF THE LAST .1Z WEEK S. .„ rai___,s f. WPe( ending) WHEAT. I BAILEY . OATS. RYS. 1 32-- S. ......" — . 7 ..--........—..----......—,—.. .........- so • Oct. 22 63 631521 8 35 0 1 3 1 sf2 : 29, 64 5 31 7 22 9 39 0 . A u 4 4° Noy. 5 65 5 32 8 2-2 0 32 7 4i 11 12 6l 4 33 4 22 0 40 2 -40 11 40 2 .„ A 1l 26 64 9 32 4 .22 6 44 7 41 wo o IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAGES or THE FIX ~ I . Wheat......... 65e. Id. I Oats ......... 22 5 . 3i.! 8ean5...... 4. ,o, W 8ar1ey......... 325. &L i Rye DUTIES OW FOREIGN COWL , 9. 64. Wheat......... 21s. Bd. I .. Oats Barley gb pl. Barley 13s. 10d. Rye THE M COAL N Ships arrived since kRKETS. o. tl• Walls End Bentley's:Hartle.%) Walls End Camille... ....... Walls End Cassop ......... -• 51 6 Walls End Hartlepool .......is Walls End S Willington p 'Victoria Hartlepool•••••••". ct IWalls End Adela ide ...... Is 'Walls Et.d Bowburn ... le Walls En 3 Clarence Walls Et: d Evenwood o. 1 1 s. Walls End Ter' Hett00....!. 51 Wal.s Et, d Teeb ...... 00. Adair's d. 9 Bell, Robson k Co. Hartley 17 0 Chester Main Old Tanfield l4 b West Hartley ...... West Wylam Wylam W. E. Braddyll'sHetton Walls End Ems Hetton Walls End (Mange lB 9 Walls,End Hetton 2l 6 Walls End Lambton 2l 6 South Pe lton :A RKET. lan market.day, 8 _....,, COUNTRY CORN MARKETS Wheat. 1 Barley. 1 -' -- Oats. ...es. .1"" — , 4 a t to 40 ' 50 Per Quarter. s. to s , s. to a. s. t o s. L. sa 4 I , Boston liraintree 52 70 27 34 93 29 3 '2 45 ' fbighton C3 75 31 40 23 27 3 7 sti 6 5 II Cambridge — 113 30 22 40 3 Chichester 62 70 30 38 24 26 4 , 4 , 41 " -- Dunmow 6O 64 34 38 20 26 3u 4 0 ...-- c, l 36 Grantham Grimsby 56 74 28 33 1$ - 21 53 Hailsham 66 72 33 3.5 22 23 3 3 43 21 Hitch in 5O 73 29 34 22 30 3 4 54 33 311 Ipswich 6O 67 29 42 21 26 33 53 0 Lewes 64 69 32 36 21 22 D'i 46 " 0 Lynn 54 66 26 34 20 26 40 . 40 '. 1 2 Maidstone 59 76 36 39 26 32 , n . 40 40 4 0 4; Norwich 64 79 29 33 28 30 D 2 At t'etworth Rom ford 73 74 30 32 25 2fi 4. 4 4 141 60 '74 28 33 21 32 3 ! 0 4'3 go 4 v o Sandwich 62 71 30 34 26 30 :,,,- 44 4 , , 2 Tnetford 62 66 32 36 24 28 ~„'"' 42 "" ' a 5 4i Wisbech Witham ICO 70 29 35 24 31 38.' 01 30 Yarmouth 6O 74 36 32 24 30 O, ll LIVERPOOL CORN MAIIKET.-- 14°I. jai ° 0 I , 0 WHEAT, English, White, per 701 b..... ................ 9s 9 4 9 Red ... Scotch, Welch, and Manx ••• 1 9 1 i —. Irish, White 7 0 30 ~ --- Red 8 6 S i Foreign...... OATS, English. Welsh, anti Scotch, per 451 b. ..... .. --- Irish .... . ... ,„ d . 5 0 ",, Foreign ... s , 0 t I )1 A R 1.F.1f - EnaltAh_ Mali.ino. nor Irnn niinyipr. 4. . $ i' , BARLEY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter ••••• - 4 -4 Scotch and Irish, per 601bs. ....... 4 4 9 4 1 1 --- Feeding “" 44 4 9 0 BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter ........ a 43 d - Irish, "" . 49 4, 1 / - Foreign PEASE, English, per Imperial quarter .....«•»•«•»•• 94, 91 Foreign FLOUR, English, per 280Ib. 4O 0, Irish 3ATMEAL, English and Irish, per 2401b5. ..... - 3 5 96 INoiari Coax, per 4801 b. RYE, per Imperial quarter MALT, per Imperial quarter ..... p peg 3 0V THE LATE WAR IN SYRIA •'"* h a v e hat. , 01. , truly extraordinary that we should not} et,, t, p4r tl i b, account of the late brilliant actions in the -raa s A Oeag ko larly the naval operations at the siege of Acr e ' e o n o however, the friends of the distinguished °moot A were engaged in those perilous enterprises are,,,paelo' be gratified by the narrative of Mr. Hunter , a ties who was present, we believe, at all the 01)61100 0 o o f ments. Mr. Colburn has undertaken the puu ro its I l the work, which is to be embellished with P ° os *ll o Admiral Stopford and Sir C. Napier, beside s v e 00% 4 , , plans of the battles, &c. The work will coullit is „ o odel,- understand, some very interesting priv a t e corresr or re tending to throw much light on the subj ec t of ° tions with the East. if sir HACKNEY CHURCH-RATE.--NOticc () ; • ii ii i n peal has been given against Dr. Lushineton's axe this case. oic t ' E. J. DENT, 82, Strand , • APP by S p E at to &1 ., ment CHRONOMETER and WATCHMAEPAI,IIE' QUEEN and his Royal Highness PRINCE --- ,wore" obtained the great Government Reward for the turqvuariecliftr formance of his Chronometer, No. 114, which ° l'‘ addir,do o four hundredths of a second in twelve mon l hl of the ill'¢ this distinction, he has just received, by ° t r- re r war a keep ers Commissioners of the Admiralty, the big f tiu l • ( ,ht ar°`' lbsetivaotlyitaurthts.teeihirv:De:gtilehrehynareLitdte,oerwirvaasdhnlostxinbhieeioudioptsuhstisinousfenotisonrmssrtitihenr.rme: instruments nes pe r fon , ' r g . - vr ° b f in ; is e principall aofrreodthfeiPsearethntjraeceehguist::"ls4:l:.fact:tlYsttengsr7lre:".:4..flbele:Ww4"igse:ll7:ll° which, while they are greatly lower in Pri c " re forei Rate accurate for all ordinary purposes, and will, the ,n,k of most in demand. The whole of his extensive s'ii s tion• % d o has had the advantage of his selection and ecalnuperintevTior has arranged a department, under cornpeter la 5 0 low P ri n tiri' for offering to the public good plain watches at NOY . ., a " es is compatible with any pretensions to correctuees'oo,l9 IJ pating, from an increase of business, an advau,ttiesseda 61, sation for reduction in price. adies' or "7„ - ri a 41. Watches, from 101. 10s. each ; Silver ditto "" Strand. r t s' GOLD WATCHES, „.- T. COX SAVORY, Watchmaker, No. 47 '`",„ -- lor se7, 1 P°. seven doors from Gracechurch-street, svhin," -- Q t he ic.' ° „ ° ;l o very large STOCK of GOLD WATC I L-c''., a . , oleo which are carefully examined by experience d premises, and each is warranted for correct pe.' SIZE FOR LADIES. ~„ d Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, in engine-tueilo gold cases, and gold dials, warranted , 1, Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, with double-bad; 11, engine-turned gold eases and gold dials , wail to Patent detached Lever Watches, jewelled 4 ° holes with double-backed gold cases and gold a' 14 warranted . SIZE FOR GENTLEMEi f o ur l• Patent detached Lever Watches, jewelled in is 0 holes, seconds, and double-backed gold cases, IS ranted PaPatent holes, seconds,Leverchedouble-backed W a hesepg;oal,dle le.-1 c;ras.el; 17 17 0 enamel dials, warranted ............................ Patent detached Lever Watches, capped,. jewe lled I 0 ° jewe lle d six holes, seconds, double-backed gold eases a •01 deg gold dials, warranted .......... . ..... slitta Either of the Gentlemen's . Watches ma ybe had in cases, for 3/. 3s. each extra. dog e ' N.B. Second-hand Watches purchased in ex °lt BIRTHS. hale s At Liverpool, on the 30th ult., the lady of C- Esq., of a son. R O ra ' On the 28th ult., Mrs. B. W. Rawlings, o f - ° rth daughter. urara 4ss On the 28th ult., Mrs. H. Dre Drury, of Blidica. of a son. jog' MA R Rill D. e, 11 ! i 1•0 1 °' On the Ist inst., at the Friends Meeting 110 21 u Wl fo rdt Thomas Williams. of Dudley, son of the late Sfar" of t he to Mune% youngest daughter of Mary NOW*•hi • tl' e place. ca 11, On 25th ult., at the Catholic Church,liswon an y ')( Rev. R Hulme, Francis Morgan Milt o o n /he i) ° l'ste ° ' Charles King, Esq., of Broomfield- a Essex, to Catherine Dixon, eldest aughter Esq., of Colton, in the county of Stafford. D i ' seO re ' On the Ist inst., at his B refi E de p ac . e in Fi na " -r:- pole Ea ß gs i eoo r qr k . nn, b c oo e tf c thuh k tenhe , telaes2gs4tTestdieohnif.s6rut:sl.vct., Terrace, vi; bet' tnceErlatitmoipznpiebraregvitSeheedlyisz, Susanne, aue aged n - Seymour-stree t ' r a t_ je o t ca b, • ira of C. • air i i On the 28th ult., at Frome, Somerset, DIM ,;.° o f li e On th e 28th ult., at Rawreth, Judith, the Wu' - Meeson, Grays, Essex. jr MONTHLY MILITARY OBITU-AB General—Earl of Elgin, K.C. Lieutenant -General—William Thornton. 74 F. ofo ro Colonels--Henry Cuyler, late 46 F. ; M e in, „,„ t0,„4" Lieutenant-Colonels—James, 26 F. on Pa a 'r from China ; Sir Fra. G. G. Lee, R. Max ; "'" h.p. 32 F. bl C .; Major—Suckling, 90 F. Oat& 11.1"' Captains—Price, 41 F. • Bedingfield, 41 F.; prier , Courtney, late 10 R. Vet. ' l3n. ; B. Purefoy, d g t aff 461,00 40 F. ; Sandy s, h.p. 104 F. ; Hulme, b.p. 4 Tv. • too' Lieutenants—Hon. G. A. F. C. G raves, (adj.), 18 F. ; Hely, 18 F., on board the .Asi . a , ; . 7 . s, 52 F. O'Grady, 1 Bn. 60 F. ; Westropp.6s ' Jon donald, 89 F. ; Gordon, 92 F. ; Bowles, 94 Fij, F. q,',7.; ; 22 Dr. ; Bond, h.p. 21 Dr. ; Shepard, P.. %%oiled, h.P • Sior loran, h.p. 62 Foot; Wright , h . p . 81 F. ; - ; Turnbull, h.p. Scotch Brig. ; S cott, h. p . 3 Garr. 7 1 19 neau, h. h. Meuron's Reg. ; DA ree ' Com ts e and Ensig ns —Campion, 4 F • Je ffreys, Archdall, 52 F. • Nicholson , h . p ., 3P P F.,- Sinclair, to late IV. tin. t h.P• Paymasters—Heyman (Capt. ) 4 Dr. ; Lu Y pis t. ; shell, s Quartermasters—M,Guire, h.p. 9 Dr. ; B lacker, : Foe. h.p. 22 F. ; Phillips, h.p. flee. Dr. ; Landless, h.p. East and West Lothian Cook, h.p . . 15 Dr. Chaplains Department—Rev. W. Wheeler , sag Coll. Sandhurst. Medical Department—Surg. Banks, 1).1" 4 1 s F t . aff; Woods, h.p. Dist. ; Ass. Surg. H0gg, 1 .1 3 . Veterinay Surgeon—Darville, h.p. 7 Lh'. ;dißttiogr London: Printed aid Published by 311111 D0 11 - o d No. 112, Strand, at The Sus Office, NO. 3 0 ." 2 ' 04 m 4l. the County of Aliddlescx, Friday, NO. *), C