The Sun. — London, England, 1828-03-11 00:00:00

between the Turks and creeks, has to complain of the infraction of the Treaty of Ackerman on the part of the former. By joining the two Allies for the prosecution of a common object, she did not de nounce the right to do herself justice for a separate wrong. It is enough that she can establish a valid round for hostilities, and that she does not call on either of these Powers to bear any of the expellee to which she may be put by such separate hostilities. Let us suppose the object of the Treaty of London effected, and the Greeks secured in their qualified independence, while the differences between Russia and Turkey remained unsettled, the Allies could not be called on under the Treaty of London, to aid Russia in compelling lurkey to per form the stipulations of the Treaty of Ackerman. But it is of no consequence whether Russia proceed to settle her differences with Turkey, either during the process of giving effect to the Treaty of Lon don, or after effect has been given to it. If Turkey perform the stipulations of the Treaty of Ackerman and remove all cause of dissension on that ground, this would not liberate Russia from the obligation under the Treaty of London ; and the Treaty of London, in like manner, cannot deprive Russia of her rights under another Treaty. It might, indeed, have been stipulated in the Treaty of London, that till effect was given to it, all other causes of quarrel which any of the Allies might have with Tur key, should remain in abeyance, or that the general alliance should extend to the separate causes of quarrel of any of the Allies; but such a clause, could it have been proposed, would instantly , have been rejected with indignation. We under stand that a Russian Declaration of War was re ceived on Saturday evening, for the Austrian Am bassador, from Vienna, by the English Courier, and that the Messenger sent from Berlin, by Vienna, to Constantinople, was the bearer of that important document. In this Declaration Russia avails her self, which she is entitled to do, of the breach of the Treaty of Ackerman, for acting separately against that Power without consulting either France or England. Austria and Prussia go hand in hand, and are quite neutral. The Declaration of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, that " whatever hap pens, France will know how to to ':e Ind preserve the rank soiled to her honour, her po ver, and her dignity," coupled with the orders for the embarka tion of 10,000 men, would seem to in ficate a dispo sition on the part of that Power to watch with jea lousy the operations of Russia. We trust that Mi nisters will not allow themselves to be deluded by any supposed necessity of preserving Tur key as an independent State, and excluding the Russians from the Mediterranean, into a fresh war. Turkey cannot be long preserved if Rus sia be disposed to take possession of the Eu ropean part of it, for the rapid growth of the resources of Russia, in that quarter, must soon remove all conceiveable obstacles to the fulfilment of her views. Turkey, though an ancient Ally of this cou nt r y, cannot be considered a State, on the per manent existence of which other nations are entitled to calculate, or the annihilation of which can be con sidered as detracting from the security of any mem ber of the European family of nations. If Turkey will disregard the usages of civilized nations, and draw on herself a powerful neighbour, we really do not see that we are called upon to interfere to pro tect her from the consequences of her own stupidity. The only ground on which other States can have the smallest right to interfere,would be the danger to their own independence from the addition which the occupation of Turkey would give to a power already too formidable. But this apprehension is in a great measure a chimera, while the advantage which all Europe would derive from the destruction of the Go vernment (if it can be called such) of our ancient but barbarous Ally,would be great indeed. Nations must not watch with this incessant jealousy, the growth of each other. They ought to persuade themselves that they are all interested in the prosperity of each other, and that there is no advantage so great as the being surrounded by thriving and prosperous neigh bours. According to the latest accoun t s , R uss i a has a population of 59,393,500 souls ; in 1806, the population was stated at 41,105,600 souls; so that the population has increased one-third in twenty years. In the course of another twenty years, the population will probably exceed eighty mil lions. Those who are inclined to consider Eu ropean independence threatened by the occupation of Constantinople, ought to view the rapid increase of the native population of Russia with perfect horror. We repeat, that we hope Ministers will not for the sake of guarding against a possible danger, involve the country in the greatest of all dangers—a national bankruptcy. If Russia do occupy part of Turkey, her strength will not be in the ratio of her extension of territory. Her old provinces will no doubt be greatly benefitted by the command of an access to the Mediterranean ; but for a long time to come, the possession of Constantinople would be a source of weakness rather that of strength to- her. We are supposing, too, that Russia will not in time divide into two or three States.—Morning Post. DESTRUCTION of the NEW BRUNSWICK THEATRE, WELLCLOSE-SQUARE. ADJOURNED CORONER'S INQUEST, MAncrt 10. Examination of Edward Shaw, continued from our Paper of yesterday, which appeared in a part of our im pression. Were they used in any part of the walls where they were required to bear ?—No. I mean in any part where the strength of the walls was required to support weight?—Very few were used in the building above the ground. Then I understand, that, in your opinion, such por tion of these bats as was used above ground, cenld not affect the security of the building ?—Certainly not. That's your opinion ?---Certainly it CoaosEa.--Is the book which you now produce an original book, kept by you from the time it bears date? —Yes, it is. What is it a book of?—lt contains the men's weekly ac counts. I did not keep throughout an account of the whole in a proper manner, but I believe that Mr. Pulsford, the surveyor, did. Is the whole of the writing in the book made by you ? —No, it is not; part of it is my handwriting, and part Mr. Wilkinson's. What is the nature of the accounts contained in the kook ?—lt is book containing a weekly account of the bricklayer's, carpenter's, plaisterer's, and smith's work, done at the theatre. Who is Mr. Wilkinson ?—Clerk to Arr. Carruthers. Who paid these men I—They were paid by me, as far as the writing in the hook shows. Until how recently did you pay them ?—The last day on which I paid the carpenters and labourers was the 12th of January. Whom did you get the money of?—Mr. Wilkinson used to bring me the money every Saturday night. Who paid the men after Saturday the 12th of Jan. ? I afterwards saw Mr. Wilkinson pay them their wages. A Juror—With submission we don't see the necessity of going on with this part of the evidence any further. ComtoNF It—Why, Sir, the necessity of going on with this, in my apprehension is, that if the evidence of this witness hereafter should be attempted to he shaken as t o veracity, we may know who are the other witnesses that may be called, namely, the working carpenters and others named in this book, who .may identity or oppose the statements made. But I have no wish to prosecute this inquiry further. Now, Sir, will you state what was your remuneration, and in what way you were paid ?—The money came to use altogether by 3ir. Wilkinson ; I was paid by the week. % hat was the amount of remuneration that you were to have ?—I was to have :10s. is week until the house opened, and then I was to have 365. With whom was your engagement ?—With Mr. Car ruthers. With him alone ?—Yes, Sir. Had yen a written engagement?—No, only verbal. What do you know, of your own knowledge, of the man ner in which the interior of the theatre was built ?-1 had nothing to do with the brick-work of the interior of time theatre, except the foundation. You set out the ground plan of the theatre ?—Yes. Now, tell us what von know, or what you saw done by others, of the carpenter's work of the theatre ?—I saw the stage. You superintended the erection of the stage ?—No, I did not superintend tke erection of the stage ; for I could not have my own way, and therefore cannot say that I superintended it. Who interfered with you ?—The proprietors, Mr. Maw rice and Mr. Carruthers. \Vete you prevented by any one else?—No. Now state what you know as to the erection of the pros cenium posts, the flies, and workshops over the stage.— What was the first erection over the stage ? The first tier of flies. By a Juror.—You stated that you had an increase of authority. How did you obtain it?—l had a misunder standing with Mr. Carruthers, and he told me to take off roy coat and work with the mem I thought myself ill used. I had a meeting with Mr. Maurice, who gave me authority to do as I pleased. What part of the work was going forward when this misunderstanding arose ?—The stage. How much of the work was done at this time?—The trimmers were being fitted up, and the joists of the stage were being laid. After this misunderstanding took place, under whose direction d►d you proceed?.—Under the direction of both the proprietors. CORONER.—Now, tell us, in your own way, how you proceeded with the rest of the carpenter's work of the Theatre ?—After the stage-work we proceeded with the proscenium posts. They were supplied by Mr. Arding. They were not ready wrought when they were brought to the Theatre. They were worked by our own men, and sometime after we ereeted them. Before we erected them we got up two tiers of flies. The flies were then put up, and then the proscenium posts were put into their proper place. Sometime after we put up the painter's shop, and then the carpenter's. By a Juror.—How many flies were erected ?—I erect ed two at each side which were sepperted by three up rights. Juror—The bottom upright. I understand you only went to the floor of the first fly.—Yes, it went to the trimmer of the first fly. Juror—Were the joists of the first flies iuserted in either wall ?—Yes, they were inserted into the wall on both sides, and the bottom of the upright rested on the stage. The footing of the uprights stood on a trimmer supported by the floor of the stage, which was also supported by a quar tering partition which was framed into the plates on a brick wall nine feet high. CORONER-What thickness was that wall ?—About nine inches, which had 14-inch piers at different parts. The wall I speak of extended all along the front. Mr. Hill—Were not the uprights cut away before the performances began ?—No, they were not, one on each side was cut away. A Juror—l think this question is premature. CORON ER—Th e most convenient thing would be now to proceed to the joists. Do you know whether Finlay was the Clerk of the Architect ? Juror—Perhaps the Counsel for the Architect objects to Mr. Hill—No, not at all, we shall throw no technical objections in the way. W. Finlay` was the clerk of the Architect, we shall explain all that bye and bye. Witness—l can't say what agreement was between Mr. Finlay and the Architect_ CORONER—Did he act as the clerk of the Architect?— Yes, I have seen hint drawing in the Architect's office. CORONER—Having now got the proscenium posts placed we had better come to the joists of the flies. Where were the joists of the first fly inserted ?—They were in serted in the wall. CottoNEß—At what time were they inserted, when the building was carrying up or subsequently?.—They were inserted after the building was carried up in the wall. Were the flies supported by uprights ?—Yes, by three uprights on each side of the stage. Juror—Had the flies any support at the end ?—Yes, by an upright at the further end. Was the trimmer inserted in the south wall ?. at all. ' —No, not • Where. did the bottom upright go?—The bottom up right went no further than the trimmer to the first fly. What distance was the first fly from the second ?—About six feet six inches. How was the second fly supported ?. the others tenanted in. '—By ❑prights over Now what was the next erection over the flies ?—The carpenter's shop floor. -Where was the painter's room?—Nearly level with the second flies. Conomot—lf then• were no working drawings, was there no model ?—Yes, there was a model made which I Acted on as far as I could, but I was after denied acting on it. It was destroyed in the fall of the building. There was a wooden model of the painter's shop made. CORONER—Where was the wooden model kept ?—The last time I saw it, it was standing on the floor of the car penter's shop. CORONER—Used the men to consult this model?—l had it made only for my own inspection. . . 34. Hill—Von had it made under your own direction, you mean ?—Yes, exactly. Have you seen any remnant of that model s i nce t h e theatre fell ?—None. Juror—You say you were denied acting on the model, by whom were you denied ?—By Mr. Carruthers. Did the denial von allude to, in your judgment, mate rially affect the budding ? Mr. M'Cann, a juror—Answer deliberately to that question, for it is very important. Did these denials mate rially affect the building ?—ln my judgment they did. .loror.---What were those denials ?—When I heard that aniron roof was to be put on the theatre, I tried the best in my power against it; I called on Mr. Arding the carpenter, to reque s t him to remonstrate with the proprietors against it. I also went to Mr. Jones's timber-yard, in Rosemary lane, for th e purpose of enquiring about the timber, and if he could a ll ow Os room to frame the roof in his yard. CottoNr a—Did you see tones ?—I saw bis nephew, and inquired the price of timber at Which he could serve us. After this they were a week deciding about the roof. CORONER-Did you tell them the price of the timber? —Yes; I acquainted both the Architect and the Pro prietors with the prices. Who is the Architect you so informed ?.—Mr. Whitwell. Did the Proprietors talk about the iron roof in your presence ?—They did in my presence and that of Mr Arding. Was Whitwell present ?--No ; he was not. The Pro prietors asked Arding how long it would be before an iron roof was got up, and answered, about six weeks. Juror—Do you think it was determined on then?—No, they said they would think of it. CORONER-Before you go further, I think you bad better tell us when this conversation took place 2_ About the sth of September. Juror—You said there were demands such as would materially affect the building. What were those demands, or those acts, which Mr. Carruthers prevented you from ' doing ?—I know of nothing that was denied me that ma terially affected the building but not having trusses and truss girders inserted when they ought to have been. Juror—Having been denied this, did you point out to Mr. Carruthers the danger that might arise from it?—.l would not, for I knew nothing about iron roofs. You applied for trusses and truss girders for the build. ing, which you say were refused ?—Yes. What reason did Mr. Carruthers give you for not per mitting you to put in the trusses and the truss-girders, which you say in your opinion were necessary ?—Because there was not time, as they had determined to open the house at a certain time, and it would take three weeks to get them in readiness. By a Juror—Was Mr. Manrice present at any of these conversations?—He was. At all of them ?—I believe he was. Was he present when you were refused to be Allowed to get the trusse3:aud truss girders ?—When I got the coun termanding order that was given fur them,, he was present. Was be present at all the conversations ?—He was at most of them ; I won't say all. Did he agree with Mr. Carruthers in countermanding the order for the trusses and truss-girders?—When the countermanding order was given I got it from Mr. Mau rice himself. Now you have alluded particularly to the iron roof, against which you say you protested, and to the necessity of the trusses and truss-girders, was there any other thing necessary in your opinion for the safety and support of the building which was refused ?—I don't know that there was any thing ; nothing but those two particular things, and they were the principal supporta of it. The principal supports of what ?—Of the building to keep the weight from the roof. Now, as you have stated to us that these were material things, and necessary for the support of the building, and which were refused, what in your opinion was likely to ensue ?---Why, not knowing the strength of the roof, I did not apprehend that any thing would occur, but I asked the proprietors whether I might hang weights to the roof; they then told me that there was a friend of theirs from Bristol, that would go over and see. Go over what ?—The roof—go over it and see. Look and see what ?—What could be hung to it. What was the name of the person ?—I understood that his name was Evans. Did you understand that from Mr. Maurice or Mr. Carruthers ?—From their calling him Mr. Evans. Was that the gentleman who was unfortunately killed ? —I am sure that Ido not know—l did not see him after wards, but I understand that it is. There was such weight hung from the roof ?—There was—he and Mr. Maurice went up together, and myself. When Mr. Evans went up with you to see the roof, was there any weight attached to it then ?—Yes. You had then attached the whole of these weights to the roof ?—No ; there were only three bolts at that time to each side. What do you mean by three bolts ?—Bolts that went trough the trimmers. Did they carry the painter's and carpenter's shops?—No this was before they were made; there were about two girders. Can you not give us a date ?—lt was in January last. What did these bolts support?--.They helped to sup port the flies, and girders that were then on the carpenter's shop. Were these flies and the carpenter's shop wholly finished ? —No, Sir. • Only in part ?--Only in part. Now, when Mr. •Evans saw these bolts, did he express any opinion to you respecting them ?—The answer he made was at that time, that he thought nothing in a per pendicular way would hurt the root, but he would ascer tain when he went to Bristol again, and a letter would be received. . He would ascertain whether it would or not ?—Do you know whether he did write or not ?—Yes ; sometime af terwards, I dare say it might be a fortnight. I gave Leslie the smith orders to get the ends bolt-screwed and beaded ; that they might be ready when they were wanted. When you gave that order to Leslie, did you give it in virtue of the menaced authority you stated you had received, or by virtue of any authority from the architect or pro prietors, or from any other person only told him I waited for a letter, that such things I had no doubt would be wanted, and that if he would prepare them they would be all ready. When you state that Mr. Evans said he would go to Bristol, and then write something, you of course depended on that letter ?—Yes, certainly. How did vou come to give the order to Leslie, then ? Because I used to inquire of Mr Maurice every day, and he used to say—" Pooh, don't he afraid—go on, you can put what weight you like to it." CORONER—Did you say you saw Mr. Maurice almost every day ?—Every day, regularly. Well, and what did he say ?—" Pooh, go on—l don't think any weight will hurt it. Juror—But that might have been in answer to some question put to him—what question was it?-Concerning whether he had heard from Bristol, I used to ask him. What more did he say than " go on"?—Nothing more. You said he did say something more.—He said " Pooh, go en, there's no fear of the weight." Now did you go on hanging weight to the roof?—Yes, two bolts niece, that made four on each side. Now will you state to us what was attached to them ? —The girders of the carpenter'e. and painter's shops-- three to the carpenter's and one al the painter's shop. Were any part of the flies attached to them ?—Not at that time, at least no weight arising from the flies, be cause then the flies had uprights that kept the bearing of them, the flies were then no stress on the roof. Still, what was attached to the roof on Monday, the day of the opening of the theatre, up to the latest period be fore the admission of the public, say at six o'clock ?—The latent period, at half-past five o'clock, there were fire girders over the proscenium post, over the pit they had four of them, uprights on each side. The pillars or iron co lumns supported four of the girders. On the stage de partment four more girders, supported by iron rods; from the roof on the prompt side was a flat iron clamp, it was clampt in different directions where it hooked in, that sup ported the corner of the flies near the proscenium post, where the uprights were taken away. Nothing more ?—I before mentioned the carpenter's shop, and the painter's shop. Were the trimmers of the flies let into the proseeni urn pest ?—No. Do you recollect any thing else that was bearing on the roof ?—Nothing. How was the chandelier sustained ?—I know nothing as to who ordered the chandelier to be suspended, but I have no doubt of its being hung from the roof, with the exception of what I stated. The flies were partially supported ?—One of the uprights on each side was taken away the week before the opening of the Theatre. They were removed by my direction, be fore the grooves were fixed. Did you desire them to he taken away ?—Certainly. Then two on each side were removed ?—Yes, Sir. Were any of the four supporters removed on the (lay of the opening of the theatre, or on any day before the acci dent ?—Yes, two supporters, about a week before the opening. But were any of the four removed up to the time of the accident?—They were there on Thursday morning at eleven o'clock. I saw them there myself. Juror—Nosy I have to ask you, Mr. Shaw, a most im portant :question, and it is this—what in your judgment caused the calamity?..-Gentlemen, it is a thing which I cannot possibly answer ; I can have no idea upon it, but since the accident some thought— CoRONER-We cannot tak e such evidence. Juror—Surely he c o u ld ne t k n ow of it befor e th e acci dent h a pp ene d. I now as k you , as a profe ss i ona l man, what in your judgment caused the fall of the Theatre ?—The idea that since came to me was this— the vibration caused by 40 or 50 men working in the carpenter's shop attached to the roof on the Tuesday before the ac c id en t, cause d a j ar ; b ut t h ere was n o sett l ement of tilt walls o ne way or th e ot h er t h a t I could p erce i ve. 'Fire J uror —D o you mean to sa y that the v ib rat i on caused the accident ?—I (lid not say such a thing ; it caused I think great harm to the roef, it was dor* by the jar, al though not then perceived ; that's as nigh as I can ac count for it. Now can you assign in your judgment as a professional man, and on your oath before us, any other causes than the vibration ?—When I stated that to be the cause, it was in this way, that it was the principal cause, but if things were attended to that ought to have been, the vibration would not take place. If these trusses to the girders were applied you think that it would not be occasioned ?—I am of that opinion. Distinctly ?—Yes, I can distinctly say so—if these trusses were inserted where required, the ♦ibration would not have taken place. The CoaoNxx now desired witness to point out all the steps used in the progress of the building. Juror—Was there a cistern of water; any where near the door ?—Yes, there was a small tank, three feet square and four feet deep. Was there not one near the gallery stairs ?—Yee, but it bad no connexion with the roof. CORONEIt-How often did the district Surveyor come round to see how the work was going on ?—I saw him every day early or late. I mean Mr. Gough, perhaps I did not see him every day. But I know that lie seldom omitted calling ; he went round the scaffolding as the work proceeded. Mr. Hill.—Did you know the old theatre which had been burned down ?—I know that it was burned down. Do you know how it was built ?—I was in it and of course know. Were there two galleries in the old theatre, supported by the north wall, by binders to it ?—Y es . Did that circumstance render it proper that the north wall of the old theatre should be stronger than the new one ; are the galleries in the new theatre supported by the north wall ?--They receive a trifling part of them. Bearing in mind that the north wall of the old Theatre supported the two galleries, and that in the new Theatre only part of them were supported by it, does not that render it probable that the wall of the new Theatre should not be so strong as that of the old.—Certainly. And yet the difference in strength between the two walls was only half a brick, and that in only part of the wall. Is it not usual for walls to set off, and not go up of a regu lar thickness?—lt is usual that they should set off; the strength of the two walls was the same until we got to a certain height. Would it not be a bad placing of strength to keep the walls uniform ?—Certainly. Now, I have one general question to ask you about the walls. Was there, in your judgment, in the materials, the workmanship, or quality of the materials ; any thing omitted, necessary or proper for the strength or durability of the walls?—Certainly none. You have explained the stage departments to consist of the stage,flies,carpenter's and painter's shops ?—There was a part of the shop not belonging to the stage department ; where, iu front, it covers the pit. Had you any instructions respecting the stage depart ment, or the carpenters' shop, or the painters' shop, from Mr. Whitwell, the architect ?—Never: I mean from the stage upwards. I don't include the parts under the stage. You have told us the flies were supported by uprights. Describe the position of the uprights?—One was at the south extremity of the trimmer, another was at the centre, rather bearing to the north or front. . The third was at the north end of the trimmer before it was taken away, how far was the south upright from the south wall ?—Eighteen inches. What then did this south upright rest on ?—lt rested on a trimmer with three joists, each of which bad an upright support. Do I understand right when I say that the north end of the fly, had little support except from the roof ?—Yes. I think you said that these upright. were continued from the lower to the upper fly ?—Three of them. Then the north fly had no support but the iron coming down from the roof ?—Yes. On the night of the opening you remember the eastern flies coming down ?—Yes ; the eastern fly, what we called the 0. P. fly. Explain how it came down.—The eastern fly was held up by a long iron rod, bent at each end ; the upper crook of the rod was fastened to a plank which rested on the ties of the roof edgeways. The plank was not fastened in its place. From the weight of the persons on the fly the plank fell flat, the rod slipped nearly four feet, and struck one of the wing grooves of the scenery on which it lodged its whole weight. The fly itself fell two inches. The falling of such rod produced a disarrangement of the working of the =chi= nery of the wing. Our attention was thereby called to the circumstance. Was that accident produced in any say by the failure of the roof?—No ; not by any means whatever. This was on Monday night. On Tuesday were there not considerable weights carried up to the carpen ter's shops ?—Yes, benches and timber of different kinds that the men had been working on in different parts of the theatre. By whose orders ?—By the directions of Mr. Carruthers, he wished them to be removed from the body of the theatre. Can you form any estimate of that additional weight?— . _ . _ The timber and benches were about a ton, not including the Isright of the men. Plow was that hoisted up ?—By a tackle attached to the roof. How many men were at work in that carpenter's shop and painter's shop on that Tuesday P—About 40 in the carpenter's, in the painter's shop about eight. Now, Sir, did you put up all the iron columns that you intended, between the gallery and the carpenter's shop floor ?—No. Hew many were omitted ?—Two. Which two ?—The two columns that would be nearest to the centre of the gallery. What length of girders did the omission of these columns leave unsupported, except from the roof 2—about 54 feet of girders. Were those columns brought to the theatre ?—No ; first of all thirty columns were ordered for the boxes and galle ries, from Mr. Leslie the smith. Mr. Carruthers asked me why I could not do without any support whatever by columns from the galleries ; I told him that if I had a tim ber roof to trust to, I could then answer, but that I knew nothing dal iron roof. Mr. Carruthers then ordered eight more columns from Leslie. Was thirty-eight the number originally intended ?—I always understood forty were intended. Were thirty-eight put up ?—Yes. What did you mean by two columns having bent countermanded ?—(Here the witness entered into an unintelligible explanation, which lasted nearly ten minutes. At length he stated that Mr. Maurice and Mr. Carruthers directed him to countermand the order of two of the ten columns which had been ordered as part . of the 40 originally intended.) Now, Shaw, you said that Mr. Evans promised to get a letter from Bristol as to the weight that the roof could bear ?—Yes. The letter was read to me. Mr. Maurice told me in the presence of Mr. Evans and Mr. Carruthers, that a perpendicular weight of any kind might be suspended from the roof, which gave use great pleasure. This was in the beginning of last February, he read what be told me from the letter in question. Mr. Hill here mentioned that he attended to-day en be half of the contractor for the roof, as well as for Mr. Whit • welh Examination continued. Mr. Maurice told me that the letter came from the con structor of the roof at Bristol. What state was the roof in then?—The girders of the carpenter's shop before the curtain were not attached to the roof. Who designed the stage department and the carpenter's shop ?—I Although you never received directions froni Mr. Whit well, did he ever talk to you respecting the weight you were banging from the roof?--Yea. Did he encourage you to do so ; or did he not most strongly express his opinion against the propriety of such proce eding'.' —lle did not encourage the ; be expressed his decided opinion against it. Did he always use gentle terms when so speaking to you 9—No, he used v i o l en t express i ons o f di sappro b at i on • __in short, he was in a violent passion about it. propriet ors o f t h e t h eatre ?--Yes. Did You communicate Whitwell's disapprobation to both the What did they say to you on the subject?—Mr. Carru thers asked me who employed me, I said that he did ; and, therefore, said he, " I am your toaster, and not Mr. Whitwell." Did you ever hear Mr. Whitwell express an opinion to the proprietors on the subject ?—I never heard him. Were you present when a letter was brought?—l war not near them sufficiently. Now, dig you ever hear Mr. Carruthers say any thing about Mr. Whitwell's duty 59 an architect having teased ? _Yes, Mr. C. told me he had paid to Mr. Whitwell all the good an architect i o n l i l i i i s n Own an l d mh t a l l 'a f t as h ll e lr (A . l l r 4 C it2e w ll a s s va a s s , a n n ' il m t e h y a b t e l i t o e n c g o i u n l g d manage the men as well as I could. You were in the carpenter's shop whoa the accident happened—how did the floor of the carpenter's shop fall? don't know. You were too frightened ?—I was going to speak to Trot man, who was on the parapet—he ran give the beat account of it. When first did any one speak of the . danq:er of the thea tre ?—No one ever did. A Juror—Yon have said that no one told you so ; did you see any one employed in any particular works about the theatre that gave you reason to think that the building was unsafe ?—No. Any shoring or screwing ?—Yes, there were persons employed about the fly which I before told you had settled. Mr. Pullen, Solicitor for Mr. Carruthers, said, that as direct charges of criminality had been brought against hie client, he wished to have the opportunity of au interview with that gentleman before he proceeded with the cross examination of Shaw. This was deemed reasonable both by the Coroner and the Jury. Mr. Hill now implored that the inquiry should be de die in diem, adjourning ever every alternate day. This was but just and merciful to the in dividuals whose characters had been assailed in some pub lications. After some discussion, it was definitively arranged that the Jury should meet again to-morrow morning at nine o'clock, and that the inquiry should he prosecuted with all possible despatch.--Adjourned. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 10. EX-PARTE ARMISTEAD IN THE lIATTER. OF DILWORTH, His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this case to-day. M r •. Armistead carried on the business of a merchant, at Lan caster; Messrs. Dilworth and Co. were bankers at the someplace, and Mr. Armistead kept his account with them. Messrs. Barclay, Tritton, and Co, were the London agents of Dilworth and Co. ; the account in town being consi derably against Messrs. Dilworth and Co. in 111125, title deeds of estates of considerable value were deposited with Messrs. Barclay and Co. as a collateral security. Mr. Armistead being in possession of two bills of exchange for the sums of five hundred and two hundred and fifty pounds, placed those bills, after endorsing them, in the hands of Dil worth and Co. Dilworth and Co. transmitted these bills to Messrs. Barclay and Co. ; they discounted one of those bills, but the other remained in their hands till after the bankruptcy, and they received the produce from the drawee. The question was, whether these bills of exchange had become the property of Messrs. Barclay and Co. ? , Mr. Armistead swore most positively in hie affidavit that he gave them no authority to discount, to deposit, or to pledge these bills. It was contended, from the nature of the ac-' count kept between Armistead and Dilworth and Co., that an agreement by implication, must have existed, that bills of exchange, when entered without account, became their property, and therefore they were entitled to the pose of them. At the time these bills were given the account was in favour of Armistead, and continued so up to the period of the bankruptcy. The question arising out of the manner in which the account was kept, appeared to his Lordship, to have been decided by the case of " Giles and Thompson," there could be no doubt that the mode of keeping them was the same as is usual in that county. It appeared to his Lordship, upon the whole, that Messrs. Dilworth and Co. had no right whatever to dis pose of these bills as they had done, and that Mr. Armis tead is entitled to stand in the situation of Messrs. Barclay , and Co., to the extent to which the balance had been re duced by the misapplication of the bills ; that the prayer of the petition was proper, and ought to be granted with costs. ROLLS COURT, MARCH 10. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MULLET. This was an information of a very novel description. It was filed by the Attorney-General at the relation of the parent of a minor, under the provisions of the last Mar riage Act, 4. Geo. IV. c. 76. By this Act it was provided that if any valid marriage by banns should be procured by a party to that marriage to be solemnized between persons, one or both •f whom should he under the age of 21 years, such party knowing that such person under the age of 21 years bad a parent or guardian then living, and that such marriage was had without the consent of such parent or guardian—and knowing that banns had not been duly pub lished according to the provisions of the Act—and having knowingly caused the undue publication of the banns, then it should be lawful for his Majesty's Attorney-General by information in the nature of an English Bill, in the Court of Chancery, at the relation of a parent or guardian of the minor whose consent to such marriage had not been given, to sue for a forfeiture of all estate, right, title, and interest in any property that had accrued or should accrue to the party so offending by force of each marriage ; and such Court should have power to declare such forfeiture. The Act proceeded further to direct, that if both the parties so contracting marriage should be guilty of such offence, it should be lawful for the Court to settle such property for the benefit of the issue of the marriage. Mr. SUCIDEN appeared in support of the information, and stated, that this was one of the dearest he ever knew. Two young men had married two girls, the one sixteen and the other about seventeen, and had thought proper to swear that they were of age. The girls bad been carried up to town, and married without the consent of the pa rents, and the consequence must be a forfeiture, as directed by the Act. Mr. PEMBERTON said the girls had been met at a fair, and had got married to young men who were of age.— The ladies were about seventeen. Mr. SUGDEN observed that one of them was only sixteen. Mr. PEMBERTON did not see the value of a few months, If they were worth any thing, Mr. Sngden might take the benefit of it. The prayer of the bill should be here attended to. The MAsTErt of the Rou.s did not think the wife in any way guilty, she therefore was not brought within the provisions of the Act. He must therefore declare, in the language of the Act, " That the husband has incurred a forfeiture of all the estate, right, title, and interest in the property which bath accrued, or which shall accrue, to him by force of such marriage ;" and refer it to the Master to inquire what property had accrued to the husband, and to make a proper settlement with respect to all such estate, right, title, and interest which had accrued, or should at any time accrue, to him during coverture. On account of the novelty of the case, considerable in terest was excited in the Court. DARING BURGLARY.—On Saturday night some thieves entered the house of Sir G. FARRANT, the Magistrate, in Brook-street, Grosvenor-square, but luckily obtained no booty. CHURCHWARDENS' ACCOUNTS.--We learn that in the accounts of the Bradford Churchwardeus, audited on the 27th nit., there is a charge of 21. 10s. " for painting flags." This singular item naturally enough produced the inquiry—for what parish purpose were these flags used? To which it was replied, that they were pa raded in Messrs. WILSON and DUNCOMBE'S procession, at the late election of members to serve in Parliament for the county of York, and that as they had been used in the " Protestant Cause," and on behalf of the " Church and King" Members, it was judged quite proper to include them in a rate, imposed for " the necessary repairs of the Parish Church." This reasoning was thought so conclusive, that the item was passed with only three dissentient voices ! At the next election the parishioners of Bradford, if they do not look better after their own affairs, will probably have in their Church rate expenditure a charge " for conveying the Protestant voters to York."—Leeds Mercury. ROBBERIES BY SHOPMEN.—Several meet ings have taken place amongst the tradesmen in the city, in the haberdashery line, on account of the evidence given at the Old Bailey, last session, by an accomplice in a rob bery committed at Bath, who had acknowledged that he knew several shopswn who had been in the daily habit of robbiue- their masters to a ruinous extent. The meetings were held at the Sun Tavern, in Ludgate, and the disclo sures made by this accomplice were singular enough, and exhibited the system upon which this description of plun der is carried on. BuartowEs and ADLAM, the persons convicted of robbing Mr. Rosy, of Bath, bad long been in the habit of robbing their employers. Immediately after the Bath robbery, Btrartowes wrote to Mr. ROSE, request ing a character. As 80011 as he should receive the chitac ter, he was to give it to ADLAM, who was to use it in get ting a situation at the house of a Quaker, a very desirable master to those who engage themselves in a concern for the purpose of plundering it, as prosecution is out of the question wherever the Society of Friends are sufferers....— ADLAM would have stolen every thing he could lay his hands upon if Le should have bad the opportunity, and BURROWES would have been active in another shop. Those fellows were accompanied to Bath by a woman of the town, whose practice it was to go and purchase as much silk as would make a pelisse, and BurotowEs used to give her as much as would make three or four gowns besides. — He had been in the habit of going round with his goods to the brothels, where he sold them for about half-price.._ There are gangs of this sort of shopmen who meet toge ther when out of place, and change characters, by which means they can manage to rob, sometimes to the value of 201. a week, before it is discovered that they are imp s _ tore. The accomplice described the mode of secreting the money which they receive before the eyes of their masters. He pointed out a man who calls himself Captain, in the saloons of the theatres, and is enabled to drive a gig and keep two brothels, from his former labours iu this way.— The shopkeeper's have been enlightened upon the subject, but they came to iso deeuitit'e resolution. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLWVOUGH-STREET.--A genteel looking female, who stater! herself to be a native of Brunswick, and housekeeper in the town establishment of the Earl of Macclesfield, applied yesterday to F. A. Roe, Esq. the sitting magistrate, to know if he could afford any redress of the following grievance :—She had a sister, she said, who had also been for a considerable time housekeeper in the family of the Countess of Pembroke, and who, unfortu nately, some short time since married an Englishman, with whom she went to reside at Paris, quitting her situation at Lord Pembroke's. She had not, however, been long at Paris before her husband, after obtaining from her all the little property she possessed (about ,000/.), entirely de serted her, and left her in that capital altogether destitute, until some friends assisted her and enabled her to come again to this country, where Lady Pembroke, hearing her misfortune, once more kindly took her back to her situa tion. Nothing was heard of the worthless husband until within a few days, through the kind offices of Lord Gran cille, the English Ambassador at Paris, it has been learned that he has returned to England, and the applicant now wished to know if the Magistrate could have him appre hended and punished, for depriving her sister of her pro perty in the shameful manner he had done. Mr. Roe said that the case was certainly a very hard one on her sister, but he was sorry he could offer ker no re dress, as a Magistrate in this country had no power to in terfere in such cases. The applicant, in retiring, said that • she thought the law might afford her sister redress in this country, as it would, under similar circumstances, in her own. WORSHIP-STREET. —.Tames Hainex was brought np yenerday, charged bv Charles Brain, under the follow ing circumstances :--The prosecutor was in the City -road between 1 t and I?, o'clock on Saturday night, about half drunk, looking out for a lodging, not wishing to go back to Walthanntow that night, when the prisoner, in company with anothe r man, came up to him, and offered to toss for half a pint of gin. The prosecutor took a shilling out of his pocket, and , tossed it u p, w h en , on it s f a lli ng t o the ground a the prnnEr s companion took it up and ran away with it. The prosecutor attempted to pursue him, when the prisoner knocked him down ; the former called the watch, and the prisoner was taken into custody. Tit! Magistrate (Mr. ... I COUGHTON) thought it a high and ordered th e prisoner to be committed fur Nay robbery, ,e-exatnination. Three looms, belonging to a weaver at Bethnal-green, who works for Mr. Wilson, were ro bb ed of silk, on Sunday Light, of the value of about 26/., durin g the temporary absence of the weaver and his wife. Th e street door had been opened, supposed with a false key. A lad, a main of the weaver, who lived with him, was taken into custody on suspicion, and was brought up yesterday, but there not tieing evidence to affect him, he was discharged. Another loom was robbed, on Saturday night, of silk o f the value of between 15/. and 16/. It is our painful duty to state, that the person to whom we alluded in our last as having been apprehended upon suspicion of child murder, put a period to his exist. ence in the jail here on Monday last about nine o'clock in the morning. While shaving himself he cut his throat with the razor in such a shocking manner, as to survive but a few minutes. The Magistrates instantly instituted an inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and in the evening his body was removed by his friends.—Stirling Journal, LONDON MARKETS. PRICE The highest price of Bread in the EAD Metrodolis is 9d. for OS 41b. Loaf. There are others who sell from 34d. to 13(4 below that price. PRIC OF SEES.—March 10. New English Rfed Clov E D er Seed (per Cwt.) —.s. 725. fine —s. New White Clo ver 50.. fine —a. 90s. New Trefoil Linseed —s. 375. fine --e. 45a. Canary Seed, • 56e. tine ..11 745. Coriander —a. 15s. flee —s. 17s. WHITECHAPEL HAY ARKET.—March Ha y,...,,,. 725. Od. to 100 s. Od. j (lover ..... 90s. Od. to 120 s. Od Straw------ 3•2 s Od. to Xi. Od. PRICES OF HOPS (per erst.)-51arcli 10. Kent Pockets . 4/. 4s. 44 18s. to 6/. 63. Sussex Ditto 41. 2s. 44 Its. to 41. 12s. Essex Ditto 4l. 4s. 41. 15s. to 51. Os. Farnham Ditto, Fine O l. Os. 8 1 . Gs. to 91. 9s. Seconds 41 7/..15805. t 0 0 0 51 6/.. Kent Lags Sussex Ditto Essex 4/. Os. 41. 10s. to 41. 16s. PRICE OF OIL. Rape Oil, brown 3.11. Refined u Linseed Oil 23 12 0 ES 0 Linseed Oil Cake at the Mill, per thousand ?tape Cake, per ton ;PRICE OF Pe'rATOES.—March 10, Kidney5..,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,__ Ol. Os. to 41. N. per ton. Scotch Reds 31. Os. to 31. ss. ditto. 31. 10s. to 41. Os. ditto. 21. ss. to 31. ss. ditto. . - Marsh Chaininons--.... Oxnobles and Shaws PRICES OF Per lb. d. 8utt5.......50 to 56111.... 20 91 Ditto 60 to 661 b.... 22 23 Dressing Hidea 14 16 Fine Coach Mides 17 19 Croy, Hides, 35 to 401 b. 14 15} Ditto to 50Ib. 15k 17f Ditto LEATHER. Per 1 b. d. to d. Tanned Horse 15 lie Spanish Ditto 21 20 Per dozen. Calf Skins... 16 to 401 b. 19 23 Ditto 50 to 701 b. 2Si 26 Ditto 70 to 8002. 20 23 Small Seals, Greenland W 21 RAW HIDES. Per Stone. s. d. to a. d. Per Stone. a. it. to s. cl. Rest Heifirs&Steers 3 2 3 4 Ordinary 2 0 2 I Middlings----..--- 2 4 2 6 Market Ca1f—.......... 8 0 each SHEEP SKINS. 21. 44. to 2a. 10d. I Shearling....-. Oa. Od. to Os. &I. Polled Si. &I. to !is. 0(1. COAL AI ARK Heaton 34;. 6d. Ho!men. 33 6 Newbum 33 3 Percy East„, 28 6 32 3J'antield .31 9 32 6 1 1 Willington 33 9 Wylam 31, 3 WallsEndßewicke&Co. 35 9 Ditto Brown's 33 6 Ditto Burraton 33 6 Ditto Clarke and Co. 32 0 Ditto Carr and 30 0 Ditto Cramlington.—.-- 28 0 Ditto Hilda 33 Ships at market, 101%--Sh, ET.—Alareta 10. Walls tend Newmareti..,, 31a. 3d. Ditto 1:1 U Ditto Northumberland 33 Ditto Peareth....----- t 1 Ditto Perkins and Cia 34 3 Eden Main 32 6 Harraton Walls End 34 0 Ditto Stewart's 36 ti Blyth COWPeII ••••••••••,............nws 3U U Hartley 3l Walls End Elgin 33 U Walls End Old Etta erley 32 U Ditto Henderson —~...s., Yfl ti iips sold, 27---Unsold, 744 IRISH M. DUBLIN MARKET NI .RKETS. FE.—FotnAE, 'March 7. From To m. P. 3,725 Wheat, per barrel 20 stone 18 0 30 0 23 1044 1,534 Bete l6 stone 9 0 12 0 10 4 1 4 2,031 Barley l6 stone 9 0 13 0 14 3111, 18,479 Oats l4 stone 8 0 16 - 0 9 5 12,128 Cwt. Flour 9 stone 5 0 21 O 0 1,234 Oatmeal 11 stone 8() 14 0 9 11% Sold to Bakers only. 8,914 Cwt. Flour 13 0 21 0 15 214 Average price of Wheat and Flour 38e. 4d_ per sack. Receipts of Flour, 10,345 Firsts, from 18e. Od. to 21s. Od. Sales of DO. 1 Seconds, from 130. Od. 160.41 d. 12 . 428 Thirds, from Od. to los. od. PRICE OF BREAD. Quartern Loaf, 41b. 50z.. V i c]. f Half-quartern, 21b. ~...3~ d Wheat, Barley. Oats. r Flour, per cwt. per barrel per barrel per barrel 20 stone. 16 stone. 14 stoke. Ist. 2d. s. d. as, d. s, d. as. d. s. d. acct. s. d. as. d. s. d.as. d. Cork 23 0-25 3 9 0-14 0 7 6--11 6 15 6-17 0 14 0-15 6 Limerick 22 6-23 4 10 2— 00 89— 00 15 0-16 000— 0 0 Waterford 21 0-24 6 11 0-15 0 90— 9 9'15 0-15 6 11 0-13 0 Belfast.... 1!125 2 11 5 ) 0- 0- 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0: 1 0 5 0 0 1 13 0 0- 6 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 6— ° 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0- 0— 0 0 0 0 Derry..... 00— 0 0 12 8— 0 0 11 1-12 9 0 0— 0 0 0 0— 0 U Carlow 20 0-24 010 0-15 080—90150 0 0 n 0— 0 0 00— 0 0 00— 0 0 '0 0— 0 0 0 0— 0 0 00— 0 LI IBeef, I Mutton, j Pork, per lb. per lb. per cwt. 1.t.1 22. 34..14111.15t1i, - d. a tl. d — . Cork 41-6 4 - Limerick— 3i —5 S Waterford 4 —5 5 Clonmel 3 —5 3 Belfast..,,. 4 —sk 0 Derry 6 —0 6 Carlow— —5 5 Tralee...—. 0 —.O 0 I.t. 2d. 3d.. 401. stl, —— d. s. d. s. d. s. d. . d. 1 0 78 0 66 0 62 0 54 0 072 066 0 02 0 54 0 0780-o,—, —0 1 0 '7O 067 060 54U 080059 0 49 —U 0 —. 0 0 0 080070 0 64 U 9 72 0 64 0 54 0 46 0 d. s. d. as. d., 6 32 0-33 Op_ 5 24 0-40 OM G 24 0 —4O 024 5 00— 0072 O 00— 0081 O 0— 00- O 23 0— 00 92 t. O 00— 0078 01 KILKENNY MARKET, March 7.—Butter, 90g. to 925. per cwt. ; Bacon Pigs, 355. to 365. per ditto ; Wh eat , 225. to 255. per barrel ; Barley, 12e. to 16s. ; Oats, Bs. to 10e.; Floor, 12e. to 28s. per bag; Beef and Mutton, 4d. to sd. per lb. ; Potatoes, 11d. to 21d. per stone ; Coals, Is. 2d. per cwt. SCOTCH MARKETS. Wheat. 1 Barley. Oats. Beans. I Oaten eal . Aberdeen Berwick Coldstream Cupar ---- Dundee —..— Elgin ---- !nverne‘ks— 42 63 32 ' 36 36 44 46 62 - 52 50 51 23 29 19 21 21 22 27 30 29 .22 23 28 30 19 21 26 28 18 21 sure var 17 23 16 18 18 19 22 24 16 19 20 21 .9.4 16 22 21 24 14 17 es throul 20 22 26 28 77 :30 15 16 30 50 52 Kelso . _ Kirkaldy-- I 44. 64 Perth 42 63 The size of the in 3.5 38 23 30 32 37 - - 40 46 - - 33 34 24 26 32 3'7 12 14 1 - lout the country. HOP INTELLIGENCE. LEWES, MARCH B.—The state of our Hop Market may be considered rather heavy, yet there appears no disposi tion to give way in price. A party of gentlemen from Chester were coursing a few days ago at Woodbank, and started a hare in a fire-acre field, with no less than five dogs; after an ex cellent run, in which puss was turned the astonishing num ber of seventeen times in the same field, she escaped un hurt. The same hare, during the last, and the present season, has been repeatedly chased by all the best dogs in the neighbourhood, and numerous methods have Ix- , n adapted to trepan her; but this wonderful animal has, in every instance, eluded her enemies. She is generally found in one particular place, and probably is enabled to beat her pursuers from the knowledge of the ground she has so often run. The above number of dogs were turned, not for the sake of killing her, but merely to try her swiftness.- - Warwick Advertiser. FIRTH S. In the prison of Kilmainham, yesterday, the lady of Eneas Macdonnell, Esq., of a daughter. The infant and mother are as well as they can be expected to be in the unhappy circumstances in which the latter (a natiye of an other country) is at present placed...-. Dublin Morqing I?egister. On the 10th inst., at Upper Woburn-plAre, Mrs. E. Levien of a daughter. On the Bth inst., at Stamford-hill, Mrs. Joseph Arden, of a daughter. On the 9th inst., at Walthanistow, Mrs. G, B. Brown, _ of a son, still-born. Ou the 7th inst., at Eltham, the lad) of Capt. Abdy, Madras Artillery, of a son. On the '7th inst., in Weyrnouth-street, the lady of Richard T. Kindersley, Esq., barrister-at-law, of a son. MARRIED. On the Bth inst., at Bruton,Samersetshire, Christo pher Moresby, Esq., of Frome, to Elizabeth, eldest daugh ter of John Sherrer Ward, Esq., of the former place. MED. On Sunday the 9th inst. at his house in Spring Garden-te rrace, Charles l3icknell, Esq. in the 77th year of his age. He held for upwards of 30 years the office of Solicitor of the Admiralty and Navy. He Was also a Commissioner of the Board of Green Cloth and Receiver of First Fruits. He was long honoured with the personal friendship of his Sovereign, was universally esteemed as a man of high integrity, and died regretted by all who knew him. At Titchfield, Capt. Crouch, R.N. aged 80 years. On the 9th instant, at Torpoint, Lieutenant Henry Wil liam Ockley, R.N. aged 41. At Exeter, aged 36, Lieutenant C. E. Hutchison, R. N. At Dartmouth, Mr. John Rodmore, Master in the Royat Navy, aged 73. On the 3d instant, at her son's house in the Paragon, N ew Kent-road, Mrs. Ann Vickers, aged 78, relict of the late Mr. Joseph Vickers, of tstanhope, in the county of Durham. On the 9th instant, in the 14th year of her age, Harriet Emma, the youngest daughter of Edward Vane, Esq. of Upper Montague -street, Russell-square. On the 10th instant, in the 13th year of her age, Emily, the fifth daughter of James Upton, Esq., of Dulwich-com mon, after a series of sufferings for many years. On the Sth instant, in Hart -street, Bloomsbury, aged" 64, Mr. William Ewing, surgeon's instrument-maker, On the 7th instant, in Great Goorge-strcot, Hanipsttal. road, Mr. Jacob Jamet, formerly of Enfield Highway. On the 6th instant, in his 75th year, James Ckarleo . Still, Esq., of East Knoyie, On board his Majesty's ship Tweed, at sea, Charles William, the second son of the Right Hon. Sir Edward and Lady Thornton, of Wembury-house, iu Devonshire, idship man. P RI N TE p and PUBLISHED by 111.. YOUNG, at the Surf °nick No, 112, strand, l Y (ll4' Two am per az Whitt At the G house, ti Pentouvi a Shop a Printe mie, an and Sury ney, Mid Pour ren of elig Harry At tlae A Lot 1. as the so Inglish'a. county held for ' Lot 2, BUILD] recently ing Ingli Estate I► wall, wit of 70 ye; May t King's Ilarry'e Ilatton-g Auction( and Hu] the Eta V EI LI mad Nig SKIN The folk Birmi with twc Market-: uey Stra Coventr3 ham, to Shelton, and Hol, castor, P Milton, bract C Cheat pcaley,] COvei through Weedoei Dove Dore: itiackwi Salisbux five and Darn lirixhar Exen Char= Sa water, Givi Brown', well, an Holy and Sal Hull miler, " Rock Kent Chorley Leed B g gleh' ford, SI Alarkhl err ybi Afternc fa x , Sk kten on Afar itg, N 4 cna t fa . Furtou Nem Afteril Plyi btivton Ran Routh J u g at She Rotbei Sou Wind] water, Coach *O4 stal Shako Chape Fries' for ar of lag wiles at tip Load, Na Wood ton, Droa d tame Here { wail yo derl ; Ferry ford, earlY