The Sun. — London, England, 1841-12-08 00:00:00

'MORNING SUN paid great attention to witness's daughter. In the har vest of that year the defendant again came to witness's house at Hampton. He took witness's ;daughter for a walk. Witness mentioned to Mr. Rosser, on another occasion, the circumstance of his transferring stock into the name of his daughter. Witness remonstrated against it, when he said it would all come back to him again by his marriage. Upon his stating he should make further transfers iu favour of her daugh ter, witness begged him not to do so. Before Mr. Rosser went to Wales he requested her not to let her daughter go out of her sight. Recollected going to Milton with Mr. Rosser and her daughter Sophia. Her youngest daughter dined at Mr. Rosser's house. When ever witness had any conversation with Mr. Rosser, he always spoke of his marriage. On the occasion of going to Milton he said he had a house at Islington, which he wished witness and her daughter Sophia to have, stating he would furnish it, and increase her daughter's income. Witness objected to it. Mr. Rosser paid the expenses to Milton. On their return Mr. Rosser accompanied them to Hampton. Witness's daughter always behaved very kindly to Mr. Rosser. All the letters sent by Mr. Rosser to her daughter were seen by witness. Witness's time, and that of her whole house, had been occupied for the last four years with answering his letters. Her daughter had received upwards of 400 letters from Mr. Rosser.—(Laughter.) One day went to Mr. Rosser's to dinner, and stated to him she did not like to do . so, when her daughters were absent. He afterwards wrote to witness, requesting her and her daughter to come and stop with him a week, which she refused to do, thinking it improper as his daughters were absent. He said he would introduce his daughters to them when they returned from Wales. Some time after this witness said to Mr. Rosser that he was trifling with her daughter, and that he had better break off the connection ; to which he replied he could not. When his daughters returned they objected to the match, and witness then told him she thought he had better marry some of the old ladies whom he said were in love with him, to which he re plied, " I marry an old woman ! Not I. I would not be troubled with one."—(Laughter.) In September, 1838, Mr. Rosser came to witness's house, said he was deter mined to be married, and that he would not listen to his daughters' objection, as he was sure those objections would be all forgotten by Christmas. Recollected send ing a letter by her daughter to Mr. Rosser, which came back to her open. After September, 1838, witness and her daughter went to Ormond-street 14 the purpose of seeing Mr. Rosser's daughters, but he told them his daughters would not see them. Her daughter Sophia became ill in Ormond-street, through fretting at the way they were received. Mr. Rosser was afraid to be seen out with them in the street, and he was so jea lous he would not let them go out by themselves. They removed to Richmond. Mr. Rosser visited them there fre quently ; he continued the same as ever ; it was always "to be or not to be,"—to marry, or not to marry.—(Great laughter.) Witness frequently re proached Mr. Rosser with his conduct, and told him the injury he had done to the whole family. She told him she believed he had had no object all along but to pass away the time of his widowhood with more amusement than he could enjoy with his own family. He still persisted in saying that his purpose was not changed, but his eldest daughter could not be reconciled to the match. Her daughter at length became so ill that she looked like a corpse, and was worn to a skeleton. In April, 1840, she received a jewel box, contain ing a wedding ring, from the defendant. This certainly improved her daughter as much as anything could im prove a skeleton.—(Laughter.) At defendant's request her daughter sent to him a set of patterns for dresses. Witness and her daughter had told defendant that there was no occasion for any such thing, as she had sufficient dresses' already, but. he insisted that he should buy her a suit himself. The licence for the marriage. was bought about the same time. The day before the ring was changed a letter was received from Mr. Rosser, to the effect that he would that day procure the licence. The ring was bought from a jeweller of the name of Storey. The -first ring was too large, in consequence of leer daughter having grown so thin since her finger had been measured be. fore. A smaller ring was procured. After that they re ceived a letter from defendant, in consequence of which witness and plaintiff went to see him. Ile said on that occasion that he had known before all about the matter he had complained of in the letter, and he felt it his duty either to marry or provide for Sophia ; that his family still objected, but he would consult his own feelings and marry. He would marry as soon as his daughter, Mrs. Allen, went out of town. After that her daughter re ceived a packet, containing a bond from the defen dant, securing her an annuity of 601. a year for life. Mr. TUESIGER objected to this statement. Witness resumed.:—Defendant came to his house at Hampton, and having called in her two daughters to the parlour, took their hands, and said that they should all be happy by Christmas. Witness , told him that his conduct would not have been so unprincipled if she had a son or a husband to protect her. She was ruined, and her child's health and prospects blasted . by his conduct. She never saw him since. Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—Witness became a bankrupt when she was in business as a wine mer chant. Was not in prison. Did not know what sort of confinement the Counsel meant ; there were several kinds of, confinement.—(Great laughter.) Had not thought defendant so old. Had heard from himself that he had lived fifty-one years with his late wife. She often told him it was indelicate and unfeeling to go looking for a young wife so soon after his wife's death. He replied that heaven had smiled upon him, in presenting to him A person so like his former wife. Witness did not smile upon him too.—(A laugh.) He threatened to withdraw all his favour from them if they would not allow his visits. Witness could not afford to lose his friend - - ship, and, besides, she was grateful to him for .his. kindness. He had the management of her affairs, and possessed all the vouchers of her daughter's property, and her own. Had heard how many children Mr. Rosser had, and told him repeat edly that she could not believe his family would ap prove of the match. She often said that he ought to marry a person of his own age. Ile always spurned that advice, and said he would not be pestered with an old woman. :Witness always. remonstrated en the impro-, priety of proceeding in the matter without the approba tion of • his family. She did not insist on it as strongly as she would have done, if sit?: were not au uncertiticated bankrupt and entirely de'- pendent on her three daughters. Sophia received hand some presents from defendant from the beginning of his courtship. Could not say that they amounted to 60/. a= year. Sometimes her daughter returned the presents. Could not say that she returned the 5/. presents and kept the 201. One 201. was given for her to hay a suit of mourning, that she might correspond with his own appearance in walking out with him. Witness thinks that she had heard something about the presents in money amounting to 601. a year. Plaintiff received be sides that presents of dresses and shawls, but never of night-caps.—(Laughter) Never heard such a foolish story as that he should send night-caps.—(Laughter.) On her birth-day he sent her some presents; witness could not say- what. He transferred to her daughter's name stock to the amount of 6661. He used to accom pany her daughter to receive the dividends. That pre sent was independent of the 601. a-year.—(A laugh.) It was all to become his again upon marriage. —(A laugh.) —A letter was. here put in to witness's band, which she look some time to read.] I don't consider the match to have been off when that letter was written. When a letter came in one way, there was another be fore the day was out thtr other way. One was for, and the other against, the' match. I knew a person -named Kitchen. He was never the ac cepted suit,* of my daughter. He was not paying his addresses in this way. There was a cor-; respondence between them. It might have been as long_ as two years. I saw the letters put up and sent to Mr. Rosser, there were three letters se nt, but there were several others which were destroyed. Those three letters were returned by Mr. Rosser. The de fendant purchased the ring in May 1840 just before he came to Hampton the last time. I suppose 'he purchased it of his own free will. I certainly wrote to him at my daughter's request to purchase the ring, as a token of friendship, and to show that his intentions wer e honourable, but that the matter had been broken off because his friends were averse to it. That was on the 23d of March, 1840. The ring was sent down in April, believe. I told A my d aug h ter it was a silly request, b ut p id, e who were It would s h ow the people she of all this corre spondence aware l that his intentions were hononrable." There was no W not ure of letters during these three y ear s. Ido o recollect copying any of my . Rosser. lam quite unconsc i daughter's l etters t Mr ous of having d but it is impossible to recollect state eocf great ase was :i n extr a _ e xt s ra: ordinary that it put me into a wretched ness. Such a thing, I dare say, has: not occurred f ur a hundred years. lam sick and ti red of it. I am very unhappy, being in hourly expectation of hearing „ -- t my eldest daughter's death. Mr. THESIGER —Are you not aware that . this engage ment has been the cause of Miss Rosser 's death ? Mr. PLATT objected to the question. Witness—l had a letter from 3liss Rosser, stating something to that effect, which I considered very unkind of-her. I did not like the lodgings in Ormond-streeet. It was a very noisy unpleasant place. There were seven or nine men in the house, and, in. Nmy opinion, Northum berland-street was a palace to it. Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—My father-in-law car ried on the business for some time after my husband's death, and then he gave it to us. It was worth about 1,000/. Since my bankruptcy I have been wholly de pendent on .my daughter!. I never was in pri son, but have been arrested. It was in relation to a family property. I don't think my daughter had more than 201. after the first time. There was 20/. also given When the ring was brought to buy w h a t s h e thought pr'oper, for herself and her sisters to go to the w edding. Ile never sent any night-car. Kitchen tu Was rdequaintance of the flintily generally. He lived in Louden, and we saw him once in a month or six w eek - 1 received the two letters, now handed me, from Mr. Resser. They are rather intended for that gvntiern„ (pointing to the Solicitor). The letters were handed me, one in my daughter's handwriting. , [Several large bundles of letters were here handed to the witness, which she took some time in turning over and examining.] There are some of them in Mr. Rosser's hand-writing, and some in my daughter Elizabeth's. Joseph Arthur Sharpe —I am a clerk in the Office of Faculties. There is an affidavit of the 15th April 1840, made by Mr. Rosser. It comes from the proper office, where they are deposited on obtaining marriage licenses. There is a mark on it by which I know that the license has gone forth. It is sent to our office before the license is issued. The affidavit was then read. It was in the usual form for license between defendant and Sophia Darbon. Mrs: Mary Anne Bennett—l am the wife of Mr. Henry Bennett. He is engaged in a mercantile house in the City.. I knew the plaintiff. In the month ofJuly, 1807, I w as at Mrs. Darbous house at Hampton on a visit, and saw the defendant there twice. I was at )4rs. Darben's for six months. One time I saw him there was on a Sun day. I recollect his dining there on that occasion. I think plaintiff and defendant walked out together. She was in good health and spirits then. She is rather lively, and I think her persoa attractive. Mr. Rosser appeared old, but a healthy old gentleman.-- - -- (A laugh.) I thought him about 60. His conversation was lively, and he was courteous and attentive to the ladies. One of the visits he paid was in his carriage, and he went to church in it with Mrs. and Miss Sophia Darbon. He dined there that day, and Miss Sophia sat next him. The plaintiff always appeared to me a person of modest manners. I saw her three weeks or a fortnight ago. Her appearance was changed. She looked like a person who had suffered anxiety of mind—she was thinner and paler. Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—I did not suppose Mr. Rosser to be less than 60. Ile had good hair, but 1 don't think it was quite white. I thought him a fine man for his years. He seemed a man of intelligence, and his conversation was good. Miss Darbon called on me in London, and told me that she supposed I would be called upon about this trial. She was in low spirits, and had an appearance of anxiety. She remained three or four hours. At six o'clock the case was adjourned till to-morrow, and the Court, which was extremely crowded during the day, then broke up. COURT OF EXC.HEQ UER, Dec. 7. BURN V. BEATLY. This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1001. of which the defendant was the acceptor. Mr. ERIE contented himself with proving the hand writing of the defendant to the bill. Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, said that was one of the , into Court. impudent actions which had ever been brought Court. He would most clearly show that the bill was given to Guiness, who appeared on it as an indorser, for money lost at his house at play. In the latter part of 1840, a brother officer and the defendant belonged to a regiment, then lying in Dublin, got introduced to Guiness, and were by him taken to his hazard table, to which they became frequent visitors to the great detri ment of their fortunes. After losing near 2,0001. they were again at the table, and lost to the amount of 801. and, being short of cash, Guiness proposed that if they would play at his tables ag ain he would advance them 201. making 1001. in all, an he would take their joint bill for the amount. They agreed to this. The bill was given, they played, and lost the 201., and so invariable had been their losses that they took away with them two of the dice with which they played, and on breaking them they were found to be loaded in such a manner as to make them alt‘ays turn up in favour of the bank. The regiment did not stay long enough in Dublin to give these plundered gentle men an opportunity of indicting Guiness, and although they would, as honourable gentlemen, have paid losses if fairly won of them, they felt bound to resist the pay ment of money so unfairly taken from them. In such an action he would consider it his duty to take advan tage of every technical objection that presented itself. It would turn out that the date of the bill had been altered since the time it was made by the defendant. If he proved that fact, then he would be entitled to their verdict. He then called the drawer of the bill, who deposed as above. The date had undoubtedly been altered, because be obtained leave of absence on the 15th of November, and he went to the country on the 17th. He believed it was originally dated 13th November. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant on both grounds. LOUIS V. PARKER. Mr. BAGLEY said, the plaintiff in this case was a wine grower in Ay, in France, who had supplied the de fendant, a wine merchant, in Lower Thames-street,. with a quantity of champagne, for which the bill for 1691., now sought to be recovered, was given. He would prove the acceptance of the bill, and he was totally unable to form even a conjecture as to what defence could be set up. Mr. Bonassi, the plaintiff's agent, proved the delivery of the wine, and the acceptance of the bill by the de fendant. In his cross-examination by Mr. Dasent, he said he never knew any but one John Parker ; he had always dealt with him, and never with his brother. Ile had seen the brother in the counting-house, but he had always considered him merely as clerk to his brother. Mr. DasENT addressed the Jury, and suggested that the witness had got confused between the two brothers. The action was brought against Benjamin Parker. The wine was sold to John Parker and Co.; and John Parker was the party liable. The Jury immediately found for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. HORNE D PUBLIC OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF STAINEI :8-BRIS ;DGE This was an action brought against the defendant for the purpose of recovering the sum of 5001., under the following circumstances :—ln November, 1840, the tolls of the bridge were let by public auction, and were taken by a person named Thomson. The lessee was obliged to obtain two persons to enter into a bond as securities for the duo payment of the rent of 1661. 13s. 4d. per month. Thomson gave in the name of the defendant as one of such'sureties, and he signed an agreement to exe cute the bond. Thomson took possession of the tolls on the 31st Dec., 1840, paying one month's rent in advance. In February application was made to the defendant to execute the bond, but he then refused to do so, and gave the trustees notice of his intention of withdrawing him self as surety, of which no notice was taken. Thomson continued to pay his rent regularly, until August, when he ceased. There were three months rent due, amounting to 5001., which they now sought to recover from the de fendant, considering that he was bound by the agreement which he had signed, Mr. MILE contended that the plaintiffs had no right to recover from the defendant, as surety, until they had shown that Taylor was unable to liquidate his debt; and that the conduct of the trustees, after receiv ing notice in February that the defendant withdrew himself from his liability, was such as to induce him to bolieve that he was relieved. He hoped they would consider it a case for nominal damages only. Under his Lordship's direction, the Jury found for i the plaintiff for the amount claimed. VOGHLE V. KLATOWSKY This was an action to recover 1661. 15s. for work and labour done in the printing , and stereotyping of plates for some English and Foreign school books. The plaintiff was a widow, residing at Camberwell, where she carried on the business of a printer, left her by her late husband. In March, 1840, the defendant applied to have a vocabulary printed and stereotyped, in which the pages should be in columns, one in English, another in which the corresponding words appeared in French, another in Italian, and another in German. He required an estimate, which was given him, and it amounted to 51. 9s. per sheet. He gave an order, and work was done for him to the amount claimed. This was proved by the son of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had ever told the defendant that he was the successor of his father; the business was wholly the property of his mother. He had given instructions to the attorney, but merely as the agent of his mother. There was no custom in the trade that persons having whole works printed had twelve months' credit It was usual to give that credit to book sellers, but never to private persons. When he sent in the estimate, he stated that the setting up was to be at three months' re lit, and the stereotyping was to be paid cash. In dealing with the defendant, he spoke to him in his own name. The stereotype plates had not been delivered, nor would they until they were paid for. The present action was for the work. lte-examined—His mother's name was Over' the door. The porter to the plaintiff proved the delivery of the books. Mrs. Voghle was the owner of the business, and when be received any money he always gave the receipt in her name. Richard Clay, a printer, proved the reasonableness of the prices chated. Mr. COCKBURN for the defendant, complained that the delay which had occurred in the completion of the vocabulary, had, in fact, prevented the defendant from completing his contract. That delay had put an end to the contract, and the defendant was entitled to the credit given , according to the custom of the trade. Ha ought not to have been sued until next year. He called witnesses to prove the custom of the trade, but His LORDSHIP refused to receive the evidence. The Credit, was a matter of contract as well as the price. Under his direction the Jury found for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 7. CLARIDGE V. ➢I'KENZIE. This was an action fur trespass and illegal distress, brought to try the right to certain premises in High street, Marylebone. It appeared, from a voluminous mass Of documentary evidence, consisting of leases, as 'ignurmts, and the various licences and assignments (Crow 1751) of the Marylebone Coffee-house (now Wa ueetenisd, file Arms), which was originally a parcel of r.( sam e leasehold property as the premises in ques tion,.,_ that the father of Miss M'Kenzie, the e e - I ;ou P s r e e : n t o is a e a a nt io holding by lease under the Duke of Portland, years" in 01 1 , 810 the remainder of his term, or " 24 n s talornrhthiteanntdsou namedth of T i l t h h a e ry 3 . lar T y lhee lbaotnteerChfing built on both lots, let the houses to two persons, of whom the plaintiff was one. In 1828 Tilbury informed his tenants that _ his interest had expired, and 11, 1 1 ) (o rtland was thenceforth their that the Duke expiration :'\i of the 0f24 years, the property however, insisted that a la f n te d r lor th d e . her father, whose term reverted to her under the to Claridge,p to her, first acting under her, but ultimately had not yet expired. hTeilvboulrun'stagyvipeerOproesefusdetodacknoywlerds her as landlady, heuee the rent from paid quar ter's condition that she consented to , , 40 guineas to 35L In Jute 1839 ter's rent, but the next quarter not distrained, whereon the plaintiff paid th i : g b Paid ' Again defendant istrainedd for the Christmas broker. replevin, .vas o and the plaintiff having sued upon re suited. In 1840 and 1841, the defendant levied twonirn tresses, for one of which the present action was bro ug h t in trespass, and for the other an action ofreplevin Wh ic he , is now in the paper for trial. Mr. Sergeant SHAW, for the defendant, contended that it was not competent to a tenant to try the right of his landlord in the form of trespass, having acknowledged the landlord's right, under a full knowledge of all the circutnstenees, as the Learned Sergeant was prepared to show. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if the defendant was prepared to disprove the fact in evidence, that her interest expired with the lease of Tilbury ? Mr. Sergeant SHEA submitted, that even granting that all the plaintiff's evidence was true, he could not raise objection to his landlord's title after the formal re cognition of the former's right, which would be proved by defendant's witnesses. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he would see what that evidence was. The case occupied the Court from its sitting, and had not concluded when we went to press. Two witnesses proved the facts stated by Mr. Sergeant 1 Shea as to the payment of rent by plaintiff, first on de- t nand, and secondly efter a distress levied. 1 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left it to the Jury to say whether they believed the testimony of Tilbury, and the document produced by him, that the interest of M'Kenzie expired in 1838.—Verdict for the plaintiff, 49/. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 7. MESSRS. WRIGHT AND CO.'S BANKRUPTCY. This day being appointed for a dividend under the fiat, a number of creditors were in attendance. Mr. DIXON appeared to move that a proof for 1,7051. 12s. Id., by Mr. George Robins, the well-known auc tioneer, of Covent-garden, admitted on the 19th March, against the joint estate of Messrs. Wright and Co.; be expunged. The proof was established on Mr. Rilbins's affidavit, which stated the firm to be indebted to him at the time of the fiat issuing in that sum, being the ba lance of a banking account for money in hand, and re ceived for their use, and for which the deponent re ceived no security or satisfaction. The ground on which he (Mr. Dixon) applied to have that proof expunged was, that the transaction was one in which Mr. John Wright alone was concerned in his individual ca pacity. By a pass book, which he produced in Court, it appeared that Mr. John Wright was debited for 17,0001. A sum of 18,0001. had been lent to the Right Hon. Mr. Howard, through the instrumentality of Mr. Wright, by Mr. George Robins, in June, 1839, and it would appear that that sum had been paid into the bank, after some time, on account of Mr. Robins. The first document which he (Mr. Dixon) should produce would be a memorandum, bearing date the Bth of June, 1839, which appeared to be a security given by Mr. John Wright to Mr. Robins in certain Cuba bonds for the amount of 17,0001. It was in the form of a letter ad dressed to Mr. Robins, as follows : _ " June 18, 1839. " Sir,—l place at your disposal Cuba Bonds to the amount of 22,0301, which you hold as security for 17,000/., which you have placed in our hands, subject to be realized by you, or repaid by us, at one month's notice, and interest to be paid to you, ad inte rim, at 5 per cent., and we hold ourselves responsible to you, in the event of a loss being sustained, for the defi ciency of any of the security. (Signed) " JOHN WRIGHT. " P.S.—The nominal value of the bonds is only 801., although we lately purchased them at 831." The Court would observe, that in this letter, both at the commencement and the end, John Wright alone appears, although in the body the plural number occurs. How ever, it appears to have been written at the office of Mr. Robins, and none of it, save the postscript and signature, is in Mr. Wright's handwriting. He (Mr. Dixon) con tended that this letter was enough to prove the transac tion of leaving the money which had been paid into the bank on account of the loan to Mr. Howard was with Mr. John Wright only, and this assertion would be strengthened when' he said- that the firm had no interest whatever in it. Therefore, though the plural number appeared in the letter it was no proof that the firm was implied. Again, those Cuba bonds were the property of John Wright, andd - the partnership had not one penny interest in them. The cheque for 17,0001. in favour of Mr. Robins was drawn by Mr. John Wright in these terms—" Pay to self on Cuba bonds, or bearer the sum of 17,0001. on account of George Robins, Esq. Signed John Wright. Addressed to Messrs. Wright and Company." Nothing could be niore conclusive to prove John Wright to be the principal actor, and that it was a separate transaction ; than that cheque. Mr. Robins had the pass-book connected with this transaction for 17,000/., yet he made no formal objection until now, when he is called on to establish the fact of its being an account with Wright and Co. Cubs bonds to the amount of 5,000/. were retired from the box, and Mr. John - Wright's name alone is mentioned in that affair. Again, in all the entries made on account of interest paid to Mr. Robins the name of John Wright was to be found, and the same observation holds true in the transactions with respect to the principal. Mr. Robins had sold out the Cuba bonds at 65, and as a security, in case of their falling below 80, there were certain Steam packet debentures lodged, which had been sold out also, as the Cuba bonds only realised 15,7501. The Learned Gentleman concluded by saying he should put in the pass-book and the checks, and ask a few questions of Mr. John Wright, by the way of a cross-examination of his previous evidence. Mr. George Robins—l object totally to this proceed ing. I can't recognise any right to undo my proof, which has been already fairly established, and by the Learned Commissioner admitted. The more so do I pro test against this, as I shall be compelled to touch upon matters which may be painful to Mr. Wright; and, also, unless it can be proved that there is some suspicion at tached to me, as I think it quite enough to lose my money without being subjected to vexatious opposition. There ought not to have been Counsel brought into Court to upset my claim, without having first given me adequate notice, which has not been done, as I only gob notice yesterday. Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said the Act of Parlia ment authorised the assignees to take certain steps to as certain whether any proofs under a fiat had been im properly admitted ; but, at the same time, they were bound to pay such costs as the Court might award in case the opposition should 'prove frivolous. Mr. HAMILTON—A" summons had been served upon Mr. Robins before. Mr. Robins—Yes, it was served at the time when I was engaged in the sale of Lord Southampton's estate, which had been advertised in every Newspaper in Eng land for three months previously. As he considered his case to be equitable he should dispense with Counsel, ant] leave the legal points in the hands of the Court. Mr. John Wright, being sworn, stated that he recol lected having some transactions with Mr. George Robins concerning a loan of 17,000/.—[llere the Learned Counsel, in opposition to Mr. Robins's claim, handed the witness the pass-book before alluded to.] In it he found an entry, dated 19th July, 1839, of John Wright, for 17,0001. About that time he made an application to Mr. Robins, telling him that the Hon. Mr. Howard wanted to borrow a large sum of money, at the rate of 5 per cent. ; and he thought it would be more advanta geous to him (Mr. Robins) to let Mr. Howard have that sum, instead of only receiving 3 per cent. on his capital. Ile (Mr. Wright) thought Mr. Robins was at the time under the impression that the loan was to be guaranteed by the firm ; but such was the stability of the bank then, that he paid very little attention to the exact words used. The interest on the loan was credited to the ac count, of Mr. Robins, and witness ne ver b a d an y o th er transactions with him. If it were a partnership transac tion, it would not have been entered as John Wright's, in the book. However, his position in the- firm was such, that Mr. Robins might naturally consider his act that of the• , firm ; and in his (Mr. Wright's) opinion, it was of very little consequence against which estate Mr. Robins proved, as he would be quite as likely to get as large a dividend from the separate as from the joint estate. He could swear the transaction was with him, but what Mr. Robins's impression was he could not say. Mr. G. Robins said he was not by any means aware it was a transaction separate -fronfihe firm. He felt that his own credit with the world depended on his rendering an explanation of all the facts of the case. Mr. Wright said to him, " You said you can't get more than 3 per cent. for your money, but I shall be able to get you 5 per cent. if you lend the Hon. Mr. Howard 17,000/. on certain shares in the London and Southampton Rail way." To this he replied, that he did not know the value of those shares, but would consider the house of Wright and Company to be sufficient security. The money was accordingly advanced upon these terms, and also that it was to be repaid upon the sale of some pro perty to the Duke of Newcastle by the Duke of Nor folk. But the chief point upon which he (Mr. Robins) relied was, the wording of the letter originally quoted by the Learned Counsel, for the word " we" must, in the mind of any man of common sense, imply the firm, and the firm alone. When this sum was repaid by the Hon. Mr. Howard, Mr. Wright sent for him (Mr. Robins), and said the loan had been paid into the bank, and he could lay it out again in the way of loan on as good security, and offered Cuba bonds to the amount of 22,0001. as security for the 17,0001 which had been paid in. To this he replied he was not aware of the value of the Cuba bonds, but was quite satis fied with the security of Messrs. Wright and Company. The money was, consequently, never drawn from the bank, and surely the Court would not believe that he required-the security of the house in the first transaction, without observing a similar precaution in the next. It would be ridiculous to suppose that he would risk his , money in a loan to any one bank, when he knew e) the other banks were getting money for 3 per cent2tl The fact is, that the banker is genera ll y tho lender; ,and not the borrower. The fact was, he thought he was lending the money to one of Mr. Wright's very numerous clients. The letter had been written by Messrs. Wright's own clerk, Mr. Beadle, and he (Mr. Robins) thought the sentence "we hold ourselves responsible for any deficiency" in the depreciation of the nominal security of the Cuba bonds, to be ample proof that the firm was involved, and not an individual. If such a fact were known as any bank to borrow money at an interest of 5 'per cent., he could have made it bankrupt in 24 hours. Mr. DixoN having replied, Mr. Commissioner HoLnovia said this was an applica tion to expunge a proof against the joint estate of the bankrupts. After the loan to the Hon. Mr. Howard had been repaid, the money being in the bank, Mr. Robins allowed the use of it on the joint security of the partnership. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, considering that the loan to Mr. Howard had been given on the guarantee of the firm, and considering that in the material part of the letter the plural number had been used, there was not enough to satisfy him that that debt had not been contracted on the responsibility of the firm of Wright and Company. He would rather form an opinion from the documents that had been produced that day in Court than upon the evidence of any person, no matter who he might be, at that distant period. From all the circumstances of the case he came to the conclusion, that as the loan to Mr. Howard was originally given on the security of the firm of Messrs. Wright, so, also, when that money again came to be disposable by its repayment, Mr. Robins would again reqUire similar security. Under those circumstances lie should not entertain the appli cation. Mr. Robins—l hope your Honour will make an order requiring the opponents to pay my expenses. I have come up here from Brighton, with four horses.— (Loud laughter, in which the Learned Commissioner joined.) Mr. HAMILTON-4 dare say, Mi. Robins, you won't spare expens e in this case ? Mr. Commissioner Iloutovp—The terms of the Act, ordering the payment of all reasonable expenses, shall be complied with. - Mr. FRANCE, on behalf of a number of stock claimants, among_ whom were several Roman Catholic clergymen, applied to the Court to be allowed to prove their claims. The bankrupts acted in this case as trustees, and, there fore, it was competent for those creditors to prove either against the joint or separate estate. Many applications had already been made to the Court of Review, and the case had been considerably prolonged by this, but he hoped, uncler • THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER!! 8, 1841. the circumstances in which his clients were placed, his Honour would order a lengthened adjournment. Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—These debts cannot be proved without an order of the Court, giving them per mission to come in and prove them, and in the case of Mr. France's clients that order has not been obtained yet. After some further routine matters had been disposed of, it was finally arranged that the case should stand over to the 20th of January. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT. CASE OF RAPALLO. Mr. C. PHILLIPS said he had an application to make to the Court in the case of Ernest Rapallo. He always understood that it was the usual practice when no bill was presented that the prisoner should be discharged. Mr. BODKIN said they made that application as Mr. Lefroy, the principal solicitor, had left town, supposing that the proceedings against his client were at an end. The RECORDER said it was usual in such cases to make an application at the commencement of the session, and to state that a prisoner was to be admitted as a witness. He understood that Mr. Maule was about the premises, and he had sent Mr. Clarke to communicate with him, as it might appear that Mr. Maule had been sent to state the intention of the Government with re spect to the proceedings, as there had been no bill presented. Mr. Manic (the Solicitor to the Treasury) here entered, and conversed privately with his Lordship. Mr. PHILLIPS said there did not appear to him to be a shadow of a just cause to keep the prisoner in prison. They were aware that Rapallo had been examined by the Government in Newgate, and made a full disclosure. All they (Mr. Phillips and Mr. Bodkin) wanted to know was, did the prosecutors claim the further detention of this gentleman ? The RECORDER—I understand the prisoner has been examined as a witness, and that it is not the intention of Government to apply fur his detainer. The RECORDER then addressed Mr. Maule, and in quired if he had received any such instructions of de taining the prisoner ? Mr. MAuLEt—Certainly not. The RECORDER—If it was not a Crown proceeding, the course I should pursue would be to estreat the re cogniaances. The proceeding would have involved me in considerable difficulty, as I had received no official notice to act upon. But I have now no difficulty, since I have conversed with Mr. Mimic. Mr. C. Pluri.ips—lt is but right that I should be al lowed to state that nothing could be more fair than the conduct of the Government so far as Rapallo had been concerned. I think it right to state this, as it might be supposed that we intended to throw an imputation upon certain parties when they do not deserve it. A long conversation then took place privately between the Recorder, the Common Sergeant, the Lord Mayor, and Mr. Manic. Mr. PHILLIPS said there was a gentleman present from the Treasury, and be had no motion whatever to make relative to the detention of the prisoner. The RECORDER—You should look to the Act of Par liament, which makes it necessary that such applications as these should be made at the commencement of the session. Mr. PHILLIPS- --MTLord, I have made my application to the Court, and I have heard nothing from Mr. Maule, the Solicitor to the Treasury, to intimate that he is in structed to make any application for the detention of this gentleman. Mr. MAULE—I am not instructed at all. Mr. BODKIN—I am quite sure that the Court, as at present constituted, - could grant the liberation of this prisoner, and there was this differenee be tween a private prosecution and a Government one, that there ought to be every leaning on the part of the Go vernment towards the subject. The RECORDER-110 it been a private prosecution, we should have estreated the recognizances. Mr. PHILLIPS—And you would have discharged the prisoner on the estreat of the recognizances. The COMMON SERGEANT—UnIess we thought the pur poses of justice would be frustrated. Mr. PHILLIPS—Mr. Maule says-- The COMMON SERGEANT—As it appears to me, we are to know nothing of Mr. Maule. Mr. PHILLIPS—Your Lordship must be aware that Mr. Manic was sent for by your Lordship. The REconnEn.—l have stated before, and I say so again, as I never state anything privately that I would not publicly, that I felt, as it was a prosecution in stituted by the Government, that there was some difficulty arising out of the circumstance of the detention of the prisoner. I therefore felt it my duty to desire that a communication should be had with Mr. Manic to know whether he had any application to make on the part of the prosecution relative to this detention. I know there has been an indictment presented against Rapallo, nor was there an opportunity of his being ex amined as a witness in the Court. I had it intimated that no evidence would be offered against this prisoner, and I wished to have this fact certified before I became a party to his liberation, more especially as he was charged with an offence so tremendous. Mr. PHILLIPS —lf it will be any satisfaction to the Court, will ymir Lordship put Mr. Manic into the box? The COMMON SERGEANT—The Court has the power to discharge this prisoner, but it is for them-to consider whether they will exercise that power or not. Another conversation here took place between Mr. Manic and the Recorder, which was carried on privately although in the Court. The RECORDER—I think it right, out of respect to the Learned Counsel who have made this application, to state the resolution of the Court. I propose that the case shall remain over till the conclusion of these Ses sions, and then that the prisoner be discharged, unless application should be made from the proper authorities to detain him. There was considerable noise in the Court throughout the proceedings, and owing to the conversations being carried on in an under tone, and our being situate at considerable distance from the bench, it was with some difficulty that we could catch the observations. The Sessions will be concluded this evening. AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE. --GROSS PERS Elizabeth APCabe, 19, a respectable looking girl, was indicted for stealing four bank -notes of the value of 251., and ten sovereigns, and a great number of articles—con sisting of a pair of stays, a quantity of knives and forks, salts, plates and dishes, smelling bottles, tea-pots, china, glass ware, earthenware, and a variety of other articles— theey, Camden Head publie h property ouse,lligh-s e t f g High-street, Cam ß den-town. Mr. Phillips conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Clark son appeared for the defence. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner had-been in the service of the prosecutor for nine or ten months, during which time she had always conducted herself with propriety and honesty. In October last the prose cutor came to her and said that he had been robbed, and that he must search her box, as he had done his man's. She replied that she could not allow it, as her box was not fit to be seen by a man. He then requested her to have it searched in the presence of his (prosecu tor's) wife ; but she refused unless her mother was pre sent. The prosecutor then called in a policeman, and gave her into custody. As soon as the prisoner was con veyed to the station-house, the prosecutor took the police man, and opened the boxes of the prisoner, where the property named in the indictment was found. The pro secutor was severely cross•examined by Mr. Clarkson, and it appeared that, on, several occasions, he had taken liberties with the girl, and had of fered her two sovereigns if she would comply with his wishes, but she refused, and told her mistress. The girl had twice complained to . her mother that her boxes had been attempted to be opened. The prosecu tor had previously sworn that what liberties he had taken were in the presence of his wife. He also swore diS- tinctly that liis wife was not in the habit of getting tipsy. The wife was then called, and swore to the property being hers. She deposed that she had never seen her husband attempt any liberties with the prisoner in her presence —not so much as kiss her. On cross-examination she declared that she had taken no intoxicating drink the whole of yesterday, and that she was perfectly sober. The stays produced she would swear were her property. The cross-examination of both witnesses was at great length, but these were the principal features. The policeman wha took the prisoner into custody was examined, and Mr. PitthuPs said that was the case for the prosecution. Mr. CLARKSON then addressed the Jury for the de fence, and concluded by calling the following witnesses : John Blackmore deposed that he was a glass-dealer, and had sold the prisoner at the bar the salts produced. Had no doubt whatever on the subject. Caroline 13atteley deposed that she was a china and glass-dealer, at 28, High-street, Camden-town. Sold the prisoner several articles produced about six months ago. James Sergeant stated that he resided at 127, High street, Camden -town. About eight weeks ago sold the prisoner the broach produced. It is the one sworn to by the prosecutor's wife as her property. Mrs. Jernomy Huntsmack deposed that she resided at No. 47, High-street, Camden-town, and kept a druggist's shpp. She was called to prove that she had sold the prisoner a smelling bottle, but on its being called for in the Court, it was no where to be found. Mr. CLARKSON said the Jury saw it when it was pro duced at the examination for the prosecution. Mrs. Huntsmaek said she would describe the bottle without seeing it, so well did she recollect the circum stance of selling it to the prisoner. The officer who took the prisoner into custody, said that perhaps the bottle might be in a basket he had in his possession of the prisoner's, which contained some things of her own. The RECORDER as k e d h ow it was that this basket had not be en produced before ? Th e Offi cer —l was told to brin g i t , my Lord, but i t b e l ongs to t h e pr i soner . the REconnEn—lf you pre. , :mme to come into Court after havi ng searched property belonging to prisoners, and you k eep b ack any of the articles,' you shall take th e consequences It is a most harsh thing that when a prisoner has submitted to be stripped of everything, that those things most in their favour ard held back. I s h all expect this bottle to be produced. After considerable search the bottle was found and identified by the witness us the one she had sold to the prisoner. indictment and pro d uced, A witness p rove d he had so ld th e s t a ys, named in th e to the prisoner. Could swear to the stays, they h a d hi s private mark upon them. Nicholas M'Cab e , the next witness called, stated that lie was the father of the prisoner, anti lived in Bear-street, Ratcliffe. The prisoner had been a servant in one place for upwards of eight years before she went to the prosecutor. , She had 151. i n h er possess i on w h en s h e wen t i n t o th e service of Mr. B eagley, wh i c h s h e h a d save d f rom h er former servi ce . Wi tness had o f ten to ld h er t o pu t i t i nto the Savings' Bank but she said it was safe enough in her pocket. 'the prosecutor came to witness at the police of fice, and said if his daughter got off, he would take her ilitohtihe his serviee features l of again. this n ' The evidence.witness was cross-examined by Mr. Phillips, buknothing was elicited in any war to alter Mrs. M‘Cabc, the mother of the prisoner, deposed that she had seen 151. in her daughter's possession, which she had saved out of her wages. She came home one day while in the service of the prosecutor, and com plained that some one had been trying to get into her box. That was about two months before Beagley insti tuted the present prosecution. The witness knew of her daughter having ear-rings and black ornaments, and a necklace of jet. The prosecutor's wife was again called up by the Recorder, and :she said she would swear the articles were hers, or at least like them. , She swore positively, in the first examination, that they wero her property. William Henry Finch being sworn, deposed that he lived at No. 5,. Union-street, Islington. The prisoner sent him to pay some'money for a coral necklace. Has known the prisoner about two years, and never heard a breath against her character. The witness knew her when she lived at Islington at her last place. By the COURT—Mts. Beagley, if these are your orna ments, will you state where you got them ? Mrs, Beagley (hesitating for some time)—ln Tottenham Court-road. The BEconnzn—What is the person's name ? Mrs. Beagley—l can't say the person's name ; it is some years back. The RECORDER—Did you ever wear this brooch ? Mrs. Beagley—Never but once. The REcoßDEß—Where did you get the car-rings ? Mrs. Beagley (hesitating)—l think the name was Har rison, in the New-road. The RECORDER—Did you ever wear them?—Yes, Sir. The RECORDER-HOW long ago? Two years ago. [She was then asked a variety of questions by the Court as to the price she gave for the articles, and answered each question in the same hesitating manner as before. She said she could not tell whether she gave 4s. or 11. for the brooch. The RECORDER—Where did you get the stays from? Mrs. Beagley—From a person over the bar. The RECORDER—Do you mean to say you tried them on in the bar ? Mrs. Beagley—No, I . did not try them on at all. The RECORDER—Remember you have taken a solemn oath. Was it a man or woman that you purchased these articles from ? Mrs. Bealey—lt was a woman. The REcoaDga—By the solemn oath that you have taken, do you mean to represent that you bought those stays ? No answer, On the question being repeated she said she did. The RECORDER—And you swear that you,purchased them over the bar ? Mrs. Beagley—l cannot possibly say, Sir, it might have been in the kitchen. The RECORDER—Did you wear these stays ? Mrs. Beagley—l never wore them but once. The stays were lying on the table in the Court, and were considerably worn. The RECORDER, addressing the Jury—l really put it to you whether you can believe this woman ? Mr. CLARKSON said, if the Jury would wait a little he would prove that the witness was all day yesterday in a beastly state of intoxication, although she had sworn that she was not, nor had tasted any intoxicating drink. Here then was a witness who was put into the box who proved that he saw Mrs. Beagley yesterday in such a state of intoxication, that she could not support herself, and she was obliged to be led about the street by her husband. The RECORDER asked if there was any other witness to prove this ? A gentleman in the strangers' gallery rose, and said he_bad witnessed the same scene as described. Several other witnesses also spoke to having seen this. Several witnesses were called to speak to the character of the prisoner, but the Jury said it was not necessary, as they had already decided upon their verdict, which was Not Guilty. As soon as this was announced several persons in the Court commenced clapping their hands, and otherwise expressing their satisfaction at the result of the trial, when The RECORDER said if he Could -ascertain who had been guilty of clapping their hands, he would commit them to Newgate. The prisoner was again placed at the bar, and in dicted for stealing five sovereigns, and 13 half sovereigns. The evidence was similar to that in the last case, ex cept that the prosecutor swore that the prisoner had never been paid any wages, whilst the wife in her exami nation swore the prisoner had been paid 51. at one time. Mr. PRILLIPS—My Lord, I do not think I should act in a manner becoming the profession to which I belong if I proceeded with the case upon such evidence. The. RECORDER—Let everything be carefully ac counted for to the prisoner, and given to her. I shall not allow the expenses of any of the witnesses except the officer, and that point I shall reserve for consideration. The prosecutor is an ill-looking man, of about forty five. His wife seemed much older. The prisoner is an interesting-looking girl of about 19, and was very re spectably attired. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. EXTENSIVE ROBBERY OF CASH, BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES, PLATE, &c.—An Irishwoman named Elizabeth Price, with two of her daughters, Elizabeth Brown, mar ried, and with an infant at her breast, and Ann Price, be tween 14 and 15 years of age, were charged with stealing two 101. and four Si. Bank of England notes, 150 sove reigns or upwards, some silver moneys, spoons, a gold finger-ring, and other property Lelongitir4 to Mr. Wm. Osborne, the head cooper at Messrs. Goding and Broad wood's brewery in Broad. street, Golden square. It ap ' pears that the prosecutor, who is very aged, and his wife, were lodging at No. 19, Berwick-,strcet, Soho, and that the youngest Price came there daily to take care of ano ther of the lodgers' children. About 11 o'clock on Monday morning Mrs. Osborne wen t d own stairs to fetch some water, leaving her room-door open. The hoard of property was then safe in a drawer, with the key left in the lock. In about half an hour afterwards the property was miss ing. At that time not the slightest suspicion attached to the youngest prisoner. Information being given to the police, Sergeant G rey, C 14, traced the prisoners, and while conveying them to the station-house, he observed Brown fumbling about her dress, and, seizing her hand, found in it one of the silver spoons. A few yards further on, as he was walking close beside her, he felt something heavy fall inside her gown, the next moment a bag rolled at his feet, which was found to contain the stolen notes, with sovereigns and silver to the amount of 1881. 155., three other spoons, the missing ring, and other articles. The prisoner Brown exclaimed, as the bag fell on the ground, " Oh, it's there ! You've got what you want." They were remanded. THE LATE CASE OF EXTENSIVE SWlNDLlNG.—Yester day Joseph Adams, the fashionable swindler, who was brought up in custody froth Southampton, on a charge of obtaining, by false pretences, from Miss Emma Clap ham, of No. 99, New Bond-street, a black velvet dress, of the value •of 15/ 48s. 6d., and who was remanded from this office on Wednesday last, was brought up for re-examination, and placed at the bar before Mr. Maltby, the presiding Magistrate. . 'Mr. Humphries, the solicitor, appeared on the part of the prosecution, and prayed for a further remand of the prisoner • until Monday next, as the time had not been sufficient to enable him to procure the attendance of wit nesses, who had to be fetched from Southampton, and also of other parties who intended to prefer other charges against the prisoner. After some remarks by Mr. Flower, who was engaged for the prisoner, the Ma g i s tr a t e p os tp one d the further hearing of the case to Monday next. LAMBETH-STREET. On Monday no fewer than six lads, the oldest of whom did not exceed twelve years, while others were not much more than eight, were brought before Mr. NORTON, for further examination, on charge's of felony. While the two last, who were charged with stealing a pair of trou sers from the door of a draper, were under examination, Cook, the gaoler, remarked that some time ago a female named Al'Uarthy had been charged at this office with purchasing the plunder of nearly a dozen of juvenile thieves, and disposing of it at a small chandler's shop which she kept. This woman, in consequence of what had taken place, and from the attention of the po lice being constantly directed towards her, he (Cook) had every reason to believe, discontinued her prac tices, but ho had no doubt tliere was ,some other person in the neighbourhood of George-yard or Wentworth-street who had taken up her trade, and encouraged these boys in the commission of depre dations of all sorts. His reason for thinking this was, that on the arrival of the prison van at the Court on that morning with the six boys, of whom the prisoners at the bar formed two, a little prostitute, who had no doubt been waiting for them, addressed each by name, and af terwards sent them a quantity of bread and cheese, and a pot of porter for their lunch. The MAGISTRATE endeavoured to learn from the young urchins who the girl was, or where she came from, but they all concealed it. They were all remanded to a fu ture day, and spent the interval between their examina tion and the arrival of the prison van to take them to Clerkenwell in singing flash songs and abusing the gaoler for refusing to let them have more beer. The drunken charges were more than usually nume rous on Monday, anti amongst them were at least a dozen in which the parties were stated to be found in so insen sible a state as not to be able to move. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. WHITEHALL, Nov. 27, 1841. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Charles Preston. of Hull, in the County of York, Gentleman, to be a Master Ex traordinary in the High Court of Chancery. Couu by Hit Lord Lieutenant, of Yorkshire. The Honourable Beilby Richard Lawley to be Deputy Lieu tenant, Nov. 30. The following places have been"duly registered for solemniz ing marriages therein, pursuant to the Act 6th and 7th William IV.. chap. 85 :--- The Independent Chapel, East Stonehouse, Devonshire. A gard-street Chapel, Derby. Baptist Chapel, Brattoo, Wiltshire. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. _ ..... JOHN I)ENYER, tailor, High-street, Southwark. JAMES COLES, surgeon, Victoria Ironworks, Monmouth shire. ELIHU WILLSON, stationer, King-street, St. Giles. JOHN GRIFFITHS, milliner, Quadrant, Regent-street. BANKRUPTS. JOHN BROOK and THOMAS BROOK, drapers, Stour bridge, Worcestershire, to surrender Dec. 16, at three, and Jan. 18, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, of ficial assignee ; Reed and Shaw, Friday-street, Cheapside. HENRY CAREW HUNT, merchant, Old Broad-street, Dec. 16 and Jan. 18, at half-past twelve, at the Court of ' Bankruptcy. Whit more , official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Heathcote and Holma n , Coleman-street. JOHN JOHNSON, druggist, Nantwich, Cheshire, Dec. 21, and Jan. 18, at one, at the Crown Inn, Nantwich. Hilditch, Guildford -street, Russell-square, London ; M‘Lure, Nantwich. WILLIAM DUNN, merchant, Southampton, Dec. 17, at and Jan. 18, at twelve, at the Star Hotel, Southampton. Jones, Trinder, and Tudway, John- street, Bedford-row, London. JOHN RUSTON and JOHN JACKSON, commission agents, St. 'Paul's Church-yard, Dec. 16, at one, and Jan. 143, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Wormald, Macclesfield, Cheshire; Williamson and Hill, Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn. JOHN CORBETT ADAMS, woollen-warehouseman, Ba singhall-street, Dec. 22, at two, and Jan. 18, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, Basinghall-street, official assignee ; Gale, Basinghall-street. ROBERT SKINNER, stone-merchant, Dock-head Stone wharf, Bermondsey, Dec. 21, and Jan. 18, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, Frederick's Place, Old Jewry, official assignee ; Plews, Bucklersbury. GYLBY HAIRSINE, linendraper, York, Dec. 24, and Jan. 18, at twelve, at the Guildhall, York. Rushworth, Staple Inn, London ; Smith, York. JAMES HOPKINS and JOHN DREWITT, bankers, Arundel, Dec. 22, and Jan. 18, at ton, at the Norfolk Arms Hotel, Arundel. Blackmore and Senior, New Inn, Middlesex. JOHN GRAHAM, grocer, Hackney-road, Middlesex, Dec. 16 and Jan. 18, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gibson, official assignee, Basinghall-street; Hill and Mat thews, Bury-court, St. Mary Axe, City. SAMUEL PROSSER, merchant, Portsea, Dec. 24, at two, and Jan. 18, at three, at Totterdell's Commercial Hotel, Portsea. Low, Staple Inn, London ; Low, Portsea. THOMAS BATE, farmer, Compton, Kinfare, Stafford shire, Dec. 13, and Jan. 18, at twelve, at the Talbot Hotel, Stourbridge, Worcestershire. Swain, Stevens, and Co., Fre derick's-place, Old Jewry, London ; Roberts, Cr ompton, and Eberhardt, Stourbridge. WILLIAM WALLACE and ROBERT BYERS, power loom cloth manufacturers, Blackburn, Lancashire, Dec. 21, and Jan. 18, at eleven, a t the Town-hall, Preston, Lancashire. Clarke and Medcalf, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London; Ainsworth and Son, Blackburn. GEORGE HARRIOTT, beer brewer, Ormskirk, Lan cashire, Dec. 20 and Jan. 18, at one, at the Clarendon rooms, Liverpool. Jaques, Batty, and Edwards, Ely-place, London; Welsby, Ormskirk. DAID HUGHES, lime-burner, Welshpool, Dee. 17, at twelve, and Jan. 18, at eleven, at the Royal Oak Inn, Welshpool. Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris, Temple, London ; Yearsley, Welsbpool. ROBERT JAQUES and RICHARD WILSON, flax spinners, Leeds, Yorkshire, Dec. 16, at two, and Jan. 18, at ten, at the Commisaioners'-rooms, Leeds. Wilson, Blooms bury, London ; Payne, Eddison, and Ford, Leeds. JOHN ROSE, grocer, Monk Wearmouth Shore, Durham, Dec. 14, and Jan. 18, at eleven, at the Thompson's Arms Inn, Sunderland. Swain, Stevens, and Co., Old Jewry; Wrights, Sunderland. PATRICK WORTERS CARTER and JAMES JACK SON, woollen-drapers, Brewer-street, Golden-square, Dec. 21, at half-past twelve, and Jan. 18, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lom bard-street ; Fox, Meek, and Britten; Basinghall-street. DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. J. Hayward and K. H. Moore, booksellers, Paternoster-row, Dec. 31, at one. In the Country. W. Bird, builder, Fareham, Southampton, Dec. 30, at one, at the Red Lion Inn, Fareham—G. and H. Schonswar, mer chants, Ferriby, Kingston-upon-,Hull, Dec. 29, atone, at the George Inn, Kingsfon-upon-Hull—T. Bowden, shipwright, Topsham, Devonshire, Dec. 30, at one, at the New London Inn, Exeter—J. Dauncey, cattle dealer, Baltonsborough, Somerset shire, Dec. 29, at twelve, at the Somerset Hotel, Wells—G. Newton, builder, Mortlock, Somersetshire, Dec. 28, at twelve, at the George Inn, Ilminster —J. Tayler, grocer, Carmarthen, Dee. 29; at one, at the Ivy Bush Hotel, Carmarthen—R. Der ham, W. A. Hinde, and J. Derham, worsted spinners, Dol phinholme, Lancashire, Dee. 29, at twelve, at the Commis sioners' -room', Leeds—W. Dartnall, cabinet maker) Chelten ham, Dec. 29, at two, at the Royal Hotel, Cheltenham—T. P. Thomas, plumber. Cheltenham, Dee. 29, at four, at the Royal Hotel, Cheltenham—W. Hale, scrivener, Bath, Dec. 30, at one, at the Castle and Ball Inn, Bath—T. Bennett and P. Fish, carpenters, Fleet% ood, Lancashire, Dec. 31, at twelve, at the Town-hall, Freston—G. Rud.ston, 'woollen draper, King ston-upon-Hull, Dec. 29, at twelie, at the George Inn, King ston-upon-Hull—B. Brown and C. Poppleton, flax spinners, Leeds, Jan. 4, at eleven, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Leeds —E. Edwards, iron founder, Menai Foundry, Anglesey, Jan. 19, at eleven, at the Britannia Tavern, Carnarvon—G. Wilcock and J. Mallins on , wors t e d s pi nners , Bird's Royd, Yorkshire, Dec. 29, at eleven, a t th e T a lb o t Inn, Halifax—W. Lawton, iron founder, Rumworth, Lancashire, Dec. 30, at two, at the Swan Inn, Great Bolton, Lancashire—S. Shelley, flint grinder, Oulton, Staffordshire, Dec. 29, at one, at the Crown Inn, Stone, Staffordshire—H. Greenaway, painter, Bristol, Jan. 21, at one, at the Commercial-rooms, Bristol—W. Marsden, banker, Newcastle Emlyn, Carmarthenshire, Dec. 29, at two, at the Ivy Bush Hotel, Carmarthen—J. Smith, T. Edgley, and B. Smith, Manchester warehousemen, Manchester, Dec. 31, at ten, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manchester. CERTIFICATES-DEC. 28. J. Watford, grocer, Hough, Cheshire-B. W. Browne, cooper, Lowestoft, Suffolk-4. Pierce, tailor, Bedford—F. Parker, seed crusher, Rotherham, Yorkshire—J. Chapman, jun., clothier, Frome Selwood, Somersetshire—W. Hutchin son, spirit merchant, Dronfield, Derbyshire—H. 'Busbridge, liverystable-keeper, Upper North-place, Gray's Inn-road, Gray's Inn-lane. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. A. Johnson and F. Shaw, carpet dealers,'Bishopsgate-street Without—J. H. Davis and J. Adkins, cigar•merchants, Picca dilly—F. L. Whatley and H. Curtis, Irish linen factors, Cle ment's-court, Milk-street, City—T. and P. Rigby, licensed victuallers, Liverpool—P. and J. Cotterell, patent cast iron knife makers, Darlaston, Staffordshire—J. Pike and E. Moody, carpenters, Great Driffield, East Riding of Yorkshire—J. and J. Cortazzi, London—J. Harris and G. B. Lovell, carpenters, Clifton, Bristol—M. J. and J. T. G. Vizetelly, printers, Peterborough l eourt, Fleet-street-4. and E. Taylor, grocers, Tunstall, Staffordshire—W. Robertson and J. H . addock, plas terers, Newcastle-upon.Tyne—W. Rose and S. Fox, wire drawers, Sheffield—W. Younghusband andJ. Jackson, oilmen, Liverpool—lV. Fox and J. Hawkins, screw manufacturers, Birmingham—J. Pace, J. Denniston, and E. Mesnard, mer chants, Hartlepool, Durham (so far as regards E. Mesnard)— T. Armstrong and J. Hargraves, girth web manufacturers, Carlisle—R. H. Ingham and G. B. Westmacott, chemists, Manchester—K. Wait, J. Wait, and J. Wait, file manufac ture] s,Alanchesier (so far as regards James Wait ) G. Baffield, jun., J. Gainock, It. Bibby, and T. Raffield, shipwrights, Li verpool—A. Norris, 'l'. Norris, jun., and J. Norris, woollen manufacturers, Manchester (so far as regards A. Norris.) SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. THOMAS GARDNER, merchant, Port Glasgow, Dec. 10 and Jan. 7, at twelve, at the King's Arms Inn, Port Glasgow. THOMAS LOVELL, saddler,Tundee, Dec. 10 and'Jan. 7, at one, at the Writing Chambersof J. Gardiner, Dundee. ALEXANDER AITKEN, manufacturer, Dunfermline, Dee. 11 and 31, at twelve, at Laidlaw's Inn, Dunfermline. THOMAS FORGIE, baker, Langloan, near Airdri, Dec. 11 and Jan. 3, at twelve, at Forbes' Inn, Langloan. The GLASGOW CARD COMPANY, Glasgow, Dec. 11 and 31, at twelve, at the Chambers of Murray and Galloway, Glasgow. WILLIAM STEWART, grazier, Kinaldy, Glenerochky, Dec. 16 and Jan. 6, at twelve, at the George Inn, Perth. CHARLES INGLIS, merchant, Glasgow, Dec. 13 and Jan. 4, at twelve, at the Office of Knox and Findlay, Glasgow. THE MARKETS.—YESTERDAY; COLONIAL MARKET. There was little business done, the home trade being the principal operators. The Raw Sugar Market was firm, with a steady demand ; fine qualities being scarce command 68s. to 735. per cwt. In Coffee , the transac tions were limited, and the tendency of prices was down ward. The price of Rice was barely supported, and few or no purchasers could be found. Some small parcels of Pepper were taken off at former prices, 2-ad. per lb. TEA MARKET. The transactions were upon a very small scale, and no change can be quoted in prices. Company's Congou, Is. per lb. cash. TALLOW MARKET. Prices firm, with a steady demand; parcels on the spot, 48s. 3d. per cwt. WHITECHAPEL HAY MARKET. The supply of Hay and Clover was middling ; of Straw plentiful ; the demand heavy, at lower prices. Clover, at to 51. 13s. ; Meadow Hay, 21. to 41. • 83..; Straw, 11. 6s. to IL 10s. ( From the London New Price Current of December 7.) SUCIAII.—The British Plantation Sugar market con tinues in a healthy state ; a good demand has prevailed for all sorts for both grocery and refining purposes, and the merchants have obtained a further advance of 6d for fine yellow, and is for brown, grey, and middling yellow sorts. Antigua dingy grey low middling at 625, St. Kitts yellowish 635, Nevis with rather more colour 63s 6d, Jamaica good middling yelkiw 665, good 68s. To-day both grocers and refiners were anxious to purchase West India Muscovadoes Sugar, and were compelled to pay a further advance of Gd per cwt. This afternoon the public sales of Barbadoes consisted of 180 'Aids 40 tierces, which went off with spirit 6d to Is nbove the rates of the last auction—fine yellow sold at 72s 6d to 73s 6d, good middling and good 69s to 725, middling, 65s 6d to 68s 6d per cwt. REFINED.-To-day the grocers purchased freely of refined' goods, paying higher rates ; Standard Lumps realised 82s per cwt. Treacle was much sought after, and 'advanced rates were given • 28s paid for common, and 29s to 34s for other sorts. In Bastards and , Pieces large sales have been made, at the rates quoted above. Crushed Sugar was in brisk demand-28s 9d paid for large, and 29s for small parcels of the best. MAURITIUS.—For yellow sorts buyers have been com pelled to pay a further advance of is per cwt, fine yellow at 70s to 725, good 66s to 695; mid 60s to 645, and ord 57s to 59s ; brown kinds at a similar advance ; from Launceston black at 36s to 38s, low brown 42s to 42s 6d, fine 51s low and mid y e ll ow 56 s to 59s Gd. This after- , noon yellow sorts at stiffer rates. EAST INDIA.--White sorts of Bengal Sugar 77s to 78s for fine, 74s to 75s for good, and 71s to 72s for middling; brown sorts 44s to 46s for common and middling quality, Very inferior damp brown at 40s to 425, low 43s to 45s 6d, good 46s to 475, low damp yellow 50s to 52s 6d, middling sound 55s to 57s 6d, good dry 64s per cwt. Manilla 14s to 168 paid for low to fine brown, and 16s Gd to 17s 6d for low to good yellow. Java low brown to good yellow at 14s to 19s. Cochin at moderate rates ; tine damp yellow went at 18s to 18s 6d, good 17s to 17s Gd, washed good and fine 16s to 18s, ord 16s 6d, low damp white 18s 6d to 19s 6d, a few lots sound went at 20s to 21s for good fair white, mid brown 14s Gd, good dry grey 21s, yellow and brown washed and shifted 12s to 15s per cwt. This afternoon for both white and brown sorts of Bengal, full rates were paid. Manilla at Gd advance, ordinary to middling bro vn went at 15s to 16s, and da malted 13s 6d to 15s..per cwt. OREIGN.—YeIIow tla vannah at 21s to 21s 6d for fine, and 20s 6d for good quality; white at 25s Gd to 26 s 6d fur low middling; Brazil at 17s for fine brtt)wn, and 18s to 23s for common to fine white: 16s for low„yellow, and middling to good brown at 14s 6d to 15s per - vwt. MoLAssEs.—West India at rather higher rates ; Trini dad, at 255, Antigua good, 28s, St. Vincent's fair, 25 5 , and ordinary St. Lucia, 23s 6d uo to2 s 4 es s.-23( 6,ns. gaLStyo 8 Syrup p at er c2l‘v.t. sGd to 255, and Foreign las This afternoon 100 puns Dominica were sold at 29s for fine quality, being rat h e r higher. EE.—Prices have been fully support e d f or W est importers having s u ppli e d the markets sparingly ; a goo d dem and has existed privat e ly for Ind e i ° a "Coffee, mid dling clean sorts, and 110 s to 'llss paid for Jamaica ordi nary to fine ordinary sorts have been taken more freely ; unclean kinds taken in at 50s to 80s per cwt. Eat India and Cape sorts have met with more attention, and holders have been less disposed to realise. Mocha at stiffer rates. This afternoon a fair demand existed by private con tract for both East and West India, and full rates were paid ; only 137 bagB Samarang were offered at, auction, and sold at 42s for good ord. For Foreign a better demand has existed ; good ord f ~ ', MORNING SUN Laguayra at 41s 6d per cwt, 3 months promPt, and "'jib' cut discount. COCOA.—Holders of West India have refrained frl offering any at public sale ; and full rates have been ti P al %, The market for Foreign has been in a dull state. 1i quil taken in at 34s per cwt. l'es TEA.—The trade have operated with caution L. 0 since this day week, and prtvately but a limited busin c i 5 has been transacted, importers continuing to press ss A e have caused a further decline of aid to Id. oO,Yr holders of Tea evinced firmness, and purchases to f3,.` a extent were made in Free Trade, is 9d to is lod,P e for ord and good ord Congou, cash, but few parcels stt, pressing for sale. Company's Congou in r e g ve d i l and on 'Change could not be obtained for cash, 011 Is 9d peb. SP I ICES. - This afternoon the public salei eOttsiste,d,cof 2,055 bags Pepper, 25 barrels Nutmegs, and 2 barreo.:i Mace. Pepper sold at full rates, fine shot fetched 4§(0: good heavy 3id to aid, fairlialf heavy 3-4 d, ordina r Ylo. matra 24d ; Nutmegs went at 3s 7d to 4s fair arid ord to mid Mace at 3s 6d to 3s I Id. RlCE.—Prices hare been sustained for Bengel.lllos low dusty sorts have been in good request a t Os 1,„vo, per cwt. ; lOs 6d is the value of mid white. For .. 363 full rates paid. Carolina, for home use, at 285 t° per ct. FR w UlT.—This afternoon at public sale damag ed ci te rants sold at low rates, and raisins went at mode n 0 curta sot prices ; 61 butts 43 crtls new Patras damage d 48s tQ59s, 45 bntts 15 crtls Cephalonia ditto 49s te°lo„6 9 casks sound Smyrna ditto 54s ; 855 bo xes " ri 430 Raisins 38s to 465, 230 has Vourla ditto 31 s to 32s' brls damaged Chesme ditto 26s to 28s. fj S rice RUM, BRANDY, AND HOLLANDS.--Prices ha"DI way -id per gallon for Leewards Island Runt; r under-proof at is 9d, 8 under is 811. Proof afe Is 90, Ito 3 over-proof is 10d to Is lid, 7 ov er ,' g od brown 2s Id. Jamaica has met with a slo w ° Toe rather lower rates accepted, sales of fine quality 3 " ,„ 11 5 proof have been made at 5s 6d. Of Demerara' ~o; have been disposed of at 3s 10d for 33 Per `co , over of good _ quality. The operation s cutta have been upon a small scale only, an k d gots! is the value of proof. Brandy has met wit u - r e e` demand. Cognac first brands of the vii i i tar m 7d, 1836, hhds at 6s, puns 5s 10d ; ditto 1837 law s ; ,., 181 puns 5s sd; ditto 1838 lib& 5s sd, puns 5 s 3d; ~ hhds ss, puns 4s 10d; ditto 1840 hhds 4 s, P uu n s o per gallon. Geneva at 2s to 2s Id for eetn" , 4 l ,,irit 2s 6d to 2s 9d for fine fit for duty. English Co rti at lOs 4d cash. Batavia Arrack taken in at is 6j P strengTo- day a good demand existed for all sorts ° , d, proof Leewards fetched is I . od, East India Is 3 1 55 ld Jamaica 5s 6d to 5s 9d, and good 31 per cent. ever per gallon. y id P e l f COCHINEAL.—Prices have further given w a ,..: 00c 1 Ni lb. Honduras at 3s 11d to 4s 7d for low to g i 8 ba'P blacks, and low to mid silvers 3s 2d to 3 s "; Granilla is to is 4d per lb. ; n o te OlLs.—The arrivals of Olive Oils contioll.-,,c;,fre1k„,1.5 crease, have depressed the prices, and there 11; of Gallipoli at 781, and Spanish at 681 to 701P1n t lis e r; 32/ to 321 lOs paid for the best. For Linseed have further given way, 36s ter parcels 011 ,;11 for delivery next year the crushers will 1 3 ,1r1i 35 t . , ° 2Ss 6d, and some ask 29s per ewt. Rape "'" 5 .)- 6 ", ; i ° s r 6d have been accepted for pale, and 52s t° g ", c - :(1 0 r,; ( j, brown. Cocoa Nut Oil at 40s to 41s for I": 0 of d For Fish Oils prices have suffered a deprosl, liorV 51 . 1 1; per tun ; 421 for pale Seal; 331 to 381 15s f° 1. , , ,, ) :C0t1, ° 1 1 L straw colour; 311 to 321 lOs for brown; 301 10 s 1- to 3 4, )/ Southern low to fine quality went at 31 11° , 5 - ndib e 'l i : per tun, the stock of Oil in the Merchants ' oP r: s till Li; los for light. Sperm is held with less firmness tions have been to a fair extent at 931 to 93 ' p ,,14 fine British. Anv nd TALLOW.—For Russian Tallow since thi s there has bed a brisk demand from both til e ;Oi l "„v country trade for rates r aid on the spot, and 4 8 s tli f etY t i l ' s have been the rates paid for P.Y. Candle. F °l l - „o 01 . 65 to the end of the year 48s to 48s 3d, and for sP.: 4 I to - L , t 495 to 49s 3d per cwt. South American at ''„,10 03- Tan" 6d, for common to good quality. y.'Townif e i with a good sale. n This afternoon large purchases were wade n to at 48s to 48s 3d on the spot, and for delivery lir end of the year, the market closed firinlY• LLOYD'S SHIPPING . LormoN, DEC. 7.—Wind this day at noon e OFF MARGATE, DEC. 6.—Mary Banuticrl-;07,0, ering, Calcutta,- Australia, St. John's, Ne w - 1)0 . RAMSGATE, DEC. 6.—Arrd. British Q 0 e c ""! n th for Cape Coast Castle ; Racer, ditto, for Tercel 11' DEAL, DEC 6.—Wind SW.—Arrd. Mariannlihe"Ocr' Seas ; Thomas Rowell, Quebec. Arrd. fro ni Dartmouth, for Bombay. ba p; LIVERPOOL, DEC. 6.—Arrd. Creamore , raiba, sailed 11th ult. ; Eliza Kellick, tit' Cb a k; Fanny, Crowell, New Orleans ; Chicora, Rog'e r ois ° ; i f ton; Elizabeth Rowell, Wake,. St. John's,Ne w 1 7 jei4 5- '; Eliza Keith, St. Andrew's, New Brunswick ; Prince Edwards' Island ; Sovereign, St• es, ' 1 4 1 4 Brunswick. Put back, Capricorn, for 13 3 ,f7 h3 - ° rirLi damage, having been in contact with the c r iet Rotterdam ; Washington, Mobile, leaky ; 1 13,3 "'"„gler w , for Bombay ; Thunderer, Rio ; Salima, Princess Victoria, Mobile. 'rho Catharina, ion ,i Rotterdam, was towed into the Merseya 1 st e e .4 9 0 )0 1 1,g masted. having been in conta c t w i t h the . Cain • Barbadoes, oft' Port Lywas, 3d inst an t. T1 1 °2 1 1 (1 1 Star, supposed from Richebucto, t o thi s po rt, - of rudder, 18 inches water in her hold, ando l was fallen in with, 16th ult., i n l a t. 45, l on . 5 130",4 Sovereign, arrived here. Th e B roa d O a k, hence t( ii ) jos ; has put into Shedwell Roads, with b oa ts stove n e s3 o i ft bulwarks ; caboose, &c. The Sarah, from Cork, totally disrmoted, was towed into Tc"„ivario''' ult., by a French corvette. Arrd. o ff, Jane t ' 1 for William Shand. jorobargh' DOVER, DEC. s.—Arrd. Picciolu, po lo Barbadoes. ag ehec Amelia, a D m E b e n . rg 6 ll . 7l.o A r r Ir rd e . ra ß c e r gal uz i . s , 0:01 str PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 6.—Wind W. t 0 —And; Wellington, London, for NO fr iv.N 0 btli‘ PLYMOUTH, DEc.:2.—Wind S.W.; 3, ' it h 10 5 -f • Pera, Smyrna, for St. Petersburgb • eel warks ; Jacob, Shields, for Rio. fresh br atOelY FALMOUTH, DEC. s.—Wind W. to S " ilea " 2 "' ere, —Arrd. Acastus, Hayes, Buenos Ayres , s n," t h the -3 1er; tember; Racehorse, Punchard. Ancona' c w:i ed the I,ol' shifted; Charles, Jersey for Teneriire• 'P ,1:011 5 tl' e packet, West Indies. The Orient, from at wo , 00 ; don, notwithstanding both pumps are I ce rLt 2 4 h° water has increased 18 inches during the IV. she has conmeuced unloading. Qu e iO l s on, BRISTOL, DEC. 6.—Arrd. re‘*-- re ; SWANSEA, DEC. s.—Arrd. Portlan-, as tAo , Magnet,AUM S D 6.—A r rd. Dykes , il arris. 1 11 g; i3E Watson, Aßi,E C C. u ba. CLYDE, DEC. 4.--Sld. Kirkman, Fiill3Y' Maria Grace, Barbadoes ' II Y CORK, DEC. 4.—Arrd. Samuel Abbott, 00 , I A PPfpr E. J. DENT, 82, Strand, by Special 11 to /tit ment CHRONOMETER and wATcumn,b. A l,q,,, , QUEEN and his Royal Highness PRINC.O obtained the great Government Reward for the un i l a riee to formance of his Chronometer, No. 114, which o° , l O i ler ° four hundredths of a second in twelve months. I n the this distinction, he has just received, by order " d % t oo g er & Commissioners of the Admiralty, the highest reolc oe .V e gV by their Lordships for the good performance ef, Mr. Dent, anxious to remove any prejudice whi r " /ion to his general business from the idea that his a ttet? beS ti o elusively devoted to instruments of the highest o ,r cL e e c teil t r vf. state, that while his principal care is necessarily directof v latter, he is not unmindful of the manufacture otsel'oe which, while they' are greatly lower in price , are be t i t 'oe accurate for all ordinary.purposes, and will, tberefore , o f d ile most in demand. The whole of his extensive 0 01 '4 ',' l 4 11 ' has had the advantage of his selection and exanlie3t;,teo'.",oo has arranged a department, under competent saintssitier for offring to the public goo plain watches at es , is compatible with any pretens d ions to correctness, e oup e o lJ pating, from an increase of business, an advantagt ° ,eo,i%' sation for reduction i n p r i ce . Ladies' or Geni-i. 4p. Watches, from 101. 10 s . eac h ; Sil v er ditto frorn:2_/' Strand. o l PATENT LEVER WATCHES.--", 1' atlotcft prated construction (the most accurate on which:o,M foo t be made) is now offered at the following prices, te coo' improvements, i. e. the detached escapement, .ie ° ~'et holes, hand to mark the seconds, and maintain in g Pe tinue going while winding up. 0 SILVEIL CASES. 6 With double-bottomed cases, capped......... 16 6 ~. i I'l ol With hunting cases, capped .................. ..• 0 GOLD CASES. gi g 10 Size for Ladies, with elegant gold 1 4 0 Ditto, in double-backed case s.. 13 13 0 Size for Gentlemen, enamelled dial ...•••••' 17 17 14 0 Ditto, extra full size, capPe d •*" • • th • 13 10 /1 A pamphlet, containing. observations respectlA of constructions on which Watches are made ? pith", of P e i in gold and silver cases, and a variety of skate:44w, I n v signs, which have just been completed in gold neer sent, gratis and postage free, on application hi well Cox Savory, Watchmaker, 47, Cortihill, from Gracechurch-street. Losdon, ----......"...-----..........."....--- o ff BIR THS. , i i n tou ° ' Eio sn o q.a : nod th fh e ae 3 di d ra.u i g n h st., at York, the Countess a .Pg. uil , ii P'''' On the 26th te u r l . t., at Genoa, the lady °I ilu'se ' 'if 10 1, . w.t he che On the 4th inst., at Pratt-street, Cainderl - •• ° d eo - the W. W. L. Coxhead, assistant Minister of Ca ul 0. of a daughter. „ of t i 3 afft On the sth inst., at Limehouse, Mrs. J. Pows'ort , Re g ent On the 6th inst., at Hanover -terrace , Robert Thurburn, of a son. ' ' --------- 10 MA R.RIR.D. 10. 1 . 1. ; On the Ist inst., at Dublin, J. W. Walsh, E'_, (l ''' ) ,,_klq , , Martha, youngest daughter of the late J. S. Willm p. '', o O . n the 4th inst., at St. Mary's, Lamb eth ' L i;t l O bte Amehini, of South Lambeth, to Helen, youngest W. G. Rolfes, of Ship-lane, Lambeth. . • ___-------------- ris DIED. ercial-r o t d, ' o do On the 27th ult., in Bedford - p lace, Comm to o Charlotte, relict of the Rev. W. Wri g ht, late of C ° v, ge' Northamptonshire, aged 7 9 . On the '29th ult., Maria, the e ldest daughter of the if , ife of Durham, of Ely, aged 22. a Ellia ' bel l ' On the 3d inst., at Great Baddosv, Emm OP Mr. 11. S. Gilson, solicitor. ; of J 3 On the 3d inst., at Paisley, Mr. W. Shari' , P e " 0 1 ' Cl' street, London. bc ll3 On the 3d inst., in Dover-street, Piccadilly, IS 3 be Gl ib pion, aged 13. Liver pool, cli offoo nin n i L Henderson , ttt t eihh h ieeee e d4ss 4 4t t t tihhEliha Esq., inst., nq i enn n s.sso s :tt t .f.a. . :"D , Ljei a und.u t 1 cwGvvBsySir,tc..e.ht Green - park , .npwnai'rsf wife h, of Bath,i Ann's-hill, .gi o f ic so ?" 1. J• r ilortOlhoo , i f,eo tho M Somerset House, aged 59. Dulwich - common, On ot cli'' London : Printed a Published by MURPO,„I No. 112, Stran.:, - at The Sus Oftiee No. 1 ' '' . , 14 ,1 10.1 ' . the County of Yiddiciez, wedgimigy:Deeetbe' ' ~„ t 11,:t1;