The Sun. — London, England, 1824-09-24 00:00:00

'rolleoOrA TeAde punctual payment of the charges upon them, that Titlems. Palmer and Co. should derive no advantage what. ertr from the cottract. 'rhe Resident was fully acquainted with the contents of the tontrect. On the 4th Of September, 1819, the Governor-General in , 'Council wrote to desire a -copy of the accounts of Messrs. Palmer.e and Co. with the Minister Clittndoo Loll, relating to the Aurungabad contract. Whilst the letter was on the road, Sir Wm. Rumbold was crossing it on his way to Calcutta. On leaining, on his arrival there, what had been done, he ..addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government, announcing }finis& as a partner in the house of William Palmer and Co., and in the name of himself and partners declining to produce the accounts called for. Sir Wm. Rumbold was summoned before the Council, but for what purpose he was not informed, and he there stated that he objected on principle to disclose any account between his house and any constituent; but he stated, that the accounts hatiheen delivered to the Minister, and that he was the proper person to be applied to for them. The Council sustained the validity of the grounds of the ob jection, and Sir Wm. Rumbold understood the demand would not be pereistecl in. Sir Wm. liturnbold being before the Council, stated at be had heard that an impression existed of Mr. Russell's being, or having -been, 'a secret partner in the firm of which he was made member, and he tendered himself to be examined on oath on that.subject, but his offer was not accepted. After the Council broke up, he received a note (No. 8), d a t e d Oct. 9, from the Secretary Mr. Metcalfe, stating that it had been determined that the arrangement between the house and Chundoo Loll should not be interferred with. In the mean time, the requisition of the Governor.Getteral in Council had been transmitted to Hyderabad; and in Sir Win. Rumbold's absence, Messrs. Palmer and Co. deeming that erroneous con. elusion; might be drawn from the withluilding the accounts, transmitted • themin full detail:to the Resident, with a letter (No. 9), Sept. 12,.11119. On the following day, Mr. Russell acknowledged the receipt in letter (No. 10) (2). On the 3d of 'February, 1820, Mr. Metcalfe addressed a letter . (No. 11) to Sir William Rumbold, stetting that the accounts had been received, and that after passing in circulation among the Members of Government, they had been.returneel to Hyde. rabad, there being no plea for scrutinizing or recording. them. It should be here stated, that the Minister had observed his part or 'the contract to the letter only, but the spirit; for the assignments he gave to the house proved' to be not claimable to a very large amount, anti thus was the house left, after acting under the contract for a year and a half, under an ad. vanes of cash of nearly 14 lacs-of rupees, on the Aurungabed contract. The house wax, at this time, urgent with the Minister to keep his promises made to them at the period of their advances during the Pindarry war, anti for the pay of the lierar Suwara, and to give them flood assignments as security or a discharge of their _ _ The Minister urged his inability to' keep his word,. at a mo. mot too, when he was pressed by the British Resident to di. minish the establishment, and that such reductions required the immediate command of a sum of money to discharge existing claims; and Olathe only saw one way ofbeing enabled to do his duty to all parties, viz., by raising a loan sufficient to discharge all his debts bearing a higher rate of interest, and at the same time leaving.him a sum to discharge the claims to be paid on re. during the establishment. • . • . . The — proposal of the Minister was replied to by a letter from the house, which letter, together with the Minister's proposal delivered to the Resident, were at a later period ftwwartled by hint to Calcutta, and the sanction of the Council was returned to the loan. The terms on which the proposal was submitted to the Supreme Government were, that for an advance of sixty .laesoix.onnual re-payment:o f of sixteen lees each, were. to be .received in return. These re-payments were to include interest, commission, and all charges. To raise so large a sum within the limited district to-which the constituents Of the house were usually confined, did not come within the calculation or expectation of Messrs. Palmer and Co. It Was their scheme to have furnished the money by instalments, within u li„di•ltt period of some months: in the interval, they counted upon receiving Money on loan from the different Presidencies, at n moderate and, ordinary rate of lute. rest.. The proposals for the loan,•on'thatertni above specified, were made in the month Of. March or April, but not sent to Cal. cotta till some months later, for the formal approval of. the Go vernor-Generel in Council. The terms and object of the loan had been immediately communicated to Mr. Russell, and re ceived his sanction. He was of opinion, 'that. under the letter of license, the express sanction of the Government to this trans. action was not requisite. The measure was one of evident ad vantage.to the.Mimster, as by it alone was he enabled to comply with the,Resident's wishes of reduction, and at the same time to meet the call for' the fulfilment odds engagements to Pal- mer and Co., and to other creditors. Immediately on the assent of Messrs. Palmer and Co, being signified to the Minister, he became urgent mith them tuiet hint have,advances made to him at the momtmt, , those pay ments to be counted as. in part of the loan, when the contract should be formally drawn-up and completed. Thesaprevieux advances, at the period between the proposal for and the actual contracting for the loan, swelled up to the amount .-ofAessrs. Palmer and Co.'s claims, when the loan came to be completed, to an amount so nearly approaching the whole of it, as to make it appear merely a transfer of one security to another; but the money 1 1 41113 nut the less actually paid to the Minister. For his atoonimodatlon the o 4 n was. anticipatv4, and lie gave the bonus for that service and risk. Poi this accommodation, at theivent expense. and .Ineonve.. Memo of the house, he Offered them compensation in the shape of the bonus, out of the loan, of eight lace. Mews. Palmer and Co. are ready to submit to any mercantile, persons Me question Whether, under their circumstances, they would not have much preferred the delayed payment, than to have made the advances at the risk thay did for the bonus. In f ac t,• f rom the representations of' the Minister of the urgency of 14 , iti neces. cities, and the peril to their own claims previously extsting, they telt themselves compelled to support Chtindop Loll at this crisis. Those claims had arisen with the knowledge of the Resid en t. On the lot January, 11121, Mr. Metcalfe addressed a.letter (No. 12) to - Messrs. Palmer and Co., intimating the order of the Court of Directors that the license of July, 1018, should be suspended, as to any.future transactions between the house and the Nizem. 'On the 15th January, Meseta. Palmer...and ' Co. replied by letter (No d 18). Soon after Mr. Russell s retirement, Mr. Metcalfe, hie sue. cessor addressed to Messrs. Palmer and Co. a letter (No. 10, dated 19th March, 1821, announcing. his intention of submitting to the Supreme Government a plan for discharging the sixty lac loan. To this letter Messrs. Palmer and Co. replied, onthe 24th'April, by letter (No. la). .On the nth April Mr.. Metcalfe submitted his proposal to the Oovernor.lieneral in Council, but it dots not appear to have been approved. It has been supposed, that its failure wasowing to Sir Rumbold's influence with the Governor.GeneraL This is, however, a completely erroneous impression, for It so 'happens that Sir Wm. Rumbold, in ins view of the effect of the proposal from his partners, by whom, afterrepeat ed discussions, he was out-voted and overuled, was very an xious that the proposal of the Resident. should be complied with. Oa the 111th Junc,lll2l, Lord Hastings ' addressed a private letter (No. 16), to Sir William R a mb o ld ticairing , that, with view tO remove any doubt cm hi s ow n mind, the firm of Palmer and (. 1 ..e. abould define, Upon °oath, whether or not any British 'public functionary had, at any time, had pecuniary truncate. - tionti with the 'ham:, which could influence hint in county. nuncilig their dgaintp with the Nizatti's flovernment. In the end of this letter, Lord Hastings expressly states the object of his ititluirY to vslate tit Mr. Henry Russel. In this letter Lord Misting refers to a former cenumuneation he had made to Sir atating the inexpedireley of 111 r. Palmer's mak. ing a simiiiti.dealaration the preeedinz month of Dee. Upon that occashm Sir.: W. }tombola waited upon Mr. Alet. i:Alfe,ltie Resident, and communicated to hiM Lord Hustings' wish and at tile itame time reacl to hint the declaration (No. 17) to which Mr. Palmer was ready to *wear. Ile also stated to Mr. Metcalfe the fact of Mr. Sotheby, having been at one time a partner in the house, .whilst he occupied the station of Asada. runt to the ReSiclent ; -and he further acquainted .Mr. Metcalfe with the partieatlar circumstances under which Mr. Palmer had been induced to give Lim a Aare in the bowie, Which fully itc:. quitted Illesars. Palmer And Co. of any corrupt motive in hay: big so done. ' Sir William Ilumbold considered his communication of Mr. s ot h e by' g c onnection to Mr. Metcalfe as liming been mode in the coalidenee of private 'anti ft:kindly intercourse, and he felt convinced that the Resilient would not make any public use of the knowledge so acquircal, to .the. injury of that rodeinan. Sir W. Ittimbold would probably not think himself autho. riled to refer it now, if he had not heard that it had been alluded Lb In Calcutta. lie states it now, us proof that, the houae.did not consibr the connexion as objectionable in point of fact, anal :ipso aK explanatory of the purpose of the affidavit afterwards made out. Sir 'William - Rumbold's object in this communica. thin to Mr. Metcalfewas to obtain his private opinion, whether the declaration would be, considered by Lord Hastings as a safficientamwer to the information he had required ; and it'was necessary to explain to that gentleman the difficulty of trucking it more general,' without involving Mr. Sotheby. lib.. 8441014, at the time he woe admitted a ,partner, Was scarcely on a(yenktng terms with the lesident, and never set his. foot without the Residency, except: ore' public or formal occasions. The terms was on at the Residency did not vary during the whole time ti n ithe continued partner. The declaration of Mr. Palmer (M.o.' 17),waa read over to'3lr. Metcalfe, .and not ob. jetted to bHilm, and was transmitted to Lord HinitlngtA by . Sir Rumbold in a letter dated the 22c1 December, 11)20 (No. 14 On the receipt of Lord Hastings' letter of J one 10:1), 1821, above referred to (No. 16), which could not have reached Hyderabad earlier than on the 25th June (11), Sir Wm.,Rurri. hold and Mr. Palmer drew up an affidavit (No:20), and swas4 1. the same before Mr. Sotheby, the First Assistant (in Mr. Met; calfe's absence). On the 26th June it was transmitted to Lord Hastings, letter from Sir William Rumbold (No. 21.) This affidavitbas been the subject of unmerited andlmfottruled remarks. It is submitted, that a • fairer or more conscientious; honest, and open declaration, was never made ; one which it was utterly impossible to misconstrue or misapprehend. In reference to this affidavit, Mr. Metcalfe wrote to Sir Wil liam Rumbold on the Bth May 1823 (No. 22), and enclosed a letter from the Supreme Government (No. 23), to which Sir Rumbold replied by letter (No. 24.) Letters (No. 25, 28) are here added, as completely bearing out the correctness of the affidavit, in confutation of the insinuations which have been made against its truth. The affidavit embraces a period commencing with the preseht house of William Palmer and Co., and distinctly denies any im proper connection with Mr. Henry Russell and also with Mr. Charles Russell : for had hebeen connected with the house, the partners could not have sworn that Mr. Henry Russell was not Indirectly connected with them. (1) That house was established in February, 1814. (2) The copies of these letters furnished by Sir William Rumbold, are dated Na. 9, the I;th Oct., and No. 10 the 30th Oct. (3) The post, in fine weather, is about thirteen days corn ing. The rains begin in June.; after which the time is very uncertain. TRIAL OF MR. ASKEW. OLD BAILEY,7NEW'COIJII.T;-. • 1131 ore the,ituCoßDElt.l • Yesterday James Askew was indictettfor steal. ing five rings of the value of 80/. ; two pairs of ear-sinqsifialue 251.; 'part of a coral, set with diamonds, value 501.; a iationd cross, value 25/. ; a' gold chain, value 10/. ; a ,gold buckle, value 41.; an opera glass, value 21.; three tiiiree spoons, value 39 pair of stockings, value 3/.; 3/. ;three silver forks, value W.; 29 shifts, value 71. ; one shaw, value 304 ; one veil, value 5/. ; a lace handkerchief, value 81. ; a (items, value 1/. ; seven .pro missory notes for the payment of 1,000 franes each, and five for the . payment of 500 francs each, the property ofellarriet Virginie Perrot.. The' witnesees.. on both sides were ordered to remain out of Court until they should he called in to be examiried. Mr: Put r.r.ips stated the case for the' prosecution.. The pri sorter was what was called a inaster-milliner, residing in Ox ford -street, and towards the end 'of last y ear hei went to France to engage an eminent female milliner to superintend his este , blishment. In Paris he met with the prosecutrix, who was a .Frenchwoman.. Having satisfied himself of her respectability, he engaged her to serve him at a salary of 2,000 francs a year, which he believed was 804 English money, exc l us i ve l y of pro viding her with board and lodging. Miss Perrot came to ibis ; country with the prisoner, and her conduct in his establish ! men t was such, that in May last, he, of his own accord, doubled her salary—nay more, he declared that at the end of the year she might, if she chose, become a partner in the concern. To a young woman like the prosecutrix—she was 22 years of age— this.was the highest merit of approbation that could be given. Soon after the period when the prisoner had increased the prosecutrix': salary, a Mr. Bertrand, who was her friend, came from Paris to London. From that time the prisoner's conduct towards the prosecutrix was, from what cause the pri= soner could best tell, become very much changed. The pro secutrix, by the desire of the prisoner, went to Cheltenham, and opened a shop there, in which she carried on the mil linery business for the prisoner. Whilst iee was at Chef tenham, the prosecutrix received several letters from the de fendant, expressing the utmost kindness towards her ; In deed, their tune was very extraordinary, when it was considered that they were written from a . master to his servant; also sent her a gold Watch., The prosecutrix had received no- ' tice from the solicitor for the prisoner to produce all fhe letters, which she had received froM the prisoner. :.She had complied with that notice, and lie would read some of, those letters to the jury. In a letter, dated July 23, 1894, the prisoner addressed the prosecutrix in the following terms ;—" Dear Madam; good morning. On my return hom e , the first thing I thought Of was your watch. It has produced a wand quarrel between Harnet and me. Gander bad delivered 'the watch to Harriet last Monday, and she positively refused to deliver it out of her possession. In this difficulty I am very unhappy, because it places me in a view so contrary to the wishes of my heart. Gander has promised to get me another watch superior to the first. Do not reproach me; I um not to blame • I will send you a watch, and also a turban. If I do not inner you al. ways, do not think me less your friend. Remember that a soft tongue has not always a good heart."—ln-a letter, dated July 27, the prisoner, after some remarks on the subject of business, said,—" The arrangement which I have made resp ecting Mr. Bertrand will betgreeable to you,' when every thingis ox. plained, and you will be sorry for the letter which you have written tante. Bertrand's visit to England, without invitation and without eniployment, can't be agreeable to me ; but .to please you, I will not mind it."—On the 3d of August the pri saner wrote another letter to the prosecutrix, the contents of which were of importance, inasmuch as they showed that he was satisfied with her account*. Immediately , after that letter had been received by the prosecutrix, the prisoner caused her to be arrested for a debt of 501. Miss Perrot deposited the amount of the debt in the hands of the Sheriff's officer, and -was liberated. The prisoner then informed the prosecutrii that he wished her to leave his employment. That she did, but not until the prisoner had signed a document, stating that she had correctly accounted for all the property'which had been intrusted to her. The prosecutrix came to town, and employed Mr. Hubert, a respectable solicitor, to recoverthe property which she had left at the prisoner's house. .Before Mr. Hubert pro-. ceeded to demand the property of .the prisoner, the prosecu trix described to him (he begged the particular attention of the jury to the fact) a confidential letter, in which he stated, that the bills mentioned in the indictment were enwrapped. lie would prove, that these bills were brought from Paris by Mr. Bertrand. When Sir. Hubert made his business known to the prisoner, the latter said, diet the prosecutrix was a bail woman, and had lost her character. Mr. Hubert demanded some proof of the truth of these assertions, and after some licei lotion the prisoner produced the very letter which Miss Perrot would swear )bas wrapped round the French .bills which were deposited in her drawers. Mr. Hubert was struck with the letter, and read it over three times. He then .asked the pri soner how he came by it, Askew said that that was of no con sequence, since lie had got it. It was upon that point that he chiefly rested the case of the prosecutrix. If the prisoner could account for the manner in which that letter came into his pos. session honestly, he would depart from that Court without any stain upon his character. If he failed he do that, it was natural to inter, that the person in whose possession the letter was found 'knew what had become of the money which it once enwrapped, and which the prosecutrix had never obtained; for when her drawers were opened in the presence of Mr. Hubert, none of the 'property, which she would swear she placed the r e, was found. Harriet Virginie Perrot, the prosecutrix, was then examined ; she spoke Engligh with tolerable accuracy; she deposed to the following. effect:-She, became acquainted with the prisoner about a year ago. She afterwards became his first milliner, and kept his house at a salary of 2,000 a, exclusive of board, lodging, and .washing. tier salary was afterwards doubled._ Soon after a gentleman named Victor Bertrand carne on a visit tobondon, by the Invitation of Sir. Askew. (The letters read by Mr. Phillips were shown to the witness, and she identified them as having been written to her by the prisoner.) Bertrand erriveti ebout.the end of April. or the beginning of May. A few days after he came, he placed some French bills, of the Royal Bank, in her possession. On the 4th July she went to Cheltenham. The prisoner and she were then on good terms. She deposited the bills and. sonic ot h er property hi is chest of drawers in ,her bathroom, previous to her departure for Chelten ham. The bills were rolled up in m piece of Whiteebrown paper, together with a letter from a Nobleman. (A latter was pro duced, which she said was the letter in question.) Amongst the property which she left in the drawer was a °ante° ring of the .F.ariperor of Russia, set in brilliants into • ; it was worth , about 300 francs. Another of the rings was a diamond, another a ruby, and two other common gold rings. The witness then described the rest of the property us described in the indictment. All the jewellery was given to her, except the 2 common rings. .—Some disagreement tool( place between. her and the prisoner about the beginning of August. Sh e conce i ve d that jealousy was the cause of' the disagreement. She received-a gold watch as a present from the prisoner, at Cheltenham. On the 14th of August, the prisoner arrested her for the money she had received on his account, at Cheltenham ; it amounted to 501.. At that time he owed her 701. for wages. She gave bail, and was liberated. One Saturday evening the prisoner turned her out of his house. On the day before this occurred, the prisoner signed a paper, at the 'desire of her attorney. (The paper was produced and read. It was an acknowledgment, on the part of the prisoner, that the prosecutrix had rendered a fair account of all die goods which he bad intrusted her with.) At that time the prisoner owed her 701 which had never yet; been - When she arrived in London from Cheltenham, she applied to the prisoner for her property. Ile at first meld that'll() had no objection to give her the property which was in the drawer; but lie afterwards said that lie would give her 014 some stock ings and shifts. When she went to Cheltenham, she left her drawers locked. An inventory.of part of her property was in one of them. (A paper was produced . which she Identified as the inventory.) That inventory was drawn up by Mr. Bete fraud, in Earis, before she came to London. When iihe found 'Ait OW:Prisoner, would not give tri) her property, she went again to hiS house; accompanied by Mr. Hubert, her attorney. 'The prisoner 'then:. c4id, that he would not deliver any thing without *consulting . his attorney. In about a week afterwards the prisoner gave up a pair of diamond ear-rings and a .few clothes. 7 Mr.ilubert also went tti the" prisoner's alone to de tumid her property:`. _Previously to his going, she described to him a•ititter which had been written to her by a nobleman.— She subsequently preferred a complaint against the prisoner before a Magistrate. Cross-examined by Mr. Apor.Pitus—What nobleman is the writer of the letter you speak of ? Witrss-t—l am willing to tell his Lordship. He is a noble man, and. would be sorry to have it mentioned in a Court. Pitir.Lipirobjecteitto the question. The name of the writer; or the contents of the letter, had nothing to do with the Cause. • , The RECORIAIt said. that the.question was a proper one. • 'Mr. ADOLPiillg repeated the question. The witness was silent, and looked to the Recorder. The RuconnEß.--Voil must tell us the name. Witness.—l must give up . the name ? Then I can't: he is quite a Nobleman, and if it were known, perhaps his reputation may be lost. The ItECORDI:n.,-4 should not think that I should be likely to. lose my reputation if j wrote to you. Witness.L-I will prove to you, by some other letters with his name signed, what it is, if you will look at them. The ItEconnErt.-- 7 You must give up the name, if the coun selyersists' in, the quextion._ _ Mr. Pax he Nobleman cannot be angry with you ,for stating his name, under the circumstances in which he is placed.. _ . _ . • ‘Vitness, ('after some hesitation.)—He is a General in the a rm vi y ,i the.tonfes g I r ip s : i r n or o 0 ifnnton.ssia—General Schwietzen. S!h i w r ie l tz l e n n ° . . What is he,,aa Ambassador ?.-..Vee; his brother was Ambits-, , sador to Rome: Why 'do you call him Excellency ?—Because t Jin,tnitUrne to eddresg hini . : 4 0.• ,' Did' you ever hear him called 1 . , 1.:‘,7hie1t.,-,-is.Ghei s ne o r t a i l 6 S: f li n u t . ) l b e i t i z il e y n , 1..._ icets.):---Yes, General Nicholas ei ll l ? e is Excellency. i count, .or Dulee, .or 'Mertittie ?---Ne; only Excellency, and General. Her exanthiatfoe then proceeded' as follows :—She did ,nut bring all flit:lb/90 which she had lost from Paris. When the prisfiner canie to 'Paris to engaiie her, _ she lived at Ne. 4, Rtteetla Grenonillie‘ - E,Adetter was here shown to her.] 'Phut letter was written by Ali Bertrand. The letter was written to hiss Harriet - Dirlati,•'a young lady in tlx: prisoner's house. [Atiothee'paper Was profit:iced:l That paper was the statement of tier case, which. Ali Bertram g ave to Mr. Abraham, a n at ! torney: it way drawn up IwAl. Bertrand. It was not written bylier dictation. Slie consulted Mr. Abraham before she em ployed Mr. Hubert.. 'She was fecommerided to Mr. Hubert by the French . consul. • 'Site:. never mentioned to • Mr. Abraham any thing all* the 9,000 franks; She never particularized toMr. A brahairror his clerk any of the things which were in the drawers. She did not enipley Mr.' Abraham to recover her money, but to obtain the furniture.• of her room. She expected to get' the furniture of the room, and therefore she thought it best to say nothing* particular about the.properti in the chest of drawers. She could not recollect•whether she told Mr. Abraham or his clerk that she had jewellery in her drawers, but that she could ! nor tell the amount. Mr. Bertrand was a grocer, and lived at 39, Rue de Orenoulle. ,He was not her relation. By direction of the prisoner, she had called Mr.. Bertrand her brother. The .1 prisoner desired her to call him Bertrand— , 1 Mr. AnoLritus here asked the witness when the prisoner first desired her to call :Mr. Bertrand her brother ; and she re. plied that it was when the •prisoner and she and he were tra velling from London to Paris. The Learned Gentleman, over and over again, pressed her to assign a reason for the injunc. tion of the prisoner, which she did not appear, able to do. At length she said, ‘.. I have lived long time in your country. ' I ant a stranger here, and .I.hope for justice." Mr. ADOLPIUTS.—I hope you will get it. • Witness,-Very well.. Mr. Apormitus.—Yes, and in a different manner from that which you expect. ' , Examination continued...-Sbe always spoke of M. Bertrand as her broiher•in London. ill. Bertrand gave her the French notes'ar . billete delanque a,day or two after his arrival in Lon;., don. `'B e rtrand brought.over some articles which begave her, in his own box, which was kept in her bed-room. Bertrand gase•her the billets de batique in her bed-room. He gave them to her to keep in safety for hint. Miss Hudson saw them one one morning in het-room; and M. Bertrand, coming in at the time, _ before scoldedher for chewing them, This was about a month she Went 'to Cheltenham. Bertrand had French and English gold in hisilocket, and site, believed he had other billets de Banque than th9se which lie gave to her. Bertrand used to sleep in the yn Bertrand removed From soner's warehouse. . the prisoner's a b out ' three weeks before , she went to Chelten ham, and went t o lodge with Mrs. Broadfoot, -in Berwick street. She .sometimes sent little things to Bertrand by the prisoner's permission. BefOre she went to Cheltenham, there was a quarrel bet Ween Bertrand and the pritioner, end the lat ter forbad the former his house; but to please her, he used to allow' hero send Bertrand victuals, which Bertrand paid for. After she went to Cheltenham, the . prisoner wrote to her to tell her th a t h e cont i nue d t o send articles of food to Big trend., NVhen ' she returned from Cheltenham, she went to. lodge at the Same house with Bertrand. She did not give Ber... trend the bind de bunpie when She went to Cheltenham. One Saturday evening Bertrand asked her for them", and she said she would bring them ' the next morning before she went to Chel tenham; but She Aid' not do so, because she set offearlier than she expected the next day. She never agreed to ice till the Sit' taitday evening. 'rite prtsoner lived at U 5, in Oxford.street. She'did not see Bertrand on the Sunday morning. She set olr at six o'clock, and it was very wet. She did not think of the notes in the morning. Those were the only:reasons why she did not give the notes to Bertrand. Site never made a memo random. of the numbers of the notes, bemuse it was not the cut- - tom to .do so in France. (A billet de Semple fbr a thousand francs was shown to the wit ness.)—The..hills for 1,000 francs which Bertrand gave her appeared to be like that, ; but she 4id not examlnethem minutely; she merely looked *at their anount. She did not take much apparel with her to Cheltenham, because the prisoner told her that if s h e did not like to stay she might return. She did not write to the prisoner to send lie'r any clothes, because she was 'afraid to send her key on the account of t h e property, in . her drawers: She wore some of the jewellery ma-. atonally, but she avoided wearing her diamond ornaments in the show-room. Miss Hudson had seen some of the jewellery. She never said th a t a cora l necklace was one the things taken from her. She never told Mrs. Broadfoot • that she was mar tied to Bert ran d ; s h e was not a woman who would swear what was untrue; because the was paid for It. Mrs. Broadfoot had seized the things belonging to heroand Bertrand *for rent after. the prisoner was 'committed for trial . but her attorney had been kind enough to p a y h er rent , because Mr. Askew had taken her all.—(lVeeping.)—She saw Mrs. Broadloot at her own house on the night the prisoner was committed for trial, Sir. ADOLV/Wg.—Did you on that occasion tell Mrs. Broadfoot that you would be revenged on Mr. Askew, and have him hanged F Witness (with vivacity.)—No, I will swear it, never. Al though he 'has robbed me, I do not wish to hang him. Sir. ADOLPIIUB observed that this was cunningly clone. She knew Mr. Unit. She never told him 'that Mr. Bertrand had brought over only 2 ,000 francs; but she did tell him, to prove that Bertrand had brought seine money, that she herself had changed for giro a billet de .barque for 200 francs, in St. James's-street. • The reason why the prisoner refused to let Bertrand'stay in the haute was, • that he was jealous of hint. One meriting she went, In company with another French lady who lived in 'the prisoner's house Into his bedroom to waken him. He told her to bring his clothes . she went for them, and when she came back the French lady lied left the room. The prisoner took her hand, twit whaled to. kisS her; but she would not let him, and said that she never would enter his room again tinletni she wererateompenied by the. servant. The prisoner was, angry with . her, . lie often said that Bertrand was his enemy, and lie did not 'wish to see him., 1 : The cross-examination lasted about two hours. Towards the conclusion, the, witness beearne much exhausted, and was fur nished with ss seat and some cold water. • lie-examined- 7 (4 letter was shewn her.) That letter is In the handwriting,:of the prisoner; it is not signed; it contains an extract from the letter which was wrapped round the billets de barque' Which were deposited` in her drawers ; there was only one key to her drawers. and the took it with her to Chelten ham ; she was certain that the'property described in the indict 11141t wait in her drawers when she went to Cheltenham ; Mr. A bralt ait i, whom she tirst employed as her attorney, never got her any thing I. and then, by the advice of the French Consul, she employed Mr. Hubert. When the 'prisoner travelled with her from Paris, he was very attentive to her; she objected to it, and he asked her the reason ; she said, because he was married, and because she was engaged; she told him that she was en gaged to Al. Bertrand. The clerk of the arraigns here read several letters which bad been written by the prisoner to the prosecutrix, at Cheltenham. In one of these, the.prisoner said, in allusion to M. Bertrand, that " Mary has. made a nice pigeon-pie, and a rump-steak, for his Sunday dinner. This is done to please you,' &c.—. The other letters contained nothing remarkable ; they were all addressed to the prosecutrix, tinder the name of Normanville.,._ The anonymous letter, which the prosecutrix had stated to be in the hand -writing of the prisoner, was also read : it was in the following terns:-.." To Monsieur Le Gros. The child ,with light hair, and blue eyes demands your assistance, and the assist ance oryour sister. Moil DieOf Adieu:" Mr. Al:Wl:Pflug skewed the prosecutrix several letters, •the signature to which (Normarrville) she acknowledged to be in' her hand-writing. Victor Bertrand examined—He came to England about the end of April. A fewidays after he gave to the prosecutrix seyen Meta de banque of 1,000 francs each, and five of 508 francs each, to take care of for him. He never got them back. Cross-examined by Mr. LAW—Ile had known the prosectt trix for four years. He did not make a memorandum of the numbers of the notes which he gave to the prosecutrix : it was not the custom of the Fren c h to d o so. He got some of the notes at a Tublic bank in Paris, in exchange for silver. could not tell the name of the person who exchanged them.. One of the 1,000 franc notes he received from M. Bon-flomme, the director of the prisons. The witness never received any money from the prisoner. He did not place the notes in his trunk, be cause it . was inconvenient to put property of that kind amongst clothes. He never applied to anybody for the loan of 301., to enable him to obtain the situation of teacher to a French school. When he first knew the prosecutrix she was very respectable. Respectability in France was the same thing as respectability here. He sometimes took gold out of the prosecutrix's drawer as he wanted it. Why did you pass as the brother of the prosecutrix P—Ask Mr. Askew. • • Mr. A DOLritus.—My Lord, is it because these people are foreigners, that we are to be insulted by them. Witness.—l beg your pardon ; perhaps lam wrong ;I do not know your country. Mr. Askew told me to pass for 1114demniselle Perrot's brother. She has always been the cause of quarrel between us. Did you tell Mrs. Broadfoot that if she proved any thing against you, you would say that she asked you to sleep with her ? I will be sorry to say any thing of her character. I have said to her, you have treat me ill because you have asked me to do so and so. I know her. The cross-examination was concluded by the witness stating, that on one occasion he saw the prosecutrix showing his billets de - banque to Miss Hudson, which he told her she ought not to have done. It was evident that this witness understood very imperfectly many of the questions which were put to him ; in deed, he once asked for an interpreter, but his request did not reach the ear of the Court. George Hubert deposed that he was attorney for the prose cutrix. • He went to the prisoner's, and demanded some pro perty, of which the prosecutrix had furnished him with an inventory. The prisoner said, that he had -many complaints against the prosecutrix, and that she was a bad woman. Ile (the witness) asked him to prove it, and the prisoner said that he had documents to prove it. ' The witness said that one do cutuent.would be more convincing than all the prisoner could say on the subject. The prisoner said, that if he knew him, he would show him a docume n t. The prisoner afterwards went up stairs, and brought down a letter, which the witness read twice or thrice over.; AskeW said, that perhaps the witness did - not understand the French language,' and he had a translation. The witness did understand the French language. The prose cutrix had described a letter to him before he went to. the pri soner's. He remarked, that it was very extraordinary . that the prisoner should be in possession of such a confidential letter, and asked him how he had obtained it? (A letter was shown the witness.) That was the letter which the prisoner produced. It answered that description which the prosecutrix had previously , given of it. There was nothing in the letter to spew that it came from a nobleman. The prisoner said that it was of no conse quence how lie became possessed of the letter. On a subsequent occasion, the witness saw the prisoner, and demanded Miss Perrot's property. The prison er sa id iet he could do nothing till he saw his solicitor. About a week afterwards the wit ness met the prisoner in the street, and he said that if the wit ness would bring an order from the prosecutrix for the de livery of the property, and the keys of her drawers, the property should be delivered to him that afternoon. He obtained from the prosecutrix a notice for the delivery of her property, and went to the prisoner's in the afternoon. In the forenoon he had repeatedly urged the necessity of the prosecutrix being present ihen•the drawers should be opened, but the prisoner always refused to allow it. The drawers were opened in the presence of two ladies who resided in the prisoner's house. The prisoner left the room as they were being opened. Nothing was found in them but a pair of diamond ear-rings, some clothes, and an inventory of goods (that made in Paris.) Mr, Anor.rii us proceeded to cross-examine the witness.` He puf the -French letter, which had so.often been referred to, into his hands, and desired him to read it. The witness began to:read, when The. REConDEn said, that unless the contents of the letter could be shown to have some reference to the subject of the charge against the prisoner, bethought it should not be read. Mr. ADOLPH us said that his object was to show that the contents of that letter were of such a nature that their disclo sure could never be forgiven by the prosecutrix ; and that it was not likely the prisoner would have 'exhibited it if he had committed a felony. Besides he thought it ought it be read, as illustrative of the prosecutrix's character. ' Mr. LAW also observed that the reading of the letter would tend to show, that the proceedings against the prisoner had ori ,ginated in malice. The RECORDER said, that if the Counsel for the prisoner intended to give evidence that the letter had not been in the prosecutrix's drawer, with the property as 'described by her, and they thought that the reading of the letter was necessary to support that testimony, they were entitled to havejt read : but it their only object was to invalidate the evidence of the prosecutrix, it could not be read. He-would inipposethat the letter imputed to her that she had been criminally connected with twenty different men. They could not,ascertain that fact by questioning the prosecutrix, and were they to be allowed to arrive at the knowledge of it by a letter;- which might state things which never occurred ? The prosecutrix had sworn that the letter was deposited with some goods in a drawer, and it was to be inferred that the person who had got the letter had also got the goods. If the Counsel for the prisoner meant to prove that the letter was not placed in the drawer, and could flew that the reading of it was necessary to prove that, it should be read. Mr. ADOLPDIJS said, that his Lordship had thought proper to mike one supposition on one thing, and he would make another.—Suppose that the letter, so far from being written by a Russian Nobleman, was written by a French valet, who wus asking money ? - The REcoaDEß—Whether the letter was written by a nobleman or not, is not of the slightest consequence to the pre. sent inquiry. Mr. Anowitis then put a translation of the letter into the hands of the witness, and asked him to read that. The RECORDER interposed, and said that it must not be read. Mr. Anor.rxtra said something about the difficulty of his s i tu ation. Ymust do you compl a in o f t h e diff icu l ty of your depend on th e mer i ts o f y our Il i v it c u o a n tio nLal o r tt h case.; you must adhere to the rules which apply in all other eases. M Mr. ADOLPIIESIf we had had the name o f t h e R us . sian General a week ago, We might have gone to the R uss i an Ambassador, and discovered that no Ouch person was in existence. T The REconnEn—What is the use of talking about what you might have done ? Proceed now with your case. The witness continued—pie letter was one which a lady would not like to have made public. He did not know whe. ther it was likely to produce irritation ip the mind of the pro. secutrix. Mr. Anor.rxtrs—Suppose the letter had contained a charge against the prosecutrix of palming a child upon a man ? The REconina refused to allow the question to be put. The witness was reexamined, and stated that at the police. office he never was allowed an opportunity : of seeing the letter. Three persons, named Smith, Londegine, and Evans, were placed in'the witness-box by the Counsel' for the prosecution, who stated that it was not his intention t 6 examine them. The Counsel for the defence also refrained from examining them.— 0 This, was the case for the prosecution. The RECORDER here addressed the Jury. He observed that the charge against the prisoner was that of feloniously stealing certain goods. It was not enough that there might have been a culpable detention of the goods by him ; unless the Jury should be satisfied that the good s wer e d eta i ne d w i t h t h e felonious intention of being converted to the benefit of the pri. saner, the charge could not be sustained. The case, on the part of the prosecutrix, had all along been treated as a civil transac tion. The prisoner never attempted to conceal that he was in , possession of the goods, but only. said that lie would not give them up. It Was not proved that he had converted them to his own use. Tbat he had withheld them wits clear, supposing the „evidence which had been given to be correct: but he had never absconded, or shown that he was unwilling to meet the charge. If, therefore, the Jury should .be of opinion that the prisoner did not possess himself of the goods with a felonious intention, they would be bound to acquit him, and the prosecutrix must proceed against him by civil action. He threw these observa tions out for the consideration of the Jury. If they had taken the same view of the subject that he had, they would acquit the prisoner without proceeding further; but if otherwise, they would hear the defence. The Jury consulted together for about a quarter Of an hour, when The RECOUDEU repeated his former observations in nearly the same words. If, he said, the Jury should be of opinion, after the quarrels which had taken place, and the jealousy which had been displayed amonpt the parties, the prisoner h a d detained the property from a feeling of resentment, they should , acquit .him. But it rested with them to hear the defence, if they thought it necessary. The Jury, after a further deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty qf detaining the grads wdatediilly. The nr.connElt.—Y(lo must say " not guilty." A Juryman.—We wish not to debar the prosecturix from obtaining a remedy by civil action. If we are to say t h at h e i s not guilty, we must confer again. bas l e 'h a e n C d o . u t n ig r ia — te lf th d e eten priso tio n n er ef has been guilty of the most property, that would not warrant you in finding him, in the absence of proof, guilty of a felonious intention. By returning a verdict of not guilty. you will not prevent the prosecutnx from bringing a civil action. Ina few minutes the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Mr. LAw, addressing the prisoner, said, " Your case has not been heard ; if you have the slightest regard for your clia meter; you will prosecute these parties for a conspiracy." The RECOUDER made some observation to Mr. Law, which we could not hear. We understood that he told him was acting improperly. Mr. Law, said that he was instructed to contradict every part of the evidence' for the prosecution. He applied to the Court to impound all the documents and pledged himself to prose . cute the prosecutrix and her friend for a conspiracy. 'This annunciation appeared to excite considerable surprise anumgst the Jury. The RECORDER--I will not impound these documents; and I think that the view the country has taken of this questiA will not be very much in favour of a subsegnent prosecution , Mr. limy—Whatever the country may hear now shoald have no weight. You stopped the case in the middle, here we could make our defence. The it ECOUDEn—I hope, Sir, you will treat the Court vial respect. If not, the Court will enforce it. Mr. LAW—I wish to treat the Cottrt with respect; but at the same time to perform my duty to my client. The REcounEa—l think that you have departed from tie respect which is due to the Court. The RECORDER asked if there was any other charge agair"t the prisoner, who by this time had been removed from the Intl and being answered in the negative, he directed thathe sboull be discharged forthwith. OLD COURT. EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ARSON. Two genteelly dressed females, the one named MarY,P, i f :, indicted for setting fire to a certain dwelling-house, kering, widow, and the other Sarah Shannon, were arm: the pro - Pony of Mr. John Jackson, being No. 3, Castle-street , Clerk en well, on 26th August last. The he a ring of the eviden ce for the prosecution occupied nearly 6 hours, when the Jury de clared themselves so perfectly s a ti s fi e d of th e prisoners' innocence that. the Court proceed no fu r th er , an d th e prisoners were acquitted —A burst of applause a cco m p a ni e d the pronounce men t of the verdict. OLD BAILEY-(Tuu WO)• JUDGMENT ON WM. HONK. This person, who was f oun d g uilty of 'a ,iifd and corrupt perjury on Wednesday, was the bar to recei ve sen t e n ce . The sentence of the Court upon him was, " that he should be CO. fined in the Hou se o f C orrec ti o n for the period )1 twelve months, and b e k e pt . to hard labour." DIABOLICAL ATTACK AND ROBBERY AT THE L.l REVIEW AT HOUNSLOW. t Joseph Harwood was put to the bar, chard with being concerned, with others, composing a very daring gang of robbers, in a most brutal a: tack on the person of John Shehan, on the 2d July last, at a c er t a i n o p en place s ituate sa Hounslow Heath. The circumstances which characterised the present outrage, as sworn to by the wiln esle t called in support of th e p ro s e c u tion, were ---tha the gang attacked th e un f or t un ate prosecuA rt tore every thing but his trowsers from his r" son, and robbed him of a quantity of money , 10 ' the amount of 51.—Two witnesses swore los i. tively to the person of the prisoner, who 05 sworn to be one of the most active of the gang. -- The prosecutor, in addition to losing his clot h " and money, was most seriously injured, and 11 . 116 not even recovered from a co m pound fracture ,to. Aided on one of his legs, up to the present the, Three other persons had been taken into cry. tody for the offence, but they Gould not be 'do. tified by the witnesses. The RECORDER summed op the evidence to the Jury, who found the prisoner - Guiliy—Dealh . The RECORDER, before the prisoner I% as O P " from the bar, intimated that lie must not eate r tain the slightest hope% of mercy. NEW COURT. Charles Stevens, ho was found guilty of robbing 121 ; ; : p n n 3- ployers, 3lessrs. 1..7. M. Richardson and C. ft' , liards° l ' --. Bowen, for receiving the same, knowing theta drapers, Oxford-street, of an immense quantitynot Iri44llinrnto, &c., was sentenced to be transported for life; en d f il i s a vas adjudged to 14 years' transportation. r'rt were Gm Richards, alias James Ritchie , itnd Vas . 1.-- 6 the capitally indicted for burglariously breaking old lady dwelling-house of Mrs. Mary Treacher, an old lady town with her daughter in Vale . lace Hammersmith. It ailml e at from the evidence of the prosecutrix and her daughte , u' i .„ they were greatly alarmed on Saturday last by thieves beng4 the house, and making a noise as if bursting doors (well 11; e . rattle was sprung and a watchman came, who, on Feingti t h e back door, heard the thieves, one of whom klinPeu out a _ . , d staircase window and escaped, the others were however Wile soon after. Martin had no hat on, and acknowledged ,':2l, one found in the house. On searching the premises 007; lanthorn, crow-bar or jemmy, part of a centre-bit, sna,l' b e to be sto l en housebreaking implements, were discovered ; and by tu of Martin were found a ph osphorus box anti matches. ,„. The case being clearly made out against them, the Jury, nounced both Guilty—Death. --- It is more than fourteen years since a tolt ro ll Scheme, like the present, containing X 2o° ' l , v ; in Prize Money, was decided all in one (11'2' revival of the plan seems to have given verY neral satisfaction. FOUR X 20,000 Prizes other Capitals will form a rich Drawing for 7, Day, Tuesday sth October ; and if 131 01 . S i )0 his usual proportion of them, his Office 'to' ie covered with placards on the following daY'. 5 sold Three £20.000 Prizes and 14 othe r Col)" in the very last Lottery. Contracts, incontestibly proved _ The satisfaCtion diffused in gr. Stv" ellugi a l renders it ai m 5 number of Tickets disposed or ' Office:, superfluous a to invite the Public to their 1 s _ princiP e ar as they may justly observe th eir judiciously adopted and •d by ot herse vll.-- ; copse . viii ,,,, o hicii giving a large number of Capi ta [ Porehaser somebody is . sure to ga i n , w hilst every shio.,4 is sure to get back k 5 per Ticket at least , i ~ 31 i proportion ; and Fova of R2o,o o °' w.l - I f) DO ( D ' other Capitals, ' ' will be drawn in --LT_ r t ione,Y , October), being, io all, 2 200 ,000 Pr 0 - pft FOrtti n a4, () which may now be obtained at the Combill ; 11, Holborn ; and 38, vapor where they Sold Seven Capitals last JAtterr and No. 17,745, X 20,000 ! by the --...m.---- . hr a lel' Inn' t MINING COMPANY.--We lear n --, bo 0 . t!,r Aboutfrom Dublin, that this Company has commenced its l e ft i, 14, was commenced Hagan, a month since the first inspection magan, of the London Committee, Mr. Palmer,. 01 to pubs, 'c all ee d d ' II r. J. Sweetman, 'of Clontarf, were commissioneda toe to the counties of Roscommon Leitrim, WY° , li n 0 1 ' important district of Cunnamara. On Friday last they re tur io 0 t t t . o u nfirmed in the certainty that lae mines of coal ante,° " itch doubt can mentioned ; and that,'f'rorn evei:yappeogleor;., in can be entertained of finding the useful olr' i l i a,, WO the mountains of Cunnamara. This district was w i re ' gen' thes; ecies to possess some marbles'of excellent quality; an" o ttpnen have increased the number by the discovery ?fa . .. ?The green serpentine, no way inferior to the rade antiqt„olo letter . alluded to was written on Saturday last, the nays the return of the Commissioners. We shoul4 at) 0)140; Sweetman has sent samples of Irish g ranite to ta'•„ r t s 10 1 / loners of the New Lo d b'd d e emed ePen— a on. , n ge, produced. C i a e n Pr t ‘ v, 1 1114 , 0 11 ti l l An te 1