The Sun. — London, England, 1824-08-26 00:00:00

~~ 7---,__,....„ ------ t , - - 7 N p,,, :.. ~., _..., \~~ 07 ) .AntioInt Mis 4 • • • . • :.- J . . v, - - 4. 11.11 E, ~0 , 5 , ...,..,,..„,. ~ .... „v.._ \\ „4„,,.... e I • 1 . .........._. ,T /(p ‘v; NUMBER 9970. THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 1824. Piro SEVENPENOK. V1CT17.41.1.4 AU-OFF ICE, August 23, 1824. THE COMMISSIONERS for VICTUAL LING His MAJESTY'S NA !'Y, herehy givr Notice, that on Friday next, the 27th instant, they will be ready to receive Tenders in writing (sealed up), and treat fur the supply of Two Thousand Sacks of BISCUIT MEAL, to be delivered into Ills Majesty's Victualling Stores at Deptford, ovc-half by the Bth of September, and the re mainder by the Ist October following. The Conditions of the Contract luau be seen at this Office. Each Tender must specify the price in words at length, and be delivered before One o'Clock on the day appointed ; and the PertUll who ?Hakes the Tender, or tome Person on hie behalf, M. IP/ILI:ER CLIFTON. ROYAL NATIONAL BATH COMPANY, fbr forming extensive BATHING ESTABLISH MENTS in convenient Parts of the Metropolis, suited to the relative condition of the Inhabitants, combining all the varie ties of Salt and:rresh, Warm, Cold, Medicated, Vapour, and Pleasure Baths. DIRECTORS. Sit WALTER STIRLING, Bart., Chairman. JOHN GOSLING, Esq. Deputy Chairman. R, Child, Esq. W. Rothery, Esq. J. Farquhar, Esq. R. Saunderson, Esq. F. Fincham, Esq. C. Smith, M.D. Joseph Moore, AI.D. W. G. Stirling, Esq. Sir F.lll. Omraanney, M.P. BANKERS AND TREASURERS. Sir Walter Stifling, Bart., Stirling and II odsoll's, Strand ; and Alessrs. Alasterman, Peters, Mildred, Alasterman, and Co. Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street. ARCHITECTS. Messy,l3antock, Geary, and Lewer, Cornhill. SOLICITOR. Geosge Abbott, Esq., Mark-lane. The Capital of this Company is 250,000/. in shares of 601. each, upon which a deposit of 21. is paid on the purchase thereof. No person can hold more than forty shares. Applications for the remaining Shares must be made in writing from principals only, addressed to the Directors, at the Office of the Company, No. 1, Lancaster-place, Waterloo bridge; which applications will be considered of as early as Possible, and answers returned. WILKINSON'S ANTI-CORROSION PAINT.—J. R. WILKINSON, Sole Manufacturer to the Hon. Board of Ordnance, and the lion. Cor porat ion of London, No. (13, Upper 'fborstes-street, near the South- Wark Bridge, and at the Works, Surrey Canal Bridge, K cut toad, begs particularly, at this ,seasois, to reco mmen d t hi s valuable and economical Artiele, which is patronized by the principal Nobility,,Gentry, and Public Bodies, as the most • effectual Covering fur all exterior purposes of Painting on Wood, Iron, Copper, Lead, Stucco, Roman Cement, and Tiling, to rep resen' Sl ates, or any other substance, being ;gaol to Stone when dry. It resists every species of damp, Water, or marine acid, preventing iron from rusting, not blis tering with the sun, nor can it be rubbed off. This Paint '"Uteover equally %veil on rough boards as smooth, thereby preventing the expellee of planing; had will last consider 4'HY longer than. any other paint. It may be had, in Casks of &Abs. or 100111 with the prepared Oil, proper amities, and direction s fur use on each Cask (which are so simple that Person stn use it.) Fine and Olive Greens, and all other ,al ours. The Public are particularly cautioned against way '. 411411 r 4 that may be imposed upon them for the genuine eco "'lni•Corrosam. 'Exterior and interior Painting and D iuti.. - ritt4 ". l s executed bytlie best artificers, and upon terms p colony advantagersub. LONDON REPOSITORY for the CA c B A IMT E NCM: SOCIETY, for every Description of Tu rtE , FEAT HER BEI) and 51 A 'l7l ESS 111 AN U - FAC TORY, No. 71, Corner of LLADENHALL -1 11TREE London, opposite Aldgate Pump.-Ready Money O nly. THE Society of Cabinet-Makers respectfully r inform the Public that they still continue 171tilbjishment, for the Benefit of Industrious . es the above r.v. large Familes, by offering them 'Manufactured A rticl t *S the Cabinet Line, of the best Workmanship, and Clieripe "illl any House can do in London by twenty-five per cent., there betng no other profit required on the Goods but the . bare_ house expences ; at the same time will be sufficiently satisfied W ith having constant Employment for themselves and famihes.. . Thie Society was Established in June, 1821, consisting ot t_° A techanicii, adding the number of their Wives and Palm -143, anaount.ed to th 66; in June, 1819, five more were added to Society ; in June, 1820, 10 ; and in June 1821, 8. The telal Number now receiving Support through the Means of this Establishment is 191. th :rile Society and their Families beg leave to return their IT emu: tt illoks to those Ladies and Gentlemen Who have ictileno honoured them with their Orders and Recommencla kilts, and %hall always feel happy in their endeavours to hive thei ure lre ti n sfwet. mo ; at ,whereby ame time solicit a Contumance of the Numb evnlenee they may be enabled to increase er of the soeip, The followin Articles--arYe. Lo wnessllc, all Full size Mahorny inserted as a Specimen of the very warranted.-Reatly Money only. four-post Bedstead, lath bottom 31. 15s. Full size tent 1 edstead 11. N.-Bordered hair Mattress to tit 11. 15.-Illahogany Drawer, solid ends 31.35.-Feather Bed 21, 10 sDitto, free from dust and smell, full size 31. 10s.- iX japanned Chairs of any description in oil 11. 65.-Best do. I,Nosll-11anthstand 165.-Ditto, Dressing Table 165.-Hearth ittlis 148.-3 ft. 6 inches Chest of Drawers 41. -h.-Three-foot Mahogany Pembroke Table 11. 18 s. -Three-foot ditto on pil lars and cla ws 31. 155 .- Mahogany Dressi ng T a bl e 11.-Ditto gidett, best 11. 45.-Ditto Bedsteps 11. Bs.-Di tto ditto 11.125. '-Ditto ditt o 21. 2s -Ditto Box Glass, 2 drawers, best British plate 155.-Ditto ditto Is. 65.-Ditto ditto 11. Dia.-Ditto / living Glass, large size, commode 35.-Ditto ditto 55.-Ditto ditto Es,-Ditto ditto 125.-Sea Bed and Pillow ss. 6d -Ditto ditto Bt.-Ditto ditto 75.-Tray Stand 75.-Long Mahogany Trq 141 -,japanned Book Shelf 75.-Tea Caddy IN.-Porta t2,l,! Desk 215.-Desk covers in number 145.-111usic Chairs -1,“2 Ittlern Bs. 6d.-Eight Nlahogany Chairs, covered with ditto 7 1. brass nailed 61. 68.-8 ditto ditto 61. 155.--8 ditto 71'7„,‘ 4. 18 -41 Trafalgar ditto:ll. 95.-Mahogany Sofa to match ~e 4us.-Ditto Couch 71. 10s.-Ditto ditto 81. 10s-Ditto, with t u dstead 71. 108. -Set of Mahogany Card and Sofa Tables, on ril, legs, handed in rose-wood 81. 155.-Set of Mahogany b: l "' e al two Card and Sofa, on pillars and claws 121. 125.- Iltto, the best that can be made--to order or pattern 161. 10s. andsome 7 foot 6 pedestal, Sideboard, with carved rt 1!,171. -Ditto 7 foot IGI.-Ditto 6 foot six 151.-Set of *ling Tables, of the last pattern, 4 foot by 10 foot 61 11.- ii ; l i t . to•-'-4 foot 2by 11 foot 6, 151.-Ditto, 4 foot 6by 12 foot 6, 11. : .63 ' -- If Spanish, an advance of 31. 10s.--Straw Palliasse 4,„_,111*"-Tent Bedstead and furniture 31. 15.-Bamboo Bed . and French e ly pt i c top, with drapery and fringe, 81. 103. t , c2Ye-foot mahogany four-post Bed s t ea d an d f urn i ture, with 14,,,1til draperies, lined all through, complete, 151. 10s.- su, pet rot ditto, ditto His. 101.-Ditto ditto, with cornice, of a Sant r Make, 181. 1 0s.-Ditto ditto, with gold cornice, de fine a :Per,' 201 . -Drawing-room Curtains, of the best 1110- ....t),11 Chtntz, fitted for window, 61. 6d.-Ditto ditto 71. 7s. th. ".“), of a superior and elegant style of work, 101. IN._ "log.ross bitt o • In rose -wood-The-wing-room Trafalgar Chairs 1,,_ I Inlaid with bithl. 201.-Table, 2 Covers, and Sofa, 181. .:137-I)itto 11. is --Drawing-room Sofa 61. 65.-Ditto, 71. is. d ittu lt 4 to i. 111. ok-41one-hair Cushions, each ss. 6d.-Covered W. THURNELL, Agent. 0 ' COUN'ARY DEALERS SUPPLIED. ,„,rds packed Tree of expence, except the materi a ls, a nd sen t slii;r2P!Tttl-ef Great Britain, and to the East and West In. bin^iiptainii fitted out, and merchants supplied wi t h Ca eta .Gootls fo r E xportation. 1,10.?.. . 41 : (4 two APartm our rte= d Furnished at a few boars' notice, arid - or ays, ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDFORD, TUESDAY, AUG. 24. WOODS, GENT., V. HOLLOWAY. This was an action for slander, concerning the plaintiff, in his character of an attorney of the Court of King's Bench, import ing that he had forged a will for the defendant's father, and had thereby defrauded the defendant of property. The defendant pleaded the general issue, " not guilty.' The following witnesses were called in support of the plain tiff's case : Mr. Abbott, an attorney of New-inn, proved the admission of the plaintiff as an attorney of the King's Bench. George Price produced a will of the late Mr. Holloway, from Doctors'-Commons. Mr. John Leach proved that he knew the plaintiff and his late partner, Mr. Streeter, who now resided in America, and was ac quainted with the hand-writing of both. The had-writings, as witnesses to the will now produced, of the 12th of October 1808, were those of the plaintiff and his partner. Mr. D. Sharpe, formerly articled clerk to the plaintiff, proved the signature of the testator to the will in question. Mr. John Cox, formerly clerk to the plaintiff, proved that the will now produced was prepared by witness in the _plain tiff's office. .1i e produced the original draught. Witness received his instructions from the plaintiff. Defendant's father was a client of . the plaintiff's. Has seen draughts of other wills in the plaintiff's office, of prior dates to the one now produced. The will was then put in and read. The testator described himself as yeoman, and appointed John Woods and John Bax ter his executors upon certain trusts therein mentioned. He divided all his property among all his children, share and share alike. He had two sons and two daughters. The Rev. W. H. Cole, vicar and surrogate of the parish in which the testator died, proved that in June,ll3l6, the executors produced the will to him with a view to probate. In August of last year, the defendant came to witness and requested him to procure a copy of his father's will for him, from Doctors'- Commons. Witness, in pursuance of this request, wrote to Mr. Moore, of Doctors'-Coninions, from whom he received an answer. Defendant afterwards called upon him. Witness stated that Mr. Moore had replied that he could send a copy of the will, which had been proved before witness, but he should wait for further instructions, thinking there was some mistake. The defendant said he did not want a copy of that will, but of another, which he supposed to exist. The defendant said that Mr. Woods, the plaintiff', had defrauded him (or used words to that effect), by preventing the right will from being sworn to. Four or five years previously, in 1817, the defendant called upon him (a few months after the executors had appeared before witness, and had sworn to the will), and complained of the executors. On the 21st of February last, witness met the defendant and the plaintiff by appointment, at the house of Mr. Piggott, in Guildford ; on that occasion the conversation began by the plaintiff mentioning the libelous reports which had been circulated by the defendant. He said to the defendant, " I understand that you have reported that I was instrumental in forging a will, and that I have thereby defrauded you," or words to that effect. He immediately requested him to make an apology, or he must otherwise vindicate his character by law, but lie was willing to forgive him, and take no farther notice of the slander, if the defendant would make a proper apology. The defendant said " What I have said, I will stand to." He afterwards said " There were.two wills made by my father, and the wrorg will has been sworn to." He then said that the plaintiff and the executors had kept back the right one, and that they had defrauded him. Witness remonstrated with the defendant very strongly, and requested him more than once to make an apology to the plaintiff, pointing out the conse quences if he did not, but he refused to do so. He refused as if he was obstinate in his determination. Cross-examined.—The defendant seemed on all occasions when witness saw him, to be under a strong delusion that there was another will. From his pertinacity upon this subject, the defendant appeared always, in witness's opinion, to he of weak mind. The defendant never stated any ground for the assertion lie had made respecting his father's will, except that his father had told him that he might expect more money. The defend ant is a jobbing tailor in a small way. Mr. Thomas Piggott, an auctioneer or Guildford, deposed, that on the 7th of February last, he saw the defendant near the Court-house, in the town, about eleven or twelve o'clock. 'lt was a market day. Witness was going to speak to the plaintiff, who was then on the other side of the street. After speaking to the plaintiff on his own business, the plaintiff said, " Do you know who that little fellow is on the other aide of the way?" pointing to the defendant. Witness said, " Yes; it is John Holloway." The plaintiff then said, " I wish you would walk across the road with me, to him, for he is always abusing"( me whenever we come together." Witness went across with the plaintiff, and the latter said to the defendant, " John, you are continually abusing me whenever I pass up and down the town; I wish you would explain what you mean to Mr. Piggott." They then adjourned to the Red Lion Inn, in order to discuss the matter. Witness said to the defendant, " Now, John, what have you to say respecting Mr. Woods ?" The defendant said, " Mr. Woods has made two wills for my father ; the last will for 1316 my father never aimed, and he has defrauded me out of my property." The 'plaintiff then re quested witness that he might have the use of his house fur that day fortnight, the 21st, for the purpose of going into this busi ness again, in order that Mr. Cole and Mr. Baxter might be present. The language above. mentioned was repeated more than twice. Th e defendant addressed both plaintiff and witness at different times. Witness understood the will of 11116 to mean the last will proved. On the 21st of February, the plaintiff, defendant, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Baxter met at witness's house pursuant to appointment. The plaintiff then said to the de fendant, " Now these gentlemen are met, explain yourself' what you mean by abusing me in the town whenever you meet me." The defendant then addressed himself to the plaintiff, and said, " Why, you have made two wills.thr my father, and the will for 181 b my father never signed, and you have de frauded me out of my property." Witness remonstrated with him, and the defendant got very warm. Witness said to him, " John, you have received your legacy, and you have signed a legacy stamp." Ile denied it. The legacy receipt was shown to him with his own signature, and witness said, " Is that your hand-writing, Holloway ?" Ile said it was. After that, the plaintiff proposed to give die defendant that afternoon to come forward and apologize for the abuse, and said if lie did so, he should think no more of it. The defendant took his hat in his hand, and going out of doors, said, " He would rot in gaol first." The expressions above-mentioned were used twice—once to witness, and again to the plaintiff. Cross-examined—The defendant is sensible enough. Wit ness has paid, since the Assizes eontmenced, that he should net be surprised to hear that the defendant was found in the bot tom of the river. The defendant is a tailor, and has a little property. Does not know where he is now. Mr. Keene, keeper of the House of Correction at Guildford, said lie has frequently , heard the defendant say, " Mr. Woods made a forged will of my father's, and has robbed me of my property." Has heard him say this many times, within the last four or five years. Cross-examined—Witness has represented the defendant to be a weak and obstinate man. Never heard the plaintif say that the defendant was a madman. • Mr. John Stun, son-in-law of the testator, proved that he attended the them' of the latter, at which the defendant was present. The will was rend that day in the presence of the de fendant, and then he said he thought it was not his father's will. Witness asked him why he thought so. He replied, that he thought it was not his father's will, because the seal of the envelope, in which the will was, was broken. The de fendant had said he thought he should have had 5001. The property was divided, share and share alike, amongst the tes tator's children. Before the case for the plaintiff was closed, Mr. Baron G Italiaat suggested, that possibly the plaintiff would, under all the circumstances, be satisfied with an apology. Mr. Serjeant TannY said , on behalf of his client, that he was quite willing to make a public atonement for the injury done to the plaintiff's character, he (Mr. Sergeant Teddy) being quite satisfied that there was not the slightest pretence for the imputation cast upon the plaintiff: Mr. GURN EY (counsel for the plaintiff) said he doubted the sincerity of the defendant's contrition, because abundant op portunity had been afforded him, without avail, of retractation. The apology of his learned e t ie r n iet n u d i ;I t i i e e S t e h r e j e rt en :ni t t w e o f ul t c h l e b d e e i f n e s n u d f : ficient, unless it was mad ant's own sense of his misconduct. It was stated that the defendant was not in the town, and that no access could then be had to him. Mr. Sergeant TADDY, on behalf of defendant, submitted to them, that the discussion which this ease had undergone must have fully answered the purpose for which the action was brought—namely, the complete vindication of Mr. Woods' character. Indeed, the action was unnecessary for that pur pose, because no man who knew that gentleman could have thought the worse of him f rom any thingthat could be said by the defendant. Heavy damages a'ainst this infatuated de fendant could avail the plaintiffs nothing, and would have the effect of casting the defendant into a gaol for life. 11r. Baron Guanast told the Jury, that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to their v er di c t, because it was quite obvious that the defendant had_ been actuated by the most malignant motives towards a gentleman of respectability and character. The circumstances of the defendant ought certainly to be taken into consideration in estimating the damages, lest a verdict to an intemperate amount might h ave t h e effect of punishing him beyond the scope of justice. The Jury, after deliberating a few minutes, found their ver dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 101. WEDNESDAY, Auch 9.5. Before Mr. Justice Buftßou Mr. Justice 13unnouutt having cleared the gaol, sat this morning to dispose of the following case in aid of Mr. Baron Graham. THE KING V. THOMAS HUGHES. This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and corrupt perjury, assigned upon evidence given by him in sup port of an indictment tried at the Michaelmas Surrey Sessions, 1822, charging two respectable tradiamen of Epsom (named James Chandler and Timothy. Barnard) With stealing a turret clock hell, two leaden weights, anclother maw -Ws, the property of the defendant. It appeared that the defendant had been an auctioneer at Cheltenham, and in the month of July, 1822, was in possession of a house at Epsom, which was undergoing repairs, and had for sale a considerable quantity of old building materials. The defendant had been indebted lo Mr. Chandler and Mr. Bar nard, respectively, for some articles which they had sold him In the way of their trade. The property which they were charged with having stolen formed part of the building materials alluded to. At the Surrey Summer Assizes in that year, the defendant had indicted these individuals for the robbery, but the Grand Jury ignored the bill. At the Kingston Sessions following, he preferred the indictment above mentioned, upon which Messrs. Barnard and Chandler were tried and acquitted, before the case for the defence was closed. On that occasion the defendant, Mr. H ughes, was examined as a witness, and, on his cross-examina tion by Al r. Adolphus, denied, among other matters, that he had ever said to any body, after the bill was thrown out at the Guild ford Assizes," that if Barnard and Chandler were in any way troublesome, he would bring on the case again in March follow ing, if it cost him 5001., and that they had better be quiet." He also said that a watchman named Sugar bad informed him of the robbery the next morning after it took place, and that Chan dler and Barnard had gone together about two o'clock on the 1 I th July into a stable, and that he (the defendant) went into a loft, where he could see them both, and heard one of them say, " There is that d—d Sugar with Hughes, telling or split ting upon us," or words to that effect. Upon these statements the perjury was sow assigned. It was alleged that the defen dant had in the first place falsely denied the expression of ma , lice imputed to him ; and in the second, that the statement last mentioned was false from beginning . to end. Several witnesses were examined in support of the inthetment. It was positively sworn by Mr. Barnard, and by two persons named Scott and Jeffry, that the defendant, after the Grand Jury had ignored the bill at the Guildford Summer Assizes, 1822, had stated, " That it' Barnard and Chandler were in any way troublesome, he would bring on the cause again nex t arch, if it cost him 6001., and that they had better be quiet." M Alr. Chandler and Mr. Barnard swore solemnly that they were never together on the defendant's premises on the 11th of July, as sworn to by him, and - consequently that the defendant's assertion in that respect was utterly false. Evidence watt also given to show, that although Chandler had been on the premises at eight o'clock in the morning, yet that after that hour he was far away from the premises, and had never been near them the rest of ground the day. ' 111 r. BIIODERICX addressed the Jury at considerable length, a tdefenceat there etarekwenalwanso, just that a g lt r h o o u u n g a h io i r n ei p ik o r in g t in o g i fact,c turned ou ft Chandler and Barnard with the robbery, yet the defendant, in . giving the evidence which he did, was not actuated by malicious motives, but "well - 'from t h e i n f ormat i o n . of others, that which Was the thandati on of his • belief in the guilt of thesopertons. The Jug deliberated for. some time, and found the defen dant. GN Jug The judgment will be reserved for the consi. d erat ion oft ile Court above. NEWe n et if S e T re Ll i - r U . B P a O r N on -T i g ro , c A x. OO. 23. }TEPPER v. MAR S H ALL AND OTHERS. Mr. the P °i defendantsLoe x, n w stating r three isca persons ae o o t t i le th J e ury, namestol o d f it th la em that r. shall, Fell, and Jon es , o f w h om the f i rst was a glover i n Lon don, the seco n d an auct i oneer at Newcastle, and t h e l ast a sheriff's officer in the same place. The plaintiff' was originally a hosier at Newcastle. linfortunately he had fallen into em barrassments, and had been under the necessity of seeking to be relieved from them by the Insolent Act. Having been thrown into prison in the early part of the year 1022 he had obtained his discharge under that Act the 20th of Xugust, in the same year. After his dischar ge ie returned to New castle, took the Half Moon Inn, and furnished it with wine and spirits. Marshall, the first of the defendants, was LT _ pointed assignee to his estate, on his liberation from pri son. This gentleman, in consequence of some circum stances which he discovered in that capacity in the May following, moved the Court for a re-hearing of the case, and upon such rehearing, got him remanded to prison for twelve months from the date of it. During his imprison. ment, his wife, who was left with four young chil dren, was protected by his relations, and was, icy their liberality, enabled to keep the Half Moon Inn, after her husband had been• torn from her. The defendant Marshall, upon hearing of these circumstances, wrote down to the two de. fendants in December last, and authorised them, as assignee, to break into the plaintiff's house, and to sell up every thing they should find. Fell and Jones did, in consequence of such authority, break into the house, and disposed of every thing found upon the premises by auction, even to the bedding of Mrs. Hepper and her family. For this forcible entry and sale, his client was entitled to their verdict, as well as for the inter. ruption which they had given to his business by shutting up his house for more than a fortnight. Out of 85/. which the plaintiff's goods had sold for, how much did they think had been carried to the credit of the unfortunate insolvent? • Not a single farthing ; on the contrary, the defendant Fell had brought in the estate debtor to him, in a balance of 21. 12s. 2d. He ad mitted, that out of the 851., which he had just mentioned to them, a quarter's rent had been paid to the landlord, anti some taxes, amounting in all to but the residue had been swal lowed up in the charges of the defendants. There was one charge of 10/. for the man in possession ; there was another of 251. for }wastages, letters answering, journeys, and incidental expenccs ; there was another of 61: for the information afforded by Mr. Glover; there was a fourth of 41.45., for the auctioneer; and of 11. is. for his two clerks. There were likewise other charges, inferior in amount, but all partaking of the same cha racier. The Learned Counsel then called witnesses to prove his case; anti after they had been examined, Mr. PAR xr, for the defendant, complained of the very ex aggerated statement which his Learned Friend had made of this case. What his client, Mr. Marshall, had done, he had done in his capacity of assignee to the insolvent Hepper's estate, in which capacity he felt himself entitled to seize all these goods in execution. One point which he should submit to their con sideration would be this—Was not Marshall entitled to make such seizure ? He contended that he was, and that all he had done, according to the evidence, was to give a simple order to Fell and Jones, that it should be made. Mr. Baron IlueLoex told the Jury that the questions which they had to decide were, first---was the property sold under this execution acquired subsequently to the plaintiff's discharge under the Insolvent Act? and then, if it were, what amount of damages ought they to give to the plaintiff? If they were of opinion that the property was acquired subsequently to his dis charge, they would say what the amount of it was, and then they would consider what damages ought to be given for the trespass which had been committed. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1251. (Before Mr. Justice BAYLtY. ) yikk• LAIDLAW L. imit.lolT. NI:. SCATILXTT stated the case. The plaintiff was a flamer residing i n t h e nort h ern p ar t of that county , and the defendant was a gentleman practising as an attorney in the town of Der. ulion-Tweed. The plaintiff had employed Ow defendant in . an actio n w hi c h h e h a d b ee n obliged to bring aga in s t a man of the name of Hall, on a promissory note for Wt. In the August Assizes for 1822 the plaintiff had obtained a verdict in that Court for that amount. in the subsequent Term, Hall obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why that verdict should not be set aside. The rule was, however, dis charged, and the plaintiff' became entitled to judgment in Hi lary Term, 1823, for his debt and costs, which amounted to gether to 272/. Hall, who had been at large upon - bail, sur rendered in discharge of it on the 12th day of April, 1822, and was immediately committed to the custody of the Mar shal of the King's Bench. At that time he meditated a frau dulent transfer of his goods to defeat the execution of the plaintiff; but, finding that he could not obtain the benefit of the Insolvent Act without swearing that he had given up all his property to his creditors, and having some compunc tion which prevented him from taking a false oath, lie wrote to his brother at Horsham, desiring him to see whether he could not get his discharge from the plaintiff for a less sum than that for which he had been committed. Ile also wrote to the plaintiff, offering him 201. for his debt and costs. The plaintiff took the proposition to the defqndant in the pre sent action, who had been his attorney in the action of " Laid. law v. Hall." The defendant immediately advised him to re ject it, as by so doing he would be enable d to recover a much larger portion of his property. The plaintiff rejected it accord ingly. Shortly afterwards; Hall's father offered to the plaintiff' 1001. in -discharge of his debt, in the presence of the defendant Elliott. The offer was again refusal. - His friends were then preparing to pa 7501. to the plaintiff, and to give him security for the.costs, when the event happened which gave rise to the present action. Two terms had elapsed from the time of judg ment, having been signed against Hall, without his having been charged in execution i • and the consequence was that by the practice of the. Court he became entitled to his discharge by supersrdeas. As soon as he had obtained it, which was on the 18th of May 1023, he forwarded a letter to his father by the same mail; In which lie himself started from London, desiring him to break offall negociations with Laitilaw l as his person was now free fr o m a ll f uture arrests a t th e suit of Laid law, and his goods were already removed into Scotland, where no English execution could follow them. When Laidlaw heard of Hall's being liberated from prison, he wrote to the defendants to know how that had happened. The defendant, without giving any direct answer to that question, replied in a letter dated 28th pf May, 1823, that Hall's liberation was an event that he had no reason to expect, as he had never heard of his inten tion to come out of prison. This was a very curious reason for an attorney to give; he had got the defendant Hall into prison, and he ought to have kept him there till lie had paid the debt due to his client, or had been discharged by the consent of the plaintiff' or by some process of law.— Had the defendant taken the proper measures, nobody could doubt but that the plaintiff would have recovered the whole amount of his debt from Hall; but now, owing to the negligence or ignorance of the defendant, Hall had escap ed from prison without satisfying the slightest iota of the plaintiff's demand, though he had previously made two dis. tinct offers at compromise, both of which had been rejected by the defendant's advice. Laidlaw, on finding that the libera tion of llall was attributable to the negligence of the defendant, wrote to him a letter, stating that he looked upon him as re sponsible for the loss which lie had sustained. The defendant returned him an answer, which he (Mr. Scarlett) could not help describing as a very extraordinary document. In that letter he admitted the receipt of a very unfriendly note from the plaintiff, but said that lie must repel the insinuation which it contained, that it was his inattention ,that had en abled Hall to go at large. He reminded the plaintiff that Hall's person had never been his onject—that he had never intended to put him in prison, but that he had been sur rendered in discharge of his bail. He likewise mentioned that the last time he had seen the plaintiff' he had told him that he had ordered At writ of execution against Hall, to be sent down to the Sheriff of Northumberland, in order that a " non est inventus" might be returned, and he might be enabled to proceed against the hail. lie likewise informed the plaintiff, among several other things, that the Judge who had discharged the prisoner had acted under a mistake, and that the Court of King's Bench would be moved to rectify it. The Learned Counsel proceeded to state, that the defendant did mire the Court of King's Bench for a new writ of execution against Hall, but that he gained nothing by his motion. In the meanwhile he requested the plaintiff tu pay his bill for the costs which he had incurred in suing Hall, costs which had been incurred for that very object, which the defendant had defeated by his ignorance, or his negligence.—. The plaintiff, fearing that an action would be brought against him for the amount, paid them accordingly, and thus was sad dled with an expence of more than 100/. in addition to the money which he lost by the escape of the prisoner Hall. The defendant, without asking for any authority from the plaintiff, then pro ceeded against Hall's goods in Scotland. After the suit had ad vanced to a certain stage, it was found necessary that a written authority should be produced from the plaintiff to enable it to be continued. The defendant then informed the plaintiff' of what lie had been doing in Scotland, and requested him to send to him the necessary authority. The plaintiff however, not choosing to commit his interests any farther to the care of a man who had already mismanaged them, refused to do it, unless the defendant would Indemnify him against all further expences. The defendant would not consent to give such in demnity, and the consequence was, that the action in the Scotch Court had been discontinued, and what had become of it he did not know. Laidlaw had since offered to assign over to the de fendant the judgment which he had obtained against Hall, if the defendant would pay him his demand. But 51r. Elliot had constantly refused all such offers, and the plaintiff wits now compelled to come before a Jury of his countrymen to obtain that compensation for the loss he had sustained, which he could not prevail upon the defendant to afford hint willingly. Mr. Alexander M'Crevy produced the original recognizances ot bail in Laidlaw v. Hall, the notice of Hall's render , on the 1.101 April, 1023, together with the affidavit of service, which he had. received from the necessary officers of the Court of King's Bench ; he also put in the eoniniittitnr, together with the supersedeas granted to Hall for want of the plaintiff's pro ceeding to charge him in execution in due time in the came cause. Mr. Hogg was called, and proved that he had paid 851. on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant for his bill in Laidlaw v. Hall, Mr. T. Gilchrist deposed as follows :—I was attorney' for Hall in this suit. 1 recollect Hall being in prison. I received a letter from him written partly while in prison and partly when discharged. I received no verbal instructions from him to settle with the plaintiff: J. Laidlaw.--1 am son of the plaintiff: I remember the action my fattier had against Hall. Elliott was my farlier's attorney in it. I often consulted with him about it. 1 went in search of the witnesses by desire of Mr. Elliott and my father. I paid him money for the expences of the suit. I re collect a letter being received from Hall after he was in prison ; that is the letter. I did not take that letter to Mr. Elliott; it was another letter. 1 left it in the defendant's hand. I showed that letter to Mr. Elliott. I told him that my father wished him to stop Hall from taking the benefit of the Insolvent Act. He said lie could do it very well, as Hall had property in Scot land, and an away-going crop of corn in England. He -pro mised to keep him in prison till all the money was paid. He said he could do it, as a man had been contined six or seven years under similar circumstances. James Laidlaw-1 attended the Assizes when the case of " Laidlaw v. Ilall" was tried. Mr. Elliott acted as our attorney. We obtained a verdict for 1501. 1 met George Hall, the bro ther of' the defendant in that action, on the 111th of May last.— He offered us 1001. to settle the action against his brother. I refused it. I proposed that he should defer any further propo sition he had to snake till the Wednesday following. In the mean time, I mentioned the proposition to Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott said, if we were inclined to take 1001., he would give Hall nine or ten months time to pay the costs. He told us that Hall was coming into our terms now, and that he would manage him, if he did not pay up the costs. Hall-1 am the father of James Hall, the defendant in the case of " Laidlaw v. Hall." lily son had 1001. in his pocket in May last, to pay Laidlaw, if they could have come to a cora -1 promise ; but they could not. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. BROW:111Ais submitted, that upon the merits, as they then stood, the case could not go to the Jury. The rule he thought was, that the defendant should be charged is execu don within two terms from the judgment, taking the term in which judgment was actually signed, as one. Mr. Justice BATLEY thought that no person who looked at the rule of' Court could entertain a doubt regarding its con, struction. Mr. BROUOMAII then proceeded to address the Jury, con tending that this case wits one of very peculiar hardship on the defendant. As an attorney belied to conduct his client along_ it path of extreme difficulty, which was very slippery to walk under the best circumstances; that was beset with dangers on every side, and in which one false step either to the right or to the left, was certain to be attended with defeat and confusion. Now if a single error, not proceeding from gross negligence, but from the doubts as to the correctness of practice, the attorney was to be rendered liable to his client for the debt he was eat ployed to recover, then for the small sum which WAS paid to him for his labour anti his expenditure, every attorney be came the insurer of . a debt to has client. The Learned Gen tleman then proceeded to comment at some length upon the evidence given by plaintiff's witnesses, and contended that if they should be of opinion that the plaintiff was intitled to a verdict, they must not estimate his damages by the statements which those witnesses had given to them. After the examination o f the defendants' witnesses, Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence.' The Brat point which the Jury would have to consider was this—ought the defendant to have charged Hall in execution, or ought he not? And the next wits, if he ought to have done so, and had failed to do it, what damages had the plaintiff *use tabled in consequence of his negligence ? If they thought that the plaintiff' would have consented to accept ,the which had been offered him in lieu of debt and coats, then they would confine their verdict to that sum 1 but it they thought that he would nut have been contented with it then they would find such damages as they thought would meet the justice of the case. Ile must say that this was rather a harcl ease upon the defendant, for it was very probable that he h a d Men into the trap which Hall appeared to have set for him., Hali t in one of his letters, had declared his intention of taking the henailtof the Insolvent Act. Now, though that letter did not contain a legal notice of his intention to claim the benefit of that Act, it certainly was such a notice as was calculated to throw the de fendant off his guard, and to prevent him from using that dili gence with respect to charging him in execution which heought to have used under any circumstances. He mentioned that cir cumstance to them, in order that they might not deem it neces sary to give extravagant damages. After several other obser vations, he left them to consider of their verdict. The Jury retired for half an hour, and then returned a ver dict fir the plaintiff—Damages, 1501: DOWNPATRICK, A uo. 18. RIOT AT DONAOHADEE ON THE 12TH OF JULY. Matthew Hutchinson, John Robinson, Hector Ifisifiso, Thomas MeNarry, and John Gates,. were indicted for a riot es Donagbadee, on the 12th of July last; and also for an assault on Edward Hull, Esq. a Magistrate of the county, in the me' cution of his duty ; and also for assaulting the constable, pad rescuing a prisoner. After a trial which occupied a considerable time, and a very impressive churge from the Learned Judge, the Jury returned a verdict of guilty of the riot against all the prisoners; and finding Hutchinson guilty of the assault against Mr. Hull and Hutchinson, M`Lean, anti Gates, guilty of the rescue. AUGUsT 19. The prisoners found guilty of the riots at Newry and Do. naghadee were brought up to receive judgment. His Lord ship, previously to passing sentence, again took theopportsafty of declaring his abhorrence of that party-spirit whid-i - bad been the cause of placing- them in that situation. He' concluded by beseeching them to give up their party prejudices, and, when they again returned to their homes, to live in harmony one with another. NEWRY ORANGE PARTY. James 111 4 Cle11Snd, to be imprisoned 12 months, pay a lbw of 51. to the Xing, and give security to keep the peace for resets years, himself in 501., and two sureties in 25/. each. Lailor and White, to be imprisoned nine months, pay a fine of 401.. and give security to keep the peace for seven years, themselves in 501. and two sureties in 25!. each. Rynne and Browns (the soldiers), in consequence of court-martial, to be imprisoned four months. Remainder of the party to be imprisoned six months, pay a tine of 40s. each, and give security to keep the peace for seven years, themselves in M., and two sureties in 10/. each. NEWRY CATHOLIC PARTY. M‘Gonvills, to be imprisoned nine months, pay a tine of 51 to the King, and give security to keep the peace for 7 years, himself in 100/., and two sureties in 501. each. 111 1 Evoy, to imprisoned six months, pay a fine of 40s. to the King, and give security to keep the peace for 7 years, himself in 101., and two sureties in 251. each. liacket, to be imprisoned G months, pay a tine of 405., and give security to keep the peace for 7 years, himself in 201., and two sureties in 101. each. Rogers and Con way, to be imprisoned 6 months, and give security to keep the peace for 7 years, themselves in 101., and two sureties in 251. etch. Of the Donagliadee rioters, Hutchinson was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, anti a fine of • ' Robinson to 4 months imprisonment, and a fi ne of 405. ; %I 'Lean, IlliNarry, and Gates, to 3 months' imprisonment ? and a tine of 40s. Each of the prisoners were also required to give security to keep the peace. Now TO fD EM TIFY A WRITTEN INsTRVMENT.— At the late Waterford Assizes, much amusement was salted on one occasion in the Criminal Court, by the method take* by a witness who could neither read, nor write, nor speak Enash, • to identify a piece of writing. His name was Charles Ileum, anti he was the prosecuror in a case in which two fellows stood Indicted of defrauding him of money, under pretence of hav ing a civil bill decreed against him. Through the medium of aninterpreter, louse appeared to be one of the most solid and incomprehensible of witnesses, though, as it would seen:. be really was not deficient in understanding. The prisoners, when they had obtained the prosecutor's money, had giveu him a receipt tbr it, and this receipt it became necessary, in the course of the examination, to prove. It was shewn to House; and he was asked if he could swear it was the same which had been given to him by the prisoners P Charley made no answer, but with great deliberation proceeded to search his pockets. At length he drew forth an old tin snuff -box, opened it with great caution, and, at last, produced a bit of paper. That precious morceau he then, without uttering a word, applied to the paper which he was called upon to identify when it at once appeared that the scrap had seen torn from this paper. The thing was evident, and required no words.. During the laugh ter which this display of cuteness occasioned, Charley looked about him with a smile of triumph and self-congratulation play.. on his lips. The Chief Justice afterwards remarked, "that the only intcNibk evidence which AIL Charles Howe had even, was that in which he sold tsothink."—( Dublin m ora i nic Post. ) _ L . - n I.A it Cast.—The following outline of remarkable case may probably not prove uninteresting to the public :—George Fewater, aged about eight years, the son of a cowkeeper of this place, was, for several months previous to February last, afflicted with severe indigestion, slight fever, thirst, and cough, accompanied by great emaciation of the limbs and enlargement of the abdomen, which had a lea den hue; a voracious appetite and offensive breath, with oerasiinal severe griping pains. The mother being apprehensive oldie existence of worms, administered in the beginning of February In" e° ll 't drugs for that purpose • when, to her aornriteandabirent *Peet quantity of worms an d snails, three .or four very largo niter pillars, and a great variety of smeller Insects, chiefly Or the site arid shape of niagots, were evacuated /die** !POW okiol l Mu- • bedded in a great mass a " S winio, COttit Or mucus and 0116 Hardly a day passed during five six weeks without the 'acne occurring in is more or less degree. In April three large hots._ leeches, in a very lively state, made their appearance in mark t)) , with numbers of the above mentioned creatures. Much itUtis the same time the poor child parted with (in consequence of liii injection) upwards of a pinteftoughielly, which literally moved with insects in an early stage of their growth. The boy halibut): during the last six or seven month s under the Care 'of one o f t h e physicians of our infirmary, And still coninues to be an out patient of that Imitation. After a great variety of, judicious medical treatment, he to Meal recovered, has repined a health ful look, and , it Is hoped, has got entirely rid of his troubl esome inmate ,. Ili a parents state that he used to frequent it little IN. pool, near their dwelling, and drink from it by means ot a nant t i n w ag ; and that this pool contains all or moat of the sa r i et t o of insects which have been specified. Doubtless the boy h its taken them unperceived as egg s into his stomach ; as we k now they sic depos i te d by the tacit and other aquatic insects on ike margin of ponds, &c. !i.e., and as he happened to be labourin at under a very bad state of digestion, with extremely slugg i sh b owe l s , a settlement was obtained by th em i n t h e cells u-r:h largerintestines, which probably could n ot h ave oe ° red its healthful organs. The above case, though not unexampled is fully as striking, and is as capable of bein g authenticated , a; any that has ever been recorded..--( Him l a ye i a ser,./tas. 204 A convict, who wits under sentence ofirati*- portation for 7 years, contrived to make his escape from Chat ham-yard, by the following plan • — Being employed , with about Ile other convi cts , white-v / - 118 1 )1 '4 t h e rope b ows , cou trived to steal away, an d se i z i ng some clothes laying neat, 11!`"‘' belonged to some rope-makers, he dressed himself in Mtn, and walked out of the dock-gates, and, being "k en raj a sea man, „ he was s u ff ere d to pass unqueat i onea . No tidings We been heard of hitn.—( Kentish Gazette.)