The Sun. — London, England, 1830-01-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Our readers would see, from the speecheS at the Surrey Sessions on Tuesday, that most of the Magistrates consider the ordinary prison allowance (which the surgeon deems himself constantly obliged to cause to be exceeded, to prevent disease), as a temptation to common labourers, too powerful for any remains they may have of virtue. This we can easily believe. The accounts with which the country papers abound satisfy us that there is a regular struggle for existence going on in many places at this moment ; that the overseers vet the orders of the Magistrates fairly at defiance, determining that if there be not enough for both themselves and the poor, that the poor, as the weakest, shall go to the wall. In the Essex Herald of Tuesday, we observe a letter from Mr. Saumarez, a Ma gistrate, dated Rectory, Great Easton, Jan. 6, 1830, in which he distinctly accuses the over , seers of Broxted of a determination to get rid oF, no matter how, some of their burthent, and seems to intimate that the gentry connive at this. After describing the condition of the inmates in a parish house, he says :—" i have, on two occasions,been over this parish house, and this statement is sub stantially true; but no one can know the miser able condition of these families, without being eye-witnesses of it, t could not measure three square feet, solid measure, in any one part of the apartment or loft of the Monks family, ex cept that part above the bedding ; therefore some estilsilate of its size may be made. The .. "ho% area of Childe's bed was 20 feet, but the cloaks of the occupants cannot be less than 40, which is allowing them to be five feet each in length and two feet in breadth, and I take no account of the infants in arms : they must there fore be placed en masse, and the bedding was altogether two sheets, some sacking, and a rag ged coverlid." He concludes his letter in the following manner :—" And now allow me, as an Ex. Magistrate of the district for the time being, to ask the gentlemen of the county whether eighteen people in four beds is what our Magis trates are to uphold—is what in open Court they are to refuse to alter? This may be the opinion of the county, as they seem to say ; but this leap-in-well' and gee drive to mora lity' I am not bound to believe, and I will not believe it. Let me ask, if a brother and sister— not that case of the Monks referred to, but one that happened here at Easton—if a brother and sister are to be laid down in a parish-house, upon the loose straw, without any clothes at all, except their coat and frock ; if, finding all remedy from overseers past my ability, I take the straw and show it to the Magistrates in open Court—let • me ask if this is what the county would think nothing of, and that to omit and pass over such a case is right. I will not believe it of the • county, neither if I could would. I consent to it. But they who affect to have so much knowledge of the county, so little knowledge of what the poor suffer:--let them, under these circumstances, act as usual ; and I, for my part, most gladly and willingly will leave them, for the more congenial pursuits of humanity among my parishioners, of whom I will undertake to say, that their misery and misfortunes, their vices and degradation, are • the work more of others than themselves." It seems to us that, in many parts of the country at this moment, there - is something like a dissolu tion of all law and order, and that there is next to a scramble between rich and poor. The rich are becoming too cunning to commit raen to prison—but fight for what they hold as well as they can.—Morning Chronicle. We have been much interested by a short and unpretending pamphlet, published by Mr. Dance, ' " provisional assignee of insolvent debtors in England," on thatfrightful subject The Expenses of the Law. It has often enough been affirmed, and with truth, that the costs of a law-suit are " monstrous," arc " terrible," are " intolerable ;" and a number of equally strong adjectives have been resorted to, descriptive of the pressure of this acknowledged grievance. But there are one or two modes of putting the matter to any plain and clear-minded individual, which, it he should happen to be a legislator, must make him blush for his own share in the guilt of having per mitted, nod therefore as an accessory perpetrated, the infliction upon the upright portion of his countrymen of that immeasurable evil, an Eng lish bill of costs. Do Ministers and Members of Parliament consider what cause it is, and hose cause it is, that they protect by tolerating the fearful expenses of a modern law-suit ? It is the cause of every rogue in the I mud, against every honest man in it. The authority which pronounces that a British subject who has been defrauded or injured to the amount of 201., shall not have a chance of recovering it in one of the King's Courts, but by the certain sacrifice of 501., is an authority which ought surely to be adored by knaves, and held by all men of worth and property in abhorrence. Every pound of needless addition to the cost of recovering a right withheld, is to the same extent a denial of jus tice, because it is an obstacle in the way of it. All impediments to justice are bounties on fraud, and direct encouragements to extortion and op pression. The poor man who happens to be an unprincipled desperado, may wreak a double malice on his enemy. He may wrong him first, and ruin him afterwards by the sort of reparation which he tenders to him. " Go to law with me if you like." A poor man, who has justice on hie side, will find her an exacting and unpro fitable ally, whose friendship he must re tain by subsidies far ,gaeater than his finances can afford, and more than equiva lent to all the services which she renders him. Mr. Dance has stated, in a few clearly written pages, the miserable consequences of applying a superfluous machinery to the decision of simple questions ;and in a few mom e he has brought forward the detailed and specific remedies by which he prcmoses to mitigate at least the abuse. He con siders first the proceeding before trial—next the unnecessary cost at which evidence is too fre quently obtained ;—then the glaring inconsis tency of those rules by which the parol exami nation of the parties themselves is prohibited in a court of law,—while their written testimony is not merely received, but required, in a court of equity in answer to a bill, and made subservient to legal purposes ; and when before arbitrators, chosen under the very same court of law which rejects the viva voce evidence or principals, that viva voce evidence is often insisted on and given for the purpose of aiding . that decision which the Court makes binding upon the parties, though founded on materials furnished through this indirect violation of its own standing rules ! The author proceeds to recommend, that for the trial of actions for debts extending from fifty to a hundred pounds, and also for trespasses and spe9ial damages not exceeding the latter amount, the disproportionate expense and loss of time now occasioned by the sittings of the Lord Justice in term time, one or other of the puisne Judges should sit every clay during the whole term, and after it, if necessary, for the determination of such minor causes ; and that to save the expense of the repeated postponements of trial, and attendance of witnesses, - a certain number of causes should be set down for each day, allowing only one counsel on either side to be taxed in making up the costs. Mr. Brougham's proposal of a court of arbitration is enforced by Mr. Dance in this little work, which concludes by the following suggestions upon a branch of legal proceedings which teem with oppression— those were honest debtors, not disposed to dis pute or litigate their debts, are saddled with an enormous aggravation of them by dint of un necessary process to recover them. The whole subject, indeed, of debtor and creditor, deserves to be studied with diligence. . . " It • does not occur to me that there are any re gulationi tinder which it might be safe to give the superior Court a power (absolutely independent of the will of the parties) to refer any cause to arbitra tion, except as to the mere details of account, al though, in fact, such a power is virtually exercised at present; but unfortunately, as it can only be ex ercised when the cause comes on for trial, it is of the last moment when the whole of the expense has been incurred, so that all the costs of the reference become an additional burden to the parties. " The costs of which I have yet spoken are such only as occur in cases which are really disputed, and after all practicable reductions there will still remain a sufficiently heavy burden. But let us look to the effect of costs arising in cases of debt, which are neither disputed nor disputable. Such costs are in truth most fearful and double-edged weapons, wound ing as often those who strike the blow as those at whom it is aimed. In cases wherein the debt is actually recovered, the costs add to the misery and oppression of the debtor, and by tending to disable hint from meeting other engagements, their recur rence very commonly drives him to bankruptcy or insolvency. When OH the other hand the debt is not recovered, the costs operate in aggravation of the creditor's loss; arid therefore all such parties, perceiving nothing in the expense of law but an 'en gine of mischief to themselves, must be expected to look upon it, as they actually do, with great abhor rence. " It seems, therefore, most imperatively necessary to do something towards reducing most especially the costs of this class, or at any rate of enabling debtors to submit honestly and cheaply to such de mands as they have 110 wish to dispute. "I cannot help thinking, that a great practical mistake has been committed on this point. A few years since arrests were permitted for debts when they amounted to 101. To raise this sum to 20/. was advocated as a measure of humanity to the debtors, and it was so enacted accordingly ; but I take upon me to assert, that in practice it has really been productive of disadvantage in a large proportion of cases, not only to the debtors, but to the creditors also. For it is in truth a half measure, and, like many other half measures, has induced consequences of which its promoters foresaw nothing. It is true that the debtor for 10/. can no longer be arrested and held to bail. But the law which freed him from this should have gone further, and freed his person from imprisonment for the same debt, after being sued to judgment. Formerly, if on being ar rested he paid the debt, it was with the addition of 3/. or V. costs to himself. If he went to prison and became an insolvent, the like amount of costs and no more fell on his creditor. The same man will now arrive at the same point a little later in time, but at an expense of about 15/., and if he prove in solvent as before, this addition will be out of the pocket of his creditor. The alteration, it is to be recollected, can only have operated on debts between 10/. and 201. in amount, and therefore the increase of costs in proportion to debt is frightful. " I admit that the process occupies time, which the debtor gains, and which in his struggles to pre serve his liberty he will sometimes have made avail able so as to pay both debts and costs before judg ment can have been obtained against him. But even then the expellee of these actions mast have been materially greater than that of the same number of arrests; and though they have not been attended with actual imprisonment of the person in the same individual cases, yet the proportion of costs to debt is far too great to be supportable, and therefore they must have led the way to imprisonment and loss in other cases. In point of fact it will scarcely be found to have diminished the number of persons imprisoned for debt, and yet it has undoubtedly in creased the aggregate amount of useless law costs. This increase being, as I before showed, confined to the class of smaller cases, is a temptation which the inferior practitioners cannot resist, and to which, therefore a sound legislation would not leave them exposed. _ _ _ " I have:long believed, and I am every day more confirmed in my opinion, that the measure which would remove the greatest number of these objec tions would he that of permitting any debtor to sub ject himself to the law of insolvency without pre viously going to prison. I can conceive nothing more preposterous than the supposition, that when a man -s unable to pay all his creditors, it can be otherwise than mischi?vous either to him or to them to head law charges upon him. I insist, that on the contrary it would be highly beneficial to both that a power should exist, competent to interpose and prevent such proceedings, and to protect what pro• perry he may have for equable distribution among l►is creditors. " In dismissing this question, it is no small gratifi cation that I can quote in its favour the opinion of one to whose profound knowledge of human nature the whole of the civilized world are delighted to unite in bearing testimony. After describing the court-yard of a prison, with a number of the debtors engaged in playing at various games, Sir Walter Scott says,' for these rehtxations the rigour of their creditors afforded them full leisure, while it debarred them the means of pursuing the honest labour by whirs they might have redeemed their affairs and maintained their starving and beggared families. " We made some remarks the other day on the case of the two children, under six years of age, who were indicted for felony at the Westminster Sessions. It will be recollected that those chil dren had taken a pair of stockings from the out side of a shop where they had been improperly exposed by the owner, and that the transaction had been witnessed by one of the new police, who watched the children before they took the property, and, instead of telling the owner that his goods were in danger , lay in wait until the robbery was completed. Having thus obtained the materiel for a prosecution, and qualified him self for a witness, he, by virtue of giving evi dence on the trial, entitled himself to a certain sum under the name of expenses—and thus we see how the indiscriminate mode of allowing ex penses to witnesses on criminal trials, under Mr. Peel's Bill, operates as a bounty to officers to promote a system of punishment rather than one of prevention. The policeman, no doubt, acted according to what he thought his duty in watching the progress of a dishonest intention until it ripened into crime, which shews that the new police inherit the notions of the ancient Dog berries, who thought it the worst of all crimes to spoil a prosecution by too early interference with the operations of a thief. But let that pass. We should like to know who was the ' committing Magistrate, for we are of opinion that in this case the committal was illegal ? It is laid down by Sir Matthew Hale, a great autho ritys that a child under seven years of age can not, by the common law, be guilty of, felony. He says that it is the presumption of law, that before that age there is no discretion to discern good and evil, and no circumstances in any other particular case can be allowed to rebut that gene ral presumption. Of the same opinion is Sir Win. Blackstone, who has these words, " Under seven years of age, indeed, an infant cannot be guilty of felony." In the present case the children are stated to have been under six years. One of them pleaded "guilty," the other, although there was no doubt of the fact of taking the property, was found not guilty by the Jury, on the hu mane recommendation of the Chairman. Now, Sir Matthew Hale further says that an - infant under seven years of age cannot be convicted on its own confession—and, therefore, the plea of " guilty" should not have been received as to the one child—and, as to the other, the Chairman ought to have told the .Jury they had no authority to take the case into consideration at all, for both the committal and the trial were against law, it being the Common Law of England that no infant of the tender years of the prisoner is criminally responsible for its acts, which provision of the Common Law has never been repealed, and cannot now be altered but by an Act of Parliament. This would have saved the county the expenses of an illegal prosecution, and prevented the public feelings from being shocked by the exhibition of two babies placed in the dock to receive the doom of felons.—Morning Herald. Mr. Briscoe, in his speech at the Surrey Quarter Sessions, on Tuesday last, furnished some admirable illustrations of the glorious re sults of the law, which gives a creditor almost unlimited power over the person of his debtor— a law, the general principle of which is at va riance with the soundest policy, and which, we hesitate not to affirm, has never been productive of the slightest good to the community. The law is unjust in so far as it gives the creditor power to imprison not only the fraudulent debtor, but also him who has been brow zit to ruin by misfortune or fraud. It makes no distinction of persons or acts ; and to add to its absurdity ii► this respect, it deprives the debtor, by consign ing him to prison, of the only means of intim nifving his creditor —nay, in consequence of the expenses which are generally incurred before the debtor can be sent to prison, the debt itself is so increased in amount as to render payment utterly impossible. In the cases alluded to by Mr. Briscoe, it appeared that in one of them the original debt was ss. 2d., and that by the time the debtor was sent to prison it amounted to 14s. 2d. ;—in another, that the debt of seven shillings was augmented to 15s. 2d. ;—in a third that the original debt of 3s. 10d. was increased to 10s. 4d.—and lastly, that a debt of 10s. 4d. became, in the same way, 14s. 6d.! These are plain facts, and we think they prove be yond the possibility of doubt the impolicy of the present law,—not that we think no punishment due to him who robs his neighbour of his pro perty, but that the law makes no distinction be tween the fraudulent anti honest debtor, and that the means of punishment which it adopts are precisely those which are injurious both to debtor and creditor, and beneficial to no one. The fraudulent debtor, or spendthrift, is a sub ject who ought in justice to be brought under, the operation of the law, and to his punishment in such manner as may conduce to his reforma tion and the reimbursement of his creditor, there can be no objection ; but it is well known that there are many debtors, both for large and for small sums, who are debtors through the fraud of others or their own misfortunes, and from whom the only hope of payment is from due opportunity being afforded them, and not from locking them up ; and to adopt, therefore, the same process towards the former, as towards those who will not pay, although they possess the means, is neither more or less than the most manifest injustice. Yet such is the law at the present moment ; and we think it would be dif ficult to select one from the statute-book more pregnant with the seeds of barbarism. Let us hope, that the ensuing Session of Parliament' will not be allowed to pass over without some effectual amendment being made in it.—Morn ing Advertiser. REPEAL OF THE MALT DUTY. A numerous meeting of the Maltsters and others was held a few nights since at the Corn Exchange, London, at which a petition was adopted, to be pre sented to the House of Commons, praying for the repeal of the duty on Malt. The petition states that the Maltsters, in common with every other class, are suffering under a taxa tion, the principal cause of which appeared to be the enormous national debt contracted in a paper currency, the interest of which is now exacted prin cipally in metallic currency. The petition went on to state, that the expences of the army and navy were thus increased from 3,700,0001. a year to upwards of 14,000,0001.; the civil list from 900,000/. to 3,500,000/. a year ; and in fact, the whole expen diture of the country had increased within the last 38 years from 15,000,0004 to about 60,000,000/. a year. While the currency had been limited, all places, pensions, sinecures, &c. remained the same; and while the price of land had advanced more than two-fold, rents had not been reduced, though paid in the same limited currency. The petitioners hoped that no return to an issue of Bank paper would be made. The petitioners hoped that the public expenditure would be reduced, and that those taxes which pressed most heavily upon the labour l i - ing classes, and in particular on farmers and agricul tural labourers, now the most distressed people in the kingdom, would be taken off. The petitioners prayed that the first act of the Legislature would be the total abolition of the Malt Acts, which would give relief to the farmer and the labourer, enabling them to drink excellent home-brewed beer at 6d. a gallon, instead of paying, as at present, Gd. a pot for beer, and would restore those happy days when farmers, labourers, and others, brewed their own beer, and seldom knew the taste of gin. The con sumption of barley would be increased one-fourth, viz., about 2,000,000 of quarters annually. About 5,000,000 additional acres of barley land would thus be brought into cultivation, and one of the most obnoxious and oppressive Acts of Parliament would be done away with—that for preventing the making of malt in the Maltster's own way. The petitioners could not refrain from recommending a revision of the church property, by which princely incomes of 30,0001. and 40,000/. a year were drawn by mitred Lords from the earnings of a starving population, the people now being called upon to pay 8,000,000/. a year in church and poor-rates. The petitioners implored the House to take these propositions into its serious consideration, and to repeal immediately the Malt Act. The petition having been signed, the Meeting adjourned. - Copenhagen presents a great variety of cos tume. The female inhabitants of the neighbouring island of Amarr, who are descendants of Dutch settlers, still preserve their ancient and grotesque dresses, carrying with them such loads of clothing that the human form is com pletely lost in their cumbersome woollen garments. The French mcdcs are usually adopted among the wealthier classes; in fact, if a stranger were suddenly deposited in any of the great theatres or public place of Europe, he would certainly not he able to distinguish one country from another. The Danish language is insufficient for daily intercourse with the world, though it is sweet, and rich, and graceful ; so very well-bred persons speak some other tongue—generally German, but frequently English and French. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 13. THE CLARENCE RAILWAY COMPANY. The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this matter. He said it appeared that the Company was 'empowered by the Act of Parliament under which they were appointed, to make a railway extending over a considerable tract of country, and of neces sity over the private property of various individuals, and the point was, whether there was sufficient pro vision in the Act to authorize the intrenchment now complained of. His Lordship expressed a decided opinion that the 79th section in the Act was suffi cient for this purpose, and the consequence therefore was, that the Company was justified in its proceed ings. The proper course would be to lay the matter before one or more justices of the peace, by whom the differences might be settled. After some observations from Mr. BICKERSTETH and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, relative to a point left undetermined, a day was fixed for the argument of that question. IN RE FROWD. This was a petition which had been partly heard by his Lordship in his pri►•ate room. It prayed that a warrant issued against Mr. Frowd by the 14th List might be set aside. Mr. Frowd was a solicitor employed in the recent case of " White and Met calf," and the warrant bad been issued by the 14th List of Commissioners in consequence of Mr. Frond's refusal to deliver up a mortgage deed. Counsel were now further heard upon the petition, and his Lordship finally determined that the warrant of the Commissioners should be issued, giving Mr. Frowd an opportunity of applying for habeas corpus, when the whole matter might be discussed. His LORDSHIP then proceeded with the list of bankrupt petitions, none of which were of interest. VICE-CIIANCELLOWS COURT, JAN. 13. ER PARTE STRACIIAN IN RE REMINGTON AND CO. Mr. Hoits:r. said, that this ►vas a petition, praying that the proof of a debt of .50,0004, made by the Directors of the London Life Assurance Company against the ;estate of Remington and Company, might be expunged. The petitioners were the assignees of Messrs. Remington and Co., who, his Honour would recollect, had become bankrupt in consequence of the conduct of their partner Mr. Howland Stephenson. The latter, as well as being, partner in the firm of Remington and Co., ►was also a Director and Trustee of the London Life Assurance Company. This Company, which kept a cash ac count at Messrs. Remington's, had also been in the habit fur many years past of keeping at the banking house a tin box, in which were deposited securities and other property belonging to the Company. The box was locked, and there were two keys of it, which ►were separately intrusted to two of the Directors of the Company. One of these keys was in the cus tody of Ro►vland Stephenson, not as a partner in the firm of Remington and Co., but as a Director of the London Life Assurance Company, and the other key was intrusted to Sir Claudius Stephen Hunter, another Director. Among other delinquencies of Stephenson he made use of Exchequer-bills, and other securities, deposited in this box, to the amount of 50,0001.; and for this sum the Directors of the Company had been allowed to prove against the estate of Messrs. Remington. Now the partners of Stephenson, if aware that this box was deposited at their banking-house, certainly had no controul over it, and the question raised by this petition w a s, ►whether, under such circumstances, they could be made responsible for the - contents of the box. Mr. ROSE (►with whom was Mr. ROOTS) opposed the prayer of the petition. The line of argument taken by the learned Counsel was, that the firm bad not exercised due care and circumspection. The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought it clearly a case which required farther inquiry; and should therefore direct an issue to try whether any and ►shat debt was due from the firm of Remington and Co. to the Londo❑ Life Assurance Company. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 13. READ V. RANN. This was an action by a ship-broker in the city, against Mr. It'inn, a ship-owner, to recover a sum of 841. for commission on a contract effected by the plaintiff between the defendant and a Capt. Hardley. It appeared in evidence, that in the summer of 1827 the plaintiff negotiated between the defendant Wand Captain Hardley, for the hire by the latter of a ship of the plaintiff's, called -the Mermaid, on a voyage from London to Calcutta. A contract, pre pared by the plaintiff, was entered into between the partied, by which it was stipulated that Captain Hardley, who was trading to India, should charter the Mermaid, a vessel of 473 tons, for a period of twelve months, at the rate of 12s. per ton per month. After the contract had been signed, it was handed over to a notary to prepare the charter party. The notary having, at the instance of the defendant, introduced some clauses which the contract did not authorize, Captain Hardley objected to them, and the contract was in consequence rescinded. The plaintiff, however, sent in his charge for commis sion at the rate of 2 . 1 per cent., which he claimed to be entitled to under a custom which, as he alleged, prevailed among ship-brokers, to charge for commission in every case where a contract of this description was effected through his means, whether the vessel sailed on a voyage or not. Several ship-brokers were now called to prove that a broker was considered to have earned his commission immediately the contract was entered into, and before the charter-party was signed. They all, with one exception, spoke to this custom; but it appeared that none of them had ever actually re ceived commission under such circumstances. Lord TENTERDEN, upon these facts, decided that the custom upon which the plaintiff relied had not been satisfactorily established; and the plaintiff Was therefore nonsuit ed. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. IS. DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF LORD TEYNIIAM V. TYLER. The examination ofplaintitl's witnesses proceeded. Mr. Charles Jones knew John Hopkins Fox; went to school with him on the Continent. In the latter end of 1782 he was an articled clerk to Mr. Railton, an attorney, in Bartholomew-close. He' continued to cal! upon witness's mother till 1789, when his articles expired. When he was out of his time he took a house in Bride-lane, Fleet-street, and kept a carriage for a short time. Knew nothing of his character in his profession. In 1789 (the period of the recovery which he executed) his character as an attorney was by no means high. He was an adventurer. When a lad he was a person of lax principles. Witness avoided him from the time of his setting up in his profession. Mr. Shepherd, a person from the banking-house of Messrs. Child, proved that Henry, the 12th Lord Teynham, opened am acount in the house on the 10th of November, 1789: 600/. was then paid into his account by Hopkins Fox. A month afterwards (about the time of the recovery) a sum of 4001. was drawn out; it appeared to be paid to his Lordship. This was the only account Lord Teynham ever had in Child's bank. A person from the Master's office of the Court of King's Bench produced a registry, which proved the admission of John Hopkins Fox, as an attorney, on the 29th of April, 1789. It appeared that, in Easter term, 1791, he was suspended from prac tising in the Common Pleas, to which he had been admitted 011 the 25th May, 1789, for debt. William Pringle, a gardener, residing at Norwood Surrey, knew John Lord Teynham front 1803 till 1819. His Lordship lived at Sydenham, in a house belonging to witness's father. He had six servants in all. John Cook and his wife were two of them. A horse had been buried in a part of the garden, and his Lordship refused to eat the vegetables that grew there, on the ground that their flavour might be injured by that circumstance. Mr. Serjeant WILDE—Oh, he thought they might smack of the horse ?—Yes. Mr. Serjeant WlLDE—Perhaps, then, they we; e horse radishes.—(A laugh.) Mrs. Emma Holebrook, a daughter of the Hon. Philip Roper, knew theMostyns,—they were cousins of Henry, the 12th Lord. They were sons of Mrs. Mostyn, who was sister to Lord Tcynham. One of them (Benedict) was confined for insanity; the other was considered weak, but mnried a sensible woman, and was not in confinement. Cross-examined—Madness runs in the family.— Henry Mostyn is only kept out of a madhouse by the judgment of his wife, who prevents him from having wine and other liquors. Miss Charlotte Roper, sister of the present Lord Teynham, and cousin of Henry, the 12th Lord, was educated abroad. Went abroad when two years old, and returned at the time of the Revelation in 1793; was at St. Omer's. Saw Henry, 12th Lord Teynham, and his brother John, at Margate, in Hawley-square, on her return. They lived with Betty, Lady Teynham, their mother, who managed matters. Witness lodged in John-street, Margate; oniy went once to Lady Teynham's ; dined there, and saw the two brothers, and their mother ; there was nobody else of the party. Henry did not enter into conversation with witness, nor with any other member of the party. He appeared low and dejected. Witness had a passport from Robespierre, to enable her to come over from France; it was the last that was granted. This was spoken of, but Henry took no interest in it. Retired to the drawing•room after dinner. Henry did not join them. Witness went to the play the same evening with Lady Betty. Henry was to have joined them ; he came to the box and stood at the door for about a quarter of an hour. He did not enter the box, and went away without making any apology. Never saw him again, except once, in London, in Clarges-street, about 1794 , or 1795. Went in the evening ; saw his Lordship, who made a " very awful" appearance. Only saw him for about ten minutes. He did not address or converse with witness. There was a rap at the door, and Mrs. Tyler, who was present, seemed rather agitated, and said, " Who can that be ?" and at that moment Lord Teynham rushed out of the room, looking like a person insane. He did not return. He had a very awful look. He was melancholy, de jected, seemed lost to the world, and had every ap pearance of an insane person. Knew Mrs. Cathe rine Taylor; her family was attended by a person named Bacot, who was intimate with them. KHew Mr. Benedict Mostyn ; saw him at St. Omer's in 1792. He had a very imbecile look, and was weak minded. Knew Mr. Brand; often saw him at John Lord Teynham's house, and at his own in Soho-square. - This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Bacot recalled by Mr. Serjeant WlLDE—Pro duced a box containing various bills and papers be longing to John Lord Teynham. They extended from 1800 to the period of his death in 1824, and were carefully arranged and labelled in his Lordship's hand-writing. One receipt was for four guineas for a book—Dr. Busbys Lucretius. John Lord Teynham gave witness oral and written instructions for his will, He said one half the estate was to c., , 0 to his si.ter, and the other to his sister's son, and that he would not leave the property to the heir to the title, because that individual had had a good estate, and spect it, and would do the same with this property if he got it. His instructions were proper and collectel Witness knew his Lordship from an early period of his life, and always con sidered him of sound mind. Several letters from the late Lord Teynham to Mr. Bacot, on the subject of his will, were read. One of the insttuctions was for the insertion of a clause, forbidding his executors to repay any monies that might have been borrowed on post obit, or otherwise, by any of his relations conceiving them selves entitled to his property. In another letter he alludes to Mr. Curzon, the present plaintiff, and, after noticing his claim on the Teynham property, expresses his (Lord Teynham's) belief of its invali dity, and his determination not to leave Mr. Cu- zon, or his family, any part of the estate. Mr. Serjeant JONES having briefly replied upon this evidence, Mr. Seijeant WILDE. for the defendant, charac terised the present action as a speculation which had been caught up by persons in desperate circum stances, for the purpose of endeavouring to wrest an estate from the rightful possessor, upon the slightest and most trifling pretences. His Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had alluded to the taint of insanity which was supposed to characterise the Teynham family; the existence of this cause would seem to afford a proof that the plaintiff was not exempt from this family taint, except indeed this was a subscription cause by the holders of post-obit bonds, of which the Jury had beard something. There was not a tittle of evidence to support the Attorney-General's statement, as to the supposed conspiracy between Tyler and Hopkins Fox to effect the recovery. It had been said that Lord Teynham could have had no motive for cutting off the entail. Was it not sufficient that Lord Teynham was afflicted with a complaint which precluded the pro bability of his having children, and that lie should desire to have the power of disposing of the estate in a manner best calculated to benefit his family ? The Learned Gentleman went on to repel the as sertion that Mr. Tyler had seduced the younger Miss Roper in the life time of her sister who was his wife. There was no evidence of this; all that appeared was, that Mr. Tyler had married two sisters,—an act which, however unbecoming, unfor tunately occurred too frequently. The main ques tion related to the state of Lord Teynham's mind at the time of suffering the recovery in 1789. In the spring of that year he was found pursuing his sister who had eloped from London. It cer tainly could not be pretended that Lord Term ham had not acted with proper feeling and decision in this case. In the summer of 1789, he went to Tunbridge Wells, and the evidence of Mrs. Dowdeswell was conclusive as to his sanity at that period. At the time of suffering the recovery, Lord Teynham was found executing deeds, providing for the payment of family claims. There could be no pretence for saying that there existed any evidence of unsoundness in November, 1789, when the act in question was executed. The will executed by Lord 'Teynham was in itself conclusive as to his sanity. The bulk of the estate was left to his brother; to his sister, Mrs. Tyler, he bequeathed 1,0001., as a mark of remembrance rather than of approbation ; and so far from Mr. Tyler, who was supposed to have caused the unsettling of the estate, profiting by it, he received nothing, and was excluded from all con troul over his wife's legacy. If the Jury enter tained a moment's doubt as to the validity of the instrument by which the entail had been destroyed, it might be said with perfect truth that no estate in the kingdom was safe. The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE observed, that this was an action of ejectment, by which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant possession of certain estates in Kent. The only question for the Jury was, whether or not, in November, 1789, Henry, the 12th Lord Teynham, was a man of corn petent understanding to conduct his own affairs. If they decided this question in the affirmative, their verdict must be for the defendant. In 1785 Henry, Lord Teynham, came of age; in the following year his father died, and he succeeded to the title, and became tenant in tail of the family property. The law had provided a mode of destroying the entail, by suffering a common recovery. In November, 1789, Lord Teynham took the necessary legal steps to de stroy the estate tail. It was unnecessary to say that he was authorized by law to do so, if he pos sessed sufficient understanding to comprehend the nature of the Act. It was for the Jury to inquire whether Lord Teynham had brought to the perform ance of the act in question such a degree of intelli gence and understanding as had been described. His Lordship was about to sum up the evidence which applied to a later period of Lord Teynham's life, when he was interrupted by the Jury, who in tireated that they had made up their minds on the subject, and immediately returned a verdict for the defendant. The case occupied the Court until six o'clock. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, kN. William Cooper, a broom-mannfie:nrer, late of Slangham, in Sussex, was opposed by Mr. COO%Sp on behalf of Mr. John Ireland. The insolvent came up originally on the 7th of December last, when he stated, that in 1822 ho borrowed 2801. from his son, William Cooper, the° but 18 years of age. He gave no memorandum for the money at the time, nor was he to pay oaf interest. In May, 1829, he made over to his son freehold house, a piece of land, and the whole of his stock in trade, &c., for 120/. in part payment of the 2801., and then the son, who had up to that time been merely his father's journeyman, at 1.55. a week wages, became master, and conducted the business on his own account. 'I he insolvent then came u p to London, and was shortly afterwards arrested at the suit of a person named Manley, for 211. 10s., which Manley had lent him in a public-house. He nos' came up to be discharged from debts to a consider able amount, his son being in possession of all his property. William Cooper, the insolvent's son, was called to prove the loan of 2801. to his father. He stated, that in 1822, his aunt died, and left him eome pro' perry, which he disposed of for 2801., though ha admitted he was then only 18 years of age, and he never took out letters of administration to his aunt's property. As soon as he got the money, he de posited it into the hands of his father for safety; and in May last, knowing that his father was in ern' barrassed circumstances, he prevailed on him to a e sign the house, land, and stock in trade, to him; this was done, and he was now carrying on the busi ness for himself. The COURT told the son that the assignment W. illegal, and said, if he would give up the property it would be better for himself, and enable his father to obtain his liberty. The son, who was a stupid-looking f e llow, did not at all feel disposed to accede to such an arrange. ment. The COURT ordered the case to stand adjourned. On the 15th of December, the insolvent came up again, when the son appeared, and the insolvent'. counsd, Mr. WOODROFFE, said he was sorry to find that the son was still as obstinate as before. After several ineffectual attempts to induce the son to give up the property, the Court resolved to give the parties another opportunity to reconsider the effects of such obstinacy. This day the insolvent came before the Court again for a final hearing. Upon inquiry it was found that the son very foolishly preserved the same obsti• navy as on the former occasions. Mr. Commissioner HARRIS, in passing judgment's observed that the insolvent's son would find to his cost, that notwithstanding his eagerness to keep the property, the creditors would be able to get it frau; him. The insolvent had clearly disposed of his property most fraudulently,and the judgment of the Court theiefore was, that he be remanded for period of 12 months from the date of filing his pc" tition. Cornelius Lee, the rat-catcher, whose case Iwo heard yesterday, came up to-Jay for judgment, whet' the judgment of the Court was, that the insolvent be remanded for a period of eight months, for frau" dulently making away with a part, and charging other parts of his property, with intent to dimiatill the fund that ought to have been divisible amono the creditors. THE MARKETS. COAL. MAR 4d. Adair'a Clutrlotte Heb'Attrn Main 54 6 tiolywell— 33 Killiugworth 35 0 Orti's Itedhugh 30 0 Pciaw » 31, 0 Percy East .- 31 3 Pontop Windsor 28 Tantie!d _ 31 0 Tanfield Lt T Willington 30 3 31 3 -35 6 33 0 N'allsEmillewicke&Co. 0 K ET.—Jan. 13. Walls d Newmareb«. 965. Pc" Ditto Northumberland 36 3 . Co , Ditto t'eareth 34 6 Ditto Perkins and Co.— 35 6 Ditto itiddop. _ _ _ 37 1 ! Russell's Ditto NVaikez 37 Eden Main Lambton's Primrnse 36 0 Walls End Hetton—.—.... 39 0 Watts End I...ambton* 59 ° Walls End Lyons 36 6 Walls End Stewart's 54 0 Hallieath 29 0 35 0 Ditto IL.II Rolmon & Co. as 9 I Hartley.., Ditto Burraton 33 (5 liangennech Coal ;I 0 Walls End Boundary 3d. 7 PembertonLlangenneeh 36 . 0 Dtto Clarke and Co. —34 9 Shildon", 2, 0 Walls End Carr and Co. 34 3 Silkstone 34 Ditto Cramlington.,......, 31 6 Wall's End Elgin 31 o Ditto Heaton 36 6 Cramlington Trader.... 31 6. Ditto I lilda 36 0 Walls End small 21 0 ago 3 51,1;,s at market, 16834--sto ips sold. 47—Uniolel. 141j4• OUNTRY ttKE'l ICI NO TH Wheat. I Barley. Oats. Beans: Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to a. A. to a. t. Abingdon---- 55 62 32 38 21 32 Andover 55 62 22 34 20 23 -58 Birmingham—. (54 70 32 33 28 30 A Bridport Cirencester Faringdon . 51 86 26 40 26 58 46 Guildford 43 74 24 35 20 30 17, Henley 5l 83 SO 35 20 30 Hereford....... . 64 84 38 45 :15 40 —r, High Worth 62 SO 32 42 28 34 - 0 7 Maidenhead —.. 65 84 28 33 22 30 — 5," ; Oakingham —. 76 30 36 18 32 i L D Reading .--. 4t 83 22 42 16 32 —4 0 q, Salisbury 49 6 2 1 21 31 22 32 Southampton :•,4 - 78 37 40 28 32 4 , Stroud Tewkesbury Uxbridge Vantage 46 73 20 86 16 28 Warminster . 42 72 23 42 20 32 40 Windsor 5l 76 21 36 Hs 31 W0rce5ter.......~.. 70 77 36 40 24 32 54 CHELTENHAM MAR-KEE—Jan. 12. Per rushel. r, d. to a. 8. Per lb. d. to 4 • Wheat Barley Oats Ileans 4 9 5 6 Lawb 6 1 Pease 5 0 8 0 Pork 5 6 Hay 3/. 10s. to 31. 15s. per ton. R KETS.—Jan. 6. DUMFRIES M. s. d. Wheat, Imp. Bush... 6 6 to 7 0 Butter, ItSin Barley 3 3 3 6 Eggs, dozen Oats 2 3 2 9 Beef, per lb. Flour, 141 b. Oatmeal 1 9 2 0 Veal Potatoes, cwt. CATTLE.—The market to-.day was again very 3110 411 supplied, the total number being only 10. They tre. r6 in excellent condition, but their appearance did net Oa" the attention of any of the buyers. 5 0 0:00 1 0;4 . t 00001 BIRTHS. On the 12th inst. in George-street, Hanover-squar e► the lady of G. Bankee, Esq. M.P. of a son. At Government-house, Sydney, the lady of Lieut•' General Darlii g, Governor of New South Wales, of 0 daughter. On the 12th inst. the lady of C. Lane, Esq. of Mow tague-street, Russell-square, of a daughter. On the 6th inst. at Edinburgh, the lady of F. Balfour/ Esq. of Fernie Castle, of a son and heir. MARRIED. On the 12th inst. ut St. Pancras, the Rev. J. 13 ' Sanders, 8.A., Chaplain to the Ordinary, Sheerness, ti) Miss Anne Dover, niece of J. Esdaile, Esq. of Huntll' street, Bedford-square. • On the 12th inst. at Wotton-under-Edge, J. B. Harrift Esq. of Peer's-court, Uoueestershire, to Helen, onlY (laughter of W. M. Adey, Esq. of Wotton-under-Edgeo that county. • , On the sth inst. at Gladswood, Berwickshire , F. 136' cher, Esq. of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, to Christin s t daughter of J. Anderson, Esq. of Gladswood. DIED. On the Bth inst. at Bath, aged 82, Mrs. Sarah Cotter the eldest daughter of the late Sir J. H. Cotton, l3art.;° Xladingley, Cambridgeshire. On the 6th inst. at Polleston, county Carlow, Reba'''. Sir C. Burton, Bart. On the 12th inst. aged 16, Caroline Lucy, daughter G. E. Bower, Esq. of the Tower. On the 4th inst. at Honiton, Amelia, wife of J. Lev i court, Esq. On the 11th inst., at Brixton, Gabriel Cohen, Eel" aged 73. In Clonmel, at the advanced aged of 103, Mich. Icy' • pauper. Ile tetained his faculties to the last. On the 3d inst. awfully sudden, Mr. B. Tarrandt Bakewell. He was reading out a hymn to the congree ~ ion in the Independent Chapel, in the forenoon, and struck with apoplexy, and expired immediately. PAINTED AND PNBLIBNED NT 11U1tDO YOUNG, 1 VIZ SIM OFFIVI ) 11 e, entliA VOTICI - 4 - sirous Iles for the Us To his West, and Barran Island : Durhan Hants To his Majesty tunas, and Q Oats, Hay, ar Artillery Hi Counties : Berke ➢Middles n'u l de s ;pe l i yt:ll:;atje Proposals e i ce . d da n kfann , 1 ta i dF e uo a ll x tua n mi ;cbr this e e y r e at p uhdr; t k:: lae . I I ( I ' 1 sand be includ Lave the Lettei filled up by ten !onto bound w to tkr printed Contract; and Siors a printed words at 'env by virtue of th Contract and I tractor, Will b Partic u l ars Lion at this Of To BE Pursuant to F of CHANT TI - 101111'8( FORD, Es( the Public too Bui!din DAY, the 3 S UNDB & MANSI and LANDS, Bentwerth, Pursuant to az earns Catpe at the place A FREEHI and Piece of I) ragea- Publi the County of Particul ars, Master's Chato T. H. M c l 'neaa, Soho' London; and and Ales*rs. C stoke ; also, a the Estates. LORD I Nearly N AR By Lieut.- Marquis of LC Printed for torlington-str SPL. WH. • inl a ferr of the P force him t• gratitude for tl has received, o Cons at a atil taken is precis Bound in ci celebrated Ma et 18s. Pub! Contain.; 25 by varioud Art Itished At 21s. P.m bell ish ed ; hound in Wilk, Superbly bo most beautiful &c. from paint eminent. Artis lutne for 1830 graving of wl greatly superio Elegantly b engraving s by. T. Lawrence, W atts. Thi s ' Snition s as LaC, Contains 11 rem paintings fro m the most liElled at 124. This volum e 13 fine engrav the Works of I butions, in pri the day. Soh This heautif fished with I I ter, Warren, & ar nang ether at Jairus' " wit Thomas at 1 2g. 1. A New Anr tt 61nds.iikp. hot ns. frit h enl TI f Embellishe d r ° l ll drawings it 6 s. 6d. PI Handsomely grttving s by RA k(At celebrate( itt 12,. Contains nil Arti I: hound qshed at 12s. k.. Neatly boun s '` ) ld at 10s. 6( THE h, this beautif 1, - "graYings ' an , ord, Dr. :e t ructive W I Edited Ir ish Charm AcKERNE n ‘•o4tainB 9 the Prose Miss l ''ted by Fred 44 NEW Yi t• albelli s h e d • rhrds h 1 . • Opie, & airs. Alarii e ontains, be 1, 41 . 1, l er,orter, 111 i Carter, 4 4 Publi s h e d Enigm 4t .' e • Price 3t qi 'rhe Mtigica ,tile Annual f l4e les , and 0 , engraving; '', 4 l at 2s. 61 'eaceck's P