The Sun. — London, England, 1833-11-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBL[C JOURNAL There is a letter in this day's Times, which details the sufferings of the unhappy Polish patriots lately resident in Germany, under the protection of the local Governments of that country, but who have been rooted out of their charitable asylums there, through the jealous and indefatigable malignity of the Russian Ca binet. That refugees from political persecution should be entitled to a resting place in any fo reign state, so long as they conduct themselves like peaceful citizens of that state, and refrain from proceedings against neighbouring powers, by which its neutral character might he endan gered, is a rule and custom of all civi!ized nations on earth. To withhold such hospitality from miserable fugitives driven from their native home by force of arms, and destitute of all resoAree and assistance, has been esteemed at every period of modern history a breach of the most sacred obligations. So, an attempt on the part of a victorious power to deprive its defeated enemies, even though they be revolted subjects, of the bene fits enjoyed by them under the above humane practice, has ever been regarded as a vindictive and odious intermeddling against the rights of the unfortunate, a submission to which by the protecting Government must entail upon the lat ter the reproach of base and pusillanimous sub serviency. There seems to be a tacit under standing among the most despotic Powers, that exiles for political causes shall remain undis turbed, so long as they forbear, by overt acts or unlawful preparations, to molest the tranquillity of the Governments which have subdued and expelled them ; and this is but common sense as well as justice. Political contests not implying that either of the belligerents are °Enders against any but a single state, there exists no cause why they should in their defeats be treated as criminals on any soil but that which has been the theatre of their struggle. There is no in hospitality so revolting as that which denies spel ta. to the political outcast, whose means of auhsistence are for the most part under con fiscation at home ; nor can any tyranny be nett re barbarous than that which strikes him tht ou4h the sides of his temporary protector. It appears that the Emperor of Russia, not satis fied with so torturing and degrading the wretched Poles as to render their own country intolerable to them, has hunted them into the retreats to which his cruelty had forced them, and actually not rested until - he prevailed on the Courts of Germany to banish these poor men from their dominions. The particulars are given in the article to which we have alluded, under the head of Poland." On what grounds, and to what extent, the two free Governments of Europe tray feel justified in interposing on behalf of that scourged and trampled nation, is a point on which we have not now materials for conjec turing ; but, as a general principle, it may be fairly said that whatever act of Russia or her subsidiary despots goes to debilitate Poland and to degrade her below the station which it w a s deemed essential to the interests of Europe, by those who conducted the negotiations at Vienna in 1814-1815, that she still should hold, affords a full defence to France and England for any interference which has for its object the restora tion of Poland to that precise condition. We recommend the whole statement to the attention of the reader, we need not add to his sympathy —Times. That portion of the Press which regards the pre , ervation of Whig power as of infinitely more importance than the principles of English freedom, attempts to justify the prosecutions for libel commenced against several newspapers, by the AA big son-in-law of Earl Grey, upon the ground that the Tory Lord Lonsdale is also a prosecutor in the same respectable field of war fare. The evening organ of the Ministers says, " We shall wait with some curiosity for the reasoning which makes that right in one Nobl , Lord which is wrong in another." For our part we look with equal disgust on the proceedings of both—though, perhaps, the conduct of Lor(I Durham is deserving of severer censure than da , of the Tory Nobleman, who indulges in the luxurious pastime of hunting the victim through all the toils of a penal vindication of character. The reason we think so is, that Lord Durham is a Whig by birth and education, and even an ultra-liberal by profession. We know that the Whigs have obtained a share of that popularity which brought them into power, and which the abuse of power is rapidly depriving them of, by expressing on all public occasions an extraor dinary veneration for the liberty of the press. The celebrated Whir , toast—" The liberty of tire press ; it is like the air we breathe ; if we have it not we die"—we have never heard of being an accompaniment to the conviviality of a Tory banquet. The Whigs, there fore, aggravate the crime of a malevolent attack upon the freedom of the press by an ueblushing violation of the principles of liberality which they have always professed. How Whig and Tory prosecutors for libel will adjust the balance of superior folly and vindic tiveness with each other we neither know nor care, but we know that both have a third party to settle With, which will not so readily admit tire servile and sophistical excuses of the re tainers of the press on either side—and that party is the country. We must, however, do the most able of the Conservative papers—tire standard—the justice to acknowledge that it does not take up the line of defence for Lord Lonsdale which the 'Whig papers do for Lord Durham. It candidly avows the wrong which Lord Lonsdale has done, not only to a great principle, but to himself, by not relying for the vindication of his character on a high-minded consciousness of his own rectitude—a fir better security in the end to the fame of a public man than the shield of penal law. The Standard says, " It may be very well for those who look only to party or to personal objects to balance acts of op pression and cruelty, on the one side, against acts of oppression and cruelty on the other. We look to higher ends. We feel that in such a commerce of injustice and oppression, public liberty and public morality must suffer, whatever particular factions may gain by it." This is a manly and enlightened view of the subject. If the only question b e whether the factions of S}lla or Marius ought to have most license to trample on the principles of free government, what is to become of the liberties of Rome ? A public man who pursues a ridiculous or even a malevolent fakehood by a prosecution under the existing law of libel in % this vttcooufmry temperis and, in our opinion, unqualified, by high. mindedness, fbr the due exercise of any hi gh office in a free state. Was not the retracti on of the foolish story for which Lord Durham had ob tained a rule for a criminal information sufficient fur the clearing of his character, if it had received any stain from it, and for the purposes of justice ? Will any person attribute the further prosecution of this ridiculous matter to anything but a feeling which no man who values the ?good estimation of hie fellow citizens, in a country like this ought by word or deed to avow ? The prosecution of the journals which merely copied the offensive and absurd paragraph is in the very keenest spirit of sharp practice, and in the highest tone of that political intolerance which the Whigs used so eloquently to declaim against in their political adversaries. These nrosecntions ,affect the public character of Lord Durham in a way which is likely i'o make him regret that he ever took counsel in this matter of the passions, which influence men of little minds, instead of abiding at all hazards by those en larged and liberal sentiments which had so recently thrown a moral lustre over those festive scenes where the genius of patriotism and the (Yod of rosy wine went hand in hand.—Morning Herald. A case of deep importance to the press was ieard in the Court of Exchequer last week. A report has appeared in the newspapers, in the case of Johnson v. Lord Foley, of an affidavit nut in by his Lordship. It was admitted that the report was correct, but the plaintiff con sidered it injurious to his reputation, and now hrings his action against the Times accordingly. The decision, as to the right of reporting ex parte proceedings correctly, was deferred by Lord Lyndhurst. Should the decision be against the right, there will he an end of report ing altogether. We recollect that Lord Wynford, - 11)011t five years ago, pronounced against the right ; but the dictum has been deemed so monstrous that it has never since been acted upon. Public Courts arc public places, and always have been so. The whole people, to a man, have a prescriptive right, if they please, and, provided room could he found them, to he present, and to hear, and see, in I propria personer, the proceedings of the Court. What distinction can be drawn between subse quently repeating what is heard in a court, to an indefinite number of persons, among whom the hearer may afterwards find himself in com pany, and diffusing the same report through that larger and equally indefinite number of persons which constitute the public, through the medium of a written or printed report ? The extent of the communication is not alleged to constitute the offence, but the fact of the objectionable matter being communicated. If One communication therefore be illegal, the other is. What is this but the pretence to an inquisitorial power—hoe beit unexerted—to question the right of conversation at the din ner table or at the fireside ? Encroachment on social privileges and rights often creeps on by degrees—till gaining strength, it throws off its disguise, and exhibits the odious features of that spirit of judicial tyranny which sug gested his " ear" to Dyonisius, and his " couvre feu" to the Norman bastard. It is, how ever, clear that those who contend against the legality of reporting ex parte proceedings, or allegations in the Courts, would he driven into an absurdity, unless or until they could show cause for excluding the whole public. Publicity of judicial proceedings, we maintain, is a fun damental part of the Constitution. The press, by representing accurately what is said and done in the Courts, imparts to the dense population of modern times, the unmutilated advantages which Alfred and the Saxon monarchs, who established open Courts for the administration of justice, originally contemplated when the country was more thinly peopled. It supplies to all compensation for the physical incapability of personal presence. It furnishes the great body of the public with an ear and eye to hear lnd see what is going on, a circumstance sup uosed by the Constitution, but otherwise physi cally impracticable. In a word, to comment airly on all that concerns himself and his fellow itizens, is an Englishman's inalienable right, a right which no judicial despot or ministerial satrap (though he may question) can invalidate, diminish, or withdraw.—Morning Advertiser. While on the one hand we condemn the courtesy of the Whigs to Mr. O'Connell, we must not be supposed on the other to admire their ferocity against his subalterns. While we despise them for their civility to the libeller, we must not be thought to applaud their dislike of the libel. We will not discus now the merits or the demerits of the Pilot, against which the Government has renewed the prosecution which seemed to have abandoned. Nor will we be led into a discussion of the abstract advantage or disadvantage of the present state of our libel law. If our libel law is conceded to be excel- lent—if the Pilot is a most proper victim to its severity—still the attack upon the Pilot by the Government is, in the Government, an act which it would he charity to term a blunder. Between the characters in which the author and the pub lisl er of the prosecuted letter appear there is no comparison. Mr. O'Connell is the avowed and recognized captain of agitation in Ireland. He is the man upon whose hand, head, and heart a greater weight of guilt is laid than has been 1)01 ne by any of his predecessors in the task of political disturbance ; the man through whose instigation character is daily traduced, property plundered, law despised. The publisher of the Pilot newspaper is—the publisher of the Pilot . . newspaper ; and he is nothing more. Between the parts which the author and the publisher of the prosecuted letter had in the criminality of he action there is no comparison. Mr. O'Con nell has supplied the intellectual ability, the literary labour ; he has contributed the bitterness of the sarcasm, the falsehood of the statement, the virulence of the invective. The publisher of the Pilot newspaper has added his compositors and his press. And he has added nothing more. Between the objects which the author and the publisher of the prosecuted letter had in view there is no comparison. Mr. O'Connell writes, that by his writings he may excite discontent, may promulgate sedition, may exasperate dis cord. The publisher of the Pilot newspaper publishes, that by the publication of Mr. O'Connell's rhetoric he may sell a larger number of copies than he would sell without it. And he publishes for no more culpable motive. Of two criminals the Whigs have selected the lesser for punishment, and have left the greater un assailed. It would have been far better to have extended a similar impunity to both. Truckling to Mr. O'Connell, and tyrannizing over Mr. O'Connell's myrmidons, they only add caprice to imbecility, oppression to subserviency. There s no more certain rule than this : wherever conciliation is cowardice, authority is persecu tion.—Morning Post. A SCOTCH CLIMAX.--The presiding Judge in the High Court of Justiciary, of Edinburgh, while addressin g a prisoner who had barely escaped conviction, and admonishing him to he careful for the future, gave utterance to the following outrageous specimen of the anti climax Recollect, Sir, that although you have escaped this time, your next misdemeanor will, in all probability, be arrested by the strong arm of the law ; for I caution .ou to bear in mind, that the all seeing and all searching eye of God ;Ind of the Edinburgh police is upon you." VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nov. ?6, SPECIAL INJUNCTION-LAWSON V. CUNLIFFE. Mr. 13uGH applied on behalf of the plaintiff, James William Lawson, at the rising of the Court, ex parte for a special injunction to restrain the de fendants from negotiating certain bills of exchange. It appeared from the statement of the Learned Counsel that a gentleman named Wright applied to the plaintiff, with whom he was personally ac quainted, stating that he was desirous of raising money, and should consider himself under great obligations if the plaintiff would accommodate him with three blank acceptances, pledging himself not to fill them up for more than 100/. each. Those ac ceptances, to prevent the negotiation of which the prevent motion was made, found their way into the hands of the defendants in the following curious manner :—Messrs. Solomonson and Fraser, bill brokers, and the agents of Messrs. Canliffe, the bankers, were acquainted with a person named Douglas, for whom the Messrs. Cunliffe, at their re commendation, discounted several bilk of exchange to a very large amount. Shortly before those bills be came due Douglas absconded, and the bills were ul timately discovered to be all forgeries. Solomonson and Fraser being about to become insolvent, the defendants, desirous if possible to get reimbursed th e amount they had advanced on the forged bills, prevailed on Messrs. Solomonson and Fraser to delay the declaration of their insolvency. in order that they might obtain as many good bills as would pay their demand. An agreement was entered into between them to that effect, and three-fourths of the amount of the bills it was agreed should helona• to the defendants. Wright had handed over the blank acceptances given him by the plain tiff to Solomonson and Fraser, who, after filling them up to the amount of two or three thousand pounds, gave them to the defendants, together with a great number of other bills. The Learned Coun sel contended that he was entitled to the injunction he asked on the ground that the acceptances had round their way into the hands of the defendants under an agreement to compensate them for the losses they had sustained from the forged bills of Douglas. His HONOUR immediately granted the injunction, COURT OF KING' 4 BENCH, Nov. 26. :Middlevex Sittinze at Nisi Prins before Mr. Justic e PATTESON, and a Common Jury.) FRAUDULENT BILL TRANSACTION.-NECK V. WISE- MAN. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney in Norfolk-streer, Strand, against the de fendant, Alexander Wiseman, Esq., an officer in the navy, as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, dated 25th April, 1833, payable to John Smith three months after date. The bill was for 1001. Mr. Comyn stated that the bill was indorsed by Smith to Moore, and by him to one Israel, who in dorsed it to the plaintiff for the value in cash. All that he had to do was to prove tile hand-writing of the parties. Simeon Metz knew the defendant, Alexander Wiseman. The acceptance on the bill was the de fendant's hand-writing. John Boozey was clerk to the plaintiff, an at torney in Norfolk -street, Strand. He remembered Smith and Moore coming to the office of his master, Mr. Neck. They came in con.equence of notice by letter of the dishonour of the bill. They wanted a few days to pay the bill. Cross-examined--He had been with the plaintiff, Mr. Neck, since June. He (1 , (1 nor know that the plaintiff was in partnership with Mr. Keeling. There had been many bill transactions in his master's of fice. Ha had seen ten bills in the office. He was not acquainted with J. M. Hart. He saw him this morning. Mr. Smith who came to the office was not Mr. Hart. Had seen Lawrence Levy. Did not know Jacobs or Israel, whose names were on the bill. He lived in Sidney-street, Mile-end. He did not know that he was well known there. A person to oe well known must get well in debt.— (Laughter.) Samuel Lee knew Lewis Jacobs. The indorse ment on the HI was his hand-writing. He also knew Israel. The name on the bill was Israel's writing. Mr. 'Watson, on the part of the defendant, stated that the bill had been concocted in fraud, and had come into the hands of plaintiff under circumstances which must lead the Jury to find for the defendant. In the early part of the present year Mr. Wiseman, who was an officer in the navy, happened to see in a newspaper an advertisement that he might be supplied with money on reasonable terms. He wanted 1001., and went to Cannon-row, West minster, where he was introduced to a person who represented himself to be Mr. Smith. Having some suspicion of him he reqeested a reference. He was referred to Mr. John Minter Hart. He went to a house where he saw J. M. Hart, who told him Smith was a respectable man. In consequence of that information he returned to him and gave the bill which was the subject of the action. He was to have received the amount subject to a bonus, but from that time to the present he had never received ' one shilling for the bill. He took a receipt at the time for the bill. If these facts were proved the plaintiff could not recover unless he appeared to stand in the situation of an innocent holder of the bill. He should prove that J. M. Hart, having received the bill from Smith, indorsed it to one Paddy Moore, who gave nothing for it; that Moore sold it to a sheriff's officer for 20/.; and that it was discounted by the plaintiff, who received it from one Israel. John Minter Hart looked at the bill. He had seen it before. He knew Smith, the drawer, who resided in King's-row, Chelsea. The witness be came acquainted with Mr. Wiseman in April last. He saw him on the subj.ct of the bill at his resi dence, Ulster-place, Regent's Park. He called on him at the request of Smith, and entered into a negotiation with him for the advance of 1001. Terms were agreed on. The bill was given by Mr. Wiseman, but the money was not advanced to his knowledge. After the bill was drawn it was handed to Smith. A few days after the father of Smith brought the bill to him, and he indorsed it to Moore. He was to have had from Moore 921., but did not receive one farthing from him. He un derstood that it was then sold to Lawrence Levy. He knew Neck, who was an attorney. He did nor know that Neck was a dealer in bills. Neck was brother-in-law of Levy. 'Wiseman received nothing whatever for the bill. After hearing further evidence, the Jury found For the defendant. CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 26. (Before Dr. LUSHINGTON. SERGEAUNT V. SERGEAUNT. This is a case of divorce promoted by J a m es Sergeaunt agai ns t H a rriet, his wife, on the ground of adultery ; and the charge was met by her with a recriminatory plea and alleged connivance. On a former Court day the King's Advocate ap peared for the wife in support of the admissibility of the allegation, and Drs. Phillimore and Addams op posed it. The allegation alleged that the husband, an officer in his Majesty's service, was married in 1825, and soon after joined his regiment, proceeded with his wife to the Cape of Good Hope, and thence to India. The allegation proceeded to allege various acts to support the charge of connivance on the part of the husband while at the Cape of Good Hope. Dr. LUSHINGTON this morning gave jud gmen t, end was glad he had tak en time to cons i der his offei Opinon t red, the greatest importance. What did the a ll egat i on o the question a dmissibility of the a ll egat i on now involved a pri ncip l e o f t h e plead ? That there vas a non-aekne w l e d gment o f the marriage shortly after i t took place ; that the wife was introduced to bad characters; and tha , she was exposed to temptations which no man who was jealous of her honour and character would submit to. It was alleged that et the Cape of Good Hope she was exposed to solicitations ; but the alle gation only pleaded adultery to have allowed on one occasion. The question arose how the Court could deal with this case with reference to the decisions already given, and those great principles upon which the purity of the marriage life ought to depend. There were various circumstances upon which a decision might be given. If the husband was con sentient to his wife's dishonour he could never have relief from that Court. The decisions in former times would induce the Court not to weaken the obligations of the husband to protect the wife; but if the rule was clear iipon this point that the hus band should not avail himself of the adultery of his wife, having connived at it, it was also clear that if a doubt existed the husband should have the benefit of it. In the present case there was no adultery alleged at which Mr. Sergeaunt connived, and in th e absence of proof it became the Court narrowly to look to the facts to see if the conduct of the hus band came up to what the law held connivance. It was agreed on all hands that connivance was not inibfference; it must be a consent by the husband to the wife's dishonour. If any difficulty in this case existed he would let the plea go to proof; but there were no improper familiarities, no proximate acts, connived at by Mr. Sergeaunt ; and looking to all the facts, he considered there was nothing to induce the Court to think the husband had peen guilty of conniving at his own dishonour. One fact alone had excited his suspicion, and that was Mr. Sergeaunt's having left his wife for three days at Elm Cottage alone with a Captain ; but it was not alleged that Mrs. Sergeaunt had there conducted herself improperly, and a fortiori, th e husband had not connived. Indifference arid neglect could not be considered connivance. Under all the circumstances of this extraordinary case, he should direct all facts relative to connivance to be struck out, as if proved they would not bar th e husband his remedy, and if they went to proof must occasion great expense and delay. No time o r place was stated for the adultery in India, anti that must not go to proof. The Court did not re commend appeals, but as far as rela•ed to himself he should be more satisfied to have his judgment .•ffirmed or reversed, the case being an extraor dinary one. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 26. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GAMMON. This was an Excise information agains► William Gammon, a glass-manufacturer at Birmingham, charging him with defrauding the revenue by re moving certain quantities of glass from a leaz before the Excise officers had weighed it, and also chars. ing him with not giving a true description of the pans put into the leaz. The SOLICITOR•GENERAL, Mr. TANCRED, and Sir GEORGE GREY conducted the information, and Sir JAMES SCARLETT, Mr. BLACKBURNE, and r. HILL were for the defendant. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, after stating the case, called Smith, an excise officer, who stated that he was put over the defendant's glass-house on the 29th of September, 1832, and that the defendant told him " he might have any glass he wanted, and hoped they should be comfortable together." The witness then stated, that having reason to suspect the defendant, he wrote to Mr. Oldham, an excise officer, in London, and he, with another officer named Knapton, came to Birmingham on Saturday, the 12th of January last, on which day witness had surveyed the glass-house. The defendant had given a notice that he should weigh glass on the Monday. Witness, with Knapton and Oldham, went to the defendant's premises early on Monday morning, and got upon the roof by means of a rope ladder, when witness looked through a skylioht, which commanded the reweighing room, and there saw the defendant's servants remove a basket of glass, and some other glass. They then all went down, seized that glass, and proceeded to the re weighing room, where they counted the pane, and found their number to be SS, being four more than was contained in the defendant's description given to the Excise. This witness was strictly cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLETT. Messrs. Knapton and Oldham stated that they saw Smith look through the skylight, and that Smith acquainted them that the defendant's men were removing the glass, but that they did not themselves look through the skylight. They then went down, seized the glass, and counted the pan.. They all stated that the glass they seized was warm. For the defendant, Sir JAMES SCARLETT said, the prosecution was bottomed on the falsebooLl, fraud, and malice of the witness Smith, who had admitted that he had laid more informa- tions than any other officer of Excise. He should prove that the fires in the leaz were put out on the Saturday morning, and were not lighted before the seizure, anti therefore the glass seized, which was of a description which rapidly parts -with its heat, could not have been warm as the witnesses had stated, who must have mistaken the change of tem perature of the glass-house for the warmth of the gl.ss. The prosecutor had not thought fit to call the supervisor, John Jones, who must have known if any fraud had been committed. An excise-officer who lent himself to plans for entrapping a trader to gain penalties, was a man of as infamous and dange rous a character as language could describe, for from his facilities he had it in his power to ruin many tradesmen. Smith had a motive of revenge. He was seen to take two goblets out of the pan, and was forced by Coke, another officer, to return them ; for this he vowed vengeance. He also tampered with othe r officers, telling them they could make the defen dant fork out the blunt, for the glass manufac turers, as well as the maltsters, were under them" With respect to the glass alleged to bN removed, he would disprove that by many witnesses; and as to what Smith alleged he saw from the skylight, ho would produce a plan, which should be vsrified, by which , he Jury would see it was impossible from that sky light to see into the weighing-room, from which the goods were alleged to have been removed. After the glass is melted and shaped, it is charged with a certain duty, after which it is placed in pans in the leaz , s, which are long passages, with a furnace at the mouth, and they are wound by a windlass, so as to advance and cool gradually, until they come out at the extremity of the leaz, which opens into the weighing-room, whereof the officer keeps the key, to whom the manufacturer must give notice when he wishes to weigh, and then the officer at tends and opens the door of the room. On the weight ano , her duty is charged, and the present accusation was for taking the glass, without payment of that duty, out of the weighing-room; but he should show it was impossible for the defendant so to have done. Smith, to prepare for the reception of his friends, came on the preceding Thursday, and desired the workmen to put five pans into the we ighing-room, but they only put four, which were also the subject of the information. John Lancaster, examined by Mr. HILL—Put in the model, and approved of its accuracy. A man could from the skylight only see about a foot of the door of the reweighing room, and could not see above a yard into the room. Robert Coke, an officer, went to the defendant's premises in May, 1832. Smith came in September. Four days before Smith asked witness how he liked the glass. He answered " Very well." Smith said, " If witness would join him, a good deal of money might be very well made, for the maltsters and glass-makers were all fraudulent, and a plan might be found out for making th em pay, and they would divide the blunt, an d h e would s ood fiat' a plan by which he would trap old Gammon." Witness saw Smith afterwards put some Goblets in his pocket; he asked him why he did so, and Smith replied, he should like to have a dozen—they were very handsome." Witness „id, "You scoundrel, unless y ou return t h em, I w i l l break you." Smith returned them, put his hat over his head, and they did not speak for a fortnight. It was Smith's business to have the keys on the Sunday. Witness, with several others, were early on the morning of the 14th of January In the weigh ing-room. No goods were removed. James Lovett deposed, that Smith told him " there was money to be made, for the officers had got the glass-manufacturers under their hands," Nu goods could have been taken away on the morn ing of the 14th of January from the weighing room. The fire was put out on the Saturday morn ing, and the furnace was not lighted afterwards. The glass was not warm. Oilier witnesses deposed that no goods had been removed, and one stated that Smith desired five pans to be placed in the weighing-room. Several of these witnesses had been suspended by the Excise. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL briefly commented on the evidence. Lord LYNDIIURST said he would read all the evi dence, if the Jury wished it ; but the Jury (lid not require it, and immediately found the defendant not guilty. They also stared, for the information of the solicitors to the Treasury, that they found that the suspended officers had done nothing wrong. Lord LYNDHURST was perfectly satisfied with the verdict. This trial occupied the Court from morning un eight at night. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARLBOROUGH STREET. Yesterday two builders applied for the MAGIS TRATES' assistance in order to defeat the combina tion at present existing among the journeymen builders and bricklayers. The complaint was, that the men, one hundred or more, surrounded a house in Jermyn-street, which was taken to finish by a limited time from the Com missioners of Woods and Forests, and that they not only refused to work, but prevented others. They wanted to reduce the time of labour to eleven hours per day, at 54., and then declared that they would have none employed but the old hand , , who had struck. Under these circumstances they were liable to become losers to a considerable extent, and wished to know whether warrants could not be obtained to apprehend some of the parties. Mr. CONANT directed Mr. Baker, the inspector of the C division, to attend where the assemblage then was, and if he saw a breach of the peace com mitted, to apprehend the parties and bring them to the offiee. Mr. Barren, one of the applicants, thanked the Magistrates for their assistance, and withdrew. QUEEN-SQUARE. CAUTION TO THE OWNERS OF CARTS.—A num ber of owners of carts appeared before the trate., to answer summonses taken out against them by Digby, the informer, for not having their names and places of residence properly described on their carts. These cases are of considerable importance to the public, and the exposure of them may prevent in formers from reaping a rich harvest frcm individuals totally ignorant of the law. Last session of Parlia ment an Act passed which made and provided that the owners of carts, if they place their name and place of abode on the back of their carts, with the words " Common Stage Cart," the same would be exempt from the duty. Tho•e persons who wished to be re lieved from the tax did so,and complied with the letter of the law, as they supposed ; but, unfortunately for them, they have been deceived; for the former Act, which requires the owners to have their names and places of residence on the off side of the csrt clear of the wheel, is not repealed, and the informers are making a very profitable speculation by laying infor mations against those persons ignorant of the law, which, as it now stands, requires them to have their names both at the back and on the off side of their carts. The defendants complained loudly of the injustice, and produced the new Act of Parliament, and said that it was very hard that they should be brought up and lose their time on such paltry charges, when they had done everything in their power to comply with the Act of Parliament. The Magistrates, under the circumstances, fined the defendants in the mitigated penalties of from ss. to Ills. each and costs. Digby begged to be allowed to withdraw several informations against defendants who were in poor circumstances, on payment of costs. MAR YLEB ONE. Mr. Dalton, writing desk and dressing-cage maker, Great Ormond -street, Queen-ignare, ap. plied to the sitting Magistrate, Mr. HOSKINS, for his advice. He rented a stand at the Bazaar, Soho-square. On Saturday a tall dark young man, about twenty three years of age, came up to the counter, and hav ing looked at several writing-desks, selected one, the price of which was five guineas, as well as a dressing-case, twelve guineas, both of which he de sired might be sent home to No. 2, Randolph street, Camden-town, at the same time giv►ng a card, on which was engraved " W. A. Coyle, sur geon," and adding that they wonld be paid for on delivery. Applicant, in the course of the afternoon, sent a boy with them, whom he desired not to leave them without the money. The boy, however, re turned, saying that the gentleman was out, and he had left the things, but was to go for the money at eight o'clock, by which time the gentleman would be at home. At eight o'clock the boy again went, taking with him three sovereigns, to give change of a 201. note if required, but a second time returned, without the money, and stated that he had seen a gentleman, who asked him if he had change of a 501. note, and, on his answering in the negative, and expressing a wish to take the things away, added that his brother was not at home, and would feel so offended at the things being taken back that he would not purchase them at all. The boy then came away, and on Monday morning applicant went himself to No. 2, Randolph -street, tak ing with him change of a 50/. note. On arriving at the house (on the door of which was a brass-plate, with the letters " Mr. H. T. Roberts,' Solicitor," engraved on it), he was ushered into the parlour, where he saw a gentlemanly-looking young man, who, on being made acquainted with his (the applicant's) business, said that the person who had ordered the things only came there occa sionally, and had come in and left soon after the things were brought there, taking them with him. Thinking that from the circumstance he had been swindled, he wished to have the man who obtained the thing.: apprehended. Mr. HOSKINS said that as the goods had not been obtained by any false representation he could not interfere; the amount must be considered in the light of a debt. Conduit -street, u i s ie ta re tio s r t i e e p r pe ad bookseller, d n forward Lamb's andsaid that the man Coyle had obtained some goods from him by making use of one of his customer's names, who resided in Basinghall-street. He had never made inquiries of the person he was referred to, but had no doubt he had been imposed on. Mr. HOSKINS told Mr. Inman that he should ad vise him to inquire of his customer in Basitighall street, whether she had any knowledge of Coyle, and had recommended him ; if not, a warrant should be immediately issued for his apprehension. HATTON-GARDEN. Charles Wright, an undertaker, Was brought to this office on r warrant before Mr. LANG arid Mr. Sergeant SELLON, charged by Dr. thick, of Wal. thamstow, with having committed a most outra• geous assault. Dr. Thick, whose arm was in a sling, on Friolay afternoon last was driving in his cabriolet alon. ! Holborn towards St. Giles's, sitting alongside of his groom, when his progress was impeded by some hackney-coaches, and he crossed the road with a view of passing them by, when he was completely blocked by other vehicles, so that he could not proceed one way or the other. At the moment he observed a funeral procession corning in the cutt trary direction, when the defendant, who was act ing as one of the mutes, called out to him to " make way," which he found it impossible to du, sod he informed the defendant that he could not do so, on which he proceeded to the horse'. head, 014 laving hold of the reins, began to drag the hood along, and without any provocation on his part the defendant commenced beating witness with a I ° lll l staff which he held in his hand. He belaboured him, the horse, and the vehicle in a violent manner, and he was eventually assisted by other mutes, %vb. ° also beat him in an unmerciful manner with the ir staves over the head, s h ou ld ers , an d arms, by which;; lie was seriously injured, and had it not been throug h the interference of a Mr. Jordan and some other gentlemen, who were near the spot in a carriage, b e would have been more seriously injured. Mr. Jordan was in a carriage near the spot at th e time, a nd saw t h e assau l t comm i tted by the pr i so ner and his companio n s, on w hi c h h e proceeded to the Doctor's assistance. He was placed in a simila r situation in the carriage in which he sat, and it %I impossible f o r hi m to h ave ma d e way for the funer al procession. The prisoner, in his defence, on the procet• sion being stopped by the Doctor's vehicle, called tc' i him to make way, %% h en h e rep li e d t h at he wo uld stay there as lon g as h e p l ease d . H e merely Or hold of the reins to move the horse away to ~take room, when the Doctor laid his whip over his shoulders, and in self-defence he certainly did strike him with his staff. Dr. Thick's groom here denied that his maste r struck the prisoner with the whip, and Dr. Jordan stated that :the prisoner, and othe r persons who 'assaulted Dr. Blick, were evidently intoxicated. Edward Wallbank, one of the mates, repeatellr requested Dr. Bliek to get out of the way, which be could easily have done. He said that the Docto r began horsewhipping the defendant for doing 60 ' when he struck him with the staff. Another witness corroborated this evidence. Mr. Sergeant SELLON said it was a most outr& geous assault. Mr. LAlNG—Under the circumstances I should fine him in the extreme perialv of the law. 14 6 conferred with Mr. Sergeant Sedan, and the prisoner ►was convicted in the penally of 41. Prisoner—l cannot pay. I have a wife and five children. Mr. LAING—Then you will be committed to th e House of Correction and hard labour for six weeks' lie was then placed in the hands of the gaoler. THAMES -POLICE. TRICKS OF OMNIBUS CONDUCTORS.—Yesterdgi irillianz Cobb, the driver or conductor of the " San g Pariet," a Ratebff omnibus, was charged with de' mending one shilling from Mr. Jacob Goodhart, gentleman re‘iiiing in Ratcliff-highway, for conveying him from Fleet-street to Church-lane, Whiteehapalt he having agreed to convey him for sixpence. Mr. Goodhart made the agreement with the person acting as conductor in Fleet -street, the dr fendant, a lad, who is the son of the proprietor , then acting as driver. During the passage the driver became the conductor, and the conductor the driver ; and when Mr. Goodhart got out of the omnibus he tendered a shilling to the defendant , and demanded the change, at the same time men' tioning that he agreed with the other person to be conveyed to Whitechapel for sixpence. Th e de• fendant said he knew nothing of agreements, and kept the shilling, saying " That is my fare," a" calling out " All right, go on," the omnibus pro' seeded on its journey. • The defendant contended he made no agreemen t and had a right to charge what he pleased; besides' a shilling was the usual fare. Mr. ComnE said the omnibus conductors should not practise these tricks with impunity. The gee• tleman had no right to pay more than the ante agreed upon, and he convicted the defendant in th ° penalty of 20-t. and costs. Notice of appeal was given, and bail put in by two omnibus proprietors. Edward Williams, a journeyman baker, w ig charged with stealing a leg of pork, weighing 151bil from the shop of Mr. John Bennett, eating-hous e " keeper, in Racliff-highway. Th e prisoner entered the shop on Monday night while the prosecutor was sitting in his parlour, and immediately ran out again. As he pas , ed the window Mr. Bennett oh' served the leg of pork under his arm, and con" menced a pursuit. After a long run he overtook the prisoner in Blue-gate fields, and seized him by h e collar. The fellow turned round and struck at Mr. Bennett. He beat him severely about the head and face, but Mr. Bennett held him until neighbour came up, and they took him back to the shop, where they kept him until a policeman name d Beezley was found, into whose charge he wel given. Th e l eg o f por k, w i t h w hi c h he ilsu knocked down a man during the pursuit, was picked up in the gutter.—The prisoner was committed for trial. BIRTHS. On the 23d inst., at Wimbledon, the lady of Colonel Ads ° Hogg, of the East India Company's Service, of a daughter. On the 25th inst., Mrs. Boyman, of a daughter. On the 23d inst., at the rectory, Trowbridge, the wife of th e Rev. Francis Fulford, of a daughter. On the 25th inst., at the rectory, Witchampten, Dorset,the lady of the Rev. Carr Glyn, of a son. Righ t On the 20th inst., in Minto-st r e e t, th e l a d y o f t h e Hon. James Spittal, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, of a daughter' On the 18th inst., at Penzance, Mrs. William Farquhars on ' of twill daughters. On the 18th Inst., at the Rev. Dr. Crawford's, I•lew t° Forbes, the lady of Toomas Gosson, Esq., of a son. MARRIED. On the 2.5 th inst., at All Souls Church, Langham-Pla ce ,', Bentinck Harry Cumberland, Esq., Captain in his Maiea t id 96th Regiment, to Margaret Wm. T r y on , y ounges t d aug hter the late General Fanning. On the 20th inst., at Portobello, Alexander Harry Gi bb ! ! ' , Esq., son of Harry Leeke Gibb s , E sq ., M . D. , St . P e t ers bna to Fanny, youngest daught er o f th e l a t e J osep h Willianaa°p" Esq., Principal Clerk of Teinds. yi nt On the 20th inst., at 67, Q ueen-s t ree t , M a j or NV. m- Madras army, seeond son of the late Robert Low, Escl , o Clatto, to Margaret, eldest d aug ht er o f th e l ate Al ex en" Gibson Hunter, Esq., of Blackness. On the 18th inst., at 71, George.street, Alexander S l°s. Esq., to Jane, daughter of the late Robert Walker, Esq. On the 19th inst., J. A. Anderson, Esq., writer, Arbroa th to Helen, only daughter of M r . D av id K e y, Hillt own, Dun On the 19th inst., in the Ch urc h of Annaduff, Sir King, Bart., of Charlestown, county of Roscommon, to Vigogne, niece of Vice-Admiral Sir James Rowley, 131 C K.C.8., of Mount Campbell, in the county of Leitrim. On the 20th inst., in Limerick, Thomas Elliott Carte, '— to Emily, daughter of the late John Parker, Eq. On the 20th inst., at Jordanston, Perthshire, s James Gust a ct ltl i„ . Hamilton Holmes, Esq., of the 82d Regiment, to Eliza b „, eldest daughter of Captain Knight, royal navy, o f J o rdans7 g , Lately, in Dublin, John Kelly, of Liskelly, county Gal ion Esq., to Sarah Louisa, eldest daughter of the late A u. LyOng saht, of Ballykeale, county Clare, Esq. the 20th inst., Surgeon Moore /SP Williams, of Five o n, town, to Sarah, yo unges t d aug ht er o f th e R ev. W m. J o hn' late Rector of lunismagrath, county Leitrim. O r ' On the 19th inst., at St. John's Church, Newcastle, Chartres, solicitor, Newcastle, son of Th omas Ch ar t r es, 'Sr , of Berwick, to Anne Askew, fifth daughter of the late John Hogg. 11' On the 21. tb .st inst., at South Greenbank, Mr. Hugi• 1 00 rane, of the Commercial Bank, Glasgow, to M argar et, e daughter of Anthony M`Keand, Esq. oft On the 18th inst., at Wilsontown, John Stein, Esq., di' or Kirktield, to Miss Hyndman, of Berryden, only daugh t " Archibald C. Hyndman, Esq., surgeon, royal navy. DIED. ltr f On the 24th. inst., athis residence,Canonbury.square, , '" I Turner, Esq., late of Aldersgate-street, aged 63. On the 20th inst., Anne, wife of Mr. Edward Beck, se Union-court, Old Broad-street, aged 57. cr On the 22d inst., at No. 24, Wilton.escent, J. C. Be 0 , ntiPC l Esq., a Major-General on th e C on ti nen t o f E urope , aged el On the 24th ult., Thomas Clough, of Bottington, eg e having had by two wive s 29 c hild ren I Al so , a s h or t tillore' Thomas Salter, of Uppington, l eav i ng a progeny of 133 cb grandchildren, and great-grand-children. In Fermoy, after some hours' illness, of cholera, ' 4 0.1 - second eldest son of the late Mr. James Callaghan, who the same disease about six months since. eld e o gg ( On the 17th inst , at Edinburgh, Miss Mary Stoddar!rier daughter of the late James Stoddart, Esq., Cm:amiss,' ei g Excise. fe° On the 17th inst., at Rectory, Swords, the Hon. Howard, wife of the Hon. and Rev. Francis Howard. o per ti. On the 16th inst., at Falmouth, George Daniel 11 On the 19th inst., at Tweedmouth Lodge, Esq., surgeon, of that town, aged 41. Av ij Or d ' Mrs. dd ie in her 73d year, widow of the late J. Grey, Esq., of 1311 ,, On the 20th lust , at his house, Eden-place, Giese" Cock, Esq., engineer, aged 58. PIUNTHD AND PUBLIPILED it MURDO you- -' Or :RCN OPPICS, 111, ',RAMP.