The Sun. — London, England, 1844-04-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. ROLLS' COURT, April2o. (Before the MASTER of the Ross.) His Lordship was engaged during the morning with the further hearing of a part heard-case of " Hallett v. Scott." VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT April2o. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY V. THE BIRMINGHAM AND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY. His HONOUR gave judgment in this case, which was part heard during the vacation, and the argu ment in which was continued during the two first days of the present term. The circumstances were these : —That under a variety of railway Acts the plaintiffs were entitled, on or before the month of June, 1845, to repurchase a moiety of the shares in a certain tram-road between Gloucester and Cheltenham, for the sum of 17,5001., after deducting the dividends, which the defendants should in the meantime receive from the tram-road, and they were also, on or before the same time, entitled to purchase that half of the Gloucester and Cheltenham Railway which lay next Cheltenham. That if they should repurchase they and the defendants would become joint tenants of the tram-road, and each would become the owner of a half of the railway. The defendants, the Birming ham and Gloucester Railway Company, had con structed a portion of their railway on this tram-road, up to the terminus at the basin of the canal, and the plaintiffs complained that they had thereby altered the character of the road, and had prejudiced the dividends, which would affect the interests of the plaintiffs in case they repurchased the road. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, said the case of the rival railways stood in this manner : that the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Com pany were entitled to the tram-road in ques tion, subject to the right of repurchase, which might be exercised by the Great Western Railway, which right had been derived by means of having purchased the interest which the Gloucester and Cheltenham Union Railway had in it. The Great Western Railway had filed this bill for an injunction to restrain the defendants from laying down rails for the purpose mentioned; his Honour thought the plain tiffs, although their statement was short, had made that statement with much clearness and truth. He did not think the mode in which the case had been stated • was unfair, but the question was, how far their case was established by the legal right they possessed? When it was first brought forward, his Honour thought the thing complained of went to the destruction of the tram-road itself, and he therefore granted the injunc tion ; but it appeared the point was, how far the de fendants were justified In doing what they had done under the terms of the original Act, by which the tram-road was to be made and maintained. If they were justified in doing this under the Tram-road Act, then they could not be prevented merely because difficulty might hereafter arise as to the reduction to be made in the dividends, in case the Great Western Railway Company thought fit to exercise their power of re purchasing. They certainly had a right to re-pur chase, but it was not certain yet that they would do so. In ascertaining what was the amount of reduc tion to be made, this Court would have power to take care the Great Western Railway should not suffer. There might, perhaps, be relief in the way of com pensation, but for that the time had not yet arrived, and it was useless to speculate upon the fact whether they would re-purchase or not. The question now was, whether there was evidence on the affidavits of an illegal dealing with the tram-road, either in the shape of waste or destruction, so as to induce this Court to interfere. It was stated, first, that the de fendants intended to break up the tram-road, and dig up the soil, and remove the rails, and also that parts of the stone upon which the rails are laid have been cut away, so as to endanger the safety of the tram-road ; but, on the other hand, there were affidavits contradicting this altogether, stating that the new rails were laid down quite independently of the old tram-road, and the stones had only been cut away at the top in order to leave a smooth surface for the new rails without endangering the safety of the old rails. On due con sideration of the affidavits respecting waste and de struction, his Honour's opinion had been removed, and he did not think anything had been done which would interfere with the proper existence of the tram way in its original state, and ho therefore could not interfere. The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Company were the absolute owners in equity of the tram-road, and great powers were given by the Act to the owners of the tram-road. On the fullest con sideration, his Honour's opinion was, that the Court was not authorised to continue the injunction, and as it turned out, he thought the injunction had been im properly granted. He must, therefore, dissolve it, with costs. (Before Vice. Chancellor Sir JAmEs NVIGnAm.) GRIFFITHS V. RICKETS. His Iloson pronounced judgment in this case, which came before the Court on demurrer. The object of the plaintiff was to obtain leave to amend the bill. His Honour said the only question in his mind during the argument was whether the statements in the bill were sufficient to show a right to re ceive, and for the purpose of deciding this point he referred at some length to the practice of the Court. Upon one part of the case he was of opinion that the bill was defective ; but it had been said that he might obviate that difficulty by record ing the original bill. In a case in which he was engaged as Counsel, and which, like the present, came before the Court on demurrer, he had pressed that argument on Lord Cotten ham ; but his Lordship held that the party was bound by the statements brought before this Court in the bill demurred to. He thought there would be some difficulty in applying that rule m the present case. On the whole he was of opinion that he should give liberty to amend upon payment of costs. TILE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GRESLEY. This suit came before the Court on further directions. It related to a certain charity, called " Stanley's charity," at Nethersall, in the county of Leicester, founded by Sir Thomas Rich in 1666, and then of the yearly value of 101. 12s. per annum. The property .was leased at that rent to a Mr. Stanley for three lives, and, subsequently, to the same family in perpetuity. The property having afterwards in creased in value to the amount of 751. per year, proceedings were instituted, on behalf of those interested in the charity, which issued in an agreement by which 401. a year was ap plied to the charity, while the party renting the estate took the remainder of the property. The case had been referred to the Master, who made his report to the Court. His Honour sanctioned the agreement. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April2o. THE QUEEN V. THE INHABITANTS OF LEEDS. There had been an appeal against an order of two justices, by which a mother and her children were removed from Leeds to another parish. The sessions discharged the order, subject to the opinion of this Court, as to whether the consent of the wife to a separation from her husband should have been stated in the examination. Mr. Buss and Mr. STAPLETON now submitted that the mother and children could not be separated from the husband and father without the consent of the wife and mother ; for it had been decided that it was against public policy and good morals to separate a husband and his wife ; and it was further pressed that the husband and wife could not be separated, even with their consent; and there being nothing in the examination of the husband touching the wife and children, it was informal. Mr. PASHLEY and Mr. HALL admitted that it was true the examination of the husband adverted only to his settlement; but it was the complaint which de termined the subject of inquiry. The question be fore the justices would be shown by the complaint. The examination was a ministerial, and not a judicial, act. Where nothing else was shown the mother's maiden settlement must prevail. No doubt it had been supposed that the consent of the husband alone was sufficient to the separation. Here there was no proof that the wife had not consented. The order was good as to two of the children, because they were above the age of 19, though of tender years; there fore, if the mother ought to continue her maternal care over them she must accompany them. In one case the overseers had intended to send the husband to Scotland, and the wife to a parish in England, and it was one of those cases of hardship which sometimes drew lectures from the Bench, which might scarcely be correct in point of law ; but there was no such hardship in the present case, and the wife having been examined immediately after the husband, and not dis senting from the separation, it must be presumed that her wish was the same as her husband's. A party remaining silent under such circumstances must be assumed to consent. The COURT took time for consideration. INNES V. VOUCHER AND OTUERS . The present action was brou g ht a for assault and battery by the plaintiff, who was a m member of the Caledonian Society, at Itadley's Hotel, Newßr Bridge street, Blackiriars, against the d e f en d ant, to ri recover g compensation from him. It appear e d th at the plain tiff had claimed a right to sit at a particular part of the room at one of the meetings of the society, upon which a dispute arose, and one of the defendants al leged that the plaintiff had used threats of personal violence, and the matter being brought before the committee for regulating the affairs of the so c i e t y , i t was resolved that the plaintiff should no longer con tinue a member. ft would then appear that on the 9th of November this resolution was submitted to a a general meeting of the society : by which the reso lution was confirmed. Many objections were taken by the plaintifl'to the competency of the meeting, that he had had not notice of it, and that only one of the members present had paid up his subscription. The case was tried before Lord Denman, and a verdict for the plaintiff was returned with 40s. damages. Mr. EaLE was instructed to move for a rule to show souse why there should not be a new trial, on the ground that the plaintiff had no right to remain a member.—Rule granted. BAIL COURT, April 20. (Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGM) Sir J. BAYLEY applied to the Court for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the overseers of the parish of Thornely, in Yorkshire, commanding them to pay to Luke Hunter, the assistant overseer of that parish, the snm of thirty pounds, the amount of his salary for one year ; and a further sum of sixteen shillings for expenses incurred by him in executi on o f his - duty. The ap pointment of Hunter to the office of assistant-overseer was made pumlant to the provisions of the Act 50 Geo HI., c. 12. It took place the mouth of June, 1842. When Hunter, however, demanded the payment of his salary, he was informed by the overseers there were no funds for the purpose. ➢lr. Justice COLERIDGE-TORY salary would le due in June, 1843, andnow, nearly a year afterwards, you apply to the Court upon the subject. At all events your affidavits ought to show distinctly on what terms the engagement was made. These salaries are directed to be paid out of moneys raised for the relief of the poor, and not of money to be raised. The salary for the year, it appears to me, should have been paid out of the moneys raised for that year. All charges for the year should be made and defrayed within the year. Sir Jons BAYLEY—I can bring affidavits to prove that application for the- salary was made, and properly made, within the year. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Try to do so; and also get the facts as to the agreement, when you can mention the sub ject again. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 2 0. SEDUCTION.—MARLAY V. DEWING. This was an action by the plaintiff to recover com pensation in damages for the injury he had sustained by means of the seduction of his daughter by the defendant. Mr. Martin, with whom was Mr. Bovill, conducted the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Jervis, Mr. Cock burn, and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the defendant. Mr. Martin said this was one of these extremely , painful cases wherein a father was compelled to appeal to a jury of his country for compensation—if, indeed, money could be considered a compensation—for the debauchment of his daughter. The plaintiff had been a Lieutenant-Colonel in her Majesty's Marines, but had retired from the service on a pension. He had been married twice, but from some circumstances, into which it was not his duty upon the present oc casion to enter, had separated from the second wife. He, therefore, after going to Broxbourne for a short time, settled down at Cheshunt with his daughter, who was even now not eighteen years of age, as his housekeeper. Indeed, he might say that she was his servant, because she had no other help than the occa sional assistance of a charwoman to do the more dirty work of the house. Of course one of her duties was to go to market and to the various shops in the village for the domestic purposes, and it was during this occupation that she first became acquainted with the defendant. The Learned Counsel then entered into a detail of the transaction, as stated in the following evidence : Mary Ann Marlay—l am the daughter of the plaintiff, who was Lieutenant-Colonel in the Marines. I shall be eighteen next November. I live with my father at Cheshunt, to which place we went in Ja nuary, 1843. He had before lived at Broxbourne, only three months at that place; but before that my father lived in Wilton-place, where he had been about twelve months. I was during that time at school at Grove House, Walthamstow. I left school in 1842, towards the end of the year. After that I went with my father ther to live at Cheshunt and Broxbourne. We were not able to keep a servant, and I acted as house keeper, having occasionally a female to do the work of the house. At that place I became acquainted with the defendant; I saw him at the house of his mother. The business carried on there is a grocer's. I do not know whether he has anything to do as a partner in the business. It is a general shop. I was in the habit of going there for articles, and in that way it was that I became acquainted with the defendant. The defendant paid me attentions almost immediately after we went to Cheshunt. I was not introduced to his family, although I was in the habit of seeing his mother and brother in the shop ; I have also seen his sisters there, and spoken to them there. He continued his attentions to me, and repeatedly expressed his attachment to me, and that it was his wish to marry me. This was in January and Febru ary in the last year. I replied that I was sure my father would never give his consent. He, however, continued to pay attentions to me, and also renewed his expressions of attachment. My father was' not aware of the circumstance. The defendant has often asked mo to take a drive with him, and I have done so perhaps three or four times. n the 6th of April last year I went to the defendant's shop to buy some articles of crockery,' and told the defendant what it was that I wanted. He asked me to go up stairs to look at it. It was kept up stairs, and having pre viously purchased crockery I was aware it was kept up stairs. On the former occasions the mother of the defendant went up with me. On this occasion I went up to select the articles I required. The defendant, and no one else, accompanied me. When we were there he proposed marriage, but I-said my father would not consent. The defendant then said that if I were to become a mother my father then would give his consent. A proceeding then took place which in the end led to my becoming a mother. Prior to that proceeding the defendant used much persuasion. I saw him about a week after that event, but not any impropriety then occurred. I have seen the defendant in my own bed-room. He gained access to the room by a ladder. It was at night. This occurred twice, and was in the May or June. I discovered my preg• nancy in the summer. I told the defendant of the fact, when he said it should be all right, for he would marry me. About a week after I asked him when he would marry me, and he again said it should be all right ; he would marry me. This he said upon seve ral occasions. Some time afterwards, a week per haps, he told me I must put it off on the back of some one who could better afford to keep it than himself. At another time, a few days after, when I repeated my request, he said I might put it on the back of old Har rild. Between that gentleman and myselfno impropriety had ever taken place. I refused to do so, observing that' knew nothing of Mr. Harrild. I again spoke to him about the matter a few days afterwards. I pressed him to marry me. I also asked him what he intended to do about me, but he made no reply. About a week after he asked me to take something to destroy the child. I refused at once to do so. During this time I often saw him, for he was calling for orders. The conversations about myself were either at his own house, or when I have accidentally met him out. I desisted from making any further applications to him about the month of July. At the last interview I asked him what I was to do; he said, " Put it upon the back of the old man, and when he comes down here rll swear it is like him." The old man he al luded to was my own father. He told me I might go and be d—d, for it was all lies. That was the last time we met. My, father knew of my situation in September. A child was born the 7th of January last. My father sent me to lodge with Mrs. Farley, in Hornsey-road, in October. I remained at her house for a month subsequently to my confinement. I paid that person 16s. a-week, and a pound a-week after my confinement. My father gave me the money to pay her. A medical gentleman was employed ; his charge was two guineas. The defendant has told me he is between twenty-five and twenty-six years of age. Ile never told me what his means were. He ap peared to be living comfortably. Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS—The defendant serves'as a shopman in the shop. It is a general chandler's shop. My father was in the Marines. I never was with him at Portsmouth. He has had two wives. I do not know where my mother-in-law lives now. I lived in the same house with her before I went to school. My mother-in-law lived in Queen's terrace, Chelsea, and I lived there with her when not at school. Although my father lived in Chelsea, my mother in-law continued in Wilton-place. My father did not go and live, a short time after we left Brox bourne, with my mother-in-law. I do not know the state of his affairs, or why he does not live with my mother-in-law. I do not know what her maiden name was, but he married her about seven years ago. I was at school at Mrs. Sorrel's, Walthamstow. A boy Was kept there to attend to the garden and other things. His name was Mills. I never walked out with him. Part of the time I was at school I slept at other houses in the village, at a shoemaker's (Mrs. Buffey's). I was at the school about three years or more. Soon after I quitted it we went to Broxbourne. The defendant paid atten tions to me very soon after I had been in the habit of going to the shop. The first thing that struck me as marked in his conduct towards me was in January or February. He asked me to walk out with him. I did not do so when he first asked me. The first time I went out with him was in his cart. Upon that occasion he went round the village and up to Bury-green, where he was going to. That was in in February or March. He frequently came to our house when it was absolutely necessary, and, I thought, paid me marked attention. He did not put me down at my father's house, but at the end of the village. I know Woolley. I never got out of the cart to meet him. The reason I got out at the end of the lane was because the defendant was not going that way. I afterwards frequently met him by chance in the village. I did not, before this time, walk about with him more than two or three times, but before the 6th of April I may have walked with him more than twenty times. Before that day he had not taken any liberties with me that I remember. He first proposed to marry me in February or March, when he was driving me out. It was between nine and ten o'clock in the morning, when I went t a o n y b u l y the crockery. ibertiesNvithm T e before defendant rem,e wnh went up upa to d s not ee th the cr obefu crockery. y I cannot say h ow l ong we were up stairsthis affair took place, but it might have been half an hour. I looked out the crockery. The defendant never mentio ne d suc h a proposeifitonb.before to me as this transaction. H e press m a mother, and then that my fathe r would coonseenotmtoe our marriage. I did not consent at once, but resisted him, and said I would not agree. I did not let him into my bed-room ; I did not know that he was com ing until he was in the room. He opened the win dow himself, and got in without my assistance or knowledge. I had not made any arrangement with him to go when the proceeding was repeated. I did not tell my father of his behaviour to me. I do not think I ever saw the defendant in the shop after be swore at me about Jnly. I went with my father to 'Father Mathew's meeting, and there we saw the de fendant.. That was before he told me I might go and be d—d. We were in the shop, I think, when_ he told me to put the child on Mr. Rarrild. It was at our gate that he asked me to take something to destroy the child. This was upon my asking him what I was to do if he would not marry me, and when he was breaking off. I know the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Morris, of Cheshunt. I have never walked about with his pupils, but they have tried to talk to me in the defendant's shop. Mr. Mor ris complained to my father that his pupils had been walking about with me, but they had not done so. It might have happened that they walked by me as I went home from the shop, but I have never walked with any of them. Ido not know that after this time I ever saw Mr. Morris walking. The vicar complained to my father that he had beard that I was with Mr. Harrild ; but I never had been so. This was a month or two after the occurrence in the crockery room. 'Mr. Harrild never walked about with me. He has never talked to me from my bed-room window between ten and eleven at night. I haze no recollection of doing such a thing. Ido not think that I ever spoke to any per son from my bed-room window at night, except the defendant. The fence in the garden is broken, but not large enough far a person to get through. I have seen Martinson, the butcher. I know him. I have waited at his shop for the defendant, and once while it was raining. I have never been up stairs in his house. I have seen a Mr. Aldersey, but have never walked with him. Ido not know that the vicar re monstrated with my father about my conduct with that' gentleman, but I have mentioned to the de fendant that the vicar had spoken to my father about Mr. Harrild. I know Mr. Butts. I never rode with him in his cart. He never asked me to do so. I never rode in fany cart but one driven by the de fendant. Ido not know a Mr. Lincoln. Re-examined by Mr. MARTIN-Mr. Butts never took any liberty with me. He never made love to me. I never walked about with Mr. Aldersey, nor did he ever take any liberty with me. The time at which the clergyman made complaint to my father that he had heard the report about Mr. Aldersey was subsequent to the transaction between the de fendant and myself on the 6th of April. No impro priety of any description has ever passed between Mr. Harrild and me, neither have I ever walked with that gentleman. He never either addressed me in the terms of love. I never had any more than the common passing civilities of the morning with him. Upon no occasion have I had a long conversation with him. I have not the slightest recollection of ever having spoken to any person•from my window other than the defendant. The pupils of the vicar I have seen in the street, and at the shop of the defen dant. They bowed to me, and of course I returned the civility. I have never walked about with any of them, but it may have occurred that some of them, as they have been going my way hone, may have walked up the road by me, but not with me. I never took a private walk with any of them, nor did any one of them ever take the least liberty with me, or make proposals of any descrip tion to me. I informed the defendant of the fact of the complaint to my father by the clergyman sub sequently to the 6th of April. At that period the de fendant did not say that he entertained any suspicion as to my rectitude of conduct. My father was en tirely ignorant of any intimacy bikween the defendant and myself, until the fact of my pregnancy was dis closed to him. Our acquaintance began about Jan uary, 1843. The defendant never took any improper liberties with me, nor made any improper proposals until the 6th of April. My father is separated from my step mother I know, because they do not live to gether. It was in the month of October in which I left school. The reason why I slept out of the house when at school was, that occasionally there were so many scholars that the house would not contain them, and then it was that I and others were sent with one of the teachers to sleep in the rooms of the cottage, which was just across the road. The rooms were taken by the school-mistress. There was a lad of the name of Mills in the school to clean shoes and attend to the garden. There had never been any improper conduct between that lad and myself, and what is more, I never heard of such an imputation until this day. The defendant and his mother keep two shops, and appear to carry on an extensive business. Mrs. Sorrell, the lady who keeps the school at NI al thamstow, to which the young lady had been sent, stated that she had been a pupil at her establishment from 1839 to 1842. Her conduct had been extremely good ; but she was very dull and slow in learning. She had not heard of this transaction until Monday last. Cross-examined—The young lady had been placed at her school by her stepmother in 1839, and at the holidays she always returned to that lady, in Wilton place. The plaintiff at that time was at Malta, and in 1842, after his return to England, he took his daughter away from school. Part of the time Miss Marlay was with her, she did not always sleep in the house. She had deemed it requisite, from the increase in the number of her pupils, to take rooms in the cot tage opposite, where the children were under the care of one of the teachers. She had never had any occa sion to find fault with this young lady's moral con duct. She had never complained of the lad Mills being too intimate with Miss Marlay, because she had not had reason to do so. Mrs. Catherine Woolley was next examined. She lived opposite to the plaintiff; and had constant oppor tunities of watching the conduct of his daughter, and had never seen anything improper in it. Mr. Harrild was then put into the box. He denied in the most positive terms that there had ever been the slightest impropriety of conduct between Miss Marlay and himself. Cross-examined—He had heard that the clergyman had complained upon the subject to the plaiutiff, but that complaint was without the least foundation. He had scarcely been even upon speaking terms with the young lady. He had never held a conversation with her from her bed-room window. Mr. JERVIS then addressed the jury at consider able length on behalf of the defendant, contending that his client was the seduced rather than the se ducer. It was not likely a young man in his station of life would look up to a young lady who was so much above him in rank unless he had received the first encouragement from her. After going through the evidence of the lady, he submitted that even, if they should be satisfied that he had been guilty of the act of which he was accused, that the conduct of the lady had been of such a nature as to render a very trifling sum an abundant compensation for the injnry her character had sustained, or the loss her father had been put to by her absence. Mr. Baron RoLFE summed up, and The jury, after ten minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1001. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (SATURDAY.) MANSION-HOUSE. A man of respectable appearance and good address, who at first refused to give his nacre, but afterwards said it was Edward Bathurst, was charged with having endeavoured to obtain 2,0001. Exchequer Bills under false pretences from Wm. Davis, a stock broker. It was stated that the prisoner uad been in troduced to Wm. Davis by Mr. Moxhay, the pro prietor of the Hall of Commerce, who had agreed to accept the prisoner as a tenant, in the belief that he was a man of property. Two days after the intro duction he requested Mr. Davis to purchase 2,0001. Exchequer bills, stating that he had an account at the banking-house of Messrs. Dennison and Co. and Messrs. Coutts and Co. It was, however, ascertained that he had no account at either of those banks. Mr. Davis did not purchase the stock, suspecting that there was something wrong about the business, but gave the prisoner into the care of a policeman. Mr. Resaigh, a clerk in the banking-house. of Messrs. Dennison, stated that he never saw the prisoner till that moment, and the house had no account in the name of Edward Bathurst, neither had they any ac count with Coutts' bank. Mr. Ellis, a clerk to Mr. Moxhay, stated that the prisoner had signed an agreement for a counting house in the City with Mr. Moxhay two days ago. Mr. Moxhay knew nothing of him until he called to take a counting-house as a yearly tenant, when he represented himself as having recently returned from India, where he said he knew some eminent person, whom he named, and also a personal friend of Mr. Moxhay. He likewise represented himself as a man of property, and expressed a wish to be introduced to a London banker, stating, at the same time, that his bankers at the west-end were Coutts and Co., with whom he had lodged money amounting to about 2,000/. Mr. Moxhay, not supposing for a moment that there was any doubt as to the prisoner's possession of the cash, introduced him at Messrs. Dennison, in the belief that the money would be immediately lodged there. _ Sir P. LAURIE called upon the prisoner to ac count for so remarkable a transaction'? The prisoner said he could explain the 'whole matter in the most satisfactory manner. He had, he said, had a corres pondence with Coutts's house, while he was in India, since the year 1830, and down to 1842, and he handed a letter to Sir Peter Laurie, with a request that the Alderman would read it. Sir P. LAURIE read the letter, and said, " Well, there is nothing explanatory in this." The prisoner proceeded—When he returned to England, he renewed the notice of the aocount which he wished to have with the house, and the firm re quested that he would write to them the nature of the business he meant to transact with them. He did as he was requested, and he bad a copy of the letter he had sent to them.—(He here produced an other paper which Sir Peter Laurie read.) He also had the answer which he received from them, in which they stated they consented to let him draw bills, subject to their approbation. Afterwards he saw Mr. Moxhay, as k e d hi m a b ou t an o ffi ce, and mentioned to that gentleman how he was situated with regard to Courts and Co., and that he was de sirous to open an account with a City banker. Mr. Moxhay , subsequently i ntro d uced h i m at Messrs. Dennison's house, lie (the prisoner) also stated to THE. SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MORNING, APRIL 22, 1844. Mr. Moxhay that he wished to employ a first-rate stock-broker, and Mr. Davis, the complainant, being at that moment at hand, Mr. Moxhay pointed out that gentleman as in every respect qualified to act. He afterwards saw Mr. Davis and questioned hiin upon the rate of exchange, and on the last interview commissioned him to buy 2,0001. Exchequer-bills ; and finally he was given into the custody of the police. Sir MITER LAURIE said he really believed there must be something wrong in the head of the prisoner, who seemed to suppose that Mr. Davis would be fool enough to entrust him with 2,0001. The prisoner—l certainly meant to deposit the money; I had no intention to do any wrong. Sir PETER LAURIE—You talk of your property ; where is it? You have shown that your application to Coutts's was rejected. Show us what ground you had for directing this purchase of stock to be made at all. The prisoner said he had been taken suddenly and unprepared. He had not said he would immediately pay for the Exchequer-bills. Sir PETER LAURIE—Yet have told falsehoods all through, and I think that a man who deliberately tells a finsehood is capable of any other bad conduct. He said this was a very serious case, and he should require the prisoner to produce two sureties in 250/. each, and enter into his own recognizances to the amount of 5001. to appear and answer the charge on another day. The prisoner was then removed, and Sir Peter Laurie directed that the surgeon of the Compter should be requested to examine the state of his mind. Two young fellows, named John Smith and Luke Marrion, were charged with having attempted to pick the pockets of a great number of persons on London-bridge. A policeman stated that he had distinctly seen the prisoners, who were well-known thieves, put their hands into the pockets of several gentlemen and ladies. He followed them and they turned round and put their thumbs to their noses and twirled their fingers at him, at the same time making a very disrespectful noise with their mouths. They persevered in that way for some time. At length they turned a gentle man's pocket inside out, and witness collared them. The prisoners said nothing could equal the villa nous lies of the police, as their case proved; for they were walking quietly over the bridge when the po liceman who charged them made a most ferocious attack upon them. They were both hard-working lads, who never did injury to, or offended a human being. Policeman—They are every day working, the bridge. A girl that was with them gave one of them a poke in the ribs with her elbow when she saw I was observing them. Sir P. LAURIE (to the . gaoler)—Gooch, do you know anything of these prisoners ? G-ooch—l know them well, they have been in Bridewcll and in New gate, as well as in the Compter with me. The prisoners—The " bloaty " tells a lie, your Lordship ; he knows nothing of us—we never set eyes upon him before. Gooch—The last time they were here they were sent away for three months. One of the prisoners—You lie, " bloaty," it was only for one month.—(Laughter.) CITY POLICE COMMITTEE. Mr. Gardner, the landlord of the Barley Mow public-house, in Long-lane, West Smithfield, ap peared before the sitting magistrates, Sir John Pirie, Mr. Alderman Gibbs, and Mr. Alderman Johnson, to answer a complaint laid by the police for serving during the hours of Divine service on Sunday morn ing last, whereby be endangered the license of his house, and incurred a heavy penalty.—Mr. Child, the solicitor, attended on behalf of the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The informer was a constable of the name of Oliver Death, acting as a sergeant in the Smithfield division. To his vigilance, it is but right to state, he has brought more similar cases and had them dismissed than any other officer in the whole of the City police force. His evidence went to show that at about a quarter before one o'clock on Sunday forenoon last, he saw a female come out of the back door of the house, with something concealed under her cloak. He asked her what she had got concealed, and, finding that she re fused to satisfy him, he pulled open her cloak, and found it to be a j ug of beer. Mr. Child, in answer to the complaint, said it was a most frivolous case, as he was able to show.' The female whom the officer saw leave the house by the back door, was Mrs. Gardner's washerwoman ; she had taken home some linen, and Mrs. Gardner, out of compassion, gave her a pint of beer, which she was in the act of taking away when in pounced one of the constables. • _ _ The washerwoman, Jane Woolman, residing at No. 2, Sun-court, was here called, and confirmed Mr, Child's observations. _ _ _ Sir JOHN PIRIE inquired of the officer if he sus pected any other person was in the house at the time ? Death said when he found it was beer that the woman had, he took it from her, and went round to the front door, when Mrs. Gardner told him she had served no one else. He searched the house, but found no one in it except the domestics. Sir Jour; PIEIE-Whitt character does the house hear?—Mr. Child replied that Mr. Gardner had been landlord of it thirteen years, and had never had a complaint laid against him till then. Sir JouN PIRIE—The case is dismissed. BOW-STREET. young ma n h av i ng th e appear placed at the bar, charged with J with others not in custody, in robbinganappear anceoonbeingf Thompson, 11,a.l n rs.eaobleci nn Fi a nlearainsoe'dn was , a clerk in the National Debt office, Old Jewry, of a valuable gold watch, and a purse, containing a sovereign and some silver, under the following circumstances : The prosecutor stated that, between ten and eleven o'clock on the night of Monday, the 15th inst., while on his way home, he was accosted by a female near Craig's-court, Charing-cross, who solicited him to go home with her, and while he was endeavouring to extricate himself from her, he was surrounded by several others of the same class, who commenced pull ing him about, and in an instant he found their object was to rifle his pockets, as he mised his gold watch and purse before the police could be found, although he had called lustily for their assistance. During the confusion he was also attacked by a number of men, among whom was the prisoner, who got behind him, and having pinioned his arms, held him in that posi tion until the woman ran away. He, however, suc ceeded, after some time, to get loose, and, turning round, he knocked down the prisoner, who received a severe wound in the head by falling against the kerb stone. The crowd by this time increased, and seeing the prisoner bleeding profusely, assisted witness to convey him to the station-house, 185 A division hav ing ran up Cockspur-street to overtake the females, but ho returned in a short time without effecting his object. On examining in what manner the robbery had taken place, witness found his watch-guard had been cut with some sharp instrument. The prisoner denied all kno w l e d ge o f the f e males, but said that, having incautiously jostled the prose cutor, he was instantly knocked down by him, and stunned by the blow. He was ordered to be re manded for a week. . A man, who gave the name of Jonathan Swift, was also charged with being concerned, with others not in custody, in robbing a young gentleman, named Charles Robinson, of four 51. notes, and 251. in gold, while he was passing along the Strand. The prosecutor was proceeding home, on Thursday night, and at the corner of Surrey-street was spoken to by a nymph of the pave, who requested he would treat her with some drink, and, before he could make a reply, being afflicted 'with great hesitation in his speech, she succeeded in pulling him down Surrey street, notwithstanding his repeated efforts to get away. He then found that his right-hand trowsers pocket had been emptle4 of the case in wish the most was deposited, and while he was accusing her, in the best manner he could, of having robbed him, which she denied, the prisoner and another man passed by, and, addressing witness, asked why he did not go elsewhere, instead of stopping with her in the street, upon which the female instantly ran off. The prisoner then offered his services to assist in going in pursuit of her, at the same time inquiring if the numbers of the notes were known, and if they were, he would accompany him in the morning to that Court, for the purpose of giiing the necessary in formation upon the subject. Witness, being very much confused, gave him to understand that he had received the money only a short time back from a friend in the City, and the prisoner imme diately.offered to accompany him to tell what he saw. The prisoner and the other man, who went away, seemed to be very intimate. Mr. Richard Brinsley Porter, residing at 2, Idol-lane, City, said that about half-past 9 o'clock the prosecutor came to his house bringing a note for the money in question from his father, which he gave him and lie went away, Between 11 and 12 o'clock hearing a knock, he put his head out of the window, and saw the prisoner and Robinson outside. On letting them in, the prosecutor stammered to such a degree that lie was unable to make himself understood, and having provided himself with pen and ink, he wrote that he suspected the prisoner was concerned in robbing him with a female, who made her escape. Witness imme diately communicated the suspicion against him to the prisoner, and having asked him his address, that he might be found if further inquiries were neceseary, he said he was a tailor, and lodged at 17, Red Lion street, Holborn, which was a private house. They then went to the station-house, where the prisoner gave the same address, and upon sending to make in quiries it was found to be a greengrocer's shop, and no such person as the prisoner was known there. The prisoner being reminded of the false address he had given, admitted the fact, as be had every objection his friends should know the situation he was placed in. He had previously said he had lately come from Ports mouth, where be intended to return in 4 short time, and he would prefer being brought before a magis trate to giving his address even privately. The prisoner persisted in refusing to give any ac count of himself, and he was remanded till Tuesday. MARLBOROUGH-STREE7'. The Court was crowded with hotel-keepers and licensed victuallers, anxious to hear the examination of Win. Kelly alias Wm. Young, charged with com mitting a robbery at the Waterloo Hotel, Hay market, and respecting whom there is little doubt that he is the individual who has within the last twelve months plundered a vast number of hotels and public-houses. The police have for a considerable time been in possession of a description of the . pri soner's person and a list of his robberies, but owing to the adroit manner in which the offences were com mitted they have, up to Saturday last, been totally unable to capture the delinquent. The prisoner is an Irishman, about 30 years of age, rather tall, light hair, and of flashy appearance. His clothes had ap parently been contrived with the view of carrying on his robberies so as to elude detection ; they were very large and loose, and calculated to hold any plun der he might get possession of, without drawing sus picion-on him from any appearance of unusual bulki ness. The first charge was the following-:-- Mr. Richard Bradshaw, a gentleman of fortune, said he had occupied apartments at the Waterloo Hotel for about four years. On Saturday week last, about one o'clock A.M., he went into his sleeping apartment, and discovered that a chest of drawers had been forced open and a case containing a silver knife, fork, and spoon, with some other articles, taken away. The prisoner had engaged a bed at the hotel for that night, and his sleeping-room was opposite to the bed room of prosecutor. , Suspicion having been excited, prosecutor knocked at the door of the prisoner, and after some time prosecutor was admitted by the pri • soner, who apparently had just been roused from his bed. Prosecutor immediately searched the prisoner's clothes, and, having found sufficient evidence to con firm him in his opinion that the prisoner was the thief, he went out of the room and caused a policeman to be sent for. When the constable came the bed-room was thoroughly searched, and on the top of the bed the case of plate was found. There were other articles also discovered which had been stolen from the room of a gentleman who also occupied apartments in the hotel, but who was then at Ramsgate. Police-constable Wells C 185, said when he took the prisoner into custody he found a chisel in his pocket. This chisel exactly fitted the marks on the drawers, and no doubt was the instrument employed by the prisoner to effect the robbery. On this charge the prisoner was fully committed. The next charge was preferred by Mr. E. Tomp kins, who stated that, on being informed while at Ramsgate that a robbery had been committed he came to town, and ascertained that a portmanteau in his apartments had been forced open, and several shirts, a card-case, and other articles stolen. The missing property was found in the prisoner's room. On this charge the prisoner was also committed. Mr. Hardwick was informed that since the pri soner had been in custo.iy the police had ascertained that he had committed an immense number of similar robberies in all parts of London, and also that the prisoner had been committed in May last for a rob bery at the Ship Hotel, Charing-cross, and had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The system adopted by the prisoner was this :—He fixed upon a house, and engaged a bed for the night. In the morning, when the family were engaged at their business, he took the opportunity of going from room to room, and breaking open boxes and drawers, and carrying off as much booty as he could get clear with. I rem the bulk of some of the articles it is suspected the prisoner had a confederate, and the police are consequently on the look out. Among those who have been pillaged, the following have been traced out by City-policeman Horton, 532 :—Mr. Curling, Sugar-loaf, Great Queen-street, Cheapside, a quantity of clothes and jewellery, worth about 201. ; Mr. White, the Cock, Leadenhall street, of clothes worth about 10/. ; the George and Vulture Tavern, George-yard, Lombard-street, a quantity of linen and wearing apparal from the carpet-bag of a gentleman staying at the tavern ; the Sceptre Hotel, Fleet-street, a suit of clothes belonging to the waiter ; the Rainbow Tavern, Fleet-street, a silk-dress, the pro ! perty of the housekeeper; the Mitre Tavern, Fish street-hill, a quantity of clothes and other wearing apparel ; the Catherine Wheel, Bishopsgate-street, a quantity of wearing apparel, the property of a gen tleman from Cambridge. The potboy at a public-house in London also complained to the magistrate that he had lost a new Taglioni and other articles of Sunday clothing, in consequence of the prisoner having been accom modated with a bed in his master's house. The Crown Tavern, at Pentonville, had also been visited by the prisoner, among other houses. Mr. HARDWICK said, as there was reason to believe that many other complete cases would be brought forward against the prisoner, he would remand him until Thursday' week, May 2, in order to grant time to the police to arrange the charges. Q UEEN-SQUARE. John Crosby, a strange-looking, middle-aged man, described as a pensioner from the 4th Regiment of Foot, was brought before Mr. Bond, charged with having endeavoured to force his way into the Royal Mews, and with having made use of threatening lan guage towards her Majesty. On the first witness being called, prisoner, who looked wildly round him, made some incoherent ob servations, and on being requested to keep quiet, exclaimed, " I shall not hold my tongue ; I should not if her Majesty herself was present; am I striking anybody ?" Police-constable George Bartlett said, that at about one that day he saw the defendant engaged with the soldier who was on duty at the Royal Mews, and heard him say that he wanted to see her Majesty, and declare, with an oath, that he would see her. Defendant (with much vehemence)—" And I will too." Witness continued his statement—Defendant then said that he had come there on purpose to see the Queen, and nobody should prevent him. A gentle man then came up and desired witness to take the man into custody, and assisted him in doing so. De fendant frequently exclaimed on his way to the sta tion-house, " I will see the Queen, and I'll Queen her when I do see her." Mr. BOND —Judging from his conduct and expres sions, is it your opinion that he is of sound mind ? Witness-1 should say that he had the appearatice of being of unsound mind. G. Rudder, a private of the Ist battalion of Cold stream Guards, said he was on duty at the Royal Mews at one o'clock that day. Defendant came up, and asked him which was the entrance to the Palace, and witness, thinking by his excited manner and ap pearance that there was something wrong, directed him down towards Chelsea. Defendant said that was not the way, and made an attempt to open the gate. Witness pulled him away by the collar, and put him into the road, but he returned again, and said he wanted to see her Majesty, and would have admittance to the Palace. A gentleman who was passing imme diately requested witness to keep tight hold of the prisoner while he fetched a police. constable, and the gentleman then assisted the officer in conveying the defendant to the station. Rees Davis, a tradesman residing next door to the Royal Mews, stated that he sent a boy for the police on observing defendant's determined manner. De fendant inquired whether the Queen came out that way, alluding to the side entrance to the Palace. Wm. Cornish, a police-constable of the B division, stated that he was on duty at the station when defend ant was brought in. Defendant said he wanted to see the Queen, . and she should not be Queen long after he got a sight of her. He added that he had as much right to be King as she had to be Queen. Mr. BOND asked what had been found upon the defendant? Cornish produced his papers, which showed that he had a pension of sixpence per day, and the following certificate : " John Crosby has been for some timc confined in the lunatic ward in the workhouse for deranged intel lect.—N. M'Pherson, Captain, Staff Officer. Man chester, April 6th." The police-constable, Bartlett, informed the magis trate that the prisoner had been very violent that morning at Chelsea Hospital, and had broken several windows. Mr. BOND asked the accused what he had to say ? Defendant gave a wild look around him, and said, " What have I done ? I only went to see the Queen:' Mr. BOND said there could be no doubt of the de fendant's insanity, and directed that he should be taken to the workhouse and placed under restraint. Mr. Barefoot, an inspector of the B division, sub mitted that it would be better to remand the de fendant until Monday, and give the parish officers notice to attend, when they could receive charge of the man at the hands of the Magistrate. He (the in spector) was apprehensive that if the accused got a little quiter by the morning he might insist upon being discharged from the workhouse, and might thus, in his dangerous state, be at large. Mr. BOND said, that the authorities at the work house must be desired to detain him, and he would then be passed in due form to Hanwell Lunatic Asylum. UNION-HALL. Thomas Harwood, a law student, was charged before Mr. Cottingham with assaulting the Rev. R. H. A. Paull, and putting him in bodily fear, by threatening to shoot him. It appeared that on Thursday last the defendant's mother was married to the Reverend complainant at Newington Church without the knowledge of any of her family. O n Friday evening, the Reverend Gentleman and his wife went home to her house, but on arriving at the door they were refused admission, the door being but partly opened. The complainant announced to the defendant that he was lawfully married to his mother, but the latter still refused them admission. At length the aid of the police was called, and when entrance was ultimately obtained, the defendant got into a violent 'Passion, declaring his determination not to acknowledge such afather-in• law, and a younger brother being present he desired him to go up stairs aid fetch down the 1900 pistol, threatening .to Phoot the Rev. complainant if he did not immediately leave the house. At length the matter became so serious that it was found necessa►y to give the defendant into custody. The defendant's solicitor said that his client's mother was a woman possessed of considerable property, and that entii ely against the wishes of her family she married the complainant, after only an acquaintance of a single week. That the defendant was not aware at the time his mother was married, and under that conviction had re sisted the entrance of the Rev. Gentleman into the house. It was stated that both parties had large families by former marriage's. The solicitor added that upon the ground of the defendant being unacquainted with the fact of his mother's marriage at the time, he trusted the law would not be pressed. _ _ Tke complainant having expressed his consent to with draw the charge, the defendant was then discharged: CORONERS' INQUESTS. MORE SOIRT-MAKING MISERY.—Mr. Baker, the coroner, held 'an inquiry at the Five Bells Tavern, Three Colt-street, Limehouse, respecting the death of Sophia Anderson, aged 30, who destroyed herself through the extreme affects of destitution and want. Ann Monk, a most distressed-looking object, stated that she was a widow and resided in the back room of a house, No. 2, Vincent -street, Commercial-road, for which she paid Is. 6d. a week rent. The deceased came to lodge with her about a month since, being destitute, and was to pay one shilling a week for logging. She generally supported herself by selling of portions of her wearing apparel for pennies or two pences at a time. For the last fortnight, however, she wandered about the streets almost starving, and on Thursday evening went out, saying that she would see and borrow ls., so as to pay the rent which was due on the following day, Friday, as she was afraid that the landlord would turn them out of doors. She said she would get it from her husband, and at dusk left, as if for that purpose, but did not return during the whole night, and witness heard ;nothing of her till eleven o'clock on Friday morning, when she was informed that the deceased had been found drowned. CORONER—Pray, my good woman, how do you obtain your livelihood ? Do you live with any of your friends? Witness (with tears in her eyes)— I have no family, sir; I live by myself and make shirts, and am fast sinking. The Foreman (Mr. Tuson)—What do you get generally for making these shirts—what are you al lowed ? Witness—l make them, sir, for five farthings a piece; but when I have to make them up for the first-rate show shops in the streets, I am allowed from twopence to threepence each. The Foreman—And pray what can you make a week at this work ? Witness—Why, sir, I can, with the cheap ones, obtain about two shillings and sixpence ; but with the best work I can make three shillings and sixpence.—(Sensation.) Juror—Yes, my good woman; but for the latter sum you must nork very hard, must you not ? Wit ness—l must indeed, sir, because that is what they call their best work. Perhaps I get up between four and five o'clock in the morning, and continue to work till between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes one. The CORONER observed that he knew well the ex treme miseries which the poor shirt-makers in that part of the metropolis had undergone, and he was in hopes that by the late exposures of the cruel system their condition would have been somewhat bettered. It was a subject that had occupied much of the public mind, and he still did trust that something would be done to relieve their heart-rending distresses. The CORONER (to the witness)—How did the de ceased get her food—could you give her any ? Wit neA—What I could spare I used to give her, and would have done so to the last morsel sooner than she should have committed such an act, but she so often said she would destroy herself, I thought she really would not. Juror—Did she make any of the shirts ? Witness —No, sir ; she did not nor would not. She used to say that she was brought up in respectability, and the idea of earning a livelihood at such cheap work almost drove her mad ; and, although she was so much re duced she vowed she would not work at the shirts, and further said she would not live as I did, The CORONER here inquired if her husband. or any of her relatives, were in attendance ? Mr. Cotting ham, the beadle, replied that the deceased was not married, and none of her relatives were present. He had made inquiries about them, and something of a very mysterious nature was connected with deceased. He had been informed that she was the illegitimate child of some persons of distinction, and at an early age was sent to a Miss Edey's school at Edmonton, and mixed in the first families residing in that vil lage. She never knew who her father or mother were, but after she had been at the school some time she was told that her mother had died almost heartbroken for the sight of her offspring. When at the age of fifteen she was seduced by a squire living in the vicinity of Enfield, who kept her for some time as his mistress, and ultimately forsook her. She be came gradually reduced, and cohabited with several persons, until, at last, she was rendered so destitute as to seek the scanty assistance of the first witness. The CORONER, who appeared rather amazed at the singularity of the tale just told him, asked if there were any witnesses who could speak to her more early mode of life ? Mrs. E. Brookman, of Somerset-street, Shadwell, stated that about six years ago the deceased and a gentleman, whom she took to be her hu,band, took lodgings at her house, and appeared to live very com fortably. The rent was regularly paid, and nothing was due when she left. CORONER—What sort of man was he ? Witness — An elderly man, sir. CORONER—How do you know that she was not a married woman ? The witness here handed in a letter from a Mr. R. Wears, of. Chase-green, Enfield, *high tended to show she was not. Constant—Do you know whether this elderly gentleman filled any situation to support himself and the deceased ? Witness—ln the London Docks ; a very important situation she told me. Juror-I,ow, did you ever hear her say anything about her pTrents? Witness—Yes, sir, she used to remark that she would give the world if she could but find her father and mother.:. Henry Blythe, police-constable 302 K, deposed to the finding of the body in the middle of the new-cut of the river Lea, at Limehouse, on Friday morning, about five o'clock. She had a bonnet on, and had been turned up by a barge passing over her. The CORONER observed that it not only was a dis tressing case, but one of very singular character. Respecting the early life of the deceased they had nothing to do; the cause of death being the part of their inquiry. It appeared almost evident that the deceased had destroyed herself, but still there was no evidence to that fact, and they had better record an open verdict. The jury expressed themselves fully satisfied that she had committed suicide, but the Coroner pointing out the safe plan of returning _a verdict of " Found Dead," in a case like the present one, they conceded and recorded one in accordance with the Coroner's recommendation. Mr. Higgs held an inquest at the Carlisle Arms, Queen-street, Soho, on the body of Mr. l3oudry, aged 47, a master watchmaker, of No. 4, Frith street, Soho, who committed suicide under the following circum stances : Catherine Mills deposed that on Fria) , morning her master did not get up at his usual hour, but took, his breakfast in bed. Between 10 and 11 the same morn ing a gentleman called, and said he wanted to see the deceased. Witness ,communicated that fact to her mistress, who immediately repaired up stairs to inform her husband, but she found the door fastened. She knocked, but receiving no an swer, she procured assistance, and had the door broken open, when deceased was found lying on the top of the bed, with a cord tied round his throat, which w4s fastened $o a nail in the wall. There being a surgeon in the house at the time, who had called to sea his brother, he ran up stairs, and endeavoured to restore animation, hut without success, the vital spark having for ever own. Mr. Michael Blood, surgeon, stated that on the morning in question, whilst talking to his brother-in law, Mrs. Boudry -raa into the room in a very excited state, and said her husband had locked himself in his room, and she was afraid he had destroyed himself. Witness ran up stairs, and tried to force open the door, but being unable he sent for a carpenter, who broke it open. On entering the room he found the deceased in the state described by the previous witness. He immediately cut him down, but he was quite dead, and appeared to have been so about 20 minutes. George Williams, of Frith-street, said some time back deceased used to live with him. He then made an attempt upon his life by cutting his throat. On that occasion he lost a deal of blood, but being attended to, he ultimately recovered. Witness had not the least doubt but that deceased's mind had become impaired. Other evidence was given, which proved that the father of deceased also destroyed himself, and that the son was not of sound mind when he committed the act. The jury then returned a verdict of " Tem porary Insanity." On Friday Mr. Wakley, M.P., held an inquest at the Royal Free Hospital, Gray's Inn-road, on the body of William Horrod, aged sixty, a weather-glass maker, of Yardley-street, Hatton-garden. It ap peared in evidence that, on Fi iday week last, de ceased, being somewhat intoxicated, entered the Percy Arms, Percy-street, Clerkenwell, and told the landlord that he wanted to go into the yard, to which he knew, he said, the way. Near the yard door in the passage was a door that opened inwards from the cellar stairs, and it being partly open the deceased pushed against it and fell down the steps into the cellar. The barinan, who was at work below, picked him up and brought him to the parlour, and a surgeon was sent for, pending whose arrival deceased rallied and walked home. The next day he became so bad that his medical adviser recommended his re moval , to the above hospital, in which he died on Wednesday last, Mr. Thomas Hill, the eminent sur geon gad, of concussion of the Wain, caused by the fall. The CORONER said this made the fourth inquest 11 13 ° had held on persons coming by their deaths thr°4o having fallen into public-house cellars in cons E q ues of doors opening inwards. If any persons we re bOl/nd to use precautions fbr the security of persons math ',cited publicans were, before whose bars and in Iv; it , tap-rooms and parlours people became confuse d of their sight and mind. Landlords had the 1 0 ' 3° 4 r , guarding against this calamity by causing their eel a ci , , doors to be so hung that they would open outvor b ; c i and not be liable to open when a drunken ma n p ush us against them. He hc.ped the landlord of the Arms would have his cellar-door altered, and pre`e nt a recurrence of a misfortune of this kind.• The landlord, who was present, said he had an i ti fb i e pated the suggestions of the Coroner, and cause° " door to open outwards on the passage. Verdict; "Accidental death." Onest Middlesex,Friday Al heldr.G.la.nMinq ills u , eB Deputy epauttytheComroindedrAinesfel WesttHospital on the body of Wm. Williams, age d , ' le g gentleman's servant. It appeared that deceas ed out of place, lodged at the Sun public-house, bo f don-street, Regent-street, and that being at elu b ot Odd Fellows on Tuesday evening, he returned a ob , midnight to the Sun slightly intoxicated. ii e t s t wo sequently drank some gin and porter, and sh ell " 0 0 o'clock on the following morning he left - the tairtne„4, to retire, he said, to hii bed on the secondingno Five minutes afterwards a fellow-lodger, wa n t he go into the street found him lying on his face 1 0 1 l pavement insensible, and bleeding freely from 'too on the head. He was brought into the "" tif o and a surgeon sent for, who finding that after re . hours' attention he did not rally, ordered lil a to moval to that hospital. Evidence was add ile in doar show that deceased accidentally fell from a wore of on the second floor landing whilst discharging e ' e se the wants of nature from it. Mr. Bishop, the ho rse Qo surgeon, said deceased was admitted at five o'cloorer Wednesday morning, insensible to external imP te r , sions, and he died three' quarters of an hour of aro wards. The causes of death were extensive f reet ol of the skull and of eight ribs, broken clavicle, 6 . ilium, and rupture of the liver.—Verdict , dental death." fir SUICIDE IN A WORKHOUSE.—Yesterua,M, be, Baker held an inquest at the Horn of Plenty , tl i f ee J road, Mile-end, on the body of Thomas Moore , 7 0 0 forty-six, a coal-whipper, and for the last few &Pd. inmate of the Stepney union workhouse, M i .r e tol lane. It appeared from the evidence of his w"eloric for three weeks previous to his admission to theW 00 house he had been light-headed, and one day t e° ,, o ,ia kettle off the fire, and seated himself in its Pl ae ltila had it not been for her interference, ho le d have been burned to death. He Was , a mber , sober man, and an excellent husband and bit and she attributed the derangement mind to over study, but she did not Va l et what. By the advice of his confessor, fe y Arabin, he was removed to the workhouse un day week. Parker proved finding the body a fter ceased dead, and suspended by the neck from hlefJ, in the water-closet, by means of two handkere te e 0 at noon on Thursday. half an hour before Wre gave him some tobacco, when he answered that r e y bably it was the last he sLould smoke. Wit ri l deavoured, he said, to cheer him, and added thil ree, ceased since his Admission always appeared ve r y laneholy. Mr. Story, parish surgeon, said ', h e s t be called to deceased, and attended, and found had been promptly cut down, and was quit e h he He had been an infirmary patient, and althnegthiog laboured under depression of spirits there was 0,..° in his words or. deeds to create a suspicion nw.iir would destroy himself.—Verdict, " Tetnpurg u l sanity." MARKET NE WS.—(SAT UR— n COVENT-GARDEN. sP es ' The display of choice luxuries--such as hot-house gs.cee,, strawberries, peaches, cherries, cucumbers, &c., NA* 35 , - d v e ), ingly good for the time of year, yet their prices rat is high. All other articles were abundant, and the deroa" steady. tle NEWGATE AND LEAD EN11..-- . . r uet One of the principal features in the Poultry I ' l ', o lo. l :fi t the arrival of a large supply of Fowls and Turkeys "- obv land, in excellent condition, and by far superior to thos! .4 its have come to hand from abroad. Th e gener al deral w ti dioe s ; heavy, but we have no variation to notice in the qu o e, ; 13 , 3 Although the supplies of meat were seasonably extefi o 0 1 %, general demand was firm, at prices about equa l gutt, ° ; quoted in our last report.—Beef, from 2s 2d to.3s 4 "; v 2s 8d to 3s 6d ; Lamb, 5s to 6s 4d ; Veal, 3s 4 d t° and Pork, 2s 4d to 4s 2d per 81bs, by the carcase. t qe ViTHITECHAPEI4. arg e u ' tO Although the supplies of meat on sale were no t 1 23 3,1 ; trade was heavy, at barely late rates :—Beef, fro 3s 4d ; Mutton, 2s 6d to 3s 8d ; Lamb, 5 5 t° Veal, 3s 4d to 4s Gd ; and Pork, 2s 4d to 4s per 81bs. e" NET. A 4 o 131 6d; Prime Beef and Lamb WPOIZ sold freely ; other kia— slowly, on the following terms :—Beef from 2s 4d 14"" Mutton, 2s 6d to 3s 8d ; Lamb, 4s 10d to 6s 3s 8d to 4s 6d; and Pork 2s 8d to 4s 2d per albs. BILLINGSGATE. The supply of Salmon was tolerably good for t h ib„ year, and met n steady sale, at from is to is 6d period other kinds of fish moved off slowly at last week's?'" _. 1 , 0 HITNGER.rORD. ust 0 74. Prime meat was in steady de man d, a t fully quotations. In all other articles, the supplies of ic"' small, exceedingly little business was transacted. tr w BREAD. The prices of Wheaten Bread in the metropolis I.° lid to 84d; of Household ditto, 6d to 7d per 41b 1 0 " . 40, HIDE IVIAHILET. d Raw Hides, at per stone of 141bs—Best steers $l3, error (11 5s 6d to 5810 d; middling hides, 4s 8d to 5s 4d; PLO 4s 4d to 4s Bd. Sheep and Calf Skins, at per ski ° 6 - d; calf, 6s 6d to 8s ; l ong woo ll e d s h ee p, 4s to 55 ho ary ditto, 3s to 4s 6d; lamb skins, is to 2s 3d; and ° • 4d to 8d each. stri HAT MARKETS. 31 53 ' 0 7 SmiTHFLELD.:—Coarse Meadow Hay, 2115 s te , 0 ful ditto, 3/ Gs to 3/10s ; fine Upland ditto, -to 11 0$ Ins ; Clover Hay, 3/ 5s to Si 5s ; Oat St ra w, 11 6 3 ,4 Wheat Straw, 1/ 8s to 1/ lOs per l oa d. Trade . 241 heavy, at about stationary prices. 710 s; ° 4 l; CUMBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 3/ to to e yt ditto, 3/ 12s to 31 15s ; fine Upland ditto, 3 / , 1 " - . Vi", ( ls Clover Hay,3/ 5s to 4116 s ; Oat Straw, 118 s to 111 r, Straw, 1/ 9s to 1/ 12s per load. A moderate saPP a; steady demand. 716 s t° 51 135il WHlTEcHarm.—Coarse Meadow Hay, P t s useful ditto, 3/ 6s to 3l 12s ; fine Upland cuti' ° l/6 5 :46 , 3/ 18s; Clover Hay, 3/ lOs to 5/ 5s ; Oat Strai*, ly 8s ; Wheat Straw, 1/ Ss to 1/ lOs per load. Sq l and trade dull. 11A on lYti Gtotc Thee 4 1phi as C ard , .41, 4 , 11 /r APpli 64 llor The , .4ct c,, 'Pi 5 4tr. ~` ~~ i 1 1 1 _..... ~........ .......__. ti ,oo jet WAKEFIELD CORN MARKET.- F ' - ole P ot d $ 0 We have small arrivals to this day's market, et 1 ...0 l a . AO attendance of buyers. The little business passi n P l lnil / was at rather lower prices than last week. Bal: e lhelial very heavy sale, and a shade lower. Oats and hut limited request, at a small reduction in value; - 4. must be noted is. per quarter lower. i. 11° 0 0 Per qr. of 60 b. to trl . o , r o.a E IT II !,11 0 Wheat, SulThlk, Essex, and Kent Red....... -... so 60 0 0 Ditto ditto White... 0 0 9 1 Norfolk Red ..... —* b/ 0 0, Ditto ditto White... •-• 0 r,, Lincolnshire and Cambridge Red....... --- 66 0 )1 Ditto ditto White... -- 6 6 0./ Yorkshire Red -- 0 / / Ditto ditto White... --- 0 / 1 1, Foreigu tied 54 6 0 „ F ey Ditto ditto White... 56 ~.tr 'so 9 1 Per 4 0 '05 $0 ye Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk o S i Yorkshire a..d Lincolnshire .. 59 ~,I, Grinding - 33 .1/ sool' 0 6 31 ' Foreigo , to 0 th 5 1 03 Per qr. +-f . Beans, Shull !'n- Ti c k s 51 , Foreign ../ , A. Oats, Potato a; d Pohl , d - — 4 _,•. __A. Pe l t V a l lv.ealinp lO4. to 11,1., Foreign —. 0 M t . lA.. fkf. Selling M ilt R tpesoed 4R4 "" , its. ' 251.0 s !ad. Os. --. • BIRTHS. viro c ls ' 4 , On the 7th inst., the lady of the Rev. George T• ra ° a , o f fr . lain to her Majesty's Emb€ ssy at Vienna, of a 5;:,',,; 130 On the 14th inst., at Burlington, Yorkshire , ''"- os% Prickett, Esq., of a son. .. of ll ' o f tl. On the 15th inst., at Snaresbrook, Mrs. J. Lel. o p , ig ,f On the 16th inst., at Peckham, Surrey, P . "' A., N h ewnam Mitford Esq., of a son. , f no a t he On the 17th inst , ., the lady of George Dru rar° Regency-square, Brighton, of a son. Ore' 00 On the 17th inst., at Sidmouth-place, Regeo t-sq 0 , o f lady of the Rev. J. W. Worthington, D.D., of the lag A t On the 17th inst., at Hemingby Rectory , ''" oilic`' Rev. George Thackeray, of a daughter. Lag of On the 18th inst., at Grosvenor-street , P a l Bence Jones, of a son. ale On the 18th inst., at King's-parade, Chelsea, the Rev. W. C. Le Breton, of a son, still -born . 0 9 1 fog,' . MARRID. od I,tir On the 9th inst., at Sidbury, E , Devon, - 1 -1:: r 7 0,100 1 ic y Esq., Sidmouth, to Jane, third daughter of ,' 11 6 ,0, Esq., Sidbury. by , . . g ok 1 Der , ct k o On the 16th inst., at Chaddesden, near _ s tle , ,, Brodhurst, Esq., of Woodhouse-place, near gy• - • /. 0 to Anne, youngest daughter of the late Be v; Worksop, in the same county. ot ar ,' % pi DIED. ad , Ils t-ter r 0 4 f' On the 22d ult., at her residence, Prospect yes , p 0 Charlotte, the relict of the late Edward °I Ce,il s rf t ie f cended paternally from the ancient family' ° o f .r , : . ce. ol , settled in Pembrokeshire during the reig! f i e te , V; ( o. Vllth ; and maternally from the Philipps, 0 ' j 3scP ts P . niece to the late Mrs. Waller, of Hall Barr ie ' d a unt ele shire, and Farmington, Gloucestershire , 11° e ttat,, Cameron,Dan y Graig, near Swansea. _ 060 3 ; 1 0 01 0 r s ot On the 3d of March, at Toronto, in CaneTi'lligli l • r o av 7 wife of Captain G. Edward Aylmer, of the 2T . ' iri d, till 000 0 On the 15th inst., at Truro, Cornwall, lia d • the Rev. Hugh Rogers, R nor of Campus.Bet or T. On the 16th inst., the Rev. Fran cis Best ADO, sr. Dalton, near Beverley, Yorkshire. Islinb . asOr On the 16th inst., at Cloudesley-terrace' dal Newman. ontlf 0 f I° ll ' On the 12th inst., Mrs. Elizabeth Harara lith ea green, aged 80. ding s , oS r A V On the 13th inst., at H ano ver-buil 4 16,11 P" Mrs. Mary Booth, aged 76. ~,. ot o ~..g C' On the 15th inst., Mr. Anthony Palo/ ow street, Westminster. .„,,, h ,bt ..., On the 15th inst., at Russell-square, D i '.. , iotr' Norton, aged 78. fi gof ''' 4 ,1•0 1 ' On the 15th inst., Caroline Maria, ic 11 14 T I, Colonel Hankey, King's Dragoon Guards,: jeorz iast 1 . 0 0 of t/. On the 16th inst., at Leamington, "` ntC° r°riel Se youngest daughter of the late Lieutena gariet tbe .011 0r' On the 16th inst., at Kingston-lull, Ch,, n ri __,s4 Stavely Smith, Esq. Jatnaged'Av,;lloY'' On the 16th inst., at Upper Clap Esq „ ~, s q ., air A eldest son of the late James NVoodford , , r-. ‘ „ res t, w On the 17th inst., at Grosvenor-streetn.v, ,--- --- ,H .„0, 1 Turton, Bart.,of Felcourt, Surrey, age°:"____'' 1 -01ii o ;' ill ----"-------- 11H- 311 3ce , if ° London; Printed and Published by c , CO coio No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Savo', in tils Strand, in the Precinct of the Bliddleaez, Monday, April 22, 1844