The Sun. — London, England, 1844-01-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNI NG, JANUARY 20, 1844, Tres, and grog, and coffee, and other eatables of that sort ?—(Langhter.) Did you know any of the people who sold these papers that you bought one of ?—No, I did not. They were-sold, and not circulated gratuitously among the people ?—Yes. You did not perceive any one giving them away fur nothing ?—I did not. I suppose in' these large assemblies in the south of Ireland ' you have frequ en tly seen persons hawking about ballads, and selling them ?—Yes. Don't they usually take advantage of these large meetings, and hover about the precincts of them, to sell these ballads ?—I should think so. They hover about the outskirts of a meetings, and en deavour to --retail these things for profit ? Every place where they think they can make sale of them. And I believe at assizes, while the judges are sitting in the criminal courts, these ballad-singers are generally to be found in the violnity of the courts 2—l have seen them there. With respect to the persons that had on their hats the words " O'Connell's Police,' I ask you as a fair and honest man, upon your r,ath, did not those people contribute to the pre servatioo oof the peace and order ?—Saw them exert themselves. That is no answer—Did they clear the platform ?—They may tvave intended to keep the platform clear, and to keep order. about it; heard a man named Walsh give instructions to the, people to keep order and quietness about the platform and Were they peeled wands they had in their hands ?—The sticks they had were smooth, and very slight. , They were not pieces of timber . They were pieces of timber. Oh ! they were of course made of timber, but they were not 'what you called on your direct examination pieces of timber. he Attorney-General—That was not what he said. Mr. MiDonough—l beg your pardon, I insist I am right; he called them pieces of timber, and then went on ; but it is of no consequence. Were you here on the entry of George the Fourth into Dublin ?—I was not. ----- You were at the Mullaghmast dinner ?—I was, but not all the time. One of the mottoes, you say, was, " No Soxon—( Laugh ter) betthery shall give blood-gout for a repast?—(Loud lau_ghte.r.)—Yes . Tkere was something better for repast on that occasion, I believe ?—Some appeared not to be satisfied ; the dinner appeared to be rather short. You say another motto was—" Ireland dragged at the tail of another nation."—That was the purport. Mr. Al'Donough—A good heavy load she would have, would she -not? Mr. O'Connell—And a strong tail.—(Laughter.) Witness—There was a private carriage in the procession. Did you take down all the mottoes ?—I did not. Why did you not take them down ?—Because I thought it was no consequence. Perfectly harmless ?—Quite so. Not material ?—Just so. Therefore you did net take them ?—Just so. The witness then left the table. The Attorney-General called on the Clerk of the Crown to read the ballad that was circulated at Mullaghmast. Mr. Mcore said the evidence of the last witness, as he un d'erstood it, was this, that there were papers distributed or sold en the course of the meeting ; that he himself purchased one which he had lest ; but he got the docement in question from another policeman, with a mark upon it. Under those circum stances he did not consider that document admissible. The Solicitor-General said the witness saw the other police man pet a mark upon it. The Chief Justice said Mr. Moore was not acquainted with the entire of the witness's evidence. Mr. Moore said he had been out of Court during a part of it. Mr. M'Donough said they had an additional objection. They contended upon the evidence that that document was not receivable. Very great latitude had been allowed in cases of conspiracy where it was fair to be inferred that the distribution of the document was in furtherance of the common object, and by some of the conspirators; but he (Mr. M'Donough ) had never heard, and he apprehended there was no authority to show, that where it was proved, as in this case, that in this vast and peaceable assemblage, persons either hovered about the skirts of the meeting, or mingled with the crowd for the purpose of selling ballads ; persons who were proved to be in the habit of watching large meetings to get an opportunity of selling their bal lads or songs,—it would be.unjust in the last degree to inculpate those who took no part in their sale, and never sanctioned their being sold or distributed. There was not the remotest connexion between any of the traversers, or the parties who convened that meeting, or who held that meeting, and the ballad sellers, and the witness upon his examination admitted that the people paid more attention to the speeches of Mr. O'Connell and the other gentlemen than to the ballads. Those ballads were distributed by sale amongst the people, not as the act of the persons connected with that meeting, and he would submit that, under the circumstances, the document in ques tion was not admissible. The Attorney-General said there was no proof that ballads of that description were in the habit of being sold at large assemblies. Mr. M'Donough contended that the witness on cross-exami nation alluded to a temperance meeting consisting of 300,000 persons, and admitted that ballad singers were there distribut ing their ballads. The Attorney-General said there was no evidence of ballads such as the one in question being sold at that temperance meeting. Mr. ll 4 Donough admitted that that portion of the evi dence did not include this particular document. It was not for him to say what evidence would be adduced by the traversers, in reference to that ballad ; but they had the evidence of Mr. Brown, the printer, the authorised agent of the Association, to show that he never printed anything of the kind, and that such a document was never put into his hands. Besides, they had in evidence that these ballads were sold ; and, was it not in accordance with their knowledge of probabilities that, if those ballads were sanctioned by the travers - -s, they would have been distributed gratuitously ? How monstrous would it be if, at the vast temperance assemblies sworn to by the witness, some person in that crowd sold ballads, and that Father Mathew was to be put on his trial for those ballads, and tales of ancient history were to be given in evidence against bin ? If such a doctrine were admitted it would be in the power of any designing person to convert a perfectly legal as sembly into an illegal one. The Attorney-General quoted the King r. Hard, to show that the ballad was admissible in evidence. What was the evidence at present before the Court? They had it proved by Mr. Hughes that Mr. O'Connell at that very meeting at Alallaghmast said that " he had chosen it (meaning the Rath of Mullaghmast) for an obvious reason—they were upon the precise spot on which English treachery, and false Irish trea chery, too, consummated a massacre unequalled in the crimes of the world." He said, that was a fit place, in the open air, to assert their determination not to be destroyed by treachery ; and that while he lived they Lever should. That the meeting was not held there by accident but by design, and that where his voice was then raised the yell of dispair was once heard from the victims who had fallen beneath the swords of the Saxons, who delightfully ground their victims to death. That three hundred unarmed men were slaughtered in the mer riment •f the banquet, leaving their wives and children to drop useless tears over them. This (continued the Atter nev-General) is the contents of the old Irish history, which was printed and circulated at Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell could not be heard by 300,000 men ; but it was proved that the contents were spoken at the dinner in the pavilion. He (the Attorney-General) for that r ea son p ropose d reading it. It had been circulated amongst the hundreds of thousands who could not hear Mr. O'Connell, but could read it. The " Voice from the Grave " was also used at the Pavilion, nand it was clearly admissible in evidence. A distinction had been taken that it was inadmissible be cause it had been sold ; but surely it was not because a penny . or a half-penny might have been got for it that it was to be rejected. There never was a case where the admission of such evidence was of more importance. It was circulat e d a t a meet i ng as sembled for the purpose of creating discontent and disaffection amongst her Majesty's subjects. The slaughter committed 100 years ago, was, for this purpose, revived in the minds of the people by this " Voice from the Grave," combining all these circumstances together, the documents were clearly fit to be given in evidence. He put it in evidence to show the mode adopted of circulating such sentiments among the people, and relied as an authority upon the case of the King v. Hunt. He concluded by saying, that it was for the Jury to consider how far Mr. O'Connell and the other traversers were connected with its distribution. Mr. Monahan (for Mr. John O'Connell) said, that the doc trine advanced by the Attorney-General was unsupported by authority. If he recollected the opening statement of the At torney-General, he said that he had the printer of these docu ments, and named as such a person called Hanvey, who lived in Fishamble-street. He had not, as he did in the case of other documents, produced the printer to prove that they were got out by the directions of any particular person, or the objects for which they were printed. There was no evidence that they were published by any one charged with the conspiracy. The Attorney-General had not, as in the case of Brown, produced a n y person to prove that they emanated from Mr. O'Connell or the Repeal Association. On the contrary, it was likely that the document was published by this man ( Hanvey) for profit ; that it was his own act, and not that of any one 'charged with the conspiracy. He did not object to the placards being given in evidence, because they were openly and publicly exhibited at the meetings ; but there was no proof to show that these papers were exposed in the presence of Mr. O'Connell or his friends, or that they had any knowledge of their con tents. He did not say that it was necessary to prove that the circulation was the act of Mr. O'Connell or any of the tra versers, but it should be proved that it was done with the know ledge of, or at least adopted by, some one of them. No doubt but formerly evidence in cases of this sort was permitted to an extreme length ; yet they had not, on the other hand, cited auy case similar to the one before the Court. If the circulation was an object with the Association, they would not have charged for it ; a few pence was of no value to them. It had not been proved that the publication was with the knowledge or sanction of the Association, or in furtherance of its objects. The At torney-General, when commenting upon it in the presence of the jury, ought to have stated that it was a slaughter committed by Catholics. • Mr. O'Connell—l said a slaughter of Catholics by Catholics. Solicitor-General—The question for the Court was, should these documents be admitted or rejected. If admitted it was open to the traversers to give any explanation about them which they could. He thought they ought to be admitted upon two distinct grounds. First, they were part of the res gestce, the character of the meeting, the transactions there, the circulation of such matter as was con tained in the documents, he would assume bore directly upon the charge in the indictment. That charge was one of en tering into a conspiracy to excite animosity amongst her Ma jesty's subjects ; and the proper means to be used for the sup porting of that charge was to prove the large numbers at these meetings, the notices which convened them, the harangues which were made and they (the Crown) were then proving what occurred at one of these meetings. Ilull hmast meet ing, it should be observ e d, h a d been ca l l ed ag ' by advertisement, and it was proved that Mr. Brown , th e printer of the Association, printed th a t placardo n r , a a dvertisement, calling /the meeting. He did not care 'whether the placard calling gratuitously doirffersoooldre for that meeting was circulated money, as it did not make any mater ial difference o nlp t i differed h art p advertisement calling part and parcel of the meeting itself. Association widely with Mr. Monahan, for it was for the Crown to show any authority from the Yelling that meeting, as the advertisement was sufficientGeforlati°n the Crown in that case, and it did not lie in the mouth o f the Ass n_ ciation to say they are not responsible for the consequen ces when the meeting did not take place. Had henot prima faci e 'evidence there that several documents were circulated at the meeting, stating the professed objects of that meeting? Such documents might be circulated by O'Connell's Police, or by the Repeal Wardens, for all he knew, before the meeting ; and was it to be said that the thousands of those documents which were circulated at the meeting, were calculated, without the knowledge of the traverser', was he to be told that there was not a case of prima Icicle evidence to go to the jury, and let them take it as they rr ight ? Mr. Monahan asked, :why not prove that the document was printed by wish or authority of the Association ; but he did not want to prove that, as it was given as part of the res gestce of the case; suppose the Association had circulated their printed j cards-- Mr. Whiteside—l beg your pardon, there is nothing private about the Association, all is done publicly. The Solicitior•Gentral said he would use that expression at present to distinguish the cards distributed at the Asso ciation from those distributed at the meeting. Suppose the documents were not . printed by the order or with the know ledge of the Association, then it was competent for the traversers to rebut the evidence, and produce the printer aho did print them, and let him say for whom they were executed. He contended that the evidence could not be refused, as it was given as part of the res gesta of the case, and that the docu ments were circulated by the Association. The documents were circulated by the Association at the meeting, because the two hundred and fifty thousand persons who composed it could not hear all that was said by the speakers. He, therefore, under all the circumstances, submitted that the document must be used in evidence, and let the jury set what value they might on it afterwards. The Chief Justice was of opinion that the document should beadmitted on evidence,'but he did not say what effect it would have as evidence. At the same time, he thought it ought to be laid before the jury, and let it form a part of the case on which they were ultimately to give their judgment. Mr Moore and Mr. Monahan objected to the admissibility of the document on different grounds; but he would not say they did agree on both grounds of objection. However, it was to Mr. Monahan's argument he would at present direct his observations and consideration. Mr. Monahan said it could not be proved that the document was circulated with the consent of the par ties, or with ,the views of those who called the meeting, and, therefore, it could not be admitted as evidence. Let him see how the case case stands ; he supposed that nobody would deny that evidence was already before the Court and jury of the existence of the Repeal Association, which consisted of a great body of persons, who had assembled from time to time, and held large meetings ; nobody would deny that. It could not be denied that the leaders of that Association were in the habit of knowing where such meetings were held, and that they were called by the authority of the Asso ciation, of which the several traversers were proved to be members. In furtherance of the objects of the Association, and for the purposes of those meetings, the practice was, for some time before the meetings, to publish the fact. It was deemed advisable, before the meeting at Mullaghmast, to have a great monster meeting, or provin cial meeting, or, as it was called, the Leinster Declaration for Repeal, and this was done, and the meeting was called by placard to assemble on the Ist of October, at Mullaghmast, and that place was accordingly appointed as the scene of that great monster meeting, and it should be recollected the plan was so appointed before the Ist of October, the day on which the meeting was held. It was in evidence that instructions were given to Mr. Brown, the printer ef the Association, by the secretary of the Association, to print and publish a num ber of advertisements calling that meeting, and that such in structions were complied with, and the advertisement was cir culated. That placard called a meeting of the province of Leinster to assemble at Mullaghmast on the Ist of October, and Mullaghmast was the plane named by the parties call ing the meeting. The people called on to attend that meeting got a very significant hint of what they were called together for, as it was stated at the foot of the advertise ment, " Remember Mullaghmast." That was to bring the matter to their recollection. They had it in evidence that Mr. O'Connell attended at the meeting, and ex plained very fully why the scene of the meeting was chosen at Mullaghmast. Mr. O'Connell made two speeches—one in the morning, and one in the evening, at the banquet. Mr. Barrett, another of the traversers, was there, and also made a speech, and both the traversers stated that Mullagh mast was chosen for the meeting for a particular purpose, and that it was done firmly and deliberately, and chosen before hand. It should not be forgotten again that the people were called on to remember Mullaghmast. What was Mr. O'Connell's object in fixing on Mullagh mast as the place for the meeting, but to bring to the re membrance, and perhaps to the feelings of those assem bled, the scenes alleged to have taken place there in former times ? Whether that was likely to produce excitement or not he did not say ; but one of the seasons given by Mr. O'Connell himself for assembling there was to bring to the recollection of the meeting the treachery and cruelty of the Saxon race, and the want of safety there was in dealing with them. The people then were invited to come to Mullaghmast as a provincial meeting, and consequently a very great one, and the invitation or summons to them was given expressly by the Association through their officer and secretai y, Mr. Ray, and the cards were printed by Mr. Brown, the printer to the Asso ciation. Now, where Mr. O'Connell and the Association took upon themselves to collect the people together, in such crowds, to the amount of 250, 000, it was worthy of consideration to say whether it was not an illegal act. He would not say whether it was or was not, but he said that those who ventured to collect the meeting, must abide the consequences of their own act as to what was done connected with the meet ing. There were 250,000 persons assembled together at Mul: laghmast. The first thing done was the handing about a paper purporting to be a full and true account of the dreadful slaughter or murder at Mnllaghmast on the bodies of four hundred Roman Catholics. Whether this was given away as a donation, or whether it was sold, did not appear to him to be of much consequence. Their being circulated and dish ibuted over the field was a necessary consequence of the assembling of the people at the place to hear and receive a history of what had oc curred before Mr. O'Connell addressed them on the subject. He could not pass ever the fact that Mr. O'Ceeeell, in the two speeches which he made, and Mr. Barrett, in the one which he made, drew a picture of what had occurred at Mul laghmast similar to the one presented for sale to the people. They all concurred in their representations of what took place three hundred years before, by those who were of Saxon con nexion—the treachery and cruelty they practised, and that they could never be trusted again. So far, therefore, from being unconnected with the professed object of the meeting, it seemed to him to be intimately connected with it; and it would be impossible to call the attention of the jury from the fact that 250,000 persons were assembled together by adver tisement; and it would be for them to say whether the history of the slaughter or murder said to have taken place was not connected with that meeting. He had not, therefore, the slightest doubt that the objection to the evidence ought not to be allowed, and that the document was admissible in evidence. Mr. Justice Crampton said he was of the same opinion, that the evidence was admissible, his reasons for which he should state very briefly. It was admitted on both sides that the document was one of importance, but whatever the nature or character of the paper was, it appeared to him it could not be rejected as evidence. With regard to the objection urged against it, it must be clear the meeting at Mullaghmast was one of the overt acts in the indictment, and the acts and declarations of all persons who formed that assembly became, therefore, of importance to consider; prima facie all persons there be longed to the meeting, therefore every person might disconnect himself from it by evidence. The act and declarations of one be came the acts and declaration of all, if they were considered to act in concert, and therefore it was that what was said by one in one part of the field, though it might be a quarter of a mile off, became evidence against the other who might be on the platform. Here was an assembly for the purpose ef dis- I cussing a particular thing, and a paper was distributed by thousands amongst the assembly, and wh a t u p on th e f ace o f i t did it purport to be ? It drew particular attention to the place of meeting. Now let him suppose, as put by the Counsel for the Crown, that some person in a different part of the field read out this paper aloud, would any one contend that it could not be received in evidence. No doubt it would be so re ceived. He was of opinion from the beginning that that ob jection was perfectly untenable. Mr. Justice Perrin said that it appeared in evidence that from morning till night (these were the words of the witness) several persons were engaged in circulating—in crying about through the meeting, those documents—that was publicly stating the substance of them, and no person interfered to pre vent, or repress, or atop them. He did not say to what effect the evidence would be; all he said was, that under those cir cumstances it was impo ss ibl e to exclude that evidence. He did not mean to say that it would go to affect the Association, or to connect it with them directly, but that was a matter for the jury to decide upon ultimately, considering the evidence for and against the prosecution. The document was then handed in and read. It purported to give " a full, true, and accurate account" of the terrible massacre of four hundred Irish Catholics at the Rath-more of Mullaghmast. The first paragraph contained a statement of the cruelty committed on the occasion referred to, and pro ceeded to give an extract from Taaffe's History of Ireland, wherein the massacre was described as occurring during the reign of Queen Mary. Some comments followed, wherein Mary was designated as Bloody Mary. The document con cluded by giving a summary of different authorities as to the date of the massacre ; and the author, having satisfied himself that it occurred during Mary's reign, proceeded to show that whether Catholicism or Protestantism were triumphant in England, Ireland was always treated by English rulers with equal barbarity and treachery. Mr. Whiteside applied to have a copy of this document fur nished him. They wished to have the name of the printer. The paper was handed to the Learned Gentleman. The Attorney-General then put in a copy of her Majesty's speech as evidence, requiring as much of it as related to Ire land to be read. Mr. Moore objected to its being produced. The Attorney-General was very much surprised at the ob jection. There bad been in the course of these trials several speeches of Mr. O'Connell proved, in which he commented on the speech of her Majesty at the prorogation of Parliament, taking sentence by sentence, and he apprehended a document so commented on might be taken in evidence. It was alleged that it was not the speech of her Majesty, but the speech of her Ministers--that it contained language only fit for a fish woman—that it was a Billingsgate speech—and other observa tions of an extraordinary character were made respecting it. He therefore asked, quite as a matter of course, that the por tion of the speech so commented on by Mr. O'Connell should be put in, it being clearly a matter of evidence. The Landon Gazette of August 25th, and the Dublin Ga. zette of August 29th, were then put in, and the portion of her Majesty's speech referring to Ireland, and expressing her de termination to maintain the Legislative Union between the countries, were then read. Jarses Irwin, station-house clerk of the Liverpool constabu lary, sworn—He said he was at Liverpool on the 13th of Oc tober. He saw placards of a particular description posted in various parts of Liverpool. He took down one of the placards which he produced. It was a copy of the address to all the subjects of the British Crown, containing a statement of the guievances of Ireland, and which Mr. O'Connell had wished to have in circulation in all the towns of the empire. The name of Mr. Brown was attached to it as printer. Mr. Charles Vernon called—Held the situation of Registrar of Newspapers in the Stamp-office ; it was in his office that the deelarations made by the proprietors and publishers of newspapers were lodged. The newspapers themselves are also lodged there as published. He had here the declaration of Mr. Barrett, as proprietor of the Pilot.—(Declaration produced. ) He had seen Mr. Barrett write, and that was his hand. Had also the declaration of Charles Gavin Duffy, as proprietor of the Nation. He was not acquainted with Mr. Duffy. The declaration was lodged at his office in the regular way of busi nese.—( Declaration produced.) Had the declaration of George Atkinson and Dr. John Gray as proprietors of the Freeman's Journal; E. Duffy was the printer. He was not acquainted with Dr. Gray's writing, but he had seen Mr. Duffy write; it was the practice for papers to be sent to his office signed by the publisher s as required by Act of Parlia ment. The documents which are now handed to me, are accurate and authentic copies of the original declarations duly signed before Mr. Cooper, the Comptroller and Accountant.. General of the Stamp Department. They bear the signatures respectively of Richard Barrett, John Gray, George Atkin son, Edward Duffy, and Charles Gavin huffy. The latter gentleman is registered as the sole proprietor, printer, and pub lisher of the Nation newspaper. Mr. Smyly—Have you with you at present any copies of the Nation, Freeman's Journal, and the Pilot newspapers which were left in your office?—Yes, I have—here they are.—( Wit ness produced a file of newspapers.) Have you got the Nation ofthe 10th of June ?—Yes ; i has the signature of Charles Gavin Duffy. Mr. Srnyly—Turn to the leading article of that paper. Mr. Whiteside objected to the copy of the newspaper being put into the witness's hands at the present stage of the pro ceedings. He (counsel) had not had the opportunity of exa• wminin ghandedrit n g itbnhe been n They p e hr r ne t i vy fi eh e d d a ;d c an o no p dt s an ny o de f et r d h o et c eh u ne m s re documents circumstances, n w or h i h c a n d thi e ht a b wn e e d n s manifestly premature to ask any questions relative to the news paper. The Attorney-General—Y ou may have the original docu ments to examine, if you wish, Mr. Whiteside. The documents were handed to Mr. Whiteside, who having examined them, said that he considered the evidence on this branch of the case wholly defective. The declarations pur ported to have been signed in the presence of a Mr. Cooper, the Accountant-General, but not a tittle of evidence had been adduced as required by the Act to show that Mr. Cooper was person hiTing full and competent authority, 4 1 was point of law, to take such declaration. The Learned Coun sel referred to:the case of the King v. White, in support of his position, that it was necessary to prove the competency of the officer. Attorney-General—lf I mistake not, the witness was asked whether Mr. Cooper was not the proper officer to take these affidavits, and he answered distinctly in the affirmative. Mr. Whiteside—Oh, you are labouring under a sad misap prehension. No such question was asked him at all. Witness—Mr. Cooper is the proper officer to take in decla rations. Mr. Whiteside—Now, how do you know that, Sir ?--I never saw his commission ; hut I have no doubt of the fact, for I have been acting under him for several years. Mr. Whiteside-4n what capacity ?—As registrar of news ' papers. I presume that Mr. Cooper has a commission, but I never saw it. Mr. Whiteside—My Lords, it is absolutely incumbent on tkem to adduce proper evidence to prove the authority of Mr. Cooper to take the declarations. Attorney-General—l do not take the same legal view of this point as my Learned Friend ; but Mr. Cooper is in Court, and, for Mr. Whiteside's gratification, we will have hlm exa mined. Jonathan Sisson Cooper sworn and examined by Mr. Smyly —I am comptroller and accountant-general in the Stamp de partment. I have held my office for twenty years. It is one of the duties of my office to take newspaper declarations. The declaration now handed me was made by Charles Gavin Duffy, and was sworn before me on the 18th of Nov., 1842. Saw it signed by Mr. Duffy. The declaration now handed to me is that of the .beeman's Journal, and was signed by Dr. Gray, Dr. Atkinson, and Edward Duffy, on the Bth of Feb., 1841. Mr. Barrett's declaration was signed in my presence on the Bth of Dec., 1837. Cross•examined by Mr. Whiteside—l have a commission, but it is not here ; can't say that I know Mr. Duffy. Ah ! why did you not tell me that before ? How then can you swear to his handwriting ?—I know that the party whose signature is affixed to that declaration signed it before me ; he was present when he signed it.—( Laughter. ) lam obliged to you, for that information, Sir. You don't know Mr. Duffy 7—No, Sir. Thank you, Sir, that will do.—(Laughter.) Do you read the Repeal debates in the Evening Mail 7—Sometimes, per haps, I do, but very seldom. Do you read the Nation, or the Freeman's Journal 7—No, the only paper I read is Saunders's, in the morning. Ha! you patronise frigid Saunders, do you ?—(Laughter.) —Sometimes I do. The Repeal debates appeared in that paper as in every other paper, and yet you see they have selected some journals for a conspiracy. Mr. Whiteside submitted that there was no particular evi dence of the publication, and in criminal cases the rules of evi dence should be strictly observed. The signature should be proved by some one who knew Mr. Duffy. The Attorney-General—The newspaper was published in Dublin under the terms of the Act of Parliament, and there is a heavy penalty imposed on any person publishing a news• paper, without lodging the proper certificate, that certified his bail, produced from the Stamp-office, the place where it ought to be. Under these circumstances, the question for the consideration of the Court was—whether the certificate signed by this gentleman in the presence of the proper officer, and who represented himself as Charles Gavin Duffy, and by whom the paper was since regnlarly published, was not primafacie evidence; and some of the wit nesses for the Crown proved that Mr. Duffy, as editor and pro prietor of that paper, attended at the meetings. The Attorney- General then read the Bth section of the Newspaper Act, 6th and 7th William the Fourth, and submitted that, under its terms, the evidence offered was admissible. Judge Perrin—Can't you prove the handwriting and get rid of the argument. Chief Justice—The rule of law is the same in civil and cri minal cases. Judge Perrin—Sure Mr. Cooper said that Mr. Duffy signed the declaration. Mr. Whiteside—My Lords, the first newspaper published by the proprietor of the Nation is dated the Bth of October, and the document Mr. Cooper proved is dated the 18th of Novem ber, so that it cannot be the right document. Mr. Brewster cited the case of Mayne v. Fletcher, in 9th Barnewall and Cresswell, page 382, and contended that, in asmuch as the title of the newspaper corresponded with that set forth in the declaration produced out of the custody of the proper officer, it was evidence of its publication by the party charged. The paper was entitled " The Nation, published every Saturday, at No. 12, Trinity-street, where all commu nications were to be addressed," and the matters set out in the declaration corresponded with that, and he now submitted, on the authority of the case quoted, that the Crown were not bound to go farther. Mr. Whiteside—That is a different view to that taken by the Attorney-General and Mr. Smyly. To the witness—Hand me the first copy of the Nation newspaper. Mr. Brewster—No question can arise except as to the paper we offer in evidence. Judge Crampton—Does not this plainly appear, that one Charles Gavin Duffy is the proprietor, editor, and printer of this newspaper called the Nation, and the only difficulty that suggests itself is the identification of the particular individual, as there may be two or three Charles Gavin Duffys. We have evidence on our notes that the traverser here is the editor of the Nation. Mr. Whiteside—Your Lordship will excuse me for saying that there is ne legal evidence yet to that effect. Judge Crampton—That is not exactly what I have, but that the traverser is editor of a newspaper, and was recognised as such at meetings of the Association. Mr. Whiteside—With the greatest respect I think your Lordship is confounding two distinct things. Mr. Brewster cited another case in which Mr. Justice Bay ley delivered a judgment in England, on which they also relied in support of their argument. Judge Crampton—Here is the evidence I alluded to. In the evidence of a witness named John Jackson, he says that Mr. Duffy of the Nation attended at a meeting and handed in so and so. Mr. Whiteside—l thought your Lordship had struck out his evidence from your notes altogether. That's the man from Kilrush, who reported after a manner, or took them from the notes of whoever happened to be next him. Chief Justice—What do you say to Mr. Brewster's case? Mr. Whiteside—Why, that puts it better for the Crown than it was put originally ; but I think they must give some evidence to identify the person on trial with the person who signed the declaration. The slightest evidence in a legal form to identify those parties will make out their case, but without it I rely on my objection. Mr. Tomb called their Lordships' attention to the Bth section of the Newspaper Act, 6th and 7th William the Fourth, which enacted that every such copy so produced and certified, is to have the same effect, for the purposes of evidence, against every such person named as aforesaid, to all intents and pur poses whatever, as if the original declaration had been produced in evidence, and then proved to have been duly signed by the persons appearing by such copy to have signed it. Mr. Bennett—He is described in the indictment as Mr. Duffy, of Rathmines, and the description in the declaration is the same. Mr. Whiteside—l admit all that ; but suppose the declara tion was produced, you rust give sonic evidence of identity. The cases in England are express upon that point. Mr. Brewster said, that in the case of the King against Hutton, in the State Trials, page 307, the Court ruled that they were only required to produce the declaration. Mr. Whiteside could not see what that case decided. Mr. Justice Crampton—Suppose there were two persons of the same name on trial on the same charge, and evidence exactly like the present was brought forward, which of the two is the person that is conclusively bound by the Aet of Parlia ment—which of the two is the evidence against? Solicitor-General—Against either. Mr. Justice Crampton—lf it be evidence against either, you might have the two men convicted on the two indictments, upon the same paper, of which it was alleged only one was the proprietor. In my opinion very slight evidence, in addition to the statutable evidence, is required. For my own part, I have no difficulty in point of fact, for I find on my notes, in the first instance, Mr. Duffy described by a witness, who was very fully and very ably cross-examined, as being the editor of the Nation. I think that Mr, Whiteside is right on the ground he takes—that something in addition to the statutable evidence is required. Attorney-General—The Court is not to infer that a person has been carrying on the Nation 8.3 Charles Gavin Duffy, the person being actually another person. Mr. Justice Perrin—The question is, whether this is that Charles Gavin Duffy. It is not denied that some Charles Gavin Duffy is publishing the Nation, but the question is whether the traverser here is he. Mr. Justice Crampton—l think you will find that Jackson, in his evidence, said " Mr. Duffy of the Nation." Mr. Whiteside—We understood that to be proof that Mr. Duffy was a member of the Association, and nothing more. Mr. Justice Crampton thought that was a scintilla of evi dence that he was editor of the Nation. Mr. O'Hagan said he would suppose that there were two Mr. Duffys at the bar, and, then, should it not be proved which of them was the proprietor? Mr. Jackson, the reporter, had not stated that Mr. Duffy was the proprietor of the Nation, but that a Mr. Duffy had handed in money. He would not say that the traverser was not identified, but he was not iden tilled as having signed the certificate. If two Duffys were at the bar, clearly one should be identified ; and that applied equally in this case, where the witness had not identified Duffy as the proprietor. The Chief Justice said he was not satisfied that the Crown had given sufficient evidence of identity in the case. At that stage the evidence was imperfect. Mr. Bennett said he thought the Act of Parliament was sufficiently plain to render discussion unnecessary. The Chief Justice said the point did not come within the meaning of the Act. In the case before the Court proof was required that Mr. Duffy was the proprietor. The Act required that he and his publisher sign a declaration. They had signed it, and, if nothing more was required by the Act, that declara tion would be evidence against any person signing it as pro prietor or publisher. That was a document by which the party was bound. But, to prevent any difficulty, the Bth section contained another provision—enabling evi dence to be given against the proprietor or pub lisher in a summary way ; and that evidence was the certi ficate signed by the proper officer of the Stamp-office, and if he had been there to give evidence in place of Mr. Cooper, all might be right. The Act provided, that upon producing,a copy of that document, certified under the hand of one of the Com missioners, and upon proof of its being signed in his hand. writing, it should be received in evidence against any person named in the certificate. Oh (continued the Chief Justice), on reading the Act I am now of opinion that the statutable proof offered is sufficient. The Attorney-General said he could give other proof of pro prietorship, but he would not, except the Court decided the point against him. Mr. Justice Perrin said that the declaration of the Attorney. General was rather inconsistent with the course be had pre viously pursued. He had given proof of the handwriting of Mr. Barrett, and he had done so of Mr. Duffy's handwriting, too, by Mr. Cooper, until Mr. Cooper failed upon cress-exa mination. The Solicitor-General said, if the Court required proof of the handwriting of Mr. Duffy, the Act of Parliament would be declared nugatory. The Act guarded against the difficulty of proving handwriting by compelling the proprietor to go before the officer ; and as his person may , net be known, and his writing not capable of proof, the policy of the Act only requires— Mr. Whiteside—The title of the Act of Parliament is wrong. Mr. Justice Crampton—Mr. Whiteside, surely you are not going to amend the title? 11r. Whiteside—Oh, yes. The Act ought to be entitled thus:—" Whereas the Crown ought to be able to prosecute any person in the community, arid whereas the Crown cannot always do so if proof of identity be required ; be it enacted that no such proof shall be required." Mr. Justice Crampton said he had some difficulty in coming to the same conclusion as the Lord Chief Justice ; but he ab stained from pressing his own opinion, because he consi dered there was abundant prima facie of the proprietorship being in Mr. Duffy. Mr. Jackson, the reporter, proved ha had attended a meeting at which Mr. Duffy was present, and at which he handed in money, and he described him as the proprietor of the Nation. If that was not evidence of proprietorship he did not know what was. He describes him, in fact, as present at three or four meetings, and calls him the proprietor of the Nation all through. Counsel for the tra versers had not cross-examined him upon that point. Mr. Justice Perrin said he was not satisfied with the proof of fered. The s pi r it o f t h e A ct was certainly to remove the difi cultiel of proof—formerly it WU ACCOSIT: to prove plabligitiOil by the purchase of the paper or otherwise. But the Act of Par. hament said that a certified copy of the declaration should be produced against the persons who had signed it. The Attorney-General said there was another clause in the Act, and— _ Mr. Temb handed it up to the bench, observing that the material portion was underlined. Mr. Justice Perrin read the Act again as far as the words, " and shall have signed the same." He was not disposed to make a precedent, especially in a case where there was abun dant evidence, in order to govern future cases. Chief Justice—The Court has admitted the evidence. Mr. Whiteside—Save the point. The Court then adjourned for some time. The Court and jury having returned, Mr. Vernon, of the Stamp-office, was recalled and exa mined by Mr. Smyly. Have you got a Nation newspaper of the 10th of June ?—I have ; it was the paper lodged at the Stamp-office, pursuant to the Act of Parliament. It imports to be prioted by C. G. Duffy, proprietor and editor, Trinity-street, Dublin. Witness was then directed to turn to the leading article of the paper, page 552, and to read it. It was written in conse quence of a correspondent having condemned the placing the names of Clontarf and other Irish battles on the Repeal card, as he believed it would have been better to have substituted such words as " Temperance," &c. The article dissented from this principle, and at some length the writer agreed that war sometimes elicited great virtues, particularly in a just war. The article concluded with a quotation from Dr. Arnold's " Lecture on History." Mr. Whiteside asked the witness to turn also to the report of the proceedings of the Association in the same paper, and to read them. _ _ Witness did so. The speech of Mr. O'Connell was in sup port of a resolution for inserting on the m i nutes the letter of Mr. Smith O'Brien containing the resignation of his commis sion of the peace for the county of Limerick. He spoke in high terms of Mr. O'Brien, who, he stated, was the most inde pendent Member of Parliament, while his arguments in favour of Repeal were unanswerable. The speech also contained a strong expression by Mr. O'Connell of his wish that in all re gulations between landlord and tenant the ri g h ts o f preperty,&c., should be respected. As the witness lowe re d hi s voice during the reading, Mr: Whiteside desired him to read the speech as well as he had read the leading article. Mr. Steele's speech on this oceasion was omitted for want of space, and the resolu lution as to Mr. O'Brien's letter was carried. Mr. O'Connell then addressed the meeting, condemnin g th e conduct of the Chartists in England, and advising the R epea l er , of Ireland to expel them from their Associations, and have nothing whatso ever to do with them. The speech then p roceeded to allude to the unequal state of the Parl iamen tary fran c hi se i n b ot h coun tries, and expressed an apprehension that in a few years there would be no such thing as a Liberal constituency in Ireland. It then alluded, in denunciatory terms, to the Poor-law Amend ment Bill, and called upon the people to unite peacefully and constitutionally to obtain redress for th e i r gr i evances . The Chief Justice—l don't know how you propose making that evidence ? Mr. Vernon continued to read the conclusion of Mr. O'Con nell's speech, and then stopped short, as he expected to be asked to read no further, but Mr. Whiteside told him to read the address to the people of Ireland. The Chief Justice (appearing tired)—Vas not this read already ? Mr. Whiteside—No, my Lord, it was not, and this is the document which explains all the objects of the Association. The witness then read the address at length, and having come to that portion of the Report which stated that Mr. O'Connell moved the adoption of the Report, Mr. Henn respectfully submitted that if the Crown gave in evidence any document, and read only part of it, they had a right to have it all used as evidence for the Crown. This was laid down in Philips upon Evidence, Bth Carrington and Payne, page 233 ; and in 7th Carrington and Payne, page 3t6, the very point was decided. These authorities, he contended, established that the whole of the document was clearly made evidence—it was made evidence for the party wko produced it. Judge Perrin asked Mr. Henn if he recollected the case of the King v. Perry. He knew it was decided in that case that the advertisement in a remote part of the paper could not be read in evidence. Mr. Henn--I do not know if the case had reference to the other party or not. Judge Perrin—lt is reported at all events. Mr. Henn—When the party on the other side calls for a document, and looks at a portion of it, we are entitled to have it all in evidence. Chief Justice—Yes, but the Crown does not call for it here. Mr. Henn—That is an a fortiori case. The party call for it here, and, when they look at it, wo are entitled to have any portion of it read. Chief Justice—That may be very good law in a particular case, but it is no general rule. Hand me up the book. Mr. Henn handed up the book from which he had quoted, and the Chief Justice read it for some time. The Attorney-General referred the Court to the last edition of Carrington and Payne, p. 341, and said it was laid down that such a proposition,as the other side contended for could not be maintained. • Mr. Fitzgibbon did net contend that he had a right to call for the advertisements to be read. The examination of a witness ought to be confined to the issue, and if departed from it should only be to try the credit of a witness. They had no right to stop short when they pleased. It was for the Crown to interpose when anything was offered to be read which was not pertinent to the issue. Mr. Monahan said that the case cited by the Attorney. General ham Adolphus and Ellis had nothing to do with the present one. Judge Crampton—The question is, whether one article ex plains or modifies the other, or whether it can be made appli cable to the offence charged. The Lord Chief Justice said the'case had been so much dis cussed that he would be brief in assigning his reasons for the decision he meant to give. An article published in the Nation newspaper, entitled " The Morality of War," was given in evi dence by the Crown. The article in itself was perfectly com plete and distinct, and the whale of it was read by the Crown. On another occasion, after an interval of same days, at a meeting of the Association, a speech was made by one of the traversers and reported in another part of that same Nation newspaper, apparently having no connection with, or requiring no qualification of, the opinions published in the Nation on the subject of The Morality of War." Now. let it be supposed that speech, instead of having been made by Mr. O'Connell, was spoken by Mr. Duffy himself, at that meeting of the Association, could it be said that he would have been entitled to have the whole of it read, though he was unable to show its connection with the publication of an article entitled " The Morality of War ?" There appeared, as his Lordship conceived, no ease bearing in support of the preposition now advanced br the traversers, and if he had been called upon to decide, he should have great doubts as to whether the traversers, without the consent of the Crown, would have a right to have a distinct independent publication read at all. However, the Crown made no ob jection to the speech being read, as well as the publication, The Morality of War." It was, not necessary at all for the Court to decide whether, if the objection had been made, the Court would er would not have yielded. It Las been said the question was, by whom the speech was read. The Court were of opinion that it had been read by the traversers. Mr. Justice Crampton concurred with th e L or d Chief Justice. The witness was then directed to refer to th e N at i on of the ' p l2 u bthliction therein of an article headed " Th e M arch of o a f August, 1843, and having identifi e d and proved the Na tionality," Mr. Bourne read it at length. ( This document was published at length iu the opening statement of the Attorney- General. ) Mr. Whiteside having desired the officer to read another paragraph from page 691, Chief Justice—Let it stand over till morning, As the Court was about to rise, Mr. Henn, Q. C., informed the Court that Mr. Samuel Maunsell was in attendance. The Chief Justice said it was the opinion of the Court that Mr. Maunsell should personally apologise to the High Sheriff, Mr. Latouche. Mr. Latouche said that he had no personal feeling in the matter. Mr. Maunsell, whom he did not know, applied to him for tickets, which it was not in his power to give. Mr. Maunsell then apologised to the Court and its officer in the terms suggested by the Chief Justice. Chief Justice—Let no more be said about it. The Court then rose. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 25. The LORD CHANCELLOR was not sufficiently well to attend Court to-day. VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 25 . The VICE-CIIANCELLOrt. of Engl an d took LotliOns to day. ST. VICTOR V. DEVEREUX. Tho further consideration of this case was postponed in consequence of the absence of Counsel. The case conies before the Court upon two demurrers put in to the bill filed by the plaintiff. WARM v. fistrrir. The whole morning was occupied with the arguments in this case, which came before the Court upon an ap plication on the part of the plaintiff; for an injunction to restrain the defendant from selling or manufacturing articles called antigropalus, or mud boots. Both parties carry on business at Wellingborough, and the defendant was formerly in the employ of the plaintiff. There was, however, a previous application for an injunction in this case, which the Court granted ex parte, but ultimately dissolved, upon a motion for that purpose. The plaintiff has, however, now filed a new bill, bringing before Court an amended state of facts. During the arguments, Mr. WAKEFIELD objected to the case proceeding, as he was desirous of answering certain affidavits, which had only been filed yesterday, reflecting on the character of some of the witnesses for the defendant. The Cot= ordered the motion to stand for Monday. WARNE V. GOLDING. Mr. STUART applied in this case on behalf of the de fendant, who carries on business at 23, Ludgate-street, for the dissolution of an injunction, restraining him manufactuaing or selling any antigropaluses in imitation of those manufactured by the plaintiff. The COURT, after some considerable argument, ordered the injunction to be dissolved. Mr. BETHELL then applied upon another motion in the same cause to commit the defendant to the Queen's Prison for a breach of the injunction, between the time of its being granted and notice of the intention on the part of the defendant to apply to dissolve it. The COURT refused to make any order upon the motion. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 25. (Sittings in Banco.) THE CUSTOM-ROUSE FRAUDS.-THE QUEEN V. BLAKE. The defendant in this case, who had filled the situa tion of landing waiter in the Custom-house, had been indicted for conspiring with a person named Tye, a Custom-house agent, who had not surrendered to tak e his trial, to d e f rau d th e Q ueen o f certain duties payable upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise which had been imported from foreign countries. The case was tried at the Guildhall, before Lord Denman, and the Jury found the defendant guilty. He was this day brought up for judgment, wh en Mr. COCKBURN move d f or a re d o calling upon the pro secutors to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted, on the ground of the improper admission of evidence, or why the judgment should not be arrested, on the ground that the indictment itself was bad. With regard to the first, his Lordship wonld no doubt r eco ll ect that at t h e ti m e of the tri a l h e had objected to th e a d m i ss i on of T ye ' s l e dger as evid ence against Blake. At the time that the ledger was offered in evidence no proof whatever had been given of any connection between Blake and Tye, and in the absence of such proof he contended that it was impossible to gire proof of the act s o f one in evidence aga i ns t the other, and although it might have been good evidence against Tye, yet as T ye was not p resen t, an d not on his trial, it ou ght not to have been received as syidenee f i ga in4t !lake. Again the counterfoil of Tye's cheque-book had been received as evidence against Blake—that counterfoil containing a memorandum of a cheque drawn in favour of D. 8., and also of the various sums from which the sum total was made up. Now, he submitted that in such a case as this, the counterfoil of a cheque was not evi dence. A memorandum made by a party paying money was a memorandum made b y ♦ him for his own gu id ance , and not in furtherance of any common transaction in which he might be engaged with other parties. If Tye had even written or stated to a third person, " I paid Blake such or such a sum of money for such and such purposes," still that would not be admissible as evidence. It would be nothing but hearsay. At the time the cheque book had been received, no evidence had been given of the transactions to which it referred. All those were subsequent transactions. Now, the connexion between the parties ought clearly to have been shown before such evidence could bo admitted. It could not be admitted for the purpose of showing the connexion. In order to make it evidence, previous connexion between the parties, or the subsequent adoption by the one of the acts of the other, ought to bo shown. His Lordship would recollect that the cheque-book had been three times offered in evidence by the counsel for the Crown ; and had been twice withdrawn, in conse quence of a strong intimation from the Lord Chief .Justice, of his opinion of its inadmissibility ; but the counsel for the Crown at length felt themselves so pressed that they were obliged to urge the reception of this cheque-book, which was received accordingly. It was a matter of the utmost importance, and he trusted the Court would grant him a rule. Lord DENMAN admitted that the point was one of the utmost importance as regarded the law of evidence. He would not now give any opinion on the subject, but he would state the grounds on which he had proceeded at the trial. The charge was for conspiring to withdraw certain duties from the Crown, to which the Crown was entitled, and he thought that the statements in the led ger, showing the transactions which had taken place between the importer and his employer, might be re ceived as evidence of the fact whether or not certain goods had been withdrawn which were liable to duty. Then with regard to the reception of the counterfoils, he had entertained in the first instance a strong opinion that they were not admissible, and if they had remained as mere memorandums upon the counterfoil, he should have most probably continued of that opinion ; but looking at the strong case of conspiracy which had been made out, the proof which had been given of the withdrawal of goods, without payment of duty, and the proof which had been given that Blake had actually received the produce of the cheque, he thought it might be given in proof of the proceedings of the parties ; and that view of the case had enabled him to get over the difficulty which he had at first felt as to the propriety of admitting the counterfoil in evidence. It was, however, a matter of great importance, and the Court would take time to consider the point before either granting or refusing the application. With regard to the motion in arrest of judgment, the Court would be happy to hear Mr. Cockburn proceed to argue that point at once. Mr. COCKBURN then moved that the judgment should be arrested, on the ground that the indictment was bad upon the face of it. It charged the parties with having conspired together to withdraw certain goods, wares, and merchandise, which were liable to duty, without the payment of such duty to the Crown. Now he contended that the indictment ought to be more certain. The nature of the goods, wares, and merchandise, on which the duty was payable, ought to have been more certainly specified. It was clear, from the averments in the in dictment, that these goods had already been imported, and, therefore, their qualities must have been known to the prosecutor, and ought to have been stated. There was no such offence at common law, inasmuch as goods were not liable to duty at common law. They were only liable to duty by statute, and the nature of the goods ought to have been stated, in order that the Court might know whether they were liable to duty or not. Lord DENMAN—I have not the smallest doubt of the goodness of the indictment. The gist of the indictment is conspiracy to convey away certain goods liable to duty. Now it was very possible that those persons might have so conspired without knowing exactly what those goods were. Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice Wightman were also of opinion that the indictment was good. Motion in arrest of judgment refused. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--I hope, my Lord, the case will not go into the new trial paper. Lord DsNmANT—The Court has not yet decided to grant the rule nisi for a new trial. We will consider. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 25. (Sittings in Banco.) The attention of the Court this morning was devoted to hearing motions for new trials in cases devoid of public interest. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 23. IN RE ROBERT ALLARD. In this case, the bankrupt applied for his final order. He had been several times before the Court previously, when it appeared that he had carried on a very ext"•n sive business as a leather dresser and currier in Stepney. The docket was struck against him in 1840, when the amount of his debts was found to be 10,0001., and out of the assets the assignees had realised about 7,000/. which had been already paid away to the creditors in three separate dividends. The bankrupt's application was granted. IN RE HUGH J. GRAHAM. The bankrupt carried on business as an architect and builder, and the amount of his debts and liabilities were upwards of 16,000/. This day being appointed fur the first dividend under the fiat, the sum of 2s 4d in the pound was declared. It was announced that a fur ther dividend would be shortly declared. IN RE HOWARD AND GORE. In this case which has been already reported in The Sun, the appointment of assignees was fixed for this day, when Messrs. Holland and Edwards were appointed, without opposition. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. (Before Mr. WALESBY, Chairman, and a Bench of Ma. gistrates.) DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF A POLICEMAN.—George Pilhington and Wiltiarn Gilbertson were indicted for assaulting, in the execution of their duty as police con stables, William Brooks and William Wiseman, on the 15th of October, 1843, Mr. BALLANTINE appeared for the defendants, and called the attention of the Court to the name of Jane Griffiths being on the back of the indictment, who was not in attendance. He suspected the police had kept her back. The Learned CHAIRMAN ordered the woman's recog. nizance to be estreated. William Brooks, police constable K 364, was then called, and stated that he was on duty in Vinegar-lane, Shadwell, on the sth of October, between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, when he saw the defendants in a state of intoxication, and creating a disturbance. Pil kington was given into custody by Jane Griffiths, and he was very violent, 'and bit witness's finger in two places. Gilbertson endeavoured to rescue Pilkington, and was also taken to the station-house. Cross•examined—He had not taken means to bring Griffiths here to-day. He had not seen her since the last sessions. She is a brothel-keeper, and has two houses. There was a mob round the defendants, and two or three girls there. The men did not complain of an attempt having been made to rob them that he could recollect. He did not remember that they wished to give the woman Griffiths into custody. Had taken others into custody at Mrs. Griffiths's, and the case was dismissed. Will not swear that he did not have some thing comfortable with Mrs. Griffiths—(after much hesi tation)—to his knowledge he did not drink with her. The CHAIRMAN—You are doing yourself more harm by giving, these evasive answers than by confessing the truth. I warn you that it may be my duty to report the way in which you give your evidence to the Cons missioners, and, therefore, you had better speak the truth. It is not for a policeman on his beat to drink with a brothel-keeper, but that is not so bad as perjury. Cross-examination continued—Witness might have drank with Mrs. Griffiths when off duty sometimes. He could not tell how often, or where he drank with her. Mr. BALLANTINE—YOU must, or I will apply to have you committed. The CHAIRM - AN (to the policeman)—Was it so often that you cannot tell,? Brooks reluctantly—lt might have been once or twice in the Back-road. The CIIAIR)IAN—I don't know whether you are in different about remaining in the police force ; but I have already warned you, that you are placed in great jeopardy. You are not giving your evidence at all like an honest man. Mr. BALLANTINE—He cannot do so, Sir. These industrious honest men at the bar, were in frightful jeopardy, by the evidence of this fellow, who might be expected to protect instead of destroying our property and liberty. Cross-examination resumed—Did not see the de fendants surrounded by prostitutes. Don't know how many times Mrs. Griffiths had been in custody for felony. Had often been called into her house, but never passed the night there. By the COURT —He had made no attempt to see her, to inform her to be in attendance for the last month. The CHAIRMAN—I feel bound to report your case to the Commissioners, and shall give the necessary instruc tions to the inspector on dnty. William Wiseman, I{ 156, was called, and his evi dence negatived nearly all the chief points of Brooks' testimony. Mr. BALLANTINE said he had a complete objection to l i the case, but he was unwilling to stop the examination of the witnesses, as he thought it was right their evi dence should go forth to the world for the benefit and safety of the public. Atter a brief discussion, the jury, under the direction of the Learned Chairman, acquitted both the defendants. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) MAR YLEB ONE. William Albert, a woll•dressed foreigner, was placed before Mr. Long, charged with a most wanton and inde cent assault upon Eliza Ogilvy, a respectable married female. The complainant said that yesterday evening, she went to see her sister-in-law in Lisson-street, Lissun grove, and while standing knocking at the door, the prisoner and two friends came up behind her, and thrust his hands beneath her dress, caught her up, and then with great violence threw her down upon the door -step, and injured her very severely. Mr. LONG asked the prisoner what he had to say in answer to the charge ? The prisoner said that his knowledge of English was very limited, and if the Magistrate would hear him in French, he would feel obliged. Mr. LONG assented, and 1 the prisoner then said that be had been drinking with some friends, and was very much intuxie§ted. Life WAS not conscious of having, in any way, asauited the female, but, if he had done so, he was sincerely sorry. Mr. LONG was of opinion that the assault was a very aggravated one, and he would therefore tine him in the sum of 405., or one month in the House of Correction. He paid the fine at once, and was discharged. LAMBETH-STREET. Wednesday,"while the depositions in a case of felony were being read over by the chief clerk, Cook, the gaoler, entered the Court in a hurried manner, and, addressing Mr. Henry, said that a poor woman, who had been waiting in the passage to see his Worship, had suddenly dropped to the ground, to all appearance lifeless. He had assisted her into the air, in the hope that it would relieve her from her temporary weakness, but she remained insensible so long, and her pulse being scarcely perceptible, that he feared she was really dying, end therefore felt it necessary to take his Worship's advice as to what he should do with her. Mr. HENRY instantly directed that a medical man should be sent for, and that every attention should be paid to the poor woman. In a short time after Mr. Liddle, one of the parish surgeons of Whitechapel, arrived ; but previous to his coming some hot brandy and water had been administered to the poor creature, which so far recovered her that she was enabled to speak rather faintly, and, in reply to a question put to her, she declared she had not tasted a morsel of any kind of food from eight o'clock on fhe morning of the day before (Tuesday), and that her stomach in consequence became so weak, that she thought every moment would be her last. Mr. Liddle, on exa- mining her, directed that she should be at once removed to the workhouse and put into a warm bed, and the poor creature was taken away in a cab. Mr. Hughes, the relieving officer of Whitechapel, who was present, and who had sent for restoratives for the poor woman, and also a cab to have her conveyed to the workhouse, sub►e quently stated that on Thursday or Friday night last, the poor woman had been taken to the workhouse by a policeman, who found her in a state of destitution in the street, and he (Mr. Hughes) instantly gave her an order for her admission to the workhouse. He subsequently learned from her that she was a native of Staffordshire, that the parish authorities of the place where she resided had passed her children to either Limehouse or Poplar, and that they were at present at Norwood, in Surrey. She also said that her object in coming to town from Staffordshire was the hope of being able to see her children. A decent looking man, whose name did not transpire, ap plied to the Magistrate for his assistance in getting back a great variety of property of which he had been robbed by a cabman with the connivance of his wife. The applicant briefly stated that, on going home on Tuesday night, he discovered that his house was stripped of everything it contained, and that his wife had also disappeared. Cook, the gaoler, here said he recollected the applicant coming to this Court some months ago for advica, and it then appeared that his wife had drawn 601. or 70/. out of the savings' bank without his knowledge, and eloped with a young man, a lodger of theirs. It also appeared that she had pur chased a horse and cab for her paramour out of the money, and lived with him as his wife. The applicant, notwithstanding this, took her back, and it seemed, from what he had been able to learn from him outside, that she was again gone to the cabman. The applicant acknowledged that this was all perfectly true, and said that the young fellow had behaved with base ingra. titude towards him in taking away his wife and property, as lie had, in the first instance, taken him into his house from motives of charity. It was here discovered that the transaction took place in the district of Worship-street, and that the goods were in the hands of the Thames police, and the applicant was referred to either of those Courts. WORSHIP-STREET. Wednesday, a famer, named Thomas Ship, resident at Hen don, Middlesex, attended before Mr. Bingham, the sitting ma gistrate, to answer a charge of cruelty, which consisted in his allowing a horse to be used in a state wholly unfit for work of any kind. Mr. Thomas, secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, attended to prosecute the case, which was admitted by all who witnessed it to be one of the very worst ever brought to this Court. Some of the police of the G division had been called upon by passengers in the street to notice the miserable condition of the horse in a cart, which bore the name of " T. Ship, farmer, Hendon." These were two horses suffering from Very extensive sores, and one of the wretched animals had actually fallen to the ground from excesive pain and ex haustion. The police took the driver into custody, and brought him, with the suffering horses and the cart, to this Court. Mr. Bingham, the Magistrate then sitting, could hardly believe that auy person would be so inhuman as to em ploy animals in the condition then mentioned, and being in formed that the horses and cart were then at the door, said he would himself go and look at them. The officers of the Court assured him that it was a sight almost too disgusting to look at. He went out, however, end had ocular proof that the statement had not been overcharged. The horses had every appearance of having been used with the harness eating into their old sores, until they had fallen into a condition too disgust ing to be further described. Mr. BINGHAM, after an examination of the driver, ordered the farmer himself, the owner of the horses, to be brought be ore him. William Hall, the carter, was now made a witness against his master, and stated that he drove the horses from Hendon on Monday night, and they were then in just the same con dition as when he was taken by the police on Tuesday. The defendant said that he had not meant to have the horses used until they got. well, but he forgot to tell his foreman so on Monday night. He could not deny that he had neglected to give any directions to his servant upon the subject. Mr. littecitaat said that he had never suet with a worse case since he had been on the bench as a magistrate, and he should certainly impose the full penalty under the statute. The defendant w.is then ordered to pay the highest penalty of 40s. for each horse, and to pay also the costs of the proceed.. ings against him. THAMES POLICE. A poor woman, named Ann Ravel!, came before Mr. Bro derip, on Tuesday, and stated that she had been suddenly re duced to great distress by a calamity which had recently befallen her. Her son, who had lately returned from sea, paid her a visit, and she invited him to remain for a night in her room, and made up a bed for him. During the night a box of lucifer matches in her boy's trousers' pocket exploded, and set fire to the bed he was sleeping on, and before either of them awoke the flames had communicated to the furniture in the apartment, and they narrowly escaped being burnt alive. The fire was extinguished by the inmates of the dwelling, but her little stock of furniture was destroyed or rendered useless, and she was reduced to great distress by the accident. Mr. lhonnittr directed Blaby, the chief usher, to make in quiries, and if he found the applicant to be a deserving person, he would apply some of the funds of the poor-box to relieve the case. Yesterday Blaby reported that the facts were as stated by the applicant, and that she was a very industrious and deserving woman. Mr. BRODERIP directed the usher to re-furnish her apart ment and relieve her wants, and the poor woman departed with expressions of the most grateful acknowledgment to the magis trate for his kindness. GREENIVICH. Wednesday a fashionably attired man, about 31 years of age, calling himself Captain Henry Pratt, was charged before Mr. Jeremy with having obtained, by false pretences, one sovereign from Captain John Parker, of Commercial-road East, and a second sovereign from Mr. George Hay, a ship wright, residing in Hermitage-street, Wapping. Captain Parker deposed that he met the prisoner by appoint ment on the 18th instant, in the Lower-road, Deptford. when he (the prisoner) made a promise to appoint him as master of the ship Dryope, of Montreal, lying in the Commercial Docks, Rotherhithe ; that he had the power to obtain two appoint merits ; he was acting as a sort of ship's husband for the owners. The prisoner asked for a loan of money, and he ad vanced a sovereign on faith of prisoner's representations. Pri soner also stated that the owner's name was Davis, and wished witness to see him. Witness had since learned that Davis was not the owner nor captain, nor had he anything whatever to do with the ship. Had been to Lloyd's, were he learnt that the owner resided at Liverpool, and that the ship was for sale. Mr. George Hay deposed that he is a shipwright at Wap pine.. Saw the prisoner at Mr. Lawe's, the King of Den mark, at Wapping, en Thursday evening last. Had never seen him before. The prisoner, addressing him, said he understood that witness was a shipwright, and that he had a nice little job for him. He (prisoner) said at the time that he was captain of the Dryope, a ship lying in the Lady; Dock, Commercial Docks, Rotherhithe. 'Witness said it is not usually in the captain's power to appoint masters to vessels. Prisoner replied that it was in his power, as he was more ship's-husband than master. He told witness the owner's name was Davis, and said that he would be at Lloyd's Coffee.. house next day at eleven o'clock, and begged witness to at tend then and there. Prisoner after this borrowed a sovereign; the prisoner also told witness that he should have 301. by cheque on the following day, from Mr. Davis, which would clear him out of present difficulties. Witness waited until nearly twelve next day at Lloyd's ; at last prisoner came, and said that Mr. Davis, the owner, was gone away, and requested witness to go on to the ship. They went together on board the ship. Witness made an estimate to strip and copper her, &c., at 271., but ultimately agreed to do it for 25/. Prisoner went to witness's house in the evening to tea, and said Davies, the owner, would give 25/., anti that he must dock and strip her, and begin on Monday. Had since ascertained that the prisoner had nothing to do with the ship, and that the prisoner hail also imposed on the ship-keeper, to whom he said that he had command of the ship. A tailor had been on board and measured him for a suit of clothes as the captain of the ship. These charges and ethers would be sustained if time was allowed. Mr. JEREMY said that he would remand the prisoner for further examination; in the meantime Mr. Davis, the alleged owner, must be summoned. He should hold the prisoner to bail for the misdemeanour himself in 80/.. and two sureties of 40/. each. In default of bail, the prisoner was remanded to Horsemonger-lane gaol until Friday next. fi A Hill E IC S 1111 TH. On Wednesday Mr. Samuel Smith, the late proprietor of the King's Arms Tavern, at Fulham, applied to Mr. Paynter, the sitting Magistrate, for his advice and assistance under the fol- lowing circumstances : Mr: Smith said he had no doubt it would be fresh in the re collection of the Alaaistrate that, about a fortnight ago, a per son named Samuel Millets, who is now a prisoner in Newgate, was committed from that Court fur trial on a charge of having beenguilty of adultery with his (Mr. Smith's) wife ? and after wards eloped with her to the city of Dublin, carrying off wit h them property belonging to him (applicant), consisting of goods and money, to the value of nearly 2001. When the pri soner was apprehended at Dublin with his (complainant's) wife, pre vious to his being brought to London, Mrs. Smith (com plainazit's wife) it had been ascertained, had handed over 70,. in Bank of England notes to a female named Swan, for the pur. pose of their being delivered over to a per son name d Greaves, the sister of the prisoner Millett, which was done, but on Mrs. Greaves being subsequently applied to for the restoration of the notes, she denied all knowledge of them, and subsequently said she had burned them. Mr. Smith then handed in a letter he had just received from Superintendent James O'Connor, of the Dublin police, which ' stated that he had caused Mrs. Swan to be examined on oath before the sitting Magistrate at Henry -street police-office, as to her knowledge of the notes, when she denied all knowledge of the transaction; but on her being confronted with Mrs. Greaves, the latter acknowledged that she had received the notes from Mrs. Swan, but declared she had burned them for the purpose of preventing any inquiry into the matter. He (applicant), under the above circumstances, applied for a war rant for the apprehension of Mrs. Swan and Mrs. Greaves on a charge of felony, in order that they might be brought to this country fur examination. Mr. PATNTER said he did not see how he had the power to interfere, as, if any offence had been committed, it had been in Ireland, and not in this country, where only he had jurisdic tion. He thought Mr. Smith's best plan would be to go over as speedily as possible to Dublin, and there give the parties in question into custody, when the case could be fully gone into, the offence, if any, having been committed in that country. Ho did not see that Mr. Smith would obtain any benefit by the parties being brought to London to answer the charge, when it would be necessary to fetch evidence over from Dublin to prove the case, while, if it was heard in Dublin, Mr. Smith would be the only witness required from England. The applicant thanked the Magistrate for his advice, and expressed his intention of following it by immediately proceed. ing to Dublin. The Right Hon. Charles Arbuthnot, who is s 071„ . 8 . at Apsley H ouse , i s conva l escent . M r. ArbuthAol SRIY 64 1 9 i 9 mak tuna QIN £9QIII LQ 11/29111tr. .Iitt,LAIN THE CHARLEMONT HOUSE MEETING. DUBLIN, JAN. 23.—Lord Stuart de Decies has addressel the following letter to the Dublin Evening Post : " Fortfield House, Jan. 32, 1844. " Sir—Having observed in your journal of the 20th inst., under the head of ' Reported proceedings at Charlemont House, a statement of certain observations attributed to myself, which, if left unnoticed, might possibly involve some misapprehen sion respecting the sentiments I expressed upon the subject of the Union ; " I bcg to state that what fell from me on this particular point had no reference to the opinions of any of the previous speakers ; but I did say that, although opposed to the estab lishment of a separate domestic Legislature fee Ireland, I thought there were measures which, if adopted, would secure to Irishmen the entire control of their own internal con cerns in the Imperial Legislature, and that I could wish to tee a national party formed with the view of carrying this object into effect.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your moat obedient servant, " STUART DE DECIES." The following document has also been published : " There appearing to be a misapprehension as to what passed at the meeting at Charlemont House on Thursday, the 18th inst., with respect to the Roman Catholic Church, the Com mittee, to whom the petition then agreed upon was given kit charge, think it right to state that the petition originally pre posed, and which was finally adopted, contained no suggestion whatever for a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy ; and that an amendment having been proposed by a Protestant gen tleman, which it was thought might be construed into a recom mendation on the subject, it was immediately objected to by Mr. Blake, Mr. Rediugton, Mr. Wyse, and other Roman Ca tholic gentlemen present, as opposed to the feelings of the Rs man Catholic body in general, and was, therefore, withdrawn. (Signed) " ME ATH, Chairman of the Committee. THOMAS WYSE, LELAND CROSTHWAITE, c Secretarie4. LLOYD'S SHIPPING . LONDON, JAN. 25.—Fresh breeze, S.W., and cloudy. DEAL, JAN. 24, A.M.—Wind, N.W. by W., light airs and thick weather. P.M., W. N.W. to W.S.W., ditto.— Sld. Sydney, New Zealand ; Dinlius, Bombay ; Ca millus' Demerara ; Ocean, Trinidad ; R avenswoo d, Grenada ; Elizabeth Bentley, Savannah ; Huron, Char-, leston ; Prince Albert, New York. PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 24.—Wind light and variable.— Sld. Seventeenth May, South Seas. PLYMOUTH, JAN. 24.—S1d. H.M.S. Hyacinth, coast of Africa ; ditto Larne and Albion, Cork. FALMOUTH, JAN. 24.—Wind N., moderate.—Arrd. Wilson, Stoup, Buenos Ayres. NEWPORT, JAN. 21.—Sid. Eliza, Charleston. CARDIFF, JAN. 23.—Sid. Alice Brown, Cuba. LIVERPOOL, JAN. 24.—Wind variable and light. Arrd. Tacitus, Cheever, New Orleans ; Maryland, Vir ginia. Sid. Tory, Bombay ; Hebe, Valparaiso ; Ellen Clare, Hayti. CORK, JAN. 22.—S1d. Robert Bruce, New Orleans. STROMNESS, JAN. H.—The Packet, M'Lea, from Kirk. wall to Limerick, is on shore in Hory Sound, but is ex pected off without much damage, after discharging part of her cargo (fish). TOULON, JAN. 17.—The Prince Michele Koarcho, from Ibraila to Marseilles, went on shore on Cape Camara, 15th inst., four of the crew drowned. CETTE, JAN. 17.—The Ste. Philomene, from Nice to this port, was wrecked near here 15th inst., two of the crew drowned, and cargo expected to be saved. VESSELS sPoicEN WlTH.—Castius, Batavia to Havre, Nov. 3, lat. 34 S., lon. 28 E. ; Crown, Liverpool to Bom bay, 17th ult., lat. 7 N., lon. 23 W. ; Tar, Clyde to Mobile, out 50 days, 30th ult., lat. 37, lon. 35 ; Maria, Amsterdam to Batavia, 18th inst., lat. 49, lon. 7, by the Fatima, arrived in the River. MARKET NEWS.-(YESTERDAY.) HAY TARKZTS. SMITLIFIELD.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 2/ lOs to SI; Useful ditto, 31s 3s to 3110 s ; fine Upland ditto, 31 12s -to 3/ 17s ; Clover Hay, 31 to 5/ ; Oat Straw ' 116 s to 118 s ; Wheat Straw, 1/ 8 s t o 1/ lO s per load. Supply rather limited,and trade somewhat steady. CUMBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 2/ 15s to 3153 ; Useful ditto, 31 8s to 3/ 13s ; fine Upland ditto, 31 15s to ; Clover Hay, 3/ to 4/ 15s ; Oat Straw, 117 s to 119 x; Wheat Straw, 11 lOs to 11 Its per load. Both Hay and Straw moved off slowly, at the above quotations. WHITECIIAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, 2l 8s to 31; Useful ditto, 315 s to 3/ 106 ; fine Upland ditto, 31 12s tog 16s ; Clover Hay, 3/ to 5/ ; Oat Straw, 1/ Os to 1/ 8s ; Wheat Straw, 1/9s to 1/ lOs per load. A moderate sup ply, and a heavy demand. MEAT MARKETS. SOUTHALL, JAN. 24.—Most kinds of prime Stock were in demand at full rates, but otherwise the trade was inactive, and some difficulty was experienced in effecting clearances. Beef, from 3s to 4s ; Mutton, 3s 2d to 4s 4d ; Veal, 4s to 4s 10d ; and Pork, 33 to 4s per 81bs, to sink the offal. Supply ;—Beasts, 38 ; Sheep, 1,400 ; Calves, 48 ; Pigs, 51. ROMFORD, JAN. 24.—The supplies on sale to-day being somewhat extensive, the trade ruled heavy, on the following terms : —Beef, from 2s 10d to 4s ;_ Mutton, 3s to 4s 4d ; Veal, 3 s 10d t o 4 s 1 0 d ; and Pork, 2s 10d to 3s 8d per 81bs. Suckling Calves, 18s to 29s ; Quarter old Store Pigs, 18s to 23s ; and Mulch Cows, with their small Calf, 181 to 191 15s each. HAILSHAM, JAN. 24.—Although we had only a mode• rate supply of each kind of fat stock on sale to-day, the demand was throughout heavy, on the following terms : —Beef, from 3s 2d to 4s 2d ; Mutton, 2s 10d to 4s 6a ; Veal, 4s to 4s 10d ; and Pork, 3s to 3s 8d per 81bs 10 sink the offal. ARUNDEL, JAN. 23.—With the exception of the primest oxen and calves selling firmly at full pricey, the trade was extremely inactive. Beef, from 3s to 4s 2d ; Mutton, 3 to 4s 4d ; Veal, 3s 10d to 43 10d ; and Pork, 2s 10d to 3s 10d per 81bs. CHICHESTER, JAN. 24.—We had but a scanty show of stock here this morning, yet the trade ruled dull at about late rates. Beef, from 3s to 4s ; Mutton, 3s 6d to 4s 6d ; Veal, 4s to 4s 8d ; and Pork, 21 10d to 3s r►d per Sibs. CORN AVERAGES. GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN. For the Week ended January 1E 1 43, made up from the Returns os the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in Englass , and Wales, per Imperial Quarter Wheat sls. id. Oats Raley ...... 33r. 7d. Rye AVERAGES OF THE LAST SIX Weeks ending! WHEAT. EARLEy.I OATS . I RYE. BEANS. I TEAM' Dee. 9 -_ ~.______ 50 0 32 0 lB 6 30 0; 31 6 39 0 16 ...... 30 4O 10 32 715 3 308' 99 3 10 Jau. 6 13 ,51 8 133 7 18 9 31 7 29 0 30 a IMPICRIA L AGO RIGATZ AVERAGES OF THE PIE WERICG Wheat 50. Rd 1 Oats Sari., 324. 72 1 Rye DUTIES ON FOREIGN COIN. Wheat 2O 0,1. I Oats ...... ... i ll : Od. d. l Re* ~........10,. tir4l: Barl% BLACK GANG CHINE-ISLE OF WIGHT. CAPTURE OF A SMUGGLER AND SIXIIEN! The Stag, Ilevenue cruizer, being off the Wight on the night of VA, 22d, sent her boats along shore on the look-out. One of them being/0 3 St. Catherine's, and close under the ClitlS, just after midnight, sal, sail standing in from the S.E., the smugglers did not perceive the b. 0 61 till they were close in upon her, when they immediately cut *Wit/ their crop of tubs which were lashed round their vessel, outside 11:11 bulwarks, when they fell into the water. The cutter's boat was walla fifteen yards of them ; the cutter's men threw over their mark-bucif , and flashed for the cutter; the flash was seen, and returned; oVS might have been awk war d, as the smuggler had more hands than • boat. After securing the vessel, they went to their buoy and creePod for the tubs, which they soon succeeded in capturing, but the Wyss attached to them were so heavy, they could not get them till they VI the assistance of another boat front the cutter. They then th . crop, consisting of seventy-nine casks of spirits of brandy. why' with the men and vessel, they took round to Cowes. The; men O r. their names, James Barton, Edward White, John Symodi, Lane, Charles Bayles, and Stephen Groves, were toA n before th. magistrates at Newport, examined, and committeo,, , f or Clark Is but newly appointed to the Stag, and luvr thua made for AO' . self and crew a fortunate commencement. e trial. Capt.•l_ll ALARMING INCREASE OF ROBBERIES ON THE RIY2 III k —At a meeting of whartlng ers an d wharf clerks, held on Wednesday at Mr. Wiseman's, of the Watermen's Arse Hamkside, Mr. Guildersleeve in the chair, it was state° that the various craft moored alongshore were robbed nightly to a most enormous extent. From the Phcerti Gasworks to Southwark -bridge, not a night p asses with out losses of one description or another. The case o f Mr. Joseph Jeffs, where upwards of a ton of coal had been stolen at one swoop, fully bore out t;tie observations that had been made. A proposition was made for the general employment of private watchtnen on the several wharfs, but, as Mr. Adderly observed, sufficient expens e was already ent a il e d by the Tham es P o li ce, and the public had a right to look for better protection. Th e meeting was ultimately adjourned until next Wodnesdal• ENGLISH AND IRISH LAW. --The Irish Chief J 1.1." tice holds it is not necessary that a reporter should p Ro rove the Judges whole of have a speheld ech, aa porti reverse on thdoctri nereof is e; th suffic l aron ient: The English ast upon the trial of M r . O'Connor anti others at Liverpool. lf [AD VERTISEMENT.I--THE ISLAND OF BARBADOS AND HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS.—The 6th of De cember, 1843, William Graset, of Bridgetown, Barbadoes, SG lemnly declares that for two years he suffered with fearful ul cerations, which no medicine or treatment of the island could cure. That he was in the service of Mrs. M‘Caskey. caused him t o b e attended by Dr. John R. Bryant, who, faill to cure him, gave up the case. He, as a last resourc e, used Holloway Ointm en t an d Pills, whici completely cured hiraj i to the a s t on i s h ment of all ; the case being so astonishing o,ol' extraordinary that J. Y oung Ed ghill, Esq. caused the particu lars to b e a d vert i sed in the papers of BarbacloeF,,,:-.Sold at Pro" fessor Holl owa y' s esta bli s h ment, 244, Stra,,A (where advice may be h a d grat i s ) , and by almost all resfectablo vendors o f medicine throughout the civilised world. BIRTHS. On the 16th i ns t., a t the Vicarage, Eghara, Surrey, of the R ev . W. H. Biederman?), of a so n , still-born. On the 22d i ns t., at U pper Tulse-hill, Brixton, the C. B. Re e l e , E sq ., o f a son. On the 23d i ns t., t h e l ady of William Rolling', .e.eq., Upper Tooting, of a d aug h ter. On the 23d i ns t., i n Golden-square, the wife of d o hs 111 s son, Esq., of a son . the lad! Lots On the 24th inst., at the parish o•.:hurela at Barstio,„eies• Aberdour, eldest son of the late F Eearl Morton, t° ; : m id,. daughter of the late James Wa.scon,.,:sq. t of SaughtOlir • Lothian. eldest On the 9th inst., at Rome, 1 - k,, e . y F e , au „, the e 1.." "" viving son of J. Montgomery v'E q., On the 15th inst.. at -6beonzeun, r4ear Anspach, " It Henry von Lang, M.b. , aged 33. ,_ ni Vi• On the 16th Inst., at Broughton Hal/,, Oxon, the --1* Colston. I ii• On the 18th inst., at Bath, Emma r econd daughter I ) - On the 21st inst., at South grove , 1 3' late William Mitford, Erg., of Pitshil l l Sussex. of Be ,rivslden, Antrira. 140 :f of Mr' L. Le Paige, aged 25. O f On the 23d inst., aP, Brighton, Emit) a, youngest daughter the late Mr. John. - furner, of Waltham ./ tow. id, Nl' On the 24tt jug., at Southatunt,or4..place, Nevr-ro cabana, the w if e - chclas L 2 fier, Esq., aged 80. ___......-",:r:'?: 0 the County of Aliddletex • Fedi% London : Printed and Publish , A l by 11117RDO YOUNti, Lnd No. 112, Strand, at The Aux Of.,fice, No. 112, utz jaws 26 # 1644' B R of the tion to Noble hating by cow FRIDA' purpose The 13, Gec the reel The such LE of Mem Preside Visitor Hall Pc Diem ship ar Twelve square, tion of 1 TO T 1 to you, to fill tl I nos for the portuoi my nsu cause a I hal have all Proprie cession teas, in of my a be defe 24 A, TO T 1 0' farm I *horn vaelne3 I pie anbsequ Ten El leeted f to hope 'with yo 3, Ar .-_..__ TH PATE harnent such V. and dur obtaine The ROOlll The Blocks Pleas tsition stabli! T° Veil as Parti Saville T° the not objecti( superio siding i outlay. SW.A LE, !unity Cal fri triawari them t went / Gip Livery Tb a cen hlerc Jnit( comp It have CIA