The Sun. — London, England, 1845-12-05 00:00:00

gentleman. Mr. Dunsford, it appeared, was a Mend (as well as formerly the partner) of Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's brother, by whom he was originally introduced to the plain tiff's family, and which he had occasionally attended p feasionally, besides being al wa y s a d m i tted on terms of fil e ; closeeet intimacy. Under th ese combined c ircumstance s, it might be easily ima g i ne d t h at the defendan t had freest and most unsuspected Recess to the the house of the plaintiff. al' It further antea ed that Mr, and Mrs. Clark had al wa y s lined toge r ther on t e rms of affection and mutual confidence. especially kind and. The htlsbdnd was considerate in his Manner and con duct towards his wife, always concluding himself towards her with the ntmost i te e, and the lady had recipro cated such treatmenrdnialinlrettxtited alike demeanour towards her husband others who had o s n e g d to the testimony of servants and hat occurred in the opportunity of observing all fala 4K- unt°, some time after Mr. Duns ford was introd uce d i n she often betrayed towtertricne '':ouse. It was then noticed that - 3 Mr. Clark signs of diminished affecti on , an d occasional • 'lnllenness. According to the testi mony of s ome o f t h e f support of th e p l a i n — P ..nale servants who were examined in tishnees and alte- aiff's case, and who deposed to this pet were chiefly ..ed manner on the part of Mrs. Clark, they table. Te shown while the family were at the dinner someti'- .es, for instance, it was alleged that she would ms? ...les give no answer at all to questions or observations se by her husband. One of the servants, II ester Bevan, who eras a material witness in the cause, further stated that the 'sullenness she meant was principally shown by her mistress not 'gm-leering the question as to what she would prefer being helped to at dinner. It, however, appeared by the evidence that she always was helpe d to what she liked, not withstanding her giving no answer on the subject. Mr. Henry Clark, the brother of the plaintiff, too, deposing as to the pettishness and sullen manner of his sister-in-law, said, that shortly after the time it was probable the relations between Mrs. Clark and Mr. Dunsford had become intimate, there no longer appeared to be the same sympathy and cor diality between the husband and wife as formerly, and that she seemed estranged from him, and to live in less commu nion with him. 1 his had not been seen in her manner pre viously. She moreover, began thereafter to display towards him an unwonted degree of coldness and reserve, entirely differing from her demeanour previously to the unfortunate introduction of Mr. Dunsford into the family circle. Still, notwithstanding this obvious change on her part, it was shown that her husband's manners towards, and treatment of his wife, ever remained the same, and that he,was always kind, considerate, and affectionate in his demeanour, towards her. There was a young family, the fruit of this marriage, and Mr. Clark was proved to have been, not only a good hus band, but likewise:a tender and attached father. When the visits made by the defendant to the house had become more frequent, as was the case some time after the first intimacy commenced, they were the subject of repeated remark by the plaintiff's servants, and it was observed (and the cir cumstance added to the other grounds for suspicion in their minds) that those visits were either made when the) plain tiff was away from Bristol, or away from his home, and known to be engaged at his office, and likely to remain there for some time. Another subject of suspicion, as to the nature and object of the defendant's visits to Mrs. Clark, was the character of the orders always given to her servants by the lady herself, when Mr. Dunsford was ex pected to come. On such occasions directions were always issued by her that no one was to be admitted during his stay at the house, and that she was, in fact, "at home" to no one while he was there. Again, his visits were extremely long, and his departure was made in the quietest possible manner, so that often those in the house were not aware when or how he left. Though, however, these visits of Mr. Dunsford to Mr. Clark's house were thus protracted in their 'duration, they were but few in number, and long intervals elapsed be tween them. On the occasion of the first one, deposed to by one of the servants, Hester Bevan, she stated in her evidence that her mistress, previously to the defendant's arrival, told her that she expected a gentleman to visit her that day, and that during his stay no one was to be admitted, and that, on his arrival, he was to be shown into the drawing room, and no one was to intrude while he remained. Three specific occasions were deposed to ; and on each of them the defendant was stated by the witnesses to have remained several hours in company with Mrs. Clark alone. It was each time some three or four hours at the least that they were together, except on the last occasion of his calling at the plaintiff's house, when his visit was even more protracted. Various circumstances too were spoken of in connexion with those visits, that were alleged to render them still more sus picious in their nature and object. Thus, when he was about to leave the house, the room bell was not rung for the ser vants to come up and open the door, as was the custom with all other visitors; but be left 'without any announcement to the servants, opening the street-door himself, and departing in this manner, without making any one in the house aware of it. The servants, who respectively acted in the establish ment in the capacities of nurse, cook, and parlour- made, gave evidence to the above effect, as regarded the visits of the de fendant to Mrs. Clark, during her husband's absence ; and two of the three were shown to be in the service of the latter at the present time. Another important portion of the evidence adduced in support of the case, was that respecting the visits made by Mrs. Clark away from her borne, in the absence of her husband. On several occasions it was proved that the lady left her house at an early hour of the morning, remain ing out on those days some six, seven, or eight hours, and not returning till late in the afternoon. A further fact deposed to by the witnesses as an additional proof of the cnminality of the parties, notwithstanding the absence of any very decided testimony of criminal acts themselves, was that of Mr. Dunsford having, under a feigned name, taken lodgings in the city of Bath. At those lodgings it was shown he was in the habit of receiving the visits of a lady, to whom he asserted he had been privately mar ried, although circumstances prevented their acknowledg ing that marriage openly. Those visits were paid at long intervals ; and it was:of course sought, in support of the plaintiff's case, to lead the jury to the conclusion that the lady so visiting the defendant was no other than Mrs. Clark, as any of the railway trains would convey her from Bristol te Bath in little more than a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes—thus affording plenty of time for her to be some hours with Mr. Dunsford at his apartments in Bath, out of the six er seven hours, she was sometimes absent from home. With respect to the three visits made by the defend ant to the plaintiff's house, while the plaintiff himself was absent, the second was, that concerning which there was the most important and comprehensive evidence, as to the crimi nality of the parties. Regarding the first of these three "calls," it only appeared that Mr. Dunsford prolonged his stay in the society of Mrs. Clark for severalihours, and that the parlour maid, when she went into the drawing-room, where they had been sitting, after his departure, observed that the sofa was much tossed, and the cover crumpled, while Mrs. Clark ap peared excited and confused in her manner upon the ser vant entering the apartment. Several days elapsed be tween that and the next visit of the defendant to the plain tiff's house. During that interval changes were made in the arrangement of the furnituse in the library and drawing room. From the latter, various chimney ornaments, &c. were removed, and placed in the library. From the dining room, too, a sofa was taken and placed also in the library, the same directions being given to the servants as before respecting the gentleman who was expected to come. Upon his arrival, at this second visit, hewer; shown into the library, according to the directions given by Mrs. Clark. That lady, upon his arrival, was, according to the evidence of the par lour-maid, Hester Bevan (who was the principal witness in the case) in her bed-room. The instant, however, the fact of Mr. Dunsfoord having come was announced to her, she rushed down stairs to the library to meet him ; and the nurse was shortly afterwards ordered to bring down the baby that had been but recently vaccinated, when the defendant operated on the arm, so as to allow the matter to escape from the pustules. A very few minutes, however, sufficed for this ; and the nurse then went into the garden with the child. The windows of the library looked upon these grounds ; and the nurse deposed that, on looking up at the room she saw the blinds drawn half down; and her suspicions were at once aroused as to the proceedings between her mistress and the defendant. She immediately went into the house and told her thoughts to Hester Bevan, one of her fellow-servants, and they both decided that it would be well to watch. The latter, accord ingly, went close to the library-door, and listened at the key hole, in order to discover, if possible, the nature of what was passing within. With all her efforts she could discover nothing; but, in her testimony, she positively stated that she distinctly heard a kiss given, and that she moreover heard the defendant say to her mistress—" If I do love you better than apy.weruan is the world, _why-need you speak of it? You say to me, be centime, be eantioun while you yourself say things that must Make us the objects of suspicion." Mrs. Clark thereupon asked, Why, • what did I say ?" And the defendant replied," I will tell yeu., I will tell you as I heard it." Before there was Ulm; however, the servant, who was eagerly listening at the doorto hear more of this conversation, there was a loud ring at the hall-bell, and she was obliged to go down stairs to answer it. Two ladies had called to visit the mistress of the house, and they asked the maid if Mrs. Clark was within ? She answered thatshewas at home, but was en gaged.. Thereupon the ladies departed, and the witness Hesterßevan at once betook herself te the pantry, that was liters* directly .beneath the library. There she stayed, according to her own representation, for more than a couple of hours, during which time she heard the defendant walk aorees the room, • and afterwards heard a great scuffling of feet. shortly before the defendant that day departed, she heardhim opgit the door for, the- -purpose, as she imagined, of loo king into the pansage, and seeing that the coast was clear. She looked qut at the tjme, and from the place out side the pantry she saw him in.a minute or two subsequently tome out of the room, and opening the hall-door himself, leave the ti, use.. She could not, say she beard any lock turned Or belt drawn, when, the defendant first opened the library door ; it was simply opened, and did not seem to have been fastened. Directly he had left she went into the room to ask Mrs. Clark whether she wished for any refresh ment, as she had not rung for her breakfastthatmorning, and had, in fact, eaten nothing that day, though it was, by the time the servant entered the library, quite evening. Upon her asking her mistress this question. the latter thanked her, and ordered a poached egg and some bacon with her tea. With regard to the lady's demeanour at this time, the wit ness stated that it was very confused, and that her mis tress's face was very red ; that she did not look in witness's face while she spoke, but continued smoothing her hair with her hand, by that means shading her eyes and face from observation. The sofa again appeared to be much disturbed and crushed ; and it was evident, the witness added, that it had been lain upon. A third visit was after wards paid by the defendant to Mrs. Clark, also while her husband was away from home ; and on that occasion another child, who had some affection of the th roa t a t th e ti me , was brought down from the nursery to be seen by Mr. Dunsf o rd. It was in the room about ten minutes, but the interview lasted as usual, for hours between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife. In the month of August two of the servants, the nurse and Hester, the parlour-maid, went with the fa mily to Weston -super-Mare, not many miles from Bristol ; a nd the plaintiff was there all th e t ime wi th h is w if e an d c hildren, except upon a few occasions, when he had to go to Exeter. Mrs. C., is appears, was all this ti me rece i v i ng letters ; but they were not sent like the rest to the house, being fetched by herself from the post-office (about a quarter of a mile from where they lived). Upon the occasions of her husband's absence she took3the opportu n i ty of leaving Wes ton and travelling to Bristol by ge °rt ra i l l a w it a Y y. She remained on several of these occasions away fo r day or more, being accompanied by one of the servants and of the her byt the tithe. She name of Kirkby, who was on a visit to usually left the house at an early hour of the da not return until five in the afternoon, and someti'm a es n later, d did generally going out with her visitor, but frequently return ing alone. This practice, however , w a s n ot limited to the tim e of her hurried trips to Bristol by railway , for while she r e gle. larly resided there it was shown that s h e pursued the s ame plan, on most occasions of her husband being away from home for any length of time, and to a more limited extent, when she knew he was only at his office and would return home in the course of a few hours. Another of the witnesses who was in the plaintiff's service as coachman, gave it in evidence that on one particular occasion, when he had to drive his master into the country, his mistress asked him at what hour Mr. Clark was to come back. He could not exactly inform hereof the hour, but said he thought it would be about tan o'clock; and he further stated that he had frequently received directions to take Mrs. Clark up in the carriage at a greengrocer's shop In 11001, kept by a person of the name of Dow li ng, and . mute ;was-some ten minutes' walk tr u oTe . ,lsic a o da w l n house. butnet more than a hundred yards from r en ' tg r d ' q residence : The Musa and 'parlour-maid at Ben _ r ei„ on informing - the, plaintiff's brother, Mr. a gm ;iY,_, ~of Whet had occurred - _When they returned 14V RIS !LT stay at Weston. trpou being. informed of ^~ @ Y-r THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY MOAN'IVG, DECEMBER 6, 1845. these eitclimstancee, be sought an interview with Mrs. Clark, but wag at first refused, though she afterwards received him in the afternoon of the same day in ller bed- rooin. Another interview was - had between them the next day ; and in three , or four days she quitted her home, and went to her sister's residence at Newport."*Hester,lthe parlour-maid, accompanied her tkither, Rot only by her mistress's own earnest desire (as she declared in giving her evidence), but by that of the plaintiff's brother, with whom she was to communicate with regard to what occurred during her stay with Mrs. Clark at Newport. At first, however, there existed some doubt as to what the nature of this communication between them was to be, as it at one time appeared that it was to be in case there was any money wanted, as it was desired that the lady should be comfortable. But, in cross-examination, this servant admit ted that she was to write to Mr. H. Clark all concerning the conduct and proceeding of her mistress; though in re-exami nation she declared that she had not intended to act the spy, and that the only letter she had forwarded him had pre viously to being posted been shown to Mrs. Clark herself. As that lady and her sister, however, did not agree very well, she soon left Newport, proceeding to Chepstow, and then to Gloucester, and, after staying some little time at each of these places, to London, where she remained for a while at the Bull-and-Mouth. Nobody received her in the metropolis, and the servant then returned to Bristol, and re entered Mr. Clark's service. Such is a general statement of the purport of the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff's case. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and entered into a detailed account of the cir cumstances under which the cases was brought before them; and having concluded his speech, the following witnesses were called : Elizabeth Jones—Was servant to the plaintiff in the year 1842, and afterwards in 1844, when they resided at Bristol. During the first period of service she knew the defendant as being the partner of Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's bro ther. Ile used often to visit Mr. and Mrs. Clark, she thought as a medical man. During the second period he was a con stant visitor, and generally came when plaintiff was out. He always used to go up stairs by himself, which no other visitor ever did. He used to let himself out, which was also unusual. When other visitors were going, the bell was always rung for her (witness) to show them out. She re membered his calling on the 6th of June, 1844. On that oc casion he was shown into the library, and Mrs. Clark met him there. After they had been together a little while witness heard the door either locked or bolted, and the win dow-blind pulled down. This excited her suspicions, and she went into the pantry, which was under the library, where she got upon tift dresser to listen to what was going on in the room above. She heard the no* of feet, as if some one was walking towards the sofa, and then a noise, as if two persons were on the sofa. She then called to Elizabeth Hertford, her fellow-servant, who did not come to her imme• diately, and when she did come the noise had ceased. Soon after this witness heard the door unlocked, and, almost at the same moment, Mr. Clark came home. Hester Bevan, examined by Mr. Burr—l: entered the ser vice of Mr. and Mrs. Clark on the 18th of February, 1845, and lam in Mr. Clark's service now. I recollect Mr. Duns ford frequently calling to see Mrs. Clark. On one occasion after he had gene the sofa was very much tumbled. I saw my mistress afterwards, and she appeared confused. In the spring the baby was vaccinated. In the week of the vaccination the library was freshly arranged, and the sofa was taken into it out of the dining-room. The library was arranged on the Tuesday, and the vaccina tion took place on the Friday. Mr. Dunsford called on the Friday. I showed him into the library, and the child was brought to him almost immediately. In about 10 minutes afterwards the baby was taken away. Mr. Dunsford and my mistress remained in the library together for nearly three hours afterwards. My master was out of town. The defendant called again on the Friday following. My mistress went into the library, and the child was taken in there also, with a basin and a towel. The child was hardly in the room ten minutes. The defendant said to Mrs. Clark when he came in, " Make haste and bring the child, as I have a great deal to say to you." He came at a quarter before three o'block and left at a quarter before seven. He let himself out when he went away. While he was in the library with my mistress I went to the door and listened. I heard Mr. Dunsford say, " If I do love you better than any other woman in the world, you need not say so. You say to me, be cautious, be cautious,' and yet you your self say things that lead people to suspect." Mr. Duns ford charged her with something she had said to some one, and she wished to known what it was. He said, "Well, shall I tell it you just as I heard it ?" She said " Yes." At that moment the bell rung, and I went to answer the door. Two ladies came to the door, and I told them, as I had been directed, that my mistress was engaged. While I was listening at the library door, I heard the de fendant kiss Mrs. Clark. I saw the defendant go out, and I immediately went up to Mrs. Clark, and asked her whether she would not take something, as she had had nothing but her breakfast that day. Her face was remarkably red, and she did not look up, but smoothed her hair with her hands when she spoke to me. That was the last time Mr. Duns ford came to Berkeley-square. About a week afterwards the Misses Kirkby came on a visit. In August last the family went to Weston-super-Mare. Mr. Clark came every evening to Weston, and returned in the morning to Bristol, except on the occasions when he went to Exeter. While the family were at Weston, Mrs. Clark went to Bristol three times. I went to Bristol on the second of those occasions. Miss Kirby went with us. We arrived at Bristol in the evening. On the following day my mistress went out with Miss Kirkby, and remained out all day. On the third day we returned to Weston. While at Weston my mistress went many times to the post•office. There was a boy who took letters to the post-office from the plaintiff's house. My mas ter was in Bristol when the family returned from Weston, and he left the next day. Mr. Henry Clark came up to the house the day after my master left, and spoke to me. "He saw Mrs. Clark in laer bed-room on that day. He had called before, but by mistress would not see him. I went with Mrs. Clark afterwards to Newport. Elizabeth Hertford, fellow-servant of the former witness, gave evidence as to the suspicions which had been excited in her mind by various circumstances. Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's brother, spoke to a con versation subsequent to the commoncemuat of this action, in which defendant said, " Joseph and Potar's wife has been acted over to the life ;" and added, that five words from him would have ruined Mrs. Clark. Maria Withers examined—ls sister to a Mrs. Needes, who keeps a lodging-house, No. 17, Norfolk-street, Bath. In July, 1844, her sister left Bath for a time, leaving the house in her care. During her sister's absence, a gentle man called upon her, and represented that he was secretly married, that he wished it to remain a secret, and that he wanted lodgings in Bath. He called himself Mr. Lisle. After this she wrote to her sister about it, and on receiving an answer, she desired her nephew, a lad named Kinchen, to write to Mr. Lisle, to tell him that his terms were accepted. She knew his address, which was at the British and Foreign Hotel, Hanover. square, London, from a letter which she had received from him. (This letter was produced in Court, but the part which contained the address had been cut away.) After this Mr. Lisle came several times to sleep at her sister's house. He used to come at night and remain till the next evening. On each occasion he said, in the morning, that he expected Mrs. Lisle, and a lady came at about tea o'clock. She remained each time till four, when she went away alone, and at about nine he went away also. He never slept there two successive nights. '1 hey met there four times. Mrs. Needes, and George Kinchen, her nephew, corroborated the above statement. The three witnesses had seen Mr. Dunsford and Mrs. Clark at Bath, and identified them as the lady and gentleman whom they had known as Mr. and Mrs. Lisle. The servant of the house was also examined, and said that on one occasion Mr. Lisle had not slept there the night before, and the bed was not disturbed during the time he and Mrs. Lisle slept there. On the three other occasions he had slept there, and the bed had been left un made by his wish, so that it was tumbled before Mrs. Lisle came, and she could not say whether it had been used while she was there. This witness had also identified the defen dant and Mrs. Clark. Joseph Hall, a police-officer at Bath, had taken the four last witnesses to Mr. Dunsford's and :Mr. Clark's: house, in order to identify the persons. On stating his object to the defendant, the latter said, " What is done cannot be helped." The witnees having been, examined,. evi denee wah giveh' with respect to the marriage settlement. The deed itself was putin, and proved by the attorney who had prepared it and witnensedits signature: EVidence was also adduced of a notice that had been served upon the trutaes under it. It appeared that in this deed it *as a condition that 5,0001. should be in trust for the sole use and, benefit of Mrs. Clark ; and, further, certain, property she would inherit from her grandmother and rnother,"the interest arisiag , frono which was to be duly= paid' over tolier 'tor her' soleuse eand benefit, by , the befOrs-mentfoned tiustioe - S, receipts bearing her own signature, There was, he ever, a proviso, to the effect thatithizinterestshonidnet , be paid over to life nntil she,had formallyolereanded the. payment of it, and notice had been regularly served,upon the trustees, • It was, aecordingly new proved, that the payments had been de manded in due forra sinee,Mra. Clark had quitted her husband's house: _ The-evidence for the plaintiff (of which the above presents the material portions) having been concluded,, ' - Sir THOMAS WILDE addressed the jury' oft behalf, of the defendant, and contended that they could not, npon the Oil demo as it now stood,:corne to a conclusion adverse to his client. He submitted that there was no direct or clear, satis factory or by any means conclusive proof of adultery having been committed by the defendant and the plaintiff's wife. Even if they were disposed to place entire reliance upon all that had been given in evidence by the witnesses which had been adduced in support of the case on the other side, he did not believe that it could be held that more than a case, he admitted, of great suspicion had been esta blished by the witnesses. That, however, would not be suf ficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict at their hands; and still less would he be entitled to it upon testimony of such a very doubtful and improbable nature as they had heard that day. Upon such evidence no one who was stand ing at the bar of a criminal court could be found guilty ; and lie contended that a similar doctrine should be applied to such a case as the present. Before they received such testimony with anything approaching credence, they ought well to consider its value and probability. They ought to exercise the utmost caution before they so received it. It would, he admitted, be impossible and useless to deny that great and suspicious intimacy had existed between Mrs. Clark and his client, or that there had been no improper familiarities between them. It was most probable that such had taken place ; but a far more decided conviction must be entertained before a verdict could be given for the plaintiff. He contended that there was no reason to come to the positive conclusion that this intimacy and those fami liarities had been carried to the last act of criminality be tween the parties, and that adultery had really been com mitted by them. And unless that were clearly established no verdict for the plaintiff could be returned or damages awarded him. But even if the jury were satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for such a verdict, he sabmitted that this was a case that called for nothing beyond a low and trifling amount of damages. Little would compensate the plaintiff fully, for, regarding matters in the most unfavour able light. his loss could not be looked upon as heavy. After commenting on the evidence that had been adduced before them, the Learned Sergeant concluded by leaving the ques tion in the hands of the jury, being assured they would, ac cording to the best of their judgment, do justice: between the partiee, and meet the merits of the case. _ . The 'Learned JUDGE then proceeded to sum up the evi dence, and carefully and cle ar ly laid all it s material por tions before the jury. In the course of some remarks up o n crguments that had been used by Counsel, his Lordship said that much might be insisted on respecting the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation in instances such as the present. As was usually the case in actions of this nature, many ob servations had been made as to the total inefficiency of any amount of p ecun i ary s compensation to sooth a husband ' wounded feelin gs ,' o r to satisfy his injured honour, and the sufferings he must endure under such circumstances. The law, however, had awarded no other than a money compen sation in all such cases; and, notwithstanding all that might be alleged against its adequacy, it would be extremely diffi cult to point out any other remedy that would be mere satis factory and e ffi cacious. The jury, therefore, would ne w o n ly have to decide whether the plain tiff, under the circumstances of this case, judging from the evidence that had been laid before them, WAS entitled to any com pensation, and if so, t o what =Milt they should award it to meat the merits. They must measure the, damages by the value of what the plaintiff had lost through thegonduct of the defendant, that had de prived him of a wife, and his children of a mother. It would be for them to estimate the extent of the injury the plaintiff had sustained, and to give damages (if they were agreed that da mage. should be given) in accordance with that estimation. In coming to a decision as to the amount to be aWarded, they. must take into their consideration all the facts ; for, in such in stances, much depended upon the character of the wife seduced, the manner in which the husband had ever behaved towards her, and various other circumstances that gave each case a distinctive character, and made all the difference between the extremes of the hitherto virtuous wife who was se duced, and the wanton profligate woman, who with head long passion threw herself into the arms of the adulterer. As regarded the nature of the injury inflicted, it was cer tainly difficult, indeed, to imagine any one that would be more afflicting to a man who had fulfilled the duties of a good husband and a kind father, and who was happy in his reminiscences of the past, the enjoyments of the present, and the bright and cheering prospects of the future, than the seduction of the partner of his wedded life, once chaste and virtuous, and the blight upon the condition of his children, deprived under such painful circumstances of the care and love of their once devoted mother. If, however, on the other hand, a man had allied himself to a woman of free and capricious manners, of immodest deportment, and wanton lascivious disposition, it would certainly be his mis fortune to have espoused such a female, hut it could scarcely be considered a misfortune to lose her. In such a case too, a plaintiff could scarcely be held entitled to any con siderable amount of damages, even if any beyond a mere nominal sum, by way of compensation for the loss he had endured by her abandoning him. It would be there fore for the jury to decide where in their opinion the present case stood, and at what distance from the one extreme or the other. If they gave credence to the testimony of the witnesses they had heard in the course of the cause, he thought they could entertain no reasonable doubt that there had been acts of adultery. If so, the plaintiff had been, by the defendant, deprived of the society of her, who was at once his wife and the mother of his children ; and it would be for them to estimate the loss the plaintiff had thus sustained, and to give damages accordingly. In the course of the pro ceedings they had heard that the defendant had spoken slightingly of the virtue of the plaintiffs wife, and that he had said something about the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar being acted over again. He (Mr. Justice Cresswell) had, however, observed that, from the beginning to the end of the evidence that had been adduced, not a single question had been put to any witness with a view of casting a slur upon the manners or life of Mrs. Clark, or seeking to impugn her virtue prior to her acquaintance with the de fendant. There was nothing either to show that her con duct had been light, or that she had first sought the de fendant, and had not been seduced by him. The law did not in such cases seek to punish the offender, but merely to give the injured party, the plaintiff, compensation for the loss he had sustained in losing the society of his wife. The degree of the defendant's guilt was an important matter of investi gation and consideration for this latter purpose. The blacker his transgression, the greater must of necessity be the injury sustained by the husband, and consequently the larger the amount of damages to which the latter would be entitled. It must be so, inasmuch as the more serious the guilt of the seducer, the more subtle the artifices to which he had re course to attain his purpose, the more deep laid the plans by which he at last succeeded in triumphing over the virtue of the once spotless wife, the higher must originally have been her value to her husband, and the higher also ought to be the amount awarded him by way of compensation, as far as the law allowed compensation to be made him for the loss he had sustained. The wife, however, who, on the other hand, yielded readily to any man who chose to approach with a guilty purpose and solicit her, could never have been of much worth or value to her husband; and the easiness of the adulterer's triumph might be taken, therefore, as a measure of the rate at which she was justly and truly to be esteemed. The jury must, in fact, look to the particular cir cumstances of the case, and decide upon the evidence they had heard what would best meet its merits. The jury, at the conclusion of the Learned Judge's obser vations, retired to consider their verdict; and, after being out of Court rather better than half an hour, returned with one for the plaintiff—Damages, 5,0001. !s ~: correct, and to confirm his presentbelief, that the Colonel was a man of the strictest honour and therefore he now withdrew any farther opposition to the present application. Mr. JAMES said that the amount of the insolvent's debts appeared at the first sight to be very large,' but since the bankruptcy his private debts were only 240 1. Since, and in consequence of the examination gone into after Lord Hun tingtower's bankruptcy, Colonel Copland was deprived of his commission, which was worth 5,000/. or 6,000/., and that had left him in a precarious condition. Colonel Cop• land came forward on that occasion, at the request of Lord Huntingtower, to explain some bill transactions. Although the debts were large, being all renewals, the new debts were only 2401. Mr. Commissioner FONSLANQUE—The renewed debts are at the prejudice of the new creditors. Debts to some thou sands to participate with the present creditors is prejudice to them ; it is a most mischievous practice, and I always find that creditors least entitled getrenewals. Mr.-JaarEs said that he entirely concurred in the propriety of his Honour's observations, but begged to state that Colonel Copland had never received a single shilling by giving these renewals, which were solely given from a sense of honour. Mr. Commissioner FormiArtcrss—As to the commission, a statement ought now to be made to the authorities at the Horse Guards, so that they might review their decision and in the event of his being re-instated, he must give the Court an undertaking that he will pay his debts. It might happen, that as Mr. Valiance was satisfied, so might the Horse Guards also be, and then her Majesty might permit Colonel Copland to sell his commission. Mr. STURGEON-If the insolvent were to enter into any such undertaking, he (Mr. Sturgeon) could say, from his own knowledge of the service, that— Mr. Commissioner For;BLANQuE—If the authorities at the Horse Guards were to look to the law of Debtor and Creditor, as other persons do, they might permit the sale of the corn mission, and unless you conform to these terms, I shall ad journ the case from time to time. Mr. JAmts—lt was Colonel Copland's wish to give such an undertaking, but he feared— Mr. Commissioner Foxrn.ANQuE—Do you believe that the Horse Guards would show more regard for Colonel Copland than for his creditors? _ _ Mr. JAMES apprehended the result of that would be that the Horse Guards would say you are seeking to get back the commission for sale, and not for rank. After some further observations the application was ad journed for six months, with leave to the insolvent to come here from time to time, in order to keep the matter within the control of the Court.—Adjourned accordingly. Jane Edmonds was indicted for stealing a counterpane and a quilt, value five shillings, the property of Job Rawlings. This was one of the many cases of robbing furnished lodg ings which came before the Court. The prisoner, a poor-looking creature, wept bitterly du ring the trial, and in her defence said it was poverty drove her to commit the act, but that she intended to remove them. The police-office stated that there were no less than fifty six duplicates found upon the prisoner :or various articles of of wearing apparel and furniture. The jury found her guilty. The prosecutor, addressing the; Court, begged to recom mend her to mercy. The COURT wished to know upon what grounds. The prosecutor said that he had made inquiry relative to the prisoner's circumstances, and found that she was an honest, industrious woman, but in very great poverty, and that all the articles she bad previously pawned were her own property. The JUDGE certainly considered that a very strong ground for recommendation, and would take it into consideration. He would, therefore, only sentence her to one month's im prisonment with hard labour. Eliza Kent was indicted for assaulting Thomas Cansdell, of the Hoop and Horseshoe Tavern, Queen-street, Tower-hill. From the evidence, it appeared that about ten o'clock on the evening of the 24th instant, prosecutor was in his par lour with a few friends, and, hearing a noise in the tap-roorr., he proceeded thither, and found defendant lying on the floor, she having been knocked down by her husband. The com plainant kindly offered her a seat, in order that she might adjust her clothes, when she seized hold of a quart pot to throw at him, but, being foiled in the attempt, she con trived to get possession of a mustard-pot, which she hurled with great force at his head, and which inflicted a violent blow on his forehead. Medical aid was had recourse to, and complainant was confined to his bed for two days. The jury found her Guilty, and the prosecutor having re commended her to mercy, she was sentenced to be impri soned for one week. SURREY SESSIONS. (Before M. Puesuic and a full Bench of Magistrates.) On Wednesday George Weis, alias Wild, aged 21, a well dressed man, was indicted for stealing from the person of Thomas Limey, at Patton, a purse containing two sovereigns and nine shillings. From the prosecutor's evidence it appeared that on the 14th of October he went into the Dolphin beer-shop, at Banstead, where he met the prisoner and two other men, all of whom were strangers to him. That he invited them to partake of some liquor, after which they entered the skittle ground at the rear of the house, when he pulled out his purse and paid for what they had to drink. Soon afterwards he was robbed of his purse and its contents by the persons whom he had treated, but not knowing which of the men was the party who had stolen it, he followed the prisoner into the road and accused bins of being concerned in the robbery. The prisoner, however, denied the charge, and in proof of his innocence produced the contents of his pocket, amongst which was a purse, w hich the prosecutor identified as his property, and claimed its restoration. The prisoner, how ever, refused to give it up, and an altercation taking place, the former knocked down the prosecutor, and was imme diately afterwards taken into custody. The purse was produced in Court, and the prosecutor identified it from a portion of it which he had sown up with thread. At the time it was found it was empty. Three witnesses, however, were called upon the part of the prisoner, who, although they could not swear positively to the identity of the purse, still they said they had fre quently observed one similar to it in the possession of the prisoner. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up the evidence, remarked upon the fact of the prisoner having knocked down the pro secutor when the latter claimed the restoration of the purse; but that if the jury had any doubts on the subject, they would give the prisoner the benefit. The jury, after a short consultation, Acquitted the pri soner; and the CHAIRMAN, addressing him,'said he had had a very narrow escape, and advised him as to his future conduct. Albert Grainger, aged 24, was indicted for stealing a va- S luable watch, a guard chain, and seal, the property of John Post Thomson, at Kingston-upon-Thames. The prosecutor deposed, that on the evening of the 13th of November, it being fair-time at Kingston, he went into the Old Crown Inn, in that town, in the large room of which a number of persons, male and female, were assembled, dancing. He joined in the amusement ; but had not been long in the room, when a dispute arose concerning a lady present, and prosecutor being mixed up in the affair, he was surrounded by several persons, among whom was the pri soner, and he was compelled to have recours to his fists, to defend himself from the attacks of his assailants. When the affray was over, he immediately missed his watch and guard-chain, and was informed that the prisoner was ob served to have taken something from the hands of a person, and that they both left the room, and went down stairs. The prosecutor lost no time in giving information of the robbery, and two policemen having accompanied him into the inn yard, they found the prisoner, who, on being charged with stealing the watch, denied it. The policemen, however, pro ceeded to search him, in doing which they experienced con siderable resistance, but succeeded in finding the watch be longing to the prosecutor in the pocket of a large coat which he wore at the time. Subsequently to the discovery of the watch the prisoner was then heard to say that a strange man had offered him a watch in the room at the inn, but the offer was refused, and that when he (the stranger) found the po licemen were likely to come there, he (prisoner) supposed that he dropped the watch into his coat pocket. It was also stated that the prisoner had attempted to run away. The prisoner's Counsel dwelt with much earnestness on the probability of the truth of the watch having been depo sited in the prisoner's coat pocket by the strange man in the confusion which arose when the policemen were seen ap proaching. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. In reply to the CHAIRMAN, Mr. Keene, the Governor of the County Gaol, said the prisoner had been confined there for assaults. A policeman of the if division informed the Court that the prisoner for some months past had been the associate of thieves. _ _ The CHAIRMAN, in sentencing the prisoner to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, told him that if ever he again appeared in that Court on a criminal charge, and was con victed, his doom would be transportation. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Benjamin Fenton, a lithographic writer, was summoned on Wednesday before Mr. Alderman Hunter, to answer the complaint of Mr. Allen, of Coleman-street, his late employer, for refusing to complete a verbal contract he had entered into, and commenced to serve under, to work for one year certain at 30s. a week. . Mr. Hobler stated the case on behalf of the complainant. The defendant had absented himself just at the period when there was the greatest pressure for hands to complete the railway plans for Government. Mr. Allen had a process peculiar to his establishment, he believed, and in which he had instructed the defendant, who repaid this kindness by leaving him when his services were of the utmost importance to his master. Mr. Allen stated that he engaged the prisoner in Dublin, about five years ago, at 255. a week, and in July last the complainant having determined to shift his establishment from Dublin to London, the defendant, amongst several others, entered into a verbal agreement to accompany him and serve him for one year certain, at the increased wages of 30s. a week. Complainant paid the travelling expenses. In September, expecting some foul play, he drew out a written form of engagement, and required each man to sign and send him a copy of it.. The defendant alone refused to sign at once. The defendant said it was to the same purport as their engagement in. Dublin; but he preferred taking the advice of a friend before he signed anything. This was on Satur day, the 27th of September. On the following Monday he sent a note declining to sign the agreement, and refusing to return to his work. Walter Smith, in the service of Mr. Allen, proved that the defendant left some work unfinished, and that tfie agreement in writing vi'aiadmitted by defindant tei be the same imeffect at had been made verbally in Dublin. Michael Kehol, foreman to Mr. Allen ' proved that the defendant told him in Dublin that. he h ad entered into mn .agreement to terve Mr. Allen for_ a year at advanced wages. The defe,n4nt, at first, utterly denied that hmhad entered into any agreement for a limited time, but afterwards ex pressed a willingness to return and serve the, remainder of ,the term. 'Mr. Allen said he was not disposed 'to admit such an un grateful man into his house. He had made other engage menti. He nowntily sought that he •shonld tje punished. The defendant inquired whether he could' not force his master to complete the contract. ' ' ' ' • Mr. AklermartHurrrEn said: he had byrhis misbehaviour, in absenting ,himself at a .eritieal time, left . it. to the option of the master to discharge him , ,The ALDERMAN, after ineffectually , endeaveuring to recon cile the parties, . deferred pronouncing his decision until Saturday. BOW-STREET. Mr. Jackson, a solicitor of Lincoln's Inn-fields, applied to Mr. Twyford for his advice under the following circum stances:— A few weeks ago a lad absconded from the service of a Mr. Webb, a silversmith, in Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, with a number of gold and silver watches, which he after wards pledged at different pawnbrokers. Mr. Webb pub lished a handbill, offering a reward of 51. for the apprehen sion of the lad and the restoration of the property. A work ing tradesman, named Curran, observing the description of the property in the handbill, recollected its having been in the possession of a lodger in his house, whom he and his wife had supposed to be a woman, but who afterwards turned out to be Mr. Webb's boy in woman's clothing. The consequent apprehension of the lad, and his examina tion at Bow-street, were reported in The Sun at the time, and since then the prisoner had been tried and convicted at the Old Bailey. Curran, who was in humble circumstance, conceived himself entitled to the reward, being the party who had caused the prisoner's apprehension and the restoration of the property; but, on applying to Mr. Webb for it, he had refused to pay the amount, alleging as the reason that he had already incurred much expense in the inquiry. Mr. TWYFORD regretted that it was not in his power to interfere in any way, an action at law being the only remedy in such a case. tion, if police-officers, taking advantage of the extraordinary power with which their office invested them, were permitted to walk into the parlour of a respectable publican, and there insult his customers and grossly defame one of them. The power the police possessed of thus entering public-houses should at least be exercised with discretion, otherwise it would become an intolerable nuisance, and would not be sub mitted to by any one in this free state. Evidence was then adduced to prove the alleged improper language. Mr. Wakeling contended that Archer had done no more than his duty in apprising the landlord of what probably he had not been previously aware. Ultimately the complaint was dismissed. Jeremiah - Riley and Patrick Drury were charged, by Mr. John Nicholl, a coffeehouse-keeper in Gray's Inn-lane, under circumstances of' an outrageous character. The prisoners, and some other fellows, entered the shop of the prosecutor, and called for eggs, bacon, and coffee, with which they were served by Mr. Nichol], who demanded pay ment. The prisoner Drury seized the eatables, and caltcd out to his companions to " Hook it." They run away. Drury swore he would smash the landlord's nose if he were not si!ent. The police were, however, sent for, and subse quently Riley and a gang of ruffians came and made a des perate attack on Mr. Nicholl, who would have been murdered if it had not been for the timely arrival of a party of police, who took Riley into custody. Before Riley was secured, a man named Hannan, who came to Mr. Nicholl's assistance, was dreadfully beaten by the ruffians on the head and upper part of the body.—The prisoner was remanded. Q UEEN-SQ UARE. Martha Browning, a young woman, apparently about 25 years of age, was charged with the wilful murder of Eliza beth Mundell, an aged female, with whom she resided. The case is one of a most extraordinary and mysterious character, and before proceeding to detail the evidence ad duced, it may be as well, in order to render the case more intelligible to the reader, briefly to advert to the circum stances which led to the prisoner's apprehension ; a course the mare necessary from the fact, that in consequence of the insensible state of the Accused during the examination, a portion only of the evidence was given before the Magis trate. The supposed victim of prisoner's violence as-as found dead by her daughter on Monday morning, and on the evening of that day a coroner's . jury sa:, - upon the body, and returned a verdict "that the deceased had committed suicide whilst in a state o t temporary insanity!' Since that period some circumstances of a very suspicions nattil'a have transpired, tending to criminate the accused as the murderer of the deceased female; and on her being found on Tuesday afternoon in possession of a sham bank note, which it was obvious she had considered genuine, as she had attempted to get change for it, she was closely interrogated by the husband of deceased's daughter, who at once recognised it as corresponding with one of two which the ill-fated woman had been seen to have in her pos session the day before her death, and a desire on the part of the prisoner to possess which, supposing them to be genuine bank-notes, it was inferred might have induced her to put a period to the existence of their possessor. The accused's replies were anything but satisfactory, and she endeavoured to effect her escape from the house, but was detained. The husband of the deceased's daughter insisted upon her ac companying him to the station, and before their arrival there she became much agitated, and said, " I did it, I did it; have mercy upon me." Mr. Partridge, the inspector on duty at the Gardiner's- lane station, whither the prisoner had beets most unwillingly taken, haying made himself ac quainted with the particulars, as well as the brief space of time would permit, immediately sent for the whole of the witnesses whose evidence bore upon the matter, and brougL-t the accused to this Court. The prisoner, who had the appearance of a hearty young woman, was lifted into the dock in an apparently senseless state, immediately after which she fell into a succession of strong fits, between which she gave way to paroxysms of apparently despair and tore her hair. Everything, however, which humanity could suggest, was done to prevent her in juring herself Ann Gage, of 11, Rochester-street, Rochester row, sworn — have known the prisoner for about six months, and she has lodged with my mother for the last six weeks, at No. 1, Pro vidence-row, Prewers'-green. On Monday morning, at about eight o'clock, the prisoner came to me at my resi dence, and said my mother was very ill. She said that she had fallen •into a fit at about seven that morning, and had screamed out, " Murder, what are you at ? what are you at ?" She wished me to come round and see my mother, which I immediately did. Whilst I was dressing myself I asked her whether the person in the next room had come into her when she screamed " murder ?" when she replied, " No ;" that the door was locked, and she was holding my mother's hands and washing her face at the time. 1 went with prisoner as soon as I had dressed myself, and on entering my mother's room I looked in the bed, but she was not there, and I was turning to •come out of the room when I found her lying on her back on a box, with her head towards the door and there was a cord about as thick as my finger twice round her neck, the knot being tied on the right side. Mr. BOND—Was it what is termed a slip or running knot? Witness—lt was not a slip knot. It was, however, made in a particular way that I cannot describe. Did you examine the cord ?—I • Was it tied tight ?—Very. Examination continued—My mother appeared quite dead. I immediately called out for assistance. Mr. Boxn—Was the prisoner in the room at this time ? No, she was not. I was there alone. How was prisoner engaged during this time ?—She was running about the house, calling for assistance. Witness continued—Prisoner and some others came into the room, and prisoner then rubbed my mother on the stomach. _ _ ~.........___ Mr. Bown—Did she make any observation ?—She did not speak, After other evidence. - - - Mr. BOND said, I have heard quite enough to justify a remand. I will not trouble you (to witness) any further at present. It was then arranged that prisoner should be brought up for re-examination on Monday afternoon. The accused was then conveyed to Tothill-fields Bride well in a cab. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 4. (Sittings after Term, before the Loii) CHIEF BARON and Common Jury.) THORNETT V. HALES. This was an action of debt for money had and received, to which the defendant bad pleaded the general issue. Mr. Sergeant Bvles and Mr. Wordsworth appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. hurnphreys for the defendant. The plaintiff was a publican living at Wells-row, High bury, near Islington, and the defendant, the auctioneer of 38, Moorgate-street. The action was brought to recover the sum of 3151. for money received by the defendant, under the following cir cumstances :—On the 7th of July, in the present year, the defendant, who had been retained for the purpose by Mr. Walker, the proprietor of the Coach and Horses, public-house at Chelsea, put up for sale by public auction, at Garraway's, the lease and goodwill in trade of a public-house, called the Bell, wine -vaults, in Shoreditch. The house was bought at the sale by Mr. Thornett, the plaintiff, for the sum of 1,575/., and he paid to the defendant as a deposit 3151., subsequently signing an agreement to complete the purchase in the usual way. In due course the abstract of title was delivered to the plaintiff's attorney, but having ascertained that Mr. Walker, the owner of the property, had employed puffing bidders at the sale, the plaintiff determined upon repudiating the sale, on the ground of fraud. He therefore instructed his solicitor to apply to the defendant to return the deposit money, but the defendant refused to do so, and hence the origin of the present action. Evidence having been adduced to prove these facts, Mr. HUMEIIREYS contended that there had been no fraud committed, either by the defendant or by bis client, Mr. Walker, and in equity, if not in law, the plaintiff could be compelled to complete the purchase. He admitted that a party named Robinson, the proprietor of the Cock and Punch bowl public-house, in the City, and Mr. Fry, the solicitor, had bid for the lease—the first 1,205/., and the second 1,200/. ; but they did so in a bona fide and legitimate manner, and without any fraud or collusion with the defendant. The LORD CIIIEF BARON said the vendor of a property had a right to employ puffing bidders to prevent the property going under a certain sum, but the vendor was bound to make that fact known to the parties at the sale, in order that they might be on their guard, and watch and judge for them selves, that they did not bid for the property beyond its actual value. If such notice were not given by the vendor, the sale became null and void. Mr. HustrxurYs urged that the sale was conducted in the ordinary way, and all the bids were bona fide made. The LORD CHIEF BARON suggested that the parties had better consent to take a verdict for the plaintiff, reserving leave to move to enter a nonsuit. This would bring the question before the Court, and then it might be satisfac torily settled. Mr. HumprutEts—Supposing the Court should be of opinion that this is not such an interference with the ordi nary course of auction as to make the sale void, the plaintiff will of course be nonsuited. For my part, I believe it is a universal practice to have bidders of this sort ,present, and the plaintiff must have been aware of it. At all events, I shall contend that the fact that such a universal practice existed was a sufficient notice to the plaintiff that these bid ders would be present. The LORD CHIEF BARON thought it required a special notice, but this would be for the full Court to decide. Mr. Sergeant BYLES said of course he could have no ob jection to his Lordship's suggestion. A verdict was therefore recorded for the plaintiff for 3151, leave being given to the defendant to move to enter a non suit. DECEMBER 4. The Court sat at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, and having tried several cases of no public interest, adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock. ARCHES' COURT, Dec. 3. (Before Sir H. JENNER FUST.) JUDGMENT.-THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN v. TIIE REV. JOHN DAY. This was a_proceeding by letters .of requeit, agleinst ths• Rev.. 'Tohn bay, clerk; rector of the rectory of Hawriggs, for the reformat - 1W of his 'banners and excessee; The suit. was in pursuance of the provisions of the Chinch Act, and as-it has proceeded, throughout in'Veenam (the• rev. defendant not:having appeared to the citatton),, the articles exhibited] were, - On„,a ,preNictui court-flay, :read: sealatim,:aei well as the evidence brought forrard in support ,of them. Counsel were then hearcl,.?n 43ipport of the validity,,of the. nhargeel, 'and; Itsiot4l 51,epnYtt;on of the hying etvoyed by Mr. Day Wasitiketli'oi, the .Court took time to consi4ef.the, case in oxtenso. ' ,• , , , The principal artioles'exbibited against the Rey. Kr. Pay . were to tint folidwing " We article and object to you - the said - Win. Day, that at' . all times in and during two years previous to the commence ment of this suit (save from on or about the 7th day of July, 1843, to the 9th Mar,c4.;1814) during which time you were a prisoner in her' lylvesty,'s ,gnol at Aylesbury, in the county, of Buckinghamshire, yetk,lta . ve. addicted yourself to habitual excesses. dAlsa we 'aiikte 'Object:76 . you, the said that there did siist donCeiffing Sou scandal and evil 'report, as having offended hgeihst ' the eCclesitisfical, In the several matters hereinbefore particularly articled, objected, and set forth against you. And we further article and object to you that by reason, and in con sequence of such scandal and evil report, and under and by virtue of an Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 3d and 4th years of the reign of her present Majesty, entitled An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline,' the Lord Bishop of Lincoln did think fit of his own mere motion to issue a commission under his hand and seal, bearing date the 14th day of September, 1844, to five persons, one of whom was the Rev. John Rd. Clerk, Vicar of Ivanhoe, in the said county of Buckingham and diocese of Lincoln, and a rural Dean within the said diocese, for the purpose of making inquiry as to the grounds of such scandal and evil re port concerning you, as having offended against the laws ec clesiastical by having addicted yourself to habitual excesses. That when such proceedings had been closed, one of the said Commissioners, after due consideration of the depositions taken before them, openly and publicly declared the unani mous opinion of the said Commissioners, that there was suf ficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceed ings; that the said Commissioners transmitted to the said Bishop, under their hands and seals, the depositions of the witnesses taken before them ' • and also a report of the una nimous opinion of the said five Commissioners, that there were sufficient prima facie grounds for instituting further proceedings against you, and that such report is filed in the registry of the said diocese of Lincoln." There were other articles. The concluding ones prayed that the said William Day be duly and canonically corrected and punished according to the exigency of the law, and also be condemned in the costs of this suit. Sir H. JENNER Fus'r, at very considerable length, ex pressed his opinion upon the case. The articles exhibited were referred to by the Judge, and he held that the mate rial charges were proved. Referring to previous eases of the kind, and cited in argument, he (Sir 11. J. Fust) was not disposed to hold that this was a proceeding in which depri vation was called for. The Court thought, however, that a suspension of three years from the emoluments of the living would be sufficient. The sentence of three years' deprivation, with costs, was ordered to be entered in the registry. CODRT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3. (Before Mr. Commissioner FoNerdorgis.) IN RE . PRANCIS COPLAND, AN INSOLVENT. The insolvent in this case, who was better known as Col. Copland, and who was some time since deeply mixed up in the affairs of Margaret Edmonds, of St. James's-place, and Lord Huntingtower, came up to-day for his final order. Mr. JAMES, who with Mr. Sturgeon appeared for the in solvent, said that a difficulty arose upon the last appearance of the bankrupt before the Court, inasmuch as the certificate of a former bankruptcy of Colonel Copland was not produced. It was then held by an attorney who had a lien upon it, but had since been given up, and thereby obviated tho opposition then raised by Mr. Vallanee against the insolvent. Mr. VarLaxcE said that he had certainly opposed the in solvent upon his lastappearance before the Court, both in rela tion to his " conimissiou, and the evidence which he had given under the bankruptcy of Lord Huntingtower, which he then disbelieved, but which subsequent explanations from the Colonel induced him (Mr. Valiance) to believe to hays been IN THE MATTER OF - RAT. The insolvent in this case came up for his finaliorder, and was described as a clergyman of White's Chapel, White's row, Spitalfields. lie was supported by Mr. Buchanan, soli citor, and opposed by Mr. Cooke, for several creditors. After an examination of the insolvent, the further hearing was adjourned for a few days, when we shall give a detailed account of the proceedings. (Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.) THE LAMBETIT UNION BREWERY-IN RE - GURNEY. The bankrupt carried on business as a brewer at Lambeth walk, and this day came up to pass his final examination. The debts and liabilities were stated to be about 12,5001., con tracted within a very few years. It appeared from the statement of Mr. Lawrance, who op posed tke application upon the part of Mr. Chapman, that the latter had, upon certain representations made to him, en tered into partnership with the bankrupt, to whom he ad vanced 6,800/., besides a subsequent advance of upwards of 2,000/., in addition to which there were bills outstanding, accepted by Gurney, in the name of the firm, to an extent of which Mr. Chapman was wholly unaware, and the assets were next to nothing. The bankrupt, in examination by Mr. Lawrence, stated to the best of his belief, that the list now handed to him con tained the whole of his debts and liabilities, as well joint as separate. Mr. Banks, the bankrupt's accountant, stated several bills were still outstanding, and which were not contained in the list before the bankrupt. The banker's book alone would show the appropriation of the moneys which he received, and as the accounts had not yet been gone through, he could not explain them. In yearly dealings, to the amount of nearly 30,000/., he could not show what particular amounts were drawn at particular periods, and it was impossible for him to say to what extent the banker's book would show the appropriation of the moneys which were lodged there. He was indebted to Mr. Carruthers 8451. 1 ls. for bills discounted by him, and Mr. Chapman knew it, although the books con tained no entry of it. The sum of 2,681/. 3s. 2d. had been borrowed by him from his father, Mr. J. Gurney, of Farring don. street. Before Mr. Chapman became his partner he (the bankrupt) gave his father the bills which he now held for that amount, and Mr. Chapman knew the occasion why he wanted them. That money was used for the purposes of the brewery, the plant, the casks, the drays, &c. That he would positively swear, although that sum was advanced at least three years before the partnership. His brother, James Gurney, held his acceptance for 1,072/. 38. 11d., for money advanced by him. Mr. Commissioner EvAxs--Will your book show when you received these moneys, and how you appropriated them ? —.lt will not, Sir. By Mr. LAWRANCE-I see you put down a person of the name of Saltmer as a creditor, and also Messrs. Lee, Bons field, and Co. ; and now I wish to ask you, did you ever mention to Mr. Chapman that you had had any dealings with them I—l think I had some conversation with Mr. Chapman about them, and also about Mr. Carruthers. The truth is that I got money wherever I could get it, and it is pcssiOle, at least I apprehend it is possible, that I had some conversation with Mr. Chapman about it. Will you swear you ever mentioned the name of Saltmer to Mr. Chapman ?—Yes, as I think, and I apprehend that he has seen him with me. Saltmer was in the habit of obliging me by obtaining discounts of bills to the amount of some thousands, at the rate of 7 1 / x ,lO, and 12 per cent., and at long dates (a year), at 15 per cent. I will not swear, however, that I ever mentioned to Mr. Chapman that Saltmer was in the habit of discounting bills for me. The goods supplied to the brewery are in the bill-book, but it contains no account of any one of these bills to which my attention has just now been called. Mr. LAWRANCE—I apprehend, your Honour, that under these circumstances, and no balance-sheet having been filed, that this is a clear case for an adjournment sine die, though in some cases (like the present) the justice of the case is not met by such an adjournment. The case was then adjourned sine die. STIERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 4. (Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCMILLL.) CLEMETT V. BRADBEE. The plaintiff in this action is the proprietor of Clemett's Inn, Old Bailey, and the defendant is a fringe manufacturer, in Newgate-street. The claim was for 71. 10s., for one quar ter's rent of a part of a warehouse in the inn yard. The defendant pleaded that be was not indebted. _ _ _ Mr. MANMNG stated the case. The defendant had for some years occupied an upper floor in the warehouse in question, but in Michaelmas last he removed to a lower floor. In January or February following he tendered the key to plaintiff, who refused to accept it, insisting on receiving notice. Defendant, however, left the key with a clerk in the counting-house, and paid the second quarter's rent, but it was clear that the merely leaving the key did not exonerate him from his contract. With respect of the tenancy, it was laid down in "Roscoe on Evidence," that it was sufficient to prove occu pation to render it prima facie evidence that there was a general hiring which entitled the landlord to notice. The present was a case of constructive occupation during the time for.,which the rent was claimed, and it was laid down that if a party might have bad occupation, ancl roluntarily refrained, he was still liable, even though it bill to let the premises was put up, unless the premises are actually let to another tenant, which would be a legal surrender. Witnesses were called, who prayed the actual occupation for four or five months, and the payment of one quarter's rent. Mr. THOMAS submitted that there was no evidence of a general biting. It was true that it had been proved that defendant had occupied the premises for about four months, and it was admitted that he had paid half a year's rent. That this did not prove a general hiring, but the contrary, and that plaintiff inugpe npsuited.-; Mr. MANNING repeated that the geheralldring was implied 13ftliefayment of rent unleis thecontrary was shown. , The ti tt oga-Sitenter-Suppoise a l person went to Brightoal and took a house for three months, is it to be implied that it was a yearly tenancy ? Mr. MANNING —Certainly; mta the'sontrary is shown. s aid that there was no p roo f th a t hiring was - The UNDza-Smattire'—l am notpnspared to say that. Mr.. Thomas nce nsufli in e j l o im s: m py a o ti r: e. a i considered the 'not for a quarter or, baliVe! l ", and applieei for leave.to move the Court above to . enter a non,pyit, supposing the Court The 17xim-SHERIFF replied generalthe - fentlant Would submit tb a verdict now. Mr. - Thomas said that' t h e plaintiff' ottiit to submit to a nonsuit.-, Mr. MANNING refused. ' - - Mr.. THOMAS said his :client Would not consent to a ver dict, but would go to the jury on the merits of the we. Witnesses were then called, who deposed th a t th e p l a i n tiff let the upper floor without the knowledge, of defendant, who complained at the place being let over his bead. They were friendly it that time, and plaintiff said that he hoped de fendant would go down to the floor below; for, if possession was not given to the other party, an action would be brought. Defendant said rather 4 han that should be he would have the under door, pros idi ig the plaintiff also let defendant have a granary, and made certain alterations; that defendant gave up possession, but the granary was not given up, nor the re pairs made • in consequence, great part of the w or k was done by candle light, and a large quantity of material was spoilt, and defendant was in consequence obliged to remove his machinery, and that plaintiff had said several timee that he would not make the repairs, and that they were a set of liars, &c., and the sooner they got out the better; be would rather have the place for a hay-loft than they should remain, and defendont then sent the key. That when plaintiff after wards called for his rent at Lady-day, he merely said he ought to have another quarter's rent ; but defendant said "No; I have given up before the q uarter is due, and y ou have bad two months' occupation." Plaintiff accepted the quarter's rent, and said very well. Mr. MANNING, in reply, questioned the veracity of the wit nesses, and contended that nothing had been shown to prove there had been a general hiring. and if there had not been then no surrender could be made except in writing, that was either by notice or, agreement; that was provided in the " Statute of Frauds." The UNDER-SHERIFF—Or unless the key is accepted. Mr. THOMAS—Or unless they were not in tenantable re pair or saying a person might go as soon as be liked. The UNDER-SHERIFF—If the granary was not delivered up according to agreement, there is an end to the case. Mr. MANNING disputed that there was such an agreement. The UNDER-SHERIFF, in summieg up, said the question was whether the defendant actually had possession according to agreement ; if he had not he would not be liable. The question was whether the agreement bad been carried out; the next question was whether, if there had been such a con tract, the plaintiff had accepted the key. The plaintiff was not bound to send back the key although he refused to ac cept. The statute of frauds might or not affect the case, it depended on the evidence ; the merely saying, " You may go wheii you like" would not be sufficient unless it was fol lowed up by the actual acceptance of the key, but if it was then the surrender was perfect. "Verdict for the plaintiff for 71. 10s. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. Wednesday, George Elliott, a tailor, was indicted for stealing a chest. la shirts, and various other articles, value 71., th e property of John Balls. From the evidence of the prosecutor, who is also a sea man, it appeared that he had placed his trunk, containing the articles in question, together with a hammock, on board an outward bound vessel, but having absented himself, his Bnods were sent ashore, and left at a house kep t by a Mr. rowne. Upon learning that fact, he went to inquire for them, but was told that they had been taken away. He met the prisoner afterwards, and asked him what he had done with his clothes. He told him he had left them at Browne's. The prosecutor ultimately gave him into custody, and, upon searching him at the station-house, one of the:pro secutor's shirts was found upon his back, and another con cealed upon his person. • The jury found him Guilty. Sentence, three motto, with had labour. CLERKENWELL. A person waited on the Magistrate, requesting his advice under these circumstances : It appeared, from his statement, that there is a house in Great James-street, Bedford-row, in which five or six persons live, who are' victimising" all the tradesmen in the neigh bourhood, by acting in unison, and presenting to the tradesmen so many strange faces, they were enabled to obtain goods to six times the amount that a single person could do. When the bill was presented for payment at the house, the tradesman was informed that he had made the bill out in the wrong name. Mr. J. bad not ordered them, it must have been Mr. B. ; when Mr. B. was appealed to it was Mr. C., and so on ; but it ended in the tradesman losing his goods, and time into the bargain. Mr. GREENWOOD said he could do nothing. Applicant asked if the parties could not be indicted for a conspiracy ? Mr. GREENWOOD said he could not yet say what might be the consequence of such conduct, and recommended appli cant to inform the police at the station of the district in which the house in question is situate. The Magistrate was occupied up to six o'clock on the pre vious evening in investigating a case in which Police-ser geant Archer, 8 G, was charged with using defamato ry lan guage towards John Strange, and thereby violating his duty. The case was sent before the Magistrate by the Commissioners of Police. Mr. Duncombe, of Gray's Inn, appeared for the prosecu tion ; and Mr. Wakeling, of St. John's-square, for the defence. The Court was crowded with police, and with the friends of the prosecutor. Mr. Duncombe said this was a very important case, inas much as it would test the stretch of a policeman's authority, and whether or no he was licensed to assail unoffending per sons, however humble their station in life mi g ht be. It was hard enough upon licensed victual l a r s t o be obl iged to open their houses at all times for police in sp ector s; but it was harder still, and what he thought the law urre; could rianc. MARLBORO UGH-STREET. William Edwards, alias Warner, alias Morris, was brought before Mr. Maltby for final examination, harged with baying obtained from Earl Howe, by false pretences, the sum of 1/. . . A few days ago the prisoner left the following petition at his Lordship's residence in South Audley-street : " Parish of Penn, County of Bucks, to wit. " The bearer, Mr. J. W. 'Warner, has carried on the busi ness of a draper and grocer in this parish, where, on the 2d of last month, whilst himself and family were attending Divine service, some evil disposed persons, as yet unknown, feloniously entered his shop and dwelling-house, and there from stole and carried away goods, money, and other valu ables to the amount of 1:301. and upwards. " We, the undersigned, having a knowledge of his mis fortune, do feel justified in recommending his case to the generous public, by whose contributions he may be enabled to resume his former business, and enable him to support his wife and family in his usual respectable industrious avocations. " Given under our hands this 7th November, 1845." This document purported to contain an account of sums subscribed by Lords Grenville, Thomond and 'Orkney, and Boston ; Sir W. Clayton, Sir Gitlin Wilson,l Lady Grenville, Rev. T. Knollys, the Hon. W. Fitzsimons, and others. As soon as the signatures were known to be spurious, the docu ment was forwarded to the Mendicity Society for inves tigation, and precaution was taken to have a police-constable in waiting when the defendant called for an answer. The prisoner called on Tuesday last, and on stating his name to be Warner, a sovereign was handed to him, and he was then given into the custody of police-sergeant Whall. Horsford, from the Mendicity Society's office, proved that the man for some years had been known as a begging-letter writer. The society were in possession of fraudulent peti tions sent to the Earl of Burlington, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, and Colonel Powell. The prisoner had also been in custody before for an offence similar to that now charged against him. Mr. MALTBY said he was quite satisfied from the evidence Ina the prisoner was a person who made it a practice to go -about endeavouring to* obtain mousy by false and-fraudulent pretences; anchherefor&lie should send him for the full term of three months to the House of Cortection. _ _ Joseph Ventine, a native of Wallachia; wag plated at tie bar charged with having conducted himself in 'a dis orderly manner at 'the residence of -the Turkish'Ambassador, Bryanston-square. • It appeared that the prisoner in March last obtained a pass port, and that he yesterday applied. for another,. which was ultimately given to him; he required, assistance in ,money. also, and as the Consul-General thought fit to refuse his, re quest, he becime.very insolent and caused a crowd to assmble round the door; a constable was called, and haWas then given into custody. The prisoner, after being . giveh to understand that 'il must not repeat the annoyance complained of, was dis charged. George Loveland was fully committed for trial on the fol lowing charge : John Williams, shopman to Mr. Thomas Parker, of No. 54, Tottenham Court-road, hatter, stated that, between five and six o'clock on Wednesday, as he was sitting at tea in the par lour behind the shop, the prisoner opened the door from the street, and walking deliberately up to the counter snatched up a new hat, and ran off with it. Witness pursued him, calling " Stop thief;" and, after running a considerable dis tance, the prisoner threw away the hat. He was at length stopped by police-constable No. 94 of the E division. Mr. HARDWICK asked the prisoner if he wished to say any thingin his defence? Prisoner—lt's no use my saying any thing. You would not believe me if I said that I did not steal the hat. Charles Montague, described in the police charge-sheet as residing at No. 4, Euston-square, St. Pancras, a gentleman, was charged with furious driving, being at the time in a state of intoxication. It appeared that about six o'clock on Wednesday evening, the defendant, in a gig drawn by a -very spirited horse, came galloping at a most• furious rate along Oxford-street, urging on the animal by whipping it with much severity. In Regent-street the gig came in contact with an omnibus, and the defendant was pitched out on his head, but fortu nately escaped with but very slight injury. He was then taken into custody by the police. Mr. llARDwici imposed a fine of 40s. on the defendant. The fine was immediately Dail MA RYLEBONE. A young man. named William Henderson, who said he re sided at No. 4, Conduit-street, and that he was in the em ploy of Mr. Page, bookseller, Broadway, Hammersmith, was charged with having uttered a counterfeit half-sovereign. _ _ It appeared from the evidence that on the same afternoon the prisoner went to the Marylebone Literary and Scientific Institution, and asked for a ticket for Mr. Russell's forth coming entertainment, at the same time presenting in pay ment for the same to a youth named Large a piece resembling a half-sovereign. It was taken to the secre tary, in consequence of Large suspecting that it was not genuine; and it turned out that the suspicion en tertained was correct. A constable was called in, and the prisoner, who said he was not aware that he had any bad money in his possession, was then given into custody. He had upon him a memorandum book, a catalogue, and other papers. Mr. RAWLINSON remanded him for the attendance of the Mint solicitor. W OR SHIP-STREET. A middle-aged woman, named Jane Clarke, the keeper of a houseof bad repute, in Gregg's-court, St. Luke's, was placed at the bar, before Mr. Broughton, charged with having been concerned, with two other women, not in custody, in stealing between 401. and 501. in bank notes and gold, from the person of a gentleman named Stephens, residing in City-terrace, City-road. The prosecutor stated, that after dining with some friends in the City on Saturday evening last, he was driven home in a cab, from which he alighted at the corner of the terrace, and was about to pay the driver, when a sovereign dropped out of his hand, and rolled into the kennel. After an un successful search for the coin, in which he was assisted by two women, who came up at the moment, he entered an adjoining public-house, to obtain change for a 51. note, and in doing so unavoidably exposed the contents of his pocket book, consisting of bank-notes to the amount of 60/. which he carefully rq,laced in his breast-pocket, but, after discharging the cabman, he wars followed by the Ahim in, t two women before referred to, who reqneste— treat them for the trouble they h ad had it, eeercula for his money. He consented to do so, him to the house of the prisoner, where he see on,c; wine, gin, stout, and sandwiches, in successsion, all of vtu ... ' were brought in by the prisoner, but he had no sooner c e di taken of a small portion of the spirits than he was at o with a sudden stupor, on recovering from which the wo, after, he found himself still in the company a the p who then led him out of the house, and at the corner o ~.. adjoining street suddenly disappeared. The morael3t,tr., had left him he was accosted by a third woman , w l° o - . duced him to accompany her to some oysterroonts,4l, hif neighbourhood, on entering ithich he discovered telei.'o pocket-book had been transferred to another pocket s " e ' es and they condatolfc that in which he had placed it, and that the clasp 11341 ," t bs partly wrenched off, and besides all the loose cash, tb li " te s, whole of its contents, with the exception of two 101. ne,A which had been fortunately overlooked by the this f' tr,:, been abstracted. He gave immediate information of ; 1 , 1 4 .: robbery to the police, wile succeeded, after considerable au ficulty, in taking the prisoner into custody. . the Yolice-constable Brown stated that on.apprehendng and prbsocer, she denied all knowledge of the robber'', oTer declares that she had remained c onstantly at home ' o lt. since the inpsecutor had visited her house otiSaturdaY A TI U Police-constb:ble G 135, however, proved that he ha",.; e r, engaged with other officers in searching for the i nd who had absented hb.rself immediately after the robber'', only returned home on il.le preceding evening. ledge of the robbery, and prots:. In answer to the charge, the prisoner denied all , 1 hom'e since the night it was perpeu'atcd. sted that she had neVer re' Mr. BROUGUTON said that he contdered the case wes t „,t plete with such strong suspicion agains: the pr i s oner, ~..:A he dad no hesitation in remanding her for ,a week, bat a; no objection to accept substantial bail for htr *P egs° I - herself in 80/., and two sureties iu 40/. each. SOUTHWARK ec tsbir, Richard F/inn and William Bhasstead, two ree„b i er, looking men, were brought before Mr. Cottingha fas rn, ' ll OO wit& having in their posssion, and carrying, two g o - illicit spirits, without a permit. e nli• as ti Mr. William Packstock stated that he is a. the wthot druggist, at Millpond bridge, Bermondsey, and that ' l ief had been continually calling at his house since h, c o pif ceeded to the business, representing that he used no his predecessor with various articles, consisting of r of various descriptions, ointments, and spirits of w ine ' a t be a late:occasion Flinn called on complainant , and said tb 006 bad a quantity of spirits of wine, 5 2 degrees ab Or_Le a sampiz of which he produced, and that if he 'l2 0 purchaser lie would let him have it at the rat e of .1;01 per gallon. Complainant having former l y filled A 51A0 in the Excise, considered it his duty to give inforraa!' w Davis, an officer of that department , having previo nfeneto ranged with Flinn to bring a quantity of spirits of 7 : n ett his house. On the preceding evening the two Pno called at the house of the complainant, bringing Wit,,mej 0 two gallons of spirits of wipe, which was contaw eso bladders. The complainant havius called a policeman' both the prisoners into custody. b d Flinn said that he only went to the cOmp l a inanea- sell some plaisters, and that he knew nothing al° spirits of wine. ' h ot a te The other prisoner said that he knew nothing 5/"" wine. defier The MAGISTRATE fined the prisoners 251., and .111 110 committed them for three months. Thomas Cox was charged with having intern Jane Miles while his former wife was alive. •fielot The first wife only was present, but the certi-, A both marriages were produced ; and the prisoner av:sboi his first wife was a woman of the most profligata,;o o that he had scarcely been married to her six inontr i boo she left him, and went to live with another man, wit" d she had been living until his decease; but upon 1 4ept r ' of the man she immediately claimed support of hira saner), and because lie refused to contribute to hei" - fift nance, she adopted the present proceedings. The es :,il,lPai brother was called, and he admitted that his sister Ina• doned her husband, and went to live with another Ineleall that she told him (the witness) that she was also p ° the deceased. Mr. CorriNGitam said, that although the first w•-_, e d • the profligate habits represented, and that she went Iftobosi under the protection of another man,still that be . ,l* b or was not justified in marrying another woman. iot e i n ever, had an undoubted right to refuse to contribute4(tb. least to her support. Under all these circumstances, a PI: Magistrate) should, instead of sending the cas e for tri""6ol judge the prisoner to enter into his own recognizanc; to appear again on that day week to answer the cli TEO ti'n'e' it P ST AC ANCiI its, &ICJ P lIY CalZ t ' °llol. ,iftetelrf 1111 for runt an eatfl folirt;Y Years wooljn in 0 4 1 , the ttPac 4l itr to the t4i / • - sett 4.i ng to th e re , I have 1 Cur v ii : l B l t Q , NV. ILLL 1, )41 ttb inth "c Ro "EA T a nti th IL ITY) /ate general oo lt Ts 4111: ne 'e with e l Y"e adY on No• 130 CADETS, ty nett e d 14, 11 e: 'WI by t * zit ak d Gen - 4clets t'ok,; ; ?, to m e ' AUK--- to me' °t the phc NittOS 4 61 1114 ta tut} 4 4 : u ra P i t (4. , o htfet t , to il , h au( t4t;„ t n ye, bLtkete s , Lems, - "ocri; vovh _l 4447744 trenu t 111114° 7 4 c ~., _4 l 1 14\ * 1141**11414 4 tro ldsed by a t'VDl Ift 4 t 4 4 to ' T 4 ll o 4ti ti l tool 1 4 , 10 ts 8, 17 . ktl b Y Fity k r :: 4 2 0 kr. Y, 6, hey 1 214,j 11 0rty 4 Ol k hoj i r t Rei f 'quit qtr, 11:41:11i, tA -11 '4 44.t.17ta, CORN AVERAGES. CO GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISIT /1110(01 ar O S For the Wee!: ended Nov. 29,1845, made up from the Re ticso _.,4 Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England A . ~, per Imperial Quarter. P ---- --" 1 0 04 I WHEAT. 1 355 BARLEY. 1255I 255 OATS. I 355 RTE. 141 s RZAr 3 ; O l, PRICE - 585 2d 2d Od 4d DUTY... 14s ed 4s Od 3s ed 7s 6d IS u" DO' ) MARKET NEWS.—(YESTER - uAT IKA.ILILMTS. . CI! j. IP SHITHSTELD.—Meadow Hay, Si lOs to 41 5 3 1, ter ditto, 4/ lOs to 5/ 15 5 ; Straw , 11 10 e to 1/ 14e P'' Supply good, and trade dull. -As 0 08 CuainEuLastn.—Meadow Hay, 3 / 103 to 41 165 I 01 , ITV ditto, 4/ 5s to Si 15s ; Straw, 11 10 s to 1 / 15s per loa d ' ' aito heavy, at the above quotations. WHITEcHAML.—Moadew Hay, Si lOs to 4 / 15e ; C 1 ,3 1 , - t p•s ' 44 4/ lOs to 61; Straw, l/ lOs to 1 / 14 s per load.. A tw l supply, and a dull trade. MEAT DIA/ZHETIES. t stt : SOUTIeALL, DEC. 3.—Although the suppli es of - 4 _ o ,e_ 4 . sale to-day were tolerably good , the general ^op:, on the following terms :-Beef from 2s 8d to 48'x ' ~ 0 r 3s 8d to 5s ; Veal, 4s to 4s 8d; and Pork , 4s to 'J. . Id, 81bs, to sink the offal. . _.. ten/ ROmFORD, DEC. 3.—We had a steady trade ne , :,, go, and prices were generally supported :—Beef from f d 11 ; 4s 4d; Mutton, 3s 6d to ss; Veal , 4 s to 4s 8d i and 11, 4s to 4s 8d per 8 1 bs. Suckling C a l v es, 18s to 305;irb tr old Store Pigs, 16s to 20s; and Milcla Cows, W .„6 small Calf, 161 to 19/ each. A • g lit ? LEwEs, DEc. 2.—Beef, from 3s 10d to 4s fio , ,, 8d 4s to ss; Veal, 4s to 4s 6d; and Pork, 35 f d to '''' 81bs. Supply moderate, and trade firm. 4 0 ?" NENVGATE AND LEADENg ~.j , 4 4 Prime Beef,' Mutton, and Pork sold freely at Li- e t, . 9 1. In other kinds of meat very little was doing 10 0 2s 8d to 3s 8d ; Mutton, Ss 4d to 4s 6d ; Veal, 3 1 4s 10d; and Perk, 3s 10d to 5s 4d per Sibs. VP GENERAL THEATRICAL FUND —Tile mo n th • s or ing of the Directors of this Association was held et 4 6 1 Jish Opera-house on Tuesday last; J. B. Bucketi, Si chairman and treasurer. Mr. Cullenford, the E e 0. 724 the financial report, from which it appeared that t; o ps o property of the association amounted to 2,9 53 „,r,010 which, with 211 . 13s. 3d. in the hands of the tressn - tarbo a total of 2,9751. 4s. 6d. This association was form the wants of the great body of the theatrical prof'folOil are totally debarred from the benefits of the we alth,' ( pito Drury-lane and Covent-garden Theatres •, as, by „.t. b . 0 0070 those institutions. none but those who have betapeed number of consecutive years in these respective tore pi eligible to become subscribers. It has already en_ 00 members,and is steadily increasing, as its utility's or ss3l, more generally known. Among its donors are his 0,0 Duke of Northumberland, 501.; Charles Kean, Es c kv 111$ C. Macready, Esq., 301.: J. Bryne, Esq., 3 0 "vt_ bil Esq., 20/ ;B. Webster, Esq., 201.; the late G'• „,' - r. 0., Esq., 20/. ; Miss Helen Faucit, 51., annually; k '' pri'd Esq., .51.; J. Wilkinson, Esq., 51..; A, Arcededlioat Koic annually. And we feel convinced that this e i .„ t he P s s l/ 1 . tution. needs only to be more generally known ;ts Is° Out to meet with increased support in carrying 0 t ittl , 6 0 0 ' intention of•securing its members from priratiotleor oil when they are unable to continue their profeesinr e aSi„.o o RISE IN THE PRICE OF BREAD..—W eu _A ri 0 0 ,p 4 . , bakers of the east end of the metropolis increase", oer,,si of their best bread from 8/cl. to 91d. per 10 1 4 re , ditto, 7d. to Bd. On the Surrey side of the river: t p (or ' the - best-is' froth -9d: to -1(kl. ; seconds,-VVIO-'3 00 41b. loaf. ; O O4 [ADVERTISEMENT.] —The Atrilpilatollt :0100,1 Hair Dye, the only dye that really answers for all !it .„ le dpes not require re-doing, but as the hair grows,Aloooo;ose fadei or acquires , that unnatural red or purple dot • oil all other dies. cßoss'and Sons can, with the greete d , she f" recommend the above dye as infallible, if dose Vs , blistirnent ; 'and ladies and gentlemen . recptiri l n 3 .,.. OA ° ,' quested to bring a friend or servant with them to '''.atb o " - 01' used, "which will enable them to do it afterwatdl.4l:oo/ chance of failure. - Several private apartments ' a lio,' fed tirely to the - above purpose, and soma of 'their 4 : 0 0., ile having, used it, she e ff ect produced can be at once ' to irolf ° think it necessary to add, that by attending strict structions given with each bottle of dye,numer oll3 ?- succeeded equally well without coming to thr;01 01 4 Ross and Sons, 119 and 120, Bishopsgate-street, W ei , 'O O Perruquiers, Perfumers, Hair-cutters, and Hair•tasee V Parties attended at their own residencies, le 0 0 0 iiistikneo. v 110 1/ ' [ADVERTISEMENT.] —CURES OF FEMIT-Dn0,..011 SORES IN MALTA, BY HOLLOWAY'S PILLS Arm - !Orel —Mrs. Duncan. whose husband is employed io be' or , #9 Dockyard at Malta, suffered for more than to 1 0:5 4 11 :, ulcerous sores in her feet ; she formerly resided O h o, ;01 was treated by the best practitioners there, from O b oe , 0 0 3 ever, she derived no benefit whatever, when, 0 01 1, n i e te 3 .o 0 five or six boxes and pots of Holloway's pills an u te ase e ,„e' 01, perfect cure was effected. The truth of this eta t o notorious in Malta, that the editor of the .11Rd ia e ste i ll paper was induced to insert the particulars of tbe o ast paper of October 31, 1845. Sold by all ciruggi fessor Holloway's establishment, 244, Strand, Le ° c °O bi° IRTHS I3O O , On the 27th ult., at the B Vicarage. o f Swaton, L in• the lady of the Rev. H. Knapp, of a son. 100 4 On the 29th ult., Mrs. James Dale, of Morrill ) 4 6 017 street, Southwark, of a daughter. 4 of '' h v/P e _ ha s' On the 30th ult., at Chislehurst, Kent, th e &Tr Alt Aylward, Esq., surgeon, of a daughter. Wo- te r. J - On the 30th ult., at Knickerbocker Cottage, do sb,, v' road, Regent's-park, Mrs. George Putnam , of I _,..jd,.r ' f, On the 30th ult., the lady of G. W. FitzG' . d Lawrence-Pountney-hill, of a daughter. S . t t he e' On the 30th ult:, at Sholden Lodge, Ken , so b Banks, Esq., of a son. di of On the Ist inst., on Sydenham-hill , the la SO Price, Esq., of a son. Ah rtiP lleCiii On the Ist inst., at South-bridge-wharf, --elf° F. F. Austin, of a daughter. . 0 3fA.RRIED. CP'"O O usr e ' of On the 2d inst., at St. George's, Hanover-I,llooer Y S. Whitmore, Esq., to Elizabeth Katharine, a''' late Lieutenant-Colonel Brownrigg. wig On the 29th ult., at St. Sepulchre's au tell 'd 011 Salmon, Esq., surgeon, to Harriett, daughter - Fennell, Esq., late of Limerick. t ti e l. 10 DIED. chola% e l I, On the 25th ult., at Thetford , Norfolk, , , o pf of Frederic Walker, Esq., of Lewisha m, Ken t- ~, AP' ~. On the 28th ult., at the Bell, Scarborouge bog ty , Sparrow, of Ripon. Sern ergaie toh li On the 28th ult., at Stoke SL Greg or Y , ._„.je Rev. W. Halfhead, aged 45. bie r of I to o'" oA On the 29th ult., Marianne, fifth daug Thompson, Esq., of Kirby Hall, Yorkshire. e ,_,.. gr.- ~, On the 30th ult., Elizabeth, relict of th " i " . f O e°fb l l Siff ken, of West-street, Hackney. a . us istet ° p On the 30th ult., Anna Deborah, third lee . i f° Stacy, of Tottenham. • A litis e.. On the 30th ult., at Bruce-grove , TOttellbo n f• y- John Hodgkin. urd' the On the 30th ult., at New CC/liege, Olf S 8 ef Price, hf.A., - aged 39. Ag nes , ref o( On the ist inst., at Fareham, Hants, AlV 6 ' t' 99' -tc taro R. H. B E Barclay, R.N. g. Dim- 11% On the Ist inst., at Uckfield, Sussex, . of }le - „,- ,0 voir$,„'01 0 •0 01 London : Printed anu Published by MU'. 12 , Sir Strand, Printer, at The Sun omee,ffo. ii , • , __ view. of the &My, in the County of Ditudiov., 5. 1848. ' 1