The Sun. — London, England, 1850-03-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, March 26. (Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLXNQUIR.) IN RE CIIARLES JOSEPH CARTTAR. 30,141 12 Cremorne Gardens Adelaide Gallery ... .. Hanover-square Rooms .. Ball, Princess's Theatre Capital on 15th November, 1845 The bankrupt was a potato salesman in Broad court, Bow-street. Mr. Dawson supported, Mr. 'Bagley opposed the granting of his certificate. The chief ground of opposition sustained against the bankrnpt wa•, that he had been in partnership 'with a Mr. Cufilin, and that he had during that time drawn largely from the assets of the firm. After Mr: Cufflin had taken upon himself the payment of the . 11.1 its of. the firm, the bankrupt had violated the terms of an agreement, and commenced business in ' direct opposition to his late partner. The bankrupt's 'debts were upwards of 5001, his assets 2/. 15s. The COMMIS6IONER suspended the certificate two years ; protection not to be granted unless the bank rupt shall hive been in prison six months. IN RE R. RAWLINS. The bankrupt was a linendraper, in Queen's-row, Pimlico. Mr. Parker opposed ; Mr. Lawrance sup ported his application for a certificate. The bank rupt's debts were about 1,1001., his assets nominal. The COMMISSIONER suspended the certificate six months, on the ground of reckless trading; when issued, to be of the second class. Protection was .granted. IN RE J. PYM. The bankrupt was a merchant in Broad•street. His case has been alreany frequently noticed. He this day passed his last examination, and obtained an order for his discharge from prison. Mr. Lawrance appeared for the creditors ; Mr. Hawkins for the bankrupt. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. -. HOME CIRCUIT, Maidstone, Alarcli 25. CROWN SIDE.---(Before Mr. Justice MA I:LE.) George Kipps, a man apparently more than fifty years - of age, surrendered to answer an indictment for Misdemeanour, in having unlawfully taken a girl named Charlotte Jeffrey, under 16 years of age, away from her parents without their consent. Mr. Deedes prosecuted, and Mr. Campbell appeared for the defendant. 'Charlotte Jeffrey, a good-looking young girl, de posed that her father kept the Bell public-hous e at Yemsing, and she was living there at the time this occurrence happened. She knew the defendant, who was a married man and had several children, and he resided near her father's house. On the 28th of May she went to his house on a visit, and the defendant's wife asked her to remain and take care of a child while she went out on an errand, and she and the de fendant were left together, and upon this occasion he . took some indecent liberties with her, and he at the sam e time told her not to tell his wife. After this tim e he repeated his indecent conduct upon several occasions, and he repeatedly told her that he wished he was not married and he would take her away with him, and he several times asked her to leave her father and mother and go away with him. During this period he sent her several letters, which he told her to burn; and also a lock of his hair, and she gave him one of hers. She also wrote several letters to. him. On the 18th of Novemb9r she met the prisoner by appointment at the church gate, and • !they went away together to 0- Cobham, where they slept, and the next day , •ey went on to Sheerness, and afterwards to King's Ferry, where her father and ;, mother, accompanied by a constable, overtu)k them, , and she returned home with there. When she left her father's house she took away a bundle containing her cliYehes, and also 14;., and this money she gave to the 'defendant. oA=eainined—The defendant gave her a poetry book befoie Fe wrote any love letters to her. She 'burned his letters as he had requested. Her mother, .upon one occasion, had beaten her on account of her suspecting that she was too intimate with the defen dant. She did not believe that the reason her mother beat her was because she " looked wicked" at the men, but she would not swear that this was not the reason. She never before wrote letters to either young men or old men. She knew very well when this ,': The bankrupt was a solicitor and newspaper pro prietor, of Greenwich. He was also coroner for that division of Kent. He now passed his last examination without oppo-. sition or remark. The balance sheet has the following items :—The unsecured debts are 4,152/. ; there are also 3 390/...0n account of a deed of assignment. The assets are — good debts, 374/. ; propPrty, 161. The losses include a sum of 2,1941. by the West Rent Guardian, of which the bankrupt was the proprietor. (Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.) IN RE JAMES ELLIS. The bankrupt was the proprietor of the Cremorne Gardens and the Adelaide Gallery. He now came up on a balance-sheet, prepared by Mr. Hutton, to pass his last examination. Subjoined is an abstract of the accounts from November 15, 1845, to October 13, 1849 : Dr. To creditors £12,343 10 3 Sundry mortgages on property at Cre morne Gardens, held by Mr. Simpson and Mr. Jacquet, and relinquished by them, less as per arrangement with the assignees, of 11,3771. 4s. 11d.; 11,2811. 4s. 11d. ... ... ... Liabilities as per contra ... Profit on sundry refreshments furnished at Cremorne Gardens, Adelaide Gal lery, Italian Opera, and Lyceum Sa loons; balls at Hanover-square and Princess's Rooms, and Baker-street Cattle-show SUNDRY ADMISSIONS AS UNDER:- 96 0 0 4,310 0 0 20,005 8 11 21,396 16 7 103 2 0 154 14 6 750 0 0 £89,300 4 4 Cr. Bydebtors ..• ... ... ... 29 12 6 Property 19,674 14 7 Total amount of debts agreed to be re linquished and settled by Mr. T. B. Simpson, 15,1191. 2s. 4d., and for which Mr. Simpson agrees to pay ... 2,086 7 3 Property held by creditors ... 81 0 0 Liabilities as per contra ... 4,310 0 0 Tolls payable to Mr. T. B. Simpson— Cremorne Gardens ... Adelaide Gallery Royalty of. Cremorne Gardens, payable to Renton Nichol-on Sundry expenses— Cremorne Gardens ... Adelaide Gallery ... ~, Italian Opera Saloon ... Lyceum Theatre „ ~, Ball, Hanover-square Rooms Bal Masque . , Covent garden Ball, Princess's Concert-rooms ... Crockford Rooms ~, .. General trade expenses Interest and discount ... Law expenses Rouse and personal expensts Losses— , Adelaide Picture Gallery Sale of property under fiat 'debts .. Balance at bankers Deficiency 3,710 2 9 1,401 1 11 ... 7,354 9 3 ... 39,225 18 0 ... 17.046 3 0 ... 792 11 6 ... 155 12 11 ... 91 8 4 ... 120 17 2 ... 108 18 6 ... 44 5 0 ... 986 15 11 ... 5,025 8 4 ... 2,987 17 3 ... 925 10 11 877 13 5 2,405 12 3 20 15 6 2 15 1 9 7 7 £89,300 4 4 Among the creditors are :—Bass and Co., City .road, 211/. ; Blumenthal and Co., Crutched-friars, 5471.; Donaldson and Dixon, Mark-lane, 134/. ; Darby, Lambeth, 109/ ; Foulkes, Stockwell, 1,3801.; Grirnble and Co., 7991.; Imperial Gas Company, 523/. ; Last, Joseph, West-street, Smithfield, 2451.; Miller and Reilley, 1051.; Pook, John, Golden square, 300/. ; Reid and Co., Liquorpond-street, 642/. ; Simpson, T. 8., Great Russell-street, 3,9591.; Tasker, J., Idol-lane, 635/. The item of property, 19,674/. 1 . 45. 7d. includes the lease and good-will of Cremorne gardens, 2,285/. ; building improvements, 6,437/. ; M'i'xtures and fittings of Cretnorne-gardens, 405/. The . sum of 19,074/. is said to be the total cost of Cre .morne-gardens. The expenses of the gardens are thus made up Fire insurance, 74/. ; printing, 2,959/. ; gas, 1,7521. ;' rent, 1,948/. ; rates and taxes, 658/. 1 - balloon expenses, 2,515/. ; theatrical expenses, 735/. ; fireworks, 1,186/. ; wage, 8,693/. ; advertising, .2,737/.-; band expenses, 4,800/.; theatrical salaries, 4,605/.; sundry trade expenses, 5,8051.; expenses of tournament, 512/. ; cost of licence, ' 241/. ; total, '39,925/. The total expenses of the Adelaide 'Gallery are 56,272/. ls., and include rent 2,800/., band and expenses 7,5671., salaries 1,012/., wages 2,394/. The rent of the Italian Opera Saloon i 3 entered at 760/. The receipts for admission into Cremorne-gardens were—in 1846, 3,181/. ; in 1847, 4,9441.; in 1848, 4,556/. ; in 1849, 5,094?. The receipts at Batty's tournament were 865/. ; for seats • in balloons, 149/. ; at , the esplanade bridge, 2361. ; at the maze, 1551.; at Burns' cottage, 231.; of the pano rama of Mexico, 211/. ; of the bowling alley, 143/. The receipts for admissions to the Adelaide Gallery were—in 1846, 2;441/. ; in 1847, 5,619/. ; in 1848, 4,4594; in 1849, 5,515/.; total, 18,326/. The amount paid for refreshments from 15th November, 1845, to ' /3th October, 1849, was 23,323/. 2. 9J. The total , receipts fur the same were 53,464/. 14s. 10d., and in clude the followine• items :—Cremorne-gardens, 1846, 8,626/.; 1847, 10,977/ ; 1848, 9,719/. ; 1849, 1,791/. .Actelaide Gallery,.lB46, 1,546/. ; 1847, 2,833/. ; 1848 'add` 1 1 849, 3,783/. Italian Op,ra Saloon, 2,2081. Ly• eetim Theatre Saloon, 168/. Bal. Matque at C ,vunt : gaiden Theatre, 203/. Crockford's Rooms, 260/. TAYLOR, for the assignees, did not think that -better accounts could be furnished. Mr. LAWRANCE applied for an allowance, on ac .count of the voluminous character of the accounts. His Hnstoun, ordered an allowance of 251 to be made f.,r this purpose, and passed the bankrupt's ex amination. (Before Mr. Commissioner GouLnuast.) IN RE T. W. BOULTON. THE SUN, L occurred that the defendant was a married man and that he had eight children. She made no complaint to the defendant's wife of his having acted indecently towards her. Sarah Jeffery, mother of the last witness, deposed that her daughter was not Set sixteen years old. She remembered the day that she went away, and imme diatoly suspected that she was gone with the de rehdant. Having procured the assistance of a con itable;'• she , and her husband started in pursuit, but didbnnt come up with them until the Tuesday follow ing, when she found her daughter and defendant together at King's Ferry. She had suspected that there was too great an intimacy between the de fendant and her daughter for some time before she went away. William Jeffery, the father of the girl, proved that she went away without his consent. James Upton deposed that after the prisoner had been taken into custody he told him that he took the girl away on purpose to destroy the peace of mind of her mother. Mr. CAMPBELL then addressed the jury for the de fendant, and he read portions of some of the letters written by the girl to show that she had gone away of her own accord. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said, that the conduct of the defendant had been most atrocious. He was a man advanced in life and married, and had a large family ; but still it was evident he had laid a deliberate plan to seduce and ruin this poor young girl, and he had then unblushingly admitted that his intention was to destroy the peace of mind of her mother. If he had the power to order the defendant to be hanged for what he had done, he did not think any one would consider the sentence too severe, and he felt himself called upon to pass upon him the full sentence prescribed by the statute for the offence of which he had been convicted. The defendant was then ordered to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years, to pay a fine of 501. to the Queen, and to be further imprisoned until such fine should be paid. James Toffs, 49, indicted for embezzling 701., the moneys of James Dean, Thomas Edward Frater, and others. Mr. Knapp and Mr. F. Smith prosecuted, and Mr. Parnell defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prosecutors were members of a benefit society at Chatham, which was not enrolled, and the prisoner, who was a member of the society, acted as secretary and kept the accounts, and by means of false entries it was alleged that he had de frauded the society to a very considerable amount. The Learned Judge, upon the opening statement of the counsel for the prosecution, expressed an opinion that the prisoner did not stand in the position of a servant so as to fulfil the requirements of the statute in a case of embezzlement. He was a member of the society which was alleged to have been defrauded, and it could not be said that he was a servant to himself. Mr. KNAPP said that this difficulty had suggested itself to him upon perusing the depositions, but he felt it to be his duty to lay the circumstances of the case before the Court. Mr. Justice MAULS, addressing the jury, remarked chat it was a great pity that these societies did not get themselves enrolled, because then trustees were generally appointed ; and had that been the case in the present instance, the prisoner might have been indicted as their servant. It was not fur him to give advice, but it was clear from the prevalence of of fences of this description that something should be done to protect societies like this, as under the pre sent system a cunning fellow was enabled to rob them almost with impunity. As he was perfectly satisfied the prisoner did not come within the definition of a servant, as required by the Act, it would be useless to occupy their time by hearing the evidence, and they would therefore at once acquit him. The jury accordingly, under his Lordship's direc tions, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was then charged upon another in dictment with forging a receipt for 401. 133., with intent to defraud the same society. Mr. KNAPP said he was very sorry for the sake of the public and of the poor persons who had been de frauded, that for the reasons stated by his Lordship he was compelled to abandon this case also. The jury therefore returned a verdict of Not Guilty. William Wiriams, alias George Ammoner, 45, a very respectable-looking seafaring man, who wore the Acre medal, and also a decoration of the kingdom of Spain, was indicted for forging a letter of attorney, with intent to defraud John Oliver. Mr. F. Smith prosecuted ; Mr. Parnell was for the prisoner. It appeared that in July last the prisoner went to a Mr. Solomon, a navy agent, at Chatham, and asked for an advance of money, representing that his name was John Oliver, and that he was a third-class gunner on board her Majesty's ship Dolphin, stationed on the coast of Africa, and that he had a considerable amount of prize -money due to him for the capture of slavers and for wages; and upon his producing a forged cer tificate of the captain of the Dolphin to that effect, a letter of attorney was drawn up, which the prisoner signed, and Mr. Solomon then advanced him 50/. It turned out that the prisoner's story was entirely false, and upon the arrival of the real John Oliver in England, in November last, the fraud was discovered, and the prisoner was sought after and apprehended at Plymouth. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. Another indictment of a similar character against the prisoner was then brought forward, but to this he pleaded "guilty." lie at the same time implored the merciful consideration of the Court upon the grounds that he had been twenty-five years in her Majesty's service, and that he had lost a pension of 301. a year through this transaction. He was sentenced to be transported for seven years March 26. (Before Mr. Justice Mama and a Common Jury.) BRYANT V. LEIGH. This was an action for seduction. Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Simmons were for the plaintiff ; Sergeant Shee and Mr. Creasy for the de fondant. Mr. CHAMBERS said that the plaintiff in this action was Ambrose Bryant, an innkeeper at Edenbridge, in this county, and the defendant was Henry Leigh, who carried on the businesses of farmer, surveyor, and land agent, in the same neighbourhood; and the action was brought to recover damages from the de fendant for having seduced Mary Anne Bryant, the daughter of the plaintiff. It would appear that there had been no intimacy between the parties until the month of August, 1847 ; and at this time the plain tiff's daughter was about twenty-four years old, and the defendant nearly fifty. In that month the young woman had gone on a visit to a relation, and upon her return by the train the defendant got into the same carriage, and he entered into conversation with her, and asked permission to accompany her home, and expressed his intention to visit her on the follow ing day. He did so, and from this time an intimacy sprung up between them, and the defendant was a constant visitor at the house of the plaintiff, and he repeatedly promised to marry the daughter. In the month of January, 1848, the plaintiff was unfortu nately from home upon business, and the defendant took advantage of the opportunity afforded by his absence to orercome the scruples of his daughter, and succeeded in accomplishing her ruin, and the result was that she became in the family way. The defen dant continued to profess honourable intentions, and upon one occasion he fixed the period for the marriage, but postponed it upon some excuse of business, and he went so far as to give the young woman money to purchase a wedding ring. At length she entertained a suspicion that he was upon intimate terms with a widow lady named Stevens, residing in the same neighbourhood ; but upon her taxing him with it, he indignantly denied it, and asserted that he would never marry any other woman than herself. The suspicion, however, turned out to be well founded. Shortly afterwards the defendant married this lady, and upon an application being made to him to make some repa ration for the injury he had inflicted upon the plain tiff and his daughter, he very coolly remarked that she ought to affiliate the child, and he afterwards said that he had consulted his lawyer, and he would rather spend 2001. than settle the matter, or make any com pensation. The Learned Counsel then stated that the young woman was d e li vere d o f a child, which was s till alive, in the month of October, 1848 ; and he said that owing to the conduct of the defendant towards ' the young woman shortly before, and which would be detailed to them in evidence, her delivery was of the most painful description, and for six months after wards she suffered most severely from illness, and under these circumstances the plaintiff came before a jury to obtain compensation in damages from the de. fendant for the very serious injury he had received at his hands. Mary Ann Bryant deposed t hat daughter of the plaintiff. He kept the she Wh w e a a s tsh t e h a e f Inn, Edenbridge. There were four other children at present living at home. Witness was twenty-six years of age last December. Her mother died eight years ago, and since her death witness had managed the domestic business of the house, and she was to be paid 141. a-year wages. Knew the defendant, who is a farmer, builder, and surveyor of timber. He occupies five farms. The defendant told her that he was upwards of fifty years of age. This was be;bre her misiortune. In August, 1847, witness went with a young woman to visit a relative at Brenchley, and on her return she saw the defendant in the rail way carriage. She knew him by sight, but had never spoken to him before. Witness had a bunch of hops in her hand, and the defendant began to con verse with her about them, and when they got out the defendant proposed to accompany them home, and he went, part of the way, and when they parted he promised to visit her the' following day and bring a bunch of LONDON, hops to show her, He accordingly came and re mained there until ten o'clock at night, and the de fendant paid her a good deal of attention, and when he went away he said he should come again very shortly after. He visited her agar in .a few days, and continued frequently to come to,see her from this period, and he generally spent his Sundays with her, and appeared to lead `here td believe that he intended to make her his wife. On the 18th of January, 1848, her father was away from home on business, and she and three brothers were left in charge of the house. The de fendant came in about seven o'clock, and remained until two the next morning, and in the course of that evening he told her that he fully intended to make her his wife, and there was no one else be could be happy with, and she unfortunately yielded to his solicita tions. The family were all gone to bed, and the affair took place in a little back parlour. The de fendant after this appeared more attentive than before and visited her more frequently, and she believed more than ever that he intended to make her his wife. Upon one occasion he sent a sovereign to pay for a beer scare, and as there was nine and sixpence change, he told her to buy a ring with it. She re plied it would not buy a good one, and told him to buy one himself, but he replied that it would not look well for an old man to buy a wedding-ring. She bought a wedding-ring afterwards, and the de fendant put it on her finger, and told her to wear it as a token of his love. She had worn that ring ever since, and the defendant took away a ring which she had been in the habit of wearing, and said he should keep it, as it was an emblem of his love, to which, like the ring, there was no end. Wit ness did not mention the matter to her father, because he had no wife, or any other daughter but herself. The defendant afterwards asked her to go to London to get married, and she consented to do so as soon as she could prepare her dress. The defendant said her clothes would do, and she then told him to appoint his own time and she would be ready, and he said the marriage should take place at the end of a fortnight, but when the time arrived he made an excuse for not going, as he had business with a gentle man named Streetfield, to whom he was agent. After this he continued his visits, but kept postponing the day for the marriage. In August she was far ad vanced in the family way, and one day she saw the defendant driving by in his cart with a widow lady named Stevens, and she reproached him for doing so. He told her not to fret, and said he could not bear to see her weep. Witness said she could not help it, as he was deceiving her, and she had heard he was going to be married to Mrs. Stevens. The defendant re plied, " No, my dear, it is not likely I shall leave my babe and you." Witness continued crying, and said if her father came to know it he would banish her for ever, and she had no mother to take her part. The defendant, upon this occasion, told her that he had 2,0001 . besides his farming business, and he cried, and said he would never marry any one else. Shortly after this conversation the defendant called her attention to the report of a trial for seduction, " Brown e. - Yardley," and asked her what she thought of it, and she replied that she thought it was very cruel, and the defendant said he should be ashamed to treat any young woman so. On the sth October the defendant was at her father's house, and he wanted to kiss her, but she told him she would not permit him to do so while he carried that widow woman about in the manner he did. The defendant said he should never think of having Mrs. Stevens, while she lived. At this time she was far advanced in pregnancy, and the defendant said if it was a boy it should have his name, and if it was a girl it should be christened Martha, which was his tnother's name. She told him she should never live to see it, and the defendant became angry, and shook and squeezed her violently. In consequence of this violence -she was taken very ill, and was obliged to go to her bed, and on the 20th October she was confined of a male child. She continued ill for upwards of six months, and was unable to do any work ; and during this period she had a nurse and medical attendance, and was supported by her father. Cross- exarnined —Her father formerly kept a beer shop only, and the defendant signed a certificate of his good character in order to enable him to obtain a spirit licence. Witness was the only person who waited upon the customers, but there was a girl kept to do the household work. They had a very good run of business at the beer-shop. Her grandfather previously kept Marsh-green Ferns, which was now occupied by the defendant, who obtained possession of it by giving 201. a year more rent than her grand father. Her father, of course, was not very well pleased at the conduct of the defendant. She was aware of this unpleasant feeling when she first became acquainted with the defendant. Two of the farms occupied by the defendant were the property of the lady whom he has married. She had no curiosity to ascertain what the defendant's property consisted of. It was not customary for ladies to ascertain what amount of acreage their intended husbands were pos sessed of.---(A laugh.) She believed the Marsh green Farm was about a hundred acres. She did not sit and drink with the defendant. Her father knew they were together, but he might have sup. posed that she was waiting for orders. In 1844 she stayed for eight months at a public-house at Bletch ingly, kept by a person named Sheerman. Remem bered a gentleman named Littlewood staying at this house. He was driven away from a public-house in the same neighbourhood for bring found in bed with the landlord's daughter. He left his horse and chaise behind.—(A laugh.) Did not make acquaint ance with this gentleman. Was never in his bed room while he was there. No such charge was ever made against her. Knew a young man named Lashman. He used to frequent the house at Bletch ingly. She had never been found fault with about him. Defendant did not say how much he was over fifty years of age. She never told her father that she was in the family way, but her grandmother found it out, and told her father, and it made him very ill, and he took to his bed. The immorality with the defendant occurred between ten and eleven o clock, and he stayed until two the next morning. Could not say when it happened again. She did not keep any account of it. Could not answer the ques tion whether the intercourse always took place in the same back parlour, but it was repeated on a number of occasions. Mary Jenner proved that she nursed the daughter of plaintiff during her confinement, and that she was in attendance upon her from October, 1848, to the succeeding January, and during that period she said she was unable to do anything for herself, or to assist in any way in the household affairs. Samuel Munday, a schoolmaster at E ienbridge, deposed that in October, 1849, he went to serve a writ of summons upon the defendant, and he asked him not to do so at that time, as his wife was by, and also to try and hush up the matter, and he said he thought the plaintiff's (laughter ought to have affi liated the child, and not to hare brought an action. The defendant made au appointment to meet him the same evening, but he did not keep it, and he could not serve the writ upon him for several days, and when he did so the defendant said he had consulted his lawyer, and his money was all tied up, and he would spend 2001. rather than settle the matter. The widow Stevens, who at this time was married to the defend ant, was present at the time, and she said that she had given orders to the workmen on the farm not to go to the plaintiff's public-house on pain of dis missal, and she added that the action should not do him any good. This was the plaintiff's case. Sergeant SUER then addressed the jury for the de fendant, and said that the defence he was instructed to offer, and according to those instructions, which he was bound to lay before them,was, that the statement of the plaintiff's daughter with regard to the conduct of the defendant was not true, and that in point of fact no such intimacy or connexion as that which had been spoken to by her had ever taken place between them. The jury would see that it was utterly im possible for him to produce any evidence to show this was the case ; and all he could do was to call their attention to the circumstances as they appeared by the evidence, and to ask the jury whether the reasonable inference to be drawn from those facts was not the one he had suggested, namely, that the young woman was not speaking the truth when she asserted that the daendant was the father of her child under the cir- cumstances narrated by her. The case rested entirely upon the evidence of the young woman herself; there was not the slightest attempt at corroboration ; and he urged upon the jury that if it was true that the defendant had been so constantly at the house, as was stated, nothing could have been easier, at all events, than to have proved that fact by otker testi.. mony. If, however, the jury should think that they could place reliance upon the evidence of the daughter of the plaintiff, it appeared to him that they must be of opinion, at the same time, that this was not a case of deliberate seduction, but that the de fendant, by going to the house of the plaintiff to take refrebhment, had fallen into company with this young woman, and that she had li s t ene d t o hi s i mproper proposals, and was as much to blame as he was ; and that in such a case a very small amount of damages would cover the injury that had been sustained by the plaintiff in the present action. Mr. Justice MAULS having summed up, the jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages, 2001. (Before Chief Justice WILDE and a Special Jury.) THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION or RoCoasTER r. LSE. Thi• cause, which has been going on for five days, was late to-lay brought to a conclusion. The object of the action was to establish the right ()fti broughtle c withinpor at itohne their r o levy certain t o ll s u p on coa l s jurisdiction. The case fs,r the defendant closed on Monday night, and this morning the Attorney - General made a most powerful and convincing reply on behalf of the cor poration upon the whole case. The Learned CHIEF. JCSTICA summed up most elaborately, and the jury having retired, after an ab- WEDNESDAY EVENING, Bence of not more than five minutes, returned into court, and gave a verdict for the plaintiffs upoa all the issues. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Hereford, March 25. The business began to-lay at nine o'clock in both courts. When last Mr. Baron Platt came the cir cuit he found that though the petty jury were obliged to attend here at nine, the grand jury were not sum moned till eleven. Tnis arrangement did not meet with his Lordship's approbation, and he accordingly this time ordered that both should be summoned at the same hour. We mention this circumstance, as it may be a precedent to other judges for giving some check to that marked tendency in sheriffs to consult the convenience of grand jurors and special jurors, and of common jurors to the least possible extent. There were four causes entered for trial, of which two were for special and two for common juries. One of the latter was an undefended action of ejectment by a mortgagee against a mortgagor. The second was (Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.) JONES V. TREND. This was an action for breach of promise of mar riage, to which the only plea on the record was that the defendant did not promise. Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Skinner for the defendant. Mr. Sergeant Aszare, in stating the case for the plaintiff, said she was the daughter of a reverend gentleman, who had been for thirty-six years curate of the parish of Much Cowarne, in this county, and who had eight other children, all of whom were placed respectably in life. The defendant was a farmer, living on a farm of his own of about 100 acres, near Overbury, in Worcestershire. Both parties were of suitable ages, the plaintiff being about 30 and the defendant 36. A brother of the plaintiff's went to reside in Fakenham, in Worcestershire, in 1847, and the plaintiff went to keep house for him, and she soon afterwards became acquainted with the defendant, who asked leave of her brother to become her suitor. After that his visits became frequent, and in June, 1848, he went on a visit to her father's house to ask the consent of the family to the mar riage. This was given, and it was arranged that the wedding should take place in the course of a few months. In September be went again on a visit, and then it was agreed that the wedding should take place in st . month. Soon after that the plaintiff went to re side at another brother's, and from that day to this the defendant never answered any letter written by the plaintiff or her father. In short, from that time the case was wrapped in entire mystery, and the defendant had not by his pleading suggested any rea son for excusing or justifying his sudden and heart less violation of his solemn promise. All that he had pleaded was that he had never promised to marry the plaintiff. If be, after gratifying his vanity by en gaging her affections, thought proper to cast her off— a slighted thing, injured in reputation, health, and spirits, and reduced to a state from which she would probably never recover—the jury, he trusted, would give the amplest compensation which money could supply for the injury thus coldly, cruelly, aad heart lessly inflicted on her health, hopes, and prospects. Thomas Edward Jones, examined by Mr. GRAY— lam an excise officer, living at Droitwich. My father is Daniel Jones, curate for thirty-six years of the parish of Much Cowarne, in this county. Plaintiff is my sister, and is thirty years old. I have four brothers living and three sisters. in 1847 I went to live at the village of Overbury, in Worcestershire. I there became acquainted with the defendant, who is a farmer, and fermi his own estate. lam not positive as to the number of acres on it—from 80 to 100, I believe. In April, 1847, I took a house in Overbury, and began houn kteping, and my sister came to me in May. In April, 1849, I removed to Fakenham, twenty-two miles from Overbury. When I was at Overbury I introduced defendant to my sister. He used afterwards to visit me occasionally. In January, 1348, his visits became more frequent, and almost daily. In that month he spoke to me about my sis ter, and said be wished to become a suitor to her, and asked my consent, which I told him I could not give without some consideration. lie repeated the request three evenings following. The last evening I consented. He told me he had spoken to the plaintiff, and that she had consented provided that it met with my approbation. He continued to visit the plaintiff very regularly for some time after wards. In April, 1848, on the Saturday preceding Midlent Sunday, he wished me to accompany himself and my sister to my father's residence, for the purpose of asking the consent of the family. I was not able to accompany him then, as my business did not allow me. He continued his visits unremittingly till Whitsuntide. On the Satur day before Whitsunday he requested that I should accompany him and his sister and my sister to Much Cowarne. I consented, and we four went on the Monday in Whitsun week, and stayed till the Thurs day. On the Wednesday evening, when my father went to bed, while the defendant and his sister and my mother and the plaintiff, and a brother of mine, were present, and the plaintiff and defendant were sitting by each other near the fire and whispering together, the defendant turned round from my sis ter and said to my mother, " Will you give your consent to my marying your daughter ?" She said she had no objection, but would leave the matter in my hands, as I knew the parties b e tt er th an s h e did . The defendant then asked if I would consent ; and I replied that he knew what my opinion was on the subject. The plaintiff and the defendant then re sumed their conversation in whispers. We all came back on Thursday evening. He continued his visits till the following September, when my sister went on a visit to my father for three weeks or a month. Before her return, the defendant came to me, and said that, if he had known her situation was so un comfortable, he would have married her previously, and he proposed to me that he should fetch her home with his horse and gig I accompanied him to my father's to fetch her home. My sister and his sister went together on a visit into Monmouthshire in Octo ber. I and defendant went to Gloucester to meet them on their return, and bring them home. I re moved to Fakenham on the 18th January. Before I left, my sister went on a visit to defendant's house, and remained there from the 17th to the 21st Jan. His mother and sister lived with him. On the 22d she came to my new house at Fakenham. He brought her back, and when he did so, he said she should not remain there much longer, and that, though separated for a few months, she should make hers e lf co m f or t a bl e , an d t h at happened to hi m b e f ore s h e saw hi m deprive him of life, a ll he possessed s h ou ld againi if a ny t t o h d i n e g p r be hers. All this time my sister and I visited the mentioned on severa l occas i ons i n t h e defendant's house frequently, and the subject of th e presence marriag of marriage was the was defendant's mother and sister, and the mother often said it would be the happiest day of her life if she could live to see the day of their marriage. When I lived at Fakenham, the defendant came on a visit to my house three or four times, and stayed each time from three to five days, and was as attentive as before to my sister. I never spoke to him about his property, but should think it worth 3,000/. Cross-examined by Mr. SKINNER—WouId not swear that his farm consisted of more than fifty acres. It was a leasehold. It was possible that I was all the time courting defendant's sister. I was Courting her. I knew the defendant nearly a year before I knew his sister. When I used to call it made no difference whether the brother was at home or not, as I practised the whispering too.--(Laughter.) I asked her to marry me, and she at, first agreed to marry me. After she had knOwn me longer she changed her mind. When was it that sbe told you she did not like you as much as she had ?—I cannot charge my memory. It was in May or June, 1849. It was about the same time that the intimacy between the families ceased. Nhat prevented you from continuing to visit her .A decision between ourselves.—(Laughter.) Do you mean to sue her for breach of promise of marriage ?—That remains for more mature conside ration. The result of this action Would not affect my decision in the least. I have not heard that defend ant has had a paralytic stroke. I see the defendant in court, and he is greatly changed, esp-cially his countenance, I adhere to the statement that I do not know when I first courted defendant's sister, or when she and I broke off. We lived at Overbury, about 500 yards from each other. It was more than twelve months between my first knowing him and visiting him at his house. Re-examined—Defendant never gave any rea son for breaking o ff th e intimacy with my sister. In June, 1849, defendant was complaining, but there was little or no alteration in 1.. s appearance. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, threatened to bring an action against his sister. It was not I w h o b ro k e off the engagement with his sister. Elizabeth Jones—l em the mother of the plaintiff. She is about thirty. I have seen the defendant, and remember in Whitsuntide, 1843, his corning to my house with my son and daughter and his own sister, and there staying till the following Thursday. His conduct during that time was that of a suitor or l over . On the Wedne s d a y h e asked me if I had any object to his marrying my daughter in a month. I answered that I had no otif;!tion, and that at present she W:l9 under her brother's protection. In September, 1848, I saw him at our house again, and his conduct was the same as before. Since that time I have not seen him. The plaintiff has written to him repeatedly, and my husband has written once to him. My daughter has been rather ill since. Dr. Bull, examined by 3lr. GRAY—I practise us a surgeon in Hereford. Have attended plaintiff from August to November last. She was ill. She was suffering from great derangement and nervous de bility, which induced me to tisk if she felt uncomfor- able, or had any anxiety of mind. Cross-examined---I :ice defendant. He !eems to MARCH 27, 1850 look as if he had had a paralytic stroke. I see that on his moving his countenance. Mr. SKINNER addressed the jury in mitigation of damages, contending that as the defendant had suffered a paralytic stroke, the plaintiff could not have suffered any loss from his not fulfilling his original intention ; and that it would have been ex tremely improper and unfeeling in him to prosecute an arrangement made by him in good faith be:ore Providence had visited him with his fearful affliction, and that the real author of the action was not the plaintiff or her father, but her brother, who sought to avenge the slight cast upon himself by the defend ant's sister, who, when she came to know him better, loved him less. It was, in fact, the brother's action, and he trusted that the jury, by the amount of the damages which they should award would not en courage him in such a course of proceeding. Mr. Justice PATTSSON, in summing up, said the only issue was whether the defendant promised to merry the plaintiff, and if the jury thought that he did, the next question for them would be to consider what amount of damages they would award to her. The jury deliberated for ten minutes, and then found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501. NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 25 , CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) WOOD V. COOPER SEDUCTION. This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah Wood, for the seduction of her daughter by the defendant, whereby she had lost her daugh ter's servicee, and had been put to great costs and charges. The defendant pleaded, first, Not Guilty ; secondly, that the plaintiff's daughter was not her servant; and thirdly, that the plaintiff had not been put to any costs respecting her. Mr. Bliss, Q C., and Mr. Pashley, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Stam mers for the defendant. - Mr. Buss, in opening the case, said it belonged to a class of cases unhappily too often the subject of in quiry. The plaintiff complained that her daughter had been seduced by the defendant, and when he added that in addition to the disgrace which the de fendant had brought on the plaintiff's family, that his victim had since died in childbirth, he had given them a brief outline of the sad circumstances of the case. The parties were in a humble station in life, the plaintiff being nearly seventy years of age. For some time the plaintiff's husband had worked in a fac tory, and having accumulated a little money, he had set up as a grocer, and on his death had left the plaintiff his business to live upon. The plaintiff had four children, two of whom were daughters, and one was the subject of the present action. She lived at home and managed the house, owing to her mother's advanced age. The defendant lived in the same village, Glossop, at no great distance from the plaintiff, and was a married man and a journeyman cotton-spinner, working in the mill of a Mr. Sumner, in which mill Betty Wood, the plaintiff's daughter, had also worked. It was at this mill that the acquaintance between the parties had begun. The pregnancy of the plaintiff's daughter had not been discovered until immediately before she was delivered of a child on the 27th of April last. Three weeks afterwards she died. For a short time the deceased had refused to disclose the father of the child, until the doctor called in bad used a threat that "he would not deliver her unless she declared who was the father," and then she had stated that the de fendant was the father. Communications had then taken place with the defendant, and he bad sent her money, and made arrangements for her leaving home to be delivered, and also for the support of the child. After the death of the mother, however, the defendant absolutely refused to make any provision for the child, which the plaintiff was now compelled to main tain. These were the facts of the case, and the ury would, he trusted, give such damages as its distress ing nature demanded. Thomas Fielding, of Glo sso p, j ourneyman cotton spinner, stated that he knew the defendant, and that he had been employed in the factory of Mr. Sumner, of Glossop, for some years, as a cotton-spinner. Wit ness was employed at the same mill, about three years, whilst the defendant was there. He knew Betty Wood, the daughter of the plaintiff. She worked at the mill whilst the defendant was there, and in the same part of the mill. He heard, about May last, that Betty Wood had had a child, and soon after lie had a conversation with the defendant about it. He told the defendant he had heard that Betty Wood had had a child. He asked witness who had told him. Witness said Charles Wood had told him, and that Betty Wood said he was to tell him (the defendant) that the doctor would not deliver her of the child until she told who was the father, and that she said defendant was the father. The defendant did not say anything, but blushed red in the face. He told witness to tell Mrs. Wood that there should be nothing wanting on his part to bear the expenses. The defendant also told him that he did not think any other man knew what she was but him. He also said, " Tom, I think as well of that lass as I do of my own life." He also told witness that he had given Betty Wood 71. to go off with, to be delivered of the child, that no one should know anything about it. Before Betty 'Wood died witness told defendant that he had heard the child was going to be fathered on him. He made no answer. He very often had conversations with the defendant about the child, and defendant said that nothing should be wanting on his side in regard to the expenses. Betty. Wood died in May, and after her death the defendant said he would not have anything to do with the child, and would pay nothing. He had heard that they had used her ill. Cross-examined—Is cousin to the plaintiff. He did not know that Betty Wood was 30 years of age. The defendant and the plaintiff lived near each other, and Betty Wood knew the defendant was married, and used to go and see his wife and nurse his children. He did not know that Betty Wood was a milliner. She had not worked at the mill for some time before she had the child, but he had seen her going down the road with "her breakfast and bagging" (tea) to the mill. William Robinson, overlooker in Mr. Sumner's mill, stated that the defendant worked under him. In May, last year, he had some conversation with the defendant about Betty Wood's child. Witness told him that it was reported they were going to father Betty Wood's child on him. Witness told him he had'better make an arrangement to pay a weekly sum without having the child fathered The defendant said, " I have no objection, I have given her a good deal already." He waived the subject till after Betty was dead, and then he said it was advisable not to enter into any arrangement, for if he did they could do anything with him. At one time witness drew up an agreement in writing for the defendant to support the child, at the wish of both parties. Afterwards, when the defend an t b egan t o d emur a b ou t supporting the child, witness told him he wished he had never known anything about it, as he had been made a fool of. Cross-examined—He knew:the family of the Woods. He had seen Betty a few days before her confinement. He could not tell what she bad been doing for a living shortly before she died, of his own knowledge, and hearsay was no good there.—(Laughter.) She had been discharged from Sumner's mill because o some disturbance in the mill. - Evidence to a similar effect was gi►en, and Mr. Sergeant WILKINS, for the defence, addressed the jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 251. CHOWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) John Grundy was indicted for having, on the 22d of last January, feloniously assaulted Mary Fern worth, with intent to murder her. Mr. Sowler appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. T. Pollock for the defence. It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she was employed in a mill, and that the prisoner was her sweetheart. On the 22d of January last she was going to her work across a field to the mill, about a quarter to six in the morning, accom panied by a man named Massy Williams. It was quite dark. The prisoner was standing in the field. The prisoner had wanted to marry her three years ago, and she bad always refused him. He seized hold of her as she passed him, and she asked him what he wanted ? lie replied, that "He wanted her to promise him." She said, " Promise what ?" He replied, " Whether you will marry me or not? " She answered, " She could not promise until she had seen her aunt." He answered, " He would make her," and shook a coal miner's pick in her face saying, " He hid bought it on purpose to kill her, that he would wait no longer as he had waited long enough, and that he would either have her or her blood." He then asked her to go home with him, and put his arm round her waist, and they both fell. She screamed out " Murder," and he then stopped her mouth with his hand. He got up first, and as she lay on the ground he struck her with the pick on her head. The pick went through her bonnet and hit her head. He asked her if he had hurt her, and she said "Yes." IL then asked her again if she would go home with him, and she again replied that he must wait a bit. He then struck her again three times with the pick while she was on the ground. She was afterwards taken home and attended by a surgeon. In answer to his LORDSHIP, the prosecutrix said she had had the prisoner in prison before for the same kind of conduct. He had once stopped her and hid her shawl in a coal-pit, which she left in his hands to get away from him. The Learned Counsel for the defence contended that the prisoner was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. His LORDSHIP having summed up, The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence of death was ordered to be recorded agsinst him. His LORDSHIP intimated that he would be taken care of. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. IV E.S'TMIN STE R. EXTENSIVE ROBBERY BY A FORE➢lAN.—Walter Sallis, a foreman at Messrs. Rigby's, the extensive builders and contractors, Holywell street, Westmin ster, was placed at the bar before Mr. Broderip, charged with stealing a great number of mahogany slab 3 and boards, the property of his employers. Mr. W. Cumming, an inspector of the B division, stated that he had been engaged by Messrs. Rigby during the last ten days in investigating the cause of the late extensive fire at their premises, and from in formation he received in the course of that inquiry he was induced to go to 119, Lillington-streer, Vauxhall bridge•road, where he found 20 slabs and planks of mahogany. He subsequently apprehended the pri soner upon the charge of stealing them, when he said he could very soon clear himself and account for it all by his hook. Several witnesses were called, whose evidence proved that in the month of November last a large log of mahogany was being cut at Messrs. Rigby's, fir Messrs. Wigram, of B'ack wall, and that the pri soner, who was superintendent of the saw-mills, and bad a considerable quantity of vAluable timber under his charge, about six weeks before Christmas last told Mr. Hutchinson, a builder, engaged in erecting some houses in Lillington-street, that he had some mahogany for sale, and ultimately sold him, at the rate of five pence per foot, the slabs and planks subsequently found by the police inspector, and fur which Mr. Hutchin son paid the accused the sum of 51. 13s. It was further shown by the testimony of men employed in the saw-mills at Messrs. Rigby's, that atter the log of mahogany spoken of had been cut there, a cart was loaded with the planks and slabs, by direction of the prisoner, in his employer's yard, and owing to some suspicion existing in the minds of two or three of the men that all was not going on right, they made a memorandum at the time, and had the cart which conveyed the mahogany away watched to Mr. Hutchinson's, builder, in Lillington-street. It fur ther transpired that the prisoner had sold two other pieces of mahogany to a carpenter named Price, and Mr. John William Lyon, cashier to Messrs. Right, distinctly proved that the prisoner had no authority to dispose of any timber upon the premises, and no account whatever had been given by him of the sale of the mahogany slabs and planks purchased by Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. BRODERIP having intimated to the prisoner that it would be his duty to remand him for a wefk, in order that some further evidence to complete the ease against him might be produced, inquired whether he wished to say anything at present, or would re serve his reply, if he had any, until then. The prisoner declined saying anything until a future occasion, and was remanded for a week. CLERKEN WELL. Yesterday a respectably-dressed young Scotchman, who said his name was John Rice, residing at the Yorkshire Dining-rooms, Duke-street, London bridge, applied to Mr. Combe for advice and assist ance under the following circumstances : Applicant said that he came from Edinburgh about a week ago, and took lodgings at the above house. He had held the situation of clerk to the firm of a coal-merchant, whose service he had left in conse quence of their going to California. He came to London with the view of procuring a situation, and on Thursday last he saw an advertisement in the Times newspaper stating that for a douceur of 101. a situation as clerk and collector could be provided for any respectable young man who was willing to ad vance that sum, and application to be made at the " Auction, Estate, and General Offices, No. 61, Theo bald's-row, Holborn." The applicant instantly made application there, when he found a place fitted up and covered with bills. and he had an interview with a fellow who put on an air of consequence, and inti mated that he could procure for him a most respecta ble situation as clerk and collector, and it would be necessary for him to advance 51. on account, and he would negotiate with the parties, so that he (appli cant) might enter the situation on the following Mon day. He advanced the 51., for which he was given a receipt signed " John James," and he left the place. On the Friday he received the following letter : " Auction Estate and General Offices, 61, Theobald's•row. London, March 22, 1850. " If Mr. li!ce call upon Mr. John James to-morrow morning between ten and eleven o'clock, he will be at leisure ti see him respecting the situation advertised is the Times newspaper. "JOHN JAMES." Applicant called at the time appointed, r.nd saw Mr. James, who informed him that all was right, and said it would his necessary for him (applicant) to advance another 51. to make up the 10/. before he could get him the situation, and he might enter into th e ser vice on th e Monday week following. He began to suspect the party, and declined parting with more money, and on making inquiries he ascertained that numerous persons had been defrauded of their pro perty under exactly similar circumstances, and the neighbourhood was in continual confusion in consr (pence of the parties who were duped applying to have their money returned to them, and applicant de termined on making the present application. Mr. ComBH said it was lucky fur him that he had not parted with the 10/. He could not a , sist him ;he could only recommend him to seek redress in the county court. The officers described the plan to have been carried on by a nest of designing fellows, who had f)r years past pursued their nefariouc practices in the same manner in various parts of London, and their victims were generally poor needy persons in search of employment. Applicant left the court, saying he would follow aa advice of the worthy magistrate. CITY COURT OF SEWERS. Yesterday the commissioners assembled at Guild hall, Mr. Deputy Peacock in the chair. REPORT UPON MR SIMO.N'S SANITARY REPORT. The Committee upon Health brought up their re report upon the celebrated report of the medical officer of health, presented to the Court on the 6:h of November. The committee were required to report their opinion as to the course to be adopted thereupon, and especially with reference to those matters recom mended therein which do not come within the posers of the commissioners to carry into execution. The CUAIRMAN stated that the report was one of great importance to the public, and had been the re sult of between twenty and thirty meetings of the committee, and he recommended that it should be printed and circulated. The motion was at once agreed to, and the report was sent to the printer without being read. It is sup posed that the subject -matter will produce several dis cussions, in which the City community will of course be deeply interested. IMPROVEMENT AT ST. PAUL'S. Mr. HAYWOOD presented a report on this subject, in which he stated that the plan proposed for throw ing open to the public the western area in front of St. Pain's Cathedral, and for widening the thorough fares around the cathedral, would atiord.a carriage way of an uniform width of forty feet between Paul's chain and Ludgate-hill, and thereby prevent the con stant inconvenience arising to the public from the stoppage of vehicles and the dangers of collision, so frequently occurring in the present state of that im portant thoroughfare. The report having been received, Mr. BARBER took occasion to state that he had re cently received a letter from the canons and minor canons of the cathedral, expressive of their desire to see the proposed improvements carried out; and he hoped, after the liberal speech of his Grace the Arch bishop of Canterbury at the Mansion-house on last Friday, in connexion with the great Exhibition of 1851, that this project would meet with no obstruc tion to its completion before that event should take place, from those ecclesi a sti ca l au thorities whose ap proval was an indispensable preliminary. Adjourned. EXTRAORDINARY ATTEMPT AT FRAUD AT NEWCASTLE. nn n Tuesday last, by magistrates at A t h n e a p n o p l i l c i c e a - c t i o n u n r t w in s Shields, and Mr. Mr. W. J. Th o mp so n, o f North t ni hi a s de to t w o e vidence respect ing Clay, of Newcastle, to e the sitting hear e vidence made by per sons an extraordinary attempt at apprehended in F rance. The I' ranee. The particulars of the case ar sons who had been lately of July, 1849, Mr. Thompson and 1 \lr. Clay, who are in business as brokers, received at the sam e t i me letters from persons in .France, _ purporting Co., to be agents for the house of Michellon and mer c h ants at Paris and Nantes, requesting each of th ese gen tlemen to ship for Nantes 100,000 tons of coals, at the prices specified shipped in in certain French vessels, which had been chartered in Nant es , and several of the French ports in the Chann e l, by AL SOUlt, a French broker at Nantes. Fifty-six French vessels accordingly arrived in the river Tyne, con signed to these gentlemen, but, as the reference given by Michellon and Co. did not seem satisfactory, they applied to the French Consul at Newcastle, with the captains of the vessels, for his advice on the subject. An inspection of the correspondence satisfied him that the captains had been the victims of a fraud attempted on Messrs. Thompson and Clay, or the coalow,ners of Newcastle, by a gang of swindlers in France. Under these circumstances they declined to load the vessels, which were accordinglydetained in the river for several weeks, awaiting further instructions. The opinion of the Consul proved correct, for a 4 soon as the ficti tious house of Michellon and Co. were aware that the loading of the vessels had been stopped they absconded. It then appeared that the house of Michellon and Co. had carried on their operations on a most extensive scale, the principal seat of their business having been established at Lyons, in the beginning of 1849. The parties were, Francois Peyre, a watchmaker living at Nantes, a liberated convict ; Auguste Michellon, ex clerk in the dockyard at :Conlon, living at Lyons ; Fanny Battin, his wife; and Jean Jules 114 soi-disant SAiut Award, landowner and we t : chant, lately a bankrupt, residing at Lyo'' The principal part of their professed business As/ to receive credit in foreign countries ; and, at the same time that they h a d b egun th e tr an sactl oll with Newca s tl e , th ey h a d g i ven numerous or d e rs le Switzerland fur watches and jewellery, and, undet false pretenceF, had obtained authority from variee, persons to r ece i ve money i n J ersey an d North All3e rice. Information, h owever , h av i ng b een rece i ve d ' ; suspicions were r uuse d, an d th e suspecte d pers o . ll . , were arrested. A warr an t f rom th e J uge d'lnstructio' at Nantes has been received in this town, through t he Consul, requesting the Mayor to take the exanlin i , tion of Messrs. Thomp son an d Cl ay , t o b e used co the trial as evidence a g a i ns t th e pr i soners , an d it ," arranged that such evidence should be embodied ill!! affidavit, and attested b e f ore th e mag i strates . ..LP., trial will take pla c e at N an t es as soon as t h e prell°3l/ . nary proceedings are completed.—Newcastle Jour° THE COUNTRY MARKETS. IPSWICH. Miaow 26. Our market this day was fully attended, and vra had s O r : liberal supply of wheat. It so ld a t a trills advance upon I t t e prices. B i rley was i n cons id era bl e supp l y, and many of O s 'lnsisters being about to giv e up s t eep i ng f or t h e season , cads it to drag ha l vily, and a re d uc ti on o f I s per quarter was Sap " rally submitted to. All other articles nominally the satne' ds , FIER QUARTER. ran Wheat, red .... .... 371 to 39s Peas ri6, to Ga Ditto, white Barley, malting ... 21 s to '..3s Rye Ditto, grinding ... 20 s to 00s Malt ......... 00s to 13 2 0 Beans . •VEIt A GIS FOR THE WEEP ENDING M ARCH 23, 185 0 • Wheat . ....... ..... 611 quarters at 375. 11d. Barley Oats Od• 77 Peas Beans .. - l3 „ 22 1 . 90• ° d " HULL, MA RCH 26. Messrs. Taylor and Bright's Circular states :—The terL A since our last ha s b een very severe , an d on S un d ay we 91";# heavy fall of snow. Th e t ra d e h as more tone an d firataV, but transactions are s till w ith out ex t ent. O ur f armers 1 0 °"_;,, rate their supply ; and millers not being in stock, have to !A Is advance on last week's rates : foreign is held for 10 ; 1: money, but sales are quite in retail. Malting barley neglec t grinding sorts go off at our currency, which is very low. 0 . 1 7, a, 0 offering at a speculative price. Not many oats held oe so i and for them, as well as peas, demand is limited. Linseed cakes each somewhat better to sell. No transactions in "N J seed ; while buyers have an a d vantage i n rape ca k es, o f wet the last few days have b r o ug ht us some f res h arr i va l s. In boil but little passing. The following are the present prices of grain : •, a. 5. W j i heat, English, red 34 to 37 Peas, white and yet 24 •••''' Do. white 36 40'Do. grey Dantzic and Ko- (Linseed, Black Sea 45 -••• nigsberg 4O —45 Do. Petersburgh 38 Pomeranian and I Do. Riga& Archngl. 38 Hamburgh . 34 —3B Do. Konigsberg 36 -••• Danish, Holstein, & Per t ° o Friesland . 30 36 Lins cakes, Hull 6110161 12 s Mission and Odessa 30 35'Do. fine foreign ......... oi Oats, English Do. Danish.... Do. Friesland l2 14 ; R ape ca k es... oo s Od to 82100 Do. Russ. & Odessa 12 —l4 Tares, English ......3 05 301 Barley, malting l9 —211 Do. foreign 205 ' Do. grinding........ 18 10 G uano 6l to 9 1 ' 0 a Beans 24 26;130ne5, do 00104 8 5 ° 61 01 Do. foreign .. .. 23 25IRye meal Coax, MARCH 25.—Flour—First 12s Od to 13s ; extra 14 1; seconds, I Is Od to 12, ; households 9s to 1018 d; thirds, 7. " 0 , per cwt. Oatmeal 10 1 0 d to 00 1; I n di an mea la s 9d so 7 4 ; oh°,o meal. 9s 6titu 10s per cwt. Indian corn 130 s to 1325 ad 0 0 14 Bran 3/ 17s 6d to 4/ O s p er t on . H ay —F armers 26 s to 36 1 ; a”. 70.„ 335; dealers 321 to 40s Od; average 31s per ton. Straw--Fa l- 0 3; 18s Od to 25s Od ; av erage 22 1; dealers 27. Od to 00 0 „ is average 00, Od per ton. Br ea d—Wh ea t en l oa f 6d to 6 ,1". household loaf 5d t o sid p er 41b. F res h b utter, 10d per lb.. Eggs -3sBdto 31 10d per hundred. C2ttli Newport 15s; Lydney 17s ; Landore 15s ; Best t" - iv t, Culm 14a per t on . T a ll ow 4 0s O d to po t pe r .1 0 1 Whisky, 25 o. p., 5 s 9d per i mper i a l gallon. 7, to —Beef 4d to 6d ; mutton 5d to 6 d ; veal bu aid ; pork 3id to 31c1; bacon 6d to 7d ; sausages a r lb. Hops 131 O s p er cwt . B angor s l ates 312 s 6d to Si gl i r e i ton. Bark—Barbary 715 s t o 8/s s; V a l on i a 141 to 01; Fr°,7oe, 7155; English 0/ per ton. Fl eece W oo l 10. to 1 2 . per st„,l Hemp 32/ to 00/ per ton. Fish— Scotch herrings 16s to 171; ditto 20, to 22s per barrel ; Newfoundland 9/ Os to 11 1 ,4 ton. Timber—Memel, 85 1 p er t on; d ea l s , fi rst qua lity, ; 00 i second quality, 16s per 100. Hide s —M ar k e t 14 s to *lb, salted 15s to 21s per cwt ; calf skins 2id to 211 Par Potatoes, white 8d to 10d • Minions 12d to 13d; Gut e l, Peruvian, 11l 10s; Ichaboe, 91 per ton; Tar—Aretw° 19s per barrel. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS' BRISTOL, MAIZE! 26. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—There was little business done on °„ 111 , Stock Exchange to-day, and prices re ma i n w i bout 1 0 % provement. The transactions were—Gre a t W es tern. Qg a tern, 13:!, 1 4—Ditto, 171. Shares, 7 15-16 dis.—Bristol 1 63 Exeter, Thirds, 10N dls.—Midland, 38%. LIVERPOOL. MAI.CII 26. STOCK ExCHANGE.—The share market was firm but the amount of business done was limited. The , WI actions were as follow :—London and North-Western, „I 115 - j v c.—Ditto, New Quarters, I,‘ c. dis.—Lancashire and io t , shire, Consol., 35—Ditto, F lis, 9 , 4 die. —Midland, 39 1 4 s^, Ditto, Halves (Leicester and Swannington), 25 1 ,4 c. &t a t York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E. Purchase), 6 r cent. till 1850, 7 , 4 dig. MANCEIESTER, MAncu 26. sat STOCK EXCEIANGII.—The market to-day was very .-2 / and there was not much b us i ness done. 'The transactiu' d were as follow :—London and N or th-W es t ern , M anc best:i and Birmingham (C), Quarters, n. p.—Lancashire Yorkshire, 3S—Ditto, Fifths, die.—Ditto, Preference!, per cent., 12%—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolusb,7; Eighths, 1 5 ,4 c. Ditto, Preference, 6 15-16 n. — 1 1. 4 0 $ (Grimsby Dock), 3 1 . i—North Staffordshire, 10% Lancashire, 8. BIRMINGHAM MAzcu 26. ' STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were S- fOl low : —Midland (Bristol and Birmingham), 12314—511 11 . 0 p, bury and Birmingham (B). 61 8s 9d. dis.—Shropshire Uu 3 1-3 dis. YORK, MARCY 25. , Sine" EXCHANGEL —The transactions to-day 10 ,1 3e r follow :—Great Northern, 74 York, Newcastle. an d ,a, wick, 134—Ditto (Newca s tl e E x t ens i on ) , 84 —Ditto N. E. Purchase,) GLASGOW, MAIM 25. Siock Excrtartoit.—The tran sac ti ons to-day Wet! 1). follow: Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, Halved 0 0 ' 1 [lA—Stirling and Dunferra ine, 3t. Ls. ECONOMY OP COST IN BUILDINQ CHUNCI3O2I O No one ( s ays Mr. Pugin in the Builder) would . thiell al " putting firth a gre.i t cst h e d ra l , or po i nted chuteh'ej-, either an e conom i ca l b u i l di ng or one eas i ly eons trao,, or even conve n i en t, accor di ng to t h e mo d em iceeP o i tion of the term. The cruciform plan entsili nutee r f„ o practical difficulties, and yet it is the very founclet l i of every great chur c h i n Chri s t e nd om . The inorte ° i 0 height, another r ema rk a ble s y m b o li ca l f ea t ure , retle f i r do a vast deal of most costly and dif fi cult construction. l o s not imagine that the designs of the anc i e nt ebl ir , s . builders were framed with ref er e nce t o uonomy or a cility of erection; their great aim was to prodec.s, , edifice that should illustrate th e ma j est y o f its purPl/0 and they spared neither pains nor cos t t o accom plish s ,„O end. Their works bear on th e i r f ace th e i n d e lible 5 1 , 4 7,k of faith, love, and devotion, and it is the unearthly r t of these glorious fanes which forms one of their grilis--ated • he charms, and by which th e y a r e so no bl y disting.l,, from all other architectural productions: A noble cruciform, lofty, and long, surmounted by spire-caPP; towers, surrounded by lateral aisles and cnopol:', f'*. t h vided with a screened choir and solemn sanctuary. all its costly and beauteous furniture, is as . 10 %0 natural expression of Catholic r e li g i o n i n the P res " o f age as it was when the third Henry finished the choir°, Westminster, or St. Louis dedicated the Holy Chapel Paris. [ADVERTISEMENT-j—Twenty Ulcers on the L cured by Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—Extract of a `,7 from 0. B. Kno c ke r , d a t e d M oun t G am bi a, Sout h Ault-000J' July 7, 11it49. To Professor Holl oway . Sir,—A 401,,b0r just come under m y o b servat i on i n wh i ch the e f fi cac y 0' j „ ibs Ointment and Pills has b een f u ll y prove d . A Iwo name of Joshua S m ith h a d upwar d s of twenty take OP o il shins, which wer e so diffi cu l t to cure that a l most ever y re*._ had been appli e d w ith out any goo d e ff ect . Y ear Pills bs Ointment were then resorted to, and iu about six weft s was completely cured, and scarcely a mark is now to be ' esslN,, Sold by all druggist s , and at Professor Holloway's Estaia lim sent, 244, Strand, London. BIRTHS. of 0 0n ane ott the e. e 2 2 4 4 t t h h n i n s t. . , n at E a c t o a n- tn s b q e u r w a r e e l -M g r r o s y e . G; 1 f t h r o s m a . Hard}' ' .j .$ Clark, of a son. On the 24th inst., at Clarence-terrace, Regent's-park, M rl Macready. of a son. On the 22d inst., at Brighton, the lady of Colonel °' Tynte, M P., of a son. On the 2'd inst., at Lansdowne-cottage, Cavendish•r olti° Wandsworth-road, Mrs. T. N. Harrison, of a son. On the 22d inst., a t B ath, the wife of Captain C. a White° of a daughter. On the 22d inst., at Edinburgh, the lady of Captain Hutchinson, of a son. ARRIED. On the 21st i ns t., at Ballibay, Ireland, the Rev. tipenZ Murch, of Sudbury, Suffolk, to Catharine, daughter of late J. Hope, Esq., of Maghera, Derry. 0( On the 2 st inst.. at K enn ington, Henry Gardner. 17 the Fozley. roa d, to Elizabeth, the youngest daughter of Lett, Esq., of Lambeth, and St. Peter's, Thanet. f, On the 21st inst., at St. Mary Magdalen's, Peckham , Connor. E sq ., o f h er Majesty's Consular Service,. China, t o Leonora La vin i a , e ld est d aughter o f C ap t a i n W. Ward E I.C.S. On the 23d inst., at St. Pancras Church. John COUI Sta Hancock, Esq., Dubli n , t o M a tild a Louisa, third doyen° o f P. E. Blat s pi e l, E sq ., o f Doughty-street. ecklenburgh square. -- On the 23d inst., at Vantnor, DIED sle of Wight, G . W . Ni c kii• son, E q., age d 37, o f t h e N or f o lk. road, St. John's - wood. i On the 14th inst., aged 23. Anne E mil y Mar y , the wife of William C. Clifton, Esq., of Sydney-place, Onslow-square' Brompton. On the 24th inst., W. Huggins, Esq of the Lion Brii e. house, Broad-street, Golden square, aged 4g. 01 the 25th inst., aged 22, Harriett, the wife of Mr. J. Broughton, of Brixton-bill. On the 25th inst., at Fort-place, Bermondsey, Martha, th e wile of Mr. Cyrus Legg- On the 2 id inst., aged 46, Anne, wife of Charles Johns' 00 Esq., Rotherbithe. On the 23d in t., at Colet-place. St. George's East, An n ' relict C h e the late Ur. J. Hyett, of Gloucester, aged 80. ~ On 2d inst., Eloisa, second daughter of Mr. Wil"'" Briant, of Kennington, Surrey. let w On the 22d inst., at Brighton, aged FS, Elizabeth. re't, of William Bane, Esq., many y ears o ne of the Cornla . sioners of Stamps. fro. On the 22d inst., at Spring-hill College, Birmingham , w t - fi r Dorothy Webb, widow of the late John Webb, Esq.. Pr o of Doctors'-commons, aged 93. . Lmdon ; Printed and Published by MURDO T01L9121 No 112 Strar4. print e r. a t Tk e S ult office, N it strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the wow X ddleges, Wednesley, March 27, MO.