The Sun. — London, England, 1845-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 3. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice CRESWELL and a Middlesex Special Jury.) MX. COX.—CLARK v. RUMFORD. This waa an action for crim. con., which was part heard yesterday, and in which the defendant is a medical man, in partnership with the plaintiff's brother. The Attorney-General, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and Mr. Butt, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff; Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. Sergeant Channel', and another Learned Gentleman, for the defendant. This action (in which the damages were laid at 10,00010 was, as above stated, brought by the plaintiff, to recover com pensatiogjn damages for the injury he had sustained through the defendant having had criminal conversation with his wife, and having at last induced her to quit her husband's house. The plaintiff, Mr. Clark, is a solicitor carrying on business at Bristol, where the defendant also resides, prac tising his profession as a medical man, in which quality he had been in the habit of visiting the family of the former gentleman. Mr. Dunsford, it appeared, was a friend (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 atten ded pro fessionally, besides being always admitted on terms of the ctoeeset intimacy. Under these combined circumstances, it might be easily imagined that the defendant had the freest and most unsuspected access to the house of the plaintiff. It further appeared that Mr. and Mrs. Clark had always lived together on terms of affection and mutual confidence. The husband was especially kind and considerate in his manner and con duct towards his wife, always conducting himself towards her with the utmost tenderness; end the lady had recipro cated such treatment, and exhibited a like demeanour towards her husband (according to the testimony of servants and others who had possessed ample opportunity of observing all hat occurred in the family) until some time after Mr. Duns ford was introduced into the house. It was then noticed that she often betrayed towards Mr. Clark signs of diminished affection, and occasional sullenness. According to the testi mony of some of the female servants who were examined in support of the plaintiff's case, and who deposed to this pet ? Witless and altered manner on the part of Mrs. Clark, they were chiefly shown while the family were at the dinner table. Thus, for instance, it was alleged that she would sometimes give no answer at all to questions or observations made by her husband. One of the servants, Hester Bevan, who was a material witness in the cause, further stated that the sullenness she meant was principally shown by her mistress not answering the question as to what she would prefer being helped to at dinner. It, however, appeared by the evidence that she always was helped to hat 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 svmpathy 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. This 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 sometime after the first intimacy commenced, they werathe eubject of repeated remark by the plaintiff's servantikeanetit was , observed (and the cir cumstance added to the.,other grounds for suspicion in their minds) that those visits everw,either made when thel plain tiff was away from Bristol, tor away, from his home, and known to be engaged tat his -office, and likely to remain there for some time. Anothgr 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, sothat often those in the house were not aware when or how he left. Though, however, these visits of Mr. Dunsford to bk. Clark's house were es 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 p l aintiff's house, when his visit was even more protracted. arious circumstances too were spoken of in connexion with those visits, that were alleged to render them still more sus pieious 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 he 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 palour• 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 home, in the absence of tier 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 criminality of the parties, notwithstanding the absence of Ay 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 waeof course sought, in support of the plaintiff's case, to l e ad 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 to 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 or 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 •sociefi . , of Mrs. Clark for severalthours, 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 prred excited and confused in her manner upon the ser leant 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 furniture 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 directiens being given to the servants as before respecting the gentleman who was expected to come. Upon his arrival, at this second visit, he was 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-n aid, 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 gut 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. bhe immediately went into the house and told her thoughts to !tester 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 ettbrts she could discover nothing; lint, in her testimony, she positively stated that she diet ireify heard a kiss given, and that she moreover heard the defendant say to her mistress—" If I do love you better than any woman in the world, why need you speak of it? You saw" to rise, be cautious, be cautious, 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 you. I will tell you as I heard At." Before there was time, however, the servant, who was .eagerly listening at the door to hear more of this conversation, there wag a loud ring at the hall-hell, and she was obliged to se 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 that she was at home, but was en aiaged. Thereupon the ladies departed, and the witness fleeter Bevan at once betook herself to the pantry, that was situated 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 atress the room, and afterwards heard a great scuttling of feeL Shortly before the defendant that day departed, she Ifeard him open the door f or the p ur p ose , as s h e i mag i ne d, of , oking into the passage, and seeing that the coast was clear. the She looked out a t th e time, and from the place out asideoupantry she s aw hi m i n a m i nute or two su b sequent l y spate out of the room and opening the hall-door himself, leave the house. She could not say she heard any lock -turned or b o lt wen the defendant first opened the lihrery door ; w" simply opened, and did not seem to lave been fastened. Clarkirectly lie had left she went into the :room to ask Mrs . whether she wished for any refresh- Tnent, as she hajnot rung f or h er breakfast that morning, and bed, in fact, erten nothing that day, though it was, by the tiro the servant entered the li brary,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 tl time, the wit awes stated that it was very confused, and that in her mis trestrs face was very red ; that she - did not look rwitness'si. face while she spoke , but continued smoothing b a e n and f ! ti a a c c l i e r i with her hand, by thet means shadinghaerreacyteos from observation. The sofa again appeared di sturl,ed 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 throat at the time, was brought down from the nursery to be seen by Mr. Dunsford. It was in the room about ten minutes, but the interview lasted es 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 ; and the plaintiff was there all the time with his wife and children, except upon a few occasions, when he had to go to txeter. Mrs. C., it appears, was all this time receiving 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 a b sence s h e tool/ the opportunity of leaving Wes ton and travelling to Britoil the railway. She remained several of these occasions away for a day or more, being l ac u m me , 171,71: , ey one of the servants and by a lady of the Kirkby, who was on a visit to her at the time. She usually led the house at an early hour of the day, and did not return until five in the afternoon, and sometimes later, . A • . ,` THE SUN, LONDO-N., THURSDAY EVENING, DE CE MBER 4, 1845 generally going out with her visitor, but frequently returning alone. This practice, however, was not limited to the time of her hurried trips to Bristol by railway, for while she regu larly resided there it was shown that she pursued the same 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 her of the hour, but said he thought it would beabout ten 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 Bristol, kept by a person of the name of Dowling, and whose house was some ten minutes' walk from her own house, but not more than a hundred yards from the defendant's residence. The nurse and parlour-maid at length decided on informing the plaintiff's brother, Mr. Henry Clark, of what had occurred when they returned home from their stay at Weston. Upon being informed of these circumstances, he sought an interview with Mrs. Clark, but was at first refused, though she afterwards received him in the afternoon of the same day in her bed-room. 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 N ewport."llester4tlre parlour-maid, accompanied her thither, not 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 a ft erwards 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. lie 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 the dresser to listen to what was going on in the room above. She heard the noise of feet, as if some one was walking towards the sofa, and then a noise, as if two Hpersons were on the sofa. She then called to Elizabeth ertford, 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—P 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 bands 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. lie saw Mrs. Clark in her 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 commencement of this action, in which defendant said, " Joseph and Potiphar'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 sash 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 above-named witnesses having been examined, evi dence was given with respect to the marriage settlement. The deed itself was put in, and proved by the attorney who had prepared it and witnessed its signature. Evidence was also adduced of a notice that had been served upon the trustees under it. It appeared that in this deed it was 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 mother, the interest arising from which was to be duly paid over to her for her sole use and benefit, by the before-mentioned trustees, :on receipts bearing her own signature. There was, however, a proviso, to the effect that this interest should not be paid over to her until she had formally demanded the payment of it, and notice had been regularly served upon the trustees. It was accordingly now proved that the payments had been de manded in due form since Mrs. Clark bad 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 on behalf of the defendant, and contended that they could not, upon the evi dence as it now stood, come 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, lie 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 lees 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 he 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 e n t erta i ned b efore a verd i ct cou l d b e g i ven for t h e plaintiff. He contended that there was no reason to come to the positive conclusion that this intimacy and those fami tmliw.airetitetenidelbhhyea dtpbbaereitin.e scar ried and that u t hutaloe unless t s a n d t e b u last adultery r yw were e a t d o really clearlycri in establishedibi e a e been y co b m e - - a n w o ar l d 'e e r d di b et im fo . r the But pelvaeinntlffftcboeuljdurybewerreetusarntiesdfieodrtbdartba were sufficient grounds for s uc f h ur a n v o e t r b d in ic g t, b h e e y s o u n b d m a it l t o e w d that s this was a case that called trifling amount of damages. Little would compensate the plaintiff ffilly, for, regarding matters in the most unfavour able light, his loss could not be looked up on as heavy. After commenting on the evidence that had beenleaavdidnugeetabeboenfoerse. t t i h o e n m i , tlntibeeLarnbeandeadofSethrgee jury, being b n e c ip lu g de aa d s b ur y ed they would, ac. cording to the best of their judgment, do justice between the pacties, and meet the merits of the case. d e n T c h e i-4 ' Tl e c a l yGEantdheenleaprrloyceledaidedatlol itss muatpertihale eviefoi74 por tions b :h e • 4 been used by Counsel, his Lordship said rn c e a d re j fu u l D l le jury. In the course of some remar k s u p on crguments that ha_ . the inadequacy that much might be in:,..11"." on respect in g - instances such as the present. of pecuniary compensation in _of this nature, many ob- As was usually the case in actions , Lueffisisan7 oY any nervations had been made as to the tote- ._ a husband amount of pecuniary compensation to soon' the wounded feelings; or to satisfy his injured honour, ~.71 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 efficacious. The jury, therefore, would new only have to decide whether the plaintiff, under the circumstances of this case, judging from the evidence that had been laid before them, was entitled to any compensation, and if so, to what amount they should award it to meet the merits. They must measure the damages by the value of what the plaintiff had lost through the conduct 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 mages 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 fulfill:cl 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, but 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 lie 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 he 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 plaintiff's wife, and that he had said something about the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar being acted over again. tie (Mr. Justice Creeswell) 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, arid' 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 woul d 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 ono for the plaintiff—Damages, 5,000/. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Dec. 3. THE PIRACY AND MURDER CASE. Sir J. DopsoN (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday) said—lt was urged on the other side, that the capture was not made in accordance with the instructions is sued to the Royal Navy under the treaties; but it must be re membered that these instructions were altered when the convention of 1830 was agreed to, and for his part he thought the seizure in question in no way violated them. He ad mitted that this country had no right to punish these pri soners as pirates at all, but it had the right of capturing a vessel suspected to be engaged in the slave-trade for exami nation, and if the crew of such vessel committed an offence after such capture, they rendered themselves amenable to the laws of this country. That was the case here, and therefore he contended that this country, having a right to capture, and the capture itself having been properly effected, the prisoners had laid themselves open to the vengeance of the English laws by the murder of Mr. Palmer subsequent to the seizure of the Felicidade. In a time of war it often occurred that neutral vessels were captured, but he had yet to learn that the crews of those vessels, following out the argument of his Learned Friend on the other side, had a right to disregard the privileges of the British flag, and murder the whole or any of their captors to recover their vessel. It was objected that the Echo was not captured by a lieutenant in her Majesty's Royal Navy, or by a vessel having certain instructions on board. Now he should con tend that the Echo was captured by a jolly-boat of the Wasp, acting under the directions of Lieutenant Stupart, commander of the Wasp, but before the capture could be made by the jolly-boat, the Echo struck, and how it could be objected that this was not a capture effected by a vessel in the Royal Navy, he could not for the life of him under stand ; but of this he was confident, that the mode in which the Echo was captured could be no justification for the murder of Mr. Palmer. He submitted, in conclusion, that both the Echo and the Felicidade were lawfully captured by a British vessel in the Royal Navy, and being then under the control of the British flag, any offence committed on board of either, whether by an Englishman or a Brazilian, against the municipal law of England, rendered the offender liable to be dealt with and punished by those laws. Dr. ADAMS replied, reminding the Court that his Learned Friend, throughout the whole of his address, had been contend ing that the country had a general right of visitation. Now he maintained, that in a time of peace it had not, except by especial contract entered into with a foreign nation whose vessels were to be searched, and unless the conditions of that compact were strictly complied with, no right of visi tation existed. That was the case in this instance, and he humbly submitted that their Lordships' decision ought to be in favour of the prisoners. Dr. lIARDING also replied, and the Court adjourned shortly after five o'clock. ARCHES' COURT, Dec. 3. (Before Sir 11. Jr:pun:ft Fun.) JUDGMENT.-.-THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN v. THE ItEV. JOHN DAY. This was a proceeding by letters of request, against the Rev. John Day, clerk, rector of the rectory of Hawridge, for the reformation of his manners and excesses. The suit was in pursuance of the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, and as it has proceedel throughout in pEcnam (the rev. defendant not having appeared to the citation), the articles exhibited, were, on a previous court-day, read seriatim, as well as the evidence brought forward in support of them. Counsel were then heard in support of the validity of the charges, and, as total deprivation of the living enjoyed by Mr. Day was asked fur, the Court took time to consider the case in extenso. The principal articles exhibited against the Rev. Mr. Day were to the following effect:— " We article and object to you the said Wrn. Day, that at all times in and during two years previous to the eornmence niont of this suit (save from on or about the 7th day of July, 1843, to the 9th March, 1844), during which time you were a prisoner in her Majesty's gaol at Aylesbury, in the county of Buckinghamshire, you have addicted yourself to habitual excesses. "Also we article and object to you, the said Wm. Day, that there did exist concerning you scandal and evil report as having offended against the laws ecclesiastical, 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 baud 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, fur 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 11. JENXER Fusr, 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 cases 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 froin the emoluments of the living would be sufficient. The sentence of three years' deprivation, with costs, was ordered to be entered in the registry. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3. (Before Mr. Commissioner FoNswgulc.) IN RE FRANCIS 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. Valiance against the insolvent. Mr. VALLANCE said that he had certainly opposed the in solvent upon his lastappeikrance before the Court, both in rela tion to hie " commission, and the evidence which he had ~..~,. given under the bankruptcy of Lord TruntingtoNver, which he then disbelieved, but which subsequent explanations from the Colonel induced him (Mr. Valiance) to believe to have been correct, and to confirm his present belief, that the Colonel was a man of the strictest honour, and therefore he no w w ithd rew any further 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/. Since, and in consequence of the examination gone into after Lord Han 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- IR A 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 2404 Mr. Commissioner FOYBLIATQUE—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 get renewals. Mr. JAMES 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 *ere solely given from a sense of honour. Mr. Commissioner FONBLAINVE—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 hit) commission. . _ Mr. STURGEON—If the insolvent were to enter into any such undertaking, he (Mr. Sturgeon) could say, front , s own knowledge of the service, that— Mr. Commissioner FONBLAXQUE—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 com mission, and unless you conform to these terms, I shall ad. journ the case from time to time. Mr. JA3IES—It was Colonel Copland's wish to give such an undertaking, but be feared— Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—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. IN THE HITLER OF - RAT. The insolvent in this case came up for his final order, and was described as a clergyman of White's Chapel, IVhite's row, Spitalfields. He 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 Alr: - Commissioner EvAss.) TILE LAMBETH 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. Lawrence, who op posed the 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 6,8001., besides a subsequent advance of upwards of 2,0001., 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 Mill out standing, 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, lie could not explain them. In yearly dealings, to the amount of nearly 30,0001., 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 845!. lls. for bills discounted by him, and Mr. Chapman knew it, although the books con tained no entry of it. The sum of 2,6811. 35, 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 knee' 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/. 3s. 11d., for money advanced by him. Mr. Commissioner Evens—Will your book show when you received these moneys, and how you appropriated them ? —lt will not, Sir. By Mr. LiovneNcE—l see you put down a person of the name of Saltmer as a creditor, and also Messrs. Lee, Bous 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 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 possible, at least I apprehend it is possible, that I had some conversation with Mr. Chapman about it. Will von swear you ever mentioned the name of Saltmer to Mr. Chapman ?—Tea, 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 ,4,10, 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 rine die. 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 wateh 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 arosa 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 M division informed the Court that the prisoner for some months past had been the associate of thieves. CIIAIRMAN, in. 'sentencing the prisoner to six months' imprisonment and Irlird labour, told him that if ever lie again appeared in that court on a criminal charge, and was con victed, his docirli 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 hi 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 ➢londay 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 unfinish e d, a n d that the agreement in writing was admitted by defendant to be the same in effect as had been made verbally in Dublin. Michael Kehol, foreman to Mr. Allen, proved that the defendant told him in Dublin that he had entered into an agreement to serve Mr. Allen for a year at advanced wages. The defendant, at first, utterly denied that he had 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 ments. He now only sought that he should be punished. The defendant inquired whether he could not force his master to complete the contract. Mr. Alderman HUNTER said he had by his misbehaviour, in absenting himself at a critical time, left it to the option of the master to discharge him The Atinummr, after ineffectually end4afom9ng 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 5/. 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, be 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. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. Yesterday George Elliott, a sailor, was indicted for stealing a chest, 11 shirts, and various other articles, value 71., the 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 goods were sent ashore, and left at a house kept by a Mr. Browne. 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 months, with hard labour. 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 awn 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 priscmment 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-room, lie 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 possess:on 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 bad 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. PUCKLE. and a full Bench of Magistrates.) Yesterday George IVillis ' alias Wild, aged 21, a we l l . dressed man, was indicted for stealing from the person of Thomas Lisnev, at Palton, 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 be invited them to partake of some liquor, a fter 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 lie 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 him of being concerned in the robbery. The prisoner, however, denied the chargg, and in proof of his innocence produced the contents of his pocket, amongst which was a purse, which the prosecutor identified as his property, and claimed its restoration. T h e 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 _ _ „„- CILAIRIIAN, addressing him; said he bad had a very narrow escape, and advised him as to his future conduct. Albert Grainger, aged 24, was indicted for stealing a va luable watch, a guard chain, and seal, the property of John Post Thomson, at King s t on - u pon-Thames. The prosecutor deposed, that on the evening of the 13th present, the room, prosecutor of November, it bei n g f a i r -ti me at. Kingston, he went i n t o the Old Crow n I nn , i n th a t t own , in the large room of whi c h a number o f p ersons , ma l e an d female, were assembl e d , dancing. He joined in the amusement ; but had not been long in oLcwuthnernbeaindgismpuixteedanrop in the affair, h e wasse concerning a l a d y 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. Wh en the affray was over, he immediately missed his watch and guard-chain, and was informed -hat the prisoner was ob served to have taken something from the hands of a person, WIIM,A=I .::, - ~_._ ~~` _ Ams CLERKEIVWELL. 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. had 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 defamatory 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 th e s t re t c h o f a p o li ceman ' s authority, and whether or no he was licensed to assail unoffending per sons, however humble their station in life might be. It was hard enough upon licensed victuallers to be obliged to open their houses at all times for police inspectors; but it was harder still, and what he thought the law never could sanc 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. QUEEN-SQUARE. 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 diameter, 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 more 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 the prisoner's violence was found dead by her daughter on Monday morning, and on the evening of that day a coroner's' jury sat upon the body, and returned a verdict "that the deceased had committed suicide whilst in a state of temporary insanity." Since that period some circumstances of a very suspicious nature 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 cf 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 ine." Mr. Partridge, the inspector on duty at the Gardiner's-lane station, whither the prisoner had been most unwillingly taken, having 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 brought 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 — I 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, Brewers'-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, whet are you at ? what are von at ?" She wished me to come round and see my mother, which 1 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. I went with prisoner as soon as I had dressed myself, and on entering my mother's room I looked in the bed, but the 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. Born—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 did. Was it tied tight ?—Very. • Examination continued:-Mx mother appeared quite dead. I immediately called out for assistance. Mr. BOND—Was the prisoner hi 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. BOND—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 Tethill-fields Bride well in a cab. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. William Edwards, alias Warner, alias Morris, was brought before Mr. Maltby for final examination, charged with having 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 130/. and upwards. " We, the undersigned, having a knowledge of his mis fortune, do feel justified in recommending his case to the generous p'ublic, 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 Giffin Wilson, 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. Meurnir said he was quite satisfied from the evidence that the prisoner was a person who made it a practice to go about endeavouring to obtain money by false and fraudulent pretences, and therefore he should send him for the full term of three months to the House of Correction. Joseph Ventine, a native of Wallachia, was placed at the 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 pas:- port, and that he yesterday applied fur another, which was ultimately given to him ; he required assistance in money also, and as the Consul-General thought fit to refuse his le quest, he became very insolent and caused a crowd to assmble round the door; a constable was called, and he was then given into custody. The prisoner, after being given to understand that he must not repeat the annoyance complained of, was dis charged. MARYLEBONE. 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. WORSHIP-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 5/. note, and in doing so unavoidably exposed the contents of his pocket book, consisting of 'bank-notes to the amount of 601., which he carefully replaced in his breast-pocket, but after discharging the cabman, he was followed by the two women before referred to, who requested him to treat them for the trouble they had had in searching for his money. He consented to do so, and they conducted him to the house of the prisoner, where he sent out for wine, gin, stout, and sandwiches, in successsion, all of which were brought in by the prisoner, bat he had no sooner par taken of a small portion of the spirits than he was seized with a sudden stupor, on recovering from which some time after, he found himself still in the company of the women; who then led him out of the house, and at the corner of an adjoining street suddenly disappeared. The moment they had left him he was accosted by a third woman, who in duced him to accompany her to some oyster- rooms in the neighbourhood, on entering which he discovered that his pocket-book had been transferred to another pocket from that in which he had placed it, t'nd that the clasp had been partly wrenched off; and besides all the loose cash, that the whole of its contents, with the exception of two 10/. notes, which had been fortunately overlooked by the thieves, had been abstracted. He gave immediate information of the robbery to the police, who succeeded, after considerable dif ficulty, in faking the prisoner into custody. Police-constable Brown stated that on apprehending the prisoner, she denied all knowledge of the robbery, and declared that she had remained constantly at home ever since the prosecutor had visited her house on Saturday night. Police-constable G 135, however, proved that he had been engaged with other officers in searching for the prisoner, who had absented herself immediately after the robbery, and only returned home on the preceding evening. In answer to the charge, the prisoner denied all know ledge of the robbery, and protested that she had never left home since the night it was perpetrated. Mr. Bnoucurrox said that he considered the case was re plete with such strong suspicion against the prisoner, that he dad no hesitation in remanding her for a week, bat had no objection to accept substantial bail for her appearance, herself in 801., and two sureties iu 401. each. SOUTHWARK: Richard F/inn and William Blumstead, two respectable looking men, were brought before Mr. Cottingham, charged with having in their possession, and carrying, two gallons of illicit spirits, without a permit. Mr. William Packstock stated that he is a chemist and druggist, at Millpond•bridge, Bermondsey, and that Flinn had been continually calling at his house since he suc ceeded to the business, representing that he used to supply his predecessor with various articles, consisting of plaisters of various descriptions, ointments, and spirits of wine. On a late'occasion Flinn called on complainant, and said that he had a quantity of spirits of wine, 52 degrees above proof, a sample of which lie produced, and that if he became a purchaser he would let him hays it at the rate of 15s. 6d. per gallon. Complainant having formerly filled a situation in the Excise, considered it his duty to give information to Davis, an officer of that department, having previously ar ranged with Flinn to bring a quantity of spirits of wine to his house. On the preceding evening the two prisoners called at the house of the complainant, bringing with them two gallons of spirits of wine, which was contained in bladders. The complainant having called a policeman, gave both the prisoners into custody. Flinn said that he only went to the complainant's house to sell some plaisters, and that he knew nothing about the spirits of wine. The other prisoner said that he knew nothing about the wiae. The MAGISTRATE fined the prisoners 251., and in defau committed them for three months. Thomas Cox was charged with having intermarried with Jane Miles while his former wife was alive. The first wife only was present, but the certificates of both marriages were produced; and the prisoner said that his first wife was a woman of the most profligate habits; that lie bad scarcely been married to her six months when she left him, and went to live with another man, with whom she had been living until his decease; but upon the death of the man she immediately claimed support of him (the pri soner), and because he refused to contribute to her mainte nance, she adopted the present proceedings. The first wife's brother was called, and he admitted that his sister had aban doned her husband, and went to live with another man, and that she told him (the witness) that she was also married to the deceased. Mr. COTIINGIIAM said, that although the first wife was of the profligate habits represented, and that she went and lived under the protection of another man, still that her husband was not justified in marrying another woman. He, how ever, had an undoubted right to refuse to contribute in the least to her support. Under all these circumstances, he (the Magistrate) should, instead of sending the case for trial, ad judge the prisoner to enter into his own recognizance, 501., to appear again on that day week to answer the charge. It is a fact worthy, perhaps, of a passing notice that the whole of the land in and about the neighbourhood of Conception Bay —very probably the whole island —is rising out of the ocean at a rate which promises, at no very distant day, materially to affect, if not render useless many of the best har bours we have now on the coast. At Port-de-Grave a series of observations have been made which undeniably proves the rapid displacement of the sea level in that vici nity. Several large rocks, over which schooners might pass some thirty or forty years ago, with the greatest facility, are now approaching the surface, the water being scarcely navigable for a skiff. At a place called the Cosh, at the head of Bay Roberts, upwards of a mile from the sea-shere, and at several feet above its level, covered with five or six feet of vegetable mould, Vivre is a perfect beach—the stones being rounded and of a moderate size, and similar to those now found in the adjacent land-washes—Newfoundland Ge noral Advertiser, Nov. 7. CONSUMPTION--THE SCOURGE OF HUMANITY.-- Not one of the many ills which flesh is heir to, is half so hopeless in its progress, h a lf so t err ibl e i n it s fatal issue, as that scourge of the human race—Consumption. The first faint suspicion of its presence reduces the affectionate rela tives of the " stricken one" to despair. And why ? Simply, because the treatment usually adopted by the faculty has hitherto failed to arrest its invidious progress. But is there, indeed, no hope? Let those who are sceptical consult the "Observations on Anaspasia in the cure of Asthma and Consumption," from the pen of Dr. Cronin, the well-known Physician to the Dispensary for Consumption. Even were Dr. Cronin's facts less conclusive than they are, the impor tance of the subject would render apathy on the part of the afflicted wholly unpardonable. —Morning Chronicle. STRIKE OF THE CARMARTIIEN WEAVERS.— During the last week the flannel weavers of Carmarthen, amounting to a considerable number, struck for wages. We understand that it has hitherto been the custom of some master weavers to give but a small pittance in money to the journeymen, at the same time compelling them to board in the master's house. The men finding trade in an unusual state of briskness, and learning that hands were scarce, took the opportunity of insisting upon being paid in money, and also of having an advance of hi. per yard. To this demand the masters demurred, and a strike was the consequence. During the week groups of discontented weavers have been seen at the corners of the principal streas in deep and earnest conversation, and we learn that already three masters have complied with the demands of their workmen.— Cumbrian. Lord and Lady Ashburton are entertaining a family circle at the Grange, near Basingstoke. MURDER ON THE HIGH S its THAMES POLICE COURT- JO . • 0 ADJOURNED EXAMINATION OF CAPTA L ' v. STONE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yegerditY'S)o. Mary Blewitt was next called, and said—l roi de . s l'on' 23, Albany-street. I was a passenger on board the ell W et Of I remember three of the men being in irons in 9°lgg for the the rigging. I was in the cabin as a cabin passeng sr . ettll first fortnight. I was afterwards in the half-deck,„e_.,o, more forward, but not le ft of the poop. On the2l6htes of d 7 .,rt Kp o. ti bt l , ber, I believe, about three or four o'clock, Johnstone demand that the mate be found and 1) 0 !: bo wherever he was, to him. Barry Yelverton was t he ° „ l' . l the n found him, and brought him to the captain. I w : ill looking on, of which Captain Johnstone was not awel e ot her. had a pistol in his left hand, and a cutlass in t c h l os tale I believe the pistol was loaded, for Captain J° li ded , always ordered them to bring his pistol . d 04 The captain struck Rambert right and left, on the bur t tii and afterwards on the body. Rambert had no arms, bad hands were free. During the time Captain Joh nston bio , striking him he begged for mercy and to sP ra ns ey Captain Johnstone replied, " Oh, you overgrown Eol ith 10 you cowardly brute 1" and with that he cut lihn , 0 0 cutlass. Rambert said " Ask the sailors, Captain Je" c osil if I ever said a word against you," on which the ors c io• seemed to get more enraged, and struck at hint e' s ,'ll l lently than he did the time before. "Go on your 11 0 sl said, which Rambert did,_ and then, after calling .d i the " overgrown monster," he struck him severely li l a :11! cutlass. Rambert exclaimed, "0, my God ! 0 0 01 , God ! I am killed." With that he droppe d sea t side, and said "Oh !" when , Captain Johnstoeeut LP for the irons. After that the carpenter cams an d / T i mbe rs irons on the monkey-batch on the half-deek•, wit was blzedhig so at the time that I could not see P „ r, OW, Rambert asked the boy Slack to bring soineth'ne ng tbP his head up. The boy said ho bad nothing. D e " re fel l time I believe the captain retired into his cabin fermiota ments. Captain Johnstone had net made mseY b , DOI delay when he came up again, and went up into t 0. ll mast-top, where the man, Stephen Cone, was in et a tt, s ‘ struck at Cone in the most violent manner, so 71 ",„;pg l' I heard the blows from where I had been 10 0 . o n1: 1 I could not see what the captain struck 1 1 ° ' 0 4 , 4 ! that. lie went up with a cutlass , in 111 . 1 t• Ost e r With that I cried out, "My God, my to • 1 Thel p Stephen Cone, he will kill him." I said this to Mrg• tsio b son. That was the first time 1 spoke while the eaP ro eoi c . 6 e i been striking Rambert. With that Rambert heard ~i i e r cl3 , l l and said, " Mrs. Blewitt, I am dying, give me s hael ie d, to tie my head up, lam bleeding to death?' I re Sdetel l ,, am in that state lam not fit to move; lam So do,i and faint." With this Rambert said, "He is con n ;;P, tb ~$` again,he will kill me. omy God! omy God! . t isro' o , made no reply. As Capt. Johnstone was coming tol,°. ~ ele, t bert, he said, " Where is the overgrown monster,' 4.3%.rith tha t is the overgrown brute," but I cannot say which. ord r e he said to the carpenter, " Where is he," and thee r te! 4 Rambert to be taken away to the main hatch. lr e . i isl' o Mrs. Thompson, "What is to be done, there wil l "pis ',, to us all this night." After this, I believe the OP . 5 1c:, forward with some of the men, and I heard as fe t ,,i ie'', recollect that Rambert was to be taken 01t„`,.0 0 , 4 Directly a ft er that I heard a rush on the poop. l' il ' i ,es , * o boat on the poop. I saw Rambert trying to nis ke h aise i t y between the end of the boat and the companion. ne t oe . d on the poop at the time, with a musket and a bay toefro. top of it. I saw Julian presenting the bayoneting 0. Rambert. With that I heard the captain e re ll: e 1 1 .4 " Where is he ? where is he?" "He is gone c ' s I ',rof said Julian. The captain answered, " The b --- ;;, " have half of them overboard before sunset to -e, ,,% i 0 next words I heard were Captain Johnstone call2 l ;f o t ~, and ordering a glass of grog for all hands, but I de 0 `` whether all the crew were there. I T";% r 0i1,4 hausted and hint that I lay down and " 6 ' 15 further, only I was in hopes there might be ge; rl , I c f ol a .10 further state, though I paid my passage to ILA to 4 treated very unkindly by Captain Job ustone, and ha t I ' - ashore at Deal. The reason of this Iva , tn e b i, called on the 7th of last month by the captain int° ig • The boy Slack came to me, and said, " The eeP ts „„‘lo.,4 you." I exclaimed " Oh, sny. God! does he wil l isli kill me r .I wentinto the cabin ! , and saw the . llielliFil Barry Yelverton, French, and Spence. 3111 •,,, 4 0. 4 1 seeing me so excited, came to accompany nie,!l„,,'" te l'ie taro Johnstone said, " I have called yen to in"ii s e! 01 intend to put you in irons the rest of the vovael id i e r fa ther said, "You are going to be hung at the old Bai l 0 ,4 said, "Is not that it, French ?" and the latter rep 0?,',0 I believe it is, sir." I made answer, " lam willing tt 1 , r er Johnstone, for anything I have done in the shiP 0 , I 1 , said, " Captain Johnstone, may I say a word or tw eor bet,; barked in your ship the 14th of last May, and 1 1 ,,, a " gy p! any man during the whole period, up till now, s .' h l iit ct o „l6' word against you or the ship. If there is a wa r ? „" t in •',,:s I have ever said a wrong word against you, ullf i n stone, or the ship either, let him come and saY gi o ,l3 le ir it! ever hear me, French? French answered, "Se , pel le t. I never did, except that time when you had to ril e No salt water to make cakes, and frying them in A ,01/4/ French afterwards said to me, " This is it b e ' 11 0 ,', 4 B'ewitt ;" and lanswered, " It is so ; why den'triFjlee,' ' l to the captain." I called Mr Spence and asked bun he sPy stated anything against Captain Johnstone or t to t p " No, Mrs. Blewitt, I never did," he answered. . 1 / O f f I never expected to come out of the cabin I„lii_l' T el el such dread and fear. With that I called on " . ri l ' e rep l a y! ' ton, and asked him a similar question ; a nd ",s ldi " No, Mrs. Blewitt, except hearing you say, `',.."; 0 0t ,r'fi for a' that ;' but what you meant by it 1 :::: .- I 11 1 41 , " I might have said the words," I replied, „, '' l t i recollection. To tell yoa the truth, Captain Johneee,;—'oPd! turning to him, " It is a word of my father's.„l,llo;s Johnstone kept still, and said nothing. I was t e d IV" to leave the cabin. I felt very bad at the time, iv e SE : that Captain Johnstone observed it, for he ordere d y of wine. Catherine Thompson followed in examination, gliap3. She lived in Sidney-street, Baker-street. She °Pi e o d 1; ger in the ship Tory. She saw Captain eJohnsto.,3,op, the vo:vage cut Rambert with a sword. On one l : ',, c itel o ol saw Rambert with hi s b o dy cu t an d mangled 'Z i t dl'oo manner. She heard Rambert j u mp overboard' .- 0 ey4 see him. At that time she heard the captain 31/) ;i a ' eri ' a good thing, and that h e oug ht t o h ave been ' lii ' t he before." cle i , ail James Glover recalled and examined respeeti,' l eioceP e of Rambert—He recollected Rambert dining Wit," " t hee the day before his death. They seeme d sero t ill!' be on good terms. He was not t he ci tO anything particular that day on b oar d the 011 About 7 o'clock at night he was called i llt °ter. ell by the captain to give him a little brandy and elbe trel, ness then saw the mate on his knees, praying f °r o bio : f or u to forgive hies. He continued in the captele l . t h ell' el s same position, the captain standing over him s it n oel. 01 Re o 1 in his hand. Witness did not observe that , 0 t ,Itag' then wounded. Witness was going in an," „i u liel"l'U l cabin till 12 o'clock, and always found Ram t 10 and the captain standing over him with the ; to per bos captain said several times that he had give n he esbi P out life twice. At 12 o'clock the captain went oat of t.,-/elfe t al , previous to his going out, he asked Mr. S p en ce, Be r k l r , Re ° t"' and witness, if he (the captain) should forgive spe eee v , Witness did not hear Yelverton speak, heto net i d swered he would leave that to him. Witness %,,tsio. ta eJl of anything that Rambert had done. A ft er th e c .4d if i AeP out the mate slept on deck, wh en Yelverton 'aiieutrlit were sent in search of him. That was about ha lf ! l o ts),, r , 1 1 '; Witness went out and saw him in the In f,',„ l., er• 'tt''„; called him several times, but received no I° "„ en t t c , ) .l, t" forming the captain of this they were again ''„ iele'ese'; Rambert down. They could not find him, e" • t a il' A , el •„,0 captain went on deck, and sent French all e "„d oil' ~, bert was not brought again into as cabin, g " ft d not see him afterwards. re o f Thomas Lee said that he was one ,f er agell c o, Tory, and was put in irons along with F„,`„r o bar t ,ioll' i Witness was placed in the maintop. He saw Mlle s ir e d t i up to the maintop on the day referred to °. Re v ;isewo ° witness, but he had no wounds on him tben•,,,ra ',"joi get the shackle off witness's neck. Witness,' well' b et Johnstone singing out for him on which 1 1 t0e ,49 , 1 ,/ ; the mainstay. The next thing the wi ll o f o$:, the captain say was, " Yon overgroWn 7 ~,.i.„Jeci I have pardoned you three times ; d tic t eP l o your life now." He then chased Rambert re:;,,issP e ritl A and the blood was flowing from his thighs as __,'" a hitell ° , up the poop ladder. The captain was folle , "::.itl j e" for. sword, on which he jumped overboard. v i t i ' ite t T i e l v " let go the helm for a moment, and the sails ',, ol d t" til moment. The captain cried, "Lay to he11n , ... werg te pb ; took its regular course. Several other anew e '; a of, ~ it 6 0 1 ) by the witness in corroboration of the evidel l i ii g o e':&,,e, Cone, and to the effect that he (witness) /lau d, W i lco' by Capt. Johnstone, whe n i n i rons , on the he, ti se" shoulders, but the foregoing were the main poi " 111' n , 00 r r 1 We are happy to learn that the v .." ti o.oe, Hers is now convalescent. ..,,, r 1;e 1 , a) ~ v, STATE OF TRADE.—Although the " — eije sei to e". i very gloomy appearance yesterday, in censego of ~),01 e , nouncement of several failures, including , the ci " 0 t h o t tensive concerns in Londe'', there wee , u P ° lor t° h'odk" 09 little more disposition to do business than de , te,„ i re. past, and sales of cloth were more readily In l in diti o l• II very law prices. Yarn, suitable for the •e i ., e t oun t Jse:; rl l ,(/ was also in fair request, and a considerabl e 'Wet fan ness was done at the full rates of last week' is e t ' pity fi tions are still very heavy of sale, but the s or, 0 f or: y i change in prices.—RecisnaLE Flazieent'_,'o,, tet f t 'so t ie —We have no improvement in the flannel_l sea,'" 0 to-day. There is very little demand for goe"Zi de " ,je t s have been upon a very limited scale. Th e W ,i ti ll' aee' : ' ' plain, and not without cause, at the very lint",-he tends in wool. There is little change in price, but 1 - downward.—Manchester Guardian. --- ii 9, London: Printed anu I'ublished by 511/T"r- a , r" 1114-;1-4'lle449 R' c Ji l Thn -o 5 0 ' 4 ffe pel Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, \o• 112, ~„,.-- 0 1 /0 f tho Savoy, in the County of Middle:oB, '" 4, 1845. 71w-ars, y• To Tit May it A H enan,. — t/ST A , A 'ANC Pir CllrnAtion of I and , l(lat. to Softer 4 n eZte tsrt: e n3. Years n ears hoof in the the to then. t Pacity, it 4 soi slinitig to the r I have c 3 ire WILLI bfl is ino LEA: Imo t e r „,general el -.Ts eittnce wit; 'wa n rea c i;, e CADET;. K , fleeted 1 4.41: 1 ana by Zea iteri," c d arie ; t e s ' Ctlo t°4 t ° )11 M 141 Outflt t the wn L! &1 ~., ........•••••..m................................ Ti ld e BIRTHS. „ Dil ic(l _ o ( On the 27th ult., at the Vicarage of STra t°- ' ~..PP the lady of the Rev. H. Knapp, of a son. n ieL , ' _.,f On the 29th ult., M. James Dale, of Morr - r isOP" street, Southwark, of a daughter. W ye _,,, the iv or On the 30th ult., at Chislehurst, Kent, Aylward, Esq., surgeon, of a daughter. gor 0 , ( ip 0 * On the 30th ult., at Knickerbocker Cottage', ditaisere road, Regent's-park, Mrs. George Putnam,. e z `S e raldt d p On the 20th ult., the lady of G. W . P t 'ife Lawrence-Pountney-hill, of a daughter. the W 0 On the 30th ult., at Sholden Lodge, Ke nt ' 00 Banks, Esq., of a son. of 110 11J+ On theist inst., on Sydenhatn-hill, the Price, Esq., of a son. ith , e ffordt Pv- On the Ist inst., at South-bridge-wham '- F. F. Austin, of :4 daughter. Alfe, F.F.Austin, of ts • ,daughter, ___------- r id COO MARRIED. litre , of - w On the 2d inst., at St. George's, Ils"s .er -9 q t er t iling A• S. Whitmore, Esq. to Elizabeth Katharine, l isOi,j Orli ow late Lieutenant-C o lonel Brownrigg. rhorebt , Pi rii On the 29th ult., at St. Sepulchre's ‘-'' daug hter oi Salmon, Esq., surgeon, to Harriett, d aug Fennell, Esq., late of Limerick. .it °clli I &341111(1 . 1 9 .t..q., 5 111 grim, Ltl 11A........ , _____________.-- Fennell, Esq., late of Limerick. it 4 eld as DIFD ' • Clor les ' ~?' On the 25th ult., at Thetford, Norfolk, , t l i o• of Frederic Walker, Esq., of Lewisham, Nen' b, AP to On the 28th ult., at the Bell, Scarboroug birotdet. 9 0 Sparrow, of Ripon. On the 28th ult., at Stoke St. Grego r y' s°lne- P r Rev. W. Halfhead, aged 45. ,fticbS r° f On the 29th ult., Mariane, fifth daughter 0 1 ad , fir. Thompson, Esq. of Kirby Hall, Yorkshire. _ late re On the 30th ult., Elizabeth, relict of th° f& D • Siff ken, of West-sireet, Hackney. ~r d dau ghte r° 00 0 On the 30th ult., Anna Deborah, t hi rd Stacy, of Tottenham. orb .., ...., run, yr On the 30th ult., at Bruce-grove, lottenb I , John Hodgkin. ...f rd, the 11° ge r On the 30th ult., at New College, (:).•••-° Of Price, aged 39. A , e - ,reli a On the st inst., at Fareharn, Hants , " 6- tain R H. Bar c l a y, R.N. p, 11. Bsi d°4' IS On the Ist in s t., a t U c kfi e ld, Sussex. , —• jot al l IDI .4 .~~