The Sun. — London, England, 1822-10-25 00:00:00

THE LONDON JOURNALS. XTILACTS FROM TILE DULY 31011NING PAPERS, October 25, 1822. [ T H E ' TIMES.] A correspondence deeply interesting to that, great "and respectable body of English merchants liaS taken place within .these few days between the Committee of Lloyd's and the Secretary to the Lords of the Admiralty. The facts of the case are of such a nature, that our readers will be well satisfied to receive them unincurtibered by any coMments,:and we accordingly submit the following brief abstract of dates, names, and corn . municatidns .. ,0-4 the 7th of October the of Lloyd's addressed a Dater to the Admiralty, conveying intelligence that two British merchantmen, the Vittoria and Industry, had,. on the coast of the island of,Cuba, been made the, victims of piratical violence and depredation. • 'OCT. Croker states in reply, that the Lords of the - had already learned the above intelligence respect.. iog the Vittoria and Industry, threugh a letter from Captain NV4lcott, of his Majesty's sloop of war - Carnation of the 12th of AY4gust .;that on that - same day 17 sail of British merchant Ships - had passed safe by' Cape St. Antonio ;. that Captain Wal cot was waiting in that quarter to see the rest safe ; and that lie' was stationed' there by SirJosia&Rowley, for the general protenion of the trade. Mr. Croker added farther, that the Dotterel was also stationed in that neighbourhood for the like purpose. On the 'loth of Octoberi a letter was addressed from Mr. Bennett, of Llo3rd's; to his brother Secretary at the Ad miralty, acknowledging the receipt of the former epistle, and thanking my Lords for their condescension ; but, un fortunately, Mr. Bennett was compelled to subjoin,' that he was directed to lay before their Lordahipi the authenticated facts That by a letter from Captain - Barclay, of the Belina,Just arrived from Jamaica in the Downs, that 'ship had met the Carnation on the 13th of August—not " waiting" off Cape St. Antonio for the protection of, trade, nor " sta tioned' there by orders of Admiral Rowley, but off the Colo tidos ; and under what cirtuffistatieta'She had peen to Cham- Jeactay, and touched at Havannah; and 'wits'then on.her way to amaica with specie.. Now, the Coloradas lies north of Cape Sa.4 Aritanio, that is to say, between Havannah and the latter CaPo,.and in the course 'from Iravannah to JamaiCa. SO that - the Chatter Stands thus—On the 12th August C4t Walcott had seen 17 sail of English vessels safe past Cape Antonio : if he had not seen them and protected them, he or the Admiralty is guilty off batse" quibble ; for the evident import of the passage is, that the merchantmen owe their safety to him, and that he was waiting to do'the same good; turn for others.. Well, then, he bad,c9nvoyed the merchantmen past the:Cape on the 12th; and on the 13th he Was met at Color;ados,., a degree or so to The north of the Cape, and at a point of his voyage from Ilavannah to Jainaira, antecedent to Cape •St. Antonio. It alp. pears, therefore, that to make good the Admiralty history, th i s ship Carnation must have been sailing backwards, getting fur ther every day frbm Jamaica, to which she was conveying her profitable carg9 of specie ! It is in the above unlucky letter that the 'Seeretary' to their Lordships describes the . Dotterel to have been stationed, as well as the Carnation, for the protection of. trade in the same quarter • but Mr.'Bennet destroys that fable also 'by ShoWing, from die intelligente . of 'LlOyd's List, that the Dotterel, "on the 20th of AugUst;'had' - actually arrived at New :York, :With another' cargo of specie. The Edward Protherne if moreover appears, had been run on shOre under Saddle-hill, an plundered, 'making alinal escape in conse quence of the'privateer which attacked ber.having flown off in quest of other prey. - October 11.. '--A note from Mr. Croker to Lloyd's - presenting Iris' compliments, and requesting that any two gentlemen of the .Committee who' might find it convenient would call upon him 'at the Admiralty on 'the following day between one and two &clock.. _ _ . October 12. Mr. Ben - nett wrote to Mr. Croker, stating that as Mr. Marryat and most others of the Committee would be out of town, (that day being Saturday), he begged that Mr. Croker would, if' equally' convenient to himself, name Monday instead of that first mentioned., October 13. Mr. Croker. to Mr. Bennett, assents. On Monday, the 14th; t'heCommittee at Lloyd's met, and came to a resolution, in substance, that as every tinnier invita-' tion to attend at the 'Admiralty had been addressed to the' Chariman in the name and by command of the Lords Corn-: imisSioners,.it would he'll' bad precedent if they were to wait upon the Secretary at his mere personal desire. A letter from 'Mr. Bennett accompanied this resolution, assigning, as a rea son' of - the Copuritt tee for passing . it; that. Mr. Croker .had not explained the object of the interview, and that any member of the "Committee, being ignorant of, and unprepared for it, would. feel someinconvenience in attending, The same day, Mr.' Croker, in 'reply, refers to several notes: Of old and distant datesTrom the Secretary of the Admiralty to the Chairman of Lloyd's,, addressed in a similar form as his, of the 'Week preceding:; and as to the suppression - of the imirpose for whichlis proposed the interview; he says, that as he had a cointifunication to make, bUt not to receive, there existed no necessity for a'previous disclosure of its object. . _ On 'the 113 h, a Meeting was held, and resolution& passed by the Committee.of Lloyd's. After reading all the correspondence: of theprevious week, and extracts of such of their proceedings a& were connected with the notes referred to by Mr. Croker, in the years . ,lBo9, 1810, and 1313, a letter was prepared.and.transmit, ted to - Mr:*Croker, respecting. the construction which he had placed . tipon the notes in question, proving that in every instance the communications of former Secretaries-had been in the name and by order of the Lords ; and that the interviews to which ' Mr. Croker's notes. of reference had led, were with the, Lords in , person. This. letter went on to explain the essential difference between attendances on the Lords and on their Secretary—that the forma- Were 'kirotin by experience to be extremely rare, while the Secretary might frequently find it more convenient to laake oral, than written, communications. The letter continued, that when members of the Committee attertded'the Board of Admiralty, the Object, tenour, and result of the meeting _were. stated formally in Writing, and a copy at once made public; but that the verbal report of a conversation involved a responsibility which it would be painful to incur. , The letter concluded by Announcing the design 'of the Committee to abide by their form'er decision. A letter from Mr. Croker of the 19th;, in' a manner no doubt satisfactory to the Admiralty and its Officers, finishes the whble correspondence. The gist of it was,. that their Lord ships, " Seeing in Mr. Bennett's letter such marked- disrespect to the Board of Adiniralty, and such want of confidence in their communicationa, had ordered Mr. Croker to decline all further correspondence With the Subscribers to the. rooms at Lloyd's." We are not aware in. what particular, On the face of -this cor respondence, any disrespect appears towards the ." Board" of Admiralty ; and as for confidence in such :communications as had been transmitted by its Secretary=—whosefauhisit, if they had been received with undissembled distrust ? There is, be pond all question, such a tone of wounded arrogance in the last official letter of .which we have_ presented:an abstract, that we are sure`Mr. CrOker must have felt-himself humbled when " my Lords" imposed upon him the ungrateful task of affixing his signature.to langUage so little like his own. DIORNING CHRONICLE.] The dispatch of the Portuguese Ambassador was Feceived by him yesterday. The seal had evidently been broken, and part of the contents has been stolen by, the French Government. We 'are more and more convinced every day that the getting pos session of this Dispatch was the principal if not the only motive for arresting Mr. I3owring. The detestible faction, of which Peyronnet is the organ in the Cabinet, hoped, no doubt, to find in the dispatch 'matter calculated to inflame the Congress against the Liberals of Spain and Por tugal; and they would stick at no means, how ever reprehensible, to effect the object of their wishes. The faciliny With which ordi►nary couriers, as well as higher personages, are too often gained over by those who have a sufficiency 'of secret service money at their disposal, might perhaps suggest the propriety of entrusting important and 'confidential corn-, municatio►►s at a moment like the present, only to gentlemen incapable of betraying their trust ; and the Portuguese Minister no doubt esteemed himself happy in the opportunity which he had in the departure of an English gentleman of un doubted honour,* to secure hirnseff against the corrupt practices of an unprincipled Government, now endeavouring to stir up heaven and earth against the Peninsula, never suspecting that the _ ... ,_, .„.. pretext of carrying a seditious 9 sang or some 1 other equally ridiculous, mould be' alleged as a justification of the violation of his correspondence. In better times, a measure of this sort would have instantly been followed by protests and remonstrances on the part of the body whose pri vileges have been so grossly violated. - [MORNING POST.] Cyprus, whose inhabitants had resisted the contagion of patriotic and independent feeling, and in the midst of the struggles and successes of Greece, had maintained unbroken fidelity to the common despot and oppressor, has been treated with the same unrelenting cruelty which made Scio a desert and a grave. This ill-fated island, with the exception of a particular district, has been bathed in Christian blood ; its churches have been given to the flames or turned to the vilest uses ; its male population slaughtered ; the married women and young children shut up for days without food, and then burnt in the houses 'which had become their prisons ; the young maidens sold as captives, and the Mi nisters of God loaded with the most oppro brious insults, and then put to death by the most exquisite torments. " These are Grecian exaggerations," the calumniators of Greece would some time since have exclaimed. We think they will not now venture to hold such language ; but if they would, they could not; for these accounts are not Grecian, but English ; they are given in a letter from the British Consul at Cyprus. It is he who declares that " the Christians are hunted like wild beasts; " that " every hour is marked by murders in all parts of the island," and that," a tract of country 35 leagues in ex tent, formerly so remarkable for its high cultiva tion and fertility, is now nothing more than a heap of ashes." [BRITISH PRESS.] A long political di4luisition upon the right of foreign interference in the internal affairs of an independent country has been published in the Journal des Debats. The writer appears to in cline to the opinion, that if the King of Spain be not a free agent, but kept in a state of con straint and bodily fear, it would justify the in terference of the Sovereigns in his case. The King has sworn to maintain the Constitution, he has pronounced those of his subjects who are opposed to it rebels, and has sanctioned the punishment which, many of them have suffered. How is it to be ascertained' whether these acts were extorted from him by fear or not ? Why, if his subjects kill allow his Majesty to go to Verona, as the Neapolitans permitted their King to go to Laybach, he will probably, like his Royal Brother, hold a very different language from what he did‘ at home. But is there no danger of his being under undue influence at Verona as at Madrid ? if he should not yield to the persuasion of his Royal and imperial Brothers, has he resolution to resist their com mands ? Whatever restraint he may feel 'at Madrid, we may rest assured it is not greater than that which he would feel at Verona. He is as much a free agent at the one place as at the other. • ' [MORNING lILRALD.I The foreign arrivals, up to a late hour yester-; day, left the accounts from Spain in pretty much the same state of uncertainty. If eitlier scale has inclined, it, seems in favour of the Constitu tionalists. Even from Bayonne there are ac-' counts of the defeat of the Insurgents ; and the fortress of I rati is said to have , been abandoned by the Insurgent Governor, on the bare approach of - the troops of the' Government. By way of, a salvo for his retreat, it is 'said for him, that he proceeded to take the offensive in another" quarter. The most important article is one from Madrid, which states, that three of the late Ministers have been put under arrest: Of the truth or falsehood of this news we will not venture to judge : if true, it will probably lead to some curious disclosures. The charge against them is that of a guilty participation, or connivance, in the late rebellion of thelteyal Guards at Madrid. The Ministers of State were locked up in the Council. Chamber, cut off from all communication, during the explosion, and until the rebel Guards , were put down by the citizens and militia alone. Their durance was suspected of being not forced, but pre tended, and traitorously arranged by them selves, who had been gained over by foreign influ ence. Even were they guilty, we slated regret the discovery of their guilt. The discOvery of a traitorous' ' correspondence with foreign powers, and of the intrigues of the latter, would be fresh elements of wrath, and protract the state of fer ment and disorder in Spain. As to the Congress, not only is there little known, but even little said of its intentions. The Courier • solemnly declares, 'as from authority, that peace and good will among men and nations are its sole objects; —thatihe Spaniards will be addressed in a mis sive, of advice and_exho - rtation ;—but that there is no question of enforcing the / precepts of the Congress with the sword. • • NEw TIMES.] The great . practical question, on, which alone any considerable difference of 'opinion cati be imagined likely . to arise at the•COngress, is as to the conduct to be pursued toward the conflicting parties in Spain. There are :at present two distinct Powers in that country, each acting under the direction of an authority whiCh the other refuses to recognize. The majority of the people, seem disposed to obey the Re gency at Urge', which acts in the name of the King, and upon the ancient legal principles of the Monarchical Government. The minority acknowledge the authority of certain persons calling themselves 'the Cortes at Madrid, and acting under pretence of a Constitution totally novel to Spain, and purely democratical in prin ciple. The heads of this faction keep the King a prisoner, and compel him to promulgate sentiments which all the •world knows it' is utterly, impossible he should entertain. We are .clearly of, opinion, that if , the people of Spain choose to adopt a democratical form of Go, vernment, neither any other single Power, the Powers of Europe together, have a right to prevent them from so doing. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, OCT. 24. RAMSDEN AND ANOTHER V. ASHTON AND ANOTHER. This was an action of debt to recover penalties against the defendants for letting out post-horses to hire without paying the proper duties directed by the Statute. By the Acts for the regulation of this department of the re venue, the duty on post-horses let by the day is ls. 9d. ; the duty on them where hired by distance is 1 yl. a mile, or a fourth of the sum received for their hire. Hackney-coaches, as sub ject to another regulation, are exempt from the operation of these duties. It has been the practice at funerals conducted at a distance from London, and for which horses are hired by the undertakers, to pay only the ls. 9d. a.day, and not to pay by distance ; and where funerals are conducted near London, to treat the mourning-coaches as hackney-coaches, and not to pay for the horses as pest-horses, although four or six shduld draw each of the coaches. The present action was brought against' the defendants, who are in the practice of letting a great nen ber of horses to conduct funerals, to try the legality of these practices. The facts of the plaintiffs' case were established by three un dertakers, Mr. Stovell, Mr. Bywater, and Mr. Smith, Who had been in the habit of hiring horses from the defendants. It ap peared that on the occasion of Lady Henldy's funeral, who was buried near Northampton, there were. four coaches besides the hearse, and four horses in each; hired of Ashton and Co., which • were taken for a few days by Stovell : but he did not know the precise place of burial until the journey .was nearly ended, when the sons of the deceased met him with further instruc tions. So, in the case of Lord Dysart's funeral, which was conducted from Ham in Surrey to Helmingham in Suffolk, by Mr. Bywater, there were four sets of six horses engaged of the defendants for seven or eight days, the duty on which was paid by the day. In these cases, however, not only the mere distance of the place of interment was not ascertained, but the mourning coaches on their arrival in the country were placed at the controul of the relatives, and went various distances to convey the mourners. They also frequently went down and sometimes returned empty, or were employed in conveying va rious articles proper for the solemnity. On the 'other part of the case, it was proved that funerals within five miles of Lon don, and also beyond five and within ten, had been attended by mourning coaches as hackney coaches, drawn by more than two horses. On such occasions, where the funeral was to take" place at any distance, a charge was made for the day; so that whether it was eight or fifteen miles, the expence would be the same to the - employer ; but where the distance was less, so that a day was not occupied by the funeral, the price was various. , • , On this evidence two questions arose : firsi,• whether a 'per son letting post horses for a distant funeral was bound to pay for each of them as for an ascertained distance, though they were nominally taken by the day ; and secondly, whether mourning coaches drawn within the limits Of the hackney coach Acts, by more than two horses, were liable to the duty. At the suggestion of the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with nominal damages, sub ject to the opinion of the Court on a special case, in order that the points may be solemnly decided. THE XING V. ANDERSON'. . . Two indictments against this defendants for fraud stood for trial ' • but by his Counsel, the Co simoN SERGEANT, he sub mitted in each case to a verdict of guilty. Mr. SCARLET T, fir the prosecution, begged that it might be ti•nderstood that 'this step was taken without any communi cation with the prosecutor, or any promise of favour. THE KING V. HOWARD AND GIBBS. Mr. D. F. JONES stated that this was an indictment against Edward Howard and James Gibbs, charging them with a con spiracy to defraud Richard Dartnell of 1,1071. which they had in their hands, under pretence of laying 'it out on adequate security. Mr. SCARLETT opened the case for the prosecution. It was almost impossible that the .Jury should not have heard the names of the defendants in this case, who had acquired an unhappy celebrity by the ruin they had brought on great numbers of persons who had the misfortune to trust them. This indictment was preferred by one of those deluded persons whom they had persuaded to repose confidehce in them, and to place money in their hands by the prospect of- enormous interest, which they professed themselves able- to secure. He had been all his life in trade; and having saved a little/money by his in dustry, and wishing to retire, he was tempted by the offers of the defendants to confide In them not only as his bankers, but as agents to invest his money in, annuities. He had part of an annuity on the life of the Marquis of Sligo, which that Noble Lord redeemed, and accordingly 1,107/. was paid by Lord Sligo on his account .to Messrs. Howard and Gibbs. When he applied for hiS money, they intimated to him that they would lend it to the Duke of Marlborough; blithe, for some reason or other, decidedly objected to the Duke as a creditor. On this Gibbs said to him, " I have his father's will," meaning that the security was ample. Soon after,'NoweVer, When he received his account, he found himself debited with 1,200/. for the purchase of an annuity of , 2001: a year from the Mike, and credited with 100/. the 'alleged receipt of one half year,of the annuity. This was of course intended to inspire confidence ; and so artfully had the defendants proCeeded, that they made up the account on this principle, and brought in Mr. Darthell debtor for the triffinghalance of Is. 5d., which he paid to one of their clerks. He continued - to receive assurances from' both that all was safe; but he still pressed for his money •• until at last he was inform ed that the annuities were .paid , o ' ff; that he had lost a very good bargain by his folly ; but that he had only to sign a de henture of Mr. St. John, and he would receive his principal in a short period. Upon. the faith of this representation, he signed', the debenture, relinquishing the annuity, and, thought all was right. To' carry on the deception, the - defendants now debited him with the 1001., which they professed to have received, as though a bone fide contract were rescinded. The Jury would of course expect to hear what was fact—that the debenture was ' worth nothing—it was absolute nonsenseit did not charge the Mire -or Mr: St. John with the obligation to do any thing—hut , took away Niliatorei little security the preious deed might give. Whal.was The meaning of all this ? The trick was, that the defendimts had large clahnS on the of Marlborough, and being unable to obtain any money - from him, they persuaded ignorant people to purchase annuities from his Grace, and put the money into theinown pockets. About this time they raised no less than 10,002/. for the Duke from variouspersons, and no doubt thus repaid themselves what he owed them. This was 'the case • sufficient evidence -would, he believed, be given' to -evince that there was a conspiracy between the two parties to defraud Mr, Dartnell ; and if so, they would exercise a duty to the public in finding the defendants guilty. Richard Dartnell, examined by Mr. MauitYaT.—ln 1818 I carried on business as a stationer, in St. Martin's-court. I have employed Messrs. Howard and Gibbs to lay out money for me. The account produced is "that current between us. I saw both Howard and Gibbs, who were, as I believe, in partnership. In 1017, somewhere about November,'l,lo7/. 4s. Gd. was in their hands, after the redemption of an 'annuity. by -Lord. Sligo, in which I had a share. I called. repeatedly, desiring to have the Money, when.' generally saw Mr. Gibbs. By Gibbs it was pro p6sed me to - lay out the money with the Duke of Marlborough ; I told him I would not have it, as no one would trust the Duke ivith a shilling.,He pointed to a paper lying under the table, and said " I haVe gotais father's will ;" I said " What's,the use of that ?" We then, parted. I afterwards saw Gibbs many times'prior to meeting him and ,Howard•together and he pro mised me the money repeatedly. At last I saw diem together ; I asked for the "money ; - Howard rePlied; "Oh; my-boy, we have done the Marlborough annuity for you; and it bears a pre mium. I told Mr. Howard he was very welcome to the annuity if he would let me have the Sligo money. 'We patted, then.— Afterwaids I said to both of them that it was very odd they should serve me so, as I never received intimation, or docu ment, or account. Howard said, " Have'lit ye, my bey? then I will send you one to-morrow." The next day I received the paper produced now. After receiving the paper I often saw Gibbs, but never Howard, that 1 remember: On April 22d I received the pass-book from one of Mr. Gibbs' clerks. The book produced stated 1,2001. to the debit of the witness for the purchase of an annuity from the Duke of Marlborough, and to his credit 1,1071. received from the redemption of the Marquis of Sligo's annuity. There were aLso other items of smaller amount. The witness proceeded—l always exclaimed to Mr. Gibbs against the annuity. He generally promised that 1 should have my money. I afterwards, on the 21st of August, in the same year, received a book giving me credit for 1001. receipt of half a year's annuity from the Duke Marlborough, and making the balance against me Is. sd. A clerk came and asked me for ls. sd. ; I gave it to him, and he returned me the book, which I took away. Mr. Gibbs, never told me the 1001. was paid. I often went for the Sligo money, but in vain. At last Mr. Gibbs sent me a letter, to come at - lbw o'clock on a certain day; 1 went; he put me, down' a 1;0001:note and Other notes, and - said " Look at them, my boy." I asked if he was goin to pay them to me ? He. told me to call to-morrow„ and said he would pay me if I would not tell any of the other annui tants. In November, he asked me to si n a debenture, and said, if, I did so, I should have my money in 'two or three months. I accordingly signed it on the faith of what lie said. I carried it away with me at the time. It was after this that Gibbs told me he would pay me if 'I would not tell any of the annuitants. I have not got a penny of 'my money, or of „the annuity. In a subsequent account I was debited with the 100/. placed. to my credit. [The account was read.] Cress-examined by Mr.SoLICITOR-GENERAL.—I retired from business in May 1810.' - I had 'been in business 40 years, entirely managing my own affairs. The latter part of the time my business was extensive. I was very exact in all My trans actions. . In January, 1312, I first employed Howard and Gibbs to lay out my money in an annuity, by which I received eleven percent. fbr fouf years and,a half. • - ,The Loup CHIEFJUSTICE. — You were very fortunate. 'Witness continued.—l afterwards laid out more money on their judgment, at 11 per cent. I did not expect to obtain this without some risk. : I might apply.to them to : pay an annuity in advance, and I believed they accommodated me. I autho rized Mr. Gibbs to receive my money,• but never authorized him to lay it out. My authority to receive the money was given in December, 1817. Eaily in 1818 Howard and Gibbs discounted a bill for me of 370/. 1 cannot recollect Whether 'they told 'me that the annuity was partly secured on the post office annuity of the Duke of 5,0001. Theynever asked me to take the debenture in exchange for the annuity. I did not read it before I signed it, nor till a month afterwards. I think I cal' swear it was not read to me before I signed it;' but I should not • like to swear • I did ~not, understand it when I did read it,. : but I do now. I - liaye never put it in suit against Mr. St. John; I returned it to Howard and Gibbs',' but I had it' again, and hate it now. Ido not remember that I was told that the de benture was substituted: for the annuity, because the Lord Chancellor had decided that the post-office annuity was not chargeable ; but I will not swear. Re-examined by Mr. MAnityAT . —The first annuity was paid ,only for three years. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—He was in great luck : if a man bargains for 11 per cent. he is in luck to get it for three years. Witness.a-It was about April, 1818, that Howard said, We have done the Marlborough annuity for you." ' ' An abstract of the grant of the annuity from the Duke of Marlborough to Mr. Howard was read. The debenture from Mr. St. John was next read. It recited an investigation of the'clebt; and that it was settled, and stated that Mr. Dartnell should haVe the benefit of a deed for arrang ing with the Duke's creditors. It also contained a release of the Duke of Marlborough, and a proviso that it should not in any way charge Mr: St. John, who acted only as a trustee for the Duke's creditors. William Lewis Davis, examined by Mr. D. F. JONES.—I was formerly a linendraper, and am retired from business. I am sorry to say I have 'had concerns with Howard and' Gibbs. They became partners in 1316 or 1817. I had the misfortune to, have an annuity with the. Duke of Marlborough in which they were employed, and they ieceived it ror me. I obtained my annuity down to March or April -1817, but afterwards one quarter was deducted, as not being paid. • On cross-examination he said—My annuity was granted when the Duke was Marquis of Blandford : in 1817 his father died.' George Whitehead, a clerk in the employ of Howard, and. Gibbs, proved that their partnership commenced in 1813.. They had large annuity transactions with the Duke of Marlborough. His annuities were pretty regularly paid till he left' the office. . John Felton Cook, a clerk. of , Howard and Gibbs. in,1813, said that they had demands on the Duke afthat time of 8;000/. He' knew of none of the 1200/. making its way to the Duke.— He believed the Duke in January, 1818, was debtor to the partners in a large sum. • . This was the case ror theprosecntion. The SOLIOI'I'DIt-GE ' N ' EIIAL said, that the duty now devolv ed: upon him of stating the answer 'which his clients, Messrs. Howard and Gibbs, had to give to the present indictment. Had the prosecutor thought plainer to .shape his case in the form of a civil action, then indeedllie parties could have met upon something like fair and equal'ground, and the real merits of the case would have been. better and more thoroughly understood. The facts of the case were these :—Mr. Dartnell had been in the habit of intrusting various sums of money •fo Messrs. Howard,and Gibbs, to be invested in annuities, bearing con siderable interest ; and when the Jury were informed that 11 and 12 per cent. was Mr. antnell's share of the•profit, they Would easily believe that the transactions out of which such extravagant profit arose were not of the firm and stable cha racter which necessarily attached to the ordinary 'dealings at 5 per cent. interest. Messrs. Howard and 'Gibbs had been for a long . time engaged in receiving annuities from the Duke of Marllioroagh, and in one ,of these annuities Mr. Dartnell's money became invested in the following manner : The Marquis of Blandford, before hebecame Duke of Marlbo rough, was in the habit of applying to Messrs. Howard and Gibbs to relieve him from his embarrassments, and he wanted to raise 10,1100/. upon his Post-office annuity Of 5;000/. a year, which he enjoyed as successor to the great John Duke of Marl borough : that annuity. had only been an incumbrance of -350/. a year and according to the legal opinions obtained by Howard and Gibbs from eminent conveyancers, it was quite 'competent for the Duke to mortgage it for any annuities which.he was de sirous of executing. After, however, this was transacted, the money received by the Duke, the 10,000/. paid to his Grade, and the debentiires delivered to the owners, Dartnell being one of the number, a Chancery suit was brought by a Mr. Davis against his Grace for some arrears due . from annuity deeds; and it then appeared from the Lord Chancellor's judg ment, that the Duke could not by law incumber the Post-office pension for any of his debts, that being expressly granted by the, act of Queen Anne, to enable the Dukes of Marlborough to maintain with due splendour the honours of Blenheim. —The 'moment this judgment was pronounced, Howard and Gibbs did all that was in their power, under the circumstances, to secure the holders of the debentures ; and they obtained from the Duke a power by which all his Grace's estates, which were large, and would be ultimately available, were vested in trust in General St. John, to enable the trust to secure and ultimately discharge the debentures whichlwere affected by the unforeseen decision in the Court of Chancery.' How then could Howard and Gibbs be charged with fraud ? The whole was a bona fide transaction ; the business was done openly ; they had taken the most eminent legal advice.in the first instance ;'and acting on the faith of such advice, they stood wholly protected from the present charge. He trusted the Jury would banish from their minds all the unfortunate consequences of the 'defendants' bankruptcy, and look at this case fairly and calmly, as they would any other which was brought under their consideration. He should now support this brief statement by evidence. Edward Howard, jun., examined by Mr. GURNEY.—Said .he was the son of the dfendant, and saw the Duke of Marl borough execute the deed now in Court, on the 10th of January, 11118, at Blenheim ; and his Grace was at the same time paid the 10,000/. set forth in the consideration. Cross-examined—They Mopped about an hour at Blenheim; whether Mr. Gibbs brought back any part of the 10,000/. he could not say. Witness left the room when the deed was ex ecuted, leaving Mr. Gibbs alone with the Duke. - Stephen Porter examined—Said be was a conveyancer, who had ..been constantly consulted by Howard and Gibbs during a course of years, upon legal matters ; and was consulted in the year 1817 upon the ability of the Marquis of Blaridford to make a rent charge upon the 5,0001. a year post-office pension granted in the reign of Queen Ann, to, the then Duke of Marlborough and his successors, and his (witness) opinion was in' favour of the validity of the security. He prepared the deed accordingly, and had not 'the smallest doubt respecting the security. In the opinion which he then gavein writing, he entered fully into the reasons which influenced hi's judgment, because he had heard that. Air. Butler entertained some doubts upon the point. Cross-examined—He did a great deal. of business for Howard and Gibbs, but lie could not say that he did the whole of their conveyances fee fliur or five years past he had ceased generally to exercise his piofessiOn ; his principal clients were'certainly Howard and Gibbs. . John Abbott examined.—Was clerk to the Duke of Marl borough's solicitor; and in June, 1818, he recollected the pro posal to substitute other securities after the decision of the Lord Chancellor in ,Davis's case, and to make General St. John a trustee of the Duke's estate. Cross-examined-4n the year .1813,' there was a great deal of arrear of the Duke's annuities; and indeed at an earlier-period, so far back as 1816: whether Howard and Gibbs knew such to be 'the case, ,he could not say. Ite-exarnined.—When the Marquis of Blandford. became Duke of Marlborough, he had of course a power to raise money on fresh securities. W. Milman, Of the firm of Milman and Co., produCed the trust-deed given to General St. John, which was framed when the General was made trustee of the Marlborough estates after the decision in the Court of Chancery. Thomas Stevens examined.—Was a clerk to Mr. Gibbs in the year 1818, and the present debenture was ; executed in his presence, and read and explained previously to Mr.- Dartnell. . Cross-examined,He left Mr. Gibbs's service at the bank ruptcy, a year or two ago. There were five or six clerks in the •establishtnent. 'The finn had done a great: deal of business for the Duke of Marlborough, but he paid not say whether they had raised new loans to pay off old annuities long due by. his Grace. . The opinions of Messrs. Preston and Butler delivered in writ ing, the one (Mr. Butler's) against, and the other in favour of the validity of the post-office annuity, as a security for the Duke of Marlborough's debentures, were then put in and read. Mr. SCARLETT in reply contended, that. the mode of de fence adopted was a strong confirmation of Mr. Dartnell's evi dence in support of the prosecution, for were that testimony irn peachable, why not have produced the assignees, any of the clerks who were privy to the transactions stated .by Mr. Dart nell, or those who really could have described the manner in which the Duke of Marlborough's affairs in money transactions had been tarred on by Howard and Gibbs, and by which Mr. Dartnell had been deluded. The : LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence to the Jury; and observed that if they were of Opinion that the defend ants had bone fide laid out the money, .even though contrary to the owner's instructions, they ought to acquit them ; if, on the contrary, they believed it to have been a fraudulentstransaction, to retain possession of his money, they would then find them guilty. . . The Jury, after, two mintes' consultation, returned a' verdict of Not Guilty. . OLD BAILEY, OCT. 24 g David Jenkins and Thomas Proud were indicted. 'steelin g ar a box of wearing apparel, the property of Louisa Opel . Mrs, The prosecutrix stated that - she lived as servant - irt , A. sires t.., 111ountsay, in St. Ann's-lane, in the parish of St. John , - sto l e n minster. On the 4th inst., the property in question was from the bed-room. She saw both the prisoners on that al iw . the house ; and the . property was afterwards found in a e' where the prisoners' mato cut wood. From the testimony of the other witnesses examined, it 8g; peared that the thieves had gone along the paraPe ts. . ° e b the houses, and had got in at the window of the attic in win the prOsecutriX slept. There was a mark of -a lad's 1 foot °ll tee r.. 0 parapet, and the wall was grazed where the bothad.Peell ed down into the yard. Both prisoners denied:all knowledge of therobberf. a m ot Verdict—Guilty of stealing, but (in consequenc e of n in the indictment) not in the dwellingouse. , Ail 51 , Sarah Perry was charged with stealing three caps., the property of Edwardßyers, in hi • d ,* house. '6 s we in, i n hi mr. Byers stated that the prisoner had been neron'if family about three weeks. On the 17th inst. about ha' ",,,,r 3 / e 4 in, the morning, he was disturbed by the prisoner, v' th ,.? e l , o * - ne the alarm of a thief being in the kitchen, and that he hau ot y'll. to her bedside. Witness, his wife, and a Mr. and 3 11 1 ,4 of went down stairs and found the doors all closed except b rae, the kitchen, and no stranger in the house. The kitchen wlnarkg was partly open, but a deal table near it was not soiled bY. c i a of ,of any feet. They found that some lace-caps and other arn 11,4 his wife's were missing. Witness called the watch lll3 ' l ' s3 id, communicated his suspicions to him. The watchman 02 r 9 that on going his rounds at 4 o'clock he saw the kitchen shlles., open, a candle burning, and the horse covered wi th clo'd 0:1 He then gave the prisoner in charge to the watch; 31 : 1 0;l et searching her bed, he found the articles which the P ee n it . mentioned as having been taken away by the thief bet s° el and the sacking. This statement was corroborated by die d the dente of the prosecutor's wife, Mr. Odell's servant, pal watchman; and the Jury, without allowing the Judge but up the evidence, found the prisoner " Guilty of stealuib' not to the value of aria.' ; i t y of Wm. Holland Jain Barnet were found g u burglary in the house . of Charles Clayton.. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, OCT•2 4 ' 5 of THOMAS DONNOR AND OTHERS V. THE OVER" - ST. LURE CHEL. rile P r The appellants in this appeal were th SEA e a uditors °' ; 06 .0 rochialaccpunts of Chelsea ;_and the respondents the °Y,,"ditor° and committeemen of the parish of St. Luke. Th e ,,,,,,..15' (established by the local act of the la and 2d of v . - v . tbe ch. 67.) now appealed against certain accounts put in „11l overseers and other other officers connected with the ti concerns ; and complained that they did not contail i n if yesf statement of .the receipts and disbursements for the lift' commencing at Michaelmas, and ending at Lady-daY tf° Mr. ALLEY, who was Counsel for the overseers, t?Solicli preliminary objections in point of form, which were he'.o.o4' and the merits of the case were consequently not ince_' l ;nell t We shall take care to lay them before the publi c, they are brought before the Court. SURREY SESSIONS, Om 2 4 - • n was ttjed A respectable-looking man, named George "la"' boll ; U si p j f a y a C o b t ff e g r e a r o t f i having ofth v al u feloniously eof stolen e 42 pr y o a r r e t " :: o f c i D rai 3c : Simpson, haberdasher 57, Bishopsgate-street. repo' stances of the case have already appeared in our police The proof was complete. i When called upon for his defence, the prisoner sal` th 0 diet much emotion, " It is of little import to me what v , %r i Jury shall give, for after having been placed a criniill3lolo bar, it is - impossible that I can ever again hold up 01l beca o ; this country, at least amongst those with whom I h ave „va* customed to live. 1 have been brought here by an est r " o ui course of life joined to habits of gaming, and not by.anY,,n wile! depravity. All that I have to ask is, that the C he shall come •to sentence me, will so dispose of me I th ha ve (P t " be made serviceable to my country, whose laws - raged." The Jury found the prisoner—Guilty. It 6 ' The Court inquired into the prisoner's former life' Reared that he had made it a practice to rob trado s rl icli r isco'," rious methods. Asecond bill was found against the r s. for stealing a quantity of kerseymere from a lila c : t ool , pretended that he put up at the old Ship Inn , ( 01 _, ; `` e a 11 0 ' bundle out of the hands of the boy who accoroP4'-- and made off with it through the back of the house. t The prisoner appeared himself to be desirous of n° it l ; dolling his connexions, and only said he was bred 1 1 1 ) j j e sn j car and draper in South Wales ; but it was shewn that Joe time ago kept a very respectable tobacconist's illopoo 3r Bride. for sea" The Cuarit MAN sentenced him to be transpo rted 13e i$ ' years. t the 0 1 / The Foreman of the Grand Jury applied to illse c •ff's 8 3 ton-mill, but the Chairman said that it was not a her i te ; 0 , 0 and that no one could be admitted without a Magis tr- A red there was no Magistrate on the Bench who could be oF show the mill to the Jury. . ON.—A German fiddler, C tUTI whOse C1 :11 men sounds somewhat like Razorback, •bas '",, i : ell t hoaxed the good folks• of a neighbouring be of own, in a way not over palateable to some 0 c ia sufferers. t Having issued hand-bills, antiouni 3 0, he that a concert would take place at the 'lO ,O- !lies waited upon the heads of the principal farll;`ar, with tickets and few of them could resist t h be r , e yea as f he was in numerous instances by nest supplication of this scraper of CatgU t / ua- tiC 5 the en tr l ea to Q the younger branches 'of their house/oil to whom h it had been whispered that a ball wa nt s ' be e given at the close of the other entertain,d for In-short, tickets were bought—aye, and Pe r e i ll too—by " every body ;" ball dresses lip, some cases provided, and delight bearnet:l a l . of upon the countenances of the staid adn':ceithia a few hours of the time ' fixed upon f or Music and the gayer lover of dancinoYintii's'orry tna bori -, mencement of the show, when the babb le ffol ioa S and nothing has since been heard of this !",- erman imposter !—(Gloucester Jourigli../ t Ott COBBETT attended at Weyhill with few petsons disposed to deal with I , li Soa f ,' addressed the farmers in a raven-croak 01 t tole' at the close of which. one of them shrewu'Yfacil him; " Master.Cobbett, you are, a double' 5 . to fellow ; and we don't - want your . treaso n ..,, really are' make matters worse than they (Western Luminary.) fair, VI pc BIRTHS. pole, Pq' f likely ai withk O ed n i bt hy o t tr h oinitT e so.e ,mci tomnh i pod g eD:t hia t wsr h eoyee rabifrbil;:asasthr• are likely oe L lfy a a d t do y a. ud o obi f , ,hs vß•te.elr: CI 1 3 11 d °s ' r IVa ll " r n On Wednesday, the 25th ult , at Broad Oalc, Nr s b . „y, o ° ' s e oart tV ifni a aaotdc a Aje.x3 f : eli : d ag e: ht V we e rs r e e e d k:, : e three fiNiwo c hi:i h ocn i le.i.dirlsen, since ntn: tig:icoarclask;.a II: , a teivit - rit, :trier,,:e: Ledan, wife of John Ledan, cook of his 31ajesrY';. b s e . 7rher s `.- n - MARRIED. Nn s tlh ' t ri, , eis. : a lhi d t sagwv i leo l ar u ybt g :e g i n_ toc. h t p o il i uri s i bc , II isl i n sß; h e.s p doc . e r o on b r Y s , . b r : r o_ et nn' 1 n tl e 4f e s tif : j i tr b e 11 : 10 ; , fi r : *o •riton C li e: the last three months, viz. nine times .ar ''''' ll u g. for the C O ' "-i" fluency of the New Marriage Act ! •, • - 1 - 1 : 11355 47t s ! u sq c : On -Saturday last, in Cork, Charles 0 '41 7 'riSiOn i. '' ir - of only,son.and heir of Frederick Massy, EA °. el and ' leess county 'Limerick, to' Miss Carey, only datiglicer,ork. r), t ( h ia e lcil l: h t ot e fer ß so o ti ger Carey, Esq of Kilworth, enu nt Y t 'reter - 11D ', 5 , 0 ° 11 • On Monday last, 'at Hislon Cambridgeshire/ s own/ `-' k li t Vl ,6l ( . 4ll o eg e e n , t.fliis a tori e Ag e( ' DIED. %. ovf V" e 'friDi t Y On Monday last, at his house at-Waltharnst,_ :,,f the 69, George Eallan Esq., • Elder Brothts „, pis . type, an _stree t ' stree t ', 5'2 , House. On Saturday.; the 19th inst., in Great Corntcet,ai/ or' . r " Cn 3 P l • way from Scotland to Geneva, Dr. Alexande.o once Halt` , tblrLi . On. Monday, the 21st instant, tithe Island o f J O, il l Esq., late Secretary and Treasurer of the 1 5 1 ' 3 01 , CraY surViving son of James Chapman, Est 0f - 1 ....... .../ ...°° the county 'of Kent. . SO'' it 4 th Mary Printed and Published for the Puo I°V AIRS. Office, No. 112, Strand, b y J. 0. 0 icy. `E ,_ NTT ' . . .- - • : .- -. . z _- _ ..._. NOT: Dr this CC 4 911 1 of h . ()NI ,%ItCl IV N ., Count t' l‘; ' 11 fiat Of v, 4l rlber to of titlc e, • eui a , a, , he 4 41 e of the teY of th e tw select Ilill arte N, or 9 , 4,29 6 5 ,642 7,8 79 8,81 1 13",c1y 15, 46 , 17,86' 'O. 12 . 2 1 ,435 t 'ons not elect frog 'ltrob Ite 95,; goi 4 ) 4,ite t ; 4rd‘ tt i ; t r et ‘1144t1„ i 0 9 1 t it 1 4 : l e' r tie, 4 1) or' Y thtlx, • .