The Sun. — London, England, 1822-12-13 00:00:00

THE LONDON JOURNALS. ZXTRACTS FROM THE m iry MORNI NG PAPERS, December 13, 18'22. [MORNING HERALD.] if we may put faith in some accounts that reach us from Paris, the Spanish question was not totally ceded at the Congress to France. It is said that a Committee of the Ministers of the three Northern Powers at Paris were to form a Committee, to be of counsel on the subject with the 'French Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Duke of Wellington, who was dissentient through out, declined having any connection with• this Committee. But his presence at Paris, were he is arrived, will, of course, not be the less influential on the ultimate determination. There is no thing worth observation in the last arrival of Paris Papers. The minor Journals of the Ultra Party keep up the war cry. Those of any authority are silent. In one of the " Liberal " Journals it is broadly insinuated that in the late fluctuations of the French Funds, the Ministerial confidence had been abused, and the Ministerial influence over the insertion of articles in the journals, unwarrantably directed, by per Sons connected with the Administration, to purposes of fraud and gain in the Stock-market. Some instances in this country of subordinate agents so transgressing, being subjected to exem plary punishment by the Ministers, and the example of a memorable trial for the circulation of false hews, to affect the price of the Funds, are cited as indirect reproaches to the French Government, for suffering recent, but unspecified, transactions of the same nature to pass with impunity. ETII £ TIMES.] The rumour of war has at last gradually died away, at least far a while ; and the sages who announced that event, really almost as a thing past, are sneaking, as well as they can, out of their assertions. So let them : if we wish to take advantage - of their mistakes, they will soon commit others. But one point deserves peculiar remark, which is, how little, throughout this whole debate, so far as it has hitherto proceeded, the personal character and past conduct of the King •of Spain have been brought into question. This surely is a proof that the world is not quite so Jacobinical as some - would insinuate. Knowing his character but.too well, we shall say nothing of it or him, farther than is necessary to guard against future mischiefs : but we are promulgating no secret—we are not even awaking a dormant recollection—when we say that he has already once given up his kingdom to Napoleon Buena parte,- a matrimonial allial►ce with whose honour able family he solicited, and that the iniquitous transfer of the Spanish realm was frustrated by the valour of the Spaniards themselves, without any participation of their abdicated Sovereign.— Is this a man in whose behalf foreign nations should interfere [BRITISH PRESS.) The Paris Papers bf Tuesday are filled with merry jests at one another for credulity or scep ticism respecthig the war. The Journal des D Ards is silent upon that topic. The Quotidienne reasons from the success of the Allies against France in 1814, that France must be succesful against Spain in 1822. What shall we say of French vanity after this ? A Frenchman holds out his defeat, his entire subjugation, as a model to all nations visited by revolution [MORNING CHRONICLE.] We understand Ministers look forward with much anxiety for the arrival of the next dispatches from Madrid, and that means have been taken to expedite the communication between that capital and London. On the arrival of Lord Liverpool at the City of. London Tavern, yesterday evening, wheie he6took the Chair, for the first time, as Pre sident of the Society of Ship-o wners , h e was introduced to the Vice-Presidents and the Com mittee in .their private room, when the list of toasts, which had been previously arranged, were submitted to his Lordship. With the ex ception of one, they met with his Lordship's ap probation. That to which he objected and de clined giving was, " An ,open competition in the 'West India Docks, at the expiration of the Charter." From this various conclusions will no doubt be drawn. One party will consider it as indicative of a favourable feeling towards the monopoly ; while another may think his Lord shipmerely wished to avoid prematurely pro nouncing an opinion on the subject.—(Mid.) [NEW TIMES•I Letters received yesterday from Valparaiso state that affairs in Peru have taken an unfavour able- turn for the Independents. " We expect," says the writer, " to hear shortly that General San Martin has abandoned Lima." Should this news be confirmed, it still might not be produc tive of any benefit to Old Spain. General La Serna, who commands the Spanish party in the neighbourhood of Lima, is in all probability a Royalist, and if so, he will scorn to submit to the Jacobins of Madrid. If, on the other hand, he is actuated by a spirit •of political enterprise, he will probably follow the example of Iturbide, in Mexico, and assume to him self the Dictatorship to which San Martin appears to have aspired. The population of the whole Viceroyalty of Peru has been estimated at nearly five millions of souls, amongst, whom about 300,000 are Spaniards. The large body of inha bitants, however, is spread over so vast an extent of territory, and so widely separated by lofty monntains and plains, that' a comparatively small force is sufficient to dispute the sovereignty.— SanNartiu and La Serna are nearly on a par in thiS'respect ; but each has his peculiar advan tage.-. The sea is open to afford supplies to San Martin.; white ttie mountains afford strong posi tions, to ..La Senn, and enable'him.to cut off .all the landward resources.: [MORN' NG POST.] French Journals to the llth inst. announce the arrival of the Duke of Wellington in Paris on the evening of Monday last, and private letteri add that his Grace would remain some time in •the French capital to confer with the King and his Ministers, and endeavour to impress upon them the injustice and-danger of invading Spain. It is perhaps the expectation of his Grace's presence and co-operation that has contributed to give the victory to the pacific, part of the French Ministry over the "ivarlike, for of this little doubt can any longer exist. The ilioniteur has at last dropped its neutrality. it has not only copied the article of the Journal des Debats, as we stated yesterday ; it has re jected the angry and sophistical attack made upon that article by the Dale, not for the pur pose of supplying a" more temperate and reason able answer himself, but to declare by its con tinued silence that it has adopted the views and principles officially put forth in the Journal des Debats by the Moderate' Party, if not by M. de Villele himself. For this conduct it has been loaded with abuse by . the Ultras, who now openly avow that a division exists in the Ca binet, and call for hostilities on the totally new ground that " i•f France. does not make war, Spai❑ will declare it." This ground is not more tenable than those which they had previously and successively assumed : for notwithstanding the gross provocations which they have given Spain, and the positive injury which their intrigues have inflicted upon her, that country is too wise to draw down upon heiself by an act of imprudence, although it might be ont; of strict justice, the active•hoStility of those Powers, whom the great est moderation• on her part can alone prevent from joining in the tlsreatened attack upon her. LAW OF THE PRESS IN FRANCE. COURT OF CASSATION, SATURDAY. The appeal of the four Opposition Journals has been farther heard. This day Messrs. ROGER and Nicol, having opened the third and fourth grounds on which they rest their case, the Attor ney-General addressed the Court to the follow, ing effect.:—Among the most pressing wants (he said) of a civilized society stood the means of rapid communication, both as to facts and as to ideas. Among the various engines available, and employed, for the attainment of that end, the public press stood admitted as the most potent. Effective alike for purposes good or evil, a power so extended of necessity required some check ; but difficult was the task of that Legislator who had to devise one. Among the derelictions of duty which public journals were liable to commit, a most special one was infidelity in their reports of legal or legislative proceedings. No act, in deed, could be more individually culpable, or more publicly dangerous, than the act of that person, who, looked to by the whole nation for intelligence, became the fabricator of falsehood, instead of the , impartial relator of fact. The Attorney-General then entered into an intricate legal argument, upon the article 16, of the law of the 15th March, 1822. He contended, that the only , admissible defence against the fact proved in the present case, was a plain explana tion from the author of the libellous paragraph. The law bad specialized all cases like that in question ; and had purposely proportioned the summary course of legal proceeding to the. , rapidity -with which the. particular evil spread, and to the extent to which it operated. To dispense with the appearances, then, was impossible. No witnesses were necessary in the case. All that the Court held relevant was the explanation of the party accused. He would admit that the speciality given to the crime, and to the mode of punishment, did carry with it cer-' lain deviations from the ordinary forms of law ; that it gave authority for summary sentence to the original Court which tried the cause ; that it did destroy, or take away, the common right of appeal : but the very essence of the judgment in these cases was opposed to the possibility of appeal. The original tribunal took absolute jurisdiction : it judged of the , offence, as well as apportioned the punishment. How was it pos sible for . Judges in another Court to say to those who alone had. the right to decide whether a crime was committed—" You have said, or you have decided improperly ?" He was free to confess, the, Attorney. General continued, that the law of the case, or rather the course of proceeding, was open to incon venience ; but the wisdom of Courts and Judges would•gradually get rid of all . objection- , able points of arrangement. France, with a re ligious respect, waited the decision of the tri bunal which he had then the honour of addressing, If that tribunal interpreted the intent of the Le gislature as he did, the public journals, without losing any needful degree of •freedom, would lose one fruitful mean's of destroying social order. He should sit down, confidently anticipating the rejection of the appeal. After three hours deliberation, the Court pro nounced a judgment which occupied the Presi dent nearly half an hour in delivery. The mote material facts were these : The Court, with respect to M. Faucillon, seeing That he had not complied with the intent of the law by surrendering himself prisoner, declared that it could do nothing in his behalf. With regard to Messrs. Cassano, Guise, and Legracieux, looking at the appeal which they had placed upon the pleadings against the judgments of the 12th, 13th, and 26th of September last, the Court, adopting three of the objections pre sented to it, annuls the judgments pronounced by the Court of Assize at Paris on the 12th, 13th, and 26th of September; and sends back the parties accused to be proceeded against at the suit of the Procurator-General of the High Court of Paris, and at any other suit which may be instituted against them for the same facts be fore the Court of Assize of the department of the Somme. UpiroN-HALL.—The final examination of Car rington, the impostor, took place yesterday, when the Hon. and Rev. Mr. ARCIIITEL GREY ap peared, and stated the facts which we have al ready mentioned. The prisoner was committed for three months to. the House of Correction at Brixton. LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dr c. 12. DAVIS V. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH. Last seal Mr. HART applied to the Court for an order to di rect the defendant to pay the costs which had attended the is suing of a writ of sequestration against him. The writ of se questration had been taken out under the authority of an order of the Court, which directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff his taxed bill of costs for having acted as a receiver of the rents of the , Blenheim estates. The defendant opposed the applica tion on the ground that the writ of sequestration had been is sued against good faith, inasmuch as there existed an under standing between the parties that such a proceeding should not take place under the then circumstances. The matter stood over, in order that the parties might furnish the Court with full information upon this point. • Mr. HART now stated that affidavits had been filed on both sides, upon which the Court would form its opinion. The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after reading the affidavits, the filing of which, he said, nuld cost three or four times as much as the sum in dispute (only about six guineas), directed the defendant to pay the costs of the issuing and serving of the writ of sequestration. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEc. 12. CURIOUS CASE. SHARP V. THE REV. MR. VIALLS. Mr. PATTESON stated the substance of the pleadings. The first count of the declaration chaiged that the defendant mali ciously cause the plaintiff to be apprehended and held to bail before a Magistrate, on a charge of receiving stolen bread and beef, and afterwards indicted him at the Middlesex Sessions for stealing bread and beef, of which charge he was duly acquitted. The second count alleged only that an indictment was mali ciously prosecuted, without statingthe arrest or the proceedings before the Magistrate. The defendant pleaded that he was not guilty. Mr. C. PHILLiPs stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff'. —The defendant was a Clergyman of affluence, residing at Twickenham, and the plaintiff a poor labouring man, who had been in his employment as a gardener, and who had sustained from him that serious injury for which he now sought redress at the hands of a Jury. He (Mr. Phillips) lamented deeply that he should be called on to bring forward a case of this kind against a member of a 'sacred and honourable profession, but his character only aggravated the conduct of which he had been guilty. On Sunday, 20th October, in last year, this poor man went to visit his aunt, who resided at Camberwell, and who gave him a piece of beef to carry with him home. This he deposited in the drawer where he used to keep his dinner, and here, on the following morning, it was found by his master.— The Clergyman fastened on the beef with uncommon avidity-- hastened to his larder-Lent off a piece from his own round, and asked the cook if she could not swear that they must have been part of the same beef ? She replied that they could not be the same, because the larder was always locked, and they differed in appearance. He next applied to Wilson, his butler, but he informed him that the., slices differed, for his beef was of a coarser grain. After five days, during which he suffered the plaintiff to continue in his service, he procured him to be ap prehended on a warrant ofhis own father-in-law, Mr. Serjeant Marshal, who heard the case, and who, when the cook, gave her evidence, coarsely abused her, and ordered her out of the room with an epithet, which was so far like beef, that it began with the same letter. Meanwhile this Reverend beef-eater took the poor man's slice and insisted that his servants should eat it for breakfast ' • but here dreadful confusion arose—the butler had a physical scruple, and could not eat it for nausea—the kitchen-maid had a conscientious scruple, and refused to permit her stomach to become a-receptacle for stolen goods; and at last the cook ate it, to prevent it from becoming a subject whence the Divine might lecture on the mutability of all human affairs. In spite of the speaking evidence of the man's continuing in his situation—in spite of the dissimilarity of the articles:--in spite of the impossibility of access, the worthy Magistrate detain ed the plaintiff in custody for five hours, and bound him over to appear at the Sessions. At these Sessions the Clergyman appeared, and sworelcethe identity of beef by the complexion: —The only parallel .to such an attempt was to be found in a prosecution, on the model of which this was unquestion ably framed, and therefore, though it was American, he must relate it. It was the case of Johnny Hook. This man, born in the most prudent part of the Highlands, remained there till he came `to man's estate, when of course he left his country. He bent his way to America, taking with him-one sturdy little bullock, which was seized by the revolutionary army at a time when they were distressed for food. Years rolled on, battles were lost and won. but Johnny never forgot his bullock; and when peace came, he commenced a suit against the Commissary in the highest court of justice, and engaged the Chief Law-officer of Government as his Counsel. The Commissary employed the inspired peasant of Pennsylvania, Patrick Henry, who heard Johnny swearing away like Mr. Vialls ; but when it came to his turn to speak, he touched that chord which responded in the bosoms of all who heard him. He painted the triumphs of the patriot army—lie described their sufferings.—he repre sented them half famished before, lifting up their eyes to Heaven in gratitude for a supply ; and while the picture lived and breathed before them, he exclaimed, " But who is this that comes to disturb the harmony of this majestic scene? It is Johnny Hook, the Highlander crying out " Beef, beef, beef." —(A laugh.)—The name of Johnny Hook would n ever di e i n America—genius touched it and rendered it immortal ; but here after it must yield to that ofVialls. No sooner had this person dis covered this unhappy fragment with his keen, unerring, tithe discerning eye, than his imagination became bossified—in all' creation he saw nothing but beef; this great world, with all its rich varieties, was only a vast round of beef; his roses and fillies became bullocks, and not a text could he find but that which related to the flesh pots of Egypt. Beef was to him what ale was to Boniface—his meat, drink, solace, and study ; and, sleeping or waking, dreaming or preaching,he could think of nothing, speak of nothing, see nothing, but " Beef, beef, beef." He resolved to have vengeance ; if lie relented, his mu tilated round swam before his imagination, a feast for an Al derman, which might satisfy the appetite of the whole Com mon Council after a fast day The round was a picture for painters to study, The fat was so white, and lean was so ruddy. He resolved to prosecute this poor man without mercy—to in dict him at the Sessions—to have a city judge for his Counsel, and the Rec Order for a judge, and to get the case called on five minutes before dinner.—(A laugh.)—Thus did this Mi nister of the Gospel, after taking days to consider, procure the object of his displeasure to be held to be held to bail by his father.iii-law, as if anxious that the honour of the exploit should not go out of the family. At length the expected sessions came ; the poor man was present to meet his accuser, not only attended by his bail, but an indignant crowd of friends, eager to testify to his character, and to witness his triumph ; and there was the reverend prosecutor, holding the book, whence he ought to teach universal charity, to fix the brand of ungrateful felony on the innocent. - The Jury rose when they heard the evidence of the prosecutor contradicted by his own servants, and without wait ing to hear the defence indignantly pronounced a verdict of ac quittal. The Learned Coriniel expatiated at - considerable length on the contrasted situations of the parties, on the clerical character of the defendant, and on the poverty of the plaintiff, and concluded by appealing to the jury, if they held honesty in respect, though it was clothed with rags, and detested oppres sion, though clothed in the garb of kanctity, that they would give exemplary damages. The• Counsel for the plaintiff having elected to 'proceed on the second count of the declaration, which omitted the state ment of the charge before the Magistrate, put in an examined 'copy of the record of acquittal.. John Butler, a clerk to Mr. Harmer, said he could state th e substance of the defendant's evidence, which was as follow : "On the 21st October, in last year, he had been walking into his garden ; he looked into th e tool-house, and on looking into a drawer used to keep seeds, he found a slice of bread and beef; he was struck with its appearance, and supposed the ser vants had been at their old tricks. He took it into the house with him, and went to the larder, where he cut off a slice of beef from his own round, which he had dressed the day before; and on compairing them, he had no doubt that both came off the same joint, from the complexion. As to the bread he had not the smallest doubt, from the cut of the bread on his loaf.— He was asked if he had not said that he should not have sus- pected Sharp, if he had not challenged him with taking his dinner ? After a good deal of hesitation, he admitted that he had said so. He was also asked if the man had not told him that his aunt, at Camberwell, gave him the beef ? hl. said Yes :' he had afterwards asked Sharp for his aunt's name, and he had refused to give it. He had offered to ride over to Cam berwell, and see her, and ascertain the truth." The witness added, that the charge of Mr. Harmer, for con ducting the defence, was 171.135. Bd. Mr. Vialls was the only witness on the back of the indictment. At the trial, Mr. Ara bin, the Deputy Recorder appeared for the prosecution, but he held the thief of Mr. Bolland. Mrs. Mary Baldwin, the aunt of the plaintiff, proved that she gave him slices of cold beef and bread for dinner on the day in question, he being a poor day labourer. When cross-examined, she said, the slices were such as are commonly cut for eating. The bread was cut from a half peck loaf. Re-examined.—The beef was dry. The son of the last witness corroborated her evidence. Charlotte Eden, the late cook of Mr. Vial's, recollected the round of beef well. On the 22d of October, the defendant came into the kitchen, and ordered her to follow him to'the der with a knife. lie cut a slice of beef off the round, but produced no other meat ; he wrapped it up in a paper, with a ,lice of bread.- He then compared the slice with one he had brought with him. Next morning she saw the beef and bread. taken from the larder, and other bread and'beef, in his dress ing-room. He unwrapped both parcels and said he had found a' slice of beef and bread in a drawerof the tool-house ; that the gardner could not get it unless some of the servants had , given it to him. The round had been dressed the , day before, and was juicy. The piece of beef produced from the tool-house was dry, and the difference very great and obvious. Het master asked her if she could swear that both, were alike; she replied that she could not, for one was well boiled, and the other under boiled. She told him the beef was always under lock and key; she never gave beef to Sharp, or any other person, and so in formed 11r. Vialls. Next day he brought the two pieces of beef to the larder, and laid them on the dish for the servants to eat : she had lived two months in his family ; he kept nine •ser vants, a carriage, four horses, and a handsome house ; alto gether the establishment of a man of fortune. On cross-examination, the witness said her father fetched her home after. The loaves used were half-pecks and quar terns. Mr. Vialls examined the bread with the loaf, and the beef with the round. On re-examination, she said that her father took her away, because Mr. Vialls accused her of taking away the bread and meat. In examining this witness, Mr. PHILLIPS repeatedlx.called the defendant " Parson Vialls." The LORD CHIEF Jirs- TrcE begged him to omit this epithet, as it was unworthy of his talents and taste. Mr. PHILLIPS, in explanation, said, that the epithet was not considered as reproachful in the country from which he came, and that he had intended no offence by using it. Richard Andrews, who was a labourer in the garden of Mr. Vialls at the same time with the plaintiff, said he used to take his dinner and hang it up in a basket in the tool-house. There were drawers in the tool-house which were open, and the door also was open. Sharp usually put his dinner in the drawers. Thomas Andrews, who had occasionally worked on the pre mises, corroborated the last witness. as to the place in which the workmen kept their dinners. When he went away he gave up his drawer to sharp. This was the case for the prosecution.. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the de fendant. He was not surprised at the tone and temper in which the case was conducted, extraordinary as they were, because he was led to expect them by all he had beard and seen of this transaction. Some individals connected with the plaintiff had some strange influence over the public press, which they had set in motion in a most singular way against the defendant. He the more deeply regretted this, because he was personally acquainted with the man who had been thus assailed ; he had witnessed the tenour of his life ; he, and several of his Learned Friends who surrounded him, had known him from his boyhood, had run the same course of youthful study, and had cherished this intimacy in the progress of maturer years. After the unmeasured abuse which had been heaped on this Gentleman—afterr every epi thet of reproach which the English language afforded had been heaped upon him—after he had been designated as a " vermin of sanctity," and pronounced to be the only parallel to Dives in the Gospel, it might not be improper for him (the Solicitor- General) to declare that a man more respectable in every rela tion of life, more generous, more charitable, and more humane, did not exist in his Majestys' dominions. Notwithstanding the great mass of abuse which had been introduced into this cause, the simple question for the Jury to decide was, whether Mr. Vialls had been actuated by malice in prosecuting the plaintiff. It was not enough to show an acquittal, which might result from the absence of witnesses, from reasonable doubts, to the full benefit of which the accused is always entitled, and from a thousand circumstances not implying guilt in the individual preferring the charge. Was there any evidence of malice in this case—any suggestion even of a cause whence such a feeling could arise ? The prosecutor was a gentleman of easy fortune, the plaintiff was a day labourer ; there was no proof of any quarrel, or dissatisfaction on either side, whence resentment could be excited in the mind of Mr. Vialls towards one in so 'different a sphere. In the conduct of this case, not only h a d • his Learned Friend Mr. Phillips lent himself to the expression of feelings which every one must deplore, but h e h a d g i ven reason of complaint in the substantial conduct of his case, in omitting to call Wilson, to whom he had alluded, and wh o , if called, would have thrown no inconsiderable light on the origin of the proceedings. Another specimen of the manner in which the case was conducted, would be found in the re flections cast on a most respectable Magistrate, which there bad been no attempt to substantiate by proof. When he re probated these things, he did not mean to impute to hi s Learned Friend any blame, as he bad no doubt followed the instructions given by his client, except that he had lent himself a little too much to feelings which deserved utter reprobation. When the Jury looked at the evidence, could they say that there was not probable cause for the Prosecution ? They , would recol lect that when Sharp told. - Mr. Vialls that he had received the beef from his aunt: at Camberwell, the defendant asked her name, and said he.would ride over to her and ascertain the truth, but the plaintiff refused to tell her name. Was not this re fusal tojustify liimself completely reasonable ground for strong suspicion of guilt.? .It was not .the smallness of value of the particular article discovered which should influence a master in a case of this kind, when he might believe himself as an object of perpetual plunder, and might fee/ all the misery of doubt respecting the characters of those beneath hig - roof. Then it had been urged as an aggravation, that a Judge, the Deputy Re corder, was employed to prosecute —as if any man could imagine that the circumstance of a Counsel appearing for a prosecution who held an office, might influence a jury to find the man he pro secuted 'guilty. But with this mighty piece of oppression, Mr. Vialls had no concern ; for he had retained. Mr. Bolland, who was his companion at the University, and, as Mr. Bolland was accidentally engaged in another place, his brief was held by Mr. Arable. He could not in such a case waste the time of the Court by saying a word respecting damages, because he felt assured that if the Jury lOoked at the evidence, and not at the inflammatory and unsupported statements of Counsel, they would feel it their duty, to return a verdict for the defendant. The. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE informed the Jury, that the law applicable to the case had been correctly stated by the Learned Solicitor who last addressed them. In order to sup port an action fora malicious prosecution, it was necessary that two things should concur—a malicious intention, and the want of all probable cause. Neither of these was sufficient alone; because a man might maliciously institute a well founded prosecution, in which case, though he would not be innocent, the party accused would have no right to redress ; or a man might institute a prosecution, bona fide relying on the information of others fairlrentided to his credence, which after wards might turn out to be groundless. But though the Jury must be convinced that the prosecution was both malicious and groundless, yet the absence of all probable cause might be so plain as to furnish a fair inference of improper motive. Before he recapitulated the evidence, it was right that he should notice something which had occurred in the conduct of the cause. The Counsel who had conducted the plaintiff's case with extra ordinary talent, had, in his opening, thrown out reflections against a Magistrate known to many Gentlemen in that Court, which he did not afterwards attempt to sustain by evidence. It was due to the Learned Counsel to presume that, when he rose to address the Jury, he expected that he should be supplied with proof of those statements, but still it was unfortunate that he had made them. The Learned Judge then read over the evidence, and left the Jury to say whether, in the absence of all direct proof of malice, the want of probable cause for the prosecution was so complete as to lead them to infer that the defendant must have been ac tuated by unworthy motives. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501. GAMING. CLEMENT v. FARROW. This was an action on the statute of Ann, c. 14, s. 2, which first gives to the loser of money at play, beyond 101. a right to recover it back by action of debt; and next provides, that if the loser do not within three months, prosecute by suit with effect, any person may sue to recover the money lost, and triple its amount, for the benefit of himself and of the poor of the parish. In this case, Burn the pugilist, who keeps the Rising. Sun in Windmill-street, was the loser of the money. He swore, that on the 29th of December last, he lost to the defendant at the Rising Sun, 191. IGs. at Loo, between 5 and 12 in the evening. His statement was corroborated by two witnesses, who were in the house at the time, and by two others, who heard the de fendant boast of his good fortune on the following day. Mr. GURNEY and Mr. PLATT, for the defence, shewed, by evidence, that Burn had himself brought an action for this money, which it seemed had been abandoned, but which was not abandoned when the present action was brought. It ap peared, however, that Burn's action was not on the statute, but in the common form for money had and received to his use. The Lord CHIEF-JUSTICE held that this was not such an action us rendered the commencement of the present premature, and consequently the objection was unavailing. Mr. GURNEY then produced a witness, who swore that Burn had stated his loss at a much lower sum, and expressed an intention of making Farrow pay for his boastings of larger success. Mr. ScanLETT said a few words on this evidence, and The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff for 91. 16s. the treble amount being given up by the plaintiff. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 12. ASSAULT.—COTSFORD V. GRAFFHAM. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a compensation for an insult and an injury, as brutal as they were unprovoked. The plain tiff was a person employed to collect debts, and having been ordered by Mr. Catherwood to demand a debt from the de fendant, the latter replied to the demand by most insolent conduct and abusive language, and subseauently by going to the house of the plaintiff, dragging ;him out, and violently 0- 54 saulting him. Francis Hewling knew Graff ham; he was at the shop 4 Messrs. Archer and Catherwood, on the 20th August last; Graffham came there and asked for Archer ; witness told him Mr. Archer was out; Graffham then said, " do you kw: 4 where that matt or that fellow lived who collects debts for Ca . therwood ?" witness told him in George-street; . Graffham thCf said he was going further, and should return, which he dia , and then asked the same question • on being told, he said be would give the plaintiff a d—d good horsewhipping ; Mr. Ar cher' who was then in the s hop, begged him not to do so; be said he would if it cost him from 3001. to 5001. ; he then wen ti away, and in about a quarter of an hour he returned, and said he had done it; and that he expected an action would be brought against' him ; but he did not care, as he had 3001- ° defend it. Mr. Archer corroborated the testimony of the last witness. Cross-examined.—Gmffham said that on the preceding even. ing Cotsford had written a most insolent letter to him ; witness saw the letter. Mr. Serjeant PELL here put a letter into the hands of the witness, which the latter declared to be the same which Gtair ham had shewn him. Samuel Whitehead proved, that on the 20th of August last he saw Graffham come to the plaintiff's house, acaunfaine d ., by a man named Bullen, w h en Graffham chewed the p a letter, and asked him if that was his ; the plaintiff answered " yes " on which Graffham attempted to pull the plaintiff 00 of the house ; the plaintiff tried to shut the door, but Graffham rushed in and severely horsewhipped him ; the whip was 11 riding switch whip. Nothing material was elicited from this witness on his cross-examination. Three other witnesses proved the assault in the same planner' Mr. Catherwood proved that he had given an authority to till plaintiff to demand a debt from the defendant, and had desired him to take proceedings if the debt were not paid. Cross-examined.—Graff ham disputed this debt. Re-examined—The letter which the plaintiff had sent wa s occasioned by having been grossly abused by the defendant. Mr. Serjeant PELL, for the defendant, acknowledged, th at if this assault had been really of the nature which the Jury had heard described, brutal and unprovoked," the plaintiff would be entitled to considerable damages. There had been no 0 4 ' Bence of injury, though he did not mean to contend that be cause a man was not seriously injured he was entitled to damages, and even to heavy damages. But he should prol e a provocation so gross, that he could not expect any one tamely to bear it. When he said this he did not mean to defend every man who replied to an insult by a blow, but still it was to be taken into consideration in respect to the damages claimed by the plaintiff. John Lewis was shopman to Mr. Graffham in August last-- the plaintiff called twice about a debt alleged to be due to Or- Catherwood ; the defendant was not at home on either of these occasions. When he called a third time, the defendant was a t home, and the plaintiff demanded the debt, and threatened in a very loud manner to sue the defendant. On being thus threat; ened the • defendant ordered the plaintiff out of the shop, an said if he did.notp, defendant would turn him ou t. Plaintiff left the shop, saying.defendant was drunk, and not fit for buss' ness ; this was in the morning, and defendant was not in the least intoxicated. Cross-examined.—When the defendant came down into the shop, he said " Are you not the fellow who threatened to issue a writ against me ?" On the plaintiff's answering in the affir mative, the defendant might have uttered an oath, and threat' ened to kick him out. Witness was hbwever by no means poi' tive as to the last words. Re-examined.—ln the evening of the same day, a person In into the defendant's shop, threw the letter on the counter, Ow immediatejy left the shop. Mr. Serjearit VAU G HAM replied, and contended that the ort" ginal provocation was in the defendant's conduct at his 01 1 1 3 . shop. Lord Chief Justice DALLAS summed up the evidence, and. observed that the assault, unconnected with othercircurnstanoest would have called for considerable damages ; but it was. for them to consider whether the conduct of the plaintiff had 11,1 been of such a nature as to reduce the damages to a very sinv''. amount. The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101. OLD BAILEY, DEC. 12. Yesterday Thomas Gibbon* was indicted for having, in Naf last, feloniously intermarried with Mary Ann Parsons, his law' ful wife Elizabeth, to whom he was married in 1817, being th en alive.—Both marriages, and the life of the lawful wife, wer''' proved.—The prisoner pleaded in his defence, that his wit ° Elizabeth ran away from bins, and he had no way of appeasil his grief but by taking another—He was found Guilty, all sentenced to seven years transportation. After owe or two trifling cases of larceny the Sessions closed , and the whole of the prisoners convicted were brought up for judgment. The following prisoners received sentence of death :—Joh n Wait, aged 52, for forgery ; Alexander Robinson, for forging hall mark ; Jorgan Jorgerson, for returning from transporta tion ; Patrick Goulding, John Harris, James Gilchrist, Eliza beth Physick, and John Willis, for stealing in the dwelline house ; George William Henry, William Fry, Martin Be ll ' William Parkins, Mark Herd, William Watts, James Brow n ' and Thomas Fuller, for burglary. Seven were sentenced to be transported for life ; four for is_ years; 29 for seven years ; an d a num b er o f ot h ers to v arious erms of imprisonment, whipping, &c. Respecting two convicts judgment was respited, viz.—Phil i p Williams and John Payne. TREAD-MILL WIT.—A brace of incorrigible-, having the supreme felicity; after many years' separation, to meet at the modern round-about, at Lewes, one of them ob' served, " It was singular that their first interview should be in such a peculiar place ." " Not at all," replied the otbert pointing to the mill, " you see how things turn round." DESTRUCTIVE FIRE.--About half-past two o'clock yesterday morning, a very alarming fir e broke out in Fore-street, Limehou 0, just on the verge•of the river Thames. It originated i ll , a provision warehouse, which, together with th e ' %Thole of the stock in trade, was reduced to heap of smoking ruins.' The flamte commun i ' cated to the house of Mr. SEABURN, CheeSeill ol" ger, which was also, together with the furnitur e :. and stock in trade, destroyed. The houses 0 " Mr. BROWNE and Mr. J ONES were muc h d am age' by the devouring element ; and several othe r houses were partially injured before the fir e was got under. The old bridge at Windsor has received gree t damage, in consequence of the water being so high; it has knocked away some of the piles 0 1 ' supported it. BIRTHS. At Raveagh Lodge, County of Tyrone, the Lady of CoPt li : Hugh George Edwards, late of the 27th Regiment, of daughter. Yesterday ? Dec. 12, Mrs. llaydon, wife of Mr. Holt l°° ' historical painter, of a son. ' tp i s • On Monday, at Exeter, the Lady of the R e v. Edwin cott, of this city, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 12th inst., at St. Martin's Church, Donald M`Thl Esq., of the late 18th Hussars, to Frances Holroyd, daughter of Mr. Richard Rice. On Wednesday, the I lth inst., at Fetcham Church, Ge ° Shaw, Esq., of Eglantine, in the County of Down, brothe_,, r Sir Robert Shaw, Bart., M. P. for D u blin, to Maria, secy - v , daughter of Wm. Chippindall, E sq ., o f F e t c h am - gro ve, On the 7th inst., at St. George' s , Bl ooms b ur y, Robert Il te x Esq., of 'Change-alley, Lombard -street, to Eliza, only daut , of the late Bartholomew John Bull, Esq., of Hamburgh• DIED. • On Sunday last, Dec. 8, gener a lly b e loved and 1 3111 ° i.df L — e t, Hester Salusbury Lady Corbet, w if e of Sir Corbet Cor•-.0. Bart., of Adderley Hall, in th e coun ty o f S a lop, and daugh`,4 B of the late Sir Lynch Salusbury Cotton, Bart., of Cowbell° Abbey, in the county of Cheshire. On Wednesday last, in Montague-place, Jane, the Wife c 4 R. V. Richards, Esq. On Monday, the 2,1 instant, at Piercefield, aged 12, tient h- Llewellin, youngest son of N. Wells, Esq.vt Lately, in Paris, Miss Elizabeth Hume, niece ant n Tie Hume, Esq., Teller of the Irish Exchequer, and gra to the late Marquis of Waterford. 'Ol of Gilbe rt On Friday, the 6th instant, Mrs. Sarah Sterry, building, Westminster-road, in he r 82d year. Printed and Published for the PnoPutvrons, at tbe 61* Office, No. 112, Strand, by J. B. CARSTAIOI. ~~ r Nu N o'f wb Relief of 41 Iets of tl betwe en quiterl by Inserted a ai All Let tt questin k their Hus ALBIW NJ ENT INSU NIAS f - - rolil that The Col (11 tht ch arged e. to Solieitc ' 4 ll faci' ►f enc e of and tu • ail ' i w ' e l L i It of Ca jie'dets ; 37, I p~ti rr et of q'EN for ti vrlths fo . Coast (2,4esail, . P t krlt!e 0 c • 'tt4 Can' THE A.lLtilor of lia Noid b Y ce ; au A 'tRLIA IPr is. T der the 4 SSE.I% he iin ] ,1114111ted V !riV to '4ll itirtler of 114:Itant