The Sun. — London, England, 1804-01-31 00:00:00

Mr. Justice LAWREN CE asked if they had moved against the Sheriff in this Court ? Mr. Serjeant BEST then proceeded to shew that it had been' held as an established point of law, whether wisely or not, both in that Court, and.in the Court of King's Bench, that the next day after the dishonour, was all that was allowed for a notice of this kind, when the parties resided in the same place; and, when they resided at a distance, that it was necessary that such intimation should be made in course of post. He adduced several cases in sup port of his doarine. Lord A L V ANL EY remarked, however, chat in the cases cited, no Banker had been employed. The Banker, he ,aid, surely was not hound in this case to send to Knightsl7ridge, to give notice of the dis honour to the Defendant. He did all that was in cutnbent on him. He intimated it to his employer on the next lawful day. The Plaintiff did all that could be required of him. He was not bound to be at home, waiting for the return or: the Bill, but, next day, he tendered it back to the Defendant. Mr. Serjeant BEST said, if it was not laid down On Monday the 23d inst. at her sister's, in Brunswick square, Mrs. Rudall, wife of Mr. Rudal4- of Crediton, De vout. On Tuesday last, at Hedge Grove, near Watford, the Rev. Joseph Fawcett ' late LeCturer at the Old Jewry. At Weeiy, in Essex, the infant daughter of Captain james Grant, of the 42d Regiment. On Thursday last, at Brompton, the Rev. Charles Graham, Rector of Watton Lefsion, Hertfordshire. On ‘Vedtiesday, at Godmanchester, Mrs. Jackson, relit of the late John Jackson, Esq. At Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh, on the 22d inst. Colones James liamilton, first cousin of the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. On the ist inst. at her house in Inveresk, Mrs. Adams, wife of George Herbert Adams, Esq. LONDON: Printed by BUCHANAN WWI-AN> (ot Bow-Street, Covent-Garden); an d Published by ‘C/11.-.4 A m AltM/GIR SCRlrrs, (of Smith Molton-street, Grosvenor -square); At the buN.Onfic g, No. i 1 z, Str an d ; where Advertistmotts, Ord," f or t he Paper, Letters for the Editor, &c. (post-paidio mubt be addrcs3cd, LAW REPORT. RT OF KING's BENCH, JAN. 28. RAIN V. WAINWRIGHT. , vas Rule to shew 'Cause why a sum of. 7.7 posited in the hands of a Sheriff's Officer urpose ef procuring the liberation of a per son v, , ;1- , ~• as arrested, and who could not, on the instant, rocure bail, should not be paid by that Sheriff's Officer into Court for the purpose of being dealt with dec 7,1) 43in7 to law, that is, paid to the per s. who had made the depoiit. The Affidavit of the Defendant who had deposited the money, stated, that this money was put into the hands of the Sheriff's Officer as a deposit, under the authority of the late At of Parliament for the purpose of procuring his liberation, instead of put ting- in : —that he was arrested by this Officer at the suit of another person, for the sum of sof. and upward,, and taken to the Lock-up-house ; sent for his Attorney to advise with him about the mat ter, and, in pursuance of that advice, he caused the Sheriff's Office to be searched to see if any other Wrir was lodged against him, and it was found there was none ; he then deposited with this Sheriff's Of. fi:,:er the sum of 601. that is, sol. to answer for the debt swnro to by the Plaintiff in the action, and rel. to cover the costs, pursuant to the directions of the Ad of Parliament, upon which he was libe rated. On the Friday following, this Defendant was arrested again for another debt, upon which, by the advice of his Attorney, he proposed to put in bail to both the actions, and then expected to have his deposit money given him back again, but he was then told by the Sheriff's Officer, that the money he had deposited, had been given ,to the Plaintiff for his debt, and that a sum had also gone for the costs ; arid then the Officer added, there is some change coming to you, upon which he gave him 61. 95. 6d. out of his 601. saying, that .the debt and costs were $3l. los. 63.—Upon this the Defendant sent to his Attorney to put in bail, and said that the whole should be returned to him—up. on which the Officer said, the-money for the debt had been paid over to the Plaintiff. The Defendant then put in bail in both suits, and insisted upon the money deposited being returned. The Affidavit of the Defendant's Attorney con. firmed this statement. The Court here asked, if the Plaintiff, in the first action, was made a party to the Rule ?—it be ing answered in the negative, the Court said there was no use in going on, for that he was eventually interested, and moat claim to retain the debt, and therefore until he became a party, nothing final could be done : upon which Mr. ERSKINE consented to shew cause for. the :is well as the Sheriff's Officer, vgainst the Rule ; and proceeded accordingly to observe, that all the fads were corredly stated in the Defendant's Affidavit, except that the money delivered to the Sheriff's Officer was understood, at the time, by all the parties, to be, not a deposit to procure the libe ration of the Defendant, but as payment of the debt, to put an end to the action, and to avoid the chance of another Detainer being lodged against him. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, if that was so, of courae the Officer had given to the Defendant some. thing to shew that he was discharged from the ac tion—that was so natural if he had paid debt and costs, that it was next to impossible it should be otherwise. There was no such document given. Mr. EtrsxlNE said, the Sheriff's Officers con cerned, all swore there was no mention as to a de posit, when the money was paid by the Defendant, and there was nothing said upon that by the De fenklatit. The CHIEF JuiTtc P. said, the sum itself said it; the sum was exatily what the Aft of Parliament re. quired in order to entitle the Defendant to his libe ration, natnely, the debt sworn to, and tol. deposit for the costs. If it had been given as a payment of the debt, the Defend.lnt must have had some dis charge from the aaion in writing ; there was no such discharge, and therefo re the obvious conclusion was, that the money was delivered by way of de posit ; and now . the Defendant had put in hail, and thereforewas entitled to the money hack again, so that this Rule must he made absolute. His Lordship added, it would-Ale well if some further provision were made to prevent, in all these cases, an Aft of Parlia_ ment intended for the Relief of the Subject in the hour of Distress, from becoming an engine of Oppression. This Aaol Parliament had been call ed his MI; it certainly did not originate with him, nor was it introduced into Parliament by. bins. One of the clauses he had been the means of modifying, and by which he believed it was rendered less in. jurious than it would have been if past in its origi.. nal f )trri ; but he had some doubts whether, at pre. sent, unless care taken to watch over its execu tion, it would not do more mist-hid' than good. Mr. Ejt.pct E said, that the Defendant in his Af fidavli-14:ftbt sworn to any merits in the ktion. Mr. justice Lai.v a ENCE said, that merits or no merits, tlie.Shetiff's Officer had no right to convert a deposit into payment. Rule absolute. FOXITALL , V. LORD ARUNDFL. Mr, _BURROUGHS said, he had a Motion, which must be made to-day. It was for a Rule to enlarge a Rule, calling on the Sheriff to : return the Writ Fi. Fa. in this cause. This was a. Writ of Exe cution issued.against gOods of Lord Arundel, in .Wardour Castle. These goods were claiimed as the .goods oi,Lady Arundel, and her- property exclusive o f her hu,diand, of which notice was given to the Sheriff; the same subject was now depending in this Court _under a Rule fur . a new Trial. My Lady Arundel had filed a Bill in Chancery upon this sub. jea, and obtained an Ilijutaion against the Sheriff and the Plairtiff in this cause, and other parties, un. til Answer and l'urther Order of the CHANCELLOR ; it was therefore impouible for the Sheriff to return this Writ at present, for he could not execute it without incurring the penalties of a Contempt of the Court of Chancery. _ _ _ , MIA r. Pttov.olis saidthey had, anti that there fore this Motion to enlarge that Rule until : the first day of the next Term was become aosolutely indis pensable for the Sheriff's protelion. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as the matter was now depending in Equity,the Court must enlarge this Rule until the next Term certainly.—Rule en larged. MOLINTFORD .1). GIBSON. This was an Aaion of Troyer, brought by the Plaintiff, as Administrator of one Howard, who died intestate, against the Defendant, to recover the amount of goods delivered by. the intestate's wife after his'decease to the Defendant, who was a creditor of his, he having previously. sold the goods in question to him. The aaion was tried at the last Summer Assizes at Stafford, before Mr. Justice LAWRENCE, and a verdia was found for the Plaintiff, under the direc tion, as to the law of the case, of the Learned Judge. It _was now sought to be set aside, principally on the following grounds, by Mr. MILLS and Mr. J Amy's, Counsel for the Defendant : That the wife Was executrix in her own wrong, and it is laid down in various Authorities, that a payment made to a creditor by an Executor de son tort is a good payment for the creditor, and cannot be invalidated. In support of this position, several of the ancient and modern books of Reports and other Authorities were cited. The Judges delivered their opinions seriatim, and unanimously concurred in favour of the verdift. They said that the cases cited were not in point, the farts not tallying with these, which appeared from the Learned Judge's Re.port, in the present case. The Court was not called on to give any opinion as to the legal validity of a payment made to an intestate's creditor by an Executor de son tort, afting habitually and with the knowledge of the creditor as such. But here was a delivery of glods, by an unauthorized person, not tiding as executrix in any instance whatsoever, save as to the very.ad in question, therefore the creditor could nor have previously supposed that she was afting as Execu trix in that single solitary instance. He might as well be s.sid to have afted as an Executor de son tort, as he participated in the aft by receiving the goods from her, and is would be a very dangerous prece dent to establish, that an aft of this nature consti tuted one an Executor de son tort, for a servant or any person in the house of an intestate, at the time of his decease, might dispose of jewels or money ; and if such servant or other person so disposing of an intestate's effeas, happened to be a beggar, what remedy; in that case, could the legal Administrator, and other fair creditors have ?—Rule discharged. MONDAY, JAN. 30. Tx Is being . the 3oth of January, the day of King Charles's Martyrdom, the Court did not sit ; but the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex were sworn in to make Presentments, &c. in the usual torm. _ _ Mr. Justice GROSE observed to them, that he was not aware of any particular matters to come be fore them, if there were, he sh"uld have thought it his duty to address them upon such matters; but this he knew, that they had proved by . what they had done on former occa.icms, that if any thing par ticular.was to be done notv, it would be well done. He had nothing fat tier to add but say, that what ever the business should be that came before the Grand Jury, it would be disposed of in a manner that would refieEt honour on themselves, and be of advantage to the Public. The Grand jury then withdrew, and some Bail were justified, which constituted the whole of the business of the day. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, lAN. Z 7. HAINES V. BERKS. Mr. Serjeant BEST applied for a rule to chew cause why the verdiel. for the Plaintiff, in this case, should,not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered. The action was tried before Mr. Justice ROOKE, at the Sittings after last Term. The subje& of the aalion was a Bill of Exchange, and the point on which the Defendant, who was the Indorser, had contended for a verclia in his favour was, want of due notice of its dishonour. The Bill fell due on the rst October, and. it appeared in evidence that it was not presented for payment till after nine o'clock that evening, being a Saturday,. The Acceptor lived in Tottenham-court.road ; the Plaintiff, in the near neighbourhood ; and the Defendant, at Knightsbridge. That notwithstanding, however, no notice of the dishonour of the Bill was sent to the Defendant till Tuesday the 4.th, at two o'clock in the afternoon, three days alter the Bill fell clue. The Learned Counsel was aware that it would be said, that the Bill had lain in the hands of the Plaintiff's Banker till late on the Monday, an d therefore that no improper delay was imputable to the Plaintiff. This, however, he contended could not operate as an excuse. .The Bill had not been paid away to the Banker, but had merely been pur into his hands as agent for the Plaintiff. Any irre gularity in his condua, therefore, must attach to the Plaintiff. ag t•rule that the ranker anti his etAp l .9yer were t,- ht considered as one and the same person, negli_ gence to any ext, nt might be san&ionetl. A Banker must be held bcund, either to give notice himself tq the Indorser, or to return the Bill to his em. ployer in such time as that he may give due notice. He would venture to say, that th,.A-e was not a Banker in London who would not acknowledge it to be the practice, to give such a notice on the du of the dishonour. Mr. Justice ROOKS said, that they would unques. lionably do so if they could. To lay it down, however, as an incumbent duty, would be to force a Banker to keep a Clerk for every Bill that might come into his possession. Were this to be held, no Banker would be fond of undertaking so - dangerous an employment. Lord ALVANLEY said that his opinion was clear on the poi,nt. As his Brother BEST, however, con. ceived it to be a question of such importance, he should converse , with his Brethren on the subjeA, and with the other judges, and should be ready to morrow, according to their opinions, either to grant or refuse- the Rule. Mr. Serjeant BEST sheaved cause against a Rule obtained by Mr. Serjeant COCK ELL, for having a Wairant of Attorney granted by a femme coverte, und:tr articles of Separation from her Husband, in fa :your of a young man, an Attorney's Clerk, set aside, on account of her coverture. The Defendant, he stated, waslhe lady.'s trustee under the articles of separation. She had been much involved, and he, out of pure friendship, and to keep her out of disagreeable law suits, had advanced her various sums of Money. To secure re-payment of these, she had granted him the Warrant of Attorney now sought to be set aside. • Mr. Serjeant COCKE LL said, that the Gentleman had taken the Warrant of Attorney, well knowing, at the time, that the Lady-was a married woman. He had not, however, contented himself with this ; he had also taken out an attachment against the husband. Rule made absolute. SATURDAY, JAN. 28. HAINES 'W. BERKS. Thit day Lord ALVANLEY delivered the opinion of the Court on the point reserved yesterday. • His LOrdship said that the argument of his Bro ther BEST amounted to this, that a Banker into whose hands a Bill of Exchange might be put to require payment, was the Agent of the holder, and as such was bound to give such notice as the holder him . self would have been called upon to afford. His Lordship had conversed with his &ether, in that Court, and with the other judges, - on this point, and they were all clearly of opinion, that it would be dangerous in the extreme to lay down such a doarin. It was an indisputed fact, that the greater part of the Bill transactions of this Couizz7 was negotiated - through the medium of Bankers. Were it, however, to be held, that they were bound to give immediate notice of the dishonour, not to the person from whom they. received the Bill, bot to the Indorser,- of whom they might know nothing, an end would at once be put to their interfering ict transaClions of the kind, of to their undertak ing so dangerous a responsibility. All that was incumbent on a Banker in a situation of this kind, wa t, to give the earliest reasonable notice to the person -from wham. he had the Bill. This, it was t h e o pinion of he Court, had been done in the pre sent case. The Bill was duly presented for payment, was no ted , and did not come b a ck into th e h an d s of t he Banker till between the, hours of nine and ten oh.)c')cuel roof This was clearly beyond the any t n i ght.iios post conveyance, It could not there_ {'ore a b e incumbent on him to return the Bill that f (r night, neither was he called on to do so..next day, which was a Sunday;. but, on the Monday, which was the first Itrzs,:ful day, he sends back the Bill, the hen, re spons i bility regularly noted , to the p ers o n from w hom he re ceived it. Here, t h en, of the: holder commenced. He clearl y wa s n ot bound to stay at home all day i n expeCtation of t h e return o f Neitherthing h knew, w4s he bound, the might have . a be e nß i I d , u l i v y h i c o h n , u fo an y re r d.• moment he came home, to dispatch a slecial messen. ger with notice to the Indorser. That such notice wa s not necessary, had been determined over and over again. What. then was incumbent on him ? To write a letter to the Indorser by that night's post, if within post hours. Such notice would, in the present instance, have reached the Defendant next day. Mr. Serjeant BEsr seeming to alledge that such notice would have come to hand on the same even ing, • Lord ALVANLEY said, that in a case like this they were not to count on minutes. The l'l.;intiff might have come borne an hour sooner, or an hour later. They were bOund to put a fair and reasonable construftion on his conduCt. It appeared that next day, being as early as it was reasonable to suppose any written notice could have reached the Defend ant, the Plaintiff himself called on him, and tendered back the Bill. - The cases cited by Mr. Serjeant BEST did not apply. It did not appear that in any of these cases one of the three intervening-days was a Sunday ; neither did it appear that the Bills had been in the. hands of Bankets.—Rule refused. JVIARRIED. Lieutenant Drury, of the Royal Navy, to Miss Smyth, neice of Sir William Smyth, of Hill-Hall, Essex, Baronet. On the 18th inst. at Clatto, Fife, Major Deas, of the Ma dras Cavalry, to Miss Catharine Low, second daughter of Robert Low, Esq. of Clatto. DIED. SHIP N EMS GRAVESEND, 5 AN .19. Passed by - the Crescent, Coward, from frimaica ; 'Reso turinn, , and the Maria, Loft, from Malaga: Blackburn, for Lisbon, and the V:ow Sarah, Thomas, for Tormingen. LONDON MARKETS, &c RETURN OF SVHEA' By Messrs. CHI Lt. and M Including only from the t6tlr nuary, agreeably at Quarters at 63s od ?.; at 6os od 220 at 58s od at s6s 6d at , ;.41is od 1 at 55s od at 54s 6d at 54s od At 53. s I so • at szi 6d I Total 4429 Quarters. os. 3id. higirr ti T IN MARK-LANE. lALPAS, Meal Weighers. , 'of January to the zist of fa to the new A. I. 793 Quarters at ,c2s od 164 34 169 z 87 - 7. 61 1 57 ) 1 '39 26 74 1 too .--Average 525. ID. han last Return. 153 181 5 0 4 6t 33z 445 - A RETURN OF FLOUR, - -, From Tan. 14, to lan. 20, from the Cocket Office. Sacks. .s. d. Sacks. s. d. Sacks. s. d I 6 53 o 1 43 8 9 48 o 2a 44 6 36 sz o 55 8 47 0 I 5 :'9 44 0 f sr 0 20 46 6 1 33 43 o 5;0 5o 0 71; 46 0 I 18 41 6 37 49 0 , 5 7 3 45 0 Total 1706; Sack's. —A v,rage 475. 9A-d. IS. r,lt: lower than last return. WESTERN '0 lUL" MARi-:ETS (last Week) per. Qr. 'Whoa Burley. Oats. 4ts to 58s od 2cs od to 235 od I Igs od to 209 465 to sos od zos od to 235 od 2,s cd to 2 .2 s 46s to ;es od 225 od to zss cd zos oci to zzs 4Ss to szs ocl 245 od IO 25s OCI 205 od to zis PRICE OF HOPS. Newbury Sjishury Devizes Warminster 8A :S. PO . CKETS. Kent, 41. los. to 51. los. Kent, 51. los. to 61. 6s. Sussex, 41. los. to 51. ss. SLlsqex, 51. Ss. to 61 os. Essex, 41. los. to 51. ss. I Farnham, 91. es. to tol. os„ SEEI)S. Rod Clover - - 533 to 1-,-,1 White ditto - 7os to fzris I Trefoil - - - zss to 6 5 s }per cwt. Carra way . - - 6os to 7os 1 Col - LIM:Cr - - - I6s to 2os J Turnip - - - 2 , S to 28s per bush2l. . White . Mustard Seed - rzs to t 4 ,i snd ditto. Brown ditto - -12 s to 16s ditto. Canary - ~. - - Bs od to 9s ditto. '% ...` --.....0 PRIOE.OI , LEATHER r . per lb.) AT LEADENHA LS.- Butts, 5o to 561 b. each - - ,_ 20, 1 ,(1. to 21 - .!id' Ditto, 60. to 651 b. each - - - 22:i, , 1. to 2 :3d• Merchants' Backs, - - - - t y ;; 1 . to 20d. Dressing 'Hides, - - • , - t-za. to 23 - 0' Fine C:moii Hides, - - - - 2411. to 25.y i, Crop I iides for .rutting, - - - 22( 1 . to 23 ‘1. flat Ordinary - - _ - - - 200. to 221 1 ' Calf Skins, lo to 40113. per Dozen - 2g, : t. to 33d. Ditto, so to 731 b. al. to 32J. per lb. Ditto, 7o to Bolb. 28d. to Sod. per lb.. Small Seals ;Greenland) 421. to 45d. per lb. Large ditto, - Ices. to t.los. per Dozen.. Tanned Horse Hides, lgs. to 3os. per Hide. RAW H ID it S. Best Heifers and Steen (p. ' 3s. od. to 3s. zd• .3s. 8d to 4s. e d. l Market Call, tos. bd. e2.ch* Middlir.g, 3s. 4d. tD 3s. 6d. I Eog.fiorset4s. to 17s. o d. c 4 .• Sheep S!;.it - rs - - ed. to Bs. od. SMITHFIELD NIARk. ET, lan, To sink the giral—oer stone of Bb. Beef, .Is. 4d. to Ss. s d . Veal, 6s. od. to Bs. od. Mutton, 4s. Sd. ,to ss. rd. ► Pork, 4s. od. to ss. od. HEAD OF CATTLE, THIS D.^ Y. Beasts about 2000—Sheetvand Lambs t 5,500. NEM; ATE and LEADENTIALL MARKET. Ilccf, 33. 4d. to 4 s. Bd. 1 Ve4l, SS, oil, to Mutton, 3s. d. to ss. ocl. t Pork, 4s. oct.' to' sslitod. PRICE OF 'l' St. James's Market 4S. Clare'Market 4s. 90. •ALLOW. Town Tallow Bos. 6cl. Russia do. (Card) 765• 7°5 . Russia d0. 4 (50.) 735. fdslting Stud 625. 645• Ditto rough 465. od. Graves od. Good Dregs od. :tied, qzs.—Curd, 965. tzs. _ Wilitechapel Market 4s. Bd. per stone of 811). 1 4s. Average price 4s. 9,1. . , Yellow Soap; 84s.—Tvlot , Price of Candle,; perAbzen, St. .1 A M ES's RAY M ARK El', Jam., zS. Hay, 41. 13s. ca. to .1. vas. o(1.-Aver. -51. is. 6.1. Straw, tl. Ss. fni. to it. 16s. oa.—Aver. 11. WHITECHAPEL MARKET, fan. zS. Hay, 41. cs. od. to 51. tos. od.—Aver. 41. 15s. od. Clover, 51. 105. od. to 61. ins. od.—Aver. 6i. os. od. Straw, IL 45. od. to 11. 45. ed.—Aver. 11. c;s. COAL EXCHANGE, ran. 23. Best Coals, the Pool, pet Chaldron Delivered to i-tousekeepers at - - 48s 0 1 6os 0" To THOMAS TAYLOR, Esq. Dear Sir, No. 9, New Bridge-Street, Lon dO l.l , ,I FEEL it a Duty incumbent upon me, to inf or , you of the very great and extraordinary Cure I hav,f iA l'l l i ceived from your invaluable Medicine, LEAK E's PAT.r" I'II,LS. pt About two years aeo, I was attacked with a V E NE l D SORD lt, which I treated rather slightly for some y it ,•s s but the Disease at lengdi spreading all over my body, 1 -1,4 obliged to apply to the most eminent of the FacultV+ e pt their assistance ailimied only temporary relief : 1 `, ne t through various Courses of S a li va ti on , a nd from being ra',l,6 of a corpulent habit, was reduced to a mere skeleton. Ulcers that spread a ll o v e r my Limbs rendered nie a CO . 1 'r e plete Object, so that my Friends despaired of my recovey When brought to this situation, I consi dered death as table, but a relation of mine commen tin g u p on the inaTo Cases in which your Pills had inducers succeeded , I was indu II try a Box of them which I thought rather relie v ed me, 170/ by persevering for two or three months, and following Y'.' oo directions, I experienced the mo st unaccountable relaxati o x from pain, the scree gradually subsiding ; I am now, th: jo t God, perfeCtly recovered, and walking out daily:lb>le not, iyut oi,e - more box, which I think cautious to establish my he alth in s original state. It is with the most hent-felt gratitude, that 1 su b '' crib6 myself, I l lk eo " not obj li ee . 31)°" Sir, your much obliged humble Servant, A q e0 ,14 . ; D sP. s g te i. , o N r i t a h n le ci i i , e u s t te l I c b t e i n l being published, but leave you to ad as your bctt° judgment shall (hawse. Prepared and Sold by the sole Proprietor, e Ol O THOS. TA Y Loa, Member of the Roy LOndon, at his House, No. 9, KeW Bridge.street ; Where, after .a constant residence of more than Thito Years, in a practice particularly dire:led' to the Cu, r is ol Venereal Complaints, and tilos , . incidental to the "i, r ed s Ct p i e al College of Proprietor,, Generation in both Sexes, with that inviolable which Men .of his Profe , sion should always obserVyo, Ratters himself, the .advice and assistance he grath?.lll ly administers to Persons taking this Medicine, P.'1,101.0 esteemed by a discerning Public, as an advantages f to be obtained, and void of ambiguity. • ce ° Also sold, by his Appointment, for the convervesut. those living at adi Stance, at the Pei - harrier's, No. onra . ban's-street, Pall ; the Toyshop, No. t^.3+yo• street ; Mr. Disborough . se No. Fish-street-ink Steel's, Bookselier, No. 1, Union -row, Little To‘v,leeles, Mr. Baxter's South-bridge, Edinburgh; mr. Dublin; Mr. Billinge's, Liverpool; Mr. Atkinson,voit, chester ; and by one Person in every cons id e rable ! . c' e aell Great Britain and Ireland, in Boxes of only ZS • 9‘ . 1 . , 5 011 5 sealed up with full and plain directions , whereby 1;10,30 either sex may cure themselves with eas e, speed, se' .01 safety. a stamp, on which, b} favour of the Com missoners Ne u N. B. Every Box sold in Great Britai n is sealed,uis9l,?!.lo::: m ed, at the Stap-otsce, " Ne Taylor, No. 9 , are ' street," to imitate which is Felony, and all others ter felt. # O "2,