The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-14 00:00:00

CROWN SIDE.
A RSON.

Sarah Bones, a girl 13 years of age. was indicted for feloniously
setting fire to an outhouse on the sth of February, in the parish of '
Tendring, belonging to the overseers and parishioner, of that parish.
Mr. Jrasur conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Ksoz the de-
fence.
The prosecution was conducted at the instance of the parish offi-
cer and, front motives of humanity they had instructed Counsel
io defend the unhappy prisoner. It appeared in evidence, that the
prisoner was the daughter of poor parents, who occupied a r. om ex-
elusively allotted to them in the poor-house of the parish of Tend-
ring- On the day mentioned in the indictment, a brick-built privy,
thatched with straw, belonging to the buildi.ig, was rtnte rued to
be on tire. Immediate steps were taken to extinguish theta...,
and, but for the exertions for that purpose, it was probable, from the
direction of the wind, that the workhouse would have been burnt
down. The prisoner was active iii bringing water to put ut the
fire, and no suspicion wu then entertained that she had been in.
strnrnental to the injury. In consequence, however, of the infer.
mation of a labourer, who had been working in a neighlouring
barn, tlwt he had seen a girl of the prisoner's OW and appearance
coming out of the privy just before the flames were discovered,
she was taxed by one of the parish officers with the fact, and told
that there was no use in her denying it, because she had been
seen. The prisoner strenuously denied her guilt, but upon being
taken before the bench of 51agtstrates, she then voluntarily confessed
that she had taken a brand from her father's tire. and with a lighted
match ignited the thatch of the buildings ; but she said she had
been guilty of the act at the suggestion of a woman named Livers,
a pauper in the poor-house, whose husband hail been sent to the
treadmill for some act of vagrancy. This woman had been active
in extinguishing the dames, and was heard to say that she believed
the tire was produced by a spark from a neighbouring thimney.
The strongest evidence against the prisoner was her own confession,
which being voluntary, appeared to be conclusive of the case.
Mr. Kwox strongly urged that the confession was inadmissible,
in consequence of what had been said to her before she was ex-
amined by the Justices.
The Learned JUDGE was of a different opinion, and it vu
received.
The woman Livers admitted that her husband had not been on
good terms with the parish officers, in consequence of the latter
having sent him to the treadmill; but she positively denied all
knowledge of the circumstances under which the fire took place.
The prisoner, who was rather an interesting girl, being called
upon fur her defence, said she would not have done what all/ im-
pu•ed to her but for Mrs. Livers.
The latter immediately declared that the imputation was false.
The Learned JUDGE summed up the ease, and the Jury imme-
diately found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence of death was
recorded.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

STAFFORDSHIRE ASSIZES.—STArroaD, MLzca 11.

These Assizes commenced at one o'clock this day.
Mr. Justice LITTLFDALE presided In the Crown Court. Mr.
Baron GA2ROW at Nisi Pt lin.

Twenty-eight causes were entered for trial, and the calendar con.
tamed the names of only seventeen prisoners, of which, all except
one, were charged with capital offences.
Durintt the day, no case of the slightest public interest occurred
before either of the Judges.
SATURDAY.

CIVIL SIDE.
Before Mr. Baron lia•ROw.
ROWLEY V. 110114 E.

Mr..lnt via stated, that this W;s----an action brought against
Mr. Horne, of the Oolden Cross, Charing-cross, London, for
the loss of a parcel sent by the Cheater mail. Mr. Rowley,
who resided near Chester, had sent his daughter, Miss Clara
Rowley, to be educated at a seminary, kept by a lady named
Butt, at Brompton, near London, and having occasion to remit
AIL directed to Miss Butt, he made it up into& parcel, and at first
intended to send it from the post-of Sce in the letter bag as a letter,
but the post-mistress thought it too large, and Mr. Rowley resolved
to send it by the mail as a parcel -Mr. Rowley then gave it to
Mr. Latham the book-keeper, with two shillings to pay the car-
riage, and the parcel was sent by the mail, but did not reach
Mbs Butt, who went to the Oolden Cross., and found that the
parcel, though in the way-bill, had not arrived; an inquiry wu
then made at the Bank of England, and it was found that all the'
Bank of England nide' which had been inclosed in the parcel bad
been paid ; and on inquiry at the different hanks at which the other
notes were payable, it was found that the persons who had
taken the parcel had obtained cash for those notes. The defence,
he believed, would be not the usual notice, limiting the liability
of the coach proprietors to the amount of tire pounds; but the
notice to be relied on was that the proprietors would not be an-
swerable for parcels of any value unless entered and paid for accor-
dingly ; but this Donee, as he was instructed, could not be brought
to the knowledge of the plaintiff, who, in fact, had never seen it.
I Thos. Rowley said, my father lives at Wood End, in this county.
I remember his enclosing in a letter four five-Intl Bank of Eng-
land notes. four five-guinea notes of Kin -a,t's Bank, and two
tive-pound notes of the Nantsrich Bank. It was sealed up, and
directed to " Miss Butt, 4, Brompton-square, Bromrton, Lon-
don." My father took it to Woure, through which the Chester
mail passes on au way to London.

Mita Clara Rowlei. a young Istir of very interesting appearance,
was newt called. but she was so nitteh agitated that she faiuted away
in the witness bot before the plaintiff's Counsel could ask her a
angle question. She was immediat•le earitd out of the Coun.
Miss Butt proved that the parcel (het no. arrive.
.

Thos. Rowley, cross-egorrined-34 sister used to have the
Cheater (Arendt* for two or three yesrs. It was not my father's
paper, it was hers—..he was at the charge of it.
Mr. Baron Cirattow—T:ik is going far—a newspaper is brought
into a family, and yet we are to suppose that one of the family only
reads it.

The wittier. ems re-examined by Mr. Castonm.r..—l never saw
my father trading the Ckester Chron;clr.
BY Mr. TAUNTOS-1 IVY not pinned to my father's skirts the
ethoie dny.
James Latimui—l am one of the proprietors of this mail. I

THE BRITISH PRESS.

'remember Mr. Rowley bringing the parcel. and the book-keeper
took it to a neighbour's house to mark •• carriage paid" upon it, as
the inkstand was broken, and I marked in pencil on the way-bill,
" Butt, paper parcel, 2.. paid."
Cross-examined by Mr. Ctrawoon—l was not told that the
parcel contained money. If I had known that I should have
charged I3s. carriage instead of 2s.
Peter Jones—l was coachman of the Chester mail. I put the
parcel in the seat of the coach.
Edward Frowd. the Attorney for the plaintiff, said—l called on
Mt Horne, at the Uulden Cross, about a fortnight after the loss.
He said his time was very valuable, •.,d pointed to a board. I
said, " Surely, 111 r. Horne, you would give assistance in getting
the parcel t" and Mr. Horne referred to his book-keeper, who said
that Mr. Latham had been written to about the business.
Mr. Tat:arrow, for the defendant, said, that if stage coach
propriehrs were liable to pay for the loss of parcels to any amonnt
without being apprised of the value of such parcels, they must be
wholly ruined in a very short time ; for they would, for a trifling
consideration, such as a couple of shillings, have often to pay the
value of parcel. wor.h five, ten, or even fifteen thousand puwods,
and to remedy that very grievous inconvenience the coach pro-
pretties publish notices limiting their liability, and he was in a
condition to prove that the plaintiff regularly took in the Chester
Chrnniele, and that in that paper there was every week a notice
published, announcing to the public that the proprietors of the
Chaster mail would not be answerable for any parcels unless en-
tried and paid for according to the value. They had been told
that the Chester Chronicle was only read by Miss Rowley; but he
would prove that for three whole years the paper went to the plain-
tiff's house regularly directed to him, and yet it was said that the
phintiff had ever reset it ; but they must all well know, that if a
newspaper came into a house it generally laid on the table for evert
member of the family to take it up and read it at any time when
he or she might be idle and have nothing better to do, and he
would put it to them as men of sense whether the plaintiff hail not
seen the advertiaement ?
Mr. ilarun Lax n ow grievously lamented the very careless manner
in which. large sume of money were frequently sent by sup-
coaches, because it held out so great a temptation to the thieves,
who sometimes committed their depredations at the expense of the
coach proprietors, and sometimes at the expense of others. It was
certainly to be regretted that •the Legislature slid not, in these
titnes of speculation, interpose by an Act of Parliament, declaring
that if the coach pioprietors lodged a copy of their notice with the
clerk of the peace, it should be sufficient Proof of its reaching the
party.
The notice in the Chester Chronick was proved to have been
inserted every week, and it was also proved that the paper was re-
gularly sent to the plaintiff's doubt, (Armed to hint, fur three
years and one month.
Mr. JERVIS replied; and contentlect that upon this evidence the
Jury ought to presume that the plaintiff' had never seen the notice,
for at was contained in only three lines in a stage-coach advertise-
ment which occupied a 'slink column of the Chester Chronicle: and
besides, if the coach proprietors had meant to have made a defence
of this kind, Mr. Latham. who was himself one of the proprietors,
cauld easily have told the plaintiff that they had given such a notice.
and that he must comply with the terms of it, if he meant the coach
proprietors to be answerable.
Mr. Baron GARROW in charging the Jury said, that this was
a case of very great importance. He had seen many eases in which
he was truly sorry to see that the plaintiffs could not recover. He
had known young women who had been servants, and were going
with their little all from one Olace to another—lie had also known
of young ladies going to school, who had lost their clotites. These
were certainly hard cases, but lie felt bound to say that there was less
reason to regret the loss of a person who had the means of sending
his money by a safer conveyance and would not. The question,
however, for them to consider was, whether di: plaintiff hail the
fair means of knowing of the advertisement, aid it was not neces-
sary to prove that the plaintiff read that part of the newspaper in
which the advertisement was contained. Newspapers, as they
were aware, cootained as many different sort. of intelligence
as the readers of them had different tastes and dispositions.
Many very elevated persons would not on any account omit to
read the account of the performance at the opera ; and yet
he had heard a very learned person say, that he never would go
there unless he were paid for to doing,—Joe probably never read
the account of the Opera. Other very high persons tilt a great
interest in the state of betting at Tattentall's, and yet the learned
person he had alluded to had never, in all probability. read that.
Many more, in spite of their better judgment, would carefully
res,4 an account of the number of times that a poor wretch was
knocked down in the priie-ring; and how, after all that, he was
brought up to fight it out. But still the question they had to con-
sider was, whether the plaintiff, from the paper being so often in
his house. had not a fair opportunity of reading this advertisement ?
Indeed, from his having to send money by a coach, the probability
was, that he rather looked at a part of the paper containing a matter
of that sort, than that he should read of the Opera, of Tatterall'a,
or the Prize Ring. flowerer, the matter was for their consi-
deration. . _

The Jury consulted together for some time, and found a ♦erdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 311.

MILLS V. WALTHAX.

Mr. Jetty's stated, that this was an action of trespass brought
by the plaintiff, a farmer, and tenant of the Marquis of Anglesea.
lo prevent the destruction of the garpe on the ptaintiff's farm. a
-notice had been given to the defendant not to trespass on the plain-
tiff's lands. However, it would be proved that he did so ; and all
due was asked in this case was romi..al damages.
Ralph Tomlinson, a game-keeper, sail—l sax the defendant
walking across n grass field belonging to the plaintiff; he had a
terrier dog with him.
Cross-examined by Mr. TAUNTOS—I searched the plaintiff,
and found a pen-knife in his pocket. I did not think that a very
suspicious eircums•ance. The defendant's harvest work was about
at that time, and the plaintiff asked the defendant to give him a
job, but the defendant refused. This was about the middle of the
day. I went to the attorney to tell him of the trespass, but I
was not directed to do so by the plaintiff, and I went to Lord
Bagot's attorney. My deputation as a keep*: is signed by the
Marquis of Anglesea.
Ilenry Turner proved notice from the plaintiff to the defendant
not to trespass.
Cross-examined—The defendant is a labouring man.
The notice not to trespass was read.
Mr. Tau/crow addressed the Jury for the defendant. and said
that it was to be contended that this man was out poaching at
twelve o'clock in the day. within view of a farmer and a game-
keeper. AI they saw Lord Itagot's attorney bringing the action
they must be well aware whose case this really was.
Mr. Baron GAIZOW observed to the Jury that it was clear that
this man was not poaching, and that they mti‘t find a farthing as the
damages; but if they thought that that was not sufficient to itn-
demnify the plaintiff' for the damage done by this trespass, they
might give the subject their serious consideration, and find a ver-
dict for a half-penny if they thought proper.
The Jury having deliberated for a few minutes, the foreman
said " we cannot find this to be a trespass, as the pour man only
went to ask for work."

The Learned Judge—l fear, gentlemen, that if a person gives
another notice not come on his lands. and that other only crosses
his court-yard to ask for work, or to beg a jug of ale, or any thing
of that kind, he may if be is churl enough, to bring an action of
trespass for it: If you hod a verdict for the defendant, I fear it
cannot bb supported.
The Jury thea found for the plaintiff, damages One Farthing.
The Learned Judge then said, that the bringing of such acuons
as this had a bad tendency. as it went to discourage actions which
were fairly supportable. The plaintiff in this cams, however, was
by law entitled to recover one farthing for his damages, and an-
other farthing for his costs.
OIMIERT L. COTICUT AND INEVD,

Mr. RICHAaDS opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant PEAK E stated that this was an action of trespass
brought by the plaintiff, who had for many years been constable of
Cheadle, against the defendantr, who were bath Magistrates of the
county of Stafford, for causing the plaintiff's goods to be din-
trained. he having been improperly fined by the defendants. The
Magistrate
being constable of Cheadle, received a warrant signed by •
Magistrate of the name of Wheeldon, commanding the constables
of Cheadle to apprehend a person rained Blower, who resided at
Cavenwall, for an assault on a person named Ryley. This war.
rant the plaintiff refused to execute, on the ground that Csvenwall
was out of the parish for which he was constable, and was three
miles off, and that there being constables of that parish the war-
rant ought to be executed by them. However, for this refusal, he
was sunntioned before the defendants, and he as well as his brother
constable of Cheadle were fined a guinea each. The plaintiff refused
to pay this fine, on the ground that the place being out of the pa-
rish for which lie was constable, he was not bound to execute the
warrant, and then the defendants thought proper to distrain the
plaintiff's goods for this fine. By a late Act of Parliament, indeed,
constables were empowered to execute warrants out of their parishes,
but that Statute did not authorise Magistrates to fine then; because
they would not execute warrants MeSery place to which Magistrates
might choose to send them.
Russel Ball, the other con4table of Cheadle, proved the circum-
stances as stated by Mr Serjrant Peake.
In his cross-examination he said, I paid my fine ; I thought it
the easiest way of getting rid of it. Mr. Coyney, one of the de-
fendants, said that (Halbert was fined twenty shillings, and I after-
terwards heard (-lambert say he would not pay it. That was about
a fortnight afterwards.

Thomas Bullock—l am ■ cnnstable of Cheadle. I succeeded
the plaintiff: I was employed to execute a distress warrant on the
plaintiff's goods; this in it ; it is signed by the defendants, and
under it I distrained a silver watch, a ribbon. and a key. It was
valued at thirty shillings; I sold it to James Wcherley.
Cross-examined by Mr. CauriviLk—l made the distress while
the plaintiff was at home was to receive him twenty.one
shillings under the distress. I was not uncivil, and gave no angry
words.

The distress warrant was read. It directed Bullock to levy
twenty-one shillings by distrainlng the goods of the plaintiff.
John Nutt—l am a constable of Kingsley; I was Adore the
Magistrates; I saw Mr. (!oyney, Mr. Sneyd, and Mr. Wheeldoa.
A complaint was made against the plaintiff for nut executing a
warrant. Mr. Wheeldnn said, " Gimbal, how dared you to leave
the room r The plaintiff said, that he was gone to look atter
some men: a complaint was made against the plaintiff, and the
plaintiff said that he could not execute the warrant. because he
was not levying the King's taxes; one of the defendants said,
You officers affect to know better than the Magistrates.
Mr. 'fauNTOX addressed the Jury for the defendants. By a'
very salutary regulation, the AMR of Parliament made relative to
the office and duties of a Magistrate were forwarded to the different 1
acting Magistrates, and ft happened, therefore, that they knew of
the late Act of Parliament for the regulations of constables. Before
inst statute, if a warrant was d:rected to the constable of spanks/sr

I place, such constable could rot execute the warrant out of that
place; but now by the statute 5 Geo. IV. e.lB. a. 5. it is ducted,
that it shall be lawful for the constable of a particular place to exe-
cute warrants within all places in which the Justice had authority
to act when he granted the warrant ; and under this statute, he
would contend, that if these constables were so antbordesi to act, it
I was competent fur 31agistrites so to direct warrants to them to act
all over the county ; and that by the statute of 3 Geo. ill. e. 55.
a. 1. two Magistrate,' were authorised to impose find on constables
not executing warrants that were directed to them. There was in
fact not the slightest pretence for saying that there was any hard-
ship itt the infliction of the fine, or in the levying of the distress, for
the defendant might have redeemed the watch for twenty-one shil-
lings at any time before it was sold.
Mr. Baron Gannow—lt would be of the last imrortanee some-
times that the Magistrates should pus over the constables of the
parish. They might be nearly connected with the party to be ap.
prehended, or there might be a great many other reasons why the
constable of the parish would be the hut person that should be
employed in executing et warrant..
The conviction of the plaintiff by the defendants for trot execut-
ing the warrant was put in.
Mr. Sergeant PEAKE replied, and contended, that though the
Statute I lieu. 4. empowered constables to act out of their parishes,
it did not compel them to do an; and that it they could be so corn.
riled, a constable might have the g eat expense of travelling over
a whole county for every trumpery assault fur Which any party
chose to take out a warrant.

_
Mr. Baron OARROW—I feel no doubt in this case. -I am clearly
of opinion that when the Legislature says that it shalt and may be
lawful for a public officer like a constable to execute warrants over
the whole of a certain district (in this case the whole county). that
must he taken to mean that such constable is bound to do it fur the
Legislature never intended that when the Magistrate directed the
constable so to do. the constable should be a court of appeal over
him to say whether it should be done or not. I therefore feel no
hesitation in nonsuiung the plaintiff: The plaintiff was then con-
sulted.

CROWN SIDE.
Before Mr. Justice LITT LEDALE.
MANSLAUGHTER.
Thomas IVhale V/34 char;zed with manslaughter, in killing
William Reynolds and William Rowley.
Mr. WHAT ELY conducted the prosecution, and Mr. CUIVIVOOD
the defence.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner was the engineer
to 111tasrs. Ward's steam-vngine at their coal mine at Wolver-
hampton, ar.d that the engine not being at work, the prisoner wmt
t t examine another part of the machinery, when the two deceased,
with six others, got into the skip (a sort of basket in which the
men go down the shaft) and by some accident the engine began to
work before the prisoner had any knowledge they were there, and
by those means the two deceased were precipitated to the bottom of
the mine and killed, and the other men thrown on to ground, and
considerably hurt.
In the indiciment it was charged that the prisoner knew that the
deceased were in the skip, of which there was no proof.
Mr. CuItWOOD objected that this was a material allegation, and
must be proved.
The beamed Jtjnox concurred in this view of the case, and
directed the prisoner to be acquitted.
The witnesses for the prosecution all stated the prisoner to be a
man of moat careful habits, and was on that ground selected by
Messrs. Ward to hsve the management of the steam engine.
Verdict—Nut Guilty.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.

LANCASHIRE ASSIZES.—LAxcAsm, Almicat lA.

COOHAN V. HOLT.
Mr. STARETE stated that this was an action brought by the
plaintiff to recover against the defendant a compensation in da-
mages for slanderous words spoken of and concerning the plaintiff.
William Mallen examined—He is a wheelwright; knows the
plaintiff and the defendant, Mr. Bolt, who keeps a school at Wal-
ton, near Liverpool. He assisted Humphrey Home to hive a
swarm of bees. There were some sheets used upon the occasion.
They were left out that night. This was Saturday, the 3d of July.
Saw the defendant on the Tuesday. The defendant said the plain-
tiff had been at his house to know the reason of his taking his cha.
ratter away. lie said he was a notorious thief, and he might send
him to law as root) as he thought proper, in order to give him an
opportunity of proving that he was one ; that he had taken bread,
butter, sour, milk, tongues, and wine. The tongues were in
pickle; the servant was sent down stairs to fetch them up ; there
were 'fifteen missing, and many more things to a serious amount.
He also said he bad set a watch, and saw a man run towards the
church-yard, and get over a gate belonging to J. Gore, and there
he lost sight of him. He put a 111.. q in, the church to point out
the plaintiff. He thought the plaintiff was the person by his site,
but could not swear to him, because be bad his every-day dress
on.

Humphrey Horne gave similar testimony.
91r. STARKIE—Thai is our case, my Lard.
The ATTOASSEY-GcNERAL then rose and said, the defendant
wasa Clergyman, and one who would not, without he had been
justified, have spoken of the plaintiff in the manner he had done
without cause. He did not dewy the words charged to the defen-
dant, that lie (the plaintiff) Was a "a notorious thief," but the
other words could not be supported; they were these—he took
" bread, butter, Hour, wine, and tongues." They were not stated
in the declarat!on, and consequently the action did not lie for these
words. The Attorney-General addressed the Jury, and stated the
nature of the stolen bread, which had justified his client in charging
him with that act on the record, and which he was detected in
stealing through the means of a female servant its the employ of
the defendant. The plaintiff, on being detected, fell on his knees,
and asked for pardon. The Learned Gentleman then called—
Elizabeth Mountain, examined by Mr. Brixt.rams--She for-
merly lived servant with the defendant in 1819 ; was • house-
maid ; defendant kept a school, he had 82 young gentlemen
boarders in his house. Jane Threlfell, Betty Fill, and Sarah
Lofthouse I-ere fellow servants of hers. Thomas Moore was the
man-servant. She saw Jane Threlfell hand to the plaintiff a loaf,
he put it under his coat and went away. She heard the plaintiff
say be was very sorry for what he bad done, and that he would do
so no more.

Thomas 3loore examined by the ATTOIINET-GENIR•L--SaW
plaintiff and the female-servant come out of the bakehouse, she
had a light in one hand and a loaf in the other • it was the basing.
day. She came to the wash.hotise door, and blew out the candle;
she gave the plaintiff the loaf ; he went into the stable and
fetched his hat, and then went out of the garden ; be took the loaf
with hint.

The Jury consulted some time together, and then asked leave
to withdraw, but afterwards, through their foreman, addressed
his Lordship, and said that they were at a loss how to find their
verdict.

The JUDGE explained, and said—Gentlemen, you will filet
consider whether the plaintiff, in the tint place, stole the bread,
&c., and if you arepf that opinion, then your verdict will be for
the' defendant on the justification; but inasmuch as .he plea
of justification docs not go to the full extent of the words
spoken, your %erttict must be for the plaintiff upon that part of
the declaration, with such damages as you may think proper.
Perhaps you will estimate the damages with reference to your opi-
nion as to whether the plaintiff stole the bread or not. You will
recollect that the damages cannot exceed the amount laid in the
declaration.

The Jury found for the plaintiff'---damages, 40s. costs, 10s. ; and
for the defendant on the justification.

FRIDAY, 31ARCH
SHOOTING, BY A COTTON-SPINNER.
Robert Lotus, aged 17, was charged with shooting at Thomas
Hesketh, with intent to kill or de him some grievous bodily harm.
The parties were both journeymen cotton-spinners; the prisoner a
member of the Union, the prosecutor not ; and on the latter going
in November last to apply for work at Messrs. Caton'e factory, the
former, who was employed at that mill, threatened to shoot him it
he came nabigg there linen who refuse to join the Union are called
nob.sticks). In December the prosecutor did go to work at Messrs.
Caton's, and on the 30th as he was going to his work before day.
light, he was shot at by a person, whom he and another witness be-
lieved to be the prisoner, and slightly wounded in the breast. The
case against the prisoner was a good deal strengthened by dream-
marmot evidence, though there was some which weighed in his
favour.—Guilty--sent,nce of death recorded.

LIBEL.

THE ZINO ON THE PROSECUTION OF JOHN FLEMINd.

IltllQ. V. ELIZAIIETII MANNY AND JOHN WHEELC&.

Mr. STAIIKIE stated that this was an indictment preferred by
Mr. Fleming, a respectable gentleman of Blackburn, against the
defendants, proprietress and editor of the Blackburn Mail, tor cer-
tain false and improper imputations thrown out by them in that pa-
per. Mr. Fleming entertained no hostile feelings towards these in.
dividusls, his only objet: being to protect his character from vile
and unfounded calumnies. The defendants had, therefore, been
very properly advised to plead guilty to the indictment ; and it had
been stipulated that they should pay one hundred guineas to some
public charitable institution, of which stipulation, however, the
prosecutor would consent to waive the performance. He was wil-
ling that the defendants, on pleading guilty, and entering into their
own recognisance* to appear to receive judgment when called upon,
should be discharged.
Mr. WILLIAMS, on the part of the defendants, haring consented
to the arrangement,
Mrs. Ilunby and Mr. Wheeler appeared and pleaded guilty, but
were immediately d'.,charged on entereing into their own recogni-
sance), iu the sum of 2001. each, to appear when called up for judg.
meat.

At a meeting of the burgeon and inhabitants of Liver_
pool, held on Friday, It was resolved to petition the House
of Commons fur a repeal of the window-tax.

Workington races are to be among the revivals this
year—in July and August next. The Stewards are ap-
pointed.
Ise ploof of the prolific tendency of legislation, we ob-
serve two Bills now passing the Commons, the one to" allow
the enrolment of articles of clerkship to attorneys, in cer-
tain cases of neglect," and the other, " to prevent articled
clerks from being prejudiced by the neglect of their mu-
ter., in omitting to take out certificates." Now these Bala
are so similar, and relating to the same class of persons,
that surely they might have been most naturally corn-
Dined. But then there is tLe vested right of fees, ate.---1
Su•tday l'aper.

:=