The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-09 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

CII•TRAM, DEC. 3.
The 39:h Itlriment was inspected in the Barrack-square this
morning, by Major-General Sir H. Toirens, K.C.B. Adjutant-
General of the forces. A variety of manceurres were performed
in rapid succession, with an accuracy ;filch the Major-General
expressed himself highly pleased with, and at the conclusion he
addressed the regiment, and said he was happy to see the old 39th
in such high order; it reflected much credit on Colonel Lindeasy,
thir officers, and the corps in general, and it would be most
gratifying to himself to report the gond state of the regiment to
his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, which be should
not fail to do.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S,
There was not much business
odds left off thus

THUNIDAT, Disc. 8.
done on either of the stakes. The

bE
to 1 agst Monarch
lui to 1 agst Tredrille
Is to 1 agat Bolivar
15 to 1 agat The General
2U to 1 agst Twatty
20 to 1 agst Gramarift
20 to 1 agat Zuleika

20 to 1 apt Srphist
95 to 1 agst Advance
25 to 1 apt Canvass
23 to 1 agst Pranks
35 to 1 apt Cedric
40 to 1 apt Tippitywittthel

Si to I apt Alignlonette,
ej to I apt Pawn
V to 1 agat Rachael
10 to 1 apt Henry
16 to 1 apt Parasol

Iti to 1 agst Elizabeth
1$ to 1 agst 110-prep
17 to 1 agst Quadrille
23 to 1 agst Mural

IT. Liarn.

.. ... —.....
1
8 to 1 apt Redismite .
22 to 1 vigil Barefoot
10 to 1 apt Crusader (taken) 25 to 1 apt any other.
18 to 1 apt Belzoni

FOX.HUNTING IN THE CLOUDS.
A FACT.—On Monday last the Worcestershire _fox-hounds
threw oft on Bredon Hitt; and althoutiv the vale country lay clear
beneath the sportsmen as they aseendel, yet so completely was the
high land enveloped, not merely in mitt and snow but in clouds,
that nothing thereon, even of the surrounding hedge rows, could
be seen at the distance of five yards. The hounds found almost
immediately on entering the cover, and went away in excellent
style; but in a sharp run of upwards of an hour Reynard escaped
under favour of the snow-flakes, which fell so densely that, com.
bined with the impervious obscurity of the vapottr, not true of the
horsemen ever saw the hounds during the chase, but followed them
by the echo of" the tongue." Se►eral gentlemen who rode from
Cheltenham to enjoy the day's sport were unable, in " the darkness
visible," to find the hunters they had sent on before them to the
cover, and were obliged to return on their jaded hacks.—Chtlteu.
horn Chronicle.

MRS. HORN! AND HER CHILD.

[From the Guernsey Sta• or Saturday, Dec. 3.]
CONSPIRACY.

TIM IMO V. DE CAMPOURCT, DE JERSEY, AXD BROCK.
The interest which these causes have excited in the public mind
was fully apparent on last Saturday, when they were heard and de-
termined.
The first trial which was heard was that of M. De Campourcy.
He was thus indicted :—" The Crown (Accra indict M. Louis de
Campourcy, of the parish of St. Jarvis. in France, that he be ad-
judged to such pain and penalty, corporal chastisement, or tine, as
the Court shall deem lit, for having, on the 31st of August or let
Sept. 1825, either alone or with other accomplices, taken away, or
plotted, or participated in the taking away, of Laura Eliza Home,
daughter, under age, of the Rev. Thomas Home, who had been
placed under the surveillance of the constables of the town by the
Royal Court ; and also of having concealed her from the said day,
Ist September, 1825. to the 10:11 November, or thereabouts, in
contravention to the prohibition of the Court, as contained in a
warrant issued by the said Court, on the 3i September, 1825."
Alter a trial of considerable length, the majority of the Jurats con-
demned him to a fortnight's imprisonment in the public gaol, and
to all costs.

The caae bring proved against M. de Campoureyi
Alr. John de Jeracy's indictment was next read. With the ex-
ception of the name, at was exactly similar to that of M. de C., and
he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment in the public gaol,
and to pay all costa.
Mr. J. Brocies indictment was next read. It differed from both
the others in this, that it contained the Fe eon d charge only, namely,
that of haring participated in the concealment of Laura E. Horne.
The King's Procureur's conclusions in this cause were, that Mr.
Brock should be adjudged to pay a fine of 601. Tonrnois to his Ma-
jesty, and all his costs. Several of the Jurats were of opinion to
tine Idr. Brock, but a majority sentenced him to receive a repri-
mand only, which was immediately given him by the Bailiff:
During the trials the Court was crowded to excess, from their
commencement at noon to seven o'clock in the evening.

LATE Fists AT EDINBENOH.—The subscription opened
in Edinburgh for the sufferers by the great fires in that
city appears to have been so successful that more than
enough was raised. What to do with the surplus became
then a question, and, after one or more discussions on the
subject, we find, from the following paragraph in the
Edinburgh Observer, that a decision has been come to :
•• BALANCE OF THE FUND RAISED FOE RELIVE OP SUE -
FERE It! If If THE LATE FIME.—On Tuesday the sub-committee
again met in the Council Chamber, and, after some discussion, it
was resolved to recommend that a small part of the surplus fund
should be sent to the sufferers by the late fire at Illiramichi ; that
a part of It should be appropriated to assisting in establishing a
House of Refuge as an experiment (it being thought that our
Brideisell, if made a place of real punishment, and managed as the
Glasgow one is, would supersede the use of such an Institution),
that the greater portion should be set apart ns a distinct fund for
the relief of persons who may corporeally suffer by future tires in
the city."

EIfIiAORDINARY FECUNDITY.—On Monday morning,
a setter bitch, the property of a gentleman residing in this
town, whelped nineteen puppies at one litter.—Cheltenham
Chronicle.

EXTRAORDINARY PRESENCE OF MIND IN • CHILD.
—Two days back a little boy, named Thomas Curd, his mo-
ther a widow and dress-maker, in Broadwall, Illackfrisrs-road,
being left in the house alone, with an infant sister in the cradle,
between twelve and one in the day, accidentally set fire to his
clothes. A gentleman next door, named Rogers, hearing hint
WfILAM murder, ran out and knocked at the door, a hich was opened
to hint by the boy himself. The hair of his head was burnt off, the
flesh of his neck, ann., chest, and face burnt to a frightful extent,
no vestige of his clothes remaining but what stuck to his blistered
skin like tinder. In this shockingstate,forgethil of his own agonies.
the first word he spoke was, " go up, go up, my sister will be burnt."
Upon Mr. Rogers ascending to the room, it was found to be tilled
with smoke, occasioned by the boy's throwing water over himself to
quench the fire. The child in the cradle had remained unhurt, and
was taken by Mr. Rogers to Ail house, after seeing the unfor-
tunate little sufferer placed in the caravan of Mr. Triswell, corn.
chandler, Blackfrtars-road, passing at the time, and cony.) sit
to St. Thomas's Hospital, where he shortly dicd. AA Inquest was
held yesterday crenmg, and a verdict rcadmed of—" Accidental
Death."' The feelinge of the taathe: and grandmother, who w
both out, ate past express,oc.

LAW MJTI(ES.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
This being the Second astil.. swaths:is only will be heard before
the Lord Chancellor and 'Vice-Chancellor.

Oo Tuesday, the 20thRiOnsL?kve9ill IbießgTeneral mitioa day at ail
o'clock in the evening.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
LONDON CAVIIIIIII TO BE TRIED 137 COMMON „MIMS TSUI
AIORNINO AT BALI'-PAST NINE.
Pocock T. Moore Flight v. Pastorelli Tattle v. Hamer '
Turner v. Ellin I Williams v. Hough Hubbard v. Arundel
Capel v. Guy Tristram r. Leach Elliot v. Swinburn
Redden v. Curition Dom v. Iludderioeth Elliot v. Same
Brett v. Cundell Annie v. Hollowell Elliot v. Slradforth
Sawyer v. Morris Wlgley v. Bachelor Hall v. HodgsonSmith v. Palmer Same v. Hadow Bolock v. Lloyd
Philp •v. Palmer. Hill v. Waithman ' 7v. Dr-- ii

oilpott
Whittington v.Glad.
win
Hubbard v. Matson
Kamen v. Vine
Palmer v. Spark.
Doe, &c. v. Swayoe

Larkin v. Croxland
Cripps v. Holliday
Kit on v. Baxter
Wright v. Moore
Ponti tot v. Spilabury
El xon v. Hicks

y Ju
r.avmiltonv.oDyra
oulman
Thomson v. Pryce
Smith v. Vl'aiberough
Long v. Young
Wheeler v. Stephens
Pope v. Rosa.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.
Thai will be no sitting this day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
SITTING AT ONAT.6-INN-H•LL,•THIS MOINIXO, AT Tax.
Demurrer—Day v. Doke of Norfolk.
Exceptiona--Rendall v. Carpeata.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY. TnuaspLy. Dim. 8.

COVENT-HARDEN THEATRE.
nom N. HARRIS.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR directed that the expenses of the
theatre be paid by the receiver out of the rightly receipts, and that
the supine be deposited in Court, to abide the decree to be pro-
nounced in the cause.

Mr. liana. said, that Mr. Conts was satisfied with any order his
Lord%hip might make.
Mr. HEALD observed, that if such were Mr. Const's feelings,
there was no occasion for so much discussion as bad taken place on
the subject.

DE BEAUVOIR V. RHODES.
The Loan CHANCELLOR dissolved the injunction which had
been granted in this cause, to restrain the lessee limn continuing to
build certain houses.
A discussion arcse as to whether the pspers.which had been
brought into Court should not be impounded, w.th a view to their
production in a suit which it to be instituted to decide the question
originally brought forward in the shape of a motion for an in.
junction.

His LOADSUIP finally ordered the papers to be detained in
Court.

IN RE EARLY.
Arguments were resumed in this cause to-day. His Lordship
intimated that he would give judgment to-morrow.

IN THE MATTER OF SIR G. PAGE TURNER.
Mr. Nutt! mons alluded to the application which had been
made on a former day fur an advance of 5001. to Lady Turner. He
said that the committee felt great difficulty in acceding to the de.
mand, as she had already received the sum of 1.900/. ; they were
anxious to be indemnified before they advanced any additional
money.
The LORD CHaNcet.t.on sqid, he had no means of knowing
that 1,9001. were not sufficient. or that an additional sum of 5001.
was required. Why did not the Master report what was fit for
Lady Turner to receive?
Her Ladyship's Solicitor said that the committee ran no risk in
making the required advance, for whether the Commission was tra-
versed or not, the lunatic's family must be supported. Lady
Turner was at present in very great distress. She had in fact re-
ceived but 900/. of her husband's property, for two payments of
5001. each. made to her, were far her own pin-money.
Mr. PurwasobE observed that the Committee were anxious
that something should be done for Lady Turner.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that tint only the committee,
but every body else, was desirous that he would do more than he
should. Before he proceeded further, he wished for an affidavit,
stating that the required aunt was absolutely necessary. After a
short interval, an athilavit to that effect was put in, and his Lord-
ship said be should give bit opinion to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, THVRIDAY, Dtc. 8.
The Court was occupied the entire of the day in heating causes
of no public interest.

COURT OF KINCIt. OuziDRALL,
TUUASDAY,

The Lord Chief Justice this day, pursuant to adjournment, sat
at Nisi Prins to hear common jury cases. in the Guildhall, Lon-
don, where he will continue to sit till Christmas.

MONTRIOU c, JEFFRIES.
The
toteplaintff is an atlomey. practising in London, and brought
this action cover 94L, being the amount of bit bill for profes-
sional business done for the defendant.
Mr. SCARLETT., Mr. GURNEY, and Mr. SToags conducted
the plaintiff's case, and Mr. MARRYATT that of the defendant.
Mr. Jeffries is a farmer, residing in the parish of Long 31elford,
in Suffolk. The small tithes, which from time immemorial have
been paid be a modus, had been demised by the clergyman to a
Mr. WarnfOrd, an attorney. This gentleman, desirous of break-
ing down the moduli, demanded that these tithes should be paid in
kind ; and for this purpose summoned Mr. Jeffries and eleven
other farmers to appear before two magistrates, under a statute
passed in the 7th and Bth of William 111, which gives the magis-
rates jurisdiction to decide summarily in certain cases of this kind.
The summonses were for the fah of Nov. 1821. Mr. Montriou,
the plaintiff, happened at this time to be.in this neighbourhood on
other business, and he was consulted by Mr. Jeffries and the other
parties, against whom the summonses had been issued, on the best
means of resisting this claim. Mr. Montriou was under the neeea-
sity of returning to town before the day for hearing these sum.
mouses, but he, having advised with Mr. King, an attorney re.
siding in the neighbourhood, in the habit of acting as clerk to the
magistrates, and having together with him examined the Act of
William. gave him instructions how to proceed. Twelve sum-
'mows had been issued, and as it would have been inconvenient
for all the parties to travel a considerable distance to go before the
' magistrates, Mr. Montriou told them that it was not necessary for
them all to attend, and that the whole matter might be settled by
the hearing on one summons. Mr. Jeffries accordingly, and one
'or two others, only attended. Mr. King, who was acting as the
agent of the plaintiff; told the magistrates that the Inhabitants
meant to resist this claim on the ground of a modus, but that they
were not at that time prepared to go into the evidence to support it,
nor to state what was the specific nature of the months, and he, on
their part, begged therefore that the matter might be adjourned : the
magistrates had no objection to adjourn the investigation of it,
but Mr. Warnford would not consent, unless his costs, which
amounted to 22 guineas on the twelve summonses, were paid. Mr.
Jeffries, and the other persons with him, would not consent ; and
the Magistrates were therefore compelled to make an order for the
payment of the tithes in kind. The Magistrates were afterwards
desirous of reviewing their order ; but ‘Varnforti would not con.
sent to this, and Mr. Alontriou advised an appeal to the Sessions.
The 31agistrates, in Sessions, thought that they had no authority
to overhaul the order which had been already made, but they drew
up a case, and removed the matter, by a writ of certiorari, to the
Court of King's Bench; and the Court, on argument, affirmed the
order of Sessions. The present action was brought to recover the
plaintiff's bill of costs, incurred in the course of these proceed.
Ingo. The defendant Jeffries and the other farmers had already
been put to very great expense, and had paid the costa of Warn.
ford ; and they resisted the payment of the plaintiff's demand, on
the ground that both his costs and the various expenses to which
they had been put had all originated in his want of due skill,
caution, and attention, in the very first stage of the proceedings.
The Acts of 7 and 8 William, which has been referred to, dces
not give the Magistrates any jurisdiction to inquire into the
sufficiency of the modus, a question of far too great difficulty for
such a tribunal. The material part of it, as it bore on this cause,
is a clause which gives the Magistrates power to suspend their
order for the payment of the tithe in kind, on the notice being
given to them in writing that such payment is resisted, on the
ground of a mining, and that the parties are ready to give security
for the costs, in case they should be defeated, on an investigation
of the sufficiency of the modus before a competent tribunal.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, told the Jury
that it' they were of opinion that the plaintiff had not advised with
due professional skill, and with that attention which a prudent and
cautious man would have used, then they would find for the de-
fendant. Ile did not mean, however, to be understood as saying
that the plaintiff was to be ousted of his claim merely because he
had committed an error. The plaintiff was not to be required to
know all the law ; no attorney was, no counsel, no judge was re-
quired to know all the law. If on the other hand they thought
there had been no wan: of diligence of skill, they would find for
the plaintiff.
The Associate having as usual called upon the Jury to consider
their verdict, while they were putting their heads together for that
purpose,
Mr. SCAREITT said, he would for the present consent to a non_
suit, in order that this claim might hereafter be more fully three-
tigated.—Plaintiff nonauited.

MOOlir N.P.V. LANODON%

The plaintiff, Mr. Peter Moore, M.P.. is the cha'rtnan of the
British Annuity Association, and this aetioa was brought by him
in that capacity to recover 2201.. the deposit morey on the purchase
of an annuity. This annuity had been put up for sale at Garra.
way's Cake-house, and for the purpose of deceiving pu'reltsiters as
to its value, was described as a rent charge of IOU!. a year, issuing
out of a large freehold estate in the county of Carmarthen, consist-
ing of five diathict farms. It was purchased by an agent of the
Association and 2201. paid down as •deposit. Oa examination.
however. of the estate from whence this annuity was to spring, it
was discovered to Ds so far from the large unencumbered estate
which it had been described to he, in point of fact let out at a rack.
rent of 1111/. a year, and to be charged with the payment of 1,600/.
on the death of an old lady. who now holds it. There was no de-
fence, and accordingly a verdict was girea fo; the pla!ntiff.—ba-
magcs '2201.

COMMON PLEAS, Ttr,pltib
.1
"DO
• .t, .•
•• • •
rs d Midditscalebre Lord ChirY Jeetice 4T
011i4 Comgrowiti
SLANDER.
TTUT p. 'ARSONS.
This was an 'schen for slander. The plaintiff carries on memy
eitensive business aa a baker, mid complained that the defendant,
with an intent to injtiratile in his business, had falsely end mali-
ciously said that he haft bren convicted and 6r..,,1 4001. for mink c
platter of paris wit h the flour with which be made his tread, in
consequence of which false and slanderous words the plata uff h...
suffered very material injury.
• The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated the facts of the ca.le to the Jury.
The nature of tbis action had been already mentioned to them. It
was one whiCh involved the credit and character of both pasties
very Materially. Action* for wards spoken slanderously dffikred
both in nature and degree, and they oftentimes betrayed mote of
the soreness than the soundness of character on the pert of (hose
who brought them. BUt in the presence instance, although the
plaintiff had no disposition to involve the defendant in litigation,
had he only made that decent and common apology which was lic-
enser, under the circumstarcesl yet, since he had refused to coat.
ply with so reasonable a proposition, the plaintiff owed it to.,his
character to bring the matter before a Jury. The circumstances of
the case were very short and very Minsk. -The plaiutiff resided in
High.street, Alarylebonc, and was what is celled a cheap baker.
lie certainly sold his bread on cheap terms, but that was a circum-
stance which neither he nor the Jury would be very likely to urge
as a matter of serious complaint against him, prinrided the article
which he sold them was of as good a quality as what others charged
a higher price for. As a proof that such was the case, the single
fact of his extensive side was sufficient. He nes in the habit of
baking from sixty to eighty sacks of flour weekke, end was not only
carrying on this large trade in London, but had also a great con-
newton in all the neighbouring villages. Hia name indeed had ac.
quired such celebrity, that people whir did net deal with him availed
themselves of it, and pirated it by writing up, in large characters,
" Tilt's bread sold here." Going on thus, he about three months
ago was extremely surprised to find that his business was suddenly
and most rapidly diminishing. Unable to account for the falling
offof his customers, he set about making inquiries into the cause,
and he presently discovered that it arose from some false and ma.
lignant calumnies that had been very industriously circulated by
the defendant, had the misfortune to be a baker himself.

COURT:
Adjourned S,

Mr. SergetinttVlLDE—No, he is nct a baker; he has the
misfortune to be a coacbmaker. •

Mr. Sergeant VA UGHAN—Oh ! I thought he had been a baker,
but it happens that he has s tenant who is so. which varies the caaa
but a very little. The Learned Sergeant then said, that on the
plaintiff making inquiries of his friends why it was they discon-
tinued to deal with him. their answer was, •• Really and truly we
cannot take-your bread any longer, Psr we understand it has beets
adulterated." Conscious of this being a most gross and unfounded
calumny, he tried to trace it to its source : and for that purpose
asked of those who informed of it, who was their authority for say-
' ing so ? and at last it was traced up to the defendant, Mr. Par-
' eons. It then became necessary to see the defendant on the sub-
ject ; but he neither would give up his author nor make an apology
fm the slanderous expressions he had used. The words complained
of were spoken by the defendant in the presence of two persons, and
were uttered in the shop of one of them. The words were—'• Have
you heard what an unfortunate job has happened to Mr. Tilt ?"
The person to whom he addressed himself answered •• No, what is
it ?" To which the defendant replied—" Wby he is fined 400/.
for using plaster of patio." The Jury would observe that the
whole turn given to thin slanderous and false imputation was most
malignant. The defendant did not merely talk of something that
had been rumoured to the detriment of the plaintiff 'a character,
but he openly and broadly woke of an actual conviction; thus de-
daring thkt the flaintiff had not only been tried, but had no defence
to make, and had been convicted and tined by the Magian-airs—and
for what ? for using plaster of pain in his bread—one of the most
obnoxious ingredients that could be used ; for it was of such an
indigestible nature that the stomach would nut receive it, and
would render the bread impossible to be eaten. Upon mak-
ing this discovery, of course the defendant wet forthwith
called upon, and the plaintiff being desirous, if possible,
to avoid a lawsuit had hint remonstrated with, and he was then
told that if he would only make a suitable apology he should hezr
nothing more about it. But that gentleman would not do any such
thing. Ile was then asked to give up his author, or to state upon
what grounds it was that he fottnded this report. For, though it
might appear that he had been indiscreet to report any rumour that
he had heard, yet the plaintiff considered it would still be quite a
different thing from being the author of it himself t but he could
give none, nor the leant reason for the circulation of it. The plain-
tiff was therefore left in a,situation in which he owed it to his °art
character to bring this action, in order to give the defendant an op-
portunity to prove the truth of those words if he could, and to jus-
tify himself in making use of them. Buono such jestification had
been pleaded. He had denied altogether his having uttered them,
and said, by his plea, .that he was not guilty of circulating such A
report. Therefore the Jury were not called upon to try the question
whether the word! were qua; it *As not pretended by the-detenclint
that they were xi; the only thing the Jury had to ascertain was,
whether this gentleman hod used them. With regard to the da-
mages he would observe, that although in an action of this kind
special damages were not necessary to be shown becanse the words
were in themselves actionable, yet it would be proved that the
plaintiff had sustained considerable injury by the conduct of the
defendant-, and that many-persons had- difteatiaaefftitallogarlth
him in consequence of the reports to which the defendant had given
currency. The Jury would bear what the Waimea efvlbStplaintiff
had been previously to this injurious report being made, and how
much it had declined since then. The plaintiff woulcdbave been
less than man if he had submitted to the imputation cast.upon his
character, and he was perfectly justified in calling upon the de-
fendant to give an account of his conduct. The business of the
plaintiff had decreased one-half within these three months, and that
circumstance must be earthed to the defendant, who, if not the
author, wan the first mover of this most malicious calumny. The
Jury would impartially consider what were the injuries the plaintiff'
had suffered, and would give him a verdict, though temperate, yt t
such as would be commensurate with the damages he had sus-
tained.
John Robins, a master baker, examined by Mr...flesgeant
TAnDY—I remember being present about three months ago,
when Mr. Parsons and Mr. Wells, who is afro a baker, were tc-
gether. Mi. Parsons came into Mr. AVells's shop, in the evening.,
and said. " Have you heard what an unfortunate job has happened
to Mr. Tilt? Mr. Wells said, No; What is it? Parsons replied
Tilt is fined to the amount of 4001. for using plaster of pads; he
did not say )tow it was used. I said that such a thing could not be
done, and he said it could, for he (Tilt) had a copper to boil it
down. No one else was present. I then went awes. 4fter that,
I mentioned the circumstance to another person, at a public-house.
and I then received a letter from Mr. Tilt, requesting me to gag
up my author, which I did.
_ _

Cross-examined by 31r. Sergeant WILDE, the defendant is a
coachmaker.

.....
By 31r. Fergeant TADDY—He lets a house ton baker, ar.l
formerly carried on that business himself. It is about ten or twelvi.
years since he was in the trade.

John Moore examined by Mr. Caateart.r.—l collect the flour
sacks from the plaintiff. who carried on business in a very large
way. I used to collect between 60 and 79 nag a-week. About
three months ago a great diminution in the number of sacks tail
place—full hail has fallen off, and I now only collect about i 0 a
week.

W. Coats examined—l have been in the habit or dealing with
the plaintiff; and used to sell his bread by retail. Until within the,
last three months, 1 was in the habit of selling IN. or 91. worth
weekly; since then, I have only sold about St worth a-week.
Mr. Sergeant WlLDE—Unless my Learned Friend intends i.,
connect this with the defendant, I submit that it cannot be con. •
sidered as evidence.

The Loon Cuter Juswrce—Certainly not. I shall expect
that they will show that this falling off of the wittness's trade yes '
in Consequence of the renort made by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said- he should proceed to prove that.
Witness—The consumption began to decline about 3 rodntlie
ago. My customers knew that it was Tilt's bread. The bread •
was just the 'eyrie in quality as before. I did not know the reason
for the decline for some time. I afterwards heard what it wit;
then I dldnei wonder why my sale fell off.
The Lotto enter Jurricr—This is not the course to pur-
sue. The whole case at present appears to depend nubs!, on
hearsay evidence.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN asked whether it would not be suffi-
cient for him to show that these customers discontinued to dent
with the wittiest, in consequence of the rumours that had been -
culated by the defendant ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.--Yea, but yon mutt show that the
defendant either informed the witness himself, and that he diss •
continued to deal with the plaintiff in consequence, or you mita .
show that the defendant spoke the words to this witLess's cus-
tomers, and then you must call them to prove that fact, and that
they discontinued to deal with the witness In consequence of such •
information. I will not receive the evidence as at present given. •
for this reason, because it may so happen, assuming that the dee
fendatit is a elanderer, that there are other slanderers in the world :
and those parties may have used the same expressions. You must
trace the words directly to the defendant, otherwise it is mere
hearsay evidence, and you will be making this man answer for the
sins of the whole world. Call the persons who forbore to buy,-
and prove that they forbore to buy in contequenteof the defendaut's
speaking these words.
Edward Harwood, in the plaintiff 'a service, was then ex.
amined--I have taken out 3680 loaves a veek for the plaliatitt•
There was a great falling off in the ash, about 1000 loaves tt..ereek, •it
three months ego. They were 41b. /ogres.
Peter Dodson, a joemeyman of the plaintiff examined.—About
three or four months ago the trade o, the plaintiff fell 'or eery
much.

• • 3lr. Sergeant Wu.rE objected to this mode of easeninaliosi.•
unless it could he shown that the defendant was the cause 00L. •
Sergennt VAcc II AY conceived tint it WXS matter of fo': •

ference for tile .Inry as u) whether the diminution of theillictillF4••-
bilaille,n win or was net in consequence of the words spit/day:tow et
defendant.
The Lotto (*HILT JUSTICE said, he should eletaiplAtistlit .
Jury that they were to leave all that had been said about the MM.... -4
nution of the plaintiff's trade out of considetation unless ire 7 •"-
were perfectly satisfied that it was caused by the defendant, the. .
evidence to prove which was very loose, and such to his La/delay -
bad never known offered In canes of this kind before; and _he -
thaaght it.wery dangerous evidence/el reply upont ' •
Mr. Sergeant V G TlAN—Then that newsy cueotrist httrd7: :
Mr. Sergeant ll'et.us, iv addressing the Jury ter 'the tiend

Otis ingredient, The words-were not used in i place, nor to a per.
sousaleollsordM injore the plaintiff It was merely the idle gossip
vbieh tin defendant haying heard, indulged in telling to Mr.
Mods, who was of the 'Me trade with the plaintiff himself; there.
fate bin eisteern avid not be taken away. If this dandy had been
preparing by any one, it was by the witness Robins, who had
union bow ti,nocently it might have been done; fbr he, mention.
tog it to an nequaintanee, was called upon immediately to give up
tila author. If the defendant !soaked to injure the plaintiff, he might
nova instrened him (111 r. Sergeant Wild.) to show that sues a
slender had been circulated, and believed in ; but the defendant
ad no wish to do so. Caution and discretion were certainly neces.
luny to be used by persons when speaking of the characters of
ahem and yet how many persons were there who, on hearing
rumors. reported them, withuut having any desire to be the props..
gums of slander? This was a case which did not demand any
flung above nominal damages, because the words were not spoken
sus parson who was likely to injure the plaiotiff, because also, not
outdo of evidence had been given to show thatit ever had injured
tuna, or tindthe plaintiff had celled upon the defendant to give up
Ins =tensity, or wake an apology ; and because these was nothing ,
in the meaner in which the detenthnt acted importing malice. He
united that, under these circumstances, the Jury would not think
it a case this deserved damages at all.
The Lots Cm es, JEST IC 11, in summing up the evidence, ob.
served, that as there was no proof that the defendant had any inte-
rest in effecting the ruin of the plaintiff, and as it did not appear
that tie pleintff's customers were prevented from continuing to
deal with him by the defendant himself, it seemed to him that the
Jay would be doing a great injustice in attributing the falling off
of the plaintiff's business to the fact of the defendant's using the
wade charged. There would have been no difficulty in proving
this hat,-had it really been on ; the special damages therefore fall
to the ground. The only evidence they had was, that the words
nets spoken in the presence of two other persons; words more in.
jaious to the character of • baker could not possiblj be used. The
defendant did not say be had heard so and so, but as undertook to
sate it as a positive fact. This was 'extremely well calculated to
do a bas a great injury in his trade. His Lordship was not chy.
mist enough to know whether ploster-of-paris could be mixed up
is such a manner-as to be used in bread ;be should think that INA
teeth would noon detect the imposition c but if there were any per.
an who did use it, he not only deserved to lose his customers, but
reserved the severest punishment that the law could inflist upon
for it was undoubtedly a crime of the most serious nature to
cam his Majesty's subjects to take into their stomachs, while they
were supposed to be only rating bread, • substance of the most de..
leerrious nature: To say therefore that any tradesman did this wee
extremely slanderous, and in the present ease, as no proof of the
tact had, been offered, it must be taken in point of law that there
was no foundation for the occupation. It was only justice to the
plaintiff to say, that it must be taken for granted that the words
were fain, and se the consequences were great they must also be
taken as having been spoken maliciously. The plaintiff therefore
being entitled to their verdict, they, as a Jury of tradesmen, would
say what. under the circumstances, were the damages he deserved
at the injery done him.
Tbe Jury cobsulted together for a few minutes, and found a yes.
daCt for the pleintiff—lhunages 20/.
GRAY., ESQ. V. IICICARDS.
Mr. CARRINGTON opened the pleadings.
Mr. Sergeant TAX/Dr stated that the plaintiff was a distin.
gnashed obledrin the army, who, for his services abroad, had ob-
tained two pensions from the Government, and another from the
EAR India Company. The defendant was • messenger in the
office of the receipt of the Exchequer, at which one of the pensions
an payable: ft. had received a suni of money for the plaintiff,
which he hadn't* paid over, and for that this action was brought ;
but as the else was matter of account the plaintiff had no objection
to refer it to arbitration.
Tnis Oder being acceded to on the other aide, the case was ac.
cordingly reamed.
The wheie Orlin causes that hod been entered for trial being
gone through (avend of them undefended ones, and others referred
to sabitrutiou), his Lordship informed the Jury that the business of
the present sittings had terminated, and their attendance would not
be again ,niptiredi- until they should be regularly summoned fur
Met purpose.
. , . . .
CiMIRT OF DELEGATES, THURSDAY, Dec. 8.

. , . .
. •
The GlNlOClffilltd„forout, and adjourned without transacting
any baskidelike. •
.
INSOLV DEBTORS COURT, THURSDAY, Dec. 8.
Jobri Strickland- was opposed by Mr. Heath on behalf of Mr.
Cooke, a jeweller.. and Another creditor named King.
The ineelvetsbad fortuerly carried on the business of a jeweller
and hardirionnam. at .Uxbridge, and has been thirty-five years in
tde East' Middlesex Militia, s considerable portion of which time
be had sited as Sergenot-fils:tor and Quarter-Mater. It appeared
that in the couple. of the last two years the insolvent had contracted
debut to sate: ksistent of 3571. and that he had since made over his
stock and were his son, who is now in possession.
The i seg..tienied that he had done so fraudulently, for his
eon having laud, married a young woman of property, he (the in.
stdriet) sold-Win-the concern, part of which was previously his.
After ilmag investigation, Mr. Hearx submttred to the Court
that the iatt4wattl. had.coade away aith his property by means of
fried.
Mr. COOKE, on the other silo., contended that his client had
haw sustained ao unstained character for honour and integrity, of
which his longer:vice in the regiment was a sufficient proof, had
net his opposing creditors certiFcil as to the good opinion they
olitirstained of lam: The .Court would also remember that one of
the opposing creditors had offered to extend the credit already given,
which temptation he. had honestly and discreetly declined to avail
himself of. During the Insolvetii's service in the army, he had
steed some property,. which he had unfortunately lent to his supe.
rior officers, 'poke( whoui had not had the honour to discharge
their debts ..
A Gentleman oti,ilse flan (Captain Drew) here interrupted the
loomed Gentleman, which called fonts some observations from the
Court.
Mr. Cooke—. This gentleman is named Drew, and I believe
I kern soon him occupy the place where my client now stands.
Cow. ()row(waroly)—l do not deny it, air.
Mr. Colas—And you are one of those who obtained part of my
croent's property.
Captain Drew--Only to the amount of IL 10s.
Mr. Coosa concluded his address, by observing that the insol-
von had done oothiog to prevent the Court granting him the prayer
of his petition. •
Mr. fl Ear a prayed the judgment of the Court.
Conannesoncr Bows.o said that he could not pronounce it,
because it was indisputable that a new bslanee sheet should be
Wed I indeed the ti.aolvent hid a
.great deal of explanation to give
before he bad rebutted the allegations against him.
After a short consul:ation, the Cotter ordered the insolvent to
be remanded for the present, and the opposing creditors were re.
quieted to go ituieriter and take an inventory of the stock, &c. in
the shop at Uxbridge, now in the possession of his son, whose evi-
dence would be required before the insolvent was brought up for
judgment.
JUDGMENT.

Auguitus Fleury Cowen, the bill-broker, as he termed himself,
who was examined at great length on the 9th November, when he
was opp led by Mr. Heath on behalf of se►eral creditors, was this
derbrouglit up for judgment.
The COURT sentenced him to be con6oed within the walls of
-ilia prison for ten calendar months, for contracting debts without
havictga reasonable expecte:ion of paying them.

WINTER ROME CIRCUIT.

ESSEX ASSIZES, Cascusroaa, Dcc. 7.

Enzeibals Pkitbristic, a girl sixteen years of age, was indicted,
under Lord Elienborough's Act, for feloniously administering a
certain quantity of emote to Ann, the wife of John Burrell, at
Beecham, on the 3d October, with intent to murder her.
This caus excited considerable interest. The prosecution was
eienducif.d by Mr. BRODRICE, the defence by Mr. DOWLIXO.
The case proved In evidence was this:—The prisoner, who was
the daughter of poor parents, lived as servant-of-all-work in the ,
family of Mr. Burrell, a respectable farmer at Boreham, near
Chalnisford. On the 2d October Mr. Burrell bad procured some
anemic for the purposeof destroying rats, and having poisoned the
body of a dead fus I, which he intended to put into a rat-hole, he
put the remainder of the deleterious drug into a paper, on which he
smote the word " poison" in large letters. The prisoner was pre-
seat at the time this t ink place, and heard her master and mistress
cotes :wing about the death of a woman, who had then recently
Leers poisoned at Witham, in consequence of taking some arsenic by
mistake for magnesia. The prisoner took the paper in bey hand, and
'mil the word ' poison" aloud. Mr. 11. then locked up the parcel
is tie hareou, and put the key into hie pocket. On the following
morning, Mrs. If. beir y indisposed, did not get up at her usual hour.
Mt. LI. made int, and desired the prisoner to send up a cup to her
morass. The prisoner poured out a cop and gave it to the eldest
of Mr. liurrell's Children, a girl of seven years old, to take to her
mother, who took two mouthfuls of it. but almost immediately
peietticcd symptoms 'width gave her alarm. She sent the cup
Clown. and desired her husband to be sent up. The child, from
curiosity, drank about a table-spoonful of the tea after she quitted
Le; mother's roofn. Mr. Burrell, spon being informed of the mat-
ter, wart intuitively to his bureau, and found die paper of arsenic
was.gone. Alarmed at the discovery,- he scot to the neighbouring
village of Beecham, and procured a large dose of castor oil, which
Le eiministered to his wife and child, mid sent off the tOniclits of
taw tee.pot to Chelmsford, to hart them examined by •Ichymist.
Mee. Buirell and her child became extremely sick in a quarter of
AL lioi.r, i.iidihad all the symptom' ohperious who bad liken poi-
son ;. but fortunately the ..S4lllll recovered, after the most violent
hl sensation,. r.,littrre 't brother, who had gone with the con- 1
g
ties at the tes-pot to : elmsford, after consulting Mr. Baker, a
chemist of that rows. brought word back that, en the opinion of
*flatter, there were no dangerous ingredients its the contents of the
tes-pet. This opinion was founded upon a very cursory exami-
nation; but. *Poe applying thyssiml tests afterwards, it was
dimmed thallium WA born arsenic infused in the tea. It was

~•-

Frei that the prisoner, before she sent up the cup (titer; to her
snubs'', had told the child that there was some nasty white stuff
in the tea-pot. After the tea•tMogs were brought into the kitchen,
she also observed to a fellow.servant, a lad of sixteen, tbas there
was something white in the tea-pot, and was going to the kitchen
door for the purpose of emptying the pot, but seeing her master
tome in, she came back and placed it on the table. Suspicion fall-
log on the prisoner, her mistress taxed her with having neatened
herself of the arsenic, and demanded to know where the hail hid
'it ; but she solemnly denied any knowledge of it, and offered to
take an oath before a Magistrate that she knew nothing of it.
Next day she was again taxed on the subject, and her mistress told
her if she confessed the troth sheshould be forgiven. The prisoner
then closed the door and made a statement which, as it was induced
by a promise of forgiveness, could not be received in evidence.
I'he prisoner was next day sent home to her parents, under the care
of a man.servant, to whom she made a similar statement ; but the
Learned Judge would not receive it in evidence. after the promise
proved to have been made by her mistress. All the witnesses con.
curled in stating that the pri.oncr was much attached to her mas.
ter and mistress, and their live children, and thr.t she was a girl of
an inoffensive and harmless disposition, although at the same time
remarkably intelligent and acute. Mr. Burrell could give no ac.
count how the prisoner had obtained access to the bureau, rums.
tog she was the person who had infused the poison in the tea, but
by taking the key of it oot of his scoadclothes pocket on the morn-
ing of the 3d of October, when she had occasion to come into the
bed.room with his youngest child, and replacing it without his
knowledge, for he never missed it from his pocket. No adequate
motive could be assigned for the conduct attributed to the
prisoner.
The prisoner said nothing in her defence.
Mr. Baron HELLOCK summed op the case for the Jury as one
of strong suspicion, but told them that they must be governed by
the evidence legally admissible in support of the-case, which he
thought was extremely doubtful as to the tact that the prisoner bail
administered the poison.
The Jury, after deliberating a few minutes, found the prisoner
Not Guilty, and she was dettvered over to her parents.
William Owen and frillier; Pickett were indicted on the 57th
Oeo. 111. for entering an enclosed park, called Old Walk, in the
parish of Navestock, in the occupation of John James Earl of
Waldegyaee in the night of the 28th of November, armed, with
intent to kill game. Another count described the place which the
prisoners had entered as " an enclosed ground to the occupation of
J. Fothergill, Esq."
Mr. Jessote conducted the prosecution, and Mr. DowLisro
the defence. _ . .

It appeared in evidence that on the night of the 28th November,
Lord Waldegraveg gamekeeper and assistants, to the number of
five, armed with five gun. and • pistol, entered a part of Nevestock
Park (which all the witnesses called Long Walk, in the sole occu-
pation of Lord Nl'aldegrave), in consequence of hearing two or
three shots fired. As soon as they entered, they saw a tall dark
man, with a gun in his hand, looking up at the trees, as if he was
on the watch for pheasants, with which the park abounded.
In a few minutes afterwards they observed a gang of twelve
or fourteen other men. The keeper and his party being dis-
covered, the poachers called to the man who had the gun,
to fire at the former, using a horrible expression. The man
with the gun, however, retreated with his party to a more open
part of the wood, followed by the keeper and his men, who
commanded the poachers to surrender, which they refused to do.
An attempt was made to seize some of them, when a tremendous
battle ensued, which lasted fm some minutes, and in the result the
poachers left the ground, leaving the prisoners and another man,
named Balls (who had since died of his wounds in the gaol) upon
the field, overcome with the blows they had received. The game-
keeper's patty had also received several desperate blows from the
bludgeons of the poachers, who appeared, however, to have had
only one gun among them. These were the material facts proved
in evidence. The Coroner's Jury, who sat upon the body of
Balls, brought in a verdict of—" Died from a blow received in
a wood."

All the witnesses identified the two prisoners as being two of the
party found in the wood.
Mr. DOWLYNo submitted, tint the indictment was not supported
by the evidence, on two grounds; first, because lour of the counts
described the enclosure in question as " Old Walk," whereas it ap.
peered in evidence that the name of it was " Long Walk ;" and,
second, that supposing the general description of "an enclosed
ground," in the remaining counts, to be sufficient, still it appeared
that it was in the occupation of Lord Waldegrave, and nut of Mr.
Fothergill, as alleged.
Mr. Baron HuLLOCK said he should not stop the case for these
objections, but should reserve them for the consideration of all the
Judges, It., upun reflection, he thought them tenable.
An address was then made to the Jury upou the merits of the
case.

The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence. and alter a short
deliberation the Jury found both the prisoners Guilty.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, THURSDAY, Dim. S.

These Sessions commenced this morning before the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen and sheriffs. The Judges were Mr. Justice Bayley and
Mr. Justice Park.

The calendar is not heavy either in number or crime.
FORGERY.
Hugh O'Donnell was indicted for uttering a forged and counter.
reit certificate with intent to defraud the Commissioners of the
Royal Hospital at Chelsea. The prisoner was remanded from the
September Session.
Mr. IBEREWEATHEII stated the case to the Jury, observing
that the Commissioners were of opinion that the prisoner had been
deceived by others to utter the certificate, and as the evidence might
not be sufficient to convict the prisoner, he was instructed not to
prnceed further against him.
31r. Justice B►YLEY then directed an acquittal, admonishing
the prisoner to take warning, and avoid such practices in !inure.—
Net Guilty.
Michael Davis, aged 20, was indicted for burglariously entering
the dwelling-house of Robert Bennett, and stealing therefrom a
looking.glass, value 205., and other articles, his property.
The prisoner on being arraigned pleaded guilty, but on being in-
formed that the plea would avail him little, and that the offence
was capital, be retracted his plea, and pleaded not guilty.
Evidence was then called, and the Jury found the prisoner
Gsti/t.u.
There were about twenty witnesses examined, which occupied
upwards of one hour.
James Smith, a tailor, aged 23, was indicted for a burglary in
the dwelling-house of George Vose, in the parish of St. Ann
Soho, and stealing a carpet, value Be., the property of Joseph
Simpson. .
. . . . .

It appeared that the carpet had not been stolen, but was put
out tlirought the window of the kitchen. Mrs. Simpson said, that
she met the prisoner in the passage, and he was secured by the
watchman, searched, but only a half crown, tLituble, and some
needles were found on his person.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he was perfectly innocent
of the charge. lie had been that evening at a trade club and had
got r.ither intoxicated. On his way home through some streets in
the vicinity of W►rdour-street. he felt himself under the imps-
rious necessity of going somewhere, but not finding any place con-
venient, he went into the first house that he saw open, and went
down stairs in search of the place be wanted, but hearing some
noise up stairs, he became alarmed, and hastened up stairs to get
away, and in his hurry and confusion ran up against Mrs. Simpson
and fell. The prisoner appeared much alf•ctcd while giving this
statement. There was no back yard in the house.

It turned out during the trail that Mrs. Simpson was not the
wife Mlles. Simpson, but some other character. fir. Simpson
did not live with her in that house.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner a very excellent character,
and some of his employers were among the number.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up, observing, that the charge failed
in stating the carpet to be the property of Simpson ; but still the
question remained, whether he had not committed the burglsry ;
and if so, whether he had done it with a felonious intention. Tee
prisoner's statement appeared very plausible, and his previous cha-
racter supported him in what he said. There had been a char-WO.
man in the house, and it was very probable that she might have
put the carpet on the ledge of the window. They were bound to
lean to the side of mercy, because the pr.soner could not be con-
victed of larceny ; if convicted at all, it must be of a capital offence.
The Jury immediately acquitted the prisoner.
The prisoner then Raid, " Thank you, my Lord, and Gentle-
men of the Jury," in a tone of gratitude, atid retired from the bar
in a very tremulous state, bowing all the time.
Frederick Thelma!, a painter, aged 22, was iMlieted for a burg-
lary on the 20th of November, in the dwelling-house of Elisabeth
rrewin, and stealing a counterpane anti other articles, her property.
It appeared the prisoner had but lately left his employer for want
of work, and had got into bad company, with whom he opened the
door of the house by means of skeleton keys. He received a very
excellent character from his last employer, who said that lie trusted
him in gentlemen's houses, where he might have stolen hundreds,
if he had been so disposed.
The Jury found him Guilty, but recommended him to mercy on
account of his youth and previous good character.
Mr. Justfce BATLEY said that he would be sure to recommend
hint to his Majesty.
MMUS' Willis was indicted for committing a burglary in the
house of William Hancock, 13, Mount-street, Hanover-square.
It was proved In evidence, that part of the property lost by the
prosecutor had been found in the prisoner's possession ; but as
there was no evidence to bring home the robbery to him, he was
Acquitted.
George Kelly was capitally indicted foe committing an assault
upon Edward Turner, and stenliug from his person five shillings,
his property.
It appeared that the prisoner and two other persons met the
procicutor in the street, and extorted the money !rem him by
violence, accompanied by threats, that they would charge him with
conduct of a brutal and disgusting nature.
Edward Turner examined.—l am servant to Mr. Thornton, in
Grosvenor-street. I lived with bim about seven months. Mr.
Thornton received a character with me from last place, where I
lived two yarn. On the 7th November I heard a ring at the
bell; on going to the door I saw the prisoner, and asked him
what he wanted. He said he wanted money ; I asked him why he
wanted it from me. He said I knew very well why, for I must remem-
ber meeting him at lairburn's picture shop in the City, when he as-
serted I bad behaved indecently towards him. I said 'twas false,
and I would not give him any money. Another man came up and
collared me, saying, " that's the man, I know him I" I then be-
came much alarmed, and put my hand in my pocket and gave the
prisoner a abating. The man then let go my collar, when a
third person came up and felt my
.waistcoat pocket to show that
had more money. I then gave bun three pence more. He also

~,.

m.... ....../b-••..-

isi
t• :, ~-.1%, 3t. ... ,-71*•• N*).l-.• r-
—.---•
1
ant, mid ha 0110 Ststptisai ....Whited his Leiroed Weird say
ims, sthielk itllftgiw snub i, its In MIN to hoot pored,
gegikdan
Lamely, if on apologf lad lenm tipia radon would not have
t: en Wooed. 'What right had his ed Friend to say that P
I: tiey ape lm hod baps wide by the t., not only in words,
Ltd is efriting, bat seithat was essippled. because the plaintiff's
arperaeY said tbertiesiikhad betterll ~ heought into Conti. Tin
Ilssesedoiliddint begpd lam in the esileet perfectly to acquit the
phi,' SIC as Mild et ilallodant bad any grounds of suspicion :
be lamd.inisid, in ream ',Suspect that the plaintiff ever did use
...
...