The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-01 00:00:00

'

ttrettilhiry. Ile wished an indictment for a conspiracy. I see by
the.bill that Mr. Dowling did go before the Grand Jury.
TllcSoxic rron-litycn•L—That's not evidence.
Thadeposttions, warrant, and tecogniztuices, were then read by
Annerre.
Mr. Scam-gret—The recognizance contains these words—
" That he shall amen to a certain bill of indictment." Now, in
shaeleclatetion it is stated—" To answer all such matters and
dew 'cattail be objected against hint." This is, I submit, a
fatal "science.
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE—It goes on further to state—
" That Mahal keep the peace towards all his 3lniesty's subjects."
Mr. ScilLsiv—The charge is, that Mr. Hicks caused the
defecdoses to be imprisoned, thus implying that the Magistrates
wove mere-pup Now it was not in Mr. Ilia's evidence he
was Mrs.
The Loots Cniter JtneTlCE—That's another question, and I
thlehh, in pnist of form, it is sustained. If a pelson, relying upon
thoevidenee of others, goes before a Magistrate and prefers an in-
dictment by their testimony, that may bean objection to this action
lying; but with respect to form, if there is one good count, we
mast.neotned-
The indictment was then read.
31r SCARLzrr objected to the first count, because the " style
of abs &Mona" was set out in the indictment, and they had not
the caption in Court.
The Cater Jvavlcc—But the second count is good it is free
front flat objection.
ticerle Thomas Joseph Buthreo—is a Bow-street officer. Wit-
t w, on the 7th of October, received a warrant to apprehend
.It. Dowling; a Mr. Dunkin was present at Bow-street when the
xotinat was handed to me. Mr. Dunkin is, I believe, an attorney.
met Mr. Hicks at Carlisle—never before. The warrant was
riche,[ IT George Roland Minahull, a magistrate for the county
of Mildietere. I was then desired to find out where Mr. Dowliug
aat I•aseerlained that he was at Birmingham, and I committed-
ca!sd that infarmation to 31r. Dunkin, that he was there attending
a Musical festival. He desired me to go there and apprehend
him I think 1 got Information that he was nnt of town at his own
home: he lives at 37, Queen-square. I under.tood teen he would
be in town in a few days. I apprehended him at Cirminhata
took him to Carlisle. Mr. Hicks was there. I had Mr.
Dotrti custody from Friday morning till Monday.
mined by Mr. BROUGRABI—CarIisIe is not far nut of
the swan London. I found Mr. Dowling at Birmingham,attenti-
inEntival he finished what he hid to do there. and then went
to 'tile ; he remained there till Sunday morning.
zantined—lt was by my discretion that he remained at Bir-
mingham WI Sunday. 1 thought I was justified, under the cir-
comment:ea, in allowing Mr. Dowling to continue there, as the
Magistottes did not sit until Monday meeting.
Mr. power and Mr. Keene were called on their recognizanees,

but they did sot appear.
Tha-Avvoartair-Grxram. said, this was the plaintiff's are.
111.7. SCRItIATT-1 submit, my Lord. this is no case to go to a
J, Ty. There is Dots shadow of evide-ce to shew that the Ma-
arz.tes acted on Mr. Hicks's depositions.
The LORD CHM, Jt,ITICE—NOt on his depositions alone,
certainly. Indeed the evidence is the other say.
ecAaLzirt—Probsble cause is the question here, and
that, I submit. is for your Lordithip. It is a 9unition of law.
The Loam CHIEF JUNTICX—That is a disputed point. At
present I should say, that if a person goes before a justice—take,
with him the sort of-deposition., made in this case—takes with him
witnesses swearing to the fact a a felony—net personally known to
the petty ting, there in a difficulty in inferring, an absence
uf fru& earn. I say you must, to make that appear, go fur-
ther, and thew that at the time the party so applying went before
t!.e.magiatratc, be had r..zion to believe that the accusation was
untrue. ,
. . .

,
The ATTOR wr.T.O E N ,L—The way in which the present.
min was conducted may be evidence of malicious motive.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—MR even that cannot get Oyer
thq question, was there reasonable and probable caws for this
On, ? and how can that question be answered in the negative,
when Air. Hicks talus aid) him witnesses who swear to the fact of
L',e, felony ?
047 i rl'ern SINE v-GrxElmx—The throwing out the bill by the
Jury implies an abo&ee of probable cause.
Loma Cuter JESTICF—Not in the legal acceptation of
thrice terms ; for otherwise. 31r. Attorney-General, every person pre-
feryiwg an unsuccessful bill before a Grand Jury, might be liable
tort action for a malicious prosecution.
The ATTORKEY-OENERAL—Then I am anxious, in 'indica-
run of 31r. Dowling 's character. to have it understood, that your
Lordship's decision arises from this circumstance—that Mr. Hicks
having brought witnesses before the justices, and we not being in a
condition to prove that these witnesses were suborned, your Lord-
ship cannot take it on you to may that Mr. Hicks was not influenced
by reasonable er probable ruse in instituting the prosecution.
rite Loan CRIES' JUSTlCE—Precisely so.
r d • lam sure, m Lord, 1 have said nothing in
d:Reragement of Mr. Dowling's
LORD CHIRP JrtITICR--Certainly DM: the cause has, on
all sides, been most properly conducted.
The plaintiff' was then nonsuited.

GIZATE•II t. 11.11:0ROE WITITIREAD.
This was an salon brought by the plaintiff, who was a convey.
irlia in Hoylc.strect, Burlington-gnrdens, to recover from the de.
te(Jazt compensation for a loss sustained by him in consequence of
thc defendant's negligence in investing two sums of 7001. each,
feted to him by the plaintiff to be laid out in the purchase of two
LMUitielli ad which two snots the defendant rase to Dr. Lock,
,Hector of Hilgity, in Notfolk. and to a Mr. Harmer, upon
Oeir granting separately to the plaintiff two annuities of 061. and
ltI)L, they being each, at the time of grunting the annuities., in a
wets of insolvency.
Mr. St;AHLLTT having stated the ease for the plaintif, called
William Wright—l Mil clerk to Mr. Suggart. the attorney. 1
know the defendant. He is an annuity broker, and carried on busi-
ness in Boyle-areet, Burlington-gardens. The attestation to the
deed now produced, and the conveyance, are in his handwriting.
.14,11 Suggart entered up the judgment now produced for Mr.
itehead. The annuity deed, bearing date the 16th of April.
1 8, and purporting to secure to the plaintiff an annuity of 061.
Dui of the tithes, &c. of the Rectory of Hilgay, in consideration of
a ikum of 7001. paid by the plaintiff to Dr. Lock, and soother an-
nuity deed bearing date 211th April, 1818, and purporting to secure
to the plaintiff an annuity of 1001., in consideration of a sum of
7011. paid by him to Mr. Harmer, were put in and read.
Thionas by
am clerk to the plaintiff's atria; I produced
act examined copy of the memorial of the annuity granted by Dr.
Lege to the plaintiff. (Memorial put in and read.) 1 have also
all/tined the proper office for memorials of the annuities previously
f;rniated by Dr. Lock, and I now produce examined copies of the
n.9stiorials of the annuities granted by him from April 11107 to
April, 1816, amounting to 1,2891. 10s. per annum. None of these
annuities are secured upon the tithes of Hilgay. ( Alemodals pot
is And read.) I have also examined the proper office to ascertain
t 4 amount of Dr. Lock's judgment debts- and 1 find that they
*nowt to 34.6431. up to April, 1818. (Judgments pot in and
r eve.) From 1801 to 1818, there were bailable writs amounting to
:1,141.11. taken out against Dr. Lock. Some of those writs were
iffg,f and 'Rorke; they were taken out in Hants, Surrey, Nor-
folk, and Suffolk. The writs which were against Dr. Lock in the
office of the Shetiffof Surrey, from the year 1812 to 1818 amounted
t0..47. The number of all the writs taken out against Dr. Lock
friirp..lBl2 to 1818 *UM

john Kean, an e4cer to the Sheriff of Surrey, said whilst Dr.
Lopck resided at Farnham. the Sheriff had issued fift warrants,
previous to April 1118. Dr. bock was shy of the bailiffs previous
l 10111, I bare arrested him about 60 or 70 times. His
e,wiiit was not good at Farnham.
eaTt Brown. Warden of the Fleet prison, swore. that Dr. Lock
wig ip his custody from the 14th of May 1810 to the Bth of July
ftll9wi&s, when Ise was discharged by a Rule of Court, or by a
Sums:at as.
SCAM. 6TT here said that was the cause for the plaintiff and
ith respect to Mr. ilarnier,who was now able to pay the annuity,
tha plaintiff' had no objection to look to him for his part of the
tn;oney, and to exonerate the defendant.
A verdict as to Mr. Harmer was then found by consent for the
dafeadant
.The dITTOIINKY-GXNERAI. for the defendant contended at
gams length that the plaintift, in laying out his money at so
high a rote of interest as 14 per cent, must have expected that the
severity wan not the room unexceptionable; but let the security
be Is might, the defendant was entirely free from blame,
tissue the plaiting had employed an attorney to transact the
business for him, and did not leave it entirely in the hands of
the defendant. He should also chew that at the time when this
was given to Dr. Lock, he was a peripapossemed of too.
property, and that subsequently lo the cable of this on,
nifty decd, Dr. 'Lock had lost the greater portion of that pto.
party in consequence of a previous airrontacal contract entered
Ato privately between Ile. Lock and Dr. Craddock, and of which
this defendant could not, by the exercise of dye care and
have learned any thing at the time the annuity was granted.
With respect to the stress which had b.-en laid upon the judg.
men! debts due by 1/r. Lod:, he would beg leave draw the atten.
lino of the lery to the tact that these tlet•t, were judgment debts
:1!4: all his property, whilst the tithes of 11 key, which were at
that time rented at 2,0081, were pledged exclusively for the pay.
meet of the annuity to Ine plaintiff. The beamed Counsel, by ix.
pressing his conviction that when he should have pron. ti these,
coull.d with the fair presumption that a man who invests his
numey at the enormous interest of 14 per cent. cannot expect the
Nod unexceptionable security, the Jury sottld And a verdict foe
the defendant.

11r. Ltene Davis, examined by Mr. Iluot:GlIA4-1 know the
plaintiff in this cause, and de: defendant al,n. Introduced Mr.
fbwethan to Mr. Whitehead in 18111 The purpose of this intro.
dnetion was, that Mr. Whitehead might be entrusted with a sum
of money which Mr. Heathen bad to dispose of. I advised him,
hammer, to consult an attorney. He said that he had a tinsel in
* law whom he would consult; I understood that friend to be
Mr. Lamb. The plaintiff told me he had advised with Mr.
lamb, who approved of the security.
Cross-examined by .Mr. Sysnr.grv-1 have known Mr. White.
head Inc many years, sad is all toy transactions with him found
lam pafertly cumin. I desired the plaintiff to employ hi* own
attorney, not Imm any doubt I entertained of Whitehead s correct.
ow, but became I thought the plaintiff would be better satisfied by
titling an.
„Rev. C. Lock examined—Wiesen is son of Doctor Lock, who
ems Rector of Kilmer, in Nofelk, in 1818. His father was dispos.
eterd of theliving in 1822. The living extended ever 8,01111 acres.
It was areb!e and grass land. There was a reetery-house and 70
amesof glebe. I do net know what the living realized at that time,
bet know that my falter did not receive the full amount of the
*bee. • . •
Croat.examined—Hie father was indebted /8,8001. ft Doctor
.4mvel, for which debt he mortgaged his firing.
Ile-examined—His father had also the curacy of Farnham, worth
401. a-year, and enuthet, that of Sole, worth 60. a.yeori be bad also

purehaiel property at Kingstown Hill, end an estate at Witmore
was also in his possession ; he had some other freehold property in
Farnham. Witness does not know the value of the freehold, or the
number of acres of which it consisted. Ilia father had also West
India property, and had shares in lead mines in Derbyshire and
Cornwall; he had also ulnas in Swansea.
Cron-examined by Mr. GURNEY—M'itness did not see his
father receive any rent for certain freehold estates ; the money went
to pay off the interest of mortgages due upon the estates. Wit-
ness does not know that the interest of the living of Kilgay went to
pay the interest of the 16,0001. due to Doctor SorreL In 1818, he
did not know that his father was distre d; his father then lived
at lambent. Ile was not aware of his father being arrested
I fre-
quently being part of his time in Oxford and part in Somerset-
shire. le knew there were executions against his father, but did
not know the amount for which they were issued ; he was also
aware that his father was arrested once.
Doctor Hewlett examined.-IWiiness was inducted into the
living of Kilgay in May, 1819. Ile would be glad to rent his
tithe* at 90111. a-year ; he had 84 acres of glebe land. The esti-
mated value of the living, when he was inducted into it, was
I:3711. per annum.
Being asked if he let the tithes under their value? he replied,
" I let them for as much as I can get." (A laugh.)
Mr. Lock recalled—Witness does not recollect that he presented
an assignment of the property at Kilgay to the officer who came
with an execution.
Mr. Swallow examined by Mr. Ilnouc ham—Witness in clerk
to defendant's attorney. Ile produced a copy of Doctor Lock's
induction to the living of Kilgay, which was read by the Officer
of the Court.
Mr. ScsaLETT replied. He remarked upon the keeping back
of Mr. Lamb, the person who was said to he ergaged so much in
these transactions. The Jury might then know whether he was an
attorney at all, or what was leis employment. From the statement
of his Learned Friend the Attorney-Or:feral, he expected that the
abstract and title-deeds bad been radmiLtell to how, and that he ap.
proved of them. The Learned Counsel contended, that Mr. White-
i head was the sole agent employed iu the transaction, and would not
waste the dine of the Jury in recapitulating the evidence by which
it was proved that he was so. The negligent manner in which he
. discharged that duty was fully apparent to the Jury also. The
• evidence of Mr. Lock fully established that in the years 1816 and
I 1617 his father did not receive .1001. a-year.
The LORD CHIEF Jura' rex told the Jury that there were two
!Important points fur their consideration: first, whether the plaintiff
' relied on the defendant as to the valiiitf the security ; and, se-
condly, whether, if he relied on him, Whitehead had not negli-
gently discharged the duty entrusted to hint. It was important for
them to consider the situation of Mr. Lock. L was the (Wt.: of
31r. Whitehead to have inquired into ar.d known the state of '
his affairs ; be (the Lord Chief Justice) could not say whether he
had so inquired or nut, but he would rather suppose that lie had
not, as it was more charitable to presume that he had been negli.
gent than that he had becu guilty of misconduct. If he had in-
stituted the proper inquiries, he would have found at the office of
the Sheriff of Middlesex, and other officers, that, in the years
1816 and 1818, there were no leas than 47 warrants issued against
him. If he had extended his inquiries still further back he would
have found a sallgreater number in 1812. And Mr. Atkins, who
had known him for 30 years, had said no person at Farnham would
have gireu hint credit. Ile sould have learned also, that the living
of Kilgay had passed out of his hands, and that there were many
ether euvainstanees to recite suspicion and to create doubts and
difficulties which should, Lt least, hie put him on his guard. A
man of business would have apprised himulf of the situation of
I the person to whom he entrusted th.• money of his client. if it ap-
peared therefore to the Jury that Mr. Whitehead had negligently
and improvidently disposed of the money without satisfactory se-
curity, they would find a seedier for the plaintiff for such damages
as, in their judgment, the evidence entitled him to.
The Jury consulted to„ ether for • few minutes, and returned a
veroict for the pUinuft,Damages, 1421- le&

POLICE.
BoVnsriTEIT.

THE Elt-LADY riatitywonz.--Yesterday this extraordinary
personage, who 11.14 so repeatedly been befogs the respective Na.
gistrates of the different Police Offices. was, although only dis-
charged the night before, again brought up from Covent-gtudeo
watch-house, charged by John Lloyd, a watchman, with being
disorderly in James-street, Covent-garden, at four o'clock in the
looming, and also with acting in the most indecent manner. So
resolute was she in not going to the watch-house, that they were
actually otiligiti to procure a wheelbarrow, in which she was con.
veyed to the lock-up room. The defendant appeared before the
3lagistratestrongly impregnated with the !ulna of her debauch,
anti Mr. lit pi sit u Lt. remanded her.

LI:11110U1 CASE.--infieuni Twetyr and Edmund Williams
ware brought from St. Clement's watch-h charged with as-
saulting 'William Sheen, a watchman, of St. C t's parish.
Sherd stated, that he was on duty in Drury-lane, about half-
, past two o'clock on Monday morning, when the defendant Tucker
went into a court notorious for houses of ill-fame, in company with
a female, and with whom he in a short tune returned quarrelling,
and creating a riot fur nearly half an hour. Sheen at length sprung
his rattle, and several colleagues of his came to his assistance.
The defendant was very abusive, and said he was the son of a
Colonel Digby, and would take care to have him reported ; wit-
ness then with some difficulty drove hint towards St. Giles's, and
near the top of Derry-Lane he left him to go about his business.
The defendant west to St. Oiler's watch-house, thinking he be-
lawd to that parka, to lay a complaint wales bias ; but the
night constable reserved him to St. Clement's watch-house, where
the constable gave bins witness's name and address. Last
night the defendant Tucker, in company with Williams,
, came to his beat, collared him, and said he would take him before
Mr. Perry, of this office; witness thzn immediately took them both
in charge, and conveyed them to the watch-house.
Tucker, in defence, said that the watchman had struck him with
his stick, and torn his,elothes, on Monday morning; he denied
quarrelling with the woman ; and said he was assistant to Mr.
Davies, a respectable chemist.
Williams's defence was, that he went with Tucker to see the
illwninations at the theatres; when at Covent-garden theatre,
Tacker said to him that as they were so near, he would go and
speak to the watchman who had assaulted hint on Monday morn-
ing, when he went in company of his friend, but did not take any
part in the affair.
Mr. Miusuuht said he believed they were both very respect-
able young men, but he could not approve of their conduct last
night; but would, under all the circumstance of the case, dismiss
them.

LITTLEGOES.—Vesterday Maria Hepkies, a little girl, about
13 years old, was brought up for a second examination, charged
with aiding and abetting in keeping a Little Go, or illegal Lottery
insuranc,.. office.

The evidence given before Sir R. Dimie, on Thursday was, that
of a woman named Julia Carter, who stated that she went on a
certain day to a house in Moor-street, Seven-dials, kept by the de-
fendant's father and mother, and expressed a wish to insure the
number 21,000. in the Little-go, to be drawn that day. There was
a drawing at the house regularly three days a-week, Monday,
iVednesday, and Friday. The price paid fur an insurance for
3s. 3d. was 3il.—that is, a person paying the latter sum, receives
the tinnier, if the number he or she lives upon is drawn on that
day. Witness saw the defendant's mother, and told her she wished
to insure 21,000, and the mother told her she could do so, and as-
sured her that if bee number came up, she should be certain of
having her money ; at the same time calling her daughter from
an inner room to receive the motley and enter the number, which
she did.

The poor girl being incapable of tnakir.g her defence, Sir
Riebted, with great humanity, ordered her to be taken to Covent.
garuen watch.houte for the night.
l'i,;trilay sunning Mr. Adolphus attended on the part of the
prows Lion ; and Mr. Sherman, a very revpectible solicitor, on be-
halt' of the girl.

The sitting Alaglttrates, Sir It Birnie and Mr. Minshull, bay-
ing heard the arguments produced by both parties,
Sir IL ilinxtie obvervetl, that he believed they were sitting all
this Unix on a barrel of gunpowder, as the witness Carter was not
in attendance, and the Act requiring the presence of two Magis-
trates, and the deposition being given only in the presence of one
Mngistrate on Thardsy.
Stephens.. the patrol, stated that he could not find the witness
Carter ; and after some further observations from the professional
gentlemen, the information was quashed.
Sir H. Bin it cautioned the girl against continuing such illegal
practices; and _

31r. Allot-runs told bey to inform her norther that though
she had been fortunate enough to be dischargc.l, she vu still liable
to aNinfornsotion.
TN/ripple is a very pretty looking girl, apparently about 16
or 16 yea* wage ; she vu neatly attired in *minium pelisse, and
seemed to be rather an unfit ob)—• tier - ttiun.

proem'
HATTON-GARDEN.
A DOG CAUSE.—Yesterday a tradesman, residing in Gray's
appeared before the Magistrate with a most rueful coun-
tenance. tntylaring his advice and assistance is a case of the deepest
importance.

The 3lagivrate, on avaunting a gravity which the solemnity of
the oension .iitat to dtsoand, told him he was prepared to hear
his ca.e.

He then proceeded to state, that he was the owner of a favourite
bitch. which had lately become the happy parent of a numerous
thlapring ; that some days ago he received is letter hum the proti
peietor of an oil and clime shop in the same street, complaining,
that his bitch was in the habit of going to his shop, eating un his
graves, and in order to most digestion, drinking large litiMitie4
of Me oil. Such conduct on toe part of the bitch he did not mean
to defend, and severely remonstrated with her ; but, when we
ratios'sl beings cannot resist temptation, how could she withstand
it it On Thursday, in a moment of fr.tilty, she went again to this
shop, where she was locked up for several hours, end then scut
how, tarred and feathered. Iler condition can be better iM•011011
than discribed ; so inetamorposed was she, that he did not know
her ; nay, her pups did not recognise her, and, of course, did hot
pay her that filial respect they were wont to do. Immediately on
her arrival homes letter came, intimating distil she wee canght in
the shop again she would be killed. After this accumulation of
injuries, lit wished the :Magistrate's advice how to act; it au
clear that the Hun. Member for lialway was u grossly insulted as
himself by the tarring and feathering. The oilman's threat of
killing her, should she ever enter the shop again, evidently required
that lie should be obliged to enter into reugnizances to keep the
peace towards her.

-----
'tirel 'tire3 ae presiding gisarate (Sergeant Srt.t.oxl exPrelnk`la hia
deepliympathy for the sufferings of the complainant. and regretted
that he could do nothing more than pour the •• nil of oompaa.io,l"
on the wounds he suffered.

The complainanchen withdrew extremely dissatisfied, declaring
that he himself had been used worse than a dog. and that had he
referred his ease to a pared of Illaltornetans he c ,uhl not base re-
' ceired won isuoblc trcatoacnt.

QEN
Yesterday HYllg UE
ant Peaces,* and-M Jamr:AlL ie:a,hb wifh, were charged
with committing a burglary in the house of Mr. James Gray,
nurseryman, Kensington pore, on the night of Wednesday last,
and stealing therein several dozen bottles of port wine, fire dozen
bottles of runt, and a Cheshire cheese, of the weight of 4 pounds`
On Thursday morning, the prosecutor discovered that during
the preceding night his premises had been broken into, and robbed
of the above-mentioned p te, and in the early part of the day
the cheese was foundconcealed bind several trees in his nursery.
ground. He gave directions to his men to watch, and apprehend
any person that came to take away the cheese. The male prisoner,
about one o'clock yesterday morning, was observed to get over the
fence of the nursery-ground, and to go to the spot where the cheese
was found ; he was secured, and his wife, who was on the outside
of the fence, was also taken.
The prisoners declared that they knew nothing of the robbery,
and the male prisoner said that he d quarrelled with his wife, who
was determined he should not lie with her for a fortnight in the
same bed: but he endeavoured to prevail upon her to accompany
him into the garden.
The Magistrate yid, the evidence was not sufficiently strong to
warrant a committal, and discharged the prisoners, with a caution
as to their future conduct, which excited considerable merriment.

WORS H IP-ST It BET.
hero????? TO SURVEYORS or ROM:lL—There appears to
have been a custom prevailing for some time in the parish of
Bethnal-green, with persons keeping a horse and cart, to go into
the lanes and iye-ways, and dig up the banks and paths, and carry
away the mould, ex. therefrom, and appropriate it to their own
use.
A servant of the prevent surveyor of that district having seen a
person with a home and cart in one of the bye-ways, shovelling up
the dirt, and preparing to take it away, went up to him, and told
him that his master could obtain a shilling a load for the dirt, and
that unless he paid that sum for it he should summons him; this
the man refused to do, and persisted in taking away the dirt, which
wits therefore the ground of the present charge.
fen being asked what he had to answer, the man said that he had
lived in the parish many years, and always understood that any
one had a right to the rubutali (for it 11/113 nothing better) that was
heaped together on each side of the mad.
'1 surveyor stated that the evil of which he complained was
become a very serious one. Certain persons were in the habit of
going at night or early in the morning and digging up the cause-
ways, and scraping the earth into heaps, and then in the course of
the day they went with their carts and carried away the rubbish, as
they called it, which had been thus scraped together, though he
had no doubt they were the very individuals who had so conve-
niently prepared it for taking away. The paths in the lane where
this person was seen had been in this mannerdestrnyed and levelled
with there'd, by which practices he and the parish sustained coa-
siderable in.jury.
A Mr. King then said that he had lived in the parish many
pease, and had been in the habit of taking away the dirt from the
sides of the roads without any hindrance, and that he never under-
stood the surveyor hail any right to make a profit of it, but always
cousidered thu't persons paying rates and taxes in the parish were
as lunch entitled to it as he was. He also said dist the present sur-
veyor had within a week past offered to let to him all the lanes in
the parish, but he should like to know what authority the sur-
veyor had for making this offer.
The surveyor admitted he had proposed to let the lanes to Mr.
King, and referred to • clause in the 13th *leo. 111. c. 711, which
empowered him to do so.
The Magistrate said, that it was very clear no man had a right to
dig up or takeaway any sort of earth from the sides of the road,
but that the Surveyor was bound to dispose of it to the best advan-
tage. and account for it to the parish. He then read the 52d see.
of 13th Hen. ill. c. 78. which enacted that any person who should
be guilty of digging down any banks or causeways on the sides of
the highways, &e. should, on conviction before one justice, by the
oath of one witness, forfeit not More than 51. nor less than ilk, or
be committed to the House of Correction. He however observed,
that as he understood that the object of the present charge was to
convince persons that the mutton which was pretended to exist did
not give a right to any one to dig or carry away the earth from the
roads, but that the same exclusively belonged to the surveyor, as
the servant of the district or parish, and foe which he was account-
able, he should not in this case enforce the
_penalty.
AN AwgwAan PaRDICAWENT.—Mr. Jolts Trait, of
Ward's-place, Islington, the real John Falstaff, a very tun of man,
but tall withal,—in troth, a most noble, portly brickmaker, of ex-
cellent girth, and about six feet four inches high, was brought up,
charged by one of his own men with having violently assaulted
him, and made free with his wife ; indeed, so free as to make the
poor man feel certain symptoms in his bead, which foretold that
some very inconvenient protuberances were about to grow there.
Tebbut, with a most self-complacent smile and oratorical flourish
of hand, assured his Worship that he had no designs upon Master
Ford's wife; but that, seeing him one day wielding a very can.
courtly twig, in the shape of an iron crow-bar, over and about his
dear spouse, and conjecturing that such gentle exercise could have
but one kind of ending, which would be rather tragical, be felt dis-
posed to be the champion of woman, and quietly interfered to pre-
vent mischief.

=The husband declared it was fake; that the man harboured his
wife, took her out in his duty to Finchley, and slid he would keep
her in defiance of her true and lawful lord.
The Magistrate—Does this woman live with you ?
Tebbut—Your Worship, I will not deny the truth ; this man is
always ill-treating her.
The Magistrate--Does she live with you ?
Tebbut (with a Saari flourish)-81sr elegps with my
daughter.
Magistrate—Does she lise in your house?
Tebbut (with a leer both right and left)—Yes, your Worship—
my daughter—.
Magistrate--Did Tou e'er take her to Findlley ?
Tebbut—Your orship, my daughter and sister's daughter—
Magistrate—Don't tell me, man. Did you ever take her to
Finebley ?
Tebbut-1 won't deny the truth. your Worship ; I once did.
Kendall—Yes, your Worship, and be offered to buy her of me.
Tebbut-1 offer to buy your wile! I want no wives ; I would
rather buy a leg of mutton. You offered to sell her to me for two
sovereigns.
The 11147 i strate again asked the poor husband whether his master
had struck him.
He replied " Yes, your Worship, you can see it by my face ;
and my poor ribs (at lest some of them), are so bail, that I can
hardly do my work, yet I *as obliged to, to save him the trouble of
bringing me here, which It threatened to do."
Talbot was then held to bail for the assault.
. .

Kendall said it was much against his feelings to condone to work
Ise a man who had not only assaulted him, but who had his wife in
heeping ; and asked the Magistrate to advise him how to act.
owever, appearing that the poor fellow had agreed to work fur a
certain period, which was not yet expired, he was told that he 111119 t
complete his contract ; at which he shrugged up his shoulers, and
muttered, " It is a hard case to work for a man who had stolen my
wife."