The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-17 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, 310141)i`r, JAN. IG.

GREAVES AND OTHERS B. HURL. AND OTHERS.
Mr. SUODEN, in this case, moved for an injunction to restrain
the defendants trom cutting down any timber or tiniber.like trees
on certain estates in the pleadings mentioned, near High 'Wycombe,
in the county of Bucks. formerly the property of a Dlr. Hicks, de-
ceased. .Mrs. Ilurl, the wife of the defendant, had a life interest in
pin of the estates, consisting of about 6011 acre' of beech; which she
bad threatened to cot down and sell. The plaintiff, who was an in-
fant, was entitled to the reversion, under the will of his grandfather.
and if the defendants were allowed the opportunity of putting their
threat into execution, the estate would be very materially injured.
The question in the case was, whether, according to the custom of
Bucks, beech was umber or underwood ? if It was timber, the de-
fendants ought clearly to be restrained from felling it; but if under-
wood, Mrs. Hurl, as tenant for life, would be entitled to it. The
Learned Counsel then read several affidavits that had been Sled on
the part of the defendants, slating that, in the county of Bucks, all
timber trees, when felled, were adineasured and sold by the hint,
forty feet making a load ; but beech was slow considered as tire.
wood, and measured by the last, 2A2 hoot making a load. In
contradiction to these affidavits the Learned Counsel read other affi-
davits tiled on rite part of his clients, stating the direct contrary,
and also cited the case Aubrey v. Fisher, 10th East, 4411, where
the Court of King's Bench had decided that beech was timber, and
that it was act laid down by Lord Coke in the Ist and 2d Institutes.
The Learned Counsel theretine submitted that the defendants
were mistaken in their supposition that beech was underwood, and
therefor; that the injunctuni should issue.
Alr. HouNT. On the other side, contended, upon the. words of
the testator's will, anti a subsequent codicil, that Mrs. Hurl took. a
life interest "without Impeachment of waste," and consequently that
she was entitled to cut the beech haquestion.
The Vice-en/twee Laos was of opinion that there was no
ground for the defence set up in this case, and that the weight of
evidence as to beech being timber, according to the custom of
Buckingliamahlre. was in favour of die plaintiff. He therefore
granted the injunction in the terms prsyod.
IX RE TOWNSEND. A BANKRUPT.
This case was called on at the bitting of the Court, but the parties
U.S appearing, it stood oyes. 417 ben as lauxase bad concluded,
11r. 310WTA0t7 appeared, and objected that the notice given for
bringing on the ease was insufficient. The case had been set down
to be heard before the Lord Chancellor, and it did not appear that
it had been removed to the Vice-Chancellor's Court by his Lord-
ship's authority.
The Vice-CtiaicerLf.cort said be had appointed this morning
for hearing the case, in compliance with what lie understood to be
the Lord Chtuicellor's direction.
Mr. MONTAGU did not believe that the Lord Chancellor had
given any such direction.
Mr. Townsend (the petitioner, who appeared in person) said the
notice had been regularly given to s Solicitor of the Court, and he
thought the orporittion of Mr. Montagu, who knew all the cirmm-
stances of the case, was frivolous and vexatious. He (Mr. Town-
send) had been kept in Chancery for more than twenty years, anti
when the Lotd Chancellor agreed to hear his petition his Lordship
was taken ill, and the hearing was postponed to the 29. h December,
and subsequently, front the same cause, to the 4th January. The
Lord Chancellor being still unwell, application was made to the
Vice. Chancellor, who, afire a knowledge of the facts, had ordered
the case to come on the first thing this morning. Under these cir-
cumstances, he trusted his Honour would not consent to any further
postponement, as he had been subjected to great distress and incon-
venience by being kept so long in Court without a hearing.
Mr. Bloat TAO tr was only anxious that the business of the Court
should be proceeded with regularly. In his opinion, the present
arse was not of sufficient Importance or urgency to supersede other
cases which would precede it in the usual counts.
The N'ick-CHANCELLOR Raid he had not understood the facts
when he appointed the petition to be heard the first thing this
morning. Under all the circumstances, he would now order that
the petition should be heard on Wednesday morning.
_ _

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEITIIMSTER, JAW.I6.

Sittings brjbre Lord Chief Justict ABBOTT and Special Juries.

HOLLIDAY V. SIGEL, THE ELDEn.
This was nn action brought by the plaintiff, a gentians!' of for-
tune, against the defendant, who is an attorney, to recover the
sum of 500(.. being the amount of • Bank of England note, dated
10th May, 1023. and numbered 681:9, which it was alleged, on the
part of the plaintiff. that he had lost, and that the defendant found
it and applied it to his own purposes. The defendant pleaded Not
Guilty, whereupon issue was joined.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the case to the Jury, and by the evidence
which he called in support of that statement, it appeared that both
the plaintiff and defendant were sporting men, and well known on
the turf. That on the Id of June, INV, the plaintiff having that
morning received 3,01101. front his bankers, Messrs. Marsh and Co.,
consisting of Wm 51)0!. notes and some small notes, attended at
Tatteritalrs, it being one of the great settling-days there, and paid
away clime of the four large notes. He shortly after discovered
I that he had lost the other 5001., and immediately informed his
attorney, Mr. lee, who was .4.:40 gt Tnitertialrs' of the circorn-
stance, and consulted him on the steps be should take to recover
it. when that gentleman, on hearing that Mr. Holliday did not
know either the number or the date of the rote, advitted him to
keep the matter quiet for a little while, no that the person into
whose hands the note might hale got might not be so far put upon
his guard as to defer presenting it at the Bank, or of paying it away
so as to admit of its being taken fo the Bank in the course of a
short time. This advice was followed. and nothing more was heard
of the note till the ensuing month of November, when 3lr. Lee set
about tracing it out ; and having ascertained that it had been paid
into the Bank of England by Messrs. Ransom and Co. the bankers,
application was immediately made to them upon the subject. and it
was then discovered that the note hell been paid into their hands on
the 16th of June by the defendant. hut that it was` not entered to
his account. because he (the deferalantfirst Ind the note exchanged
fur Other notes, 3,(1 then paid in only :311111. of the money, and took
away with him the other 21101. Upon thesc circumstances being
communicated, Me. Lee forthwith applied to the defendant for
further intelligence respecting the plaintiff's mite. He informed
the defendant that he wan come to him about a 5001. bank note,
which had been lost by the plaintiff. The defendant raid he knew
nothing of any such note, and asked why Mr. Lee applied to hint
shout it ? Mr. Lee then told him of the result of his inquiries at
his Bite defendant's) hankers, and observed that the defendant must
know something of the note. Whereupon the defendant produced
his pass-book, to show that no note for 5001. had been entered to
his account.
On Mr. lees cross.etamination, he admitted that the defendant
immediately afterwards observed, " 0, now you mention it, you
bring it to my recollection, that I received a noteof 51101. from a
Mr. Wilkins. on die 2d of J'ainte of whom I had won 051. of the
Ascot races." The defendant further stated that Mr. Wilkins
not having any rash about hint at the races, hail appointed the next
Monday t being the 2..1 of June) to Meet him (the defendant) at the
Spring-garden Coffee-house to pay it. That he accotdiugly met
that gentleman there, who paid him the 55f. with a 5001. Bank
note, and that he (the defendant! gave Wilkina a cheek for 34J1.,
as the differeriie;ltidt the defendant did not know who Mr. Wil-
kins was, nor wh'ere he Melte had never seen hint before the
Ascot Haew.nor since the meeting at Spring-gardens. On the
fnatrer beingTfurthir investlgatial it wait ascertained that a Mr.
Chifaey and a. Mr. Streeter, who were both at TattersaWs oh the
day the plaintiff lost his Wet saw the defendant there, and in
the course of the marling they observed him to stoop and
pick up vim:thing. Chifury Stkedsthe ilefadaut whether it was

• •
'Sank nnt,t that he had taken up? when the defendant replied
Ithat it was sogyaststali notes he had jost drpppel. Me, Strather
at Ron atioposed tht.t he bnit•litdiself dropped them, and looked.
at his porkerdiank, but found ail hia money safe. Just before the
defendant stooped down both these, hesitant; had seen the plaintiff
are by the very spot with lila hands kit his pockets. Mr. Strather
denied lIMt the defendant ever showed t;itn either j 57.,0r any other
pate on that occssio•t, us be liadstuted to .Mr. Lee when that gen-
skettitiii enrolled to him. b. •
Litwin this evidence Mit Seas LETT "(Intended 'hat it was
dear the note in question had been lost by the plaintiff.. and that
as the identical note hail after's/aids been tracinl an the deft:ulant,
whit had beim seen to OA up something at tattertnint, on the
day when the h as occurred, these were COCPOOPIPpreS Co strong
and enntinyintiny•of the tact dud tli.• note tht'i fn tnd was the pro-
pent of the tolaiiitifr, thou he submitted them with fcntiiiile,xe to
the Jury, feeling assured that unless the ilvFontiant twadte4nt every
strong rust:. to rebut the presumption, they would give Of: plain.
.tiff their vettlici, and thereby close to be restored to him the
property which had been very suspiciously, at least, withheld
from him.

Mr. littooortast. on the part of the defendant. contentl4 that
the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the Jnry in satin/Wing
the nose a hich the plaintiff claimed to have been found by the dr.
fendant. There had been great remissness on the pan of the plain-
tiff, in not making his lots publicly known, by which means Per-
sons might be protected from the embarrassing situation in which
his client was placed, of havirg received a last note (supposing it
to be such) in the course at' hta •ranuctions on the turf, there
precaution was not so serictly attended to as among commercial
men, without having taken care of informing himself well of the
individual of whom he received it. The fact was far it had been
Stated by Mr. Lee on his cans-examination, that the note vrEfeli
the defendant paid at his hanker's was received by him frond a
Mr. Wilkins, of whom unfortunately the defendant had no far-
ther knowledge, and was thetefoteckprived of the benefit of the
testimony to-day. lie should, however, be able to Wye that the
check for 4451. was actually given by the defendant on the day in •
qmotion ; and moreover he ehntilti shoat that the plaintiff had on •
one Or two occasions given a very different account of the time
and manner in which the loss et-veered. Betide', was it not
pondhle MRS it lint probable, that 'at a place so crowded as Tate
tersalrs, the• plaintiff might, in the confusion, have paid away
the note with the others ? Such a mistake was very likely to occur
laithosO any imputation hoingineonn on the respectable geatlaihaik,
to whom those other notes were rah,. in the absence therefore of
any porative proof that the note was found by the defendant, and
ronsidering the great length of time that elapsed before the nlainrilif,
made any inquiries about it, and espec;ally bearing in mind the
ritcumsteace of the cheek being given in change by the defendant
to Mr. Wilkins. and the contradictory statements that had been
made by the plaintiff (Unwell as to the time and manner of the loss.
the Learned Counsel submitted that thealury would not be justified
in making the presumption Which 31r. Scarlett had contended for,
but would, in the absence of more positive proof, coneider Ithe
defendant as having beet:Mit tee bona fi,l% owner of the note under
circumstances that could imply no want of ordinary caution on his
part t it was mewing to the negligence soul remissness of the plaintiff
alone in not duly apprizing the public of the note having been lost,
that it had remained so long it; cirethation, and therefore the
defendant, as such tuna /de holder cobld not st-soth a distance
of time, and under such circumstances, be held liable to refund it
to the plaintiff.
Mr. O'Meara was then called. anti stated, that in the latter end
of October, 1824, he saw the plaintiff at Newmarket : and was in
his company at the Queen's Bead there. That in the course of
the evening some conversation took place itbout the SON. which
had been lost by the pleimill*: and the witness rather thought the
plaintiffenid something about his having heard that Mr. Sigil (the
defendant) had found it. Ile stated, however, that the lone occur-
red en the day when lie had had a row with the witness at Tatter-
sall's, and which was in the later end of Apia, 1823, full six
weeks before the 2d ofJune.
This witness did rot know any person of the name of Wilkins.
A person of the name of Sayers. who lives at Tattetsall's.
was called to prove that the plaintiff had mentioned his loss to
him as being before the 2d of June, but did not recollect any such
conversation.
One or two other witnesses being examined. Whoie evidence was
very unimportant, and which closest the defence, •
Mr. SCAR er.r T addressed the Jury in reply, antdelid that the
story of Mr. Wilkins was all a fiction, and that Mt. Wilkins him-
self was a creature of the irriaginatioD'lnerclri. As to the discre-
pancy that was attempted to he shown in the plaintiff's account of
his loss, it amounted to a mere mistake in polio of time ; in all
other respects, the evidence that had beets called by•Alr. Brougham
had strengthened the plaintiff's case rather than weakened it; end
he should leave it in the 'hands of the Jury Ishii the naive confi-
dence in which he had formerly done, feeling quite satisfied that
nothing that hall been sold by his leaned Friend as to, the want
of publicity of the loss. orahe contradictory accounts of the plain.
till; was sufficient to induce' them to 'withhold 'their verdict from
his client. • - •
The Loan flinty Sl7dirt6s'aumrried'up the evidence, and Ob.
served, that in his 'opinion that Which had been given Iln the part
of the defendant had not vaned the cave ire sebwooce in any degree,
and, therefore. the questions for the Jury to consider Were, whether
the plaintiff did actually lose .1 note of )7)1301. and whether the note
which had been traced by him to the defendant was such note ;
and if so, whether the defendant did find it as had been repre-
sented, or whether he had beemile a lama fdc holder of it. In
she lunar tore notelet eleeromohidie Owen a mon, sof caution ea his
part in receiving it, theft verdict must:'-he for the defendant
but if they did not consider him to be a &net ,fide bolder tinder
such circumstances as would exonerate biter from want of tine cau-
tion ; or if they believed that the note he found was the one whit!'
the plaintiff lest, their verdict Muse be for the plaintiff.
The Joey immediately returned a verdict cur the plaintiff--
Damage:4We/. . .
wextget *AST ANnifTra C. TSIT RAUL Or PORTSITOUTIt.
This was an action brought by.ldweers. Baxter and Medley,
co.u:hmakers. of Long.ucre,le recover the suns of 5771. 9s. 7d.,
being' he balance of an account owing to then) by the Right Hots.
the Earl of Pertsmonthenat Ale, hired' a lardait and harness for
tour horses, and also of a phenol) and harness for two.
Mr. Seen LET T • stated:Ake case, and 'said tie *understood • the
defence which would be,see.sin. was, the lunacy elf:the defendant.
lie could not dispute, niter the tact had been establieheil by a
Commission, that Lord Polteinisutlf Was •diratiged during the
whole of. the thin Orer—whidi the plc' s' demand extended.
But before the CottimissiOn sat land POrtemoutit discharged all
die usual offices of life, and had on various occasions acted in u
public capacity. Besides, according to-law, a lunatic was not pro-
tected by his lunacy from actions for necessaries Which were suitable
to leis Station and degree. The late Master of the Rolls lied, in
the cants( Neil e. Morley. il.Veaey, 478, actually refused to set
abide a contract signed by a lunatic, although it was for a sum to a
large amount. The Learned Counsel then prdied by. a clerk of
the plaintiff's that Lord Portsmouth had contracted in the year
1813 to hire a phaeton and harness her five years Certain cat seventy •
guineas a year; and that his Lordship liate,• in pursuance of that
contract, mini the phaetomenti harness up .to the year 1883. That
by another agreement (but which wets 1101 signed), his Lontaliip
hired the landau and harness ftir 128 f. a year, for five years, end
had used it for the full period. Indeed, the phaeton was sent
down to Basingstoke, for the use of his Lordship,. while the
Commission of lunacy was sitting. The carriages were of a very
superior make, and were fitted op both for town and country use.
Mr. 11110 IS ri II A3l said that lie, on the part of the defendant,
should contend. that as by the writ of inquisition, which was re-
' turned on the 28th Fete. 1323. the Earl of 'Portsmouth was found "
i to be of unsound mind from the hat of Jan. BM ; his Lordship
was therefore incapable of making the contract that: had been
proved by the plaititiff's witness. -
The heels Culla, JUST tcE.—The fact of lunacy you admit,
Mr. SCarlett.
Mr. SCAR tETT.,-Yes, my Lord.
Mr. !Snot:GUAM contended that there was a distinction between
the case of infancy and that cf lunacy. lit the first case the law
gave the infant a power to render void his contract if he chose, or
otherwise he might avail himself of it e whereas in the case of a
lunatic) there was no contracting mind at all ; there was no person
capable of making a contract.
Mr. Seani.Leter observed that Lord Eldon, in 13 Votes,. had
said that a commie/don of lunacy would not protect a lunatic from
.an action.
The honn ell TRY' Jese fee: was of opinion that a person might
recover of a lunatic reasonable sums, and that not upon the ground
of a contract, but upon the ground of the lunatic being the (intuit
user of the commodity, which was a very distinct case from a
contract.
AI. littovniiest thonght the latter cue was no other than an
implied contract t and lee conceived that the incapacity of the lu-
natic was as applicable to an implied as to an actual contract.
The LORD CHIEF J use. ICE said, it had been laid down in the
books as a question, whether a person could set up against his own
act his incompetency to make it. ills Lordship wished not to be
understood to say that unexecuted contracts could bind a person
1 who was not capable of making a contract t but if a person who
i lived at large in the world chose to hire carriage 4, and such other
thing's as were suitable to his station in life, his Lordship was
dearly of opinion he was bound to pay for themnrid that lie weenot
at liberty to say that lie was a lunatic and incapable of contracting.
Mr. Bnottossem said this action was tleteneded by the Com-
mittee of Lord Portsmouth, who wished to have his Lordships
opinion on the question ; but undoubtedly after what bin Lordship
had said he(Mr. Bronghnm) should not go so the Jury, eve:Sally
as lie understood his Lordship to say that the question, whether the
things were necessary or not, did not arise.
The Loon Coln, JusTree did not mean to say dint if the
charges were such as were quite unreasonable, and for things un-
snitable to the station of life of the lunatic, that the July misfit
not thee say an unfair advantage had been taken of' the imbed.
lity of tnind of the party ; but in this case there was no proof that
any such advantage hail been taken.
Mr. Bno tic HAM coral not say that there appeared lobe any ex-
travagant charges ; though seventy guineas a year was a large sum
certainly to pay for the use of a landau.
The Loon Cute)* Jeer te e.,-It might not be an unreasonable
thing for Lord Portsmouth to have a very handsome catriege, and
if he does he must pay n very handlottee price for it.
lilt. BIIOUG HA SI hoped his Lortiehip would give him leave to
move to set aside the verdict, and cater a non-suit upon the paint
he hail mentioned. -
The Loan Cuter ..lt•fticE—Oh ! certainly.
A verdict was then found for the plaintiff for 5431.
l JONES C. TIIE. NAtit. OF EGMONT.
This was an action le poinver the sum of 6001. on a Bill of EX. '
Ctrentes which the plaintiff had accepted fur the accoamdation of '
,the Noble defendant. when Lord Pettit al, and which the plaintiff
a:ad been pbligod ta pay. .
. .
Mr. 'Xistet;o:tAx stated that the Cue Aron mit Of sortie paper

7 '
trntwurations ih which Lord Egmont hall heen Nip I. lot thO
PorOve of raising woo sums qt. money. ortd Oust:. :nought it
was, a' Atter to be rei out of Orin Win )10.4t.,
• Mr. S'..titt.E.ol., on the. part of the de*lrldini4
Egmont 11"/ N, pertretly ready to pay the mosey rl •t could tio.
proved that i! -had "liven paid fty ..ahe plriatifr fokhr ,i.rdshipt(
use; sod be te.4.1 qui:c willing td swede to the r •',;'I00 or a
"reticence.
A verdict was tha' taken for the plaistta, subject to :±ferebee.

• . .
INSOLVENT nnitOßS' COURT, 3loisDaY. 'Alt. 16.
. .. •
. .
AT ..
~
MOTION FOR AN T .6 ACIDIUNT OAINs:T tin:
wARI)I4:;' OF. 'rcl FIA PRISON.
Ix THE :.rsyrr.o * wee. YZAT MP. . A
In thelourse of the ,Decesnber Sittings Mr. e oLtirocic .nioteo
the Court for a rule nisi against, the 171wden of the Fteet =I,
for coralltnetts refusing :o obey an ortie: of Veer' made rifles
clause of 'recent Act of Patlianpeot, whiClt fa:Toweled 4 to itfla
prisoners him the country for examination.. irr.this case en enter ,
had been made in the matter of cbe,above insolvent, for hi to Po
removed from the Fleet Prison to the 601 of the ciii.of Weed 4,
and hotwithstanding 1 bi. was tendered to the,said Wardeii-teae"--
the expense of such removal, lie had refused to aceePt the ilet;sc
or obey the said tinier.
Title day 'Mr. Brown, the warden, appeared ingtreprio ptrpriii, ti
show cause against the said rule. He acid he wee obvert lbw*
an{ious to obey the order, of the Court, when ,besooki do est with
personal safety to himself. He had demurred to obey the 01110' 01-:
luded to, because he consittereo it vague or informal, inesalendia
as it was net rpm-Hie/illy directed to any person.. There would, fr 4,
many eases, .be a heavy responsibility rest on him were he to Si...en
ply with rhea: orders in the form in which they had 'tient he aOM ir
drawn. Supposing a prisoner was char;s,ed at the suit of t se-
veral persons. and.only one of them Was to obtain en *din' o Iwo
1 moral ti am that Court, how could he comply with it when the
other actions were falcon into consideration ? but in thl preesstdrie
stance the party who obtained the order was,not a detaining creditor.
at ill. lie (Mr. 13) then Art that whys, 4 , made • tratisk a
a prisoner all . the eauee .. of action upon witir,lt lie wee declined
ought to he put on the retri), in like manner as in a We of habeas.
corps. With all deference tale Mat. he (Mr. P..) had drawn up
a form of order with which hetould safely comply if It wag adopted;
but according to the present practice lie luul no guarantee:
1 ,‘ ioytanaiettfolloWed between Newts. Possneolll44
H vs.( it tale last gtntleman appeared for the insolvent 1 ernes), the
result of which was. that the tole was discharged. •
Tii?Cii t EF Co II !lISII to), xn said, it ire, easyfeir Unreel Gm,
ilemen to say such and such a thing must be done; but the queedon
was, who was to set tire machinery io motion, when the Court
was guided by an Act of Parliament 2. The sobject,was on ima
portant one. and he (tire Chief CUmnibisioner) would Le glad if a
mandamus was obtained against the Coort,,so that it might be so-
lemnly argued. With respect to the present rule against Mr,
Brown, the Court would certainly discharge it, and at the same
time Bryant the insolvent a rule to be brought up before them to be
e:canilPedon a fututetlay4; anti then if the applicant was dissatisfied
with the} Warden, he !meat proceed by inclictmlnt, of in such way
ai he m:ght deem proper.
ltule discharged.
Mr. Commissioner Hankra said the Order was drawn up as
conformable at it could be with the Act of Parliament; bet it woe
on important ingredient in the care that the person applying foe
the minting was not a detaining creditor.

Of.D SESSIONS, MoNDAI, J**. ie.

Julia Gadsdea, aged 24, and Wm. Simpon, aged 18, both
bakers, a are indicted for atealing two feather bed. and other ardedes:
value 61. the property of Nifni.;Yeartion, on the 12th December, hi.
Somers-town.
It appeared that Pearsim had been in involved tircomemocee at
me time, and wag in hourly apprehension of an execution being
put into his lodgings. His goods were removinat in tonsequence,
and he was now a prisoner in Nrhitecrosatstreet, and did not ap-
pear. Mrs. P. identified the propetty. but cold(' nen tell et what
church she was married. Simpson lodged in the boom, and was
employed to remove the goods. Ile received a very good chord:ter.
Uoth tae primmer,' were found Nut Guilty.
Ccurge If ahem lierridge, aged 47, was put to the bee on a
, charge of forging and uttering, in the city of London, as diet, a
false and counterfeit recent Mettle payment of 581. Us. 4d. wide it
tent to deliatul Alessre. aYbei Jenkins. and Charles 'rhelwell Ab-
bott. his employers. The prisoner had been convicted of lament'
on Saturday.
Air. Arenng,ws moved the Court to put ofe the trial tlk next •
Sessions, on the ground that the prisoner lied, net lied suMdent.
time to prepare his defence, a true bill not having bast Mend
against hint till late out Saturday night. Ile observed that it wetikk
be a hardship to pot the prisoner on his trial now, and requested
further time, as lie bad been taken by stripes;:.
gr. Aiti.Xx, for the prosecution. was not aware that such an *F-
ri:cation would Le made. He said that there could be no hawdehtp
in the case, as the Prisoner must have been folly aware of hit situ-
ation. The prosecutors, hoWever, had very humanely said, that
they would rather pay the expenses of bringing the witnesses again
from the country out of thek own pockets, than the Owned
not have sufficient time, although they did believe it werillr=
avail him any thing.
.Alr. Justice Pane said, that if the prosecutors einewohed, the
4; 4;am Mid no wish to proceed in the trial row L but tbe prisoner
Miss when Peraigusid, that lie would take hiitrial now He
Iltie 'asked the prisoner whether he would be tried now, ce piny to
hake his itial postponed till next sessions?
The prisoner hesitated far a moment or two, and then ilia low
tone said, that he left it all ko his Counsel.
• The trial was then put ou'till next sessions., and the prietthet. gas
removed from the bar.
Mary Coerce. a widow, aged 26, was convicted of Malailing
!fell yards of silk and other ankles, the property of Sarah Hut -
ter, and a shawl end o:lier attieles, the property of Men
flonatrad.
The prisoner threw herself on the mercy of the Court, and one
of the prosecutrixeu recommended her to mercy.
• [Before Mr. Sergeant Misfile.]
J. M. Shaw and Charles Pratt were indicted for tantgladdaly
entering the dwelling-hoose of Mrs. Frances Laver, in thwpedsh
of Ldmonton, and stealing therefrom a hearth.rug, value Ifia„'alt
'Meets :10s.„ t wo counterpanes les., three yards of Russia ellwardng
145., two pett,eoats Is., one frock ls., five handkerchish3a., and
some articles Inlimging to one of the servants.
The following wit neeses were Calla to support the indlettlided—
Mrs. Laver, the oroseetorix, deported as follows:—Witswea is it
widow residing in Angel-place, I:dmonton. (In Sunday
fthe Ist of this month, at about half-past three in the mbefiiregitet
was intinmed by a servant that the house had been bred* Open.
When she got up she missed the property laid in the indidthent.
It was deposited in a kind of lumber room, adjoining deka/de.
There was a sleeping room next to it, with which there wit a MA-
trunication by a door. 'rhe goods were in a trunk and two
days before the robbery. ,Can't say how the robbers got It.
Knows nothing of die prisoners.
Cross.examined by Mr. PILiLLIPA—Wizen she went to bed she
left a servant sitting up.
Caroline Garrett was then called—Witness is servant to the
mottecucrix.. Mad seen the trunk all safe on the 21th. 9lie Was.
not the iiryttnt that alarmed her mistress. r
Stephen Doglierty was a servant of fill a. Laver—He slept in.
the kitchen, and the lumber room was on the first floor. Wickets
fastened all the doors nt eight o'cloek. He was the last pereonwho
went to bed. There is a eommunication with the lumber yoom
from the stable by a trap-door. There was a ladder standing in the
yard. No part of the house was broken. Witness lost a coat.
witistelte;amallelittlies, braces, and at least eight farthings. Hid
seen Shaw berme ; lie was standing before his mistress's house
some day in that week; •
John —, the watchman, was passing the prostrutrix's house
about halt-past three in the morning. the coach-house dew was
open. Ile went in and found no one. Ile then went to the bonse-
door, aid Stephen, the servant. opened it, and they went together
to the coaelt.liouse. They felond the house had been robbed. They
afterwards went to Shaw's house, which was about two hundred
yards oil: They implied under his window for about ten minutet ;
whilst there they heard a whispering. They then called to him to
open the door, but as they would not do it, they burst the door
open. 11'itness stopped below, whilst two Bow.etreet ahem, who
had joined them, went up stain. In a short (me they etune down
with the stolen property, having the two prisoners in custody.
T. H. Thomism'', one of the Bow.mreet petrol, wars nets! exs-
mined.—On the day mentioned in the Indictment he went to Shaw's
house, which Ire er.fered with one of hie fellow officera. He ran up,
stair.. and passed by Pratt, who was secured by hii fellow officer
below. Pratt was pushing to get out; lie had no shoes:' but was hi
other respects dressed. Witness found Shaw rip stain entirely
dressed, with the exception of his shoes. He Mond a quantity of
linen strewed tipon the floor, which was owned by Ales. Law's
servant. They found other tondos in another room of the house.
Pratt had about hint, a pair of braces, a bad shilling, and a
teething.
Richard Walton, a flow-street patrol, confirmed the evidence of
the.last witness. Shaw had nine farthing* in a paper.
Mrs. Laver identified the property produced to be hers.
Stephen Dogherty recalled. Is sure that then were eight fir-
things, but thinks there were more.
This was the case for the prosecution.
The pripners made no defence.
Mr. Etcrgeant Alining rammed up. and obserted to the Jury
that although the burglary had not been distinctly proved; yet as
the property stolen eeceeded forty shillings in 'slue, it wit a-ca-
pital offence. It was fcr them to decide whether the prisomai Were
tre were not guilty.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found birth the pampers
Guilty of stealing above the value of forty tatillingpt,
J. lienky end R. Weiret were indicted for kursdariously
en-
tering the house of James 1111111 y, stud stealing therefrom six bob-
bins of silk, on the fah January Tad.
, It appeared that to the evening of the above day the primers
were seen to enter the window of the prosecutor's parlour, from •
whence they took the silk bobbies. They wets Immediately *few
prehended. • •
Tho Jury found them both Guilty. •
ohn Wan, and.
ii". Cox was indicted for feloniously (insulting.
violently (sting Item hisperson a watch value 34/s.,on she Ilde De-
cember last.
agTe,hie,,Praoseeugardttitin,ei`eihei ra n
thlepsiTinst'helamniinlet—iitntiloin",ite.tae:d ivae tyiega
Sownaa
articles in a wheelbarrow.. On the night laid in the indicirmest, at
about a quarter past ten o'clnek, he was coming from tbat Eight Bells
public-hoed : he had got affout two humennt yet& 'froth the house
when a person, earn* behind him; and pushed him iewe. 'l'isi per-
men *tarred up out of the recd. lie ram held down by the mail