The National Register.
London, England, 1815-04-30 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DR FA PFUL Arcrnrwy.--Extract of a letter from Dublin, dated Sa-
tor daY, 'ad of A pri!, Ift t :—" This day the sweep you have heard of,
who had ben tried and convicted of the most unheard-of cruelty to a
poor apprentice bay, undo resent part of his sentence, by being whipped
from Newgate to the Itoy-1 Exchange. The public curiosty to see this
monster in human shape was excited to that degree, that every window,
the tops of the leiuscs, and other Maces, were crowded to excess; never
en any occasion have we witnessed such an assemblage of people in the
streets of Dub!id. At the Royal Exchange a most dreadful accident
happened, that sreod great alarm through the metropolis:—Several
hundred persons mounted the steps in front of the Royal Exchaage, and
the pressure became so great, that the heavy iron ballustrade in front
gave way, and it, and all the unfortunate persons who were leaning on
it, fell to the ground, killing and breaking the limbs of such as were un-
derneuth. 1 have just seen the dead bodies of seven of them—four
countrymen, two boys, and a grenadier, six feet four inches high. Mr.
Cooney, a respectable publican. had both his legs broke; James Camp-
bell, a policeman, had both his legs and one aria broke ; and I under-
stand there are upwards of fifty mortally wounded. There is nut a
quarter of the town but has some person to lament. The consternation
was so great, that in every quarter you met with some person with fear
painted in their coma mince, in search of their father, mother, husband,
wife, brother, sister, or other relative. I would have more particulars,
only I wish to avail myself of this night's post, as you will have this be-
fore any ut the Dublin papers will reach London."

LA IV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, Arita 27.

Thomas Burrows, a purser in the navy, convicted of making and
forging fraudulent accounts respecting slops, was sentenced to two
years imprisonment, and to stand in the pillory.
Thomas Twyneham, convicted of furnishing unwholesome bread
to the French prisoners, contrary to contract, was ordered to be
imprisoned six months in Exeter gaol.
Richard Cock was sentenced to two months further imprison-
ments,for lighting fires on the Cornish coast, as a guide to smugglers.
Wn►. Clark, au excise officer, convicted at the last Stafford As-
sizes for entering in his accounts, that there was no malt operation
going on at a certain place, whereas there was one, and who had al-
ready been confined since February, was sentenced to ttn months
further imprisonment.
Sophia Underhill was brought up to receive the judgment of the
Court, upon au indictment which charged her with exposing and
publicly going in the streets of Paddington, with her infant son,
John Underhill, he then being in the smallpox, and infectious, to
the great danger and common nuisance of all his Majesty's subjects.
Mr. Owen, for defendant, submitted that this was no offence at
common law, but Lord Ellenborough. bad no doubt that it was.
Affidavits were then put in, on the part of the prosecution, that the
defendant's child had infected eleven persons, one of whom, a young
woman of J 9 years of age, and seven children, had died of the dis-
ease, and another had lost an eye—that there was a children's school
in the court—and that the defendant persisted in taking her child
abroad, notwithstanding the neighbours warned her that it had a
very virulent small-pox, which the defendant denied, and said that
it had been inoculated, and that the eruption was only a tooth-rash.
Mr. Pitrk, for the prosecution, stated, that a vindictive judgment
was not- required against the prisoner, but the great object of the
prosecutor was, that the law might he promulgated.
Mr. Justice Le Blanc, after sonic appropriate comments, sen-
tenced her to three ►nouths imprisonment in the Marsha6ea.

SATURDAY.
TILLY V. BROWNE.

This was an action of trespass, brought by plaintiff to recover a
compensation in damages from the defendant, for having illegally
distrained for rent and taken away certain furniture, the property
of the plaintiff: The plaintiff, it appeared, occupied a house the
property of the defendant, No. 7, Exeter-street, Strand, at a rent of
601. per annum, and on a gnarteii rent becoming due, a demand
was made of it by the defendant, and a tender of 131. deducting 11.
7v. for property tax was made to him. This, however, the defendant
refused to take, unless a further demand of 31. was paid for some
adjoining premises which plaintiff occupied, this the plaintiff refused
to do, bacause, as be contended, it was not due the defendant re-
fused to take any unless be had the whole, an& next day sent a bro-
ker who took possebsiou ; on explanation, however, the broker took

REGISTER.

APRIL 30.

the 151. and gave a receipt for it, but nt the same time demanded
payment of his expences, this the plaintiff refused to pay, saying the
seizure was illegal and he would pay no expenses; on this the bro-
ker took a bed and sold it to pay expences, and it was for this tres-
pass the action was brought. On the part of the defendant the ten-
der was denied altogether. The broker stated that he had repeat-
edly asked the plaintiff whether he had made any, who refused to
answer him, although he had told him if he had the defendant should
pay the expenses.
Lord Ellenborongh left it for the Jury to decide whether it was
probable, if the plaintiff had made any tender, he would not have
swell as much to the broker. If they should now be of opinion
the plaintiff had made a tender, then the defendant was a tress
passer, and the defendant must have a verdict ; if they should be of
a contrary opinion, lie was uo trespasser, and they would find for
the defendant. The Jury without hesitation found for the de.
fondant.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
THE KING V. WM. SAWYER.

The Twelve Judges assembled yesterday in the Exchegner Cham-
ber to hear arguments in support of and against the objections taken
to the conviction of the prisoner in this case, who, it will be recol-
lected. was tiled and found guilty under a special commission at the
last Old Bailey Sessions, of the murder of Harriet Gaskell, at L isbon.
Mr. Curwood addressed their Lordship'a in support of the objec-
tions, which were three-foll. Filet, as to a British Court having no
jurisdiction over offences committed in foreign countries in which
British laws had no contronl. Secondly, assigning the jurisdiction
that the indictment had not specified the parties to be British sub-
jects : and lastly, that it did not appear that the crime had been
committed against the statue upon which the indictment was framed,
and which should have appeared on the face of the indictment. Mr.
Curwood cited varionk learned authorities in support of his premises.
He was answered by Mr. Abbot for the prosecution, but judgment
was deferred.

Arguments were also heard in the case of the King v, Cox, eon-
vietvd of forging a promissory note ; but judgment was also de.
(erred.

POLICE.