The National Register.
London, England, 1811-12-15 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL

the preceding January, about eight in the morning, he went to
the house of Francis Daniels, an acquaintance of his in that city,
and on the maid opening the door, he knocked her on the head
with a hammer, then cut her throat, and drew her into the hall;
after which, be murdered the master of the house, as be lay in
bed, with the same hammer and knife, and then robbed the house.
On Sunday, the 27th of April, the same ruffian went about ten
o'clock in the morning, to the dwelling of Martin Van de Brug,
a dealer in clOth, on pretence of having a stranger at his own
house, who wanted a suit of clothes, and having thus inveigled
Van de Brug thither, he beat out his brains with a hammer, gave
him seven wounds in the throat with a knife, and threw the body
into a cellar. He then returned to the house of his victim, and
understanding from the maid that her mistress was at church,
and would return home alone, he murdered the maid, and also
a child about six months old which she held in her arms, both
beating out its brains and cutting its throat. When the wife
came home from church, the Jew opened the door, telling her
that her husband was in his chamber and expected her there.
He there dispatched her with the hammer and knife, as he had
done the rest, and taking all the money and jewels he could find,
quitted this scene of death and horror.
The execrable wretch was discovered by means of some blood
on a pair of shoes, which he had sold to a cobler's wife ; and be-
ing committed, tried, and sentenced to death, he was executed in
the manner following :
The malefactor was drawn from the prison to the place of
execution, where his body was placed upon the scaffold, display-
ed, and fettered; the hammer and knife being bound about his
neck. Six gobbets of flesh were torn from his body with burn-
ing pincers; his arms and legs were afterwards broken upon a
wheel, and the murderer was then burnt to death. His body
was next quartered, and deposited on the wheel which had been
used for his torture, and was raised upon a pole close to the
gallows.

LAZY REPORTS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-GUILDHALL.

SATURDAY, DF.C. )4.

BLIACHFORD V. BOUSFIELD AND OTHERS.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered, to the amount
of 9031. 18s. 6d. brought by an emtheio lacernan and sword
cutler in the city, against the five defendants", to which four of
them pleaded thbt they were not liable, and the fifth, of the
name of Eastman, pleaded his Certificate under a Commission of
rankruptcy. It appeared that the defendants were jointly con-
erned in an adventure to Buenos Ayres, to the value of 60,000.
part of which was composed of the goods supplied by the plain-
tiff on the order of Eastman, for himself and the other parties
concerned, and their bills were drawn otthe house of Hunter
and Rainey. The plea of Eastman was admitted to be good,
but the difficulty lay in making out the other defendants jointly
concerned in the transaction. k appeared, that one of them
had frequently called at the plaintiff's to see if the order was in
progress of execution, and then spoke of it as a joint concern.
A deed was also put in, whereby the adventure was divided into
twenty-one shares, dursible among the five defendants in specific
proportions.
Mr. Tapping, for the defendant, contended, that this was no
proof of their liability ; and Mr. Toddy, on the same side, con-
tended, that this was an illegal adventure under the Statute of
Ann—but
Lord ELLENDOROUGIi held, that the deed was a recognition
by the parties themselves, of their joint interest in the transac-
tion, and necessarily of their liabilty ; and, as to this being an il-
legal traffic, that could not effect the claim of a bon fide toder
selling his goods to the parties actually concerned in such illegal
traffic.
The Jury, therefore, found a verdict fur the plaintiff to the
full amount of his demand.

MONDAY, DEC. 9.
An action was tried, brought by Miss Faulder,ivho had lived
fourteen years with the late Thomas Clarke Jervols, Esq as his
mistress, against I\llr. Silk, one of the executors of Mr. Jervois,
for the payment of an annuity bond for 5001. dated ~./Bth of July,
1808. Mr. Silk, the defendant, had refused payment of the
bond, upon the ground that the deceased was insane at the time
that he executed it. On the part of the plaintiff it was proved,
that Mr. Jervois was a man of eccentricities from his early day.,
but that he had displayed no more than those ebullitions of which
a man who is termed an oddity may be thought capable. It also
appeared, from respectable evidence, that Mr. Jervois had 'men—
tioned to the plaintiff some time before, in the hearing of some
of his friends, that he would settle upon her 3001. per annum, a
sum which he said was as much as he could afford, in conse-

791

quence of his limited means. At the time that he made this as-;
sertion he appeared to be as much under the influence of serious
deliberation as any man could be. He afterwards received con-
siderable accession to his fortune, by which he was enabled to
give to the plaintiff further provision, as a compensation for her
services as a cher anaie. On the part of the defendant a number
of witnesses were called, who swore to many acts of insanity
committed by Mr. Jervois; but they admitted that he had his
lucid intervals, and that he was as rational at those times as any
man could be.—The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
upon the ground that Mr. Jervois was sane at the time of the ex-
ecution of the bond.