The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-23 00:00:00

TUESDAY, MARCH 21.

John P, att, a baker, residing at Barrow-upon-Soar, in
this county, was placed at the bar on a charge of bigamy.
The circumstances of this case were somewhat singular.
Pratt, in 1804, had married his first wife at Sycrscourt, in
Nottinghamshire, and after residing with her for six months
she thought fit to run away with a conjuror of the name of
Ingleby, and, after having been absent from her husband
till 1811, she suddenly returned, and made a demand upon
him for maintenance. He told her she was a very bad
one, but he supposed he was liable ; and accordingly an
arrangement was-come to, and it was agreed he should allow
her 4s: a. week. She soon after this went off again, still in
the company of the conjuror, and did not return till 1817,
When she once more visited her husband in order to claim
the arrears, which were paid, and soon after she went down
to Chatham, and sailed from thence for America, the con-
juror still sticking to his bargain. A report soon after got
wind that both her and the conjuror had gone to the bot-
tom, and the lady not making her appearance, Mr. Pratt
married again. It was not until these last few weeks that
the slightest doubt was entertained but that she had
perished, when, unluckily, all doubts on that head were
soon dissipated in the shape of an application for relief to
the parish officers of Loughborough, who accordingly insti-
tuted the present prosecution. . _

The case having proceeded some length, the Jury
acquitted the prisoner.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—CIIIRAIDOS,LincH 21.
GRANGER V. GARNER.

This was an action of trover, to recover the value of
goods to a large amount.
James Tweedie was a dentist at Cambridge, and being
insolvent in December last, gave a ft' arraiit of attorney for
1301. to the defendant, who was his brother-in-law. On
the 13th of January following an execution was put into
Mr. Tiveedie's houSe, at the suit of Mr. Job Swain, for
56/. This execution was paid out by the plaintiff, on the
promise of the defendant to join with Mr. Tweedie in a
note to the amount. When the execution, however, was
discharged, defendant refused to join the cote, and the
plaintiff's attorney, in addition to the note of Tweedie,
took the additional--gccurity of a warrant of attorney for
601. In February plaintiff issued execution on this war-
rant, and found, to his surprise, that, on the 2'2d January
preceding, all the goods of Tweedie had been seized in exe-
cution at the suit of the defendant, and transferred to him
by bill of sale. The plaintiff accordingly took Tweedie in
execution, and he having petitioned the Court, was, re-
manded for nine months, ou the ground of a fraudulent pre-
ference having been given by him to the defendant. The
plaintiff, as assignee, now sought to recover the value of the
goods so transferred.
A variety of evidence was produced on either side, but
the case was eventually left to the jury) upon the point
whether they considered the transactions connected with
the bill of sale fraudulent or not ; and, they having found
there was no fraud on the part of the defendant, a verdict
was entered for him accordingly.

CROWN COURT.—Robert Brown, aged 18, and James
Death, aged 15, were indicted for having, by violence and
threats, robbed on the King's highway Robert Newman of
sundry pies, buns, sweets, and a pair of shoes.
The. Jury found the prisoners Guilty, and sentence of
death was recorded.
William Smith, the son of a Gyp of Trinity College,
was indicted for stealing a watch, value 71., from the
dwelling-house of Frederick Hodding.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, recommending him
to mercy on account of his tender age (twelve), and of the
great temptation to which he had been exposed by the pro-
secutor's having left his property in such an unprotected
state.

In both these views his LORDSHIP concurred, and ex-
pressed his intention of giving all due effect to the wishes
of the Jury, though by law he was obliged to pass sen-
tence of death.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

B OW- STREET.

Yesterday Zachary Cave, a waggoner, was brought be-
fore Sir F. ROE, charged with having stolen a parcel con-
taining linen-drapery, &c., of the value of 121., from Wil-
liams's Reading coach, on the '2d of March.
The prisoner, in his defence, had been on the 2d of
March to visit his brother, who lived at Reading, and was
On his way to toon at night when he found the bundle and

On Monday Mr. George Tugdcn, overseer of the parish
of Bathwick, Somersetshire, was summoned to appear
before the Magistrates of this office by the overseers of the
parish of St. Pancras, to show cause why he refused to pay
the sum of 53/. 13s. 6d., due upon a suspended order of
removal, under the following circumstances:—
Mr. Brace (of the firm of Brace and Kearslev, szilicitors)
attended for the defendant, to conduct the case during ilia
absence :—Charles Corfield and his wife, who resided in
St. Pancras parish, were attacked by severe illness, when
an application was made to the overseers for relief, and
they, together_with their three children, were received into
the workhouse, where they were for twelve months, receiv-
ing every, necessary medical treatment and support, until
they could be removed to their legal settlement at Bath-
wick, which was ascertained through the usual examination.
The proper notice was forwarded of their removal to the
defendant, by post ; but, on application being made to him
fur 53/. 13s. 6d., he refused to pay the demand. Mr.
Brace bad received instructions from his cliant, and had
to contend whether it was legal or not, under the 81th and
79th sections of the Poor Law Amendment 'Act, to send
the notice by post:
Mr. LAING said that the Act said it was by " post"
or " otherwise," and that ten days' notice of suspended
order should be sent to the Overseers of the poor of the
chargeable parish, with the copy ,of the examination upon
which the order was made.

Mr. Eves, Overseer of St. Pancras parish, served the
order of suspension upon Mr. George Tugden, Overseer of
Bathwick, for the support of Charles Corficld, his wife, and
three children. The original copy was put. in the Post
Office, to be forwarded to the ticfecdaint, and he afterwards
served him with a copy of the exrder, which was signed by
the Magistrates on the'3oth of 'October, 1835. It was di-
rected to the Overseers of Bata wick.

Mr. LAING—Did the defend ant say that he had received
the original notice ? Mr. Eves—He did not, but I could
tell from his manner that he had.

Mr. LAING—I have no hesaation in saying that it reflects
very little credit on the parish ()Zeus of Bathwick, whoiia
point of equity and law, must be: aware of their liability.
Mr. Brace could do no more than act upon the instruc-
tions which bad been forwarded I,to him.

Mr. LAING had no doubt as to their liability, but ho
would defer giving any judgment on the rase until Wed-
nesday (yesterday), at twelve o'cb)42k, when be ordered all
the parties to be in attendance.
Yesterday, immediately on the .arrival of Mr. LAING,
he ordered the case to be called o'n, and, addressing Mr.
Brace, he said that no reasonable person could for a mo-
ment doubt the construction of the two clauses (the 79th
and 84th) of the Poor Law Ame ndnient Act, and he
would make out an order for the der eeadant to pay the sum
demanded.

Mr. Brace had since corresponded: with his client, and it
appeared that he objected to the (I,3itetor's bill, which con-
sisted of half the demand made, and that one of Corfield's
children was kept at work whilst in the workhouse. which
ought to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Brace bad no instructions to poly the money.
Mr. LAING then immediately sign ad a distress warrant,
which was delivered over to Mr. Sti.wart, who expressed
his intention to proceed forthwith to Uathwick with a pro-
per officer to execute it upon the goods and chattels of the
defendant, upon whom the whole of Vale costs and expences
will fall.