The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-07 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 6.

WESTMINSTER. THE EXTRAORDINARY
CASE OF MR. GEORGE BLARE LE HEUP ROGERS.
George Morris appeared in discharge of his reeog-
nisances, for final examination, on the charge of
stealing a gold watch, chain, and breastpin, from
the person of Mr. George Blake le Heup Rogers.
On the 233 ult., at the time of the previous in-
vestigation, the prosecutor was a cornet in the
sth Dragoon Guards, and the prisoner a private
in the Royal Horse Guards Blue. Both have since
ceased to be in the army, Mr. Rogers' commission
having been cancelled, and the prisoner having
been discharged.
Mr. Sleigh now appeared to prosecute; Mr. Bury
Hutct inson to defend.
Mr. Sleigh said he believed he was aware, by his
instructions, what had taken place on the previous
examination, and if he rightly understood the
charge it was simply for stealing from his client,
Mr. Rogers, his gold watch, chain, and breastpin.
The young gentleman for whom he had the
honour to appear, had at the time of the present
transaction, which had given him so much pain,
just been gazetted to a cornetcy in her Majesty's
service. From his age he was barely more than a
lad, and had unquestionably conducted himself with
much folly and impropriety, which could not for a
moment be defended ; but he had become so elated
at his prospects, that he had lost that command
over himself which he should have maintained, and
for which he must repeat there could be no excuse,
unless indeed it were that of his client's extreme
youth. He had gone to Knightsbridge, where it
seemed he had indulged very freely in drink, and
was in so exuberant a state of hilarity that had he
met a band of. Ethiopian serenaders he (Mr. Sleigh)
verily believed he would have fraternised with them.
He had unfortunately, while not being able to con-
trol himself from the excess of joy which pervaded
his mind, fallen in with the prisoner at the bar who
now stood charged with robbing him, and who, in
defence to that charge, originated an imputation of
the most foul and filthy character, totally unmerited
by the unfortunate gentleman upon whom it had
been malignantly fixed, and whose highly moral
and respectable character throughout his life could
be attested by Sir Thomas Blake (who was accom-
modated with a seat on the bench) and his tutor, a
clergyman, who best had the opportunity of know-
ing him, and who could show that he had hitherto
enjoyed a reputation for morality and propriety
second to none. In support of the charge of felony
the Court had the testimony of the prosecutor that
he had his watch-guard and pin perfectly safe upon
his person when he got into a cab with the prisoner,
that the former must have been stolen while there,
and the latter was purloined from his breast by the
prisoner when he got out of the cab at Knights-
bridge. It would be further shown that at the sta-
tion-house, where prisoner was immediately taken
upon the charge, Inspector Holden put some ques-
tions to the prosecutor, who detailed the circum-
stances, and described how the pin had been taken.
That was in the prisoner's presence, and he made
no denial of the assertion ; he did not deny the fact,
and it was not until a quarter of an hour or twenty
minutes afterwards—and this was a most material
circumstance—that the prisoner said one word affect-
ing the prosecutor's reputation ; it was not until a
quarter of an hour or 20 minutes after he found him-
self in custody for felony at the station -house that he
attempted to fix this foul and filthy imputation upon
him. It would be clearly shown by other testi-
mony than the prosecutor's that he had his watch
chain when he got into the cab with the prisoner,and
that the latter, after he had taken the pin, walked to
where some loose characters were standing. He
(Mr. Sleigh) was aware that his friend, Mr. Hutch-
inson, who was on the other side, would urge that
consequently, could not be depended
the prosecutor was in a state of inebriety, and that
his evidence,
upon ; but he (Mr. Sleigh) apprehended that the
circumstances were such as to induce the magis-
trate to send the case before a jury. Whatever
might be the magistrate's opinion regarding the
felony, there was one thing he was sure would gain
his perfect sanction—that the infamous charge got
up against the prosecutor ought to be regarded witb
the utmost suspicion and discredit, as not being
made until after the prisoner was some time in
custody. _ _

Mr. Ingham observed that the question was, whe-
ther there wai any fresh evidence thti would carry
the case any further. On the former occasion of the
parties appearing before him, it was with the
greatest reluctance that he consented to remand the
accused, as there was no reliable evidence to support
the prosecution. It was only upon the earliest en-
treaty of the prosecutor's attorney that he called
upon the prisoner to enter into his recognisances to
appear again. Until he heard whether there was
new evidence which would materially strengthen the
case, he thought it would be useless to proceed.
Mr. Hutchinson expressed an earnest desire to
cross-examine the prosecutor. As the learned coun-
sel had made him out something approaching to an
angel, and had cast the imputation upon the pri-
soner of having fixed a false charge upon him, it
was only just to the accused, who was brought be-
fore the public in such colours, that he should have
an opportunity of exculpating himself and showing
whether the prosecutor was at all to be relied upon
—whether he was credible on his oath.

Mr. Ingham observed that he took the prosecutor's
own statement of his conduct on the night in quas-
tion, and it satisfied him that he was not in com-
mand of his reason at the time. He was exceedingly
intoxicated, so far as not to know what he was
doing, and he produced on the previous examina-
tion no confirmatory evidence, and the charge of
felony under those circumstances consequently fell
to the ground. Prosecutor was not sufficiently com-
petent to give a reliable account of what had occur-
red. On the previous examination there were other
matters introduced which he could not exclude, be-
cause they were part of the conduct of the prosecu-
tor. Re (Mr. Ingham) expressed no opinion on the
defence of the prisoner, but confined himself to the
prosecutor's own account of the transaction. The
other matter was irrelevant, as it might be termed,
to this inquiry, although he could not strictly call
it irrelevant as it was the prisoner's defence, and
the prosecutor's conduct on the night in question
was an important matter for investigation. He
did not mean to go into
felony ; if any other charge be preferred it
were to
must be brought before him as a distinct matter in
He repeated his wish to know
the ordinary way. any charge but that of
whether there was any confirmation of the prose-
cutor's statement; if there was not strong confir-
mation, the charge of felony must fall to the ground.
Mr. Sleigh was auxioue that the magistrate shotild

hear what evidence he had in corroboration and in
further support of the charge.
Mr. Hutchinson pressed to be permitted to cross-

--nine the prot,ector.
Qx"-- -hserved that Mr. Hutchinson might
61eigo = F he pleased; he would be
cross-examine hie client
found perfectly prepared to answft._
aged the
Mr. Ingham said he Might to hare disn.:-.
charge on the previous examination, and repeaten
that unless strongly confirmed it was useless to go
on with the prosecution.
Mr. Hutchinson said that if the charge were now
dismissed it was only natural until something
occurred to shake their belief that the public would
think the prisoner had committed the offence, but
that the legal evidence was, not sufficient to
_send
him before a jury. He wished to disabuse the public
mind in that respect, and show prosecutor as un-
worthy of credit.
Having obtained permission,
Mr. Bury Hutchinson then proceeded to cross-
examine the prosecutor as under:--
Mr. Hutchinson—What is your age now?
Prosecutor—l am 21.
Mr, Hutchinson—For what were you being edu-
cated at 16 ? _

Prosecutor—For the Church.
Mr. Hutchinson—Where were you at the age
of 16?
Prosecutor—l cannot say clearly.
Mr. Hutchinson—Oh, yes you can. You must
know where you were. Where were you staying
then ?
Prosecutor—At the Rev. Mr. Margate's, I be-
lieve, near Cambridge.
Mr. Hutchinson—How long were you there I
Prosecutor—Nearly two ye3rs, I think.
Mr. H.utcAnson—What did you leave there for,
as you were being educated for the Church ?
Prosecutor—Because I intended to go into the
army instead.
Mr. Hutchinson—Oh, you intended; who told
you you were to enter the army ?
Prosecutor—No one, I decided on that course
myself.
Mr. Hutchinson—Where is your home?
Prosecutor—Wherever I am staying.
Mr. Hutchinson—That is no answer; where is
your home ?
Prosecutor—At my uncle's, near Bury.
Mr. Hutchinson—How long have you lived there?

Prosecutor—l cannot say.
Mr. Hutchinson—Will you pledge your word to
the Court that you have lived with your uncle 12
months.

Prosecutor—No.
Mr. Hutchinson—Now, will you tell the Court of
any relation with whom you have stayed 12 months.
Prosecutor—Yes, my mother, at Cromer.
Mr. Hutchinson—Then your home is not near
Bury St. Edmund's.

Prosecutor—No.
Mr. Hutchinson—When I ask you where your
home was, I mean where did your parents live?

Prosecutor—l have no parents.
Mr. Hutchinson—You had, then ?
Prosecutor—Yes, my mother, at Cromer.
Mr. Hutchinson—When you left there, how long
did you sty with any of your uncles ?
Prosecutor—l cannot say ; I stayed with several.
Cross-examination continued—l cannot say how
long I stayed with any of my uncles. Do not know
whether I stopped with any of them six months.
When I was at Bury I stopped at the Angel Hotel.
It was not a public-house; it was the largest hotel
in the place. I had lodgings there. I never stayed
anywhere 12 months.
Mr. Hutchinson—Then you made up your mind
to enter the army at 18 ?

Prosecutor—l-did.
Mr. Hutchinson—Through whose influence were
you to enter the army ?
Prosecutor—l asked General Wyndham to pro-
cure me a commission.

Mr. Hutchinson—How came you to know Gen.
Wyndham ?
Mr. Sleigh here interrupted, and said he really
must appeal to the magistrate whether this was to
be permitted. Any cross-examination which
might touch his client's morality or good conduct
might be as lengthy as his learned friend wished,
but he really must object to his travelling away
from the issue, and putting such questions as were
quite foreign to this investigation. His friend (Mr.
Hutchinson) bad ample scope to examine upon his
client's morai character, but he (Mr. Sleigh) must
appeal to his Worship to stop such a desultory
exqmination as he was indulging in.
Mr. Hutchinson observed that he was asking
questions touching this young man's character and
credit, as Mr Sleigh would see presently.
Mr. IngLam really cou:d not see the use of such
questions. There must be some limit to cross-exa-
minations, but it was hard to know where to fix
that limit. He trusted, however, Mr. Hutchinson
would see the necessity of strictly confining hlmeelf
to the question before them.
Mr. Hutchinson said he would do so, and then
resumed the cross-examination as under:—

Mr. Hutchinson—Do you know Captain Wynd,
ham ?
Prosecutor—l do.
Mr. Hutchinson—How do you know him ?
Prosecutor—l knew him while I was staying al
Cromer.

Mr. Hutchineor—How did you procure your
commission ?

Prosecutor—l asked General Wyndham to pro
cure it for me.

Mr. Hutchinson—And you were so elated, the
learned counsel says, at his procuring your commis-
sion, that you became so intoxicated as not to know
what you were about on the night you gave this
man in charge. Was that so?
Prosecutor—lt was.
Mr. Hutchinson—Was this your first acquaint-
ance with soldiers?
Prosecutor—No.

Mr. Hutchinson—Have you ever been charged
by other soldiers with taking indecent liberties with
them ?

Prosecutor—No.
Mr. Hutchinson—Will you swear it ?
Prosecutor—Yes. I was accused by a drunken
man with something of that sort.
Mr. Hutchinson—What do you mean by that ?
Prosecutor—l do not know.
Mr. Hutchison—What did this drunken man,
as you call him, say ?
Prosecutor—l shall not repeat the conversation.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did he not charge you with
inciting him to consent to the commission of an un-
natural offence?
Prosecutor—He did.
Cross-examination continued—l cannot say for
certain where I found this drunken soldier. I be-
lieve it was at Knightsbridge This was two or
three months before I got my commission. It had
not been intimated to me that I should have one
then. I took him in a cab, he did not take me. He
was not drunk ; I was. I asked him to take care
of me.

Mr. Hutchinson—Where were you staying then ?
Prosecutor—Must I say ?
Mr. Hutchinson—Yes; you must answer me.
Prosecutor—l was staying at the Rev. Mr.
Hughes's, 61, Finchlev-road.
Mr. Hutchinson—Were you going home to that
place ?
Prosecutor—No ; I was going to Bury, if I re-
member rightly.
Cross-examination continued—l don't know what
time this was ; it was night; it was certainly past
nine. I was not going by train that night. I had
no lodgings in town. I meant to have slept at the
Tavikitock Hotel. _ _

Mr. Hutchinson—Where did you ask this sol-
dier to take you ?
Prosecutor—l don't know; I went to the Hay-
market in a cab.
11r. Hutchinson—Did you get more drink ?
Prosecutor—l suppose I did.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did you make the soldier drunk?
Prosecutor—l do not know. I gave him wine.
Mr. Hutchinson—Where did you go atter you
left the Haymarket?
Mr. Sleigh again interposed, and asked the ma-
gistrate to stop such questions, which he main-
tained were perfectly irrelevant to the charge.
Mr. Hutchinson however again assured the ma-
gistrate these were most important questions, and
continued—Where did you go afterwards with this
drunken soldier ?

Prosecutor—l really cannot say.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did you go in the cab ?
Prosecutor—l cannot say.
Mr. Hutchinson—You were too drunk to remem
ber.

Prosecutor—l suppose I was.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did you go to 63, Seymour-
street, Euston-square ?
Prosecutor—No.
Mr. Hutchinson—Will you swear it ?
Prosecutor—l can almost do so.
Mr. Hutchinson—Almost. Do you know where
you slept that night ?
Prosecutor—l did not sleep at all.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did you sit up all night ?
Prosecutor—l gave the soldier in charge.
Cross•examination continued—l believe I took
him to Euston-square police station. I do not know
how I got from the Haymarket there. I suppose I
drove t here.

Mr. Hutchinson—Now, upon your oath, did not
this soldier threaten to give you into custody for an
indecent act towards him, and did you not then
charge him with robbery P
Prosecutor—No, he made no such threat.
Mr. Hurehinson—Did he not accuse yoii of ind
cent conduct P
Prosecutor—He said something about it.
Mr. Hutchinson—When did you accuse

Prosecutor-1 first accused him of stealing my
watch and chain.

Mr. Hutchinson—Upon your oath, did he not get
out of the cab and say you had taken improper liber-
ties with him, and was it not then that you charged
him ?

Prosecutor—No, certainly not. I charged him
first, and he apologised next morning.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did you not apologise to the
" magoi—
'rate?
Froseeutox—
No. I said if the property was re-
stored the soldier
go. I got the property
from the police, who hunk. it 1311 him.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did he not charge you with
having committed an indecent assault r
Prosecutor—No, he did not.
Cross-examination continued—On the day I gave
the prisoner in charge for the present robbery I
might have been in the company of several of the
Grenadier Guards. I did not commit an indecent
assault upon one of them; nothing of the kind
occurred. I was in company with many other sol-
diers betore I 'net the prisoner. I was drinking in
a public house with them.
Mr. Hutchinson—Did you put your arm round
one of them in the presence of others?
Prosecutor—No.
Mr. Hutchinson—Will you swear it?

Prosecutor—l will. -
Mr. Hutchilson—Did you not, I ask you upon
your oath, do this, and did not the soldier push you
away, and say he would have nothing to do with
you, you had better go elsewhere ?
Prosecutor—Certainly not. Nothing of the kind
took place.
Cross-examination continued—l met this prisoner
at Knight-bridge. Really cannot shy whether that
was after I was with the other soldiers. I treated
everybody I met. Soon after that I asked him to
go in the cab. I told the cabman to go to Euston
square. Don't know why I told him to go there.
Mr. Hutchinson—How came you to fix upon the
same place that you went to with the other soldier
you have told us about ?
Prosecutor—l don't know. Prisoner told me to
go there, and 1 told the cabman.
Mr. Hutchinson—Who told the cabman in the
other afftir to go to Euston-square ?
Prosecutor-1 can't shy.
Mr. Hutohinson—What were you going to Ens-
ton-square for o❑ the present occasion P
Prosecutor—To give the prisoner supper.
Cross-examination continued—l had no supper
there. I cannot say whether he had any. We re-
turned to Knightsbridge. Missed my chain after
I left the cab; it had been across my waistcoat,
attached to the watch by a piece of string. Thought
prisoner stole the chain b€cause I raw him steal the
pin. I saw the pin in his hand when we left the
cab. He snatched it from my breast. I gave him
into custody as soon as I could find a policeman.
Re-examined by Mr. Sleigh—My father was an
officer in the army. I have been educated by tutors
—clergymen. I have relations at Bury St. Ed-
mund's, and while there used to stop at the Angel
Hotel. With regard to the first soldier Mr. Hut-
chinson spoke of, that was about three months ago.
Mr. Sleigh—On that occasion also I believe you
did what I hope you will never do again; you were
very drunk, got into low society, and became mixed
up with this soldier ?
Prosecutor--I did.
Mr. Sleigh—And I distinctly understand that
this man never said a word about any impropriety
until after the charge of felony had been made
against him ?
Prosecutor—He did not. He r; as taken into
custody and locked up; next morning I appeared,
and on his restoring the property he was dischOWed.
He then retracted everything he had said.
Mr. Sleigh—You have been asked by Mr.
Hutchinson whether you were ever indecent with
other soldiers. Now, upon your oath, did you aver
put your hand upon a soldier, or any other man,
with an indecent intention ?

Prosecutor—Certain y not. My watch-guard
was not found upon the prisoner. When he left
the cab he went and spoke with some low women.
From the time I gave him into custody until some
time after I had charged him he made no counter
charge against me. It was not till after the charge
had been read out that I heard him accuse me of
taking improper liberties with him. When pri-
soner stole my pin he passed it from one hand to
the other behind him, and I tried to snatch it from
him. I identify this as part of my pin, which has
been broken.

Mr. Sleigh—l will ask you but one question
more, which I will put in a general form. During
the whole of your life, whatever improprieties you
may as a foolish boy have been guilty of, such as
drunkenness and so on, have you laid yourself open
to any imputation being thrown upon your charac-
ter for indecency ?
Prosecutor—No, never.
Inspector Molder said—On Thursday morning
the prosecutor and prisoner came to the station-
house. Mr. Rogers made a statement in his hear-
ing ; he charged him with stealing his goy, chain
and pin from his person at Knightsbridge. He
said prisoner invited him to go to Onslow-square,
and they got into a cab together, went to Picca-
dilly, stopped at a public-house there, and had
something to drink, and then returned in the cab
to Knightsbridge, where the soldier seized the pin
and took it from his scarf, and upon the prosecutor
looking down, he discovered his watch-chain was
gone, and that prisoner went to acme prostitutes
who were passing at the time. From a quarter of
an hour to 20 minutes elapsed before prisoner said
one word in reference to the charge he afterwards
alleged against Mr. Rogers. Judging from the
mode in which he detailed the circumstances I
should think Mr. Rogers was sufficiently sober to
know whether prisoner took his property or not.
After the charge was taken I told the constable
who had brought the prisoner in to search him,
and I asked him what he had in his hand, when he
produced 25., and said they
.were what Mr. Rogers
had given him, after taking improper liberties with
him. Mr. Rogers denied it indignantly. Prisoner
had not until then said a word about indecency.
To make sure of his attendance I bound the gentle-
man over in the sum of 120 to appear; and I sent
a constable with the gentleman to his house, to see
whether his address given was correct. The gen-
tleman then said, " Search his jacket, and you
might find the pin," and the broken stern of a pin
was found in his jacket. He gave no explanation
about it.

In cross-examination, it was admitted that the
stem of a pin produced had been tested, and found
not to be gold, but spurious. Prosecutor was drunk,
but not incapable. Prisoner was not drunk.
S. D. Lowndes, a poor ragged fellow, who gave
his evidence very flippantly, said that when Mr.
Rogers got into the cab in Piccadilly with prisoner,
after leaving the public-house, he saw he was wear-
ing his gold chain. Witness alleged that prisoner
" looked like a guilty man " man then, and said he
had been induced to come forward because he heard
the soldier was going to get £5OO out of the gen-
tleman, and " he thought he would stop his game."
Mr. Sleigh having stated that that was his case,
Mr. Ingham said that in his opinion the confir•
mation was not sufficient, and the prisoner was
therefore discharged.

Mr. Sleigh said it was only just to his client to
state that he could produce evidence to show that a
person who had stated that he had witnessed an-
other act of indecency on the part of the prosecutor
must have been mistaken, as the prisoner was else-
where at the time. He trusted that the investiga-
tion of that day would absolve his client from any
imputation, and he was prepared to show, by Sir
Thomas Blake and the ministers who had been
prosecutor's tutors, that he was a person too moral
to commit such an offence as that imputed.

BOW-STREET.— GOING HOME FROM
WESTON'S.—A young man named Horace Thor-
burn, of gentlemanly appearance, attended to
answer a summons, charging him with an assault
on Mr. Charles West, who is better known to the
public by the professional name of Bernard, the
tenor singer at Weston's Music Hall, Holborn.
Mr. Beard prosecuted, and Mr. Innes defended.
Mr. Beard, in opening the case, said the charge
was of a most sorious nature. Some disagreement
had arisen in consequence of the manner in which
Mr. Thorburn's name had been associated with that
of a certain lady. On the 29th October. Mr. West
received information that, in consequence of his
being supposed to have made a statement, but
which he denied having ever expressed, certain per-
sons intended to waylay and beat him in the street.
After the close of the performance at Weston's that
night, Mr. West left the hall accompanied the
and who
person who had given him that warning, and by
_
was desirous that his presence should protecoter . Mr.
o _
West from the intended outrage. At the corner of
West from the intended outrage. At tb
and the
Chancery-lane, the street beinr
ecsite'sarfriend left
danger apparently passed, Mr'
him. But as he passed the end
d b
acnompante y several
buildings the defendant, . of
.Southamp lon-
friend's who had been
Southampton-buildings,
and the defendant
with him at Weston's, came
out of you have been giving me a vile
character." Mr. iv
est replied, "I have doe nothing
of the sort."
said to Mr. West
Mr. Thorb,,tq have nothing
You are a
liar."
Mr. West said, nothiig to say to
y o u , " and proceeded on his
backri t the cornerth the
ne
neck
kt
Carey- h
weapon. He fell to the ground
street he was overtaken by a person who
im d
a violent blow on
the
some
severe contusions on the forehead , an re-
:wt. rii
with
hec
d k
s
strik-
ing against the flagstones. He gotfrom
up, and found
that his assailant was the d
seized by the coat, endeavouring to
whom he
to prevent him
striking again. Defendant
strike him again in
the did, however,
face, and in the
struggle which 10119 wed they both fell to the

ground. Several policemen came upga
and the
fracas was put an end to. He (Mr. B a rd) could
offer no evidence to corroborate the prosec
ntor ex-
cept from what he might term the enemy's
camp.
He should call one of the gentlemen who ac.lorn-
puled the defendant. If that gentleman gave
evidence candidly and fairly it would show that:
there had been a conspiracy to commit this out-
rage on the prosecutor, but he (Mr. Beard) might
have some difficulty in eliciting that fact from a
hostile witness. Should he succeed in proving it,
he would submit that this was not a case in which
a fine would meet the ends of justice, but he should
ask the magistrate either to commit the defendant
to prison without a fine, or send him to take his.
trial at the sessions. Complainant was so much
disfigured that he was obliged to get his face
pa,-2ted before he could appear to sing in public.
The cot,., gave evidence in support of the
Mr Beard, who then called
facts stated by
Mr. Wells, a fritld of the defendant—This wit-
ness gave his evidence .;"ith obvious reluctance. He
denied that he was aware of any conspiracf to as-
sault Mr. West, but admitted the assault itse If He
alleged that Mr. West struck or pushed defen,iant
after receiving the first blow.
Mr. Innes, in a very able defence, endeavoured tc'
show that the assault was of a trivial nature, and.
not premeditated. He called as a witness Mr. Nind,
another of defendant's companions, who spoke very
strongly in support of defendant's ease—but in
cross-examination by Mr. Beard equivocated, va-
ried his statements and completely broke down.
Mr. Hall said that if it had been conclusively
shown that there had been a conspiracy to commit
this outrage he should have sent the defendant to
prison for two months without the option of a floe,
But he could not say that the conspiracy was dis-
tinctly proved. One witness, though called for the
prosecution, was undoubtedly biassed in favour of
the defendant. Both witnesses evidently knew
more than they were d'sposed to confess. The man-
ner in which they had given their evidence was
most disgraceful to them. Yet, as the conspiracy
was not proved, he would not take the extreme.
course of committing the defendant without a fine,
but he would impose the heaviest penalty which
the law empowered him to inflict—namely, a fine
of £5, including costs—not only the ordinary costs
of the Court, but with £2 2s. for the costs of the
solicitor for the prosecution.

(MUNTRY MARA:Li,S.

~,

MANCHESTER—Nov. 6.

This morning at our market the English wheat offering
was in poor condition, and the business transacted was only
limited, at is per qr below former prices. American a slow
sale, and declined 3d to 4d per 1001bs. Flour still inactive.
Oats were unchanged, and now oatmeal 6d per load lower.
Egyptian beans and Indian corn the turn cheaper.

BIRMINGHAM—Nov. 6.
At this day's market there was a middling supply of
English wheat, which sold at 54s to 62a for white, and 40s
to 56s per 36 stone for red. Barley, new malting, 35s to
42s per qr ; grinding, 26s to 30s Oats, old, 26s to 30s
per 30 stone ; new, 22s to 255. Beans, 41s to 44s per qr.
Peas, 41s to 48s per 36 stone.