The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-14 00:00:00

ROBEEIIY OF THE BIRMINGHAM COACH.

Thursday about five minutes after four o'clock,
the Birmingham Balloon Coach was robbed of
two parcels containing between, 7,0001. and
8,0001. At four the Guard of the coach, which
was about to set off for Birmingham, appeared in
the yard of the Swan with Two Necks Inn, Lad-
lane, in preparation for the journey. The horse-
keeper, who had just put too the cattle, observed
a man walk up to the door of the coach ivith a
great coat, aad throw the coat upon the seat, as
if he intended to follow it soon after. The
guard, who also saw the stranger throw in the
coat, asked the horsekeeper who the person was,
to which the other replied—" Why, he's a pas-
senger of your's to be sure." The guard took it
for granted that there was nothing to be appre-
hended from the man who had been the object
.of his inquiry, and proceeded to load the coach.
lie had in his possession three parcels of the notes
of country bankers which had been paid in Lon-
don by their agents, and were inclosed to them.
One of those parcels was directed to Messrs.
GIBBONS, Smel' and Company, Birmingham,
and another of them to Messrs. TAYLOR and

Lloyd's, Birmingham, and contained promissory
notes of their respective banks. These two
were laid by the guard on the seat of the coach,
opposite to the seat on which the coat lay, the man
intending to deposit them in a place of more se-
curity in a few moments. He had riot turned

his back for many seconds, when the two parcels
and the great coat disappeared. The guard had
put the third parcel in his coat pocket. lie im-.
mediately ran off to Sir TnomAs ESDAILE'S, and
Messrs.llAN BURY and TAYLOR'S banking-houses,
from which he had received the parcels, and in-
formed them of the robbery, but could give no
description of the person who threw his great
coat into the coach. Judging from the manner
in which the thing was done, the Police are of
opinion that the notes art, in the ring (amongst
the mail coach thieves). Those who negociated
upon the celebrated Ipswich bank note robbery
expect to be applied to on this occasion to make
a similar arrangement ; and it is conjectured
they will have to deal with the same party.

POLICE HORSE PATROL.-A reduction in the
pay of this very useful body of men is' about to
take place—and, as an cgaiziatent, the houses and
stables occupied by them, and the horses on the
several roads on which they are stationed, are
to be provided and paid for by Government,
instead of by the Patrol themselves, as here..
tofore.

Yesterday morning the Worcester Mail, in
urning round the corner to the Post-office in

Wheatly, came in contact with the scrapings- of
,he road, which had become so hard by the in,
ense frost, that it upset in an instant,—The
coach received so much damage that the guard
immediately procured a post chaise, and pro-
ceeded with the bags : fortunately, no person re-
ceived any serious injury.
Three of the Liverpool Gentlemen, graduates
of the University of Cambridge, who went to
give their voices at the election of a Member of
Parliament for that learned body, were auda-
ciously and very dexterously robbed, on their
route from Cambridge to London. On their ar-
rival in town, it was discovered that the boot of
the carriage had been opened, and, exclusive of
some loose articles, one of the portmanteaus,
containing a quantity of wearing apparel and a
sum of money, had been carried 'off. No traces.
or circumstances connected with the robbery or
thieves could be discovered or recollected..---(Li-
verpool Advertiser.)
It appears that the last place where the two
unfortunate Men,HicamAN and ROE, drank, was
at the Swan, between Whetstone turnpike and
the.S wan with two Necks, where the Inquest
was held, and within half a mile of the spot
where the catastrophe happened. Hickman ob-
served upon the darkness or the night,and spoke
of the fog coming on when he got into the chaise.
Randall, as it has been stated, left the unfortu-
nate. men at South Minims, drinking. The stay
at the Swans proved that wine was the cause of
that which happened. The horse escaped un7.
hurt, and the. chaise was perfect., and, in it the
sufferers were conveyed:more than'a quarter of a
mile to the Swan with two Necks.` It is ar-
ranged that the unfortunate men are to be buried
in one grave, in the early part of next week. •
The heavy, rains which have fallen within the
last fortnight have caused the low Janda hetween Taunton and
Bridgewater to be inundated. The rivers and.Varrett,
haTe. sweite4. to. a grp3t. Ileight, which make 4 -dangeroits fpr,
boa 6 to go up and dOwn.
SUICIDE.—An Inquisition was taken yott:rday
afternoon, in the Committee Room of Si. Eiukit!4
Lunatic ilospital, before Joux,Watnicr.l3Nwts.,
Esq. Coroner, on view of the body 'of Mary=
Jones, aged-46, a lunatic confined, in the. afore=
said asylum, who put a period to her existence by
hanging herself. Verdict—" Insanity."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dpc. 13.
IN THE MATTER OF CRESWELL, THE LUNATIC.

Mr. WETHERELL applied to the Court to have the inqui-
sition removed from Pinckney, in Wiltshire, the residence of•
the lunatic, to London, because there was a necessity for having
the evidence of two London medical gentlemen, whose attend.
ance would be very, expensive to the parties, and very inconve-
nient to themselves.

Mr. liriLinamiAN opposed the application, on the ground
that the people about the lunatic, and in his neighbourhood,
were likely to give the best information ; and it was of import-
ance in this case to determine the precise time when the lunacy
first occurred. He thought that the Jury of the county ought
to sit in a room of the house in which the lunatic resided.
The Loup CHANCELLOR thought that the immediate
neighbourhood was liable to objection, on the score of common
or particular prejudice. He ordered that the Jury should sit at
Salisbury--that being a place of convenient locality, and of such
extent as would secure, with little expence or trouble, all the
useful information which the case could require.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 13.
MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ONE OF THE COUNSEL
AND THE BENCH.
Mr. WETHERELL was engaged in arguing a cause (which
we do not think it necessary to report) when
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, conceiving that the Learned
Counsel did not apply himself to the only point in issue, twice
interrupted him, and directed his attention to it. Upon the last
occasion.

Mr. WETHEILELL
,said, I have a right to be heard, and I
will be heard.

The VicE.CuANcELLon.—I am always desirous to hear
you ; but when you are heard, it is for the Judge to see that you
do not apply your arguments to points about which there is no
doubt or difficulty.

lir. WET E REL L.—ln support of my public character and
for the sake of the privileges of the bar, I contend for my
right to be heard, and to state my view of the case, and I will
not submit to be put down by your Honour. It is the unani-
mous complaint of the bar, that your Honour will not permit
Counsel to'exercise that right, without which it is impossible
they can do their duty to their clients ; and petitions are pre-
sented, complaining that causes have not been properly heard
by your Honour.

The VICE-CnasCELLOlt.—You do not address yourself to
this subject with your usual good sense and gentleman-like de-
, portment. In order that Counsel may do justice to their
clients, it is necessary they should know what the real difficulty
in the case is, and apply their arguments to that point.
Mr. IVETHERELL.-1 trust I have done nothing ungen-
tleman-like ; but I must repeat that I will not submit to re-
ceive my view of the case from your Honour. I have a right,
and I will not be prevented from exercising it, to pursue any
line of argitment which I think essential and necessary to the
interest of my client.
The VICE-CHANILELLOIL—I have endeavoured to direct
your attention to what I conceive to be the real difficulty
of the case. Having done so, I shall upon this occasion, as
I do upon every other, permit Counsel to adopt their own course
of argument.
Mr. WE THERF.LL continued his argument to the conclu-
sion, uninterrupted by any remark from the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 13.
ACKROYD v. BIRD.

This was an action by the plaintiff, who was the owner of a
certain house in St. Clement's Inn-passage, against the de-
fendant, one of the contractors for the Commissioners of Sewers,
to recover compensation for the loss of her house, which had
fallen to ruins in consequence of some operations under the de-
fendant•'s direction, for the repair of the common sewer beneath
the said passage ; and which accident was alledged to be through
the mismanagement or the carelessness of the defendant, or those
employed by him.
The proceedings in the cause occupied the whole day, to an
advanced hour of the evening; and a great number of witnesses
Were ey,:unined on both sides. But the whole of the case is al-
ready before the public ; for the present was a new trial between
the same parties, and, nothing occurred in the case interesting to
any but those immediately concerned.
It appeared that four houses belonging to different pro.
prietors, had fallen at the same time, and from the same
causes. The mischief was imputed, on the plaintiff's part,
as wholly owing to the mismanagement or negligence of the
defendant, or those employed by him, in consequence of which
the foundation of the house gave way, and the building turn-
bled to ruins.

On the defendant's side it was contended that the houses
were so old and ruinous, being built above 150 years since, that
they might have very soon fallen, if nothing had happened to
the 'sewer to require repair ; but that in all events they had
not fallen immediately in consequence of any thing that °c-
anted in repairing the sewer, hut from the falling of a stack
of chimneys belonging to one of the houses, the danger of which
Was observed three weeks before it actually fell, by several of
the persons. employed under the defendant, and notice given
to the owner of the house to which these chimneys belonged;
and that if this stack of chimneys had been taken down in time,
as suggested, all the danger would have been prevented to the
other houses.

The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that the notice
given to the party owing to the chimneys was not sufficiently
specific and effectual. The notice served should have specified
a reasonable time for taking down the chimneys, and if the
party failed to comply, the the Commissioners of Sewers should
have proceeded on their oiwn authority to have taken down the
chimneys, and thereby have prevented the consequences which
had occurred to others.