The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 21
BLANCHARD V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
Some time back a person of the name of Blanchard applied
to the Court to grant an order directing that the East India
Company should pay over to him the sum of 6001., to enable
him to provide for the passage of 60 Lascars to India. The
Counsel for Mr. Baxter upon that occasion stated, that the
bascars had been engaged to work a vessel from India to Eng-
land, upon the understanding that they-were to be shipped to
return to their own country at the expence of the owners of the
vessel, within three weeks after their arrival here. The vessel
reached this country in safety, and the profits of her freightage
were deposited in the hands of the East India Company. • A,•
dispute existed between Mr. Baxter and Mr. Blanchard re-
specting the right of ownership to the vessel, and a cause was
now pending in the Admiralty Court to decide this question.
The East India Company refused to pay any money out of the
fundS in their possession, either to Mr. Baxter or Mr. Blanch-
ard, until' the question respecting the title of ownership should
have been determined ; in the meantime the Lascars, for want
of the money necessary to -provide for their passage, were com-
pelled, contrary to their inclination, and the agreement under
which they had been engaged, to remain in this country. Un-
der these circumstances, Mr. Baxter prayed that the Court
would direct the East India Company to transfer out of the
funds in their hands the sum of 6001., for the purpose above-
men tion ed.
The Court acceded to the motion.
Mr. HORNE, this morning, informed the Court, that since
Mr. Baxter had obtained the order for the transfer of the 6001.,
he had engaged with the Captain of the ship Melpomene for
the passage of the Lascars to India, but he now refused to
draw the funds from the East India Company to pay the Cap-
tain. The Melpomene was expected to sail instantly, and his
client (Mr. Blanchard) was extremely anxious that' the Las.
cars should sail in it, as they were highly dissatisfied at being
detained in this country, which they imputed to the instrumen-
tality of Mr. Blanchard, and had actually beset his house in
consequence. • He therefore moved that the Court would over-
rule its former order, and direct that the sun]. of 6001. should be
transferred by the East India Company to Mr. Blanchard, to
be appropriated by him to the securing the passage of the Las-
cars to India.
Mr. BELL, who appeared on the part of the East India Com-
pany, said that his clients considered themselves mere stake-
holders, and they were willing to dispose of the funds in their
hands in any way which the Court might direct.
Mr. ROSE, Counsel for Mr. Baxter, admitted that that
Gentleman did not intend to send the Lascars to India by the
Melpomene, as he had at first proposed, but it was his intention
to send them home by a ship of his own, which would sail in.
about a month. In the mean time he would maintain them at
his own expence.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, it was evident that Mr.
Baxter wished to avoid carrying into effect the order which the
Court had issued upon his application, He would advise Mr.

Horne's client not to tress for an order upon the present occa.
sign, but to pay for the passage of the'Laicars by the Melpo-
mene, and then to apply to-the Court for an order, which would
enable him to reimburse hiinself for the money which he had
expended.

Mr. HORNE said, he had no doubt his client would act upon
the suggestion of his Honour.

DAVIS v. TIIE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.
Mr. HART moved that the Court would direct the defendant
,to pay the plaintiff the sum of 1721., being the amount of his
taxed bill of costs. He would state the circumstances of the
case. Some time since the Duke of Marlborough made an ap-
plication to the Lord Chancellor for the dischargeof the receiver
of the rents and profits of his estate, who had been appointed by
the Court. Upon that occasion the Lord Chancellor declared
that he would not permit the receiver to be discharged until
after a certain sum of money had been paid into Court. The
money was paid, and the receiver (the plaintiff) was discharged.
The Lord Chaellor subsequently directed the defendant
to pay the reccivr his costs,. and referred it to the Master
to ascertain their amount. The Master allowed 1981. as the
amount of costs. This sum the .defendant 'refused to pay,
and a writ of sequestration was in consequence issued against
' him. The defendant thereupon petitioned the Court that
the Master might be directed to review his taxation of
costs. The Court granted the prayer of the petition, and upon
reviewing the costs, the Master struck out one item of 261.,
which reduced the amount to 1721. To obtain from the Court
an order directing the defendant to pay this sum, was the ob-
ject of the present application: The process of sequestration
had been suspended suite the presentation of the defendant's
petition. He (Mr. Hart) apprehended that the plaintiff was
entitled to the costs of the process of sequestraiion, and also of
the present application.
Mr. WRAY, for the defendant, contended that his client ought
nat to be made to pay the costs of the process of sequestration,
because the plaintiff had not given him notice of his intention to
take oat the writ, but, on the contrary, had declared that he
would not do so.

Mr. HART observed, that his Darned Friend stated those
facts from affidavits which had been filed upon some former oc-
casion. He apprehended that it was irregular to refer to such
affidavits without having given notice of the intention to do so.
If, however;- the Court thought the facts which he had men-
tioned material, he hoped the case might stand over until his
client could prepare au aniwer to them.
The. VICE-CHANT rEI.O R was of opinion that if the writ of
sequestration had been taken out under the circumstances stated
by Mr. Wray, the plaintiff' had acted against good'faith, and
could not claim the costs of that process. It certainly was irre-
grilar, to refer to affidavits which had been filed on a former oc-
casion, without giving notice to the other' side. Tie would
direct the case to stand Over to the last day of term, and in the
mean time the defendant must informthe plaintidwhether he
meant to refer to any, and what affidavits.,

COXE v. VAUGHAN.
It will be seen by our. report of the proceedings in this Court
on the 15th instant, that the Vice-Chancellor directed certain
inquiries to be made by the Master, respecting some property
in, the hands of the 'defendants.
jr.3 llArtx, as counsel for Sir T. Champneys, now stated
that he considered some of the inquiries directed to be made
were unnecessary; he hoped the Court would review the order
which it had made. -
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said,,he considered the inquiries
which he had directed to be taken were necessary, but he had
no objection, to save e*pence toinake an order that the defend-
ants should be at liberty to sell the property in their possession,
and to deduct the amount of all their charges upon it out of
the produce, and to pay the surplus into the hands of the re-'
ceiv( r.
Mr. HART consented to :his order.
CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.

The VICE-CHANCE Limit, addressing Mr. Bell shortly be-
fore the rising of the Court, said. " You seem to think, Mr.
Bell, that counsel may be absent two days next week, on ac-
count of voting at
,the Cambridge election. 1 think it would be
desirable that counsel should pair off: It certainly will he a
great inconvenience if the -whole'business of the Court should
stand still for two days, because of the Cambridge election."
Mr. BEr.r..—l shall be absent on the short cause day, and
I will not take briefs for that day.
The VICE CHE NCEL;,Oa.-LI think the candidates should
give Counsel an opportunity of paring-off.
Mr. HEALD (laughing.),-I hope, Sir, we shall be all on
one side. - - . „
Mr. -BEtr..—l belieye the Vice-Chancellor of the University
has granted two days tbr the election, one of which is the short
cause day. I, shall be absent then, as lam extremely anxious
to vote on the occasion.
. The VICE-CuaxcEttoß.--,But surely you may find some
person who will pair off with you. I think- your friend is bound
to find,you the means of doing so. _
Here the conversation terminated.
• . ,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 22.

Eixa v. BRIDLE.
At the sitting of the Court, the defendant appeared on the
floor to receive judgment.. He was addressed by Mr. Justice
BAYLEY in nearly the following terms :
" You have been found guilty by a Jury of your ebuntry,
,for,, that you being the keeper of the
.gaol of llehester, did
illegally cause a blister to be applied to the head of Thomos
Gardiner, a prisoner in your charge, and that you confined
hiM in a strait waistcoat. Of theSalauts there is no dispute.
It appears that the prisoner Gardinift very young, not more
than, eighteen or nineteen years fi r• he had been capital-
ly convicted, and his sentence commuted to eighteen months'
imprisonment, and to bard labour. Arhile he was under your
care lie bad been occasionally punished for other offences in
the -prison, but it does not appear that you bore hint any
particular enmity. In November, 1820, (on what precise
day does not appear) he stated that be was ill ; the surgeon
examined hiM, and reported that, as far as he could judge, this
wa,s,untrite. He was afterwards confined in a solitary cell; and
while he was in this situation, you had an unfortunate interview
with Mr. Briar, the surgeon, an which on your suggestion to
hint as he states, or on Briar's suggestion to you as you allege,
it was determined to administer a blister, after it had been
proposed that he should be physicked in another way. Whether
the suggestion came froM you or not, does not seem to me to
be material; for even in adopting it you committed a great
violation of your duty. It is of the utmost imPortance, not
only 'to the comfort of prisoners, but to. their good order, that
the gaoler should confine himself strictly within the limits of
his authority ; while he does so, subordination will probably
be maintained, but when he exceeds his power, it will cease;
And it is of importance that prisoners should know, that if
the gaoler exceeds his duty in punishing them, the Court will
visit his conduct with their displeasure. It appears that this
blister was prepared by a medical man, and that it was of a kind
often and safely applied to infants of tender years ; there can
therefore be no doubt that its effect was to produce pain with-
out danger. In addition to this, you kept the prisoner for se-
veral days in a strait waistcoat; and of these punishments there
is no entry in the occurrence book, which shews that you
were aware they were wrong, or you would have submitted
them in the usual course to the inspection of the visiting Magi-
strates. 'While this man continued in a solitary cell, there could
be no occasion further to restrain him by a strait waistcoat, and
though there seemed reason to Wive that the ,application of
the blister was unpremeditated -the continuance of the strait
waistcoat must have been a deliberate measure. These were
great deviations from duty—not indeed calculated seriously to
injure a prisoner, but to annoy and distress him with pains
which the law has not directed. Front
the evidence it ap-
peared highly probable that Gardiner had misconducted him-
self prior to the infliction ; but his misconduct. _cannot justify
yours. At the trial a number of witnesses were called to speak
to the tenour of your life ; some who had known you from in.,
fancy, who had witnessed your conduct in various situations of
trust and confidence, and who had ample opportunities of
forming a judgment on your character. From their testimony
it appears that you have, in vtry delicate circumstances, con-
ducted
yourself with great propriety, which has been continued
during the time you exercised the functions of gaoler of Ilehes.
ter. The Jury, while they felt it their duty to find you guilty
of this offence, were deeply impressed with the character you
received, and they earnestly recommended you to the mercy of
the Court, that. all possible leniency might be shewn you.—
On tile application for judgment, you have produced a great
number of affidavits to the saute effect, describing your conduct
as excellent in all the relations of life;—representing you as
going beyond your strict duty as a gaoler in the way of benevo-
lence, hazarding your own life to minister to the necessities of
the afflicted and dying, and affbrding them bodily relief and
mental consolation. In considering this case, though the Court
must attend to the particular facts, ,they will not exclude from
their view Ihe whole tenour of the conduct of the individual
before them. Had they reason to think that this was one of a
series of similar acts, their judgment would have been extremely
different; but as no affidavit has been producediin:aggrava-
don of punishment, they must treat it as a solitary exception
in your general demeanour. It also does not appear that any
permanent injury resulted from the infliction, though the
prisoner no doubt suffered temporary distress. In further
considering the case, the Court cannot refrain frem looking
at what you have already suffered : you have been .deprived
of a respectable situation which you have filled for many
years with:credit; you have endured that mental distress which
must be the Onsequepcc of the impeachment of your character,
and the' loss of the esteem of persons above you in station,
which you had acquired and felt that you deserved; and you
have been put to great anxiety and distress by the proceedings
against you. These things the Court consider; but they must
show other gaolers that they are not to deviate from that plain

line of their duty, to keep those committed to their care in
safety,• and in case of refr.actory conduct to exert only those
poivers • with "which the law has armed them. They do not,
however, think that, as you have already received so much
punishment, they are now called on to inflict imprisonment
upon you ; but that the purposes of justice will be answered by
a pecuniary tine. They therefore adjudge, that for the offence
ofwhich you have been found guilty, you do pay a fine of 501.,
and be committed to the custody of the Marshal until such fine
be paid."
The defendant, who appeared much affected during this
address, burst into tears at its conclusion, and sate down. lie
shortly after left the Court, having paid his fine.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Court to attend the
Privy Council.
The other Judges then proceeded to hear the case of
ABBOTT V. YOUNG.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
This was an action by a Lady against a Gentleman for a
breach ofpromise of marriage, tried at the Spring Assizes for
Yorkshire, when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; with
150/. damages. In Trinity Term a rule was obtained to show
cause why a new trial should not be had, on the ground that
two witnesses, the sisters of the plaintiff, had committed per-
jury. At the trial, the defendant proposed to rely on two let-
ters addressed by the plaintiff to him, not insisting on any pro-
mise of marriage, but requesting that he would procure her
a situation, and make some provision for the child of which
he was the father. The two sisters of the plaintiff were.
questioned by the defendant's counsel as. to the hand-writing
of these letters ; but they swore that they could, neither read
not write, nor could their sister the plaintiff; upon which the
defendant was prevented from giving the letters in evidence.--
The rule for a new trial was obtained on the ground that these
witnesses could both read and write, and had therefore corn-
mitted
perjury.
It was now admitted that the affidavits imputing perjury
were answered satisfactorily, and therefore this ground was
given up. It appeared that the letters were written by a third
sister, or sister-in-law, who had been accustomed to write
in the plaintiff's name and by her desire. The Counsel for
the defendant now, therefore, contended that they were entitled
to a new trial, on payment of costs, because they had been pre-
vented from giving the letters in evidence, which might, have
induced the Jury to think there was no promise, or might at
least have operated in reduction of damages.
Mi. RAINS showed cause against the rule. The whole evi-
dence in the cause proved -that 'there- had been . a promise to
marry this poor woman, whom the defendant had seduced and
deserted. There were clothes bought, what could they be for
but for a wedding ?
Mr. Justice BEST.—As there was a child, they might have
been for a christening.—(A laugh.)
Mr. RHINE proceeded to .urge that' the defendant might
have called the third sister who was. in Court ; and that
.the
letters could have made no difference in the verdict. • •
Mr. Serjeant llum:o6K, Mr. J. lirrntiAms and Mr.
BltouGuA.3l were heard in favour of a new trial •
The Couriw were of opinion that the defendant was not en-
titled to urge that he was taken- by surprise, until he had called
all the sisters, and had obtained a -denial from them all ;
and that subStantial justice had been done by the verdict,
which they therefore refused to disturb.,-Rule discharged.

THE IC.IHG.V. A MAGISTRATE OF HEREFORD,
Mr. CAMPBELL moved for a rule calling on a Magistrate of
the county of Hereford (whose name he did not mention) to
Show cause why a criminal information should not issue against
him. The Magistrate had a'neighbour named Austin,
whose
mill was supplied from a water-course running through his
grounds. In August last Mr. Austin employed workmen to fence,
and clean the water-course, as he had always-done without objec
don, when the Magistrate directed a constable to take one of the
Workmen named Probert in tocustody, and carry him to the round-
house. This was done; and though Mr. Austin tenderedbail and
offeiedlo.deposit 100/. to ensure the attendance of the man to
answer any charge against him, the Magistrate refused to set
him at liberty, !it detaineChim, wet and and without his
jacket, till eight o'clock in tip evening, when he permitted his
prisoner to depart, on a promise to attend at a petty sessions
next day.. On the morrow the man appeared at the sessions,
where he found - two Magistrates, besides the Gentleman who '
had detained him ; they said that there was no ground to detain
him, and that his accuser did wrong to sit in judgment on his
own cause; but no sooner were they gone, than that accuser
ordered him again to be taken into custody. On the 2d of
September he pursued the same conduct towards another of,Mr.
Austin's workmen.
• Mr. Justice-BAyLra- asked if the men had done any thing
but commit a trespass ?
Mr. CAMPBELL replied in the negative, and added, that they
were only 'working in the same way in which Mr. Austin had
always directed the water-course to be repaired.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The charge is then against a Magis. '
trate in the execution of his office?
Mr. CAMPBELL—Certainly, my Lord.
Mr: Justice BAYLEI...—You may take a rule to show cause ;
and probahlywe shall not hear of the matter again.
Mr. CAMPBELL took his rule.

`COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 22.
When the Lonn CHIEF JusTicE had taken his seat, he
intimated that the further hearing of " The King v. Messitor"
would be postponed until next term. his object in now men-
tioning this was,in order that the parties in attendance might
not be detained any longer. •
The expected judgment in the case of " Gorton v. Sir T.
Champneys," was also deferred to a future day.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 22.
THIURLOW v. THURLOW.

This was a suit of divorce; a mensa et. thoro promoted by
Mr. Thurlow, the husband, against his wife, Maria' Thurlow,
by reason of adultery. The pleadings were read at great length
by Dr. JENNER and Dr. LUSIIINGTON, immediately atter
which the pourt proceeded to judgment.
The Learned JUDGE, (Sir Christopher Robinson) observed,
that the present cause originated in a suit, brought bytbe de-
fendant, for a restitution of conjugal rights. She had not suc-
ceeded in establishing a claim to the interference of the Court
on her behalf; and it would appear by the evidence which had
been that day produced, that at the 'time when she instituted
the proceeding just mentioned she was living in adultery, and
passing as the wife of a person with whom she carried on the
criminal intercourse. In what spirit, or for what purpose, the
suit was commenced under such circumstaticea, it was diffi-
cult to imagine, though the Court was willing to admit 'the
most favourable interpretation it would bear. The parties
to the suit then pending were, it seemed, married about
thirteen years before, and the -answer of the husband went
back to the year 1809. For a considerable period they lived
tranquilly together, and had five children before their sepa-
ration. It was not till 1321 that Mr. Thurlow became fully ap-
rised of his wife's infidelity, or discovered the adulterous con-
nection which had subsisted between her and several in-
dividuals. In answer to these charges Mr. Thurlow had re-
sorted to recrimination, and it was somewhat extraordinary that
the two periods on which she fixed were the yews 1809 and 1814,
towards their latter end. No specification was made of place or
circumstance, and the whole was made to rest upon the inferences
to be drawn from the testimony of a mediSal gentleman who
attended the husband at those periods. Had this Incrimination,
however, been substantiated in the clearest pasr..aer, its effect
would have been very questionable in a case like this.. Such was
the result of the pleadings, and in looking at the evidence, that
of Elizabeth White was sndistinct and conclusive, as to leave
very little doubt upon his mind with regard to the principal point
—that of Mrs. Thurlow's misconduct. The deponent swore to
the latter having passed an entire day and night with a gentle-
man who then lodged in the house, and that she, the witness,
saw her go away privately in the morning. This was corrobo-
rated by the landlady ' • and passing over her cohabitation with
Mr. Ferguson in the King's Bench, a place where testimony
Was not perhaps of the best description, the evidence of Char-
lotte Carr was next in importance, as repelling the alibi which
it had been attempted to set up, and which was inconsistent
tvith every other statement in the case. No counterplea bad
been put in, but the lady's defence consisted of another
allegation, which, on the opposite side, it had hardly been
thought necessary to dispute. The recrimination too was
of a particular nature, quite mineral in the first instance,
and then confined to a period of three. months after the
.marriage, the only further 'time specified being the latter part
of the year 1814. Now the surgeon who was examined; could
recollect nothing of the first mentioned period, and gavea direct
negative to the suspicion as respected the year 1814. There was
not therefore the least substance or colour of a defence which the
Court could recognise in any stage ofthe proceedings. The charge
against the husband was confined to two periods, of which the
latest was 1814, and yet these parties had lived together till the
year 1816. Mrs. Thurlow then thought proper to leave her hus-
band without any apparent provocation : she was the daughter of
an opulent person in extensive business, and every effort had been
made to reconcile her to Mr. Thurlow. To all these proposals
she had refused to listen. Subsequent to this disunion, no corn-
plaint had been urged against the husband; and he, as had
been already observed, continued in ignorance of her miscon-
duct, till the year 1821. He (the Judge) had paid the deepest
attention to every part of this inquiry, nor had any thing pre-
sented itself favourable to the defendant's case, of which she
had not been allowed the utmost benefit. He was of opinion,
notwithstanding, that the plaintiff's allegation had been sub-
stantially proved, that nothing was advanced on the other side
capable of repelling the legal consequence, and that the separa-
tion prayed for must be decreed.- The defendant, if she should
be so advised, might appeal to a higher Court against this
judgment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

„a 11011
MANsioNsllousE.—The gunner of the celebrar_,
:-
frigate, which fired upon the Chiiiese some months-1115°7.n
did more execution than that people acknowledged, aP 'l'liP
111
the Lord MAYOR for his Lordship's interposition in
-- h'l ,tt
fla!' a little boy named Shea, whose merits and misfortunes
him to particular notice.
The Gunnei said, that .in the way to China, the rrTri•
touched at Ceylon, where the poor boy, in the towrrof
~.,„••` eti
make, was hard at work amongst the natives, and seL3-tat,
be greatly discontented at his situation. The 7 gannerw
ti
passionated the unfortunate child, and finding that he sP°
English language, proposed to him to leave his slavery and
his chance in another country. The offer was embracet
instant, and the bOy was taken on board, with the corises
Captain Richardson, the spirited and honourable Gointeo4
of the frigate. It was impossible to do justice to thfe' ~iro
seaman during the period of his service. Although botu4oo
years of age, his activity, courage, and grateful recollerro
benefits could not be surpassed. Indeed, the gunner felt
he called a weight upon his breast, which he could not des,
at being obliged to part with young Shea, whom he to 01 ho
from the savage society to which the little fellow had I.° illf
infancy been doomed. But duty presSed upon the man's, 00
Topaz had been comdemned and broken up, and her rte,ae
been ordered to the Victor, which he was obliged to join I'"o,t
diately. As the boy was not of the necessary sire and stle,
to be added to the transfer, he must be left behind ; and e hi'
had no friends in the world but the crew from which 100
been separated, the gunner, having failed ill repeated avw,ool
to procure him employment at Portsmouth, brought him
it'll;
dLeofnecdtoonfiandirntheinhuotpivee
stltiaatturche.aracter would compensa.e a
The LORD MAY*oli highly commended the humaniqffj or
o tl'
ht
gunner, and at the same time felt some surprise at the (I, ble
encountered in the efforts to obtain a situation for so Yalu' ,
Loy.
*fie” P
The gunner declared that he should select the boy
tosf
multitude of all ages and abilities to accompany hint IV° sjoa
dangerous enterprise. The jeurney from Portsmouth toli°,l4
bad been undertaken in the confident hope that a niasteL-0111
be found through the interference of the. Magistrate, or t`'
3t`teisP'
known liberality of 'the public press. If, however, the tivoo
should not be successful, he (tile gunner) would still ton
his contributions for the support of the boy. ll' r
, 0
t The LO‘li'D Ma-I'On said he*
should certainly ena'a ,va gee
serve the boy, and direct that the Governor of the GiltsP":o9,
'CouipteT should in the mean time take all possible care oi,eo
At parting from the boy the gunner shed tears, and ges
more than half of the contents of his pocket. , ine,'
It was in tile course of the recital mentioned' by tl'e r wile"
whose name is Hutchinson, that he*was one of the tutu of t';
the. Chinese demanded for eXecntion, in cbnsequence jet
destructive fire which the - Topaze had directed Taiti'
them. A great number of the crew had been en' ristell°
fully in the course of the dispute on shore, and idler' sot'e",
inson • received' orders to fire, he *did not- forget' Oche let"
tion of his comrades,. and performed his duty 'pith t-tett b,.
terrible fidelits. Tfie Chinese, he Said;.first admitted/ torLII
th2'fire from the Topaze they had lost 14 men, and after!. fon
they diminished theiriaccount to the number. of three °oo,el
in conformity with the usual practice of that peope ict %
presenting facts. Ile believed from Ids' soul-that they
ed to Pit
men ; and he added,. that."the Captain; on •being.aPPli it be
the gunner, to hang whouta gallows had been erected, it lie
at the, request, and would have blown at them as 117r14 or
had powder, sootier than -yield to such art application, c
tie
daily as the natives had brought down the ,vengeatle
tie
themselves. ,
__,..1 e 5,,
,
UNION-HALL.—ExTua.onDiNan'i IsroosTon- eotit•-'
. day a girl of most fascinating appearance, •who has ar,'„ , hf,
variety of names, was brought before L. B. ALLES, ~-ueeisne
the overseers of Bermandsey, charged with having "grotO
.
pauper of that parish under circumstances of the very
deception. atc''
Mr. Holland.(the Overseer) stated, that the prisoner.ll.3e 014
picked. up in Bermondsey-street,
house in a state of great apparent distress and fa*;ei &elle
then stated that she had just walked tip from Hydie',t,
and conveyed tb.
yuwe, Pt.
where she had been seeking her mother without effe tbe e/c",
greatest interest was excited by her appearance an„ilboiti,eis,'
quent manner in which she.detailed a long series of nice vet
and her case was investigated in the Committee-room, trt,esieleile
said she was the daughter-of a private in the Blatt Nein' t•,,,
of foot, and was born at Malta, from whence she wen pellle
regiment to the West Indies, America, and Italy-, aC.
tory, however, caused seine dOubt'as to her veracity, aP;itt'ibitte inquiry being made, she, w,as found to ba *a most alloccl. 11
liar. On a former occasion
.this young lady had deedi of,ll`/I
the most positive Mannet;*that letters, denymg the tild ti..,,ir
story, were fabrications, and that the•parish was iniP.--an
by her enemies.. Mr. ALLEN then. referred the invests`' the,
to the Mendicity Society, and a person.froin the office of
njea by
institution attended the Magistrate yesterday, accnaga r,
.a number of parish officers on whom she had imrose“. weeae 4
It was stated to Mr. ALLEN, that theprisoner 41 r shirt
fully skilled in the art of imposture, and had aniongstn erosive',
some persons of the highest rank. - -A letter had bneeetesingitil'
by the society fropitlie- Dowager. Lady Starnfonl, te colarili
petition of the prisoner, with was mentioned in it as lalpole. i,
Miss Hardy had teen also recommended by .Ilissi ailele;s
whose door she had been found in a condition sore'
Relief was forthwith granted, and letters were sent wected; bit.
where the prisoner said, she, was known and re,sP that
dare
Ylthe 143 c t
before the answers were 'received, she asap i care(' ee that s
after her last visit to the society, pretty !, , , eviden
et
was an impostor arrived. • . i oris°ll,l
The master of Whitechapel-workhouse said, that. t,il,,ceni bout' ,
-was a pauper in that pariih for many years, and had been to to tt'e
apprentice to a coach-Lsoilder, from whose service she ran nalli,
the experiment of working upon .liumanity.. I
_lerv:!loolit
was Maria Hughes, and her brother was now in the ,?..„',,,eritetY,,
beelqio: wIl
lIP
Since her flight from her apprenticeship, she inal
passed to her parish • the last time being in illaY„.• td 4iso i',e,eer
she was sent from Kingston-upon.Thame-. She ii3nde, 3'o
at St. Martin's workhouse, from which she absco
having robbed some of the inmates of 30/. or 401. The ,t
~,ti'f
informed the Magistrate that he bad heard she would,or cell
death of a near,relation, be entitled to the sum of 6u.1,0" ri, ever',
She had been in various asylums in the Metropalis,l,4 induct
was not at all to her taste. -
one of which she-had decamped, as confinetnent and '
vnari,.,
ableTh command
e3ragistraofte teaantsk,evihtletlheegrirsllie
the accounts she had just heard. She held down he ILish that
sobbed. She then admitted that she belonged to the Pa:_ken to
claimed. her valuable services, but was silent when ,1"
nt ac
about her parents. - *
still 1'3'1'44
the singular 'conduct of the impostor, over whom . ~...arriit _
who had hdiatslpotshede mtonsret,,:,seactiairdattal
very great mystery, said he should remand her until
then
e 0
Mr. ALLEN, who was evidently struck with astonishree „rs a
officers of 'St. Martin's should attend. She was tae '
prison.. •