The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 6, 1847.

land in the several parishes. He was himself entitled to
officiate as a guardian, but he had not qualified, and he appre-
hended that the same indisposition would be felt by the
Roman Catholic clergy. He thought the better plan would
be to leave out the whole clause, and take the discussion on
bringing up the report.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment . 32
Against it ... •.. ••• 128
Majority against the amendment —96
The amendment was consequently lost, and the clause was
carried.
Clauses 4 to 7 were then carried.
On the proposition of clause 8,
Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL thought the clause was
clumsily worded. Its object was to connect the district com-
mittees with the central committee in Dublin.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE did not mean to meet the Bill
with any hostility, but he thought the machinery might be
amended.
After the proposition of some verbal amendmen's by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the clause, with his alterations
was agreed to.
On clause 7 being proposed,
Lord CLEMENTS said that this clause was simply a varia-
tion of the 18th clause, and on these two clauses the whole
Bill hinged; and it appeared that a deficiency had occurred,
from the Government having neglected to ascertain which of
the poor ought to be relieved, and who not. They had
blinked the question in every stage, and then they proposed a
6/. rating. Why, did they know what a 61. rating was, and
how it would affect the people? Under the clause, as it new
stood, anybody might be relieved. He knew persons of in-
dependent property, who would be under the 6/. rating ; and
many industrious people, who were well off, would be free
from it. Why, under this clause, the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Secretary for Ireland might himself go and receive the
relief.—(Laughter. ) If they proceeded as the Bill stood, the
farmer would compete with the labourer for the work. Then it
was perfectly impossible fur any one to work the accounts, as he
firmly believed that out of the 21,520 persons to be employed
there was not one that would understand the accounts. There
were more difficulties in this Bill than the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary for Ireland anticipated, and he thought
it was indispensably necessary that the clauses he had alluded
to should be amended. He would suggest that as a test of the
destitution of the party requiring relief, the sum he had pre-
viously been rated at, should not exceed 4/.
Mr. LABOUCHERE entertained a strong opinion, that it
would be most inexpedient to attempt to lay down any distinct
definition as to who should be entitled to relief. Still he was
ready to admit, that under the Labour-rateAct, persons had
been employed who, so far frem beingdestitute, had the means
in their own hands of procuring a very excellent subsistence.
He was not so sanguine as to suppose that this Bill would not
be liable to the same difficulties and objections ; but at all
events, under its provisions the imposition could not be so suc-
cessfully practised as it had been under the Labour-rate Act.
Under that Act ,in many instances, public virtue had given
way to self-interest; but as the present Bill did
not provide for the distribution of money, but of food, there
would not be the same temptations. With regard to fixing the
test at 4/., he thought it most unwise to pursue any such
course, because it was not impossible that persons who had
been higher rated might be reduced to the lowest depths
of destitution. He must, therefore, decline to adopt the sug-
gestion of the Noble Lord.—(Bear, hear.)
Mr. F. FRENCH perfectly agreed with the last remark of
the Right Hon. the Secretary for Ireland. He knew in ny
persons who had been rated at upwards of 6'. who were now
in a state of most pitiable destitution.
After a few words from Mr. BELLEW,
Colonel CONNOLLY thought it rather an unreasonable
thing to compel them to collect such large sums of money,
when it was already well known that they were totally unable
to collect money to the distress of the districts.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought that it was quite likely that
no rates would ever be collected in Ireland until the next, har-
vest. It would be much better for the Government to allow
those unions who had overdrawn their account to pay interest
on such sums until they were paid.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought it rather strange that the Go-
vernment should be called upon to advance money upon inte-
rest to persons whom the Hen. Member had stated were totally
unable to collect the rates or repay the loans. Irish Members
seemed quite prepared to take the money, but had no idea of
repaying it. lie believed that all the charities of Ireland had
been and would be misapplied, and would go into the pockets
of those who were trading upon the miseries of Ireland.
Lord CLEMENTS said that it was quite true that the
money had been misapplied; but it had been misapplied by
the Government, and that, too, upon their own confession.
The poor had been defrauded of their money, and the farmers
and more respectable people had received that which the poor
should have had. He fully concurred in the opinion that the
rates would not be paid before the next harvest, even if then;
for in his opinion there would be nothing like crops for the next
harvest.
Mr. ROSS wished to deny the charge which had been made
against the landowners a few nights since by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath, whom he characterised as coming to
the House and begging them to save them from ruin.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought it quite impossible for the rates
to be collected. There were hundreds of persons rented at more
than 4/. per annum who were not cultivating their land, and
who would be perfectly unable to pay the rates. He theught
the imposition of any relief test would prove a failure. It was
an important question, and it was right that the attention of the
Government should be fully called to the subject. It was not
without great consideration on this subject that her Majesty's
Government had decided upon the present -measures. It Was
true that the Hon. Gentleman had stated that there
were many parts of Ireland where the rate could be
collected, but there were many other parts of the country where
it could not be collected, and in the cases that had been called,
where it was not collected, he believed it was not owing to the
neglect of those whose duty it was to collect the rents. It
had been said they we. e imposing duties on the officers of the
p or-law different to those for which they were engaged ; but
it was the duty of these officers to do all that was 'repaired of
them for tine collection of the rents as essential to their func-
tions.

Mr. OSBORNE and Major MiNAataaA rose at the same
time, but the latter gave way,
Mr. OSBORNE—The statement made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Northampton was strictly true. There were instances
in Clare of some of the small farmers having gone on the
public roads. Notwithstanding what had been said by
the Hon. Member for Bath, he did not think the rate could be
collected.
Major M‘NAMA R A made a few remarks which were in•
audible.
Mr. C. O'BRIEN was ready to prove that many of the
statements that hail been made in the course of the
debate were quite erroneous. He could prove tnat
every statement put forward by Captain Wynne,
with respect to the county of Clare, was unfounded.
Ile had treated the inhabitants as savages ; but they were no
such thing. In that part of the county in which he resided no
difficulty was experienced in collecting the rates, and they
were a sufficient security for the repayment of whatever money
the Government might advance. He hoped, however, the
Government would institute an inquiry into the charges which
Captain Wynne had made, and not to allow him to continue
to hold the office he did at a salary of 500.'. a-year, with the
assistance of a secretary, which the county had to pay.
Mr. P SCROPE hoped the House would not be led away
from the great question before them by personal recrimination.
The great object to be obtained was to save millions of the peo-
ple from perishing, and to prevent the money, proposed to be
advanced, from being improperly expended ; but if they at-
tempted to collect the rates from the occupying tenants, they
would create the same confusion which they did in 1:.+35, when
they attempted, by the aid of the military, to collect tithes
from the tenants. It was advisable to put the rates at once
upon the landlords, who were in a condition to give ample
I security to the Government for whatever advances they might
make on the credit of their tenantry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that what he meant was, that Clare was an exception to other
counties, as many of its inhabitants had acted very turbulently,
for instance the Lord-Lieutenant had been compelled to stop,
some of the works, in consequence of the riotous conduct of
those employed on them. A murderous attack had recently
been made in the same county. An extract from Captain
Wynne's report, however, stated that the people had returned
to their former masters, he believed the report to be true.
Mr. C. O'BRIEN stated that Captain Wynne had brought
charges against him which had been investigated by the board,
and their utter groundlessness proved. Now he complained
that the report did not contain any allusion to the matter.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said that there was a great
doubt whether the rates would be paid in Ireland. The land-
lords might be able to pay them, but the poor tenants would
not. He thought that if they wished to keep the people alive
it must be by a large grant of money.
Mr. SMITH O'BitIEN said that it would be impossible
to collect the rates in many districts, and more especially
where the Noble Lord ( Clements) lived. In many places they
were not able to pay rents much less taxes, and therefore he
thought it would be impossible to collect the rates ft °ln the
poor of Ireland.
Mr. DISRAELI supported the suggestion of the Hon.
Member for Clare with regard to a committee, and read a
letter from Captain Wynne to the board reflecting on the
conduct of Mr. O'Brien, and other magistrates of the county
of Clare, as well as the state of society in that county generally.
Mr. CORNELIUS O'BRIEN hoped the Hon. Member
for Shrewsbury would not take the words of Capt. Wynne as
gospel. That letter had been written by him for the purpose
of raising himself in the estimation of the Board. It ill
became Capt. Wynne to talk in a derogatory manner of him
(Mr. O'Brien) or his colleague, for there was a transaction in
which he was concerned in the county Limerick, which did not
contribute much to his reputation. He took into his barrack
room the wife of —, (cries 'of " Oh, oh,)—and after-
wards made an allegation of seduction—(cries of " Oh, oh,")--
If the House would grant him a committee of inquiry he would
prove the truth of all he stated.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he considered it due after
what had been said, to the character of a public servant, to
bear his testimony to his merits. He knew it to be
the opinion of every member of the Irish Govern-
ment, that although they had many officers who dis-
charged onerous duties with ability, fidelity, and zeal, yet there
was no person whose conduct excelled that of Captain Wynne.
He acted a most gallant and manly part under circumstances of
the most adverse description. He (Mr. Labouchere) never
saw Captain Wynne in his life, and he therefore could have no
personal interest in rising to defend him from an unjust and
unfair attack—his only motive was a sense of justice. He did
not wish to enter into any question in reference to disputes
which might have existed between Captain Wynne
and the Honourable Gentleman ; he only regretted that
they should have been brought before the House. He
only felt it due to Captain Wynne to say that he was entitled
to the gratitude of the country, for it was mainly to his exer-
tions that the peace of the country was preserved—(hear,
hear.) He was ready to agree with Hon. Gentlemen that
there were great abuses on many of the public works, but it
was most unjust to say that such exceptions were the rule.
In many parts of the country the public works were
very well conducted, and every body did their duty,
and none hut the really destitute were employed upon
them. By the exertions of the Board of Works
and the co-operation of the gentry, great and incalculable good
had been effected. He hoped that the discussion would end
there, and that the House would be allowed to proceed with
the Bill.

Mr. C. O'BRIEN said that the report, which acquitted hiwi
and his colleague, had been suppressed, and not a word had
been said about it,

11r. SHAW said, that although a few abuses might have
existed, it was by no means the general rule. When it was
most erroneously stated that farmers were receiving the funds dos-
tined for the destitute. A landlord, living in the county Leitrim,
had informed him, within the last two days, that out of 700/. rent
his agent, a most intelligent gentleman, had reported to him
that all he could collect was 51. He had visited all the
tenants, and he did riot believe, so destitute were they of every-
, then, to call those unfortunatehpayone
thing, that they could
ifarthing
farmers, more—f"a. more—was
ms ei fr
s fair,
arier-,
ceiving relief —Meal ) He did believe that the money
would be repaidat leasetar. the greater portion of it—and he
could assure the Government
of
this, at least, that they would
ore he Ireland who were Only
.) eairous to assist by every means
Lord BE said that he spoke the setiments of e
great majority of the people in Ireland, when he n
elated thatth
all
ay they wanted was a loan of money, which they
would honestly
rep.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said, that in the Fart of Ireland with
which he was connected, the landlords had punctually poll

their rates. When it was said that the inability to pay the
rates arose from the landlords, it was casting an unjust reflec-
tion upon them. He trusted, that if the rates could not other-
wise be collected, they should be levied from the lands, for the
English public ought not to be disappointed, nor the Irish peo-
ple left to starvation. _

Clauses 8,9, 10, and 11, were then agreed to.
On clause 12,

Mr. S. O'BR TEN said that the consideration of this clause
had better be postponed until Monday, as it did not determine
fairly whether the rates for out-door relief should be levied
upon the electoral districts or the unions generally.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
question had better remain open until the bringing up of the
report on Monday. mom
Lord LINCOLN wished the law as laid down in this Bill to
remain in accordance with the present law in Ireland. It
was true that an application had been made to the
the rates to be levied upon the electoral districts, and it was
necessary that the law as it stood should remain unaltered as
the greatest confusion would arise from any attempt at
change. It would be better to postpone the matter until the
other measure, with reference to the poor in Ireland, then
before the House, should be decided.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
Noble Lord had said quite correctly, that all expenses should
be charged to the electoral division, but the law as it at pre-
sent existed, enacted that a twelve months residence out of
eighteen in the electoral district should let the expense fall on
that district, but a less period of residence would cause the ex-
pense to fall upon the general union. The question must be
referred to the Commissioners for the execution of the law.
After some further conversation,
Mr. ROEBUCK begged leave to move that Mr. Greene
should leave the chair and report progress.
After a few remarks from Mr. DISRAELI,
This course was agreed to, and the chairman reported
progress.
The House then resumed.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned until Four o'clock on Monday.

PETITIONS ON PRIVATE BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner Smrrit.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
In the following unopposed cases the standing orders were
found to have been complied with :
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Knaresborough and Borough•.
bridge Branch).
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Harrowgate and Pately Branch,
&c.)
Leeds and Thirsk Railway (Eaglescliffe and Stillington Ex.
tension).
Leeds and Thirsk (Branch from Millersley, &c.)
Leeds and Thirsk (Deviation of Main Line in Chimple Val-
ley, &c. )

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 4.
TELSPASS.—WHITE V. STURGING AND OTHWIS.
This was an action in forma pauperis, to recover com-
pensation in damages from Mr. Sturging, a publican,
carrying on business at the Old Swan, in the Mile-
end-road, and a police-constable, named Brown, for
a tresspas, committed under the following circumstances :
The plaintiff, White, was formerly an officer, in the employ-
ment of the Sheriff of Essex, but at the time in question
lie was in custody on a charge (from which he was after-
wards liberated, on giving proofs of his innocence),
of having been concerned in carrying on an illicit still. His
wife, however, and several children occupied a room in a
house, of which the landlord's name was Brown, at 5, Friendly
place, White Horse-lane, Mile-end. A Mr. Bird, the pro-
prietor of the house, had given Brown notice to quit, but no
intimation of the fact had been given to Mrs. White. On
the sth of August, Mr. Bird, accompanied by others, forcibly
entered the house, and turned the inmates and their
furniture into the street. Mr. White refused to leave Bird
went into the yard and picked up an old pewter pot, which
bore the name of the landlady, who had kept :the Old
Swan. He took it over to Sturging, who shortly
after came over, and demanded an explanation of the
way in which the pot came upon the premises. Mrs. White
explained that when she had lived at the next house she and
other lodgers used it in common for obtaining water from the
but, and that it had been brought to that house and
similarly used. He immediately gave her into the
custody of Brown on the charge of stealing the
pot, who took her into the street, and her five
children immediately followed her. After being taken
some distance, and finding that the crowd, who had gathered
round the woman and her children, considered her unfairly
and unkindly dealt with, he offered to liberate her
if she would pay the value of the pot, namely
2s. She, however, had no money, as she and her family were
in the greatest indigence; but the crowd collected is. 7d.,
which was handed to him, and the woman was set free. The
Learned Counsel (Mr. Wilkins) characterised the whole pro-
ceeding as a ruse, for the purpose of getting the woman out of
the house, as the house was locked up, and refused re-
admittance, so that in fact she was turned into the street
with her children. _

These facts having been proved in evidence,
Mr. Sergeant SIIE:A, for the defendants, contended that the
womaniwas not:g,iven into custody, and that she went into the
street with her children for the purpose of going to the
station-house of her own free will, iu order to explain the
matter.
The jury, after some deliberation, found a verdict fur the
plaintiff fur 10/.

DALRYM V. MNi
ULL.
Mr. Lush appeared for th plaintiff, and Mr. Montagu
Chambers for the defendant.
This was an action to recoyer compensation in damages for
certain slanderous expressions which the defendant, the pro-
prietor of a few houses at Hammersmith, had used towards
the plaintiff, a widow lady, who was one of his tenants at the
time.

It appeared that the plaintiff, who had lived in Chelsea,
owed some rent, and that the defendant, after having been
unable to levy a distress, proceeded to the house, caused a
crowd to assemble, and called her "a vagabond bitch, a
swindler, and a thief," saying that he could prove that she
deserved each of these aspersions. He also said that "she
had left Chelsea through cheating her tradespeople, and that
he should take care she did not cheat any one in Hammer-
smith! as lie would follow her twenty miles for the purpose of
exposing her." He carried his threat into effect, as he had
called upon two of her tradesmen in Chelsea, aspersed her in
the way mentioned, and advised them not to trust her. It
appeared, however, that she had discharged the account of
these persons, with the exception of a few shillings each, and
that they considered her a person whom they could trust.
One of them, in consequence, refused to execute an order.
The defence was, that the defendant had acted as he did
under great provocation, as, after his broker had been re-
pulsed, the plaintiff sent him a note to the following effect :
" Fools! did you ever catch a weasel asleep ? How is
Lushington (the broker) after having had his hand in the
trap ;" that but one word, namely, " thief," was in the eye of
the law slanderous, and that there was reason to believe that
the witnesses might have been mistaken, and that that word
had been added by the plaintiff's attorney, well knowing
that unless such a word was used, that an action would
not lie.

Mr. Justice ERIE told the jury that if they considered the
defendant meant by the word "thief" to charge the plaintiff
with larceny, they should give their verdict for the plaintiff
if not, for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Feb. 5.
HARRIS V. RICHASI.DS.

This was an action oitrOver brought by a Mr. Thomas
Harris, against Mr. Richards, an auctioneer, in Rathbone-
place, to recover compensation in damages for the conversion
ofa mahogany wardrobe. The plaintiff, being in need of money
deposited the wardrobe in question with the defendant for
1/. le. It was put up for sale on the 7th of July, but it was
bought in by a friend of the plaintiff for 2/. 2s. The
plaintiff applied for it on the 10th, but be was
told that it had been taken by some person by mistake; but
that if he would give them a few days they would trace it,
and return it to him. The next day it was found
to have been given by mistake to a person named
Keyhole, a printer's broker, in the neighbour-
hood of St. Martin's-lane, and it was returned
to the defendant's rooms on the 13th. On the 17th the
clerk of the plaintiff's attorney served the defendant with a
notice, demanding possession of the article. He was told
that he might have it of the defendant's clerk, but he
replied that he had nothing to do with the
wardrobe, his sole business being to serve the notice.
No subsequent application was made, and the defendant was
served with a writ in August, and the action had proceeded
in the ordinary course.
The defence was, that the defendant had offered to return
the article within a reasonable time, that there was no
conversion, and that the action was simply brought for costs.
Lord DENMAN told the jury that if they considered the ar-
ticle waa taken by mistake, and that the defendant had
offered to return it within a reasonable time, that, they should
give their verdict in his favour ; but that if they considered
there hed been a conversion, and that the plaintiff
had suffered injury in consequence, that they should find
for the plaintiff, and specify the amount of damage to which
they considered him entitled. The defendant, by paying the
costs of the writ, and by returning the wardrobe, might by
the consent of a judge at chambers, have put an end to the
action.

The jury, after deliberating a few minutes, found a rerdic
for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Feb. 4.
JOHNS v. LOWLEY--FAIkE IMPRISONMENT.
This was an action for false imprisonment brought by the
plaintiff against Lowley, the landlord of a dwelling-house in
Ratcliffe-highway, who gave him into custody and charged
him at Thames Police-court with stealing away the fixtures.
The charge was heard by Mr. Ballantyne and dismissed. It
was proved upon the trial that the plaintiff had put up
some fixtures for John Turner, Mr. Lowley's tenant, who,
intending- to remove out of the house, resold them to Mr.
Johns, and he was in the act of taking them away when the
landlord same to the spot and gave him into the custody of
the police.
The LORD CHID/ BARON directed the jury to find for the
plaintiff, and at the same time in estimating the damages, to
take into account that the defendant had ground for an action
of trespass, and damages against the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, 101.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Haw-
kins ; for the defendant, Mr. Humphrey, Q.C.
Feb. 5.
EDWARD V. GIIRTIS.
This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover
compensation in damages for a violent assault committed
uponshimthedefendant.
appeared
plaintiff
was a poulterer, carrying on
Wilkins for the plaintiff; Mr. Crowder
for the defendant.
business in Newgate-street ; the defendant was a meat sales-
man, conducting his business in the same place as the plaintiff,
In consequence of a few words having passed between the
par
ties, the defendant struck the plaintiff, and pushed him
down, n, and such was the severe nature of the blow and the
edaenftendant.
It appeared
fall that the house surgeon of St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
a
whither the plaintiff was taken, said that the radius or small
bone of the wrist was broken, and that the plaintiff remained
in the hospital for a period of five weeks under treatment for
the injury.
Mr. CROWDER addressed the jury at some length for the
defendant.
ned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.
The jury retur
The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up, and

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 3-----
GODDARD V. DOBSON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by Mr. Henry Goddard, a
surgeon, residing at Deptford, to recover 153/. on a proinis-
' sort' note from Mr.Dobson, a medical practitioner in the
county of Essex,and Mrs. Laburn, a lady residing in Re-
gent-street. The defence set up was, that the names of the
defendants attached to the note were not in the handwriting
of the parties.
Mr. Sergeant Channel and Mr. Bovil were for the plaintiff;
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Wordsworth for the defendants.
A number of witnesses were called, who deposed to the
handwriting of the signatures in the note being that of
the defendants.
In cross. examination several notes, the purport of which
did not appear, were submitted to these witnesses, who like-
wise stated that, to the best of their knowledge they were in
the handwriting of the defendant Mrs. Laburn.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 4.
IN RI A. W. SSEIGII.
This insolvent, who, it will be remembered, was connected
with the expedition under General Flores, came up for his
final order.
Mr. BUCHANAN appeared on behalf of the insolvent, who
was opposed on the ground that he had not accounted for
a sum of 300/., which he was possessed of in 1843. In the
course of a long examination, it appeared that he had been one
of the Commissioners in
the Manchester constabulary, but the
appointment expired under the Act, and he had been in
expectation of obtaining another appointment. He had spent
the money on necessary expenses, and in 1845 received 125/.
from his wife's relations, and had mainly depended on his
literary labours.
Mr. Buchanan was about to address the Court on behalf
of the insolvent, when
His HONOUR said he did not see any ground for the oppo-
sition, and would grant the order.

coat to bare been originally ordered, the contract had been
set aside by plaintiff's promising to make another.
The jury immediately gave a verdict for the defendant.
SMITIT V. WARREN.

This was an action by the same plaintiff against the de-
fendant, who is a surgeon, to recover the sum of 31. 35., for
goods sold.
The defendant pleaded a tender of 21. 9s. which had been
paid into court.
The evidence went to show that the defendant ordered two
waistcoats, but they were objected to. One was a French
shawl pattern, the other a silk cross-bar; the first was
charged 11. 10s., and the other 1/. ss, with Bs. for buttons.
Mr. TRIOMAS, for the defendant, called for a bill which was
delivered in the first instance but returned, and which was
for 21. 9s. The bill, however, was not produced.
The plaintiff's foreman said he took the waistcoats home,
but defendant did not like the make, and said he onlyordered
them out of "courtesy," as he went for quite a different pur-
pose, namely, to sell a rifle, but as plaintiff asked him for the
order, and as had ordered them, he would take one.
The UNDER-SHERlFF—Ordered two out of courtesy, and
then said he would take one!
Witness—Yes, sir. The waistcoats were sent back some-
times once and sometimes twice a week for alterations.
Mr. TuomAs called a witness named Payne, a tailor in the
Strand, who swore that the 2/. 9s. was a full West-end price
The shawl pattern was almost as old as Adam—(Laughter)
—the other was not a novelty.
The witness to prove the tender was not present.
The UNDER-SIIIIRIFF said the question now was only one
of value.
The jury gave a verdict for the full amount.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
John Johnson was indicted for forging the name of Mr.
Edward Breece to an accepta,ice for 231. Ns.
Mr. Payne was retained for the prosecution, and Mr. Parry
defendQd the prisoner, who is a blacksmith, in Earl-street,
Seven-dials.

The bill was produced in court, and Mr. Breece denied
that the signature was his, or that he had given any autho-
rity for his name to be used, and produced a bill with his
true signature. This was proved by a banker's clerk, and
that the false signature was similar to the other two. It ap-
eared, on cross-examination, that Breece had before accepted
two bills drawn by Johnson. All the bills had been dis-
counted by a person of the name of Cope.
Mr. PARRY, in his defence of the prisoner, called a witness
named Lines, the son-in-law of the prisoner, who stated that
on the 10th or 11th of October he was in Johnson's shop and
heard Breece give the requisite authority.
The JUDGE, in summing up, pointed out the peculiarity of
the law as respected forgery, and showed that a mistake
as to the amount of authority for signing the name of an-
other was not to be visited as a crime of this nature, and
certainly did not amount to forgery. The bill was evidently
an accommodation bill, and the only question for the jury was
—whether any authority had or had not been given by Breece
to sign his name to the bill.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him
to mercy on account of his age, and from a firm belief that
he was not aware of the guilt of his conduct.
The JUDGE, in passing sentence oil the prisoner, pointed
out the mischief which must always arise from the use of
accommodation bills, and said that a very few years ago the
pri-oner's life would have been forfeited for the offence. God
be praised, that time was passed ; but if such breaches of the
law as this were to be visited lightly, no one could say how
soon it might return. lie was therefore compelled to the
painful duty of passing what he considered a sevore sentence,
and that was transportation for ten years.
George Burlier, a silk printer, aged 32, and James Barker
a silk dresser, aged 25, were indicted for a burglary, in the
house of Mr. John William Edmondson, the Sloop Inn, at
Poplar, and stealing bank notes to the value of 401., and gold
and silver money to the amount of 1001.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballantyne were retained for the
prosecution.

Mr. CLARKSON having addressed the jury,
Mr. BALLANTYNE called

Mr. Edmondson, who said, that he took the Sloop
last June twelvemonth, and that shortly afterwards
he hired James Barker as a potman, who for some
time slept in the house, and had opportunities of
knowing how witness kept his cash. He had one cash-
box which he deposited in his iron safe when he went to
bed, and took the other up with him. The iron safe was in
the bar, and when he retired fur the night it was his cus-
tom, after fastening up the bar, to lock his own room door
and leave the key crossways, which he considered the safest
plan. On the Bth January last the potman ceased to sleep in
the house, and on the night of that day—the last time he saw
the potman—about ten o'clock, he left. After depo-
siting one cash-box in the iron safe, he found, on going
round the premises, one of the window shutters unsafe ; this
he made safe, and then went to bed. According to cus-
tom, he fastened his bed-room door in his usual way. He
was not disturbed during the night, but on awaking a little
after six o'clock in the morning, be found his bed-room door
standing half open, and was surprised by seeing his gar-
, dener, who gave him a light, at the door. He missed
his keys of the house, and in running down stairs
he ran against a piece of iron, which was
placed in the end of the key. This piece of
iron, which was produced in Court, was like a piece of wire,
several inches long, with a portion at one end so arranged as
to fall down. It appeared that this piece of wire had been
pasted through the back of the bed-room door, and had then
been made to drop into the ear of the key; then acting like
a latch key, caused the proper key to shoot the lock. On
searching, witness found that the safe in the bar had been
broken open, and that there had been taken from it two gold
watches, a gold watch guard, a gold chain, a silver
watch, several ship warrants, about 801. in gold, silver,
and notes, together with one of his hats and a bottle of gin
—altogether he had lost property to the amount of about
2001. in value. On going round the premises with the police
they found that one of the windows had been raised in the
night sufficiently high to admit a man, and the back door
was wide open. Several wine baskets, which had been de-
posited in au outhouse the night before, were placed beneatfi
the window which looked into the garden. Across the garden
there were foot tracks. When James Barker came in the morn-
ing witness asked him what time he reached home the previous
night? He replied, that it was about half-past ten, when one
of the policemen immediately asserted that he had met him
at half-past two that morning, and when he was shown the
instrument by which the bed-room door was opened he ex-
hibited great confusion. Upon observing this the policeman
took him into custody.
Mr. DOANE cross-examined on behalf of the prisoner, but
the replies did not affect the previous evidence.
Charles Cowls, the ostler, confirmed the testimony of his
master as to finding the door of the bar-parlour and the
examinatien of several other witnesses, the jury
back
After
eo en,
returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners, and
Mr. Baron ALDERSON sentenced George to be transported
for twenty, and James for fifteen years.

NE W COURT.
(Before the RECORDER and Alderman HUGHES.)
Robert Addis, formerly in the City police force, was in-
dicted for obtaining 31. 25., with intent to defraud Mr. Clark,
clerk of arraigns at this court, of 2/. 19s. 6d.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner, having
appeared as a witness at the Old Bailey on the 4th of January
last, went to Mr. Clark's office, and there represented that
he had been obliged to come from Cheltenham the day be-
fore the trial, and on that representation obtained 3/. 25., in-
stead of 2s. 6d., for expenses. It was proved, however, by
several police officers called at the trial, that the prisoner
had been in the police force till the 30th of December, and
had been seen in London every succeeding day till the day
of the trial.

Mr. IittDDLESTONE, who defended the prisoner, took
several objections to the form of the indictment, the dis-
cussion of which occupied the Court all the morning.
Mr. Ryland and Mr. Laurie prosecuted.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced
to five months' imprisonment and hard labour, having been
already one month in prison previous to his trial.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CLE RKENWE L L.
Win. Jordan was charged yesterday, before Mr. GreenwGod,
with stealing upwards of 100 yards of valuable stuff, cashmere,
and other fabrics, the property of Mr. Turner, draper and silk-
mercer, of High-street, Islington.
It appeared that the goods were exposed for sale close to
the shop-door, where they were seen safe by the prosecutor
yesterday evening about eight o'clock, soon after which
time the prisoner was met carrying them by a policeman,
who arrested him, and after inquiry took him to the shop of
Mr. Turner, who was not aware before that he had been
robbed, and, upon making a search, identified them as those
he had placed near the door for sale.
The prisoner, who said they had been given him to carry
by a stranger, was fully committed to take his trial.
Daniel Castello was charged with a brutal and ferocious
assault upon George Lister, a barman at the Fox and Grapes
Tavern, in Gray's Inn-lane, by which he broke his arm and
inflicted other dangerous injuries upon him.
It appeared that the prisoner entered the bar of the Fox
and Grapes, Thursday evening, in a state of:partial intoxica-
tion, and behaving himself in a very riotous manner, when
Liter refused to serve him with anything to drink, and by
the order of Mr. Cutmore, the proprietor of the house, put
him outside the door, He then was about putting up the
shutters when the prisoner came behind him, knocked him
down, and beat him so severely while upon the ground as to
break his arm in two places, and otherwise so severely injured
him, that he was removed to the hospital in a dangerous
state.
The prisoner was remanded until the prosecutor should be
sufficiently recovered to enable him to attend.

'RIDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
At the Court at Windsor, the 4th day of February, 1847,
Present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint Lloyd Vaughan
Watkins Esq., to be Lord-Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum
of the county of Brecon, he this day took the oaths ap-
pointed to be taken thereupon, iastead of the oaths of
Allegiance and Supremacy. Her Majesty in Council was
this day pleased, upon the representation of the Right Hon.
the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education, to ap-
point Edward Carleton Tufnell, Esq., and Joshua Festin
Ruddock, Esq., to be two of her Majesty's Inspectors of
Schools.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER, FEB. 4,1847.
The Queen has been the day pleased to appoint William
Gale, of Lightburn-house, Ulverstono, Esq., to be Sheriff of
the count)' palatine of Lancaster for the year ensuing.
WHITEHALL, FEB. 3.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint Dr. William
Pulteney Alison to be First Physician to her Majesty in
Scotland, in the room of Dr. J. H. Davidson, deceased.
The Queen has also been pleased to appoint Dr. Hobert
Christison to be one of her Majesty's Physicians in Ordinary
in Scotland.
The Queen has also Leen pleased to appoint Dr. James
iln-osucnongan.
Simpson,d to be Physician Accoucheur to her Majesty

FOREIGN-OFFICE, JAN. 25.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint Charles- Frederick
,R°therY, Esq., in the room of Henry William Macaulay,
."'ll., deceased, to be her Majesty's Commissioner in the
Mixed British and Portuguese Commission established at
the island of Boa Vista (one of the Cape de Verde Islands),
under the treaty between Great Britain and Portugal for
the suppression of the slave trade, signed at Lisbon on the
3d of July, 1842.
CBOWN-OFFICE, FEB. 4.
MEMBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT
PARLIAMENT.
County of Sussex (Western Division)—Richard Prince, of
Walberton, in the county of Sussex, Esq., in the room of
Charles Wyndham, Esq., who has accepted the office of
Steward of-her Majesty's Chiltern Hundreds.
County of Middlesex—The Right Honourable Robert
Grosvenor, commonly called Lord Robert Grosvenor, in the
room of George Byng, Esq., deceased.
City of Chester—Hugh Lupus Grosvenor, commonly
called Earl Grosvenor, in the room of the Right Honourable i
Robert Grosvenor, commonly called Lord Robert Grosvenor,
who has accepted the oflico of Steward of leer Majesty's MI. ;
tern Hundreds.

Ali OFFICE, FEB. 5.
Royal Regiment of Horse Guards—Lieutenant Lord Goer a

John Manners to be Captain, by purchase, vice Brunt, wh•
retires; Cornet Francis Howard Vyse to be Lieutenant, by
purchase, vice Lord G. J. Manners; Thomas Leslie, Gent.,
:o be Cornet, by purchase, vice Vvse, Feb. 5.
Ist Regiment of Foot—Charles Minchin, Gent., to be En-
sign, by purchase, vice Evans, who retires, Feb. 5.
9th Foot—Captain William Cookson, from the 80th Foot,
to be Captain, vice Creagh, who exchanges, Nov. 21, 1846.
18th Foot—Ensign Charles Frederick Kelly to be Lieu-
tenant, by purchase, vice Bernard, who retires; Ensign
Charles Thicknesse ame, from the 41st Foot, to be Ensign,
vice Kelly, Feb. 5.
41st Foot—Captain Robert Donaldson to be Major, by
purchase, vice Astier, who retires; Lieutenant Thomas
Andrews Rawlins to be Captain, by purchase, vice Donald •
son; Ensign Campbell Graham to be Lieutenant, by pur-
chase, vice Rawlins; Charles Palgue Bertram, Gent., to be
Ensign, by purchase, vice Came, appointed to the 18th Foot,
Feb. .5; Henry Dixon, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
Graham, Feb. 6.
46th Foot—Edward Wemyss, Gent., to be Ensign, with-
out purchase, vice Pretyman, deceased, Feb. 5.
73d Foot—Neil Alexander Mackeller, Gent., to be En-
sign, without purchase, vice Hickson, promoted in Ceylon
Rifle Regiment, Feb. 5.
80th Foot—Captain Charles Myers Creagh, from 9th
Foot, to be Captain, vice Cookson, who exchanges, Nov. 21,
1846.
84th Foot—Captain William Radcliff, from the 87th Foot,
to be Captain, vice Campbell, who exchanges, Feb. 5.
87th Foot—Captain Charles F. Campbell, from 84th Foot,
to be Captain, vice Radcliff, who exchanges, Feb. 5.
3d West India Regiment—Ensign John O'Flanagan to be
Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Muttlebury, deceased,
Oct. I, 1846 ; William John Russwurm, Gent., to be Ensign,
vice O'Flanagan ; Lieutenant Frederick Jesse Hills to be
Paymaster, Feb. 5.
Ceylon Rifle Regiment—Second Lieutenant John Hender-
son to be First Lieutenant, without purchase, vice L. S. C.
Fraser, deceased, Dec. 2, 1846 ; Second Lieutenant Jubn
MacDougall to be First Lieutenant, without purchase, vice
Henderson, whose promotion on Jan. 9, 1847, has been can-
celled ; John Brown, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, vice
MacDougall, Feb. 5.
UNATTACHED.—Lieutenant Glubb, from 35th Foot,

to be Captain, without purchase, Dec. 8 ; Lieutenant Wi.
Liam Mason, from Royal Newfoundland Companies, to be
Captain, without purchase, Feb. 5.
MEMORANDUM.—The Christian names of Ensign Morgan,
of the 4th Foot, are George Augustus.
Erratum in the Gazette of Aug. 7, 1846.
99th Foot—For Alexander M•Lean Fraser, Gent., to be
Ensign, without purchase, vice Blackburn, promoted in the
6th Foot, read, vice Blackburn. killed in action.