The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-17 00:00:00

POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. BANKES rose to move the second reading of
the Bill which proposed to amend the first clause of
the General Act of the 9th and 10th of Victoria. It
did not propose to affect more than part of
that Act, because no more than part had
excited universal discontent. When the original
measure was itself introduced he entertained con-
siderable doubts about the beneficial working of what
was termed irremovability instead of settlement,
which he consiticitA much too great a change
to be introduced so suddenly. He voted for it, seeing
many of the representatives of the towns supporting it,
but he now saw that it was oppressive, not only to
the country, but to the poor ratepayers of the town,
in proof of which, he said, the Honourable Member
read a letter from the clergyman of Blandford, who
stated that, in consequence of the Poor Removal Act,
the rate of that town had been doubled to 10s.
a year instead of ss. The Hon. Gentleman then re-
minded the House that in giving notice of this
Bill he had brought before them general complaints
from the guardians of the city of London and of the
metropolitan unions, that the rates had been exceedingly
increased. He must say he was not prepared to hear
it in the Committee of which he was a member from a
Poor-law Commissioner, that the guardians of the City
of London approved of the Act which he proposed to
amend, and he must say he did not think such was the
case. The Honourable Member then read a letter
from a Mr. Foster, in the city of York,
stating that unless this law was repealed the rentals
would be increased from 25 to 50 per cent. Theincrease in the rates of seven parishes in York, for
a quarter of this year, amounted to 7,0701., showing
the additional burden cast upon the rate-payers.
He thought an alteration in the law exceedingly
desirable, and feeling
convinced that the Govern-
ment would no: effect an alteration either in the present
or in the ensuing sessions he had, therefore, brought.
forward this measure, and trusted it would receive the
approval of the House. The Poor Removal Bill had
failed.—(llear). He had sat on the Committee
which had reference to it, and was in a position to say
that it had nut accomplished the good for which it was
propounded. It pressed heavily upon the rate-payers,
and did not afford all the advantage it should to the
poor. It prevented parishes from allowing a widow
2s. or 3s. a week, upon which, with the aid of her
friends, she might subsist. It put a stop to this
altogether—(Hear)—and he; could quote many other
instances of its oppressive working; for instance, cases
in which poor widows were living with their friends and
receiving a small weekly
stipend from the parish, who
had had their relief stopped, and who had been
driven from one parish to another to seek
aid. The whole of South Wales was in a similar
condition with respect to rates as York. In
the parish of East Lew, in Cornwall, foe instance,
before the passing of tle Poor Removal Bill, the agri-
cultural population in the neighbourhood were in the
habit of coming into the town to sleep ; of this
the rate-payers did not complain until the Bill was
passed ; but since they found tliftt these persona

in the period of distress became
e-
able to them—and other places had equally
of the Bill.
operation
be set against each
ef airo no r toaw complaine o
mn is si 0
noefr
werethe
other, he would take the evi'lence of Mr. Coppock, who
was the king of the Poor-law clerks, on this matter,
who said that the sooner the law of settlement
was repealed the better. He pressed this matter
forward, because he thought that the present law was a
failure. He had evidence from Leeds and other places
as to the working of this law, showing clearly its injurious
operation. On this day week he would bring on this
question, and he would conclude by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day week.
The motion was agreed to, and the House adjourned
at Six o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 16.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
COLLISION.—SPARROW V. PEDLEY AND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for certain injuries sustained by a smack named
" Fox," the property of the plaintiff, by the negligence
of the parties entrusted with the management of a steam
tug called the " Grey Mare Meg," belonging to the
defendant and others, who constitute the "United Steam
Tug Company." The smack was tacking across the
river, and the collision occurred opposite Wapping. The
bowsprit of the smack received some injuries, but they
were not of a serious nature.

The case was commenced yesterday, and re-
sumed at the sitting of the Court this morning.
A considerable number of witnesses were examined
on either side—those on one side stating that " Grey
Mare Meg " was to blame, whilst those called on
behalf of the other as stoutly and positively
averred that the smack was decidedly to blame,
and that if she had not struck the steam-boat, she
would have come into collibion with a number of barges
lying off Wapping. It was further stated by them, that
the smack was in a bad condition before the occurrence,
and that her injuries could be repaired for 101. or 15/.
The jury gave a verdict of 101. to the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 16.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS )

RICHARDSON V. STEELE.
This was an action for damages for a breach of pro-
mise of marriage.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Ryland appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Spinks for
the defendant.

INlr. Sergeant BYLES, in opening the case, said, the
plaintiff complained against the defendant, who was a
chemist and druggist at Brighton, for having inflicted
upon her a most serious injury. The plaintiff was the
daughter of a tradesman at Messing, near Kelvedon, in
Essex. In the years 1842 and 1843 the plaintiff and the
defendant lived together at the house of a Mr. Waugh, a
chemist in Regent-street, the one as an assistant, the
other as a lady'smaid. An attachment had sprung up
between them, and without any reason whatever the de-
fendant had returned the letters of the plaintiff, and had
repudiated the contract he had entered into. The
plaintiff became ardently attached to the defendant
whilst at Mr. Waugh's house. Fortunately, although
the defendant had destroyed the letters the plaintiff had
written to him, she had preserved those she had received
from him, and they should be laid before the jury in
order that they might see whether justice could be ad-
ministered to the plaintiff in a court of law. The plain-
tiff's brother had thought it necessary to see the de-
fendant with respect to his intentions, and the defendant
then expressed his love for the plaintiff and his intention
to marry her. He would call the brother before the
jury, and would prove a voluminous correspondence to
have taken place, from 1843 to 1846, between the plain-
tiff and defendant; and although he would not read all
the letters, he would refer to two or three, to show the
terms on which the parties were contracted to each
other. The first letter was as follows:
" Friday, June 2, 1843.
" My heart is fixed,
I cannot range ;
I love my choice
Too well to change.
" First impressions (carefully made) of those we find some-
thing in to admire, esteem, and love, are seldom, if ever,
effaced from our memory, and stand proof against the slander
of our most secret enemy.
" Love has many doubts, but without proofs should cherish
none."

The Learned Sergeant then read several long and rather
tedious letters, in which, mixed up with allusions to
business and other matters, were occasional expressions
of attachment. One letter mentioned "sending a news-
paper" to the plaintiff, which " contained three cases of
murder;" another mentioned sending her " Humphrey's
Clock;" and most of these letters concluded, " Yours
truly and affectionately, Stephen;" " Your affectionate
Stephen, with lore ;" " Your absent lover," and so on.
During the whole of this long courtship the defendant
had been looking out fur a settlement in life. The op-
portunity at length presented itself, and lie was set up
by his father in a very flourishing business at Brighton.
The jury should now hear what the effect of that pros-
perity was upon 'he defendant, in his conduct to this in-
nocent and confiding young woman. His neglect and
long silence induced her to write to him, and, broken-
hearted, to go cown:to Brighton to see him; after which•
she received from him a letter, which he would read to
the jury:—

" Nov. 29, 1845.
" Elizabeth,—l received yours of the 2511 i, and feel sorry
you should have troubled yourself with any such apology, as
I had not the least desire to receive any such thing. You
appear to quite misconstrue the meaning, that the future
may, perhaps, make amends for the past; but understand it
this way for your own good—if you wish to gain respect in
future, reflect before you act, your actions will be less likely
to give offence. You must be we 11 aware that two possessing
opposite feelings and opinions never can be happy together;
such undoubtedly is the case; therefore it is my wish, which
I trust will meet yours, that no further correspondence will
be carried on between us upon the terms unfortunately that
have been ; but I shall always feel that interest by which 1
hope to hear of your success and happiness. I hope, by re-
flection, you will be of the same opinion, and put the best
construction upon this letter, which I feel will be decidedly
to the advantage of both.-1 remain, still your well-wisher,
LS

" Miss Richardson, 17, Vera-street,
Oxford-street, London."
Probably it would have been better that she should have
sent her father or her mother down to Brighton than
have gone down there herself. The young woman most
earnestly solicited one more interview with the defendant.
He could not lay the plaintiff's letters before them, as the
defendant had burnt them, and she kept no copies of
them. She wished t, know if there had been anything
in her conduct to give reasonable offence, and the fol-
lowing was the answer she received (Post-mark,
Brighton, Jan. 8, 1846) :
"Elizabeth,—l received yours on the 6th instant, and am
at a loss to know why you wish an interview, as I thought
my last letter was sufficiently- explicit; but if there be any
matter you wish explained, if you write and name it, I shall
be happy to satisfy you; otherwise, for the benfit of both par-
ties, let there be no further communication."
No signature or date was appended to the letter, and it
was addressed the same as the last. In the course of
the courtship many little pledges of affection had been
interchanged; and in May, 1846, the plaintiff received
an envelope containing everything the defendant had
ever received from her, with this letter:—
"I forward to you everything I possessed that once belonged
to you, as I wish that every circumstance connected with the
past may be forgotten. The letters I had have been long
since destroyed, so that now I have not a single thing.
Trusting they will arrive safe, I wish you health, happiness,
and prosperity."
There was no address at either the beginning or end of
the letter, and so terminated the correspondence. He
need not inform the jury of the irreparable injury
which had been inflicted on this young woman. The
bloom of her youth had been sacrificed, her feelings
had been wounded, her chances of a comfortable set-
tlement in the world had been wasted by this in-
sincere
t man.heavily Tuhpeoneviylsouonfgourdense
population women;
sminaeneteoafridthem, in every way capable of making
good wives, were, from the circumstances of the
other sex, compelled to waste their existence;
and the man who took the bloom of a young woman's
life and deluded her out of a chance of future settlement,
inflicted upon her an injury which no damages of a jury
could compensate. From the age of 19 to 24 this young
woman's life had been thus wasted. If left to herself she
would never have brought this action ; but her family
and friends insisted upon it, and determined to obtain
for her justice in a court of law. It was the duty of tip);
jury to :::lark their sense of tall„ conduct. lie should
show that the defendant was in a flourishing business at
Brighton, and able to pay damages. The damages were
laid at 5001., every shilling of which he thought would
not be too much to give. It was the duty of the jury to
mark their sense of the
_injury which the plaintiff had
received. He called
Wm. Henry Richardson (who was examined by Mr.
RYLAND), brother of the plaintiff. Was a shoemaker
in London. His parents lived in Messing, in Essex.
His sister was about 28 years of age. The defendant
was formerly an assistant to a chemist named Waugh,
in Regent-street,:and his sister was living as lady's-maid
to Mrs. Waugh. In May, 1843, the defendant sent for
him, and told him he had formed an attachment to his
sister, and wished to make her family acquainted with
it; that he was satisfied of her suitability for his wife,
and wished to marry her. Witness wished him to un-
derstand that his sister had no property, and wished him
to consider that. He replied that he had property of his
own to set him up in a first-rate way of business. It was
not he said money that he looked for in the choice of a
wife, but manners and disposition. He was admitted
to the family on the terms of a suitor till June,
1845. During that time he said he was looking out
for a business, that he had property to take a first-rate
business, but could not find one. He had repeatedly
been out with the defendant and his sister together. On
one occasion he was looking at a newspaper, and there
was a very long name in it, and that led to conversation
about names, and defendant said to his sister, "Yours is
a very long name, Elizabeth, but I will soon change it
for a short one." He also said he did not wish his
sister to take another situation on her leaving Mrs.
Waugh's, as he did not wish it to be afterwards said
that his wife had been a lady's-maid. There was no
change in his manner until March, 1846, when he had
another conversation with defendant about his sister. De-
fendant had then taken a business at Brighton, and wit-
ness went to see him. He was carrying on a very large
business as a chemist and druggist, in St. James's-street,
in Brighton. It was on Sunday. Witness told him he
had come to see him, as he was informed by his sister
that he (the defendant) had altered his mind in regard
to her, and he (witness) wished to know if anything had
occurred on her part to effect this change. He told wit
s•
in
g marry o n
ness, there had not; on which witness expressed
surprise at such conduct, and told him that his•sister
,retloy
readyg ed.
refusing to fulfil
him, and asked his reasons for now
hishad
former kep kept herself
promises,re s p
andec respectable bl e
was and disengaged,
willing
eanogda
were some little matters
his promises. He said, there
about which they disagreed, and hehadfully WACIQ up

his mind not to marry her. He knew the defendant's
handwriting perfectly well. The lei. (xi b put ill were in
defendant's handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS —He car-
ried on business at 2, Mulberry-court, Vincent-street,
Finsbury. His: sister was in court, in the gallery, in a
blue shawl. He had made boots for the defendant.
There was no one with him but his sister when the con-
versation about the name of his sister took place. They
were on board a steamer goine: to Greenwich. He knew
nothing about the art of distilling, and never proposed
to supply defendant's employers with spirits of wine.
His sister, at ter leaving Mrs. Waugh, went to live with a
friend of his at Islington, then to Kilburn, then to Kensal-
green, to his aunt's, andresided amongst different friends
until she took a situation, in which she stayed a few
months. Then she went to her father's unwell with a
bad leg, and then went to live with a lady named Marsh,
in Wales, and went with her to Paris, and then came to
London. She then went to live with Mr. Birch, in Vera-
street, Oxford-street, an Irish linen repository, as shop-
woman, where she now was. Did not tell defendant that
he would publish his conduct throughout Brighton when
he saw him. Never told defendant "re had better pay
him 1001." he denied that altogether. His sister had
been " two years, come July," in Vere-street. First
heard defendant refused to marry his sister in Novem-
ber, 1845. He had other sisters, some of whom were in
service, and others, ycuug ones, living at home with his
father. His sister was educated at Messing. His sister,
the plaintiff, was about 17 years of age when she went
to service.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant BYLES —His father had
nine children, and did not send them all to boarding-
schools; but his sister was c,)mpetently educated. Wit-
ness had been ten years in business as a bootmaker in
London. His sisters went out to service when they were
competent for it.
Mrs. Bars, aunt to the plaintiff, examined by Mr.
Sergeant BYLES—In 1843 the plaintiff was visiting
witness, and subsequently; and on those occasions the
defendant, Mr. Steele, had visited the plaintiff at wit-
ness's house. She objected to his attentions, thinking
they might not be honourably meant, but the defendant
said his intentions were honourable, and he meant to
marry her.

Th-e correspondence opened by Mr. Sergeant Byles
was then put in and read, together with the following let-
ters, after the conclusion of the defendant's correspond-
ence, demanding the fulfilment of his promise,
" 26, Carey-street, London.
" Sir,—Miss Richardson has consulted me relative to your
conduct towards her, in desiring that no further correspond-
ence be had between her and yourself. She is totally at a loss
to account for so sudden a determination on your part, after
so long an intimacy and your promises made to marry her,
and am to request the favour of your informing me if it be
your determination not to marry her, and if so on what
grounds you refuse to do so.

" I am, Sir, yours very obediently,
" THOS. BISGOOD.
"Mr. Stephen Steele, chemist and druggist,
" St. James's-street, Brighton."
There was no reply to this letter, and ultimately, to a
subsequent letter, demanding a reply, a reference was
given by the defendant to his solicitor.
Mr. John Cook (called and examined by Mr. Ser•
geant BYLES) lives in Crawley-street, Oakley-square.
Knows St. James's-street, Brighton, and had seen the Jle-
fendant's shop there. It is one of the principal thorough-
fares in Brighton. Had been at defendant's shop two or
three times. It was a good-sized and a very respectable
shop. The defendant was in a very excellent way of
business, from what he had seen. He had heard de-
fendant's father had retired from business. Did not
know it.

Cross•examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKINs—What
are you ?—A gentleman.
Were you ever in business ?—Yes.
What business ?—No answer.

Were you a draper's assistant ?—No answer.
Were you one of those gentlemen who stand behind a
counter in a draper's shop, rub their hands, and-ask "If
they can show the ladies and gentlemen anything else ?"
—(Laughter).—Was in the employment of his brother,
who was a draper. had been in business since on his
own account, but it did not answer.
What took you to Brighton ?—Went there when he
was married.

Oh, married ! What ! had you to go to the drug-
gist's shop after you were married ?—(Laughter). What
did you want ?—A few little things. He knew nothing
else about the defendant or his shop.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant WitaiNs then addressed the jury for
the defendant. He said, his Learned Brother had stated
that the plaintiff's friends were determined to bring her
case before a jury, to see if they could obtain justice in
a court of law. Had he been sincere in that desire he
would have refrained from many topics he had intro-
duced, and from many manoeuvrings he had resorted to.
An inquiry of this kind was calculated to set the feelings
of the jury at war with their judgments. It was one of
those cases which engaged the best feelings of our hu•
inanity, and which required the strongest exercise of
the mind and judgment to keep those feelings in control.
They had had a strange mélange read; to them for the
last half hour, composed of love, murder, physic, "Hum-
phrey's Clock," and last not least, about "the man with
the white hat of asinine qualities." Never before that
day, though having some experience in love corre-
spondence, had he heard read such a correspondence as
this. His Learned Brother had talked of the plaintiff
being broken-hearted—it was a phrase which often
meant nothing—and when he heard it said of the buxom
young woman in the gallery, he could not help thinking
of the Irishman who went blubbering out of court after
hearing his counsel's statement of the injuries done him,
crying out, "By the mother of Moses, I did not think
I was half so badly threated as I am." Laying aside
his Learned Brother's poetic effusions, let them turn
their attention to the plaintiff and the defendant in 1843,
when the attachment spoken of began. His Learned
Friend had spoken of the plaintiff's humble circum-
stances. The plaintiff and the defendant were living in
the same house, and the defendant then wrote to her a
kind of Valentine:—
" If you loves I
As I loves you,
No knife shall cut
Our loves in two."—(Laughter.)
What sort of love that was every boy knew. The plain-
tiff and defendant were in the same house together.
The defendant sees Betsey in the same house together.
'The defendant sees Betsey iu the morning sweeping the
stairs; he sees her in the daytime waiting at table, and
he SAPS her at night carrying a light to the bedrooms,
and has a sly whisper to her. But time had begun to
have upon him its proper effect. Some of the jury
might have sons. What would they think of an at-
tachment between one of their sons and the housemaid
of the people with whom he was placed? No doubt
when the defendant was a boy he had written those
passionate epistles, but the later letters were very dif-
ferent. When the plaintiff returned from France, the
defendant discovered that his boyish impressions were
very different from what a great many silly people mis-
took for affection and:love, though widely different things
The defendant had attempted no disparagement of the
plaintiff's character. llis affections were not under his
control, and intercourse with life had so changed his
views that the daydream of his youth had vanished
before a sounder discretion. His Learned Brother had
spoken of the defendant's " wasting the bloom of the
plaintiff's life." He might, indeed, have wasted the
bloom of her life, for it appeared that she had been
completely under his control; but ho had never in the
slightest degree transgressed the rules of propriety.
The defendant at length discovered, what he did not
choose to explain to the brother, that there were many
little points in which they differed ; but it was those
little points, however impalpable, which constituted the
happiness of human life ; and under those circum-
stances, was it not more just, nay, more religious (if he
might use the phrase), to break off rather than complete
such a contract, which would not only take away the
bloom, but the fruition of life itself ? They had heard a
great deal about the defendant's property, but they had
not proved that he was worth Is. It was quite compa-
tible, and in accordance with the statements made, that
his friends had set him up in business ; and as to his
fine shop, there were a great many shopkeepers in
Regent-street who would be but too glad to get out of
them, as well off as when they got into them, and they
all knew that a few gilded bottles and mahogany
drawers made a great display at little cost in druggists'
shops. As to the young woman being broken-hearted,
true sorrow never paraded itself, and never called to its
assistance the meretricious a;ds of en Laic. The beggar
in the streets nh.. stood shivering in our view was not
the man that demanded pity, but the quiet man who
sought to hide his misery in retirement. True grief
never paraded itself ; and the very circumstance of any
woman parading a transaction of this kind before a jury
was always a very strong proof to his mind that there
was a far greater desire to get money than to get public
sympathy.
llis LORDSHIP, in summing up, said, it was not dis-
puted that the plaintiff had successfully proved the de-
fendant's promise to marry her. The defendant had most
deliberately formed the engagement, and the plaintiff was
entitled to a fair compensation. Their disparity in life
was no answer, as the defendant was aware of it at the
time.
The' jury, after' a' short consultation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 2501.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBETH.

Mr. Alfred Marshall, the young man charged with
Sring a pistol at Miss Louisa Rofe, with intent to do
her some grievous bodily harm, was again placed at
the bar.
Mr. Binns attended for the prosecution, and Mr.
Games for the defence.
Mr. William Smith, the first witness called, deposed
that he lodged in Swan-street, Kent-road, at the house
of Mr. Bailey., who was stepfather to Miss Rofe, and
knew tho prisoner Marshall very well. Had heard
Marshall abuse Mr. Bailey and his wife, and say, he
should wait for the former some time or other. He had
also heard him say, ho had advised Miss Rofe to leave
her home, and told her that her stepfather was no father
to her; and at that time he indulged in strong terms of
abuse of Mr. Bailey.
Mrs. Mary Ann Buller, who resides in Swan street,
opposite to the house of Mr. Bailey, said, that- about
three weeks ago she heard the prisoner
r sa he should
not mindm.
being hung for shootingßailey. On the
night of Sunday week witness was in her sitting room,
and heard a stone thrown at the door of Mr. Bailey.
This was about nine o'clock, and she went out, and saw
the prisoner a short distance from Mr. Bailey's house.
In her cross-examination by Mr. Game., the witness
said, she had not seen either a pistol or a gun
in the pos-
session of the prisoner at the time she spoke of.
A lady named Hobbs was called, but her evidence was
not of the slightest importance as affecting the prisoner.
The next witness called was Miss Rofe, and, after her
former evidence had been read over to her, she swore to
its perfect truth, and t
pistol in hand, to "Tg seen the prisoner with a
andhearing the report of a pistol 011

his :discharging it at the house. She was no party to
the pubilaaaion of the bails, ;or marriage mai tie, pi-
soner; but understood that the prisoner bad got them
put up and published.
Mr. Binns said that this was his cose ; and after call-
ing his Worship's attention to the facts of the threats
made use of by the prisoner, about shooting Mr. Bailey,
and his not caring being hung for shooting him; and
further, the fact of both Mr. Bailey and Miss Rofe see-
ing the prisoner not only with a pistol in his bands,
but
also their hearing the report of a pistol shot, he should
leave the case in his Worship's hsnds to deal with as he
might think proper.
Mr. Games replied that he should not trouble thn,
Court with any remarks, but would proceed to call
witnesses, whose testimony he had no doubt would
negative the more serious part of the charge against big
client, an I induce his Worship, after hearing it, at en"
to discharge him out of custody.
Richard Davis, 55 P, was then sworn, and stated
that on the night of Sunday week Mr. Bailey came to
the station-house in Lock's-fields, and complained a a
shot being fired at his house by Alfred Marshall,
hich broke his window. Witness in consequence ac-
companied him buck to his house, and, on examining
the window that he represented to have been broken by
the discharge from the pistol, he found that a small
piece of one of the squares was broken ; but upon ex.:
aamining it more clearly he felt quite convinced that
t
had been broken from the inside, and in this belief he
was confirmed by the fact that the glass was found on
the outside. lie did not perceive the slightest arPear
rattle
ante of shot or a ball, though Mr. Bailey had declaraoe
he heard the shot, after the pistol had been fired,
against the window. that
Two constables were next called, who de
i
osed
the marks in the brickwork in front of Mr. BsileYsa
house, and which were alleged to have been occasioned
by the shot discharged from the pistol, bad in realay.
been caused by knocking at an early hour in the nso rhno
ing with their truncheons to awake a young man w
lodged there. shot,
Inspector Valentine produced three grains ofMr.
which he said he had found close to the 'wall (3,-, but
Bailey's house on the morning of Monday ne' fr '
could not say whether they had been dischargeu
gun or pistol.
Mr. ELLIOTT remarked, that had the evidence gerisl
far enough to show that the prisoner had, as chaorrogaen'
against him, discharged a pistol at the young "'bodily
with the intention of doing her some serious unDit
harm, he should have felt it to be his duty to co
ow
him for trial. The evidence, however, fell short in t
ft the
bushing the charge of shooting with intent, but •-t
same time there was sufficient shown to justifY,c";ip—nt bail
Elliott) in calling on the prisoner to find sownwards
to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour to tv,s
Mr. Bailey, his family, and all others of her Mtljes
subjects, quiz iss months.
The reed bail was put in and accepted, 611 d the
prisoner discharged.
WORSHIP-STREET. charged
A well-dressed man, named Alfred Evans,was,e
" cersl
with having feloniously obtained and diTosed sey'atue
chests of tea and other grocery goods, of he
of 751. was in
Mr. Taylor, the prosecutor, stated the prisoner Tn the
his service as shopman, and left in August last. 'l-ticti,
following March he was in expectation of an exec se be
and went to consult the prisoner as to what aouriitiou
should pursue. He told him to come to a coroPe rtio
with his creditors, but to remove a considerable P.,,,ev St
of his stock, and he would bring a cart andieLY ho
away himself' to the house of his mother, and "'-near
could dispose of it at an advantageous price to and
relative of his; assent was given to this propositiontot ises
a few mornings after he came to Mr. Taylor's Pre „an-
with a horse and cart, accompanied by his brethnely of
law, a man named Price, and removed a large claatia
bim
goods. The condi:ions upon which he entruste thou
with the goods were expressly that he was to if turn
net to
into a fair money value if he could do so, anddand
return them. A rough agreement was drawn ur'Dosis
signed by Mr. Taylor's creditors, by which they went
sented to receive ss. in the pound, and as the PsYou se-
of the first instalment of 2s. 6d. entirely depended ut e
ceiving the goods, or the produce of the goods in t:r rtbo
soner's possession, he applied to him repeatedly i° sue'
restoration of them or their value, but could never
teed in obtaining them, or the slightest inforrasuper,
further than that they were in the possession of, ,areen•
son named Ra.cliffe, in Granby-street, Bethnal's,
pn-
In consequence of this conduct he (Mr. Taylor) yvaspfoset
able to meet the approaching dividend, and, the ac'
called his creditors together, and made theat..Tecl
quainted with the way in which the prisoner had a!' re.
him, and having by their kindness and liberality
trieved la'ss embarrassment, and finding it aselesiato
treat any further with the prisoner, he gave bias
custod
Johny. Purday, the alleged purchaser of the Presee,olll;
tor's goods, said, about five weeks ago, the pris°ller'iasS,
was an entire stranger to him, and his brother-fu'oea
Price, with whom he was slightly acquainted, als
upon him. Price said he would put a sovereign IbPsult-
pocket. He said a tradesman he knew was going as off
rupt, that he and the prisoner had got some g°° they
his premises away from the creditors, and that as yen,
could not find the person to whom they wore?bad
they wanted him to say that he was the party wiic's Do
had them and sold them. They said there waveat
danger at all. He agreed to meet them at ten
heLo-
morning at the Grapes, in Old- street-road, where t the
cordingly went with a man named Duke, and Welted
prisoner and Price, the prosecutor (Taylor) being psis
iu the parlour. When ho (Purday) went in 11 oot
soner addressed him as " Mr. Ratcliffe." Ile "ita bad
told him he was to go by that name, and said thei, tbel
come about " those goods." Purday said, " `Wei era otF
brought them to his place, and told him to get 1' and
as fast as he could." Taylor instantly started qv, the
exclaimed, "Why, he must have goods of mine has
value of 751.; surely he don't mean to say that vies
made away with all those?" Taylor further said he
sod
a great rascal for selling his goods in that mance,,r'riey.
turned away in a rage. On Taylor, in four or fill; pros
afterwards, calling upon him and asking where t thing
perty was, he told him that he did not know any upoo
about it. The prisoner shortly afterwards calledwhich
him, and asked, if he knew any empty house, to a
he could bring Mr. Taylor and say that be 115 ova
there and run away. When he found that it awe
to 751., he got frightened. te,
Mr. Pelham shortly addressed the
Magistraollusion
contended that although there might have been eery ere:
between the prosecutor and prisoner for a /10t
ditable purpose, nothing more than that had tTeooValst 0
against his client, and it was really scand's charge es
man should be placed at the bar on so seriea!uuasstarleaa
that of felony, under such extraordinary
as had been disclosed. „. to the case
Mr. BROUGIIToN said, the only ans'er authorise'
would be that the prisoner was a partner, orhat was not
to dispose of the goods in this manner, arla thica might
established. It was a monstrous fraud, wu' order the
have been the ruin of Taylor. He should
~ but in
depositions of the witnesses to be taken for trial before
the mean time would accept the same bail as ,1"..
offered—the prisoner in 50/., and two sureties I",s.
each, and the officer must inquire into their solvents riot
The bail was immediately found, and the prisu
thereupon liberated.
ea
The Sardinian Government have just comP,et fur
their contract for iron rails for the great Turin RailWn.Y'
which they had requested tenders.
[A DVERTISEDIENT.]—SENT INTO THE COUNTRY
urori APPROBATION.—No. 39, Albemarle-street, Plecadill Nei"'
i vented Spectacles, Invisible and alldkdiebnay(flilFeosifseioA—ac3oipuaestriachaulnasntTdru..Las'e
Glasses !
for relief
and Telescopes.—Patronized liefof
Ttehleempoess—P
most extreme
ni
ze
venor, Generals Sir Edward Paget, Sir Evarns
John Keatings, Maiston, Frederick Goodfallow, Clayton.
acrd
hievrotosolf?, GalwayWalker,
, e Fox,
xßiggs,Price, Sbir
Lindsay' anti
rsiisro
Pit
.I%Di
ayi
°Utant°,
Tliackray, Major-Generals Sir John Bose, James ColiCkbur, S;
James Russell, and T. 11. Blair, Auclunu't Irßaldnke. PiiFeitY;teeTkollt:,
Mackleod, Hamilton, Turner, Wemyss, aYn'd C
Generals Sir Henry Bouverie, Sir J. Macdonald, Sir
Sir T. Dallas, Sir Win. Eustance, Sic Edward Kerrison, and sal,
Admirals Lord John Hay, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir George .."°Gold,
Sir George Martin, Sir James H. Whitshed, sir sas
Sir Edward Coddrington, Ross, Alexander, Curzons, Tome
Hollis, and Price ; Vice-Admiral Si; F. Austen ; povf'
Admirals Brown and Ribouleau, the Hon. J. Percy, &c•erful Achromatic Telescopes, Opera Glasses, and
~ficreScir aril
Caution—Messrs. S. and B. Solenions, opticians, are net iillo.
way connected with a person of the same name' in their
recent
diate neighbourhood, nor in any part of the country.
mistakes, be cautious, and observe—Only to be had at 39,
street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel.

---; 0
81l THS. ye of T.
On the 13th inst., at the Fort, Bristol, the wi
Tyndall, Esq , of a daughter. gbar°P Dirl‘
On the 18th inst., at Wollaton Rectory, N°t-t in
Charles Willoughby, of a son. ,
v,st• a sclaj
Auberv, ot
On the 14th inst., at Hornsey, Mrs. J. L. couper
On the 14th inst., at Rosemar of
Mrs. Richard C. Fisher, of a daughter. Clement, Esq.
On the 11th inst., the lady f rtobert
of a on' lady Richmond-terrace, Queen's-road-o
'
, Dalston,
On the 12th inst. at West, Wickham, bent,the Rev. Robert Inchbald, Dir,A. of a daughter. of V,
ybranch-lane'
On the 13th inst., in Cavendish-square, the lady
10°v
Marjoribanks, jun., Esq., of a son. Drew' On the 13th inst., the, wife of the Rev. G. S.
sil''
bent of Old St. Pancras, of a son.
On the 14th inst., Angela, the wife of
p the
of Upper Clapton, of a son. uar-,
On the 14th inst., in Chapel-street, Groscenor-stl.boo. 1.,
still ~-,... 4. lady of Cholmeley Dering, Esq., of a daughter,
On the 14th inst.,at B 1 fi Id d Maida-hill, .a'-''
om e -roa ,
___.-----'-°-
M. Ilion et, of a son.

MARRIED.
On the 12th inst., W. H. Yell, Esq., to Mary Lane°, tF.eclir
On the 10th inst., at St. John'iEpiscopel ChsPiieeo4
burgh, Robert B. Blackburn, Esq., to Frances u pet°,
youngest daughter of the late Rev. Edward Dewing'
of
On in Norfolk. 17'
ThraP
On the 12th inst., at Barnes, the Rev. Horace W OO04
8.A., of Exeter College, Oxford, to Georgina Theresa'
daughter of Mr. Pyle, of Barnes-terrace.

DIM. Alerf
On the 14th ult., at Toronto, the Hon. ChristoPher rt°
Queen's Bench,
Hagerman,Bench upopneer ocfanthaedJa.udges of her Majesty's C°° ,
PS'
O the 10th inst., at Montpellier-road, Brighton, Car°
third_ daughter of the late Kilpin Warner, EsqL Vl'
On the 10th inst., at Beverle , Thomas B. rhilliPs!,,,,,--„tossf
Esq.,O barrister-at-law,
ilsltethr-aint-slta.,wa,taNgeedw3cBas.ytle-on-Tyne, Richard. 1.-,-- ,
os
ircsr
On the 11th inst., the Rev. William Ilarriot, ,1
Odiham, Hants, aged 57.' Class
On the 11th inst., Philip James Burrard, student at
Hall, Cambridge, aged 21. pro Soatij
On the 12th inst , Mr. Thomas White, of Mims.— '
Mims, Middlesex, aged 46. Ago
On the 12th inst., at Brunswick-terrace, Willy—r'
Dinah Carolina Adkin, aged 89. aeed 7
On the 12th inst., at Pimlico, Miss Sophia Bart:y7.iet, the
On the 13th inst., at Streatham-paragon, Ha
daughter of S. Sangster, Esq., aged 44. iIW liii°
On the 13th inst., at The Firs, Great Malverr,
Webb Essington, Esq., aged 61. ~ii t of di.
On the 13th inst., at Brixton-hill, Cordell* r---c
late Mr. T. Wilson, bookseller, aged 62.........___
10'
„ No'-
Lon,.'on : i'rinted argi Published by MURDO ITOOT`''.I,. rrii t
Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No.
_ll2, Strand. In .--JOO
of the 6AT071 ill iba Ceillit,7 Qg NiflitlegeXp T11"1/4gi
184; .