The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-19 00:00:00

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1823.

LACY INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. IS.
courule v. TURUPP.
Mr. MIN VIC said, he understood his Lordship had yesterday
made an order in this case, that a Receiver should be appoint-
ed. It is a case in which two coal merchants who were in
p4rtnership.had dissolved their co-partnership, and if he (Mr.
H.) had been in Court at the time, he would have suggested
that the parties themselves might beat liberty to propose them-
selves.

His Lonnsurr had no objection to that; and would add to
the order, that if the Gentlemen had good sense enough to call
in a third person to settle their affairs, they might then apply
to have the receiver discharged.
THINITXIIOU3r V, SMITH.
Mr. IL%RT made a motion on behalf of the defendant, Mr.
Smith, administrator of his father's estate, to have accounts
taken in the Master's (dike, of the trust property in the ma.
nanagement of the Triqtylionse. The late Mr. Smith ob-
tained a lease from the plaiatitfs in the cause of a certain Rock
at Penzance, upon whichNiassiild a liet,hetare, and letters pt_
tent were granted for that purpose, giving leave to collect the.
usual tolls from the vessels that might pass, as long as the light
should be properly supplied. Mr. Smith laid nut
.40,0001. in
the erection of the house, and involved himself so much there-
, by, that the Trinity House filed a bill for the preservation of
the property, and praying that a manager and receiver miglit
be appointed. That order was made, and the Wardens of the
Trinity House were themselves appointed the.inanaaers, who
were to provide the necessary oil, lamps, &e. and out of the
profits were to pay certain annuities, and the surplus to At r.
Smith's family. Mr. Smith, jun. now complained that provi-
sions had been too lavishly made for the house ; that, in fact,
the agents at Penzance were not acting bona fide, and therefore
prayed an account.
This motion was opposed, on the ground that no specific
charge of misconduct had been sufficiently made out, and that
going into the Master's office, according to the terms of the
notice of motion, would totally ruin his property, which is well
known to be extremely useful to the public.
His Lonnsitir thought that Mr. Smith, an encumbrancer,
was clearly entitled to have accounts rendered to him of all the
receipts and payments from the -Trinity-House ; the order,
therefore, was, that these accounts should be furnished to him,
and if he should then think proper to apply to the Court, coin.
plaining of any particuh:r item, that he should be at liherty to
do so, and that the application, (if to be made), should be made
at the next seal.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 18.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
On the Vrce-CRANCELLOR taking his scat,
Mr. SCOW: ie said he was requested to mention, on behalf of
Sir Charles Long and the other trustees of Greenwich Iloepital,
that in a case of bankruptcy the Commissioners had refused to
receive their proof of a debt due by the bankrupt to the hospi-
tal. The trustees had in consequence presented a petition to
the Court to compel the Commissioners to receive the proof,
as it was necessary that the proof should be received on Satur-
day. His present application was, that the petition of the trus-
tees might stand on the head of the paper. for that day.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave the direction accordingly.
MEUELST v. COSTAU.
Mr. WINGFIELD, on the behalf of the defendant, moved
for the dissolution of the injunction granted in this cause. The
defendant had brought an action upon a bill of exchange ac-
cepted by the plaintiff, and obtained a verdict of 1,0001. m the
Court of Common Pleas. On a motion for a new trial, an
order was made by consent of parties, that a verdict should be
taken for 7501. instead of 1,000/. The plaintiff, however,
afterwards became dissatisfied with this arrangement, and
filed his bill for an injunction to restrain execution, which was
granted.
Mr. HEAT.D appeared in support of the injunction. The
action had been brought in the Court of Common Pleas on two
'bills of exchange, which had been-given by the plaintiff, an
inexperienced young man, to Hants, an advertising money-
lender in the metropolis. Hanoi endorsed the bills to the de-
fendant, who, in his answer to the bill in that Conrt, stated
that he was liants's agent, and that he gave him value for the
bills in watches, musical snuff-boxes, lavender water, sponge
fish-sauce, &c. The Learned Counsel said, that fig was con-
vinced that this representation was false, and thought that the
defendant ought to be compelled to give a full account Of all
his dealings with Hants ; when he believed it would turn out
that no consideration whatever had been given for the bills of
exchange. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to state sus-
picious circumstances connected with the alleged, dealings be-
tween Hunts and the defendant, when
The Vice-OtrAercer..Lon said that he could not perceive
that the plaintiff had any equity.
Mr. HEALD observed, that in the case of Whittle liarvey,
though the,re had been a verdict, the Lord Chancellor was of
opinion that there was that sort of fraud which could be better
investigated in a court of equity than before a jury, and be
(Mr. Heald) understood that the Lord Chancellor's view of
the case had received hie Honour's approbation of the decree.
The VI cticLo n said,
that wherever it turned on
the decision of a single fact, such as consideration in Which a
court of equity and a court of law bad concurrent jurisdictions
court of equity could not, without confounding all principals,
interfere with the verdict whiclimight be given in a court of law.
In a case where the jurisdiction of-the two courts was non-con-
current, the practice was different, and such was the case of
whittle Harvey.
Mr. WAXEFTELD submitted, that In a case where an indi-
vidual bought a bill with goods from a young man whom he
knew to be distressed, and to want the goods only for the pur-
pose of raising money on them, there. was a peculiar equity
which called upon the Court to interfere, and say that the goods
should not be charged for their intrinsic or marketable value,
but only for the sum which the young man had sold them for.
That principle had been laid down by. Lord Thurlow, in the
case of" Vansumer and Barker." His Lordship said that the
case had been argued as if the transactions between the parties
were in the common course of trade; but it was, he observed,
necessary for him to examine whether, under the mask of trail-
ing, there had not been a lending of money at an extraordinary
rate of interest. He finally decided, that as the only object of
the dealings between, the parties had been to supply the neces.
sities of one of them, a young man, the goods should only be
charged far what the young man sold them for.
The,Vice-CitAircELLoit said that lie would always follow
the principle laid down by Lord Thurlow, but it was not ap.
plicable to the case then before him ; for it was not stated that
the plaintiff had ever obtained any goods. Whatever hisjapi-
nion of the cue might be, which he was not at liberty to express,
he was excluded from interfering by the verdict of the court of
law, He therefore ordered the injunction to bodissolVed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Disc. M.
/MITI/ V. VIDISOLA.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 3601., which had
been paid by a check Afterwards dishonoured, and on which the
plaintiff contended he had still a right to recover.
It appeared that the bill in question,* which was drawn by the
defendant, and endorsed to the plaintiff, was made payable at
the house of Mr. Ilesurnerea, Freeman's.court, Cornhill.. On
the morning of the clay when it became due it was presented
there, but it was not then paid ; and on being presented again
in the after part of the day, a check of Mr. Beaumeres was of.
fered, which was taken. The check was drawn on Messrs.
Willis and Co., and the clerk who received it passed their house
in his way home, but did not then present it. Between 4 and 6
o'clock the check was presented, and payment was then refused,
as the bankers had not sufficient effects of the drawer to answer
it. On that day Mr. Beaumeres absconded. It further, ap.
peareds that at this time it was the custom with hankers to
give up bills on receiving a check for the amount, but that;it
was now usual to retain them till they knew that the check
would be paid.
Mr. MARRYAT, for the defendant, contended that the plain.
tiff's agents ought not to have taken the check, but should have
insisted on cull, which probably they might have obtained,
had they pressed for it; and that this was more eepeciallY their
duty, after the demur as to payment which had occurred in, the
morning. It was also probable, that had the check been prompt.
ly presented, h would have been paid. .
The 'clerk of Messrs. Willie and Ca. being recalled, by de-
sire of the Lord Chief Justice, in reference to this last point,
said that the check certainly would not have been paid at any
time that day, as they had only 2131. of the drawer in theii hands.
The Loan Ciur.r Jusvcr said, the practice of taking
checks in gayment'of bills of exchange had prevailed's° long,
that he could not say a party was guilty of gross negligence who
acted on so prevalent a custom. The only question he could
leave to the Jury was)
whether the circutnstanae of the bill :sot

being paid on its first presentment in the morning, Ought to
hare awakened the suspicion of the Bankers. They would:best
know whether there was any thing uncommon in tho non-pay.
mentor a bill at an hour in the morning when the principal had
often not arrived at, the office.
The Jury immediately found It verdict for the plaintiffs fcr
the amount of principal and interest—Damages 8661.
ItEID ANT) CO. th SOLLY AND. CO.
This was an action of trover, to renovera policy offinaurance,
alleged to he the property of the plaintiff*, and converted by
the defendants to their own use. The parties are Merchants of
the highest character, and the action was brought to try a bare
question, as to which of them bad a right to the Policy. The
cause has been already tried, when a verdict was found for the.
plaintiffs'; but, on the application of the defendants, a new trial
was granted.
The policy in question was effected by Messrs. Reid and
Co., as the agents of a Mr. Trelessin, on the ship /sir. As
Mr. Trelessin was largely indebted to them,' they retained the
policy in their own hands, as a security for the repayment of
their advances. Wild
While they thus held it, Mr. Trehaishuaked
leave to take it, in :Nder tin't4hOW to underwfliers, wfirlad also
insured the vessel, the amount for which it was insured; they
accordingly delivered it to him ; and it found its way into the
hands of Mr. Horace Sony, the brother of one of the defendants.
Mi. Horace Sally held it as a security for the debt of lit'. Van-
haughton, who handed it to him ; and the present defendants,
having taken Mr. Horace Sally's business, and }mule advances
on his behalf, received this policy among other securities, and
now contended that they had a right to retain It.
Mr. ScauLETT contended, that the plaintiffs were clearly
entitled to recover. They had a lien on this policy as against
Mr. Trelessin; with that lien they never parted : when they
placed the instrument in his hands, they only made hint their
agent for a specific purpose; mitt he could convey to others no
better title that he himself enjoyed. The right of Reid and
Co. had never been divested, and therefore they still had an
undoubted right to the policy.
Mr. GtirtikzEy, for the defendants, called Mr. Horace
who stated that he obtained the policy from Mr. Vanhaughton
by pressure, and that he had no knowledge that Reid and Co.
had any interest in it ; and that the letter of orders was
handed over with the policy. The Learned Counsel con-
tended, that the instrument being obtained by pressure was
legally obtained, and that Reid and Co. subjected themselves
to the loss of their claith when they gave up possession of the
_

MT. SCARLETT, in reply, argued that it was not obvious the
policy was merely given to Horace Solly, who had an insurance
on the same vessel, in order that he might ascertain that the
whole sum insured exceeded the value of the cargo, and that
he was entitled to a return for short interest.
The .LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left three questions of fact to
the jury; firit, whether ,the policy was delivered to Mr.
Horace Solly as a pledge—secondly, whether Horace Sully
knew that Reid and Co. had any claim on the instrument ;
thirdly, whether the defendants had ever advanced money on
the security of the policy.
In reply to these questions, the Jury found, that the policy
was not delivered to Mr. Horace Solly as a pledge ' • that Mr.
Horace Scilly did know of the claim of Reid and Co.; and
that the defendants had made no advances on the credit of the
policy. They then, under the direction of the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, found a verdict for the plaintiff, with a shilling damages,
the policy to be returned, subject to the question of hew, if any
can be raised, on this finding.
WRIGHT AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF GOLDING, v. LAING.
This was an action by the assignees of Henry Golding, a
bankrupt, on the statute of Anne, to recover OM., being treble
the amount of monies lent by the defendant to the bankrupt at
usurious interest.

Mr. MARRYAT stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff's,
who sued, though unnecessarily, as the assignees of a bankrupt
named Golding, because the statute againit usury authorised
any person to sue for the penalties. The bankrupt had kept a
public-house, and having been supplied with hops by the de-
fendant, was, in April, 11121, indebted to him in the sum of
1481. lls. od. At this period, Mr. Golding wished to borrow
NU, and Mr. Laing agreed to lend him that sum for six
months, on receiving 221. 10s.; that was the moderate interest
of 15 per cent. In pursuance of this illegal contract three hills
of exchange were drawn, including the debt for hops, the 300/.
loan, and the usurious interest, whiCh were duly paid. This
transaction would be distinctly proved by Golding, whose testi.
mony would be strongly corroborated by respectable witnesses.
The formal prod of the bankruptcy, rendered necessary 11:?'
the description given of themselves by ths plaintiffs, was
adduced.

Henry Golding, the bankrupt, was then examined.—He said,
I was a publican, and did business with the defendant. On
the 25th of April, 1820, I made ei purchase from him of bops,
At six months' credit, allowing three months' interest. The
amount' was 143/. I Is. Id. A short time previously I applied
to him 'for a loan of 300/. or 5004 Ile at first objected, but
wished to know what I considered a handsome remuneration ;
1 said my distiller allowed me 101. per cent. for discount for ready
money, and I would give him the same. Mr. Laing objected to
this, and said his Money was worth 20/. per cent. to him ; he was
building houses in the Commercial-road, which 'yielded that
profit. We then parted ; but on the 25th of April he called on
me,and asked me if I had obtained the money to pay my discount;
I said I had not ; he asked me to come and take a chop with
him, and he would ace what he could do. I went and dined with
him ; the Subject of hops was introduced ; he proposed. to sell
but I objected to purchase ; he, however, prevailed on me to
buy. I then adverted to the loan; he said Ns lowest terms
were 15 per cent; I hesitated, but at last agreed. Ile reduced
the terms into writing, put the paper in his desk, and told me
I might go home and arrange my debts, gave me a check for
3001. and stated that bills should be drawn at 6 months, includ-
ing the Imps, the loan' .and the interest. I received the cash
for the check myself at Masterman'o, in pursuance of the re-
commendation of Mr. Laing. The account delivered on that
day included MIL lis. ld. for hops, and 3221. IDS., as money
lent, io Mr. ,Laing's handwriting. I believe the total sum to
be written by Mr. James Laing, jun. I paid Mr. Laing a very
small sum of about but I'do not clearly remember. lie
then 'drew the 3 bills of exchange produced, on me, Width were
all brought to me for acceptance, and which I accepted. All 3
have been paid : one was for 1501. 10s. Id., dated the 28th of
April ; one for 1581., dated 29th of April ; one for 1821., dated
sth May—all payable 6 months after date, to the order of Mr.
Laing. I paid ail the bills.
The witness was cross-examined' at great length .by Mr.
SCAMATT. admttted that Mr. Laing had frequently lent
him money, and discounted bills for him previous to this trans-
action ; but denied that they made any part of the stun secured
by the bills in question. On being pressed, hu recollected one
sum which he had before forgotten. lie also acknowledged that
Mr. Laing lent him 2801. more before the bills becameAtte.
Proof was given_that the checks by which Mi. Golding said
the bills were paid were duly honoured.
To confirm the statement of Mr. Golding, Mr. Pounce anti
M. Woodbridge, two of his creditors were called. They said,
that after the action was commenced, they went, by invitation
of the defendant, to inspect his books, anti. wrote down particu-
lars of what they saw; but the most important memorandum
was not made till afterwards. Mr. Woodbridge reeollected an
obliteration in time hook, and thought the book now produced
by the defendant like it, but not the same; to this, however,
he couid not swear.

Mr:SCAIII.XTT addressed the Jery for the defendant. He
urged that in an action so highly, penal, the plaintiffwas bound
to make out his eels in a manner the most plain, and the frerst
from objection; but it would appear that he did not very clear-
ly understand it himself, since he thought it necessary to state
it In 20 ditlerent ways up.on the record. The Learned Counsel
reminded the Jury that, in order to sustain this action, not only
must the usurious bargain be completed, but the usurious pay-
ment made ; and if the 21101. admitted as lent by the defendant
were specifically given to take up the bills, the payment had
never been made, even if it ever was aggreed for. lint he con-
tended diet it was not agreed for; that the 22/..105. might be
satisfactorily' explained on inspection of the account, without
supposing usury ; and that tiro memory of Alr. Golding was
much too frail fir them to rely on in a case where the nicest ac-
etiracy of dates and sums Was requisite. The conduct of Mr.
',Ong, in allowing hie books to be inspected, manifested the
ctineciou sties* of innocence, and they would never surely on such
evidenee as they had heard presurne his guilt.
The Low Cm Et JUSTICE, in his charge' expressed his
assent to the doctrine that to render the defendant liable to these
penalties', he Must actually have received the usurious interest;
and if the bills were renewed, or if money waaadvanced speci-
fically to pay them, that interest was not paid; but a general
loan between the same parties would 'not take the case out of
the Statute. lie left the whole question in the hands of the
jury, satisfied that they would not find a verdict against the
defendant unless they were satisfied that the charge was made.

PRICE SzvrNrrdccr..

out against him; bin that if they were-so satisiLti, they wettia
not shrink from the pribrmance of their duty.
The Jury retired for a considerable time, and then limn&
verdict for the plaintitr, Lfor the amount of the petutitidis •
claimed-90a

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec;110.
SOASIES' 0. JACKSON.
Mr. PARK opened the pleadings. This was an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover a loss upon a policy of insurance,
dated April I, 11118. The declaration stated, that in consider-
ation that the piaintiff had paid to the defendant, who itethe
recognized representative of the Pacific Association tbr the iii-
suranee of ship, the I.tremitun of 124 12e. per cent. on the ship
Pilot, valued at 8,0001., the defendant. had undertaken 0 ift-
detnnify the plaintiff against any losses suffered by the ship,
from 12 o'clock at noon on the lath of February, .1,1118,•to o'clock at noon on the lath February, Ilil9. The interest Of
the policy was averred to be itt the plaintiff: The deelittratiON
further stated, that the loge was sn average lose oceaeioned
perils of the sea. The defeadatis pletuled non arnimpeit, and
on that point issue was joined.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Serjeant PE LL, that
the not had been employed in 1817 by Government to take
nut convicts to New Holland, and that elm hod been engaged
till the year 1820 in navigating in different, part* of the Sou than
Ocean. On the 27th of Deeember, 11117, she arrived in Van
Dieglen'S Land the sailed from thence to Batavia on the 11th
of January, 1018, where she arrived on the lath of March.
She stayed there till the 6th of May, when she *ailed to Pert
Louis, in the Isle of France, where she arrived on the lit of
June. It was on this latter voyage that the loss took place, for
which the plaintiff' sought to recover. The questions which
the Jury had to decide were—first, was the ship sea-worthy on
the lath of February, 1018 ; and if she was, was the loss she
had suffered an average loss, or only ordinary wear and tear P
Ile contended that she was perfectly seaworthy, and therefore
that his client was entitled to recover.
The Learned Serjeant called several witnesses to prove the
seaworthiness of the vessel on the 18th of February ; and alio
the loss which the vessel had subsequently sustained on the
11th of May, by a heavy sea, which lasted four.a.nd-twenty
hours.
Mr. Serjeant Variorum, on the other side, contended, that
the ship was not sea-worthy on the day when the policy began
to attach, and called several witnesses to prove that she
had
been very leaky previous to her leaving Van Diemen's Land ; and also that she had lost a very large quantity of copper before
she arrived at Batavia. lie likewise put in a letter of the Cap-
tain's, stating that the vessel had arrived at Batavia in a sink-
ing state.
Mr. Serjeant PELL replied upon the evidence; and sherd
that there could be no truth in the declaration of the Captain
that the vessel was in a sinking state when she entered Batavia,
by the fact that she sailed within two days from that port with
a freight of 300 or 400 tons of rice.
The Ja.y, after the Learned Judge had made several obe
nervations upon it, returned a verdict for the plain tiff:,-.Damagea
8004 subject to a reference to Mr. (Bennie, to state what the
etraliosla
loss
was seabfoor more per cent.
The trial than 8 hours.
average

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE%

RENT WINTER ASSIZES—MAIDSTONE, Dac. 17. •
Thomas Edney was indicted for assaulting Ann Rockall, on
the King's highway, on the 3lst of July, and robbing her of
a bundle, containing various articles of wearing apparel
The prosecutrix stated, that she was servant in a Gentle.,
man's family residing at Sydenham. In the evening of the,
31st of July, she took a place, at the Elephant and Castle, on
the Sydenham coach, to go home froni London. She WAR put,
inside, there being no other paasengers. In the course Orthr
journey prisoner waa also put into the coach; they fell into,
conversation, and the prosecutrix freely communicated to the
prisoner whither she was going. The prisoner told her that
he was a relation of her master, -and said he would be happy
to see her home, to which she readily steeented. They were
put down on Sydenhani common, sow distance from 'her
master's house. She took hold of the prisoner's srni, relying
upon his kind protection ; he prevailed upon her to take &short
cut across the common, instead of continuing on the high
road; in about ten minutes the prisoner stopped, and suddenly-
seized her by the shoulders behind, d----d her eyes, and said
that if she made any alarm ho would butcher her; he then
snatched her bundle out of her hands, and beat her sits it ;About
her head two or three times ; in addition to this violence he
kicked her, and tried to throw her down ; two young men'eame
up in consequence of her .screams for help; and one of them
said to the prisoner," Is that you, Tom ?" The prisoner re.
plied in the affirmative, and said it was only a common wo.
man he had picked up In the street, and the young men went on.
The prosecutrix called out " Murder" two or three times, and
two of the llow.street Itorseliatrol came to her assistance, and
she told them of the prisoner's conduct. In the presence of the
patrol the prisoner beat her again, and kicked her. The pri.
wrier ran ow with the bundle; but in shout two hours atter.
wards
he was taken in his bed at his lodgings in a public.house
at Sydenham.
The liow.street patrol :corroborated 'the proaecutrix's state-
ment, as far as they hall observed the transaction. It appeared
to them that the prisoner was quite sober at the time.
The prisoner left his defence to Counsel.
The driver of the Sydenhain coach proved that the prisoner
and the, prosecutrix had drank together two or three times be.
tween Sydenham and London; and when they got down at
Sydenhern.common, they set off together, erm.imarrn, in a
friendly manner, the prisoner having the bundle in his hand.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent diameter
from his youth upwards.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up the evidence for the Jury,
and they immediately found the prisoner GaittS
Sentence of death was recorded ; but the Learned Judge held
out hopes of mercy to the prisoner, on acconnt of his preiiiins
good character.
Several capital convictions took place for Intrglary and house-
breaking, but none of the cases were of public interest. •

• THE COURT AOUSE.
Evay hotly who knows the Town Hall of illaidstone,
which the Judges hold their Assizes, knows that the lower
Court is very ill adapted for the convenience of business,
dependently of it exposed situation. Mr. Justice • l'Otti,
bong Senior Judge in the Commission, site in this Courrw
which, at the present beam') of the year, in dreadfully COM, In
consequence of a centinual thorough draught of air from two
doors placed opposite to each other. The Learned Jutigs
complained bitterly to,dfty pf this annoyance,. and observed,
that whilst the county had lavished •enormoutt sums in erecting
a splendid jail (-Fetich he hoped never to see filled), it bad
allowed the Judges of the land to sit in a mean and. Insignia.
cant Court, almost at the peril of their lives.
Mr. liter:we, the Ilecorder of Maidstone, interposed, and
informed his Lordship that the evil complained of would: to
speedily remedied, inasnutch as new Courts, an the best 'con-
struction, were in contemplation.`
Mr. Justice PARK add he was exceedingly happy to hear it,
for really the present Court..house was disgraceful to the county
of Kent.

A MONSTNRe-All infamous attack was made
on a female, by a ruffian in the garb of a gentleman, on Tice-
day night last, in the neighbourhotxl of Orosvenor.wqoare.
Ntvi I.x, a young female of respectable connexions, wail,
' shortly after ten o'clock, proceeding through Milant4treet, on
her return to her residence, near Covent.garden„ when she: was
accosted by a man of fashionable appearanee,.who rather rudely
. made some approaches to her, which were repulsed t he still cot,_
tinned to annoy her, and used language of the lliostilisgt sting
kind ; she became alarmed, and was about to retreat; whett.lit
caught her round the waist, and stabbed her with a sharp lastra.
meat in the thigh ; he was about to repeat the blow, bdt'she
screamed aloud, and the cowardly miscreant ' fled. The poor girl, with very great difficulty, walked into firesvenor.atreet,
where she sunk senseless on the limes of a door. A gentlemanwho was passing obierved her, and instantly gave 'sortie finutSy to two WOOIC3I to assist and rettoreher they did to with theold of some volatile salts, and she related the horrid attack to ilea by-standers, observing she shotild 'know lb Monster, ei Ida ;he
was of middle sire, dark complexion, bushy Whiskers, and. had
an extremely foppish appearance and affected airs. The gentle-
'man who at first volunteered his services, perceiving AlJss
oily to be outlining acute pain, had her remavinl by the Watils,
Man into a house, and the Wound dressed by a surgtort
which she was sent home in a coach. This is the forted; Atteek
of the kind, and apparently by the same miscreant, within slew
days.—Bee the Ai arlboraugh.stsset polio *mom