The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-17 00:00:00

VAN v. BARNEI"?.

Mr. }lmre moved titni..aill)e4.WhiCh had been taken into
that Master's (Mine lay tjekrr, a. oolicitor in this cause, on
the taxation of his costS,.shoulti be withdrawn i'rom the•tile,
because ofilte laid paper being slanderous and inmertinent.
—The solleiiiino Mr*. Van -had • tiled objections, utta it
was, in the, answers to them that the olnlisiv,i inittter was
contained. The first paragraph vent to explain the, reasons
why the proceedings hail been so pmtracted. There was an
'allusion in it whitli lie 'did not deem it decorous to submit to
the Court,
r. lon sr': hoped that noneedless delicacy would prewnt n
full statement of the circumstance..

Mr. /IA tt't, being silt. prossett, would proceed. The words
were—" The business would have Sooner .ended, bad not the.
JAW Clinccllbr, from his knowledge
thrown every obstacle in the way of, his demand." liu coot
plaint 4 of otlieg parts of the. itatement, which were titineees-
sary, and led to nothing but u considerable enhancement of the
expenee.
.Ore lantzn Cn A NTT; I. LOR wished to have time to make
Watt:- iptittiry of the Master' for hi;t own information.
Mr. 11 on r; filt hitotelflumnd to tarty somethin tar the cell-,
duct of hilt Client, l'he paper complained of was necessary, be.:
cause the Muster, ,J..-kylli was in ,such. a state of health, as
obliged him to Intve the objections anil. answers given in writ
ing. There. weir (Itmlbts rit rtl in tire objections, which it was
ttetivtary to rentovel and lie did Hot think the other party had a,
titpt 11l cm-1104in ot.the inanner of duing it. As to the length
of the answers, that 11111 it 0c1),,!MI Ott die matter which Was the,
pbiect'uf thern. A triBll Might put in a few bard word 4, in-tin
objeefion which ruight,rettutre frotw atiother, illogitfallainki,
kgreat dealolexplanation to do away titer elferts or it. ThaL
conblya, no,reas?fitiik ground of complaint against his client
anti 11;!', i€erned to be none bosides WOrtlty of any attention,
lie hillted drat the Court would -111tve more regard 1-0- the ills-
ties- of the case, and the consistency of practice, than... to grant
die motion.

111eE01tD CITiNe 11 1. L OR said? that he ninftt repettt h for;
ran. obselvation—he could not decade without knowing more of

the affair from the Master. As to 'withdrawing papers which
were once submitted as parts of the sub,ject of examination,
there must always be very serious difficulties in the way of it.
A paper might be offensive and impertinent in part, and yet
the offensive or impertinent matter might be so mixed up with
information that was useful and unobjectionable, as to render
it very unsafe to allow such a paper to be extracted from the
cause. Again, as to the practice of submitting the matter of
answers and objections in writing or in conversation, his Lord.
ship thought the former practice much safer for the judgment
of the Court on matters of examination than the latter, be-
cause a great deal of impertinent matter might pass in conver-
sation, which it would be impossible to check. Now, he did
know how to check the impertinence of written documents.—
With respect to the complaint on that head, in this particular
case it would be hard for Mr. Jekyll, or any other Master, if
the practice of the Court did not allow of any consideration
being given to his bodily infirmities, while suffering under the
dispensations of Providence. Respecting the scruples which
had for the time withhejd that part of the proceedings which
was supposed to reflect upon -himself, all he would say was,
that if, after sitting there to administer justice for three and
twenty years, he could not find a sufficient defence in his con-
thief against any such imputations, he must be very unfit for
his situation. But though ha felt nothing whatever on his own
account, he thought something better was due to the general
dignity of the Court ; and as motives of decorum had for a
time kept back a part of the allegations, the game motives
should have-influenced the parties to a much greater extent.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 16.

THE MORNING HERALD NEWSPAPER.

OLASAINOTO;,./. v. THWAITES AND OTHERS.

The VIC Lo a, on taking his seat, proceeded to
give judgment in this case, which was argued at considerable
length before the holydays. The substantial object of this
motion, his Honour observed, was to restrain the proprie.
tors of the Morning Herald from, lending the use of their
types in the composition of the English Chronicle. When
this motion was first submitted, his impression was undoubted-
ly stronger in favour of the injunction, but upon consideration,
he entertained great doubt whether that first impression was
correct. In cases of injunction, the Court ought never to grant
the application if doubt was entertained, because it led fleets.
sarily to irreparable mischief to property. In the present case,
it appeared that the application was made by Mr. Glassington,
who became proprietor of the Morning Herald some time be.
fore Iwo- It did not appear at what time precisely in that
year he became proprietor, or what was the extent of his into-
rest prior to 1816. Sir H. B. Ihnlley the principal proprietor
of the Morning Herald, retired in 1816, and a new partnership
was Conned, the terms of which were settled by deed. By that
• instrument Mr. Glassington became entitled to I-10th part of
the concern of the Morning Herald. At the time when this,
treed was drawn up, the English Chronicle was in existence, 1
and had existed mince 1804, for in that year an agreement was
entered into between Mr. Radford, the proprietor of the Eng-
lialechronicle, an& the proprietors of the Morning Herald, by
which the latter stipulated to lend their types in the compost.
'.tion of the English Chronicle upon receiving a compensation
Of 1101. annually. Mr. Radford was afterwards admitted as a
proprietor in the, Morning Herald. In 1016 a very consider-
able alteration was made in the proprietorship of the Morning
Herald, and Mr. Thwaites became a proprietor of six shares.
The agreement of 1804 continued, and had hsen acted upon
ever, since. Mr. Itadfbrd appeared to have quitted the concern
of the Morning Herald about 1815, continuing proprietor of
the English Chronicle until 1821. In that year he proposed
to 'The propriettirs of the Morning Herald, that they should
become the purchasers of the. English Chronicle. A meeting
was held for that purpose, and Mr. Olassington being present,
refused to have any concern in the purchase of that paper.
Other proprietors, however, of the Morniog Herald agreed to
purchase, and became proprietors of the -English Chronicle.
It was not then considered that the change of the proprie-
torship made any difference with respect to the use of tile
types of the Morning Herald and from May, lON, to the
present time that agreement had been acted upon. It seemed
that, .subsequently sonic disagreement took place between the
proprietors of the Morning Herald, and Mr. Olassington was
removed from the Editoialtip of the paper. The plaintiff' there•
fore filed this bill, insisting that the English Chronicle ought
not to he permitted to haVe the use of the types of the Morn-
ing Herald; and the principal ground upon which this appli.
cation was inado seemed to be, that although here there was no
Interest adverse. to the general partnership concern, yet,that
there was such a. temptation as warranted the interference of
the Court, inasmuch as Mr. Thwaites, being proprietor both
of the Morning Herald and English Chronicle, was rendered
liable to abuse the situation in which he was placed. In other
words, that Mr. Thwaites, being conductor of the Morning
Herald, might use the inflirmation of the Morning Herald by
first publishing it in the English Chronicle, It was, his Ho-
nour conceived, quite impossible to deny that such temptation
did exist; but the question was, whether upon that temptation
only the Court could grant this application ? In theory, and
abstractedly, every newspaper was a competitor with other pa.
peni, and that competition was more immoderate between a I
morning and evening paper, especially with regard to country
circulation. The majority
.of partners could bind the other part-
ners only in matters refering to the administration of partner
ship concerns ; and certainly, prima "'hole, the publication of
another Newspaper could not be considered to he a partnership
purpose. But, on the other hand, it ought not to be forgotten,
that the disadvantage arising from the competition of another
Newspaper might admit or pecuniary compensation, and • the
Proprietors of the Morning Herald had so considered. But here
Mr. Olaasington had decided the question, whether it ought to
be considered a partnership coucern, because the, agreement for
ti, e loan of the types existed, and was in execution at the time
when ho became a Proprietor of the Morning Herald. the
'plaintiff had continued to be a party to the execution of the
agreement down to the present time, and ho couhl,not now say
that that loan of the types was not an actin the due execution
of a partnership purpose. The remaining consideration, there.
fore, was, whether it made any difference that• Mr. Thwaites,
and other Proprietori of the Morning Herald, were also Proprie-
tors of the English. Chronicle. lie had already stated what he
considered to be the true ground upon which this application
was made—viz:, temptation to abusapartnership property.—
Then the important consideration was, whether this temptation
was of itself sufficient to, justify the interference of a Court of
Egitity: AsTar is authorities Went, he recollected no case where
it ever interfered to the length which the plaintiff' now requir-
ed. Every partner was bound to his ea.partner not to engage
in any concern which would give him an adverse interest to
the general partnership property. But the. situation of Mr:
Thwaites, its, proprietor hotb of the Morning Herald and the'.
English Chronicle, was not directly adverse to the general port-
nership concern. If Mr. Thwaites did his duty to the Morn.
ing Herald—and ,a court; of equity had no right to presume
that that gentleman would not, do his duty-:..his interest in the
English Chronicle was in no way adverse to the concern of the
Morning Herald. If the Courf, were to act upon the gtound of
temptation only, then it never would be allowed, that a pro.
prietor of tine newspaper should become the proprietor of an-
other. His clear opinion was, that a proprietor of pa newspaper
might becoMe proprietor .of another, finless restrained by co-
venant: Of course it was the interest of co-partners to 'prevent
any partner taking: an .interest in another concern ; -but this
ought to beguarded egemst by covenant.
Mi. Aran belieVetr that as to a 'Morning paper, it was usual
for partners to bind each other by, such covenant.
'the Viet:-CIJANcEt.t.on. observed, that that circumstance
certainly made the cue ia.lll,stronger. Upon the whole, there-
fore, althOugh be admitted this to in' a doubtful' question,
and although his first impression was in favour of the applica-
tion, yet upon:cnnsidering attentively the principle upon which
alone Allis injunction ,-could be supported, lie thought there
was nothing to justify the in terferente of the Caurt. It would
be quite a sufficient reason to refuse' the application, to say that
it was a case of too much doubt to grant an injunction upon an
interlocutory proCeediag. There was, however, ti circumstance
stated in thapleadings; upon which he thought art application
might be founded. lit the answer, of the defendant it was admit-
ted that. Mr. Thweitea had on one occasion made use of and pub-
halted the info...mat* which .helmigeitao the Mornhig Herald,
in the English Chitaiielee If, therefore, to meithin were made
for an injunction. to restrain the defendant from publishing in
the English Chronicle inform:l6oll acquired at the expence of
the,proprietora of die Morning Ileraid, lie did iiot see how be
conht refuse it. •

Mr. AGAR observed that din information had only once been
used, and thit,t some yars back 4
The Victl-Cll,Vtqcti.t.on said, that no injimetlon had been
-more4 for on that ground, and theretbre the Court could not
now interfere,

Alt. Roury.t.t. thou ;lit that the injunction which had been
moved for, embraced 'the point thrown out by his Honour.
The language of the injunction was 'to' restntin the defendants
from ulg any money, property, or etrects7 belonging to
the proinietorl of die Morning a erald. 'New he coneieved that
the ward " Property" was intended to be applied to ,the
Illation acquired at the :;:ipence at' the :Horning Herald.
Mr. AGAR Was Satisfied that such an idea never entered the
head of the tlentleman who drew up the injtinction.'
Thu VIcE-eztAxer.i.Lon agreed with Mr. koupell,. that
the information so used might fairly be taken to be included in
the wont "property_" Under these circuinstaticeit, he could
nut refuse the injunction to that extent. •
Mr. AaAR represented that there was no, probability that
the infumation belonging
,te, the Morning Herald would bq
again used. Besides, the interest of Mr. Thwaites Was nearly

. .
tiff same as that of Mr.,Glasiingtati, 'The thrtitclant was pro.
prietor of half of the Morning Herald, a flourishing concern
worth 10,0001. ; and the English Chronicle was a paper of
comparatively little valtie. ."
:The VICELCHANCELLOR was satisfied that the language of
the injunction enabled hint to grant an prder to the extent he
had already stated—viz. to restrain the defendants from_publish-
ins the information actf,uired at the expence of the Morning
fferald In the English Chronicle, before its publication in the
11ornin g Herald.
Mr. PARKER wished the word " exclusive" to be inserted
in the order previous to the information ;" but his Honour
refused,^ as he was not justified by the pleadings to make such
insertion.'

MELLISH V. MELLISIi.
Mr. 'WETHERELL stated that this was an appliattion for an
injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding in an action
at law for the recovery of the sum of 22,325/. The bill was filed
by the plaintiff, Miss Catherine Mellish, against her uncle and
guardian, Mr. Wm. Mellish, who had raised the action at law.
The plaintiff was left an infant only two years old at her father's
death in 1798, and became of age in .1817. She was left
heir to a large property ; and the defendant, the. testator's
brother, was, together with two other brothers, made executor to
the will. Upon a balance of. accounts, it appeared that the
defendant claimed a sum of 13,1941. 9s. 4d. upon the minority
account ; but this was afterwards reduced to 11,3701. 3s. Oil. A
sum of 9,0001. had been expended in education, &c, and
14,0001. in the purchase of estates in Hertfordshire, for the be-
nefit of the plaintiff: The action had been brought for money
advanced since the minority of the plaintiff'. The application
for an injunction was now supported on two grounds: first,that
the accounts during the minority, and since its expiration, were
so blended, that it was impossible to disunite them ; and se-
condly, that the action at law could • not be brought, as it was
an equitable, and not a legal question.
Messrs. HORNE, BELL,,and HEALD, appeared on the side
of the guardians, and at great length contended that the action
was brought to recover monies advanced' since the expiration
of the minority, when the defendant had acted as agent, not as
guardian, to the plaintiff'.
The ;ICE-CHANCELLOR ultimately granted the Injunc-
lion, upon the understanding that the monies advanced to the
plaintiff personally; since slit came of age, should be paid into
Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 16.

Before .the 140 RD CHIEF JUSTICE alid a Special Jury.

MARTINEZ V. ARBOTTS.

This was an action to recover the amount of two bills of ex-
change, dated the 6th of Sept. 1818, and payable at four and
five months after date, for 4871. 10s. each, drawn upon Messrs.
T. and It. Abbotts, wine-merchants in Skinner-street, Snow-
hill, by Mr. Chas. Jones, and by him endorsed over to Messrs.
Martinez and Co., wholesale wine-merchants, the present
holders. The defsndants, from whom a verdict hid been ob-
tained on a former occasion; as • they said, by an accident. re-
sisted the payment of the lax, on the ground that they were
given for an usurious consideration.

- It appeared from the statement of the SOLICITOR-GENE-
RAL, WhO was Counsel for the defendants, that Mr. C. Jones,
a winenierchant, knowing Messrs. T. and R. Abbotts to be in
want of ready money in September, 1818, and considering
them to be men of considerable property, offered to let them
have a loan of 1,100/. upon the following terms;—They were to
purchase of him 21 pipes of wine in bond, at 911. or 921. per
pipe, and to pay for them in their bills at 3,4, 5, and 6 months,
and he was to advance to them, on receiving their bills, ready
money to pay for the duties, which, however, they could
pay. or not at their pleasure. The duties amounted to 1,1091.,
and thus the price to be paid for the wine exclusive of the
duties, was about 461. a pipe, its `real intrinsic value
being not more than 201. a pipe, as he should prove. This, the
Solicitor-General contended, though not an unusual transaction
in the wino-trade, amongpersons in embarrasied circumstances,
was in point of fact nothing IttOrd thin a cover to enable Jones
to take more than the legal rate of interest. Two of the bills
so given had ,been paid into the bands of the present plaintiffs;
but as they were tainted with usury in their concoction, could
not be recovered on, even by an iunocentholder.
Mr. C. Jones was callul by the SOLICITOR-OENERAL to
establish this statement ; but his evidence by no means bore it
out.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiffs in the sum of
1,0201., including the amount of both bins, and the interest due
upon them. .

PRINCE V.' CLARK.,
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the
sum of 69U1., being money had and received for his use by the
defendant.

It appeared from the evidence, that in April, 1821, the
plaintiff had shipped on board the ilja,r, of which vessel, the
defendant was master, 14 bales of 'woollen goods to Calcutta,
and had Instructed the defendant to dispose' of them there
as he best could,.for his (the plaintiff's) advantage, and to apply
the precieds arising from them' to die purchase of indigo, silk,
and various other stated articles, if they could be Obtained at
a stipulated price ;- but if they could, not, to buy bills of Ex.
change, and to remit them as soon as possible to him in Eng.
land. The defendant gild the woollen goods in India Ihr
8981. ; but finding that the articles enumerated by the plain-
tiff could not be purchased within 215 per cent, of the price
he hied mentioned, and that the rate of exchange with Eng-
land was unusually low, did not make the returns in either
of the ways suggested by the !plaintiff, but bought sugars,
and shipped them .by the raw, to the, plaintiff in Eng.
land. The letter, in which the defendant communicated these
events to the plaintiff, and which was accompanied by the bill
of lading, was written on the 17th of Jan. 1922 and was re-
ceived by the plaintiff on the 29th of May, 1822. The Fame
sailed from Oalcutta on the 3d of Feb. in the same year, and
was lost in her voyage hem°. On the 7th of the subsequent
August, which was a considerable time atter the period in which
• the Fame in the usual course of things ought to have arrived in
England, the -plaintiff went a Mr. -Lee, who was the brother
in-law of the defendant, and had acted as agent for him in his last
voyage, and told him that as he had given no instructions to the
defendant to purchase sugars on his behalf, he should not accept
'those Which he had shipped for him by the Fame. At the same
time. he desired Mr. Lee to effect an insurance upon them to
save the defendant harmless; but to this proposal Mr. Lee re-
fused to accede, stating that he had no authority from the de-
fendant to do to.

The Bott&ron.GEwEaat, for the defendant, contended
that a verdict ought to be returned for his client. The defend.
ant had abipped sugars to the plaintiff to the amount of the
goods intrusted to his care, and had sent him the bill of lading
for, them' which it appeared had been received in the latter end
of May, 1822. Now he admitted, that, under the circumstances,
the plaintiff had the right to renounce tie shipment if he plea-40:
but he contended, that if he did intend to renoupce it, he was
bid to renounce it immediately,and td notify his intention of so
doing with all speed to the defendant's agent, in order that he
might ensure it,and thus protect his printipal inlury.•• The'
hoWever 'had not idea in this manner r he kept the
bill of lading till the month of August, and then, when the
Fame had so far exceeded the-time of her voyage as to render it
difficult; if not hnpbssible, to 'effect an insurance upon her, had
inforMed the defendant's agent that he would not take the
sugars, and had 'advised him to effect an insurance upon them:
Upon these grounds he maintained that the Plaintiff' Was not
entitled to recover any of the iuth he claimed from the de.
fendant.

Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, .observed that the defendant be.
ing intrusted with goods to sell, and being ordered to make the
returns In "'one way, had no right to make them in another;
neither could any subsequent act of the: plaintiff, after the de.
fendant had so made the returns, make that act right in him,
which was in itself originally wrong:
ThiLonn CI111:1, .lusTicr told the Jury, that the ques.
tion which they had to decide was—first, whether, under all the
circumstances of this:case, the plaintiff wo bound to have re-
nounced this Fhipment iintriediately after he hid received the
bill of lading ? It was his opinion, that in general, a person no
situated was bound to renounce immediatelyy. If they should
be of a similar opinion, then they. would have to determine
whether he had notitkd his intention to renounce in sufficient
time to Mr. Lee, Who had acted an the defendant's agent, If
they thought that he had, they must find a verdictfor the plain.
tiff ; but if not, he was of opinion that their verdict ought to
be for the 'defendant.

The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAW. 16.
Adjouined Sittings in London,
Before Lord C/ii<•% Justice DALLAS and a.Special Jory.

SONIKS. V. JACKSON.
This was an-action on a policy of insurance effected on the
ship Pilot. It appeared from the plaintiff's case, that the Pilot
sailed from England with convicts for New South Wales early
in 1017
p
Krfonned that voyage out., she went front
Port Jackson to llaiavia. Before her arrival there, on the 16th
day'of Fehruary,,lBlB, a new Insurance was effected on her for
time. The • mull conditions accompanied the insurance, viz.
that the ship at the time was sound, sew-worthy,&e.krdui
Batavia she made several short voyages, and at length was
chartered for Europe. An inspection took place before itio took
in the cargo, when she was found to be in such a statet that it
was necessary to have her i6hove -dewn," and newly bottomed
and coppered, FOr an average Ins& for those repairs, the pre.:
sent action was brought. The facts of the insaranc*.., damage,
and, repairs, were proved and the plaintiVs case closed.
It was resisted by'the defendant on these grounds—that the
damage to the Pilot did not arise from any bad weather or

other perils of the. sea, after the insurance was effected, but
was owing to the unsound state in which she was &Are that
insurance. To prove this they produced the captain's jour-
nal, and some letters of his dated before February 15, 1818,
in which it appeared that in the voyage from Port Jackson to
Batavia' though generally there was not bad weather, the ship
leaked several spells per hour, that she laboured very much,
and could not be kept dry.. It was further shewn, that when
the ship was ultimate* stripped, she was found to have several
parts of her bottom worm-eaten—the copper being entirely worn
oft which it was contended could not have been the case if she
was sea-worthy when she left Port Jackson on her -WAY to 811" tavia. It was further contended, that in point of law the
tiff could-not recover, as he had not given notice of the.damage ' -
within the time limited by one of the regulations of the Party
with whom the insurance was effected.
The Jury,'after hearing his Lordship sum up, found that the
ship was sea-worthy on the 15th of February, 1818,;the time the
insurance was effected, and accordingly gave a verdict for the
phintitt —Damages to be assessed by reference.

OLD BAXLEY, JAN. 16,

Thaws,: Clifford was indicted for stealing a silver tea-Urn,
the property of M. Levyson.
The prisoner described himself as a working silversmith, who
had once been in the service of the prosecutor; and by that
story he obtained the article in question of the prosecutor,
jeweller and silversmith, residing in the Haymarket; his üb.
jest being, he said, to work upon it. lie subsequently, how-
ever, made away with it, in some way, and absconded.
Mr. Law (Counsel for the prisoner) asked the prosecuior
whether he was not of the Jewish persuasion P
Mr. Levyson replied to this question, that he believed &HY'
in the existence of a Supreme Being.
Mr. Law asked, was not the prosecutor born of Jewish pa
rents ?
The prosecutor answered in the affirmative " and had ,ne-
ver renounced the Jewish faith." To a question, as to " who
thee he had been sworn on the New or the Old T‘ltsnleut'"
he answered " on the New :" adding, " that he considered
himself equally bound to his Maker by an oath takes on the
one as on the other." lie was then asked by the Counsel,
" whether he believed either of the Scriptures to be a revela-
tion from God ? and whether he believed in a future state 91
rewerds and punishments ?"
The prosecutor replied, " he had doubts on both the!!
points: but he sincerely believed that the Almighty 004
would, Its some way or method, punish the wicked.".
The RECORDER here said, that the last sentiment uttered
by the prosecutor was the foundation of all religion;-"and there-
fore his oath was good.
'The Jury found the
..prisoner Ife was
seven years' transportauon. sentenced to

entering the house of Thomas Walker, and stealing therefrom.
a metal watch-case, the property of the prosecutor..
Thomas Beswick, aged 15," was indicted for breaking a'd
On the 24th of December last, about six o'clock in the Oen'
Lag, Walker who is a watchmaker by trade, was speaking 0.1
customer in his shop, when he heard a pane of glass suddealt
smashed in with great violence, and at the sante moment a
watch-case was stolen. In a few minutes the prisoner Was
brought back to the shop, and the watch-case was fauna
upon him. .
Beswick said it was his first offence. Guilty—Death.
prosecutor and the Jury, however, concurred in recommending
him to mercy on account of his previous good character an
his yOuth.
.1. Thomas, a black, was indicted for breaking and enterint
the house of George Pawson, and stealing 41. in copper eeT,
half crowns, and other monies of Pawson's 'property,
The .prosecutor keeps the Angel Inn, Back-lane, Shadwell.
His wife swore that on the night before the robbery, which was
r
was found conceeled in a back room of the hots; this on the 3d of January, and about half.past 10 at n
when she went in to see if the window was safe. .11e was IPA
on a bench With a table over him. She :faked " what he, i!/
there?" Ile replied;
." that he was very elbepv, and
down there." she told him to go out, as they had fasten all
up. He accordingly went, arid she shut•the door hits. °44,
again searched the house before going.to bed: and no noile,w_t
heard in the night. But on her coining down next tiOnllV:
about half-past 6, she found three tills, that were safe the o,w;
night, and their contents stolen: The windows in front atm!,
house were still safe • but a very large pane of glass in a winde
at the back part of the house was cut Ckari out, the space bci
ti prison.el
stadicimt to admit the body of a %water man than priaoner.
In
the wash-house site found two of the tills empty, and a.pail up-,
panted to have been stolen., • • • •
A watchman of St. George's-in-the-East deposed, that
the deli of January, at fire in the morning, he stopped
prisoner at the corner of Philip-street, about 150 yards front
the Angel inn. Prisoner was going in the direction of his'lo4l-.
Inv: on his head he had a pail, with u piece of: flank of. heel
on the top of it. Being twice asked by the witness what he has
got, beat length replied " beef." Prisoner went oh, and kieka".
violently at the door of a butcher's shop : lie told the watchman,
that he was to have-a 'party that day on board the flopelt
ship to which he ,beloupAl) the London-docks; and that,-
wanted some pork. The witness, suspecting all was not
insisted upon knowing
,where prisoner, got the. beef; priSon
offered to chew hint and another watchman the sho and beia,„o!
accompinded by the latter, he did so. In the mean time
besides
looked in the pail, which was very heavy, and found, Dea'n"-,, the meat, some money, and piece of printed furniture.. in
the Blatk's return,. he was secured, and taken la . the Ti
police-office, on suspicion of having stolen the money.
Mrs. Pawson identified the pail, and printed 'furrliturt'' •
as hers.
Prisoner said in his defence, that two Men had employed hint
to cary the pail. Guilty—Death...
Mrs. Pawson begged to recommend the prisoner to
because he was peoe, friendless; and a foreigner, and hail edge`
;,
no personal violence either to her or her husband.
n?:
Jane Moore was indicted for stealing a nuintity of wears
apparel, bed and table-linen, &c., in the house
,of her moteji
Captain S. Roberts,. of Alargaret-street, Cavendish-square.--*
" Guilty of stealing under the value of 405."
niercy

FRENCIE MA IR7AGES.--The fat:l4llla Over.
tisement appears in the Petite: Aches of Paris.
•.---44 MARRIAGES.— Aie offered, 1. Three young
ladies, aged from 20 to 25, with 1,600 francs
portion. 2. Four young ladies, .from la to No
with 4,000 francs ditto. 3. Two young
from 28 to 38, with 8,000 francs ditto, and 2070 v"
more in expectation. 4. Two young ladles, fr°..,
'l7 to 18, with whom can be guaranteed freh"
GO,OOO to 80,000 France. 5. Two young iadleg;
from 18 to 19, with 20,00 Q francs. 6. rilw„,
widows, from 45 to 50, with incomes'of e)4'
and 3,000 francs. Addresses to M. Adolidle4
rue Feydeau. (His office is open on Sunday)"

BIRTHS.On
TLeuwes(ls,ayoritatet,(ll4ilth inst. at Southgate, the 1+1417 of eill)''44'
On Sunday last, the toady of Cblenel Robert Ouril9n, 'sl°f" F
tague-square, of a sun.

51A1t ;RIED, ;
) I,elPi
On Thursday, the lthlt inst., at 3larvieborie church, Etat
Balers, Eq., of New-lodge, Berkhinupsted,.tti
daughter of George _Bridges, Esq, of Gloucester.place,
ma square.
On Tuesday last, at Richmond, Snrrey, (by thsv Alch
of Colchester). Henry Dymoke, Esq., eldest. tion
and Rev. the Champion Dymoke, of icrivelsby Courtt,Lt
county of Lincoln, to Emma, second dauglster Nltm."l7
Esq., of Billingford, Norfolk, and Richmond SurreY• t
DIED.
At Falmouth, on the Ist Instant, at the advanced Bg,
years, Arthur Kempe, Esq. Admiral of the Red?'4 it:TO H,
ceased assisted a:, the glorious affair of Quebec., where .t
mortal Wolfe fell, and accompanied C'aptains ",(*"*..
Furneux in their respective voyages of discovery. SO.
On Friday last, In Paris, aged 58, Robert Jones _4;
Esq. of Ha! raham, High Shsriff of the. county '110111;,
Lately, at the 'Cape of Good Hope, Mr. John kes e;
H,!,:-
R.N., Nun of Mr.
,John*,_liarp, of-London-In-Mg,. ;
dermal was on his passage home from the East Indiesti,Niii, •
he was unfortunately drowned in attempting to •Teach lj t'fr
1. ..-
fra4Tt'Ruloin'thf7rti,
,Essex, on the instant, Cal)4ll,i
31owatt, Bprrack-master, aged lid. Ord
On Taday last, at the house Of Samuel tines, Esq.,
per Gower-street, Mrs. Antletson, Widow, aged 71. i,f-.08
Latelv, at Guernsey, R. B. Fi her Fig. brotllqp-,
Lord Bishop of SaliiiinrY.l 127•ter
f

je- do'
Printed and PnbliAhed for the PROvitETon*,,sti rue".'•
Office. No. 112, Strand, by J. U. CAlivtanat