The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-15 00:00:00

MURDER OF MRS-. DONATTY.

BOW-STREET.— 4 IIC young man in custody at
this office on suspicion of having been concerned in the perpe.
nation of this murder, underwent a third examination yester-
day, before G. Mrstairuir. 'and THOMAS HALL,s, Eiqrs.
The examination, as before, was strictly private, but we under-
stand that no further evidence was adduced.' Indeed, it would
appear, hat the suspicion entertained against. him diminishes ;
for at the close of the investigation, he was sent to the New
Prison, Clerkenwell, without any restriction as to his visiters,
and heretofore, he has been solitarily confined in the County
louse of Correction. lie is to be brought up again on Mon-
day 'next.
A man of shabby appearance, who gave his name Alexander
Bein, was brought up from St. Martin's watch-house, charged
on his own confession, with " knowing all about the murder of
Mrs. DOnatty, and with having purchased the bloody breeches
worn by the murderer."
Isaac Sayer, one of the deputy constables of St. Martin's
parish, deposed, that he was sent for to the Green Dragon pub-
lic-house in Villiers-street, Strand, on the preceding night, in
Consequence of this man having, whilst drinking there, re.
peatedly asserted that he knew all about Mrs. Donatty's mur-
der, and had bought the breeches worn by the murderer when
lie committed the deed. The constable having warned him
not to speak lightly of such a horrible affair, asked him if what
he had said was true—because, if it was, he should feel it his
duty to take him before a Magistrate. The man solemnly re-
peated what he had said, and even expressed a wish to be exa.,
mined before a Magistrate ; and, persisting in his story, Sayer
took him into custody.'
When asked by the Magistrate what he knew of the inur.
tier, his reply was—" Nothing at all ;" and he added, that
he had not the slightest recollection of having even alluded
to it. ,He was sure the people must have misunderstood him.
The illagistAlte inquired. if he was drunk at the time he
made the assertion, and the constable replied. that he appeared
to be perfectly sober.
The prisoner admitted he was sober, and assured his Wor.
ship the constable must be labouring under some strange mis-
conception.
The constable said he could ,bring forward the landlady of
the public-house, and a dozen other 'witnesses, who heard
him repeatedly, Make the same assertion in the most solemn
manner. .
Eventually the 'Magistrate' ordered him to be detained until
further inquiry could be made respecting him. lie gave his
address No. 8, ,Russell-court, Little Coram-street ; and said he
was a journey inan tailor, in the employ of Mr. I yes of
Marchniont-street, Brunswick-square.

MELANCHOLY C#CUMSTANCE AND SINGULAR
COINCIDENCE:—OR the night of New Year's Day I
last, a respeEtable farmer, named Caven, residing
in the neighbourhood of Castledawson, having
been in the fair of that town selling, cattle, be-
came so much intoxicated as to be unable to con-
duct himself home ; which, however, he was un-
fortunately 'permitted to attempt, at 12 o'clock
at night. His way lay by the banks of the river,
which being swelled at the time with heavy
rains, and very rapid, it is apprehended the un
fortunate man must have fallen into the water
and perished, but his body has not yet been
found. It is said he had about 50/. in his pocket
when lost. it is rather a singular coincidence
that Cavan's father was lost in the same river, on
the night, of New Year's Day, 29 years before.—
His body was nut found till eight days after ;
and the present unfortunate victim of intempe-
rance has been heard to say, that he should, die
the same death his father had done.--(.Beifast
News Letter.)
ROBBERY BY A BEGGAR.—Monday evening,
about six o'clock, as two gentlemen were paasing
down` the London-road, they were followed e
considerable distance by a distressed looking
man, who appeared in the last stage of wretch-
edness, and iMplored their charity. On reaching
the end of the road, opposite the Elephant
and Castle, one of the gentlemen relieved him
with some copper, and the mendicant went away.
The gentlemen had no sooner crossed the road
than they discovered that they had been robbed ;
one of them of a pocket handkerchief, and •the
other of a tortoise-shell snnif-box, in which were
two sovereigns. An, officer was standing at the
Elephant and Castle, to whom the gentlemen
gave information of the robbery, and a descrip-
tion of the robber. They all three returned in
pursuit of him, but could find no trace of the vil-
lain. His person is, however, well known, and
there seems no doubt be will pe soon in custody.
STREET ROBBERY.—Between six and seven
o'clock on Monday evening as Mr. FROST, of
Theobald's-road, shoemaker, was coming down
Skinner-street, Snowhill, in his way home from
the City, he was robbed of his watch and about
three pounds in money by four, or five lads, who
appeared as if they were at play, running one
after another, and sliding on a part of the street on
which there was a sheet of ice. owing to the cold-
ness of the evening Mr. Frost was running to keep
.himself warm, with both his hands in his breeches
pockets; one of the boys in running crossed him,
and threw himself under his feet, which caused
M. Frost to fall over him, and before he could
recover himself, the young villains robbed him of
his money and watch, and h were out of sight itr an
instant ; the robbery was committed when they
gathered round him, as if to assist him to rise.

LAW ENTELLItrENdt.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAR. 14.

LYNN v. BEAVER.

The LORD CHANCELLOR noticed' a letter which had come
to him respecting this cause, the sending of which he strongly
deprecated. Though he would not allow the contents of it to
affect his consideration, yet if had raised doubts in his mind as
to the character of the- evidence in some parts, and therefore he
was not yet prepared to pronounce judgment.
The counsel on both sides disowned any k/towledge of the
transaction.

The LORD CHANCELLOR did not suppose any thing against
either of the parties, but the act itself was altogether improper.
BROCKSOP IN RE KENSINGTON AND CO., BANKRUPTS.
This was a petition front certain of the creditors, involving a
complicated case. The hearing took up a considerable portion
of the sittings of yesterday anti to day. The main facts were
these :—A Mr. Learmouth being considerably indebted to
the concern, made over debts due to him from other parties.
On the occurrence of the bankruptcy there were frequent dis-
putes between him and the parties working the commission as
to the account between him and the estate. He averred that if the
accounts of the bankrupts were open to hint, he would prove
that his debt was discharged. The Commissioners refused the•
inspection, because Mr. Learmouth was not a creditor. Some
of the creditors appointed him their agent, under which title he
again required the inspection of the books. This was again de-
nied by the Commissioners, upon which the petitioners sought
redress for Mr. Learmouth in the Courts. Various proceedings
were had, and the question was at length put in issue under a
petition before the Irice-Chancellor. His Honour dismissed it,
after deliberate hearing, with costs. The present petition was
an appeal from that judgment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR immediately proceeded to his
judgment. He expressed his disapprobation of the manner in
which the proceedings had been conducted, and which extend-
ednow over four years, to the great detriment of the parties,
in the way of expence, trouble, and anxiety. His Lordship
especially adverted in terms of reproof to the loose manner in
which the proceedings of the other branch of the Court were
quoted under petitions of appeal. In this particular case the
reasons said to have been given for his judgment by the Vice-
Chancellor, had been differently described by almost all the
counsel in the case. His Honour had complained to him, and
Very reasonably, of the frequent and almost continual mis.
statements or misinterpretation of the terms of his judg-
ment. The old method required the counsel to remain and hear
the judgment, in which case they could quote it accurately and
conscientiously from the notes on their briefs. With respect to
the present petition, his Lordship was of opinion that Mr. Lear-
mouth, being no creditor, could have no right in himself to
an inspection of the accounts. Creditors, generally speaking,
as they had an interest in the effects, had a right to view the
accounts : but there were limits to this claim. A party hav-
ing an interest hostile to that of the creditors generally, could I
not have such a right ; neither could a portion of the creditors
constitute a party having such an hostile interest, their agent,
so as to enable him to inspect their accounts ; for then he was
not their agent, but they became his agents, and that for a
purpose hostile to the proper interests of the commission He
did not deny that Mr. Learmouth was entitled to relief,
but he could not have it through this course. The proper way
for him to file a bill, requiring an account from the assignees
as to what money they had received on his account, and what
was yet due. As there were no grounds for the first petition,
and as the Vice-Chancellor dismissed it with costs, and as the
same reasons applied without any alteration to the second, this
petition must also be discharged with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAX.

IMPORTANT TO SHIP OWNERS.

GORDON AND OTHERS V. -HARE. t
. ' The SOLICITOR.GENERAL stated that this was an action
CaAptaidneeDd raokfecohvaednaontdtewreasd question, charged at
brought by the plaintiffs, who are iron-founders, for articles
.supplied to the ship Matilda, East Indiamen, of which the de=
whereby it appeared
fendant is owner. Ile understood the defence would be that
1181. and that the Captain and not defendiuit was liable.
that Captain Drake agreed to become. the purchaser of the
Matilda, on her arrival at Calcutta, and that the said John
Drake should take upon him the capence of all repairs, out-
fits, &c. htheer;p'ourkt bi In,
Captain Drake, of the _Matilda, proved the having ordered
and:received a patent capstan from the plaintiffs.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, it was necessary to
preserve and not to narrow the principle laid down by the wis-
dom of the law, which was meant as well to protect trades-
men giving credit as to convenience the owners, namely.--that
where all necessary' repairs Should be ordered by the Captain,
this would bind the liability of the owners. There was, how-
ever, a letter put in, written by the plaintiff, .in this case, de-
manding payment of Captain Drake. This his Lordship
thought decisive as to whom the credit was given, and upon
this. evidence of special contract directed the plaintiff to he
nonsuited.

MEDICAL RIVALIL.—IWNTER v. HUNTER.
This was a proceeding 'under a writ of wire facia:, to assess
damages upon a bond executed by the defendant to the plain.
tiff' for the sum of 2,000/.
Mr. SCARLET T stated the facts of the case to the Jury.--
The plaintiff was a surgeon and apothecary, who had resided
many years in Tower-street, where he bad acquired a very ex-
tensive and profitable connection. The defendant, his nephew,
had at an early age lost both hisparents, and was taken into the
house of his uncle, where he was apprenticed for 7 years; taught
the business, and treated with parental attention and kindness.
At the expiration of the above . period, the plaintiff proposed
to his nephew, that he should. become his assistant for a term
of five years, at a salary of 1001. per annurn, and afterwards have
a share in the business. This was acquiesced in, and the de-
fenciant then bound himself in a bond of 2,0001. 'penalty, that at
the expiration of this-term he would not set up business within
two miles of his uncle's residence. At the close of the five years,
during which the defendant acted as assistant, a proposal was
made by his uncle to take him into partnership upon a equal
footing with the plaintiff's son. This, however, was not agreed
to, and in 1820 the defendant commenced business, a short dis-
tunce from his uncle, many of whose patients he visited. The
cause came on for trial upon a former occasioi4 when a refer-
ence took plaeei and the defendant paid 501. damages' and 2001.
for costs. During that investigation the delendantclossd his
shop, but he had since returned, and was still continuing the
bustnem.

Robert Coutts,.a person who had lived with the defendant,
proved the delivery of medicine to various families belonging to
the plaintiff's connection.
Several' witnesses were called to prove that the defendant had
visited families to which he had been professionally introduced
while astistapt to his uncle, and it was further shewn that the
offer of a share in the plaintiff's business was equivalent to
1,000/. or 1,5001. which any young man would have willingly
given to have obtained.•

Mr. WILD, on the part of the defendant, addressed the Jury
in a very able speech. He said. it was a well-known adage,
that there were two things essential in a law suit, namely good
Counsel, and good lack. The former certainly the plaintiff
had the Advantage of possessing, and be felt no doubt that
the opening speech of his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarleto had
left an impression which the case was by no means warranted
to receive. When the'defendant entered into the bond, he was
not so fully aware of its consequences should he fail to comply
with Itirstipulations.--It had been stated! that his client was to
receive 100/. per annum while he acted as his uncle's assistant,
but this was misrepresentation; he only received 401. the first
year, and it was progressively to be raised to 1001. a year. The
defendant's conduct had been described to be stained with in-
gratitude ; he asked, where was the foundation for such a
charge ? The defendant, afterhaving faithfully served his uncle
'
for eighteen years, conceived himielf at liberty to commence
business for himself, and because he had done so, his uncle had
thought tit to institute the present proceeding, which, by their
verdict, lie (Mr. Wild) trusted they would render as little in-
jurious to his client as possible.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE stated to the Jury that the
question for their consideration was, what damages the plaintiff
had sustained_ by the continued breach of the bond. between the
6th of NOvember, 1820, the tinie when the arbitration had
closed, and the 48t11 of June, 1821, when the limitation of
time contained in the bond terminated. .
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Datnages 60/.