The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-15 00:00:00

,THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 15, 1847.

reports on the New Zealand (No. 2) Bill, and the Trus-
tees Relief Bill.
COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered
to be reported.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

In reply to Sir J.
Sir G. GREY baid that the House would meet to-
morrow at three o'clock ; that public business would
commence at half-past three, when the Committee on
the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken first ; then
unopposed third readings, and after that the Bishopric
of Manchester Bill.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past Four o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHALVCERY, Lincoln's Inn, July 14.
IN REeDYCE SOMBRE (LUNACY).
Mr. BOLT (Mr. Shadwell was with him) again men-
tioned the petition in this matter, and stated that the
object of it was to have a rehearingof Mr.Dyce Sombre's
case, in order to prove that at the present time that gen-
tleman was perfectly competent to manage his own
affairs. Mr. Dyce Sombre's property in India was
getting into a very perplexed condition, and therefore he
was extremely desirous of going out there to superintend
its management.
Mr. Tinney and Mr. Moore appeared for the commit-
tees of the estate, hut took no part in the discussion.
Mr. BETHELL (with Mr. Calvert) for the committee
of the person, resisted the application, which they stated
was in effect the same that had recently been heard
before his Lordship, and refused. The only result which
would accrue from rehearing the matter would be to add
to the already enormous costs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired whether Mr. Dyce
Sombre was within the jurisdiction of the Court?
Mr. Rorr answered that he was not at present. elf,
however,, his presence were required, he could be in
England within 48 hours—the instructions having been
forwarded from Boulogne.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would look through
the affidavits before he expressed his decision upon the
application.
The petition stood over accordingly.

CON SISTORY COURT, July 14.
(Before Dr. LUSHINGTON.)
HODGSON V. THE INHABITANTS OF HILLINGDON.
The COURT, on the motion of Dr. R. Phillimore, de-
creed a faculty to issue for the repair and enlargemont
of the parish church of Hillingdon, in the county of Mid-
dlesex.

FITZGERALD V. FITZGERALD.

This was a suit for a divorce by reason of adultery and
cruelty promoted by the wife against the husband. The
proceedings were carried on in pxnam.
The Learned Judge was quite satisfied with the proof,
and granted the prayer of Mrs. Fitzgerald.

TUCKER V. TUCKER.

This also was a cause of divorce by reason of adultery,
and was instituted by Mr. Tucker against his wife. The
parties were married i❑ the presidency of Bengal on the
14th of October, 1842. The lady was a native of France,
and there were three children, the issue of the marriage.
She arrived in England with her husband in 1846, and
the adultery was pleaded to have occurred in the course
of the voyage, and also since the arrival of the parties in
this country.
The Queens's Advocate and Dr. Addams appeared for
Mr. Tucker; Dr. Haggard and Dr. R. Phillimore for
the wife.

The Learned JUDGE called on the counsel for Mrs.
Tucker first to address the Court.

Dr. HAGGARD submitted that there was no principle
better established than that it was impossible to pro-
nounce for a divorce on the confession of the party
alone. What was the evidence relied upon to establish
the charges made in this case ? There were the letters
of the wife, and from the language used in them it
would be contended that there was an admission of her
having been unfaithful to her husband; but he was quite
at a loss to discover anything in the shape of supple.
mental evidencs. There were conversations proved be-
tween Mrs. Tucker and a witness who had been
examined, but still they were the admissions of the lady
herself, and the canon precluded the Court from pro.
nouncing for a separation under such circumstances.
There were several passengers on board the ship, one of
whom only had been examined, and he stated that there
wits nothing to justify him drawing the conclusion that
there had been any criminality on the part of Mrs.
Tucker. He (Dr. Haggard) denied that since the
parties reached this country there had been any oppor-
tunity for the commission of adultery. Mrs. Tucker,.
shortly after her arrival, was entrusted to the care of
Mr. and Mrs. Suecole, and whatever admissions had
been made to the latter must be taken with reference to
the state of her mind at the time, for it was evident that
she had been labouring under insanity.
Dr. R. PIIILLIMORE having followed on the same side,
The Learned JUDGE, without hearing the Counsel for
Mr. Tucker, said, that if he had entertained any douht
whatever as to the sufficiency of the evidence in this
case, it would have been both his duty and his inclina-
tion to avail himself of any benefit that he could derive
from the argument of counsel; but as he really could
not bring himself to think that there was any deficiency
of proof either in law, or morally speaking, to affect the
conviction of his own mind, it was unnecessary to
trouble them. He did not in the slightest degree dissent
from the wisdom of the canon which prevented the
Court from pronouncing for a divorce in a suit for sepa-
ration whether I mensi et thoro or pro dividendo matri-
monii vinculo, upon the confession of the wife or the
husband, unless for the best and plainest reasons, be-
cause it enabled the Court to guard against the possi-
bility of imposition. He hoped that of late years there
had not been many attempts to obtain a separation by
reeon of adultery through a confession, when in fact
the act had not taken place. He must, however, take
care that he did not stretch the principle beyond those
hounds within which it ought fairly to be confined;
otherwise, cases would be left without remedy in which
there was a real grievance. The present case did not
fall within the decision in " Mortimer v. Mortimer" or
" Hammerton v. Hammerton ;" the case of " Grant v.
Grant" was much more applicable to it. He had looked
at the letters written by Mrs. Tucker addressed bath to
the father and the husband, and it was impossible to do
so without coming to the conclusion that they contained a
confession of adultery. What was the auxiliary evidence?
It was proved that Mrs. Tucker was ready to receive and
did receive aletter written by the gentleman with whom it
was alleged she had committed adultery, and nobody
could peruse that letter without being satisfied that it
was an admission of an improper intercourse having
taken place between the parties. It was to be
regretted that more evidence had not been procured from
on board the ship, but it was clear that the parties had
remained together a day in Liverpool. Was it possible
for him to doubt that criminal intercourse had then
taken place? No one was bound to prove the precise
time and place where it occurred, There were also de-
clarations made to Mrs. Succol6 at a time when Mrs.
Tucker was not in a disturbed state of mind. He had
no doubt of the guilt of the wife, and must therefore
pronounce for the decree prayed.

CATTERALL V. CATTERALL.

This was originally a cause of nullity of marriage,
promoted by the husband against the wife, who is resi-
dent in New South Wales. That suit was abandoned, and
the husband then proceeded on the ground of adultery.
Dr. ADDAMS (with Dr. Robertson) appeared for the
husband, and submitted thate,the case was clearly estab-
lished, there having, been a child born twelve months
after Mr. Catterall left his wife in New South Wales,
and proceeded via India to this country.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE (with whom was Dr. R.
Phillimore) called the attention of the Court to two or
three technical objections with regard to the marriage;
but,

The Learned JUDGE thought they had no weight, and
pronounced for the divorce.

ADMIRALTY COURT, July 14.
(Before Dr. LIISHINGTON.)
THE MELLONA—COLLISION.

This case, which was partly-i;;;;c1;; Saturday last,
was brought to a conclusion.
The brig George, of the burden of 108 tons, bound
from Newcastle to Cowes in the Isle of Wight, and the
schooner Mellona, of 106 tons, proceeding from Shields
to Guernsey, came into contact with each other while
passing through the Cockle-gat on the night of the 511
of March, 1845. Both vessels were coal laden, the brig
close hauled on the starboard, and the schooner on the
larboard tack. The wind was blowing from the E.N.E.
There was considerable dispute as to the character of
the night. The brig represented it as starlight, with
occasional snowstorms; the schooner as thick and hazy
between the storms. The George was a very old vessel,
and, after the collision, ran upon the Barber sand, where,
striking heavily, she went to pieces, and three of the
crew, including the master, were drowned.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE (with whom was Dr. Bayford)
contended, on behalf of the George, that the accident
arose from the want of a good look out being kept on
board the schooner.
Dr. ADDAMS (with whom was Dr. Robinson) appeared
on the part of the Meßona, and submitted that the
collision arose from unavoidable accident ; that at the
period when it occurred the night was so dark that with
every precaution and care it was impossible to prevent
the vessels coming in contact. He also contended that
the running upon the sand was not attributable to the
collision, but to the want of skill on the part of the
person at the helm.

The Learned JUDGE submitted to the Trinity Mas-
ters (by whom he was assisted) three questions—first,
whether, considering the state of the weather and the
part of the sea where the two vessels were sailing, and
the chance of meeting with other ships, the master of the
Mellona ought, as admitted, to have left the deck with
only two seamen—in other words—was there a good
look out kept? Secondly, whether, considering the state
of the weather, if a good look out had been kept, there
was a possibility of avoiding the collision? Thirdly,
whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the con-
clusion that the George was subseqnently lost by the ig-
norance or misconduct of her master?
The TRINITY MISTERS were of opinion that there was
hadno t a g
h eloao d look
a good outlo on o
k out,board e
there
we
aDal eal lopnoa that s
s;
hty i fo
f therethe
collision being avoided; and that the subsequent loss of
the George was not attributable to any want of skill on
the
Thepa part
Learned
the mister j
IGE h
a ng
rc w.
expressed his concurrence
in the views entertained by his assessors, pronounced for
the damage with costs; and added, that he hoped the
result of this investigation would operate in some degree
to prevent that utter carelessness which the Court every
day perceived to exist in colliers trading from the north
to the south. These vessels must not forget that they
had in many respects a dangerous navigatiou, and that
from the multitude of vessels that now occupied that
part of the ocean the danger of collision was influitely
increased beyond what. it was formerly.

FATAL ACCIDENT AT BLACKFRIAII,S.—OD Mon-
day evening, about half-past eight o'clock, a melancholy
•JasTta'r,
and fatal occurrence took place to a youth, apparently
about fifteen years of age, off Albion Whart, Black-
friars. It appears that he was amusing himself with
several others by bathing, and while in the act of swim-
ming through the second arch on the Surrey side, the
current carried him too far out. lie became alarmed,
and before assistance could he rendered the tide drifted
him under some coal 13,trges moored off Falcon W'
Banbsinot bee.ttot
1%,,,uee, who were near, and haring, rowed to the ;pot
tayl aori'll3 thei
Y i'n:AL-,1:•Aly threw t;,. _.; „j„
witho
fosaunelr.teerthe periodbody,
0 fbut
the
a eveningunfortunately
th e
body a
etdinformation
means
where. b
icy
adisappeared.
gigives
n a

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HUME ClRCUlT.—Chelmlford, July 14.
(Before Mr. Baron PARSE.)
THE DAGENHAM MURDER.

Thomas Kimpton, formerly a police-constable of the K
division, surrendered to take his trial upon an indictment,
charging him with having committed wilful and corrupt
perjury, upon an examination taken before Mr. Lewis,
the coroner for Essex.

Mr. Clarkson (with Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clarke) con-
ducted the prosecution for the Treasury ; Mr. Hawkins
appeared for the defence.
Mr. CLARKSON, in opening the case, said that the
charge against the defendant was one of a most serious
character, and the offence was aggravated by the circum-
stances that the defendant was at the time he was
alleged to have committed it a member of the metro-
politan police force, and the perjury was committed
upon his examination as a witness before a public autho-
rity, upon an inquiry into the circumstances connected
with the death of another constable, named George
Clarke, who, there was no doubt, had been murdered in
the execution of his duty. It would appear that the
deceased (Clarke), the defendant, and some other con-
stables whose names would be mentioned in the course
of the examination, were stationed at Dagenham, in
this county, and they were under the superintendence of
a sergeant named Parsons. On the 29th of June, 1846,
—which was the day on which the murder was com-
m.tted—the deceased and the other men were put on
their beats as usual, that of the deceased commencing at
a place called the Four Wants, and it was the duty of
the sergeant to patrol during the night, and meet the
men at different places, in order to see that the duty was
properly performed; and, in the course of the night, he
should have met the deceased at the Four Wants.
Clarke, it appeared, was missed from his proper post,
and, although every search was made, nothing was beard
of him until the 3d of July following, when his body
was found in a wheat-field in the neighbourhood, cruelly
mutilated, and there was no doubt that he had been most
foully murdered. An inquiry took place before the
coroner, and it of course then became a very material
point of inquiry to ascertain when the unfortunate de-
ceased was last seen alive. Upon the first examination
the sergeant was summoned as a witness, and in con-
sequence of some portion of the statement made by him,
a belief was entertained that whereas he should have been
to meet the deceased at the Four Wants at one o'clock
on the morning of the 30th, he did not go there at all,
and the inquiry was adjourned for the production of
further evidence. Kimpton was examined upon this occa-
sion, and. he merely deposed to finding the body. An
adjournment took place till the 14th of July, and on that
day he was again examined. Prior to this it appeared
that Mrs. Page, the wirnof a farmer in the neighbour-
hood, who had lent the policemen a cart to take
away the dead body of their comrade, was examined as
a witness, and she stated that when Kimpton brought the
cart home with some of his comrades, she asked them to
have some refreshment, and while they were partaking
of it she asked Kimpton at what time the sergeant last
saw the deceased, and he answerd that he did not see
him at all, for that, being unwell, he had asked him
(Kimpton) to do his duty for him, and had told him to
take his horse for that purpose. Kimpton, upon being
again examined, swore that he never did do duty for him
on the night of the murder, and, also, that he had never
made any such statement as that deposed to by Mrs.
Page. Some further adjournments, took place, and at
the different inquiries the evidence given by Mrs.i Page
was confirmed by her daughter and other witnesses, am:
at length, on the 20th of August, when, the coroner's
inquest was concluded, the
.defendant himself admitted
that his statement regarding his not having done duty
fur the sergeant was untrue, and that on the night of the
warder he really did take his horse and do his duty, and
that the sergeant was not near the Four Wants at the
time he swore he was there on the night in question.
The Learned Counsel said there could be no doubt that
this false statement of the prisoner had the effect of ma-
terially interfering with the course of justice, as it had
the effect of diverting the inquiry that would probably
have taken place into a totally different channel, and it
was for making that false statement the present indict-
ment was preferred against him.
The following evidence was then adduced:—
Mr. Charles Carne Lewis, one of the coroners for
Essex, proved the holding of the inquest after the find-
ing of the body, and he produced the depositions taken
on the different days to which the inquest was adjourned.
The depositions were read at length, but it will not be
necessary to refer to them more particularly than to
state that, on the 14th of July, when the jury met for
the second time, the prisoner swore positively that he
did not do duty for the sergeant (Parsons) on the night
of the murder, and that he saw him on horseback per-
forming his own duty of inspecting the men at nine, at
twelve, and at three the next morning, and that when
he went off duty in the morning, he told him that he had
not been able to find Clarke on his beat. The other
material deposition was that made by the defendant on
the 20th of August, when he admitted that his previous
statement was false, and that at twelve o'clock on the
night of the murder the sergeant told him that he was
unwell, and asked bim to take his horse and do his duty
for him, and that he went to the Four Wants to look for
Clarke but could not find him, and he brought the horse
home at two o'clock in the morning, and saw nothing of
Parsons until six, when he awoke him and told him that
all the men were on, except Clarke. The defendant,
upon this occasion, also said that Parsons told him he
must say that he saw Clarke at one o'clock, and said
that he (Parsons) should say the same, and Hickton and
the other men must tell the same story.
Cross-examined—Witness was quite sure that the de-
fendant was re-sworn upon every examination. A great
number of witnesses were examined at di,e different

13y Mr. CLanKsost—For certain reasons, ho was very
particular in observing that the oath was duly adminis-
tered to the policemen who were examined.
Mrs. Elizabeth Page, the wife of a farmer at Dagen-
ham, deposed to the fact of the police making a search
upon her farm for the body of the deceased, and that
when it was found she lent the defendant a cart to re-
move it. The defendant and some other policemen came
home with the cart late at night, and she asked them to
have some supper. While they were conversing upon
the subject she asked the defendant at what time Ser-
geant Parsons last saw the deceased on the night he was
murdered, and he replied that he did not see him at all,
for that he (Kimpton) had done his duty for him on the
night in question, as he was unwell.
Priscilla Page, the daughter of the last witness, con-
firmed her testimony respecting the statement alleged
to have been made by the defendant on the night in
question.
John Stevens said that at the time of the murder he
was one of the police stationed at Dagenham. There
was but one horse at the police-station, which 'was used
by Sergeant Parsons.
By the COURT—Sergeant Parsons was on duty some
portion of the night of the murder. He saw him at
half-past ten and at twelve o'clock. He was on horse-
back both times he saw him. He was discharged from
the police after this occurrence.
Thomas Archer said he was employed on a farm near
the Four Wants, and on the morning of the 30th of
June he was up about half-past twelve o'clock, and was
engaged in preparing a horse and cart to go to market.
While so engaged, about two o'clock in the morning, the
defendant came up on horseback, and he gave him a
light for his pipe. After he had lighted it he asked
him if he had seen his mate (meaning Clarke), and he
said he 'lad not.
By the COURT—He supposed ho meant Clarke, be-
cause he was the only constable who did duty about
that neighbourhood.
Abiah Batley deposed that he was also one cf the
police stationed at Dagenham at the time of the murder.
He did not of his own knowledge know whether the
sergeant was on duty or not on the night in question,
but in the course of a conversation that took place be-
tween him, the defendant, and Hickton, the defendant
said that on the night of the murder Sergeant Parsons
gave him the usual nightly report, and told him to take
his horse and go to the Four Wants and meet Clarke,
and give him the report, and he also said that that was
after twelve o'clock at night. Kimpton also said, that
when he got to the Four Wants he could not find Clarke,
and he rode on to another man's beat; and that he after-
wards wont over part of Clarke's beat, and kept the
horse out until nearly daylight. The witness stated that
he also heard the defendant say that the evidence had
been given before the coroner in order to exonerate
Parsons. Some more policemen had been sent down to
Dagenham in order to strengthen their force; and it
was agreed that they should endeavour to prevent the
young hands from knowing that the evidence which had
been given before the coroner was false.
Cross-examined—Witness was now living at Bethnal-
green, where he worked at his trade of a broad silk
weaver.
By the COURT--Dia not know what had become of
Sergeant Parsons.
John Stevens recalled.—He saw Parsons on horse-
back near the Church Elms about 12 o'clock on the
night of the murder.
John Barnes, another constable, deposed that after the
first examination before the coroner the defendant said
that if they did not keep to the story that Parsons had
written down for them about his being on duty on the
night of the murder they should all get into trouble.
By Mr. HAWKINS—Parsons wrote out a statement of
what they were to say before the coroner.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. HAWKING addressed the jury for the prisoner;
but it was very evident, from the tenor of the Learned
Counsel's address, that he felt he could not offer any an-
swer to the facts.
summed up, the jury r©-
Baron PARKE having
turned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. HAwKrNs then took an objection to the form of
indictment, which, he said, merely averred that the
offence was committed or: a certain day
1846, and he submitted that the indictment should have
contained the words " in the year of our Lord."
Mr. Baron PARKE appeared to be of opinion that the
was something in the objection,*and he said he should
take time to consider of it.
re
Isaac nic4ton, another constable of the same division,
was then arraigned upon a similar indictment, arising out
of the same transaction.
The evidence was of precisely the same kind, and it
will therefore not be necessary to repeat it.
The prisoner, who had no counsel, admitted that he
had told some lies with regard to his meeting the ser-
geant on the night the murder was committed ; but he
said he was induced to do so at the solicitation of his
superior officer, and to screen him from censure for
neglecting his duty.
The jury found him Guilty, but recommended him to
morey.—Judirm.nt (I,.ferrH,

.NORFOLK J 4 14.

The commigoion fnr this cnrnlty was openPci yesterday
Lcuthiiipb, +Nilo viue betViee, bt.)
that the two Courts were opened for the dispatch of
business this morning. On the Civil side, where Mr.
Baron Alderson presides, there vitis An entry of three

causes; one of these was undisputed, the second involved
a-disputed right to a moat, and the third was a case of
assault.

The calendar contained the names of ten prisoners,
whose offences, excepting one of arson, one of man-
slaughter, two of burglary, and one of stealing Post-
office letters, to which the prisoner pleaded guilty, were
of an insignificant character. Besides these, there was
an indictment for a misdemeanour under the Bankrupt
Act, which, having been found at the last assizes, was
taken at the sitting of the Court.
CROWN COURT.—(.Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
John Bickerton, aged 22, pleaded not guilty to an in-
dictment which charged that he, being a trader, had
committed an act of bankruptcy on the 24th day of No-
vember, 1846, by a declaration of his inability to meet
his engagements, whereupon he was afterwards duly de-
clared a bankrupt, and that theretofore, and within three
months, he had, by falsely pretending that he had a
large shipping order, obtained certain goods to the value
of 501. from one J. Taylor, at Luton, with intent to de-
fraud him.

Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Power appeared for the pro-
secution; Mr. Dasent conducted the defence.

It appeared that the defendant, whose brother-in-law
resided at Luton, in this county, where there is an exten-
sive trade in the straw-plait carried on, repaired to that
place in June, 1845, and there established himself as a
dealer in straw-plait and bonnets. Although without
any capital, he contrived to push himself into business,
and shortly after married the daughter of a rich man.
His marriage did not check his pursuits of business, and
the prisoner accordingly entered into some further trans-
actions which did not appear to have led to any favour-
able result. Be that as it may, he repaired on the 22d
of August to the warehouse of Mr. Taylor, who dealt in
bonnets, and representing to him that he had received
an extensive shipping order from Liverpool for such ar-
ticles, requested to be immediately supplied with 410
bonnets, adding that if he could not have them he be-
lieved he should lose a good customer. On this repre-
sentation Mr. Taylor consented to take the order, and
the goods were forthwith supplied. In about a week the
prosecutor heard some sinister rumours touching the sol-
vency of his customer, and repaired to his warehouse,
where be ascertained that the whole stock on hand was
not worth more than Si.lt should be stated, that when
the goods were sent the defendant, according to the cus-
tom of Luton, gave his acceptance at three months for
them. This, like many others such, was not paid, for in
the meantime the crash came and the defendant corn•
mitted an act of bankruptcy on the 27th of November by
the means stated in the indictment. At the close of the
case for the prosecution,
Mr. DASENT objected to the reception of the bank-
rupt's examination in evidence against him now, as he
had not been cautioned before he gave his answers, and
the examination itself was on oath and compulsory.
This question, ho believed, was still under consideration,
by the fifteen judges in Garbett's case. The Learned
Counsel, also, at the close of the case for the prosecution
(which embraced an admission by the defendant of the
fact that he had not had any shipping order from Liver-
pool), submitted that the case did not fall within the
Act, which contemplated the fraudulent assumption of
the character of a trader by a bankrupt rather than the
fraudulent obtaining goods by an admitted trader. The
words cf the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, chap. 122, sect. 35,
were—" If any bankrupt, under the false colour and
pretence of carrying on business and dealing in the
ordinary course of trade, shall have obtained goods on
credit from any other person with intent to defraud the
owners ;" and he submitted that the facts of this case
did not fall within the spirit of these words.
Mr. Justice PATTESON (having consulted Mr. Baron
Alderson,) intimated that they were both agreed
in overruling the objection of the Learned
Counsel, it being their clear opinion that the statute
applied to the case of a trader who obtained goods, in the
way of his trade and in the ordinary course of dealing,
with a view to defraud the owner. He might also say
that he had spoken to his Learned Brother on the other
objection, as to the admissibility of the bankrupt's ex-
amination against him, and that they both thought it
was receivable. It was not necessary to caution a bank-
rupt, and he was obliged to answer all questions put to
him on oath under the pressure of the laws relating to
bankrupts. • He (Mr. Justice Patteson) never had enter-
tained any doubt as to the propriety of receiving such
evidence on the ground of its having been given under
the compulsion of such an examination ; and he might
say that, though no judgment was yet pronounced in
Garbett's case, there was no difference of opinion among
the judges on this particular point. The case must,
therefore, go to the jury.
Mr. DASENT having addressed the jury on the merits
His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence to them,
leaving it to them to say whether they thought the de-
fendant had been actuated by the intent laid in the in
dictment.

The jury having found the defendant Guilty, he was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment, without hard
labour.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
EUSTACE V. NEAL.

Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Wells were counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Byles appeared for the de
fondant.

This was an action of trespass, in which the plaintiff
complained that the defendant had interfered with and
interrupted his rights in respect of three sides of a cer-
tain moat dividing his land from that of the defendant.
From the evidence adduced it appeared that the moat in
question surrounded a piece of land belonging to the de•
fendant, called Moat Close; that that close was ap-
proached by a road across a common and by a causeway,
and that on three aides the moat was bounded by the
property of the plaintiff, and on the fourth by that of one
Holmes. On the part of the plaintiff it was shown that
he derived his property from the Ellingham family, who
held for three generations under old Molly Ellingham;
that during the earliest times the Ellinghams had
exercised rights of ownership over the moat adjoining
their lands tilt within the last twenty-five years; while
Holmes, who bought from one Falcon, had claimed and
exercised similar rights during the corresponding period
of time. On the part of the defendant it was proved
that he had derived the moat close from the Fountains,
who held it for three generations, and it was also shown
that rights of ownership similar to those proved by the
plaintiff had been exercised by the Fountains, but not
later than 41 years back.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON left it to the jury to say to
which side they would incline. There was proof of
ownership on both shies, but that of the defendant had
not been brought down to so recent a period as that of
the plaintiff; but it wa 3 for them to say whether the
moat in question belonged to the moat close or to the
adjoining lands.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 13.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.)
William Pinder and Thomas Robinson were charged
with having, on the 26th of February last, at Rothwell,
in the West Riding, feloniously assaulted James Heald
with violence, and stolen from his person 117 sove-
reigns, 10 promissory notes for the payment of Si. each,
and 100 shillings, the property of Robert Plummer and
others, to whom the money belonged as trustees.
The prisoner Pinder pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Ellis and Mr. Hall appeared for the prosecution ;
and Mr. Price for the prisoner Robinson.
Two men were already convicted upon this charge at
the last York assizes. One of them, a
.man named
Brook, was now called for the prosecution, against
Robinson, and the evidence of the accomplice was con-
firmed by other testimony.
After a lengthened investigation the jury retired, and
remained out of court for more than an hour, when they
found Robinson Guilty.
Sentence—The two prisoners to be severally trans-
ported for 15 years.
Christopher Atkinson stood charged with having, on
the 4th of April, at Wathgill, feloniously stolen a gelding,
the property of William Horner, a farmer residing at that
place.
Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Overend appeared to prosecute,
and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Matthews.
William Horner stated that the horse in question had
been missed from his stable on the morning of the 4th,
which was a Sunday. It was safe in the stable over-
night, and was subsequently discovered at Barnard
Castle, which is from 18 to 20 miles from Wathgill.
The witness and his wife, Maria Horner, had been living.
apart for 18 monUss, she having left his house. She
had since been there, however, during his absence from
home, had broken the windows, and taken away some
clothes and other articles.

Several witnesses were called to prove the finding
of foot tracks, on the Sunday morning, near
the stable, and leading to the highway. There
appeared the tracks of the horse, and the foot-
steps both of a man and a woman. The imprint
made by the man corresponded in size with a pair of
boots afterwards found upon the prisoner upon his ap-
prehension at Barnard Castle. The witnesses said that
they supposed that the two persons must have both
mounted the horse on arriving at the public road after
getting through two or three fields from the stable, be-
cause there were no tracks but those of the horse beyond
the prosecutor's premises, and from these the horse's
steps went in the direction of Barnard Castle. Prisoner
and Maria Horner (prosecutoC's wife), were seen toge-
ther that morning going towards Horner's, at a place called
Marsk, three miles on the Barnard Castle side of Wath-
gill. They were afterwards seen together at a public-
house on the same road, where they remained for about
half an hour, having something to eat and drink. The
prisoner was afterwards found at Barnard Castle, and
the horse in the stable attached to the house of one
Barker, near whom Atkinsoa was living.
Richard Pearson, constable of Barnard Castle, stated
that he had found the horse on the sth. The stable in
which it was had been locked, and he saw the horse
through the keyhole. Snowden, a constable, since de.
ceased, brought the key into the yard, but the witness
could not say whether he had obtained it from Mts.
Horner or from the prisoner. Witness having spoken
to Atkinson about this charge, the latter replied—
" What made me go there, I was led away; I went with
Maria Horner to bring away the horse."
The Learned JUDGE intimated that the prisoner could
not be convicted of larceny upon.sueh evidence.
Acquitted.
The prisoner, who had been out on bail, was then
discharged. His Lordship also directed that Maria
Horner, the prosecutor's wife, should be set at large,
She was committed upon this charge in April, and had
remained in custody till this day.
No causo list has yet appeared; but it is stated that
thre will not be more than about half as many causes at
these as there were at the last assizes.

A deputation from the Central Board of Scottish Dis-
santprs, headed by the Rev. Dr. Taylor, of Glasgow,
by the Iliqht IT- n. the SPeretary at War,
had au interview with the Lord President, at the Privy
Council Office, yesterday, with reference to the recent
minutes of the Committee of Council on Education.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE. -
H. G. Baugh, clerk to Mr. Lewis, solicitor, and co-
roner for Essex, was brought before thel Lord Mayor in
the custody of
_John Forrester, the officer, charged with
having committed a forgery upon the banking-house of
Coutts and Co. to the amount of 2221. 15s. 6d. Messrs.
Bush and Mullens, the solicitors to the Committee of
Bankers for Protection against Forgeries and Frauds, at-
tended for the prosecution. Mr. Wontner appeared for
the prisoner, who seemed to be a very young man, and
in a delicate state of health.
It was stated on the part of the prosecution that it was
impossible at the present moment to produce some of the
evidence, the witnesses living at a considerable distance
from London, and pains having been taken to avoid de-
tr by ingenuity of more than ordinary extent and
character. It would, however, be shown that a 501. note
which had been traced as part of the proceeds of the
money paid for the forged cheque was handed over by
the prisoner to his tailor, Mr. Dowdney, in payment of
a bill contracted by him with that shopkeeper, and that
the prisoner, in accounting for the possession of such an
instrument, said, it formed part of the proceeds of the
sale of several horses by the prisoner in Smithfield-
market—a statement for which there did not appear to
be any foundation.
Mr. Frederick Esse, clerk at Messrs. Coutte's bank-
ing-house, said—l recollect perfectly well receiving on
the 13th of April last a cheque for the payment of 2221.
15s. 6d., purporting to be signed by Mr. J. S. Caley, a
customer of the firm. It was contained in an envelope,
requesting that the amount might be given in a certain
way. The letter containing the instructions had been
destroyed as immaterial. I remember the contents,
together with the cheque, were to the effect, that Mr.
Anglican, in whose favour it was drawn, requested it
might be paid in the manner expressed on the envelope
—namely, in a note for 2001. and a note for 20/. and the
rest in cash. I took it to Mr. Partridge, the cashier,
who gave me the notes, which I enclosed in an envelope
and gave back to the person who brought the letter.
Mr. Joseph Partridge, cashier at Messrs. Coutts, said,
—I delivered the amount of the draft to the last
witness on the 13th of April, in a bank-note for 2001.,
No. 48,479, and dated 4th January, 1847, and a bank-
note for 201., No. 18,731, and dated 9th January, 1847,
and the rest in gold.
Mr. Wontner particularly examined the book in which
the entries were, and asked the witness at what time he
made them ? Witness—l made the entries on the 13th
of April at the time I cashed the draft.
Mr. J. S. Caley said, I reside at Brook-street, near
Brentwood, and keep an account at Messrs. Coutts and
Co.'s. No part of the draft now exhibited to me was
written by me, nor wall anybody authorised by me to
write it.
For the prosecution—Do you know the prisoner?
Witness—l cannot undertake to say that I do.
Do you know Mr. Lewis, the coroner? Witness—l
know him very well. lie resides at Brentwood.
Here the draft was read. It was dated Brook-street,
April 7, 1847, and was as follows:
" Please to pay to John Caley, Erg., 222/. 15s. 6d.,
and place the same to the account of
" J. S. CALEY.
" To Messrs. Coutts and Co- bankers, Strand."
There was an endorsement on the draft to the follow.
ing effect:—" Pay the contents, namely, 222/. 15s. 6d.,
to George Chris. Anglican, of Wimbledon Park, or
bearer. John Caley, Jesus College, Oxford, April Bth,
1847."
Witness in continuation—l have no relative of the
name of John Caley.
Mr. R. J. Sykes, clerk in the issue department of the
Bank of England, said, I produce a 200/. note. On the
13th of April this note was brought to me to be changed,
and I paid to the person who brought it 150/. in notes,
and 501 in gold. I gave a ticket for the amount of the
notes payable to " George," which appeared to me to
be the surname of the person to whom the draft was
payable. The writing of the name was bad and not
very legible.
Mr. J. Reece Adams, clerk in the issue department of
the Bank of England, said—On the 13th of April I gave
to Mr. Sykes, the last witness, 150/. in bank notes, pay-
able to " George." We can produce the ticket, but I
have here an extract, from which it appears that there were
ten lid. notes, numbered from 7,024 to 7,033 inclusive,
and dated the 10th of March, 1847, three 5/. notes,
54.498 to 55,000 inclusive, and 60,651 to 60,657 inclu-
sive, dated the 13th of March, 1847.
It was here stated for the prosecution that there was
evidence to show an effort upon the part of the person
who committed the offence to remove the track from
the eye of detection by means of obtaining a cheque
upon the Westminster Bank for several of the small
notes which had been received at the bank.
Mr. W. S. lligley, clerk to the London and Westmin
ster Bank in Lothbury, agents to the North and South
Wales Bank in Liverpool, was then called, and a cheque
for 1521., drawn by the North and South of Wales Bank
upon the former establishment was handed to him. He
said—This draft was presented on the 12th of May to
me, and I think, but am not sure, that I saw the party
who presented it endorse it. I paid it in two 501. notes
and 521. in gold. The notes were numbered 87,237 and
90,585, but I cannot now mention the dates.
Melthart Sjamme Bott—l am in the employment of
Mr. Dowdney, tailor, in Lombard-street. On the 14th
of June I received a 50/. note from the prisoner, Mr.
Baugh, who has been for some time a customer of the
house. I was to take 3/. 19s. out of it, and I delivered it
to Mr. George Dowdney, who went out and brought
back ten 51. notes to me. I gave nine of those 5L notes to
Mr. Baugh, and the difference between 31. 19s. and Si.
I knew the name and address of the prisoner: it was
Mr. Baugh, Brentwood.
In answer to questions from Mr. Wontner, the witness
said the prisoner at once attended upon being informed
of the circumstance of the alleged forgery ; and when
told that Mr. Bush was desirous to see him he took that
gentleman's address, and expressed his immediate inten-
tion to call at the office of the solicitor to the bankers.
Mr. E. Gooding, clerk at the banking-house of Bar
clay] and Co., of Lombard-street, said, Mr. Dowdney
keeps an account at our house. I changed for Mr.
Dowdney, on the 14th of June, a 50/. note, the number
of which was 87,237, and the date the 6th of Jan., 1847.
It was stated for the prosecution that the clerk of the
North and South Wales Bank at Liverpool would come
forward to prove that the cheque upon the Westminster
Bank was procured for the small notes which had been
procured at the Bank of England; and it would be also
distinctly shown that the prisoner had been in London
and in Liverpool on the days the different transactions
alluded to with respect to the forgery took place.
An application was then made for a remand of the
prisoner for a week.
Mr. Wontner said he had no objection to a short re-
mand of his client, but in fact there was no case against
him. If Mr. Baugh was at all conscious of guilty know-
ledge of the forgery, he certainly would not have gone
to his tailor to change a note which had been received
amongst the proceeds, neither would he have manifested
a desire to go to Mr. Bush when informed that the note
was the subject of awkward inquiry.
The prisoner was then remanded.
A poor man brought to the Lord Mayor a Bank of
England note which he said he had found at the corner
of Coleman-street, and requested that his Lordship
would act according to his judgment about it, for the
finder was too poor to advertise it, and too much em-
ployed for his own living to search fcr the owner.
The LORD MAYOR said he bad no doubt that some
notice would be taken of the loss, and if the loser could
be found, a recommendation should be made to him to
reward the finder.
CLERKEN WELL.
John Ramsay, a young man of respectable appearance,
was charged upon his own confession with the wilful
murder of Mr. Henry Williams. The prisoner, who
was described in the police-sheet as a cheesemonger,
residing at No. 1, Matilda-place, Caledonian-road,
Islington, on being put into the felons' dock, was in a
very dejected state.
Mr. Henry Williams, the deceased, who was alleged to
have been murdered, was formerly an attorney, whose prin-
cipal practice was in the Customs and Excise, and he re-
sided in Constitution-row, St. Pancras. About two years
and a half ago he had to conduct a case professionally in
the Customs, and at its conclusion he accompanied some
friends to a tavern in the Sparrow's-gate, near Tower-
hill, where they indulged freely, and the deceased left
the place. He was afterwards found in the Minories
insensible, and bleeding from an injury immediately over
his eye, and at an early hour in the morning he was
driven up to the door of his residence in Constitution-
row. He was quite insensible, saturated with blood, as
was also the inside of the cabriolet. He was unable to
speak; and, after having been put to bed, Dr. Fogarty,
of Acton place, Bagnigge Wells-road, was sent for, who
promptly adopted every means that medical skill could
d-vise, but Mr. Williams died shortly afterwards, in con-
sequence of the injury he had received. A coroner's
jury was called, and, after an adjournment, Inspector
Penny traced the deceased to have been put into the cab
and seen to the door of his house by a man named
Strickland, who immediately afterwards left him.
Strickland and the cabman were brought forward, but
they could not give decided or satisfactory evidence as to
the cause of the injury or death of the deceased, and the
subject being involved in mystery, the jury came to no
decided verdict, leaving the matter open for the pro-
duction of further evidence and future investigation.
The injury over the eye must have been inflicted by a
stick or umbrella.
Ralph Rose, 248 G, now deposed, that on Tuesday
night last, about twelve o'clock, he was on duty in Bag-
nigge-wells station-house, when the prisoner knocked at
the door, which being opened by witness, he requested
to speak with him He was drunk at the time. Witness
admitted him, and he said he had come there to deliver
himself up for a murder which he had committed two
years and a half ago. Witness took him into the charge
room, when he said he had hit a man on the head
with a stick. He was in his company with another man
named Strickland; and ever since he had committed the
crime he had not been able to rest. He said the deceased's
name was Williams. An inquest had been held upon
the body at the Silver Cup public-house, Cromer-street,
St. Pancras.
Mr. ARNOLD.—Did he seem serious when he made this
statement ?
Witness answered in the affirmative. He gave his name
and address, John Ramsay, No. 1, Matilda-place, Caledo-
nian-road, Islington, cheesemonger. He maintained the
same sullenness all night that ho now preserved in court,
and was silent.
Inspector Penny gave confirmatory testimony as to the
statement made by the prisoner.
Mr. ARNOLD—Have you been to make inquiries in
reference to the matter? Inspector Penny—l have, your
Worship, and ascertained that the prisoner is what he
,I•?°3cribirs himself to be. I was pres( nt at the coroner's
inquest en Mr. 'Williams. He was taken home wounded
and covered with blood in a cabriolet, and the jury re.
turned no verdict, I,2aving it open, in case any satisfac-
tory evidence could be traced. I traced Strickland, and
he gave evidence before the coroner's jury. He is now
a prisoner in the Queen's Bench Prison. The cabman
' who drove the deceased home gave evideuoe.thilt he bad

A•m•••••••....4.10.........ner......... i
ICIA
taken deceased home from the Minories. Witness V
, to
that at seven o'clock yesterday morning he went 0'„744
cell where the prisoner was confined, and intl",,a
whether he wished him to send for any refreshments
sullen
should he send for his wife. The prisoner was no,
and replied, "No, all the world will know it
n'sbas
know it." He (the inspeetor),pder an impressie.o the
the prisoner might be deranges in his intellect, twos
course of the night sent for the police surgeon mod
Mr. Sheehy attended, and dcei4ed.that he was O' !coif
intellect, but advised that hekl„should be can ob-
watched in order to prevent,self-vvlence, which 'iv-
served %
served all night. - 10114
Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether the prisonerVilnater
been communicated with on the subject? e2f-Dsof
Pennyl--Yes, your Worship, she is present. (I",;e'ssa
wife was in court much affected.) He said e" f hie
three children. She was formerly in the service, ° she
Grace the Duke of Wellington as kitchen-main' they
saved some money,: and married the prisoner, wb,ecsrest,
set up in business as a cheesemonger in ChsPes fish
Somers-town. Her husband became acquaint'. ruis
the deceased, and through him they were brought.tebisk
and bankruptcy, and were obliged to give up the,r she
ness about two years and a half ago, and ever out;idel
had been the chief support of herself and fussily by
in washing. to 511
Mr. ARNOLD asked the prisoner if he svieue-gar
anything to the charge? He could do as he di
proper; he was not bound to say anything.
The prisoner declined saying anything. eelt'
Mr. ARNoLD—Then I shall remand you for a w 0,
The prisoner was then locked up in a state GSM ,
tion, when he requested an interview with his svir'oeS
Mr. ARNOLD directed it to be granted, and she sra:o,o"
into the gaoler's room by Inspector Penny, anti' ssil
panied by Mr. Sheehy. The prisoner kissed berg
they both shed tears. After a short interval they
separated. Ars 00
01
Mr. ARNOLD directed Inspector Penny to w- pleeS
possible inquiry about the extraordinary matter Ldp.
this and the next examination, which he prontisedfaate
In the course of the day the prisoner WAS eon/el.:-
prison in the police van.
SOUTHWARK.
Mary Ann West was charged with stealing ntei,*
containing a 51. Bank of England note, five so/ ;;0111
and a cheque for 33/. Bs. 7d. from Mr. Themes ild sill'
Cotton's Wharf, Tooley-street; and John BOP' 100+'
Charles Burrell, two respectable-looking Yonecodttl
described as holding situations in the City, wore c
with aiding and assisting in the robbery. beisgto
The complainant stated that about half patjal%
o'clock on the preceding night, as be was
_„7-,-, d
along the Dover-road, the prisoner West 0,1"-f. sr
to him, and wanted to prevail upon hinY'sloll,, '1
company her home. He refused, and sitti. so_,
thrust one of her hands into his trousers' poes'lsts'
pulling out his purse, ran away. He was in Oldie 0,
proceeding after her when he was seized by tA"- to
who came from the opposite side of the way ..--„ el
him, although he struggled, until the woman h5,,,010
out of sight by running down one of the adjacent,eLlitle
The two men then ran away themselves in the dlO-01.0
of St. George's Church, and he went up to a tr"uA bee,
standing at his door, and told him that he br e,
robbed, when the former took him to a house iu,..,,5,
street close by, where he saw the female pcison'olf
gave her into custody. He added, that he substgitliso
went into the White Hart Inn in the Borough, oir
he had not been long before the two other prisoneb, IP
tered, and on seeing them he he believed them r,,,a In.
men who held him while the prisoner who rou";datB
escaped, and he called in two policemen and °A ottr
charge against them ; but they were liberate" s PS
station-house, the landlord of the White ger4 tits
having undertaken that they should apnea: -
.16'
police-court. •A be v
In reply to Mr. SECRER, the complainant sa'-,,,,1t•r
suspected the prisoners were the men, from t"-iwgif
pearance, although he admitted he had not 0,1 NI
nity of distinguishing their features ; that he ra fir
drinking, but he was perfectly capable of knoPcp ,4
he was about. , ~, sr,
Mr. James Hughes, the tradesman alluded P.„-'Ol
that while standing at the door he observed a "ft SF:,
talking to the complainant at a short distanee,,,°6o,l
he afterwards saw her run away and turn in*"„bjer.,
street. He also observed two men stop the coin.n., r
as he was going after the woman, and they s';ool.t.
away towards the Borough. Thinking that the,se, ~,,,
had entered a house of ill fame in Swan-street
..„k a
..,1r
he took the complainant there, and they ftw-s,
woman in the kitchen with the landlady and solneif slo
woman, with her bonnet and shawl on, just •;.) ore,
had recently come there. The witness tided, tuititit:
his observation of the woman while she stood tti,.ooetwr
the complainant in the road he believed the 131.:dertc
be the same woman. He, however, could not,11„„-listi
to say that the two young men charged witi,„--,,tatV
the rescue were the men he saw stop the ne'-` -4,
when he wursuin the thief.
The twoas young men referred to said that the ?ea
plainant was quite mistaken with regard to ther,-,4
they had been at the fancy fair held at the .1":„„
Victuallers' Asylum, in the Kent-road, on the P.n.- Ora
day, which they left at a late hour, and got on "-ns Abp
bus at the Shard Arms in the Kent road, fr°- WV.,
they alighted in the Borough, opposite to thels lair
Hart Inn, which they entered, and had not bee. oil
there before this extraordinary accusation Ass
,',l
against them.
Mr. Henry Brown, the landlord of the Whi.i:sq
Inn, said, the complainant entered his house suo Isbv„
past twelve o'clock on the preceding nights . his (0;
time the two young men, one of whom wit.4o.;
landlord's) relation. were sitting at supper. pat OA
the complainant started up, said he was going „ Pr"
short time, and returned with four policenalbes
charged the young men with assisting in the rchig• .
The witness said that both the young men were.,„"e3 P.
respectable, and quite incapable of being cone gel
such an offence as that with which they were ohers3ooo,
Policeman 250 M said, that he saw the tw° :Is 0
men alight from a Greenwich omnibus oppus,
White Hart Inn, which they firntered togesthaq.the fool:
In reply to Mr. SEORER, and ma.
'on-house, 0
prisoner was searched at the statt
The house
half-crown piece found in her possession. .
~.
which she was taken, however, was not searcheums_nek
the policeman ta
Mr. SECHER said that, under all the circu Pfsbe
he should discharge the two young men and read",
other prisoner for further exanaination. al
.P•em0mMe11......1
The seventh volume of Mr. Forbes Care_PtovV.
Translation of M. Thiers' History of the Conan is
to
the Empire (the only authorised English
appear this week. From what we have bean:loft:o
~
tents, it will prove even more important and 1 alit";
than either of the preceding volumes. It Iv' 101 rs
we are informed, Napoleon and Alexander fod
aiiir
together the utter destruction of England,
i 017
plunder of the whole world; and the author c lisoil
merit of being the first to disclose the real 1°6,101
that famous treaty of Tilsit, by which the IrcPe 00
edition)... li
spirators solemnly bound themselves to the exec •,,_
their nefarious schemes. _nails
Da Cl-00
CADYERTISEMENT.]—GENUINE EAU -- tra d
imported direct, and kept two years in the doe7eneew
sold. Ross and Sons beg to say, that in consecl,o An
the spurious trash offered, they are induced
,14 t,n0.1
known the system adopted by them for the isso f,
) ears of selling only the genuine, and that
_„,otte7,
old. In consequence of their enormous cons_7o r,
they are enabled to sell the best at little Inol:enferiofL
charged for the spurious, the latter being !lel w bet
British brandyt is to foreign. Prices—s sing
%,
3s. ; a case of six, 16s. ; six cases at once, 10701 va
for cash only. Address Ross and Sons, 119 „OM'
Biahopsgate-street, London.—N.B. They he'r._e 'bonele/
dozen left of some that has been seven years ;oaf',
[ADVERTIsEMENT.] —DEAFNESS, NEW DISC tor,
39, ALBEMARLE-STREET, PICCADILLY.—The Orgill-0C ''lbra cin fir
traordinary powerful small newly-invented instrument, 0-6 xitl, of
entirely different from all others, to surpass anytning_.°rmalledinr4
has been, or probably ever can be produced ; it 15 mod
be ASt
ear so that it rests within, w,thout projecting, which .P-0,3100 e;tr
in the ears and removed in company unobserved ; and__, era loir
same colour as the skin, is not perceptible. The Plotife e
valuable new invention are so great as to bring very def i w ht
ing, of long standing, to its perfect and natural state, ail,`_;la 4,
deat persons to enjoy general conversation, to hear r:-telioi,4l
church, on the bench, at the bar, and at public assembli.°' Ail
pleasant sensation of singing noises in the ears are entirl Kai
and it affords to individuals affected with this dreadful itl ;Ire
assistance that possibly could be desired. Also imps Ai
description. The newly-invented 11+ ,;;;;‘,
immediatelyftheveeyryare placed betore extremely imperfect Viiiiv— ..A.
mist and dullness which appear before the eyes is at once I,
every object becomes clear and distinct, so that the most woo
perfect sight becomes bright and brilliant, and is brought to RS
ful, natural and original state. Also Achromatic Telescope&
Glasses, Microscopes, &e. Caution-Messrs. B. and B. ~
4
Opticians, are not in any way cpnnected with a person of :',./ a
name in their immediate neighbcurhood, nor in any pad 0'
country. To prevent mistakes be cautious, and Observe-,Zikji
had at 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly (oppodte the York finiAl;
[AD VERTISEMENT.] —THE VIRTUE OF $0%,..5.
OINTMENT AND PILLS lIIWILT ESTEEMED TilEollanoUT ifis ejtilLO
Editor of the " Eenares Recorder," publishes the relieve' or-,0
dinary cure :-Heerah Lall, a cloth merchant, residing 4,11000
had suffered for more than eighteen months, with dreatuf, ,40'
sores all over his legs and body, totally disabling him fret e, wie
he had expended large sums in medicine from the Halte.ytee Taft
out relief, when an European gentleman, who had Pr°""ibeir 00
cacy of Holloway's Ointment and Pill's, recemlnend6Lllll,
which advice he followed, and in the course of tvrentY,,";oooool'
perfectly restored to health, from a disease which hia,„wriester •
down to death's door. Sold by all Druggists, and at .
loway's establishment, 244, Strand, London.
it.
BIRTH'S. Al°
On the 14th inst., in Montagu-place, Russell ,
wife of Joseph Aldridge, Esq., of a daughter. , 10110,'"
On the 7th inst., at Alton, the wife of Lows fire
of a daughter, still- born. 016
rivcle-P ,
On the 11th inst., in Westbourne-terrace, ..`-' sosoeXf
lady of Thomas Faulconer, Esq., of a daughter.
_..f._
On the 12th inst., at Pickford Lodge, Tinsbcra Ole
the lady of C. E. Hayes Newington, Esq.,l""ginOrsse°
On the 12th inst., at Glasse], Upper Banchorf,t,. of - ,
shire, North Britain, the lady of John Michell, ,c'''' •et
and heir. ; n. Old
On the 13th inst., the lady of E. Edmonds, Jil- ' i ,I.
Bradford, Wilts, of a daughter. the wife °
On the 14th inst., at Haling-park, Croydon,
Giles, Esq., of a son.
,ti;so
f
MARRIED.
near pee e
e
On the 12th inst., at Hove Church, near —visa
Hare, Esq., of King-street, Cheapside, to Mis:.________,,..-,
of Bedford-square, Brighton.
a lif
DIED.
On the 17th of April last, on board the Trouheci°-' iste
tenant Hibernicus Scott, Bombay Artillery'-,,,,,/ of the ,
On the 7th inst., at Rye, Rhoda Jane, f 1,19 r
Richard Weeden Butler, aged 71. Richey e
Oa the Bth inst., Mr. William Ambrose 111 _wee%
Charles-street, Parliament, street, Westminster;s„, TA
On the 10th inst., at Heron Villa,
Mary Bradney, the wife of Captain Powell, H•i,Gar-A
On the 10th inst., at Bishopstoke, Hants, ".•
S
'olllel
Colquitt, aged 71. William •
On the 11th instat Leeds, the Rev- Or
~
Monck. 00°
Mr, Th ~4.
On the 11th inst., in Wellclose-square,
1 a LP'`
Worceste,a.4.-
404
buck, aged 76. of .2-r
On the 13th hist., Mrs. Edward Munday,
place, Islington, aged 78.
'ch./It
=-.!--,a'
oTirreatt
Loneon : Printed and Published by MUSD° YO:i7in Of 01/ •
Strand, Printer, at The Sun Mee, N 0.112. Stral,e.ihurgtl2/0
of the savoy, in the County of bliddlellOSl .•'
1647.