The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-20 00:00:00

FOSTER V. ROBINSON.

Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. BICKNER moved to dissolve
an injunction that had been obtained in this suit, on the
ground that an order of the Court had not been com-
plied with by the plaintiff.
The property in question belonged to ono Ralph
Foster, the father of the plaintiff, who had several other
children, and died intestate. It consisted of an estate which
had been supposed to be freehold, but which turned out
to be leasehold, held for a long term of years. On the
death of the intestate his widow received his personal
estate, but did not take out letters of administration.
The defendant, who was one of his children, applied for
administration, and due notice of the application was
given to the plaintiff, but he did not attend, and admi-
nistration was consequently given to defendant, who
then applied for the personal property of the deceased.
This being refused by the plaintiff, who was in posses-
sion of the estate in question, and the property
being mortgaged to one Daniel Crawford for 2001.,
defendant obtained from him an assignment of the
mortgage, but to enable her to do so borrowed the
amount of Crawford, and gave him an equitable mort-
gage for the amount, by depositing with him the title
deeds, and they being in possession of the legal title,
brought an action to recover possession of the premises.
Plaintiff then filed a bill to restrain defendant from proceed-
ing with the action, and obtained an injunction, and upon
the answer coming in, defendant moved to dissolve the
injunction, unless cause was shown to the contrary.
Plaintiff having appeared to show cause, the Court made
an order that upon the plaintiff's undertaking, on or be-
fore the Ist September last, to pay the amount due to
Crawford on the security of the deeds in his pos-
session, the injunction should be continued until the
hearing. The money was not paid in pursuance of this
undertaking, and it was therefore moved on the 22d
November last, that the injunction should be dissolved,
when it was proposed to allow another person to pay
the money for the plaintiff, and take possession of the
title deeds. This was objected to by the defendant, who
now again moved to dissolve the injunction.
The MASTER of the ROLLS, after hearing Mr. Pem-
berton and Mr. Dunn contra, said that he did not see
what advantage would result from the transfer of the
mortgages. He thought the best thing he could do would
be to enlarge the time allowed for payment of the mort-
gage money until the first day of Hilary Term next,
when, in default of payment, the injunction must be dis-
solved.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 18.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE )
KELLY V. HOOPER. •
In this cause an injunction had been granted on the
11th of December, 1839, to restrain the defendant, or
his agents, from publishing the " Post-office Alma-
neck. The ground on which the injunction was
granted, was that the publication in question
was a piracy on one published by the plaintiff,
under the title of " The Post-office London Directory."
A motion was made on the 27th of Dec. to dissolve the
injunction, but the motion was refused, and the plaintiff
was directed to bring an action against the defendant, for
the purpose of ascertaining the legal right of the parties.
The action, though commenced, continued in conse-
quence of some correspondence between the parties, and
the answer was put in on the 7th of March, 1840.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Tripp appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Simpkinson and Mr. Bickner for the defendant.
The question submitted to the Court related solely to
costs. The cause was part heard yesterday.
At the conclusion of the arguments this morning, his
HONOUR continued the injunction, and decreed the defen-
dant to bear all the costs of the suit.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
FREWSTER V. TURNER.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The his-
tory of the dispute was this. The defendant had pro-
perty consisting
.partly of the Acorn Inn, and partly
of other premises, and he bad a pipe laid to
his house to supply him with water. The pro-
perty was advertised for sale, with a direct
intimation to the purchaser that, if he did not purchase
the other lots, they would pass into the hands of other
persons, and would be dealt with by them as legal
owners. The plaintiff had notice, therefore, from the
vendor, that the other property would no longer remain
as it had been. Suppose it were a natural flow of water,
the vendor did not engage that the other
purchasers should not disturb the flow, and the
purchaser of this portion of the property must assert
his rights against the purchasers of the other lots. In
the present case the water was artificially conducted ;
and if the effect of the contract was to give to him the
benefit of which he had been deprived, the other pur-
chasers had notice of the contract, and having purchased
their lots subject to all the equities in question, they
would be just as much liable to the purchaser as would the
vendor himself if he had remained the owner of the other
lots. In point of fact, they had all purchased upon the same
footing, and the plaintiff could not, therefore, be damni-
fied by a decision against him in that cause, whereas the
defendant might be seriously damnified, if, after selling
the property under such circumstances, he should be
called upon to restore to the plaintiff an advantage which
he had lost since the sale. On these grounds he thought
the plaintiff had entirely failed to establish the equity
which he claimed as against the defendant. The prayer
for specific performance was not opposed.
The cause was ordered to stand over for a month, with
a view to intermediate proceedings.
RANDALL V. BELL.
His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The cause
had been ordered to stand over in order that his Honour
might refer to former decisions. The question was
whether, there being no legal execution under the will of
a testator, and a scut pending, a receiver should be ap-
pointed. His Honour said, that where there was no repre-
sentation before the Court, the practice was not to appoint
a receiver ; but in cases where, like the present, there
was litigation going forward, a receiver for the property
must be appointed. It was a point clearly settled, that
litigation alone could justify the appointment of a receiver.
It was then referred to the Master to appoint a receiver,
with liberty to all the parties in the suit to propose
themselves.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 18.
Sittings in Nisi„Prius at Guildhall before Lord DEN-

DIAN and a Special Jury.)
GREGSON AND OTHERS V. RUCK AND OTHERS.
Mr. CRESWELL stated the case. It was an action
brought by Messrs. Gregson and Co., East India mer-
chants, to recover a sum of 3031., the value of 45 hogs-
heads of Calcutta rum, which had been sold to
the defendant. It would appear that the de-
fendants, Messrs. Ruck, Son, and Fenwick, had entered
into a contract with the Government for the supply of
rum, and in the month of November, 1840, they applied
to Messrs. Field, the brokers -of Minchin-lane, and
purchased from them the rum in question. The rum
had been imported by the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Field
had been instructed to sell it on commission. It would
be shown from former transactions between the parties
that the usual mode in which the sale of Co-
lonial produce was conducted was that the buyer
should pay cash; prompt at two months' discount,
and in one or two instances bills at two months had been
given by the defendant and regularly paid. In the pre-
sent case the defendants not having paid cash, applicatio
was made to them at the expiration of two months, a d
the answer returned was that they knew nothing of ..ne
plaintiffs in the transaction. He would prove the sale
of the ruin by the brokers-, -and it would be for the Jury
to say whether they were not bound to pay for it.
Chapman Harrison—l have been clerk in Messrs.
Gregson and Co.'s offices since 1832. They have been
in the habit of importing rum from the East Indies.
They had some dealings with the defendants, who are
wine-merchants. The transactions were carried on
through the Messrs. Field, the brokers. The earliest
date of the notes handed to me is the 2d January, 1840.
It was for 49 hogsheads of Calcutta rum, 33 over
proof at 4s. Id. per gallon, by bill at two months,
sold on account of Gregson and Co. The rum was paid
for by defendant accepting one draft. The bill was read
—it was for 445/. for 49 puncheons rum ex Eleanor, two
months after date-. Another broker's note, dated 3d
April, 1840, to the same effect, was put in and read ;
and a third of the 23d May. In November, 1840, Messrs.
Gregson received a quantity of rum by the Shepherdess,
from Calcutta. The Messrs. Field were instructed to
sell it. They said they had had an offer from the de-
fendants. The delivery order was given to Messrs. Field.
Edward Devonshire—l am a clerk in the West India
Dock. office. I had, in November last, some rum belong-
ing to Messrs. Gregson, ex Shepherdess. The delivery
order II as brought by the Messrs. Field ; it was signed
by Messrs. Gregson anti Co. Warrants were taken out
by the Messrs. Field, and the rum delivered under them.
The warrants were endorsed by Field to the defendant.
They were delivered out on Nov. 28.
Mr. Harrison was then cross-examined by Mr. KELLY
—Their house had one or two other transactions with
the Messrs. Field. In the transaction of the 23d of May
the purchaser was nct named, and the payment was made
to them by the Meisrs. Field. In the colonial trade the
practice is for the broker to send the cash to our office.
Ina() the
cash. transactionlv h When
n itnheqpquestion
wtahs e e
xbpriorke edrosna i
tdh
ehetrahnasd.
action of the 23d of November, a letter was sent from
our house to the defendants for payment, and a verbal
answer was returned, that they knew nothing of us in
the transaction. With regard to that transaction the
plaintiffs said it was contrary to their usual practice in
selling produce to draw bills, and would expect cash with
the usual prompt.
Mr. CRESWELL proposed to put in the broker's note of
the 23d of November, but that was objected to by Mr.
Kelly, on the ground-that it was not signed by the de-
fendants, that those names were not mentioned in it, and
therefore it could not be binding upon them. If the
broker was called he might prove that he was acting by

and with the authority of the defendants, but in default of
that there was no contract binding upon the defendants,
it being an arrangement made behind their backs and
without their sanction.
Lord DENMAN thought there was prima facie evidence
of authority.
Patrick Johnston—l am official assignee tinder Field's
fiat. I saw the Messrs. Ruck, who were creditors. I
have not the account with me.
Mr. KELLY addressed the Jury for the defendants. lie
said the course adopted by the defendants was the straight-
forward proceeding of ordinary mercantile transactions ;
they bought the goods and paid the Messrs. Field for
them on receipt, and it was only on the Messrs. Field
becoming bankrupt that they were surprised by
the application of the plaintiffs for the payment,
and the answer they gave, as had been already
stated was, that they did not know them in the
transaction. The usual mode of doing business was,
that when the principals were named in the bought and
sold notes, the transaction was settled between the buyer
and seller, but where all parties were not named, the
broker was the party. responsible—he was in the posi-
tion of a principal, and the payment was invariably made
by him. The contract under which the defendants pur-
chased was between themselves and the Messrs. Field, and
that would be shown by the bought notes sent to them,
and it would be seen that in that note no principals
were named. As soon as the rum was delivered they
gave a bill to a broker at two months, which fell due on
the 23d January, 1841, and which was duly honoured
by them, and it was only a few days afterwards that the
application was made by the plaintiff for payment,
which they at once repudiated. They had honestly paid
for the goods, and it would be for the Jury to say by
their verdict whether they were to pay the money

over again.
James Field—ln 1840 I carried on business in Minc-
ing-lane in partnership with my brother, as wine and
spirit brokers. In January-, 1840, we were employed to
sell rum for the plaintiff. In the bought note the names
of the principals, the plaintiffs and defendants, are in-
scribed. In April we sold for them again. The bought
note is the same. In May we received orders again to
sell, but they declined to take bills as in the former in-
stances. They required cash, two months discount. We
sold to the defendants. The seller wal not named, and"
we paid the plaintiffs by a cheque drawn upon
our own bankers. We received a cheque from Messrs.
Ruck for thexums. In November, 1840, we were again
authorised to sell by the plaintiffs. The instructions
were to sell, as on the former occasion, for cash, two
months discount. I saw Mr. Ruck, who looked at the
samples, and he purchased on the 20th November. I
said I would take a certain price with a bill at two
months, but that I intended to pay in three weeks. The
bought note did not mention the name of the sellers, it
was to be paid for by bill at two months. The entry on
our books is the same, and was made the same day. We
sent in a bill of parcels and drew a bill at two months.
We negotiated the bill. We stopped payment on the
20th of January, and up to that time no appli-
cation was made by the plaintiffs to us for payment
of these sums. The practice of the trade is
when it is stated to be a sale on commission, and, when
the principal is not named, the payment is made to the
broker who sells. That has been the custom for 25
years that I have been in the trade.

Cross-examined—l discounted the bill through the
house of Stephens and Co. on the 27th Nov. It never
came into my hands again. The contract note sent to
Messrs. Gregson is dated the 19th Nov. If a broker was
authorised to sell only for cash, he ought not to sell for
bills. I don't consider I had any authority from the plain-
tiffs to sell for a bill. I have had dealings with the
Messrs. Ruck for 25 years, to a considerable extent.
It was admitted that the bill for 303/. had been paid by
the defendants on the day it became due.
William Field (brother to the last witness)—l was not
present at the contract, but I entered it in the book. In
the book I entered " bought of Messrs. Gregson and
C 0.," but that was not in Mr. Ruck's contract. If the
seller authorises me to sell for a bill, it is usual then to
name the party sold to. If the seller says he will not
take a bill, that means that he will not take a bill himself
but it does not prevent the broker taking one, provided
he pays the seller at the stipulated time. It is the duty
of the broker to make the bought and sold note corre-
spond where he can; when he sells on different terms
from those stipulated by the principal, he cannot make
them correspond.
Frederick Godsell—l am a wine and spirit broker, and
have had a good deal of experience during the 19 years
I have been in business. We sometimes sell on comission
without naming the principals. When the sellers are
not named, and when the sale is on commission, I con-
sider the broker is the party to be paid. I have acted
in that way to a great extent. In the case of the contract
put into my, hand I should say that Ruck and Co. could
only recognise the broker. The brokers would„ have to
deduct th dock charges before they paid over to their
principal. That is always to be understood as a case in
which the seller's name is not given up. Even if the
seller's name is mentioned, unless it be mentioned in the
contract, the practice is as I have stated.
By Lord DENMAN—If the seller says he will require
cash, and not a bill, the broker may make what arrange-
ment he pleases with the purchaser.
Matthew Clarke, 30 years:a wine and spirit-broker—
In a note of the form put into my hand, the payment
should be made to the broker, if he delivered the goods.
I have known several such cases in the course of my ex-
perience. It is not customary to sell Colonial produce
by bill, but I have seen it dune sometimes. My mode of
business is always to give up principals. Where the sale
is by bill, it is very unusual not to give up the name of
the principal. The broker has frequently an interest in
the goods, from having made advances ta the owner.
Charles Sutherland, a broker of 20 years standing,
gave similar evidence.
For the plaintiff Mr. Cresswell called
Mr. Bennecraft, a broker of twenty years' standing in
the Colonial trade. He thought it was very unusual to
sell Colonial produce by bill, or for a broker to draw a
bill. lam speaking of rum sold in the Colonial mar-
ket. If the seller is not named in the contract, and that
the buyer is to pay by bill, he must give the bill to the
person he buys from. When the broker has made ad-
vances on the property, I have known him to draw bills.
Andrew Johnstone—l have been twenty-three years
a broker in East India produce. It is not my prac-
tice in that branch of the business to sell for a bill. I
am not aware that such is the custom of the trade. If
the broker sold for a bill the seller is the party who
ought to draw it. It is the duty of a broker to enter the
names of the buyer and seller in his bobk. I have known
instances of brokers making advances upon Colonial
produce. East India rum is an article that has- been
only within the last few years brought into the market,
and the practice is not yet well established. If the prin-
cipal is not named, and that the broker delivered the
goods, he would be authorised to receive payment for them.
John Barrow, a Colonial-broker, of 40 years standing
—lt is not usual to sell fora bill. It is usual when the
sale is by bill for the principal to draw it.
Peter Bell—l am a member of the firm of Scott, Bell,
and Co. We have lately imported East India rum. We
sell at one month's prompt. lam not aware of any in-
stance of a broker selling rum for the importer to be paid
by bill.
r—kWe import
newanagood deal of East India
instance of selling by bill ;
produce. Henry Glonuegveer
it is always cash on delivery. We almost always give
the dock warrant to the brokers,- who receive the pay
ment, and account to us.

George Barton, of the house of Crawford, Colvin, and
Co.—We import East India produce. I know of no in-
stance of East India rum being sold to be paid for by a
bill.

Charles Kerr, of the house of Fletcher, Alexander, and
Co.—Selling for bills is very rare, and these we have al-
ways drawn ourselves. We sell for cash on delivery,
and the broker pays us.
Paris Paul, clerk in the house of Cockerell and Co.,
East India merchants—We have always sold for cash on
delivery. I know of no instance in which rum has been
sold for a bill.

Mr. KELLY then addressed the Jury in reply, and Mr.
CRESSWELL having replied for the plaintiff's,
Lord DENMAN summed up at considerable length, and
the Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 17.
WILLIAM HITCHCOCK'S BANKRUPTCY.

----- .
In this case an application was made to the Court to-
day by the bankrupt's solicitor for a copy of all exami-
nations taken under the hankruptcy.
The COURT granted the application as far as it re-
ferred to the bankrupt himself. and also as far as it re-
ferred to his two servants, Mr. Churchhouse and Mr.
Hayward, but said it would be sufficient time to consider
the application as respected the examinations of Messrs.
Cook and Gladstone when it was seen whether at the
next sitting in this case it was intended to put those
gentleman into the box for examination, for it was under-
stood that that would be the course pursued by the gen-
tleman who conducted their- case. The reasons, as en-
tered upon the proceedings, which induced the Commis-
sioner to adjourn the examination of the bankrupt in
this matter, were as follows :—" The proceedings of the
Court having been interrupted by great noise and clap-
ping of hands, similar interruptions (though to a less
extent) having previously occurred, and there being no
power inherent in the Court of enforcing order and de-
corum, I adjourn the said last examination sine die, with
liberty to the bankrupt to apply for a further sitting
when he shall be prepared. " EDW. HOLROYD."

Mr. NIAS applied-to his Honour to-day for a warrant
to enforce the attendance of Mr. James Clark, late one
of the official assignees of this Court, with certain books
and papers, to undergo an examination for the benefit
of the estates of which he had the superintendence while
in his official capacity. It appeared that a summons had
been served upon Mr. Clark at Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
and not having appeared to it at the expiration of the
hour to-day allowed for such appearance this application
was made.

loVriLthLwiilthmsissgrueadn.te
was granted the application, and the
Sr
warrantiCE. f

SATURDAY.
IN THE MATTER OF WM. WEBB OGBURN.
The bankrupt in this case was a commission agent in
Honey-lane, and his debts and liabilities amounted to
between 40,0001. and 50,000/., while the available assets
were comparatively trifling.
This day being appointed for the last adjourned exa-
mination of the bankrupt, a number of creditors attended
to prove their debts, amongst which was one for 1,4581.,
by Mr. Stevens, a bill broker, who had large bill dis-
counting transactions, which was allowed to be esta-
blished, after a deduction of 1381.
On the proof on behalf of the Nottingham Bank
for between 8,000/. and 9,0001. coming under considera-
tion, a discussion arose relative to some bills which were,
through inadvertence, not produced into Court.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said he should allow the
proof to be admitted conditionally, the parties whose
duty it was bringing the bills in Court. ;
MritßonnonAlLE, on behalf of the creditors in Not-
tingham, applied to have the examination further ad-
journed, as they had some doubts respecting the disposal

of certain pictures,'furniture, and jewellery, which they
considered bad not been properly accounted for.
Mr. Edwards, the solicitor to the fiat, said he could
see. no further utility in adjourning the case. The official
assignee was perfectly satisfied with the accounts.
The COURT refused the application, and the bankrupt
was passed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dee. 18.
IN RE J. E. CAREW.

The examination of this insolvent was continued this
day by Mr. Platt.
Mr. PLATT—Now, in your schedule you claim a ba-
lance which you allege to be due from the executors of
the late Earl of Egremont, of 19,000?. Is that the result
of an account of former years ?—Yes.
You said you had been present at part of the trial of
your cause with the executor ; have you seen the execu-
tor's account of it ?—I have. •
I expect you have read the address of Sir Wm. Follett
on that occasion have not read the whole of it.
Have you read that part of it in which Sir Win. Follett
speaks of the cheque you have received ?—Yes ; I read
some part of it, but I flung it down in vexation.
Now, Sir, will you be good enough to look at the pass-
books of Messrs. Wigney's you have in your hands, and
take this cheque also. Did you ever receive that cheque ?
(This was a cheque signed by the Earl of Egremont for
1,0001.)—No ; not that I have any knowledge of.
What is the date of it ?—The date is Nov. 21st, 1832.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN—What is the amount ?
Insolvent— 1,000/
Mr. PLATT—Now can you undertake to say that you
received that amount ?—I can say there is no evidence
that I received it. My name is not upon it, nor my
banker's, and therefore it can't be shown that it came
through my banker's hands.
Is there an item in Wigney's book to show it ?—I will
refer to the date ; perhaps it will—
Mr. PLATT—Perhaps you may find something there
to help you.
The Usher of the Court—The book coaamencita the
23d Nov., 1832.
Mr. PLATT--Without referring to the book,l ask you,
Sir, whether you did not actually open the account at
Wigney's with 555/., part of that very cheque ?—N6t, that
I know of.

You swear it was not ?—I cannot swear ; I have no
recollection.
Will you tell the Court from what means you derived
that 5551. you paid to Wigney's ?—lt was in 1832 that
that was paid them. I had property of my own ; and I
had a banker's account at Marten, Call, and Co.; to the
best of my recollection.
By the COURT—I have no knowledge, nor have I any
means of referring to know whether the 5551. was part
of this cheque of 1,0004 At that time I had other pro-
perty of my own.
Mr. PLATT—DO you mean to say your property was at
Marten, Call, and Co.'s ?—One of the partners is in
Court, and can answer that question.
Can you ?—I cannot answer that question. There is
a cheque-book of Marten, Call, and Co. ; let me have it,
and I will answer you.
You told me yesterday that you closed the account
when you went down to Brighton. Had you any other
pass-book ?—Not that I know of.
That pass-book you have in your hand is not filled up.
—How do you mean filled up ?
Do you not understand when a book is filled up ?
Filled up with entries ?—I said yesterday that subse-
quently I paid a sum of money to Call and Co., therefore
the account remained open for years, and a trifling ba-
lance remained in their hands ; about 31. or 41.
Then after the entries in that book, did you place any
more money with Call and Co., except that 1,200/ ?—I
have no recollection, but I call on them to produce the
account, and I dare say I can then answer the question.
At this distance of time I cannot, having a bad memory;
I am sure I do not wish to misrepresent.
Your memory appears to be all on one side—that of
money you received.
Mr. COOKE—He has not been examined as to others.
What means did you derive the 555/. from ?—From
my profession. I was at that time in receipt of 200/. a
year. I made an engagement with the Earl of Egremont
and all the sources of my previous income were swallowed
up in that.
Can you tell me where that 5551. came from ?—I can-
not tell yo. I had several sources of income at that time.
Do I understand you to state that this 555/. was part
of that cheque ?—To the best of my belief it was not.
Will you swear that ?—I am on my oath.
But you say you believe so. Will you swear it ?—I
have no means of swearing that.
Might it have been part or might it not?—lt might or not.
Do you remember when you opened the account at
Wigney's whether you wrote your name at the back of
the notes you paid in ?—No, I do not.
Now I put into your hands another cheque, dated the
6th May, 1833, for 1,000/. ; did you recive that of the
Earl of Eg r, mont I—,--There is no evidence that I did.
You say there is no evidence, do you ?—I cannot swear
that I did not receive it.
Might you have received it and forgotten it 7—No, I
cannot reply to that, Sir.
Don't you know
,whether you might have received it
and forgotten it ?—I do not know how I can answer such
a question as that. The Earl of Egremont was in the
habit of writing such cheques, and giving them to other
people, and I have received such cheques, and when I
did so my name was written on them, or my banker's.
Did the Earl of Egremont never give cheques payable
to the bearer ?—He did several.
And did you always write your name on them ?
Either I or my bankers did.
Always ?—I think so.
You see I cannot get anything certain ; it is always I
think ; I want to know if you will venture to assert whether
that cheque was written on the back ?—When they were
paid into the bankers not by myself, Marten, Call, and
Co.wrote their names upon them as the agents in London.
Will you venture to say you wrote your own name, or
saw any other person do so ?—I will not. They did
not write upon them in my presence.
In the account you hold in your hand is an item of
700/. on the 15th May, 1833. Now, I ask you if that
7001 was not, in fact, part, of the 1,000/...0f this cheque?
—I cannot say whether it was or not.
Now, I ask you whether you did, or not, receive that
amount of 1,0001, and pay into Masterman and Co.
700/. to be placed to your account with Wigney and Co ?
—The cheque will shoW that.
Do you not recollect it ?—No, Sir, I do not recollect
it at this distance of time.

Can't you tell where it came from ?—No, Sir ; I had
extensive business, and a great deal of money passed
thrcugh my hands.
That was in 1833 ? It was.
When you speak of extensive business, do you mean
with the Earl of Egremont, or after that time ?—Exten-
sive business for the Earl of Egremont, containing works
of the greatest value in the kingdom. My business with
the Earl of Egremont was one of the sources, and the prin-
cipal source, from which I derived my pecuniary means.
That is what I say, and I want to know if the 7001.
did not come from the Earl of Egremont ?—Not by any
means.

Then I understand you to say that you will not ven-
ture to say that 1,0001 was not paid to you by the Earl
of Egremont ?—I will not venture to say so, but there
is no evidence.
I have not asked you about what evidence there is, the
Court will settle that. Will you tell the Court where
you got the 7001. from 7—Let the books be produced,
Be good enough to tell me of one source you got that
7001. from?—l want to produce the accounts and pass-
books of the bankers, that will show the dates.
I ask you to point out the works?—lnsolvent, with
warmth—l do not wish to say anything of myself, but
you are obliging me to do so; but, Sir, I was a distin-
guished artist.
I do not doubt this, and I am sorry to see you in your
present position.
I am obliged to you, Sir; but, if the late Earl of Egre-
mont had been living, I should not have been here now.
Now, tell me where you got that 7001.7—1 cannot say.
You desired Messrs. Wigney to mark the items of those
cheques of the Earl of Egremont paid into their hands
for you 7—l did, that I might render the account to the bill
filed in Chancery.
Some items were received from Call and Co., and paid
into Masterman and Co.?—Yes, I paid some of them
myself into Masterman and Co.
Here are two cheques of the 16th May, 1835, for
600/. Did you receive that from Lord Egremont ?—Yes.
You have 500/. paid into your account at Wigney's.
Was it out df the amount of the cheque ?—Yes ; I
should suppose so from the date.
Here is a cheque of the 9th November, 1836, for 2.0/.
on Call and Company. Did you receive that also ?
I have no recollection how I received that amount.
Do you remember applying at that period to Lord
Egremont to prevent you from being arrested ?—I do
not recollect.

Do not you recollect paying a sum of 8001. to a Mr.
Stephens, and did not Lord Egremont give you the money
to meet your debt to Stephens ?—I cannot recollect; but
I remember I did owe a sum to Mr. Stephens in conse-
quence of an accommodation to a friend.
Did you not, at the period in question, make an appli-
cation to Lord Egremont while he was sick in bed to re-
lease you from the claim ?—I do not think I ever did.
I owed too much to Lord Egremont to make such an ap-
plication under such circumstances.
Did you ever make such an application ?—I never did,
to the best of my recollection ; but I will not pledge
myself.
Do you know Mrs. Greenfield ?—Yes ; she was the
nurse attending on Lord Egremont. -
Do you remember his Lordship having been raised up
in his bed to sign a cheque for you 7—No ;I do not.
Do you ever recollect having gone to Lord Egremont
for assistance in tears ?—I remember his Lordship wrote
to me to come to visit him on his birth-day if I expected
to see him alive. That was, I believe, the 18th of Dec.
1836. Then perhaps I migbt have been in tears in con-
sequence of the state of his Lordship's health. But when
I went in I found him up and sitting in his chair.
I want to know whether you never appeared before
his Lordship in tears on a very different account. Did
you not appear before him on one occasion in tears,
stating that you were about to be arrested in consequence
of your having accommodated a friend?-1 have no recol-
lection of such a fact.
Was he not propped up by a pillow on one occasion
when he wrote you a cheque, and when he added—
" Then when I am gone you will go to the dogs."—
Never ; Ido not think Lord Egremont was capable of
saying such a thing.
I believe that when you brought the action, it was to
recover the sum of 33,0071. 18s. ld.—Yes.
In filing your bill did you give any credit for the re-
ceipt of any sum T—l believe I did.
In the.bill filed against you we find you give credit for
the receipt of 421. in 1833 ?—Yes.
And I find no more credited to Lord Egremont in
1833 in the bill.--Yes ; that is the only sum. I gave a
reply to the bill filed by the advice of Mr. Merryman.
I gave him every possible information ; but as Messrs.
Call and Co. had refused to let me see their books I

was unable to give such full information as I could have
desired. Messrs Call and Co. refused to show me the

cheques I had received without the permission of Colonel
Wyndham. I wrote to Colonel Wyndham on the sub-
ject, but Mr. Charles Murray, who was the agent for
Colonel Wyndham refused to give me access to the
papers ; and that is the reason, I apprehend, why the
42/. formed the only sum for which I have given credit
in 1833.
I understand you had inspected certain cheques at
Mr. Murray's with your solicitor ?—Yes.
Look at this cheque of 1,0001., dated in 1833, and tell
me whether you had not seen that cheque before you filed
your bill ?—I will not venture to say I had or I had not.
It might have been one of the cheques shown to me ; but
I cannot swear.
How does it happen that, in the schedule you filed in
this Court, you give credit for 1,0001., which, in your an-
swer to the bill filed against you in Equity, you only
gave credit for 42/. ?—I found. I had been mistaken on
the subject, by comparing the-dates of the cheques with
the entries in Wigney's book.
Had you not Wigney's account at the time you filed
your answer ?—I had not looked over the amount ; I
cannot answer for the legal proceedings taken in my name.
In your answer in the Equity Court, you admit the
receipt of 1,000/. only, while, in your answer to the
schedule filed in this Court, you admit the receipt of
2,260/. How do you account for that ?—I found out the
additional sum by looking over Wigney's account.
Mr. CooKE here objected to the course of examination
pursued in inquiring into the correctness or incorrect-
ness of documents filed in Chancery, while the Court
had only to deal with the bill filed in that Court.
Mr. PLATT having contended that he had a perfect
right to show that the insolvent had already been guilty,
to say the least of it, of equivocation before another Court,
The Comm decided that they could not then deal with
the proceedings of the insolvent in anotheF cause.
Examination continued by Mr. PLATT—I find from
the pass-book that you had paid into your banker the
sum of 2,1591, while your schedule acknowledges only
1,5001. Where did the remainder of the 2,159/. come
from ?—I raised money by bills, and I received 8001.
from Mr. Dodd.
What did you do with the money you received from
Mr. Dodd ?—I find I paid in 700/. at Masterman's in
May, 1833, and that might have been part of the 8001.
I received from Mr. Dodd.
Might not the 700/. have been part of 1,0001. you re-
ceived at the very time from Lord Egremont ?—lt might
have been. I cannot say from which source the 700/.
came.

Did you pay off the 800/., and, if so, how did you pay
it ?—I gave Mr. Dodd a mortgage on my house for the
debt, and Lord Egremont gave me the money to redeem
the mortgage. Lord Egremont wrote me a cheque for
1,800/. I was then about to leave the room, when his
Lordship said, " Hare you that cheque safe ?—take
care of it." I then looked at the cheque, and finding it
was for I,BOOL instead of 8001., which I had asked for,
I told his Lordship so. He. said that did not matter, and
asked me whether I was not satisfied. I said I wanted
800/. only for a specific purpose ; and he then threw the
cheque into the fire, and wrote me one for 800/.
Did you pay back the money to Lord Egremont ?
No ; I never had an account with Lord Egremont. The
money I received from him was for my subsistence.
I observe you state in your schedule that you received
from Lord Egremont the sum of
,2,260/. in 1834. How
did you make up that amount ?—I made it up from my
account with Wigney ; the cheques were produced to me
with a memorandum on the back of them. I have no
doubt my attorney will show the documents necessary to
establish the account. Besides •Wignev's account there
were the cheques which have been shown- me by Lord
Egremont's executors.
Can you specify what are the documents which en-
abled you to fix upon that particular sum of 2,260/.
find here a cheque for 1,000/., and I have no doubt the
remaining 1,260/. will be accounted for by the various
documents now before the Court.

Specify the particular documents from which you
derived the information,-1- derived the information
from the account with Wigney, and on compa-
rison of the dates of the cheques charged against
me in the trial at Lewes. On referring to the dates
I found I could account for the sum of 2,2601.,
having been received by me in 1834, because they were
endorsed " payable to John Carew or bearer." I made
out the account from the copy of the bill and the answer.
How did you pay the sum of 1,0001. to Mr. Ferner ?—.
I received 1,2001 from Lord Egremont, two of which
were 5001. notes, with which I paid Ferner 1,0001. for
ground to build on. That was a gift of Lord Egremont.
I might have paid into my banker's the remaining 2001.
I received also in the year 1834 the sum of 5001 from
my profession.

In the year 1835 it appears from your schedule that
you received from Lord Egremont the sum of 1,3001.
and from your profession 500/. ; then there was in addi-
tion a mortgage of 1,0001., with 2001. received for
rent ; but it appears from your pass-book that you
paid into your banker's duri-g the year the sum of 4,4251.,
leaving a sum of upwards of 1,4001. unaccounted for.
Where did that sum come from ? Was it not received
from Lord Egremont ?—I do not think it was. I gave
the best account I could of my receipts from Lord Egre-
mont.

Will you swear that you did not receive from Lord
Egremont, during the year 1835, upwards of 3,0001.?—
I will not swear ; but I have given in my schedule the
fullest amount which I could.

Did you receive- from Lord Egremont, in 1836, as
stated in your schedule, the sum of 3,5004 and 3001.
from your profession ?—I did.

Anvil yoti received in addition 2001. for rent, making
in all 4,000/. But it appears from your pass-book that
you had paid into your bankers during the year the sum
of 5,8151., leaving a balance of 1,815/. unaccounted for.
How do you answer for that ?—ln the year 1836, I had
received bills of exchange to a considerable amount from
Joseph Germaine, which made up the sum. I have some
of those bills, I believe, now at home. I cannot, however,
say what was the amount of the bills so discounted in 1836.
Some letters were here read from the insolvent to the
Earl of Egremont, acknowledging the receipt of certain
sums of money, and the obligations under which his
Lordship's kindness had placed the receiver. •
Examination continued.
Do you know a lady of the name of O'Keefe, residing
at Southampton ?—No ; but I have heard of her.

Did you ever write a:letter to her ?—No, never, to
the best of my recollection.
A letter was here read from the insolvent to Miss
O'Keefe, requesting her to send him any letter she might
have from Lord Egremont relating to an altar-piece to
be erected in the Roman Catholic Chapel of Brighton.
The executors of Lord Egremont refused the insolvent
any remuneration for the work unless he could produce
some document showing that he had been commissioned
by his Lordship to execute it.
The insolvent acknowledged that he had written the
letter, although the fact had escaped his memory. It
was merely an application for any document which the
lady might possess, for the purpose of showing that he
had Lord Egremout's order to erect the altar-piece at
his expense.

A letter was then read from Lord Egremont, printed
in the newspapers of the day, in which his Lordship de-
nied that he had ever given anything, or that he should
ever give anything, towards the decoration of any Roman
Catholic Chapel ; and stating that he had no connection
with the erections of the altar-piece of the Chapel at
Brighton.

Tile insolvent stated that the letter had been written
by Lord Egremont, for the purpose of discountenancing
a report that he was at the time about to become a Ro.
man Catholic.

Several letters were then read from Lord Egremont to
the insolvent relating to the works of the latter, and
more particularly a monument to the late Mr. Huskisson.
The answer to the bill having been read,
Mr. cooKE said he presumed that the answer was re-
ceived, not merely to show that such a proceeding took
place in Chancery, but that would be made evidence in
this case, and taken as an examination of Mr. Carew there.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—I presume that is so.
Mr. PLATT—Subject to any falsification.
Mr. Nicnoixs said it was then half•pastfive, and asked
the Learned Commissioner to adjourn the Court.
The case was then adjourned till Wednesday next.
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.
On Saturday a young man, named William Hutchings,
was brought up, charged by a Baker, named Archibald
Charles, with having defrauded him of two shillings, by
means of a pass for two to the boxes and two to the
gallery of the Haymarket Theatre. The complainant
said that the prisoner, in offering the tickets for sale to
him, mentioned that they would admit on any night
from the 9th to the 18th of December, with the excep-
tion of Monday night, which was specified on the back
of the ticket.
Alderman WILSON (who presided on the occasion)
asked whether the signature to each of the tickets was
meant to be that of Mr. WOster, the proprietor 2—The
complainant said he could nit niitke out the name.
The ALDERMAN, upon examining the ticket, said it
was impossible to say what name was upon them.
The policeman, who attends the theatre, produced
several other tickets, which were handed to him by per-
sons who had presented them at the doors of the theatre,
and were, of course, refused admission.
Mr. George Smith, cheque-taker at the Haymarket
Theatre, stated that the orders were not genuine, and
that within the last week about 200 such had been pre-
sented at the doors and rejected.
Alderman Wilson (to the complainant)—lt is odd
that you should have supposed that you could get an or-
der for two to the boxes of such a theatre as the Hay-
market for a shilling.
The complainant said he did not entertain the least
suspicion of the genuineness of the order, and he knew
that admission to many theatres was, now-a-days, ex-
tremely cheap.
Alderman WILSON—This is a clear case of obtaining
money under false pretences.
Mr. Hobler—No doubt of it. I dare say if the pri-
soner is remanded we shall have a crowd of persons here
to claim acquaintance with him.
The Complainant—The prisoner must have known all
about the deception, for he offered me 30s. to let him
off, and said that if I did not allow him to go he should
certainly be transported.
Mr. Smith said it had been ascertained at the theatre
that a great many false admissions of the kind had been
disposed of in the following manner:—A person who
stated himself to be employed to go round to the tobacco
and fruit-shops, and other premises in which theatre bills
were exhibited, to see that all was right with the display,
pulled out some of these admissions and handed them to
the several parties, saying that he was authorised by the
proprietor to supply them as a premium for their atten-
tion to the interests of the theatre; the shopkeepers were
of course much pleased at the compliment, and the pre-
tended messenger then appealed to them for a little remu-
neration for his trouble, and generally received a shilling
at each place.
Ald. WILSON said that the plan was very ingenious,
and a sure one. Ile should remand the prisoner till Tues-

ORNING SUN

day, and he hoped that a proper exr °sure Nl'ollld tale
place.

John Roberts, a G
d-IILDHALLooking youth, wa3 el" roea
figwith attempting self-destruction by casting himself °ice--
the wall of Blackfriars .bridge on Friday evening. to
lice-constable 304 stated that a gentleman pointed out 0
him a person who had leaped over the parapet wall lc
the shelf on the centre of the bridge. He ran, and scolo
the help of a passer-by, dragged him from
situation. The prisoner was either half drunk or es,
cited, and said he meant to have drowned hinaself. He
a lad of good character, and his master was in attendance''
The landlord of the Queen's Head, Water-lane, stated
that the prisoner was his servant as pot-bey and wati
and he was a remarkably civil and honest lad. Be "-
his full confidence, and was generally respected.
Alderman KELLY—What could have led to this Os,
attempt ? Witness—l have since learned that'd
night (Friday) he was drinking in the tap-room .
his father, a man I have long known, and that some lin,
his peril
1,
pleasant words passed between them. His father is
very honest man, and lives in Green-street.
Alderman KELLv—Young man, what have you to saY
Prisoner—My father found fault with me without cause:,
Words brought on words, and I went with the intention e`
drowning myself.
Alderman KELLY—Perhaps, you only did it to frighte.n
your father, when he should happen to hear of it ? Pry
soner— No, Sir. first
Alderman KELLY—WeII, if you were resolved at -
to destroy your life, what made you desist ? Prisoner
After I got over the wall I reflected a little.
veur
Alderman KELLY—As you well might, when, "Yhiolt
own account, you were about to launch from the "..00
Are
of time into the gulph which leads to eternity !
glad that you were baffled in your attempt 't
Yes, Yes Sir. CotO
The master interposed again, and implored the Cape
not eselille
not to commit the prisoner. He hoped that
would correct his folly. He believed him to be a gb;
lad ; and if the Magistrate pleased, he would take
home with him. A better servant he never had.
Q.ooa
Alderman KELLY (to the prisoner)—You have, ah`ouse
master. He is a kind-hearted man ; and if his it is
was not a respectable one, I should know of it,
in my ward. Go home with him, and reflect upon to
;
might have been your condition and be thanktioill'nc
Ged for preserving you from the commission end
of an °ti
of which you could not have repented. The Inaste
servant then left the Court.

MARLB OROIIG H. S TREE 7'. ress
Eliza Hubbard, a decently dressed young w°a33ll,'„,
charged with shop-lifting. It appeared that be!,,e,jet
seven and eight o'clock on Friday evening the prl, $3,
went into the shop of Mr. King, of .1•1. „ice
Martin's-court, and while bargaining about t"ecfoyell
of some combs, she was observed to secrete 3 015
small tortoise-shell braid combs under herprobs
She was taxed with the theft, and the ',;bleti
taken from her, and Mr. King not wishing to be tr°- but
with a prosecution turned her out of his sb,°,,P' pro.
directed one of his shopmen to watch her. °cuegsr-
ceeded straight to the shop of Mr. Nichols is 'ds tlO
tin's-street, and was observed to handle some g,,°° being
were hanging within side the shop door. 'Ai were
arrested several articles belonging to Mr-
found on her.-Remanded.
n Y• )
THE MARKETS.-(SATUR""
NEWGATE AND LEADENILALL;h- e trade
All sorts of meat was in rather short suppl.r,° l3te`i
was brisk, and prices advanced full 2d. per st,": Vs;
Bs. 4d. to 4s. 4d. ; Mutton 3s. 4d, to 4s. 2"tione oi
4s. 4d. to ss. 4d. ; Pork, 4s. 4d. to ss. 4d. Per s'done ar
81b. In Poultry and Game a good business Was
former rates, the supplies were large.
WHITECHAPEL MARKET. prices
The supply was good, and demand moderate-, sd. to
as follow :-Beef, 2s. Bd. to 4s. 2d. ; Mutton,
sd, to ow IL
4s. 2d. ; Veal, 4s. to ss. 4d. ; Pork, 3s.
Clover, 31. to 5L 13s. ; Hay, 21. to 41. 85. ; s°l •
lOs. to a. 14s.

TEA MARKET. u Is: °1
A small business was done; Company's Cong?l,os.-
cash, but common Free Trae could not be P" , •
under is. 9id. per lb.
TALLOW MARKET. • es °lri
A fair demand for Russian Tallow,",and Prlcehe o-
at 48s. 2d. on the spot, but for delivery 111) t° ;9s.
of the year 48s. was wanted ; for spring months
RICE MARKET.Ier, °5.
A fair demand for Bengal, and prices are fir° to 30'
to 12s. for low, and good white Carolina 03.
per cwt.
INDIGO MARKET. on tile
The market dull, and prices of East In"—
decline. f
SPIRIT MARKET. fee
Leielwu-mards is du
ll
and prices advance.
9oldsatole,iasnidodp;rißcersanondy tl.raleedte:linfae;rrsale,
WOOL MARKET. of rJAI, 311
A fair demand for both English and
prices fully supported.
METAL MARKET. L• iron fire
Spelter held firmly, at 401., on the, sP°"
and Lead more in request. •

COUNTRY CORN Al 1IS:----------ARKE
.. raj
Wheat. Barley. Oats. 8eD6............--- 6,
5. 41
Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. s. to s. 's. t 0
,;.; 30 ....
Abingdon 5B 73 30 :Ai 24 3'l 40 '' ..... ...•
Andover 6) 70 33 3t V 5 27 •'''' ..... 41
tembnry MI CS 32 40 24 33 nty 40 42
~,„
Basi gstoke 60 72 32 37 24 t 8 42 46 sg ,
Cirenc-ster 6O 10 ;,2 :'5 24 :5 40 4'l 40 ~..
8
(3oven try — 64 32 33 24 .RI 34 -- 1 ... ..•
ttaventry
)2rby 64 '75 33 38 23 28- 35' - 4 ,31 44
41
Howden
~, 38 ..,
fiungerford 46 '7 29 37 25 30 40 ' -.- 41
Halton
Mai •en head 54 Si 32 35 26 31 .40 „4 ••••• ....
Nottingham 60 76 28 32 *A -28 41 46 •••• ~..
Wan tage 63 78 30 31 30 32 36 -"' 4°
Warwick
Winchester 74 36 21) „„'''' 41 -_,
d
York 'sB 67 30 36 19 24 • ~, 0
s.
. 5 d. 6 6
J. ' 0
Per Bushel s.d. s. d. s.d. s. d. s. s. d. S. A, 7 0 6
~
Birmingham 70 86 36 46 36 40, ,'
„./. 103.
HULL CORN MARX 1."655. ''','; 665.
Wheat, Whit( (per Quarter) .................... os. 6,... to.
Red ...............................•
603. 64,5: As.
Foreign ............ • .......................... 90s. •='' 0.
Barley, Malting , ............. . ... 2Ss. _7,l' r3O.Grinding ......................... : .......... ,05.2,2.4.
s. .!*
. .
Oats, British ................................ .... ...... itis. 'F,,,,(" 42.0,
Foreign (in bond) ...... . ......... .. ......... i 135 '''.; MA*
Beans ............................................. ... . ..... 345.
‘3,1-,,,-,:40;,

• •
6/5.
655• . 665•
ads. 64 co.
605. 604,.. :,3s•
40. J'' )•
3 -• ,a• 30.
'29' '0.'');.`21.,•
Os. -- ' fils.
lgs• .li.s.
s 4°!. 535•
Beans '
'' Ms. s'.'.'' to,
Pease, Grey _
___ ........................ ",, 3e,s. „s•
Blue and White.............................. ,N-.. bus ".'
. 54) .; 014
Linseed
....s. to • ,a,.
Flour (per sack) ......... —.. .................. . ...... 1. 9it. aw
Rapeseed per 10 quartcrs) ..... . ........... ...... -71.. eel.
WAKEFIELD CORN MA, hilt) 64''' "is 6,3:
Wneat, Red, Norfolk and Suffolk --s• -'3'',,,, tils• f.,,1 e 1 -
--- -- Lin. and Cam. -s. 58'' ‘, NA. "- , ice,
...„. ;;Ss. ,,,. an 03,
--- Yorkshire
White
---- Foreign, fted --s. 645. to i2riss.
glue
:32,
....s. 653, to Lis. tin q 54.
------------ White 2ss. to •,3:.,4. tinecy,
Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk 3os. to "0 tioe*,,,,
-- -- Lincolnshire
—.-- Yorkshire Wold . os. to 3',: Cote 425,
- Foreign 3Bs, tO ..";. 60 „,,,,,
Beans, New
---- Old
....s. to 7,„. ono „.3,,
Oats, Potato
....8. to :•,"' five `-e,
—.--- Poland ''''' to mss. - Sip°

b.ealingFriezland and Small
12d.
ShGlling
„Iss 1to;
9. /40 Pp
40. "ng. OS. Malting
Rapeseed

CORNWALL MARKETS',
(Calculated at 24 gallons to the bushel./
...,
, OA" J
Wheat. I 13a1.1 ,d. to 1:, 1,,
s. d. to r. d. s, d. to s. d•
...... 0 .:1 i:,
fruro ll 7 5 '
Helstene --. 0 3 tc),
St. Austell 0 So —0 38 0 3 "
Bodmin 0 88— 0 4 4 --- 0 et
Liskeard 0 76 0 36: 0 ,2 44
Launceston - 0 3 ~.. 9 6 a v
Camel ford 6 6 7 E 3 0 ' 0
Penzance 7 8 8 4 —n 40."
_ al,'

e,'l' .
PATENT LEVER SILVER Wszi,tb,_ 11,4
—E. J. DENT, 82, Strand, Chronometer, .",;esc V --,::
Clock Maker, by special appontment to her 1"-gers IS
Queen and his Royal Highness- Prince Albert, offers
ASSORTMENT of these superiorly constructed Wi.Ler &Om"'
at 61. 6s. each. They have double-bottorned fist to eerfilfrot
jewelled (six holes) movements, and continue t° WO
whilst being wound, with other modern rnoyementstsge sti
performance guaranteed. Their particular 2,1°1 esfer,/:0
strength. moderate price, capability of bearing of repers7,
motion without derangement, and small expense 0' exits'if they meet with injury. Gold cases from 8/. to 104
82, Strand, three doors west of Cecil-street.
hi Celr
T
PATENT LEVER WATCHES. ---":;,01%;;$
rated construction (the most accurate on which at. the Isnir
be made) is now offered at the following prices,
jewelled to
1°- •
improvements, i. e. the detached esc pernent, iewc„', to
holes, hand to mark the seconds, and laintaining P"—
tinue going while winding up. 0
se
SILVER CASES.
With double-bottomed ca es,
ca" one d ......... E 6 lu 6
With hunting cases, capped ......
... 6 A
, e 0
GOLD CASES.
Size for Ladies, with elegant gold dia1.....E12, 'l4 0
Ditto, in double-backed cases •• i'l ,3 0
Size for Gentlemen, enamelled dial ......... 13 ' 0
17 17 of
auTtictrohnlseto,nCwonhitcahine
Ditto,
Watchesixnt
gr a ful l
observationssai
rzee ,mcaadpepr,ee d
withs
p. .e .o. t
it
nb• i
thep .;_,.::awri,
oi
de
ro
.„
icnonAgsotplrd and silver cases, and a variety of sketches °' will b.
signs, which have just been completed in gold awes,
to I%
letter dooro
sent, gratis and postage free, on application by
Cox Savory, Watchmaker,47,Corithll, London, °ye°
o r
eos
one
ot ht
,e
Llo4wt let r inst., sotr.w,
from Gracechurch-street
yori''
joli of
On the 14th inst IV • - Dalston, the
Esq., ~ at avarino-terrace,
C. Frodsha afed aouf gilh it
er.r.
of o°l'
In, of a daughter.
On the 15th 1 tthe
ins t., wile of Mr. James SaviYer' the
lane, Ch ' capsule, of a son. are,
On the 17th inst., in Holles-street, Cavendish-sqe
lady of Dr. C. J. B. Williams, of a sou.
otohde,
o, wife BIRTHS.
Samuel Smith,

Lieut.-Col. George Macdonald has
pointed Governor of Sierra Leone.

MARRIED. Job°
On the 15th inst., at Great Burstead, by the Ref. doe,
solicitor,
tJoohilniaßryobtiniesononorGa,ibeisdoens,t odfauCgohpttehraollf CDoeunrtzlieLt.A°ll7ol.
Billericay, Esq., R.M., and one of her Majesty's Justic g
Peace for the county of Essex. „oh
Tais morning, the 18th inst., at Moberly Chapel, 1611n-yeai
1:13, the Rev. Robert Philip, the Rev. J. T.
Norfolk, to Harriett Louisa, youngest daughter '
Ovenden, Esq., of Dalston, Middlesex.
General
DIED. t-
On the 16th of December, at Woolwich, Lieutenan so,
George William Phipps, of the Royal Engineers, aged 0
, r ieuteo t.
On the 16th ult., at Montreal, Anna, wife of l,
Wigner,;,Georie
Colonel Eden, Deputy Adjutant- General.
On the 14th inst., at Leamington, Cecilia, youngest 1:100-'
ter of J. Thomson, Esq., of Primrose, near Clitheroe. ,or
On the 14th inst., at Woolwich, Rose Fiott, the Wife 0'
...o'i
tain Piercy Been, Royal Artillery.
---oJ

London : Printed and Published by MURDO IWILN 1.11
No. 112, Stran,l, at The Sus Office, No. .A
112. Strai°
the County of Middlesex, Monday, December 20