The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

the Council, M. Roufos, Minister of the Interior, and
General Rhodias, Minister of War, tendered their re-
signations to the King, by whom they were at once
acceptel Vice-Admiral Canaris has been appointed
to the vacant office of President of the Council, and
the Senator Londos succeeds M. Roufos in the de-
partment of the Interior. The portfolio of the War-
office is confided ad interim to General Mavro Mi-
chali, Minister of Public Instruction.
The King and Queen of Greece returned from
their tour in Eubcea and to Thebes on the 17th of
October. The country is tranquil.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 13.

Cross-examined—l did not then know that the plain-
tiff and his wife were in lodgings. The plaintiff called
upon us to ask the defendant to go to Wenlock-street,
to attend his wife, who was ill. I have seen the plaintiff
one or two evenings lately. Ido not remember his
having said on one of those occasions that he had Inen
treating so many persons that he had no money left,
and that I must treat him. I may have paid for things
for him. I have, I think, heard him say that he was
short of money. This was last week. The house he
went to was the British Lion, but I cannot say we roused
the British Lion, and so made him give us some gin.—
(Roars of laughter.) I certainly said at one time that
my " uncle" had kindly taken charge of some of my
clothes, as I had beemne short of money.—(Laugh-
ter.) This was after the plaintiff had told me he was
short of money. One night, after we had been out
drinking, we had a bed between us, the plaintiff paying
ls. 6d. for the bed before we went into the room. We
had nothing to drink the next morning before we went
home at that house. We had not that evening had as
much as one shilling's worth of drink between us. My
time was out when I left the defendant, for he would
not have me any longer. My clothes are still at my
" uncle's." The coat I now have on my father lent me.
I had told the plaintiff that he mast lend me some money
to get my clothes out of pawn to come into the court,
but ho did not do so, for he said he had not got sufficient
money. My shop is very well stocked with drugs and
medicines, notwithstanding some of my clothes are in
pawn. Tha plaintiff asked me to give my evidence. He
did not tell me that if the defendant bad only called upon
him they might have settled the affair without going
into court, but he may have said something of the sort.
I believe he said something about settling the case, but
I have no recollection that he said they might have
" fisted it." I have not much doubt but that be said so.
This was last week. He did not say anything more that
lam aware of. The house we slept in was near Wen-
lock-street.
Re-examined—l had no knowledge of the plaintiff
until his wife's illness.

A_LCOCK V. ROYAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY.
The arguments in this case were resumed. It was an
action to recover the value of a policy of insurance on
the ship William Thompson, which was wrecked off
Alexandria in 1843. The verdict was given for the
plaintiff. A rule had been obtained calling upon him to
show cause why a new trial should not be had on the
ground of the reception of improper evidence and the
exclusion of evidence.

Sir Frederick Thesiger, Sir John Bayley, and Mr.
Bovill, showed cause against the rule.
The further arguments were interrupted by the rising
of the Court for the purpose of attending the pricking for
sheriffs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 13.
REGISTRATION APPEALS.
JOLIFFE APPELLANT AND PRICE RESPONDENT.
This was an appeal from the decision of the Revising
Barrister for the borough of Newport. The appellant
occupied a coach-house and stable, of the yearly value
of 10/, which were situated in a court-yard adjoining an
inn, in the town. The buildings were under one roof,
and there was a room over the coach-house and stable
which was common to both, but there was no internal
communication between them. It appeared, however,
that there was a window in the division wall. The
Revising Barrister held that it was not one building
within the 27th section of the Reform Act, and refused
to register the appellant as a voter for the borough.
Mr. POULDEN argued at some lenglh on behalf of the
appellant, to show that he had a proper qualification,
and

Mr. CREAMY was heard on the part of the respondent.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it seldom happened
that there was any internal communication between a
coach-house and a stable, and that the circumstance of
its being necessary to go out into the yard to get from
one to the other was no more than happened with re-
gard to every occupation of this description. It appeared
to him, from the statement of the case, that the coach-
house and stable, in point of fact and in point of law,
constituted one building, and that the Revising Bar-
rister had drawn an erroneous conclusion. He was there-
fore of opinion that the party was entitled to be re-
gistered as the ocoupier of one building.
The other Judges concurred in this opinion, and the de-
cision of the Revising Barrister was accordingly reversed.

John Farrow—l live at Englefield-cottage, De Beau-
voir-square, Kingsland. I built it. The plaintiff and
his wife came to live there early in August. Soon after
they came I went to the back bedroom to make an ob-
servation in consequence of what one of my tenants had
told me, as well as my wife, and I saw a gentleman at
the extremity of my back wall looking up at my window.
I have since ascertained that it was the defendant. I saw
Mrs. Pratt returning with a mutton chop, but on a signal
she went back to the defendant. They separated and
went different ways, but as she did not come home I
whipped out of my front door and came upon them at
the east end of the square, when upon seeing me they
again separated. Mrs. Pratt once more joined and went
away, and after an absence of half an hour she returned
home to my house. This was on the 7th of September,
in the present year. I was so much excited about the
affair that I wanted to see her. A " gracefuller little
woman," I assure you, I never saw—(Loud laughter)--
she is a most insinuating little creature.—(lienewad
laughter.) I spoke to her and reproved her for her
conduct, and soon after a cab came to my door and she
went away in it, taking her luggage with her. I told
the man, at her request, to drive her to the Green Man
and Still, Oxford-street, from which place she meant to
take the omnibus to Hendon, as she was going to her
mother there. I told the plaintiff when he came home
what had occurred, as it was my duty to do. The poor
fellow cried like a child, and I said he ought to be glad
of it, and should have more manly fortitude rather than
cry at the loss of a woman who had turned out a pros-
titute. On the following Monday I went to the Feathers,
in Oxford-street, and saw Mrs. Martin, the landlady,
and a porter of the name of Gray, and from what we
hoard I went to the Portland Coffee-house, Great
Castle-street, Oxford-market. I there saw the
chambermaid, Elizabeth Heath, and the " boots."
Heath at terwards went with me on the Fri-
day to the defendant's. We saw him in his shop, and
Heath recognised him. The defendant said he remem-
bered the woman, and I then said, " More villain you,
then." The defendant pushed me out of the shop.
When the plaintiff and his wife came to my house they
were unable to open their trunk—a hair one—and my
wife lent Mrs. Pratt a key to unlock it, but when she had
done so the" key could not be got out. It was, therefore,
left in. When Mrs. Pratt was packing up the afternoon
she went off she could not lock the trunk, and so we
lent her a bit of cord to tie round it. The key still re-
mained in the lock. When the chambermaid went with
me to the defendant's she remembered him as the gentle-
man who slept with the lady at their coffee-house on the
night of the 7th of September.
Cross-examined-1 had before been to another gen-
tleman's, but I said he was not the man, as the girl
could not recognise him. I could not indemnify" him
as the man I had seen waiting. I did not say I thought
that gentleman was the man I had seen on the 7th of
September loitering about my garden wall. The plaintiff
and his wife were in my house five weeks only. His
father, his sisters, and a gentleman or two of the Cus-
tom-house used to visit them at my house. They were
so loving that I really thought it was the " honeymoon"
with them.—(Loud laughter.) The plaintiff and his
father asked me to go to see the gentleman.
Elizabeth Martin—l am the landlady of the Feathers
Tavern in Oxford-street. On the 7th of September a
lady came to my house in a cab, and she had a young
lady with her, who came in and asked if the luggage
could be left. I assented, and it was thereupon brought
in, and it consisted of a hair trunk with a key in the
lock, and some other articles.

PDX APPELLANT AND DAVIES RESPONDENT.
This was an appeal from the decision of the Revising
Barrister for Shaftesbury, and the question involved in
the case was simply as to whether a rate had been pur-
posely levied, for the nonpayment of which the appel-
lant's name, as a soot and lot voter, was struck from
the register. _

It appeared that the assessment was properly signed
by two churchwardens, one of whom was a justice of
the peace, but that it was not confirmed by the signa-
tures of two justices of the peace. which was required
by the 33d sec. of Will. IV., c. 4, 5. Some ratepayers
paid the rate, and others refused to do so, but no appeal
was made against the irregular mode in which it was
levied.

The COURT was of opinion that the appeal must be
allowed, ai in point of law no rate had been made, and
that being the case, there could be no nonpayment, and
therefore no disfranchisement.

The decision of the Revising Barrister was then re.
versed.

Cross-examined—She called the young lady her niece.
The things remained there about three-quarters of an
hour.

James Gray, an occasional porter at the Feathers, said
I was on this day employed by the landlady to carry
some luggage. I took it to a coffee-house in Great
Castle-street. I saw a hair trunk, but that was carried
by another porter; there was a key in in it. There was
only one lady accompanied her. There was a hair trunk
with a key in the lock, which a stranger carried. The
lady paid us for our trouble.
Eliza Heath—l was chambermaid in September last
at tho coffee-house in Great Castle-street. I remember,
on the 7th of that month, a lady coming to the house
with a porter who brought a hair trunk and other things.
There was a key in the trunk, and there was a cord
round it. She asked for a bed for her and her husband.

I showed her a room, which she approved of:— I then
supplied her with pen, ink, and paper. Having written
a note, she gave it to me to dry in another room. I read
what she had written and returned it to her, when she
folded it up, put it in an envelope, and went out carry-
ing the note with her.
Mr. 111731 FREY objected to the contents of this note
being given in evidence unless the note itself were pro-
duced.

BO W-STREET.

-M7.- Sergeant SHEE submitted that as his Learned
Friend did not produce the note ho was bound to give
the next best evidence of the contents.
Mr. Baron PLATT was of opinion that the proposed
evidence could not be given in evidence. He would, how-
ever, take a note of the tender and the objection to the
reception of the evidence.
Examination resumed—The lady took the letter out
with her. She was away about a quarter of an hour.
She then partook of some refreshment, and retired to
the bedroom. It was between five and six o'clock
when she came. About ten o'clock a gentleman came
and asked if there was a lady waiting there for him.
The defendant is that gentleman. He went up, and re-
mained about half an hour, and then came down. They
had some porter, and then they went to bed, and passed
the night together, the gentleman telling the porter thit
be must be called at six o'clock in the morning. I made
the bed the next day, and saw that two persons had
slept in it. At eleven o'clock the next morning defend-
ant came again, and took the lady away in a call. On
the following Friday I went with the plaintiff and Mr.
Farrow to a house in Cropley-street, Hoxton, and there
I saw the defendant, and recognised him at once as the
gentleman who had slept with the lady at our coffee-
house on the nigth of the 7th of September. lam quite
positive as to the identity.
At this stage of the proceedings
Mr. Baron PLATT said that as 'his presence was re-
quired in another place, the further hearing of the case
must be postponed till to-morrow (this morning).

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before the ASSISTANT JUDGE.)
The Court sat yesterday by adjournment from last
Wednesday.
George Abbott, an attorney's clerk, and Caroline his
wife, were indicted, charged with stealing a variety of
articles from their ready-furnished lodgings, the property
of A. Simms.
It appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutrix, that
the prisoners occupied apartments in her house, in Cot-
tage-lane, City-road. One day, about a fortnight ago,
both prisoners went out, and did not return until the
Saturday following. During their absence the prosecu-
trix went into the rooms,_ when she discovered that they
had been nearly stripped of their contents. The female
prisoner returned to the house alone, when she was given
into custody. The male prisoner was subsequently
taken into custody, and on his person were found
sixty-two duplicates, chiefly relating to the property in
question. _ _

The male prisoner offered to plead guilty if the Court
would order his wife to be acquitted.
The Court would not, however, consent to this course,
and the case was tried. It was clearly shown that the
female was his wife, and the Court, therefore, directed
the woman to be acquitted.
Mr. HEATON pleaded distress in extenuation; but it
was shown that the prisoner had been in employment
since February last, at a salary of 1/. ss. per week.
The jury found him Guilty, and he was sentenced to
four months' hard labour.

MADAME DE SOUZA.
Another application for a remission of part of the sen-
tence panel upon this woman, for keeping a house of ill
fame in Bury-street, St. James's, was made this
morning, but the Court declined to accede to the appli-
cation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
• MANSION-HOUSE.
Mr. Angus 11PKenzie was some days ago apprehended
by Daniel Forester, upon a warrant granted by Alderman
Hooper, the late Lord Mayor, upon a charge made by
Mr. Edmund Phillips, of No. 8, London street, provision-
merchant, against him, of having committed forgery to
the amount of 3,000/. Bail having been given for the
appearance of Mr. M`lienzie, the case was not disposed
of till yesterday.
In October, 1846, Mr. Phillips, being about to proceed
to America, left with a Mr. White a power of attorney
to draw and accept bills of exchange in his name. Ho
had had several bill transactions with Mr. Angus
INPKenzie, whom he had previously to his departure in-
formed of that fact, and who requested him to leave with
him (M‘Kenzie) three or four acceptances signed
in blank, as there might be difficulty in getting bills
discounted signed by procuration, and it might be
necessary to raise money during Mr. Phillips's absence
upon such acceptances, Mr. rhillips consented, upon_

. '

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 14, 1848.

the understanding that the bills were only to be used
during his absence, and that Mr. M'Kenzie would ac-
count with him for them, or give them back on his re-
turn. Mr. M‘lienzie then produced four stamps without
any writing upon them, and handed them to Mr,
Phillips, who wrote across each of them, " Accepted,
payable at the Commercial Bank of London, Edmund
&c. ;" left them in the possession of Mr.
Nl`Kenzie, and proceeded to America. In the latter end
of December, 1846, Mr. Phillips returned, and after his
return three of the four acceptances, two of which were
dated in November, and the third in December, payable
four months after date, were presented and were paid by
him. Ho caused inquiry to be made of Mr. MtKenzie,
and had reason to believe from the result of that inquiry
that three only of the acceptances had been used, and
that the fourth had bee❑ destroyed ; and he believed
such to be the case until the 24th of October last, when
the fourth of the stamps was presented to him for
payment in the form of a bill of exchange, bearing date
the 9th of October, 1847, purporting to be drawn by
Durant and M`Kenzie upon and accepted by Edmund
Phillips, &c., for the sum of 3,0001., payable twelve
months after date; the signature Durant and Maenzie,
as well as the endorsement, being in the handwriting of
Mr. M'Kenzie, whom Mr. Phillips never authorised to
use the blank on which the last-named bill was written,
except during his absence in America in 1846. Upon
these grounds, and the statement of Mr. Phillips that the
fourth bill had been drawn, uttered, and circulated with-
out his authority or knowledge, the late Lord Mayor
directed that Mr. M'Kenzie should find bail to a large
amount to appear and answer the charge.
The fourth bill had, it appeared, been presented from
the London branch of the North-Western Bank of India
by a clerk in that establishment, and the only persons'
names upon it as indorsers were those of " Durant and
M'Kenzie" and " Robert Cameron," and payment was
refused upon the ground that the bill was a forgery. An
action was then commenced against Mr. Phillips, at the
suit of Mr. James Watson, officiating manager of the
North-Western Bank of India, and subsequently the
warrant was procured against Mr. M'Kenzie.
Mr. Clarkson, together with Messrs. Linklater, soli-
citors to Mr. Phillips, appeared for the prosecution ;
and Mr. Ballantine, with Mr. Hobler, appeared for the
defence.

Mr. Ballantine said that he appeared for the gentle-
man against whom the warrant had been granted, and
who appeared to answer whatever charge might be
brought against him.' Looking at the whole of the cir-
cumstances stated by Mr. M'Kenzie in explanation of
the transaction, it certainly must be admitted that his
client's conduct was not defensible in a moral point of
view. Nevertheless, there were some matters which he
thought would operate upon those concerned in the
prosecution to prevent them from pursuing the course
which they had thought proper to adopt. The Learned
Counsel then referred to the numerous large commer-
cial transactions in which Mr. M'Kenzie had been from
time to time engaged with Mr. Phillips, and repre-
sented that his client had filled up the fourth bill in
the belief that the amount would liquidate no more
than what would appear to be due to him upon the
settlement of the outstanding accounts between them,
and at the same time not entertaining any idea that
his authority to fill up the blank terminated before the
bill was negotiated. It was certainly not the intention
of Mr. M'Kenzie to commit a fraud when he made the
instrument negotiable, for he had put it into the hands
of his agent, Mr. Cameron, under the impression that
Mr. Phillips was indebted to him to the amount. The
Learned Counsel would nut by any means say that such
was the case, but he believed that Mr. M'Kenzie had
acted under that impression, and through Mr. Hobler
referred the whole of the circumstances to him, for his
advice as to the course which it might be advisable for
him to adopt. He (Mr. Ballantine) and Mr. Hobler were
decidedly of opinion that Mr. M'Kenzie was by no means
justified in what ho had done, and they considered it to
be his duty to put Mr. Phillips in the position in which
that gentleman had previously been by handing him
the bill, and that everything in the shape of a claim
must be withdrawn. If Alderman Hooper, notwith-
standing all that had been stated in expla-
nation, considered that there were grounds for
a committal for a felony, he knew it wonld be vain
to plead against the extreme course, but if it were con-
sidered necessary to require bail for the charge in any
other shape, security to any amount was ready. The
bill, he believed, had been impounded, and was ready to
be delivered up to Mr. Phillips, and all idea of claim
upon that gentleman was ready to be abandoned. Mr.
ArKenzie deeply regretted the course he had adopted,
but he really thought it would have facilitated the settle-
ment of the accounts.

Mr. Miller, upon the part of Mr. Cameron, the agent,
into whose hands Mr. M'Kenzie had placed the bill, at
once admitted that his client had no claim; and Mr.
Phin, for Mr. Watson, said that his client consented to
relinquish all claim.
Mr. Clarkson, for Mr. Phillips, said that when the
subject was originally placed before him he had very de-
cidedly given his opinion upon it as one upon which he
entertained no doubt. The circumstances in explana-
tion, however, mentioned by his Learned Friend, had
altered the opinion he had formed of the intent to de-
fraud, particularly as Mr. M'Kenzie had placed the bill
in the hands of a person who would have found insur-
mountable difficulties in negotiating it. It appeared to
be reasonable to suppose that Mr. M'Kenzie's object was
to compel a settlement of accounts which were existing
between him and Mr. Phillips, under the impression that
it would be in his favour, and as the bill was ready to be
given up, and all claim upon his client abandoned, he
would leave it to Alderman Hooper to decide upon the
question of going into evidence in the altered shape which
the case had assumed. He was willing upon the part of
Mr. Phillips to take the bill, but he denied on the part of
Mr. Phillips that there was anything whatever due from
him to Mr. M'Kenzie.

Alderman HOOPER said the matter presented a very
different case from that which it bore when the com-
plaint was originated. At first the transaction appeared
to him, in a dry legal point of view, to come under the
class of forgery. It was important to examine in such a
case how far it was the intention of Mr. M'Kenzie to de-
fraud. The complication of accounts, of which he (Al-
derman Hooper) as a commercial man was well able to
judge, supplied an argument in favour of Mr. M'Kenzie,
who might have supposed that a balance was due to him
sufficiently large to justify the appropriation; and there
was a probability, too, that the expectation of compel-
ling an immediate settlement might have operated as an
inducement. Under all the circumstances, and as the
character of Mr. M'Kenzie stood without imputation, he
should dismiss the case.

The bill was then given up to Mr. ',Phillips, and the
parties retired.

A laundress, named Roberts, was Lrought before Mr.
Henry for re-examination, charged with stealing a
number of articles, including a sword, a silver epaulette,
silver spoons, and several law books, the property of Mr.
G. W. Fowkes, a barrister, of 6, Stones-buildings, Lin •
coin's Inn, and other gentlemen, of whose chambers she
had the care. _ _ _ _

It was proved that the missing articles had been taken
from time to time by the prisoner, and pledged at
different pawnbrokers, the sword and epaulette having
been occasionally redeemed and then pledged again.
These facts were deposed to by Mr. King, a pawn-
broker, of 34, High Holborn, and by Mr. Attenborough,
the pawnbroker, in Fleet-street, to the latter of whom
she had frequently pledged law books.
The property was identified by Mr. Fowkes, who had
entrusted the woman with the keys of his chambers when
he had been absent from town.
Mr. HENRY lectured the pawnbrokers present, and
through them the trade generally, upon the imprudence
and want of caution, not to use stronger terms, which
were often exhibited by them in their business trans-
actions. Here was property which they might well
have known could not possibly have belonged to a
woman in the prisoner's station of life; and yet, without
a single inquiry, they were ready to advance money
co
upon it. He (Mr. Henry) believed that the carelessness
pawnbrokerostolen
proper t y
on one
course
u o
ef
which he should not hesitate to adopt. of pawnbrokers in this respect operated as an encourage-
ment to the thieves of the metropolis; and hesaw plainly
o fa s t
that the most effectual check they could put upon the
sthyessteemwouldbe to commitreceiver
occasions as
a The prisoner Was committed for trial.

,Joseph Carter, a pugilist, was on Saturday charged
with breaking a valuable square of glass in the shop
door of Mr. Thomas Bushell, landlord of the Coach and
Horses, in the Strand.

The prisoner, who was enveloped in a large cloak,
staggered into the complainant's shop, drunk, on Friday
afternoon, followed by others of the same class, and de-
manded to be served, which the waiter refused to comply
with, upon which he became very abusive, to the annoy-
ance of the customers, and after pulling open the door
with great violence, he left the house, but instantly re-
turned, using threatening language, and laying hold of
the door again, he broke the window.
Constable 58 F proved that when he apprehended the
prisoner he used threatening language, putting himself
in a fighting attitude, and it was with great difficulty he
conveyed him to the station•house.
Mr. Dodd, the inspector, being questioned by the
Court, said the prisoner was a very disorderly character,
and when the charge was preferring by Mrs. Bushell, in
the absence of her husband, he threatened to do for her
when he got his liberty.
Mr. HENRY, who recognised the prisoner as having
been frequently brought before him, ordered him to pay
the sum of 11. 135., being the amount of the damage,
or one month's imprisonment, and an additional fine of
31. for resisting the officer, or another month's imprison.
went.

Baker, 131 B, who came up immediately after the
prisoner was brought out of the yard, said that the
moment he was within arm's length of the
prisoner, the latter inflicted two violent blows on his
head, after which he seized witness by the throat, and
tried to choke him, and kicked him repeatedly with
great violence. Ile then male an (Ann to get at his
pocket, at the same time exclaiming, " You -, if I
can get my knife, I'll soon do for you." Prisoner, after
using this threat made so many attempts to bite witness,
and was so violent that he was obliged to use his
truncheon. Witless was so lame in consequence of the
injuries inflicted by the prisoner, that he was unable to
attend to his duty.
Further evidence having been given,
Mr. BRODERIP having asked the prisoner what he had
to say, he replied, " They found no lead about me, and
did not see me meddling with it."
A difficulty having arisen with respect to the owner.
ship of the lead, the Commissioners of the Westminster
Improvements having been in treaty for the premises
from which it had been stolen, _ .

Mr. BRODERIP said he should remand the prisoner for
the felony and ferocious assault with which he stood
charged fur a week.
Thomas Moore was finally examined, charged with
stealing several articles of silver plate. value 101.
On the afternoon of Tuesday last, Balcome, 302 V,
saw the prisoner, in Gunter's. grove, with a bundle under
his arm, and suspecting that he might have become pos-
sessed of it dishonestly, inquired what he had there.
Prisoner replied, a basket of plate, which a person had
given him to take to the steam- boat pier at Battersea •
bridge. The constable made other inquiries, and, nut
being satisfied with the prisoner's account, took him into
custody, when he made a most desperate resistance. The
basket was found to contain four table spoons, five des-
sert spoons, and some forks, and as the only account the
prisoner could give of the matter was, that a person who
was unknown to him had given him the things in the
street to convey, as above described, he was remanded,
when it was subsequently ascertained that the property
belonged to Mrs. King, of St. Mark's-terrace, Brompton,
and had been stolen, shortly before the prisoner was met
with it, from a cupboard in her parlour. Miss King saw
a person resembling the prisoner enter the garden in
front of the house that afternoon with something in his
hand, apparently for sale, and saw him leave in a few
minutes afterwards, but did not observe whether he had
a parcel with him. The servant was engaged at that
time at the back of the house, and a person entering the
garden in front would have easy access to the parlour
from which the plate was stolen. _

Prisoner was committed for trial.
SOUTHWARK.

Alfred Moor, alias Johnson, alias Matthews, Charles
Downing, alias; Captain Coact, Henry Hodgson,
alias Captain Hodgson, East India Company's
service, T/zomas Bench, Ambrose Jacobs, and Wil-
liam Bates, were brought Wore Air. Cottingharn,
for re-examination, charged with swindling. The court,
as on the former day, was crowded to excess in conse-
quence of the extensive nature of the frauds. _

Mr. CorriNGliAm saie, that every examination con•
vinced him the more of the organized system of swind-
hoc,6 which was carried on by the prisoners and others
who had not yet been taken into custody. As the mat-
ter at present stood he should take care the prisoners
should not escape being sent for trial, and, with a
view to give others an opportunity of appearing against
them at this court, he should remand them until next
Monday, and then commit them.