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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 11, 1848.

of sympathy in a common pursuit; and if they follow
any peculiar studies by themselves, they are thereby
set in a kind of opposition to authority and established
institutions, are led to look upon them with dislike
if
not disdain, and to feel an overweening confidence in
their own wisdom." Every one has an
i interest in
desiring that " authority and established institutions"
should not be treated thus. Every one will wish
that the first effect of the present change may be to
attract more closely to the University the best and
most deserving of her pupils. An Alma Mater at last,
in truth as well as name, she now offers nourishment
to all her children. The probability is a fair one that
the offer will not be coldly met; that the dunces will
diminish; that we shall see the waste lands of Hoi
Polloi gradually reclaimed, and brought into decent
cultivation; and that Swift's reproach to the Univer-
sities will cease to be applicable, and that education
is always the worse in proportion to the wealth and
grandeur of the parents.
We have intimated that the Graces were opposed,
but passed by decisive majorities. It is understood that
the contest was almost wholly confined to the resident
members, the non-resident seldom going up for any-
thing less importaat than to punish a parson for
liberality, or to poll into office a lord or a prince.
Two hundred and forty-three votes were taken on
the first, and of these seventy-five were dissentient.
On the second two hundred and thirty-eight were
recorded, the opposition mustering eighty-three. The
number of voters on the third was two hundred
and thirty-six, and of these sixty-six were adverse.
Wonderful is it, as Erasmus remarked on a similar
occasion, how some men will cling to their old igno-
rance with their hands and feet, and not suffer them-
selves to be torn from it ! Nay, the number of such
men would have prevailed on this occasion, we are
gravely told, but for the influence of the new Uni-
versity Chancellor, his Royal Highness Prince Albert !
The student of Saxe-Gotha is reported to have
weighed Cambridge in the balance, to have found it
out to be a sham, and to have resolved that some
truth should be put into it. If this be so, we congra-
tulate the country on its prince and the university on
its chancellor ; and are glad to find that the exuberant
inauguration festivities of Trinity Lodge have borne
solider fruit than a bishoprick to Doctor Whewell.

LAW IN TELLIGE N CE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
CRESWELL and a Common Jury.)
CLIIFIP V. BELL --FOR LIBEL.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for a libel alleged to have been published of the plaintiff
by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Lush were counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Words-
worth represented the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said his client, Mr. Wm. Cluff,
was an Irishman by birth; he came into this country
several years ago, and by industry and propriety had
succeeded in accumulating considerable wealth. He
was a very large silk manufacturer in Spitalfields, em-
ploying
upwards of 300 weavers. The defendant, Mr.
Robert Kell, kept the White Horse public-house, in Spi-
talfields, near the residence of the plaintiff. The com-
plaint of the plaintiff was, that the defendant had pub-
lished a libel of him of a most serious character. In the
early part of the present year the defendant exhibited in
his window a handbill in:the following words:—"Shortly
will be published, in two parts, by subscription, a tale
of the 19th century, entitled, Paddy Cluffe; or the
Bane of Commerce and the Weaver's Curse.' Part the
first will show the means by which the hero of the tale
acquired capital, the purposes to which the said capit
has been applied, and the many injuries which the fair
trad:r has sustained in consequence. Part the second
will show the impossibility of labour protecting itself
from the encroachments of capital when in the hands of
unprincipled men, unaided by legislative interference: a
few figures showing the necessity which exists for the
establishment of a minimum rate of wages. To conclude
with a long list of extortions practised on the unfortu-
nate operatives. The tale will tall of many strange ad-
ventures, many hairbreadth 'scapes, not from the immi-
nent deadly breach, but from the trammels of the law.
Price 3d. each part." An extremely pleasant thing it
was for Mr. Cluff, for a publican in his immediate
neighbourhood to turn amateur bookseller, in the
midst of the weavers, and publish " a tale of the
nineteenth century," which was to be the life of
Mr. Cluff. Among the statements made in the
work referred to, he found a distinct imputation
of the plaintiff being a receive r of stolen goods—a
most monstrous and almost incredible imputation, for
which it was not pretended there ever was the slightest
ground whatever. It was as follows:—" We state that
property of every kind was greedily received by him,
however obtained; that quills and other trifles relating
to the silk trade were even bought from girls and boys,
and that with a perfect knowledge that the articles so
bought could not be rightfully acquired." He must also
call their attention to the following passages from the
book:—" Paddy Cluffe, the bane of commerce and the
weaver's curse, is supposed to have been born about the
year 1798, but of his birth and parentage little is
known. Some have asserted that he is of divine origin
—(Laughter)—having descended in a direct line from
Calisto, who, for certain naughty practices, was changed
by Juno into a bear—(ltenewed laughter)—and that he
is the first in that descent who has been allowed by the
gods to assume the human form. It is further said his
first appearance on this earth was notified to mortals by
suspension, high in the air, of three magnetic balls--
(Laughter)—which, under Ito influence of the gods pos-
sessed the power of attractiag gees Is of every description
necessary for the use of man." He (Mr. Sergeant Byles)
presumed that was an elegant and circumlecutory way
f stating, that his father was a pawnbroker.—
(Laughter') " Others assert that, like the rest of mor-
tals, ho was ushered into being by the usual course of
nature, but that his birth was accompanied by signs and
tokens of an extraordinary and alarming character.
Whether he was born with teeth in his head has not been
ascertained, but that he was sent to snarl at and bite
mankind has been made pretty clear, and whatever may
be the doubts relative to his origin, his practices for
many years have declared his whereabouts unmistake-
able. From the most correct and best authenticated
sources of information, we have been enabled to ascer-
tain that in the year 1828 he resided in a weaver's shop,
situate in an obscure court, not many hundred yards
from:Spitalfielde Church—a somewhat insalubrious
locality for one descended from the gods.—(Laughter.)
In 18!4 sundry inconveniences compelled a change
of residence, and he became a tenant, not at
will, of one of her Majesty's prisons' but even here
he was ill at ease; being of a reserved and thoughtful
disposition, the gaieties of the place were not at all
congenial to his desires." Then came a most unfounded
charge that the defendant followed the profession of a
common informer. "As soon, therefore, as the authori-
ties, not medical, who attended him would permit, he re-
linquished his occupancy and took up his residence in
a more retired but less restricted locality; but here his
means became so fearfully reduced, through want of
friends to recommend him to the manufacturers for em-
ployment, as to render his condition truly wretched and
miserable; an opportunity presenting, like a drowning
man, eager to catch at anything, he embraced the
doubtful and precarious profession of common informer.
How long he continued in that capacity is uncertain, but
in 1826 we find him in business on his own account,
vending oranges, herringt, and potatoes; and here the
peculiar bent of his desires strongly manifested itself—
namely, an ever-pervading determination to acquire
wealth. In order to retail his goods, it was necessary
to possess a pair of scales, but scales, like other articles
made with hands, can only be obtained by pur-
chase. To avoid such outlay, two saucepan-lids,
by skilful tinkering, were made to answer
every purpose, and this ingeniously contrived
machine, in after life, was made to mete out articles of
higher value. The shop (a lower room in a private
house), which contained his worldly substance, might
well remind us of the poor apothecary's as described by
Shakspere's Romeo; his scales, two saucepan lids, and
his weights, poor weavers' lingoes melted down; his
shelves contained no heavier burden than here and there
a bunch of parsley, thyme, and sage, while the largest
stock possessed by him of the esculent root did not ex-
ceed one hundredweight. But, however beggarly may
have been the appearance of this large emporium, certain
it is his worldly goods increased, for in 1828 or 1829 we
find him in a dolly shop, engaged in business of a most
extensive, but much less reputable character; and here it
may be necessary to remark that the increasing distresses
of the handloom silk weavers of Spitalfields rendered
them an easy prey to dark designing men who only
sought to aggrandize themselves at the expense of
their fellow creatures. . . . We have already said
that in the year 1828 Paddy Cluffe was in possession
of a somewhat extensive dolly-shop—and even dolly-
shops in the hands of honest, upright men are very
useful in their way, but in the hands of base, dishonest
men are too often made the instruments of fraud and
the receptacles of ill-gotten wealth. In this shop Paddy
began to deal extensively with human wretchedness and
human woes, for none could resort to such a place but
those compelled by misery and want. In this shop—the
trtittful source of misery
and crime—the means were
the foulest wrrson
gained
dedby which, in after years, some thousands were
ca._, to pauperism and to ruin; and from the long
acquisitio'nPafidy
iZ,Treoolfoublack offences, which shall we select to
sufficiently strong the hated vices and
pasta The Cm lot tat' ft egTro.ss
ttndsgaeanllll:niloged in and perpetrated by Paddy
! this was a dirty stepping-
stone to the
wealth." Surely that was a
preceding,
read several other from the publication in ques-
tion, similar in tone to the The Learned Counsel
and then asked
the jury to give his client, not ignomun • •
reasonable and temperate damages ignominious, but such
to vindicate his character. as would enable him
Daniel Walbrack, a porter in the employ
plain-
tiff, proved the exhibition in the defendant'sof the
' the handbill given above, and the havin window of
' the plaintiff's son to the defendant's putLaZumspeanied
seeing him:buy of the latter a copy of the, and
publication
containing the alleged libel.
He admitted, on cross-examination, that he saw
copies of the same handbill exposed in the shop windows
of several other persons living in Spitalfields and Beth-
nal-green.
Mr. Sergeant Wilma, fir the defnirnt, said it
squared neither with his inclination nor his duty to his
client to attempt in the slightest degree to extenuate or
justify the scandalous libel which had been read to the
Court ; but he would prove up to the time of young
Mr. Claff going into the bar of the defendant's public-
house to purchase the pamphlet in question, he (the
defendant) did not know that there was such
a person as Mr. Cluff on the face of the
earth. He did not know him even by name, much
less his habitation, his nation, or anything connected
with him. He (the defendant) kept a public-house

in the neighbourhood, and, as was very frequent in the
case of public-houses, the handbill in question was put
into his window—injudiciously, it must be admitted, but
not designedly or malignantly to injure the plaintiff.
One or two copies of the book had been left with the de-
fendant for sale; and when they were put into his hands
the jury might fairly suppose he thought the book was
a tale of fiction to amuse any person who thought proper
to purchase it. Besides, about the time of the com-
mencement of the action the defendant had repeatedly
offered to the plaintiff to make an ample public apology,
but the latter had refused to accept it. And why had
not the action been brought against the person named
Hollis, whose name appeared upon the book as its au-
thor? It could never for a moment be presumed that
the defendant was the writer of such a production.
What did he, a publican, know about Calisto? The
only name in the heathen mythology with which he
would be likely to be acquainted was Bacchus, and per-
haps hi had no very accurate notion of him.
Mr. W. H. Kell, the brother of the defendant, deposed
to going with the latter to see the plaintiff on the sth of
June, the action having been commenced a few days be-
fore. They saw the plaintiff, and the defendant told him
he had come to express his regret for having published
the pamphlet in question, and that he would make an
ample public apology and pay all the expenses that were
incurred, and, further, would give a sum of money to a
public charity. The plaintiff replied that it was his in-
4,ention to proceed against every person concerned in
publishing the book, and refused to accede to the de-
fendant's offer.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES, for the plaintiff, replied. What
was an apology worth in such a case? The poison of
that infamous falsehood had been instilled into the minds
of the people of the whole neighbourhood; many of those
persons could not read, and doubtless had only heard the
libel read to them. How many of such people read the
daily newspapers? A public apology, therefore, would
not remove the injury which had been inflicted. The
bane came to thousands; the antidote, perhaps, to some
twenty or thirty only.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL told the jury that the plain-
tiff was clearly entitled to a verdict. The amount of the
damages rested entirely with them. There was no doubt
at all that a libel of a very abominable character had
been published of the plaintiff, and that in one instance
a copy was sold by the defendant. There were different
degrees of responsibility attaching to different parties
connected with libels, The author was responsible for
the whole that were circulated; the printer was also re-
sponsible for the whole, because if the one had not com-
posed, and the other not printed the libel, it could not
have been published. It was not so with respect to an
individual who happened to sell one copy; he was not
responsible for those that were sold to others ; and
therefore the defendant in this case was not in the same
position as the author or the printer. But, although the
jury might think the author or the printer would be
guilty of greater injury to the plaintiff then the defend•
ant, it did not follow therefore that the plaintiff was not
to have compensation for the injury which the defendant
had done to him. The defendant was responsible for
that which he himself had done.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 40s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 10.
ANGELL V. WORSLEY, FART.. _

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at
Hertford, verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant DOWLING now moved for a rule for a
new trial, or for leave to enter judgment for the plaintiff
non obstante veredicto. The action was brought to re-
cover 300,0001. on a bill of exchange accepted by the de-
fendant, and endorsed by him to the plaintiff. The
defence was that the bill had been fraudulently obtained
from the defendant, Sir William Wersley, by a person
named Anderson, the agent of parties styling them-
selves Van Straubenzee and Co., who had adver-
iised that they would advance 20,000/. on approved
security. Anderson gave the defendant another bill in
exchange for this, drawn on Van Straubenzeo, at 21
days' date, which was dishonoured. On this state of
facts a verdict was returned for the defendant; but the
Learned Sergeant now contended that the plaintiff, who
was a respectable shcemaker in business at Panton-
street, in the Haymarket, had acted bona fide in the
transaction, and that if there were fraud in the case, it
was for the defendant to show it.

The Court granted a rule to,show cause.
AMES (PAUPER) V. LLOYD.
_ _ _

The plaintiff conducted his own case in person, and
Nfr. fiumfrey, with whom was Mr. Montague Smith, ap-
peared for the defendant.
This was an action by; which the plaintiff, an attor-
ney's clerk, sought to recover compensation in damages
for the publication of an alleged libel in Lloyd's Weekly
Newspaper, on the 30th of June, 1844.
The damages were laid at 5001.
The defendant put three pleas on the record, of which
the third one, of justification, was the materisl one. It
appeared that on the 24th of June, 1844, the plaintiff had
been brought up at the Clerkenwell Police-court to
answer the complaint of his wife, who charged him with
having violently and cruelly beaten her. At this
period she was within ten days of her confinement.
The truth of the accusation appeared to have been
luny established, not merely by ,the marks on the poor
woman's face, but by the testimony of several wit-
nesses. The matter was reported in the usual manner
in the morning papers, and on the following Sunday was
transferred, in the customary mode, into the columns
of the defendant's journal. The complaint of the plain-
tiff was, that the report was too highly coloured, so
much so as to have inflicted the deepest injury upon him,
t'or not only had his friends and relations withdrawn
their intimacy and acquaintance from him, but he had
been unable to otvain another situation in consequence.
The want of a situation had rendered him incapable of
prosecuting this action, ina,mtwh as he had nut had the
means thereby of paying fees to counsel, or even the
Peas of Court. The result had been, that he had been
cuutpelb.d to adopt the necessary steps to enable him to
proceed as he di I now in forma pauperis.
In the cours- of the trial, which occupied the Court
for more than five hours, a number of witnesses were
examined, all of whom, with the exception of one—and
his knowledge of the transaction had been solely derived
from the reports in the papers—corroborated the state-
ment as to the cruelty and violence which the plaintiff
had exercised towards his wife, not only in this particu-
lar, but in many former instances. The policeman, too,
stated that the plaintiff had told him that he had got 51.
out of the Times, and that he should get 5001. out of the
defendant.

Mr. Baron PLATT, in leaving the matter for the deter-
mination of the jury, told them that if they considered
the plea of justification to have been made out, it would
be their duty to find a verdict, for the defendant on that
plea, but on the other pleas they must find for the plain-
tiff. It was lamentable to see so much of the public time
wasted by an inquiry into such a disgraceful case, the
more so, as it had turned out that every witness who had
known anything about the matter had confirmed the
material statements which had been published; and even
the plaintiff himself had admitted that he had beaten his
wife when she was in a condition which demanded the
care, consideration, and protection of all men. He had
beaten her most brutally when she had wanted but ten
days of her confinement. That was an extreme act of
brutality in a husbaild.
The jury at once returned a verdict for the defendant
on the plea of justification, and for the plaintiff on the
other two pleas, with damages for One Farthing.

CONSISTORY COURT, Oct. 10.
(Before Dr. LUSHINOTON.)
PITT V. PITT.
The husband in this case proceeds against his wife for
a divorce on the ground of adultery. The parties have
been married twelve years, and almost immediately after
their union the lady exhibited intemperate habits, and
under the influence of drink became violent in her
temper. This led to a separation, a distinct maintenance
being allowed by the husband, who gave up also the
house and furniture. Soon afterwards, however, Mrs.
Pitt disposed of her furniture, and went to reside in
another neighbourhood, unknown to her husband, who
after some inquiry, found she was living under the pro-
tection of a person of the name of Jones, in Stanhope-
street, Regent's-park.
Dr. ROBERTSON prayed the Court to grant the husband
a divorce.
There was no opposition, and
The Learned JUDGE pronounced for it accordingly.
TAYLOR V. TAYLOR.
This was also a suit promoted by the husband against
his wife, Mary Taylor, for a divorce on the ground of
adultery.
Dr. JENNER stated that the parties were married in
1836, and that in 1841, from some difference, the wife
giving way to inebriety, they separated by mutual eon-
sent, he at the same time allowing her a separate main-
tenance, and was in the habit of visiting her two or three
times a week up to 1847, when he learnt that she was in
the habit of staying out at night, and frequently bringing
home with her strange men. That on one occasion ono
of these men, whose name was Watson, stayed with her
the whole night, in consequence of which the Learned
Advocate prayed the court to grant a divorce.
Mr. BAYFORD was heard on the part of the wife, and
opposed the application on two grounds ; first that the
husband had condoned the wife's fault ; and secondly,
that there was only one witness to attest the criminality
of the wife with the man Watson, which was held by
Lord Stowell as insufficient, unless supported by some
corroborative circumstances.
Dr. JENNER rose to reply, when the Learned Judge
stopped him, saying he had read over the whole of the
evidence with great attention, and his mind was made up
as to the decision he should give. He felt obliged to the
Learned Counsel who appeared for the wife for having
drawn his attention to the reported cases of Simmons v.
Simmons, 'and Compton and Butler, and they required
consideration. It appeared the parties had lived separate
several years, but the husband, it was stated, had been in
the habit of visiting his wife, and had not, therefore, en-
tirely withdrawn his protection from her until a short
period before this citation, when an act of adultery had
been ,proved against her, in consequence of which he
now sought relief at the hands of this court ; the ser-
vant living with Mrs. Taylor at the time had proved the
fact of having seen Mrs. Taylor and the man Watson
together, and he saw no reason for doubting the truth of
this witness's statement. It appeared Mrs. Taylor was
a woman of most profligate habits, and although it had
been held by Lord Stowell that one witness to the act
ofw adultery, unsupported by corroborate testimony,
wag not
not sufficient for this court to grant a Jivorce,
anfd
.shligh 11.4 was the respect for the opini,on
o
ti at Learned Judge, to whose decision he
(Dr. Lushington) isowed, he had some doubts in his own
mind, and had followed it, though muth against his own
inclination. He felt this ease did not fall within the rule.
The question raised b
wife, w is an important one, r, Bayford, on the part of the
that according to the rule of
this court there was nottonsuefficient evidence. The ques-
Ition is, is it necessarcyasoehave two witnesses to the fact
itself ? Analogous have been heard in this court.
Suppose an accomplice shouldotb speak to the fact, which
should be supported by other
buiner=ts, he (Dr. Lushington) •
thought that there was to convict the party.

Now in this case the main witness proved that Mrs.
Taylor was in the habit of getting drunk and inviting
various persons home to her house ; another witness,
Jane Dodson, had been witness to Mrs. Taylor's indulg•
ing in gross familiarity with men who visited her ; that
on one Sunday night she came home at twelve o'clock,
accompanied by a man, and they sat together an hour.
He felt that there was no doubt but that adultery had
been committed. It was also stated that a Mr. Munday
had been solicited to stay the night with her. The evi-
dence of Mrs. Tucker was supported by this fact ; and
although two witnesses might in general be requisite,
this was a case in which the rule might be departed from,
and the divorce must be granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-LIOUSE.

The LORD MAYOR, upon commencing his magisterial
business yesterday, said:—" In taking my seat for the
first time in the Justice-room, I am anxious to state
that I shall make a rule of beginning business here
punctually at twelve o'clock daily; but if my services
can be useful to the public at any other time, I beg it
to be understood that I shall consider no hour too early
and no hour too late to be called upon to act for their
advantage. I shall be at the call of my fellow-citizens
at all times."

Several pickpockets who had been deeply engaged on
the Lord Mayor's day in the spectator's pockets at the
procession, were brought up, charged with having made
attempts to exercise their occupation.
John Jones and William Smith were charged with hav-
ing robbed a gentleman named Young of Albemarle-
street, a merchant, of a gold pin value 21.
Mr. Young, in passing along Ludgate-hill when
the procession was going by, was surrounded by three
or four strangers, some of whom pressed upon him and
engaged his attention, while one whipped the gold pin
which was in his breast over his shoulder, and handed it
to a companion. The tact of the thief was so neatly
used upon the occasion, that Mr. Young knew nothing
at all about the robbery, until Child, the beadle of
Trinity-square, who knowing the prisoners had closely
observed them, told him that he had just been plundered.
Child seized the thieves, and the pin was found at the
feet of the prosecutor by himself.
The LORD MAYOR—Do you know these men to be
thieves? Child—l know them long to be the compa-
nions of thieves. Ido not know that they have been
before in custody.
Jones—My Lord, he accused several other men of the
robbery; but at last he fixed upon us, as he couldn't go
so far without doing something.
The LORD MAYOR-It is a very clear case, and you
must go to Bridewell for six weeks to pay the penalty
of the offence.

Two seamen, named Patterson and Dunlop, were
charged by Mr. Coleman, of the Registrar-General's
office, with having deserted the vessel in which they had
been engaged as seamen.
The prisoners said in their defence that all the other
hands had deserted the vessel when she got to Quebec;
that they bad not left her till she reached New York;
and the other hands had not only complained of what
they (the prisoners) had still further reason to complain
of—the badness of the provisions. They adeaitted that
they had received advance of pay for the whole voyage,
and that they had been hired for the voyage home at a
considerable increase of wages, as was the case generally
with deserters.
The Loan MAYOR said he should most decidely adopt
the plan of his predecessor, and never let a delinquent of
the kind go with impunity.
The prisoners were then sentenced each of them to
thirty days' imprisonment.
A number of seamen were charged with having de-
serted the ships in which they had been engaged, but as
neither the owners, their agents, or the captains, whose
presence would be necessary for the security of the in-
fiction of imprisonment for thirty days, attended, the
only penalty which his Lordship could adjudge was a fine
of 10s.' and 3s. costs.
Mr. Coleman said he had written to the agents upon
the subject, but no notice had been taken of his request
for their attendance.
His LORDSHIP said he hoped there would be no occa-
sion to urge those who wished to be protected to assist
him in the endeavour to afford that protection; without
such assistance he certainly could not punish those who
basely abandoned the vessels n hich they were bound to
work, as they deserved to be punished. He regretted to
be obliged to say that the conduct of the British seamen,
judging from such samples as had come before him on
the first day of the performance of his duties as Lord
Mayor, showed very great degeneracy.
H. Hall was accused of having picked the pocket of
Mrs. Dalby, on Lord Mayor's-day.
Funnell, the city officer, had seen the complainant
followed by the prisoner, who slipped his hand into her
pocket, pulled out two shillings, and moved off. The
officer intimated to the complainant that she was robbed.
" Oh, no," said she : " a gentleman has been just robbed
of his watch. I have lost nothing. " Try your pockets,"
said the officer. And upon doing so, she at once said,
" Yes ; I have been robbed of two shillings." The pri-
soner was, at this moment, in custody of the policeman,
who immediately found the money in his pocket. The
whole transaction was witnessed by Russell, another
City officer.
The prisoner was sent to Bridewell for six weeks.
Sl,-ral other fellows, who attempted to pick pockets,
were also committed.
GUILDHALL.

George Brown, a well-known impostor, was brought
up fur final examination on the charge of obtaining a
sovereign from the Rev. Samuel Wicks, chaplain to St
Bartholonmw's Hospital, under false pretences. The.
circumstances of the case were fully stated upon a former

occasion.
William Iforsford, an officer of the Mendicity Society,
entered the witness box, w hen
The prisoner's solicitor (whose name did not transpire)
said that he must object to Hor.ford's evidence being
received as to any prior transactions.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Then I am not to learn any-
thing at all about the prisoner? I shall certainly hear
what the officer has to say, and it will not make me de-
cide either way without having sufficient grounds.
aoshtoarlsf. to
OtwnotyheealrBs,thasocfonmnaercethed,
IwBi4tBh, begging
letter Horsford said that he had known the prisoner from a
aiumdp
year
sentenced to three months' imprisonment from Marlbo-
rough-street-office for obtaining money from Lady de
Dunstanville. He had the prisoner in custody on the
11th of June, 1848, for obtaining money from the Duke
of Cambridge under false pretences, and he was then
sentenced to three months' imprisonment. The prisoner
was in the habit of using various disguises, and on the
first occasion when he was in custody he wore a smock
frock and leggings, and was to all appearance a country-
man. He was tried and convicted at the Chelmsford
Sessions, and had afterwards presented a petition to a
Mr. Edgerton, in which he set forth that his brother had
absconded to America, taking all his books and
leaving him entirely destitute.
The prisoner's solicitor protested that all Horsford
was stated could not be evidence against his client on
the present charge.
Horsford—lf he is discharged now, I shall take him
into custody for obtaining half a sovereign in Chancery-
lane, under similar circumstances,-
on Wednesday week
last.
The Rev. Mr. Wicks said h wished to make one ob-
servation, and that was he had no ill-feeling towards the
prisoner, for the money that had been obtained from
him, bat he should leave it entirely in the worthy Alder-
man's hands to deal with the case .public gr
ounds.
Alderman
Alderman LAWRENCE said it was quite evident the
prisoner had been in town for • d
carrying on this game, anda: long period
most dishonourable waliving
getting in a
law did not give him Y. He was only sorry' that the
power to • h him more
but as it was, punish more severely,
he should commit him as a rogue and
vagabond fur the space of three months.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
William Bitiner, watch-maker, of No. 4, Greek-street,
Soho, was brought up for final examination, charged
with having pawned an enormous number of watches
left with him to repair.
When the prisoner was first apprehended he gave up
four or five duplicates to the officer who took him into
custody. At a later stage of the proceedings the police
received between fifty and sixty more duplicates, all of
which related to watches and other valuable property en-
trusted to the prisoner either to repair or to dispose of.
The amount of money received from the pawnbrokers as
exhibited by these duplicates, was very little less than
3001. The value of the property so pledged is estimated
at about 1,0001. From the dates on the duplicates, it
was evident:that the prisoner bad carried on the system
of pawning for some time, a number of duplicates being
out of time. Since the apprehension of the prisoner,
the police have endeavoured to trace out the owners of
the property to which the sixty-two duplicates referred.
They have succeeded in getting a clue to between
twenty and thirty cases, and applications are being
made daily.
Eighteen separate cases of illegally pawning had been
already proved against the prisoner.
John Peake, of 18, Frith•street, clerk to George
Nock, jeweller, stated that, on the Bth of August, the
defendant applied for some gold chains to show to a cus-
tomer. He was entrusted with six gold chains, value
15/., and witness soon afterwards ascertained they had
been pawned.
The depositions in twenty cases having been taken
against the prisoner, evidence was offered of his previous
good character.
The majority of the complainants appeared disposed
to deal leniently with the prisoner, and one party offered
to take the prisoner into his employ immediately, as he
was one of the best workmen in the trade.
In two cases the prisoner was fined 20s. for illegally
pawning, and ordered to pay the value of the property,
or to undergo one month's imprisonment for each offence.
In the other cases he was fined 10s. each, in addition to
the value of the property., or together, two months' im-
prisonment. Th© whole of the punishment in imprison-
ment will be four months.
The pawnbrokers considered, as they would be large
losers, that they ought to receive one-half the amount
they advanced on the watches before they were required
to restore the property.
Mr. BINGHAM thought under the circumstances this
was but a fair proposition, and ought to be accepted.
James Harris was brought before Mr. Hardwick,
charged with having robbed M. Maurice Oubel, a
French gentleman, residing at the Sablionere Hotel, of
his watch, value 50 guineas.
M. Oubel stated, that about eleven o'clock the previous
evening, he was standing in the Haymarket waiting for
a friend, when the prisoner came up to him and re-
quested to know what o'clock it was. Prosecutor took
out his watch for the purpose of telling him, when he
immediately seized it, and by main force tore it from the
chain, and ran off. Prosecutor followed, and called for
assistance, and the prisoner was stopped by a constable
tin Pall-wall, with the watch in his hand.

Inspector Wall stated that the prisoner had been seve•
ral times in custody for similar offences.
The prisoner in defence said he was hard up, and that
induced him to commit the offence. He was fully com-
mitted.

John Nichols, ironmonger, Snow-hill, City, Nov. 22,
at one, and Dec. 22, at Bait-past ekveli, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Cannan, official assignee, Birchin-lane;
Todd, Thavies Inn.

Alexander Turnbull, farmer, Blue Anchor-road, Ber-
mondsey, Nov. 21, at two, and Dec. 22, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee,
Frederick's-place, Old Jewry; Tyrrell, Guildhall-yard.
Charles George German, jun., licensed victualler,
Portsmouth, Nov. 22, at twelve, and Dec. 21, at eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bell, official-assignee,
Coleman-street-buildings; Gf orge,Villiers-street, Strand.
Valentine Soden Godfrey, miller, Duddington,
Northamptonshire, Nov. 24, at eleven, and Dec. 22, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official
assignee, Abchurch-lane, London; Wright and Bonner,
New London-street, Fenchurch-street; Law, Stamford.
Richard William M'Donnell, paper manufacturer,
Bitton, Gloucestershire, Nov. 21, and Dec. 19, at eleven,
at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee,
Bristol; Crosby, Bristol; Jay, Sergeant's Inn.
James Dredge, brewer, Bath, Nov. 21 and Dec. 19, at
eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, official
assignee, Bristol; Castle and Henderson, Bristol; Surr
and Gribble, Lombard-street.

William Martin, innkeeper, Birkenhead, Nov. 22 and
Dec. 12, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court. Bird,
official assignee, Liverpool; Cornthwaite and Wilson,
Old Jewry-chambers; Pemberton, Liverpool.
William Yowler, auctioneer, Crediton, Devonshire,
Nov. 23, at one, and Dec. 20, at eleven, at the Exeter
District Court. lirtzel, official assignee, Exeter; Drake,
Exeter.

John Walker, hotel-keeper, Upper Seymour-street,
Edgware-road, Nov. 20, and Dec. 18, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Cole-
man-street; Moon, Adam-street, Adelphi.
Alexander Haig, engineer, Smith-street, Jubilee-
place, Stepney, Nov. 16, at one, and Dec. 16, at twelve,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee,
Guildhall-chambers, Basinghall-street; M`Duff, Castle-
street, Holborn.

William Norton, ironmonger, Penzance, Cornwall,
Nov. 28, and Dec. 20, at eleven, at the Exeter District
Court. .Elernamen, official assignee, Exeter ; Britten
and Son, Bristol ; Stogdon, Exeter.
Joseph Lawrence Butler, coal merchant, Liverpool,
Nov. 22 and Dec. 12, at eleven, at the Liverpool District
Court. Turner, official assignee, Liverpool ; Vincent,
King's Bench-walk; Anderson, Liverpool.
James Ingram, merchant, Liverpool, Nov. 23 and
Dec. 14, at eleven, at the Liverpool District Court.
Morgan, official assignee, Liverpool; Keightly and Co.,
Chancery-lane; Holden Liverpool.
Henry Dawson Wilkinson, silver plater, Sheffield,
Nov. 10, and Dec. 16, at half-past twelve, at the Leeds
District Court. Freeman, official assignee, Sheffield ;
Tattershall, Great James-street ; Smith and Son, Sheffield.
Walter Hall, miller, Kington, Herefordshire, Nov. 25,
and Dec. 20, at twelve, at the I3irmiagham District
Court. Christie, official assignee, Birmingham; Banks
and Son, Kington; Motteram, Knight, and Emmet, Bir-
mingham.

Thomas Robson, tailor, Houghton-le-Spring, Durham,
NOT. 21, at eleven, and Dec. 19, at half-past twelve, at
the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court. Baker, official
assignee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Bell, Broderick, and
Bell, Bow Churchyard; Thomas and William Chater,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
William bhacks:ll, coal tar and naptba manufacturer,
Regent's-canal, Saint Pancras, Nov. 16, at twelve, and
Dec. 16, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Follett, official assignee, Basinghall-street; Smith Chan-
cery-lane.
Robert Ashforth, hardwareman, Birmingham, Nov. 25
and Dec. 16, at twelve, at the Birmingham District
Court. Valpy, official assignee, Birmingham ; Harrison,
Birmingham.
William Newby, joiner, Manchester, Nov. 23 and
Dec. 14, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court.
Hobson, official assignee, Manchester ; Johnson, Son,
and Weatherall, Temple; Needham, Manchester.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court, Basieghall-street.
W. Child, Chertsey, grocer, Dec. 2, at eleven.
In the Country.
E. Alansen, Liverpool, wine merchant, Dec. 6, at
eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—R. Maehell, Liverpool,
merchant, Dec. 5, at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—
W. Maury, Liverpool, Dec. 5, at eleven, at the Court,
Liverpool—J. Maddock, Liverpool, tallow chandler, Dec.
5, at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—J. Harford and
W. W. Davies, Bristol, and Ebbw vale and Sirhowy,
Monmouthshire, iron masters and iron founders, Dec. 5,
at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—W. Watts, Ashton-
under•Lyne, draper, Dec. 8, at twelve, at the Court,
Manchester—J. Acornb, Blackburn, Lancashire, and
York, Dec. 8, at eleven, at the Court, Manchester—R.
Nevrboult, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, draper, Dec.
2, at half-past twelve, at the Court, Sheffield—Cr. Slater,
Doncaster, ironmonger, Dec. 2, at half-past twelve, at
the Court, Sheffield—W. Wayte, Basford, Nottingham-
shire, iron and brass founder, Dec. 2, at half-past twelve,
at the Court, Sheffield—J. Baker, Staunton-upon-Wye,
Herefordshire, victualler, Dec. 6, at twelve, at the Court,
Birmingham.
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.
_ _

A. Harrison, Friars Goose Alkali Works, Gateshead,
Durham, alkali manufacturer, second dividend, 45., in
addition to 8s previously declared, on Saturday, Nov. 11,
or any following Saturday, between the hours of ten and
three, at the office of Mr. Wakley,Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
J. Wooler, Stockton-upon-Tees, Durham, draper,
second dividend, Bd., in addition to 4s. 3d. previously de-
clared, on Saturday, Nov. 11, and any following Satur-
day, between the hours of ten and three, at the office of
Mr. Wskley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
E. C. Blackwell and J. N. Dunstord, Newbiggen by the
Sea, Northumberland, brewers and fish curers, 2s. 6d.
on new proofs, in part of first dividend of 6(1. previ-
ously declared, on Saturday, Nov. 11, and any following
Saturday, between the hours of ten and three, at the
office of Mr. Wakloy, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
B. Woolston, Stamford, Lincoln3hire, brick maker,
55., on Saturday, Nov. 11, or any subsequent Saturday,
between the hours of eleven and three, at the office of
Mr. Bittleston, Nottingham.

J. Meads, Nottingham, grocer, 45., on Saturday, Nov.
11, or any subsequent alternate Saturday, between the
hours of eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Bittleston,
Nottingham.

W. B. Cooke, Burton-upon-Trent, Derbyshire, tape
and small ware manufacturer, Is. 3d., on Saturday, Nov.
11, or any subsequent alternate Saturday, between the
hours of eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Bittleston,
Nottingham. _ .

W. Bedells, Leicester, paper and general dealer, is. 2d.,
on Saturday, Nov. 11, or any subsequent alternate Sa-
turday, between the hours of eleven and three, at the
office of Mr. Bittleston, Nottingham.
W. Stone, Matlock, Derbyshire, builder, Is. 4d., on
Saturday, Nov. 11, or any subsequent alternate Satur-
day, between the hours of eleven and three, at the office
of Mr. Bittleston, Nottingham.
J. Hatfield, jun., Southwell, Nottinghamshire, ♦ic-
tualler, 4d., on Saturday, Nov. 11, and any subsequent
alternate Saturday, between the hours of eleven and
three, at the office of Mr. Bittleston, Nottingham.
J. Hawkins, Nottingham, currier and leather dealer,
25., on Saturday, Nov. 11, or any subsequent alternate
Saturday, between the hours of eleven and three, at the
office of Mr. Bittleston, Nottingham.
T. B. Molyneux and F. Witlierby, Liverpool, mer-
chants, fourth dividend of is., any Wednesday, between
the hours of eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Follett,
Liverpool. _

- NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
T. Keating, St. Paul's Church-yard, druggist, Dec. 5,
at eleven—L. W. Ash, White Lion-street, Pentonville,
corn and coal merchant, Dec. 5, at twelve—F. L. Ban-
wens, Croydon, stearine and candle manufacturer, Dec.
2, at eleven—C. Willis, King-street-terrace, New North-
road, Islington, licensed victualler, Dec. 2, at one—W.
Draper, Basingstoke, Southampton, coachmaker, Dec. 4,
at half-past twelve—W. H. Pitt, York-place, Pentonville,
engineer in heating and ventilating apparatus, Dec. 4, at
twelve.

In the Country.
J. Holt, Bury, Lancashire, tailor and draper, Dec. 5,
at twelve, at the Court, Manchester—W. Woodward,
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, plumber and gla-
zier. Dec. 4, at half-past ten, at the Court, Birmingham
—W Watson, Golden-valley, Derbyshire, inn keeper,
Dec. 8, at twelve, at the Court, Nottingham—E.
Ellis, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, builder and timber
merchant, Dec. 2, at_ twelve, at the Court, Birmingham.:

At the Court of Review, Dec. 1.
J. Blake, West Cowes, Isle of Wight, builder—H.
Burrell, Bull-and-Mouth-street, City, lodging house
keeper—J. Roberts, Liverpool, ironmonger—A. Hum-
phreys, Liverpool, boot and shoemaker—W. Buckley,
Bollingrove, Yorkshire, woollen cloth manufacturer—
H. Pace, St. John's. square, Clerkenwell, and Loughton,
Essex, watch manufacturer—J. J. Flitch, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, leather dresser--J. P. Baldy, Devonport,
surgeon—G. H. Haworth and R. Archbutt, Manor-
street, King's-road, Chelsea, ironfounders—W. Ray,
Rolls-buildings, Fetter-lane, coal dealer Margaret
Huse', Manchester, milliner—J. Williamson, Glasson,
Lancashire, innkeeper—E. Butt, Croydon, farrier—T.
Fremantle, Bedford New-road, Clapha►n-rise, builder—
D. Jevons, Tipton, Staffordshire, grocer—W. Quincey,
Old-street, St. Luke's, tin plate worker—W. Saul,
Brook- street, Gloucester-road, Bayswater, furnishing
ironmonger—G. Webster, Hedge-row, Islington, li-
censed victualler.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Davies and W. Reynolds, Newtown, Montgomery-
shire, builders—C. J. Cottrell and W. H. Cottrell,
Bridgehouse row, Newington-causeway, auctioneers_
W. Hargrove and J. Hargrove, York, printers—R.
Davies and J. R. Davies, Change-alley, Cornhill, law
stationers—H. Richards and W. Richards, Wednesbury,
Staffordshire, coach smiths—J. Smart, sen., and J. Smart,
jun., Chiswell street, corn dealers—W. Glossop and D.
Kay, Sheffield, ale and porter merchants—J. Sloman and
C. Sloman, Chatham, pawnbrokers—C. T. Howard and
J. F. Foster, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, surgeons—
J. Leadbeater and G. Leadbeater, Handsworth, York-
shire, carpenters—J. Cureton, son., W. Ogden, and J.
Cureton, jun., Manchester, makers-up and packers (as
far as re aids J. Cureton, sen.)—J. Nanson and T.
Nanson, Carlisle, slaters—D. Cowell and J. Cowell,
Blackburn, cotton manufacturers—C. B. Chapman and
F. Hull, Nrwmarket St. Mary, Suffolk, auctioneers—J.
L. Wetton and A. Ellis, Conduit street, Hanover-square,
solicitors—W. Ballinghall, J. Kelly, and F. Cooke,
Mesatlan, Mexico (as far as regards F. Cooke).
INSOLVENT PETITIoNERs.
John Simpson Manning., Ipswich, coach maker.
Sam :el Clancharty, Wolverhampton, hawker of tea

and coffee. _
Edward Fereday, Smethwick, Staffordshire, cordwainer.
Mary Collins, East Stonehouse, Devonshire, milliner. 4
Joseph Laycock, Addingham, Yorkshire, journeyman

- -
chair-maker.
Hannah Bell, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, grocer.
George Shrive, Elton, Huntingdonshire, farmer.
Robt. Clark,j tin., Brandon, Suffolk, journeyman plumber.
Samuel Matthews, Plymouth, brewer.

James Street, Nautwich, Cheshire, publican.

Lewis ffornblower. Thrkenhend, architnt and surv(syor.
Janis Nuiiu, ipso.icii, butcher.
Daniel Joiner, Ipswich, mariner.
James Taylor, Lower Broughton, Lancashire, woollen
merchant.
Robert Scott, Rochdale, farmer.
James Morgan, Panteague, Monmouthshire, miner.
James Walter, Cambridge, architect.
Thomas Turner, Rochdale.
Edward Steed, St. lye's, Huntingdonshire, beer retailer.
Thomas Wood, Old Lenton, Nottinghamshire, milk
seller.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
A. Steven and J. Jamieson, Glasgow, commission
merchants, to meet within the Buck's Head Hotel, Glas-
gow, Nov. 15 and Dec. 6, at twelve.
R. M'Cracken and T. Chalmers, Glasgow, manufac-
turers, to meet within the Black Bull Hotel, Glasgow,
Nov. 16 and Dee. 7, at twelve.
A. Brodie, Glasgow, carver and gilder, to meet within
the Black Bull Hotel, Glasgow, Nov. 16 and Dec. 8, at
twelve.

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed
from the returns made in the week ending November 7,
1848, is 235. 34d. per cwt.