The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

ALLAN V. GLASGOW.

The arguments in thi appeal from the Court of Session
occupied their Lordships the whole morning.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jene 11.
The Lord Chancellor, after having disposed of the unop-
posed lunatic petitions on his paper, proceeded with the fur-
ther arguments in the part-heard appeal of Mitford v.
Reynolds.

ROLLS' COUItT, June 11.
Petitions of no general interest occupied his Lordship, the
Master of the Rolls the whole morning.

VICE C .% C.E i. Y COURT. June 11.

( before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of England.)
His llozrouit heard unoppo.ed pe+ it ions, short causes, and
cause petitions to-day. The Court in the course of the
morning made several orders in railway cases for the payment
of the deposits out of Court, the schemes having failed b, fore
Committees of the House of Commons. aid the Speaker's
certhic..,e to that etnct having been produced.
(Before Vice-Chai,cellor KNJOHT BRUCE.)
EX-PARTE SWINISoN AND ()THEIRS.
Mr. RUSSELL, Q.C., applied to the Court for an interim
order, restraining the detend.ints from receiving the sum of
15,5251., which had been paid in to the Accountant-General,
deposits on the proposed capital of the Northern and Sou. hero
Connecting Railway.

It was alleged that out of 60,000 shares 16,000 were
issued, and only 12.000 allotted, the others being reserved
by the provisional committee till a rise in price might take
place ; and that the money of the shareholders had been
employed by the committee on the Stock Ex-
change, to give a fictitiou4 value to the shares
of the railway, by the purchase of their own shares
at a premium. In November some of the shareholders
objected to going to Parliament. The t ommittee, however,
went to Parliament ; but on petition of the plaintiff's and
others, the Bill, after a first reading in the House of Com-
mons, was thrown out. The defendants, therefore, applied
to the Vice• Chancellor of England fur an order for the re-
payment of the deposits.
Mr. RUSSELL now applied for an injunction restraining
their receiving the money, which was granted by the Court.

COURT OF L2CI.H.E.QUEK, June 10.
The Court was engaged all day till half-past five o'clock
on motions, none of which presented any matter for a report.
(Sitting's at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Mr. Baron
PARKS and Common Juries.)
RAILWAY COMMITTEEMEN.—LAW V. WILSON.
This was au action for goods sold and delivered and sup-
plied to the defendant as a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the Southampton, Petersfield, and London Direct
Railway Company. The sum sought to be recovered was
581.17 r, 6d.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Cole conducted the case for the plain-
tiff, and Air. Hoggins (with whom was Mr. Rawlinson) ap-
peared for the defendant.
It appeared that in the month of September in the past
year a scheme was got up by Mr. Duncan, the solicitor, to
construct a railway from Southampton to Petersfield, and
then on " direct" to London. On the 30th of that month
Mr. Duncan and the other solicitors wrote the following
letter to the defendant :

"72, Lombard-street, Sept. 30, 1845.
" Sir,—At the request of Mr. Bradley, we forward you a
prospectus of the Southampton, Peterafield, and London
Direct Railwaa, and shall feel obliged by your informing us
whether you desire to have your name inserted in the list of
the provisional committee et the Company. " We are, &c."
In reply to this letter the writers obtained no written an-
swer; but a few days after it bad been sent, although the
party to whom it had been addressed had removed from his
former habitation, the defendant called at the office and
stated that he should have no objection ter be a director of
the company. Tie clerk thereupon endorsed on the
letter, " Acreeable to be a director." The company went on,
and presently an allotment of 50 shares was awarded to the
defendant as one of the p-ovisianal committee. The defend-
ant, however, net only never took up the shares, but
never took sty notice either of the numerous letters and
official reports and papers which were constantly being for-
warded to him from the company's office. By-and-'oy tae
railway- market became under the iefluence of :he panic, and
then the managing corritnittee —for there was a managing
committee, consist tug of some 16 or 18 persons—thought it
useless to prsceed with the undertaking, and at mince
turned their minus to the consideration of the ques-
tion 83 to which would be the best way of winding
up the concern, and liquidating the debts which had beet,
incurred. The result of this deliberation was a resolution
to return 1.55. per share cut of the 2/. 2s. deasait to the
shareholders, which was subeequently done, and that each
proviso .tial commit tt•emat. sit uls be called upon to contribute
the sum of W. as his fair p, oportion of the expenses incurred.
Accordingly a letter. erretainiog the resolution, and solicit-
ing the payment of the 351, was sent to the defendant, bur
of that commuoication he took not the slightest notice. In
the end. however, the present maims was brought by the
ptaintiff; one of the creditors of the concern against him in
his character of a member of the provisional committee of
the company.
On behalf of the plaintiff's case there was, under these cir-
cumstances. a failure in proving that the defendant had
given his written coesent to become a member of the pro-
visional committee, and that he had, upon any occasion,
acted itt the conduct or management of tile affairs of the
company. Thus tar the cese had proceeded, when the
Learned Baron was compelled to rise on Tuesday.
Mr. HOGGINS now ..doressed the jury on behalf of the de.
fendsnt, and at the outset denied the statement made by his
Learned Friend, that his client had, like the other members of
the provisional committee, been in the habit of receiving
his two guine,s per day for his attendance at the office,
and for the best of all reasons, that, except upon the day
when he had given his consent to become a director, he
had never been rear the concern. Neither had he, like those
who had taken part in the proceedings of the company, be-
nefited by the premiums which had been gained upon the
shares. He should throw himself back upon the question
which had been left to the jury in the case of " Barnett v.
Lambert'-namely, "did the defendant lender himself
liable for the goods supplied in consequence of his havi,*
girt n an express consent or an implied consent by personal
communication or in writing" to become a provisional com-
mitteeman, and to become, in common with others, responsible
and liable for the debts of the company? or did he give such
an authority to the secretary of the company as could bind
him to the consequences of any acts of what now appeared
to be a select managing committee? But he contended that
in the present case the question was not as between the
creditor of the company and the defendant, but between the
managing committee, who, in strictness, were liable to every
claim, and the defendant. The use of the plaintiff's name
was a matter of form—a mere blind, for the real plaintiffs
were the managing committee. The main question in the
case was as to what was the meaning of the consent which
the defendant was stated to have given? Was it not that
he consented to become a director, and in which character
it was quite clear he meant to become one of that body
which was to take the control and management of the affairs
of the company, and not one of a provisional committee,
whom, without having any control over either the arrange-
ments, or the incurring or not embarking in large liabilities,
it was now attempted to render liable? That w,s the simple
question, he apprehended. Well, then, it was quite clear
that he had not given any consent to become a member of
the provisional committee, and, therefore, that being so, it
was beyond all doub: that he was in no way liable for the
debts which the managing committee had thought proper to
incur. He submitted, therefore, that the defendant could not
be held liable.

Mr. Baron PARKE, in leaving the case to the jury, said

was in the first instance necessary for the plaintiff to make
out that there had been an express contract entered into by
the defendant in person, or by his agent, and that it was
only upon such ground that he could recover. The quee:eon
was, whether the person who entered into the coistrect
with the plaintiff was the authorised agent of the party who
was sought to be made liable? There was no doubt that
in the first instance the claim was upon Brooks, the secre-
tary, but if that party contracted the debt as the agent of
aresther. then the Iluestion arose as to whether the defendant
WAS that other. Is. the present instance the plaintiff, there
was no doubt, could have brought his action against Brooks,
or against the managing committee, but he had not chosen
to sue either of these, against either of whom he could have
had no difficulty in proving his claim, but rather chose to
select a member of the provisional
,comm ttee. The acii'
committee lad abandosled the coLcei is, and had then made a
claim upon the provisiorsal committee. But the managing
committee had clearly mace thetnsrlves liable for these
debts, for they it was who had conducted the concern, and
had authorised the contraction of debts. But, Ao tar as the
jury was concerned in the present cast', the question wss,
whether it had been made out to their salistaction that the
defendant had rendered himself liable by consenting to be-
come a director. That conee. t was clearly not in the terms of
,he present fersgs of action Ls so tar as the stesc, iption was con-
cereed. The defendant consented to become a director, no' a
provisional routmitteemao, and the promoters of the company
or the managing committee fled thought proper to make him
that which, as far as the evidence went, he had not con-
sented to become. The jury, before they could make him
liable to this claim, must be satisfied that he had given his
consent, or bad ms ant to beeeme a member of the provisional
committee; and, further, that in that capacity he had in-
tended to take upon Weisel; all the teeponsibilities which
the managing committee might think proper to incur. Then
these was snottier mater for them to take into consideration.
The defendant; it was admitted on the parr of the clerk of
the company, had not only no: taken up shares, but had
never acted as a committeeman, or had taken the most re-
mote participation in the bu-iness. He did not accept the
settlement of 50 shares; he had in no way interfered in the
concern, etor had he attended any meeting, 'rand he had re-
fased to answer or take any notice of the nutnetous letters
which had been sent to bins from the office of the company,
It, moreover, appeared that the provisional committee had
had no power to intertere with the managing committee. If
the jury were of opinion that the defendant had not given
his consent to become a previsional committeeman, there was
then an end to the case. There had been no evidence offered
to show what the duties of the provisional committee were,
but all had gone to establish the responsibility of the ma-
naging comm:ttee, and that those parties were responsible
for all acts and debts they incurred, either by themselves or
by their agent.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Baron PARKE then said, that it was not to be sup-
posed that, because a man allowed his name to be inserted in
the list of provisional committeemen, he made himself re-
sponsible for every act or every liability of a managing consp
mittee, unless it could be proved that he had acted in the
conduct of the concern.

June 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court was occupied the greater part of the day with
an ejectment case from the new trial paper, which possessed
no feature of public interest.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 11.

THE. JUSTICES OF ST. ALBANS V. sTURT.—CRIMINAL INFORMA-

TIDY.

sufficirmtly,
Mr. Sergeant SnEE moveclior a rule nisi, to show cause
why a criminal information should not be issued against a
gentleman of the name of Sturt, en the ground of writing
and publishing st veral letters, containing libellous matter in
regard to the conduct of the plaintiffs as magistrates and ad-
ministrators of justice in the borough of St. Albans. The
Learned Gentleman read extracls from the letters in question,
which charged the magistrates of Albans with corrupt
and improper motives in the administration of justice, and
that the only object they cared for was pounds, Ailing's,
and pence. On the other side he- quoted several affidavits of
the complainants, denying in the stro-gest terms the allega.•
tioTnsheasoa)lutoitgTetdtildernuon:t7dkedth.eaenvdidpernocceeeaddidnug from malicous
adduced
and vi..diaive mo Ives.
strong to justity granting the application, and the rule was
accordingly refused.

WEI,S V. LUMLEY.
The grea
utecter portion of the day Was occupied in an argu •
molt, condd. by Mr. Watsoi, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, in su - port of a demurrer to a plea pug in by the defendant, in
answer to a declArati-n of the plaintiff re-pealog a breach
of contract therein alleged against the former. -
The plaintiff ie h 1 dame Weiss, and the defendant is Mr,

4
Lumley, the lessee of the Italian Opera-house, and the
breach of contract set forth arose out of an agreement being
entered into Letween the par ies for the performance of the
corps of dancing children, the "Danseuses Viennoises," and,
under which agreement the performers in question were
brought over into this country. The plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages, because the terms of the contract were not
carried out, by the children not being allowed to appear at
her .%iajesty's Theatre on their arrival, thereby depriving
them cf the advantage of the celebrity which such an
appearance would have t,ecured, while, at the same time, the
agreement prevented their appearing elsewhere.
The defendant de,i,d that any such breach of contract
as that alleged had taheu place. The argument thrt ughout
was of a dry and technical character, aTt turned mainly on
the c-n, t ion of the terms of the agreement.
Mr i TGGIN'. was herd the demurrer, and in sup-
rort of M:e ple, !:
Tile COURT took time to consider its judgment.

CO:-RT 0 4.40 N I';',EAS, June 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
C,,ULTAS v. LOWE. (CLERK).
This was thn only cas, of iuipottance which came before
the G,rt. t !o-day. and as it h!,,s already attained such noto-
riety, it is unnecesszary to detail the particulars.
The Court now gave judgment, and was unanimously of
opinion, after a c,lrefol ~xamination of the arguments, that
the case required further investigation, and therefore that
the rule should be made absolute for a new trial.
Rule absolute.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE
MANSION HO US E.
An odd ease of alleged forgery was heard before
Alderman Musgrove. A young man names George King
was brought up in the custody of en officer, charged with
havirg forged the name of Mr. Thomas Wheeler, of
IsT,whory, to a hill of exohangt. for 201.
Mr. Vin,r, solicitor, of Ironmongers' Ball, appeared
fsr the prosecution, and a solicitor *ippiiared for the
ckleiidant.

Mr. R. Knight, clerk to Mr. Birkf-tt, jun., of Bell-
court, Mincing-lane, wine merchant, stated that on the
21 of February he received the bill produced for 201.,
purporting to be drawn by George King, upon and
accepted by Thomas Wheeler, of Newbury, Berks, and
indorsed by George King, to J. R. Humphery, and by
Humphery, from whom witness received the bill in-
dors, d to witues.'s employer. He received other bills
at the same time. Application having been made to
Mr. Wheeler, by Mr. Birkett, in consequence of the
non-payment of the bill when it became due, the follow.
ing letter was received in answer to the application:—
" Newbury. March 31, 1846.
" Sir;—Your letter of this morning has astonished
me. I beg to say, in answer, that I have no acceptance
due in favour of Mr. King, or any one else, and that it
must be a forgery, for I know nothing whatever of the
transaction.—l am, Sir, yours respectfully,
" THOMAS WHEELER.

" Mr. Daniel Birkett, jun."
Mr. Charles James Viner stated, that in consequence
of Mr. Birkett's instructions, he wrote in that gentle-
man's name to Mr. Wheeler, fur payment of the amount
of the bill, and he received the following answer
" Newbury, May 20th, 1846.
" Sir,—ln answer to yours of this morning, I beg to
inform you, that I hive no acceptance due in favour of
any person whatever. With respect to this bill, (which
I presume to be the same), I first had a letter from a
wine-merchant,. living, I think, in Park-street. I was
then in town, and saw him, and told him I knew
nothing whatever of it. Then, the latter end of March,
I received a letter from a Mr. Daniel Birkett, jun., the
s Line person, I suppose, that has now employed you. In
answer I told him then, that it quite astonished me. as I
knew of no such bill, nor was it my aceceptance, but a
tong, ry.

Tilerefore, I have nothing to do with it whatever.
You may as well sue any other person. You had
better look to the drawer of the hill, King, nr whoever
it may be.—Yo rs, &e. THOS. WHEELER."
Witness, in consequence of having received the above
letter, called upon a Mr. Weston first, when he learned
the ddentlidn's residence. 4. I then," said witness.
"called upon King. nod told him I came on account of
an overdue bill of 201 lie said he could not pay it at
present. I ssiit that Mr. Nisbett exp. eted it would bi
paid. a, d I iold him he had Lotter take down my name
et d address. lie did so, and I perceived that thii wri:ing
wss a ire same character as the writihg in the bill. I
-.turned hit the bill, and d ken him whether teat was it.
ant he replied that it was. I th-n said, you know Mr.
Wheeler well. an,: his handwriting ? and h.
re plied ii. th atfii mauve ; and I showed him the letter
j,i-t pro •utied, i tie timid wiiting of which he at once pro.
no,,nced to he Mr. heeler's. He then said he hopes'
op he a bie to pay it. I -sked him what means he had,
and he replied that he h..cl been a tradesman in New
athi had some Wok debts which he believed wei%
Rood; and I told him it he satisfied me of that fact, I
Id not have so had an opinion of him. I did not
'hick at the tiiee that he was the guilty party. He said
that he shou:d call upon we, and he did so, and then he
cold tar that he had sent the bill by a porter to be posted
wbury. 1 subsequently applied for a warrant and
halt him sprit, h, ruled "
The de endant's counsel asked whether the wanes:
could swear that the acceptance was not in Mr. Wheeler's
handwriting ? The witness replied that he knew no-
thing of ivir. Wheeler's handwriting, but it appeared
that Mr. Wheeler retused to come to town upon the
occasion.

Alderman MUSGROVE—Do you suppose he will refuse
to att,,nd, upon hk-aring what has been stated ? The
witness 'aid he wished to have a summons to serve upon
Mr. Wheeler.

Alderman Mlls•GROVE—Certainly you shall have one
and IPt him know that if he refuse to come, a warrant
shad be sent ror

Mr. Knight, the clerk to Mr. Ricket, having sworn
that he had rf.ason to believe the acceptance was a
forgery, and that; if the defendant were remanded, he
believed he should be able to prove it to be a forgery,
the Alderman remanded him accordingly.

BOW-STREET.-
The widow of Thomas Blewitt, the unfortunate man who
died a short time since from the effects of thegun-shot wound
inflicted by John Graham, in Drury-lane, applied to the
sitting magistrate, Mr. Henry, to relieve and advise her in
her present distressing situation.
The applicant, who was attired in respectable mourning,
stated that she was dependent upon the wages of her hus-
band dueng his lifetime, for the support of herself and child
—a girl about seven years of age—and had now no means
of living c she was therefore anxious to get a little money to
place herself in a small way of business.
Owing to the suggestions of Mr. Mace, the chief usher,
and a police inspector in Court, his worship was induced 'to
question the woman at some length as to her habits and
general character, it having appeared that she was convicted
and fined at this Court. about four months ago, for mis-
conduct. She denied that she was in the habit of drinking,
but admitted that fur a considerable period she did not live
with her husband. This, however, she attributed to his
misconduct, and not her own. She stated that they went to
Hong Kong together, abou five years ago, and tha her bus-
band, after getting into debt, absconded from her, and left
her in China unprotected. A subscription was th, re got up
far her, and she returned to England by the ship Tory,
Captain Johnson, at whose trial, in November and January
list, she appeared as a witness at the Old Bailey. At this '
time she again became acquainted with her hu-band, who
called upon her at her lodgings, but it did not appear 14)04
what terms they lived together, it at all, up to the shocking
occurrence in Drury-lane.

It would be unfair to state the allegations on either side
at present, but enough transpired to show that they did not
live happily together.

Mr. HENRY, therefore, deputed the usher to make a fu
inquiry into the matter, and report the result of his invest
gation next week.
__

HAMMERSMITH.
After the night charges were disposed of, Mr. Hardy
His op, of No. 3, Lanai°, n-villas, Fulham-road, was placed
at the bar before Mr. G Clive, the sitting magistrate, on a
charge of having violated the person of Caroline 3lathews
his servant.
Mr. J. Todd, solicitor, of No. 23, Thavies Inn, Holborn,
attended for the prisoner.
Caroline Mathews, a rsther pretty-looking Voung woman,
dep .sod that she was now living in James-street, Larkhall-
lane, Clapham. On Friday last she was living in the service
of the prisoner, at No. 3 Lansdowh-viias. On that night
she retired to bed about eleven o'clock, leaving the
prisoner, her master, down stairs. She undressed, and
Sad been in the room about twenty minutes before she got
into bed. She had not been in bed above two minutes before
the Prisoner came into the room. He was undressed with
the exception of his shirt. Mrs. Hislop, the pnsoner's wife,
had left home, and g.ne into the country on the previous day
(Thursday). The prisoner said to witness, "As we are in
the house together, we may as well sleep together." Wit-
ness told him that he should not, and that she would tell
her mistress. Witness had, on seeing the prisoner enter the
room, jumped out of h-S, and was trying to run out of the
room, but the prisoner would not let her, and said he did not
care fur her mistress. Witness struggled with him, but he
took hold of her and threw her on the bed. The witness
then stated circumstances tending to show that he suc-
ceeded in attaining his objeet.
By Mr. Ctasx—Witness tried to push him away and
slapped his face, but although she continued struggling with
him and screaming out he did not desist. Afterwards he
stood by the side of the bed for a few minutes, and then
tapped her on the shoulder, and put his head down to her to
kiss her, but she would not let him. He then said he should
leave her, arid went out of the room. Witness then got out
of bed and locked the door. Witness remained in the house
all that night. The next morning (Saturday) she got up
about seven o'clock, and got the prisoner's breakfast, and he
went out about nine o'clock. Witness then left the house,
and went to Mrs. George, her laundress, and told heirtewahnadt
the prisoner had done, and she advised witness toner's con-
inform her (witness's) brother-in-law of the prisoner's
also
duct, which witness did. On the same morning ninls Witness went
told Mrs. Symons, a publican's wife,
ofg 'no relations about
out fur the purpose of quitting,
there, but Mrs. Symons persuaded
heard from her friends. On away.. Her brother-in-
lawcame with her sister, and took
l
and she heard
leave
brother un
in-law
lsahwe
Snhhnaii
Sunday afternoon,.
saw the prisoner on the nvnothetor
b to her bedroom and acted impro-
perly the prisoner had
she heard the prisoner reply that it was
him tell the prisoner that she had written to him to tell him
perly to her, and
rig
quite
• • ht, and that whatTsodhed—haTdhestbaetdedrootmo hdiomo r
was
(pri-
soner)
strike. Entered the prisoner's ser-
go, and left on Sunday
Cross examined
witness was in the habit of leaving it •
t
closed, as open, in
to
to leave on ~
rr wouldbear nott h edc
iebanycyki r
onmEre.ast.Herie.lllolponht!iadyg,ieviegnhthewrevvekasrfaiing
Tues-
day fortnight. Had been visited once at the prisoner's house
by ajourneyman beker, whom she had known for eighteen
asT(t)lisdel‘birsak.eril. isilh'Padthna
bmuotnitth sw.
ott_hbeeren intimate with the
brother was coming,
baker, and she was not en • ciente. On her oath she was not.
Asked the prisoner before she went to bed if be wanted any
thing more. lit said No." She did not tell him that she
would be undressed and ready for him in
Would swear a few minutes.
that she did not incite bins to her room,
neither was she on the top of the stairs waiting for hint.
ulcl swear
that she did not meet him on the top of the
stairs and clasp her arms round his neck. She slept on an
iron bed-t ad,sufficient fsr one person She struggled and
screamed, hut the prisoner was too powerful for her. Witness
was discharged because she had a sweetheart. Recollects
that anonymous letters had been sent to the house about
her. Mn.s &slop showed her one. Would swear that she
heard ti prisoner teil her brother-in law that what she hsd
told him he (prisoner) could not deny.
Mr. Todd, on the part of the prisoner, submitted that the
evidence of the witness, was not worthy of belief, and that

I WILEAT. I BARLEY.' OATS. BTE. I StA2O3. I TEAL
PRICE .. 52s 10d 27s Bd. 23s 4d ns 10d 35s 10d 34s Iod
DUTY... 171 IA 9s Od 5s ed 9s 6d 71 6d 55 6d

THE. MANUFACTURING
DISTRICTS.
(From the Manchester Guardian of Wednesday.)
MANCHESTER, TUESDAY.—The market to-day was, on the
whole, decidedly dull. Prices, however, remain unaltered
both for goods and yarn.
ROCHDALE, MONDAY.—On account of the holidays last
week, fewer goods were offered for sale to-day. There has
also been a very thin attendance of buyers, and little busi-
ness has been done. There is no change in the wool market.
HUDDERSFIELD, Tuxsoxv...-Although we have several
buyers in the market, we cannot report much more favour-
ably than last week. In the foreign warehouses orders are
pri tty plentiful, but there appears great caution in purchasers
for the home trade.
LENDS, TuEsnAY.—Our market to-day has been Bat, and
will probably continue so for a few weeks longer, June being
what is termed " betwixt the seasons," and generally a very
quiet month. At the German wool fairs now being. held, the
raw material fetches rather higher prices than were antici-
pated, a circumstance which cannot fail to check the con-
sumpton of wool in this district.

i Augusta Flower,
of the Duke of Marlborough end the Hon. Chanriteol
Ashbrook, was
youngest daughter of Viscount and 2rilLclrcenee. ifis Grace the
MARRIAGES IN HMI LIFE.—Wednesday the marriage
solemnised at Lambeth Palace,
Archbishop of Canterbury officiated,
0.
The bride WAS given away
the presence of a large circle of friends. bY 'ten the intertsting occasion, in
:attended to the alter by ;bevy
by her cousin, Lord Monson, anti
Lady Louisa Noel, Lady Elizabeth
ryce,remony, the Noble bridegroom
of youthful bridemaids, namely'nem, Miss Smythe, and 3liss Met-
Duncan, Miss Paget, M
followed by the Archbishop,
conducted his bride _t° ~,d wedding•circle. The
.. hbroe• -- marriage was
Viscountess ...s the Rev. I. Cave Brown, on
duly reglst red
tbY.
calfe. At the concluifo
h The party then retired, to eof the
curates of Lambe
b ook's residence in Chesham- 1, re-assemble at
Viscountess Ash r
given
by
her Lad hi in P flee, where a sump-
tuous breakfast was pcelebration of the happy
h bridal
vous to t e circle mustering event. Prelll;:h:flll3thrit.
said hie for the ckeuner, the
Duke of Marl
borough
Blenheim Palace. The marriage of Viscount Lewisham,am-place for
of the Earl of Dartmouth and Lady Auga t "
8 a Finch, eldest son
eldest daughter
Ith e Earl of Aylesford, took place on
Church, Piccadilly The Right Rev, - Tuesday, at St. James's
the Bishop
performed the marriage ceremony, of Bath and Wells
in the
circle. The happy bride and bridegroom,presence of a large family
congra-
tulations of their friends, left town after receiving the Warwick's seat in Surrey, t for Gatton.park, the Countess of
OXFORD, JUNE 9, o Pass the honeymoon.
and Tutor of Jesus Coll —The Rev. David Lewis, Felloiv
Catholic Church, has ege, Oxford, who last week coniormed to the
dec1ined.............................. resigning his Fellowship at Oxford.

On the 10th inst., at No. 6, Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, the wife of
Thomas Butler, Esq., of a son.
On the 7th inst., in Grosvenor-street, the Viscountess Hohnesdale,
of a son,
On the 3d inst., at Roach-bank, Rochdale, the lady of Robert
Schofield, Esq., of a son.
On the 4th inst., at Leintwardine, Herefordshire, the lady of Lieute-
nant-Colonel J. Colvin, C. 8.. of a daughter.
On the 6th inst., the wife of John Tomes, Esq., of Mortimer-
street, of a son.
On the 6th inst., at Grove-hill. Camberwell, the lady of M. Delvin
Nugent, Esq., M.D., of a daughter, still-born.
On the 6th inst., at Hackney, the lady of the Rev. T. P. Wright,
M A., Minister of St. Philip's. Dalston, of a daughter.