The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-20 00:00:00

rex°
of
ac,#
JN
ay,
Mo"
ardisi:j
gerier'd
ce b 3
11
yeo 93/
)roit"d

ter'
the ill"
ast°

eiri
oa 0
.09, sh•
ICJ f°

- -
Th. IN RE WILSON'S CHARITY.
is petition, which was.ordered to stand over till to-
order that the Lord Mayor and other members of
144;orporation of London might make an affidavit, re-
,t4 a Charity founded by a gentleman named Wilson,
fit" purpose of forwarding young men in trade by
kt,!.tt them sums of money, not less than 1001., and not
sow. •
V the petition being called on, Mr. ANDERDON stated,
pi nit clients had not been furnished with the affidavit,
requested that the case might stand over till that had
done
11;NDALL (who appeared ,for the Corporation)
;:d•that the affidavit had been furnished to the Attorney
c,44911, and he therefore' trusted the case might he
t.
to proceed. Mr. Anderdon might make himself
Irj,,l'r.ef the contents of the affidavit while he (Mr. R.)
Ili
th« Court.PoNotla did not think that the matter pressed,
Ow case to stand over till Saturday, to come
ter the short causes were disposed of.
HUTCHINSON V. SMEE.
111 tb•
. 15 case the bill was filed by the plaintiffs, who are
11.14fent children of a gentleman named Hutchinson,
an account of the personal estate of their father,
440 for the appointment of a guardian and main-
The testator was possessed of 12,000/.
8,0001.3 per cents. reduced, and 501. and 60/
bg Annuities ; and the only question for the considera-
trhe Court was, out of what fund, according to the
t 4 fie maintenance was to be charged ; whether the
It4l were only entitled to the 501. or 60/. Annuities, or
14 1/4" tweeds of the two large sums of stock.
4,loNotia thought that there could be no doubt
.Ined that it was the intention of the testator that
titt:L'ents should have benefit of the whole property
I"ed in his will, and directed accordingly.
the r. CHRISTY C. LLOYD.
t'ouß,T then proceeded with this part heard case,
%.14eipal question of which related to the partner-
the plaintiff and defendants in the Stockport Bank,
Ta partner-
elf •
to certain mills employed in the cloth trade.
ease had not concluded when our reporter left.
KING'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)

THE MANCHESTER AND SALFORD WATER
Was
WORKS COMPANY.
446," an action on two bonds of 2001. each, which
verdi`j It Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice, and
oti found for the plaintiff, subject to a point of law
The lek of non eat fact um.
leaCreUtnente came onto day, and were not concluded
-Ur Reporter left.

th, k BAIL:COURT.
44.141%1. OF WEMYSS FREEET.--THE SING V. REEVE.
At.stEß, on behalf of the defendant, who had
ste7i.lonaitted to Norwich Castle on a charge of felony
:of tug some property from the body of Miss Roche,
144 the Unfortunate sufferers on the occasion of the loss
icll vessel, stated that in pursuance of a habeas corpus
6 _ld been granted a few days ago on the motion of
Aola'ut's Scirlett, his client was now in Court in the
il Of the keeper of Norwich Castle, for the purpose
te,,i-egx(lnaitted to bail, and four gentlemen were also
il, to; become surety for his appearance to take his
"diem!'" (Mr. Palmer), understood, however, that the
ti,.. :°0 was to be oppoied.
`si4Xt.ty, on behalf of the prosecutor, opposed the
d 41e4t present. He would not oppose it if the motion
ilbertely been made upon the depositions, but a great
ks fo O 1 affidavits had been put in which required some
)Ith ' consideration. Many of them were to character,
kfuld not require any answer. The Magistrates
'I% e Would not require any answer. The Magistrates
Other parties to the prosecution were only served
t44l,z,totice of this motion on Monday last. The
ktirilt° were at great length, very complicated, and
t pre to numerous facts, and they required time to enable
\I 25eutor to answer them, which would not have
ti,le'3e7ssary if the defendant's counsel had only adverted
t},
oftlepositions taken before the Alaeistrates. The
'4,1,4 few days would create some expense to the de-
ktibie but in order to avoid that as much as
Isid be (Mr. Kelly) would consent that the sureties
11,4
wreturn at once to the country, and that if the
Ititnately admitted the party to bail, the recogni-
4sr atnight be taken before a country migistrate.
thr.:"se circumstances Mr. Kelly asked for the delay
%,e° Or four days.
sh vAta,t en submitted that no ground had been stated
4i:
.ielay,
1.1,1 °absisar thought there was a ground for it. If
,„ ii,
to ''isi was only served on Monday it was itopossi-
-4,,,tlwer the affidavits so early.
h,. ILLy—Upwards of 80 affidavits were used.
irci .I",ar.ssea said the prosecutor and his attorney
ks. Itt London, and therefore there had been sufficient
r As to the SO affidavits 60 related to character,
ierAtAed no answer ; besides, the attorney for the
,I. uon _
0. was present at the very lengthened inquiry
4 the Magisttates, and must therefore be cognizant of
',4,.. tets without requiring further delay.
!yiLext.r..ar said, it was true that the prosecutor who
ttte otother of the lady, from whom the defendant was
~*4,4 to have taken the property, lived in London, but
llt ttot at Brancaster when the melancholy accident
kall'ilee, and it would be necessary to have affidavits
1 Ala •
t‘r,, gtstrates and othurs on the spot. There would
Soars)] by two or three days delay. and the prose-
% Were desirous to agree to any course that might
It4t,L'atecl, so that all the facts of the case might be fully
41....ut Court.
A 4
‘.lll Ls's& said his learned friend Sir James Scar-
Itie en "'tog for the habeas, reminded the Court of
by
t! made through the medium of the press,
:, e Prosecution, to excite a prejudice against Mr.
N. ,
1 i4VLL'ir, on behalf of the prosecution, warmly
Itis L 1 'fly such unworthy motives.
y, (I ~4dship did not think the facts of the case war-
tlle4Y such observation. His opinion was, that it
'4, eo..l4,ttilt. of the def.endant if any further delay occurred,
tit, irl have applied .to this Court earlier than be did.
Lser,„Atuita said he could not, as the circumstance had
'lt\ 1., ("?._ Occurred.
t
141rttebe`rL. r —Oh . why the defendant was committed
la'
4 LALIIER asked if his client was to return to gaol,
"lit upon gaol allowance, viz : a straw bed and
'44 ,
‘,., It Ater.
itttist, LLY wished him to be treated with all possible
;:t is,' and consideration, and he would consent to his
tt the • -
It sh interim sent to the prison, if the
',lt. tittld think proper.
',lt,
t_tstEa. asked Mr. Kelly if any objection would
e 0 the bail, provided those gentlemen went back
t,e!.ty and tendered themselves before a magistrate
~,t, k°t of bail being allowed by his Lordship.
cm.tiett.ltty asked to see the names, and said as be was
I:th,s° With the county of Norfolk, provided they
`lt, rotable he would offer no objection to them.
14114AL/sue. handed in three of the four names to
t ,Zonsibility he had the certificate of a magistrate.
k„ 4"Bt unWere Wse, h ;
ittr.-‘er, -
lceeperThomas ; and RicThardurston Burge yss, the y mercoung anter,
, Lll'=
expressed binstelf satisfied with them, and

kitt4 eti nTrand lighting of the parish in which they were
Net.
ted4, His Lordship appe !led against it, but in
e to save litiga(inn, and as the point was
to "iew 'one, on which it was very important
tatn a decision it was agreed that a declaration should
riwrt out and approved of by Counsel on both sides,
ekit'ieh Mr. Brown, the clerk to the Commissioners,
ti to be the plaintiff, and his Lordship the defendant.
116.4 "as done, and upon argument in Court, the decision
10against the Noble Lord. The latter then sued out a
"it of error.
iNir• Sergeant PEAKE applied to quash the writ of
ri on the ground that it was agreed to abide by the
4't'ision of the Court, and that the writ of error was
llght by Lord Granville in breach of good faith.
b,,tr. Justice LITTLEDALE could not see there was any
‘r:h of faith. One party was dissatisfied with the
to,"rla and therefore brought the writ of error. He,
C
ever, refused the application, on the ground that as
jt,%.vrit of error was in the Exchequer this Court could
inter fere.
1.• HUTCHINSON applied for a rule calling on two
k7tiies to show cause why they should not pay
tl)'l,L,ladY, named Manning, 170/. 10s. and why they
.11:1 not pay the costs of this application. The
4:tittorney, in 1822, was the lady's attorney, and
1826t' invested some money in the funds for her. In
istt72 she, living at Margate, received a letter from him,
tt4t:urt that there was a good opportunity to lay out some
eY on mortgage, the security for which was very good.
rite to consequence sent him a warrant of attorney, autho-
P„g him and his partner to sell out as much stock, and ap-
V as he had proposed. She had frequently since received
interest, but latterly not being able to get any money
tit:aused an inquiry to he made, when it was ascer-
44'd that without her knowledge and consent they
Lteeriten a discharge for the annuity, and given up the
to the grantor.
Qe Cousz granted a rule to show cause.
--,-CHANCERY CO URT.—(THIS DAY.)

consented to release them from further attendance in
London.

It was then agreed that the defendant be brought before
a Judge at chambers this day week, to have the motion
argued._ _ _ .

Mr. PALMER applied for permission to have the de-
fendant committed i❑ the meantime to the King's Bench
_ _ _

His LORDSHIP said be had no power to do so.

The gaoler of Norwich Castle took the defendant away,
and it was understood would lodge him in some lock-up
house.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)

MENDIZABEL V. MACHADO.

This was an action brought to recover the amount of
thirty_seven hills of exchange, and was tried last week at
Guildhall before Mr. Justice PARE, when a verdict was
returned for the plaintiff, for 146,8891.
Mr. Sergeant JONES now moved for a rule to shew
cause why a new trial should not be had for the purpose
of taking the opinion of the Court upon the evidence
adduced to prove, or rather to raise an inference of the
acceptance by the defendant of the bills in question. The
defendant, it appeared, had been ConsuLGeneral at the
French Court from the Court of Spain, and in that capa-
city received a sum of upwards of 200,0001., for the pur-
pose of remunerating, pursuant to the terms of a treaty
made between France and Spain in the year 1814, the
subjects of other European State•, for losses sustained in
Spain during the year 1608. That sum the defendant
had lodged in the Funds to meet any demands
that might be made upon him on foot of the treaty
above alluded to. The bills in questio❑ were drawn in Cadia
by the plaintiff, an opulent resident there, and had been
sent to this country for acceptance, but had never been
formally accepted by the defendant. To prove the implied
acceptance a gentleman of the name of Vigors was called,
and he proved that the defendant was arrested on his
return from the Opera House for the sum of 80,0001.,
which he paid into the Court of Common-Pleas, and
that while under arrest, the defendant hail said to the
witness, that be meant to pay the hills in question as soon
as he was in receipt of funds from France, and
that he had so told the clerk of the plaintiff.
It was for the purpose of taking the opinion of the
Court as to whether the evidence proved such a conditional
acceptance by the defendant as would bind him, that the
present motion was made. .
Mr. Sergeant WILDE contra was prepared to support
the verdict upon the counts in the declaration for the money
had and received.

Mr. Sergeant JONES said, that on those grounds the
jury had not found, for, if so, their verdict could not have
exce,,cled 45,0001. The amount of the verdict was now
in Court, but the defendant bad felt it his duty thus to
seek the opinion of the Court upon a point of such grave
importance as that be had raised.

The CHIEF JUSTICE (wi'hout calling upon Mr. Ser-
geant Wilde) said that, i❑ his opinion, the conditional
acceptance was such as would bind the defendant. The
case came within the principle hid down by Lord Mans-
field, i❑ 4 Burrow and Cowper, 571, and on those autho-
rities the rule must be refused.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice PARK awl a
Middlesex Jury.)
STANLEY V. HAMPSFIELD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a builder,
to recover from the defendant the balance of an account
due fur work and labour and materials in the alteration of
certain premises in York place, Regent's Park.
The case was wholly destitute of public interest, and after
the examination of numerous witnesses on both sides, whose
testimony was of a contradictory character, the trial was
proceeding when our Reporter left.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
ANDERSON V. THE EARL OF STIRLING.

Mr. KNowl.as appeared to show cause against a rule
to set aside the proceedings to outlawry issued in this case,
which bad been obtained by Mr. Sergeant Toddy in the
early part of the Term. He contended first, that upon
the authority of three cases, reported in the 7th and Bth
Bingham, in which the defendant in the present case was
also defendant, he was not entitled to his motion,
on the ground of his being a Peer of Scot-
land. The rule had been laid down that the
Court would not interfere in any case where the
Peerage was at all disputed. Ile had another objection,
Ind it he considered as fatal to the case—the capias upon
which the outlawry was founded, issued so far back as
Nov. 1832 ; and his affidavits discicsed that the
petitioner's attorney had given notice of such proceedings
to the attorney of the defendant, and that the plaintiff
himself had given notice of it to the son of the defendant,
with instructions to tell his father. Such being the case
the defendant came too late, and had no locus standi in
the Court.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY in support of the rule, contended
that the defendant was not aware of the proceedings up
to last week, and that the plaintiff had sworn extremely
cautiously upon that point. . . . .

The Court, however, were of opinion that the greatest
caution in swearing had been ehewn in the affidavits on
behalf of the defendant, and dismissed the rule with costs,
upon the ground that a motion to set aside proceedings for
irregularity must be made promptly,

'TWILL BE ALL THE SAME THING A
HUNDRED YEARS HENCE.—" This," as Sterne says,
" I deny,"—founded upon the following brief, but well
accredited fact of a former period. In the reign of
George 1., about 120 years since, General Oglethorp was
invited to dine with a Cibinet Minister, at eleven o'clock
on the following day. The General could not go, and
sent his excuses, being engaged, as he said, to shoot snipe
the next morning at Marylebone.
ATTEMPT AT MURDER.—About 10 o'clock
yesterday morning cries of " Murder," in a female voice,
were heard to proceed from the house No. 7, in South-
wark-square, occupied by Mr. Benjamin Bedwell, for-
merly master of a ship, and his wife, and also a lodger
named Plummer, a student at one of the Borough hospi-
tals. The shrieks were beard in the first instance by Mrs.
Leach, the wife of a classical teacher, residing at No. 13
in the same square, who immediately acquainted her hus-
band, and he went forthwith to Mr. Bedwell's house.
Upon his arrival he saw Mr. Bedwell, who was standing
within the kitchen with his foot against the door, to op-
pose his entrance. Mr. Leach then seized Mr. Bedwell,
and commenced to remonstrate with him on the cruelty of
striking his wife. On looking, however, towards the fire-
place, he saw Mrs. Bedwell lying down upon the hearth.
rug on her left side, apparently suffering under agonising
pain. On seeing Mr. Leach, she said in a weak voice,
" Oh, he has stabbed me," and at' the tame time, raising
her clothes, exhibited a wound in her right. side, from
which the blood was issuing in great quantities. Mrs.
Bedwell recognized Mr. Leach, and said " I know you,
Mr. Leach ; if I die of the wound, I hope my husband
will not be hanged." Soon after this Mr. Howell, the
surgeon of Union.street, attended;, on being informed of
the circumstance, and on examining the wound ascertained
that it had been inflicted with a table-knife, was situated
under the right ribs, and had penetrated so.deeply into the
internal parts that her life is despaired of.
_,She was im-.
mediately carried into the house of a Mrs. Hartley,
who resides at No. 10 in the same square, where
she was immediately placed in, bed, and she then
made the following statement, in a weak tone of voice :
" A gentleman was lodging with us, and he said, last
night, that he would go to the play. He did not go,
however, but came borne and took his coffee, and went
out again. We sat up until 12 o'clock, but the gentle-
man did not come home again until breikfaat this morn-
ing, at which time my husband told me that be should
send our lodger away. I went up to the lodger, and told
him not to be alarmed, adding, that my husband was
coming up stairs to speak to him. My husband did come
up into the lodger's room, and told him to quit, after
which my husband and I walked down stairs together, and
when he got into the passage, he locked the street•door.
The servant girl upon seeing him became frightened, and
I went out of the way, and he followed and took a knife,
with which he stabbed me before I was aware of it. I
did not know what was done until I saw myself bleeding
from the side." She added, "I am sure that he did not
knew what he was doing, for his mind has been affected
for a long time." During the time Mr. Bedwell was in
custody at Union-hall, be paced the room to and fro, and
bid agitation was increased on the entrance of a young
nam named Plummer, on seeing whom he exclaime,f,
" You scoundrel, how dare you approach me?" It may
be necessary to state here, that Alt. Plummer is the indi-
vidual alluded to in the examination of the prisoner's wife.
The prisoner said that he was willing to be taken anywhere
the Magistrate pleased, and directions were then given to
convey him in a coach to the county gaol. Upon his ar.
rival, the prisoner requested that he might be furnished
with a bible and prayer-book, and also expressed a wish
to have his cloak, which was at home. The prisoner's
wife continued gradually getting worse throughout the
day, and but faint hopes were entertained of her surviving
24 hours from the time she was first wounded.