The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1851.

kicked, and kicked the phaeton to pieces, and he would
have submitted patiently rather than visit the House of
Correction. But the pernicious notion in his head
which let loose his passions and his hands was that a
fine of 5/. acquitted all scores of outrage and brutality.
How much the public peace and security would gain if
the law applicable to the protection of the police were
applicable to the protection of the rest of the community.
What! interposes some one, would you give magis-
trates such a summary power over the liberty of
the subject ? Why, if they can be safely trusted
with the power when the police are concerned, why
are they to be supposed less trustworthy in
other cases ? And they do exercise the power over
the liberty of the poor, who are sentenced
to gaol in default of the payment of the fine. I, is the
iniquity of the system of fines that it spares the rich in
every way. A maximum is fixed, with which injustice
prepense declares that the fine shall not be propor-
tioned to the large means of the rich offender ;
and a minimum is also fixed with injustice prepense,
which declares that the fine shall not be
proportioned to the slender means of the poor offender.
The rich man goes to gaol when he commits the indis-
cretion of assaulting a constable. The poor man goes to
gaol for a petty assault, in default of a penalty of 40s. or
less; and with the loss of his liberty for a few days ho
may lose his character and his livelihood.

DECISION IN THE SOMERSET CASE.
A WARNING TO THE ROTTEN-ROWITES.
Mr. Hardwick has won golden opinions from all right-
judging people by his decision in the case of Captain
Paulett Somerset. Looked at in every point of view, the
judgment was most just and satisfactory. Here was as
officer in her Majesty's service—a man, the very es-
sence of whose profession consists in knowing how to
obey and how to command, wilfully refusing obedience
to a known police regulation, and so far losing all
command of himself as violently and brutally to assault
the officer who was only seeking to put that regulation
in force. The case was, in fact, surrounded with every
circumstance of aggravation. The captain had been
warned at Kensington-gate of the existence of the order
in question. The constable at that gate attempted to
stop him. He lashed his horses into a gallop, and when
the second policeman, at considerable personal peril,
endeavoured to arrest his course, he flogged the man
violently about the head and shoulders, drawing blood
from his face in two or three places. The conduct of the
captain, when before the magistrate, was not such as to
palliate his offence ; he complained that he not been
treated by the police. with the civility due to a gentle-
man :—had their mode of address been more courteous,
he would have desisted from his attempt to effect his
passage. This plea, which, under no circumstasces
could be held as amounting to a justification, was nega-
tived by the evidence of the witnesses and by the facts
of the case. The captain evidently intended, from the
first, to treat the police regulation with defiance, and
thereby, as far as in him layetp set an example of dis
order at a place, and on an occasion in which the pre-
' •
servation of order was of espential importance to the
comfort and security of the Rtihlic.
Under such circumstancesit Mr. Hardwick very pro-
perly decided upon infliceitikthe only penalty which, on
a person in Captain Somers is station, would operate as
an effectual punishment, 1A fine to the highest amount
in the magistrate's pews* would have been a mere
mockery: not so, the alternative of ten days' imprison-
ment in the House of Correction.
We are aware of theargument, that in fact, though not
in philosophy, the nature of the punishment is regarded
in these cases as thealegrading thing, not the nature of
the offence; and that an infamous punishment operates
more severely on S, men of the higher classes. We
very much doubt-the fact on which this argument is
based. Suppose, ifor instance, that, instead of an officer
holding her Maftsty's commission, the offender in this
case had been # warehouseman, or lawyer's clerk, or
druggist's appitntice,, we question exceedingly whether
the deprivatwis of place and salary, which wuuld in this
case almost inevitably have followed from such a sen-
tence, wouldenot, in point of severity, have far exceeded
any penal consequences that are likely to fliw from the
sentence pained on Captain Somerset. As to the ridicule
and social obloquy attending such a conviction, that is
probably pretty equal in both classes of cases, and is
only mord noticeable in the case of the higher class cul-
prit, becstise the people who govern the talk and fashion
the opiniskis of the great world belong to the same order,
and feel-their class-dignity wounded through his punish-
ment.
But eVisn conceding that honour becomes more sensi-
tive as wo ascend in the social scale, and that a discr, -
ditable penalty might in its consequences prove more die-
tressing)to an aristocratic than to a plebeian offender, is
it not just that it should be so? If the social influences,
are at all to be taken into the account, let us, at all events,
take them into the account fairly. If it be correct to say
that the refinements of caste make a degrading punish-
ment more severe, it is quite es correct to say, that
they ought to operate in making a discreditable offence
more penal. Ten days in the House of Correction is a
greater punishment to a gentleman than it would be to
a mechanic. Be it so; but, at all events, admit that
the offence for which the penalty is awarded, is less
venial in the gentleman than it would have been in the
mechanic. The advantages of class should never be
taken into consideration as a plea for the mitigation of
punish:l:rent, where they have been found ineffectual for
the preritention of offence. If a gentleman has behaved
with the brutality of a coalheaver, let him not, on the
ground of his gentility, escape a coalheauer's punish
meat.— Weekly News

TRESPASS AND PUNISHMENT.
Tiao Protectionists feel bound to afford amuse-
ment to the public in this great holiday year of
1851. Since they amused the town at Drury-
lane, and for an entire day exhibited themselves
gratis, the walls, hoardings, and public buildings
of London have been . covered with a strange in-
scription. People could not male it out; the only plau-
sible suggestion being that Bedlam had been turned
loose, and the gastronomic ideas of the human race in-
verted. For weeks we have read with amazement
strange specimens of Roman writing, which seemed to
import a prevalent_ desire for "Free Trade and Star-
vation."

But tha mystery has been revealed. The eye of the
police, which falls upon all things, of course fell upon
James Gray and John Allen, who were apprehended in
the act of inscribing the enigmatical phrase upon Black-
friar's-bridge by the light of the moon.
In the presence of Mr. Alderman Wilson they ex-
plained that " a gent" had promised to pay them two-
pence a piece for these inscriptions, that he had not
paid them yet, and that they painted at night because
the children smeared their work if they did it by day.
Such was their trespass. Their punishment was novel
and exemplary: they were ordered to clean the bridge,
cr go to prison. Of course they cleaned the bridge.
Wo said the mystery was revealed, but not entirely,
for the " gent" who promises to pay, but does not pay, is
still involved in congenial obscurity. Who can he be
—that man of enlarged, we may say, giganttc revolu-
tionary ideas? Gunpowder Plot was a small concep-
tion compared to this. Guy Fawkes proposed to move,
with a very forcible suasion, " that the House do rise;"
but to awake a people to a constitutional insurrection,
by persuading them that cheap bread and plenty of it
amount to starvation, that required the original genius of
a "gent." Again we ask who is this mcdern Machia-
velli, in the shape, demeanour, and dress of a " gent?"
Is it Colonel Sibthorp, or Mr. G. F. Young? or has the
Association for the Protection of Native Industry con-
descended to superintend in person these mighty evolu-
tions? Who can say ? Let Sir George Grey and Mr.
Mayne look alive, for are there not " six Richmonds in
the field ?"—The Leader.

as penalties imposed:by the recited Act maybe recovered
under the provisions thereof.
111. This Act shall not extend or apply to the assump-
tion or use by any bishop of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in Scotland exercising episcopal functions within
some district or place in Scotland of any name, style, or
title in respect of such district or place; but nothing
herein contained shall be taken to give any right to any
such bishop to assume or use any name, style, or title
which he is not now by law entitled to assume or use.

C•11.8-,LZGEET AND corm C7OI2IPANXES.
(-
Dividend Amount
U- Name of Company. per of Paid. Price
it Annum. Share.
)
---..
10 --
Z. 8. d. If. s. d.
Y. British •. •• •• ........ 11. 40 0 0 18 0 0 13
el Ditto rrovinsial•-• 1/. Bs. 20 0 0 20 0 0 1854
Brighton .-.......... 51. 20 0 .0 - -
''
City of London ...... 61. 100 0 0 150 0 0 120
Continental Consolidat. 923. 75 0 0 31 5 0
r, Equitable- • .......... 503. 160 0 0 50 0 0 27
is Imperial .• .......... 3/. ;50 0 0 50 0 0 70
e Independent ......... 6/. 140 0 0 40 0 0 46
London.• ............ - ICO 0 0 50 0 0 .-
1" Ditto.. • • .......... - 50 0 0 50 00 j-
-- Do., Paid. Preference 61. 25 0 0 710 0 -
N Pheenix ... .. .... .... 41. 50 0 0 49 0 0 2734
~ Rateliff .... . ........ 5/. 100 0 0 90 0 0 -
United General -•. • . 1/. 50 0 0 50 0 0 15%
I, Westminster Chartered 33. 60 0 0 - 4634
Lt Ditto. New .. .. -. .. 123. 50 0 0 10 0 0 94
d
xii:-.47 OP SCOTTISEr COMPALTI=3I PUICES
Dividend ' Amount
o Name of Company. per of I Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
-•
X 8. d. Z s. d
Bank of Scotland
sritish Linen Company 81. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 19934
a Caledonian Bank
City of Glasgow Bank Gl. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 11%
Clydesdale Bank •.. . • • 5% per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0 13%
Commercial Bank .. -7/. per cent. 800 0 0 100 0 0 1736
Eastern 8ank....• ••• 61. per cent. 25 0 0 10 0 9/. Os.
O Edinb.&Glasgow Bank 6/. per cent. 50 0 50 0 4%
Exehangeßnk of Scot 4l. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 0 s%
National Bank 634 percent. 80 0 0 10 0 0 1534
NorthofScotlandßank bLpercent. 20 0 0 210 0 21.133,
Royalßank of Scotland 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 133
Union Bank of Scotland 8/.percent. 100 0 0 50 0 0 90
Western Bank .. ... •• • 71. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 72%
Alliance Fire and Life 836/.pr cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 2136
British Guarantee .... 4/. per tent. 10 0 0 1 0 8 183 6d
Caledonian Fire Insur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 22%
City of Glasgow Life.. 6/. per cent. 25 0 0 2 0 0 31. Ili
Colonial Life ........ - 50 0 0 1 0 0 2!. Os.
Edinburgh Life Insur. 61. percent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 I 21%
Eng.& Scot, Law Life 51. per cent. 50 0 0 217 6 3
Life Assoc. of Scotland 61. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 ; 8/. Os
National Fire and Life Si. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 248.0 d
North British Insur... 61. per cent. 200 0 0 20 0 0 ; 27
ficottishUnionlnarnce. 641. pr cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 ,24s.id
Standard Life ...... • • 51. per cent. 60 0 0 4 5 0 12
United Dep.Assnrance 51. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0 1173 Od
MISCELLANEOUS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
---.
4. 2. d. Z. s. d.
Assam Tea .• .. • • .... - 20 0 0 20 0 0 64 '
Auction Mar. 21. 55. 50 0
Australian Agrictilturl 1/. 100 0030 () 0 15 1
Australian Trust •• .. Cl. per cent. - 3.5 0 0 20
Anglo-Mexican Mint.. 11. 108. 10 0 0 10 0 0 25 1
Ditto, Half Shares .. - - 210 0 _ 1
British American Land - -- 38 10 0 14%
Canada ......... •• .. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 32 10 0 47
Uppr Canada Bonds 61. peecent. -
- (
Ditto ditto .. • • 6'. per cent. - .__ 19607% I
City Navigation Bonds 3} per cent. - , ._
Gen. Revers. & Invest. sp. c.& bs, 2/ 100 0 0 100 0 0 gi % I ,
Equitable Reversienry sp.c.&bs. 5/ 100 0 0 1100 0 0 109% C
Ditto New ........ - 50 00 I 210 0 2% a
Gen.SteamNavigation 10 p.ct.& bs. 15 0 0 14 0 0 27%
Hudson's Bay.. .... .. - Stock. - 205
Hungerford .. .. ..... 2/. 58. - 100 0 0 47 )
London Institution ... - - i 7815 0 7
New Zealand Company - 25 0 01 25 0 0 -
Ditto, New ........ 25 00,12 10 0 -r,
Russell Institution.... - - ' 26 5 0 -
Paninsir&Orient•Stm. 81. percent. 50 0 0' 50 0 0 62
Reversionary Int. Soc. 141. pr cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 100
Royal Mail Steam.... 41. p. share. 100 0 0 60 0 0 76
South Australian... •• 4 11. pee• share. 25 0 0' 25 0 0 2434
Van Diemen's Land.. - 100 0 0 1 29 0 0 2 U

EXECUTION IN FRANCE.—The man Desbbia, who,
it may be remembered, murdered a police agent in the
streets of Beaucaire, and was in consequence condemned to
death by the Court of Assizes, was executed four days ago at
Beaucaire. When told by the officers of the gaol at Nimes,
in which he had been confined, that his last day had arrived,
he displayed great fortitude, and expressed a wish to receive
the consolations of religion. He made an excellent break-
thPrOwl
t,Etset, and thanked the turnkeys for their attention. He was
, istedneitd addressed
t,int!, conveyed by railway, in special train, to Beaucaire.
apparent On rig taken to the Hotel de Ville to be pinioned he saw
cie agent horn he had also attempted to kill. and
himself at his feet, demanded pardon with great
asceeanrndeestness. He walked firmly to the scaffold, and.
aesds
republicans,e dt crowd.he
counsels;
having
he said
who, calling themselves
ruin and brought me to the scaffold. Do not listen to those
pt hr
preach h‘ h‘
lac-yroieumncega
uapsneedodpdml people,"
8,y.."
order. They have no other
so-
ciety into all sorts of .s object than to precipitate mi fortune. Let my example be a
waning to you! Be united but fo
He then gave him-elf up to the
executioner
rcugpod—for good only!"
tTner, and a minute
later had ceased to live.—Gulignani's Alessenger.
WEA VING .-A some what gloomy shade has crept
rather unexpectedly over the face of the trade, and has flat-
tened
commercial prospects considerablY.--Fifeshire Journal. I

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, May 20.
(Before Lord CAMPBELL, Mr. Justice PATTESON' Mr.
Justice COLERIDGE, Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Jus-
tice CEESSWELL, and Mr. Justice TALFOURD.)
BOOSEY v. JEFFEIES.
Lord CAMPBELL, in delivering the judgment of the
Court, said that in this case the action had been
brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for the
pirating and using a musical composition, being a
cavatina in the opera of La Sonnambula, which was
composed by Bellini. The declaration was in the
common form, alleging that the plaintiff was the pro-
prietor of the copyright of the opera, and that the
composition in question was first published in Great
Britain. To this declaration there were two pleas—
first, that the plaintiff was not the proprietor; and
secondly, that there was no copyright. At the trial,
which took place before Mr. Baron Rolfe, now Lord
Cranworth, evidence was given that the opera was
composed at Milan in February, 1831, by Bellini,
- who was an alien, and who ,then resided in that city.
By the law of Milan, he was entitled to a copyright
of his work ; and accordingly, in May, 1831, he
assigned his copyright to Giulio Ricordi, an
ai alien, also residing at Milan, who, on the 9th of
• June following, assigned the copyright for Great
Britain and Ireland to the plaintiff, a native of Great
Britain, and he published it in London on the 10th
' of June, 1831, there having been no prior publication
of it in any other country. On the 12th of June, the
plaintiff entered his work at Stationers' Hall, and
deposited copies at the British Museum and other
ei places required by the Act of Parliament ; and on the
13th of May, 1844, he made entries at Stationers'
yi Hall, as required by the sth and 6th Victoria, c. 45,
for the purpose of continuing his right. The Learned'
Judge, in accordance with the decision of the Court
of Exchequer, in the case of Boosey and Purday,
a„ directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant,
on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to
establish a copyright. The jury, therefore returned a
verdict for the defendant, upon which a bill of excep-
'4 tions was tendered to the ruling of the Learned Judge,
3i and so the present writ of error was brought. After
listening to a learned argument, and carefully oonsi-
, dering all the authorities, we are of opinion that the
evidence was sufficient to support both issues,
and that there ought to be a venire de novo. The
first question was, whether the author had a copy.
right, but that is not essential in the present case. If
34 it were, we should be of the same opinion as my Lord
Mansfield in the case of "Miller and Taylor," 4 Bur-
roughs 2,330. We think that, under the statute of
% '
the Bth of Anne, o. 19, the plaintiff was entitled to
% maintain the action. In Boosey and Purday, in
which the Court of Exchequer overruled the decision
of the Court of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas,
which are authorities directly in point, it was decided
ai that a foreign author residing abroad, who composes
a work abroad, and sends it to this country, where it
is published under his authority, acquires no copy-
; right therein, neither' does a British subject, to whom
m that work is assigned by the foreign author, gain any
ea such right. If these premises be sound, then a Bri-
tish subject who resides abroad cannot be in a better
position ; but with great deference to that decision,
which must have been strongly maintained, we
!,e are of opinion that it was not the intention of
- the Legislature to debar a foreigner from the
power of holding a copyright in this country.
- The Parliament has no power to legislate concerning
;e. foreigners residing in foreign countries, but it has
_ power to grant the monopoly which the statute of
Anne confers, to be enjoyed here, on the conditions
44 to be performed here. The statute of the Bth of
Anne, c. 19, is an Act for the encouragement of learn-
ing, by vesting the copies of printed books in the
authors or purchasers of such copies during the times
therein mentioned. Assuming that the Legislature
looked only to the benefit of Great Britain, without
regard to general literature, it is not for the literature
of Great Britain that it should have the benefit of
Price. foreign authorship ? If Rapin and De Lolme had
.. written their valuable works without visiting our
shores, could it be said that they would have been
depris ed of the privilege of disposing of their works
to a publisher ? It hes always been the policy of
44 Parliament to introduce foreign literature into the
e 4 country; thus by the Ist Richard 111., c. 9, which
was an Act passed for regulating the mode in which
_ Italian merchants might sell merchandise and
other restraints on aliens, it is enacted by sec.
12, that aliens: may bring any books written or
Ice. printed into this country, for selling by retail or
_ otherwise. The question truly is, whether a foreigner
composing literature abroad, by &ending it and first
publishing it in Great Britain, is deprived of his
copyright, whereas, if he resides and composes it
here, it is admitted that he would be possessed of it.
' If he had composed it abroad and brought it over in
his memory, or even brought over the manuscript,
would it have made any difference in his right as
an author ? Can his presence here alter his right
as an author ? If he can bring it over and enter it at
ice. Stationers'-hall himself, which is admitted, why
should he not able to do so by an agent? Where is the
necessity of his crossing from Calais to Dover? The
law will give him redress, though he never set foot in
England ; for, by the 6th of Henry VIII., the Court
of Common Pleas held that an alien residing in
France could maintain au action of debt in this
country, though he could not do so with regard to
real property; and that great, judge, Chief Justice
Tindal, held that an alien, though he has never been
in this country, may maintain an action for a libel
published in this country ; and, on delivering
judgment said that it would create in the minds
of foreigners a very unfavourable impression of the
justice of our laws, if we were to hold that an
alien's friends could not maintain an action of that
description in our courts, unless by some interval of
residence here he has incurred the onus of what Lord
Coke calls igeantia localis ' • and Mr. Justice Maule,
- in the same case, said that every day's experience
Ice. showed us that actions area maintained here by fo-
reigners—for example, those for running down vessels
on the high seas—without objection. Gibbons wrote
his celebrated work of the a recline and Fall" in a
foreign country; can it be doubted that he might
have published and sold his work here had he con-
tinued to reside abroad? What difference can there
, be then between a foreigner or a subject domiciled
abroad ? For these reasons we think that if an alien
' author, residing in his own country, should cause
his work to be published here, he would be as
.% author within the Acts, and could maintain an
action for piracy ; but we wish it to be understood
that it must be first published in this country, for
if it had been published previously in any other
country he could not gain a copyright here.
The origin of the doctrine set up by the de-
tee. fondant seems to have arisenirom a dictum of the
late Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, against the right of a
foreigner, expressed in the cases of Guichard v. Mori,
34 and in Page and Townsend, which turned on the
. construction of several Acts protecting engravings,
16 one only of which was expressly confined to plates
16 engraved in Great Britain; but these opinions were
on. merely obiter dicta, and the cases had no connexion
'N with copyrights. Looking at the context, there is
reason to believe that the Vice-Chancellor only meant
s• to say that the Court would not protect a foreigner
who publishes abroad. As to the other points, viz.,
1% that the assignment by Bellini to Ricordi was not ac-
-134 cording to the Act of Parliament, viz., in the presence
Gd
of two witnesses, we think that there is sufficient to
show a good title in Ricordi, which he assigned to the
)3.
plaintiff in England in the presence of two witnesses.
Upon the whole, therefore, we are of opinion that the
'" direction of the Learned Judge was wrong, and that
he ought to have directed the jury to find a verdict
' for the plaintiff on both issues. They must, there.
fore, be a venire de novo.

ADMIRALTY COURT, May 21.
(Before Dr. LUBHINGTON.)
THE EURE..--SALVAGE.

In this case the crews of two fishing•smacks of
Harwich proceeded against the Bure for services ren-
dered her on the 9th of November last, off Harwich,
she having run aground on the Pye sand. The sal-
vors asserted she was in a dangerous position, and
were employed in heaving the vessel clear off the sand.
On behalf of the Bare it was asserted she merely
dropped alongside of the sand ; the assistance of the
boatmen was not solicited or required, but that they
forced their services upon the vessel, and that some
coals had been given for the services they had ren-
dered.

Dr. Harding appeared for the boatmen, and Drs.
Addams and Twiss on behalf of the Bare.
The COURT considered a trifling service had been
rendered, and awarded the salvors 51. and costs.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, May 21.'
(Before the RECORDER.)
HULSCHOTF V. CLELAND AND DAT DEMI:4IIU,
SCOTT GARNISHEE.
This was a customary attachment in an action for
debt for 7001. The garnishee pleaded that he had
neither moneys nor goods of the defendants, in his
possession.
Mr. Ryland and Mr. Randall appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Locke appeared for the garnishee.
The plaintiff was a merchant at Amsterdam, the
defendants were merchants at Boston, United States,
and the garnishee was Mr. James Scott, merchant. of
Nicholas-lane. In April or May last year, Mr. F.
Saville Lee, who was the authorised London agent
of the firm of Cleland and Co., of Boston, purchased
on their behalf eleven casks of nutmegs, f the value
of 7001., of Mr. Adrian Meyer, the representative in
London of the plaintiff's house, but one of the war-
rants was returned to Mr. Meyer, he having sold one
of the casks, and the ten others were given by-Mr.
Lee to Mr. Scott, the present garnishee, who it ap-
peared was a creditor of Cleland and Day's to some
amount. In December the house of Cleland and Day
failed, whereupon the plaintiff availed himself of 'the
process of the Lord Mayor's Court to recover from
Mr. Scott the nutmegs which were still in his posses-

sion, he being the holder of the warrants ; hence the
present issue. It appeared that the ten casks or nut-
megs were lying at Brewer's Quay-wharf, and that if
delivered for home consumption about 2091. would
have to be paid as duty, but if they were exported of
course no duty would be payable.
Mr. LOCKE submitted that the plaintiff's case could
not be sustained, as the attachment was against ten
casks of nutmegs which had never been in his posses-
sion, he being merely the holder of the warrants. The
latter, and not the goods, should have been attached.
The RECORDER held that the nutmegs were in
Mr. Scott's possession really, though not actually, in
the same manner that a person who had money at a
banker's was in possession of that money.
Mr. LOCKE then addressed the jury, and urged that
unless they were thoroughly satisfied, from the evi-
dence that the nutmegs were actually in Mr. Scott's
possession, they could not find for the plaintiff.
The Learned Counsel then put in as evidence a
deed of assignment, executed by Cleland and Day, at
Boston, on the failure in December, to show that when
the attachment was issued in February, the nutmegs
had been formally assigned to Mr. Scott and other
creditors, for the benefit of the creditors generally.
The names of Mr. Posuo, Turkish Consul at Ant-
werp, and Mr. Da Pests, Turkish Consul General at
Brussels, appeared as parties to the deed. It ap-
peared, however, that the deed had not been executed
until after the issue of the attachment.

The jury, without hesitation, found that the gar-
niskee had in his possession ten casks of nutmegs be-
longing to the defendants—which was a verdict for
the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, May 21.
(Before the CHIEF CommissioNEß.)
IN RE RICHARD JOHN MOSCRO2.
This insolvent, who was a corn-dealer at Holloway,
was opposed by Mr. Sargood for Messrs. Charring-
ton. He had no counsel.

An objection was taken to the petition in this case,
which was filed under the Protection Act, on the
ground that the debts exceeded 3001.
It appeared that the insolvent had given a Mr.
Bilton a bill of sale for 1101., which, with his present
debts, would make them exceed 3001. It was, how-
ever, alleged that Mr. Bilton had taken possession of
the property secured by the deed, and had realised
the same, which was in effect an extinguishment of
the claim. The deed was exhibited in court, and ap-
peared to be a mortgage.
Mr. SARGOOD submitted that the deed to Mr. Bil-
ton had not been extinguished, and that it must be
calculated in the amount. Therefore the debts ex-
ceeded 3001. and the petition must be dismissed.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER concurred in the view
taken by the Learned Counsel, and dismissed the
petition.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
His Hollows granted several final orders, and
heard other applications, neither of which presented
any feature of public importance.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Yesterday Mr. Bell and Mr. Corbett, the pro-
prietors of the Gracechurch-street premises, which
fell on Saturday last, waited upon the Lard Mayor
on the subject of the disastrious occurrence.
Mr. Bell addressed his Lordship in the justice-
room, in an interval of the ordinary business of the
day. He said, "We wait upon your Lordship for a
twofold purpose. First, to express our sincere
thanks to your Lordship for the promptitude you
have shown in commencing a subscription in your
public capacity, as chief magistrate, for the unfortu-
nate poor men who are now lying in the hospital, and
the families of those who were killed by the disastrous
fall of the premises in Gracechurch- street ; and,
secondly, to assure your Lordship that we are
doing, and still continue to do, all in our power to
assuage the afflictions of the objects of the public
solicitude. We have given directions, that the wages
shall be regularly paid, and that every comfort re-
quired be abundantly supplied, and we band to your
Lordship a cheque as an earnest of our feelings to-
wards the poor fellows who have suffered, and their
families."
The LORD MAYOR said it was most gratifying to
him to find, that the gentlemen who must be losers
to a very serious extent by the fell of the premises,
came forward to give such unquestionable evidence of
their!sympathy. He would take care that the press, in
which the notice of the contributions received had
already appeared, should be informed of the liberal
act of the gentlemen who had thus waited upon him,
and he entertained no doubt that he should be again
considerably indebted to the newspapers for their
powerful assistance, in circulating the claims of the
injured parties, and announcing the amount of sub-
scriptions for their service.
Mr. Bell—lt is our duty also to state to your Lord-
ship our sense of obligation to several gentlemen for
their extraordinary exertions immediately after the
accident occurred. We in particular allude to Mr.
Tress, Mr. John Stevens, Mr. Edmond Woodthorpe,
Mr. S. Wood, Mr. Ashpital, and Mr. Bailey. All
these gentlemen rendered the most valuable as-
sistance in superintending, in places of the most im-
minent danger, the efforts to rescue the workmen who
were buried in the ruins. Of the labour and skill of
those gentlemen, it is quite impossible to speak too
highly. The lives, in fact, of some of them were
constantly exposed to the greatest peril in their anx-
iety to save the lives of their fellow-creatures, so that
the community must feel, upon seeing the acknow-
ledgments o f the witnesses to their efforts day and
night, that the emergency was met by the greatest
intrepidity, as well as by the greatest zeal and talent ;
we are also bound to speak in terms of gratitude of the
exertions of the police who acted throughout with the
most remarkable firmness, resolution, and judgment.
The LORD MAYOR said he had every reason to be-
lieve the police had supported the high reputation
they enjoyed by their conduct on the occasion. He
was perfectly aware of the active labours of the pro-
fessional gentlemen alluded to, whose services upon
the premises were described as having been so effi-
cient, and he was proud to say that they bad shown
as great intrepidity as skill. Ilis Lordship then said
he would feel much indebted to the editors of the
daily press by their acknowledgment of his receipt of
the following sums for the sufferers on that day, and
his anxiety to receive most bountiful contributions :
Messrs. Bell and Corbett, the proprietors of the pre-
mises, 251.; Mrs. Jane Ogden, 51. ; a family subscrip-
tion, ss. ; James Thomson, Esq., 11. ls.; A Friend,
10s. ; John Wagg, Esq., 21.
CLERKEN WELL.
Yesterday Alfred Walker and Sarah 21Iortlahe,
the former a sturdy-looking young man, 23 years of
age, and the latter a young and interesting-looking
girl, were placed at the bar, before Mr. Tyrwhitt,
charged by Inspector Brennan, of the G division of
police, with having been concerned in manufacturing
counterfeit coin.
It appeared from the evidence of the Inspector, that
in consequence of information received by the police
that parties were constantly employed in the extensive
manufacture of base coin, at a house situate 69,
Golden-lane, St. Luke's, he, with other officers, made
arrangements to pay a visit to the place, for the pur-
pose of making a capture. On their arrival, at about
half-past four o'clock on Friday afternoon, they pro-
ceeded to the first floor apartment, and on opening
the door, they saw the male prisoner at work at a
bench, in the manufacture of base coin. He had a
file in his hand, finishing off some shillings. On see-
ing them (the officers), he dropped the file. The'
female prisoner sat quietly in the room, and merely
said to the male prisoner, " If you had not introduced
that party this would not have happened." They
immediately secured the prisoners and took them to
the station-house, after which they proceeded to
search the place. On the mantel-shelf they found 48
counterfeit shillings. In the cupboard three moulds,
two of which were so made as to cast three and four
shillings at a time. In a drawer they discovered
counterfeit half-crowns, and on a further and more
general search upwards of 200 pieces of counterfeit
coin were found, all of superior make and imitation.
Also two galvanic batteries, with plates and jars con-
taining strong solution, ladles for melting, Queen's
metal spoons, plaister of Paris powder, and all the
necessary implements usually applied to the manufac-
turing of base coin, the whole of which they seized
and conveyed to the station-house. The property
was now produced in court.
Sergeant Cole and White, &c., who accompanied
Inspector Brennan, gave confirmatory evidence.
The prisoners cohabited as man and wife ; the latter
was much affected whilst at the box, and the male
prisoner supported her, kissed her and held his arm
round her neck.
Mr. TYRWRITT remarked that he never before wit-
nessed the production of so large a quantity of coun-
terfeit coin, &c. He highly complimented Inspector
Brennan for having conducted the case in the manner
he had done. He decided on eventually committing
the prisoners to Newgato for trial, but they should be
brought up again on a fature day for the formal com-
pletion of the depositions.

. MARY LEB ONE.
Yesterday Peter Fisher, an omnibus driver, was
charged before Mr. Broughton, at the instance of
Mr. Henry Thomas, Secretary to the Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with the
following misconduct:—
Lock, 660 A, deposed that as he was on duty in
Bayswater-road, he saw the defendant driving his
omnibus towards town. There were from thirty to
forty passengers in and upon the vehicle, the springs
of which at length broke in consequence of the tre-
mendous load, and the horses came to a complete
stand-still, upon which the defendant flogged them,
anhdadsccaonidleacloteuds
but all to no purpose, as they were unable to draw
the omnibus along. The near-side horse in particu-
lar
was lashed in a most violent
manner, and a number of persons who
at the spot cried out " Shalnf."

Mr. j3ztouGwrox—How long did the whipping I

list ? Witness—Three or four minutes, your Wor-
ship.

Mr. BROUGHTON—Do you really believe there
were as many passengers as you have stated ? Wit-
ness—l do, Sir; but of course I had no opportunity
of counting them at the time.
Defendant, when asked by the magistrate what be
had to say, replied that the passengers numbered no
more than twenty-two, which was just one more than
the vehicle was licensed to carry ; the near horse was
a " jib," and he did not whip him more than two or
three times ; he had no witnesses to call.
Mr. BROUGHTON remarked, that the case had been
very properly taken up by a useful society, and fined
the defendant 20s. and costs, or in default of payment
14 days' imprisonment. If it had been shown that he
had been brought up upon any former occasion for
conduct of a similar nature, he would now have been
more severely dealt with.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Yesterday James Hurley and George Cator were
placed at the bar for re-examination before Mr.
Sacker, charged with a daring assault and robbery
upon the person of Mr. Benjamin Collins, a blind
man, carrying on business as an ironmonger in High-
street, Shoreditch.
The circumstances which led to the detection and
apprehension of the prisoners were of a somewhat
singular character. It appeared that on the afternoon
of Monday, the 9th instant, as the prosecutor was
passing through New Inn-yard, Shoreditch, under
the guidance of his daughter, a child eight years old,
he suddenly received a severe kick on the back of the
leg, which flung him forward upon his face, but he
was immediately raised up by two men, one of whom,
while affecting to commiserate his misfortunes, sud-
denly thrust his hand into his waistcoat pocket, from
which he abstracted his watch with a violent jerk that
detached it from the guard, and both of them in-
stantly made off with their booty. He gave imme-
diate information to the police, and having been sub-
sequently apprised that a man was in custody charged
with a murderous assault upon a married woman,
who had denounced him as one of the gang who had
robbed him of his watch, he proceeded to the station-
house, where he was confronted with the prisoner
Hurley, and at once recognised him, by the pecu-
liarity of his voice, as one of his assailants.
Ellen Wateman, the wife of a bedstead-maker, in
Christopher-square, Shoreditch, in whose house Hur-
ley had formerly lodged, was then examined, and de-
posed that she accidentally witnessed the robbery
while proceeding through New Inn-yard, on the
afternoon in question, and having described the par-
ticulars in the same terms as they had been detailed
by the prosecutor, and thoroughly identified the pri-
soners as the perpetrators, proceeded to state that she
met Hurley again, near her own residence, on the
same evening, and after an exulting observation upon
the daring character of the transaction, he informed
her that he had since, sold the watch for 16s. to a Jew
receiver. 'Witness remarked that it was a cruel act
to commit such a robbery upon a poor blind man, and
told him that she had a good mind to communicate
the circumstances to the police, to which he replied
that he would certainly cut her throat if she ven-
tured to do so. In consequence of these threats she
was deterred from divulging what she had seen, but
carefully avoided all further communication with the
prisoner, and kept out of his way until the night of
Saturday se'nnight, when he followed her home, and
commenced a most unmerciful attack upon her, de-
claring that he would have her life, and after striking
her repeatedly on the face, he seized her by the throat,
and attempted to strangle her, but her cries of
" Murder" were fortunately heard by a policeman,
who rescued her from further ill-usage, and conveyed
him to the station-house. Witness then preferred
the charge of robbery against him, and furnished the
police with further information, which resulted in
the apprehension of the other prisoner.
The prisoners, who denied the charge, were or-
dered to be remanded for the completion of the depo-
sition, hut on being removed by the gaoler they
turned fiercely round upon the female witness, and
assailed her with a volley of imprecations for giving
evidence against them.
SOUTHWARK.
Yesterday William Cox, a well-dressed boy of
fourteen years of age, was placed at the bar before
Mr. A'Beckett, charged with breaking into the house
of Mr. Edward Raleh, landlord of the Queen's Head,
Freescbool-street, Horselydown, for the purpose of
committing a felony.
Policeman William Thrussell, 148 M, stated that
at half past two o'clock that morning, while on duty
in Freeschool-street, in passing the Queen's Head, he
observed that the glass fanlight over the private en.
trance in Short-street was broken, and en aperture
made sufficiently large to admit of a man's arm.
Knowing up to twelve o'clock the same night that
the glass was perfect, he suspected that the house
had been entered, and he knocked at the door, and
listened, and distinctly heard footsteps within, but
received no answer, upon which be rung the house
bell and aroused the landlord, who came down, un-
bolted the door, and admitted him. He (the police-
man) then pointed out the apertuee over the door, and
hinted at his suspicions that some person had effected
an entrance, arid was probably then concealed on the
premises. They accordingly instituted an examina-
tion of the parlour, tap-room, bar, and other parts at
the lower part of the house, but failed in discovering
any person, until at length they proceeded to the front
of the bar, in a corner of which stood an empty
puncheon, underneath which, the heading next the
floor being out, the prisoner had concealed himself,
and when discovered he stated that he got into the
house before twelve o'clock the night before, and hid
himself in the puncheon where he was found. On
searching his pockets a box of lucifer matches was
found. The policeman added, that ,a short time pre-
viously to the discovery he saw two suspicious-looking
men lurking about the neighbourhood, who, when
particularly noticed by him went away, and he had
no doubt now that they were acting in collusion with
the prisoner, who, in all probability, intended to have
admitted them into the house by unfastening the
door; that the fan-light was a considerable height
from the street, and that the prisoner must have been
lifted up by other persons, in order to give him an
opportunity of breaking the glass, and making an
aperture to admit his arm, so as to enable him to draw
back the bolt by which the window was fastened, and
through which, it being partly open when discovered,
he must have introduced his body, and thus obtained
an entrance. He (the policeman) further stated, that
the prisoner, although so young, was a lad of very bad
character, and always in the company of thieves;
that he had been in custody before, and had only re-
cently come out of gaol after three months' imprison-
ment, and suffering the punishment of flogging besides.
The complainant stated that the prisoner's assertion
that he got into the house before twelve o'clock, and
concealed himself in the puncheon in front of the bar
was destitute of truth, for he (the landlord) did not
quit the bar himself till past twelve o'clock, at which
time he fastened the fanlight over the private door,
the glass of which was perfectly sound 'and secure at
the time. He added, that after he was aroused by
the policeman in the way described, when they
commenced their search in front of the bar, he pare
ticularly noticed that the empty punchi ion had been
removed a short distance from the usual spot where
it stood, and underneath which the prisoner was
found—that it was a matter of much surprise how the
prisoner managed to lift up the vessel so as to get
inside, without knocking it down in this attempt; but
however difficult, he surmounted it, and was found
inside in a sitting position. He was also of opinion
that the prisoner's intention was to admit other
housebreakers—his associates—to rob the house, if
the discovery bad not been made in the first instance,
through the attention displayed by the policeman in
the performance of his duty.
The prisoner, who declined saying
anything in
diections
an-
swer to the charge, was committed, ,and
directions
were given that the record of his former conviction
might be produced on his trial.
LAMBETH.
Yesterday Patrick Cane, John Healey, James
.11PEllyott, Dennis Harrington, William Fahey,
William Burke, Edward Shanahan, Thomas Lynn,
Thomas Burke, and Edward Slattery, who stood
Henry
divisJ ion,
charged with the murder ofhChaplin,werea* a constable belonging to toeckb
before Mr. Elliott. gain
rt t
eNn clerk
de
eidl
placed within the felons'. d
Mr. Bodkin, the barrister, and Mi
in the offices f the solicitorm tro.tGhearaT
se a
ands u ry
‘,
for the prosecution, and
appeared on behalf of the prisoners. Mr. Evans, the
of
who
hasLd • IVI9IOII of Police, and Mr.
Inspector Carter,superintendent
in the.. management of the
attendance.
Mr. were also attendance.
Mr. Bodkin, addressing the magistrate, said, that
since the case had been last before t its Worship, Mr.
Carter, the inspector, and the officer's engaged under
his directions, had exerted themselvf 3s to the utmost,
Ito discover the whole of the parties engaged in the
disgraceful and brutal outrage, that led to the death
of the unfortunate man Chaplin, but he (Mr. Bodkin)
regretted to say, that up to the present time they had
not been able to procure evider ice beyond that
which brought home the serious offe ace to more than
three of them, namely, Cane, Hickey, and M'Ellyott.
Against these, however, there wets in his (Mr.
Bodkin's) opinion, sufficient to platte them on their
trial on the charge of murder. It -was perfectly clear
from the statement of the witnesses, that there were
a greater number of persons, if no t assisting in the
murder, at least present when the outrage was com-
mitted, than those whose names be, had mentioned,
and though there could be as little doubt that
others at the bar, besides Hickey, Cam?, and M'Ellyo.tt,
were present when the deceased received his fatal
in-
juries, no information or communication of
laVniyth kind
had reached the police from any of them.
re-
spect to two of the prisoners, Barrington and Lynn,
he had some additional evidence to offer, and after
doing so, he should apply to his Worship for a further
remand.
The Learned Counsel here called Sergeant Thomas