The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-25 00:00:00

THI SUN, LONDON, SATErRDA;Y EVENING, MAY 25, 1861.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS.

Closing
Price.

Paid.

lusiness done

all
100
all
all
all
all
100

61 68
96 97

4i 5 d

6 7
75 80
65 70
65 70
5 5i

11 1} d
e pr

i }a
100 k 101 i

97 99
981 991
981 991
19 20
65 68
55 60
36 38
44 47
35 38
39 37
98 $9
pita

91 90
d
10 11
Of 1
05 98
99 n

84 86
95 96
88 90

5 7

5 7

(100
15
all
100
1

99 100
1d d

92 94
1a

-AYS.

5i
—P
2 lid
t 1

111 12i

3} 2 t
3} 21
22 23

7 7}

8/ St
19/ 20/
88/ 394

8 9
364 374
53 55

li 4 d

13 14

51 51
81 RI
Pr:
22 23 I

6 61
9i 1
20 21

ne i

THE CASE OF THE REV. H. HATCH.

COURT OF EXCHEiUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Lord Chief Bann, Barons Martin, Branwell,
and Ciannell.)
HATCH V. LEWIS.

Mr. M. Chambers, with whom was Mr. Garth, said this
was a case tried before the lord Chief Baron. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff with 40 shillings damages.
He had now to move for a rule to show cause why the court
should not award the plaintif his full cost's, and, if not,

why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had,

He moved first, on the ground that the damages were in-
adequate ; second, on the pound of misdirection of the
learned Judge who tried the (ase ; and third, on the ground
of improper rejection of the evidence.

Baron Martin inquired whet authority the Court had to
interfere ?

Mr. Chambers said he wifild show their lordships that
they had not only a right to interfere, but it was their duty
to do so. With reference to c)Fts this was a most important
application.

The Lord Chief Baron said that the two applications
were quite independent of ma other, and the Court could
not entertain them together.
Mr. Chambers said he would submit his motion, and after
he had given his reasons it would be for the Court to
decide.

The Lord Chief Baron said that if Mr. Chambers wished
to move for a new trial ho was entitled to do so, or to move
that the costs should be allowed, but the Court could not
allow them to be taken together.
Mr. Chambers was quite unaware of any point of practice
which prevented him from taking them together.
The Lord Chief Baron enquired whether he knew of such
a course having been taken before. The Court thought he
might make either application, and in time both.
Mr. Chambers thought that surely the Court could not
decide until it had heard his rasons.

The Lord Chief Baron said it had never been known that
two such motions had been taKen. combinedly.
Mr. Chambers said he proceeded under a recent statute,
and he should claim his right to be heard. When the Court
had been kind enough to hear him, then it might come to
a decision. It appeared to him that it was a most important
matter, and he would inform the Court of the unfortunate
position in which his client was placed.
The Lord Chief Baron repented that Mr. Chambers might
move for costs, or for a new trial.
Mr. Chambers said he should move for both.
The Lord Chief Baron (exoitedly)--Then the Court will
not hear you.

Baron Bramwell said that such a course as that suggested
by Mr. Chambers, wat, not in accordance with the general
practice of the court. Did Mr. Chambers think it right to
submit ore motion, and the other in the alternative ?
Mr. Chambers said he did. The reason he moved it as an
alternative was that, if he made separate motions he should
have to go over the ground twice. He had been driven to
come to the court in consequence of an application having
been made to the Lord Chief Baron to certify that it was a
fit question to be tried in a superior court.
The Lord Chief Baron said the matter stood thus. Mr
Chambers had a perfect right to apply for a new trial or for
the costs, but the two questions had no connection with each
other.

Mr. Chambers would then, in the first case, apply for a
new trial, and in givirg his grounds he would state the
circumstances which would bear upon the question of
costs. He would state distinctly in the Lord Chief Baron's
presence that the summons was taken out in order that his
lordship might certify that this was a proper case to be
tried in the Superior Courts, Mr. Garth and Mr. Charles
Pollock attended. for the respective parties. He did not
hesitate to say, that there was not a judge upon the bench
who would not instantly have certified in such a case, for
no doubt could be entertained that it was a fit subject to be
tried there. But the Lord Chief Baron said he would not grant
a certificate until after the fiurth day of term, in order that
he might see whether either party moved for a new trial.
Now the obvious answer to that was this, what had the mov-
ing for a new trial to do with the question whether this was
or was not a proper case to he tried in a superior court. The
Lord Chief Baron's refusal to certify at that time placed Mr.
Hatch in this predicament—if he had waited until the lapse
of four days in order to see whether the learned judge would
certify he would have been deprived of the opportunity of
moving for a new trial if his lordship had refused. Under
these circumstances he (Mr. Chambers) thought that to save
expenses he should move a rule in the alternative. He would
now introduce to their loriship's attention the facts of the
case, but first of all he would speak of what occurred before
the trial came on. This would go to the merits of the case
as well as to the question of co sts. The venue had been
originally laid in Hertfordshire, and the defendants made
an affidavit on moving for a special jury that it was an im-
portant case.

The Lord Chief Baron inquired in what state these facts
were before the Court now. Had Mr. Chambers any affi-
davits in reference to them ?

Mr. Chambers said he had. There were two of the
judges on the bench (Baron Bramwell and Baron Channell)
who would have too much reason to recollect part of th,
history of this most miserable case. It was proved at the
last trial that Mr. Hatch was a gentleman of excellent edu-
cation, and well connected. He had some clerical employ-
ment when he was appointed to the chaplaincy at Wands
worth. While there he foolishly embarked in some specu-
lations in reference to an insurance company, and in some
literary matters which contributed to his difficulties in that
state of things. Somewhere about the month of July, 1859,
he and Mrs. Hatch having adopted a little girl, called Lucy
Hatch, the orphan of a surgeon who died in the Crimea,
were desirous of engaging a governess. They did so, and
this led to a communication with the Plummers, whose
daughters they were to take in order to assist in meeting the
expenses.' On the 11th of August, 1859, Mr. and Mrs.
Plummer came down with Eugenia Plummer. They stayed
at Mr. Hatch's during the afternoon, and left after 10.
Mr. Hatch want out with Eugenia Plummer and Lucy
Hatch to see Mr. and Mrs. Plummer off, and during the
whole time they were away they were seen by six persons,
including Mrs. Hatch. The names of these persons were—
Baron Martin said that it would be convenient if before
entering upon these particulars Mr. Chambers would state
what were the p leadings in the case.
Mr. Chambers—Certainly. They were that the plaintiff
being in charge on the allegation that he had commmitted
certain offences, and being about to appear before the
magistrate at Wandsworth retained the Messrs. Lewis for
fee and reward, to conduct the case and defence of the
plaintiff preparatory to and during the hearing of the
charges, and that after the plaintiff had been committed to
prison by the magistrate to take his trial, he engaged the
reason
r o per skillhe
th wase and
e in
g diligence
u g eetime
of defendants to prepare and conduct the defence before and
during his trial at the Central Criminal Court, and that in
consideration thereof, the defendants promised to use all
indictedant
hd e thea
plaintiffn
defendants,
tri tried
dsaid
and h
a thatndt
th
their
that by
n
after-
wardsboy
oft
using proper skill and care, the plaintiff was, upon the said
trial at the Central Criminal Court, convicted of the
charges made against him, and sentenced thereupon to
two years hard labour for the offence. It was further
alleged that the plaintiff was disgraced and degraded, and
put to expense and trouble in obtaining his pardon, and
also in prosecuting
Eugenia Plummer, against whom he
obtained a conviction for perjury. There could not be a
more important case—first, with regard to Mr. Hatch, who
alleged that by the negligence of the Messrs. Lewis he had
been injured; second, with regard to the Messrs. Lewis
themselves as to their professional duties ; and third, to the
public and to the great profession of which Messrs. Lewis
were members. He should show that from first to last the
Lord Chief Baron took a very peculiar and unusual view of
the case on the part of Mr. Hatch, being guided and governed
by a one-sided view. The Lord Chief Baron proceeded to
sum up the case entirely against Mr. Hatch, and laid down
some positions of law which might be easily contro-
verted ; the result being that the Lord Chief Baron—
he (Mr. Chambers) completely exonerated the jury—
in order to show the jury that Mr. Hatch ought to
lose the case, misled the jury into one of the
most curious verdicts ever delivered in a court of
justice. The singularity of the verdict appeared to have
been produced by the Lord Chief Baron thinking that it
was desirable and just that Messrs. Lewis should gain the
verdict, and that Mr. Hatch should lose it, so that between
the difficulties the jury seemed to say that Messrs. Lewis
had been guilty of negligence, and gave a formal verdict of
forty shillings, which, he contended, ought to be set aside.
That verdict might have been submitted to by Mr. Hatch
had not the Lord Chief Baron refused to certify until he
saw whether a compromise could be effected, by holding
over his certificate until the lapse of time in which a new
trial could be moved for.

The Lord Chief Baron (excitedly)—That was one of the
reason I refused to certify. I refused to be a party to any
compromise. If you wish, Mr. Chambers, to move for a
newa trial, may tell you, that an inti-
tio sheldonudto so ; b
tome thatut I
if I would give a certificate
mnwyou can
there would be no motion for a new trial ; and I think the
remarks you have made are most improper. Make your
motion and do as you please. I think it is a very improper
thing to attempt to overawe a judge in the way that has
been done in the exercise of his discretion, and I sent you
here to make any remarks you please.

Mr. Chambers—You did not send me here, because I did
not appear before you on the summons.
Mr. Garth said that, when he made his motion in cham-
bers, his lordship asked him whether either of the parties
intended to move for a new trial.

The Lord Chief Baron said that it was not the first time
he had heard of a suggestion for such a compromise.
Mr. Chambers said that how a judge could hear pro-
posals in reference to such matters before application was
made to him, it was not for him to say.
The Lord Chief Baron repeated that he was certainly led
to believe that if he had given a certificate for costs there
would be no motion for a new trial.
Mr. Chambers said there never had been any intention of
the kind. Ile had been told that the Lord Chief Baron had
stated that he would wait till the expiration of the first four
days of term before he granted a certificate.
Baron Channel said that ever since he had been on the
bench he had adopted that course, and had never had any
doubt about its correctness.

Mr. Chambers proceeded, and gave in detail the pro-
ceediAgeWOO With the UZI* Qt. Mr, HOtChl ON

charges preferred against him. It was then promised by
Mr. Lewis that he would attend before the magistrates
on the next morning. He went there and saw Mr.
Hatch, who told him the circumstances, and that all his
family could contradict the charges that had been made
against him. The first negligence on the part of Mr.
Lewis was in not asking for a remand, so that he might
examine witnesses.

The Lord Chief Baron said, that surely Mr. Chambers
did not mean to say that it would have been prudent to
discuss the matter before a magistrate.
Mr. Chambers said that Mr. Lewis had previously said
that the case must go to tiial.
The Lord Chief Baron said that it was not at all probable
that the magistrate would dismiss the case.

Mr. Chambers repeated that Mr. Lewis bad previously
determined that the case must go to trial.
The Lord Chief Baron thought he was right. One of
Mr. Hatch's allegations was that Mr. Lewis had so mis-
managed his case that he was sent t) trial .

Mr. Chambers said that vas not the only negligenc e
complained of. Mr. Lewis, at the police-court, put into the
witness-box an unexamined witness, which brought Mr.
Lewis within the general allegation of a want of the due
care and diligence which an attorney ought to exercise.
Moreover, it was alleged that Mr. Lewis examined
the witnesses so carelessly that the magistrate com-
mitted Mr. Hatch for trial, offering at the same
time to admit him to bail. Mr. Ilatch was committed
to Horsemonger-lane Jail, and Mr. Lewis was over and
over aga;n entreated to go there and see him, but Mr.
Hatch never saw him there until a day or two before the
trial. (The learned counsel, at some length, entered into
particulars in reference to the alleged refusal of Mr. Lewis
to call witnesses on the trial, in defiance of the fre-
quently expressed wishes of Mrs. Hatch, who took all her
witnesses to the Old Bailey—witnesses not only to facts
but to character.) The result of the trial everybody knew.
He did not blame Mr. Sergeant Ballantine for not calling
witnesses—he would have been a madman to do so under
the circumstances—because the facts were not accurately
laid before him by the attorneys who instructed him.
Ho would hand up to their lordships this ragged
brief, and he thought it merited the appellation of a
" thief's brief," that is, such a brief,as would, in point of
fact, be prepared for the defence of a thief known to be
gxilty. He made no charge against Mr. Sergeant Ballan-
tine, but what he said was this, that the attorney did not
do his duty between the client and the counsel. Mr. Lewis
took £75; he said £44 was outlay, the rest was for him,
self. His case was this : his brother saw Mr. Hatch
once, he saw him twice, he wrote the heading of the
brief, and did some other trifling services for which the
first attorney of the land would not have made out a
legitimate bill of costs for more than £lO 10s. This was
a prima facie case, to be supported by two children.
True, but six months' experience would teach us that
children would bear their own examination better
than any one else. It was, indeed, impossible to
break them down, and if the counsel for a moment
lost his temper and pressed the child who was in the
box severely, every man in the Court became the defender
of the children, and the case of the unfortunate accused was
injured. In a difficult case like this the attorney ought in
the first place to have gone and seen the house where the
offence was alleged to have been committed ; he should
have got the evidence of the witness and inserted it in
the brief of counsel. Then the counsel would have been
able to decide at the close of the case for the prosecution
whether he had so far broken down the testimony that
he ought not to call witnesses, but if he had not he
could have brought forward the evidence of the wit-
nesses whose names appeared in his brief. Then Mrs.
Hatch suggested that Field, the detective, should be
sent to make inquiries about the Plummers. Mr. Lewis
said, "No, Field is a fool; Brennan is my man," and
Brennan was sent, and what was Brennan's evidence at the
trial of this cause ? He said he having been to the neigh-
bourhood of the Plummers had discovered a clue—he had
found where a servant, formerly in their employment, was
to be found, who could give information as to whether the
children were truthful, and where they had been at school.
Mr. Lewis said to him here is £5 for you, you need make
no further inquiries, as we have determined not to call wit-
nesses. Then there was another subterfuge, that Mr. Lewis
had had frequent interviews with Mr. Sergeant Ballantine,
and informed him of the facts that were not in the brief,
and the fact was that Mr. Lewis had not informed him-
self of those facts, and, therefore, he could not impart
a knowledge of them to Mr. Ballantine. The learned
counsel then proceeded to state the facts as to how the
charge was originally made by Mr. Plummer in a letter
to the Bishop of Winchester, and how Mr. Hatch had
resigned his situation on the suggestion of Mr. Onslow. He
then stated the evidence given on the prosecution of Mr.
Hatch, and on the prosecution of Eugenia Plummer, show-
ing how the one would have contradicted the other, and
argued that had Mr. Sergeant Ballantine known (and Mr.
Lewis ought to have informed him) the evidence that the
witnesses could give he would have called them, and thus
contradicted Eugenia Plummer, and secured Mr. Hatch's
acquittal. Again, then, there was the chileLucy Hatch
she was a very important witness, but he did not find so
much fault with what Mr. Lewis had done with respect to
her as he did in not calling the independent witnesses in
waiting at the t,inl. Tied he done so t.ho jury would have
',mid, we have had enough of this painful case and a favour-
able verdict to his client would have been returned.
Eugenia Plummer having been convicted of perjury the
younger child Stephanie not having been proceeded against
his lordship, ho thought, had made some observations
against Mr. Hatch's position.

Lord Chief Baron—No. I certainly did not. I said
nothing of the kind. In my opinion the law went as far
as it could go in convicting such a child as Eugenia.
Mr. Chambers said he thought at the time that was the
effect of his lordship's observation, but he was glad he was
under a misapprehension. With respect to the summing-
up of the learned Chief Baron, he thought the jury were
misled. In the first place, he objected to his lordship
telling the jury that in order to find a verdict for the
plaintiff they must be satisfied that conviction fol-
lowed negligence. Secondly, ho thought it was a
misdirection in excluding from the consideration of the
jury all matters relating tl the petition of Mr. Hatch; and
the great blot of all was that his lordship had misled
the jury by saying, aft,r Sergeant Ballantine had given
his evidence, in which he took the whole responsibility
of not calling witnesses, that there was an end of the case.

Lord Chief Baron—Mr Chamber s,I beg to state that that
did not take place. What I said was there is an end of
the case as far as the calling witnesses is concerned.
The learned counsel then proceeded to detail his general
objections to the summing up of the evidence by the judge,
and had not concluded his remarks when we went to press.

IMPE RIAL PA RLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The Speaker was in attendance at 4 o'clock, but only 34
members being present, the house was counted out.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(2hts Day).

•
COURT' OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

BARNEY A. BARNEY-A BRUTAL AND PROFLIGATE

HUSBAND:

This was a suit instituted by Mary Anne Barney for a
dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's
adultery and cruelty, to which there was no appearance.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. T. J. Clarke were counsel
for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in June, 1854,
and cohabited until the 22d of December, 1858, when they
finally separated. The petitioner was the daughter of a
licensed victualler at Dudley, in Worcestershire, who gave
her £5OO on her marriage, and subsequently advanced the
respondent £5OO more to relieve him from his pecuniary
difficulties, which were brought on by his own misconduct.
He was engaged as a warehouseman in the City at the
time of the marriage and represented himself to be in very
good circumstances, though shortly afterwards he became
a bankrupt. In the early part of the year 1855 be
left the petitioner and went to Paris in company with a
prostitute, but notwithstanding this conduct she forgave
him, and they resumed cohabitation at Dudley, where the
respondent obtained employment as clerk in a brewery. He
again left her, but on promise of his amendment she was
induced to receive him back, but his drunkenness and ill-
treatment became so intolerable that she was compelled to
take refuge at her father's, and though she consented to
live with him as his wife, she could not be induced to leave
her father's house, where they resided for some time. She
accidentally became possessed of a letter addressed to her
husband by a prostitute, and on mentioning the matter to
him he became very violent, struck her, and bit her fingers
He afterwards left her, but wrote to her threatening to
shoot her if she instituted proceedings against him for a
divorce, or if she did not prevent him being prosecuted for
embezzlement, of which he was subsequently convicted and
sentenced to four years' penal servitude, which punishment
he was at present undergoing.
The evidence fully established the case, and the Court
made the decree nisi, and also directed that the petitioner
should have the custody of the three children, issue of the
marriage, until further orders.

DE ROSE V. DE ROSE.
This was the petition of the wife, praying for dissolution
of marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery,
coupled with desertion, and there was no answer by the
respondent. The parties were married in 1846, and lived
in different parts of the metroi,olis until March 1857, when
the alleged desertion took place. The respondent was a
gunsmith, but the petitioner contributed to their mutual
support during their cohabitation by attending her brother'■
shop, for which she received seven shillings a week. They
had five children by the marriage, and the petitioner had
not given her husband any cause for complaint ; but in
March 1857 he became ve.y violent, and threatened to
knock her down. Ultimately he left her, and had not
since contributed anything to her support, and was alleged
to have been living with another woman.
The case stood oN er for the consideration of the learned
judge.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—( This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

DISORDERLY FOREIGNERS.—Louis Merry, a French
plumber, of 27, Great Crown-court, and Auguste Gelson, a
Belgian agent, were charged with creating a disturbance in
Princes-street, and Merry was further charged with being
drunk.

Smith, 12 C, said he saw the defendants fighting, with
a large crowd round them, and shouting and ma king a great
noise. They refused to go away, but with the assistance of
three other constables he got them to the station.

Merry said (through Mr. Albert, the interpreter) that
ono of his workmen's wives had been living with Gelson,
and that on his expostulating with him he struck him in
the eye with a key.

Henri Pretz, of 27, Great Crown-court, a workman of
Merry's, said that he was out for a walk with his wife,
when Gelson pulled at his wife and wanted her to go home
with him, and then Gelson struck him in the eye with a
key, or something he had in his hand ; Gelson then ran
awy.

In answer to Mr. Yardley, the witness said—" My wife
is de cause of all dis dreadful war,"

Mr. Yardley said he should fine Merry 55., or three days,
for being drunk, and Gelson 205., or eight days, for the
assault.

THIS DAPS MARKETS.

The supplies of produce on sale here t.)-(lay have been by
no means extensive, and the trade greerally has ruled
sf early, as follows :

FRUIT.
S. d. s. d.
Pine apples, perlb 8 oto 12 0
Colonial do., each 1 6to 2 0
Grapes,per lb 8 oto 12 0
Foreign do 2 oto 3 0
51elons, each
Peaches, perdoz 6 oto 12 d
Nectarines, per dz 2 oto 6 0
Apples, per doz. 0 6to 1 6
Pears, per do
Oranges, per 100 6 oto 12 0
Lemons, per 100 5 oto 10 0
kpricots. per doz 2 oto 4 0

s. d. s. d
Cherries, per lb. 1 oto 2
Filberts, per lb .. 1 oto 1 6
Cobnuts, per lb 1 6to 2 0
Almonds, per bus 0 oto 0 0
Walnuts, per 100 1 oto 2 0
Figs, per d0z..... 2 oto 4
Strawberries pun. 1 0 to 2 0
Gooseberries lit sv 0 oto 0 0
Currants, per do. 0 oto 0 0
Plums, per do. .. 0 oto 0 0
Greengages, pr do. 0 oto 0 0
Raspberries, pr ptlo oto 0 0
i.BLEB.

VEGET.
Greens, dz bunch 7 0 to 9 0
Cabbages, pr doz. 1 0 to 2 3
Savoy do., pr do. 1 6 to 1 9
Cauliflowers, p dz 1 0 to 3 0
Brocoli, per bush. 1 2 to 1 4
Potatoes, per ton 100 to 180 0
New ditto, pr 1b... 0 2 to 0 8
Peas, per sieve 2 6 to 5 0
Turnips, dz bunch 3 0 to 5 0
Carrots, pr do 8 0 to 10 0
Cucumbers 0 6 to 2 0
Garlic, per lb G 6 to 0 8
Sorrel, per sieve 0 0 to 0 0
Spinach, hf.-sv 0 8 to 1 0
Brus. sprouts,h.s. 1 6 to 1 9
Onions, hf. sv 1 0 to 1 6
Do., dz bun 0 0 to 0 0
French beans, 100 0 9 to 1 3 I
Leeks, per bunch 0 0 to 0 0

Shallots, per lb .. 0 6to 0
Horseradish, pbn 1 oto 3 0
Parsley, per ditto 0 2to 0 4
Celery, per ditto 0 Bto 1 6
Beet, per doz. .. 1 6to 2 0
Parsnips, per do. 0 oto 0 0
Small salad, p. pn, 0 2to 0 3
Mushrooms,p pun 1 3to 1 6
Artichokes, pr dz 4 oto 6 0
Cabbage lett,score 1 oto 2 0
Endive, per score 1 oto 2 0
Radishes, dz linds 0 Bto 0 10
Tomatoes, Id eve 4 oto 6 0
Walnuts, per 100 0 oto 0 0
Chillies, per ditto 0 oto 0 0
Capsicums, per do 0 oto 0 0
Rhubarb, per bun 0 2to 0 4
Asparagus, pr do. 4 oto 8 0
Seakale, per pun. 1 0 to 1 0

NEWGATE AND LEADENHALL.

Turkeys, 5s Od to lOs Od ; poults, 5s (id to 7s 6d each ;
geese, 6s Od to 8s Od ; goslings, 5s Od to 7s Od ; ducklings,
3s Od to 5s Od ; rabbits, is Od to 2s Od each ; wild do., 9d
to is Id ; pigeons, Os 8d to is each; large Surrey fowls,
lOs Od to 18s Od ; chickens, 8s Od to 14s Od; barn-door fowls,
4s Od to lOs Od ; capons, 4s Od ; hares, 3s Od to Os Od ;
grouse, is 6d to 2s Od each ; pheasants, 3s 6d to 4s 6d ;
ptarmigan, 2s Od to Os ; woodcocks, 2s 6d to 3s Od; snipes, is
6d to 2a Od; teal, Os Od to is 6d ; wild ducks, 3s Od to Os Od ;
widgeons, 2s 6d to Os Od ; plovers, is Od to is 6d each ;
guinea fowls, 8s Od to 9s Od ; roasting pigs, 6s Od to lOs Od
each ; Ostend fresh butter, is Od to is 2d ; English, is Od
to is 4d per lb ; English eggs, 7s 6d to 8s Od ; French do.,
6s 6d to 7s Od per 120 ; leverets, 2s 6d to Os Od each.

NEWPORT.
Beef, from 2s Od to 4s Od ; mutton, 2s 4d to 4s 4d ;
lamb, 5s Od to 6s Od; veal, 3s 6d to 44d; and pork, 38
Od to 4s 8d per 81bs.

WHITECHAPEL.

Beef from 2s Od to 48 Od ; mutton, 28 4d to 4
4d ; lamb,
5s Od to 6s Od ; veal, 3s 6d to 4s 4d ; and pork, 38 Od to
4s 8d per 81bs. by the carcase.

BILLING SLATE.

Salmon, 2s Od to 2s Gd ; trout, Os Od to Os ; eels, 6d to lsOd ,
prawns, 5s Od to Os; pike, skate, sturgeon, and haibut, 6d pel
lb. Turbots, 2s Gd to 12s ; cod, 2s 6d to 5s Od ; brills 2s Gd
to 6s Od ; doreys, is Od to 6s Od ; mullets, Os 6d to 2s Od ;
lobsters, 6d to 2s 6d ; crabs, 6d to 2s 6d ; plaice and garnets,
4d to is 6d each; soles, 9d to is 6d per pair; common
oysters, lOs to 12s ' • natives, 40s to 44s per bushel ; whitings,
3s Od to 4s Od ; haddocks, 5s to 12s Od ; smelts, 4s Od ;
flounders, is 6d to 2s 6d per dozen ; mackerel, 36s ; fresh
herrings, Os ; bloaters, 6s to 8s per 100 ; carp and tench,
is Od to 3s per brace.