The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-13 00:00:00

ilLmancb.

Owlett v. Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Rochester,
S. J.—Cockrane v. Lewis, S. J.
Christie and others v. Massey, S. J.
Prescott v. Mahon, S. J.
Pennell and others, assignees, V. Anderson, S. J.
Luerson v. Busk, S. J.
Hart v. Baxend Ale, S. J.—Giles v. Pritchett, S. J.
Lindsay and another v. Smith, S. J.
Osborne v. Ridout, S. J.
Hancock v. Be w ley, S. J.—Knight v. Fox and another, S.J.
Neale v. Le Paigg, S. J.
Sturge and another v. Clarke, Bart., S. J.
Sims and others, v. Button and another, S. J.
Glenie v. Baron de Delmar, S. J.
Skinner v. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway,
S. J.—M`Gregor v. Hughes, S. J.
King and another, executors, v. Bruin, S. J.
Bar ker and another v. Branches, S. J.
Dale* v. Ogle, S. J.—Dub, urg v. Lord Ingestre, S. J.
Webster v. Planche, S. J —Barnley v. Verge, S. J.
Midland Great Webt,rn R.ilway of Ireland v. Blythe, S. J.
Same v. H. Moore. S. J.—Same v. C. Moore, S. J.
Staunton v.W. E.Voules, S. J.—Same v. H.J.Voules, S.J.
Doe dem. Merry weather bud wife v. Turner and
others, S. J.
Bousfield v. Breton, S. J.—Ardoin v. Mavrogordato, S. J.
Craufend v. Cocks end others, S. J.
Widirsms v. L we, S. J.
Brown v. Wrgram and another, S. J.
Dawson v. Gwynn, S. J.
Oliver v. Learmouth. S. J.—Solornan v. Howell, S. J.
Watts v. Penny, S. J.—Penny v. Watts, S. J.
Smith v. London and NortL-Western Railway Com-
pany, S. J.
Homer,ham v. Wolverhampton Waterworks COM
patty, S. J.
Pound v. Kelly, S. J.—Myers v. Austen, S. J.
Pope and others v. Fleming, S. J.—Filiner, Bart., v.
Mount, S. J.
Semple v. Hewitt. S J.—Moore v. Hawes and another, S.J.
Doe dem, Guilt v. Tayler,__gartisv.Tillemk.
'Whitcombe v. Webb, S.•.j.
Same v. Earl of Strathmore, S, J.
Taylor v. Ilughes.—Priest v. Remnant, S. J.
• Bolton' and another v. Sinnett, the younger.
Richardson v. Pepper.—Adoington v. Fenton.
Kings v. Reid.—Peel v. Peel.--Lacy and others v. Brown.
Great Northern Railway v. Southall.
Bertram v. Hutchins.—Wagner v. Armistead.
Laidlaw v. Leach, S. j.--Dee v. Palmer.
Sowerby, the younger, v.jackson.—Bradfield v. Duncan.
Joseph v. Everettand another.—Claridge v. She well, S. J.
Trail v. Holt. —Woods t Finnii. and another.
M 01340 and another v. Jones and another.
Dimes v. Lord Cottenham, S. J.—Methley v. Killick.
Sea, Fire, and Life AssuranCe Society v. Williams, S. J.
Gay Y. Shackle and another, S. J.
Dick v. Jonides and another, S. J.
Mackeson v. Phillips, S. J.—Hunter and another v. Moss.
Langridge (executor) v. Johnson.

a very reasonable expense. It would be difficult
to exaggerate the importance of the extension of this
discovery to life, and fishing, and race-boats; and we
look for a speedy and extensive recognition of Mr.
Bonney's merits in this matter at the hands of the
Royal Yacht Club, and, indeed, nearly every regatta
club in Great Britain. The attendance yesterday
was not as numerous as could be desired, but this
was owing to the state of the weather, which
suddenly assumed an almost wintry aspect, threat-
ening rain all the evening, though, fortunately, there
was none to diminish the satisfaction of the aquatic
amateurs and professionals who did assemble according
to Mr. Bonney's invitation, and by whom that inge-
nious gentleman was warmly congratulated, as he de-
served to be, on the great practical value of his con-
tribution to science and safety in one important
branch of things nautical.

A parcel of gutta percha sheet was shipped on
board the Briton, Dundee trader, by Mr. John Taylor, of ihis
town, on March Ist, which vessel was lost at Holy Island,
during the gale of the 4th of that month. The revenue
officers found the gutta percha at Wren Water, near Barn-
bro' Cas.le. Al: hough it had been exposed to the action of
the sea for nearly three months, the water had not penetrated
beyond the outer surface of the material, the gutta percha
being equally as good es when shipped.—Newcastle Courant.

CUIVES, JUNE 12.—Wivd t.;:W.—Atrtt. 6wea,
1341 n,“ Wiasstwiswetts, Nlatarzw; Edwin Augus'o,
'layouts', and Fu• Riga; Nueva Liavuunah.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCILEWJER, June 12.
IN RE AN ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER.

It will he remembered that some time since Mr.
Watson, Q.C., obtained a rule nisi, calling, on an at-
torney to .how cause why he should not be struck off
the rolls, for allowing an unqualified person to prac-
tise in his name; and why such person should not be
committed to tin: Queen's prison.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, Q.C., and Mr. WILLS showed
cause, and relied principally on the fact that the person
alleged to have been unqualified was the managing
clerk of the attorney, and that he did not receive any
portion of the profits. The affidavit in support of the
rule stated that the deponent was informed, and verily
tplieved, that this unqualified person was the articled
clerk of the attorney, but was in fact serving with his
own father, a solicitor, and was carrying on the busi-
ness of a bill discounter.

The LORD CHIEF BARON—Though it is dangerous
to lay down a general rule, I think it may be said that
whenever a deponent swears that " he is informed and
verily believes" facts in a case like this, he should
state the name of his informant, and his precise state-
ments.

New Causes.
Davis v. Newton, S. J.—T. Colledge v. Harty.
Goggs and another v. Gibbs
Ty rwhitt and another v. Halsted.
Hail v. Squire—Mitchell Y. Gunnell.
Sherlund v. Marshall.
Gell and another, executors, v. Deighton.
Humphrys v. Freshfield.
Gregory and (hers v. Miller and others, S. J.
Caussidiere v. Long and another, S. J.
Swaby v. Industrial and General Life Assurance and
Deposit Company.
Day and another v. Commerell and another.
Buessard v. Brothetton and others.,
Keogh v. Keogh—Allen v. Ogden.
Willson v. Hale, S. J.—Wilson v. Ashley, S. J.
Oakley v. London and North-Western Railway Com-
pany, S. J.—Cook v. Hulls and another.
Stevens and another v. Houston—Sherley, administor, v.
Sinith—Hulme v. Hattersley, S. J.
Sadler v. Boyle—Florence and another v. Crosse.
Doe dem. Tdson and another v. Langley.
Thorpe, P. 0., v. Boyes, S. J.
Squire v. Prew—Tacker v. Shaw.
Todd, adwinistra.tor, v. Webb
Poe dew. Mea❑ and others v. Dando.
Biddlcs v. Ledger—Vizitelly v. Chapman.
Midi and another v. Dobell—Ambergate. Nottingham,
Boston, and East Junctionlw ay v. Kitchin.
Pat frement v. Bending—Lycett v. Crockett.
Phillips v. Pound—Wells v. Drummond.
Lenny v. Miffet, S. J.—Lloyd v. Howell.
Rowley v. Wright— Wilkinson v. Boycott.
Booth v. Lamle and another—Short v. Pousford.
Short v. Woolett—Carlisle and others v. Vouillon.
Lawder v. Berton—Newbon v. Benfield.
Goldsmith v. Bell—Calisher v. Annesley.
Tharratt v. Trevor—Cooper v. Harris and another.
Cocker v. Scott—Almond and another v. Shepherd.
Browning and others v. Holmes—Jeakes v. White.
Rice v. Gibson—Wood v. Dickeson.
interns v. Aldred. sued, &c.

Mr. WILLS—The affidavit went on to s ty, "that
from circumstances within his own knowledge he was
informed and verily believed." This was clearly in-
sufficient : he should state the circumstances them-
selves from which he got his information. In other
ways also the affidavits were insufficient.

LORD CHIEF BARON—Striking out all that is given
upon information and belief, what is there left ?
Mr. WILLs —Nothing material. All that is left our
affidavits answer.

Mr. WATsoN replied in support of the rule. He
contended that there was amply sufficient disclosed to
warrant the Court in making this rule absolute. There
was a bill handed to a Mr. Brown by his supposed
managing clerk, which, however, was not indorsed by
him, so great, apparently, was the estimation this
Brown held him in. Then there was a letter de-
manding payment in the supposed clerk's hand-
writing, but written in the attorney's name. Then
there was a request by the defendant's attorney to the
plaintiff's attorney, requiring phiintiff's address, but
no answer was returned. .No other person was ever
seen in the office but the assumed clerk ; all the letters
were in his writing ; and there was not one single al-
legation in the affidavits that the attorney himself ever
saw a client or gained a shilling within those chambers
he assumed to be his. He says he was much in county
courts and in the Insolvent Debtors Court; but it must
be borne in mind that he has to account fora period since
1843, and that the county courts have only existed
since 1846. as ought to have stated that this person
was his managing clerk, saw bis clients, made out bills
of costs, received the money, and handed it over to
him ; but this he has not done. The Learned Counsel
animadverted on the opposite affidavits, and asked the
Court to protect the public.

Baron PLATT—We must also protect the pro-
fession.

After a short deliberation the Learned Judges de-
cided on discharging the rule with costs.

HOLLOWAY RAGGED SCHOOLS.
The second anniversary of this laudable society
was celebrated by a dinner at the London Tavern on
Tuesday, Mr. Sheriff Nicoll presiding, supported by
about 60 friends of the charity.
Tile usual loyal and patriotic toasts having been
drunk,
The CIIAIRMAN proposed the toast of the evening, and
in doing so stated that he believed that ragged schools
were amongst the most important institution, of the day,
as tending to develop the germs of goodness which
lurked in the hearts of even the most depraved.
There could be no doubt that the vast amount of good
which they were calCulated to effect was daily in-
creasing, not so much from the increase in the
number of the schools as from their improved discip-
line, order, and efficiency. He might be allowed
to refer to an observation which he had beard from
M. Guizot shortly after he came to this country in
consequence of the revolution of France to show the
position in which the charities of this country stood.
That eminent indivinual stated that abroad every cha-
rity was supported by the Government, but that in this
country they bad the genius of Britain stamped upon
tbem, always bearing the inscription in large letters,
" supported by voluntary contributions."— (Cheers.)
That was the case with the institution whose pros-
perity they were specially met to promote; and he
trusted they would not let the feebleness of his ad-
vocacy affect the liberality with which they were pre-
pared to support the Holloway Ragged Schools—
(Cheers)—but that they would do all in their power
to support them.—(Cheers.) The value of those schools
might be shown from the fact that the average at •
tendance at them consisted of 80 boys and 50 girls,
and at the present time there were upwards of ro
children attending them. He begged to give them,
" Prosperity to the Holloway Ragged Schools,"
trusting that, root and branch, they might live ,for
ever."— (Cheers.)
• The toast having been duly honoured, the toasts of
" The Lord Mayor and Corporation of London" and
" The health of the Chairman" were drank, after
which Mr. Aldrich, honorary secretary to the
schools, and secretary to the Royal General Annuity
Society, proceeded to read a list of donations in aid
of the institution, in doing which he stated that the
present school rooms were inadequate for the pur-
pose, and it was shortly proposed to lay the founda-
tion stone of a new building (the plan of which was
exhibited in the room) in the Hornsey-road. He also
stated that the Primate of All England bad honoured
their society by preaching a sermon in its aid, which
produced upwards of 501., being the first be had ever
preached for a ragged school.
The subscriptions of the evening amounted to 2001.
(including 101. from the chairman, and about 251. from
Mr. Phillips, of Holloway, and his family.
Mr. BREWiTER proposed the health of Mr. Aldrich,
and stated that about two years since the school was
about to have perished for want of support, when that
gentleman undertook the office of honorary secretary,
and at once raised it to the position it now held, viz.,
that it had not space to meet its requirements.
Mr. ALDRICH briefly acknowledged the compli-
ment ; and some other toasts having been drunk, the
company separated at an early hour.

RI 'PARTE THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK IN RE CLEMENTS
AND ♦NOTHER.
Mr. Udall and Mr. Gray were heard in support of
the application, and Mr. Knowles opposed it.
It was a motion to issue a scire facias on the recog-
nizances entered into by the sureties of Ghislin, the
printer of the Satirist newspaper. The affidavit of
the Duke's attorney stated that judgment bad been re-
covered against Ghislin for libel, and damages had
been recovered for 1,5001. and costs taxed at 2601. The
Duke was therefore 2601. out of pocket. Soon after the
verdict Ghislin left the country, and the Duke was
therefore unable to recover either damages or costs out
of pocket. His only course was to proceed against the
sureties of Ghisliu on their recognizances. By the
60 Geo. 111. bonds and recogniz rotes were required
to be entered into by all newspaper proprietors, in
case fines should be imposed upon them in cases of
conviction ; hut this statute applies only to indict-
ments and informations, and not to actions. The
subsequent statute, 1 Wm. IV., requires recogni-
zinces to be entered into by the sureties (the amount
of the recognizance to be 4001.) if an action far da-
mages be recovered, and the same remain unpaid.
All persons libelled in a newspaper have therefore a
remedy for the amount of their verdict, to the extent
of 400/., not only against the publishers but also
against the sureties. The statute of Wm. IV. gives
a summary remedy on these recognizances where the
action has been succes-fully brought against " editors,
conductors, or proprietors."
In support of the motion, it was contended that as
no action had been brought against the editor,
conductor, or proprietor, but only against the
printer, the summary remedy could not be had re-
course to, and the scire facies only could effect the
desired object.
The COURT took time to consider their judgment.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 12.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE SIIEWARD.

The bankrupt was a pawnbroker at Norwich.
This was the certificate meeting. Mr. Lavrrance
supported ; Mr. Lucas opposed.
The grief ground of opposition was that the bank-
rupt had put Mrs. Fulcher, an elderly lady, to great
expense by representing that she had made him a gift
of a sum of 1,8501., instead of lent him the money.
His HONOUR, in giving judgment, said that it ap-
peared from the evidence that Mrs. Fulcher could
neither read nor write. A pass-book of her account
between herself and the bankrupt had been impro-
perly headed by the bankrupt, and afterwards it was
alleged to have been lost by his wife in the course of
a walk of five miles through the snow to the old lady's
residence. Mrs. Sheward was said to have fallen down
twice on the way, and she supposed that she must
have thus lost the book. It did not appear, however,
that she had taken the slightest trouble to recover it.
Now, it had been remarked that it was a singular
circumstance that she should have lost the book when
her pockets were so deep that they had contained not
only the bad( but also an ox's tail—(A laugh)—and
he (the Commissioner) thought it was. The bank-
rupt's own evidence was inconsistent With his repre-
sentation that the money was a gift. Looking at all
the circumstances of the case, he could arrive at no
other conclusion than that from the first the bankrupt
had made up his mind that if Mrs. Fulcher did not
leave him the money, her executors should not be in
possession of evidence that would enable them to
recover it. That was a serious offence, and so deeply
imbued with fraud as to call fbr the longest suspen-
sion of the certificate that he ever adjudged. The
certificate would be suspended three years, and pro-
tection withheld unless the bankrupt should have been
in prison six months.

IN RR CROFTS.
The bankrupt was the landlord of the Marquis of
Waterford Arms, Haymarket. The certificate was
unopposed, and the Court granted one of the first
class.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 12.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)
111 RE JAMES FREDERICK MUINCKS.
This insolvent again came before the Court. It
will be recollected that the insolvent, a German jour-
neyman tailor, had seduced a young Welshwoman,
named Sarah Jameß, a servant, and had contrived to
obtain from her 601. in money, on promise of mar-
riage. The case stood over for the insolvent to pro-
duce the young woman's watch, and for other pur-
poses.

Mr. STURGEON again opposed for Sarah James, a►nd
produced a copy of her savings bank book to show
that she had made advances from her earnings as a
servant to the insolvent. Her' watch was produced
by the insolvent, but not a gold seal which she had
given him, he now stated he had, with other
articles, pledg€d, and disposed of the duplicate. •
•Mr. Commissioner LAW directed the watch to be
handed to the young woman, which was accordingly
done ; and his Honour expressed himself of opinion
that the insolvent had cruelly used her; he had got
her money on the pretence that he was going to
marry her. It was for him to see what amends he I
could make, and 'with that view the case had better
stand over for six weeks.
The insolvent handed in a paper, which he wish' d
to be read. It had heen written by a fellow. prisoner.
The paper, which was read, expressed his regret for
the injury he had inflicted on Sarah Jain,,s, whom
he admitted he had promised to marry. She had
been ill, and having become acquainted with his pre-
sent wife, and she being pregnant by him, he bad
married her.

THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 13, 1850.

Mr. Commissiouor LAW obierved that the insolvent,
on his former hearing, dental the promise to marry.
which he now admitted by the statement he had made
to Sarah James. The case would stand adjourned to
settle; and if the young woman withdrew her oppo•
sition he might be discharged, otherwise he would re-
ceive a judgment.
The case was adjourned to the 24►.h July.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
James Balls appeared in discharge of his bail before
Sir Chapman Marshall to answer a charge of careless
driving, and thereby causing the death of Robert
William Harris, a child about three years of age.
Police-constable 348 stated, that about half-past
eight o'clock on Tuesday evening he was on duty on
Ludgate-hill, when he heard the scream of a child,
and on looking round saw the conductor of one of the
Hackney omnibuses pulling a couple of children
from under the feet of the horses. The defendant
was driving the omnibus, which belonged to Mr.
Bather of Hackney, up the hill, when the two chil-
dren ran directly und, r the horses' feet and were
knocked down. On being picked up they were con-
veyed on a stretcher to Mr. Hutchinson s, a surgeon
in the neighbourhood, but. before they arrived there
deceased was found to he dead.

Joseph Ehill, a gentleman residing in the Hack-
ney road, otpused that on the evening in question be
was riding on the outside of defendant's omnibus,
which was going up Ludgate-hill at a slow pace,
about five miles an hour, when a little boy, about eleven
or twelve years of age, carrying deceased, attempted
to cross the road immediately under the beads of the
horses. They were both knocked down and trampled
on by the horses, but he believed they were not
touched by the wheels of the vehicle.
Huntley Harris said, he resided in Fleur-de•lis-
court, and was first-cousin to the deceased, whom he
was carrying in his arms across Ludgate-hill when
knocked down by the omnibus horses. The omnibus
was standing still a few minutes previous at the bot-
tom of the hill, and when he endeavoured to cross the
omnibus came on him unawares, knocked him down,
and his cousin (deceased) out of his arms ; he felt
the foot of one of the horses placed on his back, and
the fore wheel passed over his cousin's neck. He
(witness) got up as soon as, he could and took de-
ceased in his arms, when a gentleman came and took
him away to the doctor's. He recollected nothing
more as he was very much frightened at the time.
Did not see deceased after he was taken from him.

Several of deceased's relatives appeared to give
evidence, but nothing was elicited to support the
charge of careless driving on the part of the de-
fendant.

Sir CHAPMAN MARSHALL said, he believed that the
defendant was perfectly blameless, from the evidence
which had been adduced, the more particularly so
from his own personal knowledge of the great care
and attention displayed by the drivers of the Hack-
ney omnibuses in general. He would therefore dis-
charge the defendant, but recommended him to be
punctual in his attendance at the inquest, in order
that the end and aim of justice might be perfectly
satisfied.

WORSHIP-STREET.
William Wickley, a tall, powerful man, described
as a greengrocer in Turville-street, Bethnal-green,
was placed at the bar before Mr. Arnold, charged
with causing the death of his sister-in-law, a young
married woman named Margaret Wilmot.
James Turpin, a hawker, said—l was standing
with a friend in front of the bar of the Victory
public-bouse, in Little Nelson-street, Bethnal-green,
at eight o'clock last evening, when the prisoner came
in in the company of a woman, and 'both of them
appeared to be intoxicated. The deceased, Margaret
Wilmot, followed them in, and, addressing the other
woman, asked her it she knew that the prisoner was
a married man. She had scarcely uttered the
words when the prisoner, with a threatening obser-
vation, raised his arm, and was in the act of striking
het, when I ran out to seek her husband, whom I
met in au adjoining street, and having been informed
on my way back that the woman had been carried
home senseless, we proceeded there together, and on
reaching the hoitse lotted her lying there dead. A
policeman was•standing outside, to whom I commu-
nicated what 1 • had witnessed, and 1 accompanied
him to a house in a street leading out of Club-row,
where I pointed out the prisoner, who was taken into
custody.
Susan Shepherd, a married woman, residing two
doors from the public-house in question, stated—l was
very intimate with the deceased, whose sister was the
wife of the prisoner, and while conversing with her
at my own door, between seven and eight last even-
ing the prisoner passed us with a woman, who was so
much intoxicated that she fell down in the road. •She
was raised up by the prisoner, wbo took her into the
public-house, followed by the deceased, who had seen
the two together, and directly afterwards I heard the
noise of a violent contest inside the house, and on
hastening there found the deceased, supported in the
arms of two men, without either bonnet or shawl,
convulsively struggling, and being carried into the
street. I picked up the deceased's cap and shawl,
which were lying on the floor in front of the bar, and
went out to follow her, but, not seeing the deceased,
I returned home and found her sitting on a step at
the back door, retching violently, and apparently very
ill. I raised her head to support her, and asked if I
should get her a cup of tea, to which she seemed
silently to assent, and I sent my little girl to prepare
it, while I continued holding her, but almost imme-
diately afterwards her bead suddenly dropped, and she
exclaimed, in a taint voice, " Oh, dear, Mrs. Shep-
heard, what shall I do !—my eyesight is gone ?" She
then became senseless, and never spoke afterwards,
and I, having procured assistance, caused her to be
carried into her own house, where she was placed in
bed, and a surgeon in the neighbourhood was in-
stantly sent for, but upon examining her he at once
pronounced her to be dead. This morning I assisted
in undressing her, but did not, while doing so, observe
any marks of violence upon her person.
Police-constable Kim berley, of the H division,
stated, that upon taking the prisoner into custody and
apprising him that he was charged with maltreating
his sister in- law, who had since died of the injuries
she had sustained, he made no reply, and was there-
up .n conveyed to the station.
The prisoner, who appeared very much depressed,
offered no observations in answer to the charge, and
Mr. ARNOLD ordered hint to be remanded for the
completion of the evidence, but consented, in the
meantime, to accept substantial bail for his future ap-
pearance, which he fixed at the prisoner himself in
1001., and two sureties in 501. each, with twenty-
four hours' notice to inquire into their sufficiency.
SOUTHWARK.
An application was made to Mr. A'Beckett for a
warrant against a woman known by the name of
Louisa Beauchamp, for obtaining various sums of
money from William Bond, of New Ceurch-street,
Bermondsey, tinder the pretence of procuring for
him a fortune of 50,0001., .which she alleged he was
entitled to by the decease of a relative at Ipswich.
The applicant described that the person against.
whom he made the application called at the house of
his sister some time since in apparent distress, as-
serting that she bad been wrecked on her passage
home from India, and that although she was related
to some families of distinction, and amongst then to
the Duke of Buccleuch, she yet felt a strong repug-
nance to making her situation known to them. She
then expressed a wish to take apartments in the
house, and promised that upon the receipt of a consi-
derable
sum of money which she was entitled to, and
in daily expectation of receiving, she would liquidate
whatever debt she might contract there. Upon these
representations she became an inmate of the dwelling,
and applicant, believing that he was entitled to some
property at Ipswich, ,mentioned the. subject to the
new, lodger, who at once undertook the management
of the business, saying that it would be necessary
before they proceeded any further in the matter to
obtain certain registers and other doouments showing
that he was entitled to the property in question,
adding, that if he advanced her the necessary
means to go, to Ipswich she would . proceed
thither forthwith, and she assured him 'that
from her connexion with the aristocracy` she had a
licence to examine all documentary papers having re-
ference to such matters, and that she had the entrée
of the different publicsoffices for that purpose. Ap-
plicata; having reliance in the truth of the statement,
accordingly advanced her 21. on that occasion, and she
started for •Ipswich,, from which , place and Norwich
and Yarmouth he received a number of letters, which
he handed to the magistrate. The letters were from
Louisa Beauchamp, some of which were read, and all
written by a person evidently well experienced in
epistolary correspondence on the subject to which
they referred. The writer mentioned that she was
most successful in her inquiries, and, had got a clue to
property to which applicant was entitled, and re-
quested a remittance to enable her to prosecute the
business to a successful issue. In another epistle from
:Norwich the writer described that in the course of
her examination for the necessary documents to esta-
blish his right and title to property left him at Yar-
mouth; she had discovered that he was also entitled to
a fortune of 50,0001., and she concluded by calling'
upon him for more money to pay the expenses she in
cursed in obtaining the necessary information to put,
him in possession of that large amount. The appli-
cant had at various times advanced money to her to
the amount of 20/., and, finding that all she had
written on the subject of the propsrty alluded to in
her letters was false, bad since made some inquiries
about her, arid ascertained that she bad obtained
money by similar means from other parties, and he
add'ed that his motive in coming forward on the pre-
sent occasion was to put the public on their guard
against a person of such a character.
Mr. A'SECKETT expressed his surprise that the ap.
plicart should have allowed himself to be imposed
upon by a person who came to his sister's house in
described that she had
'apparent distress, and who
been shipwrecked,