The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-15 00:00:00

MONDAY EN JANUARY la, if 344.

an idiot, and such trustees unfaithful to their trust?
Alderman Gibbs' accounts run over a period of
eighteen years. As might be supposed, they include
items of the most heterogeneous kind. Coals, can-
dles, organ-blowers; funerals, carpenters, plumbers,
lecturers, vergers, sextonesses, and parish-clerks.
Here are draughts for a costive Jones, there are pills
for a dyspeptic Seroggins ; Mrs. Tibbs' midwife and
Mrs. Brag's casual nurse ; shoes for small boys, and
stuff gowns for charity girls, jostle Dr. Waters'
yearly salary of 40/, as parish lecturer, and Mr.
Chappell's bill for the firecock in Bond-court. And
whenever there has been the most incongruous assort-
ment of parochial necessities in one page, the next
page illuminates the inquiring mind with a long suc-
cession of ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, &c., &c., &c.
All this may be quite right and correct. There
may have been so many shoes bought in one week,
so many petticoats in another, and so many midwives
in a third, and black draughts in a fourth. The organ
tuner, the organ-blower, the sextoness, and the glazier,
may all have been punctually paid, and paid out of
Alderman Gibbs' pocket too. Still we maintain
that it would be a much more business-like proceed-
ing to audit the accounts every year, and spare both
the purse and the feelings of the payer, as well as
preserve the parish from the continued visitation of
intestine disputes. Of course the auditors never
dreamed of passing the Alderman's accounts, without
having seen the vouchers for them.• What a collec-
tion of precious autographs Alderman Gibbs must
have possessed ! Now that he has no further use for
them, we fear he will commit them to the flames.
When we think of their number and their value, our
memories recur to the fire which consumed the Alex-
andrian library. We dread a. second fire of London,
which shall avenge the Gibbsian wrongs, and extin-
guish the river Thames.
ADVERTISER.—Our Dublin correspondence of
this day merits a most attentive perusal, and cannot
fail to excite a deep interest. It contains not only an
account of the aggregate meeting of the Roman Ca-
tholics, in reference to the recent exclusion of their
members from the jury panel, but also an account of
the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, on a
motion on the part of the traversers to have the trial
postponed till the jury list were corrected, as well as
on another motion, on the part of the Crown, to have
the trials continued—in case of their not being pre-
viously concluded—through the vacation after the
close of the present term, of which it was moved
that said vacation shall be regarded as part.
The latter motion, made by the Attorney-General,
was acceded to by the Court, Judge Perrin only
being dissenti'ent, as to the propriety of granting
it at that stage of the proceedings, when there were
no less than fifteen days of the term unexpired.
The motion on the part of the traversers to postpone
the trials till the extraordinary omission, to which we
have already alluded, of certain names from the jury-
list were supplied, was refused on the grounds that
there was no party directly charged with the omis-
sion, and that the Crown appeared before the Court in
the light of an ordinary prosecutor. In concurring in
the view of his brothers on the bench, however, Judge
Perrin remarked, " I cannot but think that there was
great negligence and gross want of care in the way in
which authentic documents have been treated, and I
am not prepared to say that the whole was the result of
accident." Mr. Moore, in applying for the postpone-
ment of the trials, stated that the names of twenty-
seven persons, of whom twenty-three were Roman Ca-
tholics, duly recognised by the Recorder himself as
qualified to be on the jury-list, were omitted, either by
" mistake or fraud," and subsequently, upwards of
sixty individuals were excluded, in a manner of which
no satisfactory explanation has yet been attempted.
Such is the present phase of the State prosecutions
in Ireland. What is to be expected from them ?
Nothing, save to make " confusion worse confounded."
The manner in which, from first to last, the prosecu-
tions have been conducted is sufficient in itself to give
a triumph to the traversers, even in their conviction.
It is the weight of public opinion which gives
solidity to law.—" Packed" juries, as is already
but too. well known in Ireland, may convict, and
partisan judges may condemn ; but happily the time
is past for general integrity to submit to such foul
desecrations of common justice. The State prosecu-
tions in Ireland, after what has already taken place,
can have no other effect than to sink their promoters
deeper and deeper in public ignominy and execration.
Had the traversers violated the law, they might, even
in Ireland, be punished by the ordinary forms of the
law's administration ; but when the legal officers of
the Crown, who ought to be the foremost in setting
an example of the most scrupulous impartiality, de-
scend to the petty and disgusting quirks, quibbles,
and subterfuges which from the first have polluted
the present prosecutions, the only effect of the trials,
in whatever manner they may terminate, must be to
make the people more and snore disgusted and in-
censed against the Government under whose adminis-
tration such abhorrent irregularities can have place.

SURREY SESSIONS.

DANIELS V. THE POOR-RATE OF WEST MOULSEY.
This was an appeal from an additional sum of 3001. as a
poor-rate for Moulsey Hurst-course.
Mr. Willinger and Mr. Conner appeared for the appellant,
and Mr. Chambers, who came specially, with Mr. Bevill,
were retained for the respondents.
From the evidence adduced to the bench, it appeared that
the Hurst contained 79 acres, and that in December last a rate
of 328/. was made for the race-ground ; the ground of- appeal
was, non-occupancy at the time the rate was made, and also
that the course was not rateable property, and that it only
ought to have been rated as farming land. Mr. Daniels held
the race-course, together with other land, under Lord Ho-
tham and Sir 6eorge Berkeley, but there was a clause in
the agreement, that for a period of twenty-one days at the
summer races he should remove his cattle, and give up pos.
session to his landlords, in order that booths, stands, tents,
posts, rails, &c., might be placed in the ground for the accom-
modation of the public. at the races. Mr. Daniels himself
received no profit from the races, but, on the contrary, it was
deemed an injury and inconvenience to him ; and it was also
proved in evidence that, until the year 1840, no attempt was
ever made to levy a poor-rate on the ground, as profits de-
rivable from a race-course. On that occasion an appeal had
beers made against the rate, but the parish did not take it into
Court.
Mr. CHAMBERS, on behalf of the parish, now argued that
the Hurst was clearly rateable, and that the tenant was liable
who was in possession at the time the rate was made. The
races had now become exceedingly popular and attractive, and
the ground was let fur 3001. for the two days. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses to prove the revenue
which was derived, and said that if Mr. Daniels gave up pos-
session to Lord Hotham and Sir George Berkeley, no doubt
there was a deduction in his rent in consequence. Mr. Bates
proved that previous to the death of his father, who
held the land before Mr. Daniels, he had made a calculation of
the money received for the summer races, which he estimated
as follows :—Twelve gambling booths, 450/. ; stable standing,
100/. ; thimble riggers, 75/. ; drinking booths, 2001. ; stand-
ing of carriages in the inclosure, 3501. The Spring Meeting
was not so profitable, and he hod that put down at 501. There
was also a cricket club, which produced Si. per annum.
There were private snatches, shooting, and other national
sports, which produced a great deal of profit, but how much
he was not enabled to state with accuracy. The Learned
Counsel contended, therefore, that by the statute of Elizabeth,
Mr. Daniels was clearly liable to the rate ; the race-course had
local advantages. Epsom Grand Stand, and the Lord's Grounds
were rated to the poor, and there was no possible reason why
Moulsey Hurst race-course was not liable.
Several witnesses proved that Mousley races were improving
every year, and that Queen's Plates were run for, and there
was also the Surrey Stakes, which made them exceedingly
attractive, and the races were attended by thousands of persons.
The Court confirmed the rate. Appeal disallowed. Costs 40s.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
• CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.
A young man named John Eagle, driver of the En.
deavour omnibus, plying between Gracechureh-street
and the New Cross Station, wearing badge No. 7,003,
was summoned by the police before the sitting magis-
trate, Mr. Alderman Thomas Wood, for causing an ob •
structiou in Gracechureh-street, and for an aggravated
assault on an old man, of the•name of Cope, on Friday
week. A solicitor appeared for the defendant, who
pleaded not guilty to the charge.
City police-constable No. 532, stated that on Friday
afternoon he was placed on duty at the top of Cornhill.
At about half-past four o'clock he saw the Endeavour
omnibus coming up the hill, the defendant and his con-
ductor sitting on the box. Just before them was a cart
containing an old man, a butcher, of the name of Cope,
who was driving steadily,. and following the lino of other
conveyances. On their coming nearly to the top of
Cornhill the defendant whipped the horses to turn the
corner into Graceehurch-street ; there was not sufficient
room, as the defendant could plainly see, but their in-
tention apparently was to annoy the old man, and to
throw his cart out of the rank, for immediately the
pole of the omnibus caught the back of the cart and
threw it, horse and all, completely round in an oppo-
-.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Jun. ]3.

THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. THE KING OF HANOVER.
The MASTER of the ROLLS gave judgment in this case, which
was argued last term. The suit was instituted by the Duke
of Brunswick, who was deprived of his duchy by a revolu-
tionary movement in 1830, while the Duke of Cambridge
was Viceroy of Hanover. At a convention of the Germanic
Diet, the plaintiff's brother (William) was invited to take
unon himself the government provisionally, but the diet left
it to the legitimate agnati of the family to provide for the
future government of the duchy. In 1831 King William IV .
arid the Duke of Cambridge claimed to be the legitimate agnati
a the family. The plaintiff was then deposed, and his brother
William was recognized as Duke of Brunswick. By a deed
made in March, 1833, signed by his Majesty King William
IV. and the Duke of Cambridge, it was decreed that the Duke
of Brunswick, having wasted the fortune which he possessed
in enterprises alike impossible and dangerous both to himself
and other persons in seeking to damage the just claims which
certain persons interested might have upon his property, they
considered that the only method of preserving his fortune
from ruin was to appoint a guardian over him. This deed
then appointed the Duke of Cambridge guardian, which office
he accepted, and took possssion of all his property. Upon the
death of King William IV., the of ce of guardian was trans-
ferred by the Duke of Cambridge to the Duke of Cumberland,
who had become King of Hanover, and the Duke of Cam-
bridge accounted to the King of Hanover for the receipt and
application of the income of the estates. The King of Hanover
then took possession of the estates and property of the plaintiff,
and the bill stated that applications had been made to him to
account for the income, which amounted to several hundred
thousand pounds, but his Majesty had refused to render any
account. The present suit was therefore instituted against
the King of Hanover, praying that the instrument which
had been executed by the agnati of the family, appointing
the defendant curator of his estates and property, might be
declared void, according to the laws of Brunswick, Hano-
ver, and Great Britain, and to obtain an account of the
receipts and payments. Upon the late visit of the King
of Hanover to this country he was served with process
in this suit, upon which he applied to the Lori Chancellor
to stop the proceedings in limine ; but the application was
refused, and his Majesty then filed a demurrer to the bill for
want of equity, and denying that the court of equity had any
jurisdiction. His Lordship, after stating the circumstances of
the case, went at great length through the various arguments
used on both sides. He said the plaintiff had contended, first,
that as the defendant had appeared to the bill, that ought to
be considered proof of his submitting to the jurisdiction of the
Court ; secondly, that the Lord Chancellor having refused
to stop the suit, that was a decision that the defendant might
be sued. Upon this subject his Lordship had applied to the
Lord Chancellor, who stated that he had no intention of
giving any opinion as to jurisdiction. The defendant had con-
tended, first, that as a sovereign prince, he was net liable to
be sued ; secondly, that such exemption was not confined to
his own country ; thirdly, that such exemption was not lost by
his being temporarily resident in a foreign country ; fourthly,
that, if liable to be sued for some things, he was not liable to
be sued on such a case as this ; fifthly, if liable to be sued in
such a case, that the matter was not subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the court of equity, but could only be tried by some
particular court, expressly appointed for the purpose. The plain-
tiff had 'contended that this suit ought to be allowed the same
as between two natural-born subjects of this realm—that being
a subject of Great Britain, he could not throw off his allegiance
upon becoming Sovereign of a foreign country—that the law
of England did not prevent foreign sovereigns from being sued
here—that the law of nations and the interest of mankind
showed that justice should be done all over the world—that the
Queen of England was liable to be sued in &proper form. His
Lordship said, what had been established as to the right of a
foreign prince living in this country was involved in some
difficulty ; wh'en a foreign prince prosecuted a bill here, he
certainly might be made party to a cross suit in the same
matter. There had been occasions in this Court where
some funds were to be distributed, and, fur the justice of
the case, it had been found necessary to make foreign
princes parties, but it had never been decided that a foreign
prince could be compelled to come in and submit to a decree
in this Court, but only to be allowed to make a claim ; failing
to do so, after an opportunity had been given him, he
would not perhaps afterwards be able to make another claim.
In the present case the defendant insisted that under no circum-
stances could a foreign prince be compelled to submit to a decree,
and that any such attempt would be an aggression against the
state and people of which he was sovereign, and might lead
to a war • and that such risks ought to be avoided. The most
influential argument in his Lordship's mind was, as to the im-
munity of ambassadors. It was said that the law having
granted immunity to ambassadors would not refuse it to So-
vereigns themselves ; on the other side it was said, ambassa-
dors who came upon business ought to have immunity in cer-
tain matters, but princes who came upon pleasure needed not
such immunity. There was, howeyer, no English law upon
the subject, and the question could only be determined accord-
ing to the law of nations. It was said by some writers that
the only guide we had in such cases was reason. It was very
difficult here to come to a satisfactory conclusion ,• the whole
case was replete with difficulties.
It was admitted that am-
bassadors should have immunity because they could be punished
by their own sovereign, but a prince not being subject to any
one in his own country could not be punished at all ; but, on
the other hand, :if the Court were to make a decree against a
foreign prince it could have no power to enforce its orders. Jus-
tice could only be administered under a jurisdiction having power
to enforce its decisions. His Lordship said he had given the case
his fullest consideration, and he thought it must be considered
upon the whole, according to the law of nations, that a foreign
prince was exempt from the jurisdiction of.the court of the
country in which the prince may be. residing. The interest
of mankind required that justice should be done to all, but
where obedience could not be compelled, and justice was not
provided for by treaty or otherwise, and enforcing it by means
of the state would be the cause
of war, an exception must be
made. Cases had occurred where an ambassador had been a
subject of the sovereign to whom he was accredited, and it had
been agreed that then he would not enjoy total immunity. It
was said that an ambassador continued to be a subject where
he was before a subject, but according to what was considered
the law of nations it must be seen what acts of his were the
subject of discussion. The most general rule was, that every
person should be liable to the courts of justice, and amenable
to the law of the country where he resided. It was clear
that a Sovereign, having been formerly a subject of an-
other country, could pot be released from that legal

stibjectitirs Which he previously oNted. His Lordship thought Mint aperson came up and was instantly assaulted by the sol-
)t was licit Mesh
tO any of the opinions ft/ Consider dier, That person was the complainant. Witness went to the
that the immunity of the Ring cif Hanover was modified by statiou-house to state how she had been used. The complainant
his duty to the Queen of England. He' had always continued did not speak a word to the soldier before
h he
appeared to was ill-usedwitness The
his liability and subjection to the law of Ens.;and, and since soldier mlg,lit have been drinking, but e
he had become King of Hanover he had been so Ls' from to be more wicked than drunk.
renouncing his claim as a subject owing allegiance to the A footman named Wise proved that he had left the corn-
Queen of England, that he had actually come over here, and plainallt net more than a minute bef3re the assault took place,
renewed his oath of allegiance, and had taken his seat again as and he perfectly well recollected the witness Thompson coming
an English Peer. He came to this country. not as King of up and telling the polies that the soldier had just been ill-treat-
' Hanover only, but as a subject of the Queen of England ; and ing her, and afterwards had runovergod struck the complainant.
he, therefore, ought net to be exempt from the power of the j The complainant's solicitor said he had
.a host of most re-
his
Queen of England. It could never be consistent with justice spectable witnesses in Court to speak to thse character of
that exemption should be allowed to any person without there client.
to
being some power also in return. The Kine of Hanover Mr. Haanwicic said it was wholly unnecessary call them,
might come to England, might be guilty of acts Contrary to the for the evidence clearly proved that the charge h.:
.d been
law—he might even sit in the Privy Council, and give impro- trumped up by the soldier, in order to cover the unjustifiable
per advice to the Queen—it could not be supposed that he assault he had committed when drunk. Nothing could be more
should hold himself free from the Courts of this country and abominable than such an infamous defence, and if the soldier
yet commit any illegal acts he thought fit ; he could not be al- received a punishment of two years' hard labour for his con-
lowed to enforce contracts or make claims here without being duet, he would get no snore than he richly deserved. He
liable to submit to the law of the country. The defendant was should go as far as the law allowed, and inflict the inadequate
a Sovereign Prince, and inviolate in his own dominions, as penalty of 51., or two months' imprisonment. The corn-
well as in the dominions of any other prince to whom he was plainant left the Court with an unblemished character.
not also a subject, but in this country he still remained a sub-
ject, and as such he owed a duty to this country. His Lord-
ship said, in his opinion nothing would prevent the defendant
from being compelled to do justice in his character of a subject,
but still he thought the defendant was exempt from being sued
here in respect of acts done by him as King of Hanover, al-
though liable for any acts done by him as a British subject.
In such a suit as this against a Sovereign Prince, being also a
British subject, it
perative that the bill should show that
the decree sought wirap inst him as a subject, and it ought to
appear on the bill that the case was one to whieh special immu-
nity ought not to be extended. There were strong reasons to
believe that only as King of Hanover was the defendant ap-
pointed guardian to the Duke of Brunswick; and, connecting
all the acts, his Lordship was disposed to think that the deed
was connected with State affairs; but on this occasion it was
not necessary for him to give an opinion upon that. The ques-
tion he had to consider was whether, under the circumstances
of this ease, the Court had jurisdiction, and his Lordship's
opinion was that the acts of the defendant were not acts in re-
spect of which the defendant was liable to be sued in this Court.
The demurrer must, therefore, be allowed.

THE ALLEGED . FORGERIES OF
WILLS.
The apprehension of. Mrs. Georgians Dorey, the wife
of Mr. -Dotey,- of Oxford-street, has greatly increased
the interest created 'by the evidence against Messrs.
Barber and. Fletcher. We give copies of the wills, &c.,
a letter produced on the three charges, and some par-
ticulars respecting Mrs. Dorey.
"In the name of God, Amen. I,' Eliza Burchard,
spinster, formerly of Cooper-street, Westminster, in the
county of Middlesex, and late of Rostock Mecklen-
burgh, in Germany, but now of New Bond-street, Bath,
in the county of Somerset, being of sound mind, me-
mory, and understanding, do make this my last will and
testament in manner and form following :—I give and
bequeath unto my niece, Eliza Burchard, who is
now living with me, the sum of seven hundred
pounds stock in the Three-and-a-1161f per Cent. Re-
duced Annuities.; also three hundred pounds stock .in
the Consolidated Three per Cent. Annuities, both stand-
ing in my name in the books of the GOvernor and Com-
pany of the Bank of England in London: I also give,
becitiettth unto her, my aforesaid niece, all my
money, securities for money, goods, chattels, estate, and
abets, of nature soever and wheresover the same
shall be situate at the time of my death. And Ido no-
minate, constitute, and appoint my said niece sule execu-
trix of this my last will and testament, hereby revoking
and making 'void every other 'will or wills at any time
heretofore by me made., and do declare this to be my last
will and testament. In witness whereof, I, the said
Eliza Burehard, have hereunto set my hand and seal,
this fourteenth day of. October, in the year of our Lord,
one: thousand eight hundred and twenty -live.
(Signed) " ELIZA BURCIIARD (LS.)
" Signed and sealed by the above-named Eliza Bur-
chard, the testatrix, in the presence of us present at
the same time, who have hereunto subscribed our names
as witnesses, in the presence of the said Eliza Burchard
and of each other.

(Sigu,,d)

site direction to where it was going. The concussion
was so great as to throw the horses of the omnibus upon
the pavement, thereby rendering it impossible fur any
person to pass, as also any other vehicle passing along
the street, the omnibus obstructing the whole of the
carriage road. Witness, perceiving the danger that was
likely to ensue by the pole going through the shop-
windows, caught hold of the horse's heads to keep them
quiet, and told the defendant to keep them so. lie,
however, continued whipping them, forcing the omnibus
against the cart, with the old man in it, who was crying
out not to turn his cart over to kill him, and appeared
greatly frightened. Witness asked the defendant what
he meant by such conduct ? he replied, "He would cut
the b-r's liver out ;" at the same time striking the
old man over the head three severe blows with his whip.
Another police-constable coming up at the moment pre-
vented any further outrage being 'committed. The old
man was much injured by the blows, and to this day
has marks of the defendant's violence on the head and
hands ; throughout, his conduct was most disgraceful.
Cope, who is upwards of seventy years of age, and
almost bent double, was next examined, and his evidence
confirmed that of the officer. llis bald head and-the
backs of his hands were much cut from the lashes of the
defendant's whip.
Mr. Lamb, a respectable tradesman, residing at N 9.
96, Gracechurch-street, came forward, and stated he
never saw a more aggravated outrage committed. Re
happened to be standing at his shop-door with a friend,
and saw the whole occurrence. A great crowd was at-
tracted in the street, who cried out " Shame, shaine !"
at the defendant's conduct, and it was a matter of much
surprise that the officers did not drag the defendant off
the box, and take him to the station house.
On behalf of the defendant, his solicitor called two
witnesies, who, instead of adducing evidence. in paliia
tion of the offence, corroborated every fact that had been
stated on part of the prosecution.
Mr. Alderman Woof) commented severely upon the.
defendant's conduct in horsewhipping the old man, "old
enough to be his grandfather." Unfortunately, the case
'adore him had nothing to do with the assault, as the
charge laid in the information was for causing an ob-
struction in Gracechurch-street. This had been sub-
stantially proved, and he inflicted the highest penalty
he wasempowered by law. Respecting the assault, it
was a matter for another Court, which he advised should
be applied to.
The defendant was then fined 205., and 3s. the cost of
the summons, which was paid.
GUILDHALL.

The Rev. W. Jones was summoned before Aldermen J.
Johnson and Humphery to show cause why he refused to pay
the sum of 31. ss. for poor-rates due to the parish of St. Gre-
gory by St. Paul.
Mr. Wilkins appeared on behalf of the parish, and Mr. C
Pearson, the City Solicitor, was present to advise the Magis-
trates, as the case was a most important one, and the first which
has been brought for decision under the new Act of Parliament.
Mr. Jones is the Secretary of the Religions Tract Society in
Paternoster-row, and handed in the Act of Parliament passed
last session, which exempts all societies " of literature, science,
and art," from the payment of poor-rates, provided " that no
dividend, gift, division, or bonus, is, or may be made amongst
the subscribers." The Act of Parliament also requires that
the Society must be supported by voluntary contributions, and
that a barrister must certify that it is within the meaning of
the Act. This had been done by Mr. , Tidd Pratt, whose cer-
tificate to that effect was handed in, and this, Mr. Jones con-
tended, was all that the law required to bring the Society
within the exemption, and the rules themselves showed that the
Society was entirely supported by voluntary contributions.
Mr. Wilkins, on the other side, urged that it was not only
necessary for the Society, which was only an underselling book-
shop, to show that they had not divided any profits, but " that
they may not do it." This was an association which could not
be said to be for the advancement of science, but on the con-
trary, and nothing expressed in the Act took away the power
which a magistrate had under other circumstances.
Mr. C. Pearson said he should certainly advise the Bench to
dismiss the summons, or else why should the barrister's certi-
ficate be given. The parties applying had still a right of appeal
to the sessions.
After a very long discussion the summons was dismisses, but
a very general impression prevails that the decision will be set
aside on the appeal.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

- _
Joseph Enzmington a private in the Coldstream Guards, was
brought before Mr. Hardwick for final examination on a charge
of having committed an unprovoked assault on George Stephen
Bond, carpenter, of No. 11, Dorcas-terrace, Hammersmith.'
The complainant said he was passing through Hyde-park
about seven o'cbck on Thursday evening, having about a
,minute before left a person with whom he had been in com•
pany, when he was suddenly attacked and ill. used by the de-
denfant, who appeared to be drunk. He called for assistance,
and a policeman and his friend, who bad not got out of hear-
ing, came back and took the soldier into custody.
In defence, the soldier said the complainant. wanted to take
infamous liberties with him, and thts was the reason why he
had assaulted him.
The complainant, who appeared horror-struck at this decla-
ration, asserted that it was utterly false, and, if allowed, he
would bring forward proof to that effect.
Mr. Ilaanwzcx having consented to remand the case until
Saturday, all rarties were in attendance.
Ann Thomson, a young woman, living at 18, Little Garner-
street, Paddington, said she was in the park about seven
o'clock on Thursday evening, when a soldier came up to her,
struck her, threw her down on the glass, and wanted to abuse
her person, but she resisted successfully, and just at that mo-

" AMELIA. RIESLIE.
" W. SANDERS."
Extracted from the registry of the Prerogative Cour
of Canterbury in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.
" In the goods of Eliza Burchard, spinster, deceased.
" 9:h June, 1841.
" Appeared personally Eliza Burchard, of No. 9
Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, in the county o
Middlesex, spinster, the sole executrix named in the last
will dnd testament of the said Eliza Burchard, formerly
of Cooper-street, Westminster, in the county of Middle-
sex, then of Rostock Mecklenburgh in Germany, after-
wards of New Bond-street, Bath, in the county of Somer-
set, but late of Broad-street, Bristol, in the same county,
'spinster, deceased, and made oath that the said deceased
died on or abeut the 21st day of March, in the year of
our Lord, 1841, and that the estate and effects of the
said deceased which she in any way died possessed of, or
entitled to, as a trustee for any other person or persons,
and not beneficially and without deducting anything on
account of the debts due and owing from the said de-
ceased, are under the value of 2,0001., to the best of this
deponents knowledge, information, and belief ; and she
lastly mach oath that the said deceased was not possessed
or entitled to any leasehold estate or estates for years,
either absolute or determinable, on a life or lives, to the
best of the deponent's knowledge, information, and be-
lief. " E. BURCHARD.
" Sworn before me, S. B. Barnaby, Surrogate."
In the above affidavit the deceased is described as
having lived in Broad-street, Bristol, after her residence
in New Bond-street, Bath, as stated in the will ; and this
information could have been given only by Mr. Baaber
or the executrix by word of mouth to the Proctor at the
time of proving the will, Mr. Cox having filled up the
affidavit and read it over to the female in Mr. Barber'si
presence; and Mr. Barber their gave him a cheque for the
duty. The female then signed the affidavit in Barber's
presence, and was afterwards sworn. It will be noticed
that the'executrix is described in the above affidavit as
of No. 9, Great Russeil-street, Bloomsbury. Now it
appears that Mr. Barber, on the 10th of June, 1841,
being only the day after the affidavit was read, addressed
the following letter to the executrix :
" 28, New Bridge-street, Blackfriars—Thursday.
" Mr. Barber's compliments to Miss Burchard, and will
be glad to see her to-morrow morning (Friday) by eleven
o'clock, for the purpose of signing the usual applications
to the chief accountant to transfer the stock, and to ar-
range as to obtaining the evidence of Mr. Sanders.
" Miss Burchard, 9, Great Russell-street."
This letter was returned to Mr. Barber on the 11th of
June, 1841, through the Post-office, with the following
reason indorsed on the letter:—" Not known at 9, Great
Russell-street, Bloomsbury, or in Little Russell-street ;"
signed " J. Crook, J. llewson."
The following are exact copies of the documents
purporting to be the will of Mary Hunt, and of Anne
Slack, extracted from the registry of the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury ,
" I, Mary Hunt, widow, formerly -of Bristol, after-
wards' of Bath, bat now of Spring. street, London,
being of sound mind, memory, and understanding, .but
in bad health; do make this my last will and testament
as follows :—Whereas, I am possessed of about twelve
hundred and ten •pounds, in the Three per Cent, Con-
solidated Annuities in the Bank of England, this I give
and bequeathunto my beloved. grandson, Thomas Hunt,
mariner. Also all my money, securities for money,
goods, chattels, estate.; and effects of every kind, where-
soever the same shall be found at the time of my death.
And I also make and appoint my said grandson, Tho-
mas Hunt, sole executor of this my last will and testa-
ment, hereby revoking and making void all and every
other will or wills at any time heretofore made by me;
and do declare this to be my last will and testament.. In
witness whereof, I, the said Mary hunt, have here set
my hand and seal this 14th day of December; in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-
nine. (Signed) • " MARY HUNT (L. S.)
" Signed and •sealed by the above-named Mary Hunt, as
and for the last will and testament, in the presence of
us, who at her request, and in her presence, have sub-
scribed our names as witnesses to the same.
(Signed) " JANE ROSE.
" MARY HOWARD.
" Proved at London, 24th of May, 1842, before the
Worshipful John Danbury, Doctor of Laws and
Surrogate, by the oath of Thomas Hunt, the grand-
son, the sole executor, to whom administration was
granted, having been first sworn only to administer.
(Signed) " CHARLES DYNELEY,
" JOHN IGGULDEN, Deputy
Registrars.
" W. F. GOSTLING,

"May, 1842."
" I Anne Slack, spinster, formerly of Smith-stree
Chelsea, but now of South-terrace, Pimlico, do make
this my last will and testament, as follows :—That is to
say, I give, devise, and beqUeath unto my beloved niece,
Emma Slack, the sum of 3.5001. stock in the Three per
Cerkt.' ,Uohsolidated Annuities, now standing in my
name on the books of the Bank of England, and also all
my money, and securities fur money, of what nature or
kind soever, and wheresoever the same shall be at the
time of my death. And Ido appoint and constitute my
said niece sole executrix of this my last will and testa-
ment, hereby revoking and making void all and every
other will or wills at any time heretofore made by me ;
and do declare this to be my last will and testament. In
witness whereof I, the said Anne Slack, have hereunto set
my hand and seal this 3d day of June, in the year of our
Lord, 1842. " ANNE SLACK (L.S.)
" Signed and sealed by the above-named Anne Slack, as
and for her last will and testament, in the presence of
us, who, at her request, and in her presence, have sub-
scribed our names as witnesses thereto.
(Signed) "JANE PERKINS.
" WILLIAM WILLIAMS.
" Proved at London, March, 1843, before the Worship-
ful Augustus Frederick Rayford, Doctor of Laws and
Surrogate, by the oath of Emma Slack, spinster, the
niece, the sole executrix, to whom administration was
granted, having been first sworn duly to administer.
(Signed) "CHARLES DYNEGEY, Deputy
"March,-1843. " JOHN IG GULDEN,
riep.,trars.
" S. H. " W. F. GOST.._,ING,
Mrs. Georgiana Dorey, who was on Friday examined
before the Lord Mayor upon the charge of having termed
part of the confederacy, with Mr. Barber and Mr.
Fletcher, to defraud the Government of the amount of
stock in the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduc-
tion of the National Debt in the name of Anne Slack,
and with having also been concerned in a similar fraud
in the case of the will of Eliza Burchard, was in the
year 1834 before the public as plaintiff, in the Court of
Exchequer, in an action of damages for breach of pro-
mise of marriage. At that period she was Miss Georgiana
Richards, and the person against whom she brought the
' action was the Rev. Robert Taylor, the notorious lec-
turer on infidelity. The damages were, we understand,
laid at 2,0001. .Miss Richards had a political acquaint-
ance with Mr. Richard Carlile. She was then living
with her mother and her married sister (Mrs. Sanders)
at Bath, as a milliner, and i,t:as considered to be a person of
very extraordinary abilities. Three or four years after-
wards she came to London,accompanied by her mother, and
as the family had embarrassments to contend with, she
determined to do all she could to diminish the difficulties
under which they laboured, and accepted the situation
of housekeeper at the Rotunda, on the Surrey sidle of
Blackfriars-bridge, where the Rev. Robert Taylor was
in the habit of lecturing at the time. Mr. Carlisle,
who, wo believe, rented the premises at the time, was
the individual who engaged her at a salary. The' Rev.
Robert Taylor having had frequent opportunities of see-
ing Miss Richards, was regularly smitten with heoin-
telleetual and personal charms, and paid her tOch
attention. In the correspondence which passed
between them there were the strongest evidences
of attachment disclosed, and when the Rev.
Gentleman was laid up in Horsemonger-lane gaol, the
lady gave the most unquestionable proof of attachment
to him. She was, however, but ill-requited for in-
numerable acts of kindness, for he suddenly broke off the
acquaintance, and married a lady who was inure :than-
, dantly supplied with the gifts of fortune.
The jury awarded the plaintitl damages to the amount
Of 2501., and the principal witnesses examined upon the