The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHA Lt. —(THIi DAY.)
LIBEL.
BOURNS V. WARREN AND OTHERS.
When this cause was called on, Mr. Gurney stated
he was concerned for the plaintiff both in it, and in the
next, which was Bourke v. Clements, that they were
both actions against newspapers; that there was no justi-
fication put on the record in the first cause, but there was
in the second, and that therefore, if the Counsel on the
other side would permit it, he would prefer haring the
second cause tried first.
Mr. SCARLETT refused to accede to this, and therefore,
Mr. PLATT opened the pleadinfs in the first cause.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case. Fhe complaint the plain-
tiff had to make was, that the defendants had published in
their:newspaper, a libel on him, by imputing that he was
the author of a letter written to the master of an appren-
tice, who had charged an individual with a heinous offence,
4ml offering a reward to the party to forego the prosecution.
In the month of August, 1825, a person named Lane had
gone before the magistrate, at Marlborough-street office,
and made the charge against a person, whose name was
then unknown. In a few days afterwards, the individual
was taken into custody, examined, and committed. His
name was Muirhead. Lane, the person who gare the
charge, being an apprentice and minor, his master, Mr.
Spilsbury, entered into security for his appearance at the
Sessions. Soon afterwards Spilsbury received a letter
signed .1. Evans, and dated at 29, Northumberland-street,
tStrand, in September, 1825, which stated that his (Spils-
°tufa) apprentice was the only person who had charged,
or could give evidence against, Muirhead; that he was an
old man of 78 years ; that it was a pity to expose him; that
the boy might abscond or enlist, and thereby do away with
the necessity of appearing against Muirhead; and that if he
would do .so, and he (Mr. S.) were to aid in accomplish-
ing this, the writer of the letter would be met with out of
town, at a place to be named, and pay 500/. as a reward
for the boy s not appearing against Muirhead. By some
means or other No. 29, Northumberland-street, Strand,
was not. Occupied by Evaiii, hut by Mr. Harnett, an attor-
ney of this Court. About this time Lane did leave his
master, and enlisted into the East India Company's ser-
Vice;„,, he was afterwards taken into custody, brought to the
Police. Office, detained for a month, and, in fact,
brought forward as a witness against Muirhead. ' When
Mr. Spilsbury came forward also, enquiry was made about
this letter, which he produced, and gave to Mr. Roe,
the Magistrate, who preserved it. It should seem (con-
tinued M. GURNEY) that in the present day whatever
posses'at the police offices is to be published in the public
akers, whether it be or not libellous on the characters
of ; and sometimes it was to be apprehended
that charges,were made, not with any view to enquiry or
public justice, but for the sake of libelling, and then
those libels got into the Papers, as had been intended, It
seemed, too, that Mr. Harnett, at a subsequent period,
went to the Police-office, and complained that the publi-
cation of this letter was really libellous on him, for that he
v
Al at No. 29, Northumberland-street ; but that be had
been Ito party to the writing of the letter. Some enquiry
further was made about the letter and Mr. Harnett and
a Mr. Edmonds, who was a reporter for another News-
Paper, were both accused of being the authors of
thus letter supposed to have come from Mr. Bourke. Mr.
Bourke was a gentleman of education, and of a very re-
spectable family, but not choosing to be a burthen on
them, he had become a reporter at one of the police-
("cis. By some means or other having become ob-
soxione to those two gentlemen, they had attempted to
saddle liiin with being the author of this letter, and there-
fore wrote a letter to the Magistrate, imputing that Mr. B.
148 the author of it; and under pretence of reporting
what passed in the office, the defendants in their news-
Paperl published that letter, although it was not read pub-
elY. They got possession of it by other means than by
1g
ti being made a public transaction in the office, and there-
fore
they imagined they could report it accurately.. In-
stead however, of putting in Mr. B.'s name they intro-
duced a number of stars, but still every person knew that
Mr. B. was
dents the person meant. It would afford the defen-
rri s no defence to say, that either Mr. Harnett or Mr. Ed-
....ends, or both had accused Mr.B. with being the author.
They had theughtProper to put nojustification on the record,
not' Only wtshed theybad, for then he wouldhave shown,
Only that Mr. B. was not the writer,
.. but who was the
writer oe it
tho • Haring put no justification on the record,
.
did was not • pretend to say that what they had published
not false--they did net attempt to contend that the
Plaintiff was the author of that infamous letter to Spilsbury,
the way, and
ofreri with a view to get the witness out of
ng five hundred pounds as the reward of effecting it.
"°II,IY question on the whole, consequently for the Jury
ii:ovtiether the letter complained of did apply to the plain-
,,,ll,!Md if it did, whether it was or was not libellous ? If it
gliPalt'lled to him there could not be a doubt of its libellous
welj r.ei The gentlemen of the Jury would no doubt weigh
lo,h ',de evidence to be brought before them, and award
u
foul imputation merited.
The
following is the letter alleged to be the libel :
FABRICATED LETTER.
Hr " To the Magistrates of the Public Office, Great Marlborough-
'Wei °lll n aPPlYing at the Office yesterday, my object was to
the 1 you an unequivocal declaration, that I was not
estew::t of the fabricate) letter of which Mr. Harnett
Protteti" You, Gentlemen, who are as much bound to
rtfu,ed innocent as to bring the guilty to punishment,
toe . do
Inc an act of justice; and the only alternative I now
11.1.46itt° state, that • 1; • • • is the person accused by Mr.
eortii4. If the fabrication of that document be an offence, ac-
%Nat° the law of England, and if you think proper to issne
Wit4o.SPlAlit • • • • a., and summonses for the attendance of
witi, 71 mai appoint a time for the investigation, I am prepared
incm "'exio to-sustain the charge. If you do not institute an
nit, will screen the guilty, and deprive me of an opportu-
hil. 11;161Y vindicating myself from a transaction so disgrace-
., c the honour to be, Gentlemen, your most obedient,
p "%; Oct. lt, 1825. E. EDMONDS."
thatrower examined by Mr. PLATT—The plaintiff'
to"1.:_ attended in September, 1825, at Marlbo
treet I
is 50 WI ;I:te4:l34ueens' Its reporter for the Times; thinks
tsporter. °.`vn by the name of the Time:
Cross-examined by "Mr. SCAR that office as reporter for the.
knew that Bourke was reporter
iiitl:r.Witness attended
fong Herald, wl!ereby
Times, as they
ii to relieve and assist each otheorrhoe, letterl in ques-
L appeared first in. the Times; I took tLentetter written
ltnlS'Pllshury from the office, with the COIN
ittatheMir.edCo-
-4 /the Magistrate, and got printed slips of it
the feet:
tTs, and sent ,them to the different newspapers;
r7r.Wes attached to a report of the proceedings at the office
yri.tten by Mr. Bourke; Bourke and myself were not 111exact-
Partnership, but we accommodated each other, each
e9y to our respective papers, Bourke to the Timei,
ktning Advertiser, and Poat, I to the other morning
IQ7I. Mr. Conant, the Magistrate, authorised the pub-
atql, of the letter against the will of Mr. Spilsbury ; I do
140'w to mr knowledge that Bourke had revised a ma-
-04411)t copy of the letter from Mr. Crowde sayhepul of the Ledger; did not tell Crowder to (if any
'llqUired who was the author of the letter) that it was
1411.1 f
ak but told him to say that he brought it there, m-
Clop 'sZthat Boutin, had received that letter back' from
'Apt.
On examined by Mr. GURNEY... 4 am printer
sufekrusher of the Imes; Bourke was in the habit of
417,,z41111C that Paper with Police Reports from Marlbo-
?"street.
ram—
Nava ---.7sarninect by Mr. SCARLETT--They pay three-half-
at tea., line for reports ; Bourke reports for them, yet not
ag ',ged wages.
Qata
Ito, net
.ank, examined by Mr. PLATT--I am chief con-
147,:laitti,Marlborough-street ; a person named Charles B.
u Information at that office in August 1825, before
look trantl it being after the clerk had left the office, I
II", lifirarlludian ;—(he then produced the infcirma-
•ed accused
Wni of a . person, whose name was then m-
oll UTUlRtnial °Fence) in consequence thereof

a person named Muirhead was brought to that office, and
Lane gave evidence in support of the information.
The CHIEF JUSTICE here observed, that as that evi-
dence• had been reduced to writing, it should be produced.
Mr. PURNRY said, that the warrant would supply its
place. • The warrant was accordingly produced by the
jailor of Tothill-fields Bridewell, by virtue of which he had
taken Mr. Muirhead into prison.
Mr. Spilsbury's recognizances were also produced by a
clerk from the office of the Clerk of the Peace for the
County of Middlesex, to identify Spilsbni'y with the pro-
secution.
Mr. Spilsbury, examined by Mr. PLATT—Received the
letter now produced in September 1825, a few days after
I had entered into the recognizances. The letter which
contained the subject matter of the libel was then read.—
Mr. Scarlett, with whom was Mr. Pollock, took some'ob-
jections from a variance in the letter and the declaration,—
but they were overruled by the Chief Justice.
Mr. Spilsbury examined by Mr. SCARLETT—Never gave
a copy of that letter for publication.
Mr. Alridge, a clerk in the Record Office, produced a
roll to show that Mr. Harnett was an attorney.
Mr. Mallison attended from the newspaper office, So-
merset-place, and produced two numbers of the Courier,
dated the 13th and 14th of October, 1825, to prove that
the defendants were proprietors of that paper, but Mr.
Scarlett admitted the proprietory.
The Courier of the 26th September, 1825, was then produced,
and the clerk read from it a Marlborough-street report, stating
what Mr. Harnett had said at that office respecting the letter
signed Evans, and accusing a certain police reporter of fabricating
it to injure him, as it had been dated from his house, and there
was no person of the name of Evans there.

Mr. Plank produced a letter, which had been given to him by a
Mr. Edmonds, a reporter for the Morning Chronick, dated 'Oct.
18, 1825, directed to the Magistrates. The letter was then read.
It accused the Magistrates of partiality in shutting him out of the
office on suspicion of having written a letter, with which he had
nothing to do; and offering to prove, by satisfactory evidence,
that the letter in question had been fabricated by the Times
reporter..

Mr. Plank, cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT—Edmonds had
been refused admittance into the office previous to the receipt of this
letter, by the order of the Magistrates, who assigned no reason for
excluding him--.I had no reason to suppose that Edmonds had
been suspected of being the author of the letter to Spilsbury.
The Courier, of the 14th of October, 1825, was now produced,
and Mr. Edmonds's letter to the Magistrates read from it, in which
stars were substituted for the Times Reporter.
Examination of Mr. Plank resumed—.l thought that the stars
in the letter were meant for the plaintiff, the Times Reporter.
Cross-examined by Mr. ScsamerT.—Understood at the cap,
that Bourke was the Times reporter ; do not know Power to be
so ; was present when Mr. Harnett applied at the office, who de-
manded a copy of the letter to Spilsbury, which the magistrate.
refused ; but desired him to write the two or three first lines of
the letter, to chew whether it was in his hand writing or not. '
Harnett did so, and said he despised the suspicion. Thera were
several reporters present during the time, but could not say that
Bourke had been there. Harnett was afterwards allowed to take a
copy of the letter, but he did not make a full copy.
Mr. Roe, one of the Magistrates of the Police Office, Marl-
borough-street, examined by Mr. GURNEY.--Remembered
having read a letter now produced, from Mr. Edmonds, it was not
read publicly in the office. I did not allow any person to take a
copy of it, though it had been represented in the Chronicle of the
next day, as a part of the proceedings in the office. After I had
read the letter, I sent an answer by the officer.
Examined by Mr. Scanlan-I.—Edmonds had been dismissed
from the office for different reasons, from that of being suspected
of fabricating the letter to Spilsbury. [On reacting the letter
from Edmonds, he could not take ou himself to say that the stars
were meant to represent the plaintiff.l' Knows that Bourke bad
been Reporter for the Timer, in consequence of his having made
application for letters to the Magistrates, subsequently to this
transaction, in order to redeem his character from the imputation
cast on it.

Mr. Purse, a silversmith, in the Strand, examined by Mr.
PLATT.--Knows that Bourke was meant by the stars, in the
letter from Edmonds.

Mr. Roe re-examined by Mr. Scar'ea.—Recollected Mr.
Harnett applying to see the letter, in order to compare the hand-
writing with some other manuscript. I gave-him permission.
Mr. -Se Afturrt addressed the Jury on behalf of the plaintiffs.
He thought they must have been satisfied by this time that this
was not a question between Mr. Bourke and the editor of the
Cpsettier newspaper, hut between two rival reporters, namely, Mr.
Bourke and Mr. Edmonds. He wished to set the case properly
On its legs, that the Jury might fully understand its merits. They
were assembled to try, not whether the editor and proprietors of
the Courier had published a libel against a person whom it did
not appear they had ever known or heard of before, but to
decide upon some little quarrel between the two reporters.
Nobody could doubt, after having heard the evidence of Mr. Roe,
and the letter written to him, that the object of Mr. Edmond's,
was to obtain a public declaration from the Office, that he was
not the person suspected to be the author of the letter to Spilshury,
and that failing to obtain that declaration, he had made a report
of his own letter. The Editor of the Courier, with a caution
more thin usual, and probably more than necessary, had omitted
inserting one single word in the publication of the letter, that
could fasten an imputation on Bourke, or any man under the sun,
and yet this had been called a libel ! In coming to a conclusion of the
case, Mr. Scarlett had not the slightest doubt that the Jury *mild
have to say this was no libel, and therefore give
.a verdict for the
defendants, If, upon any transaction that passed 'at a Police
Office, founded upon an iusulated fact, a Reporter was to be at
liberty to build a story, and think ;himself justified in publishing
it, he (Mr. S.) begged to ask if a Reporter was to be the only man
in Christendom to be protected against such an offence ? Was
there one law for him, and another for all the rest of mankind ?
If the disposition was to exist that now did exist, to bring every
matter, private an well as public, and every character,
both private and public, before the 'public tribunal, as
it was called, and to make ivate matters the rause of
deep and lasting private sorrow, by holding them up to
public ridicule, the last person on earth to complain of such a
course was the reporter at a Police-office. Mr. Gurney himself
had admitted, that, in his opinion, the practice had gone to such
an extent as to hare been productive of the most painful effects;
yet Mr. Bourke was to be at liberty to say he would report the
most private affairs that could ever take place between man
and wife, if at any time there happened to be the least
opportunity of his getting a clue to them, even though
all the Judges in the land were to tell him, that to, do so
was improper, and that it could answer no useful purpose hut do j
harm ; but if his name was to happen to share the fate of being
tossed before the public, he.was, to be at liberty to say that that
name was so sacred, that it shciuld not be so dealt with, Surely
Mr. B. ought to'have his own law administered to him; surely
he ought to be content to take what he was in the habit
of giving? The Jury would, no doubt,' remember the old
proverb of 'the kettle and the pot ; and was it for the kettle
to bring an action against the pot, and to RCCUSO it of
being too black in a certain part ? (Loud laughter.) The Jury
could not hear a person who was daily in the habit of inflicting
wrongs (but which lie did not call wrongs), on individuals, Hay,
that he was to be at liberty to continue doing so, hut that others
were not to inflict such wrongs on him. Let the hangman be ex-
ecuted en his own gibbet. He should have the laW laid down to
him that he had laid down to others, and' Mr. S. was anxious to
know on what ground it was, that the plaintiff contended he was
to he at liberty to affect the characters of any persons whatever,
by his reports, and
yet, wherever his name was glanced
at, he was to say —r' why, God bless me, I am so notorious,
mY name is so well known, and the public have such
a regard for tne and for my three halfpenny line reports, that no
man is to be suffered to make use of my name, or to attack my
character in
Editors of Newspapers that there were, he (Mr. S.) wished sin-
any way !" Out of respect to the many,r!spectshle
ear* that he could
persons they em lo persuadel
I of their reports, but ac-
cording
of
flee
ieizeirt of the case, and the education and respecta-
bility them
lteonoado,pt the. ruler. of paying the
eerding to tha_P p,no t b
would save him and hisitw(Laughter.) For his own
part, kedemoi, looked .earned Friends !--
passed at Police-
offices, but ha .wtaidd: much reading the adoption of this rule,
ipte the, offs of what
of Newipaperi personaa do 50, if he only thought the. Editors
tending there to get infer
however, a rem taste
in
the
ion of what did pass.
information of
and educationertowaast:
the Editors paid in
at
the rate of three a line for col-
. lecting that stuff. Re would „a
world now for trash, and therefore
halfpence , e
marked by the verdict of the J
sent' one of the most extraordinary as a ease of libel' it would pre.
red ; but he submitted clearly y' if the present case were to b
a!y4anornalles 'that had ever occur-
common seise and decency to say that
The CUM` JUSTICE, in summing up t it would be contrary to all
this a libel.
I that the effect of the libel, was to up -the evidence, observed
offence of writing a letter to a Mr. Pitseh to lone
is, person the
doing Some injury to Mr. llarnett, -111', with a view of-
, accusing- bins of doing
what he ought not to have done. If the'
jury Were satisfied that
the phtintiff WM the peon UMW W
h "49 doubt attithrl to

L~ 1: 1 _.

•
. •

an ir verdict. Any person T-slo saw the (anginal letter, written
by Mr. Edmonds, most feel convinced that the plaintiff was
meant; as the Times RepOrter, who 4.'1-oi:there, but it
ip not so expressed in the publication, /Cul,. instead of Times
Reporter, asterisks are substituted. However, 'Mr. Purse has
naorii that he knew from these asterisks that it was the plaintiff
iViVe Meant. If the Jury were satisfied that Heinle was meant by
the stars, he was entitled AO 'their verdict. The next question
would be as to damages. He could not agree with Mr. Scarlett
that because the plaintiff was a Police Reporter he was not entitled
to consideration. His Lordship's wish was, that justice should
be administered impartially to all his Majesty's subjects. Under
all these circumstances, it was for the Jury to consider whether a
verdict should be for the plaintiff in damages.
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the de-
fendants, which excited much surprise in the Court, it being con-
trary to the tendency of his Loidshipie charge.
EOUVAK V. CLZIIF.NT.

Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings,anclilr. GURNEY stated the
ease, which was in words and substance similar to the last, it being
an action against the Proprietor of the Morning Chronicle and
Belts Life in London, for having published in these Papers the
same report, for which the action had been brought against the
Proprietors of the Courier, with this difference, that it appeared
Arid in the Chronicle, and the plaintiff's name was given at length,
instead of the stars in BelPs Life in London. The defendant
pleaded a justification.
The proprietory and other facts of the case, as proved on the
former trial, were admitted, so that evidence on behalf of the plain-
tiff was dispensed with.

Mr. Rol, examined by Mr. Scaatzrt.—Rernembered
Ed-
anonde having been excluded from the Office, and applying to me to
know what was the cause of his expulsion ; cannot recollect that
Edmonds had complained that the Times reporter
had given such
an account of his expulsion as might induce others to believe he had
beenahut out on suspicion of fabricating the letters to Spilebury ;
did not hear Mr. Harriet say thathe exonerated the reporter for
the Chronicle and the New Times, fSout any share iu the letter.
Edmonds has not been to the office since.
Mr. Harnett charged the reporter of the Times with the fabri-
cation of the letter, in a private communication to witness, in the
office.
Mr. ScaaLarr then addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
observed, that the connecting the Morning Chronicle with Bell's
Life in London, caused much perplexity. The libel which has
appeared in the Morning Chronicle was exactly the same as that
for which the Jury had just given a verdict to the Courier for. Ile
could not but admire the dexterity of Mr. Garrity in offering to
have this case tried Ant, whereby the person meant should be clearly
proved, and having strong reason to suspect that no evi-
dence would be produced on behalf of the defendant. He
said that he could establish the innocence of the plaintiff,
by producing the author of the letter to Spilsbury,—
yet there has been no evidence to show who the author of that
letter was. The only subject of libel in Bell's Lift in London
way a paragraph, stating that Mr. Harnett had called at Marlbo-
rough-street Police Office, and there publicly exonerated the Re-
porters of the Chrimiele and New Times from fabricating the
letter in question, and said that he suspected the Reporter for the
Times of having done it. By the showing of the plaintiff, it
would appear, that if any one publishes a statement of a person
coining to a Police Office, and there expressing his suspicion of an-
other person having written a calumnious letter, it should be
deemed a libel, lie would not now:enter into the abstract question,
whether such publications redound to public utility or not, but he
would wish to know whether it was to the advantage of the press
or the public, that statements of occurrences at Police offices
should be deemed a libel? The Learned Counsel here indulged in
a long dissertation on the liberty of the press, and observed, that
the examples of Athens and Rome, showed that its licentiousness
had in alt ages proved the instruments of its destruction. He did
not mean to say, as his Lordship had interpreted his former address,
that reporters were not entitled to consideration, and that they
ought to be protected from attacks on their character ; but when
they come to such a place as this, they ought to be prepared to
chew malice, and not consider themselves calumniated, merely be-
cause others were exonerated. It was natural for Mr. Edmonds
to suspect that he had been shut out from the police-office, on ac-
count of his being suspected of fabricating the letter in question, '
as it had happened at the time, and the Magistrates had
refused to assign any reason for his exclusion; and lie was
partly justified in writing the letters to the Magistrates, excstl-
pating himself. The direct accusation of the reporter for the
Times was confined to the magistrates in the office; and with
respect to the stare, it did not appear that the public understood
whom they represented ; indeed, a member of the Eccentrics (Mr.
Purse) suspected it, because he knew that there hail been some ill
blood between the plaintiff and Mr. flonett. Upon the whale,
he hoped that the Jury, so far from givinidarnages, would give a
similar verdict to the last; and, thirdly, let reporters know the ab-
surdity of bringing actions on such feeble grounds.
The CH; zr JUUTICZ laddtvseed the jury, and observed, that
with respect to the Morning Chronicle he would not trouble them
with any remarks, as eleven of the Jury were in the box on the
last trial, which was for the same matter. With respect to the
Bell's Life in London, the Times reporter was substituted for
the stare. lf the Jury were of opinion that the plaintiff was
known to many persons as the Timer reporter, lie was no doubt
entitled to their verdict, for, in his Lordship's opinion, the pub-
lication was a libel.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

DUEL.---A duel was fought on Wednesday morn-
ing on Finchley Common, between Mr. C—m—r,
and a Captain in the Army. The, ground being mea-
sured, the parties fired, when the Captain received the
ball of his antagonist in the thigh. It was skilfully
extracted by the Surgeon, and the parties proceeded to
town immediately.

THE WAKEFIELDS.--Writs of levari ficias have
issued from the Courts of Exchequer; for enforcing
payment of the amount of recognizance.% forfeited at
the last Lancaster assizes, by the flight of William
Wakefield from justice. It will be remembered that
the bail were, Mr. Cuthbert, of Broadstairs, in Kent,
for 1,5001. and Dr. Davies, of this town, for 500/.

The sheriff's warrant, for levying the amount forfeited
by the latter gentleman, was put in execution on
Thursday last.—Maccleffield Courier.

MR. POOLE AND MR. ELLisTorr.—We are au-
thorised to state, that in consequence of an ample apo-
logy having been made by Mr. Elliston for' the out-
rage upon Mr. Poole, at Vauxhall-gardens4 on the
evening of Friday, the 21st July last, the prosecution
for such proceeding, now pending against Mr. Ellis-
ton, at the Surrey Sessions, will be withdrawn.
A rich proprietor of Bourdeaux is said to have sent
over to Egypt for several camels, for the purpose of
training them to draw on his estates.
HOSPITALITY OF AN INN-ititsPEß.---The Duke
de Montebello, and the two French Gentlemen who
accompanied him, and his servant, stopped at ** **'s
Inn,' at Ballinaslde, for three flights. The charge for
each bed for each night, for the three Gentlemen, was
only twenty-seven shillings each, and for the servant
only fifteen shillings ; and altogether, upon remon-
strance being
.had. witlillie,lnn-keeper, he agreed to
knock eight guineas off` the hotel bill.--Connaught
Journal.

A correspondent informs us, that on looking over a
great
file of the
,Leicester Journal for 1750, about which
z'eas Editor
ito dreart was si
time the paper was establisherdio,dso,
tlat t
of news-matter at that period,
compelled to have recourse to the Bible to " help him
out, and actually extracted the first chapter of Gene-
sis, and so continued the extracts in the succeeding
Numbers as far as the 10th chapter of Exodus I The
journal above alluded to was then printed in London,
and sent down to Leicester for publication.
One of the English wits at Brussels, who continues
to live there on a commodity which kept him very
taper here, was lately offered a bet by one of his more
opulent countrymen, which, as his father's patrimony
denied the indulgence, he was obliged to shirk by
means of his mother wit. i, What at odds will you 'bet i
me ?" said he, ,6 Two to one,' was the re ly—..tl a
sovereign to ten shillings." " What I" cried e, t, do
you cal that odds ? I never knew a sovereign worth
ten shillings I Independent of that, your odds are the
oddest odds I ever heard of: for it is nothing more
nor less than asking me to bet you two crowns to one."
—I3OA Herald.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.—(Tuis DAY.)

IUILDHALL, WESTMINSTER,

William Williams • Thomas Barret, and Charles Be ye,
were indicted for attempting to break open die stop of Mr.
Goodhugh, jeweller, Regent's Quadrant, on the 18th August last.
It appeared that on the above night the prisoners, who are well
known, were observed standing close together by the shutters of
the above shop ; they were taken by some of the patrol, and on
examination the shutters were found to have been attempted, and
the bar nearly forced out of the fastenings. On searching the
prisoners they found a jemmy and some skeleton keys on Wil-
liams, and a black canvas bag in the hat of Reeve.
When first discovered, they endeavoured to escape, anti several
burglarious implements were found on the road they had taken.
Mr. PHILLIPS contended for the prisoners, that the evidence
was not sufficient to convict, and called' two respectable witnesses
to the character of Reeve. The Jary found them all Guilty, and
the Court sentenced Williams to nine months' imprisonment and
hard labour, and the other two to six months each.
John Crowley was indicted for assaulting Matthew Farmer, a
constable, in Dean's-yard, Westminster, on the 12th of this
month.

Mr. Pnmues stated, that the mother of the prisoner had told
him that he was an idiot, but it was very necessary for the safety
of the public that such a man should be taken care of. On the
above day be wee performing a trick certainly no ways indicative
of idiotoy, that of trying to extort a shilling for holding a horse a
few minutes, and on the constable interfering, he struck him most
violently. His offences in this way were very numerous, and the
prosecutor did not so much wish to 'punish him for past offences,
as to prevent his annoyance in future.
Matthew Farmer deposed, that the prisoner struck bim so hard
that his hat flew one way and his head another. Witness had
taken him up 13 times for similar offence'. He was as strong as
six men.

The prisoner's mother interceded for him, and describing him
unable to protect himselt; earnestly begged for his reeeptiou into
the workhouse.

lie was found guilty, and ordered for three months to Cot
Bath Fields.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

ARYLEB ONE. —(Trus DAY. )
A wretched looking woman, named .Agnatr Armstrong, was
charged with stealing a gown, two handkerchiefs, and other arti-
cles, which were found on her person in Chapel-street, at seven
o'clock this morning.—Case remanded for further enquiry.