The Sun.
London, England, 1826-04-20 00:00:00

PARTNERSiIIIIS DISSOLVED.

W. Stoneley and J. Bratherton, Nantwich, Cheshire, carpen-
ters--;-0. F. Charnley and J. Oldham, Stockport, Cheshire, hat-
manufacturers—J. ' Deck and T. Hine; Bury St. Edmunds,
Suffolk, cutlers—H, and 11. Pritchard, 13ristol,.oilmen—P. and
T. Rhodes, Bermondsey-atreet, leather-factors--R. Ray and G.
Parker, Preston, Lancashire, flaggers—J. Conquest, and I. and
W. Robinson, Manchester, hatters ; so fur as regards J. Conquest
Jones, Manchester,
—J. and S. Levy, Exeter, pawnbrokers—W., T., R., and W.
woollen— F. d
BeWlPethkaimnsb:rlll,ld °Jouster, printers--J.
Maunder, Soutlnnolton and Mordhardßishop, Devonshire,
taw°°llilGra--J"1-
and It. Dunn, Lancaster, coach-maker&—C. Hodge, and W. H.
Carpenter, Ottery, St. Mary, Devonshire, surgeens.44, and J.
Davies, and J. Walsh, Latchford, Cheshire, cotton-spinners--J.
Terrell and C. Garland, bfartook, Soinersetshirei glove-manuffic-
turers—A. Wragg Arid J. J. Hughes, Manchester, rag-dealers--
J. end F. Hopkins, Broadway, Westminster, linen-drapers—A.
Bessemer, J. J. Catbersvood, and W. /meson, Charlton, Ilea-
fordshire, later-thunders; so far as regards W. Imeson--W. D.
&Howes and fel. Brooksbank, Vauxhall,. distillers—L., ,C., T.,
and E., Westbrook, Beaulieu, Hampshire, common-brewers--J.
Shepard and. 5. Trowbridge, Hampshire, blacksmiths—J.
and J. Plant, and P. Emery, Cheadle, Staffordshire,. coal-masters
--=Et. and R. Howe, Doughty mews, Guildford-street, and John's-
mews; Bedford-row, stable-keepers.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Aram 19.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL (on behalf of Mr. Edward Wake-
field, the Either of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, whose abduction of
Miss Turner has excited so much interest) moved for a rule calling I
on Francis Cowslade, proprietor and publisher of The Reading
Mercury, to show cause why a criminal information should not be
exhibited against him for the publication of a series of libels, in the
shape of hand-bills, reflecting on the conduct of Mr. Wakefield, and
imputing to him a guilty knowledge of that transaction. Mr. Daniel
Wakefield, the brother of the prosecutor, being at Reading at the time
of the first publication, had published a denial of the charges
puted to his brother; and one of the alleged libels was contain-
ed in a hand-bill, purporting to be observations on that denial.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read the alleged
libels, and the depositions of Mr. Edward Wakefield, denying
all knowledge of the marriage till the receipt of a letter from
his son announcing that fact, but without disclosing any par-
ticulars: and this letter was stated to have been received on
the same day as the letter addressed by Edward Gibbon Wake-
field to Randall, his father's clerk, directing the insertion of the
advertisement announcing the marriage with Miss Turner.
This letter had been, it appeared, opened by Mr. Wakefield, in
the absence of Randall; but his affidavit denied any knowledge of
the way in which the marriage had been effected. The Learned
Counsel then submitted, that if Mr. Wakefield had even been ap-
prehended on such a charge us that imputed to him, publications of
such a nature were sufficient to warrant the interposition of the
Court. The' libels complained of had not been confined merely to
the hand-bills, but had also been published in the newspaper of the
defendant, which had a very extensive circulation. _ .

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE.—The publications are not of such
a nature as to require the interference of the Court.--Rule refused

aaordingly. -
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, ArRIL 19.

TAYLOR V. WILLANS.

This was a proceeding in error. The present plaintiff, it will
be recollected, was convicted under the statute of Anne, of gam-
bling and losing a large sum of money at the game of rouge
et noir. The amount stated to have been lost was 525/. _ _

The case came on this morning to be heard in error, before
the Barons of the Exchequer and the Judges of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas.

Mr. Baonzutcr, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, took two
objections; the first was, that the parish where it was alleged the
offence had been committed was not sufficiently set out
_namely, " St. James's, in the county Mof Middlesex,"
That being the case, and the statute being a penal one, which
enacted that a moiety should go to the poor of the parish, it
was impossible, as there was another parish of St. James
within the county, to say which parish was entitled to the penal
sum—whether the parish of St. James, Wesminster, or the
parish of St. James, Clerkenwell. The other objection was, that
the words of the statute were not sufficiently set out ; that the fact
of the defendant (now plaintiff) having played was not shown; and
he cited several cases in support of his argument, and particularly
instanced one, where the question was, whether a foot-race was
within the statute of Anne, when it was held that it was ; but, the
declaration not alleging that this defendant was playing at the
game, judgment was arrested.
Mr. Rams" for the defendant in error, contended that the
averments in the declaration were correct, and he was at a loss to
conceive how any party could lose to another by playing, unless he
was playing, or as set out in the declaration, "so playing."
The Lord Chief Justice BEST delivered the opinion of the Judges
by stating, that whichever parish was entitled to the moiety of the
penalty, was not a question for the plaintiff in error ; that might
be a question for the parishes ; but it had always been held that
the parish of St. James, in the county of Middlesex, was the
parish of St. James, Westminster, and that in the case of the other
parish, there was always the addition of Clerkenwell ; that as to
the other point the averments were sufficient; and that the judg-
ment of the Court below must therefore be affirmed.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, APItIL 18.
THY WILIIITAII.4E AUGUSTE.

In this cause, Lord STOW ELL was assisted by two of the Trinity
Masters, there being two questions that more particularly re-
quired to be decided by the nautical experience and judgment of
those Gentlemen ; first, as to the degree of danger and difficulty
incurred by the salvors; secondly, as to the necessity of the in-
terference of one of the boats by which the salvage was stated to
have been effected ; and, consequently, es to the validity of the
claim let dp by that boat's crew.
Dr. Donsow stated, on behalf of the salvors, that on the 19th
of September last, an action was entered against this ship,
cargo, and freight, in a cause of salvage, on behalf of three
masters of as many pilot-boats. The value of cargp and freight
was 5,300/. ; and the facts of the case were briefly these :
On the night of the 14th of September, the Wilhelmine Auguste,
ground
oaboffeatituhrtleg
cargo
ooiounfmt
vet
of
inftrhibsee.hurpotoyprl
Suffolk,
pu,eo,
eafathS,
staves,et ern.totti Stettin
rom fnd vooennniolto nrytd-ht,:L.
moiandLights,
solnl
gtems onftk,
fwz
ttrilteihee,
Early
15th, the weather cleared, and tile pilot discovered that they
were ou the edge of a large sand called the Nathaniel Lowe,
on which the vessel had struck so violently as to sustain very
considerable damage; at this juncture two pilot-boats came
up and tendered their assistance, which was accepted ; the crew
of the Wilhelmine, at that time, being in the act of putting up their
linen, &c. in their pillow caws, with the view, if possible, of effect-
ing their escape with it to shore. The tide having risen, however,
the vessel (which was a foreigner of about 250 tons burthen) float-
ed off into deep water, and, by reason of the injury she had sus-
tained, was considered to be in a perilous condition. The crew of a
third boat which had bore down upon her, insisted on taking part in
the exertions made by the other salvors,and were regaled by the Cap-
utin in the same manner as their colleagues had been. It was now
stated, however, in the evidence, that the Captain had desired them
to be gone, and had no occasion for them ; yet the order to retain
ana-eznpley them, given by the Captain himself, had been distinctly
spoken to by one of his own crew, who was at the wheel at the
time. The vessel was finally brought, in safety, into the harbour
of Harwich. The Learned Counsel concluded by reminding the
Court that this had been a service of considerable danger and great
importance, and that, in his judgment, all three boats were en-
titled to a quantum of salvage such as his Lordship might deem a
fitting amount.
Dr. Sattsnunv, on the same side, contended it was clear that
the third boat had actually participated in the services that had
been rendered.
Dr. Lusnrwoxox (with whom was Dr. Hoocann) did not
dispute that a salvage had been rendered, but denied either that
it was
dir
tolandybao wasthin a
thing like
allnecessary the exte
forattwhich
safely carrying hichit hadbeen
that
eel into Harwich.
Lord growl L'. said that the Trinity Masters by whom he was
assisted concurred with him in thinking, that though the salvage
rendered was a valuable service, yet, owing to the state of the wea-
ther, and other considerations, it was one not attended with any
especial degree of danger. The gentlemen in question considered
that there was no necessity for the assistance of the thiid boat;
and as the crew teemed to have been certainly desired by the
master of the Wilhelmine Auguste to return, the Court disal-
lowed their claim entirely. To the crews of the two other boats
bie Lordship decreed the sum of 1501. as salvage allowance.