The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, AUGUST 15, 1845.

ORANGE DEMONSTRATION IN

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SjiERIFFS COURT, Aug. 14.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Bußcum.t..)
COLLINS V. REARDON.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
THE TEA WARRANTS CASE.—MT. W. J. Brand ap-
rared on Friday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, before the Lor
eilayor, to answer the complaint of Sheriff Sidney.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Humphreys appeared to support
the charge; Mr. Parry attended for the defendant. 'lle
justice-room was crowded with persons engaged in the tea trade.
Sheriff Sidney stated that he is in partnership with W.
Hall,and carried on the wholesale tea trade, on Ludgate-hill.
He had known Mr. Bland fir the last fifteee years, and occa-
sionally had had dealings with him from the huuse of Bennet
and Ce., and believed him to be one of the firm. Witness had,
on the 22d of July, a quantity of teas for sale, previously to
which time he mentioned to Mr. Bland that he had some teas
which did not suit the trade of the house he belonged to, and
wished to dispose of them at the market price. Mr. Bland
called upon him on the 22d of July respecting these teas, saw
the samples, was informed of the quantities, and agreed to the
price, saying, " Very well, I'll take these teas at one month
prompt, and you will take a parcel of teas from Bermes and
Co. for cash." Before that witness supposed that he was
dealing with the house of Bennet and Co., and he said to Mr.
Bland, " Bennet and Co. I Are you not a partner in the
house of Bennet and Co. ?" To which Mr. Bland replied,
" No, not a partner; they allow me 6001. a year to do busi-
ness for them, and they allow me to do business on my own
account." Mr. Bland then expressed a wish to have the war-
rants that he might examine the teas and show them
to the trade, and witness told him he might have the
warrants of the broken parcels, but there could be no ne-
cessity for his taking the warrants of the 93 boxes of
pouchong or the 24 chests of twankay, per the Hebrides.
Witness then called Mr. Wells, his clerk, into the counting
house, and told him to bring the warrants of the broken
parcels. Part of the goods, amounting to 1904, remained in
the ducks to the order of the house, and Mr. Wells brought
the orders of these teas and the warrants into the counting-
house, and witness told Mr. Wells, in Mr. Bland's presence,
that Mr. Bland would not require the warrants for the pou-
chong or the twankays, and the others might be given to him.
Mr. Bland then left the counting-house. The meaning of
" prompt one month " was, that the party purchasing should
not pay for the teas for one month; and with respect to the
warrants, it was usual to retain them till the expiration of the
month, and then exchange them for the money. When Mr.
Bland had left the house witness called Mr. Wells into the
counting-house, and, in consequence of information arising
from their conversation, went with him to Mr. Blind to de-
mand the warrants for the ninety-eight boxes of pouchong and
the twenty-four chests of twankay, as these were warrants he
could not want for the purpose of sampling, and were not
broken parcels. The bargain had taken place between three
and four o'clock, and Mr. Wells was sent to Mr. Bland about
five o'clock.
(The information given by Mr. Wells was that he had
handed all the warrants to Mr. Bland.)
Upon his cross-examination by Mr. Parry, Mr. Sidney said
that he had reasons, up to the 22d of July, for considering that
Mr. Bland was a partner in the firm of Bennet mot Co. The
pouchong warrants and the warrants for the young hyson wee
delivered to Mr. Bland on his own account. The pouchongs
were worth about 801., and the twankays about 110/. Witness
admitted that he had met Mr. Bland on friendly terms after
the 22d of July, but did not know that he had pledged these
warrants. He did ride with Mr. Bland in a cab. lie had
that honour. He knew of the warrants having been taken on
that day, but Mr. Bland said he had lodged them with a broker
for sale. The 2d of August was the first day he had a sus-
picion. On the 4th of August he went with Mr. Slaney to
Mr. Bland for the purpose of getting the warrants back, and
he said if they were not returned he should certainly see his
solicitor ; and, after making three prope,als to him, he said he
should see the Lord Mayor on the subject, but gave him that
day to consider. His first proposal was that Mr. Bland should
return the warrants for the twankay: per Hebrides. The
second that, if Mr. Bland had not sold the whole of the goods,
he should return the warrants, and witness should give up the
contract. The third that, in case any warrants for the twan-
keys were not available to Mr. Bland to return to him, he
should give witness equal securities for them ; but not one of
these propositions were complied with. Mr. Bland on that
occasion did not say he should not return the warrants, but wit-
ness did not recollect his reply, although he recollected it was
aster wordy one.
Mr. Charles Weide, clerk to Messrs. Sidney and Hall, stated,
that on the 22d of July he was present at the interview be-
tween Mr. Sidney and Mr. Bland part of the time. Mr.
Sidney called to him to bring some warrants and delivery orders
of broken parcels. Witness brought the whole of them, with
the exception of the twankays, per the Hebrides, and left
Mr. Bland in Mr. Sidney's counting-house, with all the war.
rants in his hand except those for the twenty-four twankays.
Shortly afterwards witnese returned to Mr. Sidney's counting-
house, and heard Mr. Sidney say to Mr. Bland, " Oh, you'll
not want those souchongs," or " There is no occasion for your
having them." Mr. Bland replied, " Oh, yes, I may as well
have them ; I shall want them to sample ;" and witness did not
think Mr. Sidney objected, but did not hear him speak, for be
(witness) went backwards and forwards. Witness went bask
to hi: connting-house for the warrants for the twenty-four
chests of twankay, which he took to Mr. Sidney's counting-
house, and was going to give them to Mr. Bland, but Mr.
Sidney took them from him, and said, "Oh, you must not
have those warrants;" and gave them back to witness ; and
Mr. Bland said, " I may as well have them altogether." Wit-
ness did not hear Mr. Sidney make any answer, and, as he was
going to his counting-house. gave the warrants to Mr. Bland,
who then went away. After Mr. Bland had departed, Mr.
Sidney called witness to him, and they had a conversation,
and witness went to Mr. Bland, to get back the warrants for
the ninety-eight boxes of pouchong and the twenty-four
chests of twankay, and Mr. Bland gave him warrants fur
eighty-nine boxes of pouchong, but said the warrants for the
twankay were placed in a broker's hands, and that he would
send them to Mr. Sidney in a day or two. A day or two
afterwards Mr. Bland called, but did not bring the warrants
with him.
Mr. Charles Millard, tea and coffee dealer, of Little Tower-
street, said—Mr. Bland, who was well known to me, called
on me on the 22d of July at a little after four o'clock.
He said he wanted some money he had to pay, and he wished
me to, let him have some on some orders, and also on some
warrants for twenty-four chests of twankay. I advanced him
2581. _odd. There were some orders on some warrants.
Orders _ for five chests of young hymen, one chest of gun-
powder, two of ditto, per City of Derry, and warrants for
twenty-fear chests of twankay, per Hebrides. The orders
were in Sidney and Hall's names, deliverable to W. J. bland
on order. I asked him whether the warrants were his, arid he
said they were; that he had bought them of Mr. Sidney, and
that he thought he should do a great deal of business with Mr.
Sidney. I asked him how it happened that Mr. Sidney gave
him the warrants, and he said he hail given warrants in ex-
change; that he had sold goods to Mr. Sidney to full or more
than the amount of those he had bought. The teas were sold,
as Mr. Bland said I might sell them at once. 1 gave the war-
rants to the brokers, 'l'. and R. Moffatt, of Mincing-lane,
and I got the orders exchanged for warrants in my brother's
name _a day or two after. Mr. Bland said he bad been to the
warehouses to see that the goods were there, and showed me a
receipt from Nicholson's Wharf to that effect. 'the transac-
tion was a private one, not a partnership one, for which reason
I got the orders transferred in my brother's name. I lent the
money to oblige Mr. Bland. I took from him a memorandum,
which I required him to sign, as I have *tone before. that they
were his goods, and authorising me to sell them at a given
time, the Ist of August, as 1 think.
The witness, in cross-examination by Mr. Bland, said that it
was defendant's frequent practice to call and explain his cir-
cumstances to witness; that the defendant had had loans from
him both with and without warrants, and such deposits had
always turned out right, and that that practice had extended
over a period of three years.
Upon his re-examination the witness said—l certainly do
not consider Mr. Bland's circumstances to be good. He was
not in the habit of bringing such large parcels. He has com-
pounded and has not paid his instalments. I was a creditor of
his for 9001. to 1,000/. I gave him part in money and part in
cheques, and he gave me out of it a portion of the old debt—
about 151. I deducted the 151. from the 2581
The witness then produced the following loan paper which
he received from Mr. Bland

ENNISKILLEN.
(Fr the Chronicle.)

DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY, AUG. 13.

SIX O.CLOCK, A.M.—The long- promised Orange de-
monstratio took place at Enniskillen yesterday. On
this trying occasion the Orangemen were totally aban-
doned by their former leaders, the magistrates and get.-
try. Even in point of numbers, the meeting fell very far
short cf the anticipatory boastirigs of the 01-nage jour-
nals in Dublin. There were, however, about ten thou-
sand persons assembled, mostly farmers and the labour-
ing classes, with a small sprinklin4 of the second class
of gentry. At this meeting the Orangeman made a de-
claration of unalterable hostility against the Peel Go-
vernment, and refused to co-operate with the repealers.
I send the following abridged report of the proceedings
from a more lengthened account which reached the
F,eeman's Journal this morning by an express, and I
am indebted to the proprietor of that jour all for an early
copy :
ENNISKILLEN, TUESDAY EVENING.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a livery-
stable-keeper, to recover the small sum of 21. ss. for stabling
of the defendant's horse.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, but did not appear
to support the plea.
A witness was called, who proved that the horse had been
put up fur 15 nights, and it was agreed that the charge should
be 3s. a night.
A verdict was given for the amount claimed.
MILBOURNE V. COLE. _ _

This was an action to recover the sum of 51. 18s. 6d. for
professional services as an attorney.
The plaintiff stated his own case. The defendant was in
1543 a tenant of a Mr. Stallvvood, of Calthorpe-street, and
the house in which he lived was burnt down. When the de-
fendant took the house he deposited as a security for the fix-
tures the sum of 101., which was to be returned on his leaving
the house. He was insured to the amount of 3001., and Mr.
Stanwood attached that sum in the hands of the insurance com-
pany, on the ground that some rent was due. This he ob-
tained, and refused to allow the 101. Plaintiff was retained to
commence the action, and issued the writ, and took other pro-
ceedings. Counsel's opinion was taken, and defendant declined
to proceed.
Henry 'Wilbourne, son of the plaintiff, was called to prove the
work done. He was cross-examined by Mr. Thomas as to whe-
ther the plaintiff's son George was not partner ; the witness
declared he could not say, and would not tell where he was to be
found.

Before proceeding to record the demonstration of to-
day, we will advert to the proceedings that took place
here last evening. About nine o'clock last night the
preliminaries may be said to have commeeced.
A peal of bells gave note of preparation from the
church tower, and immediately afterwards some few in-
distinct figures might be noticed through the darkness
making efforts to hoist an Orange flag on the topmost
pinnacle. This proceeding, as might be expected, at-
tracted a large number of that class usually denominate d
`• street idlers," who occasionally gave vent to their
" No Popery" and " No Peel-he" sentiments, with a
plentiful admixture of William-ite epithets. This " de-
monstration" was confined solely to the vicinity of the
church—through the town all was quietness and inac-
tion; there appeared none of those indications which
usually mark the approach of such a popular display as
the present was expected to be. The people seemed to
be more engrossed with their ordinary busines than with
the 12th of August or its associations.
A band paraded the Main-street, feeding the ears of
-in attendant crowd of idlers with the " Boyne Water,"
" The Prutestant Buys," and other tunes of a like party
and sectarian import. The affair as yet suggested more
of the ludicrous th,in of the grand. In front of the band
was carried a ighted torch ; the flame was created by a
compound of antimony, lint, and other ingredients, and
this occasionally lighting up their preliminary " walk,"
made the entire business look rather blue.
After this perading party had pursued their diversion
for a couple of hours, they dispersed to their homes.
The town became as still as on ordinary occasions, and
all was quiet in Enniskillen for the remainder of the
night. Up to ten o'clock this morning the town pre-
sented but few indications of the approaching demon-
stration. The day was ushered in by the ringing of
joy bells, but there were few manifestations of party
reeling until a very advanced period of the morning. On
the bridge, at Vie entrance of the town from the county
Cavan side, a triumphal arch was erected. This arch
was composed of Orange stuff, with a border of deep
blue. An equestrian statue of King William was sus-
pended from the centre of it, and it was surmounted by
a large gilt cross. A passer-by gravely informed your
reporter that the cross was placed there to prove that
they were " a Christian-like people " in Enniskillen.
Orange flags were placed at each side of the arch. An
Orange flag floated from the top of the Market-house,
bearing on one side the inscription, "Remember 1690,"
and on the reverse side, " No Repeal, no Surrender."
Flags were also displayed from the steeple of the church
of Enniskillen. A second arch, similar to that already
described, was placed on the bridge at the other side of
the town. A small equestrian statue of King William
was su Fended from the centre of the arch, and under-
nearli were inscribed, " Enniskillen," " Derry," " Augh-
rim." and " The Boyne." Orange lilies were exhibited
in the windows of about a dozen houses—principally
those of the humbler order. This completes the de-
scription of the decoration of the town.
All preliminaries adjusted, the procession left the fair
green in the order of their districts.
They marched through the main streets to Portora-
gate at the west side of the town, where they turned and
retraced their steps. Without speaking in any manner
to depreciate the importance that may be attached to
the demonstation
..by those favourable to the principle
commemorated, we must in candour say, :hat, as a popu-
ler display, the proceeding was cold and spiritless.
There was no cheering—no outward exhibition of enthu-
siasrn, nor, in their passage through town, were they
greeted by the occupants of the several windows with
any cheering or encouraging signs or expressions.
There were about 140 banners fn the procession, each
banner heading a lodge. A liberal estimate might allow
thirty persons marching in each lodge, and the number
would still be under five thousand. If we add a like
number for the crowd, who did not take any part in the
procession, the whole multitude assembled will still be
greatly within ten thousand.
Tli E MEETING

Mr. THOMAS submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited,
for the draft of the bill was signed, " this is our bill for self and
partner, G. W. Milbourne."
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said it was a question of fact
for the jury whether the father and son were partners, if so, the
action was not properly brought; the point should be reserved
if that fact was not in favour of defendant.

Mr. THOMAs said he should prove that George Milbourne un-
dertook the case as " no care no pay," for defendant told him
that he had been to his solicitor, and did not think it likely to
get the 10/. back ; but George Milbourne said he would take
3/. out of the 10/. if he got it. The Learned Counsel said
that the action was against law and common sense, but even
supposing an action to be good, an attorney having once taken
proceedings was bound to go on, and not abandon them merely
because the client would not advance money on account.
Charles Coglan, of Bentinck•street, Soho, was called, and
deposed that he went with defendant to ,Kilbourne. Saw
George Milbourne. Cole said, " I have come to consult about
some rent due from my former landlord, as I was burnt out."
Milbourne said there were good grounds for action ; he had
heard a good deal about Mr. Stanwood, and should like to
have a " stanch at him." Cole said he had lost money
enough, and he would not throw good money after bad, but
if he (Mr. Milbourne) thought it was a case he was cer-
tain of winning, he might take it on his own responsibility,
he might go on. He said, he ought to have some-
thing for himself, and defendant said, " I shall be
sati•fied if you give me 71. out of the 101. Milbourne said,
" Very well, it shall be so." He then proceeded to draw up
the agreement or instructions. The last part was a retainer.
Cole objected to sign it as it said, "I request your interference
in my behalf." Milbourne said it was merely a matter of form
to show to any solicitor that he was retained. (The document
was put in ; it was at tested by Coglan, and the witness Henry
Milbourne had sworn he saw it executed, and signed it at the
time.) Henry Coglan was not present. He would solemnly
swear that he was not. Considered that Milbourne was acting
for himself.
Cross-examined (1)) plaintiff)—Would swear he did not see
either Henry or .plaintiff that day. Had quite a distinct re-
collection. Could nut swear they were not in " a very little
room" adjoining. They were not in and out of the room
at any part of the time, nor did he hear them talking.
The plaintiff addressed the jury, and contended that George
Milbourne only acted as clerk to him. He denied the evidence
of the last witness, and said that it was highly improbable that
an attorney would proceeed for a stranger without money
advanced.
The UNDER-SHERIFF (to the jury)—ls it any use my sum-
ming up ? Jury—No.
UNDER-SHERIFF—What is your verdict? Foreman—For
the defendant.
The Court rose at twelve o'clock.

ASSIZE (INTELLIGENCE.
NORTIIERN ClRCUlT.—Laticuster, Aug, 12.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron RoLFE.)
DUCKETT V. TOMLINSON.
This action was brought to recover damages for the seduc-
tion of the plaintiff's daughter.
The plaintiff is a plasterer at Chorley, and the defendant
a reedmaker at the same place.
Mr. :Seger conducted the case of the plaintiff, and Mr.
Atherton that of the defendant.
The plaintiff's daughter, on being sworn, stated that she was
about 21 years of age. Her family consisted of her father,
aged 52, her mother, aged 60, a younger sister of 19, and
herself. They all lived together in the same house. She had
been in a factory some time back, and her sister was now
engaged in that way. There were three sleeping-rooms in
their house, one of which had been occupied by herself and
her sister, the second by her father and mother, and the
third by an apprentice of her father. The families of
the plaintiff and defendant had for some years been ac-
quainted. Defendant's father died, leaving his widow in the
business of reedmaker, at which the defendant worked, and
after the death of his father, in January, 1844, the defendant
came to lodge at the plaintiff's, his mother lodging at the shop
where he worked, which was a cellar, though one of the prin-
cipal shops of the kind in Chorley. The witness proceeded to
state that her father, at the time the defendant lodged with
them, used to go out to work at an early hour in the morning.
The defendant used to take his meals. He began to pay her
attentions some time after he became a lodger, and since that
she had had a child, of which he was the father, and which
was born on the 27th of last March. The defendant, in
speaking of his property, had said that he had a house in
Chapel-street, and two in Bolton-street. Those in Bolton-
street were cottages, and the other a house letting for 181. a
year. Defendant, as a reedmaker, had the best stock in the
place. He once said he got about 30s. in three days. Ho had,
on one occasion, advised her father not to suffer the visits of a
young mar, who used to frequent the house, observing that his
(the plaintiff's) daughters were respectable girls, and that the
young man was not a person, of good character.
The witness, on cross-examination by Mr. ATHERTON,
stated that defendant paid 2s. 6d. per week for his lodging,
and that that included cooking and washing. When he came
to lodge she and her sister left their room for him, and slept
in the same room with their father and mother. The witness
had been a winder in a factory just before he came to lodge
with the family. He used tp come home sometimes very
late, and she used to sit up, to let him in, the rest of the
family being in bed. The defendant sometimes came home in
liquor. She had not mentioned that to her father. He first
began to take liberties with her on his return home one night
at about 10 o'clock. Her sister was then out also, and re-
turned from the factory-school at about 11 at night. Did
not mention the defendant's attempt upon that occasion.
That was the latter end of March. She continued to sit up
for him as before, and he repeated his attempt in April,
and again in May. Did not mention those attempts to any
one. It was at 6 o'clock one morning that defendant
succeeded in his purpose. There was no one else in the
house then but the apprentice. Her father was gone to his
work, and her mother on a journey, and her sister to the
factory.
The girl's sister was called, and confirmed, to some extent,
the foregoing evidence.
Mr. J. Walworth, manufacturer, of Chorley, stated that the
girl had worked in his factory. Knew the defendant, and had
purchased reeds of hint. His business is worth about 1001.
a year. Does not know, but supposes that he must employ a
man or two to assist him in the business,
Mr. ATHERTON, in addressing the jury for the defendant,
said, that it was admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to some
damages, because the defendant did not deny that he was the
father of the child, and he (Mr. Atherton) could not altoge-
ther justify tt e conduct which had unfortunately taken place
between these young peeele. But this was a mere question of
money, and the father, by the degree of negligence which he
had betrayed respecting the conduct of his own daughter,
did not show himself entitled to more than moderate da-
mages. It was not a proper thing that this young woman
should have been left up of nights to let in a lodger like the
defendant, and it was a remarkable fact in the case that, in
order to find room for the defendant, the father had allowed
the two young women, his daughters, to leave their own
room, and to sleep in a room occupied by himself. With. re-
spect to the means of the defendant, it was not distinctly shown
that he in fact possessed anything at all, and it was most
inconsistent with the idea of his having property of his own that
he should be lodging at a house where he paid but 2s. 6d.
a week for house-room, cooking, and washing included. It
was for the jury, however, to determine what amount of damages
might be just; he would only submit that the nature of this
particular case was such as to suggest that they ought to be
moderate, and more particularly as it bad not been proved that
the lather had been put to any additional expense on account
of what had happened to his daughter.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up the case, appeared to express
it as his opinion that it did nut necessarily follow, from what was
admitted on the plaintiff's side, that the plaintif himself was at
all to blame, or that he had in any degree been negligent as to
the conduct of the girl.
The jury consulted together for two or three minutes, and
then gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 701.

was held in a large meadow, belonging to Mr. Paul
Deane, situate about a mile from the town, at the Dublin
side, on the crown of an elevated hill overlooking Lough
Erne, and in full view of the magnificent mountain
scenery around.
Among those present at the meeting were the fol-
lowing :—John Gilloghly, Esq.; Henry Grey Archdall,
Esq. ; Michael Burke, Esq., Trory Glebe ; William
Dane, Etq.; Samuel Yeates Johnston, Esq.; James
Chartres, It:sq.; Rev. Charles Walsh, Clones ; It. May n,
Esq. ; Countess of Enniskillen, Capt. Archdall, the
and Rev. Mr. Maude, Edward Archdall,
J.P., Riversdale; James Lendrum, Rev. Henry M. Wind,
Nelturbet ; Mr. Eaton Caldheck, Rev. Mr. M'Clutchy,
Rev. Mr. Raydon, Nicholas Archdall, Esq.; Rev. Chas
Bell, James Moore, Esq.; Robert Weir, Esq.; DocOr
Kernan, Robert Alexander Hunt, Lisnsskea ; Rev.
Hugh Hamilton, Rev. William Moffatt, Rev. Mr.
Newport, B. White, Charles Jones, Maurice Maxwell,
Rev. Mr. Wilson, Rev. R. N. Taylor, Arthur Holmes,
Esq.; Thomas Irwin, Esq ; Doctor Finlay, Swanlinbar ;
Rev. John Hudson, Rodney Bell, Esq ; Thomas Dawson,
Esq.; Rev. Hugh Hamilton, jun.
Several of the persons in the procession carried Bibles
in their hands, tied round with orange and blue ribbons.
The chair was taken by Lord George Loftus, who
having shortly addressed the meeting,
Samuel Johnson, Esq., of Scion-hill, came forward and
moved the first rt solution, to the effect that they deemed
the resuscitation of the Orange system as necessary for
their prof., ction..
Arthur Holmes Grant, Secretary of the Orange Lodge
of Monaghan, proposed the second resolution, which was
seconded by Mr. Wm. Dane, and carried unanimously.
Mr. Henry G. Archdall proposed the next resolution,
which was seconded by .Alr. John Johnson, Secretary of
the Grand Orange Lodge of Ulster.
The Rev. John Frith proposed the next resolution,
which was adopted.
The meeting pledgod themselves never to support any
candidate at an election who did not join the Orange
S,ciety.
The meeting separated peaceably.

" London, July 22, 1845.
" Sir—ln consideration of your having this day advanced
me the sum of 258/. 53. I have deposited with you, as a
collateral security fer the repayment of the same, the following
warrants, &c., for tea, as per particulars annexe,l—l hereb)
engage to repay you the said nauney, 2581. ss. Bd., in cash or
Bank of England notes, with interest at the rate of five per
cent. per annum, on or before the Bth of August next, which,
if I fail to do, 1 authorise you to sell the said tea by public or
private sale, and should any loss or losses, together with all
costs, charges, &e., I eng ige to pay the same on demand, the
said teas being at this time my property.
(Signed) "W. G. BLAND,
" Mr. C. V. Millard."

Mr. Josiah Brown, wholesale tea dealer, at No. 47. Curson-
street, having been called as amicus (Haifa by the Lord Mayor
to give some explanation with regard to the practice of the
trade, made his affirmation, and, in answer to his Lordship,
said, " Bought at three months means, that when sold at three
months, and the teas are not wanted before that time, they
are to be paid for on that day, and warrants taken in exchange
for the money if wanted before. If the parcel were a hundred
chest parcel, there would be six or nine chest lots, and if
we want six or a hundred chests we pay for that proportion.
A month prompt usually refers to second-hand parcels, that is,
those which are in the hands of the trade ; but it is usual, by
way of courtesy, to deliver the warrants, but it depends upon
the seller treating his buyer with confidence. If not he retains
the warrants ; but I cannot say what is more usual, withhold-
ing the warrants or delivering them."
Mr. Clarkson said that the evidence which his Lordship had
heard constituted the case against Alr. Bland, and Mr. Sidney,
whose conduct was influenced by no feeling but a sense of
justice and of duty to the public, left it entirely to his Lord-
ship to decide upon the course to be adopted on its future
prosecution.

WESTERN CI t.—Devises, August 12.
(Before Mr. Justice Eats. )
Thomas Sheppard was indicted for having, on the 22d of
March, sent a letter to Sir Francis Dugdale Astley, Bart.,
threatening to destroy his property, at Everleigh.
From the evidence, it appeared that, on the 22d of March last,
a woman was going along the garden of a person of the name
of Coles, who resided near the mansion-house of Sir Francis
Astley, at Everleigh, when seeing something on the ground,
she picked it up, and it proved to be a letter addressed to Sir
Francis Astley. The letter went through different hands,
until it reached Eir Francis Astley, when it turned out to be
the following
" Everly,—Sir Frances, if ther is flat littel alteration in
Everley verey soon that som of the pepeel send out of the
parish of Everley. as ther is more then hundred inhabetens
brote iwo the parish since Sir Frances is com to Everley, and
Mr. Brown and Mr. Thorall, and if ther is not littel altera-
tion made, we will burn the whoul parish dune to the ground.
if the land were put into small far ms ther would more hands
employed, and if ther is not, we will burn the wohol parish
doun to the ground, for it our intengen to it set after."
The prisoner was apprehended in two days, and he was
asked to write a letter, which he consented to do, and the
found letter was dictated to him, and he wrote from the dicta-
tion, but that which he wrote was in a much better hand, and was
correctly spelt. A parish clerk was called, who stated that
the prisoner, in 1837, had been clerk to a benefit society, and
he had, therefore, become familiar with his handwriting. Upon
looking at the letter found in the garden, he said ho did net
believe it to be in the prisoner's writing. A gentleman from
Doctors'-commons,
who called himself an inspector of disputed
writings, stated, that from a careful examination of the letter,
he was convinced that it was written in a disguised hand. The
prisoner had left Everleigh for two years, and had worked at
Marlborough; but on the day in question he was at Everleigh,
and complained of the hardness of the times.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he knew nothing about it ;
he had never written such a letter in his life.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the case, the jury
returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
William Cox was indicted for maliciously cutting and wound-
ing James Humphries, at Corsham, will) intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
This prisoner was a poor miserable looking wretch, with his
head tied up with a handkerchief.
The evidence was very simple. It appeared that on the 7th
of March last the prosecutor, being sergeant of the Corsbam
Court of Requests, went, accompanied by two other per sons,
to the house of the prisoner to levy an execution. On their
arrival they found the door of the cottage open; they walked
in, and saw Cox sitting down in the room. They told him
what they were come about. He said he had no money. They
said they should take the goods. The prisoner then stooped
down, picked up a bill-hook, and inflicted a severe wound on
the head of Humphries, who became insensible. There then
seemed to have been some fight between the prisoner and the
other two men, and hard blows indeed must have been given on
botk sides. It, was proved that the prisoner had epileptic fits,
and was mach excited when money was mentioned.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to
'is months imprisonment without hard labour:

The LORD MAYOR said that he had maturely considered the
whole of the evidence, and had come to the decision that Mr.
Bland must appear elsewhere to answer the very serious
charge against him. It was evident to him that Mr.
Bland had used false representations to obtain the warrants,
which he had disposed of, which had been asked for under the
pretence of sampling, and handed to a person, in the habit of
rendering pecuniary assistance to Mr. Bland, for money, an
hour after they had been thus improperly procured.
Mr. Parry asked for what definite offence his Lordship
thought of committing Mr. Bland.
The LORD MAYOtt stated that he should hold Mr. Bland to
bad to appear at the Central Criminal Court, to answer any
charge which Mr. Sidney might think proper to bring against
him.
Mr. Parry protested against a committal of so vague and
indefinite a description, and
Mr. Bland earnestly requested that his Lordship would bind
ever Mr. Sidney and the witnesses to prosecute.
The LORD MAYOR consented, and the defendant was re-
quested to enter into his own recogniaances to the amount o
500 L to appear at the next sessions of the Central Criminal
Court, to answer any charge which might be brought against
him by Mr. Sydney.
BOW-STREET.

Peter Matlewitt was charged before Mr. Twyford with dis-
orderly conduct in the Cock and Alagpie public-house.
Charles Allen, the landlord of the Cock and Magpie, stated
that the prisoner, who was until then unknown to him, slept
at his house last night. This morning, shortly after eight
o'clock, he left his bedroom, and sit down on the stairs in his
shirt, much to the annoyance of complainant and of the female
members of his household. Complainant endeavoured to per-
suade hint to go back to his room, but Biding that he would
not be persuaded, and supposing hint to be insane, he sent fur
a policeman and gave the prisoner in charge.
The policeman spike to finding the prisoner sitting on the
stairs, as described by the complainant, arid gave it his opinion
that he was insane.

The prisoner, who did not appear to understand the evidence,
said, in a very incoherent manner, that he had been turned out
of the room b) the complainant, who refused to give him his
clothes. He contradited both witnesses as to time, and sa►d
that he had been a servant of the complainant.
In answer to a question tram Mr. Twit-Faun, the complainant
said that the prisoner had never been employed by him.
Mr. TWYFORD said that the prisoner was evidently in=ane,
and desired the policeman to take him to the Strand Union
Workhouse, where he would be taken care of until his friends
were discovered.—The prisoner was then removed.
MARLBURUUGH-S IT.EE

William Brown, an toteligent-looking boy, between eight
and nine years of age, with his mother, Susannah Brown,
were charged, the first on suspicion of robbing to a very con-