The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

country for his early offence, he had recovered his standing
in society, and down to the present moment enjoyed the
respect and esteem of many friends, while he had acquired
some amount of worldly wealth. He (Mr. Kelly) would
show that the alleged motive for committing the crime of
murder, that of embarrassed circumstances and inability to
continue a pecuniary payment, did not exist. He would
show, also, that witnesses for the prosecution came prepared
to support mere matters of theory, speculation, and opinion,
and that their evidence, although given under the sanction of
an oath, was not of any weight. He would show, too, that
the indefensible language and conduct of the accused, in
connexion with this case may be accounted for on other
grounds than that of his having been guilty of murder.
Before the prosecution could call upon the jury to condemn
the prisoner to death, it must be proved that the deceased
died of poison, and that that poison was prussic acid taken
into the stomach. The evidence was not only defective, but
entirely so divested of that certainty which should
be infused into the mind, but which must become
part of the constitution of the mind itself in a case
of this kind, that the jury must pause before they thought of
convicting the prisoner of the crime of murder. He quite
agreed with his Learned Friend that direct evidence could not
always be expected to prove a charge of murder; but, upon
the question that the woman died of poison, the Jury were
bound to demand positive and direct evidence. In the case
of murder by strangling or wounding, circumstantial evi-
dence might suffice, but not in a case of poison. Formerly
convictions and executions had taken placefor the murder of
persons afterwards found to be alive. Now, that could not
be the case; the jury must be made certain of the fact ofdeath
by irrefragable evidence. It was the duty of the prosecation
not only to prove the death, but the cause of the death, in a
case of this kind; and upon that principle he called upon
the jury to have, before they sent the prisoner to a horrid
and ignominious death, evidence that the woman died of
taking prussic acid. What were the jury called upon to be-
lieve? A woman in health, as it appeared, had died suddenly,
and the prosecutor asked the jury to take away the life of
the prisoner on the supposition that she had died from prus-
sic acid, and not from any one of the numerous causes of
sudden death. If ever there was a case in which the blessed
principle of our law should be regarded, that there should be
positive proof of guilt, this was the case. Suppose it was
stated that a person was poisoned by laudanum—would the
jury convict, or the judge suffer the case to go to the jury,
when they heard from the witness for the prosecution, " I
never knew a case of a person dying from taking that
drug?" No, they would ask for some one who could speak
of the effects of laudanum upon the human system of
his own knowledge, and not from what he had read in
books. Those witnesses were irresponsible ; yet they called
upon the jury to sacrifice that man upon the ground only
of what they had read in books, and not upon that of
actual experience. Unhappily this country was not without
experience on this subject. It appeared that of 39 cases,
in no great length of time, poisoned by prussic acid, only
two had been charged with murder, and of all the medical
men who had seen and examined all these cases the prosecu-
tion had brought one. There were many of such witnesses
who could have deposed to whether there was a smell or
not a smell after death, or whether there was a scream or
no scream, or gorged lungs or not; instead of being left to
the uncertain opinions of Mr. Champneys, Mr. Norblad, and
Mr. Pickering, three very young and inexperienced men,
of little practice, whose Opinions did not agree with each
other, and who never saw man, woman, or child who had
been poisoned by prussic acid. It appeared from their evi-
dence that there were doubts, only doubts, as to the quantity
of prussic acid necessary to cause death, and as to all the
effects and operation of the poison, the opinions of the wit-
nesses not being derived from experience, but being founded
on books, containing conflicting opinions and partially re-
ported experiments. There was no positive evidence of the
quantity of poison in the stomach of the deceased, nor of the
source whence it was derived. What was the quantity suffi-
cient to cause death ? That was a question upon which the
jury had to make up their minds at the very outset. Ac-
cording to the published statistics the number of sudden
deaths was 1 in 99 ; so that there were about 3,000 sudden
deaths in the course of a year. Here was a woman died
suddenly, and it was said of prussic acid. How much was
there in the stomach? Witnesses could prove the quantity
of arsenic or opium sufficient to cause death ; but science was
in the dark with regard to prussic acid. Would that jury
be the first to decide such a question in the absence of post
tive evidence, and resting only upon the opinions of persons
who had formed them from reading books, and knew no
more than the jury might learn in half an Hour by reading?
Those books were written by persons now living; why were
they, or some of them, not called to give positive evidence?
The witnesses bad said at least a grain of prussic acid existed
in the woman's stomach, but they had not proved upon their
own knowledge and experience that a grails was sufficient to
cause death. They mentioned one case in which so small a
quantity had killed a person ; but that case they read in
Taylor, who copied it into his book from some other quar-
ter, and the statement of the case was full of errors. He
would call their particular attention to the part of the
book referred to by Mr. Champneys, who had no more prac-
tical knowledge of the quantity of prussic acid that would
cause death than ony one else in Court, and with whom, as
with the other medical witnesses, it was nothing but guess-
work. The part of this work on medical jurisprudence by
Mr. Taylor referred to stated that a person having taken
dilute prussic acid by mistake to the amount of one and a
half drachm of Scheele's acid, spasms and tetanus were pro-
duced, from which the patient did not wholly recover for
thirteen days. It also stated, that " admitting the strength
of the acid to be as represented, this is the largest
dose known to have been taken without causing death."
Would it be just on the supposed validity of an opinion such
as that, found iu a book respecting which lie had not the
power of putting a single question, to ascertain whether or
not there was any error in it—would it be just on such
testimony—the book itself saying, " if the strength of the
acid be correctly represented"—te condemn a man to death ?
If the strength of the acid were not correctly represented,
the deduction was incorrect, and, that being incorrect,
the whole basis of the medical testimony tumbled down. The
same authority, after referring to some cases, stated that he
considered he would be justified in believing that a dose of
Scheele's acid of about 20 grains, which would contain about
one grain of the pure prussic acid, would commonly destroy
life. Well, in addition to Taylor, they had the authority of
Christison referred to. In page 770 of his work on poisons,
he stated that it was important to fix, if possible, the smallest
fatal dose of hydrocyanic (prussic) acid ; but that it must
vary with particular circumstances, such as the strength of
the individual and the fulness or the emptiness of the sto-
mach. Then, quoting the case of a person who was killed
from swallowing two-thirds of a grain of the acid, he went
on to say, that repeated instances of recovery occurred where
a larger quantity bad been taken than two-thirds of a grain,
which he (Mr. Kelly) was prepared to show was more than
had been proved to have been found in this woman's stomach.
They had, therefore, no sworn evidence whatever to clear up
the doubts which existed upon the question of what quantity
of prussic acid would cause death; they had nothing but a
reference to these books, which contained nothing but specu-
lative opinions. If he had the authors of them on the table
to examine, he might, perhaps, be able to arrive at some
more definite conclusion; but, without that, he maintained
that the whole basis of the medical evidence fell to the
ground. Then, with regard to the question of smell, the
Learned Counsel contrasted the evidence of the medical
men, showing in it great discrepancy. Mr. Champneys
fancied in one case and proved in another the existence of
the smell of prussic acid from the contents of the stomach,
while Mr. Norblad, notwithstanding his acute powers of
smell, could not discover it at any period, Mr. Champneys,
who was very candid, first of all admitted as a gene-
ral principle, taken from Taylor, Christison, and other
authorities, hat the odour of the acid was always to be
found, but that that principle was subject to exceptions,
and the exceptions given were three; first, the case of the
seven Parisian epileptics, in which it turned out that is was
in no less than eight days after death examination had taken
place, and that even then, although six persons could not
discover the odour, set that two did. The second and third
cases turned out to be but one, and in that Mr. Champneys
thought that as there was no odour found in the blood there
was none in the stomach. This was shown to have been
an error—one, however, which Taylor's language warranted.
for he said in speaking of it that "the body was examined,"
leading Mr. Champneys to suppose that the stomach was
included. This was an error which, if not detected, might
have proved fatal to the prisoner, but one which showed how
awful was the degree of danger, however learned the wit-
nesses, and however diligent their search into books of au-

tbority, of relying upon such evidence as they had received
from the chief witness here, Mr. Champneys, which he him-
self believed to be true. It might be undissolved apples,
bitter almonds, or anything else containing prussic acid,
which was present, and yet no sufficient smell arise to attract
the attention of Mr. Cooper or the other medical witnesses;
but how, upon the whole of the evidence of those witnesses,
deduced from books, it could be concluded that an entire
grain of prussic acid, the amount stated by Mr. Cooper, could
have been present in a free state or in a liquid, such as porter,
and yet not be discovered by persons of acute smell, like Mr.
Norblad, or after the liquor had been subjected to a boiling
heat, and then smelt to by the chemist, he ( tr. Kelly) was
at a total loss to understand. When combined with bitter
almonds, it was reasonable enough to believe that it could
not be smelt ; but in a free state, such as it is in Scheele's
acid, where it was continually volatalizing and flying off—
how was it possible that it could be subjected day after day to
these experiments, and particularly to a boiling heat, and yet
not be 'discovered by its odour, by that prosf of the presence
of the acid which was acknowledged to be a matter of
common occurrence, and which, as in the case of the seven
epileptics, was by some persons so long as eight
days after death ? The Learned Gentleman then applied
himself to the evidence of Mr. Cooper, respecting his exa-
mination of the contents of the stomach, which examination
he had admitted to have been incomplete, and also to his ana-
lysis of apple pips, which ho also admitted to have been in-
complete, as he was not able to say how much prussic acid
he had obtained from the pips of 15 apples. He wished to
impress upon the jury this, that, next to bitter almonds.
there was no substance which contained more prussic acid
than the pips of apples, the quantity differing according to
the nature of the apple ; some descriptions of apples con-
taining it in a great quantity, and in such a form as, in the
human stomach particularly, if swallowed whole, or but
slightly masticated, would render its smell imperceptible.
Then Mr. Cooper had not told them what quantity of apple
he had found-iertheatermith;Mit having attempted to as-
certain that fact. The jury were also in utter ignorance of
how much of the acid Mr. Cooper extracted from his first and
second experiments. He was unable to tell them. Accord-
ing to his recollection, for he spoke only from recollection,
he had used about two-thirds of the contents of the liquid
brought to him within his first, second, and third experi-
ments, and that from the remaining one-third ho extracted
28-100ths of a grain of the acid, or a fraction more than
one-foarth of a grain. He attempted to deduce from that,
that the entire contents contained a grain of the acid, but
they had no sworn evidence of that fact. The opinion of the
witness upon the point was purely conjectural. Now, even
admitting that conjectures upon the point should go to the
jury, he (Mr. Kelly) maintained that in this case the conjecture
should not weigh with the jury the 100th part of a grain.. Mr.
Cooper concluded that because he extracted one-fourth
of a grain from a portion of the contents, the rest of the con-
tents contained it in the same ratio, that the acid was
equally diffused through the whole, and that if he was right
in his recollectien of the quantity he-had used in the former
experiments, that a fourth of a grain would prove the exis-
tence of an entire grain in the entire contents. Now, seeing
that he only spoke from recollection of the quantity, and
seeing also that he had admitted in his evidence that he
found very little of the acid the first time, more the next,
and still more the third, thus showing that as he got nearer
to the bottom of the contents he got more of the solids, and
of those portions of the contents that would produce prussic
acid,—observing these things, which he (Mr. Kelly) begged
ofthe jury calmly to do, he did think it was not evidence
upon which they could agree to take away the life of a fel-
low-creature. In opposition to this evidence, the Learned
Gentleman replied on that given by Mr. Thomas, in which
that witness admitted that he had extracted half a grain of
prussic acid from the pips of fifteen apples, and on the pos-
sibility of accounting for the presence of prussic acid in the
contents of deceased's stomach by the fact of apple and
other substances containing prussic acid having been found
in those contents. Supposing that the pips of the apples
produced a fourth of a grain,—suppose there was some little
in the cake which she had eaten,—suppose there was some
in the saliva which she must have swallowed in a large
quantity when masticating the apples, and which was known
to contain much prussic acid,—suppose there was some in the
animal substances, and, although it was stated that they
would not yield prussic acid without being subjected to a
greater heat than they had been subjected to, yet it was
known that, when undergoing decomposition, prussic acid
was constantly being evolved,—suppose these things, put
together all these probabilities, keeping in mind that they
have had positive evidence that the pips of fifteen apples
produced half a grain of prussic acid, and he asked them
how they could, if they did not wish to commit murder
themselves, convict the prisoner of that crime ? If there
was not enough of prussic acid in the stomach to account
for death, there was an end of the case. But of what did
she die ? It was not for him to show. But it was said her
screams indicated death by prussic acid. Where was there
ever any evidence to prove that such a death was attended
by a succession of screams, instead of a single one, called
the "death scream," after a convulsion or two 1 Had the
heart been paralyzed by prussic acid, or otherwise, the blood
could not be received back from the lungs into the heart ;
it must remain in the lungs, and gorge them. But the
witnesses had declared that there was no congestion of
the lungs. Mr. Champnevs, however, after a reference to
the books, admitted that the lungs were slightly congested.
Was that evidence upon which to decide a case of life and
death ? It was far too doubtful to justify the adverse ver-
dict for which the jury were asked by the Crown. Again,
there was the fact that the woman was in a state of syncope,
and that she was choked by her neighbour pouring water
down her throat. Again, how many causes of sudden death
were there? The late Sergeant Andrews, in a moment of
aberration of mind, cut his throat. The wound was sewn up,
but a few days afterwards the wound burst out afresh, and
he died. Who could doubt that the cause of his death was
the cutting of his throat? But, on investigation, it turned
out that the cause of death was the rupture of a bloodvessel.
Suppose a person had been tried for inflicting that wound,
an the coincident fact had not been revealed, would not the
person have been in danger of being convicted of murder?
Therefore, the jury should be cautious, and take it into con-
sideration all the coincidences of this case. He now ap-
proached some other points with pain. Enough was known
of the former life of the prisoner which might create a pre-
judice against him ; but he implored the jury not to be led
Tway by that to suppose that the prisoner had ever been
guilty of any unkind or cruel act towards any individual.
His Learned Friend had imputed to the prisoner a motive
for committing murder. Now, he would not deny that by
the deceased woman he had two children. That was an act
of immorality, and if the prisoner had not bitterly repented
it, he had at least bitterly suffered for it already. He al-
lowed that won:an about 1L a week. Would the saving- of
that sum be a sufficient reason with a person in his eircum-
stances to commit murder? And would it be politic in him.,
to destroy her, and bring upon himself the care of bringing
up his children, and of introducing them perhaps into the
family of his present wife? Then, as to his circumstances,
the evidence of the banker's clerk had shown that they were
not embarrassed. That he was still a man of kindly dis-
position, his present wife could prove, but she could not be
called as a witness. However, a letter was put in on the

previous day, which was a witness in his favour, and
he would read to the jury. It was written on the Yst of
January, the very day on which it was supposed he was
actually about to commit murder My only loved one,—
My thoughts have been with thee throughout the day, and I
can't but hope thou art feeling better than when thou left
us. Do, my endeared one, endeavour to keep up tby spirits
or my sake." No woman could ever write in those terms to
a husband past sixty yes," of age, whose wife she had been
four years, if he had been a cruel and hard-hearted man.
"We had no letters by the twopenny post. Poor Susan has
been but poorly all day long, but hopes to be able to go to.-
morrow. Richard Squire called here this afternoon, and
chatted a while, and Hannah and Dorcas are now with us
Darling Harry has been very merry all day, and looks so
sweet. Sarah Chase called to invite Eliza to dine with her
off turkey; 'Some young men were to be present. She de.
dined the invitation. Oh, how I long to hear what the Syd-
ney papers say of the state of things there. My poor mind
rises and falls as I see how these vicissitudes affect thee ; and
I find it hard work to attain to that wise resignation which
becomes us under all the decrees of a wise Providence. I
think I could bear up better if the whole burden was on me
alone ; but that is impossible. Ido hope, my dear husband,
You will bear up. The year has opened with a lovely day.
I hope it is an omen of the future which await us... Fare-
well, under every circumstances thy beloved wife." The
Learned Counsel shed tears once or twice while reading this
letter, and then proceeded to say that no man could receive
such a letter as that and do an act which would make his
affectionate wife a widow and his children fatherless.
What the circumstances were to which the letter alluded
he did not know, but it spoke volumes for his character
as to kindness. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded
to contend that the prisoner had supposed the deceased
to be acting when he left, and that to alarm him she
might have pretended to put something in the stout, cam-
phor, for instance, of which one of the phials found in the
house smelt. But the covering of a bottle had been pro-
duced which, instead of fitting the bottle of prussic acid ob-
tained by the prisoner from the chemist in Bishopsgate-
street, was proved by that witness to be neither of the same
size nor substance as the coverings he was in the habit of
using. That was a great failure in the link of evideace
against the prisoner. The cover produced was calcined, and
who could tell that some bottle procured by the woman for
the purpose of acting might not have been thrown in the
fire by her and burnt ? Not that he meant to imply that
the woman had poisoned herself; for he did not believe she
had died of poison at all, but from scant one of the many
causes of sudden death. As to other circumstances, his run-
ning, for instance, why it was a cold night. His going to
Herschell-house was a circumstance of no consequence; and
though tracked about he was found to have gone to public
places only, and in a dress which could be easily recognised.
True, he evaded, and when he did not evade he told a direct
untruth. But was that evidence against him of having
committed murder? He had an affectionate wife at Berk-
hamstead, with whom and his children he was living
happily, when the police-officer challenged him, and he for
the first time heard of the death of the woman, and it was
natural for him, coupling the recollection of his former life
with it, a life upon which he could not fall back, to deny any
knowledge of the deceased. In common justice, while they
could not justify his departure from truth, it would be un-
charitable to conclude on that account that he was guilty of
murder. True, he bought Scheele's acid. Why? He suffered
from varicose veins in the leg, and it was prescribed for
him. Besides, he had been in the habit of purchasing it at
the same shop for more than a year. There was no proof
that he had that prussic acid at Slough. He informed the
chemist that he lost the bottle. Was that false? The
prosecution had not proved it to be so. After commenting
upon the open manner in which the prisoner had gone about
from plase to. place, the Learned Counsel complained of a
previous incident, the sickness of the deceased woman on the•
30th of September last, having been brought against the
prisoner to his prejudice upon this occasion ; but the jury
would remember that a witness, while he swore that the symp-
toms were such as would be produced by prussic acid, admitted
that he had never seen such a case. But, had that been

the cafe, it was very unlikely that the prisoner would repeat
the same experiment of poisiining with prussic acid in porter
three months afterwards. As to the real cause of the death
of the woman, that, like many other things, might perhaps
ever remain a mystery. If the prisoner had evaded and de-
parted from the truth, he hoped the jury would not on that
ground conclude that he had committed murder. A man
might commit an offence in early life and retrieve himself—.

AYLESBURY, FRIDAY, HALF-PAST TWELVE O'CLOCK.—
The trial of John Tawell has just closed in a verdict of
Guilty, and the unhappy prisoner has been sentenced to
death.

The town appears quite in a state of excitement, and the
verdict was received by many with surprise, while on the
other hand a great many people had made certain of
his conviction, for the feeling in Aylesbury and the neigh-
bourhood was very strong against him.
The Court again opened at eight o'clock this morning
and was more crowded even than yesterday. •

Mr. Baron Parke took his seat on the bench at a few
minutes after that hour, and the prisoner was immedi-
ately brought in and placed in the dock. He appeared
much as he did yesterday, with this difference, that his face
bad a more anxious and worn expression. The feeling of ex-
citemeat in Court with regard to the issue appeared in-
tense.

The Learned JUDGE, as soon as silence had been
proclaimed, commenced summing up the evidence
which he did with a lucidness well calculated to leave
the minds of the jury in a befitting condition for the
discharge of the awful duty which they had to per-
form. The effect was felt, however, to be, upon the
whole, against the prisoner. His Lordship concluded
in the usual manner, by leaving the awful de-
cision of the question of the prisoner's life or death in the
hands of the jury, telling them if they had any fair and
reasonable doubt, they must give the prisoner
,the benefit
of it.

The jury retired for deliberation at half•past eleven o'clock,
and a sensation in which a general feeling of anxiety u to
the event, appeared to pervade the breasts of the majority of
those present.

After an absence of rather more than half an hour, they
returned into Court and the Foreman delivered a " VER-
DICT OF GUILTY," amid the most profound silence.
The JUDGE then proceeded to pass the awful sen-
tence of Death upon the prisoner. He told him
that he had been found guilty by a jury of his coun-
trymen upon evidence which had perfectly satisfied
him (Baron Parke) and them, and he thought every
fair and reasonable person who had heard it, that he
had committed a most heinous, diabolical, cowardly
murder upon his unfortunate victim. He then passed the
sentence of death in the usual manner, ordering that his body,
after execution, should be buried within the walls of the
gaol.

The unhappy man received the sentence with an extraor-
dinary amount of firmness ; and, beyond the nervousness which
we noticed yesterday he betrayed very little emotion,
although numbers of persons in Court were in tears, and
some of the females sobbed aloud. He was then removed
back to the prison, and the public immediately quitted the
Court.

TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
ST. JAMES'S PALACE, Manor 12, 1845.
The Queen was this day pleased to confer the honour of
Knighthood upon James Cochrane, Esq., Chief Justice of
Gibraltar.
FOREIGN-OFFICE, MARCH 12.
The Queen has been pleased to approve of M. Krehmer, as
Acting Consul-General in Great Britain for his Imperial
Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias.
The Queen has also been pleased to approve of Mr. Pieter
Romyn, as Vice-Consul at Stockton ; of Mr. John Owen, as
Vice-Consul at Cardiff ; and of Mr. Stephen Campbell, as
Vice-Consul at Newport ; for his Royal Highness the Grand
Duke of Mecklenburgh- Schwerin.
WAR-OFFICE, Mancrt 14.
sth Regiment of Dragoon Guards—Brevet Lieut.-Col. H.
D. Campbell, from half-pay Unattached, to be Major, vice
Francis Westenra, who exchanges; Captain J. W. King to
be Major, by purchase, vice Campbell, who retires; Lieut. J.
Conolly to be Captain, by purchase, vice King; Cornet Sir
W. H. Don, Bart. to be Lieut., by purchase, vice Conollv ;
C. P. Johnson, Gent., to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Sir W.
H. Don, March 14. .
12th Regiment of Foot—ll. H. Poitier, Gent., to be En-
sign, by purchase, vice Viscount Malden, appointed to the
Rifle Brigade, March 14.
22d Foot—To be Lieutenants, without purchase—Lient.
R. W. Woods, from 3d Foot, vice M'Murdo, promoted, March
13 ; Lieut.T. G. Souter, from the 3d Foot, vice Colleton, ap-
pointed to 77th Foot, March 14. •
61st Foot—Lieutenant and Adjutant C. T. Bentley, front
the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment, to be Adjutant and Lieu-
tenant, vice Birch, deceased, March 14.
86th Foot—Staff-Surgeon of the Second Class A. Thom
to be Surgeon, vice Smith, who exchanges, March 14.
Rifle Brigade—Ensign Arthur de Vere Viscount Malden,
from 12th Foot, to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice
StandiSh, who retires, March 14.
HofferTar, STAYF.—Surgeon G. R. Dartnell, from the Ist
Foot, to be Staff-Surgeon of the First Class; Surgeon A.
Smith, M.D., from 86th Foot, to be Staff Surgeon of the
Second Class, vice Thom, who exchanges, March 14.
UxarraenED.—Brevet-Colonel W. Stavely (Deputy-
Quartermaster-General at the Mauritius) from Major half-
pay Unattached, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, without purchase,
March 14.
MEMORANDUAL—The Christian names of Captain Call, of
the 18th Foot,'are George Frederick Stevenson.
Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Devon.
South Devon Regiment of Militia—The Right Hon. Ed-
mund Earl of Morley to be Colonel, Jan. 8.
North Devon Regiment ofYeomanry Cavalry—G. S. Buck,
Esq., to be Captain ' - W. D. Horndon, Gent., to be Lieuten-
ant; A. R. Hole, Gent., to be Lieutenant; G. Harding,
Gent., to be Cornet • H. Ly, Gent., to be Cornet, Sept. 17.
BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.
Samuel Makepiece, woollen printer, Mitcham, Surrey.
BANKRUPTS.
Frederic Lindsay Cole, wine merchant., Fenchurch-street,
to surrender March 31, at twelve, and April 25, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-
street ; Goddard, Wood-street, Cheapside.
Mary Conway Painter, grocer, Great Peter-street, West-
minster, March 29, at two, and April 25, at twelve, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-
lane ; llillyard, Furnival's Inn.
John Green, wine merchant, Pall-mall, March 29, at half-
past
twelve, and April 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-lane ; Baxendale and Co.,
Great Winchester-street, City.
Thomas Nelson Deatonlloward, merchant, Adelaide Hotel,
London-bridge, March 29, at half-past one, and April 25, at
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official as-
signee, Basinghall-street ; Buchanan and Grainger, Basing-
hall-street.
William Henry Mills, wine merchant, Mark-lane, March
25 and April 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Pennell, ofkial assignee; Kearsey and Masterman, Buck-
lersbury.
George Wagner, draper, Bloomsbury-square, March 25 and
April 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher,
official assignee ; Turner and Hensman, Basing-lane.
William Meek, ironmonger, Southampton, March 25 and
April 29, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand,
official assignee, Old Jewry-chambers; 13ircham and I)al.
rymple, Bedford-row.
Julius Thompson, cheesemonger, Wiginore-street, Caven-
dish-square, March 25, at half-past two, and April 29, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assig.
nee, Coleman-street; Gauntlett, Gray's Inn-place.
Samuel Ilurd, hardwareman, Rochester, March 25 and
May 5, at half-past past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Green, official assignee, Aldermanbury ; Smith, Wilming-
tou-square.
William Debnev, victualler, Mistley, Essex, March 25, at
eleven, and April' 22, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-place, Old CW/T
Wire and Child, St, Swithia's-lane, London; Barnes,
cbester.
John Botcherby, coal owner, Darlington, Durham, March
28, at eleven, and May 7, at two, at,„. the Newcastle-upon-
Tyne District Court. Wakley, official aseiguee, Newcastle-