The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-21 00:00:00

IN RE CHAMBERS.

His HONOUR then proceeded to give judgment in this
case. The principal point was whether certain freehold
property, amongst which was the Opera House, and pos-
sessed before the bankruptcy by James Chambers, was
to be applied for the benefit of the joint creditors. The
Learned Commissioner quoted a variety of cases in sup-
port of his judgment, that the mode of dealing with
the property had been such as to show that it had been
treated as partnership property—the bankers books went
a considerable way to prove it. It was not inconsistent
to declare it joint property under the bankruptcy,
although in the House of Lords it had been decreed that
it belonged to_James Chambers—in that case it was a
question beta een Chambers and Walters, but now it
was a question as to the estate. He founded his opinion
on the principle that a trust might be created without
writing, but proved by subsequent writings or facts.
The property would therefore be applied for the joint
estate. a

Th►e Solicitor to the assignees said, that ultimately
there would be a dividend of 15s. to 17s. in the pound.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Aug. 20.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
MARSHALL V. STEVENS.
This was an action to recover compensation for damage
done to premises of which the defendant, who is a brick-
la3e7r, was lessee.
Tt•e defendant allowed judgment to go by default.
It. appared hat the defendant had been on the pre-
mises, which were situate in Church-street, Deptford,
i'er nearly seven years, and received notice to quit at
21.1J:itantner last. On the premises being viewed, it
eppeared that a .all had been knocked down, another
heel siren way en mas.3e from the foundation, and was
leaning nine ine.ies out of the perpeedi-ular, and the
corners of an outhouse had been carried away, together
with the gates, which had been forced off i.he hinges.
Ali this damage was attributed to the careless manner in
whict the detendunt's man had backed carts against the
wall. The damages were estimated at 301. The de-
fendant had taken a quantity of materials to make good
the repairs, but the plaintiff insisted upon pecuniary
compensation.

Zwithes was eallpd who deposed th
wall must he putted down, and_ it would (
to righti, w ior the short all, and 6/. for putting up the
corners of the house.

"leaning"
to set it

A question arose as to an admission of the rent being
due ; the defendant's wife having, in the presence of her
husi:and, pr 'raised to send the money. This was held
to be grod in law.
The jury consulted for a long time, and asked whether
they ought not to make an allowance for the decay of
the premises. The walls were old, so that 4-I;!rht violence
would cause the damage ; but one wall, at least, ought
not to he charged for, if it could lean like the "rower of
Pia and not fall.—(Laughter.)
The SECONDARY said the amount was enti:ely at tLe
diicretwn of the jury on the evidence.
The jury consulted a considerable time, and then give
Verdict for plaintiff, damages 104, rent 7i.

CENTRAL CRI:vIINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Before the Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR and Mr.
Justice WIGHTIAN.)
FonGEßY.—Thomas Feat, aged 25, stated to be an
eugmeer and cab proprietor, who stood remanded from
hat session, was placed at the bar on a charge of forgery.
Mr. Bodkin 'was for the prosecution ; Mr. Ballantine
for the prisoner.
Mr. BODKIN detailed -the case. He would show by
competent witnesses that the prisoner had been a groom
in the service of Mr. Laitham, who had an account with
the banking house of Robarts and Company. He would
prove also that as early as the 16th of September, 1843,
a bill of exchange for the sum of 1501 had been pre-
sented to the house of Roberts and Co., purporting to
be drawn by a Mr. Smith, and accepted by Mr.
,Laitham. It was inclosed in a note, and the bankers
shaving no suspicion, at once discounted it. On
'the 9th of March, 1844, another bill for the
sum of 751. was similarly presented, and also discounted,
the produce being paid to the person who presented it.
:It would not be in the power of the prosecutor to pro-
fduce these bills, because, before they came to maturity,
another bill of 3501 was discounted, the party receiving
it withdray.ieg the two previous bills of 1501 and 751
But on the 28th Septebber, 1844, another bill, being the
fourth of the series, was presented and discounted in a
similar unsuspicious manner, and he (Mr. Bodkin) should
show that the notes received on that occasion were
-changed at the Bank of England for gold, and a false
mame and address, in the handwriting of the prisoner,
placed up.,n them. He should also show that a note for
501.--on • of those paid at the bank—had been paid to a
ken .f,eiety by the prisoner. Having proved these facts,
he thought the evidence would be sufficiently conclusive
against the prisoner.
Mr. Abraham Roberts, banker, was first called. Mr.
Laitham bad been a customer of their's for many years.
On the 30th December a bill of exchange, purporting to
be accopt,(l by that gentleman, was presented and by his
ord-rs tii,coonted. The bill was for 1501., and it was
inel. 'sod in a note, signed Richard Laitham, 65, King's-
road, Bayswater.

Mr. George Henry Blackett, clerk at Messrs. Ro-
bart., had given instructions to cash the bill presented
on tin. 30th December, 1844.

M.% Robert Morris, cashier. paid, the money, 1501., in
December last in three nobs, one No. 11.504, 100/,
da,t,cl 9th October ; one No. 60.554 for 40L. d ili-d the
and one for 104 numbered 15,466, and ,'a d
0,..16iLer.

Mr. Robertson, c?erl; in the issue department. Bank of
England, had changed the notes mentioned by the last
71.1+•y were old in gold on the 3(lth December.
,ot identify the p,rson who received the money.
inantigt r of a loan. society, iu St. Jo, n-
atrr r, had frequent transactions with the
pris,,ner, and was well acquainted with his handwriting.
P.e bid was in the handwriting, of the prisoner, as was
di-o the ii,tmei on the back i)f the not, F.
Ml.. fl. Dry Year, clerk to the last witness, orroborated
hi 010 cr's evidence.
'GeOrv,o Henry Blacked was recalled, and stated
that a bill for 150/. was discounted on the 16th Sir t.,
vs-13. as also a bill for 751. on tht, 9th Margin, 1844. The
latter bill was paid in five 101. notes, Nos. 23,929 to
23,933 inclusive, and dated 3d February, and four Si.
1,;. 44,239 to 44,342 inclusive, and dated the Ist

Febro-ry.
Mr. M'llonald recalled and examined—ldentified the
letters in which these bills were inclosed, as the hand-
writing of the prisoner.
Mr. Pear was recalled to prove the same fat.
Martin Saddler Thornton, clerk in the Bank of Eng-
land, nad given gold for a 501. note on the 30th Septem-
ber. 1543. The name on the back was Peat.
Pifthard John Sykes, clerk in the issue department, had
eh.inged three of the 101. notes, numbered 23,929, &c.
Other clerks in the Bank of England proved the ex-
ehauae of others of the notes received from Messrs. Ro-
berts, for gold.
Mr. M'Donald was again recalled, to prove the hand.
writing on the back.
The same witnesses were examined to prove the dis-
counting of the 3501. bill on the 27th July, and the- sig-
natures affixed to the notes, &c.
Mr. Richard Laitham—The prisoner was in his ser-
vice some ten years ago. He kept an account with
Messrs. Robarts at that time, as he did now, but he had
never given the prisoner any cheques upon his bankers.
He di.t draw upon them for his little expenses. (The
witness was handed the bills and letters.) He knew
nothing of them, and had given no authority to any one
-to write such.
Mr. Joseph Smith, Gray's Inn—Had been acquainted
la-ith Mr. Laitham for many years. He was not the
drawer of the bills, and the handwriting was not his.
Fe 1,, cl never drawn a bill upon thp.t gentleman in the
coursg, of his existence.
J 0.1.1 Forrester (the weil-known officr-r)—He, in com-
pany ith his brother, had taken the prisonir into cus-
tody in I '‘ddington. The addresses on the notes were

Fos 'rester said that when he took the prisoner
into custody, i 1r uttering three forged bills, he answered,
•'llow can they m make out it's me ;" and when he (For.
rester) ;aid that h:s name appeared on some of the notes
he " That .can't be. He was then taken into
:
custody. The bilk were put into court.
This concluded Vlt'i case for the prosecution.
Mr. BALLANTINE their addressed the jury for tho de-
- fence. llte quite al.-rreed with his Learned Friend who
opened the case, that this indictor-nt was uf the most•
impor tint character, as it aff.-•cted not only the. prisoner
at the bar, but the interests of the general public. He
(Mr. Bellantine) would not, however, even if he could,
exert any ingenuity in the defence ; he would rely upon
the simple circumstances of the ease ; and he could rely
also with confidence upon -a verdict of acquittal, as
soon as the pr. ,per bearings of the ease should
have been exhibited to - the gentlemen of the
glary. Andfirst, he would advert to the two main
fe 'wares into which the matter resolved itself—he
nit 'ant the handwriting on the bills and notes, amid
the priSing of the single 501. note by the prisoner. His
lag% riled Friend had, however, adverted at great length

• to the many opportunities the prisoner had, while in the
service of Mr. Laithman, of studying that gentleman's
relations with the banking-house of Roberts and Curtis,
and the system of business adopted there. Was it not
preposterous that a young man like the prisoner, whose
life had been spent between the stable and the cab-
stand—was it not ridiculous, he asked, to suppose that a
young man so situated, should have been conversant,
not only with his master's banking habits, bat with the
mode of business pursued by the bankers of London ?
And who were the witnesses to prove the prisoner's
handwriting ? The manager of a loan society and his
clerk ; and, without urging motives against the: e gen-
tlemen, be would ask, how it was possible for them to
swear that the whole of these bills, and the names upon
the notes, were written by the prisoner, when they (the
jury), could, on personal examination of these docu
ments, see that it was physically impossible for any one
person, no matter how clever that individual might be,
to forge so ably so many different hands? Yet these wit-
nesses had posltively sworn that all was the doing of the
prisoner. The second p.,iiit, that of pa,sing the 50/. note,
did, he conf.,ssed, in th,- first blush, strike him as alarm•
ing, but the jury vi ould dud on examination that all the
suspicious appearquees were easily accounted for. The
prisoner had, it was very true, passed the note, but in
all probability it bed been received in the course of his
business, for even the witness from the loan society had
proved that his dealings in cabs were very extensive ;
and could it now be asked by the prosecutor that they
for the defence should prove from whom he had received
a note some two years ago ? Was there any corrobora-
tive eviaence to show that this money had been disho-
nestly come by ? Had they anything to ,how a wanton
or reckless expenditure on the part of the prisoner ?
No. Was there a single attempt made to identify
the young man with the person who had received the
produce of these bills ? No. Although a legion of
banking clerks had been called, not one of them could
say that the prisoner was that man ; and was it not
therefore a fair presumption that the prisoner was inno-
cent of the charges in the indictment ? He felt satisfied
that the prisoner's cause was safe in the hands of the
jury, and he should not, therefore, trouble them with
further observations.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN then summed up.
The jury then, after half an hour's consultation, re-
turned a verdict of Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, after a brief address, sentenced
the prisoner to transportation for life.
THE CALENDAR.—The second edition of the calen-
dar, brought into Court this morning, exhibits an addi-
tion of 27 prisoners, who may be classed as follows :-
1 for bigamy, 1 for burglary, 2 for uttering false coin,
5 for cutting and wounding, 2 for embezzlement, 2 for
forgery, 10 for larceny, 2 for manslaughter, and 2 for
misdemeanour.

NEW COUR7
No case of the slightest interest came before the
Learned Common Sergeant in the course of yesterday.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 18.
(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL and a Special Jury.)
IMPORTANT LIFE INSURANCE CASE.—SCHWABE, ADMINIS'
'MATRIX V. CLIFT.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover a
sum of 9991., alleged to he due to the plaintiff as adminis-
tratrix of the late Mr. Louis Schwabe, of Manchester,
the particulars of whose death were detailed in 'the public
prima a few months since, Mr. Sehwabe's life had been
insured in the Argus Office. At his death that office
refused to pay the insurance money, upon the gr )und
now pleased—viz., that the party insured had terminated
his own life by suicide.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL first addressed the jury, and
commenced by observing that, although he appeared
there on the part of the defendants, it would be for him
to state the case in the first instance, as the burden of
proof lay on his side. The death of the person insured
was not denied, and it was admitted that a policy had
been granted; but the company, by their plea, alleged that
the deceased had committed suicide ; therefore they con-
tended that they were not bound to pay the money, there
being in the policy this condition—that the contract was
to become void in case the person whose lite was insured
Abould commit suicide, or die by duelling, or by the
hand of justice. Now, what had occurred in this case
would show that the policy was rendered void accord-
ing to the clause which contained that condition, the
fact being that the deceased had taken poison for the
purpose of putting an end to his life, and that he had
died in consequence within a few hours after. He (the
Solicitor-General) was aware that it was said that Mr.
Schwabe was not of sound mind at the time when he did
the act, and that was commonly said in these unfortu-
nate cases. But if it should be proved that he was not
of sound mind, there would yet be an important ques-
tion of law to he determined, for it would still remain
to be decided, further, whether the life-office ought, on
account of that circumstance, to lose the benefit of the
condition ; and if a doubt could now exist as to this
point in the law of England, it was high time that such
a point should be settled. He apprehended that the
judgment which had. been pronounced in a case tried
before Mr. Justice Erskine, in the year 1841, would
apply to the one now before them. In the case to which
he referred, that of Borradaile v. Hunter, a clergyman, had
effected a policy of insurance of a like nature ; and in that
instrument it was conditioned, that if the party should
" die by his own hands," the policy should be void. Mr.
Borradaile afterwards threw himself over Vauxhall
bridge. The policy was sued on. The defendant pleaded
that the insured died by his own hands." And then
at the trial, it was contended by the plaintiff, that if the de-
ceased were not in a state of mind to render him morally
responsible, the policy was not made void by the act of
self-destruction. The jury, in a special verdict, found
that Mr. Borradaile voluntarily threw himself over the
bridge, knowing that he should thereby destroy his life,
but that at the time of committing the act he was not
capable of distinguishing right from wrong. The-
Judges of the Common Pleas held that the case came
within the meaning of the clause, and that the policy
was, therefore, void. Mr. Justice Erskine, Mr. Justice
Mettle, and Mr. Justice Coltman, denied that this was
" dying by his own hand," according to the meaning of
the policy. The Lord Chief Justice of that Court, for
whom every one must feel respect, thought that the per-
son so dying must be felo de se to avoid the policy, and
upon the foundatioa of that opinion, the plaintiff, it was
supposed, now sought to maintain the present action.
The decision in the Common Pleas was, no doubt, a
sound decision. But the jury could have nothing to do
with the expediency of the law ; and if the law were that
a jury, from feelings of compassion or sympathy for a dis-
tressed family, might say that a party was not in a sound
state of mind, and could so fix an insurance-office, the
sooner a law of that kind was altered the better. It
would at once be to encourage gross fraud upon the
office insuring, and the offence of self-destruction in the
person insured. But they could have nothing to do
with the question of expediency. They must look to
the words of the policy, and the decision must be ac-
cording to the intention of the parties contracting, and

that intention again to be gathered according to a well-
known rule of law, from the ordinary sense of the words
employed in the contract. What, continued the Learned
Counsel, was the meaning of a man committing " sui-
cide ?" If a man was in such a state of consciousness
that he knew death would be the consequence of his act,
that was enough. He (the Solicitor-General) did not
niean to say that it would be sufficient if the person
acted by mere accident, as if he were to shoot himself
uninteetionally But if they were to hear of a man
having volantarily shot himself, or taking poison, how
would they describe it but by saying that he had com-
mitted " suicide ?" here the deceased took sulphuric
acid, and died a few days Afterwards in consequence. It
was then the plain meaning of the words, according to
t;lain natural interpretation, to call this a case of

suicide ;" and there must have been something else in
the language of the policy to show that the words in ques-
tion should be accepted in any different sense. Were it
not so, it must happen, by and by, that no similar clause
of exemption in a policy could be effective, for it might
ht, agreed that, as no man destroying his lire can be in
hiA right mind, no such case of destruction can be one of
suicide. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
state the facts attending the death of the deceased, which
were aft,rwardi spoken to in detail by the witnesses
called.

The witnesses were Mr. John Chapel, who had been
in the employ of the deceased from 1839 ; Thos. White,
a cab-driver ; another man, who had gone to Mr.
Schwabe ; and Mr. Ransom, surgeon, of Manchester, the
medical attendant of Mr. Schwabe. From their evidence
it appeared that the deceased, whose residence was at
Plimptoo•grove, ,Manchester, was a native of Germany,
and a silk manufacturer, carrying on his business,
which was in a large way, at some distance from his
dwelling-house. He was a man who paid much atten-
tion to his Faisiness, and had greatly excited his mind,
was of an imaginative turn, in the inveuting of
new patterns. There had been five policies effected on
his We, but so long ago as 1836. In 1843 he was ob-
served to be very much excited, and this being observed
by his medical attendant, that gentleman remonstrated
with him on his too close application to business, and
urged his going to the sea coast for relaxation. He
went, and was partially benefited. But at one period
of 1843 it was deemed necessary to place him under
some personal restraint, and a man was placed in his
house to take care of him. He was very kind and at-
tentive towards his family, and on one occasion, during
the illness of his daughter, had himself watched over her
night and day, exhibiting, as stated by Mr. Ransom,
extraordinary coolness, apparently from the effort which
he made for the sake of his child. On Tuesday, the 7th
of January last, being at his place of business in
Manchester, he spoke with Mr. Chapel about removing
some acids, which were employed in the manufacture
there carried on. The next day the witness observed him
looking at some of the acids in a manuer which attracted
his attention. On the Friday following, the 18th, Mr.
Sch wahe came to Mr. Chapel, and asked for some sulphuric
acid, of which about half a wine glass full was given him.
This was put in a phial, which the deceived put in his
pocket.
At this time Mr. Chapel remarked something
peculiar in his look. He seemed wild. But the witness
did not apprehend his intention, as he was in the habit
of making experiments, though he was not considered to
be intimately acquainted with the use of those prepara-
tions. It would seem that he must have taken the phial

finally, when asked if it was sulphuric acid, he nodded
his head, as if to say yes. He lingered until the next
morning, and then died.

Mr. liztowLEs (for the plaintiff) submitted that there
appeared, in the first place, to be some doubt upon the
evidence offered as to whether the poisoning were really
by accident or by design. But it was beyond -all doubt,
on the defendant's own showing, that the deceased was
of unsound mind when the acid was swallowed. The
Learned Counsel said he quite agreed with the Solicitor-
General that this was not a case in which they, the jury,
should be governed by their sympathy ; but it was re-
markable that his Learned Friend had relied upon a
case, that of Borradaile v. Hunter, which would be
found quite against him. In that case the words relied
on were " dying by his own hand;" but where the words,
as in the present case, were "committing suicide," the
latter phrase must be taken to import a felonious act.
Here the deceased was both morally and legally irre-
sponsible • and if he had killed another person; he
would, under the circumstances, have been held irre-
sponsible from the existing state of his mind. In the
case quoted Mr. Justice Erskine had expressly
spoken of those policies in which occurred the phrase
" shall commit suicide "—the phrase now occurring in
the present case, and had considered that phrase,
properly understood, and judicially construed, to
import a criminal act ; and jurors had, accordingly,
so found. Not that the deceased did not precipitate his
own destruction, but that, being in the state of mind
clearly proved already, he was incapable of committing
an act of crime. The jury must excuse him (Mr.
Knowles) if he spoke technically, but he must contend
further that the term " commit" did df itself alone imply
the doing of something criminally. It had been proved
that so long ago as 1842 the mind of deceased was in a
very disturbed state, and that his father had died under

circumstances calculated to occasion additional excite-

ment to him, and if there were enough to convince the
jury that he had taken poison, in order to cause his own
death, still no one could for a moment doubt that he was
in such a state of mind at the time as would have pre-
vented him being amenable to the law if he had com-
mitted the act against the life of another. After the evi-
dence they (the jury) had heard it would be needless to
call more witnesses to prove the fact that Mr. Schwabe
was insane ; and as to what had been said respecting the
liabilities of insurance-offices, if the gentlemen insuring
found that their meaning, in their words, had been
wrongly understood, only let them, for the future, make
an alteration in the form of their policies.
His LORDSHIP, after recapitulating the facts, as stated
in the evidence, told the jury that it was here alleged,
on the part of the defendant, that the policy
was void, because the deceased had " committed suicide."
To make that out they must find—first, that Mr.
Schwabe died by his own voluntary act ; and, secondly,
that at the time he did the act, he could tell right from
wrong, so as to be a responsible moral agent, and to be
capable of appreciating the quality
.of his action. His
Lordship observed that he stated this distinctly ,antici-
pating that his judgment might be disputed. He should
feel himself ruled by the judgment of the courts above,
but, in the case quoted, two of the Learned Judges out
of the four had considered the case of " suicide," though
the two others had not ; in that case the words, " dying
by his own act," were of different meaning from those
here discussed, and no doubt if the language in that case
had been the same as in this; the decision would have been
in favour of the plaintiff. The Lord Chief Justice had
said, in " Borradaile v. Hunter," that suicide" must
mean a " felonious suicide." His own opini,n was,
that the party must have been a moral agent at the
time, .in order to make the policy void. It had been
argued, that a decision in the plaintiff's favour would
give encouragement to suicide, if provision could in this
way 13- insured to a family ; but no other evidence at
all had been given as to the circumstances of Mr.
Sehwabe, nor as to whether the family would be bene-
fited by a verdict for the plaintiff
Upon his Lordship's concluding his direction .to
the jury,

The 'SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and tendered his Lord-
ship a bill of exceptions.
The Learned JUDGE perused it, and then said that the
words which it attributed to him were not correct.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then said that he was de-
sirous of having them correctly put down, and would
endeavour to quote what his Lordship had said with
exactness.

His LORDSHIP then said that his ruling was that the
jury, to find for the defendant, must find that the de-
ceased was in a state of mind to be capable of distingui4l-
- right from wrong. At the same time, although the
burden of proof was upon the defendant, as to the fact
of the party having voluntarily taken away his own life.
the jury must assume that the deceased was a capable
mural agent, unless the plaintiff proved the contrary.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

CLERKENWELL.

Mr. William Coleman Balls was brought up for final
examination at this Court, charged with forgeries
whereby the Finsbury Savings' Bank was defrauded of
the sum of 521.
Mr. Duncombe conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Humphries defended the prisoner.
The prisoner has been, for a considerable time, secre-
tary to one of those societies of poor mechanics and
labourers established for the benevolent purpose of
aiding one another when in sickness or adversity. This
society, which was termed the United Brothers' Pro-
vident Society, and which held its meetings at the City
of London, Sydney-street, City-road, has been for a long
time in existence, and in consequence of the expenses
caused by allowance to sick members, its funds had
dwindled down to 52L, which was the whole of their
stock. On the 2d of January, 1844, the prisoner, in
company with Mr. Randell, the steward, deposited the
52/. in the Finsbury Savings' Bank. The entry was duly
made in the books kept in the bank, and also in the
savings' bank book which depositors retain. When the
parties came out of the bank, after the lodgment, a
question arose as to who was to keep the book ; the
prisoner said he would, and Mr. Randell positively
swears that he gave it to him,`and that he saw no more
of it. According to the rules of the society the book
should have been placed in the society's box immediately
after its being used. Some time after this transaction
it was suggested by several of the members, that the
book should be brought to the bank, for the purpose of
having the interest added to the principal, so that com-
pound interest might accrue. But the prisoner opposed
this, and hence no search was made for "the book until
about the end of last June, when the box being opened,
the loss of it was discovered. Suspicion was raised,
inquiries were made at the bank, when the poor members
found, to their surprise and grief, that all their hard
earnings had been abstracted, and that they were
pennyless.
The officers of the bank proved that the money was
paid over to two persons, describing themselves as the
officers of the society, in two different sums of 30L and
22/., but they were unable to identify the prisoner as one
of the persons.
The prisoner said he gave the bank • book to Randell,
and referred to a minute in the society's book to that
effect.

The minute was certainly on the face of the book ;
but the magistrate, on examinirg the leaf on which it

was written, was of opinion thai-it was fastened in -with
gum. One of the persons drawing the money gave the
name of J. Jones, Secretary," and these words were
sworn to be in the prisoner's handwriting.
The prisoner was fully committed for trial.

John Pearson, a smart, active-looking young man,
well dressed, was charged with being concerned in rob•
bing Mr. Jeffries, of the Prince of Wales, Sudeley-street,
Islington, of 641. in gold and silver money.
.d)cwrafai
fbsaloo,oll
rveknuhdeet
iadret
Ifhiaongnerlt into
es
another
hnv
oe. middleoaptfesih. anearsotri
efeoor
smartly-dressedufvtarhe
ndpeod.of dr 3erne lan'aa i
fwtndelceiswee.
cmomp ear
ai npOnlnte%ularryv,
walked
e,-tlasdel
,sreka,
t
athdseanertiddl, bothctmuahailnaet;
dne.
bar. One of them immediately said that he wished to
see the newspap-r, whereupon Mrs. Pearson, -the land-
lady, said a gentleman was reading it in the parlour, and
that they might ask him for it. They declined, saying
they did not like to ask, but if the lan,llady would
have the kindness to do so they would feel obliged.
The landlady went in as requested, but she had hardly
got into the parlour, when the door was closed, and
when she attempted to get out it was held fast on the
outside. After a short time the grasp was relaxed, and
incensed at having been so treated, she upbraided the
prisoners with their misconduct. When she came out
they were near the door, and in reply to her accusation,
laughed, and without waiting to look at the newspaper,
walked out. They had scarcely left the place, when the
lardiady missed from the shelf behind the bar the tin
box which stood there. She immediately went to the
door and raised the cry of stop thief. The prisoner and
his companion, who had the cash-box under his arm,
were hotly pursued by a mob, and the man with the
cash baffled his pursuers, but the prisoner ran into a
fruit-shop near Sadler's Wells Theatre, and attempted
to hide himself behind the counter, but was soon after
apprehended.—Remanded.
QUEEN-SQUARE.
Mr. T. Couchman, the proprietor of the Windspr
Castle, Vauxhall-bridge-road, was charged on a sum-
mons with assaulting his potman, John Webber.
It appeared from complainant's statement, that on the
evening of Monday week Mrs. Couchman desired him
to take some beer to a customer, when he refused to do
so, alleging that it was not on his round, and that he
could not be in two places at once. His mistress ob-
served, that if he would not take it she must get some
one else who would, when he replied that he would take
out no more beer for her at all, and positively refused to
go with the supper beer to those customers whom he
had been in the habit of supplying. Mrs. Couchman
thenealled her husband, who immediately collared and
struck him, insisting on his taking the beer or leaving
the house. Complainant had occasion t 9 go into the
top-room, when his master followed him, dragged him
Out, and struck him repeatedly, and attempted to throw
him out of the house.

In answer to an inquiry from the magistrate, com
plainant admitted that he was under the influence of
liquor at the time, but considered that he was sober
enough to do his work.
Mr. Couchman put some questions to complainant, by
which it was clearly shown that he had a very excellent
situation, and was treated with liberality and kindness,
and that it was his duty to carry out beer and make
himself generally useful.
Two coalheavers were called as witnesses to prove the
assault.

into a room at the works shortly after having received
the contents, and there swallowed the acid, the empty
bottle being discovered, with the cork, some stains on
the floor, and a portion of the acid apparently vomited
up after being drunk off.
The cabman proved that he was beckoned to by de-
ceased in Oxford-street. Manchester, took deceased up,
and observed that be held a handkerchief to his mouth.
On arriving at his residence, whither he desired to be
conveyed, he said something to Mrs. Schwabe, in which
he was u.iderswod to say that he had taken poison ; and
on Mr. Ransom being called in, though the deceased
was unable to articulate, ha gave that gentleman to
understand that he had taken sulphuric acid. Mr.
Ransom enumerated other acids, appealing to him as a
man of honour to say if he had swallowed any of the
acids mentioned. He shouk his head several times, but

1 Mr. Couchman's answer to the case was, that com-
plainant refused to take the supper beer to customers
who were waiting for it, and made use of a filthy ex-
pression to his mistress. Hearing a noise, he (Mr.
Couchman) came out of the parlour, and upon defendant,
who was drunk, making use of blackguard and insulting
language to him, and repeating his refusal to supply the
customers, he desired him to leave the house, which
complainant positively refused to do, and immediately

THE S UN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORN ENG, AUGUST 1845.

seized him (defendant) by the collar, and swore he
would stick to him like a leech. He repeatedly told
complainant to let go, and on his refusal to do so, which
was accompanied by bad language, he certainly struck
him, and endeavoured to put him out.
Witnesses having been called in support of the defence,
Mr. BOND expressed his opinion that a drunken
servant was of very little service to a master, and con-
sidering that the defendant was perfectly justified, in
consequence of the misconduct of the complainant, in
putting him out of the house, would not inflict any
penalty on the master, but as he had used more violence
than was absolutely necessary to eject him, called upon
the defendant to pay ...two shillings, the costs of the
summons.
Elizabeez Fletcher, a powerful woman, was charged
with assaulting William Hawes, a Norwich constable, in
the execution of his duty.
Complainant, who was in search of a man named An-
derson, for felony, was standing opposite defendant's
house, in Causton-street, Westminster, on Saturday even-
ing, when she cams out and wanted to know what he
and two other constables, who accompanied him, were
watching her house fur, and said it they wanted Ander-
sin, they must go arid find him. Complainant replied,
he should go and find him in her house, and, having en-
tered it, showed her a warrant for his apprehension, and
took a candle in order to go up stairs. Defendant im-
mediately blew out the light, and on the officers attempt-
ing to go up stairs, obstructed their progress. On ar•
riving at a room on the first floor she stood with her back
to the door, and swore that they should not go in there.
and the officers found it necessary to hold her. She,
however, broke away from them, and struck the com-
plainant a desperate blow in the eye. The door of the
room was found open, and Anderson's wife was found
there ; but it was supposed, in consequence of the, delay
they had met with, that he had escaped by the window.
Defendant denied the assault, and alleged that she had
been roughly used by the officers, who did not show any
authority, as she declared, for entering her house.
It having been stated that her husband was a very
quiet, hard-working, respectable man,
Mr. BOND, in consideration that the penalty would fall
upon her husband, after admonishing her in very strong
terms, fined her 31., orin default, six weeks' imprisonment.

LAAIBE7'H.
George Hyde, an expert and notorious thief, was
charged with being 'concerned with two others in the
commission of a daring robbery. Police-constable 94 L
deposed that he had been employed on the preceding
night to watch the public-house of Mr. Richardson, at
the corner of Marshal-street, London-road, the front of
which is at present down ; and at about one o'clock on
that morning, he heard a kind of signal, which caused
him to be on the look out. Immediately after he saw a
respectably-dressed man come down Marshal-street, fol-
lowed by the prisoner and two others, and when the
former got close to Mr. Richardson's the three latter
came up with him, and two of them held his hands
while the prisoner rifled his pockets. He (witness) at
this time was at the first floor window of an opposite
house, and observing what he had described, hastened
down to secure the parties, who, by that time, had left
the gentleman, and took different directions along the
London-road. He, however, kept the prisoner in view
until he ran up a turning, through which there was no
thoroughfare, and ultimately secured him. Before doing
so, however, the prisoner managed to strip off M coat,
and force it over the doors of the water-closets in the
court.

Mr. HENRY inquired if the persOn who had been
robbed was in attendance, and the constable replied that
he was not, nor did he know where to find him, as he
had gi,ne away while he (the policeman) had been secur-
ing the prisoner. The witness added that the prisoner
had been frequently in custody on various charges, and
had been tried and summarily convicted.
Mr. HENRY said that, in order to give the Constable
time to find out the person robbed, he should remand the
prisoner for a week. •
Mr. John Day, a parson of respectable appearance,
attended to meet a charge preferred against him by the
authorities of the parish of Camberwell, of having de-
serted his wife and two children, and leaving them
chargeable to the parish.
From the .statement of Mrs. Day, an exceAingly
good-lookine• female, who held a fine infant in her arms,
it appeared that the parties had been married as long
back as November, 1833, but had separated shortly after.
They were however, as she swore. in the habit of m •et-
ing occasionally, and the consequence was that she had
given birth to two children, one on the sth of September,
1840, and the other on the 19th of February last.
In her crtrie examination by an attorney's clerk, who
attended on the part of the defendant, she said she had
been in the habit of ineetinz her husband at the Cross
Keys, in Wood-street, Cheapside, by his invitation, in
the month of October last, and produced a note which
had been written, and upon the receipt of which she said
she went to meet him. She positively denied having
lived with any person of the name of Pullin, or going by
that name, since she had been separated from her hus-
band. 'She also denied in the most positive terms having
been in custody at Union Hall Police-court, or having
lodged in Cornwall-road, Waterloo-road.
The witness was then asked if she knew two respec-
table females pointed out to her in the body of the
court, and after some time said she was acquainted with
one of them, Mrs. M'Laren, but the other she declared
to be a perfect stranger to her.
The husband, at this period of the inquiry, requested
to be shown the note. upon the receipt of which, as she
stated, his wife had gone to meet him at the Cross Keys.
It was accordingly handed to him, and he at once de-
clared the date of the year was a forgery, for he had
never written it.
The note was in consequence closely examined, and it
was quite apparent, from a close inspection, that when
it had been written the year had been left out, and in
order to suit the wife's purpose, and the note itself being
one breathing affection for her, the 1844 was added to
the date.
In addition to this awkward discovery, the two fe-
males above alluded to were called and examined.
The first, Mrs. Lines, of 46, Cornwall-road, deposed,
that on the 9th of August, 1840, Mrs. Day engaged a
lodging at her house for herself and her husband, and at
that time, and while she lived at her house, she went by
the name of Pullin. .
Mrs. Day here, and in the most impudent manner,
told the witness she was quite mistaken, for that she had
never lived at her house.
The witness, in continuance, declared she was per-
fectly positive on the subject, and added, that Mrs. Day
had been taken from her house in the custody of a po-
liceman, and had been examined at Union hall.
Mrs. M'Laren, the second witness, said she was per-
fectly well acquainted with Mrs. Day, from her sister
being married to a near relation of hers. Witness re-
collected being sent for to go to Union hall Police-
court, to see Mrs. Day, but upon asking for her in that
name, she was told there was no such person locked up
there. She, however, gave a description of her person,
and found she gave the name of I' ullin, and in which
name she saw her.
Mr. HENRY said he was perfectly satisfied, and dis-
missed the complaint.
The attorney's clerk, who attended for the defendant,
said that Mr. Day was most respectably connected, and
but for the grossly profligate conduct of his wife, should
have provided her with necessaries to keep her from the
parish.
Mr. HENRY remarked that the case was one of gross
profligacy, and the attempt to make the husband liable
to the support of his wife and her offspring, was followed
up by the most shameless perjury he had ever heard on
the part- of the wife, and takina: it altogether, he (Mr.
Henry) thought it was a case in which the parish should
prosecute fir p-rjury,
The clerk to the guardians replied that there were no
funds in the parish to defray the expenses of such a
prosecution.
Mr. HENRY observed that this was the answer he in-
variably received in cases: where he recommended a
prosecution, and %%here a prosecution should take plane.
In his opinion, in a case like the present, the expenses
of a prosecution should be alhaved in the passing of the
accounts.—Here the matter dropped.
John Fitzye,.alrl was summoned by the Animals' Friend
Society, of 18, Strand, for wilfully shooting a cat, the
property of Mrs. Fitzgerald.

}White (the prisoner) had followed her on Wednesday
afternoon, subsequently to the funeral, from Wapping,
whence they had taken a boat, and crossed to Rother-
hithe. Witness had known the prisoner about four
years, but had not frequently met him of late. Saw the
prisoner on Sunday last at Wapping, when he told wit-
ness:that he parted with his wife shortly before nine
o'clock on Wednesday night, and did not see her after-
wards. Witness bad since been informed by the land-
lady of the Royal Oak, Rotherhithe, that the deceased
(she supposed) left the house after drinking a glass of
gin, :and was immediately followed by the prisoner.
The prisoner lives in Gravel lane, Wapping. The pri-
soner told him that he parted with Mrs. Tyrrell at the
Royal Oak door, and returned home. He afterwards
said he went and slept in Jerry Styles's water-closet, be-
tween nine and eleven o'clock—this is near the Tunnel.
Mr. Ffrench (the chief clerk) said they had no busi
ness near the Surrey Canal; it was not the prisoner's
way home, nor that of the deceased's.
Tyrrell said he could bring persons forward, who saw
them at ten minutes to nine leave the Royal Oak, and
traced them to Clark's-orchard, where they had gin to-
gether. They had gin also al the Barley Mow. A
little girl was called, who stated that they were at
Clark's-orchard at twenty minutes past ten. She
fetched three half-quarterns of gin, for the prisoner to
treat her mother and a Mrs. Griffiths. She was sent
again at half-past eleven o'clock, but the public-house
was closed.
Mr. JEREMY remarked to the prisoner, that he had
been seen before nine o'clock, and upwards of an hour
afterwards, at Clark's-orchard, in company of deceased.
The prisoner said he would endeavour to explain all
the circumstances, if the magistrate would hear him. A
friend, named John Moore, from the New-cut, had been
with him in the forenoon. After leaving Moore he met
John Hogan ,and his wife, and two other women, at
Execution-dock Stairs. Hogan said he had buried his
son that day, and prisoner expressed sorrow at the
event. Mrs. Tyrrell (the deceased) was close by at the
time, and asked him how he did. Hogan said, "Come in
here and we will have some gin." They went into the
Swan, and before they parted they called for and drank
three pints of gin amongst them all, men and women.
He was talking to the deceased, and she laid hold of his
arm, saying she was tipsy, and wished prisoner to see
her over the water in a boat. He said he would do so;
it would cost him twopence, but that was no object.
Four of them got into a boat, himself and deceased,
another man and woman, and the Waterman then got
in, and pulled over to Rotherhithe. The man and
woman were strangers, taking the ferry. They landed
at eight o'clock. He asked the strangers to drink with
them before parting. They then went into the Royal
Oak, and called for half-a-pint of gin, and he (prisoner)
proposed to pay half the charge, leaving the other
man to pay the rest. Funning was the man who called
for half-a-pint of gin, and pulled out &urpence, say
ing, " Fourpence more from you will pay for the
gin," Prisoner swore he would not pay after being
invited ; it was not his country fashion. Mrs'. Tyrrell (the
deceased) put her hand in her pocket, and laid down
sixpence towards it ; they drank each a glass, but Fen-
cing appeared to sip only, and then threw the glass and
contents into the street. The landlord demanded pay-
ment of Fenning for the glass. He (prisoner) and the
deceased then left the house. On getting outside the
Royal Oak, Mrs. Tyrrell said she- must make haste
home, as her infant would miss her. He told her to
go towards Millpond-bridge. She replied, "No, Deptford
was her way home." He then went on to show her the
way to Deptford. She walked down, and sheered up
again, and from side to side. He then led her on again
and left her on her way home. He then turned to go to
Wapping, but instead of doing so, he went to Jerry
Styles's water-closet, near the Tunnel, and fell asleep.
Did not see Styles's family. After sleeping nearly an
hour he was awoke by the noise of some people. He
then turned out, and went towards home. The road he
took was one way 200 yards, and the other 600 yards,
out of the direct course home. Deceased went on the
high road towards Deptford.
. The prisoner accounted for the scratches on his face
by saying that he had snatched at a tobacco-box in a
friend's hand, and in resisting him the man's coat had
rubbed his cheek and nose. This happened on Tuesday.
Tyrrell said that he could bring witnesses to swear
that he had no scratch or mark on Wednesday evening.
Mr. JEREMY said he should remand the prisoner for a
week, in order that ample time should be afforded to
collect further evidence.
WOOL WICH.

Thomas and Sarah Barnes, alias Banks, and Wm.
and Elizabeth Alfred, were charged with committing the
following savage assault :
The prisoners have been in custody for a period of
nearly five weeks, having been again and again remanded
in consequence of the inability of the injured parties to
attend and give evidence.
The facts of the case are shortly these : —On the 13th
July the prisoners, who are married persons, were lodg-
ing at the house of a man named Driscoll, who keeps a
low lodging-house in Woolwich. On that day a quarrel
arose between them and Driscoll, which terminated in the
latter and a man named Pickett, a sawyer, receiving
some very serious injuries. During the affray the
female prisoner, Sarah Barnes, seized an iron bar, used
as a poker, and struck Pickett a violent blow on the
leg, fracturing the bone of the leg, and rendering him a
cripple for life. While he lay on the ground she thrust
her fingers into his mouth, and with her nails severely
lacerated the roof, causing the blood to flow in torrents.
The female prisoner Alfred also attacked Driscoll,
knocked him down, and kicked him in the eye, causing
active inflammation, which resulted in irritas, and de-
stroyed the optic nerve and iris, causing total blindness
of the organ.
Such were the facts of the case, as detailed by various
witnesses, and confirmed by Mr. Penny, the surgeon who
attended the injured parties.
The prisoners were committed for trial at the present
sessions of the Central Criminal Court, and Mr. Grove
ordered a pair of crutches, to be paid for out of the poor
box, to be made for the injured man Pickett.
WANDS WORTH.
_ _

John Goody and Rachel Langton were charged with
stealing a bushel of apples, and the former prisoner was
also charged with a committing a murderous assault upon
a man named Thomas Knowles.
It appeared from the evidence, that Knowles is head
gardener to Mr. Alexander Mitchelson, an eccentric, but
enormously rich, market gardener, residing at Norbiton-
common, near Kingston. On the previous evening,
about a quarter-past eight o'clock, he saw three men
gathering apples in an inclosed orchard, belonging to
his master. He collared one of the men, who is not in
custody, and was immediately struck by him. The other
men ran into an adjoining field. The witness had a des-
perate struggle with the man he had collared, when the
latter called out for assistance, and the prisoner Goody
came back into the field. He struck witness a tremen-
dous blow, which knocked him down, and while pros-
trate he kicked him severely. All the men got clear
away, but in the course of- the night police-constable
278 V succeeded in apprehending the prisoner at a beer-
s hop.

HENRY remarked, that people were not allowed
to take the law into their hands entirely ; if they do,
they must run the consequences. The defendant was
ordered to pay 10s. the value of the cat, and 2s. summons.

The MAGISTRATE convicted Goody in a penalty of
505., or three weeks' imprisonment and hard labour, and
Langton in a penalty of 305., or fourteen days in default.

THAMES.
Michael Carroll, a felt-maker, aged 26, Matthew
Keenans. 68, Daniel Keenans, his son, 39, Patrick Foley,
19, and Martin Banim, 28, who had been remanded for
a week on a charge of manslaughter, were brought be-
fore Mr. Broderip for final examination. Carroll was
charged with causing the death of James Bristow, a
stonemason, and his countrymen with aiding and abet-
ting him in the commission of the offence.
'The evidence has been already published. The de-
ceased and others were wantonly attacked in Bow, Mid
diesex, on the night of Saturday, the 9th inst., and the
deceased, who had given no provocation whatever, was
struck on the head with a poker, by the prisoner Car-
roll, and died of the wounds he received a few hours
afterwards.

Cockerell. a poli,T,-constable, No. 260 K, stated that
since the last examination a Coroner's inquest had been
hell on the body ef the deceased, and a verdict of man-
slaughter was reiurnest against Carroll, but the other
prisoners were not affected by the verdict.
Mr. BRODERIP said, that on a former occasion there
wAs so much doubt whether the two Keenaus, Foley,
and Brreim were actually aiding and abetting Carroll in
the death of the unfortunate man, that he had offered
to accept of bail for them. As the verdict of the jury
had not implicated them he should now discharge them,
and the ease against Carroll would be proceeded with.
The four prisoners having left the dock, Inspector
Watts, who conducted the: case, said there was only one
more witness to- be examined.

SOUTHWARK.
Benjamin Harries was charged with stealing a quan-
tity of jewellery and other articles, value St, the pro-
perty of Thomas Furniss.
The prosecutor stated that be kept a small jeweller's
shop in Bermondsey, and that on Tuesday night week
he went out, in company with his wife, having previously
closed his shop, which adjoins a stairs leading to the
upper part of the house, occupied by lodgers, and to
which ingress is aff irded by a hall door. On his return
he found that the shop had been entered, and that some
jewellery and other articles, consisting of watch move-
ments, rings, and musical boxes, had boen stolen. He
found, on examination, that a portion of the partition
next the hall had been forced, sufficient in size to enable

Mr. Henry Vincent Garman, of No. 1, Coburg-ter--
race, Bow-road, stated that on the afternoon of Sunday,
the 10th inst., he was called upon to see the body of the
deceased at the r.quest of his mother and father. in-law,
and upon examining the head be discovered two wounds;
the lesser one was on the upper part of the right side of
the frontal bone. The larger and snore important wound
was on the right temporal muscle, and he had no doubt
that was the cause of death. In answer to a question by
Mr. Broderip, the witness said the poker was a very likely
instrument to inflict such a wound.

a man to get through. He had had no traces of his pro-
perty until the apprehension of the prisoner.
A man named Davis, a general dealer, identified the
prisoner as having brought him for sale a number of
such articles as those before described, and for which he

received the sum of Bs.
The prosecutor identified the goods as being his pro-
perty.

The prisoner said that he had purchased the articles
from a tall man, wearing a blue coat, whom he should
know were he to see him again. He admitted having sold
them to the witness Davis.
A police constable said that he knew the prisoner for
some time back, and that be had been taken into custody
twelve months ago for a similar offence, but on trial was
acquitted.

kr. COTTINGRAM said that he should remand the pri-
soner for further examination.

Mr. Dawes, a solicitor, who appeared for Carroll,
asked the witness if the wound over the right temple
would have caused death, if the unfortunate deceased

GREENWICH.
John White, living at Wapping, was charged with the
murder of Ellen Tyrrell, aged 40, the wife of a labouring
man residing at East Greenwich.
Police-constables 156 and 175 K; stated that they ap-
prehended the prisoner soon after eleven o'clock at Wap-
ping-wall, when he admitted that he had been in the de-
ceased's company on Wednesday evening last at Rother-
hithe, where he left her, after directing her the way to
Greenwich, and went home.
Patrick Tyrrell, husband of the deceased, deposed
that he last saw his wife alive on Wednesday morning,
the 13th inst., at eight o'clock. She then left home for
the purpose of going over the water to Wapping, to at-
tend the funeral of a deceased friend.: He had been in-

had received earlier medi'eal attention ?—Mr. Garman

cessantly in search after her until this morning, when

said that was a very difficult question to answer. He
had no doubt the wound did c tuse death, but very early
medical treatment might have prolonged life, or miti-
gated the unfavourable symptoms.
Mr. BRODERIP said if a person inflicted a wound upon
another, he had no right whatever to calculate on the
strength of the man's constitution to endure pain, and if
death ensued, he was answerable for the consequences.
Inspector Watts said the friends of the deceased wished
a police-constable who assisted Bristow to his home to
be examined.

Mr. BRODERIP—What can he prove ?—lnspector
Watts said the deceased informed the policeman, while
he was leading him home, that prisoner struck him twice
with the poker.

Mr. BIiODERIP said that would not be evidence, be-
cause the deceased, at the time he made the communi-

be learned Irorn the police that her dead bi;Cly had
been found near a place called the Halfpenny-hatch,
leading to Rotherhithe. He had since been to see the
deceased. He saw the body in a shell, and it ap-
peared dreadfully swelled about the head and face•
Witness had been informed by several persons that

cation, was not conscious that he was near death, or that
the injuries he received would prove fatal. If the state-
ment had been made while the deceased was in articulo
mortis, it could have been received. The worthy Magis-
trate then asked the prisoner if he wished to make anv
furthiT statement ?—The prisoner replied that he had
nothing to add to his former statement.
Mr. BRODERIP st4id it was his duty to commit the pri-
soner for trial for killing and slaying James Bristow,
and he hound over the witnesses to prosecute.
Thes immediately proceeded to the Old Bailey, for
the purpose of going bwfore the grand jury.

Hull docks are crowded with shipping. On Wed-
nesday the blue flag was hoisted, to announce that no more
vessels could be admitted. The warehouses are filled with
bales of manufactured goods for export, and all is activity along
the quays.--Leeds Paper.

MARKET NEWS.-(YESTERDAY.)

CORN-EXCHANGE.
Fresh up :only a moderate quantity of Wheat came to
hand from our own counties coastwise, as well as by land
carriage and sample ; yet the stands were rather heavily
supplied with Monday's unsold parcels. Still, however,
owing to the wet weather experienced yesterday, the
fluctuating atmosphere of to-day, and the trifling
progress as yet made in the cutting of Wheat,
the factors were firm, and, in some instances, would
not sell except at a slight advance in the quotations.
The amount of business actually passing was small. There
was rather more inquiry for both free and bonded Wheats
of foreign :growth, and prices ruled about stationary.
The show of Barley was very small. The best grinding
parcels were the turn higher, the value of other kinds being
steadily supported. The Malt trade was rather dull, but no
depression was submitted to in value. Oats, Beans, and
Peas were steady, but in Flour next to nothing was doing.

English ......
Irish .....- ..
Foreign ......

ARRIVALS.

Barley.
40 qrs.
340
1,350
Malt. 3,570 qrs.

Wheat.
8,030 qrs.

Oats. Fkmr.
-- qrs I 3,3705Y5,
9,590 I _
9,010

3,370

WHITECIIA.PEL
We had a full average supply of each kind of Meat on sale,
Generally speaking, the demand was in a sluggish state, at
our quotations. Beef, from 2s 8d to 3s 6d; Mutton, 3s to
4s 8d; Lamb. 4s 8d to 5s 8d; Veal, 38 8d to 4s 8e1; and
Pork, 2s 8d to 4s per Sibs. by the carcass.