The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-16 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS-(THIS DAY.)

These Sessions commenced this morning before
the Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR, RECORDER,
Sheriffs, and City Officers.
The presiding Judges are Mr. Justice BußßouGit
and Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE.
Bridget Delany, aged 28, was indicted for steal-
ing a gold watch, value 2.5/., and other articles, the
property of Lady Anne. Bentinck ; and Ann Delany,
aged 69, for receiving the same, well knowing them
to have been stolen. The prisoners are mother and
daughter.
Lady Anne Bentinck was examined from the
Bench—Her Ladyship stated the younger prisoner
was in her service, and detailed other circumstances
connected with the robbery, but in so low a tone of
voice we could scarcely hear a word her Ladyship
said.

Henry Goddard, an officer of 'Marlborough-street
Police-otlice, stated that he was sent for to Lady
Bentinck's house on the 2d July. He saw there
had been an attempt to open the street door with a
false key. The witness then went iato a statement
of facts connected with the robbery and apprehen-
sion of the prisoners, the younger of whom, at the
time she was taken into custody, acknowledged
having stolen the property ; and that her mother and
the footman of a gentleman in the neighbourhood,
had secreted it. The particulars of this case having
appeared in our police reports within the last few
days, it is unnecessary to give a detailed report.
-- Ballard, another officer, produced several
articles of.valuable jewellery and a large quantity of
wearing apparel, which he found at the residence of
the elder prisoner, in Kendal-street, Marylebone, the
whole of which Lady Bentinck identified as her pro-
perty.
The prisoners said nothing in their defence.
Mr. Justice BURROUGII was about to sum up,
when the Jury said it was unnecessary ; they were
quite satisfied of the prisoners' guilt, and returned a
verdict of Guilty.
Lady Bentinck recommended the younger prisoner
to mercy, on account of the ample confession she
made of the robbery. The Jury joined in the re-
commendation, and wished it also to be extended
to the elder prisoner, as they did not think she was
an old offender.

Joseph Henderson, aged 26, and James Wilson,
aged 32, were capitally indicted for stealing twenty
sheep, value 301., the property of Henry Vigne, Esq,
The prosecutor stated that he resided at Wal-
thamstow ; on the night of the 2d of July twenty
sheep were stolen out of a field belonging to him.
A great number of witnesses were called to prove
the manner in which the prisoners disposed of the sheep.
- Flitcroft (better known by the name of
" Lancaster Jack") an accomplice, was admitted as
evidence. He stated that he went to Whitechapel-
market on thezd of July, where he met the two
prisoners. Henderson told him he had some sheep
just brought from the country, and offered him a
recompence if he would drive them to Lea Bridge,
to which he agreed. They then went into a fields
and Henderson pointed out some sheep which he
said was his. Witness and Wilson then took out
of the field 20 sheep, which were finally drove to
No. 9, White's-row, Spitalfields. Henderson left
them after they took the sheep, but joined them
again before they arrived at White's-row. The
sheep were afterwards slaughtered tend sold in differ-
ent places.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—Was called
Lancashire Jack, on account of his coming from
Lancashire. Was never charged with sheep-steal-
ing in that county ; was charged with forgery, and
obliged to leave that part of the country, but had
since paid the money. lie had on several other
occasions been charged with offences, but he was
not guilty of them. He had lived in London

seven years, but was never in Newgate. _
not know that his wife was in prison ;
had not seen her for several months. It was
for the sake of public justice that he came
forward as evidence for the prosecution; he was
turned away from his last place for getting drunk,
and neglecting his work.
The prisoners in their defence, said all that Flit-
croft had sworn against them was'false.
Several witnesses gave Henderson a good cha-

Did

racter.
Mr. Justice PARKE summed up, and the Jury
found Henderson Guilty, and acquitted Wilson.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY).

HAY 11l A RKETS.—( At per Load of 36 Trusses.)
ST. JAMES'S.

Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay .£2 15 to £3 0
New Meadow Hay 3 0 s 10
Useful Meadow Hay 3 5 3 15
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass Hay 4 5 5 0
Clover Bay 3 15 5 10
Oat Straw £2 oto£2 2 I Wheat Straw... 2 2 2 5
Supply good, trzwlo dull, and prices as last quoted.
SMITHFIELD.

Coarse heavy Lowland Meadow Hay £2 4 to £2 15
New Meadow Hay
Useful Meadow Hay 3 3 3 10
Fine Upland Meadow and Rye-grass flay 3 10 4 15
Clover Hay (extra tine)...£s 5... Generally
Oat Straw X 1 16 to £1 18 I Wheat Straw 1 18 2 5
A good supply, and a dull trade, at Tuesday's prices.

GENERAL AVERAGE PRICE OF BRITISH CORN,,
For the Week ended July 10, 1829, made up from the Returns
Rye ..,,.•... 30s. 11(1.1 36d.
01 the Inspectors in the different Cities and l'owns in England
and Wales, pet Imperial Quarter.
REGthIATIE AVERAGES OF THE SIX WEEKS PRECEDING.
s.
Oats 21s. Id.' 375. ltd.
Wheat.---665. 3,1.1 Oats ...—..— 113 s. 5(1. (Id
6dBd:l Rye 335. 2d I 365. 9d.
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
Wheat.-- 13s. &LI Oats 108. %LI Od.
By
vB, Barley..—.-32'
ecesayyxt
8ar1ey...44w. 15s. 4d.1 Rye 195. 9d.j Pease --..155. 6(1.
AGGREGATE

•
DUBLIN, JULY 13.--Letters have been this
day received from Borris•okane, which state that a ltlagi-
strate of the county of Tipparary was murdered there
yesterday in the open day by the mob. I heard the gen-
tleman's name, but it has escaped my recollection, and I
fear I should lie too late for the post should I now go to
make inquiries; but you may rely upon the fact...llforn-
iny Paper.

Tir,T

I

i

LAW INTELLIGENCE.=-(THIS DAY.).

COURT OF CHANCERY.

IN THE MATTER OF POTTINGER, A BANKRUPT.,
The LORD CHANCELLOR was. engaged in IS
petitions in this matter till, mid-day, when he
the Court to attend the Recorder's report to WO
this day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
IMPORTANT MERCANTILE DECISION.—BROOKSIAS
ROTHSCHILD.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR proceeded, on
.taking l:
seat, to give judgment, as appointed in this es'.
It appears (said his Honour) that the Plaintiff ti
in the month of May, 1818, entitled to 20,0u1
French rentes, and there was some sort of commit',
cation between him and the defendant, Mr. BPI;
child, who carries on business in this country, so°
also a partner with his brother in Paris, carrying,'
business there under the firm of Rothselti
Brothers, and Co. It is represented that th
plaintiff was induced, by a letter written by the
fendant, to give an order for the sale of the Fret.
rentes. It does not appear to me to be very ear
vial for the purpose of determining what relief
plaintiff is entitled to ascertain, whether or net.
plaintiff did give the order in pursuance of the red'
mendation of the defendant,but I must state as a to'
ter of fact, because it appears to me to corgi'
the character of the defendant, dint the letter reps'
sented as a recommendation of the sale is not.a let!,
entitled to such a character. The fair construct°'
of that letter is, that it recommends a sale of petit
the French rentes, leaving it to the discretion of
plaintiff to say what part should be sold. The!
fendant writes a letter in answer on the 24011:
May, requesting a sale of part, Upon the receipt,'
which the defendant does sell, as he represents,:
whole of the 20,000 French rentes. On.the
following the defendant writes al letter to P.
plaintiff, which appears to me. to be a direct 111:
plain representation that Mr;Rothschild had,
whatever 01 ewt,teirt
aopf
ptehaers2a4s tah,
fmaeat,d et
that
tlbei:
but that Mr. Rothschild took the 20,000 Fre
pursuance
uOnao rentes.
oacsae
the
ewfi
er of the 20,000 French reotve
rentes to himself, giving credit to the defendant;
11,0001. and a fraction, which woult be the pi
of the rentes at the price quoted in the defendst':
letter, and invested that 11,0001. and a fraction:
Prussian bonds. New, the first question upon t't
case is, whether that transaction, with regard to t'
French rentes, shall stand ? And my delibete,
opinion upon that transaction is, that it oughtf;
to stand; because, independently of the quest'
whether there was more or less of confidento
agency on the part of Mr. Rothschild, the very le,l'
that can be said on the case is, that Mr. Rothsolt
was an agent to sell, by the receipt of a letter at
24th May, and his determination to act upon it. ,
conceive, therefore, it was his bounden duty
sell in the sense of selling to a third per
and not to take to himself the French rel.
giving the plaintiff credit for them—and from
appears on the face of the defendant's anso4;
I am bound to admit that to be the
price of the rentes on that day. It appears fro
answer that he had another transaction keyed;
French stock on that very day, and that he
sold, I think, a parcel of French stock at a less P 1
than that which he took to himself, in respect
taking to himself the plaintiff's 20,000 rentes.
the general principle which this Court has alol'
acknowledged and applied must be maintained
this case, namely, that the.person who is the eg.,',
to sell, if he accept the agency, is bound to sell, 7'
is not at liberty to take to himself the stock, gi'l7l,
the party an equivalent for it. It has been F'
that if such a construction is put upon this tram`
Lion, it will tend to undermine many transaction'
taking place in the great houses in London. l`p
my opinion is, whether it does so or not, thst,,
individual has a right to complain of 'a transaet:"
i
in which an agent does not do that which be "
said he would
,do, and, represents he ties done,
in a case where he has done quite a different
No evidence has been given to me to show
such an act as this, which is complained of, is
taking place among. the. ;great houses in Londtt
therefore I must consider it only as a speculative'
gument unfounded on fact. • It appears from oii,
the plaintiff states in his , that in point Of 'hi
there were 14,000/. in Prussian bonds purchased,:
cause he himself states, that in the months of 5`,1
tember and October, 1818,14,0001. Prussian boo
were delivered to him; and of those 14,t"
bonds it must be taken, that the plats
t'
some way disposed of 12,000/. No complaio'
made of the 12,0001. of bonds, and there is 101,,e;
press statement of the circumstances which attend,
two of those bonds of the 14,0001. appeer',„
me,
that upon this transaction the plaintiff enridfr
at his option to have the present price of. 20,r,
French rentes, or to have that amount ofientes'
vested in his name; he repaying to the defend
the 11,000/. and a fraction, the sum with which
was credited on account with Mr. Rothschild; I think he must repay that with 5 per cent. inter(
sifei
Prussianef June, bloBndlBs.,
thelt appears
The next part of this case relates to the purcbasB
some
the plaintiff to purchase some Prussian bonds,
defendantppe eo
arstbraetamraeti
about
monthot,
b.
that he agreed to purchase from Mr. RotWal
40,0001. of Prussian bonds at 82, 5,0001. at
and 5,0001. at 81 per cent. For the Priol
bonds, however, the plaintiff was not able to JA,
and the effect of the transaction was that the Piro'
of the bonds should be advanced by the defersr
to the plaintiff, the plaintiff giving his promies'
note for the amount. The transaction was cant•
on according to this understanding, because tht
was a purchase made—apparently made 1,,
50,000/. Prussian bonds, for which the br°i)
made out a charge, I think, of 41,6004, and 1,
plaintiff gave his cheque to the broker ,0
that sum. There is a little difference in the a'
rent statements of the figures ; 'but that is imm
terial just now, as my object is more to giveo
principle of adjustment than any thing else.
plaintiff then gave his promissory note to the defe',
ant for the 41,000/. and a fraction. His Honour lA,
went through the enumeration of a series of traort,
Lions in which it appeared that the plaintiff had Pit
chased several amounts of bonds, and borrowed oft
defendant 8,500/. and 4,200/., for which he gove,o
promissory notes, and deposited-with the'defenutly
as a security for the payment, 11,0004, and 6r()4
'in Prussian bonds. In October an account,
1
made out, by which it appeared that the o.ef
amount of the bonds at that time, 67,000/., 710
sold at 75 per cent., making a cflitglt
able loss to the plaintiff, as he had purcl'Awi
them on an average at 81 per cent. With ',I.
produce the promissory notes for 41,0001. 011,4
fraction, arid 85,0001. were cancelled, but the
for the 4,000/. and a fraction remained; but ti
they deposit, greater than covered the 4,000/.1
made : this was likewise sold, the note cancel)
and the surplus accounted for to the plaintiff. tt
was observable that no money pass'ed from
plaintiff in the first instance ; and the only 0,,e4
which he had stiffened an injury was iq Fr;
having been compelled tq pqy the differe'al,
between the price of the 50,0001.0 f Prussian IPO'O
and the price at which the deposits were 'd
and which ultimately discharged the promiss.4
notes. '1 he question here then is (said his "'I
nour) whether this transaction shall stand ?
other words, whether the plaintiff is not entitled)
have paid to him such sums of money as be
ter
lost in the way I have described ? Now I appre`jtl
it was absolutely necessary, in order to support
transaction, that there should have been a bona 11.
purchase of the 50,0001. bonds; but I think it
pears most distinctly, from what the defendant it
self represents, that there was no such bona
purchase. I think there ought to have been 130
lection of the 50,0001. bonds, an appropriationo,
a transfer of the numbers of the bonds to the P
tiff. I take it to be perfectly clear that there e
no purchase at all, arid that therefore, from the e
of this transaction, the plaintiff has a right to b)
lieved, upon the plain principle in equity

Mankind shall be bound by the representations
they make, and that if they make fallacious state-
ments they shall take the consequences of them.
The plaintiff, therefore, must in this respect have the
Recounts opened, so as to have repaid to him the
losses be may have from time to time sustained. ;
The plainiff has also asked relief in respect to the
sale of 17,0001. bonds ; but with regard to this,
the defendant distinctly swears in his answer, that the
plaintiff knew of this sale, and consented to
it; this is not denied, and therefore I cannot
grant relief, upon. it. The defendant, in one or two
parts of his answer, states broadly and generally, that
the plaintiff was aware of all the circumstances re-
sPecting the different. transactions ; but it appears
to me there is no ground whatever for supposing
that the plaintiff did-know all the circumstances of
the case. In the-end of 1818 and beginning of 1819
there was an agreement that he (plaintiff) should pur-
chase a large amount of French rentes, and representa-
tions at. varions times were made, stating that in the
whole 11.5,000. French rentes were purchased.
Ris Honour next stated the detail of the transaction,
by which it appeared that sales of the rentes had
aPParently been made, a repurchase, and a resale.
The plaintiff charged by his bill, that the whole re-
presentations of these sales and purchases were fal-
lacious and fictitious. The defendant throughout
answer did not venture to traverse the al-
legation. The onus lay on him to disprove
the accusation, which he had failed to do ; on the
contrary, from the correspondence it Naas evident
that there was something Mr. Rothschild had
thought it right to caution Isis house in Paris to
keep concealed. Here, therefore, the plaintiff was
entitled M relief to the amount of all the sums he
had lost or ought to have received, at five per cent.
interest. As to the delay in filing the bill, which had
. been talked of in the argument, there was no ground
'for the statement. It was evident from the correspond-
ence down to a very recent date, that the plaintiff was
ignorant of his legitimate demand against the de-
fendant ; for having been reduced to a state of the
greatest pecuniary distress, and searching over his
papers, he found, a; he supposed, that he
had not received a miserable pittance of in-
terest upon a small item, which induced
him, as . the most humble supplicant, to ap-
ply to the house at Paris for a small supply
of relief ; and making a claim for this little
sum of interest, Rothschild, Brothers, and Co. did
furnish him with a trifle; he subsequently renewed
hub application to the defendant here, who took no
notice of the call, and hence followed the filing of
the bill. Considering, on the whole, the nature of
the circumstances, the judgment of the Court was,
that the plaintiff should have the relief mentioned
in the course of this statement, and also that his
costs should be paid to him by the defendant, Mr.
Rothschild.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
BAYLIS V. COOPER AND COPE.

The plaintiff in this case is a pawnbroker in
Aldersgate-street, and one of the defendants the City
Marshal, who under the authority of a search
Warrant, had taken away a quantity of plate from
the plaintiff, after the latter had advanced
money on it in the way of trade, under an alleged
pretence that it had been obtained by fraud. The
action was brought to recover the plate, or the value
of it, but from the absence of a witness, Sir J.
SCARLETT could not prove the contract, and sub-
mitted to a nonsuit:

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LIBIL.—SAUNDERS V. MILLS.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case for the plaintiff.
Thrs was an action brought against the proprietor of the
Bristol Gazette, to recover compensation in damages for
• :libel on the plaintiff, Mr. Saunders, who is an attorney,
residing
ofdiiig at Bristol. The libel was contained in the re-
porteau"the proceedings at the last Gloucester Assizes, in a
which Lord De Clifford was the plaintiff and Mr.
theunders the defendant. This action was for a trespass,
aetendant having
De • broken open the dog kennel of Lord
Clifford, in order to recover possession of one of
his dogs, which his Lordship directed should be confined
there, it having been found trespassing on his grounds.
Mr. Saunders was convicted, and damages were on that
occasion given against him to the extent of se/. The re-
port of the trial appeared subsequently in the Bristol
Gazette, and it was from this report that the cause of
action arose. The libel ran as follows;--
GLOUCESTER ASSIZES.
At the above Assizes an action was brought by Lord De
Clifford against Mr. Saunders, an attorney of Bristol, and
two other persons, under these extraordinary circum-
stances, as stated by the Counsel for the prosecution.
The defendant had taken a cottage on the borders of
Lord De *Clifford's preserve, where he kept a regular poach-
ing establishment, for sporting was out of the question,
for it appeared that the defendant used to turn out his dogs
by night, when they did much mischief on the neigh-
bouring estates. In consequence of this Lord De Clifford
gave orders that all dogs caught on the manor should be
brought to the kennel, and there kept till they were
claimed. It happened that a greyhound of the defendant's
was found in Lord De Clifford's fields, and was taken to
the kennel to await its being claimed by the owner, as it
rnu not certainly known to be a dog of the defendant's.
steadpf writing to Lord DeClifford to have the dog deliver-
uP to the defendant, he went with two other persons on
the 23d October, and having broken open the doors of Lord
IleClifford's dog-kennel, he rescued the dog. These parties
11Pe the next day to dig up the body of a deceased dog.
Air' Saunders had a horse-pistol, and he insulted Lord de
Clifford's servants, and Mr. Saunders challenged one of the
"Pert to fight. The actual injury to the kennel door was
not much but damages were sought to be recovered which
would teach the defendant to behave more correctly for the
future• The defence was, that the defendant had done no
more than was necessary for the recovery of Mr. Saun-
ders' dog and that another of Mr. Saunders's dogs
lee been shot by one of Lord De Clifford's
Per* and buried, they merely went on the second day
t° dig up the body of that dog and bring it away. not
necessarily PARER said that the amount of damages was not
o.
mtted to the actual damage done to the door
of the dog kennel. Bat atilt he thought the Jury should
give such damages as would not be very injurious to the
defendant's conduct, but yet such as might have the effect
of making him mend his ways and behave with more
propriety in future. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages
50/. Mi. Justice Pauxe—l shall certify for the Special
Jury, If the defendant dismisses his gamekeepers he
will soon pay up the damages.
This was the libel complained of.
The Learned Counsel was then about to call evidence to
prove the publication and proprietorship of the Bristol
Gazette, but Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW, on the part of the
defendant, admitted both.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW, for the defendant, said that the
article was copied from the Observer; he added that the
defendant offered to insert an apology, which appeared in
the Observer of a subsequent date, but this was not ac-
eepted.
The letter offering an apology was then put in, as was
also the Observer, containing the apology.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE then addressed the Jury in reply;
after which,
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury returned
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 501.

PORTSMOUTH, JULY 14.—THE CARN
UREA CASTLE.-The hull lies at some distance from the
where, off Atherfield, to the eastward of Freshwater, and
should the weather continue moderate, there is good reason
tp cap se she will be weighed. All the passengers' lug-
gage n 4; lipep saved, but much damaged. Most of the
light cargo has also ;eon upt out damaged. She had 200
tbGeaa coPper and 100 tons of lead, part of which has
• got out. The remainder will no doubt he secured,
and of course without damage. A heavy gale from the
eastward and a heavy sea from that quarter would most
probably cause her to pat t about the floor-heads or futtocks.
esterday she worked considerably. Every assistance has
been most handsomely rendered by the coast guard ; but
we are sorry to remark that the farming part of the -com-
munity, in the vicinity of the ship, fully bear out the
character formerly given them for maurauding, in the
most literal sense. Goods housed by the agents in their
dwellings for the night are not forthcoming with the dawn.
The vessels employed are from this port. Captain BAR.-
BER seems generally known here, and his character stands
high as a nautical man. Little attention has been given
t saving the elegant tittings of the cabins, but all to that
of the cargo. The Pallas, Captain FITZCLARENCE, with
the Earl of DALHOUSIE and the Bishop of CALCUTTA, it
is supposed, will sail in the morning. The Pallas has
been detained since Saturday, to receive despatches front
London,