The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LOI*I-Doisr, w TuEBDAIt, rEBRITARY 1, 1842.

against the Sunday. Tatra. Mr. Macdonald had made
in affidavit for defendant, in which he attributed the
death of the child to natural causes, but had not commu-
nicated that opinion to Mr. Graham previous to his
writing his letter to the Morning Advertiser. The Se-
cretary of State seeing these paragraphs in the Morn;ng
Advertiser, wrote a letter to Mr. Grove, calling his at-
tention to those articles, and asking for explanation. Sir
James Graham made no allusion to the Sunday Times in
his letter,, and Mr. Grove, rather unfairly, in his affi-
lavit stated that after the publication in the Sunday
Times he had received a letter from Sir James
Graham. Now, 'Sir James Graham's letter alluded
to the Morning Advertiser only, and in his answer
to Sit James, he stated that he intended to move for a
caiminal information ,against that paper (not mentioning
what) on the first day of term, and the answer to that
expressly mentioning the Morning Advertiser, again
stated that the explanation was satisfactory. Mr. Grove
did not move for a criminal information against the
Advertiser, as he. had pledged himself to do to the Secre-
tary of State, because in the affidavits it was sworn that
the facts there related were true, but he does against the
Sunday Times, because it had commented upon the ac-
count. That was not the way to vindicate his character.
The charge was in the. Morning Advertiser, and in his
letter to the Secretary of State he had pledged himself
‘,o take proceedings against that paper. He does no
mcli thing; but moves against the Sunday Times, to
which no allusion whatever had been made in Sir James
Graham's letter. Mr. Grove, in his affidavit, made
n ) reference -to the publications in the. Morning Ad-
vertiser, 'but confined himself to the Sunday Times.
Ile answer he gave to the charge was, that on Bth
October he had told Graham he would have three weeks
to look out for a lodging, who stated that he could not
look out for a lodging, and should not attempt to do so.
'lr. Graham distinctly denied that he had stated any-
thing of the sort. He had said distinctly that the state
of his wife was such as would prevent her removal.
Mr. Grove swore that Mr. Macdonald, on being asked if
there would
.be any danger in the removal of Mrs.
Graham, distinctly said, certainly not if' she had any
place to go to. Now Mr. Macdonald in the course of
his evidence had certainly made use of an expression of
that nature, but it conveyed a very incorrect idea of
what Mr. Macdonald had stated,. and on Mr. Glove's
own showing his reply to Mr. Macdonald, " There are
plenty of hotels to which she can be removed," was cer-
tainly harsh and inhuman. These were persons occu-
pying lodgings at 4s. a week. Was it not Mr. Grove's
duty when told by a medical man that Mrs. Graham was
near her confinement, and that it would be dange-
rous to remove her if she had no place to go,
to examine minutely into the case before abruptly
turning round to the officer and saying " this
is a trumpery excuse, there is plenty of time before
four o'clock; see that the warrant is executed directly."
Mr. Grove had denied making use of these expressions to
the officer, but they had been taken down at the time,
and the correctness of those notes had been verified by
affidavit. Mr. Grove had said that he had been inter-
rupted in an important case by the application for time
on the part of Mr. Graham, but that was no excuse for
acting with inhumanity. The law allowed 30 days for
the execution of the warrant, and the application had
been made on the 28th day, so that there was sufficient
time for inquiry. Mr. Finch, the Magistrate's clerk, in
his affidavit in support of the rule, admitted that he
had suggested to Graham the propriety of bringing the
surgeon to give evidence as to Mrs. Graham's state; and
that seeing Mr. Macdonald there, he interrupte the
Magistrate in the investigation of the case then on, and
drew his attention to the object for which the parties were
in attendance; and it appeared from the evidence ofone of
thepolicemen that Mr. Finch had told Mr. Graham if he
could procure medical. evidence to satisfy the Magistrate
his wife's removal would be attended with danger, the
execution of the warrant would be delayed. Mr. rove
had thought proper, in support of this application, to
do that which he had no right to do, to file two affidavits
accusing Mr. Graham of brutal and improper conduct
towards his wife. Now, the facts alleged to have occurred
in those affidavits were distinctly denied by Mrs. Graham
herself, and by those persons who were alleged to have
been present at the time those transactions were stated
to have occurred. In reply to that rule there was the
affidavit of Mr. Parrett, who had reported the case for
the Morning Advertiser, verifying the report which had.
appeared in that paper, and which had been copied into
'the Sunday Times, and the deponent distinctly swore that
Mr. Grove had made use of the words—" Officer, it is
not gone fouro'clock yet, go and see the warrant executed
now," which Mr. Grove denied having used. There was
also an affidavit-from the Editor of the Kentish Mercury,
who was present at the time, and who distinctly swore
that Mr. Grove had made use of the expressions at
tributed to him, and that the report was a correct one.
The affidavit of Mr. Macdonald, the surgeon, set forth
that he had distinctly told Mr. Grove that Mrs. Graham
was in a dangerous and precarious state of health, and
that haiing no place to go to, -it would be unsafe to re-
move her. On which Mr. Grove, in a most offensive
and insulting manner, said, " That won't do for me, Sir.
ft is all flummery, and an excuse to keep possession of
the premises." Now, he would put it to the. Court whe—
ther -Mr. Macdonald, a respectable medical man, was
not as worthy of belief as Mr. Grove ; and if that affi-
davit was true, there was no doubt that Mr. Grove had.
acted with inhumanity, and that he had no right to
come to the Court for a criminal information. Again,
Mr. 'Macdonald swore that he had told Mr. Grove he con-
sidered that he (Mr. Grove) had acted towards him in a
very insulting manner, thus distinctly contradicting Mr.
Grove ; and in this contradiction he was corroborated
by several witnesses. Mr. Macdonald also stated that
-the account of the proceedings reported in the Morning
Advertiser, and copied into the Sunday Times,
was, correct. Now, if that statement was a
!orrect report of what had occurred, Mr. Grove
had no reason to complain of the comments which had
appeared in the "Sunday Times. The letter of the Se-
cretary of State called his attention to statements in the
Morning Advertiser, and those statements Mr. Grove
had left untouched. It was a most curious fact, which ap-
peared from the affidavit of Mr. Graham, that all the
eent due to the landlord had been paid ; so that ?the
offer of the landlord to give up the arrears alluded to in
Mr. Grove's affidavit was merely an offer to give up the
rent due for the current week. Such being the state of '
facts, he submitted that Mr. Grove was not entitled to
the relief he sought, and 'he trusted that this rule
would be discharged.
Mr. JARVIS followed on the same side.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in support of the rule,
argued, that, if Mr. Grove -was not es titled to the relief
he sought, he was utterly unfitted to hold the situation
he filled ; and if every hasty expression made use of by
those engaged in the administration of justice were to
,)e made the subject of comments, such as those of
which Mr. Grove complained, he should like to know
how persons engaged in the performance of such deli-
cate, arduous, and often unpopular duties, as frequently
devolved upon them, were to act ? If a garbled state-
ment of an occurrence in one newspaper was made the
subject of calumnious comment in another, was the
person attacked to be compelled to pass by the calumny
until he had come into that Court to dispute the accu-
racy of the reporter of the garbled statement ? Was
Mr. Chapman to assume that the press could never err ;
that ,because there appeared no contradiction to any
statement that he might read in any other newspaper,
that therefore he was to make that a foundation for
calumnious attack ? Could it be contended that the
liberty ,of the press went so far as that ? Mr. Grove had
directed proceedings to be taken against the Sunday
Times before he had received any communication froth
the Secretary of State. A notice to quit had been
given to Graham in September, and, therefore, Mr.
Grove's authority to act was unquestioned ' • in fact, he
had no choice. It was big duty to act as he had done,
and he could be compelled to act by mandamus, if here.
fused. Eight-and-twenty days before, Mr. Grahaniwae
told he must obey the law, and he said he should not
look for another lodging; but would make his wife's state
An excuse for remaining. That was sworn to, by three
.vitnesses. Mr. Graham, in his affidavit, never mei -
tioned a single place to which he had applied for
lodgings in the interval, nor did his brother,
who had ultimately given him an asylum, make
any affidavit. How was it he had not sought
Dui asylum before ? and why was Mr. Grove •
to be made the victim of these vituperations,
when he had merely performed his duty to the best of
his ability? Was it to be tolerated that these comments
should be made ? Was it not natural that Mr. Grove
should make inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Graham,
to his wife, during the three weeks which he had to seek
for lodgings ? He was perfectly justified in doing so,
to show that Mr. Graham had made this complaint out
sf revenge on Mr. Grove, in which he was abetted by
certain newspapers, which dressed out a Sunday feast of
,lander for their customers. He had not, in moving for
this rule, read any part of the affidavits charging Mr.
Graham with ill-using his wife, bccause he had never

iti andtrovethecauses?
or
he had denied distinctly that he had performed that
had behaved improperly to the surgeon,
oosfee evidence
he might well imagine there was some sort
equivoca-
tion lurking, as, having been called on to depose toa fact,
he had, instead, offered an opinion. It was Mr. Graham's
duty to have found a place ; he had neglected to do so,
and Mr. Grove had no discretion left to him ; he was
bound to - act, for there was no evidence to show that
Airs. Graham could not be moved. There was nothing
to show that Mr. Grove had seen the paragraph in the
Morning Ackertiser. There could be no doubt but that
the article in the Sunday Times was of a highly libel-
ous character, and that it was intended to apply to Mr.
Grove ; and that could not be-got rid of by raising an
issue as to the accuracy of a report in the Morning Ad-
vertiser. He denied that that report was a fair report.
['he question was one of the .highest importance to Mr.
Grove, and if the rule were refused, whether justly or
unjustly, he must be removed; as one whose efficiency was
so impaired that it was impoisible he could do his duty.
Mr. THESIGER folloWed on the: same side, and con-
tended that Mr. Grove had no power whatever to stop
the execution of the warrant, even if Mr. Graham's ex-

cuses had been true, which they were not.
Mr. JusticeWummAN—i-Did any OW oppose Graham's
application to have the execution of the warrant suse
pended ?
Mr. JAuvis---No, my Lord.
Mr. THESIGER contendesiihat Mr. Grove had no dis-
cretion, the landlord hating applied for its execution the
day before.
Lord DENMAN—Whendid the medical man first make

his appearance ?
Mr. THESIGER—At half past three that day.
Mr. JAavxs—At the sitting of the Court. Mr. Grove
did not make his appearance until half-past titre%

Mre THESIGEA then proceeded with his argument, and
submitted that the rule must be made absolute.
Lord DENMAN said that it was important that Magis-
trates should have every protection they were entitled
to, but that they should have no more ; and that, there-
fore, the Court would go further into the facts contained
in ie affidavits before judgment was given.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 31.
HENN° V. SMITH.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who had
been a sailor on board the Surprise, a vessel trading to
the South Sea, to obtain damages from the defendant
for flogging him in the island of Java. The same plain-
tiff had also brought an action against a person named
Bennett, the owner of . the vessel. Both causes were Bet
down to be tried at Croydon ; and the plaintiff having
been nonsuited in the action against Bennett, that against
Smith was withdrawn for that time. A rule for the costs
in the latter action was also obtained.
Mr. JAMES now showed cause against the rule. It
appeared the consent to withdraw the action against
Smith was obtained in consideration of the permission
granted by the plaintiff to defendant to examine wit-
nesses in the action, who were about to proceed to
Java, whither a commission should be sent, if such per-
mission was not granted. Under these circumstances, it
could not be expected that the costs would be given. It
was not intended that the action should be held in ,ter-
rbrem over the plaintiff, and they would undertake to go
to trial as soon as possible.
Mr. llAursE appeared for the defendant, but no oppo-
sition was given.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 31.
WELD V. WARD, AND S-1100LBRIDGE v. WARD.
This was an issue from this Court, under the Tithe
Commutation Act, to fix the modus of tithe of a parish in
Kent, of which the defendant is the rector and the plain-
tiffs represent the parishioners,. who resist the rector's
claims. The issue was tried at Maidstone, and the ver-
dict was in favour of the defendant. Mr. Sergeant
Channell since obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, against
which Mr. Sergeant Botnpas showed cause.
Their Lordships this day gave
read over the notes of the trial, judgment. Having
The Lon]) CHIEF JUSTICE said that the Court was of
opinion that the case ought to undergo another consi
deration, and be sentslown again.—The rule fora nevi
trial was therefore made absolute.

CRIMINAL COURT.

The Sessions at the Old Bailey commenced yesterday
morning, before the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, Alder-
men, and Sheriffs.
The Grand Jury having been sworn,
The RECORDER delivered his charge, and said the
calendar which was lying before him contained the
names of 244 prisoners, and he apprehended the number
would be much augmented during the course of their
labours. This would impose upon them a task of
some length; and he doubted not the Jury would perform it
cheerfully, knowing that the result of their inquiries were
extremely important. In general the cases comprehended
in the calendar did not present any matters of difficulty
in point of law, and Ile did not anticipate there would
be difficulty in the discharge of their duties. There
were a few cases, however, more serious in their nature
than the rest, and attended with some peculiarities of
circumstances, and in consequence of those peculiarities
it would perhaps be necessary for him to make a few re-
marks. 'There was one case, or rather four charges,
against one individual for uttering forged orders, or
warrants, for the payment of money. The charge of
forgery had been defined as a false making of instru-
ments, which purported to be on the face of them good
and valid, with a view to fraud. Now, these in
question were instruments which were not good
and valid on the face of them, in consequence of
the absence of a stamp, by which stamp it was necessary
to give validity to such instruments. But it had been de-
cided, and on the soundest principles, that where the forged
instrument was unstamped, in cases where the law re-
quired a stamp, no defence could be made upon that
ground. Therefore if the case was made out to their
satisfaction it would be no answer to say the instrument
was unstamped. He thought it best not to advert to the
details of this case, because they would appear fully be-
fore them, and the observations he had already made
with respect to the case would be more fully understood
when the facts were developed to them. There was a
serious charge of stabbing and cutting with intent to do
some grievous bodily harm, and where severe injury had
been inflicted. He alluded to this case, although the facts
were simple, because the party making the attack was
represented to have been in a state of intoxication, and
he (the Recorder) was bound to say that intoxication
was no answer to the charge. Although the party was
represented as intoxicated they would have to consider
whether the facts when presented to them did not show a
previous intention to do mischief and harm. There was a
charge of an assault with intent to ravish, and it was a
case which appeared to have been very much investigated
by the Magistrates. It appeared that the same witness
had undergone examinations from time to time, in order
thoroughly to elicit the whole truth. The whole of these
examinations would be laid before them. The statements
would be necessarily ex parte, and they would have to con-
sider whether these statements were to be credited, and if
they made up their minds as to that subject they would then
have to consider whether the facts constituted an as-
sault, and whether that assault was against the will of the
party or not. If, upon consideration, they thought this
was the case, it would be their duty to find a true bill,
and to put the case in the course of further inquiry.
He should not have trespassed upon their attention with
these observations but that the case was one of a pecu-
liar character. Although the facts would be fully inves-
tigated before the Petty Jury, still it was the duty of
the Grand Jury, if they disbelieved the statement brought
before them, to throw their shield of protection over the
prisoner, and not put the accused party in jeopardy by a
trial. There was a charge of a serious character against
the husband of administering, or attempting to adminis-
ter, poison to Isis wife. This case would require their
most serious consideration. On the one hand, they
would have to consider whether there was reason to be-
lieve that the party charged was the party supplied
with the deleterious drug, or whether the charge was
instituted falsely from malicious motives. He should
say in his judgment of the facts presented, that it would
be well to submit the case to further investigation. lie
did not think it was necessary to trouble them with any
further remarks ; he would, however, venture to remind
them that it was necessary that a majority of their body
should concur in any presentment they might make, and
that that majority should not be less than twelve of their
number. With these remarks he would at once remit
them to their duties, assuring them that the Court as
then constituted or when the Judges came down, would
cheerfully afford them any information they might re-
quire respecting the severalseases to come before them.
The Grand Jury then retired to their room.
Archibald Leslie, aged 25, was indicted for unlawfully
obtaining from Michael Henry hart, a quantity of
clothes, and also some money, by means of false pre-
tences.

Mr. Payne conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Ballan-
tine appeared for the defendant.
From the evidence adduced it appeared that the pro-
secutor is a slop-seller, and carries on his business in Rat-
cliffe Highway. On the 20th December the defendant,
with whom he had had some slight acquaintance pre-
viously, went to his shop, accompanied by. a man whose
name he represented to be William Bowch, and who, he
saidriutd a claim upon the mixed Commission, appointed
by the British and Portuguese Governments to investi-
gate the claims of British subjects upon the Portuguese
Government, and that the Commissioners had awarded
him a sum of 651. 14s. 4d., and had given him a docu-
ment to that effect, winch he wished to dispose of, and
asked Mr. Hart to purchase it. The prisoner at the time
said lie knew Bowch, and that he had served with
him abroad, and knew it to be all right. Some
further conversation having taken place, the prosecutor
was asked to give 401. for the award, and at length he
agreed to give 301., 121. of which amount was to be taken
in clothes, and the remuinder in money, but he refused
to give any money unless they obtained a certificate
from Bowch's commanding officer, and the next day a
paper was produced by the defendant and Bowch pur-
porting to be the certificate of Robert Williams, "late
Captain, Portuguese Service," to the effect that Bowch
had served with him in Portugal, and that he was entitled
to the amount mentioned in the award. The prosecutor,
at the suggestion of a friend, required the certificate of
a housekeeper to prove the 'identity of Bowch, and also
that it should receive the sanction of a Magistrate before
whom a declaration-
to-that effect should be made. Ac-

cordingly, shortly afterwards, the defendant came with
Bowch, and observing to the prosecutor that " he had
done it nicely for him," produced a paper, certifying the
man who accompanied him to be the person specified
in the award, and the paper also purported to be signed
by Mr. Maltby, the Magistrate. Upon this the prose-
cutor allowed the defendant and his companion to select
clothes to the amount of nearly 121., and he handed
them cash, making in all 201., but refused to give any
more until proper notice of the sale of the claim had been
given to the Commissioners who were investigating the
claims. The next day, accordingly, the defendant with
Bowch accompanied a friend of the prosecutor's to the
Commission-office, where it was ascertained that no such
award in the name of Bowch had ever been made, but
while the inquiry was going on, the defendant and his com-
panion left the place, and nothing was seen of the latter,
but the defendant was taken into custody a day or two after-
wards. Witnesses attached to the Commission were called
to prove that there was no claim made by any person
of the name of Bowch upon the Portuguese Govern-
ment, but it appeared that a man of the name of Peter
Click had made a claim, and the Commissioners had
granted an award in his favour for the sum of 151. 14s.
4d., and the defendant, or a person of the same name,
acted as his agent, and the award paper was placed in his
hands, and it seemed that the sum had been altered
from 151. 14s. 4(1. to 651. 14s. 4d., and the name of
Peter Click had been erased by some chemical process,
and that of William Bowch substituted for it.
Mr. BALL ANTINE took several technical objections to
the indictment, but they were overruled by the Court.
The Learned Counsel then addressed the Jury,
and intimated that the evidence did not support the
charge imputed to the prisoner, and he submitted that
the evidence showed that he had been the dupe of the
other party,
and that he had no intention to defraud
the prosecutor.
Witnesses were called, who gave the prisoner a good
character for, honesty ; and one of them, in answer to a
question from the Court, said that the prisoner
verdict of Guilty. Judgment had
served with the army in Portugal, and that a man
named Bowel; was in the same regiment.
The Raeonneri summed up, and the Jury returned a
was respited.

NEW COURT*
The Petty Jury were sworn in in this Court about 12
o'clock, and soon afterwards adjourned. It was intimated
t ) them by the Court that their labours wou.d be very
light.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
John Goff, a young man, was placed at the bar, on
the charge of robbing his employer, Mr. James Segress,
the landlord of the Grapes public-house in Old Compton-
street.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner had been been
in his service for a considerable time, and the utmost
confidence was placed in his integrity. Latterly,
however, circumstances transpired whieh induced
witness to believe that some of the persons employed
in his business were in the practice of robbing him daily.
On Saturday night, on the house closing, he counted the
number of cigars that remained in a box in the bar, and
on Sunday morning missed 22 of them. The prisoner
at the instant was about leaving the premises when wit
ness stopped him and insisted on his being searched, and
the 22 missing cigars were found in hie pockets, and also
a quantity of loose tobacco. The cigars cost about 2d. each.
The prisoner admitted his guilt, and begged, for the
sake of his aged mother, that Mr. Segress would not pro -
secutehim.—Mr. Segress intimated that he was inclined
to be merciful.
Mr. MALTBY said that robberies by servants were on
the increase, and he should therefore commit the prisoner.
WORSHIP-STREET.
George Rose; a carman, was brought before Mr.
Broughton, upon a charge. of having maltreated two
horses.

George Wilcock, an officer employed by the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, stated, that he
was in the City-road, at eleven o'clock on that morning,
when he saw the prisoner driving a van with two horses,
which were *in so diseased and debilitated a state that
they could scarcely crawl along. Both of the poor ani-
mals were literally living skeletons, and one of them had
an open abscess on its back as large as a crown piece,
and two bleeding wounds on each of its shbulders, caused
apparently by the friction of the collar, which was press-
ing on them at the time. The prisoner admitted that
one of the horses belonged to him, and said that he had
borrowed the other.
Hanley, the chief usher, said that the poor hacks were
then at the outer door of the Court, and they attracted
general notice, in consequence of their wretched scare-
crow appearance. The only place to which they ought
to be driven was the knacker's yard.
The officer, Wilcock, said that if the prisoner would
Consent immediately to dispose of the horses, he would
undertake, on the part of the Society, to pay him 10s.
more for them than he would be able to get any
where else.
Mr. BROUGHTON said that it was a most liberal offer,
and although he must order the prisoner to pay a fine
of Ws., he should allow the payment to stand over for a
fortnight, to give him an opportunity of acceding to the
officer's proposal, and in, the event of his doing so the
penalty would probably be remitted.
CROYDON PETTY SESSIONS.
At the meeting of Magistrates at the Town Hall,
Croydon, on Saturday, Robert Jobson, an engine driver
on the Croydon Railway, attended to answer a charge
of having, with a hammer, inflicted such severe injury
upon another driver belonging to the Company, that his
life has been for some time despaired of.
Mr. Russell attended on behalf of the defendant.
The complainant, who still appeared to be suffering
very much from the injury, and who gave his evidence
with great difficulty, said that on the 10th inst., in
consequence of learning that Jobson had removed his
engine from the shed in which he had placed it, he
spoke to him on the subject. Jobson told him he ha.l
no business to put it there, and he replied that if he
moved it again he would shake him ; to which Jobson
answered that if he did he would get " sucked in."
Jobson then went on to his engine, and called
him a " useless old thing ;" and on his repeat-
ing the words, witness went up to him and collared
him, and Jobson immediately struck him on the head
with a hammer, and before he could recover himself he
repeated the blow twice. He said, " Don't kill me with
this hammer," and Jobson replied,. " - thee, I will,"
and was about to strike him again if the hammer had
not been taken from him. After this they had a struggle
together, and fell to the floor, and while they were upon
the ground Jobson attempted to bite him on the cheek.
When he got up he found that he was very bloody, and
he went to a doctor, and had been under his care ever
since the occurrence.
When the complainant had concluded his statement,
he appeared so exhausted that Mr. Russell said he would
not take upon himself the responsibility of exciting him
further by cross-examination, and lie should, therefore,
not ask him a single question, and by-the direction of the
Magistrate the complainant was immediately removed
from the Court.
Mr. W. Sutherland, the surgeon, deposed that he was
called in to attend the complainant, whom he found in a
state of collapse, and upon examination he discovered a
wound in his head, and there was also a slight mark on
the face, which might have been occasioned by a bite.
The wound in itself was not dangerous, but the blows
had occasioned concussion of the brain ; and for ten
days the complainant was in a dangerous state, and he
was still under I treatment for concussion of the brain.
In answer to questions from the Bench, the surgeon
said that the complainant was going on well at present,
btit ho would not take upon himself to declare that he
was out of danger, because it frequently happened, in
cases of concussion, that the patient would appear to be
going on well, and a sudden change, attended with a
fatal result, might ultimately take place.
Mr. RUSIzELL then addressed the Bench, and complained
of the proceedings that had been taken to hurry on the
present Inquiry before the unfortunate complainant was
at all in a fit state to give evidence, and to bear the ex-
citement consequent upon a public investigation. He
then went on to say that he would not attempt to deny
that Jobson had most unjustifiably used a most dange-
rous weapon, but said lie should show the Bench that he
only did so after he had been most grossly provoked and
insulted by the complainant. Witnesses were then
called, who proved that Archer had threatened on
the previous night that he would have a quarrel with
Jobson, and that he had put his fist in his face, and-col-
lared him before he struck him with the hammer. It was.
also proved, that after the occurrence Archer said it was
a rum job ; and that he admitted he was in the wrong,
and asked Jobson to shake hands with him. The Ma-
gistrates, ultimately, after a brief consultation, said, that
from what the surgeon had; stated, they did not feel
themselveS justified in disposing of the case summarily,
and they ordered him to enter into his own recognizances
in 1001., and two sureties in 50/. each, to attend at the
Sessions to answer any charge that might be preferred
against him.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,
TATTERSALL'S—YESTERDAY.
The attendance was swollen by the arrival of a few
gentlemen from the country, and a fair proportion of
business was transacted in the course of rather a long
nfternoon. The Derby prices varied, in a few instances,
from those reported last week ; for instance, Attila,
after an outlay of nearly 1501., at 7 to 1, receded half a
point, the offer to lay the increased odds proceeding
from a quarter in which he had previously been backed
to win a large stake on very favourable terms; Chatham
was under " suspicion," and fell to 14 to 1, taken to a
pony ; 221 to 1 to 301., and 12 to in fifties, were laid
against Auckland, the subsequent offers averaging about
,22 to 1. The Joanna colt was backed at an improved
quotation • but 1,000 to 15, taken ten or a dozen times,
about William le Gros, had not the effect of improving
his position in the betting. Lasso had rather a strong
party at 50 to 1, and several scores and ponies were laid
out on other outsiders, at prices averaging pretty nearly
the same as last week. A few unimportant bets were laid
ou the Oaks and Chester Cup.
THE DERBY.
25 to 1 agst Mr. Gregory's two—taken
15 to 2 agst Col. Anson's Attila
14 to 1 agst Col. Peel's Chatham—taken
22 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Auckland
37ir to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Joanna colt—taken
48 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Dirce colt
50 to 1 agst Mr. Ramshay's Moss-Trooper—taken
50 to 1 agst Mr. Scott's Artful Dodger—taken
50 to 1 agst Mr. Gregory's Defier—taken
50 to 1 agst Mr. Pettit's Espartero—taken
50 to 1 agst Mr. Glenwood's Lasso—taken
1000 to 15 agst Mr. I. Day's Curator—taken.
1000 to 15 agst Mr.G. Clark's William le Gros—t freely
THE OAKS.
9 to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's Passion—taken
18 and 21 to 1 in ponies, laid agst Mr. Scott's Syren
THE CHESTER CUP.
10 to 1 agst Mr. Kirby's Lanercost—taken
15 to 1 agst Mr. Greville's Rory O'More—taken
18 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Marshal Soult—taken

INCENDIARY FIRE AT BORROVVASH.— We
very much regret to state that a fire, the work of an in-
cendiary, broke out on the premises of Mr. William
Meakin, of Borrowash, Derbyshire, on the evening of
Thursday last, at the early hour of eight o'clock. It
appears that at that hour Mr. Meakin was in his stack-
yard, when he perceived a fire in the barn, and which,
from the ascendancy it had gained, defied all efforts to
extinguish it, notwithstanding the active exertions of
the neighbourhood. The barn is within a few yards of
the turnpike-road, and it was evident that whoever had
been guilty of the diabolical act came from thence, as
the footmarks were dittinctly visible in the snow from
the highway to the building. The barn contained a
quantity of wheat, barley, and a variety of farming im-
plements.worth probably 80/., all of which were entirely
consumed, and, we regret to say, were uninsured.—Don-
caster Gazette.
DEAFNESS.—Sound Magnifiers, and Invisible
Operative Voice Conductors, to enable persons at an advanced
age, and of old standing extreme deafness, to Join in general
conversation, and to catch the sound of a distant low speaker
at a publie assembly; they are the size of a very small gold
seven shilling piece, and when In the cavity of the ears, they
are not in the least perceptible nor more uncomfortable than
having a small piece of fine wool in its place ; they are composed
of a metal to collect sound, peculiar to the Messrs. S. and B.
Solomons themselves ; and although they are so extremely smal.
yet they enable those afflicted with extreme deafness, and
those who are only slightly dull of hearing to hear in every
respect equal to those of most acute hearing. Messrs. S. and
13. Solomons, 39, Albemarle.street, Piccadilly, opposite the
York Hotel, and 76, King William-street, City. Newly-Invented
Spectacles, immediately they are placed before imperfect vision,
either by day or candlelight, that mist and dullness whjch
appears before the eyes is at once removed, every object beer ming
clear and distinct, so that the most aged defective sye.sight be.
comes bright and brilliant, and is brought to its youthful, natural
and original state. Those valuable inventions have gained the
patronage of the Royal Family, and the unqua:ified approbation of
above 400 of the principal members of the medical profession, and
numerous individuals of high distinction, who have been greatly
benefited by their use. To be had only at 39, Albemarle-street,
Piccadilly, opposite the York Hotel, and 7fi, King William-strefe
City.—No connexion with persons o f the same name.

-----
SHEFFIELD.—We have great pleasure in an-
nouncing, on authority, that an official communication
has been received from Lord Wharneliffe, President of
the Council, stating that the Privy Council have decided
to advise her Majesty to grant a Charter of Incorporation
to the berOugh of Shed 14—Sheileld Independent.