The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 10, 1842

Duke, with' his usual coolness, being well aware of his
perilous situation, signified to those in attendance
that his medicat advisers at Deal 'should be instantly
sent for ; .and in a very short time afterwards Dr.
M'Arthur and Mr. IV, Hulke, surgeon, had arrived
at the castle. An attempt was first made to extract
the bone by means of forceps, but it was too deeply
seated for this instrument to reach it, although every
means were tried which skill or ingenuity could sug-
gest to the two medical practitioners thus to relieve
the illustrious sufferer. At last, it being then deemed
essentially requisite that immediate relief should be
given to the Duke, the probang, as a dernier resort,
was had recourse to, and the bone was most skilfully
thrust downwards, through the gullet into the stomach,
rather severely but necessarily, from its position,
lacerating the throat of the Noble Duke. It is ex-
tremely gratifying to be able to add, that the illus-
trious and venerable warrior has since experienced no
inconvenience from the effects of the unfortun ate
(and what might have proved, but for the skill of his
medical attendants, most lamentable) occurrence.—
The Britannia,

ORDNANCE lIJRVEY.—The persons engaged in this
great national work are actively employed in the
survey of the streets of Leeds and the neighbour-
hood, and their operations seem to attract a good
deal of public attention.—Leeds 21fercury.
Jane, the wife of Stephen Cork, labourer, Cledford-
bridge, near Middlewich, is now cutting three teeth,
at the age of 60.

FRIDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
FOREIGN OFFICE, DEC. 6, 1842.
The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. James
Mllenry, as Consul at Londonderry for the United
States of America.
OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, DEC. 6.
Royal Regiment of Artillery—Second Captain W. L.
Kaye to be Captain, vice Drew, retired on full-pay ;
First Lieut. P. Ellis to be Captain, vice Kaye, Nov. 26 ;
Second Lieut. H. W. Patton to be First Lieutenant, vico
Ellis, Nov. 29.
MEMORANDUM.—The date of promotion of First
Lieutenant E. A. Williams is altered to Nov. 26, 1842.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire.
Queen's Own Royal Yeomanry.—J, P. Oates to be
Assistant-Surgeon, vice Osborne, deceased, Dec. 6.
WHITEHALL, Nov. 29.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Charles Bridges,
of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, Gent., to be
a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.
STEPHEN THOMAS,vietnaller,lleworth,Yorkshire.
BANKRUPTS.
EDMUND PETER POWELL, tailor, Southampton,
to surrender, Dec. 16, at eleven, and Jan. 20, at twelve,
at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. Walker,
Southampton-buildings, Bloomsbury ; Deacon and Long,
Southampton.
JOHN BURSLEM, stationer, King's Lynn, Norfolk,
Dec. 19, at half-past twelve, and Jan. 13, at twelve, at
the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street. Green,
official assignee, Aldermanbury ; I3ankart, Clement's-
lane, Lombard-street.
THOMAS HARTLEY, batter, Liverpool, Dec. 19,
at one, and Jan. 10, at one, at the Liverpool District
Court of Bankruptcy. Bird, official assignee, Liverpool;
Grocott, Liverpool.
RICHARD BABY URRY, coach maker, East Ret-
ford, Nottinghamshire, Dec. 19, at twelve, and Jan. 9, at
eleven, at the Leeds District Court of Bankruptcy.
Hope, official assignee, Leeds ; Vollans, East Retford.
ROBERT CHESHIRE JANION, commission agent,
Liverpool, Dec. 16, at one, and Jan. 11, at twelve, at the
Liverpool District Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, offi-
cial assignee, Liverpool ; Johnson, St. Helen's, Lan-
cashire.
JOHN DAVIES and HENRY EDWARDS, linen-
drapers, Westminster-road, Lambeth, Dec. 22, at eleven,
and Jan. 25, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basing-
hall-street. Lackington, official assignee, Coleman-street..
buildings ; Ashurst, Cheapside.
JOSHUA BEAUMONT, victualler, Gainsborough,
Lincolnshire, Dec. 19, and Jan. 9, at eleven, at the Leeds
District Court of Bankruptcy. Hope, official assignee,
Leeds ; Plaskett, Gainsborough.
ISRAEL WADE, grocer, Manchester, Dec. 15, and
Jan. 16, at one, at the Manchester District Court of
Bankruptcy. Putt, official assignee, Manchester ; Dear-
den, Manchester.
WILLIAM BELL, merchant, Bridlington, York-
shire, Dec. 23 and Jan. 17, at eleven, at the Leeds
District Court of Bankruptcy, Hope, Leeds, official as-
signee ; Towse, Lawrence Pountney-lane, London ;
Mather, Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; Wetwan, Bridlington.
PETER BLATCHFORD, miller, Plymouth, Dec.
20, and Jan. 19, at twelve, at the Exeter District Court
of Bankruptcy. Hirtzel, official assignee, Exeter ;
Harris, Lincoln's Inn, London ; Stogdon, Exeter; Kelly,
Plymouth.
EDMUND OAKLEY and JOHN WISE, corn.
dealers, Poole, Der- 21, at half-past twelve, and Jan. 13
at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street
Green, official assignee, Aldermanbury ; Bishop, South.
ampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, London; Moore, Wim.
borne, Dorsetshire.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy,Basinghall-street.
T. Marris and T. Nicholson, bankers, Barton-upon.
Humber, Jan. 2, at one—J. J. Grant, alo merchant,
Gloucester-street, Queen's-square, Bloomsbury, Jan. 2,
at half-past eleven.

In the Country.
J. and G. Lockwood, linen drapers, Wakefield, York-
shire, Jan. 11, at twelve, at the Leeds District Court of
Bankruptcy—W. S. Batson, J. Wilson, and J. Lang-
horn, bankers, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Dec. 31, at eleven,
at the District Court ofßankruptcy,Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown
to the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
W. Richardson, wine merchant, King-street, Covent-
garden, Dec. 30—J. Dennis, sen., and J. Dennis, jun.,
linen drapers, Tooley-street, Dec. 30—W. Walford.
merchant, Great Winchester-street, Dec. 30—W. C.
Gotland, I:nan draper, Cambridge, Dec. 30—M. Otley,
milliner, St. James's-street, Dec. 30—R. Jacques and R.
Wilson, flax spinners, Leeds, Jan. 2—T. Mennell, cloth
merchant, Leeds, Jan. 4—G. A. Cator, wool merchant,
Leeds, Jan. 3—T. T. Johnson, ribbon manufacturer,
Wood-skeet, Cheapside, Jan. 3—R. Duffel', tar distiller,
Bow-common, Jan. 3—W. Ridge, C. Ridge, and W.
Newland, bankers, Chichester, Dec. 30—E. J. Trough-
ton, merchant, St. Michael's-alley, Cornhill, Dec. 30—W.
Nockells and J. Barsham, oxalic acid manufacturers,
Stratford, Dec. 31—R. II Goddard, fringe maker,
Wood-street, Jan. 4—B. Hargreaves, tailor, Manchester,
Jan. 2—W. S. Batson, J. Wilson, and J. Langhorn,
bankers, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Dec. 31 —B. Paice,
victualler, New Windsor, Jan. 4—W. Dunn, merchant,
Southampton, Jan. 6—B. Ward, boot manufacturer,
Charlotte-terrace, New-cut, Lambeth, Jan. 6—J. Allen,
cattle dealer, Much Wymondley, Hertfordshire Jan. 6
Collinson and W. Brown, upholsterers, 'Oxford-
street, Jan. 6—R. B. Thompson, warehouseman, Wood-
street, Cheapside, Jan. 6—J. Dudley, chemist, London-
terrace, Hackney-road, Dec. 30—P. Protheroe, jun., iron
merchant, Bristol, J. I2—A. G. Gifford, wine mer-
chant, Mark-lane, Dec. 30 —T. Stephenson, coach
maker, Manchester, Dec. 30—J. Russell, merchant,
Manchester, Jan. 3—J. Wilson, commission agent, Man-
chester, Jan. 3—J. Alexander and H. Gibbons, chemists,
Wolverhampton, Jan. 2—F. W. Fiddian, architect, Bir-
mingham, Jan. 3—T. Hampson, broker, Liverpool. Doe.
31—T. Allen, silkman, Macclesfield, Cheshire, Jan. 2
C. Biggs, commission agent, Manchester, Jan. 2.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

F. Lane and P. Wilson—T. and W. Stripling, watch
makers, Litchfield—S. Baker and A. Windle, timber
merchants, Wortley, Yorkshire—J. H. Watson and S.
Wix, attorneys, Great Winchester-street, City—W.
Kightley and H. W. Hall, solicitors, Panten-square,
Haymarket—My. and M. Dunne, dress makers, Con-
duit-street, Westminster—C. Heathcott and S. Linley,
manufacturers of joiners' tools, Sheffield—G. Ewart and
R. G. Spedding, zinc workers, Quickset-row, New-road,
Bridge-road, Westminster—J. H. Sellers andJ. Blomley,
attorneys, Rochdale, Lancashire—N. Buchanan and W.
Tuppen, hair dressers, Hastings—G. Fox and H. Horner,
engineers, Sheffield—C. Hinnell and R. Willan, attor-
neys, Bury St. Edmund's—T. Kershaw, C. Holt, J. Jack-
son, S. Jackson, and J. Stott, coal miners, Spotland,
Lancashire (so far as regards S. Jackson)—J. Barnes
and E. Chantler, bleachers, Elton-fold, Lancashire--J.
Wright and W. S. Partridge, surgeons, Bordesley, War-
wickshire--T. and W. Dickins, whip manufacturers, Da-
ventry, Northamptonshire—A. and W. Dove, iron-
mongers, York—B. P. Gurney and R. Carr, ivory cutters,
Sheffield—J. Coote and A. Ardley, carpenters, Witham,
Essex—T. C. and P. R. Jackson, engineers, Little Bolton,
Lancashire--J. Reid and J. Breckenridge, tailors, Liver-
pool—T.Kershaw, S. Ja,Ason, J. Jackson, J. Stott, and
M. Stott, coal miners, Spotland, Lancashire (So far as
regards J. and M. Stott)--
J. Plaisted and B. J. Vickers, J. Vickers, jun.,
, Vickrs, wine erchants, Tooled (so far as regards Be Vickers).m
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
JAMES 11100 D WILSON, flesher, Dundee, Dec. 15
and Jan. 10, at two, at the British Hotel, Dundee.
MATHEW TOD, farmer, - Bankfoot, Haddington-
shire, Dec. 3 and Jai. 4, at twelve, at the George Inn,
Haddington.
ALEXANDER JAMES KILGOUR, china dealer,
Dundee, Dec. 17 and Jan. 4,' at two, at the Royal
Hotel, Dundee.
GEORGE MACFARLANE and CO., merchants,
Glasgow, Dec. 15 and Jan. 5, at one, at the George Inn,
Glasgow.
LAUDER and CO., brewers, Jedburgh, Dec. 15 and
Jan. 5, at twelve, at the Spread Eagle Inn, Jedburgh.
JAMES SCOTT, grocer, Leshmahagow, Dec. 14 and
Jan.4,a two, at the Chambers of A. and J. Morrison,
Glasgow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.)
LIBEL.-BAKEB, V. WILKINSON.

This was an action brought by the High Sheriff of
Rutlandshire, against the proprietor of the Leicester
Herald, for the publication of a libel. It appeared
that the plaintiff was a great agriculturist and a
feeder of stock, and that he had obtained several prizes
for a certain fat steer which he had fed. There was
afterwards an hccusation brought against him that he
had misrepresented the age and feeding of the steer,
and in the course of the controversy, frequent
allusions were made to the plaintiff's stock-
book. Meetings were held on the subject, at Leices-
ter and Stamford. Pamphlets were published, and
while the controversy was at its height, the alleged
libel appeared in defendant's paper. It was in the
form of a letter to the Editor, and was headed "The
Cheating Sheriff of Rutland." The letter itself was
dated Limpston' April 6, 1842, and purported
to be written by P. Brown. It stated, that as
regarded Mr. Baker's herd book, the writer who
had lived in plaintiff's service for upwards of
six years, had made frequent entries in it, and
that to the best of the writer's recollection
that book contained something much more like 300
pages than only 6, as had been represented in the
Times of March 30. The letter was followed by a
paragraph, in which the plaintiff was denominated the
mean, lying sheriff.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
Hill), for the plaintiff, stated the circumstances con-
nected with the controversy relating to the age, and
said that the plaintiff had only brought this action for
the purpose of vindicating his character.
The clerk from the Stamp-office was called to prove
the proprietorship of the paper. It appeared, however,'
that there was a verbal difference between the Stamp-
office record and the statement in the declaration as
to the residence of the defendant and the place of pub-
lication of the paper.
Mr. KELLY objected that that variance was fatal to
the action.
Lord DENMAN having heard the Solicitor-General in
reply, directed the cause to proceed, but stated that he
would reserve the point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the point
being reserved.
Lord DENMAN could not reserve it if the Solicitor-
General objected.
Witnesses were then called to prove the purchase of
the paper at defendant's office, who were cross -exa-
mined as to the meetings held jibout the steer,
but.from which nothing of importance was elicited.
A letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated June last,
and. apologising for the insertion of the libel, was then
put in, and also an article in November last, in defend-
ant's paper, relating to the action, and stating that
Sir W. Follett was retained for plaintiff, and Mr.
Kelly for defendant.
The case for the plaintiff having been concluded,
Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, admitted that the
verdict must go against his client, but he submitted
that the smallest possible amount of damagea
would fully satisfy the justice of the case.
He denied that the plaintiff had brought this action
bona fide for the vindication of his character, because
if that had been his intention he would have put wit-
nesses into the box, who could have told the Jury
what had occurred at the Walton and other agricul-
tural associations, who could have given them some in -
sight into the transaction. On the contrary, the
plaintiff had taken advantage of one strong expression
in the heading of an article in a local newspaper, in
order to snap a verdict. The plaintiff himself had pub-
lished a pamphlet on the subject, and what right had
he to complain of another person publishing an article
in a newspaper on the same subject ? He submitted
that nominal damages were all that the plaintiff was
entitled to recover. With regard to the apologetical
letter that expressed defendant's regret for the publi.
cation of the libel, the defendant stated that if he had
been aware of plaintiff's defence at Leicester and
Stamford the article would never have been published,
founded, as it had been, entirely on the report of the
Walton Committee, and yet after that plain tiffcontinued
his prosecution. It appeared that at the meeting at Stam-
ford Mr. Baker had been unanimously acquitted of the
charge of misrepresenting the age of the steer, but
why had-he not brought his action against the Wal-
ton Committee instead of against the present de-
fendant, who had merely published an article founded
on the report of the Committee. The defendant had,
in his letter of the 14th June, offered to let
judgment go by default; and he did not envy
the feelings of the then prosecutor, who, after
such a letter could have continued this action. The
only reason why judgment had not been suffered to
go by default was, because the defendant had been
advised that it would be better for him to have this
case tried before a Judge with a special Jury, than
before an Under Sheriff, and the difference of ex-
pense would not be more than 101. or 201.
Lpolardine of as a libel was wholly unintelli-
gible DENMAN
in summing up said, that the letter
complained
"The Cheating Sheriff of Rutland,'
gible when taken by itself, but unfortunately
it was headed
concluding with these expressions, " We wonder what
the lying Sheriff will say to this, how will he wriggle
out of it ?" his friends assist him. They are
underdone brown. And with this witticism, for the
Jury would recollect that the writer of the 'article
signed his name F. Brown, the article concluded.
Now, it really was a miserable thing that the Jury
and Court should have their time occupied by stuff
like this. He could not help expressing his regret
the station filled by
ocwcuhpoy
ing
must be men of education,
the that
depefernsdoannsts,
and of intellectual attainment, and who ought
to have the feelings and manners of gentlemen, in-
dulged in the use of abusive and vulgar language
Such as that which he had just read. It seemed as if
the editors of papers thought it incumbent on them to
follow the example set them by two persons in a
work of fiction, with which, no doubt, all who heard
him had been frequently delighted, and who, because
they happened to be editors of rival newspapers,
thought themselves privileged to indulge in the
lowest and most abusive expressions against each other.
The question was to what damages was the plaintiff
entitled. He could not help expressing his opinion
that all such language ought to be treated, with con-
tempt by men of character. With regard to the man-
ner in which the case for the plaintiff had been
brought before them, he must say that he never saw
a voyage of reputation embarked on with sails so
closely reefed. It was absurd for. the Sheriff of Rut-
land to come `here to vindicate his character before a
Special Jury of the county of Middlesex, who
had never heard of his name before, and no one of
whom knew anything about him. With regard to the
defendant's letter of the 14th June, he considered that
was a very proper letter ; and if the plaintiff had not
thought' that a sufficient apology, he might have re-
quired a fuller apology, or have called for the name. of
the person who had written the letter; but instead of
that, after reading that letter deprecating his anger,
and apologising for the insertion of the letter, plaintiff
brought defendant here to meet the visitation of the law
The Learned Counsel for the defendant said, that he
was glad the case had been heard in that Court, and
that the expense would only be a little different from
what it would have been if judgment had gone by
default, and the case had been heard before the
Under Sheriff. He was afraid the Learned Gentle-
man's client would not find such to be the case, and
he was desirous that it should not go forth to the
public that persons were not doing themselves any
injury by proceeding to trial in the superior Courts,
when they had no grounds of defence to offer. He
thought a Sheriff and a Sheriff's Jury would have
done ample enough justice in the present case.
The •juestion now was, whether they thought the
plaintiff entitled to any damages at all beyond those
nominal damages which every person was entitled to
in cases of this nature, where there was no justifi-
cation.

The Jury retired to consider the verdict at one
o'clock, and at half-past four o'clock returned a verdict
for plaintiff—Damages, 40s.

KENDILLON V. MALTBY, ESQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
had been a police sergeant, against the defendant, the
police Magistrate of the Marlborough-street Police
, Court, for slander.
Mr. C. CLARK opened the proceedings.
Mr. KELLY, in
stating the case to the Jury, said,
that the plaintiff,
who had always borne an irre-
proachable character, held the situation of sergeant in
the police force in the month of June, 1841, and
that his beat was in the parish of St.
George, Hanover-square. It appeared that at
that time,
racter resided in Woodstock-street, which was
a Dumber of persons of abandoned eha-
on the plaintiff's beat. The plaintiff had been very
active in endeavouring to get these women of aban-
doned character out of that locality, and at length he
had succeeded in clearing the street. On the 21st
June, there was a disturbance in Shepherd-street, to
which these women had removed from Woodstock-
street. The,plaintiff in quelling the disturbance had
been assaulted by a person named Woolrid, who
was charged before Mr. Maltby with the 'assault; in
fact he had given the plaintiff a very severe blow.
Some of these abandoned women had been called
by Woolridge, and Mr. Maltby had dismissed
On the 29th of June another
disturbance had occurred at the same spot. Two gen-
the complaint.
tlemen, Sir Thomas Moncrieff and Captain Ormsby.
had complained to the plaintiff that one of them hAd
been robbed. The plaintiff made inquiries on the
spot, and offered to take any one into custody whom
they would charge
aarhaving robbed them. One of
the gentlemen immediately afterwards found the arti-
cle of which he stated he had been robbed, and with-
drew the complaint.
The women became very vio-
lent, and attacked the plaintiff, and Sir Thomas Mon-
crieff and Captain Ormsby took part with the women,
and gave the plaintiff a blow. They were taken
into custody, and on being brought before the defend-

ant they denied the assault. Now, Captain Ormsby
' had not been in a state, at the time the transaction
had taken place, to kpow anything about it. In fact,
he was drunk—he had been fined by Maltby him-
self for drunkenness. The case was then adjourned
to procure further evidence; and on the 3d of July,
when the case came on for final hearing, evidence
having been given corroborating the evidence of the
plaintiff, Mr. Maltby fined Captain Ormsby ss. for
being drunk, and ss. for assaulting the plaintiff, and
dismissed the case against Sir Thomas Moncrieff.
At the conclusion of the case Mr. Maltby made use of
the language which was the subject of the present
action. The words made use of by defendant were,
"I feel myself bound to say, with reference to this
charge, and also to one before me a few days since,
from the same spot, that Ido not believe Sergeant
Kendillon on his oath ? " , This was said in the open
Court, in the presence of men belonging to the Me-
tropolitan Police, and ofnewspaper reporters, who would
report the words to the public. He would defy Mr.
Maltby to prove the truth of the words he had uttered.
The nature of the pleadings was sucti as to allow of a
justification being put upon the record, but the de-
fendant had not attempted to justify. These words
of the Magistrate had been communicated to the
Commissioners of Police, who in consequence had
dismissed the plaintiff. He had remained for some
time out of a situation, but had at length been for-
tunate enough to obtain employment in the Surrey
police. The Learned Counsel then called witnesses to
prove the use of the words by defendant, and the
dismissal of plaintiff by Mr.' Mayne, the Police
Commissioner.
The case for the plaintiff having closed,
The SouciTon-UENERAL, for defendant, said that
as no evidence has }peen given of malice on the part of
Mr. Maltby, as the obse.-
vations had been uttered by
him on the Bench in the exeu,. 'tion. of his duty. as a
Magistrate, and as there was no elatLence-• of special
damage, for the evidence of Mr. Mayne cui. not go to
that extent, he submitted to the Court that there was:
no case to go to the Jury, for the observations has
been made I
by him in his judicial capacity in giving
judgmentin a case before him, and he was entitled to 1
the protection of the Act of Parliament.

Mr. KELLY, in reply, contended v that the expres-
sions themselves were sufficient to show malice from
the manner in which they were used. It was neither
decorous nor right in a Magistrate, because the per-
sons brought before him happened to move in the
sphere of gentlemen' and denied the truth of the
charge, to state that he did not believe a witness on
his oath, when at the same time there was nothing
whatever to impeach the veracity of the witness.
Mr. CLARK followed on the same side.

Lord DENMAN said that in his opinion no Judge
was entitled to any protection for uttering slander,
and if he uttered it either during a case or beside a
case, he must be held responsible, but in this case it
appeared to him that Mr. Maltby was acting in some
measure both as judge and jury, and in the exercise of
his discretion as a Magistrate, having to form an
opinion of the conduct of the officers under him, it

appeared to the Court that Mr. Maltby was bound to
state, as his reason for dismissing the case, that he did
not believe the officer on his oath, if such was really
the case, and he was also bound to make that osserva-
tion in the hearing of the superintendent, in order that
information might be conveyed to the Commissioners.
Under these circumstances, he thought plaintiff could
not maintain his action without giving express proof
of malice. None such had been given, and therefore
there was no case to go to the Jury.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 9.

THE COUNTESS DE ZICHY FERRARIS V. THE MARQUIS

OF HERTFORD AND OTHERS.

The Court was occupied the whole day with hear-
ing the remainder of the argument in this case, which,
as before stated, is a question respecting the validity
of certain codicils to the will of the late Marquis of
Hertford, propounded by the legatees (the Countess
de Zichy Ferraris and Mr. J. W. Croker), and opposed
by the executors (Mr. Croker excepted, who is one of
the executors), on the ground that they were invalid
under the Will Act. It is a dry question of law—
namely, whether the codicils, inserted per se, are ren-
dered valid and efficacious by a subsequent attested
codicil, or by constructive incorporation with a valid
instrument. A host of authorities were cited on eithe
side, the particulars of which would possess no public
interest.

The Queen's Advocate, Dr. Addams, Dr: Haggard,
- Dr. Jenner, Dr. Harding, Dr. Phillimore, and Dr.
Elphinstone, were for the different parties.
Sir H. JENNER, FUST said it was quite impossible,
with justice to this important question—important not
only to the parties interested in this particular case,
but to other parties in siwilar cases—that he could
decide it without looking carefully into the variety of
cases which had been cited. He must therefore take
time to consider his judgment.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 9.

[N RE JOHN GOODERED-THE PICCADILLY SALOON,

This day being appointed for the final examination
of the bankrupt, who was the proprietor of the above
notorious place of resort, the Court was crowded with
creditors of the estate, and others anxious to hear the
details of the case.

The bankrupt having been sworn, was examined at
great length concerning his connection with, and the
profits arising out of, the play and betting rooms at
Doncaster. He stated that he had been connected
with them for thirteen years, and the profits, after in-
cidental expenses, amounted to between 4001. and
5001. a-year. Some years they exceeded 7001. or 8001.
but latterly they had fallen off very much.
Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—That is but little
to be wondered at, after the numerous exposures that
have latterly taken place in the Law Courts.

Goodereci—l have had sometimes as many as thir-
teen Members of both Houses of Parliament there at
the same time.—(Loud laughter.)
The bankrupt having answered the usual questions,
and rendered his accounts, was declared entitled to
pass his examination.

IN' RE HANWAY V. THE MARYLERONS BANK.
The examination of this bankrupt, who was the
principal Manager and Director of the Marylebone
Bank, was again resumed this day. The subject of
investigation was the general items in the balance-
sheet, in which there appeared no point of public in-
terest.

At the adjournment the further hearing was fixed
ror to-morrow Morning at 11 o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YE STE RDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
Yesterday the Lord Mayor said it gave him sincere
pleasure to state that he had received, through the
office of the Times newspaper, the following letter
containing a contribution of Si. for the Greville-street
Free Hospital, than which there could not be a more
noble or useful institution in the country. It was
with particular emphasis he called the attention of the
benevolent public to the brief but comprehensive
description of the nature and character of the charity.
"MY Loin,—As yourpredecessor was kind enough
to bestow his aid in favour of the Greville-street Hos-
pital, permit me through you to offer my humble
assistance to that excellent institution.
" Is it possible to imagine a qualification more con-
sonant with true Christian charity than that which
has been fixed , on by the' Governors of that truly
philanthropic establishment ? They require no letters
of recommendation, no signature by Governors, no
testimonials by parochial functionaries, no fees on
admission. The simple qualification for admission is,
that the applicant should, be poor, helpless, and
afflicted. lam quite sure these terms, so necessary
at this season, only require to be made known in order
to secure the general support and assistance of the
pubic for this hospital, and I beg to offer my con-
tribution of Si. in aid of the funds.—l am, my Lord,
your humble and obedient servant, M.
" To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor."
Mr. Nobler begged to be allowed to state that in
the performance of his duties, which were frequently
most painful, in consequence of the influx of poor,
helpless, diseased creatures, without home or friend
in the world, he had been put in possession of facts
connected with the Greville-street Hospital, calculated
to show that the letter his Lordship had just read,
did not at all exaggerate the merits of the institution.
He knew from the experience to which he alluded, a
sort of testimony the sincerity of which admitted of
not a shadow of doubt, that at periods of the
greatest severity and distress, the destitute stranger,
who required medical or surgical aid, was sure to.re-
ceive at that hospital the most skilful and humane at-
tention.

The LORD MAYOR said that the Committee had
taken the large premises which formerly belonged
to Messrs. Seddon and Co., in Gray's Inn-lane, in
which, with the assistance of the public, the services
rendered to our less fortunate fellow-creatures would
be upon a most extensive scale. His Lordship then
expressed a wish that the example which he had thus
made public for the . purpose of . inviting imitation,
would be followed by the crowd of excellent persons
who were so well known to substitute benefactions for
luxuries.

Captain Henry Pratt, who had been appointed com-
mander of the Barbadoes, bound with emigrants for
Prince Edward's Island, and who was, a fortnight
ago, charged with bigamy, was brought up by Childs
the constable for final examination.
Childs stated that, according to his Lordship's di-
rections, he had written to the lady who was said to
he the prisoner's second vs/ife, and that she had come
from the Cove of Cork for the purpose of giving evi-
dence against a man who had in so base a manner de-
serted her.

The first wife of the prisoner, a young woman of
very respectable appearance, who was married to him
on the Ist of December, 1836, and whom, with his
child, he abandoned upwards of two years ago, was
present during the examination.
• Mr. Hill attended as solicitor to the prisoner.

Maria Jackson -(the prisoner's second wife), a very
well educated young woman, stated that she was 28
years of age, and that she met the prisoner at the
Cove of Cork, and was married to him on the 4th of
January last, by license, in St. Paul's parish, in the
city of Cork, she being a widow, and he, according to
his own account, being a bachelor. (She produced a
copy of the marriage certificate from the rector.) The
prisoner represented himself to her as a lieutenant in
the navy.—(Here the prisoner laughed.)
The LORD MAYOR—HOW long did you reside with
him ? Witness—We lived togetherabout three weeks.
The LORD MAYoß—Which of you maintained the
other ? Witness—Oh, he maintained me. I went
with him in his schooner from Cork to Dublin the
day after our marriage, and when we got to Dublin he
told me the schooner was to be sold, and as I thought it
might be expensive to him for me to remain in Dublin
I left him there to procure a situation, and I returned
to Cork. He went off to Liverpool when I went to
Cork.

The LORD MArou—Had you any correspondence
with him ? Witness—He wrote several letters to me,
which I have here. •

The LORD MAYOR—And by what means did you
hear that he was a married man ? Witness—l heard
by accident from Captain Nun, of Harwich. I never
communicated with him afterwards. It was in March
I heard of the circumstance. The last letter I re-
ceived from him stated that.he was still out of em-
,ployment, and that he was going out as chief mate to
the East Indies.
Mary Ann Osborne, one of the bridesmaids of the
prisoner's first wife, deposed that she was present when
the prisoner married Fanny Josslyn, in the parish of
Dovercourt. in the county of Essex, on the first day
of December, 1836.

The LORD MA-you—Well, prisoner, you told me
some time ago that there was no truth in the state-
ment that you had two wives. What have you to say
now ? The prisoner (smiling)—Why I have nothing
at all to say, •my Lord.
_

The Loan MAYOR—I have good reason to believe
roll have more wives, Captain Pratt. The pri-
- 'ore ! No. Two are quite enough for one man.
odvise you to hold your tongue.
.oson to think that he has another

that
..,'

sorer-1.

Mr.
Childs—l have rt.,
wife at Liverpool, my Ll.. .
The prisoner—No such thit7r*
The LORD MAroß—Well, k-
your Lordship.
trial. The prisoner (laughing)—Than
___