The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-04 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

W. Turner, Whitchurch, Shropshire, architect (deceased),
.1
August 31, at eleven, at the Red Lion Inn, Newport,
Shropshire—C. Jalland, Mansfield Woodhouse,. Notting-
hamshire, miller, August 31, at half-past elewn, at the
Swan Inn, Mansfield—S. Bratt, Macclesfield, silk-
throwster, August 24, at eleven, at the Court of Commis-
sioners—W: Bush, Brighthelmstone, Sussex, dealer, '
August 28, at ten, at the Court of Commission ers—J.
Murray, ,Whitehaven, Cumberland, grocer, August 24, at
eleVen, at hell Hall, Cumberland—T. Fisher, Leeds, factor,,
August 25, at eleven, at the Sessions-house, Leeds--. 1. R.
le Cointe, St. Helen's:place, merchant, August 10, at
twelve, at the Court of Commissioners—J. Jackson,
Poultry, glass-cutter, August 28, at eleven, at the Court of
Commissioners—J. Shurmer, Shirley, Millbrook, South-
ampton, cattle-dealer, August 24, at eleven, at the Court
of Commissioners—J. Balme, Gomersal, Yorkshire, wool-
stapler, August 25, at eleven, at the Sessions-house, Leeds
White, Princes-street, .Storey's-gate, Westminster,
upholder, August 24, at eleven, at the Court of Commis—
sioners—G. and H. Poore, Pavement, Moorfields, breeches-
makers, August 24, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners.
—M. Wasbrough,, Bridges-street, Covent-garden, stationer; •
August 24, at one, at the Court of Commissioners—P.
Sarell, Copthall-court, merchant, August 24, at cue, at
the Court of ...;onithissiOners-J. Wainhouse, 'Halifax,,
Yorkshire, dyer, AuguSt 31, at twelve, at the Magistrate's'
Office, Halifax—T. and A. Briggs, Bloonisgrove, Radford,
Nottinghamshire, lace-Manufacturer, August 27, at eleven,
at the Rain Inn, Nottingham—J.. Murray and S. Brie-'
bane, Chorlton_row, Manchester, joiners, Sept. 13, at ten,
at White's Hotel, Manchester—H. Barlow, Macclesfield,
silk-manufacturer, August 25, at eleven, at the Angel Inn,
Macclesfield—T. and J. Ratcliffe, EVvood Bridge, Lanca-
shire, and J. and R. Ratcliffe, Manchester, calico-printers,
August 27, at eleven, at White's Hotel, Manchester—S.
Vaughan, Poole, Montgomeryshire, builder, Augus.t 31, at
twelve, at the Royal Oak Inn, Poole, Montgomeryshire.

CERTIFICATES—AuG. 24.
J. Lawton, John's Mews, Little James-street, Bedford-
row, iron-manufacturer—l. Welchman, Trowbridge, Wilt-
shire, linen-draper—J. M. Davey, Grove, Great Guildford,
street, Esq.—H. Evans, Lamb's Conduit-street, linen-draper
—I. Stacey, Newcastle-street, Strand, tailor—J. Hogsflesh,
Tottenham-court-road, grocer—J. J. Frith, Banner-
square, silversmith—R. Charles, Liverpool, ship-chandler
—H. Cope, Barnet, tailor.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Lee, Islington, andP. Palmer, Highgate, linendrapere
---E. Waller, R. and T. Vyse, Luton, Bedfordshire, Leg-
horn hat-manufacturers—J. Bryson and J. Crundwell,
LuddesdoWn, Kent, farmers—T. and M. Larmuth, Brid-
port, Dorsetshire, worsted machine-makers—R. and J.
H. Wntts; Dunstable, Bedfordshire, straw-hat-manufactu-
rers—W. P. and C. Mann, Montagu-close; Southwark,
coal-merchants—T. Bartlett and I. T. Hinton, Warwick-
square, printers—A. Rogers and F. Gibson, Cheapside,
chemists—J. and W. D. Salter, Hammersmith, cheese-
mongers—J.' Ross and S. N. Cook, New Inn, attornles—
R. Valley and .1. Moore, Manchester, hat-manufactUrers
—G. 'Hudson and W. H. Story, New Bond-street, tailors
—A.; D., and J. Fraser, Miramichi, Beautiair's Island
Noyes and E:Denbow,' Oxford-street, milliners--C.
Atkinson and R. Fisher, Lancaster, merchints.

PRICE OF RAW FAT, per stone of 81b.—Aug. 3.
Price by Tallow (as litated by the Tallow Melters)

\ttit.
/ " CON •
HOME CAR '
.z.," Oft ttc 2.
pi 'Ali, tViiitic;..s Tref;
This. was an action by. a Clergy'man, for deatna-:
tory words, imputing to him that he bad done that
for which he ought to have the gown taken from hi 4
back.—Plea, the general issue.
The plaintiff was Rector of Pelden, in this county,
and the defendant had been Churchwarden of the
same parish. A vestry meeting having been called
to inspect the defendant's accounts, at which the
plaintiff presided, the latter called upon the former
to swear to his accounts. The defendant said, he
was not prepared to swear to them,, inasmuch as
they were nbt then balanced, there being many
items which he could not. then make up. The plain-
tiff told him, in un authoritative tone that he must
swear to them, and that, if he did not, his conduct
should be reported to the Archdeacon. The de.:
fendant became angry at this observation, and said
he 'did not mind going before the Archdeacon
that he could say as much of the plaintiff as the
plaintiff could say
_of him ; and that he had, that at
home which would take the plaintiff's gown off his
back.

`The. Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, one
farthing.

HARPER v. LIIFKIN.

This was an action for debauching the plaintiff's
married daughter; whereby he lost her services.--,
Plea; the general
The plaintiff was a small farmer, living at Great
Bentley, in this county. Some years since, his
daughter, who was the subject of this' action, Mar,
ried a man named Bradbrook.. The husband hav,
ing failed in business, left her with two children:
She then returned to her father's house, and be-
came his menial servant; doing all the drudgery of
the house. The defendant, who was stated to be a
person of substance, occupying land adjoining the
plaintiff's, formed a' connection with Mrs. Brad,
brook, and on the 7th of May, 1826, she was de-
livered of a child, of which he was the father. Mrs.
Bradbrook and the defendant used to meet at a
cottage of his, oceupied by an old woman in Littic-,
Love's-lane, and a young woman, named Fanny'
Hill, knew
,that the defendant was in the habit of
keeping Mrs. Bradbrook company. The plaintiff'
daughter, who was .vary smartly dressed, swore that
the defendant was the father of the child in ques-
tion, and that she had: not seen her husband during
the time of her intimacy with the defendant. Her
husband lived 60 miles off. The defendant recog-
nised and treated the child as his own. He was;
heard to say that he would marry Mrs. Bradbrook,
and live with her and the child, only that her hus-
band. was living. The plaintiff wa.-, put to the ex-
pence of his daughter's confinement.
Mr. GURNEY. (with whom was Mr. JESSOPP)
addressed the Jury for the defendant.
.The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 101. '
PILBROWV. FENN, CLIME.

This was an action against a Clergyman for a libel,
imputing to the plaintiff that she had feloniously
stolen a' Testament. The defendant pleaded, first
not guilty ; and second, a justification of 'the truth
of the alleged libel. Verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages, 301.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LINCOLN, Aua. 1.
CITY COURT.

George Burley, James Johnson, and Samuel
Norris, labourers, were indicted for feloniously kill-.
ing and slaying William Stephens, by stabbing him
with a pin.
The first witness called was Mr. Boot, a surgeon,
who stated, that he had examined the body of the.
deceased, and found several small punctures in his.
left leg, which, however, had not penetrated below
the skin. The muscles were untouched. There
was no inflammation in that part of the leg where
the punctures were, but. there was in other parts of
the body, particularly the liver and the other prin.
cipal organs. Under these circumstances, he teas
,of opinion that the deceased died a natural death.
The Learned JUDGE thought it unnecessary to
proceed any farther with the investigation, and the
defendants were-acquitted.
We understood that the circumstances from
which this prosecution originated were these :
The deceased was lying in a state of intoxication at
a public-house ealled the Magpie, in this city, And
the defendants who were drinking there, amused
themselves by pricking him in the leg with a pin,
which was fastened to the end of a stick. The
deceased was at length carried up to hed, and the
next morning he was unable to move his leg, which
was in a State of. inflammation., He grew; rapidly
worse, his whole.system . being diseased, .and died in
few days: An inquest being held on the body, the
jury returned a'verdict of manslaughter against the
'prisoners. They were acquitted on the Coroner's
inquisition as well as on the indictment.
This was the only case in the city calendar.
. COUNTY COURT. - •
MILNES V. TOOTITT AND

This was an action brought to recover ten guineas,
he amount of a reward offered by the defendants.
The Jury found for the
,plaintiff—Damages
[O/. 10s.

TWIQQ V. SNOWDEN.

Mr. C. R. CLARKE, in opening this case to the
jury stated that the plaintiff, Ann Twigg, was house
keeper to a respectable farmer in Ludford, in which
village the defendant filled an office of authority---v
namely, that of constable. On the evening of is
Sunday in spring laSt, a dispute having occurred be-
tween another farmer, named Hall; and his servant
boy, named WilSon, the defendant was called in, and
he and Hall treated Wilson harshly. A crowd col-
lected, and amongst' others the plaintiff expressed
feelings of strong indignation at the treatment of
Wilson. • Such indignation was creditable to one's
feelings On some occasions, and the present was an
occasion of that kind. The defendant, however, was
not of that opinion, and threatened to put the plain-
tiff in the stocks, which threat he followed up by at.-
tempting to put it into execution. He seised her,
and dragged her the stocks ; but not being able
to open them, he handcuffed the plaintiff. Thus
ironed, she was detained in a public-house all night,
and the next morning taken to Louth, a distance of
nine miles, under pretence of being carried before a
magistrate. The defendant, however, conscious that,
he -had no charge against her, did not go before the
magistrate,,and the plaintiff was therefore discharged.
This was the injury for which the plaintiff sought
compensation. The defendant bad wantonly, corn,
matted a gross outrage and assault upon a woman;
he had, put au Englishwomm in chains ; and for this
abuse of his authority, the jury would make him pay
heavy damages.
Lord TENTERDEiN having summed up the evidence
very briefly,
The Jury returned, a verdict for the plitinT"
Damages, 5/. . .

COO= V. COMM. .
The COMMON SERGRANT regretted that this ac-
tion had not been compromised out of Court between
the
The parties,parties
and who.s
ewveerrale ileariotherY p
assem-
bled on a Sunday at a publie-house beside a parish
church near Lincoln, they, conversed about the ser-
mon which they expected to hear, and other topics
of ordinary conversation. Whilst thus engaged,
Mr. Benjamin Cooke, the defendant, deliberately
he told the plaintiff to get out of his way, or he
put the poker into the fire, and when it was red hot
would'put it in his back. Without any further ce-
remony he suited the action to the word, applied
the red hot poker to the threatened spot, and ac-
tually burned a hole in the skirt of the plaintiff 's
coat, who, of course, moved away, observing that
those were very bad manners.—(Laughter.) For
this insult the defendant refused to apologize.
Witnesses were called, who described theassault,
and stated, that the hole made by the poker was
about the size of a shilling.
Mr. BALGUY, for the defendant, animadverted on
the conduct of the plaintiff in bringing this trum-
pery action against the defendant. As, according
to the testimony of the plaintiff's NN itnesaes, S)X,
rtiatedel*Ons htao,it: other.