The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, J ANUARY 22, 1842.

CIRAVESENI) and BLACKWALL.
\JR The Public are respectfully informed that the fast Iron-
steam-boat, RAILWAY, is now running between Blackwall
and Gravesend, starting at the undermentioned hours.
BLACKWALL. GRAVESEND.
From Brunswick Pier. From Terrace Pier.
Morning
Afternoon

As the season advances the other fast Iron Beats of the Com-
pany, the BRUNSWICK, and the BLACKWALL, will
be placed on the Station and will run as during last year.
Season Tickets available by the above boats alone will be
issued at the following prices :
For three months
For six months
Annual (expiring 31st Dec. 1842)
Office, 60, Fenchurch-street, Jan. 20, 1842.

NOTICE.—You will frequently see published,
accounts of the extraordinary curative powers of
PARR'S LIFE PILLS. The names of most of the parties
there mentioned are well known to the public as gentlemen
whose characters stand high in society, and whose unsolicited
testimony must place these facts beyond possibility of contra-
diction. They have also kindly promised to answer the inqui-
ries of any parties, who desire further particulars. These facts
have had the effect of creating an immense demand for the
medicine, and, as is always the case, when this large sale be-
came known, certain unprincipled adventurers immediately set
about preparing and offering to the public various counterfeits.
Their statements exhibit the most unblushing effrontery, which
is concealed under plausible pretexts, calculated to deceive the
unwary. There is fortunately, however, a protection for the
Public in the Government Stamp ; and although needy shop-
keepers may attempt, for the sake of larger gain, to force the
spurious sort upon you, be sure you purchase none without the
words PARR'S LIFE PILLS are engraved on the Govern-
ment Stamp in white letters on a red ground.
_ _

Sold wholesale, by appointment, by E. Edwards, 67, St.
Paul's, London, and retail by all respectable medicine vendors
in boxes at Is. lid., 2s. 9d., and I Is. each.

GRATIS.—The Life and Times of Old Parr, who lived to
be 152 years of age; containing Remarks on Disease, Health,
Ind the Means of Prolonging Life, 32 pages with Engravings,
Anecdotes, Poetry, &c., may be had gratis of all agents.
Read the following from Mrs. Moxon, York :
" York, Sept. 7, 1841.
" Gentlemen—We shall feel obliged by your repeating the
last order for Parr's Life Pills, and forwarding immediately by
Pickford's Rails. Instances of extraordinary cures are con-
tinually occurring to us by their agency. One woman who had
been reduced almost to the last stage of existence by extreme
asthma, was, by taking two or three boxes, restored to health.
Another instance is a man who had been confined to his bed
by rheumatism for sixteen weeks, quite incapacitated for
walking; but by simply taking two or three boxes of Parr's
Life Pills, can walk with all the activity and freedom of perfect
health. I could enumerate many other instances, but these
will suffice to prove the value of the medicine in ameliorating
disease and confirming health. I remain, your obedient servant,
" For M. Moxon, " JAMES BAYNE."

ALA W INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COUR7', Jan. 21.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
COCKBURN V. RAPHAEL.

This case came before the Court on a petition put in
by the defendant, Mr. Alexander Raphael, praying that
it might be referred to the Master to take an account of
the funds of a certain charity, and that the funds of the
charity might be administered in this country, and
placed under the jurisdiction of this Court.
It appeared that Mr. John Raphael, the father of the
petitioner, a Roman Catholic, but of Jewish origin,
had died in India, and left by his will a certain fund,
which was to be devoted to the establishment
of a school, or schools for educating Armenian
youths in the Roman Catholic religion. By a
former decree of the Court of Chancery, it was or-
dered, in conformity with a report of the Master, that
the principal school should be established at Venice, as
being the place best suited for carrying into effect the
objects of the charity. A school was consequently es-
tablished in that city of the description con-
templated •by the testator ; and it was conducted
by the abbot and monks of St. Lazarus. The present
petitioner had got a power of attorney to receive the
funds from the Accountant-General, which he after-
wards transmitted to the monks, for whom he acted as
agent in this country. The petitioner after some time
thought he had reason to suspect that these funds
had been improperly administered ; and he complained
in particular that the monks had given no account of
certain sums transmitted by them to Constantinople. It
was on these accounts that he had come to the Court with
the present application. It was stated on the other hand
for the defence that the sums transmitted to Constanti-
nople were devoted to the maintenance of a branch-school
established in that city. Accounts were also put in for
•the purpose of showing that the funds had been admi-
nistered with the greatest possible economy. A further
objection was taken to the application of,the petitioner,
on the ground that the Court could itot interfere with the
administrator of a charity established by a former order
of the Court of Chancery in a foreign country.
The case had not been brought to a conclusion at the
rising of the Court, and the further arguments were post-
poned till to-morrow.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. '2l.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.-HINTON V. DIBBIN AND

OTHERS.

The COURT also gave judgment in this case. It was
an action brought to recover the value of a quantity of
silk which had been entrusted to the defendants, as
common carriers for hire, and which had been lost by
their negligence. The plea was that the defendants
were carriers after the passing of the Act Ist Wil. IV.
c. 68, and that, in pursuance of the provisions of that
Act, they had caused a public notice to be affixed in
their office, that certain excepted goods therein enume-
rated, being above the value of 10/., should pay an in-
creased rate of carriage—that the silk in question was
one of these excepted articles, was above the value of
0/., and that there was no engagement to pay the in-
creased charge. In the replication it was stated that the
defendants, as common carriers, had been guilty of gross
negligence. To that there was a rejoinder that the
goods had been delivered by the defendants to their ser-
vants in the ordinary course of business, and that they
had been lost by their servants while under their care,
and negativing any want of care on the part of the de-
fendants. To that the plaintiff had demurred. The
question in the case was, whether, since the passing of
the Act Will. IV., carriers were liable for goods lost
from gross negligence on their part without notice and
without payment of the increased rate having been
made. In the declaration the expression was misfea-
sance, bat that was dropped in the replication, and negli-
gence substituted. In deciding upon the present case,
which was the first that bad occurred since the Act
came into operation, the Court must be guided by its
language and by the state of the law at the time it was
passed. In all the cases that had been decided in the
Courts previously carriers were held liable for the loss
of goods beyond the value of 10/., where they had been
guilty of gross negligence. In the case of Wilde v.
Pickford, reported in the third volume of "Law Jour-
nal," 392, it was said that some uncertainty existed as
to the cases that were taken out of the notice required
to be given, and it was concluded in the case of Bodmin
v. Bennett, that the notice was intended to protect the
carrier from extraordinary events, and not from the
effect of the want of due and ordinary care ; . while in
other cases it was urged that the carriers were not by
the notice protected from the consequences of misfea-
sance. In a case before Lord Ellenborough it had been
held that the notice exempted the carrier from the conse-
quence of his negligence, but not where there had been
a want of ordinary care, the want of such care being
described to be such care as a prudent man would take
of his own property. The weight of authorities, then,
was in favour of the doctrine that in order to render the
carrier liable, it was not necessary to prove a total aban-
donment of the goods, but enough to prove ordinary neg-
ligence. The result of the decisions in all these cases
appeared to be that, supposing the protection of the car-
rier to have been the object of the Legislature, there was
axreat deal of doubt and uncertainty to be removed,
and the Court saw no reason why a more limited con-
struction should be put upon the Act than its title im-
plied. The Act, which was for the removal of doubts
and the better protection of carriers, was absolute in its
protection, and without reservation of those cases where
there was an intimation of the contents of the packages
and of the value of the goods contained therein.
It was further contended that no carrier was
liable for the loss of any property beyond the
value of 10/., unless, at the time of its being de-
livered at his warehouse, the value and nature of such
property was declared, and such increased rate of pay-
ment made and accepted by the party receiving
such property. The .Learned Judge then referred
to the various sections of the Act which bore
upon the question before the Court. On the
whole, the Court was . of opinion that the lan-
guage of the first section was clear and unam-
biguous, and without any exception, and none could
fairly be implied from any of the other provisions it con-
tained ; and it held that the carrier was free from
liability as to all the articles enumerated, unless
notice was given, and the increased payment made
and accepted. The Act, then, had the effect of
removing great doubt and difficulty, which had
previously existed as to the liability of the carrier.
In the present case the Court was unfettered by any
authority in putting their construction upon the Act,
and they were of opinion that in this ease the defendants
were not liable for the loss that had occurred, and their
judgment must therefore be for the defendants.

bankrupt to furnish the official assignee with all the in-
formation he required, or adjourn the examination until
it was done.

The COMMISSIONER said as some of the requisitions of
the official assignee had been complied with, and others
not, let the official assignee give another requisition in
writing, and it must be complied with. He was com-
pelled to give proper information to all his assignees by
the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
The Bankrupt said, after his examination on Monday,
he called several times on Mr. Groom for any fresh re-
quisition, but 'none was given, except one from Mr.
Cook. He declined to give any information to Mr. Cook
singly. He had not gone to Mr. Groom's to sort his
books and papers, because the whole of his books and
papers were seized. He found some were missing, and
therefore he would rather not meddle with them, unless
he was compelled, so that it would not be possible for
any one to say that he had taken away any of the letters
or papers.
The examination was then resumed.
By Mr. HUMFREY—Where are you residing now ?--
No. 7, Cumberland-place, New-road.
What servants have you ?—A maid of all-work and a
boy.
What do you pay a-week for those lodgings ?-2/. 10s.,
being furnished.
You spoke of having given Cook and Gladstone 61. per
cent. interest, and 1 per cent. commission. Were you
not paying to Mr. Glaister a larger commission and the
same interest ?—Yes ; and here I wish to explain. In
March, 1839, I was discounting bills with Cook and
Gladstone. When Mr. Cook, on one occasion, declined
to discount the bills which I then tendered, and sug-
gested that I should discount them somewhere else in
the market ; and in the conversation which took place
then, Mr. Cook asked me if I discounted with Mr.
Glaister. This conversation also occurred prior to that
time, I believe. Now, finding I could not get the bills dis-
counted with Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, to the extent
that I required, I colied upon Mr. Glaister, and he of-.
fered to discount my bills for the next year at a fixed
price, viz., per cent. commission, and 5 per cent. in-
terest. He would do this if I got my brother's security
for 1,0001. as against loss. I obtained and gave him that
security. He commenced discounting, and continued to
do so for several months, at the rate agreed upon.
He, however, subsequently increased that commission to 2
per cent., then to 21 afterwards 2i, and then 3. When
I paid the 3 per cent. Mr. Glaister told me he would not
charge beyond the bargained price again. On the 27th
November, 1839, I went again to Mr. Glaister with
about 7501. worth of bills. After trying me to see if I
needed the money at that moment, and in reply to
which I said I must have the money or stop, he took ad-
vantage of my necessity and charged me 5 per cent.
commission, although he admitted at the same time that
the bargain was for 4, and he then held security. I
was obliged on that day to get the money, and, therefore,
I consented to pay his demand. I, however, told him
then that in consequence of his Jewish conduct I would
never enter his place again, and never did for that pur-
pose. I believe I shall be able to show on the cross-exa-
tion of Cook and Gladstone's—

Mr. HUMFREY objected to such language from a bank-
rupt. He had better take care what he said.
Witness —I have good reason to believe, indeed Mr.
Cook has twice told me so, that Mr. Glaister was con-
sulting with him during that period, and I believe that
Cook and Gladstone assisted him in discounting my
bills, and derived part of the profit from them. I never
paid Mr. Glaister or any other person such exorbitant
interest as I was then drawn into pay—viz., 5 per cent.
commission and 6 per cent. interest.
Did you discount bills with any other person than Mr.
Cook and Mr. Glaister ? —Yes.

With whom since 1839 ?—Messrs. Coster and Co.;
Messrs. Eales and Co, Messrs. Llewellyn and Co., I
think, and Mr. Stephens, bill-broker.
Any one else ?—Those are all I recollect.
What did you pay to Messrs. Eales and Co., interest
and commission—the highest ?—I cannot tell without
reference to my discount papers. (They were handed
to him.) On June 3d, 1840, the interest, 5 per cent ;
commission, 11 per cent.; the bill nearly four months.
That will, upon the whole, be as nearly as possible 10
per cent.?—Yes ; it is 10i per -cent. nearly.
Now, turn to another of Messrs. Eales'?—l do not find
any more of Eales' here.
Now, then, turn to Llewellyn ?—I paid no commission
to them at any time.
What was the interest ?—Five per cent. per annum.
Now, turn to Stephens ; what did you pay him ?
There are none of Stephens's here.
What was the highest you paid Stephens at any time?
—Here is one of Stephens's of March 7th ; the interest
is 3 per cent, commission 1 per cent.
Have you ever paid as high as 4 per cent. commission
and 6 per cent. interest ?—No.

What was the average ?—About I per cent., and 5 per
ceht. interest. That was about the average I paid Ste-
pheie;. I discounted with Bradbury and Castles, and
they never charged me one farthinc, commission for the
same class of paper a I discounted with Messrs. Cook.
Now, will you swear that you have never paid Ste-
phens more than 5 per cent. interest ?—Certainly not ;
although I believe such to be the fact.
Will you swear you never paid him more than one
per cent. commission ?—Certainly not, although I be-
lieve that to be the average which I paid to him. I was
discounting with Castle and Co. at the same time as I
was with Messrs. Cook, and to the former I paid no
commission.

Have you not discounted with Messrs. Cook at as low
a rate as five per cent. and three-eighths commission ?
—I believe I have, but only to a small amount.
Have you not also paid them one-half per cent. com-
mission ?—I do not recollect, but I have no doubt I
may have done so to a small amount.
Have you not the amount of 7001. ?—I cannot answer
that question without seeing my ledger.
Did you not discount with Cook and Co., in June,
1840, SOOL atlfive per cent. and three-eighths commission?
—I do not recollect, nor can a reference to this book
assist me. _ _ _

Turn to the tickets. Look for amounts 4131. 16s. 2d.
and 4851.—1 do not believe I ever discounted any such
bills with any person in London.
From June, 1840, to June, 1841, will you swear that
you ever paid Cook and Co. more than one per cent. com-
mission. I advise you to be careful : that is the year
before you failed ?—I believe I discounted very little
with them in that period. I will not swear that I ever
paid them more during that time.
Will you swear that you paid so much as one per
cent. during that period, with only one exception ?—On
the 29th May I discounted four bills ; 55/. 65., 36 days to
run ; 27/. 65., 91 days ; upon them the commission was
one per cent.

Now, with that one exception, is there any other
occasion during those periods on which so much as
1 per cent. was charged ?—The papers are all dated,
therefore I cannot say.
You say you did not discount much with them during
that period. Now did you not discount upwards of
3,700/. between June 1840 and the same period in 1841?
—I hiive no doubt I did, but that was small in pro-
portion to former dealings.
• A long examination was gone into with respect to
discount transactions, in order to show that during the
period above named, Cook and Co. had not charged
more than 3/. Bs. at times, and never more than 1 per
cent. as commission, but it turned out that half per cent.
commission had been paid upon bills having 24 days and
28 days to run.

Re-examined by Mr. MAnnort—What security did
Messrs. Eales and Co. hold at the time they discounted
for you ?—No security whatever.
Did Messrs. Cook and Co. hold any, and what
security at the time they were discounting for you ?
Between June 40, and June 41, they did hold security ;
they held the lease of 114, Regent-street, my brothers
security for 7,000/., the lease of 118, Regent-street.
Rates' bill for 8631., making together 14,500/.
What amount of Cook's debt was unsecured in Jan.
1841 ?—I owed them then 18,022/. 17s. Bd. I had securi-
ties in their hands to the amount of 10,7001., leaving
balance unsecured of 7,382/. 17s. Bd.
You have stated that at the time of the fiat you owed
them 19,8291. 108. What amount of securities did they
then hold ?—Securities to the amount of 15,8321. 9s. 9d.,
leaving a balance then unsecured of 3,9971. ls. 3d. By
this you will observe that the securities had increased
upwards of 3,4661. 16s. 5d., although the account was a
little larger.
Can you state what you owed themin May ?-21,7401.
That is without interest due on the 7,0001.
Can you state the average rate of interest and com-
mission paid by you upon the bills discounted by Cook
and Co., between June 1840 and 1841 ?—I cannot, but
I believe the interest per annum to be about 10 to 12 per
cent. This, however, I can explain more fully by having
time and referring to the discount papers.
You have stated that Mr. Cook knew you were dis-
counting bills with Mr. Glaister. Was Mr. Glaister a
clerk in their employ before that period ?—He was six
or seven years ago.
This finished the examination of the bankrupt.
Mr. MARDON then called Mr. Warwick, in order to
corroborate the bankrupt in respect of the references
given by him to Cook and Co.
Mr. HumFaEic objected. Such an inquiry was wholly
irrelevant to the question before the Court, which was
the balance-sheet of the bankrupt. He admitted that
Messrs. Cook and Co. had undoubted faith in the bank-
rupt until a certain ioeriod, and they had spoken highly
of him down to July, 1841, most conscientiously ; but
whether they had done so or not was a matter that was
wholly beside the:question which was before the Court for
adjudication. He was merely anxious to save time. He
would call Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, but it would be
to the balance-sheet.

Mr. Burr said he appeared for the assignees, Messrs.
Brown and Llewellyn, and he must object to the course
his Learned Friend was pursuing. Let the witnesses be
called, and then the objection would be in time.
Mr. HUMFREY said his Learned Friend appeared
nominally for the assignees,but in reality for the bankrupt.
Mr. BUTT' denied the statement. His Learned Friend
had no right to say anything of the kind.
Mr. HUMFREY charged those for whom his Learned
Friend appeared, to be the friends of the bankrupt, and
they were doing all in their power in his favour. He
would oppose, generally, the calling of any witnesses for
the purpose of proving that which he admitted, that his
clients had spoken well of the bankrupt down to July,
1841. He would, however, strongly oppose the admis-
sion of the letter from Mr. Wheeler, which it was pro-

posed to offer in evidence. He would much like to see
that person in the box, for since that inquiry had com-
menced he had been to Cook and Co., and said, " I don't
want to say anything against you—hare you anything
to offer me." Such a man must be produced, or his
letter altogether excluded. But he submitted that the
proposed inquiry was wholly irrelevant to the proceed-
ings before the Court.
Mr. MAnnoN said a very onerous duty had been cast
upon him by the manner in which Mr. Ashurst had con-
ducted the examination. The whole question now re-
solved into one of the credit to be given to the bankrupt
—therefore he wanted to produce evidence in corrobora-
tion of his statement. Unless he was allowed to do that
he would not be able to do justice to his client.
The COMMISSIONER did not think it irrelevant, but he
would not shut out the evidence.

Mr. Warwick, of the firm of Ovington and Warwick,
examined by Mr. MARDON.—He was referred twice to
Mr. Cook by the bankrupt. He went on the 16th March,
and then he saw Mr. Cook, senior. He said he had been
referred to him, and he presumed upon their old friend-
ship, that he should give such a reference as would en-
able him either to go on or close the account. Mr. Cook
spoke in the most flattering manner of • the bankrupt—
that he did business with him to a very large amount,
and had the most perfect confidence in him, and that in,
all his dealings he had never detected him in a false-
hood—that his account was many thousands. He asked
Mr. Cook as to his property. Mr. Cook said the last
time the balance-sheet was shown him, he showed a ba-
lance of between 3,0001. and 4,000/. Witness told him
that he had no confidence in him. He had lent him
1,0001., and as his buyer was repeatedly in their house,
his account might become too large'. He said " I hear
you hold the lease as security ; do you hold any other
security ?".:He answered, " The securities we hold would
not cover one-third of our liabilities." He then asked
him had he inquired into Hitchcock's affairs, in respect
of Eales, and whether there was any accommodation be-
tween them. Mr. Cook said lie had investigated into
the matter, and there was no foundation for
the report. He asked as to the amount of their own
account, and very particularly as to the fact of whether
they, Cook and Co., held any other security besides the
lease, that being the question that he went to get
answered. He made a memorandum of the matter at the
time, which was as follows :—" Mr. Cook has closely in-
vestigated the affairs of Wm. Hitchcock, and there was
no bill between him and Eales that value was not given
for. Mr. Cook's account is very large ; he holds the
lease, and that is the only security. Their account is
some thousands." And they, upon this, sold him goods
to the amount of 1,4001. to open his new shop with. In
consequence of the reference they sold the bankrupt
goods, and they were now creditors to the amount of
560/. He was again referred to Mr. Cook in August
last, but did not go. Mr. Cook called upon him on the
Ist of January last, and stated that he understood wit-
ness was to be subpoenaed to give evidence in the matter
of William Hitchcock, and he wished to see his (wit-
ness's) reference-book ; but it was refused. On being
told what would be the nature of his evidence if he was
called, and that if he had informed witness of the fact
that he held so many securities, they would not have
been a creditor for a single shilling, he said both Mr.
Gladstone and himself had always answered the question
as to securities, that it would not cover above one-third of
their debt. He said he never intended to deceive witness, and
would rather have had his right hand cut off than have
deceived any one. Witness asked why he did not inform
him of the joint note he held. He said, had he done so,
he (witness) would not have trusted him.
Mr. Wheeler had not been subpoenaed, because he was
now at the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Smith was called, but his solicitor objected to his
being examined, because he was going to take proceedings
against Nlessrs. Cook and Gladstone, and his being ex-
amined now might prejudice him in another Court.
Mr. HUMFREY again admitted that his clients had
spoken well of the bankrupt up to July, 1841. Where
was the use of calling witnesses to prove an admitted fact?
Mr. MARDON submitted that he was entitled to exa-
mine the witness, in order to show that Cook and Co.
gave references long after they knew the bankrupt was
insolvent.

The COMMISSIONER thought they were only wasting
time. What had the question of Cook and Co. giving
references to other parties to do with the question, if the
bankrupt had given true answers in reference to his
balance-sheet He would not examine Mr. Smith. _

Mr. BUTT said those parties for whom he appeared
were only anxious that the Commissioner should elicit
the truth of a case which did no credit to any of the par-
ties concerned in it.
Mr. MARDON said his case was closed.

Mr. HU)IFREY desired it to be clearly understood that
after he had commenced his case he would object to Mr.
Mardon calling any more witnesses, and the bankrupt's
statements might be confirmed by his brother and his
shopmen.
Mr. MARDON declined to call them, and the further
hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday next.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A well-dressed man, named John _Harvey, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with having
robbed Mr. Brown, of Aldermanbury, of a diamond On,
worth about 71., on the day Prince Albert laid the first
stone of the Royal Exchange. The prisoner had been
remanded from Tuesday, in the hope that sufficient evi-
dence might be produced against the thief, who was de-
scribed as a desperate character.
Mr. Brown stated, that, as his wife and he were in
Cornhill, near the Sun Fire-office, a mob got about them.
He endeavoured to pass, and the prisoner, raising his
arm against witness's face, said that he also wanted to
get forward, pulled the pin out of witness's shirt, and
rushed across the street. There were two persons with
the prisoner, evidently belonging to the gang. A gentle-
man, who saw what occurred, immediately told witness
that he had lost his pin, and pointed at the prisoner as
the person who had stolen it. Witness then ran after and
seized the prisoner, who struck and kicked, and made a
most desperate resistance, but was unable to get away.
The LORD MAYOR said the prisoner had been at the
bar before.

The prisoner—Never my Lord, I was never appre-
hended before in my life. My solicitor can tell you that
—(A laugh.)
The prisoner's Solicitor—l believe him to be a re-
spectable poor man.
The LORD MAyort—Oh, yes ! I have no doubt that
he is one of what are called the swell mob. I know his
face, and shall ask the gaoler about him.
Gooch (the turnkey of the Compeer) was then called,
and asked whether he knew anything of the prisoner.
" Know him, my Lord ! Certainly I do. He has been
in that spot before, and is well known as the companion
of notorious thieves."

It was stated that Mr. Brown, who is a very strong
man, completely overpowered the prisoner, although in
the midst of a set of thieves. The gentleman who saw
the pin taken, not having attended the first examina-
tion, the prosecutor,ianxious to get such a ruffian punished,
put an advertisement in the papers requesting his ap-
pearance—nobody answered his call.
The LORD MAYOR asked whether the prosecutor could
swear that he saw the pin taken himself ? Mr. Brown—
I cannot. I missed it, however, the instant I was told it
was gone.

Tile prisoner's solicitor submitted that there was no
case at all against his client.
Mr. Brown—For the sake of public justice, I hope he
may be punished in some way or other. It is not on ac-
count of the pin lost, but on account of the public, that I
have pursued this inquiry so actively.
The LORD MAYOR—I shall semi him to prison for
three months at any rate, and the public are much in-
debted to the prosecutor.
Mr. Paine (of Deptford) said, that after he had just
stepped out of an omnibus, a gang of fellows, of which he
believed the prisoner to be one, surrounded, and kicked,
and robbed him of a sovereign and a half, and tried to
get his watch. They endeavoured to trip him up, and
knocked his hat off three times. There appeared to be
great fury in the thieves in Cornhill.

- A elothesman, named Lazarus Walters, who keeps a
clothes' shop near the Old Clothes'-market in Cutler-
street, and was said to be in good circumstances, was
charged by Mr. Tyrrell, the Solicitor to the Commis-
sioner of Sewers, for having violated the Act of Parlia-
ment, by obstructing the way in Cutler-street, iri offering
his goods for sale.
The constable said he had frequently cautioned the
defendant against the practice, but without effect.
The offence having been clearly proved,
Mr. Tyrrell called for the infliction of the highest
penalty of 5/., as the defendant was prosperous, and kept
a shop in which he was not satisfied to do business, but
followed the example of the most indigent dealers.
The LORD MAYOR—I shall fine him 2/. now, but if
ever he offend again in this way, I shall fine him 51
The penalty was paid.
GUILDHALL.

A respectable-looking lad, about fourteen years of
age, was charged with robbing his employer, Mr.
Thomas Wylder, a tobacconist, carrying on business in
Goswell-street-road. _ _

From the statement of the prosecutor, it appeared that
the prisoner's father had been in his employment for
many years prior to his death, at which time he left a
large and helpless family, of which the prisoner was the
eldest, and, in consequence of the high character his
father bore, he took him into his employment, and placed
the utmost confidence in him. Having missed various
sums of money frem the till, his suspicions at length fell
on the prisoner, when some marked money in the drawer,
which was soon afterwards missed, was found upon him.
At the recommendation of the prosecutor the prisoner
was discharged, after a severe reprimand from the
Alderman.

Several poor creatures, who were in a state of the
utmost destitution, were brought before the Bench, some
on the charge of mendicancy, and others for breaking
lamps, for the purpose of obtaining food and shelter in
the station-house. A few of those whose health and
strength seemed most impaired, got tickets of admission
to the Hospital,'and the remainder were committed for
various short terms of imprisonMent.
CLERKENWELL.

Yesterday, William Henry Ma ;den Gardiner, a master
cabinet-maker, residing in Noble-street, Clerkenwell,
was brought before Mr. Grimwood, charged by Mary
Ann Gardiner, his wife, a sickly-looking young woman,
who had scarcely a rag to -cover her, with having de-
serted her, and leaving her chargeable to the parish.