Star.
London, England, 1830-09-22 00:00:00

♦ TOUGH /TORT ABOUT ♦ TOUGH FOWL.

ALLEX v. ROBZETS.—The plaintiff in this case claimed 4a. Bd.
of the defendant, which was not admitted ; Allen was therefore called
on to make out his case. He told the Court that his claim was for the
value of a fowl which he had purchased of the defendant, who had
warranted it to be a young cock, but so fax from its being a young one,
it turned out to be the very Methusalem of the poultry tribe, and when
cooked, was so tough, that he verily believed all the horses in Calvert's
brewery could not have palled it to pieces ; under such circumstances, he
trusted the Court would at once order him the money. The worthy
Commissioners, however, are not in the habit of deciding without
hutting both sides; they therefore asked the dealer in poultry what be
had to say in answer to the plaintiff? He said, in the first place, the
price for which he had sold the fowl was 2s. bd. and not 41. 8& but that
the plaintiff had made up his charge by including cooking, sauce, 8w
which he submitted he bad no right to pay for, even if the fowl had been
it tough as was represented, but he altogether doubted the story of the
extraordinary toughness, for though Allen had told the Bench that a
host of brewers' horses could not have torn it limb from limb, yet he had
every reason to believe that every bone of it had been picked, for it had
never been produced, as it ought to have been, to convince him of the
unfitness of it for food. Roberts was hereupon examined as to the fact
of its having been eaten. but he was very unwilling to answer the ques-
tions put by the Commissioners, and wanted to make it appear it had
been given whole to the dogs and cats; but the Court enquired how they
could get it to pieces, if Mr. Calvert's horses could not; this posed
him a little, and be was still more posed by the production of a lad on
the part of Roberts, who had been a sort of errand-boy to Allen, who
was now discharged and who had been a partial partaker of the fowl in
question, and who deposed that " es how he picked a good many of the
bones, which were very good bones, but his muter had left precious
little meat on 'em, and that moreover he had cracked all the leg-bones
to suck the marrow." The Commissioners seemed to think this pretty
good evidence as to the fowl having been eatable, but asked Allen what
he thought of it ? His only reply was, that the boy was such a hungry
rascal, that he believed he would crack even a brewer's horse's leg for
the sake of the marrow. This was rather too much, and the Court in-
stantly dismissed Allen's claim, ordering him to pay the costs.

A horrible murder was committed a few days ago at
Manic d'Artieres, department of the Puy-de-Dome. Most of the inha-
bitants of the village having gone to the fair of Chignat, two miscreants
eatered the house of a lady who was left alone, and after stabbing ha
in several places with a knife, and endeavouring to strangle her, threw
her upon a dung-hill, where they left her for dead. They then fled,
taking with them from the house the sum of B,ooofr. The atrocious
deed was discovered by the sister of the victim, who, seeing traces of
blood, was guided by them to the dunghill, where her sister was found.
The unfortunate woman was still alive, and before she earphed was able
to make known the assessins, for the apprehension of whom dicers have
been sent out in all dbecdons.....GaNgemers Memenper.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS, Sept. 21.

NEW COURT.
ROBBERY BY TWO OF TUE NEW POLICE.

Richard Barrett and John Lidiard, two officers of the New Police,
were indicted for stealing a crown and two half-crowns, front the person
of Matthew Murphy.
The prosecutor stated, that early in the morning of Sunday, August
flf, he was near Rosemary-lane, being at the time the worse for liquor;
while there he met the prisoner Lidiard, of whom he inquired
where he could get something to drink ; he took him to a public-house,
when he requested that the landlord would change a sovereign, as he
was fearful of losing it, and he wished to have some large silver. The
landlord gave him in change, among other monies, the pieces of silver
coin named in the indictment. Before he left the house, the prisoner
Lidiard came in again, when the landlord requested him to see the pro-
secutor safe down the court, as he had property by him. Lidiard then
went out with him, and the other prisoner shortly after joined them, he
being then on duty on the same beat. On his way down the court
witness heard money chink, and one of the prisoners said to the other,
" Why don't you take more r and they then took the small silver
from the purse. Subsequent to this, instead of escorting him towards
his home, as' he had requested, they conveyed him to the station-house,
and gave him in charge.
The prosecutor was rigidly cross-examined, but nothing material
was elicited from him. _ _

Mr. David Boys, the landlord of the public-house in question,
proved that the prosecutor had changed a sovereign at his house en
the night in question, and the description of coin which be gave him,
and that Lidiard, when he came in, said, in reference to the prosecu-
tor, " It's all right."
Robert Christian, the inspector, proved that the prisoners brought
the prosecutor to the station-house, when he was charged with being
disorderly, and that on searching him nothing was found upon his per-
son. The prosecutor said, that when he fell into company with
Lidiard he had a quantity of silver, among which was a crown and two
half-crowns, and also a knife, which he described, and he then charged
the prisoners with having robbed him. Lidiard was then searched, and
the prosecutor's knife found upon him, and the two half-crowns secreted
in his boots ; he was afterwards seen to throw something away, which
proved to be a crown-piece,. Barrett was apprehended in the course of
the day.
The prisoners, when called upon for their defence, denied all know-
ledge of the robbery.
The COMMON SZVOLANT summed up the evidence, and the Jury,
without hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoners were immediately called up for judgment, and the
learned JUDGI commented on the enormity of their conduct in
plundering his Majesty's subjects, whom they had sworn to protect.
Ile sentenced them to be transported for seven years.
Joseph William, aged 39, a soldier of the Guards, was capitally
indicted for a rape on the body of a child named Martha Allchurch,
aged ten years.
The prosecutrix, who gave her evidence with great clearness, stated
that, on the day of his late Majesty's funeral, at aboat four o'clock,
the prisoner, who had lived in the same house, called her down stairs
to fetch him a pint of beer, and to bring it up into his room, which
was the two pair back room. When the prosecutriz brought in the
liquor, the prisoner locked the room door. She here detailed, at
length, the nature of the assault committed on her, which, however,
was not sufficient to constitute the capital charge.

Mr. James Hume, apothecary at the London Infirmary,
that he had examined the child about six weeks alter the epee
was alleged to have been committed. There were no marks of vio-
lence, and he did not believe the capital crime had been perpetrated.
The Jury, in consequence, under the direcdon of Mr. Baron BOLO
LAND, acquitted the prisoner.