Star.
London, England, 1824-09-15 00:00:00

Die quikvit in Domino -
Anno )4DCCI.

V. ldus Septembris.
MDCCCXXIV.
•
Immediately under the above tablet, and within the
tails of the communion table is a plain altar, with the
following inscription :
Ces Deposallles Royale,
Soot lei deposees
Zn attendant • _
Qu'elles orient placees
Dans un
Monument plus
Convenable, quand la
Nouvelk Esllse
Sera constructe.

When the-new church will be in a condition to receive
" Ces deponilles Rollales," is very doubtful, as it is now
fljiy years since it was begun, and it is not yet advanced
beyond Vie construction of about half a dozen pillars
and a sid:

.

The quantity of fermented liquor of all kinds con.
sumed in England is twenty two times-as great as in
Scotland, and the proportion for each inhabitant is
nearly four times as great. In Scotland there is twice
as much small beer used as strong—in England there
is five times as much strong beer used as small. Taking
the amoant of duty paid as the criterion of the strength,
which will give a more accurate result than any other
mode of calculation, we shall find that the real quantity
of the fermented juice of malt consumed io England is
actually forty times as great as in Scotland; and the
quantity swallowed by each Englishman isdearly seven
times as great as falls to the share of his brother of the
north. The Scotchman consumes more than twice the
quantity of pure spirit that an Englishman does. ,

SUAIIIER ASSIZES.
•
LANCASTEI4 SSPTEMBER 11. .
HOLT V. IMITH MW
Thls was an action brought-by the plaintiff to weaver i eottipen.
sation in damages from the defendant Smith, for au assault com-
mitted upon her by SMith's wife.
Mr. Scannas, in stating the case to the Jury, informed them
that the plaintiff in this cause was a widow woman of great-virtue
and respectability, residing at Wrigley-bridge, near Bury; and that
the defendant was an inhabitant of the same place, who carried on
the business of a cotton-spinner. The present action was brought
for the purpose of recovering a compensation in damages for an as-
sault, which the wife of the defendant had committed on the plaintiff.
A few days before that mentioned in the declaration, Mrs. Smith,
the wife of the defendant, saw the plaintiff, Mrs. Holt, walking in i
the street, and publicly Applied to her an expression which no wo-
man ebtild bear without offence. In a day or two afterwards, Mn.
Holt and Mrs. Smith met in the high toad, whep the plaintiff, ex-
pecting to find Mrs. Smith In a milder mood, asked Whether she
bad meant to ipply to her the term which she hid used some days
before ? Mrs Smith replied,that .be did: and then, stithoot any
further provocation, Threw at her several Urge stones, of which one
bruised her severely, and brake upon bet head a put, which, in
breaking, inflicted upon her a severe art dangerous bruise. From
the effects of these blows the glaintiff had suffered seriously for a
long time ; she had been two months under the care of a surgeon,
and even at this moment could not boast of the re-establishment

of her health.
Several witnesses were then called, who described the assault t•
have taken place .under the precise circumstances mentioned in Met
Scarlett's speech. They all denied that, the plaintiff had given any
blew or used any abusive language. to Mrs. Smith. Dr. Handel
Greenball, a physiam at Bury, proved the nature of the wounds
received by the plalntifE Before she received them, the plaintiff was
a jolly-19°1114g woman of pleat:l7k habits ; since that time lad
been perpetually but be would not sa7 in consequence of dams'
blows. He had himself attended her for more than a month.
Mr. Motion/tat, for the defendants, asserted that his client had
received provocation of a nature which no woman could bear, before
she was guilty, of this assault.

After:a reply from Mr. &Auer,. Mr. Baron iltn.i.ocis sum-
med up the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict for the plain-
-tiff—Damages £45.
CHESTER, SEPTEMBER 11. •
Lhn BretOmall, labourer, was indicted for feloniously marrying
Maria Bootherstone, spinster, in Manchester, on the 26th February
List, his former wife being still living.
John Lees proved that ht was present at both marriages, and that
prisoner represented himself as a widower on the second marriage.
Both wives wire also proved to be still living.
The prisoner made no defence —Goilly.—Sentence recorded.