Star.
London, England, 1823-09-02 00:00:00

A person named Morgan, who was in the room the
whole time, said he had lived with her as her husband
for four or five mouths ; and, with some warmth,
said site had received a violent blow on the back of
her neck from Ryder, which occasioned her death.
The witness, IVetherall, at this moment appeased
in great agitation ; her sobs drew the attention of the
Jury, and she was repeatedly pressed to reveal what
.she seemingly had a wish to conceal ; she, how-
ever, declined.

The CORONER suggested that the body should be
opened. It was impossible to say %hat she might
have taken in the cup with the liquor. The Jury were
of the same opinion.
Ryder was about to reply to Morgan's assertion,
when his wife said she would explain about the blow.
'She then stated, that on Tuesday the deceased dined
with her and Ryder ; while dining, she (witness) fan-
cied hes husband looked at deceased ; the spark of
jealousy at the time being up, she left the table, and
went out with the deceased ; they remained out till
evening, and deceased well-knowing Ryder's temper,
said she would go up to him, and prevail on him not
to strike witness. On going up to him she acciden-
tally trod upon his heel, when he said, " Go along,
my good woman," and pushed her aside, which threw
her down ; that, she said, was the blow mentioned.

Ryder gave the same account,
Morgan, however, said the quarrel began one night,
when Ryder sent his wife to the watch-house, and then
Ryder was found in the kitchen with deceased.
Ryder's wife said she came home at the time, and
hearing of the before-mentioned occurrence, she made
a noise, when Ryder sent her to the watch-house.
The CORONER remarked, that the conduct of the
parties was most indecent.
During this time the witness, Wetherall, was in the
room crying, and apparently much agitated ; she was
earnestly pressed to relate what seemed to weigh upon
her mind, but she again refused.
The CORONER suggested that they should view the
body, and in the meantime she could compose l•er-
self. On viewing the body, the marks on the arm
and hand were quite visible ; and, from the appear-
ance of the features, it was conjectured dial she had
died in great agony.
On the return of the Jury, Wetherall was again
asked what she had further to say ? She replied, she
had nothing more to say ; nor W,ould she say any
thing further. She, they retired in tears. -
The CORONER said, it was a very strange story al-
together : she supped with these two persons, and
during supper she drank some liquor out of a cup;
the others drank beer. Alter taking it,, she remains
In convulsions from eight till eleven o'clock, and the
Doctor is not sent for until she is dead. They quar-
relled at supper, and the two remained up stairs for
a purpose the Jury were not aware of. The blows,
he considered, might be put out of the question; and
the only thing was, the contents of the cup. It was
impossible at present to say what was in the liquor,
and that could only be ascertained by opening the
body. The Jury were of the same opinion ; and sub-
sequently Mr. North was sent for. The question was
put to, him, and he said, had poison been admini-
stered, it wouldhavebeen observable in the distortion
of the face ; that, however, was not the case.
The Jury expressed themselves satisfied with this
opinion, and returned a verdict of—" Died by the
visitation of Gov."

We learn from Frankfort, that the house of Messrs.
ROTHSCHILD has given to its different clerks a sum
of 15,000 francs, in consequence of the late loan. It
is thought this house has already gained a sum of
4,000,000 francs by this operation.—Paris Paper.

7/MRS. STEPHEN AND JAMES ROCHE.
Mr. DIANE GRADY, for the plaintiffs, stated their
case. This was an issue directed by the Court of
Chancery, under which the action was brought by
the plaintiffs against the defendants, for the recovery'
of the amount of certain bills,of exchange. It was
well known to the Jury and to the Public, that in
consequence of the failure of the Messrs. Roche, the
Statute was issued against them, and that, after hav-
ing gone through the ordeal, they honourably ob-
tamed their certificate; and though this action was
nominally against them, its real object was to come
at a dividend of their effects. The plaintiffs --were
driven to try their right to do so in this way, their
endeavours to try on the estate before the Commis-
sioners of Bankrupt in Cork having been encountered
by so many difficulties and obstacles, as to oblige
them to make an application to the Lord Chancellor
to allow them to come in and prove their debt.
The motion having been argued beforehis Lordship,
the result was an order that the plaintiffs should
'bring an action against the present defendants, who,
it was directed by the order, should not set tip their
bankruptcy in defence. It was a part of the same
order that the assignees of the Messrs. Roche should
be at liberty to examine the bankrupts; so that in
fact it was they who instituted this resistance to the
plaintiffs; for he (Mr. Grady) was persuaded that the
Messrs. Roche, if acting for themselves, would not
be in Court that day to object to the just clAim of the
plaintiffs, or to set up the kind of defence which he
understood would be resorted to; lot, strange as it
may appear, one of the grounds was, that some of the
bills were drawn on illegal stamps, respecting which
he should have something to say hereafter. They all
knew that the plaintiffs had dealt largely in bills of
exchange, and carried on business successfully for a
long time. Among others, they had many dealings'
with the defendants, who, it would appear, iniving
had occasion for English bills, early in the year 1320,
applied to the plaintiffs, who sold them those which
were the subject or the present action, drawn on a
house in London, with whom they had been in the
habit of doing business, and with whom they had cre-
dit. As payment for these bills, the plaintiffs received
from the defendants bills also drawn on London,
which amounted to 1:2,012. Bs. 3d. British, which
made a difference, to some 4mall amount, between
those they gave and those they got. The, bills thus
given to the defendants by the plaintiffs weie all paid,
one of them, after some short delay, having gotten
into the hands of Mr. John Roche, of Dublin; while
the bills which the defendants gave to the plaintiffs
were not paid, and remained so to this day. When
these were drawn, it was subsequently discovered,
that instead of calculating the stamp as if the trans-
action were of English money, they were as of Irish,
and inasmach as some of them were so drawn, it was
now, it seemed, to be contended that it was impossi-
ble to recover. That, he admitted, was a legal ob-
jection ; but in consequence of what took place before
the Lord Chancellor, it was one which would not
avail, which ought not to be relied on, and which he
hoped the learned Counsel at the other side would not
embarrass the case with. It would, in truth, be use•
less to do so; for if the plaintiffs got a verdict upon
any of the bills to which the objection, on account of
a wrong stamp, did not apply, the Lord Chancellor
would not allow the objection to those which were
on wrong stamps to prevail. When he mentioned the
names of the Roches, he could not avoid doing them
• the justice to say, that it was consistent with the pu-
rity of conduct which they had always evinced, that
they would not set up such ,a defence as this to which
he had alluded.

The only witness produced in support of this state-
ment was Mr. Keefe O'Keefe; when
Mr. O'Contszu. spoke for the defendants. He re-
marked that Mr. Grady had admitted in his state-
ment, they were not trying an ordinary issue of bills
of exchange. This was, in fact, an issue to satisfy
the Chancellor whether the plaintiffs were entitled to
recover a dividend on these bills out of the effects of
the bankrupts. The Chancellor sent this question to
be tried in form of an action, but the form was
material. He would prove, by evidence not to be con-
troverted, that there was not a single bonaftele trans-
action, but a mere interchange of paper between in-
solvent houses—that although their dealings previous
to March 1820, amounted to 150,0001. there was not
an act of regular business, the entire being calculated
and contrived by the O'Keeffes to keep up a fictitious
credit. The result of these dealings was, that in
March, 1820, a gum of 6,0001. according to Mr.
Keeffe O'Keeffe's representation, but amounting to'
9,0001. in reality, as would be pripred by Mr. Roche,
was due to the bank.

Mr. James Roche, one of the late firm, was exa-
mined by the Raconusa.—He proved that 1,0001. was
accepted by the Messrs. Roche, as a compensation
for 9,0001. and the sum paid, part in gold, part in
notes, and part by a bill on London. The greater
part of the debt due from the house of O'Keeffe to
the Bank appeared in his (Mr. Roche's) private book,
a sum of 1,1001. only appearing to be due on the
books of the house; and in order to save appearances,
he gave Mr. Arthur O'Keeffe a sum of 1,1001. in his
private office, with which he went down to the pub-
lic office, and paid off the balance which appeared
to be due. In May, 1810, there was a temporary
demur on the part of Roberts and Co. to accept the
bills drawn by his house, and this fact was known to
the O'Keeffes. In 1816, Mrs. O'Keeffe passed bills
.to him to the amount of 5,0001. which were not paid;
he spoke to her about them, and she said if the Bank
would enable her to take some money in London, the
would get them settled or arranged. Upon this as
surance, he gave her 1,000 guineas on her I 0 U, and
discounted for her to the amount of 2,0001. but the
bills were never paid. Being asked how he accounted
for doing business with her after this transaction, he
said it was with a view to keep up her credit, and
thereby enable her to pay gradually. The debt of
9,0001. due in March, 1820, he was obliged to com-
promise from necessity.
Mr. Justice BURTON summed up the evidence.;
After alluding to the acceptance of the compromise
above stated, he said the former loss would account
for Mr. Itoche's calling on the O'Keeffes for bills, of
which the four hi dispute were some, which were re-
gularly paid, neves having come back to him ; but

•