Star.
London, England, 1830-06-05 00:00:00

DISTRESS.

Monday there was a meeting at Ce'bridge of the landed
and influential gentry, to consider the dreadful state of
distress at present existing amongst the manufacturers
at Celbridge. His Grace the Duke of LEINSTER in
the Chair.

His Grace addressed the meeting, and said that he, as
a magistrate, had received a petition drawn up by the
manufacturers of Celbridge, and describing their dreadful
situation. The petitioners stated that they were driven
to extremities, and they spoke in a threatening manner—
in such a manner as was ill-advised, and their language
he thought too strong. Now he, in reply to such lan-
guage as this, would say, that, as governor of the county,
he was prepared to preserve the peace, and, if necessary,
he should have troops brought down from Dublin.
Col. ColtoLLY also stated that it was his opinion that
the language of the petition was too strong, and he was
most ready to give his sanction to bring down troops from
Dublin to preserve the public peace.
Rev. E. PACK EN lIA M, Rector of the Parish, said
that there was little or no distress in Celbridge or its
neighbourhood ! He, as Minister of Celbridge, had gone
round that morning with two or three other gentlemen ;
they had visited the houses of the manufacturers, and
they found that the cases of distress were but partial. He
should, therefore, move a resolution that there was no
public distress among the manufacturers of Celbridge.
Rev. Mr. GREER, the Curate of Mr. Packenham,
seconded the rector's resolution. He also said that he had
visited the cabins of the manufacturers, and that the dis-
tress was not general.
While these two gentlemen were speaking, they were
several times interrupted by the wretched-looking manu-
facturers, many of whom exclaimed—" You say there
is no distress. You will be made to know there is
distress, when you have to pay for transporting us. Any
dungeon would be better for us than to be in the way we
are ; for if we were in jail we should get enough to eat."
Mr. G. B R A DOH A w, an inhabitant of Celbridge, said
that not only was the distress of the manufacturers ex-
treme, but it was unendurable. Their distress was of
the most dire and afflicting nature, and such as human
nature could not bear, nor any man of common humanity
endure to look upon. (Hear.) The reverend gentlemen
said that they had gone round that morning to visit the
cabins of the manufacturers—he should be glad to know
when they condescended to visit poor people before ?
(Hear.) And what time did these reverend gentlemen
visit the poor manufacturers ? At the very moment when
they were at their breakfast—a breakfast which was
given to them by Mr. Haughton.—(Hear.) The re-
verend gentlemen having seen the people get a break-
fast, to which they were indebted to charity, said there
was no distress for that day ; but what would it be to-
morrow, or the next day, or next week.—(Hear.) He
told them—be told the magistrates, and the gentry of
the country, that the distress would be overwhelming,
and unendurable.—(Hear.) They could not drive away
distress by a resolution, nor could they stop the months
of the starving artisans by so much► waste paper. He

should now move a resolution to the effect that the dis-
tress was general, and that some mode of relieving it
should be devised.

Mr. BAOEWALL seconded the resolution, upon which
a long discussion took place. In the course of the de-
bate a letter was read by the Duke of Leinster, from the
Lord Mayor of Dublin, in which his Lordship stated the
manner in which he had disposed of the wretched artizans
of the Liberty of Dublin. It was at length agreed that
some mode of relieving the dreadful distress existing in
Celbridge should be devised, and before the meeting se-
parated £2OO were subscribed, to pay the expences of
the manufacturers emigrating to British America or to
England.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
.40,...
COURT OF K--
ING'S BENCH, JUNE 4.
(Sittings before Lord TEXTEIDEX and Common Juries.)
CAMS V. LORD MON TFORD.

This was an action to recover 51. 6s. the price of goods
sold and delivered by the plaintiff, a bookseller, at the
corner of St. James's-street. The goods consisted of
paper and a plain cookery book, supplied to the order of
.the defendant. The value and delivery of the goods were
proved.
Verdict for the plaintiff for Five Pounds Six Shillings.

OMAN V. THOMPSON, M.D.
This was an action brought to recover 11/. 19s. 6d.
brought by the plaintiff, a publican, carrying on business
in the vicinity of Manchester-square, near to which the
defendant resided, being the price of beer supplied to the
defendant's family during a period of more than a year.
The delivery of the beer was proved ; but in defence it
was said that it had always been paid for, and witnesses
were called to show that it was the custom of the family
to pay as it was delivered, but others said that it was not
always paid for on delivery, and there was some evidence'
that the defendant, or Mrs. Thompson, had given money
to pay a servant, who had not paid the plaintiff.
Lord TENTERDEN said, that if the plaintiff knew that
the servant had got money to pay for the beer, and yet
continued to supply it without demanding payment, the
defendant was entitled to the verdict. If he did not, the
defendant was still responsible.
Verdict for the plaintiff for Eleven Pounds.
SCOTT V. LEVY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who re-
sided in Dean's-yard, Westminster, against the defend-
ant, a furniture-broker, in Lambeth New-cut, on the
warranty of two book-cases supplied by the defendant to
the plaintiff. The warranty was, that they would not
crack or warp, but it was proved that they did crack and
warp, and the plaintiff had a verdict for Three Pounds
Damages.

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS, June 4.

This morning these sessions commenced before the
RECORDER, Aldermen ATKINS, THOMPSON, and KEY,
&c. &c.

Daniel Callaghan was indicted for assaulting James
Lloyd, a constable of the parish of Saint Bride, in the
execution of his duty.
Mr. ADOLPHUS (with whom was Mr. BURNABY)
stated the case for the prosecution. The learned counsel
said, that the wife of the prisoner, whom he had deserted,
sold vegetables in the new Farringdon-market, to maintain
herself and five children, and whom he was often bunting
for her earnings.
The prosecutor proved that, on the 27th of April, the
Prisoner came and made a disturbance, and used threats
against his wife, whereupon he (Lloyd) desired him to go
on, which he refused to do. Being an adept at pugilism,
the prisoner struck him two or three times.
The prisoner admitted that he had struck the prose-
cutor, but he said he was first provoked to do it. He
said the woman was not his wife, but he had lived with
her several years. He went to ask her for money, viz.
2301. which she had got of his, and which she said
she had been robbed of. In order to recover it, he offered
a reward of 1001. through the medium of the Cork paper.
—(A laugh).
Lloyd said he had had him in custody three times for the
same offence within so many months.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner, who had been confined five weeks, was
sentenced to be further imprisoned one month in Giltspur-
street Compter, and find sureties to keep the peace for
one year.
Patrick Carey, a labourer, was indicted for assaulting
Ellen, his wife, who appeared against him, to exhibit
divers bruises and contusions upon her face; they had
been married 15 years, but had separated for three months.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was ordered
to pay a fine of one shilling, and find bail to keep the peace.