Star.
London, England, 1822-11-08 00:00:00

CORN EXCHANGE, MARK-LANE, NOV. 8.

The arrivals are short, owing to the contrary winds still pre-
vailing. Wheat sells on the same terms as on Friday. Batley
for malting readily finds hu-ers, on the same terms as last quoted.
Beans and Peas remain unaltered. :Oats find rale at 31cnday's
prices. In all other articles there is no alteration —ltuportations :
English Wheat, 5910 qrs. Barley, 2990 qrs. Oatl4 4502 qrs.
Irish Barley, 185 qrs. Irish Oats, 580 qrs.
SMITHFIELD MARKET, NOI
Thete was a good supply at market this .
of cattle, but nut equal to that of last I'rida'
are much the same as on lasi Monday, witb

Beef, 2.. to 3s. per stone of sibs. ; Mu.
Veal, 3c. to 4a. Pork, 2s.bl. to 34. 6tl...—Cattle

780 Calvet,' 180 ; :Met" and Lambs; 720
and &raw pet load t, Hays t 0.41. Clov,
Wow, 1/. Ba. to i1..141a. : '

. • .

)
•
ovENPEg s.
morning. 9( all kinds
atay's, and the in .c. s
12 a airj heavy trule
luttnn~'9s to 4a .
lOd. 1 •
tie at Market : klaans,
.240.—Hay20 t'ias,
Itovrt.2l.los to 36 10s.
..1
. '

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER r.
THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSR.
The ATTORNIT•GINERAL opened the CaSe Of the
petitioner. Henry Wallop Fellows, nephew of the
Earl of Portsmouth. The prayer of the petition was,
that a Commission of Inquiry should be issued, to as-
certain whether his Lordship was of sound mind and
capable of managing his own person and property.
The Leirned Gentleman detailed at great length the
affidavits which- were filed in support of the prayer of,
the petition.
Mr. Wirrntant.t. followed on the same side, until
be was interrupted by his Lordship at half-past two.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that this was a case
which so urgently required the earliest possible de-
cision, that he would proceed with it again to-mor-
row morning. At the same time he wished to sug-
gest that in a case of such great delicacy there ought
to be no publication of the proceedings until the case
should be fully heard.
COURT OF ItINCFR BENCH. NOVEMBER 7.
THE KING v. MESSITER, GENT.
Mr. SCARLETT moved for a Rule to shew cause
why judgment in this case should not he arrested, or
why a new trial should not be granted. He would
apply himself Qrst to those grounds of objection
which appeared on the face of the record, because,
though he was confident that he had abundant
grounds for a new trial, he thought the Court would
not send so defective a record to a second inquiry.—
The indictment against Mr. George Messiter, an at•
torney at Ftome, was tried at the last Assizes for the
county of Somerset, before Mr. Justice Richardson,
when the defendant was found guilty. It purported
to charge him with an endeavour at the subornation
of four witnesses, on the trial of an issue pending be-
tween Sir Thomas Swymmer Champneys and him-
self, to give false evidence that the plaintiff had at-
tempted to commit an atrocious clime. The indict-
ment did not shew what the matter in issue was, or
set forth how such evidence could affect the case, or
even be produced at the trial. Suppose the action
were for goods sold and delivered, it would he ab-
surd to contend that any witnesses could be called to
prove such an imputation, on such an issue, or that
an indictment could be good, charging a solicitation
so to swear falsely.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY observed, that in cases of per-
jury, it was always necessary to shew the materiality
of the matter charged as false to the question in issue ;
but asked if it was so also in subornation of perjury ?
Mr. SCARLETT submitted that the present indict•
mem did not Thew any connection between the matter
to which the subornation was directed and the question
to be tried, so as to point out any intelligible charge.
Mr. Justice BA YLEY.—Supposea man were charged
with suborning a person to swear that John Thomas
was not to be believed on his oath, in expectation that
John Thomas would be called an a particular trial :
if John Thomas is not called, the matter to which the
subornation was directed does not arise ; but would
not the party be guilty of a misdemeanour?
Mr. SCARLETT assented to this; but observed, that
in such case it should appear that the party had
some reason to expect that John Thomas would be
called, and that his evidence would be material.
The LORD CHIEF Jos-mt.—lf he suborns a wit-
ness, does not that shew that lie at least believes the
testimony he can thus procure would be material ?
Mr. SCARLETT said he felt how naturally indig.
nation must be excited at the idea of the crime
charged on the defendant : but he was sure the Court
would not suffer their feelings to influence the decision.
The Loan CHIRIP JUSTICE.—Certainly we shall not
permit them to influence our judgment : we must de-
cide according to law.
Mr. SCARLETT proceeded. In point of fact, had
the indictment stated the natured the issue, it would
have been seen at once that the evidence which Mr.
Messiter was charged with endeavouring to procure
could not have been produced at the trill. It was
an action for words, to which Mr. Nlessiter pleaded,
not a justification, but the general issue. He could
not, therefore, give the truth of these words in evi•
dente ; and yet the indictment charges him with at-
tempting to suborn these persons to prove that the
imputation was true. He might stippose from some
decisions, to which more particular allusion was
needless, that for the purpose of mitigating the da- ,
mages, he might shew that reports against the plain-
tiff were current previous to the time when he used
the expressions; and on an examination of the evi-
dence, it would appear clearly that, even if believed,
it applied not to the truth of facts, but the existence
of rumours. To that evidence he would now advert,
with a view to shew, on the second pan of his mo-
tion, that the defendant was entitled to a new trial.
There were charges of attempting to suborn four per-
sons; and the Jury found a general verdict of guilty,
but only one of these proved anything at all import-
ant to the case, and this was a witness named
Knighton. This man deposed, that Mr. Messiter had
discounted a bill of £l5 for him, and that he came
afterwards to speak to him. The witness said—" I
suppose you are come about the £l5 bill that you
discounted for me?" Mr. Messiter replied, " Yes;
bqt not altogether about that, but respecting a dirty
report, and a ditty action about Champneys g" and
added, in the course of conversation, " if I would
come forward and sear against Champneys, he
would forgive me, and make a Gentleman of me all
the days of my life." In a subsequent part of his
examination, the witness being asked if he knew what
Mr. Messiter alluded to by "a dirty report or =dour
said,-" Yes; because I had heard reports." Now if
this story was believed, to what did it amount ? The
witness had heard reports, and the existence of those
reports was the only fact he would have been admit-
ted to prove. There was nothing, then, which im-
plied a desire to persuade the witness to swear falsely,
but merely an endeavour to induce a reluctant wit-
ness to come forward and state the truth.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—It may be so; but it is not
a very proper way for an attorney to collect evidence,
Mr. SCA RLRTT.—Certainly not, my Lord, if it were
true: and this feeling might induce the Jury, and:
probably did induce them, to find their verdict with.'
lfficiently adverting to the precise nature of the
Even this case rested merely on the evidence
ighton, who was asked on cross-examination.
tuestions fur the purpose of contradiction, but
t enstradicted because. the Learned Coined.
defendant, Aii. Gaselee, did net think, niter

the otter failure of 4411 the rest of the case, and tfie
entire want of all proof fairly applicable to the charge,
that he should be justified in occupying the time of
the Court by calling witnesses. Under these circum-
stances, the defendant confided in the justice of the
Court to grant a second trial in case the judgment
should not be arrested.
The LORD CHIRP JUITICR.—Take a rule to sbew
cause on both points.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS said, that he had been in-
structed to move that the defendant should stand
committed, but be would not, after what had passed
in Court, make the motion.
The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE said, that Mr. Williams
acted very correctly ; Mr. Mzssiter should enter into
his own recognizance to appear and receive judg-
ment when called on.
Mr. Messiter's recognizance was then taken by the
proper officer.

BALDRY D. PARKER.
Mr. COMMON SnaJEANT moved for a rule to shenv
eau* why the nonsuit in this case should not be set
aside, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff with £7O
damages. ' It was an action for goods bargained and
sold, which was recently tried before the Lord Chief
Justice at Guildhall. It appeared that the defendant
went to the shop of the plaintiff, who is a draper, in
Russell-street, Covent-garden, and looked at a num-
ber of articles, which he proposed to pUrchase. 'ltem
was some chaffering as to prices, but at last many
articles were fixed on ; some pieces were severed, the
defendant lending his assistance ; and on others he
pnt his mark in pencil, that he might know them
again. The whole amounted in price to more than
£7O, but no article singly came to so much as £lO,
and the entire quantity was set aside in a parcel for
the defendant. On the next day a person called on
him with a bill of parcels; he inquired what credit
his master gave? and was informed he never gave
credit at all, unless he was acquainted with his cus-
tomer. He then asked what discount would be al-
lowed for ready money ? Ile was informed only £5
per cent. which he declared very inadequate, and in-
ferior to that which he had been accustomed to receive.
The goods were subsequently tendered and rejected.
On this evidence, the Lord Chief Justice thought
that there was no acceptance of the goods to satisfy
the provision in the Statute of Frauds; and he ac-
cordingly directed a nonsuit, with liberty to move.
Mr. Common Serjeant now contended that the Sta-
tute of Frauds did not apply to the case so as to
preclude the plaintiff from his right of action. He
argued this on two grounds—first, that the setting
apart of the goods an the shop was a complete ac-
ceptance of the whole ; and secondly, that as the S:a-
tute applies only to purchases beyond £lO, and no
one article reached that sum, the contract for each
was a distinct contract, and the Statute did not apply.
The Cot,RT said, that it was now settled that the
Statute applied to every contract above £lO, except
where there had been such an acceptance as would
enable the purchaser to sustain trover for the goods
withont a tender of their value; but under ail the
circumstance; of the case, they granted a rule to
chew cause.

THE ICING V. SMITH.
Mr. BnovonaNt moved for a Rule, calling on Wil•
liam Smith, of Kirkby Stephen, in the county of
Cumberland, to shew cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be filed against him. He made this
application on behalf of Mr. Thomas Briggs,* who
had long exercised the functions of Steward of the
Court Leet at Appleby. In that Ccurt, a plaint, in
which a person named Hodgson was plaintiff, and
Smith was defendant, came on for trial ; when Smith
had not only full justice, but considerable favour and
indulgence sheen him. The case was conducted on
each side by the Attornies, and after the Attorney
for Hodgson had replied, and the Attorney fo:
Smith had given up his case, Smith s; as himself
per mitred to examine another witness before the case
went to the Jury, so that he had not the least colour
of complaint against the Judge, mho, if partial at all,'
was so on his side. The verdict, as it must of neces-
sity be, was given for the plaintiff, which excited the
rage of Mr. Smith so far that he broke through all
decorum, He assembled a multitude in the street at
a little distance, and began to make a kind of pro.
clamation, crying out " County Court! County!
Court!" am; then exclaimed, 46 The Grand She-,
riff of the county of Cumberland tries causes un-'
justly in his Court. I have not had a fair trial. Ile,
is a damned rogue, a swindler, 'and a thief." These
ex pre .sions he repeated several times, with others
equally offensive. There was the affidavit of Mr.
Margisson, an Attorney, who happened to be present
in Court, engaged on neither side, who swore that
nothing could he more liberal and indulgent than the
conduct of Mr. Briggs to the defendant in the trial
of the cause. That Gentleman, therefore, as a public
officer, felt it necessary to appeal to the Court for
protection against insults so gratuitously heaped on
him while in the discharge of his important duties.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Take a Rule to shew
cause hut perhaps, before it comes on to be argued,
some arrangement may be made between the parties.
I see enough to lead the to suspect that some other
feeling than that which is avowed may operate in
these dissensions.
Mr. BROCKMAN said that it was not the first time
Mi. Briggs had been thus insulted. He trusted the
Rule to she* cause might produce the effect sus-.
gested by the Court.
The Loan Cam Jusytea.—Yes ; it will probably,
bring the defendant to his senses.
IN THE NATTER 01 GEORGE JAQUES.
The consideratiod bf this case, postponed yester-
day, was to•day resumed, after the motions were dis-
'posed of. The book referred to was produced, and
found to contain a number of entries by Jaques, of '
'payments to Thackeray, of El, and El. Is. each, for
successive weeks, as well as entries for other advances.
The defendant being called on to explain these
entries, said that he had acted as clerk to Thackeray,
at a salary of £l5O per annum. Thackeray was a
man immoderately addicted to liquor, and he was
' forced to take care of his monies, and to make him
these advances. He solemnly disclaimed having
re-
ceived any share of the prOfits of the concern. At
his desire the affidavit of one of the clerks was read..
declaring that he considered Thackeray 'as his Mas-
ter, and that all proceedings were taken in his name.
He then requested that his own affidavit might be
read. Tha pfficer accordingly won to sited it, but
as it appeared to-be of greatlengthlissd the time for

the rising of the. Court had arqvesl,
the. Further Mts.
cussitin of the -ease wit postponed till to-morrow.
COURT OR COMP4ON. ELBA& NOVEMBER 7.
OARDNIIR V. &LAM
Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a Rule to shew cause
why the verdict obtained in this cause for the de-•
fendant should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted. It was an action which had been tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Burrough, at the last Bristol Assizes,
to recover the title deeds of various estates which
were in the possession of Slack, as assignee to Mr.'
Jarman, an attorney at Bristol. On the security of
these estates an annuity of £560 a-year had been
granted, and there was besides a rent charge of £l2O
a year. The Jury, on the trial, found the annual
value of the property to be £660 a year,- including
the £l2O annual rent charge: they calculated, in
fact, as if the property were freehold, whereas a
great part was leasehold, and the real annual value
ought to have been £560 a year.— The Rule to shew
cause was granted.
BARLOW U. HORNE.
Mr. Serjeant PELL moved for a Rule to shew cause
why the defendant should not be allowed his costs,
under the following circumstances :—The defendant
had been on a visit with the plaintiff, who was styled
J. Barlow, Esq.' at Newport, in the Isle of Wight ;
and at parting; the plaintiff requested the defendant
would take an old mare, and endeavour to sell her
to the highest bidder. Defendant subsequently ob.,
tained five pounds for the mare, but that amount
had been expended in keeping :ier while in his pos-
session. The Learned Serjeant further said, that the
plaintiff had arrested the defendant for an alleged'
debt of £4O, which he made out in the following
manner, viz.—for the mare £1 2, for a greyhound £:5,
for a silver-mounted whip £5, and the remainder
in '
other items upon the most extraordinary scale of
charge, for buckles, a shooting-jacket (an old fustian
coat), tanned leather gaiters, thick shoes,
.in fact, a
few articles of the refuse of the plaintiff's wardrobe,
which the defendant merely wore when cast away
upon Mr. Barlow's place of residence ; but the Jury
found a verdict for £l2, there appearing to have
been a sort of promise for that sum given for .the old
mare. The present application was, why the plain-
tiff should not be compelled to pay the defendant's
costs, under the Act of the 43d of the late King, to
prevent oppi.essive arrests, he having recovered but
£l2, while he arrested and held to bail for 1:40.
Ruse nisi granted.
DETENTION OF A DUTCH sitIP.—CROOKED.IIOTAVI:iIt.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY moved to have the nonsuit
obtained in this cause set aside, and a new trial
granted, upon several grftunds of law and of fact.—
lie said that this was an action tried before the Lord
Chief Baron at the last Kent Assizes, in which Crooke,
the Master of a Dutch ship, was plaintiff, and Mr.
Mel'avish, a King's Officer on board the'Severn Re-
venue cruizer, was defendant; and it was for the re-
covery of the amount of damages sustained by the
Dutch ship while improperly detained by the de-
fendant. The Court knew, that by a particular Act
of Parliament, all actions of this description must be
brought within three months after "the matter or
thing cfr.r.:-.*
Lord Chief Justice DA LLAs.,—The meaning of that
mat:er or thing done has been often before ns. • .
Mr. Serjeant Tatinv said that the Lord Chief Baron
had held at the trial, that the matter of thing done
must be deemed to be the first entrance of the King's
Officer on board the Dutch ship, and from that must
be dated the time of the action. Mr. Serjeant Onslow
had in the case, according to that construction, ob-
tained a nonsuit, subject to an application to the
Court. The facts of the case were these :—On the
23d of August, the Dutch ship being then off Dover,
bearing up Channel, was boarded by the defendant,
who, after examining the cargo and crew, went away
without avowing any intention of detaining the vessel,
but left ttiree of his men from the Severn on board.
On the 25th he returned on board, then formally put
the vessel under seizure, and on the following day
brought her into the port of Dover, at which place
she was put under quarantine—an operation which
she would not have had otherwise to undergo, not
being de,tined for any British port. A long corres-
pondence inirediately took place upon the subject on
the part of the representative of the King of the
Netherlands and the Board of Customs, which even-
tually, on the 20tii September, led to the restoration
of the vessel to the Dutch owners, and an order from
the Board of Customs that care should be taken by
the officers in possession, to restore her and her cargo
exactly in the state in which she was before their de-
tention. The action was afterwards brought for the
damages sustained during the quarantine to which
the ship.was forcibly consigned. One cause of coca-
plaint was the Mention of the vessel in the first in-
stance ; next, her detention until the 20th of Septens•
ber ; and then the recovery of damages- thereby sus-
tained. The writ of action was sued out on the
17th of November; and if the three months content"
plated by the Act meant three calendar months,
then the action was in time—not so, however, if they
were lunar months.
The COURT inquired what were the words of
the statute ?
Mr. Serjeant TADDY replied, “months," generally;
but that in the 25th and 25th sections,which referred
to the time of notice and tender of amendments, the
words for such were, 4' within one calendar month:"
from these words the plaintiff's Counsel inferred that
calendar months must have been generally what the
framers of the statute intended, for otherwise the sec-
tions would establish an advantage in favour of the
wrong-doer over the sufferer, which never could have
been contemplated.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS—Suppose that the i
word "months" ran generally throughout the sta-
tute, without the partial insertion of "calendar" 19
one or two specific clauses, what then would be tha
construction of the law? ,
Serjeant TADDY admitted, that in such a case ..the4.•
law would construe the meaning to be lunar monthi.'
Several cases, he knew, hid been qUoted against hie
proposition on Circuit; but that of" Godding D. Fer-
ris, in 2d Henry Blackstone, 14," was most relied on,
for there the seizure was complete in the first in-
stance, and the action was not brought for three years
afterwards. But in the present cam the first poirl
to consider was, when the " matter or thing" wxs
done—whether it -was to hold with the Lord-Chic!
Baron, that it was done on the 23d of August, the
moment the.deferidant'entered the ship ; or whether
it was to 'be held (toe the 25th, when the actual

7-7.. -7.

seizure took,-place: it, was. clear,titzt au the 22J the
officer himself did not think the thing done, or else
he would not have withheld the actual seizure until
the 25th. There was also another point to he consi-
dered—namely, how. far the Act of the 24th
c, boreGteo.ll.
c. 44, commonly called the Magistrates' Act,
upon this•question. • By that Act, no action was sus.
' tamable against a Magistrate for oppressive conduct,
unless it were brought within six months after the
occurrence complained of; and in case of false im.
I prisonment, it was there held that siz Month; may be
dated from the last, as •well as the first hour of the
party's imprisonment, each additional day forming,
in fact, a distinct offence. .If this construction were
' applied to the present case, then the date of thy; pro-
ceeding need not be had from the first, but from die
Ilast day of the detention of the ship. There WAS also
another consideration. How could the Captain bti.:;
his action earlier than he had brought it ?. The qu.t.
rantine law made it felony for him to communicate
with the shine.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said, that the very ci--
cumstance of the officer having left d -. oee men o
board from the first moment he entered the ship was
to be considered as detention ; but the Court granted
a Rule Niii to have the subject more fully argued.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, NOVEMBER 7.
ARSON.

Anne Osbaldeston, a young woman of intetesting
appearance, was indicted for wilfully and malicious),
setting fire to the house kept by her.
Mr. Amiantus, on the part of the prosectition,
stated the facts olthe.case to the Jury, and they weie
corroborated •by the witnesses subsequently called.
The defendant rented the house in question, No. 4Q,
Chapel-street, Grosvenor.place, of Messrs. Glenton
and Mayden. On the 28th of September last, about
eight o'clock in the evening, the defendant went to
Mr. Glenton, and told him there was a thief in the
house, who looked sometimes like a soldier, and
sometimes like an apparition. Mr. Glenton ssert to
the house, and assistance was procured. On entering.
the attic back room, it was found to be all in fl
Cie bed was on fife, and some far,,iture. le one
drawer were found some rags steeped in oil, and in
another a candle apparently just put out, anh
bottle of oil. The candle was warm, and quite s,ft-.
As soon as the fire was discovered, the defendant ran
over to a neighbour of the name of Whiting. and
asked him to help to putt out the tire. She &elated
she had been robbed of two E 5 notes, two sovereigns,
and some clothes. In a sho; t time w..ter was ia-n-
-cured, and the fire was extinguished. It v. as not found
that the fire had burnt any part of the e ainscot r
floor of the room, and the defendant was theiefnre
merely indicted for a misdemeanour. The principal
witnesses for the prosecution were Mr. Glenton, the
landlord, and Mr. WhUng, the neighbour. Thcir
examinations were long, but the facts ate comprised
in a very short compass.
Mr. ALLEY, for the defendant, thought so weak a
case had been made out by the witnesses for the pro-
secution, that there sea-. no necessity for him to call
any witnesses to contradict the facts. It was so
probable that the defendant should set file to 11:e
house without hope of gain, and with a certainly
the loss of all her property, that the Jury could ee-
terLain but one opinion upon the case.
A number of most re!pectahle witnesses, who had
known the defendant for many year:, spoke moa :a-
vourably of her character.
The Jury immediately pronounced her:'tot

CORONER'S INQUEST —Yeierday a Coroner's
quisition was held before THOMAS STIRLING,
at the Marlborough ATMs, Thornhaugh-stt ce:, Tot-
tenham-court•road, on the body of Rouirrt li.► hoist,
who was found dead in the stables of --G:een, Esq.
Upper Chenies Mews, with two large coach- heels
on his breast. It appeared from the evidence, that
the deceased was put into the stables by Mr. Greer,
to take care of them during the family's absence, and
on Tuesday, on some persons going into them they
found the deceased lying dead on his back, at the
foot of the stairs, with the wheels on his breast, as if
they had fallen on him; he had the appearance of
having struggled to extricate himself, and al•o as ii
he had died limn suffocation. Some of the witnesses,
from supposition, assigned as a cause for the wheels
being on him, that he nad got intoxicated, and in at-
tempting to get up stairs had caught hold of 0:e
wheels which fell with him, and being in liquor :le
was suffocated by the immense weight, and the other
causts attending his unfortunate situation. The Jury,
after viewing the body, by direction of the Coroner,
returned a verdict of—Accidental Death. .

BIRTH•
Oct. 30, the wife of Lieutenant T. D. Steward, Coninian.'..r
of his Majesty's sloop Swan, of a son.

M•RRIED.
Oct. 30, Charles Frederick de Rutaen, to Mary D:lrc..ht.z,
daughter of the late N. Phillips, Esq. of Slebech Hall, Pe..2-
brokeshire.
Oct. 26, at Nairn, Lieut. Lewis D. Mitchell, R.N. to
eldest daughter of the late Robert Falconer, Esq. SheritY-Subs:i-
tute of Nairnshire.

DIED.
November 3, at Clifton, Bristol, in his 35th year, Jahn
Ormsby Vandeleur, of the county of Limerick, late Colonel is
the Army, and Lieutenant-Colonel of the sth Dragoon tiaardr.
He was nephew of the late Earl of Longford, and of the prescle
Admiral, the Hon. Sir Thomas Pakenham, Bart.
Oct. 14, at Culblair, Colin Shaw, Esq. an acting Deputy Lieu-
tenant, and-one of the oldest Magistrates of Inverness-shire.
Monday se'rinight, Captain Richard Bell, of the Hope,
Maryport he was knocked overboard by the main-boors,
unfortunately drowned.
Oct. 2s, at Ayr, Mrs. Jean Orr, widow of the late Capt:A
James Ross.
At Aonachan, Lochaber, Mr. William 31acintyre, late tack--
man of Druimfour, aged 101 years. He exhibited, in man:.-t•
and language, a striking specimen of the patriarchal dig..ity
the Highlanders of the preceding age ; he always wore thv
taut garb, and was a living history of the feuds of the last co:-
tory. He Was a superior deer stalker, and killed his ro: at the
age of 90. His mind retained its vigour to the last. His rein ups
were conveyed to the grave by a number of his clan, of Ns hi:h
there was present of his own descendants a number more act
sufficient for that purpose.

--
MAILS. . ARR. nr is. ARR. DU&
Dublin 1 0 France 0 0
Waterford 1 0 lianiburgh 0 1
Guernsey and Jersey 1 0 Flanders 1 0
Lisbon 0 0 Malta 0 0
ito/land 1 0 Gortenburgh 0 1
Leeward Islands 0 0 Jamaica 0 0

•• A I ILK at LUh LAIN WA 1 lied. 1 tl- Alt/jilt,. •••
Mcrnmg - 7 minutet after 10
Aften.win • 47 minutes after 10

LONDON; Yrintol stid pu'llisbed by Lava. Vt;ata-
plact, rcalp!e.BAr.

oat suKci
chartg E
ofh
asianylt siue
was 'Kit 4
for the de