Star.
London, England, 1822-07-24 00:00:00

DISSOLUTIONS OF PARTNERSHIPS.

Jones and Co. Bankside, coal-merchants. Whittel and Co
Poole, sail-makers. Ryland and Co. Savage-gardens, corn-fac-
tors. Bodington and Shirt, Dudley, Worcestershire, mercers.
Fid!cock and Walton, Cheapside,glassmen. J. and R. Hollins,
Hanley, Staffordshire. Hopkins and Armstrong, Stangate,
lightermen. Board and Hodges, Shepton-Mallet, clothiers.—
Sims and Davies, Bath, tailors. J. B. and P. Lapoulide, Lon-
don. Verga and Scanlon, Macclesfield, tilk-nunufacturers.—
Watson and Co. Sheffield, silver-platets. Fish and Co. St. John-
street, tobacconists. W. and J. L. Webb, Miles's-lane, wine-
merchants.

%cumin Jam—At the Somerset Quarter Sessions on Moe-
day last, Wm. DICKINSON, Esq. M. P. who presided, in his ad-
dress to the Grand Jury, adverted to the deliberations of the
Magistrates respecting the Jail at Ilchester, which, he informed
the Jury, bad, after a most anxious con►ideration of all the
circumstances, terminated by a resolution to abandon the Jail,
and to make such an enlargement of that at Shepton•Mallet as
should be adequate to the health, the due classification of the
prisoners, and the most approved system of prison discipline.
The Hon. Chairman stated, that the estimate for the proposed
extension of the present jail at Shepton-Mallet did not exceed
£6,000, including the available materials from the prison to be
destroyed at Ilchester. The sum to be expended will be raised
in such portions, during the progress of the new buildings at
B:lepton-Mallet, as will be best adapted to the convenience of the
county, se that the tate will bear very lightly on the conttibutors.
Until the new jail is completed, the debtors' ward•at Ilchester
is to be raised by a platform, to protect its ufifortunate inmates
from the alleged dampness ahlch pervades it in the winter
months. It is expected, that by Christmas next, all•the criminals
will be removed to Shepton-Mallet, and as soon as the new wards
there are completed for the rfcc:ption of the debtors, they will
be transferred—and Ilchester Jail will be entirely demolished.

ELEGANT GLASSES, FURNITURE, &c.—The No-
bility and Gentry are invited to inspect the Ware-
rooms of COOPER and SON, 95, Bishopsgate-street
Within, vihera is exhibited an. assortment of new and
second-band Plate Glasses, admirably suited to every
description of drawing or dining-rooms. In the fur-
niture department is comprised every new and ele-
gant article of upholstery, cabinet, and chair-work,
the prices of which are reduced to such a scale of
economy as to attract and ensure the patronage of
rank and fashion.—Among the novelties, wig
.be
found -a newly invented chamber convenience (espe-,
chilly useful to invalids), in which all effluvia is care-
fay prevented.-_••• Turkey and other Carpeting,
also greatly reduced in vice.. •

SURREY SESSIONS.
•
THE KING v RoVERt 14ATTHIRWA.
This was an indictment for an assault upon Richard Stephen
Loveday. The prosecutor was a rellinonger, and the defendant
a tanner. They had been M the habit of dealing together, and
the prosecutor having occasion to call upon the defendant, asked
him the price of a quantity of tail which the defendant had to
dispose of; to which question the defendant replied, that he
would rather give the tan to the poor of the parish, than sell it
to the prosecutor, •or any such shuffling fe:low, for that he had
not paid for the last tan that'll° had. Thi. led to a retort front
the prosecutor, when the defendant knocked the prosecutor
down, and directed his men to shut up the gates, saying that he
would pay the prosecutor nut before he went. He afterwards,
however, opened the gates, and then kicked the prosecutor out
of the place.
The case was proved by the prosecutor and a little boy who
was with him at the time.
On the part of the defendant several of his workmen were
railed, but they could not materially vary the statement of the
prosecutor.—The Jury found the defendant Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN observed, that the conduct of the defendant
was most reprehensible, for he bad not only committed a very
outrageous Esauk, but had also brought his workpeople there,
to endeavour, by their testimony, to evade justice. Under these
circumstances the sentence of the Court was, that the defendant
should pay a fine to the King of .0 o.