Star.
London, England, 1825-03-19 00:00:00

41ir REIORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 11.
REAL DEL MONTE MINING COMPANY.
KINDIR V. TAYLOR AND °TRIM&
Mr. SRABWRLL, who appeared as Counsel fot the
defendants, was anxious that the arguments in this go*
should be postponed, as sufficient time had not beers
allowed to read the bill. A copy of the bill had not
been furnished until Thursday, and the defendants,
therefore, required further time to read and answer all
the allegations and charges contained in it. After a
short conversation, Wednesday next was fixed for the
hearing of the case.
BAYLIS v. PAUNTLBROY, HUME, ANSI GOODCRILD.
Mr. HART stated, that this was a motion arising out
of the' committed by Mr. &under and for
_ _

__ forgeries . _.oy,
which his life had been forfeited. That Gentleman had
been joint Trustee with Mr. Hume and Mr. Goodchild,
with respect to some property belonging to the plain-
tiffs, which was placed in the hands of the Bank of
England. Mr. Fauntleroy had forged the plaintiffs'
signature, and had thus drawn the whole money from
the Bank. The present motion was for a reference to
the Master to inquire whether any and what suit should
be instituted against the Governors and Directors of the
Bank of England, to compel them to replace the
amount in their books? The Learned Gentleman re-

gretted that, through inattention •to the plaintiffs in-
terests, the two retraining Trustees had suffered Mr.
Fauntleroy to obtain the whole of the money out of the
hands of the Bank.—Reference directed to the Master,
according to the terms of the motion.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH IS.
ORICE V. THE THAMES TUNNEL COMPANY.
In this case, Mr. HEALD, at a late hour yesterday,
moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants from
taking possession of two houses, 325 and 326, High.
street, Rotherhithe, or molesting the plaintiffs in the
possession or enjoyment thereof; or from boring or
mining under them, or under a wharf and other pre-
mises in the occupation of the plaintiff, and a Mrs.
Mary Ann White, also in High-street, Rotherhithe.
Alter hearing Counsel yesterday and this morning,
The Vice CHANCELLOR gave his judgment, em-
bodying all the important facts in the case. His Ho-
nour said, this was a bill filed by James Grice, who
was the owner, and John Grice, his son, who was the
tenant, of four houses and other premises, situated in
ltotherhithe, for the purpose of restraining the defen-
dants, who were engaged in cutting a tunnel under the
itiver Thames, from proceeding in that undertaking,
inasmuch as they had not acquiesced in the very large
demand made by the plaintiffs as to the value of these
premises. The plaintiffs had demanded between five
and six thousand pounds, and aJury impanelled under
the Act of Parliament had assessed their damage ul-
rimately at 1,8001.
After noticing the arguments of Counsel generally,
his Honour said, that this was an attempt to resist the
verdict of a Jwy, on grounds perfectly untenable. and,
therefore, the applicatit.n must be disn.issed with costs.

LENT ASNIZES.

KINGSTON, MARCH Is.

Richard Mills was indicted for the wilful murder of
William Fuller, at Wimbledon, on the 11th cfJanuary,
by stabbing him with a butcher's knife.
It appeared in evidence, that. the prisoner having been
a poulterer by trade, became reduced in his circum-
stances, and was received into Wimbledon workhouse
about a year since. Twenty years ago he had fallen
from a horse, and in consequence became subject to
epileptic fits. During the year he was in the w ork-
house he had frequent attacks of epilepsy, which affected
his mind. The deceased was also a pauper in the work-
house. In the evening of the 11th of January, when
he was getting into bed, the prisoner, who had gone an
hour before, rose up and stabbed Fuller with a large
knife in the abdomen, and killed him on thg spot. The
prisoner then attacked another pauper, named Apple-
ton, and wounded him in several places. His cries Of
murder brought other paupers to his assistance, and the
prisoner was overpowered.
A surgeon of Wimbledon, who had known the priso-
ner for twenty years, had no doubt that the epilepsy had
affected his mind, and that he could not have been sane
at the time of the transaction in question.
Mr. Walter, the keeper of the gaol, said that whilst
the prisoner was in custody, he behaved like a person of
unsound mind. During that time he had frequently
epileptic fits six times a day.
Upon this evidence, the Jury, under the Learned Judge's direr.
dons, acquitted the prisoner, on the ground of insanity, and be was
ordered to be detained during his Majesty's pleasure.
Anthony Dakin was indicted for feloniously killing
and slaying James Frederick Taylor, at West Mouhey,
on the 26th December. _ _ _

It appeared in evidence that the prisoner was gar-
dener to a Gentleman named Savory, a chemist, in Bond-
street, having a cottage at West Moulsey. The deceased
was a bricklayer by trade. On the £7th December List,
the deceased and two persons named Martin and Brown,
went out Christmas-boxing in the morning. After going
their rounds, they called at Mr. Savory's house. They
knocked at the door. It was answered by the prisoner.
They requested a Christmas-box. The prisoner said,
that as his master was not at home, he could not give
them any money, but that they were welcome to some
beer, and he invited them into the kitchen, where they
sat down. He then went to the cellar, and drew a mug
of beer, and served them in a horn tumbler. They drank
to his health, and wished him the compliments of the
season. He returned the compliment ; and they air
appeared to be very harmonious. The prisoner quitted'
the kitchen for about ten minutes, and on his return the
deceased addressed Mm, and said, " D—n my eyes,
master, fill us another jug; this does net run two horns
a-piece." The prisoner said, "Do you d—n my eyes 2'
The deceased said "No; Goa forbid I should d—n any
person's eyes." The prisoner turned himself round to-
wards the fire, and Martin said, " Don't let us have
any words about a drop of beer ; let us go, mates."—
Martin was stooping down to take up his hat, when the
prisoner struck him with the fire-tongs across the loins.
He then struck the deceased across his left arm with the
same weapon. He followed up his attack by striking
Brown on the head. and cut him to the bone. The,
latter fell, stunned by the blow. Recovering himself,
he said, " For Gos's sake don't murder me. What
is this torr The prisoner said, " D—n your eyes
I'll murder all three' The deceased and his com-
panions then ran out of the house, pursued by the pri•
goner. When in the high road he aimed a blow at the
which teak effect on his rigiM
_ hand he seised the
neckcloth, and dressed

Igo

them to a neighboaditert le•hottae, where Its gave
. •
them in charge of the- who was a constable,
but he declined interfering. ,Thedocemed wits attended
by a surgeon, the 28th of Dieeilsber, and he get daily
worse from the wound in the elbow which produced a
Ibloody fungus, and, on the 20th Illannary, he died of
a mortification which ensued.
On cross-examination, it was admitted that the de-.
;ceased was fresh in liquor, and that he and his compa-
nions had drank at two or three public-houses in going
their rounds. Martin and Brown denied that they were,
intoxicated, .or that they had been uncivil or riotous
at the public-hJuses which they bad visited.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that the deceased
and his companions having demanded More beer in
violent mangier, he refused to give them any; that
thereupon he suspected the, came to rob his matte.
house, and Martin having attempted to strike him, he,
in his own defence, thought it necessary to drive them
away by violence.
Several witnesses were called, who proved that the
deceased and his companions were drunk in the after-
noon in question, and had conducted themselves in a
disorderly manner at the public and private houses they
had visited.

Mr. Savory gave the prisoner an excellent character for general
mildness of manners and humanity of disposition.
Mr. Baron Gamma summed up the evidence.—The Jury found
the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to three months impri-
sonment in the common jail.
SHREWSBURY MARCH 17.
ROGERS V. MYTTON.
This was an action by Mr. Rogers, a farmer, in the
county of Salop, against Mr. Mytton, a Gentleman of
fortune, who was formerly Member for Shrewsbury,
for a libel.
Mr. CAMPBELL stated the case, which he described
as entitling him to a large compensation in damages.
He was a man of great respectability, who was married
to a very beautiful, amiable, and accomplished Lady.
Mr. Mytton, the defendant, it appeared, had formed an
attachment to this Lady, and determined to seduce her
from the faith due to her husband. With this view,
for no other construction could fairly be put on his con-
dect, he wrote a letter soliciting an interview. This
Lady, justly feeling insulted by such a proposal, deli-
vered the letter to her husband, who, of course, ex-
pressed himself indignantly on such an attempt to de-
stroy his happiness and his honour. In order to justify
himself from this charge, and to cast odium on the man
whom he bad marked out for the bitterest injury, the
defendant wrote to Mr. Lloyd, the uncle of Mr. Rogers,
that letter which was now charged as libellous. In
this letter he represented that his object in desiring an
interview with Mrs. Rogers, was to warn her husband,
by her means, not to continue a practice of poaching at
night, which would subject him to transportation. The'
charge was wholly false; the defendant had not dared
to plead that it was true ; and therefore it must be taken
to be a gross libel on the character of an honourable
man, highly aggravated by the circumstances and the
motives under which it was written.
The letter addressed to Mrs. Rogers was proved and
read. It requested an interview, at which the Lady
" would hear something to her own advantage ;" begged
that " she would meet the writer alone on Tuesday,
Wednesday, or Thursday;" and proposed as the time,
" the dusk of the evening."
The letter charged as libellous was then real. It
was addressed to Mr. Lloyd, as 44 Dear Lloyd," and
assured him of the innocence of the writer's intentions
towards Mrs. Rogers, whom he had known slightly be-
fore her marriage, and requested him to warn his ne-
phew against poaching in the night, as he might not be
aware that it would subject him to transportation.
It also appeared in evidence, on the one hand, that
the plaintiff had expressed his readiness to put an end
to the action upon an apology and payment of costs;
and on the other, that the defendant bad, over his wine,
at the Hereford Races, coarsely expressed his feelings
towards Mrs. Rogers.
Mr. TAUNTON addressed tLe Jury for the defendant.
He denied that the letter to Mrs. Rogers was intended
as a solicitation of her chastity ; end contended that it
was neatly directed to the object subsequently pro-
fessed—that of warning the husband as to some prac-
tices which he was supposed, rightly or wrongly. to
follow. It was nut very likely that a Gentleman, ena-
moured of a beautiful woman, would woo her in so
cold a strain—would beg her to come to him, instead
of going to her—would assure her, in advertising phrase,
" that she might hear of something. to her advantage ;"
and would abstain from all expressions of flattery and
'regard. But, even if this letter bore the construction put
upon it—a construction hich the plaintiff could not
put on it when he listened to terms of compromise—
still, in this action, the Jury could not take it into their
consideration in estimating the damages. And if they
thought the letter to Mr. Lloyd written bona fide to
induce the uncle to warn the nephew against a prac-
tice he was supposed to follow, they would find a ver-
dict for the defendant, or at least think he ought only
to be mulcted in reasonable and temperate damages.
Mr. Justice Ltrrteon Le agreed with the Counsel for
the defendant, that the July could not give damages
for the solicitation of the chastity of the plaintiff's wife.
But still they might take into their consideration the
circumstances under which the letter was written ;
whether it was designed to conceal and colour a system
of conduct which the defendant wished to hide, or was
really intended to prevent some supposed irregularities
of the plaintiff. At all events, the letter could not be
justified, and the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict; but
the amount of damages might depend very much on
the view taken by the Jury, of the object with which it
was written.—The Jury found a verdict for the plain-
dff Damages, £lOO.
•
=MINDS V. PELJAK.
This was tir% action by Mr. Edatuods, an attorney at
Oswestry, against Mr. Pelham, the Member for the
County of Salop, to recover a compensation for his
services as agent in canvassing for Mr. Pelham, previoni
to the late election.
It appeared that Mr. Edmunds bad been retained in
the defendant's cause, but no contest actually took place.
and Mr. Pelham was elected without opposition. To
stew a retainer, it was proved that Mr. Edmunds was
introduced to Mr. Pelham, who said to him, " Yoi
must be very active in my cause, as I mean to carry it
to the poll;" and that afterwards he received a letter
from Mr. Wingfield, who had the general management
of the election, containing a regular retainer. It was
also proved that Mr. Minshulf, who had received a
similar retainer from Mr. Wingfield, had been liberally
paid by Mr. Pelham.
The Jury returned &verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £65 Su.
CAMBRIDGE, MARCH 17.
Thomas Miller was indicted for a burglary in the
Dross Kell Iwo at Cum, and taking hog theta

eta

~.;

property to the amount of 9001. and upwards, belongik
to William Steward.
Mr. BODISSON stated the case-on the past' oldie pro.'
secntion, and having proved the facts,
Mr. FR; for the prisoner, took an objection to the
iadictment ; he contended that thecrimedid not anteant
to burglary, inasmuch. as it appeared that the barn,
although forming a continuous lbw of • building with
the dwelling-house, was separated from the dwelling-
house in this way--that there was it fence across the
yard, thereby separating it. Also it appeared that the
roof was much lower than that of the dwellingihouse
be therefore thought that the barn, by that separation,
could not be part and parcel of the dwelling-house, and
if so, the crime did not amount to burglary.
dr. Rostirson, in reply, chieSy relied on cues in
East's Crown Law, where the barn and other out-olfices
were laid down to be part of the dwelling-house ; he
considered occupation to be the great question.
His LORDSHIP said the only point which arose was,
whether the railing across the yard caused such a separa-
tion as to make the barn distioct from the dwelling-
house? He didmot think there was much in the objec-
tion ; if he should have any doubt in any other stage of
the case, he should refer the point to the Judges.
Mr. Justice GASRLRIC then summed up, and the Jury
found the prisoner Guilty. His Lordship sentenced him
to transportation for life.
Langhans Mu t* and George Goddard were indicted
for stealing, in the dwelling-house of William Slack,
property to the amount of 1301. They made no defence,
and were found Guiky.
William Spalding and Steven Cullen were indicted
for sheep•ste.ding, at Waterbeach, in this county.
Mr. Garratt, the prosecutor, proved the case, and that parts of
the sheep were feuml in the huuses of both the prisoners—They
were found Guilty.

LANCASTER, MARCH is.
SUTCLIFF6 V. TAYLOR.

The Arroanev•Cianaam. (with whom was Mr.
STAIWE) slated that this was an action brought by
Mrs. Sutcliffe, to recover damages for the seduction of
her daughter, whereby she lost her services It was one
of those cases which occurred so frequently in this
county. The plaintiff was a widow Lady, residing on
a farm of her own, not far from the town of Burnley.
She had several daughters, of whom the subject of this
action was the youngest but one. She formed part of
her household; like her sisters was respectably brought
up ; and was now about twenty-two years of age,
The defendant was the only son of his father, and ea•
joyed a handsome copyhold estate. He first became
acquainted with the plaintiff's family in 1822, and soon
after proposed to marry the daughter in question. At
that time the mother thought her daughter too young,
and the marriage was postponed. An intercourse,
however, was allowed to take place between the par-
ties, which ended in the seduction that
.was now com-
plained of.
Hannah Sutcliffe, examined by Mr. STARKIII.-I am
one of the daughters of the plaintiff. She lives at the
top of Townley Park, near Burnley, where my father,
formerly occupied a farm. He died about eight years
ago, and left seven daughters and two sons. My mother
still continues to occupy that farm; in addition, she has
independent property of her own. In 1822, three
daughters resided with my mother—Myselt; my sister
Rose Anne, and another. Rose Anne is the youngest
but one, and is now about 22 years of age. I carried
on the business of a milliner at my mother's; I in-
structed my sister Rose in it ; we all occasionally as-
sisted my mot* in her household business. I know the
defendant, John Taylor ; I first knew him in the month
of June in 1822; he joined my sisters and me on the
road as we were returning home from Church; he
walked with us a part of the way ; be came to our house
in August, 1822 ; he came in company with an air
prentice of my brother.in-law's ; he came again in about
a fortnight after that. His father was a farmer at
Clifden, near Burnley, and be died in the September of
the same year. The defendant had the same farm after
his father's death; it is a large farm : I heard him say
so. lie repeated his visits frequently afterwards, and on
one occasion he mentioned to my mother that he wished
to marry my sister Rose. My mother said she was too
young. He said that he would wait* and my mother
permitted him to visit her. He came frequently to court
my sister. He said that his mother wished him to be
married ; he talked a good deal of his own affairs, and
often said how comfortable he should be when married.
He mentioned the month of March, 1823, as the tilde
when he wished the marriage to take place. The de-
fendant condoned to visit my sister. He next men-
tioned June for marrying her, and still continued to
visit her till the end of 1823. In the month of De-
cember it was first known in our family that my sister
was pregnant. After that was known be ceased to visit
us for about five weeks ; at the expiration of that time
my sister and I went over towards his house. We re-
mained in the fields, and sent a man for hint. He came
to us, and was told that my. sister was pregnant; he
said be would come to my another's the next night; he
did not come. My sister was confined in J0ne,1824.
Cross-examined by Mr. BROUGNIAM..—My mother's
farm is not small; she has four cows. The defendant is
two or three years older than my sister. He is not a cebler
so far as I know ; he is a clogger and cordwainer, and
has one apprentice. He has a shop on his mother's farm,
and there he cobbles—(A laugh.) My sister is a dress►
maker, and has been so about eight years, since she leP
school. Four of my sisters are married; one of them
married to a tailor, and another to a shoemaker.
the eldest unmarried. My sister who is married to
tailor bad her first child about four months after
was married, Another of my sisters is ;parried
cabinet-maker. She had her first child within

,ponths.after her marriage. Another of my sisters
,Married to a cordwainer. Ido not recollect when
had her first child. You may ask Peter Parker w?-
was; he, perhaps, can tell. (The witness pointed
person behind the defendant's attorney.)
Re-examined—Peter Parker is married to the
fendant's sister. The defendant had been apprenticed
to a shoemaker in his father's life-time. He told us
was heir to his father, and that the farm belonged to
him. My father had a good many hundreds of pounds
when he died.
Rose Anne Sutcliffe was next examined. She

na handsome. She appeared in the witness-box rather
gaily dressed. She stated the circumstance of her
mill, and of her connexion with the defendant, in
the same way as the last witness.
Mr. Adam Meanly, a surgeon, residing at Burnley.
stated that he knew the defendant to be possessed of
copyhold estate at Pendlacnest, worth at least I,oooi.
Mr. Baouastasc addressed the Jury for the defen-
dant. lie really thought, that if this was treated as a
is *skeet far damages, there was not a milkmaid, bar-
d maid, bosonnitid, chambermaid, or dress-maker in tin

... ~_ _

'country, ik b. world out Ilittliwith .britig hek-lite.
?i heart intocomt. That they d a tit right so do•lhece
was not the least doubt. is Learned, Friend, the
Attorney-General, said that " is was one of thole eases
which occurred toe Often its this county. NO doubt
they did, bet they were going on in evety county of
England, as well as in Lasscoehire, in consequence of
that degree of intercourse which was permitted to take
place *moist the snes in that station of life. 0,, iu.
stead of ring through the usual course of nifiliaOhg
the. child before the listiktrate, each of the females
brought their action in tins- Court, there would Beim
end to, them. What had they on this occasion ? A
girl dressed out in the colours of the rainbow, it—what
far surpassed the rainbow...in all the colours of a drew
maker's shop. Beneath her purple pelisse, however, he
saw her under-dress, and if that pelisse were taken off,
together with her bonnet and veil, she would appear
more fit foe a cobbler's stall thin for any other places
What happened in this family was nothing more than
what daily occurred in this station of life—the meat
first, and the grace after. This family, in partictilat,
seemed to prescribe for that custom, as almost all the
'married dau4hters were mothets, either before or tee
soon after their marriage. The case was a most trollid
pert one, and it would be an insult on their understanda
ings for hire to add one word more upon it.
Mr. Justice Masora monied up the evideace, sad the Jury,
after some hesitadea, head far the pialatif—Daempts MO.

NOTTINGHAM, MARCH 17.
Mary Keay, aged 2S, stood charged with the wil-
ful murder of her newly-born utak child, at the borough
of Newark, on the 81st of July, 1824,---Not Guilty. .

Government, it is said, have it in contemplation to
abolish the office of Parish Surveyor of Roads, and to
appoint a competent person to each hundred, to be paid
out of the county rate; a plan which has been adopted
in Ireland with great success.
&cunt or FRIENDS or Fonzromens rrr Dtirratzt.—
Thursday the Annual Meeting of this Society took
place at the Citrof London Tavern. SAMORL Warr,
ssq. in the Chair. The Chairman congratulated the
Meeting upon the great encouragement and support
which the Society met with from the liberality of Bri-
tish and foreign contributors, who had enabled the In-
stitution to extend its benefits. The Report was then
read. It gave a most gratifying account of the
state and operations of the Institution. The collection.
last year amounted to 1,1881. 12s. and in consequence
of the liberality of the contributions, the Board, in-
stead of encroaching. as in former years, upon the per-
manent fond, was enabled to assist the Charity, by pur-
chasing 2204 stock in the 'Three per Cent. Consols ; and
the Committee had been administering relief without
being compelled to have recourse to former measures.
After enumerating some legacies left by three Gentlemen
lately deceased, the Report stated, that during the year,
fifty pensioners, whose characters were unexceptionable,
azd poverty was extreme, were supported.
A waterman, who plies in Mutton Cove, Devonport,
received last week from the Admiralty a reward of ten
guineas, given to him for his intrepid conduct in saving
three sailors from drowning during one of the late gales
At the Limerick Assizes, on the 11th instant, two
men, named Ryan and Dugan, were sentenced to death
for the mutter of Daniel Connell, at Coneen, near'
Bilbao, in December last. They were to be executed
on Saturday.

DEATH saws Excessive Dasxxsaa.—An laquisim
tion was taken on Thursday night before Mr. Sueirost,
at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, on the body of Dennis
M•Carthy, who, it appeared, was brought into that.
Hospital, on Monday evening, by sonic persons who
found him in the street in a state of stupefaction from
liquor. He was immediately pat to bed, and the newly
invented stomach syringe put in requisition, by means
of which upwards of a quart of ardent spirits were
extracted from his stomach. The next day he recovered
so far as to tell who he was, and where he lived. He
died in the course of the day, frees the effects of what'
he had taken. No direct evidence was obtained, as to
where he had been drinking; but there appeared reason
to believe that he had been engaged unloading a vessel
at the West India Docks, and that he had drank immo-
derately of the row to which he thereby obtained ac-
cess. Three other men, who were engaged with him
in this debauch, were said to have since died. Verdict.
Died from Excessive Drinking.
Scteurinc BARDARITT.—The following declaration .
has been signed by thirty-eight physicians and other
medical professors at Bath:
“ Raw, Yeaaosse $7.
'4 like/hase names are underwrkten, medical • persons, ciskily
pracdtiosers, resident at Bath, do hereby mpg* and declare that
we wig; as far salmi us ties, prevent and discourage by our' example,
inilessos, sad demosien, Mos painful and cruel anatomical ex- •
perfumes upon Ivies animals, which, to the diem of selance,
our opinion, are amide, sometimes without aecmiky or malty, eat
tleddwithout say adettate end, ender the plea of monde(
7ltowsrledge. The gradated= of mem ealiaLie
trades ettavontlee hot neassential theories, or the easy •
known and eceansive experiment, we consider very nes► f
dies for the Midi= of torture. We do then p vees=is
reprobate owl conduct, esteeming it wholly unnni
creditable to our profession. And we earnestly recommend t s
jeer to the serious considered= of all students in =stony ; ago.
trea-4.14 • Faded

1 lel

)10011

be

Ira
no

N 1
te
sill

sal
D
an
Jr

a
'sr
O

am

~I
;1

head of the deceased libich took 4
area, at the elbow. With each ha
deceased sad Martin by the neckell

la_ :_ set to tow _IOW 1M.00112011111 Or 1111 11011181118 in wasimoy ; ow.
114 alb treading thus, wader a ammo of aural gelmeigle, sat talk sahlad
:abler hunk W thogtaukes al alba* who laielhogglidesely (u we
r, and bop), bat imihnonatelyolegrw/ed raemitehee atherwko sermerho.
iarm, rine mad i 01,10000."
dress.
le lek BI 'l& v.
Mardi IS, the Lady of Calomel Joie Irma, of a lallOser-
kau is Marti ii, at =lkea, the lal of Ilk Winos Maim Na"
I amt pier, Bart. of a so&
to the myth it, at Cali* Bash, Mashhad, the Lady of Liontememb
rtille• a Lade.*
Lit
d a sIiaIb":ARRIED.
three Mardi 5, at Bersaley, 'Thomas Beckett, Ifok third us of et,
Jobs Beckett, Bari. at dad ow, neer Leeds, ta Carallsa, mum* .
tens as daughter of Joseph•Beehatt,•Erg. Beredey.
ea she DIED. '
rhea ir , At Hagman Haase, Desalt, aged 61, Eh B. F.i. Biker, Baru
dto a March 16, at Bub, 0•114212 Alasmadat 02fteell. 111. N. •
March 2, W. H. A. Oasis, the Watson e/Pift. G. Colume: .
is de. Bad 14, II . the wlkw of Lisismusa imluel Xrip, el .
_.!,- die*. Mises
m•aulim March to, at altos Vkarage, sear. Bath, Ames, wife of the
us be gee. H. T. whatILA.
gad to Sept. 17, at langotam, Emmet Major Matthew Fader, of the Mk
w„—ads Saunas of Fast.
gepa. 21, at gladua, Cagnak George Black, at the 54th 140-
swot of Foot.
ie was MiAILIA--THIS DAL
rather •1111.0110. MUM DM
her fa- ama s o Francs 1 0
much Wacer6P74 0 1 Hamborgh • •
Guernory earl Jerelff 0 0 !Lesion 0 •
Lisboa 0 0 Holland 1 •
indef• Gone nburgh 0 0 Leeward Islands 0 •
:d of a ' mats o 1 Junks 1 •
.
'Mg' HlGirs. in Al h,“ at LONDON.BBIDGI TO-MOiltall. .
defer- morning • • • NI mime« afters a
:61 as a Afterno 42'
asadmetes akar I
d, bar Luau : Proved wed Pabtiaied 4J. F. Kum, es eke SIAS Arks
ill the NO-11 Askew Pox, Thaple.lar . .
•