Star.
London, England, 1816-09-13 00:00:00

taiNciatEn ASSIZES stpfkkimii 7.

INTERESTING TRIAL ON THE VALIDITY CIF A NVILL.
WILEINSON AND Ationian 71. RICHARDSON.
! This was an issue from Chancery; to try the van-
! dity of a will, dated 6th of November, 1804, and a
codicil, dated 18th of June, 1810, executed by Isaac
Richardson, who died in August of the latter year.
The testator was a grocer and fiourelealer in Liver-
pool, and had accumulated considerable property in
the course of his business: he had no children. His
family, in the latter period of his life, consisted of his
wife and his wife's niece, Mary Stewart, who, under
the name of Mrs. Wilkinson, and along with her hus-
band, by whom she was joined in the suit, was the
present plaintiff. Ia 1804, the testator executed a
will, by which he devised all his property, real and
personal, after payment of his debts and funeral ex-
penses, to trustees, for the use of his wife during the
term of her natural life; and after her death, to be
divided into two equal shares—one moiety to go to
Mary Stewart, his wife's niece. her heirs, executors;
and assigns; and the other to his three brothers (one
of whom, George Richardson, was the present de-
fendant), during their lives, with remainder to the
children of the testator's uncle, William Young. In
the will, the trustees are directed to purchase horses
in Liverpool with the personal estate, and to allow
his wife the rents and profits. The testator, Richard-
son, lived for six years :atter the execution of this in-
strument, and, besides adding considerably to his
property in the interval, had changed the nature of
that which he had already acquired by purchasing
;freehold houses, by converting it from personal into
real estate, and doing thus himself what he had en-
joined on his executors. By this means, the heir at
lew, had the testator died without executing any
other instrument, could have defeated the intention
of the will, and the eecessity was pointed oat to the
deceased of giving it effect, either by republishing it
with the proper nemalities, or by confirming it by a
codicil. Accordingly, on the 16th of June, 1810, he
executed a codicilto give effect to the will as it ori-
ginelly stood, and to regulate the distribution of pro-
poly subsequently acquired. The validity of this
will, and more particularly of this codicil, was the
subject of the present issue, and the latter was clues-
tiunrd on the ground of incapacity in the testator at
the time that he executed it. About the 23d or 24ith
of Fehruary, Ow deceased, had wandered from his own
lieuse in a tit of delirium, owing, it was said, to
constipation in the bowels, and had afterwards a se-
vere attack of the palsy, which was alleged by the de-
fendaat to have produced derangement and imbeci-
lity; diet this imbecility continued till his death, on
the 22d of August following; and that at no time
after the latter end o: February was he in a capacity
to execute the codicil, which he was laid to have exc.
cuted in favour of the plaintiff on the Inds of June.
Mr. Seetteeer opened the we for the plaintiff,
and stated to tl:e Jury the nature of the evidence
which he me !nt to bring. Ile allowed the boJily
weakness of Richardson, after the severe attack in
February, but be would strew that that attack did
not permaneirly affect his mind, or render him unfit
f doing what lie did ebeet the middle of June fol-
-1 iwing. He had afters6rds transecird the common
business of life termed plans tor building, attended
to his shop, cneversen with his friends on relitnen
and ower topics, an .1 h c7on executed a deed in
favour ef• his a ih can ne! nnth of April, which was
attested by his blather, tIE: n-f.,.sent eifendant, who
did not doubt of his sanity tin he feteid that by cali-
ing it in question he could staecced to a la-her p
tion of his propene than e,er the deceased inteieled
for him. It was not necess.iry to prove that the tes-
tator, when he executed the codkil, lied great mental
capacity, that he sees as vigorous in his intellects as
at any prritel of his life, or that he never had an at.
tack of deli:Lim ell that was incumbent upon him
to establish was, that at the time he executed the
dive he was sensible of what he was doing ; that he
knew he was ' ate act w affect his property after
his decease; dm he knew in whose favour he was
sleeking the distrilmnon ; that he understood the len-
euege of the insti:lmm he subscribed, and that he
,eets trilling to subscribe it without any deceit being
orscthed upon him He remembered the case of the
wni of Mr. Peony, tried at Lancaster Aisizes some
time ago, in which it appeared in evidence that he
had been reduced to the lowest degree of imbecility
by an attack of the palsy; that he had loft the power
over the volentatry muscles; that he appeared to
strangers like an ide it, with the utmost vacancy in
his c etntenaiice, and the saliva flowing from his
mouth ; but a, he understood accounts, and knew
what he WAS doing, his will was declared valid.—
Learned Ow :nen then proceeded to the exami-
nation of plaintiff's witnesses, and called, first, Mrs.
Elizabeth Pierce, who was the daughter of Mr. Miles,
the attorney who drew up the will in 1801, which
was produced, and who herself attested it, to prove
its authenticity. Her father was dead; she knew his
signature, and that of the other attesting witness,
Mrs Johnson. but was not acquainted with the tes-
tator, Isaac Richardson, or with his handwriting.
She was sure, however, that a person ceiling himself
Richardson, and professing that the instrument in
question was his will, mast have signed it as such in
her presence, AS. though she was in the habit of sign-
ing many such deeds for her father's clients, at his
request, she never did so without seeing the parties
themselves subscribing them who professed to execute
them.—Another person proved Isaac Richardson's
hand-writing in the signature of the will.—No other
witness was called to prove the will.
To prove the codicil, the first witness called was
'John Wraith, a dissenting minister, now residing near
Wigan, but then living in Liverpool, whose chapel
the deceased was in the habit of attending. He knew
Isaac Richardson for four years before his decease;
remembered his falling ill in the latter end of Febru-
ary, 1810 ; saw him on the Monday after his attack
of palsy, and found him depressed in his spirits and
sunk in his voice. The deceased afterwards recovered
his cheerfulness, and went about his ordinary busi-
ness, though with diminished energy. His lip was
distorted, his voice enfeebled, and his utterance to a
certain eatent impeded; but he did not appear defi-
cient in intellect, and never forgot the person or the
character of witness. The testator had a second
attack about the end of April, after which his speech
was more affected than before, and his memory con-
siderably impaired, but without any failure of judg-
silent. Witness conversed with him about his will;
which gave him a little uneasiness, as he bad since

increased his piopetty, which it annld not Convey as
he wished, and as he was *hiking to shim the example
of his father, who, he said, had made an unjust wilt.
Witness advised him to make a just will, which he
said he would do, and leave the half to his wile's
family, and the half to his own brothers, saying
something about a report which he had heard, that
if he did not do so, his brother, as heit nt law, had
threatened to seize the whole of his houses as lands
of inheritance, without attending to the old will.—
About the middle of June the testator desired witness
to come and attest his will, when he said he had left
his property " half and half;" and witness tried his
capacity by desiring him to write, which he did,
writing these words. The codicil was then produced,
and Wood, one of testator's acquaintances, who had
been an Attorney's clerk, and Woodward, another
acquaintance, attested its execution: Wood first
reading it ever. and asking Richardson if he was
satisfied with it ? whic!) he said he was, observing,
that " it would kee;l peace among his relations when
he was gone." The party afterwards went to prayers,
in which Richardson jnined.—On the cross.exarniiia-
tinn of this witness no material inconsistency appear-
ed, the questions of the defendant's Ce.unsel, Mr.
Raise, being principally dire-cted to affect his credi-
bility, on the grrnind of his partiality for the members
:f his own reliz,ions seer, and the desire he must have
felt of adding to its nueile:Ts by making a proselyte
of the deceased, who, though he Attended his chapel,
did not join in his communion ; and likewise, on the
gmund of a part of his declaration, taken down by
the defendant's agent, allowing derangement at one'
particular time.
Samuel Woodward and John Wood, the persons
alluded to in the evidence of the former witness,
proved the execution of the codicil, as signing wit-
nesses, and concurred with him in their opinion of the
Sanity of the testator, and his perfect knowledge of
the awes of the act he was performing at the time he
executed the instrument.

Mr. Stanivieet, Attorney at Liverpool, prnved,
that the codicil was written at his Office, hut did not
know the deceased, ner the reason why he was ap.
plied to, as there were fifty aitornier nearer than him
to the testator's house. Neither his clerks nor him.
self are in the habit of attesting deeds drawn up by
him.

The codicil being thus proved, an objection was
taken by Mr. RAINE, Serjeant Huet.ocse, and another
Counsel for the defendant, against the proof offered
for establishing the due e.tecut;On of the will. The
statute of trauds required to a deed for the conv..y.
ance of real property, three subscribing witnesses;
and to satisfy its provisions, these witnesses must
know the party executing, and be able to prove his
hand.w•rittng, otherwise their subscription is nugatory.
A different person than the p.trty whose property is
described in Vie instrument may forge a name, or
where there are two persons with the same name, the
one to whom the property does not belong may con.
vey it, to the perpetrat:on of manifest fraud. and to
the great i'►securtty of our rights, with the perfect
mafin of witnesses, if they are not required to he
.tcqu tinted with the persoa of the party whose solemn
deed they attest. In this cans Mrs. Pierce allowed
she did not know Isaac Richardson, nor his hand-
%(eriting. so that another person might bate assumed
his name for the purposes of fraud. It might be said
that his handwriting was plowed by other Menus.
but the statute did not permit a travelling beyond the
instrument for this species of proof.
The Learned JUDOE over-ruled this objection, say.
ing the Act of Parliament in question prescribed no
mode of proof, but only required the attestation of
three witnesses to the execution of the deed. He put
the case of a man travelling, and who being sod.
denly taken ill, and wishing to execute a will, should
cell in three perfect strangers 'o witness its execution.
Supposing this person should die without being able,
to execute any deed differently attested, and his
friends should come and idertiiy his person and prove
his hand writing, would not the Statute be complied
with, and a chain of proof procured sufficient to
establish the authenticity of the deed thus duly at-i
erste:a? This supposition was similar to the case be-I
tore the Court. Mrs. Pierce WAS a stranger to the
deceased ; but she saw a person calling himself Isaac
Richardarsn suoscribing a deed, and this person's sig.
nature, which she thus attested, was proved by ano-
ther witness to be that of Isaac Richardson, the per-
son who professed before her to execute the said deed.
The chain of proof was here complete, and much
danger, insecwity, and inconvenience would arise
from rejecting it. The execration of the will must
therefore be viken as proved.
The plaintiff's Counsel then called two other wit-
nesses to speak to Isaac Rican ardson's sanity after the
attack of palsy in the end of February, 1810. -
Thomas l'eagram knew the testator eight years;
was.a builder, and drew plans of housts for him,
after his directions, subsequent to his illness in 1810.
The deceased appeared to be reasonable. Witness
conversed with him, and had no doubt of his sanity.
He told witness he .had been snaking a second will,
meaning the codicil; and though there was a change
in his voice, he was perfectly in his senses.
Dr. Macartney, physician in Liverpool, began his
attendance on Isaac Richardson about the end •of
June, and attended him four times before his death;
' but as his attention was more called to the state'of his
body than his mind, he could speak to the former
more than the latter. He found him labouring under
a severe attack of the palsy; he had lost the power
of one side. he walked lame, his voice was altered,
his mouth distorted, and his saliva flowed in an in-
voluntary manner. At his last visit he had gone out
to walk. The doctor could not persuade him to '
follow his prescription; he did not appear deranged,
but his voice was altered, and his appearance was
unpleasant. Had witness thought the deceased de-
ranged, he would have recommended him to the
Lunatic Asylum, which he is sure he did not do.
The Counsel for the defendant,. after commenting
at considerable length on the evidence brought to sup-
port the case of the plaintiff, said he would bring
witnesses to prove the complete derangement of the
testator after the latter end of February, that his
distemper of palsy was palsy that affected his mind,
and that in the state of imbecility to which he was
reduced, his wife practised upon him in order to
sweep his property from his own family into hers.
Various witnesses were then called, who concurred
in stating him as insane.
• One of the witnesses said he had heard him in the'
house fancying himself among sheep, and saying—

here are !fly fatizer'l sleeps f have goi a isaali
head for dating them." He thought be heisit
sound for an hour after his attack. ,
The brother of the testator. in ivhO a hertie
died, said hi nbsevved somethin wreinic about 4114
in the end of the year 1809 " he. then
sciinisi !In,
count the nittnhvi of . the bAgs of Wheat he bioag!.t
!,im, or the weight of a pig that he teat
During the last sir. weeks his wife had to feed hint
with a spoon ; he wore always a gtiArd at meali, anti
used to 51%.! his drink."

.
An'.thcr witness of ;he name of Worthi,igton con:
f,ssed ilic,%!l often foolish, he thought hint
his right seines sometimes. He went often In Amuse
him, and remembered once going to a pubik-house
with him to have s:)(7:e ale, when a pint of liqUor
•vas brought in it pea pot, without glasset. They
drank together, but as the testator " slabbered, I
(said the witness) zlok care to have the first
draught." •
Mr. Squires, who keeps the Lunatic Asylum at
Walton. Lodge, and Dr. Bostock, of Liverpool,
thought him insane, and that his insanity was of a
permanent kind, but neithei saw him about the tiMe
of the execution of the codicil in question. The latter
left him abotit the middle cr April, and the said deed
was not executed till the middle of Tine.

After a very WI iefrly by Mr. :•e.trtLeit, inJ
full summing tip of the evicknee, Z:i ai a sound
explanation of tke law applicable to tlx quei,tion. by
the Learned JUDGE, the Jury irnmdiately gave a
verdict for the Plaintiff, both as to die w.ll'llnd codi-
cil. This trial I,sted from ten o'clock in the fore-
noon till nine o'cbck at night.

7.7

*r---

==

~} !
MM'

DRVIML4NE TREAT R.

Last night, aftee.ths recitation of the Monody, Mr.
Saintnitki's beautiful Opera of The Duenna was per-
formed to a most respectable audience. An apology
was made for Mr. Dawson, who, on account of in-
disposition, was unable to go through the arduous
.part of Isaac, and it was undertaken at a short notice
by Mr. KNIGHT, wh3se tact, though not entirely in
the cast of the cunning little Jew, Trade it • titily
laughable. His hest scene tliiS W7til Mrs. Spauges ;
and certainly the exquisite vein of pure comedy which
that Lady displayed in the Durum?, w2s enough to
animate him to similar exci Lion. Mrs. Geoseop (late
Miss FERN) presented ;terself for the first time since
her marriage, in the character of Clara. H.tving left,
the stage five years ago, she was evidently at her
entrance overwhelmed by terror, and her powers suf-
fered accordingly—but she recovered herself by the
kind encouragement she teceiveLl, and iu the bravura
of " Adieu thou dreary pile," displayed the I.:clings
and extent of her tone, as well as her kno..viedge of
her art. She was universally encored. 'Jr. Coo ca
performed Don Cark s, and int:fel-aced with Mrs.
COOKE, the duet .r When those heauteous eyes coin.
ma.nd me," which was highly applauded, and rap-
turously encored. Mts. COOKK sings chastely and
skilfully. Mr. MeNDUN, in Don Jerome, hit the true
medium point between the grave and the hionorous.
He gave full force to the characteristic oddities 01
the Don, without mixing with them his own whinisi-
cality. We must .again notice the admirable per-
formance of Mrs. SPARKES, as the Duenna—it was
modestly humorous—it never solicited our laughter
'by any thing broad or extravagant ; but, by its rich-
ness and natural colouring, excited our smiles. The
Opera was on the whole so well received, that it was
given out again for Tuesday.—The Farce was
in which DowroN, to the gratification of the
audience, appeared in Colonel Touchwood, and by the
lively display of his talents, relievitd the audience
from the apprehensions they had been led to entertain
of his state of health.

THEATRICAL DISPUTE.
TO THE EDITOR.
Golden-square, September 12, 1616.
• Thursday morning, Eight o'Clock.
SIR.--1 am this moment leaving town, to which I
_shall not be able to return till late at night ; so that
it will be out of my power until to-morrow to rejoin
to Mr. Kinnaird's letter in your Paper of this day,
which ke doubtless cousidets to be conclusive. I feel
assured that you and the public wid suspend your
judgments fur a tew hours, when Mr. Kinnaird will
pet haps find that vd.at ht terms his " Public Refu-
tation," while it h. 46 strengthened my case, has
plunged hint into deeper responsibility, and attached
still greater selie.ms to his nhil-perlermance of an " un-
gracious duty." I shall to-nu.rrow, therefore, take
the liberty to trouble t'u with a plaint unvarnished
tale of, zetly / z:arlde(P' Mrs. Orget's letter. The
explanation will u4i. redound much to Mr. Kinnaird's
credit, and he had tar better have suffered that ques-
tion to pass Itab
The letter to Miss Yelly, which Mr: Kinnaird has
thought proper to insert also, will meet due attention,
and 1 believe bears a very different construction when
computed with li;s prt.eious conversation with that
Lady, to tha: v.ll;eh the mere words of the letter
itself imply. 01' this the Public will judge, and on
this they will decide.—l am, Sir, in haste, your obe-
dient servant, a. J. ARNOLD.

In obedience to the Lotto C itaxceixon's /4, the first
Magistrates of the Royal Burghs in Fiteshire have
been restored to their places in the commission of the
peace lately issued for that county. The first Magis-
trates of these burghs (13 in number) have been in
the commission of the peace ex officio since the Union ;
and it was one of the singularities attendant upon the
issuing of the present commission, that these thirteen
persons wer• left out, or struck out, without cause
assigned. 1 tie first step taken by these Justices, after
they heard of their exclusion, was to address a re-
spectful letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Morton,
Lord Lieutenant of the county, requesting an
explanation ; but which his Lordship declined giving.
They then laid the case, as a matter of general im-
port, before the Convention of Royal burghs; and
an bumble representation of the circumstances having
been made, by the Convention at its last meeting, to
the Lord High Chancellor of England, an answer
from him was rem fled, almost in course of post.—
His Lordship instantly issued his fiat, commanding
the commission to he returned to the proper office;
and that the Magistrates should be reinstated in the
place which, with benefit to the public and credit to
themselves, they had filled for so long a period, and
from which they had been withou. reason excluded.
Sunday morning last, between two and three
o'clock, one of the houses in Market-row, South, St.
James's Market, fell down with such violence as to
alarm the entire neighbourhood. It was empty ;
and a poor woman, with two children, who had taken
shelter there for some few days, after they had been
turned out of their ledging, had luckily been per-
suaded to quit this asylum the preceding night.
Wednesday afternoon, W. Haynes, keeper of the
lodge gate, Regent's Park, who was employed in the
new buildings opposite to Carlton House, in endea.
vouring to knock down one of the old vaults, it unfor.
tunately gave way suddenly, and the poor man was
buried under the whole mass of bricks. By means of
prompt exertion, however, he was taken out with
life, and conveyed to St. George's Hospital, but
without hopes of recovery.
Wednesday afternoon, as a Lady and Gentleman
were driving in a gig, through the lane leading from
Wandsworth to Putney, they were wilfully drove
against by a fellow in a chaise cart, who openly de-
clared he would do it, though the aggrieved party
drevrclose up to the posts to let him pass ; by the
concussion the Lady was thrown out of the gig with
great violence, but happily without any other injury
than a violent blow on the head.
The windows of a fawn in the hoarding house of
Mrs. Custance, opposite the sea, at Cromer, being
left open during the-high wind a few nights since, the
wind blew, the whole side of the room top the yard,
and a Lady's shawl, which was lying on the floor,
was carried to a chimney at a considerable distance
and torn to rags. In the morn* several_
killed
rooks
and crows were found, which bad been killed daring
the night.

.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS" comp, sErr.

The LEARNED &Wyatt stated, ott entering the I
Court, that be had been repeatedly troubled with
applications which could not be attended to, for he
begged it now to be understood, that it was his ex-
pressed determined order, that no prisoner, whether
he was opposed or not, should be discharged, unless
he delivered every farthing he had, into the hands of
the Reeeiver.General, excepting such money as he
might be called bonafide to expend for his family and
himself, and such money must, though thus expen-
ded, be satisfactorily accounted for to the Court by
affidavit, as the Court must know, and were deter-
mined to know, how every iota at such money was
expended. This order was final.
Edward Tukes was discharged, the Court think-
ing his case had been peculiarly hard and oppressive
against him.
James Carroll was opposed by a Mr. Butler, who
said he was a creditor, but had received no notice
whatever of the insolvent having applied for hi; dis-
charge. On examination, the Court found that the i
insolvent had given a gross mistatement of the place
where Mr. Boiler lived, with, as it appeared, the
design of excluding Mr. Butler from the number of
his creditors. On this ground the Court ordered him
to be instantly remanded for endeavouring most
grossly te impose on the Court.
Wm. Hill was opposed by Mrs. Ann Britt, a
broker, in St. George's fields. She said he had,
while living within the Rules of the King's Bench,
applied to her, through the Medium of a Mr. Smith,
for fierniture, and she bad given what he wished to
Mr. Smith, and consideled she was bound to accept
Mr. Smith as-she could not take Hill, he being al.
ready in custody.
COURT—" Madam, you most suffer by your own
imprudence in trusting a Mr. Smith for the insolvent.
You may claim your money from Smith but I dis-
charge the insolvent."
Richard Cot, imprisoned on 25th April last, bad
a milk walk, for which he was three times offered
£lOO by a person unknown to him, but this, person
afterwards withdrew his offer, as Cot's son bad a
milk walk immediately adjoining his father's. Se4e-
ral circumstances in the insolvent's conduct excited
the suspicion of the Court, and he was remanded, to
give a better account of himself, and to account for
where his wife was, he having said he did not know
what had become of her ; while facts of his knowing
the contrary were before the Court.-Remanded.
William Cbillingsworth, about five years ago•was
discharged under the insolvent Act. He now came
beleme the Court for the same purpose, and stated in
his schedule he had no property. It appeared he had
sold to a Mr. Donniforce a property of the value of
£615, though he knew that property was mortgaged
to its full value, and had obtained iron' Donnilorce
£2OO, one hundred of which his (the insolvent's)
father repaid. Besides, he had fmnitute to a vast
amount (he said to the amount of Jen°, while Mr.
Barry said ae1200), and he acenuilte.i for such fur-
niture by saying his wife was allowed the use of it 1.4'
the last six years by Mr. Jarvis Bradbury, who had
been his assignee during his list insolvency.
COUIiT-••" I will hear no more. Ti.era is no doubt
' whatever of a gross collusion between the insolvent
and Mr. Bradbury. Let him be instantly remanded.
I shall not discharge him on any account. '
Mr. Fcrres was opposed by a Mr. Seam, fot oh-
' taming credit from him improperly, having no plau•
sible pretext for incurring such debts, and no mews
to pay it.—Remanded.
Mr. GOLDSIIITII.-•••" I think this case hard."
COURT—" Yes; but can fraud ever hope for
mercyk"
Robert M'lntosh, Mister of the ship Arundel, was
opposed by Mr. ANDREWS, for a Mr. Nelson. Mr.
Nelson, in Trinidad, agreed with the insolvent to
come with him to Britain, and work his passage
home, and meantime sent his luggage on board.
Nelson, however, was prevented from coming on
board as he had engaged, and the vessel sailed with-
out him. About halt way on the passage the insol-
vent broke open Nelson's box, and took thence £4449
in dollars; and on Nelson's afterwards claiming
them when he came to Britain, the insolvent said the
box had been robbed. Nelson brought an action in
the King's Bench against the Insolvent, and obtained
a verdict for his full loss, the Jury considering that
the insolvent had been culpably negligent of the boz.
The Court would not sustain the objection on this
ground to the insolvent's discharge, but dismissed it.
He was again opposed successfully by Mr. AN.
MUM', for expending selBB in the action before the
King's Bench, out of 11583, which he hail in posses-
sion, of Mr. Marryat, his employer.
The Court considered that that *583 should have
been applied to the payment of this debt he so justly
owed to Nelson, and he was therefore remanded.
No other cases of public interest occurred.

Cosmoses Incluzsrs.—Yesterday afternoon an In-
quisition was taken at the Middlesex Hospital, before
THOMAS STIRLING, Esq. Coroner, upon the body of
Abraham Aubrey, a painter and gluier, who died in
consequence of falling from a scaffold erected in the
house of Moses Mocatto, Esq. Russell square. The
deceased got on the ladder in the dome, and. on re-
tuning, made a false step at the edge of the platform
and was precipitated to the pavement. Verdict.—
Accidental Dsath.

Another Inquisition was taken at the same time
and place, before the same Coroner, upon the body
of Mary Lasley, an orphan, only seven years of age,
who fell from the bannister of a gallery in a stable
yard, sir feet high, in High-street, Bloomsbury.—
The poor child was dreadfully bruised; one of its
arms was broken; and it died while being conveyed
to an Hospital. Verdict—Accidental Death.
An inquest was also held at the sign of the Hare,
Cambridge Heath, Bethnal Green, on the body of a
man unknown, who was found drowned, when it ap.
peered that the deceased was passing by a pond be-1
longing to Mr. John Bassett, and saw some boys
; he requested them to see him dive, h.! in..
:tautly jumped. into the water, and rose wo rubre.—
, There were two duplicates found in his pocket, which
bore the name of John Aldridge. Verdict—Found
drowned.
A few evenings since, Mr. S. Margaret, landlord
of the Pist's Elm public house, near Cheltenham, was
thrown from his horse, near the Golden Pheasant, on
the new Gloucester road, and killed on the spot,—
I Verdict—Accidental Death.