Star.
London, England, 1828-08-26 00:00:00

appointed, but the plaintiff bate it very well. Wi.ness
wanted to go to the police offi:e. but the plainiff ob-
jected, and said there was no necessity. Witness met a
police man, whom he whited to employ, but plaintiff
refused, saying the police man was a scoundrel, and the
property would not be safe in his hands. The hair
trunk went to Liverpool with the plaintiff. Witness
never lilted it ; it was always carried by the plaintiff.
Re-examined—Tim plaintiff as as able to carry the
trunk as witness.

St~phrn L 'vender, a constable, proved that he had
gone to defendant's house, and examined the box, which
appeared to have been broken open.
J b Sheriff, from the Assay-office at Birmingham,
proved that he had assayed upwards of 200 ounces of
gold annually for t' e plaintiff, and 150 ounces within
the first six months of the present year. Plaintiff did
twice the business with the Assay-office of any other
jeweller in Birmingham.
Mr. BROUGHASI (with whom was Mr. WILLIAMS) ad•
dressed the jury for the defendant, and contended
that the loss had happened through the negligence
of the plaintiff, and therefore the defendant was not
liable to make it good. He should prove that the plain-
tiff had been told that the club-room was the place
where luggage was deposited, and that the key had been
brought for the purpose of opening the door to deposit
it there, but that the plaintiff had preferred to have it
taken into the travellers room. The Learned Counsel
also made some remarks upon the supineness of the
plaintiff in searching atter the two strangers at Liverpool.
Several witnesses were then called, and amongst
them some travellers who were in the habit of fre.
quenting the de'endant's house. They stated that it
was a rule of the house, well undei stood by all per-
sons who went there, that the club-room was the place
for the deposit of valuable luggage. The bar-maid also
swore that when the plaintiff came to the defendant's
house, she accompanied him up stairs with the key of the
club-r oom in her hand, and wished to deposit his luggage
there; hut that the plaintiff refused, saying that he had
always carried it before into the travellers' room, and
that it would be safe enough there.
Mr. PoLr.ocic replied.
Mr. Baron Hum.ocic told the Jury, that it was true
that by the common law an innkeeper was bound to an-
swer for the safety of any goods which his guests
brought into his house; but if they thought that in the
present case the plaintiff had taken his property under
his own care, alai that the loss had ensued in conse-
quence of his own neglect, then the innkeeper would
not be liable.

The Jury then retired, and after a long deliberation
found a veldict for the plaintiff—Damages 401.

Canwit Cousr—Before Mr. Juitice BAYLEs.

James WM/tie:4 was indicted for feloniously killing
and slaying h s wife, Mary Whitelegg, at Hultn.
Mr. BKANDT stated the case for the prosecution, from
which it appeared that the prisoner and his wife had
lived on very bad terms together, in consequence of a
constant habit of intoxication in which the latter in-
dulged. A quarrel took place in the end of May last,
in the course of which the prisoner struck the deceased
several violent blows on the body. Her death took
place in about a week afterwards. The surgeon who
examined the body after death stated that he found the
right side of the liver ruptured, and that he considered
that to be the cause of death. He thought that the
injury must have been occasioned by a violent blow or
by a fall.
In cross-examination, the surgeon stated that the death
of a person injured in the manner described would take
place in a few hours.
Mr. Justice Barter upon this told the Jury, that
although it seemed plain that the death of the deceased
had been occasioned by some description of violence,
yet as she had not died until a week after her quarrel
with the prisoner, and as, according to the statement of
the surgeon, her death must have ensued a few hours
' after the infliction of the violence which had occasioned
it, he did not think that the blows given by the prisoner
could be considered as the c4use of the death. He should
therefore direct them to acquit the prisoner. Verdict—.
Aot

POLICE IN I'ELLIGENCE.