Star.
London, England, 1818-12-04 00:00:00

LAO* IVTELLIrifYot

ROLL'S COURT, DECEMBER 4.
IWTHE IdATTErt• Of WALCOTT'S eIIARITY.
Mr. HART stated this to be a Petition presented
by the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth, Rector of Lambeth,
and by two Clairchwardens of that Parish, praying
that the Court would refer it to the Master to adve

. ..
tise in the London Gazette anal the Newspapers, fcr
the legal heir to this estate, and in case no such heir
should be found, that the plaintiffs might be at li-
berty to apply to Parliament for an Act on that sob- .
ject, and that in the mein time, a receiver might be
appointed for collecting the rents of the charity pro. ,
perty. When an applientian of a similar nature rtSs
before the Court on a former occasion, *the Attorney-
General resisted she application, and it was roftiseai
by the Cour:, but the Master had since reported, th.lt
the Law Officers of the Crown had since given •ar
any claims which the Gtown might have been sap.
posed to have had on the property. He did not sat
how the motion for a receiver could he resisted, for

surely it was proper that the rents should be secure
in the meantime, till some further measures were

taken.• The Master had not reported how the pre-
sent tenants came into possession, because he thought
himself prevented from so doing by the want of the
'legal heir.
Mr. Rovert.t., on the same side, remarked that
the subject tras, beyond all doubt, a very important
one, in consequence of the great value of the pro-
perty. The testator bequeathed his estates, or.e part
tO•Lambeih parish and the other to St. Olave's, in
the Borough; but St. Olave's parish having got an
Act of Ruliament on the subject, all matters were
amicalsly conducted there. The prcperty was left in
1667 to the parish of Lambeth, and the Rector and
Churchwardens had granted leases, on which buil&
imp were erected, and they had further entered.into
contracts for granting new leases at very advanced
rents, when it wls foetid out the cleviftee bad not
given them a legal title to the estir.e. The question
th:lrefore came before the Court, whr.se duty it was
to provide.who was the legal heir. The Master, in
his repot:, suggestal that it would be ploper to ad'
vertise for the legal heir and in the event of his rut
being found, the Act .of Pafliament would at ence
declare the property vested in the Rector and Church-
wardens, for the good of the charity. The *tenants
refused to pay the rents to the plaintiff's, till a legal
title was made to the estates ; and therefore a re-
Iceiver ought to be appointed,..as the plaintiffs could
not distram for the rents. _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. WETHERAL, on behalf of several parishioners,
contended that the present case was, by Sir Samuel
Romilly's Act, put beyofiel the jurisdiction o. fs,e
Court, as that. Act had provided a summary relieft:4/
petition to the Court, Only in cases of breach of trust,
but no other.
The MASTER of the Rett.s this oo•cctIon
ought to have been made in the first instance, and
not after so much litigation had taken place.
Mr. Weruanah said, his clients had originally:o
idea that the case would have gone so far as it :sad
since done. By the order of the Court the
tiers were to have due notice of any application to
the Court, and this was the cause of their being par-
ties. In the case of Skinner and the Lawford Cha-
rity, Lord Eldon held, after some consultation with
the Vice-Chancellor and the Mastes of the Rolls, that
Sir Samuel Romilly's Act nave the Court jurisdic-
tion only in cases where there was a direct and gross
breach of trust. The very Act itself, in its preamble
and recital, expressly declared this to be the case,
and it provided then, that to save expense applica-
tion for a summary remedy could be made by peti-
tion to the Chancellor. In this case there was no
breach of trust, and were it to be considered as in-
cluded under Sir Samuel's.. Act, then on the same
principle might petitions be tiled, and not bills for the
performance of special contracts, or in any other case
whatever that came before the Court. The
known case of the Corporation of Bristcl was acralso-
, gous to this, as he conceived, and he felt convinced,
that if in this case the receiver was appointed, a•he
trusted would net be the case, it would be giving an
infinite latitude to Sir Samuel Romilly's Act, 'faith
that great lawyer himself had not even the slightest
idea of.
Mr. WlNcrrEtra, on the same side, argued at. con-
siderable length, that the proper course wonid have
been not to tile a petition, but an information, ac-
cording to the usual practice. It was utterly impos-
sible the tenants could attorn, for no person had the
legal estate. The Rector and Churchwardens could
not receive the rent in a corporate capacity, they not
being a corporate body. The case of the Lawford
Charity was precisely in point, as there one trustee
had contracted to grant a lease to a person who af-
terwards became a party, and afterwards aplied to
have that set aside, but the Court declared they had
no jurisdiction to do so.
Mr. Batt appeared fer the tenants, and contended
the appointment of. a receiver would be a very great
hardship on them, as they must either attorn to him,
or stand in danger of being committed for contempt
of Court, They refused to pay till they saw the legal
tide vested properly somewhere.
The MASTER of the Itotts said, the great diffi-
culty lie felt was the taking proper care not to go too
far. To a certain extent the Court had jurisdiction,
and this case he thought had been very properly
I,rought before the Court. The objection to the
Court having no jurisdiction, certainly came with a
very bad grace from the parishioners, who themselves
had originally come to the Court praying the Court
to interfere. He thought, on the whole, that the hest
way would be to refer the cas. to the Pilaster, to in-
claire under what circumstances the tenants had come
into possession, and to advertise in the usual manner
for the legal heir. That inquiry could not possibly
take up much time, and till it was made, he did not
think himself jUsti lied in at once appointing a receives.
Mr. HART.—Then' Sir, .1 insist that the names of
the tenants for whom Mr. Bell appears may be placed
in the order to the Master.
The MASTER of the Rotts.—l can sec no ehjec-
don to that.

LORD COANCVLLOR.

Yesterday notice was officially sent down by the
LORD CII ANC ELLor, from his hoitse lledibrd-squat
intimating that his Lordship. continued ‘o unwell as
to be totally unable to come to the Court on Satur-
day, wilic4 is the first Scal after I%lichaelm.ls Term,
but that to prevent any disappointment he would
hold a private Seal in his own house. This notice

1

• "' 1 :
. I.: •., '
• . %
. '
;
-,,...
, - 1
1
i t i
1I
3 1 ! . .
) i
4 ,
i 1 I i
A 1
1' 1
I ' •
i 1 t
. ,
1
. r I,
1 ) )
I 1
1 ,
1
r'
• I:
). 4
I I : .
,
. ..
.1
, .
1 ' .
1
i
,
,
~
. „
1 . 0
. ,1 ,
. ,
. i 1
,
I
1 '
1 i t
t I i t
: •
. .
1.
1
t ; ..
i , 1 i .'
e ;-1
•
D t
i . i
It ? I
4 i I
l,
I
It •I • 1
11 '
Y 1,
' I .' 4
,e
a •
:s 1
rt . 4 •
it I
11
'
t ; •
-; 1
3. _
r
-.)t . i
, • .
E •,
itt 4
d • 1, ti 4
C- 'I
le
cs,
1 :
as
it, t.
n;
Ad
CS

•
was given to the King's Counsel,' and afterwards fixed
up in Court.
COURT OF XING'S BENCH. DEC. t.

V. 'RUC 6.

This was an action upon the case to ivavearfianra-
ges against the defendant, for falsely, and without
any probable cause, chargingthe plaintiff upon infor-
mation before Mr. !firm., a Bow-street Magistrate,
with threatening " to do him (the plaintiff) some
bodily harm ;" uponwhich thesaid Magistrate granted
*warrant against the plaintiff, and thereupon the
latter was brought before Mr. Hicks, another Magis-
trate, who dismissed the complaint.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. The
defendant had lodged in the plaintiff's house, and
the latter having discovered something improper in
the defendant's conduct, he was induced to get rid of
him, as a lodger, and part with his wife. This oc-
curred in the month of April, and in the month of
June following, the defendant having been told by
somebodythat the plaintiff had threatened to do him
some bodily harm, he applied at the Bow-street office,
and upon his representation Mr. Bixnie, the Magis-
trate, granted a warrant, by virtue of which, the
plaintiff was afterwards brought before Mr. Hicks,
the then Sitting Magistrate, who dismissed the com-
plaint. For the ignominious and disgraceful incon-
venience to which the plaintiff had been put, the pre-
aeht actbn was brought.
Ruthven, a police officer, produced the minute
book, purporting to contain the charge preferred by
the defendant. From this book it appeared that the
defendant had stated " that he had heard (which he
believed to be true) that the plaintiff bad threatened
to do him some bodily harm, and holed just reason
to fear that he would do so, plaintiff having threat-
ened to do for him, (informant)."
Mr. Justice BATLEY interposed, and said that there
was a fatal variance between what was stated in this
book, and what was set out in the declaration.
Mr. Gamier cited the case of Davies v. Knott, 1
Scarkie, 377. where it was holden to be sufficient to
set out the substance oldie charge, without the very
womb.

Mr. Justice BAYLFT, however, distinguished this
fvom the case cited, because here there w.is a substan
tial variance. His Lordship thought it was a very
illradvised action, inasmuch• as the plaintiff could not
have sustained much personal inconvenience, still less
any injury to his character.—eNonsttited.

TOR KING V. ROBERTS.
This was an indictment against the defendant, for
an assault upon a person named Harrison, on the
2citaa of May last.'
From the evidence of the prosecutor, it appeared
that he had been a bankrupt about two years since,
the defendant being one of his creditors. On the
day mentioned in the indictment, the latter overtook,
him in the Strand, and violently pushed him on the
shoulder. . He turned about to ask the reason of such
treatment? but the defendant abused him in an offen-
sive manner; called him a rascal and swindler; seized
him by the throat ; struck him on the breast ; and
colteeted a numerous crowd about him ; and all this
without any provocation on the part of the prosecutor.
This statement was corroborated by the testimony
of a witness named John PArker._ _

l'hare being n 0 defence offered, the Jury found the
defendant Guilty.

CAANNAN V. GOLDNIT AND

This was an action to recover the swn of £4OO for
work and labour done and performed by the plain-
tiff, as as accountant, at the instance of the defen-
dants, who were Members of a Committee appointed
to investigate the affairs of the British Dock Com-
pany, the plaintiff cleat:hag to be paid, as per agree-
ment., at the rate of £lO per month, for 80 months.
The defendants pleaded in abatement, that another
person, who had been nominated a Member of the
above-mentioned Committee, should have been joined
in the action; and, secondly, that the plaintiff had
subsequently agreed to take a reduced scale of de-
mand in satisfaction of his set vices. The first of these
grounds of defence was answered by shriving that,,
the Member of the Committee so nominated had de-,
elined to act ; and the second, by :hewing, that thel
subsequent agreement was made by the plaintiff upon'
the condition of prompt payment, which had not
been performed. Verdict for the plaintiff—Dainages
four hundred pounds.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 3.

BAYN6Ii o. GI

AND COX.

This action was brought by the Ercuter of Lieu.
tenant-Colonel Baynes, of the Artillery, against the
defendants, who had been the Agents through whom.
he had received his pay, for the sum of 1.:134 14s. 4d.
In 1806 the pay of subalterns and Officers in the Ar-
tillery had been increased in the same proportion as
it had previously been increased in the Line; but all.
Adjutants and Paymasters who held two Commis-
sions were not to receive any increase of pay. This
order was dated the 27th of August, 1806. Oa the
19th of September following Lieutenant-Colonel
Baynes was appointed Assistant Deputy-Adjutant..
General. He regularly continued. notwithstarding4
to receive the increased pay of a Lieutenant-Colonel
from the defendants, his pay as Assistant Deputy..
Adjutant-General being received through another
Agent. The defendants were in the practice of re-
ceiving £1.5,000 a month from the Board of Ordnance;
and they gave account of the several payments. In
1816 there was a communication from the Board of
Ordnance to the defendants, intimating that they
were resolved to enforce the order respecting Officers
holding two Commissions, as it was rigidly enforced
in the Line. Of this increase of pay the SUM now
claimed was due to Lieutenant-Colonel Baynes, at
the time of his death. The defence urged was, be-
sides several legal ebjeedons, that they ad a right
tt withhold what the Board of Ordnance could re-
cover from them.

By the direction of the COURT, the Jury found a
- verdict for the ptaintif to the amount claimed ; it
being reserved for Mr. fierjeftnt Ormow to move the
Court to have a nonsuit entered, on several points
of

ANSLEY AND C 0... DALRYMPLE AND OTHERS.
This was an action b.ought for the recovery of
£55, for koods sold and delivered, and it excited
considerable interest from the contradictory state-
ments of the evidence, as well as front the high rank
cf one of the parties. The plaintiffs are linen-dra-
pers, in Bond-street, and the defendant is the sister
of Sir William Manners. It will be recollected that
some rears since this Lady was mmried, according

to tha laws of Eagland, to' a Colonel Dalrymple,
who, by a subsequent decision, was declared to have
been previously married, in Scotland, to a Miss Gor-
don ; this decision, being founded upon the *WS of that
country, according to which, if a mass pastas a pro.
mise of marriage, in or to prevail upon a female
to consent to that whislf~ morally deemed a con-
summation, she is, from soils promise, to be regardedl
as his legal wife. Through that law the marriage of
the present defendant with Colonel Dalrymple was
pronounced by Sir Wm. Scott to be null and void.
The grounds of defence set up were, the Statute
of Limitations, and secondly, the plea of coverturt.
It appeared from the planers evidence, that
within the years 1809, 1810, and 1811, during which
the defendant had cohabited with Col. Dalrymple,
she had ordered the goods for which the present ac-
tion was brought—that she had frequently called at
and sent to the shop of the plaintiffs, and acknow-
ledged herself in their debt in the year 1813—that
the credit was given to her alone. In order to sub-
stantiate this allegation, the books of the plaintiffs
were produced, in which Mrs.Dalrymple was charged
with the articles specified in the bill, which formed
the present demand, and from which it also appeared
that some of those articles were sent to the defendant,
after her marriage with Colonel Dalrymple had been
declared null and void.

The Counsel for the defendant maintained that the
plaintiffs gave credit not to this Lady but to the per-
son who lived with her while he appeared in that
character in which he was generally received, mutely,
as her husband : and further, that if any df the gnods
alluded to had been delivered subsequent to the sen-
tence as to the nullity of the marriage, such delivery
was only in consequence of the continuation of the
orders given by Colonel Dalrymple.
On the part of the defendant a deed was adduced,
by which Colonel Dalrymple, after his marriage with
her was declared null and void, had conveyed to her
the lease of the house, which during cohabitation
they had occupied, in Portman-square, together with
the furniture which it contained, in consideration of
a sum of money paid him by the late Duke of St.
Alban's, who was the brother-in-law of the defen-
dant It was sworn, that the articles mentioned in
the plaintiffs demand, and which were included in
the schedule of the furniture conveyed by this deed,
were not by any means under-rated.
The nest evidence was that of a female, who stated
that she entered into the service of Colonel Dalrym-,
ple and the defendant, in the year 1809, when her
master and mistress lived together as man and wife,
which they were so called and considered by every
body, according to the knowledge of witness. She
cdr, that when the servants of the plaintiffs
esd,edas they frequently did, for the payment of
their bills, they always demanded payment from Col.
Dalrymple, whom alone they appeared to regard as
responsible them. On the cross-examination how-
ever of this witness, she acknowledged that she had
heard her mistress say that she would pay the plain-
tiffs what sbe owed them.

The Counsel for the plaintiffs, in his reply, ob.
served, that the first ground of defence to this action,
namely, that of the Statute of Limitation, was set
aside by the evidence of the defendant's acknowledg-
ment of the debt in ISIS. He !repelled the insinua-
tion that an S had been inserted in his clients books,
since the debt was contracted, with a view to impose
upon the Court; appealing to the consideration of
the Jury, whether it was possible that such respect•
able tradesmen would so far commit their character
for the comparatively trifling sum of £5.5. It was
admitted on all hands, that the goods bad been actu-
ally,
delivered for the payment of which this action
was brought, while it was not even pretended that
his clients were ever paid for them. It was proved
that his clients gave the credit to the defendant alone,
who could not plead coverture, because it appeared
she was not legally married, and on tilos? grounds he
confidently anticipated a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The Jury, after a charge from the Learned Judge,
found a verdict for the plaintiffs to the full amount of
their demand, with cost-.

OLD DAAEY SESSIONS.
The Sessions commenced yesterday, according to
adjournment, before Mr. Baron WOOD and Mr. Jus-
tice Hot ROYD.

John Corderoy and George Wood were indicted for
burglaxiously breaking and entering the house of T.
Morley, and stealing therein property to the amount
of thirty-five„pounds.
• I
Thomas Morley livei in Harley-square, Hortok
He was a dealer in paintings. On the 28th of Octo-
ber last his house was broken into. About eight
o'clock in the morning he discovered that his house
had been broken open. The window-shutter, he eh.,
served, had been cut, and the sash opened. He rnis.
sed a parcel of music books, a mirror, nine paintings„
a pair of lustres, a fender, a set of cruets, a quanoty.
of plate, a time-piece, and wearing apparel, all
amounting to the sum of £95. About three o'clock
on the night of the 27th the dogs in the house made
a grnt barking, but witness did not get up, as the
dogs frequently barked withosat mom
A pawnbroker, living in Tabernacle-walk, City-
road, proved, that on the evening of the 29th he ob-
tained information of the robbery. On the same
evening Corderoy brought a picture to pledge, saying
he wanted four or five shillings for it. Witness
stooped down to'pick up the printed bill, giving in.
formation of the robbery, which had fallen on the
ground, and as soon as the prisoner saw it he ran
away. Corderoy was pursued, and in about a quay.
Iter of an hour he was brought back to the shop. H.
was searched, and in the lining of his pantaloons two
duplicates were found, which corresponded whit
other parts of the property described in the bin.—
There were several other duplicates of old dates
found upon him.
Another pawbroker proved, that loon after the
robbery the other prisoner, Wood, pledged some
tures and other articles which were stolen from

the

prosecutor's house.
An officer belonging to one of the Police Offices,
proved the apprehend►ng of Wood. In the lodgings
of the prisoners were found several articles which
had been stolen from the prosecutor's house. Oned
the shutters of the prosecutor's house was bored with
a gimblet, and a piece had been taken out.
The Jury, after a short consideration, found both
prisoners Guilty.
Robert Pauper was indicted for burglariously.
breaking and entering the dwelling house of Robert

Newham, and stealing therein six silver forks, value
free pounds.
It appeared upon the examination of the prosecu-
cntor, that he was a silversmith, residing in Sloane-
street, Chelsea. While he was sitting writing in his
shop, one evening in the middle of October, he heard
the crash of a pane of glass ; he at first thought it
had been done wantonly by some boys ; —but, on
running to-the door, he heard the cry of—" Slop
thief !" The prisoner was brought up to,the door,
by a person of the name of Yapp.
George Yapp, a shoemaker, stated, that on the
evening in question he was near Mr. Newnhanis
shop, and heard the crash of glass ; he then saw the
prisoner run across the road ; it was quite dark at
the time ; he pursued the prisoner and caught him.
Immediately upon laying hold of him he fell down,
god witness fell on the top of him ; he then took the
irks from his hand, and brought the prisoner back
lip the prosecutor.
It was proved that the forks were hanging up at
the window of the prosecutor before they were taken,
and a hand must have been put in to take them. It
was observed by the Court to the Jury, that if the
Gentlemen thought that the forks had fallen into the
street by breaking the glass, and then picked up by
the prisoner, then the capital charge of burglary
would be done away with.—The Jury returned a
verdict—Guilty.
John Pecrrkes was indicted for burglariously break-
ing and entering the dwelling house of D. Page, and
stealing two silver spoons.
The facts were clearly proved against the prisoner,
but the Jury hesitated for a considerable time before
they pronounced the verdict.
Mr. Baron Woou asked, whether he could clear
up any doubt which might exist in their minds ?
One of th.e Jurymen observed, that there was no
doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, but the Jury
considered the conduct of the prosecutor reprehen-
sible in leaving the spoons in the kitchen window as
a temptation.
Mr. Baron WOOD.—That can have nothing to do
with the verdict : 1 do not see any impropriety in the
conduct of the prosecutor. A man has a right to
leave spoons in his own kitchen.
The Jury found a verdict—Guilty.
George Mason was indicted for stealing a horse,
value 11/. and a bridle and etddle, value 21. the pro-
pert° of James Starkie. .
The prosecutor, who is a chymisti living in the
Strand, had in October last a horse, which he wished
to dispose of. He sent it -to two places to be sold,
bat not bringing the expected price, it was bought
in for himself. :Some sheet-throe after A man named
Smith came to himorniksaidhellad a purchaser for
the horse. Prosecutor said he was willing to dispose
of it if he got a fair price. Smith came a second
time, in. company with the prisoner, and said he (the-
prisoner) was the man who wished to buy the horse.
Prisoner offered 10/. for it, but prosecutor said he
would not take less than 111. This price prisener
consented to give, provided he was allowed a trial
for three days, as htewished to 'hew it to his father,
who lived in the country. He then tendered him a
bill of exchange for 2CI. which prosecutor not being
satisfied with, objected to. Prisoner immediately re-
ferred him to Mr. Sell, who lives! near ; at the same
time he asked for the loan.of the bridle and saddle.
Prosecutor ordered his servant to put them• on the
horse, and told the prisoner to go round to the
stable. Then, without mentioning where he was
going, he went to Mr. Kell, who advised him not to
accept the bill. He came back, intending to return
it, bat found tat the prisoner had taken the horse
'from the servant,. and rode off, The bill was drawn
at two months,' from the 21st of September, and was
•accepted by -.person named Purcell, but was not
endorsed.—ln his cross.examination prosecutor ad.
milted that the bill had never been presented for ac-
ceptance. It became 'due on the 24th of November.
Payment was tendered before that time, but this was
after the prisoner was in custody. The bridle and
saddle were also returned after the prisoner was in ,
custody.—The servant of the prosecutor stated that
he delivered the horse to the prisoner, who told him
that he had agreed with his master.
John liardwicke, a butcher, proved that he bought
the horse from ;he prisoner, a day or two after Mr.
Starkie had parted with it. The price he gave was
61. Witness had known the prisoner for three years.
The prosecution has ing closed,
Mr. RZYNOLDS, for the prisoner, submitted to the.
Court, that the evidence did not amount to the proof
of a felony, though it might perhaps he construed
into a fraud. There was he maintained, a conditional
sale—that was, a sale which was to be considered
b:nding on both parties, provided the prisoner ap-
proved of the horse at the end of three days. -The
servant had been told to saddle the horse, and the
prisoner was directed to go round to the stable; but'
the prosecutor never said a word to him, which
could imply an objection to his taking it away. He
did not say " Stop here until I consult Mr. Kell, to
whom you referred me." No, on the contrary, after
telling the servant to saddle the horse, and directing
the prisoner round to the static, he went off, without
intimating where he was going to, in any manner
which could lead him (prisoner) to believe that he
had an objection to taking the horse off.
Mr. Mtate, for tke prosecution, contended, that
no contract had been made. The prosecutor had
given no order to his servant to deliver the horse, and
the servant could not partwith it without permission.
Mr, it LYNOLDS did pot conceive that there was evi-
dence of a felony to go to the Jury, if they believed
what was sworn.

The prisoner in his defence, denied any fraudulent
intention, and asserted, that he had the leave of the
prosecutor to take the horse away. He called several
witnesses, who had kaown him for a long time, and
who gave him an excellent character.
Mr. Justice HOLROYD, in summing up the evi-
dence, dwelt upon the circumstance of the prisoner
having sold the horse for little more than half what
he had agreed to give for it, and that too within the
time allowed him for its trial, when he might have
returned it if he pleased, and got back his 291.
The Jury, after consulting together for about three
minutes, returned a verdict of—Not Guilty.

Last night twenty-five male convicts, who were
convicted at the last Old Bailey Sessions, were re-
moved from Newgate to the Husks at Sheerness, pre-
paratory to their being,sent to Dotany Bajr, .

MA WOW Hovsr..--2
Guard of one of the
upon an information f
his possession certain

to be imported into thi
to the information, and
into possessi3n undc
A fellow-servant of hi
wich and Colchester,

to take charge of a parci
don, and on his arrival
On reaching the Spreai
street, he gave it to -
carry it, as directed,

Dog-row, Bethnal-green.
orders, but as Mr. Lee,
fused to keep it, !woo
whom he received it ;
it to his own house,
went to bed. He had
was knocked up by two
and Joseph Smithers,
his premises, for the pi
Bandana handkerchief
custody. lam.tii got
asked him if he had

description which the,
the affirmative, and g:
his presence, and fool
value of £9. Inman pr
ell the content.; of the

oSserving that this W:
case, the Custom How
ed that his Lordship
them ; they had only
upon th:.. information 1
full penalty was three
perty seized, and amot
his Lordship to rnitir
his Lordship immediat
Inman as immediately
CUILIMAI.II.—A seal
land, charged Calherir
of £5O. The Magistral
the charge of felony b•
but he might relate hi
said, that he had just ,
been paid a considerab)
With this he meant to
also meant that his •

' They slept together
with his money, he stogy
On Thursday morning
knowing his wife alone
ed her to give it up.
vying all knowledge of
give her in custody. "
" norance of the money.
had been searched ?
gative, 5.n Officer was
lock-up room, and do i
soner was again led foi
ing in his hand 1542, wl
Sailor' jumped forward,
said, that, notwithstat
his wife, and take her
gistrate said, she wa,.
and recommended him
his money. Jack bowed,
and departed.
John Willia.ns was fr
defrauding a number
posing on them a qui
scribed as 44 genuine spi
nothing but dirty water.
long a sort of wholesale
taken, three unstamped
were found upon him,
signature of J. Hall, one
was genuine. An Mr(
discover, if possible, how

‘Vottsuip-sTmawr.—,
were brought to dill 01
Forged Dank of Englat,
the Bank atterded, and
dared to be a forgery:
committed to N-mgate

EXECUTMN OF Mtn
tnnate and guihy worn:
crimes on the scaffold.
gate, Dablin, on Saturt
for the iniquities of her
'ons : she met her fate ivt,
•of people who witnessed
Sheriff Woof) appeared
Immediately on her cot
with her hand'to the m
address them; she then
her de;ire, he requested
hats, and join in prayer
Sheriff then stated, that
the Corporal now in ei
murder of Margaret Fli
she was turned off, and
order to give a greater
the execution of this vrreti
exposed during the more
out in a state of preparai

Nov. 26, at Blackheath, the
lion. Company's ►hip Warren
Sunday se'nnight, at Catdown
Eisdy of A. B. Branch, Esq.
daughter.

Wm. Weatherby, Esq of
r-ehrer of the Rev. J.

Wednesday, at his house in
formerly of Lisbon.
Noy. 2.5, Ceor„ iana Susan,
Hirt. Netherby.

- ,
f I
. .
' I
I
-
c
.•
L
1 to,