Star.
London, England, 1829-02-17 00:00:00

EXECUTION.

This morning, at eight o'clock, Joseph Blank:as,
aged 26. fora burglary at liillingdoo, near URN dge,
and &jambe Bump, age I 23, for maliciously shnotirg
with in rat to kill, Mere executed at the fi. Ist of
gate. The crowd assembled was not so great as u, on
fit mer occas.ons.

When tie warrant arrived at Nesigale ditect-ng
execution to be chme upon these culpsi , Ilwruir ex-
pressed himself quite resigned, and bmiJ he viler retired
great relief at the dreadful marmot suspense in which he
!rad been for weeks, Laing dissipated. As Inc One ap-
proached at which the two culprits were to sender
iheruselves to their dread account, they prepared rhem-
selves with a true penitential tee:ing, and espresred
great contrition for their offences.
At an early hi ur this morning they Isere att• nded
by the Rev. Mr. Cotton, and coniir:ned in deep prayer
until seven o'clock, when they received the Sacrament
from the Reverend Ordinary. They ternaineJ on their
knees at prayer uutii wally e-gllt llu;nl,am
frequently wept ateali,:m.t Bur rUp was ferfectly calm
and collects f.

The morning was peculiarly gloomy, and nh-n tle
Under Sheriffs, Mr. Wilmer, and the reporters, a .
sernhled in, the Press-r, om, the scene aae per baps or e
of the most impressive that can be imagined—the to, m
is dark, and was barely I.ina.ed by a single light ;
whienßurnbam was introduced LI be pinioned Le gene.
bled exceedingly. and then raising his eyes tisa.aels the
Heavens said, "Oh! Al Paton t yGtin, have mei cy on a mi.
set.rble sinner." %en his aims and hands wet e secured,
Ire was conduct:d to a seat. Burr up best walked with a
quick firm tread into the room. He howe r t, the
Sheriffs, add requested the officers to allow him to re.
rain his black gloves on his hands, and not to draw the
cords tso tight. His request was compl•ed with.
.When the operation of pinioning was conchwed, he
shot k hands wit i Burnham, and s Good ble,
Goo bless you." As they were crindocte3 through the
avenues of the gaol to the sc.,ff 'rd Burr up itipped,
and r.q..ested his white necklterchier might be
removed. He then almost ran a le.a• yards to overtake
the procession, which had proceeded on. Burnham
almost fainted on the scaffold, and was so es-
hunted that he could scarcely keep himself
erect. Buttup walked up with a serious firm step,
and looked around upon the multitude for a moment.
He then bowed, and requested the executioner to tie a
silk coloured handkerchief, which he pulled out of his
bosom, around his eyes. He assisted in adjusting the
rote, and indeed nothing could equal tie tuttitude of
the unfortunate man. The Rev. Ordinary, in a loud
impressive voice, read the funeral service, and at the
passage," Spare US,Oh, LORD," " Oh,Heavenly FATHER,
have mercy," the signal aas given and the drop fell;
Burnham was dreadfully convulse) for above three
minutes; Burlap died instantaneously.

The salute fired hunt the Heights and Cabtle of
Dover on Saturday last in honour the arrival of his
Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, shook to
the foundation the house of a baker in that town. It
now presents a most alarming appearance, and must
of course be taken d ,wri„
Yesterday Mr. allonsa.t. and a number of Ceiba.
lk Gentlemen, went in procession and waited on the
Marquis of Anoutrisv with an Address, expressive of
their esteem and gratitude for his liberal and ex °apiary
conduct during his administration, while Lord Lieu'.
toast of Ireland.

• 1;

this case. It was an action of trove for the— recovery
of 6.e hundred pounds, the value of a Bank of England
tote which had been stolen, together with another note
of five hundred pounds from a Gentleman in the
Strand, in February, 1826. The plaintiff was the agent
of a bullion-broker in Paris, who had taken the note in
the wa y of business,but on its being presented at theßank,
payment was refused. The holder of the note, the agent
of Messrs. Wier and Co. the bullion-brokers at Paris,
then commenced proceedings against the Bank. The
cause was tried before Lord Tenterden at Guildhall, and
a verdict given for the plaintiff to the full amount. Sir
J. Searlett said that be could not see upon what ground
the verdict could be disturbed in this case, as it appeared
on the trial that Messrs. Wier had become possessed of
the note in the fair way of business. The name of the
person from whom the note bad been taken had not been
kept, but that was in consequence of Englishmen, on
getting their notes changed, giving incorrect addresses,
and against which the money-changers had no remedy.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUZT was beard in support of
tht rule. The Bank were only the nominal defendants
in this case, but they considered themselves bound in
justice to support a case lite to that of the person from
whom the notes were stolen. He did not intend to

throw out any gamin's: against the character of Messrs.
Oiler and Co. but he thought it rather extraordinary
that they did not at the trial attempt to prove that they
gave the full value for the note. This he thought was
alone-a good ground for a new trial. If the verdict was
allowed to stand in the present case, the possessors of
stolen notes would have no difficulty in getting rid of
then, for they had nothing else to do than to send them
to Paris, and then, as the money changers would not
object to change them, the Bank could not refuse pay-
ment of them. He thought that it would be a most
dangerous precedent, and ought to be well considered.
Mr. P. Pou.ock followed on the same side.
Lord TENTIIRDIN then gave the opinion of the Court.
A new trial ought to be granted in this case, as it did
not appear on the trial that the full value had 'been
given for the note; but by a new trial the plaintiff
would be afforded an opportunity of proving that such
was the case. All suspicious circumstances respecting
.the possession of the note might then be cleared up. It
was a most important circumstance, when looked at in
weemmercial point of view, and ought to be examined
With the greatest caution —Rule made absolute.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FMOAST 116
TIM V. TRAVIRS.
This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff,
a Gentlemen residing at Higisbury terrace, against his
'oeighbourMr. Travers, for shooting his dog. On the
part 4.f the defendant (the Learned Judge having de-
cided th .t the question raisedupon the pleadings required
that )te, and not the plaintiff, should begin) a number of
witnesses mere called, who deposed to sundry mischie-
vous gambols on the pan of the dog in question. It
was a laige Nevolouttdhnd dog, kept by the plaintiff.
about his premise!, as a watch-dog, sometimes muutled
and sometime. not. Upon oneoccasion he jumped.upon a
Lady and carried off her fur tippet in his mouth; upon
ano her he threw down a little gill and rolled her in the
mu ; at another time he pinned a Lady against the
wall with his fore paws, and again leaped at an old
watchman, and scampered off with his night cap be-
tween his teeth. He bit ali tle bty by the wrist, and
drew blood, and in titre became the terror of the neigh
booth° d, not only'frielyening the women and chil-
dren about tie place, but also the nightly watch, (with
whom, according to the old proverb," two of a trade,"
Ike. he could never agree), and even the inspectors
the watch. Having annoyed and terrified some of the
defendant's family, this Gentleman told the plaintiff's
son he would shoot the dog, and on the following day
be fulfilled his promise.
It was intimated on the part of the plaintiff, in reply
to a question from the Bench, that although it could be
proved that this dog had constantly played with children
-and others, without evincing any disposition to be vi-
cious or mischievous, yet he was not prepared with
evidence to rebut the particular facts sworn to on the
other side.
The LORD CRIMP JUSTICR observed that a dog might
be very good tempered sometimes with children, and
yet be extremely vicious on other occasions. He did
not think, after the explanation which had been given,
that the defendant's case could be answered.
The plaintiff therefore submitted to a nonsuit.
SHERIFFS COURT. GUILDHALL
PRACTICZ OR THR COURT.

Mr. Sergeant ARABI!. and Mr. LAW are the Judges
of this Court.—ln a case which came on. it was stated
-upon affidavit, that a person who represented himself
as residing at a certain number, in a certain street, did
not reohle, nor was known there, and a question arose
•u hich was submitted to the Learned Judge.
Mr. Reeve (an Attorney of the Court), submitted that
Mr:Losley, the Clerk Sitter of the Court, should be
compelled to pay the cysts in an action which had failed,
in consequence of a false oath which had been taken.
• It Was the du'y of Mr. Loxley, as Clerk Sitter, to ad-
miniiter oath, and he had deputed another person to
perform twat part of his duty. The consequence was,
tf they could find the person who had so perjured him-
self, no punishment could be inflicted upon him for
that very stilt us offence, because the deputy of Mr.'
Loal y, could uot, without having been appointed by
that Court, administer an oath. This was a moat seri-
ous interdict of justice; and, in fact, justice could not
be done io a Court, where the business u as shifted from
hand to hand, without the permission or cognizance of
•the• Court.
lir. Losley said, that neither he nor his Deputy had
'any 'thing to do wi;h the false oath, and it was just the
same thing a hether it was sworn before one car the . trier.
It was the practice of the Court to leave the app-int-
wept of a Deputy to the principal, and a perjured peg.
son who was sworn before his Deputy was punishable
in the usual way' or the offence.
Mr. BUJltrAur (the Counsel) argued in support of
Mr. Reeve's position. He contended that no more,
punishment could be inflicted for a false oath taken
'before the Deputy. than for one taken before any or.
slimy person. The question was, whether. the Deputy
had been legally appointed, and he wished to see the
appointment. Mr. Lortley had certain benefits arising
from the situation. sod if he was unable to attend to
the duties, he ought to have applied to the Court for a,
Deputy. but as itheiappointment was not legal, no ia-
dictment could lie for the perjury. He trusted the
Learned Judge would make the sale absolute in thistase.
The Learned dodge said, 'that the object of the Me:
ti-ou svats•thet pmeediop Amid btt stayed. and that
Mr. Leaky should pay the costs. *amid not sou-

sent to that—he denied the position that 'Mr. LAxley
had no right to appoint his own Deputy ; 'and heas-
serted that the Deputy was qualified to do everything
that might be done by his principal. He chreidered
Mr. Loaley Completely justified, and should discharge
the Rule, with costs.
Mr. Reeve said, that if he had applied to the Court
of King's Bench. Lord Tenterden would in an instant
have granted his motion.
The Learned Judge asked whether that observation
was meant as an offence?
Mr. Reeve repeated what he had stated. and added
that he would apply to the Court of King's Bench.
The Learned Judge—" Take down his words." This
was done, and the Court,broke op.

, "-'•` 0 ' LAW INTELLIG I§ICL
.
"*; i ;il ..' o 0
( F KING'S BENCH, Fn. 16.
'4.4l..fiii :•
.4. ..,11. t (Sittiop in litoce.)
-4":, ' - ' • - 2TTI O. TH2 SAX 2Of 2110 LAND.
- 41* 4 .
• . • •eat.err this morning showed cause
'• ificiffffsi • ' it/obtained by Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet,
. • ...•
'4. it' , rp the plaintiff to show cause why the ref-
*" ilk rdoWnnt be se aside and a new trial granted in