Star.
London, England, 1828-12-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dac. 12.
MOORE O. WHITLEY.
The Vice CHANCELLOR made an order for the pay-
ment ieto Court of the sum of about 4,0001. and an
appeal having been made against it, the case was ar.
gued at considerable length before the LORD CHANCEL-
LOll, who this day delivered his judgment. The facts
were briefly these: An attorney (we believe at Liver-
pool) borrowed two sums, one of 2 8004 and the other
of about 1,4001. of a person deceased, and a bill of dis-
covery was filed, in order to ascertain under what cir-
cumstances the Money was advanced. The answer clis-1
closed facts which showei that the nature of the trans-
action was usuriou., inasmuch as besides the interest of
five per cent. a bonus of 1001. was each time deducted
by the lender, while the borrower also stipulated to re-
purchase the stock solo out by the lender, when required
to der so. The lender dying, hi% executors called upon
the borrower to ptycha%e the stock, which led to thel
proceedings in this Court, and to the disclosure cf the
°ch iratter of the dealings between the parties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion, un.ler all
the cis corenatances; that the defendant ought not t., be
compelled to bring the money into'Court, even though
he had at one time admitted vat he was indebted in
the sum claimed. The debt was not such as co'hld have
been enforced at law by the lender had he continued
alive. The order of the Vice Chancellor was therefore
reversed.

COURT OF KING'S BRNCH. Dec. 12.

COOPIR V. WARMLY.
VERY INTERESTING CASE.
From after eight o'clock the del rent avenues leading
into the Court were so crowded, that there was scarcely
any possibility of forcing a passage. It was with the
utmost difficulty, with the most active assistance of
constables and the Officers of the Court, that Connie),
Jury, and witnesses, could obtain an entrance. When
they got in many of them presented a most ludicrous
appearance; some of the wigs of the Barristers were
of, others half off; some Gentlemen had parts c.f their
coats tore entirely away, and so on. Scarcely on any
'occasion was there sco great an interest excited. Almost
every hospital surgeon and eminent practitioner in Lon-
don was present, besides an immense number of stu-
dents. The defendant appeared in person on the floor
of the Court at a few minutes past nine; Mr. Brougham
and ,Mr. Kelly, his Counsel. were also present. Sir
James Scarlett, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Statism and Mr.
Platt, were Counsel for the plaintiff. It was a quarter
to ten o'clock before the Jury could gain admittance.
On the names of the Jury being called over, only six
attended, many of the others not being able to get near
the entrance of the Court. A tales was accordingly
prayed, and the number etude up ; subsequently. how-
ever, three additional Special Jurymen came ipto Court,
and three of the files withdrew.
The gallery of the Court was so much crowded be-
at* the trial commenced, that Lord TIINTIRDARN said
if any more persons a ere admitted be should feerbound
'to clear it altogether.
The defendant laid on the fl ror a cast of a child, in
the position in which a patient is tied when undergoing
the operation of lithotomy. He had also a pelvis and
case of instruments, such as were used on the occasion..
He applied to *Judge to be accommodated with a
table; but his Ltrdship stated that, in consequence of
the pressure at the doors, it was impossible for him to'
have his wish met then ; but one was brought to him
afterwards.
Sir J. SCARLITT opened the pleadings. The action
was for a libel published in the Land, imputing to the
plaintiff, Mr. Bransby Cooper, nephew of Sir Astley
Cooper, the performance of as operation unskilfully,
and which was done in the presence of several persons.
The defendant pleaded justification, contending that
the publication alleged to be libellous was true.
Sir JAMBS SCARLITT said he should now take the
(violist; of the Court upon the d fferent counts and
pleas, as to whether it "bag his or the defendant's duty
to begin, urging that it was incumbent on the part of
his client.
The defendant contended the contrary, and cited the
cases of Hodgk ns and Holdhani, Jackson and Hescot,
and Biddell and Russell, in support of his proposition.
The LORD CHIT! JUSTICII said, that as his decision
would probably be made the ground of future ones. be
should act give it without consulting with his brother
Judges. His Lordship retired for that purpose, and
returned in about ten minutes, when he stated his
opinion to be, in which the other Judges concurred,
that the task of beginning was upon the defendant.
Sir JAHN{ SCARIAITT trusted, that being the decision
of the Court, that whatever the termination r f this case
might be, he should be at liberty to examine his wit-
nesses, for the purpose cf removing that brand which
had been thus thrown upon him.
The Loan Curie JUT= did not consider it neces-
sary tosive an opinion at the present moment upon
chat part.
The defendant then rose, and trusted that before he
proceeded to address the Jury, the Court would order
All the witnesses to withdraw.
Sir J. SCANLITT had no objeition to the withdrawal
of the witnesses who spoke to facts, but those who were
to give opinions be con.idered it essential and necessary
should 'amain in Court.
, After some discussion it was agreed that the witnesses
speaking to facts should withdraw, and those who was
to give opinions should remain.
The defendant then addressed the Jury. They ha
already heard the nature of the action brought against
him as the author and publisher of the Lancet. Guy's
Hospital was not only an hospital for charitable pun
poses, but also mended to the instruction of young
students in the art of surgery. That hospital was founded
by a single individual named Guy, who left funds to a
considerable amount, so much so that there was at pro.
sent 200,0004. as a fund. The plaintiff was elected oat
of the lecturers of that hospital. The lectures he do.
livered were public lectures; consequently public pre.
petty ; and with such a feeling he thought proper to
publish the particulars of such lectures in a publication
which he commenced in 1825, and in order to coal&
him to do so with accuracy. he employed several most
respectable Gentlemen as reporters; men, indeed,whose
character fur honour and integrity could be relied on ;
It had been a subject of no inconsiderablediscussion in
another Court, as to his right to publish those lectures.
and he conceived it was only those who were fearful of
their incapacity being exposed that wets most annum.
to put &au the Lancet, of which be was the author.—

He *ronldt
ha gave '
Libel, and .
and give such
making some ,
the witnesses.
Mc. Alderman
resi 'e _
lege of Surgeons
at Colchw
my. and '
'een times.
Mr. Bransbv
I have seen
correct,

that opinion
man; I thin'
second inci•
atm talents '

sion—(The
seating the
depo,ed •._
that po-iti,
was repe..
to be made
gorget was
scoop was
also intro&
requesting
the operate
explain the
plexed ar ,
appeared not to have any scientific design. He intro.
duced his finger with considerable force. He used the
instruments an the ordinary way, but filed in light-
ing upon the stone, which was of course his in•entsop.
The forceps did not enter the bladder 0 e first time. and
witness thought the reason was that the ol.e►:ing was
not sufficiently large, but believes there was an opening
from the appearances which fullowed. The operator
said that he Celt the stone when he passed his staff
through the urethra, and c old also feel it when he
passed the sound through •the incision i-i the peril se rm.
He also said that Ire crrold not feel it with the forceps.
The reaton of this was, that the forceps, if straight or
slightly curved, would pass under the stone, which was
high up in the bladder. Mr. Cooper tried several times
to feel thte stone with his finger, and mea toed hisSil,er •
wish other Gentlemen 'ogee if any of them had a longer
finger. Taking all the circumstances into consideration,
he could not say that Mr. C. performed the operation in a
scientific manner. It was not perforated in such a man-
ner as the public had a right to exp. cr from a surgeon-
of Guy's Hospital. -The average tsn.e fir performing
such an operation is about four or five mino es. I be-
lieve this operation occupied nearly an hour: Mr. Cooper •
used the straight staff with a knife. When the operator
found that he could not introduce the forceps with the
first intent, he then made a second cot without the
NA which ii a very unusual proceeding. The stoop.
lis n eJ to extract fragments of a stone, which may have
crumbled off it. There were no fragments in this case.
Tee longest time I ever saw such an operation cccupy,
,aven
in the most difficult case ,was within half an hoar.
In these cases there were evident causes why the opera-
tion lasted so long. Those causes were, where the stone •
was large, and where it would be dangerous to enlarge
the wound for fear cf
.injuring the rectum, and there
she time was lost in drawing out the stone gradually. In
the operation in question, the s:one was a small one,
being not larger sthan a common Windsor bean, flat
and round. It might have weighed about two dr.chms
less, but certainly not more. Stones weighing seve-
ral ounces have been successfully removed. Unless the
incision was large enough to admit the forceps, that in-
terment could not lay hold of the stone without also
catching the integuments of the bladder. The stone
lay above the pubes, for the sound always touched it
ea being withdrawn, and it was extracted by pressure
above the pubes, and with a curved forceps. If the
operator h.d been aware of the situation of the stone,
he should have taken these measures at first. He sbOilld
have ascertained this in the first instance.
Cross-examined by S r J SCARLETT—I rever saw
Mr. Wakely before this day, nor
.1-is attorney in the •
cause before last night. Mr. Callaway was the amis.
sant surgeon on the occasion, and witness believes him
to be a man of skill. Witness has had several cases
where the stone lay above the pubes, and has always
extracted it in the manner silk!' was at last success-
fully adopted by Mr. P. Coo, er. The tut is a ade in
the perins►sm. and the object is to get the knife into
the groove tithe staff, by which time it has p,tiettated
a portion of the uredia. Then the staff is brought for-
ward into a parrallel position with the knife, gild on a
line with the ladder, in order to snake a larger loci.
sion ; the staff is then allowed to remain, and the finger
is introduced in order to ascertain the wound you have •
made.

SirJ. ScAncarr—Youthen introduce the finger and •
feel for the stone, after finding which you introduce the
forceps along the finger, and lay hold of the store.
'Witness—No. In order to do that you must make
too large an incision, or else have an extraordinarily
small pair of forceps. At the time of the operation I
was sitting in a chair immediately behind Mr. Cooper.
I never saw Mr. Cooper before that day. I have no
doubt but that the first incision penetrated the bladder.
I have read the report in the Lancet, but I I ever cot.
responded with that publication. I take it in and read'
it weekly.
Sir J. Scsat.wr here read the sentence where it is
said that the knife was cart lied on somewhere, and asked
him whether that word, g, somewhere," did nr t mean
to convey an idea that the knife did not go into the
bladder ?
Witness—l think it means to convey an ides that it
might or might not have entered the bladder. I do not •
know whether the operator would be the• best judge of
whether the forceps entered the blatider or not; it
would depend upon what sort of an operator he way—
tA laugh). lam not prepared to swear that the tamps
were a second time used with considerable force; would.
neither swear to, nor contradict it; I mentioned mr
opinion of this operation to several persons, but I cannot
say to wh ins.
John Clapham—l am in practice. with my father,
near Peterborough. lam a licentiate of the Apothe.
cares Company. I have studied two court"' of lectures
on surgery; I saw the operation ia question; the report •
in the Lanced is' in my opinion correct; the patient aci.
patted to be a favourable subject of, operation; on the
withdrawal of the knife., first ti die a small quar.titY
ti fluid escaped. There was no subsequent gush of

Pc, Csiti
• '',7lllN
.`; $
• I.:A et z •
. - • s. g
`4' Abb.. g/4 •
Auoti:24t
•
PEICIi
SE; rENCE.
dr among other v hoes es, call the G ;Weisman
e him the report of the subject of the i resent
Ihe had no aLiuht tut he would enter the hos, •
such evidence as could be relied on. After -
some further statements, he pr 4 ceeded to call
ISM
lderman Partridge examined by the defendant
e at Colchester, and am a Member of the Cnl-
'urgeons; I hne been fourteen years in practice
-ster ; I have seen many operations in !Mom-
have performed the operation sixteen or ties.
!s. I witnesied the operation performed by •
ashy Cooper at Gay's Hospital in March last.
een the repeat, and when I read it I thoughkit
and since then I have had no reason to an
lion ; the patient appeared to be a we? y healthy '
think Mr. Cooper introduced the staff. but the
ncisinn was made without the staff, a I the in-
ts having been withdrawn aft-r the first inci-
le defendant here produced a figure repre-
the situation of the patient, which the witness
to ac being comet) —The patient remained in 11.
Alan an hoer; during that period the sound
e.,tedly introduced ; several cuts were attempted •
ode into the bladder with a knife. The cutting
was introduced, and also a blunt Forget ; the
as also intioduced, and two pair o! f nceps %vete
oduced; the pa lent called out teems, times,
ng that they would leave off and unloose him;
'atm declared more than once that he could not
the difficulty ; the opts atm' appeared to be per-
and hurri •cl in consequence of the delay. He

r

1

urine that witness saw. Mr. Cooper used a knife
to enlarge the .opening bef ire he bred the forceps
successfully; but he (Mt., Cooper) attempted to Apse
the forceps ahoy •than once before he tnadetho'
• •evfon4. nuadt good deal of force was used. and*
the operator aid not appear to be in a state 4 self-
possession. Great force was used with the hand, and
More than one gorget was used; never before saw a
forget used after an incision had been made with a
knife into the bladder. The operator said, in the pre-
sence of the patient, that he could not 'understand the
difficulty ; never heard an operator, o any other occa-
sion, speak of his difficulties in the presence of the pa-
tient. The operator measured fingers with a Gentleman
present. Never saw an operator act similarly in the
presence of the patient. Mr. Cooper appeared to he
confused, and he was hurried in his movements. The
average time of such operations is from four to eight
minutes, and never saw one occupy more than the latter
period of time until the one in. question ; never saw so
much violence used in any other case, and I think: that
no patient could recover who had been subjected to
such violence. I saw the stone, and it was not so large
as a walnut. The parts appeared to be bruised.
Cress-examined by Sir JAMES SCA RLSTT—Is not 21 ;
was 20 last January ; has not yet finished his studies;
is a pupil of St. George's Hospital. Has bad no expla-
nation of these matters. Never studied the model, nor
did he give the defendant any report. Went from cu-
riosity to see the plaintiff perform the operation. Had
seen five or six performed ; only saw the one in ques-
tion at Guy's Hospital. Stood about the third or fourth
row born the operator, a little to his left band ; there
might have been from one to two hundred present ;
Mr. Callaway was the surgeon who assisted ; deems
him a most competent judge of such operations. The
first incision is only carried to the integuments; there
was no small quantity of fluid before the forceps was
used; has no doubt the knife went into the bladder, and
if be was giving a report of the operation, he would
not say it went somewhere; was admiited a licentiate
of the Apothecaries' Company last spring; did not re-
present he was twenty-one; some one else did ; took an
oath after he obtained a certificate; the Clergymen
generally give them.
Sir J. SCA RLSTE—Are Clergymen in the habit of
giving false certificates? Witness—No.
Sir J. SCARLETT—Where then did you obtain it ?
The Cuter Jostles—No ; I must stop that question,
far I will now state, that whoever obtains his certificate
by means of a false certificate of age, is liable to be in-
dicted and punished.—The witness then withdrew.
Joachim Gilbert, a member of the College of Sur-
geaas, deposed that he witnessed part of the operation,
having been present only thirty-five minutes, because
be could not.endure to witness the manner in which the
operation was performed. The or orator used great and
unnecessary violence. The witness described the opera-
tion, as far as he witnessed it, ivearly the same man-
ner as the preceding witnesses, but said that the forceps
were poked about in the wound, and inserted no less
than four times. The operation was in his opinion very
badly and very improperly performed. Has seen the
operation performed in less than a minute.
Cross-examined—ls an assistant to Mr. Phelps at
-Leminster, who is married to Mr,Wakely's alter. Mr.
Peeelps resides in Dorset; did not see the report before
it was printed. The operator used unnecessary violence
with the forceps.
Sir J. SCA ELITT7---As if be meant to stab the man.
Witness—Yes—(A laugh)—Was on the first row of
beaches. I went away, not being able to witness the
Operation out, I never made, any communication to the
Lancei, nor do I know the extent of its sale. .1 never
performed the Operation of lithotomy. I witnessed
many operatiops in lithotonry. I think that Mr. Cooper
is an noskilful operator, and. that it would be a benefit
to the public jt he was removed from the hospital.
. Sir JAMES Scoaterr—Have you ever witnessed the
Operation of tying the subclavian artery ?
• Witness—l have heard of the operation, and have
seed it performed once by Me. Clive.
Sir J. Scaaterr—Which operation do you think re-
quires the greatest skill on the part, of the surgeon,
tying the subclavian artery or lithotomy?
Witness—l shoUld think the operation of lithotomy
requires the greatest skill.
Sir J. SCARLIEET•-•Then you think it would require
no skill to tie the subclavian artery ?
Witness—lt would require skill to do so, but more
skill to perform the operation of litbotomy.
Sir J. SCA RLETT—Have you attended any lectures
since you came to town ?
Witness—No.
Sir J SCARLET?—I mean none atWakely's—(A laugh)
Witness—No; Mr. Wakely called at my lodgings
'yesterday morning, and stopped for a few minutes, but
*he did not even sit down ; and that is the only conversa-
tion I have bad with t.im since I came to town.
Re-ezamined by M'. Wakely A very ignorant
sturgeon might by accident successfully bind the sub.
elavian art-ry.
John Thomas, Demonstrator of Anatomy at Mr.
Slee's school in the Borough. deposed that he witnessed
the operation, and never saw one performed in so un-
scientific and bungling a manner. This was his im-
pression at the time. „. , , I
'Mr. Wakely—Have yolk ever Oen me before io.d.ay?
Witness—l do not know who ye u are.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCA RLIETE—.I ens a demon
strata of anatomy at Mr. Slee's school, No. 1, Dean.:
Street. Borough.
Yin- J. Scaunarv—What do y... 0 mean by school?
Witness—l mean a place where pupils ate harmed
, into classes, And oboe a demonstrator of anatomy is
appointed to teach them that of which be is master, and
they are ignorant. „
Sir J. :CARLETT—What hospital does the school
belong to ? . . , •
Witness—Jo the Western Hospital; Mr. Slee is the
surgeon of it; he established it himself about a year and
a halt ago; he has two.schools, but the one in De
street has twenty pupils, and I have been demonstrator
since October to that school, but not to,beth.
Sir J. Scaautir—Suppose the Gentleman who now.{
examined you to be the author of the Lancet, I wanti
to know how it o as that he came to know your opinion,
on this operation ? . •.- •
Witness—lconfess I was rather surprised, at it myself)
I was not sebresnaed till Slate hour last night.
Sir J. ganntarrT—Da you know, Attar, how it.orall,
Witness—Yes. conversation with a pupil named,
Itainslord, I made the Tonal k,that I bad seen the opera-
tion, and that I thought it was performed in a bungling
and inscientifie inaoner ; he has wicking to day
ereloatonicated this fact to Mr. Wakely ; I have'
eoninineie,ations 10 the Lancet; I have made
them of whie.h were insetted; those comnsuoicatioes
ware at lOssA intervals, and I did not put toy name to
Om; I amved. at the theatre after that iscision was
Snide iatotha.bladdcr, apd I staid about S 5 minutes,
dories which time the opfratiop ~was going forward;
I have been annoasaator: as this new school since last

October; I was present at three operations in lithotonsy
at Gay's Hospital.
Mr. Jeffrey
_Pearl maimed by the defendant-. 4 rhit-
nessesk the operation in lithotovy, by Mr. B. Cooper ;
I have sea the,report of it in the 4.ancer. There sat
nothing vsbatever incorrect in th.t reoort. except 114..1.
Mr. transhy Cooper said, "Give me Astley's knife,"'
instead of " My uncle's." There was not a gush of
urine from the bladder, as usual, but there was a trick-
ling ; I sat in about the middle row, on the operator's
right band ; I could. I think, at that distance, distin-
guish between a small portion of arterial blood, and a
mixture of venous blood and urine; arterial blond
comes in bursts. After the staff and knife were Nu hed
forward, I believe that there issued a small portion of
both venous blood and urine; there was not a gush
of fluid at any subsequent period ; I rather think that
Mr. Cooper attempted to introduce the forceps after the
first incision, and that failing in being able to do so, he
made a second incision ; the same forceps was introducd
repeatedly, and great force was used; the operator
opened and shut the forceps with great violence. The
forceps was a curved one, and it was pushed in to a
considerable distance ; the fingers of the operator were
introduced and turned in the incision ; I have witnessed,
I believe, twenty operations in Isthotomy, and none wets
performed in the same manner as this; the usual time
for the par mance of an operation is from four to five
minutes; I saw one by Mr. Green that lasted nearly
an hour, but that was a peculiar case; the patient had
been operated on twice before, and the cicatrix via;
hard and uneven, and he had two very large stones to
extract, which crumbled into innumerable .mall pieces
in the bladder; the time was there occupied an re;-
moving. the fragments. There was no force used by
Mr. Green, and his manner of using the scoop and
forceps was decidedly contrary to that of Mr. Cooper ;
the st ale in the case of Mr. Cooper was abart the
size of a Windsor bean; during the oreration Mr.
Cooper told the patient and the pupils that he could
find no earthly reason for the difficulty in removing
the stone. 00 Hush, hush," said he, 0. I hear the
stone, but I cannot catch it with the forceps;' I think,
continued the witness, that he might have taken the
stone had he introduced the forceps scientifically the
sound might have passed through a hole too small to
admit the forceps; Mr. Cooper did not appear to me to
be in a state 01 self-poss. ssion, and I think that he used
his instrument without any rational object; the opera-
tion lasted about an hour ; I saw the parts after
the death of the patient, and I could not discover
any cause in the formation to prevent the operation
from being properly performed; when I saw the blad-
der there appeared to me to be two incisions in it; a
portion of the neck of the bladder was between the two
incisions ; the incisions were oblique, and not hori-
zontal, as any incision ought to be in such an operation.
I think it utterly impossible that the patient could have
sut vivid alter such an operation as this one;- the blad-
der appeared to be very thickened from violent inflam-
mation; bruises in the bladder would be likely to pro-
duce. great disorganization and inflammation; I saw
Mr. Dransby Cooper operate, and I should not conceive
him to be a good operator by any means ; I have been
a pupil "of Guy's Hospital mese than a year,. but am
not a member of the College of Surgeons.
Cross-examined by Sir JAhlita SCAIILaTT-1 teas
educated at Woodbridge under an at my surgeoc ; I con-
dialed to attend Guy's Hospital, and have seen nearly
all the operations there:* I read the Lancet, but travel
not contributed reports to it; I never saw Mr. Cooper
perform but one sk.lful °nitration, which was tying the
sabclavian artery ; a surgeon may, without, much skill,.
.perform such an operation as this accidentally; I read
she report in the Lancet on the day it came dut ; I had
ao :visa to suspect that the report would appear, but as
such operations usually are inserted in it, I thought that
perhaps this would; I was struck with the variance be.
tweets the report and the fact of his saying—" Sir
Astley's knife, and not "my uncle's." I therefire re-
marked the difference. When I have been round the
wards with him, I have repeatedly heard him say—
" Fetch my uncle's gargle, or my uncle's mixture—
(A laugh, is which Sir Astley Cooper heartily joined).
I can't say who furnished the report to the Lancet.; I
was introduced to Mr. Wakely by a Mr. Lambert, at
the house of the latter Gentleman; I remained there
about an hour; we had a conversation about this case.
and upon my oath I do not know, from that or any
other conversation, that Lambert had reported the case
for the Leurod, Mr. Lambert was generally suspected,
but I do not know for what reason, to have contributed
the report; I was asked at Lamberes respecting the
operation, and I gave the same account as I now do;
Mr. Wakely and Mr. Lambert thought that the instru-
ment passed between the bladder and the tauten, but
upon my oath, they did not induce me to 'State so;
many persons, however, thought so ; a Mr. Whit-
taker was also present at this conversation ; 1
drank tea with them; there was no model of any of
those parts introduced to us ; I went sometime after that
toWakely's house.and'remained there about ten minutes;
I cannot take on myself to say whether the forceps passed
between thebladderand the rectum ;WaltelyandLamber t
gave good reasons for malt;ng a man think that they did
pass in that way; I think that they did-so pass in the
first incision, upon the examination of the parts after
death. Lambert put his hand between the bladder and
dm rectum; be then took it up, and showed it ko Dr.
HOdgkin; the Doctor said that he did not like to have I
persons, who had no business at the hospital, come'
there to spoil preparations. I did not hear Doctor'
Hodgkin say to Lambert, " Friend, thou , didst it
thyself." I did not see Lambert put his band' there,
but at L'ainberes house that was mentioned as a reason
for the incision being between the rectum and bladder.
This witness having occasionally hesitated in his'
answers, Sir Jams SeliaLaTT said this operation of
getting answers is so painful. that I shall discontinue
it. -Witness.-;-h is by no means painful to me, I assure
you, Sir—(A laugh).
On his re-examination by the defendant, the witness
declared that the defendant had never induced him to
give any particular evidence,on this trial.
Mr. James Lambert examined by the defendant—l
witnessed the operation in question, and furnished you
with the report, declaring upon my honour that it was
true, but that it was rather an understatement than
overstatement; I now repeat that the report is true in
substance, and I know of no material inaccuracy in it,
but have since beard that Mr. Callaway held the stone
in his hand, and not in a forceps ; the subject was in
my Opinion a favourable one for operation; the opera-
tion lasted for more than an hour; the impression on
my mind was that the knife had not entered the blad-
der, because there was not the usual gush after the in-
cision. Alter stating the particulars of the operation,
the witness said that he we. present at the pa Motels
examination ; the subject was lying on the floor of the
Demonstrator's room; the morbid pots were relayed ;
I asked for them, and they were shown to 'aft in the
presence of several of the pupils; my attention was of
Plane directed to see whether any difficulties would
resent themselves in the morbid parts ; I found the
'psostrate gland rather littler thin usual; I saw of this

left side of the gland a smallish oblique cut; the part
,14arouniwnd ; tonhe
tnheec.kundoefr thpaertbofiadderibe .MlLll49.l7dthettilebe-
tr tli'efer was a singular tilithite ; it. walla' Mall
pialtision about tile like tl.ri tip of lit y finWer ;on
!ril!nfroing farther,_ I found that my fidget ?Hied up
I with' the greatest facility between the Meddle and the
realm); on my soleMn oath I did not see the slight-
est force in passing my finger between the bladder
and the rectum; neither did I break down any struc-
ti•re ; o hilst I was showing this to the pupils, Doctor
Hodgkin came up rather angrily, and said, " I wish ; eo
pie who have no business here would not come to pull
things about;" and added, that somebody had broken
down the fungous appearance on the neck of the bladder;
I followed, and assured him that I had merely examined
the preparation, and that I had been for a considerable
time about that hospital, and was incapable of doing
any thing so improper; Dr. Hodgkin said that it was
not a deep peritoneum; indeed that these war nothing
remit' liable about ii; I remember observing to Mr. Kay,
that from the result of this operation his instrument
did nr t appear to be fir for operating where the petite
net.on was del); Mr. Kay instantly replied, " If yoa
say that the peritoneum of this patient was deep, you
know nothing about it ;" the witness said he never heard'
of a person with any pretension to skill passing the
knife between the bladder and rectum in an operation
for the stone; and that he had never seen the operation!
performed as it was on this occasion; witness did not
think that Mr. Bransby Cooper was competent to fill
the office of surgeon of Guy's Hospital.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARIATT—I am a sur-
geon, and have been in the yrofession thirteen years;
I consider myself more competent than Mr. Bransby
Croper to perform an operation like this; I began at-
tending the hospitals els ut six years ago, and was ad-
Mitted *surgeon about three years since; this is not
the first communication I have made to the Lancet ;
I have been a contributor for some years ; I receibed
emolument for my contributions ; I did not derive a
larger income from it than from my practice as a sou
geon ; I am intimate with the Editor ; I used to receive
eight guineas a month, and of erwards was paid in pro.
p. rtion to the matter published; I cannot say exactly
when I first began to contribute towards the tuned ; I
think it was about a year ago; I should think that the
circulation of the Lancet paper was worth about five or
ix thodsind pound's a year; I bel;eve Mr.Wak ly prac.
tibia as a surgeon occasionally ; I believe the principal
income of Mr.Wakely is derived from this work; hiever
recollect Mr. Bramby Crosier turning me out of the
room. Upon further consideration the witness said, I
remember one occasioa at Guy's Hospital, wh,n Mr.
Cooper addle sed me, but there was so mach noise that
I could not tell what he said ; I know that at some din•
ner there was something said; I think I objected to
something, when he came from the chair, with others,
and th tight 1 had disturbed the harmony; I then I.ft
the room, because I felt there was a *tiring feeling
against the measure I had adopted; I cannot erectly'
say when this Was, it Migfit be two years ago; I don't
remember any quarrel trial I had with Mr. Cooper;
I never rememoer Mr. Cooper saying that I' should
l leave the room or he would, unless some apology
were made; I believe the word " bats" in this work
is applied to the Hospital surgeons; I recollect some
inquiry being made by Mr. Cooper in tegard to the
word as applied to him; I think that occurred at
St. Thomas's Hospital, but I think it was not in the
lecture room. I can swear most positively that I do
not recollect Mr. Cooper saying, that unless an
apology were made, either he or I must leave the room;
I remember using the word " bat" once ifi speaking of
a trial, but I have no hesitation in saying that I applied
that to no one in particular; I said to Mr. Cooper that
I did Oct intend it to be personal ; I do not remember
saying that I would Make him repent. it; I swear that
to the best of' my recollection. lam a man of warm
feelings, and I may have said many things in the
course fmy life which Ido not recollect, but Ido not
believe I ever said this; I don't think. iympoisible
that I could, but I have no such impression on my
mind. Upon my oath I never recollect using such
wads; I am of opinion that the dinner was some time
in January; I think it was some time about Christmas;
I have never be en but to one dinner,aad then I went away,
bat was not turned out ; I carried this report .to
my friend Mr. Wakely, and this was one of the weekly
contributions; this fell within the eight guineas per
month ; lam not aware that there were one or two ex
pressions in it more severe than he thought it right to
publish; I assered him they were tue; the principal al.
'nations, I bel eve, which Mr. Wakely made, were with
respect to the time ;1 believe I stated it was rather more
than an hour, and Mr. Wakely said be would rather be;
tinder the mark; I do not remember any other alters.
tions ; 1 have not seen the manuscript since it was written.
I did not v:tite the next attack on Mr. Cooper, nor any
part of it ; the first time it was thought the knife reached
the bladder I saw no gush of urine, and I considered
that a fair round for judging that the knife had not
reached the bladder ; I did not see any gush of urine at
any time afterwards ; the only way I have of explaioing is.'
that when the krtile was 'haughty) have touched the blade'
der, I observed no gush of urine. and my impression war'
that it had not entered the bladder; I believe a small
opening may hive been made into the bladder, th;ongh
which a small quantity of urine oozed ; I understood'
Mr Co-per to say, "Give me my uncle's knife," but Ij
liinncx swear positively to that; the first impression on
my mind was—" My uncle's knife, or Sir Astley's." but!
1 will not swear to it ; I did not say in my report, nor'
iffd I intend to convey such an impression that Mr.!
Bransby Cooper bad murdered the man; but I intended'
Ito convey the impression that the patient had lost his
'life fir want of skill ; I lamented the occurrence, and
did not consider that this period was an important one
to get reputation, in addition to my eight guineas a
month ; I did not think it a subject for ridicule; I saw
'the man before the operation was performed; I cannot
say whether Mr. B. Cooper wished the operation to be
performed or not ; I am not aware that Mr. Carainger
has a cheap theatre near Guy's Hospital ; I know
he has a theatre there, which I believe to be as respect.
able as any ; no lecture, I believe, has been given upon,
the model of the operation, for the purpose of proving
Mr. B. Coopers want of skill ; I have been present wheal
subjects of this kind have been demonstrated by Mr.l
Pilger, but I believe not with a view to this case. I I
believe Mr. Grainger knew of the case • I cannot con-
fine myself to the mode; I believe there was a dead
subject there; upon my oath, I do not think it was gives
with reference to this case; I have beard both Mr.
Grainger and Mr. Pilger speak upon this, but I was net
present at the set lecture; 1 have before s ated that 1
was present when a demonstration was given. I have
shown the model to persons in the room. But I
have not demonstrated the parts to persons in the
room with a view to this case. I have been to the
room and examined the parts repeatedly, but I belies.
not for any improper purpose, but knowing that I Was to
give evidence in this case, it was with a view of se.
freshiag my memory with respect to it; I believe wit.
mtsWs on troth -sides were prelim, and I- explained %IS

I Ware, to 1114
disease to them ; I again repeat Iwe stidr 1,.
to refresh my own memory ; I had met Mr, w I.i--
there on. one occasion ; he was not pre,ent whel7l
I heard him. I believe; 1.:"6
was making these exhibitions ;
.of my belief, that Mr. Wakely was not there dorm.'
the demonstrations;
ing to some of the pupils that some of theesP:‘
.to be witnesses; I- dose' seeolieet it being said that
I3ransby Cooper bad murdered the man as Mud a
he had cut his throat with a knife; bit cannot
s:
that ether one *Ty 6r the other ; ! think I can mi."'
such wordy were not used; I may have elm:wit—%
self in the' dissecting room, that the patiem had 10411..11
life by the operation ; I think I said that
two days ago; Mr. Grainger did not '
room to me; my motive for going there
a pupil; I believe 1 have heard four ,
tures and explanations given to persons
s line res in this case ; trot I have never
at Mr.Wakely's house, nor have they ever
Nroy own ; there were some given at the
by a Mr. Purl; I stood close to the operator,
Re-examined by Mr. Wakely
the Middlesex ; c mplaiuis wen
me for reporting to the /.aunt; no
wades/id) respect to me; I was ejected
tution io consequence of sending cumr
Lancet; I had never sent a report
before I was ejected from it; I never
say to any body any thing with respect
I did not considg that Mr. Grainger
any witnesses for the purpose of impart
Mr. Cooper; I con,ider they ware teem
I believe the model s as made public
theatre; the cast produced in Coast
fact. taken from a child in the Lectut
Mr. Alexander Lee examined by
sal acquainted with Mr. Bransby Cooper
spoke to him ; I saw the operation;
operation, performed in the usual or

Defendant—When you say in the
mean in Mr. Cooper's usual way ?
per form such an operation tefose. I ,
at from fifty to a hundred operations
some have lasted for a quarter of ar
reckoned the contracting the bladder
distance from the table, and did not
instruments Mr. Cooper used; I am ,
the forceps were introduced at the
made a ,econd incision, and age"
forcars; I did not observe any thing
manner or demeanour of Mr. Cooper
operations which I witnessed, either
sa Paris, I never saw the gorget Intl
knife had been twice used. I do
operation lasted fully an how, tl.oug
from half an hour to forty minutes.
Was the operation scientifically pert,
hesitate before I gave an opinion upon
subject.
Which do you think Mr. Cooper or '
better surgeon?—Certainly Mr. Cali
Is Mr. Bransby Cooper, in your opinion,
surgeon at Guy's Hospital ?—I should
an opinion on that subject.
Is the Report in the Lancet correct
but I think that some expressions were
inserted in the- Lancet ; I rather think
report objectionable.
Cress.examined by Sir JAmits SCA,
clerk before I commenced the study
also a potatoe merchant—(A laugh',
rations in lithotomy on a dead subject,
living one. When an operation is
one can see or explain the difficut
themselves so well as the operator ;
appear ambiguous to the bystander
satisfactorily explained by the operator.
lady when the operation is performed"
not by the sight; it would be most
on the'incompetency of an operator
him as to the circumstances of the
operator in lithotomy, the person.who
the best subject ; I have read the report
and I most say that it is a most unprofessional
saw only a small discharge from the
be partly urine and blood or blood
happens that the stone is laid on the,
which contracts on the approach of
Re examined—When you state .
the best judge, how do you think that
be the best judge, when, as in this
that he did not know what earthly di

—lc is possible that a skilful man an
discover the cause of the difficulty.
Mr. Thos. Belton examined by the _
the operation performed by Mr. B. Cooper
the Lancet is substantially correct ; he •
ber of instruments ; he at first lost his .
afterwards recovered it in some degri
eight operations in lithotomy ; some '
five or six minutes. The operation
about an hour, during which great
I never saw the cutting gorges used
tion with the knife; the stone.in thi
small, and Mr. Cooper said that he
the reason for the operation lastint
whole. I do not consider that the operation
finally performed.
Cross-examined by Mr. F. POLLOCK,
terial was elicited from the. witness.
Mr.. Benjamin Harrison, the Treasurer
petal, examined by defendant—l hat
far SI years ; I have the minute book ,
containing the names of the Governors
Mr. Burnaby Cooper ; 1 have also
the parts of the deceased ; Mr. Br'
apprentice to his uncle, and his
about a year and a half before he was
situation; he was appointed on the'
Sir Astley Cooper vacated his office
day; Sir Astley was on the same
ing surgeon to the Hospital, and Mr.
surgeon; there was no aanouncemer
that such election, were to take place,
Lice ever given; Mr. Bransby Cooper
apprentice at the Hospital, and constant'
observation of the Directors, it was -
'my that he should produce any testimon'
a surgeon, nor are aay of the Gores or
Do you believe.that persons not
dical profession can be the best judi
ties of medical skill ?—I should not
to give an opinion, but the Governors
portunities of hearing of his abilities.
going into a detail of the elections
taken place, in every instance the pare
being either a relative or an smut
Couper, said that Mr. Bransby Cooper
in preference to Mr. Callaway becar
be the nephew of Sir A. Cooper. We
because he appeared to be the fittc
situation then vacant. .
• Do you mean to say that Mr. Cooper is a

ol

tl/11111 rein si,„w
ate eipresse
salient had lost hi..
that not more
than
It lend his lettuce
lire was, that
* Or 6*e fifties re:i
•
10115 who are
glO6
T them heard the •--
ma
ever been pea:
he theatre-4 thili
operator, at
I am operator to
were made low it
1 other charge 14,
led from the lac a
omunications tattle
from the flospag •
r heard Mr.Wabdy
pect to the theativ
I was lecturing% Is
puling any thine. it
,clutes to the do.
is in the yard of th;
Cta eoworaopsoe, rti .n pantb
at sm) la
•
the. defend:v.4 a
; it was a tedie%
ray.
usual way, do ytg elk
never saw to •
I have been plum 0
ions of lithotroty;
an hour; that vat
der ; I was at sere
t distinctly see shit g
s not sore whether b
he first incision;
lain introduced tie
ig particular is tit
per ; at the forum
rin this c' Untry a d
ntroduced after the a
not think that tie
gh it certainly loug s
tt for med notil
'Om so impottant a a
or Mr. Callaway the
illaway. • tl
• opinion, fit to bet
odd not like to gi
rct ?—Generally
scoot used, althos t
nk the form of
J
ieAatn-r—l wag
y of surgery ; I
i). I performed • sr
ject, but •never ea it
bdnyr performed
tides which p
circumstances eh'. I
might be easily
erator, and pa
led by the touch,
st rash to pianos •
r without first ask'
t case. Next to de g
rho holds the salt .1
report in the Land
nprofessiooal one; I el
be wqund ;it migk b
alone. It someti td
e folds of II e bladda,
4 the instrument. tl
that the operator is I
that the operator css I
is case, he declud f
difficulty there was? 1
Ilay fail at the time a
he D Pendant—l ov
Cooper ; the repot is I
he used a great DU ti
'is self po-session, e
degree; I saw six 2
ime lasted as long
nin restion last e
it violence was used a
d is the same oper
this case was rat • •
e could not disco a
ing so long ; or,
'petition was scrod.
LocK—Nothing ore
1 • Er
.
tanner of Guy's 11*
hate held the do u
ook of the liospissli
ernoes who voted fa
o the preparation d
Briasby Cooper vs It
• indentures mired h
was appointed to lw
e 4th of May, IS
ce of surgeon on Ow
day elected coa's't'
Ir. Callaway assiowl
eat in the nrwspiPe°
dace, nor is such so
oper having bees s I
constantly under la
as not deemed new
estimonials ; I a 1
net nors.
t educated in the
ads.' of the cap&
pretend individ
nors had constant
es. The witness's( 1
01111 which had Is
party who west,
',entice of Sir A
Doper was not c
tause he happier,'
'e selected Mr. C "
ittest person for
:copes is a better

dr. Callaway LI do sot wish to apron an
to delicate a question
y say that Mr. Cooper was the attest penop
o—Beetitrie we had selected a surgeon. wbo
lave attended to the surgical school recently
at Guy's Hospital.
d merely wanted a surgeon, without refit-
school, which of the two gentlemen would
msen?—i do not think it necessary to say
ntld have done in any supposed case; it is
;h to answer what were our motives in the
nstance that occurred.

NTERDIN—The witness has given a most
per, in my opinion ; and I must say, that I
of this mode of instituting comparisons be.
kill or merits of two professional gentlemen.
less, in answer to a question whether Guy's
'omits's Hospitals were not united till ro.ll
the Medical School was at the latter Hos-1
he Surgical School at the former ones an far
inked. Upon being asked the cause that led
Iblishment of the Surgical School at Guy's
he said the story was a long one, and would
ion take up the time of the Court unneces-
examination as to that point was not pressed

'mined by Sir J. SOAILETT-Mr. B. Cooper
sonstrator under his made, and gave great
in that capacity; he was recommended to
ed as surgeon by all thedpurgeons of the
Sir Astley Cooper did not inow that it was
elect his nephew until the circumstance was
aced to him by witness; Sir Astley Cooper
to witness at the time, but Sir Mtley had
do with the arrangement of appointing his
witness knew that the plaintiff had been a
le Nurwich Hospital. and had been with the
pain, during two campaigns, and went with
!nt to Canada, but in the intermediate period
en improving himself at Edinburgh ; he sub-
became apprentice to his uncle ; Sir A. Cooper ,
on of the first eminence and practice, and his
ad the advantage during his apprenticeship
ing his uncle's practice; witness has heard
inrwich Hwital is celebrated for operations
ny.
mined by Mr. Wakely—Mr. B. Cooper was
of a Society in Edinburgh. That was before
his apprenticeship.
fondant then brought into Court anatomical
am of the parts upon which the plaintiff

derman Partridge was called to examine and
the incbion. but the witness declined giving
on upon the preparation in its then state. He
have time to examine it minutely before he
evidence.

se for the defendant then closed, and Sir J.
r asked whether it would not be convenient to
he proceedings mad to-morrow?
/RD CHUN JUSTIOR observed, that Sir James
night then open his case, as it would expedite

ion.
iCARLDTT expressed a wish that the plaintiff
rethe advantage of a Jery coming fresh into
n rder that due attention might be paid to
especiallyoftet the defendant bad-commenced
•••_ _ _ _

ftwreanns then said the Gentlemen of the
t attend -teomonow on the case could not finish
t, and they might es well close it at owe.
iCAOLSTT said he had not many witnesses to
it would be convenient to all parties to ad•

windings were eonseqwetly *dimmed at half
o'clock .oetil to-sorrow memos (this day).,
plaintiff's ease will be beard.
CoeFer and other eminent surgeons were in
be ezamined for tbe,plaintiff.
OF. COMMON %PLEAS, Waienntseaa, Dee.

VINCZN? -11. DAVIFIS MID ANOT*III.

ergesat Caou and • Mr. Sergeant Jones ap•
w the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant *rape and
;cant STCUIDUIS few the defendants.
was an action brought by the holder against the
is bill of exchange f0r.2001. dated io Deceits-
7, and made payable at the Bank of England,
inths after date. It was accepted by a person
ohn Cooke, sod was endorsed by Peter Finn,
in now under potence of death for fprgery.—
red that Fenn .bad got Cooke (the party who
eutly prosecuted him, on one of the indictments
cry, upon which be was convicted) to put hie
eto the bill heroic it had been drawn, and before
date or the sum for which it was to be drawn
ified ; the bill having. been thus Obtained was
I endorsed over to Jones, in whose hands it was
became due, which was in Marsh last. Before
e, however, Fenn bad been apprehended pn a
of forgery ; end when Coate was cod. on the
March. that .the. bill. in question accepted by
old become due- on the.following day. be de-
Mat it had been oftraised from him by fraud,
t be should not take it up.
..)kt the time that be
sis declaration, Davies, one of .tbe.defiendeota,
scent, the piliOtiff, were present 1 and OD Davies
ng to be much agitated. exclsimiogy..". Good
ere is another less of 41001." Vincent said, if it
be any accommodation to biro, be would take
bill, and held it until it would be more conve-
sr to pay. Davies appeared to.be very thank-
the offer, and immediatelyacyeoted it, promising
the plaintiff who hie dividends trots paid, which
be oft the sth of 41nil. These were the circum-
of the case as • stated by the plaintiff, .but the
of the cote turned upon a question raised by the
nit, of whether Vincent had not taken the bill up
Protection and benefit of Cooke, and .not upon
account? It would be proper to observe here,
e ease has been once.,before tried, and that a
was then returned for the plaintiff; but as the
ante had since been able to Collect, ovideoce
they th.ughc would be able to contaadict the
:e of Cooke, whom they accused of perjury, a
al was moved for and granted by the COWL-
Ise accordingly now came down foe a:second
tad to prove the plaintiff's case Cooke. wasagain
in the boa, when he stated that Fenn bad duped
idled him out of the bill in question, and that/e
•retore refused to pay it when it became due:
ivies, who was present, exclaimed," Good GOD I
another Inas of, MIT that Vincent, who was also
:Pitting Davies snuck distreued.proposed to take
I no for him, and that Davies, %banking him very
1. accepted his offer, and promised to pay.bios
sis dividends were paid phe also.stalede Outs&
rawly nor his another,whosirbusioesahe carriodoo,
bola-bars, had provided Vincent with any part of
to take up the bill ; but he admitted that he
i that day paid Vincent 1001. which be said was
kale of a debt which his soother bad contracted
Vincent. In addition tr. this, he said. ;bat as
"me -was at.she back of the bill, Davies was
is that it .aboald not. be. pretested as, she Rash of
"dr and it gird sbesafee-deteratiaed that Viaceni

should Meet Jones, b. !spider, at Garrawa7's coffet
house, and givishim the money for h there. la cross-ee-
arnination*Cooke snore that he had never seen Jones be-
fore this arrangement was made, and that he had never
methim at a meeting at the defendant's house in Plstn.
tree-street. Bloomsbury. He admitted that he had had
bill transactions with Fenn to the amount of 4,0001. or
5,00 W. but denied that he carried on the business at
Holborn•bars on his own account, although the account
at the Bank was kept in his name. He was not in the
habit of accepting bills in the manner that he had done
this, which, !simpered, he should not have done had
not Fenn worried and teased him to have done go, as-

swing bins that it was all quite tight, and that he had
nothing to fear. In the course of his examination,
Cooke prevaricated so much, and gave his evidence in
so abating a manner, that the Chief Justice more than
once warned him to be careful as to what he said. It

was not without much difficulty that the Learned
Counsel who cross-examined him could get distinct
answers to the questions he put to him. lie stated that
he always gave either cash or goods for Fenn's bills, and
that he did not receive them as an accommodation.

Proof of the presentation and di.hononr of the bill
was then given ; and that, with the evidence of Cooke,
constituted the plaintiff's case.
For the defendants, it was contended that Vincent, as
the attorney of Cooke, had taken up the bill for him,
and not for himself; and in proof of this it was stated,
that many of the identical notes with which Vincent had
'taken up the bill, would be proved to have been imme-
distely before in the hands of Cooke; for they had the
initials "J. C." at their back in his handwriting, and
would be traced from Jones, the person to whom they
were paid, to his banker, and from thence to the Bank of
England. It was admitted that Cooke had in some me*.
sure explained the manner in which the lOW. had been
paid to Vincent, and although that appeared very im-
probable, it might still be received as an explana-
tion ; but it was not upon the fact of that note's
having been in the hands of Cooke, immediaely before
it was used to take up the bill, that tt.e defendants rested
their me. It would be proved that there were seven'
31. notes also bearing the initials of Cooke, and which,
as they were since discovered to have been paid toJone•
in part payment of the bill, it was insisted most have
been given to Vincent by Cooke for that express pur-
pose, and that in fact the bill was taken up for Cooke,
and not for the purpose of affording any accommoda-
tion to the defendants. Another proof to show that
V ncent had taken it on Cooke's account was this:—

Fenn's endorsement was upon the bill, and he was there-
fore liable to Vincent if he was the real holder of the
bill; yet when the commission of bankruptcy was issued
against Fenn, Vincent swore before the Commissioners
that he had no claim upon his estate. Under these
circumstances, it was contended that a verdict must be
given for the defendants.
In support of this case Edward Jones was called, and
he swore most positively that he was present at the
meeting at which Cooke had sworn he had not, and
that he had even joined him and other persons in con-
versation, and was aware that an.arragement had been
m;de for Vincent tOmeet him at Garrey:ay'', for the
putposeof taking up the bill. Vincent did meet him,
and paid him a 1001. note, and 651. more in other notes.
and as he was not provided with more money at that
time, he (the witness) consented to take,an I 0 U for
the remaining-351. which was paid nn the following
day. The witness then stated that he had had many
bill transactions with Fenn, by whom he had now be-
come a great loser.
Thjawatness was cross?examined at great length with
tespectato. his own private affairs, but the facts elicited
did not tooch the real question in the cause.
Two cleaks from the Bulk of England proved that a
KV. note and seven 51. notes, the numbers of which
they described, were paid into the Bank of England on
the 87th of March. The 1001. note bad been paid out
on the day before.
A clerk from the banking-house of Sir Wm. Kay
and to. stated, that all the small notes had been paid
in the day before to Jones's account.
John Cooke was here.recalled, and after some hesita-
tion be admitted that the initials, "J. C." on the back
of each of these notes was in his handwriting; and he
then gave a very confused account of how they had
come into his possession, and hew he had patted with
them to Vincent.
Several other witnesses were then called, all of whom
confirmed the materiel part of Jones's evidence.
James Collard Davies, one of the defendant's sons,
stated, that Vincent did not proceed against them tot
payment of the bill, until after* their attorney had re-
fenati to concur in the pro,ecution of Fenn, when Vincent
said, .44 Theo I shall look to Davies and Northwood for
payment of the bill."
The whole of the evidence having been concluded.
The Loan Cllial 41111TICa summed up., and after
having remarked upon the nature of the action. told the
Jyry that the Simple questi,in for their consideratiost
was, whether Vincent had taken up the bill for the pro,
section of Cooke, or whether, as he alleged, he had
taken it up for the accommodation of Davies and
Not thwood ? If the Jury were of opinion that he bad
really taken it up for the latter purpose, they would
return their verdict for the plaintiff; but if they should
be of the former opinion, their verdict must be for the:
defendants. His Lordship then remarked upon the'
evidence of the witnesses on both sides, end observed;
that in his opinion Cooke certainly was not a witnue
of truth ; but that was wconsideration of the Jury, aad
they would say whether they could believe his evidence
when it was. flatly contradicted by a great many rif•
spectable witnesses on the part of the defendants.
The Jury deliberated for some time in the box; but'
being unable to come to a decision, his Lordship read
over the whole of bis notes of the evidence, repeating
his opinion that the testimony of the defendants' wit-
wises appeared to bins most worthy of credit.
TheJury..however, retired at half past nine o'clock,
Athiee,ase having been on just 12 hours), and did not re•
unusual a quarter past 12, when they gave a verdict
for the plaintiff.
CONSISTORY COURT, Dec. 15.
Dv LA SECIIa v. DC LA
This a suit fir a divorce, on the ground of adultery.
iThq pantie} separated in 1825, when a deed was drawn
op, by whichthe husband agreed to allow Mrs. de la
Bache a separate maintenance. Suspecting his wife
commitsed adultery, he caused inquiries to be set
pa foot. end theresult was that all doubt as to his wife's
guilt was removed from his mind. He then stopped
her maintenance.
,Mr. Dottie% on the part of Mrs. de la Beche, said
that he had looked into the clue, and felt that he could
not snccessfu,lly oppose the prayer of the husband.
The JuDot agreed in the view which the Learned.
Counsel had ;Alma the case. He had carefully read
shoisbek ad the depositions of the witnesses in support
be could par eatectain the slightest doubt. ut
y had evporitted adultery, The Learned
.
ptcatooncid 4,4scise Itopap!tion.

THE REV. HEAT DE CRESPIGNT.
- • ....Air--
711011 THE LIPMAN /41111 CUM '
A short time ago, the Earl of Plyaiouth received a
letter from his cousin, the Rev. Heaton C. de Creapignp,
desiring his Lordship to send.him, within a fortnight,
1,50Q1. Or the purpose of copping the publication of a
novel which libelled metal members of the Earl: fa-
mily; the letter also, it is said, contained threa!s, the
precise nature of which we are unacquainted
to extort money from his relative. A warrant for
the apprehension of Mr. De Crespigny No granted by
.Richard Norman, Esq. en Thursday the 4th instant,
and on Friday the Reverend Gentleman was con-
veyed from the Rectory of S:oke Doyle, near Oundle,
to Melton Mowbray, under the care of Mr. George
Owston, the Chief Constable of Leicester. He ss as that
evening taken before Mr. Norman, at Messrs. Latham's
office, and after examination was fully committed fir
trial at the next assizes for felony. A chaisi Was at the
door of the Bell and Swan Hotel, into which the consta.
ble and Mr. De Crespigny were about to enter, when
Mr. ar Crespigny took advantage of a favourable mo-
ment,and though several persons were near him, escaped.
He ran over the bridge leading to Leicestet ; butllll.o ws-
ton coming within tin yards of him, and threatenineto
shoot him. the pursued made a sudden turn to the left.
and got into Mr. Fryatt's field, which is surrounded by
water and the turnpike road : here he would have been
re-taken, had not the constable fallen in getting over the
fence; and mistaking. when he got on his legs again, a
horsefir Mr. De Crespigny, the latter *as enabled 10
reach the river, across which he swam. and; favoured by
thedarknessofthenight.got clear oir.Me.Owston returned
to Melon,and sent men in all directions in pursnit, but
nothing, could be hesrci of the fugitive. He then sit off
on horsetatk, cashed people up at Oakham and Upping-
, ham, and reached Mai ket H se borough about six o'clotk
on Saturday morning, where he heard that a Gentleman
answering the description of De Crespigny was at
.Lbss cid!, waiting for a chaise which he bad sent 1 it
irnm Harborough. Mr. 0 sstop thereupon himself or-
dered out a chaise, and re took his prisoner in bed at a
public-house in Kibworth. The latter remained for some
time, till his clothes{ were dried ; n 4 after being tefrelhed
he was at last safely lodged in Leicester county gaol. Mr.
Oeston had not taken the precaotion of handcuffing
his Reverend prisoner, ai it was de.iied that be sfanld
be treated with as much delicacy as a person in his
unintunate situation could be. It appears that Mr.
D. Crespigny was all night in the fields,' passed through
Queenstorough and Barkhy Brooks, and monnte4 a
coach near to Leicester. The coiitents ofthe threaten.
ing letter have not yet transpired. but we understand
that the letter has been submitted to eminent counsel.
who are of opinion that *the writer of it may be
criini-
nallf proceeded against 'tinder ;mot Mr Peel's late Acts.

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS.
Ye: terday the Adjourned Sessions was held before
Messrs. Aldermen ASSAM aud Kai, ,and the Re-
COHDRII. •
Mr. ADOLPHUS applied upon the put of Mr. Deacon,
the owner of the Colonial Coffee House, at the corner
of Fleet market, for a license for the sale Pt wine tit that
house, under the new Act for graniing licenses to
established hote s. This house had, the Learned Counsel
said, been long used as an hotel, but it was without a
wine license. An application was made' at a former
Sessions, and refused on mere technical grounds, but
that objection was now completely removed.
The RLCORDSR.,.4I, that the application must be
made to the Sessions held on a Special Gennal Licensing
day. An intermediate Session would not answer.
Mr. AvOt.raus said, that such iirgnaiient had not
been used before, and that licenses had been granted,
under the Hotel Act, in the intermediate. Sessional dal s.
Mr. SHILTON, upon being mimed stated that ti e
Learned Counsel's statement was borne out by the
practice of' t e Court.
Mr. Agoulius said, that when the previous applica-
tion wits made, it was stated that there was a want of
I recommendations from the inhabitants of the neigh.
bourhood. a want of Alderman-Waithinan's consent.
and a waat pf the consent of lire D..pety and Common
Coulcil. All these, deemed requ.site to enable the
applicant to retail wine, were now supplied.
Mr. George stated in evidence, that three or four
weeks ago he applied to the Alderman of the Ward,
for his, consent to a wine license for this hotel, under
the new Act. The Alderman said he could not corectly
sign such a consent, as he was a Member of the Court
to which the application was to be made, and might be
;,bliged to sit on the Bench at the time of decision. He
was told that his liinature was not wanted—his verbal
assent would do, or his statement of rejection. To this
he replied that he thought the whole trade ought to be
thrown open, and that every respectable house ought
to hate a license upon application. He gave a clear
consent in this instance.
Mr. Deacon confirmed Mr. George's statement. He
said that Mr. Mullet. the Deputy of the Ward, had
called upon him and espiessed his hopes that he would
obtain a license, advising him, at the same lime, to make
hay while the sun shone. The other Common Councilmen
also espressed their reedy assent.
The Recoanea said that the recommendation ought
to have been in writing, and with the'signature of the,
parties attached.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said they could not correctly give a
recommendation to that Court, which it would be their
public duty to superintend. All that was required -by
,lasi was a statement of any objection which they might
haieto the house.
The Ksoontosa said, that even a formal written con-
sent could not be concluiive with the Court. Not more
than three months intervened between the present time
and the licensing day ; and he for one saw no reason
for greeting the license before that time.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said his client was sustaining loss
daily from the restriction, and his customers were in-
convenienced greatly ; besides, the ensuing three months
were the busiest iii the year.
The liaconola Then it is most important that,
during that time, the Court should lake care to pro-
tect the public.
A recommendation was then_ put in, signed by a
number of the inhabitants of the Ward, testifying to the
respectability of Mr. Deacon's character, to the perfect
correctness of the manner in which the house bad been
hitherto conducted, and the utility of such a house in
the neighbourhood.
Mr. Sllll.lOll here said to the Recorder that there
appeared no proof that a written notice had been served
on the Aldermen and the Common Councilmen that the
license would be applied for on this very day, so as to
enable them to come and oppose it, if they should
think proper.
The Recount* at once saw the force of the objec-
tion, and repeated it.
Alderman AnaLes.....Mr. Alderman Waithman told
use, the other day; that be was for granting the license.
He certainly had notice.
Mr: ADOLPISUS said, that the Act only requjied. that
the Aldermen sad common,Coaacil 'hold bare ao•

gs&GoRDE* said that, without dou"t. makat
should have been twin in vri,in."
Mr. oLvuuls7-:Why. you' ear fLOM One lit; the
Ovid% thatlie Weird. Alderman Yaithman himself tic-
cli t that he hid notice of, the in which he
fully concurred. • What better evidr-nce could be se-
muiied ? The applicant applied fora license to the
Sessions held in August, and it was then found rut
that he curie without professional edvice, and he was
sent back to get ir. At. the September Szssions I e
Came with MO 'assistance, and it vas found that be
had not got recommendations from his neighbours, or
the authorities of the land, and be was again seat
back. Me came again at this Sessions with the recom-
mendations, and now he was told-that he should have
given a written notice, which the Act did not mention,
to those who had full pat ole notice, and were favourably
disposed towards him.
Alderman Kay said it appearei to him that the
notice given was sufficient. If the Aldermen or the
Common-Council intended to oppose the application,
they aught to have been present. As far as his opinion
went, he should be for granting the license. .* •
'The RECoRDIM said, he was not for dispensing with
the ordinari rule of. justice in such cases. Tilers were
four Aldermen in the Commission, and there must hate
been a Majority of votes to grant the license. Two *ere
wit sufficient—his vote war against it.
Mr. ADoLPHos said that the Act provided, that ally
two Magistrates Might 'grlnt the license. -•
The IttCoRDER—Vs. Hut that is out of Sessions.
Mr. ADILPHOs—Aye, but it makes ski difference if
11:e two Magistrates happen to be in Sessions at the time
they grant the license.
The Rac RDIR asked why the application was not
Made out Sessions?
Mr. ADOLPHUS.sAid, that his client was induced to
apply in the least objectionable manner, namely, pub-
licly ; when hieclaims /bight be Most openly discussed
and scrutinized. •

Ald. ANSLIY said, the applicant would have an op.
po.tunity of giving formal notice to AlJ.Wa.thman.
The license was then refused by the Court, but the
Aldiraien intim:aril their assent to the granting of the
license out cf S:ssion. .•

WINTER HOME CIRCUIT.
-
CHELMSFORD, Dac. 12.
BEFORE NIR:B‘RON VAUGHAN.
Michael Cashon ant John Brien were charged with
feloniously assaulting Whim Gra. &ill. at East Ham,
and forcibly t.sking 'front his person, against his will,
one watch and other articles, his property.
The prisoners, on being arraigned, pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN asked them whither they weft
aware of the consequence o. their plea? It would not
necessarily induce an evension of his Majesty's melt"
to them.
The prisoners said they knew they were guilty. and
therefore would not deny it. This was,.the fir t trite
they had committed any offence.
?dr. CLARK then asked whether it was his Lordship's
pleasure that their plea should be recorded ?
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN again %smiled them of the effect
of their plea, and they suit continuing to insist on plead-
ing guilty, directed theii pie s to be received. In order
to determine what course ought to be pursued with
respect to them, his Lordship desired that the prosecu-
tor should be placed in the witness box.
Mr. Greenhill, a very fine old man, above 72 years
old, then appeareJ. He st .ted that the prisoners were
two of about 70 Irishmen *horn he employed on his
farm, at Eat Ham. On the nik,ht of the sth of Nov.
about harpast five o'cl.,ck, he was going away irom
ilia house down a frivate footpath. when the two pri.
toilers suddenly 'tasted out r f a ditch on the other side
Of a hedge near him, in which there was a gap. Alarmed
at this unexpected appearance, he asked them did
they want to rob or run him by their lurking there
aft's° unseasonable an hour, and in such an unusual
place? He was instantly answered by a shower of
brick bats and stones from the prisoners; and almost
immediately' after ' they. sprang over the kedge;
Brien with a huge cuJgel felled Mr. Greenhill to
4.13 e ground, and Cashon s t on his head. The ran
of the blow on the head was, the taring off the scalp
Of the skull. Mr. Greenhill was quite deluged in his
,own blood; and while he was lying pro irate, Cashon
took out his gold with fr m his lob ; he then ran
away, leaving the unhappy m n in this dreadful state.
With great difficulty tt e prosecutor managed to crawl
(home; and although medical assistance was forthwith
obtained, his 1 fe was for a long time in great peril.
Mr. B iron Vaucinax here aedressed the prisoners,
and told them that from this evkence, there was nothing
which could authorise him to make amy favourable re-
presentation to his Majesty of their cases ; and therefore
he advised them to ithdraw their pleas of guilty.—
They might thus avail themselves of any advantage the
law afforded them, from defective proof of identity or
other citcnmstances. •

•-•

The prisoners said they would leave it tohis Lordship.
His Lordship advised them again to withdraw their
pleas. They, however, still persisted in pleading Gay.
Mr. Bunn VACOHAN then said, that afttr these re-
peated warnings the pleas might be recorded.
A witness; an Irishman, was then examined, who
proved that he had overheard the pi isonets tonversing,
in Irish, on the lowness'of the wages they received from
their employer, and Brien said he would have the worth
of his wages—be would have his watch.
. A pawnbroker from Bristol produced the watch of
the prosecutor, which had been pledged with him by
the prisoners.
An officer produced the hat of the prosecutor, which
was found on the head if one of the prisoners.
The prosecutor identified the two articles as his
property.
The prisoners on being asked what they had to urge
against the passing of sentence of D:ath on them, said
they had nothing to urge—threw themselves on their
knees, and with uplifted hands and streaming eyes, im-
plored the mercy of the Court.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN, who seemed deeply affected by
the situation of the unfortunate men, observed, that no
mercy could be shown them. He depicted wi.h great
eloquence and feeling the conduct of which they had
been guilty. It only remained for him to pass the awful
sentence of the law ; but before he did so, he besought
them most earnestly to make every use of the spiritual
assistance which would be afforded them, to pray foe
that mercy in another place which must be denied them
here.—The prisoners were then removed from the bar.
William Brooks was indicted, under the 7th and Bth
George IV. c. 29, s. 96, for stealing oysters, oystede
brood,
.and.spot, from certain oyster layinp in as atm
of the 'river Crouch, in this county.
The prosecutor was the renter of certain oyster lay.
ings in tkie Crouch ; and hawing some suspicion of the
prisoner; be wattbed him. Oa the 6th of November

. ..
tick; ilk 40. yoydb thlit thel sboldra kellydrir
of the) intended Application. . Thie-iri 9cit:ittitierti dist
they bad. knowledge of it. Had the Act intended tile
written notice Walla be given, that wlnild haws imiica
speCified.
thi RIECORDER said that, without doOt. the =tie*
~..