Star.
London, England, 1827-11-08 00:00:00

BARER V. IigNDIESON.

Mr. WsKaitaco, at the siting of the Court, made
an application which he confes.ed was of a somewhat
singular, and, he believed, altogether of a novel minim..
The Court knew that it was the practice in the courts
of common law to permit the persons confined in the
several prisons of those courts to have day rules, by
which they were permitted to go oot of confinement
for the purpose of attending to their affairs during the
term. He now applied for*the defendant is this suit. who
had been committed to the Fleet raison for a contempt
of the Court in not paying a sum of money which he
hasibeen ordered to pay, that he might have a similar
privilege extended.to him. The Court would observe
that the prisoner's only cause of detention was the non-
payment of money. He was therefore merely in the
light of a debtor, and the permission which he solicited
was enjoyed by all other debtors in the realm. The
Counsel therefore submitted to the Court that for these
reasons, and because the Legislature, by the Bankrupt
and the Insolvent Debtors' Acts, had provided for the
release of persons committed by the Court only for the
non-payment of money, there could be no reason why
day rules should not be granted to him. -
The LORD CHANCELLOR a.ked if a similar applies-
lion had been before made? •

•Mr. WAICEPItija believed not. He, however,. sub•
mitted that as the rule in the courts of common law
was of their own creation, it was as much within the
power as it was consistent with the principles on which
this Court usually acted. It would also be observed,
that the case of the defendant was one of peculiar hard.
ship, for if be were detained by any creditor upon the
process of a common Law Court, he would be entitled
to the privilege which he now sought, and of which he
was, in fact. deprived, because he owed no debt, nor
bad any claim against him, but that which arose under
the order of the Court.

HiS LORDSHIP said. he would inquire into the foun-
dation of the practice of the Court, and mention the
matter at some future day.

JONES V. &MM.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case.
He said that it appeared that the plaintiff had sold an
estate to Vie defendant, and entered into an agreement
that he would, within four months then next, deliver
a sufficient abstract of his title, and he undertook at the
same time that he would, before November, 1821, well
and effectu illy convey the property to the vendee. The
abstract was not delivered within the time specified. and
soon afterwards the bill-in the -present suit was filed.—
A reference was decreed to the Muter for the purpose
of inquiring at what period the Tender first skewed that
be could make a good title; The Master 'reported that
this had been first shewn in 1827,—six years' after the
period at which he had undertaken to convey. The old
rule in respect to sales of property was, that from the
period of the contract the thing sold was the vendee s,
and the purchase money belonged to the vender. it
was a consequence of this rule, that all interest upon
the purchase money belonged also to the veniier. It
was said that the Vice Chancellor had' overruled this
doctrine, and had decided that interest was' payable to
the vender only from the day on which the contract
was completed. His Lordship had looked at the case
of I. Esdaile and Stephenson," which was alluded to; and
he found that the Vice Chancellor had by no means
laid down so general a rule as was suggested. He had
said, that when it appeared satisfactorily that the delay
had been wilfully occasioned by the vender, then be
should not be allowed interest but from the time at
which he completed his contract. Such a decision ap-
peared to his Lordship to be perfectly sound end jut.
To decide otherwise would be to permit a vender 'to
avail himself of his own wrong doing. The blame in
this case was clearly imputable to the vender, who did
net show a title until six years after he had undertaken
to do so. The Vice Chancellor's judgment appeared to
be quite correct, and the plaintiff must not have interest
'en the purchase money until he had shewn that he could
make a good title.

BROWN AND DR TASTRT.
The LORD CHANCILLOR. said he had considered the
affidavits made in this case, and particularly that of
Mr. Lowe, and he was convinced there were no grounds
whatever for the application which had been made. It
must therefore be dismissed, with costs to be paid sp.
Mr. Pe Taster: Mr. Lowe's affidavit stated that On
the Saturday previous to the Monday on which Used
Eldon resigned the seals, he had an interview with his
Lordship, in which his Lordship proposed to give his
judgment in this matter. Mr. Lowe stated that he then
refused to acquiesce in an order that Was made any
where but in Court. He then went on to insinuate that
no Court was held by Lord Eldon tilt* thatthat day-411h11
therefore the order, it made by Lord Masi at all, was
made after he had resigned the seals, and cerisseqoently
was no order still. It emissary to repel such
a calumny on behalf of- the Noble Lord against wlsons
it way limed, but he (the Lord Chancellor) knew bro-
yond all doubt that the judgment in questioe was given
befote the seals were resigned by the Lard Chancirikr
who pronounced it.

HART AND HART. • • ='•
The arguments in this ease were resumed brefr.
Hotta; who was followed by Mr. Rom.m.r., on beinlf
of the defehdant.

Mr. HEALD. Mr. BICILEASTETE, and Mr...krionitisoar,
were heard for the plaintiff, and Mr. Holm; in reply.
The Court having sate till. five o'clock, then rose, pad
the judgment was postponed.
VICE CHA'

This was a case
an account against
latter was ordered
ledger, and certain
the real state of

'silty with this ort
were brought into
made by a aria.

,NCELLOWS COUlT;:liovogus 1. j
JAMIESON V. named.
ise in whieh the plaimdf filed a bill for •
nst his partner, the defendant, and the
red to bring into Court a easte,bank,
taro other books, in order to eltstiikte
'
the partnership aetounts. Ip• erui(dr. #.
orderi book, of the above deteriptien
no Court. Then them was ailiSetei
Batt daughterof lb' • •
• .

f'

t was sworn that the books-brought into Court by the
defendant were not genuine. They contained many
erasures and intierlineations; which she was enabled to
detect froni baring. been _the. person who kept her fa.
ther's books. The affidavit also stated that one of the
hooks, or a part of it.*as composed of paper, the water
•"frocrlc of which bore the datelof 1824, while, in fact, all
the concerns of•the partnership ceased in 1821 and
1822. Upon this affidavit an attachment issued against
• 'the defendant.
Mr. SUODICH now moved that the attachment shou3d
to removed. He did not mean at that time to-enter,
into the merits of the case.' He had 'alormal objectich be had no doubt the Court would con iwhichn
I
to take, w
der fatal to the continuance of the attachment. 11 s.
Best's affidavit was sworn on the 13th of October; and
.in this affidavit she swore that the examination which.
she made of the books took place on the 31st of Octo-
ber—that was to say, that she exair•ined the books, after'
she had made her affidavit respecting the nature and
content, of them. The affidavit, therefore, was upon
the face of it untrue; and if an attachment had' issued,
upon such an affidavit, it ought not to continue after''
Ois defect in the affidavit was pointed out to the Courr.j
• Mr. MEAL!), cn the other side, contended trust no
Court of Equity. would allow such an advantage to be
taken rf an evident mistake—an error, rrobably, of the
transcriber of Mrs. Best's affidavit. Mrs. Best examined
the books on the 31st of August, and by an unfortunate
error somewhere the word October hadbeen written in
. the a ffi iavit instead of August. He was quite sure that
the Curt would not reject the whole
,of an affidavit,
especially an affidavit charging such glass fraud both
on the Court and on the plaintiff; ou account of a mere

clerical error.
The VICA•CHANCIILLOR thought the objection fatal,l
• The jealousy with which any infringement on the li-
berty of the subject had .alvrays.heen contemplated by
• all Courts, both of Law and Equly, was notorious.
For his own part,.he should eertainly never have issued
an attachment, and he therefore found himself corn-
• pelted to remove it. lie did not mean to insinuate any
,thing like moral guilt against Mu. Bed. The fact on
:.which the objection had been taken might, and proba-
-: bly was, a mistake; but when so serious a consequence
'tits an attachment resulted from an affidavit, the person
making such affidavit ought to be very careful what het
-ideposed, and ought not to be protected if he made any'
_Mistakes.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, %snarl's's, Nov. 1.
NEWMAN V. SMITH AND OTHERS.
Mr. Ma RRYATT moved for a Sale, clang upon the
plaintiff to shew cause why the, verdict should not be
set aside and a uew• trial hid; itison• threeigrounds,—
rnisdicection of the Learned Judge,..the rejection of
important evidence dieted on the part dile defendants,
and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.
The Learned Counsel, in support of his motion, stated,
that this was an action of trespass, tiied at the last
Assizes for Sussei before Mr. Justice Gaselee. The de.
Pendant pleaded liberum tenementum, and the question
in issue between the parties was, whether the locus. in
quo was Public or private property: On the part of the
defend ints, who had given evidence of various acts o:
occupation by the public, such as the place haring been,
used by blacksmiths fur the ptirpose of shoeing unruly
horses, a witness was called, avid-be having upon his'
examination on the •ooir'dire admitted that he had a
wager of ss. upon' the result of the cause, his evidence
was rejected by the Learned Judge, and a verdict was
found for the plaintiff', plincipay in consequence of
the rejection of the evidence of t!.is witness. He (Mr.
Marryatt) was prepared with authorities to shew that
the slight interest which this witness might be supposed
to have was not sufficient to render his evidence inad-
missible.'
Lord TENTVIIDEN—Take a Role to shew eau*.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

M

THE SING V THE REV. JAMES ROBERTS.
Mr. Gi maims moved for a rule, calling upon the
defendant, who is a Justice of the Peace for the county
of Wan wick, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him for having oppressively,
corruptly, and unlawfully, exercised his authorityot
Magistrate ?
Prom the aflidavit,s of the prosecutor, John Mason,
and other persons, it appeared that about seven o'clock
in the evening of the NA of August last, the prosecu-
tor, who is, a an in a humble, station in life, was ap-
prehended upon two warrants granted against him by
the defendant. The warrants directed the constable
therein named to bring the body, of Mason before the
defendant, to answer two charges preferred against him
by two.persons named Joyce and King—namely, that
tie prosecutor's dog had
.killed some turkies, the pro-
petty of Joyce and King. The prosecutor was kept in
custody all night, and on the icill.)!ving morning he was
taken to the defendant's house at Hai tshill, where he
saw the defendant, who told him that he must pay
Prthwith to Joyce and King the sum of 31. 1.2, fur
the turkies which his dog had killed. Masan said that
he knew nothing about• the .transaction, and 'bat; he
should not pay the money unless Joyce. and /Pug:
would produce the turkies and witnesses to prove filet.
his dog had killed them. The defendant then oak'
the depositions of Joyce and King, and of King's
daughter ; but in neither of those depositions was
it stated that Mason was present when his dog
killed the turkies, and he in his affidavit stated posi-
Aisely that he did not .know his dog had killed the
turkies, that he was nivtpresent when they were killed,
and that he was not in any way privy to the transac-
tion, The depositions having been signed, the d fend-
ant threatened to send Mason to gaol if he could not
find meet es for his .appearance at the Sessions ; and
Mason having tendered sureties, his recognizances to
the amount of WE and two sureties in 101' each, were
entered intoliss his appearance to answer those charges
at the Sessions. Mason asked the defendant to give him in
writing a statement of the charges preferred against him;
but the defendant refust d to do so, and said" You will
not want it, you will make it up before the Sessions. I
shall take the recognizances in my pocket to War-
wick." Mason a..ked the defendant it there was
any thing to be paid? and the defendant replied,
" Yes, eight gam" Mason said; " That is too
much, will not 4s. be enough?" To which the defend-
ant repl'ed, " Bs. is the money, and I shall take nothing
less." Mason thin paid the defendant Bs. and the com-
plainants, Joyce and King, paid him 175., There was
no clerk in the room, nor did the defendant say that the
money.which he demanded, and which he actually put
„ .

into his pOtket, was for clerks' fees. The charges-Car
ing been ibbillispoted of, Mr.ltoberts told Mason that
an iiiforMation had been lodged against him, by King,
under the statute of Anne, for keeping a lurcher ( lie
dog in question). arid employing him to kill and
defray' game. Mason denied that the dog- was a
hurl er. and that he was never employed to kill games
Llsiit tie wii returned to the tax gathesei as a house d,,g,
anal std for accordingly, and that he (Mason) could
bring forward witnesses to prove those facu if time we; e
ankired him, but that the summons was not served
OR kcal until the preiious evenings when he was takes)

• • I
into custody:and that he therefore had not an opp
tunity of seeing the man who bred the dog. - The
fendaut refu2ed. to alloW any ,time, and called' ui
Vlasop to answer the clt lige forthwith. A person 'flan
Ball was then tzamined in support of the inlormati

and he stated that he believed he dog was a

.
and that hetuuhl brine torwursi a man who could swear
that he had.seen the. dog run afrer a hare. Upon tbis
evidence' the defendant convicted Mason. He (Mr.
Goulburn) had the affidavit of the man who bred the
t_
dog, and he swore distinctly that the dog was not:a
lureler, and that the sire Will a terrier and the moth r
a turnspit:-.(A laugh). He had also the affidavit of
Lord TialTgaDßN—Yom have stated enough. fa e
a rule! HARFUR O. LUTFICIN. .

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is al
farmer in Essex. to tecovcr from the defendant, who is
also a farmer in that county, compensation in damages
for the loss of the services ()this (plaintiff's) daughter,
whom the defendant had seduced and lot with child.l
Tile cause was tried before Mr. Justice Gaseler at the
last Assizes at Chelmsford, when it appeared that the
pla'ntiff's daughter was a married woman, the mother
of three children, and was at the time of the seduction
living separate from her husband in the house of het
father, to whom she acted in the capacity of servan'.—
Tne Learned Judge in slimming up tol.i the Jut y tha•
in his opinion the plaint ff was entitled tu a verdict, ...mil
the Jury accordingly found a verdict far the plaintiff Damages 101.
Mr. JESSOPP this day moved for a Rele;ealling upon'
the plaintiff to shew cause why the verdict should not
be set aside and a nonsuit entered. He submitted that
the plaintiff could not, maintain this action, inasmuch
as the plaintiff's daughter being a married woman. the
'elation of niatterand seryant eoulid not sulisist bets. eert
her and her lather. 'DM Leartied fiounsels in support
of his motion, relied noon eieitae of " Iriv:n v. Dear•
man," 11 East, page 23.
Lord Tastraattax7-Did k appear that the plaintiff
paid wages to his daughter ? '
Mr. JESSOPP—Yes, my Lott] rand 1 admit that the
plaintiff sup/sorted his . daughter's chilJren ; but there
wine not any articles of sepatation between this woman
and her ha .band—they certainly were living separate by
mutual consent.

------ -
Mr. Justice BAYLRY—Did she do any acts of service
for her father ?

. Mr. Jrascre— Yts, my Loyd.
Their Lordships haring consulted together for a
short lime,

Lord Tairritanesi—,-The only vestion here is, is th;s
action maintainable? • l'here ase many cases Su which
married women ate actutllly hired as servants at
stated wages, with the consent of their husband,. The
relation of master and servant may .certainly sub,ist
between a married w.,man and her lather, subject, how-
e►er, to be put an end to-by the husband whenever he
should think fit.becausc thecontract entered into by the
a ife is not binding upon the husband ; bat I• think iris
not competent for a third party, a wrong doer, toasty
that the relation of master and servant, which in this.
case existed in fact, cannot exist• in law... Rule refused,

TADDY B. BARLOW.
This was an action brought by • the plaintiff, a•little
gill about nine' years of age, to mover from the de-
fendant compensation in •damages for the injury sus-
tained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the defendant
having instituted a malicious prosecution against th.f
plaintiff, upon a charge of steam some ducks, the
property of the plaintiff. The case was tried at the last
Assizes for Stafford, before Mr. Baron Vaughan, when
a verdict was found for the plaintiff :Damages 1001,

. .
Mr. TALYAIIRD this day movers .for a rule calling
upon the plisintrff to show Oto*lo4 the verdict should
not be set asidr, and n'ireo.siil had,' Or a stet processus
entered,'opon the followisig.groutrds O.:First, that the
damage, were excessive ; seloddlf, Brit evideste which
had been improperly. obtained 'by the plaint'ff's actor.
trey had been received; and thirdly, that crideoce of
the dtfendant's conduct towards'a period not a party
to this action, had been improperly admitted. by the
Learned:fudge. Theptaintiffsattntney obtaineorfrorn the
Court of Quarte? Seorions*a Copy oldie record'Of the ac-
quittal f the plaintiff, for the existent purpo.e of using'it
upon the trial of a criminafinformation granted by this
Court, against-the defendant and a Magistrate named
Broughton, for their conduct towards tl:e plaintiff and
her brother; and thii record was received, and he (Mr.
Talfourd) submitted improperly received, in evidence
by. the Learned Judge, upon the trial of-this action.
He also submitted that the Learned Judge had impro-
perly received evidence of the defendant's c.indaet to-
wards the brvithernithe plaintiff. This Court lia also
granted a criminal hoot:oration against the deltn.iant
for the conduct which wa . the foundation of Cis action,
and there could le rai d.ruht chit, if, when this action
was brought, an application lard been .made to this
Court, it.would order the proceedings ttrbe stayed.
hlr Justice BATLEY—NO, that dues hot fol:ow ; the
Court w, old prob;thly have. if such autiptalication had
been made, comeelled the plaintiff to *lce an etection
between the criminal and the'civel priveeedink. Th'does
not appear that the rule for a crirninatinfertmatibilfBas
been followed up by a prosecution. •4".• _ • •
Mr. TA LFOLATO subniiited that the plaintiff. 'brittifts
tuting the criminal proceeding, blaiiaved her righivk
bringing an action pending•strch erhbinal proceeding.
In support of this latter argirrneni; the Learned Coen-
sel'cited the cases of the 4, King v. Fielding,"2 Her—
row, 720, and the King v. Sparrow." The plaintiff
had suf&rt d only nine days' imprisonmenti and thane-
fore the damages, 1004 must be considered excessive.
Upon thcbe ground. he submittrd that the Rule should
be granted in one of the shapes prayed for. -
Their Lordships having consulted together for a
short time;

Lord TiNTERDEN—I am not prepared to say that the
evidence was improperly received ; one piece of evidence
went to !hew what the conduct of the defendant was,
and that his object wit% to make the children say that
they were encouraged by their parents toga! the dtaki.
That object was oats ful ; and rcatusos say ihst
tience which went to thew that' the conduct of the de-

fendant thrpoghout was influenced by unlawful
'mo-
tives wai impropeily4 received. With' respect 'to the
other pieces of evidence. there eanbe no dotlbt that the
learned Judge acteJ right in' edrisittini(the reeord of
the acquittal to be received Its' evidence?, In Str.airge!S
Reports, there is*" case in:whleh appears that t:+o
persons were tr ied and acquitted:• The Cduit OrJeted
copy of the record to be eiesito 'one 'or.thein, and the
other per son ve.is' parrs tdpermitted; upori the • tr
of a civil action:to put in that c Wei
cannot sty. beciOse .the opjattorney. bad
properly obtained a coiyof,lhe reeisi4sshich when
btained and in, co ) urt vresbitiOperli reeelVfd in evi• I
deuce, that we ought,lo grant thiii respect
to theamouitt of dantageski adapt that.titaf.is a vet-
, tiOn for 'be coosideration Of die Cagle; ta. Ought-
when we feel satis6ed that the • defendant has been 11
guilty of gross misconduct, to disturb this verdiet, add
to send the parties to anew trial, because the jury has
given rkther larger damages than we probably Would

h

As-
- • .

•
have given, lir tlst wart to assess the aaltges ? I thi4t
we ought lilt to do so:
Justice Ravt.stia-44 aviaterge IA to the
defendant's enOuct.tcpysf (4' the bp* wAtk prot.e, I y re-
ceived, because it.vrent tp?hore that the drflotlant did
not act for the purposes-o( ititticeAubtik.,aodo welds&
against the whole refussA•
• •
URT .C.Q,4N10---isl tIOCINe— I Le.
. CO .
' • • •
Yesterday a Court of•Cothilson CoOnts, was held, io
endeavour to come to some arrin-gensenrwith respect
tts the city police bi 11... • • • • • • .r•
The scene that whir place walonenftheireatest con.-
fusion. On the fotnner inert day, some tie most
important clauses in the bill—those which were consi•
dered by the advocates of Ole new system is calcula•ed
to effect a complete and effectual-inapeovenient in the.
whole plan-a-were rejected, 4,nd several members ad
vise) Alderman Venable§ to withdraw the bill alt Te-
ther, rash r than to attempt to pass it in so wretched
and mutilated- a condition. • •
Alderman VENABLEB said, that he *did not think it at
all inctimbent upon him OT iteCrs,..ty to withdiaw the
measure. Ile, however, hoped that the b• 11 wt-ttld be
no longer considered as tine or his malting. In Wing-
ing lot ward a measure for the insist ose.rient of the .pre-
sent system, he bad dote %slim It! constd-r ii to be 1 i
duty. The opposers of the bill ilia disappr• red 1.1
those exettioto., and ett:irely tlelt'ated his object. In•
deed, he consi.'ered the measure now of sods bile im
portance, thatit was by mere accideat lee mattered the
Court.
Atter a great deal of noisy livrik, wh:ch-tentin teJ u•
of former periods, When the most .boitteiols otatort
used to exercise their lungs to tile lere.st atmoyance 01
, those I &mid the bar, the members ditcus:ed the •tibject
of a:lowinx wa;clthates.. An sinehdlneigt w 4, moved
that -helical authorities ul the..llactent watt', shinti,l
have potter to regulate whether tisere should or s:eould,
not be watclib.oxes.
Mr. DI tOtil Said, that perhapsit would be ativi-ablstO
'duet a osi.idle course, And supply the watchnies with
sentry boxes. • .
Foe the abolition of the toles,
Fur the amendment,
Majotity,

- 57
' 37
-- 20

The other clauses s-• ere aAteeJ tii. The bill was
.hen puled, and ibe:Couit.a.ijournesl:•

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

.1 MANSION. HOUSH.

Yesterday* men Darned James Bell was charged before die Loan
Maros under rather susp.ciout circuntstantes. A silvermlith iu
Leadenhall.street deposed, that on Tuesday the prisoner offered to
him for sale a large 'silver salver, the marks upon which had been
deface d. • Witnessorpon questioning him span the subject, found
that there had been engraven upon it a coat of arms. The prisoner
was searched, and upon hint were found two silver fish forks. The
prisoner said that be was requested by a man to sell the articles.—
Be was remanded.

GUI LDIFI ALL. . .
Mt. Tsoutel again appeared yesterday merning before Sir .Juus
Pinang°, the Sitting Alderman,. attended by Mr. Adolphus and
lii. Clarkson, and Mr. firmer, as 'his solicitor. Mr. Armstrong
stated that be bad spoken to: a professional Gentleman, 'who was
'not able then
.to attend, and that he .till expected to be able t. bring
forward some further. evidence ; he .therefore .wisbed the case to
stand over until tn-morrow. After some argument, at the sugges-
tion of Mr. Adolphus, it was agreed that the Defendant should
appear again whenever he should receive two or three days' notice,
and enter into his own recognisance to do so. The skopman was
discharged.

- - -
BOW-STREF:T.
A young man of tither gentlemanly address, bet whose coat
and minters bore evident Marks of a receut•roll hi tie mud, was
placed at the bar under the following whimsical eiramsetance*:
JOllll Gallway stated,, that he was brother to Mr. George
Gallway, of York•street, Covent-garden, who trades in his\
whisky. On Tuesday evening; -about seven o'cloek, he was in his
brother's shop, when the prisoner, whom heluainever Men to his
knowledge before, came log and asked to•ice owne.seroples of Irish
whisky. A few .aamples were accordingly sea before bin, he
ordered three gallons of a particular description to be sent to the re
silence of Thomas Spitnre Eaq. of Biker-street; Portman-
square ; and from what he salt 4, the witness believed hint to be
that person. The priisoner,afseroume farther conversation its which
be mentioned the li:sines-of several distingpishr4persons, w hose par-
tiality for Irish whisky, he said, was equal to his own,requested leave
to go into the Parkisir, and asked the witness to oblige him with
tome whisky and a little cold water, adding, "I Wish to try the
flavour of your whisky. lost it would not be dedorous, you know,
for a man In my station to be seen drinking in a shop." The wit-
ness complied wi:b this request, introduced the prisonerto the par-
lour, and provided him with about a pint and a half of rasp•
berry whisky in a bottle, sit& some cold water and sugar.
One or two Gentlemen then came into the shop, and the wit.
n.ss went to serve them. On returning to the parlour:in about
a quarter of an hour, he saw the prieutier sitting on a couch looking
very stupid and queer. Suspecting the cause, and yet hardly crediting
his senses, he turned his eye to the whisky bottle, and saw that it
contained a vet y small quantity iedeed, although when he left it
with the.prisoner it was nearly full. Tne prisoner rose up as well
as he was able, stammered out something in praise of thewhisky,
and promised to draw a large connssion to his brother's shop. He,
again mentioned the nettle of several high personages with whom
he was quite famitur, and observed that •he "eat sure hi; cousin,
Sir John Burke, who was particularly attached to Irish whisky
whenever he could get the genuine article, would order ten gallons
at least for hie private drinking. The prisoner said his own name
was Thomas Spring Rice, and added, they have made me Under
Secretary of Site lately much against my will I assure you. The
witness conc:uded by stating, that. he scarcely knew what to do. He
believed the prisoner to be the Personwhose name he had assumed,
and yet was puzzled to actoont fel"b•haviour so strange and tin-
, dignified. Hi; brother fortunate.," come lit shortly after.
• • ; Mr. Geor,ge. Gallway. Waterdoeltat be knew of the transaca
tion, andonecaSioned considerably merriment by the droll manner
„hit which he gave his evidence. " Please your Worship," said he,
came into the shop last sight about eight o'clock, and as soon as
I:did, my brother here pulled use one aide, and told mein a whisper,
that Air. Spring Rice, the Under,Seeresary of State, was in the par.
Idur dead drunk.--Loticl laughter). My brother declared he had
drank nearly a pint and a half qieltliky, and be did nut know what
on earth to do with him. I waif:very much surprised at this, your
Worship, as I thought. Mr. Rice eves quite auother sort of a per-
son, and so I took off my bat out of reweet to his rank, to be sure,
and went into the parlour, where Lsaw.a Gentleman sitting on the
sofa, looking very queer Certainly. lie came over to me as well as be
could, shook me by the band, and sald; " Vali! how do you du? You
know rue, !suppose? lam Mr. T. S. Rice, Under Secretary of State
lair :he liontejkiartmetit. I skill pattooineyour houses sod shAli
teen very hippy hi helping you to dispose of your whisky'—(lte.
newed lauibter, iii which the bench was foiCid to jOlll.l Ile then
said a -great many strange things, and, aft-a:sunning' on for some
momems, he suddenly stopped short and asked me what he had
been saying? There 11/116• a gentleman in the shop who was per-
sonally acquainted with Mr. like, and as I.beigau. to feel some
doubts that the jirisorter's accouni of himself was correct, I re-
quested this gentleman to take notice of the person tit the prisoner
as he passed through the shop on his way to the oreet. The gen-
tkutan, however, declined doing eo„and turned his head soother
way, saying—, I don't wish Mr. la:cr should think I saw Ilan in
sueb Sheaf:ion; it might' hurt his feelings'—(hosts of laughter.)—
coucluded by stating, that just ai the pirisoder reached
the street the sank-man in the shop caught a glimpse of his per-
WO, and deo:aril at once that he was not •Alr. Rice; " upon hear
,tog which." said the whites*, " I calkd the watch toot gave .the
.prisoner into custody. asked him if his name was Ricci but he
denied lc, and said his name 'was Martin."
-• Mo. IfALLII asited• if any inquiry-bad been made respecting the
vintner at 26, Baker-street ?
• Mc.Gailwar replied that he bad been to the house, and saw two
ffiusfea, who told him that Mr. Rice had left there about three
weekk agile "lifir said the; knew no pehoitof the name-Of alai tin.
Mr. Haaaraolted the prisoner. who' seentelis hardly recovered
from the effects of his potation, what he, had to say for himself;
" but his, what is your harne,Siald'the Nlacistrate? '
•. The prisoner replied; that his•none was Patrick lienry•Martio.
r• ji i+S". what business or profession we yeas?. , .
, rlsunrr am in no trade or kurtoess; lam a, ptivare Gentle
-man. fee added, that he was 'natve of gild 'had Leon
in London for tho fait two' years, and ha Ilhd uu‘i 1u Tueltfielel-
street. Oatordaseeret.
ineler_ata-1
haWvehantolereoueuiughiotyonou
wtokatbmvis
rroar
b:siu.silkseptimlraien
antighatli?.,
I am wiling to Pay for any thing Ilia* liad: 'I
ant hicapabt: e'

Dublin
W.terf .rd

& .
awoke, sod had se interttoo

.„ Mr, star.s.u.s— You are of no professing, you
" I am a private Gentkman.
were trade;aniljasve ptepertp in the West Indies
1,0.1, is proved ia en idence. that you
ilsinrsoe's shop, and emitted three gal:ous of
of aMortemart with whom it .irpeors you have ma-
'owes Yaw wheat drunk, salted. vitriol
antr there is reason to support that yaw '
Ci.7r iris elsewhere, I shall feel it any duty
,giptisorrosir,
. ,The prisoner was then removed. Ile appeared
die mailer as a joke ; bat he grew suddenly very
kg abuss,l be remanded fax another esanaisatiem.
tiArroN GARDEN.
reit. iinadesu, WM. Jones, aoJ Jan idle; were
Cattiness, ante and gilder, with entering his shop
fflee.key, and stealing a large pier -glans and an nil r
was vp stairs at dinner.—lleminded till Friday.
Jams, Mercnif wt.s charged by -Mr. I itiyard, a watch 4r srirS
nut ramming la snosiesi-boa and a chrettanteter, entrant.;
to repair aloirst three yearn ago. Pt Sauna' a-id ise had paw
—Contact sed for two moetiess •

•
• QUERN. SQL/ Alit
'bawd alias Pro, and Jaws ficees, were clanged of
su.picion of Mr. George Whitroc, of Suf. In Beat
Wiliam is upwards of rin years old. lie is, ar Alku kat
iif the female, whom be eonetantly visits cad treats with gia, 94
Tuesday afro room he called at her lodgings in Pie street, St •
grouted, and after leaving her missed his pocket &Sok, whiehheisa
placed netre. n the bed and ttedstesal.hur which Or forgot infester,
l).1 his return the two pries: ens were foutidte;ethee locked is
foie', but the be nor its COUtent., which consisted of
aril two td. note,, were net us be Inured. The minaters prated
their intwee nee ; the female .ald, Whitrce had no ,macs,
aedbsy
rimed is. lid. of her landlady to buy gin. She said that he
' given bet a hoed for 2,90C1. to merry her. They were *
reaaanded.• ' • • •
. • .E • . fiIARLIIO.ICOUGH,STRFET.A
woman, named Mary Cot ins, was yesterday Alpo,' wk
stealitita gold watch, &.c. under the following clrcutes:aneco.
It appeared that, some days ago,* Lady went into a !in,edraw,
shnp in Ilegent-street, and ;eft her reticule, euntainieg Leer%
motley, atid her gold watch, no one end of the cloister, Mt* the
went to the other to loot over some goods she was ohms w po.
Mare, but on her return she kunst that they had dieapp.erig;
I landbills were printed, offet ing a rewaid'of La for the riteOfery
the watch, and information of the liiss of the popery 'novena
this (Mee, when Valentine, the officer, Was directed to inqvire after
the dare, and in a little tune be traced the watch- to have
lwtrt
pledged at the shop of Mr. Norman, a pawnbroker, in Priam's.
street, Soho; and from a description given of the (male who bail
idedged it, the officer apprehended fhe p; isomer, and, ea Mr. Net-
mates %baptist' seefng.her, he inimmemately identified herasthe
same person who bad pledged the watch, and, on searching het, the
duplicate of it was foutd in her possession.
1 he prisoner, when first apprehended, denied all t nowiedg•
the watch, duplicate, fitc. or that she was the person who pledged
and in this lAA assertion she persisted to the end, notwithstanding
the evidence of )llr. Norman's shopman; but on the deistical
bring
anothernfnuutt ildi tell
girl, w
her, she said
name, th
however,at
shdad o
purchased
placerc of rn nce
asedthatiadeocurun
from ,
the
could

The Magistrate said that she must try what weight thh miry
would have with a Jury, and eornmitttti her for trial.
MARY.LA.BONNE.

J. liorlistry and fr. Robiman, Bayswater and Paddington wadi,
men, were charged with unlawfully driviag in the New Itea4,k
appeared by: the evidence of a yams Ledy that b,,,b d,s
drove at a furious rate, but Hornsby was the principal aggrosor...
Hornsby was fined 50s. and Rubinson liberated span paying COM.
USW* a constable, was charged with neglect of duty. Oa Ili-
turilay two porters were carrying a valuable looking/lambent=
polel along Regent-street, and a drunken footman reeled agalui
them; one of them pushed him aside, and be immediately navy
his body against the glass, and brake it.to atoms. The pose
gave the footman into Unwires care, while they arried.the phis
back to their master, and be let him escape. Uowin said, be insist
sworn in to keep peace in the chunk, and it was est his daty
to detain the primmer. hlr. RAMAN= told him ',tryouts*
was bound to receive a charge, end unkss he could find the sifinder
he must bitnself take the consequences.
UNION-HALL.

A French' Gentleman, waned Du Pre, appeared to sonvert
charge of assaulting a car,:enter named Tebbs, of Walororth. 'lle
son of the complainant, with other boys, nn the Sth in,tant, pro.
stilted hicliself before the defendant's house with an sky of fay
Fawkes' and the defendant, irritated at the conduct tithe roucken.,
tumbled she ekty into s ditch, and .afterwards assailted the MI.
plainallt, who came to remonstrate with him.
A Solicitor attended for blr. Du Pre, who dieted tint the My,
were purposely sent to annoy the defendant, and create a dicta.
bence. Mr. Du Pre eventually enter-ea into his own recognisance
to answer the charge.. _ . -
THAMES POLICE.

Yesterday a young woman, with s child in her army, tuned
Mary Vain, was brought before Bassaarroos, the duing
gistrate, by •Wilson, die °there, to answer the charge of Mary Gls
skin, who had been beaten most severely, and thrown into a Woke.,
on thenight of the .sth inst. by which she was very much hint abod
the legs and arms.
The complainant, an Irishwoman, appeared lobe sefferilog ends
rest pain. She stated that she byes in King !tree, iu the disteled
the office, as alma does Niary Gin; that nn Monday ening she
went out, and on returning home, discovered that the whole of her
back premises hist been torn down, and the wooden pairing of
which they were composed, together with some • linen that Mehed
left 'mon the clothes One, bad been carried away as feel fur a beg
bonfire, theta raging in a square place at the rear of her house. She
went amongst the party surroundtng the fire, and rntleavoured to
extricate some of her palings, when she wu beset by a mob dhow
and men' who attacked her with heavy stones ant briakbattsreveill
of which struck her ; they afterwards threw her into the midst of
the honhre„ and with the utmost difficulty sin. Reed hcrKlf from
being consumed. The defendant took a very active part.ia panty
' her with stones. After she bad made her way imolai own lime,
the defendant attacked the door, which was literally demolidiel
with stones ; fearing her life nu in danger, she wens ve stasis
when a shower of brickbats came into the room, deseuskiog the
else and frame-work of the windows.
A fetbale witness; named Casey, swore mosipositivelym hong
seen the defendant throw stones lu at the windows. Shea:decent
the complainant thrown on the. fire ;.•but she haw that her lop
were very much burned, and when she came in she was bleeding at
the nose and mouth.
The complainant said, that such was the fear that she entertained
from the violence of the defendant, that she was prevented bow
opening the window to call the watchman to her assistance. There
were six squares of glass broken besides the Irame work.
The defendant denied throwing the stones at all, and ambled
the charge to spite, she having bad the misfortune tohave Medlin
she then held In her arms by the complainant's nephew. Shebat
admitted having thrown sine stone at the door, which had don se
injury. She hoped the 31agisti ate would not listen to the dingo
and let her go home. • •
•
The Magistrate told ler that two persons having tow° mst.
positively that she bad thrown the stones and demolished list squares
of glass, he Manila older her to make compensation or be committel
to the House of Coerectiusa. •
-The defendant refused to compensate the complainant, and she
was committed accordingly.. •

Yesterday mot fling, a stout youth was galloping*
those in the.Poitland,roicf, leading to, Reget,es Park:
the animal stumbled, thieve its rider, and Ira upon him
with such violence, that, upon the horse tecovering Its
legs, the young man was taken up appatently
and immediately cat ried to Middlesex Hospital Upoa
Iris arrival there he was lottnd to be atcorpse; and it was
subsequently ascertained that bit back-bone was broken,.
and he had received other internal injury of so dreadful.
a natute that death must have almost instantly owed.

DIED.
Sept. 4, Captath William Robert Airey, of the 11 I.IWOOD, 01 hi)
passage borne from Jamaica, late of the schooner Susan and :Jiro,
which was wrecked on the 25th of March off Ncwvitics HarLv-ri
bound to the Havannas. -

.111 AILS—THIS DAY.
*PAL DUI.
1 0I Want le
1 0 Hamburg

Amt. Mg"
1 °
0

- - ...
G.,..ritotey awl Jersey 1 ,0 1 Flanders 0
Lisbon 0 0 Sweden 0 1
I Donagbadee 0 0 Leeward Isla* .00 0
0
llue ricis Ayres
Rolland • 00
01 1
BraMese*
zilei
0
_

---------
H 1 OH. W ATEH lit LUNDON-BUIDG F. TO NOR IZOW•
Monang • 31 Mlllutei attar 5
Afternoon . • 5e mtnutee after 5
_...----

. .
LOXDOX: Printed and Published by Jowl Marts, the Proyrienr,
at thy STA& Urrica, NV. 11 rickettllacC, Ten,k•Du•

si4
tao'

...31..t
.) .4
Inre alt 11111.4 to 1 all
$l7?
1 ba;e tXm• hi le 12
:; treat rbbier itio— . A
•Lip canfrit,..cini„
.1 t,,„„..
1--
~..to ht wt
Y
lolmireinhaavied Pelegilip"....----
eared atirst to hit '
Rwipes, whet.*
Fete charged by lb..
.!;
shop by mom il •
MI Palming, alea• ' ,„1
V. 01
4 WatrkALL. _..A