The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-10 00:00:00

THE LATE LORE MAYOR.

Mr. %Vaunt gave notice, that he would, at the next
Court, move a ♦ote of censure on Alderman Magnay,
f ft. the nitgentlemanlike language used by hits, Vela tive
to the conduct of the Court, in not granting him a vote
of thanks for his conduct during his mayoralty.
Mr. Alderman &sugs thought it an unusual thins to
propose a vote of censure on an individual, for certain
words alleged to bare been spoken by him, before any
inquiry took place, to ascertain first whether the words
were or were not so spoken.
Mr. %limn said, he had warted to bring forward this
subject, until the worthy• alderman should be present;
but he had slipped through his fingers.
' Mr. Alderman MIDIS moved that the notice should
not be entered on the Journals of the Court, which was
agreed to..
On the motion of Mr. Alderman Woon, it was resolved
to send a deputation to the Committee of the Housed
Commons, stating that the communication made by
them to the Bridge-house Committee was so important,
that the Court was induced to take further time to con-
sider upon it; and requested, therefore, that the Com-
mittee would suspend their proceedings on the subject
until after the next Court,to be held on the ensuing Wed-
nesday.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT 9.
THZ KING 0. FRANCIS.

This defendant had been convicted at the last Assizes
for the County of Kent, before the Loan Cuter BARON,
of publishing two libels ; one upon a Mr. Foord, a re-
spect4ble inhabitant of Canterbury, and the other upon
five or six other respectable persons of the same city.—
The libels in question, which imputed to the prosecutors,
in strong terms of vituperation, various acts of oppres-
sion, on their part, towards the defendant, had been dis-
tributed amongst the inhabitants who were acquainted
with the parties. On the motion of Mr. Gtinxer the de-
fendant was now brought up for judgment. The case was
of local interest only. A great number of affidavits
were put in op both sides in mitigation and aggravation
of punishment respectively.
Mr. ADOLPUUS addressed the Court on behalf of the
defendant, and Mr. Gurney for the prosecution.
The COURT, under all the circumstances of the ease,
sentenced the defendant to four months imprisonment,
in Canterbury Gaol, for both libels, and at the expire•
lion of that time to give security for his good behavtour,
himself in 1,00 W., and four sureties in 1001, each.

YULICE,

OuttnnALL.—Hannall Pethard, Mr. IVoodrow's ser-
not, whose previous examination was noticed in our pa-
per of Wednesday, was again brought up yesterday, be-
fore the Sitting Magistrate, Mr. Ald. Woun.
Inqairy bad been made as to the property to which
the duplicates foand In her possession related, and which
proved to be generally her own wearing apparel. Among
the duplicates, however, was one fur a pearl brooch,
pledged for Is. 6d. with Mr. Muncsster, Skinner-street,
Suowdiill, which had been stolen from" Mr. Jeffrey, one
of the prisoner's former masters, and the person through
whose exertions the prisoner had brew given into
custody.
11r: Jeffrey stated, that the prisoner came to live as
servant with him, early in November, 1b22, and left bins
the latter end of the January following. After she bad
quitted his service be learnt that the chariwter he re-
ceived with her was a false one, and that she had been
suspected of robbing several families where she had pre-
vionsly lived. This information set him to examine if
he had lost any property, and in the result two or duce
little articles were missing—among them the brooch in
questisn. As the prisoner never applied t.t him for a
cmaracter, he knew not where to look for her, till he ac-
cidentally learnt that she was living in the service of his
neliflibour, Mr. Woodrow.
the brooch was produced- and identified as his proper-
ty by Mr. Jeffrey, and MM Taylor, the prisoner's sup-
posed aunt, in whose name it sras pawnen, stated that
the prisoner lodged with her when she teas out of place,