The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-07-17 00:00:00

by rel.
i Costa,

~...

- .
-- , COWL? OF ICINOIi SEBOlli liasm-18.. --.--;.• oa too ~.
Before Lord ELLENBOR011911! and (1 Special Lary.
•
, of the Elections
/V ESTM I NSTEit Ei.ErTittlV. to he made as on
MORRIS, ESQ. V. SIR F. autumn, BART. , formed hint, and 1
This was an action by which Morris, Esq. ' were made, the has
High Bailiff of Westminster, sought to recover from of the same extent i
Sir F.- Burdett,, Bart. the sum of 2251. being the clerks were retained
moiety of the expence incurred by the Plaintiff in all the stationary -
'.
erecting the Hustings, and-in providing Poll. Clerks, , poll. A cout,
• Poll Books, Bcc. at the last Election of Members to cessary to ma,
serve in Parliament for the City and Borough of Act required '
. two hours of
, Westminster.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in stating the case, ob- farthest next ,Aorning, and the erecting of the West-,
_
Barred that the Jury must think it singular that they rainster hustings would require seven days at the
should' be met here this day in Westminster Hall, far. least. Several Candidates had offered themselvesby
the purpose of being asked the question, Who are printed baud-bills., among others, Mr. Jennings, who,
the Members sent to represent this very city of West- however, declitiedson the morning of the day of
minter in Parliament?—.lf that question were put to Election. Cross-examined by Mr. ilao.cou.t m,the
any other terefve men in the kingdom, he was certain, witness admitted• that he did not see Sir Francis Bur.
the only answer could be, Lord Cochrane and Sir F. , dett on the hustings, during any
part
of the time the
Burdett, or Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Cochrane.' Election was proceeding.
Who then but the. Noble Lord and the Worthy Ba- . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that 'was his case.
i
ronet ought, as the law atood, to pity . the expences Mr. BROUGHAM submitted that then the Plaintiff
legally incurred in their election ?-11e presumed the.„must be called, as he had. proved nothing to affect
answer must be, none but they. lie understood,.! his Client.
however, that it would be said, that they had not
!I Lord ELLENBOROUGII did not see that enough had
been Candidates, and therefore were not liable.— •been proved to bring the Defendant within the words
Now, he was sserry to hear this defence, for of the of the Act, which applied only to Candidates. Some
Noblejtord and .11onourable Baronet he wished to act must be seen to have been done on the part of
flay nothing disrepectful, but, on the contrary, en. the Defendant,. or those acting by his authority, suffi-
tertained for_&seth of them the highest respect., Ho ,kcient• to vest him with the character of a candidate.
did not, to bMre, always agree with them in their ,' On the contrary, it was not shown that he bad been
kiea of things, but this was nothing remarkable, as • a-Candidate, nor had he even been seen on the hus f,
of late few people could be found to concur in sen- rfiegs. Stippose the case of a Gentleman who was
timent with them, so that they were for_ the most Labiread at the time, would-his being elected have the
part chummed by themselves. But it seemed, that ;seffitct of making him a Candidate, and, as such, .of
in this City of Westminster there was something pe- ' subjecting bins to expences incurred without his
euliarly excellent, as connetted eh!' the selection of . knowledge, or even against his will ? .
the Noble Lord and 'of alm,Worthy .Baronet, and . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, here the Defers-
with the mode of carrying that selection into effect. dant assented, by taking on himself- the character in
Here every thing was pure, every thing was lovely. , which he bad been placed. It was on this ground
:The Mernbers.did notask a singlevote, butevery thing that his Lordship decided the former case between
Was the' elect of free' and spontaneous choice.— . these parties. .
111 that Court, however, there was a ;maxim, that I Lord ELLENBOROUGU had it impressed on his re-
tie who did a thing hy anothei did it by himself ; : collection, that, iu the former case, there was eel-
and on this principle, if a man had an active Com- deuce of some communication between the Defendant
mittee—if he litl a strong-headed Chairman, who, ' and those who, it appeared, acted on his account.
instead of allowing the principal himself to ask for: In these circumstances, his Lordship left the ques-
votes, managed all.' those matters, and secured the; tiou, as to the proof of the Agency to the Jury,
'Election for him, that was equal to the Candidates' who held it to have been sullidiently made out.
acting in person. But,the Jury would be told, that I Mr. Bitoucnare contended, that the difference
in Westminster; not only were . votes not )ought,between the two cases consisted in this, that there,
;or even solicted, on the part of the Candidates, : there was proof of Agency, which, here, there was
b'ut' that the Members were not suffered to be at the ; not.
bitienie even of a,shilling. It vitas the practice for I Mr.. Avroasrev-Gesettar. contended that Mr.
Members, on being sworn in at' the teble, to pay a! Brooks,
_ jun. called on Mr. Took, as Agent for
tea of 2s. to .the Clerk. To such an extent, how- !Sir F. Burdett.
e'rer, was purity carried in Westminster, that the I Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, this Gentleman was
Jury would be iiifornied, that on the day preceding stated to be son of the Chairman of the Westminster
that on which the Mem.' her-was to take his seat, his Election Committee.
Committee, or a deputation. from his Committee, ; Mr. BROUGHAM contended, there was net an atom
waited on him, in high state, and 'paid over to him 'of evidence -to connect the Westminster Election
retire twelve pence, that. he might have it in hi* Committee with the Defendant.
I
power to say, that his seat in Parliament had not The ATTORNEYGENERAL wished the case to be
cost him one skilliug! He (the Attorney.:General) put in the strongest form in which it could be placed
should have no objection that this were the univer- for the Defendant, and still, be contended, he was
sal practice :if so, then would he have been four liable: Admitting, for instance, that be had not
Callings hi packet, having twice over taken the ;naked a single vote ; admitting even that he bad ori-
oaths aud his seat in the course of the present Session.. ginally been .reluctant to allow his name to be put
This, however, was not the practice, but by the up; still, if he accepted of the honour when con-
hir, as it now stood, Candidates were liable in the,; (erred, that, he submitted, was an assent sufficient
expence of the hustings, anenther necessary ex,' to vest him with the character of a Candidate, from
penes. In the 'present instance, be gliout.d be able ' the beginning, and as such to subject him to the ex-
to show that the necessity erections, and other pre,' pepces to which Candidates were legally liable. i
paratiens were made, at. the sight atif with tita.ap. I Lord ELLENBOROUGU said, the Attorney-General
probation of the Comtifittei ilio acted in the De.; should have this point reserved to him, whether the
fendant's behalf ;. and that it was,. at the time, un-; act of taking the oaths and his seat, after he had been
derstocrd that 'the. WOrthys laerottek .„was to be returned, had the effect of rendering such person a
opposed by i itaunch petriiit ; itheiiii katown that Candidate. Such act must be supposed to be occa-
thesetentleineft, as avell'as ethersoometimes change • sioned by the compulsion of the law ; but could not
Aka. Something' preparatory to an election was' make a man a Candidate offering himself. Here the
461 known to be necessary In such liplace as West- I Defendant, at the best, was merely passive, and was
tiiiiiiter,7Wherethe hustings were accuatemed to be'. even absent during the Election.
pretty stoutly assailed. The Plaintiff, tie the pre-1 . The ATTORNEY-GENERAL .thought there was an
sent occasion, was entitlectles credit for his conduct. ; instance of. a'persim who had never taken his seat,
He caused the hustings to be erected in' the most' mu after -his election. No person could be cons.
substantiel manner, so as to preclude the risk of . pelled to take his sent.
clanger ; aad he also did a thing which had been I Lord Eccreacntoucit presumed a Call of the House
thought almost impossible ; he so managed that not might compel him. .
a morsel of the structure was carried away by fuel The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the House knew
mob, who were in the use of claiming every thing.-, nothing of any Member till he had taken his seat.
about the hustings as their perquisite. ' This hel The question was, whether the Defendant had ever
brought in is'a deduction from the charge to be made ?, acceded to the having been a Candidate, which, he
by him againit the Candidates. Having done so, hei submitted, he had done by taking his seat. After
thought he had nothing to do hit to give in lois ac-1 referring to the decision in the former case between
count, and 'to receive payment of it. In this, how-, the same parties, ho contended that the Act of Par-
ever, he was mistaken, and found Wise!! Com- i liameut was perfectly reconcilable to his present ar.
pelted to bring actions against both the Members gument, the words. Candidate and Member being
returned. • Lord Cochrane had suffered judgment ' convertible terms.
to go by default, and had since ,paid. his. part, I The ATTORNEY-GENERAL again called Mr. Took
thank it was well known that he was at ill times I to speak to what had passed between him and Mr.
ready to fight any battle, either on shore or afloat. i Brooks's son, the Chairman of the Westminster ',
He slipposed it •wai necessary, by agreement, that j Committee, as connecting them wlttraalr'F.-Burdett
the worthy. Baronet, before he yielded,- should re.. i Mr. Bitoueume objected to thisl however, 0 not
tire into the last ditch. 011 the forme occasion, he : being evidence, and his objection ryas sustained.
(the Attorney-General), along with Mr. Clifford' The A'TTORNEY.GENERA.I. then proposed to.call
(now no more), had been entrusted with the Hon. I Mr. Brooks himself, but
Baronet's defence; bet he could make no way in I Mr. BROUGHAM objected to this also, as the ease'
i
persuading his Lordship that the Hon. Baronet had ' of the Plaintiff had been concluded.
I
any defence. If there was any, thing which could i Lord ELLiesottoucu was of this opinion, and
ROW be urged in his favour, 'the Jury, he had no , the Plaintiff was nonsuited, with liberty, however,
doubt, would hear it ably staled by his Learned: to have the nonsuit set aside, and a verdict entered I
Friend, Mr. Broughams '' ~.' 1.. I for the Plaintiff, for the full sum, if the Court, on
.Mr. PARK handed to his Lordship the Act of the I motion made to that effect, should be of opinion, I
first of the King, on which the action was that the mere act of taking his seat and signing the
brought.. . :,• .. _-, ! - •' .. Test Roll of the House of Commonsl brought the '
Mr. Thompson, Clerk to- Mr. Took,. Solicitor for' Defendant within the meaning of the word candidate,
the Plaintiff,. put in the precept aukreturn on the ' as used iu the Act in question.
last Election for Westminster, which be had carefully 1 WARWICK V. BRUCE.
examined at the Crown 04'fioe. .. . This was an action' brought by Plaintiff to re,
Mr.„Witham, Clerk of the Journals and 'of the , cover damages for the non-performance -of a ton-
Paper*, ia• the House of Gomnsons, produced the . tract, fora large quantity of potatoes. It appear.;
'rest Itoll of that. House for the present Parliament, I ing on the record that the Plaintiff .was an infant%
having the same of _Sir F. Burdett signed under the I Lord ELLITSBOROUGH directed a nousuit, stithig
. t
h: ad of the City of .Westminster.. I that an infant could not Make a mercantile contract :1
,Mr. Took said, he wits Deputy to the High Bai.l.if he could make the contract, he might be tusk
lit On receipt of the Precept for thelast Election upon it ;• but au infant could not •be sued 'OD SliCit 1111
,
for Westminster, proclamation .war made at the se- tcontract: - .
•
veral usual sMtioire, on the,..3Bth %ept. 1812, that THE KING V. 141TIPOILIL_
'the Election would bu held at the usual place, being A bill of indictment having been found on Thurs.'
the portico of St. Paul's Church, Covent-garden, on' day %sink the Defendant,' for
an alleged eharge of
Tuesday, Bth Oct. them next. On the day he re- perjury, in affidavits which he swore respecting
eAved the Precept, Mr. Breaks jun. son of Mr. motion recently Shade in the Court of King's Beach
t.
!.11101 Brooke, of the Strand, i.;hairman of whist relative tea matter of Libel 0 . 11
t
is ~ Wed doe Westminster Election Committee called
, Mr. PooLEY, for Vie prosecution,ot ed '
ov limit
• 4

mid
bus.
44

imprisonment,
the 2,4th,0f . the iho
regiment dbied tesether.at Tavern,. marrisge flineo 8001. pros, by , usual
itheseltmand.cloasemtoothe•fathet-ithitsanitvenitioniserhe.r:_ofNtoliedentieniticecr
"p
r ro
ge
dc
wick. Defe4ant took the chair, Old they had.,.
much conilvialify!'lliey. had been d4iiking tege.
ther sit Or • setypi"hOlirs'isteforeaoy ttiUig particular being egeredi ,
orr
happened. At near eleven o'clock, activate occurred`*r_Wm.Sc prettrrnmidthe inerriage null and
between Mr. • Dunbar and anothepiOffisee, of,she! void.' • • ••:. • • •
name of Shaftoe, in. which the Defeildigst.threetetted nett ii,-netr..
Mr. Dunbar with an,arrest. He said._ Mr, Dunbar„ I This was a suit foriliAtierce 'promoted by Mary
I desire you will hold your tongue, or quit the room. Ann Neil, • against her”fitikhand,. Felix Neil; of
Mr. D. said, I obey. A Gentleman of the name' f Prince's-streetOlanoter-square, by reason of cruelty
Croft then sung a song, after which Mr. Dunbar rose and adultery.
•
Ito address the President, who said, Mr. Dunbar, if It appeared that the parties were married in June
you say any thing more, it is my orders,lthat yen 1799,.'and had three children., The ill-treatment
consider yourself under an arrest, and go to quer- complained of commenced' in the year 1805, and
ters. Mr. Dunbar then abused' the Major, tailed cousistettot isis deprisinther of the management of
him a scoundrel and a coward, and said, if he would the house aud giving it to ,serraats,• denying. her'
• meet him the next day, be Would give him two shots food, and encouraging them to insult her ; frequentty
for one. was going oat at the 'door, 'and the , swearing at.ber apt the grossest and Most epproba.
Defendant exclaimed,-Stop, Sir, you shall nOt•go ous language, and • beating and. otherwise ill-nsirg
without a file of men. The Gentlemen, pre- I her. _Various acts of adultery,. with different. se,..
sent then got up, turned Mr, Dunbar opt, and I rants la his-house, were likewise spoken to. bythe
conveyed hint ,to an adjoining room, where he i witnesses. No defence was offered, and • •
was placid till the file of men shonld arrive; but be. Si; WK. SCOTT, after recapitulating the evidence,
fore the latter came, he leaped out of the window, observed, it fully established a case of the most a;-
and went to town. The file of soldiers went through I remitted cruelty. and abandoned profligacy agaiint
Greenwich ia.search of him, but could not, ofcourse, the husband, 'and he therefore propounded for the
find him,,, as. he.,bad gone to London. The next remedy which the wife prayed, with an allotmea
morning he gave himself up to the commanding (after baring heard further evidence as .to the .hug.
cer, and was put under close arrest. He continued I band's property)of 2001. perannata to• the wife for
a prisoner from the 25th of October till the 23d of I permanent alimony.
January, during which he was tried by atourt:inar-1,,,..
tial, and by sentence suspended from rank and pay
for twelve menthe., For the. imprisonment whisk
the Plaintiff, considered illegal, he broughthis action,
audit was contended that he was entitled to large
dangles. All the witnesses admitted that the conduct
• of the Plaintiff was extremely indetorou'l ht the' din-
ner.` Col. Sir C. S, neater said particolarly, that he
considered Mr. Dunbar's offence/in a military pint
of view, so bad, that he could not consent to enlarge
his errest.when app'ed tp for that purpose.
Mr. Serjeant farts, for the Defendant, lamented
that the Plaintiff had brought the action, because it
would doubtless add to the unfavourable impression
made by his previous conduct. The Learned Serjeant
then .produced. the 'Malay. Articles of War,,.and
contended that the Defendant was bound by the 90th
I article to do as he had done. If he had Dot put the
Plainiit under arrest for provoking, indecent,
mu-
tinous language, he would have been unworthy the
character of an officer and a Gentleman.
,The Learned. Judge left the Jury to decide whe-
ther.the Plaintiff, by his behaviour, had given the
Defendant a right ,to confine him. If they thought
he had, then they would find a verdict • tat Major
Hitchcock. His Lordship expressed some regret that
such an action had been brought into a Court of
Justice, as it could only tend to expose to the world
matters of insubordination, which the Legislature
had wisely .qoanded- to the judgment of a. Court.
martial. ~ •
I The Jury, without the least hesitation, found a
' verdict for the Defendant.
Mr. DUNBAR asked the Judge, after the trial,
whether he might indict the parties fora conspiracy
to injure him by their conduct ?
Sir Jt'ics Mmtisrmo said, in answer, that if
Plaintiff took his advice, he would have no more to
do with law.

CONSISTORY COURT, Docroas• Commons, JULY 16,

OLD BAILEY, Jrza, 16.

-~-

I

Richard Ralph, an oldnian, with a wooden le;
'was charged with the niurder of his wife, by sutfo.
`sating her: The Prisoner was;a: shoe-black residing
at V, Rose4treet, Spitalfselds„"and the alleged
murder *ai"coMmitted od Ai night of Saturday, the
46th of June: It appeared by the testimony of se-
veral wittitises, . 'hiker, in the house, that the Pri-
honer'and Ilk Witi-iiere continually quarrelling, but
there was no proot of :Omit: pghting. At !en
o'cloek' on the Saturday night ihe deceased was seen
in her apartment's cheerful, and soon after something
struck against the wainscoting of the room with
much violence, and it occurred again directly after
slightly. None of the witnesses could prove that
the Prisoner was in the house that night. In the
morning he went up and down stairs several times,
and at length hrealled one of the witnesses, and
said something was the matter with his wife ; on this
Witness entering the room, she found her dead, lying
on her back, bleeding from the mouth. Some of the
lodgers Were up fate, but no noise was beard, except.
ing that against the wainscot.
The Parish Beadle proved, that the Prisoner told
him his *ire hadheeh drunk on the over-night, soil
had kicked against the wainscot, and fallen down;
but Idle-Went out for beer after ten o'clock, when
she fell down again and there remained.
* Mfr:-Wright, a surgeon, stated, that there were two
exteroarrnalts of violence upon the deceased, one on
the tight jugular vein which caused her death, and
the other upon the temple. Death was occasioned
by a suspension of circulation of the blood, arising
from pressure upon the jugular vein. It might have
been prOduced by a fail, or by apoplexy. . •
After an impartial charge from the Judge, the Pri-
soner was Acquitted.
Charles Stanley was indicted for forging four 10-
dorsetnents on a 501. Rank. poet bill, with intent to
defraud Grant, Purley, and.Ciontn in-oiher counts
with uttering it with intent Co. udLedbroke sad
atrit
1 co.' There was another oust, tiiging tie Pelson&
[ with erasing name* from the bill, ,-4. .. . .
' This was one of the mattresses brought to light
by the confessions of Richardson, •Cook, and others,
and which led .to , the 014%14010ne of. Kennet, Bur-
kett, and Brady. It appeared that.on the 11th of
I April, 1812, the partiniouth Mail wes•rohbed on its
way to London, and. this pelt .1)111, together with
notes to a Considerable amount, was stolen from a
package made up at the Portsmouth Bank, espe-
cially indorsed Grant, Burley, and Co. payable at
the banking-house of LadbrOlte and Co. London.
The name of Ladbroke and Co.had been erased by
a chemical process, as described by Richardson, the
witness, thropgh the dexterity of Burkett, now un-
der sentence of death, ft was sent to the accom-
plice ' ' "--milithatemiersofloe-

I

WARING V. WARING•
This was a cause ofillivorce, or separation, pro-
moted by Mary Ann . Waring, the wife, against
James Waring, Esq. her husband, by reason of cru-
elty and adultery. It appeared from the libel, and
other proceedings exhibited, that the marriage took
place between the parties on the 25th October, 18001
at the parish-church of St. Bartholomew bear 'the
Esc:tango, with the consent of the father, the wife
being at the time under the age of 21. That the
parties cohabited together in Coram-street,
23d of January, 1811, during which period there
wai the birth of five children, four of which are still
living,when Mrs. Waring quitted her husband's house,
and went to live with her father. That soon after the
marriage Mr. W. began to treat his wife with great
cruelty, swearing at her at dinner-time, and would'
often take the things off the table, and throw them
under the grate, and also:restrained het from seeinj
her Tuber without his knowitcdge. That On the night
of the 6th of April, 1808, without any provocation,
Mr. W. put himself into a great passion, swore that
she should go out of the house, beat her head against
the marble of the chimney-piece, whereby the teeth
of the comb in. her hair were forced into her head,
which caused it to bleed very much, and that the
wounds continued sore for a considerable time afters
wards. That on their going down to Sandgate he.
took his female servant, Ann Powell, into the eitrl.
riage with him (with whom' adultery is alleged to
have been committed), and refused his wife admish.
sion ; and that while at Sandgate he treated his wins.
with great cruelty. That on their return from Santf..l
gate to Comm-street Mr. W. continued ill-treating
his wife, and that "tn her miscarriage, in 1810, he
compelled her to get up, having company to dinner,
in consequence of whithothe became estreniely ill.—
That in January, 1811, he put himself into a violent
passion with his wife, dragged her by the arm, threw
her ever thoback of a chair, and afterwards pushed her
into a back parlour, and locked her therein. That
OR the following morning she made her escape to her
father's house, where she has continued to residiever
since.
The defence set up was a reneral denial of the
acts of cruelty on the part of Mr. Waring, and fut.
ther stated • them to have ,been occasioned by her re.
Alamo to his attempts to restrain her violence, When
say thing occurred to rouse her• naturally irritable
dhposition.
'Sir Wu. Scorn was of opiniOn, find this defence um imIN prisog. sac robid.4 Wit anti
VIM satisfactorily made out, 'anti that the provocation '• ' trl7alviiar6eited*S7tTht4Peic

-e .ItOtintscia by 1,914/9eD4114101-4...-----
kitt, to 'manufacture. Richardson; Burkett, and
the Prisoner, afterwards met in St. James's-perk,
When Burkett handed the bill over to the Prisoner,
with a quantity of stolen notes, to buy gold coin,
and they were mutually to divide the spoil.. The
Prisoner was identified by Mr. Miller, at' having
purchased geld coin of him with the bill in question,
on the.3oth, of 'May,. 1812. He called himself Cap-
tain ti. Hunter, and said be received the bill from
*Liverpool. the clerks from the banking-hoose
proved that the indorsement of errant and Co. was is.
forgery, but they seemed to know nothing about ae
•othei names. , • •
RTchirdson, on undergoing a cross.eximinatlini,
-stated, ;that the Prisoner was not aware of any al.
I
I tetations made upon the bill when delivered to hint
by Burkett, in the park, butt merely that it was stolen
lu well as the notes.
Here the:Prisoner'S Counsel juisted, that this
indintinent muit fall, inasmuch u the Prisoner had
no knowledge of the forgeries, and .consequently did
not utter the hitt keening it to have been forged.
I The Judge ioinCided in , this objection,. and the
IPrisoner was itequitte4

Mr. Ji hn


'''''
"lIITTIFFIrti ' '•'
•.•• ' . . •
. ...
... . ,
.. , •
• . 1 ' STATES I ike R . • . .
us against -all the edneilittrwitsihe by Mises 14ating, tnd
, • ....
witoeve,www-snmswwqry svapequwi
• ----'ll6`---a--`--- .. --:---."...•---- the day • the -tunaocess ,Coprt eh
Election,: twit* the moo wilt poem were the said Jr.M bli Oid, and • 'that the 'saki Defends* the nudes violence need.. principally by .her, the bus.
give 48 hours' trotice of bail.
.. ,
.. ' 191,14fiir., , stOlgtorodisoafoiliedr,theihmilopstravayg/tfoorpitthedivtioefrceen.siss. lit
1 lAeOi i al ' rAuEvreorscAvizEion-dprilybithier•yeutiynngte.r: 0 i
made as on iorther-oceisions. w"itness ru. should
I him, and aecOrdingly the usual arrmsgemeats • The Court granted the....40,....m0ti.0n.
lade, the heating, being ordered to be erected. ).
COURT OF MOWN PLIkAII. Jv&Y 11. •-
.. -TllllWains slit for a flintily o( taarrleg
same extent and: strength as formerly ; poll
DUXIAa V. HITCHCOCK. ~ , sena talserlty promoted' '' . e, by reit.
, by (Atissulde Da Costa,
were retained ; poll books were obtained, and
rlitflhget els. infsetrofeetC; a gii is st him, on the ground of
stationary necessary in the contemplation of A This action was brotight by? theg Plain„fiif, a Tag_ ..,..gpinsee
inorl, he.being at the time not more than u
tenant in the-Lontegidennilienliltk,
iatoareeftionviterMtratrageklittl*for'' ?is m
A contest was certainly expected. It was ne-
cock
of the
same
rto make •each preparations, as gle general falsec . _ it f •thereod • i
imprmonmentst . appeased rem. eons . years of ale.
The birth of the minor in Febtrinar_tryed 17y8lth,eanidIstithati
Inked that the Election should proceed within .. • .... . _
, that on the 2,4th,pf October last, Abe geineritor *the 1
aura of the Candidates. being declared, at at • 9
. _--4 ---: ....1.L.....,...1......tihn \Vest- . regi.Mett 416.0.t6.getilet al t11.43-4hiP Taveliks, Green- , marriage 'in JIM 'lBOO 'were "
. ! _ .). .

DIED. •
On Sunday last, la Georgetstreet.Thasaa nialaer.
64, one of the Window of tfte Goldnuffles CarapaPv•
On MondaY last, •a 4 Ids Sousa ess Naversteek-hill, I
Hook, ita., late of Ottarimotralet, Middlesex Hospital.