Nov. 23,] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



[1844. 



Dundee. Her Majesty and Prince Albert have hitherto 

 confined their contributions to the public baths of the 

 metropolis, hut have made an exception in favour of 

 Dundee, in consequence of their having so recently landed 

 there, by present ing 100/. to the funds . 



Jtttscrilanepug* 



Total Eclipse of the Moon.— Another total eclipse of 

 tha moon will take place to-morrow (Sunday) night, and 

 will be visible at Greenwich, a3 well as in all other parts 

 of the world which have then the moon above their ho- 

 rizon. The eclipse will commence at 8h. 36 9m. p.m., 

 mem time at Greenwich. Total darkness will begin at 

 about lOh. 58m. P.M. ; and end at 12h. 31m. a.m. on 

 the morning of Monday ; and the whole eclipse will 

 finally terminate at 2h. 52 1 m. a.m. 



Sa! My of North 11'. ilei r.— A correspondent Cam- 

 brensi redding near -Mold writes, that in a parish 

 where he has property, containing 450 souls, there has 

 been only one funeral since the 1st January— 10 J months. 

 He asks, " Can any of your correspondents adduce a 

 similar or superior' instance of the salubrity of the 

 present year ?" ^^^^^^_ 



Hato. 



Kxc.ixqi/brChambi Crown Cases. (Before the IS Judges.) 

 The Queen v. Robert GouerGrimwade.-Thc following case was 

 reported b ir. Huron Altlerson .—The p oner was tried before 

 me at the last assizes for the county ol Suffolk, upon an indict- 

 ment which contained three counts. The first count charged that 

 the prisoner knowingly did send to Sir Joanna Rickets Rowley, 

 Bart., a lain letter with a certain fictitious signature, to wit, 

 the signature " A Polat Labourer," subscribed thereto, di- 

 rected to the said Sir J. R. Rowley, Hart., by the name and 

 description of "Sir Joshua Rowley, B rt„ Stoke, buflolK, 

 threat. ..g to hum and destroy the houses, &e., the property ot 

 sai J. R. Rowlc) . Hart., a subject of our Lady the Queen, 



then and there being, which said letter is as follows, that is to 

 say :— " Sir.— This is to Inform you that unless your tenant, Mr. 

 Brown, of Polstead, p his men an advance of wages, tV.e present 

 being 8#. per week for 12 hours' labour, he will be visited with a 

 bla but your timely interference may prevent the intended 

 calamity.— A POLSTHAD Labouhkr. P.B. Mr. Browns 8s. per 

 week and 30*. per week for a policeman will not do ; not but what 

 an 8*. labourer wants looking after, for it is impossible for that 

 man to live honestly without getting into debt. He is the only 

 one in the pariah at 8/."— The second count charged that the 

 prisoner knowingly did send to one William Brown the same letter 

 with a certain fictitious signature, to wit, the signature, ' A 

 Polstead Labourer," subscribed thereto, directed to Sir Joshua 

 Rowh Bart., Stoke, Suffolk, threatening to burn and destroy the 

 house, &c, the property of the said William Brown, a subject, 

 &c. The third count charged that the prisoner knowingly, &c, 

 did send to Sir J. R. Rowley, B rt., the same letter, threatening 



nT-Mr. Justice Pattern: Wagstafl's case comes nearest to it, 

 where he man's wife had read it to him. The man there had 

 topped tl™ letter.-Mr. Baron Alderson : I left it : to the jury 

 whether they thought the prisoner had dropped it with the inten- 

 tion that it should be forwarded to Sir J. Rowley, The act was 

 complete when he dropped the letter.-Mr. Gurdon was not 

 aware of any case where the mere showing a party an open letter 

 would do. Here English had shown the letter— he must therefore 

 be either an innocent or guilty agent-if guilty, he would be the 

 principal in the offence, and the party who wrote the letter would 

 be an accessory only.-Mr. Baron Alderson: You don't mean to 

 sav that English had anything to do with the guilt of the itter . 

 -Mr. Gurdon said English must either be a guilty or innocent 

 principal. If he (Mr. Gurdon) wrote a letter, and the fact of the 

 handwriting was well known, it was the same as putting his name 

 to it, it would be no deception. The party delivering the letter 

 knew its contents, and he might have known the writer. -Mr. 

 Baron Alderson : I don't think it will be safe for you to send a 

 threatening letter, signing your name to it. You will be trans- 

 ported if you do.-Mr. Justice Patteson : Suppose he desires a 

 person to deliver a letter, and that person does deliver it, you 

 would not indict the person who delivered it for se ng it, but 

 you might for delivering it.— Mr. Gurdon : The whole.of the threat 

 depended upon the signature being a fictitious one. There was a 

 clergyman in that very parish writing to people, begging them to 

 employ the poor, or their property would be destroyed, -con, d 

 he be indicted?— Mr. Baron Alderson: It is very kind in you to 

 irive him the caution. -Mr. Gurdon said, that ifhe had signed 

 his name it would have done away with the whole offence. 

 -Lord Chief Justice Tindal: Why should one man write 

 to another that he would burn his house ? — Mr. Gurdon 

 submitted that it might be done out of kindness. He did not 

 mean to contend that the present was not a threatening let- 



BIRTHS.— On the 11th inst., at the Rectory, Sherborne St. 

 John, Hants, the lady of the Rev. J. Laws ox, of a daughter—' 

 14th inst., at St. John's, Southwark, the lady of the Rev. O. F. 

 Owkn, M.A., incumbent of Stratton Audley, Oxfordshire, of a 

 son— 15th inst., at Milton-street, Dorset-square, the lady of D. 

 Dampier, Esq., of a daughter— 15th inst., in Notting-hill-sq.] 

 Kensington, the lady of H. Adams, Esq., of a daughter— I5tb 

 inst., at Addi-combe, near Croydon, the lady of P. Hardy, 

 Esq., of a son— i6th inst., at Upper Clapton, Mrs. C. Barrow', 

 of a daughter. 



MARRIA.GES.— At Portsea, E. Gifford, eldest surviving 

 son of thelate Sir Hardinge Gifford, to Rosamond Pennkll, 

 eldest daughter of W. Penncll Esq.— llth inst.. at Antwerp, 

 J. U. Bowri.vo, Esq., of Guadalupe-y-Calvo, in Mexico, to 

 Jeanwa Hay, eldest daughter of A. Hay, Esq., of Antwerp— 

 1 1th inst., at St. Saviour's Church, Chelsea, C. Hkrkv, Esq., to 

 Mary A. Bawtreb, eldest daughter of the late S. Bawtree, 

 Esq., of Whitehall, Colchester— 16th inst., at St. George's, 

 Bloomsbury-square, O. Copland, sixth son of J. Copland, 

 E-q., of Chelmsford, Essex, to Frances Alliston, third 

 d^u^hterof J. Alliston, Esq. 



DEATHS.— On Monday last, at his seat, Hall Barn Park, Sir 

 Gork Ouski.ky, Bart., aged 75— 5th inst., at her house, 18, 

 el vi He- Street, Edinburgh, Mrs. E. H. Grkio, relict of David 

 Greig, Esq., aged 88 — 12th inst., at Shirley, near Souti anpton, 

 Lieutenant J. F. Brown k, R.N., aged 47— 18th inst., at Radnor- 

 terrace, Folkstone, and late of Guernsey, deeply regretted, 

 Ma k.y Annb Sayeii, daughter of the late T. Sayer, Esq., of 

 Sandwich, Kent, aged 49- 15th inst., suddenly, at 6o, I'ortland- 

 place, after a long illness, Isabella Ross, widow of the late 

 General Ross, aged 79 — IRth inst., at his residence, Lechlade, 

 Gloucestershire, altera few days' illness, R. Hbbbrt, Esq., 

 aged 74 —20th inst., at the house of W. Walsh, Esq., Hah-moon- 

 street. Piccadilly, R. LAftBKRT, Esq., second sou of \V. Lam- 

 bert, Esq., of Sowerby, ncarThirsk, aged 22. 



the ball to explode, and then indict him for burning my house, he 

 apprehended that would not do.— The Lord Chief Baron: With 

 regard to taking the forged note, that would be an uttering with 

 intent; but in this case there is no intent. The nature of the 

 offence is described distinctly in the act of Parliament, sending a 

 letter of a certain kind ; there is no intent mentioned, bending 

 a threatening letter is a substantive offence, but uttering a note, 

 unless with an intent, is no offence.— Mr. Baron Alderson: lhc 

 whole act of the prisoner ceased when he dropped the letter. It 

 he dropped the letter with an intention it should be forwarded, 

 he completed the offence of sending ; he dropped it in order that 

 some one might pick it up and deliver it.-Mr. Gurdon said that 

 here the party who had shown the letter was cognisant of its con- 

 tents.— Mr. O'Malley appeared in support of the conviction, but 

 was stopped by the Court.-Lord Denman said the meaning ol 

 the word " send" was to give something to another to carry or 

 deliver. Whether the party was cognisant of the contents of the 

 letter or not made no difference in the offence of the party sending. 

 The Court thought the case had been properly lelt to the jury, 

 to consider whether the act done in depositing the letter and the 

 communication afterwards to Brown made out a sending to Brow n. 

 The jury found in the affirmative, and the Court thought they had 

 done right. The Court proceeded only upon the second count. 

 Rolls' Court.— Cross/till v. Grounsell.— Mr. Kindersley, for 



WANTED, a Man and his Wife, without incum- 

 brance, to live at a small Lodge, and look after the 

 Kitchen and Flower Gardens, Phaeton, &c, with occasionally 

 the care and driving of one or two horses. He must be early 

 and industrious in his habits, and a good groom and plaia 

 gardener, and be willing to render himself generally useful - t 

 he will have any requisite assistance, and a comfortable 

 place. His wife, if disposed, may find employment about the 

 house, farm, Sec. None need apply whose characters will not 

 bear the strictest investigation.— Direct to C. R., the Quarry, 

 near Hagley, Worcestershire. 



WANTED, a SHOPMAN in the SEED TRADE. 

 None need apply whose character will not bear the 

 strictest investigation.— Address, with references, salary, &c, 

 W. F. G., Gardeners' Chronicle Office. 



WANTED, a PARTNER.— A respectable person, of 

 good business habits, having a knowledge of the Seed 

 trade, and can advance about 500/. Any person of the above 

 description, wishing to go into business, will find this a good 

 opening.- Apply by letter, addressed, " Seedsman, Gardeners 

 Chronicle Office, London." 



to burn and destroy the house, &c., the property of one William 



Brown, a subject, &c. At the trial it was proved that the letter tne p i an tiff, renewed his motion made in July last, for an m- 

 was left by the prisoner at a -ate in the public road near Sir J. : unct i on to restrain defendant, his servants, &c, from maKAjng, 

 Rowley's house, directed as described in the indictment, and nianu f a cturing, or selling the machine mentioned lnplantifrs 

 •ealed. Having n found there by one of the witnesses, it was bUl for ro n, mg . an d crushing clods of earth for agricultural pur- 



"' poses, or any imitation of the machine. An action was directed 



by the Court to be tried at Liverpool. The parties had gone to 

 trial, the defendant havingpleaded " Not Guilty; " that plaintiff 

 was not the inventor, that it was not a new invention, that 

 the invention was not properly described, that the teeth in the 

 cog were not a new invention, and were not an improvement. 

 These pleas raised the questions of validity and infringement of 

 the patent. Upon every issue there was a verdict for the plain- 

 tiff, and upon defendant's application a new trial was refused. 

 Injunction granted. 



Court of Exchequer. (Sittings in Banco.) -Buron v. Den- 

 man.—'l his was an action brought by a Spanish merchant 

 against the Hon. Capt. Denman, who, when in command of the 

 Warrior on the coast of Africa, destroyed a warehouse and 

 emancipated a number of slaves, the property of the plaintiff. 

 The defendant justified under the treaties between this country 

 a«»d the Spanish Government, for the suppression of the slave 

 trade. The question came before this Court during last term 

 on demurrer, and was argued at great length by Mr. Kelly, on 

 behalf of the plaintiff. The case then stood over, upon the 

 suggestion from the Court, as to the amendment of the plead- 

 ings, with a view to raising the question which it was really 

 meant the Cout should decide. Sir T.Wyldo was now heard 





for . to Sir .1. ftowh u .use, and there deposited in 



the rd's room. I it was opened by Mr. Hardy, the 



■teward, who was authorised by Sir J. Rowley to open and read 

 such letters. Mr. Hard aving opened and read it, did not de- 

 liver it to Sir J. K< but Landed it over to Stephen English. 

 a constable. Stephen En, h afterwards, on the 9th of April 

 following, showed the letter both to Mr. Brown and to Sir J. 

 Rowley. Mr. Brown occupied a house and premises belonging to 

 Sir J. Rov. ley, under an eement. two years of which remained 

 unexpired. Hi held no property under any other landlord, and 

 was possessed of no house or premises of his own. As to the first 

 count, charging the prisoner with sending a letterto Sir J.Rowley, 

 threatening to burn Sir J. Rowley's property, I directed the jury 

 that, as the house, fee., though in the occupation of Mr. Brown, 

 belonged in reversion to Sir J. Rowley, the prisoner might be con- 

 victed on that count. As to the second count, I directed the jury 

 to consider whether the prisoner, in leaving the letter as before 

 described, intended that it should not only reach Sir J. Rowley, 

 to whom it was directed, but that it should also reach Mr. Brown, 

 and then, if they thought so, and were of opinion that it would be 

 a sending to Mr. Brown, according to the sug tion of the 

 judges in Paddle's case, that then the prisoner might be found 

 guilty upon the second count. itch so charged the offence. As to 



the third count, which was in id in law, an acquittal was taken, j oil belialf of the defendant. He observed, that the pleadings 

 The prisoner was found guilty on the first and second counts, and adtmt » c(1 that the slave trade was an infraction of the law of 

 orden-d to be transported for 10 j ears. I reserved the case for the 



opinion of the judges on both counts. — E. H. Alderson. — Mr. 

 Gurdon I on behalf of ti oner, submitted that he ought to 



have been acquitted on both counts, and he apprehended that he 

 could *• the Court (hat r!,- prisoner was entitled to an ac- 



quittal on either of the cour according to the decision in a 

 recent i re! r< ported. (•• i ;e Queen v. o'Connell.")— Mr. 



Baron i : It cannot be raised by writ of error, because both 



counts are good. You think it comes within the equity of that 

 decision.— Mr. (iurdon had understood his Lord-hip that he was 

 to be at liberty to raise the question precisely ti ame as if he 

 had been arguing a new trial. He submitted there were two of- 

 fences charged, as much as in O'ConnelTs case there were three 

 offences. The prisoner was receiving ji; ment for both, when he 

 was only liable for one. On the first count he should submit that 

 Sir J. R< had only a reversionary interest, and that the par- 



ticular estate was in Brown, under the agreement which was un- 

 expired. The premises must be taken to be the t remises of the 

 person in possession, and that was Brown. By the statute of the 

 4th George IV. . 51, sec. 3, it was enacted,—" That if an 

 person should knowingly and wilfully send or deliver any letter 



threatening to kill a subject, or burn or destroy his or her 



bouse," fee. He submil these words must mean a house 



of which he hin f had the possession at law. — Mr. Baron 



Alderson thought the true construction was, to burn pre- 

 mises belonging to any of Her Majesty's subjects. — Mr. 



Gurdon observed, then, that he believed it had been held that 



the party to whom the letter was sent must also be the party 



threatened. — Mr. Baron Alderson: Then, if a man sends a letter 



to me threatening to murder my infant babe, it is no offence in 



p nt of law. I think, that is goi:.g the full length of a dity. — 



Mr. (iurdon thought the inference clear, because the infant could 

 not be frightened.— Mr. Baron Alderson: But I should. — Mr. (iur- 

 don thought tl. tide did not contemplate that. —Mr. Baron Al- 



d. a: Why should we give a strained construction v n tin- 

 plain construction meets the • >le case ?— Mr. Gurdon ved it 



was the fear operating upon the mind of the party threatened 



"WANT PLACES.— All Letter s to be post-paid. 

 A S GARDENERTSTGARDENER& FORESTER. 



A -A married Man, 35 years of age who j s conversant with 

 Gardening in all its branches ; has particularly exc died in Pine 

 nnrt Grane -ro-vin^ and is thoroughly acquainted wi.b the late 

 ?mprove P ments in"h'e culture of the Pine, Grape.MelOB, Cum- 



Stockport. ~ T 



" A S GARDENER. — A Nobleman's Gardener is 



A S desiro us to rccommc nd his Kantoajy^a, of 



SSSSSHSw-SeS-!- 



prcv 

 M. D., Office of this Paper 



JOHN MORRISON, who has 



He can have an unexceptionable character.-. 

 rtson" Forcing Garden, Kensington. 



don said, it was found that this letter never found its way to Sir 

 J. Rowlev until after it had been opened and given to the consta- 

 ble: it was not delivered to Sir J. Rowley, but shown to htm, and 

 he (Mr. Gordon) apprehended that would not do; it m be 

 such a sending that the letter should come to the party unopened. 

 —Mr. Baron Alderson : Was not the act complete by dropping i: 

 — Mr.Gurdon said, certainly not. It was not the mere writiug a let- 

 ter.— Mr. Baron Alderson : It was dropped with a view of reaching 



Sp^in ; he contended it was also an infraction of the law of 

 nations. Yet the plaintiffs applied to a Court of Law for com- 

 pensation for an injury done in preventing him from commit- 

 ting an infringment of the law of nations. The Honourable 



Caj in Denman was sent out in the Warrior to suppress 

 the slave trade, and it was impossible for their Lordships 

 tting in a Court of Law, to know the urgency of such 

 service, or what an officer intrusted with such duty was required 

 to do. If he outstepped his duty, he was amenable to a court- 

 martial, but not to a civil action. At all events, he acted in a 

 public capacity, and a Court of Law was not capable of judging 

 if he acted within the terms of his duty as an officer or not. 

 How inconvenient it would have been for a Court of Law to he 

 called upon to determine the legality of the transaction con- 

 nected with the bombardment of Copenhagen, or the destruction 

 of the Danish fleet. When an officer acted in a public capacity, 

 rightly or otherwise, surely the subjects of another coun 

 must have some other means of obtaining redress besid* 

 res- rting to a Court of Law.— Baron Alderson wished to knoi 

 if it was contended that the Ameers of Sci:=de might bring an 

 action against Lord Ellenborough for false imprisonment?— Mr. 

 Kelly saw no reason why they should not. — Baron Aid*. n : 

 Perhaps Sir C. Napier and Lord Ellenborough might he joint) 

 sued.— Sir T. Wilde continued: Hedid not contend that a person 

 injured by any public misconduct of a British officer had not 

 redress. All he contended was, that to entitle a party to re- 

 dress in a Court of Law, the injury must be inflicted by the offi- 

 cer in his private capacity, and not in his public character. If 

 Captain Denman, by his public conduct, had injured the pro- 

 perty of a Spanish subject, the Spanish Government had a right 

 t«> call upon the British Government for redress, and the Court 

 wo aid not presume that, i f a pro case was made out, the British 

 Government would be unwilling to afford redr . Here all that 

 had been done was done by the defendant in his public capacity, 

 under his instructions, which he was not to be called upon to 

 disclose. If he destroyed a depot for carrying on an illegal 

 traffic, it was impossible for the Court to say he acted bey 1 

 the letter of his instructions. If he had t.\n\e so he was respon- acreatW 

 sible to the Queen's Government, fiom whom he obtained his 

 instructions; but, upon every principle ot law and public policy, 

 he could not be held liable in a Court of Law in a civil action.— 

 The C t having dr red its intention of taking time to co; 

 sider its judgment— Mr. Kelly appl ed to be allowed to amei 

 the pleadings, so as to traverse the allegation that the defend int 

 ted within the meaning of instructions fro.n Government, if 

 the Court thought such an allegation appeared on the defend- 

 ant's plea.— 'the Court said the proper time to amend < Bid 



S GARDEN KR. 



A Married Man, aged 40, 



a thorough knowledge of 





e an 



Place, Edgewarc Road. 



A steady youn S Man, who has » 



A. practical knowledge of tho^ trait, rio % . 



Rarden. Caa have a ftre y« •£p£j ^ ^ei»M»ortoo* 



tlemao lie la about to "'•.»*"> 1 ' 'Subjection to a single- 



ssAasaus .vb. 1 : mV. ^Js^^^l 



-Ts~G~a1u5e~N KR.-W- . S »:^'°° c °; i ^ t de a n Voaog 



A. J. R. Mills, E<q., 18 °~; t arrrconsidcrab.e, I 

 aT_ -rnncfl pxoenence in iloruci mui . FnrC ing n 



s amford-niH, Middlesex 



A 



TO SEED Wf 1 ^- OT 2!L B /iVarehouie^ 



S CLERK and ASSIST ANT m.Se£ W«*o 



A respectable Yonng Ma ;\" Seeded JPlant Trade. * 

 and has a good knowledge o he Seed and ta blefir» 



SKXTS! r L har''ec^^ l,ft. ! -mrect to ,/„ 



JSlw and Co., Seedsmen, opposite the 



M 



huuse, London 



bouse, I.O.U.U.. . _- ^ 



s i ILIFF.-A middle-aged married W ^ 



V S nd. ands Cattle II .W, ,, .sago nd^ee ^ g 



!o<i hv his ore it employer.-^ '<- u 



well recommended hy his present e"'P- - 

 Post Office, Conden, near Tnnbridge Wei 



F 



[VB POUNDS will be given 



by the Advertiser, 

 (inUeman^ardeo 



single Man, to any Nobleman or u- » 

 will obtain him aSituat.o n«GJ ^ * { 

 every department of the business is 



)Bfc 

 on » 



has h» d 



— — ._ . when the Court pronounced its opinion on the peadiugs as 



him.— Mr. Gurdon c sidered if it never reached him there was lrie y now stood, 

 no threat ; it must come to the parry in order to strike terror into I 



several first- ! e establi .ments bolt £*»££ W**" 



-Direct- D. V.,"' staling terms, to the Othce oi 



red 





