liked, as it was not the first flogging he had had.

Lord Tenterden recapitulated the principal facts to the jury. It was, undoubtedly, the duty of a commander of a ship, whenever he saw the least tendency to mutiny, instantly to take means to repress it; for that purpose he was justified in inflicting whatever punishment might be necessary upon the individual whose conduct was likely to create danger; and, unless he inflicted wanton and unnecessary punishment upon any of them, he was not amenable to the law. The plaintiff had certainly used most improper language, and such as was highly calculated to inflame the minds of the crew while they were assembled on the quarter-deck; and if the jury were of opinion that the captain had reasonable cause to suppose that his object was to prevent the punishment of the three men from being carried into effect, and to excite the rest of the crew to mutiny and disobedience of the captain's orders, they ought to find for the defendant: but if, on the contrary, they thought that the plantiff had not so misconducted himself as to justify the punishment inflicted upon him, then they would find a verdict for him, with such damages as they thought him entitled to.

The Jury, found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 50l.

3. POACHERS. OXFORD LENT ASSIZES. Reading.-George Baker, Henry Burnet, Samuel Cope, George Edmeads, Thomas Field, Thomas Hunt, William Walters, and Samuel White, were indicted for having, on the night of the 6th of January last, maliciously shot at and wounded James Mansel, with intent to do him some griev

There were

ous bodily harm. other indictments, charging them also with feloniously taking from Robert Glasspool a pair of boots and one shawl handkerchief, and also with being found armed in the pursuit of game.

James Mansel, deposed as follows:-I am in the employ of Mr. Crutchley, and was called up on the night of the 6th of January, on an alarm of poachers being in the grounds. I went to meet Godfrey, Glasspool, Clark, Stevens, Taylor, and William Chandler, We met about half a mile from the spot, where I was subsequently shot. We had none of us any guns. We heard four guns fired near the pond-head, and went towards the spot. Taylor, Glasspool, and I were first. Our party in all consisted of seven. When we got to the pond-head, we saw two men. Our party spoke first. The answer we got was, "stand back, if you know when you are well off." The two we spoke to came out of the fence which encloses the wood, near the pond-head. Six or seven men came out afterwards, crying out, "Shoot the b-s." Chandler said, “Come on, Smith and Mansel," meaning two of the king's gamekeepers. They were not with us, but he meant to frighten them, by making pretence that they were. The other party called out, "Let them come on, we will give them a d-d good beating." They then formed in a row on the pond-head. On Taylor going up to the poachers, one of them came up and knocked him backwards. Taylor had not struck them. They called out, "Shoot him." As he fell, I heard a gun snick, and saw a flash in the pan. One of the poachers had a gun to his shoulder. I went to help

Taylor, and as I turned, some one struck me on the head, and I reeled as if I was going to fall into the pond. As I was reeling, I was shot in the thick part of my thigh. I staggered about twenty yards, and then lay down till some one came to my assistance. I was confined to my bed six days in consequence of the wound, and suffered much by it.

John Taylor, a constable of Winkfield, corroborated the testimony of the last witness, as to their being called up on the night of the 6th of January, their being armed only with walking sticks, and their first meeting with the poachers. He heard them say, "Ya hip, my lads, here they are; come forward." They then said, “Stand back, or b―r your eyes we will shoot you." This was said by more than one. I knew Samuel White to be one of them in the first line; his gun was pointed at Mansel, Glasspool, and me. I said, "You will shoot, will you?" I went up to them to look in their faces, and one of them struck me on the side of the neck with the but-end of a gun. The gun stock broke with the blow, and the barrel falling out rung on the stones. That was the first blow that was struck. As I fell back, they said, "Shoot the b-r, shoot the b-r." I saw the flash, and heard the report, and heard Mansel say, "Oh Lord, I am shot." I picked up my hat and stick, and they followed me up, with their guns at their shoulder, five or six of them calling out, "Shoot the b-." They snicked their guns, but I saw no flash. One of them said, "D—n your eyes, why don't you shoot ;" and another said, "If you shoot, shoot low enough." Glasspool's head was cut in three

places, and the blood running in a stream from him: he had no boots on then, though he had when he went up to the poachers.

William Chandler confirmed the evidence of the foregoing witnesses, and identified Field as one of the party. In pointing him out to the court, the witness having put his hand near the prisoner Field, he tried to bite it, snapping at him like a dog.

Robt. Glasspool, Mr. Crutchley's bailiff, stated, he was with the witnesses on the night in question, and heard the poachers desire them to stand back; he recognized Burnet with a gun to his shoulder; he then received a blow on his temple, which knocked him down, and he tried to get into the wood. After he got into the wood, he saw a man following him; he turned round and struck him, when the man hollowed out, "He is marning me." The rest of the poachers then came to his assistance, and witness ran away into a turnip-field; he then saw two men following Chandler; when they saw witness, they left Chandler to pursue him; and when they came up, knocked him down and beat him; he heard them say, "Let us have his boots;" they then said, “D-n the b-, let us have his handkerchief, and his money, and his watch." They felt for them, but he had neither money nor watch; some of them said, "Don't beat him any more, he has had enough;" he was covered with blood.

Henry Turner, the accomplice, who had turned King's evidence, stated:-I live at Shrub's-hill, in the parish of Egham. I know all the prisoners; we agreed to go a poaching on the night of the 6th of January, in Mr. Crutchley's

park; the whole party met opposite my house about ten at night. Fitzwalter is not here; he was one of the party; we were twelve in all. I went to the Lion publichouse to get twelve pints of beer before we started. The rest were to wait for me at a turf-house on the road. After the beer was disposed of, I took back the can to my house, and fetched my gun. Edmeads pulled off his smock frock, and tying up the end made a bag of it. We had ten guns amongst us; we carried them in our pockets, and under our coats. Hunt and Edmeads had no guns: we killed eighteen or nineteen pheasants, and were in the park twenty or thirty minutes before we were interrupted. I was on the pond head when I first saw the keepers; five or six of my party were there also; Edmeads was one of them. I don't know the rest, as I was behind. I believe Baker was one of the party. Some one cried out, "Come up." I kept behind, that the keepers should not know me. Our party said, "Stand off, or we will shoot you." When the keepers came up, my party began to strike, but I did not know which of them. was five or six yards behind. don't know who fell first, nor who fired the gun. I did not see that a man was wounded by the gun. The scuffle lasted only a short time. I saw one keeper get into the wood, but I did not know at the time it was Glasspool. I saw some of our party follow him, and saw Fitzwalter, whom we call Pluck, come out. He gave me a stick. Hunt and Edmeads also came out of the wood. Edmeads had a pair of boots under his arm, and Hunt had a handkerchief. He said, "This is the handkerchief I took from one of the men." He said

I

I

that while we divided the game in Forbes's plantation. Some of our party got one bird, some two birds: there had been nineteen killed. Edmeads had one hen bird and the boots for his share: we agreed to that.

Several other witnesses were called to prove that Walters and others were seen on the night of the 6th of January, with a dog and guns, on a road leading to Mr. Crutchley's park, and a stick and broken gunstock were produced, which had been found where Turner directed a search to be made for them.

The jury, having rejected the evidence of the accomplice, with the approbation of Mr. Baron Vaughan, returned a verdict of guilty," against only Burnet, Field, and White, on whom sentence of death was immediately passed. The gang to which they belonged had long been formidable in the vicinity of Windsor.

4. HASTINGS.On Wednesday morning, about three o'clock a portion of the cliff fell, just beyond the East well, about a quarter of a mile to the eastward of the town, and consisting of many thousand tons of earth. The shock was distinctly felt in several parts of the town; on the houses situated on the declivity of the hill, it had the effect of an earthquake, for every thing in them was set in motion. Many people, as the succeeding shocks (there were five of them) were felt, believed it to be an earthquake, but the noise of the fall was unheard from their distance. No property was destroyed except a small truck, containing some tools used for cutting stone.-Brighton Gazette.

4. PRIVILEGES OF BAPTIZED JEWS.-The Court of Aldermen

came to a final decision upon a subject which had been long considered a most important one to the citizens of London-viz., whether baptized Jews were entitled to the privilege of purchasing their freedom. A petition, sent into the court by Messrs. Saul, praying to be allowed to carry on business in the city, had been long pending. Those gentlemen, though born of Jewish parents, had been brought up from their infancy in the protestant faith; but, in conformity with the prejudices of their mother, the ceremony of circumcision was performed upon them in their infancy. In the year 1785, the court of Aldermen had made a standing order, that baptized Jews should not be admitted to the freedom of the city; and upon the strength of this resolution, all succeeding courts had rejected the application of individuals who had renounced the forms, customs, and opinions of the Jews, and of those who were at all events as rigidly Christians as themselves, from the moment they understood the meaning of the word Christianity. The petitioners determined to persevere against the apparently unalterable intention of the court, and they were encouraged by the advice of Aldermen Wood, Waithman, and Sir Peter Laurie.

Mr. Law, who appeared for the petitioners, argued, that there was nothing either in the spirit or letter of the standing order, which could affect the petitioners, for they never were Jews. They were not baptized Jews, unless the court would pervert the meaning of language. They were baptized, it was true, in the year 1803, but they never were Jews; he would defy the court to prove

that they were Jews before that period. It might as well be said, that a man was of a certain trade or profession, because his father had happened to belong to it, as to say, that religious opinions must be an inevitable inheritance. He then called upon the court to consider the circumstances under which the obnoxious standing order was made. In the journals of 1783, the following note appeared: "At a court of Aldermen, held the 22nd of July, Mr. Chamberlain laid before the court a case respecting the admission of persons who had renounced Judaism, and been baptized, and also Mr. Recorder's and Mr. Common Sergeant's opinions as follow:-You are desired to give your opinion upon this matter, agrecable to the order of the court of Aldermen, made for that purpose respecting the admission of persons into the freedom of the city who have renounced Judaism, and have been baptized.

"I am of opinion that Jews, so circumstanced as described in the order of the court of Aldermen, and taking the customary oath, are entitled to their freedom.-J. Adair.

Question 1.-Whether Jews being baptized only, and offering to take the oaths upon the New Testament, is a complete and sufficient renunciation of Judaism?

"I am of opinion that it is.J. Adair.

"I do not find a good authority to prove that any other requisites are necessary.-Thomas Nugent.

"Question 2.-Whether it will be politic or advisable in the cor→ poration to admit such baptized Jews into the freedom of the city.

"I think the admission of such persons politic and advisable; but

as this is a matter of discretion, not of law, I submit it wholly to the opinion of the court of Aldermen.-J. Adair.

"The determination of this question resting entirely with the court of Aldermen, and as from the state of this case it appears other Jews intend to follow the example of Galindo (the person applying), there may be so many applications of this kind, even from the lowest sort of that people, as may be attended with great inconvenience to the public: therefore the court will well consider the propriety of the measure, before he is admitted to his freedom. -Thomas Nugent."

Mr. Law urged that the authority of the Recorder of that day ought to carry weight with it; that of the Common Sergeant, which was more congenial to the views of the court, could be easily accounted for, as he had to look to a higher situation than he possessed; whereas the Recorder could not obtain a higher, and was probably more sincere, because more independent.

After, a discussion took place amongst the Aldermen, the order was rescinded, and it was directed that the petitioners should be sworn in.

5. STOLEN NOTES.-KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL-Dela Chaumette v. the Bank of England.

This was an action of trover to recover the value of a 500l. Bank of England note, dated the 16th of February, 1826, No. 4,356.

Sir James Scarlett stated that the plaintiff, M. De la Chaumette, was a merchant of great respectability and affluence, residing in the city of London; who was in the habit of having commercial dealings to a great extent

with persons in Paris, and received remittances by bills and notes to a large amount. In Paris there were a number of persons who carried on the business of moneychangers. They collected Bank of England notes and other negotiable securities, and sold them for the purpose of transmitting them to England by merchants and others who had correspondents there. The plaintiff was connected with a respectable house in Paris, Messrs. Odier and Co., who were in the habit of making him very large remittances. The plaintiff had received from them Bank of England notes of the value of 100l., 500l., and 1000l. In May 1826, a considerable balance being due from Messrs. Odier to the plaintiff, the former made a remittance to the plaintiff of 1,300l. in part discharge of that balance. The 500l. Bank note in question formed a part of that remittance. Upon receipt of it, the plaintiff sent it with several other notes to his bankers, Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, and Co., who shortly after sent it into the Bank of England. The Bank, however, objected to give credit for it, on the ground that information had been previously received that it was a stolen note, which they had been directed to retain until the right owner could be discovered. Now the law had been long settled, that a party, who had given valuable consideration for a note, or other negotiable security, was entitled to recover its value, notwithstanding it might have been stolen, or otherwise improperly obtained before it came into his possession. Messrs. Jones and Co., upon finding that the Bank would not give credit for the note, requested to have it returned to them, but this was refused.