vernor and ordinary; and that they, the late churchwardens, should be allowed fourteen days from hence for that purpose, in failure of which a prosecution in the Ecclesiastical Court should be instituted against them. Mr. John Till then proposed to dissolve the meeting, which being seconded by Mr. Atwood, the several parties quitted the vestry." These proceedings having taken place on the 11th of June, the defendant, who united in his government the character of chancellor, and assumed also the power of acting as ordinary, and exercising other functions connected with the Ecclesiastical Court, proceeded to put in force his supposed authority, to compel the churchwardens to render their accounts, notwithstanding the extended time allowed them by the select vestry had not expired. On the 17th of July, while the plaintiff, who was an auctioneer, was engaged in selling by auction some furniture belonging to a gentleman lately deceased, a constable came to him and told him, that the governor required his immediate attendance at the vestry-room. The plaintiff replied, that he could not leave the auction then, but he would come when his business was over, which he thought would be in about two hours. The constable then went away, and, in a short time, returned with three soldiers, who assisted him in conveying the plaintiff to the vestry-room. The governor was there sitting as chair

came into the vestry-room, and the governor then required the accounts to be produced. Mr. Till said they were not in readiness, and that the sixty days allowed by the select vestry did not expire till the 1st of August. The governor, in answer, said, "That won't do; we must have them immediately." Mr. Till then told the governor that he and his brother churchwarden could not submit to the directions of his excellency, as they were bound to account to the select vestry alone. The governor denied that the select vestry had power to grant the time which they had allowed to the churchwardens, but expressed his willingness to give them a few days to produce their accounts. Mr. Till, however, insisted on having the whole of the time allowed by the vestry, and the governor then said, he would send them both to gaol, whence no power on earth could release them, and where they should remain till they rotted, unless they rendered the accounts. Having then come to the determination of committing them, he immediately produced from his pocket a warrant, which he had prepared, and having signed it, the parties were given in custody of the constable, who conveyed them to gaol. The gaoler, knowing them to be persons of respectability, was, in the first instance, induced to commit a little irregularity in their favour. For several days he allowed the plaintiff to go home after dark, as one of his children was ill, and his wife pregnant. The governor, however, having heard of this indulgence, issued an order prohibiting all persons from going out of the gaol after sunset, or before sunrise, and a sentinel was then posted at the

gaol gates to keep guard night and day. The parties remained in the gaol till the 1st of August, when, having rendered their accounts to the select vestry, they were released. The plaintiff was afterwards advised to bring an action against the constable who had arrested him, and another against the gaoler who had kept him in custody. A verdict, with 2001. damages, passed against the constable. A writ of error was then brought, and the governor, sitting in the Court of Error as chancellor, reversed the judgment. In the action against the gaoler, 500l. damages were given. He did not appeal to the Court of Error, and the reason was stated in a document which had issued from the governor, acting as chancellor. That document was an injunction, in which it was recited that the gaoler had been unable to procure sureties to prosecute an appeal to the Court of Error, and that as the payment of the enormous damages recovered in the action at the suit of the plaintiff would effect his ruin by depriving him of his property, it was prayed that execution might be stayed, until the cause could be heard before some competent tribunal. The injunction was accordingly issued, and thus had the plaintiff been deprived of the benefit of the verdict which he had obtained.

The defendant attempted to show that he possessed the power of Ordinary, and had done nothing which he might not legally do in that character; but lord Tenterden was of opinion, that, even if he had possessed the jurisdiction of an Ordinary, he had exercised it in an illegal manner. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 1000l. damages.

9. BODY-SNATCHERS. UNION

HALL-A man named Huntington and his wife were charged with stealing the clothes of a man who died suddenly while walking along Walworth-common a few days before. The investigation of the charge exhibited an extraordinary instance of the manner in which dead bodies are procured for the purposes of dissection. From the evidence of Mr. Murray, the assistant overseer of the parish of Newington, it appeared, that, on the Monday preceding, the body of a man, who dropped down dead in that parish, was brought to the workhouse. On the Wednesday following, the prisoner, accompanied by his wife, attended at the committee-room in the workhouse, and, affecting great sorrow, represented themselves as nearly related to the deccased, and expressed a desire to have the body delivered up to them, adding, that they wished to have it decently interred at their own expense. The parishofficers made some inquiries relative to the applicants in the place where they resided, and heard nothing to their disadvantage; they therefore consented to deliver up the body to them, after the inquest was held upon it. The inquest was held on Thursday, and when it concluded, the prisoners again presented themselves at the workhouse, and demanded the corpse, which was then delivered up to them. Previous to the prisoners' departure, they told the parishofficers that the deceased was the female prisoner's brother; that he had come up to London from Shoreham, in Sussex, about four months ago, with 80l. in his pocket; and that he dissipated and squandered away the whole of the money in that short period. In fact, from the consistent statement

the prisoners had given, and the sorrow and anxiety they betrayed when they first made application at the workhouse for the body, the parish officers had not the slightest suspicion but that they were nearly allied to the deceased. On Wednesday night, however, in consequence of a quarrel that occurred between the two prisoners and another woman, relative to the division of the money which the corpse fetched, it appearing that it had been sold for eleven guineas at St. Bartholomew's hospital, the affair was brought to light, and ultimately led to the apprehension of the prisoners. An officer, on searching their lodgings in Southwark, discovered the clothes which belonged to the deceased, together with a great variety of implements, used by body-snatchers, viz. screw-drivers, wrenching machines for opening the lids of coffins, large and small gimlets, and other articles useful for such purposes. He also found instruments for breaking open the repositories of the living as well as those of the dead, for there were secreted under Huntington's bed a whole bunch of house-breaking apparatus, with skeleton keys, &c. of all sizes.-The prisoners were remanded both on the charge of stealing the clothes, and that of having burglarious instruments in their possession.

10. FIRE. About 12 o'clock, noon, the Theatre Royal, Glasgow, was discovered to be on fire. The flames spread so rapidly, that, in a few minutes, the whole of the edifice was one burning mass. Notwithstanding the immediate arrival of the engines, all that could be done was, to prevent the flames from spreading to the adjoining houses; which was accomplished.

The fise, in the mean time, was raging throughout the whole of the theatre so furiously, that all attempts at saving the contents were useless, and, in the course of an hour, only the four outer walls remained standing. Not less than 1,500l. were lost in scenery, dresses, and other articles. The building itself was insured to nearly the amount of the purchase money. The roof of the New Exchange was several times nearly on fire; but, by the prompt exertions of those connected with the building, it was preserved. The whole of the corps dramatique were, at the moment of the discovery, engaged in rehearsing the play which was to have been acted in the evening, and, had it not been for one of the party who first discovered the flames, it was doubtful whether any one of the whole company would have escaped.The origin of the fire was not ascertained.

12. PERJURY.-GUILDHALL.This was an indictment at the prosecution of Mr. Pearson, owner of a coal-wharf on the Thames, against Thomas Munton, one of the coal-meters of the corporation of London, for perjury. The defence was conducted by the corporation. Munton, it appeared, was no favourite with the coalmerchants, and having got himself into a quarrel, at the plaintiff's wharf, on the 4th December 1827, the plaintiff and certain other parties were tried for an assault. Mr. Pearson was found guilty, Munton having sworn positively that he was present, and joining in the assault. For having so sworn, he was now indicted for perjury.

Mr. Edward Field stated, that he was concerned as attorney for Mr. Pearson on the trial for the

assault, and was present when the defendant gave his evidence in support of the indictment. Witness made a memorandum of what the defendant stated. He said, "Stainton, Buck, and Pearson, were taking part in the assault by setting the men on; they hustled me against the wall; the gentlemen were in and out; all the defendants were present; Mr. Pearson was there; they did it through him, laughing and using bad language." The defendant was asked what he meant by the expression "through him?" He replied, "By through him, I mean in consequence of his (Mr. Pearson) being there." He then went on to talk. of the water being thrown upon him, and said that, after that, the defendants made a roaring noise. He was asked, if Mr. Pearson made a roaring noise, and he said, "Yes." He said the time the water was thrown was about a quarter to six o'clock.

Cross-examined by the Solicitorgeneral. I recollect somebody swearing at the trial, that there was a person present at the wharf who bore a resemblance to Mr. Pearson. I know a Mr. Grelier, a coal-merchant. I don't think he bears much resemblance to Mr. Pearson. They may be about the same age, but I should think Mr. Pearson rather the oldest. The defendant was asked in his crossexamination, whether he might not have mistaken Mr. Pearson for Mr. Grelier, and Mr. Grelier was pointed out to him in court. Mr. Grelier was in attendance as a wit

ness.

Re-examined.-No person except the defendant spoke to the identity of Mr. Pearson. When Mr. Grelier was pointed out to the defendant, he denied that he was

the person who had assaulted him. I had not ascertained at what time the defendant intended to fix the assault.

Mr. Michael Pearson, the prosecutor. I reside in Lansdowneplace, Brunswick-square. I was at Rutland-wharf on the morning of the 4th of December, 1827. The defendant was there. Something had been said by the men at the wharf about his conduct. He had occasioned interruptions to the bu siness. The wages of the labourers depend on the number of waggons that are sent out. They are paid by the job. I had observed much dissatisfaction expressed by the men at the defendant's conduct, and I had in consequence given them orders not to molest him in any way. I left the wharf at about a quarter before five o'clock, on the 4th of December. There had been no disturbance or molestation at that time, that I was aware of. There had been quarrelling and swearing among the men, which I had endeavoured to check, but no water had been thrown. Mr. Martineau, Mr. Fellows, my partner, and my sister, were engaged to dine with me that day. I had seen Mr. Fellows immediately before I quitted the wharf, and I left him in the countinghouse. The dinner-hour was six o'clock. I arrived at my house about ten minues past five. Before I dressed for dinner, I went to my mother's, after I had been home to fetch my sister, who was not quite ready to accompany me, and I returned without her. My sister arrived before I had dressed. Mr. Martineau arrived about six o'clock. Mr. Fellows came a few minutes afterwards. We were about sitting down to dinner, when Mr. Fellows came. Up to

that time I was not aware of any disturbance having taken place at the wharf. I arrived there about half past ten the next morning, and was not then in the least aware that any assault had been committed on the defendant. No other witness besides himself was called to prove that I was there. The defendant said, "Stainton, Buck, and Pearson were setting the men on; they hustled me against the wall. Mr. Pearson was there. It was through him that they made use of bad language." Upon being asked what he meant by "through him," he replied, " in consequence of his being there." He went on and talked about the water being thrown, and said the men made a roaring noise. On being asked whether Mr. Pearson made a roaring noise, he said, "Yes." He fixed the time at a quarter to six. The next morning I showed Mr. Field what I had written, and he said, "Your memorandum is more perfect than my own;" and he then destroyed his, and signed one which I wrote, he overlooking me. The one that I wrote was copied nearly from that which I had written before. The defendant was asked repeatedly, both in his first examination and his cross-examination, to identify me. All the particulars to which he swore, respecting my being present at the time the assault was committed, are false.

The mother, wife, and sister, of the prosecutor, confirmed his testimony as to the time at which he returned home on the afternoon of the 4th of December. Mr. Fellows stated, that the prosecutor left the counting-house on the 4th of December at a quarter before five o'clock. Witness had seen the defendant at the wharf in the course

of the day. The men had been in a state of discontent the whole of the day, in consequence of not being able to do their work. Mr. Pearson and witness remonstrated with them, and told them not to touch the defendant. No assault or disturbance had taken place before Mr. Pearson left. It took place afterwards. There was a noise and laugh at the window of the counting-house. The clerk (Stainton) went out, and, on his return, witness asked him, what was the matter, and he said it was some nonsense with the meter. The noise was momentary. Stainton was out not a minute. Witness left the counting-house at ten minutes before six, and arrived at ten minutes after.-Charles Stainton, the wharf-clerk, confirmed the statement of Messrs. Pearson and Fellows as to the orders given by them to the men not to molest

the defendant. He spoke also to the time of Mr. Pearson's leaving the counting-house, which he fixed at twenty minutes before five, and confirmed several other parts of the preceding testimony. He was one of the persons indicted and convicted, though he was not at the wharf at the time of the assault.— Wm. Higgins went down to the wharf about six o'clock on the evening of the 4th of December. Mr. Pearson was not there. The witness saw the throwing of the water at the time that Mr. Fellows and Mr. Stainton were in the counting-house.-James Grelier, was at Rutland-wharf on the 4th December. Left there about ten minutes before five o'clock. There was no disturbance. The men were standing still for want of work.-John Grelier was at the wharf a short time on the afternoon of the 4th of December, and