O'Connor said he had no such thing. He then made a memorandum of the amount with a pencil, and put it, with the notes rolled up, in a handkerchief, and put the handkerchief into his coat pocket. He had not gone more than a few perches from the house where he received the rent, leading to the avenue where he had left his horse, when a person he did not know ran from behind a bush; his face was masked with a piece of cloth. He threw him down by a violent push, which made him trip. A second person came up. They tied him with cords by the wrists and the feet, and left him in a faint. When he recovered, he found he was tied to a tree; by much labour he contrived to get one hand into his waistcoat pocket, where he found a pen-knife, with which he cut the cord that tied his hands and legs, and also extricated himself from the tree to which he had been tied his wrists were blackened with the cord-the whole of the money and the handkerchief were taken from him, but he knew not either of the persons who robbed him. On recovering, be returned to the garden-house, where he met Mrs. Smith, who gave him a drink of water; and in a short time Mr. O'Connor came up, to whom he told his story, as he had now related it. Mr. O'Connor seemed much surprised at the relation, and said he believed there were robbers on the demesne; two strange fellows had been lurking since Monday; he offered to bring his workmen from the barn, and search the neighbourhood; the witness said it was useless; O'Connor said, that on a VOL. LVI.

search the money might be found hid, perhaps in the thatch of some cabin; he replied, they are not to be found now; witness got his horse, and, being very weak, rode home to Trim: in the course of the day he made an affidavit of the robbery before the Rev. William Elliott, a justice of the peace for the county of Meath.

Doyle, in his cross-examination, stated that he was not servant to any person-that he was a coroner in Meath, and Postmaster of Trim; that the robbers tied him to a laurel tree; that he was not gagged, and did not cry out lustily: that he fainted for fifteen minutes; he extricated himself by contriving to get his hand into his pocket, from which he took a knife, and cut the ropes.

Mr. McNally, for the defendants, said, he had seen but one record of a similar nature, which had been tried in the county of Waterford; but, in England, such actions ́ were frequently brought. He made several observations on the improbability of the transaction, and the interest which Doyle, the witness, had, as to character and to pecuniary objects, in obtaining a verdict for Plaintiff.

Roger O'Connor being sworn, stated, that Doyle took down the amount of the notes with a pencil, folded them in a handkerchief, with the penciled memorandum, and put them into his pocket, said he was in a hurry, having to settle the account of a Mr. Bathurst's auction; after paying the rent, he walked with him some length, then went a contrary way, and in about ten minutes heard Doyle say he was robbed. Doyle said it was no affair of his; he Y

would

would not be at the loss, for he would go to Trim, serve notice on the church-wardens, and recover the money of the county. The witness earnestly requested of him to shew the spot where the robbery was committed, and raise an alarm this he declined doing. Witness also told him, he would collect his men, meet him at night, advised a party of dragoons to be got, and said, he would assist, with his men, in searching for the felons-Doyle, at this time, alleged there was but one robber -then said, he imagined there was but one, but there might be two: he examined Doyle's arms,

there were no marks of a rope, nor did he see that the cord was cut-nor did he hear any outcry— nor did any other person, though many were on the demesne and' near him, hear him cry out-he at last shewed a spot, where he said he was robbed; but the grass shewed no marks of pressure, Doyle begged pardon, and said that was not the place, and led the witness to another place, and said, "this is the place where I was robbed," which was on the opposite side from the first place pointed out by him. The witness said, there were no marks of any person having been laid on the ground, nor were there any marks of the fir deal seeds on his great coat. The witness then proceeded with his workmen, to search the demesne for the robbers; he soon returned, and saw Doyle, who was complaining to the men who were thrashing in a barn, that he had been robbed. This barn was convenient to the spot where Doyle said he had been robbed.

Lord Norbury, in his charge,

brought forward all the leading features of the case, and said, the Jury should find for the plaintiff if they gave credit to the testimony of Doyle, and it appeared that he had been released from all interest and future liability for the plaintiff. As the defendant's counsel had submitted several points of law to the Court, a verdict for the plaintiff could work no injury; for, if these legal points were well grounded (and he would give no opinion on them, but leave them to the Court above), the defendants would set the verdict aside.

The Jury found for the plaintiff-Damages 750l. with costs.

POLICE.

Queen-square, Sept. 20.-Came on the case, on a summons granted against the driver of the Hackney coach, No. 644, on the application of Mr. Wilkinson, by Mr. Fielding, in virtue of his construction of the Act, on Saturday last, namely, that a complaint for misbehaviour or abuse might be exhibited against a Hackney coachman even without a ticket.

Collier, the owner of the coach, stated, that on the day when Mr. W. was taken in his coach from the Old-Bailey to Islington he was very ill, and got a man to drive for him, forgetting, unfortunately, to give him some tickets.

Mr. Fielding, the magistrate, said, that the driver must attend; for he who drove was here the offender. It was a personal offence it was the behaviour of the driver that constituted it. The person at the bar, however, might tell his brother coachmen (al

though

though the mere refusal of the ticket was only attended with the loss of the fare, there being no specific penalty for such refusal), that if omission to give the required tickets were accompanied by any abusive language or ill behaviour, the Magistrates still had the power of punishing such conduct by penalty, a power vested in them by the 9th Anne. The extraordinary construction that had been put on the new Act, that a Magistrate could not listen to any complaint whatsoever, except where a ticket should be produced, astonished him beyond measure; but it shewed that those who had put such construction on it had not read the Act through. The misconception of the Act, which appeared to have spread far and wide, reminded him of what he had witnessed at Bow-street fifteen years ago. A hackney coach case under the 9th Anne was before the Magistrates, and the point in argument was, what was the meaning of "abusive language," for the Magistrates had read as far as "abusive language," and no farther; and after three hours of erudite and logical ar. gument, the remainder of the clause was read, which explained all that had created debate and doubt, for the act said, "abusive language, or any other rude behaviour." So it was with this new Hackney Coach Act; for having read that the tickets to be given by the coachman must be produced before any complaint can be heard, the concluding part of the clause was quite overlooked, which said, that a complainant must produce some one or more of the said notes or tickets which he shall have received, or might

and ought to have received by virtue of this Act." The law now stood thus: if a coachman should refuse that ticket which he might and ought to give on its being required, such bare refusal would only be followed by the loss of the fare; for without a ticket no one was bound to pay: and if that refusal were accompanied with "abusive language, or any other rude behaviour," then the offence was punishable under the 9th Anne. He had not much respect for the Act, but its objects were attainable; and if every gentleman in the country would act as Mr. Wilkinson had done, and put his shoulders to the work, the business would be completed in a week.

The case having been thus decided, it was ordered to stand over pro forma to give time for the appearance of the driver.

Detonating Balls.-Mr. John Cuthbert, of St. Martin's-lane, optician, was summoned on information, for exposing to sale, on the 26th October, certain fireworks called detonating balls.

Pace and Lavender, the officers, said that Mr. C. had a bill in his window announcing " chemical detonating balls, &c. to produce the report of a pistol without danger." Pace purchased a dozen for eighteen pence. Some of them were exploded at the Office, each emitting flame.

Mr. Cooper, chemist, of Drurylane, convicted on a former day of having sold detonating balls, admitted, on the part of Mr. Cuthbert, that they threw out a flash, but denied their containing fire. It was a flash similar to what was Y 2 produced

produced by striking one flint against another. It was the explosion of a species of gas; but it was not fire, because it would not burn paper.

Mr. Fielding said, that the preparation contained the igneous element; that the flash was from some species of fire. The Act had introduced the genus generalissimum, fire, the igneous element; and although the legisla ture at the time of making the law probably only contemplated" fireworks" made with gunpowder, yet as the word had been introduced, he could not restrict its meaning. It comprehended every species of fire, however produced; and there were many species of flame or fire. But the simple fact of the composition producing some sort of fire did not bring it within the contemplation of the statute. A gas light, brimstoned matches, and phosphorus boxes, were fireworks; but none of them were of that mischievous tendency meant to be guarded against by the Act. It was necessary to establish, not only that the articles complained of were fireworks, but also that they were calculated to produce serious mischief. Now these detonating balls, it had been proved, were calculated to effect abundant mischief.

Mr. Cooper observed, that the balls did not contain fire, but latent caloric; and they would go off in a vacuum not requiring the intervention of air to cause explosion. Sugar, and rubbing together two pieces of borax, would produce flame, as would many phosphoric bodies; but that flame was not fire. [Johnson defines flame to be "light emitted from are."

Mr. Fielding could not agree that what was called latent caloric was not a species of fire, as the balls threw out considerable flame and sparks. As it was established that these balls were not only fireworks, but that they possessed the mischievous qualities guarded against by the act, he must pronounce for conviction. The venders of these useless and mischievous articles had said, why not punish those wanton people who explode them at public places? This was plausible but erroneous reasoning; for in the eye of the law it was more politic to punish him who provided the means of working mischief, than the individual who used those means; but for the satisfaction of the philosophical gentlemen who manufactured these balls, he would state, that should any wanton persons be brought before him for exploding these balls, he would punish to the utmost severity of the law.

Mr. Cuthbert observed, that a dozen balls could be made with twopenny worth of fulminating silver; and since fulminating silver itself, without being made into balls with glass bulbs, would explode if thrown on the ground with force, he inquired whether he would be liable to an information if he were to sell it.

Mr. Fielding feared that he would. Convicted in the penalty of 51. and costs.

of the general circumstances of which an account will be found in our Chronicle for the month of February. The report at large of the trial itself occupies a bulky volume; and we can only allot for it a space sufficient for a very summary view of the principal points of the evidence, and the result of the whole.

The persons tried were Charles Random de Berenger, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane, the Hon. Andrew Cochrane Johnstone, Richard Gathorne Butt, Ralph Sandon, Alexander M'Rae, John Peter Holloway, and Henry Lyte. The crime charged was a conspiracy for raising the Funds, and thereby injuring those who should become purchasers in them; the Court was the King's Bench, Guildhall, before Lord Ellenborough, on June 8th and 9th. The case for the prosecution having been stated by Mr. Gurney, the first witness called was John Marsh, master of the Packet Boat public-house, at Dover. His evidence went chiefly to prove the fact of a gentleman, drest in a grey great-coat and a red uniform under it, with a star, knocking at the door of the Ship Inn, early in the morning of February 21st, whom he assisted to get into the inn, and who said that he was the bearer of very important dispatches from France. He was fully satisfied that Berenger was this person. This evidence was confirmed by that of Gourley, a hatter, who was at that time in Marsh's house.

Mr. St. John, who was then at the Ship Inn as a traveller, deposed in like manner to the arrival of a person who asked for a post-chaise, to his dress, and to the identity of Berenger as this person.

Admiral Foley was then called to prove the receipt of a letter dispatched to him as port-admiral at Deal, by express from Dover, from a person at the Ship Inn, who signed himself R. Du Bourg, Lieutenant-Colonel and Aide-de-Camp to Lord Cathcart, and which was proved to be in the hand writing of Berenger. The purport of the letter was to acquaint the Admiral that he was just arrived from Calais with the news of a great victory obtained by the allies over Buonaparte, who was slain in his flight by the Cossacks, and that the allied Sovereigns were in Paris, where the white cockade was universal. A post-chaise boy was then examined who drove a gentleman in that night from Dover to Canterbury, and another from Canterbury to Sittingbourn, and a third from thence to Rochester. They deposed to the receiving of Napoleons from him, and the latter boy to his dress, agreeing with the former descriptions.

Mr. Wright, of the Crown Inn, at Rochester, brother to Wright of the Ship, at Dover (who was prevented from appearing by illness) next gave evidence of the person's coming to his house, of his dress in the great coat, red uniform, star, and military cap, and of his conversation relative to the news he brought; and was positive that Berenger was the man. Other innkeepers and drivers continued the chain of evidence, to that of a Dartford chaise driver, Thomas Shilling, who gave a very circumstantial account of carrying Berenger to the Marsh-gate, Lambeth, and there seeing him into a hackney-coach. The driver of this coach, William Crane, then deposed to the ca rying him to No. 13, Green-street,