Lord and lady Essex, Mr. and Miss Rodney, and general Sir W. Scott, are in the last arrival list. Lord Brecknock alighted at the York Hotel, on Thursday se'nnight, but departed for Southampton, on the following morning. Lady Elizabeth Vernon was at the above hotel on Friday se'nnight, but returned to Worthing the same evening. The dowager lady Young has left us for Bloomsbury-square.

Major General Sir Patrick and lady Ross and family arrived at the Old Ship hotel, on the 11th instant, from France, after an absence of five years, from England. The general, who came over by the veteran, captain Lind, was pleased to express himself in the most flattering terms of the

captain and his crew. He observed that the voyage appeared to him, as a pleasure excursion on board a gentleman's yatch.

It is now confidently reported that Messrs. Egerton and Blanchard will be the joint managers of our theatre, this season.

Mr. George Phillips of the Steyne, we understand, has the management of the grand fete to be given by Mrs. Aldridge, at New Lodge, near Horsham, on the 24th instant, and two following days, in honour of her son's coming of age.

The Prince of Denmark assumes, while in England, the title of Count Alstone, which title is on his visiting cards. His royal highness is considered to be here incognito.

MONDAY, JUNE 3. Magistrate-I. H. Bates, Esq. Mills, the beadle, preferred a complaint against Elizabeth Holes. He had released the defendant, he said, from a fight, with a street brawler, the notorious Mrs. Wood, but not until many heavy blows had been received on both sides. Some hours subsequent to this, the defendant had come to his house, and on finding that he had not lodged Mrs. Wood in the blackhole, she had flown at him, the complainant, like an enraged cat —and here the beadle produced the tattered fragments of a shirt, which, he said, had been scratched and reduced to that condition

by the powerful application of her claws. A witness deposed, that the beadle was so drunk he could not stand, but the next moment added, that the defendant had been three times kicked, and then, by superior force, put out of the house by him. One of the Headboroughs spoke decisively to the sobriety of the beadle at the time. The latter was held in a recognizance of £10 to prosecute, and defendant found bail for her appearance at the quarter sessions.

During the above examination, Mrs. Wood was sent for, whose behavour, as usual, was vulgarly offensive-she was, however, let off with a reprimand, and appeared to regard herself forty

Souter v. Harris.-This was an assault case between two married women, the complainant, the wife of an industrious man, living with her husband, and the defendant, with a family of children, not living with her husband. Violence of temper in the latter was the assigned cause of the husband's desertion of her. The irascible spirit she possessed had introduced her to the magistrates at former sittings. The assault, in the present instance, was not only proved by a witness, but defendant admitted it herself-she said she had struck complainant, but it had been in defence of her children, and that she was fully prepared, if the necessity occurred, to do the same thing again. On being required to find bail, she said, she preferred going to prison, because then the parish must provide for her children. Such was the shield she invariably held out, it was observed, to shelter herself from the effect of her intemperance; but she was now told, that if the bail required was not found, that her children should be received into the workhouse, during her confinement in prison, to take her trial for the assault at the quarter sessions. She was removed in custody, but, subsequently, found bail.

A something was mentioned, during the investigation of the above case, respecting the employment of girls (children) by the frail sisterhood, in calling on tradesmen, and which, we trust, is distined to be seriously enquired into by the magistrates hereafter.

The nuisance of barrows standing in the public streets, for the sale of fish, &c. has often been a subject of loud complaint, and the beadles almost as often have been called on to do their duty. Not neglectful of the duty alluded to, they had seized and detained a barrow in St. James's-street, subsequently proffering the fish it contained to the owner of it, but which he refused separately to take away. Both barrow and fish were detained, and the person from whom they had been taken now entered a protest against the proceeding. He had not been standing still in the street, he said, to obtain a sale for the fish, but had been deliberately passing up it, when a gentleman purchased a lobster, and he had merely entered his house to receive the money for it, and during which the beadles seized and deprived him of his barrow. He did not choose to receive the fish separately, afterwards, because he was of opinion that the beadles were acting contrary to law; and, by others he had been much strengthened in his opinion since, and which had induced his present application. The magistrate advised him to withdraw his complaint, or the consequences might turn out unexpectedly severe against himself. He was told that whether standing still in a street to sell fish, &c. or walking up or down it for such a purpose, that he was acting in direct violation of the Local Act of Parliament, which admitted of no such sales but in the public market; and that for every offence which should be proved against him, he had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £5. A clause in the Local Act, con

firmatory of what had been advanced was read, and he was permitted to withdraw his complaint. He then petitioned to have his barrow returned, and was told, that upon paying the legal expense incurred, the beadles would deliver it back to him. He instanced many persons who were constantly in the habit of offending in the way that he had done, when it was observed, that all and severally of those he had alluded to, would be liable to all the pains and penalties of the Local Act, the instant, by due process, the facts should be established against them.

Charlotte Bartlette v. James Bartlette. This was an assault case beteen brother and sister, the complainant having provoked a blow, by an unjust and most slanderous epithet, which she admitted she had levelled at defendant's wife. They were severally held in a recognizance of £10 to keep the peace towards each other and the public, for a year.

An excise case, information on which had been lodged in the presence of I. Diggens, Esq. was postponed to Thursday, in consequence of the absence of that gentleman.

THURSDAY, JUNE 6.

arm extended from a window of a house, with the instrument twirling in the hand, but he could not say who the person was, nor whether man or woman. A crowd of people had collected in consequence at the house-they denied any such occurrence, and had treated his application to it with rudeness. The occupier of the house said, he was absent at the time, but he had closely questioned his family on the subject, and the impression left upon his mind, in the end, was, that the headborough had been mistaken, not in regard to his having heard the noise of a rattle, but in his having seen the arm, &c. as he had said, exhibited from deponent's window. The headborough spoke positively to the latter particular. Several witnesses were examined, but none could tell directly whence the sound had issued. was of opinion that the noise came from an empty house! but no disposition was evinced by the headborough, that he could for an instant imagine, that the arm he had seen, had been the limb of a ghost. The bench could but be of opinion, upon the affidavit of the headborough, that the rattle had been sprung as he had stated; but it was evident that the master of the house knew nothing about it. Such

One person

One of the headboroughs preferred a complaint against a house in St. James's-street, a gentleman, the occupier of which, was present. The headborough, in passing up St. James's-street, on Tuesday night, as late as eleven o'clock, heard a rattle sprung twice, the second time he saw an

to be considered, were strongly condemned. Should a rattle, it was observed, be used in case of danger and necessity, in the same premises in future, the occupiers of it would not have any cause for surprise, if it should not procure for them the assistance they needed. The complaint was then dismissed.

Martin, the beadle, v. Moore.— The defendant and his wife had been lodgers of the complainant, they had both left his premises, but the former had, at times, returned, been abusive, and made a demand of household goods, which did not belong to him. Defendant's wife confirmed complainant's testimony; she also said, defendant had married her in the name of Phillips, and that, therefore, he could not claim her as his lawful wife. Defendant admitted that he had been married in the name of Phillips-said that he was employed on shipboard at the time, and falling into a berth, made vacant by the death of a shipmate, he had assumed his predecessor's name— had continued it for fifteen years, and had been married during that period. On the day of marriage he had given his wife £30, and had purchased various articles of household furniture for her afterwards, but because he had fallen a little into poverty since, she had deserted him; while he had shot in the locker, she had acted differently, and to lose wife and household furniture too, was rather more than he could bear; therefore, he had sought to recover the best of the two, and for which he had been brought before the bench. The magistrates not being called upon to decide upon the cause of difference between defendant and his perverse rib, and there being nothing sufficient in the complaint of the beadle, to justify any peculiar interposition on their part, the case was good humouredly dismissed.

The Excise, v. John Bennett.This was a smuggling transaction, in which a penalty of £100

On

was sought to be recovered. the 12th of January last, and on the 19th of March, defendant's premises had been searched by the excise officers, no seizure directly followed the previous instance, but a certain quantity of foreign geneva and brandy were brought away on the latter occasion, and upon which the penalty was sought. Several permits had been produced, but they were not dated, any of them, later than January the 8th, and nothing had been said about them during the first_search, made on the 12th of January, consequently they were all and severally held as nugatory. Defendant was convicted in the amount above stated.

Thomas Poynting, a baker and shopkeeper, for neglecting to make the due entry of a certain quantity of tea, coffee, &c. at the Custom-house, had, upon two counts, nearly subjected himself to a penalty of £200, that is, £100 on each. It was evident, however, that no fraud upon the revenue had been contemplated; what had occurred, had solely arisen from a want of knowledge in the defendant, of the excise law, and the bench not only allowed him to have the full benefit of good intentions, but, in dismissing the case, it was recommended to the excise officers, that a proper representation of the affair should be laid before their board of superiors, as likely to cause a restoration of the articles it had been their duty to seize, to the stock of a well-disposed and honest man.

MONDAY, JUNE 10. Magistrates-I. H. Bates, and J. Diggins, Esqrs.

A watchinan appeared against a decent young man, a bricklayer, whom he had taken into custody between one and two o'clock, on Sunday morning, much intoxicated, and who had been disturbing the tranquility of the town, by vociferating the hour and other disorderly acts. He was every way penitent for what he had done he had attended a pay-table, on Saturday night, he said, at a public house -he had there received about a pound, and continued drinking in the house from six o'clock until eleven-overcome with liquor, he had sallied forth, paid a visit to a gin shop or two, and, in the end, found himself in the blackhole after day light, with about eight or nine shillings in his pocket. He had a wife, who had laid in about a week, and who was totally dependant upon his efforts and wages for support. He agreed with the bench, that he was indebted to the watchmen, in the incarceration he had received, for the eight or nine shillings that had been left of his week's earnings-he saw the folly of his conduct, and hoped he should have the resolution never to repeat it. The practice of paying labourers on a Saturday night, in public houses, was loudly condemned—it had led to ruinous consequences, it was said, in a variety of instances; it had multiplied the distresses of private families-increased the poor rates-and, not unfrequently, spread riot and disorder at the opening of the sabbath, through the various streets and avenues of the town. A something was said about the annual licensing day, for public houses, &c. and therewith, a firm resolu

tion was expressed by the chairman, Mr. Bates, to abate the evil complained of, in pay-tables, as mentioned, by every possible means which the law could countenance, and enable him to have recourse to. The prisoner, in consequence of his contrition, but more in consideration of his wife, was then discharged, without being fined, but with an assurance, that should he again be found similarly offending, he would be dealt with to the utmost rigour of the law.

he

A married woman, named Rippingdale, exhibited the articles of the peace against her husband, but the worst species of provocation that a wife could pursue to irritate a husband, that of wantonly associating with other men, was pretty well established against her. Several persons spoke favourably to the character of the husband; was, however, held in a recognizance of £10 to keep the peace, but not without the rebuke having been directed at the wife, which she appeared to have so justly deserved. A final separation between the two, it seemed, had been decided on. The parochial officers heard the latter, and madam will, without doubt, be closely watched henceforward by the parish.

THURSDAY, JUNE 13. Magistrates-I. H. Bates, J. Diggens, and I. M. Cripps, Esqrs.

Robert Allan, charged with breaking open the manor pound, situate on Church-Hill, and taking thereout, his horse, which had been legally impounded, was bound over in sureties to answer for the offence at the next sessions. One George Jarratt