Collo and Michael Hare, were placed at the bar, having been committed from Hatton-garden as convicted rogues and vagabonds, for the purpose of receiving such further imprisonment as the Court should deem it proper to inflict. Mr. Blundell, who represented the Society for the Suppression of Mendicity on this occasion, called the attention of the chairman particularly to the case of Nicholson. He stated, that this man had manifested a determination to continue the trade of begging at every hazard, and trusted, when the Court should hear the circumstances, they would award an exemplary punishment. It appeared, that on two several occasions the prisoner had been afforded an opportunity to return to Sweden, his native country; and in the first instance, through the medium of the consul, the passage had been actually paid; notwithstanding which, having found the trade of begging so lucrative, he escaped from the ship and returned to his former practices; and since then had been convicted no less than six times, and as frequently refused to be conveyed home. His foreign accent and artful demeanour had successfully operated on most of the persons whom he accosted, and especially females, who were glad to give him money to be rid of his importunity.

The evidence having been taken, the Court ordered a further imprisonment of three months. Francisco Collo was ordered to be imprisoned one month, and Michael Hare two months, in the House of Correction.

In the case of Hare, Mr. Blun

dell stated, that upon a solemn promise of the prisoner to proceed forthwith on his way to his parish, a sum of money had been furnished to bear his expenses on the road; but in about an hour after, he was found begging from door to door in a very different direction, and relating a very lamentable tale to excite the commiseration of the public, by which he had succeeded in a very few minutes to collect more money than an honest distressed man with a large family usually obtains from his parish as a weekly allowance; and he trusted, if the magistrates would second the exertions of the society, the public would soon be convinced of the impropriety of indiscriminate almsgiving.

JANUARY 21.

Berthon and Costar v Loughnan and another.-This was an action on a policy of insurance effected by Messrs. Berthon and Costar, on the ship Madre de Dios, on the 31st of January 1812, at and from Pernambuco to St. Michael, in consequence of a letter from Senor Antonio de Vasconcellos, dated December 12, 1811. The interest was averred to be in Vasconcellos. The vessel was lost on a shoal not far from Pernambuco on September 5, 1811: The defendant pleaded that he was not liable, on which point issue was joined.

Mr. Scarlett, for the plaintiffs, stated, that in order to the proper understanding of this case, it would be requisite that he should make a few preliminary observa

tions on the intercourse which passed between Pernambuco and St. Michael. The latter island was celebrated for its fruit, and vessels from every nation frequented it from the month of October to the end of January, so that communication with it was not difficult during that time; but if you had any correspondent there, it was almost impossible to hear from him during the remaining period of the year. If the difficulty of communication was so great between Great Britain and St. Michael, it was clear that it would be still greater between Pernambuco and the same place, inasmuch as the trade between them would be much less considerable than that carried on between Great Britain and St. Michael. Besides, if the communication was not made direct between Pernambuco and St. Michael, it was much retarded by having to make a circuit by way of Lisbon, from whence to St. Michael no regular post or packet has ever been established. This information might render the facts of the case which he had to open to them more clear and intelligible. They were simply these: Senor Antonio de Vasconcellos and Senor Nicolayo de Marcio, during the year 1811, sent a vessel laden with fruit from St. Michael to Pernambuco, from which place she was to return as soon as possible. Senor Nicolayo de Marcio effected an assurance on his share of the vessel and cargo in August 1811, out and home from St. Michael to Pernambuco. In December of the same year Vasconcellos determined to do the same on the

homeward voyage from Pernambuco on his share, and in conse→ quence wrote the plaintiffs on the 12th of that month to insure 2,000l. on the hull and 1,500%. on the cargo, on his account. This letter arrived in London in January 1812; and the policy was effected at the close of that year by a gentleman at present in the Brazils on his own private business. In April 1812, intelligence was received in London that the Madre de Dios had sailed from Pernambuco on the 3rd of September, and had been lost a few days afterwards. The underwriters immediately exclaimed"Mr. Vasconcellos must have known that his vessel was wrecked at the time when he insured it; therefore we will resist the payment of the insurance." But this was not the case, as it could be proved that no communication had taken place in the interval between Pernambuco and St. Michael. "Allowing that to be true," continue the underwriters, "still Mr. Vasconcellos must have known that his vessel was out of time, and therefore ought to have communicated that circumstance to us." But that objection was equally untenable with the former, because he would show from depositions taken on the spot, that the voyage from St. Michael to Pernambuco is not, upon an average, performed in less than 70 or 80 days; that it is usual for vessels to wait at the latter place from two to five months to obtain a cargo; and that it is not customary at the former to look upon a vessel as missing, because she does not finish her return voyage before

the

the expiration of eight months. The case presented two questions for their consideration, 1. Did Vasconcellos suppose the Madre de Dios to be a missing ship at the time he wrote to Messrs. Berthon and Costar, desiring them to effect the assurance? and 2. If he did, did he make a proper communication of that circumstance to the persons who underwrote the vessel? He was confident that he should adduce such testimony as would lead them to decide both questions in his favour. On the first point he had already spoken; and as to the second he would observe, that Messrs. Berthon and Costar had communicated all the intelligence which they had regarding the ship to the underwriters, by communicating to them the letter which they had received from Vasconcellos, and which simply stated, that as he had just learned from his friend Nicolayo, that his (Nicolayo's) share in the Madre de Dios was ensured, he requested them to ensure his share in it also. The vessel was then at Pernambuco on her return to the island of St. Michael.

Mr. Scarlett then put in several depositions taken at St. Michael, tending to prove that the loss of the Madre de Dios was not known there at the time when Vasconcellos wrote the letter of 12th December; that the captain of the vessel had never written more than one letter to his owners regarding the time of his return, whilst at Pernambuco; and that eight months was not more than the usual period for completing the voyage out and back again. VOL. LXI.

It was also proved, that Nicolayo de Marcio had effected his ensurance in August 1811.

Mr. Marryat, for defendant, submitted, that the question. which the jury had to decide was, whether a proper communication regarding the fate of the vessel had been made to the underwriters. He maintained that there had not been any such communication. First of all, the vessel was not at Pernambuco at the time of effecting the ensurance, as stated in the plaintiff's letter; then, there was no statement when she had arrived there, how long she had been there, or at what time she intended to set sail from thence on her return. Six months, he had been given to understand, was more than the average time of making the voyage between St. Michael and Pernambuco; indeed, that period was sufficient to make the same voyage from the Thames to Pernambuco and back again, which was a much greater distance. A hundred and ninetyfive days had elapsed before Mr. Vasconcellos thought of making this assurance; and then, forsooth, it was not because he thought the vessel missing, but because he had just heard that his friend Nicolayo had ensured his share. What rendered this circumstance more suspicious, was, that he was in the habit of seeing Nicolayo daily; and that he knew that a shipment was ready for him at Pernambuco ; so that he must have expected the vessel to have returned, if all had been safe, before the time on which he wrote to have the policy effected. On these grounds he

maintained

maintained that the defendant was entitled to a verdict.

The Lord Chief Justice then summed up the case, and observed to the jury, that the chief point which they had to try was, whether the representation in the letter was actually true, or such as the writer might suppose to be true, or whether it differed materially from the representation which ought to have been made to the underwriters. The vessel, at the time of effecting the ensurance, was stated to be at Pernambuco: it was not necessary that this should be literally true; it would be sufficient if she were there at the time when the owners received their last advices from her captain. Now it appeared from the evidence, that the vessel finished her outward voyage at the end of July, or in the beginning of August, 1811; and that the captain communicated the fact of his arrival to his employers at St. Michael. In all probability his letter would afford intelligence whether he should sail immediately, or wait some time for a fresh cargo. If it did afford such intelligence, it ought to have been communicated to the underwriters. It appeared, in reality, that she was laden in August, and sailed in the beginning of September. It was therefore their business to consider whether Vasconcellos knew of that fact or not; and if they thought he was acquainted with it, to consider whether he had not been induced, by fear of losing the vessel, to effect a policy upon it if they were of opinion that he had been induced by fear to ensure the vessel, then

he ought to have communicated the cause of his alarm to the underwriters; and therefore they must find a verdict for the defendant: if they were of a contrary opinion, then they must bring in a verdict for the plaintiff.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.

SURRY SESSIONS, JAN. 27.

Anne Atkinson and Thomas Stephens were indicted for having conspired to defraud the parish of Bermondsey, by exposing their male bastard child opposite the workhouse of that parish.

Jane Johanna Stapleton said, she lived at 56, Brunswick-street, Blackfriars-road. The female

The

defendant came to take a lodging at her house; said she was the wife of an exciseman. In the evening she came again with the male defendant, and paid earnest; both took possession in about a week, and lived together as man and wife. The woman was far advanced in pregnancy. man said, that when the child was born, they should take it to his mother's, as they were going to America. The child, a boy, was born on the 28th of July. Witness was at the birth. Mrs. Lewis was nurse. The child remained in the house three weeks, after which it was taken to Lowdell's-court to nurse. The father and mother left the house the same day, and returned in about a week, and sent for the child. They then took the child out with them; they returned at

half

half past ten at night without it. The man was in a very agitated fainting state. Witness asked where the child was. The woman said it was very well, and well taken care of, at his grandmother's. Witness was not satisfied, but continued her inquiries for several days. The female defendant told her, that she and the man took the child, and bought a rush basket and a piece of new flannel, wrapped the child up in it, put it into the basket, and that the man tied it to the knocker of a door opposite Bermondsey workhouse, while she watched at the top of the street.

Sarah Lewis said she nursed the female prisoner on the 23rd of July in Brunswick-street, in her confinement. She nursed the child a week, after which she left it with them; afterwards she saw the child at Bermondsey work house.

Maria Clarke, in August last, found the door, on opening it, rather heavy. She gave it a second pull, and was then knocked on her knee by something falling against it. She screamed, and Mr. Ross opened the door, when there appeared a basket, containing a child about five or six weeks old. There were child's clothes in the basket. The child was taken to the workhouse, which was opposite, and delivered to Mr. Stephens the master, the defendant Stephens' father.

The father of the male defendant said, he supposed his son was married, but never heard at what church, nor saw the certificate. His son told him so four years ago. The female prisoner was not the person to whom he said

he was married. Witness had a young child brought to him in August. He was master of Bermondsey workhouse. He never saw the person who brought the child. The child had been in the house ever since.

Verdict-Guilty. Sentencesix months' imprisonment.

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH,

SATURDAY, Feb. 6.

The King v. the Parish of St. Mary, Canterbury.-This was a question respecting the settlement of a pauper, under the following novel circumstances:— The pauper, a boy, had been bound apprentice to a mastermariner, resident in St. Mary, Canterbury, and continued with him some months; but circumstances arising which prevented the master from getting his vessel to sea, the master, at the end of that time, asked his apprentice whether he would like to be turned over to another master, or whether he would go to school for a time and learn navigation. The boy chose the latter, and was accordingly sent to a school in Canterbury by his master, where he continued some time, when he ran away and returned to Shadwell, to which parish he had originally belonged. Here he afterwards became chargeable to the parish, and was passed to St. Mary, Canterbury, on the grounds that he had obtained a settlement in that parish by his service of a year. Against this decision of the magistrates that parish now appealed. The Court, after hearing the argument, decided that no settlement had been gain