the expiration of eight months. It was also proved, that Nicolayo 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. 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 under writers. 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 expos ing their male bastard child opposite the workhouse of that parish. Jane Johanna Stapleton said, she lived at 56, Brunswick-street, Blackfriars-road. The female 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. The 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. Wit ness 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 workhouse. 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 ed in St. Mary's parish to constitute a settlement, there must not only be a binding, a sleeping and support, but there must also be labour. In the present case, the master had not had the latter. The boy was bound to him to learn practical navigation, but he had not done so he was sent to school, where he was taught theoretical navigation only; and there he went by his own choice, and not in consequence of any control exercised over him by his master. This was not such a binding and service as would settle the pauper, who still belonged to his original parish; and the order of sessions, settling him on St. Mary, Canterbury, was order. ed to be quashed. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, Feb. 16. Christie v. Jones.-This was an action brought by Mr. Christie, the auctioneer, to recover from the defendant 509., which he alleged, being money belonging to him, was won by the defendant, at games of cards, of his clerk, at different times and places. William Rickards said, he had been servant to Mr. Christie seven years. He was discharged at the end of July last. In his situation as clerk, he was in the habit of receiving money coming to Mr. Christie as an auctioneer, to a considerable amount. The various sums were paid on account of jewels, pictures and property, sold in Pall-Mall. The witness had known the defendant between one and two years. The defendant lived in Pall-mall and kept a billiard-table. The wit. ness had played with him, or many occasions, at cards. He played with him for money about the 22d of April last. The defendant knew he was a clerk, but did not know he received his master's money. The first time he played with him at cards, they played at the Star and Garter, Pall-mall. They played at cribbage, and the witness lost 30%. the money of his employer, Mr. James Christie. He met him again about 30th April, and playing again with Mr. Christie's money, lost 70l. On that occasion they began with 57. a game, and increased it to 10%. and 15. He met the defendant also at Bedford's Rooms in Pall-mall, and played with him to a late hour. Two of the defendant's brothers were present, and he believed Mr. Bedford was there, but could not speak positively. The witness also played with a friend of Jones's, who was introduced to him. This friend pretended ignorance of the game, and it was understood that he was from the country. The defendant proposed his friend should play for him, and the witness should give him two holes at cribbage; leaving him, at the same time, at liberty to instruct him in his play. The witness was a winner on that occasion to the amount of 60., part of which remained unpaid, but Jones paid it next day. On the 1st of June he played with the defendant's friend on the same principle he had played before. The stakes were made good by the defend. ant; he lost 125/., which was Mr. Christie's money. He was unable to pay 151. of the lost money that that night, but the next day he met the defendant, and paid him 15. out of Mr. Christie's money. He, upon another occasion, played with the defendant's friend at the sign of the Haunch of Venison, in Brook-street, for 150l. The defendant put down the stakes. The witness lost 80l., which was Mr. Christie's money. He remembered going with a 100%. bank-note, which he had taken at Ransom and Morland's, in payment of a check given by Mr. Woodburn, of St. Martin's lane, for property bought of Mr. Christie. He lost the note in question to the defendant. John Langdon, another clerk to Mr. Christie, was at the Haunch of Venison, in Brookstreet; he went by invitation of Rickards, and met him there playing with the defendant. A Mr. Davidson was also present. Davidson was the friend of the defendant. About 12 o'clock Rickards went out for money and came back with a supply, which he lost. Mr. Serjeant Vaughan addressed the jury for the defendant, and contended that no credit ought to be given to such a person as Rickards, who came into court as a witness, to avoid a prosecution for felony. He called no witnesses. The Chief Justice drew the attention of the jury to the main features of the case; namely, the credit due to the principal witness. It would be dangerous, he said, to the public interest, to hold that a person who had been decoyed into a gaming house and led to commit crime, was not to be received as a witness. Transactions similar to that be fore them in general took place at midnight, and persons who became dupes of the designing gamester were perhaps the best witnesses to bring offenders to justice. Independently of all other considerations, the jury would find the witness Rickards confirmed by other witnesses. If the jury had a doubt they would give the defendant the benefit; if they had not they ought to find a verdict for the plaintiff. If they did find for the plaintiff, they might rest on their pillows with the consolation that they had rendered a service to the public. The jury without hesitation found a verdict for the plaintiff Damages 5091. OLD BAILEY, FEB. 20. On Saturday Phillippe Caday alias Philibert, Joseph Amand Tregrosse, and Louis Amand Cleransac, were indicted for having brought from Mosambique in Africa to the island of Mauritius, certain persons to be sold as slaves. The Attorney General stated the case, and the law as applicable to the jury. G. T. Brodley, in Feb. 1818, was a midshipman of the Magicienne frigate stationed in the Mauritius. On the 21st of that month was with the master in the tender, lying in port Jacotay. While there, they saw a schooner about two in the afternoon, standing off and on Souliac. The wind was against them, and Mr. Evans, the master, ordered Mr. Garrett and witness to go overland to intercept the schooner. They had about eight miles to go, and they took a party of seamen. They got to Souliac about half |