the assault, when he was sent for about nine o'clock to go to the theatre. On his arrival there he found Mr. Bunn lying on some chairs or a sofa in a corner of the room. Mr. Lane, an apothecary, had been there before him, and had applied something to the injured parts. Leeches, he thought, had, amongst other things, been applied to the eye. The leg was also up on the chair, and the ancle, which was very much swollen, was being bathed with a lotion. The eye was enormously swollen, so much so, as to require the use of the hand to lift up the lid. There was a considerable quantity of extravasated blood about it, and there was likewise a large swelling on the top of the head, inclining to the right side. Considering the injuries to be such as to require the assistance of a surgeon, the hair being much torn, and, in consequence, an appearance of much discoloration about the neck, and the ancle presenting an aspect which induced a supposition that some of the small bones might be broken, or that some of the ligatures might be ruptured, he instantly drove off in his cab for Mr. Hamilton, with whom he returned. Mr. Bunn was shortly afterwards assisted to his carriage, in which, whilst suffering great torture, he was conveyed to his house at Brompton. The case being one of purely a surgical character, Mr. Hamilton continued to attend, he himself, however, visiting Mr. Bunn very frequently. Mr. Bunn was not in a situation to be moved from his bed for several days, and was confined to the sofa for ten or twelve days; and so severe was the injury inflicted on the ancle that, whilst in bed, a number of pillows were obliged to

ance

was even yet necessary to apply plaisters and bind up the leg. Was related to Dr. Billing. Did not see Mr. Macready on the night in question, and had not heard of his having received any injury.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, in a very long speech, addressed the jury for the defendant, and complained in bitter terms of the way in which the plaintiff's case had been got up. He then contended, that Mr. Bunn had indulged in a series of insults and attempts to degrade his client, which, to a certain extent, went far in mitigation of an act, the commission of which he deeply lamented. The learned gentleman next complained that the counsel on the other side had had recourse to a statement of which he had not attempted to offer one word of proof, and concluded by regretting that he could not be permitted to show the unjustifiable provocation given to Mr. Macready.

The jury assessed the damages at 1507.

EMMA SAILING-BOAT, AND Loss OF THREE LIVES.-This afternoon three lives were lost by the upsetting of the lady Emma sailing-yacht, of eight tons burden, the property of Messrs. J. and G. Bucknall, of Crutched-friars. The Lady Emma had been entered, with four other boats, to sail for the silver cup and cover given by the members of the Royal Thames Yacht Club, from the Temple-gardens to Wandsworth and back; and heavy bets had been laid upon her. This day the owners, accompanied by a young man, their nephew; a gentleman residing at Pimlico; John Judge, a waterman, belonging to the Thames Police; Martin, another waterman; and Mr. Honey, the husband of the actress and singer, went up the river, on a pleasure excursion, for the purpose of trying the sailing capabilities of the boat. On the tide ebbing, the party put her about for the purpose of going down the river, with her mainsail, foresail, and jib set. The wind was blowing very fresh, but they had sailed as far as the Horseferry at Millbank (midway between Westminster and Vauxhall bridges), when a strong breeze caught the little bark, and immediately laid her on her beam ends. She immediately began to fill and went down, and Mr. Honey, Martin the waterman, and the nephew of the owners perished. Judge stopped in the vessel until the water had reached his knees, when he jumped overboard. One of the owners was at the helm, and with great presence of mind kept hold of it, in order to throw the boat up to the wind, until the water had reached his chin, when he was compelled to let go, and he and his brother caught hold of an oar, which they

shoved towards one of the party, who was sinking, but he was unable to avail himself of it.

The parties in the Lady Emma were all well skilled in the management of sailing-boats, and the accident was attributed to the fact of the sheet having been inadvertently made fast, so that it was impossible to loosen it before the vessel was upset.

2. THE ABBOTSFORD FUND.Pursuant to public advertisement, a meeting of the subscribers to this fund was held at the Thatchedhouse Tavern, St. James's-street. The object of the meeting was to appropriate the funds collected to their final purpose of "securing, so far as may be possible, the estate of Abbotsford, the library and antiquarian collections, to the family of the late Sir Walter Scott."

Lord Mahon, on the motion of Sir R. Inglis, took the chair.

Mr. Hallam moved, "That the sum subscribed (being about 7,2001. net money) be paid to the trustees hereinafter named, Sir Walter Scott agreeing to execute a deed of entail of the estate and mansion of Abbotsford, and of the library, antiquarian collections, and other objects relating thereto, upon the descendants of his father; those trustees applying 5,600l. or more, if necessary, of the said sum of about 7,2001. in the discharge of the 5,000l., and the balance of interest now due thereon with which the library and antiquarian collections and other articles as aforesaid may be chargeable, and retaining the residue, to be applied by them hereafter towards the payment of the heritable bond for 10,000l., for which the estate is now liable, and Sir Walter Scott executing an assignment to the said trustees of the share of the literary property

belonging to the family, to be applied to the same purpose. That the marquess of Northampton, lord Francis Egerton, M.P., the hon. John Stuart Wortley, Mr. James Skeene, Mr. John Richardson, and Mr. Robert Cadell, bookseller in Edinburgh, be requested to act as trustees, and to enter into a deed of trust to apply the balance of the subscription, and to collect and apply the product of the literary property to the discharge of the heritable bond; three of them to be a quorum. That the trustees also be requested to use their best endeavours to procure an act of Parliament to make the entail of the library and antiquarian collections effectual, if it shall be deemed necessary."

Sir R. Inglis seconded these resolutions, which were instantly adopted.

The printed form of resolutions was accompanied by the following remarks:

"It is obvious that this proposition does not secure the estate absolutely in the family of Sir Walter, which was the purpose of the subscription; but the amount subscribed does not permit that to be done.

"It does, however, secure the library and antiquarian collections absolutely, and holds out the strongest probability of securing the estate, inasmuch as the produce of the literary property may be fairly calculated, after payment of all charges upon it, as more than equal to the discharge of 8,4007., the balance that will remain of the heritable bond.

"Besides, there cannot exist a doubt that this sum could be raised at any time on the security of the estate, which at the present price of land is estimated as being worth

at least 40,000, and the provisions of the entail would authorise this being done.

"The outlying parts of the estate, indeed, would sell for more than this amount, without breaking in upon its entirety."

6. EXCHEQUER EQUITY SITTINGS. Lovell, v. Hicks and Others. Mr. Baron Alderson gave judgment in this case. The bill was filed by the plaintiff, E. B. Lovell, against the defendants, Robert Hicks, Octavius Henry Smith, William Todd, and Watson, and it prayed that an agreement between the parties on the 3d of March, 1832, might be set aside, on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud; that the defendants might be directed to repay a sum of 3,000l. which they had received from the plaintiff, with interest, and that they might be restrained by injunction from proceeding at law to recover the remaining sum of 2,000l. mentioned in the agreement. The facts, as they appeared in evidence before him, were these: On the 9th of June, 1830, a patent was taken out by the defendant Hicks, and on the 29th of December in the same year, a specification was enrolled, of the nature and mode of carrying into effect the invention for which the patent was obtained. The claim of the patent was for the invention of an economical apparatus, or machine, to be applied to the process of baking, in order to save materials;" and in the specification it was stated, that such apparatus baked the bread and collected a certain spirituous vapour during the process of baking, which vapour was usually dissipated and lost; but by the refrigerating and condensing part of the machine this vapour was condensed, and a liquor

thus obtained, from which a useful spirit material by the process of rectifying might be distilled." In another part of the specification it was stated, that, the flour being converted into dough, and duly fermented in the usual method, and the loaves being introduced into the oven, a liquid matter was thus saved by the economical apparatus, consisting of diluted spirit, from which a useful spirit might be extracted by the usual process of rectification. It was clear that this invention purported to be one for the purpose of obtaining a spirit by means of a patent apparatus for baking bread of the ordinary description, fermented in the ordinary way. In March, 1832, after some negotiation the agreement in question was executed, and under it 3,000l. had been paid. By that agreement Hicks, the original patentee, and the other defendants who had obtained an interest under him, granted a licence to the plaintiff to exercise the patent within the town and neighbourhood of Birmingham, in consideration of a sum of 1,000l. paid down, and 4,000l. to be paid by instalments. The plaintiff stated that he had been induced to make this agreement by fraudulent misrepresentations made by Hicks. In June, 1831, it appeared that a letter was inserted in the Staffordshire Advertiser, signed by a miller of the name of Pratt, in which a favourable account was given of the invention. This letter, it was said, was corrected by Hicks, and it particularly stated, that three bushels of flour would produce eighteen pints of a liquor containing 20 per cent. of alcohol. This, it was said, was expressly inserted by Hicks, he having altered the

per centage from 18 to 20. This fact depended on the evidence of Pratt and others, and in some degree was supported by the declarations of Hicks at several meetings at which he referred to this letter. On the other hand, there was a distinct denial of both circumstances by Hicks in his answer, and it was contended with great force that the expression" Alcohol" was very clearly in the course of the negotiation understood by all parties to mean proof spirit, and not pure "Alcohol." To this part

of the defendant's case he felt that he must accede, but as to the representations the weight of evidence was in favour of the plaintiff. The next fact related to the meetings at the Stork Inn, Birmingham, at which the plaintiff was present, and where a sort of exhibition of the apparatus for baking took place, and similar representations were made. There were also two exhibitions at Bilston, at which similar representations were made, and Pratt's letter was read by the plaintiff. Next came the journey of the plaintiff to Chelsea, where the apparatus was shown to him, and he had an opportunity of examining the results of the experiments and some of the spirit was produced and delivered to him to inspect and examine. These circumstances all took place before the agreement, and it was unreasonable to conclude that these were the circumstances that induced the plaintiff to enter into the agreement. What then were these circumstances? They ap peared to him to amount to this:

not

-There was the clear statement of Hicks that he was in possession of an apparatus for baking ordinary bread, by which a certain spirituous liquid, that was produced, was saved.

This appeared from the patent and specification. There was a statement that the spirit so produced amounted to a quantity of 18 pints, at 20 per cent. of alcohol, produced from three bushels of flour. Now whether he took the literal expressions used in their fullest extent, or whether he took the defendants' case in the most favourable point of view, this was at all events to be a highly advantageous invention. It also appeared that experiments had been performed, both at Birmingham and at Chelsea, which induced the plaintiff to believe that the representations made to him were substantially true. Now if this were so, were the other facts of the case, such as ought to satisfy him that this was not a true statement, and that Hicks knew it to be false all the time? This was the conclusion to which he had felt himself obliged to come. It was proved on the part of the plaintiff, that the bread baked was not substantially bread of the ordinary description. There might be, no doubt, great difference in the ferment used in baking bread, but it was clear from the evidence, that the particular ferment used by Hicks, varied from all those that were used in the ordinary method of making bread, and that the ingredients used by him were calculated to produce a favourable result in the experiments which he made to show off his new invention; nor did he (his lordship) think that any reasonable doubt could be entertained, that the bread baked in the ordinary way, would produce no advantageous spirit. If these facts were known to Hicks, every experiment became a fraudulent misrepresentation; and the circumstances satisfied him, that Hicks must have

known this. How was he to account, except on this supposition, for the particular care and watchfulness with which the ferment was secretly prepared, and the ostentatious openness with which the other parts of the experiment were conducted. Hicks must have been conscious that he was practising a delusion on the plaintiff and the others. All the testimony, except that of the witness Man, was uniform as to this, and he was by no means satisfied with Man's testimony, who did not deny the addition of spirits to the liquor, but said, that Hicks did not personally participate in the act. If the question merely depended on misrepresentations as to the quantity of spirit produced-the results varying as they did he should not think that the case of the plaintiff was made out. If the bread actually made had been ordinary bread, or if the attention of the parties had been called to the fact that it was not prepared in the ordinary way during the experiments, he should have been disposed to think that no fraud had been committed, and, at all events, if there were fraud, that the plaintiff had persisted much too long, after a full knowledge of the fact, to entitle him to relief. But it seemed to him that the plaintiff had been misled, and that Hicks was aware of the delusion. He did not rely on the mere failure to produce the quantity of spirit originally stated, but the plaintiff and those who acted with him thought, and had at first reason to think, from the representations made to them, that they were purchasing an apparatus for baking ordinary bread, which would enable them to compete with ordinary bakers on a vantage ground, and that the