SLAVE TRADE- Accounts from Bahia to the 4th of June state, that the Slave Trade continues to be carried on with increased activity. Such is the eagerness to get these poor creatures to market, that out of a cargo of five hundred and twenty, there were one hundred and thirty-four deaths on the passage from Africa.

THE LATE THUNDERSTORM- A cow on the lands of Cottage was killed by lightning on Sunday evening; and in the neighbourhood of Tulla its effects were severely felt, though not fatal. - It struck the chimney of Mary-fort House, and having entered, did some slight damage in the pantry, and tore away all the bell wires. Yesterday evening, seventeen bullocks, belonging to Mr. Butler, of Bunabow, in the County Clare, were killed by the same destructive element, on the lands of Ballycasheen, near Corofin, which we greatly dread is not the only damage sustained in that quarter. Some children in a neighbouring cabin were knocked down, but not otherwise injured. Sunday's storm was also felt in London, where the heat was so excessive that the thermometer was 98 in the shade, and 109 in the sun.---Limerick Post.

COUNTY OF KILKENNY
TO BE SOLD

     The fee-simple estate of the Lands of Ballyduff, Collmore, Ardstonane, Coolrany and Coolsilla, containing 426 acres.- Also, the Fee-Farm Grant of Castlecomer, Cappehennsy, Dysart, Pleberstown, Coolromore, containing 1610 Acres. These lands are situate within Three Miles of Thomastown, and Twelve of Watersford.
     Application to Thomas Barnes, Esq. 9, Upper Pembroke-street, Dublin, where a Rent-Roll is to be seen.
     The House and Fifty Acres of the Lands of Coolmore, to be Let for such term as may be agreed on.
     Proposals will be received by Edward Robbins, Esq., Derry, Knocktopher- or, Thomas Barnes, Esq.
          August 3, 1827.

Beaver, Silk and Waterproof
HAT MANUFACTORY
~~~~~
JOHN POWELL,
PROPIETOR,

     Having given twenty-seven years' trial, during which time his Establishment has met general approbation, claims a continuance of that Patronage, so long experienced; and begs to assure his Friends and the Public that every Article shall be made of the very best material, and sold on moderate terms.
     Particular attention to Hats bespoke for Clergymen, &c, &c.-Wholesale Orders attended to with dispatch.

BIRTHS

     On Thursday, in Johnson-street, the Lady of Surgeon Phelan, of a son.
     On Tuesday se'nnight, in Charlemont-street, Dublin, the Lady of M. Fegan, Esq. of a son.

MARRIED

     Tuesday se'nnight, at Clonmel, by the Right Rev. Dr. Kelly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford, Mr. E. Kehoe, of Waterford, to Mrs. Ryan, relict of the late Mr. Edward Ryan, Main-street, Clonmel.
     At St. Mary's Lambeth, F. J. Perceval, Esq. second son of the late Right Hon. S. Perceval, to Mary, eldest daughter of W. Barker, Esq.
     On Monday se'nnight, in London, G. Chapple Norton, Esq. M.P. to Caroline Elizabeth Sarah, second daughter of the late Thomas Sheridan, Esq.
     On Monday se'nnight at Hampstead, Somon Foot, Esq. of Holly-park, county Dublin, to Marianne, second daughter of Edw. B. Glascock, Esq.

DIED.

     Monday se'nnight, at London, the Right Hon. Susan, Viscountress Ehrington.
     On Monday se'nnight, at Clonwalsh, sincerely lamented, Mrs. Margaret Cantwell.- She was sister of the Rev. Dr. Phelan, Tramore, cousin of the late Bishop Power, Waterford.
     In Cuffe-street, Mr. Abbot, for many years a Runner in the Bank of Ireland.

Died, on Saturday last, in John's-street, in this city, in the thirty-second year of her age, Catherine, the wife of Mr. Thomas Hart. If the general sympathy both of town and country during her protracted illness-if a most numerous attendance to deposit her mortal remains in the grave can alleviate the sorrows of this life, her afflicted husband, her helpless family, her long-range of relatives and friends have, certainly, this consolation. Descended from a very antient and most respectable family in this county-in her every department of life, as a wife, a mother and a friend, she upheld the dignity of her ancestry.

TO BE SOLD

     The Interest in a Concerns situated at Colegrange Road, in the Liberties of the City of Kilkenny.
     Application to be made to Mr. Thomas Walshe, Watergate, Kilkenny, who will shew the Concerns, and will give every satisfaction as to Title, Profit, Rent, Head Rent, &c.
          July 27, 1827.

TO BE LET

     Or the Interest Sold, and immediate possession given, and extensive concern in Green-street, where could be established a BREWERY, DEAL-YARD, and STARCH-YARD, together with a commodious HOUSE, in the front of the street, and an excellent TAN-YARD, at the Rere, in the best repair, and fit for immediate work. For particulars apply to GEORGE CUMMINS, Vicar-street.

WANTED

     A Person to fill the Situation of Accountant in an extensive Mercantile Establishment. None need apply but such as are perfectly qualified for the undertaking; and unexceptionable Testimonials as to Character, &c. will be required.
     Apply at the Office of The Kilkenny Moderator.
     July 27, 1827.

KILKENNY SUMMER ASSIZES

     At one o'clock on Wednesday Judge BURTON and Baron PENNEFATHER arrived in this City, from Waterford, and about two entered their respective Courts.

CITY COURT-BEFORE JUDGE BURTON
GRAND JURY

     William Kingsmill Foreman; Sir Wheeler D. Coffe, Bart. Samuel Mathews, Charles Madden, N.Shanahan, Edward Cooke, William Robertson, Peter Ryan, J. Pennefather Lamphier, John Barwis, Henry James Loghnan, Joseph Laffan, Martin Cormack, John Smithwith, Richard Sullivan, Redmond Reade, William Wheeler, John M'Creath, Parr Kingsmill, George Cronyn, John Prim, James Burnham, and Laurence Martin, Esqrs.
     His Lordship merely observed that the cases on the Calendar ere of such a description that it was not necessary to trouble them with any remarks-they might therefore retire and proceed to business.
     Walter Tucker, a boy nine years of age, indicted for stealing from the shop of Mr. Mat. Fogarty two yards of waistcoating-Guilty-imprisoned twelve months to hard labour.
     Mary Brenan and Judith Neil, for endeavouring to pass, on the 3d August, a Banker's Note, £24 11s.8d. the property of James Brenan, and dropt by him a short time before. Mary Brenan, guilty, Judith Neal, not guilty.
     Some other cases of little importance were disposed of, and the Court adjourned to the following day.
     Caesar Sutton v. Patrick Kinchela.- Mr. George Moore stated the case. It was an action brought by the plaintiff, leasee of the parish of Innistiogue, and son of the late Rev. Mr. Sutton, for 1 1/2 years' tithes due, for which £500 damages were laid; the defendant denied the existence of a lease between the plaintiff and his father. The witness to the deed between the plaintiff's father and himself not appearing, he was non-suited.
     Matilda Herbert v. Harvey Pratt- Mr. Hamilton opened this case. It was an action against the defendant, as late High Sheriff of this county, for the false return of a writ, against Teely, a farmer, for £20 19s. 2d. -The writ was delivered into the hands of Mr. Devereux the Sub-Sheriff, who returned that he had no goods except what were sold, which produced £7, whereas, it appears, there were goods to the value of £30.
     Mr. O'Driscoll, K.C. said, he regretted that this had been suffered to come to trial. Miss Herbert, daughter of Rev. Mr. Herbert, had a writ against Teely, a farmer, which was delivered into the hands of Mr. Devereux, the Sub-Sheriff. The person who gave the writ said he would show goods beyond that amount. The Sub-Sheriff told him, he could not on that day issue it, but it would be executed on the next. The man waited for the next day, but no Sheriff or bailiff came to take the goods; it was not until the fifth day that the Sheriff made his appearance when the cattle were put into the pound, with directions that if the Sheriff or bailiff did not appear on the 17th day, and the money be not paid, the cattle were to be sold. The Sheriff or his bailiff not appearing on the appointed day, they were sold for the sum of 7l.7s.6d., and there remained goods to the amount of 20l. This, he said, was not an action against Mr. Pratt, but against Mr. Devereux, as it is he that must be accountable for any consequences and subject to damages. The command of this writ was to distrain for the amount, fairly, and it should be done without delay. The Sub-Sheriff may say he was on other business, but it rests with him to prove that, and I think he will not be able to do so.
     Thomas Sutliff examined by Mr. O'Driscoll- Was last year in the service of Mr. Herbert as Proctor; delivered, on the 20th April, 1826, a writ into Mr. Devereux's hands, issued by Matilda Herbert against John Teely, when handling it said if he came, he (witness) would shew goods for more than the value of the debt; thinks there were £30 worth; saw them eight days before the writ was given; handed £1 as a fee to Mr. Devereux, who said he would be made special-this witness refused; was desired to call in two hours; did so, and then was told that the next day one would be sent; did not hear from the Sheriff until about 4 o'clock on the evening of the fifth day, when his man, Cox, called for witness to go with him; this, it being so late, he refused; was prevailed upon to go, and took three other men with him; they seized one cow and nine small pigs, with all the household furniture, &c. and left a man in charge of them; the cattle were pounded, and Cox gave the pound keeper directions that if he or the Sheriff was not there on the 17th day, he (the witness) was to sell the cattle; went to Cox, the Sheriff's man, who said they would be at the pound early on the appointed day; neither of them appeared; waited even 2 hours after the appropriated time, with the auctioneer and some others. he at length proceeded to sell them; they produced £7 7s.6d.-full three times as much remained unsold; they were immoveables, which, on returning to the house, witness found they were  in possession of other keepers belonging to Mr. Wells, who seized them for rent.-Witness, in the usual time, served notice on Wells, to sell the goods; (notice produced); on serving this, found the goods in the hands of Well's keepers, with the doors barred; Wells read, on the day of the auction, another notice of half a year's rent due; (Mr. W's notice produced;) applied to Mr. Devereux, by letter, which he acknowledged to have received, to attend the sale of the furniture; Mr. D. did not go; had a long conversation with Mr. Devereux, who said, that if the writ was renewed he would, without taking his foot from the stirrup, sell all the goods he can get possession of; this he said in the presence of Mr. Bradshaw, the Attorney. (A letter from Mr. Devereux to Mrs. Herbert bearing date 17th April 1826 was read, requiring the amount of the rent, £34, before he would sell the goods. Notice from Mr. Wells to the Sheriff, also  read stating that £17 rent was due of Teely.)
     Cross-examined by Mr. Scott-Refused to be made special, and was never asked a second time; witness bought some of the pigs found in the possession of Mr. Wells's keepers; there was at the house, unsold, manure worth £10, with ten or twelve barrels of potatoes.
     Mr. Scott said that he thought they had not sustained their cases. This action was brought for a sale made by a person who had received the proceeds and was one of the party. It is obvious that the plaintiff has acted, with her own bailiff, and adopted the warrant at her peril. By the Act of Parliament, a landlord can, if he has any claim, prevent a Sheriff's sale; Mr. Wells was entitled to insist on that right, and until satisfied as to his claim Mr. Devereux could not make sale.
    By the Court- It is often the case that the Sheriff sells the goods and then pays the landlord.
     Mr. George Moore said, the Sheriff would not do so unless there was ample property to cover all the claims.
     By the Court- If the Sheriff sells the goods and they bring the amount of the demands he is safe, if it should turn otherwise he suffers the loss.
     Mr. Scott, in continuation-He admitted no action was more deserving of the strict attention of a Jury than corruption or collusion in a public Officer. This writ was delivered to Sutliff to execute, and that at his own peril, with this direction, not to sell without  the Sheriff's knowledge. It appears, from Sutliff himself, he was the person who  took the memorandum of the articles in the house, and who also gave the cattle; and, without waiting for the return of Cox, who went to apprize the Sheriff of what was done, Sutliff brings the  Auctioneer and makes the sale. What can you think of this case? Injury must have been done to Teely by having his goods sold for perhaps a tenth of the value, but you are aware a notice was served by Wells on the Sheriff claiming a year's rent, 34l. Under that notice the Sheriff could not, without risk, attempt a sale, and a cautionary notice was served by the Sheriff on the plaintiff that he could not sell until she paid that out of the rent. You will, Gentlemen, find he has not made a false return, and has  acted without corruption or artifice. For what does he offer? To renew the execution. This has been turned against him, and on it the present action is grounded. Was it possible that if the Sheriff did not take all the responsibility off himself, he would give it into the hands of the plaintiff? It is for you to decide whether the Sheriff has acted with fraud, and give your verdict accordingly.
    John Wells - examined by Mr. Arthur Moore-John Teely held land under the late Mr. Walsh, who died in October 1821; witness is bill executor; there was due of Teely, in 1826 51l.18s.10d.; sent him a notice to that effect, on 17th April, 1826, without concert with Mr. Devereux; knows Teely's residence; cannot say the value of his property.
     Cross-examined by Mr. O'Driscoll- The account was signed by Teely since the seizure was made-not his intention to distrain, only to protect the property, if the execution was withdrawn he would not distrain, having so little property exclusive of the crops.
     By the Court-According to my view you must fail in this case, Sutliff appears to me to have acted at his own peril. I am satisfied he has acted under his own controul, consequently the Sheriff cannot be charged with misconduct.
     Mr. Hamilton hoped his Lordship would allow him to make some observation, he said, they accuse the Sheriff that this is not a return, the truth or falsehood of it you, jurymen, are to decide, the Sheriff alleged in his return, that from the moment of delivery to the hour he returned there were no goods. Does he set about executing this writ as a diligent officer would have done, does he give excuse in evidence for not doing so? he promises that he will on the next day send a warrant, but is this done? No, nor for five days after, and then only because he found as the week was expiring he must do something to rescue himself. It is clear Mr. Devereux has executed this tardily and with great neglect, yet he does not produce any witness to show that he had any other writ, or burthensome duty to perform, so far from being engaged with other business that he desires the man call on the next day, which makes it evident his hands were free if his mind but willing. This plaintiff was to him no temptation, if there were thousands in the way he would not see him flinging away five days of time. The plaintiff authorised Sutliff to deliver the writ, there was an end to his authority, but said Mr. Devereux I will give you the warrant and have you special; no, said the man. Five days pass over, does Sutliff ask to be special, but notwithstanding he was made so; where was the tongue that nominated him? this shews that the Sheriff had gone beyond the line of truth-he puts in his name without knowing why he did so, the ignorant man sees himself as special and therefore thinks the best thing is to act as bailiff. It has been said the the Sheriff gave the writ to be executed at the plaintiff's risk, but do we not see the Sheriff acting up to the last moment. Cox, his bailiff, said, if the Sheriff or himself was not there at the appointed time, Sutliff was to sell them.  Where is this Cox? why is he not produced? There appears to me to be something like a drama in the whole affair. Mr. Devereux thinks of enquiring into his conduct; he says to the plaintiff I am in a scrape, do you assist me in extricating myself-renew the Execution, and the very goods that have been taken I will give to you. The Sheriff by this admits that the Landlord should not interfere. The question for you to decide is, has the Sheriff been particular in this case, and acted unjustly and with collision-if you think he has, my client is entitled to your verdict.
     The learned Judge then charged the Jury, who gave a verdict for the Defendant with sixpence costs.
     Counsel for Plaintiff-Timothy Driscoll, Arthur Hamilton, H. Bracken, Esqrs. Agent-John Bradshaw, Esq.
     Counsel for Defendant-James S. Scott, Richard Moore, T.B.C. Smith, Esqrs. Agent-J. Maher, Esq.
     Wm Robertson v. George Bryan, next came on; a verdict was given for the defendant.

EXCISE OFFICE, CORK-Monday, August 6

     A Commission sat this day, to inquire into and decide upon a few cases, wherein the parties were charged with infractions of the Revenue Laws. Messrs. Ward, Savouring and Shekelton, presided as Sub-Commissioners, and Mr. Darley (we believe) who arrived in the morning Coach, from Dublin, conducted the persecutions.
     James Coakley, of the Watercourse, Weaver and Farmer, was charged under the Statute, with concealing and removing a quantity of Sheep-Skins, which did not, according to law, bear the impress of a certain Stamp.
     William Maddock, Officer of Exise, on being sworn, in support of the allegation, was not able to adduce any evidence to support the information, and consequently the defendant was acquitted.
     William Ryan, a person engaged in the Currying trade, was next charged, under the same Act of Parliament, with having a number of skins in his possession in a certain state of preparation, on which the law imposed a penalty of 100l. on conviction, certain requisites not having been performed.
     Wm. Maddock, the witness in the previous case, proved that he found 87 sheep-skins and two dog-skins in defendant's possession, unstamped with the required mark, and bearing evident proof that hey had just been taken from the tan-holes. On witness stating to defendant the consequence of such neglect, and enquiring to whom they belonged, the latter replied they were his own, and that he hand only just removed them from the premises of the defendant in the former case (Coakley) and in consequence of their  great weight, he had hoped the required stamping might have been disposed with.--Guilty.
     Mr. Thomas Coker, a respectable baker of this City, was charged, with defrauding his Majesty's Revenue, for that he, on the 21st May last, did, by himself or his maltster, press down a certain quantity of Malt, contained in his, defendant's couch, and thereby compress into a less space, a greater quantity of Malt than said couch would otherwise contain.
     It appeared, on the testimony of Mr. Maddock, the informer, in the two preceding cases, that on the day laid in the information, he visited defendant's premises in Saint Barry's, which were got up for the manufacture of barm, and having reached the loft on which the couch and and cistern were situated, he informed the Malster in charge of his suspicions and proceeded to guage the Malt which was pressed down in the couch, and which, according to measurement, contained 16 8-10 bushels; but which, on the second guage, after it had been thrown out of the couch, proved to contain 18 bushels. The Malster denied to witness that he had pressed it, and observed, he had never met a guager so very particular. Witness measured the Malt by his own rule, which was supplied him from London, and not by the piece of lath now produced by defendant, which he had never seen or handled before. The couch was 89 inches long and 89 in breath, and it was a very contracted concern altogether.
     Mr. Barber cross-examined the witness at some length. It was his first round after his appointment to the walk, which took place three for four days previous; and he, witness, understood that it was the defendant's first attempt at the manufacture of barm; admits that Barley will distend and press down several inches; but the quality of the corn, and the nature of the ground on which it grew, are great and leading operatives to this result. The extend of defendant's fraud upon the King's revenue, taking into consideration the 5 per cent, which the law allows on Malt so circumstanced is about fifteen or sixteen pence. Witness walked on the couch frame himself. Understands that the law would compel him to replace the malt in the couch, if it proved not to exceed the quantity vouched for, and that the couch is a more correct than the ground to guage it.
     Mr. Thomas Burke, Excise Officer sworn-Witness revisited the defendant's premises on the morning of the 21st May, at 8 o'clock when he found the dip on the couch to be 5 3-10 inches; the Supervisor who visited it at 6 in the evening, found it to be 5 9-10 inches. This witness testified as to the general correctness of defendant's house.
     DEFENCE- Michael Hickey, a working maltster in defendant's employment, sworn, examined by Mr. Barber- Witness recollects the visit of Mr. Maddock when the corn was thrown out of the couch; witness put the corn into the couch, and no one had access to the house but himself and Mr. Burke, the Excise Officer; no person could have pressed the corn without witness's knowledge; swears that the corn was not pressed, or forced, nor trod on, before Mr. Maddock's visit; the couch was made into malt, and afterwards on being weighed but, was short of the quantity charged with duty; none of it was improperly used or taken away; it was not trampled on by any one, but Mr. Maddock when guaging it; defendant's directions to witness were always to do what was fair, and not to leave himself in the power of the Revenue; defendant knew nothing of malting.
     Cross-examined by the Agent for Crown-You say no person had the management of the Malt-house but yourself? -Witness-I do.
     Agent- Do you recollect Mr. Maddock telling you the Couch was pressed, and your saying he was the most particular man he ever met? Witness-I don't recollect saying so.
     Agent-Did you put the corn in the couch? Witness-I did.
     Do you swear no one pressed the malt? Witness-I do. Case closed.- Judgment deferred.
     This Day.--The judgment was delivered this day, Mr. Coker being fined 10l. --Cork Reporter.

     EARL KENMARE- We feel great pleasure in announcing the liberal donation of £50 made by this Nobleman to the Parish Priest of Graig to assist him in liquidating the debts already contracted in building the new Chapel of Skavasteen. It is also worthy of remark, that only a small portion of his Lordship's Estate is situate in the Parish, for whose accommodation this Chapel has been built. We feel equal pleasure in mentioning his unbounded charity during the late season of distress. We are informed, on the best authority, that no less a sum than £50 has been weekly expended by his Lordship, since November last till the present time, in employing and relieving the distressed poor of the town and neighbourhood of Killarney. What an example of tender feeling for fellow-man, and how well-deserving the imitation of the Nobility of Ireland!

KILKENNY SUMMER ASSIZES-

SATURDAY- LAST DAY
Thomas Quinn v. Bartholomew Dillon

     This was an action against the defendant, for having on the 6th April last, broke and entered into the dwelling-house of plaintiff, and took goods. The damages were laid at £100.
     Mr. Scott stated the case. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a poor man, against Mr. Dillon, a Magistrate of this county, for harsh and grievous oppression. He was sorry this action became necessary against so high a public officer as a Magistrate, on whom so much responsibility rests; and being so entrusted they ought to hold him up an example to all violators of the rights of the poor man without authority. The lands were formerly held by a man of the name of Neal. The plaintiff married Neal's daughter, and lived there some time; afterwards he took part of those lands from Neal and lived as a tenant. It is for expulsion from these lands that the present action is brought. Neal went to America and Mr. Dillon proceeded to distrain to get Quinn out, though Quinn paid his rent to Neal. This the law entitled him to do, but it did not allow him to trespass. On the 2d of April he made a distress, and a further one the 6th. Hearing that Quinn's property was removing, he went to the house, which he found closed, and demanding admission was refused, he then broke it open, and all this done without a Magistrate's warrant, which was illegal as he should have regular information. It would be shown that no warrant was lodged till after the outrage. Upon breaking into the house he took two women and a boy prisoners, whom, he tied, carried to his house and then to a Magistrate's- he also took furniture- the bed-clothes and even the straw on which a child was sleeping which makes it clear it was not to make the distress he did so, but to get off the tenant. This was an unfortunate mode; and proceedings like this, produce generally such characters as Captain Rock. A box containing all his papers and receipts was seized and broken open, which the defendant took. He returned, to complete his capture, at a time when the family were attending their religious duties and left two of the children in the house, whom he turned out, he was not satisfied with taking everything on which he could lay his hands at the time of the seizure, but made repeated visits and carried away things which was afterwards bought. Mr. Dillon even entertained the design of starving them out, to accomplish which he locked them in [laughter] he took the food on which they lived, and on one occasion, with singular dexterity, put down the fire which he ordered his man to throw water upon. These are the acts for which the defendant calls for reparation. Supposing he acted  improperly- Mr. Dillon was not warranted to go there at his will and distrain, without the usual process of law, there were other means by which he could recover his demand. Mr. Dillon also put others into his land, and gave them over his crops. Those facts when proved, must ensure your verdict.
     Ellen Quinn, examined- Lived in the plaintiff's house, at Ballyquin; knows Mr. Dillon; remembers his coming to plaintiff's house the beginning of April last; witness, Quinn's wife, and her four children, two girls and servant boy in the house; has four children; youngest nine months old; the door was shut when Mr. Dillon came; he asked if any one was within; came to the window; desired the boy, Martin Maguire, to open the door, who said he would not be allowed; that the woman of the house desired him not; then he turned to Cheyne, the policeman, and desired him to break the door, which he did, with a stone; after two or three strokes, the door was broken in two parts; Mr. Dillon entered with the policeman and they brought away every thing in the house; boards, bed-clothes, quilt, blanket, and sheets, with many other articles. One of the children in bed; took the clothes from off her, and in doing so rolled the infant on to the floor; took the servant boy away with them; about half an hour after, Dr. Dillon's servant boy came with Cheyne, the policeman, and brought witness to defenant's house, they were going to tie her with a dirty sugan but she would not let them; tied the other two girls and took them with witness to Mr. Dillon's house, who was at home, there they were handcuffed and brought to Mr. Haydon's, the Magistrate, who sent them to Kilkenny Jail. Dr. Dillon, when at the house, broke open the box and put the papers into his pocket-saw him take them away. Some of the land was tilled with wheat; Martin Maguire, the boy who was at Quinn's house, is now in the service of Dr. Dillon.
     Cross-examined by Mr. A. Moore- Saw no one with Dr. Dillon but a policeman; saw Quinn at home two days before Dr. Dillon came to the house; witness lived there nine weeks before this; cannot tell how much cattle was on the land; they were taken off two or three days before: cannot say who took them away; heard Quinn intended going to America but not from himself; Doctor Dillon's men took away two dressers, part of the furniture and cattle belonged to Quinn and Neal.
     By a Juror-When taken to Mr. Haydon's, the magistrate, was any charge brought against you? No crime or charge; not let into Mr. Haydon's house, but sent to Kilkenny jail; not asked any questions before the Magistrate, asked by Mr. Haydon if we could get bail, said we could not, and were left three weeks in jail.
     Mary M'Donnell examined-This was another of the girls who were taken at the house and sent to jail, she corroborated the preceding witness's testimony.
    Mary Quinn examined.-This was a very interesting girl, only 12 years old- Is daughter to Quinn, the plaintiff; knows Dr. Dillon; recollects his coming to her father's house before last Easter; all the family except the two youngest children were up; they got into the house by breaking open the door with a stone; heard Dr. Dillon desire the policeman take every thing away; he came another day, and ordered Conway, his servant, to take the straw on which they were lying; came again when her mother was out, and no one in the house but her two youngest brothers; there was nothing on the fire, but bosses were near it, which he took; witness fed the young child when her mother was away; was giving it on this day, some bread and milk in a panakan, which was taken from her-the bread and milk given to Dr. Dillon's dog, & the panakan taken away; on the Easter Monday following the defendant came, when the children were alone-beat and desired them be off; they went to a neighbour's house. Dr. Dillon having fastened up theirs; remembers the time the lock was put on-they were inside at the time; Mr. Dillon told her mother it was better for her be off, as he would lock them up, or have them taken the next day.
     Cross-examined by Mr. A. Moore- When the panakan was taken, the bread and milk was given to the dog; knew the dog before; it might have been the boy's; does not know where her father was- he left the house about a week before.
     Richard Dalton, Thomas Brenan, and John Carroll were sworn, and each examined-Dalton proved that when Quinn left the lands there were crops of wheat, oats and meadowing-the wheat worth 18l and the oat 16l, and 15l worth of manure-with potatoes and many other articles.
     Mr. Arthur Moore addressed the Jury for the defendant. They were told his client was a Magistrate, and he considered the acts of such persons should be more scrutinized than those of an inferior class. The plaintiff complains of a system of oppression for which he claims compensation; but it will be shown that Mr. Dillon was a kind and indulgent landlord, while, on the contrary, Quinn was anything but punctual, and it was not till every other means was beyond his reach that he decided to the measure which they had heard was resorted to. They were told that the prisoners had been handcuffed to gaol, but that has nothing to do with the case; they were not to take that into consideration, or make it an ingredient in their verdict.- It was, he thought, most unfair to endeavour to influence the minds of a Jury by such artifice. What is the whole injury done? first, his breaking and entering the house; next his taking possession of the land, and then taking some trifling articles, such has a quilt or a sheet, and for these he claims damages-the very smallest would cover them. in April, 1826, Neal, of whose land the plaintiff had a part, owed four years rent, amounting to four hundred pounds; this was sufficient to show that there was nothing on Doctor Dillon's part that was cruel, or would he let such a sum remain due? The plaintiff's witness show that the stock and furniture were removed; and on the day this transaction took place there remained but a few trifling articles- it appears they had intended to go to America. Is this conduct that entitles him to the favour of a Jury? The defendant also finds the lands abandoned with only two acres of wheat, and two of oats, off one hundred acres; was there anything more natural than that he should enter and take possession of them? Now, with respect to the trespass in the house, the defendant denies that the door was broken open, but only rapped at the door with a stone. Mr. Moore concluded, by observing that the abandonment of the lands was sufficient to the landlord to take possession.
     Richard Conway sworn- Knows the plaintiff and the lands held by him, Neal and Day; is bailiff to the defendant; received rent from Quinn; nearly three hundred pounds due in last February by Quinn and Neal; did not see them since the 3d of April; Quinn had four cows, one horse, and six pigs; Neal had one horse, five cows and eight pigs; no more there, except grazing cattle belonging to others; several of these taken off the lands; nothing remained but the corn, oats, hay and potatoes; there were not at anytime much furniture in the house; saw them on the 2d of April bringing away every thing with two horses and cars; it was duskish; seized on the 6th every article he could get at; posted a notice for the sale at Mullinavat, on the 10th, and sold them on the 17th; they brought four pounds nine shillings and three pence. Often had conversation with Quinn, who complained of his rent being too high, that he could not pay it; never heard him speak of going to America.
     Cross-examined by Mr. Scott.-- Neal and Quinn built the house in which they lived; rent due by both; in February last they paid part of the rent to get keepers off ; witness distrained everything he could find; had a cart to put them into; took straw, bellows, pot-hooks, with many other articles; did not take a memorandum; was not with Doctor Dillon and Cheyne, the Policeman, when they went there on the sixth.
     Andrew Cheyne sworn-Knows the plaintiff; met Conway when going on patrol the 2d of April last; they went to Doctor Dillon's home, and from that to Quinn's to have a conversation with the plaintiff, the Sunday before Easter, who said he intended going to America; saw the furniture taken away on cars, and when witness spoke to him, he said it would be done in no thanks to him, as there was enough for Doctor Dillon. When they got to Quinn's house, the door was shut, rapped and it was opened; did not, to his knowledge break it open, as far as he could see; was not ordered by Mr. Dillon to break it down.
     Cross-examined- Is under the command of Dr. Dillon, who is, he believed, an active Magistrate; had no arms except his own; rapped with a lump of a stone at the door; had his nuckles; could not go without them he supposes (a laugh), but did not rap at the door with them, though if he did, thinks it would be heard; does not know who opened the door.
     Rev. J. Cuffe, examined- Is Curate of the parish where these lands are; knows the plaintiff; had conversation with him, and he complained of poverty; and as his rent was too high, he intended going to America; told him he could not make a settlement; believes Dr. Dillon would take a shilling when £100 was due.
     Mr. Dixon addressed the jury for the plaintiff.- He said it became his duty to make such observations on the evidence as was applicable to this action, which was technically called a trespass via et armis , that is, entering, taking property, and expelling the family from the house and lands. He asked the Jury was it possible not to believe the evidence of that artless child and Ellen Quinn; and the only evidence that encounters their's is Cheyne, the policeman, who is, according to his own acknowledgement, under the command of Dr. Dillon. He was reluctantly obliged to admit that he heard voices inside the house, and is it possible that such an able-bodied man as he is could not make himself be heard with his nuckles. If it was not to force the door open, whey have resource to what he has termed a lump of a stone? Does the child not concur with the other witnesses, that the door was broken down in halves. It was, he thought, impossible not to see, from the way Cheyne gave his evidence that he did not break it. But where is this Martin Maguire, who has taken so prominent a part? He is, it seems, now in the service of Dr. Dillon, and why does he not produce him? The inference is irristible-that the door has been broke open, and that Tully established the trespass.- Conway swears he posted the notice in some part of Mullinavat on the 10th and sold on the 17th, but the Act of Parliament says, distress lawfully made, unless redeemed in eight days will be sold, it also requires that the notice of such sale be posted in the nearest market-town, now they have not proved that Mullinavat is any such town, nor can they do it, and is it possible that if it was posted at all but that they would have produced some persons who had seen it. He desired the jury to examine that copy and consider could it be in the witness's possession for four months in the preserved state that it was produced. They would also see that the memorandum and the signature were written with the same pen and at the same time, but this Dr. Dillon was told to be necessary for the setting up a defence, what became of the spoon, panakan, and the other articles that have been sworn to be seized, they are not included in the memorandum of the sale. Counsellor Dixon maintained that Quinn's going to America could not constitute the defence as there was not evidence that Mr. Dillon was previously acquainted with it.-Was it proof of his quitting the county, that his was the only land tilled, and that he possessed a considerable quantity of manure to lay out on the ground? This, he thought, indicated a contrary intention. Even this could not justify Dr. Dillon in entering the house, and taking possession of the land, without the ordinary process of law-that is, by civil bill ejectment. Did they believe it was for the purpose of securing his claim that he seized on the several trifling articles they heard-that he took the miserable panakan, after giving the bread and milk to their dog? If landlords expect that homage which is their due, are they not to be commiserate to their tenants-or is the poor inhabitant of Ireland to be treated like and Ethiopian slave? Is his dwelling to be broken into, and his family turned on the world? Are their feelings to be outraged and their food given to the dogs! His client should not be coolly compensated. They ought to set an example to the other violators of the law-to those men who should be guardians of the public peace. The defendant was well able to compensate his client, and he claimed for him a verdict from the jury.
     His Lordship, in charging the Jury, said the trespass on the house and lands had been clearly proved, and the only thing for them to determine was the amount of damages. Verdict for the plaintiff, £60 damages, and six-pence costs.
     Counsel for Plaintiff- James S. Scott, K.C. Thos Dixon, Abraham Brewster, Esqrs. Agent-J. Maher, Esq. Counsel for Defendant-Richard Moore, K.C., Thomas B.C. Smith, Esqrs. Agent-M. Hyland, Esq.
 

~~~~~~~~~~

     Richard Keane, v. James Kelly, Richard Colles, Peter Duncan, and Judith Kavavagh. This was a siri faciae to obtain a revival of judgment. Mr .Dixon stated the case.
     Mr. Christoph James, Counsel for the defendants, said, he had strong grounds for believing that this bond was obtained by fraudulent means from Mr. Kelly's father, as he lived among his family here, and they were never made acquainted with it. They had not the deed pleaded to produce. Verdict for the plaintiff.
     Counsel for the plaintiff-Messrs. Dixon and Smith. Agent-Mr. Scott. Counsel for defendant-Mr. James. Agent-Mr. Kelly.

     Wm. Ladd, lessee of Pat. Byrne, also lessee of Mathew Keeffe, also lessee of Philip Purcell, plaintiffs; Thos. Haws, defendant.-Mr. Smith opened the pleadings, and stated it was an ejectment to recover £2 3s 3d, of Scald-Crows Cross, or otherwise Crow-park, in the liberties of the City of Kilkenny.
     Mr. Scott stated the plaintiffs' case, that it was one which entirely rested upon documentary evidence, and was a question of the law solely for the consideration of his Lordship. He stated, the ejectment was brought on three demises-one, in the name of Pat Byrne, one on the name of Mathew Keeffe, and another in the name of  Philip Purcell. Mr. Scott stated, that they rested principally upon the demise laid in the name of Matthew Keeffe, upon which Mr. Brewster, Counsel for defendant, said he would consent to a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, upon that demise.
     Counsel for plaintiff-James S. Scott, K.C. Thompson, B.C. Smith, Esqrs. Agent-K. Purcell. Counsel for the defendant, A. Brewster, Esq. Agent-J. Maher.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

     DUEL-Friday morning, at an early hour a meeting took place at Marcollop, in the County Waterford, the parties having been previously been bound over in the County of Cork between Richard Boyle Robinson, of Glenville, Esq. attended by Charles William Blakeney, Esq, and John Herrick, of Farnalough, Esq, attended by Sri Emmanuel Moore, Bart. The Gentlemen having been placed on the ground; and the word given, Mr. Herrick fired, and Mr. Robinson instantly discharged his pistol in the air, which terminated this unpleasant affair.

     IRISH PAUPERS- The people of the West of Scotland are justly alarmed at the inundations of starving Irish which the cheap steam-boats pour in upon them. On Sunday se'nnight, four steam-boats arrived at Glasgow from Ireland, and each landed about 100 of the destitute creatures, who dispersed themselves over the city, but were in so miserable a condition that they were refused lodgings in many places and even by their own countrymen.
    

BIRTHS

     On the 3d instant, at Gouton Park, Norfolk, Lady Suffolk, of a son.
     At the house of Thomas Pennefather, Esq. Cashel, Mrs. R. Pennefather, of a daughter.

MARRIED.

     In Dundalk Church, E. Ferrar, Esq., son of the late Mr. W.H. Ferrar, Esq. of Belfast, to Margaret, youngest daughter of Jamse Carrol, Esq. of Drumgoolin, in the county Louth.
     On Sunday last, by his Grace the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Jane, eldest daughter of John Huey, City-quay, to James Sheil, Esq, Kilmainham.

DIED.

     At the advanced age of 90 years, the Rev. William Power, P.P. This venerable Clergyman was 46 years Parish Priest of Seskinane, county Waterford, and through life maintained the exemplary character of a meek, charitable and pious pastor.
     On the 30-ult. in Connaught-terrace, London, Mr. Stephens, father of Stephens, the celebrated vocalist.

BIRTHS

     On the 15th instant, at Walthamstow, Essew, the hon. Mr.s B. Noel of a son.
    On Thursday last , at Carrick-on-Suir, the Lady of N. Skottow, Esq. of a son.
     On the 14th instant, at the Park, Killarney, the Lady of Daniel Cronin, Esq. of a daughter.

MARRIED.

     On the 9th instant, by the Rev. C. Fraser, S.J., at the house of John Corley, Esq., Upper Rutland street, Dublin, R. Therry, Esq. son of John Therry, Esq. last Chairman of the Board of Excise, to Mrs. Reilly, daughter of T. Corley, Esq. of Clones, county Monaghan.
     On the 16th instant, George Grey, Esq. eldest son of Commissioner the Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart, and nephew to the Right Hon. Earl Grey, to Anna Sophia Ryder, eldest daughter of the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and niece to the Earl of Harrowby.
     On the 14th inst., William Smithwick, Esq., of Youghal Lodge, county Tipperary, to Anna, eldest daughter of the Rev. Dr. Gabbett, Rector of Castletown.
     On Wednesday week, Fitzmaurice Hunt, Esq. of Cappagh House,co. Tipperary, to Dorothea, only daughter of the late T. Pennefather, Esq. of Marlow in said county.

DIED.

     On Monday morning, William Henry, only son of William Keogh, of Monk-place, Dublin, Esq.
     On the 17th instant, in London, John Lyon, Esq. of Tramore, county Waterford.
     At Ilkiston, on the 1st instant, Miss Sarah Cocker, aged 48. Her death was awfully sudden; having retired into the garden to cull some goosberries for a friend, and when in the act of stooping was seized with death; and immediately expired in the arms of friends.

EXECUTION OF PATRICK GRACE AT RATHCANNON

     This unfortunate man, who had been convicted on Friday se'nnight, of the barbarous murder of Richard Chadwick, Esq., was on Monday, at an early hour (five o'clock) in the morning, led from Clonmel jail and bound in a common car, which was to convey him to the place destined for his execution. The car to which he was tied was encircled by a number of the police, and a company of the 58th regiment, now stationed in Clonmel-in front was placed the materials of the platform on which Grace was to be executed, and at the rere was the hangman, surrounded by a party of police. At a quarter to three o'clock, the melancholy procession reached Rathcannon. When Grace came to the place where Mr. Chadwick had been assassinated, a halt for about five minutes was maid [sic] "there in the spot-the fatal spot." Grace heard him, but anxious to detach himself from all worldly recollections, he moved his hand, as if desirous that his devotions should not be intruded upon. When the party had arrived at the place of execution, and while the platform was preparing, Grace sent for his brothers, and after embracing them, he exhorted them not to entertain malice on his account to any one; he besought them to be quiet, peaceable, and well conducted. A few minutes having been given to devotion, the miserable man was turned off, and after a brief but mortal struggle expired.

INSOLVENT COURT-DUBLIN, Aug 14.

     CAUTION TO TRADERS- Aug. 18- Pat. Hasney, late of Mountmellick, in the Queen's County, calico-dealer, was opposed by Mr. Creighton on the part of Mr. Shaw, Proprietor of the Cotton Mills at Cellbridge and a creditor in the Insolvent's schedule to the amount of 351l. The short facts of the case were these,- The insolvent was in the habit of dealing with Mr. S. for some considerable period prior to the year 1825-in the October of that year and up to February 1826, he obtained that very large credit with which he scampered off to Cork; and, no doubt, hearing of the great encouragement which emigrants received in America, took his passage on board a vessel on the point of sailing for that country; but Mr. Shaw, having received notice of his movements, was a little too quick for him, and arrested him in the town of Cove a few hours previous to the sailing of the vessel. The Insolvent then filed his petition and schedule in Cork, on which he came up before Mr. Commissioner Lloyd, who hears and dismissed his petition. He then got himself removed to Dublin, and having a more skilful agent then the one he employed in Cork, he tried the Court this day, but notwithstanding the powerful defence made for him by his Counsel, Mr. Huband, the Court did not think him a fit object for a free discharge, in consequence of which he was remanded for nine months, at the suit of Mr. Shaw.--Morning Register.

     ARMY REDUCTIONS- We are enabled to state, upon what we believe to be competent authority, that the following are the contemplated Army Reductions:
     The Cavalry Regiments to be reduced six men per troop. The second Majors also to be reduced.
     The Infantry Regiments to be reduced ten men per company.
     All the Militia Staffs.
     All the Colonial Corps (West India and Ceylon) except the African.
     The Recruiting Establishments to be abolished, and the recruiting business to be done in future by the depots of regiments.
     The Districts to be abolished in Ireland. Limerick is one-the other we have not ascertained.