Saturday 14 Nov 1818 (p. 2, col. 5 - p. 3, col. 1) At Carlisle Martinmas Hiring day, on Saturday last, a vast number of servants of both sexes attended who were in want of places. The wages obtained for the Winter half year were not, of course, as high as those of the half year preceding. A great number were hired. Prime servants were in request. Committed to Carlisle Gaol, by William HODGSON, Esq., Mayor, Mary M'WILLIAMS, charged with stealing a piece of printed calico from the shop of Mr. HEWITT, linen draper, of this City. The woman's husband is a very honest respectable man, and the conduct of his wife has plunged him into great affliction. The following convicts were sent off from Carlisle gaol on Wednesday morning, for the purpose of being transported beyond the seas:-John ROSS, William HEYLIN, H. BURNES, and H. MACNAMARA. Highway Robbery.-An itinerant dealer in hardware, who was travelling with a horse and cart, from Brampton hiring to Haltwhistle, on Wednesday night last, was attacked by two or three Footpads, about a mile from Brampton, who knocked him down, beat him dreadfully, and plundered him of what money he had: they were about to rifle his cart, when some person who heard his cries came up, and they made off. He was conveyed to Brampton Workhouse, where he remains in a dangerous state. Brampton Hiring on Wednesday last was very numerously attended. Servants wages as was expected, were very low. There is a Gooseberry tree in the Garden of John THOMPSON, of Kirkland near Wigton, which has a second crop of fruit. John WREN and William CLEMENTSON, mentioned in a former paper, as having been burned at Gilcrux Colliery, have since died, each leaving small families. A few evenings ago, about eight o'clock, Mr. C. CHAMLEY, was knocked off his horse between Hutton and Millthorp, by a party of footpads, who robbed him of a pocket book containing notes to the amount of 10gs.: the villains ill-used him so much, that they left him lying on the ground insensible. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 9.-Doe ex dem. LITTLEDALE v. SMEDDLE.-This cause came before a jury at the last Assizes for the County of Cumberland.-Mr. RICHARDSON now moved for a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted. The question turned on the construction to be put on the word heirs, in a marriage-settlement under the statute of uses. The settlement ran thus:- "To trustees and their heirs to the use of LITTLEDALE until his marriage with Mary WADHURST; and from and after the marriage, to the use of LITTLEDALE for life; remainder to his wife Mary for life; remainder to the first son of LITTLEDALE, on the body of Mary to be begotten, and the heirs of such first son: remainder in like manner to the 2d, 3d, 4th, and all other sons: and for default of such issue, in trust for the daughter and daughters, on the said Mary begotten, and their heirs as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants: and for want of such issue to the right heirs of the survivor of LITTLEDALE and Mary."-Mr. RICHARDSON contended that the children took only an estate tail; because after the estate of each of them another estate was limited, and the intention of the settler as to those subsequent estates would have been defeated, if any of the first takers were held to take an estate in fee. He contended also, that settlements under the statute of uses were favoured in the same manner as wills, and construed according to the intention of the parties; and for this as well as the other point, he quoted LEIGH v. BRACE, Carthew, 343. He considered that cross remainders would be implied as between the daughters.-Mr. Justice HOLROYD referred to Doe v. WERSLEY, 1 East, 416, to show that cross remainders could not be implied between more than two; and if so, the daughters could not, consistently with the settler's intention, have taken estates tail.-Chief Justice ABBOTT:-"The word heirs in a deed, according to interpretation of law, means heirs general. But supposing a different intention were expressed in one part of a deed, and the law could give effect to that intention, it does not follow, though the law will give effect to the intention in one part, where it is clear and manifest, that effect will be given to it in another, where it is not clear. No proof has been brought in the present instance to show that the word heirs, as applied to the daughters who took estates in common, was meant in a limited sense, whatever might have been the case with respect to the sons." The rest of the Court concurring, the rule was refused.