The Sun. — London, England, 1862-01-31 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. THE NEW BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE. The City Parliament held a special meeting yes terday at'.2 o'clock, for the purpose of taking into consideration a• report made at the former court by the Bridge-house Estates Committee, having refe rence to Blackfriars-bridge, and recommending that a new bridge of three arches be erected, after the design sent in by Thomas Page, Esq., at the esti mated coat of £245,000. The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor presided, and as the questionwas one of considerable importance, not only to the corporation, but also the general public, there was a very full attendance of members of the Court. The following members of the " Up per House" were also present :—Aldermen Hum phery, Salomons, Challis, Phillips, Gabriel, Mechi, Rose, Sir F. G. Moon, Hale, Sir H. Muggeridge, W. Lawrence, Dakin, Abbiss, J. C. Lawrence, and Finnis. The Recorder was also present. _ . The proceedings of the last Court were agreed to, •as having been correctly printel, and the business for which it was now specially assembled was then proceeded with. It may be necessary to explain that in consequence of the alleged defective and insecure state of the pre sent bridge at Blackfriars, the subject was specially referred to the Bridge House Estates Committee to consider what steps should be taken, and, after a very long inquiry, and consulting some of the most eminent engineers, all of whom sent in plans and estimates for the erection of a new bridge (which was considered the best course to be taken), the committee decided upon adopting the plan of erec tion proposed by Mr. Page, namely, an iron bridge of three arches, and they made areport to that effect: Mr. Kearns, a member of the committee, placed a motion upon the paper that the matter should be further considered before any decision should be arrived at, and the whole matter now came on for discussion. Mr. H. W. VALLANCE, chairman of the Bridge House Estates Committee, in moving that the report should be agreed to and adopted, referred at some length to the previous proceedings that had taken place in reference to the question, and said that even those who had an interest in " nursing" the ques tion admitted that it was no longer advisable to maintain the old structure. (Hear, hear.) The matter was referred to the Bridge House Estates Committee in March, 1861, and they considered the matter very carefully, and consulted the most emi nent engineers this country could produce, who had been selected by the City architect ; and after the most careful consideration, they had almost unani mously agreed to the report that had been pre sented, and which he hoped would receive the sanction of the Court. (Hear.) He said he be lieved that the real question which was to be decided was, whether they were to have a bridge of five arches, which would suit the convenience of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, or whether they were to have one of three arches, that would afford much more waterway and considerably greater accommodation to the traffic of the river. (Hear.) Mr. Valiance then proceeded, in a very able address, to call the atten tion of the Court to all the points connected with the question at issue, and concluded a most eloquent speech by stating that neither he nor the committee had any other object in view than that a bridge should be erected in the place of the present incon venient and dangerous structure that would be an honour to the Corporation of London, and would comply with the requirements of the age in which they lived. Deputy FRY said that, with the consent of Mr. Kearns, who had notice of an amendment upon the paper, he should propose that amendment to the Court, and as a member of the committee, should, at the same time, state the objections which he en tertained to the report that had been brought up to the Court. (Hear.) He was not 'willing to dis close the secrets of a committee—(hear)—but he must protest against the assumption being enter tained that the report was not objected to in the committee. For his own part, he could state positively that he had no idea that at the last meeting they held the question to be disposed of was, whether this plan was to be agreed to. (Hear.; He was prepared to contend that the committee ought to have had a greater amount of professional easistanee, and that, in point offset, the report now before the Court was the result of the deliberations of unpractical and unscientific men. (Hear, hear.) He then proceeded to state that the original amount of the estimate sent in by Mr. Page for the erection of this bridge was £280,000 ; but after Mr. Cubitt had proposed to erect the structure for £245,000, Mr. Page found out that he had made some extra ordinary mistake in his calculations, and he under took to build the bridge for the exact sum that had been mentioned by Mr. Cubitt. (Hear, and a laugh ) Tno worthy deputy then referred to an article in the Athenaurn condemnatory of the proposed struc ture, and said that it was a startling fact that only two out of the whole number of engineers, who had been engaged in the matter, had committed them selves to a three-arch bridge, and even Mr. Page himself had sent in plans and estimates having re ference to a five-arch bridge, as well as to one of three arches. (Hear.) He then proceeded to con tend that, with regard to water-way, a much larger amount of available water-way was afforded by a five-arch bridge than by a three-arched one, and said that some of the most eminent engineers of the day had expressed a similar opinion. (Hear.) The worthy deputy concluded by stating that Mr. Page had himself admitted that he had made a mistake of three feet six inches in his gradients, and he believed that if the Surrey side were to be raised to the level that would be required for his three-arch bridge, it would be necessary to raise the level on that side of the water five or six feet, or as high as the first floor windows. (Laughter.) He concluded by proposing the amendment that had be: n put upon the paper by Mr. Kearns, that the matter should be referred back to the committee for further consideration. Mr. KEARNS supported the amendment, and in doing so he denied that the committee had had sufficient opportunity of considering all the plans that had been presented to them, and he said that he was shocked to find that the committee had come to the resolution to accept the plan that had been sent in by Mr. Page. (Oh, oh.) So far from his having consented to this proposition, be moved two amendments to the motion and divided upon them, and these protests were upon the records of the committee. He then proceeded to complain of the proceedings that had been adopted to obtain signa tures to petitions in favour of a three-arch bridge, and cited instances in which parties' names ap- Peered, who were unable to write, and in others the persons signin g did so under the impression that they were petitioning for a five-arch and not a three-arch bridge. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The hon. member referred to the question of the em bankment of the north and south sides of :the Thames, and said that it was extremely important that no bridge should be erected that would not coincide with the proposed embankment. He then called the attention of the Court to a number of ac cidents that had taken place within his own obser vation, from his place of business being on the river side at Southwark-bridge, solely by reason of that edifice being constructed upon three arches, and he argued that a bridge of five arches would give much more waterway and afford much more accom modation to the traffic of the river than the bridg e that was now sought to be erected. H e also took exception to the use of cast iron in the erection of such a building as a bridge, and avouchedthep r la o t o e f fearful calamity at the Hartley colliery as a of the danger that was to be apprehended from the use of such a material. The hon. member then went into a variety of details in support of his argument, and concluded by expressing a hope that the Court would not sanction the expenditure of a sum of £300,000, which in all probability would be the ex pense of the proposed structure, without first being well satisfied that when it was completed it would answer the purpose for which it was erected. (Hear, hear.) Several hon. members then rose to address the Court, but The LORD MAYOR interposed, and said that the question before them Was one of very considerable importance, nd as it WAS WM hafTliglt cAlQck i; was not likely that the matter could be brought to a conclusion that day unless they sat to a late hour, and he therefore suggested that the further discus sion of the subject should be postponed. The Court unanimously agreed to is sugges tion, and the debate was therefore adj rued for a fortnight. 7HE WINDHAM CASE. The adjourned inquiry into the state of mind of Mr. W. F. Windham, of Felbrigg-hall, Norfolk, was resumed and concluded yesterday in the West minster Sessions House, before Mr. Warren, Q.C.) one of the Masters in Lunacy, and a special jury. Previous to the examination of Mr. Windham, which had been appointed to take place in private at 11 o'clock, there was a little formal business done in open court. As soon as the Master had taken his seat on the bench Sir H. Cairns renewed his protest against a private interview with his client, and again expressed his wish for a public examina tion. The Master recorded his protest, and said that, in deciding that the examination of the alleged lunatic should be conducted with closed doors, he was simply following the example set by the late Lord Campbell in the Armstrong case. Sir H. Cairns remarked rather curtly that he had no desire to discuss the Armstrong case, which had frequently been mentioned, but which had no bearing upon the case of Mr. Windham. He added that he hoped it would be understood that in the approaching inter view the jury would not be allowed to address questions directly to Mr. Windham, but would be required to put their interrogations through the presiding judge. In reply to the last observation the Master stated that, as the interview was intended to be one of a friendly character, he had intimated to the jury that they would be permitted to put any questions they pleased to the alleged lunatic, and he saw no reason to alter his determination in that respect. The upshot was that Sir H. Cairns formally protested against the course pursued by the Master. We are afraid to say how many pro tests have been entered daring the course of these proceedings, but happily it will not be necessary to take further proceedings upon any one of them. Shortly after 11 o'clock strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the Master and the jury pro ceeded with the examination of Mr. Windham in the presence of counsel alone. It is understood, though we cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement, that the examination embraced all the topics of which the public have recently heard so much, and was of a very trying and search ing character. There is also a rumour to the effect that Mr. Windham acquitted himself in a highly creditable manner, and that the readiness and intelligence with which he answered a multi tude of questions upon a great variety of subjects, some of them of a rather difficult and delicate na ture, astonished every ono who heard him. So favourable, indeed, was the impression which he produced that the opinion formed and expressed by more than one gentleman who witnessed the exa mination was that if it had taken place at the close of the case for the petitioners neither the Master nor the jury would have thought it necessary to subject Mr. Windham to the expense of adducing evidence in his defence. That the examination was a rigorous and exhausting one may be judged from the fact that it lasted between three and four hours ; and yet, when the doors were thrown open, Mr. Windham appeared to be the least wearied person in court. While the jury were considering their verdict in an adjoining room, to which they had withdrawn immediately after the examination, he chatted and laughed with his counsel and solici tors as freely and gaily as if he had no concern in the result. The fact is, however, we believe, that, like everybody else in court, he was convinced that the verdict would be in his favour, and therefore neither he nor his advisers were at any pains to conceal the joy and exultation which they felt. The jury returned into court at 25 minutes to 4 o'clock, after an absence of little more than half an hour. When they had taken their seats and their names had been called over, The Master said—Are there 12 of you, gentle men, agreed upon a verdict ? Sir G. Armitage—There are. The Master—What is the verdict ? 1 Sir G. Armitage—lt is, " That the said Mr. W. F. Windham, at the time of taking this inquisition, WAR It person of sound mind, eo tab LO be sufficient for the government of himself, his manners, his messages, his lands, his tenements, his goods, and his chattels." Each word of the verdict as it dropped slowly from the lips of the foreman of the jury was lis tened to with breathless attention by a crowded court, and the moment the last was uttered a loud and enthusiastic cheer, which must have been heard outside, arose from the audience, and was repeated again and again. The like of it has seldom been heard in a court of justice. An attempt was made by the Master to restore order, but in vain, and " one cheer more," louder and more deafening than any that had preceded it, made the Westminster Sessions-house ring like an alehouse. Meanwhile, everybody who could get near him was shaking hands with Mr. Windham, and congratulating him upon the result of the inquiry. His face glowed with delight, and upon being introduced to Sir George Armitage he thanked that gentleman for the verdict he had delivered as foreman of the jury. When he left the court he was received outside with an enthusiastic shout, and the ad miring crowd almost carried him to the cab in which he drove away amid a thundering cheer. Inside the court-room, after the verdict had been recorded, Master Warren closed the proceedings by expressing his deep appreciation of the admirable manner in which the jury had discharged their duties. So ended an inquiry unprecedented for its dura tion, for the inexpressible filthiness of its details. It has extended over 31 days, of which between eight and nine have been devoted exclusively to oratory ; and no fewer than 140 witnesses have been ex amined-50 for the petitioners and 90 for Mr. Wind ham. The bill of costs must be something frightful. It has been our disagreeable duty, during the course of the inquiry, to publish evidence of a very dis gusting character; but the public may be assured that our reports have been purity itself compared with the horrible mass of nastiness laid before the jury. While enumerating the more striking fea tures of an inquiry which may be the last of its kind, we cannot but notice tbo temper in which it was conducted by counsel on both sides. These gentle men have displayed great ability and eloquence, but they have wasted much precious time in useless and irritating altercations, while in their set speeches they have abused and vilified one another in lan guage rarely heard in our courts of justice. (From the Times.) The Jury have at last found that Mr. Windham is of sound mind, and capable of taking care of himself and his affairs. They must have been as insane as Mr. Windham himself was asserted to be if they had come to any other conclusion. Yet for the next few years this Mr. Windham will, in all probability, be a pauper. We say in all proba bility, for human nature is so fitful and inconsistent that it is by no means impossible he may live a pattern to middle aged gentlemen, have a virtuous wife and half a score of children, and finish up a parsimonious old age by dying with large mortgages upon some of his neighbours' estates in Norfolk. The present chances, however, are a ll th e other way. When Henry St. John was made a Minister of State the gossip ran that an elderly woman of evil fame exclaimed in delight, " Cinq mule livres de rente, mes enfans, et tout pour nous !" This verdict will be received in many similar quarters with an equal joy. The sharks of society, the borrowers and the usurers, the toadies and the swaggerers, the prccuresses and the courtesans, the keepers of dens of infamy, and all the parasites which feed upon the corrupt parts of the social body, have their prey marked out to them. The law itself has been their pilot fish. If this man be not changed throughout by his recent peril, he will probably run for a short time a career of folly, prodigality, and vice, will decline through a stage of brut-,1 dissipation and unpiticd beggary, and will die nog%eted and forgotten. . _ And yet this verdict was emphatically right, Society cannot undertake to protect men against the consequences of their own vices. Crimes and offences are repressed by Punishment in society's own defence • but mere vice in adult men and women must be left to the Nemesis which itself invokes. Once or twice in our history, when it has been thought a national object that a great name should not go down into the dirt, the Legislature has interfered to make a territorial possession inseparably appurtenant to a great descent ; but what interest has society that this Iprpcliga4 Kr, Wind A PlAiild retain, jay rllE SUN, LONDON; and leave to certain designated persona at his death a certain amount of money and a given number of acres ? Let him waste and squander as he may, the gold will not be annihilated, the acres will not disappear from the county map. The estate will thrive much better in the hands of the man who will buy it, and the gold will circulate through channels where it may chance to do good. What society has an interest in is, that the absolute dominion of property should bo secure in the person of its lawful possesscr. This is the very pivot of all society, and to weaken this would be to throw our whole system out of gear. "Nemo est hares viventis." While a man lives he has the entire disposal of all his property, according to our law, and according to the spirit of our law. In some continental countries this is different, but we have never envied them their limitation upon the absolute disposal of property. It is unpleasant, no doubt, to next of kin to see money wasted which might possibly come to them, but it is unpleasant also to a nephew when an old uncle marries and a son is born, or when any other ordinary event happens by which the nephew's hopes are disappointed. The law cannot help a prodigal against himself, or his relations against his prodigality, without violating all the securities of property in the attempt to de fine what is a prodigal. Every one of us can look around and see some one or more persons of whom we can predict the ultimate ruin as clearly as we can that of this Mr. Windham. There is a middle-aged man who has made a fortune by trade, who has just invested all his money in horse racing ;—can you doubt what his end will be ? Yet he has been a prudent, saving man, and no one doubted his judgment in his own business. Would you have a jury sit upon him ? There is a young professional man who has a wife and children, but who neglects his profession to sit up card-playing all night. He will be ruined as certainly as Windham could be, and his wife and children will be beg gars; shall we lock him up and let him out only during his working hours? There is a rich old man about to marry a girl of the same age as his granddaughter. We all say he is an old fool, and predict for him that he will have a few years of disquiet, fall under the influence of mercenary people, and die doing some frightful injustice to the children of his youth. It is very hard, but shall we summon a jury ? Where are we to stop if we allow a jury to take away a man's property whenever those who think they have a chance of inheriting it are dissatisfied with the manner in which is using or abusing it? Life would not be worth having if a man could be tracked by spies, all his follies noted down, all his bargains criticized, all his vices regis tered, and if the whole accumulation, exaggerated, perhaps, by some spice of perjury, could be brought forward at any moment and placed hpfnri , a jury by persons interested in depriving him of his property and his liberty. It cannot be. The system of the Roman law and the testamentary limitations of the French law are abhorrent to all our ideas of property and liberty. Unless a man is an idiot or a madman—a human creature entirely without reason, or labouring under delusions which entirely refract his reason,—we must leave him in possession of his own money, to save it or to waste it. There is nothing wrong in the principle of our law. The great scandal is in the ministerial part of our law. There was no prima facie case in favour of the lunacy of Mr. Windham. If there bad been even a prima facie case it never could have become such a monster process, We do not consider a few ex parte affidavits to amount to a prima facie case, whatever they affirm. It is notorious that any quantity of affidavits may be obtained at any time and against any person. If any dis interested men of skill and experience in such examinations had been sent by the Court of Chancery to investigate this case in the first instance, this great opprobrium to our juris prudence could never have been set before Europe. Any such men—and the Chancellor has such men specially attached to his office—must have reported at once that air. Windham was not an idiot, and had no delusions. They roust have reported that he was a foolish, vicious profligate, and nothing more. We do not say that a man ought to be deprived of his liberty and his property without a right to call for a jury—although hundreds aro so—but we assert without hesitation that no man ought to bo forced into such a battle for his prerogatives of manhood as Mr. Windham has fought through without a previous medical investigation, conducted by official disinterested persons. As to the dreary process itself, we are glad to forget it, for it is not very creditable to any one concerned ; and as to the conduct of the moving parties, perhaps it is premature to speak, for the topic must arise hereafter, when the ques tion of " Costs" comes to be discussed in court, We may hope, however, that such a mammoth cause as this will never again disgrace our judicature, and that some means worthy of rational beings may be devised for discovering whether a sane man is sane. Perhaps it is a sentence quite thrown away ; but still we will add a hope that the long-lasting peril may have stirred the depths of that foul young mind, and may have purged away enough vice to leave space for some particles of shame, and thus to afford some possibility of repentance. ATTEXP7 OF A POLICEMAN 10 MURDER EIS WIFE. EDGEWARE, THURSDAY. Yesterday afternoon the greatest excitement pre vailed in this village from the fact becoming known that a police-constable of the S division was to be brought before J. S. Tanqueray, Eeq., charged with brutally attempting to murder his - wife. Long be fore the hour appointed for the examination the court and its avenues were crowded to excess, and a large number of persons could not gain admission. After the disposal of the ordinary charges, James Hamshar, a police-constable, stationed at Hendon, was charged, on remand, with violently assaulting and wounding with a poker, his wife, a the Burroughs, Hendon. Mrs. Hamshar, rather a showily dressed, goo ~- the timber charged. to have been stolen was re-' moved from the timber merchant's yard in Gray's inn-road to some premises at Notting-hill, instead of to the works in progress in Drury-lane. Mr. Metcalfe was proceeding to address the jury on the of the prisoner, when Common Sergeant interposed, and said that 1 he had carefully looked over the depositions, and had been attentive to the evidence adduced in court that day, and he felt that there was no case to go to the jury. The prosecution had failed to complete the proof of a felony. No evidence had been given to show that some timber had not been- taken to 1 and used at the works in Drury-lane. On these grounds he should direct an acquittal. The jury accordingly, under the direction of the court, returned a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was again given in charge to the jury on an indic tment charging him with obtaining money under false pretences. The offence imputed to the prisoner in this in stance was that, while engaged upon the works in Bennett's-buildings, Drury-lane, he had charged 1 to the prosecutor larger amounts under the head of wages than he had actually paid to the men. The sums in question were but small. One of the men was examined, and proved that he had received at the rate of 18s. per week, whereas the accounts of the prisoner set him down at £1 Is. Two other workmen proved a similar variance between the sums they had been paid and those charged to the prosecutor by the prisoner. Mr, Metcalfe addressed the jury for the prisoner commenting upon the fact which he had elicited in cross-examination, that the three men who had been called had been discharged by the prisoner, and The restore mm d to their employment by the prosecutor. Coon Sergeant summed up the ev idence at considerable length, and The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of not guilty. ~,~... MR. THACKERA it ON REP UM/17'10N AND BLUSTER. (From the Cornhill Magazine.) I have talked during the last week with many English holders of American securities, who, o f course, have been a ware of the threat held ov er them. " England," says the New York Herald," cannot afford to go to war with us, for 600 millions worth of American stock is owned by British subjects, which, in event of hostilities, would be confiscated; and we now call upcn the companies not to take it off their hands on any terms. Let its f orfeiture be held over England as a weapon in terrorem. British subjects have 200 or 300 millions of dollars invested in shipping and other property in the United States. All this property, together with the stocks, would be seized, amounting to 900 million of dollars. Will England incur this tremendous loss for a mere abstrac tion ?" Whether " a mere abstraction" here means the ab straction of the Southern Commissioners from under our flag, or the abstract idea of injured honour, which MOMS ridiculous to the Herald, it is needless to ask. I have spoken with many men who have money invested in the States, but I declare I have not met one Englishman whom the publication of this threat has influenced for a moment. Our people have 900 million of dollars invested in the United States, have they ? And the _Herald" calls upon companies" not to take any of this debt off our hands. Let us on our side, entreat the English press to give this announcement every publicity. Let us do everything in our power to make this " call upon the American" well known in England. I hope English newspaper editors will print it, and print it again and again. It is not we who say this of the American citizens , bu t American citizens who say this of themselves. "Bull is odious. We can't bear Bull: He is haughty, arrogant, a braggart, and a blus terer ; and we can't bear brag and bluster in oar modest and decorous country. We hate Bull, and if he quarrels with us on a point in which we are in the wrong, we have goods of his in our custody, and we will rob him!" Suppose your London banker saying to you, " Sir, I have always thought your manners disgusting, and your arrogance insupport able. You dare to complain of my conduct because I have wrongfully imprisoned Jones? My answer to your vulgar interference is that I confiscate your balance I" What would be an English merchant's character after a few such transactions? It is not improbable that the moralists of the :Herald would call him a rascal. Why have the United States been paying seven, eight, ten per cent, for money for years past, when the same commodity can bo got elsewhere at half that rate of interest? Why, because though among the richest proprietor's in the world, creditors were not sure of them. So the States have had to pay eighty millions Yearly for the use of mone y which would co st other borrowers but thirty. Add up this item of extra interest alone for a dozen years , and see what a prodigious penalty the States have been paying for repudiation here and there, for sharp practice, for doubtful credit. Suppose the peace is kept between us, the remembrance of this last threat alone will cost the States millions and millions more. If they must have money, we must have a greater interest to insure our jeopardised capital. Do American companies want to borrow money—as want to borrow they will ? Mr. Brown, show the gentlemen that extract from theNeto Fork Herald which declares that the United States will confis cate private property in event of a war. As the country newspapers say, "Please, country papers, copy this para graph." And, gentlemen in America, when the honour of your nation is called in question, please to remember that it is the American press which glories in announcing that you arc prepared to be rogues. And when this war has drained uncounted hundreds of millions more out of the United States exchequer, will they be richer or more inclined to pay debts, or less willing to evade them, or more popular with their creditors, or more likely to get money from men whom they deliberately announce that they will cheat? I have not followed the Herald on the stone ship question — that great naval victory appears to me not less horrible and wicked than suicidal, Block the harbours for ever; destroy the inlets of the commerce of the world ; perish cities, so that we may wreak an injury on them. It is the talk of mad men, but not the less wicked. The act injures the whole republic, but it is perpetrated. It is to do harm to ages hence, but it is done. The Indians of old used to burn women and their unborn children. This stone-ship business is Indian warfare. And it is performed by men who tell us every week that they are at the head of civilisation, and that the Old World is decrepit, and cruel, and barbarous as com pared to theirs. The same politicians who throttle commerce at its neck, and threaten to confiscate trust-money, say that when war is over and the South is subdued, then the turn of the old country will come, and a direful retribution shall be taken for our conduct. This has been the cry all through the war. 46 We should have conquered the South," says an American paper which I read this very day, " but for England." Was there over such a heard from men who have an array of a million, and who turn and revile a people who have stood as aloof from their contest as we have from the war of Troy ? Or is it an outcry made with malice pre pense? And is the song of the New York, Times a varia tion of the Herald tune ?—" The conduct of the British, in folding their arms and taking no part in the fight, has been so base that it has caused the prolongation of the war, and occasioned a prodigious expense on our part. Therefore, as we have British property in our hands, we, &c." The lamb troubled the wate c r dreadfully, and the Of course wolf in a k righteous indignation " onfiscated" him. we have heard that at an undisturbed time Great Britain would never have dared to press its claim for redress. Did the United States wait until we were at peace with France before they went to war with us last ? Did Mr. Seward yield the claim which he confesses to be just, until he himself was menaced with war ? How long were the Southern gentlemen kept in prison ? What caused them to be set free ? and did the Cabinet of Washington see its error before or after the demand for redress ? The cap tor was feasted at Boston, and the captives in prison hard by. If the wrong-doer was to be punished, it was Captain Wilkes who ought to have gone into limbo. At any rate, as " the Cabinet of Washington could not give its approba tion to the commander of the San jacinto," why were the men not 'sooner set free ? To sit at the Fremont House, and hear the captain after dinner give his opinion on inter national law, would have been better sport for the prisoners than the grim salle-d-manger at Fort Warren. Teutonia, I read in the co mmercial news brought by the an d published in Lon don on the present 13th January, th a t the pork m arket was generally quiet on the 29th December last ; that lard, though with more activity, was heavy and decidedly lower; and at Philadelphia, whisky is steady and stocks firm. Stocks are firm : that is a com fort for the Eng lish holders, and the confiscating process recommended by the Herald is at least deferred. But pheerre - sen tly comes an annou ncement which is not quit let us call e so c ing :—" The Sagin aw Central Railway Company ( it) has postponed its January dividend on accou ne nt o f the di s turbed conditio n of public affairs." Ala must bon look for eure. The bond and sha re holders of the Saginaw loss and depression in times of war. This is one of war's dreadful taxes and necessities ; and al The of innocent people must suffer by the Misfortune. The corn was high at Waterloo when 150,000 men came and trampled it down on a Sabbath morning. There was no help for that calamity and the Belgian farmers lost their crops for the year. Per haps lam a farmer myself—an innocent colonns instead of being able to get to church with ray family, have to gee squadrons of French dragoons thundering upon my barley, and squares of English infantry forming and trampling ovef my oats. (By the way, in wri tin g of " p anic s , " all an ingious writer • in t h e Atlantic Magazine says that en the British panics at Waterloo were frequent and notori ous.) Well, lam a Belgian peasant, and I see the British running away, and the French cutting the fugitives down What have I done that these men should bo kicking down. my peaceful harvest for me, on which I counted to pay my my children ? It is rent, to feed ray horses, my household, hard. But it is the fortune of war. But suppose the battle over ; the Frenchman says,scoundrel why did you Y did you stand like a no t take a part with me ? s, and wh double-faced traitor tooking on? I should have won the ba ttl e but for you. And I hereby confiscate the farm yo u stand on, and you and your family may go to the work house. The New York press holds this argument over English people in terrorem, «W © Americans m a y be ever so wrong in the matter in dispute; but if you push us to a War) WO Will Otala.teeeta your gugli*ll property," Yery .~~ good. It is peace now. Confidence of course is restored between us. Our eighteen hundred peace commissioners have no occasion to open their mouths ; and the little ques tion of confiscation is postponed. Messrs. Battery, Broad way, and Co. of New York, have the kindness to sell my s a ctinaws for what they will fetch. I shall lose half my loaf very likely ; b ut for the sake of a quiet life, let us give up a certain quan tit y of farinaceous food; and half a loaf, you know, is better than no bread at all. SIR JOHN P.AKING 7 ON ON ENT. 2'HE VO LUN TE.ER MOVEM - At a meeting held at Worcester, on Tuesday, under the presidency of Lord Lyttleton, it was determined to form a rifle association for Worcestershire. Among the speakers at the meeting was Sir John Pakington, who said that he never expected that movement would be permanently ma i n t a ined at the extent and proportions it had reached. Nor could he think it was very important it should beotism so. A great effect had been produced, the power and patri of this country had been proved, and nu rational man in his mind could doubt that if occasion were to arise, if an emer gency were to present itself, they would have, with than a e l- most incredible rapidity , a force not only equal to epr sent, but of four or five times the present n umbers. The nucleus had been established, the organisation was com plete, and that organisation might be acted upon to any ex tent. At the same time it was undoubtedly desirable that it should be maintained at such an amount as to secure con tinued efficiency, and to make it certain that organisation could be at any moment increased ; and he thought that could not be done without some mode of securing adequate funds. He entirely agreed with his noble friend in the chair that it was not right, that it never could have been contemplated as part of that movement, that the expenses should fall upon the officers. The country was deeply in debted to these officers for the time they devoted to the drilling of their respective corps. He thought that was as much as they could be called upon to bear, and there fore it was desirable that funds should be provided in the various localities where these corps existed. It had been said that the Government had very much advanced upon the extent of assistance they at first ag reed to give. He was glad they had done so, and he should be very glad to see a further advance in that direc tion. It was very desirable, however, that this volunteer establishment in the country should retain its voluntary character—(cheers) —that it should not be made a Govern ment force, nor depend upon Government support, except what might be called for in aid of local support. He was glad to see that the Government had it in contemplation to facilitate their equipment by offering to provide their cloth ing at the low price which the' Government aro able to s ecure it by contract. He° was also pleased to hear that the Government would only give this asoistance in one of those colours in which they were accustomed to see the soldiers of England equipped. (Cheers.) He thought that the proper colour in which the volunteers, from one end of England to the other, should be dressed, is that red in which they had been accustomed to see British soldiers — (cheers) —and he thought there was an argument in favour of it absolutely unanswerable. If they were to have a great army of volunteers —if any enemy should ever be rash enough to think that they could succeed in the invasion of England—that army would be infinitely better clad in the national dress of English soldiers. How could they sup pose that an army amounting to 150,000 men—and that would then amount to 400,000, or 450,000, or 500,000 men —how could they suppose they could be regarded as mere skirmishers and hedge poppers ? (Laughter.) If they were to fight at all, they must be considered as a portion of the great arwy that was to defend this country ; and what could be more impolitic, more unwise, than to enable an invading enemy to p ut his finger upon any body of men, and to distinguish at once to what body of soldiers they be.- 'longed ? (Cheers.) COUNTRY .111ARKL'i S. -----4)- -------- MANCHESTER —JAN. 30. At our market to-day there was a thin attendance, and business in both wheat and flour was dull. Holders of the former were firm in requiring last week's prices 3d forr English, but foreign was offered at a decline of pe cental. Other articles a quiet sale. BIRMINGHAM—JAx• 30. At this day's market more English wheat WAS shown, and the turn in price in favour of buyers, but not quotably lower. NEWARK—JAN. 28. At our Exchange to-day there was a large attendance of farmers, and also a good show of all sorts of corn. The sales were dull, and prices unchanged, White wheat, new, 60s to 63s Barley, grinding.. 29s to 310 Red do. 558 to 51s Oats, old, .. OOB to 35 4 Old white 6os to 63s New' do .......... 23s to 278 Red do. 46 s to 56s I Beans.. 458 to 47a Barley, malting 32kto 390 i Beans, s4 new 44s to —8 Peas, ....48s to 8. LEAFORD—JA:II. 27. We had a small attensdance of merchants and farmers at our Exchange to-day, and wheat experienced a dull trade, with little or no variation Wpm late quotations. Wheat, 68s to 665; barley, 33s to 38s; Pats, 21s to 255; beans, 41s to 45s per quarter. EDINBURGH GRAIN—.T.A.N.[29. Wheat on the top 6s Od down ...... average Os Os Gd 3d upwn. Barley on the top is down O a ts on the top Os 3 d up average Os 2d down. Beans on the top Os 6d down. average Os 4d down. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat ..... ...1126 qrs Sold 784 qrs 8ar1ey........1665 qrs Sold 1021 qrs Oats Sold 1402 q rs Beans 227 qrs Sold 164 qrs Averages per Imperial quarwr. Wheat.... New wheat Barley 1 10 5 7-12ths Oats 1 5 0 0- 12 ths Beans -12ths CORK—JAN. 29. The following were the quotations this morning :—Red wheat, 28s 6d to —s Od ; white, 28s Od to:32s 6d; barley 115 Od to 15s 6d ; oats, 9s Od to 14s 2d. DERBY SMITHFIELD—JAN. 28. There was a fair supply j fat beasts to-day, and the attendance was large. Beef in good demand. The supply of sheep was short, and prices unaltered. Fat calv ayeer scarce, and sold well. The show of fat pigs matt cal age one, maintaining late rates. Beet Gd to 6/d Veal •. • . 7id to 8(1 Mutton ... 71d to Sid Po rk ...... ... 6d to 61d Lamb Gd to Od Rou g h fat, 4s 3d per stone. Rides, 3d to 41,d ; calf skins, 5d to 6d. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton. Feb, 1 8 4 Feb. 13 . via Marseilles Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. Feb . 3. Cape of Good Hope, Ascerdion, and St. Helena March 3 • China, Penang, and Singapore, via Seuthampton.Feb. J.:, via Marseilles Feb. 16* Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton .. Feb. I. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Feb. 1. •via Marseilles Feb. 13. India (Bombay), via Southampton Feb. 10. via Marseilles Feb. 4. Lisbon Feb. 1 . Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Feb. 1. via Marseilles Feb. 4. Newfoundland ..Feb. 0, Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... Feb. 5. by U.S. packet.... by Canadian packet. Jan. 2 9 . W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe Feb. 10. Bahamas, via New York' Mexico i All parts of West Indies, including Ch ili, Peru, 1 Jan. 2g, C a lifornia, and British Columbia.. AN ANTI-TEETOTAL WEDDING.—There wfts wedding lately in the parish of Sandness, at which there were thirteen - gallons -of whisky, besides cordials. The company consisted of fifty persons, who did not separate till the third day. What do our teetotal friends think of that ?--Shetland Advertiser. BIRTHS. BYNG.OII the 27th inst., at Little Casterton Rector,' Stamford, the wife of the Hon. and Rev. Francis Byngt of a son. LAY.—On the 30th inst. at 10, Half Moon-street, Pie"dilly, the wife of H. N. Lay, Esq., of a daughter. LINDSAY. —On the 25th inst., at Nice, the Hon. Mrs. Ce Lindsay, of a son. WsnnEN.—On the 2 i 9th inst. Brandon House, Great Yarmouth, the wife of Captan at Frederic Warren, R.N. , of a daughter. MARRIAGES. HERYEY—MONEY.—On the 30th inst., at St. James'Eft Piccadilly, Henry A. W. Hervey, Esq., of the Foreign. Office, son of the late Lord William Hervey , to Lau rA Horatia, eldest daughter of the late Lieut.-General and Lady Laura Money, of Crown Point, Norfolk. ITSBORNE—GRoss.— On the 29th inst., at Sunnyside, Ayr, N.B. M a jor Usborne, of 35, Russell-square, Loud on, to Elizabeth Margaret, only su rviving daughter of the late S. Gross, Esq. DEATHS. BROWN.—On the 27th inst., at Wendlebury, near Bicestely Oxon, suddenly, the Rev. Walter L. Brown, M.A., age° 57. Esq., of 97, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury. BUTT.—On the 29th inst., at Eppin DicKEN.—On the 14th ult., at Sealkote, Punjaub, WOO! g, Robert James Butt, Stephens Dieken, Esq., Deputy Inspector-General 01 Hospitals, aged 57. HOLDEN. —On the 28th inst., at the Parsonage, the Re. John Rose Holden, M.A., rector of Upminster, Essex: aged 90. HOWARD.—On the 28th inst., at Chipping Norton, Oxford, William Howard, Esq., late of Bombay, aged 49. HOTIIA.M.—On the 28th inst., at Tunbridge-wells, AO' Elizabeth, relict of the late Hon. arid Rev. Frederick Hotham, aged 83. _ - - LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG , ° I No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TnE SUN ()Tee, No. 112. S O w ' in the Precinct of the Savoy in the County 01 rriday, January 31, 1862. FRIOAY EVENING, JAN UARY 31, 1862. looking young woman, who was allowed io be seated while giving her evidence, deposed—The prisoner is my husband. About half-past 1 o'clock in the day on Thursday last, the 23d inst., he came home. When he had been in the house about 10 minutes, he asked me if any one was coming to fetch my things away, or if I was going away with any one. I said decidedly no; no one. He then asked me if " I would stay with him." I said, " How can I, when you have ill used me as you have ?" I referred to his constant ill usage for five years and a half, especially the last 18 months. I went on cutting out some work I was doing, when I felt a tremendous blow on my head. The blow was from behind. I had a second blow in front. I turned round, and saw the prisoner had a poker in his hand, and as I ran round the room from him he followed, striking me. I put my hand up to save my head, and received a blow which disabled my hand. I then fell, and either as I was falling, or after I was down, he struck me, and broke my finger. When I was down I held my breath to make him believe I was dead, sons to pre vent him further beating me. I did not lose my consciousness. I saw him put the poker down. He then took hold of my injured hand, lifted it up, and let it fall, saying, " I have killed you." He then went out. I recovered myself as well as I could, and staggered after him, as I thought he would escape, and, feeling I was dying, I did not wish him to. When I gut up I found clots of blood on the floor. I went out of the door into the road. My husband was then going down the road. A man who was passing in a cart said I ought to have a policeman. I said no. My husband came back, and said to the man, "I have done it—l have done it. He then went away. I sat down on the door step, and Mrs. Mason, who lives opposite me, and Mr. Southy came and assisted me indoor. The poker now produced is the one I was struck with, and the hair-net is the one I had on at the time. In answer to the magistrate, prisoner said he had no questions to ask his wife. Mr. John Growse, surgeon, Brent-street, Hendon, said—On Thursday last prisoner came to me at my house, about ten minutes to two o'clock, and said, "I think I have murdered my wife; and I wish you to go up and see her." I said, " What has made you do that, Hamshar ?" He said, " She has dis honoured me, Sir." I told him I would go directly. Ho said, " I shall go and give myself up." I went to prisoner's house and found his wife, the com plainant, sitting by the fire. I examined her head, and found five contused wounds, a severe bruise on the left forearm, and the little finger of the left hand fractured. I dressed the wounds, and have since attended her. The poker now produced I saw at the house, and such a weapon would have caused the injuries I have described. Sergeant Hughes, 3 S, gave confirmatory evidence and added that he conveyed prisoner to the station. Mr. Inspector Webb, S division, said—Prisoner is one of my constables. On Thursday last I was at Hampstead station when he was brought there by last witness. I told him the offence he was charged with was a very serious one, and it was my duty, although he knew it ) to catttion him that what he said would have to be stated before the magistrate and given in evidence against him. He said " I know it will, sir," and then added, " Yes terday morning, after coming off duty at 6 o'clock, I returned home. I went upstairs and went to bed. Joseph Collier, who is a lodger of mine, was in bed. He stopped in bed about a quarter of an hour. When he got up my wife, who was sleeping in an adjoining room with her mother, got up about the same time, My wife and Collier went down stairs. I got out of bed and went to the top of the landing, I heard some whispering. I heard Col lier say to my wife ' You go down home for a week and I will send for you.' I heard other whispering, but I could not hear what it was about. Collier and my wife went into the middle room together; they were in the room a minute or two. I went downstairs. I saw my wife lying on ttiJrioor with him in an indecent position. I ordered Collier to leave the house, which he did." Subsequently pri soner told me that he had been dishonest to his wife, and when he found her with Collier, being very fond of her, he said, " Now, Sophy, you are as bad as me ; let us forget what has passed, and try and live happy together. She said No, I shall not stop with you. I intended after leaving you to have written and told you of this, but you have f oun d it Qut, and perhaps it is M wtal yob 41941: I spoke to her several sines during Wednesday about stopping with me, and I thought she would ; but on going hone on Thursday I found her with her clothes packed up, and believing she was going away witt Collier, I lost all con trol of myself, I became mid, and struck her with the poker." On the sane evening I went to prisoner's lodgings. On going into the house I saw Mrs. Hamshar's sister, and inquired what had become of Collier, and to my great surprise was told he was upstairs. I went upstairs to see complainant, and found the man Collier concealed under a bed in an adjoining room. Mr. Tanqueray said the statement respecting Collier's being under the 13)(1 could not be received in evidence. The prisoner said he should reserve his defence. He was sorry for what he had done. Mr. Tanqueray fully corimitted the prisoner for rial, and refused bail. LAW INTELLIGENCE, Tan. 30. BAIL OURT. Sittings in Banco.—(B efors Mr. Justice Blackburn.) LEVY V. LEWIS-A NICE POINT. In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon the defendant to show cause why he should not pay a certain sum of money pursuant to an award. Mr. Keane showed cause against the rule for the defendant. It appeared thst the action was referred to two arbitrators, and the learned counsel contended that as the arbitrators had not signed the award in the presence of each other, as they ought to have done, such a signing would not do. Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., admitted that he could not get over the technical objection raised by the defendant. He suggested that the award should be remitted back to the arbitrators. Some discussion took place between the learned judge and the learned counsel, and ultimately Mr. Huddleston's suggestion was adopted, ana it was arranged that the award should be remitted to the same arbitrators, but the rule must be discharged. His lordship disposed of several motions during the day of a very technical nature. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORe. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) ROBINSON V. ROBINSON AND JACKSON. This was a suit instituted by the husband for a divorce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondolt , The defendants appeared and pleaded denial, condonation, and misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Sergeant Pigott tied. Dr. Spinks were coun sel for the petitioner ; and Mr. Mclntyre appeared for the co-respondent ; the respondent was not re presented by counsel, Mr. Sergeant Pigott stated the cas e. The peti tioner, who is an assistant at a grocer's shop, was married to the respondent in 1869, both being very young at the time. After the marriage they went to live at Florence-road, New-cross. The cohabita tion continued until the 9th of Feb., 1861, when the respondent left her home. I t appeared that Jackson, who is engaged in business with his father who is a printer and publisher at Woolwich, was an acquaintance of the petitioner. Jackson took lodgings at the petitioner's house, in Florence-road where he remained ten weeks. He was in the habit of being in the house during the absence of Robin son, whose business prevented his r eturning home from an early hour in the mo rnin g until late in the evening. The suspicions of Robinson were excited and he communicated them to Jackson, who denied that there was any ground for them. When he came home on the 9th of February, he found that his wife had gone out, having previously said to the servant that it was not likely she would return. He made inquiries which satisfied him as to his wife's improper intercourse. After she left his house it appeared that she and the co-respondent lived together as man and wife in different parts of Lon don. It appeared, also, that the respondent ad mitted she had been unfaithful to her husband, his father being present when this admission was made. In support of this narrative the learned counsel called a large number of witnesses, who deposed to different acts of familiarity between Mrs. Robinson and the co-respondent at the time when they were alleged to have been living together and passed as man and wife. Mr. Mclntyre addressed the Court for the co respondent, but adduced no evidence. The Court considered that the petitioner was en titled to a decree nisi, with costs against the co respondent, and pronounced accordingly. DEWES V. DEWES AND FRAMPTON. This was a suit by the husband, a solicitor, in partnership with his father, at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and was instituted for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a clergyman of the Church of England. The suit was undefended. Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey were counsel for the petitioner. It appeared that the parties were married in 1848, and lived together for some years, during which time they had four children. The co-respondent was curate of Ashby, and visited the family of the petitioner, when, according to the evidence, he succeeded in seducing Mrs. Dewes, who eloped with him in the August of 1860. The case was proved, and the Court pronounced a decree nisi, with costs against the co-respondent. td- _ C'ENIR-4L CRIMINAL COUI4T.—Tint. 30, OLD COURT. (Before the Recorder.) James Nutt, 38, a well-dressed man, described as a silversmith, was charged with feloniously and contemptuously omitting to surrender and pass his examination at the Court of Bankruptcy, after he had been declared a bankrupt. The prisoner pleaded guilty. He was then charged, upon a second indictment, with having feloniously concealed and embezzled a portion of his estate and effects, after being duly adjudged a bankrupt, with intent to defraud his creditors. To this charge the prisoner also pleaded guilty. He was then charged, upon a third indictment, with having obtained goods within three months of his bankruptcy, under the false colour and pretence that they were to be used for the purposes of his trade, with intent to defraud his creditors. The prisoner pleaded guilty to this charge also. Mr. Tindal Atkinson, who (with Mr. Kemp) was instructed for the defence, addressed the Court in mitigation of punishment, and said the prisoner had carried on the business of a silversmith in Cheap side, and had a wife and six children. He was in formed that in August he was pressed by one of his creditors, and at his suggestion he made away with a considerable amount of property, in order to raise money to meet his bill, which was becoming due, and this was the commencement of all his difficulties. It was certainly true that he had placed some portion of his property in the hands of a friend, and that his object in doing this was to give him an oppor tunity of doing something for himself and his family after his bankruptcy, which he knew was inevitable, had been settled ; but he also begged to be allowed to state that the creditors had obtained possession of a considerable quantity of property, and they would receive a dividend of 10s. in the pound. He was also instructed to state that the prisoner had rendered all the assistance in his power to enable them to recover this property. Mr. Giffird, who (with Mr. Poland) appeared for the Prosecution, said he was sorry to be obliged to state that his learned friend was not quite correct in saying that the prisoner had given all the informa tion in his power to enable the creditors to obtain possession of their property. The facts were that within a very short time of his bankruptcy, and when he must have been perfectly well aware that that event was inevitable, he obtained a considerable quantity of goods from some of his creditors, and he afterwards disposed of this property for his own use, and then absconded. It was also his duty to inform the Court that within a very few days of his bankruptcy the prisoner went to his shop, and took away almost every portable article that it con tained. He then absconded to Brussels, and was traced to that city by Foulger, the officer, and taken into custody, The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that the prisoner had pleaded guilty to three offences, every one of which was most serious in a commercial c ommunity ; he, therefore, felt it his duty to pass such a sentence as was likely to deter others from the commission of similar crimes, and that sentence would be that he be kept in penal servitude for the space of three years. Thomas Fox, 36, l a bourer, was charged with felo niously killing and slaying George Norris. Mr. Warton prosecuted ; the prisoner was de fended by Mr. Dickie. It appeared that the prisoner, the deceased, and several other labouring men were in the taproom of the Kentish Drovers publichouse, in the Kent-road, on the 23d of December, and that the prisoner and one of his companions were amusing themselves by playing at the game of " shove halfpenny." The deceased, who was drunk, interfered with them, and said that they were not playing the game fairly. The prisoner requested him to sit down and be quiet and not interfere with them, and, upon his doing so, the deceased offered to fight him, and threatened that he would serve him as some other man, whose name he mentioned, had done. He at the same time pulled off his gloves, apparently wit h the in tention of preparing himself for fighting, and the prisoner accepted his challenge, and a struggle took place between them. After they had had one round the deceased fell and struck his head with consider able violence. It was observed that immediately latOr this tat the &mad appeared to be Tery 111, and some water was given to him, but he was un able to drink it, and he was taken away on a truck to his own house, were he was attended by a doc tor, but he remained in an almost unconscious state until the Bth of January, when he died. There were no external mark s of injury upon the person of the deceased, but the cause of death was alleged to be the shock sustained by the nervous system from the fall he had sustained i n the st uggl e with the prisoner. Mr. Dickie, in his address to the jury for the de fence, urged that the deceased had brought the misfortune upon himself by his own misconduct, and that he had forced the quarrel upon the pri xsoner who was consequently not criminally onsible for the unfortunate result that had taken p place. The Recorder having summed up, The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of not guilty. The Recorder observed that in this case the grand jury . had made a presentment to the effect that, in their opinion, the landlord of the publichouse where the affair took place had not acted properly in the matter, inasmuch as he had not taken any steps to procure assistance for the deceased when he had evidently received serious injur and he directed that a copy of this present ment should be forwarded to the licensing justice of the district. Mr. Dickie subsequently addressed his lordship, and said that Mr. Wheeler, the landlord of the Kentish Drovers, was in attendance, and anxious to assure his lordship, and also prove tohis satisfaction, if necessary, that there were no grounds for the alleged neglect on his part. He had kept the house for 14 years and had always conducted it respectably, and upon the occasion in question, so far from there having been any neglect on his part, he sent imme diately after the affair for his own medical man, and did all that was possible for the unfortunate de ceased. The Recorder said that he had no power io enter into those particulars. He expressed no opinion upon the subject, but, as the grand jury had made the presentment to which he had referred, it was `he duty of the Court to send it to the proper -tarter. 'NEW COURT. Before Mr. T. Chambers, Q,C., Common Sergeant.) Samuel Howard, 38, labourer, was indicted for the manslaughter of Sarah Smith. Mr. Orrldge prosecuted, and Mr. Ribton defended. It appeared that the prisoner and the deceased cohabited together and lived at a placed called New court, St. George's-in-the-East, and upon the night of the Ist of this month some of the neighbours liv ing opposite heard the prisoner and the deceased quarrelling, and then the sound of blows being struck and of some one falling ; and upon the fol lowing morning, about 6 o'clock, the prisoner went to the Arbour-square police-station, and said that he had had some words with his wife, after which he went out and upon coming home again laid down at the foot of the bed and slept until 4 o'clock, when on waking and getting- up he fell over the body Of his wife, who was on the floor, with her head towards the window, quite dead. The medical evidence proved that the deceased woman was suffering from disease of the heart ; that that was the immediate cause of her death, which had been accelerated by the violence that she had received. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. William Brittain, 46, carpenter, was indicted for stealing a quantity of battens of yellow deal tim ber, the property of Thomas Brown. Mr. Ribton prosecuted; Mr. Metcalfe and Mr, Orridge defended the prisoner. Mr. Ribton narrated briefly the following case to the jury :—The prisoner had been employed by the prosecutor as surveyor and manager of some building transactions in which he was engaged, and in the course of these transactions had com mitted the fraud now imputed to him, which was that he obtained a check fr om the prosecutor for the payment of about £5 for some battens which he (the prisoner) alleged were required for the work which he at that time was s uperintending. These battens the prisoner obtained from a timber mer chant in Gray's-inn-road, paid for them with the prosecutor's check, and instead of taking them to the works for which he had alleged they were required, sent them to a place belonging to himself and ano ther person at Notting-hill. These were briefly the facts which the jury would hear more in detail from the witnesses. The learned counsel then called The prosecutor, who said that his name was Thomas Henry Johnson Brown, that he resided at No. 2, Robert-street, Adelphi, and was an ar chitect and surveyor by profession. The prisoner was in his service, and had been so since the year 1859, and his duty was to superintend buildings under his (prosecutor's) orders, to note the time of the men, to let him know the materials required, and to undertake the general management of the job, whatever it was , and t o apply, as directed, the money supplied to him. In December last he (the prosecutor) was engaged as architect in the reconstruction of some houses in Bennett's buildings, Drury-lane, for the Association for the Improvement of the Dwellings of the Poor, of which Mr. Bosauquet was the treasurer. There were a great many men employed at the work under the prisoner, and as the work proceeded the prisoner intimated to prosecutor that it would uld be necessary to have so me new joists, and same time handed him a list of the number of bat tens which would be required for that purpose. He (prosecutor) gave the prisoner a cheque for about £6, and the prisoner obtained the battens, paying the cheque to the timber merchant, and returning to him (prosecutor) the invoice of the timber, and also bringing him in debt 6d., which he alleged he had paid for cartage. That timber had not been de livered, to his knowledge. The witness was severely cross examined by Mr. Metcalfe, and answered with great flippancy and with a continued laugh as each question was put to him by the learned counsel. In reply to the inter rogatories he said that the invoice for the timber in question was made out in the prisoner's name, and added Ido not know lioVv that was. I have been engaged in a great many building speculations. I was a bankrupt in 1859, when the prisoner was my petitioning creditor. -I really do not know how the affairs of the bankruptcy stood. I really cannot tell you. I was an insolvent in 1855, but I really can not tell you the particulars of that. I have done some business in Oxford, and I was in business at Birmingham. I cannot say whether I have other wise compounded with my creditors. In 1857 I was engaged in some bill transactions with a man named Bradley. An action was also tried in which Lord Campbell ordered some of the documents to be im pounded; to that action I was a party. Mr. Metcalfe--Have you ever been in trouble ? Witness (with apparent surprise and nonchalanter ce) —Trouble ! Ido not know what you mean. Af some hesitation, when pressed on the point, witness said he had been charged with forgery by a man named Hawkins, but the inspector at the police sta tion declined to take the charge. In 1855 he lodged at the house of a Mrs. Bennett, against whom he made a charge of robbing him. "I do not know," said witness, "whether the servant of Mrs. Bennett said that I had told her to make the charge. I have not done very much in bills, but I did discount a bill for Mr. Pullein. I agreed to pay £3O on a bill. and I paid £2O. I know Mr. Gale, of Greenwich, who had a cheque of mine for £2, which cheque had 'no effects' marked against it. Ido not know that the cheque was said to be a forgery. The charge I first made against the prisoner was for obtaining money by false pretences in the case of the wages of the men." In reply to further questions put by Mr. Met calfe the witness denied that he had preferred the charge in order to forestall the prisoner in prose. cuting him (the witness) on a charge of forgery. His attention was first drawn to the course of con duct pursued by the prisoner by Mr. Bosanquet, but he did not know whether or not that gentle man was now contributing to the prisoner's defence. He saw Mr. Bosanquet in court sitting behind, and occasionally instructing the learned counsel. There were two men, named Conly and Davis, employed on the work to which allusion had been made ; but they never, to his knowledge, ever came to his house on a Sunday. He would not swear that they had not done so, for they might have come for the keys. Some of the men he understood had broken open the prisoner's desk. Witness had told them•to clean out the place. Mr. Bosanquet had since stopped the works, and witness had brought actions against Mr. Bosanquet and others for con spiracy, together with an intent to charge him (witness) with forgery. Mr. Metcalfe—Who was your attorney in that action ? Witness —Pray in what case do y o u mean ? Mr. Metcalfe—Have you so many ? Witness—ln this cas e my attorney was Mr. Abrahams, of Bow-street. In further cross-examination the witness said he had been very unfairly treated on the charge of forgery by Hawkins, against whom he had brought an action in connection with that wrongful charge ; but Hawkins got out of the way, and was next heard of in Whitecross-street Prison. Hawkins, however, now came forward again, and had given witness into custody, but he had been discharged, and the documents ordered to be im pounded. Hawkins had said of witness that be would so , )ner spend £lOO to got him transported than that witncso should succeed in convicting the prisoner. , The remainder of the evidence for the prosecution simply Went to shoal that by the prisoner's 9r4erill '