The Sun. — London, England, 1862-01-17 00:00:00

TILE CASE OF M.R. W. F. WINDHAM. inquiry Tile adjourned into the state of mind of Mr. W. F. Windham, of Felibrigg-hall, Norfolk, was resumed yesterday, in the Westminster Ses siotr,-house, before Air. Warren, Q.C., one of the Alasttrs in Lunacy, and a special jury. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Field, and Mr. Hume Williams appeared for the petitioners ; Mr. Charles Russell for Lady Sophia Elizabeth Giabilei, the mother of the alleged lunatic; Sir Hugh Cairns, Q.C., Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Miiward for Mr. William Frederick Windham; and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., for Mrs. Windham. At the sitting of the court, Sir E. Army tage, the foreman of the jury, handed the Master a certificate from a medical gentleman, stating that ono of the jurymen was seriously ill, and if he had not a day of rest ho would be unable to attend at all. He wished to know whether they could be let off on Saturday. Several other gentle men on the jury were also seriously ill. Tno Master assented to the proposal. He also a 5 .1.1 when the learned counsel for Mr. Windham thought their evidence would be concluded. Mr. Karslaka replied that he hoped it would be finil,ed to-morrow. Mr. George Whidborne said he had been a medi cal man for 28 years, and had been for 14 years phy sician to Blenheim-street Infirmary, Oxford street, and since physician to the Great Northern Hospital. He resided in Guildford-street, Russell-square. In 1860 ho was called to see Miss Willoughby at Cunningham-lane-place, St. John's-wood. He had seen her once before in the hunting field at Hert fordshire. She was then suffering from dislocation of the ancle joint. He had attended her also when suffering from rheumatic fever in December twelve month. He next saw her on the morning of her marriage. Previously to that he received a mes sage from her about his acting as one of her trus tees. She said it would be greatly to the benefit of her sisters and her mother. He had never seen her sisters. lie assented, being informed it would not involve much trouble. He saw her on the morning of her marriage at the house at St. John's-wood. Mr. Windham sent his brougham for him. He bad never seen him up to that time, He found Miss Willoughby there, or rather as he then knew her, Mrs. -. The sisters were there as well. Mrs. Windham introduced him to Mr Windham. That might have been about a quarter before 12 in the morning. He was in the room where all his friends were assembled. He withdrew from the room with Mr. Windham, who said he wished to speak with him a minute. They went into anotherroom alone. He examined Mr. Windham at his request, and told him he was not suffering from any disease. They then went to church, and the marriage took place. They returned, had breakfast, and then Mr. and Mrs. Windham went off to Paris with one of her sisters. The next time he saw Mr. Windham was at Morley's Hotel, when that gentleman asked him to see his wife, who he said was very ill. That was about a fortnight after the marriage. He prescribed for her then for a disordered stomach, arising fro m travelling, she said. Some time after that he went down to Felbrigg, with Mr. May. That was about the middle of September, to shoot. He remained from the Saturday to the following Wednesday. He wished to leave on the Tuesday, but Mr. Windham said he expected his uncle the general to come, and he wished to introduce him to witness. The general did come on the Tuesday, about two o'clock, when he was introduced to witness. The general took a biscuit and a glass of wine by the fire, as it was a cold day. He heard a conversation between Mr. Windham and General Windham. It appeared to be about an exchange of some piece of land. The general stayed the best part of an hour. The con versation about the land lasted most part of that time. Mr. Windham's behaviour during the whole time was just like other gentlemen. He was per fecely rational. He was an early riser, and took a great deal of exet (Asc. He was one of the attesting winces to the marriage. By the Jury—Mr. Windham never spoke to him ab.)ut the abrasion after the dty of the marriage. The spots en his forehead indicated either violent exercise or venereal disease. It never struck him that any gentleman would come on the morning of Lis marriage to inquire whether he had the venereal He had not nude a thorough examination of the abrasion. Mr. James Bowen May said he had been a soli citcr for 20 years. He bad been solicitor to a me• di _,:l company for the exposure of " quacks." Mr. Wi:i(lhorne had nothing to do with that. In 1859 l',liss Agnes Willoughby was introduced to him as a married lady. She attended a meet of some hounds in his neighbourhood. She had her own hor.ie, and came with two gentlemen. It was in Heztfordshire in the fall of the year 1859. She hooted and rode remarkably well. She is a per son of great personal attractions. Some people considered her remarkably beautiful. Mr. Chambers said he should cross-examine upon that point. Mr. Coleridge said if there was any doubt about it he would produce the lady. Witness continued—The next time he saw her was at a meet of her Majesty's staghounds at Slough, in Buckinghamshire. She fell going over a fence, and her horse fell upon her. Witness picked her up and took her to her hotel. She subsequently called upon him on business, and he brought an action for her against the London General Omnibus Company for damaging her brougham. The action was brought in the name of Willoughby, and then witness for the first time found she was not married. She was not of age when that action was tried above a year ago. She told him she was living under protection. She told him the name of the gentle man. In July or August of last year she called again. She told him she was going to be mar ried. No gentleman was with her. She had talked about marriage before. Witness told her she was better as she was. Her income was discussed on more than one occasion before Mr. 'Windham. She told him she was going to be married to a wealthy man, but he did not think she mentioned the name. She called a fortnight after alone. She said he was a gentleman of position and a man of wealth. She did not say that she was going to be married, but that she had had an offer. She mentioned his name. They discussed the thing, but he still thought there was nothing in it—that it was a dream. The first occasion he saw Mr. Windham with her was on the Ist of August, when she introduced him to witness as the gentleman who had made her the offer. She said she had not made up her mind whether she should accept it or not. Nothing was said about her income on that occason. The next occasion he saw Mr. Windham was a few days before he came of age, when they called together. He said they were going to be married, and that she had accepted him. Witness asked him his age, and Windham said he should be of age in a few days. Witness said that when he was of age it was quite time for him to talk of being married. The first time the matter was seri ously discussed was on the 20th of August. They then told him that they were going to be married— first they said in October and then in September. He forgot to state that before the 20th of August he saw Mr. Windham, when witness took him into an ad joining office alone,and said,"Are you really in earnest about being married, because I think it right to tell you that this lady is a kept mistress, and she is very extravagant; she keeps two:or three horses, and is used to hunting ?" He said, " I know all that, and I am much obliged to you, it is quite right of you to till me." They then returned to the room where Mrs. Windham was. Returning to:the:2oth of August witness asked Mr. Windham what his income was. Ile replied it would be £14,000 or £15,000 per annum, b u t was then only £3,000. Mrs. Windham said, " If I marry him I must have £l,OOO per annum settled." Mr. Windham said, "At present I can't do that, my income is too sma ;l.) , Witness said she ought to be content with £5OO. The ridiculed that, whereupon witness pro posed £6OO. That she refused, and said this, "Do you think it is likely I should give up £2,000 p er annum for such a settlement ?" Windham said, " I will give her £BOO a year now, and £1,500 per annum when I come into my property." She de murred to that, and witness said that ought to sa ti4fy the most selfish person. She added, " And mind, I am to have that so that I can will it away." Witness said the ordinary mode of settlement W" to give it to the wife for life. She said, " I am going to marry for the benefit of my sisters, and I will have it so that I can will it to them, or do as I like with it." Witness said, " What do you say to that, Windham; what relatives have you P" His reply was, " I have no one I care about except my mother, and she is already provided for out of the estate." Mrs. Windham then said," Let us have it put down at once." Witness said there was no oceasion for anywriting about it. Windham said, " Oh yes, let us have it in black and white, and then she will be satis fied." Witness then wrote these lines—" Settle ment to be executed between William Windham and Agnes Anne Rogers. Mr. Windham agrees to settle on his wife absolutely £BOO per annum, to be charged on the freehold estate at Felbrigg Hall, Suffolk; trustees, Dr. Ferries Whidborne, of Guil ford-sticet, and —. Signed ANNE AGNES ROGERS, W. F. WINDHAM." Witness afterwards wrote on the top of the paper " 16th Sept., wed ding." It was endorsed 20th of August, 1861. On that occasion he persuaded her to accept the £BOO. He asked them who their trustees were to be, as they must have two. She said she had asked her doctor, and she must see him for his consent. He then asked Windham whom he would name. He said, "Well, I don't know. I have no friends or relations whom I care about." Witness suggested his mother, but Windham said she was out of health and would not do. He said he would think about it. Witness asked him to whom he should send the draft to peruse on his behalf. Windham said he had no solicitor:then, and did it require it. Witness said it was usual to do so, Windham said he should wait until the end of the long vacation before he engaged a new solicitor. He added, "I have heard you highly spoken of by two or three people, and surely you can do it between us." Wit ness said, "I shall send it in a rough state down to counsel to have an opinion upon it." He imme diately rang the bell, and sent the draft to Mr. Graham Hastings. The gentleman and lady fhen left. A day or two afterwards he saw Mrs. Windham alone at his office. The substance of that interview was communicated to Mr. Wind ham, After that he saw them both together. Wit ness said, " So I understand it is not to come off—l never thought it would." Windham said, " Oh yes it is; I have made up my mind, and it shall." He then told witness that he had agreed with "Agnes" to give her when he came into his property £1,500 a-year, as she was going to give up a large amount to marry him. Witness asked who the trustees were to be. Windham said he knew no one who would do, Witness asked why he did not have General Windham, with whom witness had been at school at Reading. He said, " He wants to get hold of my property—we are not friendly, and I shan't have him." Mrs. Windham said, " I asked Mr. Roberts if he would be one"—witness knew to whom she referred—" provided Windham can't get any person to be a trustee for him." Windham said, "I have no objection to Roberts. I understand he is a wealthy man—he drives his four-in-hand and keeps a pack of hounds." Witness said he believed that to be the case. It was then decided that he should be associated with Dr. Whidborne. After the draft settlement came back from Mr. Graham Hastings, Roberts's name was put in as trustee. Witness said, " I understand you have only a life estate in part of your property ; what do you in tend doing with that ?" Windham said, "I intend cutting off the entail directly, and I shall get you to do it." That was the subject of the conversation. The draft was returned from counsel on the 28th of August. When he said "It is off," he said that in reference to what .Miss Wil loughby had said to him on a previous occasion when alone. He saw Mr. Windham the day the draft was returned. Witness asked him whether he had selected his own trustee, and he said no, he had not, and he did not care so long as they were respectable and responsible. He asked him whe ther he should put in Roberts's:name, and he replied yes. Up to that time witness was sure Windham did not know Roberts. He was sure he did not Roberts until after his marriage. The draft was altered, copied, and engrossed. It was executed at their own house on the 29th. It was sent to Mrs. Windham's place of abode in Blenheim terrace, St. John's-wood. Witness's clerk was the attesting. witness. Witness attended the marriage at the re quest of Mr. Windham. Witness declined being made one of the trustees. Windham said that hav ing changed the wedding day two of his military friends were unable to come, and pressed witness to attend. Witness knew Whidborne and Mrs, Wind ham's brother, who was residing with her. Witness left a few minutes after the marriage. When Miss Willoughby called she generally came in a one horse brougham. Witness saw Windham next in Paris, where he executed the disentailing deeds on the 2d of September. He gave them up to Mr. Windham's subsequent solicitor. He saw him at Morley's afterwards. He often invited witness to go to Fel brigg Hall. He went down with Whidborne on the Saturday, and they shot on the Monday and Tues day. The General came on the Wednesday. That was by the General's arrangement. He heard the general and Windham talking about the sale of some property of the value of £l,OOO. The con versation lasted about half-an-hour. They did not come to any arrangement about the land. The general had lent Windham £l5 and acknowledged receiving Windham's cheque for it. The general was introduced to Mrs. Windham and her sisters and lunched with them. Witness exchanged cheques for £2OO with Mr. Windham ; as he wanted circular notes to go to Paris. When witness was in Paris Windham asked him to let him have a cheque for £l5O, as witness was better known there than Windham was, and witness not having one with him sent one for that amount directly he got to England. During all these interviews Mr. Windham talked sensibly and as a sound man. A proceeding was taken against witness in the Court of Chancery, which annoyed Windham, who said, " You will catch it, as Vice-Chancellor Sir Page Wood is a bosom friend of my uncle, the general." Witness said he told him Vice-Chancellor Sir Page Wood was a perfect gentleman, and he was sure the application would be dismissed. Mr. Windham made an affidavit stating the circumstances. Cross-examined—Ho did not hear the remarks of the Vice-Chancellor. The application was dismissed without costs. Mr. Windham owed him £2OO, £l5O, £lOO, and the price of a horse. If he had said in his affidavit that besides the £350, Windham owed him £4OO, it was a mistake. He had forgotten though to state that he had paid Mr. Attenborough upwards of £3OO for Mr. Windham, besides the other sums. That made altogether £7ll that Windham owed him. Mr. Windham had paid him no money. The money he paid to Attenborough was to redeem jewels pledged by Mrs. Windham when single. An action was threatened by Mr. Neal, a solicitor, against Mr. Windham for the mortgage money advanced upon them, so he paid it. He gave Mrs. Windham the cheque for £2OO for Mr. Windham, which the latter told him he received. He had not the slightest idea of what his bill of costs would be. Perhaps £5O, besides £2O for going to Paris. If his affidavit stated that Mrs. Windham first mentioned her marriage with Windham to him in June, and not in August, it was correct. He could not tell where Mrs. Windham was living on the 18th of June. He knew she first lived in Orchard-street, and then in Wigmore street. On the first occasion she spoke of it, she might have said that Windam was going to settle some thousands a year upon her. On the 3d of August he first heard Mr. Windham was a ward in Chancery, and an infant. He did not know whether Windham ever saw the draft settlement. He told his clerk to take it to Mrs. Windham's house, for Mr. and Mrs. Windham to go over it together.. Mrs. Windham said she did not like to get married and to have to give up her £2,900 a year, Before Windham came of age witness treated the proposed marriage as a mere flirtation between boy and girl. Mrs. Windham said she did not care for Windham, and said, "I will only marry him in consideration of a good settlement, and for the sake of my sisters, of whom Windham is very fond. He has promised to educate them, and to introduce them into good s oc i e t y i n th e coun t ry. " Th a t s h e sa id before Windham, Witness held the jewels for Mr. Windham still, for which he had paid Attenbo rougk. By On Jury.. Witile" ) 1 9t R 414 Winaltaill THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JAN YA Y . 17, 186. his uncle was trying to get his property from him, As far as witness knew. Roberts, he considered him to be a respectable and responsible man. Roberts has an income of £5,000 a year. He had never drawn such a marriage settlement before, and he tried to make it for life, only in this case Mr. Wind ham said he had no relative that he cared for, and he should leave all his 'property to his wife. He did not dispose of the jewels, as it would have been a breach of trust. The inquiry was then adjourned. LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 16. ARCHES COURT. (Before Dr. Lnshington.) THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS (CLERK). Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for the Bishop of Salisbury; and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Fitzjames Stephen ,for the Rev. Dr. owland 'Williams. Dr. Deane resumed his argument this morning. Having replied to the arguments of the counsel for the promoter on the question of inspiration, he proceeded to deal with the question of prophecy, and inquired whether the views on that subject ex pressed by the defendant were opposed to the doc trines laid down by the standards of the Church of England. The question was not whether Bishop Chandler and Dr. Hay were right, as put by his friends on the other side, but whether Dr. Williams had said anything inconsistent with the Articles of Religion, which he contended he had not. The doc trine of verbal inspiration had been given up by the other side, and it was admitted that each prophecy might have a double sense. The learned counsel again adverted to the three divisions that obtained in all systems of divinity—lst, doctrine; 2d, ritual; and 3d, evidence. Dr. Deane argued that prophecy was to be regarded as evidence, and, as such, subject to examination and criticism. On that point he had two authorities to which he would refer. For one he was indebted to his learned friend, Mr. Cole ridge, who had quoted it in support of the promo ter's views. He meant Dr. South's sermon on the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. He also referred to " Cudworth," and maintained that there was good authority for the position Dr. Williams had taken up in reference to the prophecies of Isaiah. Before Dr. Williams could be condemned he would ask the Court to pause. Where, supposing the defendant to be wrong, was the doctrine of the Church that made such opinions heretical ? Com mentators might say so, but not the Church. As to the ninth count, be remarked that it had been framed very negligently, for Dr. Williams had expressly stated in his Essay that he did not deny the reality of the Prophet Jonah. It had been said that to deny that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel was to jeopardize Christianity, rand Mr. Coleridge, with that admiration for Dr. Arnold that every man feels, quoted from his writings in support of that proposition ; but he would read a letter of that distinguished man, of the 25th of January, 1840, which was to be found in his biography, the effect of which was that there were very likely " genuine fragments" in the Book of Daniel. Dr. Arnold held that opinion more than 20 years ago, and he was not the man to conceal his views from the world. When the defendant wrote, "It provokes a smile on serious topics to observe the zeal with which our critic vindicates the personalty of Jonah," he meant that the contradiction of the author provoked the smile. The defendant was charged in the ninth count with having maintained that the revelation of St. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the 2d Epistle of St. Peter were not parts of the Holy Scripture, and that their autho rity was not binding on the Church. That charge was founded upon the passage in the Essay where, in quoting Baron Bunsen, it is said that "the fourth Gospel is the latest of all our genuine books." That implied:the genuineness of the other books. That observation applied only to the chronology and authorship of the books. It had been contended that it was heretical to say that the Epistle to the Hebrews bore " traces of being post Apostolic," but that could not be maintained, seeing that Dr. Williams admitted that it was au thentic. Dr. Williams said the book had authority in the Church, that its contents had a strong bear ing on the great scheme of redemption. The 11th count charges Dr. Williams with affirming " that the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical facts may be read and understood in a wholly figurative sense, and in a non-natural sense." Dr. Williams did not entertain any doubt as to the truth of the history contained in the Old Testa ment; but he inquired whether the events brought about by the providence of God—the Deluge, for instance—could not be accounted for by the opera tion of fixed and immutable laws. That was not heresy. As to the smiting of the Assyrians, diffe rent views had been entertained by Bibilic tl critics as to the agency by which their destruction was ac complished. Some had accounted for it by suppos ing that the Assyrian host had been destroyed by pestilence ; others that the agency was the blast of a hot wind. Dr. Lushington —ls there an atom of evidence to support such a proposition in reference to the slay ing of the first-born of the Egyptians? Dr. Deane—No, but that is a construction that is permissible. Dr, Lushington—Then, it was only an ingenious construction. Dr. Deane—This is a criminal prosecution. If the Court should hold that only a literal interpreta tion of this and other passages in Scripture is allow able, then the ranks of the Church will be thinned. However, so far as regards the passing through the Red Sea, no ingenious construction was necessary, for the Bible says that the waters were divided by a strong east wind. The defendant in his " Essay," so far from impugning, had really vindicated the historical accuracy of the book of the Exodus from the attacks of the men with whom the pro moter desired to class him—Volney and others. A great deal had been made of the extract in the 12th charge, containing the words, "The deep drama of the heart and mind became exter nalised into a commercial transfer, and this effected by a form of ritual." It had been said by his learned friends that if Dr. Williams alluded in that passage to the corruptions of the Romish Church he should have removed any misconception as to his meaning by a note in some of the many editions the volume had passed through. That was not necessary, for it was abundantly clear from the immediately , preceding passage, in which the word "transub stantiation" occurred, that it was applicable to the Roman Church and ritual. Having very briefly re marked upon the 13th count, he passed to the 14th, and maintained that Dr, Williams had not given ex pression to views with reference to the incarnation of our Lord inconsistent with Romans, chapter 1, 4th verse, and referred to the "Homilies" and " Dr. South's Sermons" (37th.) As to the 16th count, in which were quoted the passage from the Essay, " How long shall we bear this fiction of an external revelation," these words were applicable to the Roman Church, and that was evidenced by the con text. How otherwise could the following sentence be explained,—" If Protestant Europe is to escape those ehadows of the twelfth century, which, with ominous recurrence, are closing round us, to Baron Bunsen will belong a foremost place among the champions of light and right." There was no neces sity for the author to explain his meaning here, for any intelligent man would understand the applica tion of the passage. It had been called " offensive doctrine." 'Would the Court punish for offensive doctrine ? It might be offensive to the disciples of Loyola, but the prosecutor had failed to show that it was contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. Much confusion had been caused by neglecting to distinguish the parts of the Bible to which inspiration was attributed by the Church. The essay of the defendant did not militate against the true theory of the Church of England, that Holy Scripture is the Word of God—that the Word of God is contained in it. It was an error in the highest degree misleading to say that any isolated passage, because found in the Bible, is to be regarded as the Word of God, and re ferred to the Dean of Canterbury's "Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles" (chapter 7). As to the charges brought against Dr. Williams in reference to prophecy, he said that the defendant had not dealt so much with prophecy as with its treatment ; the views he had expressed coincided with those of Bacon's " Advancement of Learning," book 11. He argued that the counts relating to propitiation and original sin, as they stood, could not be admitted. The learned counsel concluded as follows :—Mr. Coleridge had said that the readers of this Essay of Dr. Williams, " if, unfortunately, they should fol low him on the path which he has traced out, will arrive not merely at the dreary country of doubt and infidelity, but eventually at the barren and hopeless strand of a despairing atheism." That sketch was drawn by a master hand; but possibly one might suggest something else than infidelity indicated, not only in the unextracted but in the extracted passages of this Essay. Has not super stition had its victims ? There may be a ritual, there may be a faith, and a system of religion that may speak to the senses and the imagination, and yet leave the heart untouched and unpurified. The eye, the ear, the very sense of smell, may each and all be gratified, while no light can reach the souls of those who travel through a country where super stition dominates. Scarce a ray of light reaches the unhappy soul, and if it penetrates it is obscured. It:resembles an ignis fatuus, having no mark of its Divine origin ; for the priest has stepped in between man and his God ; the Virgin or a saint stands in the place of our Saviour. There is a medium course that eau ho pursued, The Court knows full well that many. a man has left the open free fields of the Church of England for the barren strand, not of infidelity or atheism, but for something else which I need not name. Is the history of the 12th century to be repeated again ? I trow not. I would not venture to say this in any ordinary case, but I will ask, did God, when he uttered that great com mand, " Let there be light," mean that men should walk in darkness ? That they will do so more or less in darkness if this prosecution suc ceeds Ido in all humility affirm. The argu ment is over—the result is in your lordship's hands, and yet lam loth to sit down. For 10 days this case has been argued with all the ability, learn ing, and zeal which belong to my learned friends. I have laboured with slow and unequal steps, but each of us has done his best for the interests of his client. In the courso of the ten days which this dis cussion has occupied differences of opinion have arisen between my learned friends and myself, but I will say, and I am bold enough to say, I know they will agree with the last words I shall utter— that,while we are arguing, your lordship has listenei with the most unwearied attention and unflagging patience. On behalf of my learned friends, the pro secutor, and the defendant, I beg to thank you. Dr. Phillimore was glad to have the opportunity of expressing publicly the deep obligation he and his learned friends felt towards his lordship for the great courtesy he had shown during the lengthened argument in this most momentous snd difficult case. Dr. Lushington—Of course, I must take time to consider my judgment. should be reduced to 40s. upon the property being given up. WEAR V. COLBATCH.-ERROR IN WEIGHT NOTE. The defendant in this case was a storekeeper and, Custom-house agent in Lower Thames-street, and he received a case of albumen, which was deposited in his warehouse, and his clerk gave a weight-note which described it as weighing 1 cwt. 3 qrs. 161bs. Martin, who deposited it, sold to Stanton, who sold to the plaintiff. When the case was sent for it appeared that the weight was only 3 qrs. 161b5., and the plaintiff now sued in trovor to recover the larger quantity of albumen. Mr. Ribton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Collier and Mr. Honeyman for the defendant. Witnesses were called on both sides, and on be half of the defendant it was stated that he had never received more than 3 qrs. 161b5., and that the weight in the note was an error of his clerk. His lordship reserved several questions of law, and asked the jury to consider whether the defen dant ever ha& more than the 3 qrs. 161b5., and whether he had converted what he had to his own us& The jury found for the defendant, but said that, as the plaintiff had bought upon the faith of the note being correct, he was entitled to some conside ration. _ - - ---- His lordship said he was of the same opinion. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Loid Chief Baron and Barons Martin, Channell, and Wilde.) CROFT V. STEVENS-RIFLE VOLUNTEERS. This was an action for libel tried before Mr. Jus tice Wightman at the summer assizes for Surrey, when the defendant pleaded not guilty and a justi fication. The plaintiff in the action, Dr. Croft, resided at Mandarin-villas, St. John's-wood, and was captain commandant of the Ist Middlesex Artillery Volun teer corps, in which the defendant, a retired major of the Madras Cavalry, was adjutant. A letter purporting to have been written by the defen dant was received by Messrs. Richards and Co., directing them to send to the headquarters of the corps, No. 3, Hanover-square, a target of the Go vernment pattern. They did so, but the order was repudiated by the defendant, on the ground that the letter ordering the target was not in his handwrit ing, but fictitious, and that the writing was in the handwriting of the plaintiff. On this an action for libel was brought, when the jury returned a verdict that there was no malice on the part of the defendant, and for the plaintiff with respect to the handwriting for £5, leave being reserved by the learned judge to set aside the verdict and to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that the communication was privileged. Mr. Sergeant ghee moved accordingly last term, and obtained a rule nisi, which he now moved to make absolute. In the course of his argument, Mr. Baron Wilde observed that the defendant in his letter to Messrs. Richards had made no charge against the plaintiff. It was very doubtful whether it was a libel at all, and then the other questions arose, was it, if so, privileged, and then was the alle gation true ? The court said the rule must be mado absolute, when Mr. Hawkins, who had been speaking in the Queen's Bench, came into court and showed cause. He said that no doubt the corps had been greatly annoyed. All sorts of orders had been given. The Lord Chief Baron—What kind of orders ? Mr. Hawkins—Well, my lord, there were orders for nurses, and for perambulators, and for cats, and they all attended, but the dogs which were ordered did not come, perhaps from an instinct of a little matter which had occurred to one of their race at Wimbledon. (Great laughter.) The Lord Chief Baron 'then said that the court adhered to their former opinion, and made the rule absolute. POLICE INTELLIcy'ENCE.—Tan. 16. MANSION HOUSE,—John Linton, who was brought before the Lord Mayor on Wednesday, charged with uttering a forged request for money, with intent to defraud Mr. Bidwell, of Teignmouth, in Devonshire, was again brought up. The prosecutor, it appears, resides at Teignmouth, and has a son who is at sea, and on the 7th inst. received a letter purporting to be written by his son, and signed Nicholas Bidwell, stating that he had been wrecked off the coast of Africa, and had the day previous been brought home to London in a steamer. He had lost all his clothes, and had no money to buy new ones, and had been told that he would not be able to get his money for a month. Would his dear father send him ,E 5 per return of post, in order that he might get some clothes to see his dear brother and sister, and he would repay it as soon as he received his pay P Mr. Bidwell hay ing received a letter from his son only a few days before this stating that he was is Calcutta, knew this second letter to be a forgery. He accordingly communicated with the police, and was advised to send a post-office order, which he did, to the post office in the Minories ; but, owing to the initials of the Christian names having been reversed by mis take, the order did not agree with the advice ; and Mr. Fox, who keeps the money order office, and who identified the prisoner as the party who presented the order, would not pay it on that account, and advised the prisoner to write to the party he had it from, and request him to get the initials altered, which he did, and Mr. Bidwell received the letter. Walter Bashford, superintendent of the Devon constabulary, came up to London, and waited at the Sailors' Home until the prisoner went to call for a letter which was there, addressed to John Linton, Sailors' Home. He took him into custody, and found the letter, which was from the prisoner's father, who is also a resident of Teignmouth, upon him. The letter stated that his father had seen Mr. Bidwell, and he had informed him that some one at the Sailors' Home had been writing to him in his son's name for some money. His son was then in Calcutta, and the letter was a forgery. He hoped the prisoner was not in any way mixed up in the matter. It also stated that Mr. Bidwell had sent a Post-office order, and whoever went for the money would be detected. The Post-office order was like wise found upon the prisoner, and Mr. Fox iden tified it as the same that was presented to him by the prisoner. The prisoner, who acknowledged that he wrote the two letters, was committed for trial. BOW-STREET.—Robert Ready, jun., a youth of about 17 years of age, was brought before the chief magistrate, Mr. Hall, charged with having in his possession a loaded pistol, with intent to shoot his father, Mr. Robert Ready, a copyist at the British Museum. Police Sergeant Scott, A 2, deposed—This after noon, from information I had received, at about 3 o'clock I went to the room in the British Museum, in consequence of a dispute between the prisoner and his father. I received the pistol, bullets, and wadding, from the witnesses now present. The father refused to give the prisoner into custody, or to give evidence against him. Mr. Hall said it would be absolutely necessary that the father should be ,examined. Sergeat Scott said the father was in attendance in the waiting-room of the court. Mr. Hall then ordered the prisoner to be removed, and sent for his father. Mr. Ready immediately presented himself, but expressed himself extremely reluctant to give evi dence, urging that it was very hard for a father to prosecute his own son. Mr. Hall had the strongest sympathy with the very natural feelings of Mr. Ready, but in this case Mr. Ready had a duty to perform, not only be cause he was bound to forward the interests of jus tice and the administration of the law, but even for the sake of the unfortunate lad himself, to whom it would be most dangerous and injurious that he should be allowed to threaten his father's life with impunity. It would also be a most frightful example to Mr. Ready's other children if their elder brother was permitted to go on in such a course. Ultimately, though with great reluctance and undisguised emo tion, Mr. Ready yielded to the advice of the worthy magistrate and consented to give evidence. The prisoner was then again placed in the dock. Mr. Ready deposed—l am a copyist at the British Museum, and the father of the defendant, who is employed there under me. I was there this after noon, and had occasion to request him not to take copies of anything under my care; and having reason to believe that some coins and cameos, the property of the Museum, were about his person, I taxed him with having them, and I was about searching his person when he took out of his pocket a pistol (producing a single barrelled pocket pistol). I seized it with my hands, and we struggled for the possession of it for at least 20 minutes. I was nearly overpowered when the witnesses now present came to my assistance. I have heard a statement of a threat used against me by the prisoner, and from that and what has occurred I apprehend that I go in danger of my life, or that he will do me some bodily harm unless he is restrained by the law. Mr. Edward Gerrard deposed—l am also em ployed in the British Museum, in a room next to Mr. Ready's. Hearing a great screaming in Mr. Ready's room, I went there, and found Mr. Ready struggling with the prisoner. On my asking what was the matter, Mr. Ready said his son had attempted to shoot him. I then assisted Mr. Ready, who succeeded in taking the pistol produced from the prisoner. I handed it to Mr. Tilley. I asked the prisoner how he could be so bad a boy as to attempt to shoot his father. He said he had carried the pistol for some weeks, intending to shoot his father. I saw the pistol unloaded, and the bullet, wadding, and powder taken from it. Mr. Edward Fred. Tilley—l am also employed at the British Museuin. I received the pistol from the last witness. It was loaded. I:extracted from it the bullet, wadding, and powder produced. Mr. Tilley further stated that a bullet similar to that found in the pistol, and also 20 percussion caps, were found upon the prisoner. The Prisoner—l have nothing to say to do me any good. Mr. Hall said it was difficult to find words to ex press his feelings with regard to this painful case, He must express his strong approval of the conduct of Mr. Ready. That gentleman ought not to be at all ashamed of, or sorry for, is conduct in this case in which he had performed a distressing but inevi table duty. He (Mr. Hall) fully believed, terrible as it might appear, that the prisoner had really conceived the determination of taking his father's life, and it was necessary to place him under such control as would effectually restrain him from com• mitting so horrible a crime. The prisoner must find two sureties of £5O each and enter into his own re cognisances of £BO to keep the peace for six months. The prisoner, who in the early part of the exami nation maintained an air of indifference, was much affected by the observations of the worthy magis trate, weeping and sobbing apparently with much emotion. Bail not being forthcoming he was removed in the prison van. MARLBOROUGH-SIRE ET.—Wm. Lucas and Thos. Johnson, two fashionably-dressed young men, were placed at the bar before Mr. Tyrwhitt charged with stealing two bags of copper coin, the property of Mr. Kerner, baker, New Compton-street. Police-sergeant Cole, C 23, said he saw the two prisoners in a dog-cart in Regent-street. Knowing their characters, and being aware that a great num ber of robberies had lately been committed by per sons answering the description of the prisoners, he followed them. He traced them into Brewer street, and there Johnson got out, leaving Lucas to drive the dog cart. Two other persons joined John son, and they walked on, following the dog-cart. The three then went up to Lucas and held a short conversation with him ; one of the party turned round and looked witness hard in the face. He took no notice, but went down a street, and met the party again in Compton-street. The prisoners and the two other men held a short conversation at the corner of Frith-street, and then one of the party not in custody went into a baker's shop in Compton street, and in a few minutes came out with the master of the shop, and went into a public-house, the others following behind. The prisoner Lucas drove up to the baker's shop, and got into conversa tion with a female who was minding it. The pri soner Johnson went into the shop, and in a few mi nutes came out and put something into the dog-cart and then got in, and both drove off. Witness rushed forward and seized the reins. Lucas jumped out and ran off, but was knocked down by a blow from a mallet given by a carpenter who was passing, and, Johnson was detained by Mr. Hall, of Wardour street, who had been called upon to assist the police. Both prisoners were taken to the station-house. In the dog-cart were found two bags containing about £2 worth of copper coin, and also a jemmy. Before anything was said to Lucas, he remarked to witness that he had never gone into the shop, and that he knew nothing of anything being put into the dog cart. Witness went back to the baker's shop, and found that a desk had been broken open with a crowbar or jemmy, and the two bags of copper taken out. Mr. John Keillor, baker, Compton-street, said a well-dressed man came into his shop that day, and after buying three buns, asked if witness made wedding cakes ? He replied " Yes, and he should be happy to receive an order." The man said, " Come with me, and my mother's cook shall give you an order." He went out with the man, and after walking a short distance the man asked him if he would have a glass of ale. He said he did not mind, and he went into a public house with the man. After partaking of some refresh ment the man said he had to meet the cook there, but she had not come, and he must there fore go hone and get instructions, Witness re turned to his shop, and his mother told him that a person had just been there about some wed ding cakes. He remarked he did not like the look of this ; he suspected something was wrong. He looked about the shop and found that his desk had been broken open, and copper coin in two bags taken away. The prisoners put some questions of no import ance to the constable. Johnson said he was not in the baker's shop. police-sergeant Cole said he saw him go into the shop. A remand having been applied for, Mr. Tyrwhitt directed the prisoners to be brought up again next Thursday. A good deal of credit is due to Police-sergeant Cole for the way he effected the capture of the pri soners, who have been at this court before, and who it is expected will turn out to be connected with a gang of swell mobsmen who have committed a large number of robberies at the west-end of the town, principally on jewellers and wine merchants. The plan adopted by the thieves was for some of the gang to drive up to a jeweller's shop in a dog-cart, land to request the shopkeeper to send specimens of jewellery for a sick gentleman to select from. In one case it is understood that about /500 was obtained. When visits were paid to wine merchants it was the cash-box that was sought after, and very great success appears to have attended the gang in this line of operations. It is also pretty clear that the robbery at Mr. Keillor's was a put-up affair. The thieves were disappointed of a bag containing about £2OO, which was sometimes kept in the desk, but which had not been placed there that morning. CLERKENWELL. Police-constable Alfred Viner, 86 G, appeared before Mr. Barker, charged with unlawfully assaulting and beating John Car roll, a marble polisher, residing at 13, Fleet-row, Leather-lane. Mr. Wontner appeared for the prosecution; and Mr. Lewis, jun., of Ely-place, attended for the de fence. From the evidence of the prosecutor it appeared that on the morning of the 10th inst., about one o'clock, the defendant and another constable knocked at his room door and were admitted into the room by one of his lodgers. I'he defendant asked the other constable if he (the lodger) was the man who had insulted him the night before, and was answered in the negative, the other constable stating that it was the one that was in bed (meaning the complainant). The defendant then asked the other constable if he would give him (complainant) in charge, and he said " No." The defendaut then went to his bedside, pulled him out of bed, hit him on the head several times, and kicked him in such a manner that he was insensible for three or four minutes. The defendant then lifted him into bed, and again punched him on the head and face. His mouth was full of blood. In cross. examination the complainant stated that he had no marks either on his face or body. He was certain that he was pulled out of bed by the hair of the head, and that while he was on the floor tne defendant kicked him. A lodger of the complainant's was called, and stated that he was present the whole of the time. The defendant pulled the complainant out of bed by his shirt and shook him. . In cross-examination the witness stated that the complainant was never on the ground, nor was he kicked. He also stated that the complainant was never insensible. Mr. Lewis said after such contradictory state ments no one could believe the complainant, and the summons ought therefore to be dismissed. The reason why the constables went to the room was because one of them had been assaulted by a man who had made his escape. Police constable Warington, 141 G, who had also been summoned for assaulting the same complainant but against whom the summons was dismissed, said that he was present the whole of the time, and was certain that the defendant did not strike the com plainant. Mr. Barker sentenced the prisoner to two calendar months' imprisonment in the House of Correction. Mr. Lewis asked the magistrate to send the case for trial, as he was certain that no jury would ever convict on such evidence. He considered the sen tence a very severe one. Mr. Barker said he bad made it two months to give the defendant the option of appealing. If he sent the case for trial the complainant would be put to expense. Mr. Lewis strongly urged that the question of expense ought not to stand against a man's liberty. The defendant had a right to be tried by a jury. As to expense, he would guarantee that the prosecutor should not be put to expense. So that justice might be done, he would deposit the money out of pocket. Mr. Barker declined to alter his decision. Mr. Lewis said he should appeal, and asked what bail the magistrate would take. Mr. Barker fixed the amount at two sureties in the sum of £lO each. [ADVERTISEMENT]. -- Holloway's Pills. Poisoned Fluids.—England's winters would shake a constitution of iron. The soaking rains and foggy atmospheres are now displaying their malignant influenza in swelling the weekly bills of mortality. Holloway's pills counteract these dete riorating powers and prevent disease. Thoy cleanse the whole body as a watchmaker cleans the works of a watch, and render all corporeal operations easy and natural. These purifying pills have stood the test of thirty years, and, without boasting, may be ranked amongst the greatest dis coveries of the present or any former age. Holloway's pills strike at the root of all diseases---hot and distempered blood—from which they safely expel all gaseous and other poisons, and substitute a pure for a foul fluid, COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. ',Sittings in Banco in Hilary Term.—Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.) BROWNE AND ANOTHER V. RODS AND ANOTHER. This action was brought to recover certain stakes at the Harpenden races, and at the trial during the last sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Black burn, the plaintiffs were nonsuited. Mr. Hawkins now moved for a rule to set aside the nonsuit and for a new trial. The plaintiffs' horse, the Mermaid, and the defendants', named the Moun tebank, ran for the Stakes: Mountebank came in first, and Mermaid second, and after the race it was discovered that the former had not carried the right weight, and the plaintiffs, as owners of Mermaid, claimed the stakes. The defendants, Admiral Rous and others, were the stewards, who had to decide all disputes, and whose decisions were final. The learned counsel now contended that they were liable for the stakes, and that the learned judge was wrong in nonsuiting the plaintiffs. The Court refused the rule. QUEEN V. PEARCE. This was an indictment for perjury tried in this court before the Lard Chief Justice, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Henry James now applied for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be entered for the defendant, upon certain points of law reserved by the learned judge. The defendant was a publican, and the alleged perjury was committed before the judge of the Small Debts Court, in the City of London, in regard to certain proceedings taken against the defendant, in the Gravesend County Court, for a debt. The learned counsel contended that the judge of the Small Debts Court had no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter, as the de fendant had been relieved from the debt by the In solvent Debtors Court, and upon other grounds. The Court granted a rule nisi. BAIL COURT. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Wight man and a Common Jury.) KIRKMAN V. KEAST. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the value of a pianoforte. Mr. Telford Salter and Mr. Kelley were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Robinson for the defendant. It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that he was a pianoforte manufacturer, and the de fendant was a tailor at Peckham. He had lent a person named Harriss, who taught music, and for merly resided near Peckham, a pianoforte, valued at 145 guineas, on hire, who left his lodgings with out returning the instrument. Upon hearing that the plaintiff went down to where Harriss formerly lived, and found that the piano had been taken to the defendant's. He accordingly went there, and defendant alleged he had advanced money upon it. and would net give it up without he was paid the sum of £BO. The plaintiff refused to pay it, and brought the present action. For the defence evidence was called for the pur pose of showing that the plaintiff claimed more than the value of the piano, and that the defendant had advanced the sum of £BO upon it. In the course of the defence the jury said they were agreed, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff— damages £l2O for the value of the piano, and ls. for the detention, saying that it was a disgraceful case. JAMRACK V. SMITTI.-THE WILD BEASTS AT CRE- MORNE GARDENS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a foreigner, against the defendant, Mr.E.T. Smith, the proprietor of Cremorne-gardens. to recover com pensation for a breach of agreement. Mr. W. Keane and Mr. Philbrick were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. H. James for the defendant. Charles Jamrack, the plaintiff, said he was a dealer in wild beasts. In June last he went to Paris, and purchased a menagerie for £BOO. At that time Mr. Simpson was proprietor of Cremorne-gardens, and he engaged witness to bring his menagerie to the gardens, where it was subsequently taken and placed near the river esplanade. The witness agreed to accept as remuneration half the sum received from parties visiting the menagerie, and accordingly a turnstile was placed on the bridge leading to the esplanade. According to his (the plaintiff's) agree ment, he had to keep the beasts and their attend ants, which cost him from £l4 to £l5 a month. He continued to exhibit the beasts up August 2 upon those terms, when the present defendant be came proprietor the gardens. During the latter part of the season the female Blondin made various ascents on the tight rope, and on one of those occa sions the announcement was that she would per form her feat at six o'clock, but she did not do so before seven o'clock. During this time there was a rush to the menagerie, and there were so many people that the turnstile was useless, and the defendant opened the gate, and allowed them to enter. The defendant took the money him self. Witness spoke to the manager, and said as he had been a loser on previous occasions, he expected to be a gainer on that occasion. The manager told him that he would receive no more than he had on previous occasions, and if he did not choose to take it, he bad better take the beasts away. A few days after he received a communica tion from the defendant, in consequence of which he removed his menagerie. The defendant offered him £l2 as half the money taken on the day in question, which witness refused to accept, and brought the present action. No agreement was entered into between himself and the defendant contrary to that which he had entered into with Mr. Simpson, which was for the season. Nothing material came out in the witness's cross examination, and This was the plaintiff's case. For the defence, James Ellis was called, and said he nAade the arrangement with the plaintiff for Mr. Simpson. There was no time specified between them, bccause the plaintiff said he could not bind himself to time, as he might perhaps sell the beasts in the following week. Mr. E. T. Smith said he was the defendant. On the 3d of July last he entered into possession of Cremorne-gardens. In the following month he sent for the plaintiff, and told him that, as the re ceipts were so small, he should not continue the ex hibition of thelbeasts, and told the plaintiff that he mast remove them in a week. _ _ Mr. Corbyn said he was the manager of the gar dens for Mr. Smith. He gave one of the plaintiff's men notice that he must take the beasts away, or else he must be content with the average receipts. Other witnesses were called to support the de fendant's case. The learned counsel having addressed the jury for their respective clients, The learned judge summed up, and The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff— damages, £l6 Bs. ld. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and Justices Williams, Willes, and Keating.) The matters which came before the court to-day were 'devoid of public interest. Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice Byles and a common jury.) BINDEN V. LANERGAN. -- TRESPASS. The plaintiff's case was that she had been the confidential friend of Mrs. Lanergan, a lady of rank, and upon the marriage of that lady in 1857 she took a house for the plaintiff in Oxford-terrace, Hyde-park, and gave her £2OO or £3OO worth of furniture to enable her to let lodgings. On the 31st October, 1859, Mr. Lanergan went to the house with his solicitor and two constables, said that every thing there was his, and ordered the plaintiff out, and on her objecting to go some men were called in and she was expelled by force. At this time she had in the house £7O or £BO worth of furniture, and 'wearing apparel worth £2O more, and this property she had lost. Mr.D.Keane and Mr. Philbrick appeared for the plaintiff, but there was no person in attendance for the defendant. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff — damages £9O, and it was arranged that the yerdict SPORTING INTELLIGENCP. WEIGHTS FOR THE CHESTER CUP. 169 subs, 2of whom did not name. Forfeits to be declared on or before the 28th of January. Weights declared on the 16th of January at 2 p.m. Age st lb Wizard .. .. 5 9 6 Wallace .. .. 5 9 3 Underhand.. .. a 8 10 Crater .. .. 5 8 5 efender .. 6 8 5 The Lawyer .. 4 8 5 Parmesan .. 5 8 4 Weatherbound .. 5 8 4 Butterfly .. 5 8 4 Wildman .. 5 8 4 Romulus .. .. 4 8 4 Oldminster .. 4 8 4 Brown Duchess .. 4 8 4 Caller Ou .. 4 8 4 Camerino .. 4 8 4 Compeigne .. 4 8 4 Umpire 5 8 2 Petra .. 6 8 0 Lady Ripon .. 4 8 0 Mistake, late Earl of Essex .. 4 8 0 Elcho .. 4 8 0 Ivanhoff 4 8 0 Fairwater .. 4 8 0 The Monk .. 5 7 131 Special License .. a 7 12 Fitzavon .. 4 7 12 Doncaster .. 5 7 12 Lupus • . .. 4 712 Stampedo .. 5 7 12 Black Prince .. 6 712 Schism .. .. 6 710 Dictator .. .. 4 7 10 Starlight .. .. 47 10 Man in the Moon.. 4 7 10 Antwerp .. .. 47 10 Croagh Patrick .. 4 7 10 Corona .. .. 5 710 Danae .. 6 7 10 Sawcutter .. 4 7 10 Chere Amie .. 5 7 10 Alan Rufus .. 3 7 10 Coronet .. .. 3 710 Knutsford.. .. 4 7 10 Walkington .. 4 10 0 Folkestone. .. 47 7 8 Portland, late Bro ther Jonathan (bred in Jamaica) .. 4 7 8 Highflyer .. 4 7 8 Eastern Princess .. 4 7 8 Bally Edmund .. 4 7 8 Wynnstay.. .. 47 8 Volunteer .. .. 4 7 8 Bevis .. .. 4 7 6 Age st lb Prince of Denmark a 6 12 Physician, by Chan ticleer . ! .. a 613 ..... - - - - Lady Blanche .. 4 612 Interest .. .. 5 6 12 Maid of Chester field .. 5 6 12 Reindeer .. .. 4 6 12 Gavazzi .. 4 6 12 Pagoda .. 4 6 10 M. Phillipe .. a 6 10 Willie Wright .. 6 610 I Filly by Stockwell --:-Babette .. 4 6 W Shipwreck.. .. 4 6 10 Preston (h. .. 6 6 10 Master Fenton .. 3 6 7 The Knave .. 3 6 7 Horace .. .. 5 6 6 Weasel .. .. 6 6 6 fierounerator .. a 6 6 Lanctieter .. 4 6 5 Astarte • • .. 4 6 5 Spite • • .. 36 5 Pilot • • .. 3 6 5 Johnny Armstrong 3 6 5 Neptunus .. 3 6 5 Bernice .. .. 4 6 4 Tim Whiffler .. 3 6 4 Costa .. 3 6 4 Jacintha _ .. 4 6 4 Physician,tby Game boy .. .. a 6 4 Ethel .. .. 3 6 4 Carisbrook .. 3 6 3 Allez-y-rondement 3 6 3 Brahmin .. _ .. 5 6 2 Queen of Spain. .. 3 6 2 Antares .. .. 3 6 2 Rough Diamond .. 3 6 1 Socrates .. 3 6 1 Real Jam .. 3 6 0 Lord Stanley .. 3 6 0 My Mary .. .. 3 6 0 Egyptian.. .. 3 5 12 Madge Wildfire .. 3 5 12 Tommy Jones 3 5 12 Beverley .. .. 3 5 12 Earl of Surrey .. 3 5 12 c by Windhound, out of.Splitvote.. 3 5 12 Breechloader .. 3 5 12 C by Flatcatcher, out of Rather High 3 5 12 Thunderstorm .. 3 5 12 Watchman .. 3 5 12 tWandsworth .. 3 5 12 Ellangowan .. 3 5 12 jAntonelli .. 3 5 10 Herculaneum .. 3 5 10 Caractacus .. 3 5 10 Shepherdess .. 4 7 6 Henham Lass .. 4 7 6 Wild W Rose.. .. 5 7 6 Jingling Johnny 4 7 61 Royallieu .. 4 7 6 Springwell .. 4 7 61 Frailty .. 4 7 6 Colossus .. .. 4 7 6 Bucephalus a 7 6 Paul Clifford .. 4 7 4 South Lancashire.. 6 7 4 Simla .. • • 5 7 4 Joey Jones .. 4 7 4 Zodiac .. 4 7 2 Yorkminster .. 4 7 0 Vancouver .. 4 7 0 Boabdil .. 4 7 0 Jealousy .. a 7 0 a 7 0 Bush b man 4 7 0 The Brew'. .. a 7 0 Precise .. .. 5 7 0 Ducat .. .. 4 7 0 Rubicon .. 4 7 0 Rhcebus .. 4 7 0 Neyerbeer .. 4 7 0 South Australian .. 4 7 0 West End .. 4 6 12 Ell en .. 5 6 12 Cashio .. .. 4 6 12 Shropshshire (h b) 4 6 12 Wombat .. .. 4 6 12 Sunflower .. 4 6 12 Zuleika .. 4 6 12 -------- - - Bolero .. .. 3 510 Badinage .. 3 5 10 C by Wyld Dayrell, out of Vest .. 3 5 10 Keane .. .. 3 5 10 Silkstone .. 3 5 10 Sato nella .. 3 5 10 _ . Hadji Stavros .. 3 510 Dalesman .. 3 5 10 Bryn Gwynn .. 3 5 10 Victrix .. .. 3 5 10 Bosh .. Villager .. . 3 5 10 . 3 5 10 Millington 3 5 9 Brighton .. 3 5 9 Plush .. .. 3 5 9 Victor .. .. 3 5 9 . _ _ Knight of the Bath 3 5 9 Sappho . • .. 35 9 Colares • • 3 5 9 Sister to Stafford 3 5 9 Agag .. 3 5 9 Jung Frau .. 3 5 9 Lady Dundasi .. 3 5 9 Hoodwink .. .. 3 5 9 Missfire .. 3 5 9 Cutler .. .. 3 5 9 Mr. Topham, with the most praiseworthy promptitude, has forwarded his handier .p to our Sporting Correspondent for publication. It appeared exclusively in the Third Edition of The Sun last evening. The weights seem to have been distributed with unusual care and discrimination, and from the hasty exa mination which we have been enabled to bestow upon them we confidently expect that Mr. Topham'a labours will be admired and appreciated by the entire sporting community. He has distributed the imposts amongst 167 horses, and has accomplished his difficult task in a most unexception able manner. A large acceptance will show the success of his work and the correctness of his judgment. LUKE SNOWDEN.—This well known Jockey, who rode the winner of the Chester Cup, Oaks, and other important events last year, died of fever on Wednesday last. COUN7BY .111A.11K.L.AA5. ~..___ BIRMINGHAM-JAN. 16, At to-day's market there was a rather limited supply of English wheat from the farmers, and the sales made were at a decline of about is on this day week. Foreign difficult to quit. For barley prices remain unchanged. Beans 16 lower. Peas firm. MANCHESTER-JAN. 16. At our market to-day there was a good attendance, and business in both home and foreign wheat was better, but English declined is Fer qr, and foreign 2d b 3d per I( 01b. Flour also 6d per sack lower. Oats offered at easier rates. Egyptian beans and Indian corn each Is cheaper, NEWARK. JAN. 15. We had a moderate supply and prices declined is to 2s pe] late prices. White wheat, new, 60s to 63s I Red do. 55s to 51s Old white 6os to 63s Red do.. 46s to 56s Barley, malting 32sto 39s Pea 5,...., of wheat at market to-dav, a. qr. Other articles realised IBarley, grinding 29s to 31s Oats, old, . oos to 35 s New do 23s to 27s ( Beans. 45s to 478 Beans, new.. 44s to-8 ,48s to 545. EDINBURGH GRAIN-JAN. 15. Wheat on the top 5s Od down average 2s 6d down. Barley on the top 6d down , average Os 6d down. Oats on the top is 9d down average Os 7d up. Beans on the top is 6d down. average Os 2d up. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat........ 1069 qrs Sold 749 qrs Barley.... 2005 qrs Sold 1694 qrs Oats 2744 qrs Sold 1803 qrs Beans 165 qrs Sold 94 qrs Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... New wheat .... -12ths Barley 1 10 8 9-12ths Oats . 1 5 1 3-12ths Beans -12tbs CORK-JAN. 15. The following were the quotations this morning :—lt€ d wheat, 22s Od to 29s 9J ; white, 23s Od to 29s Od; barley lb 6d to 19s Od ; oats, 8s 6d to 14s Od. DERBY SMITHFIELD-JAN. 7. There was a better supply of fat beasts to-day, and the quality was good. Prices were unaltered. The supply of sheep was short, but equal to the demand. The show of fat pigs was not large. Reel 6id to sid Veal ad to 83 Mutton . Bd to 844 Pork Lamb Od to Od Rough fat, 4s 8d per stone. Hides, 3d to 4id ; calf skins, 5d to 6d. FOliElaN (AIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton. Jan. 18. via Marseilles ... Feb. 13. Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. Feb. 3. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and Sr. Helena Feb. 1. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Suuthampton Jan. 18. via Marseilles Jan. 27. Falkland Islands • • Feb. 3.` Gibraltar, via Southampton .... Jan. 18. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Jan. 18. via Marseilles Jan. 27. India (Bombay), via Southampton Jan. 25. ---. via Marseilles Jan. lg. Lisbon Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Jan. 18. via Marseilles Jan. 19. Newfoundland ... - .. Oportoand Vigo U. S. and British N. America, Ly Brit. packet Jan. 16. . . _ 'b U.S. packet.... y by Canadian packet. Jan. 15 W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe Feb. 10. Bahamas, via New York Jan. 16. Mexico All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, } jam 28. California, a n d B r iti s h Columbia. BIRTHS. BENSON.—On the 15th inst., at Henley-on-Thames, the wife of the Rev. Henry Benson, of a son. HILL.—On the 15th inst., at Sherborne, Dorset, the wife of Captain W. H. Hill, R.N., of a son. SIMPSON.—On the 16th inst., at the Rectory, S. Matthew, Friday-street, the wife of the Rev. W. palrow Simper son, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. M‘KAY—SimEoN.—On the 14th inst., at Christ Church, Marylebone, the Rev. Chas. Elrington A.M., rector of Inver, Lame, Diocese of Connor, to Eliza, the daughter of the late Admiral Charles Simeon. PAILEY—BOULDERSON.— On the 16th inst., at Christ Church, Bayswater, Vincent, only son of Wm. Pailey, Esq., of Oaken, Staffordshire, to Charlotte, third daugh ter of Henry Smith Boulderson, Esq., of 17, Gloucester .. square, Hyde-park. DEATHS. CARTEL—On the 16th inst., in London, Laura Maria, the wife of Bonham Carter, Esq., M.P. GREGSON.—On the I2th inst., at Bonn, John Gregsoni Esq., late of Angel-court, Throgmorton-street, city, and of East Dulwich, Surrey, aged 78. HALL.—On the 14th inst., at Greenwich, Mrs. Louisa Hall, aged 79. HuLsE.—On the 14th inst., at Paddington, Miss Hulse, aged 75. Hosiiirts.—On the 14th inst., at Topsham, Mary Anne, relict of Captain Samuel Hoskins, R.N. KELSEY.- - On the 15th inst., Robert Kelsey, Esq , of The Moat, Lingfield, Surrey, suddenly, aged 75. LATHAM. — On the 14th inst., at Broughton-in-Furnese r t Richard Latham, Esq., late of Bahia, aged 70. LONDON : Printed and Published by 111U1tDO YOUNG, o' No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Mee, No. 112,Striul (if in the Precinct of the Savoy in the County of M.iddles e L Friday, January 17, 1862. 19 f ail e o f tel O stair : Wh ° l 04(104 ,^. alto; hone fOr e a tol beer Vvre( Fe tote ( am ot bh ore Zed 12 41 t l4lOl I,