The Sun. — London, England, 1862-11-27 00:00:00

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT. Many of our readers have doubtless noticed the arioas tripodial struvoires of rough timber that are now to be seen in '.ne river, at a little distance from its north shore, between Westminster and Black friars. The-se are not, as most people have sup posed, the, 9 , 1t4c/ei of fresh piers; they are the pre monitory symptoms of a much more important charg e . They indicate that work has been at last commenced on the Thames Embankment. The total length of the embanbnent proper is to be a little over 6,000 feet. 11.8 width will vary at dif ferent parts from 200 feet at Temple-gardens to 450 feet at Hungerfr.',rd-bridge. Along its whole length will be one no'ole roadway of 70 feet wide and two foot ways of 15 feet wide each. Only on the east side of fem p i .e-gardens will the dimensions of this fine avenue be reduced to a total width of 70 feet— ram ely, 50 feet for road and 10 feet for each of the I°'otways. The height of the road above high water l eVel will average about four feet, till the incline commences by which it is carried up on arches till it debouches into Bridge-street, Blackfriars, at C hatham-place, and there for the present ends. The height of the granite parapet protecting the road way will be four feet, and viewed from the river at low water it will appea r as a magnificent quay of solid masonry, some 26 feet high, and more than a mile and a half length. 'The face of the embankment will commence at the northe'l abutment of new Westminster-bridge, ini , a l ine with the w a t er f ront o f t h e Houses of Par "amf-at, and it w ill exten d i n a s li g htly c urved line to 'the no r th ern b r i c k p i er of H unger f or d-bridge. At Richmond -terrace it will be 220 feet in front of the present high water line, at Scotland-yard 400 feet, and at Hungerford-bridge 300 feet. From Hungerford-bridge it wilt continue to the first Middlesex pier 'of 'Waterloo-bridge, and oppositei Buckingham -'street it will extend no less than 450 feet into o,e, river ; opposite Salisbury-street, 300 feet ; an.'d opposite Somerset-house, Mil foot. Tho solid (..:mbankment is to terminate on the eastern side of Temple-gardens, where it will ex tend about 200 feet into the river. From tb.e junction at Westminster -bridge it will descend at an inclination of 1 in 80 to the mean level of the bank above high-water 'mark. From the east end of the Temple-gard.eLs the ascent to Chatham-place is to be 1 in 60, and from this point it will be taken on wrought Iron arches of exceedingly handsome design, cPArried on similarly ornamental cast-iron oolointis, su as to allow a waterway under the road to the London Gasworks and old Whitefriars docks. We cannot help thinking that it is at this point, above all others, that the bank ought to have been solid, so as to do away altogether with the latter nuisance at least. The item of " compensation," however, would have entered heavily into the cost of such a sche-me, and, even as it is, more money must be paid under this head than will be required for the PActual construction of the whole embank ment., According to the dimensions which we have given as to the width of the various parts of the work, it Will be seen that a total area of no less than 34 acres will be reclaimed from the bed of the river and added to the metropolis in the form of one wide thorough fare, where it is most sorely needed. In other words, the foreshore of noisom e slime, which is now almost as unsightly as it is unsavoury, will be done away with at once and for ever, and its place occupied by a noble granite causeway, planted with trees and laid out with gardens. Of the 34 acres reclaimed, no iess than 12 are to be laid out with trees and flowers. Near Hungerford will be quite a little park, larger in its area than the Temple-gardens. There will be another quite as large between Hun gerford and Waterloo, The Templars will get a strip of grass land 800 feet long by 120 wide, which they will add on to the length of their pleasant gardens. Ail the private houses facing the river between Westminster and Whitehall get additional garden land between them and the e mbankment—in some cases as much as 180 feet, and none less than 100. Of course, as this immense improvement to the properties is effected without the least expense or trouble to the owners, they are all clamorous for heavy com pensation at being forced to accept the gift. Even Montagu -house gets its 100 feet of additional land towards the river, and an acre of mnd beyond this again removed for nothing. The level of the road way in front of this mansion is to be only 21 feet above the Duke's garden, or in other words the bank will pass it just at the same level and at exactly the same distance as Parliament-street now passes it in front. Of course the multitude of de tails involved in carrying out a scheme so gigantic as this renders the preparation of all the working drawings a matter of no ordinary difficulty. Mr. Bazalgette is doing his utmost to hurry them well forward, and as soon as they are completed the con tracts will be let, and the works commenced forth with. In all cases the foundations for the outer wall are to be carried far below the bed of the river and deep into the London clay. The borings that have already been taken show that no reliable basis for a superstructure of such weight can be got at a less depth. The mud only covers soft gravelly sand which extends downwards almost to the clay. In some places a great depth of this black Thames mud must be dredged away before even the most preliminary steps can be taken. The mode of con structing the bank will be, in the first place, by sinking massive square cast-iron caissons side by aide along the line of the intended wall. These will each be about 12 feet :quare by some 15 or 20 feet high, according to the nature of the soil, and open at top and bottom. When placed on end these soon sink deeply by their own weight. AN the mud and gravel is then dredged out of their interior, and hydraulic or other pressure applied till they are forced down some feet into the London clay, and far below the bed of the river, the dredging out being continued as they descend. The empty space they each enclose will then be filled up with solid concrete to a little below the level of low-water mark, when each caisson will be firmly bolted to its neighbour. On these will be laid the courses of granite in massive blocks of great size. At the base this wall will be 10 feet thick, with a back ing of three feet of concrete, the masonry being laid slightly sloping backwards towards the shore, and tapering in thickness till at the level of the roadway, about 22 feet above low water, it is reduced to 3 feet. This great retaining wall will he built in sections of about 500 feet long, and as fast as it is completed so as to keep out the tide the low-level sewer will be constructed at a short dis tance behind it. The execution of the latter much needed work has been delayed only while the Le gislature were making up their minds about the embankment. The sewer itself will only be six f "" i n diameter. About this again, and only some two or three feet below the crown of the road, will be what is termed a " subway," a most important i l‘ rn t provement whi c h a ll t h e new roa d s b u i lt b y the etropolitan Board of Works now possess. This subway is a strong brick tunnel about five feet wide on its inner diameter, and in which are car ried all the g as and water the top ' mains, so that either can be repaired and replaetehdtaot once without pulling up the roadway fro m subway are finish e d the w 1 : o . le When th e s e w e r and . space b e t ween th e f a ce of the wall and the presentt level of the tid e w ill be filled in with earth, a n d ou laid on its surface with the road and gardens we have already de scribed. eans Though we have spoken o f the Th a mes as the river wall, th e t erm partvr acing the will b rejoi ce does justice to the details of the pi e , a re yet matured. The public, we thin; f " a m s they t o lenru that a reasonable concession will to their tastes in the matter of architectur al eb made difference of cost between a dead w all , lik eau eth t-y " o r ntl3' e * o ther wharf, and a w all of noble proportions, is a matter of some 3 1 ,- per cent. on th e w h ole ' outlay, and of course, therefore, the decision has born in favour of the latter. The wall, therefore, if may SO term it, will have a handt,ome parapet and bold granite mouldings, while the front will be relieved from a dull monotony of colour and have light and shade given to it by properly placed angles and abutments. There will be spacious open ings in it at all the places where the steamboats now call, with broad flights of steps descending to them. The stone pediments for the la , nps on the parapet will he massive and imposing, and the lamps themselves well-proportioned ornamental castings (of great size and height. The who'e work will cost nearly a million and a half, and the dif ference between making it an eyesore ~ r an orna ment will not be greater than £lO,OOO. Such are the main features of this , reatest of all the projected improvements of the metropolis. As far as the present act enables them to go the Board of Works stop short at Chatham-place. They are, however, preparing to apply to Parliament for powers enabling them to continue the broad road from the Embankment across Chatham-place, and by Earl-street and the back of Thames-street, cros sing Cannon-street in a diagonal line, and emerging by the side of the Mansion-house. Without such a continuation the Embankment would be but a mag nificent fragment of a great design. 7HE IVAVI. The Meeanee, 81, screw steam line-of-battle ship, 400 horse power, Capt. G. Woodhouse, has been taken into the basin in Sheerness yard, previous to being docked, to undergo a thorough external exa mination and have her bottom cleaned. The greater number of her officers have taken up their commis sions. The detachmen of Royal Marines and Marine Artillery, numbering 112 men of all ranks, under the command of Capt. A. C. J. M'Meekan, and two lieutenants, arrived on Monday from Chatham in the Lizard, paddlewheel steamvessel, Lieut. and Cora. W. Spratt, and took up their quarters in the Naval Barracks, in the dockyard at Sheerness until the vessel leaves the dock. The Bullfrog gunboat, 60-horse power, was taken out of dock on Monday, after having undergone ex tensive repairs in both hull and machinery. She is fitted for and will be placed in the first class of steam reserve gunboats at Sheerness. The paddlewheel sceam sloop Geyser, 5, Com mander Colin Campbell, from Sheerness, arrived in Plymouth Sound on Tuesday, and sailed on Wed nesday, with eur.rn,,mov.vio. for Quoonotown. The paddlewheel steam sloop Spitfire, 5, from Woolwich, arrived in Plymouth Sound on Tuesday, and sailed on Wednesday for Bermuda. His Prussian Majesty's frigate Gefion, 26, Capt. Khatt, which left Dantzic Nov. 15, arrived in Ply mouth Sound on Tuesday afternoon, en route for Lisbon and the West Indies. A notification has been received at Chatham from the Admiralty announcing it to be the intention of their Lordships to supply to the Wellesley, 72, training ship at Chatham, as well as to the training ships at the other naval ports, the necessary magic lanterns, and a large supply of suitable slides, to be used for the amusement and instruction of the boys and newly-raised men during the long winter months. The slides and diagrams will be changed from time to time, and circulated among the various training ships, according to a plan arranged by Commander Tremlett of the Impregnable, 78. A court-martial was held yesterday on board the Formidable, flagship of Vice-Admiral Sir W. J. Hope-Johnstone, Commander-in-Chief at Sheerness, for the trial of William H. Houghton, chief engi neer of her Majesty's ship Cumberland, guardship of steam reserve at Sheerness, and doing duty in the Horatio. The court consisted of Capt.W. G. Luard (presiding), Commanders Crewe-Reade and Henry Harvey, and Lieut. W. A. R. Lee. Mr. G. H. Knight, Deputy Judge Advocate, conducted the case. The charge against the prisoner was that on the 12th Nov. last he was found drunk in his cabin on board the Horatio. The evidence of Lieut. Rogers, who had on that day charge of the division of the steam reserve to which the Horatio belonged, and who found the prisoner drunk when visiting the ship in the course of his duty, was given, and corroborated by Mr. J. Lewin, the gunner of the Horatio. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, but urged in extenuation that he had for some time been suffering from rheumatism, and had been ad vised to take gin as a remedy for that complaint, and that on the 12th Nov. the spirits he had taken had overcame him. The prisoner put in several certificates of sobriety and obedience to orders. The court, having duly weighed the facts of the case, considered the charge fully proved. In considera tion, however, of his baying been in the service 19 years, the sentence of the court was that he be dis missed from her Majesty's ship Cumberland, and severely reprimanded. The authorities of Woolwich dockyard are desir ous of correcting an error which appeared in The i Sun on the 15th inst., to the effect that " the me chanics who had been employed in bending the armour-plates for the Royal Oak were to be (Hs ! patched to Woolwich to bend the slabs for coating the Caledonia, and that the officers from Chatham were to superintend the process." It may be stated that the shipbuilders at Woolwich have had special advantages beyond those of other yards to make themselves acquainted with the process in all its details, from their proximity to the Thames iron factories,which they have been in the habit of visit ing. Many of them have likewise superintended and assisted in the construction of iron ships, and have studied the preparation of plates in the principal manufactories throughout England and Scotland. The plate-bending and fixing at Woolwich, it may be added, is progressing in the most satisfactory manner. About 30 of the slabs have been already fitted to the Caledonia's sides, under the supervision of the officers of the yard and by the mechanics be longing to that establishment only. Mr. Gisborne, late commissioner for Newfound land in the International Exhibition, having ob tained a patent for the invention of a system of ship's steering signals, has received instructions from the Board of Admiralty to fit the apparatus in her Majesty's ship Rhadamanthus, at Woolwich. The apparatus consists of a couple of boxes, placed respectively on the bridge and in front of the helms man, which are connected by means of a strong electric cable. On the face of each box are four metal flaps, under which are painted the words g , port, starboard," &c. These are worked by the simple touch of a knob or handle attached to the box, and the orders are replied to in a simi lar manner, without the slightest risk or danger of the order being misunderstood as at present, by means of the voice. Master Commander Sturdee and the officers of the Rhadamanthus, as well as several naval men of experience who have visited the ship since her return to Woolwich, and have seen the instrument, all speak of the invention with approbation. Commander J. A. R. Dunlop has been appointed by the Admiralty to command the Rinaldo, 17, screw sloop, on the North American station, vice Hewett, promoted. On the occasion of paying off her Majesty's ship Hero a very handsome and gratifying testimonial, consisting of a pocket Communion Service, was pre sented by the captain and officers to the Rev. P. C. Pratt, the chaplain of the ship. 711 E ARMY. By direction of the Duke of Cambridge a casualty book is in future to be kept by each depot battalion to be called the "Depot Battalion Casualty Book," in addition to the casualty book alr6ady in use at each depot belonging to a battalion, in which all changes affecting a soldier are to be entered, and the book produced at inspections. Lieut. Phipps, of the Royal Artillery, instructor in gunnery to the Ist division of the depot brigade, Royal Artillery, has commenced the delivery of a series of practical lectures to the non-commissioned officers and gunners of the brigade on the science of gunnery. In order to assist Lieut. Phipps in the delivery of his lectures, the Secretary of State for War has ord ere d th e supp l y o f severa l sc i en tific in struments and treatises on gunnery and mechanics. encouragement Ev ery is given by Lieut-Col. Talbot, commanding the brig a d e , as we ll as b y th e officers n Command of batteries, to induce the gunners to attend the lectures. rA.Dv _ is disease, howeveruseerevtsi—heii One ilEoßpol y:tl4l,,liTl-11olloway's Ointment and Pills.— spair a beinTgheoured till sufferings, thesericip et remediesl r et continued n o have inavveal ihd t a h ad e e i their Ointment and 141. 1 1 s fair trial. operate e or other invariably succeeds. Both qualities advan tageously every function, themselves in various disease s ears which diff t e titulars. The Ointment by purifying and regUlating pr te v ed e speed ily removes all outward a r g i e u o usl severaldisplay por so e digestion autl, promote blemishes. The Pills ira the formation of healthy bile, eases o e f s o stn. st tytl a to digestion, bigeopurrescrliabed so well clitielacetesdartpess' duce the desired effect. They relax the bile d is - ro- Liberate the natural aperient of the syet ere , no purgative Cheerfulness a n e a d n v - tic e, and THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 27, 1862. LAW INTELLIGENCE, Nov. 26. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. LEIGH V. THORP.-SEDUCTION. The declaration in this case charged the defen dant with debauching and seducing the plaintiff's daughter. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Philbrick were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Morgan Lloyd for the defendant. From the opening statement by Mr. Atkinson, it appeared that Edward Leigh, the plaintiff, was a journeyman painter, living at Old Ford, where his wife kept a small shop for the sale of caps, and that Samuel Thorp was a brevet major in the Indian army. Major Thorp brought his child over to England, and placed her with his grandmother, the widow of the late Alderman Thorp, of London, who lived at Walthamstow. The plaintiff's daughter enterea Mrs. Thorp's service as nurse to the child, and after remaining there some time, left and went to her father's. In July last, being very much attached to the child, she went to see her at her former mistress's, and while walking in the gar den the major came up and asked her it' she was in want of a situation. She replied that she was, and he said if she would come to his lodgings, at 2, Re gent-square, Gray's-inn-lane, he would give her the address of his aunt, who wanted a servant. On 15th July she went there and saw defendant, who said he had unfortunately lost the address, but that she had better call on the following Monday. She called again on that day, and the seduction was alleged to have taken place on this occasion in the apartments of the major, and also at several subsequent times when she visited him at the same place. In the early part of May she became ill and went home, where she was delivered of a child. She was shortly after wards seized with puerperal mania, and for several months remained in a state of insanity. The child in the meantime died. The learned counsel said that under these circumstances the father brought this action to recover damages for the dishonour of bis daughter and for the loss of her services. Emma Leigh, a modest-looking girl, was then called. She said—l am the daughter of Edward Leigh, who lives at Roman-road, Old Ford. Before June, 1861, I had been in service at Woodford. Previously I had been i n flu. Qorrioc of Mra. Thorp at w aithamstow, where Major Thorp had his daughter. I was engaged to take care of the child. After I left I assisted in keeping my father's house. In July, 1861, I went to see the child at Waltham stow. I saw the major in the garden. He asked me if I was in want of a situation. I said" Yes." He said, " I will try and get you a situation at my aunt's in the country." He gave me his address at 2, Regent-square, and said if I would call upon him there he would give me his aunt's address. He gave me his address on a slip of paper. I promised to go on the following Wednesday, and I did so. I saw the major •, he said he had received the address of his aunt, and asked me to call next day. I said I should not be able to come then, and it was fixed that I shot' ld come on the following Monday. I went on Monday, between two and three in the afternoon. The major opened the door, and he asked me to walk upstairs. I did so, and went into the front drawing room. Folding doors opened into the bedroom. Afterwards he locked the door opening to the stairs. I asked him for the ad dress. H-3 said I was in a great burry, and that I was to sit down, and take my bonnet and shawl off. I said, why ? And he replied, " You look very hot." I did not take them off, and he said, " If you do not, I'll take them off for you." I advanced to the door, and found it locked. He took off the bon net and shawl, and put them in the bedroom. He asked me to have something to drink, and I said no. He said " You mast be faint." He gave me some gin and water, but nothing to eat. After I drank it he wanted me to go into the bedroom, and I refused. He pulled the blinds of the drawing room down, and dragged me almost into the bed room. I almost broke the swing looking-glass in resisting him. He took me in his arms and put me on the bed. He took off his coat and had inter course with me. He asked me if I should like to go back to his mother's to live. I said I should not mind it. After I began to dress ha repeated the act. I never obtained the address of the aunt. When this happened I was 18. He asked me to call again on the following Wednesday, but I did not until Monday fortnight. I went altogether four times to Regent square between July and September, and the inter course was renewed on each occasion. In Septem ber I went to a situation, but was obliged to leave it in consequence of illness. I then returned to my father. I was confined on the 3d of May. The child died in August following. Major Thorp is the father of the child. I never in my life had in tercourse with any other man than Major Thorp. _ _ Cross-examined—ldon't remember the date when I first called. It was about the middle of July. I was nurse of the major's child, who was about three years old. Mrs. Thorp, the grandmother , engaged me. I left her service in February, 1859. I gave her notice ; she did not dismiss me. I was a fort night out of a situation. I had left Mrs. Thorp two years before. I went to see the little girl in July. I had not been with her more than nine months. I often saw the major. He had his meals and slept at his mother's. I was not dis missed in consequence of my too great familiarity with Robert Hubble, the defendant's groom. I left because my mother did not like me to be where there were so many men about. I did not know Regent-square before this event. I knew Sidmouth street, Gray's-inn-lane, before I went to Major Thorp's. I did not meet Hubble there at a public house or coffee-house in June, 1861. I recollect meeting him in Sidmouth-street in July, after I had called the second time in Regent-square. I met him between three and four in the afternoon after I first had intercourse with Major Thorp. Wright, the gardener, was with him. I don't think we had ,ny ale or spirits together. I think I had some ham and tea. Wright slept at the coffee-house all night. Hubble walked home with me to Walthamstow. I did not get home until 10 o'clock at night. When the first intercourse with the defendant took place I might have been there half an hour. I went to see him on the following Monday, and then a fortnight afterwards. I did not tell my mother what happened ; no one knew any thing about it until after my confinement. I was not treated for the dropsy by any surgeon. I took no notice to anyone that I was pregnant. I never saw the defendant after the 3d Sept. until now. After my confinement I told my mother how the matter happened. I did not tell her that Robert Hubble drove me up to No. 2, Regent-square, to Bee the major about a situation, nor that the major took something out of a bottle on the chimney-piece and gave it me in a wine glass, that I immediately after wards became senseless. He gave me some warm gin and water in a tumbler. There was sugar in it, but no lemon. (A laugh.) I did not say that Thorp and the groom drove me up to Regent-square under pretence of getting me a situation, nor that Thorp dragged me into some hovel and violated my person. I remember in July the major prosecuting a servant at Clerkenwell Police-court. That was the day I met Hubble. I did not call upon the major of my own accord when I first went. He asked me if it would not be better for me to learn sewing by ma chinery instead of getting another situation. I said I had no money to pay for learning. He gave me half a sovereign, and said he would lend me two sovereigns, if it was necessary, to learn the work. I said if I coulu learn it I should repay the money. On the first occasion I called at Regent-square the landlady opened the door; afterwards defendant always opened it. Re-examined—Beyond mere conversation with Hubble, who was a fellow -servant, nothing improper took place between us. I never had any sexual in tercourse with him. The major kept horses but no carriages at Walthamstow. Edward Leigh, the father, said his daughter was bred up carefully, and was a well-conducted girl. She assisted her sisters in cap-making. When she came home he saw she was ill, but never suspected she was in the family way. He did not know it until she was actually in labour. She kept her senses three or four days, and during that time she called him into the room and said she hoped he would forgive her. She also stated that Major Thorp was the father of the child. She lost her senses for four months, and was at times nearly groomtr h a vin e cd r doctor' Cross-examined—She sod. ma. ler, doxs drove bet ni He hn eaee amounted to osn t ht o ee Rdne keep gteovenex t r ie l s r 3tqo a uol l Regent-square, r xe ,m 1 thatt that a. time and nd at th th a e t there Major Thorp dragged her into a place and violated her person. I believe my brother-in law wrote a letter to the major, but without my authority ; and I do not know what it contained. I was away from home at work at the time. I did not authorise my brother-in-law to say that the villain had dragged her into a hovel and effected her ruin. Ann Leigh, the mother, said her daughter was very well behaved, and that she never in her life saw any harm in her. She asked her several times if she was pregnant, but she never received any answer. _ _ _ Cross-examined—My daughter never said that Robert Hubble drove her to Regent-square. She did say that the major gave her a cake and some think to drink, and that she came over stupid. I might have mentioned to Mrs. Hubble that her son took her to Major Thorp's. That was my impres sion at the time; but my daughter was out of her mind and did not know what she was saying. By the Judge—She talked a good deal while she was insane, and I repeated to Mrs. _Rabble what I gathered from her. Mr. Muggleston, a surgeon, who attended the daughter in her confinement, said she was attacked by puerperal mania. She was mad from the 4th • Wiay until the 18th August, when be discontinued bie attendance and she remained so afterwards. During her illness she said very little, ft was more not to be depend e d upon . melancholy, b u t anything she said during that time was certai2!y Dr. T. Ansell, who had been called in consulta tion on the 13th May, said she was suffering from a melancholy form of insanity, and that he also thought no statement she made while in that condi tion could be relied on. Mr. Sergeant Parry then addressed the jury on the part of the defendant. He admitted that as the young woman had undoubtedly been betrayed and ruined by a sane man she commanded every one's sympathy, but he earnestly appealed to the jury not to allow their feelings t o influence their judgment, but to give a fair and impartial conside ration to the case for the defence. He then showed the fearful nature of the issue to the defendant, as almost the only answer to the charge must come from himself, and a verdict averse to him would be tantamount to his utter ruin in his profession and the society in which he mixed. A woman could easily make an accusation of this kind against a man, even though there was no foundation for it, and he stood in the perilous position of being alone in giving it a contradiction. Though the man knew the falsehood of the charge, he required great moral courage to resist it; and in the present case, if Major Thorp were guilty of having seduced this young woman, was it probable, when he could easily hal e compromised the action for a sum of money he could have readily paid, that he would come into court and brave a public exposure of the whole cir cumstance ? Knowing, however, that the young woman's story was a fabrication from beginning to end, as a gentleman and a man of honour he was determined not to enter into any settlement of that kind, but to have the matter fully investigated. The learned counsel then said that the defendant was between 35 and 40 years of age, and had served with the army during the mutiny in India. He was a widower, and having obtained leave of absence he came back to this country, and had resided a part of the time with his mother at Walthamstow. He would have returned to India before this, but he asked for additional leave of absence in order to be present at the trial of the action. Mr. Sergeant Parry then commented on some of the discrepancies in the young woman's narrative, and said it was impossible to believe that two or three hours after she, a chaste girl, had been seduced for the first time in her life, she went, as she herself repre sented, dangling about the streets with the groom Hubble until a late hour at night. He stated that he should call Hubble, and also the defendant him self, and h believed their evidence would satisfy the jury that there was no ground whatever for the action. Mr. Baron Martin said as it was an important case, and they had arrived at!an advanced hour, he though;:, it better to adjourn the trial. The else was then adjourned until to-morrow (this day). COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before the J - udge Ordinary. PHELAN V. PHELAN AND WALTERS. Mr. Prideaux and Mr. Pritchard for the peti tioner. The parties were married at Clifton, in Novem ber, 1855. After a few days' cohabitation the hus band, who was a sailor, went to sea, and in his ab sence the respondent lived with the co-respondent, a one-legged street sweeper in Bristol, to whom she said she was married. Decree nisi, with costs. LAMB V. LAM 3 AND SHEIL. Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner, who was a master mariner. He married Ann Lundy at Ar broath, in 1846, and had five children by her, of whom two were living. After cohabiting in Scot land till 1859, they removed to Liverpool, that being Capt Lamb's usual sort of departure. Here he took a house for his family, whom he allowed £8 per month while he was absent on his voyages. Mrs. Lamb also let apartments. Amongst her lodgers was a young man named Samuel Sheil,who slept in the room next to the respondent's. A ser vant girl, Fanny Eddie, said that she had scan Sheil kissing her mistress, and deposed to other familia rities which she had witnessed between them. Mrs. Lamb was once ill, and had to keep her bed for about three days. During that time the co-respon dent waited on her himself. Another servant stated that the respondent had ordered her to regard Sheil as the master of the house, alleging that her hus band had put him there as her guardian and pro tector. The witness remarked that tnat was very strange, considering that Captain Lamb was always quarrelling with her about him. The respondent replied that if witness did not like it she might leave. Had frequently seen the respondents go into each other's bedrooms, sometimes only half-dressed, and always without knocking at the door. Mr. Hughes, a neighbour of the petitioner,said that one night the respondent came and said that her hus band had turned her out of the house. She stated that he had been drinking, and was very violent. At his wife's intercession witness allowed her to stay at his house. After a while Samuel Sheil came to see her. He called her mother, and used to go into her bedroom, as he said to read the Bible to her. Witness afterwards found out that the lad Was out het ow), and au waking further inquiries he was satisfied that there must have been an im proper intimacy between them. Communicated to him what witness had heard. The young man at first was speechless, but at last said, " Mr. Hughes, I can deny nothing." He subsequently called on witness, and after telling him that he was going to be married, he asked witness his advice. Told him that he ought to make Capt, Lamb every reparation in his power. Capt. Lamb had been to witness se veral times, and had begged him to reconcile his wife to him, but witness could not do so. After some confirmatory evidence, The Court reserved its decision. WALLACE V. WALLACE, MUTER, AND MACNAMARA. The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Pritchard for the petitioner ; Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent Mac namara. The petitioner was the son of a retired banker in Scotland. He married his cousin, Miss M. Catherine Theresa Macdonald, on the 7th of Aug., 1849. The lady was a Roman Catholic, and the ceremony was performed in a church of that persuasion in St. Marylebone. After the marriage the parties lived at various places in England and Ireland, princi pally on an allowance which was made them by the petitioner's father. They had three children, of whom one survived. The first adultery was charged to have been committed in Boulogne with a lieute nant in the 15th Regiment of the French army. In the spring of 1855 the respondent addressed a let ter to her husband, of which the following are the more material portions : " 11, Bedford-street, Bedford-square, London, April, 1855. "My dear Friend, —I have received your kind letter, and for which I thank you. My dear William, I have been to find the good priest who married us. I held with his good opinion, and meanwhile God has given me strength to tell him what I had in my heart. I had the happiness of re ceiving the sacrament on Easter Sunday, and as God has pardoned, as the priest has pronounced the words of absolu tion over me, do thou also pard,n me, my friend. Alas, how many fall before God every day. I am not infallible, and my temptations have been very great. * * *—Your repentant and devoted wife, MAZY WALLACE." Atter this letter the petitioner ceased to cohabit with her ; and evidence (taken by a commissioner in Paris) was now read, showing that she was ex pelled from several lodgings o❑ account of her im prudent behaviour towards French officers. The respondent, subsequently to the separation, went to Paris, and was charged with naving committed adultery with a fellow-lodger named 111acnamara at an hotel in Rue Grillon. Sir C. Cresswell said ho had never known a case in which the evidence was more slender, but he would adjourn the further hearing :to permit addi tional witnesses to be called. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, Nov. 26. OLD COURT. George Robert Kilsby, 40, clerk, was indicted for feloniously shooting at Henry Cooke with in tent to murder him—and in other counts the in tent was laid to do the prosecutor grievous bodily harm, and to maim and disable him. Mr. Ribton prosecuted ; the prisoner was de fended by Mr. Langford. The learned counsel for the prosecution briefly opened the facts of the case, and said he believed that the act of which the prisoner was alleged to have been guilty was committed under the impres sion—for which, as he was instructed, there was not the slightest foundation—that an improper in timacy existed between his wife and the prosecutor. The only question, therefore, they would have to de cide was, with what intent the injury was inflicted. Henry Cooke, the prosecutor, said—l reside at No. 1, Thorsley-place, Battersea-fields, and am a grocer. I have known the prisoner for two years, and he had lived in my house until the Saturday before he shot me. I had previously heard some thing about what the prisoner had stated, and I asked him how ho came to say that he had heard me kiss his wife. He said he was under the impres sion that he had done so. I told him there was no ground for it, and he must leave my house. An altercation took place between us, and the pri soner ordered his wife, who was present, to go to bed. She refused to do so, and the prisoner assaulted her and seized her round th e nec k, an d she ap pealed to me for protection, and I interfered, and pushed the prisoner away, and told them both to go to bed, and added that they should leave my house OD the following day. The prisoner and his wife did leave on that day, and r saw no more of the prisoner until the Monday following, the Bth of Sept., about 10 o'clock at night. 1 was engaged in putting up the shutters of my shop at the time, when I saw the prisoner coming across the fields towards me, accompanied by his brother and his brother's wife. The prisoner came up to me, and said to me, "Well, Sir, what have you done with my wife P" I told hint that I had a wife of my own, and that I did not want to liaYe anything to do with his wife. Directly I said this, the prisoner exclaimed, "There," and at the same moment I heard the re port of a pistol, and felt that I was woundad in the side, and I became very faint, and was assisted in to the shop, and the prisoner went away. He was not more than two yards from me when he fired. Cross-examined—The altercation that I have re ferred to took place on Friday night, and the pri soner and his wife left my house on the following day. We had always been on very good terms down to that time, and no quarrel had ever taken place be tween us. The pistol belonged to the prisoner, and I had sten it in his possession before he left. John Soe, a labouring man, living in the neigh bourhood, proved that lie was sitting outside a public-house near the prosecutor's residence on the night the affair happened, and he saw the prisoner walking backwards and forwards in front of the house before the prosecutor came out. He after wards saw him engaged in putting up the shutters of his shop and the prisoner went up to him and pointed the pistol de: iberately at his side, and fired, and when he had done so he went into the Prince of Wales public-house. Mr. W. Austin, the landlord of the Prince of Wales, deposed that the prisoner came into his house about 10 o'clock, and be showed him a pistol, and said, " This is what we poison or kill rats with —I have done for him." Witness had heard the report of a pistol just before the prisoner made th 4 s statement. The police-constable who took the prisoner into custody deposed that from information he received he went to the Prince of Wales public-house and inquired if the man was there who had just shot another man, and the prisoner came forward and said he was the person, and he took him into cus tody. As they were going to the police-station the prisoner made some observation relating to its being a fine night and the harvest moon, and that the la bourers would be able to work all night, and he added that he would not be able to work all night. Mr. W. H. Kempster, a surgeon, proved that he was called i❑ to examine the prosecutor shortly after the occurrence and he found him lying on the bed in a state of great exhaustion, and dis covered that he had received a pistol-shot wound in the side. The injury was of a serious character,and there were still some shots in the body, and he had no doubt that a portion of one of the lungs was de stroyed, and it was impossible to say, although the prosecutor appeared at present to have partially re covered, what would be the ultimate result of the injury he had received. Mr. Langford addressed the jury for the pri soner at some length, and having called their at tention to the fact that the prisoner and the prose cutor had always been on good terms down to the time when this transaction took place,he urged that the prisoner had no doubt been excited to commit the act by a feeling of jealousy; but he contended that the evidence was not sufficient to support the allegation that he intended to commit the crime of • wilful murder,and that the justice of the case would • he satisfied by a conviction for unlawfully wound ing. Several respectable witnesses were called to @peak to the prisoner's character, and it appeared that he had for some years been employed as a clerk at the Westminster Bridewell, and they all described him as being a kind-hearted, humane man. Mr. Justice Byles having summed up, the jury returned their verdict, finding the prisoner guilty upon the second count, of wounding the prosecutor with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Sentence was deferred. In the course of the day the grand jury returned a tine bill against Edward Capel Whitehurst, for misdemeanour. A writ of certiorari has, however, already been obtained for the removal of the cause to the Court of Queen's Bench, so that no further proceedings in the matter will be taken in this court. _ _ James Howard Percy, 23, a gentlemanly-looking young man, described in the calendar as a labourer, was indicted for feloniously and maliciously set ing fire to a stack of hay, the property of William Baker. Mr. Daly prosecuted. This was a rather peculiar case. The prosecutor is a farmer, at Hornsey, and on the night of the . 25th of October a stack of hay belonging to him, and which contained about fifty loads of hay, worth £2OO, was set on fire, no doubt by an incendiary, and the whole was consumed. On the same morn ing, and while the fire was still raging, the prisoner presented himself at the Highgate police-station, and said that he wished to give himself up for hav ing wilfully caused the fire that was then burning. The police-sergeant told him that it was a very serious offence, and he had better be careful, but he persisted in the charge against himself ; and on his being asked how he had set the stack on fize, he said that he, in the first place, set fire to his handkerchief, and then with the handkerchief set fire to the stack ; and he described the part of the stack that he had set fire to. The prisoner, it ap peared, at first gave the name under which he was now indicted, but he subsequently stated to the constable that it was not his real name, but he re fused to state who he was, or where he came from ; and ❑otwithstanding all the inquiries that bad been made no information whatever could be obtained respecting him. The prisoner, when now called upon for his de fence, declared that all he had before stated was false, and that he had nothing to do with causing the fire. The fact was, he had been drinking, and had spent all his money, and when he saw the fire he thought if he gave himself up on the charge of having caused it, he should obtain food and shelter, and this was his only object when he gave himself up to the police. In answer to questions that were put to the police sergeant by the learned Judge, he stated that when the prisoner was searched, only one halfpenny was found upon him, but he was wearing gold studs and a gold pin. It was also stated that the fire did not appear to have broken out at that part of the stack stated by the prisoner. Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up, said this was not the first time in his experience that a prisoner had confessed himself guilty of a crime of this de scription, of which he was innocent, for the sake of obtaining food and shelter ; but it was the province of the jury to decide whether, upon the facts before them, they ought to return a verdict of guilty against the prisoner or ❑ot. The Jury, after some deliberation, retarned a ver dict of Not Guilty. NEW COURT. (Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.) John Redwood, 22, brace maker, was next placed at the bar, charged with having, in company with divers others, feloniously assaulted one John Roper, with int*nt to rob him. Mr. Clark and Mr. Cook appeared for the prose cution, instructed by Mr. Pollard, from the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury. The circumstances of this case lie in a very short narrative. It appeared that the prosecutor, Mr. John Roper, who was a commission agent, residing in Argyle-place, was proceeding homewards along Holborn, when an active police-constable, named Davis, observed that he was followed by a number of men, whose operations the officer noticed. He observed that the prisoner came out from the body I of his companions, and seized the prosecutor by the throat with great violence and threw him on the ground. The rest of the gang threw themselves upon the prosecutor, bat were interrupted in their spoliation by the arrival of the witness, who sin gling out the prisoner, pursued and took him into custody, when he was fully identified by the prose cutor as having been his principal assailant. The jury, in this case, after some deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Baron Bramwell intimated to them that he rejoiced to find that they did not jump at conclu sions, but carefully weighed and considered the evi dence adduced before they pronounced a verdict. He should now, in this case, wish to be informed of the antecedents of the prisoner. It was then proved by a police-constable that he had known the prisoner as a thief from the year 1855 to 1858. In the year 1857 the prisoner had been summarily convicted at Bow-street for at tempting to rob a gentleman in the Strand. He had since been convicted of a burglary, but in 1858 he had enlisted as a soldier and had gone out to India, whence he returned in June last. A City police constable proved that in October, 1858, the prisoner had been convicted at Guildhall for an assault on a gentleman with intent to steal, and had been then sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Since his return from India it was proved that the pri soner had been the constant associate of the worst I I of thieves. By direction of the learned Judge the prosecutor (Mr. Roper) was recalled, and in answer to inter rogatories from the Bench, stated that when he was seized by the throat by the prisoner, of whose iden tity he was certain, h e f e l t hi mself nearly strang l e d , so tightly was his throat squeezed. He was unable to speak or to call out, and the violence he suffered had occasioned a. spitting of blood, to which he had never before been subject, but which had continued to the present time. The prisoner, when called up for judgment, pro tested his inn ocence of the present charge. H e ad mitted that he bad been previously convicted, but that after he had served his time he had enlisted, and had served his Queen and country in India, and ha . d been di sc h arged from the service in c onsequence of consumptive appearances. Me submitted .m that . his state of heath was such as to incapacitate from the violence now laid to his charge, and pro tested that he was innocent. James Mowatt 31, smith, John Allen, 30. tailor, and Lawrence Sherriff, 27, traveller, all well dressed men, were indicted for feloniously assault ing William John Northcott, with intent to rob hind Mr. Clark and Mr. Cooke appeared for the pro secution, and the prisoner Mowatt was defended by Mr. Holdsworth, ataLl Mr. Edwin Besley defended the prisoner Allen. This case formed another of the garotting charac ter, aid it appeared from the evidence that the pro secutor, while returning home from a friend's house in Pimlico, on the morning of the 13th November inst., was proceeding along Long-acre to his abode ill Chapel-street, Lamb's Conduit-street, when he observed three persons approaching him. He stepped aside to give them room to pass, when he was violently struck or , the back of the head, be tween the neck and shoulders, and felled to the ground. The prosecutor identified as his principal assailants the prisoners Mowatt and Allen, but he could not speak to the identity of the prisoner Sher riff as the third party in the attack. In a future stage the evidence failed to fix complicity upon Sherriff, and by the direction of Mr. Baron Bram well, a verdict of acquittal was taken with regard to him. The evidence to fix the offence imputed to the other two prisoners rested upon the evidence of the prosecutor and the police, the former distinctly swearing that the two men were his assailants on the night in question, and that he was enabled to swear to their identity by the gaslight under which the onslaught took place. The prosecutor unhesi tatingly proved that Mowatt knocked him down, and that when down Allen knelt upon him, while the third man, who escaped, attempted, without success, to rifle his pockets. The evidence of police-constable M‘Gowan, 40 F, and of Sergeant Matthews, went to establish the fact that both the prisoners had been seen together very shortly before the robbery, or attempted rob bery, was committed. Police-constable Ackrill, of the F division, proved that in consequence of information he received of this robbery, he apprehended the prisoner Mowatt on the following day between 10 and 11 o'clock. On telling him the charge, the prisoner said he would go quietly if he (witness) would not screw him up along the streets. The prisoner was then conveyed to the police-station. Following the information he had received, he (witness) subsequently took the prisoner Allen into custody at a public-house known as the Spies. On telling him the charge, Allen said, " All's right." The witness added that he had seen all the three prisoners together in Great Coram street, Russell-square, shortly before the robbery. William Gordon, another police-constable, proved that he saw the two prisoners and a third man to gether very shortly before the attack had been made upon the prosecutor. They were then in St. Martin's-lane in company with a prostitute named Mitchell. Mr.,Holds worth addressed the jury on behalf of his client, the prisoner Mowatt, and urged upon their consideration the fact that the darkness of the night prevented the speaking with certainty as to identity of the prisoner. Mr. Besley followed on the part of the prisoner Allen, and suggested to the jury that it was not be cause a man was seen in a particular locality at an unseemly hour that he was thereby to be impli cated in a criminal offence of so serious a character as that upon which he now stood arraigned. The identity was not made out, and, therefore, the pri soner was entitled to an acquittal. Mr. Baron Bramwell summed up the evidence with great minuteness, and The Jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of guilty against both the prisoners. The learned Judge, as in the previous cases, wished to be informed what was previously known of the prisoners. The officer Ackrill was then called, and proved that when he apprehended the prisoner Mowatt he found secreted between the bed and mattress a jemmy, a life-preserver, and a bunch of well-finished skeleton keys. It was further proved that Mowatt had not only been convicted of burglary and had suffered six years' penal servitude, but that singe he had returned from that conviction he had been sum marily disposed of for attempts at robbery in the streets and for burglary in dwelling-houses. With respect to the prisoner Allen four convic tions for felony were proved against him so recently as September, 1860, and since then he had served several terms under summary convictions. Mr. Baron Bramwell ordered the prisoners to be removed. As in the former cases, he would take time to consider the sentence. Charles James, 18, labourer ,was indicted for rob bing with violence David Marshall, and stealing from his person a watch. Mr. Clerk and Mr. Cook appeared for the prosecu tion ; and the prisoner was nndefeHded by counsel. The prosecutor stated that about half-past eight o'clock on the evening of the 26th October last he was in Cow Cross-street, Clerkenwell, when he was attacked by the prisoner and several other men, one of whom seized him by the throat and threw him to the ground, when his watch was taken from him. The other assailants effected their escape, but in the end the prisoner was secured. The jury, without any hesitation, returned a ver dict of guilty. A police-constable, in answer to the court, said that he had known the prisoner as the constant as sociate of thieves for the last five years, and proved that he had several times been summarily convicted. Sentence deferred. Susan Thompson, 21, spinster, was indicted, toge ther with a person unknown, with feloniously as saulting Philip Levine, with intent to rob. Mr. Horry prosecuted. The facts of the case were very simple. The pri soner was a prostitute, and on the night in question she met the prosecutor in the Whitechapel-road, and after some conversation with him he became aware that a man was following them, when he wished to leave, not wishing to come in contact with her follower; but the prisoner suddenly seized hold of the prosecutor, who in a moment received a violent blow, but whether from the prisoner or a confederate he could not state, and on this point the evidence was not clear. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty. Mr. Baron Bramwell, in passing sentence, said that this case was unlike the others which had preceded it. It had not been clearly shown to his mind that she was acting in concert with a man. If it had been so he should have passed upon her a sentence of penal servitude for a long term of years. Under the circumstances of the case, ho—ever, the sentence was that she be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term of 12 calendar months. THIRD COURT. (Before the Common Sergeant.) Francis Hearn, 21, cabinetmaker; John Simpson, 30, labourer; Henry Austin, 32, brass castor; and Charles Kembell, 29, baker, were indicted for steal ing a gold chain and other articles value £5, the property of James White, in his dwelling house. The prisoners Hearn and Simpson were further indicted for stealing a watch and other articles, value £5 and upwards, the property of Richard K. Bowley, in his dwelling house. A third indictment charged the prisoners Austin, Kembell, and Simpson, with stealing in the county of Essex a bracelet and other articles, value £5, the property of George H. Polyblank, in his dwelling house. There was a fourth indictment against Kembell and Simpson, for stealing a gold watch and other articles, the property of Thos. Millard. Mr. Clerk, with whom was Mr. Cook, instructed by the Solicitor to the Treasury, conducted the pro secution ; and Mr. Cooper appeared as counsel for the prisoner Kembell. The circumstances of this case have been very re cently before the public in the police reports ; and it appeared from the opening statement of counsel, and the evidence adduced in the two indictments proceeded with, that the prisoners Kembell and Austin had hired from the stables of a job-master in the City a horse and gig. They gave the name of Yates when entering on the engagement, who was stated to be a bootmaker. The address was found to be erroneous, but on subsequent inquiries it was found out by the exertions of Inspector Bond,of the P division of the Metropolitan Police, aided by Ser geant Leonard, of the City Detective force, and the prisoners were taken into custody. The mode of operation adopted by the prisoners was to drive round the suburban districts, and, under pretence of selling goods or obtaining orders for goods, obtain access to the plate closets or select apartments of the house in which valuable property was deposited. The moment that approach was allowed, either by the area or the balconies of the upper storey win dows,the property was placed in the wait in g vehicl e. which was driven off at too rapid a pace for the po lice or servants to pursue. The evidence adduced proved that the prisoners Austin and Kembell were the principals in the felony, and the other two prisoners had disposed of the property on the same day, by pledging th e p ro p ert y stolen, and in some cases s elling the duplicates. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Clark said that as far as the prisoner Simpson r s ee was co ncerned the case was only one of mere sus picion, and therefore he should withd raw hi sy case from the consideration of the j ury Mr. Cooper, on behalf of the p risoner en . a ' s he could 7 0t com bat idhe shouldthe evidenceoffernot any defence, which had been dddThe jury recorded a verd i ct of guilty against Austin, a K r r e i tl e i d b en a Ke u ru c h e ei . l' Jane Yates,He a r , 3 2 and t married, for indicted for feloni ously receiving portion of the property which had been stolen by the convicts in the preceding case. Mr, Montague Williams defended the prisoner, It appeared that she was the wile of the man Yates, in whose name the vehicle and horse had been hared, and who had since absconded , and the evidence against the prisoner merely went to show that she was in company with the prisoners, wh o were pawning and selling the duplicates, and was I seen in possession of some of the stolen property. The jury acquitted the prisoner. Mr. Clark then said that the case had been taken up by the Uovernment authorities in consequence of the alarm which these suburban robberies had ne cessarily created. They had been going on from August down to the time when Austin and Kew bell were apprehended. Kembell, it appeared, had been before convicted, and sentenced to a term of penal servitude, and also to imprisonment since the expiration of that term. The other prisoners had also been formerly convicted. The Common :Sergeant sentenced Hearn to four , Kembell to 15, and Austin to four years' penal ser vitude. THE GAROTTE ROBBERIES, Benjamin Buckley, alias Buckey, Charles Masons. alias Long Charley, 55, and Joseph Percival, 30 ' were brought up on remand, before Mr. Woolryeh. at the Thames Police-court, yesterday, charged wit h assaulting and robbing Mr. Thos. Tillman, a tailor, in Philpot-street, Stepney, on the evening of the 12th inst. Mr. C. Young defended Buckley, Mr. Beard ar peered for Mason, and Mr. Stoddart for Percival. This case has been repeatedly before the magis trate, and great efforts have been made by the pri soners' friends and associates, principally connected with the many disreputable houses in and nee r Baker-street, Stepney, to defeat the ends of justice and keep the witnesses out of the way. If it had not been for the untiring exertions of Sergeants Briden and Venables, a constable of the K the ease would have failed altogether. Bucklei and Mason only were in custody on the flO t examination. Percival was taken afterwards, The prosecutor was playing at bagatelle with A friend named Nl' ilford, at the York Min ster public-house, in Philpot-street, on the 12th inst., and was there about six hours. A quarre l took place about the payment of a pot of cooper.' and Tillman left the house followed by W ilford, the prisoners, and others. He had not proceeded maul yards before the prisoners took advantage of the confusion that prevailed to garotte and rob Tillma n of his watch and a portion of the gold chain at tached to it. Several witnesses gave evidence of the outrage and robbery, and that all the prisoners took par, t in it. Mason had his arms round the prosecutor? neck, while Percival took the watch , and draggeall; away from the prosecutor with considerable Wee' Mason then released the prosecutor , w ho said " watch is gone," Percival handed the watch Buckley, and all three fled. Mason and BucleleY were captured the same night, and the latter ad . mitted to Sergeant Briden that he was in Philr t ; street when the affray took place, but that he he" no hand in the robbery. Percival was arrested in ~ a brothel, No. 39, Baker - street , on the 18th inst., IV Sergeant Pullen, 10 K, and he immediately eri claimed, " So help me —, I know nothing abell it." Pullen said, " About what ?" to which no re' ply was made. Pullen then informed him that he was charged with garotting Mr. Tillman, a tailo r ' and robbing him of his watch and chain. Perci ll a said, "I don't know Buckley, but I know Mase r ', The prosecutor stated, on a former examination, th.e" he was requested to call at a house of ill-fame ie Baker-street, on the morning of the 13th, before thr examination of Buckley and Mason, and Per cice i i , was introduced to him and produced his wa r t Percival said, " You shall have you r watch et, two o'clock, and a half-sovereign besides, if Y ° , will stop in this house ; but he would not con:4 l with this request. Buckley' s wife g ave him the portion of his gold chain which w as broken and ear : ried away with his watch on the p revious nigh", His watch was restored to him at a pubiic-house Stepney on the 14th inst., by a girl named Minnie' On the deposition of the prosecutor being read tier to him, he said he could not swear to the identity' of Percival. Mr. Woolrych reminded Tillman that he had positively sworn to the prison er a Percival on a former occasion, and caution, him. He then said he belie ved Percival was one of those engaged in the robbery, and etch supposed he was the person who produ ced the w on the 13th at the house of ill-fame. The solicitors engaged for the defence voured to make it appear that a mere public -house quarrel had taken place, and that Tillman wir_e. " fast young gentleman," who led a dissipated if he The evidence, however, was conclusive that t quarrel in the York Minster was between TinniaLl and his friend Wilford only, and the prisonar e "hustled him up," garottcd, and robbed him ill Philpot-street, directly after he quitted the York endea voured Minster. The officers engaged in the case said all the prir• soners were notorious characters and the associates of the most desperate thieves. Briden and Venables said they had known Yl,cB:tat as " Long Charley" for several years, and he o f in a brothel, and was the constant associate "Buckey." Percival, and other thieves. Deeble, a police-constable, 195 deposed that hat Percival was convicted at the Old Bailey sessi in September, 1859, for stealing a watch , and see tenced to 12 months' imprisonment and bard litho!. At that time he proved a former conviction and months' imprisonment against the prisoner. . t .„ Brider.. wished to inform his worship that ness named Henry Arthur Legg, ship's stover j who gave evidence on the second i nvest i ga tion, h% not attended, although a summons was served 1 1. 13 f h e him. He had great difficulty in getting any ei wiitnesses to attend, so many loose women e e "; netted with garotte thieves had been hanging ab °ll „ - them, and either intimidating them, or making P r " . raises to them. Inspector Griffin hoped his worship would gr ri l t e a warrant for the apprehension of Legg• public were greatly excited on the subject et rotte robberies, and when offenders were alit,i; hended by the police, obstacles were thrown in t' way Mr. Wby prosecutors and witnesses. oolrycla committed the prisoners to New gate for trial. COUNTRY MA -- ... NEWARK—WEDNESDAY. „,, t o 30 White wheat new, 52s to 56s Barley, grinding.. oos - 29s Red do. 49s to 638 Oats, old, .. ......26s to ~,s Old white sBs to 60s New d o 210 to 6i Red do. 55s to 58s I Beans 4l/ 38 s to 4 Barley, malting.... 38s to 42s I Beans, new 36 s to Peas, ....38s to 465. BOSTON—WEDN IeESDAY. 31 1 White wheat 50s to 52s J Barley 3ss t° Red 42s to 47s I Oats lBs to w„, Beans ..37s to 438 I Peas 38s to au' HULL—TUESDAY. Wheat.... Old white.... per qr Old red )1 .. 5 60 6 : New white New red .... ~ Dantzic, Konb , &c. old white 52s Od to 566 od Dutch, Belgian, and. French. 58s Od to 62 0 a Baltic and Hamburg, red . . 51a Od to b 3 s 6a Od to to to 6 5 3 9 . ; 0,10 6 (j j St. Petersburg and Rig-a, Old ' . 50s Od to 6 26 0 ( 1 Barley.... English malting 34s Od to 3oa 7° Grinding 3ls Od to 338 Od Seal and Oderbruck Holstein and Danish Grinding Od 28s Od to 3 18 O d Oats English, new .., Archangel and Riga, per at oBl2ld to .„e Friesland and Dutch 0 31 3d t o 081 a Swedish and Danish- O Bl 2O to 0° od Beans ....English, old, per qr New pigeon 42s Od to 4430 jo,d New tick 403 Od to 4 2 pd Egyptian Peas .. Foreign boilers • Grinding - 38 0 o `7l Tares .... Spring —a Od to --$ Od Indian Corn Linseed, feeding 0 s Od to 560 Od ' ()(1 , 0 crushing . ........... .. Linseed cakes Hull) ......•••••• 19 0 0 to S 9 o 0 0 Foreign ............ 8 15 0 to 9 g 0 Rape cakes ...................... 6 0 oto 6 3. ... 0 Bones ....................... .... 5 5 oto 6 u _, BIRTHS. BULL.—On the 24th inst., at Hereford, the wife of Dr. Bull, of a son. ,r A of C oNan nvn.—On the 20th in s t., a t Ch at h am , the w" Captain W. Congreve, of a son. _...v., REELMERA...R_ORIIIAthGeES. inst. at DASENT.—On the 25th inst , at Putney, the wife - Rev. Chas. U. Dasent, of a . son. iIA.RTLEY 25 th inst., • to Hanover .8 . quare, Johu Edwar Hartle Caroline Whittenbury, second daughter ' f Mr Serg eg o . Wheeler. MACA RTHUR — NEILL.—On dee r the 18th inst., at At 13 . , House, Major-General Sir Edward Macarthur, IC - C ' s. to Sarah, third daughter of the late Lieut.-Colonel Neill, of Barnweill and Swinridgemuir, Ayrshire. St•George' DEATHS. tbe BENSON.—On the 24th inst. at The Close , Sa lisburif Rev. G. L. Benson, aged 71. wet BREWSTER —On the 24th inst., at 2 6 , Me rrion-sq Dublin, the wife of the Right Hon. A. B r ewster. .. r.v., CALTHORPE.—On the 23d inst., John G. Calthorp -ri ' of Boston, aged 52. d-street' GRA.NVILLE.—On the 25th inst. , at 13, Herefor the Dowager Countess Granville, aged 77:.___, _____--- -- -- ----- -- - - ---- ~ LONDON : Printed and Published by JOHN CHAPLai'' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tun Sux Office, No. 1.1;, Strand, in the Pre cinct of the Savoy, in the c o unt"' ° bliddlesez,—Thursday, November 27, 1863. re s 1 obi, ,I Jexj Pat MA I ter\ ~'oj