The Sun. — London, England, 1862-12-06 00:00:00

was* ALLEGED LUNACY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT. BALL V, sEmiILE. This case, part heard on Thursday in the Bail Court, was resumed yesterday in the larger Court of the Queen's Bench._ _ Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hoddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Pigot and Mr, Gordon Allen conducted the case for the defendant. On Thursday, Mr. M. Chambers opened the case for the plain tiff, stating that he should show from various cir cumstances that Dr. Semple, the defendant, had not acted bona fide under the statute, and had taken no fair or proper means to discover whether the . . _ plaintiff was really insane, and that , neither he nor Guy had made a due or proper examination of them or made any proper inquiries from friends or neigh- bourn. The learned counsel said he should give abundant evidence from the testimony of the plain- tiff's near neighbours that he was well known to be perfectly sane and sensible, and that the least inquiry would have satisfied the defendant that he was so. On Friday, Mr. Huddleston called and examined the plaintiff, who appeared a very respectable and remarkably sensible looking man, with a very shrewd and in telligent cast of countenance. He gave his evi dence very clearly and sensibly. He said he was 56 years of age, and had been brought up as an en graver for over 20 years. Afterwards he became a dealer in china. In 1834 he was married to his present wife, and placed her in business as a grocer, /19 himself working meanwhile as a journeyman. He and his wife did not live happily together. " It commenced," said the witness, "three weeks after we were mar ried." The y separated three several times. He had established a shop for china and glass in Tottenham-court-road, and still carried on his work as an engraver. He had then for two years been separated from his wife, and allowed her a maintenance. These separations were caused by her conduct, not his. He employed men and had apprentices in his business, and, said he, "1 never was behindhand with an order." He had had six children by his wife, and on one occa- sion he was induced to take her again: She came to the shop one evening and said, "NVhat a pity it was that they should be separated ; that she had seen her folly, and they had children." Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected that this could not affect Dr. Semple. The learned Judge said a question was raised as to a delusion about the wife, and that made this evidence material. The plaintiff went on—He received her into his house again at her entreaty. At first her conduct was better ; but in three weeks she commenced again—reckless extravagance—taking things away and pawning them, and getting money and keep ing it. She also often made a noise; sometimes behaving violently; would take the clothes off his hack, &c. Her conduct compelled him to give up his engraving, and go to the business at the shop to look after it. That was about six years ago ; she used to make disturbances frequently, come into the shop:and act so as to bring crowds round and force him to shut up his shop. _ _ _ _ . Mr. Sergeant Pigott again objected that this could not affect Dr. Semple, who had only known these persons two years. How could he be affected by these dissensions six years before ? The learned Judge repeated that there was a question raised as to whether these were not all delusions on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff went on with his evidence, and stated that his wife pawned his goods, and on one occasion he found forty duplicates under his bed. Mr. Sergeant Pigott asked the date of this fact, but it was not then stated. Examination continued—He had had his wife bound over to keep the peace more than once. He went on to state that in 1856, when the freehold of the house he held in Tottenham-court-road hap pened to be in the market, and Guy came for the purpose, as he said, of looking at the house, he showed him over it, and while he was doing so his wife joined them. He perceived or suspected from their demeanour that they knew each other. He observed upon it to his wife, and left them, and went downstairs to his dinner. While he was at it Guy came in. The learned Judge observed he hardly saw how what Guy said or did could be material. 1 Mr. Chambers said he proposed to show a con spiracy or combination among all the parties. The learned Judge said that was scarcely shown yet sufficiently to make Guy's acts evidence against the defendant. The plaintiff was then asked as to an old sword, which ha said was an old dress or theatrical sword, which had belonged to his brother (who was dead), and hung up by his bed. It was quite blunt. He went on to state that on one occasion at Golden square, two or three years ago, his wife took some money from his till. He followed her to see where she went, and he saw she went to Gay's house. Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to this evidence as irrelevant. The learned Judge said the case was peculiar, and the charge was not only that the certificate of in• san ity , was false, but that the defendant knew it. The plaintiff went on to say that this Guy had on the termer occasion made an observation about the sword: His wife had frequently been guilty of disturbances. She wonld come down in the morn ing4tnd say, " I am prepared for you, and shall stop you from taking any money this morning." She would go outside the door, and collect a:crowd, and say to them, " You see that man there ; me and my children have been up all night, he walking about with a drawn sword, threatening to murder me and my children." Every word of this was false, and he had never been guilty of an act of unkindness to her. Scarcely a week passed with out:something of this sort on her part. She often borrowed money from the neighbours in his name. ?eople came to the shop continually inquiring for her, s; taflymen" from whom she got goods, and shopkeepers who let her have goods at so much a week. On the 13th of June last, or thereabouts, he saw Dr. Guy looking in at the win dow,—" flattening his nose against his (plaintiff's) windows, poking his nose in, peeping in at the shop." Ile told him to go away. With that ex ception Guy had never examined him, nor did he ezamine him then. Between that day and the 28th July, when Dr. Semple (the defendant) came, per sona had come to his (plaintiff's) shop, whom he did not know, and had spoken to him. But doctors he knew had called on him, persons whom ho had afterwards found to be doctors, and whom he h ad not Bent for. After this, on the 28th of July last, the defendant, Dr. Semple, came, a fe w days before be (the plai nti ff) was taken aw a y. That was on the 30th of j walkeild_is. When he zalled, said the plain tiff, he into my shop and said, " Is Mrs. Hall at hom e her ?” He re;lieal said, What do you want with wish to see her." I said, t , I don't call he r to: h I everybody unless I know their business. She is b habit of running me up bills with tallymen, andel do not call her to any one unless I know first What your business is." He said, " She has a bad breast and come to see a bout She had no bad breast, I am a faise " : nd I said, If s h e has told you so , Sir , it is has attended e that " Dr. Gri ffi ths, the medical man , WI added her 20 years, and she sends for him ever she i 4 ill, and I a m sure if you are agentle rn : l you will not lend y ourself to anything of the kind:, Mr. Haddleston—Anything of what ki n d p ;inning me up a bill. I said ao. Plain titi—B expression, " Her intention is only /a iled the °IP - -0 run bill." I mentioned where Dr. G riffiths me u p a w hich is close to my house, lived, in Gower-street, an d close to tha t of Dr. Semple, who lives in Tor ass have to pass the door in rington-square, find would going back. After what I have stated my wife, h o appeared to have been watching, showed her- Then Pr. Semple self at the bottom of the shop. w alked towards her, and I walked towards them at the bottom of the shop. I said to him, " Perhaps, Sir, you are not aware of the unhappf state in which I and my wife liv e ; how she is in the habit of running me in debt." He said, " Then it appears you are the injured party ? 1 have heard something of this. My name is Dr. Semple. " Oh," I said, "if you know all about it, I need say nothing more ;" and I walked back to tha front of the shop, and I said no more. That was the whole of the conversation which took place between us. It did not last ten minutes, and he left almost directly. I was not at all excited, n d expressed myself as Ido now. I never said to him that she was improperly associating with other men; nothing of the kind. The learned Judge—Do you mean that you never said that to anybody at any time ? Plaintiff—No, my lord. Mr. Huddleston—Were you " guilty of repeated acts of violence ?" (reading from the certificate stated in the plea of justification) ; did you threaten her life or often assault her ? Plaintiff—No. Mr. Huddleston (still reading from the plea)— Did you sleep with a drawn sword, &c.? Plaintiff—No ; the only sword is the one I have mentioned, and an old sword-stick with the handle on. Mr. Huddleston—Did you ever threaten to mur der any ono who approached you ? Plaintiff—No. Mr. Huddleston—Did you ever threaten to stab her? Plaintiff—No. Mr.Huddleston—Was your appearance then as it is now, for I see he says you had a wild and staring look ? Plaintiff—lt was as quiet as it is now. Mr. Huddleston then elicited further from the plaintiff that he had on several occasions consulted solicitors about his wife, and that solicitors had attended police courts for him. There was no in terview between him and Dr. Semple besides what he had stated, before he was taken. He had never had three days' illness, except from a cold. He was not at all given to drinking. The plaintiff went on to state that two ao. j . a£to,r ti-aa Interview with the defendant—that is, on the 30th of July— he was coming home at 11 at night from some neighbours, with whom he had been gossiping. He was going into his house with a latch-key. A man was lounging against the door, and said, "Is your name Hall ?" I said (continued the plain tiff), " Yes; what do you want with me ?" He said, " Some of your friends have got a supper, and are very jolly, and want you to come and join them." (Laughter.) I said, " You must make a mistake ; you cannot mean me." I put the key in the door, and found it was fastened. One of the men placed himself before me, and said, "You must go with us ;" and he threw his arm round my neck, and another round my waist, and they tried to force me into a cab which instantly drew up. I struggled desperately, but they carried me off the ground to the cab door. I resisted violently, and put one arm through the coach door and one through the spokes of the wheel. Then my neighbours and friends came out and got round me. The men said to the police they had a right to take me, and showed a paper which the policeman said he could not read by that light. I insisted on my being taken to the station, or their being taken. When we went to the station—with a crowd of 50 people —I said to the inspector, " These men say they have authority to take me, be kind enough to look at it." He did so, and said," Yes, Mr. Hall, it is a legal document, and I would advise you to go quietly with them." Upon that advice I acted and got into the cab. The men then got into it with me and drove towards Fulham. On the road they stopped at a public-house, and said, " You gave us a pretty good busting and we are getting thirsty," and they would like something to drink. They had some brandy and water and I some beer, and I paid for it all, but I thought they might have put something in the porter and I threw it out of the window. (Laughter.) We went to Munster-house Asylum, Fulham. We got there between 12 and lin the morning. I was placed in a ward among a lot of other madmen. This unconscious slip caused some merriment. The plaintiff went on to say he was put in a ward with a lot of madmen, the keeper being with them ; and he wished particularly to state, as showing what the keeper must have thought of the state of his mind, that he lent him (the plain tiff) a razor the next' morning to shave himself. In the evening of that day he saw Dr. Stone. That was on the Thursday. Re had no communication , with friends or relatives till Saturday. They had called, he believed, but had been forbidden to see him. On the Saturday his daughter called, and was kindly allowed to see him, and bring him a clean shirt. On the Saturday he was taken before the Commissioners and examined for more than an hour, and after that Mr. Elliotson, the master of the asylum (who behaved very kindly to him), told him he was discharged, and invited him, as he had been so worried, to go down with him to Worthing and stay a few days with him, which he did, and stayed four days, taking his meals with the family and spending his evenings with them. Then he went home and was again subject to annoyance by his wife. He remembered Dr. Webb and Dr. Semple coming. That was on the 27th of Septem ber. Dr. Webb came first and examined him. After that, Dr. Semple came. At that time the plaintiff said he had instructed his attorney to commence an action (which had been in fact begun in August) and, in consequence of his attorney's advice to have no conversation with him he walked upstairs. The plaintiff continued:—When I got upstairs I found him behind me. He said, " Now don't run away, poor fellow. ( . Laughter.) lam not going to hurt you"—(laughter)—patting me on the back. (Great laughter.) I pushed by him, got downstairs into the shop, and sent for two of my neighbours and said when they came, "Now, Dr Semple, anything you have to say you can say it in the presence of these gentlemen." He commenced speaking, and my friends pushed me away and said, " You had better say nothing." I went on one side, but heard my wife running on, and saying, "Dr. Semple, can't I take goods out of the shop and pawn them ? "Yes, Mrs. Hall, certainly," he said, " you can do what you like." Then I got further away, for I felt in clined to make a reply, and I got near to the door. I don't recollect his saying anything as to my charg ing my wife with anything.. I went out and walked across the road. My wife had had a summons against me at Marlborough- street the same day before Dr. Semple came, in which she charged me with having kicked her. That was false. Dr. Semple and three other medical men appeared, and my wife appeared with attorney and counsel, and I was attended by my solicitor, Mr. Lewis. I heard questions put to my wife by Dr. Semple in my presence. I heard him ask her, " Now who found the money for this P" She only smiled. The plaintiff went on to state that he had found con cealed among his wife's papers the certificate he now produced. It was beneath the pillow of his wife's bed ; she had absented herself from his for six years. This certificate was then put in and read. It ran thus : " I hereby certify that Mrs. Hall is an illused woman, and that there is no truth in the infamous charges brought against her, but that she deserves the sympathy of her friends and of the public." This was signed by the defendant, Dr. Semple. This concluded the examination in chief of the plaintiff, which had lasted about an hour and a half, and throughout the whole of which he cer tainly had shown the most perfect sense and self collectedness. Mr. Sergeant Pigott then cross- Unhappy differences, he said, had existed his wife and him f or six years, and she had refused to share hi s b e d. ex ' ainin b ed etw h e im en . Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Are you subject to violent passion Plaintiff—No ; but when excited on some few occasions I may have expressed myself with warmth, as most men have. Have Yon not been in the habit of ill-treating your wife ? No, not ill-treating her—not to use that word. Have you never struck her ?—No. Kicked her ?--No. iwas accused of it at Marl borough-street. Have you not struck her ou the breast ?—No. Were you intimate with one Harriet Sarson ? Yes. Was she godmother to two of your children ? Yes. He wen. t on to state that he had allo we d his wife when separate from her 10s. a week with four children. That was 12 years ago. He went and took lodgings. He then carried on business as an engraver. He was separated then from her two years. It was after that she asked him to come back and live with her. Harriet Sarson visited him at Tottenbam-court-road. She was there once. n av e you thrown a carving knife at your wife while she was sitting at table with a child ? Never. Have you thrown slops over your wife P—Never. Have you torn the curtains down in a violent state?--No,never. Nothing of the kind ?—No. Called her names ?—I have used some harsh ex pressions sometimes. I may have d—d her when she has been kicking up her disturbances. Was d—d b—h one of the harsh expressions ? I dare say it may have been when she has been going on so. Did you ever charge her with adultery ?—Never. The plaintiff was asked whether, when he saw Guy in 1856, he had not said to his wife that she seemed to take an interest in him. He stated that what he had said was, that, as she seemed to know the matter better than he did, she had better answer him. Were you jealous of your wife at that time P—No. You left them, and went away to your dinner, although you never saw him before P—Yes. She answered his questions. Were you not in the habit of charging her with having fellows after her P—No, but with having people after her for debts. Did you not charge Guy with coming after hery— No, but with coming improperly to the house. Had not your wife a bad breast P—No. Had you not struck her?—N3. Was not her breast discoloured? I never saw her breasL ruK yearn. ethe luta rcrubea iu uanfoit with me for years. You mean to swear you bad never struck or kicked ha P—No, never. She used, you say, to run out to the neighbours ? —Yes. Do you say she is mad ?—I never charged her with it. How do you account for her running out to the neighbours about you ?—I can't account for it, ex cept her disposition to persecute me. He was then pressed as to the sword and sword stick, but he denied ever taking them up to his wife. He said she rarely was in his bedroom, and he never quarrelled with her there. He knew a person named Cash, a milliner, but did not com mit adultery with her. "No," said he, "I have found one woman enough for me. (Laughter.) She weighs 16 stone." (Laughter) He was asked fur ther as to imputations about the woman mentioned, and explained his visits to the house by an acquaint ance with some one else there. His wife had often charged him with improper intimacy with this and other women. He repeated that he had never charged his wife with adultery or drunkenness. He repeated again that he had never told Dr. Semple so. On the 27th of September he had been bound over to keep the peace in his own recognis ance for £lO. This closed the cross-examination, which lasted only half an hour, and which certainly had not shaken his evidence nor disturbed his demeanour. Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston, he explained the occasion on which he had done what caused the magistrate to bind him over. He stated that his wife had been guilty of some neglect of his children, and he had said to her, "This is like your d—d impudence," and he had removed her dinner on to the dresser (as she was eating it before giving the children theirs) ; she said, " I'll give you a turn for this," and ran downstairs to the shop to go out at the door and raise a disturbance. He ran after her, and she cried out, "He has kicked me," That was not true. She said to the servant girl, "You saw it, didn't you ?" The girl could not have seen them, as she was in the kitchen, but called out, " Yes, ma'am"—(a laugh)--although she could not have seen it, if it had been so. This was what his wife had complained of, and the magistrate had bound him over, but had said— Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to that, and it was not pursued. Mr. Huddleston then re-examined as to the woman Sarson, but f Mr. Sergeant Pigott said he had not imputed improper intimacy in respect to her. The plaintiff went on to say that he had left his wife 12 years ago because he had found the pawn tickets under her bed. He had allowed her 102., and at another time 16s. a week, when his own wages were 355. a week or thereabout. When Guy came, in 1856, he said, looking at the sword, " You seem to be well prepared," and the plaintiff said he told him to leave the house. That was all the interview which had taken place between him and Guy before the latter signed the certificate, ex cept when he saw him peeping in at the house, and also on another occasion, when he had followed his wife to Guy's house. He went on to say that his wife would of a morning or an evening " tuck up her sleeves" and say she would give him a turn, and then go to the door and kick up a disturbance. His wife had often threatened him. This closed the examination of the plaintiff, who preserved throughout most entire self-collectedness. Mr. Wren, one of plaintiff's neighbours, was called to confirm his evidence. He said he had known him for years, and had dealings with him in business. He was present on the occasion of the arrest. He had seen him on that day, and conversed with him, so as to know the state of his mind, and there was nothing the matter with him. Since he came home the witness said he had seen him constantly, and observed no symptom of unsoundness of mind. The witness was one of those who were sent for by the plaintiff on the 27th of September, when Dr, Semple and Dr. Webb were there, and he described what took place on that occasion. He heard Dr. Semple say to the plaintiff " You have charged your wife with committing adultery," and the plaintiff denied that he had done so. Then Dr. Semple said " Yes, you have, and I've got proof of it, and there fore turn her out into the street," The wife said to the witness " Did you ever know me to do anything wrong ? " Witness said " Not of my own personal knowledge." She then applied to the other neigh bour, a Mr. Davy, and asked a similar question. The plaintiff's daughter, Mrs. Harding, was present, and said thereupon " Yes, I have known you do several things; I have known you put jalap into my father's coffee." (Laughter.) Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to this, as not affect lnghis client, defendant. It was what took place after that which was the subject matter of the action. Mr. Chambers insisted that it was evidence of malice, or want of bona fides, coupled with what he should prove Dr. Semple said, after hearing all this --that the daughter accused the wife of pledging her husband's goods. The witness went on to say that Mrs. Hall spoke to Dr. Semple, and said, "Am I not justi" fled in doing so ?" (i.e., pledging goods), and he said she was, and began to ask the daughter ques tions,which the witness told her not to answer. Dr. Semple was then about to approach the interior the house, when the plaintiff said he objected, and that if he persisted he should call a policeman. Dr. Semple said, "Do so, by all means; that is what I want." The witness went on to say that, be fore July 28, Dr. Semple had never called on him to make inquiries as to the plaintiff's state of mind. The witness had seen the disturbances spoken to by the plaintiff, and known occasions when the shop had to be closed on account of them. Ho had not noticed the conduct of Mrs. Hall in particular. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—These disturbances had taken place repeatedly within ~. the_ last few years. Crowds were often about the house. ____ Davy, the other neighbour who was present on the occasion above alluded to, said he told Dr. Semple "If either of those two are mad [mean ing the plaintiff or his wife], this is the one," pointing to the wife. (A laugh.) "If it was me," continued the witness, " I should leave this night." The 'witness confirmed the evidence of the preceding witness as to what occurred on the occasion. Mpr.Elitxiot, had a e proprietor of n o e f d, the ww ly c l all um ed w as her a e uun the ' • witne ss . He Was not, himself a medical man, but he had upwards of 20 years' experience of in sanity. He had examined the plaintiff again and again, and discovered no indications of insanity. He had repeated conversations with him, and tested him closely respecting the statements in the certifi cate. The plaintiff spoke of his wife's conduct, especially iu having him up before the magistrates, and her extraordinary character and behaviour. and he spoke to statements of his contained in the certificates themselves, and asserted their truth. In particular, he stated that his wife was ruining him by continually annoying him in his business, &e. He did not remember anything being said as to his alleged statement that his wife had gone with other men. Mr. Chambers—Was it your opinion that he was labouring under any delusion ? Witness (with great gravity and deliberation). — My opinion was that, if the facts he stated were true, he was not under any delusion. (Laughter.) The witness went on to state that on the Ist of August the defendant wrote to him the following letter : " Sir,—l heard with surprise that it is in contemplation to send opt of your asylum a man named Hall, who was taken there the other day. As the man is, in my opinion, a dangerous lunatic, and he is now confined under legal authority—one of the certificates being signed by himself— I beg that he may not be discharged until his wife, who is in danger of her life, has an opportunity of laying her case before the Commissioners in Lunacy, to whom she will ap peal immediately ; and I am willing to appear before the Commissioners to justify my own conduct in the matter." This letter was signed and sent by the defendant, and caused some sensation. The witness went on to state that the Commis sioners in Lunacy, Mr. Latwidge and Dr. Nairne, had examined the plaintiff very carefully, and in consequence of their report he discharged him. Mr. Chambers—ln your judgment, was he sane 1a5a.•.16 , Witness—l should say he was sane. Mr. Sergeant Pigott, in cross-examination, asked whether delusions as to a wife's infidelity might not be a sign of lunacy ? Witness said they might be. Mr. Sergeant Pigott—May not jealousy bo a dan gerous delusion ? Mr. Justice Crompton—lt may and does lead often to bad consequences, as we know; but as to insanity ? The witness said if the jealousy were accompanied with violence and were utterly groundless it might be a dangerous delusion and a sign of insanity. He was pressed as to whether the plaintiff had not been discharged partly from an irregularity in Guy's certificate, which was founded on an examination not within the preceding week, as required by the Act. He said that it was so, and he produced a copy of these entries in the books of the asylum. 6' Visitors' book," August 2 : " We had a long and special interview with the patient last received (Hall), and which suggested the necessity of a full inquiry into his case and history. In examining the certificates under which he was admitted on the 31st ult. it appeared that one of them, dated on the 29th of July, was founded on a visit to the patient on the 13th of June, and is consequently wholly invalid. It follows that the patient can no longer be legally detained." " Patients' Book," August 2 : " The patient referred to was admitted on the 31st ult. The second certificate is signed by Mr. Guy, and is invalid, by reason of his stating that he examined the patient on the 15th of June." Mr. M. Chambers, re-examining the witness, if you had believed the plaintiff a dangerous lunatic would you have discharged him ? Witness—l did not consider him a lunatic at all. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that there was no case on either of the counts or charges. The learned Judge said it seemed to him at present that it all turned upon whether the de fendant knew that the certificate was untrue; as suming it to be so, the absence of belief of truth would be evidence of malice. Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that there was no evidence of want of reasonable and probable cause. The learned Judge said he was not quite sure if that was necessary, as it was not like an action for a malicious prosecution ; but probably it would come to this, whether the plaintiff had acted bona fide and with a real belief in the truth of his certi- I ficate. Mr. Sergeant Pigott said that was the view he took of the case, and he should propose to address the jury to morrow - (this morning). _ . . And at five o'clock the case was accordingly ad . journed. LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 5. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middle sex .—(B e f o ro Mr. Justice Wines and a Special Jury.) ROBBINS V. JONES.-THE LATE ACCIDENT IN THE WATERLOO-ROAD. The plaintiff in this case was the widow and Robins,ad who was killed by the and flag s ton e s i n the time W aterloo-road tng ,and she claimed damages ag o for the loss which she had sustained by his death. The declaration alleged that the defendant, Cap tain Jones, was possessed of houses adjoining a public footway, that the property was in a dan gerous condition, and that he let it, and permitted it to be continued in the same dangerous state, and that by reason of this the deceased fell through and was killed. The defendant pleaded various tra verses, and in addition that the place was no part of a public footway, and that the deceased was, with others, there unlawfully, and that this caused the place to fall in. Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lush and Mr. D. Keane for the defendant. The deceased was, at the time of his death, about 27 years of age, and he was earning two guineas a week as foreman to his father, a carver, guilder, and frame maker in the Waterloo-road. The defen dant, Captain Jones, lived at Croydon, and he held upon lease from the Marquis of Salisbury several houses in the Waterloo-road, and amongst others, 198 and 199. In August, 1860, he let 198 to Messrs. Jeffs, who, how ever, shortly afterwards became bankrupt, and Captain Jones, not being paid his rent, put in a distress upon the per sons to whom Messrs. Jeffs had underlet. The man in possession, however, having been got out, the door was barred against him, and he thereupon endeavoured to break in, the tenants in the mean time doing their best to remove their furniture. This caused a crowd to assemble, and a number of people having stood upon the grating and flagged footway, it gave way with them, and they fell down a great depth. The plaintiff's counsel contended that any person owning property like this which the public had acquired the right of passing over, WAS bound to keep it in a safe state, and that whether the spot formed part of the public way or not was not material, for even if it adjoined the public way, there was still the duty to keep it in a safe state. It might be said that Messrs. Jeffs were the persons who should be sued, but it was sub mitted if a person possessed property which was in a dangerous state, and let it in that state, he was liable for any injury sustained in consequence. It would be proved by the witnesses that in April, 1859, notice was given by the parish authorities to Capt. Jones that the place was dangerous, and al though it was denied that they had any authority to interfere, still it showed that the captain had notice of the facts. No steps however were taken to carry out the suggestions of the surveyor until after the accident had occurred. _ _ Witnesses were called to prove the facts above stated. Mr. Lush then submitted that the defendant was not liable, inasmuch as at the time of the accident neither the deceased nor the other persons were using the spot for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. It was simply constructed for the purpose of allowing persons to pass across to the houses, and not for a crowd to assemble upon it. Further, it was submitted that the deceased by his own want of care contributed to the accident. An other point was, that Messrs. Jeffs were bound by covenant to repair, and that therefore the defendant was not responsible. Hislordship thought that it would be the most convenient course to leave the case to the jury, but he would reserve to the defendant leave to move the court, upon the questions of law. The defendant's case was that he had a few years ago come into possession of the property, and had , at that time no r eason to b e li eve that it was in a dangerous state. In 1859 Mr. Legg, a retired builder, examined th e p l ace, and thought it safe,and the same concl us i on was arr ived at by Messrs. Jeffs, who were thems e l ve s builders, and by th e surveyor of the Marq u i s o f Salisbury. His lordship ask e d th e jury a great number of Iquestions, which they having answered stated that `they found for the plaintiff, and 4 ° 4 ° 4 ° the damages at £2BO, being £2OO for the widow, and £BO for the child of the deceased. sF.AmAN V. LORD KEANE AND OTHERS.-THE AFFAIR OF THE BANK OF DEPOSIT. This was an action against Lord Keane. the Rev. Wm.l3ean, ofßrixtou and Weerthing,and Dr. Henry Clarke, of Southampton, who had been directors of the Bank of Deposit, in order to recover damages in consequence of the plaintiff having been induced by false representations to become an agent of the bank, and having suffered in consequence. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Collier, Mr. Ribton, and Mr. Daly appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Archbold for Lord Keane, and Mr. Digby Seymour and Mr. Warton for the other defendants. Mr. Collier, in his opening speech, said that the plaintiff was a gentleman who resided at Plymouth, and the defendants were the chairmen and two directors of an association that had attained an un enviable notoriety—the Bank of Deposit. He be lieved that it would scarcely be contradicted that this Bank of Deposit had been one of the most gigantic swindles of the present ago, and although they might be already aware of the circum stances to some extent, it would be his duty to state a short outline of the case. Mr. Sea man was induced to accept the agency of this society by false representations as to its solvency and prosperity, when it had been for 10 years and more in a hopeless state, and he was induced to open a branch at Plymouth, and to obtain from a vast number of persons their deposits from hard earnings, which amounted in the whole to £5.000 odd, When the bank failed in Nov., 1861, a howl of indignation was raised against him, he was called upon to pay back the deposits, and he tried to re trieve himself by starting another society, but he failed, because people refused to join him on account of his having been associated with this bank. Un der these circumstances he was obliged to bring this action to show that he was no party to these frauds, and also to recover damages for the injury which he had sustained. He (Mr. Collier) would give them a history of this bank. It had its origin in the National Investment and Assurance Association, which was established in 1844 by deed poll, and -,,k;nh had its office in Lancaster-plane, and carried on a quiet unpretending business. t 4 ubsequently fresh—but by no means a better—blood was infused into this society, and Mr. Peter Morrison joined it about this time, as, in fact, did also Lord Keane. When the change took place a deed of settlement was entered into, and every provision of that deed had been systematically violated by the defendants. The plan was that the funds of the Association should be divided into three classes; the first was the Mutual Investment Fund, and under this head came all the deposits ; the second was the Mutual Assurance Fund ; and, third, the General Fund. The holders of mutual stock, it was said, " Are to be entitled to interest on the amount of stock held by them not exceeding 5 per cent. per annum, as shall be from time to time determined by the Board of Management, to be payable solely out of the profits that shall have accrued from the investment fund." From that time, however, there never was one shilling of profit upon this Mutual Investment Fund, and yet for ten years they paid interest, and from what fund ? why, out of the deposits. So that if a man deposited £5 or 55., for they were not above taking so small a sum, he was paid interest—out of his own money. The re port of Messrs. Harding and Pulling, the account ants, stated—" We do not find that any profit has at any time arisen from the business that has been carried on. The following analysis of the entries in the books shows the gradual progress, of insol vency from 1852." It went on—" The amounts inserted in the first column does not include any loss upon bad debts or insufficient investments, as it does not appear that such items have been dealt with," so that the accounts were most favouable for the bank ; but still it appeared that the loss in 1852 was £4,900, and the amount due to depositors, £4,300 ; in 1853, loss £12,259 ; due to depositors, £30,543 ; in 1854, loss £18,105; due to deposi tors, £79,196 ; in 1855, loss £33,000 ; due to depositors, £llB,OOO ; in 1856, loss £48,000 ; due to depositors, £164,000 ; in 1857, loss £66,000 ; due to depositors, £179,000 ; in 1858, loss, £92,000 ; due to depositors, £226,000 ; in 1859, loss £112,000 ; due to depositors, £296,000 ; and in 1860 the loss amounted to £147,000, and the sum due to depositors to £348,000. Was not this an astounding state of circumstances, that the loss had increased to £147,000, and yet all this time they were inducing unhappy depositors to deposit more and more with them ? Now, a few words as to the capital. In the prospectus it was stated that the capital was £lOO,OOO ; but that was false, for the whole amount that was nominally subscribed was £20,000, and the real amount was not more than £12,000. The accountant's report stated, "Many of the printed documents contained the words and figures, Capital stock £100,000,' but it does not appear on investigating the capital stuck account that the amount has at any time exceeded £20,000, and of this amount only £8,593 appears to have been paid for in cash ; £7,100 appears to have been issued in satisfaction of a claim against the association, and £4,357 arises from amounts entered to the credit of parties as cash payments by them for capital stock. Such amounts however were not really paid, but were at the same time charged to them in another account as loans, and which loans still remain unpaid." Lord Keane began, for instance, by , being put down as holding capital stock to the amount of £soo—a part of this £20,000 ; yet Lord Keane never paid a farthing, for he was put down on one side of the account as holding £5OO stock, upon which ',he received divi dends every year; and on the other side there was lent to Lord Keane £5OO, upon which he was charged interest, so that it was altogether a mere juggle. In truth, their capital never exceeded £lO,OOO, whilst their debts were hundreds of thou sands. Lord Keane became a director and a member of the finance committee soon after he signed the deed in 1851 ; and in 1857, upon Lord Geo. Paget, the chairman, leaving the company, because he dis approved of a most improper gambling speculation that they bad entered into with a certain Impe rial Company in Paris, Lord Keane became chair man, and remained so until the time of failure. The members of the company formed only a private partnership, they never having been incorporated; but in 1851 they obtained an act which entitled them to sue and be sued as a corporation. They then ex tended their business in all directions, and took an office in Pall-mall East and established branches in all parts of the country ; they advertised most ex tensively, and they did all that they could to obtain deposits, both large and small. Their annual lia bility for advertising and for working expenses amounted to no less than £82,000, and their receipts never were one-half that, and they must have known perfectly well the state of their affairs. His learned friend would perhaps say it was all that Peter Mor rison ; but whilst Mr. Morrison remained in Eng land the directors supported him, though, when he went abroad, they threw all the blame upon him, and said that they knew nothing about it. The £82,000 was the expenses in London only, that for the whole country being £154,000 a year. The ad vertising in London was £25,000, salaries £15,000, and the directors received £13,700. The bank stopped in November, 1861; but in the last year, when they were upon the brink of irrecover able ruin, they received over the counter £30,000, none of which was entered in the books, and what became of it nobody knew. At the time of the fail ure there appeared to the credit of sundry depositors and holders of investment stock £362,000, and to other creditors £2,000, whilst to the account of assets there was, cash at bankers, £32 7s. 7d.--(a laugh)—in hand £2610x. 4d, ; and then there were various debts which were estimated to realise £37,000, and other property £4,000, so that alto gether the estate was calculated to produce £55,000. The jury might be inclined to ask how the bank got rid of the money, and he could throw but a feeble and imperfect light upon that matter, but he could refer to how the prospectus said that they were to deal with their funds. It said— " This company is established to open to the public an easy, and safe mode of investment. (Laugh ter.) The bank of Deposit differs from ordinary banks in the mode of employing its capital. (Loud laughter.) The Rev. Mr. Bean, speaking , in the prospectus, said, "We are not as other banks." (Renewed laughter.) Mr. Bovill hoped that his learned friend would confine himself to the cause of the action. Mr. Justice Willis—The cause of the action being getting the plaintiff to enter into the service of the defendants by false representation. Mr. Collier continued—The prespectus said, " The money deposited with this company being princi pally lent upon well-secured life interests and re versions on Government funds and other property of undoubted security. The interest, which has never been less than 5 per cent. upon ordinary de posits, is payable half-yearly in January and July." One of the complai n t s o f the pla i ntiff was that he was induced to join the company by a statement that it was solve n t, an d there was a statement that they were so solvent that they were paying their interest half -yearly. Now as to their investments. They got up a bubble company in Paris, called the Imperial, and they exchanged shares and had trans actions with that company, which resulted in L 20,000 loss. They established the State Insurance Company, which had the same direction as the bank, and that company had been wound up, and never paid a farthing. The directors of the bank took 50,000 one-pound shares in the State Office, and they paid upon them £35,000 out of the depo sitors' money, and they also made a loan of £9,000 which was likewise swallowed up. What they did with respect to the State Fire Office they did in the case of the Consols and also of the Agricul. ~-: THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 43, 1861, tural Manure Company ; all these transactions being the struggles of drowning men who made desperate,ventures to retrieve themselves. Anol her affair with which they were connected was called the Legion Bank, with which they had transac tions to the extent of £BO,OOO, and it was credited with £20,000 in the same way in which Lord Keade had been credited. They paid £lO,OOO into the Bank of England to the credit of Gerelli, an Italian adventurer, connected with the Leg • hurn Bank, and the Rev. Mr. Bean said it was deposited in the name of M. Gerelli, to give to him an appearance of substantiality, in order that he might dispose of the Deposit Bank Stock upon the Paris Bourse. This was a short and imperfect outline of the manner in which the Deposit Bank had been carried on, and now as to the manner in which Mr. Seaman joined the bank. About May, 1859, he was applied to by Mr. Hadwyn, the superintendent of agents, who placed the prospectus in his hands, and Mr. Seaman, acting upon the faith that the prospectuses was true, joined the bank, and received his appointment as agent for Plymouth, in May or June, 1859. After the bank broke, nothing could be more painful than Mr. Seaman's position. He found himself avoided and distrusted in the town, a meeting of depositors was held, at which he was denounced, and he was ap • plied to to return the deposits. He made efforts to retrieve himself, but failed inconsequence of his con nexion with the bank ; and he had been unable to establish himself in any business since. It was for these injuries to which he now trusted to a jury for compensation. _ _ Some documents having been put in evidence and some formal witnesses called, Mr. Seaman, the plaintiff, said I was formerly a draper, at Plymouth, and I was applied to by Mr. Hadwyn, the superintendent of agents, to become an agent for the Bank of Deposit. Mr. Collier proposed to ask the witness what Mr. Hadwyn said and did. Mr. Bovill, however, submitted, that it was not shown that Mr. Hadwyn had authority to bind the company, and therefore the evidence was not ad missible. Mr. Henry Prior, a clerk in the bank, was then called, and said—Lord Keane was frequ ently at the bank, and attended board meetings. He became chairman about March, 1857. Several books were laid on the table before the directors, the bankers' pass book, the cheque book, the attendance book, the agenda book, the policy register book, and the certificates for signature. The investment stock book was laid before the committee, but I am not sure that it was laid before the board. There were four classes of ledgers, one of which, the capital stock ledger, would show the amount of stock, and the general ledger contained a profit and loss account. These ledgers were placed on a shelf in the office where the clerks were. Ido not recollect the directors coming in there, but the books were there, if they were wanted. They were frequently sent up into the room of Mr. Morrison, the managing di rector. I have a recollection of seeing the general ledger once on the board table. The Rev. Mr. Bean attended meetings of the board and of the finance committee. Dr. Clark attended meetings of the board and of the finance committee. The meetings lasted about two hours. Prospectuses used to lie upon the counter for distribution. The directors were paid for their attendances latterly one guinea for a board attendance, two guineas for a commit tee, two guineas for a special attendance, and 52 guineas a year whether they attended or not. Mr. Bovill—You may take it that Lord Keane during the time he was chairman, received £7BO for attendances. Witness—The meetings of the State Fire-office were also held in the same room. Mr. Hadwyn used to come to the National-office frequently when he was in town, generally daily. I never saw Lord Keane and Mr. Hadwyn together, nor have I any recollection of having seen Mr. Hadwyn speaking to the other defendants. I have not seen him in the board room. A number of questions wore put to the witness, and several objections as to the reception of the evidence were raised and discussed. Mr. Justice Willes said it must be shown that Hadwyn had authority to hand the prospectus to the plaintiff, and thus induced him to become agent for the bank, for otherwise he should hold that there was no evidence. Mr. Wallis—l was a clerk in the office. I have seen prospectuses in the board room. I have never seen Mr. Hadwyn in the board room, but I have seen him in Mr. P. Morrison's room, though not many times. I have seen prospectuses in Mr. Had wyn's hands, but I do not know whether he took them into the country with him, I used to write to Mr. Hadwyn whilst in the country by Mr. Morri son's direction. (A copy of one of these letters was read, dated July 20, 1859, and acknowledged the re ceipt of money on account of the Sandwich agency, and said that they had no satisfactory evidence from Edinburgh or Glasgow.) I never heard of the letter books being taken up into the board-room. At this period of the case the further hearing was adjourned until to-morrow, his lordship saying that it would be convenient to allow the plaintiff's coun sel time to look at the books of the bank. IRWIN V. SIR GEO. GREY. In this case, which was tried yesterday, Mr. Irwin applied to his lordship for the assistance of the Court, upon the ground that Sir Geo. Grey had not obeyed the terms of his subpcena, duces tecum. His Lordship, however, said that he had no power to interfere ; any application must be made to the full Court next term. COURT OF PROBATE. (Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.) DORMAY AND DORMAY V. CABLE AND OTHERS. The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were coun sel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Dr. Tristram, and Mr. Searle for the defendants. This was a suite instituted by the plaintiffs to establish the validity of a paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Mrs. Ann Welis, who died possessed of £17,600 funded and other property. The plaintiffs propounded the will as executors, and it was disputed by the defendants, relations of the deceased, who had obtained permis mission of the Court to appear in forma pauperzs, and who pleaded that the will was executed under undue influence, and that the testatrix was not of sound testamentary capacity when she signed the instrument. The Queen's Advocate, in opening the case, said that the will in question was executed on Nov. 13, 1858, and that the testatrix was 84 years old at the time of her decease. She became possessed of the bulk of her property through the death of an only sister, and she had no relations nearer than second cousins, in whom she appeared to take no interest. She resided at Cheam, in Surrey, up to her death, and from some friendly feelings she enter tained towards the family of Mr. John Dor may, the senior plaintiff, she made him her re siduary legatee, and appointed him and his son, the other plaintiff, her sole executors. It appeared she was fond- of making wills, and com menced this testamentary indulgence several years before her death, and drew up and cancelled different wills. She was an illiterate woman, and for some time had been dependent on the services of a Mrs. Ball, who was dead, and who had acted as her amanuensis. She availed herself of the senior plain tiff's services in the transaction of her business, and out of gratitude made him sole residuary legatee, and that gentleman was most anxious to have the case thoroughly investigated in order to free his charac ter from the imputation of any misconduct in regard to the disposition which the testatrix had made of her property. rohnbormay said he was the senior plaintiff in the suit, and was in business as a coal and corn merchant at Wandsworth, and he also carried on a gas work adjoining his premises. He was acquainted with the deceased for about 40 years. The acquaint ance originated in the circumstance of his father, who was a widower, having married a Miss Killick, a friend of the deceased. During the last 30 or 40 years he was in the habit of visiting Miss Wells, who lived with her sister up to the period of her decease about 10 years ago. Mrs. Ball died about two or three years ago, and had resided with Miss Wells for several years. A female named Margaret Spikesman attended on Miss Wells as a domestic. Miss Wells had a good many cousins. He com menced having to do with her affairs first in 1853, in consequence of an application which he received from a Miss Carr, who was living with his father. He went to Miss Wells, in company with a Mr. Richard Cull, who had been cited in the cause, and who had been connected with Miss Wells through marriage with one of her relations. (The testatrix had made a previous will in favour of this party.) On that occasion she said nothing about her affairs, and when he saw h er about a month afterwards, she assigned as a reason for not hav ing done so that she did not wish to introduce the subject before Mr. Cull. She then entered into details about money matters, and said that she wished to have another will made, as Mr. Cull had behaved badly towards her by dictating to her with respect to her property. She added that her sister told her a short time previous to her death and that she was to do what she wished with her property, and wase advised her not tobedicta t ted to by any b o dy in reference to its disp os i t i on. She had m ade a ®will he enn insistedlBsl , sen t i n g t n on o receiving have i t . She said she was dete rm i ned to h ave it o taltered,o al t alter and anythingtodo w fro it m regardheh awn handwriting,her who Whicha instructionshhee wisheds b s e q t e o b n tl y e gave him. r i nbefore h t e o r it o He asked executors, and she named_ him and his sent and in reply to a questi on as to who was to be her residuary legatee, she said "Yourself." He said, " Why no t :cave th@ regdoo of your property to come of your relatives ?" She said that she had not been treated well by them ; she had not seen them for years, and they were nothing to her, being only ' 4 " °Ylu cousins. He told her that she ought to leave there, Ida.; of her property to Mr. Cull, as she bad done by her forTr.er will, and she said that her sister told her if anything happened Mr. William BeakneS (a relative) she was to send for him (witness). That gentleman was dead. He did not act on the in structions of the deceased for twelve months, an d when the will was drawn up by a solicitor be r ea_, P: . over the draft to her carefully, and in reply to !Ili! question as to whether it was in conformity vl t il e her wishes she answered in the affirmative. induced her to increase the legacy to Mrs. Cull fro% £lOO to £5OO, and endeavoured to persuade her to make it £l,OOO. The will was duly e xecuted!!! his presence, and by her direction the former was burnt. The will was executed on the 30th November, 1858, and the testatrix was quite cob; petent to make it at the time. She had advanc ed him £6,000 Consols to set his son up in business' but he paid her interest for it regularly. (The will, which contained different legacies t o relatives and friends, was then read.) Margaret Spikesman, a distant relative of th e deceased, said that for ten years previous to hef. decease she attended on her. She was in the habit of writing to Mr. Dormay by direction of the a e " ceased. The habits of the deceased were very re; served in regard to business, but she remembe r s her having told her that she had made an alteratiea in her will, She told her also that she considered Mr. Dormay a just man, and had left all her pro' perty in his hands. She made this remark as to t Mr. Dormay' s c h arac t er f requen tly d ur ing the is s d year. The deceased said to witness that she ba n not sufficiently co m p ensa t e d h er i n her will, but o e Mr. Dormay saying that he would see justice does she was satisfied. The deceased was very nerv ouo and apt to be confused, but after a while she re' covered herself and could tell what she had done. This nervousness was much increased in the Pre; sence of strangers. She appeared to be of seu eu mind down to the period of her decease. The witness was cross-examined at length/ 1)11 nothing material was elicited. Another witness was called who gave some 6 6 ' deuce as to the attestation to the will. At this stage of the proceedings it was announced that an arrangement had been effected between the parties, by which all further opposition to the will was withdrawn, and the jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues. The Court then pronounced probate of the will. SIIMMERELL V. CLEMENTS. Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks were eetl ° ; sel for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. James represented the defendant. It appeared that the parties to the suit reside d 1 11 Bristol, and the testator's will which was in die ° was dated April 19, 1860. f the The case was not concluded at the rising 0 - Court, and we reserve our report. COUNTRY MARXL2S. v , .~.------ LIVERPOOL—DEC. 6. We had a small attendance to-day, and wheat bareli supported late rates. Business very limited. Flour Indian corn also dull, and 6d per qr lower. WAKEFIELD—DEc. 5. Wheat, at our market to-day, was dull, and prices es Is under last Friday. Barley also is lower, and the small. Other articles were weaker in price. Averages for the week : Wheat 1 097 qrs., at 4Bs Od Barley.... 2,601 Peas ... 60 Oats 5 .. 30s 611 Rye .. — —s Od Beans STAMFORD—DEC. 5. gi New wheat, 48s to 50s—red, 42s t o 46 s per 3 6 -m to illlee. Barley, 32s to 40s per qr. Oats, 22 s t o 25 s per 24 ow Beans, 38s to 42s per qr. EXETER—DEc. 5. A to 4 5 V I Wheat, white.. 6s 6d to Gs 9d I Barley ..35 6 " Ditto red .6s 3d to 6s 6d I Oats .:. . „DJ 9d to ~.3 5 Flour, fine, 37s t o 38s ; seconds, 355 . t0 .. 36s per 04 ' 1 " CATTLE. A limited supply of a ll d escr ipti ons of stock. ocl Fat beef, p Sc., 9 s 4d t o 11 s 3d Ewes, psd to 1 I6d to 7• er lb ... • to 7 d Pork carcases, 8s Od to 9s Od Wethers, d 0....... 6 1 d Lamb, p 1b....... lid to 8d F a t ca l ves , Rough fat, 31d per lb. d 0... BRISTOL SUGAR—DEc. 5. we hai l The brokers' offices are so bare of samples that e market steady had our raw sugar m a rk e t a t a s t a nd still. The refill.„, Y. There is no new feature to noti ce rum market. iu COAL Dcl (Prices of Coal per Ton a [ARKET. t the olose of the market. s. d. Buddle's West Hartley 16 6 Hastings llartley ....16 6 Walker Primrose .....15 3 Walls End. d s. ' Hetton . lB 6 Gosforth ........... 16 3 Hartlepool.. ................ 8 g Trimdon Thornley.... South 11arti0p001,...17 „ , Trimdon Hartlepool .. 0 v o 16 6 Kelloe ........ . ..... "1g 3 Riddell ........ ~18 29; sold, 20. Walls End. Haswell South:Hotton ~.18 6 Braddyll's Hetton 17 6 Harton l6 3 Ships at marker FO.REIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. neo. 1 . 7 9 ' Auf.ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton..... via Marseilles . ........ — nee . 4. Llrazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. ....... 2. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena.. China, Penang, and Singapore, via S ou th a mpton.v% , 13. via Marseilles • • Falkland Island s Gibraltar, via Southampton Dee' o. -'e India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton...-fl ' epo, 1 via Marseilles.. • • 14 'D ee ' a India (Bombay), via Southampton .• via Marseilles Lisbon 2. 000000000000 . neo . Malta, Egypt, and Ade n , v i a S ou th ampton ...... ..`/ flec . 6. via Marseilles .. ...... Dee . 10• Newfoundland .. Oporto and Vigo ... U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... by U.S. packet.. • • , ec . 6. by Canadian packet. - ; 0 . 10. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe .......... 1 8 ' Bahamas, via New York Mexico.. All parts of West I n di es , i nc l u di ng ....... 15. California, and British Columbia.. A FEDERAL PIRATE.--Information has been 0 74 ceived hero that certain merchants in New York) in ce ll ce, at the ravage s o f th e Al a b ama upon American c ow t he are fitting out a pirate to prey on British co t e merce.,, is vessel is reported t o b e ver y sw ift, an d if s h e suoce'A-or leaving the port of Now York will infli c t incalculable - age on commerce conducted under the British OP doubt is felt here that the Government will shays' 13 ; 0 0 more energy in putting a stop to this piratical Graff., boa the British Government did t o the efforts of the Al in getting out of English waters.—New York Traria: jot , [ A DV E RTISEMENT.]--Holloway' s Ointment and l' , l ll foal Hard Weather.—The frosty air, s h ar p winds, al3- 0 00, atmosphere have a most injurious effect upon W o o' causing eruptions, pimples, and boils, if no worß e tt . c ct ioail quences. These exce ll ent remedies will dispe l all 8-erbeeti of the skin—th ey act as direct stimulants of t h e apa ° fo rst without producing th e d e l e t er i ous e ff ec t s o f InO t 131 . ta tioai i i cosmetic preparations. Th e o i n t men t soo thes all l itri ffios , of the skin, flushings, and oth er unp l e asant fe e leaves the ontiole elasti c , sofi, a silky. In c.-- „ g '- relieves all herpetic a n i o th er vexatious ~a t oll scrofula, scurvy, chapped lip s , c hilbl a i n s, all inf lain maladies, erysipelas, sores, wounds, and bad legs, way's ointment and pills will bring about a cure Atli paralleled . rapidity and certainty. BIRTHS. the KErrEL.—On the 3d inst:, the wife of Rear-Adrol.ol Hon. Sir Hen r y Keppel, K.C.8., of a son. c ,, c leir MORLRY.—On the 2d inst., at Meadowcroft, Lover ham, the wife of James Henry Morley, Esq., of a " ter. PoLLOCK.—On the 4th inst., at Brightside, Lewisll anj ' wife of John Pollock, Esq., of a son, 31 /°° ,l A STUART.—On the 2d inst., at 3, Q ueen ' s- t err acei Ole wich-common, the wife of M a j or Stuart, WV" neers, of a son. MARRIAGES. 000 Ch of BRooxs—GElLs.—On the 4th inst., at Queen 0 0 7„ Manor, Somerset, Robert A. Brooks, Esq., sides, Ee -11 , "Robert Brooks, Esq., M.P.. of Woodcote-parks— to Katherine Pascal, eldest daughter of J. E. --1 o la f of Dumbuck, D um b artonshire. s lies CorToN—PowELL.—On the 4th inst at St. flesl-44 Westbourne-p ar k , W illiam Compton,' E g g" he late ham, to Rh oda, third surviving daughter of t Powell, Esq., of St. John's-wood. ,IFI :ELA:EsEcEnonlisaTlizailechA. E 2: Ladyo t Eß . rlE•ioLnocoontnhhineteh4rteeh.3ainDisnEts.,atallEtjlol.heHeesußrydalacc:l2Lidtao4 sham, Esq ., of Staple-inn, eel l o at n e t o h f e C 4 h t i h na inst., the 3d inst., at Hastings, An " F etell er ' list of the late Thomas Hare, Jae' r(/' Vit /r cestershire, Alice Mary, infant daughter of Sir ROSE.—On the sth inst. , at 257, Oxford-street, gr. and jugdhe-beurtrgeebt: stiff Rose, wine merchant. Ro d n il t l rt y, s. t — he O ß n e t v h . e s s a th nd i e n rs s o t. n , R at ob 6 in , ric l3s.. 'peta ls Isle of Thanet, aged 61. oS,acyllev,i2e;eftrsete.t parr, LONDON : Printed and Published by JOHN C K 112, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Ti E SUN Office 11° ' Strand, ' In the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Co /int Midcllool4—Saturday, Deomber G s 1862. .- W