The Sun. — London, England, 1862-03-21 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—March 20. ROLLS' COURT. (Before the Master of the Rolls.) itHE SWINFEN ESTATES.-BROVN 'V. KENNEDY. This was a suit arising out of the litigation con cerning the Swinfen estates, which atEracted so muck: attention a short time ago. It will be re mermbered that the question in that litigation was ti.,e validity of the late Samuel Swinfen, and that 'an issue to try the question between Mrs. Swinfen (now Mrs. Broun, the plaintiff in this suit, the widow of the testator's son) and Captain Swinfen, 'his heir at law, was compromised by the counsel engaged at the Stafford Assizes, in March, 1856, said that such compromise was afterwards con sidered invalid for want of sufficient authority on the part of Mrs. Swinfen's counsel, and that ulti mately Mrs. Swinfen succeeded in establishing the validity of the will, and thereby recovered estates the value of which was stated in this suit to be about £60,000. Mr. Kennedy acted as Mrs. Swin fen's counsel in the litigation which succeeded the compromise, and the bill in this suit stated that some months after the litigation had been decided in Mrs. Swinfen's favour, Mr. Kennedy induced her to execute a deed, dated the 10th of May, 1859, by which she conveyed all the Swinfen estates to him in fee simple, subject to a life in terest therein reserved to herself, and subject to the debts which she might owe at her death not exceed ing £lO,OOO, and subject to such other sums not ex ceedino. £lO,OOO, as she should by will appoint. This deed recited that Mrs. Swinfen was desirous to convey to Mr. Kennedy the reversion of the said estates to recompense him for his services as her counsel. It seems that, shortly after the date of this deed, Mr. Kennedy prepared a will for Mrs. Swinfen, leaving all her real estate to him or to his children, chargeable with £lO,OOO to be divided among some of her relations, and subject to such debts as should be due from her at her death, and appointing him one of her executors. This will, however, she did not execute. In December, 1861, Mrs. Swinfen married Mr. Broun, her co-plaintiff in this suit, and in January, 1862, Mr. Kennedy brought an action against Mr. and Mrs. Broun for services performed for her as counsel and otherwise in the cause of "Swinfen v. Swinfen," and for money paid for her, and for money due from her upon accounts stated. Particulars of demand were delivered in this action, which were deemed insuf ficient, and at length such particulars were reduced to a claim for £20,000 upon accounts stated in January and April, 1859, and all the claims in the action, except that upon accounts stated, were struck cut of the declaration. It appeared that recently - Mr. Kennedy had distributed in the county of Stafford handbills of an offensive character, headed thus: Shortly will be published The Serpent of Swinfen, ' " threatening a publication to show, as it was expressed, "how the serpent has stung her bene factor," The bill in this suit was filed to set aside the deed of the 10th of May, 1859, and the alleged stated accoants, and for an injunction to restrain 31r. Kennedy from selling or mortgaging the pro- perty, and from further prosecuting the action, and from issuing the threatened publication; and the cause now came on upon an interlocutory motion for an injunction for these purposes. Mr. Cole, Q C., and Mr. Kay were for the plain tiffs ; Mr. Chapman Barber and Mr. Kennedy in person . appeared for the defence ; and, after some discussion, the motion was directed to stand over until the first day of Easter Term, upon Mr. Ken nedy's undertaking not to deal with any judgment he might obtain in the action until four days after the commencement of Easter Term, and giving an undertaking not to do any of the other acts sought to be restrained by the notice of motion. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before the Judge Ordinary.) HUNT V. HUNT AND HUNT.-CURIOCS CASE. Sir F. Slade, 4.6;,lindir:Spinks appeared for the petitioner ; Dr, Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Besley, for the resp on d en t ; M r . S ea rle for the co respondent. In 1850 George Hunt, an engineer in the Borough, married Rebecca Cross. In 1854 he received an appointment in the navy, and sailed in the Leopard for the Black Sea, from which he returned in 1856. Soon afterwards he left England again in the Assis tance troop ship for China, and he arranged that his wife should live, in his absence from England, with his father at Beaminster, Dorsetshire, and should receive £3 a month for her maintenance. In 1858 his brother Edward, who paid the allowance, taxed her with being in the familyway ; but she denied it, as there was a God above, and attributed her shape to dropsy. The allowance was, however, soon afterwards stopped ; Edward Hunt having satisfied himself that the respondent had committed adultery with his half-brother, James Hunt, who also lived at Beaminster. It was deposed that at first she had a bedroom to herself at old Mr. Hunt's, but she complained that the house was " trouble some"- —that was, haunted by supernatural noises. (Laughter.) After about three weeks, therefore, she had her bed removed to the room of her father-in law; but she took advantage of a visit paid him by his daughter, Mrs. Burdett, to leave and to go to the co-respondent's, who was a widower. While she was there, Martha Harris, a charwoman, swore that she had twice surprised her in the very act ; and that she had given her a shilling and two shifts not to tell the old man. She was afterwards con fined of a child. Two or three months before then Harris spoke to the co-respondent about it, and he said, with an oath, " What's the odds ? If I cannot keep them the parish must." The respondent afterwards bore the co-respondent a second child. For the wife the adultery was admitted, but she had pleaded several recriminatory charges against her husband, including one of adultery with her sister, Jane Cross. To support this allegation, Jane Cross and another person were called on their sub poenas, but they did not appear. The jury found a verdict for the husband on all the issues. The court made a decree nisi. It also granted decrees in the cases of " Thompson v. Thompson and Barras," and of " Hall v. Hall and Williams," tried yesterday ; but it refused costs in the former instance. STOCK V. STOCK AND COX. Mr. Daly appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Robert Stock, Rob t Stock, an engraver, in Lond on . He married the r respondent in September, 1856, and the charge o f adultery against her was proved by a policeman, who early one morning saw her gathering flowers to give to the co-respondent. She said to Cox, " You may as well come in, Bill, for he's not come home." Soon afterwards the witness heard her say, "'Why don't you take off your • boots and come to bed ?" It was summer, and the window was partly open. There was no evidence of confessions by the paramours. The respondents did not appear. It was stated that Cox had enlisted as a common soldier. The jury (who had only been sworn to assess damages) awarded the petitioner a shilling. The Judge said they had set a very fair value on the woman. He then made a decree nisi, with costs. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE, HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, March 20. (Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Common Jury.) BOOTS V. POUTER. The proceedings in this extraordinary cause were resumed this morning at eight o'clock. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Honeyman again appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Bal lantine and Mr. Philbrick for the defendant. The following additional evidence was adduced : Mrs. Clifton said—l reside at Notting-hill, and was a friend of the plaintiff and defendant. I re ember Mrs. Porter coming to our house last year. 1 . n _..„v er saw major Ross until he was pointed out to tome . L* ,_ Yesterday Mrs Porter stayed at our house three We e k there, sor a month, and Mr. Porter visited her andh I requested him to provide lodgings for her, and he my hous e sh e went he would do so. When she left Mr. Thomhea went to live at Kensington. Lord Chief j enoss was then called. usti e ee Erie interposed, and said that v if this witness e examined now it would be in an giving evidence swer to the charge of adultery, an d the gentleman could not be called afterwards. Mr. Hawkins said that i s a t after this intimation from }, his lordship he should postpone one the examination of Main. Ross until we had the case for the de fendant. H e then said that the evidence already given closed the case for the plai nt iff . Sergeant Ballantine then addresßed the jury, and that had ar t s ee . n e _ta_k i e m n by his said that the course Rnas,difl-ne came to it learned friend somewhat emb appeared to him that Major all, to speak the truth, and was to be exami ne d at e might as well be examined at first as at the clm of the case. There could be no doubt that he was e a most important witness, and he thought that h, ought to have been called and have told his own story. HQ, did not care, however, for the course that had been taken, as he believed that the result, would be thu samo whether Major Ross was examined now or at a later st age of the in quiry. The defendant had no alternative but to defend the present action. It was one of a gr.eat number of a sian t ilar kind that were brought against him, solely, as%lhe believed, for the purposes of ex tortion, and the father-in-law was made the plain tiff, when the proper course to have taken was for the lady herself to have gone into a court specially created for the purpose, and where all the abomi nable details that bad been brought forward in this i• case would have been inquired into. The lady, he' believed, had in point of fact instit u t e d p rocee di ngs in that court against her husband, with a view to obtain alimony from him, and pending these pro ceedings they were called u p on t o d ec id e th e ques tion in this court. He th oug ht th e d e f en d an t h a d a great right to complain of the insinuation that had been thrown out by his learned friend that the defendant had conspired with Major Ross to destroy the character of his wife, and he asserted that there was not a particle of truth in the suggestion, nor in the statement as to what had taken place at Paris. The defence he was instructed to make was, that the wife of the defendant had been guilty of adultery with Major Ross, and he believed he should be able to establish that fact be yond the possibility of a doubt. He called the at tentlbn of the jury to the demeanour of the lady while in the witness-box, and to the levity with which she answered the questions that would have been almost heartrending to a modest woman, and said it appeared to him that, even as the case stood at present, the jury would have no doubt that a criminal intimacy had existed between the wife of the defendant and Major Ross. They would both deny it, of course, and, in eases like these, no other course could be expected ; but the jury would form their own conclusions upon the facts before them, and he should contend that upon these facts no doubt could exist in the mind of any reasonable man that an adulterous intercourse had taken place between them. The learned sergeant then pro ceeded to call the attention of the jury to the evi dence that had been given and to the admissions made by Mrs. Porter as to the manner in which she had received Major Ross, and to the nature of the communications that took place between them, and argued that they were convincing proofs of the guilt of the parties. Major Ross might have acted from a feeling of sympathy for the lady, but husbands did not want young men to sympathise with their wives, and the nature of the connexion that existed between the wife of the defendant and Major Ross was quite sufficient to justify Mr. Porter in believing that his wife had dishonoured him, and in refusing to live with her any longer. The learned sergeant then proceeded to state the fact s h e pro . posed to lay before the jury in support of the de fendant's case, and referred to the letter that had been mentioned, and said that immediately he ob tained possession of it he felt that he had been dis honoured, and when the jury had heard that letter read they would form their own opinion whether he was not justified in coming to that conclusion. U.. then read the following letter from Major Ross to the defendant's wife : "My own beautiful angel,—l am almost mad since seeing you yesterday. How different the meet ing was to what I had been anticipating our first meeting would be ! Instead of holding you in my arms, and forgetting our long separation in loving embraces, we met only as strangers, scarce daring to exchange a look. Oh, my darling, darling love, my heart is so full. I feel as though it would burst. I would sell my soul to possess you. For God's sake, my darling, meet me soon. _ I feel des perate. You cannot imagine how I worship you. I love you to distraction ; pity me, my pet. I am sure you would if you only knew how I am suffer ing. If it is possible for the heart to bleed, mine does. Of course it was very great happiness to see you and hear your dear musical voice; but then to be scarce able to whisper one word of love to you— to be afraid of looking into your beautiful eyes for fear of betraying my feelings—l would have given worlds to be allowed even to kiss your tiny feet ; but no, that brute stood there and prevented all. I could have killed him. I went home by the next train, and, to be left to my own thoughts without interruption, feigned sleepi ness, and got to bed before ten, where I lay thinking of you, my beautiful pet, for hours. I heard it strike three before I slept, and awoke at five this morning with the most wretched feelings imaginable. When—when am I to meet you, dar ling ? Oh, what bliss to anticipate. Cannot you manage to see me this week ? if only for a few minutes. It will make me so supremely happy. I want to make you tell me with your own dear tongue you love me still. I might be in the neigh bourhood with a cab, and you could come to me. Come, my own darling, it will save me from being ill. I am in a high fever now. You cannot imagine the dreadful feeling that is in me. Pray write, dearest, by return, telling me how you are, and if you accept the proposal contained in yesterday's letter. I am very anxious to see the roses back in your beautiful darling face. Now, dearest, I hope and trust you will not think of sparing my pocket. I assure you I can spare the money, and if you don't accept it one way you shall another, as I shall make you a present with the cash if you don't use it. Believe me, pet, lam not a bankrupt, and see no probability of becoming one. The worst of letter-writing, dearest, is that one cannot convey one half they feel. I know that my letters do not explain anything like the deep and burning love I feel for you. I often wish that you could read my heart, and then, indeed, you would understand it, and know what I am suffering in being parted from you. Dear, darling, beauti ful angel, I send you millions of kisses, and remain your most devoted lover, dying to see you, " WILLY." The learned sergeant then proceeded to comment upon the contents of the letter, arguing that it was conclusive of the guilt of the parties, and the fol lowing witnesses were then examined for the de fendant : Mr. Porter said—l am the defendant in this action. I was married to Miss Mace in April, 1855. I took her to Paris, blft I swear I never sugge s t e d what she has stated while we were staying there. In April last my wife left my house, and I, did not find her until I saw her at the Princess's Theatre on the 10th of May, and followed her to her step-father's house, when I said that I was her husband, and took her away with me. My wife said that she was hungry, and I took her to Simpson s, in the Strand, where we had supper, and I then took her home to my own house, where she remained all night. The next morning she refused to stay any longer, and said she would go to her friends the Cliftons. 'We had three children, all girls, and aged respectively six, five, and two years. I took any wife to Mrs. Clifton's, and she stayed there nearly a month, and I did not ascertain for several days where she had gone to, when I found her at the Crown Hotel, at Bayswater, and I left a notice that I would not be responsible for any debts she might incur there. I met my wife several times after this through appointments made with Mrs. Clifton, but she persistently refused to tell me where she was staying. Ma j o r R oss was a ma j or i n t h e same regiment of volunteers as I was. I was captain in the regiment, and I knew he was a married man, and thought that he was my friend. While my wife was away, an d I did not know where she was, Major Ross saw me every day, and witnessed my anxiety and misery, and said that if he knew where my wife was he should be happy to serve me. At one meeting I had with my wife she told me where she was living at Kensing ton, and I went there and took up my residence with her. The house was kept by persons of the name of Tonks. I saw Major Ross repeatedly while I was living with my wife at Kensington, but he never came to the house with my knowledge. We used to meet at the training ground. In 1857 I had had disputes with my wife, but I never charged her with adultery. I did charge her with gross impropriety of manner with a certain gentleman, but I had no idea that my wife was carrying on a correspondence with Major Ross. On the 27th of August my wife was anxious to take a drive, and I hired a phaeton and drove her to Willesden, where the practice butts of the regiment were. I had heard that Major Ross was going to Willesden on this day, and I met him at the station, :and drove him on the ground. When I got there we all went into a tent. I urged the major to attend to his military duties, but he did not do so, and preferred remain- ing in the tent, and he asked my wife to take her bonnet off, which I considered a liberty, and a cer tain look of intelligence passed between them, which made me feel very uncomfortable. After this I drove my wife and child to Hampstead, where we had tea, and as we were going home my wife asked ine not to invite the major to our resi dence. She was also lavish of caresses to me, and called me "her own dear Tom," several times. About this time I had advertised for a country house, but received very few answers, and in con sequence of something 1 heard my suspicions were created. My child said, " Mamma has letters every day, papa," and this was what excited my suspi cion, and I spoke to Miss Tonks upon the subject, and in consequence of what I learned from her I returned home sooner than I had intended or was expected by my wife. She was up stairs, and I was lying on the sofa down stairs, and my wife came in and appeared surprised at seeing me, and said, "Do not blame me if you do not get the house." I had been going to look at a house at Enfield on that day. My wife seemed uneasy, and (lid not eat any dinner, but she drank two glasses of brandy and water. As the hour for the pest arrived she went to the window, and \ looked en t, and when the postman's knock came the left the room, -saying she would go and lie d 'wn- I_replied, "Nu, madam, I will have that letter," snatched I went to the door, and Miss Tonks was passing with a l letter that hasr it f letter and I followed her and was addressed her. I found it was the Zen read. The outside envelope inside was struggled witlio Miss I very nearly succeeded i - rod the letter, I made an ;lot repeat, and my wife said, addressedt Tonks, and the letter to my wife. She 0 get the letter, and exclamation so. Havin i tt . tykation which I will 1 4m ruined." I read THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING}, NIA.ROH 21, 1862. portions of the letter to my wife, and the whole of it afterwards to the Tonkses My wife left the house about an hour and a half afterwards, and re turned the next morning about 2 o'clock, and she told me she had slept under a hedge all night. From November, 1860, to December last I have paid £275 for wearing apparel and other things for my wife. Cross-examined—My wife did miscarry in May in 1855, but I swear I did not expect that event to take place, and I was not aware she had taken any medicine. I first became acquainted with my wife about a year before I married her. I met her at an evening party, and I became her suitor a very few days afterwards. She visited frequently at my mother's house, and an improper intimacy took place between us before the marriage, but I swear she was not pregnant by me. The intercourse took place first at an hotel in the neighbourhood of the Strand. I took her there. I swear I did not know that she was pregnant at the time I married her, and when I discovered it I told her I loved her, that we were married, and if anything happend it would only affection.bea nin nine dal first chargeds'wonde her with le wonder. Imarried her from pure of conduct in 1857, when I discovered that she was carrying on a clandestine correspondence with a gentleman. I introduced this gentleman to my wife. I thought he was a friend, and he turned out such a friend as Major Ross did, I only charged her with levity of conduct with one gentleman, and I cautioned her against walking with another gentle man whose reputation with regard to married women was not what it ought to be. I did once give my wife a box on the ear when she had irritated me very much. She has repeatedly struck me, and hurt me very much. Beyond what I have stated I uni formly treated my wife with kindness and affection. The reason my wife left my house on the 17th April was that she had appointed to meet me at 5 o'clock in the evening, and she did not come home till nearly twelve, and she told me she had been to the Bota nical Gardens with her brother, and afterwards went to the Kensington Museum with him. I did not like the story, and made inquiries, and found that her brother had not been with her on the pre vious day, and he knew nothing about it. I after wards ascertained that my wife was not alone, and I taxed my wife with acting improperly, and high words passed between us, and she left the house. In the beginning of April I had received a warning from a friend to beware of Ross. T taxed him with it, and he denied it, and I still continued to visit him, and supped with him and his wife on several occasions. My wife said once to me that she thought her case was equal to the Yelverton case, that I was an ugly little devil, and I ought to be proud at having such a handsome woman for a wife. (A laugh.) She also said that such a handsome woman as she was could do anything, and she had been studying for five months to go upon the stage. I tried to prevent her from leaving the house, but she succeeded in obtaining her jewellery and got away. When I discovered her at the Princess's theatre, I took her to my house in Park Village, Regent's Park, but she insisted upon leaving on the follow ing morning, and said that she was going to Mrs. Clifton's. I wished after this to take her to a new house, as I had given up the house in the Regent's Park. I saw Major Ross almost every day between July and August, up to the discovery of the letter. My wife has filed a petition against me in the Di vorce Court, not for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, but to get money from me. Lord Chief Justice Erie said he hoped they were not going to rehearse the grand drama that would eventually be performed in the Divorce Court. Mr. Hawkins said his only object was to show that in these prociledings the witness had not charged his wife with adultery. Serjeant Ballantine said that this was not the fact, and the witness was not examined any further upon the point. Mary Tonks said—ln the year 1861 a lady, whom T have since ascertained is Mrs. Porter, taok lodg ings at my mother's house at Kensington, a n d shortly afterwards a gentleman came to visit her. I believe that gentleman to be Mr. Ross. Mrs. Porter said his name was Jordan, and that he was her solicitor. Sometimes he came twice a week, and generally about 2 o'clock in the day, and some times he stayed two hours, and sometimes longer, but I do not recollect that he ever stayed after 8 o'clock in the evening. I do not remember that they ever went out together. Mrs. Porter went out sometimes in the afternoon, and she did not return two or three times until 11 o'clock at night. Mr. Ross was always alone with her, and I have gone into the room where they were, but I never saw anything improper between them. I remem ber Mrs. Porter requesting me to receive letters for her. This was after her husband had come to live with her. I agreed to do so, and I remember the letter coming that Mr. Potter has alluded to. Sometimes letters used to come every other day, and some of the letters were in a lady's handwriting. The others were in the same handwriting as the one that has been produced. Cross-examined—l frequently saw papers on the table when Mr. Ross and Mrs. Porter were to- gether. Mr. Robert W. Jones, the adjutant of the regi ment to which the defendant and Major Ross be longed, proved that the letter which had been pro duced was in the handwriting of the latter. Mr. Blake, a chemist, residing in Bedford-place, Kensington, proved that he had upon several occa sions seen Major Ross go to the house where Mrs. Porter resided, and go out together in a cab. Mr. Hawkins then adduced the following addi tional evidence for the plaintiff : Mr. Ross said—l am the person whose name has been mentioned, and I am a married man, and live in the Hampstead-road. I was acquainted with the defendant, and visited him occasionally. I used to visit Mrs. Porter when she lived at Bedford-place, Kensington, and I have written to her and she has written to me. I suppose I wrote the letter that has been produced, but I should like to look at it. (The letter was handed to the witness.) It is my handwriting. I swear that I never had any crimi nal intercourse with Mrs. Porter. Cross-examined—l was friendly with Mr. Porter, and I obtained his commission for him. We were upon terms of friendship. I was not attempting to debauch his wife at the commencement of our inti macy, but afterwards I did attempt to debauch her. I regret to say I took all the means in my power to obtain possession of her person. lam a married man, and have one child. I set to deliberately to debauch my friend's wife. It always takes some time to accomplished a thing of that sort. Sergeant Ballantine—You seem to know all about it. Did the lady give you any encouragement ? Major Ross—l swear that she did not. Sergeant Ballantine—And never allowed you to take any liberties with her ? Major Ross—Upon one ,occasion she was angry about her children, and I put my arm round her waist and kissed her. I did the same thing to her on several occasions afterwards. That was the nearest approach to criminal conversation that ever took place between us. Letters have passed be tween us, and she has written several letters to me. Sergeant Ballantine—What has become of those letters ? Major Ross—They are all destroyed ; but I have had notice to produce them. Sergeant Ballantine—Then we are to understand that you deliberately attempted to debauch the wife of your friend ? Major Ross—l did not consider he was my friend at this time. Before the discovery took place, Mr. Porter frequently spoke to me about his wife, and was very anxious to know where she was, and I said nothing to satisfy him until she had come away from Kensington, and then I told him that I knew where she had been. Cross-examination continued—l should not have been here to give evidence if I had not been sub poenaed by the defendant, and I did not know until yesterday that I was to be called as a witness for the plaintiff. I have not had any communication with Mrs. Porter since I have been at Maidstone. Sergeant Ballantine (holding up the letter that had been produced)—l suppose it is true that you accompanied Mr. Porter and his wife to Willesden ? Major Ross—Yes. Sergeant Ballantine—And that you found it diffi cult to" look into her beautiful eyes." (A laugh.) Major Ross—Yes; her husband was there. Sergeant Bailantine—But notwithstanding the difficulty that existed, you still continued your efforts to debauch her ? Major Ross—l did. Sergeant Ballantine—The husband kept too close, then ?' Major Ross—He was away from the tent for a short time, but I cannot say how long. I did not " time" him. Sergeant Ballantine—l suppose you exchanged glances while the husband was away ? Major Ross—We did. Sergeant Ballantine—Pray what are you, Mr. Ross, besides being a major ? Major Ross—A printer and publisher. Sergeant Ballantine—Did you always call Mrs. Porter "your own beautiful angel ?" (Laughter.) Major Ross—l had called her so before, but it was not my habit to do so. Sergeant Ballantine—Do you think she believed Majorß oss—l did. what you said ? Major Ross—Well, I think she rather doubted it. Sergeant Ball an tine—You mean that .she doubted her bein g an ange l . (L aug hter.) Major Ross—Y es. Sergeant B a ll ant i ne— l see that you say in this Sergeant letter, " I anti c i pate t h e pl e asure of seeing you alone, and h o ldi ng you i n m y arms i n a lov i ng em brace." Did You do so ? Ballantine—l see that you also say that you could not exchange a look with the lady because the beast of a husban . 4 pievented h. Was that so ? Major Ross—Yes. Sergeant Ballantine—And you also say that you could not sleep all night for thinking of her. Was that the case ? Major Ross—Yes. Sergeant Ballantine—So that while lying by the side of your own wife, you could not sleep for thinking of the wife of another man. Major Ross—Yes. Sergeant Ballantine—ls it true that you took off her bonnet while you were in the tent at Wil lesden ? Major Ross—Mrs. Porter said that she felt faint, and I advised her to take off her bonnet, and assisted her to do so. Sergeant Ballantine—You did not kiss her at ;he same time, did you ? Major Ross—l had no opportunity to do so, be cause her husband was'present. Sergeant Ballantine—l suppose you have no doubt now that you did write this leiter to Mrs. Porter ? Major Ross—No ; and I am only astonished that I ever could have written such a foolish letter. (Laughter.) Sergeant Ballantine—When was it you first heard that the husband had discovered this letter ? Major Ross—On the same night. Sergeant Ballantine—From what source did you discover the fact ? Major Ross—Well, it:is of no use denying the fact that I learnt it from Mrs. Porter. She sent some one to my place of business to tell me that she wanted to speak to me. I was at my place of busi ness at the time. Sergeant Ballantine—Was your wife there ? Major Ross—She was not. She never came there. Sergeant Ballantine—Did Mrs. Porter know that? Major Ross—She did. Sergeant Ballantine—Had Mrs. Porter been to your place of business before ? Major Ross—Yes, her husband brought her to my place of business once, and said he thought she would like to see the operations that were going on there. (A laugh.) Sergeant Ballantine—What took place between you and Mrs. Porter after you went out to her ? Major Ross—We walked about for some time, and I adviapa her to return to Bcdfurd-plaCe. Sergeant Ballantine then proceeded to sum up the defendant's case in a most eloquent speech, and he urged that upon the facts before the jury it was im possible they could entertain any reasonable doubt that Mrs. Porter had been guilty of adultery with Major Ross, and he commented in most severe terms upon the conduct of that gentleman, and the man ner in which he said he had unblushingly admitted his villanous conduct towards the defendant, and he added that he had no hesitation in designating him as an unmitigated scoundrel. Mr. Hawkins, in the course of a very able reply upon the whole case, reminded the jury that what ever opinion they might entertain of Major Ross or of his conduct in the transaction, the only question they had to decide was, whether it was made out by satisfactory evidence, that Mrs. Porter had been guilty of adultery with him, and he submitted that there was no such evidence in the case, and that they would not be justified in casting Mrs. Porter forth upon the world and destroying her for ever upon the evidence that had been laid before them on behalf `of the defendant. He then com mented upon the conduct of Mr. Porter, and said that if his wife had acted with levity, and in a manner inconsistent with her position, whi c h was all that he at first appeared to have alleged against her, in all probability this had been brought about by his own conduct towards her before their mar riage, and that if he had treated her as every honourable and right-minded man would treat a young and virtuous girl to whom he was a suitor, and whom he intended;to make his wife, instead of corrupting her mind, and seducing her under the disgusting circumstances that had been deposed to, her conduct would no doubt have been very different, and the present painful and disgusting inquiry might have been spared. Chief Justice Erle, i n summing up, said th a t th e real question the jury had to decide was, whether it had been reasonably made out to their satisfaction that Major Rossihad been guilty of adultery with the defendant's wife, and if they were satisfied of this fact, the defendant would not be liable by the law of England, to pay for necessaries supplied to her, to recover which was the object of the present action. He then said that in cases of this kind the result of experience led him to make that observa tion that very little reliance could be placed upon the oaths of the parties inculpated, because they had so fearful a stake at issue, that he was afraid they did not scruple to swear to that which was false in order that they might escape from the conse quences of their own guilt. In the present case, so far as Major Ross was concerned, he certainly thought that the jury would not be inclined to place much reliance upon the evidence of a witness, himself a married man with:a family, who admitted that he deliberately devoted:himself to de bauch the wife of a man with whom he was on friendly terms, and while received by him upon these terms sought with steady and deliberate pur pose to destroy his happiness for ever. The learned judge then called the attention of the jury to all the material points in the case, and particularly to the letter that had been written by Major Ross to the wife of the defendant, and he asked them whether, as reasonable men, and persons acquainted with the ways of the world, and with human motives and actions, they could come to any other conclusion than that the man who wrote such a letter must have been on terms of guilty intimacy with the per son to whom it was addressed. The jury retired at 2 o'clock to deliberate upon their verdict. After being in their room until 6 o'clock, they came into court and said that 11 of them were agreed upon a verdict, but the 12th juror was a dissentient, and they wished to know whether the verdict of the 11 could be taken. The learned judge consulted the counsel on both sides, and Mr. Hawkins, on the part of the plaintiff, consented to take this verdict of the 11 jurors. The other side, however, would not agree, and the jury, consequently, again retired, refreshments having been supplied to them. . The jury returned into court at 9 o'clock, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff. NORFOLK CIRCUIT—BURY ST. EDMUNDS March 19. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Baron Martin.) HARLOCK V. OTTAWAY. Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane were for the plaintiff; Mr. Mills, Q.C., for the defendant. This was an action to recover £259 2s. 4d., the expenses of training a racehorse called Gibraltar, and for payments to jockeys and tradesmen in re spect, of the horse. The plaintiff received the horse when it was two years old, and the defendant was to pay L 2 2s. per week. The accounts between the parties are some what complicated, for during the racing season some partnership arrangement was entered into between the plaintiff, the defendant, and a Mr. Pybus ; and the accounts involve training, running expenses, entries, forfeits, &c. The agreement was not pro duced by the plaintiff, and the evidence was con tradictory as to the time over which it extended. Attempts have frequently been made to settle this action by arbitration, and during the trial this morning these attempts were repeated; but as the plaintiff has possession of the horse, and the defen dant has commenced an action of trover to recover the horse, the plaintiff refused to allow this action to be referred, unless the action of troller is referred also. The plaintiff Harlock is a well-known trainer, and Ottaway is a person who was formerly an inn keeper at Maidstone. The defence to this action was that the plaintiff was a partner from 1860, therefore any claim for money due after that period was not to be allowed. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, March 15. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Mellor.) TRADE OUTRAGE AT THORPE HESLEY. Joseph Tomlinson, 32, James Watson,2B, and Emanuel Isaac Watson, 30, were charged with feloniously throwing gunpowder into a building occupied by John Hattersley, with intent to destroy the same, at Rotherham, on the 21st Dec., 1861. Mr. Maul e an d M r . V. Blackburn prosecuted ; Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. C. Foster defended the prisoners. It appeared that Mr. Hattersley was the foreman of the nail makers in the employ of Mr. Favell, of Thorpe Hesley. The nail makers at that place, amongst whom were the three prisoners, were in October last on strike. In the third week of Oc tober there was a meeting at Thorp Hesley of union men. Favell's men were then working. Tomlinson and one of the Watsons were present at the meeting referred to, and the former made use o f a threat that h e would blow Favell's men up. Su the prisoners went to work at Ches terfielden a critly nd Bel per. On Saturday, the 21st Dec., a policeman in the evening m e t the two Watsons about three - quarters of a mile from Thorpe Hesley, and spoke to them for five minutes. That same night an explosion took place in a shop belonging to Charles Butcher, just before which the three prisoners were seen to pass at about 40 yards fr . om the men were again met running away from that direction, and almost simultaneously an explosion shop. Directly after the first explosion recognised; was heard Hattersley's shop. On each of these occasions the prisoners were distinctly and were subsequently apprehended at Chesterfield and Belper. It was then found that the prisoners were all away from their homes at the time of the explosion, and there were also found pieces of tin and explosive instruments which exactly corres ponded with tins and similar instruments found in the shops at Thorpe Hesley, and which were those by which the blowing up had been effected. The defence was an overwhelming alibi, no less than 17 witnesses being called, and three of these policemen, to swear that the prisoners were two at Chesterfield and one at Belper at the very time the offence was said to have been committed. In surn ming up his lordship said it was one of the most extraordinary alibis which had ever come under his observation. The jury, however, brought in a verdict of guilty. Fourteen years' penal servitude each. This was the last case in the calendar of pri soners, and the court, therefore, proceeded with the trial of causes. POLICE INTELLIOENC E.—March 20. BOW-STREET. A Post-office letter carrier, named William Nichols, was charged with stealing a letter containing a sixpence and eight postage' stamps, and another letter containing eighteen postage stamps, which had come into his hands in the ordinary course of his duties. The prisoner was employed in the W.C. (west central) office, Holborn, and it was his duty to deliver letters in the neighbourhood of Gray's-inn road and Brunswick-square. Suspicion having fallen on him, the two letters were made up as tests, and directed to addresses in Speedy-place, Brunswick-square, and Harrison-street, Gray's-inn road. They did not reach their destinations, and the prisoner on being questioned denied all know ledge of them, but when he was searched the stamps were found in his possession. They were identified by marks in an invisible ink, which became apparent on the application of a certain fluid. He was committed for trial. CLERKENWELL.—EIIen Clifford, an unfortu nate woman, about thirty years of age, residing at 8, Fitzroy-market, was charged before Mr. D'Eyn court with being drunk and disorderly, and mak ing use of obscene language in Great Coram-street, St. Pancras, and, further, with attempting to com mit suicide in the cell, at the Hunter-street police station. The prisoner was locked up for making a distur bance, and had not been long in the cell before the constable on duty heard ',a peculiar sound, and found that the prisoner had endeavoured to strangle herself by tying the strings of her bonnet tightly round her throat. The strings were cut, but she had not been left long before she again attempted to destroy herself. The consequence was that a man had been left in the cell the whole of the night with her. In answer to Mr. D'Eyncourt, The prisoner said that she was very sorry for what she had done. She had endeavoured to de stroy her:life because she thought that her infant, which was only seven months old, would be taken from her for ever. Sooner than she would lose her child she would lose her life. Mr. D'Eyncourt said he had a great mind to send her to the House of Correction, but taking into con sideration the fact that she had an infant he would now discharge her, but hoped that she would be more careful for the future. LAMBETH,—Frederick Chester, alias Phillips, a returned transport, but late the manager of The Trades Protection Society, 3, Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate-street, and who has been in custody for a week, on a charge of obtaining various sums of money by fraud and false pretences, was again placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott for final ex amination, Mr. Henry Barton, a grocer, No. 8, Mary's-road, Kennington, said that on the 7th January last the prisoner called upon him, and representing himself as agent to the Tradesman's Protection Society, in Great St. Helen's, gave him a prospectus of the society, and solicited him to become a member. He said if he did so the society would collect his debts at 5 per cent. Witness gave him half a guinea, for which he filled up and gave him the annual! subscribers' ticket produced, and he also gave him the particulars of two debts due to him by a Mrs. Bellamy and a person named Taberner. Some time afterwards the prisoner again called on him and said he could not get any money from Mrs. Bellamp, and consequently took out a writ for her, which cost him 7s. 3d., and this sum witness paid him. The prisoner also said he took out a summons against Taberner, but had not re ceived any money, so that he had not paid him (witness) a shilling on account of either debt. The name given and signed by the prisoner was Robert Thomas Simpson. In reply to the question of the magistrate, the , witness said that he should not have paid the pri soner the half guinea, nor given him the debts to collect, if he had not believed him to be the agent of a respectable society, and a respectable person, and should certainly not have had anything to do with him if he had had the slightest idea that he was a returned transport. _ _ Mrs. Ann Bellamy said she owed the last witness £2 4s. 32c1., and this the prisoner said he should receive from her at the rate of 10s. a week. She paid him three instalments of os., 10s., and 155., and he gave her a receipt for the balance on her paying ss. more, saying at the time he should pay the balance himself to Mr. Barton. The prisoner gave the name of Simpson. Mr. Thomas Dixon said—l live at No. 26, Wil liams-terrace, Walworth, and am manager to the Metropolitan and Provincial Trades Protection Association, the offices of which are at 3, Great St. Helens, Bishopsgate. I know the prisoner. I established the society in September last, and ap pointed him manager. I was to act as secretary, and after paying expenses we were to divide profits. Mr. Elliott—Was there any agreement in writ ing, if so, produce it P Dixon—There was no agreement. In November last I was dissatisfied with and discharged him, and from that time he had no authority to collect subscriptions in the name of the society, which was then called the " Trades Protection Society," nor had he any to collect any debts in the name of the society subsequently to November. The card pro duced is not one of the society's cards of member ship. It is headed " The Tradesman's Protection Offices." The prisoner brought some of these cards to my office, and said he had them left from other offices, and that we might as well use them, and a few were used without alteration of the name for our subscribers up to the time of the prisoner leav ing me. Since then I have had new cards printed. The prisoner has never brought to me the name of Mr. Barton as a subscriber, nor paid any money on his account. The card produced is signed pro Thomas Dixon, secretary, in the prisoner's handwriting. He had no authority from me to put my name to that card. He has not accounted to me for any money received from Mrs. Bellamy. Mr. Elliott—The society, I think you have stated, consisted of the prisoner and yourself : the pri soner as manager and yourself as secretary ? Dixon—Yes, sir; but since I have discharged him I have become the manager myself. Mr. Elliott—Then in point of fact since Novem ber you in your own person constituted the whole society ? Dixon—Yes, but I have a secretary. Sergeant Bell, 39 P, produced a quantity of documents, prospectuses, and cards found on the prisoner when he apprehended him, and said that he could establish at least 50 cases of having re ceived subscriptions for the alleged society against him. He also said he had ascertained that in 1849 the prisoner had been tried, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years' transportation on a charge of forgery, and Webb, the City officer, who had him in custody, was present, and could prove the fact. He (Bell) had further ascertained that he had served out the whole of his time at the convict prison, Bermuda, so that he could not have been home more than 18 months. Mr. Elliott—Have you made any inquiries about Dixon ? Bell--I have, yoar worship, and have heard that he is a respectable man. Mr. Elliott—lt i s mos t ex t raor di nary th a t th e public should be deluded by these societies—pro tection societies as they are calld. In this case what do I find ? Why two sets of flaming prospec tuses and two sets of cards of the same society, the one describing itself as " The Metropolitan and Pro vincial Trade s P ro t ec ti on A ssoc i at i o n ; " the other, " The Trades Protection Offices," and both in the same offices. Thi s soc i e ty purports to have been established i n 18 5 1 , t h oug h M r . Dixon on , his oath sdmits that h e hi mse lf es t a bli s hed it in September last, and in 1851 it could not have been established by the prisoner, for at that time h . e was expiati ng his offences i n B erm uda. The society, according to the prospectus, purports to be established for th e "protecti on o f tra d es ," to give " information as to swindlers." and " tracing absconded debtors ;" yet what do we find ? Why the whole so c i e t y t o con sist of t wo perso ns, each claiming the merit of being its promoter, the one the manager and the other the secretary, and one of them a returned transport. From what I can see, I must say that it appears to me to be merely a swindling society. The prisoner, in reply to the cha rge , sa id h e took Mr. B ar t on ' s subscription becau se h e cons id ere d he was still connected with the office, as the joint ex penses were borne alike between him and Dixon, and as for the account of Mrs. :3ellamy, it had Bever . ~ , ~, been finally settled, else he should have settled with Mr. Barton. He was fully committed to take his trial on this charge. Another charge of nearly a similar description was established, and the prisoner was committed upon that also. , Before leaving the court, Mr. Dixon requested permission to address his worship, and said that the inquiries he had made about the prisoners charac ter were perfectly satisfactory, and declared he had. not the slightest idea he was a returned transpo. RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE. GREAT LUXEMBOURG. The report of the directors states that the gross receipt's for the year 1861 amounted to £172,193, against £136,839 in 1860, and £112,951 in 1859; and the net earnings to £93,902, £67,925, and £49,630 respectively. Thus the net revenue of 1861 had surpassed that of 1860 by 38 per cent, : and that of 1859 by 89 per cent. The proportion of the wot king expenses of last year to the gross re ce;:nts wao, 46 per cent., showing a considerable reducttion ou the preceding year, when the expen diture aoaounted to 50 per cent. of the receipts. The interch,ln l je of traffic consequent on the open ing of the line from Luxembourg to Treves was already considerabt.'• The net earnings of the line from Namur to Arlo. ' had considerably exceeded the amount of the Gover,.lClent guarantee (£32,000) and the company had note. ‘ng therefore to claim under this head. The cost of the branch railway completed as far towards Longway, which had bee. as Athus, had not exceeded £6,000 a mile. The ex penditure on capital account during th. year 1861 amounted to £156,184. The company _had been repaid £14,531 on account of the £20,000 de,Dosited by the former board as security for the constru 6 4 0 n of the Grand Junction lines. After deducting fi 'Ol4 the revenue of the railway and canal £62,715 .t 6 meet interest and reimbursement of obligations, there would remain a balance of £34,037, out of which the directors proposed to declare a dividend of 6s. 6d. per share, leaving £1,200 for the re serve fund, and £731 to the credit of the current year. The capital account showed that £3,315,978 had been expended, leaving a balance against the company of £78,953. ~ TIER BALLOT S OCIETY. =,. 7 - J __________4— ithe folloW ing letter hits bet n sent by the coin n attee of the Ballot Society to an elector of North 1 .'iorkshire, wh.c) expressed. , lissent from the advice g o : I . Yell * the co,mmittee to the friends of the ballot #. t jtbs , .in fromvotiz% - at the forthcoming election , becan e neither candi d let stated stated the writer t.: - ate is for the ballot. The lkfc... # filbank, the anti-ballot r r er/ determined to vote for hig, because he found that both candidates were unfa vourable to the bal -100 !tit that Mr. Milbank would. vote for the exten pio ' of the franchise "to a certain ex,tent":— 1 et Dear Sir,—The committee direct ma t , ') acknowledge the ', •eceipt of your letter of the 11th inst., and to thank yen I or the appreciation of their efforts expresse d therein. t; t 'ie committee regret to find that you differ from the pond. ' they recommend the friends of the ballot in North Yorksia ire to pursue at the present election. - wrh c , committee need not remind so active and intelli . 'gent a .' pc ,, thcian as yourself of the present state of the Li beral party which was lately well described as 'enfeebled , debauched, ana l hvmil;ated, under the leadership of stater men who care not for reform.' "It is the object of this committee representing the so-• ciety to make these statesmen feel that the ballot is re-• garded by the people of this country as a measure which cannot be trifled with or delayed to suit the convenience of any Ministry, the selfitth purposes of any faction, or the antiquated prejudices oi any party leader. How can they so well do this as by iztdueing the friends of the ballot at every election where th a contest lies between an anti-ballot Whig and an anti .balk I Tory, to treat the difference be tween the candidates as one only of the names of worn-out factions, and to take no pe rt in returning either of them to Parliament? - ' As long as the friends of the ballot in the constituencies are content for the convein'ence of party-leaders to receive' opponents of the ballot as e endidates and return them as members, so long will such leaders persevere in refusing to treat the ballot as one of the p oints of their political creed. " The policy of the committee should also be regarded in its effects upon the Liberal members of the House of Com mons. Earl Russell in 1859 said of the ballot 'it must be carried by the growth and maturity of public opinion,' and , Mr. Bright has said ' when the 200 men now in the House `of Commons who are pledged to the ballot, or when 50 of ,9,,,,,1 are in earnest and tell the Government they are re , solved to have it, and they will leave any Government that w ilt jio t . grant it in the hands o f the Philistines on the oppo site side 01" the house, then, anti probably not till then, the ballot will be conceded.' How c,in the growth and maturity of public op . init. in be so well impressed upon the governing' classes? How can the Parliamevtary supporters of the ballot be so well t,..'nght that the time is come when they must with such earnest:ness demand the ha!ot,that it must be conceded, as by its friends' in the constituench's voting for any candidate who is in favor of the ballot, .and abstaining from voting for any opponents, and thus show ing that they no longer consider the profession of the party name Whig or Liberal as a sufficient ground of support, where suclt profession is accompanied by oppos.ition to the ballot. " With reference to your county election the committee must observe that no point of the 'Whig candidate's creed was so clearly stated and so firmly held as his opposition to the ballot declared in reply to a question put to him in your town, while his opponent is reported to have said at the nomination that the extension of the suffrage would not prove of the slightest benefit without the ballot—an opinion in which this committee fully agree, and they therefore do not feel that a promise to support an extension of the suf.* frage to a certain undefined extent is arty ground for voting for an opponent of the ballot. The committee are thoroughly convinced that distasteful as this policy is to many friends who professing to esteem the ballot much but esteem Ministerial and party conveni' ence more —the adoption of it by their friends in the con , stituency w ill ere long bring about that protection to th voter which the ballot can alone secure.—l am, dear sir, yours faithfully, Jonx F. BONTEMS, hon. secrotaay. COY N 7 RI MARK L 2 S. BIRMIN .GUIAM —MARCH 20. There was a fair supply . of English wheat, which, as wel l as all kinds of foreign, vas Is per qr lower. Barley nom'' nally unaltered. Oats, beans, and peas held for the cur rency of this day week. ' NEWARK.- -MAR= 19. There was only a small amour t of business done to-daY* Wheat and oats is lower. In barley and other grain 1 10 alteraon. White wheat, new, 60s to 63s Barley, grinding.. 29s to 31 0 Red do. sss to 5 1 s Oats, old, ...... 00s to 35; Old white 6oe to 63 s New do . 23s to 21 0 Red do 46s to 56s 1 Beans. ... .458 to 41 0 Barley, malting 328 to 39s I Beans, 44s to .** 6 Peas, ....48s to 540. PLYMOUTH—MA.I'I.CH 18. The market was fairly attended, with an averaged emantl for wheat and flour at about last week's. currency. White wheat, 65s to 66s ; red, 63s to 64s ,yer qr ; French do., 6 ° 5 to 62s ; American, 61s to 635; Spavish, 74s to 76s i Ras: sian, 60s to 625. Marley at about late rates-34s to 38S J# qr for malting ; grinding, 28s to 30s ; , oats, 22s to 28s ; ans , beans, —s to —s ; flour, 43s to 46s Od. EDINBURGH GRAIN—MAC cR 19 . ' Wheat on the top is Od down average os uP. 5d Barley on the top 6s Od down average ‘Os 2d tiP. id up. Oats on the top is Od down average OL I gd clown. Beans on the top 2s Od down average L' 9 Total Supply and Sales. Wheat........ 1249 qrs Sold 712 cire 8ar1ey........1176, qrs Sold 714 qrs , Oats 2406 qrs Sold 1343 qrs Beans 446 qrs Sold 272 qrs CORK—MARcH 19. Bea l The following were the quotations this morning 00 . wheat, 22s 9d to 24s 6d ; white, 27s Od to —s Od; barley I.'s 6d to 13s Od ; oats, Us Od to 15s Od. DERBY SMITHFIELD—MAncn 18. There was a less supply of fat beasts to-day, and tho quality was good. The supply of sheep was not over largo+ and the best quality was in demand. Fat calves were ro° 11 ,„. plentiful, and sold well. The show of fat pigs was ba r " an average one. Beet 6d to 6id Veal . 7id to Scr i . Mutton .... 7id to Sid Pork Lamb Od to Od Rough fat, 4s 3d per stone, Hides, 3d to 41d ; calf skins, 5d to 6d. NEW YORK Ai'D ERIE. The traffic returns on this 2ine, 494 miles in length, including branches, amounted for the month of January, 1862, to 695,507 (£139,101), end for the same month of the previous year to 404,007 dole. (£80,901), showing an increase of 291,000 (.30liars (£58,200). BAY OF HAVANA AND MATANZAS. It appears that the receipts on this company's railway, from San. 1 to Feb. 9, 40 days, amounted to £11,200, and it was estimated that if the same rate were to continue, the gross receipts of the year would be £102,200, and, deducting £51,100 for working expenses, there would remain £51,100; which, after paying interest at 7 per cent. on the loan of £250,000, would leave £33,600. RAILWAY BILLS. Yesterday the consideration of the case for the promoters of the Crystal Palace and South Junction Railway was finally closed, and the committee inti mated that they would proceed with the opposition of the London and Brighton Company. The locus standi of the Great Western Railway, in opposition to the Rickmansworth, Amersham, and Chesham Railway, was ignored, and the bill was sent for further consideration and final •sanction to Mr, Massey, the Chairman of Committees on unopposed projects. The committee then proceeded with the consideration and settlement of the clauses proposed by other railway interests to the bill for the amal gamation of the Eastern Counties with other rail way companies. Mr. Bircham, solicitor to the London and South-Western Railway Company,was the principal witness examined on the question of the competing lines between Andover and Red bridge. Evidence pro and con. occupied the committees on the Bala Railway Bill, and on that of the Barns ley Coal Railway Company's Extension until their rising. In Mr. Massey's committee,unopposed bills of the Eastern Union, Keighley, and Worth, North Devon, Edgware, Highgate, and London, Banstead and Epsom Downs, Mortonhampstead and North Eastern, and Hull and Holderness Amalgamation passed through the stages required to prove their preambles. ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH. The ordinary meeting of this company was held at the offices, Old Broad-street, on Wednesday, the Hon. J. S. Wortley in the chair. Mr. SAWARD read the report, which stated that unsuccessful attempts had been made at Valentia to recover for sale some portion of the old cable. The directors bad been unceasing in their efforts for the resuscitation of the great enterprise under their charge, in which they had been energetically aided by Mr. C. W. Field. The great improvements that had taken place in every department of cablemaking since 1857, and the great comparative facility with which cables could now be submerged, made it clear that in proper hands the laying of a cable between Ireland and Newfoundland, such as could now be produced, admitted of no reasonable doubt. Depth of water had been ascertained to be unimportant in the laying of an efficient cable. A suitable cable could be worked between Ireland and Newfound land at the rate of at least eight words per minute, and they had abundant evidence that the route of which this company enjoyed the privilege was the only one that was in any respect fairly practicable. The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the report, said, owing to the exertions of the directors they were now free from all liabilities. There was now a probability of the project being sue• cessfully revived if they could only secure the co-operation of the public and the Government, The last cable laid by Messrs. Glass and Co. was from Algeria to Toulon, 600 miles in length, and at a depth of 1,800 fathoms, being only 300 fathoms less than the depth of the Atlantic cable. All that was now required was a moderate guarantee to enable them to get the necessary capital, and if that could be obtained he for one had no doubt of the success of the undertaking. Mr. S. GURNEY, M.P., seconded the motion, and it was carried. The retiring directors and auditors were re elected. Mr. C. Field and Mr. W. E. Dodge were elected honorary directors, and the proceedings terminated with a vote of thanks to the chairman. SIR HOPE GRANT AND GENERAL MONTAUBAN.— General Sir Hope Grant, who commanded our army in China, passed through Paris not long since on his way to India. Whilst in this city he did not hesitate to express to his friends a certain amount of discontent at the con duct of the French Commander-in-Chief, who co-operated with him in the Chinese expedition, viz., General, and now Count, Montauban. It appears that General Sir Hope Grant proposed, with the forces under his command to attack the strong forts with his Armstrong guns, and then storm them. The French general strongly objected, and even in the presence of the staff wrote a protest against General Sir Hope Grant's plan s of opera tion. The English Commander simply put.the protest in his pocket, carried out his plans, and fully accom plished all he intended. General Montauban, after the success of the attack, wished to have his protest returned, but Sir Hdre Grant refused to do so. The English General complained of no mention having been made in the official despatches of the fact of the British Sikh cavalry having saved the French army when surrounded by hordeg of Chinese, which force, accompanied by a couple of troops of English cavalry, cut through the mass of Chinese, and delivered their French brothers in arms. Some severe criticism was indulged in, too, concerning the manner in which the French General disposed of the plunder of the Winter Palace; but I do not think proper to repeat the stories I have heard on this subject. At all events, I fear we must conclude that the protected of Napoleon 111. is not the most magnanimous or the most scrupulous of the many brave soldiers of France,—Paris Correspondent of the Morning Post. Mr. W. F. Windham (writes a eorrespondenl) continues a fertile theme of conversation in Norfolk, the recent proceedings in Chancery having to some extent re vived the interest respecting him. The latest on dit, which is based on excellent authority, is, that Mrs, Windham has finally separated from her husband, a deed of separation being contemplated, if not actually executed, which will secure her £20,000 as a saatium. Felbrigg Hall has been hired for a term by the Marquis of Abercorn, and it is stated that a further sum has been raised on mortgage of the estate. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. Auflralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. Mar. 1 . via Marseilles Mar. ' Lirazil and Cape Verds, by British packet.. April 6. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena April 1- . .1 , China, Penang, and Singapore, via southampton Mar. " e " via Marseilles Mar. 1"' Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton Mar India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Mar r .. ::* via Marseilles Mar. 1p;, India (Bombay), via Southampton via Marseilles Mar. 22- Lisbon Mar. 2 1 ' Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Mar. 21- via Marseilles Mar. 1 1 Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet Mar. 19 ' by U.S. packet by Canadian eire packet. Mar. --. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and 'len Mar. ---- ,ri Bahamas, via New York' Mexico All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru ' :, a i m Al i par r r . i.l3 l . l l l: . California, and British Columbia.. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Ointment and Remarkable Recovery.—Mothers and nurses should read the testimonials to the efficacy of Holloway's remedies in subduing scarlatina, diptheria, bronchitis, and those inflow matory complaints which are now committing such havoo amongst children and adults. A wife writes—" I had ouli, rubbed the ointment on the throat two days in a case of bronchitis, when my husband, in a most remarkable maw ner, and in less than a week, wa s quite well. Such ter timony should be known to persons liable to throat affee' tions, and all families generally. The worst ulcers, wounds, and sores become clean and soon grow up under the a ppli• cation of Holloway's ointment, which always prevents the spread of inflammation and unhealthy action. BIRTHS. BURNEY.—On the 16th inst., at 8, Stainsby-road, E., th e wife of G. Burney, Esq., of Millwall, of a son. FITZGERALD.—On the 18th inst., at 7, Merrion-squar e f Dublin, the Hon. Mrs. Fitzgerald, of a daughter. HEYWOOD.—On the 15th inst., at 22, Bedford-place, Ru e ' sell-square, the wif e o f t h e Rev. John Heywood, 1\1•11'' of a daughter. VILLIEEs,--On the 19tn inst., at Bishopwearmouth, th e Lady Victoria Villiers, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. LASC ELLES—MACKENME.—On the 18th inst., at Brighto n parish church the Hey. Edwin Lascelles, e ld es t son 0 , John Lascelles, Esq., R.lsf., to Margaret Busby, elde o ' daughter of Alexander Mackenzie, Esq., of Sussex square. WOOD—RANwELL,--On the 20th inst., at Saint Mary 's ' Woolwich, Mr. Frederick C Wood, of Leadenhall•stree L to Fanny Stuart, eldest daughter of thelate Mr. Will . Ranwell, of Woolwich. DEATHS. COURTNEY.—On the 13th inst., at Brixton, Mary, Wiel °W of the late Major Courtney, aged 82. CLARKSON.—On the 16th inst., at Abercromby Ow' Edinburgh, Mary, widow of the late Colonel J. 0. Clerk' son, Bengal Arniy. JONES—On the 17th inst. ' at Foy, Heref or d s hi re , the JU T ' John Jones, vicar, aged 70. LEE.—On the 18th inst., at Guildford, Anthony Lee, Esq'' aged 76. PAGET.—On the 18th inst., the Rev. Alfred Tolver Page t ' rector of Kirstead, Norfolk, and lately Fellow of Csi ue College, Cambridge. WHIFFIN.—On the 14th inst., at Duppa's-hill, Croydon, Edward Warner Whiffin, late of the Office of Receiver:, General of the MetropulitanPolice, th e y ou ngest sou of Henry Whiffin, Esq. LONDON : Printed and Published by JOHN CHAPLI N. ' of No. 11 2 , Strand , Print( r, at THE SUN Office, No' il l Strand, in tho Precinct o f t h e Savoy, in the County ° Middlesex. —Friday, March 21 , 1862.