The Sun. — London, England, 1862-02-01 00:00:00

~- le I THE WINDHAM CASE. TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir,—Since my conduct as testamentary guardian to my nephew, Mr. W. F. Windham, and my mo tives in being a party to the proceedings so long before the public, have been somewhat roughly handled, I know that I shall not appeal in vain to your justice to publish the following letters " 48, Eaton-place, Jan. 30, 1862. My dear Sir,—lt has been my lot in the course of my public career to have imputations cast upon my professional conduct. " I have habitually submitted to such imputa tions in silence, trusting to the judgment of my nnperiors for their contradiction, in which I have hitherto not been disappointed. " But when a man's personal honour is assailed, it becomes a duty, no less to himself than to his friends to meet and repel the attack as publicly as it has been made. " During the progress of the unhappy inquiry before the Commissioner in Lunacy, ordered by the Lords Justices, and in which you are aware I have been concerned as one of the peti tioners, charges of the worst description have been made against me, and even Lord Alfred Hervey and Mr. Hook have not escaped. " These charges may be classed under two heads. " 1. That I neglected my duty to my nephew as bis testamentary guardian. " 2. That I was influenced by unworthy motives in being a party to the inquiry. " I have no desire to bandy words with profes sional gentlemen who have permitted themselves to be the instruments of calumniating me. I need not stay to inquire whether they have exceeded the licence justly allowed to counsel in such cases, neither do I wish to enter into a controversy with that portion of the public press which has thought fit to adopt and support their statements. " I content myself with simply appealing to you, who, as the legal guardian of my nephew, have had better means of judging of my conduct and motives than perhaps any one else, whether the imputations cast upon me are borne out by your experience and observation. " You will be able to state whether any effort which affection could dictate was neglected on my part to guard the youth from the consequences of his fatal weakness ; whether every endeavour was not used and persisted in by me to induce him to listen to your admonitions, and to rescue him from the hands of those who were only bent on leading him astray. " And when his minority was drawing to a close, and there seemed but too much reason to fear that the advice bestowed on him had failed to make a Zoe impression, it will be in your recollection that, in strict accordance with your suggestion, I intro duced him to a most respectable London solicitor, Mr. John Jackson (of the firm of Young, Fladgate, and Jackson, Essex-street, Strand)—a man wholly unconnected with myself—that he might protect his interests. " You may remember that you firmly refused to name anyone; but I think I am justified in saying that, when you were afterwards informed that Mr. John Jackson had been selected, you approved. " If I may justly appeal to your experience re specting my conduct as a guardian, may I not, with equal confidence, ask your judgment as to the motives which actuated the course I subsequently adopted, when I found that my nephew was plung ing more rapidly into ruin and misery than our most anxious forebodings had apprehended ? At least you will be able, if I am in error, to contradict my assertion that I consulted you as to the steps to be taken whenruin appeared imminent, and to state if, at that time, when with reluctance I consented to adopt the only remedy which remained, you be lieved me to have been animated by other than a single-minded desire to rescue my nephew from the grasp of those who were mercilessly preying on his weakness, and, through that weakness, on his pro perty. " I conceived that some objection might have been raised to my asking for your testimony on these points while the issue of the inquiry in question pended, but now that that issue can no longer be prejudiced by any expression of opinion on your part I have less hesitation in so doing, feeling con fident that you will not deny to a public man who has been unjustly abused those means of vindication which are in your power.—Believe me to remain, my dear sir, yours faithfully, " C. A. WINDHAM, Major-General. " To Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood." " 31, Great George-street, Jan. 31, 1862 "My dear Sir,—Having ascertained that the in quiry as to your nephew has terminated, I have no hesitation in answering the questions on which you seem to refer to me for an opinion. " 1. Whether you neglected your duty to your nephew as his testamentary guardian ? " I have no hesitation in saying that in this, the most difficult case which I have ever met with of the numerous wards of court, I have derived the greatest assistance from your solicitor while you were absent on duty in India, and from your individual attention to your nephew's interests since your return. From the circumstance of your absence in India, I soon felt the necessity of adding to the guardians app o i n t e d by th e w ill o f M r . Windham's father, viz., the young man's mother and yourself. With her consent and yours I added Lord Alfred Herv e y, an d Mr. Hook, who had married the young man's aunt. I can speak to the deep interest which they took in hik welfare. Their trouble was incessant, as was, indeed, my own. His mother, also, though at times taking different views u 3 to his travelling and the like subordinate matters, never failed to attending to the proceeds. I required every possible help I could receive in ap pointing tutors to take charge of him. You did not return to England till many of our difficulties had been encountered, though we all failed to solve them. I recollect your letters from India being read to me, in which you were most anxious, if it wero found possible, that he should be sufficiently educated for a commission in the army ; and every effort was made to secure this desirable object, but in vain, owing to his weakness of mind. " When you returned to England you evinced the most lively interest in his welfare, and fre quently attended personally at the discussions that occurred as to the difficulties attendant on every attempt to improve the young man's character; so did also his other guardians. 1 can most conscientiously say that, in every respect, you evinced the highest interest in your ward's welfare. " Shortly before he same of age you consulted me 118 to the course we had better pursue in consequence of his having fcrmed a connexion which has since ended so disastrously. At your request, earnestly pressed upon me, 1 sew the young man, and gave him my advice in writing (as I found he did not correctly report anything that passed). I advised him at once to appoint a solicitor to arrange his affairs, and to travel abroad (to avoid bad connexions). He asked mu to recommend a solicitor. I declined doing this, and told him to consult his guardians. Ile spoke very highly of you, amd I said that he had better consult you. You, on his doing so, re commended Mr. Jackson. The advice I gave was entirely founded on m y own judgment, and he prom i se d that ho would follow it. Ido not think an y guardian has ever better discharged his duty to a ward while under my charge than you did. 14 2, your next question relates to your having had bad motives imputed to you as to the late in quiry. " I cannot, of course, fathom any man's motives, but I am well aware that in every case of inquiry as to lunacy which is opposed it is quite of course to impute sordid motives to those who promote thi inquiry. 1 beg to offer no opinion whatever on this inquiry, its propriety, or its result; but I feel it a duty to you to say that I always regarded the con duct of yourself and the other guardians and rela tives (other than the mother) in instituting the in quiry to be merely the natural sequel to all the interest you had all shown in the youth's welfare, and as a last attempt to save him from the natural result of his disastrous marriage. Regard being had to his many eccentricites, I should have thought the concurrence of his whole family on both sides, except his mother, would have exempted you f rom any possibility of seriousim pression being made by the charge of interested motives, whether the step taken 'Weft Wise or un- I wise. I ought in justice to you to add, since t ] observed during the inquiry an alleged statethent by Mr. Windham to a witness of my being your bosom friend,' that, in fact, I have never had the honour of seeing you more than once n society— viz , at Mr. Hook's ; but I never sa w you at all before you returned from India, and my only other interviews with you have been when you presented yourself at my court, or chambers, in the interest of your ward. I write, therefore, in no sense as your friend, but in answer to your appeal.—Yours faithfully, W. P. WOOD. "Major-General Windham, C B. " You are at liberty to make any use you think fit of this letter." I have nothing further to add but that I wish it to bo fully understood that I was not persuaded to consider my nephew a fit subject for the proceed ings in question until some time subsequent to his marriage —not, in short, until an accumulation of facts connected with the management of himself and his property had been pressed upon my attention. When, therefore, I called upon him shortly after his marriage, and offered him a small piece of inter mixed land, much coveted by his father, at the price (L 1,000) at which it had been bought a short time previous to his coming of age, I did so as the beet proof I could give him that I was not inclined to be unreasonably angry with his conduct.—l have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant, -C. A. WINDHAM, Major-General. TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir,—ln the report of the proceedings in the case of Mr. W. F. Windham in the Times of to-day, it is stated that so favourable was the impression pro duced by Mr. Windham's examination before the Master and the jury that the opinion expressed to your reporter was, that if the examination had taken place at the close of the case for the peti tioners, neither the Master nor the jury would have thought it necessary to subject Mr. Windham to the expense of adducing evidence in his defence. In this opinion we must entirely concur, and we beg to be allowed to state that when the case of the petitioners was drawing to a close, on the 30th of December, 1861, Sir Hugh Cairns suggested that Mr. Windham should be examined, according to what he believed to be the usual practice, at the close of the petitioners' ease ; and that Mr. Wind ham's advisers are not responsible for the course that was ultimately taken. The following is an extract from the shorthand writer's notes of what passed : " Sir Hugh Cairns—There is one question, Sir, which is entirely in the jury's hands and yours— viz., when they would desire to see Mr. Windham. I believe it is the usual practice that that should be done at the end of the petitioners' case. Of course, Mr. IN indham will be in attendance. " The Master—l will tell you the usual course I take, and which I have adopted on several occasions, perhaps three or four of them without juries. I hear all the evidence first, and then have the sub ject of the evidence in, to see whether his appear ance, demeanour, and conversation accord with the evidence or not. "Sir Hugh Cairns—lt occurred to me that it might assist the jury, with reference to the obser vations I should have to make, if they saw Mr. Windham at the end of the petitioners' case. " The Master—l have never done that. " Mr. Chambers—As far as my experience is concerned, having first been taught so by the books, it confirms what Sir Hugh Cairns says—that it is done at the end of the petitioners' case ; and in the cases in which I have been engaged generally at the end of the petitioners' case the alleged lunatic is subject to examination ; but any course that you (the Master) and the jury think proper my learned friend Sir Hugh Cairns and myself will agree to. " The Master—The jury leave it in my hands. " Several Jurors—Certainly." We are, sir, your obedient servants, GREGORYS AND Co., Solicitors to Mr. Windham. 1, Bedford•row, Jan. 31. EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ADMINISTERING POISON. One of the most extraordinary charges of attempt ing to poison that we have heard of was on Tuesday last investigated before the magistrates for the liberty of Peterborough. The evidence showed an amount of credulity in fortune-telling scarcely'to be believed in persons moving in respectable society. It appears thaton the 17th ult. the police authorities received information that Mr. Albert Adolphus Armstrong, farmer, of Deepingate, and his house keeper, Mrs. Halls, had been poisoned, and, from inquiries then made, it was ascertained that these parties had for some time been suffering from pains in the stomach, &c., the symptoms, in fact, being exactly those which are generally caused by poison ; and from a statement made by Mr. Armstrong's wife that she had administered to her husband and Mrs. Halls some powders provided by an old for tune-teller, named Pat Rowlett, residing at Crow land, awhich were meant to prevent Mr. Armstrong inheriting some property, warrants were issued against the old fortune-teller and Mrs. Leaton (Mrs. Armstrong's mother), who were thereupon taken into custody ; and at a special petty sessions, held at the Justices'-room on Tuesday last, were ex amined before the Rev. Wm. Strong (chairman), and J. M. Vipan, Thos. Walker, and Wm. Paley, Esqs., when the following evidence was adducedi:— The first witness called was Albert Adolphus Arm strong, who said he was a farmer, and resided at Deepingate. He married his present wife, then Catherine Jane Leaton (daughter of Catherine Leaton, one of the accused), in 1855. He then lived at Cambridge, and afterwards in London. In 1800 Thos. Leaton, his father-in-law, died suddenly, and M . sse itodr r moe . rnmagbe ni Leaton techeeidne a d mlr i e ea dsnai and g w de i r pa h we o tir u thsh t eo n a f haa w lri sm i e l he (Mr. A rms t rong ) was sen t f or f rom L on d on . d n s i\ il d ar w. o f A c ar o mo n d: s m l . ) t. a o p t t e h o s s e . s r e . There is a su ' m of £2,000 in dispute, being Mrs. Leaton's pro perty apart from her husband's. She has repeatedl y said she would do all she could to prevent his _ _ having that money. In 1860 Mrs. leaton left his (Mr. Armstrong's) house, and went to reside at Beeping. There was then no unpleasant feeling between them. About hay time in 1861 he went to Mrs. Leaton's house, and found her engaged with Pat Rowlett. lle himself behind a screen in the room in which they were, and heard them his sing into each other's ears, they at the same time eating white currants. e heard the old woman, Rowlett, say, " I will bring some white powder that will do for them ;" and Mrs. Leaton said, " It shall be done." He expelled the old woman from the house, and threatened if he found her there again to give her into custody. In the summer of 1861 he was taken ill with pains about the body and cramp, accompanied by vomiting and sickness, and has had the like symptoms up to the time of taking these proceedings. Never suffered in the same way before. Went to London in November last, and stayed two months, and durieg his stay had none of these symptoms, but improved in health generally, and gained flesh, as did also Mrs. Hulls, who was there at the same time. Soon after he got home he was again taken ill with the same symp toms, and suffered very much. Then expressed a wish that if he died a post mortem examination shonld be made of his body. Soon after consulted his solicitor, Mr. Caches, by whom he was advised to take these proceedings. In cross-examination Mr. Armstrong admitted that since his marriage w i t h his present wife he had been convicted of bi ga my, and served nine months' imprisonment. On Tuesday, the 21st ult., about 3 o'clock in the morning, he took his wife into the police-station at Peterborough, and charged her with attempting to poison him. A former servant of Mrs. Leaton's corroborated plaintiff as to his finding th e o ld woman, Rowlett, with Mrs, Leaton in the summer of 1861, and expelling her from the house. Th e old woman told her that she had had a very superior education, and was highly connected, and had learnt astrology and the Hebrew language at school, and she could now read the firmament. Mrs. Leaton had told witness that she allowed Pat Rowlett 2s, per week. Rowlett advised Mrs. Leaton to get a divorce for her daughter, "as the good must be separated from the bad before anything could be done." Mrs. Leaton told wit ness that Rowlett said there was a pot of:goldunder an apple tree, and they were going one night for it, but something prevented them, and that she still believed it was there, as there was £2,000 m i ss i ng . Catherine Jane Armstrong deposed that she knew Martha, commonly called " Pat" Rowlett. She professed telling fortunes, and had told her her for tune before her marriage. She met with her at her mother's house. She (witness) had faith in what the old woman told her, and the latter had promised to do all she could for her, meaning to .;(:t the money (the £2,000) from h er h us b an d f or her. In hay-time, 1861, witne ss saw " Pat Row lett" at her mother's house; went upstairs with her, THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1, 186 k). as her mother had told her Rowlett *anted fnieb ' her, she baiting soihething for her. Rowlett asked her how she was, and how the children were, and told her to take care of the baby, as he would be her (witness's) main claw; by which she under stood that if she lost him her husband would get the money. Rowlett told her that she had left something for her on the chimney-piece, and she was to give her husband and Mrs. Halls a little of it in anything. She could not find it on the chimney-piece at first, but afterwards found a little paper, and asked h e r mother if that was it, who replied in the affirmative. She understood it was a mere charm, to keep her husband from having the money . She kept the powder, which was a whitish one, for some days, and then put it in her husband's tea, and directly after heard him complain of pains in the limbs and sickness. Noticed he looked better when he came back from London, after being there two months. After he returned from London her mother asked her how her husband was, and when she told her he was a great deal better, she said " Oh," and seemed surprised. Soon after, in consequence of seeing him (her husband) very ill, she told him what she now gave in evidence. There was a little powder left ; she had it in her pocket, but did not always keep it there. Threw what was left into a pail in the barn. Administered some of the poison to Mrs. Halls. Cross-examined—She never wished to injure her husband, as he . was always very kind to her. Put the " stuff " into her hus band's tea in his cup. No one saw her. When her husband took her into Peterborough police-station he told her where he was going to take her to.— C. B. Edwardes, deputy chief constable for the liberty of Peterborough, deposed going to Deepin gate on the 20th ult. Mrs. Armstrong then said in his presence that about three or four months ago she first conceived the idea of giving her husband drugs. He had hal some powders handed over to him by police-constable Scotney. One was found in a drawer in the kitchen, and another under a cushion of an armchair in Mrs. Armstrong's bed room. He caused the powders to be analysed, and the result was that alum only was found in one, and in the other carbonate of soda. Mrs. Armstrong at first denied, but afterwards admitted, putting those powders where they were found. He had the contents of the pail in which Mrs. Armstrong said she had thrown the remains of the powder she had from Rowlett analysed, and found it contained green vitriol. On the usual caution being read to the prisoners, Mrs. Leaton said, "I wish to leave the case in the hands of Mr. Taylor." Rowlett said, "I never gave Mrs. Armstrong a powder in my life. I never told Mrs. Leaton's fortune in my life. I have never been in Mr. Armstrong's house since they were married, and am as innocent of the crime as a babe unborn." The latter prisoner was committed for trial, and Mrs. Leaton was discharged. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Gashes, and Mr. Taylor defended the prisoners. Popular feeling at Deeping is much against Mr. Armstrong, and on Monday a mob of between 200 and 300 people proceeded to his house at Deepiu gate, and attempted to set it on fire by placing a quantity of straw at the front door and setting fire to it, pulled the piping down, and broke several panes of glass in the windows; and on the following evening, before Mr. Armstrong got home from the petty sessions at Peterborough, a mob again collected and entirely demolished the windows, including the frames and sashes, and broke several chairs which were just inside, doing damage to the amount of £3O or £4O. In fact there has been no such ebullition of public feeling displayed in the neighbourhood for many years. A strong body of police is now patrolling the neighbourhood of Deepiugate to prevent any future riot of this sort, and we believe that proceed ings will shortly be taken against the chief parties concerned in this wholesale malicious destruction of property. to go to hig,hettSe.that eirening after left work at 7 o'clock. He said he would meet me at the office door. He did not come. About a fortnight or three weeks:afterwards Reichberg again called with a fresh form of type, and asked me to pull a few proofs, pro ducing, as on former occasions, his own paper for that purpose. He never left any proof with Me. On printing the third proof he held it up to the gas light, and examining it critically with an eyeglass said it was very good. After printing about 20 im pressions, he asked me to pack up the form again in the same paper he had brought, which I did. Before he left he remarked upon the toughness of the paper on which these impressions were taken, by twisting a piece of it and giving it to me to pull asunder, if I could, I was unable to do so. He paid me ls. 6d. for pulling the proofs, stating he would call again and have 1,000 copies struckioff. About the beginning of December Reichberg called again alone, and brought a block with a piece of copper-faced metal on the top, having some foreign characters upon it, saying he wanted 50 cards printed, and asked what I would do them for. I told him the price. He said it was too much. My employer agreeing to do them for less, I printed the cards, and while doing so I asked him what the language was on the plate. He said, " Deutsch." I asked what they were for. He replied, "50 cards for a gentleman." After doing them, I took off what we term the " make ready" sheet, and gave it to a boy to file. Reichberg objected to that, and it was given to him at his request. He took the 50 cards, the block, and the " make ready" sheet, and that was the last time he called on me. I have since seen a Russian rouble note. (Shown a forged border of one.) That is very much like what I printed for him. The im pressions I made were similar to part of a Russian rouble note. Cross.examined by Mr. M'Donnell—A boy about 14 years of age was present when I had those con versations with Reichberg. He could be found if wanted. James Skinner, a lithographer, at 47, Lower Whitecross-street, said he remembered Harwitz and Reichberg calling on him early in November and asking him to take a lithographic impression of a copper plate which they produced, and upon which some characters were engraven. He told them he could not do it to perfection unless he made an electrotype impression of the copper-plate. They said they could not leave it, as they had borrowed it of a friend. The plate was that found in the piece of gutta percha, so spoken to by the officer Scott at a pre vious examination. At this stage the prisoners were again remanded. LAW INTELLIGENCE, lan. 31. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) MARIUS V. MARIUS AND BURKE_EXTRAORDINARY CASE. This was a suit instituted by the husband for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, to which there was no appearance, but the Queen's Proctor intervened, pleading collu sion, connivance, and a sssistance in the alleged adultery on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Cooper appeared for the petitioner, and the Attorney-General, Sir F. Slade, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks for the Queen's Proctor. Mr. Cooper stated the case. The parties were married on the 2d of March, 1850, and both were They about 25 years of age at the time. lived at Sheffield for some time subsequently, and their co habitation continued until the commencement of 1861, during which period there were two children issue of the marriage, one of whom was living. While residing at Sheffield, the mother and sister of the co-respondent lived within two or three doors 1 of the petitioner, and there wa s a close intimacy be tween the two families, which continued until Sep tember, 1858, when the petitioner and his wife removed to Nottingham, where he set up in business as a linendraper. Some time after that the co respondent also went to Nottingham, and obtained a situation in a shop in the town. He boarded at the petitioner's, but lodged elsewhere, and in July, 1859, he went away. He returned to Nottingham, and applied to the petitioner to take him into his employment, which he did, at a salary of £6O a-year. Subsequently the petitioner opened another estab lishment at Leicester, the management of which he entrusted to the co-respondent, and his wife used to go there once or twice a-week to receive money. On such occasions her habit was to sleep at a hotel in the town. In the following year the petitioner was compelled to become a bankrupt, and was obliged to come to London for sonic time, and he heard from his brother-in-law that he had seen his wife in Burke's bedroom during his absence. He returned home immediately, and mentioned the circumstance to his wife, who denied that there was any truth in the statement, and said she supposed she must have been mistaken for her sister who was then at Notting ham. He believed her, and they lived as happily as before, until July, 1860. One evening his wife was asleep on the sofa, and he discovered some letters in her pocket from Burke. He charged her with impropriety, but she declared that beyond corre spondence with Burke there waa nothing improper on her part. At his request she signed a memoran dum to the effect that she would have no further communication with Burke or his family. They resumed their friendly terms, but on the Bth July following the respondent said she wished to go to Doncaster to see her mother, who, she said, was ill, and stated at the same time that she wanted to see Burke, but that she would not have an interview with him alone ; but he ascertained that she did not carry out her promise. An altercation ensued, and she confessed afterwards that she had nad con nexion with Burke. Ultimately she left him, and had since been cohabiting with the co-respondent. Evidence was given which fully established the charge of adultery, and letters were produced in which the wife admitted her guilt, and entreated her husband to receive her home, which closed the case for the petitioner. The Attorney-General said that information had been furnished to the Queen's Proctor which justi fied his intervening, in order that justice might be done. That information was to the effect that Mr. Marris had not only connived at his wife's adultery, but actually desired her to go and live with Mr. Burke. He produced a letter which had been iden tified as being in the handwriting of Mr. Marris and his wife before they separated. The envelope was in Mr. Marris's handwriting, and bore the date of July 10,1860, and was addressed to Mr. Burke, at the Talbot Hotel, Bradford, Yorkshire. On one sheet the wife wrote as follows :—" I was grieved to find that there was no letter from you, and I don't know your whereabouts. The important ques tion is finally settled, and the articles are only waiting for you to claim. I have not felt so happy for years. Tell me what you wish to do by letter, or better, by telegram." On the fly-sheet Mr. Mar ris wrote the following :—" It will be better to at tend to this matter the first thing." The learned Attorney-General applied to have the petitioner, who was in attendance, examined, in order to ex- plain the circumstances connected with the case, and the Court granted the application. Mr. Wm. Marris was then examined by the Attorney-General, and deposed as follows : — The joint letter produced is in my handwriting and my wife's. My wife was then living with me at Not tingham, and shortly after she left me to go to Don caster. On that occasion I accompanied her to the station, got her ticket, and paid her fare: She re turned the following day, and she did, to my know ledge, go to Doncaster purposely to meet Mr. Burke, but not alone. She said she had to meet her 1 mother there. I did not know that indecent fend• liarities had taken place between her and Mr. Burke. I remember the memorandum signed by my wife on the 7th of June, 1860, in which she promised to discontinue all connection with Mr. Burke and his family. Previous to this I had heard that Mr. Burke had been writing to my wife, and that he had been at my house during :my absence. At that time I had not seen any letter to my wife from him. I had heard of their having been seen together while I was from home, at Welford-grove, which is about two miles from Nottingham. I heard of their having been seen together at the Stag and Pheasant, at Leicester. That was somewhere 1 about December, 1859. It was during one of the visits of my wife to Leicester, to receive money from Mr. Burke, that I heard she had been seen at the Stag and Pheasant with him. I knew about my wife meeting Mr. Burke at Doncaster by what she stated herself, and she remained at Doncaster one night. After the day on which my wife signed the memorandum and her leaving me we had hostile discussions relative to Mr. Burke. After my wife left I received a letter from her, in which she stated that I desired her to leave my place and go and live with Mr, Burke. [The letter was produced, and it stated that, if witness did not discontinue the suit on the ground of her infidelity, she would prove that he had desired her to go and live with Mr. Burke, and said that he promised her to seek for a divorce on the plea of incompatibility of temper, or of mutual consent to separate.] I never expressed a desire that she should leave me, or that we should live apart. I said to her, " You must give up Burke or me. If after ten years' living together, the thread of affection is worn so thin, and can be broken so easily, you had better give up me." I said she must do one or the other. She said she could not give me up, and would resign him. This was two or three days be fore she left me. I never spoke about a divorce to her, or said that I would act towards her as a sister. I do not remember addressing her as a sister after she left me ; but I sa id I would give her advice as a brother. ['Jere a letter was put in from the re spondent to the petitioner after their separation, 113 which she said that except for his desiring her to leave his house she would not have acted as she had done, and also another letter, in which she entreated him to receive her back, reminding him of the many years she had been faithful to him, and speaking in very pathetic terms of her having passed the churchyard where their first child was interred, and the bitter memories it conjured up.l I never told her I would advise her as a brother until she had left me. I did all I could to dissaude her from going to live with Mr. Burke. With re spect to the joint letter, I do not remember to what the words, " You had better attend to this the first thing," refer, except to my statement to my wife that she must give up me or Burke, and 1 presume the term " articles" refers to herself. Whilo I was absent from home my wife sent a domestic to Mr. Burke, requesting him to come to my place, and they were seen walking in my private garden together. I did not see her on that day, and she left me the next day at Eight o'clock in the morn ing. I saw her and Burke in a cab the following day, but I did not speak to them. The petitioner was cross-examined by Mr. Cooper, and confirmed several portions of the learned coun sel's statement in his opening address. He added that his wife signed the memorandum in compliance with his wishes, and in consequence of his stating that he could not rely on her word, as she had pre viously promised not to see Burke or his family, which promise she had broken. On her return from Doncaster, she told him that she and Mr. Burke had slept at the same hotel, but that they occupied different rooms. She left on the Sunday, and on the Thursday previous he took a portrait of Burke from her pocket. She said it was her's and that he had no right to it. He threw it into the fire. She then showed him a plain gold ring, which she said Mr. Burke had given her on the first night when he took liberties, and that she had thrown his (petitioner's) ring into the Trent. She went to bed, and he remained on the sofa that night. The next morning he went to her relations and stated what had occurred, and they told him that he ought never to live with her again. Her mother told him that she was aware that her daughter lied commit ted acts of adultery previously. The Attorney-General and Mr. Cooper having addressed the Court, Sir C. Cresswell, who went through the evidence most carefully, said that at first the joint letter of the petitioner and his wife induced him to believe that there was collusion on their part, but after hearing the case fully, he arrived at a different con elusion. He must therefore pronounce a decree nisi, with costs against the co-respondent. FURNIVAL V. FURNIVAL. This was a petition by the wife for judicial sepa ration, on the ground of her husband's desertion, to which an appearance had been entered by the respondent, denying the allegation, and stating that he was ready to receive his wife back, and provide her with a home. Mr. M'lntyre appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent was unrepresented by counsel. It appeared that the parties were married in February, 1856, and after the marriage they went to Brighton for a few days. On their return to London, the respondent, on their arrival at the Bricklayers' Arms Station, asked his wife to give him whatever money she h ad, as he was anxious to place it in the bank with his own money. She did so, giving him £2O, and then he left her. She proceeded to a house in Paragon-place, New Kent-road, which he had taken, but he never came to her afterwards. He communicated with her through her family, and stated that he was too poor to live with her. He said that if she would supply him with money he would make a fortune, and that he hated " poor people." (Laughter.) He added that " love in a cottage was all gammon," as far as London was concerned, and expressed a hope that she would find the money to put him into busi ness. The respondent in person cross-examined the petitioner. The Court pronounced the decree of judicial separation. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. —Jan. 31. THAMES.—Ann Pavitt, a very fat and vulgar woman, the landlady of an oyster, refreshment, and wine-rooms, 20, Grace's-alley, Wellclose-square, appeared before Mr. Selfe to answer a summons which charged her with assaulting Ann Allen, a servant girl, under circumstances of a very peculiar nature. Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, conducted the pro secution, and said it was quite unnecessary to state who and what the defendant was, or the sort of answer she would give to the charge. The complainant, an orphan, about 17 years of age, said she entered the service of Mrs. Pavitt on Monday week. On Friday night last she was at the door of the house in Grace's-alley, when three or four sailors entered the shop and called for re freshments. Mrs. Pavitt showed them into a back room where there were no windows. The other female servant, who was four or five years older than complainant, followed them into the room, The gas was on• only with a little glimmer, and Mrs. Pavitt called her into the room. She thought she would have to wait upon the sailors, but she ' was called in for the most infamous purpose. The sailors began pulling her about, acted with great indecency towards her, and raised her clothes. She screamed aloud for help, and tried to get out, but was unable to do so in consequence of the door being held fast by her mistress, who called her a little fool, and told her to submit to the wishes of the ruffians in the room. She exclaimed, " No, I will not," and kicked at the door. Tho sailors all this time were taking indecent liberties with her. She screamed aloud over and over again, and in two or three minutes her mistress opened the door and said, " I'll have no screamers here," ordered her to leave the house, and refused to pay her any wages. It was 11 o'clock at night, and when she asked for some money to get a lodging, her mistress threat ened her, and said, " If you don't go, I will kick you out." In answer to a question from Mr. Selfe, the wit ness said the servant woman laughed when the sailors pulled her about, and did not resist them. Mr. Selfe—llow did you find means to employ a solicitor ? Roche, the gaoler of the court—l will explain that, sir. The poor girl has neither father nor mother, and Mr. Young, on my suggestion, kindly took up the case gratuitously. Mary Palmer, a married woman, wife of a la bourer, said the complainant came to her at eleven o'clock, and stated how she had been treated by the sailors and her mistress. She protected the friend less girl from motives of charity. The defendant made a long address to the magi strate, vilifying the complainant in a scandalous manner, giving the biography of herself, husband, and ten children, invoking the Divine vengeance on her head, and the most frightful punishments on herself and all that belonged to her, if she was guilty of the conduct imputed to her. After pro ceeding in this strain for some time, and making frequent appeals to Heaven to witness her inno cence and sufferings, she said the complainant ab sconded from her service on Thursday night; that the scene as described with the sailors never hap pended ; that the girl stole £1 45., and some dresses of her fellow-servant, and that she had been on the look-out for her ever since to give her into custody. Two women were called, Who swore positively that Ann Allen absconded from Mrs. Pavitt's house on Thursday night, and confirmed everything their mistress had said; but, on a searching cross-ques tioning by Mr. Selfe, involved themselves in a mass of contradictions. Mr. - Young said that Mr. Yardley, who presided in that court 13 years, had declared Mrs. Pavia to be the worst character in the district, and that was saying a good deal ; and he had also declared upon Another occasion that Mrs. Pavitt and her witnesses ought to be indicted for wilful and cor rupt perjury. Atter three hours' investigation, Mr. Selfe said he wished to divest himself of all that happened before on one side or the other ; but when perjury and subornation of perjury, and the most outrageous blasphemy was practised and spoken time after time, he found it difficult indeed to restrain his prejudices. Mrs. Pavia was, without exception, the most wicked woman he ever saw in the whole course of his life. Every appear ance of Mrs. Pavia in that court had been marked with the most conflicting testimony—that extraor dinary conflict of testimony which rendered it quite impossible for him to divest his mind of what hap pened before. The prisoner had the audac . ity to accuse an honest and respectable girl , was Amity of pcVjury, made the most solemn asseverations to Heaven, continually invoked the Divine vengeance while she was uttering her vile slanders and false hoods, and then called witness after witness, whom she had suborned, to commit fo ul and deliberate perjury. He could hardly conceive wickedness more diabolical, more appalling. The prisoner had, by false and specious pretences , e nticed the girl away from a respectable place to ruin her, both body and soul, and to make her as degraded as herself and her servant woman, Caroline Crook. Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the assault was committed , the audacious profanity of Mrs. Pavitt, and her attempt to effect the ruin of a friendless and virtuous girl, by putting her into a room with half-drunken sailors at 11 o'clock at night, he should ill discharge his duty if he did not inflict a severe sentence. He should not fine Mrs. Pavitt again. She would have to undergo impri sonment and hard labour, and it was fortunate the new law met str_th a case as this. The assault com mitted by the defendant was trifling—only just an assault in law—but it was the circumstances by which it was surrounded that rendered it peculiarly atrocious. He sentenced the prisoner to be inipri- FORGERY OF _RUSSIAN BANK NOTES. Yesterday at 2 o'clock .the men Reichberg, Har witz, and Josephson, three of the five Polish Jews now in custody on the charge of being concerned in the extensive and systematic forgeries at various places in this country of Russian rouble notes, were again placed at the bar of the justice room at the Mansion-house, in the custody of George Scott, detective police officer, before the Lord Mayor, to undergo a further examination. Mr. Sleigh again attended for the Russian Govern ment ; Mr. M'Donnell, barrister, for the prisoners Reichberg and Harwitz; and Mr. Hope, of Ely place, for Josephson. Mr. Sleigh said the inquiry had assumed so important a character by the gradual development of.the extensive and extraordinary system of for gery with which thb prisoners, and two others now in custody, were charged, that he thought it would save time if he completed the case against the three men at the bar, the original batch, before ad ducing further evidence against the other two, who had since been arrested at Birmingham. The Lord Mayor, falling in with the suggestion, had the prisoners Rosenburg and Weber formally brought before him, and remanded them until Fri day next. ' The inquiry was than resumed, and subjoined is the fresh evidence given yesterday. Benjamin Hillmer, examined by Mr. Sleigh—l am an ornamental engineer at 5, London-wall. I remember in the beginning of November last the first prisoner Josephson calling on me there. Ho brought a small circular zinc plate, on which was a worn-out pattern, unfit for printing, and asked me to make a copperplate like it, leaving it with me for that purpose. I asked him what it was for. He said a label for a watch paper, and that he was a travelling en graver and watchmaker. I had to do the plate in about a week, and he came punctually to get it. It was not then finished, and he gave me three more days to do it in. He called again at the end of that time, when the plate was done. [lt was for doing the engine-turned work of a rouble note.] That was about the middle of November. My charge was 205., and he paid me first by giving me a watch worth 30s. I returned him 10s. in change. The impression on the plate produced, which is the one I had engraved for him, is not now so strong as when it left my hands. I could not say whether it has been used in printing. Cross-examined by Mr. Hope—l had not seen Josephson before the Ist November. He said he was a travelling engraver, and had received instruc tions for the plate from a watchmaking house at Liverpool. He showed me a tradesman's card, and asked what I would charge for engraving that. He took it away with him, saying he would bring it back to me to he engraved, but he did not do so. Mr. James Wood, typefounder, West Smithfield, was recalled, and identified the letterpress found by t Ho h re e tvh o i ne ffi gv e d e re r ens S s s C ot o rn t e t ewt a h cohx e tl p ve r ue i r s . co He eer producedßeih impressions cb e r g o : s house the the emtin type pa and figures he (witness) had engraven on a plate, proving that the plate had been used in printing. Cross-examined by Mr. M'll onne ll—H e had not used the press at all before it left his premises. The impressions on the tympan had not been produced by using type with hand pressure. They were du plicated in some places, particularly in the border part of the note; he could, indeed, see parts of three impressions upon it. James Watson, a porter to the previous witness, proved that, at the request of his master, he took the letter-press produced to the house (No. 6) in Bevingden-street, on the 18th November, accompa- I Died by the prisoner Harwitz, and carried it down to a kitchen, where he left it. John Girfing—l am in the employment of Mr. Roberts, printer, 41, Tabernacle walk, Finsbury. I remember the prisoners Harwit z and Iteichberg call jet; there together about the hitter end of Septem ber, and asking me the charge for printing 1,000 copies of an impression of a certain size, which they indicated. I said about 4,1. They went away, Hor witz saying they would call again. About the beginning of October Reichberg called alone, bring ing with him a " form" of type, and asked me to pull a few proofs of it, which I did. On my pulling the first impression lie said it would not do, as the face of the border was not close enough together. I tried to remedy the defect by taking out the oblong piece of wood and filling the place up with oblong pieces of metal, but I could not get them sufficiently close for him. He then asked me to write on paper the defects of the border. I did so, and he took it away with him, stating his intention to get some more typo cast to be used in its place. About a fortnight afterwards Reichbcrg came again alone, bringing some type in a frame, and I made some alterations in the border at his request. (The witness stated these in detail, and showed the anxiety of the prisoner to have certain half and quarter pieces of the type at particular places in the border.) While so engaged I asked him what the border was for. He said he was going to show it in the Great Exhibition. I asked him why the half or quarter piece of border was to be placed so particu larly in certain positions. He replied, " To prevent any one imitating them." I asked him what he was going to put on the middle of the paper, within the border. He said some engraving, he being an en graver. Th e b or d er did no t d o muc h b e tt er th an the previous one. He asked if I knew a typefounder. I mentioned the name of Caslon, of Chiswell-street, Finsbury, and wrote it for him on paper. He went away, leaving bath parcels of type with me, and stating he would get a fresh lot of type. He had asked me on that occasion if I would teach him let terpress printing. I inquired the terms, not then being aware of the nature of the work. Evading the question he said he had plenty of money, and `asked me to come to his house next morning. The next morning being Sunday I objected, but offered Boned in the ilouse of Correction for two calendar months, with hard labour. Mrs. Pavitt, who has amassed a large sum of money, and whose fingers were covered with ex pensive gold rings, appeared to be astounded when she heard the sentence, and said she could pay a £lOO penalty. Mr. Selfe would not alter the sentence. GREENWICH.—BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A WIFE BY A SHIP'S CAPTAIN.—Joseph Thresh, master of the sloop Ark, of Goole, now lying in the Surrey Canal docks, Rotherhithe, was brought up on remand from the previous day, charged with vio lently assaulting Martha Thresh, his wife. The prisoner was brought up at this Court on i Thursday, but n consequence of a medical certifi cate being produced that the wife was unable to a tt e nd owing to the injuries inflicted, he was put back on remand. The wife now appeared, her face and one side of her head being one mass of bruises, and from her statement it appeared that on Wed nesday afternoon the prisoner returned to the ship in a state of drunkenness, and because she refused to supply him with money to go on shore to get more drink with, he doubled his fists in her face and struck her. He subsequently threatened to burn all her clothes, and in order to prevent him doing this she allowed the fire in their cabin to go out. Shortly after ten o'clock at night, when the crew on board the vessel were in their berths asleep, he renewed his violence towards her, in flicted the bruises then visible, and also bruised her about the body, when her screams brought as sistance and he was taken into custody. Police-constable 56 M deposed to taking the pri soner into custody on board the ship in the dock, his attention having been called to the same by the cries of " Murder" from the wife. In answer to the magistrate, the complainant said she had been married 22 years to the pri soner, for the last 14 of which she had been in danger of her life from his violence. She bad four children living, two very young, and the other two, a daughter, aged 21, and a son 19, who was on board ship. Mr. Traill inquired of the complainant how it happened that she was on board ship at the time of the assault ? The complainant replied that she had been on board the vessel with him five years, otherwise, owing to his drunken habits, she would never have had money to provide for her family. Mr. Traill said, the difficulty in dealing with such cases was, that in sending the husband to prison the means of support to the wife and family were cut off, and he wished to know whether she (complainant) could provide for herself and children ? The complainant replied, that she would contrive to do so, rather than be subjected to his ill-treatment and being in danger of her life, as she felt he re quired punishment. Mr. Traill said he believed also that the prisoner required punishment, and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment with hard labour in Wands worth gaol. WANDSWORTH.—COMMITTAL OF A RAILWAY SERVANT.—Joshua Townley, a young man em• ployed in the carriage department of the South Western Railway at the depot at Nine•elms, was brought up on remand before Mr. Dayman charged with stealing a quantity of brass. Mr. T. Bent, the superintendent of police on the South Western Railway, attended to watch the case on behalf of the company. It appeared that in consequence of numerous rob beries in the fitters' department a watch was kept, and at a quarter to six o'clock on the morning of the 23d the prisoner was seen in the shop, at which time none of the men had any right to be in the departments, as work did not commence until the hour. He was seen to fill a bag with a quantity of brass turnings from a lathe, and afterwards a white handkerchief. He was taken into custody, and upon his lodgings being searched 151bs. of similar brass was found concealed under his bed. A num ber of other articles of a similar description used by the company were also found at his lodgings. Blackburn, the constable, stated that he had since made a further search, and found several pieces of mahogany similar to those used for railway car riages. Mr. Wilson, an attorney's clerk, who defended the prisoner, did not deny the charge, and pleaded for his worship to deal summarily with him o n account of his previous good character. He had been in the service of the company two years. Mr. Dayman inquired whether it was the wish of the company that the prisoner should be sent for trial. Mr. Bent said they were not desirous of having him sent for trial, but they wished for an example to be made, as the prisoner had been suspected for two years. Mr. Dayman said it was a very gross case, and he was afraid that this system of p l u nder had been carried on for some time. He sentenced him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. _ERNI THE GAZETTE OE LAST NIGHT. FOREIGN-OFFICE, JAN. 29. The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. William John Stevens as Consul at Malta for his Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. WHITEHALL, JAN. 31. The Queen has been pleased to grant the place of one of the Lords of Session in Scotland, to Robert Macfarlane, Esq., Advocate, in the room of Alexander Wood, Esq., resigned. WAR OFFICE, PALL-MALL, JAN. 31. Royal Artillery—Lieutenant Lewis Paxton Walsh to be Second Captain, vice Robert Boyle, removed to the Supernumerary List; Lieutenant William Rooke to be Second Captain, vice George Malcolm Pasley, placed upon half-pay ; Lieutenant Robert David Dewar Hay has been permitted to resign his Commission ; Assistant- Surgeon George Sharp has been permitted to resign his Commission. The second christian name of Lieutenant Turnbull is Wilmot, not William, as stated in the Gazette of Jan. 7. Royal Engineers—Lieutenant Edward Coysgarne Sim to be Second Captain, vice Lonsdale Augustus Hale, placed on the Supernumerary List. CHAPLAIN'S DEPARTMENT. The Rev. Daniel Donovan to be Chaplain of the Fourth Class. INDIA OFFICE, JAN. 30. The following extracts from General Orders issued by the Government of India, regarding the payment of the Delhi Prize Money, are published for general informa tion : " His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, is pleased to authorise the immediate issue of a Ist distribution of the Delhi Prize Booty, at the rate of 86 rupees, each share. " The General Prize Committee will prepare as soon as practicable, statements showing the names of the European officers and soldiers entitled to share wtto have left India, and the amount payable to each, for transmission to her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, in order that the sums duo to parties in England may be passed to them at the earliest possible date. " Prize money being admissible only in the ranks in which individuals actually served, promotion with back rank gives no claim to share in rank higher than that iu which service was performed. Officers and men who died, were killed or left the army before Delhi, in consequence of sickness or wounds, are entitled to share in the rank they actually held on the date they died or left, and those present at the capture of Delhi or Jhujjur are entitled in the ranks they held on the 20th September and 18th October, 1857." SCALE OF SHARES FOR EUROPEAN OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS. Shares. Major-General • • • • • . • . 76 Brigadier ' • • • • • • • • . 51 Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel .. 17 Major .. •• •• •• •• ... 16 Surgeon .. •• .. •• .. 15 Paymaster • . • • • • • • .. 121 Captain 12 Adjutant • • • • • • • • •. • Assistant -Surgeon • . • • .. .. 10 Irterproter and Quartermaster • • Ridingmaster •• .. •• 9 Li eu t enan t ove r 7 years' service .. • • 7i Lieutenant under 7 )/ . • .• I 61 Q ua rtermaster Ensign.. •. 51 " Together wit" any additional shares to which they or any of them may be entitled in virtue of additional pay for length of service. • " NOTE.—Officers on the Divisional, Personal, and General Staff t.) have shares according to their Staff pay a dded to the half-pay of their respective ranks. Shares. 3 21 2 1 If Staff Sergeants •• •• Brigade and Colour -Sergeants Sergeants .. • • • • •• • • CorporalS • • •• • . Bombardiers .. .. .. .. •. Privates . • . • 4. •• Drummers .. .. •• • • Bug'ers .. •• •• .. WARRANT OFFICERS. Shares. 10 5 Commissary of Ordnance . • Deputy.. .. • • • • • • Assistant-Commissar) of Ordnance Deputy Assistant . • • • • • Conductor .. .. • • • • Apothecary • • • • • • • Sub-conductor •• •• •• Hospital Steward .. Assistant Apothecary Steward • • • • Hospital Apprentice • • • • .. 1 Due notice will be given when the above shares of Officers an d Soldiers are payable in this country. AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR. The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed from the returns made in the week ending Jan. 28, 1862, exclusive of the duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the importation thereof into Great Britain : Per. cwt. From the British possessions in America 24s. Vid Mauritius East Indies Average price of the three foregoing 24s. 10. BANKRUPTS. Aaron Brown, baker, West Shefford, Berks Thomas Frederick Charles, watchmaker, Davies-street, Berkeley -square taraa ark ••••••••••.. Christopher Rigbyo Ahmuty, Regent-street NathanielDaniels,merchant,Pembridge -Nvillas,Bay.swater Jacob Cantor watchmaker, Nes , . ington William J. Ho lis, baker, West Cowes, Isr..e of Wight John H. Challenger, pianoforte ma ker, Upper Cleveland street, Fitzroy-square Sydney 3- Spyer, attorney, Richmond James J. Wallis, agent, Victoria-road, Chehieu George Mundy, general dealer, Winchester George Parker, provision dealer, Albany-street, Regent's park Henry K. Brown, Carlisle , street, Lambeth Charles H. Marks, ship broker, Marlow, Bucks Walter E. Wallis, baker , Brentwood, Essex. William Cooper, innkeeper, Oxford Joseph Midgley, clerk, Great Dover-street, Borough Thomas D. Fiddes, manufacturer of linen goods, Alder manbury John Chubb, farm bailiff, Over Wallop, Hants Robert Tato, corn salesman, Greenway, Middlesex Timothy Smith, plasterer, Maidstone William Harding. baker, Leiston, Suffolk David Farmilo, builder, Pimlico William T. Watson, milkman, Hackney Samuel Gore, engineer, Park-road, Old Kent -road Joseph Dicken, carpenter, Idlin g, Middlesex William B. Ford, herbalist, King-street, Holborn Joseph Bowler, builder, High 'Wycombe, Bucks Charles F. Forster, traveller, Notting-hill Joseph Thomas Inman, surveyor, Hampstead-road John Augustus Coles, sawyer, Finsbury Samuel Healey, bark merchant, Forest-hill W. Thos. Denham, trimming manufacturer, Clerkenwell Nutter Elliston, lead merchant, Southampton Thos. Robert Onion,' coach lace ra anufacturer, City Ch ar les Chadaway, timber merchant, Sket chle y Alfred Adams, miller, Alston° Field, Staffordshire 'William Brown, potter, Bursleni, Staffordshire Joseph Baker, surveyor, Birmingham Rosanna Beardmore, widow, confectioner, Newcastle under-Lyme Christopher Barratt, grocer, Loughborough Thomas Smith, beer seller, Nottingham Win. Norman Gamble, farm bailiff, Park Nook, Derby Morgan Evans, farmer, Llanegllwys Ucha Margaret Jones, widow, farmer, Cefngwyddil Jacob Powell, licensed victualer, Llangastock William Flynn, draper, Cardiff William Price, druggist, Narbeth, Pembrokeshire Thomas Barrow, publican, Bristol John Gallimore Pidsley, Newport, Devonshire Frederick Tuke, insurance agent, Bradford John Wm. Siinpkin, druggist, Garforth, Yorkshire John Taylor, grocer, llulme, Manchester George Peverall, shipbuilder, Sunderland Wm. Roxbee, whip maker, Birmingham Henry Corbett, fire. brick manufacturer, Birmingham Samuel Hough, wheelwright, Birmingham James Ashwin, sen., estate agent, Lozells, Warwickshire John Bowden, cabinetmaker, Bristol John Kavanagh, solicitor, Liverpool David Davies, plumber, Blaine, Monmouthshire Edward Cox, trainer of greyhounds, Letcomb Regis Thomas Cherry, bootmaker, Beccles, Suffolk Richard Smith, innkeeper, Leek, Staffordshire James Whitehead, wine dealer, Sedgeley John W. E. Dugdale, bookseller, Landport, Hants Robert Samson, joiner, Workington, Cumberland J ohn Williams, builder, Aberdare George C. Carter, wheelwright, Farnborough, Hants Wm. Allan, fruiterer, Bishop , Auckland George Brown, blacksmith, N e w Thornley, Durham Richard Brotherton, painter, Bishop Auckland Wm. Sears, shoemaker, Clay-cross, Derbyshire Edward Penman, draper, Redruth, Cornwall Wm. H. Pitchford, blacksmith, Wombridget, Salop Thomas Ulyatt, butcher, Misson, Lincolnshire John Sykes, tailor, Readby, Lincolnshire Hannah Crabtree, grocer, Belton, Lincolnshire Charles Latham, corn dealer, East Retford Samuel Stubbings, publican, Sawston, Cambridgeshire Daniel Lovett, builder, Naphill, Bucks William Green, horse dealer, Trowbridge, Wilts James Miller, innkeeper, Stowell, Somersetshire Marinus Thomas Cohu, tobacconist, Cardiff David Andrews, tailor, Caddington, Herts George Bartholomew, beer retailer, Brighton Thomas Aubrey, licensed victualler, Merthyr Tydfil lheophilus Vaughan, licensed victualler, Merthyr Tydfil Ann Staples, leather cutter, Nottingham George Walters, tin plate worker, Bristol James Featonby Wakinshaw, engineer s clerk, Newcastle upon-Tyne John Farr, blacksmith, Madeley, Salop Richard Greenwood Benney, bootmaker, Torpoint, Corn wall Thomas Giles and John Giles, cabinet makers, Pl rocersymouth William Bogg and Stephen Clayton, g, Scar borough William Henry Randle, plumber, Kenilworth William Atkinson Wright, milliner, Leeds William Jackson, chimney sweeper, Leeds homas Banon Heworth, joiner, Leeds Robert Augustus Campling, salesman, Hulme John Whateley, innkeeper, Leamington and Harbury, Warwickshire Ralph Lindley, licensed victualler, Sutton, Cheshire COUNTRY .111AliKL'AAS: LIVERPOOL—JAN. 31. M this day's market there was a small attendance of the town and country trade, and a very slow sale was experi enced for wheat, at Tuesday's prices. Flour as of late. Oats and oatmeal slow, but remained unchanged in value. Burley, beans, and peas were in favour of the buyer, and difficult to move. WAKEFIELD—JAN. 31. We have had a moderate supply of grain this week. Wheat must be noted is per qr. lower than last Friday; barley rather lower, and dull. Oats and shelling unaltered. EXETER—JAN. 31. Wheat, white..7s 6d to 8 s Od I Barley 3s 10d to 4s 6 d 2s 9d to 38 3 d Ditto new .0s Od to Os Od Oats ... Flour, fine, 458 te . .47s ; seconds, 43s to per sack. CATTLE. Fat beef,p score, 10s6d to lls Ewes, per lb .... 6d to 61a Perk carcases, Us 6d to lOs 6d Wethers, do.. 6d to 6/d Lambs, per lb —d to —d Fat calves, d 0... 7d to 71 ' • Rough fat, aid per lb. COAL MARKET. (rrioes of Coat per Ton at the close of the market Walla End. Carway and Duffryn et I Malting 24 0 Do. Anthraeite 21 6 Hartlepool West Hart ley l6 0 Ships at markei 8. d. Cassop .. 17 0 Harton 16 3 Helton ........ 18 9 0 Hartlepool..' ......... 17 18 ; sold, 17. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET 41ST. MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton Feb. 18' via Marseilles Feb. 13 ' Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. Feb. 3 ., Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena /larch 0 ' China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton.Fvb, 1. via Marseilles Feb. 13. Falkland Islands .. Feb., 3. Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Feb. 1. via Marseilles Feb. IX India (Bombay), via Southampton Feb. 10 . via Marseilles Feb. 4. Lisbon Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Feb. 1. via Marseilles Feb. 4. 6• Newfoundland Feb. J. Oporto and Vigo .. U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet Feb. 5. by U.S. packet by Canadian packet Feb. -'"'• \V.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe Feb. 10. Bahamas, via New York' Feb. 13. Mexico .. „Feb. 28 ' All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, I Feb. 13 ' California, and British Columbia.. NARROW ESCAPE OF THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA• —A Frankfort letter states that the train in which the Emperor Francis Joseph was lately travelling from Trieste to Laybach went off the rails. The accident, which via l not attended with any serious consequences, is said to have been caused by malevolence. The Prefect of Police of Trieste has been summoned to Vienna in consequence. The Armstrong Guns, by constant improvement, are nom perfection The same is the case with Herring's Magnet ic/ Brushes, which arc now so perfected that failure with theta is all but impossible. They are the true remedy for grey hair, neuralgia, and nervous headache. N.B.—Counterfe its are being made. Offices, 32, Basingliall-street, London. [ADvnuTisnmENT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills•! One Hope yet Remains.—However long-continued the?r disease, however severe their subirings, lot no invalid despair of being cured till these potent remedies have had a fair trial. The one or other invariably succeeds. Both Ointment and Pills operate by purifying and regulating every function. These qualities advantageously display themselves in various diseases which differ in several par ticulars. The Ointment speedily removes all outward blemishes, The Pills improve the digestion and promote the formation of healthy bile, so essential to digestion, cheerfulness, and vigour. In cases of obstinate costivenes s no purgative can be prescribed so well calculated to pro duce the desired effect. They relax the bile ducts and liberate the natural aperient of the system. BIRTHS. COMMERELL.—On the 29th inst., at Alverbauk, near Al: verstoke, Hants, the wife of Captain Edmund Commerehl 8,.N., V.C., of a daughter. D'AIGULAIL—On the 30th ult., at Woolwich, the wife 01 Colonel Charles D'Aigular, C. 8., of a son. TALBOT.—On the 31st ult., at 23, St. James's-square, the Lady Emma Talbot, of a son. WARREN.—On Ihe '29th inst., at Brandon House, Great Yarmouth, the wife of Captain Frederic Warren, R.N.' of a daughter. MARRIAGES. BATIEURST—WARREN.—On the 30th ult., by spec° license, Allen Alexander Bathurst, Esq., M.P., to till Hon. Meriol Leicester Warren, second daughter of Lora do Tabley. HERVEY—MONEY.--On the 30th ult., at St. James% Piccadilly, Henry A. W. Hervey, Esq., of the Foreig a Office, son of the late Lord William Hervey, to Laura Iloratia, eldest daughter of the late Lieut.-General all Lady Laura Money, of Crown Point, Norfolk. DEATHS. EvANS.—On the 30th ult., at 6, Tavistock-place, Tavistock square, Captain Gustavus Evans, R.N., of Brightoot aged 72. - DICKEN.—On the 14th Dec., at Sealkote, Punjaub,Willi at e Stephens Dicken, Esq., Deputy Inspector-General 01 Hospitals, aged 57. HENRY.—On the 29th ult., at llyeres, France, Gerald Charles, only son of the late Commander George Augu s ` tus Henry, R.N. HOTHAM.—On the 28th inst., at, Tunbridge-wells, Mi ne Eli z abeth, relict of the late Hon. and Rev. Frederic'. Hotharu, aged 83. DUNCAN—On the 28th ult., at Durham, Mr. J. T. Dune ll - editor and part proprietor of the Durham County Ad ver tiser, aged 37. of LONDON : Printed and Published by MIIRDO No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TDE SUN Office, No. 112,Strao2 in the Precinct of the Savoy in the County of ?diddle:s Saturday, February 1, 1862. S ~ .~ ~v