The Sun. — London, England, 1858-08-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING,. AUGUST 3, 1858. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE, OXFORD CIRCUIT.7---llEaupouu, Auo:2. Mr. Justice Byles and Mr. Justice Hill arrived in this city from Shrewsbury on Saturday, and opened the com mission tn. the city and county of Hereford. Their lordships yesterday attended divine service in the cathedral, and this day took their seats in court at 10 o'clock, Mr. Justice Byles presiding in the Civil Court, and Mr. Justice Hill in the Criminal Com t. The cause-list contains an entry of three causes, one of which is marked for a special jury. The calendar contains a list of 17 prisoners, charged with ordinary eirence4 CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Bytes and a Common Jury.) COLLINS V. LEWIS. Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Cleave appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. fluddleston, Q.C., and Mr. NV. H. James for the defendant. The plaintiff in this action, Samuel Collins, was the occu pier of a farm at Black Bush, in the parish of Abbeydore; and he sued the defendant, Henry Lewi-i, the occupier of an adjoining farm, to recover damages for slander, imputing to the plaintiff that he was a thief, and had stolen some sheep and corn. It appea - ed that last August the plaintiff was churchwarden of the parish, and between him and the defendant there had been for some time a bad state of feel ing. The defendant complained of being overrated, and appealed to the Petty Sessions, but the magistrates decided against his appeal. After the business was over the plaintiff went to the Red Lion Inn, where the defendant followed him, and began to abuse him, by calling him by several op probrious epithets. The plaintiff took no notice of him and went away, but the defendant followed him to the work house, a distance of 600 yards, and called him a thief and a --;rogue, and explained what he meant, by saying that be had stolen two bushels of wheat from him. He also called the plaintiff a sheepstealer, and said he had robbed Morgan of some sheep. It appeared the parties had recently all but come to an arrangement under which the defendant was to sign a written apology for uttering the slander, "under great excitement," but, being required to pay the costs which had been incurred by the bringing of the action, he broke off the negotiation, and in consequence the jury were now called upon to settle the question between the parties. The ev:dence showed that the plaintiff and defen dant had been for some time at loggerheads. They had im pounded one another's sheep, and assaulted one another, and the plaintiff had sued the defendant in the County Court and got damages; but not being able to reduce the deiendant into a peaceable and quiet neighbour, the plaintiff brought the present action to recover damages for the slander. Mr. Hun DLESTON having addresFed the jury in mitiga tion of damages, Mr. Justice Bytes summed up the evidence, and left it to the jury to say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to ; recover, which, his lordship thought, ought to be more than nominal. The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £5. ELSWORTH Y AND OTHERS (ASSIGNEES OF SMITH) V. YATES. Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Gray, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sctjeaut Pigott ad Mr. Phipson for the defendant. When this case was called on, Mr. Whateley said it had been arranged that a vercPct should be taken for the plaintiffs for g2,:300. The action bad been settled upon terms. Verdict accordingly. CRIMINAL COURT, (Before Mr. Justice Hill.) William Hill, 44, labourer, was charged with setting fir e to gorse, the property of Airs. Marriott, the lady of the manor of Goodrich, on the 30th of March, 1858. Mr. H. Matthews appeared fir the p ro secution • Mr. Powell defended the prisoner , A" 7.:ti tl A policeman proved that while on duty he saw a fire on the common at Goodrich, and went to it, and there found the prisoner, and saw him set fire to the gorse in several places with a stick, to which was appended some rag or sponge which bad been dipped in spirits, and thereupon took him into custody. Other witnesses deposed that they were employed by the lady of the manor to watch the gorse and to prevent its being burnt. Onlcross-examination the policeman said he was a mile off when he first saw the fire, and that the prisoner had not the stick in bis hand when he apprehended him, nor could he find it afterwards. Other witnesses, on cross-examination, admitted that the cottagers on the common claimed the right to cut gorse,and that they were also accustomed to burn it when the growth inter fered with the pasturage of their sheep. Mr. Powell, for the prisoner, suggested that he had not set fire to the gorse, but bad only gone to the pla ce, when he saw the fire, as the policeman had done, and being there was apprehended. Mr. Justice Hill said there could he no more right by custom to burn gorse than to rob on Gad's-hill, and left it to the jury to say whether or not the prisoner set fire to the gorse. The jury found the prisoner net guilty. John Rowlands, 60, shoemaker, w as charged with bigamy, in marrying Elizabeth Ford, at Whitborne, on the 2.5 th of March, 1856, his former wife being still alive. Mr. Cleave appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell de fended the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner had married his first wife at Old Radnor Church, in March, 1824. This was proved by her sister, an elderly widow, who had acte d as bridesmaid. The second marriage was proved by the Rev. Mr. Briscoe, a magistrate, and the rector of Whitborne, in whose service the second wife had lived as ceok. The prisoner was de scribed as a bachelor in the marriage register; but his son was called to prove that he bad seen him and his wife together within seven years at Pembridge, in this county, where she resided, and also at Kington, where they were before the magistrates on a charge of assault. This was in 1851 or 1853, the witness could not tell which. On a recent occasion, when he saw his father and reproved him for mar rying again, he said the law could do him no harm. Mr. Powell having addressed the jury, they found the primmer guilty, and Mr. Justice Hill, remarking that the second wife was 43 years of age, and was not the complainant, sentenced him to two months' imprisonment, without hard labour. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.--WARWICK, AUG. 2. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Wightman.) Christopher Martin was charged with forging and utter ing a promissory note for ,E5O. Mr. Spooner and Mr. Field appeared for the (prosecutor. It appeared that the prisoner had been engaged in busi ness transactions with the prosecutor, James Cook, for some years ; that in 1856 he applied to Cook to join him in a note fir £5O to a club held at a public-house in Birmingham, kept by a man named Clements (the prisoner's brother-in law), which, however, Cook refused to do. Nevertheless, in December, 1856, be received a notificationfromthesecre tary of the club that the instalment by which the note was made payable had fallen into arrear; to which he made no reply, as he had in the meantime seen the prisoner, who assured him that it was a mistake, and requested him to say nothing about it, as it might injure his credit. Cook denied that he either signed the note himself, or gave any one authority to sign for him. In cross-exami nation heladmitted that he had requetsed the prisoner to meet part of a bill for 731., but gave as a reason that he owed him above 2001. He denied that he had ever said to a man named Griffiths that he would ruin the prisoner and send him to a workhouse; he also denied that he had ever admitted that he was a party to the note. James Clements, in whose house the club was held, proved that the prisoner presented the note a few days after date to the club, which advanced £5O upon it, but in cross examination admitted that about that time he heard Cook say that he had signed the note ; that the prisoner, so soon as he heard of the allegation of forgery, went to the club and urged the secretary to sue upon it, and moreover himself took it for that purpose to Messrs. Harrison and Wood, attorneys, in Birmingham, and that it was not until he had done this that the prosecutor, Cook preferred the present charge. Several witnesses were called to prove that the note was not, in their opinion, in Cook's handwriting. Mr. Macaulay having addressed the jury for the prisoner witnesses were called en his behalf to show,—first, that Cook had on several occasions himself stated that he was a party to a bond note, an d reproached the prisoner for the loss he had sustained from his not paying it in full ; secondly that it was, in fact, in Cook's handwriting. Griffiiths also was called to prove that Cook bad said he would ruin the prisoner and send him to a workhouse. Some gentlemen from Birmingham gave the prisoner a good character. His Lordship having carefully summed up the case, the jury found the prisoner not guilty. CIVIL COURT. (Before Lord Chief-Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.) DAVIS V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Brewer appeared for the plain tiff; and Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Field for the de fendants. This was an action for damages arising out of an unlaw ful detainer of the plaintiff's goods, on which £l5 had been paid into court by the defendants. The plaintiff in this ease is a person who, in the begin ning of the year, was travelling in the north of Eng land with a Diorama of the sepoy rebellion, in about 50 views, which be had exhibited with considerable success in different large towns. He was intending to exhibit his diorama in the midland districts, together with an exhi bition of anatomical figures, which he had lately bought for that purpose in London and Sheffield. On the 25th of February last the plaintiff, being at Liverpool, took seven large packages, comprising his pictures, some of the figures, and his apparatus, to the booking-office of the Lon don and North-Western Railway, addressed to Mrs. Peacock, Sheffield. He paid £1 4s. Bd. for the carriage of the goods, and took a receipt note for them. The plaintiff afterwards went to different towns to find space for his exhibition, but not finding it he went to Birmingham, where he paid £7 for printing handbills and engravings in anticipation of his ex hibition. It appeared that the plaintiff's goods arrived at Sheffield on Feb. 27, but in consequence of certain disputes between the railway companies, a porter of the Midland Railway Company, who took them to Mrs. Peacock, said that he had orders not to deliver them unless £l3s. 6d. were paid. This was refused, and the goods were taken back to the company's warehouses. Early in April a clerk of the Midland Company called to say that the goods would now be delivered without the payment. When this message was delivered the plaintiff's wife was staying at Mrs. -Pea cock's, and she was told of it, but whether the plaintiff was informed of it did not appear. The goods were never brought, and the plaintff did not get possession of them until the 21st of July. The plaintiff's profits had been on an average about £7 a week clear while his diorama was open, and he expected a profit upon his anatomical exhi bition. During the detention of his goods three exhibiti ons of anatomical figures had taken place in Birmingham all of which answered very well. As far as the plaintiffitnew, there had never been any exhibition of the kind before plaintiff went to Birmingham. This evidencp, as well as the d tb e e ta d i n i oerda,magible. The slides of evidence of wofithparovfiietw, woafsaaoshejseacintgedthteo,dabmutagheisifLtobredsahnipperaido-r court should think the evidence admis_ the de app ta naerra lie s t v h e a r d e notigradnj been earn anything. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, a nd an d d u during s the Mr. Mellor submitted that the plaintiff could only recover clerkfor the o f d t e l l e a 1 railwayne r u pt company, the date o a f n d the h athat w me ss age bat t t a h k e e np plaintiff i n t t h i ff e ought to have done was to ha ve p aid the extra charge and then claimed to recover it from the company. b e Te d, st h e e o l u e r a s r e n e d would Judge i t n o t erp enterosa v a e n r d d e said h t e he th d o e u fe g n h d t a t n h t e , giving the plaintiff leave to mcve to enter a verdict for him for such damages as the Court should think fit, and he left it to the jury to say what was the weekly profit of the plaintiff. -The jury found it to he £4. MYERS V. BAKER. This was an action for penalties under the sth and 6th William IV., cap. 83, for imitating the plaintiff's marks upon his patented steel pens and holders. The case had not concluded when our parcel left. NORFOLK CIRCITIT.—Irswrc Er, AUG. 2. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Williams and a Special Jury.) EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. DORLING. Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Keane were counsel for the plain- his losses in the same proportion. Upon his amended balance-sheet, he was allowed to pass his last examination. Mr. Pennell, official assignee, stated that since the last report ow 193. lid. had been received. Mr. George now supported the bankrupt's application for certificate. for the assignee (Mr. Hyam Angell) , stated he ll w r as . S d P e Y sir r o s u ' s that the bankrupt should have an immediate certificate. The Commissioner —Who is the assignee ? Mr. Spyers—A large creditor. The Commissioner—Because this is very curious. This bankrupt has been insolvent, and paid nothing, then he was bankrupt, and paid nothing, and now he is bankrupt again, and the assignee recommends an immediate certificate. 1 do not understand that; there must be some mystery about this assignee, we find that every day. Mr. Ansell (the assignee)—l was a very heavy sufferer myself at Hamburg by the failures which took place there some months ago, and I know that the bankrupt also lost largely by some parties there ; and considering these cir cumstances, and believing that the whole of his troubles arose from those failures, leads me to take the course adopted on the present occasion. The Commissioner When a man takes the office of assignee he takes upon himself a duty, namely, that of putting before the Court all the circumstances which he thinks the Court ought to know as to the conduct of the bankrupt as a trader. Now, do you not think he, having been once insolvent, then so recently before this Court—on both occasions with large amounts of debts and liabilities, and with nothing to pay them—that coming again a third VICE.-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.—AUGUST 2. time, under very similar circumstances, is a question that (Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.) the assignee, in the exercise of his duty, ought to raise ve r y seriously before the Court ? BAILEY V. DUNKERLEY. Mr. Ansell—l have told your honour the reason why I In this case the chief clerk had made an order in chain- do not oppose the application. bers, on the application of the defendant, for the production Mr. Spyers—Mr. Ewens, a large trade creditor, also of documents by the plaintiff. assents. Further than that I may mention that the assets Mr. Bovilt moved on behalf of the plaintiff to discharge have realised all that the petitioner stated. the order; Mr. Ellis appeared for the defendant. The Commissioner —No ;at first he stated his estate was Mr. Bovill urged that the suit, was by bill, no interroga- only £BO - being put in and no answer required ; that the de- Mr. Spyers—That arose from a misconception. fendaut had obtained leave to put in a voluntary answer The Comrnissioner—Miscouception is hardly the right within a month, and bad obtained an order for the produc- term —misconception does not mean an intention to deceive, lion of documents by the plaintiff. Defendant had not yet which this clearly was. put in hie answer; and if this was permitted, a defendant Mr. Spyers—We are quite satisfied there was no inten might Wain such information as would enable him to frame tion to deceive. his answer in contravention of the 15th and 16th Vic., cap. The Cotnmissionsr—l am n deceiv b ed een run off, and his 80, see. 20. Mr. Spyers—All the liabilit ot ies have The Vice-Chancellor thought that defendant h ad a right losses have mainly arisen from the circumstances Mr. An to the order for production. The section of the act referred sell tote told your honour. Several of the largest creditors to only applied when a discovery was sought far, and a full concur in wishing the bankrupt should have his certificate. and sufficient answer therefore required. Here it was the The Commissioner—Now, Mr. George, of course, you are defendent who was seeking a discovery, and he had there- on the same side. ere a right to demand the production of any documents in Mr. George—Not on the same side, your honour, but I the -possession of the plaintiff and calculated to throw a support the bankrupt's application. light upon the case. The motion must be refused. Tete Commissioner—What import do you give to those words in tbe Act of Parliament that the Court is to form its (Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.) opinion of the conduct of a trader, whether he be opposed PEARCE V. LINDSAY. or not ? The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case, which Mr. George—l think it the duty of the Court to take all was argued at considerable length during the sittings. The the circumstances of the case on both sides into considcra plaintiff's were shipbrokers at Liverpool; the defendants were tion ; the Act of Parliament also says the Court shall take eltipbrehers in London. Both houses had extensive connec- into consideration the conduct of a trader before, as well as Lions with the American shipping interest, especially in the after, his bankruptcy. The creditors present to-day are Mr. iron trade. The object of the bill was to obtain an account Ansel', the assignee, a creditor to a considerable amount, from the defendants, the Messrs. Lindsay, founded upon an and his opinion is that the bankrupt is not a dishonest man, agreement called the Havre agreement, by which they were and that he ought to receive a certificate. Mr. Nicholson, to divide the profits. The case tinned upon a mass of evi- of Lime-street, representing the house of Schroeler and Co., dence, chiefly correspondence, extending so far back as 1849, a large firm of Hamburg, also large creditors, who also con the printed bill and the evidence forming two respectable sent to the certificate being granted; and Mr. Wolf, also a quarto volumes. The defendants, his Honour observed, had large creditor, does not object. They all believe this to be a denied any agreement, and had insisted that whatever case of misfortune. The alteretioa in the balance-sheet was due to them was only under the custom of trade. But does not arise from any additional matter, but from the he was of opinion that the defendants' own language variation in the account criginally proposed. With regard in the correspondence would be inexplicable. except on the to his debts, the bankrupt appears to have had the impres tooting of the aareernent relied on by the Messrs. Pearce. sion that they ought to be made to appear as small as pos- The defendants had represented themselves as filling too sibte, and he returns good debts £42, while £54 have been high a position in reference to American shipping to require collected. At Hamburg, too, things have turned out much assistance from the Messrs. Pearce ; but he was of opinion better than was expected, for those debts which were put that the evidence established a joint interest between down as bad have turned out good. Besides, there is an Messrs. Pearce and Messrs. Lindsay . I t would have been affidavit on the file , made a t the time of the petition being misleading Messrs. Pearce if what was called the Havre presented, stating these debts, afterwards put down as bad, agreement was not to be regarded as a subsisting contract. to be good debts. Under these eiruntstancee, I hope your The Messrs. Lindsay had certainly treated it as a valid honour will grant the bankrupt his certificate. agreement down to 1853. The defendants alleged that The Commissioner—One thing I think is quite clear, and they had given a " distinct, decide-I, peremptory, and that is, that if this case had been opposed Ido not think conclusive rejection of the proposal by the plaintiffs, to I could have granted the bankrupt any certificate at all, share half of the profits of the American business, and neither could I have granted protection, that is, if there had that they wished to be governed only by the custom of been a real bond fide opposition, because in my judgment the trade." It was surprising after this assertion to find this man shows by his coming to a court a third time to be such expressions in the correspondence as these — " Can you discharged from tile debts so soon too after his last applies inform us how we can get these fellows (the Yankees) into ticn, when be came to this court, that the experience of us? How can we get them into our net ? ? " These were his former failures has been entirely lost upon him ; they extraordinary expressions from persons professing to stand have bad no effect whatever. I see under his former bank on the very pinnacle of commerce. Again the defendants said ruptcy that the certificate eves suspended for six months, to one of the plaintiffs, " You are better known in the States and then was of the third class only, so that his failure then than we are." Again, speaking of some American ships, was not one arising wholly or in part from misfortune or they said to Messrs. Pearce, " Nail them all." The defen- loss; be then paid nothing to his creditors. I find that he dents seemed now to take a very different vie w of their was insolvent before that, owing, according to his statement, relative position with the plaintiffs from that which their a considerable amount, and still paying nothing. Then what correspondence proved. There must have been a great are we to call it when a man, having twice failed and paid lapse of memory. It was clear that when they were writing nothing, again contracts debts of which he mast know, ac to Messrs. Pearce they did not seem to feel that they were cording to all human probability and reason, he will not be persons filling a very high position, writing, as they alleged, able to pay a farthing. He thinks nothing of his previous to persons of subordinate character. Amongst other expren- failure, and if I were to grant him immediately the certifi siens they used was this, " Remember we are all young cate which he w ill no t get for a very long time, he would people." When one of the plaintiffs was making a tour in go and do exactly the same thing; he would come here a America, the defendants wrote, gg I wish you would make third time, and there would be probably the same ceremony it appear that we are one and the same concern in American to go through. What are we to call it ? I call it fraudulent business." Besides this joint circulars were printed at their for an insolvent debtor coming out of the Insolvent Court, joint expense. The defendants said that the division of once having had his affairs arranged here, giving his brokerage commission only applied to the Havre business, creditors nothing, and owing them £2,000 or £3,000, to go or business obtained in consequence of one of the Pearces and contract debts and liabilities as this man has done to the making a visit to the United States. He thought an agree- amount of £3,000, and then ending worth next to nothing. ment clearly was established in 1852. His Honour made £2OO I believe would be the outside amount of assets; a declaration that the plaintiff, as surviving partner, was and the debts and liabilities — entitled to half commission on business, effected through Mr. Pennell—The liabilities are runoff, and the debts are the Havre agents, for chartering vessels to America from £1,570. 1851 to 185. e, credit being given for what was dne to, or The Commissioner—And the expenses will be about £lOO. through, the same agents. The plaintiff was also en- Mr. Pennell—l am afraid so. titled, under an agreement of 1852, to a moiety of The Commissioner—Then, out of the £2OO assets there commission on American vessels chartered in London, are only £lOO to pay £1,500 upon a third appearance in the or at the outports, except on vessels specially con- Bankruptcy Court I What is it, I repeat. It is commer signed, and vessels over which t h e p laintiff had not c iali y a fraud, obtainin g credit from persons who are weak exercised any influence, regard being had to the course 1 and credulous enough to trust him. I admit tha t p ersons of dealing to to what was to be regarded as constituting 1 who trust him under these circumstances share his guilt, such influence. There must be an inquiry whether the ar- I because by giving him credit again they are only encou rangement, at any time after 18.52, was determined by either raging him to go and do likewise in other quarters. There of the two firms or abandoned with the knowledge and fore, if this man had been oppose d b y assi g nees who were acqu i e scence of tire other. His Honour declared that the really in earnest, and not, as in this case, merely serving plaintiffs and defendants were entitled, under an arrange- I the bankrupt, instead of representing the creditors, it meta founded on what was known in the course of trade by I would have been a great question whether I could have the term " exclusive correspondence" as to vessels employed granted him a certificate at all, and I certainly should not in the shipment of iron after 18,52, to a moiety of the corn- have granted him any protection from arrest. But a s no mission on freights, according to the terms of that corres - creditor opposes, and as the assignee, a gentleman who pondence, excluding vessels specially consigned to certain appears in person, and who seems to be a respectable man, Partio• The case must be spoken to upon the minutes takes the same course, though the reasons that he gives for hereafter, and his Honour reserved further consideration. not opposing is not satisfactory, I will take those The case was argued for several days by the Solicitor- things into account, and will go so far as not General, Mr. Dolt, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Cox. to withhold protection from arrest, and the bankrupt will get all that he really wants, which is the power of walking about free from his creditors or any annoyance by them; but he will not have his certificate until after a very long suspension. The judgment of the Court is that this certificate shall be suspended for the space of 12 months from this date, and that, when granted, it be of the third class. He will have protection for three months, to he renewed from time to time unless the assignees show cause to the contrary, because it is only the non-opposition of the assignees which induces me to give him any protection. Mr. Spyers—Would your honour— The Commissioner-4 have beard you once, sir, and I have delivered my judgment. Mr. Spyers—Your honour will allow me to say-- The Commissioner—l will not hear you again, sir ; and I will not allow observations to be made upon the judgment of the Court. I cannot help remarking that this case, from the very commencement upon the question of arrangement, was marked by a singular degree of pertinacity. Mr. Ansell—We should have saved £lOO expense if it had gone on under that arrangement. The Commissioser—No you would not, sir. • Mr. Ansell—l think we should have done so. The Commissioner—Allow me to know better than you, sir, and to say you would have made a great mistake. Mr. Wolf (a creditor)—The mistake is quite on your side, sir; and it is not the first mistake you have made. (Sen sation.) The Commissioner—Who is that individual ? I remem ber he has been here before, when lie created some excite ment. Mr. Wolf—And if you speak of " pertinacity," that is also on your side. The Commissioner—Leave the court, sir, or I will cause you to be turned out. The turbulent gentleman left the court almost imme diately, saying he could do so without his honour's assist ance ; but be could not resist another outburst, and when he reached the door he shouted, " You exceed your jurisdic tion !" Third class certificate, suspended for 12 months. IN RE PEARSON. LAW REPORTS. COURT OF CHANCERY.—Aua 2, (Before the Lords Justices.) IN RE MALPAS TRUSTS. The litigation in this matter appeals to have reference chiefly to a sum of £lO lds. 7d., such being the subject matter eta petition on which Vice-Chancellor Stuart made the order now appealed from, directing a trustee to pay to his cestuigne trust a sum of 0 f,15 by way of costs. The case occupied the attention of the Court for nearly eight hours, and, at the conclusion, Their Lordships ordered the £l5 to hs returned, and the cestitique trust to pay the trustee a further sum of £2O to wards his costs. Their lordships also insisted on the various parties who had appeared in the petition at once naming of a sum as their costs, so that the expense of a taxation costs might be spared. Mr. Matins, who appeared for the trustee, observed that if his costs were taxed they would amount to about £lOO, but he consented under the circumstances to accept of LA in addition to the £l5 to be returned to his client. The counsel for the other parties having also named the amount of their costs, an order was made accordingly. Mr. Malins and Mr. Southgate were for the appeal; Mr. W. 11. Terrell for the principal respondent ; Mr. T. Stevens, Mr. F. S. Williams, Mr. W. Morris, and Mr. Surrage for other parties interested. COURT OF PROBATE.—AuG. 2. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) TUBBS V. PROUT. This was a question relating to the will of the late Major Prout, who had been killed at the massacre at Cawnpore, a victim to which his wife had also fallen. The object of the present application was to examine before a commissioner Capt. Delafosse and Capt. Thompson, the only two officers who had escaped, and who were now in this country, as to which of the deceased parties was first killed. The Qteen's Advocate and Mr. Hardy were counsel in the case. The Court directed tLes3 witnesses to be examined by some member of the bar within a fortnight, the party ex amining giving the other site notice. COURT FOR DIVORCE AND AND x MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.—AuG 2. KING V. RING AND BROWN. This was whicht for a disEolution of marriage on the ground of adultery, was alleged to have taken place on board the ship Vernon, on the voyage between London and Bombay. The petitioner was the husband, and the object of the present application was to have the steward and the captain examined under a commission, as they were about to leave this country for India on the Ist of beerSeptembr. Mr. A. J. Stephens appear ed in support of ppli- cation. The Court made the order. DAVIES V. DAVIES. This was an application for an interim order for the custody of six children. The petition was presented by the wife on the ground of adultery and cruelty. She had left her bus band's house" taking with her her six children, the eldest of whom was 17, and the youngest 7 years of age. It was contended that their father was their legal guardian, and as his misconduct had not been proved, he was entitled to their custody. Dr. Spinks appeared in support of the application. The learned Judge was of opinion that, as there were no facts stated, he must leave the father to his remedy by habeas corpus. This was a sitting fOr the choice of assignees to the estate of:the bankrupt, a market gardener, of East Bergholt. A preliminary statement, prepared by Messrs. Hart, shows debts and liabilities about £7,000, and assets given up to the official assignees £2,000. It appears also that the bank rupt made a settlement upon his wife of £lO,OOO, which is chargeable upon some lauded property, and if the assignees succeed in upsetting t hat settlement there will be a large surplus. Mr. Nunn, a banker of Little Bromley, Essex, was chosen assignee. ARCHES COURT.—AUG. 2. (Before Dr. Lushington.) MEDLAND AND BROWNE Y. PAINE. This was a proceeding to recover a church rate at three panes in the pound brought by the churchwardens of St. Neot's, Huntingdonshire, against Mr. James Paine, a parishioner. The rate was objected to upon several grounds. The case occupied the attention of the Court until the IN RE T. 11. 31ORTON. This was a certificate meeting in the case of the bankrupt, who was a grocer of Maidstone. The accounts have already been published. A r lia ß d a n g o le t y a , t f t o e r m t p h t e e a d ss t i o g , deceive nees sa said o y d b y el ; ie t v k e e d the hbank rupt had d had from him a most candid explanation , and as the y y had had it also the means of testing its accuracy , the y had no doubt was true. He had kept a grocer's establishmeenrtsoant named stone, but was also in partnership with a p Pooley, a lime and cement manufacturer. Quarrels and dif ferences arose between them, which, in fact, led to t he bankrupt's suspension and his appearance in his honour's court. An action had since been brought and a verdict recovered against Pooley. He had not yet paid the amount of the verdict, and in truth was what was called "not in the way." Tue assignees felt, under the eircumslitnces, that they would not be justified in asking the Ceurt to delay the bankrupt's certificate, although at the same time they thought it ought not be of the first class. Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, said he had been in business in the same town for 25 years and had never before failed. The Commissioner—ls the bankrupt prepared to depose to that fact? Mr. Lawrance—Yes, sir, he is here. The Commissioner —Is that so ? Bankrupt—Yes, sir. The Commissioner—To what do you attribute your failure? Bankrupt—To having fallen in with a dishonest man. The Commissioner—That is a general answer. Bankrupt—He was my partner, and kept the money, and would not render me any account. In reply to the Court, Mr. Bagley stated the action to which he had alluded was tried for the purpose only of testing the liability of the part ner to the partnership debts which he denied. The verdict was for a small amount only, but it was for the whole amount claimed by the creditor—namely, £5O. The Commissioner—That does not benefit the estate. Mr. Bagley—No, but it establishes the liability of the partner to the rest of the debts. Having made some inquiry of the official assignee as to the accounts, His Honour said he should pursue the game course that the Lords Justices did in cases similar to the present, and that was where the assignees were not merely friendly aseignees,_ and neglecting the interests of the creditors for the benefit cf the bankrupt, to pay attention to any sug ,,estion that fell from them, but only where they were per formir g their duty boneifide as assignees. He thought that was so hero, and he was disposed to look favourably ou the case from its containing one feature k of great h re s a d t h i e m e p n o i r ti t b an os c i e n , e a s ta i d w t i h th a was the lengal of time the han i r to i he . l . eve that t the fi bankrupt's his re f l o a r v e i having failureoutfa had i arisen T o gone into partnership with a d tl i T h czc e i s i t ml a af t 7 liewas partly P fr c o B rri e n ente it was to be hoped migthat when e as m ight take an immediate ce rtificate of the second class ; and present misfortune ht operate as kcautioai n, red trade his COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-AuGusT 2. 1 (Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.) IN RE JACOB FRANKENSTEIN. 1 The bankrupt, a commission merchant and general agent, of Devonshire-street, applied for his certificate. It appears from the official assignee's report of the 7th June that the bankrupt presented a petition for arrange ment under the Act of the 12th and 13th Vic., on the 15th March. On the 19th April the matter was ordered into bankruptcy. The balance-sheet commences on the Ist May, 1856, and the accounts, embracing a period of one year and 10 months, exhibit the following results :-Amount owing to unsecured creditors, £1,573 7s. 9d.; liabilities on bills of exchange, £1,600105. ld.; profits, £440 Os. Bd.; surplus, being cash in baud on the Ist May, 1856. £154 75.; differ ences in balancing, 16s. ; making a total to account for of £3,769 2.4. In discharging himself of that amount the bankrupt re turns debtors, £42 84. 4d. ; aad property surrendered, £3919.5. Gd.; making the total amount of assets, £B2 7s. 102. * His loses by had debts were £579 ss. 9d.; on the tra ding account, £428 19s. Gd.; and the realisation of pro verty, £:3O 2s. 102.; making together a sum of £1,038 Bs. ld. The trade expenses were £lBs`Bs. 82. ; house and personal ditto, £562 7 s . ' 42. • liabilities per contra, £1,600105. ld. ; Bi i i t o t w o l 4,rtltota total cre dit of £3,769 29. The official assignee further says, in his report of the 7th June, that the bankrupt has been before the Court upon a former occasion ; he was adjudicated a bankrupt in June, 1855' a t which time lie appeared to be owing in debts and liabilities £ 4 OO 04. 3d. T e state did not produce any dividend, the assets 3'l i e i ( tieig £l6 2s. only. From t h e pro ceedings it appears the bankrupt obtained a third-class cer tificate after a suspension of 6ix months. On the present occasion his balance-sheet disclose o s d the w I mo u a amount of his debts ilable assets and liabilities to he £3,173 17s. 1 . of the bankrupt shows returned at £B2 7s. 10d. The trading the same unsatisfactory result up on this, as it did on the first occasion-namely, loss. He appears to have received, by way of commissions, anti return ed under the head profits the sum of £4 , 10 04. 82., against which the losse s and trade expanses together amount to £1, 523 163 . 9(1 ') a nd the personal expenditu re i s retu rned at £562 7s. 4d. The examination meeting on the 7th June was adjourned until the 7th July-the bankrupt requiring tone to amend his balance-sheet, which, according to his own admission, required amendment. On the 7th July Mr. Pennell, the official assignee, made a second report, stating that it ap peared upon comparison that the am( nded sheet was pre cisely the same as the original one fl5l regarded the debit eitle, the alterations:being on the credit side of the account only. .1 the original balance-sheet the assets were returned at ,D 3•2 79. 10,1., but they were then s!ated at £203 49. 10d., of t he upt reduced wuich £157 16s. 4d. had been realised. In reconciling that increase in the amount of thea sots, tiffs; Mr. Power and Mr. K. Mills appeared for the de fendant. - This case, which was commenced on Saturday, was an action for trespasses to a dummy of the plaintiffs moored In the river Orwell, opposite Griffin's wharf, in Ipswich. The defendant pleaded not guilty; denial of the property of the plaintiffs in the dummy; a custom at the quays, of the Orwell in the port of Ipswich for an outside vessel to pass its goods and passengers over an inside vessel for the pur poses of loading and unloading, embarking and disembark ing; and facts bringing him within it; that the plaintiffs' dummy was a public nuisance, and that he committed the trespasses because it hindered him in the exercise of his right to embark and disembark; and a similar plea omitting the averment that the dummy was a public nuisance. The facts appeared to be as follows :—The plaintiffs, some four years ago, bought the stcck of the Eastern Union Com pany, and as part of it the dummy in question, and certain steamboats plying between Ipswich and Harwich, for conve nience in landing from which the dummy had been used. The defendant was employed by the plaintiffs on board their boa's in the capacity of superintendent of steamboats until about a year ago, when he was discharged from that post, and offered one in the service of the plaintiffs at Stratford. The defendant refused the offer, and himself set up a boat called the Alma, plying between Ipswich and Harwich, without express leave of the plaintiffs, but apparently by their tacit permission. The defendant for some time used the dummy in question for embarking and disembarking his passengers ; but as the necessity for vigorous opposition between the boats became apparent the times of starting and returning of the two boats became apparent the times of starting and returning of the two boats were made the same, confusion arose between the passengers, and led to obstruction, and to an interchange ofabuse and violence. ere plaintiffs, therefore, put up a board warning all strangers from the dummy. 'The attention of the defendant was therefore drawn to it, and he said " All right ;" but his conduct afterwards exhibited no deference to the warn ing, for he continued to act as before, and finally, the plain tiffs determined to try by this action the right to exclude the defendant and his customers. A great deal of evidence was gone - into to show the custom of the port in respect of vessels arriving alongside a quay there and finding another vessel already moored there ; but there seemed to he no custom in respect of passengers or of steamboats. Evidence was also given to make out that the dummy was a nuisance, hut although it has been on the same spot for several years, it was not discovered by the witnesses to be a nuisance until after the present dispute arose. The jury found the existence of the custom and the fact of the obstruction as alleged, and that the dummy was a nuisance if the use of it was confined to a private person, public gene braulTtlyn3.eotleaarnnueidsa j n u c d e g i e f t t h o e ld us t e he w j a u s ry op t e h n at to th t e h y e must answer absolutely the question about the nuisance, as a nuisance by obstruction of a highway or a navigable river was a nuisance though the obstruction might be a convenience to the public. The jury thereupon founi that the dummy was not a nuisance. The learned Judge then' directed a verdict to be entered for the defendant ou the issues as to the custom and the ob struction, but for the plaintiffs on the other issues, with leave to the plaintiff's to move to set aside the defeudant's verdict and enter one for themselves, if the Court should think that the pleas on which the defendant had succeeded were not supported either wholly or in some material part. Verdict for the plaintiff. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. The August general sessions of the peace for the county of Middlesex commenced this morning, at the Court-house, on Clerkenwell-green, before Mr. Creasy (presiding fur the assistant judge) ; Mr. Payne, deputy assistant judge, and Capt. Morley, Mr. Halswell,Mr. Brooking, Dr. Bateman, and other magistrates were present. There were 31 pri soners for trial. Mr. Creasy delivered a short charge to the grand jury. Edward Garnham, alias Symes, 30, was indicted for stealing the carcase of a sheep, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company. Mr. Metcalfe was counsel for the prosecution ; the prisoner was not defended. As a van belonging to the company was being driven, laden with meat, along Ray-street, Clerkenwell, on the morning of the 14th ofJnly, the prisoner got up behind and bad possessed himself of the carcase of a sheep, when he was detected by a carman driving another van behind, who called a policeman and the prisoner was taken into custody. He made the excuse that he only wanted a ride, to which he was entitled as a servant to Mr. Sherman, but that as sertion was without foundation. The jury found him guilty. Franklin, an officer of the F division, proved a former conviction against the prisoner, under which he was sen tenced to two years' hard labour. That was far the robbery of jewellery, &c., to the amount of about £ 2 , 000 , from the brougham of r. Alexander, a manufacturing jeweller in Hatton-garden, as it stood at the door of a jeweller's shop in the Strand, about four years and a-half ago. Since the expiration of that sentence he bad been summarily con victed twice, and he was well known to the officers of various divisions of the Metropolitan Police. Mr. Creasy sentenced him to seven years' penal servitude. William Harris,lB, was indicted for, and found guilty of, feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Thompson, and stealing therein two pett icoats and other articles his property. The prosecutor's dwelling house" was a railway arch, and the prisoner was found in it. He told the policeman who took him that he was in distress and without a lodging, and seeing the door open he went in for shelter. He was a known offender, and had been con victed summarily on four occasions. The Court sentenced him to 10 months' hard labour. John Dexter, 38, ostler, was found guilty of stealing some casks, the property of Zuse Joel, pickle merchant, of Lambeth, his master, and was sentenced to two months' hard labour. Mr. Metcalfe was for the prosecution. William Higgins, 20, costermoager, was indicted for stealing two teaspoons and other articles, the property of Ellen Markland. Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted. This was an ordinary case of larceny in a dwelling-house It occurred at Notting-hill, and the prisoner was one of a gang who had committed a number of similar thefts in that neighbourhood lately. The Court sentenced him to four years' penal servitude. (Before Mr. Payne.) Frederick Chapman, 52, clerk, and James Mason, 16, were indicted for indecent conduct. The charge was not proved E 4 laid in the indictment, and the jury found the prisoners not geilty. Mr. Sergeant Ballantine (specially retained) and Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared for Chapman, who had been on bail ; Mr. Harry prosecuted. Samuel Seaton and William Busby were indicted for stealicg some meat, the property of Mr. Hardy, butcher, of Bromptou, the master of Busby. The last-named pri soner was seen to hand some chops, weighing 241 b., to Seaton from his master's cart, and, when taken, he said he did it because Seaton was in distress, and he received nothing for It. It was urged there was no felonious inten tion, and the jury acquitted the prisoners. dr. Dunbar was for the prosecution, Mr. Sleigh defended Seaton, and Mr. Ribton defended Busby. James Butler, 20, a known thief, was convicted of steal ing a purse containing ss. from the person of Mary Ann Norman, in the City-road, and was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. —William J. Corderoy, a very respectably attired man, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting a police-constable in the discharge of his duty. It appeared that on Saturday evening the prisoner was found iu the street in a state of intoxication and creating a disturbance, which made it necessary to remove him, but upon an officer approaching him for tbat purpose he became very violent, so as to make it necessary to secure additional assistance. Even then he succeeded in kicking the first officer in a dangerous place, and threw another officer to the ground no fewer than four times before they succeeded in lodging him at the station. The prisoner said he was drunk at the time, and that was all he recollected. He remembered nothing about the as sault, and was very sorry he had so conducted himself. The Lord Mayor said he was very sorry too; but the offence was of too serious a nature to be lightly passed over. He was determined to do his utmost to protect the police in the discharge of their deity; and, in all cases where an assault upon the police was proved before bim, he should deal se verely with the offender, whether he was drunk or sober at the time. His lordship then sentenced the prisoner, who seemed rather astounded at such a result, to 21 days' imprisonment, with hard labour. - - - - James Allen and John Murray were charged with hav ing been concerned, with another man not in custody, in stealing a watch and chain, value £7, from the person of Thomas Millard. The prosecutor said—On Saturday afternoon I was going through Tower-street with a friend, when our attention was attracted to an Italian who was exhibiting a monkey there. At the same time, standing close by, were three men, of whom the prisoners were two, and Murray, who was close to me, dropped some halfpence on the ground, which he stooped to pick up, and after giving something to the Ita lian, he went away with his two companions. Shortly afterwards I missed my watch and chain, and upon mention ing my loss, and my suspicion that the prisoners had robbed me, a gentleman who was there said they had gone up to wards Tower-hill, and upon proceeding in that direction we came up with the prisoners there, the other man having got away. The watch has not been found, and lam told that before we caught them they bad Tower-hill. offered it for sale on The prisoners denied all knowledge of the robbery, and asserted that they were honest costermongers, who had never been in trouble before ; but, unfortunately for their veracity, an officer in court identified Murray , as having been to his own knowledge summarily convicted three times, and Allen twice, while Allen was also identified as having been already convicted at this court. They were then remanded to give time for an attempt to trace the watch. GUILDHALL.—Henry Bunbury, the son of the late Major-Gen. Bunbury, was placed at the bar before Alder man Cubitt, charged with passing and uttering three bills of exchange for £lOO, £5O, and £4O, with intent t defraud Mr. Hobson, a tailor, of 4, Finsbury-place South. Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Henry Hobson said—l have known the prisoner about three years. I had some business transactions with the pri soner and several other parties for whom Mr. Parkin, a soli citor, was concerned, but they terminated in 1856. On Ist June last he called upon me at my place of business, and said that since he had seen me his fa ther, Major-Gen. Bun bury, had died, and that his affairs were then in the hands of Mr. Parkin. He asked me to advance him some money, and I let ha,n have £lO, the amount he asked for. He had goods of me also at the same time. He brought a letter, purporting to come from Mr. Parkin, and addressed to the prisoner. On the sth of June he brought another letter, which he showed me, and represented he received it from Mr. Parkin. He wanted £5, which I lent him. On the Bth of June he came again. When he came he usually brought letters purporting to come from Mr. Parkin. On the 26th of June ho brought a bill of exchange for £4O, dated June 19, 1858, drawn and endorsed by the prisoner, and apparently accepted by Mr. Parkin. I remarked that it was rather singular that a solicitor should give his accep tance, and he replied, not at all, as solicitors never made advances until they had the needful in hand. He then asked for an advance of £lO upon the bill produced for £4O ; and upon the faith of the genuineness of that bill I let him have £lO. On the Bth July he called again with another letter purporting to be written by Mr. Parkin, and at his re quest I advanced him £7. I knew he was entitled to a large property, being of a very hi g h family, and that his property amounted to about £14,000. On the 17th of July he brought another letter, which he read to me, in which the writer represented that the prisoner's affairs were all brought to a termination, and appointed the following Monday for a settlement. I then let him have £l5, and he ordered some goods, whi c h were made up, but not delivered. He also wanted a Cat and I gave him an order up on m y hatter for one. On the following Monday I received a note from him, dated Isleworth, appointing the following Wed- nesday to call upon me ; and en that day I received another letter from him - from Portsmouth ; but in the meantime I called on Mr. Parkin. I did not Bee the prisoner again until Saturday last, when he came and inquired if the things he had ordered a fortnight previously were ready. I said they were, and invited him into the show-room, and while he was trying on the things he produced two bills of exchange for £lOO and £5O, which he gave to me, and said he was going to Cherbourg and should want £ . 50. Both bills were drawn and endorsed by the prisoner, and pur ported to be the acceptances of Mr. Parkin. They were both dated July 30, 1858. I then said he must have been aware that the bill of exchange for £4O bearing Mr. Par kin's name as the acceptor was a forgery, and he said it was. I then asked him if the other two bills were also forgeries, and lie said they were. I then called up my foreman , a nd in his presence interrogated the prisoner again, when he repeated that the bills were forgeries. I called in a police man and gave him into custody. Mr. Win. Parkin said—l am a solicitor, and live at 29, Argyll-street. The acceptances to the bills produced are not in my handwriting, neither have they been written with my authority. The signature is not very like mine. I know the prisoner's handwriting. The bodies of the bills, as well as the forms of the acceptances , appear to have been written by him, but the signature is in a disguised hand. I have written to the prisoner several times, but not about Mr Hobson. I was concerned two years ago in purchasing of Mr. Hobson a mortgage which he held upon the prisoner's reversionary property. Cross-examined by prisoner—l am the attorney to Major Adair and others, holding the estate on your behalf. Alderman Cubitt, after reading the usual caution pre scribed by law in such cases, asked the prisoner if he wished to say anything in answer to the charge? The prisoner said—l wish to state, relative to Mr. Parkin and Mr. Hobson, that I have a claim upon this property, and that I hold Mr. Parkin's acknowledgment in his own handwriting of his not having paid me the sums agreed to, and that the letters I showed Mr. Hobson were not forg eries, but bond fide letters. That every party belonging to the family, solicitors and all, have received notice from me that I have never received the sums stipula . ed to be paid to me, and for that very reason I claimed a share in the estate, although Mr. Parkin and his clie nts did all they could to shut me out. I also wish to state that at Crane court,. Fleet-street, at the Scottish Hospital, of which Major Adair is the secretary, I signed various mortaes to the amount of £6,000 and upwards, and at the g end of each mortgage there was a receipt drawn out acknowledging that I had received a fair proportion of the property for that mortgage, whereas all that I received was £ 245 . I was to have had E• 250, but they kept back £5 because they got me ,i5O a-day earlier than agreed open. They then pur chased my equity of redemption for X,50, which I sold on their promise to keep good faith with me, which they did not. Upon the death of my father, knowing they had not a leg to stand upon, and that I was in want of money, they got me to sign a decd of confirmation of the past, for which they were to have given MO £250 then and to leave the rest until a future day, when the estate came to be wound up. I re ceived part of that money when I signed the deed; and with regard to the rest, Mr. Park;n wrote to say it should be forwarded on my making application for it. I did make repeated application, and got a few pounds in dribs and drabs, but the balance I never got. To prove how they got my property into their hands, I wish to say that the firm of Messrs. Gaston, Aguilar, And Baker, cement manufacturers, got mortgages from me for goods which they contracted debts for, and never paid, leaving me liable, and one mort gage alone, for £1,500, Mr. Parkin bought on behalf of `his clients for £250, showing how little they thought of the validity of the mortgage. Alderman Cubitt—This is no answer to the charge. Do you wish the whole of this statement to be returned with the depositions? Prisoner—That is what I desire, sir. The prisoner was then committed for trial. BOW-STREET. William Robie, a costermonger, was charged with in decently exposing himself to the servant-maids in Gordon square and the neighbourhood, and with addressing filthy language to them. It was proved by the evidence of several witnesses that the disgusting conduct complained of had been going on for some months past, although the prisoner had always man aged to avoid apprehension until Saturday, when he was pursued by a fishmonger's assistant and given into custody, exhausted almost by his endeavouring to escape. He at first denied the charge, and Mr. Lewis, his solicitor, cross examined the witnesses, in the hope of establishing a case of mistaken identity, adding that the prisoner bore an excel lent character, and was a married man, his wife's confine ment being hourly expected. Eventually, however, to avoid the risk of still greater punishment at the sessions, the prisoner pleaded guilty, and begged the magistrate to dispose of the case by summary conviction. The servant-maids having also begged the Court to spare them the pain of appearing again, Mr. Henry committed the prisoner to three months hard labour, remarking that he deserved a much heavier punish ment, and doubtless would have received it if the case had gone for trial. Mr. Henry has received a donation of ss. in postage stamps from H. C.," who requested that it might be given to the young man at the brothel in George-street, for hav ing very properly refused to allow the cabman , Knight , to remain in the room with the servant girl, Mary Barry, whose case was reported on Saturday. WESTMINSTER.—CRUEL ROBBERY OF A PARENT. —Harriet Hardiman and Anne Hawker, two young women, were placed at the bar before Mr. Paynte r, char g ed with the following heartless robbery : The prosecutor was John Hardiman, father of the first named prisoner, a poor, hard-working smith, a widower, in bad health, with five children to maintain. On Saturday night be went to bed, with his week's wages, amounting to 135., in his pocket, and on awaking in the morning found it bad all gone. The door of his humble abode had been left as usual unlocked, a circumstance of which his daughter availed herself to enter in the night and rifle his pockets of their contents. The other prisoner had been seen with her at the door of her father's house, and was found in her company when she was apprehended, shortly afterwards, with similar coins to those stolen in her possession. In reply to the magistrate prosecutor said that his daugh ter, who might have been of great service to him, had absented herself from his house three months ago, and had taken to evil courses and companions, The prisoners, the former of whom admitted the robbery, were committed for trial. SERIOUS AND UNPROVOKED CASE OF WOUNDING. — Elizabeth Saunders, a woman of dissipated appearance, was charged with assaulting Miss Margaret Gibson. The prosecutrix, a very genteelly-dressed young woman, residing at 23, Paradise-walk, Chelsea, said that the defen dant lodged in her mother's house, and on Saturday night was intoxicated and created a great disturbance. Some boys followed her home, and complainant was standing in the passage of the house when she was suddenly struck by defendant on the head and fell. Mr. Paynter inquired the extent of the injury ? Complainant, who wore a linen bandage round her head, said it was a very deep cut, and pained her very. much. She had had it dressed at the hospital. She gave defendant no provocation of any description. Isabella Martin said she was present at the time of the assault. The wound was inflicted with a china image, which defendant deliberately threw at the complainant. Complainant .screamed and fell. She was insensible for some minutes, and bled copiously from the wound. It was at first thought that she was killed. Defendant, who made no reply to the charge, was re manded for a week. MARLBOROUGH -STREET.—ASSAULTS ON WOMEN. —Charles Cattle, 119, Jermyn-street, was brought before Mr. Long, charged with ill-using his wife, Mrs. Martha Cattle. The complainant said her husband came home yesterday morning about two o'clock drunk, and began beating her with his fists, and he then threw her down on the floor, jumped on her repeatedly, and kicked her all over the body. She had been married ten years, and this was not the first time her husband had ill-used her. The prisoner, in defence, said his wife did not speak the truth. Police-constable Turvey, 200 C said he was called in, , and he found the complainant nearly naked and exhausted, and shamefully beaten. The prisoner resisted violently, and struck him several times. Police-constable Robinson, C division, said the prisoner, Elizabeth 2te6H co m p l a i n a nt 1 Hallows. wssh when . The She when at the station - h ouse, assaulted him and bit his hand. Mr. Long sent the p risoner to hard labour for three mon ths for assaulting his w ife, one month in addition for assau lting the constable, and to find bail for six months at the expiration of the terms of impr isonment. Willi a m Murphy was charged with a violent assault on s a, a . i kl, d e th e i s dl h h e ps was ihrmi: w priso n er n he y i ar n o t ue P h: c and na meant d i ap i nl then atynbodyn struck such cu e hc nkci indecentlyog li b e _r t theoadsfuseatu. itihh Ju l y , ld e e replied, several blows with his fist on the face. The prisoner put his hand into his pocket, pulled out samething heavy, threw it in her face and stunned her. Mr. Long sent the prisoner to hard labour for two months. John Beal was charged with beating Mary Beal, his wife. The wife, who had her head bandaged, said her husband was about to break the furniture when she interposed. Her husband laid hold of her, lifted her up, and threw her vio lently on the floor, cutting her head open. Her husband was constantly in the habit of beating her, and did nothing towards the support of his family. The son confirmed his mother's evidence. The father in defence said his wile took up the poker. The son said this was true. Mr. Long said that being the case he would let him off this time, and would only order him to enter into his own recognisance to keep the peace. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.—Henry Summerley and Samuel Owen were charged with obtain ing ten decanters from Mr. John Hobson, 19, St. James's street, by fraudulent pretences. Charles Smith was in the employ of Mr. Hobson. About one o'clock that day Summerley came to the shop and ordered ten decanters in the name of a gentleman named Halford, No. 9, Rutland-gate. The prisoner was told to call in half an hour. He did so, and took away the de canters in a cab. The prisoner was followed, and witness SAW the other prisoner Owen help him to take the decanters from the cab. There being nn evidence against Owen, be was discharged. The prisoner Summerley was then charged with obtaining goods from Messrs. Miller and Son, Piccadilly, by false pretences. Evidence was given that the prisoner obtained 81h. of candles and a quantity of oil from the firm in the name of Halfora. Ai it was suspected there were other cases of the same description the prisoutr was remanded for a week. WORSHIP-STREET.—A MARRIAGE NOTA-LA-DIODE. —A very youthful couple, still in their teens, although bound in wedlock made their reluctant appeara nce before the magistrate, accompanied by their respective parents, who sought for advice under very em b ar rassing circum stances. The bridegroom's father, who appeared to be a respectable tradesman, stated in effect that having two places of business he had entrusted the management of one to his son, who had not long been home from school, and was satisfied with his conduct un til Tuesday, when absented himself from business, and after his return the asteunding fact was elicited from him that he had inthan the meantime contracted marriage w ith a girl younger himself. For a time he refused to disclose the whereabouts of his young wife, who, however, was now in court with her mother—(a timid-looking girl was in fact now observed crouching and occasionally peep in g from behind her parent). The magistrate said it certainly was a strange story, and asked the father if he thought his son was out of his mind. The father replied that he bad never had reason to think so before this occurrence. The girl's mother DOW eame forward and said that t and after man first saw her daughter at a Christmas party, wards became such a passionate suitor that his conduct was quite alarming to the objec t of it, who had on one occasion even resorted to the expedient of hiding herself under a bed to avoid an interview with her admirer. The day before this inauspicious wedding, however, he came and pleaded sot earnestly that he was permitted to see the girl tete-a-tete, and she afterwards said that he had threatened to stab her to the heart if she rejected him. The next day she disap peared from home, and returning after a long absence con fessed that she bad been married in the interval, and that her husband had already deserted her. The girl herself being now questioned said the statement of facts was cor rect. Her husband, having induced her to meet him, took her to the City, where the marriage was solemnised at a church, and afterwards consummated, but her husband then confessed that he had married her in spite, because she had preferred to him another young man, who, h owe ver, would have nothing further to say to her after what had occurred. The magistrate observed that it was the most strange case that had ever come before him. The parties being both under age, and the bride acting apparently under coercion, the marriage would, he supposed, readily be set aside by the proper court, but in the meantime the man ought to son tribute to the support of his girl-wife. - The parties then left the court. CHARGE OP STEALING A IIORSE Al D E ddington, a jobber, was placed at the bar before Mr. Hammill and charged with stealing a horse and cart and harness belonging to Charles Jones, a coal merchant, in Shaftesbury-street, Hoxton, who stated that on Friday afternoon he left the prisoner with his lad in the care of his horse and cart while he went to take tea, but upon his re turn in half an hour the whole had disappeared, and after a vast deal of trouble he traced them to Gray's-inn-road, where he found the prisoner in the very act of receiving six sovereigns from a man, to whom he had agreed to sell the horse for that amount. The value of the whole was about £l7, but the cart was a hired one. William Craig, aged 16, said that as soon as the prosecutor left them the prisoner walked the horse up and down for a short time, and then suddenly asking witness if he knew Gray's-inn-lane, drove off to it, and desired witness to wait for him at a public-house there. In about three hours he brought two other men, one of whom offered to give him £5 103. for the horse, and a gratuity of ss. for himself. The pri soner refused to take that, but agreed to accept £6, and was just receiving the money when the prosecutor came in with a police-constable. The prisoner then asserted that the pro secutor had authorised laim to sell the horse for six guineas ; but the prosecutor utterly denied it and gave him into custody. Mr. Bliss, landlord of the Havelock Arms, said that the prisoner, whom he knew before, came with the horse and cart, intimating that he had to sell them, and witness en tertained no suspicion, as the prosecutor had in fact offered last week to sell him the horse for £6 ss. He therefire re commended the prisoner to a person named Duffy, as a likely man to buy it, and they were about completing the bargain when the prosecutor came in in a terrible fluster, having, as he said, spent 15s. in cab-hire in search of them. The witness said he did not believe the prisoner meant to steal the horse. The prosecutor admitted that he had offered last week to sell the horse for £lO, the prisoner being with him at the time, but he never authorised the prisoner to tell it, and merely left him with the lad in care of it. Mr. Hammill remanded the case for a week for further .uquiry. LAMBETH. NUMEROUS ROBBERIES OF WATCIIES.—A woman named Sophie Weeks was placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton, charged with having been concerned with two men not in custody in attempting to pick the pocket of a lady. Mr. Wontner attended for the prisoner. Sergeant Potter, 16 11, deposed that on Saturday after noon last, while in Southwick-crescent, Paddington, he saw the prisoner walking arm in arm with a man ; another man was walking at a short distance behind. In Upper South wick-street the prisoner and the man who was with her accosted a lady, of whom they had no doubt been asking their way to a certain place, and she was pointing with her hand towards Praed-street. Witness asked the lady if she had lost anything, and she replied that she had not. They went into Cambridge-street, where they met another lady into whose pocket witness saw pri soner put her hand. The prisoner and her two male com panions, upon observing that he (witness) had kept a watch upon their movements, wade off as fast as they could, and in the course of their progress one of the men threw come thing into a garden. The men got clear off, but the pri soner, who had got into a Hansom cab, in which she was about to be driven away, was captured by witness and conveyed to the station-house. In reply to the magistrate, Potter said that neither of the ladies was present. Mr. Broughton—Do you know anything of the prisoner ? Witness—l do not myself, but I believe she is well known to Crocker, of the C divisioo, who was here this morning, but was obliged to leave. Witness added that a number of robberies had lately been committed in the Paddington dis trict, the articles stolen being principally purses and watches, by parties who had stopped ladies and elderly gentlemen under pretence of being informed as to their right road to a particular spot. Inspector Mackerel( stated that owing to many recent cases of plunder the witness Potter had been ordered to keep watch in plain clothes. The prisoner was remanded for further inquiry respecting her. SOUTHWARK.—TILT OLD INDIAN SOLDIER AGAIN —After the usual night charges had been disposed of, Johi Lawton, the old soldier, attended before Mr. Combe ac cording to promise, with the view of explaining his conduce and contradicting the statements which hail recently ap peered in the newspapers. He informed his worship that he left a letter on Saturday for his perusal, the contents of which would clearly show that he was neither an " impos tor" nor " cheat." Mr. Combe told him he had carefully perused the letter in question, and he must publicly say that he saw nothing in it to alter his opinion, " that he was an impostor as well as a cheat." He clearly obtained Gs. from Mr. Edward, his chief clerk, under the pretence of going to Hull.. He, how ever, did nut go ; consequently that was an imposition. Lawton endeavoured to explain that circumstance by say ing, that the reason he did not leave London then was the accounts which he saw in the newspapers on Thursday morning. He considered that they were injurious to him as an old soldier who had served his country, and that his character required to be vindicated. Mr. Combe asked him what he had to say about obtaining 10s. from the Hon. Mr. Norton at Lambeth Police-court only a few days before ? He replied that he did not beg that to be sent to Hull. He was in great distress at the time, and actually starving. He told Mr. Norton so, and the whole of his history. Miller, 118 L, an officer attached to Lambeth Police court, said he was present when Lawton made his applica tion to the Hon. Mr. Norton, and at his request he made inquiries about his services in the army. They turned out to be quite correct, and Mr. Norton gave him (Lawton) 103. out of the poor-box to enable him to go to Hull. Mr. Combe asked Lawton what he had to say to that ? Ile replied that he expended the money to purchase food, therefore he could not go to Hull. Mr. Combe told him that his conduct was very suspicious, and, so tar as he could see, looked very much like a fraud. He came before him with a very plausible tale ; and regard ing his services in the army, and his character during that time, no doubt lie had told the truth. But latterly he had grossly imposed upon the poor-boxes of several of the metropolitan police courts. He told his tale to the magis trates, and then asked for the means to be sent to Hull. Three times had he imposed upon the Lord Mayor, and he most undoubtedly had imposed upon the poor-boxes of the Lambeth and this police court. Lawton did not consider it any imposition. He was in distress, and in want of common necessaries. if his worship wished he could send to Chelsea Hospital, and ascertain that he was entitled to enter that institution on his arriving at 50 years of age. What was lie to do until then ? Mr. Combo told him he must not impose upon the poor boxes at the police courts. When before him on Wednes day last he said that he had taught drilling at schools near Hull, and that he had come up to London to seek a Go vernment situation ; and failing in that lie wanted the means to return to Hull, where lie had friends. The chief clerk provided him with those means, but lie did not go to Hull. Did not that look like fraud ? Lawton observed that his clothes were in such a deplorable state that he felt ashamed to go to Hull. Mr. Combo told him that was an idle excuse. lie never mentioned that when lie made the application. When the money was given to him at Lambeth and that police court he promised to go by the boat to Hull immediately. In. stead of that, he remained in London—most likely for the purpose of further imposition, but that was put a stop to by the press. He had received several sums of money from benevolent individuals for his use, but he should not hand it to him, or encourage such a system of fraud. If he liked he might go and tell his tale to the officers whose names he had mentioned in his letter, and see whether they would assist him, as he would have nothing further to do with him. Lawton asked his worship to read his letter. That set forth his character and showed he was not an impostor. Mr. Combe again told him he had carefully read his letter, and there was nothing in that to excuse him from commit ting the frauds he had upon the poor boxes. He might thank himself lucky that he was not sent to prison ; there fore the sooner he went about his business the better. Mr. Combe then requested our reporter to announce in the Morning Post that the benevolent individuals who had sent money to this court for Lawton might have the same returned to them on application to the chief clerk, or if they pleased it might be deposited in the poor-box, and distri buted to the many deserving poor who were constantly asking for assistance. CRUEL CASE OF WIFE BEATING.—Charles Cooling, a cab-driver, was brought before Mr. Combe charged with cruelly beating Rebecca Cooling, his wife. The latter, who had a severe cut on the side of the ri g ht temple near the eye, and who exhibited several bruises on her arms, stated that she had been married to the prisoner 14 years. He had formerly been a cab-master and driver, but latterly his habits had become so depraved through drunkenness that he had lost his license, and now he hung about the cab-stands, and did nothing to contribute towards her support. He was frequently in the habit of ill-using her, and a day or two ago lie came home an cut hed knocked ce an her about with the handle of a whip. He then r fad e injured hr arms, and she believee would nearly have murdered her had not a .constable d came h in and took the whip handle from him. Police-constable 177 produced the whip, the handle of which was covered with blood. Ile further added that the prosecutrix was so unwell after the assault was committed as not to be able to attend and give her evidence whon the prisoner was first brought up for examination. ; Mr. Combe asked the prisoner what he had to say in an swer to the charge ? He replied that be had been drinking at the time, and when he got home she aggravated him. He was, however, very sorry for his conduct. Mr. Combe told him he was a cowardly, brutal fellow, and he should sentence him to six months' hard labour. THE LATE CALAMITOUS FIRE AT THE FIRE WORK FACTORIES. —Mr. William Dodd, an inspector of police, applied for four summonses, by direction of Capt. Labalmondiere, the assistant commissioner of police, against the owners of the houses Nos. 1 and 2, Charles-street, and 3 and 4, Elizabeth-place, Westminster-road, parish of St. George-the-Martyr, and calling on them to show cause why they neglected to take down the walls of these respective buildings or structures, they having been duly certified to be in a dangerous state by a competent surveyor, and notice of the same having been given to them. The buildings in question are the ruins of the houses at which the late calamitous explosion of fireworks took place, and the usual certificates of a surveyor, under the dangerous structures clause in the Metropolitan Building Act, repre senting the ruins to he in a dangerous state, having been Pitt in, the summonses, as requested, were at once granted. Wito PLUCKED THE FLOWERS ?—Janres Cotterell, a constable belonging to the P division of police, No. 402, was brought u p i n custody and placed at the bar, on a charge of plucking fl in the garden and pleasure grounds of a gentleman at Brixton. Mr. Lund, the superintendent of the division, represented the prisoner as the worst man under his charge, and said that for the 10 months tie hail been in the force there were Woe reports against him, and it. was his impression the pre sent was not the first offence of the kind of which he had been guilty. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, and Mr. Nor- on observed that, in consideration of his being discharged from the force, his sentence would be more lenient than his offence deserved. He then fined the prisoner ss. or 10 days' imprisonment. MURDEROUS ASSAULTS UPON CAPTAINS OF Surrs.—Adam, Young, John Ray, and Jas. Augustus Samuels, American negroes, and lately seamen on board the American ship Satellite from Calcutta, were brought before Mr. Yardley charged with committing a savage and unprovoked assault on Capt. Samuel Annis, the master of the ship. On Saturday the prosecutor appeared at this court as a defendant. He was summoned by 11 of his crew, all men of colour, for their wages earned at sea, and Mr. Fletcher im mediately pleaded on his behalf that the ship Satellite was an American one, and that the magistrate had no jurisdic tion. A certificate from Mr. Campbell, the United States Consul, stating that the Satellite belonged to the port of Rochland, in the State of Maine, was put in, and the magis trate at once decided that he had no jurisdiction in the matter, and dismissed the summonses. Capt. Annis left the court, and was fiercely attacked by the prisoners and others. He returned into court guarded by a strong posse of police, with his face battered, his eyes blackened, and blood stream ing from his nose and mouth. The excitement was very great, and although an application was made to hear the case instanter, Mr. Yardley refused, and said the case must be heard when the parties cooled down, and adjourned the hearing. Mr. Fletcher detailed the particulars of the outrage which was committed within the precincts of the court on an American gentleman who had been summoned to the court. He (Mr. Fletcher) was an eye-witness of the outrage, which was one of the most barbarous he had ever heard of. lie was quite sure that when the magistrate had received the evi dence he would impose a severe penalty. Capt. Annis said that directly he left the court on Satur day, and was making his way towards the office of Mr. Fletcher, lie was attacked by the defendants, who began yelling and booting. He was thrown into the middle of the road, kicked, and knocked down. He got up and was knocked down again. A man named Fraser, one of those who took out summonses, was the first that struck him. He was repeatedly struck and kicked on the head, back, and face, and should have been murdered if it had not been for the police. He lost a good deal of blood. In answer to questions by Mr. Yardley, the witness said all his crew were black men, except two. lie heard Samuels say " you, I'll have your heart's blood." The ship was under seizure on a bottomry bond, and be could not pay the wages or get any money. Robert Wittleton, a police-constable, No. 152 K, an officer of the court, witnessed the outrage. There was one black man on orie side and one on the other beating and kicking the captain, who called out murder. Ile seized Young, and held him fast by the neck. Young said, " Let me go, you —." Witness said, " No, you are on English ground now, and I don't let you go until a magistrate de cides upon the case." Several other witnesses deposed to the violence inflicted by Young and Samuels, but no one saw Ray strike or kick the captain. Ile was seen among the crowd of coloured men following the captain, and close to him when he was ill-used, but it could not be sworn he actually kicked or struck the captain. Mr. Yardley ordered Ray to be discharged. Mr. Charles Young, in defence, said he could not deny the assault, and he could only plead in exoneration of the prisoners, that they were very much excited at the shameful deductions made by the captain in the accounts rendered of wages due to the seamen who had navigated the ship to this port, and could not obtain a farthing. Mr. Yardley said the captain had not been asked a single question in cross-examination relating to deductions, and it was exceedingly unfair to make such statements without giving the prosecutor an opportunity of contradicting it. Mr. Young—lt is in my instructions, and the accounts, partly printed and partly written, prove it. There is 14s. charged to each man for shipping and unshipping. Mr. Yardley—Then you should have questioned the captain abeut those matters. Mr. Young said although the affray might be considered brutal among Englishmen who fought with the weapons which nature gave them, it was customary in America for men to kick each other, and use knuckle-dusters made of brass, and other weapons. In America this affair would not be considered exceptionab!e, for" booting," as it was called, was a favourite pastime there, and Americans did not use their bare fists as Englishmen did. Mr. Yardley said there was no palliation or excuse for this outrage, which was surrounded with circumstances of great aggravation. The captain appeared in that court to answer summonses issued against him, and he told hint he could not decide the case. The legal adviser of the prisoners and their shipmates made no resistance at all to the decision. It might be a hardship on the seamen not to get their wages, but the captain had no power to pay them with out the order of the persons who had seized the ship. The defendants must act in obedience with the English laws while they were in this country. It was a grave offence in any civilised country for a man seeking justice in a properly con stituted court to be insulted and ill used. A man leaving our courts of j ustice must be protected, whatever his rank might be. The prisoners had not only committed a most brutal outrage, but had also been guilty of a contempt of court. He was very sorry to hear the remarks which had fallen from Mr. Young about American brutality as compared with English brutality. We bad no business to exalt ourselves at the expense of other nations. The Americans were as civilised as the English. It was all nonsense to say there was any palliation in the case. A most gross improper, brutal, and savage assault had been committed on Capt. Annis. He fined the prisoners £5 each, and in default of payment two months' imprisonment. Mr. Yardley also issued warrants against two other men named Fraser and Sydam, who were concerned in the out rage, and said if any other men committed an assault on the captain, he would send them before a jury for trial, and if found guilty they would be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. ANOTHER AND SIMILAR AFFAlR.—lifichael Ryan, an Irishman, aged 21, Emmanuel Pcana, 2.5, La terence Cornelius, 21, and Richard Crosby, 21, the three last foreigners and men of colour, were brought before Mr. Yardley, charged with assaulting Capt. Henry M`Neil, the master of the British ship Henrietta. The prosecutor in this case was summoned to this court on Saturday by these seamen for wages, and it appeared that the ship had been on a whaling voyage, and sailed from London on the 10th of May, 1856, that the original master, Capt. Holmes, committed suicide, that the ship put into St. Helena, where 15 men deserted, and were sen tenced to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, and that 15 others were shipped as 'substitutes. After various adventures the ship put into Ternate, a Dutch settlement , where the captain was compelled to enter into a eecond agreement to pay the men monthly wages. Mr. Yardley decided that as the seamen had entered into a written contract to go out upon the " lay" or share in the profits of the adventure, the custom in South Sea whaling voyages, the second agreement entered into at Tcruate was null and void, and dismissed the summons. Mr. Cox, solicitor for the captain, promised that, although the whale fishing had not been very successful, the ci evv would be liberally dealt with by the owner at the pay table. Mr. Joseph Smith, solicitor, said he appeared for the seamen on the application for their wages, but did not an pear for them now, and would not countenance attacks oe suitors as they were leaving the court. Capt. M'Neil said that directly he left the court on Satur day afternoon be was followed by the prisoners and othets) who abused him in a most gross manner. Ryan struck hit' first on the face with his fist. The man Peana seized blip by the neck and compressed it, and left marks upon his throat, and Cornelius and Crosby tucked up their shirt sleeves and heat him. The police came up and interfered , and took the prisoners into custody. I n answer to questions by Mr. Yardley, Capt.llPNeil said whole of the crew will be paid their shares of the profits of the adventure. Some fish bad been caught. The voyage on the whole had been unfortunate. I have not been addicted to habits of intemperance, or afflicted with delirifil g tremens. There was no inquiry into my conduct before at*: local marine board, and no intention of proceeding again" me. Mr. Yardley—Certain insinuations having been throve out against the captain, I have given him an opportunity of contradicting them upon oath. Capt. /11`Neil—I beg leave to say that the men will be paid all that is due to them in a day or two. Mr. William M'Neil, brother of the last-named witnes s ' confirmed his statement, and said he seized Ryan and 141' him down until a policeman arrived. Mr. Yardley—This is a very serious offence, but not n uit 9 g so bad as the last case I heard. Really it is new that partia l going out of this court are to be assaulted by unsucce ssfe suitors, and it must be put a stop to. It is a most abomi ll ; able proceeding, and I hope never to hear of such a °lie: again. I fine Ryan £3, or three weeks' ituprisonnie o " Peana 405., or 14 days' imprisonment; and the others `.A". each, or eight days' imprisonment. The crew of the American ship were actuated by ellell_ hostile feelings against their captain that Inspector Alli so 'ft of the K division, and a strong force of police bad to We' im to a place of safety. Yesterday the full Board of Admiralty landed at 0 : King's-stairs, Portsmouth Dockyard, at half-past elevee o'clock, when the men belonging to the dockyard W e h r o 1 mu stered before their lordships. They went out of i'o yard for the remainder of the day. Their lordsh i p s ' stay the yard was very short. A POAC HE Et SHOT BY A GAMEKEEPER. r Thursday morning, between one and two o'clock , threes 4/4 a nd four men got within the boundaries of Witto n Park, the of Kr. Joseph Fielden, about a mile from Blackburn, ali;1 were busy setting nets, when they were pounced upon ..,1 three gamekeepers. The men immediate l y made off, an one of the gamekeepers, named John Lane, fired and sov c , one of the men, named Peter Lister, wounding him v er d ' s severely in the hips and back part of the thighs. Lister was taken to a beershop and attended by a surgeon, who t i es extracted from his person a number of shot. lie still 0 there in a precarious condition. The gamekeeper, J °ll e , Lane, has been taken into custody, and will be brought D fore the magistrates. BI ItTHS. CIIARLTON—On the Ist inst., Mrs. J. S. Charlton, 1‘ 1311(4- park, Streatham, of a son. HALLEY—On the 2d inst., at 7, Harley-street, Cavendish square, the wife of Dr. Alex. Halley, of a daughter. s, Mont—On the 25th July, at Leckie, Stirlingshire , Graham Mo ir, of a son and heir. 101 / 1 PYE—On the Ist inst., at Wimbledon, the wife of Fie J. Pye, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. T .T A CV GIBSON—HIGGS—On the 3 1 st ult., at St. John's, A-nol9 ney, Mr. W. S. Gibson, of Islington, to Mary Ann, "ace? daughter of James Higgs, Esq., of Gresham-te ll Dalston, and Stock Exchange. FO:K.—TOWNSEND—On the 31st nit. at St. Ge° - , r eeo Hanover-square, George F ox, Esq., of Grectr, s ,"....er Grosvenor-square, to Annie Townsend, of Cornwo 105- race, Regent's-park, daughter of the late John I.°' end, Esq., of Leamington, Warwick. DEATHS. l e , ASHWORTH—On the Ist inst , at 5, St. Georgeri,:i tll e Lieut.-General Sir Frederick Ashworth, Colon el 44th Regt., aged 75. 1 46/4 DAVIS—On the Ist inst. , Mr. Samuel Davis, of the Kent-road, aged 92. " for PEASE—On the 31st July, at his house, Northg e ' lington, Edward Pease, aged 91. f DO D ' FINCH—On the 31st ult., Anne, wife of Mr. James - sett., Loughborough-road, Brixton. Lau ra OSBORN—On the 30th ult., at Chicic san d s Priory, ifyir Elizabeth, second daughter of Sir George and Lae beth Osborn, a the 27th ult., at Fleming-road, -,"" ton, slr. Edwin Weedon. ------; 11 ------- , 1 " e' y - L OND ON : Printed and Published by MURDO ~, e' PP' o f No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The S Ou' un onoti 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the SaveY• to tbe of Middlesex, Tuesday, August 3,1858.