The Sun. — London, England, 1858-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. —Nov. 11. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. Findersley.) MURTON V. DRIVER. This bill was filed by a member of a club or 4ociety consisting of 70 persons, called the " Occu piers of the Southview Gardens, at Sheffield," on behalf of himself and. all the members, except the defendants. This club was formed about the year 1849, and the property of which they were tenants from year to year was then called " Abbeydale Gardens," each party paying his own rent to the superior landlords, who were trustees of the pro perty for the Cecil family. In 1851 application was made to the trustees to grant a lease to the members of the club for 21 years, which was ac cordingly done, but there being an objettion to grant a lease to so many as 20 persons 10 were ul timately chosen to represent the rest, and the lease was granted to them for 21 years from the 25th of March, 1852, at £BO per annum, payable in March and September. New rules were then prepared by Charles .E. Howard, and a committee of five was chosen, two from the 10 chosen to represent the rest, and the remainder from the general body. In 1853 disputes arose in consequence, as the'plaintiffs alleged, of misconduct on the part of Howard, and the defendants, the 10 lessees, withdrew themselves from the meetings which had been theretofore held at the Club Garden Tavern, and met at a different publichouse. A question then arose as to the pay ment of the rent, the plaintffs claiming to pay it at the usual place oft meeting—the Club Garden Tavern, and nowhere else. In consequence of this the rent fell into arrears, and an action of ejectment was brought by the defendants against the plain tiff (to try the question), and this bill was filed to restrain such action, upon the ground that accord ing to the rules certain forfeits, &e., were imposed upon parties not paying rent, and that was the proper course, instead •of an action of ejectment. iT,he case came to be heard and ultimately stood over fo 'l' the purpose, if possible, of coming to an arrange me -nt, and the injunction was meantime in force on the terms of the plaintiff paying rent to Howard, and oi •ders had been made to that effect, making it a ternr. that on non-payment the injunction should cease. .f .•'n two occasions the rent had been paid, but the last .'der not containing the same condition of eesser of e injunction the rent had not been paid. Mr. Fre cm= appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Glas s,l and Mr. T. H. Terrell, for the defen dants, argueti that, although trustees in some sense, it would be in ..possible to administer or work it out. The rules were s ilent as to the place where the rent was to be paid; r • 1 id therefore the plaintiff and those he represented clearly in the wrong. There was no other mode.. of getting, the rent but to pro ceed legally. Mr. Freeman was ..heard in reply : The Vicc-Chancellc was of opinion that the de fendants had no right to deal with the members of the club as they please c. by turning out, &c., but that every member, as i'arig as he performed the duties imposed upon him, ..had a right to remain in • undisturbed possession of h t s holding, and was en titled to the intervention of this Court to protect him from disturbance by the b. , ssees of Cecil's trus tees, who were themselves, in sc, me sense, trustees, - although there was no agreetiknit in writing in strictness within the Statute of Fm uds. There was no provision in the rules as to paymcnt of rent, ex cept by inference. What ought to be n:one was that the body should holda meeting to arranoe to whom the rent was to be paid, although there was great difficulty in this. There must be a declaraotion that the defendants were trustees for the who, body. The two seceding members of the committee were wrong, and the three others right who held the meetings at the old plate of meeting, and they were the committee. The rext must be paid in pursuance of the last order. There must be a perpetual in junction, qualified as to the plaintiff's performance of his obligations. There must be an account any inquiry as to the receipt *of the rents, under the orders of the Court. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.) . WAKEFIELD V. DYOTT. This was a special case for the opinion of the Court on the will of the late George Wakefield. The testator, by his will, gave the residue of his per sonal estate, and of the proceeds of his real estate, to trustees upon trust for investment, and to apply the interest for the maintenance and support of his granddaughters, Rebecca Frances Wakefield and Annie Wakefield, during their respective minori ties, and until the youngest should attain the age of 21 years, and, from and after that event, then upon trust to pay and divide the principal moneys equally between the said two granddaughters, for their own use and benefit. Then followed these words : ‘i And I declare that each of my said granddaughters shall have a vested interest on her attaining the age of 21 years, or on the day of marriage which shall first happen ; and if either of my said grandchildren shall happen to de part tft. 4 s life before she shall have attained a vested interest, then I give and bequeath her share unto the survivor." There wa44 no gift over in the will. Both the grand daughters survived the testator, and both of them died under 21, and unmarried. The question was whether in the events which had happened the plaintiff, as the administrator of the deceased grand danghters, was entitled to the whole or any part of the shares in which they were respectively interested under the before•mentioned will, or whether the de fendants, as the testator's next of kin, were entitled to the whole or any part of the before-mentioned shares. Mr. Boyle, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. A. Smith, ap peared for the different parties. The Vice-Chancellor, without calling on the coun sel for the defendants, the next of kin, held that, under the circumstances of the case, neither of the two granddaughters took a vested interest under the testator's will, and that in the events which had happened the shares in question formed part of the testator's undisposed-of estate. - (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.) WEBB V. SERGEANT. This case came before the Court in the shape of two motions—one on behalf of the plaintiff to com mit the defendant, Wm. L. Sergeant, for breach of an injunction awarded against him in July last, and for various alleged acts of interference with thelre ceiver appointed by the Court in the cause ; the other a motion on behalf of the same defendant to discharge the receiver and appoint another, and for other matters of detail. A great number of affidavits were read to the Conrt, and on the conclusion of the opening: of the first motion, His honour ordered both motions to stand over till Wednesday next, with liberty t-) defendant to bring forward further evidence and explanation as to some of the matters in respect of which his c3n duct is complained of. The Solicitor-General, Mr. Rolt, Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Beclwell appeared in support of the plaintiff's motion ; Mr. Daniel for the defendant Sergeant, and Mr. W. M. James and Mr. T. Stevens for other defendants. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. (Sitting in Banco, before Lord Campbell and Jus tices Wightman, Erle, and Hill.) BETTS V. CLIFFORD. This was an action in which the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover damages for the infringement of a patent granted to him on the 13th January, 1849, for " a new manufacture of capsules, and of a, material to be employed therein, and for other pur poges." The defendant was a metal roller and ma nufacturer of coffin furniture at Birmingham, and the particular infringement of which the plaintiff complained was that he had manufactured what is commonly called " Betts's metal ;" which consisted of sheets of lead thinly coated with tin, as described ill the plaintiff's specification. The process by which this was effected was - by taking ingots of lead of about three-quarters of an inch in thickness, and ingots of tin of the same size, but of between one quarter and 1-16th of an inch in thickness, and pawing them separately between rollers till the le ad was reduced to one-quarter of an inch in thickness, and the tin to about 1-20th of the thickness of the lead. The tin and lead were then laid on o ne another and passed through the rollers By yll this they became of the required thick ness.ytioror s it was found that the tin closely adhered e lead and covered it with a surface which wasbrights, and stiff, and not liable to be affected by acids,place which took At the trial of the ac tion,'l7).fore Lord Campbell at Warwick at the last Springye A that the defendant had made sissizes, it was proved the, plaintiff contended was an infringement metal, which Patent ; but the defendant gaveripgement of the evidence to show that the manufacture was no novelty, and had been ' tented by Dobbs in 1804, and that 't, • pa I was in actual the plaintiffs in ' Birmingham lon g bef ore the date of patent. During the trial an extraordi nary e circumsta a great sensation occurred, which created at sensation at the time, and was, in fact, the cause of the present rule being granted. A person named John Henshaw happened accidentally to be in th e gallery during the trial, and heard the evidence given before the jury. He then came down and tendered himself to the defendant's attorney as being able to prove that the supposed invention had been well known and in use so early as. 1830 at the manufactory of a Mr. Charles Humpage. He said he had seen such metal as the plaintiff's made there for about a year and a half, and that it was quite a regular thing, and he described the process of Manufacture, which was exactlythe same as that described in the plaintiff's specification. This evi dence naturally excited some surprise and suspicion, but in the result the jury found "a verdict for the plaintiff on the question of infringement, and for the defendant on the question of novelty. Some question arose at the trial as to the plaint if' 1 s speci fication, and upon this the defendant obtained 1 CATO . . to move to enter a verdict, and accordingly a rule was subsequently granted for that purpose. A cross rule was also applied for and obtained by the plaintiff to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, upon the ground that the plaintiff had been taken by surprise by the evidence given by Hen shaw, and numerous affidavits were filed, with a view to shake the credit due to his'(Henshaw's) tes timony. On the other hand, the defendant filed numerous affidavits in answer, tending to explain the circumstances under which Henshaw became a witness, and also to corroborate his evidence. The Court, in the first instance, disposed of the question of surprise, and for this purpose heard Mr. Mellor, .Q.C., for the defendant, and Mr. Macaulay Q.C., for the plaintiff. The argument lasted nearly the whole day, and, as the decision was ultimately in favour of the defendant on this point, it became unnecessary to have the question as to the plaintiff's specification argued. The Attorney-General, Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Udall, and Mr. Webster appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Mellor, Q.C., Mr. Hindmarsh, and Mr. Field for the defendant. Lord Campbell said, he was of opinion that the rule for. a new trial ought to be discharged. That Mr. Betts was an inventor of this process he (Lord Campbell) most sincerely believed,' but if that pro cess was previously in public use the patent could not be supported. There was conflicting evidence, upon which the jury had to form their opinion, and no objection was made as to the manner in which it was submitted to them. Looking at the manner in which Henshaw had behaved and the account he gave of himself, there was enough of suspicion to induce him (Lord Campbell) to concur with the rest of the Court in granting this rule, in order that the matter might be more fully examined into; but, after the affidavits which 'had been read, he (Lord Campbell) was satisfied that Henshaw came into the box without previous concert and without any fraudulent intent. He was at Warwick for a lawful purpose, and being in the gallery at the trial, he recollected the evidence he could give, and com municated it to ihe defendant's attorney. His lord ship thought that both Henshaw and the defen dant's attorney were relieved from all suspicion of trick or contrivance, and that Henshaw gave evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict.. The jury had believed that evidence, and he (Lord Campbell) could not say that they were wrong in so doing. Now, instead of being contra dicted, Henshaw's evidence materially corroborated by the subsequent evidence, though the evidence given at the trial was sufficient to support the verdict. The only ground on which the rule was granted was surprise, and the belief that there was no intention on the part of the defendant to prove a previous user of the plaintiff's process. His lord ship, however, thought that the plaintiff's attorney, who was no doubt a respectable professional man, must have been aware that the defen ' dant would . set up a previous user as a defence, for ho had witnesses there for the purpose of answering such a case. If so, the ground of surprise-was answered. It was a case of conflicting evidence, upon which the jury had found a verdict which - he (Lord Campbell) thoUght the Court would • not be justified in disturbing. His Lordship con , eluded by saying, that he would not comment any further upon the case, for there was the case of " Betts v. •Menzies" which was to be tried, and he • did not wish to say anything that might affect the trial of that cause. Mr. Justice Wightman and Mr. Justice Erle, at some length and Mr. Justice Hill, briefly, expressed themselves to the same effect.—Rule for a new trial discharged. BAILEY V. CUTTS AND OTHERS. This was an appeal from the decision of the judge of the County Court of Nottinghamshire, held at Worksop.• It appeared that the defendants were in the year 1856 members of the Worksop Local Board of Health, and acting in their official capacity,. they had passed a resolution, authorising their solicitor to oppose a Gas Bill proposed by the Worksop and Radford Gaslight and Coke Company. I'his they did in earrying out the wishes of the in haNtants, expressed at a public meeting. The effect of the opposition was to get the price which the kihabitants were to pay for the gas reduced from 65.. Bd. per 1000 feet, as originally proposed by the company, to 65., in addition to other advan tages. The plaintiff had been. employed as engi neer to assist m the opposition to the Gas Bill, and his charge for his services, £2l 14s. 6d., not being paid, he sued the four defendants, wo were the members of the board who voted in favour of the opposition to the bill. The judge of the County Court held that the defendants• were personally responsible, and gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of his claim. Mr. Sergeant Hayes was . now heard in support of the decision, but Lord Campbell said he was unable to see any con tract by the defendants so as to make them personally - responsible. Mr. Bristowe, who appeared for the defendants, was not called upon. Lord Campbell said, the judgment must be set aside, but, under the circumstances, without costs. His lordship added that probably some public spirited individuals in the parish would subscribe and pay the plaintiff's expenses.—Judgment re versed without costs. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(Nov. 11.) WORSHIP-STREET. Richard Jeffries, a short, singular-looking person, but of respectable appearance, was charged with the following extra ordinary conduct. A young woman named Mary Ann Free, the daughter .of a tobacconist in James-street, Old street, stated that while seated in the parlour of her father's shop at 10 o'clock on the preceding night, she was startled by the abrupt entrance of the pri• soner, who was an entire stranger to her, and who suddenly ran into the shop, and so rapidly put out the gas, first on the counter and then :in the win dow, that the lights were all extinguished before she could run into the room. When she 'did get into the shop both she and the prisoner were in the dark, all but a small gleam of light, by which she could just distinguish his hand over the counter close to the till, though she could not swear he was trying to get the till out. She screamed, which brought downstairs her cousin, who pursued the prisoner into the street and caught him, but the moment he had done so some person, a stranger in the crowd, called out to him, " Be careful of that man ; he is mad, and has just tried to bite me ;" on which the cousin let him go, and the prisoner took rapidly to his heels. Nothing was stolen, and they thought themselves lucky in so getting rid of him, when the prisoner some time after ran in again in the same strange manner, and exclaimed to her mysteriously, but vindictively, " You have known me only as a customer before, but you shall know me in another character now," and would, there could be no doubt, have done something to her, had not her cousin fortunately heard his observation, and again made his appearance, on which the pri soner again ran out, but was this time both taken and given into custody. ‘ 4 I don't know him at all," said the witness, "and I'm afraid he will do me some serious injury if I am not protected." A constable of the G division stated that he was on duty in Old-street at the time mentioned, when a gentleman ran up to him in great alarm, and told him there. was something very seriously wrong going on at the tobacconist's in James-street, and that he . had better get there as quickly as possible. ..On nearing the house he found the prisoner engaged in a violent struggle with the last witness's cousin, who gave the prisoner into custody, bid the prisoner was so outrageous, declar ing that he would either kill himself or somebody else, that he had great difficulty in securing him. Sergeant Harvey said that he was on duty at the station when prisoner was brought in. He was ex tremely violent, and presently after very nearly strangled himself with his gold guard chain, which he had twisted so tightly round his throat that he was thoroughly speechless. On his being searched a card was found upon him with the name of the New London Coal Co. upon it, and from what he had since learnt he believed that the prisoner was connected in some capacity with that company. Mr. D'Eyncourt asked the prisoner what he had to say to such extraordinary conduct ? The prisoner, who was now perfectly sobered to the reality , of his position, replied that he was very sorry for his strange conduct, but he had not the slightest recollection of anything that had taken place. He need not say that he was intoxicated at the time, or such a thing could not have occurred to him. The officer remarked that the defendant was cer tainly -not sober. The prisoner rejoined that, however that might be, such behaviour should not be repeated, and with regard to the fears entertained of him by the young woman, he had not, of course, the remotest idea of injuring her, as he knew nothing of her. Mr. D'Eyncourt told hint that, at any rate, he seemed to net very nearly mad when he took a little • drink, and e had better therefore not take any at all. He could not be allowed to act and terrify per sons in this way, and, as some guard against a re petition of • such conduct; he should order him to put in . ow it re in £2O, for his peaceable behaviour for •bail to the amount of ilo and his o the next provided the required sureties, and The prisoner cognisanc t seemingly a totally different man 1-ft the court Zee months. !MAW 10010000 a tO'bC: • • - 'from that he hat/ THE su N THE OMNIBUS COMPANY PROSE CUTION. The proceedings in this important case of the Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company versus the London General Omnibus Company were resumed yesterday at the Westminster Police-court, before Mr. Paynter, and occupied between three and four hours. The court was, as before, densely crowded. Since the last examination summonses have been issued charging nine persons with being concerned in the conspiracy. Mr. Edwards begged, before proceeding to the business of the day, to make one observation. He had stated in the conclusion of his opening address that one of the means resorted to on the other side to ruin the company was garbled reports of meet ings, to which his friend, Mr. Sleigh, had made a very proper reply in defence of the press ; at that time there was a gentleman, named Ross, summoned as a defendant, and as it might seem that those remarks reflected upon Mr. Ross, against whom that summons had been withdrawn, he begged now to state that those garbled accounts were not his reports, and as he should be very sorry that any gentleman should labour under such imputation, he begged to exonerate Mr. Ross. Further, he had to remark that there being two gentlemen of the name of Lloyd Jones in London, the wrong one had been summoned on the last occasion, an error which had since been corrected. In order fairly to show the points of the cross examination of the witness Bryon, hereafter given, it is necessary, before proceeding with yester day's evidence, to briefly refer to his former t'sti mony, the substance of which is as follows :—He was a journeyman coach-builder, formerly in the service of the defendant Ayshford, and while there some omnibuses were made for the London Gene ral Omnibus Company by Hawkins's directions as much as possible to resemble those of the Metro politan Saloon Omnibus Company. Bryon was a poor man, and. Hawkins inquired what it would take to set him up in business. On his replying £l5O in a small way, Hawkins induced him, upon promise of a reward of £l5O, to assist him in filing bills in the Court of Chancery, stating at the time that it would cost them nothing. If the bill suc ceeded Bryon was to have £5O before he left the court, and £lOO afterwards. Hawkins did not wish his own name to appear, and said it would be better for Bryon to lend his as an independent shareholder of the Saloon Company ; and that if the bill suc ceeded it would have the effect of crushing the company. Bryon was also induced to , go with Hawkins to solicit the signatures of the share holders of the company to a petition praying that the Board of Trade would send some one to exa mine the accounts of the Saloon Company. Another part of Bryon's instructions was that he was to attend meetings of the Saloon Company and disturb them all he could. This he did. He and others each time previously - met at a public-house opposite, and supper was paid for by Hawkins and Lloyd Jones. In course of conversation with Bryon, Hawkins frequently said the Saloon Company had not a farthing in their coffers. He was working day and night, and getting papers cut and dried for them. He would sell the coat off his back but that he would crush them. Bryon was now called, and cross-examined by Mr. Stammers, as follows: Mr. Stammers—You know that you had 10 shares in the company ? Witness—Yes, sir._ _ _ You are aware, I believe, that your mother is a shareholder in the company P—Yes. She has also 10 shares, and the shares have been paid up. Have you had any dividend upon them ?--None, sir. Do you know if any other of the shareholders in this company have had any dividends ? Mr. Paynter—How can he possibly know that ? Mr. Stammers—Were you not attending a meet ing of the Saloon Omnibus Company for the pur pose of borrowing money on debentures ?—I was. When was that ?—At the first meeting that was caLled. Was it this year or last year ?—Last year, I be lieve- It was last year. Were you not a dissentient on the occasion of your being at the meeting P—l was not a dissen tient till I received some information about the object of obtaining them. Was not the Saloon Omnibus Company at that time in a state of insolvency P—l knew nothing about the affairs of the company except what I was told by Mr. Hawkins. From what you did know were you not aware that the Saloon Omnibus:Company was insolvent ? —I was not. Did you become aware at any time that the company was insolvent ?—Only through being told, Are you aware of it now ?—I am not. Mr. Edwards here interposed. He said that he did not wish to put an extreme limit to a cross examination ; but he submitted that this cross examination had nothing to do with the charge of conspiracy. He thought that his learned friend was not justified in questioning the solvency or insolvency of a company on a charge of conspiracy. A company was placed in a similar position to a private individual. His learned friend hadno right to question the solvency of the company, and he submitted that the course of examination pursued ought not to be persisted in. Mr. Poynter observed that he did not see what bearing the cross-examination had on the case. Mr. Stammers, having remarked that the inter ruption of the learned counsel was too late, as he had done with the cross-examination upon the question of insolvency, said to the witness—You stated in your last examination that Hawkins told you that he wanted to file a bill, and that he did not wish his name to appear ? Witness—That was so. Do you remember going to Mr. Norton, the so licitor, on the subject of the proposed bill ?—Yes, I went to the office of Mr. Norton. Was not the opinion of Mr. Wordsworth on the subject of the contents of the bill read over to you? —1 cannot say. Was not some paper read over to you ?—Yes. Look at that (producing a paper). Is that the paper ?—I believe it is. Did you sign any paper at Mr. Norton's P—l did. Did not Mr. Hawkins also sign the paper in your pre ;ence ?—Yes. He placed his signature under Did you not give authority to Mr. Hawkins to file the bill^on his and your behalf ?—Hawkins did all the business. Did you not give authority to Mr. Hawkins to file the bill on his and your behalf ? Mr. Paynter—The bill will show that. Mr. Stammers—Will you swear that the bill was not the joint bill of you and Mr. Hawkins ? Witness—l did not do it. Mr. Hawkins and myself were plaintiffs in the case, and I made an affidavit with Hawkins in support of the statements in the bill. A long discussion here took place in reference to evidence being received upon affidavit from another court, and Mr. Edwards contended that the only evidence which ought to be produced was what was in refe rence to tie evidence given on a former occasion, in order to show whether there was any contradic tion to his former evidence. The cross-examination of the witnesses was then resumed by Mr. Stammers. Mr. Stammers—Have you ever asserted that the London General Omnibus Company had adopted means to destroy the Saloon Company ? Witness—l deny it. By Mr. Stammers—My mother made an affidavit in the bill, and she signed it. . She is not able to read. The contents were read to her. Have you not expressed yourself dissatisfied as to the steps taken to borrow money on debentures ? —I have been dissatisfied. Did you not bring your mother up from the country to make an affidavit ?--Mr. Hawkins wished me to fetch her. Mr. Sleigh here interfered. He observed that on the last occasion it was suggested that the cross-examination should be reserved till such time as the counsel for the company might see what evidence was brought forward, upon which they could cross-examine the witnesses. At present he thought they had nothing to examine. Mr. Edwards said that the course recommended by Mr. Sleigh was one that was never pressed before. If any cross-examination should be pro ceeded with it ought to be at the time of the examination of the witnesses. Mr. Stammers—Do you not know that between the months of April and September, 1857, the di rectors of the Saloon Omnibus Company contracted debts to the amount of £3,557. Mr. Edwards—What has that to do with the charge ? I cannot see what the debts of the Metro politan Saloon Company have to do with a charge of conspiracy. Mr. Stammers repeated the question, in answer to which the witness replied, I do not. Mr. Stammers—How was it that you became a witness in this case ? Witness—A friend or two of mine told me that I was being led astray, and advised me not to have anything to do with Hawkins. Did you not go to the Saloon Company and offer to give evidence ?—I saw the secretary of the com pany and told him what I knew of the proceedings of the company. • Did you make arrangements with the object of becoming a witness ?—I made no arrangements at an. Who was the friend you allude to?---I am not obliged to tell you. Mr. ray rater'-.You had better say. LONDON, FRIDAY EVEN! NG, NOVEMBER 12, -1858. r. - Pope, the secre taryWitness—His name is Bryon. Mr. company i?d you see of. S t t h a e m c me r o m Witness—l did. M Did he not take your eviden ce?—He did not. At one time I saw Mr. Vining, f ne solicitor. What took place while you . v . ere there ?—I told them all the proceedings. Were you not told by the SQ eretary that if you became evidence you would ILO t be prosecuted ?—I was. _ not being a defendant w ye evidence in thi s ca se against a c as Company ?—Yes. William Bloomfield, 2 48 A, sworn—On the 13th of Sept. I was on duty at 'thent h atth the e pyoruic Generale sh ou l d of Omni Yu gr i the top of Sloane-street, in in the mornin g un til [Mk I was on that duty seven K n my attention was direct(' alto the omnib uses r u nn i ng gh i t n sb t r h i e dg e e v , fr i o nen nc . there. There were Saloc In omnibuses running there several times in the daY, . They were accom p an i e d by others of the Lon.don General Omnibus Com pany. The Saloon omnibuses were accompanied by one or two in front or behind; always one behind. I knew Edswick by the name of " Nobby," he drove one of the Saloon o;amibuses. He used to be up and down three times a day. His omnibus was followed the others were. He always had two omnibuses with hird. I have seen the Saloon omnibus hailed by pas'seng(ms. At five o'clock on Wednesday evening, Sept. 5, a Saloon omnibus came up with one London General behind and one in front. The Saloon omnibus was hail e d bya lady and gentleman standing near the tailor's shop. The Saloon drew up to take the lady and gentleman. Another objection was -z a i se d as to the admissi bility of such evidence, e.nd Mr. Sleigh urged that the course taken b y the prosecution was not a fair one, and he held that if all the drivers individually chose to pull up to the Saloon omnibuses, the mere fact of their doing so, for which they might be liable to personal penalties, could not be evidence against the company, nor if it were shown that 20 persons individually did any particular acts, would it prove that they themselves were in a conspiracy. There was no evidence to prove that the directors of the company were on the road to see them do it or that they had directed them to do it. If each of the coachmen of a private gentleman committed a distinct act in violation of the law, surely it would not be assumed that their master was conspiring with them or even that they were conspiring toge ther, for in that as in the present case it would be nothing mere than a more motion separately and unconnectedly with the other. He repeated that the mode adopted was not a fair way to put this matter before the public, for it was not just to assume as a consequence upon the acts stated, that the pro prietors had anything to do with them. The mode should have been to prove—if it were capable of proof—the giving direction by the princiPals to 'do certain acts, and then evidence of these acts, to show, first, what the acts of these proprietors were, and then back them up by testimony bearing en the matter ; instead of which those who conducted this prosecution were going the very reverse way to work, and a number of individual acts, - without showing directions or knowledge of the directors, were brought up to prejudice the party before the Mr. Paynter ruled that they might prove the overt acts first, which of themselves went for nothing, and then prove that they were done by the direction or knowledge of the heads ; it was the everyday 'practice. Mr. Tindal Atkinson had been surprised at the loose manner in which this prosecution was being conducted to what it would be in a superior court. They had no specific proof that any of the heads of the company knew anything about the practices now complained of. Mr. Paynter reminded the learned gentleman that there was a great deal of difference between a police-court and th e c ourts alluded to. A police court was a court of preliminary inquiry, where a case had to be shaped, while a superior court had it there already shaped. He (the worthy magistrate) could not pretend to say what the evidence would come to in support of the charge. Mr. Tindal Atkinson cited " Roscoe" to show that after a party were shown to be confederating, evi dence might be given against any of them, showing their distinct acts, but here there was no party as described. Mr. Paynter repeated that in itself the evidence of the individual acts went for nothing, but he could not tell how they could be ultimately sup ported. Witness resumed—Tho Saloon omnibus driver drew up to take the lady and gentleman up, when the London General driver drove his horses to two feet behind the door. The conductor got down from his omnibus and took hold of the lady and gentleman, when I told him to keep on the hind part of his omnibus unless he was called for, and that if he repeated the offence I should report him. He intimidated the lady and gentleman so that they refused to go into the Saloon omnibus, and calling a cab went away, On tte same day at 12.37, one of the London General omnibuses was loitering in the high road, Knightsbridge, when I took my watch out of my pocket and looked at the time, and going across to the driver t oo k th e num b er o f hi s badge. I asked hi m what h e wa s d o i ng th ere , an d he replied " Waiting for the Saloon omnibus." I was at Sloane-street from the 13th to the 16th, four days. Whenever a Saloon omnibus came up others of the London General came up with it. On one occasion a Saloon omnibus came up the road from Hammersmith, with one of the London General omnibuses before and another behind it ; the one behind then came behind the cab rank into the Brompton-road, and shut c ommun i cat i ons r i g h t o ff the Saloon omnibus, from th e t op o f Sl oane•strect. Cave was the timekeeper then at the top of Sloane street. I have seen him, when the Saloon omni buses have come up the Brompton-road,, come out of the office, and ifhe saw any of the London Ge neral omnits6es in Sloane-street, beckon the drivers to come on ; then, if the Saloon went on, he made a signal for the others to do the same. Cave is always at the top of Sloane-street. Chapman is director of the Lo ndon Ge nera l omn ib uses, an d M'Cloud. At the t ime I reported the driver of the London General omnibus for loitering Chapman was on the roof of it, close by the side of the coachman ; that was on the 15th. They were in such a position • that they must have heard what was said. Chap man said " Why don't you go an d t a k e th e num ber of the Saloon om nibus," when I r e pli e d th a t I could not see they were do i ng anything wrong— the Saloon wos at that t ime N yards further up the road. The London General driver started on di rectly begged hiim to correct a mi s t a ke whi c h Mr. O l i s p oke .r dge t o had gone forth on the former occasion. The names of Edward Leuken and Willing had been used in connection, instead of " Willing" it should be " Whetton." An adjournment was now generally requested by the counsel, and it was ultimately arranged that the investigation should be resumed next Thursday. Before the counsel left Mr. Paynter observed that great expease and inconvenience must be en tailed upon many by . this prosecution. It would occupy much time at that court, and much, per haps, at another, besides increasing the bad feeling which unhappily at that moment existed between the rival parties. After the answer to the proposal made by Mr. Francis to adjust the differences of the companies, it might be feared that any suggestion of his would be of no avail ; but he still would ask the parties to consider whether something like an amicable arrangement could not be come to between them. It could not, in his opinion, be a proper proceeding, nor a fair, English, or manly one, for an associated body of persons, by great capital, to in terfere with and crush others not so conditional. He did not mean to say that it was done inten tionally ; he did not mean to prejudice the case ; but the proceedings spoken of had that tendency. There were before him gentlemen belonging to the London General Omnibus Company, who, from his own knowledge of them, he was sure were incapable of doing such an act as he had alluded to. It must not be supposed that, in investigating this inquiry, with a desire to ascertain all its bearings, he had auy feeling against the London General Company. If his feelings were to be at all swayed by anything he himself had experienced, they would be opposed to the Saloon, for he never was treated worse in his life than he had been by a person belonging to that company, while on the other hand, he had no such complaint to make of the proceedings of any one of the London General. So long as a company, by carrying out improvements, by putting before the public better accommodation, better horses, better carriages, better servants, and perhaps more con venient times of running, no one would blame them if they drove every one off the road ; but if they attempted to crush others by force of capital, when they carried it the length described, it became very reprehensible. He could not believe that gentle men before him of the London General Company would concur in carrying it to such a length, and yet he hoped that by some arrangement—that by the fair means of capital—the respective parties would be enabled to carry on their undertakings. Some of the directors of the London General Company said they had submitted plans of opera tion both to Sir Richard Mayne and the Lord Mayor. They (the company) were prepared to work fairly. Mr. Paynter thought that some of the men might have resorted to means which the company did not approve of. Mr. Robinson intimated that the Saloon Com pany did not want terms. They were trading at present on the morbid sympathy of the public. One of the directors of the London General Company declared that the establishment .of the Saloon Company was merely to extort money from the London General. They asked them (as was understood in the general confusion occasioned by persons leaving the court on all sides) £2,500 before they had built a carriage. Here the conversation ended. TRIAL FOR MURDER IN SCOTLAND, The trial of William Reid for murder by procur ing abortion was opened at " the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, on Wednesday. The case excited unusual interest owing to various circum stances. The prisoner, who resided with his mother at Smallburn, three miles from Falkirk, and who is most respectably connected, was tried in September, 1857, along with another young man, at the Stir lingshire circuit, for breach of trust and embezzle ment, in so far as he aided and abetted the frauds of the late Henry Salmon, manager of the branch of the Commercial Bank at Falkirk, who, it may be remembered, on his extensive defalcations being discovered, took to flight, and eventually com mitted suicide in the court-yard of a Welsh inn. The two young men were not suspected of partici pation in the moneys appropriated by Salmon, but were nevertheless convicted of the offence charged and were each sentenced to two years' imprison ment. The representations made to the Home Secretary, however, succeeded in procuring the liberation of both at or before the expiry of six months; Reid accordingly returned to his mother's house in April last, and resided there until the occurrence of the event which a second time brings him to the criminal bar. His mother's servant, Margaret Taylor, had become pregnant by him, and been so three or four months, and he, in conjunc tion with the deceased, D r . Thomas Girdwood, used instruments it is said to cause her to abort. This criminal act proved fatal to the young woman the next' day ; the night of her death the doctor who gave his aid committed suicide by taking laudanum, while Reid himself fled, but was apprehended in Glasgow the following day. The bench was occupied by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Cowan, and L or d Ardmillan. The Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Adam appeared for the Crown ; and the Dean of Faculty, Mr. Mair, and Mr. Morrison for the prisoner. _ ' The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty," and a jury were empannelled. _ Janet taylor, mother of the deceased, deposed that she lived at Muiravonside, Linlithgow-bridge, and that she was visited by Mrs. Black or Watson, from Winchburgh, on Monday, the 6th of Septem ber,- who wished to inquire for her daughter on behalf of her son, who had formerly been under en gagement of marriage to her , which engagement had been broken off, but which' the young man was now desirous to renew. It was agreed (said wit ness) that we should go to Smallburn together to see my daughter, and we arrived at Smallburn between half-past one or two. I asked Mrs. Reid, the prisoner's mother, for my daughter. She told me she was unwell and it bed. She said it was some irregularity in her periods. She was some times more than usually ill at that time. I found my daughter in bed. She had a bad colour—a kind of " blae" colour—and there was a bad smell from her bed. I said, " Maggie, you should pay better attention to your bowels at these times. " She made no answer, and did not speak for some time. She app eare d to be in pain and, agony, as if in labour; she was groaning and moving about. I went into the kitchen to warm a cloth for her. Dr. Myrtle came into the kitchen while I was there. I asked him about my daughter, and he said she had suffered very much. She continued to get worse, groaning louder and tossing about very much. I remained beside her 'for some time. My daughter made a sign to me to come near to her. I went close to her. She said, in a whisper —my ear being near her mouth—" Come here, mother ; I'll tell you what's the matter with me ; it's a miscarriage:" I said, " Who is it to ?" She said, "To the master." I understood her to mean the prisoner. Mrs. Reid is a widow, and has no other son. I said, " Oh, Maggie, Maggie, I thought I had learnt you better things." She said, " Oh, mother, mother, if you only knew how 'l've been tried by him." A pain came on her, and there was no more said at the time. The conversation was in a whisper, and Mrs. Watson, who was sitting near the bed, did not hear it. The pain went off gradually, and she rallied a little. I asked, " How far are you gone with child ?" The said, " About four months, I think." Her violent pains returned. About 5 o'clock she spoke again. She said, "Oh ! what I am suffering ! What would he think if he knew how am suffering ? It's a' his blame." She said he took an instrument and opened the neck of the womb. I asked, " When did he do that ?" She said, " Yesterday." Up to this time my daughter had not named or spoken of any man except the prisoner. I understood her to mean that it was the prisoner that used the instrument. She asked, "Do you think the master will be at home ?" I said, ",No ; I hear he's at Falkirk." She said, " He'll be away to Girdwood." She had not men tioned Girdwood's name before, and this was the only time she 'named him. The pains 'got worse. There was nothing more passed between us on the subject. She was in great distress. Mrs. Watson left Smallburn about 5 o'clock, I think. I went a short distanee with her towards Polmont station. I sent with her a message to Dr. Myrtle to come down again, as my daughter was getting worse. I went back to the house at Smallburn. My daughter. was now looking worse. She ap peared to be very ill shortly after I came back. I put no further questions to her, but she said to me, "Oh, mother, I'm sinking fast." I said, "Oh yes, Maggie, you are fast going ; we will need to part." [Witness here burst into tears, and was asked to sit down, which she did during the rest of her evidence.] Mrs. Reid came in et .this time. My daughter stretched out her hand, and said " Fare well, Mrs. Reid." Witness was then asked what further passed. She said,—" I directed her thoughts to the Saviour," and no more conversation passed, except on that subject. Dr Myrtle came in while she was sinking. He said, " where are you sore, Maggie ?" She , said, " I'm all sore together." He remarked, " What a change since I was here !"- He called for a mustard poultice and turpentine cloth. After he had put on the first turpentine cloth I took him out of the room and told him what my daughter had told me. He then returned to the room, put his hand to her body, and took away the child (the fcetus). He brought it away in a very short time. He rode away for medicine soon after, and came back with it. He told me to give her a tablespoonful every hour. He afterwards left to bring old Dr.. Girdwood, who lives at Falkirk, which is three or four miles from Smallburn. My daughter just took one tablespoon. ful, and died soon after. She 'was dead when Dr. Myrtle, who brought old Dr. Girdwood with him, returned. I took Dr, Girdwood out to the garden and told him what I had learnt from my daughter. I did not mention young Dr. Girdwood's name. I never thought anything about him. I asked Dr. Girdwood to go to the fiscal and inform him regard ing my daughter. I remained at Smallburn till the following day. Dr. Myrtle, with two other medi cal men, came on the 7th to examine the body. Th e body had been taken out to another room, as the room was too small a place to dress it in. Mrs. Reid and myself and a young woman removed it. I dressed the body myself. When I removed my daughter's clothes and the sheets they seemed just like a case of childbed. Cross-examined—Mrs. Watson told me her son had sent a letter to Margaret and had got no answer. I saw the letter among my daughter's things afterwards. It was dated the 29th of Aug. As long as my daughter was able to speak she was quite sensible ; but she only spoke at intervals of relief from pain. By the Lord-Advocate—l told Mrs. Reid what had passed after I had communicated with Dr. Myrtle. By the Lord Justice-Clork—This intimacy with young Black .was quite a respectable connexion. They were going to be married 'at one time, but they "fell 'out" some way. Mrs. Watson, or Black, corroborated in part the foregoing evidence. Mrs. Janet Reid, residing at Smallburn—The pri soner is my son, and he was the only one of my family who resided with me. Margaret Taylor had been my servant since the Ist of October previous. She slept in a small bed-room off the kitchen. My son had a bed-room on the opposite side of the house. There are seven rooms in the house. My son was in the Royal Bank, Falkirk, up to 1857. He was for some time in prison in connexion with Mr. Salmon's case, but he came home in April. He resided with me from April to September. I went to church on Sunday forenoon the sth of September. I left my son in the - parlour, and Margaret was doing her duties. It is my habit! to go to church every alternate Sunday, and let my servant go the intervening Snnday. I go to Polmont Church, about a quarter of a mile distant. I left about a quarter past 11, and returned about a quarter past 1. When I returned I saw nothing particular in the appearance of either. I returned to church in the afternoon, leaving my son and servant at home as before. I left home about a quarter to 2, and returned home about 4 o'clock. I found them both at home, and saw nothing remarkable in the appearance of either. My son sat down to dinner with me. Margaret went to bed about nine. My son was out, and did not come in till past 12 o'clock. About 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning I heard a sound apparently coming from the kitchen. I qot up and found that Margaret was sick and vomiting. She said she was cold and shivering. I put some more clothes on the bed, and gave her warm gruel. The vomiting continued occasionally till about 9 - o'cicec in the morning, when she became a little easier, I gave her some coffee about 10. She became very uneasy after that. She said she had turned unwell ; referring to her courses. She said she expected to be very ill, as in the summer she had suffered a good deal from the same cause. About 11 she asked for something. I pro posed to give her a little hot toddy, which she refused. She asked for laudanum, stating that she had used it before. I had never used laudanum, and-declined to give it. I went to the kitchen, and William passed through. He said, " Could you not give her anything ?" and said he thought I should give her laudanum. He said he himself had once taken it. I poured out 30 drops. lam sure I gave her no more. It did not give her much relief. Her pain and distress continued. I went to a neighbour named Janet Miller, whom I sent for Dr. Myrtle. This Was between 11 and 12 o'clock. He lives about three-quarters of a mile off. The message I got was that he was out, but was expected back soon. After some time, and finding that the doctor did not come within the time expected, I gave her 20 drops more. This seemed to relieve her in some degree. Dr. Myrtle came in between one and two o'clock. I told him what she had stated was the matter, and he went into the room and saw her. He recommended some hot brandy and water and a little arrowroot, and a mustard poultice was to be applied if the pain con tinued. While the doctor was there Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Watson arrived. I first saw them at the kitchen door. I told her I was happy to see her, but her daughter was very ill. I showed her into the room, and told her what had been given. Dr. Myrtle left, intending to return the next day. Margaret afterwards got worse. As Mrs. Watson was going I desired her to call and tell Dr. Myrtle to come down again ; but as he did not come for a time I got anxious, and sent Janet Miller again for him. Dr. Myrtle came between five and six o'clock. I saw Mrs. Taylor take him out to the back court and converse with him. He then went into the room beside Margaret. I looked in and saw him bring something to the kitchen. I saw it, but could not tell what it was. He put it in paper and took it with • him. Dr. Myrtle went away for more medicine and returned. He ordered a table spoonful of medicine every hour. Margaret became much worse. While Dr. Myrtle was away for the medicine Mrs. Taylor came into the kitchen where I was, and told me her daughter was poisoned. I asked," How could that be ?" She also said she was with child to William, and that her womb had been opened with a sharp instrument. I was much taken aback at this statement. I went to the room where Margaret was. She appeared to be dying. Dr. Myrtle returned with Dr. Girdwood, sen., but she was dead before they came. My son had been about the house all : the early part of Monday, but he went: away. about two o'clock. lie came back about 8 or 9 at night. He asked for a portmanteau, and packed up some clothes. I asked where he was going, and he said to Glasgow. He had not previously spoken of going there. He had been told of Margaret's death, I believe, before . he came in. I asked him what disgrace it was he had brought on himself and family. He said it was not he that did it, but Tom Girwood ; that Dr. Myrtle knew all about it, and that the case was not so bad against him as I expected. I said if it had not been for him young Dr. Gird Wood would not have . been here. He made no answer. I did not see him again till after he was apprehended. I was not aware young Dr. Girdwood had been there that Sunday. On returning home from fore noon church I saw a gentleman riding the opposite way, whom I found afterwards to have been Dr. Thomas Girdwood. I was not aware he had been at my house on a previous Sunday, or at any other time. Cross-examined—When I spoke of disgrace, I referred to what Mrs. Taylor had told me—mean ing that Margaret was with child to William. I have a brother who was to leave for America that week—Mr. Hardie. He had asked my son to go with him. I have heard him say he intended to go. My son had not gone to church since he came back to me in April. After dinner on the Sunday even ing he went to Newlands, to his brother-in-law,. Mr. Keir's. He went away about 5, and did not return till past 12. Margaret went to bed about 9. There was nothing the matter with her then. By the Lord Justice Clerk—l understood my son, when he referred to Tom Girwood, to mean that he had operated. I did not understand him to mean that he was the father of the child. Janet Miller corroborated part of the previous evidence. Witnesses were called to prove a meeting be tween Dr. Thomas Girdwood on the streets of Fal kirk on the Saturday evening, and that the former had been seen to go in the direction of Smallburn on the Sunday forenoon, and to return. Dr Myrtle was then examined. He deposed—l reside in Polmont, and practise there. I recollect being called on to go to see Mrs. Reid's servant on Monday, the 6th of September. I found her lying in bed in a closet off the kitchen. She said she suffered a great deal of pain, and that it was her usual time for being unwell. She told me that she frequenti.y suffered great pain at such times, but that since Mrs. Reid had given her laudanum she felt much better. I felt her pulse ; it was about 90, but weak. She seemed in full possession of her faculties, and answered all questions coherently. I made no examination of her person. From the statements made to me by Mrs. Reid and herself I concluded that it was a case of unusually painful discharge, accompanied with derangement of stomach and bowels, and that the laudanum had been administered judiciously. I recommended Mrs. Reid to give her hot whisky and water, and apply something hot to her feet. I left, stating I would return the following day. The same night I was again sent for. I found the girl in great agony. I never saw a greater change in any patient in so short a time. Sh e was p u l se l ess ; her extre mities were cold; there was a film over her eyes. She was tossing over the bed, crying and speaking incoherently, and was unable to make any answer to me. I said I thought her in a dying state. Her mother took me out to the court yard and said, " Are you aware my girl is in the familyway ?" I said I was not. She added, since you were here she has told me that she is in the family way to William Reid, and that yesterday he introduced some instrument into her womb for the purpose of bringing away the child, or destroying the child—l forget which was her expression.' I immediately returned to the girl's bedside. She was now unconscious. I made an examination of her person. Witness here described his removal of the foetus, and said that, as he be. lieved, labour had advanced so far, but that the propulsive power had ceased, otherwise the child would have been expelled. He proceeded—l showed the foetus to Mrs. Reid and Mrs. Taylor, and then wrapped it in paper and carried it away. I rode home, but returned again immediately with some stimulating medicine for the patient, and ordered a dose of it to be given every half hour. I then went to Falkirk to bring Dr. Girdwood, sen., to consult as to what was best to be done, he being a person of great experience. He is the father of the de ceased Dr. Thos. Girdwood. I found him at his own house, and communicated what had happened. He expressed his astonishment, and said that Willie Reid was now: in his own stable yard. He went back to see Reid, and then returned to me, and we took a conveyance to go to Smallburn. On arriving there we found that Margaret Taylor was dead, and that the body had been removed and dressed. Dr. James Girdwood—l have resided and prac tised in Falkirk for nearly 40 years. The late Dr. T. Girdwood Was my son and assistant. He was 35 years of age. On Sunday, the sth of September, he had dressed for church, but I sent him to make some visits in my stead. He took a catheter case with him, which he was likely to require for one of the patients. My son was to join me at a post mortem examination at Mumbrils at two o'clock that day. He arrived at the place a few minutes before I did. Mumbrils is about two miles from Smallburn. He said nothing about being at Smallburn, but said he had made the visits I requested. I was absent at Alloa a considerable part of Monday.. I got home about seven. That evening the prisoner came into my stable yard, where we had some general conversation to gether. While he was there a boy came to me stating that Dr. Myrtle had call9d and was in g rea t i haste to see me. Reid, n going away, asked, "By the bye, is Tom in ?" I said no ; he had gone north to some patients. I went into the house to see Dr. Myrtle. A statement was made to me by D r. Myrtle, in consequence of which I went in search of Reid. On our way to Smallbur n we overtook him. I took him aside, and told hi m th a t I h a d go t information that his servant girl was danger ously ill in consequence of a miscarriage ; that she had stated that instruments w ere use d b y hi m to procure abortion , i, and that it was b e li eved she was dying. I said it would be necessary for him to get out of the way as fast as he possibly could, and that there was no time to lose. He made no reply, but after we had parted and I was rejoining Dr. Myrtle, Reid called me back, and said he did not know where to go. I said it was not for me to advise him as to that, b u t th a t h e mus t ge t ou t o f the way immediately. He seemed perfectly over whelmed and stupified with the intimation I made to him. We parted a second time, and again he called me back and said he could not believe the story. --. 1 told him that there was no doubt of Dr. Myrtle's statement, and that I believed we should not find the woman alive. He then said, " I used no instrument; if any instrument were introduced it must have been introduced by your son Tom.'', I said I did not believe-this, but that did not alter the case so far as he was concerned, and that for his pai t it was necessary for him to s3cure his safety by flight, He said he could not go anywhere, for want of money. I said I had none with which I could assist him at the time, lout that, no doubt, his friend Mr. Keir would give him money. He said he could not communicate with Mr. Keir him: elf, and I do not know who suggested it, but I agned to go to Mr. Keir. I did so, and told him that he mu-t assist with money to get Willie out of a scrape. As I came out. I told Reid, who had waited . at the door, that I had arranged the matter with Mr. Keir. I then rejoined Dr. Myrtle, and we took a conveyance at the Black Bull to go Smallburn. On arriving there we found that Margaret Tay lor was dead and the body dressed. Mrs. Taylor took me outside and made a statement to me as to what her daughter had said, and when she said that it was Reid that had done it that re lieved my mind for the time from anxiety with re gard to my son. Mrs. Taylor was anxious to re move the body, but I said she must not do so till the post mortem examination had taken place, and she asked me if I would go to the Fiscal to see and get that done, which I agreed to do. On my way home I met my son at Avondale toll-bar, whom I took into the carriage with me. I mentioned to him the fact of the girl's death, that she had im plicated Reid, but that I had provided for his safety by getting him out of the way. On entering Fal kirk we alighted, and I met Mr. Gair, and went with him to report the case, and my son went into Falkirk. Shown a case with thr'ee catheters of different sizes, and deponed :—This case belonged to my son: The stylet had been missing from the case for some years. I never saw my son again alive, but was called to see his dead body . at M'Naughton's,betwe en three and four in the mornmg, I there got a letter which had been written by my son, and addressed to Miss Nimmo. Cross-examined----I had seen Reid on Saturday afternoon previous on the Grangemouth-road. He said he was hurrying to see his uncle, Mr. Hardie, who was going to Glasgow that night, thence to Liverpool, whence he was to sail for Canada on Wednesday. I said, " For God's sake, Willie, take this opportunity ;go away immediately. I never see your face without shuddering," and I reminded him of the old ad age , " Wh om the Devil finds idle. he generally sets to work." This was before I heard anything of the present story. Thomas Keir, brother-in-law of the prisoner, de posed to aiding him with money for his proposed flight to America, and other witnesses were called to prove his journey to and apprehension in Glas gow. Hugh M'Naughton, spirit-dealer, Falkirk, de posed,--I recollect the late Dr. Thomas Girdwood coming to my house, about a quarter before eleven o'clock at night, on the 6th of September. He asked for paper, pens, and ink, wrote a letter, and ad dressed it to Miss Nimmo, Linlithgow. He sent for a machine, and asked me to go with him to Linlithgow, which I did. Wm. Hutton drove us. It was an open vehicle we travelled in. On the way Dr. Girdwood - fell asleep. I tried to rouse him, but did not succeed. On reaching Linlithgow we went to Mr. Nimmo's. I rapped at the door, but got no answer. Dr. Girdwood was still sleep ing. I told the driver to take us back to Falkirk. We took him out before getting into Linlithgow to try to rouse him, but we did not succeed in awaken ing him. He was unable to stand, and was breath ing heavily. He continued to breathe heavily and to groan on the way back. On getting him back to Falkirk we laid him on the sofa, and sent for Dr. J. Girdwood, his father, but by the time his father came he was found to be dead. I gave up to his father the letter deceased had addressed to Miss Nimmo. Witnesses were called to prove the purchase of two phials of laudanum by Dr. T. Girdwood, con taining eight ounces and four ounces, and w hich were afterwards found on his person nearly empty. Dr. Myrtle was then recalled, and was examined in reference to the medical reports in the case. The first report was made by witness, along with Dr. Forrest, on the body of Dr. T. Girdwood, the con clusion of which was that they were of opinion that the deceased died from the effects of laudanum. The second report was made along with Drs Forrest and Hamilton, first on the fcetus taken from the womb of Margaret Taylor, which was a male fcetus, appar ently aged two or three months ; and, secondly, on the body of Margaret Taylor, their conclusion being that the wounds on the uterus were inflicted [during life, that the penetration of the womb was effected by some instrument, and that these injuries, and the effusion of blood ~and the inflammation consequent thereon were the causes of death. Dr. Myrtle fur ther depose—l have no doubt that the abortion was caused by mechanical violence applied to the womb. These wounds may have been effected by a wire or by a sharpish flexible instrument such as a wire. The woman might have gone about for days before inflammation ensued. There was, I should say, no thing extraordinary in her goingabout all the Sun day after the operation. The tendency of the wounds made was to produce inflammation. Ido not think the catheters shown me could have in flicted the wounds, and I am of opinion that some sharper instrument had been used. Cross-examined—The stylet of a catheter is no thing but a piece of wire which might be easily supplied to any set of instruments. lam unable to state whether the operation had been effected by a practised or an unpractised hand. George Hamilton, physician, Falkirk was called as a witness to the second report, and was interro gated at considerable length as to the character, effect, and course of the wounds, and also as to the probable means of inflicting them. He considered that the operation had been recklessly conducted, but whether by a surgeon's hand or an unpractised hand he could not say. He had seen many instances of recklessness even on the part of professional men. At this stag e the case was adjourned till next morning at 10 o'clock. PROPOSED CITY OF LONDON LUNATIC ASYLUM. —ST. MARGARET, NEW FISH-STREET.—A meeting of the parishioners was held yesterday, Mr. Churchwarden Keel ing in the chair, who, after stating the nature of the mea sure, and how unnecessary its application to the wants of the city of London, and the small number of lunatics charge able to the union, and whose care was well and amply pro vided for, without the necessity of incurring an immense outlay upon the various City parishes, by the erection of a costly building, with numberless appointments and un- - known expense, which, in addition to the already heavy amount levied, with a contemplated Board of Works tax in prospective, with which the parishes would be chargeable ; —lt was moved by Mr. M iples, and seconded by Mr. Tors will, that the churchwardens, with the vestry clerk, be instructed to attend the meeting of the parochial authorities convencd by the Poor-law Union on Saturday next, and offer every opposition to the measure on behalf of the pa rishioners. In the silver market business is at a stand pend ing the delivery of the Calcutta .and China letters, which will take place on Saturday. About £400,000 is already engaged for the outgoing steamer next week, but the actual amount despatched will probably be larger. THE LETTER CARRIERS.,---The letter carriers, who are seeking a removal of certain hardships and grie vances to which they are subjected, have made an appeal to the public for their sympathy and support. Subscrip tions are invited for the purpose. The letter carriers, as a body, are a class of hardworking men, to whose honesty a large amount of property is daily entrusted, and, therefore, they have a claim upon public sympathy. - - [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Rarey's Horse and Cattle Improv ing Food is equally adapted to improve the stamina of ill conditioned Horses, Cows, Bullocks, Calves, Sheep, and Pigs. It causes no extra. expense, as it contains far more and better nourishment than its cost of lid. per feed sup plies in 'corn and hay; hence ensures an actual saving in the keep. But its principal advantages are a great improve ment in the digestive functions, the stamina and general condition of liorses enabling them to perform far more labour without getting distressed. It imparts new vigour to sick, debilitated, or old apparently worn-out horses, and it puts rapidly the finest flesh on cattle generally, and im proves the milk in cows, as jt. enables them to extract the entire nourishment out of everything they feed on. Rarey and Co., 77, Regent's Quadrant, Piccadilly, London. Packed in tins of about 90 feeds, lls. ; in casks of ab ou t 450 feeds, 50s. ; of about 1,000 feeds,C £5, beiag about lid. per feed. BIRTHS. BAKEIL—On the 10th inst., at 61, Queen's-garden s , Hyde park, Mrs. John Baker, of a`son. BARIOER.—On the 10th inst., at 26, Gloucester-crescent North, Bayswater, the wife of F. H. Barker, Esq , of Chester, of a son. • ELLIOT.—On the 9th inst., at 31, Belgrave-square, the wife of Wm. B. Elliot, Esq, of a son. HALL—On the 10th inst., at Lee, Kent, the wife of John Hall, jun., Esq., of A daughter. MARRIAGES. COBBETT-111ACKURD0.—On the 9th inst., at Bt. Paul'S, Winehmore hill, William, third son of William Cobbett, Esq., of the Firs, Winehmore-hill, to Charlotte Isabella, 'only daughter .of G. W. Maemurde, Esq., F.R.S., of Winchmore-hill, and 7, New Broad-street, London. SMITII—BENTLEY.—On the 10th inst., at Trinity Church, Upper Chelsea, George Smith, Esq., of 2, Tor Villas, Campden-hill, Kensington, to Augusta, eldest daughter of John Bentley, Esq., of 128, Sloane-street. DEATHS. BACKUOUSE.—On the 10th inst., at Blackwall, Darlington, John Church Backhouse, Esq., aged 47. BARRETT.—On the 10th inst., at Croydon, Mary, widow of the late Richard Barrett, of Waddon, aged 60. Bu N cE.—On the 11th inst., at Blackheath-park, James Bunco, Esq., one of the Masters of the Court of Queen's Bench. • . FISCRER.—On the Bth inst., at Castle-house, Somerset, Captain Fischer, R.M., aged. 76. FrrzltoY.—On the Bth inst., ...4"thur.Frederick Fitzßoy, the only son of the Right Hon. Henry and Mrs. Fitzroy, aged 15. MAYNARD.—On the 4th inst., the Lady Frances Julia Maynard, wife of Colonel the Hon. Charles H. Maynard, and youngest sister of the present Duke of Atholl. MILNES.—On the 9th inst.,.at Fryston-hall, Robert Pem berton Milnes, aged 75. LONDON : Printed and Published by.MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand,•Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Bltddlesex, Friday, November 12, 1868.