The Sun. — London, England, 1858-08-06 00:00:00

VIIITECROSS-STREET PRISON.-PRAC - - - TICES OF SOLICITORS. In the early part of the present year a great many corn ints were made with regard to the discipline and genera 'e of the debtors' prison in Whitecross-street, and various , ps were taken by the Gaol Committee of the Court of lermen with a view to its improvement. About the same to Mr. Border, who bee been governor for many years, ired from his situation, and Capt. G. M. Hicks was jointed governor in his steal. This gentleman, during fen months that have since elapsed, has devoted him r with great success to the discharge of the duties of his tee, and among other points in conneclon with which he e endeavoured to ameliorate the condition of the prisoners tier his care, he has turned his attention to the imprsper ictices of solicitors, and has addressed to the Court of lermen a most important reimrt upon the subject. In this report, which will be foiled of great public interest, p 5. Hicks says:— " As governor of this prison I think it my duty to bring der your cocsideratioa all matters affecting is well being, ether as regards abuses that may have crept in, whi ch i be corrected without danger of recurrerce by bold and tire measures, or in reference to salutary changes of other mriptions that can be effected without difficulty unless ma for reformation be suffered to accumula'e. „I regard as of paramount importance the subject which lave now the honour to submit to you. •' Several of the debtors confined in this prison have eplained, and complain, of needless delays, great inat ten oe,. or of exorbitant demands on the part of their miters, and have appealed t i me, unaware that 1 restric'ed from recommending any professional gentle in to them, however urgent may be the necessity or thful the plea that they know not whom to sit, and are debarred from personally seeking out of doers ne one in whom they could confide. The prisoners not wing any scale or estimate as a guide to the probable arges for being taken through the Insolvent Court, the leitore demand at their own pleasure various sums—one in asking £l2 for what another wiled° for g 6 or £7, but the isoners know not which to trust. Bargains are sometimes ide and sometimes broken, and there are instances of even ore money being paid by a prisoner than he had agreed r with his solicitor, yet he has been utterly neglected, and s had to commence anew with some one else. It therefore •pears to me that prisoners anxiously seeking their email iation should, as far as possible, I e protected from extor n and unnecessary delay , as he former tends to plunge sir families into deeper eistrees—perhaps throwing them to the workhouse ; and the latter unfairly presses upon e prison expenditure. " prisoners 100 are relieved by the charitable funds re tire particular attention, as they are often obliged to give arrants of attorney and I 0 U's to their legal advisers, in eler to make up the difference between the tut libitum tn demanded by the solicitor and the amount cf relief eeived, so that instead of being made free by the Insolvent 'urt, they are sent out on the world, nut only penniless, it in the power of the solicitor, to be at any time re-arrested id sent back to this prison. "A great change in these matters is most desirable, and .ader that conviction I Pifer certain suggestions the adop tion of which will inevitably be attended by— "l. The expeditious discharge of prisoners. "2. Economy of charitable funds - . "3. Increase in the number of cases relieved. "4. The absolute freedom of the prisoner on his discharge. "5. The prevention of extortion on the part of the solicitor. "These objects obtained, a death blow to most pernicious practices would be struck. "To effect them prison solicitor' should be appointed to conduct all charitable ease., at the same sum for each, calculated on the averatee of both the great and small ones. " Many solicitors of respectability would accept this trust, contented with moderate emoluments ; it being of a very confidential nature, the business continuous, and cases numerous, £6 per head should be the maximum ; but it is possible that the contract would be taken at a less rate, and, by reducing the legal charges per case, by means of an arrangement of part of the fund at the disposal of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, a further saving would be effected. " Among instances of misconduct on the part of certain legal practitioners, the following are submitted " A prisoner arranged with a solicitor to be taken through the Insolvent Court for £B, £5 to be paid during the pro gress of his case, and £3 after his discharge ' • yet, although he paid £7 out of the £B , the first payment having been en the 3d of May last, neither his petition nor schedule was filed up to July 14. " There is now a prisoner here who employed a solicitor, and agreed with him, for £lO, to be taken through the Court, and counsel's fee £2 lls. extra, all which lie paid, and when brought before Commissioner Law, it was dis covered that the solicitor neglected to file the necessary papers, though he had them in his bag, and the commis sioner said the solicitor did not know his business, and re buked him as the cause of the prisoner's remand. The solicitor pleaded ignorance of the forms of that court, yet this same solicitor afterwards sent to the prisoner a docu ment, of which the following is a copy, requiring him to sign It as the condition of further services:— " I undertake that all costs, charges, and expenses, which have been, or may be incurred by you in relation to my petition and discharge, to which the £lO already paid to you do not extend, shall be paid, either by me or some person on any behalf; within a reasonable time after the delivery of your bill.' " A prisoner now here states that in December last he was Introduced to a person who represented himself as a solici tor, to whom he stated his case, and asked if lie would take him through the court for £B. The answer was " Yes." He was then asked if that would include fee to counsel, and was told it would not, when he agreed to give that fee extra. This so-called solicitor drew from him from time to time £1 165., in sums of from fie to 10'. Then there was an interval of some weeks ; during the whole time the supposed solicitor and an associate of his said that the business, was progressing. Afterwards a meeting took place at a public house, when the supposed solicitor introduced another (a so licitor practising in the prison), but neither of them said he was a solicitor, and lie did riot give the prisoner the least hint that lie intended to act for him. lie casually asked prisoner if al that was in a schedule ii hich the supposed so licitor had bought was true, and prisoner said it was, and the person then poiuted out the place far prisoner to sign. Ile met him afterward s once outside the cowl, when lie said " I hear you have an opposing creditor," and prisoner said " It can't he helped." This was all that passed, and prisoner had not the remotest idea that this person assumed to act for him until he got a hill from the Insolvent Court, costs taxed, amounting to £l9, in which this person appeared as prisoner's solicitor. Prisoner took no notice of the bill, not having employed any person of the name. Soon after prisoner received a notice so attend before the taxis; -master to have a further bill tax, making a whole of £33, on a writ for I whirl) the prisoner is now confined. Prisoner also states that the person who first represented himself as a solicitor, and whom the solicitor who has imprisoned him now stales to be his clerk, has been in the House of Correction two years for perjury and false bail. " Touter' from the courts frequent this prison, as do also the agents and cltrks of obscure solicitors ; they sometimes attempt to pass off as principals to get business fir them selves. I have seen one of the towing agents with a person in a state of beastly dtunkenness, who he said was a solici tor and his principal, and whom I ordered out of the prison, and threatened to give in charge of the police for making a diet us hence. " I know an instance of a solicitor cautioning a prison authority not to pay his representetiee agent any money on ale account, yet the casts of peer prisoners anti their money also were at the treicy of that very person, the principal seldom attending. t. A prisoner discharged within, this year was kept (in • had health) in this gael far nearly six months fr, h hi s solicitor a ppropriated the (elegize handed to himby a clerk in Somerset-heuse to pay the detriser, and that. prisoner was at last re leased by charity-money, anti left sue prison in a dying state, Idle his solicitor let pt the cash without say p-etext whatever, or a claim for arts. " In the following or similar phrases the prisoners are all ire-sed by the illegitimate canvass; re for business : • The officer who arrt stet' you recommended rue to you. I • sin an old practitioner. 1 have the ear of the Court. If you have ne nutty we will talk rf t hat al erward,. Sign this paper (a retainer)! Af er this is dote, lie it,cites the prisoner to make rpplicatien for charitable a-sistaece, certain sum is granted, aryl g. or £3 are drawn from tee priseeer. " There is I , to possibly a -econd demand befn filieg the petition, whirl, is at last clone, and the seheditle then might he filed in four days, but at many weeks ate] frequen•ly tuontles pass without its b' ing done, because more money is not forthcoming ; at last it is obtained or an 1 0 U given fer it, the prhotier gets his discharge, end shortly the I 0 U comes under the consideration of a county court judge." _ . _ After dwelling upon the lamentable consequences but too often arising from the detention of debtors in prison, and going into details clnnected with the suggested appointment of a " prison solicitor," the report concludes thus : " I should be unworthy of the responsible, confidential situation I have been appointed to, and be totally unfit to }.reside over a prison in which sra confined between 200 and 300 person*, not criminals, and of every ca's of society, if I hesitated to submit plans by which impositions on them, in their defenceless positions, could be preven►ed, and their own opportunities and temptations to fall into improper courses diminished. " I am prepared to encounter any obloquy that interested parties may cast on me. The plan. I have prot•osed may be discussed even by the press itself; but, conscious cf the rectitude of Inv motives and the soundness of my prorsi lions, I am willing that my name should be associated with their acceptance or rejection.-1 have. &c., "G. MONTAGUE HICLE, Governor." [ADVERTISEMENT.I—HoIIoway's Pills Preferable to all Otters for the Cure of Bile and Indigestion.—Mr. Black wall, residing at Halifax, was a great sufferer for several years from indigestion and bile; he had an extraordinary appetite, but never could partake of any of the luxuries of • the table, fearful of the consequences that invariably ensued. He had consulted many medical men, and tried nlmost every kind of medicine, but without deriving that benefit be s^ ardently snneht for ; but, aPer all these disappointments, by taking Holloway's pills a permanent cure was effected, and he can now enjoy every kind of food. Sold by all medi• rine vendors ; and at Professor Holloway's establishment, 24.1, Strand, Loudon. [ADV./3 RTISEAI ENT.]—We have read with much plea sure Du Barry's report on the cure of diseases without me dicine by Du Barry's Food, of Indigestion (Dyspepsia), Ft a t Oen ey,:Const 'nation, Nervous, Billions, and Liver Com plaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility. The Ulm; ing are a few extracts which a pear to merit Edhe t azabetht tention of many : —Cure N Jacobs, of Nszing Vicarage, lValtham-crose, cure indigestion, • .a ind i geg lipn,gatherin . g . s, spirits, of extreme nervousne ss, and nervous backs. Cure No. -18,314.—adiss Elizabeth Yeoman, Gatestere, near Liverpool : a cure of 10 yeat's flysnepsia and all the horrors of nervous irri reland tability. 9.th.Dec„, Cure 52,612.—Rosetrevor, C ount y cf Down, I, 1834.—The Dowager Countess of Castlestuart feels induc Du ed, in the interest of suffering humanity, to state that Barry's excellent Revelenta A rabica Food bas cured her, after all medicines had failed, of in di g estion, bile, great ner vousness and irritability of many years' s t an ding. This foo deserves the confidence of all sufferers, and may be consi dered a real blessing. Inquiries will he cheerfully answered. Supported by testimonials from the f Povving celebrated Pro frssors of Chenaistry : Dr. A lire, Dr. Sborland, Dr. Harvey, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Gattiker, Dr. Wutzer, Dr. Ing ram, Lord Stuart De Decies, th e Diwager Countess of Castle *Wart, Major-Gen. Thomas Kinm and many other respect side persons, whose health has been restored by it, after all other means cf cure had failed. Suitably packed with full instructions. In canisters, lib. 9.5.0t1.; .21b. 4s. 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 2'24. The lilb. eanistera are sent. carriage free on receipt of Post-office order. Barry Du Barry, and Co., fl, Regent-streee, Lennon. Impsrt ant Caution against the f e arful dangers of spurivus imitations.--The Vice Chancel lor Sir William Page Wood granted an iniuneti on on the 10th Match 1e.'51 against Alfred Hooper Nevill for imitat ing " Du iarry's, Revalenta Arabica Food." LAW INTELLIGENCE ADMIRALTY COURT.—AuG. u. (Before Dr. Lushington.) TUE MARGARET MITCHELL. This was a proceeding on the part of Messrs. Ashton and Co., of L o mbard-street,inerchants, as agents for Messrs. V ac hcr and Wills, cf Shanghai, in China, merchants, the assignees of the estate and effects of Peter Felix Richards, also of Shanghai, the alleged owner of the ship Margaret Mitchell, of 930 tons burden, against Messrs. Morice and Towne, of Cannon-street, shipowners, in a cause of posses sion, civil and maritime. The act on petition stated that the vessel arrived at Shanghai with a cargo of sugar i n February, 1855—Mr. Thomas Mitchell, of Glasg ow, being then owner ; that the vessel had shortly before been aground off Woosung, in China, and ha vin g again grounded at Shanghai, sustained serious damage ; whereupon the master, being destitute of the necessary funds to defray the expense of repairs, endeavoured to negotiate a I.an by hottomry fur the purpose, but without success ; and having consulted the principal merchants at Shanghai, and the consignees and insurance agents of the vessel, he adver- Used her for sale by riblic auction, with the view of doing what was best for the interest of the owner. It was alleged that Mr. Richards purchased the thip for the sum of £2,383 65. Bd., with the intention of using her as a hulk ; but that afterwards he repaired her at an expense of about £lO,OOO, and having appointed Dewan Stiles master, despatched her from Batavia to Amsterdam, and suli!equently to London, art ere she arrived in the month of May last. It was further alleged that, notwithstanding the premises, she had since been taken possession of by Messrs. Morice and Towne, who pretended to have purchased the vessfrom Th om as Mitchell, of Glasgow. It was alleged on the other side that Jameson, the master of the vessel, had illegally and without any instruction or directions to that effect from the owner, abandoned the voyage end sold the ship by pri vate contract to Mr. Richards, and that upon her arrival at the port of London, being in want of repairs, Stiles, the new roaster, applied to the authorised agent of Richards, who, however, tefused to advance any money, and that the master then determined on selling her in virtue of a power of attorney which be possessed. Messrs. Morice and Towne being disposed to purchase the vessel, made inquiries, and eventually ascertained that Mr. Thomas Mit chell was the sole owner and duly registered es such, &- though, by an endorsement on the certificate of registry, the ship purported to have been transferred to Peter Felix Richards, and also the certificate contaimed a notice of a mortgage of 56-64th shares of the vessel for a certain con sideration. It was asserted that on the 13th of last June the said Peter Felix Richards, by his attorney Dewar' Stiles, by a toil of sale, transferred the ship to Messrs. Morice and Towne free of all incumbrances save the interest of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, for the bona fide consideration of £4,000, and that Mr. Thomas Mitchell had also transferred his in terest to them for the sum of £1,200. I)rs. Phillimore and Deane appeared in support of the claim of Mr. Richards, of Shanghai, and contended that, while the sale of the vessel at Shanghai was of the most bona fide character, the subsequent sale in London was a fraudulent and iniquitous one, affecting all parties con cerned in it. Drs. Addams and Twiss were beard on the other side. The Court, after going at considerable length into the evidence adduced on both sides, was of opinion that the sale to Richards at Shanghai was valid ; that the sale by Stiles to Morice and Towne, in Landon, was not valid ; and that, therefore, it must pronounce for the claim made by Messrs. Ashton and Co. as the representatives of Richards, and condemn the other parties iu costs. COURT OF BA.NKRUPTCY.—AuG. 5. Mr. Commissioner Fane disposed of the business of the day, but nothing occurred of sufficient irovrtance to warrant a detailed report. An adjudication of bankruptcy was made against Messrs. Walton, shipowners, of Gracechurch-street. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AUG. 4. (Before Mr. Justice Wiles and Special Juries.) EASTWOOD V. HOLME.s AND ANOTHER. This was an action of libel. The plaintiff is a dealer in antiquities, and the defendants are the proprietors of the Atheneum newspaper, and the action was brought to recover damages for a libel published in that paper on the Bth of May last. The defendants pleaded that the statement which was alleged to be a libel was true. Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins were for the plaintiff,. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C. , an d Mr. Lush, Q .C., appeared for the defendants. Mr. James, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff had for more than 20 years carried on the business of a dealer in curiosities and antiquities, and he brought the present action with a view to vindicate his character from a very serious imputation that had been cast upon it by an article which appeared in tbedefendani's journal,and which charged him with defrauding the public by selling counterfeit anti quities. The learned counsel then stated that in the course ' of last year a large number of ancient relics were dis covered in an excavation at Shadwell, and these relics, a great portion of which , turned out to be what were known among antiquaries as pilgrims' signs, he should show without a doubt were perfectly genuine, and came into the possession of the plaintiff as such, and he paid for them a considerable sum of money. The article that was the sub ject of the present action appeared in the Athenceum cf the Sth of May in the present year, and it purported to be a re port of what took place at one of the meetings of the British Arclueological Association, and it represented that the proceediegs concluded by Mr. Cuming reading a paper on the subject of the " Recent Forgeries in Lead," and in that paper he stated that certain leaden articles which were representee to be pilgrims' signs, and to have been discovered in the course of an excavallAt upon the basks of the Thames, for the purpose of making a new dock, were forgeries, and that Mr. Coming had himself examined 800 of them ; that Mr. Planche had also seen a great many, and that the number of these forged articles, in the aggregate, was supposed to be twelve thousand. The paper went on to state that these articles were entirely counterfeit, and that the metal of which they were com posed appeared to have been rubbed with some strong acid to give it the appearance of age, and that they had then been smeared with river mud. The paper concluded by expressing a regret that the law would no . punish parties who were guilty of such a disgraceful fraud. The learned counsel said there could be no doubt that ibis article referred to the plaintiff, although his name was not mentioned, as he was the only person in possession of such articles, aid who had purchased them from the parties who had actually inind them at the place that had been men tioned. He should call these parsons to show that these relics of antiquity actually were found in the manner stated; and he should also call several eminent antiquaries, who would state to the jury their opinion that they were genuine relics, and that there was consequently no foundation for the allegation that they were fraudulent imitations, got up for the purpose of deceiving and imposing upon the public. lie then said that the plaintiff, in bringing the present action, only sought to clear his character, and he did not ask fir vindictive damages, but by the verdict of the jury to free himself from the serious charge that had been made against him. Mr. George Eastwood, the plaintiff, was then examined. He deposed that he bad carried on the business of a dealer in curiosities and antiquities between 20 and 25 years, and 'he said he believed he was one ef Vie best judges of such things in the United Kingdom. In June, 1857, a Mr. Edwards, ev`aom he knew as a dealer in antiquities, called upon him and showed him 40 articles made of lead, which comprised different subjects, and were known among antiquaries as " pilgrims' signs." He examined them, and made up his mird immediately that they were genuine articles of antiquity and he pur chased them, and eterwar,ls lie purchased other articles of the same kind of him, in number amounting to 1,100. He was told that they had been found by the men who were empl 'bed in excavating for the basin of the new London dock, and he went to the spot and examined the soil. lie afterwards purchased a number et the same de'cription of artieltz; from two young men named Smith and Eaton, who lie understood we:e the .parties that le.d found them ori ginally and sold them to Edwards. Ile paid Elwartist . 29:3 for those be purchased of him, ant be gave the young men £:O0 for the portion they sold him. A small quantity n•f the " signs" were cfn ern studs s to Mr. Franks for !he British Mos-um, and a gentleman named \Vigan al-n p tre!•aced a great many of them. lie then explained that p•leairro.' signs was a term that had only recently been made use of among antiquarians, and that Et ey were sup posed to be artit ha worn by the monk: in the religious pro cessions of the olden tune, and also when they made a pll gritnage to the shrine of any particular saint. The whole of the at titles were made ef lead ; and in addition to those which he said would come under the description of pilgrims' signs there were other antiquiti , s, such as bells, dagger sheaths, the basses of shield:, and also reliquaries, the whole of which, he said, Ire had no doubt were genuine antiquities, and had really been found at the place mentioned. Ire onswer to estions put that. Chambers in cross examination, thenplaintiff said at the time this article appeared he was the only pet son who had so large a number a'; BCO " pilgrims' signs" in his possession ; but he said that at one time he had so many as 1,100. A box, containing a large number of the alleged valu andabla e articles of antiquity ha d been pup goon th d. ext a r , a h o e r r d e i w na e r r y e a o r d a c d t e e a r l o o f f s a o m m u e s e o t f n t e rm t s t e l . at that created were p b rUdu th ce e ch of tem, c rude h manner, and in all sorts of attiludes, h warriors, and females fashi oned out in one lead in the mos learned judge observed, locking very much like Znmiel. One of the things that wa s p roduced appeared sorely _to puzzle every one. It bad somewhat the appearance of a object chimney-pot, about eight inches long, but no one seemed to be able to give the least goes what its original Fled t hat possibly could have been, and Mr. James suggeste possibly it might have been the model of some ancient ex tinguisher. In answer to further questions, the plaintiff said that he bail heard of such articles as crepundia, or childre n ' s to y s, having been found on the banks of the river, but these, he said, were to•ally different things, and he believed them to be genuine ancient pilgiims' signs. Mr. W. Edwards, the person from whom the plaintiff had purchased the articles in question was then exa mined, mid he stated that he had been a dealer in antiquities for 20 years, and he considered he was well aequaint2d with such maters. He purchased the whole of those that lnd been produced of two boys named Bill and Charley, of whom he had been in the habit of purchasing such things. Bill, lie said, was in attend ance to give evidence, bnt Charley had got married, and his wife would not let him come. (A laugh.) He was aware that these young men were in the habit of being about the river, and that they also purchased things that were found by excavators in the soil. They brought these articles to him eight and ten at a time, from June, 1837, to June, 1858, and he peid them altogether £2OO. In cross-examination this witness said that he might have sold old coins to navigators, but he did not know what they did with them, and he had not the least idea that thew ever buried them, in order that they might afterwards dig them up and sell them as antiquities. He should not have been such a fool as to buy his own coins again if they had been bought to him. lie paid Lilly and Charley for the articles as they brought them to bi , o. Ile had had dealings with Billy in the same way for 13 or 14 years, but he had not dealt with Charley quite so long. (A laugh.) Ile was unable to form any opinion as to what particular age these pilgrims' signs belonged—he left that to the Arehmological Society to decide. (Laughter.) w in , Smith, a rough-looking young man, who described himself as a " shoderaker," was then examieed. He said that he and Charley were in the habit of seeking for articles such as those that lsad been produced, and sell ing them to the curesity dealers. lie then said that the first time he found any of the articles in questioa was in June, 1657, and he did not find any after March, 1858. They were found in the excavation for the new deck at Shadwell, and very near the place where the swing bridge • pai d liiw as much as in a day, and he now was. They found about '2,000 alto . pithe . Mr. Edwards sometimes d th used to buy the articles as the navigat ors covere em, re ceived £4OO from him altogether .during the year. They for them. and used someirnes to give them a shilling and a pot of beer In cross-examination this witness said that no strangers were allowed to go into the dock, or about the works, and the navvies were not permitted to take anything out, not even any uld boles they might find, but still, he said, he managed to get access to the place, and to purchase all these articles. He also said that ke found a great many of them hiros:lf by raking over the earth after it was dug out, and he managed to get a rake into the cock for that par- po e. Mr. C. Roach Smith, a fellow of the Society of Anti quaries, was then examined, and be stated Ibis belief that ttie articles in question were genuine relics of antiquity, and that a great many of them came under the designation of pilgrims' signs, but he attribute: them to a later date than t tie 16th century. It was tlifli.ailt to say what actual use was originally made of such articles, because they were a new class al'ogether, but they were all evidently connected with some religious proceedings ; and he had no doubt that when the subject came to be considered, antiquarians would be able to assign some origin to them. He added that he firmly believed them to he genuine, but at present he really could not say what they were. When he read the article in the A themetivi lie had no doubt that it referred to the plaintiff, and to the pilgrim's signs that were in his possession. Cross-examined—The pilgrims' signs with which he was acquainted, and to which he had first given that desigs cation, were very different to the things now produced. A good many of these articles are certainly inconsistent with each other, and evidently relate to different ages. The Rev. Thomas Hugo, also a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and who has written several works upon the subjset of antiquarian researches, was the next witness, and be gave similar evidence to that of Mr. Smith. He also ex pressed his opinion that the articles in question were un doubtedly genuine relics. He said be believed they be• longed to the fifteenth, or the beginning of the sixteenth, century, but he could not give any other description of them than that they appeared to be "leaden objects." Cross-examined.—He was unable to give any reason for coming to the conclusion that these things da•ed from the fifteenth or sixteenth century; all he could say was, the ladies reason—he thought so because he did think so. (A laugh.) He was then asked to look at saute of the articles, and to state whether he did n ot think that the sharpness of their edges, and their fresh appearance, did not indicate that they could not have been in the ground for three centuries, but. he replied that he was of opinion that it did not; and he said he believed it was possible for a piece of metal to be in the ground for many centuries and still present sharp clear edges. He also said that, in expressing the opinion that these were genuine ancient relics, he bad no facts to ground his opinion upon, but merely judged from the general appearance of the articles. Some other evidence of a similar kind was then given, and this closed the case fur the plaintiff. Mr. Chambers then submitted to his lordship that there was no case to go to the jury. He contended, in the first place, that the evidence failed to affect the case of the plaintiff as laid in the declaration ; and also that, even sup posing the article in quevion to be a libel, which, however, he submitted it clearly was not, there was not a tittle of evi dence to show that it applied to the plaintiff, and that con sequently there was nothing to go to the jury. Mr. James, in reply, urged a good litany ingenious arguments to show that at all (vents the opinion of the jury aught to be taken. The plaintiff was really charged with a very serious offence, and he was desirous to clear his character. Mr. Justice Whiles, after a brief consideration, said he was of opinion that the article complained of was not a libel in the eye cf the law. It bad bee n laid down by one of the sages of the law that what a man said honestly and bona fide, in the course of a public discussion in matters concern ing the public interest, no matter even if he spoke rashly, and what he said was not true, still, any statement made under such circumstances, would not be a libel. t had also been equally clearly laid down that be fore any plai l ntiff could ask redress for a libel, he must show distinctly that the libel complained of applied to him, and to no other person. It would be a new doctrine, indeed, if it were to be held that any persan who said that all lawyers were rogues, might be sued by every individual lawyer in the kingdorn n ; ed an nf d it appeared to him that the ar ticle now complai seemed to apply to the particular trade of dealing in antiquities rather than to the plaintiff personally. no It appeared to him, therefore, that the plaintiff must be suited. Mr. James suggested that his learned friend Mr. Cham bers ought to withdraw the plea which alleged that the plaintiff had been guilty of fraud in the transaction. Mr. Chambers said it was neve r intended to impute any fraudulent intention to the plaintiff, and he was not In structed to make such a sestion. He had bought the articles no doubt under the ugg impression that they were genuine. The jury then returned a verdict for the defendants. --- OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MoNetouni, AUG 5. CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Hill and a Common Jury.) HARRIS V. MORGAN. Mr. Smythies and Mr. Barrett appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Scotland for the defendant. The plaintiff in this action, Ann Harris, was a poor old widow, aged 77, who got her living by keeping one or two cows and carrying butter and eggs to market, and she sued the defendant, Edward Morgan, who was a butcher at New port, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the negli gent driving of the defendant's servant. It appeared that on Saturday, the 12th Dec. last, the plaintiff went to New port market with baskets of butter and ponitry to sell in the market there. She stated that when going down the High-street from the railway station to the market she saw the defendant's cart coming down the road, which was on a declivity, at a quick trot. The cart was driven by the de fendant's brother, and at that time was on the near side of the road. The plaintiff presently stepped into the road to cross, but without at that time looking to see where the cart w es, alai she was ;immediately knocked down and run over. There was no doubt that when the poor woman was knocked over the cart wes on its wrong aide, and within 18 inches of the kerb. The wheel passed over the poor woman's leg, inflicting a severe wound three inches in leng h, and injuriug the bone to a considerable extent. She was con fined to her bed for 10 weeks, a nd had incurred consider- I able expense in getting cured, and was still suffering from the effecte of the check. The defence was that the cart was driven only at the rate of four or five miles an hour, and that it was necessary to go on the off side of the road to avoid a scavenger's cart which was standiag some yards ahead on the near side. The dose fendattt's witnesses attributed the accident to the old woman stepping into the road without looking to see if anything was coming, and when there Ives not time for the defen 'dant's brother to pull up and avoid the accident. Mr. Justice Hilt summed up the evidence, and told the jury that if they believed that the accident was owing to the negligence of the driver, they ought to find for the plaintiff; but if they believed she had contributed to the accident by her own negligence, they ought to find for the defendant. Tne jury retired to consider their verdict, end ultimately they found a verdict for the defendant. CRIMINAL. COURT. (Before Mr. Justice, Bytes.) Gco. Passmore, 27, sailor, and Alfred Barham 20, pallor, were charged with the manslaughter of Edward Thomas, at Newport, on tire 18th of June, 1858. Mr. Vaughan appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell defended the prisoners. It appeared that on the day in qeeetion the deceased, who was a ship's apprentice, was on board his ship in the Newport flecks, when the two prisoners came alongside in a boat, and pulled him overboard against his will, and put him into the boat. One of the men, in what is called a " lark," endeavoured to duck bira in the water, but the boy resisted so much, though he was a weakly boy, that the attempt failed. The other man then came and assisted, and the two prisoners together put the bey overboard into the water, holding him by the hands, and dipped him over head and ears several times, as deep as they could reach. They then took him back into the boat, and he sat there recovering himself for about five minutes, and put on his boots and jacket, which had been taken off lefore he was put into the water. While he was sitting in the boat the men continued "skylarking" and slapped him on the shoulder. When the boy had put on Iris thing-, he wished to go back to his ship, and one of the prisoners took hold r f him behind by his breeches, and put up the ship's side, and left hold of him, just as the boy put his halids on the ; hip's rail. 'Whether the boy had not time to get a firm hold, or, being exhausted by the ducking, was unable to retain his hold, was u ncertain, but it unfortunately hap. p, ned tai +t as sogn as the wan let go the poor boy fell into the wat r, which was upwards of 20 feet deep, end did Lot rise any more. Drags were sent for, and he was got out of the water in about 20 minutes, but be was considered to be dc ad, and no attempt was mac to restore animation. Mr. Powell, for the prio,ners, contended 'het, however impreper the conduct of the prisoners might have been in 1 dipping the boy into the water, the putting the boy tip the ship'., side was not an uelew fel act, and the death must therefore be considered as accidental. i Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that if the buy fell front th e ship's side in consequence of exhaustion from being dipped in the water, they ought to find the prisoners guilty. The jury retire-3, at.d were absent a considerable time, but eventually found both the prisoners guilty. Mr. Justice Byles, after a suitable admonition, sentenced the prisoners to he imprisoned in the House of Correction for two calertlar months. Jane Harris, 25, servant, was charged with the wilful murder of her infant child by exposure on the 4th of July, 1858, at St. Mellon's. Mr. Granville Somerset appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was unfit fended by counsel. It appeared the prisoner eas confined of a male child in the Cardiff Union Workhouse on the 17th of June last, and, at her own request, she left the workhouse with her child on Friday, July 2J. On Sunday, July the 4th, she went to the public-house et Mrs. Jules, near S'. Mellon's, and sheit i w n ,m th s e ee r n oad da n t e ld ar iu : f s e octi rm e h tte o : u ie s wv e lg,rai asked tors some gin and water fit the child. Mrs. Jones said that '.V44 a bad thing for so young an infant,''and gave her some peppermint and water. At between Fenn and eight the same evening a witness named Ann Williams saw place called Tyn-y-Pwl, five miles from Cardiff, when which resembled a baby in form. The next morn ing, at between six and seven o'clock, Ann Francis, went into Mr. Davies's rickyard, and hearingup in a skirt of : a noise com menced a search. After some little time she found a child been in the prisoners possession the previous evening. Mts. , and a t e he having next gown b'-' t7e g: v 1 : 1 hick the was rick identified t i ilfil the ( h i e b d e g r the Cardiff workhouse, when it was m Fr o a l n neiniso.watscheekd,idtreteoeed, and fed the child identified a. the Thehi which the prisoner was confined on the I7th of June. child lingered, and died rn the 28 , h of July, and, in the opinion of the. snrgeon of the workh-use, the castse of death was exposure and want of its natural food. The prisoner was apprehended (se the 14th of July, an d ad _ o t i pn f n pee a t sd h s ' e N i l, r i . l skirt i ainof a Davies, o a r v t n a , e same statement. i rn j i n t , t e e , d a t n h d a t had d e 4o had n e left so t chithbeecau :l e i n t II e t h f e a r ti o l e a r d n h e a rs; r S e f r u . s eMde to Mr. Justice Byles very carefully summe up the evidence, s u p f l i t i o e r i t ) it is o a n n e d r, , s li n e h w e a r s d u e n f.c a l b i e l e e , tom a d n i e s e t h . d and said that if the prisoner's statement was true she was guilty of manslaughter. of manslaughter. Tire jury found the pris oner guilty of s Mr. Justice Byles sentenced tier ' t s ix months' imprison ment with hard labour. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.--IVAnwicK, (B e fore Lord Chief Justice Cockhurn.) AUG. 3. A heavy special jury cause involving disputed matters of fact and of account between two old and intimate friends sc cond case referred throughout the circuit), the having been referred, at the suggestion o f the Judge (only the remaining common juries were proceeded with. SALMON V. MITCIIELL. Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Wills for the defendant. This was an action of trespass brought by the occupier of a hovel and a pigstye against the owner and cecupler of some adjacent land f o r p u lling them down. The plaintiff was a very poor man, whose father and grandfather had "squatted" upon some waste land adjoining a footpath in the pari , li of Upper Batington. Tne hovel had been erected within some 26 years; the pigstye was antecedent to living memory. The land of one of the defendants extended on each side of the footpath, arid it was suggested that the little buildings occupied by the descendant of the " squatters" excited in his mind the same feelings that Naboth's vineyard did in the breast of David ; aceue (Jingly he gave notice to the plaint':: to remove the buildings on his land, or else " be should proceed as far es the law would allow him." The buildings were not removed, whereupon the defendants took the law into their own hands, the pit; was ejected front the sty, and the vel (the va!ue el which was variously esti mated, according to the side en which the evidence was offered, at 10s. and £10) laid low. Damages were sought for what is technically termed tne "conversion" of the pig; but it was clearly proved 11;.t the on!y conversion w tt:e pig underwent as into bacon, which bad been eaten by the phintiff. The defendants attempted to justify the trespasses on the ground that the laud was his property anJ, f not, that flee spot where the buildings stood had once been used as a f otway by the public. In the opinion of the jury, however, both grounds cf def?nce felled, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff —damages £:2O. JONES V• CIIATAWAY. Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Wills were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Field fur the de- ftiii This was an action on a bill of exchange drawn by John Bradbury and accepted by the defendant, and endorsed by Bradbury to the plaintiff. The defence was that the signa- tore was a forgery. The plaintiff called some witnesses to prove that the handwriting was that of the defendant, but it turned out that they had very little acquainanca with her writing. A hid discounter named Eave., however, was called, who pro duced another bill for £lOO, purporting to be accepted by the defendant, which he swore had been signed in his pre sence at the stop of the defendant, who was the widow of a respectable tradesman, and upon which be had been paid £BO, by a transfer of a lien she bad upon same money of Bradbury's in the hands of an attorney at COVlntry, and he produced a document authorising the transfer which he sal I had been given by her to him, after proceedings hal been taken on the bill. It was quite clear the acceptance of the bill sued upon and of this bill were in the same handwriting. It was also said that a bill undoubtedly genuine, for £7O, which she had accepted for B; adbury's accommodation, had been resisted up to the eve of trial ou similar grounds, an d paid at last, with costs of suit. Some similar evidence was given with respect to a payment of a £5O bill, also alleged by the defendant to be forged. The defendant, on the other who , swore that the bill she had accepted for Bra dbur y , collected rents for her, was the only bill she had ever signed in her life, and that she had then taken a verbal lien frim Bradbury upon the money at Coventry, by way of security. One day Eaves and Bradbury called upon her, and asked her if she would let Eaves have her security upon that money, as be was going to lend Bradbury some money to bring a Chancery suit to a termination. Upon certain representations of Bradbury she consented ; but she had never en that or any ' occasion signed a bill or authorized hint to do so. With re spect to the defence of the £7O bill she said that when it became due she went to an'attorney in Birmingham, whose name we withhold for obvious reasons. and who owed her a little money. He questioned her about the matter, and said he would soon put it right for her. She swore she never knew of or authorized any defence to the bill, but. on the Y suit it, unt and until L s 6 h 7 e con t r ary, said it was hers and aondtsalixeed costs would ofp fwoarshcearlloewd,n osupcontat,o pay as well as the £7O, the whole proceeding of the defence being the attorney's doing. As to the £5O bill, she said that one day a Jew named Benjamin came acrlss from the opposite side of the street and said, "Here is f,50 for Bradbury ; will you give it him when he calls ?" After some demur she consented. Presently Bradbury came over from the same place, and called far the money, which he had. When sued upon the bill she went to the same attorney, who said, " You must pay it ; the money passed through your hands. I should not like to take it into court," and she paid the £5O also. With regard to Eaves's bill she swore that she never heard of it at all ; that Eaves's call on her was before the bill produced would have become due; and that all that passed was that he said he bad lent Bradbury £lOO, on her promise about the security, and then she gave him the docu ment in question. The document, in fact, bore date the 29th of October, whereas the bill was not due till the Ist of November. Bradbury bad absconded before the 29th of Oc tober, and a warrant is out against him for forgery. Mr. Macaulay, in his address to the jury, commented strongly upon the dreadful web of fraud and iniquity which had been woven by some one round this unhappy woman, and called upon the jury to set tier free from its meshes. Mr. Mellor having addressed the jury in reply, The learned Judge summed up with great care, and the jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defen dant. The case did not conclude till past 9 o'clock. AUG HST 4. GOOLD Y. lIILL. This was the last case of the assizes, and, although ex pected to be short, lasted from 9 a.m. till half-past 4. It was an action for the alleged breach of an agreement to remove the " Sutton Grand Stand" from Sutton Cold field to Aston, close to Birmingham, on occasion of the Queen's visit, at the opening of Aston-park, on the 15th of June last, whereby the plaintiff represented that he had been deprived of very great profits. The question turned upon the terms of the agreement, with reference to the pay ment of a sum of £l2, which the defendant alleged he was to be paid by a certain time, as the condition of his pro ceeding with the work. Atter a great deal of evidence, which was contradictory to an extraordinary extent, the jury found a verdict for the defendant. Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Field were for the plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Wills for the defendant. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—CARLISLE, AUG. 4 Mr. Baton Mat tia arrived at this town late last night, and opened the commission. The Lord Chief Baron did not arrive until this morning from Newcastle, the business havieg 'oc cupied him until rather late last night. After attending Divine service at the Cathedral this morn ing, their lordships went into court at 11 o'clock, Mr. Baron Martin sitting on the civil side, and the Lord Chief Baron charging the grand jury. The calendar contains the names of only seven prisoners, three of them charged with ordinary larcenies, three with uttering base coin, and one with forgery. The cause list contains an entry of four causes. In the Crown Court two Mint cases and a couple of ordi nary sessions cases occupied the day. In the course of the day his lordship, learning that two indictments for perjury were to be preferred before the grand jury, which had not been first brought before the consideration of the magis trates, had the grand jury again before him, and in very cogent terms advised them not to find the bills without the most cautious inquiry, as this mode of preferring bills was sometimes abused. The grand jury ignored both the bills, and the whole cri minal business was concluded in the course of the day. CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr. Baron Martin.) HOPE T. BELL. This was an action brought by the father of the plaintiff, a little girl of live or six years of age, as her next friend, to recover damages for an injury done her by one of the de fendant's servants in so negl►gently driving Ids waggon as to run over and crush her foot, whereby she was rendered, in all probability, lame for lif . Mr. Price appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Dawson fur the defendant. It appeared that. the plaintiff, the father of the child, is a mason, and the defendant is a iv( of merchant. In Augu=t, 1854, whe❑ the plaintiff's child was only about 18 months old, she was sitting in the middle of the road in front of some cottages called M:lhurn-cottages, situated on the road between Brampton and Carlisle, and near where her parents resided. The defendant's waggon, driven by one James Telford, was coming from Brampton to Carlisle, loaded, and drawn by three horses, one before the ether. By some means or other the first two horses passed over the child without hurting her, but when the shaft horse came to it he shied, and Telft.rd said he then first observed the plaintiff still sitting in the road ; upo❑ seeing her he snatched her away and stopped the horses, but not before the wheel of the waggon had crushed one of the child's feet so severely as, according to the evidence of a surgeon, would lame Ler f it. life. The chief controversy raised in tie case was, whether the driver of the waggon was sitting on the waggon or walki - ig by the side of his torses, as he himself swore. Several wit nesses were called on both sides, and, among others, two who swore that Telford had told the' after the accident that he %yes ridin on Lis waggon. The jury found a verdie.t for the plaintiff:—Damages £6O. Si! BRIEFS' COURT.-Au , . 5. (Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Borehell.) PROCLAMATIoNS OP OUTLAWRY. This morning the c haracters we re " proclatilinneutile,s of several " and ti,eywelrNe-eil-knn severally called upon to surrender to the exigencies of the several processes, or they would b e o u t lawed. The fallowing, pro clamations were made by the officer of the court : Ernest Vane Tempest. commonly called Lord Ernest Vane Tempest, at the suit of A.? Queen. L‘..,rd Thomas Pelham Clinton, at the' suit of Edward Packliam. Washington Fox, at the suit of Richard Brown. William ll'Oubrey and wife, at the suit of Thomas Richards. Joseph S ween ie Brockhurst, at the suit of Henry Gibbon. Kerwen Joseph Pernie, at the suit of John Addison. William Gihas, at the suit of Charles Sevens. John Carnac Morris, at the suit of the Oriental Bank. Henry Fendall, at the suit of the same. William Batnersall, at the snit of George Lawrence. Duncan Bea t, at the suit of Thomas Truefitt. Gillam M. Ross, at the suit of Duncan Gerard. Henry Pulford Plenum anti Henry Charles Macdonald, at the suit of James Ma-tin. No answer was made by the parties, and the same cere mony will be repeated for four months before they can be outlawed. IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO SIIERIFFS' PRES. 'At the Sheriff,' Court on Wednesday the following im portant case was heard (Willis v. Jones), in which Mr. Lewis appeared for the plaintiff, a sheriff's officer; and Mr. Palmer for defendant, a solicitor : From the statement of the learned solicitor it aprared that at defendant's instance an execution . was put into a person's premises; but, a second p art y having laid claim to the debtor's goods, the defendant withdrew, and plaintiff now sought to recover the sum of Li ls. as Icts fee, and Li 15s. for man's passessien 10 days at 3s. Gd. per day. Mr. Lewis contended that as the attorney was legally and personally liable there could be no defence. Mr. Palmer contended, o n the part of the defe ndant, that no levy having been made, that part of the case was at once settled, as it was impossible to tecover fees for levy unless it had actually been made, an d the execution creditor had got something. Now, in this ca. eno levy had actually been made. As regarded the bailiff's charge of LI . 15s. before an interpleader order, the interlaced's.r issue . raised . had not been tried, the execution cr editor's claim having een barred hy a judge's order, and t herefore that part of the b case failed also. Mr. Lewis endeavoured to show that it was to defendant alone, and through him, that plaintiff should lout: for his money. Mr. Palmer contended that no c ase had been or could be cited to show that the bailiff could recover fees. Under these eireuTstances, to decide in plaintiff's flavour would tend to fraud, and careless:iess on the part of the sheriff. That, apart from the cares cited directly upon the point and by analogy, Mr. Archbold (with Mr. Lush, Q.C.) in his book of practice clearly stated the law to be that, where the exet:titioll creditor does not try the issue, and gets nothing under the execution, the fees cannot be re covered. His Honour held that it was so. He considered it to he very unjust that an attorney should be personally liable, as Le was only an agent. An attorney was not liable for a witness who attended at his personal solicita tion. As the case stood plaintiff would be nonsuited. THE CHILD iNIURDER AT HULL.--Of this case we had a short notice in Wednesday's Morning Pod:. It appears, f,oro further particulars, that the case is one of those revoliing infanticides which are unfit for publication. The prisoner, whose name is Sarah Kilvington, is not, as the report stated, the same Mrs. Kilvington, of respectable connections, whose husband deserted her nine years ago; and it is even doubtful whether the prisoner is married. THE SUN, LONTION, FRIDAY EVENINCI-1 AUGUST 6 1, 1858. POLICE INTELLIGENCE s sod MANSION-HOUSE.—Hochley F. Wood, solicitor, n y, Francis A tterbu, labourer, were charged with unla vv - fully assaulting W. Turner, police constable 64. It appeared from the evidence that for some six rrionthes past complainant had been residing in an empty house ins Church-row, Aldgate, and that about a - fortnight ago tu, w oman name Price hired the ho use, paying £l5 for rho fixtures, upon which the agent told Turner to get oat ass soon as he could; but before this was done the agent die- , covered that false references had been given by the party hiring the house, and he therefore instructed the complain ant to retain possession. Wood was therefore employed toi get possession fur the hirer, for which purpose he vent to the house, accompanied by four men, when a regular attack was made upon Turner, with the view of turning him out; but although his shirt was torn from his back, he succeeded in keeping possession, and gave the defendants into custody. For the defendants it was contetVed that they acted legally in attempting to get p-,sAessbn, even forcibly, for Mr. Wood's client; but the Lord Mayor took a different view of the case, and committed both prisoners for trial to the sessions, taking their own recognisances fur their due appearance. Two cases of indecent assault on children came before the Court. In the first case en intelligent little girl, nine years old, had been sent to a German tailor, named Moses Blum berg, to learn the business, a circumstance of which he had taken advantage so far as t) assault her indecently, and endeavoured to corrupt her mind, pacifying her with a " penny for gooseberries," and warning her not to tell her mother or sister, as they would laugh at her ; but upon going home the little one told her mother at once, "because she couldn't rest," and the prisoner was given. into custody. With the most disgusting effrontery he now said—The little girl was saucy to me, she kissed me for a halfpenny, and that made inc feel sick, and I didn't know what I was doing. In the second case, Ricbard Colley, living in the same !loose with Mary Jane Strahan, 14 years old, caught her indeccistly as she was going indoors, and forced her into the water-closet, where he attempted to effect his purpose by violence, pressing his hand to her mouth to keep her from crying out. She was, however, heard to say, " Leave go, you'll strangle me," and upon her mother calling out to know what was the matter, the ruffian let her go. The Lord Mayor expressed himself in strong terms of indignation on both cases, and sentenced the vagabonds to four months' imprisonment each, with hard labour, under the Aggravated Assaults Act. " B. 0." sent 10s. for the poor-box, being the produce of 2d. per day, abstracted from his salary of £fl per year by a clerk, who recommended the adoption of a similar plan of charitable action to his fellow clerks, with an assurance that they would find it easy to persevere if they once com menced it, even with a small salary. WESTMINSTER.—CIIARGY. OF PERJURY AGAINST A RESPECTABLE TRADESMAN AND A POLICE-CON ETABLE.—A very lengthened and tedious charge of perjury, which has occupied bath magistrates at this court some days, was 3esterday brought to a close before Mr. Paynter. Mr. Sleigh, barrister, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Haines, solicitor, the defence. The accused were William Neville, a butcher, carrying on his business at Richmond, Surrey, and John IVenham, police-con stable, 77 T. The charge proceeded from an action brought in the Brompton County Court by Mr. Neville against Mr. Tisdell, of Holland-park Farm, dairyman, for ' damage done to his pony cart on the 20th of January, at Kensington, on which occasion he himself was much injured by Mr. Tisdell's man driving carelessly against him, whereby the damage occurred, and he was thrown out of the cart. A verdict was given for Mr. Neville for £25 and a sew trial subsequent l y moved for, whichwas emphatically refused with costs, and the assignment of perjury was that Neville had sworn on the trial that he was within five feet of the curb on his own side at the time of the collision, and that lie alone was in the cart, which was alleged to be false, and that the police man Wenham, who had sworn that he saw the accident, and confirmed ' Mr. Neville's account, did not come up until some minutes afterwards, and knew nothing about it. Ten witnesses were examined by Mr. Sleigh in support of the assignment of perjury, showing that Neville was on the wrong side, and drove into Mr. Tis d e ll's van, that he had a man in the cart with him, and that, so far from Wen liatn being on the spot and witnessing the collision, he came up after it was over and inquired what was the matter. In the course of a very lengthened and severe cross-exa mination, Mr. Haines elicited from some of the witnesses that there had been a compromise offered on the other side after the accident, and that Mr. Tisdell's man had been to Richmond on the subject of the amount of damage shone to Mr. Neville's cart. Mr. Haines, after a very energetic address in favour of his clients, produced a letter from Mr. Tisdell complaining of the amount of the charge made at the time an arrangement was contemplated between the parties. He then called the defendant Wenham as a witness for Neville, who again swore most positively that lie saw the accident, which was caused by Mr. Tisdell's man (Mr. Tisdell being absent), and that Neville was alone in the cart. Mr. Ilaines then sought to clear tip a misunderstanding which he conceived existed in the minds of the witnesses, from a combination of circumstances, respecting Wenham not beim: , present, and a man named Mowdon beirg in the ca. t. lie called 76 T to show that it was he who came up after the accident was over, mistaken by the witnesses for 77 T (Wenham), who had at that time run after the cart to stop it, and put Mowdon into the witness-box to prove that he was not in the cart, but coming up at the moment of the colli sion was by its side assisting Mr. Neville, and then flung his (Mowdon'e) coat into the cart, the better to pursue the van, which had been driven off. Mr. Paynter said that having looked over the evi dence for the prosecution, he was clearly . of opinion, without going into the defence, that r.o jury in the world would ever be persuaded to convict the defen dants of perjury. The learned judge, Mr. Adolphus, before whom the motion had been made for a new trial, had said that the evidence for Tisdell proved Neville's case. Apart from discrepancies in the testimony in support of the present charge, how could the fact be got over that an attempt had been made on the part of Tisdell to settle it ? No jury would - be induced to believe that is man made an offer to pay money to another if not in the wrong, and, added to 11131', shortly before the suit was commenced in the county court, Tisdell, writing on the Bth of May, when oh jectiag to the amount of charges, used the expression, "The blame, if any, was as much on one side as on the other." Could it be alleged in the face of that that Tisdell's man was in no respect to blame; that all the blame was on the other side ; arid that, if sworn, it was not the parties so swearing who were guilty of perjury ? He (the worthy magistrate) would like to see the spot where the accident occurred, and, notwithstanding his strong opinion in favour of the defendants, would adjourn the case if Mr. Sleigh pressed it. The legal gentlemen consulted, when, after a payment of £lO from the other side, to Mr. Neville for costs, with a understanding that no further proceedings should be taken on either side, Mr. Sleigh said that after weighing the testimony, and after hearing the able statement and explanation of Mr. Haines, he had taken upon himself, in the exercise of his discretion as counsel, to withdraw this prosecution; because he felt that a man was unworthy in his profession who per severed one moment longer with a case wnen there was not sound reason to believe he could obtain a conviction. He felt that there had been a lamentable misunderstanding in this case. Both Mr. Neville and Mr.Tisdell were men moving in a very respectable position of life, and, according tter to bad the re re pre sentation of those in his ernplyment, the la lly thought the former had been guilty of perjury. It was much to be regretted that two such men had had a difference. The n hole case arose from an honest misconception and misun derstanding, and he was bound to say that both defendants I left that court without the slightest stain on their character for respectability or veracity. Mr. Poynter fully cencut red in what had fallen from Mr. Sleigh, and complimented bins upen the course he bad pursued. --- ti` ORSII I P-STREET.—SUPPOSED riOBBEItY.—ChaB. Davis and Atorgai-et Rogers tho former a comown lodgino•-huse keeper Tin-awl-street, Spitalfichls, were brought betiire Mr. liammill, charged with having in their ive pro perty which had no doubt been stolen. that, from certain information, he and Dubb, anothert dicer, wen t to the lodging - house kept by Davis, No. 17, Thrawl pos,saevlg o e n , detective constable of the IT division, stated street. The female pri soner was standin g at the door, appA reut!y on the loo k-out, and the moment she caught sight of w itness she hurried into a back room , and he followin g her before she had time to shut the door, found her there with the male prisoner, and saw a writing-desk lying upon the bed, another box mapped is a tablecloth, and a number of letters strewn about. He asked Davis whether he was the man who had brought the things in a cab ; to which the prisoner replied that a man named Jones had brought the things, an d had invited him into a cab. Dal), the officer, said that in the tablecloth with the workbox he found the prisoner Davis's cap, and under the bed a pair of candlesticks, and other things, which he now produced. The letters almost all bore the address of a clergyman, and there was information as to the rob bery, evidence of which would be produced. The prisoner Davis assured the magistrate that he was quite innocent of stealing the property. The prisoners were remanded, to aff9rd time for the pro duction of evidence. CLERKENWELL.—A SURGEON CHARGED WITH ASSAULTING THE POLlCE.—Rorcland Jackson, a Sur geon, residing at 8, De Beauvoir-terrace, Kingslaud, was charged before Mr. Corrie with assaulting police-constable N 507 in the execution of his duty. The constable stated that that morning, about one o'clock, he heard a loud knocking at a door, and saw the defendant leave one of the houses in Dc Beauveir-terrace and go to a cab and tell the man to drive off. He spoke to the defen dant about his knocking at the door, when Ile said he resided ti,ere, and then went up the garden and again knocked. He almost immediately afterwards returned and struck him (the constable) a blow on the face, tte pain from which he felt for some time. Ile then took the defendant into custody fur the assault. The defendant said he was very much excited at the con duct of the constable when he was knocking at his own door, and, although be was struck, the blow was intended for his hat. Mr. Corrie asked the constable how it was that he took the defendant into custody when he learnt that he resided at the house at which he knocked ? The constable replied that he had then been assaulted. Mr. Corrie did not .think there was any necessity for locking the defendant up, as lie could be found at any time, and at once dismissed the charge. NOVEL POINT UNDER THE BASTARDY LAws.—James Hunt, of 20, Newport-market, was summoned by Mary Ann Crouch, of 5, Rheidol-terrace, Islington, for the support of an illegitimate child. Mr. - John Wakeling, solicitor, said the party summoned had left this country ibr Australia before the summons was taken out, and es he could not be served be thought the case should not go on. He then produced two letters, dated from Liverpool and on board a ship. The complainant said she bad seen the defendant a short time before, but believed that he had go n e to Australia. Mr. Corr i e said gasa t the seensummonsu En i alaid a f would i be adjournedre smrnoi a sinet anddie, when he s would be granted. SOUTHWARK.—ROBBERIES AT THE EXTENSIVE FIRE IN BERMONDSEY.—SaraIt Cook Ber , a female livand ing with her hu%band in Widow-walk, mondey, William Cook, her son, were brought before Mr. Combo, charged with stealing a large quantity of leather, the pro perty of Messrs. W. and G. Almonds, leatherdressers of dse Bermony. James Harvey, foreman in the prosecutors' employ, said that about two o'clock in the morning a fire raged fear fully in theirs and the adjoining warehouse, in Willow walk, near the railway arches, end a large quantity of hides and bundles of sole leather were thrown into the street and grsunds adjacent. About three o'clock witness received in formation that some of the leather had been takeryinto the prisoners' house, when, obtaining the assistance of an officer, they went _there and _found a bundle of half-hides and a large square hide. He identified them as his employers' property, being part of their stock in the warehouse prior to the fire taking place. Joseph John Hurst stated that he was at the fire, and he saw the lad lake up a square hide, from the pavement near the prosecutors' premises, and m^rry it into his mother's house. Wi:ness gave information to the police. Sergeant Up!ots, 18 M, said he went to the prisoners' house, and under the staircase leading to the cellar he found the leather produced. The female came in at the time, when he asked her how it came into her possession. She told him she put it there for safety, and intended to send it to the owners. The female prisoner here denied making such a statement. She told the officer that she did not know the leather was there. She was vei y frightened about the fire. Sergeant Upton swore positively she told him she put it there to take care of. _ _ _ The lad told his worship that he certainly did carry the leather to the house to keep it from the thieves. Mr. Combe observed that most likely such might be the case; therefore he should discharge them; but he cautioned them not to touch any more property at a fire. Philip IV illiani Keating was next charged with stealing a quantity of sole leather, the property of the same firm. One of the workmen said that after the file was extin goished he saw the prisoner at the rear of - ate warehouse - washing several pieces of sole leather in a ditch. It was scorched and very dirty, and had been taken. from the stock tl frown out of the warehouse. Mr. Combe fined him 40s. for the unlawful possession, or one mouth's imprisonment. AN OLD GERMAN SWINDLER.—WiIIiam Cnnarding, an old German, who a few years ago was connected with sonic religious es'ablishments in this cotentry and Germany, and who in May last was brought to this court charged on suspicion of stealing a gold watch and swindling various lodg: tig-house keepers, was now brought before Mr. Combe by h ewett, an officer of the Mendicity Society, charged - with begging alms in the public streets. Hewett said he saw the prisoner beggi ng'that morning in Newington-causeway. His looks were so deplorable that several persons gave him money, but belie‘ring him to be an impostor he took him into custody. Mr. Combs inquired what was known of hint. Sergeant Raymond, the acting inspector at the Stone's end station-house, said that he was a notorfems swindler, an. fora long time had carried on an artful system of fraud on lodging-house keepers. He had been comnected with a religious establishment at Brunswick, and in 1850 he was sexton of a church iu Liverpool. In 1852 be resided at Cambridge-heath, and he had recommendations from the Rev. Hugh Allen, and other clergymen and ventlemen, at the time. Re used those to victimise the parties he visited under pretence of hiringlapartments. Mr. Combo thought he had been before bins on a prior occasion. Raymond replied that that was true. He was charged at that court on the 25th of May on suspicion of: stealing a watch from a house in Walworth, where he callesi under the pretence of hiring aparture.uts. He was also charged with swindling a lodging-house keeper out of board :and lodging to the value of £25. He was previously . wateined by Sea well, 177 M, to 30 or 40 houses where led gings ; were to let, and it was proved that he had for five or six ye tars swindled people all over London. The charges not boin g sustained at the time, be was discharged. The prisoner here said he was an ill-useKl man, and at that time there was no pretence fur giving bim in charge. The reports which appeared then in the t new spapers had ruined him. Mr. Combe asked him what he had to . s: yr in answer to the charge of begging ? Prisoner replied that he was in very gre it distress, and some people had compassisn on him and gat so him money. Mr. Combe told him he had uo doubt how he got his live lihood; that was by . begging and imposin g on the public. His old system of swindling lodging-house keepers was very tikely put a stop to by the publication of his conduct in the newspapers, and it was fortunate for him t hat the law did not reach him, as he would have been pun, 4 , lred with great severity. For the offence of begging, w b ich was clearly proved, he should sentence him to one mon hies bard labour in the House of Correction. He advised :Hewett to look after him when lie came out of prison, as th vre could be no doubt tee was a professional beggar. The prisoner w?s then removed by the de r iuty-e . ' aoler. JEALOUSY AND HUSBAND BEATIN‘ 6 .—MAY AND DECEMBER.—Mrs. Lucy Rolice, the wifet of a tradesman in Great ,Sutfolk-street, Southwark, was charged before Mr. Combe on a warrant, with assaultin g her husband and threatening to stab him. The complainant, a hearty-looking old ; entleman, 75 years of age, said that unfortunately he marrit ad the prisoner, a widow with three children, about two year'.'' ago, and he not only treated her well, but her children. S be, however, grossly misconducted herself, and when he rem or istrated with her she assaulted him, and on the previous da3r took up a knife and threatened to stab him. He had some ez ouble to get away from her, when lie came to this court and obtained a warrant. The wife told him he was a jealous old brute, a:cnd that was the cause of all the disturbance. The complainant here said that it was enougln to make him jealous when she left her home sometimes three nights during a week, and when he asked her where she had been she refused to inform him, and told him to go to tile devil. He thought he had devil enough in her. Mr. Combe asked how old the prisoner was? S' e r rplied that she was 3;;r l ns for beast!;' bus baud he was a brute, and not fit to have a wife. Mr. Combe told her it was very wrong en her part to leave her home all night. There was a great disparity in their ages, and he did not wonder at her husband being jealous of her. What had she to say in answe r to the charge ? She denied having threatened to stab him, but she acknow ledged throwing a knife at him, which did :not touch him. As for going out of a night, she did not disl4.vace herself. Mr. Combe told her that it looked very much like disgrac ing her husband by doing so, and refusing to tell him where she went. Ti ere was no doubt she was a very violent woman, and he should order her to find bail for her future conduct. -- LAMBETH.--TEE LATE INCENDIAR:Y FIRE AT BRIXTON.—James Finch, a lad of 16, who has been in custody for nearly a fortnight on a charge of wilfully and maliciously setting fire to a cow-shed in Robert-street, Brixton, and thereby causing the destruction of seven valu able cows, the property cf Mr. William To‘vler, was again placed at the bar before the Hen. G. C. Norton Mr. Solomon, as before, attended for the pr:s;aner. By the deposition which contained the testimony of the various witnesses, it appeared that the prisoner had been in the service of the prosecutor for some monthan and when discharged had been heard to make threats to% eords his late master, such as that be owed him a grudge and would serve him out, and that he should serve him a trick before long. Soon after this the cows of the prosecutor were on several occasions found loose in the shed, tile it ordi nary fastenings having been undone by some alicious person, and thus causing them to injure each other. Besides this, the top of the grain bin was found to have been forced open, and some human excrement mixed up , with the grains. On the day of the fire, Wednesday, the '2',lst of last month, the prosecutor and his brother-in-law were ,both in the shed a very short time before the fire had been dfecto vered, the latter only ten minutes before, and at that time .all was saf2, and there was not the slightest semblance of fire, bat immediately after the prisoner was seen to come away from the shed looking quite pale, as one of the witnesses described it, and in a few moments the flames were observed to burst forth, and were so rapid in their progress that all efforts to save the seven valuable cows contained in the shed were wholly unavailing, and the poor animals were destroyed. When the fire was raging the prisoner suggested that it had been caused by the heating of some grass, but the prosecutor and his brother-in-law when questioned by the magistrate denied that there had been any grass on the premises at the time, and therefore the fire could nut be occasioned by any such cause. Mr. Solomon addressed the magistrate contending that the case was one In which he felt assured that no jury would convict. He had witnesses in attendance to show that the prisoner had not been near the shed at the time mentioned by two of the witnesses, but if his worship lial made up his mind to commit his client for trial he should decline calling his witnesses. Mr. Norton said he certainly did intend s;.nding the case before a jury, and he was constrained to say that he con sidered it a very strong one. It was not often that in cases of arzrn the parties were seen to set fire to property, but in this instance a motive was not only shown, but the prisoner himself was seen to run away from the premises just before the fire was discovered. Ile had made up his mind, there fore, to send the prisoner fur trial, but as it was said that a witness who cooed give important evidence was not in at tendance, he should order the witnesses in attendance to be bound over to appear at the O'd Bailey, to give evidence fur the prosecut on, and have the prisoner brought up again on Saturday to hear the additional evidence given against him. Oa the application of Mr. Solomon, however, the prisoner was admitted to bail. THAIIES.—CasE OF BASTARDY.—Mr. Yatdlcy was engaged for two hours in the investiention of a case of bastardy, wherein Rosetta Hart , of No. 4, Patriot-street, St. George in the East, was tie complainant, and Joseph Lazarus, jeweller and watchmaker, of No. 28, Notting ham-place, was the defendant. Both de p alartie ward ere of the Jewish persuasion. There was a good of swear ing in the case. The complainant, a very pretty Jewese, wleo carried a child in her arms with an unmistakably Jewish counte nance, and very much like the defendant, who is about 40 years of age, said that Mr. Lazarus had paid his addresses to her for some time prior to December, 1856. In the course of that month he called upon her one evening and took her out for a walk. He gave her wine, and she was afraid it was drugged, for she became stupified after she drank it, and found herself by the side of a canal at a late hour. The intercourse which resulted in the birth of the child took place on that occasion. The witness, who is very illiterate and never received any education, could not tell what month the child was born in, nor the names of the months, but she believed her child was 10 mouths old. She was cross-examined at great length by a Jew solicitor who attended for the defendant a s to her acquaintance with other men. She positively declared that the defendant was the father of her child, and that she had never indulged in familiarities with other men. Mrs. Hart,. a widow, the mother of con4lainan t, who, in the course of a long exami nation, applied the words vagabond, fiend, villain, and heartless wretch, to the defendant, said he was constantly visiting her daughter, and that one evening in December, 1856, she left home for a few hours, and on her return she discovered marks of violence on her person, her body bent, and her eyes inflamed. S he also discovered that her daughter had been eeduced, and questioned her on the subject, but her daughter would not divulge the name of her seducer. Three months afterwards, when her daughter's shame was apparent, she sated that the defendant was the seducer, and he bad effected her ruin under circumstances of a most aggravated nature. .She waited upon the defendant, and on making him acquainted with the situation of her daughter, and stating that he was the cause of it, he assailed her with the most vulgar abuse. The witness, who has been the mother of eleven children, expressed herself in terms of great indignation, and said the prisoner had destroyed the peace and happiness of a poor but respectable family by his vile practices. Miss Hart, a Jewes.t, not related to the csmplainant, s' ated that on Thursday, the 19th of December, 1856, she took a walk with the complainant. They met with Joseph Lazarus, the defendant, who said he had an engagement to go abroad with £4OO worth of property, and that he should send for the complainant and marry her. She patted with the complainant and the defendant at the corner of Fashion street, Spitalfields, and Lazarus said he was going t o g ive his " clear Rosey" his likeness. Oa the following day she called upon the complainant, who said tint she ha 4 been hocussed and seduced by Lazarus, and that when she came to her senses she was by the side of a canal, and there was nothing but sky and water near her. MN. Lipman, sister of the complainant, gave similar evi dence. For the defence it was urged that the complainant and her witnesses, who gave their evidence with singular pro priety, were all perjured. The defendant was sworn, and declared his acquaintanceship with Rosetta Hart termi nated in July, 1856, and he never spoke to her after wards. Mr. Emanuel May, surgeon, stated he was in attend- ante on the defendant upon the 21st, 22d, end 29ih of December, 1856; and also upon the 20th of the same month. He would not say that the disease under which the defendant was labettring precluded the possibility of his being the father of the child. Elizabeth Moss, a bold and impudent strumpet, better known as " Cambridge-heath Bess," said she was a common prostitute, and recollected being at a ball at the Edinburgh Castle Tavern, Limehouse. in December, 1856. The com plainant and a man named Cohen, a Jew, were there. The complainant and Cohen left the ball-room in company. The complainant returned two hours afterwards, and said Cohen had seduced her. Rosetta Hart was recalled, and said that the witness Moss had sworn falsely. Mr. Yardley made an order upon the defendant to pay 24. Gd. per week for the maintenance of the child, and the cods. A burst of applause followed the decision of the magis trate. THE MURDER OF A YOUNG LADY AT DARLRY. THE MURDERER'S CONFESSION Oa Wednesday the prisoner in the above case, James Atkinson, was taktn before the county magistrates, at Knaresborough, by Mr. Superintendent Martin, and, after the examination of several witnesses, was committed for Dr. Simpson presided, and the following other magis trates were also present : Mr. J. B. Favell, Mr. J. James Harrison, Mr. T. C. Wilkinson, and the Hon. Egremont Lascelles. The court was crowded, and the case excited a good deal of interest. The prisoner was not defended. On being charged in the usual way he made the following extraordinary confession : —The reason I murdered her was because she would not have me. She told me her parents would not let her have me. She said she thought she could not be happy, as my father was also against it. She said, " It's all my mother, Jim, that's caused this disturbance." She said three times, " Lerd help me," and I hope the Lord will help her. I told her I could not be happy without her; I could not rest in this world. She said it was all false ; that I cared nothing about her, I had behaved so badly to her. It was all because she was so queer with me that made me do it. I told her I should murder her if she would not have me, because I could not rest. I told her I had not been happy for three weeks, or more than that. She told me she had not been happy ; that she baa been far from happy since her parents were against me and were always calling" me. Her mother was the worst, she said, and never let her alone, day in and day out. Her father never said anything to her about me—he never changed words with her on the subject. I was in her house on Sunday, at tea time. Her sister and her mother came in. Her sister and her were in the "house," and I was in the kitchen. She came out fro m her mother and said, " Come, come, go out before my mother comes in." I did as she wanted me, and we both thought her mother did not see me. I went to a house on the contrary side of the road, belonging to my father, but not where he lives. I perhaps stopped an hour there, wait ing of her sister and her coming out to go to chapel. Her mother and her sister came out before her, and they stood talking about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. Then she came out, and I went up to her. They went tip the lane, and her mother went home. I followed them up the lane, and overtook them in a lane that takes into Stump-lane, where I murdered her. Sbe didn't talk to me much, but her sister did. Ivi ent down to the bottom of Stump-lane with them. My sweetheart told me to go home and change my coat; to get my black coat on. I said that I had on would do for me, and we parted at the bottom of the lane. I thought to myself I would go to Furness, her sister's sweetheart, who was coming up. There were some more people with Furness. I stopped a little bit, and then walked forward. There were some more people sitting and standing on some wood below. I went and sat down and talked a little bit. Furness and some others came up. I got up after a little bit, and went against Furness, and asked him if he was going to Hartwith. He said it was a long road to go, but we set off down the lane together. We kept moving on slowly, until we got to the new line (railway), and her brother then came up to us, and we sat upon the wall and talked a little bit. I pulled out Is. and a Gd., and asked them if they could strike the sixpence from under the shilling and leave the shilling still on the finger. We re mained a bit, and then set off to the chapel. The girls had gone before we set off. When we got to the chapel gate we went forward to the public-house and each got a glass of ale a piece. After that we came down to the chapel and saw an the people come out. We followed after them. I went tonli sweetheart, but she did not talk much to me never afterwards' She said she thought we should have to part, as they called her so. She said they had been calling her after I left the house, and her mother had nearly gone crazed. We walked ots together, and left her sister and Furness. We walked 0 0 until we got to Stump-lane bottom, and when we got a little way up she took her arm out of mine. I waned her to fli t it in again, and she would not, I told her I could not be happy until I married her. She thought we could not be happy; she was sure we could not be happy. She told we I should behave badly to her. I said if she would morn: me, I would be content with her; I could not be conten t without her. She said we had better part a little bit. I to ld her many times I could not part from her, unless I did something with her. I told her I thought there was solve, one else she wanted, and I could not bide any one else t° have her. She said we could both do without one another a little bit. Then I took hold of her as she was walking bi d the side of she road. She was all the while awkwar with me, and would not go on quietly. I stopped he r where she was, and told her I would murder her if eh° did not go on quietly with me. She said " It's all false , you only want to make me believe so." Then I took he r by the throat and tried to choke her. She cried out whe,', l I took her by the throat, and I thought some one / 1 ' 0 ; 1 i hear. We then got up and walked on a little bit, ane pulled out my knife, and showed it her. She cried ou t, " Let's go home, Jim—let's go home, Jim." Then I seized her and cut her throat, and she cried out, " It's all el mother, Jim—it's all my mother that's caused this die turbance." She cried out, " The Lord help me" three time , to the best of my recollection, and then she fainted await and I left her. I went over the wall, shut the knife, and put it in my waistcoat pocket. I went into the fields, 07 wandered about, perhaps an hour or an hour and a half. laid me down and thought I would go and tell her paren t, ' bnt I could not go. I then thought I would go to her ageili and I went back, but when I got a little way up the lane 01 heart failed me and I couldn't go to her. Then I go t 01 ;. c„ the other wall into the field on the other side. I took tu; knife out of my pocket again and opened it, and I put it in; wall top, after which I took across the fields home to a Haiti dam of my father's, to wash the blood off my hands e, face. I then crossed another field home. When I got bo le :. my father and them were up. I did not go into the h ouse _ I went into the shed where the carts were, and sat me do to until I thought they had all gone to bed. Then I went in f the house. I could not eat any supper, sad went to bed could not rest all the night. I got up in the morning, n'i o told my brother, as he told you. I have nothing mere say. bad The prisoner, when he had done, appeared as if he - . reeved his mind of a great burthen, and signed his ex i ; ordinary confession with as much coolness as if it bad be the ordinary deposition of a witness. The Chairman—James Atkinson. as you have made th- li t confession, there can be no doubt that you are the mur der of Vary Jane Scaife. The Prisoner—Yes, I am. The Chairman—lt is our duty, therefore, to send yo u for trial at tie next assizes at York. The PH, over—Very well. Mr. Superintendent Martin was then bound over to po sccutc, and the prisoner was removed. OPENING ()ETRE OYSTER SEASON.—OR IVORlesd°3l the " opening of the oyster season " by and in accordance with the chic regulatiens for the ce n t i r r r e official authori l l o i of Billingsgate-market, took place at four o'clock. "",i,rt were from Rochester, Faversham, Whitstable, and 0 ,1 - 00 pors, 1G vessels, a larger number than we had ' to repel' the 4th of August in last year. ROYAL MATERNITY LYING-IN HospiTAL. halt.yearly meetirg of thiS institution was held a id t , tlif.es in Knight Ryder-street yesterilay. The report 0%, that the number of women delivered during the six was 1,182, being an increase on the corresponding months of last year of 73 cases, the average increase % annum since 1853 being 175 cases. The receipts for the le) months (without a legacy of £ lOO from Mr. John amounted to £Bl3 Bs. 7d., and the expenditure to Vl' "te leaving a balance in hand of £92 7s. 7d.; to which ! R e d, be added the half-year's dividends subsequently repel tee amounting together to £2OO Gs. sd. The report 'y adopted, and a series of complimentary votes passed. BIRTHS. ...„0 of 0 Hoitur.—On the 2 1 inst., at Hoddesdon, H ll' Harts, Mrs. W. of a son. tie LATARD.—On the 4th inst., at Wembley Parsonage, Middlese,c, wit.; of the Rey. C. C. Layard, of a daughter. LLql7l3.—On the 2d inst., at Boulogne-sur-31cr, the wife e f Lloyd, Esq., of a son. r e s ' Sntrrie.—On the Sd inst., at 14, Caroline - s treet, Bedford -el the wife of Henry Smith, Esq., F.R.C.S., of a rm. Of II STONE.—At 3, Elm Villas, Hackney, Mrs. Thomas • Stone , daughter. MARRIAGES. CIIRISTTE—rRINGLE.- On the 3d inst., in St. Paul's EpiscoPtvtie.; pci, Edinburgh, by the Right Rev. Bishop Terrot, James CP.;,nte' Esq., younger of Durie, Fife, to Frances Jane, youngest de"' of David Pringle, Esq., late of the Bengal Civil Service. osf , Goonorkx—PAnu.—On the 3d inst., by the Rev. Cuthbert Thomas Warner Goodman, Esq., architect, London, tO Eliti lotr" second daughter of James Pago, Esq., the Swiss Lodge , Vernon, Nottingham. PAINE—DUN LON. —On the 3d inst., at St. Mary's Church, z:o l _' terrace, G. Burton Payne, Esq., M.D., of Denbigh-street, Dv: fo' road, to Ann Sharp, daughter of Archibald Dunlop, molly ofliaddington, nox of Glouceuer-terrace • square. „ 0 0t9 Of , 4 11' ETIIERALL—S AREI..—On the :ld ins , . at Balcombe, cup, P'o, Sussex, by the father of the bride , John William Wethe,r3tuerizo late 7th Dragoon Guards, son of the late Re v . John 11,15, Rector of Rushton, Northamptonshire, to Caroline Ma,': fl oili c ' A youngest daughter of the Rev. 11. R. Sarel, Rector of 115 0 ' - ',,, NT I LI,COX—MARTDONDO.—On the sth June, at Rabin, by thefP r , G. Nicolay, Mr. Henry Willcox, youngest son of Mr. Ja, of of Tamworth, to Anna Lniza Mrribo ndo , e ldest daugtvioet'v Tibuciti Pedro do C. Maribondo, merchant, Bahia, South SIO B aow x.—On the 31st ult., Eliza, wife of Thomas Brown, ''''' scecncl laughter of the late Mr. James De Ville. St° l ;eut• Gsxy.sys.—On the 30th ult., at Cowes, Isle of Wigh t, T .-• 1- ,eve-',, milian Goodwin Gencste, Bengal Engineers, aged tWela,r), ystrrs Loki s.—On the 29th ult., at Elm Brook Lodge, Weston-re tefeab' Dabella, relict of the Otto Lionel Luk:n, Esq. , a g e' d elut t ; seven. dsiii., MAsrsit.—On the 29th ult., at Shelley - s. Catherine, fount.. ow. of Wm. Drafter, Esq of Shelleys, Knockholt, near Se ~ Kent. A o t• TOS -- ..a' pit - Minn sm,.—On the Sd inst., at 7, Susses-terraeo, Bridte' de , r rr ersmith, George Mitchell, late of the Board of Trit le, hall, iu his seventy-second year. Charles •tr 1 lia 0 :: : : SMALE.—On the 31st ult., Alice, the wife of Frederick ~, • ttie E,..q., of Ormond House, Blackheath. SeorriswoonE.—On the 13th June, at Singapore, I. woode, Er q. utll/00 "otool WATERSToN.—On the 25th ult., at Naples, Ireton IL , wste Ro bery ston, aged seventeen, the only daughter of Esq., of Boston, U.S.A. LONDON : Printed and Published by MtlßD ° ,, V ee, 14°' of No. 112 Strand, Printer, at The Sun ,I, co ati 112, Strand, , in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the of Middlesex, Friday, August 6, IKB. trial. DEATIIS. i I I