The Sun. — London, England, 1858-12-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 11. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.) WEATHERLEY V. THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT — DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. WEATHERLEY—AN EPISODE ON THE TURF. These were cross actions, which by an arrange ment between the parties, were tried together. Mr. Lush and. Mr. Kerr were for Mr. Weather ley ; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. G. Somerset represented the Duke of Beaufort. The first action was brought by Thomas White Weatherley against Henry Charles Fitzroy Somer set, Duke of Beaufort, for assault. The defendant pleaded not guilty ; and, secondly, that he committed the assault in self-defence, the plaintiff having first assaulted him. The second action was brought by the duke , against Mr. Weatherley for assault and false im prisonment. The defendant pleaded not guilty ; that what he did was in his own defence ; that it was in consequence of the carelessness and improper conduct of the plaintiff; and that it was in order to keep the peace. Mr. Lush, in opening the case, said that both actions were brought in respect of a transaction which took place on the Brighton race-course in August last. It appeared that a part of the ground was inclosed by ropes for the protection of pedes trians and persons on horseback and in carriages, and a fee charged for admission. Within this in closure the Duke of Beaufort, who had come to the races in a carriage with a party of friends, was indulging in the amusement of throwing bludgeons at a black doll with a tobacco-pipe in its mouth, and the merit of which consisted in knocking out the pipe without touching the figure. Mr. Weatherley was riding a horse in this in closure at a walking pace, and it happened that the duke, while taking an aim, acciden tally struck the shoulder of the animal and made him start off at a quicker pace. The duke, who was annoyed at being deprived of his aim, threw three sticks which he had in his hand very violently, one after the other, at Mr. Weatherley ; and, on the latter coming back to ask for an explanation, the duketook him by the leg and threw him over t hei horse on to the ground. It was for the injuries sustained by that treatment that Mr. Weatherley now sought to recover damages at the hands of the jury. The following evidence was then adduced : Mr. T. W. Weatherley—l am the plaintiff in the first action, and the defendant in the second. I attended the Brighton races in Aug. last. I was riding a horse in the enclosed part of the course. I was walking it. After I had been in the enclosure a short time I discovered that one of the horse's shoes was loose. I left the course for the purpose of haviug it fixed. I returned in about an hour still on horseback. I walked gently up the course into the enclosure. I had not proceeded far before I saw a part of the enclosure blocked up. There was a person throwing at a black doll with large sticks, which was the cause of the crowd. I saw a gap between that gentleman (whom I afterwards found to be the Duke of Beaufort) and the crowd who were gathered round him in a circle. I attempted to walk the horse through the gap, and at the same moment the duke was in the act of making . aim at the doll. In so doing his shoulder came against my horse's near shoulder. This caused the horse to go a few paces. The duke exclaimed, " your eyes, where are you cantering to ?" I said, "I am not cantering," but he did not hear that—at least I think so. He then threw the stick which he was before about to throw at the doll, at me, and it struck me in the loins. I was about five or ten feet only from the doll at the time. The stick was about 18 inches / long and two inches in diameter. It was the kind of stick usually employed in the game. I said, ad dressing the duke, "It is not my fault." He then threw another stick of the same size at my head with greater violence. I put up my arm to ward off the blow, and received a very severe blow on it. He then picked up another of the same description, and aimed it violently at the near side of my horse. That caused the horse to be very restive. I then said, as before, that it was not my fault, and was about to explain the cause of the occurrence, when the duke came to my near side, took my left foot in his hand, and tried to take it from the stirrup, which I prevented him doing by pointing my toe downwards. Finding he failed to do this, he pulled my leg from the horse's side and forced me off on the off side. I got on my legs and walked round to the duke, and asked him how he could be guilty of such an act. He said, " You -- tailor, you have no business here ; I suppose you have never crossed a horse before." I said, "I do not wish to be insulted as well as ill-used ; you will oblige me with your name." He said, " I'll see you first." I then went away and stated the occurrence to a policeman who was on the race course, not in the enclosure. The policeman said he had not seen the assault, and that I had better see his superior officer. I was then directed to another police-officer on the course, about a hundred yards off. I believe he was an inspector. I then stated to him what I had told the other, and he sent a policeman to inquire the name and address of the gentleman of whom I complained. I went with him. The gentle man was standing on the top of a carriage. The policeman touched on the side of the foot, and said, " Will you step down, please ?" The gentleman said, " Oh, yes." He then got down, and the police man told him that I had been to a superior officer, and made a complaint, and that he had been sent to ask his name and address. The gentleman said, " No, I shall do no such thing." The policeman then said, " Will you please to walk with me and see my superior officer ?" He replied, in a quick manner, " Oh, yes, I'll come with you." We then went across the course, and mete a police officer. lam not sure he was the officer we saw before. The policeman that went with me then asked the other if he could tell him where Mr. Commissioner White was. We were directed up the course a few yards, and there saw him. The police man said to him, " This gentleman has been com plaining of being assaulted." Commissioner White then asked me the circumstances. I related the whole of what had taken place, and he added, " You appear to be two gentlemen, you had better exchang e cards." (Laughter.) As soon as he had said th at the gentleman took the Commis sioner a little aside and whispered to him. The Commissioner turned to me and said, " What is your name ?" I told him, " Weatherley." He said, "Very well, then that is the Duke of Beaufort." That ended the matter. I then went into the in closure. My ancle was very much hurt by hang ing in the stirrup. My arm was quite stiff, and was unable to use it. I a terrible pain between my legs in consequence of their being ex tended so. Cross-examined by Mr. M. Chambers—l was attended by Dr. M'Clure. I called on a doctor to see what damages were clone. I came up to town the same evening, and I went to Dr. M'Clure for that purpose. I went to my doctor first, not to my lawyer. Two or three days afterwards I visited a lawyer. Dr. M'Clure is not present. He gave me some medicine and an embrocation. I was not brought up to any trade or profession. I generally describe myself as a gentleman. I have done a little in the veterinary art. I have sometimes de scribed myself as a veterinary surgeon. I have done a little in the veterinary art at Haverstock hill. This is about twelvemonths ago. Iliad stables there. It was a two-stall stable and coach-house. I lived in Carlton-street, Carlton road, Kentish town. I. had a house there. I gave it up 15 or 18 months ago. I have done nothing in the veterinary art since. The address I gave my solicitor was 6, Clarence-road, Kentish-town. I had only a bed room there, for which I paid ss. a week. I live there now. I have had it eight months. I sleep there always, except when I am out of town. I sometimes visit my friends in the country. I live on my friends. I am very frequently called White. A friend writes to me at Kentish-town in that name. I have other friends who write to me in the name of Weatherley. The friend who calls tile White is a g entleman and does not live on his friend s . I was staying with a friend at Hove at the time of the Brighton races. He went on the race-course with me. He was not riding by my side when the I ride Well. I consider myself a good rider. I can manage a horse admirably. I have never shod horses, only physickcd them, that's all. Where the occurrence took pl ace people were walking. The ropes round the enclosure were supported by sticks. rd I swear I was not told not to ride the enclosure. I don't know the black figure cal led" Aunt Sally." (Laughter.) I did not ride through the crowd, but through the gap which was six feet w id e. It ' lla left for horsemen to pass through. Before la-ts at tempted to go through I did not see what the d CTONV were looking at. The horse was not running, but walking. I swear that the gentleman was not forced forward by my horse running against him, and that he only saved himself from falling by laying hold of the splinter bar of a carriage. I did not see him catch hold of a splinter bar in order to save himself from falling. My horse did not canter after the gentleman came against it ; it made a kind ofshuifie off' as if half frightened. I had the horse entirely under my control. I never played at " Aunt Sally," nor saw it played before. The stick used was as large as those used in the game of knocking off snuff boxes. I had not a hunting whip with me; I had what is called a hunting crop. It had the usual loop on hunting whips for opening gates. I swear I did not raise my hunting whip to strike the duke. I do not remember seeing him put his had on , the bridle of my horse in order to check it. He did not make it rear. When he threw me over the horse I did not come on my legs, but on my back and sides. I immediately spoke to the duke. It I was the duke who said, " You tailor, you have never erossed a horse before." Another gentleman did not say that one gentleman said, "it serves you right." I do not know who he was. Three quarters of an hour after the occurrence I returned to the duke with a policeman. During that time I was searching for a policeman on the course. The duke said to the policeman I brought to him, " He (mean ing me) knockeil me down, and, - to -, a man has a right to do something then." I asked him for his card, and he said, " I'll see you - first." After I left the course I took the horse to Poole's livery stable. It was not hired, but lent to me by my friend, to whom it belonged. His name is Watson, and..he is a medical gentleman. I told him what had happened. He did not examine me, but he said I was strained. Mr. Watson re sides on the New Steync. I dined at Hove, and came home by the six o'clock train. I took the second class. Re-examined by Mr. Lush—lt was a very tem perate horse. I do not know who the gentleman was whosaid " It serves you right," but he was one of the duke's friends. The space where the occur rence happened was enclosed by ropes for carriages and horses. I paid to go into it. Edward Charmen examined by Mr. Lush—l re side near Brightok. I was on the race course on the day in question. I was opposite the Duke of Beaufort, on the outside of the enclosure. I was watching his play. The duke had had about thirty throws at " Aunt Sally," when Mr. Weatherley's horse came up. I was in a carriage and could see well. I never saw Mr. Weatherley before. The first thing I saw was the gentleman's play, which I thought exceedingly good. I afterwards learned he was the duke. There were many persons on horseback in the enclosure. There were also many young ladies on horseback riding to and fro. Mr. Weatherley was riding his horse as quietly as any gentleman could. The duke was throwing. I did not see whether he touched the horse or not, but the horse made a. swerve, turning his hind parts to wards the duke, and the duke struck the horse across the buttocks with a stick. The horse capered about a little, and another stick, thrown by the duke, struck Mr. Weatherley's back. He aimed the stick at him. Mr. Weatherley turned round to see what had struck him, and seeing another stick coming he put up his arm to ward off the blow. The horse then got in advance a few yards. The duke went to Mr. Weatherley and took hold of his leg and tried to unhorse him. He next laid hold of his foot and turned him over on the other side. I heard some langua..e like " tailor," or " your eyes," but I did not take notice of it, That is all I saw. Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers—l gave Mr. Weatherley my name on the course shortly after wards. lam a tailor. (Laughter.) The duke played exceedingly well. Mr. Weatherley had a whip or stick in his hand. Re-examined by Mr. Lush—l am in business as a tailor on my own account, at Ditching, near Brighton. By the jury—The stick produced is a good deal smaller than those with which the duke was playing. Mrs. Sarah Harmer—l am a widow, living at Burgess-hill, near Brighton. I was in a carriage with Mr. Charmen on the Brighton race-course. I saw the gentleman described as the Duke of Beau fort playing. I saw the horse pass, and I saw the gentleman strike it, and then the horse swerved round, and the gentleman tried to unhorse the rider, who was Mr. Weatherley. Mr. Weatherley was not unhorsed—only thrown on one side. Mr. Charles Stonor, innkeeper, said—l was in the box of the carriage in which the last witness was. I saw the gentleman playing at " Aunt Sally," and was very much amused. I thought he played very nicely. I saw Mr. Weatherley come along the course at a good pace. The horse was struck by a stick, and it plunged round towards the duke. The duke then threw a stick sharply at Mr. Weatherley, and it struck him on some part of his back. He threw another immediately afterwards. Mr. Weatherley saw it coming and held up his arm, which it struck. The duke appeared to aim it at his head. I afterwards saw the duke toss Mr. Weatherley off the horse. I heard some expression addressed to Mr. Weatherley, but not by , the duke. Cross-examined—l did not see the duke forced forward by the horse. Henry Godsall, the driver of a carriage on the course—l saw the duke shying at " Aunt Sally," and I thought he was a right good hand at knock ing the pipe out of her mouth. I saw him throw three sticks at Mr. Weatherley. Two hit him and one missed. The duke then tried to unhorse him. The sticks were about the thickness of a stable broomstick. Other similar evidence having been given, Mr. George White was examined—l am the chief constable of police at Brighton. I remember the Duke of Beaufort and Mr. Weatherley coming up to me on the Brighton race course. Mr. Weatherley said he had been assaulted, and wanted the gentleman's name. I said "As you are both gentlemen I should think you should both exchange names." Some gentlemen with the duke said, "This is the Duke of Beaufort." I then turned round to Mr. Weatherley and said, " That's the Duke of Beaufort, and he is staying, I believe, at the Albion." They then left me. Ido not recollect whether Mr. Weatherley gave his name. I did not pay much attention, not having seen the as sault. I did not consider it a matter for my inter ference. There was no charge made. I •did not see any policeman in the matter. Cross-examined—There might have been a police man with them, but I do not recollect now. Mr. M. Chambers then addressed the jury on the part of the Duke of Beaufort, characterising the first action as only an attempt to extort money from his client, who, he contended, was not the original aggressor. Lord Campbell having summed up, and after the jury had deliberated a few minutes in the box, A juryman said they had some doubt whether Mr. Weatherley's horse running against the Duke of Beaufort was an assault. Lord Campbell—lt must be considered an assault; but if his playing at "Aunt Sally" in the enclosure contributed to the assault you ought to find a ver dict for the defendant. In the first action, however, you have merely to consider the damages. The jury then, in the first action, returned a verdict for the plaintif, Mr. Weatherley, with £lOO damages ; and in the second a verdict for the plaintiff, the Duke of Beaufort, with one farthing damages. Lord Campbell said he would certify for a spe cial jury, but for nothing else. A Juror—Are you, my lord, satisfied with the verdict ? Lord Campbell—l think, gentlemen, it is a very good verdict. SECOND COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.) PARR V. WINTERINGHAM-TURF TRANSACTIONS. This case, which opened late on 'ridgy, was re sumed and brought to a close on Satuday morning. It was an action for money had and received by the delendant for the use of the plaintiff, and the defendant pleaded "never indebted." Mr. E. James and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Oliphant for the defendant. Mr. James, in stating the case, said the plaintiff, Mr. Parr, was the owner of several race horses, and resided near Wantage, in Berkshire, and the defen dant, Mr. Thomas Winteringham, was the clerk of the course at Catterick-bridge races, held in April last. That gentleman, however, was only the nomi nal defendant, the real defendant being a Mr. Robinson, an attorney, of Richmond, in Yorkshire, and who had indemnified Mr. Winteringham against all costs in this action. On the 7th of April in the present year Mr. Parr ran a horse called Kelpie, at Catterick-bridge, for a stake designated the Second Year of the Easby Triennial Produce Stakes, and Kelpie won it. As regarded races of that character it would appear the custom was to nominate horses for them while yet in the mare's belly. Now, the said Kelpie came in first for the race in 1858 ; a horse named Pelissier, the property of Mr. Robinson, the real defendant in this action, being second. The amount of the stakes was about £l3O. Mr. Parr, being otherwise engaged, did not go down to Catterick himself, but he sent down Kelpie in charge of a confidential person. The horse having won the race it was asserted that he had been nominated by a person of the name of Edwards, who was a defaulter, and therefore that Mr. Parr was not entitled to the stakes. The history of the horse Kelpie was this :—Bred by Mr. Edwards, whose proper name was Edward Brockett ; it was sold by him to Mr. Pedley, a gentleman well known upon the turf ; by him transferred to Count Batthy ani, and then bought by Mr. Parr, at Doncaster, in Sept., 1856, for £5O. The horse was sold as a colt out of the Child of the Mist, by Weathe7bit. Well, the horse so sold was entered by Mr. Edwards in 1855 for the Ninth Easby Triennial Produce Stakes, to be run for at C a t ter i ck i n 1857. 1858, and 1859—that is to y ears. in say, in th ree successive 1857,Accordinglyand a Kelpie was s en t d own to Catterick he ran under Mr. Edwards's te of nomination ic for the very No no same stake as in 1858. objectionef wasthe given in against Kelpie until the morning race of the 7th April, and that just ore starting,f be when the objection already alluded to was put for ward by the owner of another horse in the race, called Meteor. At that moment Mr. Robinson did not make any objection against the horse starting, ,but after it had won he took up the objection of the owner of Meteor. Now, it run in compliance with THE SUN, LONDON, .MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13, 'B5B. the Newmarket rules, and, that being so, Mr. Parr was entitled to the stakes. The plaintiff, however, would in the first place show that when the race was subscribed for in 1855 there was no notice in the Racing Calendar—which might be termed the " Turf Coke upon Lyttelton"—(a laugh)—that it was to beregulated by the rules of theNewmarket, Doncaster, or any other course. Therefore, one of the first points which he was there to contend for was, that, at the time of the making of the con tract, no such rules applied. But even supposing that the rules of Newmarket did not apply to Cat terick in 1858, there was a ready answer to that objection, for, by the 27th rule of the Jockey Club, they were bound to give notice of Edwards being a defaulter on or before the evening of the day pre ceding the race. Now, the plaintiff's agent had not received notice of Edwards having been a de faulter until the morning of the race, therefore, upon that point the defendant was completely out of court. And the rule was so entered that the party whose horse was objected to might have sufficient time allowed him to pay up the forfeits. But it was further contended for on the part of the plaintiff, that at Catterick the decision of the stewards was final in all cases. At the last races Lord Zetland, Mr. Merry, and Capt. Dawson were the stewards, and it was previously announced in the Sheet Ca lendar, by the clerk of the course, that the rules of Newmarket, York, and Doncaster would be strictly adhered to on that occasion. Now, by the rule of the Calendar, it was laid down that all disputes were to be settled by the stewards, and that all such decisions were to be final, and not subject to appeals to a court of law. Well, after the race of 1858, Mr. Robinson renewed the objection made previously by the owner of Meteor, so the stewards undertook to settle the question at the Newmarket Spring Meeting. Only two of the stewards, however, attended the meeting, namely, the Earl of Zetland and Mr. Merry, but they signed this decision : " Having taken into consideration the circum stances of this disputed case, we are of opinion that, according to the strict letter of the law as it then stood, no objection having been made to the starting of Kelpie. by ten o'clock on the night preceding the horse had a right to start, and its owner to receive the stakes. Had the objection been made at the proper time the owner of the horse would have had an opportunity of paying up the forfeits, and thereby remove the objection. We are of opinion that Mr. Parr is entitled to the stakes, but that he ought to pay up the forfeits which are due upon the horse. (Signed) Zetland and J. Merry." It was only necessary for him (Mr. James) to add that whether a dispute was settled at Newmarket, or on the particular course where it arose, the rule was that the decision of the stewards present—no matter how few or how many that was—should be binding. And so it constantly happened that dis putes on race courses were adjusted by the ruling of a single steward. The first witness called was Edward Foster (examined by Mr. Hawkins)— ____ _ . . ride for Mr. Parr. I rode Kelpie on the 7th of April at Catterick bridge-races, for the Ninth Easby Triennial Produce Stakes. • Four or five horses ran, and Kelpie won. -His number was put up first by the judge. Cross-examined—Mr. Ro . binson's Pelissier came in second. Edward Kellow—l am training groom to Mr. Parr. I took down Kelpie by rail to Catterick bridge races. The races commenced on the Wednesday, and I Fot there on Monday night at 11 'o'clock. Catterick-bridge is a village, and there were two days' races. I gave the horse a gallop on the Tuesday. I got no notice whatever about the horse until I took him to the course, about an hour before the saddling. I first heard of an objection against the horse as I was weighing Foster, the jockey; that was about three-quarters of an hour before the start. The objection caused delay. It was Mr. Johnson, the judge, who announced it to me. Mr. Johnson said it was objected to Kelpie that Mr. Edwards was a defaulter for £llO, I said I knew nothing about that, neither did Mr. Parr. I then went before Mr. Jaques, who was acting for Lord Zetland, and to whom I was referred. I told him that I brought the horse there, and I should run him. I had no time whatever to make inquiries into the matter before starting. Kelpie alsoran for the same stakes in 1857, and whilst Mr. Parr was his owner. No objection was made to him then. I was with Mr. Parr when the horse was brought from Count Batthyani's and put into training. Cross-examined--My master is here. I was not at Catterick in 1857. Meteor won the stakes that year, and Kelpie was third. I have been with Mr. Parr for six years. Mr. Weatherby is the keeper of the match-book at Newmarket. He was not at Catterick. Mr. Thomas Parr, the plaintiff, examined— have been owner of racehorses for some years. I bought Kelpie of Count Batthyani in 1856. The horse was entered in 1858 for the Ninth Easby Triennial PrOduce Stakes. I bought the horse with all his.engagements. He run in 1857, which was the first of the three years. I heard of no objection against the horse that year. I sent him to Cat terick again this year. I was not present either year. I had no knowledge until the morning of he race of Mr. Edwards being a defaulter, although heard by telegraph the same evening that my horse had been objected to. There were thre e stewards at the Catterick races—Lord Zetland, Mr. Merry, and Captain Lawson. It constantly hap pens that all the stewards do not attend a race. According to ordinary usage the stewards present decide as to any objection that may be raised. The settlement of a dispute is frequently adjourned over to another meeting. In the event of a postpone ment the majority of the stewards present always decide the question at issue. The usage of the turf is that the majority of those present should decide ; the whole need not be present. I have known that ' rule acted on. I have had a great deal of experi ence in turf matters. Cross-examined—l can't recollect at this moment any one case in which that rule was acted on. I didn't know Edwards. I never knew of the name of Edward Brockett until the day after the race. It is not unusual for persons under fictitious names to enter horses. I never paid forfeits for Edwards in order to enable Kelpie to run. I did not run a horse for the Stockbridge Derby in 1856. I had a horse called Coroner. He won the Stockbridge Derby in 1856, but I had got rid of him a year pre viously. I had a horse called Sir Colin. He ran for this race at Catterick in 1857. I believe there were some forfeits in that race. Sir Colin won it. I can't say whether a horse called Ondine paid for feit. I subscribe to Weatherby's Sheet Calendar. That is a forfeit list published once a year., I was never aware that there are frequent entries of for feits due from Edwards in that list. I mad, the dis covery the day after my horse was objected to at , Catterick. Coroner ran in my Flame at Stockbridge, but he was not my property. A horse entered in , Edwards's name ran third for that race. Re-examined—There arc a great many Edwardscs on the turf ; amongst others Lord E. Russell runs under that name. T didn't know that Kelpie had been nominated by Edwards for the race at Catte rick. I thought the horse was entered in Mr. Ped ley's name, as for all his other engagements he was. The Racing-sheet Calendar was then put in, con taining the judgement of the stewards at New market. That closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Knowles then addressed the jury for the dc• fondant; and called Mr. T. Winteringham, who said ,1 am the de. fendant in this case, and the proprietor of the Spa Hotel at Croft, in Yorkshire. I have a stud farm adjoining. I was clerk of the course and stake holder at Catterick races in 1858. I was first clerk of the course and stakeholder in 1853. In 1854 I had an advertisement put into the Sheet Calendar with reference to the stakes called the Ninth Easby Triennial Produce Stakes. Two mares, the pro perty of Mr. Edward Brockett—nawely, Child of the Mist and Blameless—were entered in the name of Mr. Edwards for the race. I saw a gentleman of the name of Grey the day bCfore. Mr. Grey gave me a printed notice with respect to Kelpie between 8 and 9 o'clock the right before. He was a part owner of Meteor, and he said he thought Meteor hed a good chance of winning the race again. He said, as to Kelpie, he objected to his starting, on the ground that the nominator was in default of £llO for forfeits. Mr. Brockett has often entered horses under the name of Edwards. In 1857 I gave Parr notice that Edwards, the nomi nator of Ondine, was a defaulter. Before the race of 1858 was run I had lists published in the Calen dar, and issued them to all parts of the country. In those lists I stated that the rules of Newmarket, York. and Doncaster, would be strictly adhered to at Catterick. I sent Mr. Parr, and in fact all rac ing men, a list of the horses entered. I went to Catterick the day before the race, but I returned home the same evening, and it was then Mr. Grey called and gave me the notice with respect to Kel pie. 1 went back to Catterick in the morning. Mr. Parr was not there. • Mr. Osborne appeared for Parr—at least he told me so. Mr. James objected to such evidence. There was no proof whatever that Osborne had been so com missioned. Witness—Kellow was with the horse. Mr. Robinson told me he should claim the stakes if Kelpie won, upon Grey's objection. That objection was _renewed in the morning by Robinson. I com municated that to Osborne. Mr. John Lawson, of Brough Hall—l am the son of Sir William Lawson. I acted as steward with Mr. Merry and Lord Zetland at the last Catterick races. I attended, and the others did not. I was made aware of the objection to Kelpie within the half hour before the start. I permitted the start under protest. After the race the matter was brought to me. I formed an opinion, but gave no decision. I wrote to Lord Zetland, and said I should prefer to have it decided at a future period. I afterwards met Lord Zetland and Mr. Merry at the York meeting —that was ten days later. I talked the matter over with them. We came to no decision. On separating, Lord Zetland said he should like us to meet again and decide the matter. I separated in the belief we should meet again. I didn't hear anything of the matter again until I got a paper from Mr. Weatherby. (The decision quoted by Mr. James was here handed to witness.) I received a copy of this, and I put my endorsement upon it. This is not the whole of the document I sent back to Mr. Weatherby. On the paper sent to me there was sufficient room to allow of my writing under neath. I didn't concur in this decision. On the left hand corner I wrote, Ido not concur in this opinion. John Lawson." I then sent it back to Mr. Weatherby. By Mr. James—The decision contained in this document is a judgment of the stewards, dissente Capt. Lawson. Witness—l certainly differed in opinion from the other stewards. lam not a racing man, but then I can't say I am exactly ignorant of racing matters. I never was at Newmarket in my life. By the Judge—l never heard the subject men tioned again. My impression was the thing would go before the Jockey Club. By Mr. Knowles—The other stewards never wrote to me or I to them. Mr. Weatherby—l am publisher of the Sheet Racing Calendar and of the forfeit list. The for feit list is published only once a year. Lord Zet land wrote the page produced at my office. After it was written. I sent it to Mr. Merry in Scot land. Mr. Merry sent it back, and I then sent it to Captain Lawson, but I am not aware whether it was the original or a copy. lam not certain whether I did not say " we" are of opinion in the copy. I found Capt. Lawson's letter, but I scarcely think he retained a copy of it. May be he did. Cross-examined--I have some experience respect ing the usage as to stewards deciding matters. I have been 32 years keeper of the match-book at Newmarket, and secretary to the Jockey Club. Country stewards sometimes refer to the stewards of the Jockey Club at Newmarket. At Newniarket two out of three stewards can decide. At country races a majority of the stewards decide. If there is only one steward present, and if it is a little matter, he would decide on the spot, but if not he would consult his colleagues and send a decision. In this case the usage would be that the opinions of Lord Zetland and Mr. Merry, when they met, should be decisive. I was not present at York when the matter was discussed. That closed the evidence. The learned judge then said that he should direct the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for £ll2, with leave to the defendant to enter a verdict for him or a nonsuit, on the ground that no decision had been come to by the stewards, or that the deci sion come to had not been signed by two authori ties at the same time. Mr. James would direot his lordship's attention to the circumstance that at the time Kelpie was no minated—that was before he was foaled—there was no restriction as to the payment of forfeits, or as to the contracting parties being bound by the New market rules. _ Mr. Weatherby having been recalled, said that the Newmarket rules did not apply to the Catterick races in 11354, the period of Kelpie's nomination. The universal usage at races was that the decision of the stewards should be final. _ _ _ The jury then found for the plaintiff, in accord. ance with the judge's decision. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—DEC. 11. Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Common Jury.) LAWRENCE V. CRIDLAND.-ACCIDENT. - STRANGE CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. ___ _ This was an action to recover damages for inju ries sustained by the plaintiff through falling over a cellar flap. The case was laid before a jury on the 13th Nov. last, but they were unable to agree to a verdict, and were ultimately discharged without doing so. Mr. Sergeant Thomas and Mr. Griffiths appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Collier for the defendant. The plaintiff was a journeyman shoemaker, and the defendant was a publican in Shoe-lane, Fleet street. About noon on the 30th April last the plaintiff was going along Shoe-lane towards Fleet street, having in his hand some articles which ho had purchased for use in his trade. He caught his foot against some obstruction and fell and fractured his knee-cap so badly, that after a good deal of suffering it seemed there was no hope of a cure. He still walked with a crutch, and the injrued leg was apparently withering away, it being already considerably less than , the sound one. These facts were agreed- to on both sides, but about almost every other fact the evidence was very conflicting. The case was partly heard yesterday, and his lord ship and several of the jurymen availed themselves of the break in the case to go and inspect the place. For the plaintiff it was sworn that what caused him to fall was that he caught his foot under an iron bar fastened on the frame of the defendant's cellar-flap to prevent the erearing of the wood by the chains used in lowering beer into the cellar. This bar was placed parallel to the kerb, and the end of it next Holborn had sprung up an inch or an inch and a half, in consequence of the rail or screw having come out or worn away. A good deal of evidence was produced to prove that the bar was sprung on the 30th April, and that it had been sprung for a week or two before that time; that when the plaintiff's wife called on the defend ant shortly after the accident and told him the cause of it, he said that he had made it all right; inasmuch as he had since nailed down the bar. On the other hand there was positive evidence that the plaintiff had not stumbled over the bar, but had caught his foot a yard or two before he got to it; and it was believed by several witnesses, and sworn to positively by one, that he had stumbled over the grating at the barber's shop next door. As to the state of the bar, the evidence was that though it had sprung a little in the middle from a nail being out, it had never sprung at either end, that when it was mad , : new, a screw was put in at each end and a nail in the middle ; that neither of those screws had ever been out, and that they were both in now. Several of the jury expressed doubt about this part of the evidence, sayingthat they believed they were nails and not screws in the ends of the bar. The Lord Chief Justice agreed with them, and at the request of the jury the bar with the piece of the frame to which it was attached was taken up under the superintendence of Mr. Fowler, a surveyor, and brought into court. A carpenter then set the matter at rest, for when drawn it turned out that the bar was fastened by three nails only, there being no ' screws. The defendant had admitted in his evidence that since the trial he, supposing the matter at an end, had driven a nail in the middle of the bar. This nail now turned out to be similar to the one which fastened tit) Holborn end of the bar, while the one which fastened the Fleet-street end was a thinner and very different nail. Mr. Walker, one of the defendant's witnesses, was recalled and examined by his lordship. He said that 18 months ago he had done the carpenter's work when extensive alterations were made in the defendant's house, and, among other things, had made this cellar flap. He said he believed his men had put a screw at each end. Screws were men tioned in the specification. Mr. Cridland, the defendant, was also examined. He repeated that he had never driven a nail in the bar except the one in the middle. He did not know positively where he got that nail. It might have been one left by Mr. Walker's men. He had thought until now that the ends of the bar were fastened by screws. Mr. Serjeant Thomas, at the conclusion of the defendant's case, tendered I boy as a witness to show that he had seen the defendant a day or two after the accident nail down the end of the bar. The learned counsel stated that this boy had been discovered since the plaintiff's case had been con cluded. Mr. Collier, however, submitted that it would be unfair to him that such evidence should be received after his case had closed. His Lordship refused to receive the evidence, and subsequently, in summing up, he left it to the jury to consider whether the bar was at the time of the accident in the dangerous condition alleged by the plaintiff; and if so, was that bar the cause of the accident. The jury, after an hour's consideration, found for the defendant, adding, however, " at the same time the jury would express that they are very dissatis fied with the evidence of the defendant. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before a Special Jury.) KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZUMA. _ _ _ Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Dr. Addams, Q.C., and Mr. Giffard were counsel for the petitioner; Dr. Philli more, Q.C., and Mr. Thring for the respondent ; and Mr. Murphy for the co-respondent. The petition, presented by Mr. John Keats, was for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery. The respondents, Mrs. E. E. Keats and Don Pedro de Montezuma, pleaded a denial of the adultery, and the - wife further pleaded that since the filing of her answer the adultery, if committed, had been condoned. The petition also contained a prayer for damages from the co-respondent. The petitioner is the head of the well-known firm of Fortnum and Mason, in Piccadilly, and in 1856 filled the office of Sheriff o_ f London. In 1854 he _ was a widower with one son and two daughters • His age was 46, and he had an income estimated at upwards of £6,000 a-year. On 11th July in that year he married the respondent, then a Miss Marett, who resided at Barnes, and whose age was about 30. She had no fortune, and by the settlement he secured to her the interest of £lO,OOO during her life in the event of her surviving him, and one-fifth of that sum absolutely. After their marriage they resided sometimes at Braziers, an estate belonging to Mr. Keats in Oxfordshire, and sometimes at his town house in Gloucester-gardens. In 1857 they made a continental tour, staying for a short time at Lucerne, and on their return to England in September took the house No. 4, Brunswick-place, Brighton. Mr. Keats's term of office having ex pired he was frequently absent in town, because, in addition to his usual business, he had to attend to various matters connected with his office for the purpose of obtaining his " quietus," or discharge from responsibility. They saw a great deal of society, and about this time they were introduced to Don Pedro de Montezuma. This person was described by Mr. Phinn as a needy adventurer, who at one time gained his living as a teacher of .music in Dublin. He was a Spaniard by birth; his manners were at tractive, he had great musical talents and a very fine voice. Mr. Keats, a short time after the ac quaintance commenced, complained to his wife that Don Pedro's visits were too frequent, and high words appeared to have passed between them on the subject more than once. They continued, however, to live upon affectionate terms, and Dr. Carter, who attended Mrs. Keats during an illness, said that Mr. Keats's conduct on that occasion was as kind as possible; but Don Pedro's acquaintance was not given up. Early in Nov. they removed to London, and Mrs. Keats took charge on the journey of the portmanteau of Don Pedro, who shortly followed them. They took up their residence at a house in Westbourne-street, and there the visits of Don Pedro were renewed. Mr. Keats again complained, and appeared to have said or done something offen sive to Don Pedro, because on the 26th Nov. he wrote Don Pedro a letter apologising for his "warmth on Tuesday last," assuring him that no thing was further from his thoughts than to be guilty of rudeness, and asking him to forget what had passed, and come to dinner on the following Saturday. The quarrels with his wife on the subject of Don Pedro were, however, renewed, and his sus picions because so strong that he twice left the house, taking with him his two daughters, but on both occasions returned after a night's absence. Don Pedro was lodging in Norfolk-street, Strand and Mrs. Keats visited him two or three times. On one occasion she went in her carriage, accompanied by her maid, Alice Adams, who was sent to look at the Great Globe, Leicester-square, while she remained in Don Pedro's apartments for abouts two hours. Mrs. Keats at last proposed a separation, but before its terms could be agreed upon, the quarrels becoming more violent she left the house with her cousin, Mr. Marett, and her maid, and took lodgings in Ebury street, Pimlico. She remained there until Jan. 20, 1858, and wrote a kind letter, with her address to her husband. Don Pedro removed to lodgings in the same street, and was a constant visitor during her stay. On the 20th of Jan. she and Adams went to Dover, leaving no address at Ebury-street, and took rooms at the Lord Warden. A room was also taken close to those occupied by Mrs. Keats for Don Pedro. who soon followed them. A chamber maid saw him come out of Mrs. Keat's bedroom early one morning, Adams to whom this was told, then watched them one night, and saw him pass out of her room to his own. She told her mistress that she had heard remarks on her conduct, but Mrs. Keats only said that she must represent Don Pedro as her brother-in-law. In about a fortnight they returned to London, Mrs. Keats and Adams living for two or three days at the Euston Hotel, and Don Pedro at the Victoria, an hotel opposite. Mrs. Keats here received from her solicitor £lOO, the amount of a legacy which had been bequeathed to her. The party then proceeded to Dublin, and on the journey Mrs. Keats took off her wedding ring and presented it to Don Pedro. She also said, that in future she should pass by the name of Miss Marsh and Don Pedro changed his name to Don Juan de Monteblanco. On their arrival in Dublin they took lodgings, and passed as brother and sister-in-law. Although they did not occupy the same bedroom, the evidence of Adams proved that they there car ried on an adulterous intercourse. Adams further stated that Mrs. Keats very often cried when she was alone, and that her stock of jewels and dresses was rapidly decreasing. On the 11th of March Adams left because, she said, she did not think her mistress was leading a proper life, and entered the service of a family in Ireland. Mrs. Keats, about the same time, borrowed £3O or £4O from a friend of her husband, who happened to be at Dublin, and who implored her to be cautious in her conduct. At some subsequent period she appeared to have left Don Pedro, and to have returned to her mother, with whom she now resides. The principal witness to these facts was Alice Adams, whose deposition, taken in Ireland by a com mission, was read. Evidence was also given by the various lodging-house keepers with whom Mrs. Keats had lived. The case opened by Dr. Phillimore, on behalf of Mrs. Keats was, that she ought not to be punished for an offence which had been mainly caused by her husband's neglect and ill-treatment, founded on a jealousy at first without foundation. By allowing her to leave his house with no more than £lO in her pocket he had thrown her into the arms of her seducer. But the chief ground of opposition to the petition was that there had been full condonation after all the facts had been brought to his know ledge. The petition, which:contained averments of all the principal facts, and was verified by Mr. Keats upon his oath, was filed on the 22d of May last, and since that time he had been in communi cation with her family for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation. In October he wrote to her mother, Mrs. Marett, saying that he should be happy to enter into negotiations for the purpose of avoiding vexatious exposures, and that his " de ceived" wife had been the dupe of a " most out rageous organised family plot." He also wrote that he knew very little of the person who had undertaken the legal proceedings, and that the suit had been instituted contrary to his wish. Other letters were written to the same effect, and in October an aunt of Mrs. Keats', Miss Janverin; visited him by appointment, and they actually set out to the railway station for the pur pose of joining Mrs. Keats at St. Leonards, but on the road he called at his solicitor's, and went no further. A letter dated the sth Nov. was then received from him, stating that after the evidence which had just been brought to his knowledge he must decline all further communication except through his solicitor. But further communications were entered into, and as late as the 27th Nov., ' when there was no pretence for saying that fresh evidence had been discovered, a meeting actually took place between Mr. Keats, his wife, and her sister and brother-in-law. They conversed amicably for about an hour and a-half; he expressly declared that he forgave her, and at parting he shook hands and said, " Well, my dear, I hope we shall under stand one another better, but we must not refer to what has passed." No doubt, it was contended, he felt remorse for his unkindness, and was unwilling to punish an offence to which he had contributed ; but his family, who had always disliked the match, obliged him to go on with the suit. Leave had been obtained to place a plea of condonation on the record, and it was submitted that the plea would be fully proved by the letters and conversation of the petioner. Dr. Phillimore, in the course of his address, was appealing to the jury, as the guardians of public' morality, not to allow Mr. Keats to obtain the remedy he sought, when he was interrupted by Sir C. Cresswell, who said—The jury have a very simple duty to perform, to return a verdict accord ing to the evidence upon the issues placed before them. A jury cannot more efficiently guard what you call public morality than by confining their attention to the evidence. Dr. Phillimore said they could not altogethe► exclude from their consideration the consequences of their verdict. The Court adjourned before the opening of the case for the co-respondent. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YoRK, Dec. 10. (Before Mr. Baron Watson.) Thomas M'Voy, 28, and Ann Walsh, 19, were charged with having, on the 25th of July, at Leeds, robbed Jeseph Hampshire of five sovereigns, a half sovereign, four half-crowns, and other moneys. Mr. Middleton and Mr. Baines appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoners were not defended. The prosecutor, it appeared, is a stone mason at Huddersfield, and on the night of Saturday, the 24th of July, he went to Leeds to purchase some goods, and to spend the Sunday with his brother. He slept in Kirkgate on the Saturday night, and left between five and six o'clock on the following morning. When near his brother's house he went into a privy and fastened the door. While there a woman knocked at the door, and said, " Make haste, I'm in a hurry." The prosecutor refused to open it, and immediately afterwards two men and a woman came with a rush at the door, and broke it in. The prosecutor then saw Walsh, M'Voy, and two other men, by whom he was seized and robbed of £6 or £7, one of the parties holding him by the throat by placing his arm across it. They then ran away, and, being impeded by the state of 'his dress, he could not overtake them. On the following day M'Voy, who was in the company of . Walsh, went to Lister, a policeman, the street, and said he gave himself up for robbing a man in Somerset-street of V, in company of two young men he did not know. Walsh denied that she had anything to do with the robbery, and M'Voy now stated that it was a made-up tale. The prosecutor's brother was called as a witness, when His Lordship remarked that it was quite unne cessary to bring a witness at the expense of Go vernment to prove that there was a privy in Leeds. He had observed the same thing before in the Leeds cases, and he hoped the taxing officer would take care not to allow the expenses of these unnecessary witnesses. Mr. Compton, the taxing officer, said they were bound over to appear. Mr. Baron Watson said the magistrates' clerks ought to know their duty, and not send unneces sary witnesses. The jury found the prisoners guilty, and they were each.sentenced to four years' penal servitude. Immediately upon receiving her sentence the female prisoner made use of some disgusting lan guage to the judge, and, seizing a pair of handcuffs, she threw them with great violence among the pri soners who were in the dock. The officers had forcibly to remove her, his lordship observing to the jury, " Now, gentlemen, you see you are not far wrong in your verdict." Daniel Hanson, 34, was charged with having, on the 18th June, at Hipperholme, assaulted Sidney Ellis, and stolen from his person a silver watch, 4s. Bd., a bunch of keys, and a basket. Mr. Blanshard appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Campbell Foster defended the prisoner. The prosecutor, it appeared, is a schoolmaster, residing at Lightcliffe, near Halifax. He arrived by rail at the Lightcliffe station, at half-past 10 o'clock on the night of Friday, June 18, and he then proceeded towards his house, which is about a quarter of a mile from the station. On arriving halfway home three men walked behind him, threw him down, and rifled his pockets of his money. He kept his hand still on his waistcoat pocket, in which his watch was, when one of the men, tearing his hand away from his waistcoat, knelt upon his arm and took his watch. At this time he was held by the throat by a man behind him. , The man who took his watch he was quite certain was the pri soner, though he only saw him for an instant, as the men all then ran away over a wall, taking his basket, which contained some groceries, with them. He afterwards saw the prisoner in the gaol at Bradford, and identified him among six or seven other prisoners. He denied that he had then ex pressed some doubts about his identity, but did not then prefer the present chargé against him. The prisoner was in custody for some other offence, and was discharged, and he was not taken again into custody until three weeks afterwards on the pre sent charge. For the defence it was contended that the pro secutor was mistaken in the prisoner's identity, and that he had expressed himself as uneasy in his mind since at having sworn to him. Witnesses were also called who proved that at the time of the robbery the prisoner was sitting having a glass of ale with a friend in a beerhouse four miles from the scene of the robbery, and at 11 o'clock was seen to enter his own house, immediately on leav ing the beerhouse. His lordship asked the prosecutor if he could make anything of the case after this ; it was a very weak one to begin with. The learned counsel after what his lordship had said, would not press the case any further. The prisoner was then acquitted. LIVERPOOL, DEC. 11. (Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.) CHADWICK V. THE DEFENDER FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Mr. Monck, Q.C., and Mr. Joseph Fernley ap pear e 4 fof the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. James Fernley for the defendant. The action was brought to recover a sum of money alleged to be due on a policy against fire effected by the plaintiff with the defendants. Upon the part of the defendants it was averred that the plaintiff had made a fraudulent representation, whereby his right under the policy had become forfeited. Several policemen and firemen were examined, whose evidence went to show that about two o'clock in the morning of the 10th September last the plaintiff's premises were secure ; -that an alarm of fire was given in about half an hour afterwards, and that the fire engines were on the spot about three o'clock ; that the flames ceased to be observ able in little more than three minutes after the arrival of the engines ; and that the fire was com pletely extinguished and the engines withdrawn from operation before four o'clock. Mr. Cairns, the agent of the company, proved that the front bedroom above the shop was very slightly injured by the fire. Mr. Richardson, the architect, and Mr. Hancock surveyor to the office; spoke also as to the condition of the premises, and that the remains of wearing apparel found under the staircase bore no propor tion to the quantity alleged to have been destroyed. Various other witnesses were also called, who stated that they had riddled and examined the ashes and debris of the fire, and gave a minute detail of the various metal articles which were found in the dif ferent parts or the premises, showing that there was no proportion between the goods alleged to have :been destroyed and the remains discovered ; and that there appeared to be no ashes of the large chest containing clothes, which had been described by the plaintiff as having been consumed under the staircase. _ _ _ Mr. Monk, addressed the jury for plaintiff, who :in spite of a very long and searching cross-exami nation by Mr. Atherton, proved, with various other witnesses, that there was a large qudntity of furni ture in the shop at the time of the fire, and that it was so crowded up that there was scarcely room to pass up and down the shop. At this moment a juror interposing, said,—May I be allowed to ask you, Mr. Monk, if you think it necessary to address the Court . again ? The learned counsel glanced inquiringly at his Lordship, who said to the jury,—This is a question, gentlemen, pre-eminently for you to determine. The defendants, to succeed, must make out that this claim is a fraudulent one ; and if you are satis fied that that has not been made out without Mr. Monk addressing you— The foreman—We are, probably, all perfectly satisfied about it. A juror —We have written out our verdict to tha effect. His Lordship said, he might tell them the learned I counsel for the defendants was also entitled to ad dress them again. Another juror intimated that they were quite satisfied, unless Mr. Atherton had other evidence adduce to rebut that which had been adduced for the plaintiff. Mr. Atherton intimated that, under the circum stauces, it would clearly be unnecessary for him to address the jury. His Lordship said, a claim must be a fraudulent one to disentitle a plaintiff to recover ; and if the jury had so far made up their minds that this was not a fraudulent claim, it was not necessary to pro ceed further. The Jury—Perfectly so. 'llls Lordship said, the directors of an insurance company were bound, in duty to the public, not to encourage, fraudulent claims, for the very next time life was lost by wilful arson it might be thought it was owing to their undue acquiescence in unjust claims. Mr. Monk said he thought it right to say that the directors, from what had been told to them, had no other course before them than to institute an inquiry. The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £3OO, being the full amount of the policy; and acquitted him of fraud or any intent to defraud. • His Lordship then discharged the special jury, complimenting them upon the patience and judg ment they had given. The case occupied the Court the greater part of two days. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Hill.) William Procter, William East, and Jane East were indicted for an assault and robbery of James Mackay at Preston on the 30th of September last. Mr. Assheton Crosse prosecuted, and Mr. Higgin defended the prisoner. From the statement of the learned counsel, it appeared that the prosecutor, a private in the 22d Regiment, stationed at Preston, was in company with a fellow-soldier named Wilson at a public-house in Preston upon the night in question, and while there the two soldiers were joined by a woman named Ashworth, and after paying for some ale Mackay counted his money, which he put carefully into his pocket. At this time the three prisoners were also in the house, and observed what Mackay was doing. The two soldiers and the woman left the house, and after calling at another public-house were proceeding along the street when they were met by the three prisone rs , one of whom, East, im mediately ru s h e d at Mackay, knocked him down, and kicked him violently, and while down the other prisoner, Procter, fell upon him, unbuckled his belt and tearing away his jacket and shoulder strap, took from his waistcoat pocket 255. The prisoners then ran away. These facts were mainly attested by various witnesses, some of whom, however, gave rather a different account of the - transaction. His Lordship hereupon interposed, and asked the jury if they were satisfied upon the case which had been presented to them, upon which all of the jurymen, with one exception, stated that they were not. In consequence of which Mr. Higgin addressed the jury for the prisoners —who were all acquitted. His Lordship then said he should direct the pri soners to be indicted for an assault. Richard Griffin and James Griffin were indicted for feloniously cutting and wounding Thomas Welsby, at Ditton, on the 3d Oct. last. Mr. Assheton Cross and Mr. Scott prosecuted, and Mr. J. Fernley defended, the prisoners. The prosecutor and his uncle had been spending the Sunday evening at a beerhouse, but left sober. 'They had proceeded some distance towards home when , they met a man with a white slop on. He was the pr isoner James. He said " Good night."' Thomas Welsby answered " Good night," and instantly afterwards he was knocked down, and his uncle also. Thomas tried to get away, but was pursued and again ill-used. He was eventually left near a gate, where he was afterwards found so covered with blood that he was only identified by his clothes. - William Welsby, the uncle, managed to walk to a farm, where, singularly enough, the prisoners worked as servants. Mr. Swift, the occupier, on seeing him rendered him every assistance, at the same time identifying Richard Griffin. :About 4 o'clock in the same night both the men, who slept in [the granary, were taken into custody, blood being found on various parts of their dress. A third man was also present who wore a white slop, and who has since not been found. There were two large pools of blood discovered on the road near where the en counter had taken place, and various admissions were made by the prisoners to the police constables as to their having been at a beershop that night in that immediate neighbourhood, which they had left in a state of intoxication. Upon the part of the prisoners, it was urged that no direct proof had been given as to their identity. The learned judge sum:tied up with much care and at great length, and the jury, after retiring for some time, found the prisoners guilty of unlawfully wounding. His lordship, in a very impressive address, sen tenced each of the prisoners to 18 months' imprison ment with hard labour, adding that it was a fortunate circumstance the prosecutor's life was preserved, otherwise they would most assuredly have been guilty of murder. COUNTRY MAR KETS. LIVERPOOL—DBc. 11. At to-day's market there was no change made in any article excepting Indian corn, which had rather an upward tendency. CAMBRIII E—DEc. 11. At this corn market we had a fair supply of wheat. lll conditioned barley was a dull sale, but fine qualities sold at high prices. In other descriptions not much change. Wheat, white 4ss to 48s Beans , Mazagan..—s to —s I red 38s to 40s Middle & small 40s to 45s Barley 4os to 44s White peas 40s to 44 5 Oats CHELMSFO. IRD-DEC. 10. There was a moderate supply, and generally a dull mar ket, but prices remained without much change. Wheat, white 34s to 46s Peas, Partridge ..44s to 46s red 30s to 43s White 41s to 433 Barley 34a to 41s Boiling 42s to 4Ss Chevalier ....37s to 45s Dun 14s to 46s __ _ • Grinding .. 27s to 33s Beans, Tick ....38s to 40s Malt 70s to 73s Harrow Ticks 38s to 42s Chevalier ....72s 'to 73s I Mazagan 36s to 395 Oats 25s to 35s ROCHESTER-DEC. 11. Rather lower rates were asked for wheat of all qualities, and buyers operated cautiously. Good barley rather dearer, but no change in the value of other grain. White wheat, new, 42s to 45s Barley, grinding.. 28s to 33s Red do. 3Bs to 40s Oats, old, —a to -- - 3 Old white ' 42s to 46s New do 23s to 27s Red do. 38s to 40s Beans. 40s to 444 Barley, malting.... 36s to 40s Peas.. 42s to 41s LEICESTER—DEc. 11. The supply of wheat from the growers was good, and although an attempt was made to buy at a reduction, the farmers succeeded in obtaining last week's prices. Barley of fine quality maintained former rates ; indifferent sorts nearly unsaleable. Oats easier to buy. Thera was very little alteration in beans. STrkWIFORD—DEc. 11. There was about the usual attendance at our market this morning. Wheat was only in moderate request, but-any thing in good condition brought last week's rates. Oats a small show, and little doing. In other articles scarcely any change was observable. Wheat .... 37s to 41s Oats.. 24s to 26s White do 40s to 46s leans, new —s to 42s Barley 30s to 32s Ditto, old .. .4Bs to 49e 'NORWICH—DEC. 11. At our rnackei to-day wheat was very quiet ; full prices were askecl,',:cut little business was done. 'Flour was un changed. l3arley was more inquipd for, at the decline of last week ; nothing doing in foreign. Oats dull, and the turn cheaper. Beans and peas sold slowly; at late rates. Indian corn again nominal. DIIBLIN-DEC. 11. Our corn market to-day was as dull as any we ever wit nessed. We do not alter our quotations of Tuesday, but lower rates would have been submitted to if business could have been done. s. d. s. d. Wheat, white 22 6 to 24.6 Do., red 2l 6 to 22 6 Do., new Barley Oats Do y black ll 0 to 12 0 a. d. s. d. Do., new ll 6 to 13 0 Bere ll 6 to 12 6 Rapeseed Oatmeal l2 6 to 14 6 Bakers' flour Indian corn We regret to state that the big bell, the gift of Cardinal Wolssy, and the pride and boast of Sherborne, terminated its career on Sunday evening in last week. As the ringers were ringing for service it cracked, so that it is no longer fit for use.--Bath Chronicle. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND ThiIARING..- SPEC. TACLES.—POWERFUL TELESCOPES.—OPERA_, RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE GLASSES. - Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, opticians, 39, -Albermarle-Street, Piccadilly. Observe— opposite the York Hotel, W.—Opera, Race-course, Field, and general Out-door Day and Night Perspective Glasses, very small, for the waistcoat pocket, each containingl2 and 18 lenses, constructed of German glass. Will show dis ' tinctly a person to know them at two-and-a-half and three miles, and an object from eight to ten miles distant. Her Majesty's Coast Guards are making usCof them as day and night glasses in preference to all others ; they are also pre ferred for deer-stalking by sportsmen, gentlemen, and gamekeepers. Telescopes 31 inches long, by which a per son may be clearly seen and known at 3f miles' and an object at 12 to 14 miles' distance; and with an extra astro nomical eye-piece, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings, and the double stars are - distinctly seen. All the above can be had of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers, and are secured by her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent. The Royal Exhibition, 1851. A valuable, newly invented, very small, powerful Waistcoat-pocket Glass, the size of a walnut, by which a person can be Nell and known one and a half mile distant. They answer every purpose on the Race-course and at the Opera houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly seen at four to six miles. They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, game keepers, and tourists. Price 30s.—Spectacle Lenses of the greatest transparent power. The great' advantage derived 'from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired is preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons are enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupation —can see with those lenses of a much less magnifying power, and they do not require the frequent changes to the dangerous effects of further powerful assistance. Persons can be suited at the most remote part of the world by send ing one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, and stating the distance from the eyes they can read small print with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by stating theirage. Deafness.—New Discovery.—The Organic Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful small newly-invented instrument for Deafness,, entirely different from all others, surpasses anything of the kind that has been, or probably ever can be, produced. Being of the same colour as the skin, is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to hear distinctly at Church and at public assemblies ; the unplea sant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely re • moved, and it affords all the assistance that possibly could be desired.-39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe— opposite the York Hotel, W. BIRTITS. BATSMAN.—On the 11th inst., Mrs Henry Bateman, of 32, Compton-terrace, Islington N., of a daughter. BALnocx..—On the 7th inst., at Southill, Beds, the wife of the Rev. C. Baldock, of a daughter. DAVIES.—On the 11th inst., at 38, Clapham-road-placet the wife of Alfred D. Davies, Esq., of a daughter. MEEsoN.—On the 6th inst., at 7, Carlisle-terrace, Bow, the wife of Mr. Edwd. Meeson, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. ATKINS—PARIS.—On the 10th inst., at St. Mark's, Albert road, Robert Augustus Atkins, Esq., St. Asaph, Flint, ° to Jane Gregor , fourth daughter of the late John Paris, Esq., M . D., F.R.S., President of the Royal College of Physicians. HORSFALL—OGILVY.—On the 9th inst., at St. Michael's Church, Coventry, Thomas Marsh Horsfall, Esq., 16th King's Hussars, eldest son of Thomas B. Horsfall, Esq., M.P., to Emily Sarah Lingard, daughter of Jas. Ogilvy, Esq., M.D., of Coventry. DEATHS. AMSTED.—On the 11th inst., at 29, Penton-place, Penton ville, James Ansted, Esq., aged 88. BEAUCHAMP.—On the 9th inst., at 4, Alexander-placey Brompton, Mr. C. Beauchamp, aged 30. BOATES.—On the Bth inst., in consequence of a fall from his horse, Henry Ellis Boates, of Rosehill, Denbighshire, late of the Horse Guards, Blues, aged 64. BOWER.—On the 9th inst., Anne, the second daughter of Major Bower, High-grove, Cheadle, Cheshire. HAYWARD.—On the 7th inst., at Kensington, William Hayward, Esq., Deputy-Commissary-General, aged 83- SMITH.—On the Bth inst., at Welton Garth, near Hunt John Smith, -Esq., one of H.M.'s Justices of the Peace for the East Riding, aged 71. TAYLOR.—On the Ist inst., at Alton Lodge, Richmond , Richard Taylor, Esq., F.S.A., F.L.S., &c., of Red-lion court, Fleet-street, printer, aged 77. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Monday, Decade:. 13, 1668. W. 4 LECt .nteresti SIOLoG Sopi tY Auth :k ti b Li ep r t i t or hie i s st t : u n o iute ~° y 1 ~~~ l aßtit 4 etli u Thi s u W Poe Offi:eii e Yhold h ue rat es ()kg , at thi • --ary sOltw i j v N] • ,11 ; 9; — Tati ons, ttrzuttie Par . "*. (111 Ee etY's WIL I , t , tred x in4 Th y Baru itaght E w u lTerie, ard Cha i.r °lll ECII. t a " A 'eXall( rt Nv StR -.Gtox S OLICIT ACTu. L° LAN,