The Sun. — London, England, 1859-12-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 20. -0. ____ COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) ANTHONY T. ANTHONY. This was a petition by Eleanor Sophia Anthony, praying for a judicial separation from her husband, Mark Anthony, on the ground of cruelty. The respondent denied the charge. De..Spinles wad Mr. D. Keane appeared for the petitioner •, Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the respondent. The partiee were married at Surbiton on the 18th of April, 1846. They cohabited in various parts of London until 1856, and have had three daughters, Pheebe, Constance, and Grace, born respectively in 1849, 1851, and 1853. Mr. Anthony is an artist by profession. Mrs. Anthony, in her examination, stated that her maiden name was Marshall. In 1853 she and her hus band were living at Bayswater. Just before her last child was born she repeatedly asked him for money to buy clothes, but he would not give her any. She obtained £2 after her confinement from Mrs. Lucy, a friend of hers, to whose husband Mr. Anthony had lent £lO. When Mr. Anthony was informed of it he was very angry, and ordered his bedroom to be locked against her. After that con finement he never returned to her room, but slept with her occasionally. They had a servant named Emma Bennett, and about this time she discovered her sitting on Mr. Anthony's' knees. She imme diately told her to leave the house. Bennett said she would not go unless her master discharged her. Mr. Anthony said, " She will get no discharge from me." One day in May, 1853, Mr. Anthony had been out sketching, and came home to tea. He told Bennett to make tea for him. She said Ben nett should never take her place at the tea-table while she was in the house. Mr. Anthony then struck her over and over again on the head with such violence that all her combs were broken, and her temples were much bruised, and pushed her violently out of the room. She fell on the mat, where she lay until Mrs. Dann came downstairs and helped her up. Mr. Anthony occupied a bedroom next to that of Bennett, and her room we's on the floor below. She was frequently disturbed by noises overhead, ,and one night she went upstairs, and saw Mr. Anthony coming out of Bennett's room in his nightshirt. The Judge Ordinary doubted whether this evi dence was admissible, as it tended to show that the husband had been guilty of adultery. Dr. Spinks submitted that the statute did not exclude the evidence of a husband or wife as to adultery, except in suits instituted in consequence of adultery. This suit was instituted in conse quence not of adultery but of cruelty. The judge Ordinary T -You are quite right. It is rather a curious state of things, but so the law stands. Mrs. Anthony continued—When she accused her husband of having committed adultery with Bennett, he told her to mind her children. She frequently requested him to send Bennett away, but he would not. In April, 1854, Bennett's sister came to live in the house. In the following July she remarked to Mr. Anthony that this sister was not a respectable girl, upon which he threw a jug of hot coffee in her face. On another occasion, when she was reproaching him with believing Ben nett rather than her, he threw a jug of cold water over her. He also struck her a dreadful blow on the head. One of her fingers was accidentally cut to the tendon, and he would not allow it to be dressed for five hours. In June, 1855, she received a letter from her mother which annoyed him, and he called her vile names and pushed her oat of the room with a chair. In July, 1855, she went on a visit to her father-in-law at Washford, and Mr. Anthony told her when she was starting that she had lest her home, and he intended to make Emma Bennett " lord over many things." She was absent five weeks, and when she returned he made a great piece of work because she had spent 15s. that she had taken with her in washing for herself and the children. About the same time he told Bennett in her pre sence that she had accused Bennett of stealing cur rants, that she was a very bad wife, and Bennett must watch her, and that Bennett might say what she liked 'of her. Bennett was very insolent to her. He then threw her out of the room and kicked her. When her father-in-law died in October, 1855, Mr. Anthony provided similar mourning dresses for her and the children and the servants. He refused to allow her a bit of velvet in addition. He told her he wished she woulergo away, and offered to allow her £5O a-year. When she asked how she was to live he said he saw no necessity for her living at all, but if she must live she might prostitute herself. Bennett always had charge of the keys of the house. She once accused Bennett of trying to put some thing in her beer, upon which Bennett endeavoured to lock her in the coal teller, and sent for a police man, but he refused to interfere. Mr. Anthony was then out, and when he returned he told her it would have done her good to be incarcerated. He then wrote Bennett a check for her - wages. Bennett, by her husband's directions, allowed her half a pint of porter for dinner, and half a pint for supper. and she had to take it in herself. In 1855 Mr. Anthony went to Paris, and before going told the servants not to wait on her if she d:d anything disagreeable to them. They never did wait on her, arld ovhcu he came back he said it served her right. She told him he was driv ing her out of her senses by his 'cruelty, and he said he did not think she had brains enough to go mad. In January, 1856, he beat her with his maulstick for asking him to discharge Bennett. She was so reduced that she at last made up her mind to leave the house, and on the 6th Oct. 1856, she went away with the two youngest children. She went first to a sister of Mr. Anthony's,' at Kentish-town, and then took lodgings. [A letter she had received from Mr. Anthony was read, in which he affec-, tionately asked her to return, and said that Emma should leave if she interfered with her or treated her with disrespect ; hut he looked on Emma in the meantime as " a valuable servant, probably placed by circumstances in a false position which she did not properly understand.' To this Mrs. Anthony replied that she should not return until Emma had left the house, and in a long letter re capitulated her various causes of complaint against Emma and Mr. Anthony. She wrote another letter a few days afterwards repeating her reproaches, and saying she should not return. He replied shortly that he was much shocked at the step she had taken, and again urged her to come home.] Oa the 19th November in the same year Mr. Anthony visited her, and asked her to go home. She inquired whether the woman had left the house. He said " No," and she said she would never return while Bennett was under his roof. He then Carried, off the second child Constance. The two elder chil dren had since been brought to see her by Bennett. The youngest remained in her custody. Mrs. Anthony added that she had frequently stood for a model to her husband with the greatest willingness, and on one occasion he had beaten her naked flesh with a furze bush. Cross-examined—She was 37 yeqrs of age at the time of the marriage, and he was 28. She had known him for, three years before - that time: w Dr. Deane as crossexarninino• her about a per son named Richards, to whom she had paid visits before her marriage, when— Dr. Spinks objected to questions relating to what had happened before the marriage. • Dr, Deane submitted that they were relevant, as they tended to show that the petitioner was not a fit person to have the custody of one of the children, for which she prayed. His Lordship held that the-evidence was inad missible, as the question of the custody of the chil dren was distinct from that of cruelty. Mrs. Anthony was then cross-examined at con siderable length, and admitted that she had a sister, Mrs-Winston, to whom her husband took a great dislike, and with whom she used to correspond, through Bennett, unknown to her husband, and. receive into the hoase when he was absent. Mrs. .Winston did not live with her husband ; he was too great a brute. She denied that she had ever sent or taken provisions or wine to Mrs. Winston or her mother except on one occasion. Then she sent a veal pie and a bottle of porter, because her sister was ill in bed with a broken leg. She had trecused the servants of taking wine and other things, for she believed they had done so. Mr. Anthony never accused her of pawning her clothes. Re could never have made such an accusation un less ho liad dreamt it. She denied that she ever took the poker to her husband, or that she broke a quantity of croe'ke'ry when he threw the water over her, but she did break a china jug. • The quarrel bega n w i t h a di spute about some towels. She had had an allowance of £BO a-yearfw hic,erher since t the separa tion. Sh e h a d h ear d that after departureshe h had H oniton lace veil- an d other articles accused the ser van t s o f steal i ng were fband between place a her -' mattress and h er b e d , b ut she did not lace them there. When sh e l e f t h er h us b and was in a very bad state of health. When ho took away Constance there was a great disturbance, the child was dragged between them and screamed, and the landlady of the house sent for a policeman, to whom Mr. Anthony said she had robbed him ; bat the policeman, finding that she was his wife, refused to take her in charge. Dr. Norton proved that in August, 1855, he was called in to see Mrs. Anthony, antiiaund her , in a . .• state of great excitement, arising, as she said, from the ill-usage of the servants, acting under Mr. Anthony's direction: In that month, during Mr. Anthony's absence in the country, she ran away from' her house one evening. Bennett came and told him, and he went out, and about half-past 11 found her in Westbourne-grove, so excited that she hardly knew what she was about, She said she intended to throw herself into the canal. He prescribed se- ' dative medicines, and a nourishing diet. In the fol lowing November Mr. Anthony called and asked by what authority he had attended Mrs. Anthony, after a letter he had lately received. - He said he thought it was his duty as a professional man to attend an opprested woman, as he considered. Mrs. Anthony to be, whenever he was called upon. Mr. Anthony made some strong remark about horse whipping, at which he smiled. He did not attend Mrs. Anthony after November, 1855. In c ross-examination, Dr. Norton denied that Mrs. Anthony's excitement, on any occasion when he attended her arose from drunkenness. The ser vants did not behave improperly to her in his pre sence. _ Mrs. Jane Dann, a needlewoman, who had worked for the Anthonys since 1850, described Mr. An thony's conduct to his wife as much worse than that of any other husband she had ever known, and cor roborated Mrs. Anthony's evidence in various par ticulars. As to Mrs. Anthony, she said she never in her life met with a lady of " such refined taste, and who was such a Christian woman." A few months after the birth of the last child Mr. An thony forbade her to cro to the house. Mrs. Jones, the landlady of a house at Kentish town, in which Mrs. Anthony was lodging when the child Constance was taken away, described what passed on that occasion, confirming Mrs. Anthony's statement. Mrs. Anthony was in a very bad state of health. James Price, the policeman who was called in on the same occasion, was also examined. Dr. Deane having opened the respondent's case, called Emma Bennett, who said-1 now live in Mr. An thOny's service. I first went there in the autumn Of 1851, when I was 21 years of age. Mr. and Mrs. Anthony were generally very comfortable then. Mrs. Anthony's conduct changed about 1853. Her language then became very violent and obscene. She once threatened to stab Mr. Anthony in 1854, and she had a carving knife in her hand. I have seen her throw a knife at him across the supper table. In 1854 Mrs. Winston came to the house. When I first entered the service Mr. Anthony gave me orders never to admit Mrs. Winston. On many occasions in 1852, 1853, and 1854 I took provisions and wine out of the house by my mistress's orders to her mother's house and to Mrs. Winston's. She lived at a baby-linen warehouse opposite the Marble Arch, and went by the name of Mrs. Brown. I have taken notes to her from Mrs. Anthony, directed to Mrs. Gordon. She went by that name in 18 54 . I received letters from Mrs. 'Winston on many occa sions. 'They were for my mistress, but were ad dressed to me. When Mr. Anthony was away Mrs. Winston almost made the house her, home—dining, taking tea, and supping there. She and Mrs. An thony drank wine at dinner and stout at supper. Mr. Anthony only drank wine on Sundays. Mr. Francis came late one night when Mrs. Winston was supping there, and my mistress said " Perhaps it, is your master,. don't open." When I did open the door Mrs. Winston was hidden in a closet. In the early part of 1854 1 was questioned About some wine that was missing. Mrs. Anthony accused Lucy and me of takingeit. I denied the charge. I never had taken wine. I had seen Mrs. Anthony go out of the house with bottles in May, 1854 or 1855. I told Mr. Anthony - that when the charge was made. I never .had the key of the cellar, but I had the key of the store closet given me about August 1855. Mrs. Anthony also accused me of taking currants. She was a very extravagant housekeeper. At other times she accused me ofstealing a Honiten lace veil, a pair of gloves, a penknife, and 2s. On one occasion, when Mr. Anthony was sleeping upstairs in the room next mine, Mrs. Anthony came up to my bed room and accused me of having master there. He was never in my room. I never sat on Mr. Anthony's knee, but she accused me of having done it. The quarrel about the tea began by her refusal to make it. Mr. Anthony ordered me to make tea, and she dared me to do it, and pushed me out of the room. When Mr. Anthony threw the jug of water over her it was in self-defence, she having thrown the butter dish and breadbasket at him. Her finger was cut in the struggle, and Mr. Anthony patched it up. In 1854 and 1855 Mrs. Anthony's health was not very good. Dr. Norton told me she was not to go out alone. She did go out alone. She had everything becoming her station in the way of dress. She was very slovenly. When Mr. Anthony's father died I bought the mourning for all the family, and she had a mantle and black bonnet different from ours. She always seemed to have plenty of money. Mr. Anthony was always kind to her. When Mrs. Anthony went away he had been absent from home for about a month. Cross-examined—Mr. Anthony was always kind to me. In 1854 I had a sister called Betsey, whom I frequently visited. I did not tell her that I and Mr. Anthony had " broken the cold ice." My sister Ellen never wrote to congratulate me upon it. She did write me a letter congratulating me upon " having broken the cold ice" not with " Mr. A.", but with " H." I have the investigation of both Mr. and Mrs. Anthony into that matter, and their signatures, that they were quite satisfied: He never told me not to mind Mrs. Anthony. I once shut her in the kitchen because she accused me - of poisoning her beer, and I sent for a policeman to her. I never threatened her or used violence towards I never heard her insist upon my being sent from the house. I have said I would not leave so long as I suited master. Re-examined—'When sent for the policeman I told her to give me in charge if I had poisoned her beer. Dr. Norton also came, and said she must have been drinking. To his Lordship—l never heard of her having any - combs broken or of having her temple bruised. Efeza Baylis, who had lived in service with the Anthonys in 1853, 1854, and 1855 as nurse, corro borated the last witness. She was called Lucy in the house. Mrs. 'Anthony, sen., the mother of the respon dent, said, that he was kind to his wife as far as she con ldjedge. After the separation she came to Lon don to' try and reconcile them. His wife said the cause of her, departure was jealousy of Bennett. Mr. Anthony promised to get rid of Bennett, but she still refused to return. She appeared fond ofswine, and would probably have taken more than was good for her if she had been allowed. Mark Anthony—l am a painter. I was introduced to my wife by Mr. Kendrick. In 1853 I forbade my wife to have any intercourse with Mrs. Winston. I afterwards learnt that she had communicated with her. I discovered one day at dinner that some particular sherry that I was very fond of was all gone, and I spoke to my with about it. • She said she did not know what had become of the wine. The servants were called up. They denied that they had taken it, but said their mis tress took wine regularly when I was away, and moreover sent it and took it out of the house to her mother and to Mrs. Winston. She said she could not account for its disappearance, but supposed the girls must have false keys to the cellars. I inves tigated the matter, and had no alternative but to believe that•she had taken it. I then took pos session of the key of the cellar. There were other discussions about tea and currants, and various things that were missing. She accused Bennett of stealing them. I learnt on looking into the trades men's books that more things were charged for than we could have consumed. The result was that I took charge of the household expenses, and they decreased by about one-half. On my returning one day from sketching I had some angry words with my wife about some money she had obtained from Mrs. Lucy. She said she would not make tea for me, and threw the keys at me. I touched the bell for Bennett, and desired her to make it. She got up and ejected Bennett from the room. In trying to prevent her I am sorry to say I boxed her cars with my open hand. I regret having done so, but the blow was not a violent one. On another occa sion we had a quarrel about a towel, in the course of which I threw a jug of cold water over her, and she broke a bread-basket, a butter-dish, and a very nice jug, for which I had given £5, and I am ashamed to say I struck her with my fist. On another occasion, being greatly irritated by her, I threw the coffee grounds in my cup upon her. With those exceptions I never struck her or was guilty of any violence whatever towards her, nor did I use threats or irritating language. She shared my money with me, and had plenty of clothes and a few jewels or trinkets. There was plenty and I to spare of food. The children were well taken care of when Lucy had charge of them. When my wife's finger was cut I attended to it. From Janu ary to October, 1853, we were living on excel lent terms; whenever a difference arose I requested her to leave the room, or else left it my self. After she separated from me I urged her to return, and promised on my honour to send away Bennett, but she refused. She had been very jea lous of Bennett. It is not true that she ever saw me, comin- , from Bennett'; bedroom. We had separateeou r health,seandnbledwsrs in bedrooms in 1851 in consequence of m y consequence discontinued o all f n a th i t e r t i t i e n r o al receivedin inter course in her tiother, and of.thc revolting language she th e e usedn fer b ese and tine tome. She has ee egreencsitv child sinceedB2a yearespfela:ol.e.ar: ilt tion. The child. was to rem a i n w ith'h er unt i l s years of age, which it will be next February. Cross-examined—Bennett had: " meddled, with" . Mrs. Anthony's letters by my orders. She has complained, but not again and again, of my sub jecting her to Bennett. I did not think that either my property or my honour was safe with her, and therefore I told •Bennett to send me her letters. I refused to discharge Bennett. I was so pained when I struck her with my fist that I never struck her afterwards, Two or three years ago she coin- icr. menced a suit against me in the Ecclesiastical Ccrurt zrt. To his Lordship--She came upstairs one night, and went to retmett's room. She did not find me in the passage. — I was not in my bedroom, but in my dressing-room. It was 12 or 1 o'clock. I had been in bed. My room and dressing-room were in darkness. I had just got into my dressing-room when she came up. Dr. Deane summed up ; Dr. Spinks replied, and His Lordship took time to consider his decision. ASSIZE INTELLIGENaR. MIDLAND CIRCUIT—WARWICK, rec. 20. John Kington, aged 22, was indicted for the wil ful murder of Elizabeth Ann Kington, his wife, at Coventry, ou the 12th of November last. Mr. Spooner and Mr. Adams appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner pleaded The learned Judge said that he trusted that the prisoner had not adopted such a course under any hope or persuasion that it would be better for him in this world if he did so. The prisoner in a low voice said that it was of no use, and that he could not plead against his con science. A plea of guilty having been recorded on the coronet's inquisition, the prisoner handed in a writ ten paper, the perusal of which occupied the learned judge for some minutes. On concluding it his lord ship said he trusted that the prisoner did not wish the contents of the paper to be read publicly. The prisoner persisted in his resolution of having it read in public, and expressed a wish that the clergyman who had acted as his spiritual adviser should be called. The Rev. Mr. Widdrington, vicar of St. Michael's, was then sworn, and stated that the prisoner had acted under his advice in pleading guilty, and that otherwise his spiritual ministrations would have been unavailing to the prisoner. He had made in quiries respecting the case, and had examined the evidence given before the magistrates and the coro ner, and he could come to no other conclusion than that the proofs were overwhelming, and that the prisoner had committed an atrocious murder. He had assisted in drawing up the written statement, in conformity with the wishes of the prisoner, and for the purpose of its being handed to the judge. The learned Judge said that the rev. gentleman seemed to have mistaken the effect of the plea of not guilty, which was only to put the prosecution upon proof of the crime. Mr.lViddrington replied that the prisoner had sug gested to him that he did not wish the last act of his life to be the pleading a false plea. He assented to a suggestion from the learned judge that the paper had been drawn up under his advice. .The learmad Judge then said—l have read it through. It appears to me that it is not advisable that it should bc.) read in public. You know to what I Mr. Widdrington at once admitted the force of the observation, and, after some little persuasion, the prisoner was induced to forego the reading of the paper. The learned Judge then put on the black cap, and said—Prisoner at the bar; you have been found guilty on your confession of the murder of your wife. I have read through the depositions of the witnesses before the coroner and the committing magistrates, and having done so, and finding their evidence conclusive, itAs not a matter of surprise or regret to me that you have thought it better to plead guilty, not in hopes of obtaining mercy in this world, but from a consciousness that the evi dence was overwhelming, and in order to avoid the pain of hearing the details of your crime proved by the witnesses in face of the public. You have handed in a paper, which I have read, and which. I will take care shall be forwarded to the proper quarter. But lam bound to say that there is no thing in it to justify you in hoping that mercy will be extended to you. I have prayed you not to have that paper read in public. It contains imputations on others of the most dreadful kind, and I should regret that the last act of your life should have been to impute to others such a dreadful crime as that which you have suggested. I have no wish to in crease your pain, but it is my duty to pass upon you the sentence of the law, and I can hold out to you no hope of mercy in this world The learned judge then proceeded to pass sentence of death in the usual form. Mr. Widdrington said that he was satisfied that a proper course had been taken ia respect to the reading of the statement, and that he was anxious that it shculd be understood that he was convinced of the innocence of the party implicated by it. The circumstances of the case were of a shocking description. The prisoner is said to have been sub- ject to fits. His marriage had been an unhappy one. He had ill-treated his wife, and appears, to have nourished suspicions as to her conduct. On the day in question they were living apart, but he met her in tue streets of Coventry., took her to _a field on the foot road from Coventry to Stoke, knocked her down and cut her throat, severing the carotid artery, the windpipe, and, indeed, all the arteries leading to the spine. The business of the assizes terminated shortly after three o'clock this afternoon. MIDDLE_EX SESISIOXS.LDec. 20. (Before the Assistant-Judge.) William Strongthorn, 22, and Henry Mathews, 40, carman, were indicted for stealing four decan ters, value 12s 6d, and other articles, the property of Geo. P. Bone and Co. ' the masters of Mathews. Mr. Metcalfe was for the prosecution; Mr. Sleigh defended Mathews ; and Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared for Strongthorn, who by his advice pleaded guilty. The prosecutors are glass dealers, and had a ware house in Charlotte-mews, Tottenham-court-road, and the prisoners were detected in the act of remov ing property therefrom ; and from the fact of their detection being the result of suspicion, it was in ferred that the same thing had been carried on for some time. The jury found Mathews guilty, and the learned Judge sentenced him to 12 months and Strongthorn to 6 months' hard labour. In the case of the Queen v. Farina, which had been several times adjourned, against Pietro Farina for indecent conduct in the Regent's-park in the presence of females, the defendant had absconded, and was, it was believed, now in Madrid. Mr. Sleigh, on the part of the Associate Institute for the Protection of Women, applied to the court for the costs and the discharge of the recognisances of the witnesses for the prosecution, as there was no chance whatever of the defendant being taken or surrendering. The court made the order. John Braisher, 27, was indicted for feloniously receiving a gold watch and chain, value £l5, the property of Thomas Berry. Mr. Sleigh prosecuted. The prisoner was de fended by Mr. Ribton. This case occupied the attention of the court the greater portion of the day, but its nature may be given in a few sentences. The prosecutor kept a public-house called the Great Western, in Hamp ton-street, Harrow-road, and in March last he had in his service a boy, who was persuaded by the prisoner, who used to frequent the house, to rob his master. The cash-box was the first thing he sug gested, but as that was not obtainable, the prisoner told him to get hirn anything he could, and he would reward him. The boy unfortunately yielded to this solicitation, and stole his master's watch and chain from his bed-room, giving them to the pri soner, who compensated him with a shilling. Lately information was obtained by Sergeant Potter, 348 A, a detective attached to the 1) division reserve, which led him to find the ho y, who was then in a respectable situation, and hid maintained an honest character; and when he asked about the watch he burst into tears and told all about it—how he got it, who had it, and what he got for the theft. In consequence the prisoner was apprehended, and evidence was adduced corroborative of the boy's statements. Of 'course he was the principal witness against the prisoner on his trial to-day, and the defence mainly relied upon by the learned counsel for the prisoner was that there was not that amount of corroboration which alone would justify a jury in convicting a prisoner upon the evidence of an ac complice. After a most careful summing up by the learned judge, the jury retired, and, a considerable time having elapsed, came into court and pro nounced the prisoner guilty. A former conviction for felony was then proved against him. The Assistant-Judge said the prisonek had been ably defended, and everything had been sifted which could tell in his favour. He felt bound, however, to say, not only that he concurred in the verdict, but that he thought no twelve reasonable men could have arrived at any, other conclusion ; and the verdict had only been given after careful and de liberate consideration Sergeantrotter said he could produce four other boys. whom the prisoner had tutored to thieve for his benefit. The AssistantiJudgesaid it would be an idle and useless waste of words to dwell upon the enormity of the 'prisoner's conduct, and the sentence upon him was that he be/kept in penal servitude for 1.5 years. His lor4ship said 'that comment having been made as to the officer Potter, he wished to say, publicly, that his conduct had been that of an active, zealous, and praiseworthy officer. The prosecution had been a most useful one, and had rerulted in a most dangerous person being removed from society —a person who had induced innocent children to commit crime for his benefit. Charlotte Hobbs, convicted of shoplifting, on the prosecution of the Society for the Prosecution of Shoplifters, was brought up for judgment, and three former convictions were proved against her. She was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. Mr. Orridge was for the prosecution. (Before Mr. Creasy.) • James Calvert, 40, and William Chopping, 27, labourers, were indicted for stealing 1 cwt. 3 qrs. of sugar, valve 505., the property of Thomas Morrison Fairelough, the employer of Wm. Chop. ping. Calvert pleaded guilty. Mr. Poland prosecuted ; Chopping was unde fended. Frederick L. Grace said he was clerk te Mr. Fair clough, carman, of No. 10, Christian-street, St. George's, and' knew both the prisoners, who had been employed by him, but Calvert was discharged about six months ago. The other prisoner had been in his employ for a year and a half up to Saturday, the 10th inst. On that day Chopping went with a waggon and three horses for 60 bags of sugar to the London Docks. Witness was down in the neigh bourhood of the docks, and saw the van at the cor ner of a street with apparently no one attending to it. Observing the tarpaulin tied down over the front of the van, he turned it up a little and looked under it, when he saw the legs of a man. He waited about 10 minutes, when Chopping came up, and being asked what made him so long, he said he had only just come from the docks. The witness then observed a bag of sugar under the tarpaulin diffe rent in appearance to the others, which excited his suspicions, and accordingly he took a cab and fol lowed the waggon until he met with a policeman. The policeman got into the waggon, where he found Calvert concealed under the tarpaulia, and a knife (produced) lying beside him. It was then found that four bags had been cut, sugar abstracted from each, and placed in the bag which had been noticed as differing in appearance from the rest. Both pri soners were taken into custody. John Fry, police-constable, 320 K, proved taking the prisoners into custody, and that when he saw Calvert in the waggon his hands were covered with sugar, and a bag of sugar cut open was close by. While searching him at the station-house he threw away a packing-needle threaded with twine. The prisoner was found guilt►, and, with his com panion, sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months and hard labour. William Grove, 43, baker, was indicted for steal ing a barrow and 70 loaves of bread, value £B, the property of George Murray. He was also indicted for stealing a basket, a bladder of lard, 211 b. of flour, and a sack, the property of Alexader Boag. He was further indicted for stealing a truck, a basket, and 18 loaves of bread, value £2 165., the property of James Marshall. The prisoner is a baker, li v i ng a t K ew , an d i n each case it appeared that as soon as a baker's man left his truck for the purpose of delivering bread at the house of a customer the prisoner took advantage of his absence and went off with the truck and con tents, making the best use of his time to wheel it away. In the first case it was ascertained that the truck had been sold to a marine store-dealer at Brentford, and 30 of the stolen loaves were found in the prisoner's bakehouse. He was convicted. Mr. Creasy sentenced the prisoner to imprison ment and hard labour for six months. An old woman, 70 years of age, named Mary Chipperfield, was indicted for fraudulently obtain ing from Richard Thomas Tubbs, assistant overseer of the parish of St. Marylebone, parochial relief, by the false pretence that she was destitute and was entitled to such relief, when, in fact, she was not destitute, having at the time £4O of her own money in a savings bank. She pleaded that she was guilty but not with a guilty knowledge, and Mr. Creasy directed a plea of not guilty to be entered for her. Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed by the parish authorities of Marylebone to prosecute this woman for a fraud upon the ratepayers in obtaining relief as a destitute person, when she had means of her own at command ; but they had no wish to press for any punishment, the real object beimg to teach her and others who carried on these practices, not only in Marylebone, but in other parishes, that they were liable to punishment for obtaining relief by false pretences as to their destitute condition. The prisoner, by her plea, admitted the act, but seemed to think, as no doubt others did, that there was no harm in it. It was necessary that they should be taught that there was, as the money the ratepayers had to pay was intended for the really destitute and poor ' • and to meet the clai ms o f th ose they had quite calls enough from the collector. The evidence having been given, by which it was proved that the prisoner had received money and bread as relief for a considerable period, by repre senting that she was destitute and distressed, while she had this money in the bank, The jury found . her guilty, but st rong ly recom mtnded her to meriy. Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed to say that the parish officers did not wish anything to be done with this old woman, more than that she should be held by, a recognisance to appear for judgment should it be found necessary to bring her up. It would be a warning to others. Mr. Creasy said the prisoner had been convicted of an offence for which sho was liable to a severe punishment; but as the jury had recommended her to mercy, and the parish officers had kindly sug gested that they would be satisfied that she should enter into a recognisance merely, he had no wish to take any other course than that—especially con sidering the prison er ' s years. B ut, at the sparne time,itwas a very m i sc hi evous fraud upon the ratepayers, who were heavily taxed to support the really poor and destitute ; and they must be pro tected from such imposition. The parish had done only its duty in directing this prosecution ; but, after what had been suggested, he should direct the prisoner to be discharged, after entering into a recognisance to appear if required. Jeremiah Connell, 20, was found guilty of vio lently assaulting William Edwards and John Canter, two metropolitan police-constables, in the execution of their duty. The prisoner had been convicted six or seven times of similar assaults, and seemed to take a glory in kicking any polic eman w h o i nterfered to prevent his creating disturbances, or fighting in the streets. Th e assault now in question was committed in Crawford-street, near a public-house where he had been immoderately drinking. The learned Judge sentenced him to 10 months' hard labour. Mr. Cooper prosecuted by direction of the court, not, as is usual, instructed by the Treasury, through th e commissioners of Police. Mr. Poland defended the prisoner._ POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 20. SOUTHWARK.—Benjamin Pollock, a respect able-looking young man, 18 years of age, was brought before Mr. Burcham charged with being concerned with others not in custody in stealing boots and shoes, valued at upwards of £2OO, the property of his employers, Messrs. Butteworth and Co., wholesale boot and shoe merchants, Great Dover-road, Borough. One cf the parties mainly concerned in this extensive robbery represented himself to be Inspector Bent, of the A division, and a detective officer. Mr. William Lowe, one of the firm, stated that the prisoner up to Saturday last was in their em ploy as warehouseman. On Sunday morning ho received such information as led him to suspect that they had been extensively robbed through the agency of the prisoner and another party. In con. sequence of that he called tho prisoner, and asked him what he had been doing, as he understood he had robbed the firm ? "Without any inducement being held out to him, the prisoner then said he had robbed the firm to a great extent. He also said that on Sunday he was walking along the London road when a man accosted him, and said he was In spector Bent, a detective officer, and that he knew he had robbed his employers. They went into a coffee-house, and then the so-called detective told him he must take him into custody. The prisoner begged of him to accompany him to his sister's, in the Southwark-bridge-road, before he did so, and they went there. After signing a paper, they went to Mr. Traun's, a boot and shoemaker, at No. 11, Albion-street, Bother hithe, a man who brought manufactured goods to the firm, for which he was paid according to quality and quantity. The so-called detective then made a fuss, and a large quantity of goods belonging to the firm was brou g ht f rom un d er the floor, and r he (prisoner) was sent for a cab. The goods were put into the c. , b, and the " detective" drove off. The prisoner then produced a letter he had received that morning from the detective, ot.which the following is a copy : " “. Scotland -yard, D ec . 19, 1859. To Benjamin Pollock.—l have taken a favourable view of your case, ani you can safely continue in your present situation, as I shall keep a ll a s ecre t. If y ou d on 't continue in your situation, I must take you into custody. Whatever you do, keep your own counsel. I have written to Aubrey, and he is safe.—Tours,• • " WILLIAM BENT, Detective Officer." "Arr. I3urcham—ls there such an officer in the detective force ? Inspector Reid, M division—There is not, The ,, only officer of that name attached to the A division is Mr. Inspector Bent, an officer specially employed by the South-Westcrn Railway Company. Mr. Bent is in court. Inspector Bent here stepped forward and said— The letter produced is not in my handwriting. My name is Thomas Bent. Mr. Burcham—Have you any brother or relatiVe in the force ? Inspector Bent—l have not, sir. About four years ago there was an inspector named William Bent at Scotland-yard, 'but he is now superintendent of police at Carlisle. Mr. Lowe l in continuation of hiseyhlenee, said that the prisoner further told him that two months ago Traun gave him half-a -drown to - rob his employ'e . rs. He brought in small goods, and he (prisoner) passed them for large goods of greater value. Mr. Burcham—What sort of a situation did the prisoner hold then ? Mr. Lowe said that he was one of the warehouse men, whose duty it was to receive goods from the makers, and pass their invoices to be paid. Mr. Burcham—Then that is obtaining money under false pretences. Mr. Lowe observed that the cashier paid Traun whatever was ordered by the prisoner. The latter admitted that Traun also gave him a gold watch. Mr. I3urcham—What did he give him that for ? Mr. Lowe supposed for the purpose of plunder ing the firm. The watch was pledged shortly after wards by the prisoner. Mr. Burcham inquired how long the prisoner had been in their service ? Witness replied that he had been with them about two years ago, but he left of his own accord. He returned again in the month of August last. Traun then worked for them, and he must have immediately commenced robbing them. The prisoner had a few hours ago admitted that he and a lad named Aubrey (also in their employ) went to Traun's house in Albion-street, Rotherhithe, and conversed with him about their getting him goods. It was arranged that h o was to b r i ng to the ware house on the following day small goods, and the prisoner was to pass them as large goods. That was carried out, and before Traun left Aubrey filled his bans with new goo d s f rom the i r stock. Mr.Burcham asked whether Aubrey was in their employ at the present time ? Mr. Lowe replied that he was not. He left on the sth November. Mr. Burcham asked whether he had been to Traun's house ? Mr. Low - o said that the prisoner volunteered to take them th ere , an d when they got to the house, i'raun had absconded. They searched the house, but all they could find was four pairs of boots. Traun's wife was there, and two workmen, but they could give no information. The floors had been pulled up where the stolen property had been secreted, which the so-called detective carried away. Mr. Burcham asked whether there was any evi dence of that ? Mr. Lowe replied, only what the prisoner had admitted. He told witness that he saw the floor raised up, and the property removed by the detec tive, who said to him, " Pollock, I can trust you now. Go and fetch a cab and I shall take the pro perty to the station-house." The prisoner fetched a cab, which was loaded with the property, and the detective and Traun drove off. Mr. Burcham asked when that occurred. Mr. Lowe said that was on Sunday evening at five o'clock. The prisoner had further admitted to him that during the last two months he had re ceived £3 a week from Traun. He now asked his worship for a remand, to enable him to produce further important evidence. Mr. Burcham asked the prisoner whether he had anything to say why he should not be remanded ? He replied that ho had nothing to say, only that the statement he had made to Mr. Lowe was correct. Mr. Burcham accordingly remanded him until Wednesday next. LAMBETH.—Henry Jackson, a well-dressed youth, who refused to give his address or any ac count of himself, was placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott, on a charge of attempting to steal the gold watch arta appendages of Mr. Frederick Lillywhite, the well-known cricketer. Lillywhite, who had been just brought from the cell where he h a d b een locked up for some hours on a charge of drunkenness and wilfully damaging a cab, said that about six o'clock on that morning he was at the King and Queen public-house, High street, Newington, and while standing before the bar the prisoner made a snatch at his watch and drew it from his pocket, but the chain being a strong one, he did not succeed in getting it. He instantly bolted out of the house, followed by him (witness), and after a sharp run he succeeded in getting hold of the prisoner by the comforter, but that slipping off he got away again, and was ulti mately stopped. Police -constable 53 L said that about twenty minutes to six on that morning he saw the prisoner running as fast as he could, followed by the prose„ cutor, and on stopping him he was surrounded 1 4 a number of hi s compan i ons, who he had no doubt would have attempted a rescue had it not been for the presence of other constables. The prisoner denied the charge, brat refused to give any account of himself, and wAs remanded to Monday next. - Mr. Lillywhito was next charged with being drunk, and wilfully doing damage to a hackney cab. From the testimony of Mr. Westrup, the owner of the cab, and °the . : witnesses, it appeared that, after leaving the polic e -stati on w h ere h e h a d charged the st prisoner, he (Lillywhite) proceeded towards his residence, 15, Kennington-oval, but on reaching the cab•stand at Kennington-cross he jumped on the box of one of the vehicles and drove off towards Westminster-bridge at a furious rate. After three hours absence lie returned with the horse in a state of lather and the cab a good deal shattered. Mr. Westrup was unable, in the absence of his coachmaker, to state the amount of the damage, and the case was ultimately adjourned to Monday, Lillywhite entering into his own recognisances to appear on that day. THE INSOLVENCY OF MR. STOC UELER.-L'XTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS. • The case of Joachim Hayward Stocqueler, editor of the United Service Gazette and "author, lecturer, and teacher," of Notting-hill, Middlesex, again came before Mr. Espinasse, at the Maid stone Insol ven t C ourt, yesterday. ' Air. Eicke, sen., • as on the previous occasion, attended to oppose in behalf of himself and son. Mr. Goodwin (who attended for Mr. Morgan, the insolvent's attorney) said Mr. Stocqueler had ap peared to surrender, but he understood that a dis charge had been received from the debt of the detaining creditor (a Mr. Mr; J. Richardson.) Mr. Newham (the under-governor of the gaol) said that was the case, the discharge haling ar rived on the 18th inst. Mr. Eicke—Will- your Honour permit me to see the discharge ? The Judge-_I cannot help you in that matter. Eieke--I believe your Honour is a county magistrate. The Judge._ ghat can Ido in that capacity ? Mr. Eicke--I wish to give the insolvent into custody on a charge of forgery. I hope your Honour will detain him in order that that charge may be inquired into. The Judge—Very well ; I shall be quite ready to hear the case, if my attendance is required as a magistrate of this division. Mr. Eicke—l should wish the insolvent to be kept in custody until I have the opportunity of giving evidence as to the forgery. Thi s might have been expected after your indtilgence to him. Mr. H ug h es (M r. Morgan's clerk—aloud) —lf you take my advice, Mr. Stocqueler, you'll go. (A laugh.) Mr. Stocqueler was quickly making when his exit Mr. Ticke exclaimed—The prisoner is going, your honour. By the advice of his attorney, ho has run away. (Laughter.) I give him in charge. The Judge (to the officer) Stop the insolvent; he is not discharged from his bail yet. Mr. Stocqueler accordingly resumed his former position._ The Judge—You must take your own course, Mr. Eicke ; if you give him in charge for felony, I am quite ready to hear the charge, but I can make no order in the matter. Mr. Eicke—But I apprehend your Honour has lot let discharged him from his bail. Theludge—The governor will not take him, I suppose, now a discharge has come down. Mr. Goodwin—Mr. Eicke could have adopted this course before had he thought fit. Mr. Stocqueler was again hurriedly leaving the court. upon which Mr: Eicke a second time called out, " I give him in charge." His Honour—You must give him in custody in the regular way. Is there a constable in court ? No one answering, Mr. Eicke quickly followed Mr. Stocqueler, who, however, was already out of sight. On returning Mr. Eicke appealed to his Honour as to whether he considered the insolvent had made a proper surrender under the Act. His honour—The gaoler won't receive him. Mr. Eicice—The question is whether you consider him to be discharged from his recognis4lnces: Und er the; 32d Section of th e I s t an d 2d Victoria, cap. 110, he is bound to " surrender," but when you desired him to do so he r an away . ( Laughter.) The Judge—l recollect several instal es the detaining c re dit or sent down a instances in whichldh the insolvent nev er appeared in court at all. discharge, Mr. Eieke—Will your lio nour give mean tunitoppor y- of trying the question in a superior court ? The Judge—You can take what course you please —you do not require my permission. I can only say that I have no power to detain him, he having been discharged at the suit of the detainino- cre ditor. If the gaoler won't take him, 'what power Mr. I to do so ? Mr. Eicke—Will your Honour then appoint me assignee ? The Jude--If you ' 4 t- W 1 544 ue appointed, you must make the application in London. I can make no order. The proceedings then terminated. THE HON. HUGH RoWLE,Y AND HIS LATE WIFE. EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF PERJURY. [The following appeared in our third edition of last evening.] At the Westminster Police Court, yesterday, the late wife of the Hon. Hugh Rowley again appeared in compliance with a summons granted on the application of Mr. Rowley, calling upon her to answer to a charge of per jury alleged to have been committed by her in the recent case in the Divorce Court, in which she sought and ob tained a decree granting a dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Mr. Metcalfe appeared on behalf of the lady, and Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Orridge for the Hon. Hugh Rowley. The Hon. Hugh Rowley was then called, and further examined by Mr. Orridge. He said—speaking of the journey from Frankfort to Mayenco—l never threatened Mrs. Rowley, during the journey by railway, with personal violence. I never pinched her ; it is utterly untrue to say I did. I never kicked her or struck her at all during the journey. I never, while we were at Boulogne, where the heir was alleged to have been cut, threw a loaf of bread at Mrs. Rowley. During 1853 I think Mrs. Rowley was staying with Lady Langford. I cannot be sure of the date. 1 never used personal violence towards her. It was after our visit to Ryde that we went to Ireland. It was in 1863. We went to Dublin, and from there to Dun dalk. I loft Mrs. Rowley for three days with her sister, while I went to the latter place. I returned, and then took her with me to Dundalk. When I took her there she was free to go out, as my brother offi •cers can testify. Mr. Metcalfe—You had betternot mention them, without you mean to call them. Witness—l mean to do so. I never beat my wife at Dun dalk. It is utterly false to say I prohibited her going out while we were at Dundalk. She told me she was constantly annoyed by Col. Smythe making love to her. She said she was much displeased:with him, as hewas such a gay old man. There was no court-martial held on my conduct, or any such thing as a sham one. I wish to explain. Miss Rosa Bishop, my wife's sister, came over to stop with us in Ireland. She used to walk with one or two officers of my regiment. Mr. Julius Sartoris was one of the gentle men who used to walk with her perpetually. In conse quence of something that occurred I became aware that my wife had stated that I had been in the habit of boating her. I was afterwards called up to a room in which there were 10 or 12 officers, and Captain Heaviside was sitting at the head of them. Captain Heaviside said, " Rowley, we hear that you have been beating your wife." I told him it was untrue, and said if he did not believe it he had bettor see Mrs. Rowley ; he did so, and Mrs. Rowley denied it. Magistrate—Were you present when she did ? Witness—No ; Captain Heaviside told me she had denied it. I then remonstrated with Miss Rosa Bishop for the rumours about my beating my wife, and she left our house the next morning. The letter put into my hand is in Mrs. Rowley's handwriting. [The letter was here read (with out date) ; it was from Mrs. Rowley to Lady Langford, and having informed her ladyship of "several unimportant items, went on to allude to a circumstance which " Dear Zooy " would explain.] I did not leave tho army in consequence of anything arising out of that so-called court-martial. I left in consequence of pecuniary difficulties. From Ireland I Went to Rottingdean, and from thence to the continent. Mrs. Rowley joined mo at Brussels, I never ill-treated or beat Mrs. Rowley. I swear I did not most decidedly. At Brussels we stayed at the Hotel Bellevue, and we also took a house and kept our own servants. Mrs. Rowley had the, same maid-servant with her the whole of the time we were in Brussels. I never confined her to her room, I never prevented her communicating with her maiei or her friends in London. I state most distinctly that never dictated the letters Mrs. Rowley wrote from Bras*, els. On our return from Brussels wo went to my mother's house, and from there to Torquay. My servant had left, but Mrs. Rowley had the same maid. We stopped at Torquay about six weeks, and from there we went to Dawlieh. While we were at either of those places I never bes.t or locked her up. I never prevented Mrs. Ro wley Meriting to her friends, although she has stated that I did tee. At Dawlish I had borrowed a sum of money of one of her sisters, Miss Mary Ann Bishop, now Mrs. Turner, a"ad I was served with a writ for that money. I had bor rowed that money before I became of age. It was to be paid out of my money in the Court of Chancery. I came to London to attend to the writ, and was there informed that Mrs. Rowley was packing up the whole of her things to come to London. I went to the railway station, and there I found that she had come London from thence in the guard's van with her maid. I asked her why she had come to town, and she said she had had an invitation from her mother. I said, "How jolly for you." I asked if she had brought up my things ; she said yes, at the same time showing me a very small portmanteau. I asked her to call at Lady Langford's and take tea; she reluctantly consented, and I there unpacked the portmanteau, and found she had left half my things behind. By the Magistrate--I heard from a person at Dawlish that my wife was coming to London. That was in 1855. Witness—While we were at Dawlish we were in lodg ings. There was no reason for her coming to London. I did not leave her without money. Wo lodged at Beech House. Mr. Metcalfe—Bo kind enough to fix the time when you came from Dawlish to Sloane-street. Witness—l can't say. I know it was cold weather. Mrs. Rowley was at 69, Sloane-street twice, but I was there only once I read the writ I have alluded to there, and I accused my wife of giving the information where I was to be found. Mrs. Rowley told me her mother had invited her, but— Mr. Metcalf—We must have the mother if you want to know that. Witness —When I went to Mrs. Bishop's, the servant said, " Lor I Mr. Rowley," and my wife said " hush." I did not, while my wife was living in Upper Berkeley-street, push her down, when she struck her head against the fen der. I most distinctly say such a statement is untrue. She was sitting at the piano playing, when I remarked, " You are playing false," in an angry tone. An altercation arose. Mrs. Rowley flow into a violent passion and struck me with something on the arm. I cannot say whether it was a pistol, but I perfectly recollect her saying, " i wish the pistol was loaded that I might shoot you, you brute." She then went into one of her violent fits, and fell—l don't know where. Captain Lambert was sitting near tho fen der, and I know he had to walk two or three steps to pick her up, so I can't see how she could have struck her head against the fonder. Mr. Sleigh—Don't argue ; only answer the question. Witness—During the whole of the timo I was awa mother y from my wife she received money—my money—from my Lady Langford. Mr. Orridge—Do you know that she received the money ? Mr. Metcalfe —Lady Langford will be the beat person to speak to that. A receipt for £3O from Mrs. Rowley, through her solici tor, was then put in and read. Witness—l never, during the quarrel I have just spoken about, once touched or pushed her in the slightest manner. "A short time after this Mrs. Rowley cause to me at my lodgings, 42, Clarges-street. She used to stop two or three hours. I used to take her out to theatres. 1 used to take her home, remain at her lodgings all night, and then re turn to Clarges-street. In May, 18.56, a deed of separation was talked of. A letter, dated May 22, was here read from Mrs. Rowley, declining the offer of £l,OOO as the terms of separation. Witness—l had nothing to do with drawing up the deed of separation. It was drawn up by a solicitor, and I certainly named the sum of £l,OOO, but Mrs. Rowley refused any thing under £3,000. During the whole time I was living with Mrs. Rowley, I state most decidedly I never beat or ill-treated 'her in any way. I supplied her with money, through my mother, Lady Langford. After we agreed to separate in 1850, I paid no more money. I know £1,400 was paid to the trustees of Mrs. Rowley of money belong ing to me in January, 185 g. Mr. Metcalfe—The money she had a right to by an arrangement before the marriage, in consequence of your being a minor when the wedding took place. You tried all you could to prevent it. Tho money was in Chancery, and you resorted to law proceedings to prevent her getting it. Mrs. Rowley got the £1,400, but you had had £2,000 of hers, which you spent; so after all, she only got £1,400 for her £2,000. Mr. Orridge (to witness)—ls it true that you were pre sent in the Court of Probate, peeping through a curtain while the proceedings relative to the petition of Mrs. Row ley for a dissolution of marriage were going on ? Witness—No, certainly not. I arrived at Westminster hall a quarter of an hour before the decree was made in the Divoroo Court. I told Mr. Gustard I wanted to go in as I had heard the nature of the charges made that day by Mrs. Rowley. I wanted to go in and deny them. Mr. Gustard advised me not to do so, as he said there would be a scene in court, as Mrs. Rowley would throw herself into hysterics, and then there would be no divorce. I went into the court certainly for a short time, but I did not remain peeping through a curtain. Mr. Metcalfe—l wish my learned friend would fix upon the letters he intends to use in this case, and then lot me have them, as it would most certainly shorten my cross examination if I knew upon which of those letters ho re lied Mr. Orridgo—lt has already been intimated that the letters can be read by the learned gentleman who appears for Mrs. Rowley. Mr. Metcalfe—Yes, quite so ; but I should like to have the originals in my possession for a short time. Mr. Orridge—We will furnish you with copies. Mr. Metcalfe—l think my request for the letters ought not to be refused, the more so as ono of the reporters had some of them in his possession to copy. There is a consi derable number, and it will take up a great deal of time to do as my learned friend proposes. Mr. Paynter—lt is very wrong that letters, after they have been made evidence, should be handed over to a re porter, It is irregular, and I request it way not occur • again. The letters certainly cannot bo all copied by to- morrow. Mr. Rowloy—l cannot attend to-morrow. Mr. [silei,:sh—We had better, then, say Thursday for p lug cu with the case. The further hearing of the summons was then adjourned till Thursday, by which day Mr. Metcalfo, the counsel for Mrs. Rowley, will be furnished with copies of the letters. The Court was crowded to excess during the whole of the proceedings. • COUNTRY MARICETS. LIVERPOOL—DEC. 20. We had a moderate attendance of millers and dealers.st market this morning, and wheat met a fair consuraptivet demand at an improvement of fully ld per costal on las. Tuesday's prices. Flour also the t ur n dearer. Oats and oatmeal a fair sale, and readily supported la te quotations. The amount of business transacted in India n corn was ra ther limited. Beans advanced 6d on previous rates. Pea s and barley unaltered in value. The weather is still veil' bitter; snow, however, is just beginning to fall. SHEFFIELD—Dee. 20. The attendance at our corn exchange was moderate to-_ for is advance, but it was not conceded, day. We are fairly supplied with wheat, which at first held fair trade was effected at an advance of Gd per load (10. 4 u. per qr.) for the best qualities. Flour and other articles Red wheat, per loadof imperial bushels... were at last Tuesday's prices. and eventualb; j a 3 Od White 18a 6d to 21.9 ,) » . Gd New red ...17s 6d to 180 . )f , I New white ...18s 6d to 20s Oa ff ft Od Beans ...17g Od to 20 0 .s , .. A to 50s oa 16s 6a to 18N 6d )7 77 44s 0d . .., Peas, per qr Grinding barley, per qr Malting ditto, ~ Oats 71 Millers' prices for flour-1s 6d . ,...1: ''''' ''''''''''' °:ci l dd s ttt:l°°433ds(2:::( ill 141 b. NEWCASTLE-UNDER LYNE—DPC. 19° Gull A moderate show of wheat at market, whi ch met du_ sale ; but wo quote an advance of is upon the quotations of of last week. Fine heavy barley in request ; grin ding 5 seriptious meet a heavy demand. Oats firm, Beans a small show, and rather dearer. 23g Wheat red .44s to 47s Oats.... ........ 245 too White do .48s to 52s Beans ........... 465 t Barleyat late Pit° • .25s to 44s Pea 5......... to LES—Ec. . The transactions in wheat and 20 barley a ud k in value, but a fair consumptive demand. Oats J a re at no decline from last week. The arrivals this w— moderate. are without old Arrivals this WeOlt : Wheat .......... 3 2 021 (1 0 . Barley Peas 727 Rapeseed 335 Beans ....... • • 360 Linseed —• saclat Flour Averages for the weer : Wheat 3,'12 qrs., at ........ 46s 1 3 , Peas. •• • 22 „ ........ 38s 3 a . Beans Barley... 3 , 334 ;- • ..... ......••37s 7r& Oats 2 ........ 1, 116 ~ ........ 24s - z . Rye 8 92 ...••••• 36 5 ° NORWICH CATTLE—DEe. 19. ole o Our market to .day exhibited a fair show of store el ' f a ir comprising Scots, shorthorns, Devons, and Wel l * " k r us clearance was effected, although there was not nun le " ° atte co ndnce 41° Sts a , ss . to 5s Gd ; shorthorns, 4s 6d to 5 5 6 d ; I, l r w hen to 4s 6d ; Devons, 48 6d to 58 6d (estimated weig"- fat), A bl isk Fat beasts scarce, at Ss Od. to Ss 6d. per stone. sale. than of Sheep—There were more sheep s . in the Pe n 1.0 1 o pe r. late. Hoggets and keeping sheep m slow sale, at Fat sheep, 8s Gd to Os Od per stone, and a ll sold. fat Pigs—A good supply. Store pigs 2,5 s to 40e ; 7s Od to 8s 6d per stone. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET irsz. In the following table E signifies that letters axe A„go• by evening mails from London, and by morning mtchal by evening2lll2s from London, and ti by mil"- Nat Mail DESTINATIONS. Despatch Fat .siof. due. of Mails. Desk _------". BA aupshsoiatutrmttaoi all, Southampton and Mauritius, JAIL 1° napeltciarlalrasvealullaesvia New Jan. 18 B••°•u't'll'an:P: * J a n . . York Dec. 23, E Liverpool Canada,China, haspiinoe na :o in,: Gedcno. sao d( bnt .ygH,CHaeaolnnpeanded:As. pis ne ec gk nat ) Jan. Dec . 251, ,El.lv e r p 00 ' E Devonporl lian• Jan. pton 31 ************ ---. Gipnborirtaetlo,tivtrvi,aivaSimoausatrohsuaetmiiillpaemtos n 31 Southantp. tiee:;..._. Honduras and Blewtields India (Calcutta) and Ceylon, Jan. 2 via Southampton India (Bombay), via South- Dec.2o, Ditto, via Marseilles amptou Deo, 27, M SeuthaluP• * overdtle Ditto, via Marseilles Jan. 3 I, ****** Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, Jall• 2 and V. Islands Jan. 9, m sauthaloP• ow. 21 Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto Dec. 27,M SeuthaulP• Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Dec.lo Southampton Dee. —, 31 Southall* * Gorda( Dec. 26, 311 S. f.u.t.1111...MP.; * Jan. 2%2 Ditto, via Marseilles Mexico and Havana Tan. 2. 31 Southall* 1-- Newfoundland United States and British N Dec. 31, E Galway •• • • ea. 25 Aerica (by Eritish packet) Dec. 23. E Liver Pool• • Ditto (by U. S. packet) West Coast of Africa, Ma- 1 Jall. 1° deira, and Teneritfe Dec. 23 E Civerpoo-• • West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, Grey- aamP overdo town, New Granada, Ste. ,Jan. 2. M Souti . , _ _ . ~..... . is, A t i h r .; Gotoswtreunet,iotohee fArommersiecbaanetcoilonitrhaacrtboorufr,orhreeo7:oo; fished his work with the outer lino of sunken vesl_ l _' oe , that they do not obstruct navigation. The largo 1 14 Vladimir was successfully raised October 14th.—/Yelo u Journal of Commerce. suffered front the ravages , of. Consumption (and what under IS Maladies,iN eti L a E n ? d — f l a n m v i a li l e id s s w l h a o b our ll ; l 4 . family in the empire is there who has not to deploritilol loss caused by this scourge of tho human race ?) will 1 : a satisfactory answer to the question, curable," in an original article by Dr. Drias Cuozilo. _ M.D., 35, Bruton-street, Berkeley-square, w. Published 1 1 : ' the .‘ iiousehold Physician," in numbers, one penny * by G. Berger, 19, Holywell-street, Strand. From Ito 9 sw ready. ,-,,. m ist) "Is Consumptio , [A DVERTIS MU E N T.] —E P PS'S (Hol9lo3opathiC un.B ._. CocoA.—This esteemed preparation is sold by the ri b, cipal grocers at ls. 6d. per lb., in 11b. Alb., end I n , packets. Each packet is labelled " James Epps, lionk pathic chemist, London." Pills; [ADVERTISEMRNT.] — HoIIoway ' s Ointment and .... Fistulas, piles, excoriations, and strictures are speedily ~,; lievod and ultimately removed by applying this oiutlifl.,-, after fomentation with warm water. Persona sufforn froth these scourges of the human frame should arrest f,,11; progress at once, for it is both insidious and rapid. l ir ' as ' " tulas, if long allowed to go on unchecked, not only we,na the nervous system but destroy life. The sooner , w e j . - inestimable remedies are used the more certain is s i r c h t d; yet none need despair, hopeless cases have likewise p°'" . and the sufferer saved a p a i n f u l d ea th . I n excoriation'', - few applications of this healing ointment effe,et tier a fl z i r; while the pills conj o i n tly w ith it are especially bone relaxing and remo v i ng strictures, whatever their tools or duration. [AnvEnTisEmENT.].—We have read with much Pl ea l. Du Barry's Report on the curo of Indigestion (DYsi e t or Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, an mil li' ," Complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and De" -- . t ,i; without medicine, by Du Barry's Food. The follow'"? are a few extracts which appear to merit the attention °, many :—Cure No. 47,121.—Mi5s Elizabeth jacobs,o°:, annNnieaadrnzvi,onGaiugsaithfVatanhiceceraieerage, Waltham•cross, Herts : a cure ° f 0 4 Creme nervousn neh. e eo s arr s rboL t ris d ve i eo g rNf e p stion, gatherings, law °P iri m ts Vee' after her o o n o . e r r : v --,,,npti014 54,812.--Miss medicalMissVirginia Zeguers, cured of COu.-- - of 2 . e . adv isers had , a a: b liscl a 74 n .— d eirn o o n f.lt e tai d esbns a illY l E l teYarilizh. :Ib i dsYur°7 7 l:o°llll : covery. Cure No. 51,514.—8ar0n de Polentz, Prefe f o to Langenau, of , many years' horrible suffering ° ° welt nerves, and of an obstinate liver complaint, for W ears , the German spas had been tried in vain f° l. L or Cure No. 48,721.—General Baron de Zaluskowettioo. many years fearful disorders of the digestiie n 2115., In tins, at Is. 6d. ,• Ilb ,3s ; 21b., as. 9d. ; 51b., 14 '; o at" 28s. The 101 b. and 121 b.. tins . carriage free, on r Lon doll office order. Du Barry and 77, Regent-street, , ~,„ 60, i accdnirch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 , a n Fortnum, Mason, and Co., C0., '182, Piccadilly,ee, ai 6Pt oi iP pro , G • • ... i w, , neg ate• street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, oirtrublin, e S t e L w i l v e street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also 6 ' 0 ,6 Co.' e y rp sn oo d l, N D i r x a o p n er en ; d a i t l E ew din ; beurt gaselier Rai; Shar p ar at Sean" Scott; at York, Raimos, tßlanchard, ana-` 1 " . ' ampton, Randall and Son. __...........- BOURKE.—Con the 28th ult., at 63, BIRTHS. Win: the Hon. Mrs. George W. Bourke, of a daub • BRUCE.—Ou the 15th inst., the wife of W. D"rilin% Bruce, Esq., F.S.A , barrister-at-lawof Vueeln's-illar , 1 of a son. . wooer Dnum 1 AIOND.—On the 18th inst., at 2, Inverness.:7-u.„01. Kensington-gardens, the Hon. Mrs. Robert A../.4'.' mond, of a daughter. Dawson-street, Du - - - - - - - . MARRIAGES. t St. CRUTCITLEY—M I TCHINSON.-011 the 20th ins.. 9 a , st. Martin's-in-tho-Fields, Henry John Crutehley, al, to Martin's-lane, to Mary Elizabeth, daughter aa. _BLAKE'son Esq., of Islington. FENNVLL. OII the 15th inst. at Groat 'far' mouth, Francis John Fennell, Esq., of 'Upper Ilerko/oli street, Portman-square, to Elizabeth Marta, the od° daughter of E. Blake, Esq., South-quay. DEATHS. DEEDES—Onthe 19th inst., at 52, Chestor-sqUnrot Henry Doedes, Esq., aged . s7. DICKENSON.—•n the 19th inst.,_ at 4, Sussex-10W/ Thos. P. Dickenson, Esq., aged 76. ELLIOT.—On the 19th inst., at Barley House, Plymouth, Colo u el John Elliot, H.M.'s Indian Army, and a M Lieut. for the county of Devon. LYNNE.—On the 18th iust., York-chambers , St. James'e street, T. W. Lynne, Esq., aged 52. LAMB.—On the 19th inst., Mr. J. G. Lamb, o f Reeding , aged 76. MICILiu.—On the 14th inst., at 11, Cannon-place, Brigle ton, Madame Michau, aged 76. MoysEy.—On the 17th inst., at Bathealtan Court, the. ti en. C. A. Moysoy, D.D. for 19 years A.reb.deacon es Bath, aged 80. YOUNG.—On the 18th inst., at SS, York-road, Lambth, George Martin Young, Esq., LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOVNG of No. 112, St r and, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 Strand, in the Precin ct of the Savoy, in the oottal a Middlesex, Wednesday; Dece mber 21, 1859. ,TH 1 1EkE the 20 be real .eONTI Victual SAN (!'Ted fth I atures, he Joie Gnaran Pa d rn en t kjapi tat Interes Length •aon beposit minist t ative of Amy . tiVillian John s any Robert U. 11. S; Martin RA Messrs. John 11. James ter, s. itessrs. street, We ltessrs. th ee Col arie I 'e, o 1,49 neti c e s Itas A l or r ~CThe ~ t~nort Un k i4 e 1 'tP t .lar : 11,;;HI fit- ~ z :" IECEMBER 21, 18b9 ,