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

LAW REPORTS. COURT OF CHANCERY.-AuG 2, (Before the Lords Justices.) IN RE 3IALPAS TRUSTS. The litigation in this matter appears to have reference chiefly to . a sum of £lO Hs. 7d., such being the subject matter of a petition on which Vice-Chancellor Stuart made the order now appealed from, directing a trustee to pay to his cestuigne trust a sum of £l5 by way of costs. The case occupied the attention of the Court for nearly eight hours, and, at the conclusion, Their Lordships ordered the £l5 to be returne d, and the cestuique trust to pay the trustee a further sum of £2O to wards his costs. Their lordships also insisted on the various parties who had appeared in the petition at once naming a sum as their costs, so that the expe nse of a taxation of costs might be spared. Mr. Malins, who appeared for the trustee, observed that if his costs were taxed they would amount to about £lOO, but he consented under the circumstances to accept of in addition to the £l5 to be returned to his client. The counsel for the other parties having also named the amount of their costs, an order was made accordingly. Mr. Malins and Mr. Southgate were for the appeal; Mr. W. H. Terrell for the principal respondent ; Mr. T. Stevens, Mr. F. S. Williams, Mr. V . Morris, and Mr. Surrage for other parties interested. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.—AUGUST 2. (Before Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.) BAILEY V. DUNKERLEY. In this case the chief clerk had made an order in cham bers, on the application of the defendant, for the production of documents by the plaintiff. Mr. Bovill moved on behalf of the plaintiff to discharge the order; Mr. Ellis appeared for the defendant. Mr. Bovill urged that the suit was by bill, no interroga tories being put in and no answer required ; that the de fendant had obtained leave to put in a voluntary answer within a month, and had obtained an order for the produc tion of documents by the plaintiff. Defendant had not yet put in his answer; and if this was permitted, a defendant might obtain such information as would enable him to frame his answer in contravention of the nth and 16th Vic., cap. 86, see. 20. _ _ The Vice-Chancellor thought that defendant had a right to the order for production. The section of the act referred to only applied when a discovery was sought fur, and a full and sufficient answer therefore required. Here it was the defendant who was seeking a discovery, and lie had there fore a right to demand the production of any documents in the possession of the plaintiff and calculated to throw a light upon the case. The motion must be refused. (Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.) PEARCE V. LINDSAY. The Vice-Chancellor gave judgment in this case, which was argued at considerable length during the sittings. The plaintiffs were shipbrokers at Liverpool; the defendants were shipbrokers in London. Both houses had extensive connec tions with the American shipping interest, especially in the iron trade. The object of the bill was to obtain an account fro►r . the defendants, the Messrs. Lindsay, founded upon an agreement called the Havre agreement, by which they were to divide the profits. The case turned upon a mass of evi dence, chiefly correspondence, extending so far back as 1849, the printed bill and the evidence forming two respectable quarto volumes. The defendants, his Honour observed, had denied any agreement, and had insisted that whatever was due to them was enly under the custom of trade. But Ito was of opinion that the defendants' own language in the correspondence would be inexplicable, except on the footing of the agreement relied on by the Messrs. Pearce. The defendants had represented themselves as filling too high a position in reference to American shipping to require assistance from the Messrs. Pearce ; but he was of opinion that the evidence established a joint interest between Messrs. Pearce and Messrs. Lindsay. It would have been misleading Messrs. Pearce if what was called the Havre agreement was not to be regarded as a subsisting contract. The Messrs. Lindsay had certainly treated it as a valid agreement down to 1853. The defendants alleged that they had given a "distinct, decided, peremptory, and conclusive rejection of the proposal by the plaintiff, to share half of the profits of the American business, and that they wished to be governed only by the custom of the trade." It was surprising after this assertion to find such expressions in the correspondence as these—" Can you inform us how we can get these fellows (the Yankees) into us ? How can we get them into our net ? " These were extraordinary expressions from persons professing to stand on the very pinnacle of commerce. Again the defendants said to one of the plaintiffs, " You are better known in the States than we are." Again, speaking of some American ships, they said to Messrs. Pearce, " Nail them all." The defen dants seemed now to take a very different view of their relative position with the plaintiffs from that which their correspondence proved. There must have been a great lapse of memory. It was clear that when they were writing to Messrs. Pearce they did not seem to feel that they were persons filling a very high position, writing, as they alleged, to persons of subordinate character. Amongst other expreo siens they used was this, "Remember we are all young people." When one of the plaintiffs was making a tour in America, the defendants wrote, " I wish you would make it appear that we are one and the same concern in American business." Besides this joint circulars were printed at their joint expense. The defendants said that the division of brokerage commission only applied to the Havre business, or business obtained in consequence of one of the Pearces making a visit to the United States. He thought an agree ment clearly was established in 1852. His Honour made a declaration that the plaintiff, as surviving partner, was entitled td half commission on business, effected through the Havre agents, for chartering vessels to America from 1851 to 1855, credit being given for what was due to, or through, the same agents. The plaintiff was also en titled, under an agreement of 1852, to a moiety of commission on American vessels chartered in London, or at the outports, except on vessels specially con signed, and vessels over which the plaintiff had not exercised any influence, regard being had to the course of dealing as to what was to be regarded as constituting such influence. There must be an inquiry whether the ar rangement, at any time after 1852, was determined by either of the two firms, or abandoned with the knowledge and acquiescence of the other. His Honour declared that the plaintiffs and defendants were entitled, under an arrange ment founded on what was known in the course of trade by the term " exclusive correspondence" as to vessels employed in the shipment of iron after 1852, to a moiety of the corn mission on freights, according to the terms of that corres pondence, excluding vessels specially consigned to certain parties. The case must be spoken to upon the minutes , hereafter, and his Honour reserved further consideration. I The case was argued for several days by the Solicitor- General, Mr. Rolt, Mr. Giffard, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Cox. COURT OF PROBATE.—AuG. 2. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) TUBBS V. PROUT. This was a question relating to the will of the late Major Prout, who had been killed at the massacre at Cawnpore, a victim to which his wife had also fallen. The object of the present application was to examine, before a commissioner Capt. Delafosse and Capt. Thompson, the only two officers who had escaped, and who were now in this country, as to which of the deceased parties was first killed. The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Hardy were counsel in he case. The Court directed these witnesses to be examined by some member of the bar within a fortnight, the party ex amining giving the other Si le notice. COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. —AUGUST 2. KING V. RING AND BROWN. This was a suit for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery, which was alleged to have taken place on board the ship Vernon, on the voyage bet ween L ondon and Bombay. The petitioner was the husband, and the object of the present application was to have the steward and th e c aptain examined under a commission, as they were about to leave this country for India on the Ist of September. Mr. A. J. Stephens appeared in support of the appli cation. The Court made the order. DAVIES V. DAVIES. --- This was an application for an interim order for the custody of six children. The petition was presented by the wife on the ground of adultery and cruelty. She bad left her hus hand's house, taking with her her six children, the eldest of whom was 17, and the youngest 7 years of age. It was contended that their father was their legal guardian, and as his misconduct had not been proved, he was entitled to their custody. Dr. Spinks appeared in support of the application. The learned Judg e was o f op i n i on t h at, as th er e were no facts stated, he must leave the father to his remedy by habeas corpus. ARCHES COURT.—AuG. 2. (Before Dr. Lushington.) MEDLAND AND BROWNE V. PAINE. This was a proceeding to recover a church rate at three pence in the pound brought by the churchwardens of St. Neot's, II untingdonshire, against Mr. James Paine, a parishioner. The rate was objected to upon several grounds. The case occupied the attention of the Court until the rising. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—AuGusT 2. (Before Mr. Commissioner Gonlburn.) IN RE JACOB FRANRENSTEIN. The bankrupt, a commission merchant and general agent, of Devonshire-street, applied for his certificate. It appears from the official assignee's report of the 7th June that the bankrupt presented a petition for arrange ment under the Act of the 12th and 13th Vic., on the 15th March. On the 19th April the matter was ordered isto bankruptcy. The balance-sheet commences on the Ist May, 1856, and the accounts, embracing a period of one year and 10 months, exhibit the following results :—Amount owing to unsecured creditors, £1,573 7s. 9d.; liabilities on bills of exchange, £1,600103. ld.; profits, £440 Os. Bd.; surplus, being cash in hand on the Ist May, 1856. £154 75.; differ ences in balancing, 16s. 6d.; making a total to account for of £3,769 2s. In ifischar • ging himself of that amount the bankrupt re turns debtors, £42 Bs. 4(1. property surrendered, £39 19s. 6d.; making the total an a d m re ount of assets, £B2 7s. 10d. His losses by bad debts we ; and £579 ss. 9d. ; on the trading account, £428 19s. 6d the realisation of pro perty, S:3O 2s. 10d.; making together The trade expenses were £485 Bs. Z a sum 0fX1,038 Bs. Id. ditto, £562 7s. 4d. ; liabilities per contra, ougs7 and personal ,600 10s. id. ; s h o wing a total credit of £ 3 , 769 2s. The official assignee further,says, in his report of th June, that the bankrupt has been before the Court upon e7th former occasion ; he was adjudicated a bankrupt in June , a , 1855, at which time he appeared to be owing in debts :ti e d liabilities £4OO Os. 3d. The estate did not produce any dividend, the asse ts y ielding £l6 2s. only. From the pro ceedings it appears the bankrupt obtained a third-class cer tificate after a suspension of six months. On the present occasion his balance -sheet discloses the amount of his debts and liabilities to be £3,173 17s. 10d., with available assets, returned at £B2 7s. 10d. The trading of the bankrupt shows the same unsatisfactory result upon this, as it did on the first occasion—namely, loss. He appears to have received, by way of commissions, and returned under the head of profits the sum of £440 Os. Bd., against which the losses and trade expenses together amount to £1,523 16s. 9d., and the personal is returned at £562 7s. 4d. 'I th examination meeting on the 7th June was until 7th dui h adjourned his balance-sheet, -k e bankrupt requiring time to amend which, according to his own admission, required amendment. official assignee, madeent On the 7th July Mr. Pennell, the upon comparisoansecond report, stating that it ap pearedcsely the same as the that the amended sheet was pre cisely the originalalterations:beng one as regarded the debit only. 1 on the credit side of the account la the original balance -sheet the assets were returned at £B2 7s. 10d., but they were th en state w hich £157 16s. 4d. had been realised . at £203 4s. 10d., of Increase in the amount of they seats, . , In reconciling that lie i s AmAtakupt reduced his losses in the same proportion. Upon his amended balance-sheet, he was allowed to pass his last examination. Mr. Pennell, official assignee, stated that since the last report £2OO 198. Ild. had been received. Mr. George now supported the bankrupt's application for certificate. Mr. Spyers, for the assignee (Mr. Hyam Anseli), stated he was desirous that the bankrupt should have an immediate certificate. The Commissioner—Who is the assignee ? Mr. Spyers—A large creditor. The Commissioner—Because this'is very curious. This bankrupt has been insolvent, and paid nothing, then he was bankrupt, and paid nothing, and now he is bankrupt again, and the assignee recommends an immediate certificate. I do not understand that; there must be some mystery about this assignee, we had that every day. Mr. Ansell (the assignee)—l was a very heavy sufferer myself at Hamburg by the failures which took place there some months ago, and I know that the bankrupt also lost largely by some parties there ; and considering these cir cumstances, and believing that the whole of his troubles arose from those failures, leads me to take the course adopted on the present occasion. The Commissioner When a man takes the office of assignee he takes upon himself a duty, namely, that of putting before the Court all the circumstances which lie thinks the Court ought to know as to the conduct of the bankrupt as a trader. Now, do you not think he, having been once insolvent, then so recently before this Court—on both occasions with large amounts of debts and liabilities, and with nothing to pay them—that coming again a third time, under very similar circumstances, is a question that the assignee, in the exercise of his duty, ought to raise very seriously before the Court ? Mr. Ansell—l have told your honour the reason why I do not oppose the application. Mr. Spyers—Mr. Ewens, a large trade creditor, also assents. Further than that I may mention that the assets have realised all that the petitioner stated. The Commissioner—No ; at first he stated his estate was only £BO. Mr. Spyers—That arose from a misconception. The Commissioner—Misconception is hardly the right term—misconception does not mean an Intention to deceive, which this clearly was. Mr. Spyers—We are quite satisfied there was no inten tion to deceive. The Commissioner—l am not deceived. Mr. Spyers—All the liabilities have been run off, and his losses have mainly arisen from the circumstances Mr. An sell has told your honour. Several of the largest creditors concur in wishing the bankrupt should have his certificate. The Commissioner—Now, Mr. George, of course, you are on the same side. Mr. George—Not on the same side, your honour, but I support the bankrupt's application. The Commissioner—What import do you give to those words in the Act of Parliament that the Court is to form its opinion of the conduct of a trader, whether he be opposed or not ? Mr. George—l think it the duty of the Court to take all the circumstances of the case on both sides into considera tion; the Act of Parliament also says the Court shall take into consideration the conduct of a trader before, as well as after, his bankruptcy. The creditors present to-day are Mr. Ansell, the assignee, a creditor to a considerable amount, and his opinion is that the bankrupt is not a dishonest man, and that he ought to receive a certificate. Mr. Nicholson, of Lime-street, representing the house of Schroeler and Co., a large firm of Hamburg, also large creditors, who also con sent to the certificate being granted; and Mr. Wolf, also a large creditor, does not object. They all believe this to be a case of misfortune. The alteration in the balance-sheet does not arise from any additional matter, but from the variation in the account originally proposed. With regard to his debts, the bankrupt appears to have had the impres sion that they ought to be made to appear as small as pos sible, and he returns good debts £42, while £5l have been collected. At 'hamburg, too, things have turned out much better than was expected, for those debts which were put down as bad have turned out good. Besides, there is an affidavit on the file, made at the time of the petition being presented, stating these debts, afterwards put down as bad, to be good debts. Under these cirumstanees, I hope your honour will grant the bankrupt his certificate. The Commissioner—One thing I think is quite clear, and that is, that if this case had been opposed I do not think I could have granted the bankrupt any certificate at all, neither could I have granted protection, that is, if there had been a real bond fide opposition, because in my judgment this man shows by his coming to a court a third time to be discharged from his debts so soon too after his last applica tion, when he came to this court, that the experience of his former failures has been entirely lost upon him; they , have had no effect whatever. I see under his former bank ruptcy that the certificate was suspended for six months, and then was of the third class only, so that his failure then was not one arising wholly or in part from misfortune or loss; he then paid nothing to his creditors. I find that he wasinsolvent before that, owing, according to his statement, a considerable amount, and still paying nothing. Then what are we to call it when a man, having twice failed and paid nothing, again contracts debts of which he must know, ac cording to all human probability and reason, he will not be able to pay a farthing. He thinks nothing of his previous failure, and if I were to grant him immediately the certifi cate which he will not get for a very long time, he would go and do exactly the same thing; he would come here a third time, and there would be probably the same ceremony to go through. What are we to call it ? I call it fraudulent for an insolvent debtor coming out of the Insolvent Court, once having bad his affairs arranged here, giving his creditors nothing, and owing them £2,000 or £3,000, to go and contract debts and liabilities as this man has done to the amount of £3,000, and then ending worth next to nothing. £2OO I believe would be the outside amount of assets; and the debts and liabilities— Mr. Pennell—The liabilities are run off, and the debts are £1,570. The Commissioner—And the expenses will be about £lOO. Mr. Pennell—l am afraid so. The Commissioner—Then, out of the £2OO assets there are only £lOO to pay £1,500 upon a third appearance in the Bankruptcy Court l What is it I repeat. It is commer cially a fraud, obtaining credit from persons who are weak and credulous enough to trust him. I admit that persons who trust him under these circumstances share his guilt, because by giving him credit again they are only encou raging him to go and do likewise in other quarters. There fore, if this man had been opposed by assignees who were really in earnest, and not, as in this case, merely serving the bankrupt, instead of representing the creditors, it would have been a great question whether I could have granted him a certificate at all, and I certainly should not have granted him any protection from arrest. But as no creditor opposes, and as the assignee, a gentleman who appears in person, and who seems to be a respectable man, takes the same course, though the reasons that he gives for not opposing is not satisfactory, I will take those things into account, and will go so far as not to withhold protection from arrest, and the bankrupt will get all that be really wants, which is the power of walking about free from his creditors or any annoyance by them ; but he will not have his certificate until after a very long suspension. The judgment of the Court is that this certificate shall be suspended for the space of 12 months from this date, and that, when granted, it be of the third class. He will have protection for three months, to be renewed from time to time unless the assignees show cause to the contrary, because it is only the non-opposition of the assignees which induces me to give him any protection. Mr. Spyers—Would your honour— The Commissioner—l have heard you once, sir, and I have delivered my judgment. Mr. Spyers—Your honour will allow me to say-- The Commissioner—l will not hear you again, sir ; and I will not allow observations to be made upon the judgment of the Court. I cannot help remarking that this case, from the very commencement upon the question of arrangement, was marked by a singular degree of pertinacity. Mr. Ansell—We should have saved £lOO expense if it had gone on under that arrangement. The Commissioner—No you would not, sir. Mr. Ansell—l think we should have done so. The Commissioner—Allow me to know better than you, sir, and to say you would have made a great mistake. Mr. Wolf (a creditor)—The mistake is quite on your side, sir; and it is not the first mistake you have made. (Sen sation.) The Commissioner—Who is that individual ? I remem ber he has been here before, when be created some excite ment. Mr. Wolf—And if you speak of " pertinacity," that is also on your side. The Commissioner—Leave the court, sir, or I will cause you to he turned out. The turbulent gentleman left the court almost imme diately, saying he could do so without his honour's assist ance ; but be could not resist another outburst, and when he reached the door he shouted, " You exceed your jurisdic tion !" Third class certificate, suspended for 12 months. IN RE PEARSON. This was a sitting for the choice of assignees to the estate of:the bankrupt, a market gardener, of East Bergholt. A preliminary statement, prepared by Messrs. Hart, shows debts and liabilities about £7,000, and assets given up to the official assignees £2,000. It appears also that the bank rupt made a settlement upon his wife of £lO,OOO, which is chargeable upon some landed property, and if the assignees succeed in upsetting that settlement there will be a large surplus. .111 r. Nunn, a banker of Little Bromley, Essex, was chosen assignee. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1858. tiffs; Mr. Power and Mr. K. Mills appeared for the de fendant. _ _ . This case, which was commenced on Saturday, was an action for trespasses to a dummy of th e p l a i nt iff s moore d i n the river Orwell, opposite Griffin's wharf, in Ipswich. The defendant pleaded not guilty; denial of the property of the plaintiffs in the dummy a custom at the quays of the Orwell in the port of Ipswich for an outside vessel to pass its goods and passengers over an inside vessel for the pur poses of loading and unloading, embarkin g an d disembark ing; and facts bringing him within it ; th a t th e pl a i n tiff s ' dummy was a public . niiisauce, and that he co mm itt e d th e trespasses because it hindered him in the e xerc i s e o f hi s right to embark and disembark ; and a similar plea omitting the averment that the dummy was a public nuisance. The facts appeared to be as follows : —The plaintiffs, some four years ago, bought the stock of the Eastern Union Com pany, and as part of it the dummy in question, and certain steamboats plying between Ipswich and Harwich, for conve nience in landing from which the dummy had been used. The defendant was employed by the plaintiffs on board their boats in the capacity of superintendent of steamboats until about a year ago, when he was discharged from that post, and offered one in the service of the plaintiffs at Stratford. The defendant refused the offer, and himself set up a boat called the Alma, plying between Ipswich and Harwich, without express leave of the plaintiffs, but apparently by their tacit permission. The defendant for some time used the dummy in question for embarking and disembarking his passengers ; but as the necessity for vigorous opposition between the boats became apparent the times of starting and returning of the two boats became apparent the times of starting and returning of the two boats were made the same, confusion arose between the passeng ers , an d l e d to i o b s t r uction, and to aninterchange ofabuse and violence. The plaintiffs, therefore, put up a board warning all strangers from the dummy. The attention of the defendant was therefore drawn to it, and he said " All r i g ht ;" b u t his conduct afterwards exhibited no deference to the warn ing, for he continued to act as before, and finally, th e plain tiffs determined to try by this action the right to exclude the defendant and his customers. A great deal of evidence was gone into to show the custom of th e p or t i n respect o f vessels arriving alongside a quay there and finding another vessel already moored there; but there seemed to be no custom in respect of passengers or of steamboats. Evidence was also given to make out that the dummy was a nuisance, but although it has been on the same spot for several years, it was not discovered by the witnes s e s t o b e a nu i sance until after the present dispute arose. The jury found the existence of the custom and the fact of the obstruction as alleged, and that th e d ummy was a nuisance if the use of it was confined to a private person, but not a nuisance if the use was open to the public gene rally. The learned Judge told the jury that they must answer absolutely the question about the nuisance, as a nuisance by obstruction of a highway or a navigable river was a nuisance though the obstruction might be a convenience to the public. The jury thereupon found that the dummy was not a nuisance. The learned Judge then directed a verdict to be entered for the defendant on the issues as to the custom and the ob struction, but for the plaintiffs on the other issues, with leave to the plaintiffs to move to set aside the defendant's verdict and enter one for themselves, if the Court should think that the pleas on which the defendant had succeeded were hot supported either wholly or in some material part. Verdict for the plaintiff. IN RE J. H. MORTON. This was a certificate meeting in the case of the bankrupt, who was a grocer of .Maidstene. The accounts have already been published. Mr. Bagley, for the assignees, said they believed the bank rupt had not attempted to deceive anybody; they had had from him a most candid explanation, and as they bad had also the means of testing its accuracy, they had no doubt it was true. He had kept a grocer's establishment at Maid stone, but was also in partnership with a person named Pooley, a lime and cement manufacturer. Quarrels and dif ferences arose between them, which, in fact, led to the bankrupt's suspension and his appearance in his honour's court. An action had since been brought and a verdict recovered against Pooley. He had not yet paid the amount of the verdict, and in truth was what was called "not in the way." The assignees felt, under the circumstances, that theya would not be justified in asking the Court to delay the bankrupt's y t soucgerhttifincoat bete, o a f the ltbo first class.ughatth same time they Mr. Lawrance, for the bankrupt, said he had been in business in the sam e t own for 2.5 years and had never before failed. The Commissioner—ls the bankrupt prepared to depose to that fact ? t Mr. Lawrance—Yes, sir, he is here. The Commissioner—ls that so ? Bankrupt—Yes, sir. The Commissioner—To what do you attribute your failure ? Bankrupt—To having fallen in with a dishonest man. The Commissioner—That is a general answer. Bankrupt—He was my partner, and kept the money, and would not render me any account. In reply to the Court, Mr. Bagley stated the action to which he had alluded was tried for the purpose only of testing the liability of the part ner to the partnership debts which he denied. The verdict was for a small amount only, but it was for the whole amount claimed by the creditor—namely, £5O. The Commissioner—That does not benefit the estate. Mr. Bagley—No, but it establishes the liability of the partner to the rest of the debts. Having made some inquiry of the official assignee as to the accounts, His Honoiir said he should pursue the same course that the Lords Justices did in ; ;o as e e e s s similar to the present, and were not merely friendly a ti s i s a i t gn w ee a s s , l a v o h d ere neg th ie e et a i ss og i the to interests of the creditors for w at i t i ention to any Bug -0 nwereth thoughte p ct e ha r sa - et the benefit of the bankrupt, gestion that fell from them, but only whe favourably re He they forming their duty bonajide as assignees. was so here, and be was disposed to look from its containing one feature of great importance, and tha was the length of time the ban k rup t had been in businesswit,l- 1 out failure. He was disposed to bel'eve that the bankrupt's failure had arisen partly from the circumstance of his having gone into partnership with a dishonest man. Therefore he might take an immediate certificate of the second class; and it was to be hoped that when be again entered trade his present misfortune might operate as asaution. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE, OXFORD HEREFORD, AUG. 2. Mr. Justice Byles and Mr. Justice Hill arrived in this city from Shrewsbury on Saturday, and opened the com mission for the city and county of Hereford. Their lordships yesterday attended divine service in the cathedral, and this day took their seats in court at 10 o'clock, Mr. Justice Byles presiding in the Civil Court, and Mr. Justice Hill in the Criminal Court. The cause-list contains an entry of three causes, one of which is marked for a special jury. The calendar contains a list of 17 prisoners, charged with ordinary offence;. CIVIL. COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Bytes and a Common Jury.) COLLINS V. LEWIS. Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Cleave appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. W. H. James for the defendant. The plaintiff in this action, Samuel Collins, was the occu pier of a farm at Black Bush, in the parish of Abbeydore; and he sued the defendant, Henry Lewis, the occupier of an adjoining farm, to recover damages for slander, imputing to the plaintiff that be was a thief, and had stolen some sheep and corn. It appeared that last August the plaintiff was churchwarden of the garish, and between him and the defendant there had been for some time a bad state of feel ing. The defendant complained of being overrated, and appealed to the Petty Sessions, but the magistrates decided against his appeal. After the business was over the plaintiff went to the Red Lion Inn, where the defendant followed him, and began to abuse him, by calling him by several op probrious epithets. The plaintiff* took no notice of him and went away, but the defendant followed him to the work house, a distance of 600 yards, and called him a thief and a —:rogue, and explained what he meant, by saying that he had stolen two bushels of wheat from him. He also called the plaintiff a sheepstealer, and said he had robbed Morgan of some sheep. It appeared the parties had recently all but come to an arrangement under which the defendant was to sign a written apology for uttering the slander, " under great excitement," but, being required to pay the costs which had been incurred by the bringing of the action, he broke off the negotiation, and in consequence the jury were now called upon to settle the question between the parties. The evidence showed that the plainttff and defen dant had been for some time at loggerheads. They had im pounded one another's sheep, and assaulted one another, and the plaintiff had sued the defendant in the County Court and got damages; but not being able to reduce the deiendaut into a peaceable and quiet neighbour, the plaintiff brought the present action to recover damages for the slaud er. Mr. HUDDLESTON having addressed the jury iu mitiga tion of damages, Mr. Justice Byles summed up the evidence, and left it to the jury to say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover, which, his lordship thought, ought to be more than nominal. The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £5. ELSIVORTHY AND OTHERS (ASSIGNEES OF SMITH) V YATES. Mr. Itiliateley, Q.C., and Mr. Gray, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Pigott a,:d Mr. Phipson for the defendant. When this case was called on, Mr. Whalelcy said it had been arranged that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiffs for r .C - 2,300. The action bad been settled upon terms. Verdict accordingly. CRIMINAL COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Hill.) William. Hill, 40, labourer, was charged with setting fire to gorse, the property of Mrs. Marriott, the lady of the manor of Goodrich, on the 30th of March, 1858. Mr. H. Matthews appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Powell defended the prisoner - 01 A policeman proved that while on duty he saw a fire on the common at Goodrich, and went to it, and there found the prisoner, and saw him set fire to the gorse in several places with a stick, to which was appended some rag or sponge which had been dipped in spirits, and thereupon took him into custody. Other witnesses deposed that they were employed by the lady of the manor to watch the gorse and to prevent its being burnt. On2cross-examination the policeman said he was a mile off when ke first saw the fire, and that the prisoner had not the stick in his hand when he apprehended him, nor could he find it afterwards. Other witnesses, on cross-examination, admitted that the cottagers on the common claimed the right to cut gorse,and that they were also accustomed to burn it when the growth inter fered with the pasturage of their sheep. Mr. Powell, for the prisoner, suggested that he had not set fire to the gorse, but had only gone to the place, when he saw the fire, as the policeman had done, and being there was apprehended. Mr. Justice Hill said there could be no more right by custom to burn gorse than to rob on Gad's-hill, and left it to the jury to say whether or not the prisoner set fire to the gorse. The jury found the prisoner net guilty. John Rowlands, 60, shoemaker, was charged with bigamy, in marrying Elizabeth Ford, at Whitborne, on the 25th of March, 1856, his former wife being still alive. Mr. Cleave appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell de fended the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner had married his first wife at Old Radnor Church, in March, 1824. This was proved by her sister, an elderly widow, who had acted as bridesmaid. The second marriage was proved by the Rev. Mr. Briscoe, a magistrate, and the rector of Whitborne, in whose service the second wife had lived as cook. The prisoner was de scribed as a bachelor in the marriage register; but his son was called to prove that he had seen him and his wife together within seven years at Pembridge, in this county, where she resided, and also at Kington, where they were before the magistrates on a charge of assanit. This was in 1851 or 1853, the witness could not tell which. On a recent occasion, when he saw his father and reproved him for mar rying again, he said the law could do him no harm. Mr. Powell having addressed the jury, they found the prisoner guilty, and Mr. Justice Hill, remarking that the second wife was 43 years of age, and was not the complainant, sentenced him to two months' imprisonment, without hard labour. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWICK, AUG. 2. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Wightman.) , Christopher Martin was charged with forging and utter ing a promissory note for £5O. i 1 Mr. Spooner and Mr. Field appeared for the 'prosecutor. It appeared that the prisoner had been engaged in busi ness transactions with the prosecutor, James Cook, for some years • that in 1856 he applied to Cook to join him in a note ; fur £5O to a club held at a public-house in Birmingham, kept by a man named Clements (the prisoner's brother-in law), which, however, Cook refused to do. Nevertheless, in December, 1856, he received a notification fromthesecre tary of the club that the instalment by which the note was made payable had fallen into arrear ; to which he made no reply, as he had in the meantime seen the prisoner, who assured him that it was a mistake, and requested him to say nothing about it, as it might injure his credit. Cook denied that he either signed the note himself, or gave any one authority to sign for him. In cross-exami nation hefadmitted that lie had requetsed the prisoner to meet part of a bill for 731., but gave as a reason that he I owed him above 2001. He denied that be had ever said to a man named Griffiths that he would ruin the prisoner and send him to a workhouse; he also denied that he had ever admitted that he was a party to the note. James Clements, in whose house the club was held, proved that the prisoner presented the note a few days after date to the club, which advanced £5O upon it, but in cross examination admitted that about that time he heard Cook say that he had signed the note; that the prisoner, so soon as he heard of the allegation of forgery, went to the club and urged the secretary to sue upon it, and moreover himself took it for that purpose to Messrs. Harrison and Wood, attorneys, in Birmingham, and that it was not until he had done this that the prosecutor, Cook preferred the present charge. Several witnesses were called to prove that the note was not, in their opinion, in Cook's handwriting. Mr. Macaulay having addressed the jury for the prisoner witnesses were called on his behalf to show,—first, that Cook bad on several occasions himself stated that he was a party to a bond note, and reproached the prisoner for the loss he had sustained from his not paying it in full ; secondly that it was, in fact, in Cook's handwriting. Griffiiths also was called to prove that Cook had said he would ruin the prisoner and send him to a workhouse. Some gentlemen from Birmingham gave the prisoner a good character. His Lordship having carefully summed up the case, th e jury found the prisoner not guilty. CIVIL COURT. _ _ (Before Lord Chief-Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.) DAVIS V. THE LONDON AND NORTH•WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Brewer appeared for the plain tiff; and Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Field for the de fendants. . . . This was an action for damages arising out of an unlaw ful detainer of the plaintiff's goods, on which £l5 had been paid into court by the defendants. The plaintiff in this case is a person who, in the begin ning of the year, was travelling in the north of Eng land with a Diorama of the sepoy rebellion, in about 50 views, which he had exhibited with considerable success in difthrent large towns. He was intending to exhibit his diorama in the midland districts, together with an exhi bition of anatomical figures, which he had lately bought for that purpose in London and Sheffield. On the 25th of February last the plaintiff, being at Liverpool, took seven large packages, comprising his pictures, some of the figures, and his apparatus, to the booking-office of the Lon don and North-Western Railway, addressed to Mrs. Peacock, Sheffield. He paid £1 4s. Bd. for the carriage of the goods, and took a receipt note for them. The plaintiff afterwards went to different towns to find space for his exhibition, but not finding it he went to Birmingham, where he paid £7 for printing handbills and engravings in anticipation of his ex hibition. It appeared that the pl a i nt iff' s goods arr i ve d at Sheffield on Feb. 27, but in consequence of certain disputes between the railway companies, a porter of the Midland Railway Company, who took them to Mrs. Peacock, said that he bad orders not to deliver them unless £l3s. 6d. were paid. This was refused, and the goods were taken back to the company's warehouses. Early in April a clerk of the Midland Company called to say that the goods would now be delivered without the payment. when this message was delivered the plaintiff's wife was staying at Mrs. Pea cock's, and she was told of it, but whether the plaintiff was informed of it did not appear. The goods were never brought, and the plaintff did not get possession of them until the 21st of July. The plaintiff's profits had been on an average about £7 a week clear while his diorama was open, and he expected a profit upon his anatomical exhi bition. During the detention of his goods three exhibitions of anatomical figures had taken p lace in Birmi ngham, all of y any exhibition A s far as of the t he p a k i i n n t d i ff b knew, efore e if T thhee slides e rio o r f objected to, but his Lordshi p ad le. evidence of profit, was plaintiff went to Birmingham. This evidence, as well as the t w h h e i r e e h haden answered b e v e e n r e m o i n t t r e t d e h i t e , n w l d i Th th a i n v k i the diorama and parts of the appara tus were in j ured b y b eing ew the e fevi assessingdence a t d h m e d i s a s m i b detained, and during the detaine r he had not been able to earn anything. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Mellor submitted that the plaintiff could only recover for the detainer up to the date of the message taken by the and clerk of the railway company, and that what the p laintiff ought to have done was to have paid the extra charge then claimed to recover it from the company. The learned Judge interposed, and said h e thought the best course would be to enter a verdict for the ' defendant, giving the plaintiff leave to more to enter a verdict for him for such damages as the Court should think fit, and lie left it to the jury to say what was the weekly profit of the The jury found it to be £4. MYERS V. BAKER. This was an action for penalties under the sth and 6th William IV., cap. 83, for imitating the plaintiff's marks upon his patented steel pens and holders. The case had not concleded when our parcel left. NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—IPswic Aim. 2. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Williams and a Special Jury.) EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. DORLING. Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Keane were counsel for the plant- MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. The August general sessinns of the peace for the county of Middlesex commenced this morning, at the Court-house, on Clerkenvvell-green, before Mr. Creasy (presiding for the assistant judge) ; Mr. Payne, deputy assistant judge, and Capt. Morley, Mr. Ilalswell, Mr. Brooking, Dr. Bateman, and other magistrates were present. There were 34 pri soners for trial. Mr. Creasy delivered a short charge to the grand jury. Edward Garnhant, alias Symes, 30, was indicted for stealing the carcase of a sheep, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company. Mr. Metcalfe was counsel for the prosecution ; the prisoner was not defended. As a van belonging to the company was being driven, laden with meat, along Ray-street, Cierkenwell, on the morning of the 14th of July, the prisoner got up behind and had possessed himself of the carcase of a sheep, when he was detected by a carman driving another van behind, who called a policeman and the prisoner was taken into custody. He made the excuse that be only wanted a ride, to which he was entitled as a servant to Mr. Sherman, but that as sertion was without foundation. Thejury found him guilty. Franklin, an officer of the F division, proved a former conviction against the prisoner, under which he was sen tenced to two years' hard labour. That was for the robbery of jewellery, &c., to the amount of about £2,000, from the brougham of Mr. Alexander, a manufacturing jeweller in Hatton-garden, as it stood at the door of a jeweller's shop in the Strand, about four years and a-half ago. Since the expiration of that sentence he had been summarily con victed twice, and he was well known to the officers of various divisions of the Metropolitan Police. Mr. Creasy sentenced him to seven years' penal servitude. William Harri3,lB, was indicted for, and found guilty of, feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Thompson, and stealing therein two petticoats and other articles his property. The prosecutor's " dwelling house" was a railway arch, and the prisoner was found in it. He told the policeman who took him that he was in distress and without a lodging, and seeing the door open he went in for shelter. He was a known offender, and had been con victed summarily on four occasions. The Court sentenced him to 10 months' hard labour. _ _ John Dexter, 38, ostler, was found guilty of stealing some casks, the property of Zuse Joel, pickle merchant, of Lambeth, his master, and was sentenced to two months' hard labour. Mr. Metcalfe was for the prosecution. William Higgins, 20, costermonger, was indicted for stealing two teaspoons and other articles, the property of Ellen Markland. Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted. This was an ordinary case of larceny in a dwelling-house. It occurred at Notting-hill, and the prisoner was one of a gang who had committed a number of similar thefts in that neighbourhood lately. The Court sentenced him to four years' penal servitude. (Before Mr. Payne.) Frederick Chapman, 52, clerk, and James Mason,l6, were indicted for indecent conduct. The charge was not proved as laid in the indictment, and the jury found the prisoners not guilty. Mr. Sergeant Ballantine (specially retained) and Mr. F. H. Lewis appeared for Chapman, who had been on bail ; Mr. Harry prosecuted. Samuel Seaton and William Busby were indicted for stealing some meat, the property of Mr. Hardy, butcher, of Brompton, the master of Busby. The last-named pri soner was seen to hand some chops, weighing 241 b., to Seaton from his master's cart, and, when taken, he said he did it because Seaton was in distress, and he received nothing for it. It was urged there was no felonious inten tion, and the jury acquitted the prisoners. Mr. .Dunbar was for the prosecution, Mr. Sleigh defended Seaton, and Mr. Ribton defended Busby. James Butler, 20, a known thief, was convicted of steal ing a purse containing ss. from the person of Mary Ann Norman, in the City-road, and was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE.—William J. Corderoy, a very respectably attired man, was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting a police-constable in the discharge of his duty. It appeared that on Saturday evening the prisoner was found in the street in a state of intoxication and creating a disturbance, which made it necessary to remove him, but upon an officer approaching him for that purpose he became very violent, so as to make it necessary to secure additional assistance. Even then he succeeded in kicking the first officer in a dangerous place, and threw another officer to the ground no fewer than four times before they succeeded in lodging him at the station. The prisoner said he was drunk at the time, and that was all he recollected. He remembered nothing about the as sault, and was very sorry he had so conducted himself. The Lord Mayor said he was very sorry too; but the offence was of too serious a nature to be lightly passed over. He was determined to do his utmost to protect the police in the discharge of their daty; and, in all cases where an assault upon the police was proved before him, he should deal se verely with the offender, whether he was drunk or sober at the time. _ _ Ills lordship then sentenced the prisoner, who seemed rather astounded at such a result, to 21 days' imprisonment, with hard labour. James Allen and Jo hn . Murray were char g ed with hav ing been concerned, w i th another man not in custody, in stealing a watch and chain, value £7, from the person of Thomas Millard. _ The prosecutor said—On Saturday afternoon I was going through Tower-street with a friend, when our attention was attracted to an Italian who was exhibiting a monkey there. At the same time, standing close by, were three men, of whom the prisoners were two, and Murray, who was close to me, dropped some halfpence on the ground, which he stooped to pick up, and a ft er giving something to the Ita lian, he went away with his two companions. Shortly afterwards I missed my watch and chain, and upon mention ing my loss, and my suspicion that the prisoners had robbed me, a gentleman who was there said they bad gone up to wards Tower-bill, and upon proceeding in that direction we came up with the prisoners there, the other man having got away. The watch has not been found, and I sun told that before we caught them they had offered it for sale on Tower-bill. The prisoners denied all knowledge of the robbery, and asserted that they were honest costerniongers, who had never been in trouble before ; but, unfortunately for their veracity, an officer in court identified Murray as having been to his own knowledge summarily convicted three times, and Allen twice, while Allen was also identified as having been already convicted at this court. They were then remanded to give time for an attempt to trace the watch. GUILDHALL.—Henry Bunbury, the son of the late Major-Gen. Bunbury, was placed at the bar before Alder man Cubitt, charged with passing and utterin g three bills of -exchange for £lOO, £5O, and £4O, with intent t defraud Mr. Hobson, a tailor, of 4. Finsbury-place South. Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Henry Hobson said—l have known the prisoner about three years. I had some business transactions with the pri soner and several other parties for whom Mr. Parkin, a soli citor, was concerned, bat they terminated in 1856. On Ist June last he called upon me at my place of business, and said that since he had seen me his father, Ma jor -Gen. Bun bury, had died, and that his a ff airs were then in the hands of Mr. Parkin. He asked me to advance him some money, and I let him have £lO, the amount he asked for. He had goods of me also at the same time. He brought a letter, purporting to come from Mr. Parkin, and addressed to the prisoner. On the sth of June he brought another letter, which he showed me, and represented he received it from and apparently accep Mr. Parkin. He wanted ,f 5, which I lent him. On the Bth of Jun e h e came aga i n . When he came he usually brought letters purp or ti ng to come from Mr. Parkin. On the 26th of Ju ne h e brought a bill of exchange for £ 4O , dated June 19, 1858,ted by Mr. Parkin. I remarked that drawn an d endorsed by the prisoner, it was rath er s i ngular that a sol i c i tor s hould give his accep tance, and he replied, not at all, as solicitors never made advances until they had the needful in hand. He then asked for an advance of £lO upon the bill produced for £4O ; and upon the faith of the genuineness of that bill I let him have £lO. On the Bth July he called again with another letter purporting to be written by Mr. Parkin, and at his re quest I advanced him £7. I knew be was entitled to a large property, being of a verhh family, and that his property amounted to about £ 14 , 000. On the 17th of July he brought another letter, which he read to me, in which the writer represented that the prisoner's affairs were all brought to a termination an d appointed the following Monday for a settlement. 'I then let him have £l5, and he ordered some goods, which were made up, but not delivered. lie also wanted a bat, and I gave him an order upon my hatter for one. On the following Monday I received a note from Mm, dated Islewortb, appointing the following Wed nesday to call upon me ; and on that day I received another letter from him from Portsmouth ' • but in the meanti me I called on Mr. Parkin. I did not see the prisoner again until Saturday last, when he came and inquired if the things he had ordered a fortnight previously were ready. I said they were, and invited him into the show-room, and while he was trying on the things he produced two bills of exchange for £lOO and £5O, which he gave to me, and said he was going to Cherbourg and should want £5O. Both bills were drawn and endorsed by the prisoner, and pur ported to be the acceptances of Mr. Parkin. They were both dated July 30, 1858. I then said he must have been aware that the bill of exchange for £4O bearing Mr. Par kin's name as the acceptor was a forgery, and he said it was. I then asked him if the other two bills were also forgeries, and he said they were. I then called up my foreman, and in his presence interrogated the prisoner again, when he repeated that the bills were forgeries. I called in a police man and gave him into custody. Mr. Wtn. Parkin said—l am a solicitor, and live at 29, Argyll-street. The acceptances to the bills produced are not in my handwriting, neither have they been written with my authority. The signature is not very like mine. I know the prisoner's handwriting. Tile bodies of the bills, as well as the forms of the acceptances, appear to have been written by him, but the signature is in a disguised hand. I have written to the prisoner several times, but not about Mr Hobson. I was concerned two years ago in purchasing of Mr. Hobson a mortgage which he held upon the prisoner's reversionary property. _ Cross-examined by prisoner-4 am the attorney to Major Adair and others, holding the estate on your behalf. Alderman Cubitt, after reading the usual caution pre scribed by law in such cases, asked the prisoner if he wished to say anything in answer to the charge ? The prisoner said—l wish to state, relative to Mr. Parkin and Mr. Hobson, that I have a claim upon this property, and that I hold Mr. Parkin's acknowledgment in his own handwriting of his not having paid me the sums agreed to, and that the letters I showed Mr. Hobson were not forgeries, but bond fide letters. That every party belonging to the family, solicitors and all, have received notice from me that I have never received the sums stipulated to be paid to me, and for that very reason I claimed a share in the estate ' although Mr. Parkin and his clients did all they could to shut me out. I also wish to state that at Crane court, Fleet-street, at the Scottish Hospital, of which Major Adair is the secretary, I signed various mortgages to the amount of £6,000 and upwards, and at the end of each mortgage there was a receipt drawn out acknowledging that I had received a fair proportion of the property for that mortgage, whereas all that I received was £245. I was to have had £250, but they kept back £5 because they . got me £5O a-day earlier than agreed upon. They then pur chased my equity of redemption for £5O, which I sold on their promise to keep good faith with me, which they did not. Upen the death of my father, knowing they had not a leg to stand upon, and that I was in want of money, they got me to sign a deed of confirmation of the past, fbr which they were to have given me £250 then and to leave the rest until a future day, when the estate came to be wound up. I re ceived part of that money when I signed the deed; and with regard to the rest, Mr. Parkin wrote to say it should be forwarded on my making application for it. I did make repeated application, and got a few pounds in dribs and drabs, but the balance I never got. To prove how they got my property into their hands, I wish to say that the firm of Messrs. Gaston, Aguilar, and Baker, cement manufacturers, got mortgages from me for goods which they contracted debts for, and never paid, leaving me liable, and one mort gage alone, for £1,500, Mr. Parkin bought on behalf of his clients for £250, showing how little they thought of the validity of the mortgage. Alderman Cubitt—This is no answer to the charge. Do you wish the whole of this statement to be returned with the depositions ? Pris'oner—That is what I desire, sir. The prisoner was then committed for trial. BOW-STREET. William Roble, a costermonger, was charged with in decently exposing himself to the servant-maids in Gordon square and the neighbourhood, and with addressing filthy language to them. It was proved by the evidence of several witnesses that the disgusting conduct complained of had been going en for some months past, although the prisoner, had always man aged to avoid apprehension until Saturday, when he was pursued by a fishmonger's assistant and given into custody, exhausted almost by his endeavouring to escape. He at first denied the charge, and Mr. Lewis, his solicitor, cross examined the witnesses, in the hope of establishing a case of mistaken identity, adding that the prisoner bore an excel lent character, and was a married man, his wife's confine ment being hourly expected. Eventually, however, to avoid the risk of still greater punishment at the sessions, the prisoner pleaded guilty, and begged the magistrate to dispose of the case by summary conviction. The servant-maids having also begged the Court to spare them the pain of appearing again, Mr. Henry committed the prisoner to three months' hard labour, remarking that he deserved a much heavier punish ment, and doubtless would have received it if the case had gone for trial. Mr. Henry has received a donation of ss. in postage stamps from " H. C.," who requested that it might be given to the young man at the brothel in George-street, for hav ing very properly refused to allow the cabman, Knight, to remain in the room with the servant girl, Mary Barry, whose case was reported on Saturday. WESTMINSTER; CRUEL ROBBERY OF A PARENT. —Harriet Hardiman and Anne Hawker, two young women, were placed at the bar before Mr. Paynter, charged with the following heartless robbery : The prosecutor was John Hardiman, father of the first named prisoner, a poor, hard-working smith, a widower, in bad health, with five children to maintain. On Saturday night he went to bed, with his week's wages, amounting to 135., in his pocket, and on awaking in the morning found it had all gone. The door of his humble abode had been left as usual unlocked, a circumstance of which his daughter availed herself to enter in the night and rifle his pockets of their contents. The other prisoner had been seen with her at the door of her father's house, and was found in her company when she was apprehended, shortly afterwards, with similar coins to those stolen in her possession. In reply to the magistrate prosecutor said that his daugh ter, who might have been of great service to him, had absented herself from his house three months ago, and had taken to evil courses and companions, The prisoners, the former of whom admitted the robbery, were committed for trial. SERIOUS AND UNPROVOKED CASE OF WOUNDING.— Elizabeth Saunders, a woman of dissipated appearance, was charged with assaulting Miss Margaret Gibson. The prosecutrix, a very genteelly-dressed young woman, residing at 23, Paradise-walk, Chelsea, said that the defen dant lodged in her mother's house, and on Saturday night was intoxicated and created a great disturbance. Some boys followed her home, and complainant was standing in the passage of the house when she was suddenly struck by defendant on the head and fell. Mr. Paynter inquired the extent of the injury ? Complainant, 'who wore a linen bandage round her head, said it was a very deep cut, and pained her very much. She had had it dressed at the hospital. She gave defendant no provocation of any description. Isabella Martin said she was present at the time of the assault. The wound was inflicted with a china image, which defendant deliberately threw at the complainant. Complainant screamed and fell. She was insensible for some minutes, and bled copiously from the wound. It was at first thought that she was killed. Defendant, who made no reply to the charge, was re manded for a week. MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—AssAuIas ON WOMEN. —Charles Cattle, 119, Jermyn-street, was brought before Mr. Long, charged with ill-using his wife, Mrs. Martha Cattle. The complainant said her husband came home yesterday morning about two o'clock drunk, and began beating her with his fists, and he then threw her down on the floor, jumped on her repeatedly, and kicked her all over the body. She had been married ten years, and this was not the first time her husband had ill-used her. The prisoner, in defence, said his wife did not speak the truth. Police-constable Turvey, 200 C, said he was called in, and be found the complainant nearly naked and exhausted, and shamefully beaten. The prisoner resisted violently, and struck him several times. Police-constable Robinson, C division, said the prisoner, when at the station-house, assaulted him and bit his hand. Mr. Long sent the prisoner to hard labour for three months for assaulting his wife, one month in addition for assaulting the constable, and to find bail for six months at the expiration of the terms of imprisonment. William Murphy was charged with a violent assault on Elizabeth Hallows. The complainant said she was in Piccadilly on the night of the 26th July, when the prisoner came up and indecently assaulted her. She asked him what he meant by such con duct. He replied, " I'll show you," and then struck her several blows with his fist on the face. The prisoner put his hand into his pocket, pulled out something heavy, threw it in her face and stunned her. Mr. Long sent the prisoner to hard labour for two months. John Beal was charged with beating Mary Beal, his wife. The wife, who had her head bandaged, said her husband was about to break the furniture when she interposed. Her husband laid hold of her, lifted her up, and threw her vio lently on the floor, cutting her head open. Her husband was constantly in the habit of beating her, and did nothing towards the support of his family. The son confirmed his mother's evidence. The father in defence said his wife took up the poker. The son said this was true. Mr. Long said that being the case be would let him off this time, and would only order him to enter into his own recognisance to keep the peace. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.--Henry Summerley and Samuel Owen were charged with obtain ing ten decanters from Mr. John Hobson, 19, St. James's street, by fraudulent pretences. Charles Smith was in the employ of Mr. Hobson. About one o'clock that day Summerley came to the shop and ordered ten decanters in the name of a gentleman named Halford, No. 9, Rutland-gate. The prisoner was told to call in half an hour. He did so, and took away the de canters in a cab. The prisoner wal followed, and witness saw the other prisoner Owen help him to take the decanters from the cab. There being nn evidence against Owen, he was discharged. The prisoner Summerley was then charged with obtaining goods from Messrs. Miller and Son, Piccadilly, by false pretences. Evidence was given that the prisoner obtained Sib. of candles and a quantity of oil from the firm in the name of Halfora. As it was suspected there were other cases of the same description the prisoner was remanded for a week. WORSHIP-STREET.—A —MARRIAGE NOT A-LA-MODE. —A very youthful couple, still in their teens, although bound in wedlock, m a de their reluctant appearance before the magistrate, accompanied by their respective parents, who sought for advice under very embarrassing circum stances. The bridegroom's father, who appeared to be a respectable tradesman stated in effect that having two places of business be had entrusted the management of one to his son, who had not long been home from school, and was satisfied with his conduct until Tuesday, when he absented himself from business, and after his return the astounding fact was elicited from him that he had in the meantime contracted marriage with a girl younger than himself. For a time he refused to disclose the whereabouts of his young wife, who, however, was now in court with her mother—(a timid-looking girl was in fact now observed crouching and occasionally peeping from behind her parent). The magistrate said it certainly was a strange story, and asked the father if he thought his son was out of his mind. The father replied that he bad never had reason to think so before this occurrence. The girl's mother now cameforw ard and said that the young man first saw her daughter at a Christmas party, and after wards became such a passionate suitor that his conduct was quite alarming to the object of it, who had on one occasion even resorted to the expedient of hiding herself under a bed to avoid an interview with her admirer. The day before this inauspicious wedding, however, he came and pleaded sot earnestly that he was permitted to see the girl tete-a-tete, and she afterwards said that he had threatened to stab her to the heart if she rejected him. The next day she disap peared from home, and returning after a long absence con fessed that she had been married in the interval, and that her husband had already deserted her. The girl herself being now questioned said the statement of facts was cor rect. Her husband, having .induced her to meet him, took her to the City, w h ere th e marr i age was solemnised at.a church, and afterwards consummated, but her husband then confessed that he had married her in spite, because she had preferred to him another young man, who, however, would have nothing furthe r t o sa y t o h er a f ter what had occurred. The magistrate observed that it was the most strange case that had ever come before him. The parties being both under age, and the bride acting apparently under coercion, the marriage would, he supposed, readily be set aside by the proper court, but in the meantime the man aught to con tribute to the supp or t o f hi s girl-wife. _ The parties then left the court. CHARGE OF STEALING A HORSE AN D CART.- William Eddington, a jobber, was placed at the bar before Mr. Hammill and charged with stealing a horse and cart and harness belonging to Charles Jones, a coal merchant, in Shaftesbury-street, Hoxton, who stated that on Friday afternoon he left the prisoner with his lad in the care of his horse and cart while he went to take tea, but upon his re turn in half an hour the whole had disappeared, and after a vast deal of trouble he traced them to Gray's-inn-road, where he found the prisoner in the very act of receiving six sovereigns from a man, to whom he had agreed to sell the horse for that amount. The value of the whole was about £l7, but the cart was a hired one. William Craig, aged 16, said that as soon as the prosecutor left them the prisoner walked the horse up and down for a short time, and then suddenly asking witness if he knew Gray's-inn-lane, drove off to it, and desired witness to wait for him at a public-house there. In about three hours he brought two other men, one of whom offered to give him £5 10s. for the horse, and a gratuity of ss. for himself. The pri soner refused to take that, but agreed to accept £6, and was just receiving the money when the prosecutor came in with a police-constable. The prisoner then asserted that the pro secutor had authorised him to sell the horse for six guineas ; but the prosecutor utterly denied it and gave him into custody. Mr. - Bliss, landlord of the Havelock Arms, said that the prisoner, whom be knew before, came with the horse and cart, intimating that he had to sell them, and witness en tertained no suspicion, as the prosecutor had in fact offered last week to sell him the horse for £6 ss. He therefore re commended the prisoner to a person named Duffy, as a likely man to buy it, and they were about completing the bargain when the prosecutor came in in a terrible fluster, having, as he said, spent 15s. in cab-hire in search of them. The witness said he did not believe the prisoner meant to steal the horse. The prosecutor admitted that he had offered last week to sell the horse for £lO, the prisoner being with him at the time, but he never authorised the prisoner to sell it, and merely left hint with the lad in care of it. Mr. Hammill remanded the case for a week for further inquiry. LAMBETII. NUMEROUS ROBBERIES OF WATCHES.--A woman named Sophie Weeks was placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton, charged with having been concerned with two men not in custody in attempting to pick the pocket of a lady. Mr. Woatner attended for the prisoner. Sergeant Potter, 16 D, deposed that on Saturday after noon last, while in Southwick-crescent, Paddington, he saw the prisoner walking arm in arm with a man ; another man was walking at a short distance behind. In Upper South wick-street the prisoner and the man who wis with her accosted a lady, of whom they had no doubt been asking their way to a certain place, and she was pointing with her hand towards Praed-street. Witness asked the lady if she had lost anything, and she replied that she had not. They went into Cambridge-street, where they met another lady into whose pocket witness saw pri soner put her hand. The prisoner and her two male com panions, upon observing that he (witness) bad kept a watch npon their movements, made off as fast as they could, and in the course of their progress one of the men threw some thing into a garden. The men got clear off, but the pri soner, who had got into a Hansom cab, in which she was about to be driven away, was captured by witness and conveyed to the station-house. In reply to the magistrate, Potter said that neither of the ladies was present. Mr. Broughton--Do you know anything of the prisoner ? Witness—l do not myself, but I believe she is well known to Crocker, of the C division, who was here this morning, but was obliged to leave. Witness added that a number of robberies had lately been committed in the Paddington dis trict, the articles stolen being principally purses and watches, by parties who had stopped ladies and elderly gentlemen under pretence of being informed as to their right road to a particular spot. Inspector Mackerell stated that owing to many recent cases of plunder the witness Potter had been ordered to keep watch in plain clothes. The prisoner was remanded for further inquiry respecting her. SOUTH WARK.—TuE OLD INDIAN SOLDIER AGAIN. —After the usual night charges had been disposed of, John Lawton, the old soldier, attended before Mr. Combe ac-. cording to promise, with the view of explaining his conduct and contradicting the statements which had recently ap peared in the newspapers. He informed his worship that he left a letter on Saturday for his perusal, the contents of which would clearly show that he was neither an " impos tor" nor " cheat." _ _ _ Mr: Combe him be had carefully perused the letter in question, and he must publicly say that he saw nothing , in it to alter his opinion, that he was an impostor as well as a cheat." He clearly obtained 6s. from Mr. Edward, his chief clerk, under the pretence of going to Hull. He, how ever, did not go ; consequently that was an imposition. Lawton endeavoured to explain that circumstance by say ing, that the reason he did not leave London then was the accounts which he saw in the newspapers on Thursday morning. He considered that they were injurious to him as an old soldier who had served his country, and that his character required to be vindicated. Mr. Combe asked him what he had to say about obtaining 10s. front the Hon. Mr. Norton at Lambeth Police-court only a few days before ? He replied that be did not beg that to be sent to Hull. He was in great distress at the time, and actually starving. He told Mr. Norton so, and the whole of his history. Miller, 118 L, an officer attached to Lambeth Police court, said he was present when Lawton made his applica tion to the Hon. Mr. Norton, and at his request he made inquiries about his services in the army. They turned out to be quite correct, and Mr. Norton gave him (Lawton) 10s. out.of the poor-box to enable him to go to Hull. Mr. Combe asked Lawton what he had to say to that ? He replied that be expended the money to purchase food, therefore he could not go to Hull. Mr. Combe told him that his conduct was very suspicious, and, so far as he could see, looked very much like a fraud. He came before him with a very plausible tale ; and regard ing his services in the army, and his character during that time, no doubt he had told the truth. But latterly he had grossly imposed upon the poor-boxes of several of the metropolitan police courts. He told his tale to the magis trates, and then asked for the means to be sent to Hull. Three times had he imposed upon the Lord Mayor, and he most undoubtedly had imposed upon the poor-boxes of the Lambeth and this police court. Lawton did not consider it any imposition. He was in distress, and in want of common necessaries. If his worship wished he could send to Chelsea Hospital, and ascertain that he was entitled to enter that institution on his arriving at 50 years of age. What was he to do until then ? Mr. Combe told him he must not impose upon the poor boxes at the police courts. When before him on Wednes day last he said that he had taught drilling at schools near Hull, and that he had come up to London to seek a Go vernment situation; "and failing in that he wanted the means to return to Hull, where he had friends. The chief clerk provided him with those means, but he did not go to Hull. Did not that look like fraud ? Lawton observed that his clothes were in such a deplorable state that he felt ashamed to go to Hull. Mr. Combe told him that was an idle excuse. lie never mentioned that when he made the application. When the money was given to him at Lambeth and that police court he promised to go by the boat to Hull immediately. In stead of that, he remained in London—most likely for the purpose of further imposition, but that was put a stop to by the press. He had received several sums of money from benevolent individuals for his use, but he should not hand it to him, or encourage such a system of fraud. If he liked he might go and tell his tale to the officers whose names be had mentioned in his letter, and see whether they would assist him, as he would have nothing further to do with him. Lawton asked his worship to read his letter. That set forth his character and showed he was not an impostor. Mr. Combe again told him he had carefully read his letter, and there was nothing in that to excuse him from commit- ting the frauds he had upon the poor boxes. He might thank himself lucky that he was not sent to prison ; there fore the sooner he went about his business the better. Mr. Combe then requested our reporter to announce in the Morning Post that the benevolent individuals who had sent money to this court for Lawton might have the same returned to them on application to the chief clerk, or if they pleased it might be deposited in the poor-box, and distri buted to the many deserving poor who were constantly asking for assistance. CRUEL CASE OF WIFE BEATING.— Charles Cooling, a cab-driver, was brought before Mr. Combe charged with cruelly beating Rebecca Cooling, his wife. The latter, who had a severe cut on the side of the right temple near the eye, and who exhibited several bruises on her arms, stated that she had been married to the prisoner 14 years. He had formerly been a cab-master and driver, but latterly his habits had become so depraved through drunkenness that he had lost his license, and now he hung about the cab-stands;and did nothing to contribute towards her support. He was frequently in the habit of ill-using her, and a day or two ago he came home and knocked her about with the handle of a whip. He then cut her face and injured her arms, and she believed he would nearly have murdered her had not a constable came in and took the whip handle from him. Police-constable 177 produced the whip, the handle of which was covered with blood. He further added that the prosecutrix was so unwell after the assault was committed as not to be able to attend and give her evidence when the prisoner was first brought up for examination. ; Mr. Combe asked the prisoner what he bad to say in an swer to the charge ? He replied that he had been drinking at the time, and when he got home she aggravated him. He was, however, very sorry for his conduct. Mr. Combe told him he was a cowardly, brutal fellow, and he should sentence him to six months' hard labour. THE LATE CALAMITOUS T a H n EF inspector ßE FIRE AT Dodd, WORK FACTORIES.—Mr. William F . of police, applied for four summonses, by direction of Capt. L a b a l mo ndiere, the assistant commissioner of police, against the owners of the houses Nos. 1 and 2, Charles-street, and 3 and 4, Elizabeth-place, Westminster-road, parish of St. George-the-Martyr, and calling on them to show cause why they neglected to take down the walls of these respective buildings or structures, they having been duly certified to be in a dangerous state by a competent surveyor, and notice of the same having been given to them. The buildings in question are the ruins of the houses at which the late calamitous explosion of fireworks took place, and the usual certificates of a surveyor, under the dangerous structures clause in the Metropolitan Building Act, repre senting the ruins to be in a dangerous state, having been put in, the summonses, as requested, were at once granted. \Vito PLUCKED TILE FLOWERS ?—James Cottcrell, a constable belonging to the P division of police, No. 402, was brought up in custody and placed at the bar, on a charge of plucking flowers in the garden and pleasure grounds of a gentleman at Brixton. Mr. Lund, the superintendent of the division, represented the prisoner as the worst man under his charge, and said that for the 10 months he had been in the force there were nine report s aga i ns t hi m , an d it was his impression the pre sent was not the first offence of the kind of which he had been guilty. The prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge, and Mr. Nor on observed that, in consideration of his being discharge' from the force, his sentence would be more lenient than bit! offence deserved. He th en fi ne d th e pr i soner s s. or 10 days' imprisonment. MURDEROUS ASSAULTS UPON CAPTAINS OF SHIPS.—Adam Young, John Ray, and Jas. Augustus Samuels, American uegroes, and lately seamen on board the American ship Satellite from Calcutta, were brought before Mr. Yardley charged with committing a savage and unprovoked assault on Capt. Samuel Annis, the master of the ship. On Saturday the prosecutor appeared at this court as s e defendant. He was summoned by 11 of hi s c rew , a ll men 0 , colour, for their wages earned at sea, and Mr. Fletcher im mediately pleaded on his behalf that the ship Satellite ives an American one, and that the magistrate had no jurisdic tion. A certificate from Mr. Campbell, the United States Consul, stating that the Satellite belonged to the port of Rochland, in the State of Maine, was put in, and the magis trate at once decided that he had no jurisdiction in the matter, and dismissed the summonses. Capt. Annis left the court, and was fiercely attacked by the prisoners and others. He returned into court guarded by a strong posse of police) with his face battered, his eyes blackened, and blood stream ing from his nose and mouth. The excitement was verY great, and although an application was made to hear the case instanter, Mr. Yardley refused, and said the case must be heard when the parties cooled down, and adjourned the hearing. Mr. Fletcher detailed the particulars of the outrage which was committed within the precincts of the court on as American gentleman who had been summoned to the court. He (Mr. Fletcher) was an eye-witness of the outrage, which was one of the most ba r b arous h e h a d ever h ear d o f . He vves quite sure that when the magistrate had received the evi dence he would impose a severe penalty. Capt. Annis said that directly he left the court on Satur day, and was making his way towards the office of Mr' Fletcher, he was attacked by the defendants, who begs° yelling and hooting. He was thrown int o th e m iddle of the road, kicked, and knocked down. He got up and Ive s knocked down again. A man named Fraser, one of thos e who took out summonses, was the first that struck him' He was repeatedly struck and kicked on the head, back, and face, and should have been murdered if it had not been for the police. He lost a good deal of blood. In answer to questions by Mr. Yardley, the witness sai d all his crew were black men, except two. He heard Samuels say " - you, I'll have your heart's bload, ,, The ship was under seizure on a bottomry bond, and be could not pay the wages or get any money. Robert Wittleton, a police-constable, No. 152 IC, ee officer of the court, witnessed the outrage. There was el black man on one side and one on the other beating and kicking the captain, who called uut mur d er . He seize(' Young, and held him fast by the neck. Young said, " Le t me go, you -." Witness said, " No, you are on English ground now, and I don't let you go until a magistrate de cides upon the case." Several other witnesses deposed to the violence inflicted by Young and Samuels, but no one saw Ray strike or kick the captain. He was seen among the crowd of coloured men following the captain, and close to him when he was ill-used, but it could not be sworn he actually kicked or struck the captain. Mr. Yardley ordered Ray to be discharged. Mr. Charles Young, in defence, said he could not denY the assault, and he could only plead in exoneration of the prisoners, that they were very much excited at the shameful deductions made by the captain in the accounts rendered of wages due to the seamen who had navigated the ship to this port, and could not obtain a farthing. Mr. Yardley said the captain had not been asked a single, question in cross-examination relatin g t o d e d uc ti on s, and it was exceedingly unfair to make such statements without giving the prosecutor an opportunity of contradicting it. Mr. Young—lt is in my instructions, and th e acc ounts, partly printed and partly written, prove it. There is 14s. charged to each man for shipping and unshipping. Mr. Yardley—Then you should have questioned the captain about those matters. Mr. Young said although the affray might be considere d brutal among Englishmen who fought with the weapon s which nature gave them, it was customary in America for men to kick each other, and use knuckle-dusters made o f , brass, and other weapons. In America thi s a ff a i r wou ld Rot be considered exceptionable, for" booting," as it was called , was a favourite pastime there, and Americans did not use their bare fists as Englishmen did. Mr. Yardley said there was no palliation or excuse for tills outrage, which was surround e d w ith c i rcums t ances o f great aggravation. The captain app eare d i n th a t cour t t o a nswet could summonses issued against hi m , an d he., told him he could' not decide the case. Th e l ega l a d v i ser o f th e pr i soner s 00" their shipmates made no resistance at all to the decision' It might be a hardship on the seamen not to get their wages, but the captain had no power to pay them with out the order of the persons who had s e i ze d th e sbll' The defendants must act in obedience with the E ng li s h laws while they were in this country. It was a grave offence ipso.' civilised country for a man seeking justice in a properly CO": stituted court to be insulted and ill used. A man leaving 0 ; courts of j ustice must be protected, whatever his rank wig be. The prisoners had not only committed a most brute outrage, but had also been guilty of a contempt of Nul, He was very sorry to hear the remarks which had fallen e,. from Mr. Young about American brutality as compared 0 ° English brutality. We had no business to exalt ou rselves at the expense of other nations. The Americans were a_ civilised as the English. It was all non s en se t o say ther e was any palliation in the case. A most gross, imprope r' brutal, and savage assault had been committed on CaP Annis. He fined the prisoners each, and in default of payment two months' imprisonment. Mr. Yardley also issued warrants against two other W e „ named Fraser and Sydem who were concerned in the out' rage, and said if 1.-uy other men committed an assault ma' the captain, he would send them before a jury for trial, an if found guilty they would be sentenced to a long term ° imprisonment. ANOTHER AND SIMILAR AFFAlR.—Michael an Irishman, aged 21, Emmanuel Peana, 25, Lawren Cornelius, 21, and Richard Crosby, 21, the three 1 9 s l ' foreigners and men of colour, were brought before 31 ; Yardley, charged with assau lti ng C a pt. H enr y M`Neil, t he master of the British ship H enr i e tt a . The prosecutor in this c ase WB3 summoned to th i s co „ rt -- A on Saturday by these seamen f or wages, and it appear ed that the ship had bee n on a w h aling voyage, and 5 001 from London on the 10th of May, 1856, that the origbi a master, Capt. Holmes, committed su i c id e , that the ship P ut into St. Helena, where 15 men deserted, and were se" ; . a tented to three months' imprisonment and hard labour,"; that 15 others were shipped as substitutes. Af t er variou s adventures the ship put into Ternate, a Dutch settleineoci where the captain was compelled to enter into a see ° agreement to pay the men monthly wages. Mr. Yardley decided that as the seamen had entered ittit,oe a written contract to go out upon the "lay" or s hare in profits of the adventure, the custom in South Sea whau°,l voyages, the second agreement entered into at Ternate W" null and void, and dismissed the summons. Mr. Cox, solicitor for the captain, promised that, al thoug h the whale fishing bad not been very successful, the e r T,, would be liberally dealt with by the owner at the pay tabf e Mr. Joseph Smith, solicitor, said he appeared for " seamen on the application for their wages, but did not eil l ; pear for them now, a n d wou ld no t coun t enance a tt a cks suitors as they were leaving the court. Capt. M‘Neil said that directly he left the court on Satur day afternoon he was followed by the prisoners and others, who abused him in a most gross manner. Ryan struck bin/ first on the face with his fist. The m an P eana se i z ed 'P i !: by the neck and compressed it, and left marks upon bi t throat, and Cornelius and Crosby tucked up their slur sleeves and beat him. Th e police came up and interfere d , and took the prisoners into custody. In answer to questions by Mr. Yardley, Capt. M'Neil said - r s The whole of the c rew w ill b e pa id th e i r s h ares o f the Prof'o of the adventure. Some fish had been caught. The voyag on the whole had been unfortunate. I have not be e „ addicted to habits of intemperance, or afflicted with tremens. There was no inquiry into my conduct before 012 8 1 local marine board, and no intention of proceeding age ia me. Mr. Yardley—Certain insinuations having been throv! ° out against the captain, I have given him an opportuoll of contradicting them upon oath. Capt. beg leave to say that the men wil l paid all that is due to them in a day or two. Mr. William M`Neil, brother of the last-named &Wel confirmed his statement, and said he seized Ry an a nd be l him down until a policeman arrived. Mr. Yardley—This is a very seri ous o ff ence, b ut not (I" ite so bad as the last case I heard. R ea ll y i t i s new that par i going out of this court are t o b e assaulted by unsucce ssr suitors, and it must be put a stop to. It is a most a bou1 1 ; able proceeding, and I hope never to hear of such a tbit again. I fine R yan £ 3, or t h ree wee k s ' i mpr i son meL) Peana 405., or 14 days' imprisonment; and the others each, or eight days' imprisonment. The crew of the American ship were actuated by su ch hostile feelings against their captain that Inspector Alliser,t of the K division, and a strong force of poli ce h a d to esc" him to a place of safety. Yesterday the full Board of Admiralty landed at tb i e , King's-stairs, Portsmouth Dockyard, at half-past elen e o'clock, when the men belonging to the dockyard vibe mustered before their lordships. They went out of yard for the remainder of the day. Their lordships' stay I" the yard was very short. Qp A POACHER SHOT BY A GAMEKEEPER. -- r Thursday morning, between one and two o'clock, three o_, four men got within the boundaries of Witton Park, the se 0j of Mr. Joseph Fielden. about a mile from Blackburn, ag e were busy setting nets, when they were pounced upon J c i three gamekeepers. The men immediately made off, 0 24 one of the gamekeepers, named John Lane, fired and so"., one of the men, named Peter Lister, wounding him V er / i severely in the hips and back part of the thighs. Lister 0, taken to a beershop and attended by a surgeon, who 0 ' extracted from his pers on a num b er o f s h ot . H e s till lie s there in a precarious condition. The gamekeeper, J° l3ll , Lane, has been taken into custody, and will be brought fore the magistrates. BIRTHS. CHARLTON—On the Ist inst., Mrs. J. S. Charlton, manor park, Streatham, of a son. HALLEY—On the 2d inst., at 7, Harley-street, Cavendish square, the wife of Dr. Alex. Halley, of a daughter. s. MOIR—On the 25th J u l y, at Leck i e, St i rl i ngsh i re , Graham Moir, of a son and heir. PYE—On the I s t i nst., at W i m b ledon, the w i fe o f Ke•IWO J. Pye, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. GIBSON—HIGGS—On the 31st ult., at St. John's, Ilo ci j; ney, Mr. W. S. Gibson, of Islington, to Mary Ann, o' „ daughter of James Higgs, Esq., of Gresham-terra ce s Dalston, and Stock Exchange. Fox---TowNsEND—On the 31st ult., at St. George't ' Hanover-square, George Fox, Esq. of Green-str eet ' Grosvenor-square, to Annie Townsend, of Cornwall -tes.. race, Regent's-park, daughter or the late John Town end, Esq., of Leamington, Warwick. DEATHS. ASHwoRTH—On the Ist inst., at 5, St. George's-PI : 1 ,1; Lieut.-General Sir Frederick Ashworth, Colonel of 44th Regt., aged 75. DAVis—On the I s t inst., Mr. Samuel Davis, of the - Ne vi Kent-road, aged 92. PEASE—On the 31st July, at his house, Northgate, D ar lington, Edward Pease, aged 91. FINCH —On the 31st ult., Anne, wife of Mr. James be sen., Loughborough-road, Brixton. a iro OSBORN—On the 30th ult., at Chicksands Priory, "- Elizabeth, second daughter of Sir George and Lady P be t h Osborn, aged 20. WEEDON—On the 2 7th ult., at Fleming-road, it m iler ton, Mr. Edwin Weedon. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, or 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the coi l° of Middlesex, Tuesday, August 3,1856.