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

WHITECROS,S-STREET P_RISON.-PRiIC TICES OF SOLICITORS. In the early part of the present year a great many corn lsinte were made with regard to the discipliee and general Pate of the debtors' prison in Whitecross-street, and various eps were taken by the Gaol Committee of the Court of lldermen with a view to its improvement. About the same true Mr. Border, who ha? been gevernor for many years, eared from his situation, and Capt. G. M. Hicks was appointed governor in his steal. This gentleman, during he few months that have since elapsed, has devoted him elf with great success to the discharge of the duties of his etfice, and among other points in connection with which he has endeavoured to ameliorate the condition of the prisoners under his care, he has turned hie attention to the improper i trac'ices of solicitors, and has addressed to the Court of Aldermen a most important report upon the subject. In this report, which will be found of great public interest, Capt. Hicks says:— " As gOvernor of this prison I think it my duty to bring under yentr consideration all matters affecting its well being, whether as regards abuses that may have crept in, which can be corrected without dat.ger of recurrence by bold and active measures, or in reference to salutary change, ofother descriptions that can be effected without difficulty unless cases for reformation be suffered to accumula'e. " I regard as of paramount importance the subject which I have now the honour to submit to you. " Several of the debtors confined in this prison have coraplained, and complain, of needless delays, great inat ten - lion, or of exorbitant demands on the part of their eolicit'es, and have appealed to me, unaware that I am restricted from recommending any professional gentle man to them, however urgent may be the necessity or truthful the plea that they know not whom to trust, and are debarred from personally seeking cut of do-rs some one in whom they could confide. The prisoners not having any scale or estimate as a guide to the probable charges for being tak-n through the Insolvent Court, the solicitors demand at their own pleasure various sums—one man asking £l2 for what another vsilldoforg6 or.E7, but the prisoners know not which to trust. Bargains are sometimes made and sometimes broken, and there are instances of even more money being paid by a prisoner than he had agreed fur with his solicitor, yet he has been utterly neglected, anti has had to commence anew with some one else. It therefore appears to me that prisoners anxiously seeking their etnae elpation should, as far as possible, he protected from extor tion and unnecessary delay, as the former tends to plunge their families into deeper distress—perhaps throwing them into the workhouse ; and the latter unfairly presses upon the prison expenditure. "Prisoners who are relieved by the charitable funds re quire particular attention, as they are often obliged to give warrants of attorney and I 0 IJ's to their legal advisers, in order to make up the difference between the a 4 libitum sum demanded by the solicitor and the amount of relief received, so that instead of being made free by the Insolvent Court, they are sent out on the world, not only pennilese, but in the power of the solicitor, to be at any time re- arrested and sent back to this prison. " A great change in these matters is most desirable, and under that conviction I offer certain suggestions the adop tion of which will inevitably be attended by— " 1. The expeditious discharge of prisoners. "2. Economy of charitable funds. "3. Increase in the number of cases relieved. "4. 'The absolute freedom of the prisoner on his discharge. ".. The prevention of extortion on the part of the solicitor. "These objects obtained, a death blow to most pernicious practices would be struck. "To effect them a prison solicitor' should be appointed to conduct all charitable cases, at the same sum for each, calculated on the average of both the great and small ones. "'Many solicitors of respectability would accept this trust, contented with moderate emoluments; it being of a very confidential nature, the business continuous, and cases numerous, £6 per head should be the maximum ; but it is possible that the contract would be taken at a less rate, and, by reducing the legal charges per case, by means of an arrangement of part of the fund at the disposal of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, a further saving would be effected. " Among instances of misconduct on the part of certain legal practitioners, the following are submitted : " A prisoner arranged with a solicitor to be taken through the Insolvent Court for £B, £5 to be paid during the pro gress of his case, and £3 after his discharge • yet, although he paid £7 out ' of the £B, the first payment having been on the 3d of May last, neither his petition nor schedule was filed up to July 14. " There is now a prisoner here who employed a solicitor, and agreed with him, for £lO, to be taken through the Court, and counsel's fee g:2 11$. extra, all which he paid, and when brought before Commissioner Law, it was dis covered that the solicitor neglected to file the necessary papers, though he had them in his bag, and the commis sioner said the solicitor did not know his business, and re buked him as the cause of the prisoner's remand. The solicitor pleaded ignorance of the forms of that court, yet this same solicitor afterwards sent to the prisoner a docu ment, of which the following is a copy, requiring him to sign it as the condition of further services:— ." I undertake that all costs, charges, and expenses, which have been, or may be incurred by you in relation to my petition and discharge, to which the £lO already paid to you do not extend, shall be paid, either by me or some person on my behalf, within a reasonabie time after the delivery of your bill.' " A prisoner now here states that in December last he was introduced to a person who represented himself as a solici tor, to whom he stated his ease, and a lied if no would take him through the court for ,EB. The answer was " Yes." He was then asked if that would include fee-to counsel, and was told it would not, when he agreed to give that fee extra. ' This so-called solicitor drew from him from time to time £1 165., in sums of from 3s. to 10s. Then there was an interval of some weeks; during the whole time the supposed solicitor and an associate of his said that the business was progressing. Afterwards a meeting took place at a public house, when the supposed solicitor int? oduesd another (a so licitor practising in the prison), but neither of them said he was a solicitor, and be did not give the priscuer the least hint that he intended to act for him. He casually asked prisoner if a'l that was in a schedule which the supp ,sed so licitor had bought was true, and prisoner said it was, and the person then pointed out the place far prisoner to sign. Ile met him afterwards once outside the court, when he said " I hear you have an opooiing creditor," and prisoner said " T' can't be he'ped." This was all that passed, and prisoner had no: the remotest idea that this person assumed to act for him until he got a bill from the Inso:veist Court, c-sts tated, amounting to £l9, in winch this person appeared as prisoner's solicitor. Prisoner took no notice of the bill, not having employed any person of the name. Soon after prisoner received a notice to attend before the taxing-master to have a further bill tax, making a whole of £33, on a writ for i which the prisoner is now confined. Prisoner also states that the person who first represented himself as a solicitor, and whom the solicitor who has imprisoned him now states to he his clerk, has been in the House of Correction two rears fur perjury and false bail. " Touter- from the courts frequent this prison, as do also the agents and cltrks of obscure s9licitcrs ; they sometimes attempt pass off as principals to get business f them selves. I have seen one of the touting agents with a person in a state of beastly drunkenness, who he said was a solidi to and his principal, and wham I ordered out of the prison, and threatened to give in et arge of the pallet: for making a disturbance. " I know an instance of a solicitor cautioning a prison authority not to pay his representative agent any money on kiia account, yet the casts of poor prisoners and their money also were at the mercy of that very person, the principal seldom attending. " A prisoner discharged within this year was kept (in bad health) in this gaol for nearly six months from his solicitor having appropriated the cheque landed to him by a elnk in Somers' t-tiolve to pay the detsiker, and tht prisantr was at lest rt leased ley chafty-money, and kit the P. -son in a dying:dying:stite, while his solicitor kept the cash without a .y p-ctxt whatever, or a claim for costs. In the following or similar phrases the prisoners are adtressed by the illegitimate canvassers for busit,ess:— The (Weer who am stet ,you recommended me to you. I am an old prsetitiorcr. I have the ear of the Court. If you have no nolvy we will talk ; f that afterwards. tin this pap:r (a ft At er this is done, he incites the pris;intr to make rpplicattan fir a. , sista-cr, a certain sum is granted, and S:2 or ,01 art drawn fris'n the prisolcr. There, is • lint ho.:stbly a second demand lit fne tiling the petition, which is at last clone, and the s -hedule then tnicht be filed in four days, hut as many we; ks and trequen ly months pass without its being done, because more money is not ferthcorning; at last it is obtained or an I 0 U given fir it, the prisoner gets his discharge, and shortly the I 0 U comes under the consideration of a county court judge." After dwelling upon the lamentable consequences but too often arising from the detention of debtors in prison, and going into details connected with the suggested appointment of a " prison solicitor," the report concludes thus :-- "I should be unworthy of the responsible, confidential situation I have been appointed to, and be total) , unfit to preside over a prison in which fin confined between 200 and 300 pers"ns, not criminals, and of every cla , s of society, if I hesitated to submit plans by which impositions on them, in their defenceless positions, could be prevented, and their own opportunities and temptations to fall into improper courses diminished. " I am prepared to encounter any obloquy that interested parties may cast on me. The plans I have proposed may be discussed even by the press itself; but, conscious of the rectitude of my motives and the soundness of my proposi tion*, I am willing that my narue should be associated with their acceptance or rejection.-1 have, dm, "G. MONTAGUE Hicxs, Governor." [ADYERT/SEMENTl—Holloway's Pills Preferable to an Others for the Cure of Bile and Indigestion.—Mr. Black well, residing . at Halifax, was a great sufferer for several years from in.ligestion and bile; he had an extraordinary appetite, but never could partake of any of the luxuries of the table, fearful of the consequences that invariably ensued. He had consulted many medical men, and tried almost every kind of medicine, but without deriving that benefit he es+ ardently sought for ; but, after all flies.; disappointments, by taking Holloway's pills a permanent cure was effected, and he Can now enjoy every kind of food. Sold by all medi cine vendors; and at Professor Holloway's establishment, 214, Strand, London. _ [A DV RiISEM urtz.]--We have read with mucb plea sure Du Barry's remit on the cure of diseases without me dicine by Du Barry's Food, of Indigestion (Dvsfiepsia) Ftatulency,:Constipation, Nervous, Billions, a n d Li v e r Corn! plainte, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility. The fallowing are a few extracts which appear to merit the at 'mann of many : —Cure Na. 47,121.—Mi5s Elizabeth Jacobs, of ?fazing Vicsr3ge, Waltham-cross, Ilerts: a cure of extreme nervousness, indigestion, Rath( rings, lore spirit , and lICIVOUN ranks. Cure No. 48,114.—Ms Elizs,b e t4 Yeoman, Gatesere, near Liverpool : a cure of 10 year's dyspepsia and all the horrors of nervous irritability. Cure 52 61:7.—Roastrevor, County of Down, Ireland, 9th Dec., 1854.—The Dowager Countess of Cestlestuart feels Induced, in the interest of suffering' humanity, to state that Du Barry's excellent RfVeCnt3 Ambles Food has cured her, after all medicines had failed, of indigestion, bile, great ner vmsncso nod irritability of many years' standing. This feed deserves the confidence of all sufferers, and may be consi dered a real biasing. Inquiries wilt be cheerfully answered. Supported by tPitiMollial.l from the f Towing celebrated Pro fts,ors ofChemistry : Dr. A Ure, Dr. Shod ;rid, Dr. Harvey, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Gattiker, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Ingram, Lord Stuart De Decies, the Ditwarer Countess of Castle stuart, Major-G en . Thomas King, and many other respect ea! persons, %hose health has been restored by it, after all othf-r means of cure bad failed. Suitably packed with full instructions. In canisters, 11b. 23. 9d. ; 21b. 4s. .; 51b. his.; 121 b. 225. The 1 2 1 b. canisters are sent. carriage free on receipt of Post-office order. Barry Barry, Du and Co 77, Regent - strees, Lennon. Impurtant Cautionagainst the fearful dangers "Puriau, irnit ln a a tio e n!.—The Vice Chancel lor Sir William Page Woodif enjunction on the 854 10tia March, 1, against Are dno i it Hoop e r Nevill for imitat ive' pa Barry's Reyeenta A hi --c4 rood.n LAW INTELLIGENCE. ADMIRALTY COURT.—AuG. 5. (Before Dr. Lushington.) THE MARGARET MITCHELL. This was a proceeding on the part of Messrs. Ashton and Co., of Lombasd-street, merchants, as agents for Messrs. Vacher and Wills, a Shanghai, in China. merchants, the assignees of the estate and effects of Peter Felix Richards, also of Shanghai, the alleged owner of the ship Margaret Mitchell, of 930 tors burden, against Messrs. Morice and Towns, of Cannon-street, shipowners, in a cause of posses sion, civil and maritime. The act on petitint stated that the vessel arrived at Shanghai with a cargo of sugar in February, 1835-11 r. Thomas Mitchell, of Glasgow, being then owner ; that the vessel had shortly before been aground off Woosung, in China, and having again grounded at Shanghai, sustained serious damage ; whereupon the master, beingdestitute of the necessary-funds to defray the expense of repairs, endeavoured to negotiate a an by bottomry for the purpose, but without success; and having consulted the principal merchants at Shanghai, and the consignees and insurance agents of the vessel, he adver tised her for sale by public auction, with the view of doing what was hest for the interest of the owner. It was alleged that Mr. Richards purchased the thip for the sum of £2,383 Gs. Btl., with the intention of using her as a hulk ; but that afterwards he repaired her at an expense of about £lO,OOO, and having appointed Dewan Stiles master, despatched her from Batavia to Amsterdam, and sub , equently to London, where she arrived in the month of May last. It was further alleged that, notwithstanding the premises, she had since been taken possession of by Messrs. Morice and Towne, who pretended to have purchased the vessel from Thomas Mitchell, of Glasgow. It was alleged on the other side that Jameson, the master of the vessel, had illegally and without any instruction or directions to that effect from the owner, abandoned the voyage and sold the st.ip by pri vate contract to Mr. Richards, and that upon her arrival at the port of London, being iu want of repair , Stiles, the new master, applied to the authorised agent of Richards, who, however, refused to advance any money, and that the master then determined on selling her in virtue of a power of attorney which he possessed. Messrs. Morics and Towne being disposed to purchase the vessel, made inquiries, and eventually ascertained that Mr. Thomas Mit chell was the sole owner and duly registered as such, al though, by an endorsement on the certificate of registry, the ship purported to have been transferred to Peter Felix Richards, and also the certificate contaised a notice of a mortgage of 56-04th shares of the vessel for a certain con sideration. It was asserted that on the 13th of last June the said Peter Felix Richards, by his attorney Dewan Stiles, by a bill of sale, transferred the ship to Messrs. Morice and Towne free of all incumbrances save the interest of Mr. Thomas Mitchell, for the bond fide consideration of £4,000, and that Mr. Thomas Mitchell had also transferred his in terest to them for the sum of £1,200. Drs. Phillimore and Deane appeared in support of the claim of Mr. Richards, of Shanghai, and contended that, while the sale of the vessel at Shanghai was of the most bond fide character, the subsequent sale in London was a fraudulent and iniquitous one, affecting all parties con cerned in it. Drs. Addams and Twist; were beard on the other side. The Court, after going at considerable length into the evidence adduced on both sides, was of opinion that the sale to Richards at Shanghai was valid ; that the sale by Stiles to Morice and Towne, in JAndon, was not valid; and that, therefore, it must pronounce fur the claim made by Messrs. Ashton and Co. as the representatives of Richards, and condemn the other parties iu costs. COURT OF BAN KRUPTCY.-AuG. 5. Mr. Commissioner Pane disposed of the business of the day, but nothing occurred of sufficient importance to warrant a detailed report. An adjudication of bankruptcy was made against Messrs. Wqlton, shipowners, of Gracechurch-street. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AuG. 4. (Before Mit. Justice Willes and Special Juries.) EASTWOOD V. HOLMES AND ANOTHER. This was an action of libel. The plaintiff is a dealer in antiquities, and the defendants are the proprietors of the Atheneum newspaper, and the' action was brought to recover damages for a libel published in that paper on the Bth of May last. The defendants pleaded that the statement which was alleged to be a libel was true. Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins were for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, Q.C., appeared for the defendants. • Mr. James, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff had for more than 20 years carried en the business of a dealer in curiosities and antiquities, and he brought the present'. action with a view to vindicate his character from a very • serious imputation that, had been cast upon it by an article which appeared in the defendant's journal, and which charged him with defrauding the public by selling counterfeit anti quities. The learned counsel then stated that in the course of last year a large number of ancient relics were dis covered le an excavation at Shadwell, and these relics, a great portion of which turned out to be what were known among antiquaries as pilgrims' signs, he should show without a doubt were perfectly genuine, and came into the possession of the plaintiff as such, and he paid for them a considerable sum of money. The article that was the sub ject of the present action appeared in the Atheneum cf the Bth of May in the present year, and it purported to be a re pert of what took place at one of the meeting; of the British .Archmolngical Assreiation, and it repr;:sented that the proceedings concluded by Mr. Curving reading a paper on the subject of the" Recent Forgeries in Lead," and in that paper he stated that certain leaden articles which were represented to be pilgrims' signs, and to have been discovered in. the course of an excavation upon the banks of the Thames, for the purpose of making a new dock, avers forgeries, and that Mr. Coming had himself examined 800 of them ; that Mr. Planehe had also seen a great many, and that the number of these forged articles, in the aggregate, was supposed to be twelve thousand. The partnerterfeeintt andon t t o ha s t ta t te ie mca that _these of heseartictes were entirely counterfeit, which they were com posed appeared to have been rubbed with some strong acid to give it the appearance of age, and that they hail then been smeared with river mud. The paper concluded by expressing a regret that the law would no' punish parties who were guilty of such a disgraceful fraud. The learned counsel said there could be no doubt that this article referred to the plaintiff; although his name was not mentioned, as he was the only pereen in possession of such articles, and who had purchased them from the parties who 1 had actually found them at the place that had been men tinned. lie should call these persons to show that these relies of antiquity actually were fmnd in the manner stated; and he should also call several eminent antiquaries, who would state to the jury their opinion that they were 1 genuine relics, and that there was consequently no 1 foundation fir the allegation that they were fraudulent imitations, got up for the purpose of deceiving and j imposing upon the public. He then said that the plaintiff, in bringing the present action, only sought to clear his character, and he did not ask for vindictive damages, but by the verdict cif the jury to free himself from the serious charge that had been made against him. Mr. George Eastwood, the plaintiff, was then examined. Ile deposed that he had carried on the business of a dealer in curiosities and antiquities between 20 and 25 years, and he said he believed he was one of the best judges of such things in the United Kingdom. In June, 1857, a Mr. Edwards, whom he knew as a dealer in antiquities, called upon him and showed him 40 articles made of lead, which comprised different subjects, and were known among antiquaries as " pilgrims' signs." He examined them, and made up his mind immediately 'hat they were genuine articles of antiquity and he pur , chased them, and aftcrwar•ls he purchased other articles of the same kind of him, in number amounting to 1,100. He was told that they hal been found by the men who were employed in excavating for the baiAn of the new London dock, and he went to the spot and examined the soil. He afterwards purchased a number of the same description of artichs from two young milt named Smith and Even, who iindertitood were the patties that had found them oil ! eine) , and sold them to Elwart!s. He paid Edwards ;Ceetti for those he purchased of him, and tee gave the young men £5O ror the portien they sold him. A small quantity of the " signs" were of ersa , ds s 11tf to Mr. Freaks fir the Museum, and a gentleman named Wigan p 1 .e . AA( ..1 a great many fir them. Ile then explained that pilgrims' ,4gns tees a term that had enty recently been made it 4! of among antiquarians, and that they were sup ' posed to h^ art mint by the moils in the religious prc ces,tons the time, and also when they made a pil j grit - nage to the Milian of any particular saint The whole of the articles were made (1 lead ; and in addition to those which he said would come under the dem iption of pilgrims' I signs there were oiler antiquities, such as hells, dagger sheaths, the hssses of shields, and also reliquaries, the whole of which, he said, he had no doubt were genuine antiquities, and had really been found at the place mentioned. In answer to questions put by Mr. Chambers in cross , examination, the plaintiff said that at the time this article appeared lie was the only person who had so large a number as 800 " pilgrims' signs" in his possession ; but he said that at one time he had so many as 1,100. A box, containing a large number of the alleged valuable articles of antiquity had been placed upon the table, and a • good deal of amusement was created by the extraordinary 1 character of some of those that were produced. There were warriors, and females fashioned out in lead in the most rude manner, and in all sorts of attitudes, one of them, as the learned judge observed, looking ve r y much like 7eatniel. One of the things that was produced appeared sorely to . puzzle every one. It had somewhat the appearance of a chimney-pot, about eight inches long, hut no one seemed to be able to give tie least guess what its original object possibly could have been, and Mr. James suggested that possibly it might have been the model of some ancient ex tinguisher. In answer to further questions, the plaintiff said that he had heard of such articles as erepundia, or children's toys, having been found en the banks of the river, but these, he said, were to'ally different things, and be believed them to be genuine ancient pilgrims' signs. Mr. W. Ede ards, the person from whom the plaintiff had purchased the articles in question was then exa mined, and he stated that he had been a dealer in antiquities for 20 years, and he considered he was well acquainted with such matters. He purchased the whole of these that had t o en produced of two boys named 13111 and Charley, of whom lie had been in the habit of purchasing such things. Bill, be said, was in attend ance to give evidence, but Charley had got married, and his wife would not let him come. (1. laugh.) He was aware that these young men were in the habit of being about the river, and that they also purchased things that were found by excavators in the soil. They brought these articles to him eight and ten at a time, from June, 1857, to June, 1858, and he paid them altogether £2OO. In cross-examination this witness said that he might have sold old coins to navigators, but he did not know what they did with them, and he had not the least idea that they ever buried them, in order that they might afterward s di g them ' up and cell themi as antiquities. He should not have been such a fool as to buy hie own coins again if they had been brought to him. He paid Billy and Charley for the articles as they brought them to him. He had had dealings with Billy in the saute way for 13 or 14 years, but he had not dealt with Charley quite so limes. (A laugh.) lie was nnabla to farm any opinion as to what particular age these pilgrims' signs belonged—he left that to the Archocologhcal Society to decide. (Laughter.) Win. Smith, a rough-loeltieg young man, who described himself as a "shocleraker," was then examined. He said that he and Cbarley were in the habit of seeking for articles such as those. that had been produced, and sell ing them to the curosity dialers. lie then said that the first time he found any of the articles in question was in June, 1857, and be did not find any after March, 1858. They were found in thee excavation for the new dock at Shad well, and very near the place where the swing bridge now was. They found about 2,000 altogethe-. Mr. Edwards sometimes paid him as much as £2 in a day, and he re eeieed £lOO from him altogether during the year. They used to buy the articles as the navigators discovered them, and used sometimes to give them a shilling and a pot of beer for them, Iu erose-examination this witness said that no strangers or about the works, and were Allowed to go iota the dock, the navvies were not permitted to take anything cut, not even ant old bones tilt) , might find, but still, he said, he menaced 'o get access to the place, and to purchase all these articles. He also said that he found a great many of thrill Mins!lf by raking over the earth after it was dug out, autl_he managed to , Aet a rake into the dock for that pur pose. .Mr. C. Roach Smith, a fellow cf the Society of Anti quaries, was then examined, end he stated this belief that the articles in question were genuine relics of antiquity, and that a great many of them came under the designation of pilgrims' signs, but he attribute i them to a later date titan tee 16th century. It was difficult to say what actual use was originally made of such articles, because they were a new class altogether, but they were all evidently connected with some religious proceedings ; and he had no doubt that when the subject came to be considered, antiquarians would be able to assign some origin to them. He added that he firmly believed them to be genuine, but at present he really could not say what they were. When lie read the article in the A thenwum he had no doubt that it referred to the plaintiff, and to the pilgrim's signs that were in his possession. Cross-examined—The pilgrims' signs with which he was acquainted, and to which he had first given that desig nation, were very different to the things now produced. A good many of these articles are certainly incolsistent with each other, and evidently relate to different ages. The Rev. Thomas Hugo, also a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, attd who has written several works upon the subject of antiquarian researches, was the next witness, and he gave similar evidence to that of Mr. Smith. He also ex pressed his opinion that the articles in question were un doubtedly genuine relics. He said he believed they be longed to the fifteenth, or the beginning of the sixteenth, century, bet he could not give any other description of them than that they appeared to he "leaden objects." Cross-examined.—lle was unable to give any reason for coming to the conclusion that these things dated from the fifteenth or sixteenth century; all he could say was, the ladies reason—he thought so because he did think so. (A laugh.) He was then asked to look at some of the articles, and to state whether he did not think that the sharpness of their edges, and their fresh appearance, did not indicate that they could not have been in the ground for three centuries, but he replied that he was of opinion that it did not; and he said he believed it was possible for a piece of metal to be in the ground for many centuries and still present sharp clear edges. He also said that, in expressing the opinion that these were genuine ancient relics, he bad no facts to ground his opinion upon, but merely judged from the general appearance of the articles. Some other evidence of a similar kind was then given, and this closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Chambers then submitted to his lordship that there was no case to go to the jury. He contended, in the first place, that the evidence failed to affect t'le case of the plaintiff as laid in the declaration; and also that, even sup posing the article in question to be a libel, which, however, lie submitted it clearly was not, there was not a tittle of evi dence to show that it applied to the plaintiff, and that con z,equentiv there was nothing to go to the jury. Mr. James, in reply, urged a good many ingenious arguments to show that at all events the opinion of the Jury ought to be taken. The plaintiff was really charged with a very serious rffence, and he was desirous to clear his character. _ _ _ Mr. Justice Willes, after a brief consideration, said he was of opinion that the article complained of was not a libel in the eye of the law. It had been laid down by one of the sages of the law that what a man said honestly and bond fide, in the course of a public discussion in matters concern ing the public interest, no matter even if he spoke ra,hly, and what he said was not true, still, any statement wade under such circumstances, would not be a libel. It had also been equally clearly laid down that before any plaintillcould ask redress for a libel, he must show distinctly that the libel cemplained of applied to him, and to no other person. It would be a new doctrine, indeed, if it were to be held that any person who said that all lawyers were rogues, might be sued by every individual lawyer in the kingdom ; and it appeared to him that the anicle now complained of seemed to apply to the particular trade of dealing in antiquities rather than to the plaintiff personally. It appeared to him, therefore, that the plaintiff must be non suited. Mr. James suggested that his learned friend Mr. Cham bers ought to withdraw the plea which alleged that the plaintiff bad been guilty of fraud in the transaction. Mr. Chambers said it was never intended to impute any fraudulent intention to the plaintiff, and he was not in structed to make such a suggestion. He had bought the articles no doubt under the impression that they were genuine. The jury then returned a verdict for the defendants. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MONSIOUTII, AUG 5. CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Hill and a Common Jury.) HARRIS V. MORGAN. Mr. Srnythies and Mr. Barrett appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Scotland for the defendant. The plaintillin this action, Ann Harris, was a poor old widow, aged 77, who got her living by keeping one or two cows and carrying butter and eggs to market, and she sued the defendant, Howard Morgan, who was a butcher at New port, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the negli gent driving of the defendant's servant. It appeared that en Saturday, the 12 - h Dec. last, the plaintiff went to New port market with baskets of butter and poultry to cell in the market there. She stated that when ecii.g duwu the High-street from the railway station to the market she saw the deft ndont's cart coming down the road, which was on a declivity, at a quick trot. The cart was driven by the de fendant's brother, and at that time was on the near side of the road. The plaintiff presentiy stepped into the road to cross, but without at that time looking to see where the cart was, and she was ;immediately knocked down and run over. There was no doubt that when the poor woman was knocked over the cart tr.'s on its wrong side, and within 18 inches of the kerb. The wheel passed over the poor woman's leg, inflicting a severe wound three inches in leng h, and injuring the bone to a considerable extent. She was con fined to her bed for 10 weeks, and had incurred consider able expense in getting cured , and was still suffering from the efiects of the shock. The defence was that the cart wasdriven only at the rate of four or five miles an hour, and that it was necessary to go on the qft side of the road to avoid a scavenger's cart which isiai standing some yards ahead on the near side. The-dts fendat.t's witnesses attributed the accident to the old woman weppiug into the road. without looking to see if anything was corning, and when there wls not time for the deftn dant's brother to pull up and avoid the accident. Mr. Justice Hill summed up the evidence, and told the jury that if they believed that the accident was owing to the negligence of the driver, they ought to find for the plaintiff; but if they believed she had contributed to the accident by her own negligence, they ought to iind for the defendant. Tile jury retired to consider their verdict, and ultimately they found a verdict for the defalant. CRIMINAL COLRT. (Before Mr. Justice Byles.) Geo. Pas.smore, 27; sailor, and Alfred Borham 20, sailor, were charged with the manslaughter of Edward Thomas, at Newport, on the 18th of June, 1858. Mr. Vaughan appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell defended the prisoners. It appeared that on the day in question the deceased, who was a ship's apprentice, was on board his ship in the Newport docks, when the two prisoners came alongside in a boat, and pulled him overboard against his will, and put him into the boat. One el' the men,- in what is called a "lark," endeavoured to duck hiert in the water, but the boy resisted so much, though he was a weakly boy, that the attempt failed. The other man then came and assisted, and the two prisoners together put the boy overboard into the water, holding him by the hands, and dipped him over head and ears several times, as deep as they could reach. They then took him hack into the boat, and he sat there recovering himself for about five minutes, and put on his boots and jacket, which had been taken off before he was put into the water. While he was sitting in the boat the men continued "skylarking" and slapped him on the shoulder. When the boy had put on his flange he wished to go hack to his ship, and one of the prisoners took Lehi • f hint behind by his breeches, and put up the ship's d left, hold of him, just as the boy put his !lairds on the ship's rail. Whether the boy had not time to get a firm hold, or, .being exhausted by the ducking, was unable to rt tuo his hold, was uncertain, but it unfortunately hap lewd that as so m as the man let go the poor boy fell into the wat,r, which was upwards of '2O feet deep, nil did tof r 43 any mere. D. ago were sent for, and he was got out of tine water in abet' , .20 minutes, but he was considered to be deed, nod no t.tttnpt was tnade to restore ;mime:ion. Mr. Pow(11, for the prisoners, contended th ;t, however improper the conduct of the prisoners might have been in dipping the boy into the water, the putting the boy up the ship's side was not an unlawful net, and the death must therefore be considered as accidental. Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up the evidence, told the jury that if the boy fell from the ship's side in consequence of exhaustion from being dipped in the water, they ought to find the prisoners guilty. The jury retired, and were absent a considerable time, but eventually found both the prisoners guilty. Mr. Justice Byles, after a suitable admonition, sentenced the prisoners to be imprisoned in the House of Correction far two ealerdar months. Jane ilarris, 25, servant, was charged with the wilful murder of her infant child by exposure on the 4th of July, 1858, at St. Mellon's. Mr. Granville Somerset appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended by counsel. It appeared the prisoner was confined of a male child in the Cardiff Union Wtekhonse on the 17th of June last, and, at her own request, she left the workhouse with her child on - Fridny, July 21. On Sunday, July the 441, she Js.ent to the public-house of Mrs. Jenes, near St. Mellonle, and asked tors some gin and water fir the child. Mrs. Jones said that was a bad thiug for.so young an infant, and gave her some peppermint and water. At between Fenn and eight the same evening a witness named Ann Williams saw her in the road near a farmhouse of a Mr. Davies, at a place called Tyn-y-Pwl, five miles from Cardiff; when she was seen dandling something in the skirt of a gown, which resembled a baby in form. The next morn ing, at between six and seven o'clock, Ann Francis, went into Mr. Davies's rickyard, and hearing a noise com menced a search. After some little time she found a child between the rick and the Ledge, wrapped up in a skirt of a gown which was identified by the witness Wiliams as having been in the prisoner's possession the previous evening: - Mrs. Francis washed, dressed, and fed the child, and the next morning took it to the Cardiff workhouse, when it was t t isurco and died ori e .., 28th e identified as the child of which the prisoner was confined on o t the July, el7th n of Julie., f Ii 'ne The ep death was exposuren g and want of Itshe e n t k h na w tural l food. , the cause o lt The prisoner was app r e hended en the 14th of July, and ad d mitted that she had lef t the child in the road near St. Mel a inciCtiiii lingered, ja , c 4, an d had done so because the father had refused to r The prisoner, in her de.ence, male the same statement. Mr. Justice Byles very car efully summed up the evidence, support it and she was u nable to do se. anti said that if the prisoner's statement was true she was guilty of manslaughter. Mr. Justice Byles sentence d her t six months' imprison_ The jury found the prison er g uilt y of inanslanger. i tncnt with hard labour. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWIC3K, AUG. 3. (Before DMA Chief Jus:icc Corkbarn.) A heavy spzehl jury CRUSC invcll Lig disputed matters r,f fact and of account between two old and intimate friends having teen referred, at the sugeestion of ti,, Judge (only the s(cond case reftrred throughout the circuit), the reinaicing corniticn juries were proceeded with. SALMON V. MITCIIELL. Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Wills ter the defendant. This was an action of trespass brought by the occupier of a hovel and a pigstye against the owner and cccupier of some adjacent land for pulling them down. The plaintiff was a very poor man, whose father and grandfather had "squatted" upon some waste land adj)ining a footpath in the pari , ll of Upper Eatington. Toe hovel had been erected within some 26 years; the pigstye was antecedent to living memory. The land of one of the defendants extended on each side of the footpath, and it was sugge , tted that the little buildings' occupied by the deeceudant of the " squatters" excited in his mind the same feelings that Naboth's vineyard did in the breast uf David ; accordingly he gave notice to the plaintiff to remove the buildings on his land, or else " he should p7oceed as far as the law would allow him." Tlie buildings were not removed, whereupon the defendants took the law into their own hands, the pig was ejected from the sty, and the Irvel (the va'ue if which was variously esti mated, according to the elite ( n which the e v id ence was eff,red, at 10s. and £10) laid low. Damages were sought for what is technically termed the "conversion" of the p'g ; but it was clearly proved that the on'y convers i on w W the pig underent !„ . 13 into bacon, which h a d b een eaten by the plaint Ht. The defendants attempted to justify the trespasses on the ground that the land was his properly au!,if not, that the spot where the buildings stood had once been used as of otway by the public. In the opinion of the jury, however, both grounds if defence failed, and a verdict was returned fur the plaintiff —damages S•2O. JONES V. CIIATAWAy. Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Wills were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Field for the de fen lant. This was an action on a bill of ee:chanee drawn by John Bradhery and accepted by the defendant, and endorsed by Bradbury to the plaintiff. The defence was that the signa ture was a forgery. The plaintiff called some witnesses to prove that the was that of tne defendant, but it turned out that they had very little acquainaLca with her writing. A. bill discounter named Eave', however, was called, who pro duced another bill fir £lOO, purporting to he accepted by the defendant, which he swore had been signed in his pre sence at the shop of the defendant, who was the widow of a respectable tradesman, and upon which he had been paid £BO, by a transfer of a lien she bad upon s tale money of 13radbury's in the hands of an attorney at Coventry, and he produced a document authorising the transfer which he said had been given by her to him, after proceedings hail taken on the bill. It was quite clear the aceep'ance of the bill sued upon and of this bill were in time same handwr:ting. It was else said that a bill undoubtedly genuine, for £7O, which she had accepted for Bradbury's accommodation, had been resisted up to the eve of trial on similar grounds, and paid at last, with costs of suit. Some similar evidence was given with respect to a payment Of a £5O bill, also alleged by the defendant to be forged. The defendant, on the other hand, swore that the bill she hid accepted fir Bradbury, who collected rents for her, was the only bill she had ever signed in her life, and that she bad then taken a verbal lien frm Bradbury upon the money at Coventry, by way of security. One stay Eaves and Bradbury called upon her, and asked her if she would let Eaves have her security upon that money, as he was going to lend Bradbury some money to bring a Chancery suit to a termination. Upon certain representations of Bradbury she consented; but she had never on that or my Occasion signed a bill or authorized him to do so. With re spect to the defence of the £7O bill she said that when it became due she went to an attorney in Birmingham, whose name we withhold fir obvious reasons, andwho owed her a little money. Its questioned her about the matter, and said he woad soon. pot it right for her. She swore she never knew of or authorized any defence to the bill, but. on the contrary, said it was hers and she would pay it, until she was called upon to pay £39 taxed costs of suit, and £67 for her own costs, as well as the £7O, the whole proceeding of the defence being the attorney's doing. As to the £5O bill, she said that one day a Jew named Benjamin came across from the opposite side of the street and said, "Here is £5O for Bradbury; will you give it him when he calls ?" After some demur she consented. Presently Bradbury came over from the same place, and called far the money, which he had. When sued upon the bill she went to the same attorney, who said, " You must pay it ; the money passed through your hands. I should not like to take it into court," and she paid the £5O also. With regard to Eaves's bill she swore that she never heard of it at all ; that Eaves's call on her was before the bill produced would have become due; and that all that passed was that lie said he bad lent Bradbury £lO9, on her promise about the security, and then she gave him the docu ment in question. The document, in fact, bore date the 29th of October, whereas the bill was not due till the Ist of November. Bradbury had absconded before the 29th of Oc tober, and a warrant is out against him for forgery. Mr. Macaulay, in his address to the jury, commented strongly upon the dreadful web of fraud and iniquity which had been woven by some one round this unhappy woman, and called upon the jury to set her free from its meshes. Mr. Mellor having addressed the jury in reply, The learned Judge summed up with great care, and the jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defen dant. The case did not conclude till past 9 o'clock. AUGYST 4. GOOLD T. DILL. _ This was the last case of the assizes, and, although ex pected to be short, lasted kali 9 a.m. till halt past 4. It was an action for the alleged breach of an agreement to remove the "Sutton Grand Stand" from Sutton Cold field to Aston, close to Birmingham, on occasion of the Queen's visit, at the opening of Aston-park, on the 15111 of June last, whereby the plaintiff represented that he had been deprived of very great profits. The question turned upon the terms of the agreement, with reference to the pay ment of a sum of El% which the defendant alleged he was to be paid by a certain time, as the condition of his pro ceeding with the work. After a great deal of evidence, which was contradicory to an extraordinary extent, the jury found a verdict tor the defendant. Mr. Mellor, QC., and Mr. Field were for the plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Wills for the defendant. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-CARLISLE, AUG. 4. Mr. Baron Martin arrived at this town late last night, and opened the commission. The Lord Cbief Baron did not arrive until this morning. from Newcastle, the business having oc cupied him until rather late last night. After attending Divine service at the Cathedral this morn ing, their lordships went into court at 11 o'clock, Mr. Baron Martin sitting on the civil side, and the Lord Chief Baron charging the grand jury. The calendar contains the names of only seven prisoners, three of them charged with ordinary larcenies, three with uttering base coin, and one with forgery. The cause list contains an entry of four causes. In the Crown Court two Mint cases and a.couple of ordi nary sessions cases occupied the day. - In the course of the day his lordship, learning that two indictments for perjury -were to be preferred before the erand jury, millet. had not been first brought before the consideration of the magis trates, bad the grand jury again before him, and in very cogent terms advised them not to find the bills without the I most cautious inquiry, as this mode of preferring bills was sometimes abused. The grand jury ignore) both the bills, and the while cri minal business wa&clneluded in the course of the day. CIVIL COURT. (Before Mr. Munn Martio.) HOPE 'T. BELL. This was an action brou,llit by the faller of the plaintiff, a little girl . of live or six years of age, as her next friend, to recover damages for an injury done her by one of the de fendant's servants in so negligently driving his wageon as to run over and en sh tier foot, whereby she was rendered, in all probability, lame for lif . Mr. Price appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Dawson for the defendant. It apptsred that the plaintiff, the father of the child, is a meson, and the defendant is a wbol merchant. In August, 18,54, when the plaintiff's child was only about 18 months old, she was sitting in the middle of the road In front of some cottages called Mzlburn-cottages, situated on the road between Brampton and Carlisle, and near where her parents resided.. The defendant's waggon, driven by one James Telford, was conning from Brampton to Carlisle, loaded, and drawn by three horses, one before the other. By some means or other the first two horses passed over the child without hurting her, but When the shaft horse carne to it he shied, and Telford said he then first observed the plaintiff still sitting in the road ; upon seeing her he snatched her away and stopped the horses, but not before the wheel of the waggon had cruehed one a the child's feet so severely as, according to tie evidence of a surgeon, cvntild lame her for life. The chief controversy raised in the casp was, whether the drivtr of the waggon was dttinr on the waggon or walkiog by the side (This gorses, as 1:e hitnscif sworP. Several wit nesses were called on both sides, and, atnorig others, two who swore that Telford had toll then after the accident that he was riditia:. on his wagrzon. The jar}' fTund a verdie,t for the plaint iff.—Daina;es L6O. SHERIFFS' COURT.-Aug. (Before Mr. Under—Sheriff Burehell.) PROCLAMATP , NS OF OUTLAWRY. This morning the names of several — well-known b a exieencies of the several oresu'r‘rpenrodeeiraitmoettTe' and they wer e s everally processes, or they would be my lawed. • The foll ow ing pro clamllfations were made by the officer of the court : Ernest Vane Tempest. commonly called Lord Ernest Vane Terrmest, at the suit of Ate Queen. ward. Thomas Pelham Clinton, at the suit of Edward Peckham. Washington Fox, at the suit of Richard Brown. 'William 21'Oubrey and wife, at the suit of Thomas Richards. Joseph Sweenie Brockhurst, at the suit of Henry Gibbon. Kerwen Joseph Fernie, at the suit of John Addison. William -Gihis, at the suit of Charles Sevens. John Carlin. Morris, at the suit of the Oriental Bank. Ilerry Fendall, at the suit of the same. William 13,:tne:sall, at the suit of George Lawrence. Duncan Bea I, at the suit of Thomas Truefitt. Gillam M. Ross, at the suit of Robert Duncan Gerard. Henry Pulford Plenman and Henry Charles Macdonald, at the suit of James Martin. No answer was made by the 'parties, and the setne•cere mony will be repeated for four months before they can be outlawed. IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO SHERIFFS' FEES. At the Sheriffs' Court on Wednesday the following im portant case was heard (Willis v. Jones), in which Mr. Lewis appeared for the plaintiff, a sheriff's officer; and Mr. Palmer for,defendant, a solicitor:— From the statement of the learned solicitor it appnared that at defendant's instance an execution was put into a wr.,on's pretni,es; but, a second party having laid claim to the debtor's goods, the defendant withdrew, and plaintiff now seught to recover the sum of £1 ls. as levy fee, and Li ha, fur luau's possessien 10 days at :3s. Gd. per day. Mr. Lewis contended that as the attorney was legally and personally liable there could be no defence. Mr. Palmer contended, on the part of the defendagt , that no levy havi ng been made, th a t part of the case was at once settled, as it was impos, , i the to recover fees for levy unless it had actually been made, and the execution creditor had got something. Now, in this ea cno levy had actually been made. As regarded the bailiff's charge of 15s. before an intcrp!eader order, the interpleader issue raised had not been tried, the execution creditor's claim having been barred by a judge's order, and therefore that part of the case failed also. _ _ _ Mr. Lewis end eavoure d to s h os that it was to defendant alone, and through hi m , ptaiotiff should lo::1 fur his money. that Mr. Palmer contended that no case bad been or could be cited to show that the bailiff' could !recover files. Under these cilcutovtancev, to decide in plaintiff's favour wottitt tend to fraud, and carele.'ssess On the patt of the skiff, Tint, apart Loin the directly upon the point '7*.`"l f r q atudolzy, Alr. At:-•tilvdd (with Mr. Lu4l, Q.C.) itt hid book t,,t practice clefoly =twirl the law to be that, vvlicre the exacrititAt creditor dais not try the issue, and g't 4 holhing under the execution, the f,.:f:s cannot he re covered. Ills llolottr livid that it was so. He considered it to be very unju,t that an attorney should be personally liable, as he was only an agent. An attorney was not liable for a witness who attended at his personal solicits= lion. As the case stood plaintiff would be nonsuited. THE CHILD MURDER AT NULL.--Of this case we had a short notice in Wednesday's Morning Post. It appears, horn further particulars, that the ease is one of those revolting itifan tickles which are unfit fur publication. The prisoner, whose name is Sarah Kilvingten, is not, as the report stated, the some Mrs. Killington, of respectable connections, whose lmsband deserted her nine years 'ago; BO it is e yen doubtful whether the prisoner is married. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE.—/lockley F. Wood, Folieitcr ' and Franc A tterlri, y, labourer, win: charged with unlaw fully assaulting W. Turner, police constable 64. It appeared from the evidence that for some six months past c.ouplainant had b?en residing its an empty house in Church-row, Aldgate, and that Omit a fortnight ago a woman name Price hired the house, paying £l3 for the fixtures, upon which the agent told Turner to get out as soon as he could-, but before this was done the agent dis covered that false references hod been given by the party hiring the house, and he therefore instructed the complain ant to rotain possession. Wood was therefore employed to get possession for the hirer, for which purpose he went to the house, accompanied by our men, when a regular attack was made upon Turner, with the view of turning him out; but although his shirt was torn from his bock, he succeeded in keeping possession, and gave the defendants into custody. For the defendants it was conten•!ed that they acted legally in attempting to get possession, even forcibly, for Mr. Wood's client ; but the Lord Mayor took a different view of the case, and committed both prisoners fur trial to the sessions, taking their own recognisances for their due appearance. Two cases of indecent assault on children came before the Court. In the first case an intelligent little girl, nine years old, had been sent to a German tailor, named Moses Blum b2rg, to learn the business, a circumstance of which he had taken advantage so far as to assault her indecently, and endeavoured to corrupt tier mind, pacifying her with a " penny for gooseberries," and warning her not to tell her mother or sister, as they would laugh at her ; but upon going home the little one told her mother at once, " because she couldn't rest," and the prisoner was given into custody. With the most disgusting effrontery ke now said—The little girl was saucy to me, she kissed me for a halfpenny, and that made use feel sick, and I didn't know what I was doing. In the second case, Richard Colley, living in the same house with Mary Jaae Striation, 14 years old, caught her indeceNtly as she ores going indoors, and forced her into the water-closet, where he attempted to effect his purpose by violence, pressing his hand to her mouth to keep her from crying out. She was, however, heard to say, " Leave go, you'll strangle me," and upon her mother calling out to know what was the matter, the ruffian let her go. The Lord Mayor expressed himself in strong terms of indignation on both case, and sentenced the vagabonds to four months' imprisonment each, with hard labour, under the Aggravated Assaults Act. " B. 0." sent 10s. for the poor-box, being the produce of 2d. per day, abstracted from his salary of £72 per year by a clerk, who recommended the adoption of a similar plan of charitable action to his fellow clerks, with an assurance that they would find it easy to persevere if they once com menced it, even with a small salary. WESTNIINSTER.—CHARGS: OF PERJURY AGAINST A RESPECTABLE TRADESMAN AND A POLICE-CoN. STABLE.—A very lengthened and tedietts charge of perjury, which has occupied bath magistrates at this court some days, was yesterday brought to a close before Mr. Payuter. Mr. Sleigh, barrister, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Haines , solicitor, the defence. The accused were {{'illiam Neville, a butcher, carrying on bis business at Richmond, Surrey, and John Wenham, police-con stable, 77 T. The charge proceeded from an action brought in the Brompton County Court by Mr. Neville against Mr. Tisdell, of Holland-park Farm, dairyman, for damage done to his pony cart on the 20th of January, at Kensington, on which occasion be himself was much injured by Mr. Tisdell's man driving carelessly against him, whereby the damage occurred, and he was thrown out of the cart. A verdict was given for Mr. Neville for £25, and a yew trial subsequently moved for, which was emphatically refused with costs, and the assignment of perjury was that Neville had sworn on the trial that he was within five feet of the curb on his own side at the time of the collision, and that he alone was in the cart, which was alleged to be false, and that the police man Wenham, who had sworn that be saw the accident, and confirmed Mr. Neville's account, did not come up until some minutes afterwards, and knew nothing about it. Ten witnesses were examined by Mr. Sleigh in support of the assignment of perjury, showing that Neville was on the wrong side, and drove into Mr. Tisdell's van, that he had a man in the cart with him, and that, so far from Wen ' barn being on the spot and witnessing the collision, he came up after it was over and inquired what was the matter. In the course of a very lengthened and severe cross-exa mination, Mr. Haines elicited from some of the witnesses that there had been a compromise offered on the other side after the accident, and that Mr. Tisdell's man had been to Richmond on the subject of the amount of damage done to Mr. Neville's cart. Mr. Haines, after a very energetic address in favour of his clients, produced a letter from Mr. Tisdell complaining of the amount of the charge made at the time an arrangement was contemplated between the parties. He then called the defendant Wenham as a witness for Neville, who again swore most positively that he saw the accident, was caused by Mr. TisdeTs man (Mr. T,sin:ll bting nbsent), and teatt Neville was alone in the cart. Mr. Haines then sought to clear up a misunderstanding which he conceived existed in the minds of the witnesses, from a combination of circumstances, respecting Wenham not being present, and a man named Mowdon being in the cart. He called 76 T to show that it was be who came up after the accident was over, mistaken by the witnesses for 77 T (Wenham), who had at that time run after the cart to stop it, and put Mowdon into the witness-box to prove that he was not in the cart, but coming up at the moment of the colli sion was by its side assisting Mr. Neville, and then flung his (Mowdon's) coat into the cart, the better to pursue the van, which had been driven off. Mr. Paynter said that having looked over the evi dence for the prosecution,, he was clearly of opinion, without going into the defence, that no jury in the world would ever be per•anded to convict the defen dants of perjury. The learned judge, Mr. Adolphus, before whom the motion had been made for a new trial, had said that the evidence for Tisdell proved Neville's case. Apart from discrepancies in the testimeny in support of the present chat-ge, how could the fact be got over that an attempt had been made on the part of Tisdell to settle it? No jury would he induced to believe that a man made an offer to-pay money to another if not in the•wrong, and, added to that, shortly before the suit was commenced in the county court, Tisdell, writing on the Bth of May, when ob. jecting to the amount of charges, used the expression, "The blame, if any, was as much on one side as on the other." Ccwld it be alleged in the face of that that Tisdell's man was in ino resprct to blame; that all the blame was on the other side ; and that, if sworn, it was not the parties so swearing who were guilty of perjury ? He (the worthy Mag,istrate) would like to see the spot where the accident occurred, and, notwithstanding his strong opinion in favour of the defendants, would adjourn the case if Mr. Sleigh pressed it. The legal gentlemen consulted, when, after a payment of £lO from the other side to Mr. Neville for costs, with a understanding that no further proceedings should be taken on either side, Mr. Sleigh said that after weighing the testimony, and after bearing the able statement and explanation of Mr. Haines, he had taken upon himself, in the exercise of his discretion as counsel, to withdraw this prosecution ; because lie felt that a man was unworthy in his profession who per severed one moment longer with a case when there was not sound reason to believe he could obtain a conviction. He felt that there had been a lamentable misunderstanding in this case. Both Mr. Neville and Mr.Tisdell were men moving io a very respectable position of life, and, according to the repre sentation of those in his employment, the latter had really thought the former had been guilty of pedury. It was much to be regretted that two such men bad had a difference. The a hole case arose from an honest misconception and misun derstanding:, and be was bound to say that both defendants left that court without the slightest stain on their character for respectability or veracity. Mr.. Paynter fully concurred in what had fallen from Mr. Sleigh, and complimented him rpm] the course he Lad pursued. WORSHIP-STREET.—SUPPOSED ROBBERY.—Chas. Davis and Margaret Rogers, . the former a common lodging-house keeper ;in Tnrawl-street, Spitalfields, were brought before Mr. Hammill, charged with having in their po,session property which had no doubt been stolen. Savage, a detective constable of the 11 division, stated that, from certain information, he and Dubb, another (dicer, went to the lodging-house kept by Davis, No. 17, Thrawl street. The female prisoner was standing at the door, appa rently on the look-out, and the moment she caught sight of witness she hurried into a back room, and he follbwing her before she had time to shut :he door, found her there with the male prisoner, and saw a writing-desk lying upon the bed, another box mapped i a tablecloth, and a number of letters strewn about. tae asked Davis whether be was the man who had brought the things in a cab ; to which the prisoner replied that a man named Jones bad brought the things, and had invited him into a cab. Dubh, the officer, said that in the tablecloth with the workbox he found the prisoner Davis's cap, and under the bed a pair of candlesticks, and other things, which h e now produced. The letters almost all bore the address of a clergyman, and there wes information as to the rob bAry, evidence of which would he produced. The prisoner Davis assured the magistrate that be was quite innocent of stealing the property. The prisoners were remanded, to affird time for the pre daction of evidence. CLERKENWELL.—A SURGEON CIIARGED WITII ASSAULTING THE POLlCE.—Rowland Jackson, a sur geon, residing at 8, De Beauvoir-terrace, Kingslaud, was .charged before Mr. Corrie with assautting_ police,constable N 507 in the execution of his duty.. The constab!e stated that that morning, about one o'clock, he be4rd a loud knocking at a door, and saw the defendant leave one of the houses in De Beauvoir -terrace and go to a cab and tell the man to drive olf. He spoke to the defen dant about his knocking at the door, when he said he resided ere, and then went up the garden and again knocked. He almost immediately afterwards returned and struck bim (tbe constable) a Wow on the face, the pain from which he felt for some time. He then took the defendant into custody fur the assault. The defendant said he was very much excited at the con duct of the constable when be was knocking at his own door, and, although he was struck, the blow was intended for his hat. Mr. Corrie asked the constable how it was that he took the eefendant into custody when he learnt that he resided at the house at which he knocked ? The constable replied that be had then been assaulted. Mr. Carrie did not think there was any necessity for locking the .defendant up, as be could be found at any time, and at once:dismissed the charge. NOVEL POINT UNDER TILE BASTARDY LAWS.—James Hunt, of 26, Newport-market, was summoned by Mary Ann Crouch, of 5, Rheidol-terrace, Islington, for the - support of an illegitimate child. Mr. John Wakeling, solicitor, said the party summoned had left this country for Anetralia before the summons was taken out, and es he could not be served he thought the case should not go on. He then produced two letters, dated from Liverpool and on board a ship. The complainant said she bad seen the defendant a short time befae, but heli?ved that he had gone to Au , tralia. Mr. Carrie said the. summons wonld be Report:led sine die, and tslien he was seen in England a fresh surnames would be granted. SOUTHWARK.—ROBBERIES AT THE EXTENSIVE FIRE IN BERNIONDSEY.—Sarah Cook, a female living with her husband - in Willow-walk, B ermo ndsey, and William Cook, her son, were brought before Mr. Combe, changed with stealing a large quantity of leather, the pro perty of Messrs. W. and G. Almonds, leatherdressers of Bermondsey. James Harvey, foreman in 'the prosecutors' employ, said that about two o'clock in the morning a fire raged fear fully in theirs and the adjoining warehouse, in Willow walk, noar the railway arches, and a large quantity of hides and bundles of so!e icather were thrown into the street and grounds adjacent. About three o'clock witness received in formation that some of, the leather bad been take t tanto the prisoners' h ouse , w h en , o bt a ining the assistance o an officer, they went there and found a bundle, of half-hides and a large square hide. He identified them as his employers' property, being part of their sleek in the warehouse prior to the fire taking Place. Joseph John Hurst stated that he was at the fire, and he saw the lad aloe up a square hide from she pavement near the prosecutors' premises, and carry it into his mother's house. Witness gave information to the eolice. Sergeant Upton, 18 M, said he went to the prisoners' house, and under the stait case leading to the cellar he found the leather produced. The female came in at the time, when he asked her how it came into her possession. She told him she put it there for safety, and in ended to send it to the owners. The female prisoner here denied making such a statement. She told the officer that she did not know the leather was there. She was very frightened about the fire. Sergeant Upton swore positively she toad him she pat it there to take care of. The lad told his worship that he certainly did carry the leather to the house to keep it from the thieves. Mr. Combo observed that most likely such might be the P ca-e; therefore he should discharge them ; but he cautioned them not to touch any more property at a lire. Philip William Keating was next charged with stealing; a quantity of sole leather, the property of the same firm. Oae of the we:le:nen said that after the fire was extin guished lie saw the prisoner at the rear of the warehouse washing several pieces of sole leather in a ditch. It was scorched and very dirty, and had been taken from the stick thrown out of the warehouse. Mr. Combe fined him 40s. for the unlawful possession, or one month's imprisonment. AN OLD GERMAN SWINDLER.—WiIIiarn Conariling, an old Gateau, who a few years ago was connected with some religious es'ablishments in this country and Gertnauy, and who in May last was brought to this court charged on suspicion of stealing a gold watch and swindling various lodging-house keepers, was now brought before Mr. Combo by Hewett, an officer of the Mendicity Society, charged with begging alms in the public streets. Hewett said lie saw the prisoner begging that met:ening in Newington-causeway. His looks were so deplorable that several persons gave him money, but believing him to be an impostor he took him into custody. Mr. Combe inquired what was known of him. Sergeant Raymond, the acting inspector at the Stone's end station-house, said that he was a notorious swindler, anti for a long time had carried on an artful system of fraud on lOging-house keepers. He had been connected with a religious establishment at Brunswick, and in 1850 he was sexton of a church in Li verpoo l. I n 1852 he resided at 1 ' Cambridge-heath, and he had recommendations from the Rev. Hugh Allen, and other clergymen and gentlemen., at the time. He used those to victimise the parties he vi•sited under pretence of hiringlapar;ments. Mr. Combe thought he had been blore him on a prior occagon. Raymond replied that that was true. He was charged at that court on the 25th of May on suspicion of stealing a watch from a house in Walworth, where he called under the, pretence of hiring apartments. ' Ile was also chargeu with swindling a lottging-house keeper out of board and lodging to the value of 1;25. He was previously watched by Sea well, 177 M, to 30 or 40 houses where lodgings were to let, and it was proved that he had for five or six years swindled people all over London. The charges not being sustained at the time, he was discharged. The prisoner here said he was an ill-used man, and at that time there was no pretence fur giving him in charge. The reports which appeared then in the newspapers had ruined him. Mr. Cornhe asked him what he had to say in answer to the charge of begging ? Prisoner replied that be was in very great distress, and some people had compassien on him and gave him money. Mr. Coinbe told him be had uo doubt bow he got his live lihood; that was by begging and imposing on the public. His old system of swindling lodging-house keepers was very likely put a stop to by the publication of his conduct in the newspapers, and it was fortunate for him that the law did not reach him, as he would have been punished with great severity. For the offence of begging, which was clearly proved, he should sentence him to one month's hard labour in the Hotise of Correction. He advised Hewett to look after him when he came out of prison, as there could be no doubt he was a professional beggar. The prisoner was then removed by the deputy-gaoler. JEALOUSY AND HUSBAND BEATING.—MAY AND DEcEmBER.—Mrs. Lucy Rolfes, the wife of a tradesman in Great Suffolk-street, Southwark, was charged before Mr. Combe on a warrant, with assaulting her husband and threatening to stab him. The complainant, a hearty-looking old gentleman, 75 years of age, said that unfortunately he married the prisoner, a widow with three children, about two years ago, and he not only treated her well, but her children. She, however, grossly misconducted herself, and when he remonstrated with her she assaulted him, and on the previous day took up a knife and threatened to stab him. He had some trouble to get away from her, when he came to this court and obtained a warrant. The wife told him he was a jealous old brute, and that was the cause of all the disturbance. The complainant here said that it was enough to make jealous when she left her home m)lactilucs hate nigitis during a week, and when he asked her where she had been she refused to inform him, and told him to go to the devil. He thought he had devil enough in her. Mr. Combe asked how old the prisoner was? She replied that she was 35 ; and as for her beastly hus band he was a brute, and not fit to have a wife. Mr. Combe told her it was very wrong on her part to leave her home all night. There was a great disparity in their ages, and he did not wonder at her husband being jealous of her. What had she to say in answer to the charge ? • She denied having threatened to stab him, but she acknow ledged throwing a knife at him, which did not touch him. As for going out of a night, she did not disgrace herself. Mr. Combe told her that it looked very much like disgrac ing her husband by doing so, and refusing to tell him where she went. There was no doubt she was a very violent woman, and he should order her to find bail for her future conduct. LAMBETH.—Tnet: LATE INCENDIARY FIRE AT BRIXTON.—James Finch, a lad of 16, who has been in custody for nearly a fortnight on a charge of wilfully and maliciously setting fire to a cow-shed in Robert-street, Brixton, and thereby causing the destruction of seven valu able cows, the property of Mr. William Towler, was again placed at the bar before the Hen. G. C. Norton. Mr. Solomon, as before, attended for the prisoner. By the deposition which contained the testimony of the various witnesses, it appeared that the prisoner had been in the service of the prost tutor for some months, and when discharged had been heard to make threats towards his late master, such as that he owed him a grudge and should serve him out, and that he should serve hint a trick before long. Soon after this the cows of the prosecutor were on several occasions found loose in the shed, their ordi nary fastenings having been undone by some malicious person, and thus causing them to injure each other. Besides this, the top of the grain bin was found to have been forced open, and some human excrement mixed up with the grains. On the day of the fire, Wednesday, the 21st of last month, the prosecutor and his brother-in-law were both in the shed a very short time before the fire had been disco vered, the 'alter only ten minutes before, and at that time all was cafe, ant. there was not the slightest semblance of fire, but immediately after the prisoner was seen to come away from the shed looking quite pale, as one of the witnesses described it, and in a few moments the flames were observed to burst forth, and were so rapid in their progress that all efforts to save the seven valuable cows contained iu the shed were wholly unavailing, and the poor animals were destroyed. When the fire was raging the prisoner suggested that it had been caused by the beating of some grass, but the prosecutor and his brother-in-law when questioned by the magistrate denied that there had been any grass on the premises at the time, and therefore the fire could not be occa'ioned by any such cause. Mr. Solomon addressed the magistrate contending that the case was one in which he felt assured that no jury would convict. He had witnesses in attendance to show that the prisoner had not been near the shed at the time mentioned by taio of the witnesses, but if his worship had made up his mind to commit his cheat for trial he should decline calling his witnesses. Mr. Norton said he certainly did intend s...ndina the case before a jury, and he was constrained to say that he con sidered it a very strong one. It was not erten that in cases of amen the parties were seen to set fire to property, but in this instance a motive was not only shown, but the prisoner himself was seen to run away front the premises just before the fire wars discovered. lie had made up his mind, there fore, to send the prisoner f.r r ill, but as it was sail that a witness who can't' give important evidence was not in at ter dance, be should order the witnesses in attendance to be bnund over to appear at the 041 Bailey, to give evidence fur the prosecut on, and have the prisoner brought up again on Saturday to hear the additional evidence given against hits. On the application of Mr. Solomon, however, the prisoner was admitted to bail. THAMES.--CASE OF BASTARDY.—Mr. Yardley was engaged for two hours in the investigation of a case of bastardy, wherein Rosetta Hart, of No. 4, Patriot-street, St. George in the E as t, was tke complainant, and Joseph Lazarus, jeweller and watchmaker, of No. 28, Notting ham-place, was the defendant. Both parties were of the Jewish persuasion. There was a good.deal of hard swear ing i n the case. The complainant, a very pretty Jewess, wko carried a child in her arms with an unmistakably Jewish counte nance, and very much like the defendant, who is about 40 years of age, said that Mr. Lazarus bad paid his addresses to her for some time prior to December, 1856. In the course of that month he called upon her one evening and took her out for a walk. Ile gave her wine, and she was • afraid it was drugged, fur she . became stupified after she drank it, and fouud_betielf by the side of a canal at a late hour. The intercourse which resulted in the birth of the child took place on that occa4ion. The witness, who is eery illitetate and never received any education, could not tell what month the child was born in, nor the names of the months, but she believed her child was 10 mouths old. 'She was cross-examined at great length by a Jew solicitor who attended for the defendant as to her acquaintance with other men. She positively declared that the defendant was the father of her child, 'and that she bad never indulged in • familiarities with other reen Mrs. Hart, a widow, the mother of complainant, who, in the course of a long exami nation, applied the words vagabond, fiend, villain, and heartless wretch, to the defendant , said he was constantly visiting her daughter, and that one evening in December, 1856, she left home fir a few hours, and on her retarn she discovered marks of violence on her person, her body bent, and her eyes inflamed. She also discovered that her daughter had been seduced, and questioned her on the subject, but her daughter would not divulge the name of her seducer. Three months afterwards, when her daughter's shame was apparent, she stated that the defendant was the seducer, and he had effected her ruin under circumstances of a most aggravated nature. She waited upon the defendant., and on making him acquainted with the situation alter daughter, and stating that he was the cause of it, he assailed her with the most vulgar abuse. The witness, who has been the mother of eleven children, expressed herself in terms of great indignation, and said the prisoner had destroyed the peace and happiness of a poor but respectable family by his vile practices. Miss Hart, a Jewess, not related to the complainant, sated tkat on Thursday, the 19th of December, 1856, she toak a walk with the complainant. They met with Joseph Lez urns, the defendant, who said he had an eneacrement to go abroai with £4OO worth of property, arid that he should send l'or the . complainant and marry her. She parted with the complainant and the defendant at the corner of Fashion street, Spitaltields, and Lazarus said he was going to give his " dear llosey".his likeness. Oa the followieg day she called upon the complainant, who said that she bad been hocussed and seduced by Lazarus, and that when she came to her senses she was by the side of a canal, and there was nothing but sky and water near her. Mr'. Lipman, sister of the complainant, gave similar evi dence. For the defence it was urged that the complainant and her witnesses, , who gave their evidence with singular pro priety, were all perjured. The defendant was sc‘orn, and declared bis acguaintaausbip with Rosetta Hart termi nated in July, 18,5 C, and he never spoke to tier after wards. Mr. Emapel Mob surgeon, staled lie was In attend- ance on the defendant upon the 21t , t, 22d, end 20 h of December, 1856 ; and also 'upon the 20i h of the same month. lie would not say that, the diFease under which the defendant was labourine; precluded the posAtility of his being the father of the child. Elizabeth Moss, a bold atd impudent strumpet, better known as " Cambridge-heath Bess," said she was a common prostitute, and re tollected being at a ball at the Edinburgh Castle Tavern, Limehouse, in December, 18,56. The com plainant and a man named Cohen, a Jew, were there. The complainant and Cohen left the ball-room in company. The complainant returned two hours afterwards, and said Cohen had seduced her. Rosetta Hart was recalled, and said that the witness Moss had sworn falsely. Mr. Yardley made an order upon the defendant to 101 2s. W. per week for the maintenance of the child, and the cots. A burst of applause followed the decision of the magi , ' trate. THE MURDER OF A YOUNG LADY Ar DARL HY. TIIE MURDERER'S CONFESSION On Wednesday the prisoner in the above case, James Atkinson, was taken before the county magistra'es, at Kuaresborough, by Mr. Superintendent Martin, and, after the examination of several witnesses, was committed for trial. Dr. Simpson presided, and the following other magic• trates were also present : Mr. J. B. Favell, Mr. J. James Harrison, Mr. T. C. Wilkinson, and the Hon. Egremont Lased les. The court was crowded, and the caze excited a good deal of interest. The prisoner was not defended. On being charged in the usual way he made the following extraordinary confession —The reason I murdered her was because she would net have me. She told me her parents would not let her have me. She said she theueht she could not be happy, as any father was also against it. She said, " It's all my mother, Jim, that's caused this disturbance." She said three times, " Lord help me," and I hope the Lord will help her. I told her I could not be happy without her ; I could not rest in this world. She said it was all false ; that I cared nothing about her, I had behaved so badly to her. It was all because she was so queer with me that made me do it. I told her I should murder her if she would not have me, because I could not rest. I told her I had not been happy for three weeks, or more than that. She told me she had not been , happy ; that she han been far from happy since her parents were against me and „ere always calling" me. Her mother was the worst, she said, and never let her alone, day in and day out. Her father never said anything to her about me—be never changed words with her on the subject. I was in her house on Sunday, at tea time. Her sister end her mother came in. Her sister and her were In the "house," and I was In the kitchen. She came ou t from her mother and said, " Come, come, go out before my mother comes in." I did as she wanted me, and we both thought her mother did not see me. I went to a house on the contrary side of the road, belonging to my father, but not where he lives. I perhaps stopped an hour there, wait' ing of her sister and her coming out to go to chapel. Her mother and her sister came out before her, and they soon talking about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. Then she came out, and I went up to her. They went up the lane, and her mother went home. I followed them up the lane , and overtook them in a lane that takes into Stump-lane; where I murdered her. She didn't talk to me much, bu t her sister did. I went down to the bottom of Stump- 10 1 with them. My sweetheart told me to go home en" change my coat; to get my black coat on. I said that had en would do for me, and we parted at the bottom 0 the lane. I thought to myself I would go to Furness, bee sister's sweetheart, who was coming up. There were sorti e more people with F urness . I s t oppe d a li t tl e bit, and then walked forward. There were some more people sitting and standing on s ome woo d b e l ow . I wen t and sat down and talked a little bit. Furness and com e others came up. I got up after a little bit, and scen t against Furness, and asked him if be was going t ° Hartwith. He said it was a long road to go, but we set off down the lane together. We kept moving oa slewly, until we got to the new line (railway), -and her brother then came up to us, and we sa t u p on th e wa ll and talked a little bit. I p u ll e d ou t l s . an d a 6d. , an d Oke" them if they could strike the sixpence from under' the shilling and leave the shilling still on the finger. Were' mained a bit, and then sot off to the chapel. The girls he: gone before we set off. _Wh en we go t t o th e c h ape l ga te W i '' went forward to the public-hou se an d eac h go t a g l ass , ant& a piece. After that we came d own t o th e c h ape l a nd saw a', the people come out. We followed after the m . I wen t to 07 sweetheart, but she did not talk much to me never afterwer ds ,; She raid she thought we should have to part, as they call," her so. She said they had been calling her after I left 1 house, and her mother had nearly gone crazed. We vfal i t e o on together, and left her sister and Furness. We walked% until we got to Stump-lane bottom, and when we got slid t way up she took her arm out of mine. I wanted her InPt h l e it in again, and she would not, told her I could nor e happy until I married her. She thought we could Pa b e happy; she was sure we could not be happy. She told In d I should behave badly to her. I said if s h e wou ld matel me. I would be content with her • I could not be conten d without - her. She said we had better part a little bit. t°, l l a her many times I could n o t p art f rom her, un l ess I something with her. I told her I thought there was sow" one else she wanted, and I cou ld not bid e any one e lse to have her. She said we could both' do without one another a little bit. Then I took. hold of her as she was walking b ld the side of the road. She was all the while awkwsrer with me, and would not go on quietly. I stopped, 1 2 be where she was, and told her I w ou ld mur d er h e r " d did not go on quietly with me. She sa id " It' s all Il; you only want to make me believe to." Th en I took her by the throat and tried to choke her. She cried out wild I took her by the throat, and I th oug ht some o ne Wil l i I hear. We then got up an d wa lk e d on a littl e hit,• an t _ pulled out my knif e , an d s h owe d i t h er . Sh e cr ied ? ti t ' " Let's go home, Jim—let's g o home, Jim." Then I her and cut her throat, an d she cried out "It's all In, mother, Jim—it's all my mot h er that's caused this (1 1 6 ; turbance." She cried out, "The Lord help me' three 1in 3 %.. to the best of my rec o ll ec ti on , an d th en s h e f a i n t e d an ql • t i and I left her. I went over, the wall, shut the knife, a n d I put it in my waistcoat pocket. I went into the fields. 0 / wandered about, perhaps an hour or au hour and a Ina• ,„ laid me down and thougs.t I would go and till her paren; o " but I could not go. I then thought I would go to her egn,„ l and I went back, but when I got a little way up the lane v w er - heart failed me and I couldn't go to her. Then I gel he the ether wall into the field on the other side. I took tm. knife out of my pocket again and opened it, an d I put it 1 0 . 4 wall top, after which I took ecross the fields home to ailtL i d dam of my father's, to wash the blood off my hands a u . face. I then cr o ssed another field home. When I got ben n e ° . my father and them were up. did not go into the W' o I went into the shed where the carts were, and sat me dO to until I thought they had all g o ne to b e d. Th en I went In I the house. I could not eat any supper, and went to bed. o d could not rest all th e n i g ht. I got up i n t h e morning, to told my brother, as be told you. I have nothing more say. The prisoner, when be had done, appeared as if be bsd relieved his mind Oa great burthen, and signed his extra' ordinary confession with as much coo l ness as i f it b a d beep the ordinary deposition of a witness. The Chairman—James Atkinson, as you have made t his _ confession, there can b e no d ou b t that you are the murder er . of Mary Jane Scaife. The Prisoner—yes, I am. for The Chairman—lt is ou r ditty, therefore, to send yen Wel at the next asszes at York. The Pri-oner—Very well. Mr. Superintendent Martin was then bound over to pro secute, and the prisoner was removed. OPENING OPTIIE OYSTER SEASON.-011 Wednaafi/. the " opening of the oster seasnt " by efficial aittborillet and in accordance with the civic regulatiens for Vie ol tr re of Billingsgatc-market, took place at four o'clock. 4 `;;; 0 r were from Rochester, Faversham, Whitstable, and' e i l 0 - 0 p - r's, 19 vessels, a larger number than we bad to rrpoz' the 4th of August in last year.' ROYAL MATERNITY LYING-IN HOSPITAL. bE halt-yearly mertirg of this institution was h e ld at tb (ffices in Knight Ryder-street yesterday. The report sth that the number of wome n d e li vere d during the six mo n ,o was 1,182, being an inc rease on the corresponding ' et months of last year of 73 cases, the average increase annum since 1853 being 175 cases. The receipts for the ' l ' l months (without a legacy of £lOO f rom M r. J o h n lie amounted to £Bl3 Bs. 7d., and the expenditure to £72 1 .1 1 . leaving a balance in hand of £92 7s. 7d.; to which i , be added the half-year's dividends subsequently receiv e .; amounting together to £290 . 6s. sd. The report adopted, and a series of complimentary votes passed. BIRTHS. HORI.F.Y.—On the 2d inst., at Hoddesdon, Herts, Mrs. W. imrief of a son. LATARD.—On the 4th inst., at Wembley Parsonage, MiddleseX, 1/36 wife of the Rev. C. C. La) ard, of a daughter. ' l4 * Lto - rn.—On the 2d Inst., at Boulogne-nu-Her, the wife of G • Lloyd, Esq., of a son. SIUTTIL—On the 33,,in5t., at 14, Caroline-street, Bedford-K OOl the wife of Mary Sieftb, of a 8113. STONE.—At 3, Elm Villas, Hackney, Mrs. Thomas Stone, °f daughter. mAnRIAGES. Ob lV CIinTSTTE—PRINGLr.- On the 34 inst., in St. Paul's EpiscOP- I _, tie, pc!, Edinburgh, by the Right Rev. B6hop Terrot, James Ch Esq., younger of Thule, Fife, to Frances Jane, youngest dat“ of David Pringle, Esq., late of the Bengal Civil service. GOODMAN—PAGE.—On the 3d inst., by the Rev. Cuthbert 00,...e11 1 , Thomas Warner Goodman, Esq., architect, L on d on , t o Eliz..,s7 o ot •° second daughter of James Page, Esq., the S w i ss L o dge, •" Vernon, Nottingham. or PAINE—DUNLOP.—On the 3d inst., at St. M ar y' s Church, 110`".„,fe• terrace, G. Burton Payne, Esq., 31. D., o f D en bi g h- s t ree t, Beig'Tt o r road, to Ann Sharp, daughter of Archibald Dunlop, Egg" pat morly of Haddilgton, now of Gbuce rmr-terrace, ECIICO square. y of WETHERALL—SAREL.---On the 3d Inst., at Balcombe, e oo , m ol, Sussex, by the father of the b r id e , J o h n William Wethcrab , I, „ late 7th Dragoon Guards, son of the late Rev. John Wen' a t e Rector of Rushton, Northamptonshire, to Caroline youngest daughter of the Rev. H. R. Ewe!, U ctor of Balcony' s, 0 , WiLLCOX—MARIBONDO.—On the sth June, at Bahia, by the Fl, o c, G. N , colay, Mr. Henry Wilcox, youn;est son of Mr. Jas. 1 1 - so. of Tamworth, to Anna Luiza Ilvribonclo, eldest daughtef Tibucio Pedro de C. Ml" aribondo, merchant, Bahia, South A DEATH& Ritowx.—On the 31st ult., Eliza, wife of Ttomas Brown, En' second daughter daughter of the late Mr. James De Ville. Lieut. A(0 GENESTF.—On the Seth ult., at Cowes, Isle of Wight, Lies mtlian Goodwin Geneste, Bengal Engineers, aged twenty-e ve Ltixix.—On the 29th ult., at Elm Brook Lodge, Weston-ros l e::e3" Debella, relict of the late Lionel Lukin, Esq., aced E 4e. - seven. MO: MAirrca.—On the 23th ult., at SheHeys, Catherine, fourth d a cr , of Win. Marter, Esq., of Shelleys, Knockholt, near Sa c.. Kent. MITCHELL.—On the 3d inst., at 7, Sussex-terrace, Briclge-rO-d4riiit thersmith, George Mitchell, late of the B oar d of Trade, hall, in his seventy-second year. Sstatr.—On the S Ist ult., Alice, 'the wife of Frederick William " 3°6 Esq., of Ormond House, Blackheath. gwettlr SPOTTISWOODE.—On the 13th June, at Singapore, Oharloo woode, Erq. te r- WATERSTON.—On the 24th ult., at Naples, Helen Rutbvon,„,..tao , sten, aged seventeen, the only daughter of Robert Ws" — Esq., of Boston, U.S.A. —4‘ - UN" LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO " rio• of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office) fit/ 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the c°ll ,of Middlesex, Friday, August 6, 1858. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUG T 6, 1858.